By now we've seen Stark take off in the Iron Man suit(s) three times. 2008's Iron Man launched the Marvel cinematic plan and is still the pinnacle of the studio's efforts. Iron Man 2 offered little more and was less compelling of an adventure. Much of the blame can be pointed to an intrusive sub-plot dedicated to advertising The Avengers. By the time the latter hit theaters audiences were thrilled with Stark's return to form as he interacted with other modern myths.
Enter Iron Man 3. Initially, I was put off by the film's many flaws and contradictions, but there's something oddly appealing about every move this film makes. Even its faults keep it interesting. Admittedly, it's not a good example of a superhero movie, but that's hardly a bad thing. Film critic James Kendrick properly sells the movie as, "providing a satisfying sense of escapism while reminding us that such pleasures don't have to be saturated with overkill and completely devoid of relevance." Nail-on-head. And there's a reason this is a good thing for both casual movie goers and comic book fans alike.
Massive spoilers after the jump.
Tony Stark's Arc Reactor
Tony Stark hasn't had a great arc since the first Iron Man. Iron Man 2 was a thematic retread on his journey from the first film and, lets face it, the whole point of The Avengers was to see him fight and converse with other heroes.I recently spoke with a close friend about Iron Man 3 and listed my criticisms, but he was more interested in analyzing Tony's character. He wrote Tony was just, "a regular guy" in this story and someone we can see ourselves in. While this may be a major strike to superhero fans who prefer their characters to be larger than life at all times, it's important to bring these characters down to our level. Humanization helps us regular folk relate to these characters and, eventually, inspire us when they rise from our very own weaknesses. Iron Man 2 attempted this, but it was burdened by an overabundance of story threads, characters and a shameless need for Samuel L. Jackson and Scarlett Johansson to sell The Avengers. It never had room to break Tony like Iron Man 3 does.
Right from the beginning we watch Tony obsess over creating his newest suit, the Mark 42. It's an impressive suit, in theory, but clearly has some kinks. Something is amiss when Jarvis, his computerized butler, claims Tony's been awake for 72 hours. The next red flag comes in the form of an anxiety attack. The image of a powerful hero succumbing to a cinematically trivial issue (especially in Marvel's universe) has a castrating effect.
Director Shane Black has a sense for what it's like to see heroes we can relate to rise from the black. Tony copes with his fears by doing what so many of us resort to in similar positions: work. How many relationships have been strained or destroyed by a man or woman's work? The statistics may depress me so I won't indulge, but the image of Tony's armor coming to life and tugging Pepper Potts away from him might be the perfect metaphor for such data.
Black also understands in an action/adventure film it's not enough to have inner turmoil and relationship issues. There must be a physical example of the hero's demons. That's why it was important to destroy his house and all the suits we've come to love over the last three films, remove him from his safe zone, his garage, the Avengers and stick him in the deep south with a defective suit.
During this new journey the question is posed, is Tony still Iron Man without the suit? The final time we see Tony have an anxiety attack is when he's told his only suit isn't charging. It's not usable. (Yet.) At this point it looks as if Tony is going through withdrawals. An interesting way to look at the armor is a drug addiction. Like many people with anxiety issues, Tony has medication. He's gone out of control with the drug, of course, and now he needs to move on without it. He needs to continue his journey and see if he's Iron Man or the suit is.
As an aside, Tony clearly has a hard time convincing himself of this. A young fan points at Tony's armor and exclaims, "Is that Iron Man?" "Technically, I am." Tony replies. "Technically, you're dead," the child shoots back. The child is correct. Tony has hit rock bottom. Everything he thought he was is destroyed (as far as we know) and his character is in need of a rebirth. He needs to prove he is Iron Man. Not the suit.Interestingly, Tony's rebirth doesn't come in the form of a triumphant superhero. We've already seen that story. His armor is a "cocoon" by the film's end. Shedding armor to become a greater man isn't a new metaphor. Dating all the way back to Greek mythology and Judeo-Christian philosophy is the idea that armor hides a true man. The "cocoon" analogy strengthens this idea. Armor protecting a man long enough to mature into something greater is a fascinating image that works beautifully for Tony Stark.
So Where's Iron Man?
I think there's a misunderstanding about what makes Tony Stark Iron Man. Those who want Tony to don his armor and slug it out with villains for 40 minutes need to remember there are three separate movies where that happens. This movie is about something else.
By the end of Tony's emergence from the "cocoon" I had labeled his armor as work, a drug and a protective pod. During the film's climatic battle Tony is outside of the suit more than he's in it. Although the situation called for it, and I'm sure the main point was to showcase Tony's many suits, it's interesting to point out that he's using the suit(s) as a tool rather than an encapsulated, iconographic version of himself. The final line of the film is, "I am Iron Man." Unlike the first film this is not an admission of a man's secret identity. This is a man transformed. A person who has seen and done enough to continue evolving. He is an iron man. A real man with strengths that his armor couldn't provide him. He no longer needs the armor. The armor needs him.It's not a traditional story arc for a comic book superhero, but it is an arc that connects with certain truths. Unlike the comic book world which goes on and on issue after issue, movies must reach an apex with resolve. They must finish a story that compels and inspires with finite precision. In that regard Iron Man 3 resonates. Taking Marvel's most beloved cinematic hero and reverse engineering him was a risky move, but worth the gamble. It not only keeps the stories fresh, but assures the audience there is reason to see ourselves in these larger than life characters.
The Mark 42 (As Clunky as the Movie)
It may feel abrupt to point out the film's weaknesses after praising the main character arc, but this is the rare territory where faults actually keep the movie interesting. In a lot of ways the movie is like the Mark 42 itself-- good looking, filled with great ideas and does many great things, but it has annoying defects that can't be ignored. At the same time those defects hold a certain charm that differentiate it from previous incarnations.
A minor annoyance that shifts from a nitpick to a complete retcon of established continuity is the destruction of the Mark 1-7. In previous movies Tony's armor has been blasted by tanks, anti-aircraft missiles, advanced robotics, alien technology and survived a skirmish with a Norse god. It's hard to believe these same suits would be destroyed by collateral damage. The destruction of the suits is slightly forced, but works well enough in the story to overlook.The same can be said for the Mark 42's inconsistencies. Apparently a single piece of the armor clasping onto Tony's body is enough to shake all the other pieces awry, but when he crashes headfirst into a forest it remains intact. The suit's malfunctions are dictated by the script's comedic needs. If you laugh and didn't notice, then I suppose it works as well.
But these are minor glitches in Iron Man 3's armor compared to the moronic Secret Service allowing the Iron Patriot on board Air Force One without any clearance. They could have at least confirmed it was Rhodey under the face plate. And as sharp of a villain as Aldrich Killian is I was never sold on his plan. He wants to control terrorism to create supply and demand-- a plot not dissimilar from Obediah Stane's stint in Iron Man. But why? Because Tony left him hung out to dry in 1999? It's interesting to look at the character and pick at his rise to villainy, but nothing sticks out as clearly as everything surrounding Tony's story.
My biggest complaint may be Tony's legion of suits that come to the rescue at the film's climax. Why weren't they called earlier? Tony's final anxiety attack was triggered by the Mark 42 charging improperly. Did he not think to call one of his 30+ suits sitting under his decimated house? Apparently there's a line that explains why he couldn't call those suits, but after seeing it twice I still don't know what it was. As is, it's a glaring hole that makes me cringe during the film's second act.
Some of these plot holes, specifically my early nitpicks, are there because of what has been established in previous films. But one of Iron Man 3's greatest strengths is that it's a standalone adventure. It's not setting up characters for a future movie, ala Iron Man 2, and it's not depending solely on past movies to push the story forward. It takes liberties to be its own movie and I can respect the move to create a story independent of major plot points from other films. If anything, Iron Man 3 works better as a standalone feature than it does a sequel.As a movie that avoids being pigeonholed by its established universe, it's also unique for having a significant amount of rug pulls and gunning down cliches. These decisions are very Shane Black-esque and keep the movie fresh while pulling some audiences out of the story.
Nothing happens as it would in a typical superhero movie-- sometimes Black's choices feel anticlimactic. During the climax Tony's bumbling Mark 42 comes to his aid at last minute. "The prodigal son returns," he assures himself. Unfortunately, before the suit can wrap itself around Tony, it rams into a railing and falls to pieces. I won't lie, even I was hoping for a champion moment with Tony saving the day in his glitching suit. Upon second viewing I realized what a contradiction such a moment would be for this movie. A crowd-pleaser, yes, but Iron Man 3 at least aspires to be different. The film drives home that Tony is Iron Man, not his suits. Saving the day without being inside his armor is crucial to the character, but it's also unexpected. Iron Man 3 keeps its main character on his toes as much as it keeps its audience engaged with a lack of convention.
Moments like these are sprinkled throughout the movie. A henchman surrenders, comedically, instead of being blasted at last second by a vengeful Tony. When Tony gets his suit back the Mark 42 refuses to take off resulting in the amusing image of Iron Man hooked to a car battery. (No idea where he got the battery.) One of my favorite moments is when Tony claims he will get free of his binds and kill his captors. After a moment of build-up we suspect the Mark 42 armor will come to Tony's aid. It eventually does, of course, but not like we think-- some may have hoped for a different outcome. There's no denying, however, that the end result was more interesting than his armor simply rescuing him from guards.
Twists are fairly consistent. One of the more fun twists is when we realize Tony was never in his armor during the Air Force One scene. (Originally I didn't understand why he sent his armor to do the work. During my return visit to the film I realized it allowed him to be in two places at once, rescuing the President while going after Pepper.) But the controversial twist revolves around the villain known as The Mandarin. Like much of this movie, it took two viewings to take in. The first time I was pulled out of the movie-- It was such a massive trick that I wasn't sure what to think. It works for the story, certainly, but it betrays a lot of fans that were hoping for something different.
But I'm a Comic Book Fan!
Source material is important to people and I feel the pain of fans who are powerfully connected to that source. In 1998 Sony and Tristar created a big budget, American remake of my biggest (literally) hero: Godzilla. The movie was a flop, but what really hurt was the title character never made an appearance. The creature(s) in the movie didn't move, act or look like Godzilla in any form. To this day fans of the series revile the movie and for good reason. It's a bad movie without the promised title character. Fans refer to the monster as "GINO", Godzilla In Name Only.As I write this I understand that many comic book fans will look at Aldrich Killian as "MINO", Mandarin In Name Only. They have every right to feel this way, but lets consider the differences between this movie and the 1998 Godzilla. For one, Iron Man 3 is a much better and thought provoking film. The main character still exhibits the characteristics true to the source and adjustments made to The Mandarin at least keeps the story moving for our hero. Tony can't catch a break and he is constantly pushed into a new difficult position to contend with. The revelation that The Mandarin is a front for Aldrich means Tony was, in a word, duped. He's been chasing the wrong villain and it cost him.
Does it excuse The Mandarin? No, but lets consider him as an icon. If such a plot twist were used on The Joker I would have been enraged, no doubt. The problem is even casual movie goers know who The Joker is. John Doe would be able to tell me who The Joker is, what he does and how he dresses. The Mandarin, for most audiences, is a variable. A character that, as far as most know, could have been invented for the movie itself.
That may not be what comic book fans want to hear, and it certainly isn't something I would want to hear, but when I watched the movie a second time I was with casual movie goers. They were people who didn't have a single idea what to expect from a character called The Mandarin. Their reaction to the plot twist was warm and they loved the stoned actor, Trevor. It's a fair sign that this iteration of the character, for better or for worse, worked.
To uphold what's true to The Mandarin, it's more interesting to look at him as an idea rather than a character. I understand The Mandarin is Tony's great arch nemesis and a force that the world fears. In that regard, the collective energy of Aldrich's malice behind the visual of Trevor is The Mandarin. Trevor's theatrics terrified a world while Aldrich's actions shook Tony's foundation. It is a complex take on the character, but it makes for an interesting look at propaganda that serves as the antithesis of the Iron Patriot.
The Iron Patriot is a piece of propaganda that was poorly implemented. It was assumed that because the Patriot stands for something good or [arguably] pure it would be accepted. Instead it was mocked. On the other end, the image of The Mandarin is accepted because of the complexity of the idea. The Mandarin was used to stand for terror and fear. Unlike the Iron Patriot it was accepted and taken seriously. It could be because The Mandarin was a better piece of propaganda. Or it could stand for a lack of human faith and the idea that people are more readily able to accept fear and terrorism over peace and patriotism. It's a fitting idea based in a film about rising above a world that chain links us to reality. The Mandarin as propagated fear may not win over every comic book fan, but it does ring true to the comic book counterpart; most importantly, it works well in the story.
Journey's End... For Good?
A point of contention for comic fans and casual audiences alike has been Iron Man 3's finale. Tony makes peace with his armor by detonating the remaining suits. It's a liberating visual that Shane Black obviously felt undersold the story's end. If Black has proven anything it's that he's anything but conventional.Tony claims he finds a way to fix Pepper, "but why stop there?" It's as if Stark is finishing a thought by Black. In that moment we see Tony go through an operation that removes the electromagnet from his chest. Once again the film is in a position that works for itself, but contradicts previous outings. (If it was this easy to remove the chest piece, why didn't he do it in Iron Man 2 when it was killing him?)
Upon second viewing it occurred to me that the "why stop there" line refers to Tony's tinkering with Extremis. He did, after all, come up with the formula to stabilize it so it's possible he used it to safely remove the shrapnel from his heart. If this is the case, Black left the audience with a lot of conjecture. It's not very clear and while I'm sure a future film will address it, Iron Man 3 should have been responsible for it.
What's even more puzzling, or even frightening for fans, is how this ending feels like the end of Tony's overarching story. With Avengers 2 in the works we know this isn't the case. Even Iron Man 3 assures "Tony Stark will Return". So why go as far as to remove Tony's power source? Perhaps the fear of relapsing into the armor like a drug stems from it. It may even set up Tony for an epic return in The Avengers 2-- no doubt something many fans hope for.
The most likely reason is that Robert Downey Jr. doesn't want to do this forever and it gives the actor an exit when we wave goodbye to Tony Stark. If that's the case it feels like a very poor wrap on an iconic detail of the character. Extremis or no, the removal of his chest piece was a left field decision that could have been developed throughout the movie. It's very tacked on even if Downey Jr. does want to exit the Marvel universe someday. Regardless, it adds to the list of reasons Iron Man 3 is so much fun to dissect. Love or hate the ending, its a controversial epilogue to a fairly different comic book movie.
This is Iron Man
I can't speak to how many people see movies as a great divorce from reality, but I can say that it often involves an escape that doesn't remind them of escapism. I'm baffled by Iron Man 3 because I walked in expecting a superhero movie and walked out thinking about more.It's not the best movie of its genre-- it's not even the best Marvel movie. Iron Man 3 sticks out because it advertises itself as another comic book entry and emerges as a challenging blockbuster. It's a better example of big budget escapism and a lesser example of a superhero story.
For the time being Iron Man 3 stands as one of my favorite movies in the Marvel canon for its risks, its story and even its faults. It's a ballsy movie. Marvel Studios is dedicated to protecting it's characters, but playing it safe will not keep these movies interesting. They've proven they're ready to take risks for the sake of more interesting stories. This is something fans should be excited about. Redundant storytelling can end franchises and make lovable characters stale. Shane Black made sure Iron Man 3 was anything but redundant. I can only hope the future entries in Marvel canon do the same because these movies are slowly beginning to run together. Most of them aren't bad, but when all of them do the same thing none of them stand out. They need to break free of the predictable mold most superhero movies conform to. They have to dare to polarize fans otherwise audiences will become bored. I for one enjoy these movies and if they continue to work like Iron Man and The Dark Knight trilogy, their lifespan will increase.
In the meantime I predict Iron Man will stand the test of time as one of cinema's more interesting heroes. Iron Man, The Avengers and Iron Man 3 are excellent examples of the character's finer traits and Robert Downey Jr. will always be remembered for bringing them to life. I'd include Iron Man 2, but why?
No comments:
Post a Comment