So often reviews of films like Iron Man, even positive ones, give you the sense that the critics are a bit embarrassed that they’re required to go through the motions of critiquing a Hollywood product for which financial success and pop cultural domination is a foregone conclusion. I’m the first to sympathize with the critical crisis of futility, but it baffles me that so many critics so blatantly suggest that it’s barely worth their time to decode and deconstruct the films that are going to be seen by the largest number of people. Check the qualifiers that get thrown around: “As big-budget comic book adaptations go…”; “works well enough as your standard comic-book blockbuster.” Read: “Giving this film the full strength of my critical acumen would be beneath me.”
So it’s no surprise that the strongest and most considered review of Iron Man that I’ve read comes from a blog. Though io9’s Charlie Jane Anders admits that Iron Man “is not exactly a perfect movie,” she carefully deconstructs its political slipperyness and “Cronenbergian body horror” before branding the film “the first comic-book movie that’s actually better than its source material.” Traditional critics bitch and moan that their reviews of “sure” blockbusters don’t matter, but when millions of consumers invest in a shared entertainment experience, film reviews transcend arts reporting and become anthropology. It’s always exciting to see someone take the responsibility of that anthropological study seriously.
An excerpt from Anders’ review after the jump; you can read the full thing here.
Part of Iron Man’s great strength — and the reason it’ll probably make a squillion dollars — is that you can read whatever you want into its intensely political storyline. You can view it as a straightforward diatribe against America’s long history of arming thugs and the arrogant weight-throwing-around that has turned Afghanistan into a warlord-ridden wasteland. Or you can see it as a profoundly conservative polemic about keeping power in the right hands — Tony is wounded at exactly the same time that he starts to doubt his own righteousness as an arms maker, and he regains his strength when he starts flying back to Afghanistan and kicking the shit out of the bad guys there. Either way, Iron Man is not a pacifist movie, and it bends over backwards to be pro-military and pro-government, even in the midst of speeches about how weapons are evil.
10 Comments
I saw Iron Man yesterday, and while I liked it, I have something to get off of my chest:
In it, Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) is held captive but escapes, and when he comes back home, he tells his assistant Pepper Potts (Gwenyth Paltrow) that instead of going to the hospital, he instead needs to do two things: go out and eat an American cheeseburger and hold a press conference. Then, they drive off. In the next scene, you see Stark returning to his company, and there’s the press swarming everywhere. But what is RDJ eating? A Burger King cheeseburger. That’s right. A 99 cent, Burger King cheeseburger. He even says, as a throw-away line that’s slightly less audible, “hey, I just went to Burger King”.
I’m sorry, but if I ate red meat and I was held captive for three months and came home and wanted a cheeseburger, Burger King would not be the first place I would go. It was just a non-sensical product placement.
And I wish Iron Man was more morally specific.
It’s not just product placement––it’s product placement with mystical powers!!!
http://blog.spout.com/2008/04/21/iron-man-marketing-or-burger-king-as-locus-of-rebirth/
If the Burger King cheeseburger that Tony Stark ate was half as potent as the Burger King cheeseburger that Robert Downey Jr ate the day he decided to quit being a junkie, certainly it absolved any need for a hospital.
Ah, yes, I saw that posting…
Well, because they served a purpose at his hour of darkness, RDJ just had to send the elevator back down for Burger King. God knows they need it.
As a side-note… if Iron Man taught me anything, it’s this: is I want to be like Iron Man I need to a) gamble at Caesar’s Palace in Las Vegas, b) eat Burger King, c) drive an expensive Audi (or, if it’s preferred, lift an expensive Audi), and d) video talk on a top-of-the line LG electronics cell phone. It also taught me that when I’m morally outraged by the dangers of arms proliferation, I should make myself a fully functional Iron Man suit, which happens to be the ultimate weapon of war. Makes perfect sense.
Well said. I’ve been struggling explaining my motives for writing my masters thesis about comic book films to my friends and family that participate in pop culture (obviously) but don’t study it. However, it’s probably not very helpful to compare the film with its source material on a “better/worse” dichotomy.
John, I think that if Iron Man is able to make you morally outraged by the dangers of arms proliferation, its done its job.
I certainly hope Kenneth Waltz sees this film; maybe it’ll make him think twice about the prohibitiveness of nuclear proliferation.
Xavier– is there a sting to your tail?
But just so I don’t just sound snarky– I did enjoy Iron Man, especially its first half.
No, John, not at all. I hope you didn’t get that impression, because it wasn’t meant that way.
I only meant to point out that there is an entire set of academics who, at the very least, are comfortable with the proliferation of nuclear weaponry as a harbinger of safety and security. If a film, such as Iron Man is able to point out the absurdity of arms proliferation to a general audience (perhaps laying the groundwork for a cultural shift), I think we’d be in a better position to question neo-relaism in international relations.
Just had to be sure. Most people on message boards are the opposite.
Well… Iron Man only raises the issue the uncontrollable arms proliferation, but I don’t think the movie officially takes a stance on the issue. Furthermore, it’s implied that Tony Stark wants to stop uncontrollable arms proliferation, but it seems like he does so by building the Iron Man suit, which will serve as some sort of a deterrent. So, there seems to be nothing radical about the movie, and if anything, it’s moderate in its political messaging. It doesn’t propose complete the disarmament of all nations. It just points out “well, the unfortunate thing is that hi-tech, advanced weapons sometimes get into the wrong hands” and imply that we need the best in weapons technology to stop this.
However, I’ll give the movie the benefit of the doubt because it clearly showed Tony Stark in the process of figuring out a new personal moral paradigm and I’m sure that, in the inevitable sequel, he’ll develop a more concrete ethical stance on this issue. But for now, Iron Man just says “weapons falling into the wrong hands is bad, hmm-kay.”
Oh yeah, fine, product placement. Could Tony have carried around the stinky smelly BK bag for a few hours more? MAN, I HATE product placement that is so stinking obvious. But, if it has to be done, do it quickly and move on, don’t linger with it!
Oh, it’s always an Apple Monitork, and/or a Dell, always an MSNBC tie in (Microsoft and them are co-owners or something, I forget how that works). I am starting to pine for the days when there weren’t product placement. You didn’t see Indy drinking a Coke in Raiders did you? I bet there is a Dr Pepper in Crystal Skull, somewhere. Maybe the Hulk will be wearing Hanes underpants or Nike sneakers. I dunno…
Well, I’m off to BK to buy some crappy burgers!
Yes, the BK placement was just awful. A man like Tony Stark who can afford the best would never eat at freakin’ Burger King.
It would have been funnier and truer to have him ask for the cheeseburger and the press conference, then cut to him putting down a plate, and we see that he’s hired his own personal chef to make him a GOOD hamburger. He could eat the last bite and walk right up to the podium.
Still, about the only non-clever moment in a very good film.