My best friend dragged me to see "Captain America: Civil War" the other day (mainly so that I could apologize to other audience members if she ended up screaming and/or violently sobbing). Going into the movie, the only thing I knew about it was that people were siding with either "Captain America" or "Iron Man" and I had absolutely no idea why.
After the movie was over and my friend and I were waiting for the second credit scene, she asked me what I thought. “Honestly, I was pissed off at Steve Rogers for a good 90% of the movie.”
If you’re reading this article, I’m assuming you’ve either watched the movie already or at the very least know the plot, so I won’t give you a summary of what you already know (although, if you’re basing your knowledge off of the comics alone, the movie is apparently quite different).
I’m going to start off by saying that I’m glad that Marvel acknowledges death as a result of the Avengers’ battles. I feel like that’s a detail that can be and often is easily overlooked because everyone wants to believe that the heroes save the world effortlessly. Even if we disregard civilian casualties, there have been injuries at the very least, as well as damages to property and entire cities. I remember wondering about the consequences of superhero battles when I was younger, and it was great to finally see those consequences addressed.
That being said, fundamentally, I am Team Iron Man. Although I understand Captain America’s desire to remain independent and not be controlled, I’m with Tony – the Avengers need to be kept in check because their actions can have fatal consequences. Believe me, I sympathize with Cap’s mistrust of government, I really do, because people have agendas. However, I think his judgment is badly clouded by his desire to protect Bucky, and his moral compass prevents him from thinking logically.
That’s not entirely bad, of course. It’s great that Cap sticks to his morals, and his sense of loyalty is clearly intact. His entire persona is based off of American ideals; in fact, his need to fight every bad guy that shows up is basically the embodiment of American foreign policy and as my friend reminded me, Captain America is practically the human version of America – both the good and the bad. It does make sense and I do understand why he takes a stance against the Sokovia Accords, but ultimately, considering the outcry against the Avengers’ actions and the fact that they are considered dangerous, I think that working with the United Nations and finding a happy middle could have been beneficial for him and the Avengers. You can’t win every battle, and you should try to avoid making things worse than they already are (an idea that he clearly disregarded).
As for Tony Stark, I admire him for his attempts to compromise between the United Nations and the Avengers and I think that his character development has been phenomenal. He regrets his past actions and he’s finally realizing that his actions have consequences. Although he’s motivated primarily by a guilty conscience, I do believe that signing the Sokovia Accords is a step in the right direction for the Avengers. I don’t entirely agree with the way he does things, like basically locking Wanda in her room, but I think it’s important to consider that he’s caught in a rough spot and he’s trying to maintain control of the situation in the best way that he can. It may not be perfect, but he and Captain America are both flawed heroes.
All that aside, I have the most respect for Natasha in the movie, and not just because she’s a badass female hero who deserves far more spotlight than she gets. I think that she’s the most rational and realistic character, whereas the two protagonists seem very emotionally driven. When the Sokovia Accords are brought up, Steve has a problem with relinquishing control and Tony argues that if they don’t agree to it at the time, it will be forced onto them later. Natasha agrees with Tony, saying, “If we have one hand on the wheel, we can still steer.” She, unlike Steve, recognizes that compromising doesn’t necessarily mean surrendering all control of their actions; cooperating now instead of being forced into it later might actually allow them some flexibility, and they can find a way to work the system.
Even in her friendship with Steve, Natasha is the voice of reason. When she warns Steve against getting involved after the conference in Vienna has been bombed, she does so because she knows that he will make the situation worse and get himself into trouble. When she supposedly acts as “double agent” later on in the movie by letting Steve and Bucky leave, she’s in fact being logical. She knows Steve well, so she knows that she can’t stop him from going to Siberia and that that’s something he has to do. It’s great to see her maintain her pragmatism in the conflict, especially considering that that she and Steve are good friends. She is rational where our two main heroes are not and is able to balance reason and emotion effectively enough to still be one of the most interesting and complex characters.
Overall, "Civil War" was an extremely interesting and thought-provoking movie with a plethora of perspectives to take into account, and if I had to pick a team, I'd side with Black Widow.
Only two questions remain - what team are you on? And Marvel, where is our "Black Widow" movie?
