What does it mean to be a superhero?
As those of us in the nerd community eagerly look forward to
Captain America: Civil War, I thought
this might be a good time to examine what a superhero is, particularly in
film. We, as viewers, come to each
new action-packed, superhero thriller with certain expectations about how the
characters can and should behave.
When these expectations are disappointed (as was the case with Man
of Steel), we are nonplussed. When these expectations are met, we are
satisfied the film, and when our expectations are deliberately confounded, we
are pleasantly (or unpleasantly) surprised (more on this later). In each situation, our expectations
tailor our response to what we see.
A clearer understanding of what we expect in a superhero movie can help
the thoughtful viewer understand why they may like a certain film or character,
why they react negatively toward another, or indifferently toward a third.
So what makes a superhero super?
A superhero, as the name implies, is a hero with some
ability beyond that of an everyday person. Whether this ability is the result of tech, training,
powers, or magic is irrelevant for this discussion; every superhero possesses
some attribute that enables him/her to deal with situations beyond the scope of
normal, human capability. It is
this capability that makes the character entertaining; because the character
possesses capability beyond that of a normal person, he also is placed in
situations outside the realm of current human experience. No one sitting in a movie theater will
know what it is like to fly autonomously or read another person’s mind. Very few will have ever killed another
human being, and most will not have been in a life or death fight. Superhero movies entertain us with
impossible or improbable possibilities; what might it look like if an alien
army came through a wormhole over New York City and did battle with a small
gang of super powered people? What
would happen if people could create fire or ice out of their bodies, or manipulate
metal from a distance? The “super”
part of the superhero is the creation of large scale spectacle, in which the
stakes are impossibly high and the characters must use all their vast resources
to the delight of the audience.
It is the second part of the word “superhero,” however, that
concerns us today. While the
powers of the characters provide entertaining spectacle, it is the “hero” part
that makes them interesting, compelling, or likable. Where a character fits in relation to the word “hero” will
determine whether they meet, disappoint, or defy audience expectation.
Well then, what is a hero?
A hero is someone who acts in a
beneficial way toward a person or group of people. This is a very vague definition, I know, but as we look at
the wide variety of characters in the superhero world, it is hard to pin down a
more detailed explanation. Within
this definition, we can create three more categories of hero, which will
further delineate our approach to a specific superhero. Heroes tend to either be heroic
because: 1) they embody and/or obey a specific moral code of conduct, 2) they
defy and/or oppose immoral conduct, or 3) they preserve and/or protect a
specific person/cause the audience has been taught to identify with. All three of these fall on a scale of
heroism, from 1 as the “best” idealized hero to 3, which tends to grey
characters into antiheroes. Here
is an example of what the scale might look like
\ \ \
1) Ideal heroes 2)
Dark heroes 3)
Antiheroes
Superman Batman Deadpool
Ideal heroes and what they stand for
Ideal heroes are defined by a moral code or compass. These are the characters that are “too
good to be true,” the characters who always make the right decision (if not the
correct one), who view the world in terms of good and evil, and who can
unequivocally be called “the good guy” in a story. Ideal heroes play best against simpler villains; “bad guys”
whose motivations are always selfish, wicked, and dangerous. The main conflict for these characters
comes when the hero is forced to choose between two goods… the most common
example of this trope would be the common, “save the bus full of children or
save your girlfriend… you can’t do both.”
A variation on this type of conflict would have the hero do something he
finds morally reprehensible for the greater good (Superman killing Zod to save
a family). The tension is built
through the character’s struggle to remain true to his moral code in a world
that presents no truly “good” options.
The dilemma is resolved either when the hero finds a way to accomplish
both goods simultaneously (Spiderman catches both the bus of kids and Mary Jane
as they fall to their deaths), or when the hero chooses to sacrifice his
personal interests for the greater good (Superman can either stop the missiles
or save Lois Lane, and he chooses to save the world). We, as the viewers take satisfaction from watching ideal
heroes because they present a picture of the world as we wish it could be… a
place in which morality provides stability, where good triumphs over evil
(although sometimes at great cost), and choosing to do the right thing is
rewarded.
Dark heroes and what they stand against
Dark heroes are defined by the cause for which they
fight. They are not driven by an
idealized moral code, but instead tend to be reactionary. Dark heroes fight “to save to city” or
to “clean up the streets,” and it is always a fight. While Superman’s heroics can include rescuing damsels in
runaway cars or flying up to get a cat out of a tree, Batman will always be
limited to punching mob bosses, sneaking into criminal lairs, and putting the
pieces together to uncover the next terrifying plan some villain has for
Gotham. These villains too, are
different from those of the ideal hero.
Where the purpose of a “bad guy” is to show how different he is from the
“good guy,” the purpose of a good “villain” is to point out how similar he is
to the “hero.” Thus, the
antagonists for a dark hero are the complicated villains, villains whose
motivations are so closely aligned to the hero’s that the hero is forced to
question his own actions and reasoning.
What is the moral difference between Batman fighting as a vigilante to
tear down crime in Gotham and Raz Al Ghoul’s plan to tear down Gotham so as to
save the city from itself? The
character is forced by the villains to confront his own motivations, a
confrontation that is only resolved when the hero takes a moral stand and
states definitively… this is the line I will not cross, even to defeat you (For
Batman, this line means he chooses not to kill his opponents in cold
blood). The dark hero is
interesting because the grey morality of the characters forces the viewer to
re-evaluate their own moral decisions; to question why they support the
characters on their quest and to examine the relative nature of those choices.
Anti-heroes, and who they stand for
Anti-heroes do not fight because it is the right thing to
do, nor do they fight against an imminent dangerous threat. An anti-hero fights because it is convenient/necessary
for him to do so. He fights for
unilaterally selfish reasons; self preservation, the preservation of a friend
or lover, or revenge. While a
viewer admires an ideal hero because of his strength of character and is
intrigued by the moral complexity of the dark hero, the anti-hero is loved for
the sheer force of his personality.
We sympathize with these characters, not because we admire them, but
because we like them; when they blur the lines between what is right and wrong,
we justify their actions because we want them to succeed (we cheer for
Deadpool, not because we believe it is right for him to get revenge on Ajax,
but because it is so much fun to watch him do so). Most villain types can play opposite an anti-hero
successfully; as long as the bad guy is a worse option than the anti-hero the
viewer can feel justified in cheering for him. It is not his relationship with the villain that provides
conflict for the character, however, it is the anti-hero’s relationship with
the (real or implied) hero. The
actions of the anti-hero must always be held in tension with the ideal heroic,
and the audience must be able to differentiate between the two. Deadpool’s disregard for the sanctity
of human life is only interesting when placed in opposition to Colossus’
straight laced morality. It is
only funny that Deadpool swears when we know that Superman (the epitome of an
ideal hero) does not. We are
fascinated by the anti-hero because he is able to break the rules, but for that
rebellion to be interesting we have to first know and value the ideals of the
hero.
So what?
When we come into a film, our expectations are determined by
the type of hero we think we will see.
Our disappointment with such a superhero film comes when the script,
direction, or acting fails to produce the type of heroic conflict we anticipate
seeing.
This was the case in Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice. Most
people who went to see the movie approved of the representation of Batman. While the character was a bit darker than
most versions we have seen on screen, it was faithful to the spirit of the
hero: a dark hero who stands against
what he perceives as a pervasive evil, using questionable methods to do
so. But the portrayal of Superman
completely misses the mark. In trying
to make the character “darker and more realistic,” BvS obliterated who Superman is. Superman is an ideal hero. He stands out in his own world and in
ours as an unreachable ideal, a man who is super, not just because of his
powers, but because of his inimitable moral character. The Man of Steel of BvS was not Super.
Over and over again, his position as an ideal hero is undercut, as
Superman chooses selfish choices over the morally right ones. Given the choice between saving the
life of Lois Lane (numerous times), and saving the world, Superman chose
Lois. This is not the action of an
ideal hero; to rush off in the middle of a battle against an unstoppable
monster to rescue his girlfriend.
He chooses to fight against Batman, knowing it is all a set up from Lex
Luthor for nefarious purposes, in order to save the life of his mother. While the choice should be hard,
ultimately, an ideal hero chooses the greater good over his own happiness, and
Superman is never shown to do this in BvS, and it destroys the character.
Which brings me to the other big superhero versus of the
year; Captain America: Civil War. Trailers are out, nerds are whispering,
and sides are being chosen. Do you
support Iron Man, and the hero registration act, or do you stand with Captain
America’s opposition? I took an
unofficial poll to see how people viewed the upcoming movie, and where the
majority opinion lay. Those who
read the comics tended to side one way or the other on an ideological basis;
they know the philosophical debate that sparked Civil War; the tension between liberty and personal safety,
the the role government plays in the dichotomy. But for those who have no prior knowledge of the issues
behind Civil War, there is a very
interesting trend. In the trailers
for the film, Captain America is portrayed as an anti-hero; a man who is
prioritizing his personal well being (in this case, the safety of his friend
Bucky) over the potential greater good.
If this is the case, the audience should be expecting to see Tony Stark,
as Iron Man fill the role of the heroic antagonist- he would be the moral ideal
against which Captain America is judged… and this is the problem with the Civil
War trailers. Of the individuals I
polled who had not read the comics, the vast majority expressed allegiance to
Captain America, for a very simple reason. Captain America has been the moral heart, the ideal hero of
the Avengers; his character is impeccable, his motivations startlingly pure. He is an old fashioned hero out of
place in the modern world. In
contrast, Tony Stark veers up and down the hero heroic scale like like a new
driver after way to many drinks; sometimes he is a dark hero, sometimes an
anti-hero, every once in a while he acts almost ideally heroic, but then he
sways back to the dark hero persona.
Because the audience knows these characters so well after so many films,
they trust that Captain America is choosing this battle, not for selfish
reasons which would be out of keeping with his character, but because it is
ultimately the morally right position to take, whereas Tony Stark may have
chosen his side for good reasons, but those reasons are a bit questionable
compared to Cap’s stark morality.
Without knowing the whole story, or the foundational material in the
comics, most individuals I talk to say they are on Cap’s side because “Cap will
obviously be doing the right thing.”
So what does this mean for the movie? If the filmmakers were wise, it means
that the portrayal of Captain America in the trailers is, at best, incomplete,
and at worst, a gross misrepresentation of his actual position in the
film. This movie should not be
about Cap’s relationship with Bucky Barnes; that is too small an issue for Cap
to go to war over. Cap is a
soldier, Cap knows war, and its deadly cost, and the man we have grown to know
and love over four films would not risk that merely for friendship. Similarly, Tony Stark is not known for
his good decision making skills. Every villain he has fought in his solo movies
has been a villain of his own creation, as was Ultron. He has a tendency to fail to see the
consequences for his actions, and to act rashly, out of potentially idealistic
motives, but with dire results.
Thus, it would be more consistent with both characters that Iron Man be
the anti-hero to Captain America’s ideal.
If the filmmakers decided to go the direction the trailers indicated,
there will be a great deal of dissatisfaction with this movie, because it will
destroy the fundamental natures of both Iron Man, and more significantly, of Captain
America as they have been portrayed so far in the MCU. Now this does not necessarily have to
be a bad thing for the characters; ideal heroes have fallen before, and
anti-heroes have transformed into ideals, but it will have to be done very
carefully in order to make it believable. We, the uninformed audience, will not simply believe that
Captain America is choosing to start a war to protect his best friend. We will not believe that Tony Stark is
right simply because he (potentially) wins at the end. What force, what change is strong
enough to destroy the moral center of the Avengers? What vision, what faith can force Tony (righteously) into
war against the man who has been the heart of his team? Whatever direction Captain America:
Civil War takes, it will be fascinating to
see how these heroes continue to develop long the spectrum of superheroism.
Well, back to reality!
