The new cinematographic version of Hulk finishes with an unusual appearance of the hero of the film Ironman. For this I will begin this critic for the end. And for so much I retake the text on that other character's of Comics.


When being published my criticizes on the Ironmam it was very badly received (www.observatoriodaimprensa.com.br/artigos.asp). But one of the commentators posted something that volume the freedom of using at this time:


"Marcelo Ramos, Saint Paulo-SP - Advertising
Correspondent in 9/5/2008 to 10:00:50 AM

That grieves the "academic analyses" on the article. In an ideal universe, to talk about cinematographic language smoking a cigar and taking a whiski would be great. No that the article says something new. Makes time, in fact, a long time, that Hollywood makes propaganda. In fact, it is not exactly propaganda. If you make an independent film or with own budget, it is easy, you order in the itinerary, in the director, etc. But when enters in the area of the great productions that they involve the image of the it US, really the interests of State interfere. You here, do criticize what the article, did they know that the movies and DVD are subjects treated directly by the Department of North American State? Are the films that are "exported" of there for here for the great dealers made by "married sale". THE ONE what is that? It is bought a film THE (not of the cinematographic point of view) and it is taken 10 films C - for film understands each other propaganda pamphlets. In the US today, if you want to produce something that involves the North American image with higher budget, it is subject to the Department of State. Or else, it can enroll his/her film in Sudance, the festival of the independent ones. There you see yourself for paying. Like this, it US don't do them propaganda, they just "suggest" small adaptations to the itinerary. Cool? A classic example is the first man-spider. In the original itinerary, the final scene was not he posed in the American flag."


Hulk is one more example of as the movies it can be used for ends no necessarily artistic. But in this film the political propaganda is subtler than in the Ironman. The conflicts in the film Hulk are more varied.


The conflict that exists between the State and the citizen is expressed through the relationships between Banner and the General that it used him and it created the monster that now intends to control. Which are the limits for the State? The answer given by the film is clear: the State doesn't have limits. The body of the hero belongs to the State and the Army of the USA can pursue their objectives even in the territory of another country. To example of the film Ironman in new Hulk the sovereignty of the USA expands for every globe. In this case the art that imitates the life is or is the life that is wanting to imitate the art?


The film explores the conflict between civilization and barbarism. Banner is civilized, but the product of their experiences no. The General seems civilized, but he acts as if it was a machine to service of a barbaric State that transforms the citizens in things (his included daughter).


In Brazil the hero is pursued by the corridors of the Slum. When it arrives in the USA the character is forced to flee through the corridors of a beautiful university. It is evident that the books symbolize the civilization. The huts, for his time, represent the barbarism. Like this, it is impossible not to do two questions. In Brazil there are slums because books don't exist? In the USA they don't exist slum dweller because of the libraries?


Therefore in the beginning of the film the contained sexuality and educated of Banner it confronts the aggressive lewdness of the Brazilian that it besieges the worker in the factory. Little time later the monster that there is in Banner takes charge of giving a brutal end to the Brazilian.


The English literature is filled of examples of as the white man's bale it has been to contain and to discipline the irrationality and sexuality of the Latins, Africans and Asians. Therefore, Hulk reinforces an old literary tradition. This cliché was related by teacher Edward W. Said to the cultural imperialism, to the deliberate attempt of the people that they are considered superiors of colonizing the imaginary of the inferior races (of submitting them through the creation of comical types that the same ones are forced to consume through the cultural products that they export).


The final conflict between Hulk and his main opponent is exemplary. Display as the legitimate North Americans is good and the people of other nationalities are not.


Banner, the North American, didn't want the power that acquired and raisin the whole time trying to liberate of him. Already the soldier of Russian origin makes any thing to acquire conditions of confronting Hulk. When it gets what wants the Russian monster attacks the people indiscriminately in the streets of New York. In reason of this good young man accepts the sacrifice of freeing Hulk to defend the population.


This confrontation of nationalities suggests some questions. Because the opponent of the hero had to be exactly of Russian origin? Does the recovery of could militate of Russia worry the producing of movies of the USA to the point of them to restart the Cold War in the screens? Before answering I suggest to the reader that reads Marcelo Ramos' words that I reproduced in the beginning of this critic again.