Logan, the Follower: the Subtle Reason the Wolverine is so Popular

I have been rewatching the X-men movies lately, mostly because I miss the more-or-less straightforward storytelling formula the original movies provide.  Though the series is far from classic storytelling, some of the characters (particularly Jackman’s portrayal of Logan) have become beloved pieces of modern culture.  Though I do think that largely we have allowed the superhero genre to supplant the societal tradition of legendary storytelling, I am actually quite fond of the Wolverine as a character myself.  I think how he is portrayed in the movies is quite convincing.  Moreover, I think he embodies a member of the team we have all but allowed ourselves to forget is the most valuable asset: the competent follower.

Though I enjoy watching the films, I do not claim to be an expert in Comic book lore.  I have friends who can compare the superhero movies of the last 20 years to the original comics just as well as I can compare the Lord of the Rings movies to their original books, but I must take their word on it.  This being said, I can only posit several guesses as to why the character of Logan has been such a cult favorite since his first appearance (apparently) in the X men comics.  I think his darkness for one makes him appealing.  Though we generally are called to more virtuous lives by the white-knight heroes who are inarguably role models (such as Captain America in the early films), we constantly find ourselves held back by our own past sins.  Our sins do influence the way we see the world in a fundamental way which remains even after our sins have been forgiven.  What is more, heroic action even in the face of interior conflict is itself a heroic act.  So, a dark past in one sort or another which hinders us from being the white knight hero creates a common ground between us and Logan.  

I don’t think it is simply his darkness that makes Logan the ultimate hero of the franchise, though.  If it were simply darkness in someone trying to do what is right, we would not see the love-hate relationship that superhero fans have to Batman, the playboy wimp who is literally defined by his past darkness instead of trying to rise above it.  No, I think there is something about the character of Logan himself as portrayed by the role he takes as part of a team.  To see how this plays out, three specific movies come to mind: X Men, X Men Origins, and the Wolverine (that random one where he ends up in Japan for most of the movie).  My apologies to my comic book friends: I am not embarking on an analysis of these three films, but merely pointing out a very brief aspect within each of these movies.

Logan is generally shown to be a loner, sometimes a nomad, but definitely without a family.  This is how he is portrayed in the original X Men movie, but you get the definite insight that he is without a family because of some dark part of his past that he cannot remember.  There is a sort of longing for family that Logan maintains, though he is very reluctant to accept a familial bond with anyone.  Nevertheless, Logan becomes a functional part of the overall team to accomplish the mission - though he does set out on his lonely path again at the end of the movie.  So, from this first movie we at least know Logan is capable of team work.

X Men Origins provides the context and specific insight as to why Logan is a nomadic loner.  Turns out, he is old as dirt.  He also has a brother, found himself naturally suited to the life of a Soldier, became part of an elite team, and fell in love.  This is not to say he didn’t have a very violent streak, or that he was a happy-go-lucky, generally likable fellow.  The film does a very good job of portraying Logan as a darker individual from the very beginning, suffering tragedy time and again.  But through the tragedy, Logan was whole, focused on the mission at hand (whatever that might be), and was a key figure in a team - not simply an individual who joined up with a team every now and again.  To be fair, the “team” Logan was a part of for most of his life was simply his brother and himself, but a team nonetheless.  Though the main character of the franchise, Logan was never the leader of the team, even when he was portrayed as a whole individual with intact memories.  He could marshal the troops when he had to, take the initiative in absence of orders, and lead the way, but through it all he was always oriented towards accomplishing the mission, not so much determining what the mission was.  Logan was, through and through, a Soldier in the fight, not the leader calling the shots.  This Soldier mindset, divorced from the context of the mission he strove for, is preserved through the rest of the films until he gets his memories back.

This Soldier mindset is tied up nicely in the Japan-set movie simply titled The Wolverine.  Avoiding an entire film recap, suffice it to say Logan finds himself alone, away from the team he has been apart of for the last three films, protecting the daughter of a wealthy Japanese man.  The movie can seem somewhat contrived, until Logan is confronted by one of the Japanese elders of the girls family.  He is called a Ronin - a Samurai who is without a master to protect or follow.  The Samurai as a class of warriors were renowned, famous, and legendary… but were only honorable when attached to a family to fight for.  Without the direction and drive provided by a third party in need of the services, the Samurai were not even considered Samurai but Ronins.  

This is where I think Logan really shines out as a relatable character.  In essence, Logan embodies a Ronin from time to time, having the ability and desire towards action but without the direction and purpose given to him by another in need of his ability.  He does not create purpose either for himself or for others: in the strict Leader/Follower dichotomy, Logan is, when it comes down to it, an active follower.  It is not his Ronin tendencies that make him relatable; it is his inherent orientation to follow, though in an active manner.  And this is a character trait that the world has long since held as not worth developing.  In truth, the world is made up of a vast number of followers in relation to the number of leaders in the world.  

Everywhere I turn in my professional life, I see so much energy and advertising money spent on calling for and developing young leaders.  Everyone is a leader in their own right, I am taught to believe, and those who are under you ought to be cultivated as developing leaders.  On principle, this is an excellent sentiment.  I think it really hones in on the individual subjectivity and creativity that is an essential aspect of personhood in the Image of God.  When you really get to know someone, their unique perspective, approach, and drive is frequently surprising.  What is more, we as a society have an imperative to recognize and uphold the subjectivity of the human person and allow them to freely seek God according to the path He has put into their hearts.  In this way, it is true that every person is in fact a leader, but only inasmuch as they seek God and are the primary searchers for Him - no one else can impose this search into another.  However, I do not think this leadership typically transfers well to professional teams.  Though some aspects of leadership can be learned, leadership is a talent, much like every other talent in the world: a gift given by God.  Some people are naturally leaders, others are natural born Soldiers (enlisted, that is) who are more suited to simply follow the mission - and those who lead other enlisted Soldiers towards that mission fulfillment.  And that’s OK.  Not everyone has to be a leader, and we would do well to not require everyone to be a leader.