2020-3874-AJMS-MDT 1 Hollywood’s Villainous Masculinities: A study of Hades 2 and Set from Clash of the Titans and Gods of Egypt 3 4 5 Gods, Goddesses, Heroes and other mythical figures from religious mythologies have 6 made continued appearances in Hollywood films since the 20th century, with many of 7 them reflecting the times and era of their production in the guise of depicting the 8 “ancient” world and dealing with “sacred” themes in a secular manner. While a 9 cinematic text invites us to identify with the hero, the antagonist is imbued with 10 qualities that require judgement from the hero. This paper seeks to undertake a 11 character study of the Greek God Hades from Clash of the Titans (2010) and the 12 Egyptian God Set from Gods of Egypt (2016) to understand the ways in which the 13 cinematic imagination constructs them as antagonists and condemns their ways. While 14 the hero and his masculinity is generally propagated as a form of “ideal” masculinity, 15 the villain forms a more complex characterization as he may embody qualities 16 possessed by the hero himself and yet be termed “unheroic”. Reading the texts as 17 embodiments of popular culture, and thus, as sites for interrogating contemporary 18 socio-political and cultural concerns, the paper would like to explore the construction 19 of villainous and “non-ideal” masculinities in the figures of Hades and Set. Utilizing a 20 textual reading of the films, the analysis would be supported by theories derived from 21 Masculinity Studies and Film Studies. 22 23 Keywords: Hollywood, Mythology, Masculinities, Heroism and Villainy 24 25 26 Introduction 27 28 Lynn Schofield Clark in her essay “Why study Popular Culture” argues 29 that popular culture sometimes expresses the zeitgeist of an era, “speaking to 30 deep-seated beliefs that are consistent with what we believe are the best 31 qualities of our collective society” (9), and at the same time also reflects the 32 unconscious and sometimes negative (be it racist, classist or sexist) views that 33 we have internalised and “prefer not to admit to ourselves” (9). Thus, sites of 34 popular culture such as film, television, novels etc. are in her words locations 35 in which these “contradictions and negotiations are constantly played out 36 through narrative and representation” (9). Big-budget popular Hollywood films 37 with their ability to advertise, distribute and attract mass audiences at a global 38 level have the potential to influence a large number of people. This paper 39 therefore, aims to study the depiction of heroism and villainy with reference to 40 the cinematic projection of images and conceptions of “ideal” and “non-ideal” 41 masculinities in two popular big-budget Hollywood mythology-based films, 42 namely Clash of the Titans (2010) and Gods of Egypt (2016). The paper 43 specially focuses on the depiction of the cinematic villain as the figure of the 44 villain is hypothesised as cinematically subverting and/or inducing the 45 audience to interrogate Hollywood’s representation of the hero, the currently 46 accepted ideals of heroism in popular culture, and highlighting hegemonic and 47 dominant forms of “heroic” ideal masculinity in post 9/11 cinema.

1 2020-3874-AJMS-MDT 1 After the devastating terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in 2 September 2001 and the subsequent “War on Terror” led by the United States 3 of America’s President George Bush led administration, a plethora of movies 4 across multiple genres were being produced and released by Hollywood which 5 directly or indirectly engaged with the events, its aftermath and its continued 6 influence on the American and global psyche (McSweeney 2017, Boggs and 7 Pollard 2006), be it films directly dealing with the events and aftermath of the 8 11 September attacks (United 93 2006, World Trade Center 2006 etc.), the 9 wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (The Hurt Locker 2008, Zero Dark Thirty 2012 10 etc.) or allegorical films engaging with the geopolitical events and time of their 11 production and expressing the anxieties of the age (for instance science fiction 12 films like War of the Worlds 2005, Children of Men 2006 etc.). The rise and 13 popularity of the “superhero” film genre, war/counterterrorism centred films, 14 and metaphorical heroic films propagating an idea of American strength, 15 American defence against outside attacks with many having overt/covert 16 “nationalistic” and “American supremacist” themes (for instance the films 17 mentioned above) could be seen as mechanisms in response to the 9/11 attacks. 18 Klaus Dodds observes in his article “Hollywood and the Popular Geopolitics of 19 the War on Terror” (2008) that “Films help to sustain social and geopolitical 20 meanings” (1625) and are “capable of reflecting but also challenging certain 21 norms, structures and ideologies associated with US foreign and security 22 policies and the ongoing war on terror” (ibid.). Released in the second decade 23 of the twenty-first century, the mythological films chosen for study respond to 24 a need for heroic films in a post-9/11 and “War on Terror” world and are 25 argued to be a part of the same environment that birthed the other 26 “nationalistic” Hollywood films, as films are understood to have the ability to 27 function as both a “barometer” (McSweeney 8) and a “catalyst of national 28 discourse” (ibid. 9). Contextualising the texts within this time-frame and 29 concurrent geopolitical events, the paper asserts that the films must be 30 understood as having overt/covert ideological agenda and being a means to 31 propagate American geopolitical supremacy to both a domestic and 32 international audience. 33 While scholars like Cyrino (2005) have hailed twenty-first century as the 34 return of the “epic film” (generally understood as mythological or historical 35 fantasy films depicting an “ancient” world) with the release of Gladiator (dir. 36 Ridley Scott) in 2000, the propagation of heroic films, and the glorification of 37 symbolic “American” heroes necessitates a study of the temporal 38 circumstances of their production. While an all encompassing exploration of 39 multi-genre films is beyond the scope of this limited study, a concerted focus 40 on mythology-based films with their symbolic good versus evil narratives, 41 glorification of heroic figures and condemnation/vanquishing of villain figures 42 offers a parallel alternative to the ubiquitous and similarly constructed post 43 9/11 “superhero” and “war films”. Religio-mythological stories, characters, 44 settings and other fantastical elements have long been utilised by Hollywood as 45 base material for its cinematic narratives, thereby creating a grand spectacle for 46 entertainment and attracting audiences due to its familiar content. Biblical or 47 Christianity related themes and topics were utilised ever since the inception of

2 2020-3874-AJMS-MDT 1 the mode of cinema by the early practitioners mostly based in Europe while 2 Hollywood with its greater financial and production capabilities soon 3 overshadowed them in terms of the quantity and quality of films. Non- 4 Christian mythology was another rich source of stories for the American film 5 makers and 20th century saw the utilisation of primarily Graeco-Roman 6 mythology for making several mythology-based “epic” fantasy films. “Epic” 7 films, both in Hollywood and world cinema were variously set in an “ancient” 8 world derived from mythological, historical or text-based sources while not 9 claiming authenticity for cinematic purposes, and were many times ahistorical 10 and temporally unspecified. Jon Solomon uses the term “ancient” cinema in his 11 book The Ancient World in the Cinema (2001) to denote films depicting 12 mythological, Biblical, historical and/or texts/plays based “ancient” world 13 setting. Elliott in his “Introduction” to The Return of the Epic Film (2015) 14 notes that following the failure of several big-budget “epic” films like 15 Cleopatra (1963) The Fall of the Roman Empire (1964) and The Greatest Story 16 Ever Told (1965), films of this genre were discontinued being made in America 17 post the 1960’s, though TV series and low-budget made to-TV films etc. were 18 being produced, while in rest of the world the “ancient” “epic” film survived in 19 various forms like the Italian Peplum films (n.p. Kindle). Fuelled by the 20 success of “ancient’ world set Television shows, there was however a 21 “renascence” of these “ancient” films in America in the late 1970’s and early 22 1980’s for a brief period (Solomon 17-18). The 21st century however saw a 23 revival of this genre with various “historical” and religio-mythological “epics” 24 being produced and released in the first two decades of the 21st century. This 25 renewal in interest could be observed across popular culture with the release of 26 several mythology based novels and video games which substantiate the 27 terming of this wider cultural interest in mythology based texts as a “trend”. 28 The publication of several mythology based popular fiction books and book 29 series and their popularity across demographics increased the wider visibility 30 and renewed interest in the area. Popular fantasy fiction texts like Rick 31 Riordan’s Ancient Graeco-Roman mythology based Percy Jackson series and 32 its sequels (2005-2014) which spawned a less popular Percy Jackson movie 33 series (2010-2013), ancient Egyptian mythology based The Kane Chronicles 34 trilogy (2010-2012), ancient Norse mythology based Magnus Chase and the 35 Gods of Asgard trilogy (2015-2017); Neil Gaiman’s American Gods (2001) 36 which is being produced as a TV show (2017-); James Lovegrove’s Pantheon 37 series (2009-2019) which re-imagines figures from multiple mythologies into a 38 modern setting and led to the invention of the term “Godpunk” fiction (a sub- 39 genre of Speculative Fiction where ancient Gods/Goddesses and mythological 40 figures are re-invented in a modern contemporary setting); are just some of the 41 few popular ancient mythology based fantasy fiction texts which have renewed 42 and maintained our interest in ancient mythologies. They thus, formed an 43 environment conducive to enthusiastically producing and receiving films re- 44 imagining ancient mythological divine and heroic figures. 45 Identifying the release of mythology based films as a “trend” within 46 Hollywood, this study focuses on two mythology based films, one based on 47 ancient Greek mythology and the other on ancient Egyptian mythology, as a

3 2020-3874-AJMS-MDT 1 means of understanding popular and contemporary attitudes on masculinities, 2 American nationalist aspirations, fears and anxieties as constructed and 3 propagated in the cultural imagination of the world through Hollywood films. 4 It also highlights current manifestations of American Exceptionalist agenda 5 where in America sees itself as “the savior nation...of the world” (Flesher and 6 Torry 6). The main body of the paper would be divided into three sections, with 7 the first section offering a critical background on areas relevant to the study of 8 mythology based Hollywood films and post 9/11 Hollywood cinema in order to 9 contextualize the study of the primary texts. The second section would focus on 10 the theoretical framework and methodology utilised to study the texts. Theories 11 derived from Film studies, Masculinity studies with a perspective based on 12 critical writings from the field of Popular Geopolitics would be utilised in the 13 reading of the texts. The third section of the paper would be critically analysing 14 the two primary texts followed by the Conclusion. 15 Reading the texts as embodiments of popular culture, and thus, as sites for 16 interrogating contemporary socio-political and cultural concerns, this paper 17 seeks to undertake a textual character study and explore the construction of 18 villainous and “non-ideal” masculinities in the figures of the Greek God Hades 19 from Clash of the Titans (2010) and the Egyptian God Set from Gods of Egypt 20 (2016). It aims to understand the ways in which the cinematic imagination 21 constructs them as antagonists and condemns their ways. The paper 22 hypothesises that while the hero and his masculinity is generally propagated as 23 a form of “ideal” masculinity, the villain forms a more complex 24 characterization as he may embody qualities possessed by the hero himself and 25 yet be termed “unheroic”. If the Hero is represented as an “ideal” masculine 26 figure possessing qualities that serve to establish him as a Dominant and 27 Hegemonic form of masculinity, the paper explores the question of what makes 28 a villain. Is the villain “unheroic”? Is the villain presented as a “non-ideal” 29 form of masculinity? Does the villain subvert accepted forms of heroic (hence 30 “ideal”) masculinity? The subsequent sections of the paper attempts to study 31 and answer these questions in the larger backdrop of contemporary geopolitics. 32 33

4 2020-3874-AJMS-MDT 1 Gods, Heroes and America: Contextualizing post 9/11 Mythology based 2 Hollywood films 3 4 Jon Solomon in his book The Ancient World in Cinema (2001) opines that 5 the ancient world has had such an immense appeal for cinema due to its content 6 which provided an opportunity for grand spectacle, the “ancient” characters 7 depicted were familiar and considered impressive, the fantastical settings of the 8 ancient myths allowed for cinematic escapism, while the ancient world 9 continued to assert a visible and continued influence on modern Western 10 civilization (1-3). However, there were more Biblical/Christian and Graeco- 11 Roman mythology based films produced in comparison to any other ancient 12 mythologies. 13 14 Hollywood and the “Epic” Film Genre 15 16 Mythology based “ancient” world films were produced as “epic” films in 17 the twentieth century. The term “epic” film presents a host of difficulty in 18 theorising as critics and scholars constantly debate on the terminology and the 19 means to categorise films as “epic”. Generally speaking “spectacular films set 20 in the ancient and medieval past” (Burgoyne The Epic Film in World Culture 21 1), are termed as epic films. One of the earliest scholars writing on the epic 22 film is Derek Elley who identifies the 20th century epic film as not “spectacular 23 films, inordinately long films, heroic films, war films or costume films” (The 24 Epic Film 1984 n.p. Kindle), which 20th century studios and advertisers term as 25 “epics”, but rather films which utilise the “epic form” derived from epics of 26 Classical Greek and Latin antiquity, specifically films showcasing events upto 27 the end of the Dark ages. He says that the film epic has utilised one of the most 28 ancient art-forms and “propelled it into the present day covered in twentieth 29 century ambitions, anxieties, hopes and fantasies. The chief feature of the 30 historical epic film is not imitation but reinterpretation.”(n.p. Kindle). Giles 31 Deleuze in The Cinema I, while discussing the American epic film and its 32 “historical” components, for instance in the films of D.W. Griffiths 33 (Intolerance 1916) and Cecil B. DeMille( The Ten Commandments [1923, 34 1956], Samson and Delilah 1949), notes that the genre favours “the analogies 35 or parallels between the one civilization and another: great moments of 36 humanity, however distant they are, are supposed to communicate via the 37 peaks, and form a ‘collection of effects in themselves’ which can be more 38 easily compared and act all the more strongly on the mind of the modern 39 spectator” (149). 40 Focussing on contemporary epic films, Robert Burgoyne in his 41 Introduction to The Epic Film in World Culture (2011) says, 42 43 Traditionally framed as an expression of national emergence and national 44 consciousness, and strongly associated with the category of national cinemas, the 45 contemporary epic, with its complex array of nested and overlapping production 46 and distribution arrangements, has become the very exemplar of transnational and 47 global modes of film production and reception. (1-2) 48 The Return of the Epic Film: Genre, Aesthetics, and History in the Twenty-

5 2020-3874-AJMS-MDT 1 First Century (2015), edited by Andrew B.R. Elliott focuses on the return of 2 the epic film genre in Hollywood after a generation of absence since the 3 commercial flops of films like Cleopatra (1963) etc. with Ridley Scott’s 4 Gladiator (2000). He along with other essayists discuss this phenomena, and 5 posit that a generation gap refreshed interest in the genre while the use of CGI 6 and special effects cut the massive production costs and therefore facilitated 7 their return. They reiterate that the epic film set in the past is an effective way 8 of critiquing the present. Similarly, Martin Winkler notes that “Retellings of 9 classical stories on film may show that filmmakers have used the ancient 10 material consciously in order to comment on their own times or that they 11 unconsciously reflect cultural trends.” (Cinema and Classical Texts 3). They 12 act as a kind of “cultural seismograph” (8), a concept which B.R. Elliott notes 13 reconciles the idea of “ancient” or “historical” films as a vehicle for studying 14 the present through the past while also not negating the film’s earnest attempts 15 to retell historical events (The Return of the Epic n.p. Kindle). 16 Another important role played by “epic” films was its use as a vehicle to 17 propagate dominant and hegemonic ideological agenda, emphasising Jean-Luc 18 Comolli and Jean Narboni’s assertion in “Cinema/ Ideology/ Criticism” (1971, 19 2009 ed.), that every film is political because it is the product of an ideological 20 system. Films may therefore aid in maintaining the cultural hegemony of the 21 dominant and the powerful. American “epic” films were likewise used to 22 propagate an America centric and American supremacist world view. Paul V. 23 M. Flesher and Robert Torry in their book Film & Religion: An Introduction 24 (2007) observe how Cecil B. DeMille’s blockbuster Biblical epic The Ten 25 Commandments (1956) which was based on the Biblical story of Moses and the 26 exodus of the Jews from Egypt, responded to the anti-communist Cold war era 27 by conflating Communist Russia with the Egyptians and tyranny, while the 28 audience was supposed to identify with Moses as an American hero and a 29 “type” of Christ, championing freedom and democratic ideals emblematic of 30 popular American cultural and political values (71-96). America thus, takes 31 centre stage in the staging and production of these films with the oppressed 32 masses fighting the tyrant and espousing ideals of freedom, equality and justice 33 being conflated with America and American values while the villain/tyrant in 34 the “epic” film becomes a symbolic metaphor for America’s current enemies. 35 This same interpretive method has been adopted to view the current texts for 36 study wherein it is postulated that the mythological heroes and God-heroes 37 represent a “type” of American hero and represents America while the body of 38 the “villain” becomes an interesting battle ground of contemporary fears and 39 anxieties projected by America’s mediascape as a danger to America, its 40 values, its security and from a non-American hegemonic view, a challenge to 41 its geopolitical supremacy. This dominant and highly ideological binary 42 division constructed through post 9/11 cinema for a multi-national, muti- 43 cultural, multi-ethnic domestic and international audience therefore 44 necessitates a critique of popular films to identify strands of conforming or 45 subversive textual codes in relation to this dominant position. 46 Mythological Heroes and Villains: Archetypes from Myth to Cinema 47

6 2020-3874-AJMS-MDT 1 The images of the hero and the villain seen in any imaginative art conform 2 to or are variations of archetypal images found in world myths. The theory of 3 archetypes was given by Carl Jung who considered myths to be an expression 4 of a collective unconscious. He says that there “exists a second psychic system 5 of a collective, universal, and impersonal nature which is identical in all 6 individuals. This collective unconscious does not develop individually but is 7 inherited. It consists of pre-existent forms, the archetypes” (Collected Works of 8 C.J. Jung 109). Heroes and Villains are a necessary part of every story for 9 fuelling the narrative and providing the necessary identification and emotive 10 markers, while being designed to offer the audience, models of virtue and 11 wickedness for emulation or condemnation. Mike Alsford in his book Heroes 12 and Villains (2006) notes that, “What a culture considers heroic and what it 13 considers villainous says a lot about that culture’s underlying attitudes – 14 attitudes that many of us may be unaware that we have, and which represent 15 cultural currents that we may be equally unaware of being caught up in” (2). 16 The concept of the hero has been embedded in the myths, legends and stories 17 of every culture. LoCicero in his book Superheroes and Gods notes that “The 18 mythic hero is also an amalgamation of a number of archetypal images, and as 19 such is a part of our species' psychic inheritance, a universal constant that 20 transcends culture and time” (Kindle).Western mythology has long been 21 revolving around “the figure of an individual, usually male and often of 22 godlike proportions, who is on a quest of some kind” (Byrne “Heroes and 23 Jungians” 3). In regards to most heroes in these early myths being male, Byrne, 24 in his essay suggests that instead of viewing this immediately as a patriarchal 25 conspiracy, one should understand that an exploration of the masculinity of the 26 traditional hero will be able to provide insights about European and Western 27 cultures and especially their “mythologizing of masculinity” (3). 28 Joseph Campbell’s concept of the monomyth and his observations on the 29 journey of the archetypal hero across myths in his book The Hero with a 30 Thousand Faces(1949, 2004 ed.) is a useful narrative schematic to approach 31 the heroic quests depicted in contemporary films, and indeed the similarity of 32 the heroic quest structure displays the enduring influence of ancient mythic 33 patterns and the universality of the archetypal hero in “his” manifold 34 −culturally, geographically and temporally varied− manifestations. He claims 35 that there is a similarity in the fundamental structure of myths across the world, 36 and that the journey of the archetypal hero goes through three basic phases of 37 “separation—initiation—return”, which forms a “monomyth”. He observes 38 that in a typical heroic quest myth, the hero goes on a journey wherein he is 39 separated from his everyday common world and encounters the “supernatural”, 40 he has to fight “fabulous forces” and then triumphs over them. The hero finally 41 returns back from his adventure with the “power to bestow boons” to his 42 people (28). A hero can be anyone who displays qualities that are considered 43 admirable by society, and need not be only associated with myths of 44 masculinity- glorifying warfare, battle prowess and physical strength. The 45 heroic figure is an intrinsic part of the cultural heritage of any culture and 46 community, and they maybe a mythical supernatural figure, a legendary figure 47 or a real historical figure. But the common thread that binds them is that they

7 2020-3874-AJMS-MDT 1 have always accomplished exemplary feats, or have possessed noble qualities 2 and done noble admirable deeds. The hero figure there is in some sense 3 aspirational, inspirational, and due to their rootedness in a particular cultural 4 set-up, ideological. As Alford observes, 5 6 The hero confronts the otherness of the world and seeks to overcome it, often via 7 a willingness to set aside their unique powers thus rendering themselves 8 vulnerable. By contrast, the villain revels in the power to control, to manipulate 9 and ultimately to create a world in their own image…. The villain coerces, 10 imposes and seeks to destroy anything that it cannot bend to its will. The hero 11 takes the more dangerous path, the one that always runs the risk of self- 12 destruction as a consequence of self-sacrifice and abandonment to the world. (39- 13 40). 14 15 The ultimate moral framework that defines a person or an action as heroic 16 or unheroic is according to Alsford defined by the utilisation of power. He says 17 that “each one of us can be said to possess power by virtue of our very 18 existence, it is what we do with it, or choose not to do with it, that renders us 19 either heroic or villainous”. Significantly, it must also be understood that as 20 Christopher Vogler notes, from the villain’s point of view, he “is the hero of 21 his own myth, and the audience's hero is his villain.” (The Writer’s Journey 22 2007). In the cinematic text, the hero and the villain is sometimes clearly 23 defined for the audience, however ambiguity and complexity in 24 characterisation makes the depiction more powerful and nuanced, rising above 25 caricatured two-dimensional hero/villain-good/evil dichotomies, and renders 26 them more “real”. The villain figure is required in the narrative to perform 27 several functions, either to initiate the hero’s journey, provide a character for 28 the hero’s required triumph for narrative satisfaction, and within Jungian 29 studies, symbolises the dark energies of the self that needs to be vanquished for 30 the triumph of the self (hero as the self). It can sometimes be a seductive 31 figure, blurring the boundaries of socio-cultural morality and propriety, and 32 serve as a study of human psyche in relation to the desire and consequence of 33 unchecked power. Within the field of popular geopolitics, the figure of the 34 “villain” however can be studied as representative of the dominant ideological 35 formation of the “other”, be it racial, ideological, religious or geographical 36 “other”, reflective of the state of contemporary geopolitics and concurrent 37 national fears and anxieties. While concomitantly, the hero becomes a 38 representative of the nation’s collective consciousness and a receptacle of the 39 nation’s cultural imaginations with regards to national security, a symbol of its 40 strength, hopes and aspirations. 41 42

8 2020-3874-AJMS-MDT 1 Post 9/11 Cinema and the “Villains” of America 2 3 Scholars in the last few decades have increasingly focused on the use of 4 mass media including films, television, radio, video games, YouTube content 5 etc. for propagation of certain ideological agendas which benefit the United 6 States of America and attempt to overtly/covertly garner support for their 7 political and military actions. Lissovoy, Ramaprasad et.al. in their article 8 “Scripted Fantasies and Innovative Orientalisms: Media, Youth, and Ideology 9 in the Age of the “War on Terror” (2016) talk about the ideological use of 10 popular screen based cultural artefacts which are aimed at youth consumption 11 like the first-person role playing game Call of Duty (2003) [video game]; 12 World War Z (2013), Dawn of the Planet of the Apes (2014), and The Hunger 13 Games series (2012-2015) [film]; and the YouTube channel of Swedish 14 gaming-vlogger PewDiePie (online interactive media). According to them 15 these artefacts are strategically brought into the arena of global politics in the 16 age of “war on terror”, in order to influence young people into identifying with 17 the rhetoric of this conflict, including the aggressive policies and actions 18 employed by the US government and providing ideological support with 19 regards to their role in ongoing global conflicts. Klaus Dodds in his article, 20 “Screening terror: Hollywood, the United States and the construction of 21 danger” (2008) discusses the role of Hollywood films in “making and 22 circulating images of terrorism” (227) and directs his attention at the “military– 23 industrial–media–entertainment complex” (232), and its production and 24 dissemination of content (especially Hollywood films directly dealing with 25 political and military matters with US involvement) which are state-centric and 26 positive of the military (many times because of the support provided by the 27 State and the Military in the production of these “war films”). Post 9/11 and the 28 “War on Terror”, the “terrorist” in Hollywood films and other media was 29 increasingly imagined as a homogenized Islamic/Middle-Eastern “other” 30 (Nayak 2006, Khalid 2011, Lissovoy et.al 2016). “Hollywood and the 31 Spectacle of Terrorism” (2006) by Carl Boggs and Tom Pollard discusses the 32 construction and representation of the “terrorist” (the villain figure) in 33 Hollywood films wherein the villain/villains change based on contemporary 34 geopolitical concerns and have variously been depicted as Nazis, Orientals, 35 Serbs, generic Communists while in current climates they are overwhelmingly 36 Arabs and Muslims who need to “be identified, fought, and destroyed, usually 37 by (white) male heroes armed with maximum force” (346). These studies 38 focusing on contemporary multi-media content analyses the depiction of the 39 figure of the “terrorist” who is identified as a danger to the “West”, to USA and 40 also to the world, and the ways in which the threat is mitigated, variously 41 normalizing war, images of violence and torture, and military conflict initiated 42 by USA. The “terrorist” figure as the villain is embedded with meanings 43 designed to serve the dominant hegemonic ideological formations propagated 44 by the American state while texts critical of this construction also focus on the 45 villain figure to provide alternative narratives to the one dominant in American 46 visual culture.

9 2020-3874-AJMS-MDT 1 Post 9/11 fantasy cinema as allegorical texts, have greater freedom to 2 engage with the socio-political and cultural milieu of the times and are able to 3 provide multiple ways of representing the anxieties, the fears and pre- 4 occupations of the people in the shadow of 9/11 and the “War on Terror”. As 5 Terence McSweeney in his Introduction to American Cinema in the Shadow of 6 9/11 notes: 7 8 Given the cultural resonance of the ‘War on Terror’, it comes as no surprise that 9 many allegorical films were able to bear witness to this fractious period, 10 mirroring the events of the decade in the form of alien invasions, zombie 11 outbreaks, superhero films, disaster films or even ‘torture porn’, each projecting 12 their narratives through the prism of 9/11 and the ‘War on Terror’. (6) 13 14 With the purported “return of the epic film” in the twenty-first century and 15 the traditional connection of the “epic” film with national imaginary and 16 national consciousness, mythological “epic” films too maybe seen as 17 allegorical fantasy texts based on mythological sources produced in the same 18 environment as superhero films, zombie films, disaster films etc. and justifies 19 the current paper’s interest in viewing the primary texts as ideological products 20 responding in various ways to the pre-occupations of the era. 21 The post 9/11 resurgence of the superhero film and its unprecedented box- 22 office success has made the first decade of the twenty-first century known, 23 according to Richard J. Gray II and Betty Kaklamanidou in their Introduction 24 to The 21st century Superhero (2011) as the “superhero decade” (1). They note 25 that the superhero film was a highly successful and lucrative means to fulfil the 26 need for heroic figures during times of great upheaval post 9/11 (3). 27 Significantly, the resurgence of the superhero film with its elements of renewed 28 patriotism and nationalism evident in the plot and characterization of the film, 29 specifically in the figures of the superhero and the villainous “other”, also 30 invokes the parallel return of the mythology based “epic” film in the twenty- 31 first century with its “superheroic” heroes and authoritarian/dictatorial villains 32 (reminiscent of the dictators/authoritarian regimes of the US designated “Axis 33 of Evil” countries namely Iraq, Iran and North Korea). This need for heroes 34 and concurrently “evil” villain figures to be vanquished as popular culture’s 35 attempts to negotiate contemporary geo-political events, and the fears, desires 36 and anxieties of a nation is an important strand of thought pervading the study. 37 38 39 Analytical Framework: Popular Geopolitics and Films 40 41 Geopolitics, geopolitical power and geopolitical imagination are some of 42 the terms prevalent in both academic and non-academic (for instance news 43 media) circles and have been extensively used in this paper. As Dittmer and 44 Klaus note in their article “Popular Geopolitics Past and Future: Fandom, 45 Identities and Audiences” (2008), geopolitics can be seen as “a discourse and a 46 practice engaging in the creation of geographical relationships and orders so 47 that global space becomes divided into simplistic categories such as good/evil, 48 threatening/safe and civilised/barbaric” (441) with popular geopolitics referring

10 2020-3874-AJMS-MDT 1 to “various manifestations [of political and geographical world ordering] to be 2 found within the visual media, news magazines, radio, novels and the Internet” 3 (441). Jason Dittmer in his article “Captain America’s Empire: Reflections on 4 Identity, Popular Culture, and Post-9/11 Geopolitics” (2005), deriving from the 5 work of G. O´Tuathail, S. Dalby, and J. Sharp succinctly summarises popular 6 geopolitics as “the construction of scripts that mold common perceptions of 7 political events” (626). Klaus Dodds in “Hollywood and the Popular 8 Geopolitics of the War on Terror” discussing the field of popular geopolitics, 9 as “a sub-set of critical geopolitics” (1622) focusing on popular culture, looks 10 at “how film might be used to consider not only the representational politics of 11 depicting spaces, power and identities but also to investigate their creation, 12 articulation, negotiation and contestation” (1623). Utilising insights from 13 popular geopolitics, Jason Dittmer in his book Captain America and the 14 Nationalist Superhero critically studies the nationalist superhero sub-genre and 15 seeks to 16 17 ...reposition the role of superheroes within popular understandings of geopolitics 18 and international relations from being understood as a “reflection” of preexisting 19 and seemingly innate American values to being recognized as a discourse through 20 which the world becomes understandable. In this view, the pop-cultural 21 dimensions of politics (e.g., superheroes) are neither the result of political meta- 22 beliefs (such as American exceptionalism) nor the condensation of economic 23 ideology. Rather, superheroes are co-constitutive elements of both American 24 identity and the U.S. government’s foreign policy practices. (2-3) 25 26 The above illustration of the application of insights from popular 27 geopolitics onto superhero films reveals how popular culture artefacts are not 28 only reflections and representations of various contemporary nationalist, 29 geopolitical and socio-cultural concerns but also “co-constitutive” elements for 30 the production of identity and in various ways legitimating/contesting/r 31 eworking state policies. This understanding underscores one of the primary 32 research questions of the paper as the study attempts to explore the ways in 33 which contemporary mythology based “epic” films can be read in a post 9/11 34 and “War on Terror” world either as a means of propagating and legitimating 35 an idea of American supremacy or contesting/subverting the same and 36 providing alternate models of conduct. Theoretically drawing on the critical 37 worldview derived from popular geopolitics, an analytical framework is 38 received to study the primary texts. 39 40 41 Theorizing Masculinities: Constructing Masculine images for Consumption 42 43 R.W. Connell in her book Gender and Power (1987), divides masculinities 44 into four types based on their positions in relation to one another. They are 45 hegemonic, complicit, subordinate and marginalized. The relations among the 46 four positions are hierarchical with hegemonic masculinity occupying the 47 dominant position. It has also been noted by Connell that men occupying 48 hegemonic masculine positions are statistically low in number but they are

11 2020-3874-AJMS-MDT 1 definitely the norm. Connell and Messerschmidt in “Hegemonic Masculinity: 2 Rethinking the Concept” state that hegemonic masculinity “embodied the 3 currently most honored way of being a man, it required all other men to 4 position themselves in relation to it, and it ideologically legitimated the global 5 subordination of women to men”. (832). They claim that “at a society-wide 6 level...there is a circulation of models of admired masculine conduct, which 7 may be exalted by churches, narrated by mass media, or celebrated by the state. 8 Such models refer to, but also in various ways distort, the everyday realities of 9 social practice” (838). This conception is significant because it establishes the 10 position of films, as mass media, in disseminating dominant forms of 11 masculinity and also influencing everyday social practices. Susan Jeffords in 12 her book Hard Bodies (1993) says that Hollywood films played a major role in 13 providing images of ideal masculinities for the audience and specifically 14 discussing the Reagan era, states that the masculine characters in the most 15 popular films of the time provided narratives against which American men and 16 women could “test, revise, affirm, or negate images of their own conception of 17 masculinity” (n.p.). 18 It has been noted by Connell that “To say that a particular form of 19 masculinity is hegemonic means that it is culturally exalted and that its 20 exaltation stabilizes the gender order as a whole. To be culturally exalted, the 21 pattern of masculinity must have exemplars who are celebrated as heroes” (The 22 Men and the Boys 84). Complicit masculinity is understood as a form of 23 masculinity which is complicit with the hegemonic project without having to 24 necessarily enact it and overall benefits from the patriarchal dividend. 25 Subordinate masculinities in contemporary European/American society may 26 refer to gay men whose homosexuality is easily assimilated to femininity. 27 Heterosexual men who blur this line too may be considered in a subordinate 28 position. The interplay of gender with other structures like class and race may 29 bring other masculinities, termed marginalized masculinities which can be used 30 to categorize non-White or disabled masculinities (Masculinities 78-81). She 31 emphasises that these terms are “not fixed character types but configurations of 32 practice generated in particular situations in a changing structure of 33 relationships” (81). 34 Milette Shamir and Jennifer Travis in the “Introduction” to Boys Don’t 35 Cry? note that “we tend to cling hard to some of the most well-entrenched 36 truisms about masculinity: that it connotes total control of emotions, that it 37 mandates emotional inexpressivity, that it entraps in emotional isolation, that 38 boys, in short, don’t cry” (1). Heroic male characters generally subscribe to 39 traditional stereotypes of dominant masculinity with their emphasis on physical 40 strength, battle prowess, sexual virility and display of courage and bravery, 41 while display of emotions and vulnerability is traditionally considered a sign of 42 weakness. In this continued effort to construct ideal masculinity, men’s lack of 43 a language to articulate emotion and constant show of strength and 44 invulnerability become significant points of enquiry in order to reveal whether 45 the male heroic characters depicted in the films subvert or conform to 46 traditional masculine stereotypes. Victor J. Seidler emphatically notes that, 47 “When we think about power and difference, we are not only thinking about

12 2020-3874-AJMS-MDT 1 relationships between men and women; we also have to think about different 2 sexualities and the complex relationships that separate diverse masculinities. 3 We cannot forget about issues of class, culture, ‘race’ and ethnicities and how 4 these set up relationships of power and entitlement between different 5 masculinities.” (Transforming Masculinities xiii). This paper following Seidler 6 seeks to engage in an inclusive non-reductionist and intersectional study of 7 masculinities in the primary texts to understand contemporary and popular 8 notions of ideal and non-ideal men and masculinities, and cultural imaginations 9 of contemporary American manhood. 10 11 12 Methodology 13 14 This study attempts a textual reading of the films selected for study while 15 contextualising them within the significant socio-political and cultural events 16 of the era. The analysis targets the specific genre conventions of the “epic” film 17 and its’ contemporary transnational evolution, the symbolic and ideological 18 codes embedded in the text and the representations of masculinities within a 19 heroic-ideal/villainous-non-ideal characterisation spectrum. 20 21 22 Case Study 23 24 The selected films deviate from the original myths in several ways, 25 however, this study would eschew an attempt to assess the level of authenticity 26 of the cinematic texts. The study understands that the cinematic characters 27 were derived from the original Ancient Greek and Egyptian mythological 28 figures and re-invented for contemporary audiences. This re-invention hence, 29 becomes a domain of particular interest as it can shed light on prevalent 30 notions of ideal and non-ideal masculinities and the ideological construction of 31 the villain figure. 32 33 Hades: Revengeful Usurper or Zeus’ Victim? 34 35 The film begins with a voice-over narrating the war between the Titans 36 and their offspring the Olympian Gods, and the eventual victory of the Gods. 37 The “earthly” realms are divided between the Gods with Zeus becoming the 38 “King of the Heavens”, Poseidon “King of the Seas” and Hades “tricked by 39 Zeus, was left to rule the underworld in darkness and in misery”. Hades being 40 tricked into residing and ruling the underworld is identified as the source of his 41 rebellion against the status quo and desiring more power than Zeus, the ruler of 42 the Olympian Gods. The tale begins with Spyros, a fisherman finding a casket 43 adrift in the sea, which when opened, revealed the film’s hero Perseus as a 44 baby along with his dead mother’s body. He adopts the baby and raises him 45 with his wife Marmara. He is the one who sets up the first ideological and 46 ethical tussle between tyranny and benevolent justice by uttering in despair 47 after a series of divine mandated community-level and personal misfortunes

13 2020-3874-AJMS-MDT 1 that, “One day somebody’s gonna have to make a stand. One day somebody’s 2 gonna have to say “Enough”. He hopes for the arrival of a hero who will fight 3 against the tyranny of the Gods who give human beings a hard life, disease, 4 “scraps” in his words, as unjustified punishment (specifically hitting the poor 5 and the weak the hardest) for defiance of divine authority by powerful others 6 (generally the powerful earthly rulers). He rails against the Gods’ continued 7 desire that humans “love” them which the narrative exposition reveals to be the 8 source of the power of the Gods. Justice, benevolent governance and equitable 9 distribution of resources are set up as desirable qualities for the ruler (here 10 divine rulers) against abuse of power and disproportionate use of coercive 11 force on the largely innocent populace. The hero is therefore established as the 12 saviour and his actions against a tyrannical ruler as a necessary moral 13 imperative. His victory over the designated villain and the oppressive system 14 will ideally lead to the establishment of a society better than before. The hero 15 brings forth justice and fights for the oppressed and his actions are considered 16 as justified. This justification for the use of violence and the vanquishing of the 17 villain or the villain’s henchmen/monster as a fight against tyrannical practices 18 is a similar trope seen in contemporary Hollywood comic book superhero 19 films. As the American superhero fights to save America and the world, 20 Perseus too can be seen as a “type” of American hero produced from the 21 mythology re-inventing factories of Hollywood. The ideological and moral 22 justification for his fight is created by the cinematic construction of tyrannical 23 practices, oppressive systems, unjust authoritarian figures, power hungry 24 villainous figures, collectively leading to the persecution of the innocent. This 25 depiction of the tyrannical environment and the fight of the hero of justice and 26 freedom--- Perseus, symbolically resonates with the political rhetoric created 27 by the American government and the American mediascape around the 28 American soldier fighting to defend America and world against the 29 international forces of terrorism/tyranny within the highly propagandized “War 30 on Terror” or “Global War on Terror” narrative. Perseus at the beginning of 31 the film is a simple fisherman’s boy but according to his adopted father Spyros, 32 because the Gods chose to save him for a reason from certain death, he will one 33 day be going on a great journey. This foreshadows his eventual heroic quest 34 and establishes his greater destiny within the games of Gods and mortals than a 35 simple fisherman’s boy. Perseus begins his quest when there is a great 36 upheaval in his normal life with his family’s demise as collateral damage of 37 divine punishment (meted out by Hades to the soldiers of Argos for destroying 38 the statue of Zeus), and hence, following the Campbellian pattern, he goes on a 39 heroic journey, vanquishes the villain and returns as a powerful individual. He 40 is pictured as strong, brave, with impressive physical musculature. However he 41 is not completely emotionally stoic or lacking in a language to express 42 emotions, as he expresses affection for his father and has a healthy bond with 43 him. He breaks into cries of anguish at the death of his loved ones, subverting 44 the trope of the “boys don’t cry”. However his emotional vulnerability is not 45 dwelled on for long and displayed only for dramatic fulfilment, frequently 46 sandwiched between important plot expositions or action sequences. It also 47 continues the trend in action films where the larger than life hero is only

14 2020-3874-AJMS-MDT 1 allowed to express vulnerability and “feminine” emotions at times of extreme 2 grief. 3 The villain figure however is kept nebulous at the beginning with the 4 “Gods” as a broad tyrannical and hence, villainous force. Without sympathy 5 and compassion for the mortals who in the cosmological universe of the film 6 are the source of the Gods’ strength and immortality through their belief, 7 worship and veneration of divinity, the Gods seem a powerful tyrannical force. 8 But the levels of villainy differ as the film proceeds 9 An analysis of the text reveals actions harmful towards innocents being 10 perpetrated by both Zeus and Hades. Zeus is shown to have impregnated Danae 11 by impersonating her husband King Acrisius, as punishment for his defiance of 12 the Gods and his assault on Mount Olympus, the seat of their power. He also 13 turns Acrisius into a monstrous being known as Calibos who eventually aids 14 Hades’ efforts to impede Perseus’ journey. He further directs Hades to punish 15 those who defy the gods, in this instance the Kingdom of Argos, due to which 16 many innocent people are injured and killed. He does not have to face any 17 consequences for his own immoral and cruel actions due to his position of 18 power as the Chief of the Gods. Hades while punishing the mortals under Zeus’ 19 orders has another agenda of his own, as he seeks to undermine Zeus and 20 replace him as revenge for Zeus tricking him to rule the Underworld and being 21 confined there. His method is to eliminate mortals as Zeus and the other Gods 22 derive their power from the mortals’ worship while Hades does not need their 23 veneration anymore as his power is fuelled by the fear of mortals. He threatens 24 to unleash the Kraken on the Kingdom of Argos, unless Princess Andromeda, 25 the daughter of King Cepheus and Queen Cassiopeia of Argos is sacrificed, 26 revealing his cruel and apathetic side. Hades is eventually forced back to the 27 Underworld and his plans are foiled by the hero Perseus, but nevertheless as a 28 god, he escapes divine justice for his crimes. The narrative establishes Hades as 29 the major villain, as he challenges the status-quo of Zeus’ rule over the mortals, 30 threatens large scale destruction of human lives by unleashing the monstrous 31 deep-sea giant squid like creature, the Kraken. He is needlessly cruel, abuses 32 his power, has no compassion or kindness for living creatures and is merely 33 focussed on his revenge, by destroying Zeus and assuming the power for 34 himself. 35 Hades seeks to attain power through two means- one is through fear and 36 intimidation and the second military coercion with the goal being to destabilize 37 the world order where Gods are worshipped and thereby gain power. When he 38 threatens the destruction of Argos unless Princess Andromeda is sacrificed, 39 thereby, fomenting anarchy, fear and rebellion in the state through the 40 doomsday prophet and the leader of the Cult of Hades- Prokopion, his aim is to 41 break the bond between the mortals and the Gods so that the mortals do not 42 love or worship the Gods anymore. He uses tactics of military coercion when 43 he unleashes the Kraken and his own massive divine powers against the 44 mortals to break their resistance and create instead feelings of fear for Hades, 45 which in turn increases his power. His manipulation of Calibos, Prokopion, and 46 Zeus reveals his cunning while also being a testament to his intelligence and 47 brilliance in military style strategic manoeuvres utilising both overt displays of

15 2020-3874-AJMS-MDT 1 his might as well as covert means of destabilizing the order to gain power. 2 Even though he is pictured as a middle aged man, he is in his prime and the 3 actor playing Hades, the English actor Ralph Fiennes is ably manage to harness 4 Hades’ lean, power-hungry demeanour, cruel angry eyes and his hulking 5 stance. As he is a divine figure, he does not need to have sword fights or 6 display his body musculature, instead using his supernatural powers to fight. 7 He is shown as man with a thick black beard and a receding hairline with wild 8 voluminous hair, clad in dark, shadowy robes while the other Gods wear 9 shining white and golden armour and clothes. A darker lighting and shadow 10 effects are used when he appears on the screen to contrast him with the 11 supposedly benevolent God Zeus, whose beard and hair are trimmed, while 12 bright lighting is used during his appearances. The visual depiction of a divine 13 patriarch in most religious inspired art is that of a bearded long haired aged 14 man, be it Zeus, Odin, the Norse God or Yahweh, the Judeo-Christian God. 15 This visual suggestion of Hades as a similar powerful divine patriarch but 16 twisted and villainous is achieved through the manipulation of the popular 17 iconography of the divine patriarch figure. His power is established in this way. 18 His might, cunning and his deified status present a character that could be a 19 hero and an ideal form of aged but powerful masculinity. His motives to 20 overturn Zeus’ rule also seem justified as Zeus had wronged him by 21 dishonestly making him the King of the Underworld, in essence condemning 22 him to rule and reside in a terrible place. He also was following Zeus’ orders 23 when he was punishing the mortals, thereby making his actions legal even 24 though cruel. It was Zeus who gave him permission to “turn them on each 25 other” so that the mortals return to the “arms” of the Gods. In this way he 26 subverts the idea of a one-dimensional male villain figure, who is almost a 27 caricature of twisted masculinity. His character challenges the idea of Zeus as 28 the “good” God, as Zeus constantly abuses his power, be it the horrific act of 29 raping Danae or ordering the use of undue force on mortals as punishment for 30 their defiance, all in an effort to maintain his own power and rule. Zeus’ moral 31 ambiguity in the text makes him a softer villainous figure, whose goal of 32 maintaining power is proposed in the narrative as justified while Hades is 33 presented as the unjustified cruel usurper with his reliance on fear as divine 34 fuel. Hades’ cruelty and use of undue force and his apathetic manipulation of 35 mortals however makes him irredeemably villainous. His authoritarian style, 36 use of undue force on innocents, thirst for power, reliance on fear, and 37 motivations of revenge however make him a twisted cinematic fantasy of a 38 real-life dictatorial figure or even a terrorist figure like Osama bin Laden. 39 American propaganda has relentlessly over the years peddled the idea of a 40 dominant America being infinitely more preferable to other nations or regimes 41 even though there might be several problematic actions executed over the years 42 by the American state, be it manipulation of weaker states, proxy-wars, regime- 43 changes etc. These other nation-states, organisations, communities or figures 44 could be whoever the American media, the American State, and/or mediums of 45 popular culture like films, TV shows, comic books etc. designate as the villains 46 of the world. Zeus then with his pre-occupation with maintaining the power 47 status-quo and focussing on the mortal’s continued “love” and veneration for

16 2020-3874-AJMS-MDT 1 the Gods easily fits into the popular perception of America itself, both in the 2 eyes of non-Americans and the constructed image marketed by the American 3 propaganda machinery. He says that the mortals’ “insolence has a price” and 4 “like children they need to be reminded of the order of things”. This evokes the 5 persistence in popular culture of texts glorifying America and the silencing of 6 their detractors as a way of maintaining their geopolitical supremacy. Perseus 7 and his heroic quest to save mortals from a dictatorial cruel villainous figure 8 like Hades, is then established as a hero, and therefore an ideal form of 9 masculinity. However it is unclear how Perseus challenged the tyrannical rule 10 of the Gods as he was actively fighting to defeat Hades and the Kraken, and not 11 the rule of the Gods. It is left unresolved if the Gods and their rule changed for 12 the better at the end of the film. Hence, foregrounding him as the hero of 13 justice who will finally say “Enough” to the Gods, remains hollow. Zeus and 14 his morally ambiguous characterisation is left unresolved at the end, as the 15 audience only sees him as not being angry at mortals anymore and offering 16 immortality to Perseus, his son. His abuse of his filial duties by asking Perseus 17 to go on a dangerous quest, offering immortality only when Perseus is 18 successful in saving Zeus’ rule, having no qualms in punishing mortals for 19 questioning the Gods even if he does not want their complete annihilation or 20 oppression like Hades, does not make him a “good” heroic character and 21 therefore not an ideal form of masculinity. It can therefore be suggested that 22 both Hades and Zeus complicate the idea of good and evil, of hero and villain 23 and of “ideal” and “non-ideal” masculinities despite their status as powerful 24 Gods. Indeed their amoral/immoral actions prove them as non-heroic and 25 therefore falling into the spectrum of “non-ideal” masculinities. 26 27 Set: Usurper, Saviour, Harbinger of Change 28 29 Set in Gods of Egypt ushers in change in the ancient God-ruled kingdom of 30 Egypt and is a catalyst to pave the way for a more compassionate and 31 egalitarian set of deity-rulers. Prior to his rebellion against Osiris, the Egyptian 32 Gods and especially the protagonist Horus is depicted as indolent, hedonistic, 33 selfish, apathetic to his mortal subjects and secure in his privilege as the next 34 heir to the throne. The tale follows the growth of Horus when his previous 35 power and privilege is challenged and decimated by Set’s rebellion and murder 36 of Osiris, whereupon he seeks the help of a mortal thief named Bek to regain 37 his lost power. 38 The film begins with the narrator, an older Bek providing the background 39 of the Egyptian Gods and their place in Egyptian society as both divine figures 40 and earthly rulers. Egypt is understood as the birthplace of all civilization, and 41 a paradise worthy enough for the Gods to reside along with their “lesser 42 creation”- man. The Egyptian Gods looked like humans but were taller with 43 gold running in their veins, more powerful with superhuman abilities, and 44 possessing the ability to transform into “all manner of terrifying beasts”. Egypt 45 was divided between two brothers by their father Ra, the God of Light who 46 ferried the sun across the sky and kept the demon of Chaos, Apophis at bay. 47 The narrator says that among the two “mighty” brothers, Osiris, the God of

17 2020-3874-AJMS-MDT 1 Life was “the beloved King of all the lands made bountiful by the Nile”, while 2 his brother Set, ruled the far barren desert finding both strength and bitterness 3 in his isolation”(Emphasis Added). Set challenges Osiris during the planned 4 coronation of his heir, his son Horus, the God of Air. This stems from Set’s 5 unhappiness at being relegated to the barren desert while he believes Osiris got 6 the better end of the deal in his far more comfortable existence. Set is moreover 7 denied children by his father Ra. It is later revealed that it was a test set by Ra 8 for Osiris and Set, Osiris to rule but not cling on to his power, while the 9 isolated and harsh desert would have hardened and toughened Set for his 10 eventual destiny of fighting Apophis in the place of Ra. Ra believed not 11 granting him children was a kindness as Ra in his solitary fight constantly 12 missed his own children. Set however refuses the path set by his father and 13 gropes for earthly power by defeating Osiris, Horus and other Gods and 14 becoming the King while also attempting to gain immortality by destroying the 15 Afterlife itself. He is dissatisfied by what is given to him and constantly aims 16 for more. In his ambition and greed he seeks immortality instead of mere long 17 life, to be the supreme God and King of all Egypt and not simply the God of 18 the desert, to be the most powerful God by incorporating into himself the 19 powers of the Gods he defeated and murdered. He does not hesitate to kill his 20 brother Osiris for the throne, stops killing his nephew Horus only because 21 Hathor, the lover of Horus and the Goddess of Love, begs for his life, murders 22 his wife Nepthys for rebelling against his usurpation and does not hesitate to 23 kill any God who does not bow to him. His tyrannical rule begins by his 24 overturning of Osiris’ proclamation that all mortals would be welcome to 25 eternal life in the Afterlife, and instead demands payment in riches and treasure 26 from the dead souls for entry. This system is designed to cow the masses into 27 submission as the mortal populace is harnessed into penniless slavery to build 28 grand monuments, and can therefore never rebel as they would then never have 29 any wealth to pay for entry into the Afterlife. He grabs the throne of Egypt 30 through the use of force, bringing in his army to quell any rebellion, sneakily 31 knifing Osiris after Osiris refuses his demand of a hand-to-hand fight for the 32 throne. He threatens the other Gods that they could either bow before him or 33 die while the mortals must either worship him or be enslaved. He believes that 34 Osiris had accomplished nothing in his thousand years of peaceful rule, merely 35 “a land of people who dream of nothing more”, and hence claims that it is his 36 turn to rule now. He does not even hesitate to kill his non-divine loyal 37 followers for their failure in capturing a far more powerful entity, a major God 38 like Horus. The giant obelisk touching the sky that he commissioned to be built 39 as a tribute to his father Ra was a giant phallic symbol of his megalomaniac 40 self, desiring his father’s attention and validation of his strength and power. He 41 is ultimately defeated by Horus in the final battle after Horus goes through his 42 own heroic journey of growth and self-realisation and recovers his lost powers. 43 It is only after his defeat that he begs for mercy which Horus denies, 44 recognising Set’s treacherous nature. Set’s pre-destined path set by his father 45 Ra and his justified anger and bitterness begs the question that had he been 46 given a better lot in life or at least an explanation for his travails by Ra, he 47 could have been a heroic character and not the villain of the narrative.

18 2020-3874-AJMS-MDT 1 Visually, Set whose character is played by Gerard Butler, is a worthy foe 2 for Horus as he is similarly well muscled, has a tall strong physique, possesses 3 impressive battle skills where he single-handedly manages to defeat Horus in 4 one-on-one combat and subdues every other rebellious God in battle. He is 5 extremely cunning and intelligent, is witty and humorous, with a strong libido 6 and sexual vigour despite his impotency, is an astute tactician and military 7 leader and for most of the film narrative, superior in power to the 8 hero/protagonist Horus. Even though he is Osiris’ brother and Horus’s uncle, 9 he looks more of a contemporary of Horus in terms of looks. Osiris is shown as 10 older and physically weaker than Set. While Set wears muscle baring leather 11 outfits showing his muscled hands and legs, Osiris wears garments which are 12 longer, covering his weaker body. Set and Horus mirror each other instead both 13 in terms of their battle outfits, physical looks, deep masculine voices, fearless 14 attitude and combat skills. Set could have been the hero of the film if he had 15 not engaged in tyrannical and villainous activities as Horus at the beginning of 16 the film was more concerned with pleasure and revelry, in displays of 17 machismo and hedonism, for instance celebrating his success in a hunt the day 18 before his coronation by indulging in wine and women the whole night. He is 19 hence not responsible and had become indolent in a time of peace. He also 20 considered mortals beneath him and did not consider their lives and desires 21 important. Hence, he did not have any moral qualms in deceiving Bek by 22 promising to bring back his dead lover Zaya in exchange for his help in 23 retrieving his other eye which was taken away by Set. Compared to the earlier 24 version of Horus, Set proved that he was a better fighter and tactician and 25 hence blurs the line between the hero and the villain. His actions however cast 26 him as villainous. The megalomaniac tyrant, authoritarian and undemocratic in 27 his rule, subjugating his political opponents and his citizens, permitting 28 unlawful and unjustified use of force and threatening physical violence and 29 enslavement to anyone who dissents--- sets him up as a parallel of the 30 tyrannical dictator figure seen in popular culture. The framework of this figure 31 which abounds in Hollywood films appeals to the national consciousness of 32 America wherein freedom and democratic ideals are celebrated in the public 33 sphere and in popular culture. The hyper-masculine God-hero representing 34 America, who fights this villainous hyper-masculine dictator, is symbolic of a 35 strong masculine America fighting the forces of tyranny and evil. This 36 symbolic imagery is especially relevant in times when America as a nation was 37 involved in several “anti-terror” international campaigns in the Middle East 38 and had been peddling the spectre of the “Islamic Terrorist” to legitimate its 39 controversial military actions in the global arena. Designed to be watched by 40 audiences both domestic and international, it constantly foregrounded America 41 as the “good guys” and “global saviours” in the war against authoritarianism 42 and tyranny. 43 44 45 Conclusion 46 47 Hades and Set from the primary texts served as ideal deity-villain figures

19 2020-3874-AJMS-MDT 1 for study as they both exhibited similar power hungry, megalomaniac, 2 treacherous and cruel behaviours along with superior cunning and supernatural 3 powers. Their actions stemmed from a deep dissatisfaction with the power, 4 station and status accorded to them fomenting thoughts of rebellion against the 5 established seat of power. A desire to change their current status, overturn the 6 self-perceived injustice perpetrated on them and an ambition to gain more 7 power gave them the impetus to embark on their respective journeys. Framed 8 along the mould of a powerful heroic figure, these villainous masculinities 9 challenged the conception of “ideal” and “non-ideal” masculinities as they 10 possess qualities generally attributed to the “ideal” hyper-masculine male hero. 11 The themes of these films serve similar interests of establishing and 12 emphasising the triumph of the symbolic “American” hero championing ideals 13 of freedom and the rights of the common masses against the powerful deity- 14 villain. These deity-villains are constructed as an amalgamation of various 15 “enemies” of USA as projected in the public sphere, who are perceived as 16 challenging/harming the land, geopolitical power and global economic/ 17 political/military interests of the nation. The return of these mythology based 18 epic films hence serve to propagate a “hyperreal” image of America rooted in 19 American Exceptionalist ideologies where in America is seen as the “saviour” 20 nation in the world, thereby culturally validating and “normalising” their 21 geopolitical supremacy and use of military power in the international arena. 22 23 24 References 25 26 Alsford, M. 2006. Heroes and Villains. Baylor University Press, Waco, TX. 27 Boggs, C., and Pollard, T. 2006. Hollywood and the Spectacle of Terrorism. New 28 Political Science, 28,3 (Nov. 2006), 335-351. DOI: 10.1080/0739314060085 29 6151. 30 Burgoyne, R. 2011 Introduction. In The Epic Film in World Culture. R. Burgoyne. Ed. 31 Routledge, New York, NY, 1-16. 32 Byrne, M. L. 2000. Heroes and Jungians. The San Francisco Jung Institute Library 33 Journal. 18, 3 (Winter 2000). 13-37. DOI: 10.1525/jung.1.2000.18.3.13. 34 Campbell, J. 2004. The Hero with a Thousand Faces. Princeton University Press, 35 Princeton, NJ. 36 Clark, L. S. 2007. Why Study Popular Culture? Or, How to Build a Case for Your 37 Thesis in a Religious Studies or Theology Department. In Between Sacred and 38 Profane: Researching Religion and Popular Culture, G. Lynch, Ed. I.B. Tauris, 39 London, U.K., 5-20. 40 Comolli, J., and Narboni, J. 2009. Cinema/Ideology/Criticism. In Film Theory and 41 Criticism. L. Braudy and M. Cohen. Ed. Oxford University Press, Oxford, U.K. 42 686-693 43 Connell, R. W. 1987. Gender and Power: Society, the Person and Sexual Politics. 44 Polity Press, Oxford, U.K. 45 Connell, R. W. 2000. The Men and the Boys. Allen & Unwin, NSW, Australia. 46 Connell, R. W. 2005. Masculinities 2nd. Ed. University of California Press, Berkeley, 47 CA. 48 Connell, R. W., and Messerschmidt, J.W. 2005. Hegemonic Masculinity: Rethinking 49 the Concept. Gender & Society. 19, 6 (December 2005), 829–859.DOI:10.1177/

20 2020-3874-AJMS-MDT 1 0891243205278639. 2 Cyrino, M.S. 2005. Big Screen Rome. Blackwell Publishing, Malden, MA. 3 Deleuze, G. 1997. Cinema 1: The Movement-image. Trans. Hugh Tomlinson and 4 Barbara Habberjam. University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN. 5 Dittmer, J. 2005. Captain America's Empire: Reflections on Identity, Popular Culture, 6 and Post-9/11 Geopolitics. Annals of the Association of American Geographers. 7 95,3, 626-643. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8306.2005.00478.x. 8 Dittmer, J. 2013. Captain America and the Nationalist Superhero: Metaphors, 9 Narratives, and Geopolitics. Temple University Press, Philadelphia, PA. 10 Dittmer, J. and Dodds, K. 2008. Popular Geopolitics Past and Future: Fandom, 11 Identities and Audiences. Geopolitics. 13, 3 (Aug. 2008), 437-457. DOI: 12 10.1080/14650040802203687. 13 Dodds, K. 2008. Hollywood and the Popular Geopolitics of the War on Terror. Third 14 World Quarterly, 29,8, (Dec. 2008), 1621-1637. DOI: 10.1080/0143659080 15 2528762. 16 Dodds, Klaus. 2008. Screening Terror: Hollywood, the United States and the 17 Construction of Danger. Critical Studies on Terrorism. 1.2 (July 2008), 227-243. 18 DOI: 10.1080/17539150802184629. 19 Elley, D. 1984. The Epic Film: Myth and History. Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, 20 U.K. 21 Elliott, A.B.R. 2015. Introduction. In The Return of the Epic Film: Genre, Aesthetics 22 and History in the Twenty-first Century. A.B.R Elliott. Ed. Edinburgh University 23 Press, Edinburgh, U.K.,n.p. Kindle. 24 Flesher, P. V. M., and Torry. R. 2007. Film & Religion: An Introduction. Abingdon 25 Press, Nashville, TN. 26 Gray II, R. J. and Kaklamanidou, B. 2011. Introduction. In The 21st Century 27 Superhero Essays on Gender, Genre and Globalization in Film. R. J. Gray II and 28 B. Kaklamanidou. Ed. McFarland & Company Inc., Jefferson, NC. 1-14. 29 Jeffords, S. 1994. Hard Bodies: Hollywood Masculinity in the Reagan Era. Rutgers 30 University Press, New Brunswick, NJ. 31 Jung, C. G. 1968. The Collected Works of C.G. Jung: Part I- Archetypes and the 32 Collective. G. Adler and R. F.C. Hull. Trans. G. Adler and R. F.C. Hull. Ed. 2nd 33 Ed. Vol. 9. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, n.p. Epub. 34 Khalid, M. 2011. Gender, Orientalism and Representations of the ‘Other’ in the War 35 on Terror. Global Change, Peace & Security. 23,1 (Feb. 2011), 16-29. DOI: 36 10.1080/14781158.2011.540092. 37 Lissovoy, N. D., et al. 2016. Scripted Fantasies and Innovative Orientalisms: Media, 38 Youth, and Ideology in the Age of the ‘War on Terror. Cultural Studies: Critical 39 Methodologies. 17,6 (Oct. 2016). 1-15. DOI: 10.1177/1532708616673653. 40 LoCicero, D. Superheroes and Gods: A Comparative Study from Babylonia to Batman. 41 McFarland & Company Inc., Jefferson, NC. 42 McSweeney, T. 2017. Introduction. In American Cinema in the Shadow of 9/11. T. 43 McSweeney. Ed. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, U.K., 1-22. 44 Nayak, M. 2006. Orientalism and ‘Saving’ US State Identity after 9/11. International 45 Feminist Journal of Politics. 8,1 (Aug. 2006), 42-61. DOI: 10.1080/14616740 46 500415458. 47 Seidler, V.J. 2006. Transforming Masculinities Men, Cultures, Bodies, Power, Sex and 48 Love. Routledge, New York, NY. 49 Shamir, M. and Travis, J. 2002. Introduction. In Boys Don't Cry?: Rethinking 50 Narratives of Masculinity and Emotion in the U.S. M. Shamir and J. Travis. Ed. 51 Columbia University Press. New York, NY. 52 Solomon, J. 2001. The Ancient World in the Cinema. Yale University Press, New

21 2020-3874-AJMS-MDT 1 Haven, CT. 2 Vogler, C. 2007. The Writer's Journey: Mythic Structure for Writers. Michael Wiese 3 Productions, Studio City, CA. 4 Winkler, M. M. 2009. Cinema and Classical Texts: Apollo's New Light. Cambridge 5 University Press, Cambridge, U.K. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

22