The Marvel Cinematic Universe has never quite been comfortable being fictional. It s never been fully
content being a world where crazy, fantastical things can happen, and can be taken seriously.
It often seems worried that it s all too much for us and so it has a habit of lampshading,
both details which might threaten suspension of disbelief, as well as the very tropes upon which
the genre is built. In this video, we re looking at this lampshading, the well, that just happened
of it all, and the way this phenomenon might be a negative one the way this process of lampshading
doesn t merely fail to actually address the issues and inconsistencies it draws attention to,
but also allows the more problematic areas of the franchise to avoid scrutiny. This video is more
interested in the process than in the problematic itself. We re going to focus a little more on the
act of hanging the lampshade than we are on what the newly-hung lampshade is obscuring but
that isn t to say we re ignoring the obscured. Anyway, enough pre-amble. Let s get into it.
First, for anybody out of the know what is lampshading? Well,
according to Slaphappylarry (which, by the way, excellent website name), lampshading is a word
used for situations in storytelling where the concerns, criticisms and arguments of
the audience are answered in the text itself to assuage any disbelief and therefore frustration
a reader or viewer might possess . In MCU terms, then, we re talking about moments like this
Some people do like to get even more specific, and separate lampshading proper that is, moments where
potentially suspension-of-disbelief-shattering events are explained away, from so-called
spotlighting - moments in a story which see characters display a recognition
of the tropes and cliches of their medium. Most people, though, just lump both of these
4th-wall-nudging varieties in as lampshading, and for simplicity s sake, that s what we ll do here
so I don t want any smart alec comments down there pointing out that this example, or that,
is technically spotlighting, not lampshading I know! I m just trying to keep this accessible.
But yeah, to many, examples like the above seem harmless. And that s fair enough. For a
lot of people, that sort of perpetually self-aware snark is just funny, and that s that. Any story,
no matter how well written, unless it s like, super experimental, is going to brush up against,
tropes and the like, at some point. Stuff like this is always subjective, so your mileage may
vary, but signalling an awareness of the way your story exists in relation to its wider medium,
through lampshading, isn t always a bad thing, especially if done sparingly,
or if the wider project is leaning on the 4th wall in other ways. There is a secondary effect
of even benign lampshading like this, which we ll discuss toward the end of the video,
but for the most part it isn t really moments like that which I want to focus on with this video. No,
it s moments like this. I don t think that s the same as the stuff we saw a minute ago. I
think there s more going on here than patching up suspension of disbelief. So for the next part of
this video, we re gonna be doing a couple of case studies into the murky messaging
that this kind of lampshading can permit. That above clip was one of a handful of times
the MCU has had characters in-universe acknowledge that this version of Earth
s Mightiest Heroes is a lot nearer to, like, Blackwater than they are to, say,
a neighbourhood watch. Civil War, for instance, is full of these moments. With this in mind,
let s look at the ways the MCU lampshades issues more complex and weighty than, like, silly names
and bad physics issues like the kinda horrifying reality of this world s Avengers. Let s rewind.
The MCU, to begin with at least, pursued a sense of realism. I mean, it was never La Terra Trema,
obviously, but compared to where superhero movies, as a genre, were, back 15 years ago
it s clear to see Feige and the fellas were after a grounded setting, where rules apply,
where politics and geopolitics exist, and at least appear to hold importance. In a world like ours,
though superheroes and superteams couldn t just go around doing whatever and seeing
them do so in live-action makes this tension between what the medium requires,
and how we understand the systems of our world, stand out. That s why people started raising an
eyebrow at the legal status of the Avengers, making half-jokes about accountability and so
forth the sort of discourse that lampshades like the above are responding to. The thing is it didn
t have to not make sense. Had SHIELD continued to exist, and to have covered the Avengers somewhat,
we d probably just about be able to believe that the Avengers operations, domestic or
international, could have been legitimate. Our suspension of disbelief wouldn t be an issue,
lampshading the issue wouldn t have been needed. Then Winter Solider happened, and, you know what,
fine. Here s the thing though - Age of Ultron or Civil War could have set up some semi-plausible
legal or political reasoning for the actions of the Avengers, but they don t. Instead, we get that
lampshade. And that s tricky, because sure, on the one hand it shows the filmmakers telling us, don t
worry, we haven t forgotten about realism, we see how this unexplained legal situation looks, but on
the other hand to have characters lampshade this in-universe? That confirms the validity of these
criticisms, confirms that there is no in-universe explanation for why the Avengers can just do
whatever. The decision to lampshade this reassures the audience that the filmmakers are still
committed to a sense of realism, but it also makes canon the fact that Tony and Steve s band of merry
men are an affront to democracy and international law. After all, Ross does say the Avengers
routinely ignore national boundaries. Routinely implies more than simply the few occasions we saw
onscreen in Age of Ultron and Civil War s opening. This lampshading turns the Avengers into, like,
the super-CIA, except somehow? With even less accountability. This choice isn t even necessary
for the plot of the film. The Sokovia Accords can still come up, can function near-identically,
if the film starts with the Avengers already working in concert with, say, the UN,
or a similar body. The ideological conflict of the film wouldn t need to change much, either.
This weirdness isn t helped by the MCU s aversion to smaller scale stories. The fact that we ve only
really seen these characters defending the world against aliens or murderous robots, the fact that
these are the only real exploits of the avengers shown to us, means we re sort of nudged into being
on their side when questions of legitimacy and jurisdiction come up. Showing us these stories,
instead of ones like Lagos where they, seemingly illegally, conduct a dangerous, disastrous
operation without the Nigerian authorities knowing, being aware, standing by with logistical
or medical assistance - that almost manufactures permission from the audience. It's easy to believe
uncritically in agendas the Avengers profess like freedom and saving the world when these scenarios
are so straightforward. Aliens bad. Fighting aliens good. But what s happening between the
showstoppers? What can it be, except more ops like the Lagos one? Except more CIA-on-steroids,
militaristic wetwork which directly or not helps uphold a certain global status quo?
The effect of this whole avengers-as-private-paramilitary-goon-squad
meta-commentary, then, is twofold. First, it makes concrete the fact that, yikes, these good guys are
nigh-untouchable wildcards doing whatever they like however they like, and second it sweeps
that big oof under the rug. Because while the Ross clip ostensibly sets up the conflict of Civil War,
the Sokovia Accords, and the illusion of political change and accountability for heroes in this world
it doesn t really do any of that. After this film, the Accords never really have much of an impact
on who goes where and who does what and so this whole self-conscious recognition of and doubling
down on the problem doesn t go anywhere. The fact that She-Hulk re-lampshades this, years later,
only makes this clearer. In lampshading the fairly nightmarish politics of Avenging,
the MCU basically said, haha, yep, this is a problem, we re confirming you re right to
think so without addressing or fixing the issue in any meaningful way. Since, superficially,
that gesture of recognition has been made, the disbelief and frustration present in the viewer
is, superficially, assuaged, and you could very well argue that in the process, the yikes way
this seems to just be fine with an exceptionalist, hawkish system of foreign intervention slips under
the radar. And that s probably not a good thing. So that s how lampshading actually worsens the
nightmare politics of the MCU but that isn t the only problem that this meta-snark intensifies. No,
it s also quite unhelpful when it comes to the hypermasculinity of the MCU.
One common issue a lot of people have with these films is the way they tend to reinforce reductive
ideas of masculinity. This of course isn t an issue unique to the MCU, or even to superhero
films but it is present here, moreso than in a lot of genres, because of the element
of power fantasy that s fundamental to pretty much all superhero fiction. On a basic level,
these stories are appealing because of the way they imagine becoming more, becoming different,
becoming uniquely able to change the world, gaining the power to make a difference. From
the beginning, one of the most common ways this power has been envisioned is physical,
bodily strength. Clark Kent being able to lift cars and leap tall buildings in a single
bound. Peter Parker getting spider-swole. It isn t the only way, but it is very common,
and unfortunately what that translates to onscreen a lot of the time is a reduction of the vast
potential of this genre to jacked guys punching each other to solve problems. In the abstract,
superhero media has an almost limitless capacity to imagine new ways people can solve their
problems and help the world with spectacular, engaging feats but in practice that capacity
often gets boiled down into problems being solved by the good guy just, decking the bad version of
himself. Might may not make right, but there s definitely some correlation here. Due to the way
these stories and conflicts are written, being the best hero, being the best man, often seems
to be merely a matter of doing better violence. Now I don t necessarily agree with the way some
critics of the hypermasculine seem to read any and all violence in superhero media as problematic,
indicative of harmful gender stereotypes I think that s maybe a bit simplistic but I
do agree that hypermasculinity is something the MCU draws on a lot, mostly without complicating,
nuancing, or rejecting it at all. And, again lampshading the issue doesn t change this.
These nods to the audience about the degree to which the modern superhero blockbuster
relies on orgiastic displays of idealised ultraviolence aren t subverting anything
they re kind of just admitting it, out loud, before jumping into another ubermensch slugfest.
In examples like the above, it s clear to see that while lampshading might appear an effective
tool for dealing with anticipated criticism, or merely turning tropes into cheap meta-humour,
nothing s actually gained. Indeed something s lost the opportunity, the ability,
to positively address these problems. That s where the wider pattern of benign,
seemingly harmless lampshading comes into play - the result of this habitual lampshading,
across both serious issues and smaller moments of disbelief, is a pervasive, franchise-wide sense
of ironic detachment. This ironic detachment is a double-edged sword the meta-awareness can
entertain, can deflect criticism to a point, but the flip side of this is the loss of sincerity,
the inability, or perhaps unwillingness, to commit to this fictional world, to actually consider or
explore the ramifications and implications of the choices made. The Avengers are a private,
unilateral paramilitary squad, but thanks to this ironic distance the text has created from
its own world, we re not allowed a project which dives into what this actually means. Do we still
sympathise with them? Can we? How about the public? What are the dangers of this airtight,
hermetic system of power? How do these considerations shift if and when an Avenger
goes rogue? We ll never know. How might an MCU movie confront its own fairly limited masculine
ideals if its characters didn t have to wink toward the audience about their taking of them
for granted? Again, it s hard to say. The crazy part is none of this is even
necessary. We ve seen glimpses here and there of this franchise being able to course correct
semi-successfully, to take sincere steps away from the very criticisms they d previously lampshaded.
To address underlying issues instead of merely remarking upon their existence to the audience.
It s not, like, brilliant at this - the MCU s not exactly the most sophisticated engine for nuanced,
political storytelling, so even if approached with total sincerity the whole CIAvengers thing
might struggle to resolve itself in a fitting way, but with regard to, say, the hypermasculine? There
have been a handful of moments where sincerity has slipped through the cracks of the MCU s ironic
detachment, and where we ve seen hypermasculinity re-evaluated. I m thinking primarily of Thor s
journey, particularly across Endgame and Love and Thunder. Whatever else may have been wrong with
those projects, I think we do see a more complex masculinity than is normal for this franchise,
and maybe I ll go more in-depth on that in a future video. Moreover, we do see, every now
and then, supernatural powers or abilities being used to save people, to resolve conflict, in ways
other than physical violence. For instance, my favourite part about the Dr. Strange films is the
way that Steven manages to triumph over his foes in the crucial moments by outwitting, outfoxing,
outmanoeuvring instead of... out-punching. I think you could read the climax of Spider-Man Homecoming
in a similar way Peter uses his powers to chase down and ground Vulture s plane, and then to save
Adrian s life even while being battered. It's moments like this that make you think maybe the
problematic, the hypermasculine isn t inherent in a medium which originated as straightforward power
fantasy maybe it s just too common. And maybe we d know that for sure if a little more often
Marvel committed to working toward solutions like this instead of merely lampshading the problem.
Look, the point of this video isn t to gotcha the MCU, to tell you it s bad, and problematic,
and you re bad for liking it. No, the point is simply to think about lampshading a little more to
point out that this little trick has consequences for the projects which use it their themes,
their narratives, their messaging. I m not going for MCU bad and lampshading shows us why , so
much as the MCU s lampshading is impactful, often negatively, and these are some of the
results . So, I hope that s what I ve accomplished here. Anyway, if you did enjoy this, you ve got my
patron Adam Myers to thank, because this is the latest one of my Patreon Community videos where
my supporters get to think up video ideas and make me make them. So if you want to have a say in what
I cover in the next one of these, pop over to my Patreon site, linked below, and have a think about
joining up! But thanks for watching, and shoutout to all my Patrons onscreen now for the support
especially Jonathan Francis Bond, Kevin Douglas, and Ian Fyfield and make sure you all leave a like
before you go, or I ll.. become a sleep paralysis demon and haunt you forevermore. Ciao!