Keith Spencer, over at Salon.com, wants to justify his dislike of Superhero films in terms that should normally appeal to me. Last year, he first claimed the films are bad for democracy, and now says the genre is somehow a reaction to neo-liberalism. I admit I like his attack on corporations uber alles, and his one chart in his latest article at Salon.com, which is a snapshot of a larger animated chart from the Economic Policy Institute, shows a fairly direct correlation between workers' fortunes dropping and the decline of unions. As I always say these days, I grew up in a union environment and then lived my adult life in a relatively non-union environment: There is only one difference: In the non-union environment, the boss keeps more of the money.
Anyway, Mr. Spencer remains fundamentally wrong about Superhero films. First, he sounds like a Stalinist philosopher demanding art be for politics' sake. The first thing we have to remember when analyzing films is the artists' most important motto, that art be for art's sake. That means, first off, artists must create art for themselves and their art should be about anything the artists want the art to be about. If we are going to analyze art, it must be within the context of the art itself. However, "art for art's sake" does not mean art is not divorced from the society in which it was created, and it is here that we can, in fact, analyze a film genre with a sociological and theological perspective, and to give the artist his or her voice in speaking out about his or her society, which may even include questioning the assumptions the artist himself or herself have made that were not conscious to the artist.
Mr. Spencer is a bright and learned person, but he writes about Superhero films as if we have no reason to enjoy the films on their own terms and with no reason to consider the artistry of the films. The difference between Mr. Spencer and me is that I believe we should first and foremost view the Superhero films as films, and then determine if there are societal messages within the films. And the big disagreement we have is that, when he offers a sociological evaluation of the films, he misses the radicalism behind the dystopic visions that often accompany the films.
When we begin to evaluate Superhero films as a film genre, and seek a historical analogy within film subject matters, it becomes (or should become) immediately clear that Superhero films, particularly those of the last twenty years, are the Westerns of our time or era. Some Western film stories were about traveling to places, and what happens on the way. Others are about invaders who invade a place where the hero or heroes live. And still other Westerns were allegories about different aspects of society. One sees this in the Superhero genre as well.
When we talk sociology, politics, economics, philosophy, etc., we see Superhero films of the past nearly twenty years as often brilliant, and more often, radical critiques of our society. Many of the Marvel Superhero films of the past two decades, for example, contain a persistent attack on the National Security State and invite the audience to consider the U.S. as the evil center of terrorism and inequality. The recent DC Universe films contain theological allegories, and ask us to question Western monotheism in particular. This makes the Superhero genre superior, in my view, to Westerns because too often the U.S. Cavalry were the "good guys," "Indians" the "bad guys," and, for too many years, Western films were, wittingly or not, propaganda pieces justifying genocide of Native Americans. And Western films reflected, without much remorse, the racism and sexism that existed in American society, and continued to exist even during the period film studios were producing and releasing Western genre films. Admittedly, however, when Westerns dealt with narratives of white settlers vs. white settlers, Westerns tended to become more profound and thoughtful about society, and dealt more compellingly with existential threats to communities. In Superhero films, the existential threats are often global or threats that affect what we still call the "entire" universe.
When we talk sociology, politics, economics, philosophy, etc., we see Superhero films of the past nearly twenty years as often brilliant, and more often, radical critiques of our society. Many of the Marvel Superhero films of the past two decades, for example, contain a persistent attack on the National Security State and invite the audience to consider the U.S. as the evil center of terrorism and inequality. The recent DC Universe films contain theological allegories, and ask us to question Western monotheism in particular. This makes the Superhero genre superior, in my view, to Westerns because too often the U.S. Cavalry were the "good guys," "Indians" the "bad guys," and, for too many years, Western films were, wittingly or not, propaganda pieces justifying genocide of Native Americans. And Western films reflected, without much remorse, the racism and sexism that existed in American society, and continued to exist even during the period film studios were producing and releasing Western genre films. Admittedly, however, when Westerns dealt with narratives of white settlers vs. white settlers, Westerns tended to become more profound and thoughtful about society, and dealt more compellingly with existential threats to communities. In Superhero films, the existential threats are often global or threats that affect what we still call the "entire" universe.
Mr. Spencer doubts we are in peak Superhero film. His use of the word "peak" is a genuinely smart reference to the economic oriented debate over whether "we" have reached "peaks" in oil production. For me, I agree with fracking enthusiasts who deny peak oil, but say to those enthusiasts, we still need to change to renewables and we should be looking to ban or severely limit fracking. As for Superhero genre films, I think we are in peak Superhero film in one important respect: As late Westerns like "Johnny Guitar," "The Searchers," and "Who Shot Liberty Valance?" turned the Western genre on their heads, and inward, as the Western film genre became so embedded within our culture, the Superhero genre has now also become embedded in our current culture, so we now see the Superhero genre film twisted on itself. Films such as "Deadpool" or "Guardians of the Galaxy" play off, and play with, the audience's understanding of Superhero narratives, tropes, and devices. Whether this means there will be a marked decline in attendance for Superhero films remains to be seen, but we do know Westerns faded by the mid 1960s as a film genre, and were largely undermined by cultural changes in U.S. society, culminating in the success of an anti-Western Western film, "Little Big Man." After seeing that film, who could watch John Wayne or Randolph Scott kill "Injuns" again without wincing or thinking about whether Native Americans were really the 'bad guys?" I think, too, of the truly last great Westerns came nearly and over thirty years ago, which are "Unforgiven," which attacked the idealization of gunfighters, and "Silverado," which contained a critique of westerns papering over racism and sexism. "Silverado" also sharpened the critique of the cattle rancher class as fundamentally evil--though "Cowboys and Aliens" is becoming intriguing enough to me to finally see...:).
Spencer's take on Superhero films as a threat to democratic values because the heroes are elite members of society is overstated because, sociologically, Captain America was a working class teen, and so is Spidey. Hulk is a scientist who does not appear to have come from wealth or power, but was someone just so incredibly smart--and lucky to have been able to procure an education where he did not have large student loans, based upon his age. Superman, Thor, Batman, Wonder Woman, and Black Panther come from literal royalty, and Iron Man from economic royalty, but each has observed, and remarked upon, the inequality within American society. Also, Iron Man has explicitly recognized the evil that is inherent in the American National Security State (All three "Iron Man" films posit the Chomskyian argument that the U.S. is the main society arming and creating terrorists throughout the world). Black Panther needed his cousin to start to question racism elsewhere, but he still has a long way to go toward embracing democratic values--though I smell a Gorbachev scenario growing within him, as Black Panther, at the film's end, still believes he can control events as he opens up his society and begins to share technological wisdom. Black Panther's cousin, to me, represents the most complex and ultimately sympathetic villain I have seen in the Superhero genre, as Magneto in X-Men was always in and out of being a villain. The Black Panther cousin was played as a Thanos, but became Magneto by the time of his vanquishing (Did Magneto have white privilege in being allowed to stay alive?).
As I have said in earlier blog posts, or elsewhere, Marvel films are sociological attacks on American society and American foreign policy, with the high bridge still being "Captain America: Winter Soldier," which presents a Chomskyian analysis of American foreign policy since the end of what many of us, not necessarily Chomsky, and certainly not Zinn, would call "The Good War," that is World War II. The speech by the Nazi in the computer in "Winter Soldier" is as searing an indictment of the malevolence of American foreign policy as ever uttered in a Hollywood mainstream film. "X-Men" films are brilliant allegories about being disabled, being gay, and being the Other within a society when one is in fact part of that same society. And "X-Men: First Class" remains the greatest mainstream exposition of the Jewish philosophical response to the Holocaust I have ever seen or heard. Magneto is Netanyahu seeking revenge, vengeance, and domination, while Dr. X is Alfred Adler asking for human connection and universal values of kindness and love. Each wants to stop future Holocausts, but it is Magneto who is saying, "Get them before they get us." Each represents the duality of human nature and the recognition, too, that we are more complicated than categories. And let us consider that Thor, in the most recent film of the series, comes to the realization a people are more important than a particular piece of land, which may be seen as an attack on the foundation of modern Zionism.
The recent Zack Snyder DC Universe films, as I have written above and elsewhere, are theological. They are trying to come to grips with a world where gods and men interact. Most radically, the Zack Snyder films have not so subtly denigrated Western religious traditions, whether Jewish, Christian, or Muslim. Wonder Woman nearly scoffs at Western religion while otherwise largely ignoring it, and she is constantly referencing Zeus. Wonder Woman stands for the Greek myths as divine Truth, and Western religion as an exercise in delusion and foolishness. "Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice" remains the great film about superhero collateral damage, and one may truly begin to understand the brilliance of that narrative when first seeing the previous Superman film, "Man of Steel," and then the director's cut of "Batman v. Superman," which allows one to better understand Bruce Wayne's anger at Superman. Zach Snyder's work will become a subject of future film analysts and philosophers as his DC Universe films--yes, give him the credit for "Wonder Woman" as he has a direct credit in the writing, and it is his universe in which she thrived for audiences--are horribly and wrongfully maligned. The respect for Snyder's DC films will come. Mark these words.
Spencer attacks corporate malfeasance in his articles, but seems to miss something that goes back to my point of understanding film as an art form. Want to attack corporate malfeasance, Mr. Spencer? The cowardice and foolishness of Warner Bros. suits is a good place to start. They never had faith in Zack Snyder and fell for the Russian-bot style attacks from Marvel fans, which, when combined with manner in which corporate media generally sneers at Superhero films, led the suits to fire Snyder. This is a real shame, but again, Snyder will be vindicated in future decades, always assuming at least for the moment, human society's survival.
Spencer attacks corporate malfeasance in his articles, but seems to miss something that goes back to my point of understanding film as an art form. Want to attack corporate malfeasance, Mr. Spencer? The cowardice and foolishness of Warner Bros. suits is a good place to start. They never had faith in Zack Snyder and fell for the Russian-bot style attacks from Marvel fans, which, when combined with manner in which corporate media generally sneers at Superhero films, led the suits to fire Snyder. This is a real shame, but again, Snyder will be vindicated in future decades, always assuming at least for the moment, human society's survival.
So should one read Mr. Spencer's article or articles? I suppose so. However, I am of the view that such attacks on the entire Superhero genre are misplaced. I have my own criticisms within the genre, such as the moral failure to have Thor and Black Panther recognize they should end their monarchies, as they are feudal leftovers having no place in a modern society--hint, Star Wars fans, hint. And I have not run out to see "Infinity War" from the Avengers as it seems like a messy narrative--The Daughter says "It starts in the middle and ends in the middle," and have not even seen "Black Panther" yet, deciding it is not so important whether I see it on a large screen or a television screen (still much larger than back in the day). UPDATE: Saw it on streaming video and...wow! It was brilliant, and I am now a major fan of Black Panther's cousin. He deserved to live no matter how angry and bad he was in the early going. His critique and development was almost pure Malcolm X and George Jackson.
I remain, however, a major fan of the film genre as it has developed since the late 1990s with the "X-Men" series. I had no use for the earlier incarnations of Batman from the 1980s and 1990s as they struck me as dumb, and I found the comics difficult reading, preferring instead the so-called "underground" comic books, such as The Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers, and Robert Crumb. I recall going to the second or third San Diego Comic Con around 1980 or 1981 and being disappointed that there was maybe one vendor who even sold such underground comics, with most of the comics being the superhero comics. It is not that I think the Superhero comic books are dumb; it is only that I found them far less enjoyable to read on a sustained basis. The films of the last twenty years remain compelling to me, however, and I feel they are great works of art in terms of their look, pacing, and writing, even before one gets to the sociological or theological analyses. Young people today have it right, perhaps again, over their elders and those who write for corporate media. These films are important milestones in American culture and should be exulted, not denigrated. The Academy Awards voters should be ashamed of themselves for missing this genre. One need only look at the films which have been awarded Oscars in the past 20 years and ask, Really? The films you chose as "Best Films" are the ones we should watch in the future? The failure to recognize the superhero films represents another massive elite failure, and symbolically speaks to the economic and political elite failures of our time.
Oh well. We are arguing about taste at some level or another, but I do think there is something important to say and remember about Superhero films. And if you think they are dumb, check yourself. You have either not seen enough of them or you are not as smart as you think you are. There, I said it. And I end with an arrogance that may not be pretty, but still needed to be said when we see so many elite minds and people who should know better attacking the entire genre.
