Agents of Global Armament: Analyzing Masculinity and Militarism in "Captain America" and the Marvel Cinematic Universe

University of Texas at El Paso

DigitalCommons@UTEP

Open Access ;eses & Dissertations

2017-01-01

Agents of Global Armament: Analyzing

Masculinity and Militarism in "Captain America"

and the Marvel Cinematic Universe

Jodie Nikole Lout

University of Texas at El Paso, [email protected]

Follow this and additional works at: h<ps://digitalcommons.utep.edu/open_etd

Part of the Communication Commons

;is is brought to you for free and open access by DigitalCommons@UTEP. It has been accepted for inclusion in Open Access ;eses & Dissertations

by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@UTEP. For more information, please contact lweber@utep.edu.

Recommended Citation

Lout, Jodie Nikole, "Agents of Global Armament: Analyzing Masculinity and Militarism in "Captain America" and the Marvel

Cinematic Universe" (2017). Open Access eses & Dissertations. 488.

h<ps://digitalcommons.utep.edu/open_etd/488

AGENTS OF GLOBAL ARMAMENT: ANALYZING MASCULINITY

AND MILITARISM IN “CAPTAIN AMERICA” AND

THE MARVEL CINEMATIC UNIVERSE

JODIE NIKOLE LOUT

Master’s Program in Communication

APPROVED:

Roberto Avant-Mier, Ph.D., Chair

Sabiha Khan, Ph.D.

Guillermina Nuñez-Mchiri, Ph.D.

Charles Ambler, Ph.D.

Dean of the Graduate School

Jodie Nikole Lout

2017

Dedication

For mom. Thank you for everything you have done for me.

AGENTS OF GLOBAL ARMAMENT: ANALYZING MASCULINITY

AND MILITARISM IN “CAPTAIN AMERICA” AND

THE MARVEL CINEMATIC UNIVERSE

JODIE NIKOLE LOUT BA

THESIS

Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of

The University of Texas at El Paso

in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements

for the Degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Communication

THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT EL PASO

May 2017

ABSTRACT

In the current zeitgeist, there has been a surge in the popularity of superhero movies. For many

decades, Hollywood has been producing films that propagate ideologies of hyper-masculinity

and militarism. This study suggests that it is possible to analyze the recent character “Captain

America” as propaganda for militarism and hyper-masculinity. This study proposes to analyze

the character in the films Captain America: The First Avenger (2011), The Avengers (2011),

Captain America: The Winter Soldier (2014), Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015), and Captain

America: Civil War (2016).

Keywords: Captain America, Masculinity, Militarism, MCU, Superhero Movie

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT……………………………...……………………………………………...….…….v

TABLE OF CONTENTS……………..………………………………...……...……………..…vi

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………….…....... 1

1.1 The Rise of the Marvel Cinematic Universe……………………………………….. 1

1.2 A Brief History of “Captain America”………………………………………………8

1.3 Militarization of Film………………………………………..…………………….....9

1.4 Masculinity in the MCU…………………………………..………………………...11

1.5 “Captain America,” Militarism, & Masculinity………..…………………………13

1.6 Rationale...………………………………………………………………………….. 14

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW……………………………………………………...16

2.1 The Beginnings of Militarism in Film……….……………………………………..16

2.2 Modern War Propaganda…………………….…………………………………….18

2.3 A Nation Terrorized.………………………………………………………………. 21

2.4 Not All War Films…………………………………………………………………...22

2.5 A Brief Understanding of Masculinity……………………………………………..23

2.6 Militarized Masculinity……………………………………………………………. 24

2.7 Masculinity in Media………………………………………………………………..26

2.8 Militarism & Masculinity within “Captain America”……………………………30

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY……………………………………………………………..33

3.1 Critical Discourse Analysis…………………………………………………………33

3.2 Film Theory………………………………………………………………………….37

3.3 Data Collection……………………………………………………………………... 39

CHAPTER 4: ANALYSIS……………………………………………………………………...46

4.1 Captain America: The First Avenger (2011)…..…………………………………... 46

4.2 Marvel’s The Avengers (2012)………………………………………………………53

vii

4.3 Captain America: The Winter Soldier (2014)……………………………………….61

4.4 Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015)………………………………………………….......69

4.5 Captain America: Civil War (2016)……………………………………………….....75

4.6 Summary…………………………………………………………………………….82

CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION…………………………………………………………………. 83

5.1 Militarism and Hyper-Masculinity in the MCU and “Captain America”………83

5.2 Contributions to Scholarly Work………………………………………………..…90

5.3 Weaknesses and Future Research………………………………………………….91

REFERENCES………………………………………………………………………..……….. 94

VITAE……...………………………………………………………..………………………....103

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 The Rise of the Marvel Cinematic Universe

Worldwide, the fifth highest-grossing film of all-time, grossing $1.5 billion to date, is

The Avengers (2012), and Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015) and Captain America: Civil War

(2016) rank in the top-20 highest-grossing (“Worldwide Grosses,” 2017). The high gross of The

Avengers (2012), as well as the other Marvel films, clearly demonstrates that there is a large

audience for blockbuster superhero films. These films are blockbusters, because they regenerate

their production cost and more so, which is due to “an expanding global market” and the DVD

returns (Schatz, 2009, p. 31). In fact, in order to guarantee a blockbuster, Hollywood has

invisible “rules” that studios follow (p. 32). The MCU, and “Captain America,” fulfill many of

these rules. For instance, some rules are to use comic book material to develop movie storylines,

the protagonist should be male, and the protagonist should “inhabit a Manichean universe” (pp.

32-33). Hollywood re-uses material, in this case comic book stories and characters, that can be

used to extend franchises, such as the Marvel Cinematic Universe (or, MCU).

The MCU is also considered to be one of the most successful franchises in history, with

a total gross of more than $4 billion (“Franchise Index,” 2016). Though this transmedia market is

considered simplistic and mainly for children, it is expressing more than just superheroes that are

the good guys who save the world from evil. Ideologies present in these films and other media

are being reinforced. Furthermore, by reaching the child audience, the franchise is likely to

guarantee an audience that will continue for future decades, which would cause the current

zeitgeist to continue as well. It is due to the success of the MCU, these films and characters are

important for cultural analysis to determine the impact they have on the current zeitgeist, or

whether they have an impact.

The phenomenon of the Marvel Cinematic Universe is not just its continuous expansion

with the release of a new movie, but with the culture around the release of a new movie. On

average, Disney/Marvel

releases a new movie each year, and they sometime release more than

one film a year. In 2017, Disney/Marvel will release three movies:

1. Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2, the sequel to Guardians of the Galaxy (2014),

was released May 5

, and earned $175 million in six days (Mendelson, 2017,

para. 1);

2. Spider-Man: Homecoming, which is the third reboot of the Spider-Man

character, is schedule for release July 7th;

3. and Thor: Ragnarok, the third solo film for the “Thor” character, is schedule

for release November 3rd.

Disney/Marvel releases films in almost every quarter of the year. While there was no film release

in the beginning of 2017, Disney/Marvel did an official announcement for the first day of filming

Avengers: Infinity War, which will be a two-part film and are scheduled for release May 2018

and May 2019. The MCU is constantly being expanded and Disney/Marvel, even without a film

in theater, is always present in media and retail through the saturation of these markets with

promotions of the franchise.

In 2009, The Walt Disney Company bought Marvel Entertainment for about $4 billion. The

only movie produced solely by Marvel was Iron Man (2008), which had a successful opening.

The acquisition of Marvel by Disney, allowed for an increase of funding for more films.

For each movie that is planned for release, there is an obvious process that

Disney/Marvel takes to “prepare” the audience. Before any of the movies begin filming,

Disney/Marvel releases the cast information. For instance, Brie Larson was announced as

“Captain Marvel” at Comic-Con 2016. When Marvel announced that “Captain Marvel” would be

the first female superhero film, there was speculation about who it would be. In fandom

, there

were many people that cast various actresses to play the character. Even though the film is not in

production yet, fans and journalists continue to speculate about how “Captain Marvel” will be

introduced into the MCU, since new characters have made cameos in other films before having

their own, such as “Spider-Man” and “Black Panther.” By just announcing the movie was in pre-

production, Disney/Marvel generated interest in the “Captain Marvel” future movie that fans will

always want information about.

There is also a lot of interest by fans when the films begin production. For instance,

Avengers: Infinity War began filming in January 2017. To include the fans of what is happening

in the MCU, Disney/Marvel released a “first look” video in February 2017, which had interviews

with some of the actors and the directors. By including the fans in the process of the filming,

Marvel further increases interest in the film. The fans will want to know more about what is

happening with the character and that direction the story is going; there is a lot of speculation.

Furthermore, the actors in the film are also asked about it in interviews. For instance, Chris

Evans, who plays “Captain America,” continues to be asked about his future with Marvel

Fandom is the term used for the community that is created by fans.

Chris Evans has a 6-movie contract with Disney/Marvel, which will be fulfilled with the release

of Avengers: Infinity War.

Between Marvel and the actors, there is always new information about the MCU films that keeps

fans interested in what is happening.

Disney/Marvel also reminds its fans that a movie will premier soon by releasing teaser

trailers

, which average two minutes in duration and do not give a lot of information about the

film. For instance, the first teaser trailer for Thor: Ragnarok (2017) was released April 10, 2017,

seven months before the film is scheduled to debut. By releasing a teaser trailer, Disney/Marvel

has given fans enough information and content to speculate with. Within an hour of the release

of teaser trailer, there were many posts about the teaser trailer on Tumblr

. Thus, the fans of the

MCU create free promotional content for the film that is shared not only on Tumblr, but other

social media sites as well.

The same day the teaser trailer for Thor: Ragnarok was released, the official poster was

released as well. Taika Waititi, the director of Thor 3, and Chris Hemsworth, “Thor,” also posted

a picture of the official poster on their social media platforms, as well as a link to the teaser.

Eventually, the official poster for Thor: Ragnarok will be placed in theaters as well. The posters,

whether outside or inside the theater, are placed there to constantly remind audiences when the

movies will be released. Since Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 will be released soon, the posters

for this film are already placed in theaters. Furthermore, depending on the marketing techniques,

there are also card board cutouts to promote the films. Fans of the films can then interact with the

card board cutouts by taking photos

A teaser trailer for a film is often shorter and has less information than a regular trailer.

Tumblr is a social media website. The website is often used by people for fandom, where they

post their own fan-made content and have discussions about fandom.

When Atlas and DC Entertainment released Suicide Squad (2016), there was a card board

cutout of the characters and people could take pictures beside them and pretend they were part of

the movie as well.

While Thor: Ragnarok will be released November 2017, Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2

will be released May 2017. As the release for Guardians is much sooner, Disney/Marvel

promotes the film a lot more. By April 2017, there are already two official trailers that have been

released, the first trailer was released October 2016 and the second was released February 2017.

There are also various television commercial spots for the film. The television promos also show

similar content that is in the trailers, but they are shown more often on various channels.

While the release of trailers, posters, and television spots is always highly anticipated, so

is the sale of tickets. For blockbuster films, fans often want to buy tickets in advance to the first

showings on the day the film premiers

. Disney/Marvel and theater companies release

information about when tickets go on sale. These companies prepare the fans to buy the tickets,

because they can sell quickly, and for blockbusters, they often sellout. Marvel, as well as the

actors, posts ticket sale information on their social media platforms. If fans have accounts on any

Disney/Marvel website, they also receive emails from them announcing the sale of tickets.

Theater companies, such as Cinemark, and ticket companies, such as Fandango, also send out

emails announcing the ticket sales to people with accounts. Therefore, fans of the MCU always

know when the tickets go on sale and they can prepare in advance when they want to go watch

the movie.

There is also a lot of promotion of the release of a MCU film on DVD/Blu-Ray. For

instance, when Doctor Strange (2016) was set to be released on DVD/Blu-Ray February 2017,

Disney/Marvel posted the release date on their social media platforms. The company also

While the official release date of Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 is May 5

, 2017, the first

showings of the film will be on May 4

, 2017. The first showing of a film used to be at 00:00 am

on the day of the official release. More recently, however, the first showings of new films have

been after 6pm the day before.

released television promotion spots to announce the release of the film. Stores, such as Walmart,

also had posters in the entrances to announce the film’s release date. When Doctor Strange was

released, there were stands with the various media platforms and card board posters by the

registers, so shoppers would always be aware the film was on sale without having to go to the

media entertainment department of the store.

As the release of a film in the MCU approaches, such as Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2,

it will be promoted a lot more. The week any of the films is released, audiences are bombarded

with new promotional content. For instance, the actors of the films will visit news and talk shows

to be interviewed about the film. Every time an actor of the film is interviewed on television, the

interviewer asks questions about the film, and then a new clip of the film is shown. At the end of

every interview, the audience is told to go watch the film and is reminded when it film will be

released.

Since a lot of the films the MCU releases are sequels, the previous films are also shown

on television. By showing the previous films on television, Disney/Marvel can have old fans re-

watch the previous films, and perhaps have new fans watch the previous films so they can watch

the new one in theaters. Disney/Marvel also has their films of streaming platforms, such as Hulu

and Netflix, so people can watch the previous movies before watching the new films in theater.

Furthermore, Disney/Marvel uses their show Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (2013-present) as a

platform to promote their new films. Marvel has used Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. to show new

promotional sneak peaks. As part of the MCU, the audience of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. are likely

to watch the films as well, and will benefit from being constant audience members. This will also

entice non-regular viewers watch the show to catch the sneak peak, which will then increase the

viewership rating of the show. Since Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. is also part of the overall MCU,

storylines in the show have aligned with storylines of the films, especially Captain America: The

Winter Soldier (2014), Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015), and Captain America: Civil War (2016).

If audiences watch Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., then they need to watch the movie that is released

while the show is on television to be able to solve any cliffhangers from the episode that is

released before the film’s premier, which then sets up the next film in the show.

Disney/Marvel is constantly promoting their brand by saturating the market with their

logos and characters. Even if someone did not closely follow Disney/Marvel on social media, or

pay attention to any commercials on television, they will still not avoid any MCU content.

Disney/Marvel has contracts with food products to place their characters and the names of the

movies on the packaging. For certain products, like fruit snacks or cereals, the images of Marvel

characters tend remain on the packaging even if there is no MCU movie in theaters. On other

products, such as chips or sodas, the images of characters are placed on the packaging to promote

films. For instance, since Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 will be released in early May 2017, the

images of the characters could be seen on packages of Doritos chips as early as April 2017.

Furthermore, every time there is a new movie in the MCU, Disney/Marvel releases new

merchandise, such as toys and clothes, to promote the film. The new merchandise for each film

is changed slightly to reflect the film. Even if kids, or adults, already have certain toys from

previous films, the new toys promise new additions or changes in the characters that are going to

be present in the new film, such as new weapons or uniform change. For people who are

collectors, or kids who want the new toys, they are repurchasing action figures of the same

characters from the previous films only to have the newer edition.

If there are new characters introduced in the films, they are also sold and promoted in toy

markets. The new character action figures are often found in a package with other characters, so

even if a person has the other toys, they would need to repurchase them to get the new character.

For instance, when Captain America: Civil War (2016) was released, there were two packages

with all the action figures, one for “Team Iron Man” and the other “Team Captain America.” The

action figures for the newer characters in the film were in each package. To own the new action

figures of the newer characters, the whole set had to be bought even if a person already had

action figures for either “Iron Man,” or “Captain America.”

The phenomenon of the Marvel Cinematic Universe has moved beyond just the film, it is

in every aspect of people’s lives even if they are not fans of the franchise. Disney/Marvel

inundates people with information regarding every movie that they are planning on releasing,

new merchandise, and promotions through food products. There is a culture that is formed

surrounding the MCU that allows for people to constantly be updated with what is happening

with the franchise. The MCU, then, is a phenomenon that is influential in the cultural zeitgeist,

and is reflected of and reinforces ideologies present in the cultural zeitgeist.

1.2 A Brief History of “Captain America”

The MCU is an important phenomenon to critically analyze for ideologies that are being

propagated to the audience. Furthermore, the character of “Captain America” is also important to

analyze within the context of the MCU. “Captain America” originated as a comic book character,

and was then adapted for the MCU. “Captain America” was created in 1941 by Jack Kirby and

Joe Simon for Timely Comics, which later became Marvel Comics (Conroy, 2009, p. 62).

During World War II, the “Captain America” comics, as well as other comics were used

as propaganda tools. The comics were used to promote involvement in WWII to defeat Nazi

Germany and Japan. For instance, the first issue of the “Captain America” comics featured

“Captain America” punching Hitler (p. 67). “Captain America” issues were also used to save

paper. In the issues, “Captain America” tells the readers that they are part of the war effort, they

should join the organization “Sentinels of Liberty,” and need to save paper (pp. 64-65).

As “Captain America,” and other superheroes, were constantly fighting and defeating the

enemy, the comics became “wish-fulfillment fodder” for soldiers that read them (p. 67). “Captain

America” is a soldier that is fighting for America, and is then the symbol of what a soldier, or

any a reader, should strive for to bring peace to the world. “Captain America” is also the

embodiment of American nationalism (Dittmer, 2005, p. 627). Furthermore, “Captain America”

quintessentially represents the “white savior.” The character is the “perfect” white male with

“American” loyalty and beliefs, and only he can save the world. The narrative of “Captain

America” as the “white savior” is also symbolic of the United States as the nation that “saves”

everyone else.

Since “Captain America,” in the comics and the MCU, is created to fight for the

American military. The character is so closely tied to an American organization, which then

“establishes him as both a representative of the idealized American nation and as a defender of

the American status quo” (p. 627). The character inherently symbolizes the United States and the

ideological leanings of the United States. Through this character, American ideologies are

reinforced and reflected in the cultural zeitgeist. Therefore, it is important to critically analyze

how symbols of militarism and masculinity are reflected and reinforced by “Captain America” in

the MCU.

1.3 Militarization in Film

Importantly, these films, particularly the character “Captain America,” typically represent

a Manichaeistic view, which is the concept that the “forces of light and goodness are destined to

confront evildoers,” as well as jingoism, which is the “ease in which a majority of Americans can

be mobilized behind military venture” (Boggs & Pollard, 2016, pp. 17-18). These symbols are

reinforced in every movie that is released that foregrounds “Captain America” as the only reason

the world is saved from “evil.” These symbols that “Captain America” and the MCU represent

are indicative of “[Americans that] act modern, cool, and sophisticated… but underneath, want a

daddy, a king, a god, a hero…a champion who will carry that lance and that sword in to the field

and fight for [them]” (Dowd, 1992, para. 5). Therefore, the MCU and “Captain America”

symbolize these ideologies, which are also representative of and symbiotic with the zeitgeist in

which they are released.

Though the success of the Marvel Cinematic Universe is a more recent phenomenon, it is

not the first time that comic superhero films have been released—Batman (1966) could be

considered the first feature length superhero film. Yet, today, comic-based films are at the height

of popularity (Hickey, 2014, para. 6). Likewise, the United States is currently involved in the

War on Terror, which is considered to be a never-ending war. This has presented the perfect

opportunity for Hollywood to produce films that reflect and serve the cultural zeitgeist. There is

a war without a visible end, and if a superhero existed, then everyone would be protected and

saved. Thus, films are used to make people believe that “super” soldiers need to exist outside of

films to live in a “safe” world.

Propaganda has been used as a form of manipulation by dominant groups, in this case the

military, since at least World War I. Some of the earliest forms of propaganda have been by

cartoons (Conroy, 2009, p. 46). By using cartoons in newspapers, propagandists can reach a

larger audience and reinforce ideologies. Within this large audience, there are people with lower

education levels, who are more likely to be manipulated by propaganda (Aitken, 2013).

Similarly, films can reach a large audience.

During World War II, the United States government used films as a propaganda tool. In

fact, the Office of War Information, or OWI, hired Frank Capra, a film director, to produce

propaganda films (Ellis & McLane, 2009, p. 132). The purpose of these films was to convince

the population that the U.S. needed to get involved in WWII. Thus, since the 1940s, the U.S.

government has had a vested interest in using film as a propaganda medium to reach a large

audience.

For propaganda to work, there needs to be repetition. The ideological message needs to

continuously reinforced and sustained, especially during a time of war so that the population is

always aware of the “enemy” (Regan, 1994, p. 46). The MCU is the perfect platform for

propaganda and its reinforcement. As an extended universe, there are new films and television

shows being released that are all connected. People are going to watch new material in the MCU

to be up to date on how the story is unfolding. Furthermore, they are going to re-watch the

movies and shows that have already been released.

Since Disney/Marvel continuously releases new movies, and the audience can re-watch

movies, the MCU is the perfect platform for propaganda. The media and popular culture have

been used for military propaganda for the U.S. government, because the government does not

have an official propaganda machine (Boggs, 2012, p. 13). Thus, the MCU serves as the perfect

platform for military propaganda, because it is constantly being reinforced. Furthermore, some

scholars have stated that militarism promotes masculinity. Therefore, this study suggests that it is

necessary to not only analyze symbols of militarism in film, but symbols of masculinity as well.

1.4 Masculinity in the MCU

Of course, people are conditioned to want a hero that saves the day. That is why the hero

exists, to save everyone. Furthermore, superheroes should be able to go above and beyond—it is

implied in the name. By adding “super,” the hero should be able to defeat anything. There is

something “more” to the hero. In order to have a “super” hero, the character is often given

ultimate strength (e.g., “Steve Rogers,” or “Captain America”), or is a genius (e.g., “Tony

Stark,” or “Iron Man”). It is no longer “regular” people that are saving the day, but rather people

with enhanced capabilities.

Even when superheroes are parodied, such as in the program The Big Bang Theory, there

is still a desire by “normal” people to be superheroes (Brown, 2016, p. 131). The main characters

of this show, mostly male and considered to be “geeks,” have dressed up as their favorite

superhero characters in various episodes (p. 132). As Brown states, The Big Bang Theory (2007–

present), as a parody of geek culture, shows how superhero films impact fans (p. 132).

Superheroes, then, are considered the ultimate form of human greatness, or in some cases alien

greatness (e.g., Superman). Thus, the zeitgeist suggests that regardless of who you are, there is

always a desire to be a superhero.

These films are telling the audience that the superhero form, for instance the physical

strength, is the ultimate goal to achieving worthiness. Furthermore, because the MCU is a

franchise, people are not limited to watching these characters save the day in films. Franchises

are created by “…megafilms designed to sustain a product line of similar films and an ever-

expanding array of related entertainment products…” (Schatz, 2009, p. 30). Therefore, audiences

are not limited to these films to see these characters. These characters, Captain America, Iron

Man, Thor, etc., are on food products, clothing, toys, etc.—they permeate many aspects of

people’s daily lives, especially children’s.

Through transmedia, the audience continues to interact with the characters, their stories,

and the ideologies after they watch the films. As long as these movies continue to yield a high

profit for production companies, they will continue to be released. Often, these films are seen as

comic book adaptations that could be thought of as children’s movies, specifically, movies for

boys. In fact, Disney bought Marvel in order to secure a transmedia market targeted for boys,

which they lacked as Disney’s main target audience has mostly been girls because of

“princesses” in their films (McLauchlin, 2015, para. 14). With the purchase of Marvel, Disney

was able to expand their market to boys by providing them “superhero” toys. These “superhero”

toys reinforce militarism, and even militarized masculinity, in boys.

Gender discourse has shown that masculinity is a social construct (Tong, 2014, p. 201).

That is, the cultural zeitgeist determines what it means to be either a “man” or “woman.”

Furthermore, scholars have found that militarism promotes a militarized masculinity. David

Morgan (1994) states that “of all the sites where masculinities are constructed, reproduced, and

deployed, those associated with war and the military are some of the most direct” (p. 165). In the

military, men are forced to conform to what the military believes to be the what “real” men are

like. Thus, this study suggests that “Captain America” reinforces militarized masculinity,

because the character was created by the military and is a soldier.

1.5 “Captain America,” Militarism, & Masculinity

Once again, it is important to know that militaristic themes are not just in films but also in

comic books. In an analysis of the Captain America comic books, Jason Dittmer (2005) states

that the character embodies the “American identity by relating to nationalism and current

political affairs” (p. 627). Although Dittmer is analyzing the Captain in the comic book universe,

this conclusion could clearly apply to the films as well. Thus, this study suggests that the analysis

of militarism in the Captain America comic books and stories is important, because these stories

are now being made into several films (e.g., Captain America: The First Avenger (2011) and

others).

These symbols are reinforced in every movie that is released that foregrounds “Captain

America” as the only reason the world is saved from “evil.” These symbols that “Captain

America” and the MCU represent are indicative of “[Americans that] act modern, cool, and

sophisticated… but underneath, want a daddy, a king, a god, a hero…a champion who will carry

that lance and that sword in to the field and fight for [them]” (Dowd, 1992, para. 5). Therefore,

the MCU and “Captain America” symbolize these ideologies, which are also representative of

and symbiotic with the zeitgeist in which they are released.

Furthermore, Captain America is “a representative of national identity, one must not

ignore the display of his physical body as a marker of his heroic manhood” (Barbour, 2015, p.

277). The national identity that Captain America is representing is the belief that “heroic

manhood” is achieved through hypermasculinity. Barbour (2015) states that “the transformation

of Rogers into Captain America enacts that fantasy of instantaneous metamorphosis from

weakling to super hero” (p. 279). Captain America represents the ultimate wish-fulfilling

fantasy. He will be the weakling ever again–he is forever the superman.

1.6 Rationale

Though “Captain America” and the MCU is fiction, the ideologies represented in the

films could be representative of the cultural zeitgeist. These films, because they are seen as

fantasy, are perfect for propagating militarism and masculinity as ideologies—especially since

there is a ready-made audience. It is also this ready-made audience that may not necessarily

notice the ideologies present in the films. Since members of the audience may have been fans of

the comics first, they were already predisposed to the militaristic and masculine themes in these

films. Furthermore, since the films in franchise are all connected through storylines, there is a

guaranteed the audience, because they most likely to continue to watch the films in order to

know how the stories continue in each film. This, then, reinforces militaristic and masculine

ideologies are reinforced. Thus, the current zeitgeist continues, because the audience does not

question, or is not aware, of the ideologies being reinforced in these films.

Therefore, this study suggests that the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) is a transmedia

phenomenon that is worthy of scholarly attention and analysis. The popularity of the MCU

suggests that this a cultural, ideological phenomenon that can affect many people, not only in the

United States, but worldwide. Most films that are analyzed for their militaristic themes are more

likely to be about the U.S. military and wars. Within scholarly research, however, there is a gap

in analyzing comic book films and militarism. This may be because they are seen as simplistic

children’s movies, and only about “good versus evil.” This research project, however, will

analyze how and to what extent the MCU and “Captain America” is used as a propaganda tool

for hyper-masculinity and militarism.

CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

2.1 The Beginnings of Militarism in Film

Propaganda has been used as a form of manipulation by dominant groups, in this case the

military, since at least World War I. The use of propaganda as a recruitment tool showed that

people with less education were most likely to be manipulated (Aitken, 2013). In fact, it was

during World War I that propaganda cartoons, in the form of newspaper comics, “truly came into

their own, as a means of boosting morale and furthering the war effort” (Conroy, 2009, p. 46). At

this time, people mainly received news about the war from newspapers, and a comic strip was

the best way for a semi-literate audience to receive news (Conroy, 2009, p. 46). Therefore, these

comic strips were also a perfect medium to manipulate an audience into accepting militaristic

ideologies.

Years later, during World War II, the United States government had a vested interest in

how the military was portrayed in film. According to Harold D. Lasswell, “ideological control of

populations in or out of war would be achieved by…the management of opinions and attitudes

by the direct manipulation of social suggestions” (as cited in Gary, 1999, p. 83). In our current

culture, there is no need to have a specific source of propaganda that directly tells the audience

what to think. Rather, the film industries, owned by giant media conglomerates, are able to insert

military ideologies subtly without the audience realizing it (Boggs and Pollard, 2016, p. 10). By

using films to promote military ideologies, the industry and the government would have a

mutually beneficial relationship—the media conglomerates would be able to influence politics

and the government would have a free propaganda tool. These ideologies, then, need to be

represented through the discourse and symbols in films. This study suggests that the MCU and

“Captain America” are examples of discourses that are worthy of scholarly analysis.

Scholars also state that for the best way for ideological propaganda to work, there needs

to be repetition. There needs to be a “sustained effort” to be able to have a specific enemy in the

population’s mind (Regan, 1994, p. 46). Furthermore, the manipulation of symbols has to occur

over time and continuously reinforced, especially during a time in which the people do not

support any kind of military action (Regan, 1994). Thus, in order to convince people to support

military action, the symbols used in propaganda, particularly in propaganda films, need to reflect

patriotic values, which can include militaristic and masculine themes. This study, therefore,

recognizes that since the MCU is a franchise, the ideological symbols in the films and “Captain

America” are continuously being reinforced with each film that is released.

Although the U.S. government may not have had direct contact with comic book films

being made, historically, that does not mean that there is not a form of militarism in films that are

about the United States. Interestingly, militarism is the “contradictory and tense social process in

which civil society organizes itself for the production of violence…[and] is ongoing” (Davies &

Philpott, 2012, p. 65). Film and cinema are what Robin Luckham considers parts of media, “with

military themes [that] help to condition public acceptance of armament” (as cited in Regan,

1994, p. 48). Thus, regardless of the involvement of the U.S. government, films can be used as

propaganda for military support.

For example, during World War II, the U.S. government needed to make their citizens

understand the need to join the conflict and end isolationism (Ellis & McLane, 2009, pp. 130-

132). In order to do so, the U.S. government (like the British) began producing documentaries as

a form of propaganda. While these documentaries were used for training, informing the public,

battle records, and social documentary, the U.S. government was very much influential about

what was being produced. In 1942, the Office of War Information (OWI) was established to

work with Hollywood on what should and should not be included in films in order to influence

the morale of the audience (Ellis & McLane, 2009, p. 140). The interaction between the OWI

and Hollywood shows how the military was able to subtly manipulate audiences, and it did not

end after WWII. Propaganda, however, has evolved from Frank Capra producing films for the

U.S. military to being subtler—media culture evolved to being the propaganda apparatus for the

government (Boggs & Pollard, 2016, p. 135). This study, however, recognizes how films are

examples of discourses and the symbols used as propaganda.

2.2 Modern War Propaganda

After WWII, the U.S. became a military superpower, which resulted in the heavy

influence of the military over the government, military ties to the economy, and the need to

secure markets throughout the world (Davies & Philpott, 2012). This influence is also referred to

as the military-industrial complex (Boggs & Pollard, 2016, p. 55). Thus, Hollywood continued to

support militaristic ideologies. Between Hollywood and the military-industrial complex, the

cultural zeitgeist continued to evolve with militaristic symbols that promoted military

intervention for the greater good.

More specifically, films that were released after WWII continued to portray the “good

war.” The “good war” is a war fought by the good against the evil enemies, and WWII is often

considered to be the ultimate “good war” (Boggs & Pollard, 2016, p. 36). Therefore, Hollywood

released films that embodied this idea of the “good war.” Thus, Hollywood released films that

embodied the “good war,” because the audience is more likely to accept war if it is seen as “just”

and “good,” and will bring peace to the world. By accepting that a war will bring peace to the

world, then the audience of war films is likely to support jingoism, the mobilization of the

military. Therefore, these films are worth examining to determine how war films, specifically

superhero films, use militaristic themes to reinforce the support of military mobilization.

Furthermore, some scholars argue that a military superpower can also lead to believing

that if humans invented war, they can also invent peace (Anderson & Christie, 2001). The

notions of “us versus them” and “just wars” are what create violent wars (p. 178). This, in turn,

reinforces Manichaeistic views of the world. If a war is “just,” then it is necessary to take any

action, in this case, to declare war, in order to defeat the enemy and to achieve peace. Scholars

also conclude that because of violence in film, people have become desensitized and are more

likely go along with militarism in films out of indifference (Boggs & Pollard, 2008, p. 573).

Furthermore, the military and war films insinuate that to be able to defeat the enemy, the country

should always be prepared.

Military preparedness is often associated with people being told that the only way to

achieve peace is through the strength of the nation (Anderson & Christie, 2001, p. 178). In order

to have military preparedness, the development of weapons, as well as “jobs, contracts,

masculinity, and politics,” which furthers the military-industrial complex (p. 178). This severe

involvement of the military in society is also justified by the idea that the military is protecting

the nation’s “interests and investments” (p. 178). Furthermore, this zeitgeist is still present in

contemporary films.

To protect the nation’s interests and investments, militarism suggests that there is going

to be some form of necessary violence. To gain support by people to use military action for

national “security,” Hollywood has embraced the need to “celebrate a violence that

simultaneously reflects and influences the popular Zeitgeist” (Boggs & Pollard, 2008, p. 566).

Likewise, other recent films such as No Country for Old Men (2007) and There Will Be Blood

(2007) are not really war films, but still embrace the use of violence as a means to an end. The

casual use of violence in several genres of films, suggests that Hollywood is reinforcing the

ideological need for violence as the main response to any threat, thus, supporting militarism.

Hollywood was also able to capitalize on 9/11. After Sept. 11th, 2001, Hollywood

produced various war films about the attacks, thus, garnering a profit from cinematic

representations of war, violence, fears of terrorism, attacks, battles, militarism and justified

causes. Essentially, films that portrayed the U.S. as a “very imperialistic nation prepared to set

the world straight” were appealing to U.S. audiences because they were “wounded [and]

vengeful” (Boggs & Pollard, 2008, p. 566).

At least one scholar, Boggs (2012), further explains that media and popular culture have

worked as forms of military propaganda, since the U.S. government does not have an official

propaganda machine (p. 13). As Boggs explains, media and popular culture have become tools to

spread “ideological hegemony” that includes the belief that there needs to be a “globalized

permanent war system to protect against imminent foreign threats, and, of course, [for] old-

fashioned patriotism” (Boggs, 2012, p. 14). Boggs also states that war films help justify the

militarization of the U.S., regardless of any anti-militaristic films that are also released (p. 16).

This is likely due to the zeitgeist that has developed over many decades that closely links the

military and movie entertainment.

One example of a film being used to spread patriotism and justify militarism is Act of

Valor (2012), which was used as a way to promote the Navy SEALs and attract recruits

(Anderson, 2014, p. 23). This film, compared to other war films, went further and even used

SEALs to portray the characters because the producers felt that “actors could misinterpret the US

Navy SEALs, as they have before in film” (p. 24). Anderson states that despite the film being

released nationwide and having the appearance of a “Hollywood” film, the Public Relations

division in the Pentagon was involved (much like the OWI during WWII) in the filming process

and even decided what should be taken out of the film that they deemed “undesirable” (p. 22).

Anderson also compares Act of Valor to war films about the Vietnam War. The author states that

while films depicting the Vietnam War were critical of the military, Act of Valor ignores the

“reality” of war and mainly promotes “patriotism” and that violence is necessary (p. 28). Thus,

films promote an unrealistic view of war, which can lead to the audience believing that

militarism is necessary. Therefore, war films are worthy of analysis to determine how militaristic

themes are used to promote an unrealistic view of war.

2.3 A Nation Terrorized

Some scholars argue that since September 11th, 2001, Hollywood films were used to help

people cope with the aftermath of the attacks (Riegler, 2014, p. 104). For example, Riegler states

that films post 9/11 represented the “‘unbroken’ spirit, strove to reassert the symbolic

coordinates of the prevailing American reality, and mobilized for a response to new challenges”

(p. 104). Hollywood claimed they would change their film to be “gentler,” and even canceled

film projects or changed them (p. 105). Riegler states, however, that Hollywood got on the

military bandwagon shortly after the invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001, by releasing films

such as Black Hawk Down (2001). Riegler also notes how that Hollywood undertook the

retelling of the “War on Terror” as fast as popular culture during World War II, but emphasized

the homecomings of soldiers and the problems of their families (p. 112).

By telling the stories of soldiers coming home and the problems that their families faced,

there is an undercurrent in which, just because the soldier has returned home does not mean that

the war is over (Grajeda, 2014). According to Grajeda, films whose narrative is about the soldier

coming home show their struggles to rejoin society (p. 59). These films that do not have closure

are reinforcing the fact that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are a “forever war” and the “long-

war,” because, ultimately, these two wars are part of the War on Terror, which always has

potential conflict (p. 56).

Another scholar suggests that despite the portrayal of the “forever war,” audiences seem

to prefer those that suggest that the U.S. is “winning” the War on Terror (Lee, 2015, p. 16). For

example, the capture and death of Osama Bin Laden caused a shift in Hollywood, which would

account for the $430 million success of a movie such as American Sniper (2014). Yet,

Hollywood would not have produced American Sniper (2014) had previously released war films

not had some success. For instance, The Hurt Locker (2009) won six Academy Awards

including Best Picture, despite “only” making $17 million in profit in the U.S. Thus, films that

reinforce successful militarism are preferable to audiences.

2.4 Not All War Films

Although the current cultural zeitgeist values militarism, there are some war films that

have been released that do not portray militarization as always beneficial. For instance, Steven

Spielberg’s War Horse (2011) demonstrates a small change on how militarism is portrayed in

recent films. David Cox (2012) states that while Spielberg’s previous films contributed to the

idea of military preparedness, War Horse changes the view on war (para. 6). The film shows the

“futility” of World War I, which is a sentiment that was held by the U.S. public about the war in

the Middle East at the time of the film’s release (Cox, 2012, para. 6). Cox notes that when the

film was released, the defense budget was being cut, President Obama was pulling the military

out of Libya, and Iran was to be dealt with by Israel (2012, para. 9).

According to one scholar, other films that previously seemed to deal with the “futility” of

war are Flags of Our Fathers (2006) and Letters from Iwo Jima (2006) (Cardullo, 2011, p. 251).

These two movies show what is presumed to be the justification of the battle, which created a

myth in its history (p. 253). This myth is that capturing Iwo Jima was important for the war in

the Pacific, because it would be an important landing and refueling site for U.S. planes.

However, this rationale was not the reason for capturing the island. The military used this theory

after the battle was successful and after the Marines suffered high casualties (p. 253). Although

both films show two sides of the war, Japan and U.S.A., the films are not entirely anti-

militaristic, because as Cardullo argues, they would alienate part of the intended audience (p.

254). The audience has been accustomed to watching films in which the U.S. military perseveres

against the “enemy,” particularly in this “good” war, and, therefore, any film that strays from this

trope, would not be accepted.

These films, however, did succeed in showing that war is “hell,” and that despite a

justification of it, it is not always necessary (p. 254). On this topic, another example could be

Saving Private Ryan (1998). Though some war films show the “hell” that men in combat go

through, it is possible that they promote a type of masculinity in these men. Some scholars have

stated that militarism promotes masculinity. Therefore, this study suggests that it is necessary to

not only analyze symbols of militarism in film, but symbols of masculinity as well.

2.5 A Brief Understanding of Masculinity

Gender discourse in films is also affected by the cultural zeitgeist—that is, how gender is

perceived and talked about in society. According to postmodern feminist scholars, gender is a

social construct. Gender norms are developed by society, and people are assigned a gender that

they must perform (Tong, 2014, p. 201). Society expects people that are either labeled “boy” or

“girl” to have certain behavioral traits that are believed to correspond with those binary labels.

This labeling of behavioral traits has created a boy/girl dichotomy that is perceived as the norm,

and any behavior that does not follow this “rule” is seen as abnormal. Furthermore, binary

oppositions in language and discourse have limited the understanding of masculinity and

femininity (Tong, 2014, p 195). Binary oppositions in language have ruled that masculinity is the

opposite of femininity, and vice versa. Therefore, the binary opposition has limited the categories

for behavioral characteristics to either masculine or feminine.

This construction of behavioral traits in society leads to the reinforcement of hegemonic

masculinity. According to Barrett (1996), hegemonic masculinity is “…a particular idealized

image of masculinity in relation to which images of femininity and other masculinities are

marginalized and subordinated” (p. 130). Through hegemonic masculinity, “other” groups are

viewed as being less-than the ideal male figure. Furthermore, hegemonic masculinity also

includes “…the process by which these groups and ideals form, the organizational situations and

constraints that shape and construct these ideals and groups” (Barrett, 1996, p. 130). Thus, it is

important to note how these masculinities are developed. For this study, it is important to look at

hegemonic masculinities in militaristic situations.

2.6 Militarized Masculinity

Hegemonic masculinity that forms in the military is known as militarized masculinity.

Militarized masculinity is defined by David Morgan (1994) as the following:

Of all the sites where masculinities are constructed, reproduced, and deployed, those

associated with war and the military are some of the most direct. Despite far-reaching

political, social, and technological changes, the warrior still seems to be a key symbol of

masculinity…The stance, facial expressions, and the weapons clearly connote aggression,

courage, a capacity for violence, and sometimes, a willingness for sacrifice. The uniform

absorbs individualities into a generalized and timeless masculinity while also connoting a

control of emotion and a subordination to a larger rationality (p. 165).

A militarized masculinity suggests that the only way a man can be a “true” man is if he embodies

these characteristics. Of course, the only way for men to embody these characteristics is if they

join the military, which is the ultimate school for masculinity (Scheub, 2012, para. 4). An early

example of a society ruled by militarized masculinity is Germany through both World Wars. Dr.

Ute Scheub (2012) states that men in Germany were taught to be “hard,” and “disciplined” (para.

7). The United States, however, has also emphasized the need for militarized masculinity.

Furthermore, the military needs a group of men, who would have been at odds in society

based on socio-economic status, to be a cohesive unit. To do so, the military reinforces a

commonality, which is their masculinity. The military “[emphasizes] stoic masculinity, and

differentiating the masculine from the feminine” (Shields, 2016, p. 65). The military ingrains in

them that what unites them is their hyper-masculinity. The military treats training as a “finishing

school” that teaches the soldiers hyper-masculine values and behaviors, such as strength,

toughness, stoicism, aggressiveness, and an exaggerated heterosexuality” (p. 65). Thus, even

before soldiers go to any theater of action, they have already been trained to be hyper-masculine

and to denounce any femininity.

Gender roles and militarism are also reinforced in the spread of militarized masculinity

(Bjarnegård & Melander, 2011, p. 145). Bjarnegård and Melander (2011) state that, through

militarized masculinity, “violence is viewed as an acceptable means of imposing and maintaining

domination…[and] that conflict will be dealt with violently” (pp. 145-146). This, then, reinforces

Shields (2016) argument that the military’s main training objective is hyper-masculinity. By

enforcing hyper-masculine traits, creating a militarized masculinity, the soldiers are prone to use

violence to solve conflict.

Furthermore, some scholars argue that masculinity and war are linked. Hutchings (2008)

argues that there is a “mutually reinforcing relation between masculinity and war and the links

between ideals of masculinity and exemplary or necessary military virtues or qualities” (p. 392).

This suggest that there is a mutual relationship between the masculinity, the military, and war.

The military uses basic training to form a cohesive unit through masculinity. Without this

cohesion through masculinity, the military would not be able to have “war.” As Hutchings

(2008) further claims that masculinity is a cause of war (p. 391). Thus, there is a continuous

relationship between hyper-masculinity and militarism.

One scholar analyzes sense of identity in forming masculinity in the military. Hale (2012)

states that “strong sense of belonging to the military community” is important in developing

masculinites (p. 708). In her research, Hale (2012) found that some respondents considered the

military their “home” and that it was the most important aspect of who they are (p. 709). The

researcher’s findings show that the military is ingrained into their identities. Hale (2012) also

states that respondents feel that there they must conform to “military masculinities,” and if they

do not, they must leave (p. 713). The military, then, in using masculinity as a cohesive trait,

forces people to adopt it, with negative effects if people are not willing to conform. Thus, the

military forces masculinity on the soldiers, and takes away their autonomy in doing so.

2.7 Masculinity in Media

Though the military is one way to militarize masculinity, films are also used to influence

the cultural zeitgeist. Speaking of gender issues, scholars began analyzing gender in film in the

1970s. Gender in films was often analyzed using feminist film theory, which was developed by

scholars, such as Laura Mulvey and Claire Johnston (Hammett, 1997, p. 85). Feminist film

critique was most likely kick-started by the release of Jaws in 1975, which was the first

blockbuster and dictated that films should cater to the tastes of 15-year-old boys (Dowd, 2015,

para. 27). The emphasis of the male audience of Jaws (1975) is mostly the same as the target

audience of war films. Scholars found that films caused “[oppression] not only economically and

politically, but also in the very forms of reasoning, signifying and symbolical exchange of our

culture” (Devereaux, 1990, p. 337). Thus, the symbolism of gender in films also contributes to

the cultural zeitgeist.

For example, Susan Jeffords (1994) analyzed masculinity in various films, such as the

Rambo film series, released in the 1980s. Interestingly, these films, she suggests, represented

society’s desire to see “spectacular narratives about characters who stand for individualism,

liberty, militarism, and a mythic heroism” (p. 16). Of course, these films were released during

the Reagan Era, a historical context in which the administration pushed the idea that there was a

need for a more “masculine” approach to foreign affairs (Jeffords, 1994, p. 28). This further

demonstrates the link between films and the cultural zeitgeist. For the country to be “masculine,”

men needed to have “hard bodies.” According to Jeffords, hard bodies are characterized by not

having any feminine traits, have strength, are aggressive, and have power (p. 35). Interestingly,

this trend exploded in the 1980s, and lasts until this day.

Furthermore, “the muscular body is a heavily inscribed sign: Nothing else so clearly

marks an individual as a bearer of masculine power” (Brown, 1999, p. 27). Musculature is used

to determine gender norms. To be considered a “man,” the person must be “hard,” or have an

abundance of muscles. Also, women who are muscular and men who are not are considered

“gender transgressors,” because they defy gender norms created by society (Brown, 1999, p. 27).

The muscular body, or hard body, is a strong symbol for hypermasculinity.

Interestingly, it is also worth noting how these types of hard bodies have also migrated to

comic book characters. Most male comic book male superheroes are drawn with large muscles,

which is described as the “Marvel body” (Lang, 2016). This hegemonic masculinity is capable of

making people believe that this order is natural and concrete (Brown, 2016, p. 132). This

hegemonic masculinity can be represented by superheroes. Brown states that superhero parodies,

such as The Big Bang Theory (2007–present), criticize and make fun of superhero masculinity (p.

132). In the show, however, the male characters still want to look like superheroes. Thus, there is

still the “type” of body that needs to be achieved, because it is considered the “best.” Therefore,

the male superhero body is most likely for the male audience, in order to reinforce the need for

the “hard body” in the zeitgeist.

Though female superheroes are drawn for the “male gaze,” male characters are also

drawn for the “male gaze.” The male gaze, or male perspective, is how society is taught to

understand the world. The male gaze is the perspective that considered to be the universal

quantifier of how to look at the world and to determine what is “real” (Devereaux, 1990). In

other words, the female superheroes are drawn for the male audience to ogle. It might be thought

that male characters are drawn for the female audience. Male superheroes, however, are not

drawn for “female gaze.” Rather, they are still for the male gaze.

The male superhero body is for men that “find male power exhilarating” (Wheeler, 2014,

para. 3). The male superheroes symbolically represent what men “should” look like, which also

leads to exercise routines that are created to look like these characters (Lang, 2016, para. 2).

Furthermore, superhero films “represent a very narrow definition of masculinity,” and the

narrative is supposed to make the audience identify with the character (Brown, 2016, p. 134). In

a franchise, such as the MCU, hegemonic masculinity is constantly reinforced. Also, “Captain

America” is one of the characters that has a “hard body” that the audience will identify with.

Furthermore, “classical comic book depictions of masculinity are perhaps the

quintessential expression of our cultural beliefs about what it means to be a man” (Brown, 1999,

p. 26). The beliefs about what is “manhood” are reinforced in masculine symbolism in superhero

comics. This suggests that there is a continuous cycle in how masculinity is constructed. Brown

(1999) states that while comics have showed “that a superman exists inside everyman,” they are

beginning to erase the “ordinary man underneath in favor of an even more excessively powerful

and one-dimensional masculine ideal” (p. 26). By erasing the “ordinary man” duality to the

“superman,” e.g. “Clark Kent” to “Superman,” the comics are giving preference to the

“superman.” There is no longer room for the “ordinary man,” and the comic book audience

should strive to be the “superman” all the time.

This duality, however, exists in many superheroes. Brown (1999) argues that “superhero

comics are one of our culture’s clearest illustrations of hypermasculinity and male duality

premised on the fear of the unmasculine other” (p. 31). The duality, as Brown states, is the

superhero, which symbolizes hypermasculinity and everyone is aware of, and the “ordinary

man,” which symbolizes perceived effeminate traits and is hidden from the public. The duality of

the alter-ego inherently places one personality as the ideal, which is the superhero. This, then,

creates the “wish-fulfilling fantasy for young men” (Brown, 1999, p. 32). If young men see that

even “whimpy” men can become superheroes, then they can to. Therefore, this proposed study

recognizes the significance of conducting an analysis of masculinity of male superheroes, such as

“Captain America,” in films.

2.8 Militarism & Masculinity within “Captain America”

Once again, it is important to know that militaristic themes are not just in films but also in

comic books. In an analysis of the Captain America comic books, Jason Dittmer (2005) states

that the character embodies the “American identity by relating to nationalism and current

political affairs” (p. 627). Although Dittmer is analyzing the Captain in the comic book universe,

this conclusion could clearly apply to the films as well. Captain America is successful in

representing the American people because people use popular culture to understand their

positions in the nation and the world (p. 626). Dittmer further states that the Captain represents

the idea that only the U.S. acts through military force due to the need for security (p. 630).

Thus, this study suggests that the analysis of militarism in the Captain America comic

books and stories is important, because these stories are now being made into several films (e.g.,

Captain America: The First Avenger (2011) and others). There are also other comic book series

that now have various film adaptations, for instance the Iron Man comics, and that also have

militaristic themes. Interestingly, Manohla Dargis of the New York Times, recently wrote a

review about Iron Man 3 (2013). Dargis states that the film uses iconography of Osama Bin

Laden, 9/11, and the Wars on Terror (2013, para. 7). Like many other films post-9/11, this film

uses these ideas as a backdrop for the film without analyzing political arguments; they are

exploiting these events. Dargis also comments on the fact that despite explosions killing people,

there is nothing “real” about how the setting looks (e.g., lack of blood and limbs) (para. 4).

Dargis also notes that Steven Soderbergh, a retired filmmaker, stated that people in the

U.S. seem to be suffering from post-traumatic stress since the 9/11 attacks (para. 13). For this

reason, there is a large audience for escapist films that do not analyze politics, but rather, have a

simplistic view of “good” and “evil” in fantasy. Yet the adaptations of comic books, while there

have been many, are becoming bigger blockbuster films recently and in contemporary culture.