Iron Man 2

Tony Stark is back in Jon Favreau's Iron Man 2, the much anticipated sequel to its critically acclaimed 2008 predecessor. This time around, Iron Man's (Robert Downey Jr.) suit is being sought after by the American military but he refuses to reveal its secrets, claiming to have privatized world peace, the ultimate achievement of the symbolic individual. But historical familial enemies have surfaced, and Stark's Russian shadow-self Ivan Vanko (Mickey Rourke) develops a personalized nuclear apparatus of his own which threatens to dismantle Stark's global franchise. Both of their parents worked together to design the technological infrastructure that created Stark's business, but the elder Vanko (Yevgeni Lazarev) was sideswiped by Stark's father (John Slattery) after which he spent the rest of his days immersed in bitter misery. When the military discovers that another individual has created an Iron Man-like suit, Iron Man's novelty, the fact that he could justify not sharing his design because there was no comparable opposition, wears out, and Stark's friend Lt. Col. James Rhodes (Don Cheadle) comes calling. Stark also makes full-time assistant Pepper Pots (Gwyneth Paltrow) the CEO of his company, American weapons manufacturer Justin Hammer (Sam Rockwell) eventually 'hires' Vanko to streamline the development of battle ready 'Iron Man' suits, the secret intelligence agency S.H.I.E.L.D recruits Tony to see if he has what it takes to be a member, and Stark continues to fall further in love with Pepper while remaining mesmerized by the sultry Natalie Rushman (Scarlett Johansson). Justin Theroux's script is jam packed with several additional subplots, every scene bristling with dynamic multidimensional energy, and while they are laid on a little thick, they manage to transform Iron Man from a particular galaxy into a melodramatic universe, which is one of the principal motivating factors on every fantasy sequel's agenda.

The issue of a privatized military remains problematic and should be investigated however. I suppose that if and only if a socially conscious peace promoting tyrant thwarting military industrial complex destabilizing individual makes up a one-person privatized military (who occasionally requires assistance from close friends), who doesn't take particular sides and is interested in preventing governments from imperialistically colonizing other countries or enslaving their own populations, then a privatized military is okay (the anti-revolution). Hence, Iron Man 2 is an idyllic fantasy, one wherein the individual can function in a godlike fashion outside of communal confinements in order to keep that community safe. His lifestyle is bohemian, and his private interests wolfish, but when it comes to protecting the public from the forces of evil, he's unconditionally ready at all hours of the day, never wavering in his altruistic commitment, always.

But how does this relate to education? What if one school of thought is responsible for guaranteeing intellectual and cultural safety, and only people subscribing to that school are presented as just guardians of a unilateral global political aesthetic (privatized Philosopher Kings)? If that aesthetic has a communal basis that seeks to preserve and maintain an inclusive diverse multicultural multilingual peaceful public organization, complete with universal supporting educational and medical institutions, institutions that would prevent their military from developing and obtaining potentially perverted weapons of mass destruction, without aggressively forcing their ideology onto the cultures of surrounding nations, preferring organic internal growth to hostile external confrontation, while still functioning as a contributing member of the global economy, but not to the extent that it sacrifices its social programs in order to pay its dues, then I guess that's okay. This liberal philosophical kernel facilitates the development of a multidimensional ethical orchard whose political fruit is openly accessible. At the same time, if the one principal school of thought promotes a one-dimensional divisional political frame that preys upon racial tensions in order to divide and conquer the workforce, encouraging different minority groups to squabble amongst one another while a dominant elite few control the means of production and prevent the people from having access to the knowledge required in order to earn a higher income, or charge them astronomical sums in order to be educated so that they'll be mired in debt afterwards for an interminable period of time, then I guess that's not okay. The question is, does Iron Man 2's privatized symbolic individualized military support a Democratic or a Republican ethos, and if it indeed supports one more than the other, how does it demonstrate this support? In order to answer these questions, I've provided some of the film's Republican/Democratic evidence below in order to demonstrate how it supports both ideologies. If we can determine which side's evidence is more convincing, then we can reach a verdict regarding the political character of Iron Man 2, and, derivatively, that of its quintessential political kernel: an individual privatized military.

Republican points: the majority of characters are beautiful; the principal villain is poor; the exaltation of privatization exalts privatization; many of the locales are populated exclusively by the elite; foreigners are depicted as villains insofar as Vanko is Russian and the French police in Monaco allow him to escape; as Pepper attempts to run Tony's company, a Republican pundit calls her a "pin-head"; the film focuses much more of its attention on technology than humanity; and Tony Stark, as the ultimate individual, ideally embodies the forces of capitalism.

Democratic points: Stark can't win this one on his own: the individual needs the support of his friends the most prominent of whom are female and African American (although they could be female and African-American Republicans); as Pepper attempts to run Tony's company, a Republican pundit calls her a "pin-head," and Favreau's direction indicates that we should consider the comment ignorant (it was still presented nonetheless); the private can't function without the public, the two dimensions forming a politico-ethical yin and yang: the private dimension may as well be represented by an individual who is committed to bringing about world peace; the film's secondary villain, military arms dealer Justin Hammer, is incompetent and a prominent American; while speaking to a Senate committee, Lt. Col. James Rhodes demands that his commentary be presented in context; the principal villain is poor and brilliant, and his anger is justified (although his methods are not) insofar as his family was humiliated by the Starks (his relationship with Hammer productively deconstructs his villainy as well); and women are depicted as being thoroughly qualified for tasks traditionally undertaken by men and there is no mention of family or childrearing.

Within Iron Man 2, we have a privatized personalized military. Overtly, this military obviously supports a Democratic viewpoint insofar as it legitimately seeks to secure a balanced world peace, while also supporting a Republican viewpoint inasmuch as it is a privatized military operated by a wolfish individual capitalist. Favreau and Theroux's film has provided a host of conflicting ideological baggage to support either case, only a small amount of which has been presented here, in order to cleverly disguise/ignore their political motivations. I believe that their Iron Man is more Democratic than Republican since their multilayered plot has intelligently crystallized an assiduous ambiguity, or, alternatively, represents Anarchism's progressive dimension (not as a dominant political aesthetic but as a deconstructive tool to challenge ideological stances) (eventually one must act and deal with the communal consequences of their actions [the ways in which they were interpreted, regardless of motive]). Bold, beautiful, complicated, resilient: there's a lot more going on in Iron Man 2 than many similar sequels and I highly recommend trying to figure things out on your own or with friends.

Rambo

Rambo. Frickin' Rambo.

Rambo's back in Rambo, the third sequel to the classic action film First Blood. While departing for “Rambo,” I was preparing myself for a huge laugh fest and was quite surprised to find that, while the film itself is nothing special, the ideological relevance the narrative dynamics share with the current Republican American politico-ethical scene (seen through the eyes of Noam Chomsky) is concurrent, bang-on, and frightening.

Like good ole' Rambo himself.

This time, Rambo is living in the jungles of Thailand, earning his primary living by catching snakes. Rambo: America, doing its best to mind its own business and live a peaceful, tranquil life (while still managing to catch a few snakes). A group of missionaries show up, hoping that Rambo will take them to Burma so that they can provide the Burmese people with spiritual and medical attention (idealist wimpy peace-not-war Americans). Rambo quickly informs them that their mission is pointless and that they should go home, but feisty Sarah (Julie Benz) won't hear of it and she convinces Rambo to drive them into the heart of the Burmese jungle. While driving them in, Rambo must blast his way through a nest of pirates, after which he hears the ethical "you-shouldn't-kill-anyone-under-any-circumstances" line from Sarah's partner Michael Burnett (Paul Schulze [Ryan Chappelle on 24]). At this point in the film, Sarah looks to be falling for Rambo's natural He-Manic charisma, much to partner Michael's dismay.

After the missionaries are kidnapped, Rambo hears the bad news, and agrees to transport a group of mercenaries into the jungle for a rescue operation. Enter the British Empire: an international group lead by the British soldier Lewis (Graham McTavish). Lewis reiterates many of the points Rambo made earlier in the film although he is much less graceful in his elocution. Thus we have the randy, foolish Brit facing off against the calm, laconic, American, both imperialistic icons, one having lost its position of power, the other, ironically tagging along (note that the Brits have to be paid: for Rambo, it's a matter of honour). Shortly thereafter, Rambo is leading the show, having defeated a small group of soldiers with a homemade bow and arrow, and tautly told Lewis where to stick his suggestions (note that in this scene Rambo rescues a number of peasants whom Lewis didn't want to save because he was afraid of being detected: ideologically, American might knows no fear).

And they continue on, rescuing the imprisoned missionaries, only to be tenaciously hunted the next day by their Burmese opponents. Lewis's leg is seriously injured and the British Empire is captured, only to be saved from the firing squad by the resolute Rambo. In an unexpected turn of events, the Burmese rebels show up and save the day (Stallone's way of saluting the courageous stand of the Burmese people last fall), although, Rambo continues to play a huge role as the Burmese rebels fight on. And, low and behold, "you-should-never-kill-anyone" Michael Burnett clubs a Burmese soldier to death with a rock, after which, Sarah has fallen in love with him again, since he has demonstrated that he has overcome his childish hatred of violence and accepted the ways of the world.

But while Michael lives, the only soldier to praise the missionaries's trip into Burma dies, the idealistic student-become-mercenary, subtly questioning the nature of pacifist ideals.

And Rambo returns home, the humble individual, having done good, with a little help from his friends, an unheralded hero, the antithesis to American foreign policy under the Bush Administration. Stallone (who wrote and directed as well) obviously finds grace and dignity in the warrior's life, but where he sits regarding how his country exploits that life is a question left unanswered. First Blood was an insightful look at Left Wing hypocrisy and the problems it engenders. But all I'm getting from Rambo is the idea that might is right, and that military campaigns create practical and beneficial results that diplomacy can't, which is something the American public hopefully challenges in the years to come.