“Avenging” the American Ideal

As fellow blogger “alexkimpwr” pointed out in an excellent post, Marvel’s 2008 Iron Man film replicates the strength-oriented, “us vs. them” rhetoric of the Cold War. However, this film is but one in a series of films and TV shows released and in production by the Marvel Cinematic Universe with the joint intention of building up to 2019’s culminating Avengers: Infinity War- Part 2. Based on the heroes of Marvel’s beloved pre-9/11 comic books, this contemporary cinematic universe combines its heroes’ storylines to forge multiple storylines in one cohesive narrative. Yet despite the futuristic technology and humorous banter between characters, Cold War themes continue to shine through this seemingly non-Cold War tale.

An illustration of some key heroes in the Universe. Reusable image courtesy of flickr user marvelousRoland.

 

Nowhere is the influence clearer than the alienation of Scarlett Johansson’s Natasha Romanoff (the Black Widow) and Sebastian Stan’s Bucky Barnes (the Winter Soldier). While both these characters are considered “good”, their previous affiliations with the USSR continue to mark them as suspicious. It does not help that they stand in direct contrast to Chris Evan’s Steve Rogers (Captain America), the embodiment of American strength and patriotism.

That Steve is close friends to both Natasha and Bucky does not lessen the fact that the series continuously antagonizes the foreign, and, specifically, Eastern Europe. The (human) criminal masterminds of the story all speak in Slavic tongues/accents and create plots that spur paranoia. Even in 2016’s Captain America: Civil War, the movie concludes with the discovery that a foreign threat was manipulating characters’ tensions behind the scenes rather than risking to show two American heroes, Steve Rogers and Robert Downey Jr.’s Tony Stark (Iron Man), at extreme odds with each other (watch clip of discovery here).

After all, the film is still very much about “us vs. them”. In 2015’s Avengers: Age of Ultron, only a visit to the farm home of Jeremy Renner’s Clint Barton (Hawkeye) reinvigorates the heroes with the strength to fight by reminding them of the ideal they are trying to protect. The glimpse of American life shown there – the white middle class family of (almost) five living peacefully on an idyllic farm – aligns very closely to the American image projected during the Cold War as both the situation to protect and aspire to. In much the same way, the “other” in this film is a technological advancement that went too far and threatened global destruction in much the same way as nuclear weapons. Indeed, the enemies’ plots in many of the series’ installments involve mass destruction and spur paranoia, as the nuclear arms race of the Cold War did.

It can be argued, of course, that these Cold War cultural remnants are due to the fact that the series’ inspiration came from Cold War era comic books. Nonetheless, the popularity of the films continue to suggest that the Cold War narrative of potential destruction is still one the audience buys into, just as the film’s depictions of “us vs. them” still enforces the idea of these divisions. Although the series has not yet reached its conclusion, so maybe it will eventually cut ties with the Cold War storyline. Maybe.

Portal: the blue and orange scare

Portal is a video game by Valve that came out in 2007. It’s a classified as a first-person shooter, although, as primarily a puzzle game, it differs from other first-person shooters by a great deal. Even so, it’s often considered a classic.

The player plays as a character named Chell, who has been forced to be a test subject in a research facility (Aperture Science). Exactly what she is testing is never specified, but the video game focuses on the “portal gun”, which, ostensibly, is a gun-like device that creates linked portals. In the end, the player escapes a planned death and confronts (and “kills”) the computer in charge of the facility, GLaDOS.

A trailer can be found here.

At first glance, there’s no obvious connection in the plot to containment culture. However, the idea of “us vs. them” is somewhat prominent, with Chell as the “them”, and Aperture Science as a slight caricature of the containing society and government. Furthermore, Aperture Science echoes the idea of rerouting organizational (societal) flaws to become personal issues; it leaves test subjects in deadly, nearly impossible test chambers yet readily assumes that test subjects can take care of and solve their own problems. Many other themes also show up: surveillance cameras can be found throughout the game. GLaDOS has nearly godlike powers, similarly to a superpower with an atomic bomb. Aperture Science automatically assumes test subjects will follow their instructions and actually complete tests (as opposed to giving up and crying in a corner). And when test subjects don’t try their best, there is a myriad of ways they can die while testing. In the 1950s containment culture, there weren’t necessarily common lynchings of suspected Soviet sympathizers, but the societal rejection wasn’t far off.

What about Chell? In contrast to many other first-person shooters, in Portal the “hero” is female yet unsexualized; takes down the enemy in a match of wits rather than brute force; and utilizes the portal gun, a weapon that doesn’t kill, but acts as an intellectual tool – unlike ammunition guns found in many other shooter games. Especially concerning the prominent gender roles, she is the perfect example of the object of much fear in the containment culture: a dissenter that takes down society with its own weapons.

It would be implausible to say that the people living in containment culture would always be on the side of “us”, steeped in ideology and with zero dissatisfaction with the status quo. Thus, Portal might have attained such popularity not only because of the fascinating gameplay and design, but because Chell resonates with the subversive elements inside all of us.

 

Containment Culture in “Stranger Things”

For the majority of the 20^th century, the United States was dominated by a culture of containment. This culture has seen a reemergence in the wake of the tragic attacks on September 11^th, 2001. Just as containment dictated both policy and domestic life during the Cold War, so too does it have a firm grip on those two aspects of US society today. This containment culture is demonstrated well in the Netflix Original Series Stranger Things (2016-).

At a surface level, Stranger Things is a direct nostalgic callback to the 1980’s, an era where anti-communist rhetoric reached a peak. The show follows a group of misfit kids who are forced to team up against a mysterious otherworldly threat with the help of a young girl with powers. The town, called Hawkins, is a fairly good representation of the Cold War Era United States at large. The otherworldly creature is a force not quite understood that is capable of unstoppable destruction, a fair metaphor for nuclear weapons. Its presence, much like the ever-present threat of nuclear annihilation, forces the town to live in fear.

This fear, in line with containment culture, creates a strict duality between Other and Same. Thus, the group of misfits is lumped into the category of Other, because they do not fit within the definitions of “average American children.” One has a birth defect, one is African-American, one is thought to be gay, and all are considered “nerdy.” Thus, they face both the destructive threat of the creature and the threat of fellow classmates who see the group as Other. The show is a thought provoking look at the nature of exclusion and of Otherness in an era that in reality is not much different from our current one.

Bridge of Spies: The Modern Day Regulation of the Film Industry

In modern society, it is common for film studios to release movies depicting true stories of the Cold War. Unlike the Cold War era, in which screenwriters feared being blacklisted due to hidden anti-American propaganda in their films, modern day screenwriters are able to criticize  America’s role within the Cold War. An example of this is in the film Bridge of Spies.

The movie follows New York lawyer James Donovan, played by Tom Hanks, who defends accused Soviet Spy, Rudolf Abel. The relationship between Donovan (white, straight, male, Christian, family-man) and his client (Russian communist) not only depicts the divide between the USSR and the USA, but also how two differing ideologies are able to work together for a common goal. Following the end of the case, Donovan is recruited by the CIA and is involved in an intense negotiation mission to release CIA U-2 spy-plane pilot Francis G. Powers. Powers, after having his plane shot down and miraculously surviving, is arrested and held by the USSR. The negotiation involves exchanging Powers for Abel, the spy Donovan previously defended. Soviet and American culture shape Donovan’s actions, affecting the public’s reactions to the event and the viewpoint of the movie as a whole.

Trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxUk1RsajcI

The film includes some elements that do not reflect the American viewpoint of the Cold War era, for instance moments that reveal the strong morals of Abel and his unjustified conviction. However, the film fails to be revolutionary and contains large amounts of Cold War and containment rhetoric. Overall, the movie is extremely pro-American and paints the Soviets as the enemy. While the Soviet’s actions are condemned, those of the Americans are seen as logical and heroic. Although both the USA and USSR committed equivalent atrocities, the choice to portray the USSR solely in a negative light displays the strong containment culture that was not only present during the Cold War, but also in modern culture.

Furthermore, the film exaggerates many aspects of the story, especially in scenes of violence. As an effect, the US fails to admit their mistakes during the Cold War and rather proceeds to justify the containment policies and culture of the time period. In our society, communism and socialism are still considered “outsider” beliefs. Bridge of Spies cements this idea and indirectly exposes issues within modern cinema. Many years after the cold war, it appears that communism and containment culture impact modern American pop culture, especially in current cinema practice. The Cold War was a tumultuous time for the film industry. Using the film Bridge of Spies as an example, it appears that there are specific rhetorical limitations placed upon the film industry which remain present today.

Bridge of Spies

Bridge of Spies is a 2015 Oscar-nominated film that tells the story of James Donovan, a New York insurance lawyer, who is assigned to represent a captive Soviet spy, Rudolf Abel, and subsequently negotiate the exchange of Abel for Francis Powers, a US pilot who was shot down over the Soviet Union while taking high-resolution photographs of secret Soviet strategic sites.

Here is a link to the trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBBuzHrZBro

[MILD SPOILERS AHEAD]

Set in 1960, the film explores both domestic cultural nuances and international security challenges of the Cold War.

Donovan’s household is a prime example of a nuclear family: white, middle-class, straight, and Christian. He is the breadwinner, she — the housewife. Their suburban utopia is closely intertwined with the constant reality of nuclear gaze: Donovan’s young son is shown trying to teach his father how to duck and cover in case of a Soviet nuclear attack. The film makes a point of demonstrating the uniformity of suburban lifestyle and everyone’s desire to conform to unspoken social norms.

On many occasions, the film illustrates the fear of the unknown that categorised that time period, and the binary logic that arouse from that fear: one could either be ‘with us, or against us’. So, when Donovan begins working on Abel’s case, general public is quick to label him a Soviet sympathiser, and even ‘red’. He begins to catch judgemental glances from commuters on the train, face condemnation from his coworkers, and even survives a hate-fuelled shooting attack on his household and family. The government also begins to question Donovan’s motives, even though they were the ones who assigned him the case in the first place. That like nothing else highlights the atmosphere of mistrust and fear in 1960s America.

This fear of the unknown is further demonstrated in the McCarthyist policies by which Abel is convicted. A suspicion of being ‘red’ was enough to be pronounced guilty, even in the absence of legally obtained evidence. The film demonstrates the importance of upholding appearances during the Cold War: it was more important to make Abel’s case seem like a fair trial, rather than actually provide one. In midsts of this ideological conflict, the US strove to preserve its moral high ground, and thus gain more influence and support both domestically and internationally.

Overall, Bridge of Spies is a very informational and entertaining movie.

Y’all should definitely watch it!