I have a lot I want to talk about, but I figured this is a good topic to get my blogged started with again.
The other night after a nice relaxing day I found my brother, my dad, and myself sitting outside in the evening drinking and smoking cigars. (A usual tradition for us.) Now I'm not a scotch drinker, I prefer a gin and tonic or a beer... but my dad and brother enjoy their scotch. Well after a couple of drinks and a while of sitting and shooting the breeze and solving the worlds problems, as dad says, I found myself in a disagreement with my brother about what distinguishes a Superhero from a Hero. This argument stemmed from a long debate over which Indiana Jones film was the worse of the two, Temple of Doom or Crystal Skull. (I feel Crystal Skull is the worst, but he claims Temple of Doom. This is a debate to settle another day.)
But this new debate over what defines a Superhero sprung up around the time my brother decided to declare Indiana Jones a superhero... where I quickly disputed he was only a hero, not a super one.
Now hear my out... because my argument goes well beyond just the literary definition of what a hero and superhero is. (but for clarity sake I'll post the definition of them.)
(These according to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary)
A Hero:
1 a : a mythological or legendary figure often of divine descent endowed with great strength or ability b : an illustrious warrior c : a man admired for his achievements and noble qualities d : one that shows great courage
2 a : the principal male character in a literary or dramatic work b : the central figure in an event, period, or movement
2 a : the principal male character in a literary or dramatic work b : the central figure in an event, period, or movement
A Superhero:
: a fictional hero having extraordinary or superhuman powers; also : an exceptionally skillful or successful person
So there that is... but that's not a real good determination of which is which when it comes to specific character in a film/book/show/comic/etc. That's because these definitions leave room for personal interpretation.
The argument went beyond just Indiana Jones though... and he went on to declare John Wayne a superhero. (Not him specifically, but the characters he played.) It was at this moment that I finally saw the extent of the effects scotch has on my big brother. Because I could not believe what I was hearing... he was essentially saying that there is NO difference between a superhero and a hero at all! I'm not a comic book nerd, but even I thought this idea crazy. I think I understand the angle he was trying to approach with, but it doesn't change the fact that I think him wrong.
To me a superhero is a person that may or may not have powers beyond that of any run of the mill person, but it's not just the physical (or mental) capability of this person that defines them as a superhero, it's the environment and the villains they face.
Example:
(Obvious) Superman. Invincible to everything but Kryptonite. Which is his one weakness, known by only a few... most of whom are his enemies. Lex Luther being one of the biggest recurring villains (or at least most known)
My point is this here, Lex Luther is an obstacle that only Superman can over come, no one else is able to stop him without Superman's help. But Lex Luther almost always poses a danger to Superman, because he is always prepared with kryptonite. Plus the fact that there are multiple villains that only Superman can defeat, adds to his superhero status... what does Indiana Jones have to battle... Nazis? (and yes... the Soviets in Crystal Skull....but let's face it, they were the same exact thing as the Nazi's, just different language and uniforms.) My point in saying that is the fact that the opponents for Indiana Jones doesn't change... same people, same problems, different time period. This makes him a HERO, because he is constantly battling the same evils... he's a kick ass hero too, don't get me wrong... I'm not trying to downplay Indiana, but what I'm trying to prove is he is not a SUPERHERO. He's had 4 movies... so 4 adventures (I'm not counting the Young Indiana Jones TV series) A Superhero has many many adventures, where they encounter many different obstacles.
Example 2:
Batman. I use Bruce Wayne here because he's a super hero that doesn't have powers, just the resources to have crime fighting material. But he's still a SUPER HERO, because he has numerous villains to fight over many different adventures. Many of these villains have different problems, many of them being slightly irregular human abilities, others are just crazy... but Batman has to overcome great obstacles constantly to defeat the evil before him. Known examples of them... The Joker, Killer Croc, Two-Face, Penguin, Mr. Ice, Scarecrow, Catwoman, Riddler... the list goes on and on. My point here? He can't do the same thing to defeat each one... he has to adapt.
Indiana Jones has the same route to defeat his enemies... find what they are looking for first.
Example 3:
Let's look at the Incredible Hulk. Because he's different then most superheroes... his biggest enemy is himself, he can't control his power sometimes which usually ends in mass destruction and danger those he loves. But he has to overcome himself in order to control it and defeat whatever evil is attacking. So he had to fight two battles... an internal and external. This puts him in the superhero arena because this is something almost anyone would normally not be able to do... he overcomes both, whereas the regular joe smoe might win one, but lose the other.
Indiana Jones kind of just kills Nazis.... which I already said.
This is what a hero is to me...
A normal person, who against the odds, rises up to protect and defend. Nothing more... Nothing less.
There are all different types of heroes (and note that almost any story has a hero... that doesn't mean they are a superhero.)
Bruce Willis in the Die Hard films... a hero, not a superhero. He's a guy that was just always in the wrong place at the wrong time. He didn't go out and find evil and fight it, even at the risk of his own life. Though by the end of each film, he was willing to sacrifice himself...but this was his character arch... not a trait that he began with. (Most Superheroes will fight and won't stop until evil is defeated, even if the know they may die fighting.) John McClain (Willis's character in Die Hard) fought to save himself and someone he loved or left in his protection.... he took extreme lengths sometimes to make sure this happened. He didn't wanna die... I don't blame him, who does?
My brother tried to say that in Die Hard 4, when McClain "killed a helicopter with a car" that he proved he was a super hero in that moment... and I said nay. He proved he was still a badass hero, that could still kick ass and take names... not different than Indiana Jones surviving a nuclear explosion by hiding in a refrigerator (wait... what?) or Rocky Balboa having to withstand the worst beating of his life but staying on his feet to not lose by knockout... or Admiral Adama having to send one of his last two remaining battleships into an enemy ship to save the fleet.... or Aragon charging with the king onto the main gate to hold the orcs off just a little bit longer to give Gandolf a few more moments to reach them with help.
My point is.... Heroes will do amazing feets that the other man in the room would never attempt... but it doesn't compare to Superman turning back time... or Spiderman saving the falling Mary Jane and a falling tow car full of people both at the same time, while still fighting off the Green Goblin... or Batman fighting the Mob and proving to Joker that people aren't as scared of as he thinks they are (which is really awesome, because when you think about it.. most people in Gotham end up making the right choice to save themselves with nothing but Batman's trust and belief in their good natured souls... because Batman can't save EVERYONE, he relies on them to help themselves. Which is how he defeats Joker in the Dark Knight! Amazing [I love you Chris Nolan])
So I hope I've made my point there.
One other thing my brother tried to make a point of that I felt should be discussed is the idea of alter egos. He said Indiana Jones was an artifact saving/nazi fighting person with an alter ego as a school professor... but he doesn't use his professor status to hide his true nature... so it's not an alter ego. He's a professor that does this big missions... that's it. Batman has Bruce Wayne... Superman has Clark Kent.... Spiderman has Peter Parker. In Batman and Spiderman's cases, Bruce and Peter are their real identities and they dress up to be the superheroes, whereas Superman is his real self and Clark is just his disguise that he dresses up into. But they do this because they don't want to be discovered so they can continue to save and protect while also holding a real life....which is the plus to being a superhero, who do get hints of a real life.
Indiana Jones is just a professor.... nothing more. That's probably what would suck most about being a hero... people know who you are and begin to expect more of you. They always came looking for Indiana Jones' help in the other films... John McClain talked about what it was like being a known hero in Die Hard 4, and he said it sucked and he hated it, it ruined his life.... Nicholas Cage's character in National Treasure... just a hero that people come to for help.... Angelina Jolie's character as Laura Croft in the Tomb Raider films... hero and sought out for help... not a superhero. He's basically the sexy/female version of Indiana Jones when you think about it... except it sucks, because Indiana should only be one in a million, not a dime a dozen.... but it happens I suppose.
My last thought is about how he said John Wayne is a superhero. FALSE. He plays a stereotyped character, which means he is type casted... (that means he is cast for a role because he plays that type of character so well). His characters all face the same dangers and stand for the same morals in every film... but the characters are different, so you can use the argument that he faces different evils in different environments, because he is never the same character... that's like saying well Charlton Heston is a superhero because he plays the same type of characters in most of his films... bad bad bad.
I will say the one similarity to beware of for heroes and superheroes is that they all go above and beyond the call of duty to protect (be it themselves, someone else, a group of people, a town, a city, a state, a nation or country, the world, the universe.)
I leave myself ponding one question still though... is a Jedi a Superhero? They have a nature gift of powers, they risk their own lives to save and protect, they can do a lot of cool things, they have lots of adventures with many different types of foes, and they fight one of the greatest evils of all... the Sith....
hmmm.... let's think about this one for a little.
Until next time!
I'll just jump in here and clarify my position a bit, because I still think you're defining superhero a bit too narrowly.
ReplyDeleteIt's not about specific larger-than-life abilities that distinguishes hero from superhero, it's about certain meta-fictional qualities. Those definitions from Merriam-Webster really don't capture it, I think, because the "hero" definition is really a literary one, and "superhero" is just a subset of that. But that's not quite right, at least not as I am thinking about it.
"Heroes" exist in real life, however you want to define that, whereas heroes in literature/film, etc. can exceed their any realistic expectations and take on the "superhero" status based on how they are used in fictional properties.
My definition would run more like this: a superhero is a fictional hero or protagonist who appears in multiple stories and mediums, achieves an iconic status, and is continuously re-interpreted across these different stories and mediums, sometimes by the same author/director, sometimes by many different people.
So there is "Indiana Jones" the character from the 1981 film Raiders of the Lost Ark, and in isolation he's the hero of that story. But even that character is really the reinterpretation of a "type," the 1930s serial comic hero, and in the subsequent 3 films (not to mention the TV series, which you disregard but is also another reinterpretation of this figure) that hero is looked at again and re-interpreted and made to do different things, all the while accumulating a history of fictional interpretation that allows him some growth as an icon. The point of the films become not about Indy, per se, but what he means as an exemplar of certain storytelling tropes. Temple of Doom considers him in context of other serial traditions, Last Crusade postulates how such an icon interacts with his family, and Kingdom of the Crystal Skull removes him from his natural environment (the 1930s) to see how he'd react.
It's the same situation with a variety of mythical and literary figures who get taken up as icons and reinterpreted across multiple stories: Achilles, King Arthur, Jesus. The thing which most distinguishes Indiana Jones from these quasi-superheroes is that Spielberg/Lucas remain the primary authors of him, whereas most superheroes (including Batman, Spider-Man, etc.) are taken up by multiple authors with multiple agendas.
John Wayne is the same thing, as the iconic, meta-fictional representation of him was always more important than the individual character in any given film. Thus, his greatest films (The Searchers, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance) are very conscious of this fact and are largely about the instability of such a "super" hero in the larger world. (A theme common in comic book-inspired superhero films, too, including The Dark Knight.)
You try to define a superhero by who he is in the story, but you really ought to define them based on how they are used by storytellers and audiences. A film or story may have a "hero" (John McClane in Die Hard; King Arthur in Geoffrey of Monmouth's The History of the Kings of Britain), but when the character becomes more important than the individual story (Die Hard 4; Thomas Malory's Le Morte Darthur or Tennyson's Idylls of the King) they've enter the meta-fictional space where "superhero" is a more accurate description of them.