WHAT IF... Captain America was African American!?

If there's one topic that keeps popping up in terms of superhero movies lately, it's the idea of 'racebent', 'colourblind', or whatever other term you wish to label it with casting. This became something of a minor issue for the original Thor movie, when Heimdall, a character who traditionally looked something like this...

Wound up looking more like this...

And overnight became the number one way of telling who was a petty racist in the world of comic books and the movies that surround them. 

Of course, when the movie came out and the rest of the world saw what anybody who'd seen Idris Elba in anything did with the character, any murmur of the character being the wrong colour was soon forgotten (or at least sidelined to the point where the only rebut you'll ever need is a clip of Elba as Heimdall doing anything on screen) and it's also not the first, or last, time something like this has happened. Say what you like about Daredevil, but Michael Clarke Duncan's portrayal of Kingpin may well be the best representation that character we can hope for. Then of course there was Laurence Fishburne as Perry White in Man of Steel, an actor who sadly wasn't given the time to show us what he could do with that character, and the more high profile casting of Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury. Yes, I know it's a direct lift from the Ultimates universe, but still the point still stands. All these actors took on characters that are traditionally seen as white, and not only did the world not come to a horrific end, but the vast majority of them were nothing short of superb. 

Now the debate rides again, coming about as a more high profile white character, the Human Torch, has been cast as black actor Michael B. Jordan. Now I have to admit, I don't really have a horse in this race. The only thing I've seen with Jordan in is Chronicle and that was a movie with problems far beyond it's acting talent. Of course, the new Fantastic Four movie also has problems of it's own beyond the race changing of a single character that worry me, but I've been catching little pieces of the debate from time to time and when I heard that John Byrne had chimed in? Morbid curiosity got the better of me and I decided to go have a look. I refuse to link to that man's forum, but here's a Bleeding Cool link that about covers it. 

Now I have to admit, I went into reading this expecting to roll my eyes at best, or want to punch my monitor at worst, but despite missing the point in places, providing a genuinely awful example of this kind of casting in other kinds of movies and eventually devolving into the worst excesses of comic book fan entitlement that he blames the public representation of fans for in an earlier paragraph there are points I actually agree with him on, and I think it's one of the most sane and reasonable things I've read from the man on this kind of issue. I mean, he didn't brand a whole gender of a single race hookers just for the colour of their hair this time, so it's progress right? I suppose if I really wanted to take him to task, I'd argue that Stan Lee is big enough and old enough to speak up for himself and a man who writes a story about Big Barda being brainwashed into making hardcore pornography is the very last person who should be lecturing others on respecting Jack Kirby's characters. So wheeling out the whole 'Spirit of what Lee and Kirby intended' is just... Bollocks, quite frankly. But I digress. 

The two things I really took away from all this is the complete agreement that Marvel and DC should be doing more to promote their minority characters. Cripes, doing more to promote their female characters would be wonderful. However I don't think giving Nick Fury an obscure, coloured SHIELD agent as a sidekick is really as powerful a step forward as having one of the top black actors of our time playing the character who is most associated with counter-intelligence in the Marvel universe. Yet I do feel like Marvel in particular could be doing so much more with the minority characters they've already introduced. While War Machine and Falcon are unlikely to be able to support their own movies (yet!) I do have to ask, why wasn't War Machine in Avengers? Pepper Potts was, and she's not even Tony's superheroic partner! Or more importantly, why is there seemingly no sign of Falcon in Avengers 2? He was still with Steve at the end of the movie, surely if there's anyone Rodgers would want to have his back it would be the man who helped him save SHIELD from itself simply because it was the right thing to do. 

The other thing Byrne's comments left me pondering was exactly what makes race important to a character, and how interchangeable it is. Hollywood is pretty ruthless with changing nationalities, or casting actors of one nationality to play a character of another, is this really any different? To me, the answer seems to be 'it depends'. Does it really matter what colour Johnny Storm's skin is? Not really, although it would be nice if they cast Sue as the same race. Yes I know even biological siblings can have different skin colour, but to be honest I'd rather they just cast them both black or both white than having to waste movie time explaining why they are as they are. The important part of Storm's character comes from his firebrand, fun loving personality and the powerful bond he shares with his family - And that's something that transcends skin colour. Heck, somebody in the comments on that article mentioned Reed Richards being played by Denzel Washington and I have to admit... I would be all over that. 

But as I climbed down the rabbit hole, there were some characters where a change of skin tone would fundamentally change them at the core. This became most apparent with time locked characters. Technically as leader of the Howling Commandos, this should have been Fury. But naturally you can't have him stealing Cap's shtick on screen, and I think this, more than his race accounts for a lot of the problems with the character Byrne brought up. He doesn't have his history, his dyed in the wool pedigree like he does in the comics - It simply doesn't work here. So really, we know very little about him other than the fact he lurks around the Helicarrier and gives orders. It's something I'd love to see them expand on, and I'm very glad he finally got some great focus in The Winter Soldier.

Speaking of Cap though, how different would that movie have been at it's very core had they cast a black actor as Steve Rodgers? How many social issues would they have had to tackle head on or look silly for straight up ignoring? His back story could almost be untouched, just take on a more poignant element for the fact that not only are big, dumb jocks getting him down for being too weedy to do well... Most anything really, but society itself is telling him he's a second class citizen. So this runty little guy with no prospects whatsoever decides the only way he can make anything of himself is by joining the army. Literally, the only way.

Of course, this is where the movie could perhaps borrow a lot of elements from the backstory of Isaiah Bradley, an African American who was part of a test program to recreate the super soldier program during World War II. Now you might ask why not just make a movie about Isaiah Bradley, then? Because I think there's something inherently more interesting about the government choosing to test their maiden voyage with this project on minorities, and then rolling it out to get their golden haired, blue eyed, perfect Aryans and other assorted pretty white boys once they knew it was safe. The problem with Isaiah Bradley is he's never going to have the same impact as Captain America, because they already have their perfect product. If that initial experiment that Thorin Oakenshield was so discourteous to disrupt with explosions had only produced a single, solitary super soldier - And he was a person of colour? Well, where does the American government go from there?

Can they still use him as a propaganda piece like they did with Rodgers in the movie? Or do they just package him off on secret, behind enemy lines mission and be content they have a pretty powerful weapon in the war - Just one they'd rather not everybody see! You also have to wonder what Cap himself would do. Would he just roll with whatever his military superiors told him to do, or choose to use his new found power and influence to fix some things at home as well as abroad? There's a great sentiment in the first Captain America movie, where after a life of being pushed around and watching other people be pushed around, Steve Rodgers has dedicated the rest of his days to fighting bullies big and small and sees very little difference between Red Skull and his cronies and the big, dumb guys who made his own life hell other than the scale on which they work. What happens when the people who made your life hell have the law on their side in some circumstances? Hrm. 

Now, I just want to be clear I'm not advocating that this movie should be made. I personally find the idea fascinating, and if pulled off well it would definitely be a thought provoking and potentially eye opening piece. But for somebody who's favourite superhero movie so far is, indeed, Captain America the first, it wouldn't really make for a good punchy, dynamic comic book action movie. Plus I'm a big fan of keeping characters true to their source material on a basic level, I like all the core elements and broad brush strokes to be there to make the character recognisable, while film makers can go wild on the less important things. I just think that when it comes to race? If changing it is a big deal or not really does depend on the extent it effects the character. 

Nobody is going to care if Aquaman isn't white. Heck, with the casting of native Hawaiian Jason Momoa as the king of Atlantis I think we're going to confirm that for a fact very soon indeed. He's Atlantean, he could technically be any colour he liked. But when you start messing with characters who have very strong connections to a certain culture, time period or geographical area? Then things start getting tricky, as you risk changing that character beyond recognition. The most obvious examples are the minority characters that already exist to try to bring some diversity to the titles, but if we want to step back to the Fantastic Four, think about Doctor Doom. He's the ruler of a small, Eastern European country through hereditary ties, could he really be anything else than what he is and still have it believable? 

At the end of the day though, it's all about one thing - Casting the best man or woman for the job at any given time, and if comic book movies can keep that up? Like they did with Sam Jackson, Michael C. Duncan and Idris Elba? Yeah, I can be a happy bunny and not get too pent up about this issue. Of course, if they don't, I choose less to think of it as an example of 'forced token casting' ruining our movies, and more just flat out bad casting period. I hope whatever happens with the new Fantastic Four movie, Michael B. Jordan is able to prove he's anything but that. 

In Defence of Iron Man 3.

Now I've returned home and the release dates are no longer conspiring against me (released in the UK while I was in the US, not released in the US until I returned to the UK) I've finally seen Captain America: The Winter Soldier. My thoughts? It's a very strong entry into Marvel's line of superhero movies, only really let down by the poor writing of Black Widow and the even poorer acting ability of Scarlett Johansson. I already had a bias here, as I think I'm one of the few men on the planet who isn't dazzled by how attractive her body is, and I never really bought her initial performance as a former KGB agent all the way back in Iron Man 2. Seeing and reading how much effort Mickey Rouke put in for the same movie, learning Russian, visiting gulags, really throwing himself into the role - I always found how little work Johansson put in by comparison, for a much bigger role, to be insulting. As the movies have rolled on, it's become more and more apparent that she can't really emote for toffee and has very limited chemistry with anyone she's on screen with so despite liking the character of Black Widow in the comics, the idea of her appearing in the movies is an instant black mark for me. Although to be fair to her, I tried to imagine a better actress pulling off the dialogue and characterisation she was given in the new Cap movie, and really couldn't picture them doing much better. So given what she was working with, it's at least not all her fault this time? 

That being said, Sebastian Stan and Anthony Mackie were superb as the Winter Soldier and Falcon respectively, and it was fantastic to finally see Nick Fury step out of his role as enigmatic director a little and actually get some solid action scenes. The amount of villains they snuck under the radar and how they handled them were a nice surprise too, and overall I give the film a pretty big thumb up. I didn't enjoy it as much as Cap'n America the first, but then I thought that World War II aesthetic was a breath of fresh air for a superhero movie, and I'll always secretly long for more of that kind of thing and resent The Avengers a teeny, tiny bit for not allowing them to explore it. 

One thing I genuinely dislike about Winter Soldier though, is the reaction to it. Not that it's been at all negative, but one thing I've seen time and time again, especially from my friends across the pond, is statements along the lines of 'THAT is how you do a sequel Iron Man 3!'. Honestly? I don't get it. I really don't get it. 

Okay, that's a lie, I kind of get it, but only when it comes to the trigger sensitive issue of the Mandarin, and we'll get to him later, but I've always thought that Iron Man 3 was one of Marvel studio's triumphs, on par with or perhaps just nudging past the original Iron Man in quality. 

Iron Man 3 showed us a Tony Stark who had to overcome more than a man in a suit like his or some Russian dude with whips on his arms and an over-glorified cockatoo. In that movie, he has to finally come to terms with the myriad of personal problems that have manifested in past movies (especially in Iron Man 2) as well as face up to an enemy that has exploited those issues and left Stark with zero resources to fight back with. If there was one movie that really developed Stark's character and personality, and really forced him to grow as a character, it was this one. All that pomp and arrogance that led to the climatic 'I'm Iron Man!' scene in the first movie comes back to haunt him, and while that aspect of his personality is never truly going to go away, three did humble him just a little. 

Beyond that though, three allowed us to see a Tony Stark that was truly a genius in practical terms. We all know that he can create massive arc reactors that can power entire towers, program robot butlers to attend to his every need - Christ, without Richards or Hank Pym on the scene and Banner being more a geneticist, Stark is the lead 'Weird Scientist' of the Marvel cinematic universe. But in three we really got to see him put that mind to work and turn nothing into something. We got to see that the actual hero was more than just money and a suit, but the brains and courage behind it. Which led to some fantastic, Bondequse scenes of Stark working with smaller, McGuyvered together gadgets to get things done when his suit wasn't an option. 

But let's say you don't care about character development or story? Well, first of all, screw you sir/madam! You're the kind of person that keeps Michael Bay in business and that I cannot abide! I cannot abide!! But if you happen to like your action, Iron Man 3 has the kind of action set pieces that the first could only dream about. The rescue from the plane was exciting and intense, and say what you like about Aldritch Killian as a villain, the final battle with the dozens of automated Iron Man suits zipping around was rather wonderful. I know I cheered when I spotted the Hulkbuster like piece of armour, and I'm sure if I had a very patient and precise thumb on the pause button and a book of Iron Man armour types I could find quite a few from the comics and past movies tucked away in there. 

So, great characterisation of the main protagonist and great action, let's get down to the story, shall we? And this is where I can kind of understand where some have problems with this film. As a comic book fan, I tend to get very... Terse when film producers mess with characters I love. I feel that while change is a necessity when it comes to adaptation, if you don't keep the core spirit of the characters and world alive you may as well not bother doing the adaptation at all and work on an original project. There's an argument to be made that the core spirit of the Mandarin wasn't kept intact, however I'd counter that with the fact that it was never supposed to be the Mandarin in the first place. If you're upset about the bait and switch, that's fair enough, but to paraphrase the man himself - I never saw it coming, and was surprised to actually be caught off guard by a twist in a film. There's also the fact that most fans of the Iron Man comics I've spoke too tend to shrug this off and say that between them, Killian and Trevor make decent representations of the classic and ultimate universe Mandarin's. 

I don't know, I may be biased on this point because I thought Ben Kingsley's role as failing luvvie actor Trevor Slattery provided some of the most entertaining moments of the movie, and far surpassed his turn as the more serious, terrorist leader. I also saw it as an intriguing twist rather than a bait and switch. I found the plot they presented far more interesting than a potential 'Uh oh, the Ten Rings sound like trouble! Better spend the movie hunting them down and then triumphing over them!' if only because that's the plot of most every other superhero film ever. If the Mandarin is still a sticking point for you, though, well perhaps you should get around to picking up a copy of Thor 2: The Dark World as it has this little gem on it...

A one-shot that effectively answers the Mandarin question once and for all, and gives us the final fate of poor old Trevor Slattery. Some may call it a cop-out, or Marvel caving to pressure, and maybe it is, but hey! At least they did it in style.

Putting this aside, the one thing I loved about Iron Man 3 above all else was that it felt like an end to the trilogy. I was worried that with a new director coming on board, it would feel fundamentally different to the other films. But I need not have worried, as instead it felt like a fabulous capstone to the trilogy that tied the films together into one cohesive story but still left room for Stark to appear as part of the Avengers movies. I came out of the cinema thinking I'd be happy not to see another Iron Man film ever again, not because it was bad, more because it just felt like the character's story had come to a natural end and anything that came along afterwards would just feel tacked on. I can't remember having that feeling before, even in films designed to be trilogies, it just felt like the perfect way to tie off the whole thing. 

For me, the tone of Iron Man 3 felt perfect for an Iron Man movie, the characterisation was excellent (not just of Stark himself, but of Pepper, Rhodey, Trevor, Killian, even the kid they paired him up with managed to come off feeling like a regular kid, not a creep-under-your-skin-annoying movie savant kid), the acting was of the high quality I'd come to expect from these movies, the action scenes were fantastic and the story really brought the whole thing to a close in a grand style. It's for these reasons, and I'm sure a few others if I really scratched around in my brain, that I just can't understand why Iron Man 3 is the Marvel sequel that everyone seems to run down in comparison to the others. Personally, I take the opinion that it's one of the best sequels that Marvel has released so far and exactly what I was looking for in an Iron Man film. 

Does it have the same tone and focus as films featuring other characters in the same universe? No. But then again, none of them do when compared to each other. That's the whole point of The Avengers and why it seemed so impossible to accomplish on film for so many years. Disparate heroes, from different times and dimensions, who come from very different origins and lend themselves, individually, to very different kinds of stories coming together onto one team to fight for freedom and justice. And even though they're very different movies, Iron Man 3 was exactly what I was looking for when it came to Iron Man, in the same way The Winter Soldier was exactly what you'd expect from a modern Captain America story. Stark is a sarcastic smartarse with his flaws as front and centre as his shining attributes, while Cap struggles with a sense of moral justice that many in the modern world think is outmoded and impractical. It makes for very different movies, but in my opinion? Two fantastic sequels, and all this 'THAT is how you do a sequel, in your FACE Iron Man 3!!!!' nonsense every time Marvel releases a follow up to anything needs to stop. Because if anything, when it comes to Marvel sequels - Iron Man led the way!