What The Year Of The Superhero Rivalry Says About 2016

Captain-America-Civil-War

Acclaimed novelist Toni Morrison once said, “All good art is political. There is none that isn’t. And the ones that try hard not to be political are political by saying, ‘We love the status quo.'” Whether we like it or not, 2016 proves her right. Not even superheroes are immune to politics (Marvel vs. D.C. anyone?).

So far, 2016 has seen Daredevil fight the Punisher, Batman battle Superman and, next month, Captain America will duke it out with Iron Man. What makes heroes fighting each other so compelling and why is 2016 seeing it happen in superhero stories?

Well, first, it’s more like our real world.  In reality, there are no heroes or villains, super or otherwise. Just flawed humans in conflict. When stories are no longer preoccupied with good and evil (at least, not entirely) but ideologies, it makes them more open for interpretation and discussion.

Second, these are characters we care about, at least in theory. One reason the D.C. cinematic universe has failed thus far in comparison to Marvel’s is that the latter spent eight years methodically building a universe and character relationships they could then gleefully topple in epic fashion (Civil War) and the former just didn’t (Dawn of Justice). Imagine Marvel as the kid who actually plays out stories with his action figures and D.C. as the ADHD one who just smashes his together.

Third, these rivalries can be about important issues. I think most people who aren’t Thanos, Darkseid or Donald Drumpf are against world domination, mass extinction and Earth exploding. But what about when the stakes aren’t quite so high? Are they against accountability? Do they think the ends justify the means? What is stronger: fear or hope?

Three months into the year, I think I speak for planet Earth when I say the U.S. presidential election is one for the books. But it’s hardly news that America has become severely politically polarized. Nowadays, the country is dominated by “negative partisanship,” i.e. voters are more likely to vote based on who they hate rather than who they like.

What Morrison is saying in the above quote is that, simply by imparting information, a storyteller makes choices that shape a narrative. In a film for example, every move – from casting to shot composition to script and tone – is intentional and should be judged as such. It’s why reviewers hate the “turn your brain off” excuse. Despite or because of the critic’s job description to analyze a film by various qualitative criteria, some feel they are “ruining” the fun by overthinking blockbusters and other mainstream entertainment. 

But the best art, especially the genre stories geeks like us love, always speaks directly to our own world. The implications of the stories matter. Before deconstructionism become an excuse to make things nihilistic and depressing to add “realism” (a certain superhero film released over the weekend comes to mind), writers like Alan Moore and Frank Miller used it to add context and weight in masterpieces like Watchmen and The Dark Knight Returns. Pop culture is a reflection of humanity, a playground that can allow collective imaginations to work out issues.

Let’s take a look at four hero vs. hero conflicts and what their rivalries say about our world.

  • Iron Man vs. Captain America

When the Civil War comic series was published in 2006, it leaned heavily on post-9/11 paranoia. What do we do about casualties or loss of life? Can we or can’t we trust the government? What is more important – security and laws or freedom and liberty? Iron Man became “the man,” seeking to impose order on a chaotic world and Captain America became a libertarian, defending his personal moral code of loyalty and individualism.

From what the trailers have shown, the MCU version shares very little in common with the comic series. But, in its own way, it organically showcases the conflict between Tony and Steve. Both feel guilt over their actions as superheroes (Tony, for creating weapons like Ultron, Steve for losing Bucky to HYDRA) which drive them to beliefs diametrically opposed to one another. Both have Savior complexes that tells them they know what is right. The irony is that the avatar of state power is the one rebelling against authority and the rebellious Objectivist is putting faith in a governmental institution.

Therein lies the tension at the heart of superheroics; at the end of the day, it relies on someone big and powerful to step in and save that very same day. Those are called strongmen and in our world they are often dictators, enforcing their will on a populace because they think they know what is best for everyone.

  • Batman vs. Superman

The ideas at the heart of Civil War are also at the heart of Batman v Superman, except even more explicit (Superman stormtroopers, anyone?) because the latter film doesn’t have nearly the character development that the Marvel heroes do, so thematic space is filled with its nihilistic ideas instead of actual relationships.

Instead of security vs. freedom, the conflict here is Batman as a symbol of fear and Superman as a symbol of hope. Putting superpowers aside for a second, asking which character is more powerful is asking the quintessential Machiavellian question: is it better to be loved or feared?

Director Zack Snyder intertwines his own cinematic take on Watchmen with inspiration from The Dark Knight Returns to argue that superheroes are fundamentally a discussion of fascism. What is implicit in Cap’s charge against Iron Man’s punitive redemption quest is explicit in Batman’s fear of a Superman-run-amok.

Charlie Jane Anders of io9 does a fantastic job of breaking down how superheroes represent a strain of American authoritarianism by comparing and contrasting Batman v Superman and Civil War. Like Cap, Superman is a boy-scout associated with American dominance out of place in a modern world. Meanwhile, the traditional symbols of rugged individualism are genius billionaires – Bruce Wayne and Tony Stark – who inherited their wealth but decided to make themselves arbiters of righteousness. When Batman rages against the alien Superman, it plays on the very real human fear of ” the other,” whether they be Mexican immigrants, Syrian refugees or new hipster neighbors.

But when Superman and Captain America, paragons of virtue, are placed in impossible situations like Man of Steel and Captain America: The Winter Soldier, it’s not because audiences want to see Superman kill Zod at the end. It’s because we want to see Bucky save Cap at the end. Marvel and Chris Evans have stretched Captain America but he hasn’t broke. Zack Snyder was eager to break a brittle Superman and did early. He seemed fixed on the notion that a Superman couldn’t exist. Marvel proved he can; his name is Captain America.

  • Daredevil vs. The Punisher

And speaking of the law, nowhere better is the conflict between operating in and outside of it illustrated than through Daredevil and the Punisher, the dichotomous duo of justice and vengeance.

The two represent a broader conflict between superheroics as they’re conventionally known and vigilantism in practice. Whereas Daredevil is a blind lawyer/ninja with super-senses, the Punisher is simply a soldier (albeit the greatest soldier ever) with nothing to left to lose. “Soldiers don’t wear masks” as the fantastic Jon Bernthal version of Frank Castle put it in Daredevil Season 2.

I don’t say that to be reductive but to point out that, skull outfit aside, the Punisher is the kind of character, similar to how EW‘s Darren Franich illustrates Doomsday and Bane in his recent column, that cuts the bullshit of superheroics and presents a vigilante free of theatrics and morals who can simply blow away criminals. The Punisher is basically the embodiment of this classic Indiana Jones moment.

Daredevil meanwhile is like a cross between Catholic penance and the justice system. He’s the personification of the tension inherent in law, of how the law sometimes hinders rather than enables justice. He uses his fists instead of guns and wears a gaudy costume because criminals are a cowardly and superstitious lot. The issues churned up between these two relate to gun rights, the death penalty and systemic failures. Are there people who deserve to die? Who decides? And how do we react when the system fails us?

  • Deadpool vs. Everybody

The only story bigger than superheroes fighting each other is Deadpool beating them all. Who would have thought just a few short years ago a film about the Merc with the Mouth would be a bigger critical and commercial success (it just became the highest-grossing R-rated film of all time) than a film starring the two most famous superheroes in history.

Deadpool became an unplanned herald of R-rated superhero flicks like the upcoming Ultimate Edition of Batman v Superman and the third Wolverine film hitting theaters next year and you can bet studios are doing all they can to learn from its success. Just like Suicide Squad apes Guardians of the Galaxy, it reinforces that fun is the most desirable trait in a comic book film. Whether a film is sanitized like a Marvel film’s or as grimdark as a D.C. flick, Deadpool proves that, even in an article analyzing the politics of these films, it’s fun that matters most to superhero films.

While the other films brought their characters together through tragedy, Deadpool did it with humor. Liberal or conservative, I bet you laughed at this movie. As far as unifying end notes for an editorial about what divides our heroes (and, by proxy, ourselves) I can’t think of a better one.

Sam Flynn

Sam Flynn

Sam is a writer and journalist whose passion for pop culture burns with the fire of a thousand suns and at least three LED lamps.