tales of the unheroic: towards a manifesto

[steve hyde]

Tarantino had the chance and blew it. What happened? He turned one of the best ideas in cinema into empty spectacle. Why? Was it the pressures of financiers?....maybe? Did he run out of Japanese movies to mimic? Quite likely....Perhaps he should have gone straight to the source of ideas that informed many of the great Japanese films: nineteenth century Russian Literature...

I don't know what happened. The guy seemed to be onto something back in the early 1990s. Now he's doing trilogies....really boring ...really really boring trilogies. I think he has lost sight of the importance of the anti-hero. Maybe he never really fully grasped the social importance of the anti-heroic. Maybe he just thought it was cool to fight fire with fire because that is bright, cinematic, sexy and colorful.

I have always thought stories of the unheroic were meant to illuminate the dark maze of the human heart...

I'm not out to start a thread that critiques Tarantino's work although I know I have set it up that way...hmmm, perhaps I should have taken a different tack....too late for that... What I really want to do is start a discussion on tales of the unheroic.


Why do we need anti-hero stories? What are your favorite ones on film or in print? What do you like or dislike about tales of unheroic protagonists?

[Evan Kubota]

"What are your favorite ones on film or in print? What do you like or dislike about tales of unheroic protagonists?"

Stalker.

I'm not sure what you're asking. The 'anti-hero' is only 'anti' because of certain surface characteristics. They end up playing the 'hero' in terms of the narrative (obviously subjective). Still, there is functionally little difference between a 'hero' and an 'anti-hero' if you have to make your protagonist one or the other.

[Evan Kubota]

Oh, also, KAGEMUSHA and RAN.

[npcoombs]

Peter Watkins 'Paris Commune' should fit the bill in every way. No heros there.

[Nigel]

I don't know if Q.T. ever had anything other than pastiche going...

As for the anti-hero they come and go just like everything else. When times are bleak then we see an upswing in anti-heros. When times are good we see Ferris Bueller.

Perhaps a whole new round of anti-hero movies are waiting to be made. Films are never the most fluid and responsive forms of commentary so it might be another couple years.

Good Luck

[audadvnc]

"when times are bleak..."

Bleak? Says who? Just this afternoon I ran sound for Paul Wolfowitz, head of the World Bank, speaking to a bunch of global corporate investors. He says that the world economy is running great, that the stock market is up to historically high levels, and the amount of money available for private investment is phenomonal. Of course he also said that a Billion (with a "B") people alive today subsist on less than $1 a day, so I guess that throws a bit of a damper on the party... :roll:

[steve hyde]

I've always appreciated the paradoxical perspective that comes out of well developed anti-hero stories. I suppose this is partially a reaction to the mind-numbing boredom that come from the overwhelming hero worship going on everywhere. Anti-hero stories are important because they work against hero worship and they show the protagonist /hero in a more truthful light - as a flawed human being with the capacity to be both good and bad. When done well I think antiheroic stories challenge deep-seated common-sense opinions and myths and challenge us to think critically about popular assumptions.

Woody Allen's last movie "Match Point" is a fine example. It's the story of how and why a man produces collateral damage.

[steve hyde]

"What are your favorite ones on film or in print? What do you like or dislike about tales of unheroic protagonists?"

Stalker.

I'm not sure what you're asking. The 'anti-hero' is only 'anti' because of certain surface characteristics. They end up playing the 'hero' in terms of the narrative (obviously subjective). Still, there is functionally little difference between a 'hero' and an 'anti-hero' if you have to make your protagonist one or the other.

I think the functional difference is the paradoxical reality of being both good and evil. Paradoxes never sit well with film audiences though. They are difficult to pallate - just like life on earth these days .... Take Almodovar's films as an example. American's mostly hate them. On film Almodovar says: hey! see that rapist sitting over there in jail - he has the capacity to love, he is both a monster and a saint. Then Almodovar makes a project out of explaining how and why this is true. I think this kind of approach is much more than just a semantic difference...e.g. just putting an 'anti' in front of a word. It is an entirely different kind of statement...is it not?

Steve

[steve hyde]

"when times are bleak..."

Bleak? Says who? Just this afternoon I ran sound for Paul Wolfowitz, head of the World Bank, speaking to a bunch of global corporate investors. He says that the world economy is running great, that the stock market is up to historically high levels, and the amount of money available for private investment is phenomonal. Of course he also said that a Billion (with a "B") people alive today subsist on less than $1 a day, so I guess that throws a bit of a damper on the party... :roll:

...yeah with Wolfowitz at the head of the fucking World Bank - bleak times starts to sound like an understatement.... 8O

Maybe we should make a parody of Ferris Bueller and call it Paul Wolfowitz's day off....

Steve

[Nigel]

I don't know if Anti-Hero stories are anymore real that others...

We are talking about film which is never "real". That said they are often more interesting to watch.

Entertainment is in the eye of the beholder.

Good Luck

[Evan Kubota]

Do I need to mention The Brown Bunny again?

[steve hyde]

I don't know if Anti-Hero stories are anymore real that others...

We are talking about film which is never "real". That said they are often more interesting to watch.

Entertainment is in the eye of the beholder.

Good Luck

...I think it is far more complex than this. I think the individual hero is tied into the ideology of religion and other institutions of power. And I think anti-hero stories *can be* a mode of questioning the authority of such institutions. It is of course always problematic to put a label on anything. I call it "anti-hero", I'm sure there are other labels to signify these kinds of stories. Nevertheless, the project is to take our deepest convictions and then try to cast them into doubt and prove ourselves wrong.

Steve

[Nigel]

Sure...

I agree with you in the general sense of Anti-Hero stories being more interesting than Superman. And that Anti-Hero stories question our normal ways of thinking.

However, to say that they are more real isn't true since there is no real story on the screen. Even a documentary isn't real. Everything has been filtered many many times over taking any and all bits of reality out.

Did you see "The King" with Gael Garcia Bernal?? Check it out...It might be up your alley.

Good Luck

[steve hyde]

Sure...

I agree with you in the general sense of Anti-Hero stories being more interesting than Superman. And that Anti-Hero stories question our normal ways of thinking.

However, to say that they are more real isn't true since there is no real story on the screen. Even a documentary isn't real. Everything has been filtered many many times over taking any and all bits of reality out.

Did you see "The King" with Gael Garcia Bernal?? Check it out...It might be up your alley.

Good Luck

...I don't recall saying that it is "more real". I think I said more in touch with reality since it is more paradoxical, but yes, I am saying it is more real....not to be confussed with "Real" of course. If the purpose of art is to uncover some truth by telling a lie (I think it is) then I see more value in anti-hero stories because they embrace the paradoxical and let's face the truth here: good and evil is a false dualism because it depends on point of view.