Chatting with our demons, on heroes and anti-heroes

Having recently seen two vastly different plays that each include discussion around war or terror, discipline and how we prepare for things, I wonder if it is possible to dramtize contemporary issues without the passage of time to lend perspective. John Patrick Shanley's "Defiance" covers material from the early 70's. Brett Neveu's "Weapon of Mass Impact" seems so very current. I think one succeeds and the other needs some more thought. In addition Evan Smith's "The Savannah Disputation" tackles the search for heroes in the world of today.

Shanley's play is set within the world of the career military in the early 70's. The main issue at hand is race, though there is plenty of room for all sorts of bad behavior. His main topic is the nature of heroes, how are they created, how they behave, can they tangle with women succussfully (in the standard world of real people it seems that men are heroes and women foil their man's best self if they cannot reinforce it). His main character aims for hero-state but misses, never resting on cynicism as a crutch. Does that mean he was never meant to be a hero? Defiance also points to Martin Luther King as hero and as the black captain's excuse for avoiding acts of heroism, though it is his final inability to avoid hero behavior that lends the drama credence, keeps the action moving forward and brings about the end of the Lt. Colonel.

What is the difference between the failures of hero Odysseus when returning to the ever-waiting Penelope and the Lt. Colonel's single transgression? According to the Mrs. it is that he reaches for heroism when he himself isn't one and thus, cannot make the mark. Whereas Penelope expects and demands a hero and thus, does Odysseus' behavior remain heroic. Is this a modern failure to allow for heroes?

After seeing Evan Smith's new play, The Savannah Disputation, I would add another question. Is it possible to be a hero and a cynic at the same time? Women seek heroes, Mary is looking for one in Father Murphy and he acts heroically at the end of the action, but his cynicism shines through as well. Does cynicism make room for an anti-hero?

Neveu's focus is on preparing for a kidnapping and perhaps other acts of terror, how to prepare a potential victim through study, enactment, discussion between victim-students. All the students are women, they are quite different in their character expression, though all are roughly the same age, ethnic and socio-economic background, outwardly the same woman times three. This playwright is always willing to look at fear emotions, internal turmoil, current events as a driver for topic and plot.

Weapon fails to stay on course because the main premise has more to do with exposing ugly feelings while remaining essentially attractive. The emotional crushing of the 'nicest' woman, the woman who truly wants to be liked is at the center of the piece and it has nothing to do with preparing for a kidnapping and is out of place with the device used. This leaves the viewer with two stories that have little to do with each other.

This is a piece in progress and before I finish it, I wonder if anyone else has thoughts? I do believe the subject matter on heroes is what these playwrights are chasing and I find the topic fascinating. How does Joseph Cambell's reflections on being our own heroes work in this thematic area? How about the lack of public heroes lately--our complex world buries their stories. United flight 93 involved heroic behavior unknown until recently (though I believe it happens all the time). And how is it that most compelling stories focus more on those who try and fail to live up to their own expectations?