Query: the incompetent hero--responses after Mike

From: Darryl Wiggers <[email protected]>
>  . . . . but i ought to add that
> my original post was looking for incompetent heroes who really are heroes
> [as opposed to merely protagonists] and who, in one way or another, "save
> the day" -- which is why keaton is so to the point -- and why comedy may
be
> the necessary generic frame

When put in that context, I'm wondering if another form is crime stories in
which the main protagonist is a criminal but who, because of incompetent
decisions (mostly his own) ends up "saving the day" if you will.

Two that come to my mind is Going in Style (more a comedic drama) and the
thriller Runaway Train. In the former the main protagonist convinces his
buddies to commit a robbery. In the end this action leads to tragedy and
failure for all of them, but ultimately their actions (as opposed to their
previous lot in life, which is "inaction") is seen as a heroic act.

Runaway Train is an even more interesting example. In this the main
protagonist is a vicious criminal with one main goal -- escape from prison.
His main incompetency is that his escape attempts always lead to failure --
he always gets caught. The main thrust of the story is his one bad decision
in his latest attempt -- he picks the wrong train to escape with. Again,
though this decision necessitates a form inevitable tragedy, he ultimately
succeeds in accomplishing a number of things -- saving the lives of others,
exacting revenge on his nemesis, and achieving his primary goal of freedom.
The final scene, which shows the expressions of the other prisoners, leaves
no doubt that, in their eyes, he's the greatest hero of them all.

This also brings to mind the prison film genre. In this the main characters
tend to be misfits of sorts, and in many cases the story ends with them
still stuck in prison, but heroes nonetheless. Probably the best example
here is The Great Escape. In this the escape leads to tragedy for just
about everyone. They are mostly either killed or re-captured. But the final
scene where Steve McQueen is recaptured and thrown back into the "cooler"
also still leaves the audience with the clear view of him as a hero.

In all of these examples they are not so much heroes because they achieved
their primary goals. They are heroes because at least they tried. And as
exemplified by the final shot of The Great Escape, with McQueen's character
bouncing his baseball off the walls of his cell, he's making it clear his
spirit isn't broken, and he's going to keep on trying.

dw
* * * *
From: Dicandeloro, Zachariah Joseph <[email protected]>

There is some semantic play in the word "hero." But I wonder if the comedic
or clownish hero is not actually an alienated signifier in the structuring
of a hero trope. There seems to be some emphasis in the responses on the
adjective "incompetent," while the noun "hero" has become (in the
discussion) a catch-all for the idea of a sympathetic protagonist.

What is a hero? Perhaps we no longer have a genuine answer to that question.
What is incompetence in terms of the heroic?

The context of the heroic in this discussion presently must be rooted in a
horizon of desire. Which means that the hero, for our purposes at this
time, is anyone who is able to "save" us from boredom or depression. It is
not someone whose narrative trajectory is a model for human possibility
generally. (During hard economic times, they say, comedies are more
popular---as are superhero movies. While adventure of any kind [it's a big
category, see also porn] and horror are more popular during boom times, I
am told.)

If it is the case that the "hero" in our context shall be someone who,
through representative action in film, is able to save us from boredom &/or
depression, then shall the incompetent hero not be someone who is
"supposed" to be funny or entertaining but who is not?

Naturally, it is possible to resort to the classical definition of the
comedic hero here to cure the division: A the hero of a "comedy" (in the
Greek sense) shall be successful in spite of grave or fatal character
flaws---but this is a definition wherein one again returns to semantics.
What is heroic "success" exactly? And what exactly is one talking about
when one speaks of "heroic success" as opposed to another type of success?

Again, in this thread, I think the answer seems to revolve around the need
for laughter and diversion. But for what purpose exactly? People don't
laugh when they watch Woodstock (the 1969 documentary). Consider the
following: Given that the characters [sic] of Woodstock ('69) are heroes in
some specific sense, would they not be considered incompetent within the
semantic framework of this discussion?

For me, the incompetent hero tends to be a character who is given the
functions of a hero, but who is for the most part not really up to the
task. And then there are variations on the theme... If one thinks of
Napoleon as a hero because he was determined, because he beat the odds, and
because he only fell (i.e. according to the structure of tragedy) through
an excess of virtue, say; then a "heroic" general who was for the most part
a failure up to the point of winning a key final battle or two would
necessarily have to be marked as a different kind or type (Gr. eidos) of
hero.

To me, it speaks more of our socio-economic and cultural pathology when we
prefer to name clowns as incompetent heroes rather than force ourselves to
view certain clichéd heroes critically.

Returning to my original four examples:
Captain James T. Kirk I would not allow to accompany a weekend road trip,
much less vote to allow him lead the thing and drive. With someone like
that in charge, the enture party would likely end up injured and require
rescue as well. Some hero.

Indiana Jones takes amazing risks, usually for honorable reasons too. But
he is accident prone.

Dirty Harry gets his partners and girlfriends killed, he violates civilized
procedural norms with alarming regularity, he carries an oversized (i.e.
more lethal) self-defense weapon on purpose (i.e. he wants to kill
someone), and what is probably worst of all, his films glorify violence as
such in a way that was important for an entire generation of Americans.

Cheech and Chong----does anyone fail to notice that these comedians have
been real culture warriors and heroes to many thousands, perhaps even a
million people? Perhaps they are actually competent heroes and I am simply
calling them otherwise because of an unjustified bias... An unpopular
opinion tends to be incorrect in the humanities, does it not?

I trust that the list will accept this apologia. And I certainly mean no
offense to those who are repressing an urge to list Elmer Fudd or Porky Pig
as heroes.

Yours truly,
Joseph
Graduate in English
UW - Eau Claire