Why should not WandaVision followers hate director Hayward so rapidly, perhaps he is proper?
It didn’t take long for that WandaVision loyal to becoming haters of director Tyler Hayward. The jury wasn’t on E4 yet, but on E5 we saw Hayward collectively as some kind of ass who was condescending, rude, and likely a future antagonist with a suspicious agenda. To this day, this theory has come full circle with bad decisions, the representation of a typical attitude of the military industrial complex in the form of an attempted assassination attempt on our favorite witch and the ex-communication of the only three agents who have so far proven to be helpful. That means nothing of his cruel, albeit strategic, behavior towards Wanda at his first meeting, as seen in the most recent flashback episode of Wandavision: Previous On. Unfortunately, our hatred of Hayward is likely to bring even more life to life in the E9 conclusion coming this Thursday.
The trauma of Elizabeth Olsen’s Wanda Maximoff has driven our emotions from the very first episode. We’ve really met her since the first time in The Avengers: Age of Ultron. If you’re a comic book history supplier we’ve seen the loosely adapted House of M story add even more suffering and break our hearts to an already struggling character, especially one we care about. And why shouldn’t it?
At this point I have to ask the fans to suspend their emotional bond here in order to really analyze the reality in the world that we are supposed to experience, if we do not see vicariously through the eyes of others, so that we can be more realistically connected to this fiction Life. That’s what storytelling is all about.
Psychologists theorize that there are three types of empathy: emotional, compassionate, and cognitive. When we think of empathy often, we tend to encourage and practice both the emotional and compassionate forms of empathy in our daily life and in our interpersonal relationships. We feel and project this kind of empathy onto the fictional characters and the stories we love, especially one who is as influenced by pain and loss as Wanda has. But the other form of empathy, cognitive, is no less important here and one that we need to look at in order to better understand and support Director Hayward’s motivations. Cognitive empathy is the ability to see another person’s perspective more logically and analytically. In short, it is the ability to remove emotion from an objective understanding of a situation or an individual.
“Last year Earth had a visitor from another planet who had a game of grudge that leveled a small town … not only are we not alone, we’re hopeless, weird, overwhelmed.” -Nick Fury
Step out of our blind devotion to the characters we love and consider the realistic implications of a post-blip world when you live in that world. Since the Battle of New York in 2012, Earth and its people have understood that not only are there extraterrestrial forces, but that they caused widespread death and destruction in New York before the Avengers stopped them. There’s a poignant scene on 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 game, the little one City has leveled … not only are we not alone, but we are hopeless, weird, overwhelmed. “Thor goes on to say that Asgard just wants peace with the earth (ala Monica Rambeau), to which Fury replied,” But you you’re not the only person out there, are you? And you’re not the only threat (ala Tyler Hayward). “
This juxtaposition of Monica and Hayward’s conversation in E4 can be seen as the opposite of how we heard it because we want to agree with Monica, not because we should. This is Fury and Thor’s conversation, but vice versa, and Fury was right.
Imagine the pre-blip world with the advent of the Sokovia Accords. 117 world governments come together to come to an agreement and sort of registration of overpowering beings to give these heroes a few checks and balances, some of which could cause immeasurable damage if they go astray and despite Wanda’s trauma and what we feel about them is what we see in Westview. How many questioned our beloved Tony Stark when he was manipulating Bruce into creating Ultron. Let’s remember these words, “This could be Bruce, the key to creating Ultron … if we can use that power, apply it to my Iron Legion protocol …” and how about this great one Analogy? “What if it goes on? If aliens came into the club and they become, they couldn’t get past the bouncer.” Most of us agreed with Tony and why shouldn’t we? Even if there were no limits to overwhelming beings and there are in current reality, how do we know they will always be able to deal with the threats to come and why should world governments take full responsibility for protecting public confidence give up people who, due to the multitude of things that could affect them emotionally, psychologically, physically, etc., can go in and out at any time to be lawfully good or lawfully bad. Isn’t that human nature? Don’t we see that in our own lives?
“Our strength invites challenges, challenges lead to conflicts, conflicts lead to disasters … Supervision is not an idea that can be dismissed immediately.” -The vision
Later in Avengers: Civil War we see the emergence of the aforementioned Sokovia Accords, the first method world governments wanted to use to mitigate and control the destruction and actions of our superheroes. During perhaps one of the best exposure scenes in an MCU property, we see the strongest arguments from the vision (our cognitive empathy) when he says, “Our strength invites challenge, challenges lead to conflict, conflict leads to disaster.” Tony and Natasha have worthy moral and ethical arguments here too.
Pre-Blip, Tony’s perspective, and the Sokovia Accords were rational responses to an increasingly dangerous world. However, after the blip, these issues became more important and the endangerment, which decimated half of all life on our planet, became more dangerous. This called for an even bigger response from our government.
Imagine if this were all true. How would you feel? What would you expect from your world leaders, the United Nations, the European Union, and your military and law enforcement personnel? What responsibility does the governor of your state have to ensure the safety of its citizens? Would you even be comfortable with a group of overpowering beings under the control of the military or the government? Would the idea of a mutant cure (coming soon) or the Sentinel program be that far-fetched? We may not trust our government, but we would trust it as much as we would trust a group of superheroes that no military with conventional weapons could withstand if they ever changed their loyalty or motives, right?
I agree with Steve Rogers that these boards have agendas and that the agendas are changing. This is true. However, where applicable, there is also a degree of transparency, a check-and-balance system, protocols and laws that govern the basic expectations and behavior of our societies that operate within these structures and hierarchies. Aren’t many minds more involved than some? If we say no, we are going for dictatorial socialism when power rests only with the Avengers, Fantastic Four, and X-Men … in other words, a few mighty ones. This is at odds with our government structure.
In any case, I would expect, if not ask, that our government take the defense of its citizens seriously and use whatever technology it could to protect us from these threats, and frankly, I think you would, too, anyway what they did to do this.
To put it another way, imagine that. Suppose there was an armed stalemate in a city of 3,000 people that took that city’s population hostage, suppressed it, and made an even more dangerous outcome unpredictable. What would you have done? Intervention would be necessary and justified, especially if your loved ones were involved. The agenda, goal, purpose, or even backstory of the potential oppressors would make little difference to us. Of course, we should always work towards peaceful negotiations, but we should not confuse the forest with the trees. This is not always possible, and when violence is required to protect the population, we need what we need to get the job done. Remember, we are talking about overpowering beings, not an arbitrarily organized militia or a domestic terrorist.
There is little doubt that director Tyler Hayward is not the best person, and that his motives can go beyond building sentient weapons to defend us. Nonetheless, his motives, if not the ethics and correctness of his or other motives like him, should not be dismissed offhand (citing the vision again here) as these would likely be the actions we ourselves would expect.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policies or position of Movieweb.