1
Ideological Warfare: Bush-era realism in Captain America: Civil War
Abstract
The 2016 Marvel billion-dollar blockbuster Captain America: Civil War (2016) sparked a nation-wide controversy over a simple premise: super-enhanced individuals fighting for humanity ought to be regulated by an overseeing international institution. The characters within the film -- and consequently the audience members -- are split between those who support institutional oversight and those who oppose it. The contentious ideologies of the superheroes spill over to the political dialogues over US international practices through veiled analogies to the US’s history of leaving collateral damage in the process of military foreign interventions (i.e. Vietnam, Venezuela, Afghanistan), and the US’s turbulent relationship with international security institutions since the 20th century. The film seemingly reflects the battles of modern day political culture concerning international cooperation, autonomy, and American identity by placing two opposing lenses in conversation with each other, with the outcomes of the characters defining a modern critique on 21st century US foreign diplomacy--specifically, those of the Bush administration during the Iraq War. Thus, my research investigates the extent to which Bush-era realism politics is reflected and supported by the characters in Captain America: Civil War. I hypothesize that the ideological narrative of Captain America: Civil War follows that of the debates over unilateralism and international cooperation within the executive branch and Congress regarding the Iraq War, and presents a critique on both ideologies as a statement against Bush politics. Though realism finds a moral victory in the film, both sides end up considerably worse off than before the conflict. These findings partially support my original hypothesis; although the film does align the two characters with the conflicting ideologies of the Bush administration and follows the Iraq War narrative by allowing realism to win out, it ultimately presents a critique on neither of the ideologies themselves, but rather on the fallout of war.
1. Introduction
With a box office of 1.153 billion USD, the critically acclaimed Marvel film Captain America: Civil War (2016) introduces its storyline with Captain America, Black Widow, Falcon, and Scarlet Witch fighting a group of mercenaries attempting to steal a bio-warfare weapon in Lagos, Nigeria. As the leader of the mercenaries makes a last minute attempt to detonate a bomb, Scarlet Witch redirects the explosion from the local marketplace and inadvertently into an office building, causing multiple civilian deaths and injuries. With this jarring opening scene, the film 2 illustrates the cost of violent missions in foreign countries--actions often justified as necessary and peace-building. The Sokovian incident catalyzes the creation of the Sokovia Accords, a proposal presented by US Secretary of State Thaddeus Ross and approved by 117 countries to put the operations of the Avengers under the regulations and supervision of a UN panel. The Sokovia Accords were intended to limit the collateral damage left behind by the Avengers’ missions and to provide some sort of accountability for the super-enhanced group. Although the Russo brothers directors never explicitly state any international relations (IR) allegories within the film, the film uncannily mirrors the turbulent standing of the US’s role in international criminal justice. Captain America: Civil War presents a multitude of dichotomies mirroring tensions among international relations theorists: state action vs. inaction, international cooperation vs. state autonomy, liberalism vs. realism. In this film, the word superpower holds a double meaning: a reference to the superheros -- or, as the Secretary Ross calls them, “U.S.-based enhanced individuals who routinely ignore sovereign borders" -- and the collective analogy of the Avengers as the United States. This line of reasoning frames the political questions raised in Captain America: Civil War, as co-director Anthony Russo states that “[they] were very much thinking about the connection between superheroes and superpowers, meaning superpowers in the real world, the conventional idea. We live in a country where we do go over borders all the time and we do what we feel is necessary. And even though we have the best intentions behind what we're doing, there's still a cost to it” (Yu, 2016). After the Sokovia Accords are presented, Secretary Ross orders the Avengers to sign the Accords before the UN convenes to ratify the proposal, ultimately fracturing the Avengers team into two ideological teams led by Captain America and Iron Man. Iron Man advocates for the supervision of the Avengers under the UN branch, wary of his unchecked autonomy and guilt-tripped by the collateral damage of their last mission. On the other hand, Captain America opposes the restrictions placed by the Accords, believing that the safest and most trustworthy hands to bring global peace and safety are their own. The contentious ideologies of the superheroes reflect the battles of modern day political culture concerning international cooperation, autonomy, and American identity. This conflict between US unilateralism and international cooperation has presented itself since President Wilson’s proposal of the creation of the League of Nations; since then, the US’s turbulent relationship with international security institutions has manifested in divisive approaches to international relations. Two forms of thought arose within US policymakers; one supporting US collaboration and cooperation with foreign countries to construct law-keeping international institutions, and the other opposing the restraint of the US in international security by the aforementioned institutions. These two ideologies, liberalism and realism respectively, dictated American foreign policy throughout the 20th century until the culmination of the debates during the Iraq War, when the US unilaterally invaded Iraq against the warning of the UN. A brief overview of the two international relations paradigms: realism theory is a dominant school of thought in international relations theory emphasizing competition and conflict. Realism is identified through the assumption of humans’ violent natural state and the prioritization of state autonomy. Comparatively, liberalism is another dominant school of thought in international relations theory emphasizing mutual cooperation and peace-building, 3 often contrasted with realism. The liberal paradigm is identified by the belief in the betterment of international relations through international cooperation. (Korab-Karpowicz, 2018) In the months leading up to and during the Iraq War, these two paradigms split Congress, the executive branch, and American voters. Notable Senators Barack Obama and Bernie Sanders prescribed to the tenets of liberalism, voting against the Iraq invasion. Meanwhile, realists within President Bush’s administration advocated for intervention regardless of UN approval (Kubbig et al., 2000). The original comic storywriter of Captain America: Civil War Frank Millar admits that he was thinking about the US invasion of Iraq, as well as the aftermath of 9/11 and the Patriot Act, when he began writing the original storyline in 2004, during the middle of the Bush presidency. The film is incomparably intertwined with the political anxieties of the post-911 world, utilizing the ideological conflicts between the characters as a means of achieving a greater understanding of the US’s complicated relationship with international security institutions such as the UN and the International Criminal Court (ICC) (Haltiwanger, 2016). The potential of examining superhero popular culture to explain international relations phenomena must be further explored to deepen our understanding of the dichotomies of international security affairs through their interactions with one another. The intertwining of film culture and politics in Captain America: Civil War provides an opportunity to consider a hypothetical case study how US hegemony and exceptionalism and its balance with international cooperation is portrayed to the American public, prompting a closer look into the lasting legacy of the Bush Doctrine in US foreign policy and its portrayal to the American public. Thus, my research investigates the extent to which Bush-era realism politics is reflected and supported by the characters in Captain America: Civil War. Based on my observations, I hypothesize that the ideological narrative of Captain America: Civil War follows that of the debates over unilateralism and international cooperation within the executive branch and Congress regarding the Iraq War, and presents a critique on both ideologies as a statement against Bush politics.
2. Literature Review
The potential in using popular culture as a cultural measure has been a recent interest in political science and international relations. Engert and Spencer discuss four ways in which film can be utilized in the classroom as a pedagogical tool: to teach events, issues, cultures, and theories. Incorporating films into the international relations classroom curriculum serves to advance understanding by presenting theories, cultures, and history. By creating a personal identification with a political actor, audience members are “led to empathize, consider the scope of manoeuvre the actors involved may have and reflect on the choices as well as on the normative and ethical implications at stake in complex circumstances” (Engert and Spencer, 2009). Swimelar challenges the first two approaches that Engert and Spencer propose in her empirical study of films’ benefits in the classroom, concluding that while film may increase student engagement, understanding, and interest in abstract international relations concepts, they may also sensationalize or simplify issues as well (Swimelar, 2013). In arguing the merits of using film to analyze cultural narratives, Engert and Spencer draw attention to the poststructural argument that "movies are neither objective nor culturally neutral texts, but socially constructed transcripts of reality: inherently subjective, equally valid, and most of all, culturally bound stories" (Engert and Spencer, 2009). Within these films, the world is translated and constructed for us so that we cannot objectively view the world 4
(Swimelar, 2013). Instead, "our perceptions of current political events stem from the images and stories that our memory recalls from art - films, books, paintings, but also the recreated events on TV” (Edelman, 1995). These cultural narratives form a feedback loop in which popular culture becomes the product and cause of international politics. Because of this feedback loop, movies have become a popular means in which to explore the cultural and political subtleties in how they influence and are influenced by audiences of that era. Woods (2016) delves deeper into the ways in which film provides an opportunity to explore the assumptions, predictions, and myths of different IR theories as a thought experiment. She explains how film presents a “hypothetical case study” that provides a means of testing political and social consequences of various problem solving or interactions in the international community. In justifying this route, Engert and Spencer provide case examples of previous scholars using movies to illustrate the ideologies of American foreign policy perspectives, such as Hulsman and Mitchell’s analysis of “The Godfather” and Ruane and James’s usage of “The Lord of the Rings” to relay theoretical debates in IR (93). By creating a “second hand model of reality,” movies create “an opportunity to test the merit, descriptions, and prescriptions of different political theories” (8). Woods theorizes how the international community would welcome the hypothetical emergence of enhanced individuals and analyzes the assumptions and predictions of three international relations paradigms: realism, liberalism, and constructivism. Based on each of the different paradigms and their manifestations in the superhero genre, Woods predicts the responses of the international community and the role in which superheroes would play in national/global security. Like Kellner, Woods analyses film with the lens that “contemporary Hollywood cinema can be read as a contest of representations and a contested terrain that reproduces existing social struggles and transcodes the political discourses of the era” (Kellner, 2010). Within this frame, superheroes have found a particular niche in creating a narrative of American political identity and security. In particular, the Marvel Cinematic Universe has been a focus of attention in its representation of diverse political ideologies, the contentious ideologies of their superheroes seemingly reflecting the battles of modern day political culture concerning international cooperation, autonomy, and American identity. As political researcher Muñoz-González states, the contradictory ideological representations within Marvel cinema resulting from increasingly self-conscious superheroes act as a mirror to current socio-economic contexts, offering a mechanism to harmonize opposing ideals (Muñoz-González, 2017). Hagley and Harrison go a step further than Muñoz-González, arguing that the characters and responses to threats in The Avengers mirror those of different national identities facing issues in post-9/11 domestic and foreign policies. By comparing each character to a certain aspect of Americanism, the authors demonstrate the inner conflicts of The Avengers presents conficting elements of American responses to terrorism and, through the final resolution between the characters, romantacize a reconciliation of various American nationalist identities to reveal the construction of American policies (Hagley and Harrison, 2014). Yet despite a plethora of literature evaluating superhero films as a reflection of domestic American values and politics, few have investigated film portrayals of the US government’s role in global security, and there has yet to be a scholarly work dissecting the political origins of Captain America: Civil War. I seek to fill this gap with my research by evaluating US relations with international security institutions within the cinematic blockbuster--and in doing so, shed light on the unexamined role of cinema in shaping the cultural memory of the Iraq War. 5
3. Methodology and Justifications
To conduct my research, I utilized an interdisciplinary methodology, combining film analysis and international relations theory in order to evaluate ideological representations within the film and how the characters support or subvert the realism theory demonstrated by the Bush administration. With the film’s script dialogue/progression, character ideologies and origins, combined with film production, critical reception of the film, scholarly articles on post-structural filmology, this research demonstrates the value of film in international relations studies as hypothetical case studies and the lasting legacy of the Bush Doctrine in film media. Incorporating film analysis into international relations studies has been a recent development in the academic field, with an increasing number of scholars acknowledging film’s value in depicting abstract concepts difficult to articulate in the classroom. Audiences build a personal connection to the characters in the film, allowing them to empathize with their situations differently to real-world events; “thereby they are led to empathize, consider the scope of manoeuvre the actors involved may have and reflect on the choices as well as the normative and ethical implications at stake in complex circumstances” (Engert and Spencer, 2009). Due to these personal connections built between audiences and film characters, this research conducts a character analysis of the faces of the two prevailing thought realms within the film: Captain America and Iron Man. Understanding these individual characters and their ideologies is paramount to understanding the political reflections, agendas, and conflicts of the film. In this initial phase, the ideologies of the superheros are distinguished by critical discourse analysis. The critical discourse analysis is based on two fundamental assumptions: “first, it indicates a particular positioning of the researcher, who leaves the distancing of conventional approaches and has a set of ideological assumptions in the way he studies reality. Second, it identifies a close relationship between social structure and language, tending to analyse political systems as linguistic systems and ideologies as texts aimed at creating a collective political will” (Godinho, 2016). The goal of critical discourse analysis is to produce insights into how linguistics reproduces or resist socio-political inequalities, which allows me to evaluate how the characters’ arguments reflect US hegemonic exceptionalism or sustain the international balance of power. In accordance to post-modern/post-structural theories, the world of reality and film is understood “as a discursive (social) construction, which acquires meaning only through exchange of speech acts” (Engert and Spencer, 2009). Because of discourse analysis’s roots in post-structuralism, there is not a set methodology for how data ought to be collected and analyzed; rather, it is a fluid process drawing roots from linguistics, psychology, and semantics. Because of critical discourse analysis’s fluid methodology, researchers in a wide variety of humanity, linguistics, and psychology fields have adapted their own interpretations of the method. In order to best adjust this method of the purposes of international relations research, I have utilized the method of discourse analysis laid out by Luísa Godinho, who advocates for the usage of the respective method in international relations studies. Godinho outlines the parameters in which to create a more systematic and scientific approach to discourse analysis in international relations (Godinho, 2016): 6
1. Explain the chosen analysis criteria The criteria for which I determined the ideologies of Captain America and Iron Man follows the traditional tenets of IR theory paradigms realism and liberalism. Realism is characterized by a distrust in international institutions, support of state autonomy, and conditional cooperation with international institutions. Liberalism is characterized by the trust in international institutions to promote cooperation and peace, the support of international regulation, and the cooperation with international institutions. 2. Identify the type of chosen approach For the purpose of evaluating the political ideologies of the characters, I compiled dialogues between each character pertaining to the following themes: trust/distrust of the international institution, government regulation and self-autonomy, and cooperation with the institution.
After the ideologies are assigned, I then determined which ideology is preferred by evaluating which is presented more positively to the audience, and whether the movie ends with one group better off than the other--in other words, whether the film presents one side more positively than the other. This was completed through two means: evaluating whether the international institution plays a competent or corrupt role, and using plot devices to see whether during or at the end of the movie, one character/ideology fares better off than the other, whether by the resources available to them (financial, political, and technological) or the mental states of the characters. Looking at plot devices to evaluate the role of the institution allows me to see how cooperation with that institution may or may not be perceived by audiences as a beneficial move, and in turn, allows me to assess whether the film presents a critique on either or ideologies.
4. Findings and Analysis
Captain America: The Realism Hero
Captain America’s refusal to sign the Sokovia Accords marks a departure from his good soldier persona from WWII, as he realizes seventy years later that the government bureaucracies he used to fight for now stand for the very ideals he fought against. His anti-authoritarian streak grows from Captain America: The First Avenger (2011) to Captain America: The Winter Soldier (2014), where Cap dismantles SHIELD, the organization he worked for that had been corrupted by Nazi splinter group HYDRA. These experiences with bureaucratic corruption inform his resulting distrust of the UN’s intentions demonstrated by quotes 1, 2, and 3 in the following table:
Table 1: Captain America Quotes
# Quote Theme
[Steve Rogers] What if this panel sends us somewhere we don't Distrust in 1 think we should go? What if there is somewhere we need to go, institution 7
and they don't let us? We may not be perfect, but the safest hands are still our own.
2 [Steve Rogers] [in regards to the UN] No, but it's run by people Distrust in with agendas, and agendas change. Institution
3 [Steve Rogers] Protection? Is that how you see this? This is Distrust in protection? It's internment, Tony. Institution
[Steve Rogers] Tony, someone dies on your watch, you don't give Self-Autonomy up. 4 [Tony Stark] Who said we're giving up? [Steve Rogers] We are if we're not taking responsibility for our actions. This document just shifts the blame.
5 [Steve Rogers] If we sign this, we surrender our right to choose Self-Autonomy [Natasha Romanoff] Just because it's the path of least resistance Lack of doesn't mean it's the wrong path. Staying together is more Cooperation 6 important than how we stay together. [Steve Rogers] What are we giving up to do it? [Steve Rogers] I'm sorry, Nat. I can't sign it. 7 [Steve Rogers] I'm not saying it's impossible, but there would Conditional have to be safeguards. Cooperation
The above table depicts the instances in which Captain America discusses the Sokovia Accords or the UN. The themes that characterize each statement predominantly echo the tenets of political realism; Captain America’s overwhelming distrust in the intentions of the UN Security Branch spills over into his primary belief that though the Avengers are not perfect, they are still the best solution to bringing peace and stability to the international stage. He firmly believes that other actors shouldn’t have a say in how, when, or where the Avengers operate. The political realism reflected in Captain America’s discourse mirrors the elements of the Bush doctrine: promoting democracy, countering terrorist threats, preparedness to take preventative action, and a willingness to act unilaterally (Lyon, 2007). The supersoldier’s distrust of the institution and staunch individuality prevent him from cooperating with the UN when he is asked to sign the Sokovia Accords. Willard writes that "America's decisions to cooperate in multilateral forums [are] determined predominantly by the extent to which any specific organization is perceived ... to be an effective and congenial vehicle for the promotion of America's objectives.” At the same time, multilateral institutions operate “within the direct and indirect constraints that U.S. instrumentalism imposes'' (Willard, 2004). Captain America exhibits this thinking when he briefly considers signing the Sokovia Accords, stating, “I’m not saying it’s impossible, but there would have to be safeguards.” Captain America’s willingness to cooperate with the UN conditional to the institution’s effectiveness. In 8 his speech to the UN general assembly urging action in Iraq, President Bush voiced his similar sentiment: “will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding or will it be irrelevant” (The Guardian, 2002) However, Captain America hastenly backtracks his offer when he learns of Scarlet Witch’s imprisonment in the Avengers compound (quotes 3 and 7). His statement “Protection? Is that how you see this? This is protection? It's internment, Tony” reveals the underlying tones of the internment of political aliens without a fair trial, cementing his distrust of the UN.
Iron Man: The Liberalist
Table 2: Iron Man Quotes
# Quotes Themes
[Tony Stark] There's no decision-making process here. We need to Institutional 1 be put in check! Whatever form that takes, I'm game. If we can't Regulation accept limitations, if we're boundary-less, we're no better than the bad guys.
[Tony Stark] [in regards to Pepper Pott] Because the truth is I don't Institutional 2 wanna stop. I don't wanna lose her. I thought maybe the Accords Regulation could split the difference.
[Tony Stark] All due respect, you're not going to solve this with Cooperation boys in bullets, Ross. You gotta let us bring them in. [Secretary Ross] How would that end any differently from the last 3 time? [Tony Stark] Because this time, I won't be wearing loafers and a silk shirt. 72 hours, guaranteed. [Secretary Ross] 36 hours. Barnes. Rogers. Wilson. [Tony Stark] Thank you, sir. [Secretary Ross] Stark? Did he give you anything on Rogers? Lack of 4 [Tony Stark] Nope. Told me to go to hell. I'm going back to the Cooperation compound instead, but you can call me anytime. I'll put you on hold, I like to watch the line blink.
[FRIDAY] Priority call from Secretary Ross. There's been a breach Lack of at the Raft prison. Cooperation 5 [Tony Stark] Yeah, put him through. [Secretary Ross] Tony, we have a problem. [Tony Stark] Ah, please hold. 9
[Secretary Ross] No. Don't.
In comparison to Captain America’s staunch realism, Tony Stark’s willingness to sign the Sokovia Accords stems from his guilt over the amount of collateral damage the Avengers had inflicted upon the world. Because of this guilt, Stark believes that the best way to solve global crises is to operate under the rules and regulations of the international community, cooperating with other countries to achieve a mutually beneficial objective: the core tenets of political liberalism. Rather than take action unilaterally, Stark first seeks out permission from the institution (quote 3). However, as shown by quotes 4 and 5, Stark’s cooperation with the international institution comes with a caveat: his cooperation is granted only when the institution is deemed efficient and concurrent with his own objective. In this regard, his approach towards institutional cooperation seems to mirror Captain America’s. By the end of the film, Stark seems to have divorced from his alliance with Secretary Ross and acts independently from the government. Stark’s lack of cooperation with the UN near the end of the film reinforces the film’s realism message. In directing this film, the Russo brothers claim that “[they] didn’t want to make a declarative statement one way or the other,” leaving the sole purpose of the film to raise political questions without providing a definite answer (Mama’s Geeky, 2019). Despite this, in reviewing the plot of the film, the movie irrevocably lends its support to Captain America through the final outcomes of the characters and the portrayal of the UN. The film concludes with Captain America newly allied with Black Panther, gaining access to world-leading technology in Wakanda. The film also presents Captain America as the victor by its portrayal of the UN as a suspicious institution with shady intentions. Once the UN gains control over the autonomy of the superheros, the characters are stripped of their civil liberties, imprisoned without trial or access to attorneys: Scarlet Witch is contained in the Avengers compound, Captain America’s allies Falcon, Hawkeye, and Ant Man are locked up in a Guantanamo Bay-esque underwater prison, and the UN orders the assassination of Bucky Barnes for a crime he was framed for. The reliability of the UN is also called into question when former Sokovian Colonel-turned-terrorist Zemo infiltrates their staff posing as a psychiatrist in order to access the Winter Soldier. However, just as the Bush administration found with the Iraq War, Captain America’s actions following what he thinks is right, even when no one else thinks he is, leads to collateral damage on both sides: allies and friends imprisoned, Stark’s team disintegrated, and Rhodey (alias War Hawk) paralyzed. Though realism finds a moral victory in the film, both sides end up considerably worse off than before the conflict. These findings partially support my original hypothesis; although the film does align the two characters with the conflicting ideologies of the Bush administration and follows the Iraq War narrative by allowing realism to win out, it ultimately presents a critique on neither of the ideologies themselves, but rather on the fallout of war. But what does this say about modern day politics? The world that the film portrays, and the world of modern politics coincide with the favorable portrayal of what politician and writer Matthew Rozsa deems “Trumpian politics”. With President Trump’s anti-globalism rhetoric, we see a continuation of Bush-era unilateralism in Captain America’s determination to answer only to himself (Rozsa, 2017). Trump’s argument that “we will no longer surrender this country or its 10 people to the false song of globalism... I am skeptical of international unions that tie us up and bring America down” parallels Captain America’s paranoia of the UN’s agenda (Hirsh et. al, 2016). Though the film was released in May 2016, before the Trump presidency, its political subtext has had lasting repercussions on political discourse, its conversation over governmental regulation remaining relevant even now. Through the narrative and the discourse, the film legitimizes the rise of realism in international politics while highlighting the consequences of internal division and hasty conclusions. The limitations to these analyses are two-fold: the film’s one-sided painted picture of the UN fails to acknowledge the real world debate over the authenticity of international institutions in international law, and the America-centricity of the film. These are the limitations of using film as a hypothetical case study of politics: the loss of nuanced realism, and the culture-bound narrative excluding other potentialities. The argument of the film falls into a black and white fallacy, limiting the perspectives to those of Americans who don’t have to endure the consequences of their interventions. Because of the film’s America-centric narrative, the conversations lose the perspectives of non-Americans who had to live with superheros’ interventions. Additionally, the film’s depiction of the institution as an untrustworthy means to global peace overlooks the institution’s role in prosecuting human rights abuses, genocide, and aid relief--issues that the US cooperates with in combatting.
5. Conclusion and Future Directions
The study of the two main international relations paradigms within cinematic discourse displays a contradiction of ideals, a conflict that can be interpreted as how “ideological struggle points to the edification of hegemony” (Munoz-Gonzalez, 2017). Captain America’s “ideological victory” after gaining the moral and political upper hand reveals the constant struggle of the US to find the balance between military unilateralism and inaction. As android Avenger Vision predicts in the beginning of the film, “our very strength invites challenge. Challenge incites conflict. And conflict . . . breeds catastrophe.” Captain America and Iron Man learn at the end of the film that peace is impossible without the reconciliation and compromise between their two theories. The parallels between the battles in the film and the political debates over the Iraq War indicate the social consequences of the rise of realism politics and warn against the divisive nature of war. The data suggests that we revise our understanding of how films can be used to explore potential political theories in international relations. As Eagleton (1997) suggests, “in the sphere of ideology, the universal truth and the concrete particular truth incessantly slide along each other, dodging the mediation of rational analysis” (42). Evaluating popular culture’s commentary on the government’s foreign policy struggle during the Iraq War and how film can be used to explore potential political theories in international relations lends a deeper understanding into how the debates before, during, and after the Iraq War have shaped US foreign politics and general sentiments over international institutions. The outcomes of the characters define a modern critique on 21st century foreign diplomacy in Iraq, and the success of the film in mainstream American culture emphasizes the importance of the superhero movie genre in the contestation of the war’s popular memory. Although political realism in Captain America: Civil War seems like the reminiscing of the bygone era of the Bush Doctrine, the social and political ramifications of the Iraq War continue over debates about cooperation with the UN, NATO, the ICC, and other international 11 security organizations. The implications of this research are that more attention should be given into the analysis of international relations interplay in cinematography, and the ability of the superhero genre to present theoretical frameworks on an international field and shape the public memory of global security affairs. Future research can further analyze how different superhero films reflect and project the political anxieties of their current society, and how different ideologies are reconciled within the film universe.
[Word Count: 4,265]
12
References
Dittmer, Jason. “Captain America's Empire: Reflections on Identity, Popular Culture, and Post-9/11 Geopolitics” Annals of the Association of American Geographers, Vol. 95, No. 3 (Sep., 2005), pp. 626-643. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3693960 Eagleton, T. (1997) Ideología: una introducción [Ideology: An Introduction]. Buenos Aires, Paidós. Edelman, Murray. (1995) From Art to Politics: How Artistic Creations Shape Political Conceptions. Chicago, IL: UC Press. ENGERT, STEFAN, and ALEXANDER SPENCER. “International Relations at the Movies: Teaching and Learning about International Politics through Film.” Perspectives, vol. 17, no. 1, 2009, pp. 83–103. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/23616105. “Exclusive Interview with Marvel Directors, the Russo Brothers.” Mama's Geeky, 6 May 2019, mamasgeeky.com/2016/05/directors-anthony-joe-russo-interview.html. “George Bush's Speech to the UN General Assembly.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 12 Sept. 2002, www.theguardian.com/world/2002/sep/12/iraq.usa3. Godinho, Luísa. “Discourse and International Relations: A Theoretical and Methodological Approach.” Janus.Net: E-Journal of International Relations, vol. 7, no. 2, Nov. 2016, pp. 1–13. EBSCOhost. Hagley, Annika, and Michael Harrison. “Fighting the Battles We Never Could: ‘The Avengers’ and Post-September 11 American Political Identities.” PS: Political Science and Politics, vol. 47, no. 1, 2014, pp. 120–124. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/43284495. Haltiwanger, John. “How 'Captain America: Civil War' Explains America's Complicated Role In The World.” Elite Daily, Elite Daily, 17 May 2016. Hirsh, Michael, et al. “Why George Washington Would Have Agreed with Donald Trump.” POLITICO Magazine, 5 May 2016. Kellner, Douglas (2010) Cinema Wars. Hollywood Films and Politics in the Bush Cheney Era. Wiley-Blackwell. Oxford Korab-Karpowicz, W. Julian, "Political Realism in International Relations", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2018 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL =
Muñoz-González, Rodrigo. (2017). Masked Thinkers? Politics and Ideology in the Contemporary Superhero Film. KOME. 5. 65-79. 10.17646/KOME.2017.14. Rozsa, Matthew. “The Trumpian Foreign Policy in 'Captain America: Civil War'.” HuffPost, HuffPost, 16 May 2017, www.huffpost.com/entry/the-trumpian-foreign-poli_b_9985158. Swimelar, Safia. “Visualizing International Relations: Assessing Student Learning Through Film.” International Studies Perspectives, vol. 14, no. 1, 2013, pp. 14–38. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/44218728. Accessed 21 Apr. 2020. Webber, Julie. Political Science Quarterly, vol. 119, no. 1, 2004, pp. 180–182. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/20202311. Willard, Andrew R. “US Hegemony and International Organizations: The United States and Multilateral Institutions.” Perspectives on Politics, vol. 2, no. 4, 2004, pp. 892–893., doi:10.1017/S1537592704790581. Woods, Brittany Nicole, "The International Community's Response to the Hypothetical Emergence of Superheroes" (2016). CMC Senior Theses. 1510. http://scholarship.claremont.edu/cmc_theses/1510 Yordán, Carlos L. “America's Quest for Global Hegemony: ‘Offensive Realism, the Bush Doctrine, and the 2003 Iraq War.’” Theoria: A Journal of Social and Political Theory, no. 110, 2006, pp. 125–157. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/41802331. Accessed 4 Apr. 2020. Yu, Mallory. “'Captain America: Civil War' Captures Politics Of The Moment.” NPR, NPR, 6 May 2016.