A hole by any other name...

Apparently, Courtney Love is dead.

But before you break out the crack pipe and have a commemorative toke, bear in mind that it was Courtney Love herself who broke this astonishing story.

Rather than a Tweet from beyond the grave, which would actually be pretty cool (and might even be grammatically correct for once), this was Courtney talking to music mag NME.

She's finally woken up to something that everybody else realised about fourteen seconds after she first stepped into the limelight - we're all sick of Courtney Love. So she's decided to make a change and say goodbye to her old self.

That might have worked for David Banner, who could just throw his denim jacket over his shoulder and thumb a ride into the next town, but Courtney's no Incredible Hulk.

As a way of distancing herself from her previous life, Courtney's already adopted the third person when talking about her destructive impulses: “We love her when she goes onstage, but I don’t need her in the rest of my life." From now on, she wants a new name for her new start - “Courtney Michelle. The name Courtney Love is a way to oppress me.”

This may all get rather confusing for her fans, especially since Courtney has reteamed with her old band Hole, ahead of a new album called Nobody's Daughter this month. I guess the more things change, the more they stay the same.

In addition, she's also said that she no longer wants to answer questions about her husband Kurt Cobain, who shot himself back in 1994, “I am not his spokesperson on Earth. I don’t know what he’d be like now, he could be into society girls, he could be into fat girls, he could be homosexual. We don’t know, he died at 27.”

It's a noble aspiration, but I wouldn't be too surprised if Courtney finds it hard to lay those old habits to rest. Just try asking artist, musician, author and peace activist Yoko Ono what she's famous for.

Hero to zero

Marvel Comics are currently riding the crest of a wave, with Spider-Man, X-Men and Fantastic Four all launching highly lucrative franchises, as well as Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk bringing up the money-making rear. But there's one key comic title yet to find its place on the silver screen, largely because no-one knows quite what to do with it.

X-Men were originally created in the early 1960s, clearly intended as a commentary on prejudice and injustice in contemporary society. Similarly, the Incredible Hulk was a Jekyll/Hyde update that dared to make the monster within the hero of the story.

But back in the 1940s, Marvel's agenda was a little more conservative. Captain America was created in 1941, as an aid to the war effort. The alter ego of Steve Rogers, Captain America was a four-colour propaganda machine, enhanced by an experimental serum designed to help the US war effort, and wearing a costumer based on the American flag.

By the 1960s, while his stable-mates were busy overthrowing the Man, the captain's relevance and integrity had long since begun to fade. Instead, he was depicted as a reverse Austin Powers, defrosted from suspended animation and trying to adapt to contemporary society.

Flash forward forty years and some people are asking questions why Steve Rogers has yet to take his turn on the big screen. One right wing cartoonist, Bosch Fawstin, has asked why Captain America hasn't been depicted going after the Jihadists responsible for 9/11. Even though Marvel actually ran a story showing the square jawed hero going after a terrorist cell, Fawstin isn't happy because the terrorist leader was depicted as 'having his reasons'. But isn't that the point of terrorists - that they have reasons for what they do?

Ultimately, the creators of Captain America knew that they'd created a short-term propaganda tool. In his first incarnation, the Captain was shown punching out Adolf Hitler, and for a nation about to be plunged into world war, that was deemed appropriate. But by the end of the Second World War, there was little else for him to do, which is why he ended up in suspended animation.

As a consequence, the point of the character is not to celebrate blind patriotism, but to question how we might reconcile old world ideals in an ever-changing world. Perhaps once Hollywood grasps that concept, there'll be a film worth making.