The Suicide Squad: An unintentional political commentary
How the tragedy in Afghanistan added a layer to the meaning of a superhero movie?
"The suicide squad" movie originated in the chaos.
When the Guardians of the Galaxy director, James Gun, was fired from the Marvel studios by the decision of the Disney company executives (Parent company of Marvel Studios), the chaos began.
The reason for the firing of James Gun was a series of dark and insensitive tweets which he posted about a decade ago.
But the rationale for the firing didn't land well with the public.
Those tweets have been published even before the Marvel studios hired James Gun in the first place, and during the last few years, James Gun, on multiple occasions, apologized for them.
Some observers have mentioned that this decision was a political one. When ABC cancelled "Roseanne," conservative media and commentators framed it as a prominent example of 'cancel culture' and accused the 'liberal media' of having a double standard. James Gun and his old tweets were among a series of examples that these conservative media cited to confirm their perspective.
Whatever the real reason was, The decision of Disney backfired. Audiences and co-workers of James Gun campaigned against this decision. Finally, Disney had to reverse its decision and rehired James Gun to direct the third instalment of Guardians of the Galaxy and resume his role as a member of the creative team of Marvel Studios.
But before rehiring Gun by Marvel, the Warner Brothers company and D.C. used the opportunity and offered Gun to direct a project.
According to Gun, there were a few suggestions on the table, including a Superman movie. But James Gun decided to choose a complicated and chaotic project: Suicide Squad.
When Marvel announced the hiring back of Gun, the deal with D.C. was finalized, and Gun and Marvel announced that he would start working on the third volume of TGOG after finishing the suicide squad for D.C.
Choosing suicide squad by Gun was weirdly made sense.
After all, it was James Gun who proved that if you have enough resources and talent, you can gather a bunch of weird characters (including a talking raccoon and a tree with a very limited vocabulary) and make audiences fall in love with them.
But 'Suicide Squad' had its own baggage and controversies. The 2016 movie "Suicide Squad" can be fairly described as a mess.
It seems that, like many blockbusters, many ideas had been forced into the movie by corporate people and the vision of the director David Ayer had altered dramatically. David Ayer even told later that the film has nothing in common with his vision and. Even there is a campaign for "Release of David Ayer's Director's Cut."
While the 2016 suicide squad gave birth to some fantastic characters, such as Harley Quinn (portrayed by Margot Robbie), the film left most audiences unsatisfied.
This time D.C. and the Warner brothers seem to have learned their lesson and gave the full creative power to James Gun. He could reboot the story, make a prequel or sequel, bring back all the old cast or recast all the characters. And most importantly, they gave the green light to Gun to made this film R-rated.
The director made the best use of this freedom.
He brought back a few characters from the last movie and many new ones to the mix. He used his 'license to kill' the characters wisely. He didn't fall into overusing the violence just because he could, but he use it in the service of storytelling.
The film was successful, and most of the critics and audiences enjoyed it.
Once again, Gun brought a bunch of misfits and weird characters together - including a talking shark and a weasel - and told a good story.
Who is the villain?
In a movie that almost all the characters are villains, you can't find an obvious villain. Yes, different groups are fighting each other.
The supervillains are fighting against a giant space starfish; the resistance is fighting against new dictators coming in, politicians and U.S. government agents fighting among themselves, and many others, but who is the real bad guy?
The giant starfish? He told us that he just was out there and watching stars and abducted by U.S. astronauts, and for many long years, he was tortured over and over.
The new dictators in power? They are bad, but they are just as bad as the last government. The only difference was that the U.S. had a deal with the previous government to support them while using their country to conduct a series of inhuman experiments and torture an alien being captured and brought back here against his will. (Does it seem familiar?)
Maybe the PeaceMaker is a manifestation of the true villain of the story. He is the ultimate tool. He has orders, and he follows them by letter to bring peace and prosperity to the world. And he is doing it by 'all means necessary.' For PeaceMaker, always 'all the options are on the table,' and it is OK if he had to kill innocent people and kids and betrays his comrades. They are just 'collateral damages.'
He is a comic and tragic representation of one of the dominant schools of thought in U.S. foreign and military policy.
The fascinating and accurate side point of this character is while he is the best tool for the U.S. missions outside the U.S. and the only one who the secret goal of missions can trust and had to keep an eye on his team, He is not tolerated inside the U.S.
Inside the U.S., he is sitting at the same prison which keeps the Blood Sport. Blood Sport is the guy who put a bullet inside the Super Man, the symbol of 'truth and justice, the American way.'
The nature of political symbolism in this movie is transparent. But it is hard to imagine that it became such a timely commentary and critic on U.S. policy if anybody could guess.
During the last few weeks situation in Afghanistan turned upside down.
When the U.S announced the withdrawal of its troops from Afghanistan, The Taliban began to regain power.
Those who gave home to the leader of Al-Qaeda and were ruled by cruelty and terror are once again in power.
The inception of the Taliban was - in part - due to the Cold War stand-off between the USSR and the west. And in those times, they had the supports of the U.S.
When they gained power in the 1990s, they have been tolerated, despite all the horrendous actions and violations of human rights. Then the tragedy of 9/11 happened.
The U.S. attacked Afghanistan to pursue Al-Qaeda and its host 'The Taliban.'
Contrary to what we hear these days from officials in the White House, In those years, it was a clear message that the invasion of Afghanistan is not just to defeat the Al-Qaeda but to free the country from the Taliban and help Afghanistan to create a democratic and prosper system.
Twenty years and more than two trillion dollars later, after the death of more than 3500 soldiers of the coalition forces and more than 330,000 death of afghans, the Taliban backed to power.
All the works and hopes of the last 20 years have fallen in less than a weak.
There are many reasons and rationale for and against the decision of president Joe Biden about Afghanistan.
But if you are not a U.S. citizen and observe the situation from the outside, you can't help but think that a comic story about a group of fictional characters resembles the fact in the ground.
How we create a problem or participate in creating it, then we try to solve the problem and when we failed we say that it wasn't our problem at all and left all those who welcomed us and fight on our sides alone.
Comparing a comic book-based movie with such a human tragedy may seem unfair, but it may be necessary.
If there are any merits in this comparison, we need to think deeply and hard about the estate of world affairs.
There are no comments for this story
Be the first to respond and start the conversation.