Local Hero (1983)

Media I Have Consumed > Movies

Pasted image 20260329215544.png|519

This movie took me by surprise. I went in expecting a serious movie - and it did have a serious undertone, but it also was unexpectedly comedic/absurd, and also surprisingly complex. While being touching and having a positive message.

I arrived to it in a similar way as I did The Chef of South Polar (2009). I saw an ad on Instagram for a movie called "Our Hero, Balthazar", and was deciding whether to watch it, when I saw the next search result was Local Hero. Its imdb rating was 7.3 (balthazar was 7.1) and the synopsis sounded like it could be interesting. So I watched it instead. (Yes, this is a strange way of selecting a movie to watch. Yet it is working.)

Spoilers ahead.

Spoilers ahead.

Spoilers ahead.

Spoilers ahead.

Spoilers ahead.

Overall thoughts

This movie did not go how I expected it to. I think that's what made it so enjoyable to watch. I kind of had no idea where it was going. Characters didn't behave the way I initially (or for a while) expected them to.

This is what I expected the plot to be: Oil company wants to buy and destroy this town. Protagonist (Mac) gets to know the town and people and decides to protest the oil purchase. This makes him the local hero.

The first thing that I got wrong was that the townspeople actually wanted the land to be bought, because it would make them rich. And Mac was a "local hero" because he was the one bringing this deal to them. He was shown praise by the townspeople.

But the true heroes (from the environmentalist perspective at least) ended up being Oldsen (Mac's new bud who works in the Scotland office of the oil company), the CEO of the oil company (Mister Happer), and the man on the beach.

The most unexpected (but also kind of obvious from the start) character twist was the CEO, Mister Happer. He's the CEO of the oil company and it seems that he is the one giving the order to destroy the town so they can build the oil refinery -- though, retrospectively, I remember that in the opening scene, he is the one who was asleep in the meeting where the board decided on this town as the location, so perhaps he never fully understood the reason for the location. Nevertheless, his entire characterization is barely about him being CEO -- it's mostly about his obsessive interest with stargazing and the sky (as well as his harrowing relationship with a psychologist whose methodology is to verbally abuse Happer for some reason -- I have to think through if there was a point to that or if it's just comedic relief or adding depth to the character (THOUGHT THROUGH: Theory)). Happer's check-ins with Mac are about what's happening in the sky -- Mac reports on meteor showers and aurora borealis, and barely discusses the oil deal. Ultimately, when Happer flies in (via helicopter) to the town and speaks with the Man On The Beach, Happer himself decides that the town is not an ideal place for the oil refinery because of its niceness and it being a prime spot for star/planet-gazing. This feels like a good ending, but also feels strange because in a way, we were rooting for Mac because he was the protag, and the end move by Happer is the CEO exercising his power and making this decision which nullifies most of the work Mac had been doing. We like the result, but it feels strange because 95% of the characters were rooting for a different ending.

The man on the beach is the black sheep character. He lives in a shack on the beach and it has been owned by his family for 400 years. He is the one person in this town who does not want to give up his property -- even when offered over a million dollars, and "any [other] beach he wants", he says that this current beach is fine, and that he's still "making a living" off it. He also has a deep interest in the stars, which is how he and Happer bond and how we get to the conclusion. The man on the beach reminds me of the opposing juror in Twelve Angry Men. Everyone else is satisfied except for him, but he is Right. The man on the beach is what I expected the rest of the townspeople to be like, with regards to the prospect of being kicked off their land. It's interesting how the person with the minority opinion is able to sway the entire cause. Happer's eyes light up when he hears that MOTB is interested in the stars. This connection is what sways everything.

The other interesting dynamic is Oldsen and "the girl". The girl is a marine biologist who has been surveying the wildlife on the beach. The two develop a flirtatious relationship (on-screen escalation is a somewhat strange foot-kissing scene, which leads to the absolutely absurd/confusing reveal that the woman has webbed feet??? I think??? I don't really understand this part.) I think she is unaware through the whole movie that Mac+Oldsen are actually there to make a deal which will lead to the destruction of the land, which she obviously would oppose to. However, even though she doesn't know about it, she is still an influence on Oldsen, who clearly starts to take an environmental stance (he at one point poses to Mac whether the townspeople know what is going to happen to the town (I'm still not sure if they knew the land was going to be destroyed)). Oldsen's opinion is another point of encouragement to Happer at the end, mentioning that they can build a marine biology research center here.

The ending of the movie is Mac being sent home to Texas and looking out at the Houston cityscape out his window, an undeniable juxtaposition to the natural landscape of the town in Scotland which is surrounded by beautiful mountain and beach. It's clear that Mac has been touched by his work trip. When Happer tells him to go home, Mac's still expression somehow portrays his disappointment of leaving the town (corroborated by his earlier remark to the mayor (Urquhart, another interesting character) indicating he wished he could switch places with him) and going back to normal life. It was a palpable feeling. I was wishing for him that he could stay in the simple life the town offered. The last moment of the movie is the phonebooth in the town ringing, presumably Mac calling in to check on how things are and how the friends he made there are doing.

Not sure if I summarized too much rather than offered opinion/insight. But I suppose I was providing supporting evidence for my opening statement of the movie being complex, comedic/absurd, and touching. The film had me giggling at the comedic and absurd moments, while also being vested in the outcome of the oil deal and the fate of the landscape.

My notes while watching

Thoughts 24 min in:

50 min:

The girl has webbed feet????? Strange moment.

"Do you think they know what'll happen to the place?" Ah so there's no opposition but they prob dont know the plan is to blow it all up for oil. Maybe it'll be the scottish protag (protag's friend) who raises the opposition since he is vibing with the environmentalist girl (who also doesn't know their plan is to blow it up)

Shifting between serious and comedic/absurd. Kinda reminds me of South Polar

"i thought all this money would make me feel different. All it's done is made me feel depressed. I dont feel any different." 1:20:00

1:27:00 trying to convince the beach guy to move / sell the beach that he owns. Says the beach is his living / still working on it. "You wont have to work."  "well we all have to work [??]"

Theory about Happer's Therapist

It's the day after watching the film and I had some thoughts about this while I was out walking today.

So, Happer is kind of a weird CEO. He's kind of the opposite of how a CEO is often portrayed/stereotyped: cold-hearted, profit-driven, kind of evil. Instead, he's kind of a goofy fellow, with a deep interest in and attention to nature. He demonstrates a willingness to change a vital business strategy in light of the opinion of a simple man who lives on a beach and the connection they share through a common interest.

So I'm imagining that the "therapist" was called in (by who? him? someone else? or just the allegorical/comedic/satirical gods/grace of the film's universe) to turn him into a "better" (more evil/corrupt) CEO. How to make a decent person into a worse person? Traumatize them with verbal (maybe even physical) abuse.

With this in mind, it's also interesting that Happer consistently refuses the attempts of the therapist to do this. It's hinted that the therapist was previously hired and presumably did some decent service for Happer. But from the start of the movie, when the therapist is introduced as throwing verbal insults at Happer, Happer shuns the therapist. Happer terminates their relationship (or attempts to) when the therapist implies he wants to start trying physical abuse too.

With regards to my above theory, we are glad that Happer resists the abuse. We don't want his essence to change -- we want him to be a kind-hearted CEO, because he ultimately makes a positive impact on the community which is the subject of the film.

Furthermore, I think his resistance may highlight something about a more normal patient-therapist relationship. In a reversed way, we see what it looks like for a patient to resist the treatment of a psychologist. We understand that it goes against the nature/instinct of the patient (Happer) to give in to what the psychologist is demanding. Again, in this case, we want Happer to resist, so this is good. But maybe it can help us to empathize with patients (in a real, non-reversed therapy situation) who have trouble accepting the efforts of a therapist to help them. It may feel to them like it goes against their nature to change their behavior or mindset. In this case, we want the patient to follow the therapist.

Well, here's a crazier thought -- there probably are real life situations where the therapist is not doing good for the patient or not acting in the patient's best interest. <-- Mainly I meant, a therapist who might be manipulating the patient or for some reason trying to make them worse. But also, perhaps more realistically, a profit-driven psychiatrist whose motive is to sell drugs rather than genuinely improve the patient's situation. Perhaps this latter thought is actually closer to what the film is showing. The psychologist says that Happer is his "star patient" and implies the "work" they are doing is helpful for the psychology firm / their research. So maybe this is showing that Happer is taking advantage of the patient rather than taking Happer's best interest to heart.

Is that a stretch? Maybe. Well, here's an even bigger, stretchier stretch that I just thought up: Just as the therapist wants to take advantage of Happer, so does Happer's company want to take advantage of the people in the community by paying them to get off the land so they can blow it up for oil. Okay this is kind of a stretch, because the company does seem to be very fairly paying the people of the community, and the people are more than happy to accept this (unlike Happer to the therapist's insults). So... to stretch even more, it's kind of like the oil company exploiting the land for its oil -- definitely not in the best interest of the land (forgive my anthropomorphizing the land).

I admit the last couple paragraphs are a stretch. But I think my core idea here (that the therapist's role is to attempt to corrupt the good-natured CEO) could be valid. At the very least, it contributes to the characterization of Happer. I'm certain this relationship is not there simply for the purpose of comedic relief, as I originally proposed.

Send me a comment! RSS Feed