Other Reviews in this Series.
Director: Jon Favreau
Writers: Mark Fergus, Hawk Ostby, Art Marcum, Matt Holloway
Cast: Robert Downey, Jr., Gwyneth Paltrow, Jeff Bridges, Terrence Howard, Clark Gregg, Paul Bettany, Jon Favreau
Runtime: 126 mins.
2008
Eight years later and the success of Iron Man feels inevitable. This is the movie that spawned a franchise of thirteen films and counting. Returning to the source is a fairly satisfying experience. The zippy pace, tight action, and whirlwind of a lead performance make for both an enjoyable standalone experience and a solid foundation for all the hubbub to come. And yet, nobody saw any of this coming.
Iron Man had been in development hell since 1990, burning through directors, writers, and producers on a regular basis. Everyone from Tom Cruise to Nic Cage to Tarantino had been approached about the project. Eventually 2006 rolled around and Marvel Studios took over the mantle. They essentially started from scratch, ignoring the script treatments that had come before. Iron Man was fast-tracked simply because he was their final major property to have never gotten a big screen treatment before. Iron Man was not at all a hot commodity before this film. He was a B-list hero with so little cultural relevance that Marvel had to actively educate potential audiences that Iron Man was a man in a suit rather than some sort of automaton. It's not surprising that the self-financed and unproven Marvel Studios had to go through 30+ writers in order to put together a team for this movie.
All of that sounds like a creative death knell, but movies are alchemy and sometimes the stars align. Despite dealing with a modest budget, an incomplete script, a relatively unknown character, and a washed-up has-been for a lead, Iron Man became a landmark success that would have a meteoric impact on the landscape of cinema. In fact, some of those difficulties directly contribute to what makes the movie so enjoyable. The filmmakers' decision to focus on the story and action rather than the dialogue allowed the performers to create a distinct and breezy tone for the film through improvisation. Iron Man felt different than other blockbusters at the time; director Jon Favreau knew exactly how to channel the charisma of his lead into the pacing and editing of the film as a whole. The budgetary restrictions forced the team to be prudent and inventive with the action they decided to feature, leading to a sleek film that never gets bogged down in spectacle.* Even Robert Downey Jr.'s unbankability fit perfectly with the film's themes. Downey's portrayal of the billionaire playboy Tony Stark, a man who is confronted with the responsibility of his legacy, certainly benefits from Downey's status as a fallen star. Only fitting that this would be the role to catapult him from forgotten celebrity to the highest paid actor in Hollywood.
*I was actually surprised to learn Iron Man tops two hours. In my mind it existed as a pared down hour and forty-five minutes affair. The pacing is tremendous, with a few exceptions.
He really does nail the role. Starting with the instantly iconic first scene, Downey's charisma effortlessly interlocks with the film's tone, and it is delightful. Downey has always been the best at playing the lovable asshole. We want him to change, so his arc is meaningful, but he never veers into unsympathetic territory. At least not in this movie. He has exactly the right balance of smarmy self-assuredness and pointed vulnerability. Those big wet eyes were made for the silver screen.
The elements that make Iron Man successful have since become tenets for the Marvel Cinematic Universe, for better or for worse. Thanks the the groundwork this movie laid, most Marvel movies more or less fit these boxes: charismatic protagonist, quippy dialogue, a palpable sense of fun, pitch perfect casting, clunky cross-film promotion, dull villains, and messy generic action-packed third acts.
Those last three are legitimate criticisms, far clearer now looking back on the film from a distance. Even from the get-go the MCU was unable to shoehorn in the universe-building stuff with anything resembling grace. They are the pioneers of this connected-universe brand of cinema, so perhaps flawless incorporation of it is too much to expect, but it is still worth mentioning how the movie grinds to a halt every time Agent Coulson shows up. Favreau tries to make it into a running gag of sorts, but it is patently clear that the movie is taking a break from its narrative proper so that it can wink at the audience and gesture towards the future. Same with the post-credits Nick Fury stuff: It's cool, but it isn't able to stand alone as a compelling scene. These scenes are great fun for nerds, but hurt the film as a whole.
Obadiah Stane, the Iron Monger, pretty much falls flat as a villain. Part of it is that his villainy is treated as a third act reveal, even though Jeff Bridges is clearly sliming it up as a bald beardy bad guy from the get go. Even when seeing the movie in the theater, I had no interest in the work Bridges turns in here. His arc is about as generic of a close-friend-betrayal trope as they come.
In fact, the movie pretty much falls off the rails anytime Robert Downey, Jr. is offscreen. Paltrow does well enough, but Terrence Howard phones it in as mediocre best friend Rhodey.
Not that they are in need of any more praise at this point, but Disney and Marvel have done well constructing this universe. Their methods may have been haphazard at first, but at this point they have it down to a science. Part of that is the ideal casting, part of it is the strong sense of character, part of it is the thoughtful thematic work, part of it is Feige's producer-driven structure. The result is engaging populist entertainment that can range anywhere from groundbreaking to shallow. Luckily, most of the movies spend most of their time on the upper half of that scale.
Perhaps the wisest decision the MCU made was to really focus on their heroes above all else. This may sound like common sense, but so many superhero movies sideline their title characters for the sake of creating compelling villains, or sometimes for the sake of nothing at all. We've witnessed the detriments of Zack Snyder's disdain for Superman, but a more generous example would be Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy. None of those movies gave Batman their full attention, opting instead to double down on the psychology of its villains and setting. In fact, I can hardly think of a superhero film that has successfully highlighted both the hero and the villain, with the exception of a certain pair of films named Spider-Man and Spider-Man 2.
Of course, when you're trying to build a universe, it pays to give your love and attention to the heroes of your story. There's a reason Iron Man has shot from obscure B-lister to AAA-level cultural phenomenon, and it isn't because people liked the villain or because the action was cool. It's because Marvel wrapped a generations-old character in an accessible and contemporary package without sacrificing any of the themes or philosophies that made the character meaningful in the first place. The persistent problems the Marvel movies display are troublesome, but they rarely ruin the viewing experience because Marvel has hit upon the formula for giving us heroes that we care about.
3.5 / 5 BLOBS
No comments:
Post a Comment