criterionforum.org

spoilers, I suppose...

Great posts the dancing kid and Jeff. I thought this film was a lot of fun particularly Robert Downey Jr.'s mugging in a creepily cynical way, the US army being displayed as dangerous, immature, and kind of a big joke and who can forget a bald Jeff Bridges playing the heavy with a salt n'pepper beard, riding a segue down the street with a cigar in his mouth?

The strippers in the private jet scene was just so over-the-top I have a hard time imagining anyone would take it seriously (I laughed, a lot, and from the gut). His redemption from the hollowness of the playboy lifestyle is, y'know, the major character arch of the film, after all.

The effects were surprisingly good. Someone finally figured out how to make CG machinery look like it could actually exist instead of just being a glossy cartoon fake. As for the politics, having someone dedicated their life to renewable energy, nearly destroy their company over an ethical issue, and slam the MIC goes far enough for me (I have a low bar for Summer Blockbuster Superhero Movie Social Subtexts right now.)

The stripper scene was the best part of the movie, and got the biggest laugh. Who invited Gloria Steinem to post here about Iron Man?

filmnoir1 wrote:why this film and why at this moment in history.

Because superhero films are continually making huge money and in an effort to keep new product on the market the producers are starting to cycle through second-tier characters (in terms of popularity & fan base) for their subjects. If there is anything political in Iron Man, it serves only as a means to give Tony Stark the necessary arc and character reversals for a standard three-act screenplay. Trying to read anything more into it will lead to delusions of interpretation.

This is not to say that the film can't be analyzed in terms of the context in which it is released, but your comments read as if you're suggesting that it's trying to proscribe some sort of neoconservative ideal -- and moreover that you think the film ought to have proscribed some sort of alternative ideal, like socialist realism (albeit without the government enforcement). There's nothing wrong with a film that wants to do that, mind you -- I just think it's misguided to criticize a film like Iron Man on those grounds. You can't expect a film that cost upwards of $100 million to include any serious critique of corporate business practices. Again, I'm not saying this is the way things ought to be, I'm just saying that I think it would be more constructive to stick to talking about what social issues the film reflects rather than what issues it's trying to sell, because the only thing it's trying to sell is itself (and a sequel or two).

Also:

filmnoir1 wrote:I think it must be asked how Marvel a once leftist thinking company and comics provider has succumb to a neo-conservative outlook on the world.

This is kind of silly, especially in the context of Iron Man, who in the original comics was a military industrialist fighting Communist supervillains (after originally being captured by Vietnamese insurgents). And then there are things like:


At least this one is Asgardian exceptionalism:


Politically, I don't really disagree with anything you've said. I just think you might be misdirecting your ire a bit. Our media does sell ideas of American exceptionalism, but if our actions weren't inflaming hatred abroad I don't think anyone would pay attention, and those actions are what we should really be focused on. For example, though it boggles my mind and sickens my stomach to make note of this, 300 was a huge hit in the foreign market, too...just like Iron Man, which nearly matched its domestic sales ($100 million here vs. $98 million overseas) and also opened #1 in France, Germany, Switzerland, Bolivia, Venezuela, Turkey, UAE, and other countries. I don't think all those people went to the theatres to learn about how great the American military industrial complex is, bask in our will being imposed upon them and other nations, or to figure out what the Bush administration is planning to do with Iran. They went for the same reason Americans went: superheroes are fun. And that's the only expectation the makers of this film were trying to fulfill.

I'm in the middle of this - propaganda is not so blunt as to be so obviously message driven, at least not in this more media-savvy age. But films are about ideas and values, even entertainment pieces, and the fact that their values are obscured under people saying "it can't have a message, it's just a turn your brain off Friday night blockbuster" is one of the reasons why 'entertainment' needs more extensive critiquing than more overtly political films or films with more obvious social points to make. (Remember even The Hottie And The Nottie has messages and values to impart about how we shouldn't judge people by the way they look, but also that plastic surgery can always be an option if you are terminally ugly, as long as it is your choice! )

300 drew people for the special effects and the chance to see oiled up half-naked grunting and shouting men (or at least it did in my case )! It doesn't mean everyone who bought a ticket was casting a vote in favour of the film's politics (that would be akin to saying that everyone who bought a copy of Triumph of the Will was a Nazi or anyone with a copy of Birth of a Nation was a racist. It is not as simple as that, not to mention the experience of watching a film is when you decide whether you like it or not both on the 'being entertained' level as well as the aesthetic and even political level - you often don't know if you'll like a film or not until you actually see it, even with all the advertising and hype surrounding films now, and nor should you if you want to try and be as open and unpredjudiced towards a film as possible), but at the same time it doesn't mean that the film's perceived political stance should be ignored, along with what it tells us about the cultural (and wider) times, even if it what is noticed was not a particularly intended stance by the filmmakers (once they finish a film it goes off for the audience to do with what they will, project onto, analyse if they wish, and sometimes see only what they want to see in it).

Rather than attacking 300 again though, I'll use an example of a film I like a lot as entertainment - Pretty Woman. I love the film and think it is a cute fairy tale with an uplifting finale all perfectly performed. At the same time it is a film legitimising prostitution, portraying a sympathetic rich man who 'accidentally' picks up a prostitute when asking for directions who then whisks her out of her normally dire predicament (while at the same time showing the prostitute's friend as someone apparently comfortable with her career choice and Jason Alexander playing to type as the slimy rich figure we are allowed to hate!) It doesn't mean the film doesn't work wonderfully on the 'pure entertainment' level, but if you think about the messages being put across everything becomes a bit suspect - what about all the prostitutes that aren't fortunate enough to cross paths with, and be saved by, Richard Gere (embodying the myth of the john who'll you'll run across by chance and who will keep you off the streets and in a life of style and comfort from then on)?

There was an interesting debate about the Iron Man film on last week's Newsnight Review and I'd be interested to see what the forum made of it - the panelists talked about the way the 'message' of the film seemed to be the difference between the comfortable capitalist (Jeff Bridges in a "if you've got the money, I'll make it and sell it to you" role) and the capitalist awakening to a crisis of conscience represented by Downey Jr. The reviewers talked of feeling that the film was trying to have its cake and eat it, presenting a critique of the arms industry but eventually settling for the idea that apart from a few 'bad apples' selling to unscrupulous terrorists, arms manufacturing is actually OK and leads to many scientific breakthroughs in trying to keep at the cutting edge of weaponary - and that as long as we the 'responsible' free world have these weapons under lock and key with the right to decide who gets them and who does not everything will be fine.

Hopefully this just a set up and these ideas might get challenged or at least debated thoroughly in a dramatically entertaining manner in future episodes if the film becomes a franchise.

The sequel will apparently have Iron Man teaming up with Nick Fury in battling a terrorist.

Antoine Doinel wrote:The sequel will apparently have Iron Man teaming up with Nick Fury in battling a terrorist.

Is there an Avengers film that I'm not aware of?

dx23 wrote:Is there an Avengers film that I'm not aware of?

Marvel confirmed that there's Captain America: The First Avenger and The Avengers. Or titles along those lines.

Hmm... if the talk of political ideas is messy now, just wait until Iron Man faces off with The Mandarin.

Cold Bishop wrote:Hmm... if the talk of political ideas is messy now, just wait until Iron Man faces off with The Mandarin.

Please get Christopher Lee in to play this part! [-o<

colinr0380 wrote:There was an interesting debate about the Iron Man film on last week's Newsnight Review and I'd be interested to see what the forum made of it - the panelists talked about the way the 'message' of the film seemed to be the difference between the comfortable capitalist (Jeff Bridges in a "if you've got the money, I'll make it and sell it to you" role) and the capitalist awakening to a crisis of conscience represented by Downey Jr. The reviewers talked of feeling that the film was trying to have its cake and eat it, presenting a critique of the arms industry but eventually settling for the idea that apart from a few 'bad apples' selling to unscrupulous terrorists, arms manufacturing is actually OK and leads to many scientific breakthroughs in trying to keep at the cutting edge of weaponary - and that as long as we the 'responsible' free world have these weapons under lock and key with the right to decide who gets them and who does not everything will be fine.

I thought about this during the film, and it kind of tugs at what feels "off" in this day and age about superheroes, which is that they're basically vigilantes, and vigilante justice in the real world makes some of the most disturbing news possible. Tony Stark is just as much of a vigilante as the kid in Iron Eagle when it comes down to it (now that's a politically cringe-worthy flick). So how do you square vigilantism with being an industrialist? I guess by being a sort of Green CEO... better not to worry about it, and the movie laughs at itself about this kind of thing almost all the way through.

To further the discussion I would like to add a quote from Slavoj Zizek's new book In Defense of Lost Causes. He states that "the ultimate injunction that regulates our lives in "postmodernity" is "Enjoy!"- realize your potential, enjoy all manner of ways from intense sexual pleasures through social success to spiritual fulfillment" (30). I believe this quote encapsulates all of Iron Man's positive and negative qualities. However, I believe that the film in hind sight will be discussed for generating more negative interpretations, rather than positive ones.

Zizek has consistently pointed out that what is wrong with the world today is a naive belief that enjoyment does not possess a political factor. As one poster has noted that we love comic book heroes because they are fun. But what makes them fun and at what expense? Since 9/11 the US has been struggling to craft the ultimate hero to heal the pains from that morning throughout a number of discourses.

This film is simply playing into this paradigm and it is a dangerous one that not only will impact children but also the whole world. To simply say enjoy this film: its message of hedonism, American exceptionalism, and might is really dangerous in a time when the world tetters on the brink of collapse.

filmnoir1 wrote: This film is simply playing into this paradigm and it is a dangerous one that not only will impact children but also the whole world. To simply say enjoy this film: its message of hedonism, American exceptionalism, and might is really dangerous in a time when the world tetters on the brink of collapse.

Is it really dangerous? Really? While I recognize that Iron Man is freighted with troubling ideological elements (many of which have been pointed out in this thread), in the end, I'm really not convinced that it makes a whole lot of difference. Are U.S. citizens more likely to support the "obliteration" of Iran (as Hill would have it) because they watched Iron Man?

Not to pick on anyone here, but this is the kind of criticism that shows me just how intellectually bankrupt the Left has become. Zizek might be the worst offender of all. Sure, he's smart and he's entertaining, but this a guy who wrote a book on Lenin in which the most revolutionary proposal presented consisted of him telling us that protesters, when confronted by the authorities, should start beating each other up. This is the kind of idiotic drivel that makes me long for a true return to Lenin.

The Left these days spends far too much time critiquing the culture industry and not nearly enough taking direct action. I guess most of the blame should be put at the feet of Adorno and Horkheimer. Our best and brightest have taken up residence with the former at "the Grand Hotel Abyss" instead of militating for change in the streets.

Cool movie. Decent directing and well cast actors in the right characters. The lack of overblown action scenes, and the constant sense of humour of the movie create an effective if unmemorable entertainment. Favreau lacks a singular vision or style, but he's good at directing actores, and takes his time to tell the story of the superhero origins. Well managed narrative rythm, and decent sense of space in the action coreography. But it's Downey Jr that makes it all work and worth a look.

Not too shabby, although Downey had a lot to do with that. I suppose it's pretty forgettable, but it's a competent popcorn superhero movie. Certainly way better than recent efforts, Batman Begins excepted.

In my opinion, the movie was great for a number of reasons. The decision to change the setting from the east coast, where 99% of comic book movies takes place, was brilliant especially when you consider the career of the main character. It seems fitting that Stark would be located on the west coast, near vast deserts, where he would be testing his planes, bombs, etc.

Secondly, it was great to see such an extrovert/rock star personality as a superhero. I absolutely love the Nolan/Batman/Bale approach, but it's nice to see a film at the opposite end of the spectrum work without becoming the Fantastic Four.

Slothrop wrote:

filmnoir1 wrote:This film is simply playing into this paradigm and it is a dangerous one that not only will impact children but also the whole world. To simply say enjoy this film: its message of hedonism, American exceptionalism, and might is really dangerous in a time when the world tetters on the brink of collapse.

Is it really dangerous? Really? While I recognize that Iron Man is freighted with troubling ideological elements (many of which have been pointed out in this thread), in the end, I'm really not convinced that it makes a whole lot of difference. Are U.S. citizens more likely to support the "obliteration" of Iran (as Hill would have it) because they watched Iron Man?

Black and white thinking, man. It's unfortunate that in our culture problems have to virtually be given laser guides as regards to their 'causes'. It would take a wide, wide net to reign in everything that contributes to this form of mainstream ignorance in America, and I think those who criticize this film for failing in the most significant way, for back-firing as subversive entertainment, believe that it is just one drop in the swamp. While I agree with you that many "leftists", whatever that means these days, are thinking up ideas on a different planet-- culture is something that needs to be under extreme scrutiny, it is what directs currents. Though I have not seen Iron Man, what's been described so far, the range of opinions, gives me some idea. While it may not be what causes us to go to war with Iran, it would be difficult to deny that it could not be a small fragment of that mindset, a shard, and just one shard from the grenade that irresponsible and negligent media/entertainment has thrown at us. How do you take direct action against that?

Yeah...and let's get those darn violent videogames off the shelf too.

Look, cultural criticism can be a very important tool in the arsenal, but it can also go to ridiculously petty extremes. Too many on the Left (and I think you know that term means in a modern context, though it fashionable, I understand, to feign incomprehension here or claim that these types of terms no longer mean anything, which is utter nonsense) are content to think that they're being "radical" sitting at home, remote control in hand, deconstructing the ideological foundations of the latest episode of "Lost". That kind of thing is amusing but tactically weak, I think. No one finds these academic ideological critiques more amusing than Rupert M. and the boys. They're more than willing to give us the pages of "Social Text" and keep the legislature, the bureaucracy, the judiciary and the military for themselves.

Slothrop wrote:Look, cultural criticism can be a very important tool in the arsenal, but it can also go to ridiculously petty extremes. Too many on the Left (and I think you know that term means in a modern context, though it fashionable, I understand, to feign incomprehension here or claim that these types of terms no longer mean anything, which is utter nonsense)...

I'm not feigning anything, these notions of labeling are constantly baffling-- I suppose that if you have any forethought at all, aren't hypocritical in your concern for others, and are capable of living at all without extreme excess, then you are somewhere on the left. Ok, if that is how the system works. How about reasonable versus solipsistic, self-affirming versus self-denial, etc.-- I realize that in today's post-modernism anyone can justify their faults on a certain "ideological" basis, but as you can see I think it's complete bullshit. Thanks to being knee-deep in this malarkey we have something known as the "green" stance-- which is another completely hindering label for exerting the slightest, modicum of effort toward maintaining livable conditions past our life times. People will always do as other people do, and when the message of the decade is spend money until depression sets in, take medication for it and repeat, then life on earth is not far from reflecting the current mortgage crises, except instead of houses it will be the very basics of sustainability. Yes I know what you mean in, as you put it, a modern context, but the only thing that is utter nonsense is exactly that.

I don't know what to say about the rest of your statement, obviously most Americans think they are substantiated critics of culture-- but it reveals your bias if you can't filter out the couch philosophers from the Neil Postmans.

Finally saw this tonight and thought it was very good, if a little on the long side. Downey owns the film and is the reason it's as engaging as it is. It speaks to his talent that he carries a good chunk of the screen time, particularly in his studio, by himself and with such ease. I'm still puzzled by all the worries of a neoconservative message, when the film spends most of its time chastising American weapons makers for not making sure their weapons aren't used against their own people or end up in the hands of the enemy. Moreover, the military themselves don't come off as the brightest bulbs in the bunch. A solid superhero flick and I really couldn't ask for anything more.

Jon Favreau is concerned about the announced April 2010 release date as neither he nor Robert Downey Jr. have actually signed anything yet, nor have writers been hired or even a script written.

Oh yeah, and filming is scheduled to start in March.

Favreau's signed on for the sequel, and Justin Theroux is writing the screenplay. =D>

Here's a deleted scene with cameos by Stan Lee and Ghostface Killah.

Do you want to be in Iron Man 2? Here's your chance.

Next up, Ellen Page replaces Gwyneth Paltrow...

Iron Man 2 and The Avengers get release dates, Downey and Cheadle are confirmed for both films.