Query: the incompetent hero--responses after Mike

From: Darryl Wiggers <[email protected]>

Joseph makes an interesting point (see below), which is similar to what
someone recently told me: "the hero is who the audience thinks is a hero."
Coincidently, in the same batch of replies, Robin makes the observation
that Bond evolves into an incompetent hero in Skyfall; an observation more
than a few people have made.

Describing Skyfall Bond as a "hero", though, is interesting because, is he?
(let's exclude the question of incompetence for now). A friend of mine is a
much better Bond expert than I am and, as he pointed out, the Daniel Craig
Bond has -- since his inception in Casino Royale -- been more of an
incompetent henchman, nor hero. In the service of England his actions
constantly cause massive property damage, he ends up killing suspects who
he's only supposed to interrogate, and ends up sparking a number of
international incidents which continually anger his superiors, namely "M".
Just looking at Skyfall, the story begins with his pursuit of a stolen list
which he fails to retrieve, thus leading to the deaths of others (but he
does end up nearly demolishing a train). Later he puts his new love
interest in danger, leading to tragic results for her. He does end up
capturing the villain -- only to realize later that was part of the
villain's plan. And, finally, he's tasked with the mission of protecting
"M" -- which he ends up mucking up too.

Throughout it's a stretch to believe that any of the other characters see
his actions or motives as "heroic," as he's merely doing his job. And not
very well at that. But the audience largely accepts he's a hero, partly
because they remember all the previous Bond escapades in which he saved the
world and such. But, really, it's easy to believe he's still a henchman
throughout the series; doing what he's supposed to do. Some exceptions
include On Her Majesty's Secret Service in which he forsakes his superiors,
contacts his fiancee's father, and together they stage an unauthorized
helicopter assault to save the girl and the world (though it seems his
superiors knew his likely response, but simply couldn't support him
officially). Still, even without this background, many would still see a
Daniel Craig Bond as heroic because he's the central character, risking his
life for duty. Like a fireman.

In any case, it gets messy when one insists on following a viewer-reponse
interpretation of hero. If we do that, then we might be tempted to include
Jason Voorhees in the Friday the 13th movies, Freddy Kruger, Chucky and
Leatherface because, judging by all their sequels -- and the screams of
delight every time they appear -- there's a huge audience who cheer them on
as such. Their victims are often portrayed as deserving of death for some
reason, like the muggers and rapists who end up staring down the barrel of
Paul Kersey's gun (though, usually, it's because they are shallow, annoying
2-dimensional idiots who we pray fall victim to a slow and painful death).

But in the examples I cited -- The Great Escape, Runaway Train, Going in
Style -- the hero perception is rooted in the perception of other
characters in the story. The police characters, or prison officials
certainly wouldn't see them that way (and those who tend to dislike such
films largely share the view of such characters), but to others within,
they clearly are. It's the same divide that exists in the Inspector
Clouseau/Pink Panther comedies, as well as similar stories -- one set of
people (usually outsider characters) who only see the heroic results, vs
the inside characters who know the buffoonish truth, and that their results
are not by design, but by bizarre chance.

So, it strikes me, that one must first clearly establish the noun (what is
a hero?) before we can address the adjective we place before it
(incompetence).

dw