Politics and Entertainment

I haven't been paying much attention to the rabid fan reviews of Iron Man online. But I was more than a little shocked to see the film's opening weekend gross reach over $100 million in the U.S. alone. Really? Iron Man? I was one of those who went to see it on its opening weekend, in a packed theatre filled with college students and more than a few overweight comic book fans. Did I enjoy it? I'm not sure. I think so, since I didn't doze off once. I could certainly appreciate it - its CGI was beautifully rendered, its pace was snappy. But its politics sit uneasily with me.

I'm not sure if any critic took up this issue, but it's not really a case of 'it's just a popcorn movie so chill the fuck out.' Iron Man is an overtly political popcorn movie; whether it is social relevance or propaganda, it is clever positioning nevertheless since its release coincides with the heat leading to the presidential elections. From the first scene, which begins in American-occupied Afghanistan, it puts itself right out there in the realm of current events; before the title is shown, there is already a 'beheading video' scene. Leslie Bibb's journalist role and her insistent questions on arms sales to 'terrorist nations' is an unsubtle jibe to the Bush administration. It is not that we are looking too much into the movie, the movie is so politically aware that it's alarming how everyone chooses to ignore all these politics just to be 'entertained.'

Hollywood, emblem of the capitalist system, does little to question its political conscience: anything that makes money goes, regardless of its politics. And so we see how, as the tide changes, Hollywood changes its politics accordingly. I won't comment on its current political inclinations, but Iron Man presents an extremely right-wing agenda that is, while critical of the current administration, conservative in many ways. It never questions American imperialism, the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, implicitly assuming the stance that America is 'liberating' these countries from evil terrorists. Being American, it is natural for the film to protect its country's agendas (hence, like movies of old, it comes up with the simple equation: America = good, Foreign Other = bad), but these political problems are handled with such caricatures that it oversimplifies every issue. The terrorists are so vicious that they might as well be the grotesque xenomorphs in the Aliens series. Their ideology (thankfully Islam isn't mentioned here) is never stated; the simple fact that they are anti-America makes them threats that need to be exterminated.

Without the risk of being racist (at least the film portrays a 'good' Middle-Eastern in the beginning - ethnicities are fudged here, but let's give it the benefit of doubt), the film nevertheless gives us a village of innocent Afghans that need to be 'liberated' from evil terrorists, painting an altogether one-sided picture that is frankly no different from war propaganda movies. It is this extent of propaganda that makes me uneasy. If, even, the villain eventually shifts from the terrorists to an evil war profiteer in the end (ironically making capitalism the ultimate evil), it only goes to placate the bourgeois mentality of being just a little anti-establishment - the establishment here being the Evil Corporations that everyone hates (no matter that the movie itself was financed by several Evil Corporations).

The film definitely cannot be understood as anti-capitalist: the hero, Tony Stark, once was an amoral war profiteer, and is a huge capitalist himself. The filmmakers give him the best position to be in: although it must be said that he undergoes a 'character change' after his ordeal in Afghanistan, he nevertheless remains filthy rich. He can thus enjoy the best of both worlds, enjoying his wealth and luxury without a guilty conscience, because he is now a good guy fighting off evil for the sake of the world. It is in such scenarios that the film takes on Hollywood clichés by building an attractive reality that attempts to supercede the real world. How convenient it is that the superhero should live in a technologically sleek mansion with advanced gadgets (awesome!) and sleek cars (cool!), Hollywood's fantasy life exaggerated and updated for the digital age. It eliminates struggle of any sort, making girls want to be with him and boys want to be him. Exactly how can a film this shallow attempt to portray politics?

And speaking of gender stereotypes, this film puts Hollywood back 50 years in this respect, what with Gwyneth Paltrow's hapless but ever-supportive damsel and the air stewardesses that turn into strippers (though, I must admit, it was a ridiculously funny gag). Even the female soldier at the beginning is a deep-voiced butch. It is insufficient to say that the film appeals to teenage male comic book audience that fantasizes about being as rich and powerful (and also as noble) as Iron Man; treating this audience as stupid says much more on the part of the filmmakers than the audience - and it is alarming how people could swallow this wholesale.

Is Iron Man a bad movie? Certainly not, it is a lot better than many of the recent blockbusters by virtue of the fact that it actually is entertaining. But where does entertainment end and politics begin?