Muddy Politics and Lukewarm Villainy in Falcon and the Winter Soldier
(Content discusses racial and international topics of nuance)
Marvel’s Falcon and the Winter Soldier was a decent miniseries. It was a bit on the slow side, but a mixture of political intrigue and Baron Helmut Zeemo made it a fine enough show. Could’ve used a few more episodes in order to give Bucky a more satisfying arc, maybe not go too ham-fisted at the end. But it was fine. A show about how military veterans need to be taken care of, recognized and respected when doing the right thing. End of story… right? Well… not quite. After finishing the show, I was surprised at certain decisions the story took, and how the show was ok portraying enemy characters in a somewhat positive light. Given who allowed this show to be made in the first place, that Disney, I can’t help but feel that something is off.
Let’s look into the primary antagonists of the show. The Flagsmashers are an anarchist group led by Karli Morgenthau. The group is the result of humanity surviving after the catastrophic ‘Thanos Snap’, which wiped out half of all life in the universe. With governments and life itself in disarray, the survivors banded together in order to coexist in their new situation, one that knew no organized governments, borders, or conflict. They lived a certain way until the ‘Blip’ was undone 5 years later, only to have that lifestyle return to the status quo and end up displaced from their homes in order to accommodate those that returned. In defiance of the return to the status quo, the Flagsmashers formed, took the super-soldier serum that gave them superhuman abilities. Their efforts put them at odds with the GRC, and the world at large.
The Flagsmashers are responding to a refugee crisis, one that is caused by supernatural and common political circumstances. You can easily replace the Blip with a natural disaster or an organized genocidal attempt at the hands of the state. This makes the Flagsmasher’s cause incredibly sympathetic: The inability of the status quo to work with the Flagsmashers and the One World Movement, the portrayal of those in power as dismissive of the refugee crisis happening at the global scale, and the sympathetic treatment Karli and the Flagsmashers receive from Sam (who has the most developed story arc and motivations in the show) all work in tandem to make sure that the Flagsmashers are not outright villainous. While Karli does cross the line into murder, and the other Flagsmashers do not stop her from more violent acts, the show goes out of the way to assure the audience that they are not mustache-twirling maniacs. One of the points against them is that they took the super-soldier serum, and they do not have the unwavering moral compass of Steve Rogers, the first Captain America. Baron Zeemo argues that metahumans of all kinds are dangerous and must be wiped out, and that whatever qualities Steve Rogers had, were exclusive to him and any attempts to replicate him will ultimately fail. But Zeemo is also an untrustworthy supporting character, being the villain behind Captain America: Civil War, so his arguments against metahumans are not to be taken to heart.
We also see this kind of attitude towards John Walker as the second Captain America, and later US Agent. John Walker is regarded initially as a perfect soldier, equal parts leader, and able to follow the chain of command. He might have a bit of an ego problem, but it isn’t overbearing until people stop taking him seriously, and he only snaps when his friend and sidekick Battlestar is killed in action. Walker is not presented as truly overly zealous about American Patriotism and Interventions, even though he is supposed to represent that. He chooses to save citizens instead of pursuing Karli Morgenthau in the final episode. His best friend is a Black man and shows no discriminatory actions in the slightest. Effectively, he feels very toned down than what one would expect from a villain who is supposed to be all about American Zealotry. He is supposed to be set up as a rival and secondary antagonist to our heroes, but he ultimately ends up joining their side and doesn’t do much antagonizing.
You’d think they would be more willing to play up these characters in relation to not just our primary heroes, but Steve Rogers’ Captain America. Steve Rogers in the MCU has been highly critical of the US government, worked independently of it as part of the Avengers Initiative. Steve Rogers is a model for our two leads and the rest of the cast, citing his virtuous nature and leadership as instrumental for numerous conflicts, while also showing off that the First Avenger was unique in his convictions. Bucky and Sam constantly reference what Steve would have wanted them to do, how they can’t live up to Steve, or how they miss him after his passing. Zeemo’s previously mentioned argument also played into Steve Roger’s extraordinary nature. So, do we get actual good commentary on how John Walker and Karli Morgenthau respond to Steve’s ideals? Not really. There is little to no mention of how the previous Captain America actively undermined US government intentions by fighting against Hydra or not signing the Sokovia Accords.
We see that Steve Rogers’ Captain America wasn’t a zealous patriot, but rather someone who took matters into his own hands for his country against certain government interests. Sam and Bucky also stood against the United States in a similar manner as Steve, ultimately showing loyalty to him above the country. While Sam has interactions with Karli surrounding his condition as a black man who once served the military and knows the kinds of things that go on in the United States, he doesn’t really appeal to Karli by expressing the moments he HAS been contrary to the government. Sam still has his status as a mercenary/freelance military agent, which adds some nebulous area to how he relates to Karli in the grander narrative. All in all, his arc with Karli and the similarities between black oppression and refugee crises becomes very muddled.
What does this add up to and why does it matter in and out of the political subtext in the show? There is clearly an attempt at pandering to oppressed groups and leftist ideologies in the text. However, due to the subject matter of the show, being things like mass deportations, relocation of peoples and nations, this becomes much more insidious than it would normally be. I do not want to diminish the plight of African Americans/ Black Americans, I really don’t. But there is a textual false equivalency between their struggle and refugee crises. This is not a matter of equivalency of damage, but rather one of the manners in which to attend or resolve. Black Americans are still citizens of the United States. While they are unfairly targeted due to systemic problems, they have a territory in which they can attempt to resolve their troubles. There is a system that can be fought against but also worked within. Heavy police reform, interlocking of neighborhoods in order to create cooperative spaces, restitution of spaces, and changes in various practices can lead to an amount of change. Refugees do not have a system or a state that wishes to handle their case, however.
The displacement of peoples from a territory is one of the most troublesome, nuanced, and complex topics in international relations. This is because there is no real authority that can do things about it. While the United Nations has some conjoined authority to do some efforts in affected areas, it can usually be done at the request and agreement of all nations that are affected. This means that efforts made by the United Nations to tackle a refugee crisis may be hampered, downsized, or even nonexistent. A refugee crisis of any kind, for any reason, requires monumental effort in order to handle and years to see any real remedy. Working with groups to stop a crisis, normally the cause of violent wars and genocidal intentions that may or may not be affected in part by international parties. Even receiving refugees for any reason is a difficult decision made by countries, and how to accommodate them is even more difficult. Sovereign countries have to make a difficult decision in order to spend resources to attend to those who enter their borders. And while I am quite idealistic on these matters, I will not pretend like receiving an influx of refugees from anywhere needs money and infrastructure in order to hold them. Refugees also do not have any ability to be able to voice their concerns or needs to relevant authorities and depend on what amounts to pity and generosity.
The false equivalency between the racial plight of Black Americans and refugees doesn’t do justice to the real problems each face. It doesn’t look deep into the tactics that went into perpetuating segregation even after it was made illegal, just as it doesn’t look at the number of lives lost trying to escape war and death in the attempt to reach into an asylum country. There is no discussion about who starts and perpetuates racial discrimination, how the United States benefitted from racial inequality or how the perceptions truly impede substantiative progress. There is no discussion about refugee crises in the past, how The United States’ policies may have exacerbated said crises, and how the lack of action from the United Nations and other organizations have had both successes and failures in defending human rights, or how to learn from pasts mistakes. Refugees and Black Americans may suffer under similar systems, but in attending issues that revolved around different players with different intricacies, there shouldn’t be an attempt to interlink these problems.
There are other observations we should make about the text and its context. The relationship some of the characters have with the military or their status as members of a paramilitary force makes some of the discussion of international politics contradictory, but this extends not just to Sam and Bucky and rather other MCU characters and media. We should take this into account due to the influence of the military in the media. We can accept that the Captain America movies were critical of American practices and the military-industrial complex, while the Captain Marvel movie used military imagery and advocacy as part of its production. Because Marvel is owned by Disney, and Disney has a notorious history with copyright, unionization, and other topics, we should be wary of anything produced by the company.
The politicians who lead the GRC seem to be the only faction that is portrayed completely negatively. The GRC can be read as analogous to organizations like the United Nations and politicians are shown to be inept, corrupt, or a combination of both. While the United Nations has been heavily criticized due to its inaction and the ineptitude of governors is not far from the truth, there are not enough moments where they show the GRC in action. They gloss over the GRC and what they do, show us a bit of the refugee camps and the context in which they find themselves, but we don’t really see the degree of the struggle the Flagsmashers and the refugees have to deal with. They want to portray the government and international organizations as antagonistic but do not delve deep enough to make the GRC a villainous group, which leads to the feeling that there weren’t actual villains in the story. If the GRC was supposed to be the real villains of the story, there should’ve been attempts to put the protagonists in much more direct conflict with the organization, attempting to resolve problems in a different manner than the Flagsmashers.
This leads me to believe that there was an effort to tone down the roles of the villains in to not cause any controversy. With John Walker, he isn’t as strong as a villain or antagonist because he isn’t a real roadblock for our heroes, just a nuisance at best, and he doesn’t represent the corruption of the values Steve Rogers had at heart. Karli and the Flagsmashers are constantly excused or portrayed as misunderstood freedom fighters that go a bit too far in their methods because of their leader. Finally, the US Government and the GRC could have served as the true antagonistic forces in the show but are never shown enough moments in which they are truly culpable for their actions. Without a strong enough antagonist, one that serves as a true foil to our heroes and challenges their conceptions and ours, the story falters. Which is a shame, because the story needed a clearer vision of who would serve as the antagonistic force in order to better portray their themes.
My takeaway is that Falcon and the Winter Soldier is at best an average piece of art that has some political content at best, and at worse it feels like a messy, pandering piece to convince the public that Disney and Marvel are on the right side of history. There is an attempt to discuss topics that, in the grander context of the producers, feels hypocritical. This is not a slight against the actors or the showrunners, but I will reiterate that there is a lack of nuance in discussing the depth of refugee crises that results in a questionable text. This is important to talk about because it means that when it comes to social critique and discussion of politics, we can’t rely on these media made by corporations to be the source of these. In making these sorts of media, they may be pacifying a populace that may not understand the extent of these problems, both in the scope of impact and lengths needed to somewhat resolve. And even if they aren’t directly doing so, how the show handles antagonists and villains gives the impression that they weren’t able to commit honestly to the topics they wanted to touch in the show. While we should be thankful that the show attempts to discuss harsh topics, it will sadly miss a lot of marks. We need to work to produce critical media that will discuss these topics with the nuance and commitment they deserve.
Find me at: https://www.facebook.com/virgilioastram
Buy me a Ko-fi!-Ko-fi.com/virgilioastram
