Itsunari 2000
03-03-2005, 06:45 PM
I've been thinking recently about theconcept of heroism -what is a hero ? The movie "Hero " got me thinking about this over the past few weeks , as ( apart from being jaw-droppingly awesome with some of the most beautiful and spectacular visuals you're ever likely to see) the underlying theme of the movie is heroism- indeed the struggle of the man called Nameless. The movie concludes , leaving us to decide for ourselves who really was the hero of the story.
Some could argue Nameless really was the hero- he trained for an intense 10 years to become the best, all for a very noble cause - to avenge his people.However ,the fact he didn't fulfill his original aim (though obviously not cowardice - he faces an entire army !) could allow some to question his " heroism " - his " failure " to complete his intended mission could be considered heroic , as he realized that by killing the king and thus avenging himself, the country would be plunged into another civil war , which would only result in more bloodshed.This way ,Nameless could be considered noble as by not fulfilling his original intentions , he would be ensuring that peace and stability reigned - he put the lives of millions before his own ambitions. I think this was basically saying that violence is notthe only answer. On the other hand ,Nameless could be called a selfish and rather underhand person , whose elimination of Sky , Sword and Snow , opponents of his target was really his way of ensuring that the king faced no opposition as the country's supreme ruler. This way he killed any hope of freedom for the other five nations and gave the king the key to total tyranny.
Either way just try to come to your own conclusions onthis one.
Some could argue Nameless really was the hero- he trained for an intense 10 years to become the best, all for a very noble cause - to avenge his people.However ,the fact he didn't fulfill his original aim (though obviously not cowardice - he faces an entire army !) could allow some to question his " heroism " - his " failure " to complete his intended mission could be considered heroic , as he realized that by killing the king and thus avenging himself, the country would be plunged into another civil war , which would only result in more bloodshed.This way ,Nameless could be considered noble as by not fulfilling his original intentions , he would be ensuring that peace and stability reigned - he put the lives of millions before his own ambitions. I think this was basically saying that violence is notthe only answer. On the other hand ,Nameless could be called a selfish and rather underhand person , whose elimination of Sky , Sword and Snow , opponents of his target was really his way of ensuring that the king faced no opposition as the country's supreme ruler. This way he killed any hope of freedom for the other five nations and gave the king the key to total tyranny.
Either way just try to come to your own conclusions onthis one.