Remember the days when movies were fun? When they were safe? When we could go to the theater and watch a film, sometimes even with our whole family, and enjoy the magic and wonder of the silver screen without having crazy agendas and ideas thrust at us? Without having the things we thought were moral get all but spat on? Many casual viewers and movie buffs would argue that films being made today are not as “good” as they were in the decades behind us, and that they’re more politically motivated today. Sure, films today are very competent on a technical level, and they’re immensely appealing visually, but they’re just not as enjoyable as the films of yesteryear and before, and they seem to constantly assault the audience’s view of morality.
A large part of what makes many of the films of the 40s to, say, the 90s, so good is the protagonist. Every story needs a good hero. This is a fundamental component to storytelling. While filmmakers today seem to understand this, they are woefully misled regarding their definition of “hero”. See, many of the protagonists of today’s films are not heroes. The characters we’re seeing more and more of in film today are not heroes. They’re “antiheroes”. What is an antihero? According to the Oxford Dictionary of English, an antihero is a central character in a story, movie, or drama who lacks conventional heroic attributes. Examples of “conventional heroic attributes” would be qualities like selflessness, compassion, empathy, courage, and humility. A protagonist lacking a few or more of these may be an antihero. They are not like the flawed hero, who is a more human, sympathetic character while still managing to be noble. The antihero is a story’s main character, but they don’t act like a hero. They’re often selfish and morally and ethically ambiguous, and their actions are performed out of self-interest rather than a desire to do right.
This may not seem like a big deal, since the purposes that antiheroes serve to a narrative can vary greatly from film to film, and having a morally ambiguous character as a story’s protagonist seems like an interesting concept that doesn’t hurt anybody, right? Well, the fact is, the usurping of the traditional hero archetype in favor of this new kind of morally ambiguous protagonist represents a changing culture, and a desire to upend traditional values that were originally considered to be largely universal. To prove this claim, one need only look back at the famous film protagonists over the years.
One of the earliest and most memorable antiheroes in all of film is Rick Blaine from 1942’s Casablanca. Rick is aloof, detached, and selfish. He owns a high-end club in the town of Casablanca, and just wants to fly under the radar and not be bothered. This fact becomes quickly prevalent when a friend of Blaine’s is gunned down by the police in the club, after Rick sells him out so as not to make trouble for himself. Every action of Rick’s seems to increase in its despicable nature, until the film’s third act in which he undergoes a transformation and resolves to perform an unexpectedly selfless and courageous act, which solves the film’s central conflict. Here we see a clear antihero, who is not governed by any conventional heroic traits, realize his faults and overcome them. Fast forward to 1971, when audiences were polarized by a new antihero; Inspector Harry Callahan, star of Dirty Harry and its sequels. The film follows Callahan, a cop, in his relentless attempts to catch a serial killer. During the film, Callahan takes justice into his own hands regularly, breaking rules and laws in pursuit of his idea of justice. The film and character were criticized at the time for embracing and promoting fascist views, and it’s clear that the film presents vigilantism and one character’s moral views as correct. The film is actually about Harry’s struggle with the institution of the police, and the bureaucracy and red tape keeping him from cleaning up the streets. Many will say that the film ends on an ambiguous note, and that the film is about the relationship between laws and true justice.
So the two aforementioned films portray antihero protagonists pursuing noble goals, and undergoing transformations. Since then, many other films have privileged the antihero concept, with the “vigilante film” becoming a legitimate genre about protagonists pursuing noble causes in the face of becoming what they hate. Other films kill off their antiheroes after their goals are accomplished, as a way of redeeming them, such as the film Run All Night from 2015, in which the main character, a retired mob enforcer, must protect his son from criminals he used to work with. The main character’s actions are constantly called out as immoral by others, and he realizes how badly his decisions have ruined his life. The film ends, spoiler alert, with him saving his family from an assassin, getting shot and killed in the process. The police find his corpse, along with a written confession to his crimes, and a list of others involved. This is a perfect example of an antihero redeemed through their actions, and, ultimately, their death.
In recent years, antiheroes have been portrayed less ambiguously. Take for instance, 2014’s John Wick. The film is about the titular character, a retired assassin, who takes violent revenge after some thugs invade his home, beat him up, and kill his dog. While it’s easy to identify with Wick’s need for retribution, it’s easy to forget that he himself used to kill as wantonly as his enemies did, with little regard for life of any kind. The film is solely about Wick and his revenge, and it seems to privilege its main character’s ability to kill people over any kind of morality or ethical narrative. Wick is not killed or redeemed in the end. His needs and desires outweigh those of others, as well as any subordination to any set of values. Another example of this “new wave” of film protagonists, is Deadpool from 2016. Here we have a man, an ex-soldier, who seeks treatment for his cancer. He is treated by a shadowy organization that performs horrific tests on him, granting him healing powers and heightened natural abilities, but leaving him severely disfigured. He goes on a violent rampage, killing anyone associated with the group. We get to watch as “Deadpool”, the self-titled character, kills many, many people in the pursuit of his own justice. Much of it is meant to be comical, since the film is billed partly as a comedy, and this is more disturbing.
When comparing the four films, Casablanca and Dirty Harry seem in stark contrast to films like John Wick, Deadpool, or 1994’s Pulp Fiction, another popular film about hitmen and criminals that privileges its protagonists despite the clear moral issues it creates. We live in an ever-changing world, and this fact is arguably most reflected in film. As culture changes, and people slowly desert any preset system of morality in favor of their own ideas of goodness and truth, things become muddled. In a medium where it was once easy to tell the good guys from the bad guys, culture began to shift and decline. Many of the so-called “heroes” of today’s cinema sit comfortably in ambiguity. It doesn’t matter if your main character kills for the sake of killing, or robs people, or commits other crimes. As long as it’s flashy and hip, it doesn’t call anyone to any kind of moral responsibility, or threaten their view of right and wrong that allows them to live selfishly, it’ll sell. When did we start cheering for assassins to kill people onscreen and innocent characters to die or get cast aside? Wouldn’t it be nice to see the cat get saved from the tree again?