Would Iron Man have been half as much fun as an environmentalist?

I missed Iron Man when it was on cinema in SA. I’m not sure why, considering how alluring a trailer with Black Sabbath blaring and explosions flashing across the screen can be. Perhaps I’d already blown my time and money budget on some of those terribly trashy films they show at the Cinema Nouveau. You know, those long dimly lit films that make no sense but still make you think about it, and then have the audacity to do it in a foreign language too.

So when the premiere aired on M-Net last night, I seized the opportunity to watch it. In the mood for some save-the-day action and a little more of Robert Downey Jr’s on-screen presence (although it’s difficult to top his post-reprobate appearance as a “black” English-speaking Australian actor in Tropic Thunder), I found the film reasonably satisfying. Overall the film was hardly striking for me though, given various reasons best expressed in a dedicated film review. Except for one part: the thinly veiled political subtext.

From what I could make out, most of the lead character’s impetus for becoming Iron Man stems from his experience of being held captive on foreign soil and seeing what atrocities are being waged with the weapons his own company designed and manufactured in the hands of terrorists and other generally naughty people. He has a Damascus road experience and decides to rather use his brain power and company resources to do more noble deeds, instead of supplying arms and ammunition to the battlefront.

And herein lies the irony of Iron Man. An irony that applies just as strongly to issues regarding the right to bear arms in real life. By putting on the big iron suit, he essentially becomes one giant weapon himself. He sees this as necessary in order to stop other people from abusing weapons. In other words, he’s stopping the use of force by using force. This is quite clearly a problematic paradox but one we’re stuck with for now, and one that anti-gun lobbyists just don’t seem to comprehend in real life: at some point, somewhere, somebody with the right motives is going to have to use a gun to stop somebody with the wrong motives using a gun. It’s just how the cookie crumbles.

One could take all the guns and missiles in the world and melt them into one huge metal peace sign to hang outside the UN headquarters. And what would people do? They’d just keep using other ways to kill and maim each other. Knives, fists, bows and arrows. Granted, guns are easier to demonise. What if Iron Man’s previous job had been as an environmentalist? Somehow I don’t think the following snippet of dialogue would be as exciting as the pseudo-political jibes (with topical inclusion of Afghanistan) in the film:

Anthony Stark: “ I just can’t live with myself. I can’t go on like this any longer.”
Virginia Potts: “Oh Tony, you couldn’t help it. It’s not your fault they killed all those people.”
Anthony: “But if I hadn’t preserved all those forests … Just think Virginia. If I hadn’t saved those trees, they wouldn’t have been able to make all those bows and arrows to shoot each other with. From now on, I will be … The Human Chainsaw.”

You’ve heard the saying, frequently: “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” Damn right.