Shaheen

Interesting take on the arc super hero movies have had recently. While there is never just one source of why films follow a trend or pattern, I think that the US involvement in an ongoing war certainly influenced things. The Dark Knight Rises is unquestionably authoritarian, while The Man of Steel embarks on an extended Jesus Joins the National Guard spectacle. It will be interesting to see where this all ends up. That said, all of these movies are following a formula, and I wonder when that formula will wear thin. Aside from packaging (gritty vs fun), the films do nothing new.

The cynic in me thinks Frank Miller’s recent health issues might be prompting either cooperativeness in Miller, or a desperate attempt by other creators to get something, anything out of him that is bankable.

His Occupy Wallstreet diatribe did him no favors in allowing anyone to think he is a reasonable man, and his recent works underscore his growing paranoia and hostility. To say that he is unrestrained is perhaps a bit of an understatement; even a few pages into “Holy Terror” should tell anyone that Miller is more unhinged than unrestrained.

I am always puzzled by the types that espouse violence and advocate for war yet never themselves put on a uniform or make any effort to enact their beliefs. Frank Miller is one of those types. His work shouts a lot, often crudely, and his personal life is littered with challenges for others to join the military while he sits in safety. He tries to glorify the nastiness of violence and war without ever participating in it. I am prior enlisted and I cannot stand this type of person.

His work has suffered, and most certainly his mind.

No mention of The Punisher? The reason the anti-hero works so well in American popular culture is due to its expression of an anxiety. That is, the anti-hero is often a person who embodies the conflict of “moral good” vs. “greater good.” For example, is the bombing of innocent civilians a justifiable cost if it means winning against an ‘evil’ aggressor? The nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are subjects that are heavily debated today because of this moral conflict.

Or, domestically, ignoring a “greater good” (law, order, justice system) so that a “moral good” may occur? Like letting a thief steal food for their family instead of turning them in to the police. The law was broken and then ignored due to sympathy of a moral good.

The Punisher was created in 1976, and was a direct response to both the war in Vietnam and the issues with crime on the domestic front. We are a peace-loving citizenry, yet desire safety; we are supposed to be a country of moral righteousness, yet were embroiled in a brutal conflict widely considered unjust.

Frank Castle was a veteran of the Marine Corps, having already fought in Vietnam when his family was caught in gangland crossfire. His thirst for revenge-justice coupled with his idea of honor, brought him to the logical conclusion of becoming an anti-hero. Here you have a man who will not accept human collateral damage, yet will hunt the wicked with lethal consequences *outside the law.* The Punisher answered an anxiety the public was having; and his success hasn’t dimmed at all because of this.

While two different (and debatable quality) movies have been made about The Punisher, I would argue that he inadvertently starred in a third: The Sniper. Chris Kyle adopted The Punisher’s death head logo and before that it had already been emblazoned on endless military and veteran paraphernalia, and not just for its looks.

The Punisher is in a constant moral quandary, and his relevance embodying that anxiety is at an all time high in this post-9/11 world.