I missed the discussion on the Batman piece earlier this week but I really enjoyed reading the article. I've never really thought about it that much but I definitely would be a lot more uncomfortable with Batman in real life, and I think it has to do with the sort of shades of gray/different perspectives that reality brings. In superhero stories, the villain is very clearly the villain -- even in more recent storylines where they add some more nuance to the big bad, they're still definitely bad. There might be storylines that are different, but I can't think of any right now (if you can please comment!). Still, though, even if there are exceptions, they're pretty rare, because they make viewers uncomfortable. It's nice to know that this is what Batman is supposed to do, this guy is supposed to be killed/defeated and the world will definitely be a better place for it. The thing that happens with a lot of news stories is that in many cases it's hard to exactly tell who's good or not, and really there aren't a lot of people who are properly good or bad -- if someone robs a bank or something that doesn't mean they're evil.
We talked about this a bit on the second day of class but another difference between superheroes and the reality is that, like with Goetz, actual people tend to be much more complex than the typical superhero (and if the superhero does have flaws, they're generally picked so that the superhero remains sympathetic, whereas real life isn't always so neat). Just as it's hard to easily slot someone into the "villain" category, it's equally as difficult to put them in the "hero" category, because different facts will come to life or there will be different interpretations. The simple act may be heroic, but even if it's straight-up heroic (instead of more complicated like with Goetz) it's still hard to separate the act from the more morally ambiguous person.
I do think that people are starting to explore these subtleties a little more -- the anti-hero is something that's a little different but along the same lines -- something that I thought was interesting with a series like Breaking Bad was that a lot of people (especially in the earlier seasons) really tried to justify Walt's behavior and viewed him as something of a hero (you can see this in the vicious backlash towards Skyler, who was viewed as standing in Walt's way). Even in a show like Breaking Bad where there aren't really any "heroes" people are still looking for one, trying to flatten the issues to something less uncomfortable.
I really like your last sentence -- it has never occurred to me that people consider the standard model of heroism as something safe to consume, and that the reason it is so popular is because it's so safe...yet of course, that's exactly the case. I feel as though when I approach new ideas through a lens of moral relativism, I often find out things about myself that I don't necessarily want to accept. That's also a potential problem with consuming the standard hero narrative: it can become that much harder for me to accept flaws in myself and in other people.
ReplyDeleteIn response to your earlier question: I don't think this is exactly what you were looking for, but I do like the trend of the Jerk with a Heart of Gold trope that seems to show up more and more frequently in media. Characters who fulfill this trope can seem absolutely incorrigible, but through various circumstances, it becomes clear that these people can in fact be considered heroes. Like I said, I'm not sure if this was exactly what you were looking for: I see this trend frequently in (arguably) less serious genres like comedy, so it's unclear how these characters would be perceived when presented in a more grave tone.
I like how you explained how it's hard to characterize people as superheroes today, because people aren't as cut and clean as they are in the movies. One sort of superhero movie, whose characters are not as easily characterized as "heroes" and "villains" would be the Transformer movies. We do know that the Autobots are the heroes and the decepticons are the villains, but what about when you look at the 4th Transformers movie. In it, the government plays a big role in being the enemy of the Autobots. It begs the question if you would consider the government a true "villain" of a story. This question could also be used to help justify the actions of Batman as well. We believe, that since Batman isn't following the laws and regulations that our government has enforced, we think it's wrong. But what if our government could also be seen as villainous. Does that make Batman's actions of hurting/ killing people justified? It really messes with your moral compass.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with what you said about heroes in real life, especially when you talked about Batman. The Joker or the Green Goblin or whatever supervillain you want to use as an example is always trying to be evil on purpose and there's no reason to be sympathetic with them. In real life it's a matter of perspective; your view of good and bad depends on where you're standing. There are a lot more nuances because people are really a lot more complex than they are in comic books.
ReplyDeleteI agree that people create heroes even when there aren't obvious ones in a story or even in real life. Stories can make anyone into a hero even if they have committed what we would consider terrible acts by portraying the "hero" as sympathetic. Humans seem to have an amazing capacity to sympathize even with criminals if they are portrayed in the right way. In Race, Class, Gender we watched Birth of a Nation, and because of the skill of the director, the white family who was involved in the Klu Klux Klan was very easy to sympathize with, even though we know now that the KKK and the people who supported it were not heroes. But in Birth of a Nation they are heroes. People like to create heroes even if that means ignoring important parts of a story, because it is easier for them to view the world through that lens that to see it as it is.
ReplyDeleteI am actually in the same Race, Class, Gender class as Mary and was thinking the same thing about the way the KKK was portrayed as the heroes and protectors in Birth of a Nation while reading this.
ReplyDeleteThe Breaking Bad example is especially interesting, I think, as the creators of the show really worked to move Walt away from that heroic/self-sacrificing model. It was easier to accept an "ends justify the means" rationale when he was raising money to support his family and to pay for his cancer treatment. But once his cancer is in remission, and the money piles up beyond any rational need, Walt moves further from hero territory, even in his own mind (he starts to embrace the image of himself as a villain, "the one who knocks," etc.). But audiences still were drawn to his story, and as you say, his long-suffering wife (who makes some sketchy decisions of her own) bears the blame. This is maybe partly just old-fashioned sexism among audiences, but maybe it's also simply a desire for the show to keep going. We don't need to approve of what Walt's doing to enjoy watching him do it, and thus we don't want him to get caught. Hank, too, becomes more and more sympathetic (objectively speaking) as the show goes on, and he could definitely be seen as obsessively heroic in his efforts to take down "Heisenberg." He even gives his up life to the effort. But to the end, audiences are generally hating Hank, wanting Walt to win out. It's not entirely rational, and it nicely fits Klosterman's idea that we deal with this stuff differently in a fictional context.
ReplyDelete