From: reiher@ficus.cs.ucla.edu (Peter Reiher)
Subject: Re: Hero and Meet John Doe
Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 92 22:44:49 GMT

In article <13127@grayt> grayt@Software.Mitel.COM (Tom Gray) writes:
>
>I can't be the only one who has noticed that the new movie
>"Hero" is an almost direct rip off of the Frank Capra movie
>"Meet John Doe"

Possibly, since it isn't.  It had been some years since I saw
"Meet John Doe", but when I saw a studio screening of "Hero" about
a month back, it occurred to me that there were certain similarities
to "Meet John Doe".  So I went back to a reference that contained
a two page plot summary of that film.  As I read over the plot
summary, and I remembered more and more about "Meet John Doe", 
I realized that the similarities weren't that close.

[Those who read further do so at peril of spoilers for both films.]

In "Meet John Doe", a reporter and a bum intentionally create a
hero, to create circulation.  The fake hero eventually refuses to
go along with the political machinations of the newspaper owner,
and is exposed.  In typical Capra fashion, the central character not 
only turns out to be just as much of a hero as was claimed, but lots 
of folks still believe in him, having seen his inherent qualities despite
the hype and exposes.  

In "Hero", a "true" hero is overlooked and a bogus one takes his place, 
without anyone else's collusion.  But it turns out that the fake hero is 
a better hero than the real hero, by any measure except the truth of
the matter.  The fake hero is nobler, the fake hero knows how to use
his celebrity to do good, and, what's more, he actually is a hero whose
earlier heroic action was overlooked.  On the other hand, the guy who
really risked his life for no reward is generally a jerk, lowlife,
and thief.  But he was the one who did it, so who's the real hero,
here?

Both films feature spunky female reporters.  Both films feature scenes 
in which their heros wind up on top of buildings, planning to jump off.  
For different reasons, though.  The hero of "Meet John Doe" is going to 
prove that he is an honest man, since jumping off the building was the 
act he promised to perform originally.  In "Hero", the fake hero cannot 
live with the lie, and wants to end it all.  There are cynical editors
in both films.  (But then, all news editors in films, except those in 
the old West, are cynical.)

There are enough similarities that clearly "Hero" was influenced by
"Meet John Doe".  But I would not call it either a remake or a ripoff.
You might actually view it as an updating of what might have happened if 
"Meet John Doe" had been directed by Preston Sturges, instead of Frank
Capra.  Some other critics have pointed out the similarities of "Hero"
to films like "Hail the Conquering Hero", and to "Nothing Sacred", an
early screwball comedy.  "Hero" clearly borrows from that tradition,
but it's not a bad tradition to borrow from.

The films have different themes, really.  The theme of "Meet John Doe"
is a typical Capra theme of the little guy against the big bosses.
The powers that be try to create and co-opt a hero, but the little
guy proves too honest and tough for them.  There is no such thread of
the ordinary man working against larger powers in "Hero".  The larger
powers all fall, hook, line, and sinker, for the fake.  They make no
obvious attempt to misuse him any further than getting lots of publicity
out of him.  (The dehumanizing effects of today's journalism is a secondary
theme of "Hero", but it's not presented as some big boss up at the top
pulling sinister strings.)  The theme of "Hero" is that anybody can
be a hero, in the right circumstances - with the implicit idea that there
is good in everyone that can show up, no matter how unexpected.

I can easily see how someone might prefer either of these messages to
the other, or enjoy them both.  I won't argue that "Meet John Doe"
isn't the better of the two films - it is, but, then, it's better
than around 99% of all films made in the 30's, 40's, and 50's, so
saying that "Hero" isn't quite up to its standards is not much of a
condemnation.  I think "Hero" is a solid film with a strong script that
is actually about something.  There are flaws in the script, many more
than in "Meet John Doe's" script.  Capra was much better suited to direct
"Meet John Doe" than Stephen Frears was to direct "Hero".  Still, "Hero"
is a worthy film, and I recommend it.

>"Meet John Doe" 
>. . . Cpara's ideas and diection create
>a much more entertaining movie with a much more thorugh exploration
>of the theme of the inherent courage and altruism in all people.

Actually, no.  There is no room in Capra's film for someone who is
actually dishonest, an out-and-out thief and lowlife, who turns out
to be a hero.  Would the Edward Arnold character in "Meet John Doe"
have risked his life to save Gary Cooper's character?  Of course not,
he's a "big cheese" villain, and such characters are lucky to have
even two dimensions in a Capra film.  There are plenty of purely
bad characters in Capra film - none of them are poor, of course, but
many of the wealthier characters in Capra films are villains with few
redeeming features.  There is a simplicity to Capra's universe.  On the
other hand, "Hero" points out that heroic actions may well arise from
people we don't like one bit.  "Meet John Doe" says that any ordinary
person might turn out to have heroic characteristics.  "Hero" says that
even someone who would otherwise be considered a bum, if not a villain,
might have heroic qualities.  "Hero" is much more complex and realistic.

>Hero is a rip off. Worse still, Hero is a boring rip off.

I disagree on both points.
--
		Peter Reiher
		reiher@wells.cs.ucla.edu