A place to put my musings on art, community, and life because if I keep it in my head, well it hasn't worked out for me so far...why don't you hold it for a spell?
Today, let us discuss film/critique/students/film critique/film students.
There is a disturbing trend in critiquing films that troubles me.
It is, in effect, this:
Film=Reality=Good.
The argument goes something like:
Film is like unto Reality
Reality is good.
Therefore, the more Film is like unto Reality, the better it is
This is a hyper simplistic version of a number of statements that I read in student critiques/hear actors discuss about performances in film.
With this in mind we get examples like:
"I really loved this film. It was super great. I really felt their emotions. I would act that way in those situations and therefore, it was good. I felt like I was really in the scenes."
-Everybody
So what does this do?
Well, I would normally say that this line of reasoning isn't of necessity wrong.
And it isn't.
Verisimilitude (n. truth-seeming) is a common, pragmatic, and often effective approach to art/movie making.
By treating the situations and acting/directing them "truthfully" or what some might call "faithfully" to "reality" (hashtag appropriate use of quotes) can often lead to good scenes and good movies.
The point that I am dancing around is that it is a style.
Verisimilitude is a style of film making.
See film is a crafted medium.
It is make believe.
But, for some reason, we do not like to be reminded of that.
There is an idea that needs to be addressed and dealt with.
I am talking about Daniel Day Lewis.
This man.
I adore everything about this man as a performer.
He is witty and charming and compelling and just wonderful.
And I hate him.
Daniel Day Lewis is probably one of the most brilliant actors ever.
I have never heard anyone dispute this claim.
However, he tends to be a little....well, notorious for blurring the line between performance and reality.
In The Unbearable Lightness of Being he taught himself Czech.
Nobody required it of him and it was American made, but that didn't stop him.
But, that is just good, clean character work.
Mr. Lewis goes further.
In The Last of the Mohicans Daniel Day Lewis refused to eat anything that he didn't kill himself.
Also he learned how to hunt and trap.
In In the Name of the Father Mr. Lewis spent time holed up in the penitentiary where the cast were shooting.
He spent whole nights there and kept himself awake for three days in preparation for an interrogation scene.
Reportedly, he had film crew throw water and verbal abuse at him to make it a more authentic performance.
In The Crucible Daniel Day Lewis didn't wash for the entire shoot to experiment with 17th century hygiene standards.
Reportedly also built the house and set that his character lived in.
In My Left Foot Daniel Day Lewis insisted on being carried out of his wheel chair and have all of his meals spoon fed to him.
In Gangs of New York Daniel Day Lewis refused to wear non-period clothing.
He caught pneumonia.
Reportedly, he refused modern medicine as well.
Now, are any of these tales true?
I have no clue.
America has no clue.
Daniel Day Lewis may have no clue.
The point is that people believe them to be true.
And, what is more, learning artists and critics believe that in order for a truly phenomenal performance to manifest, they have to make it 'real'.
And why?
Because that is what Daniel Day Lewis does.
The mental process goes something like
Identify a great performance
What did they do to create that performance?
Emulate what they did.
The trouble with this is that each performer is unique and different
Yes.
You are all snowflakes.
Daniel Day Lewis has spent years honing his craft and has found something that works remarkably well for him.
Where I get worried is when young artists tend to be selective about the process.
Instead of:
Gangs of New York was a great performance by Daniel Day Lewis
He emulated the period and did a butt ton of research for the role
I should do a butt ton of research for my period role and see if it works
It goes more like:
Gangs of New York was a great performance by Daniel Day Lewis
He caught pneumonia for the role
I should catch pneumonia for the role
It may not be as blatant as that, but the point stands:
Cherry picking what makes a great performance great creates a culture of danger for actors.
And it is systemic!
Whenever I hear film critics talk about what somebody "did" to "get into the role" red flags start flying.
Actors injure themselves in the middle of a shoot and keep acting:
Yes.
That is his blood.
Now, these are fun stories and actors and crew have fun retelling them.
And we, as audience, love to have a little window into the process.
But, by setting these moments and the actors who manage to "keep acting" on a pedestal....
Well, it creates that culture of danger I mentioned.
So what should we do?
Just stop acting? Stop producing films? Avoid these moments?
Well, no.
But, being a bit more selective about how they are presented is, I think, responsible.
By promoting this kind of acting/behavior in our film critiques, we have set it as the standard for all
That just isn't the case.
What can we do?
Speaking of them as isolated incidents. Not every actor does this, not every actor needs to do this. Speaking about actors/great performances regardless of how they did what they did or exploring healthy ways to manifest a character would help
Mentioning the ramifications on crew/family/life. Some are willing to pay the toll, but for those who aren't, mentioning the morale hit a set takes when an actor goes for the method gold can convince even the staunchest supporters. Don't believe me? Read some of the press about Shia LaBeouf (I should mention none of it is recent, but still)
Downplaying the extreme behavior as what leads to the great performances. Nearly every learning actor I know has tried to pull a My Left Foot and have people carry them or done something silly dangerous in order to get into the part. But, what learning actor has ever learned another language? Or become a survivalist for their role? If you are unwilling to do the crazy technical stuff, you probably aren't ready to be treated like royalty either.
In case you didn't catch it...
He is from One Punch Man!
So called because...
Everything he fights only takes a single punch.
I was really excited for this story.
Really excited.
Because of things like this:
See I like a particular kind of story.
Stories like Dragonball Z with Goku:
Who eventually becomes a deity:
Hail!
Or Superman (who already is)
So when I heard about this story featuring a guy who could one punch anything...
I was intrigued.
But, more importantly I was excited for the story.
See, I have been playing a lot of role playing games recently.
And by that I mean listening and preparing for a lot of roleplaying games (still trying to get my game groups off the ground).
And the thing that I notice more than anything else...
The combat systems are pretty broken.
And by that I mean the players just waltz into caves and caverns unprotected and unmolested by the Evil Arch-Demon of Evil and proceed to lay waste to their whole crew.
Which only consists of five goblins and a big bad ogre who dies because the characters roll really good.
I thought this was just me or just a few game groups.
But, it happens all of the time.
So I started asking Why?
I realized.
The designers want all of us to be Superman.
To feel in control and powerful and awesome.
The gamemasters want us to feel that way.
So the designers give players mechanics that will let us overcome challenges and most gamemasters will give players challenges in a regimented, easy to beat progression.
Effectively, this is the equivalence of level-grinding
And in no way reflects the moments in story that I love best.
Namely, this:
For those who don't know:
Goku is the hero, he is operating at around Power level: 9000+ whereas Vageta exists in a world hovering around Power level: 20,000+
Goku is tired and worn out.
Beaten to a pulp.
Vageta in a rage decides to annihilate the whole planet with Goku.
Goku relies on his last attack to (hopefully) wipe out Vageta.
He risks his body and life to overcome Vageta's attack and barely comes out equal.
Then, he pushes it one step further only to beat Vageta for one minute.
(he comes back by the way and wrecks Goku's shit)
Why is this powerful?
Because Goku is actually weaker than Vageta in this moment.
He risks his life to overcome a superior enemy and is rewarded for his bravery by earning a reprieve.
Story protects the protagonist.
So he can recklessly endanger his life despite his mentor (King Kai) telling him it is too dangerous.
In doing so, he wounds Vageta enough to win the round and weaken him for his fellow team members (back when they were a team) to ultimately defeat Vageta.
So why bring this up?
Because too many RPG players act like Vageta.
They have all the power and go stomping through the world annihilating or saving people and places arbitrarily with no regard for who or what they do.
They are rewarded by the gamemaster for it with XP and Gold and become more powerful.
They are treated like heroes when in fact they are villains.
And nobody in the world is powerful enough to stand up to them because they are protected by the game (armor, saving throws, unconsciousness, clerics, healers, potions, mana)
All of it is to make sure that the players don't lost their health points and heaven forbid die!
How does this relate to Saitama/One Punch Man?
He is the embodiment of pretty much every character I see in RPGs these days.
Overly powerful.
Associated with a 'heroic' organization.
I was really excited to see how the storytellers handled Saitama's inability to face a foe that he couldn't just defeat.
I think it is one of the most important stories.
But, I think they are ruining it.
The show is centered on Saitama
Who starts off this strong.
He is a hero as a "hobby"
Why?
Because he hasn't found anyone who can put up a fight.
The basis of the first episode is this guy: the "villain" augmenting himself to be the "strongest man"
Saitama relates to him and says that it is lonely.
Right now I feel for Saitama because he seems to regret his choices and what led him to being the strongest.
Finding out more about his history reveals he just trained really hard and that is it.
Also, he has no remorse over the monsters that he kills.
And seems more interested in coupons than preserving life.
Saitama is not a hero.
He is a villain.
Terrifying.
The biggest problem that I have with the show is that they seem unable to do anything with Saitama.
He is too jaded to really care about anyone or anything.
So here is my fix:
How to write a story for your overly powerful characters
1) Let them kill everything. Seriously. Give characters in your RPGs the ability to one punch things. It makes the combat go so much more quickly. And it gives us an excuse to get on with the story!
Because we care about combat scenes like this:
And not this
2) So let them kill everything. Now, what? Honestly. I consider just letting the characters wander around a barren world with no characters because they killed everyone. Let them die of old age without conflict or adversaries or companionship or the wonderful NPCs that the gamemaster creates for their enjoyment. They would probably kill them anyway.
3) If they want story in spite of their bloodbath and mayhem, introduce it retroactively. Let the characters be the unwholesome villains that they are, let them collect rare and powerful artifacts for the evil organization that supports their mercenary lifestyle, then, have the real heroes show up to put an end to their corrupt lives. Have them kill the heroes and (hopefully) realize the errors of their ways. If not, have the evil organization overthrow them and try to murder them with the super powerful artifacts they turned in.
4) If the players complain of the lack of combat, introduce them to enemies they cannot just one punch: swarms of insects that devour them bit by bit, but cannot hit with their weaponry. It forces them to either be clever or die. If they complain that they cannot win at this, introduce them to whole villages of orc (insert your game's minority class here) adolescents that they will probably slaughter with glee and then show the grief stricken parents. Tell them how much gold their tears are worth.
The point is these characters consistently act like villains because gamemasters and storytellers allow them to get away with it.
No.
Villains die.
Wretchedly.
Look at Voldemort.
Do not let villains run free in the worlds that gamemasters take so much time to create.
Instead, introduce real conflict to their stories by illustrating the fact that they are not heroes.
Heroes do not act this way.
Now, this is not to say we could not have heroes like Saitama.
How to Play as One Punch Man
1) Value all life. Simple as that. Be like Batman. Be like Superman. Don't desire to kill, maim, and murder every sentient life form that you meet. It will make your life harder, sure, but you won't have the blood of children on your hands either so...
2) Don't use your powers. See point one. If you throw a punch...people die. It is that simple. Don't kill. That is your creed. Don't throw a punch unless you have to.
3) Give yourself a tragic backstory. See I thought Saitama was an experiment. One day he woke up with amnesia from a test tube surrounded by scientists poking at him. He defends himself only to murder everyone who came close. He is horrified by what he has done and becomes a hero in order to make amends.
Those are some of my solutions for playing a ridiculously overpowered character.
The conflict can come from the gamemaster in the form of social conflict
OR it can come from the character imposing personal limits on their power.
But, and here is the point, it is possible to do this in a fun, engaging way that does not involve murdering everything in sight.
And the other thing?
YOU CAN MURDER EVERYTHING IN SIGHT!
I don't have a problem with characters doing that if they are innately bad.
But, don't dress yourself as a hero if you are really a villain.
It leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
Today let us discuss the stage.
Here are a couple of (what I find amusing) anecdotes of set and performers and the trouble they get into when put in the same room.
Macbeth (or the set that tried to get me)
People often speak of the "cursed" Scottish Play (so much so they dare not call it by its given name)
In all likelihood, Macbeth was performed in rep after a particular tragedy (death/sickness in the cast), because it is such a short play requiring very few actors (half the cast is ill? Put on Macbeth!)
So Macbeth probably gained a sinister reputation due to the face that people fell ill before it was performed.
That being said, Macbeth tried to kill me.
And by that I mean the set.
The set was...interesting...
(DON'T JUMP!)
Yes, that is a picture of the set.
For those who didn't see it there was an upper platform and a relatively bare stage on the ground.
The upper platform was connected by stairs of shall we say varying height?
No that is not a picture from our set.
And that isn't what is looked like.
This actually gives a better idea of how the stairs felt.
There were no railings.
They were winding and occasionally very steep.
Running up and down was actually a dangerous activity.
As Macbeth I had to do it.
I will say it was very terrifying during tech/dress rehearsal.
Because it was the first time working on this set, but also in costume with floor length robes, fur, and ribbons trailing.
I thought I was going to die.
But, by repeating my blocking over and over, I was able to become comfortable and engage with the set as if it were my own (poorly constructed) house.
Oh, there was also a metal grate in the middle of the wooden floor.
I bring it up because I had to lift it without gloves.
The grating bit right into my fingers, slicing them like grapes.
I still have the emotional scars.
When I brought this up, I was told the problem was taken care of.
It hurt a lot for already being fixed.
Gross Indecency and the Tables of Doom
So take a look at the set.
Now back at me.
Now, back at the set.
Now, back at me (I'm in the back).
That stage is raked towards the audience.
We are standing on a 30 degree (?) incline.
So all of us are on our heels the whole time.
I saw Alec (the gentleman advancing) slip a number of times as he made that cross simply because it is a weird frigging angle to walk on.
Bevin (judge in the very back) stood like that for almost two hours...in heels.
Those tables are set at angles to one another.
One upstage.
One downstage.
During intermission they are switched.
One night that didn't happen.
To begin the play I have a fast cross upstage.
But, as I crossed upstage, I bumped my hip into a table edge.
It hurt.
A lot.
I wondered about it while I stood in the background for fives minutes.
And then, I realized, everything was backwards.
THE TABLES WERE ALREADY SWITCHED!
All the blocking had to be turned around!
It was an exciting fives minutes.
Because at the end of those five minutes, the actors moved the tables back.
During the show.
So what it must have looked like was the defendant (Oscar Wilde) and his attorney decided to move their god damn table.
Because reasons.
Funniest thing that happened during that show.
Marat/Sade and the Heels I Dreaded.
Welcome to Marat/Sade.
This set was raked 15 degrees to the side.
So now we have a stage trying to kick us off.
I am in the back.
The one in the nun outfit.
I was in heels and a floor length robe (dress).
Where in Gross Indecency, I relied on my leaning back to counter the rake of the stage:
I was in heels.
All my weight wanted to travel forward.
I felt like I was going to fall off every single night.
The patients were barefoot.
I thought I would stomp them to death.
So I decided to be very gentle with them.
The tub had wheels and could be maneuvered around the stage.
Which was terrifying, but I want to be very fair.
Those locks were monstrous.
When the actor was locked in place he was going NOWHERE.
Now, that being said, he had to be locked in.
Some nights that step was missed.
He only rolled a little before engaging it himself.
Boeing Boeing takes Flight
This was a beautiful set to play on.
Boeing is a door farce.
It requires precise timing with distance and door choreography (dooreography)
When we got onstage for the first time in tech, it took a couple of runs to get the groove.
Then, props were added and costumes.
It was a nightmare.
For me.
I played the butler.
See me? In the back?
I had to shift everything.
Sometimes mid show.
I transformed that whole space regularly.
Every show.
All alone.
I was a beast.
But, it took some doing.
I was tired by the end of it.
But, it was one of the most rewarding experiences because the set was difficult to manage.
Not because it was poorly designed, but there was so much available to do.
It was a bar and an office and a kitchen and...a home.
What surprised me most was how much it changed from tech to opening.
The littlest touch like the lamp shades and the map on the wall and the flowers on the table transformed a sparse design to a fully realized home.
The set became a character in the farce and played with us.
Sometimes it went perfectly smoothly and sometimes it was very naughty.
(One night one of those doors refused to close and I had to slam it...for comedic effect).
I will say this though.
I played the butler.
The script called for six doors:
The entrance
The guest room
The master bedroom
The bathroom
The kitchen
A non-specific location
The non-specific location was changed to be an outdoor terrace.
Which was beautiful
But, when I said I was retiring for the night and going to bed and packing my things, I realized:
IT WAS MY BEDROOM!
The designer and director had designed away my bedroom.
I brought it up and I never got a satisfactory answer.
Eventually it was agreed that I would sleep in the kitchen.
Finally, we end with my favorite set/theatre space:
Empty Theatres
To this day there is nothing I find more calming than an empty theatre.
No set.
No audience.
No director.
No actors.
Just me.
And the stage.
It is a meditative practice that I find deeply calming.
I think about all of the sets and performances and performers that have crossed the boards.
Ghosts in the wings I have heard said before.
Theatre is an ephemeral creation.
Unlike other artistic mediums (save other performance art) we make something that doesn't last anywhere save in memory.
I like to remember as much as I can while in a theatre and imagine other shows.
This is my favorite place and time.
I don't know how many share this pastime of mine (standing in empty theatres), but if you haven't as a performer, try it sometime.
It is deeply moving.
I am not sure if you can conclude anything from my anecdotal situations.
But, a lot goes into performance.
Set is crucial because it is the hard limit.
You cannot play over there if there is a wall in the way.
Set tends to be the hard boundary and I am grateful for it.
But, it is important to treat it as part of the performance and finding ways to integrate it can be tricky for performers as well as designers.
You know them.
But, why do you know them?
Why do we care?
I believe there are a couple of distinct class of protagonists.
Average
Anti
Villain
Super
Transcendent
So what is a protagonist?
You can see I have worked on this problem in previous posts.
I don't have an exact definition, but a couple of working definitions:
the character who undergoes the largest change/situational shift over the course of the story (rags to riches/riches to rags)
the character we most sympathize with/the lens through which we view the story
the character set in opposition to the world/antagonistic forces of the story
Why these definitions?
Because they are what I have observed in countless stories.
Let us go with an average example to start.
A good, solid protagonist for the series in which they find themselves
1) (Average) Protagonist:
HARRY POTTER
Some of you may be shouting.
HARRY! AVERAGE?!
Calm your nethers.
Yes, average. As in, he is a solid example of protagonist.
The story I would characterize as transcendent, but Harry is...not lackluster...just not what we are ideally looking for.
He exemplifies a couple of typical protagonist traits:
he is ignorant about his wizarding heritage/the magical world
the big bad i.e. Voldemort is directly opposed to him specifically because...reasons
he comes from a bad family that treats him badly
he is poor
How is this protagonist material?
Well, it sets him up nice doesn't it?
He can grow from here unlike almost anyone else in the world.
Hermione knows everything and Ron can fill in the cultural gaps.
And Neville is a god:
(Sorry Jo)
Harry eventually becomes the messiah of the world.
he knows more about Voldemort than anyone else living
the big bad: Voldemort and what he represents (death/self love) are directly opposed to Harry and what he represents (life/family/love)
he gains a family that spans whole groups of people including the students and faculty of Hogwarts
he is rich
His circumstances are completely changed by the end of the series and through that change:
love
sacrifice
relying on others where your own strengths fail
He is able to overcome the biggest threat to the wizarding world.
Harry is surrounded by his friends in the last battle.
Voldemort is alone in the last battle.
And how does Harry defeat him?
By disarming him, using the spell: Expelliarmus, he disarms Voldemort's power, rebounding it onto Voldemort, killing him instantly.
That there is some good stuff.
Harry Potter is one of my favorite stories (and not just because I grew up with it), but because every aspect of it reinforces another.
Even where Harry is deficient (intellect, stick-to-it-ness, etc.) he has friends and family that more than make up for it.
2) Anti-Protagonist
An example would be Macbeth/Richard III
What I call an anti-protagonist. (academic word. Not super accurate)
This is a bit of a misnomer (they are still the protagonist)
Another might be Light Yagami from Death Note
Light Yagami is an anti-protagonist.
Meaning he is the opposite of how a protagonist normally operates e.g. opposite of a hero.
He makes all of the easy choices.
He is gifted with preternatural power (the ability to kill anyone with only a name and a face)
He terrorizes humanity and becomes a despot
This doesn't sound like a hero, but he is undoubtedly the protagonist of the story.
Now, I am going to dredge up a couple of ideas real quick:
Story is an idea illustrated through action.
Meaning:
Protagonist/antagonist are the manifestations of opposing ideas
the story is the argument
and the climax is the conclusionof that argument
Therefore; Protagonist and antagonist are interchangeable, it only matters what side you end up on given the context.
(Is the Light Side of the Force really the Right Side of the Force?)
So in Death Note we get our antagonist (who is really our hero) L/Ryuzaki:
Sorry.
L.
Our hero.
No, really, he is a god damn hero.
He follows all of our criteria for heroship:
always makes the difficult choice
always self-sacrificing
always looking out for others
caring
loving
Everything that Light is not.
But, it is still a compelling story.
Unlike our third type
3) Villain-Protagonist
What are these?
I wish you didn't ask.
I have trouble naming them because in my opinion they are not heroes.
In my opinion, protagonists should be heroes (most of the time).
There are exceptions, but they have to be damn good to catch my interest.
Villain-protagonists are a breed unto themselves.
An example is Rand Al'thor in Robert Jordan's The Wheel of Time series
Yeah...he looks real trustworthy.
He basically screams megalomaniac.
And yet, people follow him.
This is fan art by the way.
This is how the fans choose to see their protagonist.
Why is this?
Because he is a villain and a bully and I hate him.
Heroes are something special and we will get to them in just a moment.
Heroes always makes the hard choice for the greater good.
Bland (rand) Al'thor does not qualify as a hero.
To give examples from the story:
he is insane (no literally, drawing on magic drives him to insanity)
he never trusts anyone (while Harry is building relationships, Bland is accusing everyone of witchery)
he hides his true gifts/self in order to appear 'normal'
he literally murders 20 people looking for him in cold blood because he THINKS they are after him
These are like the least of his crimes.
He also has no regard for other people's safety
even his friends don't trust him (and for good reason)
he ostracizes himself and his whole community
He trusts no one's actions, only his first impressions of them
He believes no one, not even his trusted advisors
He uses his power to dominate/force people to submit to his policies
He establishes democracies where he is the only candidate (sound familiar?)
I could go on and on and on, but I won't.
So he is not a hero.
And he shouldn't be the protagonist.
Now, this is a tricky concept to convey.
Because I have already discussed anti-protagonists, why doesn't/shouldn't Bland qualify?
To start with, he is a villain.
This doesn't exempt him (as I have already demonstrated), but there is a trick happening.
Jordan uses it and Rick Riordan uses it.
That's right!
Percy Jackson falls into this category.
PERCY JACKSON IS A VILLAIN
Don't believe me?
Let us look at what typifies these characters:
they both have ridiculous amounts of power, Bland has the most magic of anyone and Percy is the son of (arguably) the strongest of all the gods
they have slavishly loyal followers that they exploit/sacrifice in order to gain their ends
they are nothing if not introspective (they are narcissistic), but never in all their inner monologues consider the moral ramifications of what they have done (this may be a bit unfair to Percy, I don't remember an instance, but there may be one)
they become leaders of their respective troupes (arguably kings) through no other qualification than being "the most powerful"
This is not the laundry list of what makes a hero.
This is what makes a villain.
Using these criteria and these alone ask anyone to name a character it describes you might get:
EMPEROR PALPATINE
FIRE LORD OZAI
Their protagonists are villains.
So what? Big deal.
Light is a villain. Macbeth is a villain.
What makes Rick Riordan and Robert Jordan (to name a few) less better than Shakespeare?
Simple.
They don't let their characters be anti-protagonists.
And that is where I get off the.
Because it would be really cool/interesting to see an OP protagonist (we will talk about them in just a moment) in a position of power.
We see it all the time.
Injustice: Gods Among Us
But, the fact that these characters are not treated as villains is inexcusable.
To dress up a villain and pretend that they are a protagonist is just terrible in the truest sense of the word.
And then to have no one call them on their hypocrisy is worse.
4) Super Protagonists
These are the biggest and the baddest (though not necessarily best)
Here we get protagonists like
SUPERMAN
SON GOKU
These characters taught me more about heroism and morality than any religion.
I am dead serious.
These characters are really important.
Because the antagonistic forces have to come at them sideways to have an effect.
In Star Wars, Harry Potter, etc. the might of the enemy is the prevailing/dominating characteristic.
The idea of Death/Selfishness as personified by Voldemort manifests like this:
When, in fact, Voldemort is very much alone and is better personified in this light:
At the end of it all, Voldemort is a crippled infantile thing unable to take care of itself.
So how does this relate?
Well, there is almost nothing in the universe that Superman cannot overcome by simply exerting a little force.
Seriously, he is notoriously difficult to write well because of things like this:
He can stop bullets with his eyes!
So physical conflict goes right out the window.
You just feel like, even when he is being pummeled, if he just flexed his muscles a little bit more he would win.
And you are right.
There is a problem though.
Superman is too strong.
Consistently he has to hold himself back (canonically)
In this video Superman even says it!
"That man won't stop so long as he still draws breath. None of my teammates will. Me? I've got a different problem."
Superman has different problems than other superheroes.
What are they?
I feel like I live in a world made of cardboard. Always taking constant care not to break something. Break someone. Never allowing myself to lose control even for a moment because someone could die!
And there it is.
Superman will never cut loose completely because he might kill someone.
Something he is morally totally opposed to doing.
This is not the whole fight.
It gets brutal.
This is the hyper violent Superman that we could have had.
The Superman that proved Might as Right.
But, he talks about it in the end:
They saw violence as a solution and it frightened them.
Because Superman does not kill.
He does not use violence in order to dominate or subjugate.
In one of the most touching addresses the United Nations he says in response to, "You have the power to end criminals, why don't you?":
"I'm not anyone's judge and jury, professor Baxter--definitely not an executioner. My powers do not put me above the law....First, I don't believe the world is broken--because when we say the world, we're really talking about people. It's always been my belief that people, at their core, are good."
"Humanity has a limitless potential for good. My purpose is to help people reach that potential."
That is Superman's sole purpose.
And because of it, he is one of the greatest protagonists (even if his stories sometimes suck).
Superman is a troublesome protagonist because physical might means nothing to him.
But, like all heroes, he has a noble creed by which he lives and dies.
And because of that he is still vulnerable to Murphy's Law.
I will talk about this guy in another post:
(for those who don't know, this is Saitama from One Punch Man)
So now we move on to our final category:
5) Transcendent Protagonists
This is a god damn hard category.
Because only a handful of people manage to make it into it.
I even exclude Superman and Goku (which kills me).
(Not all of their stories and not all of the time, but if we look at a whole canon as a whole story, then yes, Superman does not make the grade.)
To be a transcendent protagonist you have to
make all of the hard choices in a positive direction
Yeah.
That is pretty much it.
Sound easy?
Harry Potter doesn't even do this.
Not Harry.
Nor Bilbo
But you know who does?
Nausicaa
And Aang
I swear, these two.
I cry.
If you haven't seen these, then go.
Just go right now.
My blog is seriously nothing compared to these works of art.
So.
Aang.
*sobs*
This guy is the best!
No seriously.
He fights a war.
An eleven year old boy fights a war!
How does he do it?
With laughter and joy and whim.
Look at his freaking face!
That is in the middle of a war torn world that he is (arguably) solely responsible for!
So what does he do?
He fixes it.
How does he do it?
He makes friends
who become allies
He fights the Fire Nation with these allies
He makes mistakes
He learns from them
He grows more powerful
And he fights the Fire Lord
Now, if you don't know the context, here is some:
Fire Lord Ozai is basically the most evil awful person in the universe.
Played by Mark Hamill
You know.
This guy:
Anywho.
We spend the entire series and I mean the entire series building up to the ultimate showdown Aang vs. Fire Lord
And it is palpable.
Only one thing.
Aang is a Buddhist (Air Nomad) Monk!
so........
How is he going to stop Fire Lord Ozai?
(HE HAS TO KILL HIM)
He asks his friends.
(YOU HAVE TO KILL HIM)
He asks his neighbors.
(YOU HAVE TO KILL HIM)
He asks his past lives
(YOU HAVE TO KILL HIM)
Basically everyone in the world tells him that he is going to have to violate his own creed in order to achieve his ultimate function: save the world.
In order to save the world Aang has to lose himself.
Whoa.
And I thought this was a kid's show.
So does he do it?
Wha....
What?!
He overcomes the prejudice that the only road to victory is through slaughter.
Aang transcends that behavior, that belief.
And he does it (similar to Superman) by removing the power that almost wholly defines Ozai.
But, more than that, by effectively using his friends and allies, he is able to bring low the entire Fire Nation and end a war.
And he accomplishes this by never killing.
Not once.
Aang.
You are my hero.
Even Superman with all his power is unable to stop the war in Superman vs The Elite.
Even Harry Potter is unable to save Tom Riddle from his death.
Only characters like Aang are able to prevail against the overriding narrative:
Violence is the only solution
You cannot overcome conflict without death
They transcend it entirely.
Nausicaa's story is almost identical in every way.
A war is happening between mankind, nature, and different nations
The fighting spills into her country
She has a unique skill of speaking with insects
She acts as the bridge between the two and fights
not with violence, but with her glider, her friends, an insect caller, some flash bombs, and her love for growing things
Hers is a truly remarkable journey
She throws herself at the mercy of raging insects that are unstoppable, unceasing, uncaring of human pain.
And what is the result?
They stop for her.
She averts an all out war, stops an apocalypse, and begins the healing of her broken world.
These are the ultimate protagonists.
Not ultimate because of their power (like Superman and Son Goku), but because of their love, their capacity to change, not only themselves, but the world and the story wherein they find themselves.
There is no reason Aang should be so happy in times of war save for his ignorance.
Once he realizes what is happening, he very easily could have turned down another path:
Instead, he maintains his whim and his humor and makes the world a better, more positive place.
