What is an "Anti-Hero?"

I have not watched a current movie or tv show in so long 25+ years at least. So i have no idea what is going on in how characters are portrayed now.

RDKirk said:

When I first heard the term "anti-hero," it referred to Clint Eastwood's spaghetti Western role as "The Man with no Name." The classic 20th-century notion of the anti-hero was a protagonist who lacks traditional heroic qualities like cheerfulness, idealism, or respect for authority, but still fights for a cause we generally approve of, often using violent or morally ambiguous means. The 20th century anti-hero was someone who is rough, cynical, often violent, and may lack charm or idealism, but still fights for justice (in his own way), opposes clear villains, and ultimately restores some moral order. The Man with No Name and Paul Kersey ("Death Wish") are two examples. John Wayne is an example who was a conventional hero in some moves (like "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance"), but was a 20th century anti-hero in "The Shootist."

But I detect the definition of "anti-hero" has changed in this century. Characters I'd call "villains" are called "anti-heroes" today. They don't fight for justice or restore moral order. They essentially just fight for themselves. These characters may be charismatic, but they break moral laws routinely, they often do more harm than good, and they aren’t put on a redemption arc. Examples of this new kind of anti-hero include Tony Soprano ("The Sopranos"), Walter White ("Breaking Bad"), Tommy Shelby ("Peaky Blinders") and Riri Williams ("Ironheart").

From the traditional viewpoint, the only difference between the modern anti-hero and a villain is that the modern anti-hero is the central character, and the narrative is told from that perspective. I've seen debates in which people argue that this modern anti-hero should, in fact, be regarded as a true hero who is merely misunderstood or has been mistreated by the society of the story.

I think this shift from the classic anti-hero to the modern anti-hero (like Walter White or Tony Soprano) says a lot about how society views itself.

Click to expand...

Today's fictitious anti-hero is the agent of victory through existential despair rather than an agent of justice. Still, when Walter White finally gets the upper hand over Gus Fring, I think we generally concede that some form of justice was done.

We might also contrast the apparent anti-heroism of Walter White with the final outcome of anti-hero Jimmy McGill in 'Better Call Saul.'

RDKirk said:

Walter White wins the game but loses his soul.
Jimmy McGill loses the game but regains his soul.

Click to expand...

I don't know. Or is it Jimmy's love interest [Kim Wexler] who is the one who regains her soul? Jimmy's outcome is ambiguous at the end.

RDKirk said:

I don't think the "save his soul" outcome is ambiguous.

Here is an example: "Gran Torino."

Also, "Logan."

Click to expand...

Yeah, you may have a point there about Jimmy. I forgot about the scenes below:


Thanks for reminding me.

Well I'm confused. I had thought an anti-hero was someone who didn't want to be a hero but was expected to or asked, and they didn't go about serving in that role in a good or competent way.

RDKirk said:

But I detect the definition of "anti-hero" has changed in this century. Characters I'd call "villains" are called "anti-heroes" today. They don't fight for justice or restore moral order. They essentially just fight for themselves. These characters may be charismatic, but they break moral laws routinely, they often do more harm than good, and they aren’t put on a redemption arc. Examples of this new kind of anti-hero include Tony Soprano ("The Sopranos"), Walter White ("Breaking Bad"), Tommy Shelby ("Peaky Blinders") and Riri Williams ("Ironheart").

Click to expand...

A protagonist isn't necessarily a hero. Tony Soprano (and Michael Corleone) and Walter White are villain protagonists. Not knowing anything about Peaky Blinders or Ironheart I can't comment. But while an anti-hero can have a dark side or be a villain who acts heroically, a villain protagonist isn't a hero at all. So while Rooster Cogburn in True Grit is questionable, he's still a hero. OTOH, the NBC miniseries Mussolini has the title figure clearly the villain, so George C. Scott played a villain protagonist.

RDKirk said:

That doesn't change anything I said.

I was not discussing the definition of "protagonist," I was discussing the definition of "anti-hero."

Click to expand...

My point is that Tony Soprano was simply the protagonist. He was also a villain. He was a villain protagonist, not anti-hero. Move The Sopranos back to 1942 and have Tony as a crime boss fighting Nazi saboteurs because he loves the US, and then he becomes an anti-hero. Walter White had cancer and supposedly turns to cooking meth out of concern of his family's financial condition, which up front is anti-hero territory, but I'm told in the last episode he reveals he did id because he had a blast, which makes him a villain protagonist.

If you want a really nasty one, there's Monsieur Verdoux, who, having lost his job, becomes a black widower to support his family and his disabled wife. Out of sympathy he spares one victim, but when he's eventually caught and convicted, expresses no remorse and blames the world. Did the public pan it because Verdoux was played by Charlie Chaplin and Chaplin as a black widower was too great a leap or because of the story? Was Verdoux a villain protagonist or an anti-hero?

Monsieur Verdoux came out at the end of the 1940s. Somebody thought it would make money, so the taste for such was already there.

The fascination with anti-heroes is one thing, and may be a reaction to the "boy scout" type of hero that was subject to parody all the way back to when Warner Brothers released The Dover Boys at Pimento University in the early 1940s. Or maybe it's picking up the notion that heroes have clay feet and running with it. The fascination with villain protagonists is quite another, and maybe that depends on the set-up. There was a dark comedy from the 1990s where a policeman and his lover conspire to murder his wife and then conceal the body. Except his wife isn't dead, and the comedy comes from the spectacle of two villains trying, very unsuccessfully, to hide their misdeed. Then there are heist stories, where the protagonist is almost always a villain, but the reader/audience ends up rooting for them to pull it off.

Is this a societal change? I don't really think so. It could merely be seeing something new. Villain protagonists aren't really new, but are rare enough to be something different.

JAM2b said:

Well I'm confused. I had thought an anti-hero was someone who didn't want to be a hero but was expected to or asked, and they didn't go about serving in that role in a good or competent way.

Click to expand...

"An antihero is a central character in a story who lacks traditional heroic qualities, such as courage and morality, and is often admired for their flaws or weaknesses. They typically operate outside societal norms and may engage in morally ambiguous actions."

Clint Eastwood's 1960s spaghetti western character is an example of an anti-hero.