NOT-SO-SUPERHEROES

Ever since the Golem of Prague, we hunger after a superhero who can vanquish our enemies with his super-human strength and then, when we don’t need him any more, go back into his box and not bother us until we call him. Superman in his Fortress of Solitude. Batman in his Batcave. All with the secret identities that can be shed instantly to save us. We love them, all the Avengers and the X-Men, the Marvel and DC pantheon, in comic books and in the movies, with their troubles and all, as long as they can save us when we need saving. Which is most of the time.

But the non-super hero, he goes way back further than that.

What is a hero?

"In mythology and legend, a man or woman, often of divine ancestry, who is endowed with great courage and strength, celebrated for his or her bold exploits, and favored by the gods." (mythweb.com). Every culture has a version.

In everyday use, more like a person who does something dangerous to help somebody else.

Enter the Anti-hero. The Anti-hero is not a villain. He is a literary device. He is a protagonist who lacks the usual heroic qualities of courage and idealism. So he can be vengeful or mercenary or a nutter but still do good things. Or maybe not do good things. Or mean to do good things, but it’s not so clear why. Batman. Don Quixote. Inigo Montoya (from The Princess Bride, for the 2 of you out there who don’t know.) Neo (but he’s more complicated because he’s not just a slacker-turned-hero, he’s The Chosen One. That taps into a whole other Messianic thing). Most modern heroes really have a bit of the anti-hero in them, because that’s the way we like it. Complex. Dark Side etc etc. Or he’s just a regular, imperfect dude thrust into a difficult situation, kicking the villain’s ass and saving the good folks. John McClane. Han Solo. Luke Skywalker, for that matter. Rooster Cogburn.

So what is James Bond? A drinker. A womanizer. An assassin. So why do we love him? 50 years of cinematic Bond, but the Bond of Ian Fleming’s novels well pre-date even that, and we loved them too. Bond has all the hallmarks of the Anti-hero; BUT he gets the job done, vanquishes the usually extravagantly villainous villain, risking life and limb, all for Queen and Country. So he has ideals, but he is essentially a low-life. It’s all rather confusing. Of course, I love Bond, and I think Daniel Craig is the last word in Bond. I don’t miss the slightly camp Roger Moore, although I liked the rather arch Pierce Brosnan. Timothy Dalton was a bit too angsty and George Lazenby was a shtick holtz. But Sean Connery…Oh, Sean, Sean, you sexy, hairy Scot, Sean was the greatest…until Daniel Craig, who looks like a cold-eyed blond British bastard, which fits the bill nicely. And of course, great supporting actors like Judi Dench and Ralph Fiennes don’t hurt either. And Javier Bardem; superb villain, one of the best ever.

Who else is out there? Jason Bourne. Well he was a screwed-up assassin with a military background (check: patriot) who only wanted to find out who he was (check: confused) and it turned out that the bad guys were home-grown, but he does a lot of ass-kicking and saves the girl/USA. So a hero. But a really really violent one. And now there’s a ‘Legacy’ so who knows how long that franchise will go on for? Jeremy Renner is great but the action is so extreme, he’ll wear out faster.

Ethan Hunt. Before Tom Cruise, who is a nutcase megalomaniac yet manages to be appealing and very watchable on screen, the IMF (Impossible Missions Force, not International Monetary Fund, though they both undertake impossible missions) comprised a team where everybody got a chance to do heroic things in their own way, but Tom turned it into more of a one-man-band with some appendages for humorous relief. But I won’t lie, I enjoyed all of the absurdity. Yet, Hunt could in no way challenge Bond, because he is Tom Cruise now. The role can’t transcend the actor in the same way.

And now Tom thinks that he can be Jack Reacher. Lee Child’s Reacher is a true fictional hero. He hates bullies and he will always fight for the underdog, just on principle, with no thought of himself. He owns nothing but a toothbrush and wears clothes for 3 days, then discards them and buys a new set, so no laundry, no (physical) baggage.  He pays cash. He hitches rides or takes buses randomly, though lately he has been trying to get to Virginia to visit a woman to whom he has only spoken on the phone, and that’s how he meets people and gets into action as needed, helping the innocent victim, kicking the villain’s ass etc. Then he leaves, hitching the next ride. There’s an element of superhero-ness about him and his uncanny sense of time and his ability to deduce anything from zero evidence, but that’s OK. And he’s an expert marksman, and that’s cool too. And he can explode into action when it’s needed. But he is always described as an enormous man, 6’5”, ex-military cop (and they are always big and imposing so as to break up fights and stuff just by showing up), ex-Special Investigations Unit, big hands, hulking figure, gorilla-like etc. So Tom, what are you thinking? With respect, dude, you are what, 5’7”? 130lbs maybe, in a wet overcoat? Sure, you have the moves, but…I’ll have to go see. He’ll probably just be Tom Cruise. I’ll probably like it anyway.

So we like our heroes to be heroic and we forgive them their imperfections. And then we close the book or leave the cinema or put the Golem back in the box and go on our way. Until the next outing.

Bond. James Bond. Long may he live to vanquish those who threaten Her Majesty and the Free World.