kerravonsen | Captain America: The Winter Soldier

Yes, I am watching these all in the wrong order, very late. That's pretty standard for my Marvel watching. I was spoiled for the spoilery thing, but I'm glad that I listened to the people who told me it was worth watching, because it was worth watching, because there was a lot more going on than just the spoilery thing. And I am in great admiration for the way they handled the thematic structure in this one.

Yes, theme! And characterisation!

There was a lot of thematic/character resonance between the main players, not just Steve Rogers and The Winter Soldier.

Steve and Natasha
Steve and Fury
Fury and Alexander Pierce (which was all the better for its unexpectedness)

With Steve and Bucky, it is "I'm with you to the end of the line". (Play theme tune of "Gallipoli" on max volume) They were Best Mates, that's what you do.

With Steve and Natasha, it's "I think you may be in the wrong line of work" plus those friend/romance vibes. Not only does Steve feel betrayed by Fury, but so does Natasha. Because she had been hoping and trusting that SHIELD was better than the KGB.

Steve and Fury... yeah. Needs some more unpacking.

I've read fannish rants disguised as fic, about how the decision to dump SHIELDRA's secrets on the internet was reckless, impulsive, self-righteous, punishing the innocent along with the guilty etc etc. Now that I've actually seen it.... no. I don't necessarily agree that it was the right decision, but it was not an impulsive decision. Things were more subtle and nuanced than that.

Fury has been working with one toe over the line for so many years, he could not see that Project Insight (the SHIELD version) was stepping over the line completely. Manipulation and lies, that's innocent by SHIELD standards. Threats and blackmail and theft, that's just standard operating procedure. Assassination? Well, that's a little iffy, but a man's gotta do what a man's gotta do. I wouldn't say that Fury's moral compass was broken, but I would say that it was... jammed.

In the discussion between Fury and Steve and the others about what to do about HYDRA, Fury acts at first as if saving SHIELD is part of the agenda. When Steve says no, Fury looks as if someone stole his teddy bear, but he doesn't argue. Sure, that could be because he took one look at Steve's Resolve Face and knew it was pointless, but there are arguments Fury could have used. He could have used the "don't punish the innocent along with the guilty" card (which is one which is frequently played by anti-Cap fans) but he did not. Why?

Possibly because he was going to revive SHIELD anyway, with or without Steve's approval.
Possibly because he didn't believe that anyone working for SHIELD was "innocent" in that way, or at least, that the field agents knew the risks when they signed up, and the support personnel were not the ones at risk in this scenario.

Thing is -- and this what I mean about nuances -- I don't think that Steve was saying that SHIELD was HYDRA, or that SHIELD was too compromised by HYDRA, or that it was too difficult to sift the wheat from the chaff. In a way, it had absolutely nothing to do with HYDRA at all. It was that SHIELD itself was no longer true to its mission; it had fallen off the wagon, it had gone from "protect" to "oppress". SHIELD thought that freedom was wasted on the free. That, right there, is a point on which HYDRA and SHIELD would agree. They wouldn't agree on anything else, but so what? It is still a BAD philosophy. Right over the line.

Steve's decision (or Steve & Natasha's decision) was not impulsive. It was planned, it was part of the mission objectives. All of them there had the opportunity to discuss, object, refine the plan. And the plan would not have worked at all without Fury's cooperation! (So why are all the anti-Cap fans blaming it on Steve?)

Do I think they should have brought Tony Stark into it? Absolutely. Because he could probably have disabled the helicarriers remotely in fifteen minutes with no loss of life.

(Do I understand the Doylist reason for not bringing Iron Man into a Captain America movie? Yes. But I'm a Watsonian.)

I don't know if the timing works, but the best Watsonian reason I've come across for Steve not bringing in Tony was that Tony was in the middle of, or recovering from, the surgery to remove the arc reactor in IM3, and thus was not available.

Fury and Pierce. Lots of head games, there. From Pierce, "we are not so different" and "you were the one who inspired me". And maybe, once, Pierce and Fury were not so different. I am reminded of something I said recently, that the Devil does not tempt us with evil, he tempts us with good. Vengeance disguised as justice. Cruelty disguised as discipline. Tyranny disguised as protection.

Then you have the end, with Natasha in front of the Senate committee. With the fascinating assertion that "you will always need people like us" -- the ones who aren't afraid to get their hands dirty.

And that's the big question, isn't it? Does one have to take up the weapons of the enemy in order to beat them? Are "good guys" inherently weaker than "bad guys" because there are things they won't do? Do White Hats have to employ Grey Hats for plausible deniability and to keep their lily-white gloves clean? Or are they even White Hats any more if they do that -- no longer White Hats, but soiled by hypocrisy?

One of the problems with "the end justifies the means" mentality is that the means influence the end. They determine it, they taint it, they corrupt it. To put it another way, you can't even reach the end you desire if you use the wrong means to do so. To quote Miles Vorkosigan, "The one thing you can't trade for your heart's desire is your heart."