Has anybody noticed the similarity between Daniel Craig’s James Bond and Russell Crowe’s Maximus in “Gladiator”? In a sense they are selling the same soap: You’ve got a brooding, tragic guy, who is clearly a man’s man. Men respect him, women draw to him like flies. He’s a guy who understands that he has responsibilities, a code of honor he must live by. But at heart he’s really good at one thing: Killing people. Not just killing people, but killing lots and lots of people. He kills efficiently, balletically, forehand, backhand, left and right. He could probably kill just fine with his eyes closed. It’s what he does.
But so far we’re describing lots of action heroes. What sets these two apart, what makes them brothers under the skin, is that both Craig’s and Crowe’s action heroes are very sorrowful that they have to kill all those people. A lot of time is spent in both movies on loving closeups of the hero’s face, brooding, looking inward, searching his tormented soul, a soul which is tough on the outside but tender as a little fluffy bunny on the inside. Because he feels really sad that he needs to spend the rest of the time wielding a big weapon, like a Ninja from hell, causing buckets of blood to spurt from the freshly dismembered bodies of his opponents. Really, really sad.
I think we’re supposed to see the poetry within the wistful, ruefully contemplative eyes of these two men. We’re supposed to feel their pain. And it’s important that we do. Because if we can all get together and feel their pain, then we will realize that deep down they are not killers of countless people, on a scale so large that it borders on the obscene. No, we can forget about the body count, the holes through bleeding torsos, the body parts flying off in all directions, that hired guard unlucky enough to work for the wrong side who ends up blinded, convulsing, screaming in agony and maimed for life because in one scene he happened to be in our hero’s way.
Instead we remember that melancholy look in the hero’s eyes, his poetically regretful gaze, his soft inward sigh at the burden he must carry. And we realize that it’s ok, that we don’t need to worry about all of those casually severed body parts and brutally hacked off limbs.
Because this is the good guy.
This is interesting to me. Being a veteran of the Global War on Terrorism, Operation Enduring Freedom, and the Afghanistan campaign, I have seen a lot of “good guys” getting busted up by “bad guys”.
My primary mission is Combat Search and Rescue. So, my normal job is to go out, in the middle of the night, in a 2-ship formation of helicopters and find busted up guys out in the desert and get them home.
When not flying, I volunteered in field hospitals and have put chest tubes into Afghan National Army (ANA) soldiers with collapsed lungs, helped patch up NATO/Coalition soldiers with all sorts of trauma. Watched Moslems, Christians, and Jews get spiritual comfort and/or their equivalent to last rights. I’ve washed and wrapped the bodies of local soldiers as per their local customs to have the body sent back to their village/family.
I also volunteered, when I would come off “alert” status to bring supplies into oppressed villages in Kandahar province (Bin Laden’s old stomping grounds). Interesting people, just trying to live their lives under the opressive spector of the Taliban.
The Reason I’m bringing this up… When I would come into contact with the wounded, the dead, the oppressed… every one of these people know, by themselves, and by their families, that they are the “good guys”. They are the casualties of war, and their enemies may or may not be remorseful, but, the illusion of “good guy”/”bad guy” is just that… They are members of opposite sides of an argument.
I don’t want you to take this the wrong way. I’m not saying that we shouldn’t be in Afghanistan. Whether or not you agree with the reason we went there in the first place, our national security depends upon us staying the course at this time, for a number of reasons, that I won’t get into here. But, at the end of the day, every one of the dead or wounded are simply some “hired guard” that was unlucky enough to be in the hero’s way.
I know that everyone that participates carries a burden, as you imply Bond/Maximus does. Whether it’s acknowleded or not. I have too much faith in humanity to think otherwise. But, I am one of the lucky ones… in 200 combat support missions, and 20 successful Search and Rescue Missions, I never fired a gun in a combat zone… not once… But, I’ve saved more than 20 lives and had a profound effect on the lives and families of these “good guys”. I just hope I never find myself as one of those unfortunate hired guards…
If you’re at all interested, here are pictures from my last Government sponsored, all expenses paid vacation to Afghanistan last year.:
http://flickr.com/photos/tbd1/sets/72157600154371718/
I was talking about movies, and poking fun at how they work. James Bond and Maximus are fantasy characters, and Daniel Craig and Russell Crowe are movie stars. You’re talking about reality, which is much more interesting.
It’s good to see you using this blog as a forum to get started on writing that book. The pictures are awesome – thanks!!
🙂
I realize you were poking fun at fiction. I completely agree with the view you presented. I am pretty good at suspending my understanding of the laws of physics, and the laws or probability to get into a crazy, shakey-cam view of a prolonged chase/fight scene. I tend to allow myself to get absorbed into the spectacle, and then, laugh about the impossibility afterward.
Heather and I went and saw the Bond movie a couple of weeks ago. What I remember about it was that it was exciting and fun to watch and the opening scenes were obviously filmed with hand-held cameras zoomed in too tight, but, that’s about it. So, Ian Flemming was lost on me.
On another interesting note… I recently watched Thunderball with Sean Connery playing 007…. Having watched Austin Powers long before I saw this episode of the Bond saga, I couldn’t help but laugh through the whole thing… The one-eyed “number two”, the villan with the kitty cat and the shark tank… The weird, random gambling scenes… How can you not make fun of that?
The fight scenes were much more “human” or more specifically “acted” which reminded me even more of Austin Powers… fake and stylized…
Sorry about the flood of comments… I’ll stop now… Just a lot of big, heavy, and mostly exciting things going on right now that I need occasional distraction from… I’ll go back to my “once-per quarter” quota… 😮
I agree, Ken – Hollywood appears to be trying to turn its new crop of action heros into deep moral characters who reflect on the consequences of their actions. Christian Bale in Dark Knight is another example.
What has been lost in the mix is humor. Bond used to have great one liners. Now he just grimaces a lot.
Humor wasn’t just about the laugh – it was a way to let the audience know the filmmakers know it is all about the spectacle. Without humor tempering the violence, the films become too serious, too “real”. The flaws in the moral construction of the characters becomes glaring. The violence grating. Scenes that clearly can’t be real stop working – the skydiver scene you mentioned is one example. And as another, in Dark Knight, when Two Face came on the scene all I could think was – he lost half his face and his voice didn’t change? How can a guy with no lips form plosives?
Personally I hope we can get back to humor. Bond without one liners just isn’t Bond.
(P.S. Hi troy)
Hey Jon… you came up in conversation the other day. Hope you’re well…
I agree about one part… Bond, to me, should be more like the Sean Connery version in Thunderball… A little more humor and silliness… Not to the opposite extreme of Austin Powers, but, we all grew up with a Bond that was a serious secret agent, but, definitely enjoyed life and liked his one-liners.
I don’t really see a reason that film makers need to temper violence with humour in general though… If the film maker is trying to make a tough and gritty film, I think he should. There must be an audience for it, or, it wouldn’t sell. Eventually, the audience will desensitize and look for the next extreme depiction to create the thrill.
From a cultural effect standpoint… The early slasher Friday the 13th type movies were all tough to watch when they first came out, and they’re just plain silliness today… I just wish they would have shown a little remorse on Jason’s facemask after slashing the innocent happless campers that obviously got in the way of his Eodipal framework. (the unlucky guards, killed by our good guy hero) 🙂
I guess one of the questions is… Do we become more tolerant to the graphic and wanton violence, or, do we simply learn to recognize the exaggerated silliness over time? Since I, personally, am always looking for the silliness, I’ll vote for the latter.
Moderation will always slow the desensitization, but, will not alleviate it… it reminds me of a headline I saw on The Onion once… It’s on a different topic, but, kind of the same idea of extreme depictions resulting in desensitization…
-“Desensitized Internet Pornography Users Demand New Orifice”
@troy yes I agree, I should have clarified: I was talking specifically about action hero genre movies. As you point out, there are plenty of gritty films, like The Pianist, where humor is not inappropriate.
The Onion is the best.
Yes, I agree with Troy and the Onion. It’s good to keep an open mind when running for orifice.
Jon, if humor is not inappropriate in the Pianist, then I guess not to lack in humor wouldn’t fail to be inappropriate. No?
😉
Do I sense a little pianist envy here?
When I was in Afghanistan last year… As a prelude to our nightly intelligence briefings, I would brief the squadron with the daily headlines from the Onion… Added a little levity to an otherwise hot and sandy night…
Troy’s pianist envy comment reminds me of my favorite orifice joke, courtesy of Groucho Marx:
“Ah, innuendo. Love goes out the door when money comes innuendo.”