Deadpool

Re: Daniel Potter’s post 102361 of 12/27/20

Indeed, Deadpool is a superb movie, one of my favorites for the last decade.

Forget the silly jokes …

This is actually a crucial part of the benevolent life of this film. The jokes are often good, and sometimes groaners, but they essentially express that fact that the hero is in full charge and doesn’t take evil more seriously than it needs to be taken. Don’t “forget” the jokes. Enjoy them. Savor them. That’s how heroism should be depicted.

This comic element is missing from almost all great hero movies, though it was done pretty well in Tombstone with Doc Holliday.

One of my criticisms of almost all heroic literature, including Ayn Rand’s, is that the protagonists have little or no jocund temperament, which is one of the primary artistic qualities of actual heroes — with a terrific sense of life and absolute certitude that they can conquer anything, and make fun of what needs to be made fun of. Without this comic quality, I don’t fully buy into any depicted hero. It’s a sine qua non.

/sb

Re: David Elmore’s post 134421 of 12/28/20

Mr. Elmore seems to be defending an aphorism: there is nothing so serious as the comic. I disagree.

• He indicates that he refers to “almost all great hero movies” and “almost all heroic literature.” But if that’s his frame of reference he should explain why being jocund is necessary to show that one is a hero. Yes, a writer could give that attribute to his hero, but why must he? Being heroic is a matter of showing great courage or integrity or steadfastness, or in general any great degree of virtue, in the face of adversity. A man can be a hero and have any number of other characteristics, his particular type of humor or lack thereof being purely optional on the part of the writer. If Mr. Elmore just told us what he prefers based on his own sense of life, as anyone might do, that would be fine. But he says, “That’s how heroism should be depicted.”
• Elmore suggests that the heroes in literature and film are very strait-laced and devoid of humor, but I take it that he sees the works as a whole that way, and insists that they must have some “comic element.” But lots of heroic literature is full of humor – supplied by the narrator, and not necessarily built into the dialogue of the hero. Rand, Hugo, Dostoevsky, Dumas, Sienkiewicz and many others have wonderful senses of humor. (Strangely, I find dark old Dostoevsky the funniest of them all). The humor does not undercut the heroes, it is always directed at the villains, and it serves the function Mr. Elmore points to of belittling the significance of the villains.
• A work of art is an enormous condensation, requiring ruthless economizing and paring down, to distill the essence of what you are presenting. There is no place for the non-essential. It only weakens the product. And humor runs the great risk, often, of lowering the level of seriousness in what you are trying to accomplish. In the scheme of things, what is the relative importance of these two things: showing a hero facing a life-and-death alternative of his two greatest values while not sacrificing his soul in the process, or having the hero deliver a joke. I will go back over and over to reread works which have the first, but I wouldn’t give a damn about the second.

/sb

Re: David Elmore’s post 134421 of 12/28/20

Rats, I’m disappointed it seems to have a lot of gore and language: it is rated R. I feel like nowadays people speak in fifth grade language and if they cannot express themselves they curse, so I try to avoid it.

Deadpool Movie Review: https://www.commonsensemedia.org/movie-reviews/deadpool

/sb

Re: John Pattillo’s post 134424 of 12/28/20

He (Elmore) should explain why being jocund is necessary to show that one is a hero.

Because a (quality) sense of humor is the apex character trait of confidence — objectivity and self-understanding, with the complete ability to succeed in life. Humor drips from the pores of great men. They have such a wonderful grip on their surroundings that they are generally light-hearted, except in moments of true peril, but even then sometimes, like Cyrano.

… or having the hero deliver a joke.

One of the first things we learned in debate class is see if you can somehow trivialize the comments of your opponent. Nicely done, John. I was not, of course, talking about some idiot spraying jokes, though there is a fair amount of that in Deadpool. I was talking about wit, pleasant goofing around, wry comments, laughing at the idiotic, a quality joke in the right place, benevolent ribbing, insouciance, blithe banter, etc. Those are the hallmarks of the man who doesn’t take things more seriously than he should, the man who knows he will be victorious, one way or another.

Almost all great writers, including Dostoyevsky, do not know how to write heroic characters — or at least, truly heroic characters. Dostoyevsky’s macabre wit was somewhat satisfying on first read, I suppose, but of course, he is the writer, and not the hero.

Most “great” literature is sh*t. About 90%. I suppose this is because the writers themselves were sh*t people, with a wounded self-esteem or a simply awful outlook on life. This kind of mindset cannot write heroes.

/sb