It’s Academy Award season! And once again, the Academy has limited blockbuster movie nominations to visual effects and similar production awards. Never mind that the whole of the Marvel Cinematic Universe is an unprecedented feat of cinema. In honor of its nomination for visual effects, here is my deep dive into the climax of the third phase of the MCU, Avengers: Endgame.

I had a blast watching Avengers: Endgame. Overall, I thought the film delivered, and served up everything that the best of comic book crossovers have to offer. I loved the Iconic stills and panels galore (such as that shot with all the female heroes. I do enjoy pandering in my comic book movies. Sue me). I cheered for the fun character moments (like Cap with Mjonir or Doc Green or anything with Scott Lang). And they went full sci-fi comic-booky goodness with continuity-choking, flimsily-orchestrated time travel. Furthermore, the the original team’s individual character arcs were tied up with varying degrees of tidiness. Not too shabby, Marvel. Not too shabby.

However, Marvel Studios did solidify one thematic element that it never fully committed to, and it solidified in the direction I about which I was apprehensive.

In Avengers: Endgame, Marvel Studios definitively illustrated that the ends justify the means, and exceptionalism belongs to the heroes. In Iron Man’s final moments, with an admittedly badass “I am Iron Man,” the hero who started the MCU snaps his Infinity Gauntlet clad fingers, and eradicates Thanos and his time-traveling space army (I warned you about spoilers). Iron Man uses the Infinity Gauntlet, essentially a weapon of mass destruction, to bring about victory. He uses the same weapon used by Thanos to bring unprecedented devastation at the finale of Infinity War. 

And with that endgame snap, Marvel Studios makes the statement that the problem isn’t the existence of WMDs; it is who uses them. And for that, I am disappointed. Marvel Studios has flirted with the ethics of exceptionalism, feigning to examine the military conduct of empires and the powers they employ. Ultimately, the MCU devolved in its exploration of imperial ethics into a flashy violent victory that never calls into question a WMD’s very use. And it is a shame, because the first film had thoughts on that. Let’s journey through the MCU, shall we.

In 2008, Jon Favreau brought us Iron Man. It is the film that begins it all. Tony Stark, the callous billionaire playboy, is kidnapped by a terrorist cell following a demonstration of Stark Industries’ premier artillery, the Jericho. In captivity, Stark realizes that his company’s weapons are the very ones being sold to terrorist groups and used against the  innocent. Following his escape, Stark works to shift Stark Industries away from its involvement in the US Military complex, and strives to focus more resources in the development of clean energy. The MCU kicks off with a critical eye towards how the United States develops and trades weapons, making the third act’s villain a fitting climactic foe. Who pushes the hardest to build and sell weapons regardless of the outcome? Why Jeff Bridges’ Obadiah Stane, the Iron Monger.

Phase 1 of the MCU sticks fairly close to this critical eye. The Incredible Hulk is hunted down by the US military so they can continue to use him for R&D as they develop their super-soldier serum. Even Captain America is initially used as a propaganda star before being deployed in the fray of WWII. The question of how the US develops and employs its military resources is largely front and center. And then Phase 2 moves forward with hesitancy and reticence.

Captain America: The Winter Soldier was the Russo Brothers’ premier endeavor in the MCU, and it thrilled to no end. As I rewatch it a phase and a half later, it still arguably remains the MCU film with the tightest plot and the best cinematography. However, the film sets itself up to be a critique of government surveillance in the name of security which, in 2014, was as timely as ever following the whistleblower Edward Snowden’s revelations of the previous year. Then the major plot twist of the film (albeit a fantastic one) shifts that critique on a dime. The reveal that HYDRA had been infiltrating SHEILD for decades and into its top tiers of administration comes the revelation that the expanded surveillance measures being pushed are part of a fanatical Nazi-remnant conspiracy. One could argue the ethical issue presented in Winter Soldier becomes moot because it was never truly a “US initiative” in the first place. Captain America’s suspicion and claims of what is “un-American” are shown to be just that: ploys from outside interests and foreign powers (sorta).

Joss Whedon’s Avengers: Age of Ultron is blip on the radar. Stark wants to increase global security. Capt adamantly disagrees. There’s a virus that creates Ultron. Chaos ensues. Stark kind of looks like a failure. It seems in that moment that Stark’s desire for increased surveillance (oddly similar to the HYDRA conspiracy in Winter Soldier) is proven misplaced.

The Russo Brothers continue to play with that thread in Captain America: Civil War. The Sokovia Accords place the Avengers under United Nations oversight and require the registration of individuals with enhanced abilities. Stark, who is continually trying to find effective ways to save the world (and protect it from… well… the Avengers) signs without hesitation. Steve Rogers has his ethical qualms, but the story soon forgets the Accords as it becomes far more focused on the capture of Bucky Barnes, as well as the assassination of Tony’s father Howard Stark. The tensions between Captain America and Iron Man that come to a head monopolize the run time. By the film’s final act, the Sokovia Accords are all but forgotten, and with it the ethical question of government control and oversight.

Phase 3 did bring some note worthy films that rub against this trend (a trend arguably strongest in the work of the Russos). Guardians of the Galaxy: Vol. 2 and Thor: Ragnarok wrestle with the legacy of colonialism. Starlord learns he is the son of Ego the living planet. Ego took a sexual partner on every world he visited in the interest of planting a literal seed to consume and transform that world. Thor is faced with the reality that Asgard, the kingdom to which he is heir, was built upon the violent conquest of other realms and the exploitation of his older, imprisoned sister Hera. Ragnarok’s final moments are poignant. The only way to save the people of Asgard and defeat Hera is to literally burn down the system and structures that were built by his father Odin. Taika Waititi has crafted a clear opinion on what it takes to remedy the legacy of empire. Destroy the structures and save the people who inhabit them. I think it is particularly brilliant and stands out as shining gem of a movie in the MCU.

And, of course, there is Black Panther. While Guardians Vol. 2 and Thor: Ragnarok examine colonialism and empire, they do so in typical fantasy/sci-fi fashion. With the distance of a world that is galaxies or realms away, the setting is never so close to Earth as to make the analogue too obvious. Black Panther has no such distance. This is the film that might have the most critical eye in the MCU. Woven throughout it are discussions of race and heritage, of violence and oppression, and of the shortcomings of isolationism. There are many far better equipped than I who have written about these themes in detail, and you should definitely track them down. For the purpose of this piece, it is important that Black Panther takes the questions of legacy, power, and resources, and plays them out on screen. It is fought out in the philosophical battle between Erik Stevens and T’Challa. It is a discussion that T’Challa takes directly to the land of his ancestors to insist “You were wrong!” The themes of resources and empire present in the first Iron Man and in Thor: Ragnarok are turned up to 11 in Black Panther. It is the only film in the MCU where the antagonist’s perspective and philosophy fundamentally shifts those of the protagonist. T’Challa will forever be different kind of king, a king unlike any previous king of Wakanda, solely because of Erik Stevens.

And yet, I can’t help but wonder. Why is the film with the most critical eye, the one where the protagonist experiences the most concrete transformation of character, the same film that is predominantly concerned with people of color? Why is it an African kingdom that experiences such a radical change in its philosophy of leadership? As previously noted, any conversation of the sort relating to the US in the previous films is either made moot, or overshadowed by the interpersonal conflict in the Avengers team. 

Following Black Panther was the much anticipated release of the Russo Brothers’ Avengers: Infinity War. I wrote about Infinity War before, and hoped for the Russos’ to set forth an answer to Thanos’ philosophy of resources and his theology of scarcity. The film ends with the infamous Snap. We watch as half of the life in the universe turns to ash before our eyes. It is tragic and the original Avengers team is left speechless.

It is tragic. And yet, the Russos found it fitting to have the Avengers employ the same tool in their defeat of Thanos. We see the same visual effect when the enemy is turned to ash. While one could argue for this moment of desperation, it is perhaps the one act that Tony Stark shows the most confidence in performing. And the rest of the world praises him for it. The ethics of the decision do not register on the Marvel radar.

Once again, Avengers: Endgame was a wild ride I enjoyed watching, but its ethics of war and empire come up short. Apparently it is not the existence of a weapon that is problematic, just the one who uses it.

And now the Universe once again faces Thanos’ scarcity question… At least the world is saved I guess.