The Changing fortunes of Iron Man

"Does Whatever an Iron Can"

If you were very quick you might have seen the illicitly shot footage of the Iron Man trailer that was recently screened in San Diego.  I say quick as it has now been removed from Youtube on the grounds that it infringes copyright.  A trailer infringing copyright... riiiiiight.  After a bit of a hunt, the closest I could find was this behind the scenes thing lifted from MTV which should give you some idea of what I'm talking about.

One thing that struck me about Iron Man as I was watching the trailer is how out of date Iron Man seems as a character in a world where identity politics have come to define comic book heroes.  Can Iron Man be re-invented and why do we feel the need to re-invent Super Heroes?

Iron Man is the quintessential modernist super hero.

Iron Man first appeared in 1963.  Based upon Howard Hughes, Tony Stark (Iron Man's alter ego) was a largely self-made multi-billionnaire who, after receiving shrapnel to the chest was forced to live out the rest of his life (or until he got a heart transplant in later years) with an electro-magnet strapped to him in order to prevent the shrapnel fragments from killing him.  Originally devised as an anti-communist hero, Iron Man stood partly for the might and freedom of the American capitalist but also for the idea that, through science, man can not only improve and better himself but also solve the problems of the world.  Iron Man stood for progress and man's scientific dominion over nature and his power to remake the world in accordance with his own desires.

I suspect I'm not alone in finding this Ayn Randian symbolism a little... well... creepy, and I believe in all of that science and capitalism stuff!

Indeed, Iron Man is reminiscent of Captain America in so far as both characters feel a bit like remnants from a by-gone age when people identified more closely with their government and everyone believed in scientific progress as a means of changing and saving the world.  To a certain extent, this is true of all comic book characters for, as Alan Moore demonstrated in Watchmen, there's something really quite sinister about people who dress up in order to meat out their own brand of two-fisted justice.  To a certain extent, the comic book film revival of recent years has been dependent upon film makers staying well clear of the quasi-fascistic imagery of most comic books, replacing it instead with a far more appealing to modern audiences.

The X-Men are the best examples of the modern take on comic books as the first two films draw explicit comparisons between the treatment of mutants by the US government and the treatment of Jews by the Nazis and the treatment of gays by their own families ("Have you tried... not... being a mutant?").  Indeed, the X-men are established as sympathetic characters because they can no more be normal humans than a black person can be white or a gay person can be straight.  Mutants aren't just people with vast and dangerous amounts of power at their disposal, they're a community with their own sense of identity.  The same can be said of the successfully relaunched Batman franchise that followed Frank Miller in depicting Batman as someone entirely consumed by their psychological trauma.  Indeed, the final scene of Batman Begins even makes the point that Batman and Bruce Wayne are one and the same person who does not stop being Batman when the rubber pervert suit comes off.  Even Spiderman is a victim, compelled by guilt over his uncle's death to use his powers for good.

Modern super hero films manage to work by tapping into popular sociological narratives about how we come to be who we are.  Two of the most popular narratives we use to describe ourselves are our membership in a community ("I'm a Muslim/African American/geek/Furry") and the pop-psychoanalysis of a compulsion rooted in childhood ("...and that's when I knew I was going to become a lawyer!").  What is intriguing in both of these cases is that these are narratives that are strongly favoured by less powerful social groups.  This choice of narrative is quite deliberate as it re-invents the Super Hero as someone who has decided to try and change the world into someone who cannot help but fight to save the world.  They are not sinister authoritarians using their greater power to enforce their will, they are victims and therefore likable.  Indeed, a particularly extreme attempt by comic film makers to tap into an acceptable psychological narrative was last summer's Superman Returns, which changed Superman from the defender of "Peace, Justice and the American way" into a Christ-like figure who returns and proves to be a moral touchstone for people who had once turned their back on him.

Comic writers are acutely aware of this sea change and try to keep characters updated so as to stay in tune with what the general public consider to be an acceptable character.  These shifts in public opinion frequently result in some characters dropping out of sight only for others to emerge.  However, there are also times when comic book writers seem acutely aware of a character struggling, this much is obvious from Marvel's recent Civil War event.

Following hundreds of deaths occurring as a result of a battle between two groups of superhumans, the American government decides to nationalise all super heroes, bringing them under the direct control of the government and in return allowing them to remain free and be properly trained so as to make the most of their gifts.  In the Civil War books, this produces a rift between the pro-government heroes and the anti-government heroes who fear the politicisation of their super hero activities.  Though the books attempt to paint the difference as a political one rather than a moral one (making disagreement a matter of opinion not character), it is clear that the writers come down on the side of the rebels, who are lead by Captain America.  Indeed, the Civil War books see Captain America redefined as the slumbering conscience of a deeper and more "true" America that has lost its way in a time of fear and moral panic.  Ever the socially conservative medium, this is about as radical as a mainstream comic gets, effectively suggesting that the American people effectively "lost it" following 9/11 and that they need to rediscover their core values of liberal democracy instead of attempting to enforce their will on the Middle East through force.

However, what is particularly interesting about Civil War is that Tony Stark is cast as the leader of the pro-government group.  In fact, he is compared not only to a Judas, willingly selling all of his former friends out, but also to a jack booted thug who uses his money, power and political influence to crush everyone opposed to his politics.  In other words, just as Hollywood is attempting to revitalise the Iron Man franchise and introduce it to a whole new generation, Marvel are admitting openly that there's something decidedly wrong about Iron Man's modernist credentials.

So I, for one, will be interested to see whether Favreau manages to overcome what Al Robertson calls "final failure of the humanist project" in a really great post about Leigh Brackett's Martian romances.  Will Iron Man be presented as a man who is attempting to atone for an evil past as an arms manufacturer?  or will he be someone consumed by the need for revenge?  I'm sure it would be too much to expect Iron Man to remain true to his roots and simply be the alter-ego of a great man who uses science to grant himself superhuman capabilities that he then puts to work fighting the good fight.

Comments

[James Boone Dryden]

As always, a well-thought-out post. I have always been a fan of Iron Man because of his rather archaic nature in light of modern society. He was - upon his creation - a brilliant character that had every aspect of a great super hero. And he was born in that era when science was still fascinating to everyone and people thought it really could save the world from things like WWII.

Now, though, he is out of tune with modernity. I don't know that he can truly be re-invented (nor do I think many super heroes ought to be), but I am eager to see what Hollywood has in the way of his portrayal.

Thanks for the interesting read, Jonathan.

[Jonathan McCalmont]

Thanks :-) I'm glad you enjoyed it.

I think Captain America (who was created in 1942) really does embody the idea that nationalism can save you, but Iron Man is more a product of post-WWII belief in progress and an America that hadn't yet lived through the Vietnam war.

Once Vietnam turned ugly, Iron Man quickly shed his anti-communist credentials and I don't think that he ever completely recovered.

[A.R.Yngve]

The earliest Iron Man issues are now available in black & white paperback reprints (the "Essential" series from Marvel, well worth checking out)... and in those, I found one episode where Iron Man goes to South East Asia and fights a communist thug called "The Commissar" or the like.

Iron Man beats The Commissar -- who turns out to be an android.

Will we ever see a Marvel superhero fighting Russians again...? ;-)

[Al]

Thank you, glad you liked the post! Hmm, the fetishisation of victimhood thing is fascinating - very evident in recent Spiderman movies too, with the constant thwarting of Peter Parker's desire to lead a normal human life by his Spidermanic powers / attendant responsibilities.

Definitely relates to something in certain kinds of US political discourse - there's a definite trend towards loudly claiming victim status from a position of overwhelming power.

[Jonathan McCalmont]

Hi Al,

You're right about people loudly claiming victim status from a position of overwhelming power. I noticed it about a year ago when I got into an online debate about the existence of God.

Five years ago that debate would have wound up being all about the Cosmological Argument and all that. Now it all came down to how bigoted and intolerant atheists are. It really is people taking their inspiration from identity politics.

[Al]

How so? In the sense that any dissent is rooted in (non-chosen and therefore unchangeable / irrational) identity rather than in a more-or-less logically arrived at, more-or-less malleable opinion? Hmm - it's the equation of opinion with identity, isn't it? - 'You threaten my opinion, therefore you threaten my identity'. Intriguing... Oh, and love the new subhead, btb!

[Jonathan McCalmont]

I think that the difference is that formerly the battleground was over what is true and what is rational. Religious people would defend the idea that belief in God was rational.

However, in recent years they've shifted the battleground to whether or not one is morally allowed to say that theism is irrational.

It's rhetoric rather than philosophy.