Originally published at jaredaxelrod.com. You can comment here or there.
Robert Downey Jr, as weapons manufacturer Tony Stark, poses that question in the visceral opening to IRON MAN. Stark goes on to say that you can have both, and indeed, that’s been the American Way since we dropped the bomb on Hiroshima. This summer’s other cinematic offering from Marvel Comics, THE INCREDIBLE HULK, tackles the atom bomb through an angry, green metaphor, but IRON MAN goes at it direct.
It’s not an unusual premise to hoist a superhero movie on—it was one of the many themes playing out in the over-stuffed SPIDER-MAN 3, for example—but Mark Fergus and Hawk Ostby, the writing team that also gave us last year’s CHILDREN OF MEN, having something more bleak in mind. In trying to have both, Tony Stark ends up having neither. His weapons are used by the very people he made them to destroy, and his aura of invincibility is easily shattered when he is taken prisoner.
Whether we should be at war with Iraq or not—the point of motives is kind of moot, at this point—the fact remains that it’s our fault there’s a reason to be there at all. Forget the current administration and its culture of fear: the seeds of the Middle East anger were planted decades ago, back when we had to defeat the Communists at all costs. Which meant selling weapons to their enemies. And now, here we are, slowly being torn apart by war we’re responsible for, with an enemy who despises us for the culture excess that has become our trademark. Is it too much to ask for both? Some people who have neither option might say yes. And so it is with Tony Stark, kept alive by dirty, oily car battery and some wires sticking out of his chest, someone else pointing his own guns at his head.
Hulk may be the personification of the atom bomb, but Stark, the innovator who gets damaged by the very chaos he created and finds his life of excess no comfort, gets be America, broken heart and all.
So if IRON MAN, the film, fails in any way, it is that its resolution doesn’t follow through with the beautiful metaphor it creates in the first half. Stark response to his awakening is to take personal responsibility for his action, by defending those in a war zone his weapons created. There’s also an implication that the future of Stark Industries isn’t weaponry, but alternative energy sources. But neither of these are followed through within the timeline of the film. Iron Man saves one village in Afghanistan, but the violence rages on. “Arc Reactors,” the device that keeps the red and gold suit of armor in the air, may be the future, but apparently only Stark can build them. The options are there, but it’s hard to see them through when we’ve only got 2 hours and boss battle to contend with.
I will say, however, that the villain of this film is perfectly chosen, being a dark mirror of Stark himself, i.e. the America that doesn’t care about what happens to the rest of the world, as long as his oversized vehicle has plenty of fuel.
I’m not sure how a film could address these issues in a reasonable way by the end of the last reel. It’s a superhero story, and those stories work less as allegories for big ideas than about explorations of human failing made huge and brightly colored. Even Superman is just trying to live up to the expectations of his old man (either of ‘em). Thematically, it’s enough for Tony Stark to realize that his actions do have consequences, and to face them, he’s going to need some help.
It’s not much, but it’s nice to see the hero succeeding by accepting that he neither has be respected or feared. Just do the right thing.
