Is the Hero dead?: Heroes in an a post cynic age

 

-R.A the Rugged 'A Philosophy'

    As a lay historian I cannot exactly put a finger on the definitive moment in time that began the age of the of the cynic. Perhaps, it was some time between the death of the nineties and the rise of the naughts. However, somewhere along the way there was a rejection of shiny heroes. Instead pushing for darker, grittier, deconstructed, and more often faulted heroes. An almost counter culture like scenario where instead of mocking going to work in a cubicle and buying into 'the dream', they instead rallied around the idea of not buying into traditional heroes and mocking the idea as immature or unsophisticated. As if to say there is no way that anyone can be good. Yet, I wonder if this new found 'maturity' has not come at a cost, and if we have gone too far. Have we trained ourselves into a landscape where sarcasm and cynicism are the norms we accept. I want to make it clear. I am not against characters having faults, infact I will address this directly in this post. What I am thoroughly against the concept that there can be no hopeful, traditional, or 'shiny' heroes. 

Is this where we live?

    

    A hero in essence is simply someone that helps others in no small part due to a moral code. They exist in our stories to inspire the audience, and to celebrate the virtues that are supposed to be an example to others. To delve into my old university days we have the story from ancient Rome of Horatius on the Bridge. The basics are that during an assault against Rome a soldier held off a narrow bridge against a larger force, before throwing himself into the river to escape. Now historical arguments aside the idea is that this individual was a hero because they selflessly put themselves between what they care about and the threat to it. Heroes are meant to embody the best aspects of ourselves, the ideals we all aspire to. 

    Fast forward to 1938 we see the arrival or a new breed of hero. Superman. The character is every part the idealised version of the 1930s American hero. A champion of truth, justice and the American way. Superman was depicted in such a way that he was an incorruptible symbol of heroism. Saving those that needed him, not looking for reward. It is worth noting that his famous motto was changed in recent years to 'Truth, Justice, and a better Tomorrow'. Again this can be seen as a change in the wider culture changing the heroes within it. Something that Superman has faced in his past already with previous editors of Superman worried his more conservative views would clash with more politically left readers during periods such as Vietnam, and the civil rights movement. Despite this he is essentially still the same heroic figure doing the right thing and maintaining those virtues. He can still be seen as a hero and surviving the push towards the cynical. Yet he serves as an example of heroes being reformed to fit into the changing world around them. He remains a far cry from other DC heroes such as Batman. Meanwhile not all heroes would stay so close to their original character as the changes continued. 

    Many new takes wanted to change characters outside of what audiences 'expected'. These changes were in part in line with the on going shifts in creators and society. However, there seems to have also had a trend evolve that the best thing that a creator can do is to take a character or IP, and change is to contradict any expectations the audience may have. Even if this sacrifices the established heroes to do so. In 2016 Captain America, the well known star spangled patriotic hero, would see a new vision from the writer Nick Spencer. Spencer would take Cap down a new path which is now infamously immortalised in the 'Hail Hydra' panel. As Alyssa Edwards of Screen Rant wrote "just when it seems the long awaited return of Captain America would ignite a positive comeback, the ending shows an unrecognisable Captain America". Fans have a clear idea in their mind of who Captain America is, what he values, and what he in turn exemplifies. So saying Hail Hydra whilst tossing someone from a plane was a fairly radical departure from this image. 

    

Well that was certainly unexpected wasn't it?

    Perhaps the most disappointing in the recent list of rewritten list of heroes is that iconic beacon of hope from a galaxy far far away. Luke Skywalker. The Tatooine moisture farmer that would eventually become the unshakable Jedi master that generations would look up to. We leave him at the end of Return of the Jedi having redeemed his Father, defeated the Emperor, and mastered his own path. The extended universe aside this character was a shining light of classic heroes journey cinema.  In 2017 we are reunited with this beloved character and the first thing he does is throw his lightsaber away, in what could be argued is a symbolic gesture of the new writers throwing away Luke's character and established history. 

    I found myself asking what the hell happened here? How did they take one of the most beloved characters from science fiction, one of the paragons of hope, someone who put his life on the line in the belief that his father was not beyond saving, and turn him into a hermit that tried to kill his own relative over a bad dream? As Mark Hamill said in interviews 'maybe he's Jake Skywalker he's not my Luke Skywalker'. However, established lore, and previous films were thrown out and hobowalker became the new Luke for a generation of new viewers. Compare this to how we are presented with Obi-Wan in A New Hope, a Jedi who has failed and ultimately doomed the galaxy to the tyranny of Empire and yet does he wallow in it? No he has to try and fix things. Because even Hamill would tell you this is what a Jedi would do. But, Hobowalker has seacows to milk and beatings to take from the new generation of Jedi. Even Yoda shows up to give Luke a slap up the back of the head and tell him to train the next generation in the form of Rey. There is more than enough digital ink spilled in analysis of Rey so I will not enter into it here. Suffice to say watching her explode into even more powerful force user independent of training and beat Luke up with a stick was less than heroic. If you are confused don't worry you are not alone because even now five years later the film's creator is as well. Because despite all of the backlash, criticism from fans and Hamill himself, and the countless hours of deconstruction Rian Johnson is 'still proud' of the film. More interesting is how he describes his actions and story telling stating "The ultimate intent was not to strip away – the intent was to get to the basic, fundamental power of myth. And ultimately, I hope the film is an affirmation of the power of the myth of Star Wars in our lives". I would argue it is pretty hard to line that up with what was done to Luke. Johnson stated that what he did was about "getting to something essential that really matters". Okie dokie then so we lost the hero of the rebellion, the man whose unswerving optimism gave him the courage to be lightning fried in the hope he could redeem his father, and whose idealism was meant to be truly inspirational so we could have Rian Johnson's view of what really mattered.  

 

mmm tastes like disappointment

    Try to understand I am not just lusting for the wide eyed days of yesteryear. What I am trying to understand is why. Why is there this aversion to shiny heroes. I am not even going to go into the rabbit hole of MCU and its offshoots that are equally riddled with taking apart heroes so badly that Thor now has a trilogy of films where he is 'finding himself'. Why do we need to do it? Why is it seemingly impossible to have good shiny heroes in popular culture today? Even in the very first episode of the Rings of Power(which by the way is a perfectly bang average show), Galadriel is leading her soldiers through a blizzard and when one falls she instinctively says we push on without a second thought. She is possessed by her need for vengeance, and nothing else matters. Compare that to the 2001 Fellowship of the Ring. Gandalf is pushing the party on but listens to reason and abandons the mountain pass, whilst Boromir and Aragorn carry the hobbits. There is not leave anyone behind attitude happening here. Heroes are meant to serve a purpose. To be both inspirational, and aspirational, for those that look upon them. In our attempts to humanise them, deconstruct them,  and make them more realistic I think we have lost sight of this. 

    Yet even as we see some many heroes fall, there are still glimmers of hope that we can happily look back to as we continue forward. I need only enjoy that we are in the 20th anniversary of the Peter Jackson Lord of the Rings trilogy, with this year being the anniversary of the Two Towers film. The trilogy has one of my favourite heroes from literature. Aragorn son of Arathorn. The ranger that would be king. I am glad to still have some heroes that have not been given a modern treatment. I am a father myself, and as we pass Father's day I am always reflective. I find myself wondering about the influences I had growing up. Beyond having a father myself that would match Aragorn's code of honour. I was also raised on a bevy of shiny heroes to look up. Aragorn was certainly high amongst them. Alongside the aforementioned Skywalker. 

    I look to my son and even though he is only two years old I find myself gathering a list of viewing and reading material that I can pass onto him. My Mum even got him his own copy of 'The Hobbit' so that he can have the same experience I had as a kid. I want him to be able to enjoy an age of shiny heroes. Life is too long and hard a place to not have a few shiny heroes left to look up to.