Superman has a perfect jawline and is so unbelievably macho, he makes spandex look hetero. Captain America wanted only to serve his country in the military but was deemed too scrawny - until a machine made him the physically perfect specimen. Batman is so wealthy it's actually stupid and defends the criminally corrupt Gotham City from the many villains who would change it. Iron Man is Batman with a sense of humor and a better suit.
We know these superheroes. We watch their movies. Most of them are entertaining - a few of them are actually good. But I've noticed in recent movies that although the morality of the lead players has gotten more ambiguous, the morality of the message of the movie has remained stagnant - which creates a very confused message in its final product.
Duh, there's good versus evil, and duh, it's on a global scale. In more recent years, however, the bad guy has a legitimate gripe, and the good guy finds himself teaming up with some pretty unsavory people.
Let's look at a couple scenarios in recent superhero movies, starting with the least morally ambiguous conflicts and ending with a story that makes the audience wonder if the wrong guy won.
Conflict: Iron Man vs. Obadiah Stane
Stark Industries is in the defense business, which means they make weapons for money. This arguably makes the world a less safe place (Jim Porter would disagree), but Tony Stark was too busy being a party-town playboy (Robert Downey Jr. was really the most inspired casting choice) to have anything to do with the business besides a bullshit "face of the company"-type role. Then a terrorist group called the Ten Rings attacks and kidnaps Tony in Afghanistan. Using his super brain, Tony not only saves himself but makes a superhuman heart and an iron suit to escape - only to decide Stark Industries will not manufacture weapons anymore.
Obadiah Stane, who as acting head of the company while Tony was off being a playboy sold weapons to the Ten Rings, insists on continuing to make weapons for profit. Then plot happens (this movie is truly great, but I'm not about to do a recap) and there's a showdown between Obadiah and Tony, and Tony wins.
Also he reveals his true identity to the world, which makes him the MOST badass superhero.
Greedy Obadiah, careless with people's lives if it means more money, versus unlikely savior of the people party animal Tony Stark? Iron Man for the win!
SIDE TO TAKE? IRON MAN - DEFINITELY.
2. The Dark Knight
Conflict: Batman vs. the JokerThis one makes it pretty easy. The Joker may be fun to watch, but he's also an insane mass murderer with no goal beyond total chaos and destruction. Batman doesn't want people to die.
SIDE TO TAKE? BATMAN - DEFINITELY.
Conflict: Batman vs. Two-Face
Two-Face is a little more complicated of a bad guy - Harvey Dent is a perfect human being before the accident, and Two-Face spends a fair amount of time exacting revenge on the people who killed his fiancée, and revenge is basically why Batman gets out of bed in the morning - but when he threatens Gordon's family it's pretty clear he's got to go.
SIDE TO TAKE? BATMAN - DEFINITELY.
(But still feel bad for Harvey Dent.)
3. Thor
Conflict: Thor vs. Loki
Thor is aggressive and arrogant, and when he confronts the Frost Giants, he destroys his race's peace with them and is stripped of his godly powers by his father Odin as punishment. Loki, his brother, was never slated to be the next king because Odin adopted him, meaning he's not really Odin's blood. Loki takes over while Thor is on Earth and Odin is in his deep "Odinsleep" to prove to his adopted father that he can rule - only he's, like, super evil. Convincing his real father Laufey to try to kill Odin, attempting to destroy the Frost Giants despite a truce, killing his actual father Laufey... he's a shitty leader and a terrible human being. So when Thor comes back to end Loki's rule, and Loki falls into the abyss after being rejected by a now-conscious Odin, and Thor admits he's not ready for rule, it's pretty clear that Thor rules and Loki totally drools.
We're now on the 4th example and it's still clear who is the good guy and the bad guy. This is just a touch more ambiguous, because Loki may be a total dick, but he's striving for something he was never given - something Thor took for granted - a strong father figure who is what he says he is.
SIDE TO TAKE? THOR - DEFINITELY (moved up from "mostly" to "definitely" through growth of character).
Conflict: The Avengers vs. The Chitauri
The Chitauri, under Loki, want to take over Earth. The Avengers want to save it. Pretty clear cut, but S.H.I.E.L.D. is considering using the Tesseract to develop weapons to save America against future invasions. On the one hand, this makes sense. On the other, these weapons are dangerous and maybe shouldn't be created? I mean, isn't this using the Tesseract for the exact same reason the bad guys want it?
SIDE TO TAKE? THE AVENGERS - MOSTLY.
Conflict: Captain America vs. HYDRA
Dr. Arnim Zola and Johann Schmidt of the HYDRA organization find the Tesseract, which allows them to harness energy to complete their Nazi experiments. Steve Rogers is an underdeveloped weakling not worthy of serving in the military to fight the Nazis in 1942 America when he undergoes Dr. Abraham Esrkine's controversial "super soldier" experiment and transforms into an insanely strong human in peak physical condition - Captain America. Heinz Kruger, working for the HYDRA organization, immediately kills Dr. Erskine, who is the only person with any information on the super soldier formula. While touring for the American troupes Italy as a super soldier to raise morale (rather than, say, fighting Nazis), Captain America finds out his friend Bucky has been killed. Captain America refuses to believe the news and searches for him. He finds Bucky in a HYDRA base and rescues him, along with several other soldiers. Together they decide to attack the other HYDRA bases. Team America wins, HYDRA loses, Schmidt dissolves in a bright light after handling the Tesseract personally, and Captain America crashes in the Arctic and wakes up 70 years later under Nick Fury's supervision.
Nazis? Always bad. But the superhuman experiment Steve Rogers went through is creeptastic - and if you're going to go through all that trouble, American government, you should really have the dude fight instead of traveling around like a circus freak. Captain America has a tough choice - fight for a somewhat shady and idiotic American government, or fight for the Nazis.
SIDE TO TAKE? CAPTAIN AMERICA'S - MOSTLY (points taken off for idiocy).
Conflict: Iron Man vs. Aldrich Killian
OKAY. NOW WE ARE GETTING TO MY POINT.
Tony Stark at a 1999 New Year's party in Switzerland is a total dick to disabled Aldrich Killian while planning on getting down and dirty with Maya Hansen. Fast forward to 2013, with Aldrich Killian now fully abled (and looking damn fine) and offering Extremis, a formula that regenerates its subjects when they are injured. However, the formula is still in its development ages, and when a person reacts badly to it, they explode. Aldrich is using terrible actor Trevor Slattery to pretend to be The Mandarin, a terrorist who hates America's excess and finds the country to be a destructive force on other nations. At one point, Trevor kills an innocent oil bigwig executive live on television to prove a point. Tony figures out a way to confront Aldrich and his Extremis goons while saving both the President's life and his girlfriend Pepper Potts's life.
The issue, then, is that when The Mandarin aims a gun at this "innocent' oil executive's life, he has a point: this man's greed has probably contributed greatly to the suffering of a lot of impoverished people. Obviously killing him isn't the answer, but it's hard to see the guy as a victim. The Mandarin may be a terrorist, but he's making some pretty solid points about the liberties America takes with poorer nations.
Besides, Tony can be a dick (see: first scene of the movie).
But also, Tony is legit and I love Robert Downey Jr.
SIDE TO TAKE? IRON MAN'S - BARELY.
Conflict: Spider-Man vs. The Lizard
Peter Parker is a super nerd who gets picked on by Flash Thompson. He finds out his late father was working to cure diseases by combining human and animal DNA with Dr. Curt Connors. Curt is pressured by his dick of a boss Dr. Ratha to speed his research along in order to save the terminally ill Norman Osborn (their boss at Oscorp). Peter gets bitten by a spider and uses his newfound powers to beat up his old bully Flash. Then he refuses to walk his aunt home and lets a convenience store thief run off - allowing the thief to murder his uncle. Meanwhile, Dr. Ratha demands that Curt try the serum they're working on before it's ready and subsequently fires Curt when he refuses. Curt, desperate, tries the serum and transforms himself into The Lizard and starts terrorizing the city. Peter gets him the antidote, but not before The Lizard mortally wounds Captain Stacy, father of Gwen Stacy (Peter's love interest). Captain Stacy asks Peter to stay away from Gwen for her safety (considering he's a target and half spider, half man), but Peter doesn't because he is an impulsive dickhead.
Honestly? Dr. Curt Connors is a tragic figure, and Peter Parker is a teenage asshole.
SIDE TO TAKE? TIE BETWEEN SPIDER-MAN AND THE LIZARD.
Conflict: Batman vs. Bane
Gotham City is insanely corrupt. That's a huge part of Batman mythology - Gotham City is run by terrible people who allow a ridiculous amount of psychopathic villains to run rampant, which is why Batman is necessary to begin with. Batman is wealthy, and defends the status quo so people may continue with their lives in relative peace. Up comes Bane from the sewers, railing against the injustice of the city and demanding the government be held accountable for its actions.
From the upper crust, a class that keeps the Banes of the world down, comes Bruce Wayne. The city is mostly destroyed, some very confusing plot twists happen (the more you think about this movie, the less it makes sense), and you leave the theater wondering if this wasn't some giant "fuck you" to Occupy Wall Street - courtesy of Christopher Nolan.
(Also, it's some serious bullshit that Batman survived in the end.)
SIDE TO TAKE? BANE'S - MOSTLY.
I love that superhero movies are allowing themselves to have more morally ambiguous bad guys - people with interesting motivations that end up going down an unfortunate path. It would just be nice if the movies themselves started acknowledging this fact.
No comments:
Post a Comment