Main > The Round Table

Is John McClane Knightly?

(1/2) > >>

Thorsteinn:
I've noticed that John McClane, for all his whining, is rather knightly. He steps up, he fights bad guys, he protects the innocent, and he kills who needs killing, while leading by example.

Nobody's Hero scene from Live Free or Die Hard

... and later in the same film
John McClane: Hey, thanks for saving my daughter's life.
Matt Farrell: [shrugs] What was I going to do?
John McClane: That's what makes you "that guy."
Matt Farrell: [smiles] Yeah.

Sir William:
McClane's not just knightly, he's Paladin-class.

Jon Blair:
I'm not sure. There are the points you address to his favor, but on the other hand, he uses deceit to overcome his enemies (the gun taped to his back in Die Hard as an example, which arguably he needed to use to get the drop on the bad guys), shows no mercy (of course, that's Hollywood for you), and is very much the everyman in archetype. So, I'd argue that he has more in common with a yeoman in the vein of the Robin Hood than a knight, doing that which he feels is right, but not always in a way that is an exemplar of knighthood.

Sir William:
I suppose it depends on which definition of 'knightly' you subscribe to- the ideal, or the actual men who were supposed to hold themselves up to that ideal?  I see McClane as a knightly figure- I mean what everyman you know of would actually undertake such an operation to rescue a large number of people he basically didn't know (with the exception of his wife) against a cadre of well-armed and well-trained mercenaries?  But then that begs the question- were knights really tasked with protecting the populace?  The French would disagree w/regard to their English cousins razing the French countryside during The Hundred Years' war; the indigenous populations of Outreljourdain may not agree with you w/regard to their Templar oppressors; so maybe knighthood was less about protecting those who couldn't protect themselves and simply a means of advancement up into the social strata?

We of the Order uphold the Marshal as the standard of knighthood but even he had his detractors.  Who can say?  I think it meant different things for different people back then, depending on one's social standing et al.  Even as it does now, though the more romantic vision of knights-errant seems to be the prevailing opinion of modern times.  Most of the stories I grew up on, which formed my early views on knighthood were largely just that, stories- usually fantastical, certainly entertaining...but true?  Definitely not all of them, that's for sure.

Lord Dane:
This topic is best summed up as "Yippee Kai-Yeaaaaa, mother-f*#$er!!!"  ;D

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page