After reading “Thy Kingdom Come” in JSA, I got to thinking about an interesting contrast between E-22 Superman in this story, and Superman as presented in the movie a couple of years ago.
As I stated back when the movie came out, one of the ongoing themes in Superman Returns is the progressive degradation of Clark’s humanity. He is less and less Clark Kent, more and more Kal-El. The moment that’s meant to show “who he truly is,” is when you see him hovering high in space, ready to descend upon blighted humanity at every need. A demigod among men. The role of the Kents is minimized, the “dead hand” of Jor-El is maximized, even to the point of Superman going to his newly found son and echoing the words of Jor-El to him while he sleeps.
Now, on the other hand, in Thy Kingdom Comes (and also in the original of course), one of the ongoing themes is the way in which Clark “died” the same day that Lois did. The scene where “our” Lois goes to talk to E-22 Superman is one that’s heartbreaking on a few levels. The flashback, adding a few details that weren’t found in KC (the last words of E-22 Lois), and her final words “don’t lose… Clark”.
Then, at the very end, after he decides to return to his own Universe, we’re reminded of the scene from the original, where Diana gives him a pair of glasses, to help him “see” better. Obviously, it’s not the physical “sight” but the more important ways of seeing. The philosophical and spiritual implications of embracing his humanity. That he may have the powers of a demigod, but that his essential humanity is his core. Without that, he loses who he is.
I truly think that gets to the core of Superman better than anything else. Clark Kent is not a “mask” that he hides behind. In many ways, “Bruce Wayne” carefree billionaire playboy is an essentially unreal person. There is no Bruce Wayne, there is only Batman. Bruce Wayne, as much as Matches Malone is just a “face” that he puts on at times to further his mission. However, with Superman, Clark is part of the very core which makes Superman who he is.
It’s odd in a way, that Batman is the one who keeps collecting kids to “raise”. Dick Grayson, Jason Todd, Tim Drake, Cassie Cain. Each of them has been stung by their proximity to Batman. Being a human “father-figure” is not a role that Batman wears comfortably, or frankly, especially well. On the other hand, I could easily see Clark stepping into the role of raising an orphan, and doing a far better job of it. That’s because Clark has a better connection to his own humanity. Clark is a real person, where Bruce is not.
Friday, August 28, 2009
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Thy Kingdom Come
Well, after a long absence from reading comics (largely caused by frustration from One Year Later), I’ve spent the last couple of weeks reading through my back inventory of unread books, and it’s been a very mixed bag. There’s been good and bad. I could sit here and pick at my issues with recent events in the Teen Titans, or why I dislike the first LS featuring Renee Montoya as the new Question. Perhaps I will in a few days.
First off though, I find myself turning to the Good. I’ve read some good stuff in the last days, but easily the best has been the “Thy Kingdom Come” storyline in Justice Society. There are some oddities there to be sure, but overall, it was compelling, thought provoking, and just plain well done.
It’s been awhile since I’ve read Kingdom Come (in either TPB form or the outstanding novel). That’s always been a story I’ve greatly enjoyed, and not mostly for the Ross artwork. Honestly, I like the novel better. You spend less time trying to sort out who the next-gen heroes are, and more time thinking about the plot. For obvious reasons, I’ve always liked the pastor character (even though we come from very different branches of the Church…heh). Indeed, he’s one of the things that’s gotten me to think about what it must be like for “everyman” in a superhero world.
When I heard that they were going to revisit that story, and indeed bring it into the “mainstream” continuity, I was a bit skeptical. It’s an outstanding story, worthy of a post unto itself. However, it’s one of those stories that I figured should stay self contained.
Having said that, I must give credit where it is due. The way they brought it into the DCU works… both by designating it as Earth-22, and perhaps most of all, by bringing the JSA into the mix. More than any other team, the JSA is the conscience of the DCU. Not Superman, not Batman, but the three “old men.” Jay Garrick, Alan Scott and Ted Grant. Supes, Bats and WW may be the “Trinity” but Jay, Allen and Scott have their own role in the bedrock of the DCU.
As Kingdom Come played with the issues of power and responsibility, the JSA is the perfect vehicle to work Gog and Magog into things. This is especially true when you consider the stated intent of the new Society to make better heroes.
Yet, when the time comes for the JSA to fracture in the story, notice that the “old school” JSAers are the ones who stand against Gog first. They can sense that too much is being offered, that they were “Hansel and Gretel at the Witches house”. The only “old” JSAer who goes with Gog is Hawkman, who has always been a bit of a loose cannon. (Still, on reflection, that choice surprises me. Yeah, he’d certainly relate to the way Gog turned those soldiers into trees, and Carter wouldn’t shed a tear, but he’s too cynical to really buy into Gog’s offer I think). Otherwise, it’s the “new” members who fall. Damage, Commander Steel, the soon to be Magog (forget the name he takes early on).
Gog preys upon their pain, but at the same time, remember that Damage and Steel aren’t the only people in the Society to have felt pain. When you think about those who listened to the Siren’s Call, it says more about them, than the Siren itself.
At first, it took me a bit to get used to the interleaving of the Ross artwork for Earth-22 scenes with the more “normal” style for the rest of the story. Yet, that created an outstanding ending to the story, with everything coming full circle.
Is it a perfect story? Not at all. I have lots of quibbles and nits, but even so, it’s a story that reminds me while I like comics. Maybe in days to come, I’ll get to a bit more.
First off though, I find myself turning to the Good. I’ve read some good stuff in the last days, but easily the best has been the “Thy Kingdom Come” storyline in Justice Society. There are some oddities there to be sure, but overall, it was compelling, thought provoking, and just plain well done.
It’s been awhile since I’ve read Kingdom Come (in either TPB form or the outstanding novel). That’s always been a story I’ve greatly enjoyed, and not mostly for the Ross artwork. Honestly, I like the novel better. You spend less time trying to sort out who the next-gen heroes are, and more time thinking about the plot. For obvious reasons, I’ve always liked the pastor character (even though we come from very different branches of the Church…heh). Indeed, he’s one of the things that’s gotten me to think about what it must be like for “everyman” in a superhero world.
When I heard that they were going to revisit that story, and indeed bring it into the “mainstream” continuity, I was a bit skeptical. It’s an outstanding story, worthy of a post unto itself. However, it’s one of those stories that I figured should stay self contained.
Having said that, I must give credit where it is due. The way they brought it into the DCU works… both by designating it as Earth-22, and perhaps most of all, by bringing the JSA into the mix. More than any other team, the JSA is the conscience of the DCU. Not Superman, not Batman, but the three “old men.” Jay Garrick, Alan Scott and Ted Grant. Supes, Bats and WW may be the “Trinity” but Jay, Allen and Scott have their own role in the bedrock of the DCU.
As Kingdom Come played with the issues of power and responsibility, the JSA is the perfect vehicle to work Gog and Magog into things. This is especially true when you consider the stated intent of the new Society to make better heroes.
Yet, when the time comes for the JSA to fracture in the story, notice that the “old school” JSAers are the ones who stand against Gog first. They can sense that too much is being offered, that they were “Hansel and Gretel at the Witches house”. The only “old” JSAer who goes with Gog is Hawkman, who has always been a bit of a loose cannon. (Still, on reflection, that choice surprises me. Yeah, he’d certainly relate to the way Gog turned those soldiers into trees, and Carter wouldn’t shed a tear, but he’s too cynical to really buy into Gog’s offer I think). Otherwise, it’s the “new” members who fall. Damage, Commander Steel, the soon to be Magog (forget the name he takes early on).
Gog preys upon their pain, but at the same time, remember that Damage and Steel aren’t the only people in the Society to have felt pain. When you think about those who listened to the Siren’s Call, it says more about them, than the Siren itself.
At first, it took me a bit to get used to the interleaving of the Ross artwork for Earth-22 scenes with the more “normal” style for the rest of the story. Yet, that created an outstanding ending to the story, with everything coming full circle.
Is it a perfect story? Not at all. I have lots of quibbles and nits, but even so, it’s a story that reminds me while I like comics. Maybe in days to come, I’ll get to a bit more.
Monday, June 01, 2009
Fantasy in a rut...
I've enjoyed "High Fantasy" for a long time now, but there are ways in which it strikes me as being in something of a rut.
With not nearly enough exceptions to my taste, Fantasy novels are "voyages of discovery" type novels. Now, any character should develop and grow over the course of a book, but what I mean is this.
How many of the protaganists in Fantasy Novels start out as young, discovering they have a power (or destiny or something) and set out on an epic voyage of discovery, finding their "inner hero"
For instance, currently I'm reading The High Lord, which is the third book in the Black Magician Trilogy by Trudy Cananvan. Now, to this point, it's been a most enjoyable series. The heroine is appealing, the mystery is good and the like.
Yet, on another level, it just doesn't seem to be anything new. Sonea is a young girl who lives in the worst part of the city. The Magic Guild has a monopoly on magic in that culture. However, as a rule they've never tested anyone other than the children of the nobility. Generally, you need to have someone "awaken" your powers in you, but Sonea's powers awaken on their own. So, suddenly, this slum girl is in the Guild, and learning her powers, and the usual threat to the city/nation/world.
How many books have that kind of general plot? Seriously. Young person discovers they have powers, and goes from there.
Offhand
The Belgariad/Mallorean
Most of the books in the Recluse series
Pug in Feist's series
Drake's Crown of the Isles
Wheel of Time
How many more do I need to list?
Now, I've enjoyed most of them (not a big Jordan fan).
Still, though, the sameness is getting... old.
Maybe that's why I think that the Elenium/Tamuli from Feist is better. There, you have Sparhawk... who is a veteran knight. Maybe even a hair past his prime. His nature as a hero is already established. Now, he's about to learn a great deal about himself (Anakha), but still, it is a very refreshing change for a character to start a series as an established hero, and then "get to work", instead of starting off as callow/smartaleck/wise beyond his years type youth.
With not nearly enough exceptions to my taste, Fantasy novels are "voyages of discovery" type novels. Now, any character should develop and grow over the course of a book, but what I mean is this.
How many of the protaganists in Fantasy Novels start out as young, discovering they have a power (or destiny or something) and set out on an epic voyage of discovery, finding their "inner hero"
For instance, currently I'm reading The High Lord, which is the third book in the Black Magician Trilogy by Trudy Cananvan. Now, to this point, it's been a most enjoyable series. The heroine is appealing, the mystery is good and the like.
Yet, on another level, it just doesn't seem to be anything new. Sonea is a young girl who lives in the worst part of the city. The Magic Guild has a monopoly on magic in that culture. However, as a rule they've never tested anyone other than the children of the nobility. Generally, you need to have someone "awaken" your powers in you, but Sonea's powers awaken on their own. So, suddenly, this slum girl is in the Guild, and learning her powers, and the usual threat to the city/nation/world.
How many books have that kind of general plot? Seriously. Young person discovers they have powers, and goes from there.
Offhand
The Belgariad/Mallorean
Most of the books in the Recluse series
Pug in Feist's series
Drake's Crown of the Isles
Wheel of Time
How many more do I need to list?
Now, I've enjoyed most of them (not a big Jordan fan).
Still, though, the sameness is getting... old.
Maybe that's why I think that the Elenium/Tamuli from Feist is better. There, you have Sparhawk... who is a veteran knight. Maybe even a hair past his prime. His nature as a hero is already established. Now, he's about to learn a great deal about himself (Anakha), but still, it is a very refreshing change for a character to start a series as an established hero, and then "get to work", instead of starting off as callow/smartaleck/wise beyond his years type youth.
Friday, February 20, 2009
Future Dystopia
Future Dystopia...
There are a few things comic writers return to again and again. Evil twins, people returning from the dead (real or imagined), finding out your brother is an archvillain (or maybe just a minion). One of those things is the "dystopia" story.
We've all read them, even if we don't quite get the term. A "utopia" a wonderful place. A place where all are wise and enlightened, where peace reigns, and the society is filled with justice (all the various forms of justice for that matter). A dystopia is the opposite of that. It's a place where everything has gone wrong.
I'm not going to claim that I know what the "first" one is. I'm sure there are many stories in this "genre" that I'm not familiar with. That said, the first one that's truly burnt into my memory is the legendary "Days of Future Past" storyline in X-Men. This is a story that works, and works well.
We have young Kitty Pryde, barely on the team, still full of wonder and innocence, and then suddenly she's switched with Kate Pryde. Kate Pryde, who has seen the horrors that are to come. A woman who has lost family, friends and freedom. No more innocence there, though still the decency that young Kitty exhibited.
The future? Dark and bleak. What's more, the "trigger" makes sense. Mutants killing a major politician would very easily lead to major repression.
Yet, while I consider the story brilliant standing alone, I think it's been destroyed. The stark clarity of the "future" is too cluttered now. Too many additions. I think "Days of Future Present" was a strong addition to the story, drawing out elements of the dark days, without ruining the story. Yet, the "future timeline" of the X-Men has become horribly cluttered. You've not only got the "Days of" stuff, but then the Bishop XSE, the Adventures of Cyclops and Phoenix, and other "future" stories that clutter the picture, and remove focus from them.
Still, that's far from the only future dystopia story out there. It seems most books have gone into this realm. Some do it very well ("Future Imperfect" in the Hulk was on a par with Days of Future Past"). Others? Not so well (I have little use for "Titans of Tomorrow").
A deeper problem though, is what does having this future nightmare hanging over a book do to the book? If the writers take them seriously, then the entire book loses a sense of hope. What are people fighting for, if not a better tomorrow? Yet, here we have "proof" that tomorrow is not only worse, but catastrophically worse. On the other hand, if the writers discount the future story (alternate timeline, dream, or whatever), that erodes the story. It becomes less. Less powerful, less meaningful, less, less, less.
It's this reason that I generally don't like this sort of story. It either ties the hands of the writer, or it becomes an excursus to nowhere in the development of the book. It can be done well, and can shape a book, as Days of Future Past certainly did in the X-Men. Yet, for that, it just creates too many problems.
There are a few things comic writers return to again and again. Evil twins, people returning from the dead (real or imagined), finding out your brother is an archvillain (or maybe just a minion). One of those things is the "dystopia" story.
We've all read them, even if we don't quite get the term. A "utopia" a wonderful place. A place where all are wise and enlightened, where peace reigns, and the society is filled with justice (all the various forms of justice for that matter). A dystopia is the opposite of that. It's a place where everything has gone wrong.
I'm not going to claim that I know what the "first" one is. I'm sure there are many stories in this "genre" that I'm not familiar with. That said, the first one that's truly burnt into my memory is the legendary "Days of Future Past" storyline in X-Men. This is a story that works, and works well.
We have young Kitty Pryde, barely on the team, still full of wonder and innocence, and then suddenly she's switched with Kate Pryde. Kate Pryde, who has seen the horrors that are to come. A woman who has lost family, friends and freedom. No more innocence there, though still the decency that young Kitty exhibited.
The future? Dark and bleak. What's more, the "trigger" makes sense. Mutants killing a major politician would very easily lead to major repression.
Yet, while I consider the story brilliant standing alone, I think it's been destroyed. The stark clarity of the "future" is too cluttered now. Too many additions. I think "Days of Future Present" was a strong addition to the story, drawing out elements of the dark days, without ruining the story. Yet, the "future timeline" of the X-Men has become horribly cluttered. You've not only got the "Days of" stuff, but then the Bishop XSE, the Adventures of Cyclops and Phoenix, and other "future" stories that clutter the picture, and remove focus from them.
Still, that's far from the only future dystopia story out there. It seems most books have gone into this realm. Some do it very well ("Future Imperfect" in the Hulk was on a par with Days of Future Past"). Others? Not so well (I have little use for "Titans of Tomorrow").
A deeper problem though, is what does having this future nightmare hanging over a book do to the book? If the writers take them seriously, then the entire book loses a sense of hope. What are people fighting for, if not a better tomorrow? Yet, here we have "proof" that tomorrow is not only worse, but catastrophically worse. On the other hand, if the writers discount the future story (alternate timeline, dream, or whatever), that erodes the story. It becomes less. Less powerful, less meaningful, less, less, less.
It's this reason that I generally don't like this sort of story. It either ties the hands of the writer, or it becomes an excursus to nowhere in the development of the book. It can be done well, and can shape a book, as Days of Future Past certainly did in the X-Men. Yet, for that, it just creates too many problems.
Saturday, August 30, 2008
The Dark Knight and the Man of Steel
A friend mentioned something about the Dark Knight movie that got me thinking. She said why she could appreciate the artistry, she couldn't really enjoy the movie because of the hopelessness of it. I really could see what she meant. She didn't go into all the hopelessness she saw, and I'm not inclined to put words into her mouth, but it did get me thinking. She did say how much it made her think about the building chaos in Mexico (huge uptick in violence the last few years).
There are many ways to compare Superman and Batman. Powers, outlook, even the standard color palatte.
Yet, this does tend to point to one of the more fundamental ones. Batman as a character is born out of the failure to society. Superman is born, yes of another planet, but also of the strength of society.
What I mean is this. The entire mythos of Batman is based on the fact that society has failed. Not only in the act of the murder of Bruce's parents, but also in Batman's self-conception and way of acting. Bruce's goal is to be the one who fills the gaps when the system fails. When the Gotham Police is unable to do the job, because of corruption, ineptitude, or the rules that society has placed them under, Batman takes over. Because of those limitations, the Police (in the person of the Commissioner) is complicit in his work. Society has failed, and it is Bruce's self appointed mission to rectify that failure.
Where Bruce is born of the worst, of a random act of violence, Clark comes from the best. He comes from a happy home, a place where he was nurtured, and was taught to look out for others. As his powers developed, he stepped onto his path as a hero out of responsibility, knowing that his powers meant he could help people on a larger stage. He rarely works against the system, and when he does, it's out of the highest of principals.
They are the yin and the yang in comics. Here, as in so many other things.
There are many ways to compare Superman and Batman. Powers, outlook, even the standard color palatte.
Yet, this does tend to point to one of the more fundamental ones. Batman as a character is born out of the failure to society. Superman is born, yes of another planet, but also of the strength of society.
What I mean is this. The entire mythos of Batman is based on the fact that society has failed. Not only in the act of the murder of Bruce's parents, but also in Batman's self-conception and way of acting. Bruce's goal is to be the one who fills the gaps when the system fails. When the Gotham Police is unable to do the job, because of corruption, ineptitude, or the rules that society has placed them under, Batman takes over. Because of those limitations, the Police (in the person of the Commissioner) is complicit in his work. Society has failed, and it is Bruce's self appointed mission to rectify that failure.
Where Bruce is born of the worst, of a random act of violence, Clark comes from the best. He comes from a happy home, a place where he was nurtured, and was taught to look out for others. As his powers developed, he stepped onto his path as a hero out of responsibility, knowing that his powers meant he could help people on a larger stage. He rarely works against the system, and when he does, it's out of the highest of principals.
They are the yin and the yang in comics. Here, as in so many other things.
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
I return!!!
Let's see if I can get this thing cranked up a bit more again.
I admit, I've slacked, and to an extent, I've gotten behind in my comics reading.
So, what do we do from here? A long winded post on the nature of pacing? That will likely be coming, but I'd like a bit more time to plot and muse.
Now, instead, it's time for me to return to my favorite old shtick! Yes, Downsides are back!!
Downsides of living in the DC Universe!
5. You spend weeks trekking off to a remote Himalayan Monastery to try to gain perspective to your life, only to be buried in Superheros trying to recover from the latest crisis.
4. Being assigned to write a short summary on all known about the origin of Donna Troy.
3. Being in charge of making up to date maps of California.
2. Taking a tip from your cousin to invest in a high tech firm, only to find out that it just got closed down by the Feds for being a front for some villains no one has ever heard of.
1. Endless debates on alt.fan.wonderbabes "Cassie or Donna"
Ok, ok, not my best set, but I'm trying I tell ya!
I admit, I've slacked, and to an extent, I've gotten behind in my comics reading.
So, what do we do from here? A long winded post on the nature of pacing? That will likely be coming, but I'd like a bit more time to plot and muse.
Now, instead, it's time for me to return to my favorite old shtick! Yes, Downsides are back!!
Downsides of living in the DC Universe!
5. You spend weeks trekking off to a remote Himalayan Monastery to try to gain perspective to your life, only to be buried in Superheros trying to recover from the latest crisis.
4. Being assigned to write a short summary on all known about the origin of Donna Troy.
3. Being in charge of making up to date maps of California.
2. Taking a tip from your cousin to invest in a high tech firm, only to find out that it just got closed down by the Feds for being a front for some villains no one has ever heard of.
1. Endless debates on alt.fan.wonderbabes "Cassie or Donna"
Ok, ok, not my best set, but I'm trying I tell ya!
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Why I love The Incredibles
I'll freely admit it, I'm a bit of a lump (ok, a lot of a lump). That's the story of my life. I don't get out a great deal, various reasons for that. So, one thing I don't do very often is go to movies. I joke around that I'll go to one movie a year, whether I need to or not. Now, sometimes I may end up being a couple of movies, but seriously, I just don't go to many movies.
Yet, when the Incredibles came out, I went to the theater to see it, either three or four times, I forget. Not because I was going with new groups of friends either, I went alone each time. What was it about that movie that resonated with me so strongly at the time?
I'm not a huge person for literary analysis. I read books and go to movies largely out of a "sit back and enjoy the ride" perspective. When I look at what some people can get out of things, I'm always like "whoa... never would have even thought of that." Yet, there are some things that get my attention and get me thinking in those terms. The Incredibles is one of those things.
It's not just my love of Superheroes that made the movie for me, but the far more profound stories of each of those characters. They each have an "arc" of their own, and each arc is interwoven and fascinating.
The opening of the movie, with the "candid" interviews with Mr. I and Elasti-Girl are in so many ways the key to the movie. In many ways, it's easy to argue that in those "shorts" the characters are either lying, or more likely, self-decieved. Mr. I wants a chance to settle down. His rant about the maid is one of the classic moments from the movie. On the other hand, EG, she's blunt and outspoken about rejecting "settling down".
Yet, as the movie progresses, at first blush, it seems that the truth is the opposite for both of them. Mr. I, when finally given a chance to "settle down," finds himself to be frankly miserable. On the other hand, EG? Of all the characters, she seems to take to domesticity the most readily. However, I have questions about that (see below).
In a way, you can divide the "Incredible Family" by the male and female. The males (Mr. I and Dash), are straining at the bit, wishing for the chance to reveal who they are. Mr. I wants to go and be a hero again. Dash? He knows he's special, and he just wants nothing more than a chance to strut his stuff.
The females are more complex (and frankly, more interesting). Violet is the easy one. Her transformation through the movie is at the same time well done, yet overdone. It's too fast, too profound, but that's Hollywood and looking for a happy ending. The thing though, is that through most of the movie, Violet is pretty obviously ashamed of who and what she is. I suspect that if you'd given her Rogue's choice from X-Men 3, she'd have taken it in a heartbeat. "Normal! What does anyone in this family know about normal?"
That's what brings us to Mrs. I. The family early on is disfunctional at all levels, but I begin to wonder if she's not the most disfunctional of them all. When it comes to the kids' powers, she's the most openly repressive. Mr. I can't help but feel (and express) a bit of pride over Dash's escapades (and speed), while Mrs. I seems to want to shove all of it away into some deep, dark family closet, hidden from all. I've got a sneaking suspicion that Violet's emotional problems have been helped along more than a fair bit by her mother. (By the way, have you ever noticed, that Violet speaks "shrink talk" really well? I take it she's seen a therapist...)
With Mrs. I, I'm starting to wonder if her own "life of quiet desperation" is the most dishonest of them all. She calls her husband to brag that she's finally unpacked (after however many years). Is that really forced? Is there a piece of her that doesn't fully accept the life that they have?
So, the males seem to be accepting of their powers, but frustrated and beaten down by their inability to actually use them. The females seem to be far less accepting of who they are.
Now, as you follow each of them though their arcs, it remains just as interesting. I don't think any of them become "perfect" or even especially healthy, but they certainly grow and mature.
Mr. I: As the central character, he grows in a few different ways. Aside from his frustration at being forced into a dead end life, I think you can also argue that he doesn't fully understand being a hero. The most telling scene in that respect isn't how much self-confidence he gains when he's given that "false chance" to become a hero, but something small and subtle. When his boss at the insurance company is telling him off, he sees the poor guy getting mugged. His "heroic instincts" cry out for him to go out, but his boss won't let him. Up to this point, there's no problem. But, did you catch what he said, "he got away." For Mr. I, heroism wasn't about helping the weak. It was about the glory, the fun and the rush. It was about the "game." Once the game was over, and all that was left was a poor victim, Mr. I's interest waned.
It's obvious that he grows as he realizes the place of his family, where's he's willing to go into the final fight alone, not for glory or the "rush," but because he'd rather fall alone than risk those he loves. However, does he begin to understand the higher purpose still, that he's there for those who are helpless? The movie is unclear. I'd like to think he does, but you can't really say one way or the other.
Mrs. I: She's probably the most confusing of them all. She clearly is willing to "step back" into the fray, but aside from "don't mess with mommabear's mate or cubs," it's unclear why. I guess, it's because she's the most mysterious to begin with, so her arc is the hardest to see. Yet, the final moment of Violet's epiphany is the moment that Mrs. I says she's proud of Violet. (at the plane crash).
Violet: I love Violet, she's my favorite character in the whole movie. I think that her epiphany is a bit "hollywood" in that it is very fast and very profound, where she goes from a scared, neurotic kid to a self confident young woman who dictates the terms of her date with Tony. Still though, her story is really a story of acceptance. Acceptance of herself, who she is, and what she is. It may be a coincidence, but as the movie goes along, her powers shift. While both her invisibility and force fields are established early on, we generally see her invisibility early. (Hiding from Tony, hiding on the plane, hiding from the guards), but later on, we mostly see her force fields (the first time the four fight as a team, breaking out of the prison, when Syndrome's jet crashes, though she did use her invisibility once in the big fight to get the controller). It's almost as if the invisibility is a sign of her self-loathing, while the force fields come along as she accepts herself. Maybe that's reading too much in.
Dash: Dash is easily the one who matures the least, which shouldn't be surprising. He is a pre-teen boy after all, they can only handle so much maturation. Even in the end, his "goodie" is getting to race and get the accolades of the victor.
As you can tell, I just love this movie, and the characters who make it up. There's a side of me that hopes that Pixar makes another one, because this one is so wonderful. Yet, I always have to wonder, how could they follow it up? The character arcs are so deep and profound, that another movie would be very difficult to make and do it justice.
Yet, when the Incredibles came out, I went to the theater to see it, either three or four times, I forget. Not because I was going with new groups of friends either, I went alone each time. What was it about that movie that resonated with me so strongly at the time?
I'm not a huge person for literary analysis. I read books and go to movies largely out of a "sit back and enjoy the ride" perspective. When I look at what some people can get out of things, I'm always like "whoa... never would have even thought of that." Yet, there are some things that get my attention and get me thinking in those terms. The Incredibles is one of those things.
It's not just my love of Superheroes that made the movie for me, but the far more profound stories of each of those characters. They each have an "arc" of their own, and each arc is interwoven and fascinating.
The opening of the movie, with the "candid" interviews with Mr. I and Elasti-Girl are in so many ways the key to the movie. In many ways, it's easy to argue that in those "shorts" the characters are either lying, or more likely, self-decieved. Mr. I wants a chance to settle down. His rant about the maid is one of the classic moments from the movie. On the other hand, EG, she's blunt and outspoken about rejecting "settling down".
Yet, as the movie progresses, at first blush, it seems that the truth is the opposite for both of them. Mr. I, when finally given a chance to "settle down," finds himself to be frankly miserable. On the other hand, EG? Of all the characters, she seems to take to domesticity the most readily. However, I have questions about that (see below).
In a way, you can divide the "Incredible Family" by the male and female. The males (Mr. I and Dash), are straining at the bit, wishing for the chance to reveal who they are. Mr. I wants to go and be a hero again. Dash? He knows he's special, and he just wants nothing more than a chance to strut his stuff.
The females are more complex (and frankly, more interesting). Violet is the easy one. Her transformation through the movie is at the same time well done, yet overdone. It's too fast, too profound, but that's Hollywood and looking for a happy ending. The thing though, is that through most of the movie, Violet is pretty obviously ashamed of who and what she is. I suspect that if you'd given her Rogue's choice from X-Men 3, she'd have taken it in a heartbeat. "Normal! What does anyone in this family know about normal?"
That's what brings us to Mrs. I. The family early on is disfunctional at all levels, but I begin to wonder if she's not the most disfunctional of them all. When it comes to the kids' powers, she's the most openly repressive. Mr. I can't help but feel (and express) a bit of pride over Dash's escapades (and speed), while Mrs. I seems to want to shove all of it away into some deep, dark family closet, hidden from all. I've got a sneaking suspicion that Violet's emotional problems have been helped along more than a fair bit by her mother. (By the way, have you ever noticed, that Violet speaks "shrink talk" really well? I take it she's seen a therapist...)
With Mrs. I, I'm starting to wonder if her own "life of quiet desperation" is the most dishonest of them all. She calls her husband to brag that she's finally unpacked (after however many years). Is that really forced? Is there a piece of her that doesn't fully accept the life that they have?
So, the males seem to be accepting of their powers, but frustrated and beaten down by their inability to actually use them. The females seem to be far less accepting of who they are.
Now, as you follow each of them though their arcs, it remains just as interesting. I don't think any of them become "perfect" or even especially healthy, but they certainly grow and mature.
Mr. I: As the central character, he grows in a few different ways. Aside from his frustration at being forced into a dead end life, I think you can also argue that he doesn't fully understand being a hero. The most telling scene in that respect isn't how much self-confidence he gains when he's given that "false chance" to become a hero, but something small and subtle. When his boss at the insurance company is telling him off, he sees the poor guy getting mugged. His "heroic instincts" cry out for him to go out, but his boss won't let him. Up to this point, there's no problem. But, did you catch what he said, "he got away." For Mr. I, heroism wasn't about helping the weak. It was about the glory, the fun and the rush. It was about the "game." Once the game was over, and all that was left was a poor victim, Mr. I's interest waned.
It's obvious that he grows as he realizes the place of his family, where's he's willing to go into the final fight alone, not for glory or the "rush," but because he'd rather fall alone than risk those he loves. However, does he begin to understand the higher purpose still, that he's there for those who are helpless? The movie is unclear. I'd like to think he does, but you can't really say one way or the other.
Mrs. I: She's probably the most confusing of them all. She clearly is willing to "step back" into the fray, but aside from "don't mess with mommabear's mate or cubs," it's unclear why. I guess, it's because she's the most mysterious to begin with, so her arc is the hardest to see. Yet, the final moment of Violet's epiphany is the moment that Mrs. I says she's proud of Violet. (at the plane crash).
Violet: I love Violet, she's my favorite character in the whole movie. I think that her epiphany is a bit "hollywood" in that it is very fast and very profound, where she goes from a scared, neurotic kid to a self confident young woman who dictates the terms of her date with Tony. Still though, her story is really a story of acceptance. Acceptance of herself, who she is, and what she is. It may be a coincidence, but as the movie goes along, her powers shift. While both her invisibility and force fields are established early on, we generally see her invisibility early. (Hiding from Tony, hiding on the plane, hiding from the guards), but later on, we mostly see her force fields (the first time the four fight as a team, breaking out of the prison, when Syndrome's jet crashes, though she did use her invisibility once in the big fight to get the controller). It's almost as if the invisibility is a sign of her self-loathing, while the force fields come along as she accepts herself. Maybe that's reading too much in.
Dash: Dash is easily the one who matures the least, which shouldn't be surprising. He is a pre-teen boy after all, they can only handle so much maturation. Even in the end, his "goodie" is getting to race and get the accolades of the victor.
As you can tell, I just love this movie, and the characters who make it up. There's a side of me that hopes that Pixar makes another one, because this one is so wonderful. Yet, I always have to wonder, how could they follow it up? The character arcs are so deep and profound, that another movie would be very difficult to make and do it justice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
