Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Torturing Iron Man
The Strange Reversals of a Pentagon Blockbuster
"Liberal Hollywood" is a favorite whipping-boy of right-wingers who suppose the town and its signature industry are ever-at-work undermining the U.S. military. In reality, the military has been deeply involved with the film industry since the Silent Era. Today, however, the ad hoc arrangements of the past have been replaced by a full-scale one-stop shop, occupying a floor of a Los Angeles office building. There, the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard, and the Department of Defense itself have established entertainment liaison offices to help ensure that Hollywood makes movies the military way.
What they have to trade, especially when it comes to blockbuster films, is access to high-tech, tax-payer funded, otherwise unavailable gear. What they get in return is usually the right to alter or shape scripts to suit their needs. If you want to see the fruits of this relationship in action, all you need to do is head down to your local multiplex. Chances are that Iron Man -- the latest military-entertainment masterpiece -- is playing on a couple of screens.
For the past three weeks, Iron Man --a film produced by its comic-book parent Marvel and distributed by Paramount Pictures -- has cleaned up at the box office, taking in a staggering $222.5 million in the U.S. and $428.5 million worldwide. The movie, which opened with "the tenth biggest weekend box office performance of all time" and the second biggest for a non-sequel, has the added distinction of being the "best-reviewed movie of 2008 so far." For instance, in the New York Times, movie reviewer A.O. Scott called Iron Man "an unusually good superhero picture," while Roger Ebert wrote: "The world needs another comic book movie like it needs another Bush administration... [but] if we must have one more... 'Iron Man' is a swell one to have." There has even been nascent Oscar buzz.
Robert Downey Jr. has been nearly universally praised for a winning performance as playboy-billionaire-merchant-of-death-genius-inventor Tony Stark, head of Stark Industries, a fictional version of Lockheed or Boeing. In the film, Stark travels to Afghanistan to showcase a new weapon of massive destruction to American military commanders occupying that country. On a Humvee journey through the Afghan backlands, his military convoy is caught up in a deadly ambush by al-Qaeda stand-ins, who capture him and promptly subject him to what Vice President Dick Cheney once dubbed "a dunk in the water," but used to be known as "the Water Torture." The object is to force him to build his Jericho weapons system, one of his "masterpieces of death," in their Tora Bora-like mountain cave complex.
As practically everyone in the world already knows, Stark instead builds a prototype metal super-suit and busts out of his cave of confinement, slaughtering his terrorist captors as he goes. Back in the U.S., a born-again Stark announces that his company needs to get out of the weapons game, claiming he has "more to offer the world than making things blow up." Yet, what he proceeds to build is, of course, a souped-up model of the suit he designed in the Afghan cave. Back inside it, as Iron Man, he then uses it to "blow up" bad guys in Afghanistan, taking on the role of a kind of (super-)human-rights vigilante. He even tangles with U.S. forces in the skies over that occupied land, but when the Air Force's sleek, ultra high-tech, F-22A Raptors try to shoot him down, he refrains from using his awesome powers of invention to blow them away. This isn't the only free pass doled out to the U.S. military in the film.
Just as America's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan continue to bring various Vietnam analogies to mind, Iron Man has its own Vietnam pedigree. Before Tony Stark landed in Afghanistan in 2008, he first lumbered forth in Vietnam in the 1960s. That was, of course, when he was still just the clunky hero of the comic book series on which the film is based. Marvel's metal man then battled that era's American enemies of choice: not al-Qaedan-style terrorists, but communists in Southeast Asia.
Versions of the stereotypical evil Asians of Iron Man's comic book world would appear almost unaltered on the big screen in 1978 in another movie punctuated by gunfire and explosions that also garnered great reviews. The Deer Hunter, an epic of loss and horror in Vietnam, eventually took home four Academy Awards, including Best Picture honors. Then, and since, however, the movie has been excoriated by antiwar critics for the way it turned history on its head in its use of reversed iconic images that seemingly placed all guilt for death and destruction in Vietnam on America's enemies.
Most famously, it appropriated a then-unforgettable Pulitzer prize-winning photo of Lt. Colonel Nguyen Ngoc Loan, South Vietnam's national police chief, executing an unarmed, bound prisoner during the Tet Offensive with a point blank pistol shot to the head. In the film, however, it was the evil enemy which made American prisoners do the same to themselves as they were forced to play Russian Roulette for the amusement of their sadistic Vietnamese captors (something that had no basis in reality).
The film Iron Man is replete with such reversals, starting with the obvious fact that, in Afghanistan, it is Americans who have imprisoned captured members of al-Qaeda and the Taliban (as well as untold innocents) in exceedingly grim conditions, not vice-versa. It is they who, like Tony Stark, have been subjected to the Bush administration's signature "harsh interrogation technique." While a few reviewers have offhandedly alluded to the eeriness of this screen choice, Iron Man has suffered no serious criticism for taking the imprisonment practices, and most infamous torture, of the Bush years and superimposing it onto America's favorite evil-doers. Nor have critics generally thought to point out that, while, in the film, the nefarious Obadiah Stane, Stark's right hand man, is a double-dealing arms dealer who is selling high-tech weapons systems to the terrorists in Afghanistan (and trying to kill Stark as well), two decades ago the U.S. government played just that role. For years, it sent advanced weapons systems -- including Stinger missiles, one of the most high-tech weapons of that moment -- to jihadis in Afghanistan so they could make war on one infidel superpower (the Soviet Union), before setting their sights on another (the United States). And while this took place way back in the 1980s, it shouldn't be too hard for film critics to recall - since it was lionized in last year's celebrated Tom Hanks film Charlie Wilson's War.
In the cinematic Marvel Universe, however, the U.S. military, which runs the notorious prison at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan where so many have been imprisoned, abused, and, in some cases, have even died, receives a veritable get out of jail free card. And you don't need to look very closely to understand why -- or why the sleek U.S. aircraft in the film get a similar free pass from Iron Man, even when they attack him, or why terrorists and arms dealers take the fall for what the U.S. has done in the real world.
If they didn't, you can be sure that Iron Man wouldn't be involved in a blue-skies ballet with F-22A Raptors in the movie's signature scene and that the filmmakers would never have been able to shoot at Edwards Air Force base -- a prospect which could have all but grounded Iron Man, since, as director Jon Favreau put it, Edwards was "the best back lot you could ever have." Favreau, in fact, minced no words in his ardent praise for the way working with the Air Force gave him access to the "best stuff" and how filming on the base brought "a certain prestige to the film." Perhaps in exchange for the U.S. Air Force's collaboration, there was an additional small return favor: Iron Man's confidant, sidekick, and military liaison, Lt. Col. James "Rhodey" Rhodes -- another hero of the film -- is now an Air Force man, not the Marine he was in the comic.
With the box office numbers still pouring in and the announcement of sequels to come, the arrangement has obviously worked out well for Favreau, Marvel, Paramount -- and the U.S. Air Force. Before the movie was released, Master Sergeant Larry Belen, the superintendent of technical support for the Air Force Test Pilot School and one of many airmen who auditioned for a spot in the movie, outlined his motivation to aid the film: "I want people to walk away from this movie with a really good impression of the Air Force, like they got about the Navy seeing Top Gun."
Air Force captain Christian Hodge, the Defense Department's project officer for Iron Man, may have put it best, however, when he predicted that, once the film appeared, the "Air Force is going to come off looking like rock stars." Maybe the Air Force hasn't hit the Top Gun-style jackpot with Iron Man, but there can be no question that, in an American world in which war-fighting doesn't exactly have the glitz of yesteryear, Iron Man is certainly a military triumph. As Chuck Vinch noted in a review published in the Air Force Times, "The script... will surely have the flyboy brass back at the Pentagon trading high fives -- especially the scene in which Iron Man dogfights in the high clouds with two F-22 Raptors."
Coming on the heels of last year's military-aided mega-spectacular Transformers, the Pentagon is managing to keep a steady stream of pro-military blockbusters in front of young eyes during two dismally unsuccessful foreign occupations that grind on without end. In his Iron Man review, Roger Ebert called the pre-transformation Tony Stark, "the embodiment of the military-industrial complex that President Eisenhower warned against in 1961 -- a financial superhero for whom war is good business, and whose business interests guarantee there will always be a market for war."
Here's the irony that Ebert missed: What the film Iron Man actually catches is the spirit of the successor "complex," which has leapt not only into the cinematic world of superheroes, but also into the civilian sphere of our world in a huge way. Today, almost everywhere you look, whether at the latest blockbuster on the big screen or what's on much smaller screens in your own home -- likely made by a defense contractor like Sony, Samsung, Panasonic or Toshiba -- you'll find the Pentagon or its corporate partners. In fact, from the companies that make your computer to those that produce your favorite soft drink, many of the products in your home are made by Defense Department contractors -- and, if you look carefully, you don't even need the glowing eyes of an advanced "cybernetic helmet," like Iron Man's, to see them.
Nick Turse is the associate editor and research director of Tomdispatch.com. He has written for the Los Angeles Times, the San Francisco Chronicle, Adbusters, the Nation, and regularly for Tomdispatch.com. His first book, The Complex, an exploration of the new military-corporate complex in America, was recently published in the American Empire Project series by Metropolitan Books.
Copyright 2008 Nick Turse



53 Comments so far
Show Alllogrithmic:A perfect example of what I said. It's a flipping movie about a cartoon character! What do you want it to do make everything right with the world. Fit into your little scheme of what is right and wrong or its wrong. "Blatant propoganda meant to rewrite history and alter reality" As if a movie could do that! Get back on your meds girl!! A lot of you bloggers on this site are way to uptight. Chill out!!
I seriously doubt Favreau wanted to make a pro-war propaganda piece. I didn't come away from this movie wanting to see Iran get bombed. It's a good comic-book movie with a timely message, and that message is not "kill 'em all." If the movie was intended to be jingoistic, its main antagonist wouldn't have been Obadiah Stane.
"Also, take note, the real enemy was not the war mongers, but War Monger, Obadiah Stane who represents all that's crap in the Military Industrial Complex."
Iron Monger is his name, but I agree Rosewelsh.
"Please tell me when did a comic book gain that kind or power?"
Comics have a history of subversion. They have more power than you think. But too many people still see comics as a backwater medium, which is I think is fueling the author's and some of the posters disdain for the movie.
"Geeky film critics like Roger Ebert probably think this is how the popular boys talk."
Ebert gave Fahrenheit 9/11 3 1/2 out of 4 stars.
Btw, I'm as anti-war as they come. I almost got fired from my job not long ago for getting into it with a few pro-war people at work. And I've taken my lumps verbally, and sometimes physically for my views on the military/idustrial complex. Iron Man didn't turn me into a hawk or neo-con. I enjoyed the movie.
Iron Man, like other heroic fantasy tales, are intended to be a modern mythology.
"Nick missed criticizing the cartoon caricature stereotypes of the bad guys - Muslims again, swarthy skin. hooked noses, scarf wearing."
I missed that too. I guess Obadiah Stane was a stereotypical WASP.
Sorry Dudley. You may be a sweetheart in black tights, but nothing you say can push me into your land of Oz. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. Translation: Don't like what I write: FU.
I think some of you aren't getting the points that the author talked about. Iron Man has a surface anti-war message, a very thin veneer, but one of its main functions is to whitewash the US military by recasting and subverting history, putting others in the disgusting roles that the military has in reality played.
It sounds like a classic propaganda piece. This should be even more apparent with the knowledge that the film was enthusiastically supported by the Air Force in particular and the military in general, and by the fact that much of the attraction of the film (for many people) comes from its "blow 'em up real good" visceral appeal, an emotion which is and has been easily used to arouse things like fervor, fear, and pack mentality.
Pay attention to what your innocuous summer entertainment is also trying to do.
It is sad that some people on this forum can't deal with reality. The movie is a blatant advertisement for the military and its propaganda. Those that can't see this are so brainwashed that they probably still believe the invasion of Iraq was really about liberation.
To Nick, an excellent article. Thanks for blowing up the little world so much of the rabble insulate themselves in, as they enter the theater and buy their popcorn and absorb the pro-war message projected by this movie.
This movie is filled with black and white stick characters. Suggesting that the plot can redeem itself only because it protrays a CEO as a "bad apple" who double deals with terrorists, is like saying the American justice system of military tribunals, indefinite detention, and torture is vindicated because Ken Lay was brought to justice. What a forkin joke...
Tony Stark himself is a detestable creature making billions from his war profits. He lives a lifestyle that is empty and vacuous, but the movie suggests instead of being disgusted by this moronic idiot, we should worship and kneel before him because he has so much money. I really didn't believe that the Common Dreams readership could be so manipulated, that they actually had the ability to think for themselves, but I guess after reading some of these comments, I'm sadly mistaken.
God bless the United States of Oz.
"but one of its main functions is to whitewash the US military by recasting and subverting history, putting others in the disgusting roles that the military has in reality played."
No, I really don't think that was the intent of the film. It exists in its own universe.
"This should be even more apparent with the knowledge that the film was enthusiastically supported by the Air Force in particular and the military in general, and by the fact that much of the attraction of the film (for many people) comes from its "blow 'em up real good" visceral appeal, an emotion which is and has been easily used to arouse things like fervor, fear, and pack mentality."
Well so what if people in the military liked the film. A lot of military people also liked Fahrenheit 911.
I don't know, the main enemy I saw was the military/industrial complex. The terrorists were just a side-effect of that, and the protagonist realizes that he was partly responsible for it.
I can't say Iron Man filled me with fervor and fear and a desire to kick Islamic butt. I saw an entertaining movie. And considering how The War on Terror has fallen out of favor with the majority of the public, I'd say that if Iron Man was intended to be a pro-war movie, it failed miserably.
iwarrior,
Who are the terrorists?
Perhaps you need to study history a bit more. Here's an article that will help:
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2008/052008.html
Why would anyone who claims to be "as anti-war as they come" defend this film? Comics, just like any other genre, can be used to push propaganda - for example, to help inculcate a feeling that blowing things up high-tech is really cool and sometimes very necessary. Forget the dialog or the spoken "message" of a film like this - the message lies in the non-stop barrage of special effects explosions, the way that weaponry is depicted, and everything this says about the projection of power, military-style.
Comics may historically be "subversive", but I have a hunch that here they are just another tool of our corporate military culture.
"It is sad that some people on this forum can't deal with reality."
I can. This movie wasn't intended to be "reality."
"The movie is a blatant advertisement for the military and its propaganda. Those that can't see this are so brainwashed that they probably still believe the invasion of Iraq was really about liberation."
I was against the war from the beginning. This movie didn't change my opinion.
"To Nick, an excellent article. Thanks for blowing up the little world so much of the rabble insulate themselves in, as they enter the theater and buy their popcorn and absorb the pro-war message projected by this movie.
I wanted to see the film because I'm a fan of the character and the medium in which he originated. If there was a pro-war message to be absorbed, then I'm a lousy sponge.
"This movie is filled with black and white stick characters."
Oh I would think not. Tony Stark/Iron Man is a very complex character.
"Suggesting that the plot can redeem itself only because it protrays a CEO as a "bad apple" who double deals with terrorists, is like saying the American justice system of military tribunals, indefinite detention, and torture is vindicated because Ken Lay was brought to justice. What a forkin joke…"
Uh that's a stretch. No, I think the movie redeems itself because the character realizes he is dealing in death, and decides to reverse that.
"Tony Stark himself is a detestable creature making billions from his war profits. He lives a lifestyle that is empty and vacuous, but the movie suggests instead of being disgusted by this moronic idiot, we should worship and kneel before him because he has so much money."
No, the movie was about (in part) his redemption from those things. He's portayed as a fop at first who is profiting from weaponry, but again, he realizes what he's doing is wrong and what his innovations have wrought, and decides that he wil do right in spite of his prior selfish, destructive actions.
As far was making him out to be someone to be worshipped for his material wealth, I think he's portrayed as rather having an empty life, and that he isn't to be envied despite his fortunes. Of course, I've followed the character in the comics for many years, where he's only a happy playboy on the surface.
"I really didn't believe that the Common Dreams readership could be so manipulated, that they actually had the ability to think for themselves, but I guess after reading some of these comments, I'm sadly mistaken."
Nobody manipulated me. Again, it didn't make me want to take up arms against anyone, let alone Arabic peoples.
Its fun to watch Rambo 3 these days since it has Rambo fighting alongside Osama Bin Laden's mujahadeen.
It does get tiring how Hollywood feeds the dumb dumb comic book storyline.
The power of US armed forces as a propaganda tool also is evident in games. There was a shocking BBc documentary on upper middle class India and they talked to an 8 year old boy playing a WW2 Pearl harbor game. And when they asked him what side he would want to fight for--he said the Americans. Not as an Indian. An American.
I try to keep my 11-year-old son informed (for an 11-year-old) on political and foreign policy matters, and so I was not surprised that when he returned from seeing "Iron Man" with a friend he claimed it was about the stupidest movie he ever saw and mentioned some of the same problems brought up in this article. If a well-informed 11-year-old can see that, why do US movie critics refuse to? What audience are they speaking to?
Iron Man--Rust in Peace
It is not "just" a movie.
It is propaganda aimed at children to try to brainwash them into believing in the American myths about war, army, and good vs. evil.
It is not just a comic. They spend millions trying to come up with acceptable packages to sell their ideas/their ideals to impressionable uneducated children.
"Why would anyone who claims to be "as anti-war as they come" defend this film?"
Because I'm not seeing an pro-war message here.
"Comics, just like any other genre, can be used to push propaganda - for example, to help inculcate a feeling that blowing things up high-tech is really cool and sometimes very necessary."
Of course, and comics have supported war efforts in the past.
"Forget the dialog or the spoken "message" of a film like this - the message lies in the non-stop barrage of special effects explosions, the way that weaponry is depicted, and everything this says about the projection of power, military-style."
It's an action movie in part. That's what you get in action movies, action. That's what people want to see when they see a summer blockbuster. They're not coming away from it thinking, "oooh, let's go blow up them Iranians." Again, the main antagonist is a war-profiteer, and the protagonist is using his own killing technology against him. It's corruption vs. redemption.
"Comics may historically be "subversive", but I have a hunch that here they are just another tool of our corporate military culture."
I think your hunch is off in this case.
"It is not "just" a movie.
It is propaganda aimed at children to try to brainwash them into believing in the American myths about war, army, and good vs. evil.
It is not just a comic. They spend millions trying to come up with acceptable packages to sell their ideas/their ideals to impressionable uneducated children."
So Dick Cheney has his fingers in Marvel Entertainment?
...
Nick missed criticizing the cartoon caricature stereotypes of the bad guys - Muslims again, swarthy skin. hooked noses, scarf wearing.
Many Muslim friends are upset at the 'oh no, not again' feeling.
I walked out of the Iron Man crapfest after half an hour, and Nick Turse is exactly right that Jon Favreau is just another propaganda weasel for Bush.
The "witty banter" from Robert Downey is mostly on the level of "Yeah, I screwed the last five Playmates of the Year."
Geeky film critics like Roger Ebert probably think this is how the popular boys talk. "I betcha girls really like it when a guy tells them how many Playmates he has screwed!"
I hate mainstream movies.
>>they talked to an 8 year old boy playing a WW2 Pearl harbor game. And when they asked him what side he would want to fight for–he said the Americans. Not as an Indian. An American.<<
OK I thought about this for some time. How would anyone respond to that question about a Pearl Harbor game? There were only two sides in that battle. How could he have been on an Indian side when there were no Indian planes or ships there? If you ask me which side I want to fight for in a game about Troy, you can only be Greek or Trojan. Would you have me want to play it as a Mayan or an American?
I just don't see this as tragic... maybe I don't get your point.
And don't forget "The Nosey Faces Behind Facebook." Name them: Information Awareness Office (a DARPA project), CIA, National Venture Capital Association, BBN Technologies (ARPANET, precursor of today's Internet), and Accel Partners.
Get the details here: http://www.sillyconvalley.net/noseyfaces.html
Come on folks . . .
What we are talking about here is a comic book.
If you need to put down a comic book because it scares you, you need to get some help.
Does Batman, Superman, X-Men, Daffy Duck, Wonder Woman and Elmer Fudd worry you also.
Please tell me when did a comic book gain that kind or power?
Watch out everyone . . . Here comes The Hulk! I think he's next. But may be Indiana Jones is next?
Lighten up you guys its just a flippin movie. What did you expect some kind of deep and meaningful insightful crap. I went to it and thoroughly enjoyed it. Because I went to it not expecting it to do anything other then entertain me which it did End of story!
As much as I am against war, I still think we should be well armed and ready just in case some ass decides to bomb us. I liken getting rid of the military to end war with destroying a body's immune system to fight disease. Just not gonna happen.
As for the people Iron Man fights, Favreau tried to make it as clear as he could that he wasn't dissing only the Mid East terrorists. The group is made up of members who are war mongers from all over the world - that's what the 10 Rings is all about, that's what Yinsen tried to get across when Tony asked him how many languages he spoke, "Not enough for here. They speak..." and he goes on to list lots of different languages. The group happens to be based in Afghanistan, so some mid-eastern schmuck gets the spotlight. We happen to be fighting them, they get the sharp end of the casting stick. I watched _Next_ the other night and made note that the enemies of the hero at that time were... French. It's a pattern in movies. I expect it.
Also, take note, the real enemy was not the war mongers, but War Monger, Obadiah Stane who represents all that's crap in the Military Industrial Complex.
The thought that Favreau and Downey put into their movie, the story and the characters makes me wonder just what they might have to say in the next movie about the military and the bad crap that's been done with ours. I mean, we'll have a new administration by then, so we'll see.
Iron Man's journey is deep and mythical. Someone equated it to a Bible story about someone on the road to Damascus. I, on the other hand being NeoPagan, equated it quickly to the myth of the Descent of Inanna from the Middle East, Goddess not of love and reproduction, but of sex and war.
Until something utterly supernatural happens to the entire human race at once, war and fighting will be a part of our world. Devouring each other was how some scientists think single celled organisms became complex organisms with lots of specialized parts. Killing is a part of life. Some people just abuse it: terrorists, CEOs of the beef, dairy, agriculture et. al. industries. Maybe Favreau and Downey can come up with a way to divide the "defenders" from the "terrorists" in popular culture and do it on a multicultural palate. I give them a 50-50 chance of picking up on this kind of an idea and running with it.
My six drachmas,
Rose
The right wing has been screaming bloody murder about the film business since its' inception. At first, they decried the prevalence of jews and that their products were destroying the christian values of the nation. Leap forward years later and the jews have been replaced by that relatively new dirty word in right wing circles, liberal. Plus ca change, plus ce le memechose.
Tony Norman wrote a review about this movie also...
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08123/878412-42.stm
I think the author of this article missed the point and doesn't understand the history and evolution of the character.
Call me stupid, but I felt that there was a pretty strong anti-war message here. The idea of war profiteering is addressed and the fact that the hero stops manufacturing weapons and that his arch-foe is profiting from them I think is a pretty big shot at the military-industrial complex.
Pro-military? I didn't walk from this movie feeling that way.
I highly suggest watching the incredibly funny and poignant movie, War, Inc. instead of Iron Man. It is a comic masterpiece that expertly peels back the layers of lies to reveal the truth of America's corporate war evil.
The author is right; many films, video games and TV programs create a cultural tolerance, if not enthusiasm, for violence as the solution to conflict. This happens on the individual level, demonstrated by our high murder rate, and on the political level, demonstrated by our aggressive foreign policy. The right is so concerned about the souls of US soldiers that it wants to ban Playboy magazine on base, but isn't concerned about ordering them to slaughter and torture innocents. They are greatly disturbed that a child might hear swear words or see upstanding, decent gays and lesbians, but are happy to let them spend their afternoons gorging on junk food and violence. In their thinking, morality is concerned only with what other people do in the bedroom.
God, I'm so glad for this article. The author is dead on. I went to the movie and I regretted it. Took my son too. Sad but true.
I did want to point out one detail the author overlooked in the movie that might be of interest to readers. In one scene, Iron Man arrives at a village where the "Al Queda Taliban" thugs are separating wives and children from their husbands and fathers. The men are then lined up against a wall to be killed. There is no reason given for this atrocity. We are simply to believe that the Jihadists are irrational bullies that will murder and rape their fellow countrymen. Iron Man takes out the bullies and saves the townspeople. Then he proceeds to fly off. At this time, the film cuts to Edwards AF Base, where one of the officers asks why the unidentified object (Iron Man) wasn't taken out. Another officer replies, stating that the Jihadists were using human shields, and the military could not risk taking them out with the possibility of hurting civilian innocents.
Talk about standing reality on its head! Anyone that caught tonight's PBS News Hour show will quickly see what I mean - this military does not care about civilian casualties or collateral damage. Case in point:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/jan-june08/witnesses_05-21.html
and
http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/diarypage.php?did=7470
and
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6492.htm
The movie Iron Man is blatant propaganda meant to rewrite history and alter reality. It is Newspeak at its worst. It is Winston Smith at his best....
Ask yourself: How can some view the film as having an anti-war message, and others as being pro-war American propaganda? Easy: the film plays both sides. Something for everyone. Are you an anti-Muslim, pro-military flag-waving xenophobe? Then this film's for you! Do you hate the military-industrial complex and arms traders? Well, this film's for you! hahaha.
People read novels and watch movies differently. Instead of shouting down the other person, why not ask yourself how it is that others see the film differently from you? And, their point has been eloquently made, by Turse's article above included.
Personally, I fail to see how one derives an anti-war message from a film in which the hero wages a one-man war against the "evil bad Muslims." Nice how the film reinforces Bush's worldview of "Good Muslim, Bad Muslim," with the American superhero there to save the good ones.
twistoflex wrote: "It is propaganda aimed at children to try to brainwash them into believing in the American myths about war, army, and good vs. evil."
Don't forget, this film will make more overseas than it will in the US. In other words, it's not just spreading propaganda to Americans, but to the entire world.
iwarrior wrote: "I'm not seeing an pro-war message here."
How can you not see a pro-war message, when the thrust of the film is that Iron Man must save the "Good Muslims" from the "Bad Muslims"/"terrorists"?
iwarrior wrote: "Again, the main antagonist is a war-profiteer, and the protagonist is using his own killing technology against him. It's corruption vs. redemption."
Ah, yes, the bad guy is not the military-industrial complex, but a lone evil man. Who are the good guys in the movie? Iron Man, the American military, the generals, the Air Force pilots, etc. The film dramatizes the American ideology of power.
"I think your hunch is off in this case."
I don't think hers is. Go and read Foucault, Bakhtin, Marx et al. I quote from Foucault:
"The prison should not be seen as an inert institution, shaken at intervals by reform movements… The prison institution has always formed part of an active field in which projects, improvements, experiments, theoretical statements, personal evidence and investigations have proliferated. The prison institution has always been a focus of concern and debate" (Foucault 235).
"Where there is power, there is resistance, and yet, or rather consequently, this resistance is never in a position of exteriority in relation to power. Should it be said that one is always 'inside' power, there is no 'escaping' it, there is no absolute outside where it is concerned" (Foucault 1990 95).
In other words, just because you detect criticism and forms of subversion in "Iron Man," don't think for a second that this in any way places the film outside of American hegemony. You should interrogate the film, instead of seeing it as simply being either/or. Don't close down possibilities, but instead embrace and wrestle with the contradictions that so many others have pointed out.
iwarrior wrote: `This movie wasn't intended to be "reality."'
Yes, just as Conrad's "Heart of Darkness" also was a novel, and not "reality," as was Shakespeare, etc. What they represent are the collective fantasies of their era. Imaginative texts are highly revealing about "reality" as it perceived. And, as Bakhtin argues, they do not simply reflect ideologies, but also intercede and seek to shape discourse.
iwarrior wrote: "I think the movie redeems itself because the character realizes he is dealing in death, and decides to reverse that."
How, by personally killing people? His reversal results in him personally killing how many people? His decision to become a "pacifist" results in him becoming Rambo. Interesting. The movie certainly makes a strong case for "liberal interventionism" (which, by the way, gave us the destruction of Yugoslavia and Iraq, among others).
iwarrior wrote: "It's an action movie in part. That's what you get in action movies, action."
Here would have been a nice action movie: Downey Jr. is falsely accused, and tortured by the American military in Afghanistan. You know, they water-board him, strip him naked and forming a human pyramid with other naked prisoners, hooded and beaten, etc. He secretly builds his suit in this American gulag. He breaks out of his torture cell. "Iron Man" decides that the war in Iraq is wrong, and so he flies to Iraq, joins the Iraqi resistance, and uses his weapons to defeat the American military; he flies to Guantanamo Bay, engages in a fight with the American military, defeats them, blows holes in the prison complex, and frees the prisoners. Then he flies to the White House, engages in a shoot out with the military and secret service, and arrests Bush, Cheney et al, and flies them to Europe to stay trial for war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Now, that's action! And that takes a definite stance, eh?
By the way, what I did about was very de Certeau-ian,haha. I took something conventional and serving power, and twisted and tweaked it to do something quite different.
Which, actually, is what people do. So, if some people see in "Iron Man" an anti-war film, they are basically re-writing the film, or perceiving it in a certain way that is much different than the architects in Power intended. Good on yah.
iwarrior wrote: "So Dick Cheney has his fingers in Marvel Entertainment?"
Eh, did you even read Turse's article above? I guess not. I quote:
"...occupying a floor of a Los Angeles office building... the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard, and the Department of Defense itself have established entertainment liaison offices to help ensure that Hollywood makes movies the military way.
"What they have to trade, especially when it comes to blockbuster films, is access to high-tech, tax-payer funded, otherwise unavailable gear. What they get in return is usually the right to alter or shape scripts to suit their needs. If you want to see the fruits of this relationship in action, all you need to do is head down to your local multiplex. Chances are that Iron Man — the latest military-entertainment masterpiece — is playing on a couple of screens...
"In the cinematic Marvel Universe, however, the U.S. military, which runs the notorious prison at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan where so many have been imprisoned, abused, and, in some cases, have even died, receives a veritable get out of jail free card. And you don't need to look very closely to understand why — or why the sleek U.S. aircraft in the film get a similar free pass from Iron Man, even when they attack him, or why terrorists and arms dealers take the fall for what the U.S. has done in the real world.
If they didn't, you can be sure that Iron Man wouldn't be involved in a blue-skies ballet with F-22A Raptors in the movie's signature scene and that the filmmakers would never have been able to shoot at Edwards Air Force base — a prospect which could have all but grounded Iron Man, since, as director Jon Favreau put it, Edwards was "the best back lot you could ever have." Favreau, in fact, minced no words in his ardent praise for the way working with the Air Force gave him access to the "best stuff" and how filming on the base brought "a certain prestige to the film." Perhaps in exchange for the U.S. Air Force's collaboration, there was an additional small return favor: Iron Man's confidant, sidekick, and military liaison, Lt. Col. James "Rhodey" Rhodes — another hero of the film — is now an Air Force man, not the Marine he was in the comic.
With the box office numbers still pouring in and the announcement of sequels to come, the arrangement has obviously worked out well for Favreau, Marvel, Paramount — and the U.S. Air Force. Before the movie was released, Master Sergeant Larry Belen, the superintendent of technical support for the Air Force Test Pilot School and one of many airmen who auditioned for a spot in the movie, outlined his motivation to aid the film: "I want people to walk away from this movie with a really good impression of the Air Force, like they got about the Navy seeing Top Gun."
Air Force captain Christian Hodge, the Defense Department's project officer for Iron Man, may have put it best, however, when he predicted that, once the film appeared, the "Air Force is going to come off looking like rock stars."
I liked this movie in the 80's when it was called Robocop. Except then it was about crime, not terror.
The unstated assumptions are always the most powerful. One can show surface contradictions, or controversy even, but as long as the dominant power structure and world view remain unchallenged, then the message underneath remains unscathed.
I didn't see Ironman, but I saw the trailer and that put me on guard as to the underlying assumptions that I wasn't interested in spending money on to help propagate.
You want an action movie? Try Jackie and Jet.
I'd brought my two kids (ages 13 and 8, boy and girl respectively) to see this absolutely pathetic piece of crap - like any other American idiot, I didn't check it out before hand - and ended up scurrying them out of there, pissed as hell and demanded my money back. If I want to see propaganda like that, I can always tune in to NBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, etc! Needless to say, I felt obligated to de-programming my kids immediately after getting them out of there - we discussed what they thought the movie portrayed -makes "middle eastern men look like terrorists" THEY GOT IT.
JUDE 1111 & YOHOCOMA: Excellent points and analyses.
I WARRIOR: As an Aquarian, your instincts are geared to detect truth from bullshit better than most, so you are NOT a "good" specimen for getting a reliable beat on how average audiences will view and TAKE IN the pro-militarism slant of this "fantasy" film. In other words, your perceptions can sift out things many viewers cannot, and they will passively find themselves reinforced for accepting the U.S. world-dominator (we're the good guys) subliminal view/subtext.
I guess to me it's not propaganda if I don't allow it to be. I haven't allowed the media to control what I think since high school when I read about subliminal advertising. I take it as an opportunity to engage my brain. That's how I watch commercials, "what are they really trying to say to me?" Yes, the US military and policies are the good guys, that's the way American movies have generally been from day one. It doesn't make it right or wrong, it makes it a fact. If you go into the show with open eyes it can mean a lot more, in a very deep way. I actually found the Marines ad more disturbing than the movie as I knew exactly why they placed it there. I won't fall for it, but I'm sure there are a few young men who will.
Another point, if you look clearly at the movie the only real bad guy is Iron Man himself. It's his money and equipment and no one else's that causes the problems. Ergo, it's an American and his American company who are the ultimate bad guys. AND people, that's exactly what you wanted the message to be (minus all the guns and blowing up stuff.)
And you can't always "turn the other cheek." There won't always be people you can reason with. Both of those make as much sense in certain situations as someone refusing to take anti-biotics because it kills living beings. Or sheesh, have you ever tried to argue with cancer? There are people out there that are just as dangerous to society. It doesn't matter whose fault it is that they are that way. They chose their path. What matters is cleaning up the mess and working to create a better world in the future. Sometimes the clean up is messy and ugly, like surgery and chemotherapy, but at least it's happening.
I fully support Tikkun's New Marshal Plan. But I also know we have to do something about the warlords too and sending them food and help just doesn't cut it for them. They like the power that comes from violence. If they can't be cured of their need for violence and dominance, if they insist on continuing to kill, maim and torture their own people, then they need to be eliminated. It may not have been the USAs job to do this in Iraq. But we're there thanks to Dubya, it's our mess now.
I don't watch TV or read fashion magazines because of the body politics and propaganda played out there. I'm more susceptible to subliminal manipulation when it comes to body image than I am about the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, or the need for US fingers to be in everyone else's pie shoving capitalism down their throats or ignoring them because they don't have anything the US can turn into profit. This movie _Iron Man_ is showing us how to deal with this situation.
BUT remember, this is #1 in a series. I'd advise you not to dump it in the trash heap yet. Downey may be conservative in some of his views because of his prison stint, but one of the songs he chose to have on his CD is _Your Move_ a classic song about making peace not war. He's a smart man, he puts everything he has into this character from day one, I think he'll come up with something good along with Jon Favreau.
That's my take, I'm sticking to it.
R
Just call me "Rusty."
Just a note about the character Tony Stark/Iron Man:
For the definition of "stark" go here:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/stark
There are many shades of heroes, not just white like good ol' Spiderman. TS/IM's heart is (literally!) gun-metal gray, his character cold and rather tragic. Tony Stark for one thing is an alcoholic in the comic and though he is all tough as iron on the outside he is actually a pretty fragile guy. Later in the Marvel comics universe the U.S. government wants all superheroes to register and be I.D.'d so that the U.S. government can track them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_War_(comics)
Tony Stark SUPPORTED this government intrusion into the freedoms of superheroes. Iron Man IS PRO-GOVERNMENT, that is his character. He believes in CIVILIZATION, TECHNOLOGY, INDUSTRY, STATE CONTROL etc. to keep barbarians at bay, to conquer darkness; only man's ingenuity can solve society's problems. He is a right-brained, A-type, "if it don't fit, research - design - build - and use a bigger hammer" type of guy. I suspect that most readers on Common Dreams are not that type; myself, as well. We must remember there are these types of "heroes" in our complex world. (Some like Beowulf and some like Jesus) If you don't like the kind of hero that Iron Man is then stick with Spidey who doesn't kill and has a huge heart.
BTW, the leader of the opposition to the government's control of superheroes was CAPTAIN AMERICA. And it was he that told Spidey to not always follow what the government and the public (mob) tells you and to trust your own heart and stand firm.
http://captain-america.us/articles/civil-war.htm
I'll finish with a big "thank you" and "Excelsior!" to Stan Lee.
Hooboy, I almost wasn't going to post at all in this thread, but as a comics fan, I just hadda. I'm gonna be up half the night, choppy writing on my part be damned (fightin' a bug here, can't call off work, on my feet all day strainin' misself, bustin' my butt like the workin' man do), I had no idea what I got myself into...
"Personally, I fail to see how one derives an anti-war message from a film in which the hero wages a one-man war against the "evil bad Muslims." Nice how the film reinforces Bush's worldview of "Good Muslim, Bad Muslim," with the American superhero there to save the good ones."
Muslims weren't the main enemy. They were just terrorists, period. The larger enemy (Obadiah Stane) was a WASP who was arming them. The movie wasn't about the US vs. the Muslim world. It was about one man who was an accomplice in the military/industrial complex, realizes his grave wrongdoing, and decides to use his own technology against that machine. Iron Man's character came about in the midst of a global conflict, so they chose Afghanistan to keep up with the times. If the story had been set in WW2, the Arabs would have been Nazis.
Omninaut, I'm glad you brought that up. Yes in that storyline, he betrayed the superheroes with the best of intentions by supporting what was essentially The Patriot Act. That entire storyline was intended in part to reflect our times, and Mark Millar, the writer of that storyline, chose to cynically make Tony Stark a villian of sorts. There have been many different writers interpreting the character in their own way over the many years of his existence. Now five years from now, some other writer will come along and reveal that the Tony Stark in Civil War was a clone or something or that Civil War never actually happened. Mark Millar is known for turning characters on their heads like that.
Bottom line, Iron Man is a modern myth. He was not created to champion the ideas of imperialism and war anymore than Hercules or Siegfried was. Stan Lee intended Iron Man/Tony Stark to be a comic-book Howard Hughes. Vietnam was just used as a backdrop, and Lee himself even laments the character coming off as anti-communist. But in the ensuing years, the character evolved beyond that.
You might as well boycott all the Star Wars films too.
"I WARRIOR: As an Aquarian, your instincts are geared to detect truth from bullshit better than most, so you are NOT a "good" specimen for getting a reliable beat on how average audiences will view and TAKE IN the pro-militarism slant of this "fantasy" film. In other words, your perceptions can sift out things many viewers cannot, and they will passively find themselves reinforced for accepting the U.S. world-dominator (we're the good guys) subliminal view/subtext."
But how can that be when the movie clearly shows what horrors Starks technology has wrought and shows Stark redeeming that by deciding to no longer manufacture weapons and go after another war-profiteer? That was a pretty glaring plot point to me. It's not something I can see going over anyone's head. That stuck with me more than anything in the film.
Jude111-What should have been the ideal portrayal of the Air Force then? Regardless of their involvement, the Air Force would have been portrayed in a benign light. The movie wasn't about the Air Force or our armed forces. Should all of them be portrayed as a bunch of cretins? I may be against war, but at the same time, I don't have a problem with filmmakers portraying armed forces in an honorable light. In fact, I really didn't even think about it. They were just there. Just like in the Hulk comic books (depending on which era of the character), the soldiers are just there to get trounced by the Hulk. They're treated no differently than cops are in action movies. They show up at the end or in the middle or whatever. The movie isn't about them. They're a device if you will. Was Cloverfield designed as a recruiting tool? If anything, now that I think about it, the film made the military look pretty inept, as is the case with much escapist fare. Rock stars? Hardly.
And yes, I like escapist fare. I like tales of good triumphing over evil. I won't lie. I always have. It's inspiring to me. I know that evil walks the earth. I see it everyday. Stories like these let me know that there is hope that oppressors and tyrants (*Dubbya*) can be overcome. I'm not talking about Muslims either. If we're going to trash Iron Man, we might as well throw every other piece of horror, sci-fi, fantasy, action/adventure, mythology into the fire as well. I've said before that I believe heroes represent our hopes and dreams, and villians our fears and nightmares. Heroes can be us. Villians can be other individual that cause us harm in some way or they can represent things, obstacles that hold us back.
The Civil Rights movement was a battle between good and evil.
The Anti-war movement is about good (peace) vs. evil (war).
Every movement the Left is a part of is in essence (at least it's how I see it) good vs. evil.
War is evil.
Poverty is evil.
Oppression is evil.
Hunger is evil.
Pollution is evil.
Capitalism is evil.
Rosewelsh-I agree with your comments for the most part. I guess if certain people want to see it as a propaganda piece, they'll see it, especially in this day and age. The propaganda, if it was there, was lost on me.
Actually, and this is just my humble opinion, anybody who watches the movie and wants to go enlist and shoot at Muslims, is beyond help. If your kids come away with that, then you need to have a little talk with them. And I didn't see any little kids walking around playing soldier afterwards. This wasn't a recruitment tool. It was heroic fantasy with a good bit of political commentary thrown in.
I mean, if you allow a movie like this to change your life that much...
"I liked this movie in the 80's when it was called Robocop. Except then it was about crime, not terror."
Oh, Iron Man makes Robocop look like Plan 9 From Outer Space. lol. But even in the Robocop movies, the ideas of powerful people using technology for ill was addressed.
Jude111 sez
"Which, actually, is what people do. So, if some people see in "Iron Man" an anti-war film, they are basically re-writing the film, or perceiving it in a certain way that is much different than the architects in Power intended. Good on yah."
Maybe that's what I did? Hmmm. Interesting. Maybe Siouxrose was right about me.
Plus again, I'm a comic book nut too, as is Tony Norman, and Saab Lofton (who posts here sometimes, I should pick his brain about IM if he saw it). So perhaps I am biased.
"Here would have been a nice action movie: Downey Jr. is falsely accused, and tortured by the American military in Afghanistan. You know, they water-board him, strip him naked and forming a human pyramid with other naked prisoners, hooded and beaten, etc. He secretly builds his suit in this American gulag. He breaks out of his torture cell. "Iron Man" decides that the war in Iraq is wrong, and so he flies to Iraq, joins the Iraqi resistance, and uses his weapons to defeat the American military; he flies to Guantanamo Bay, engages in a fight with the American military, defeats them, blows holes in the prison complex, and frees the prisoners. Then he flies to the White House, engages in a shoot out with the military and secret service, and arrests Bush, Cheney et al, and flies them to Europe to stay trial for war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Now, that's action! And that takes a definite stance, eh?"
That would have been pretty cool actually. I wouldn't have had a problem with that at all. Lord knows that I'm not fan of the powers-that-be.
If Iron Man was about some all-American good guy beating up on guys with turbans with some Saddam Hussien character as the master boss, then yes I would have been disappointed and even repulsed. I doubt it would have even garnered the good reception it has if that's how the film turned out. People might not have even wanted to see it given how weary the general public appears to be regarding the Iraq War.
You know, way back in the 70's there was a long story arc in the Captain America comics that featured a group called The Secret Empire as the main enemy. This was during Watergate. The head of the organization (known as 'Number One') was revealed to be Nixon at the storyline's end.
Marvel comics has always has a history of that anarchic sort of thing, which is why I've always been a fan of the Marvel heroes. Sub-Mariner was symbolic of indigenous peoples. The X-Men are symbolic of people who are persecuted for their differences. The Hulk represents "outsiders" hence the military constantly hounding him and trying to capture this "monster." I could go on and on. Maybe my lifelong love for the Marvel Universe, and its rich, complex characters and history is making my BS goggles cloudy? Even Captain America, hell, you should read the current comic. The Red Skull is trying to destroy America via a manufactured mortgage crisis. People who don't read comics would be shocked at how the many thoughtful writers who have worked on the character have gone out of their way NOT to make Captain America jingoistic. He was created by 2 young jewish guys too.
"How, by personally killing people? His reversal results in him personally killing how many people? His decision to become a "pacifist" results in him becoming Rambo. Interesting. The movie certainly makes a strong case for "liberal interventionism" (which, by the way, gave us the destruction of Yugoslavia and Iraq, among others)."
Well that would be a major difference between Iron Man the film and Iron Man the comic. The classic Marvel heroes and DC's for that matter do not kill. It's been sort of an unwritten code for many years, although there are exceptions. I haven't read every Iron Man story, but in the ones I have read, he didn't kill anybody. The filmmakers probably had him kill as opposed to simply giving them a thrashing (which is what would have happened in the comics) since they felt it would be more realistic. You do make a good point there. Looking back, I wouldn't have had IM go all Rambo like that. He could have used his repulsor rays to stun.
In the film he kills to escape from his captors and to save innocents from terrorists using his technology. He's not razing entire nations to the ground. Again, if the interventionist/America rah-rah-rah message was there, it was lost on me. He was just trying to make right what he made wrong.
Oh well, I didn't get to all the comments. We can agree to disagree. I guess after thinking about it, if you want to see a pro-war movie it's there. Maybe I just wanted to see an anti-war movie, so that's what I saw. Maybe that was the real intent of the makers of Iron Man? To take away from it what we wanted to see?
iwarrior: I have to admit, I'm not a comics reader. You seem extremely knowledgeable about it; you could carve out your own niche in cultural studies :-)
omninaut: The information you posted is very useful and interesting to me; thank you :-)
iwarrior: Your point about author intentionality is well taken. I knew I made that blunder right after I hit "send" on one my messages.
Wow, at least some discussion about "Apple Pie" - some break-out examination of the issues presented in a movie that so clearly set out to present the issues.
The Pentawood Box Office is certainly a part of the manufacturing of American Mythology, and the messages for and against war are certainly presented in a pretty clear display of betrayal; Stark vs. Obadiah.
But overall, it's still about war. Still about worship of technology over humanity. However, given the Pentawood partnerhsip, I am surprised that as much antiwar/anticorp got into this movie ("Inner Cynic, shuddup!"). But, any relationship between art and the war machine where the war machine has sway over freedom of expression has got to stop. That's an unholy and immoral relationship. Glad to see the article got it right about the Pentawood relationship (See Operation Hollywood on FreeDocumentaries.org).
Also, given that iron man technology is coming to a battlefield near you this century, I can't help but think that this movie prepares people for the hi-tech soldier, who then morphs into Terminator in your neighborhood.
Downey is still a brilliant actor. And ultimately the role is moral if misguided. Paltrow gorgeous and moral. Bridges awesome in the role of Obadiah. The Iron Man suit and technology portrayed...amazing. The movie, overall, entertaining. But I did not expect it to engage intelligent people in a debate about the mythology and relationships presented in this article and the movie, and I'm frankly pleased it has...cos Apple Pie will you. :-)
Thanks everyone. Jude111 and presence (wow!), everyone.
For those progressives who aren't familiar with comics, I highly recommend getting A People's History of American Empire...
http://www.amazon.com/Peoples-History-American-Empire/dp/0805087443
I stole IRON MAN offline in a camera copy shot by some kid in a crowded theatre in Hong Kong (I think) - then I watched it on my ipod in a hammock in the rainforest the next night. During the show Asian patrons whistled and coughed and chewed popcorn and crossed in front of the camera. The movie was lost a bit in the crowd reactions. PURE CINEMA! and perhaps the best way to watch a blockbuster. I felt like an anthropologist in a blind. People mostly liked it when the bad robot got knocked down.
Maplefudge: Haha, my copy was the same; bought mine on the street here in China and watched it on my computer.
Presence wrote: "One's own nature of consciousness ( i.e. perceptual framework ) is aptly capturing entirely distinct, disparate, and contrasting ideas. The canvas of ideas overlaid, as IF painted by disparate artists, is in fact imagined UNIQUELY by each one of us."
Well, don't know if I agree wholeheartedly. Sure, we will each have somewhat differing perceptions/interpretations within a narrow framework, but since our consciousness is produced socially and we are all of the same time, our interpretations will be be somewhat consistent.
If interpretations do diverge, we shouldn't be surprised, since works of art contain layers of meaning and embedded ideologies; nor should we be surprised by the contradictions in a text/film, since in many ways they are bound up with the contradictions and tensions within our particular mode of production and social life. Language itself is all tension and contradiction... haha, this is fun :-)