Captain Unamerica
Posted on 21 July 2010
From the pen of John Nolte over at Big Hollywood:
What a shocker. Captain America: The First Avenger will be Captain America in name only. According to this morning’s L.A. Times, director Joe Johnston is currently running around Comic-Con to reassure those wringing their hands with worry over the horrible idea that his $200 million tent-pole scheduled for a summer 2011 release might be too American-y, that it won’t be.
Read it and weep you suckers who thought Hollywood might give us this one. But at the same time, don’t forget to thank Johnston for disappointing us before we spent the ten bucks:
“We’re sort of putting a slightly different spin on Steve Rogers,” said Joe Johnston, whose past directing credits include “Jurassic Park III” and “Honey, I Shrunk the Kids. “He’s a guy that wants to serve his country but he’s not a flag-waver. We’re reinterpretating sort of what the comic book version of Steve Rogers was.” …
“He wants to serve his country, but he’s not this sort of jingoistic American flag-waver,” Johnston said. “He’s just a good person. We make a point of that in the script: Don’t change who you are once you go from Steve Rogers to this super-soldier, you have to stay who you are inside, that’s really what’s important more than your strength and everything. It’ll be interesting and fun to put a different spin on the character…
My comment:People who hate America should not be allowed anywhere near beloved American icons. First, Superman is portrayed as a creepy-stalker-ish out-of-wedlock deadbeat dad. Now, this.
So the dimwittery-addicted Leftroid wants to make a freaking CAPTAIN AMERICA movie. He thinks that fans of the flag-waving, flag-wrapped star-spangled super-patriot who carries the unbreakable shield of the United States and had the Wings of the American Eagle on his flipping head, who has the American flag spraypainted on his torso, over which he wears red, white, and blue mail, the American star on his gloves, on his boots, and on his underpants, an 4-F who volunteered for a dangerous experimental drug because he could not tolerate not to fight for America when American was at war, that is the character the dimwittery-addicted Leftroid thinks the fans of Captain America want to see not wave a flag.
Captain flag-wave, whose shtick is that he dresses in the flag and waves a flag, and carries the flag on his shield, is the one Leftroid thinks we want to see not wave the flag.
No, Steve Rogers, a Yankee Doodle Dandy born on the Fourth of July, now stands for the nihilist-postmodern me-first narcissist principle that I have to stay who I am, and that the me-ness of me is more important than saving lives, hitting Hitler, mashing Mussolini, toppling Tojo, smashing the Axis powers, Ruskie spies, organized crime, HYDRA, the Red Skull, AIM, Baron Zemo, the Masters of Evil, the Adaptoid, Trapster or Batroc the Leaper. Yes, my dear postmodern post-thinking post-Americans of post-America, Captain America now represents the Me-ness of Me.
MY PREDICTION: In the film version, Captain America will beat the snot out of George Bush and Sarah Palin, free the prisoners at Gitmo, perform an abortion on the Black Widow, erect a Mosque at Ground Zero, apologize to the Sultan of Oilcanistan, shut down talk radio, arrest the Pope, outlaw firearms, and perform a wedding between a loving yet wise gay couple. Are those not the things that make America truly great?
Just shoot him again. And screw you, Stan Lee.
When this turns out to be a Skrull, call me. Otherwise, screw you, Stan Lee.
Well, considering he plans to introduce Captain America in the film by making him do a dance number in a USO show I don’t think he thinks that highly of the character:
http://www.wired.com/underwire/2010/02/captain-america-uso/
PS: No, it wasn’t a Skrull. Steve got shot with time traveling bullets which put him in stasis and then made him….never mind. Marvel and their goofy ass plots…
If I understand right, most of this information has already been released.
Apparently, the idea behind the film is that the military creates the Captain America supersoldier, but the brass is unwilling to risk their investment by actually sending him off to war, so they give him an over-the-top flag costume (the initial comic book costume) and put him on the USO circuit. Steve Rogers, however, is desperate to actually go out in the field and fight for his country, and initially resents the costume and his role as a figurehead; so he goes AWOL, replaces his costume with a muted one, and does his part to fight the enemy. However, over the course of the film, he comes to realize the importance of the costume and the symbology involved in helping him to lead and inspiring others; so he embraces his old costume, and modifies his battle costume to incorporate the American-flag symbolism and some of the features of the Jack Kirby costume (so it ends up looking something like the more recent Captain America costumes from the comics).
So the idea is, he’s more of an earnest soldierly type who wants to do his part for his country and the men in the field, and initially resents having to be a living symbol. Eventually, though, he does come to embrace his symbolic role as an image of the American Way.
I don’t know, it doesn’t sound that bad to me. Especially, it strikes me as a good way to deal with the costume problem; i.e. that audiences today would be hard-pressed to accept the Jack Kirby original costume as a practical fighting uniform for a military super-soldier, and would probably just find it comical. So they’re (for better or worse) embracing the comical aspects of the old costume, while at the same time embracing it, its over-the-top-ness, and especially the American-flag design and “Captain America” persona as important symbols and an image of leadership and patriotism.
As for what this does to the character, I’m less sure of the wisdom of it; the biggest change here isn’t in terms of his PATRIOTISM (i.e. he still very much wants to fight for his country, wants to do his part), but in terms of his general personality. This Steve Rogers seems to be a much quieter sort, less “jingo-istic” and “gung-ho”; but what exactly is the Captain America character if not both of these things?
I don’t know, I think I’ll reserve judgement until I know more.
And if you’re looking at comic book films, the Kenneth Branagh (a self-professed lifelong fan of the comic) version of Thor from what we’ve seen of it seems to be embracing its mileiu to the hilt. The pictures released so far look delightfully over-the-top
“And if you’re looking at comic book films, the Kenneth Branagh (a self-professed lifelong fan of the comic) version of Thor from what we’ve seen of it seems to be embracing its mileiu to the hilt. The pictures released so far look delightfully over-the-top”
Yeah, I have a three word response to that:
ASGARDIANS AS ALIENS
Yeah, looks like they want to explain Thor, Odin, Loki and the rest as just powerful aliens. No trolls. No Hel. Just aliens.
I am so glad that Kirby isn’t alive to see this abomination.
I guess the site doesn’t like youtube embeds. So here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-9RyHmjK-4&feature=related
LOL, my thoughts exactly!
“So the idea is, he’s more of an earnest soldierly type who wants to do his part for his country and the men in the field, and initially resents having to be a living symbol. Eventually, though, he does come to embrace his symbolic role as an image of the American Way. I don’t know, it doesn’t sound that bad to me.”
Doesn’t sound bad to me either. The same director previously made The Rocketeer, which had a perfectly fine flagwaving scene and showed the Rocketeer punching Nazis in the face. So it is possible that maybe we can ignore the dimwittery of the director saying the superpatriot will not be portrayed as a patriot.
Keep in mind that Captain American has not been all that American for many a year: he took off the uniform during the Nixon and Reagan administrations, becoming ‘Nomad’ or ‘The Captain’ and basically reflected the leftroid idea of patriotism as the highest form of dissent, or something like that. Back in the FDR days, of course, the political Left was still a loyal opposition to American, and still called themselves Americans and still loved the country. Captain America comes from the days when Jack Kirby could draw a superhero iconic enough that he could please both. He did not have to take sides because the sides were not so sharply and clearly opposed to each other.
The take-off-the-uniform period (under the overrated Englehart) lasted three issues (180-182). Like much of Englehart’s “relevant” bits – in particular, his ridiculous, tacked-on and pointless exposure of Richard Nixon as the head of the Secret Empire – it was all too clearly an attempt to get some attention by pushing political buttons in a shallow and sensational way. Englehart was a card-carrying dope-smoking hippy and the most overrated writer in Marvel history. There was a more serious moment in Gruenwald’s management when Cap was deprived of the right to wear the uniform by a corrupt government commission which turned out to be manipulated by the Red Skull (343-350). His reaction was to craft himself a variant of his old uniform and shield and get back to the fray under the none too deep disguise of “The Captain”.
BTW, while the commission as such turned out to be corrupt and manipulated, many of its individual members were not, and became part of the Marvel roster of background characters. This shows the understated excellence and frequent commonsense of Gruenwald’s character work: unlike the Engleharts of this world, he does not treat people as cardboard cutouts.
Captain America has NEVER been a super-patriot or a conservative hero. All his leading creators – Joe Simon, Jack Kirby, Stan Lee, Steve Englehart, Mark de Matteis, Mark Gruenwald – were liberals of various stripes (Kirby, as I pointed out, little short of a socialist) and the Captain was consistently depicted as the defender of a distinctly left-of-centre kind of decency. Take for instance the fact that he made it a point never to kill anyone by intent, or the fact that both Englehart and Gruenwald deliberately designed counter-Captains of more or less conservative stripes to set off the actual values involved in the figure of the hero. The only stupid involved in this outline as I see it is the claim to be doing something “different” when what is described is pretty much in the mainstream of the character.
Is this “the fact that he (Captain America) made it a point never to kill anyone by intent” meant to be an example of “a distinctly left-of-centre kind of decency”?
It certainly was taken that way in the lettercol, which especially under Gruenwald was one of the best and most thoughtful in comicdom and regularly gave place to well-exposed opposing views. There was a serious debate on the matter that lasted over a number of issues, and in which someone said essentially “if this character makes the matter of not killing enemies a matter of principle, then he does not represent my principles”. IIRC, the debate started about issue 325.
I asked you what you meant, not what someone in a letter column circa issue 325 meant.
Is this “the fact that he (Captain America) made it a point never to kill anyone by intent” meant to be an example of “a distinctly left-of-centre kind of decency”?
Does this “someone” in a letter column circa issue 325 correctly represent everyone who is not “distinctly left of center”?
But taking your non-answer as an answer, are we allowed to conclude that that any superhero with a scruple against killing is distinctly left of center, whereas those who kill (the Punisher comes to mind) are ergo right of center, and correctly represents the right-of-center? Whether you meant to or not, that is what you implied. Is it what you meant?
(I seem to recall that the Punisher was a villain when he first appeared, but the coarsening of the readership and writership made him popular enough to become an antihero, then a hero. I lament what I call the “Frank Millerization” of comics in the 1980′s, with the emphasis on darker themes and bloodier violence: making the Punisher in the hero, and to a lesser extent, Wolverine, I regard as part of this lamentable trend.)
When you say Captain America has never been a super-patriot, how are you using the phrase “super-patriot”? Does this phrase mean “an evil jingoist”? I would agree that Captain America is not evil. Does this phrase mean “An evil Republican”? I would agree that Cap is not evil.
Or does it mean someone who is supremely patriotic, that is, a flag-waver, someone who is supremely pro-American? There I am not sure I can agree. It depends on what you mean.
If Captain America is not supremely pro-American, then, in order to make clear to me what you mean, please give me an example of a hero is who more patriotic or more pro-American than Captain America.
Jack Kirby’s Fighting American? Will Eisner’s Uncle Sam? Archie Comic’s The Shield? The Fighting Yank? Liberty Belle? what about Wonder Woman or Superman?
Are any of these heroes super-patriotic? If so, does this mean that they lack the distinctive decency of the left-of-center, namely, that they never kill by intent?
I wrote an answer which the computer ate. As I am ill with food poisoning and in no better mood than you seem to be, I shall not try again.
Rather than continuing the argument, I will pray for your good health, friend. If it is any help, I do not think Captain America is meant to be leftist or rightist or any -ist. He comes from a day when the differences in America at least were not as vehement, and the left-of-center could wave the flag and praise the constitution without coughing with embarrassment.
Patriotism need not mean being uncritical of your country; you can (and should) love her, but be willing to speak up when real wrong is being done. Captain America was created when America was involved in the Second World War, and had the attributes of a hero for that time. But sixty years on, things have changed. Certainly no-one should be ashamed of the flag, and I see no good reason why his costume should be changed, but loving and honouring the flag and the nation need not mean uncritically accepting and supporting all that the government of the day does in its name (on the other hand, adjusting the character to be a liberal ahead of his time is unrealistic also).
As for flag-waving, too often it is wrapping oneself in the flag, with the intimation of “Criticise me and you criticise America/Ireland/Ruritania!”. I find myself in agreement with the saying that “Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.”
As always, Chesterton puts it better:
“Orthodoxy”, Chapter V – The Flag of the World
“Let us reiterate for an instant that the only right optimism is a sort of universal patriotism. What is the matter with the pessimist? I think it can be stated by saying that he is the cosmic anti-patriot. And what is the matter with the anti-patriot? I think it can be stated, without undue bitterness, by saying that he is the candid friend. And what is the matter with the candid friend? There we strike the rock of real life and immutable human nature.
I venture to say that what is bad in the candid friend is simply that he is not candid. He is keeping something back — his own gloomy pleasure in saying unpleasant things. He has a secret desire to hurt, not merely to help. This is certainly, I think, what makes a certain sort of anti-patriot irritating to healthy citizens. I do not speak (of course) of the anti-patriotism which only irritates feverish stockbrokers and gushing actresses; that is only patriotism speaking plainly. A man who says that no patriot should attack the Boer War until it is over is not worth answering intelligently; he is saying that no good son should warn his mother off a cliff until she has fallen over it. But there is an anti-patriot who honestly angers honest men, and the explanation of him is, I think, what I have suggested: he is the uncandid candid friend; the man who says, “I am sorry to say we are ruined,” and is not sorry at all.
…The evil of the pessimist is, then, not that he chastises gods and men, but that he does not love what he chastises — he has not this primary and supernatural loyalty to things. What is the evil of the man commonly called an optimist? Obviously, it is felt that the optimist, wishing to defend the honour of this world, will defend the indefensible. He is the jingo of the universe; he will say, “My cosmos, right or wrong.” He will be less inclined to the reform of things; more inclined to a sort of front-bench official answer to all attacks, soothing every one with assurances. He will not wash the world, but whitewash the world.
…Mere jingo self-contentment is commonest among those who have some pedantic reason for their patriotism. The worst jingoes do not love England, but a theory of England. If we love England for being an empire, we may overrate the success with which we rule the Hindoos. But if we love it only for being a nation, we can face all events: for it would be a nation even if the Hindoos ruled us. Thus also only those will permit their patriotism to falsify history whose patriotism depends on history.”
A man can love England (or America) and think England is in the wrong with regard to the Boer War. Or that America is in the wrong with regard to – but there I trespass beyond my bounds.
Did you just call Captain America a scoundrel?
I would suggest that the answer to that might be, “If Captain America sought to excuse his country’s crimes or his own by invoking patriotism – by saying that those crimes should be forgiven because they were done in the name of, and for the good of, his country – then he would be a scoundrel.” But I do not think Cap has ever done any such thing or ever been accused of that, except by people who have an unrealistic definition of “crimes” and who don’t like the character anyway.
Something can be used by scoundrels as a refuge without necessarily implying that all those who espouse it are scoundrels. The Lord maketh the sun to shine upon the just and unjust alike.
“Did you just call Captain America a scoundrel?”
Me or someone else?
No, I would never do that. Seriously, Mr. Wright, can you see me disliking a good Irish-American boy?
But there are plenty out there, in your country and mine and in every land under heaven, who wrap themselves in the flag and defend themselves with cries of “Anti-patriot!” when anyone questions their tactics, policies, or decisions. In my country we call it “wrapping the green flag round you”, in ironic allusion to the rebel ballad “Wrap the Green Flag Round Me, Boys”.
I agree with the army saying “You salute the uniform, not the man”. I suppose I’m thinking more of the tangled history of my own country (especially now that there seems to be a resurgence of unrest up North, what with the latest outbreak of violence during the Marching Season) and the complicated attitudes as expressed in the song “The Patriot Game”:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Patriot_Game
Is that questioning the role of the I.R.A.? The Southern Government? The traditional view of Irish history? The lack of follow-through on the National Question? The way young men are fired up and sent out to fight by older, more cynical heads? All of the above?
“He wants to serve his country, but he’s not this sort of jingoistic American flag-waver,”
Maybe we should give him a groovy van and a surfboard too. Oh and let’s make him a really whiny aspiring painter while we’re at it! Wait, this sounds familiar…
“Maybe we should give him a groovy van and a surfboard too. Oh and let’s make him a really whiny aspiring painter while we’re at it! Wait, this sounds familiar…”
You asked for it:
http://spoonyexperiment.com/2010/02/08/captain-america-review/
ROTFL
Hey, I remember that show. At least they gave Cap a shield. In the 1948 serial, he had no shield and carries a gun.
[...] boosts the bottom line: televised wrestling, rap music, a movie in which Captain America is “not a flag-waver” (they must consider foreign audiences), “Wonder” bread (it’s a wonder [...]