Popularity: 31%

The Hero vs. The Anti-Hero Protagonist

hero-anti-heroThe . I grew up with him. In fact, I grew up with people who wanted to grow up to become a hero. I grew up with people who joined the military or police force in order to become heros.

Funny how we don’t meet too many people like that anymore…

Or is it?

When was the last time you met someone who seemed consistent in their noble philosophy? On one hand, they espouse their noble philosphy and from an outward appearance, they may even seem to actually believe it or even better…

Live it.

Until the SHIT hits the fan… LOL. Then we see them as they truly are. Flesh and blood human beings facing the same kinds of temptations we all face on a day to day basis albeit on different levels…

Maybe.

Who’s to say?

I think we’re able to see through the bullshit most of the time but even so, our masses somehow find themselves admiring those who espouse noble philosophy whether they live it or not. LOL.

But I’m talkin’ screenwriting and movies… The days of the masses wanting to become heroes are over. Sure, there’s always going to be those isolated few of us out there that seek some kind of hero status because I think for some of us, it might actually be hardwired into our DNA. But like everything else these days, we are adapting to our environment and constantly mutating to find ourselves.

Which is one of the reasons I think the protagonist seems to do a hell of a lot better box office than the hero with the noble philosophy. I mean, as a whole, who are we flesh and blood human being most like?

Heroes or Anti-Heroes?

Let’s compare… Just off the top of my head…

The Hero:

The Anti-Hero:

The anti-hero is definitely a more complex character to write… He or she doesn’t have to be likable. They have a lot more layers than meets the eye. I suspect that generally speaking, they are a lot more like the people we all know hence, we are faster to get on their character train for the ride. I know for me personally, they’re a hell of a lot more fun to write and while I’ll not tell you to write a movie with an anti-hero as your protagonist, I will tell you that in my humble opinion, using an anti-hero ups your chances of success just a bit more than the traditional hero.

There’s nothing wrong with the traditional hero but let’s face it… Most movies that use the traditional hero today are fairly predictable and that just might be because traditional heroes are predictable characters. It’s almost as if God summoned them up to get the bad guy. Their philosophy is noble hence, their predictability. There’s really nothing taunting them like what taunts the anti-hero — generally speaking. Most actors today are always looking for the taunting of their character so why not give it to them?

I hear a lot of this wherever I go… “People are just smarter today than they were thirty years ago.”

Really?

Hmmm. As I sit here in my little coffee shop full of college students, I eavesdrop on not even one remotely intellectual conversation. I’ve been coming here for over four years now and have engaged in a myriad of conversations — mainly about film and even characters in film and at least here in my little neck of the woods, I ain’t impressed.

I do however, think people are much more sophisticated today than they were thirty years ago… Remember, we flesh and blood mongers rarely use even 10% of our brain power… Yeah, I’d say that’s about right however, we are now bombarded with people, images, sounds, ideas, politics, yada, yada, yada more than ever before. Even when a lot of us attempt to focus, we can’t focus because of this bombardment.

Some people say it’s this ever-increasing bombardment that’s the reason why the traditional hero is more or less dead except when we put STAR to said character in films today. You know… Those stars that pretty much play themselves on screen?

Not sure I buy the ever-increasing bombardment because take a look at the second image of above as in . Rooster was definitely an anti-hero and in a western no less… Plus, I don’t have enough space to list all the successful films before during and after TRUE GRIT that had an anti-hero protagonist so that kinda defeats the ever-increasing bombardment argument.

Is it because it’s just more believable? Is it because most of us are not heroes and that allows us to live more vicariously through the anti-hero?

You tell me.

Unk




Thursday: 9 October 2008|2019|Under Characters

Print This Post Print This Post
 

Comments

41 Responses to “The Hero vs. The Anti-Hero Protagonist”

  1. Chris J. Scurria on Thursday: 9 October 2008|2206

    A hero is someone I think almost everyone wants to be. I think a hero is social, who shares what they think, tells what he or she believes and helps others. Wouldn’t you want to stop someone from ending their life (a friend I have did that)?
    A hero is quick to forgive, who warns others of times and of things that are not God-honoring, and will admit they have been a hypocrite.
    A reverend told my ones in the church of burning “bridges” which meant getting rid of the thing that causes one to keep crossing and doing things against God.
    One who stops temptation to keep themselves from going there (which is one’s choice) and following the Lord instead. . . there it is, a hero.
    An anti-hero is one people may not like or care for. But some may want to try to love anyway.

    Foreman: Why do you want to take it down? It is a good bridge.
    Founder: It was my bridge and I want it destroyed. Whenever I crossed it, it only led to bad things.
    Foreman: Okay. Take it down.
    (It just got cracked and became dangerous).
    Foreman: I had trouble.
    Founder: I’ll take care of it.
    (Sign: DO NOT CROSS> TREACHEROUS! DANGER!)

  2. Nick on Thursday: 9 October 2008|2210

    I think the reason is almost exactly what you say it is — Anti-Heroes seem more like real people (a.k.a. us).

    But I would take it a step further — most Anti-Heroes have all the drawbacks that we have as real people, yet they usually end up succeeding like a Hero.

    It’s like that old morality question — if you found a bag full of money and no one was looking, would you take it? We wish we could be like a Hero without having to live up to all the standards…like an Anti-Hero does.

  3. Clive on Friday: 10 October 2008|0105

    Ah… I think I see what’s happened here.

    When we’re kids our understanding of the world is less sophisticated, so the heroes that appeal to us are less sophisticated.

    As we mature we get more life experience and therefore we need our heroes to be more sophisticated.

    You see I don’t think the hero/anti-hero has changed over time. You can still find simple black and white heroes in films… but those films are aimed at a younger audience. Disney’s output still has basic heroes.

    The key element of any heroic character is they can’t be just like us, they have to have a well defined moral code… it’s just that with more sophisticated heroes the moral code is well sophisticated.

    A perfect example of this kind of hero is a character like Dr Gregory House. People see him as an anti-hero because he has character flaws: drug addict, cynic, heartless. Surrounding him is a cast of characters who represent everyday people… considerate, caring, worried about what people think about them… all of whom try to sell the idea that House lives in a moral vacuum.
    However, he is heroically consistent in an extreme moral stance: he heroically defends rationality above everything else. He is heroic because despite the fact that he is despised and punished by those around him for constantly holding to his heroic ideal he goes to unlimited lengths to do the right thing… as he sees it.

    Now, when I was nine years old and loving old John Wayne films I couldn’t have seen House as heroic… but as a middle aged, atheist and cynic I completely get it.

  4. Unk on Friday: 10 October 2008|0333

    Clive,

    Outstanding as usual. A well defined moral code TO THEM ONLY until they spoon feed us a little at a time.

    Always AS HE SEES IT.

    Or she.

    Unk

  5. Clive on Friday: 10 October 2008|0507

    Thanks

    I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about House as a series, because on the surface it appeared to break most of the rules as I understood them.

    However, when I started to break down the character dynamics I realised that the basic principles did apply. What the writers had very cleverly done was give ALL the other characters the illusion of holding the moral high ground, by giving them conventional points of view… ones that the vast majority of the audience will sympathize with.

    House is “12 Angry Men” played out over and over again in a medical setting.

    I think what has happened is a shifting of the ground over which a hero can do battle… in a simple heroic model the fight is literal and is good guys versus bad guys. There are guns, but eventually it has to be settled mano-a-mano.

    A more sophisticated hero can do battle in the wider moral arena of law and order, medicine, politics or anywhere where the decisions are life and death.

    Where I think the real shift has happened is in the antagonists… because often the antagonist is also making a single minded moral stance to defend a principle.

    However, the paradigm seems to be that whereas the hero makes personal sacrifices to defend their cause, the antagonist always has to sacrifice others.

    Even in a apparently morally grey series like “The Shield” Detective Vic Mackie sets a moral framework of “no harm to innocents” which sets him apart from the gangsters and the other bent police officers.

  6. Phil on Friday: 10 October 2008|0512

    As a writer myself, I find it more interesting to write about anti-heroes. Anti-heroes tend to be more internally conflicted which gives them a bigger opportunity for a character turn. There is heightened drama with a character that makes selfish, greedy, lustful and otherwise bad decisions (which is usually the domain of the anti-hero).
    But on the other hand, in this ’shades of gray’ world we live in as adults, there is some appeal to a character that has a strong moral code and clings to it through difficult situations and an environment that encourages personal compromise. Sticking to principles can be as great of challenge as walking a long way to throw a magical ring in a volcano.

    Definitely food for thought…

  7. Zombie on Friday: 10 October 2008|0855

    Y’know, I’m trying to think of how many times I’ve even seen a straight-up hero in theaters over the past few years…

  8. James on Friday: 10 October 2008|1549

    I really don’t see any difference between a Hero and an Anti-Hero, when it comes to writing.

    I find the chief distinction is the world they live in and the goals they want to accomplish.

    If those goals are on the positive side of societal norms then he is labeled a Hero. If they are on the negative side, then he is labeled an Anti-Hero.

    For example, is McMurphy from ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO’S NEST a Hero or an Anti-Hero? Does it even matter what we label him?

    He is an Anti-Hero in terms of posing as a lunatic in order to dodge the draft. Being a rather large thorn in the side of the doctors that are trying to take care of the patients.

    But, he is definitely a Hero to the patients, and that ultimately is the side the audience takes when watching this picture. He is a catalyst for change in the patients, which is the driving force of the climax of the movie.

    Ultimately, everything McMurphy does is for the good of the patients, but at the cost of himself — and isn’t that sacrifice what defines a hero?

  9. Luzid on Friday: 10 October 2008|1604

    I personally feel the best combo is the anti-hero who struggles toward becoming heroic, even if he or she fails.

    (Oh, and the “only 10% of our brains thing is a myth: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=do-we-really-use-only-10)

  10. Unk on Friday: 10 October 2008|1837

    James,

    I’ve read numerous opinions about the hero and anti-hero and one that definitely stands out to me is an anti-hero is simply less heroic. LOL.

    True enough.

    My point however, is that by and large, traditional heroes seem to share a lot of the same traits and go through a lot of the same motions and action.

    That’s not to say that you couldn’t have a traditional hero be heroic in different ways… When I say noble philosophy, I mean the actual definition of noble. Beyond reproach. The noble philosophy guides the traditional hero through the story. His or her noble moral code pretty much makes many of his or her movements predictable.

    So far… LOL.

    Nobody is saying that an anti-hero is any less heroic than a traditional hero AT THE END. They just become heroic on their own terms and not driven by the noble philosophy ideal.

    One could easily argue that an anti-hero has his very own noble philosophy as Clive discussed above… But isn’t that kind of noble philosophy determined more by that very character and how he or she sees things in the world than by what we basically know to be a noble ideal?

    McMurphy was definitely an anti-hero driven by his own special moral code. Of course he’s no less heroic but to my way of thinking, writing that character would be very different than writing say, THE ROCK in the remake of WALKING TALL. LOL. That character had a noble philosophy that certainly drove him to do the things that he did. I don’t remember him having any real flaws nor do I remember him going through any real internal struggle and when I walked away from that movie, I immediately forgot about it until now.

    The labels exist mainly for discussion and learning I would think. If we put all heroes into one bucket then we can only distinguish them one by one. By finding the similarities in traditional heroes and non-traditional heroes i.e., the anti-hero, I think we go a long way toward creating multidimensional characters for our stories and screenplays whether we use the traditional hero or not.

    In fact, I kind of like the challenge of trying to use a traditional hero in a story driven by his or her noble philosophy yet keeping the story as far away from cliché and predictability as possible BUT without venturing into anti-hero mode for lack of a better description.

    Certainly one could make the turn of events different from what we’ve seen before with traditional heroes… That’s the easy part. The hard part — to my way of thinking would be keeping the traditional hero from stepping into the gray area because as soon as he or she does, they become the anti-hero. LOL.

    In other words, the challenge would be to keep the traditional hero from playing dirty. To keep his noble philosophy throughout the story but exercise it in ways we’ve never seen on screen before.

    Interesting thought… Now I’m wondering if we’ve seen any movies like this already because nothing’s coming to me.

    Luzid,

    Yeah, I read snopes.com thing about the 10% being a myth some time back. The problem as I see it is that this myth was launched with no real qualification but at the same time, there’s no real way to disprove that it isn’t so. LOL.

    My comment in the post was simply that if ANYTHING, what I see more often than not these days seems to be proof that it just might be true… LOL.

    Unk

  11. Chris J. Scurria on Saturday: 11 October 2008|0036

    Hey Unk again.

    I just spoke to my dad about the rebellious nature we all have (not one of us has not turned
    away and “Done our own thing.”)

    Maybe that could be the anti-hero (the sinner that is all of us_).

    We have all fallen short of the glory of God. None of us today has been born and said “Gahhh. I Love you. Tell me what you need and I will care for you.” :)

    Americans seem to want to portray in American films the anti-hero as a rebellious dude (the guy Toorup in Babylon A. D> for example).

    In some flicks the person may change their ways and others just go out for revenge (which in real life is a BAD ROAD<<<).

    The guy in this sci-fi flick only believed in the Strongest is the one who will survive. And then he met a humble young woman. A gentle kind soul who kept to herself in a convent (and spoke a few eye-opening things).

    Maybe we all want to be heroes when we ask God to help us. When we feel that only He can pull us through and get us out of the mud (the Prodigal Son).

    Maybe the anti-hero shows a slightly lovable and nice side that he or she may shine an occasional light. Maybe Becker was one of those characters.

    Maybe.

    God Bless all of ya. Take care.

    Past-procrastinator Ha ha ha.

    We live to Him by choice and our tongues are of “choice silver” as it says in Proverbs 10: 21.

  12. Tom on Saturday: 11 October 2008|0922

    I kind of think that the rise of the anti-hero in American cinema has to do with America’s place in the world.

    One could argue that America really achieved it’s apex after WWII. Up until then, we needed heroes to reassure us that we could defeat the British, tame the West, succeed as a nation and defeat foreign threats.

    After WWII, we became “the greatest nation in the history of the universe” and from that perch, we started looking inward, starting with film noir pics and going through the heyday of 70s cinema.

    In the 80s, there was a resurgence of “hero” movies as the Cold War really came to a head. We had an “evil empire” to defeat, and we looked to heroes like Rocky, Chuck Norris, the Wolverines, Rambo, etc… to reassure us that we could.

    Now, I’m kind of surprised we haven’t seen similar jingoistic films about our fight against al qaeda. I would think there’s a market for them. It might be because the terrorist attacks against us are due, in large part, to our success. And our enemy is obviously weaker than us, that it doesn’t beg out for a “Rambo” type character to fight them.

    But I think there is a climate right now for a true hero film.

  13. Christian Howell on Saturday: 11 October 2008|1044

    I totally agree that the anti-hero is more fun to write in that you can have him do things that the noble hero wouldn’t do, but what I liek to do is make a hero into an anti-hero by having the pressure keep up and forcing them to “break their code” or “letting cynicism overtake them.”

    It’s a lot of fun to break a person down to the raw and visceral which is where the anti-hero lives.

    He’s not as concerned about the “rules of morality” and will torture a bad guy for info or save himself whenever the choice has to be made.

    In terms of Rooster Cogburn he is still my favorite anti-hero. I never miss either of those movies whenever they come on. It’s amazing how such a gruff character can still be valid so many decades later but the way he deals with villains is timeless.

    Hell he wasn’t the most pleasant fellow to allies.

    It is also a very difficult character to master as he’s more based in the elements of the story where you have to write the occurrences to exploit his lack of moral code, gruffness, insubordination, etc.

    There are certain built-in characters for these anti-heroes though.

    The cop who lost someone close
    The hitman who meets the wrong victim
    The private eye who got kicked off the force
    The father who saw a son die
    A woman whose daughter was raped
    An innocent whose family was killed

    I guess that’s a good exercise for creating characters: finding out what would push them over the edge.

    I guess it’s the opposite arc of a bad person becoming good. I think it’s a helluva lot more exciting. Especially if they become sarcastic AND violent.

    I point you to Costner’s Elliott Ness and ask “Did he sound anything like that?”

    True heroes seem to be the province now of fantasy characters like superheroes but that’s where they should be as no one should be expected to “keep it together” no matter what.

    It’s not human nature, or maybe it’s just as you suggest not 2000s human nature as people don’t have expansive vistas as much as “cheeseburgers, Chevies and Tylenol commercials.”

    But I think it also allows for more flexibility in “how far your character can go” and not become offensive to sensibilities.

  14. Chris J. Scurria on Saturday: 11 October 2008|2016

    Why do we feel to do something that is wrong?
    Why must we go to the ways that we only seem to know?

    I think their are heroes, anti-heroes, and enemies.

    Paul Jackson the guy with the half-brother was on AMW. The man has probably seen movies and read things that were either not good at all or did not honor the Lord.

    The answer to why we turn from God is the thing that we were born as; selfishness and the thing called sin.

    God bless the seargents that were honored about two days ago.

    Is this person I spoke of a hero? I think not.
    This man is in jail for the torturing of women.

    If one is ever tired or frustrated, even writers need to go out and talk to someone. Do that if you are ever in a rut or you may listen to music.

    Aaron Shust is a great music artist. I only hear=d one song but was good (my Savior my God)

  15. Clive on Sunday: 12 October 2008|0335

    Well, maybe if you spent more time praying to God and less time preaching online, he’d grant you the skills needed to write wonderful screenplays, the ability to spell and a basic understanding of English grammar.

    To be honest most screenwriters do it the fast way, by selling our souls to Satan, but God must have created at least one good screenwriter, hang on a second, I’ll check…(I’ve made some calls and no, we all sold out souls to Satan. Which when you think about really does explain the Hollywood studio system! LOL)

  16. Susan P. on Sunday: 12 October 2008|0737

    Hero/anti-hero..both work for me as long as they are credible within what they espouse as worthwhile.
    It’s the expression of value and the total lack of activity to meet that aim that really gives me the pip. That’s ‘loser’ in my world.

  17. Chris J. Scurria on Sunday: 12 October 2008|1047

    That happens in life. A person who wants to be faithful (but we all have had boundaries that have lead to treachery) ends up doing something not good. It is unfortunate and people may plead with them “Please. Continue the ministry” and the person feels they should stop.
    This world is tough in a few ways; we are told by the world, “Hey it is okay if you just do it once.” and when some fall they are congratulated.
    People who want to write with a postive message; send out those writings and screenplays. This place needs you.
    Do you want to stop the violence or encourage and be of good influence? the writing starts. . .
    Here is a example which may be a future writing story:
    Three people are driven by car. One on the left is looking to what she should do. the second one got the “Ride” and they are going to have some “Fun.” The third is silent and she looks ar the girl in the middle. Something is up about her.
    Middle girl: Looks.) What? Why are u so stinkin’ quiet? Talk more. . . (Sigh)
    Left girl: Hey leave her alone.
    Middle girl: We are not alone and we are goin’ to a club.
    Right girl: Bless us, god. Please.
    Middle girl” I got us the ride. Now pay up since I can get you in. Five bucks.
    They are uneasy. They hand it in. The girl on the left has a 5-dollar bill. Girl on right has. .
    Middle girl: One dollar bills? What are you paid like a poor broke-
    Left girl pushes her a little.
    Middle girl: What was that there for?
    Left girl: I told you to leave her alone. She got it recently.
    Right girl: Yeah.
    Middle girl: Whatever. Money is money. Now let’s have fun and get out.
    Right girl: no drinking
    Mid. girl: Shut up.

    What do you think?

  18. Clive on Sunday: 12 October 2008|1404

    OK, against my better judgement I’m going to give you a serious answer to the question “What do you think?”

    I’m going to put aside for the moment the fact that you seem to have serious problems constructing a sentence in correct English (”One on the left is looking to what she should do”… man, that’s not even close to being a sentence… what you mean is, “The girl on the left is considering/thinking about/pondering what she should do”). I’m going to leave that to one side because it’s possible to overcome problems like that through hard work and study. I should know, I battle everyday with a mildly autistic version of dyslexia, which makes proof reading a bitch.

    However, that aside, there is a reason people with strongly held religious beliefs make poor screenwriters… and it’s this: if you can only see the world from one perspective it’s not possible to write believable characters. Simply because you have neither the sympathy for or empathy with those who don’t hold your worldview.

    In basic terms, it’s not possible to write about the temptations of a young woman, unless you can see the world through her eyes and understand those temptations… rather than just pass judgement.

    Now, as it happens Jesus would have made a marvelous screenwriter, because he spent his entire life in the company of whores, beggars and social outcasts and never passed judgement on any of them. Not only that he was a naturally gifted story teller whose grasp of metaphor is legendary.

    Or, in other words, he knew who to talk to common people through story telling. If he’d had an Apple laptop and a copy of Final Draft he probably could have dodged all the messy getting nailed to lumber and instead would have written some marvelous festival films. (All of which would later be remade by George Clooney, in English… but not quite as well as the original)

    It’s ironic that those who profess to follow the teaching of a master story teller, whose main message was “don’t judge people” generally have none of those qualities.

    In all the years that I’ve been reading other people’s scripts I can in all honesty say that what you’ve just written is by far the worst thing I’ve ever, ever read… and, I’ve read some of the worst scripts ever to waste ink on a page… but, you have surpassed them by a quite significant margin.

    If you’re serious about screenwriting, even screenwriting from a Christian perspective, you need study basic English grammar, spent some more time observing real people, how they talk and what their real concerns are… and, then actually read some screenplays and see how they are written.

    This isn’t an impossible task, but in all honesty I don’t see even a glimmer of natural talent in what you’ve written.

    Now,I know enough about religious fanatics to know that my words will fall on deaf ears. Which is the other reason that those with strong convictions don’t become great screenwriters… because if you can’t take constructive criticism, then you never learn.

    The thing about screenwriting, in fact any kind of fiction writing, is it only comes from people who are able to question everything… up to and including their own values and beliefs… and also the values and beliefs of their own cultures. This isn’t something that can be done from a mono-theistic point of view.

  19. Christian Howell on Monday: 13 October 2008|0950

    Hey Clive, what do you mean an Apple laptop? What’s wrong with HP and Windows? Just kidding.

  20. Clive on Tuesday: 14 October 2008|0014

    Jesus just strikes me as a Mac kind of a guy! LOL

  21. Nick on Tuesday: 14 October 2008|1133

    I think I saw Jesus on that “I’m a PC” commercial.

    Something that struck me while I was thinking about this:

    What defines an anti-hero as opposed to a hero?

    Unk said, “…an anti-hero is simply less heroic.”

    But what about this?

    An anti-hero doesn’t have heroic intentions, yet comes out looking heroic.

    I watched “The Limey” the other night and that’s the definition of an anti-hero to me. SPOILERS!!! He wants to kill the guy he THINKS killed his daughter. He goes around killing EVERYONE in his way, no matter what. Yet in the end, he looks like a hero because he brings down a drug ring and “shows mercy” to the main baddie. He looks heroic, but he’s not. He killed a crap load of people, some who had NOTHING to do with his daughter’s death, and spares the one guy who did. Also, he doesn’t really stop the drugs — they’ll just find another rich schmuck to be the money guy (I think the Fed actually says this at some point).

    Anyway, as I see it, I don’t see a lot of these types of characters in films or on TV. I see a lot of flawed protagonists with heroic pursuits, but not may flawed protagonists with non-heroic pursuits that come out looking like a hero.

    Of the protagonists (Batman, Iron Man, Indiana Jones, Hancock, and Wall-e) in the top 5 grossing films so far this year, only Hancock can sort of fit the role of anti-hero, but from what I’ve gathered (haven’t seen the film) his pursuit is to become the hero everyone thinks he should be — thus his goals are heroic. Making all of them heros. In fact, I have to go all the way to #20, “Pineapple Express”, to find protagonists that fit my anti-hero model (they’re only trying to get away from drug dealers, surviving ’til their next bong hit). the only other one in the Top 50 I can find is the kid from “Jumper” who is simply trying to stay alive and get away with being a bank robber, but even he has heroic intentions with his gal pal. BTW, if you haven’t seen this movie…DON’T!

    So where is the big swing to anti-heroes in films? If an anti-hero is “a protagonist with non-heroic intentions that comes out looking heroic” then where are all the anti-heroes in the top grossing films?

  22. Unk on Tuesday: 14 October 2008|1728

    Nick,

    I never said I completely AGREE with the opinion I passed along of the anti-hero being less heroic… Although he most certainly is until the end. It’s just another opinion that I’ve had many a discussion about — probably more than others when it comes to the anti-hero.

    Meaning that this is, in MY opinion, a topic that doesn’t really get discussed ENOUGH.

    My own opinion on the anti-hero is far more expansive than thinking he or she is simply less heroic. LOL.

    Trust me on that.

    I hear what you’re saying about THE LIMEY… Great little film but he doesn’t necessarily come out looking very heroic to ME.

    Take Mel Gibson as Porter in PAYBACK…

    Definitely an anti-hero. All he wants back is his money. No real heroics there but I thought he was a much better anti-hero because we really got to see his ORDINARY WORLD and based on that ordinary world of his AND his own unique moral code, he had to do things the way he did. Out of all the scumbags we see in that film, he’s the least scummy which also makes HIS anti-hero work.

    So I am looking at the 2008 box office stats… The first two are THE DARK KNIGHT and IRON MAN. I haven’t seen either one yet I’ve read enough reviews out there along with opinions of both films to ask a simple question…

    Are you SURE neither one of these protagonists are anti-heroes?

    Again, I can’t say for sure because I have yet to see either one of these films but I’m sure a lot of others have. But just from my own knowledge of both films, let me surmise…

    Are not both Bruce Wayne and Tony Stark flawed?

    Does not Bruce Wayne/The Dark Knight have his own internal demons to battle? Do not these internal demons exist with both his ideals, hopes, and dreams? Do you not think that his alter ego — Batman questions his own moral code when many of his efforts end up with innocent people dying? Do you not think that innocent people dying would make Bruce Wayne question his moral code even more?

    Nobody said that Batman fits the normal definition of the anti-hero — in fact, that’s why I brought it (the anti-hero) up for discussion. The Dark Knight (again, haven’t seen it) very likely works because ultimately, while Bruce Wayne’s philosophy is noble, he still battles his fears which, to a degree, might make him a little more like us in the audience.

    Tony Stark in IRON MAN — at least from most everything I’ve read — seems to once again touch upon anti-hero status in that he’s been a massive enabler of a lot of violence in the world. He’s finally seen what it can do and it begins to change him. Is this not an internal demon? Was he NOBLE from the beginning of the film?

    You tell me.

    Unk

  23. Nick on Tuesday: 14 October 2008|2133

    Based on this:

    A protagonist with non-heroic intentions that comes out looking heroic (which is what I consider to be the definition of an anti-hero).

    I would not call Bruce Wayne or Tony Stark anti-heroes.

    I consider them deeply flawed characters with heroic intent. Wayne has his demons, but his heroic pursuit is to rid Gotham of it’s crime. And Stark is a womanizing pig, but his heroic pursuit is to right the wrongs his corporation has done.

    I don’t necessarily think:

    FLAWED = ANTI-HERO

    But since we really don’t have a definition of an anti-hero that will satisfy everyone, I can concede that to some these two protagonists fit the bill. Just not in my definition.

    Maybe we should say that audiences are starting to identify with deeply flawed characters over moral, goody-two-shoes like that smarmy-ass Superman. If that’s the argument, I can get on board.

    And good call on “Payback” I thought about mentioning that one but found that I didn’t really remember it as well as I should. The only reason I can remember the plot of “The Limey” is because I caught it on Showtime last week.

  24. Unk on Tuesday: 14 October 2008|2346

    Nick,

    I’ve always been under the impression that anti-heroes possess flaws of some kind…

    But if it’s a definition you seek, probably the best I’ve found on the web is right here:

    Anti-Hero on Answers.com

    But in the end, use whatever definition that helps YOU write a better protagonist.

    Unk

  25. Nick on Wednesday: 15 October 2008|0026

    I’m not saying anti-heroes are not flawed.

    I’m saying that I’ve always thought that both heroes and anti-heroes possess flaws — the thing that separates them is their goal…whether it is a heroic goal or anti-heroic goal.

    Every great protagonist has flaws. If a protagonist is flawless we stopped caring about him before we entered the theater.

    Take Porter from “Payback” — he actually possesses some admirable (maybe not heroic) qualities in that he refuses to back down from adversity and he has fallen in love. But his goal ain’t so admirable — he just wants his money. So it’s really his goal that makes him an anti-hero.

    I guess what I’m getting at is that we should update the idea of what it means to have an anti-hero protagonist. We want our hero to be flawed, that’s what makes him/her a better character. But at what point do those flaws become so great that a protagonist crosses the line from hero to anti-hero? I think it’s when their flaws cause them to have goals that would be deemed unheroic.

  26. Unk on Wednesday: 15 October 2008|0321

    Nick,

    Now see I don’t think it’s whether or not their goal is heroic or anti-heroic. Many amazing anti-heroes in films aspired to what I think you would perceive as “heroic goals.”

    Rather, I see the best anti-heroes as characters willing to be shittier than the antagonist(s) they are trying to overcome. It’s their willingness to jump into the shithole and be just as shitty as the villains.

    In other words, you gotta fight fire with fire to the second power.

    Unk

  27. Clive on Wednesday: 15 October 2008|0656

    The thing about the difference between a hero and and anti-hero is that it isn’t intrinsic, it’s cultural.

    There isn’t a Platonic ideal “hero” or “anti-hero.” The heroic ideal depends on the cultural perspective.

    Now, mainstream Hollywood scripts conform to the needs of mainstream American audiences, because that’s where the money comes from. Therefore the real question isn’t “what is the difference between a hero and an anti hero,” the real question is “what kind of heroes do the American public respond favorably to at this period in history.”

    If you want some perspective on this, it might be worth reading Biskind’s follow up to “Easy Riders, Raging Bulls.” It’s called “Seeing is Believing” and charts the difference between liberal agenda movies and conservative movies in the 1950s. In essence it’s an examination of the definition the “hero” in a politically charged era.

    The only way to get to the heart of the contemporary hero is to take a step back from the culture and look at the modern cultural agenda.

    Personally I don’t know what the answers are… but that’s because I genuinely don’t care. And I think that’s a good approach. we don’t need to know, we just need to create characters and stories that we personally care about.

    I know I won’t ever create a hero that is acceptable for a mainstream American because I don’t share a strong enough cultural bond… let’s face it, I’m a European atheist who thinks John Paul Satre is more interesting than General Patton. I’ve come to accept that as a truth and make my career decisions accordingly.

  28. Tom on Wednesday: 15 October 2008|1743

    To me, an anti-hero is a flawed person who most people wouldn’t expect to be a hero, but through his actions becomes a hero. In this definition, the anti-hero is the subversion of the John Wayne-type hero. It blurs the lines between good and evil.

    For my money, the best example of an anti-hero is Travis Bickle. A low-life, racist, insane cabbie who becomes a hero by going on a psychotic rampage. I can’t think of a film that blurs the line between good and evil quite like Taxi Driver.

    And I think Clive is right in stating that much of this is political. Liberals tend to have a more nuanced view of good and evil… we’re all capable of both and sometimes it’s a fine line between the two. While conservatives tend to be more black and white. There’s a start contrast between good and evil, and if you’re not good, then you’re evil. (remember the “either you’re with us or against us” line)?

  29. Clive on Wednesday: 15 October 2008|2331

    The other thing which I think has has a massive impact on the traditional hero is feminism.

    Basically, between the 1940s and the present day masculinity has undergone a massive identity crisis… an identity crisis that has been reflected in the heroes of our movies.

    So, in the Big John era, it was still manly and heroic to be flawless, brave, strong and capable of dealing with any situation. Then as feminism started to question the role of women in society, at the same time they started to question the authority and value of “Big John” type men.

    As we headed in the 1960’s it became more and more common for the hero to be flawed and for part of the story to be the overcoming of that flaw. Not only that, you started to see a marginalisation of the traditional hero. So, Dirty Harry is in every way a traditional hero… strong, single minded, capable. However, by the 1970’s he’s moved from being the acceptable face of society to being a “rogue cop” whose methods are unacceptable in modern policing.

    This process has increased to the point where it’s almost impossible to have a capable, unflawed, masculine (in the old school sense) hero in a film… because those characters have moved even further into the shadows… a character like that is now more likely to be used as comic relief.

    I think this is also the reason that most people have started their replies by saying, “I prefer the anti-hero”… because in reality the anti-hero is the new hero. In many respects because it’s no longer culturally acceptable to have a positive, assertive, masculine male role model.

    My personal belief is that in this trend the baby got thrown out with the bath water. Which is also the reason I think “Fight Club” is and was such an important film. If any film exposed the shift in masculine values from Big John to Ikea Man it’s “Fight Club.”

  30. Chris J. Scurria on Friday: 17 October 2008|1717

    I took in what you said Clive.

    I will admit. The reason why sometimes I write so cruel from a perspective is that I want to reflect how a few people can be cruel.

    I grew up with all kinds of bullies. Even I Have bullied (which I regret to this day).

    I just want to write from a certain perspective (one that I like is the one who is looking for “something” and seeks God. . . and finds Him).The person whether it is a hero or anti-hero is one that I love to write about.

    I write about verbal abuse (I’ve gone through a lot of it). I write about people who feel unsafe and they find out they are more safe than EVER.

    I write as what I have seen. And I think I should take a less harsher aproach. . . and there are characters with many positive aspects that I like. Some characters written are people that I wished I was in that circumstance. There is one character who has many brothers and one mother and he loves to get the family together and they watch a movie together. That does not happen at my house. . . but it would be great if others get encouraged to do it.

    Good to hear from another. THanx for the criticism.

  31. Chris J. Scurria on Friday: 17 October 2008|1720

    ///
    ADDITION:

    I have not gone to school in a few years (ha ha ha).

    The word is spelled “approach.”: Sorry.

  32. Chris J. Scurria on Friday: 17 October 2008|1729

    Has anyone seen the Kevin Costner western that he wrote (through adaptation) and directed?
    It seems to be a really good one.
    Talk about the “cowboy” persona. . .

    God BLESS!

  33. Benjamin Ray on Saturday: 18 October 2008|0637

    Hi Unk,

    Learning more here than any textbooks out there.

    My frist and second script consist of an anti-hero but I received notes/feedbacks/coverages from some the big 6 contest providers saying that most scripts they get are focused on a hero, not an anti-hero.

    Does this ring true? What do they mean by that? Are they just playing it safe?

    Best,
    Benjamin Ray
    brscreenwriter@gmail.com
    http://www.hollywoodtoronto.com

  34. Clive on Saturday: 18 October 2008|0718

    Chris,

    I don’t know what you define as harsh, but that isn’t the problem with your writing.

    The problem you’re dealing with is common with many people who start to write screenplays. It’s that although you’ve observed people behaving in a particular way, you haven’t understood why they behave that way… and more importantly you can’t distill from it a core human truth and then dramatise it.

    It’s not enough to have been bullied, or to have bullied… you have understand why it happens and how that could work for you dramatically in a script.

    The art of writing a scene is almost never reportage… that is a moment taken directly from observation. Even when the goal is “realism” it’s not straight forward.

    At a basic level, you place two people in a room with one door and a situation where one person must get through the door to survive and the other person must prevent them. All drama is distilled from that one metaphor… sometimes the door is an emotion, sometimes the door is a secret to be uncovered (or protected)… but essentially it all comes down to that.

  35. Chris J. Scurria on Saturday: 18 October 2008|2131

    Interesting.
    The “early draft” writing was one that was going to be part mystery and part thriller. The “middle” character goes through something that sparks a “who did it” sort of thing that gets spread around at school. The other two start to look bad and one kid (not in this scene) has gone through something not quite pointed out until the rising action or the climax.

    I love the “trying to get through the door to survive” and the other “trying to prevent it;” I never saw plot that way.

    Plus: The one girl on the right is not completely innocent.

    God bless writers.

  36. Chris J. Scurria on Sunday: 19 October 2008|2147

    Was the robber who was played by Forest Whitaker in Panic Room an anti-hero? In my opinion. . . a close maybe. He wanted the money and he told the other two (who were definitely NOT heroes) how the house was built.
    Under the criminal skin he was a kind and decent man. The character did not want to harm or kill either the mother and did not want the daughter to die. That could be a hero in my book.
    See it (under 17; ask about it) if you want to see a film that is not a turkey or a gimmick as someone in my family may have thought.

    People that are like brothers and sisters; the troops who fight for the Lord and the ones who don’t know, YOU are ALSO the definite HEROES of this country. THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE.

  37. boyer on Tuesday: 21 October 2008|1630

    The October 21 (Tuesday) New York Times has an interesting article (I can’t remember what section) talking about how the “Wall Street Hero” is now out. It ties in to what Unk is saying.

    FYI, for all of you guys:

    The NYT has lots of great articles on film (reviews of course, but also articles on ‘the biz,’ profiles on screenwriters, directors, festivals, independents, etc.). I think it offers a lot of valuable insight when it comes to wrting your screenplay (or at least some worthwhile procrastination).

    Friday is the paper’s big fil review day. Sunday is good too. But you’ll pretty much find something of value any day of the week. Plus it’s full of great ideas for screenplays (the obit section can really offer some fascinating stories).

    Boyer

  38. Chris J. Scurria on Tuesday: 21 October 2008|2252

    Was Jesus a hero?

    To speak neutral, he was to some a “figure to Christianity.” Wasn’t he more than that? Wasn’t he more than a person who spoke and “influenced” others?

    C. S. Lewis has written about him. He has said that people may have killed Him because He was not right in their eyes.

    TO the Jewish, he “Blasphemed” because he did things during the Sabbath (miracles).

    A hero? He is definitely one to me and many others today.

  39. Chris J. Scurria on Tuesday: 21 October 2008|2254

    Unbreakable featured a hero. . . a character more HUMAN than a guy who could fly or web-sling.

    God Bless.

  40. Chris J. Scurria on Tuesday: 21 October 2008|2307

    I saw Batman Returns as a child. It was dark and very dreary. Batman (Bruce Wayne) was a very human-like guy and he was trying to rid the world of its evils (but sometimes he was tempted and got close to giving in when he saw a certain lady; so, maybe he did).

    The world can be such a harsh place. . . but there are heroes out there (in the real world, I mean).

    God bless the heroes of today.

  41. Mabus on Saturday: 8 November 2008|1305

    Sometimes the definition of Hero and Antihero can be flipped on their heads, as in the case of Victor Hugo’s masterpiece Les Miserables.

    Jean Valjean is the true “Hero” of the story, but he is more pragmatic than Inspector Javert, the apparent “Antihero.” What defines Hero vs. Antihero is not HOW people function, but WHY they function. Valjean devoted his entire life to a nobler, higher cause: To be an Upright Man. Upright does not necessarily mean “Honest,” but the two are related. Valjean was willing to do whatever worked in order to maintain being an Upright man and to do the morally right thing when the situation called for it. Javert, the antihero, believed that the Law was right no matter what, and that all people were treated justly under it. If people subverted the law, they deserved a fate worse than death, because they were horrible people. There is nothing wrong with Javert’s style of thinking, except that it was based on a flawed system of what was right or wrong. Javert’s principles of right and wrong were absolute, not relative, like Valjean’s. Because of the inflexibility of his decision-making processes, he inevitable killed himself at the end of the book.

    Rather than define Hero and Antihero by their virtues, I prefer to define them BOTH by what they are not. They are both NOT the Villain, which is something all men don’t want to be (Thenardier in the case of Les Miserables). The Hero is right, but the Antihero is not in the wrong.

Leave a Reply