A War of Super-Dilemmas

Rating: 5/10 (29 May 2016)

I really have mixed feelings about this movie. I love the Marvel franchise and the heroes created in the comics. In this movie the acting, cinematography, action, and special effects were all top notch. Given the super-serious tone of the movie Ant Man and Spider- Man provide much needed comic relief. At any rate, it's the concept of a "civil war" between the good guys that bothered me. The movie presents four serious dilemmas for our heroes, none of which are resolved.
The first dilemma is responsibility. Who is responsible for what the military calls "collateral damage," unintended destruction of life and property? Thaddeus Ross, now U.S. Secretary of State, blames the Avengers (the good guys) for what went down in the previous Marvel movies. Excuse me, but wasn't he in the military and wasn't he responsible for a lot of collateral damage by trying to capture and manipulate the Hulk?
I waited for somebody in the meeting with Ross to raise his (or her) hand and say, "Uh, wait a minute, just who started those events that required us to respond. We didn't attack any of those cities." The truth is that innocent people get killed in wars and it's a horrible tragedy. The MCU depicts super-villains who make super messes. In all the previous movies the super-heroes are depicted as trying to minimize loss of life. So, how are they responsible for the collateral damage?
The second dilemma is practical. Where do the Avengers fit as an organization and to whom are they accountable? The Avengers have no designated leader. Nick Fury went into exile and S.H.I.E.L.D. fell apart. The Avengers do need a chain of command. The simple solution would have been to appoint a new director of the Avengers, and the Avengers placed within the U.S. Department of Defense answerable to the Secretary of Defense. Steve Rogers would have been the ideal choice, because he understands military strategy and tactics.
The third dilemma is political. Ross informs the Avengers that a United Nations panel will supervise them in the future. The concept reflects the evolution of oversight in the comics from initially being an American covert organization to becoming an agency of the United Nations comparable to U.N.C.L.E. For the most part the comics and film/television versions depict American control. As to the oversight proposal, what gives the United Nations the right to assume authority over an organization of enhanced warriors based in the United States? Moreover, government oversight would not have prevented the tragedies depicted in the previous Marvel movies. Just imagine a circumstance of any law enforcement agency (city, state, nation) having to get permission from a external civilian bureaucracy before responding to a crime or a threat. Micromanaging by bureaucrats greatly reduces the effectiveness of responding agencies.
The fourth dilemma is moral. This dilemma is the most interesting, but it's not presented until late in the movie when Tony Stark learns that his parents had been killed by Bucky Barnes. Of course, at the time Bucky was just a mind-numbed robot, but that fact is irrelevant to Stark, who has conveniently forgotten that he created Ultron after being mind-controlled by Wanda Maximoff (before she joined the Avengers). There is no question that Bucky did commit murder. So, Stark, previously in favor of government oversight (=justice by the courts), makes a personal exception to kill Bucky in revenge. Bucky is also a friend of Steve Rogers who defends him against Stark's assault. This dilemma is one commonly played out in American courts when a person on trial for murder pleads not guilty by reason of insanity or some form of "diminished capacity." The ending of the film is especially poignant with Rogers leaving his shield behind, after Stark reminds him who made it. It would seem by this act the relationship between Stark and Rogers would be irreconcilable.
In addition to the dilemmas, there are some serious logical problems with this plot. First, the title. How does combat by a few individuals constitute a war? How do you have a civil war where none of the super-hero combatants get killed? Since when does the U.S. Secretary of State have police powers and oversee a Super-Max prison, a Marvel version of Gitmo? How is it that Avengers who refused to sign were imprisoned without formal charges and without trial? How did Rogers manage to free his comrades from prison? He is only seen to be by himself.
So now the Marvel brain trust has exiled the Captain America crew with Barnes in a cryogenic chamber. One can only imagine what convoluted set of circumstances have to happen to drop the criminal charges (whatever they were) and rejoin the Avengers. Oh, I know. The politicians will realize they need the criminal Avengers to save their asses from an alien threat. It's like The Dirty Dozen ("Oh God! I loved that movie."). "We'll wipe the slate clean if you take care of the alien threat," and in the fine print "providing there's no collateral damage. If the aliens cause it you're still responsible."