"THE SOKOVIA ACCORDS: A NARRATIVE BLUNDER"
Three years ago, the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU), along with Marvel Films and the Disney Studios, introduced to the world the thirteenth entry of the movie franchise, "CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR". Although the movie is officially regarded as a Captain America solo film, many moviegoers and critics tend to view it as an unofficial Avengers film. The film also introduced a new story arc to the franchise called the Sokovia Accords.
In reality, the Sokovia Accords is supposed to be a cinematic version of the Marvel Comics legislative law called the Mutant Registration Act and was the main focus behind the famous 2006-2007 seven-issue story arc known as "Civil War". In this story, the U.S. government passed a Superhero Registration Act, ostensibly designed to have super powered individuals act under official regulation, somewhat akin to law enforcement. Those superheroes opposed to the act, led by Captain America, found themselves in conflict with those like Iron Man and Ms. Marvel who supported the act. Spider-Man found himself caught in the middle and the X-Men took a neutral stance.
About a decade later, the MCU released "CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR" and introduced the world to the Sokovia Accords. For a while, I had wondered why Kevin Feige had allowed this story arc to be introduced in the middle of the franchise's on-going Infinity Stones arc. Then I had stumbled across an ARTICLE in which directors Anthony and Joe Russo had claimed the plot for the third Captain America movie was changed to compete against the DCEU's 2016 movie, "BATMAN V. SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE". In this film, the U.S. government and the United Nations created the Sokovia Accords to regulate the actions of the Avengers and other enhanced beings in the wake of a deadly incident in Lagos, Nigeria; after Captain America and his team prevented a group of HYDRA terrorists from stealing biological weapons. Some of the Avengers - including Iron Man, War Machine, Black Panther and the Black Widow - supported the Accords for their own personal reasons. And some of them - the Falcon, Scarlet Witch and Captain America - refused to sign it. This schism between the Avengers, along with a bombing incident at the document's ratification in Vienna, widened the schism between the former teammates. Especially when Captain America's former best friend, Bucky Barnes aka the Winter Soldier, became the number one suspect behind the bombing.
"CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR" managed to successfully compete against "BATMAN V. SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE". The MCU proved to be more financially successful. And it managed to acquire critical acclaim from most film critics, unlike the DCEU movie, which had received a good deal of negative review. And yet . . . the movie had failed to succeed with me. I found this surprising back in 2016, considering that I was more of a MCU fan than one of the D.C. Comics franchise. At least before I saw "BATMAN V. SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE". Whereas I found myself harboring a low opinion of "CIVIL WAR", I became a fervent fan of the Zack Snyder film. And over the next three years, I have found it increasingly difficult to maintain my high opinion of the MCU. And a major factor of my burgeoning disappointment with the franchise proved to be the Sokovia Accords.
Ever since 2016, I have harbored many misgivings about the Sokovia Accords arc. My first misgiving proved to be its portrayal in "CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR". I had assumed that the document would be the main factor to divide the Avengers. Instead, screenwriters Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely included another subplot regarding the hunt for Bucky Barnes to divide the Avengers even further - especially Captain America and Iron Man - in the most contrived manner. One of the first advocates of the Sokovia Accords was King T'Chaka of Wakanda (father of the current Black Panther). Why? When the Avengers had prevented Brock Rumlow and other HYDRA operatives from stealing from that biological weapons lab in Nigeria, Scarlet Witch had used her telekinesis to divert the explosion from Rumlow's suicide bomb to another building that contained several Wakandan humanitarian workers. The problem with is scenario is that the 2018 movie, "BLACK PANTHER" made it clear that Wakanda was an isolationist country around the time of "CIVIL WAR" that did NOT involve itself in the affairs of other countries - including those on the African continent. Great. "BLACK PANTHER" managed to contradict certain plot points of "CIVIL WAR" and no one realized this. More importantly, King T'Chaka no longer had a reason to be an advocate of the Sokovia Accords. And the mistakes kept on going.
A major blooper regarding the Sokovia Accords had manifested in the 2018 movie, "ANT-MAN & THE WASP". In this film, Scott Lang aka Ant-Man found himself near the end of his house arrest, which manifested from his involvement with Captain America in "CIVIL WAR" and his violation of the Sokovia Accords. While incarcerated in the Raft (U.S. underwater prison for enhanced beings), Scott had mentioned Dr. Hank Pym, the first Ant-Man and creator of the Ant-Man suit. After being rescued from the Raft by Captain America; both Ant-Man and Clint Burton aka Hawkeye made a deal with the Federal courts and settled for two years of house arrest for violating the Accords. Both Hank Pym and his daughter Hope van Dyne became Federal fugitives because Hank had failed to register the Ant-Man suit. This proved to be problematic in so many ways. One, the Accords had not been ratified by the United Nations around the time of Scott's arrest, due to the bombing in Vienna. Two, Hank had first created the Ant-Man suit back in the 1980s and had been unaware of Scott’s use of the suit during the Avengers' battle at the airport in Berlin. After being freed by Steve, Scott had shrunken the suit and mailed it to his daughter Cassie, while declaring that it had been destroyed. If the suit was officially considered destroyed, why was Scott arrested anyway without the crucial evidence any prosecutor would need to convict him? Why were Hank and Hope declared as fugitives for failing to register a suit that officially no longer existed? Why did they become fugitives in the first place? Scott had used the Ant-Man suit without Hank's permission, something that he could or may have easily pointed out. The latter had created the suit some thirty years ago. And the Federal authorities remained unaware of Hank's creation of the Wasp suit and Hope's use of it. And she had played no role in the creation of the Ant-Man suit. Also, the writers did not need the Sokovia Accords as a reason for Scott to face conviction and house arrest. He had violated his parole when he left the United States to help Captain America, the Falcon, the Winter Soldier and others to deal with the potential threat of other HYDRA-created "Winter Soldiers".
Ever since I first saw "CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR", I found myself wondering about Thaddeus Ross' role in this story arc. By the time of the 2016 movie, he was no longer a general in the U.S. Army. He had become the new Secretary of State. It was Ross who had delivered the news of the Sokovia Accords to the Avengers. In his argument, he had pointed out the collateral damage caused - in his eyes and the eyes of others - by the Avengers. I found this idea ridiculous . . . to a certain extent. Asgardian Loki and a Chitauri army were mainly responsible for the damage inflicted upon downtown Manhattan in 2012's "THE AVENGERS". Malekith and the Dark Elves were responsible for the damage inflicted upon Greenwich, England in 2013's "THOR: THE DARK ELVES". The Royal Air Force had contributed to the damage . . . along with Thor. Obadiah Stane and his armored suit was responsible for the damage inflicted in downtown Los Angeles in 2008's "IRON MAN". As for the events in "THE AVENGERS: AGE OF ULTRON" . . . only two Avengers were responsible, Tony Stark (Iron Man) and Dr. Bruce Banner (the Hulk). They were the ones who had created the artificial intelligence (A.I.) known Ultron. The other Avengers were forced to help them clean up their mess. I noticed that no one had bothered to point this out. I also noticed that Ross had failed to bring up the Harlem battle between the Hulk and Abomination (Emil Blonsky) in 2008's "THE INCREDIBLE HULK". It seemed only natural that he would avoid the topic, considering that he played a major role in the creation of both the Hulk and Abomination. Also, the U.S. Army had managed to inflict a good deal of damage upon Harlem, while battling Abomination. I found it odd that neither Tony Stark and Natasha Romanoff, who both knew about Ross' role in the event, had said a word. Then again, I found it odd that Ross had become President Matthew Ellis's new Secretary of State in the first place. Why on earth did President Ellis select Ross to be his Secretary of State? Why did he think that a narrow-minded, uber-aggressive personality like Ross’ would be the right man for that particular position? Why did the MCU writers?
There is another aspect of the MCU's portrayal of the Sokovia Accords that I found mind boggling is that it was barely mentioned in the franchise's films between "CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR" and "THE AVENGERS: INFINITY WAR". I could understand that the document was not mentioned in films like "GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY, VOL. 2" and "THOR: RAGNAROK". Both were set on worlds other than Earth. Well, Manhattan appeared briefly in the third film, but not long enough for the topic of the Accords to be brought up. However, I found it odd that Sokovia Accords were never mentioned in films like "DOCTOR STRANGE", "SPIDER-MAN: HOMECOMING" and "BLACK PANTHER", especially since these films were set on Earth. Considering that King T'Chaka's role in the creation of the Sokovia Accords had inadvertently led to his death, I found it odd that the document was never brought up in the 2018 movie. Did Wakanda drop its advocacy of the document, considering that the new King T'Challa gave refuge to Bucky Barnes? If not, why?
Even most of the MCU television shows had failed to mention the Sokovia Accords. In fact, I can only mention one that did - "AGENTS OF S.H.I.E.L.D." - and one that vaguely referenced the document - "JESSICA JONES". Most or all of the characters in Season Four of "AGENTS OF S.H.I.E.L.D.", including then former Director Philip J. Coulson, seemed to support the document. And I found this disappointing. Coulson and his team were willing to protect Inhumans and other enhanced people from xenophobic bigots like the organization called the Watchdogs. Season Four began with Inhuman Daisy Johnson aka Quake being on the run for her vigilante activities after leaving S.H.I.E.L.D. Seven episodes later, then S.H.I.E.L.D. Director Jeffrey Mace had cleared her name of past crimes . . . after she had agreed to sign the Sokovia Accords and re-join the agency. Everyone seemed fine with that, including Coulson. I found that disturbing. Season Two of the Marvel Netflix series, "JESSICA JONES", the Raft was mentioned as a possible destination for the title character's mother, another enhanced being who was proving to be dangerous to New York City's citizens and her adoptive sister, a talk-show host-turned dangerous vigilante. And yet . . . not one character managed to express disapproval of the Accords or that damn Raft. The Marvel Netflix franchise had featured three attorneys as major characters - Matt Murdock aka Daredevil, Franklin "Foggy" Nelson and Jeri Hogarth. and not one of them had discussed the legal ramifications of the Accords.
Ironically, only one person had ended up questioning the Sokovia Accords after "CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR". That person was Colonel James "Rhodey" Rhodes, USAF aka War Machine. What I find disturbing about the Marvel Cinematic Universe is that only one person has expressed disapproval of the Sokovia Accords since "CIVIL WAR". And that was James “Rhodey” Rhodes aka War Machine in "THE AVENGERS: INFINITY WAR". Yes, he had supported the Sokovia Accords in "CIVIL WAR". I did not find that surprising, since he was an Air Force officer. But nearly two years later, he had rejected the Accords when he had refused to obey Ross' order to arrest Captain America, the Falcon, Black Widow, Scarlet Witch, Vision and the Hulk following their return to the Avengers headquarters in "THE AVENGERS: INFINITY WAR". It took six films after "CIVIL WAR" for a MCU protagonist to either express disapproval of the Sokovia Accords or refuse to adhere to it. Yet, at the same time, Rhodey never really went into details over his eventual rejection of the document.
Why? Why did it take the MCU so long to find characters others than Captain America or the Falcon to express disapproval of the Accords? Why was the MCU so reluctant explore the legal ramifications of this document, especially since the franchise had went out of its way to introduce it in the first place? As several articles, including THIS ONE, have made clear - the Sokovia Accords is a violation of a citizen's right. It is a violation of the U.S. Constitution. Period. Any attorney, civil rights activist or civil rights organization could have easily pointed this out in any of the other Phase Three movies or MCU television shows. McFeely, Markus and other screenwriters could have easily pointed the unconstitutional aspect of the Sokovia Accords in "CIVIL WAR", "AGENTS OF S.H.I.E.L.D.", "JESSICA JONES", "INFINITY WAR" or any other MCU production set on Earth. Either McFeely, Markus and these other writers were idiots or for some reason, Kevin Feige had lost interest in exploring the consequences of the Accords. Perhaps Feige simply wanted to use the Accords as a plot device to battle "BATMAN V. SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE" at the box office.
There is another aspect of the Sokovia Accords that many do not seem aware of or willing to discuss. The Sokovia Accords should not have been presented as a law in the MCU. Why? Because an accord is an agreement, not a law. Those enhanced beings who did not sign the Accord should NOT have been held accountable for using their powers, unless the latter were used for the usual crimes – robbery, burglary, kidnapping, murder, etc. Now, many would dismiss this criticism, claiming that "CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR" was a movie set in the world of comic books. Well, so were other similar documents. The Marvel Comics series, "Civil War" had the Mutant Registration Act. The document that affected enhanced beings and costumed vigilantes in Alan Moore's comic novel, "Watchmen" and Zack Snyder's 2009 movie adaptation of it was called the Keene Act. And "act" is a law. Mark Millar, Alan Moore and Zack Snyder had managed to get it right. Why had Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely failed to do so? The problem with this is that if an enhanced being does not sign this accord, agreement or treaty; then their actions should not be dictated by it. The Sokovia Accords is an agreement, not a decree or a law.
If an enhanced or non-enhanced vigilante, who did not sign the accord, practices vigilantism, then that individual should be asked to cease such activity or face imprisonment for practicing vigilantism. To me, a vigilante is like a person pursuing a criminal or going into a foreign country to find a criminal without contacting the police or government agency. Nothing more, nothing less. Which is why I find it odd that in "SPIDER-MAN: FAR FROM HOME", Spider-man aka Peter Parker was never pursued by the police for his vigilante activities. Had he signed the Sokovia Accords and agree to cooperate with law enforcement? Do the Accords still exist by this latest MCU entry? If not, why is Spider-man practicing vigilantism without law enforcement breathing down his back?
In the end, I get the feeling that Kevin Feige and the MCU seem undecided on what to do with the Sokovia Accords arc. Worse, the franchise seems incapable of utilizing this story arc with any real competency. How can it if its writers do not know the difference between an accord and a law? But the more I think about the Sokovia Accords, the more I cannot help but feel that its creation was one of the biggest mistakes made by the Marvel Cinematic Universe.
