Outfitted as Iron Man, in non-ideological colors

By Steven Zeitchik

There will be much written about "Iron Man" -- the box-office potential, Downey Jr.'s ironic take on the role, the fact that Jeff Bridges may be the first superhero villain to resemble Rob Reiner -- but  what struck us after seeing it tonight is the politics of it all, or, more accurately, the apolitics of it all.

In an otherwise sophisticated and intelligent film -- the script cleverly does away with the tired superhero conceit that those closest to him don't know his dual identity; Downey Jr'.s Tony Stark even makes a meta quip about it -- politics are the subject that dare not speak its name. Clearly Jon Favreau and Marvel didn't want to go the "V for Vendetta" route, with its dystopia that actively plays on 21st century fears, or the way of "The Kingdom," an action pic with clear ideological battle lines. But even by the standards of the tentpole film, "Iron Man" works hard to remove political meaning, despite the fact that the origin myth (and film's critical first scenes) take place in an overseas U.S. war, and the fact that the whole reason Stark creates the Iron Man suit in the first place is to further a pacifist, weapons-free agenda.

Stan Lee's comic book was first set during Vietnam and featured a strong anti-Communist message; though he later scaled it back, Iron Man was clearly a hero forged by ideological flames. In the new film, the war part stays, updated here to Afghanistan (what, you thought they'd make it Iraq?), and for a minute one wonders if politics might become backdrop, or even more.

Then the feeling fades. Stark is captured in a desert after shots are fired at his army jeep, but the antagonist turns out to be a generic warlord/fanatic (even the attack winds up being aimed at him and isn't the crossfire of a war zone, as you might expect in, well, a war zone). The film in any event later disposes of any negative association by having Iron Man save a small village from the menace of the warlord, whose motive, if it's religious or political, is never expressed. The rescue, meant to show Starks' sudden burst of conscience, could  just as easily have happened with drug dealers or the Mafia.

Even the U.S. military -- oh U.S. military, reliable opponent numero uno of the outlaw superhero -- appears mostly benign. At worst the army is innocently identifying flying foreign objects that happen to be "Iron Man." Mostly it's just helping him out. (Stark even gives a mini-speech saluting the soldiers who died in the jeep attack, which for a movie with a pacifist theme seems a little strange, but that's another matter). Even a shadowy government branch called S.H.I.E.L.D pitches in to help Stark. The main villain isn't an ideological figure either -- he's an inside man in Stark's company who could be the bad guy from any corporate thriller.

We know, we know. This is a four-quadrant superhero movie, trying to hit not just the full spectrum in this country but many different audiences abroad. Still, for a movie set in, and whose character is shaped by, conflict overseas -- and for source material that embraced geopolitics -- it's a striking absence. Heck, even "Rambo" had a political point-of-view. It's also a deft absence -- "Iron Man" may be the first film whose desert-battlefield setting, obscure languages, guerilla warfare and high-tech weapons make it feels utterly contemporary, and yet which contains not so much as a single stray mark of ideology. In other words, it may be the first film to find its way out of Hollywood's recent dilemma: how to make a film rooted in the modern geopolitical world that doesn't conjure up specific Iraq impressions or divide its audience, and in so doing risk box office.

Of course there's plenty of room for the script to turn political in the sequel. And there could be room for Favreau to explore it. We caught up with the director after the premiere and he was notably open to the idea. "A sequel will depend on how the movie does commercially," he said. "But I would do number two in a heartbeat." And once there's a few hundred million under the belt, hearts sometimes beat a little differently.

Comments

[Michael James]

Nice article but it sucks when filmmakers are governed by political backlash and artistry and a focused POV gets watered down fro fear of "offending" the vocal minority.
I will go see it and try to just enjoy it as a work of film. Truth is, terrorists sucks big time, spineless politicians who cowtow to the vocal, offendable minority (ie, radical Muslims, atheists, America haters, etc) and in the script I am writing all get a piece of the bitch slap who deserve it.

[Michael James]

Nice article but it sucks when filmmakers are governed by political backlash and artistry and a focused POV gets watered down fro fear of "offending" the vocal minority.
I will go see it and try to just enjoy it as a work of film. Truth is, terrorists sucks big time, spineless politicians who cowtow to the vocal, offendable minority (ie, radical Muslims, atheists, America haters, etc) and in the script I am writing all get a piece of the bitch slap who deserve it.

[Axlotl]

Hey, Michael James, care to explain to me just how atheists belong in the same category as radical Muslims and America-haters? The kind of backwards people I see who are easily offended have a rather striking tendency to NOT be atheists. Last I checked, atheists aren't exactly something the politicians like to cater to, seeing as how prevalent religion, especially the Christian based ones, have become in our politics.