Sunday, May 5, 2019

Given that The Avengers is about American Militarism, what is the finale trying to say?

Whether it's to say that superhero movies of the 21st century have tended to support American adventurism and imperialism or to suggest that some of the 22 Marvel movies since 2008's Iron Man have subtly questioned American militarism even while supporting an essential conservatism, a lot of critics of the series have noted the rather obvious links between the Avengers as a team of superheroes and American military power. I tend to think Nick Schaeger got it right four years ago when he showed how deftly the franchise managed to use tension between right-leaning and left-leaning superheroes in order to get both liberals and conservatives to pay for movie tickets. Both sides of the political spectrum could see themselves in the films, so both supported it.

The films do fall into a basic conservatism, but only if you're willing to think of conservative and liberal in terms broader than Republican Party and Democratic Party. In the 21st century, White Houses of both parties have supported wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Both launched drone strikes in countries we weren't at war with. The parties differ in the ends American power should serve, but neither really questions the underlying validity of that power. Both Republicans and Democrats are essentially opposed to radical ideas, and in that sense, both conservative.

And that's essentially where we still are at the end of Avengers: End Game. I wondered, after seeing Infinity War a year ago, where the moral center of the Avengers universe lay. Thanos may have been delusional, but at least his philosophy was internally consistent and coherent. Where was the statement of the good guys' moral center to counter it? Throughout the entire series, the only radicalism, the only suggestions of alternatives to continuing on in the same manner doing the same things, comes from the bad guys. And the good guys don't really waste much time formulating philosophical retorts. The response to "this is all bad and must be destroyed so a better way of doing things can emerge" is always just "you're insane." There is so explanation of why the villain is insane, because that's axiomatic and self-evident. There's a reason the finale chose time travel as a key plot point: in time travel, it's best not to think about it too much. And that's how to deal with the whole series, especially when it comes to questions about WHY we should root for the Avengers.

This refusal to face philosophical threats head-on is a characteristic of comedy. There are many heavy moments in the series, especially in the last two Avengers movies, but at its heart, the series is a comedy. Comedies don't question the underlying rightness of survival, because they are about survival. The Avengers is about the survival of humanity, but by not really saying why humanity should survive, it becomes a paean to the status quo for its own sake

My son is currently the sort of teenager who hates everything. Even he walked away from Endgame saying "most of the jokes landed."


Avengers is sort of like cable news: it will offer equal time to the left and the right, but if you see anyone really radical on there, they're only there to look foolish and be the straw man for everyone else. Iron Man and Captain America can bicker about personal freedom versus public good. They can argue whether the Avengers should act on their own initiative or under the control of a quorum of well-intentioned bureaucrats. But neither is going to argue the Avengers should cease to exist, or that their role is to overthrow the bureaucrats and give people the same level of autonomy the Avengers enjoy for themselves.

It ends a little bit to the right


Although Avengers tried to keep a balance between right and left in order to maintain its profitability, it ended just a bit to the right. How? Well, the entire 22-movie arc is a little bit like the United States itself: it has a Civil War round about the middle of its existence, and that changed everything. Prior to Civil War, Iron-Man was more or less a fuck-you-I-do-what-I-want kind of guy. But after Age of Ultron, he realized that he really needs boundaries, so he was happy to accept a UN proposal to put the power of the Avengers under the authority of a world government. In a twist, law-and-order nerd Captain America was the holdout. (One writer even pointed out this was a twist because Iron Man is the "red" or Republican guy, while Captain America is the "blue" or Democratic guy, but they flipped their roles in the movie relative to how the current reds and blues feel about the UN.)

In a sense, Captain America represents individual-rights-over-state-control Jeffersonian America, while Iron Man is the Hamiltonian who is willing to accept centralization and control for the greater good. Since America has more or less adopted Hamiltonian views, it's appropriate for the anachronistic Captain America to be the one holding on to the old way of thinking. For most of the rest of the series after Civil War, the two powers are more or less equally balanced.

But that's not how it ends. Iron Man is the selfless one. Although he's managed to escape Thanos's mass extermination with his family and good life intact, he's willing to risk it to give others back what they lost. It's really this willingness to risk his own family for others more than his ultimate death stopping Thanos that is the meaningful sacrifice. His willingness to put his own happiness aside for others ultimately gives him a moral authority that Captain America had always held until that point.

Meanwhile, Captain America ends the film in a strangely selfish way. He ditches his superhero responsibilities in order to "get a life" and go have that dance with the girl he loves--the same dance he turned down way back at the beginning of the Avengers' life cycle in order to save others.

This turn gives Iron Man the moral highground by the end. It's significant that after Iron Man makes Captain America promise he won't die when they go back in time to reset the clock, Iron Man never gets to say dying words to Captain America commenting on how it turned out. Captain America isn't that important. The dying words go to Iron Man's family--reaffirming traditional family values.

Ultimately, although Tony Stark's reckless individualism fueled by the extremes of capitalism once put humanity in peril, it was Stark who saved us. Capitalism's winners can save us all if they're just good enough. Iron Man has returned to the right side of the political spectrum, and that return coincides with his redemption.

The Marvel franchise cleverly resisted being pinned down politically over its arc since 2008, and that has fueled its success. The point wasn't to have a point, it was to thrive, and they succeeded wildly at it. Marvel used the apparent back-and-forthness of the series to hide the fact that it was avoiding a deeper back-and-forth that might have happened. You can question how the machine operates, but never the essential inevitability of  the machine itself.

2 comments:

  1. I've wanted to say this for years now, and this is the only place I dare: I'm so old, when anyone says "The Avengers movie" I wonder who they got to play Mrs. Peel.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I had to look up who that was. Sounds like a more interesting femme fatale superheroine than Black Widow was.

      Delete

Feel free to leave a comment. I like to know people are reading and thinking.