Die Hard and heroism

I like Die Hard a lot. Mostly because, like The Abyss, it leverages its setting to create unique and thrilling set pieces. Instead of 2,000 feet under the ocean surface, we're 30 stories up in a skyscraper. The setting is heavily involved in shaping the plot, and I find that aspect of action movies to be very satisfying. (As do most people, I suspect. The "Die Hard in X" action sub-genre is a testament to this.)

Die Hard has more things going for it, though, like the buildup to the action. This sets the movie apart in my opinion. It takes its time setting up John McClane as a stuffy jerk. People don't remember this, but the first 20 minutes show you a man who's easy to dislike. He has a wandering eye. He curses under his breath when he finds out his wife is using her maiden name. He makes an ugly comment about Japan not celebrating Christmas. He starts an argument with his wife soon after they meet. Bruce Willis fills McClane's shoes so comfortably that you buy in to who he is and why he's at Nakatomi Plaza. Then the action starts.

The action in Die Hard has gravitas. There's a scene early on that shows McClane stopping an elevator so he can get on its roof. It's a short and simple scene, easy to execute, but does so much to ground the action in the setting and show McClane's cunning. After seeing that, you readily suspend your disbelief when he stops his freefall by catching the edge of an air duct.

I wrote a year-and-a-half ago that McClane is not an archetype. I was wrong. He is many archetypes. He's the reluctant hero. He's the fish out of water. He's the scrappy underdog. He's the red-blooded American working class. His wife is the strong independent woman, then the damsel in distress. Hans Gruber is the suave criminal mastermind and the cold-blooded executioner. Whoever says you shouldn't use archetypes doesn't know how to use archetypes.

The two biggest roles after McClane, his wife, and Gruber belong to Al Powell and Dwayne Robinson. Good cop and bad cop, respectively. Or so I thought until this video by David V Stewart made me rethink it.

Powell is the true believer, the man who processes what his senses and instincts tell him and reaches the correct, although improbable, conclusion. Robinson is the skeptic, the one who's mind is made up and won't let something unexpected push him off what he's staked his career on knowing.

We love Powell and hate Robinson because we want to see McClane redeem himself as a heroic man, a protector of the innocent. There's a mini-metanarrative at work here. Powell represents our hope in great, self-sacrificing men, while Robinson represents our cynicism about selfish human nature. When McClane and Powell hug at the end, the validation of hope resounds.

Roger Ebert famously hated the Powell-Robinson dynamic. I admit it's a little lowbrow, but it's effective in raising the movie's stakes beyond the lives of the hostages at Nakatomi Plaza. Can modern man be virtuous and strong? Do American heroes live on in these times? Die Hard shouts yes.

As always, let me know what you think in the comments. I'll reply to you as soon as I can.

I have made available the first 4 chapters of my second book, Seeds of Calamity, for free. If it piques your interest, get yourself a copy at Amazon. I appreciate the support!