Reporting For Duty
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
Yet another existential hero
Shark
Banned
A well-written commentary on current blockbuster trends dressed as a review for WOLVERINE.
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”.
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.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/prospero/2013/07/new-film-wolverine
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”.
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.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/prospero/2013/07/new-film-wolverine
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Ah yes, memories of the classic decades, where Bond wasn't burdened by getting into the game, or back into the game, or out of the game (brief mini-retirments aside, OHMSS, LTK, DAD, but even here he wasn't leaving the game, just leaving official sanction).
May those days return please, pretty please, begging......... :)
I don't entirely agree with all that. Even in those films you listed Bond is always dedicated to the mission, and never once truly quits being a 007 to never look back. He has loyalty, he knows that the job needs done and he isn't the type to just quit and never return again. When he knows his country is in danger, he will never give up.
A-freakin'-men.
*ignores Fleming's back-to-back "Getting Back Into The Game" novels - You Only Live Twice and The Man with the Golden Gun*
well exactly, but I'm not sure what you are "disagreeing with." In the films I listed (OHMSS, LTK and DAD) Bond is only off sanction. He's still very much in the game.
It's the newer films, the Craig films, that the article writer is drawing attention to as being part of a trend.
From the article above:
"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”. "
"I never left"? You never right either! :))
Seriously though folks - Craig's self-existential angst needs to get over itself - and fast.
Oh, come now, Bond was gone. No intentions of coming back.
@MarshallODubleOSeven or @BigGayIsland, doesn't matter since you're one and the same. Now, before we give you a hard time on the double account thing, which is in direct violation of the terms and conditions of this forum, if you 'think' that this is the kind of pointless banter we tolerate here, think again.
Double identities, eh? Quite illuminating!
Where did you get that idea from? He had a period of distrust with M where he was angry that she didn't count on him to get the job done, but there were no signs that he wanted to quit for good. Even when he was in the doldrums you can see that he misses being in the field, something he would never leave.
If he had no intentions of coming back, then why did he return to London the moment M and MI6 were in danger?
Bond lets everyone think he's gone. He spends his time banging some Turkish girl and drinking. He's scruffy and clearly doesn't give a toss about anything, a shell of his former self.
Then there's an event which motivates him to get back into the game (Silva taking a page out of Renards playbook and blowing up MI6), he returns, cleans himself up and spends the rest of the movie trying to get back on top form so he can stop the baddy before it's too late.
I completely agree as well.
As weird as it is that Her Majesty´s best secret agent had to deal almost more with himself than with a mission three times in a row now, all those three films are great fun to watch. And I found Tony Stark´s post-traumatic stress disorder very entertaining as well.
Wolverine has entirely different problems, being mostly that the film all throughout testifies to its abysmal execution.
The writer of the above article also shows some sloppiness, writing about a current trend and throwing in a film made 30 years ago. Also, giving Iron Man 3 as an example of "the hero announces in the film’s closing minutes that his do-gooding days are over once and for all " is lousy research.