Movie Review: Iron Man 3 (2013)

If I didn't know any better, I would think that Iron Man 3 was intended to be a satire on the hypocrisy of US foreign policy, or, possibly, a propaganda piece. Examining the protagonists and antagonists reveals many interesting similarities, as does comparing the actual US government to that in the film.

Let us consider Aldrich Killian (played by Guy Pearce), who is portrayed as the "bad guy" because he seeks to influence the vice president by offering a cure to his daughter's disabilities (as well as assassinate the president in order to put the vice president in a more powerful position). Why? He wants the US government to be involved in more conflicts so that he can make money as a military contractor. This is, indeed, evil, but how different does that make him than Tony Stark/Ironman? Stark is a rich playboy who made his billions as a...military contractor. Both Killian and Stark make money by selling weapons and other war materiel to governments that kill hundreds of thousands of people. Is there really anything that morally separates them? If there is, it seems that the film would have you believe it is the fact that Stark saves the president of the United States. I'm not sure why it is the case, but it seems that Hollywood would have us believe that the lives of government officials, above all the president, are much more important than those of the rest of us.   

Also interesting is the movie's apparent commentary on the US government. Similar to reality, the fictional government engages in various forms of euphemisms, changing the name of Col. Rhodes' armored suit from "War Machine" to "Iron Patriot" since the latter is considered better for public relations. This is all part of making war, one of the most destructive and death-inducing activities of mankind, more acceptable to the public. Likewise, the US government prefers the term "collateral damage" when the US military causes the deaths of civilians, and "enhanced interrogation techniques" for actions that used to be known as "torture."

Currently, the US government intervenes in the affairs of many countries with very little protest from Americans, even though nearly all Americans wouldn't stand for a foreign government doing something similar here. Does Iron Man 3 condone this hypocrisy? In the film, Iron Patriot breaks into the homes of foreigners, threatening them with guns. This scene is portrayed in a comedic manner as if the rights of foreigners are of no consequence. Or, when he breaks into a garment factory, the women working in it express their gratitude as if he is their great liberator, rather than a foreign invader. It almost seems like something out of a recruitment commercial, that whatever the military is, it is above all  a "global force for good."

Ultimately, though, I don't think the creators of Iron Man 3 had any intention of making any political commentary; they simply regurgitated common ideas: foreign intervention is virtuous, the military-industrial complex is an acceptable way to become rich, and the president's life being threatened creates instant drama, even if we have no other reason to care about him besides the fact that he is the president. The goal here, rather, is to milk as much money as possible from the Avengers franchise, nothing more. They will likely continue to churn out superhero movies as long as their revenues are greater than expenditures. And that's ok; not every film has to be an Oscar winner. But one would hope that movies would have at least some consciousness of the world in which they are being created and not simply acquiesce in being apologists for US foreign policy.