Iron Man: Movie Review

[marcabela]

01:40 Very quick slip, tiny mistake. Allow me to correct. :)

The military will not provide services for free... they will simply transfer your production fees to your viewers by billing them from a different pocket... :)

Your videos are all so damn brilliant. Keep up the very good work. Wish I could donate so much more. All the best.

[roninhall1970]

I think you should see GI JOE RISE OF COBRA it has the same kind of world view

[georgekostaras]

Very astute observationd :)

[Parasmunt]

Very boring movie, first 40 mins in we have a 1 dimensional antihero (to the Pentagon i suppose he is a hero) and lots of video game style special effects with a metal soundtrack. 40 minutes in and hardly any kind of plot to speak of except the obvious subtext of Afghan War Propaganda. 

[modelmark]

maybe they saw this review, in Iron man 2 there is an private world peace keeper, a corrupt government trying to steal private property through courts, gvt creating an army of fighting robots, that gets hacked and gets out of control posing danger to the population.

[ChristophDollis]

I'd love to see your review of Kick Ass.

[Dutyine]

check out my iron man 1 interview and Suscribe

[eenri1350]

Bias at its maximum..... full of shit mr. philosopher.......

[RedDevileire]

I hear your point and i love a lot of your videos but i think its important to remember that iron man is just a movie , a fictional movie .

I think if we all looked at movies this way it would be impossible to fully enjoy them .

[Gettinghitonattheban]

A corporation is made by state charter. That's the only way to become incorporated. How is this concept so difficult to understand?

[wildreams]

hmm.. i thought the Ironman movie was about Tony Stark(private companies) that made a living by selling arms to the US military but was kidnapped by the militias and forced to make weapons for them?

[PsyogiBottoms]

I wonder if this is where Obama has 'found' the money to overhaul health care? A few more missiles sold to Saudi Arabia (where the alleged hijackers of 9/11 originated and Bush has already sold millions worth too). Hmmmmmm

I wish they would try harder to make it challenging to see the plan.

[andrewh817]

The government doesn't have any money of its own anyways........ stealing, printing, or borrowing are its only three options, and you could argue that printing is stealing value.

[Rinry]

Iron Man is a film adaptation of the comic Iron Man, which is mostly fictional. I don't understand why you're comparing it to the U.S. military and private companies....it's not supposed to accurately portray reality. It's supposed to stay true to the comic.

[PsyogiBottoms]

Does it remain true to the comic? Or does it take the opportunity to subtly propagandize the US military, not as the focus of the movie, but as an opportunity to sell the use of illegal and unethical force in foreign nations in an overtly Pro US occupation? It is just a fluffy movie, yes, but I understand Steph's point of selling this idea to children and mouth breathers watching.

[BRAINSTORM555]

yer it made me lmao to what a hoot

lord of war was a "BIT"..more real just a bit lol

but still a good movie but V is still my all time fav

[GamMan93]

its a great movie. Everyone go see. Right up there with the dark knight.

[forceofwill300]

I dont know how you missed the glorification of a super-patriot vigilantly angle. Here is a man with the means to arm himself (in this case with a suite of armor but more typically a mercenary army). He takes action based on what he thinks is right and does not wait for permission or involvement of any governing body and he is portrayed as a hero.

[forceofwill300]

Of course the reality is that government is very much intertwined with such business but all that aside, should such a vigilante ever get caught in the public eye.. dont you think the glare of that eye will be all the softer because of movies like this?

[FenrirTheDarkWolf]

You make absolutely no fucking sence at all.

[stealthswimmer]

I liked the movie from the stance of me liking comic book movies for the most part and cus I thought the graphics were cool.

But yeah the movie seemed to show private business in such a bad light that it was ridiculous.

[OnlyOneDadoPrso]

this is the funniest thing i have ever heard. what a fucking tool this guy is. 'iron man propaganda'? my arse! i suppose the film It's A Wonderful Life was made by Prozac, so people wouldnt kill themselves. If you are gullible enough or stupid enough, you can 'find' hidden messages in anyhting. Hang on, i have to go now, my milkshake is about to sell some illegal weapons to terrorists. Ya' fucking weirdo losers. S'later!

[masterwindu1234]

this is my fave movie ever! (so far anyway)

[AntiStupidity]

I JUST watched probably about an hour of Iron Man before I had to just turn it off. I literally put into google "Iron Man Propaganda", just to make sure that I wasn't the only person to notice this...

Sure, it's entertaining, but the underlying message and the indirect message given towards the middle-east made me physically sick.

This is the EXACT kind of CRAP Nazi Germany would have dished out in their cinemas.

It's just yet another thing that really overly disturbs me about America.

[larma7]

What the fuck are you talkig about??? The message is that the ENEMY is the MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX!!! The main bad-guy was the CEO of an Arms industry!!! The Arms industry was funding the terrorists to create the conflict so the US would then spend money -- MORE money -- to fight the "terrorists"!!! They own both sides!!!

[noneschton]

what a windbag

[larma7]

Uhhhhhh . . . I REALLY disagree with this. The point of the movie was that the enemy was the Military Industrial Complex!!! The Military Industrial Complex has a huge hold o our government and media, and our government works hand in hand with them. I sensed no pro-military propaganda AT ALL!!! In fact, I thought that this was a rather refreshing film. If you want some military propaganda, then watch the shitfest that is Transformers!

[stealthswimmer]

Iron Man showed the PRIVATE business as the real bad guy though cus it was the company (Stark Enterprise) that was selling military weapons.

[larma7]

Exactly!

[stealthswimmer]

lol, that's terrible

[larma7]

???

[stealthswimmer]

My point is that government and military(part of the government) does far more harm than private enterprise. Seemed to me like the movie was pointing out that private enterprise is the "weak link" in corporatism, whereas I feel that government is the worse of the two.

[larma7]

Okay. Well, wouldn't you say that it's a bit harsh saying that it's propaganda for the military?? That's insinuation that it is actually shilling for the government, when it's not. The best way to look at it, in my opinion, is that the government and corpoations feed off each other.

[stealthswimmer]

A bit harsh? Nah. Even if I don't agree, i wouldn't call it harsh. Why not? because it seems a bit much to be coincidence. There are just SO many movies and cartoons out there that always put businessmen in a bad light. So it seems arguable...even though I might not agree that it's propaganda. I think people just naturally mistrust businessmen.

[forceofwill300]

The mistrust of businessmen is well founded.

Their is no room for innocent concepts like trust within business. An ethical business is a disadvantaged one. Fail to draw up an all-encompassing contract and you can "trust" a business man to fuck you over unless he stands to gain more using you.

When private interests involve themselves in international politics we see actions motivated purely by profit with complete lack of ethics on an international level.

[forceofwill300]

On top of that add in the unaccountability of the secretive agents of big business and you have a lot of un-checked greed motivated power. Corruption is a given.

[stealthswimmer]

Actually, it's not in a business's interest to be unethical cus eventually it leads to them having lawsuits against them and losing money or losing market share due to a loss of consumer confidence. It works in the short-run, but it doesn't sustain a viable business.

[forceofwill300]

In some cases this is true. For example Nikes sweatshops being discovered or walmart selling ammunition. However in both these cases they played nice until the fuss died down then picked up where they left off. Think bigger though, the manufacturing of weapons cant be claimed to be unethical, after all they are just making tools. It is others who will sell them and use them unethically. Finding a buyer for these weapons and even worse, giving someone a reason to buy weapons is however unethical.

[forceofwill300]

All three are link co-dependents. Obviously the CIA Jackals sent in to start rebellions and arm mercenary armies will not affiliate themselves with any weapon manufacturer, however it is very much in the weapons manufacturers interest to make arrangements behind the scenes for just this kind of unethical business.

[stealthswimmer]

depends what you mean by "give someone a reason" cus I think most of the people that buy weapons already have reasons to own them. They don't need someone to tell them to buy weapons, lol

[forceofwill300]

I dont think we are on the same page my friend.

Training a rebel army to overthrow a government is a pretty good way to sell weapons, dividing a country and selling arms to both factions not only makes money but gives you a pretty good level of control of the outcome.

[stealthswimmer]

Those countries are gonna buy weapons anyways no matter what. If a company wants to sell to both sides, then I don't see a problem with that. You can stop people from destroying each other really. People are always gonna have some reason(s) to kill each other.

[forceofwill300]

So if two of your friends have a dispute, do you then give them both a knife to "stop them from destroying each other"? Or do you think that perhaps that would in fact increase the damage they inflict on one another? I think the answer is obvious. We are not talking nukes here, the weapons sold are USED to kill both militants and innocents.

I think I had better give u an example, look up the history of Guatemala and the United Fruit Company, u will see their is nothing ethical about arms trade.

[stealthswimmer]

that's not a good comparison. A more accurate one would be if you got two friends. Then both of them separately go to a knife store and buy a knife and one day end up hurting each other with them after getting in a fight.

[forceofwill300]

Listen, you go ahead and cling to your "where their is a will- to have weapons, their is a way" theory. I'm not going to spoon feed you example after example of historical evidence to prove that international arms trade always involve shady unethical practices. Anyone with half a brain and a bit of research already knows this.

[stealthswimmer]

My point is that even if CERTAIN companies didn't sell them weapons, they'd still fight and kill each other. Just cus they chose to buy their weapons from someone, doesn't mean that the business did anything unethical (though obviously, I think in many circumstances, they may have). My point is that you can't blame just one side and not the other.

[forceofwill300]

I understand your reasoning but please also try to understand that it's in a weapons manufacturers best interest to sell weapons. If their are no immediate buyers then it is also in their interest to manufacture situations that demand weapons.

Please look at the example I gave you before. Wiki for "1954 Guatemalan coup d'état". In this example you will see the United Fruit Company having a monopoly on banana's in Guatemala. 90% of the Land in Guatemala was owned by this American company

[forceofwill300]

The locals worked for peanuts to export banana's to America, they were getting screwed and they knew it. Eventually a new leader Arbenz came to power and said enough is enough. He started redistributing the land to the poor who lived on it. The United Fruit Company and its land barons were unhappy. In 1953 the UFC began lobbying the US governement to do something

[forceofwill300]

But Nixons hands were tied by ethical rules of engagement & public opinion. This is where the CIA stepped in. Operation PBFORTUNE:

Guatemalan rebels were trained in Honduras and backed up with a CIA air contingent of bombers and fighter planes. This army invaded Guatemala in 1954, toppling Arbenzs regime and giving control to a government favorable to the UFC.

It was noted that the CIA trained mercenaries were ruthless power mongers who used their superior US supplied weapons to terrorize

[forceofwill300]

and bully the public, they were also known to brutalize woman and children. Eventually the people feared the assaults so much that they granted the rebels what they wanted. The UFC land barons where back in the saddle.

I cite this event because it is a clear example of a country trying to free themselves from corporate slavery being ruthlessly crushed by a weapons manufacturer working in hand with an international, lobbying government and utilizing secret service men to get what they want.

[forceofwill300]

This is just one example of the CIA working with weapons manufacturers to do international arms trade. They don't just wait for opposing factions to kick off and then supply the weapons. In fact often their are no opposing factions until the CIA step in, training and arming mercenary armies to achieve their political objectives. They have no care for the innocent people butchered by the new administrations. So long as their interests are met, policy favorable to internationals and profit.

[stealthswimmer]

Interesting, but in the case of monopolies, they usually don't exist unless there's government intervention in the market. So these things are a little more intertwined than you might be first led to believe. It's not like business corrupts government only, or government corrupts business only. It's a double-edged sword.

[forceofwill300]

Any system of power is prone to corruption. The bigger and more powerful they get, the more likely its presence and its influence.

A healthy distrust of both of them seems in order then wouldn't you agree?

I think you might enjoy reading or watching Noam Chomsky. Grab a book of his or at least check Google video for one of his interviews.

If you are interested in the ethics of big business you will find this man has many valuable insights. Take care.

[stealthswimmer]

yup, I just trust private enterprise more than government simply because it's profitable to please the consumer.

And while some of Chomsky's vids are alright, i don't think he pays much attention to economics as much as some other folks cus he seems to basically blame Milton Friedman for some of our economics messes, lol.

[DrKaoliN]

I wonder if Alex Jones ever watched your videos. Because you are such a good example of a calm, and yet thoughtful person - the opposite to his agitational way of dealing with the natural tendency of our age, by which I mean subliminal manipulation. And I don't wanna be nationalistic, but maybe that's the difference between an Irish and a Texan approach to these matters.

It is always a pleasure to watch your videos.So thank you for posting them.

[stefbot]

Thanks - hey, Mr Jones called up a radio show I was on and yelled at me for not being pro-Ron Paul, so I think I agree with you... :)

[Gwydion415]

If the Goverment controls the media why is it that 9/10 films with a political twist seem to be anti-US?

Also, I think it was meant to patch the plot together and give the movie some kind of basis, not be propaganda... it is a super hero movie. Honestly if the Goverment had the kind of omniscient powers we give them credit for there would be no opposition whatsoever and 75% of the country wouldn't hate the President...

[stefbot]

Actually I was talking about military influence over the media, not govt control...

[Xtopher006]

I think one thing you fail to show is how war profiteering cannot be done unless the battle wages on, so to a degree i'm sure many of the "afgani's" weapons were practically given to them for the sake of keeping the violence going.

[bossman068410]

Great thinking and well thought out. I would love to rid our self's of all government, taxes, and the military.

How would we stop those who intend to do us harm?

Think back in the tribal days. How did it work? Pretty dam brutal. Rape, Murder, Theft, and more.

The same can be said of Goverments.

I welcome your theology because life is a balance and you balance out tyranny with anarchy

[stefbot]

Those are all excellent questions, which I hope I have answer to some satisfaction in my new book 'Practical Anarchy,' out at the end of June 2008, and free on my website.

[PhantaSci]

"Transformers" was another expensive commercial and endorsement for the military. Independence Day, etc.

[jcastillo81]

5 Stars for "Apocolyptic Beard"!

[RichBond75]

That first time I ever saw stefbot swear.

[RichBond75]

That was the first time I've ever seen Stephan swear. *

[RichBond75]

Stefan*

[newperve]

"Iron Man" showed private militias are insignficant as buyers of weapons, most of their weapons coming for free for services (homicide) rendered. When Stark discovers that the weapons were his own he doesn't try to stop supplying terrorists, he stops supplying EVERYONE. Clearly he has a problem with supplying the military as much as anyone else. Nowhere does it imply that supplying the US army was a good thing.

[phrawgg2]

whats to keep the arms trade from existing without a state? It probably wouldnt be nearly as big as it is now but it would still exist.

[thorsmitersaw]

"The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning. Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom."

Ludwig von Mises

[TheT113]

I didn't have a chance to watch the whole video, so if this is touched on later, I apologize. But I kind of feel like you're missing the point. One is that, while Stark Industries did sell weapons to the Afghani Militias, they were ALSO the ones providing weapons to the Army. The whole moral of the story was that individual people can be bad. It didn't touch on government control. It showed individuals in the military, it showed two individuals with radically different views running a company.

[DotPaulish]

A good movie to watch is "Lord of War". I feel like it gets a better picture of global arms dealers/dealing.

[Kirok]

"Lord of War" was an amazingly good movie.

[MarshalltheArtist]

You forget to mention how hilarious that movie was. Btw, that movie was COMPLETELY anti-military. I don't know how you saw it any other way. The pivotal moment of the movie was when Tony Stark realized how idiotic the statist, militaristic ideals that you're discussing truly are.

[SothisAmon]

I agree but look how America is portrayed and its military role in the world, is that really how they act?

The movie isnt anti-military in its portrayal of any one other then stark.

But personally i agree alot with what stef says about the villains of the film, thats whats imprinted. You never see the army raping, search "iraqi" on altavista and guess what comes up

[invisi3ill]

lolz

u actually saw Iron Man

[adorianvlad]

this movie was as bad as those chinese kung fu movies where actors are flying over mountains, buildings, etc.

people forget too often to KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid)

[lastnymleft]

Perhaps capitalism and peace are mutually exclusive?

Directorial fiduciary duty requires that the company maximize shareholder profits, but, in the defense industry, the only way to do that is with inventory turnover. You don't make sufficient profit through one-off sales which become stale in your customers' warehouses, so the only option left is to "encourage" that turnover, by supporting war.

Can this incompatibility be re-engineered, or is capitalism destined to forever obstruct peace?

[Moragauth]

Why not give Ludwig von Mises a read? He explains the correlation between liberal states and imperialism. It has nothing to do with "greedy" firms and everything to do with greedy states and their vassals, which often includes corporations. The Marxian view on imperialism is completely wrongheaded. It is not capitalism and peace that are mutually exclusive, but the state and peace. The only thing holding communist states back from war was their impoverishment.

[lastnymleft]

Moragauth: If you read my comment again, you will note that nowhere have I even mentioned "state", as it is irrelevant to my comment. I am not even talking corporatism, I am talking *capitalism*. And I'm not talking "greedy" firms, or slagging off on capitalism in general. I'm talking very specifically of one particular scenario, suggesting that (capitalism + fiduciary responsibility + defense industry) =/= Peace. That is, even in an anarcho-capitalist society, you would have the same problem.

[Moragauth]

Then I don't see how these firms will succeed, at all, without a client with an unlimited budget to support them.

[lastnymleft]

Scale has got nothing to do with it as the problem is transactional. You could have a handgun manufacturer selling guns to a society of individual anarchists for property defense reasons, and you would have the same problem. Anybody in the "defense industry" (in the broad sense of the term) is inherently conflicted between their legal fiduciary duty, and peace. And I'm talking "peace" in broad terms, too. I'm not saying war *will* result, but you will get acts of non-peace, all the way up to war

[Moragauth]

And my point is that without such a client, fulfilling this 'duty' (it is contingent whether or not it'll exist absent the state) either these firms will have to make themselves useful or change industries. Your point can essentially be generalized to the dictum that any so-called warrior caste will want to remain useful, and thus be conflicted with peace, and this is by no means unique to capitalism.

[lastnymleft]

The role of the fiduciary is pretty core to capitalism. I don't see that it could be excluded even absent a state. You wouldn't want to, either, since fiduciaries serve useful roles...in all other instances, but for this inherent conflict.

Fair point re: warrior castes wanting to remain useful, but that is not *my* point, which is specific to capitalism, and the duty of the directors to ensure maximum profits for maximum shareholder return. There's no "useful" in the equation.

[Moragauth]

The useful comes in in that they have to sell the service in order for it to be profitable. It's possible that the firm might find other ways of doing this, such as offering a subscription model to make sure cash keeps on flowing in, and coupling the good sold with other services.

[lastnymleft]

Are you suggesting being "Useful" would obviate the need AND desire for the profit motive? I don't see it happening

Interesting suggestion, subscription-based model. Like the olden-days fire-insurance model. But you know why that died out, right? Mafia-like protection rackets took over. Is that how we should leave our defense? But even THE Mafia has to buy their guns. Your system would need the manufacturer to be the service provider. How will you get manufacturers to abandon straight sales?

[Moragauth]

"We" do nothing - "we" especially will not establish monopolized protection rackets. And there is no need to get the manufacturer to do anything... either the firm buys weaponry from it or not. If not, it goes broke. There are no profits where there is no demand.

[lastnymleft]

"We" meaning lots of individuals. That's how the Mafia sell their protection services: shop to shop. Individuals

You still haven't answered why a manufacturer wouldn't sell to individuals, as well as to these service firms. If that is the case, you are effectively talking about a gun-less society, in which we entrust our individual protection to these protection service providers

Any time there is a need for defense, even personal defense, there will be demand for defense products. And profit.

[modelmark]

Great stuff, I mean: the review

[GonetoSleep21]

Your rambling is flawed . . .

It's a comic book movie & the story happens to be based on the comic story line. Anyone with a brain would know that none of what happened in the film will happen in real life, but again it's a comic. I'm pretty sure they didn't release this movie with propaganda in their minds. Would you like to read into the development of these films maybe? Think outside of the box, not inside it. I thought that was what philosophers do.

[stefbot]

Oh come on - next thing you are going to tell me that there's no such thing as real-life rocket suits?

[GonetoSleep21]

Well if you're going to look for such things of course you are going to "find" it. Watch Lord of the Rings, watch Bee Movie, I'm sure you could twist and turn everything into a form of propaganda in those films too.

On a different note, this is not an attack. I do enjoy your videos.

[Moragauth]

Actually... there are philosophical themes in LOTR too. Not the films per se, but the books. Of course, these express Tolkien's beliefs and ideology. It wouldn't be surprising if the creators of the comic had their own views too. Perhaps not, of course. I doubt FF VII's producers had much of an ideological point to make at all.

[rek2]

fuck capitalism!

[AnarchoJesse]

I pretty much thought the same thing while watching the film, and pretty much laughed at each point that you brought up when I thought of it. Also, Tony Stark is dead to me after he sold out in the Civil War.

[DasGuntLord01]

This wasn't the impression that I got from the film. It seemed to me that Stark was selling primarily to the US industry, and Jeff Bridges was doing the odd under-the-table deal for a bit of extra cash.

I usually agree with you, steph, but this time I'm just not seeing it...

[lukeev]

Haha brilliant! It is true, yet subtle and insidious how these propagandists work their fiendish magic upon us. I'd love to see more of these snappy vids, Stef; using themes within books, movies, general fiction etc as foundations for philosophical analysis. I think The Lord of the Rings would make an excellent dissection in terms of corruption, war and power struggles etc. Tom Bombadil is the MAN!

[Juggaloserialeater]

Dude I can take any movie and sit down for 20 minutes debunking shit they put in it..when I was watching it I didnt come out thinking private arms companys did that shit..

[Nielsio]

In 2006, Halliburton sold Nuclear parts to Iran.

[saxmanmax]

Marvel comics and various comic book writers created this plot, right? Not the military or Paramount pictures...

[Juggaloserialeater]

Yes, this plot was made what 40+ years ago I belive...paramount didnt write it..lol...this guy needs to do research

[BWF89]

When I heard that Iron Man was taking place in Afghanistan I kinda figured it would be something like that.

Anyway, corporations (at least in the present form) are state created entities. They would either not exist or would not be be nearly as powerful without them.

[garvess]

Before I even watch this review I know whats coming and I love it!

[pyrrho314]

it was just fluff, but you seem to ignore the fact that 1,000,000$ of arms to a terrorist group justified 1,000,000,000$ spent by a western nation to combat them.

[Moragauth]

In which case one must ask why the nation even attracts the attention of terrorists in the first place...

[pyrrho314]

well, it's a complete job, you want to sell weapons, you need at least two customers.

[Moragauth]

Indeed but my point is that innocent nations (inasmuch as the two words can be used together) do not attract terrorist attacks, and certainly have little problem selling weapons themselves. The US is a particularly bad offender. They have zero moral high ground to stand on.

[McDicker96]

great video, stef thanks.  I hope Indiana Jones is next

[joshv89]

You philosofers complicate everything,its just a film ffs

[Moragauth]

Art is often influenced by the values of its creator.

[joshv89]

Words like these just make life a little bit more complicated

[RussellsParadox]

You're right. It would be so much simpler if nobody ever talked or thought about anything important.

[joshv89]

You know I was arguing with someone else till you just fucking jumped in.

[Moragauth]

Precisely because it is complicated.

[D4Shawn]

Look... we all know that people don't want to have to think. People just want to sleep (remain oblivious to the world around them). The problem, is that people die so you can sleep. That SHOULD weigh heavily on your conscience. At some point, not having a conscience will become more of a burden to you than the burden of thinking, and you will be forced awake.

[FistsoFuckinFreedom]

I liked the movie a lot actually besides for the bit of propaganda. I thought the fact that RD jr was being threatened to be killed with his own weapons was kind of an interesting part.