Ruined by Hype: Iron Man

As promised, I am starting a new series of blog posts called "Ruined by Hype." For the most part, this series will be about movies that I went into with high expectations for a variety of reasons and, often as a direct result of these expectations, did not end up enjoying the movie very much. Sometimes, I may just write about movies that I simply think are way overrated, although the two things are normally very intertwined.


The first movie I am writing about is Iron Man, if that was not clear from the title. Now, a few notes before we get started: first, I will be talking solely about the first movie, as I have not seen the second. Secondly, there will be many spoilers - this will not always be the case but, because I have a fundamental disagreement with how they did the climax of Iron Man, it's difficult to not give away major plot points.


In preparation for writing this blog post, I actually requisitioned a download of the movie from my friend and rewatched it Thursday evening. My first thought upon watching it was "this is much better than I remember it being," which is, of course, a further comment on how expectations can warp our perception of a movie. Now, on the whole, the movie is not that bad - I am a fan of Robert Downey Jr., and he is certainly well within his comfort zone in Iron Man. The dialogue is generally witty and well-paced - in fact, the whole movie moves along fairly well. I have many physics issues with the movie, but I suppose one must not let our "real-world" physics get in the way of a movie. However, the movie is, on the whole, decent, but hardly ground-breaking. I suppose it compares favourably with a lot of other superhero movies, but, if you want a superhero movie with more depth to it, check out Batman Begins (stay tuned for Ruined by Hype: The Dark Knight).


That is one of my largest concerns with Iron Man - it was, for the most part, enjoyable, but it feels a little bit thin. There is very little moral conflict - they almost touch upon something with the whole "how do you justify selling weapons?" Perhaps they could have explored how Stark's character undergoes a large shift after his captivity but, to me, it felt like it was very heavily related to the fact that he simply did not know that his company was selling weapons to terrorists. It could have been interesting to look at the idea of "wilful ignorance," and perhaps get into some mildly clichéd exploration of how Stark is forced to re-examine his preconceptions and face up to the things that he had ignored for so long. In the movie, it seemed like Stane simply hid his activities too well, and that Stark, while certainly irresponsible, was more than willing to take responsibility once he discovered the secrets.


 However, if that were the only reason that the movie failed to live up to the reviews I had heard, then I would be happy to write it off as an enjoyable, if mildly disappointing movie. What pushes me over into active dislike is that the writers of the movie, while having a very good grasp of pacing and other important writing techniques, have absolutely no idea how to write a climax. Now, I don't believe that it is too bold of a statement to say that the climax is the most important part of any proper* story. Every part of the story is either building towards the climax - putting obstacles in the protagonist's way, creating tension, and setting up the conflicts, is the climax, or is tying up loose ends after the climax. Obviously, every part of the story is relevant - if we do not care about the characters, then, regardless of how good the climax is, it will fall flat because we will be emotionally uninvolved. However, regardless of how good the rest of the story is, the climax will stand out in the audience's mind as the most memorable part of the story - and, as such, will have a much larger impact on how they feel about the movie once it is done.


Now, the writers for Iron Man did a respectable job of setting up for the climax - we are aware of the various conflicts, inward and outward, we have an emotional attachment to the characters, and we have an emotional investment in the outcome of the movie. Of course, in Iron Man, this is where everything came apart. Now, in my mind, the first cardinal sin of climax writing is having the protagonist be simply better than the antagonist, and beat him in a straightforward battle of force**. Luckily, Iron Man did not commit this sin - Stark was outmatched and out-gunned and, when all hope seemed lost, his spunky secretary blew up the generator, killing Stane and saving the day.


Wait, what? You mean, the protagonist doesn't even defeat the villain? What kind of climax is that?! In the climax, we are supposed to see how the hero has grown as a character - and how this growth allows him to overcome his weaknesses and defeat the villain when all hope seems lost. In Iron Man, all we see is Stark getting saved from the jaws of defeat, rather than doing the saving himself. Obviously there are no hard and fast rules for how a climax should play out - but, there are fundamental rules to follow, and one of those is that the protagonist must triumph, without someone else stepping in to take over. As Hilari Bell says, "everyone should know that the cavalry can't come to the rescue at the last moment, that the hero has to rescue himself."*** How would the ending of Harry Potter have been if, rather than defeating Voldemort himself, Harry instead distracted him while another group of people finished him off? I don't want to spend too much time talking about Harry Potter, suffice it to say that the climax was superbly done.


While a complete fix of Iron Man's climax would undoubtedly require large amounts of restructuring in the script, and, hopefully, more connection with the unplumbed depths of moral ambiguity, the most galling thing about how the movie played out is that there was a simple fix available that would have very nearly achieved the desired result. One could restructure the fight scene to have more occur before the final flight, building more and more tension as the battery on Stark's suit slowly dies, until finally, in a seemingly desperate attempt to escape, he uses the last dregs of battery power to flee higher and higher. Stane catches him and, as he begins to crush Stark's suit, raving about his technical superiority, Stane's suit freezes up - revealing Tony's plan. Stark tosses off his pithy one-liner, and then drives Stane towards the ground, using one final burst of power from his suit to fling himself free of the blast radius, while Stane crashes directly into the arc reactor and explosions ensue. Because that's how Robert Downey Jr. always defeats the bad guys - with pithy one-liners.


- Michael


*I here say "proper story" to exclude genres such as Theatre of the Absurd, as, lacking any semblance of a plot, such genres clearly do not require a climax.


**Everybody would do well to read Hilari Bell's writing tip about climaxes, found here: http://www.sfwa.org/members/bell/writingtips/spring08.html I may, in fact, quote from her in this blog. Actually, at some point, everybody ought to read all of her writing tips - they are very useful and well-written. Also, read her novels; she is an excellent author.


***http://www.sfwa.org/members/bell/writingtips/spring08.html, paragraph 6.