CM. 384 Final Blog

 Avengers Dissemble: 

How the MCU Promotes Ablenationalism and Spreads Military Propaganda

By: Andrew Deklerk 

Introduction 

Since the release of the first Iron Man movie in 2008, the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) has been a massive commercial success. It’s undeniable that the MCU provides a great deal of entertainment to many people. However the MCU, and the modern superhero movie genre in general  promote ablenationalist values, disseminate military propaganda, and repeatedly put forth black-and-white plots. Plots where violence is the solution, the American Military Industrial Complex is portrayed as heroic, and maintaining the current hegemonic power structure is always the right thing to do. I will detail the often used trope of disability in the superhero genre, and how the genre’s portrayal of disabled people contributes to ablenationalism. Which is an ideology that results in little to no accommodations, and partial inclusion in society for disabled people. I also will explore the long established links between the MCU, and the pentagon, dating back to the creation of the MCU in 2008, links that exist to this day. Lastly I will explore Marvel, and Disney’s role in media consolidation, and the role it plays in the MCU’s positive portrayal of hegemony. The support of ablenationalist viewpoints, the propaganda spreading nature of its relationship with the Military Industrial Complex, and constant affirmation of global hegemonic powers constantly portrayed in the MCU are worthy of criticism. 

Ablenationalism and the Harmful Portrayal of Disability in the MCU

Disability, and overcoming it is a common trope in the superhero genre, Captain America is an example of this. However superhero movies also promote the idea that disabled people should yearn to be normal, and strive to be integrated into society without forcing a major systemic change, or fighting to make society more accessible to disabled people in general. This concept of minimal inclusion for disabled people is known as ablenationalism. The concept of ablenationalism is explained clearly in the article Ablenationalists Assemble: On Disability in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, by Jan Grue. “Ablenationalism (Mitchell and Snyder, The Biopolitics of Disability) is an ideology of limited accommodation and partial inclusion. It is society's way of "solving" the problem of disability by lauding the role of the able-disabled (Titchkosky); people with disabilities who are able to integrate and contribute without requiring or forcing major systemic change. Ablenationalism effectively conserves a personal tragedy model of disability, while allowing for certain individuals to escape this fate.” (Grue, 2021). Once given a concrete definition it’s easy to spot many examples of ablenationalist views in the superhero genre. 

One example of ablenationalism in the MCU can be seen with Captain America. In the beginning of Captain America: the First Avenger, Steve Rodgers is a small man struggling with asthma and scoliosis, as well as a myriad of other health issues. He struggles with feelings of uselessness and inadequacy due to his health problems, and being rejected for service in the American war effort in WWII. Until the friendly folks at the United States Military Industrial Complex turn him into a super soldier, through a process that can best be described as pseudoscientific, and give him purpose. His previous disabilities are then dropped entirely from the plot as they were merely a device to humanize him to the audience. No time is spent reflecting on how society's treatment of a disabled man led to his significant depression. Captain America was able to overcome his disabilities, and they were just a building block on his path to heroism; society was right for shunning him until he proved himself useful. However in the real world there aren’t benevolent government organizations who go around turning disabled people into super soldiers, and curing their disabilities. So I would argue promoting a point of view where the disabled are forced to adapt or be outcast is a rather reprehensible thing for the MCU to do. 

The portrayal of certain groups of people only so long as it’s profitable, is a common feature of capitalist entertainment properties. This has created a socially idealized version of disabled people, which Grue refers to as supercrips. Disabled people who contribute to society in a profitable manner, rather than seeking accommodation; disabled superheroes exemplify this quality in media portrayals. “Ablenationalism expressed through the figure of the supercrip thus has at least three repressive functions. First, it furthers the notion that only exceptional disabled people are of value. Second, it suggests that disabled people can and must perform before an ableist world. Third, it implies that true inclusion and normality are close to impossible for most disabled people, however desirable. The supercrip figure thus has a function closely related to the figure of the normate (Garland-Thomson)-it functions as an ideological constraint upon the possibilities of meaning-making in the lives of disabled people. In addition, however, the concepts of ablenationalism and supercrip are closely linked to productivity. Being a full citizen, that is, a valued and fully rights-bearing member of the community of a nation-state, means contributing. Being productive, that is, crossing the dividing line between the needs-based and the efforts-based economy that usually segregates disabled from non-disabled (Stone), turns out to be more important than being happy, since being productive is a measure of one's fundamental worth.” (Grue, 2021). Thus it can be seen that like many other marginalized communities disabled people are only portrayed by the media if their existence can be shown as profitable to society.  

The article Disruption and Disability Futures in Captain America: The First Avenger and Captain America: The Winter Soldier, by Alex Tankard, provides in depth coverage on the portrayal of disability in the MCU, particularly in Captain America. Tankard details the role that disabilities play in the first Captain America movie, “First Avenger depicts Steve Rogers's rejection for military service in the Second World War and his high-tech transformation into a super-soldier. A military questionnaire, shown on screen, lists peculiarly imprecise diagnoses that render Steve unfit, including "heart trouble"!?), "nervous trouble of any sort"(?), "chronic or frequent colds," and "easy fatiguability"; the report states that his mother died of tuberculosis. A military doctor tells him "You'd be ineligible on your asthma alone," and stamps his application "4F": rejected (00:08:03-00:08:45). Steve's asthma might be classified as "a disability" under the Americans With Disabilities Act (1990) if it "substantially limits one or more major life activities" (ADA). However, once scientist Erskine allows Steve to enter basic training, we do not see Steve "limited" by any of the conditions listed.” (Tankard, 2022). This is an example of disability serving as a narrative device to humanize a character, rather than an actual attempt to portray disability. 

 Tankard also further details how disability is localized entirely in the portrayal of Rodger’s body. “However, the Captain America origin story locates disability firmly in Steve's defective body-which, on screen, belongs to actor Leander Deeny, with Chris Evans's head applied via CGI (Hood). Watching First Avenger with little prior knowledge of Marvel superheroes, I was dismayed that fighting fascism involved replacing a disabled body with a heroic blond, blue-eyed, muscular body which, like the drawings in the 1941 Captain America comic (Simon and Kirby 4-5), resembled the contrast between "fit" and "unfit" bodies on an American eugenic propaganda poster circulating in 1942 entitled If You Are Fit to Marry.” (Tankard, 2022). Being somewhat behind the times in disability portrayal could perhaps be forgiven; portraying disabilities in such a way that it makes viewers recall eugenics propaganda isn’t excusable. 

Captain America: The Winter Soldier, and Captain America: Civil War both cover the United States, and Soviet Union use of pseudoscience to turn people into weapons of mass destruction. As is traditional in the MCU, the United States is portrayed as noble for their experimentation, while the Soviets, and the pseudoscientific terrorist organization Hydra are shown to be evil for theirs. Tankard elaborates, “Marvel superhero movies celebrate the transformation of disabled people into weapons. First Avenger (2011) depicts a disabled man rebuilt by military technology into a patriotic superhero. In Winter Soldier (2014), the Soviet cyborg's brutal, non-consensual modification serves to emphasize Captain America's wholesomely perfected body. At first glance, both films seem incapable of critiquing the historical ableism that made Captain America's modification a desirable image of disability-free future in 1941--let alone its modern manifestations. However, rewatching First Avenger after Winter Soldier reveals a far less stable endorsement of eliminating disability: alerted to the precise anxieties about bodily autonomy in the series, one can perceive an undercurrent of disability critique running through First Avenger too--often literally in the background.” (Tankard, 2022). The disability critiquing that takes place in Captain America is consistent with the ablenationalist viewpoints that exist within the superhero genre as a whole. Additionally, the concerns about bodily autonomy for the disabled community have a great deal of historical context, and merit. 

In Captain America: The Winter Soldier, consent is the key difference between the noble American pseudoscience division that made Captain America, and the Hydra pseudoscience division that turned his lifelong friend Bucky into the Winter Soldier. America seeks consent before experimenting on people, and the Soviets don’t; that’s what makes America the good guys. However, followers of the American History Cinematic Universe may recall the Sonoma State Hospital Experiments. A series of nonconsensual experiments performed on children with cerebral palsy, and other disorders, conducted in the 1950s and 1960s. “ On Feb. 9, CBS 60 Minutes reported about the buried secrets at Sonoma State Hospital (now Sonoma Developmental Center), where 3,500 children with disabilities lived in the 1950s and 1960s. The children were used in medical experiments without parental informed consent – they were subjected to government-sponsored radiation experiments, among others. Susan Lederer, who teaches medical history at Yale University, and was a member of President Clinton’s Advisory Commission on Human Radiation Experiments, told 60 Minutes that the researchers and staff regarded the children as “the raw material of medical research.” When they died researchers acquired their brains, also without consent.”” (Children Were the Raw Material of Medical Research /Newborn Screening for 29 Conditions – Alliance for Human Research Protection, n.d.). These experiments are just one example of many in the history of America where vulnerable populations were exploited without consequence. For the MCU to put forth a narrative where America’s treatment of disabled, and vulnerable populations is in any way concerned with the consent, and wellbeing of those populations is entirely disingenuous, and disrespectful of both vulnerable populations, and history. However, the MCU has absolutely no problem disrespecting history, as I will cover in detail later.  

MCU and the Military 

The Military-Entertainment Complex has a long history in America, dating back to WWII, when the United States Government first sought to use the entertainment industry as a means to disseminate propaganda. Today its influence can be seen in many forms of entertainment including video games, but particularly in the film industry, where the Department of Defense somewhat regularly co-scripts movies. A concise definition of the Military-Entertainment Complex, or Department of Defense, DOD-Hollywood Complex is provided in Tanner Mirrlees article, The Economics, Geopolitics and Ideology of an Imperial Film Commodity, “The DOD-Hollywood complex refers to the symbiotic (mutually beneficial) relationships between the DOD and Hollywood studios which encourage the production of films which glorify militarism as a way of life. For the past hundred years, the DOD has supported the business of Hollywood and many Hollywood war films have aligned with the DOD's use of PR to engineer public support for militarism and state violence. DOD-Hollywood complex militainment is designed to make the DOD look good and to make Hollywood money.” (Mirrlees, 2013). 

Later in the article, Mirrlees covers the extent to which the DOD works with film producers to ensure they’re portrayed in a positive light. “The DODSAEM, a DOD-film policy agency, grants war filmmakers access to military locations (bases, barracks, battlefields), personnel (U.S. officers and soldiers), software (knowledge about military protocol, chain of command, systems operation, troop lingo, drill routines), and most importantly, hardware (actual battleships, jet fighters, tanks, helicopters and guns), so long as their war scripts meet DOD content requirements. Hollywood war scripts that promote the DOD's image to the public, cast the DOD in a positive light, align with DOD policy objectives and link with the DOD's ongoing recruitment efforts tend to get DOD support while those that fail to meet these content stipulations, do not.” (Mirrlees, 2013). The DOD-Hollywood complex is the means through which the State Department ensures a positive portrayal of the Defense Department, and U.S. Military in the media. This is quite a beneficial relationship for the DOD, and Hollywood, although not for the American people, and is based on spreading military propaganda on a societal level.   

The article Marvel’s Shady Relationship With the Pentagon and the U.S. Military, Explained, by Adam Delahoussaye covers the MCU’s role in the Military-Entertainment Complex in depth. “Marvel Studios has just premiered their debut MCU entry Iron Man to critical and financial success with a sequel already lined up and in development. Now, where things get interesting is when one looks at the logistics of shooting this film. Do a little digging, and you’ll find that the Pentagon lent the studio almost $1 billion worth of military equipment for both friends. Gotta help fill out Tony Stark’s armory somehow, right? It doesn’t take an expert in advertisement to sense what both camps were and still are hoping to gain from this partnership. If the United States military can be painted in any positive light (like, say, developing the flagship hero of this franchise), that can then be spun into a successful yet unconventional avenue for recruitment.” (Delahoussaye, 2022). While the MCU films are far from the only films to be sponsored in part by the state department, the effects of this propaganda based relationship on Marvel’s portrayal of the U.S. Military is quite obvious. 

Mirrlees also details how Iron Man pushes post 9/11 U.S. foreign policy, as well as U.S. exceptionalism. “Iron Man gives cultural and ideological support to the U.S. Empire by affirming post-9/11 U.S. foreign policy in Afghanistan, U.S exceptionalism, and a distinctly U.S. military-industri a1-complex (MIC). Following 9/11, the U.S. launched an invasion and prolonged occupation of Afghanistan, a -country from which Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda allegedly planned and orchestrated the 9/11 attacks. Iron Man supports the U.S. state's post-9/11 foreign policy in Afghanistan by depicting it as a space of threat to America, a space that must be contained and controlled with military might. In the film's opening scene, Stark is being toured around Afghanistan by the DOD and is then ambushed by the Ten Rings jihadist terrorist group, which kills U.S. soldiers and nearly kills Stark. By representing Afghanistan as a place full of fanatical terrorists that wish to kill Americans and conquer the region, the film affirms the U.S.'s post-9/11 occupation of this country.” (Mirrlees, 2013). While the MCU frequently distorts historical events to fit State Department narratives, this shows they have no problem distorting current events to fit the DOD agenda either. 

The influence of the Pentagon on the MCU can be seen in the universe’s portrayal of civilian casualties; they're almost completely ignored. One movie in the MCU where civilian casualties play an actual role in the plot is Captain America: Civil War. However in keeping with the MCU tradition Captain America, and his merry band of vigilanties are portrayed as the heroes for refusing to compromise with a system that seeks to impose rules and regulations on them. The U.N. on the other hand is portrayed as tyrannical, self serving, and overreaching, for having the audacity to want to implement some type of rules and oversight on the human weapons of mass destruction. Additionally the film’s primary antagonist becomes a terrorist after his entire family was killed during the Avengers battle with Ultron. Thus it can be argued, and quite easily so; that the MCU portrays those who seek military oversight, and accountability, as well as victims of collateral damage in a negative manner to promote a pro Pentagon, and American military narrative.

Collateral Damage in the MCU 

The article A Marvelous Addendum: Ethics of Collateral Damage in the Superheroes of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, by Aritra Basu does an excellent job of analyzing the portrayal of the civilian death and mass destruction in the MCU. “McSweeney's point is further substantiated by the stance that the MCU has towards collateral damage in almost all the films, with the minor exceptions of Age of Ultron and Civil War. In Eternals, the audience sits back and watches the Eternals fight the Deviants, causing irreplaceable loss to the lives and property of all those who were in and around those fights, What losses they bore was never mentioned in the film, just like no mention was made of all the people who died along with King T'Chaka when the explosion happened in Civil War. It falls out of line with the eponymous character of the film, Captain America, for whom ethics and morality have always been held in the highest of regards.” (Basu, 2023). While having a callous disregard for civilian casualties and irreparable devastation caused by conflict on a massive scale might not be in line with the fictional values of   Captain America, it’s certainly in line with the real world values of the Pentagon and U.S. Military.

Inarguably the largest loss of life depicted in the MCU takes place at the end of Avengers: Infinity War, when Thanos snaps half of life in the universe out of existence. In his article Basu provides an analytical sense of how much damage Thanos' snap would’ve done to the people of earth, as that’s where the MCU pretends to exist. “In the MCU, the audience experiences partial genocide at the end of Avengers: Infinity War, which is reversed by the end of Avengers: Endgame. The estimated population of earth in 2019 (where the former film is set) was 7.7 Billion people (Worldometer). According to Thanos, when he is done "half of humanity will still be alive" (Avengers: Infinity War). Therefore, about 3.85 Billion people were 'blipped' away and brought back to life. Even if one can accept such a transgression for the superheroes whose lives are run by a set of rules unbeknownst to the mundane, but for common people, who fear death enough to let insurance companies have billions of dollars/rupees in revenue every quarter, this incident is no joke.” (Basu, 2023). 

However, in true MCU fashion no explanation of the mechanics of Thanos’ snap are provided. Since Thanos’ stated goal was to eliminate half of the life in the universe, were half of all the plants and animals also snapped out of existence as well? Or did Thanos’ snap only affect humanoid life? No answers, even to incredibly simple questions like this are provided in Endgame, despite a runtime of over three hours. It’s also worth noting that the “scientific breakthrough” in Endgame, that allows the avengers to travel through time in Endgame takes approximately two minutes, and is made by Robert Downey Jr., while he eats juice pops with his daughter; there’s a reason I call it pseudoscience.  

   In terms of human collateral damage though, the important thing is that half of the people in the universe are gone, and Endgame recognizes the massive loss of life, using it to drive the plot. However, at the end of the movie's one hundred and eighty-two minute runtime any significance of the massive loss of life is completely undercut, as all the victims of this terrible tragedy are snapped back to life by a magic space glove. It bears mentioning that this decision was made from a business standpoint, rather than a narrative one. Several of the cast members playing characters who were erased from reality had signed contracts with Disney guaranteeing their appearances in future MCU projects, and thus the MCU was contractually obligated to undo Thanos' snap. At the end of Endgame, all of Thanos’ army, many of whom are conscripts and slaves, is snapped out of reality, however as they’re the enemy, and no consideration is given to them.

When analyzing the plots of Endgame and Infinity War, it can be argued that the temporary genocide of half of earth’s population, and death of hundreds of thousands of conscripted slave soldiers was displayed as collateral damage in the conflict between the Avengers and Thanos. This complete and utter disregard for life and death falls in line nicely with U.S. foreign policy. If Marvel didn’t purport to exist in a universe that’s incredibly similar to our own, this might not be an issue. However for the sake of narrative, and world building convenience, the MCU does pretend to exist in a universe that’s remarkably similar to our own. So portraying the deaths of literal billions of people as just another consequence of conflict is quite inappropriate. Since in reality, Robert Downey Jr. standing in front of a greenscreen, and voicing a quippy one-liner for the seven thousandth time, before snapping his fingers is going to do anything to solve a catastrophic event resulting in massive loss of life. 

MCU’s Insulting of Real World History

A further problem with the MCU’s decision to portray its existence in an incredibly shallow version of our reality is their tendency to rewrite historical events. Earlier I covered the portrayal of the American Government’s treatment of disabled, and vulnerable people as significantly more favorable than historically accurate. Delahoussaye covers an example of the MCU rewriting history to add emotional depth to their films, because they were unable to do so on their own. ““The relationship between the Pentagon and some of our most beloved superheroes also raises a lot of questions regarding the First Amendment, especially within the context of propaganda. For most audiences, this issue was not something at the forefront of discourse until the release of Marvel’s Eternals, when a controversial rewrite of the Hiroshima tragedy put the issue more at the forefront of audiences' minds. The historical inaccuracy and arguable insensitivity finally brought the issue to the attention of general moviegoers, some decade after the relationship began.” (Delahoussaye, 2022). 

In the film, Phatos, who is an immortal being that gifted mankind with vast amounts of technology, is seen weeping after the bombing of Hiroshima. His gifts led to the creation of the Manhattan Project, which in turn led to the creation of the atomic bomb. While using an incident that caused massive loss of life, and generational radiation poisoning to add emotional weight to a movie whose plot revolves around ancient eternal beings from space is clearly reprehensible. It’s also worth noting that this rewrite shifts at least some portion of the responsibility for the creation of the atomic bomb from the American Government, to a fictitious being from the depths of space. 

I should also point out another incident of the MCU mocking historical events in an inexcusable fashion. Captain America: The First Avenger takes place in a strange fictional version of WWII. In this reality the villain, Red Skull, has become a confidant of Hitler, and Head of the Nazi Special Weapons Division. However, it’s revealed that he’s planning on becoming the Superior Man, and ruler of the world, including Germany. At which point Hydra, and Red Skull betray the Nazis, and establish themselves as the dominant power. From there the “plot” consists of the Allies fighting Hydra with Hitler, the Nazis, and the rest of the actual historical events of WWII having no impact. 

In our reality the MCU used a war in which millions of people were systematically eliminated, Japanese Americans were forced into internment camps, two atomic bombs were dropped on Japan, and many millions more lost their lives, as a set piece for their movie. I struggle to even imagine what a holocaust survivor or WWII veteran would think if they saw the real world events they suffered through carelessly rewritten to add some depth, and emotional  weight to a wafer thin plot. Watching this movie in preparation to write about Marvel, I couldn’t help but wonder. Should the MCU really be allowed to use one of the greatest atrocities in history as the backdrop for a movie about a man with an indestructible metal frisbee fighting an evil doctor with no skin on his face?       

Using the MCU As Pretense For Military Expansion 

 An example of the commercial success of the MCU being used in an attempt to promote the expansion of the Military Industrial Complex can be seen in the piece How to Build and Enhance America’s Defense Franchise, by John G. Ferrari and Charles Rahr. “The US military should take a lesson or two from the movie studios and consider how to make its own franchises, not of films and storylines but of military hardware. While some weapons already possess the marks of a franchise, more American military platforms should become franchise products, exported to the countries of the free world and providing a steady stream of revenue for America's domestic defense industrial base. (2) The benefits of franchise platforms go beyond steady revenue, however. More American military hardware purchased abroad translates into more spare parts for America's own equipment, greater interoperability between allied systems, more exportable training, and additional profits for reinvestment into two-year upgrade cycles.” (Ferrari & Rahr, 2023).  The media and politically literate know Ferrari, and Rahr are simply advocating for the expansion of the Military Industrial Complex. Citizens of countries like Yemen can speak of the consequences of American weapons exporting. However this piece absolutely wasn’t written with any concern for the people who may become casualties of exported American weapons in mind. This piece was written for the American Enterprise Institute, and its primary focus is the maximization of arms sale profits.

Before detailing Disney, and the MCU’s support of hegemonic systems, and the reasons for that support. I will briefly cover the MCU’s target demographic, as well as a shift that’s occurring in that audience. The target audience for Marvel films is males from 18 to 34. Marvel has recently increased inclusivity in some films; in what is more likely than not just an attempt to reach other demographics. The largest portion of the MCU’s fanbase is aging along with the franchise, and are now in the 25 to 34 range of that demographic. This is covered in an article by Indiewire, “According to tracking data for the film, just 19 percent of the opening-weekend audience for “The Marvels” was between 18 and 24; 30 percent was 25-34. By comparison, 40 percent of the “Captain Marvel” (2019) audience was 18-24, according to data from a third party source.” (Welk, 2023). 

MCU Structure and Target Demo

There are many plausible explanations for the MCU’s inability to draw in younger fans as their current fan base ages. One possible explanation is that there's an overwhelming amount of content you’re required to consume to understand the MCU. Marvel’s plots are always black-and-white, and easy to understand, but if you watch current MCU content without having seen previous MCU content you’re unlikely to understand what’s going on. This deliberate attempt to increase revenue under the guise of continuity has resulted in some issues for younger viewers. As many people in the younger end of the 18 to 34 demographic weren’t part of the intended audience when the earlier MCU movies came out, and therefore haven’t seen them. For them to become avid MCU fans at this point would require them to consume a glut of content in order to understand current movies, and shows. Quite frankly there are several other well-made entertainment franchises out there with lore, narrative cohesion, plot consistency, and worldbuilding that far exceeds the MCU’s. So young fans looking for that type of content aren’t likely to gravitate towards Marvel. 

As someone who falls in the older end of Marvel’s target demographic, I’m clearly part of the intended audience for the MCU. I should like these movies; they were explicitly designed to pander to people like me. However, in the process of working on this paper I’ve watched and analyzed: three Captain America movies, two Avengers movies, the first Iron Man movie, and Black Panther within the last month. And at this point the contempt I view the MCU, and their movies with is abundantly clear. My biggest problem with the MCU is that it isn’t a well-crafted universe, carefully put together as the background to tell a grand,  interconnected story; or even a universe constructed to tell stories at all, although that’s what it presents itself as. What the MCU is, is a capitalist constructed marketing device, that’s designed to seamlessly integrate, and promote new entertainment properties into an already existing corporate brand. From a narrative, and storytelling standpoint, the MCU is almost completely void of anything resembling artistic creativity; it’s wider than any ocean, but more shallow than any puddle. The best explanation of the MCU is that it’s a fictional portrayal of our reality, designed to promote American exceptionalism, and hegemony. With elements of pseudoscience, real world mythology, beings from outer space, and magic mixed in as needed.   

The MCU’s Interest in Hegemony and Media Consolidation 

 As is the case with capitalist organizations in any industry, the MCU’s primary focus is making money, the best way for them to do this is to constantly release new content. The first phase of the MCU lasted from 2008-2012, and saw the release of six movies. In contrast, phase four, which is the current phase, will run from 2023-2025, and has ten different MCU shows and movies planned so far, almost twice as many in half as much time. An article by Tyson Wils explains the MCU’s economic reliance on frequently releasing content, “Because Marvel depended on the mainstream visibility of [its] films to drive toys, video games, and other licensed markets, the health of those revenue streams required consistent, predictable film development. Furthermore, while one successful film could generate significant royalties for Marvel, licensing analysts insisted that film hits did not necessarily guarantee the success of related toys and video games, giving Marvel increased motivation to ensure that film development progressed in service of these other crucial licensed markets.” (Wils, 2017).  Thus it can be seen that the MCU’s income stream is reliant on the frequent release of content to promote supplementary merchandise. This has led to the MCU producing as many movies as possible, in as short a time as possible. Which has resulted in their movies having an extremely formulaic nature to them.  

Wils further details the creation of the MCU, their sale to Disney, and how it enabled them to further their marketing capabilities of their cinematic universe. “While the popular and commercial success of Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk demonstrated to Wall Street backers like Merrill Lynch that doing business with Marvel was feasible, becoming a subsidiary of the Walt Disney Company in 2009 provided the company with the kind of financial backing it needed to take its business operations and, in turn, its relationship with Hollywood, to another level. From a purist point of view, Marvel could not call itself independent once it assimilated into Disney, a multinational, entertainment conglomerate. Nonetheless, being owned by Disney has meant greater and more diverse flows of capital, which, overall, has given Marvel more material and symbolic resources to use.” (Wils, 2017). The fact is that media consolidation, and a hegemonic presence in the entertainment industry greatly benefit Disney and Marvel. This, as well as the tight knit relationship between the Department of Defense, and Marvel Studios are the primary reasons that hegemonic powers receive such favorable treatment in the MCU. While those who would seek to dismantle, or reform such systems are almost invariably cast as the villains, and those who would use diplomacy to avoid violence and conflict are always wrong. 

   Wils also discusses how Marvel’s production of blockbuster movies is essential to the MCU’s ability to demonstrate success to corporate investors. Which  generates more revenue, and corporate partnerships. Which then allows the MCU to then adapt more characters from their comics into their cinematic universe. In the hopes that one of them will become a blockbuster success. Which is essential to demonstrating success so that Marvel can continue attracting corporate investors, and partnerships; as well as keeping the wheels of capitalism grinding endlessly along. “It should also be remembered that for a company that found itself in the kind of financial slump Marvel did in the mid 1990s, and that wanted to realise its potential to be a major entertainment business strategically aligned with the Hollywood industry, control over being able to try to consistently produce blockbuster successes was very important. This is not simply because such successes would increase the amount of revenue the company would receive through fees and returns. It is also because predictable and healthy income is vital to investor interest and building corporate partnerships, both crucial if any thoughts about rapidly increasing the scope and scale of Marvel's role in moving its comic characters across to the medium of (Hollywood) film were going to be realised. Regarding this latter point, it is worth noting that Marvel wanted to secure an industry position from where it could more effectively utilise the economic benefits of media convergence. It wanted to make sure that it could play a central role in fostering narrative expansion across various technologies and markets, extending the characters and storylines developed in each film instalment to the content in tie-in videogames, animated productions and television shows.” (Wils, 2017). 

The investment required to create spectacles like those in the MCU is massive, but considering that the MCU is responsible for some of the most commercially successful movies in box office history, this situation is unlikely to change anytime soon. This has resulted in less low budget, and independent films being produced overall, a situation which is bad for those who enjoy movies that aren’t part of the Disney corporate brand. In the article What are we going to do about the Marvel hegemony? By Johan Koslofsky the effects of this process are further explained, “When Scorsese says these films are “audience-tested,” again, he’s right. I would know—I’m one of the pleased. The corporate minds at Disney seem to know exactly what we, their dutiful customers want, some blend of comedy, spectacle and character. They’re built to be eaten up, and aside from a few exceptions (your “Infinity Wars” and “Thor: The Dark Worlds”), I’m a happy consumer. And yet, for as much as I like—nay, love—a lot of these movies, it’s getting harder and harder to ignore their cost. I’m not talking about the $15 tickets I keep forking over so I can watch Captain America pick up Thor’s hammer, I’m talking about the cost to independent theaters and film.” (Koslofsky, 2019). 

While I can’t claim to enjoy, or even like Marvel movies like Koslofsky, the assessment of the harm the MCU does to low budget, and independent filmmaking is evident.  The article elaborates further, “When I watched “Endgame,” I was elated. This was the culmination of 11 years of storytelling, a full-sized comic book splash page brought to life. I felt like a 10-year-old again, and I stand by every word of the extremely positive review I published back in May. But is this faux-childhood joy a worthy price to pay for losing an established institution? The biggest movies are going to keep getting bigger, costing more and more to make. Executives will expect these big movies to make more and more money. And the little movies, the ones set on planet earth, won’t have a space.” (Koslofsky, 2019). It’s undeniable that the market research based, focus group tested nature of the MCU has made some of their movies quite popular. There’s clearly a large audience waiting gleefully to consume MCU products. However, not everyone wants to exclusively consume Marvel movies, or other movies created by giant government sponsored studios that are crafted to promote a pro-establishment narrative, but with current industry trends those may soon be the only movies being produced.

The article CAPTAIN SPARKLEFINGERS, OR IMPERMANENCE, by Jerry White covers the phenomena of other movie genres being merged into the superhero genre. “The tendency towards self-seriousness evinced by even the most minor and ridiculous superhero projects is really more about the fate of middlebrow culture overall. Comic books, and the narratives they spawn in other media, now adopt the conventions of melodrama that until recently would have been confined to, well, melodrama. Over the last three decades era-defining films like Sleepless in Seattle (1993) and Something's Gotta Give (2003) have given way to Spider-Man (2002 or 2012, take your pick) and Suicide Squad (2016). Just in the last few years Creed (2015), the wonderfully sophisticated and revelatory reboot of the Rocky franchise, made it possible for its director Ryan Coogler to make Black Panther (2018). I'm not offering a value judgment on any of these films but merely pointing out the degree to which the emotional energy that would have until pretty recently been widely invested in various kinds of melodrama is now being invested very widely indeed in superheroes, and I am suggesting that this might not tell all that happy a story about the popular viability of movies that do not have a basis in the immaturely sophomoric worldview of adolescence.” (White, 2019). White’s point on the merging of melodramatic plot points, and superhero movies has merit. This trend also highlights one of the benefits of media consolidation for the MCU. When fewer different types of movies are made, more emotional and creative effort is inherently put into the making of superhero movies. This applies to independent movies, low budget movies, and movies that exist outside of pre-established franchises, with built in fanbases; all of which have seen a dramatic downturn in production as a result of the economic nature of the film industry.  

White also covers an event where twelve different theaters ran a marathon of all 22 movies in the MCU which had been released at that point. “FOR REASONS KNOWN ONLY TO GOD, and now presumably to Stan Lee as well, 12 AMC theatres (including one in Canada) took two days in April to stage a marathon screening of all 22 movies in the Marvel "cinematic universe," which was about 59 hours in total. IndieWire's David Ehrlich, a seasoned film critic who really ought to know better, reported on a shorter, 31-hour version of the same thing at about the same time last year, and his evaluation was mixed overall, although he confessed that the experience did force him "to awe at the connective tissue, and the architecture required for such an astonishing feat of world building."Awe, I suppose, is what superhero movies are supposed to be about, but I cannot remember a time when so many seemed to take that quite so seriously. Awe, sure, but "world-building"? That implies a much higher level of engagement than anything superhero movies until the 2010s would have provided.” (White, 2019). White is absolutely correct in his assessment of Ehrlich. The MCU lacks any sort of true connective tissue, architecture, or worldbuilding, and an experienced film critic really ought to know better than to pretend otherwise. However, the fact that a film critic with more than three decades of experience is willing to pretend the MCU is some kind of well-crafted universe. Rather than recognizing it for the soulless marketing machine meant to integrate, and promote content that it truly is speaks to the effectiveness of Disney, and Marvel’s corporate partnerships. 

U.S. Hegemonic Propaganda in Black Panther

Another point I should make in regards to the MCU’s vested interest in preserving U.S. political hegemony, and hegemonic systems in general relates to the film Black Panther. In the process of researching the MCU, and its portrayals of various political ideologies, and groups of people watched seven different MCU movies, of those seven films Black Panther was far and away the best, both in terms of diversity, and its handling of serious social issues. The victimization of Black communities by global hegemonic powers is actually addressed, and America is portrayed as something besides perfect. The film also touches on the societal obligation of those with resources to help those without; in a plot line revolving around Wakanda’s obligation to provide help to Black communities around the world. However, the constraints of existing in the MCU can also be seen in certian aspects of the film’s plot. The film’s portrayal of the CIA is completely historically false, it’s also rather conservative in its political message, and the villain portrayed in a way that attempts to discredit revolutionary movements, while praising those who work from within hegemonic systems to achieve change. 

One large problem with the plot of Black Panther is its portrayal of the noble and brave CIA Agent Ross. The article Why Hollywood’s ‘Black Panther’ is a deeply right-wing (CIA-backed) movie, by Ben Norton elaborates on this troublingly CIA friendly narrative. ““Killmonger takes power legitimately and rightfully, by defeating T’Challa in a completely fair ritual battle that the latter consented to, and then immediately begins waging a revolution. Killmonger moves toward abolishing reactionary feudalism in Wakanda (he burns the heart-shaped herbs) and creates a kind of Comintern that will support liberation movements worldwide. In response, the “hero” T’Challa literally teams up with a white CIA agent (YES, A WHITE CIA AGENT) to launch a military coup against the revolutionary Black nationalist who legitimately and rightfully took power from him.” (Posts, 2018). 

The idea that a member of America’s Central Intelligence Agency would care about the fate of a Black nation enough to risk his own life. Instead of trying to steal their resources, is the most unrealistic thing I saw in the seven MCU movies I watched. It’s worth pointing out though that the CIA teaming up with a deposed reactionary ruler, and staging a coup, to overthrow a rightfully empowered revolutionary. Is by far the most accurately the MCU has ever portrayed America, even if that wasn’t the intended message of the film. 

Later the article also discusses Black Panther’s inherent defense of geopolitical hegemonic power structures through the portrayal of the film’s hero. “T’Challa, the protagonist and putative hero, is a reactionary monarch who is only in power because he was born as a member of the ruling class. In fact, he is a rather incompetent and unprepared leader. Politically, he expressly opposes supporting national liberation movements throughout the world and solely believes in running his nation as an isolated autarky.” (Posts, 2018).  In light of the fact that the movie was intended to have at least a somewhat revolutionary message. It’s truly disappointing that Black Panther was, in the end, simply about maintaining the status quo. Any attempts to change the system are shown as bad, while compromise, and incrementalism save the day. 

Another major problem with Black Panther is seen in the film’s portrayal of its villain, Killmonger. Killmonger, and T’Challa are used to compare and contrast different approaches to achieving Black liberation. With Killmonger representing revolutionaries, and T’Challa representing those who work to create change within unjust systems. Killmonger is portrayed as unnecessarily violent, and uncaring towards his allies. Which isn’t really a trait of any radical revolutionary group that actually exists. While it may be expecting too much for a character named Killmonger to be portrayed as deeply nuanced. A character whose role is to portray Black revolutionary groups should be expected to do so with some amount of historical accuracy with some amount of accuracy. However despite the efforts of the MCU, some people see Killmonger as more likable than T'Challa, as well as more worthy of being the hero in a film about Black liberation. 

The article There Is Much to Celebrate–and Much to Question–About Marvel's Black Panther, By Steven Thrasher covers how they were pleased with Black Panther portraying Black people, but they were unhappy with the political message of the film. “Still, as much as I enjoyed being in its cosmos visually, and as warmly as I felt Wakanda welcomed me, Black Panther ultimately left me feeling cool by its end. This was largely because I couldn’t get myself to root against its antagonist, Erik Killmonger (Michael B. Jordan) and because I found its ending political message far more conservative than the revolutionary possibilities teased by anything with “Black” and “Panther” in the title.” (Thrasher, 2022). The reason it’s difficult to root against Killmonger, despite the movie itself trying to make him seem evil, is because he’s objectively correct, and his issues with society are incredibly well-founded. However, because a movie can’t exist in the MCU if it doesn’t portray America as heroic, and all those who oppose hegemony as nothing more than villains determined to destroy world order. The film focuses on how the reactionary king of an isolationist nation that long ignored the suffering of Black people around the world, and the CIA, an organization which has helped destabilize many Black countries throughout history are dubbed the heroes. 

The article ‘Black Panther’ villain can teach us about revolutionary history, further elaborates. “Erik Killmonger is the quintessential super-villain. His character fulfils the requirements of the typical superhero movie with good guys versus bad ones and his demise at the end is inevitable. How could we possibly find anything positive about him? Actually, there is much more to his character than just evil. In fact, I think his character has a lot to teach us. Many critics have highlighted his killings, his CIA connection and his imperialist power lust. They focus on his bloody trail of slaughter and his destruction of the magical flowers that energize the spirit of Wakanda. But consider his hate both for the oppressors of Black people and for the pretentious isolationism of Wakanda that cared nothing about Blacks elsewhere, and his plans of global insurgencies to liberate Black people.” (Kolapo, n.d.). Part of the reason Killmonger is the more likable, than the privileged, and reactionary King T’Challa is precisely because he opposes racist structures, and hegemonic powers, which is something that “heroes” in the MCU aren’t allowed to do.  

The article further discusses how the lack of depth in Killmonger’s character undercut his truly revolutionary goals. “The shallow development of Killmonger’s character in the movie subverts the universal scope of his liberation plans as well as his character’s ability to bring conversations of historical Black liberation figures together. Black leaders and their revolutionary strategies like those of Booker T. Washington, W.E.B. Du Bois, South Africa’s ANC and PAC, Mandela’s Mkhonto we Sizwe, Malcolm X and Martin Luther King, Jr. all accomplished transformations in their societies. Their methods, conflicting and sometimes contradictory, provided answers over a stretch of time to different aspects of the big problem of liberation.” (Kolapo, n.d.). This nuanced view on the methods used by Black leaders is far beyond anything the MCU would ever be able to portray. So instead the audience is shown how irredeemably evil Killmonger is, and that the only way to achieve Black liberation is by working within the same hegemonic systems that are responsible for the colonization of Black and Brown peoples across the world for its own benefits. It’s telling however, that because of the MCU’s ties to the Pentagon, and capitalist nature. A movie like Black Panther, which has strong themes of Black liberation from U.S. global hegemony can’t exist in the MCU without glorifying that very same hegemonic system in its plot.  

Conclusion 

I have detailed how the MCU’s use of disability as a narrative device and plot point to be overcome leads to the spreading of ablenationalist ideals. I have covered the hegemonic nature of Disney, and the MCU, as well as Marvel’s close relationship with the Pentagon, and how it affects the messages of their films. I have provided examples of the MCU flagrantly disrespecting history, and putting forth overly simplistic narratives to portray America as a heroic bastion of morality. The MCU is inherently nonsensical, and Marvel movies are riddled with plot holes. The primary reason for this is that given their capitalist structures, Disney, and Marvel use the MCU as a marketing device first and foremost, and a storytelling device only out of necessity. It’s incredibly easy to point out inconsistencies and plot holes in the MCU. For instance, it makes no sense that the Infinity Gauntlet revived Gamora, but not Blackwidow in Endgame. Considering both characters died in the exact same way to summon the Soul Stone. However, constantly creating movies that are formulaic, full of plot holes, and devoid of all creativity is merely a side effect of the MCU’s capitalist, profit seeking nature. The true harm the MCU does to society can be seen in the way it thoughtlessly disseminates ablenationalist viewpoints that are harmful to disabled people. Willfully, for the sake of its own profit spreads pro-military, pro-hegemony propaganda that minimizes the importance of civilian losses. As well as in the way Disney uses it to force competition out of the cinema industry in order to further their media consolidation goals.    

References

Basu, A. (2023). A Marvellous Addendum: Ethics of Collateral Damage in the Superheroes of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Journal of Comparative Literature and Aesthetics, 46(3), 78+. https://link-gale-com.ezproxyworc.helmlib.org/apps/doc/A759844205/AONE?u=mlin_c_worstate&sid=bookmark-AONE&xid=ad46ced6 

Children were the raw material of medical research /Newborn Screening for 29 conditions – Alliance for Human Research Protection. (n.d.). https://ahrp.org/children-were-the-raw-material-of-medical-research-newborn-screening-for-29-conditions/

Delahoussaye, A. (2022, October 5). Marvel's Shady Relationship With the Pentagon and the U.S. Military, Explained. MovieWeb. https://movieweb.com/marvel-pentagon-mcu-propaganda/

Ferrari, J. G., & Rahr, C. (2023). How to Build and Enhance America's Defense Franchises. In AEI Paper & Studies (p. 1f+). American Enterprise Institute. https://link-gale-com.ezproxyworc.helmlib.org/apps/doc/A758625380/AONE?u=mlin_c_worstate&sid=bookmark-AONE&xid=2c92a33a 

Grue, J. (2021). Ablenationalists Assemble: On Disability in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Journal of Literary & Cultural Disability Studies, 15(1), 1+. https://link-gale-com.ezproxyworc.helmlib.org/apps/doc/A652093236/AONE?u=mlin_c_worstate&sid=bookmark-AONE&xid=8d90e080 

Kolapo, F. (n.d.). ‘Black Panther’ villain can teach us about revolutionary history. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/black-panther-villain-can-teach-us-about-revolutionary-history-93543#:~:text=Killmonger's%20character%20represents%20the%20dialectical,%2C%20colonialism%2C%20racism%20and%20oppression

Koslofsky, J. (2019, November 22). Koslofsky’s Corner: What are we going to do about the Marvel hegemony? – The Brandeis Hoot. https://brandeishoot.com/2019/11/22/koslofskys-corner-what-are-we-going-to-do-about-the-marvel-hegemony/

Mirrlees, T. (2013). The economics, geopolitics and ideology of an Imperial Film Commodity. CineAction, 92, 4+. https://link-gale-com.ezproxyworc.helmlib.org/apps/doc/A357507714/AONE?u=mlin_c_worstate&sid=bookmark-AONE&xid=ff5faae8 

Posts, V. a. O. B. N. (2018, March 24). Why Hollywood’s ‘Black Panther’ is a deeply right-wing (CIA-backed) movie – Ben Norton. https://bennorton.com/hollywood-black-panther-right-wing-cia-movie/

Tankard, A. (2022). Disruption and Disability Futures in Captain America: The First Avenger and Captain America: The Winter Soldier. Journal of Literary & Cultural Disability Studies, 16(1), 41+. https://link-gale-com.ezproxyworc.helmlib.org/apps/doc/A695375673/AONE?u=mlin_c_worstate&sid=bookmark-AONE&xid=525d9756

Thrasher, S. (2022, October 12). There is much to celebrate–and much to Question–About Marvel’s Black Panther. Esquire. https://www.esquire.com/entertainment/movies/a18241993/black-panther-review-politics-killmonger/

White, J. (2019). CAPTAIN SPARKLEFINGERS, OR, IMPERMANENCE. The Dalhousie Review, 99(1), 132+. https://link-gale-com.ezproxyworc.helmlib.org/apps/doc/A606944645/AONE?u=mlin_c_worstate&sid=bookmark-AONE&xid=96decdae

Wils, T. (2017). Marvel and the Storytelling Industry CHARACTERS IN AN AGE OF MEDIA CONVERGENCE: Marvel stories are big business. These modern myths are so ubiquitous across cinema, television, comic books, videogames and toys that every student would be familiar with at least part of the Marvel Universe. Beyond entertaining us with tales of superheroes, however, the construction of this universe can teach us much about what media convergence and transmedia storytelling look like in 2017, writes TYSON WILS. Screen Education, (86), 72+. https://link-gale-com.ezproxyworc.helmlib.org/apps/doc/A560314925/AONE?u=mlin_c_worstate&sid=bookmark-AONE&xid=608420a1