This article is from the EMU News Archive. Current EMU new is available at www.emu.edu/news

Who are the Reel American Heroes?

By Kenneth R. Morefield

In the fall of 2003, I noted that Hollywood had made a slew of war movies in which the protagonists were heavy underdogs fighting a defensive war against a morally inferior invading horde.

Some of these films were historical: "The Last Samurai," "Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World" and "The Alamo." Others, such as "Matrix: Revolutions" and "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King," take place in imaginary worlds. In each case, though, the narratives were constructed to present one side of the conflict as clearly in the right. Although garnering mixed critical reception, these films were mostly more commercially successful than was last spring’s big war movie, "Troy."

"Troy's" reported domestic gross of $132 million dollars has accounted for less than 30 percent of its worldwide gross. These figures suggest that "Troy" has been less popular in the United States than other recent war movies and less popular in the United States than overseas. Why? Much like the popularity of the earlier films, Troy's ambiguous reception can reasonably be seen as a response to conflicting feelings about American military involvement in Iraq.

Due to its epic source material, "Troy" follows a dual story line through much of the first half of the movie. The audience does not know whether or not to identify with Achilles, who is supremely skillful but feels unappreciated by those in authority over him, or Hector, who finds himself sucked into a war not of his choosing but feels bound by ties to his country and family.

Brad Pitt's casting and billing suggests that the audience should relate first to Achilles and view Hector as his worthy adversary. While Achilles does embody an absolute competence and confidence that Americans will identify with, his moral standing is somewhat questionable in modern terms. Achilles flaunts the gods by destroying a statue of Apollo after a battle, he takes a slave as his personal concubine, and he drags the body of his defeated enemy around the walls of Troy in direct violation to the rules of military engagement. In contrast, Hector tries to prevent the war and ultimately fights in hopes of securing a better life for his family and country.

In an interview with the BBC news at the Cannes film festival, Brad Pitt compared the bloodthirsty kings Agamemnon and Menelaus to contemporary leaders who are pursuing war. In the same interview, co-star Saffron Burrows underscored that the film's primary identification was with the Trojans, not the Greeks, when she said, that there was a "terrible sense of deja vu about what the Trojans faced and what we're facing at the moment."

What the Trojans faced - invasion by an overwhelmingly superior military power - has no contemporary analogue for American audiences to identify with. In the wake of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, however, Achilles' public humiliation of his defeated enemy is likely to produce just the sort of ambivalent response that American moviegoers are giving the film.

The ancient Greek heroes were supposed to represent the perfect embodiment of some valued element of their culture. The wily Odysseus was the perfect embodiment of cunning, Hercules the perfect embodiment of strength. Achilles is the perfect warrior in a warrior culture. The fact America has not embraced him as the perfect embodiment of its own aspirations suggests that it continues to have ambiguous feelings about the use of military power divorced from moral integrity.

While Americans can look at characters such as Aragorn (in "The Lord of the Rings"), Captain Aubrey (in "Master and Commander"), or Davy Crockett (in "The Alamo") and see in them virtues such as courage, sacrifice and honor that can and have been manifested in war, the feelings and questions raised by Troy are much less comfortable: Does the rest of the world view us as the Trojans did the Greeks? Are they right to do so?

Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 911" has been the cinematic focal point for most recent discussion about the war in Iraq. The Internet site "Movie Mojo" reports that Moore's film has made 93 percent of its grosses domestically. Troy, conversely, has made 72 percent of its gross internationally, making nearly 60 times as much money overseas as has the Moore film ($344 million to $6.5 million).

What do these numbers mean? I would argue that they suggest that "Troy" is performing the same cultural work overseas that the previously mentioned films performed in America, that of buttressing our view of ourselves as the aggrieved and injured party in military and global conflict. Whether or not America wants to see itself as a modern day Achilles, it must surely come to terms with the fact that this is how it is viewed by much of the rest of the world.

Kenneth R. Morefield is an assistant professor of English in the language and literature department at EMU.

— article by: Kenneth R. Morefield; posted July 19, 2004