Saturday, June 8, 2013

Hero's Journey.


I saw IM3 a few days ago. I thought it was okay. Wasn't as good as I had hoped. The Avengers has set a bit of a high water mark for me.
- IR Science Correspondent D. Hides
Okay, here's why I didn't like Iron Man 3: because of the same things that I didn't like in Iron Man 1.

Ah - you'd probably like a little more information.

I have a very fundamental expectation for movies based upon comic books: I expect that the good guys will beat the bad guys, and I expect them to beat the bad guys because they are in some way better than they are.  I realize that this is a simplistic approach, but let's be honest, at their most basic level that's what comic books are about, the good guys beating the bad guys.  The good guys may suffer setbacks and difficulties (this is called plot) but when it comes right down to it, we all expect that ultimately the Batman will foil the Joker's villainous plans and send him back to Arkham Asylum.

Last year I read the first draft of my friend Annie's fantasy novel, and among other questions that she had for me when I finished, she asked me who my favourite character was. I gave it a little thought, and somewhat reluctantly announced that it was one of the supporting characters, because her part of the story struck me as more interesting than the main character's - she was the one who risked her sanity in an attempt to discover her friend's fate, she was the one whose father may or may not have been the fallen hero, she was the one who ended up with a boyfriend at the end of the book, etc.  Annie somewhat stiffly replied that she would have a problem with the (eventual) publishers of the book if they demanded that the hero have the most interesting journey in the story. 

I thought it prudent to move on to other topics at that point in the conversation (Annie is a little volatile when it comes to discussions about her writing), but really, isn't the hero supposed to be the person who has the most interesting journey?  Certainly not the only interesting journey, but the most interesting?  I would think that by definition that's how you recognize the hero - the person with the most interesting journey.

On that basis, I'll reluctantly give the role of the hero in Iron Man 3 to Tony Stark, because he probably has the most interesting journey, but the flip side of that coin is that it's not really a heroic journey.  If anything, it's a journey away from heroism:  Tony Stark doesn't rescue the President of the United States, he doesn't save his beloved from certain death, and he doesn't defeat the villain.  For a comic book movie, these are odd decisions to make, because (trying to avoid spoilers here) the President is rescued, his beloved does escape death, and the villain is defeated - just not by Iron Man.  The first Iron Man movie suffers from a similar problem, in that ultimately the Ironmonger isn't really beaten by Iron Man.


However, I'm willing to entertain the possibility that there's an attempt to do something more complex in IM3, based on the amount of personal development that Tony undergoes in this film.  The Tony Stark that we see at the start of the movie is in serious emotional and psychological trouble, to the point where the armour has become Tony's refuge from the outside world.  It's interesting to see how over the course of the film, he spends less and less time within that protective shell, and has to rely more and more on his own abilities. At the end of the movie, he has an epiphany:  that being Iron Man, being a hero, ultimately has nothing to do with wearing high-tech armour.

But if that's the purpose of the exercise, Iron Man 3 is a failure, because the journey that precedes it doesn't involve Tony Stark being the hero either.

The quote from my friend Donovan at the start of the posting becomes relevant at this point. What made The Avengers a better movie?  The same things that made Captain America and Thor better movies - the heroes win by being better than the villains, and by a willingness to sacrifice everything, including their lives, to save others. The odd thing is that in The Avengers, Iron Man is that hero - how unfortunate that he couldn't be that hero in Iron Man 3 as well.
- Sid

And if it falls off, kick it.


(Button available on Etsy.) 
This week I was working on a brochure for someone in another department, and he seemed to feel that some sort of small talk was in order during the process of watching me make changes to the layout.  So, à propos of nothing, he asked if I had watched Does Someone Have to Go? on television the other night.

I replied, "No, what's it about?"

"Reality TV program."

Sigh.

"Dan, as you may have gathered from the "what did you do on the weekend" portion of our Tuesday departmental meetings that you attend, I write a blog about science fiction and fantasy for fun - I've been doing it for about seven years.  I own more than 3,000 science fiction, fantasy and horror novels, along with a selection of comic books, illustrated magazines, and reference material - not to mention the DVDs and Blu-rays. I've been a science fiction fan since I was about eight, but I like to think that I actually became a fan in the womb, in the same fashion that babies can get a drug addiction from their mothers, because my mother was a science fiction fan.  DOES THAT SOUND TO YOU LIKE SOMEONE WHO HAS ANY INTEREST IN REALITY?!?"

Honestly, give your head a shake, Dan.
- Sid
 

The Doctor-Daniel.



The BBC recently announced that Matt Smith, who has been skillfully performing the role of the Doctor on Doctor Who for the last four years, has decided to hang up his bow tie and fez at the end of this year.

I think that Smith has done a fabulous job as the Doctor, and I found that he brought a marvellous sense of reflective age to the character, an accomplishment made even more impressive by the fact that, at 26, he was the youngest actor ever cast in the role.  But, as always, people move on, and the inevitable scrum regarding the choice for the next pilot of the TARDIS has begun. 

Since the renewal of the series in 2005, there's been a lot of unnecessary secrecy involving casting for the part of the Doctor.  Let's be frank, the future of Western civilization does not hang on preserving the security surrounding this process. However, it's an obvious opportunity to capitalize on the massive fan interest by turning it into an artificial media event, complete with code names, secret casting locations, and coy hints about the final choice.

I suspect that there's been less speculation about Jack the Ripper's real name or the possibility of a second gunman on the grassy knoll than about casting choices for the Doctor - honestly, people, as per William Shatner, "It's just a TV show!"  Because of that excessive scrutiny, I think that every possible candidate, no matter how unlikely, has been considered and evaluated.  My god, it's possible that someone on an obscure forum somewhere has suggested that I take the job (I doubt I'd get it, they've been trending toward younger actors, but I wouldn't say no).

However, out of the myriad of names currently in the speculative hat, there is one in particular that I feel does deserve some discussion:  Daniel Radcliffe.

The erstwhile wizard has been cheerfully managing his transition into mainstream adult acting since the last movie of the Harry Potter franchise hit the big screen.  He's not afraid of his connection with Harry - he's happy to make jokes about it, but he's also aware that it's what put him on the map, and as such I think he's maintained a good balance between acknowledging that debt and wanting to seek new challenges as an actor. 

That quest to try different directions is very important for actors who have made their impact in genre films.  The industry is full of people who, having been involved in a successful science fiction or fantasy production, were doomed to never escape from beneath the shadow of that entry on their resume.*  As such, young Mr. Radcliffe might be understandably reluctant to undertake another iconic franchise. On the other hand, acting is a job like any other job.  If you want to get paid, you have to work**, and it must be tempting to trade in on one's popularity with the fan community to get a high-profile role like that of the Doctor.

But in this case, I think that Daniel would need to take a moment and consider the possible consequences of a decision to sign on as the Doctor.  I have this terrible mental picture of an international IT crisis as geeks around the world exploded or burst into flame or suffered from some other physical manifestation of nerdgasm as word spread that Harry Potter was going to play Doctor Who.  Oh, the humanity...!

Ahem. Or not.  I sincerely doubt that Daniel Radcliffe will pop up as the post-regeneration 12th Doctor - all other issues aside, their pattern is to choose successful actors but not necessarily high profile names.  Logic says that like every other television show in the world, Doctor Who has a budget, and in these troubled economic times, Daniel Radcliffe might well have too high price tag. The flip side of that coin (no pun intended) is that he might do it for fun, in the same way that Samuel L. Jackson begged George Lucas for a small role in a Star Wars movie.

Ultimately - time will tell.
- Sid

* In the unlikely event that Mark Hamill reads this:  Mark, I hope you get some screen time from Disney in the seventh movie.

**  Patrick Stewart:  fine dramatic actor, extensive resume in classic theatre, including a stint with the Royal Shakespeare Company.  Did he initially thank or curse his agent for signing him up for Star Trek: The Next Generation and then as Professor X, in the X-Men?