All posts tagged action

Written by Patrick Cronin.

The film in question does not so much ask for reviews as prompt questions and inquiries. I take this route not as distinct to the Iron Man series but that a ‘review’ a criticism of the film is worthless. Another review of such a repetition of old narratives and characters is pointless. So this article attempts less a summation of value statements than thoughts about the film’s problems and what they mean for the superhero story.

If we were to put an action superhero film among high standards, would they stand? This is not a judgmental question intended to degrade them, but merely to think about their limitations as they stand and if they can subvert these boundaries. The recent Iron Man 2 aptly reveals these limits, but with a taste of what more it may have been. The reaction “but it’s only an action film”, is not good enough to evade this problem. You, reader (those interested in superhero films), will surely praise the worth of them, and wish very much for people to take them seriously. And if you admit your own taste in mediocrity as somehow justifying your liking of them, stop reading here. You are likely to find your feet in sturdier ground elsewhere, where films are not properly considered.

Enough of the set up. Our times are apocalyptic enough to warrant tragic tales, yet so few I’ve come across. There is always some resolve, or revelation which saves the characters and or the world from plight. Our own fears and nausea of destruction is purged from us. This status can be applied to Iron Man 2, in which the villain, at least at the opening, is in my mind completely justified in his rage. Stark is not. And yet the film never addresses this obvious moral problem. Instead, alcohol takes hold, and a fear of poison corrupting his blood. If this is not motive enough for a story, he also has a connection with his father, which is a little too tenuous in the film.

We see his father too sips from the bottle, and so we can’t avoid the metaphor of the bad heart that needs mending by completing his father’s scientific work. It is a pity this corrupting of blood, both by the machine in his chest and alcohol, did not take on a direct link his moral darkness felt for the Russian villain. This matter would be further deepened if the overlooked fact that this villain feels the same way about his own father, urged some similarity in their motives. The overriding difference here would place Stark in the immoral position, which he continues to take, and the villain is a highly justified one. Stark’s unethical acts are not only not looked at, but swept behind peoples’ eyes by eye candy of varying sorts: action, smooth cgi, Scarlet Johannson.

Besides these missed chances, I cannot yet name a tragic superhero; one whose flaws cost him his life. To a simple minded slice of meat, this may prove catastrophic. Who will safe the world when Superman dies? It is not far off center to see Superheroes as American Gods. They are eternal, often supernatural, pure embodiments of virtue. And where a vice creeps in, we have flashes of their potential for good characterization, and such heroes do exist. Yet, the trouble with these vices is that they must be purged from his pure soul before the story can end, when the eternal order that gods were made to hold, can be stabilized. This is positive story telling as against negative. Where is the Macbeth of superheroes?

These are permitted in a comedy (I use this word in the old sense, that all narratives are crudely either comic or tragic), yet, as I said, I am yet to come across a superhero who is tragic. Imagine Superman with insatiable greed for power, or Hulk with naivety to see the potential ruin his rages creates. So in Iron Man 2, what would happen to the story if Tony Stark were actually a deeply troubled alcoholic who cannot accept guilt over ruining Russian families? His refusal to accept his fault is fertile ground to build up a tragic figure. We would trace the course of his descent and destruction. And for a superhero who wields tremendous power, the stakes at which this descent happens are catastrophic. Imagine an atomic bomb with an alcohol problem and oceans of emotional guilt and rage. Think what kind of narrative this would make.

This would draw out his human elements (in terms of morality), which are brushed over and dismissed in the new film. His fear of rapidly dying never drastically alters or affects his actions with other people or his performance as a guardian of the people. And, more than this, his and his family’s immoral position is not addressed. Are we to read that such problems can easily be smoothed over with a bit of charm and super fire power? Another problem in Stark’s character is the failure to clearly link these two problems, his quickly emptying hour glass, and his immorality. Instead, we have scenes of charm and sexual jokes, action and lists of firearms. Only minutely do we see his alcoholism, and too minute is its effect on the story. His acts, besides his party, would not change at all if the slight addition of alcoholism were excised. You may praise these additions as deepening his character, but why not give him a kid of his own, a duty to an old grand mother, friendship issues, and a gambling problem too. They would surely deepen his character in the same way, but the point I want to make is they would be superfluous, and have no effect on his actions in the narrative.

Consider what would happen if his alcoholism deformed his combat skills (when drunk) and he was unable to save someone merely because he was drunk. This would directly link the plot to his actions and provide space for real emotional flowering, or withering.

Action scenes in superhero stories have a similar problem. The stakes at which the scenes are constructed are always the same. Pure survival. The good guy will either live or die, and we know the good guy will live even while we are in the ticket line before the movie. So then what is the point of action scenes? I won’t accept them as simple candy and fire crackers for the masses. I am misanthropic but I cannot rationalize people to such degradation. All people are not simple, whether they are simple minded or not. All people have some sort of depth to them, if they accept this or not. It is there. Even a hard skinned man has a sensitive flesh on the underside of his heart. They will recognize feelings in a character if it is put in front of them. A predictable action scene is pointless and a waste of money. Give it actual stakes and real emotional importance and it becomes interesting and unpredictable.

As an example, consider a final action scene in Iron Man 2 if, instead of playing the savior to combat the evil Russian, he was completely out of favor by the people of the city. They despise him. Let’s also assume he is morally correct in killing the Russian; then he has something to prove to the people. The action is not merely to kill the Russian, but persuade the people. His success has higher stakes which are not as simple as good versus evil, live or die. While he may beat the Russian, he may lose the people. This is a real possibility you cannot predict. No real situation is so reducible to this black and white simplification. Even this is not above a naïve audience.

Or consider another possible example. Stark’s rage has peaked. He looses steam upon the Russian. He feels obliged to follow his father’s legacy. The problem is, so does the Russian. If we also make the Russian more sympathetic and less ‘bad-guy’ than what he was, we clearly have a situation in which the victor is not foreseeable. One cannot simply side with the good guy.

Without making this situation too much a question of Jedi’s, does not Luke face a similar position in Return of the Jedi? After taking Vader’s hand and seeing his own, he sees the anger has swelled and taken possession of him and if he continues that way he will turn into his father. Why can’t this moral revelation take place in Tony Stark? He loves his father but realizes his immorality of ruining Russian’s lives. How he reacts to this may be the core of his character, as it is Luke’s.

I was deeply disappointed as I always am that a villain was not given enough depth. It seems the dimensions of a villain need be flat and summarized into one sentence. The Russian in this film seeks revenge on Tony Stark and Stark Industries to ruining his and his family’s life. Despite being valid it isn’t enough. Even if evil is banal, it is far from simple.

Not enough evil.

Written by Patrick Cronin.