Anti-hero: real archetype or film-school bunk?

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Anti-hero: real archetype or film-school bunk?

    I hear the term "anti-hero" thrown around all the time. Connected to iconic names like these:

    Hannibal Lecter
    Michael Corleone
    Han Solo
    Jack Sparrow
    Bruce Wayne
    Tony Montana
    Harry Callahan
    Parker
    Max Rockatansky
    Travis Bickle
    Paul Kersey
    Tom Ripley
    Rick Blaine
    Thomas Crown

    But no one can agree on a *specific* definition--I bet the list above causes all sorts of debate.

    This I know: if the anti-hero is the protagonist, that means they are the character who solves the central story problem--they are engaged in a compelling goal against a ruthlessly committed opponent. But what makes them an anti-hero versus a hero? Methods? Motivations?

    I have also heard that a hero must be sympathetic--usually because they are a victim of undeserved misfortune. Yet most of the above are victims of undeserved misfortune. Or they are sympathetic because they are smart or charming or great at what they do. Or all of these.

    Just to add to the confusion, I found this attempt to discuss a "sliding scale" of anti-heroes:

    http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.ph...leOfAntiHeroes

    So is the term "anti-hero" a useful concept...or film-school bunk?

    Your thoughts?

  • #2
    Re: Anti-hero: real archetype or film-school bunk?

    I don't think you're going to find a DNA-sanctioned definition of an AH.

    But it's kind of like the Justice Potter Stewart dictum - you know one when you see one.

    I think some combination of loner and outlaw or rebel with charm (or at least style) is a recurring theme. That covers pretty much everyone on your list.

    (And they don't all have to be male. Dragon Tattoo/Kill Bill etc.)

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Anti-hero: real archetype or film-school bunk?

      If you're thinking of a hero as someone who, say, follows God's Laws.

      Then the antihero is morally elastic in terms of those laws.

      To me, the subdivisions in the list are just trying to classify shades of elasticity.
      Story Structure 1
      Story Structure 2
      Story Structure 3

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Anti-hero: real archetype or film-school bunk?

        I'd say of the list you cite, they're all people who are heroes within their world.

        If you look at some of the least sympathetic on that list - Bickle, Lector, Tom Ripley - they are placed in stories where there are people worse than they are, be it individuals like Sport the pimp or Buffalo Bill, or in the case of Ripley the whole class system which freezes people like him on the outside. This is often the key to mob-based dramas where a gangster is the lead - invariably there is someone worse, less principled, someone who has no rules. So by ordinary standards these people are scum; but they have a code which places them above others within their society.
        My stuff

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Anti-hero: real archetype or film-school bunk?

          That's a pretty uninspiring list of anti-heroes. Anti-heroes are going to be the people who believe that it is OK to kill one to save many. They are the people who will keep going when many in society would stop and say "Should I really do this?" True anti-heroes are along the lines of:

          John Creasy (Man on Fire)
          John McClain (Die Hard)
          Brian Mills (Taken)
          William Wallace (Braveheart)

          I had this talk with another writer at the bar the other night, and I summed it up as this. There is the world that we like to think we live in. The world where everything is right and the good guy always wins in the end. The anti-hero sees the world for how it really is. A place where evil exists and you aren't going to beat it if you are only concerned with keeping your hands clean.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Anti-hero: real archetype or film-school bunk?

            Originally posted by dave22 View Post
            That's a pretty uninspiring list of anti-heroes.
            Mad Max?

            Dirty Harry?

            Uninspiring!?

            In my opinion, just those two alone carry enough weight that if Jar Jar Binks was on the list it would still be worthy.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Anti-hero: real archetype or film-school bunk?

              Originally posted by dave22 View Post
              Anti-heroes are going to be the people who believe that it is OK to kill one to save many.
              I disagree - that would make every warrior or military leader an anti-hero, from Aragorn to Churchill.

              I'm not sure I'd include John McClaine as an anti-hero - he puts himself through extreme danger to save the lives of others. Even though one is his wife, it's still a largely selfless act. The fact that he uses violence to achieve this is because he has little alternative.

              If he'd solved the problem by kidnapping Hans Gruber's kids and torturing them - then he'd be an anti-hero.
              My stuff

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Anti-hero: real archetype or film-school bunk?

                An anti-hero can be a moral person, but his personality must be a real turn-off.

                The anti-hero space marine for my script is disillusioned, bitter and misanthropic after humanity subsidized the genocide of his people, but he's still a very likeable/rootable protag because of his idealistic morals.
                I'm never wrong. Reality is just stubborn.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Anti-hero: real archetype or film-school bunk?

                  Originally posted by dave22 View Post
                  That's a pretty uninspiring list of anti-heroes. Anti-heroes are going to be the people who believe that it is OK to kill one to save many. They are the people who will keep going when many in society would stop and say "Should I really do this?" True anti-heroes are along the lines of:

                  John Creasy (Man on Fire)
                  John McClain (Die Hard)
                  Brian Mills (Taken)
                  William Wallace (Braveheart)

                  I had this talk with another writer at the bar the other night, and I summed it up as this. There is the world that we like to think we live in. The world where everything is right and the good guy always wins in the end. The anti-hero sees the world for how it really is. A place where evil exists and you aren't going to beat it if you are only concerned with keeping your hands clean.
                  You're completely wrong and none of those characters are anti-heroes. John McClane is as straight forward a hero as there is. He's a bit gobby with his superiors and a maverick but that doesn't make him an anti-hero. he's a bonafide hero, no doubt. Same goes for Brian Mills. And Wallace, as disgracefully depicted in the film, is a simple man who just wants freedom against diabolical oppressors. Again, none more noble and heroic.

                  An anti-hero, IMO, is someone who is lacks heroic qualities and, usually, is morally suspect. Snake Plissken is the classic anti-hero. He's a criminal, he does what he wants, he overlooks women being beaten and raped, and doesn't give a shit about saving the President. Lenny Nero from Strange Days is another: a disgraced cop, peddling illegal goods, pathetically hung up on his ex who treats him like shit, and a coward to boot. How much more anti-hero can you get than that? Travis Bickle: psycho, Jason Voorhees: maniacal slasher, Tony Montana: crime lord, Patrick Bates, Han Solo, Hannibal Lecter, Parker/Porter/Walker etc.

                  Then there's the shades of grey anti-heroes like Harry Callaghan and Judge Dredd, guys that represent the law and display amazingly heroic qualities yet do so by methods that are startlingly extreme and (in Harry's case) break laws and human rights. Dredd doesn't break the law - he is the law - but after risking his life to save you from a violent hostage situation he'll imprison you for late tax returns. he's both your greatest hero and worst nightmare. One minute you cheer his ruthless justice and the next you're raising eyebrows at how pedantic and harsh he can be for minor infractions. Morally he is "just" but to us, the viewer, is often extreme and excessive.

                  In short, an anti-hero is someone you wouldn't like or cheer for in real life. Watch Payback for another classic example.
                  M.A.G.A.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Anti-hero: real archetype or film-school bunk?

                    It's definitely not film school bunk. What makes a main character an anti-hero?

                    I think there are three things:

                    1) The setting. Does your story take place in the drug business of Miami (scarface)? In the underbelly of a NY crime family (Godfather)? These settings are ripe for an anti-hero. Someone who needs to do what they have to in order to survive settings like these. Even if it means killing people.

                    2) The Goal. The goal of an anti-hero is one that would not be deemed socially acceptable. Trying to take over the Miami drug trade or rise to the top of a NY crime family by taking out all the heads of the other families. The goal of an anti-hero is usually something that would be deemed illegal or unethical.

                    3) Character traits. The anti-hero has a very skecthy way he/she deals with life. They use tactics that are ruthless, deceitful, cunning. They often show no mercy to those that oppose them and are not afraid of getting physical.

                    How does a writer combat the evil that is their main character? How do you get the reader to root for him/her? You make the people around the anti-hero worse than they are. Early on we have to see them get mistreated by those around them. And the anti-hero usually has one redeeming quality that everyone can identify with. Tony Montana, a ruthless Drug Lord, will not blow up a car that has a baby in it. Michael Corleone is a dedicated family man that loves his children and mother.

                    Defintely a tricky structure to write, would not reccomend an anti-hero story to those that cannot execute a standard 3 act screenplay.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Anti-hero: real archetype or film-school bunk?

                      Originally posted by SNAFU View Post
                      I hear the term "anti-hero" thrown around all the time. Connected to iconic names like these:

                      Hannibal Lecter
                      Michael Corleone
                      Han Solo
                      Jack Sparrow
                      Bruce Wayne
                      Tony Montana
                      Harry Callahan
                      Parker
                      Max Rockatansky
                      Travis Bickle
                      Paul Kersey
                      Tom Ripley
                      Rick Blaine
                      Thomas Crown

                      But no one can agree on a *specific* definition--I bet the list above causes all sorts of debate.

                      This I know: if the anti-hero is the protagonist, that means they are the character who solves the central story problem--they are engaged in a compelling goal against a ruthlessly committed opponent. But what makes them an anti-hero versus a hero? Methods? Motivations?

                      I have also heard that a hero must be sympathetic--usually because they are a victim of undeserved misfortune. Yet most of the above are victims of undeserved misfortune. Or they are sympathetic because they are smart or charming or great at what they do. Or all of these.

                      Just to add to the confusion, I found this attempt to discuss a "sliding scale" of anti-heroes:

                      http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.ph...leOfAntiHeroes

                      So is the term "anti-hero" a useful concept...or film-school bunk?

                      Your thoughts?
                      Well, I don't think that there is any exact definition of the term. It's not as if it comes down to us from antiquity. I suppose the question then is whether or not there's a definition that's widely enough shared that the term has any use.

                      As for the above list -- first of all, for any definition of "anti-hero" to make sense -- the character in question, for my purposes, would have to be the hero -- the protagonist.

                      Certainly, Hannibal Lecter is not. He isn't even the antagonist (at least not in Silence of the Lambs - the only really good movie in which that character appears). That's Buffalo Bill. Lecter, odd though it may seem, is the mentor in that story.

                      I think that the problem you're having is with this notion of a protagonist being "sympathetic" or of being engaged in a compelling goal against a "ruthlessly" committed opponent. This is fixing the "good guy/bad guy" idea in your head.

                      MacBeth is indeed engaged in a compelling goal against a committed opponent. But it's MacBeth that's the ruthless one. He's the one who conspires with his wife to kill his king. He's the one who murders his friend. He's the one who has his enemy's wife and children killed in cold blood.

                      So -- is he really sympathetic? That sort of depends on how you define that word. Certainly, we do not agree in any way with what MacBeth does. We know that he is doomed. Even MacBeth himself senses that the actions he's taken have led him to destruction.

                      But who is to blame? The witches? Lady MacBeth. No. MacBeth bears the weight of his own moral choice. If we sympathize with him it is not because he is a victim of circumstance but because he is a flawed man. He allowed his ambitions to lead him to greater and still greater sins and to ultimate destruction.

                      And that is what great writing can do. Because we, like MacBeth, have flaws. We relate to flawed people who can be tempted and led astray and then must confront the consequences of those bad decisions.

                      Anti-heroes are flawed protagonists who sometimes manage to save themselves from the consequences of their flaws and sometimes, like MacBeth, fail to do so.

                      NMS

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Anti-hero: real archetype or film-school bunk?

                        The earliest character I can remember being described as an anti-hero was the Man With No Name, and I think it is a classic example.

                        He is not doing anything to be a hero, nothing he does is to do the right thing, he's doing it for the money. In a Fistful of Dollars he cleans the town up and saves the woman, but it's all for money.

                        Snake Plisken I think is another great example as mentioned above - he's in it for Snake. If some things turn out better for the 'world' we see him in, that's a by-product.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Anti-hero: real archetype or film-school bunk?

                          Originally posted by Bairn_Writer View Post
                          He is not doing anything to be a hero, nothing he does is to do the right thing, he's doing it for the money...it's all for money.
                          So motivation is the key?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Anti-hero: real archetype or film-school bunk?

                            Linda Richman-style topic for discussion (along with dogs, daughters, coffee, ya know, no big whoop):

                            Can an anti-hero and hero exist in the same movie? What's an example?

                            Luke Skywalker and Han Solo? How about Ed Exley and Bud White? Joe Buck and Ratso Rizzo? Blondie and Tuco, aka the Good and the Ugly?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Anti-hero: real archetype or film-school bunk?

                              Scarface and Michael Corleon are the ultimate anti-heroes. Look at Goodfellas and Blow. Those are criminal figures making a living in a world of criminals. They are products of their environment and are working with the tools available to them. Be it cunning, murder, or cheating. It's the way of life to them. but they have one redeeming value to them.

                              I love anti-heroes. Most my scripts involve morally bankrupt characters.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X