It seems like one generation’s hero is another’s sullied, historical villain. I just got done reading a Wall Street Journal article discussing the sudden surge in popularity of Joseph Stalin in Russia as its people are beginning to reclaim more of its nationalistic past. Wasn’t it just a decade ago that they were finally dealing with the reality of his cold and barbaric figure? On a smaller scale it seems like our own US heroes like Jefferson, Washington, or even Lincoln see their popularity and venerability ebb and flow according to public opinion and thought.
I suppose a sign of societal maturity is when we are able to appreciate the historical myths of certain figures but also study and evaluate their complete histories, foibles and all. We can appreciate Jefferson’s contributions to early America in spite of his personal peccadillo’s. We even see these oscillations in the way that our favorite characters our portrayed on the Silver Screen.
Right now we are seeing a large increase in movie characters that are flawed, mistake prone, or even misguided. Gone are the images from yesterday of Errol Flynn who was above reproach and always acted selflessly and with the public’s best interest in mind. The world isn’t as black and white and movies reflect characters that have to deal with vague morals and complex problems. Movies as varied as X-Men and X-Files demonstrate that we like our protagonists to have faults and to actually deal with life’s rich and complex realities. But nowhere do we see this shift in preference more evident than in the latest installments of two venerable classics- Batman and James Bond.
Batman- The Dark Knight has never been well….as dark then as in the latest movie. The campy images of tights and Robin have been replaced by a man who is wrestling with the questions like “how far should civil liberties be jeopardized in order to combat evil and keep the peace.” Not that Batman has ever had the squeaky clean image that his pal up in Metropolis has, but at least he managed to consistently put the bad guys behind bars. Now his Gotham is more complex and the lines aren’t as clear as they once were. The questions and doubts that he has reveal a truly tormented character. This kind of complexity paid off and the reviews and box office receipts validate the brave change in the way that the series has been portrayed.
James Bond- The differences between the Pearce Brosnan and Daniel Craig depictions of 007 are stark and noted. Gone is the perfectly groomed, hardly a hair out of place, and pithy comment available at a moments notice Bond that we got in the 1990’s. It has been replaced by a character that shows weakness, gets dirty, and has serious character flaws. He still manages to get Her Majesty’s work done but it isn’t as seamless as the work of his predecessors. While there are still exotic women, fast cars, strange villains, and elaborate stunts they are much more grounded in reality.
I see these two characters as a microcosm of a bigger trend. Right now we don’t want our heroes to be perfect. We prefer real people who have problems dealing with the same difficult realities that we do. We still like the action but we prefer it to be more grounded in our reality.
I suppose a sign of societal maturity is when we are able to appreciate the historical myths of certain figures but also study and evaluate their complete histories, foibles and all. We can appreciate Jefferson’s contributions to early America in spite of his personal peccadillo’s. We even see these oscillations in the way that our favorite characters our portrayed on the Silver Screen.
Right now we are seeing a large increase in movie characters that are flawed, mistake prone, or even misguided. Gone are the images from yesterday of Errol Flynn who was above reproach and always acted selflessly and with the public’s best interest in mind. The world isn’t as black and white and movies reflect characters that have to deal with vague morals and complex problems. Movies as varied as X-Men and X-Files demonstrate that we like our protagonists to have faults and to actually deal with life’s rich and complex realities. But nowhere do we see this shift in preference more evident than in the latest installments of two venerable classics- Batman and James Bond.
Batman- The Dark Knight has never been well….as dark then as in the latest movie. The campy images of tights and Robin have been replaced by a man who is wrestling with the questions like “how far should civil liberties be jeopardized in order to combat evil and keep the peace.” Not that Batman has ever had the squeaky clean image that his pal up in Metropolis has, but at least he managed to consistently put the bad guys behind bars. Now his Gotham is more complex and the lines aren’t as clear as they once were. The questions and doubts that he has reveal a truly tormented character. This kind of complexity paid off and the reviews and box office receipts validate the brave change in the way that the series has been portrayed.
James Bond- The differences between the Pearce Brosnan and Daniel Craig depictions of 007 are stark and noted. Gone is the perfectly groomed, hardly a hair out of place, and pithy comment available at a moments notice Bond that we got in the 1990’s. It has been replaced by a character that shows weakness, gets dirty, and has serious character flaws. He still manages to get Her Majesty’s work done but it isn’t as seamless as the work of his predecessors. While there are still exotic women, fast cars, strange villains, and elaborate stunts they are much more grounded in reality.
I see these two characters as a microcosm of a bigger trend. Right now we don’t want our heroes to be perfect. We prefer real people who have problems dealing with the same difficult realities that we do. We still like the action but we prefer it to be more grounded in our reality.
2 comments:
Interesting thoughts...especially since I've read a dozen books this summer on the founding fathers and all their human elements but that just adds to the miraculous nature of what they did. They weren't gods...they were ordinary men with foibles but who did great work...just like Joseph Smith. Jefferson's gotten most of the heat, it seems, even though DNA evidence in 2001 and 2004 proved conclusively that he did not father any children with Sally Hemmings, although a Jefferson did (likely his brother Randolph). And, just fyi, Jefferson had no contributions to the Constitution...he was in France during 1787 (and actually didn't like the idea of a Constitution...too much like a monarchy and consolidation of power).
I like it, Jense. You're take seems spot on.
Post a Comment