Stacy Litz reviews Iron Man 2 on libertarian undertones
Original article: Iron Man 2 depicts struggle between libertarian super hero and intrusive government
Warning: Spoiler Alert!
Sometimes I cannot tell when I see movies if the ideas of liberty are always on my mind or if they are starting to make their way into the mainstream. However, while watching Iron Man 2, it was quite obvious that the government and its supporting forces were “the bad guys.” Throughout the movie, the amount of poor decisions and actions made by the government, especially that of the senate and armed forces, were made perfectly clear by the amount of destruction that took place after their unnecessary meddling. Iron Man 2 even touched on the media and how it often blatantly distorts the truth – and how easily it can change public sentiment. Other liberty-oriented themes are present in the movie, including private v. public security, competition, intellectual property and free markets.

In case you know nothing about Iron Man, here’s the run down: Tony Stark is the creator of the Iron Man technology and mainly, the Iron Man suit. This suit can be used as a weapon, but of course, which is the government’s argument on why they should possess ownership of such a valuable asset. Stark argues, however, that the world has been at peace for the longest time in American history since the Iron Man suit has been created, and kept privately owned, and all attempts to replicate the suit have been failures. The government continues to argue, in standard, unjustified accusations, that they could use the Iron Man technology to create a super power army to “protect the American people.” As Stark announced in the Senate hearing, “You want my property you can’t have it! But I did you a big favor – I have successfully privatized world peace!” the movie theater roared in excitement. The common man (or a billionaire master of technology) beat the government at its own game. This scene in the movie was by far the most humorous – displaying a “circus act” of government – and the crowd loved it.
Soon after his hearing in the Senate, Stark runs into a bit of trouble when a Russian man named Ivan Vanko, whose father originally helped craft the Iron Man technology along with Stark’s father. The United States v. Russia arms race representation was quite reminiscent of the Cold War era. Vanko hopes to seek revenge on Stark for taking complete credit for the invention. After Vanko makes an unsuccessful attempt at killing Stark using his own creation of a makeshift Iron Man suit, the government goes into the usual panic mode as after any crisis. Even though he is obviously a threat to American security, Vanko’s death is faked and he is taken under the wing of Justin Hammer, who is Stark’s rival and in cahoots with the government as an arms technician and supplier. The goal of removing this extremely dangerous man from jail and collaborating with his intelligence was to use him to create military drones for America – although Vanko’s personal agenda takes precedent. The government goes through all these avoidable means simply because it does not trust the “privatized peace” that Stark has instituted and the military-industrial complex must continue to thrive.
Stark’s personal life begins to take a downward spiral as he foresees his ailing health and possible death from a dilemma caused by the compatibility of his physical body and use of the Iron Man suit combined with palladium poisoning (remember, this is fiction). The media, depicted by CNN, is shown slandering Stark’s image and is shown in real time reporting on the opposite of the truth. Because of these reasons, Stark’s “friend” Lieutenant Colonel James Rhodes finds it “necessary and proper” to steal an Iron Man suit, Stark’s private property, and bring it to an Army base for personal military use and for collaboration with Hammer. Thankfully, there exists a “private security” force titled SHIELD, and the organization collaborates with Stark to protect both him and the people from the evils of Vanko, Hammer and the government. Stark finds a solution to his health ailment, regains control of himself and ends up defeating his enemies – but never regains his stolen property from Rhodes – who eventually becomes known as “War Machine,” but don’t let me get too far off topic with my embarrassingly vast knowledge of comic book characters.
So, what did Iron Man 2 prove to viewers? Government intervention results in a lot of unnecessary explosions. When striving to “protect the country,” those in power will go through “any means necessary” to achieve a sense of security, even by faking deaths, working with the enemy and stealing Iron Man suits. Mass media should often be ignored because it blows the truth out of proportion and downright lies to the public. Private security is a reliable asset while public law enforcement is less than trustworthy. While based on a work of fiction, could aspects of Iron Man 2 parallel the real world? See the movie, read up on history, seek out trustworthy news stories, and find out for yourself!

...missing the fact the Tony Stark and his company are subsidised by the government, being a weapons company that sells to the military (bought with taxes), and that IP is a government granted monopoly on how other people can assemble and use their own physical property ('You don't own the rights to that with your tangible property in that manner.') Tony Stark is the best example of the military-industrial complex, reaping the benefits of subsidation and protectionism, and of capitalism-as-we-know-it; he is the WORST example on any sort of desirable free market.
Also, SHIELD is not a 'private security force'. It's a United Nations operation (usually; some writers depict it as a US governmeny organisation if they are unaware of comic history.) It takes it's orders from the UN... a body of governments. Not the best of libertarian examples there either.
I love the movie, but you're grasping at sand here trying to make it a lighthouse of shining values of liberty.
While Iron Man might not be the ideal example of a libertarian-themed blockbuster, this analysis is pretty keen. There are definitely some quotable catchphrases and certain liberty-ish undertones. Also, the same issues some might take with Tony Stark as a vigilante keeper-of-the-peace falls in line with issues one might have with extreme "liberty" activists, like those advocating for a privatized military.
You raise a good point, though, that the mainstream seems to be picking up on the ideas of liberty, somewhat of a reflection of the times. In fact, Reason's David Harsanyi wrote a piece on this a few weeks ago: http://reason.com/archives/2010/07/14/toy-story-3-and-the-tea-party
Robert Downey Jr plays the character in a somewhat unsympathetic fashion, a bit cocky, "I am rich and can do anything I dam well want".... and I think that is why he fails the likeability test. He fails when held up against the likeable Peter Parker or Clark Kent. Though this is not to say that Robert Downey Jr is not a very good actor.
The personification of "I can do what I dam well want" is a repelling quality universally amoung audiances worldwide. If the 'they' in "government" is not cyrstalized in the form of a very specific person with that attitude (I can do what I dam well want), the repelling quality does not take. In the movie ET, Spillberg does crystalize the "they" of government by showing the they as boots, legs & keys dangling at the waistline. They are trying to get want they want; ET. The boys are scared of the governmental "they" and so is the audiance because the "they" has been crystalized into something specific. If your hero in the movie gives off even the slightest bit of the attitude "I can do what I dam well want", it will fail to ender them to the hero. In a big action movie, it must be clear who is this way, and who is not. Peter Parker is tamed with the principle "with great power comes great responisbility". Same with super man and other heros. In the 60's Prisoner series, the THEY was changed again and again, the each was the same in that they the government, the number 1, could do what ever they dam well wanted with number 6's life.
Post new comment