It didn’t take long for WandaVision faithful to become enemies of director Tyler Hayward. The jury was still out on E4, but in E5 we collectively viewed Hayward as some kind of jerk who was condescending, rude, and probably a future antagonist with a suspicious agenda. To date, this theory has come full circle with poor decisions, portraying a typical attitude of the Military Industrial Complex in the form of an assassination attempt on our favorite witch and the excommunication of the only three agents who have so far proven to be tools. . Not to mention his cruel, albeit strategic, behavior towards Wanda in their first encounter, as seen in the most recent Wandavision flashback episode: Previously On. Unfortunately, there is likely even more life to our hatred for Hayward at the conclusion of E9 coming this Thursday.

Elizabeth Olsen’s Wanda Maximoff trauma has driven our emotions since the very first episode. Really from the first time we met her in Avengers: Age of Ultron. If you’re a provider of comic book history, we saw that House of M’s poorly adapted story adds even more suffering to an already struggling character, especially one we care about, and our hearts break. And why shouldn’t it?

RELATED: WandaVision Season 2 Plans Don’t Exist Yet, Says Director Matt Shakman

At this point, I must ask fans to suspend their emotional attachment here to really analyze the reality ‘in the world’ that we are supposed to be witnessing if we do not see vicariously through the eyes of others so that we can be connected in a way. more realistic with this fiction brought to life. After all, that’s what storytelling is all about.

Psychologists theorize that there are three types of empathy: emotional, compassionate, and cognitive. When we often think of empathy, we tend to foster and practice both emotional and compassionate forms of empathy in our daily lives and in our interpersonal relationships. Certainly we both feel and project that kind of empathy on the fictional characters and stories we love, especially one so affected by the pain and loss that Wanda has. But the other form of empathy, cognitive, is no less important here and we must analyze it to better understand and support Director Hayward’s motives. Cognitive empathy is the “ability to see another person’s perspective, but in a more logical and analytical way.” In short, it is the ability to remove emotion from an objective understanding of a situation or an individual.

See also  Halston: the 10 best quotes from the Netflix miniseries

“Last year Earth had a visitor from another planet who had a grudge showdown that swept through a small town … not only are we not alone, we are desperately, hilariously, outgunned.” -Nick Fury

Get out of our blind devotion to the characters we love and consider the realistic implications of a post-blip world if you were living in it. Since the Battle of New York in 2012, Earth and its inhabitants have come to understand that not only do alien powers exist, but they also caused widespread death and destruction in New York before being stopped by the Avengers. There is a poignant scene in the SHIELD Helicarrier where Nick Fury defends the Phase 2 weapons program by reminding our heroes of the following: “Last year, Earth had a visitor from another planet who had a grudge fight that swept through a small town … not only are we not alone, but we are hopelessly and hilariously outmatched. ” Thor goes on to basically say that Asgard just wants peace with Earth (in the style of Monica Rambeau) to which Fury replied, “But you’re not the only people out there, are you? And you’re not the only threat (like Tyler Hayward). .. “

This juxtaposition of Monica and Hayward’s conversation at E4 can be seen as the opposite of how we listen to it because we want to agree with Monica, not because we should. This is Fury and Thor’s conversation in reverse, and Fury was right.

Imagine the world before the blip with the advent of the Sokovia Accords. 117 governments of the world coming together to form an agreement and a kind of registry, of superpowered beings to put checks and balances on these heroes, some of whom could cause incalculable damage if lost and despite the trauma of Wanda and what we feel for her. , this is what we’re seeing in the folks at Westview. How many questioned our beloved Tony Stark when he manipulated Bruce into creating Ultron? Do we remember these words, “This could be Bruce, the key to creating Ultron … if we can harness this power, apply it to my Iron Legion protocol …” And how about this great analogy, “and if later you see for the aliens to come to the club, and they will, they couldn’t get past the goalkeeper. ” Most of us agreed with Tony and why shouldn’t we? Even if there were no limit to super-powerful beings, and there is in today’s reality, how do we know that they will always be able to handle the threats that come and why the governments of the world should completely abdicate the responsibility to protect the public trust for individuals? that they could go in and out of being legally good or legally bad at any time due to the myriad of things that could affect them emotionally, psychologically, physically, etc. Isn’t this human nature? Don’t we see this in our own lives?

See also  Animal law garners even more detractors and increases the risk of succumbing

“Our force itself invites challenge, challenge incites conflict, conflict breeds catastrophe … oversight is not an idea that can be immediately discarded.” -The vision

Later Avengers: Civil War, we see the emergence of the aforementioned Sokovia Accords, the first method that world governments sought to implement to mitigate and control the destruction and actions of our superheroes. During perhaps one of the best exposure scenes on any MCU property to date, we see Vision’s strongest arguments (our cognitive empath) when he states: “Our strength itself invites challenge, challenge incites conflict, conflict generates catastrophe”. Tony and Natasha also have valuable moral and ethical arguments here.

Pre-Blip, Tony’s perspective, and the Sokovia Accords were rational responses to an increasingly dangerous world. However, after the incident, these problems became more important and the level of danger with half of all life on our planet being decimated, became more dangerous. This invited an even greater response from our government.

Imagine if all of this were true. How would you feel? What would be your expectations of your world leaders, the UN, the European Union, how about your military and police personnel? What responsibility does the governor of your state have to ensure the safety of its citizens? Would you feel comfortable with a group of super powerful beings under the control of the army or the government? Would the idea of ​​a mutant cure (coming soon) or the Sentinel program be so far-fetched? We may not trust our government, but we would trust it as much as a group of superheroes that no army could face with conventional weapons if they ever changed their allegiance or motives, right?

See also  Brazilian police mount a raid on the home of Jair Bolsonaro

Look, I can agree with Steve Rogers that these agencies have agendas and that agendas change. This is true. However, as much as this is true, there is also a certain level of transparency, a system of checks and balances, protocols and laws that govern the basic expectations and behavior of our society that works within these structures and hierarchies. Are not many minds involved better than a few? If we say no, we are veering toward dictatorial socialism if power rests solely with the Avengers, the Fantastic Four, and the X-Men … in other words, a powerful few. This is contrary to the structure of our government.

For my part, I would hope, if not demand, that our government takes the defense of its citizens seriously and enacts whatever technology it can to protect us from these threats and, frankly, I think you would too, no matter what they did to do it. . .

To put it another way, imagine this. Let’s say there was an armed confrontation of a town of 3,000 people where the population of this town was taken hostage, oppressed and an even more dangerous unpredictable outcome. What would you have done? The intervention would be necessary and justified, especially if it were your loved ones. The agenda, goal, purpose, or even the backstory of the alleged oppressors would make little difference to us. Certainly, work must always be done to achieve a peaceful negotiation, but let’s not confuse the forest with the trees. This is not always possible, and if force is necessary to protect the population, we need what we need to get the job done. Remember, we are talking about super powerful beings here, not a randomly organized militia or a domestic terrorist.

There is little doubt that director Tyler Hayward is not the best of people and that his motives may even go beyond building sensitive weapons to defend us. Nonetheless, his motives, if not the ethics and righteousness of his motives or another like him, should not be immediately discounted (quoting the Vision again here), as they would likely be the actions we would expect ourselves.

Topics: WandaVision

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Movieweb.

Similar Posts

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *