I have always been a skeptic of movie media, mostly because I believe there are places that the written word can go that a movie cannot touch in under 2 1/2 hours. The inner snob in me prefers a work that was put together by a singular person, or a person with help from maybe an editor or a publisher or two. Get more than two hundred people on a piece of work that is often credited to one auteur, one actor, one writer, and you induce a long series of eyerolls from yours truly, especially when that piece of work is yet another vigilante nice guy movie starring our favorite big budget actor. Thankfully, spending time with Chef has cured me of my habit of dismissing movies offhand without at least giving them a chance. I’ve seen some genuinely good movies in the two-plus years we’ve been together, finally forcing me concede that not all movies are crap. Just most of them.
For a long while the only exposure I got to film was from a self-declared expert who dragged me to see every piece of shit movie that boasted a big filming and advertising budget, which meant I was forced to watch everything from Quentin Tarantino’s vapid if stylish fap-fests to the latest in James Bond (”I thought Christmas only comes once a year.”) and I noticed a pattern of appreciation for empty, cliche vigilante movies with which my declared expert truly, deeply identified.
You must understand, my movie expert was also a Nice Guy™. In case you’ve forgotten, the ultimate Nice Guy™ post:
Often, the self-proclaimed nice guy wants special credit for just for being nice. It’s as if he wants you to exclaim, “Oh, you poor fellow. What a burden it must be to treat women as you’d like to be treated. Above and beyond, old chap. Above and beyond!” I’m all for niceness, but I consider it a basic moral requirement for all humans, not a special bonus feature.
This brand of Nice Guy™ desperately wants all the world to shower him with appreciation for all of his niceness. He also wanted the world to see his inherent potential as a deeply dramatic, deep, deep guy, who really cares, who cares so much he would do anything — anything! — for his family and “real” friends. (Unreal friends are those who don’t appreciate his awesomeness.) And he really wants you to see that. Save the Day Guy™ is just like the hero in the movies. Just like, I don’t know, every lead character Mel Gibson has immortalized on the big screen.
The Gaze™ is a point of interest for this particular kind of Nice Guy™. Not only will he liken himself to vigilantes and superheroes, he lives his life as though he is watched, perhaps as though a camera follows him through the banalities of the day. He does Nice™ things for people who have the potential to congratulate him on his excellence. He surrounds himself with the latest gadgets, just like Bond, and probably has such an affinity for deep, deep drama that he strikes poses in casual conversations that remind of Trent Reznor at his most arrogant of photo shoots. He not only wants the world to see that he is in a partnered relationship, but despite the poor woman’s humanity will only identify her in company as “My Girlfriend™” and desperately wants his friends to recognize her hot, hot ladiness. He might even make a premature public appearance in a flight suit congratulating himself on a job well done.
Over time, after spending far too many nights in dark rooms watching Mel Gibson movies with very dudely guys, I realized just how scarily these young men internalized mythic heroism and the sect of Hollywood that promotes it. The thing about heroism is that it isn’t very glamorous — it’s being in the wrong place at the wrong time and keeping one’s head on straight, it’s managing to hold your arms out when you realize there’s a baby flying at your head from the sixth floor of a burning building. Heroism is predicated on the potential of tragedy, thus Save the Day Guy™ aims to predicate his identity on the misfortunes of others.
Blind idolization is what you expect of children, not of adults, so this fantasy bugs me. We all fantasize perfect situations, sure — the perfect put-down, the perfect seduction — I’m guilty of imagining and re-imagining the things I would say if and when, but the rational side of me steps in and realizes that the perfect situation never occurs. The vigilante wannabe, Save The Day Guy™, is the guy the Nice Guy™wishes he could be since Nice™ isn’t so nice. Where the Nice Guy™ laments that his mere humanity doesn’t get him laid, Save the Day Guy™ laments that he isn’t presented with fame and fortune for his potential nobility. Save the Day Guy™ isn’t working, isn’t building, isn’t aiming toward a goal other than fame or fortune. He is a lottery player in a lottery that doesn’t exist.
Something that I find so frustrating about those who idolize fictional vigilantes and superheroes goes beyond the inherent vanity this daydream requires. It’s just so unchallenging. To be this kind of hero is to “save” a person, requiring a public, noble act of brave deed that can be admired by a public audience. Cheap self-congratulation isn’t well-admired by the press and isn’t likely to get one laid, but it sure is easy — even if pantomiming fictional masculine ideals from a generation past looks pretty silly to a modern audience. The real challenge is coming to terms with the fact that masculinity means more than hyper-strengths displayed in extreme situations and that personal success for an American man can be more than being defined as the Strong Oak or Big Wheel. Women aren’t exempt from wanting this live-action gaze-fest either, fancying themselves to be tantalizing seductresses or lurid femme fatales, but there isn’t as full a social script for women to take on these roles compared to the visual scripts for men. Women’s roles in this kind of media are dependent on the presence of men and sexual subservience, sometimes on sexual domininance with nothing in between (blame the patriarchy). With the rebirth of lame live-action superhero movies (thank god the Schwarzenegger vigilante era ended) I cringe at the breed of young men who emerge from the movie theater breathless in the presence of a new, white archetype to idolize, dreaming they too can, in the most cliche of ways, save the girl, save the day, save the world.
Good analogy. It reminds me of a story I heard from a family member about overhearing a man who had just been laid off.
“So,” asked his friend, “what are you gonna do?”
“I don’t know,” said the unfortunate person. “I think I only have one hope - I gotta put all of my last paycheck into lottery tickets. I just gotta win.”
This isn’t a pile-on, not at all, I know what it’s like to be economically desperate, but the thing is that in terms of sex and fame, the STDG-lottery analogy is deep because it also points out that they’re starting from zero and need to get to sixty. Actually, they’re starting from reverse and need to get to 120.
And, in many, many STDG cases, the reason they’re in reverse is that they studiously refused to shift into gear. Often because it was the liberals and the feminazis that were telling them to.
These “STDG” people sound an awful lot like Travis Bickle.
I know the point of this post is to be anti-vigiliante movies, but I actually like Bruce Willis’s version of this character, especially in The Last Boyscout. In a nutshell, he’s much more sardonic than the archetype, and also smokes and bleeds much more. Also interesting that you see these movies as turning on the “saves the day” moment. I always thought they were much more straightforwardly about revenge. But maybe we’re just thinking of different movies. Or maybe this just shows what a twisted person I am.
Hey, don’t lump that mean dry-drunk President in with the rest of us just mildly sociopathic Nice Guys.
I frequently find myself hating movies based soley on the fact that the few token female figures in the film are either completely helpless, or they aren’t to be completely helpless and then end up being mostly helpless after all. (With the occasional assistance of a blunt object over the villain’s head Gee thanks Mary Jane)
I think the only film that I didn’t really feel that way about was Mr. and Mrs. Smith. And the Tomb Raider movies. (Or maybe I have a thing for Angelina Jolie… sue me)
I WANT to like the james bond movies, but the female characters are such weak, helpless characatures of hot women that I’m just bored. I appreciate more movies like Die Hard, which for the most part leave out the helpless female component, or at least render a bunch of people helpless.
Maybe I just want to be Save the Day girl. Though I’d prefer to have everything be a okay, saving people is just so much work.
wow, this was an amazing post.
There are many, many good and even great films out there, and none of them include a character by the name of James Bond.
Thanks so much for this post. The ideas about mythic heroism that pervade our conceptions of masculinity need to be examined critically in this way, espeically, I think, by the men who help to perpetuate them. Fantasies like Die Hard, while they have been enjoyable to me growing up, can be looked at through this sort of lens, and seen as fantasies that can do some harm, not only to the psyche of men, but also, of course to the world at large, when we take your point about Bush Jr. to heart.
I worry more about the Persistent Romantic Guy in the movies or books, which in real life tends to mean borderline or actual stalker who won’t take no for an answer.
If you think that most books are good (in contrast to movies), clearly you’ve never worked in a bookstore. I worked in one when The Celestine Prophecy was a huge bestseller and oh my god was that a giant steaming pile of crap.
I do know what you mean about the Self-Appointed Expert, though. I’ve been one myself, and inadvertently ruined really good movies for people (like the original version of The Haunting). And the worst is when you realize the S-AE doesn’t actually know anything about movies at all and thinks that Michael Bay is the Greatest Filmmaker of All Time.
Your description of STDG rings true, and it’s too bad that many men fall into this narcissistic mindset. On the other hand, I much prefer it to the “Asshole Who Has Figured Out How To Get Laid Consistently By Exploiting Female Psychopathologies And Has Realized That He Will Receive Less Criticism For This Behavior Than For His Previous Superhero Pose” that many ex-STDGs mature into. So for my part, I try to give STDGs positive feedback and steer them in the right direction, rather than just piling shit on them.
Frankly, there’s little enough public-mindedness out there without ridiculing people who are trying, however misguidedly, to “save the world”. If egolessness were required for every act of positive social value, I doubt that any of us would have many good deeds to our names.
I actually like Bruce Willis’s version of this character, especially in The Last Boyscout. In a nutshell, he’s much more sardonic than the archetype, and also smokes and bleeds much more. Also interesting that you see these movies as turning on the “saves the day” moment. I always thought they were much more straightforwardly about revenge. But maybe we’re just thinking of different movies. Or maybe this just shows what a twisted person I am.
Actually while I was reading up on hero stuff (mostly classical) I came across something in Wikipedia about how the key to creating a modern hero as opposed to just some character is how well you can get the intended audience to identify with the hero character. Basically you can’t identify with the hero unless there’s a personal connection — this is why I think there are so many hero/vigilante fathers (you could probably argue that much of the adult audience for big budget movies are parents, just by virtue of the number of adult parents in the US) — movie makers believe that the men identify as protector and the women want a protector family guy.
This could probably explain several things about younger male audiences as well, still grappling with what it means to be a man, still grappling with financial and relationship issues, etc. — having a big ripply-muscled, competent dude to look up to is an easy fantasy.
The anti-hero is for us sick, cynical folks.
What Jeff said; Lauren, this is a terrific analysis. Liked this bit in particular:
Cheap self-congratulation isn’t well-admired by the press and isn’t likely to get one laid, but it sure is easy — even if pantomiming fictional masculine ideals from a generation past looks pretty silly to a modern audience. The real challenge is coming to terms with the fact that masculinity means more than hyper-strengths displayed in extreme situations and that personal success for an American man can be more than being defined as the Strong Oak or Big Wheel.
And you even work in those classic terms from the 49% Majority. This men’s studies prof thanks you.
Matt, that reminds of an opinion piece I read on Salon yesterday about Wesley Autrey, the guy who jumped onto the subway tracks to save a teenager. The writer basically wonders how much material value we can place on a heroic act and whether or not it cheapens real acts of bravery. I wanted to fit this in but I was already getting long-winded.
Personally I think there’s a lot more opportunity to “save the day” in smaller ways — volunteer, mentor, pick up litter — than in these grandiose ways that STDG fantasizes about, but the key here is that STDG doesn’t want to really do anything good for goodness’ sake. It’s solely an ego thing.
Great Post, Lauren!!! It is really stirring the murky pot of sludge that is my brain.
I personally get very excited about guys who consistantly do little things to make life better for everyone, and it’s much more “Do-Able” than being a superhero. (You know, guys kind of like Loretta Lynn’s father in Coal Miner’s Daughter.) Everyone (but guys especially, because for the most part they are not encouraged by society at large in this direction) IMO should try in every way everyday to make things better for the people they actually come in contact with. (As opposed to, you know, imaginary people in situations that never arise, as you have so deftly pointed out).
How do you get your comments (the ones YOU Lauren are making) come out in a blue square? Are you just saying “Blockquote”? Duh, I bet that is how.
Matt, that reminds of an opinion piece I read on Salon yesterday about Wesley Autrey, the guy who jumped onto the subway tracks to save a teenager. The writer basically wonders how much material value we can place on a heroic act and whether or not it cheapens real acts of bravery.
I would bet you large amounts of money that there were Save The Day Guys standing on that platform who are now walking around New York saying, “I would have saved that guy — I was getting ready to jump off the platform — but that Autrey guy pushed me out of the way and stole all the glory.”
Alright, this may not be as relevant as I feel it is, but:
I am a big ol’ nerd and read a great deal of fan fiction, partially because I like how the (mostly female) authors reconceptualize the Big Male Archetype characters they deal with.
One of my favorite things about this reconceptualization of movie and tv ‘heroes’ is how frequently fanfiction authors look at tv protagonists who put themselves in contrived life-or-death situations every week and go “actually, that’s not so much heroism as a sort of pathological disregard for everyone’s safety. What is up with that?” It does make for good drama when a protagonist is always putting everyone in peril so he can risk his neck to save them, but it isn’t a very healthy model of behavior to idolize.
Slightly off topic, but anybody wanna take a shot at editing the wikipedia entry for “nice guy”? The meaning of “nice guy” as used on this site isn’t captured in the current entry, while meanings such as “being ‘whipped’ ” and “effeminacy” are. If I have to be taught that some people see men who are nice as equivalent with men who are ruled by the feminine, i.e., not real men, it seems only fair that we teach what NiceGuyTM means. First paragraph of wikipedia entry pasted in below:
“Nice guy” is a term in the general public discourse and in popular culture for a male with certain personality traits and behaviors.[1] The term is ambiguous, and means different things to different people.[2] Many traits, both positive and negative are associated with “nice guys,” which sometimes are conflicting or contradictory. These traits include sensitivity, agreeableness, pleasantness, considerateness, respectfulness, altruism, understanding, kindness, sympathy, dependability, honesty, trustworthiness, passivity, sexual cautiousness or inexperience, chivalrousness, effeminacy, passive-aggressiveness, conflict-avoidance, “wimpiness”, “spinelessness”, being “whipped”, manipulativeness, and submissiveness. There is wide controversy over whether nice guys are attractive to women or not, and whether being “nice” leads to success in life.
Hi, Lauren, I can’t make hide nor hair of these trackback doo-hickeys, but I wrote a post about masculinity and masochism in the first episode of 24 that also discussed your post here. If you’re interested:
http://the-reaction.blogspot.com/2007/01/few-initial-reactions-to-24-premiere.html