This is a very good video for describing subtextual storytelling vs. telling the audience everything that is going on as it happens. For prose writing this type of discussion may not seem necessary, but the fact is that it can come in handy as you show things from a given character’s point of view. You can see this in Greg Owen’s description of the scene in The Avengers* where Natasha Romanoff goes to talk to Bruce Banner on SHIELD’s behalf.
Honestly, Mr. Owen’s breakdown of this scene is perfect. He gets everything right, deconstructing this scene well and showing not only how it works on its own as part of the movies, but how it does in fact set up for a romance between Natasha and Bruce in Avengers: Age of Ultron* (though that isn’t his focus and he does not mention it, he still sets up the way to view it in context of this important scene). I will get into that in a minute, but first, watch until the 5:05 minute mark of Mr. Owen’s video:
Why MCU Writing Sucks Now | Scene Comparison
Done? Okay, good.
Mr. Owen perfectly encapsulates why Nat and Bruce’s relationship in AoU works by showing how Bruce practically disarms and strips Natasha of all her “powers” in this scene. He doesn’t fall for her obvious seduction tricks, and he similarly doesn’t buy her “people need help” line. Nothing Nat tries on him works, proven when he yells at her – and gets her to draw her gun, then call off her backup.
For Nat, this is a vulnerability she is not used to. Even Tony didn’t disarm her like this in Iron Man 2*. Aside from the fact that he was drunk a lot during that film, this scene shows that Bruce reads people better than Stark does and that he sees through Natasha faster and more thoroughly than anyone else has. Not even Steve, in Winter Soldier*, sees through Nat’s acts (and she is hardly ever not acting, due to years of training and surviving) as fast or in the same way. He is direct when he confronts Nat, almost physically threatening her at one point by pinning her to a wall and getting visibly angry at her. Accounting for the fact that that was his way of testing her and trying to see if she was at least being honest enough for him to risk trusting her, Steve still didn’t rip the thin veil of her “power” (sex appeal, distraction, diversion, and misdirection) from her in the way that Bruce does.
Bruce also has far more physical power than Steve does, meaning Nat has far fewer options for evasion and escape with him and the Hulk than she does with either Steve or Tony. This is truly a Beauty and the Beast moment, as Nat is beauty wrapped in black and blood while Bruce carries a monster capable of mass carnage inside him. He metaphorically tears her “clothes” off, leaving her “naked” and in his power – and he willingly backs off from her before handing her “clothes” back to her.
Now, keep in mind, Natasha was not just raised in a den of lies. She was raised where those who had power over her never let her forget it. They ALWAYS made sure she was on a leash and knew that she was a tool, a monster they created to do their dirty work so they could keep their hands “clean.” They would do exactly what Bruce does here, but instead of stopping and backing off, they would go for a full on “mind rape” of her to assert their control.
In fact, in Winter Soldier, this is precisely what Arnim Zola does to Natasha and tries to do to Steve. For Steve it doesn’t work – it’s not a stripping, more of a “hold him down and stab him” moment, as Zola’s deconstruction of the narrative most people have been fed since the finale of World War II is meant to hurt him more than “mind rape” him.
For Nat, the opposite is the case. She believed when she joined SHIELD that she was serving with the angels this time, and that while she might be a fallen Beauty, she could at least use her “powers” to protect people. Zola rips that view to shreds and would have straddled her to “mind rape” her far more thoroughly if Steve hadn’t been there to hold his attention. The fact that Steve is there means he offers Natasha some defense by attracting most of Zola’s “fire,” so the little Swiss demon barely gives Nat enough attention to hurt her in the way he could have if she had been alone.
(Aside: yes, this is one of Steve’s strengths. Draw enemy fire to himself so that others won’t get hurt as badly as they might otherwise, which is great if you’re his ally in battle and lousy if you’re his friend off the field, because he never lets on that he’s bleeding. He has to be the bulwark – the shield – for his friends…which means unless you are willing to bully him into pulling his shirt up to show he is wounded, he’s going to walk off whatever injury he has to keep protecting you.)
What Zola does in Winter Soldier is not what Bruce does in this scene from The Avengers. He rips Nat’s “clothes” off and disarms her, and then he hands them back to her. He doesn’t press his advantage and Nat notices that. It is one of the few, if not the only, times someone has ever done that for her.
Where does that put the scene later where the Hulk is unleashed? I would have to go back and watch it more closely, but remember that the Hulk was drawing his hand back, likely to hit her. He wasn’t just chasing her and he wasn’t going to “discipline” her. If anything, that strike was going to be the (very deadly) version of a slap of rejection for her lying to him out of (understandable) desperation.
And that shows how far Nat still has to go at this point in the series, since she is lying by reflex in the scene where Bruce transforms. The whole reason she’s able to unleash the Hulk in a more controlled manner in Age of Ultron is because she’s not lying when she tells Bruce that she adores him. She does. But she can’t let the job go unfinished. There are too many innocent people involved and neither Beauty nor the Beast can abandon them, which is why the Hulk smirks at her. He knows that she recognizes both halves of Bruce and is comfortable with the monster even though she loves the man.
Part of the reason that the Hulk leaves in AoU’s finale isn’t just because Nat manipulated him and Bruce. There is that aspect of the whole issue, but the major reason he leaves is that Bruce isn’t any more comfortable with the Hulk than he was before. Natasha might care about the Hulk and love Bruce, and Bruce might love her enough to heal from the betrayal. But he’s not healed from or at peace with the Hulk yet. And until he is, staying with Nat and the Avengers isn’t an option for him.
If you’re a purist (like I was) this might fly over your head on a first (or bazillionth) viewing. But the fact is that Nat and Bruce’s romance really does work when you step back and check the framing that Whedon was using in this situation. If you’re not a purist or haven’t been keeping a close eye on the tropes and archetypes Whedon was playing with, you might also miss this entire set up or it may ring false to you. The fact is that, for all his faults (and he’s human so he has many) Whedon knows how archetypes and tropes work. When he applies most of them, he does so knowing exactly what he is doing and how he wants to do it.
That is worth study and imitation, readers. His killing off characters willy-nilly and breaking certain archetypes for his own reasons is not to be emulated, but in Nat and Bruce’s case he’s not breaking anything. While there is merit to leaving Natasha single and a killer, as mentioned in the video in BW’s linked article below, her archetype is versatile, as I will (eventually) discuss in my series on archetypes, King Arthur, and Marvel Comics.
Nat can be a killer, she can be Beauty from Beauty and the Beast (with a very dark twist), or she can fulfill a couple of other archetypes in history. She is, like many Marvel characters, more versatile than some may realize or wish her to be.
Feel free to finish Mr. Owen’s video above, readers. He has other good points to make and I highly recommend giving him a listen. You might also like this video by the ArchCast, which is only tangentially related to Mr. Owen’s point, but it helps make similar points despite the apparent disparity. Keep in mind that I also have chapters available for Knights of the Mutant Table paywalled on my Substack, where you can read more about archetypes and how to use them as structures to build characters through a compare and contrast between the X-Men and King Arthur.
Speaking of, I need to get back to those. Enjoy the videos and links, readers! I have writing to do!
*These are Amazon affiliate links. When you purchase something through them, this author receives a commission from Amazon at no extra charge to you, the buyer.
If you liked this article, friend Caroline Furlong on Facebook or follow her here at www.carolinefurlong.wordpress.com. Her stories have been published in Cirsova’s Summer Special and Unbound III: Goodbye, Earth. She has also had stories published in the Planetary Anthology Series. Another story was released in Cirsova Magazine’s Summer Issue in 2020, and she had a story published in Storyhack Magazine’s 7th Issue, Cirsova Magazine’s 2021 Summer Issue, and another may be read over at Ember Journal. Her book on archetypes, Knights of the Mutant Table, is available on her newsletter behind this paywall. Vol. 1* and Vol. 2* of her series – The Guardian Cycle – is available in paperback and ebook as well. So is her first YA novel, Debris, which can be purchased in ebook and paperback here* and here*. Order them today!
Like Caroline’s content? Then consider buying her a coffee on Ko-fi to let her know you appreciate her work. 😉
A Song of Joy by Caroline Furlong 