Jim Lee Sketching Captain America

This is just sick

Captain America: The First Avenger review

With Hollywood honing the superhero film into a reliable cash cow and even a respectable art form, the time seemed right to bring one of Marvel's flagship characters to the silver screen.  It should be noted however, that the release of Captain America: The First Avenger actually marks the fourth attempt to showcase Cap on film.  First in a 1944 serial.  Then in a couple of 1979 made for TV movies.  And finally a 1990 straight to video version starring the venerable Matt Salinger (son of J.D. Salinger).  All were unspeakably bad, but even with the prospect of a respectable budget, it has long been a topic of discussion whether Captain America, with his star-spangled costume and patriotic values would translate well to the big screen.  Well, that argument appears to be settled.

What's right
Captain has enjoyed very positive reviews thus far and deservedly so.  The movie is fun, has a great cast, and stylish production quality.  Chris Evans delivers a fine performance as Steve Rogers, a virtuous runt who wants nothing more than to serve his country.  He is eminently likable and sympathetic.  The seamless SFX that combine the head of Evans with a frail, 98 lb. body are stunning.  The supporting performances are equally good with Tommy Lee Jones as a predictably gruff commander, Stanley Tucci as the kindly scientist Dr. Erskine, and Hayley Atwell as a feisty intelligence officer and love interest of our hero.  The movie's romantic element works far better than most superhero movies, preferring a certain modesty appropriate to the time period. Hugo Weaving's Red Skull is decent, but nowhere near the menace of Agent Smith in the Matrix films.  Director Joe Johnston deftly combines action, humor, nostalgia and romance into a solid adventure movie that appeals to a very wide audience.

What's Wrong
Last year, Johnston went out of his way to assure everyone that his protagonist would not be "this jingoistic American flag-waver.  He's just a good person."  And that the film "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."  Chris Evans joined this chorus of pre-emptive assurances that the spectre of patriotism would not taint the film, "I'm trying not to get too lost in the American side of it.  This is not a flag waving movie...He might wear the red, white and blue, but I don't think this is all about America.  It is what America stands for.  It could be called Captain Good."
  
Captain Good?  Uh-huh...
  
Well, having seeing the movie, I can you tell you Johnston and Evans were telling the truth.  

As a matter of fact, it might as well be called Steve Rogers: The First Avenger.  Is that a problem?  Well, let's face it, lots of other heroes are "good."  Peter Parker is "good." He's a wimpy nerd who, like Steve Rogers, gains amazing powers.  What differentiates the two?  According to the movie, nothing except time and circumstances.   In truth, what separates Captain America from every other hero is his public embrace of, commitment to uphold, and willingness to fight for specifically American values such as liberty, equality, and justice.  This makes him a symbol.  But the studio's determination to avoid any appearance of "jingoism" (i.e patriotism) ultimately robs him of an ethos that is central to his character and his heroism.  Steven Greydanus over at Decentfilms.com (who loved the film) articulated this sentiment beautifully:

I appreciate that when Erskine asks Steve, “Do you want to kill Nazis?” Steve’s response is: “I don’t want to kill anyone. I don’t like bullies, no matter where they’re from.” That’s a fine sentiment, and a universal one.

At the same time, Captain America is not a universal hero. He’s a hero uniquely identified with the iconography, mythology and aspirations of a particular nation. What does America mean to Steve? What does it mean to him to be an American? I’m not saying Steve needs to be Jimmy Stewart’s Mr. Smith or anything, although, actually, something in that direction might have helped.

Going beyond the character’s underdeveloped comic-book origins might have helped too. Superman’s values were shaped by salt-of-the-earth Ma and Pa Kent and Kansas farm life. Spider-Man’s sense of responsibility was shaped by Uncle Ben in life and death, and Aunt May helps him keep it real. Batman is defined by his parents’ murder. Where does Steve Rogers come from? When did his family come to America? What did America mean to his parents?

Of course, I understand the filmmakers’ reticence; they want to avoid any appearance of jingoism to be as marketable as possible overseas. 

Still, with this hero, if you aren’t willing to at least run the risk of an appearance of a little jingoism, you can’t help falsifying the character to some extent. It’s one thing for a movie like Superman Returns to toss out a line about Superman standing for “truth, justice, all that stuff,” in part because “the American way” wasn’t a fixture of Superman’s spiel until the 1950s; back in the 1940s, Superman really did fight for “truth and justice.” Captain America is different. 

He needs to fight for the American way.

Of course he does.  But the movie won't have any of it.  It's almost comical.  There's a scene in which Rogers is sent by the USO to give a show to some combat weary troops in his red, white and blue propaganda costume.  He later wears this when he rescues a bunch of captured soldiers.  Upon returning, he has a utility uniform made for him modeled after his colorful USO outfit.  The movie never explains why he does this or why his commanders would allow it.  A symbol to communicate ideas/values? To rally? To inspire?  We're never told.

In fairness, the film by no means bashes America.  In fact, the USA and the military come off quite well, going so far as to assemble a multi-racial team of soldiers to fight alongside the Captain (In the segregated U.S. military of 1944.  Right.).  And while the film doesn't dare to utter anything overtly patriotic, it does have a few good lines that can easily be interpreted that way.   

When asked by the Red Skull, "What makes you so special?" the Captain answers, "Nothing.  I'm just a kid from Brooklyn."  This implies, if one likes, that all Americans will fight tyranny with the same courage and determination.  Another nice line comes when the Skull mocks his costume, "I have seen the future.  There are no flags." To which the Captain responds, "Not in my future."  It's subtle, but perhaps as patriotic as Hollywood is currently capable of without raising the ire of the media and cultural elites, who are ever vigilant to protect the public from the kind of simple minded sentiments that would undoubtedly lead to nationalism and hatred of all other peoples.

Despite this lengthy criticism, I did enjoy the film.  But because it lacks anything other than a generic goodness at its heart, the movie fails to thrill or stir us in any lasting way, which is what prevents Captain America: The First Avenger from being a great superhero movie.


Fanboy Quibbles

In the comic book, Steve Rogers is trained as a master tactician and battlefield commander.  His enhanced physical abilities are honed through intense martial training, making him the most formidable hand to hand combatant there is.  In the movie, he basically walks into battle after battle with virtually no training (including flying a plane) and kicks butt, relying purely on his physical strength, agility and endurance.  The outstanding Avengers cartoon doesn't forget these details, and has a far better grasp of his character than this movie.  OK, I'm done.

How Cool Is This?

Marvel and Paramount released this retro style poster for the upcoming Captain America movie that pays homage to the first issue of his comic from 1941.  The marketing here is very clever, and combined with what I saw in the latest trailer, I have to say, despite my initial doubts, I cannot help but be excited about this latest superhero flick.

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.

What happened to Comic Books?

I started collecting comics in about the 8th or 9th grade. Recently I was reminded how far things have changed for the worse when I picked up the newest issue of Superman (#212) at the bookstore. Superman has always been one of my favorites and even though I don't collect anymore, I still look for stuff I may enjoy. In this recent run of Superman, one of my favorite artists, Jim Lee, was drawing the book so I thought I'd take a look. What begins with Superman taking Lois Lane in his arms and flying off, ends with Mrs. Lane wrapped only in our hero's cape which barely covers and in some places accentuates her nude form. In the following panel she says to him, "Incredible. Just as mind-numbingly incredible as the first time." Then she looks over her shoulder with a sexy smirk and tells him "You really are something of a man of steel aren't you?" To which our hero cleverly remarks, "Glad you noticed."

Are you kidding me?

Thank you DC comics. You finally ruined comics. You finally ruined the last GOOD superhero. You corrupted Superman by turning his comic into a thinly veiled harlequin romance. Look, I'm not naive. I realize comics have become more gritty, sexier, with a bent towards realism, but why do I need to know about Superman's sex life?  Is this why people read his comic?  To watch the Last Son of Krypton get busy with Lois Lane and engage in silly pillow talk?  Nevermind that it does not even make the slightest attempt to be ambigious should a younger reader pick it up.

Maybe I am naive.

In the late 70s and early 80s comics began to shift toward a more realistic product. This was done sporadically with certain characters in certain comics. Writers and artists who loved the characters as kids wanted to make their heroes accessbile to a modern audience and bring the stories up to date. I can remember one of the major shifts in the early nineties when many of the top artists left Marvel Comics and founded their own company, Image Comics. I remember at this time comics were starting to be more violent, outfits became tighter and skimpier, breasts got larger, but there were still some standards. The vast majority would still be appropriate for all age groups.

Since then, comics continue to be increasingly vulgar, violent, and sexualized. In a medium that was originally intended to tell fantastic/supernatural stories of good and evil to kids, the current product is completely inappropriate for kids.

And it goes beyond sex and violence. Writers and artists now seek to use comics as a vessel to relay their politics. Back in the 60s, Stan Lee created the X-men. The appeal of the X-men is that they were different, shunned and even hated by society. Many kids at one point or another could relate to X-men for this reason. Communicating values in story telling one thing. Politics is quite another.

In 2003, Marvel restarted the Captain America series. It began with a post 9/11 story called The New Deal. In it Captain America is faced with the new threat of global terrorism. OK fine. I'm okay with seeing Cap putting the hammer down on some Islamo-Fascists the same way he did the Nazis in WWII. The story is shameful. Captain America finds himself trying to explain America's role in causing the 9/11 attacks. So now, readers are at the mercy of writers who use one the most beloved comic book characters as a platform to spout their leftist, anti-american politics.

I know comics have been marketed toward adults for a long time, but my question is at what point did comics stop marketing to kids altogether?

Batman and Wolverine always had room to be grittier and darker. But not Superman and Captain America. They're the boy scouts! Their appeal lies in their determination to stay true to their values.

Marvel and DC comics should be ashamed of themselves. Not only have they disregarded a sense of deceny in content and marketing, but they have fundamentally changed the character of the heroes that made them beloved by the public.