Heroes Hollywood Can Live With

Perhaps the most symbolic character in the superhero pantheon, Captain America has been, ever since his creation in 1941, an unabashed symbol of American patriotism.  So fans like me ought be rejoicing at the release of a new Captain America movie in July, right?  Well, mabye.  Last summer, director Joe Johnston had this to say about his protagonist :

He wants to serve his country, but he's not this jingoistic American flag-waver.  He's just a good person...It'll be interesting and fun to put a different spin on the character and one that the fans are really going to appreciate...the idea that this isn't so much about America as it is about the spirit of doing the right thing.  It's an international cast and an international story.  It's about what makes America great and what makes the rest of the world great too.

This treatment is consistent with what seems to be a recent and ongoing trend to take popular characters who in one way or another project American ideals, and alter or mute those qualities to better reflect their own world view.  A blogger over at Hot Air responds with an obvious question:

If you want to make a superhero movie, but you don't want to be troubled with the hair-raising spectacle of out-and-proud patriotism, why the hell would you choose Captain America?  Choose Aquaman instead and have him deliver the requisite lecture about fearing "The Other."

In 2006, director Bryan Singer saw fit to drop the "the American way" from his film Superman Returns, content with his hero fighting for "Truth and Justice."  Then in 2009, the popular 80s cartoon and comic book series G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero was adapted to the big screen and transformed from an elite U.S. Special Forces team to a "Brussels-based outfit that stands for Global Integrated Joint Operating Entity, an international co-ed force of operatives who use hi-tech weapons to battle Cobra."  The result was a kind of CGI United Nations security force.

Filmmakers and studio execs maintain the reason for these changes are purely economic.  They say the changes are based on concerns of brand management and consumer awareness.  In other words, they are concerned about the success of their films in places where America is not popular.  Understandable, given that foreign movie receipts have surpassed domestic profits (two-thirds of income for major Hollywood studios come from overseas).  Movie critic Michael Medved points out "the growing importance of overseas fans plays into Hollywood's tendency to present a skeptical, and sometimes even hostile, motion picture attitude toward the U.S.A.."

The most recent victim of this "financial correctness" has to be the upcoming remake of the 80s Cold War classic Red Dawn.  The new film, about an invasion from Red China, is now being altered because MGM has decided it doesn't want to offend one of its biggest potential markets.  The studio has taken the extraordinary step of digitally erasing, from the already finished film, all references to China as the invading villains; substituting dialogue, removing images of Chinese flags and insignia.  Daniel Foster over at Nation Review sums up the absurdity of the studio's decision:

And who are the new invaders? North Korea. That’s right, the starving-to-death, massively brainwashed “Hermit Kingdom.” I imagine at this very moment, Hollywood script doctors are working on a revised first act in which Kim Jong Il decides it’s a good idea to let hundreds of thousands of his captive countrymen travel to America.

For similar reasons, Captain America: The First Avenger is being marketed simply as The First Avenger in Russia, South Korea and the Ukraine.

The problem with the economic argument is that it's largely based on market research and focus groups rather than box office receipts.  The evidence shows that American movies, even those with pro-American views make even more money overseas.  Another problem with the economic argument is that it doesn't explain why studios throw money at movies with explicitly anti-American/anti-military messages (Rendition, In The Valley of Elah, The Kingdom, and Redacted); movies that portray America as the bad guy or equate the American military to terrorists.  In other words, movies they know won't make money (and didn't). At the same time, they often block the production of pro-American/pro-military films.  Why?  Because in Hollywood, politics and the privilege to be invited to the right parties are every bit as powerful as profits.  Unfortunately, the cost of these compromises on the art of filmmaking appears to be lost on much of the Hollywood community.

Not convinced?  Any guess as to the top-grossing movie overseas going into this weekend?  No, not Paul or The Lincoln Lawyer.  It was the big, loud, thoroughly American, critically trashed, pro-military sci-fi action epic Battle: Los Angeles.

As far as Captain America is concerned, I'll reserve judgment until I actually see the film, but I can't help but think the director just doesn't get it when he says the movie is "about a guy who wants to do the right thing, and that transcends all nationalities and borders.  He's going to do the right thing no matter what flag is on his chest."  Wrong. Superman and Captain America have uniquely American values. They are a part of their nature, inseparable from their character, and the basis for their heroism. Writer/director Michael Wilson describes the attempt to globalize Superman like this:

The idea, I suppose, is to make the Man of Steel a savior for all the world, for the sake of being the savior for all the world.  What the people behind this shift in mythology fail to understand is that Superman serves humanity BECAUSE of "the American Way," not in spite of it.