The Superhero Paradox

Yesterday I went to watch 'Hancock', yet another superhero story, but this one seemed different. Hollywood has converted all possible comic superheroes into major motion pictures, but Hancock wasn't one of them. The trailer didn't make the movie seem to be yet another conventional superhero movie. And so, I was interested to know what new aspects of a superhero could they portray through the story of Hancock. The film definitely turned out to be good. The story this time, concentrated on the messed up relations of the superhero with the public. His stunts, landings, fights and saving acts proved costly to the government and subsequently the tax-payers, who also had to suffer damages like car dents and broken houses. The public starts seeing him in bad light. The media is hell bent on spoiling his image, and he, in turn becomes a kind of escapist. He starts drinking excessively, doesn't give a shit to the crime happening around him, falls into some kind of depression and starts avoiding public.

The basic problem with him was that he wanted people to love him. He still wanted to help people, wanted to be recognized, and wanted to be thanked for his acts. This got me thinking, we humans always want to see the exact opposite of the conventional practices or acceptances of things around us. This habit is good and has definitely helped mankind break so many unthinkable barriers and evolve in a way unimaginable to anyone earlier. But sometimes this leads to a kind of a paradox.

Take superheroes for example. The very first superhero (maybe it was Superman. I'm not sure) was created when someone thought that what if a there existed a person who could control his senses, his powers, his emotions and get in touch with his inner self to realize his own potential in a way, no human being has till now?? And the idea became an instant hit. And thus, the trend of superheroes started. More and more concepts, stories, superheroes with different abilities were created in the world of comics, one after the another. People lapped up all those stories, because they enjoyed it. They tried to satiate their imagination by being a part of that world vicariously where this unconventionality did not exist. With the passage of time, technologies for film making evolved and superhero comics were turned into motion pictures.

People started connecting to the idea of a superhero more easily. Soon, most of the famous comic superheroes had turned into hollywood flicks. And finally people grew tired of them. Why?? Because now, the superheroes had become conventional. They were the invincible, self-controlled ideal characters who placed their duty over everything else. And this was not really digested well by the audiences. They now wanted something different. They wanted superheroes to behave like normal, everyday guys who could feel weak., get hurt and could be overpowered. And hence the Spiderman trilogy and Batman Begins struck a chord with the audiences around the globe.

Those stories were acceptable. Even I could connect to them well 'cos the story showed ordinary humans getting superhuman powers. In case of Batman, it was just technology, and a tough person who could survive all odds at a higher level as compared to normal people. Spiderman was shown to be overpowered by love, a desire to be someone else in the second movie and to be overpowered by jealousy, false pride and revenge in the third one.

And here is Hancock. This superhero has existed from thousands of years, and is immortal, until he comes close to his lady-love and they both loose their powers to lead a mortal life. Now coming to my point, if a character is given almost God like qualities, then why do we want to see them in a mortal light?? i.e. Why do we want to give them human qualities of love, hate, revenge, acceptance, false pride & depression?? If they are so human-like, how can they be called superheroes???

A superhero is someone who can keep his emotions at bay (control them very well so as to not hinder his ultimate goal of protecting people). Hancock is rude, lacks all possible public etiquettes, and reacts like every normal person would do. How does that qualify him to be a superhero??? Agreed he's good at heart, and he changed for the good. But a superhero by convention would never become what he was at one point of time. A superhero wouldn't be rude, not give a damn about others' property or what they think or evoke anger amongst the masses so as to go against him in the first place. And not just Hancock, there're more in the line to follow. "Screw-up Superheroes" are the new "in thing" in hollywood. We'll all be brought to witness a fleet of movies in which a superhero can't control his own suit (first of all, should just some ordinary guy with a hi-tech suit and no sense to use it be called a superhero??? No Batman, you aren't one of those), a superhero who's sloppy, a bad guy assumed to be superhero, etc.

My question is - should we label these characters as superheroes, who are more ordinary-people-like, have weaknesses and go thru' emotional roller-coasters like humans do???