Released in 2012, The Avengers is a landmark film depicting Marvel heroes uniting to save the world. It portrays how heroes with differing backgrounds become a team through conflict and cooperation to achieve justice.
Iron Man’s Identity!
The scene where the ‘Avengers’ members first meet. Captain America, who dislikes the self-centered and arrogant Tony Stark, aggressively questions him the moment he sees him. “What do you have left when you take off your suit?” Tony Stark gives his unhesitating reply. “Genius, billionaire, playboy, philanthropist!” That’s right. (Including the humor evident in the exchange) No scene reveals Iron Man’s essence more clearly than this exchange. Has there ever been another superhero in history this cocky, brazen, and honest? From the moment this superhero, who must hide his identity, nonchalantly declares, “I am Iron Man,” I was captivated by this shameless yet charming hero.
From Hero to Human! ‘Convention and Innovation’
Nearly all entertainment genre films blend ‘convention and innovation,’ illustrating how genre directors consciously manipulate the entertainment format for social commentary and critique.
For example, in modern urban hero films like the Batman and Spider-Man series, we see the emergence of science-based villains, the rise of heroes to counter them, their confrontation, and the triumph of good over evil. They almost invariably feature a beautiful female lead whose romance with the hero serves as a subplot. Solo hero action films almost universally follow this narrative convention ‘by rote,’ treating it like a formula to be blindly adhered to.
However, a wind of change has recently begun to blow. The protagonist of ‘Kick-Ass’ is utterly weak both physically and mentally, and the dichotomy between absolute evil and absolute good is not clearly defined. Furthermore, there is no enchanting female lead who gets swept up in a sweet romance with the protagonist. It is precisely these aspects that represent a creative ‘renewal’ within the entertainment genre.
Iron Man is a film that embodies both the ‘conventions’ and the ‘renewal’ of this genre. The film follows the classic ‘conventions’ of the hero action genre: the protagonist Iron Man faces off against enemies symbolizing absolute evil, ‘Mandarin’ and ‘AIM’. These adversaries launch a preemptive strike, forcing Iron Man into a pinch. He then resolves to fight back, mounting a counterattack.
Of course, it also features a beautiful female lead to form a romantic narrative with the protagonist, and even perfectly includes a supporting character of color to assist him.
On the other hand, what sets it apart from the existing series and highlights a new aspect is its portrayal of the protagonist as ultimately just a vulnerable human being. After the After the bloody battle against aliens in New York in ‘The Avengers’, Tony Stark suffers from panic disorder, losing sleep at night and even having to pull over during drives when attacks strike. Compared to before, he clearly displays a much more human and vulnerable side, a setting that inevitably echoes the human anguish of Bruce Wayne in ‘The Dark Knight Rises’.
In two recent superhero films that have generated major buzz, the protagonists both shed their flawless personas and show human frailties, which seems to be emerging as a trend. I see this as an effort to break free from the established superhero formula and pursue a fresh ‘renewal’.
Iron Man 3 masterfully blends this ‘tradition and renewal,’ maximizing visual spectacle with massive scale and the introduction of 42 new Iron Man suits. Among recent releases, it stands out as the most entertaining to watch.
The mid-story sequence where Tony Stark, having lost Stark Mansion and all his suits to the Mandarin’s massive assault, stands alone against AIM, evokes the spirit of John McClane in Die Hard or MacGyver. While this added a fresh dimension, it also slightly lowered the action intensity and made the story feel a bit drawn out. However, the film’s excellence lies in how quickly it overcomes this weakness. Furthermore, the post-credits scene delivers a quiet delight guaranteed to make any audience member who’s seen The Avengers burst out laughing. In many ways, this is a film with tremendous showmanship.
Is the justice we define truly justice for others?
This might stem from the distinct origins of these superheroes, or rather, their unique presence. First, Iron Man doesn’t agonize. Typically, the core of superhero characters revolves around identity struggles. The very constraint of hiding their identity forms the foundation of their character. Iron Man, however, began by shattering that foundation. This naturally raises the question of what to use to build the character’s internal conflict.
Second, Iron Man lacks a worthy adversary. This doesn’t mean he’s overwhelmingly powerful. In fact, considering the balance within the current superhero deluge, he’s not particularly powerful. The strength of his powers isn’t the key point here. The crucial point is the absence of an opposing force that contributes to the superhero’s identity.
To draw a parallel with the genre, it nurtures dreams and hope in children, allows adults to briefly immerse themselves in a world of childhood innocence, and continuously instills the concept of justice.
Take Iron Man: Tony Stark, who seemed destined to be an eternal kidult, finally matures (though his fundamentally witty and cynical core remains unchanged, as people don’t change easily). The key point here is ‘returning to the beginning’. It’s about human Tony Stark first grappling with the identity of the superhero Iron Man.
Special effects produce images on screen using cutting-edge technology and equipment, but they only show what exists; they don’t actually exist themselves. They require imagination. Even after tens of thousands of years of technological advancement, achieving them in reality remains difficult. Ultimately, the concept of imagination is a means of anticipating a future that hasn’t arrived yet. So, can we say it’s just like a simple game, merely showing us what we define as justice?
Yet in the final scene of The Dark Knight, Batman chooses the path that others deem unjust. To others, it may not be righteous, but he believes it is. How ironic is that?
Like the Joker’s line in The Dark Knight, “You complete me!”, the relationship between heroes and villains is, in a sense, less about adversaries and more about light and shadow complementing each other to form a single, complete question. In other words, villains must exist for superheroes to exist. Ultimately, they claim to be just to gain benefits that align with their own standards.
There’s a passage in Michael Sandel’s What Is Justice?
“Regarding social and economic equality, if we accept such inequality, the benefits must accrue to the most disadvantaged members of society.”
The film begins with Western powers dominating the world through capitalism and the Middle East conflict zone. U.S. troops are stationed in Iraq, and the protagonist arrives there to test newly developed weapons. However, he is captured by a group portrayed as terrorists in the film, leading him to feel disillusioned with war weapons. Here, the U.S. casually portrays itself as a virtuous nation, while depicting Iraq—where they are stationed, testing weapons, and causing civilian deaths—as a nation of terrorists.
The Iraq-U.S. war began after the 9/11 attacks in 2001, when the U.S. labeled North Korea, Iraq, and Iran as the “axis of evil” and launched missile strikes on Baghdad in March 2003. After that, U.S. forces remained stationed in Iraq under the pretext of maintaining world peace. Not only that, but after the collapse of Saddam Hussein’s Ba’ath Party dictatorship, civil war erupted between Sunni Muslims and Shia Muslims, remnants of the Ba’ath Party, post-coup resistance forces, the Iraqi government army, and the U.S. forces stationed in Iraq, leading to even greater bloodshed and conflict. After 2003, security in Iraq deteriorated as resistance forces, bombings, and guerrilla warfare persisted against the Iraqi government. Yet the U.S. crunched the numbers and ultimately withdrew from Iraq. They initially proclaimed justice… but in the end, they withdrew.
I believe no one can judge right or wrong in international conflicts or civil wars. Take the Afghan battlefield where this film is set. The protagonist, sent to test newly developed weapons in a U.S. military zone in Afghanistan, is captured by terrorists. He discovers that the weapons he helped develop are not only aiding his homeland but are also being indiscriminately traded to terrorists. Consequently, he decides to stop weapons development and pursue socially beneficial work. Yet this very notion positions America as embodying justice, while terrorists are cast as the unjust. This felt like the United States, or rather the great powers, were all right, and the few conflict-ridden nations had to follow their lead.
Ultimately, this film posits that overwhelming military force is necessary for peacekeeping, and that true peace for humanity’s future will only come when that force is wielded by those with good intentions.
The superpower known as the United States is committing an error within the categories of justice defined by Michael Sandel. It posits that inequality in wealth and power is only justified when it brings benefits sufficient to compensate for that inequality to everyone, especially the most vulnerable in society. Yet, to become even more powerful, it invades weaker nations under the banner of justice. One must question whether this can truly be called just.
