Spencer Ackerman lays it out.
« Marriage Trendlines | Main | Wishful Thinking Solves All Problems »
Iron Man and Imperialism
16 May 2008 02:41 pm
Comments (10)
Pretty impressive bit of analysis. This comic book fan hasn't gotten past the tragedy of our beloved country acting like the Hulk, all the while presenting itself as Superman...
Ackerman's essay is a good example of why grown men should stop reading super-hero comics. It's not that he's gotten all the symbolic or thematic elements of Iron Man wrong (though he's really off on some of it), it's that the stuff he's talking about is really just window dressing around juvenile adventure stories and he's reading way to much significance into it.
I mean, he goes on about Iron Man having Communist villains...but almost every Marvel character in the 60s had commie villians. The Hulk had 'em, the Fantastic Four had 'em. Even freakin' Ant-Man had 'em. So he's trying to puff up the meaning of something in the Iron Man comics that was just a standard storytelling cliche during the Cold War.
Mike
Great article.
MBunge:
Iron Man was defined by his communist enemies far more than most superheroes and Stan Lee has even stated Iron Man was supposed to embody the heroic qualities of rampant capitalism.
That said, I agree that Ackerman tends to over-interpret a little as the number of writers used over the life of the series prohibits a coherent story arc for the character. Its weird seeing Iron Man come out much better on celluloid than he ever did in the comic books.
Ackerman must've been watching the wrong film, and of course Matt would agree with him since he's so numb.
The film was about nothing other than American imperialism. It was slapped on the thing, wall-to-wall.
To have missed that would be mind-numbingly retarded.
Iron Man has always suffered, I feel, from the lack of a dynamic villain. Mandarin was the closest thing he had. It's my belief that all good heroes have good villains, my favorite of which would probably be Magneto.
He gets away with not having a classic villain on account of he has long been his own worst enemy.
I would say, based on my long readership of Marvel in general and Iron Man specifically (although in spurts, depending on the quality of the stories and artwork) that Ackerman gets most of this reasonably correct, but overemphasizes the notion that this was really quite intentional on the part of many of the Iron Man writers.
Similar conflicts have arisen with other Marvel characters. Nick Fury, the super-spy head of "S.H.I.E.L.D." (seen in the Iron Man movie after the closing credits), himself found himself in conflict with his own organization, which was corrupted and taken over by evil elements once or twice in its history. The comparisons with the US national intelligence agencies was clearly deliberate, even though most of these occurred well before the politicization of intelligence under the Bush administration.
It's not clear to me that the movie emphasizes the negatives of the US being in Afghanistan. That probably would have been too controversial. The US military presence there is just a backdrop for Stark's - and Stane's - arms sales to Islamists.
Rhodes is clearly a stalwart and unimaginative military type. At one point in the movie, Stark approaches Rhodes to tell him about. and by extension be the wearer of, the suit, but Rhodes, not even realizing what Stark is talking about, rejects Stark's overtures. So Stark takes up the suit himself.
As for being a subversive comic, THE most subversive comic with regards to the US corporate state and its negative impact on the world was the "Doom 2099" series - which in fact starred Marvel's number one villain, Doctor Doom, in his own series.
Doom even quoted Noam Chomsky directly in one issue, and Bakunin was even quoted on one end page.
Over one story arc, Doom recruited some hackers, some mercenaries, and more mercenaries from Africa, and invaded Washington, D.C., to put down the corporations who were running the country and who had destroyed a country next to his own country using biological weapons for corporate profit. He was then deposed by those same corporations who destroyed his own homeland using the same biological weapons.
He managed to retaliate using nanotechnology to depose the leader of the corporations and a deranged Captain America imposter the corporations were masquerading as the new President. The direct comparison between Bush and Cheney was eerie, especially considering that the series was created and ended in the 1990's, long before Bush became President.
And the fact that Doom was yet another armor-clad Marvel character, who also has fought - and was assisted by - Iron Man on several occasions is relevant.
But Iron Man is brilliant. I'll probably go see it a third time. Downey's performance is superb and Jeff Bridges is excellent as well. The writing is sharp, the pace excellent, the special effects superb and seamless.
Richard,
Let's not forget the Punisher 2099 series, which showed that medical coverage was only available to rich citizens who had paid their government premium each year...
Ah, well, the Punisher was selected by Doom to be the head of his police force. He promised the Punisher he would get a chance to deal with a lot of corporate asshats.
At a meeting in the White House Doom nationalized the corporations and then forced the corporate heads to select one of their own for immediate execution. That corporate head turned out to be an alien. His defeat at Doom's hands was broadcast to the nation, which unfortunately couldn't believe that the country was essentially being run by an alien for years.
Doom on the other hand correctly blamed the US electorate for being so stupid as to allow this state of affairs, so he raised their taxes as punishment, yelling "The devil take you all!"
Comments closed May 30, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Great piece...finally a writer who understands the true nature of comic book heroes and movies...their ability to offer insight by way of the superlative. As a technological nation, we lust after the ability to meld man and machine, but must face its consequences as well...which our politics has not the eloquence to express, but which are shown vividly via Iron Man's progress or lack thereof. If character is destiny, as Heraclitus said, then in the "Iron Man" universe, a sequel is not just an excuse to make more money, but an opportunity to see the playing-out of our fate over time, with glimpses into the future. It's no wonder we're fascinated. We should be.
Posted by Kit Stolz | May 16, 2008 3:35 PM