My Problem With “Iron Man 3”

Image

  First off in the interest of full disclosure there will be spoilers so if you haven’t seen “Iron Man 3” I would suggest that you stop reading here. 

If you have seen it then keep on reading but be aware as a hardcore DC fangirl I have a few bones to pick with this movie. 

I really felt like “Iron Man 3” pulled quite a bit from “The Dark Knight Rises” from complex plot points like breaking the hero down and building him back up to simple things like the villain sounding strange (I’m sorry, I loved Bane but his voice was just a little distracting as was the Mandarin’s voice) to Tony Stark telling JARVIS to initiate “Clean Slate Protocol” to destroy all of the Iron Man suits. I mean really?! Clean Slate?! Could they not have come up with anything else? For any of you who haven’t seen “The Dark Knight Rises”, and really if you haven’t seen it get it together, the Clean Slate was the software that Selena Kyle was fighting so hard to get. 

Watching Tony Stark’s Malibu home collapse into the Pacific Ocean taking Tony Stark (in the Iron Man suit) down with it only to blast him out of the water and crash-land him in the hills of Tennessee, where JARVIS crashed and the suit promptly died was the Marvel equivalent of Bane breaking Batman’s back and sending him to the Lazarus Pit (because let’s face it that’s what Nolan was trying to represent), however as a current resident of the state of Tennessee I’m regretting that comparison. 

Image

 I will say that “Iron Man 3” was an epic movie and for those hardcore Marvel fanboys and fangirls out there I know it delivered. I mainly know this because the boyfriend came out of the theater more excited then I have ever seen him after a superhero movie. He loved it but I really just came out of the theater thinking about how good Robert Downey Jr. looked when he was dancing at the beginning of the movie, and I don’t think that was the director’s intention. 

Advertisements

Holding Out For a Hero

What is Batman for?

The whole idea is crazy, it always has been. A man dresses up like a bat to scare criminals. Not something that can truly chill the blood — a snake, say, or even a spider — but a bat, the sight of which causes most of us to sigh and reach for a tennis racket to shoo the little guy out the nearest window.

It’s an idea a kid would come up with, which is one reason it’s such an easy target for comedy these days: Pow. Zap. “Holy rusted metal Batman!” (ask Joel Schumacher if you’re unfamiliar with that reference)

After all, a costumed billionaire’s War on Crime is the kind of notion that loses its primal power as soon as it leaves the comic book pages, which is when the mind proceeds to boggle at the real-world logistics it would entail. Christopher Nolan’s films work very hard to create a world of plausible-seeming technology to keep our disbelief suspended, or at least loosely tethered, for those two-plus hours. Even so.

And then there’s the violence. In his every iteration, Batman fights crime by fist-fighting it never with guns and never to kill but still brutal nonetheless.

Pow. Zap.

Gotham City is a grim, brutal place with a sociopath on every street corner, wreaking senseless havoc, murdering innocent bystanders in cold blood. In a Batman story, this violence exists for a reason: It is the triggering action, the set of conditions that spur our hero into battle. Without it, Batman would spend the whole movie sitting on a rooftop or hanging out in his cave.

Drawing connections between film violence and a staggeringly senseless act like the one that took place in Aurora on Friday morning is easy. It’s almost too easy. We look for reasons where no reason exists; we stare at CNN in abject horror and comfort ourselves by imagining we can crack the case and figure out what causes someone to slip this far into madness.

But madness isn’t so tidy. No reason will satisfy; no reason can, because the act occurred in reason’s absence. We are left in its wake to guess and blame and, finally, to mourn.

Batman didn’t create this act of random violence. In a very real sense, his existence helps us respond to it.

Comic-book heroes are childish notions (I can see my friends shaking their heads at me for saying that!). But this is exactly what gives them their simple, primal purity of meaning. They are a means by which we too can (albeit vicariously) confront — and defeat — the evils that threaten us. Batman is personification that Good exists and that it will always wins out over Evil. On the streets of Gotham he will be met by Fear (The Scarecrow), Greed (The Penguin), Wrath (Bane) and, inevitably, repeatedly, Insanity (The Joker).

But he — and in turn, we — will win. Always. Every time. That knowledge is what he gives us and what we cling to and what Batman is there for.

And how he wins is just as important as that he wins: He doesn’t seek vengeance, but rather justice — which is to say, he refuses to kill his foes. Instead, he incapacitates them. He contains them until the justice system takes over.

And that is his greater symbolic role, to help us contain the horror of senseless violence like this and to  provide a cathartic pressure valve. So, for example, we’re thrilled as we watch him swoop down upon some vile fiend seconds before the killing stroke lands.

“Never again,” he whispers, and for a moment, a tiny second, we’re able to imagine a world where such a ridiculous, childish promise could be kept, where violence never erupts again, and where no more innocent people die.

Of course we all know that world doesn’t exist. Tomorrow a new costumed criminal will plague Gotham, and another act of real-world violence will leave us feeling lost and scared longing for our hero to swoop in and save us from danger again.

Luckily Gotham has Batman to protect it. But we have him too, well, the idea of him, anyway. And on even the worst of days, it’s possible to think about that silly, ridiculous, utterly childish idea, and feel a little less lost and a little less scared.