More Than the Muscle

Who doesn't find catharsis in watching power creatures exhibit their power? Comic book superheroes have illustrated how much people of all ages love to see strength exemplified. Arguably among the most popular examples is that of the Incredible, the Indestructible, the Big Mean and Big Green, Hulk. Now there's a plethora of Hulk characters. The first was so inspiring to generate a big cast of related heroes and villains. Focusing on the main Hulk, AKA Dr. Bruce Banner, it's a large simplification that he's had quite the long history.

The appeal of this character has often been attributed to the smashing that the Hulk half does. Many fans of the Hulk note the best part of the films that portray the green beast tend to involve destruction and havoc. However, after the meager film time in the recent box office hit, Avengers: Infinity War, complaints have surfaced of the character being portrayed as much weaker. This could be due to added realism where the comic books have no such boundaries—but regardless of the justifications and criticisms, the concept struck me. Similar comments were made towards Thor: Ragnarok because a lightning god supposedly beat the Hulk and in Avengers: Age of Ultron where a highly advanced Iron Man suit designed to fight the Hulk supposedly beat the Hulk. Now Hulk, who is supposed to be stronger with rage, fights Thanos and loses because of Thanos's superior intellect to match the strength of Hulk? Outrage! Scandal!

This upset a lot of fans, but why? I realize the appeal of Hulk is that he is among the physically strongest—if not the strongest, as versions vary. However, many seem to forget that Hulk is just a half of the character, and Dr. Bruce Banner is the other. My favorite run of Hulk stories is The Indestructible Hulk where Banner pulls his head out of the sand and accepts the Hulk simply as a resource for him to manage within his life and goals. That is hugely powerful and profound, far more so than Hulk having a burnt out revenge story (I hate World War Hulk, please @ me).

Banner/Hulk, at his core, is a modernization of the classic literature: The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Stan Lee even cited the novel among his inspiration. That novel illustrated the two energies that wrestle inside all human beings. However, for men in particular, a very important issue is at stake. Giving in to aggression, destruction, and physicality is at the core of the male struggle to manage hormonal and psychological tendencies towards the worst qualities of man's history. Banner is characterized perfectly as the rational and intelligent aspect of man that has the potential to apply positive qualities, often attributed to women, namely: Creation, subtlety, and compassion. He hates the burden of the hyper-masculine monster that if triggered leaves him with devastating consequences.

Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but it turns me a bit green when I hear comments like: "The Hulk should be stronger than..." or "Banner isn't enough to tell a compelling story..." There's always a way to elevate the way we tell stories and portray characters, whoever they are. And in yesterday's, today's, and tomorrow's climate, I think men could benefit from a story that makes such an elevation. The common culture depicts men in a way that alienates men like Banner. I'm not saying the honesty of Captain America and charisma of Iron Man shouldn't be dignified. Yet, humility and caution are qualities that are not often praised for men to apply, but are crucial for survival. Men can, and should, be much more than muscle. Leadership qualities are important for everyone, but just as important are qualities of cooperation and collaboration that can and has been exemplified in a character like Bruce Banner.