Reflection #9: the american hero complex

Supernatural and Stranger Things and dying as the saviour

I have not been shy about my love for Supernatural. 

Yes, the show was awful at times, misogynistic…what is the opposite of “ahead of its times”? 

Despite all of that, it’s a show that means a lot to me, I actually believe the first 5 seasons had a fascinating concept, and - as you know - I will forever be devoted to destiel. 

The ending of the show, however, disappointed me greatly.

Spoilers ahead, both for Supernatural and Stranger Things (two things I definitely should be over with by now). 

–

Last month, I wrote about how Dean Winchester’s ending was definitely a product of a prison of the writer’s making: they refused to let him grow as the show progressed. He was first written as the womanising masculine protagonist, and that was his death sentence.  

“Because it was unthinkable to give him the end that had been written for him in 2005, the heteronormative white picket fence life, but it was also unthinkable to have a queer main character, the show had no other choice but to kill him”.

As mentioned in my previous post about Supernatural, not only does he die, but it is implied that - at 46 - the only way to be happy, for him, was dying and going to heaven.
Thankfully, because it is Supernatural, we catch a glimpse of what heaven is like: it’s a dream land, where you are always the age you were when you died and you just hang around with people who you love and who love you, the landscape littered with throwbacks to your best memories. 

I realise as I’m writing this, that that is meant to sweeten the ending. But it somehow makes it worse, because in this scenario death looks a lot like living in the past, and you know what’s better than living in the past? LIVING! 

I understand we are talking about a character from a TV show and I also am very familiar with tragedies - good tragedies are delicious and I shall always love one. That is not what the ending of Supernatural is, though.
While I was processing whatI had just watched, I couldn’t help but connect the dots between what I had just seen and military propaganda. The story is mostly about two white boys vigilantes “ganking” things to maintain humanity’s supremacy in the natural order, without ever trying to find an alternative to bullets. So, showing how the fight of good vs evil may result in death and how that death is then seen as “happy ever after” cements Supernatural as a conservative show. 

One of the last frames of the show, before the big climactic plot twist, is a shot on Dean’s desk: we are clearly shown that this character - who always believed his ultimate role was protection - was about to apply for a real life job!
But it’s not just the job application, it is the tonal shift of the two final episodes. We experience a jarring shift from the brothers smashing pies in each other’s faces and laughing, hopeful about the future, to the longest death speech known to man. 

As the Dire Strait’s start playing “Brother in arms” in the background, it becomes quite simple to draw a parallel between Dean’s “heroic” yet useless death and war martyr worship. Because the hero is only worthy when he is dead, because one must always put the greater good - no matter how arbitrary - above themselves. Just to further reiterate how stupid this whole thing is, 10 seasons prior, Supernatural gave us a completely contradictory line of dialogue:

Dean’s death makes sense for the writers, it makes sense for the conservative viewers, because it is the death of the saviour. It is the ultimate sacrifice from a man who canonically spent his entire life surrendering his own wants and desires for what he was taught was the right thing to do to eliminate external threats (a notion he himself starts resenting and doubting multiple times over the series run).
He is enlisted first by his dad to care for his younger brother and humanity at large; then, he grows into the role of God’s own soldier/doll. When he finally lets go of both men’s control he gets impaled by a nail and dies in a barn, killed by one of the random monsters of the week from season one, as a strange nod to the show’s history. That - apparently - is more noble than anything else he could have done alive. It is not presented as punishment for disobeying orders, which would have been a more compelling narrative choice, but as the obvious consequence of being the hero, the courageous warrior who understands the role he plays in keeping law & order and will go to any length to achieve it. 

It is not just the most conservative leaning shows - like Supernatural - that are guilty of useless deaths masked under the guise of valiant gestures. 

Stranger Things chose the same fate for one of his most beloved new characters: Eddie Munson. Unlike Dean Winchester, he is the disgraced character and his death - rather than being a confirmation of his virtue - it’s the changing point of his characterisation.

To be fully honest with you, I watched the first part of Stranger Things season 4 as I was sick with Covid, isolating in an Airbnb while on holiday with my boyfriend in Barcelona. Perhaps that helped strengthen my love for Eddie Munson to an extent that would not have occurred under normal watching conditions. 

This Tumblr post dates back to a year ago. The season had just ended and I was deep into my ST hyperfixation. All I could do was read about Eddie, think about Eddie, complain about Eddie. I know it is not the only death in the show, definitely not the most shocking or plot-defying one. My issue with this death is that it was - again - pointless. Actually, it wasn’t pointless for the writers who used it to textually frame Eddie as finally worthy of love, once he decided to sacrifice himself for others. 

The notion that he needed to die to be considered brave is sick and twisted.
The character is presented as an outsider, ostracised by the town because of his music taste and style preferences, unabashedly outside of what is considered normal and proper. According to the canonical story - then - the only option for him to feel an equal is to put himself in danger. His last words are “I didn’t run”. This is meant to help us understand that Eddie has gone through major character growth and has learnt that he should put other firsts. Sure, that is to be applauded, but does it have to result in him dying? 

Isn’t it enough that he is loving and compassionate despite the way he is being treated by his community? When the show came out, I wrote a poem that summarises exactly how I felt - and feel - about Eddie Munson. In a way, it also encompasses my feelings about Dean’s death. 

Being alive should be enough for boys like me. 

lungs give out under the crushing weight 

of courage. blood is filling them with pride,

I die smiling knowing I am worth it. Heroes

tend to go to the sounds of raging drums.

I think the band will not play for me. 

being brave comes with deep and deadly cuts,

I wish it came with life, instead. 

I think both stories make the mistake of assuming the greater good the characters are fighting for is objectively the only actual option, that fighting is the only option. It seems silly to suggest for shows like Supernatural and Stranger Things to have less battles, because I guess that is the point of them. 

It isn’t silly, though, to ask the media we consume to provide us with deeper analysis of values that surround bravery and putting oneselves in harm’s way. 

We cannot let the media we love teach us that you have to sacrifice yourself to be of service to your community, or to be accepted.