What do you think?
Rate this book
Superheroes, Movies, and the State: How the U.S. Government Shapes Cinematic Universes
Tricia Jenkins and Tom Secker deliver a highly original exploration of how the government-entertainment complex has influenced the world’s most popular movie genre—superhero films. Superheroes, Movies, and the State sets a new standard for exploring the government-Hollywood relationship as it persuasively documents the critical role different government agencies have played in shaping characters, stories, and even the ideas behind the hottest entertainment products. Jenkins and Secker cover a wide range of US government and quasi-governmental agencies who act to influence the content of superhero movies, including the Department of Defense, the National Academy of Sciences’ Science and Entertainment Exchange and, to a lesser extent, the FBI and the CIA.
Superheroes, Movies, and the State deploys a thematic framework to analyze how five of the key themes of our time—militarism, political radicalism and subversion, the exploration of space, the role of science and technology, and representation and identity—manifest in the superhero genre, and the role of the government in molding narratives around these topics. The book includes interviews with both producers and influencer insiders and covers a wide range of superhero products, from 1970s TV shows up to the most recent movie and TV releases, including the first major analysis of the hit Amazon show The Boys. In addition, it is the first deep exploration of NASA’s Hollywood office and the first detailed account of the role of the Science and Entertainment Exchange, which has worked on thousands of products since its creation in 2008 but is little known outside of the industry. Superheroes, Movies, and the State offers an innovative blend of research methods and interpretive frameworks, combining both production histories and deep readings of superhero texts to clearly reveal how the government-entertainment complex works in the world of blockbuster cinema to shape public perceptions of the United States, war, science, and much, much more.
Superheroes, Movies, and the State deploys a thematic framework to analyze how five of the key themes of our time—militarism, political radicalism and subversion, the exploration of space, the role of science and technology, and representation and identity—manifest in the superhero genre, and the role of the government in molding narratives around these topics. The book includes interviews with both producers and influencer insiders and covers a wide range of superhero products, from 1970s TV shows up to the most recent movie and TV releases, including the first major analysis of the hit Amazon show The Boys. In addition, it is the first deep exploration of NASA’s Hollywood office and the first detailed account of the role of the Science and Entertainment Exchange, which has worked on thousands of products since its creation in 2008 but is little known outside of the industry. Superheroes, Movies, and the State offers an innovative blend of research methods and interpretive frameworks, combining both production histories and deep readings of superhero texts to clearly reveal how the government-entertainment complex works in the world of blockbuster cinema to shape public perceptions of the United States, war, science, and much, much more.
- GenresPoliticsNonfiction
387 pages, Kindle Edition
Published December 23, 2021
1 person is currently reading
93 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
April 26, 2022
How does propaganda work in liberal democracy and how, as artists, can we stop ourselves from participating in it?
These are the central questions at the heart of "Superheroes, Movies, and the State: How the US Government Shapes Cinematic Universes" by Tricia Jenkins and Tom Secker. The book begins with fact that the Department of Defense has supported numerous films in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, and then goes much deeper, exploring the impact such support has on the creative work of a film and what kind of alternatives exist for big-budget action movies that might want a military scale without being beholden to the military.
The text is smartly divided into sections that provide different entry points for the authors' political analysis. First, the authors demonstrate that the DoD has directly impacted the scripts of numerous Marvel movies, perhaps most egregiously "Iron Man I" and "Captain Marvel" while pointing out that the most subversive texts in the MCU such as "Captain America: Winter Soldier" and "Captain America: Winter Soldier" did not. Then the authors explore the less demanding and imperial ways that groups like NASA and the Science and Entertainment Exchange provide resources without the same demands of US military organizations. Next, in what I view to be the most compelling and challenging chapter of the book, the authors offer close readings of "Wonder Woman" and "Black Panther" to demonstrate that the reactionary alliance with the military industrial complex that has characterized the MCU is not diminished, and may in fact be excused, by stories with diverse lead characters. Finally, the book offers a counterpoint to the MCU's gestures towards subversion in films like "Winter Soldier" by reading the actually subversive show, "The Boys."
As a writer in Hollywood, there are many conclusions to be drawn from this book, and there is much to think about. Just as Alex S. Vitale's work, "The End of Policing" led me to re-evaluate the omnipresent network cop show, this book has led me to re-evaluate the role of superhero films in our media landscape. The authors posit that "Iron Man's" DoD oversight was a kind of original sin moment, and from that moment on, the MCU has always been in dialogue with and has at times even become an extension of, empire. Even in the films that did not require or enjoy DoD support, the specter of government complicity looms. By contrast, The Boys is that rare text that actually allows for systemic critique because it did not have DoD support of any kind, because it is not a mass-market international blockbuster, and because it is made by a Disney competitor. While not every MCU film serves as explicit branded content for the military in the way that "Captain Marvel" was a two-hour Air Force recruitment film, a favorable view towards American imperialism is baked in, the MCU is a part of what the authors (and others before them) call the Military Entertainment Complex.
What are we to do? If you are going to work in Hollywood, you are going to work for conglomerates. Those conglomerates have political and state connections. Yes, subsidiaries of these conglomerates make smaller projects with less oversight, but ultimately the bosses are the same and there tend to be lines you cannot cross. Joel Kim Booster recently made headlines by making this point in the context of his film "Fire Island" being made, ultimately, by Disney, in the era of the "Dont' Say Gay" bill in Florida.
While we might all fantasize about having our own little sandbox to play in, the reality is that that sandbox is likely a corporate subsidiary and the creators who play ball with larger projects are likely to be rewarded with passion projects. Iron Man's John Favreau got to make "Chef" after Iron Man and numerous other MCU veterans have used their money and prestige to make what "they really want to make." And it can be assumed that if they hadn't made "one for them" they may not have been able to make those projects. The scale of what truly anti-establishment filmmakers like Boots Riley will be afforded isn't going to be on the scale of filmmakers who play ball. If these economies weren't in place, would Chloe Zhao follow up "The Rider" and "Nomadland" with "Eternals?" Not likely.
When critiques of the studios and the conglomerates that run them come up, I always say "Well, I guess I could go back to doing black-box theater in Pittsburgh." Jokes aside, while there will always be some level of compromise creating mass art under capitalism, I do think it is the artist's responsibility to do two things: be aware of the compromises you are being asked to make and consider how those compromises impact the culture. And of course, we should try to make cool stuff along the way. While we can't escape the financial realities of capitalism and empire, we should, at least, acknowledge them.
These are the central questions at the heart of "Superheroes, Movies, and the State: How the US Government Shapes Cinematic Universes" by Tricia Jenkins and Tom Secker. The book begins with fact that the Department of Defense has supported numerous films in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, and then goes much deeper, exploring the impact such support has on the creative work of a film and what kind of alternatives exist for big-budget action movies that might want a military scale without being beholden to the military.
The text is smartly divided into sections that provide different entry points for the authors' political analysis. First, the authors demonstrate that the DoD has directly impacted the scripts of numerous Marvel movies, perhaps most egregiously "Iron Man I" and "Captain Marvel" while pointing out that the most subversive texts in the MCU such as "Captain America: Winter Soldier" and "Captain America: Winter Soldier" did not. Then the authors explore the less demanding and imperial ways that groups like NASA and the Science and Entertainment Exchange provide resources without the same demands of US military organizations. Next, in what I view to be the most compelling and challenging chapter of the book, the authors offer close readings of "Wonder Woman" and "Black Panther" to demonstrate that the reactionary alliance with the military industrial complex that has characterized the MCU is not diminished, and may in fact be excused, by stories with diverse lead characters. Finally, the book offers a counterpoint to the MCU's gestures towards subversion in films like "Winter Soldier" by reading the actually subversive show, "The Boys."
As a writer in Hollywood, there are many conclusions to be drawn from this book, and there is much to think about. Just as Alex S. Vitale's work, "The End of Policing" led me to re-evaluate the omnipresent network cop show, this book has led me to re-evaluate the role of superhero films in our media landscape. The authors posit that "Iron Man's" DoD oversight was a kind of original sin moment, and from that moment on, the MCU has always been in dialogue with and has at times even become an extension of, empire. Even in the films that did not require or enjoy DoD support, the specter of government complicity looms. By contrast, The Boys is that rare text that actually allows for systemic critique because it did not have DoD support of any kind, because it is not a mass-market international blockbuster, and because it is made by a Disney competitor. While not every MCU film serves as explicit branded content for the military in the way that "Captain Marvel" was a two-hour Air Force recruitment film, a favorable view towards American imperialism is baked in, the MCU is a part of what the authors (and others before them) call the Military Entertainment Complex.
What are we to do? If you are going to work in Hollywood, you are going to work for conglomerates. Those conglomerates have political and state connections. Yes, subsidiaries of these conglomerates make smaller projects with less oversight, but ultimately the bosses are the same and there tend to be lines you cannot cross. Joel Kim Booster recently made headlines by making this point in the context of his film "Fire Island" being made, ultimately, by Disney, in the era of the "Dont' Say Gay" bill in Florida.
While we might all fantasize about having our own little sandbox to play in, the reality is that that sandbox is likely a corporate subsidiary and the creators who play ball with larger projects are likely to be rewarded with passion projects. Iron Man's John Favreau got to make "Chef" after Iron Man and numerous other MCU veterans have used their money and prestige to make what "they really want to make." And it can be assumed that if they hadn't made "one for them" they may not have been able to make those projects. The scale of what truly anti-establishment filmmakers like Boots Riley will be afforded isn't going to be on the scale of filmmakers who play ball. If these economies weren't in place, would Chloe Zhao follow up "The Rider" and "Nomadland" with "Eternals?" Not likely.
When critiques of the studios and the conglomerates that run them come up, I always say "Well, I guess I could go back to doing black-box theater in Pittsburgh." Jokes aside, while there will always be some level of compromise creating mass art under capitalism, I do think it is the artist's responsibility to do two things: be aware of the compromises you are being asked to make and consider how those compromises impact the culture. And of course, we should try to make cool stuff along the way. While we can't escape the financial realities of capitalism and empire, we should, at least, acknowledge them.
August 23, 2022
A promessa do subtítulo deste livro é muito boa "como o governo dos Estados Unidos molda universos cinemáticos", contudo não é bem sobre isso que o livro trata. O verbo moldar aqui é menos direto do que possa parecer, é mais relacionado com a cultura belicista dos Estados Unidos e sua "excepcionalidade americana", relacionada à cultura mutinacional que esse processo ocorre e é como se dão as análises deste livro. Não existem ações diretas do governo sobre esses filmes, mas sim desses filmes sobre o governo, ao contratarem consultores militares, cinetistas militares, cientistas da NASA, entre otros "influenciadores governamentais". Pouco de "actual politics" são abordadas neste livro, com exceção do capítulo sobre representatividade e diversidade. O livro é recheado de muitas análises dos filmes em direção à "interferências" do goveno nobre eles, mas essa é a parte mais alongada e menos relevante do livro. O que chamou mais minha atenção para novas inferências sobre o assunto são extamente citações de autores externos ao livro. O que, claro, não tira o mérito da obra.
Read
December 14, 2021I have only a passing interest in Marvel movies that has more to do with my love of comic books as a kid than it does with today's CGI adventures. So I definitely didn't pick this book up for any particular fandom reasons. That said, I'm glad to have come across this and found this to be a very insightful book.
The central focus of this book is to look at the role state institutions like the Department of Defense, the National Academy of Sciences' Science and Entertainment Exchange play in using superhero movies to push their agendas and how those movies, in turn, craft propaganda for the military, secret services, and government science entities. There is a light critique of the superhero films, but I did get the impression that the authors were fans of this genre, so any criticisms were mild.
That said, this book was incredibly insightful into how these movies are made, who is consulting on them, how they are developed, and why all of that matters in a post-9/11 America.
The central focus of this book is to look at the role state institutions like the Department of Defense, the National Academy of Sciences' Science and Entertainment Exchange play in using superhero movies to push their agendas and how those movies, in turn, craft propaganda for the military, secret services, and government science entities. There is a light critique of the superhero films, but I did get the impression that the authors were fans of this genre, so any criticisms were mild.
That said, this book was incredibly insightful into how these movies are made, who is consulting on them, how they are developed, and why all of that matters in a post-9/11 America.
April 5, 2022
Interesting and full of little anecdotes. You'll never see a marvel film the same way again, for good and bad.
The thesis is thoroughly discussed and well supported. NASA comes out looking great and the military not so much.
The political assumptions of the authors in regards to certain foreign policy stances of the US are asserted without support, but those things being outside the purview of the book maybe should've been stated differently.
All in all well worth the time if you are interested in film, pop-culture, studies in propaganda, or superhero stories.
The thesis is thoroughly discussed and well supported. NASA comes out looking great and the military not so much.
The political assumptions of the authors in regards to certain foreign policy stances of the US are asserted without support, but those things being outside the purview of the book maybe should've been stated differently.
All in all well worth the time if you are interested in film, pop-culture, studies in propaganda, or superhero stories.
March 12, 2022
An in-depth look into the MCU creations - not just behind the scenes and pre production drama but also a pretty good ideological and representational analysis of the final product.
October 25, 2022
Absolutely never would have fathomed Captain Marvel (2019) was militaristically more beneficial (to Department of Defense) than [foreground Army-heavy] Man of Steel (2013) -- Really just another notch in what easily MCU most unremarkable offering to date imo.
Loaded with plenty of [contemporary] moviemaking/BTS facts, SMS is essential reading for a fan of Hollywood filmmaking, and its lucrative misinformation & marketing campaigns.
Loaded with plenty of [contemporary] moviemaking/BTS facts, SMS is essential reading for a fan of Hollywood filmmaking, and its lucrative misinformation & marketing campaigns.
April 16, 2024
The author notes that the neoconservatism in movies is inorganic, yet the progressivism - which is equally stitched up - somehow magically falls from the sky. If anything the evidences in this book should be read as demonstrating that the the uniparty is the basis for these movies.
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews