Bob:
I’ve been catching up on a lot of Showtime shows recently, including Weeds, Californication, and Nurse Jackie. Recently, I came to the realization that all the main characters in these shows are essentially the same. They are smart, funny, sassy, and incredibly flawed, acting more out of emotion and id than any logical thought. In short: they are classic antiheroes. Thinking about it a little more, I realized that it isn’t just a phenomenon on Showtime. Looking at a lot of the shows on television today, they seem to have similar characters: Mad Men, House, Rescue Me, Damages, Breaking Bad, Lost (before it ended), etc, etc.
So what is it about the antihero that has television so enamored? Is it that we all want to indulge that little voice in our heads that tells us to do bad things? Is this simply a catharsis? Is it that more flawed and complicated characters are just more interesting? What is your take and why do you think the pure “good guy” has disappeared from the silver screen?
Debbie:
You missed a couple of my favorites: Showtime’s Dexter and Damon from The Vampire Diaries. They are basically both serial killers, yet you find yourself rooting for them in spite of this.
I’m not sure it’s a new trend though, as we all adored Spike, Angel, Lindsay, Darla, Lilah — in fact, there’s not a whole lot of bad guys in the Whedonverse that didn’t end up turning good (or vice versa actually).
I think you touched on a part of it when you said that these complex characters are simply more interesting, but is it more about the redemption? Maybe we want to believe that there’s good in everyone, no matter how many awful things they do, so we can celebrate this as entertainment while relating to it ourselves. We can aspire to be imperfect; that’s not a stretch for anyone. But can we be the Superman of yesteryear? Absolutely not. It’s an interesting topic to ponder, that’s for sure.
Bob:
No, I don’t think it is a very new trend. However, I think that the rise of cable shows has certainly increased the prevalence of the antihero. It seems like the cable networks try to capture that “edgy” vibe, doing what the family-friendly networks can’t get away with.
I don’t think it’s about redemption. Certainly not with every character. So many characters don’t seem to be looking for any sort of redemption (I’m thinking of Walter White, Hank Moody, Nancy Botwin — none of these folks are really trying to be better). For some characters, though, I think that is the point.
Interestingly, though, I’m not sure that I would label anyone on your list of Whedonverse antiheroes as such except for Spike. With very few exceptions, Angel was pretty much a hero through and through. While Lindsay, Darla, and Lilah were all extremely fun to watch (Lilah is one of my favorite characters from all of the Whedonverse), I think they are just villains. Spike seems to fit the bill though. He’s definitely a character that the audience grew to love and root for, but he was not a good guy. At all.
Debbie:
I guess it’s not about redemption for every character, but maybe it is for me, because the anti-hero shows I watch definitely have a redemptive theme. I still think it’s about being relatable though, because no one can relate or even attempt to aspire to be a perfect good guy. Although I think we’re finding a show rift again, because not many viewers can relate to Walter White, huh?
Oh, and maybe you’re right about the Whedon antiheroes as well. I don’t think I agree with you that they were all just villains, especially Lindsay and Lilah, but it is more bad guys turning good than actually being anti-heroes.
Bob:
I don’t know, I think there is something relatable with Walt from Breaking Bad. There is a definite catharsis watching someone who has been shit on by life stand up and refuse to take any more of it. Of course, maybe my relating to Walter just means I’m a sociopath.
Debbie:
And now we’ve come full circle … we’re back to House.
Clacked by Bob Degon
on Feb 10, 2011 @ 12:00 EST5EDT
Lilah!!!!!