The Economist blogger Prospero, while discussing the new Wolverine film, has some interesting thoughts on larger trends within the world of action heroes, including Bond. Excerpts follow:
At the beginning of Hugh Jackman’s latest excuse to show off his abdominal muscles, “The Wolverine”, the eponymous superhero isn’t a superhero at all. He’s a hermit, living in the mountains, sporting the shaggy beard and hair of a Grateful Dead roadie. But soon Wolverine is back in action and making mincemeat of his enemies once again. It’s hardly a shocking twist. A film about a recluse probably wouldn't get a summer release. And James Bond and Batman went through a rather similar bout of heroism fatigue last year in “Skyfall” and “The Dark Knight Rises” respectively.
Indeed, it seems that nearly all films about secret agents and superheroes can now be divided into two categories: they are either “Getting into the Game” or “Getting Back into the Game”. Films in the first category examine how a young man (it never seems to be a woman) commits himself to his villain-bashing vocation, a process that invariably involves suffering a personal trauma, developing his weaponry and/or superpowers and acquiring his trademark costume. Recent examples are “Casino Royale”, “Batman Begins”, “Man Of Steel”, “Iron Man”, “Spider-Man”, “The Amazing Spider-Man”, and every other franchise-starter with “Man” in the title.
The second category features films in which the hero has abandoned crime-fighting (eg, “The Wolverine”). Usually, he’ll signify his retirement by letting his hair get scruffy, and he may well throw his costume in the nearest dustbin. In fact, it always turns out to be a sabbatical, rather than a retirement. Before long, the hero has cut his hair, had a shave, and resumed active service. “Superman Returns”, “Spider-Man 2” and “Rambo” are all about “Getting Back into the Game”. [So is Skyfall!]
This second category can also be supplemented by a denouement we’ll call “Getting Out of the Game”, wherein the hero announces in the film’s closing minutes that his do-gooding days are over once and for all (“Iron Man 3”, “Rambo”). What this means, of course, is that the next instalment can have him “Getting Back into the Game” all over again.
I suppose we shouldn’t be surprised to see Hollywood screenwriters leaning so heavily on formulae, especially formulae that have such a solid narrative arc. But aside from the laziness and the predictability of “Getting into the Game” and “Getting Back into the Game” films, their drawback is that the plot—the villain’s scheme, and how to foil it—is pushed into the margins. The hero is too busy learning his trade or having an existential crisis to get on with the job.
Films haven’t always relied on these two blueprints. If we think back to less neurotic, less navel-gazing decades, we might recall that in the very first 007 movie, “Dr No”, James Bond had already been in the espionage business for years. M was already fed up with his flirting with Miss Moneypenny, and there was no suggestion that Bond might give up and have a sulk halfway through. He had a mission to accomplish, so he went out and accomplished it. It is easy to feel wistful for the days when heroes would just get on with it.
What do think dear readers? Is this a genuine trend?
