Where it All Began: Iron Man and the Birth of the MCU

The Cave: Foundry and Foundation of the MCU

Last Christmas, I watched “Iron Man 3”, in the mood for a Shane Black/Robert Downey, Jr. movie that wasn’t “Kiss Kiss Bang Bang” and it is a Christmas movie after all! But also, it’s because I feel it is one of the few Marvel movies that retains the authorial voice behind the film and doesn’t wholly succumb to the Marvel House Style. I watched it again a few months ago and it remains my favorite of the Iron Man series. So what about the first two?

“Iron Man 2” remains on the lower tier of the MCU; it’s bloated, unwieldy script by Justin Theroux is executed with bewilderingly inert direction from Jon Favreau so much so that it threatens to obscure much of the fine character turns by the performers (even then, since when does Sam Worthington have to be reduced to mugging?)

The One That Kicked It All Off is swell, though. It’s a tight script, with economic if not thrilling action scenes, and a lack of catharsis in lieu of transparently laying the groundwork for more to come (which wasn’t a sure thing in 2008). To compare the two is a study in constraints and begs a critical look at just what happens once a franchise becomes a reality.

In retrospect, “Iron Man” remains one of the best MCU entries on its strengths: pacing, performance, action:character development ratio, and pretty much being a self-contained entry, despite allusions to the wider world of the Avengers Initiative and the presence of S.H.I.E.L.D.

The script by Hawk Ostby (“Children of Men”, “The Expanse”) and Art Marcum and Matt Holloway (“Men in Black: International”,  “Punisher: War Zone”, “Transformers: The Last Knight”) brings us a fully realized, blinkered weapons developer and defense industry magnate in Tony Stark, his erstwhile executive assistant, “Pepper Potts”, and head of security, “Happy” Hogan. Additionally, Col. James Rhodes is on hand as his contact with the D.O.D. and old friend. Obadiah Stane plays the man who worked alongside Tony’s father from the early days of Stark Industries and would be revealed to be a less than honorable associate.

The entire endeavor is anchored in Stark’s growth from rah-rah militarist to a man whose eyes have been opened directly to the suffering arms development causes. This would, of course, be a theme throughout the MCU. Stark Industries’ payloads and hubris lead play into the origins stories of Wanda and Pietro Maximoff, Baron Zeno, and others, not the least of which would be Ivan Vanko aka Whiplash, in the sequel.

It is worth pausing here to interrogate the synergy between the MCU and its relationship with the U.S. military(1). From “Iron Man” to “Captain America: The Winter Soldier” and its sequel and throughout the Avengers concluding chapters, and down to “WandaVision” and “The Falcon and the Winter Soldier” series, there has been a critique, however softball it might be of military protocol, motivation, and effectiveness. Even, as in “Iron Man”, a half-hearted attempt to address the “might makes right” approach of U.S. military incursions, particularly when corporate malfeasance and lack of oversight play into the sales of arms.

And that’s about as far as the critique goes. Admittedly, no one is going to a superhero film expecting a dissertation on legality and the ethics/morality of U.S. foreign policy or a dissection of the validity of arms embargoes or regulation of arms dealing around the world; but if you start out with a movie that calls all that into question, it raises the questions of where the movies stand on the larger thematic issues they now and again approach.

Of course, Marvel relies on advisors from the military and has a large amount of support from the armed services in terms of training and presence in the films. If its portrayals of upper staff and high command are less than flattering, up until “The Falcon and Winter Soldier”, the depictions of troops has been fairly anodyne. 

That said, kudos to Favreau et al for beginning the film on the ground in Afghanistan and depicting how quickly and out from nowhere the violence of ground warfare happens, all the while building out the soldiers in Stark’s Humvee as genuine people. Hats off to all concerned for sustaining the dramatic tension of what happens subsequently as a journey into awakening for Tony Stark.

The flashbacks that lead us to the ground assault fill us in more about Stark’s support and justification for what is probably not so far from what many weapons developers feel: bigger, more deadly equates to greater protection and easier wins. None of this is true, and it is creditable to the filmmakers that they didn’t shy away from locating their tale in a prime example of that. In any case, Stark is very much of his rightness and glib beyond measure. When confronted by Christine Everhart, an investigative reporter who nails him on his death-dealing agents of destruction, he counters with how much medical and scientific advances Stark Industries has contributed to. This is so out of a corporate prospectus, I sometimes wonder which contractor the scriptwriters enlisted for the dialog.

We also get to see another side of Stark that would eventually find him outgrowing; his sexism and almost predatory behavior. He beds Everhart, quips about his military escort driver’s gender, and seems to only recognize Potts as a woman when she wears a scoop-backed dress at a function later in the movie. We’ll come back to the performers in a bit. There’s a little more recapping to consider here, most of which is related to the first act.

Tony is kidnapped and held prisoner by a warlord group calling itself The Ten Rings (which will come back into play in Fall 2021’s “Shang-Chi and the Legend fo the Ten Rings” release) and is being told he can go free if he builds a Jericho missile for them like the one he demonstrated for the U.S. Army earlier, capable of wiping acres of, well, you know, buildings, people, etc. He refuses, is waterboarded, thinks the better of it and goes to work. 

Prior to this, during the ground attack, Stark is hit by the explosion from a bomb from Stark Industries. The shrapnel has breached his Kevlar vest and he is saved from death by Yinsen, his fellow captive in the cave, who implants a magnet in Stark’s chest cavity to keep the remaining fragments from entering the heart. Later, they develop and arc reactor so that Stark has more mobility, can live longer, and not have to lug around a car battery to keep the magnet charged. This arc reactor is integral to the Iron Man mythos across the first two films and provides the first of a group of non-existent (or not-yet-existent!) technologies. 

Under cover of successful ruses, and misdirects, Yinsen and Stark build the first Iron Man suit. It’s huge and as we’ll see in a sharp action sequence, equipped with guns, flamethrowers, and small rocket launchers. This is also one of the few times we’ll see lethality intentionally deployed against human beings in a Marvel movie. Naturally, there is narrative justification for this: before they can deploy the suit in a timely manner, the warlord’s henchmen come to take out both men when it becomes clear on surveillance that they’re up to something. The door to the cave is rigged with a makeshift bomb and blows not only the doors, but the timeframe needed to get the suit into play. Yinsen grabs a machine gun and runs out to by Tony more time, meeting his end at the hands of members of the Ten Rings.

In short order, Tony lays wastes to the bad guys, saving a father and son in the meantime, and flies out of an explosion caused by setting fire to the inventory of ordnance in the camp. He lands in the desert, begins a hike in search of civilization or other humans and gets picked up by helicopters and Rhodey and is on his way back to the U.S. a changed man where renounces weapon development and issues a statement closing down that arm of Stark Industries.

Needless to say, this causes a rift between Obadiah and Tony, leaves Pepper and his friends in a quandary, and the stock prices of Stark Industries begins to tank. So far, so good.

The movie stays on point and focused on the big reveal that it was Stane who organized the hit on Stark in Afghanistan and had been colluding with hostile foreign forces for his own enrichment; Raza, the leader of the Ten Rings cell, recovers the Iron Man suit (Mark1) and tries to make an unsuccessful deal with Stane. Stane brings the suit back to his division of Stark Industries to build an arc reactor that could drive a larger and more refined version of the suit that Tony and Yinsen had built from scrap.

Stane didn’t count on Stark being able to access his division’s records off the books and Tony instructs Pepper how to access those files. Once she does - in a truly nail-biting sequence when Obadiah comes into Tony’s office to chat with her (surely knowing something’s up, right?) - she high-tails it out with Agent Phil Coulson (yay!!!) from S.H.I.E.L.D. and once the genie’s out of the bottle, a contingent of agents led by Coulson and Potts head back to arrest Stane who by this time has activated the suit, pretty much decimates the agents excepting Coulson and is about to kill Pepper when Stark shows up in his new, more agile Iron Man suit. Unlike most third acts in the MCU, this one doesn’t go on forever. 

In fact, most of the action sequences in this film are wonderfully shot and succinct. Tony returns to the region where the Ten Rings have been killing and terrorizing villagers and takes out the whole troop of bad guys, raising eyebrows across the Department of Defense and annoying his Rhodey, if not earning more of his respect. 

Each of these story beats are well-calibrated and moments are lingered on just enough not to feel rushed. Once Stane is fatally neutralized and a cover story composed for Stark, he goes off script at a press conference and declares: “I am Iron Man”, surely, one of the most iconic and defining lines of dialog in the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

 

The inevitable post-credit sequence (IPCS) introduces Nick Fury and we now know that the game is afoot. Fury informs Stark of the Avengers Initiative and we now have a sense that the powers that be are shooting for something more than just a run on one character. Later in the year would see the release of “The Incredible Hulk”, complete with an RDJ/Tony Stark cameo and the MCU would be off to a solid start.

In 2008, the idea that in four years there would be the first major crossover event was still dodgy. While Samuel L. Jackson had signed on for at least nine more movies playing Nick Fury, there was not guarantee that Downey would return for more than two other installments even as late as the end of “Iron Man 2”. “Iron Man” and its sequel made good, solid bank, The Hulk movie not as much, but the character is a mainstay of the Marvel cosmos and if there were stumbling blocks, much had as much to do with IPs as it did with the talent at hand. By 2010, Ed Norton was no longer Bruce Banner and Terrence Howard gave way to Don Cheadle. 

This brings us to the real binding glue of the MCU. While the stories are often compelling and occasionally, remarkable in scale and theme, it really is the characters that people pay to see. You have sixty-plus years of story-telling to choose from and figures that have been absorbed into American pop culture and now, world pop culture on an unprecedented scale. However, the characters in and of themselves might not work if the actors filling them out were less talented. It is telling that altogether, there are roughly 70 Academy Award nominees or winners among the Marvel movie landscape. 

It is also worth mentioning how many of the directorial, writing and producing teams come from independent cinema or even, tightly honed episodic television. I don’t think that is strictly for budgetary reasons. In some cases, the production teams - Favreau comes immediately to mind - started out with small indie films (writing “Swingers” is a great start!) and struck gold with something as family friendly (and highly remunerative) as “Elf”. A list of directors is going to reveal similar patterns throughout the early phases of the MCU. From Favreau to Joe Johnston (“Captain America: the First Avenger” - to my mind, no one was more qualified than the director of “The Rocketeer” to helm that movie) to Joss Whedon, there is a striking consistency of voice across these films. Oddly, Branagh’s “Thor” might have been the one that falls short the most because the expectations were so high. I may have to take time to look at that later; but it becomes readily apparent that “house style” is starting to show even in these early movies.

To be sure, as good a storyteller as he is, Favreau is a conservative, sometimes almost journeyman-like director. To his credit, he does put himself at the service of the story; but there are times when you can almost feel the need for a more dynamic hand on the wheel. That said, “Iron Man” succeeds because of Favreau’s steady hand; and most importantly, he trusts his actors. 

And what actors. It’s been said so many times throughout Hollywood history that the success of a movie relies largely on casting (and it is ridiculous that there is no “best casting director” category in the Academy). The idea that anyone other than these actors could play these characters sounds like heresy fit for burning at the cinematic stake.

That Emily Blunt was ready to play Natasha Romanoff instead of Scarlett Johansson doesn’t sound like a bad deal, conceptually, until you reflect on Johansson’s portrayal over the past thirteen years. It isn’t that Blunt isn’t as capable an actor but when we discuss the levels of performance and craft that each member of these casts bring to table, it really is hard to see someone else in the role.

“Iron Man” set the template. Take a movie star who was making a comeback from the darkest days of his life as well as his career (and who would receive his second Oscar nomination in the same year), one of America’s most beloved actors taking a completely villainous turn, and two women who were highly regarded thespians and ruled the art house/prestige circuit at the time and you don’t necessarily think “Pop-Culture Revolution!”

Yet, that’s what we got. We got a cast of remarkable actors - Downey, Paltrow, Howard, Bridges, Johansson, and Shaun Toub (who does not get enough credit for his heartrending turn as Yinsen) - who treated the material with respect and gave it life that in other, lesser hands might have made it cliched or stagnant. The only other movie of its type at the time was, literally, at the time: “Batman Begins”. The two share more merely being about rich white guy vigilantes: both treat the source material with love and both are willing to take the risk of rendering that material as thematically rich.

There is no scenery chewing in “Iron Man”, either. Bridges does more of a slow burn. He’s a sinister, sleazy huckster that doesn’t even have the ideals that Stark had: the closes he comes is when he declares to Tony - after he’s removed the arc reactor from Stark’s chest and is getting ready to leave him to die- that he just wants to restore equilibrium to the world. I doubt that this is foreshadowing, but it is eerily prescient of what Thanos would espouse years later. In fact, there are moments in “Iron Man” when Bridges’ shaved pate and beard kind of remind you of Brolin’s crown and nut-sack chin. A Bridges Thanos might be just as scary as Brolin’s.

I have no regrets about Don Cheadle replacing Terrence Howard, but Howard is a fine actor, nonetheless, and if things had worked out differently, maybe we wouldn’t have noticed. The stories vary: he was difficult to work with, wanted too much money, and to be sure, some of the claims he made after his dismissal and Cheadle’s hiring do seem to stretch the fabric of truth a bit. I don’t really put too much stock or emphasis in a lot of show-biz gossip or behind the scenes melodrama, but when a major character is replaced, it can’t be an easy switch for all concerned. The actor himself, of course, but also for the production team and other cast members, as well.

That said, Howard brings a dignity and a sense of these two guys having known each other for a long time to the movie. There is a genuineness to his performances that goes back, at least, to “Hustle and Flow” and he brings it to Rhodey here. He has a different kind of gravitas from Cheadle and I do think that had he stayed on, we would have seen a much different take on the character’s development. Having said that, I’m glad he’s here.

Before I get to Paltrow, I need to note how Audrey Bibb’s character was handled. Bibb plays Everhart, the intrepid reporter who Stark winds up in between the sheets with and it almost feels as though that’s supposed to play up a character deficiency in her and/or perhaps, Stark. However, I’d like to think that it speaks more to her agency. I don’t know that she likes Stark, but that he is attractive and why the hell not? It isn’t explicitly emphasized particularly, but I could also see where Everhart would use this moment to get more on Stark, if she so felt it.

In other words, she’s a more complicated character than we might first assume and to some degree, we see that in her fleeting appearance in the sequel. Additionally, she is the apposite to Paltrow’s Pepper. We have to talk.

Regardless of her business practices or what I think of GOOP, she is one of the finest actors we have. From “Hard Eight” to “Shakespeare in Love” and “The Talented Mr. Ripley” (and that’s just for starters), she is one of the most naturalistic players around. She doesn’t have to be onscreen long to establish the character and knows enough to listen deeply to the person she shares a scene with. For Pepper Potts, whose screen time often doesn’t add up to much in terms of minutes, she “fills the frame” - all the information you need to know about this woman is there for you and frequently, Robert Downey, Jr. But it’s not just RDJj; as with the best actors, she acts with her eyes. Her facial expression doesn’t have to change much to convey what she’s going through. The scene in Stark’s office with Jeff Brideges’ Stane is a fine example.

It also pays that Pepper Potts is nobody’s fool, not even Tony’s and she is perfectly capable of bringing of Stark to heel. Pepper’s trajectory is a strong, progressive arc in relation to Tony, to be sure. How he relates and reacts to her is very much about his growth as a character, but it is disingenuous and wrong to ascribe a lack of agency to her. Quite the contrary; Potts is hardly the long-suffering put-upon girlfriend (though you do wonder if she was ever going to just crack Stark right in the jaw sometimes). She is, if not a force to be reckoned with, a very adept check on Tony’s flightiness. In some ways, what we have here is a classic role-reversal from a screwball rom-com. Given due consideration, Pepper is as foundational to the MCU as Tony; he would be half a character, half a person without her.

Paltrow has sometimes even bothered me with how good she is. She’s not actor-y like some of the other greats can be, but sometimes, I find her too luminous for the role or the scene. I get over it, but that might say more about me than her. But if I’m right, then the perfect scene partner for her is the man of the title.

I have toyed with the idea of going through Downey’s filmography, but while there are gems, I have no desire to watch the cast-offs. And there are plenty of gems. Even in the worst flicks, Downey has gives it his all. He can ham it up, for sure, but mostly, he pays attention; he is present in a way few are.

Anything I could write here about Downey has already been said elsewhere. But for our purposes, it’s fascinating in both these initial features what shmuck Stark is, on the outside, at least. We see his fear of mortality throughout; if he’s an arrogant prick sometimes, it’s to cover up a sense that his days are numbered. This changes into something else later in his arc. By “The Avengers”, Tony is more genuinely aware of greater existential threats and certainly, by “Endgame”, his concern, his deepest motivation is his family and humanity.

But that ain’t the Stark were talking about here.

The Tony Stark of these early films is a hot mess on the verge of transformation, but to the films’ credit (all three of them), that transformation unfold in reasonable increments. Aside from his stark (sorry, not sorry) realization of what his death-dealing involves and his change of heart, we see him rise and fall and rise again; watch him transform from that laziest of tropes of billionaire playboy sexist clown to caring adult; and along with all of that, to sometimes grasping that he’s not always right (it’s usually a dim grasp, but it’s there). 

All of this is attributable to Downey. I don’t mean that excludes the scriptwriters. However, his input in the stories and character development does seem to go beyond simply being front of house talent. Much of the Iron Man series is based on ideas fomented by Downey and Favreau even if neither has a screenwriting credit. 

The Iron Man films are more than the cornerstones of the MCU; they are its template,heart, and soul. If you don’t have compelling characters positioned as a priority over plot (both episodic and overarching), the films aren’t going to work. Consequently, that’s why some are so uneven; Hemsworth is a fine actor, but absent Hiddleston to play off of in “Thor: the Dark World”, the title character is no longer as vital. I won’t say that about “Iron Man 2” but the structural issues with that movie are what mitigate it being as successful a work as its predecessor.

In both, however, the saving grace(s) are the performances. We’ll take a closer look at “Iron Man 2” next. 

Footnote

1. A good read is this over at CBR.

Before leaving this reprise; some random observations.The resonances with Tony’s sacrifice and the conclusion of Phase 3 : “I am Iron Man!”, cheeseburgers, and the final clang of the anvil after “Endgame”’s credits from Tony’s time in the cave building the Mark 1. All of these stung and evoked a wealth of memories across thirteen years of following the MCU. What are not call-backs in the later films are here invested with deeper, richer significance. 

The care taken with composing this story, developing these characters, and curating the arc of Tony’s growth begins here. It’s more than a solid foundation and I feel like I’m not giving due credit to Favreau. If I don’t find him the greatest director in the MCU, he’s more than capable of rising to the occasion. Obviously, he cares deeply about Marvel and being true these characters and their cinematic lives. I don’t think it’s too much of a stretch to say that Favreau may be the second most invested fan-filmmaker since George Lucas in staying true to the genre that he’s helped launch into the twenty-first century. Along with Kevin Feige, Tina Alonso and others at the top, Favreau honors Stan Lee, Jack Kirby, Don Heck and Larry Lieber’s creation admirably.

Matthew Libatique had already proven himself one of the best cinematographers around and was Aronofsky’s DP of choice by the time he shot “Iron Man”. It may, at first, seem an odd choice for someone whose CV includes, “Pi”, “Black Swan”, “The Fountain”, and “Mother!”, but Libatique has one of the surest eyes and deepest understanding of what a story needs to move it along. The flash and verve in “Iron Man” is of a piece with his work in “The Circle”, “Everything is Illuminated” and perhaps, most tellingly, his music videos for Justin Timberlake. There is a distinct visual rhythm that Libatique brings to the film without showing off or subsuming the plot and characters with whiz-bang camera movements or lending that distracts from the story.

Speaking of music, all three Iron Man films point out what a metal head Tony really is, at heart. Again, sorry, not sorry, for that entire sentence. Having said that, the music is very much part of the character’s design. In this first film, Ramin Djiwadi brings the metal and a pulsing score that, like the cinematography, doesn’t intrude on the story or distract. Essentially, the music itself is both a defining element of the character as well as playing a supporting role of its own.

Iron Man 2: The Universe Begins in Earnest

I have prefaced most of my misgivings about what I see are the shortcomings of “Iron Man 2”, but I need to balance those with what I really do like about the movie. And again, it needs to be stressed that I am by no means saying that “Iron Man 2” is a bad movie; it’s just that the bar is set so high, not just by what followed in the successive movies and phases of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, but by what Favreau, Downey, et al established in the first one.

Performances, performances, performances. Aside from Rockwell’s Justin Hammer who reads more and more like the younger, whinier brother to Ben Mendelson’s character in “The Dark Knight Rises”, the turns by the cast are exemplary. I may also be the only person who genuinely loves Rourke’s turn as Vanko. Would that we had gotten to see more of the character. 

Here’s why: Vanko plays as more of a shadow to Stark than Hammer. Sure, Hammer is a failed version of Tony Stark and Hammer Industries is a laughable knock-off failure, but Vanko is the son of a shakedown artist who didn’t know his father’s full story, any more than Tony didn’t know his father’s. As played by Rourke, he is as physically intimidating as, say, Tom Hardy’s Bane in the previously Batman film, but there is a decidedly more personal connection to the protagonist. Of course, Vanko is also heartless, but again Rourke brings some shades beyond arrogance; the desire for vengeance isn’t completely irrational and it lends credibility to Vanko’s actions.

Introducing Scarlett Johansson as the Black Widow was a stroke of good fortune. Yes, I know, Emily Blunt, etc., but I left my thoughts about that casting above. The way Romanoff was introduced has been criticized fairly harshly over the years. The typical take is that Natasha is introduced as eye candy and hyper-sexualized. I don’t disagree with that; Tony Stark has still not quite grown up yet (that part of his evolution wouldn’t happen until “Iron Man 3” set in the months following the invasion by Loki and the Chitauri in New York in “The Avengers”). He continues to objectify women and I don’t think Favreau or Downey present Stark’s foibles as anything less than pretty severe character flaws. 

Johansson owns the character. If I feel that Natasha has been ill-served by the various writers in the MCU, even up to and including her own standalone movie, Johansson brings layers and nuance to a woman whose agency is often underestimated or overlooked to the detriment of those who do so. From the get-go, she proves herself capable of establishing her space (literally, as in the “boxing lesson” Happy attempts to give her) and endures the sexism inherent in both Happy and Tony’s personalities. 

Now, going to stop here and address something that this movie came under fire for then and still elicits critique for now.

RE: Tony’s sexism and the film industry’s overall. 

To be sure, it was commented on pre-#MeToo. The context was plain, though; Tony is still part of that “boys will be boys” world, but I feel like the nuances that come with Pepper’s standing up to Tony (repeatedly putting him in his place) and Natasha’s steely operative (and also putting Stark in his place…and Happy…and numerous Hammer henchmen in a more literal sense) are acknowledgement that this is a character flaw he’ll leave behind. 

HOWEVER, and it’s a big one: the use of cheerleaders, the sleazy aside about Christine Everhart in “Iron Man 2” and yes, it has to be said, the one-night stand with Stark in the first “Iron Man” do add up to a problematic approach to women. These moments are uncomfortable and should be, but whether intended as such or not, remain as critiques and indictments of sexism in a) the weapons and tech industries in general and b) superhero films. 

2008 and 2010 are really not all that long ago and I remain unconvinced that “Wonder Woman”, “Capt. Marvel”, and now, “Black Widow” notwithstanding, we have a long, long way to go. We can’t rewrite/reshoot films from earlier eras - nor should we; we need them to remain as signposts of where we were and where we need to go.

Back to the cast:

I have nothing to add to my earlier comments about Downey, Favreau, and Paltrow. Just that they’re wonderful and I really enjoy what they do in this film. 

Oh! Don Cheadle as Rhodey. As I mentioned above, if Terrence Howard brought a weightier gravitas to the character at the outset, Cheadle’s read takes Rhodey in a lighter direction, but we get to see the earnest/more serious sides of his take in different ways. Rhodey is very much a moral compass to Tony’s extravagances and often errant actions. He’s capable of anchoring Stark in a way that Pepper isn’t able to at this point.

If is sounds like I don’t think much of Sam Rockwell’s turn as Hammer, that’s not so: I really dislike the character as written. He suffers from the kind of thinness that many of Marvel’s less memorable villains suffer from. Rockwell does turn in a steady and not unhumorous performance, but there’s just not a lot there to do much with. 

And there’s the rub with much of the film.

This is the first MCU movie that feels like a real MCU movie. It has all the virtues and flaws of many of the films in this grand, interconnected series of narratives. The characters are charming, flawed, and fleshed out as much as possible, but the script only allows for so many character beats and development. 

We also begin to sense that the script exists to simply get from point A to point B as efficiently as possible despite bloating with action sequences that go on too long (and frankly - and this has been pointed out by others elsewhere - oddly inertly) and don’t support the characters’ journeys or their identities, but exist mainly to propel us to the next act.

I am not laying the blame at Justin Theroux’s feet, either. While most movies are collective endeavors, it is a given that the Marvel franchises have more input than just one person per role in production. Theroux’s ear for dialog and comedic rhythms is assured (he did co-write “Tropic Thunder”, after all) but you can feel disparate strains of voices in the story. 

Tony’s motivation for his slovenly behavior, though, is irritating. Yes, he gets drunk embarrassingly in a setup that allows Rhodey to make off with War Machine. Yes, he fumbles his confession to Pepper about his debilitating condition. And yes, he is insufferable throughout to almost everyone in the movie to show how he is attempting to put on a front to protect others and what - exactly, accomplish by doing so? I still don’t know, except that little of this feels truthful.

Stark is supposed to be a man possessed of great resources and power and for sure, is in the process of what it means to care about others first, and yes, yes, the film has to show that he does grow. However, much of this feels contrived. 

The way Stark’s alcoholism is covered in the comics narrative that this derives from is stretched out over several issues; obviously, that luxury does not extend to the movie on hand and this is where we bump up to another limitation of the MCU’s “house style”. Character development has to be shown often within the context of a single film This is often to the detriment of the movie itself.

My understanding is that Favreau wanted to incorporate more of “The Genie in the Bottle” arc from the comics into the three films but this was vetoed to move Tony along more quickly/efficiently. I get it; I really do. And in one of the BTS features, Favreau admits that even given two years time from pre-production to release, it didn’t feel like there was enough time. No matter; the world of movie franchise budgets dictates what it will and it most often gets. It also accounts for why I am not as enamored with “IM2” as its predecessor or its successor. It feels closer to a placeholder, to an in-between moment in a larger melange. In other words, it feels like an episode as opposed to its own creature.

And this is the flaw we encounter throughout the MCU. Few and far between are the movies that stand reliably on their own feet without feeling like a necessity or a lead-in to “the next thing.” The characters remain charming and charismatic, the actors frequently deliver, but/and a local structure feels dependent on texts outside the current play. This has a tendency to reduce the dramatic tension in the film at hand and while enjoyable, it knee-caps what should be more important and reduces what should be heartfelt emotional beats.

By the time we get to the climax of “Iron Man 2”, the show-down between Vanko, Stark, and Rhodes, any thrill or suspense has dissipated after the prolonged rigmarole of the drones unleashed on the Stark Expo. Indeed, the elimination of the drones is so anticlimactic that by the time Rourke shows up, the shoulders begin to shrug(1). You know he’s going down, that there will be the metaphorical freeing of Pepper from the train tracks and witty badinage will ensue between the two male leads, etc., etc.

This isn’t a fatal flaw for many popcorn blockbusters; it’s a familiar template and one that we will become quickly used to in the MCU when the movies don’t have more solid authorial voices and creative vision. That might be why I tend to be harder on the movie here than for any other reason. It’s not the director, the actors, the DP, or anyone else who fails the characters; it’s the corporatist approach to the collaborative nature of filmmaking that retards the best parts of the films themselves. 

No, it’s not unique to Marvel; but it is more striking in its dissonance, because when all the pieces do fit, when the scripts have more on their minds thematically than fitting in to a larger network of stories, and when the actors have time to breathe, they work as more than the simple entertainments they tend to be. Maybe not “art”, but they fill out the promise of the stories and the people that imbue them with life. In other words, no one is sold short, and everyone - including the audience - can walk away with fuller bellies, so to speak.

What I have in mind are the films like “Black Panther”, “Captain America: the Winter Soldier”, and yes, “Iron Man 3” where all those features obtain. None would be mistaken for Bresson or Scorsese, but each one has a depth beyond what most blockbuster movies offer and raise that overarching structure of the MCU to a higher level. 

I’m not sure, but I think it’s with “Iron Man 2” that we discover another part of the template that Marvel follows (at least, in the first three phases) where two franchise films introduce us to the principles and the third comes after a significant crossover event and completes the center figure’s development (in this case, “Iron Man” and “Iron Man 2”, “Thor” and “Thor: the Dark World”, “Captain America: the First Avenger” and “Captain America: the Winter Soldier”, all leading up to Joss Whedon’s “The Avengers”, then followed after “Iron Man 3” by “The Avengers: Age of Ultron” and the third Captain America film with Ant-Man introduced in his first film(2) and so on).

The Marvel boilerplate is not a bad way to go, but it has its limitations and yeah, I do understand where Scorsese is coming from; these films aren’t capital A “Art” - but they are cinema. Often, they are very good cinema.

I don’t really care to do too much work on the MCU films because the recaps, press, analyses, YouTube clips and all the ancillary media are overwhelming as it is, and I don’t really have that much to add to the noise (though I might). But I can’t and wouldn’t ever ignore them. I grew up with Marvel comics when the Marvel Bullpen was Stan Lee, Roy Thomas, Jack Kirby, Steve Ditko, John Romita, Sr., and no more than a dozen other veteran voices. By the end of the sixties, I was in awe with what they were doing; Jim Steranko, Neal Adams, and more expressive artists came on board and enlarged the stories that grew increasingly connected. From nine to seventeen (roughly), I continued to wonder what it would be like for these characters, these stories to be cinematically adapted. It took a few decades, didn’t it? And after some pretty wonderful starts (the X-Men and Raimi’s Spider-Man series, and we dare not overlook Blade!) and some pretty middling clunkers (Sony’s Fantastic Four stabs, Ang Lee’s Hulk movie - though the latter is not as bad as you might be led to believe), Avi Arad, Kevin Feige, Favreau, and all those other collaborators hit the sweet spot. For the most part, I have to admit: it’s been marvelous.

Notes

1. Those drones. Typically, I think of them as the dry run for the House Party Protocol in “Iron Man 3” but both find their curatorial resonance in Ultron’s cloning and massive duplication of himself into the swarms of smaller units in “The Avengers: Age of Ultron”. 
2. This is hardly a strict or set in cement structure. Right now, we still await the third in the trilogies for Guardians of the Galaxy, Spider-Man, and Ant-Man. To be sure, “Thor: Ragnarok” is one of the lead-ins that set up “Avengers: Infinity War” but it, too, stands on its own and gives the central character one of the most satisfying changes in direction in any franchise without playing him for a fool. In any event, this “first we do 2 and then, later, after next phase, we do number 3” may not be so valid: Thor is getting a fourth film and who knows what the next “big event” is going to be in the coming, what, ten years?

Other stray thoughts:

Not that I expect great or nuanced sociopolitical critique from these films (see my notes about the Marvel relationship with the military), but props for Gary Shandling’s oily turn as Senator Stern. So, so good. He and Miguel Ferrer in “Iron Man 3” make a great pair.

“It’s always been you” takes on so much more post-“Endgame”, but it does add depth to Tony here. 

I’m tempted to revisit the first two Thor movies, though they didn’t exactly blow me away. I liked both well enough, but by this time, I realized that has all to do with the characters and performances and comparatively little to do with the action on screen. I actually found Asgard to be kind of chintzy in Branagh’s movie and the narrative pretty weak in “Thor: the Dark World”, but Hemsworth, Hiddleston, Portman, (and Kat Dennings! Whee!) were all so good. Yeah, maybe I should take another look…oh. And Hopkins and Skarsgård. Yeah, not too shabby on the cast…oh, and Rene Russo…and..oh, I’ll stop….