« Filmbrain's Screen Capture Quiz: Round 16, Week 7 | Main | Filmbrain's Screen Capture Quiz: Round 16, Week 8 »
What I learned from Iron Man
May 22, 2008 in Film | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345163ca69e200e5528216c88834
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference What I learned from Iron Man:
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Ah, come on, it was Robert Downey Jr. We all would, wouldn't we?
Posted by: paul haine | May 22, 2008 2:19:39 PM
As a childhood comic book reader, I loved this film. It was very faithful to the superhero stuff. And as a fan of Robert Downey, Jr., I also had a great time. I've read several articles/blogs where points like yours were made, and all I can say is it's a shame you couldn't give yourself over to the big dumb fun.
And compared to the terrifically cast but ultimately disappointing Speed Racer, it was a great start to the summer season. A season, I might add, where you shouldn't expect films where Vanity Fair reporters stand up to war profiteers.
Posted by: Steve | May 22, 2008 2:32:30 PM
i had almost exactly the same response. guys like you are so HOT.
Posted by: dubarry | May 22, 2008 2:45:00 PM
Paul -- I see what you're saying, but to me that scene said more about the mindset of the screenwriter rather than the situation portrayed. If it was just that one isolated moment, perhaps I'd be more forgiving, but come on....the female solider in the beginning, the flight attendants who double as pole dancers, and Gwyneth's character? Hardly progressive attitudes towards women.
Steve -- Honestly, I went it with hopes of pure escapism, but the film's attitude towards women (not to mention its politics -- the government steps in to stop an arms dealer?) just turned me off.
Posted by: Filmbrain | May 22, 2008 2:49:10 PM
But, it wasn't the _film's_ attitude toward women. It was Stark's. And it was just another facet of his spoiled, narcissistic character. I mean, as disturbing as it was to see that Stark was a chauvinist pig, I thought it was a little more disturbing that he was rich based on selling things designed to kill people. And enjoying every dollar of it.
I mean, honestly, wasn't the point of his attitude toward women being in the film to show a change in his character? After he becomes a crusader to stop a lot of things that he has been a part of, he becomes Iron Man. But wasn't that change also shown in his relationship with Paltrow, suggesting that he could be her boyfriend? Didn't you get the sense that he was an ass who was changing for the better? Isn't that the basic drama of the character?
Posted by: nushustu | May 22, 2008 3:27:51 PM
Well, can't win 'em all. This week is Indy week. Think you'll find some way to not enjoy it? (Shia Lebouf's puff-pastry version of Brando aside...) :-)
Posted by: Steve | May 22, 2008 4:03:48 PM
For Stark to try and bed the journalist is very much in character. That she succumbs says what exactly?
Steve -- I *am* looking forward to Indy, regardless of the negative comments I've read, and my distaste for Spielberg. (As long as he doesn't overdo the daddy issues it should be a fun time.)
Posted by: Filmbrain | May 22, 2008 4:18:27 PM
I agree. The sexism in the film distracted me from enjoying it as much as I could have. Maybe if he had been even slightly good looking...
Joking.
Steve brought up Indiana Jones this week. I can only hope it's as strong a feminist statement as the second one. Because we all know: women hate elephant butts.
Posted by: Whitney | May 22, 2008 5:13:18 PM
If the reporter character began and ended with that one scene, I'd agree, except that the reporter becomes Stark's conscience, first nudging him in the direction of the Ten Rings (or whatever they're called) attacking that village, and is there at the end to prod him into admitting who he is. We're led to believe she's "trash" (per Pepper Potts -- that's fun to write), but really, she's the one that gets the upper hand in their (tiny) relationship -- he's the one that changes. I'm guessing that Favreau intended this as a screwball-comedy relationship in miniature -- the two people who are completely opposites, have every reason to dislike or even hate each other, but end up in bed nonetheless.
(Now, if you want to express dismay that Stark would wage war in another country without the go-ahead of the government or the American people, that's a whole 'nother thing.)
Posted by: Kent M. Beeson | May 22, 2008 6:04:37 PM
Geez...how many of you guys read comics as a kid? Superheroes were never concerned about borders. It was always quashing evildoers, no matter where or when. And the people of Earth were appropriately thankful...
Posted by: Steve | May 22, 2008 6:24:35 PM
"alpha-male war profiteer who first questions her intelligence, and then follows up with a sleazy pickup line."
Irrelevent! It's Robert Downey Jr.!!
I was startled by my experience with Iron Man ... it was almost a little disturbing just how *arousing* the film was. Much to my dismay I think it proved that I'm an insult to feminism - my toes curled for everything Tony Stark said or did because I'm a sucker for that arrogant, one-eyebrow-raised charm.
Posted by: Avery | May 22, 2008 6:49:56 PM
Points well taken, Filmbrain - but I was ultimately far more upset by the relegation of Marion (surely the greatest female character in action adventure filmmaking) to a piece of mugging set dressing in the new Indy flick than anything in the otherwise wonderful Iron Man.
Posted by: David Lowery | May 22, 2008 7:45:30 PM
That she succumbs to Stark only says to me that she wanted to get laid like any other man. It's called a one night stand. Women do it too.
It was more sexist that she was humiliated by being ushered out and judged by Potts the next day just for laughs.
You could say that the screenwriter was using another woman(Potts) to do his dirty work.
A more salient point would be how the whole male super hero genre is about the (strong)man rescuing the (weak)woman. People who are going to see this type of movie you are buying into the fantasy. So, yes you are to blame. The title of your rant should really be "What I already knew about Iron Man"
Besides, her choice of bedfellows has nothing to do with compromising her ideology unless her ideology is not sleeping with war-profiteering heels.
It seems more like Potts was more compromised than the reporter. The reporter had a fling. Potts has had to follow him around and clean up after him for years.
It would be more sad if she got with him romantically later.
True... there is a lot of sexism in this movie. RDJ is a bad bad boy. We know he's bad and unapologetically narcissistic about not hiding his superhero identity. But we enjoy it like booze and drugs.
It's kinda like Johnny Cash. PC Johnny Cash is no fun. Same goes for RDJ.
Posted by: Nguyen | May 22, 2008 7:54:10 PM
Steve -- I wasn't much of comics fan as a kid, especially the long-underwear stuff. In fact, I think the only comic book I read was Archie. I had a thing for Veronica. (No floozy, she.)
Nguyen -- There's not enough in/on the script/screen to come to any conclusion about what the reporter wanted. She confronts him to get a statement, as a journalist, not to flirt.
But you're absolutely right about Potts.
Posted by: Filmbrain | May 22, 2008 8:58:46 PM
"I wasn't much of comics fan as a kid, especially the long-underwear stuff. In fact, I think the only comic book I read was Archie. I had a thing for Veronica. (No floozy, she.)"
Not to nit-pick, but... Veronica? Really? Why?
Betty I could understand. Maybe even Midge. But Veronica?
Of course, I always had a thing for Big Ethel myself, so I'm not quite sure what that says about me. :-)
Posted by: Tom Russell | May 22, 2008 10:16:28 PM
Twenty years of analysis and I'm still no closer to explaining why I preferred Veronica over Betty.
Posted by: Filmbrain | May 22, 2008 11:43:31 PM
i wish i didn't agree with you in this case, Andrew, for it sounds pretentious to bring up those issues in a work of Hollywood escapism, but i had the same damn problems. a bigger problem is my overall feeling that this was as good as a big-budget comic book adaptation can be, and it still left me feeling rather blah. halfway through, i had an absurd, but wonderful, thought: why don't they let Malick try his hand at one of these? that said, i think Jon Favreau is a truly refreshing voice in the big-budget realm, and i hope he keeps making movies like this. i just don't know if i need to sit through all of them.
Posted by: tully | May 23, 2008 10:45:54 AM
I'm glad to see someone else taking this movie to task over its attitudes. I agree that the initial chauvinism was probably intended as a counterpoint to Stark's later "enlightenment," but as presented, it still came off as exploitative (for example, when I saw the movie, someone in the audience shouted out, "You go, Tony!" during the pole dancing scene).
Even more than that, though, I was a little annoyed at the depiction of the terrorists, specifically as being so stupid that, even with 24-hour camera surveillance, they couldn't tell that Stark was building body armor and not a missile. It was a little too reminiscent of WWII-era propaganda caricaturing the Japanese and Germans (probably the best pop culture analogy would be some of the Disney and Loony Tunes cartoons of the day, "Bugs Bunny Nips the Nips" and so forth).
And yes, I did read comic books as a kid. It's just hard for me to revert back to that good/bad, black/white mentality. It probably doesn't help that I was introduced to more morally gray comics later in life, such as Neil Gaiman, Alan Moore, and Frank Miller's work. Not that I'm a comics aficionado - it's more like looking at The Great Train Robbery and Citizen Kane back to back and realizing how much more is possible in the medium.
Posted by: Ashley | May 23, 2008 11:15:32 AM
Michael --
Yeah, I hate to be the curmudgeon that rains on the multi-million-dollar-grossing parade, but given that there are thousands of impressionable kids seeing the film, I think it is important that the filmmakers keep the sexist (and racist) stereotypes in check. Women in this film are servants and pleasure objects. Sure, [spoilers] one presses a button to help kill the bad guy, but come on.
Terrence Malick's Iron Man -- what I would pay to see that!
Asheley -- Excellent point about the depiction of the terrorists. These are pure Hollywood bad guys. Also gotta love that the one helpful middle eastern character is totally expendable.
Posted by: Filmbrain | May 23, 2008 11:37:52 AM
Expendable? Is it still "expendable" if the character died in the original material 40 years ago, regardless of the war/conflict of the time?
Also, isn't it obvious that without Pepper, Stark wouldn't really be able to function very well? He relies on her thoroughly. And she does a nice job of stealing encrypted data too, don't forget. :-)
Posted by: Steve | May 23, 2008 12:01:27 PM
veronica is hotter than betty for the same reason snow white's wicked stepmother is hotter than snow white - better in bed.
Posted by: dubarry | May 23, 2008 1:39:19 PM
Frank Miller books are not models of moral ambiguity, btw.
Posted by: jimi | May 23, 2008 8:09:56 PM
...ok
we knew it would suck..
you should talk about speed racer!
Why don´t you write something about speed racer instead of arguing about a film we knew would suck?
speed racer!
i mean, it has everything...an embarassing porno film´s fiction mood...
and instead of fucking we get RACES!
word of the day: instead.
the actors are just monkeys waving their gonads...
in porn i mean...
Posted by: gmail | May 23, 2008 8:34:13 PM
"veronica is hotter than betty for the same reason snow white's wicked stepmother is hotter than snow white - better in bed."
Wow, what Archie comics did you read? :-)
Veronica's stuck-up, snobbish, manipulative, and shallow. Betty, on the other hand, is very genuine: good-humoured, sweet, and extremely intelligent. She's got the book-smarts, and she's mechanically inclined-- remember how many times she fixed Archie's car... usually so that Archie could turn around and take Veronica out on a date?
Veronica's born into money, and she carries around with her that certain sense of entitlement that accompanies the upper-upper-classes. Betty, on the other hand, _earns_ everything she does-- she works for it. Nothing was handed to her. Whenever she succeeds at something, it's on her own terms and because of her own sweat.
To me, that's a sexy woman-- and a strong one. The moral of Betty is that someone can succeed at what they set their minds to-- whether it's making a dress or winning a sporting match or whatever-- with hard work and ingenuity. The moral of Veronica is, be born into money and look pretty and people will give you opportunities. The same lesson that Paris Hilton teaches.
And, I'll maintain, Paris Hilton will never be as sexy as Betty Cooper.
Betty's mother's name is Alice, by the way. Alice Cooper. Just thought I'd share that.
Posted by: Tom Russell | May 23, 2008 9:30:57 PM
Gmail -- I haven't seen Speed Racer yet! I want to see it in IMAX, but am afraid of irreparable psychological damage.
Tom - Wow! Wonderful deconstruction of Archie's women. Of course at the age of 12 one views things with a greater superficiality. Betty always seemed too obvious to me -- everything was right there, exposed. Veronica hid her vulnerability. In retrospect, I guess there is a bit of Paris in Ms. Lodge.
Jesus christmas -- I can't believe this is what I'm doing at 11:25 PM on a Friday night. While drunk, no less.
Posted by: Filmbrain | May 23, 2008 11:30:47 PM
