The film begins with the attack of billionaire industrialist and weapons engineer Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) by the terrorist group Ten Rings after he demonstrates a new missile for the American military in Afghanistan. Stark is taken captive by the group, and sees that their weapons are supplied by his company. While imprisoned, Stark and fellow prisoner Dr. Yinsen build a powerful iron armor suit with built-in weapons, rockets, and flamethrowers which allow Stark the opportunity to break out. During his escape, the terrorists’ bullets bounce off Stark’s iron suit. He single-handedly destroys the terrorist camp, killing many of the terrorists and demolishing their weapons stockpile before flying away victoriously.
Unlike the overtly anti-war (and financially unsuccessful) releases of In the Valley of Elah, Home of the Brave, and Lions for Lambs, Iron Man presents the ultimate victory of the United States over terrorist organizations. In this case, Stark – a U.S. citizen associated with the military – is able to defeat the terrorists swiftly and efficiently. However, this is where Iron Man begins to differentiate from reality. The original purposes for the War in Afghanistan were to capture Osama bin Laden and disband the Taliban forces. As of the present day, nearly seven years after the first attack, these goals have not been accomplished. So Iron Man is actually presenting the fantasy of a country that has been unable to complete its goal. This “war-fantasy” has been seen on screen before, namely in the hard-body action film Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985). In that film, Vietnam War veteran John Rambo (Sylvester Stallone) returns to Vietnam to find American POWs. When escaping, Rambo single-handedly destroys the Vietnamese and Soviet forces chasing him. As Gaylyn Studlar and David Desser describe, Rambo essentially revises history and provides a way for frustrated Americans in the post-Vietnam/post-Watergate era to regain confidence “in [America’s] status as the world’s most powerful, most respected, most moral nation” (15). Like Rambo, Iron Man’s actions become the mythical expression of a country that is, so far, unable to defeat its enemies.
The comparisons between the Vietnam War and the War in Iraq as controversial, undeclared wars have been long debated and thus I will avoid prolonging that discussion here. The main point which I would like to take is the similarities between the two and how they relate to Iron Man. In the original Iron Man comics (created in 1963), his origin story takes place in Vietnam. Director Jon Favreau changed the setting to Afghanistan in order to create a greater connection to present-day society. In doing so, Favreau creates a direct comparison between the two wars and their social climates. (An added connection to contemporary society would be the recent suspension of AEY Inc., an American arms company hired by the U.S. military, for apparently supplying ammunition to the Afghan National Army, much like Stark Industries in Iron Man. However, since this suspension occurred on March 27 of this year, it is doubtful that Favreau consciously created this comparison as the film had wrapped production in June 2007. Nonetheless, the connection still exists.) Thus, the relationship between Iron Man and Rambo: First Blood Part II can be made explicit by the filmmaker’s change in location. Dana Stevens continues the associations between the two films by analyzing the middle part of Iron Man:
When [Stark] starts to actually use [his emerging superpowers], zooming to random corners of Afghanistan to save cowering villagers from evil warlords, the movie's sharp intelligence gives way to a dopey wish-fulfillment fantasy. This is what we'd like our wars to be: a clearly defined moral crusade against a bald, glowering meanie who proclaims his Genghis Khan-like ambition to "dominate all of Asia." (With an eye on potential box-office buzz kill, the movie cannily stays away from the mere mention of the Taliban, the war in Iraq, or domestic terrorism.) Tony's invulnerable, omnipotent, impossibly expensive armor is an almost touching overcompensation for the moment of extreme vulnerability in which our country finds itself.
Iron Man perpetuates the drive to rewrite history, this time through the technological advances, intelligence, and dominating personality of businessman Tony Stark. Just as Rambo provided a fantasy of the male physique, Stark provides a fantasy of the well-rounded, good-intentioned, and technologically adept American male hero.
REFERENCES
Dana Stevens, “Iron Man: What if Oscar Wilde were a Superhero?” Slate, May 1, 2008. (http://www.slate.com/id/2190364/).
Gaylyn Studlar and David Desser, “Never Having to Say You’re Sorry: Rambo’s Rewriting of the Vietnam War,” Film Quarterly, Vol. 42, No. 1 (Autumn 1988), p. 9-16.
6 comments:
I haven't seen Iron Man yet. But interesting and timely post.
I am waiting for the McCain/Stark connection to be made by some youth-savvy spin doctor. You know, McCain as the former war prisoner who will now "kick ass" against "evil doers." When will "McCain will be our nation's ‘real' Iron Man' turn into a talking point?
Then I will cry as our current election cycle kills yet another piece of my soul. I also become sad that, if I had no soul, possibly I could have worked behind the scenes in politics with such workable ideas.
Though, there was interesting moment on ‘The Tonight Show' the other night concerning this issue. Jimmy Carter was a guest (honestly, the only reason I was watching the most insipid of talk shows) and discussed his controversial diplomatic mission with Hamas. The next guest was Iron Man director Jon Favreau, who set up a clip by suggesting that Tony Stark has a "different approach" to the Mid East situation than the former president.
Then I cried and another part of my soul died.
I think Robert Ray nailed it when he said that Hollywood films are neither liberal nor conservative--nor completely apolitical either. They are just ambiguously aggressive enough in potentially progressive and conservative ways so as to accomodate and even encourage both types of readings. This, of course, is only to satisfy the widest possible audience.
I saw Iron Man today and had that sense. It does create an ambiguous imaginary space for reactionary audiences to see it as rewinning the war on terrorism (ala Rambo, Predator, and all the other Hard Body movies of the 80s and Vietnam). We have undefined generic villians in Afghanistan (who speak all sorts of different languages, further de-humanizing them in a sense), who apparently fight for no cause other than just to be evil.
But we also have the token doctor who saves Stark.
We also have a pretty aggressive critique of the military-industrial complex in Iron Man, too, however. Now, does that make it progressive? Hardly. The greed is reduced to a single Capitalist, who's held up as deviant so as to let the rest of capitalistic culture off the hook. The point is it gives all audiences what they want--putting on the facade of saying something, without actually saying anything.
Having said that, as a progressive, I just found the film politically awkward and at times quite uncomfortable in its simplicity and in how it derived its "entertainment" value.
And as an action-adventure blockbuster, I just found it underwhelming.
peace,
js
I sort of feel the need to defend this film since I'm probably the only one here who unabashedly loved it (not that a film that pulled in $100 million in one weekend needs any critical defense). While I agree with Jason's point that the film's politics is somewhat equivocating, I think that to suggest it's wholly an American war fantasy ignores major plot points, never mind its major themes. The big bad is not the supposedly undifferentiated terrorists in Afghanistan (a claim with which I disagree anyway -- I think the fact that they all speak multiple languages is merely capturing one aspect of a global terrorist network that we often fail to take into account in representations which only paint them as undifferentiated Muslim fundamentalists): it's Obadiah Stane (can anyone think of a more early American Puritan-type name?). And while that fact alone doesn't redeem the wish-fulfillment of Ironman's first adventure, many of the film's detractors fail to remember that he essentially finds this fantasy to be a hollow exercise (nothing more than a fantasy), especially in relation to the joy he clearly feels in tackling the origin of these problems Stateside rather than abroad.
And yes, I also like it because I think it's badass. But it's an action movie, and that's its basic function. And this function is not necessarily one that implies a pro-war agenda. For instance, compare this film to something like The Kingdom, a film that is similar in plot and theme although almost anti-thetical in its political message: not only is that a wish-fulfillment fantasy of American power abroad, it also has people fooled that it's actually promoting a progressive and humanistic message. I feel like Ironman joins movies like The Bourne Ultimatum and Live Free or Die Hard from last year as badass action movies that also have the guts to suggest that the origins of our problems abroad start with the convergence of politics and capitalism here at home. Better than most action movies, certainly, but also better than many of the politically myopic pictures that are directly about the war.....
"I think the fact that they all speak multiple languages is merely capturing one aspect of a global terrorist network that we often fail to take into account in representations which only paint them as undifferentiated Muslim fundamentalists".
Interesting point, Dave, and I don't necessarily disagree with the reading--but again, I think that at best that would just reinforce the film's attempt to open itself up to contrary political readings. While the globalization component is true enough, I see the language issue as an explicit attempt to have an action movie about fighting terrorists in Afghanistan that goes out of its way not to demonize Muslims, so as not to risk a PR backlash.
Its not that I disagree with the suggestion that the film is implying that the war on terrorism begins with issues at home--its that I see it all as having it both ways. Kill the "terrorists" over there; critique the weapons industry here. Give "everyone" what they want.
And, I should add, I'm not criticizing 'Iron Man'--its entertaining enough, I suppose. I'm just trying to point out how I don't think politically its doing anything particularly new, let alone particularly reactionary or (as been suggested elsewhere) particularly subversive.
Glad to see that we are having a good and lively debate about the film! My original post was trying to structurally tie Iron Man into a pre-existing film genre, but it is certainly difficult to avoid talking about contemporary politics in making that claim. It seems to me that the major debate is whether Iron Man is either pro-war or anti-war, or more generally, conservative or liberal respectively. As our discussion has proven, it can be viewed as both.
In my original post, I certainly was able to point out the more pro-war aspects of the film (American hero vs. foreign terrorists, war fulfillment fantasy, etc.). However, as the film progresses, Stark’s attitude goes through a change to a seemingly anti-war stance when he begins to stop his company from supplying the terrorists. I have a lot of problems with this perception. I feel that Stark’s motives are more selfish than anything else. He is not stopping his company from making weapons because peace is better than war; it is a decision made to ease his conscience from putting deadly weapons in the hands of “the bad guys” and thus being partly responsible for all of the resultant bloodshed. In fact, Stark’s actions after returning home (especially building the new Iron Man suit) could be viewed as yet another extension of weapons manufacturing which could be used to destructive purposes if in the wrong hands. This can be seen when Stane creates his Iron Monger suit and begins wreaking havoc on Los Angeles. I also have to point out that Stark is by far the most Republican and capitalist of all of the superheroes seen on film so far. Bruce Wayne may come close, but Batman’s actions are certainly for unselfish purposes, whereas the same cannot be said about Stark. I even find Stark’s decision to reveal his identity at the end as a way of “cashing in” on his new invention. For Stark, money comes first, politics and the greater good second.
Using Stane as the major nemesis also does, as Jason suggests in his post, take the rest of capitalist society off the hook as well as the terrorists in order to maintain this “non-political” agenda. What makes Stane such a compelling villain is his relationship to Stark: he is what Stark would become if he didn’t have this enlightening as a POW. Stane’s actions go beyond just capitalism or business and turn into treason. As such, I doubt that many viewers will identify with Stane as an American at this point (although he is), and view him as a traitor who has joined the “other side.” Thus, we can safely root for the all-American capitalist with a conscience (Stark) over the treasonous businessman who will sell out his country to the highest bidder.
I know my argument seems pretty one sided, but I do feel that the movie seems to be promoting multiple agendas and thus gives us a lot to debate. The fact that it has trouble making up its mind about these issues might be one reason why I was underwhelmed with the film. If it took a definitive stance, I might be able to appreciate it more.
I think I appreciate the film precisely because it has such difficulty making up its mind about these issues. The political points it raises are complex ones, and I find films that tackle them in such a one-sided manner to be rather underwhelming.Just saw the film again last night, and I gotta say that while many might identify Stane as a traitor rather than as an American, because the running motif of Stark's transformation is "accountability," we can easily also see Stane as a symptom of the kinds of unaccountability that we see in the system overall. Yes, Stane is precisely what Stark would have become without his enlightening. But he did actually go through that enlightening and transformed his attitude toward his production of weapons of mass destruction on the basis of the kinds of accountability that are lacking from the system in global-American capitalist production as a whole.Stark's real qualm is that his products are not being used for the purpose for which they were intended: yes, this is the self-interested response of a businessman, but it's also a thoroughly humanistic response (his decision should effectively save both American lives as well as the lives of those folks whose villages get invaded, no?). The decision for more accountability is also the one that is supposed to kick into effect in the more idealistic definitions of capitalism as laid out by early theorists like Adam Smith. The theory is that self-interest will serve the interests of the common good; in this sense, Mike's binary between the two is somewhat false in relation to the premises that structure this film (or at least this character). In the classical definition of the term, Stark is truly "liberal" because he is able to wed his own self-interest so closely to the interests of the common good and those people that need protection from capitalism itself.Also (and this is incidental although somewhat annoying to me), since when does the descriptor "the bad guys" need to be placed in scare quotes when it's applied to people who indiscriminately and violently invade sovereign territories? Granted, it's something that America does all the time, and if we want to discuss how the movie represents America's complicity in those kinds of things, we certainly can (Major Rhodes seems like even more of a dick the second time around, for instance). But let's not allow a critique of American policy slide into political relativism that denies that people who commit violent acts aren't "bad guys." Let's give some credit where it's due: the terrorist network in Ironman is composed of some definitively bad guys!What it does with those bad guys is to promote multiple agendas, but I don't think they're really necessarily conflicting, nor do I think that they're really inconsistent with the overall pro-capitalist, pro-accountability, anti-mass violence (although it does say that some violence is necessary, a claim with which I really don't think too many folks actually disagree) thesis. I also think Stark's self-interested admission that he's Ironman is not only setting up a brand for himself, but also continues the motif of personal accountability running through the film (but maybe that's just the capitalist in me.....).Just my two cents.
Post a Comment