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.
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.
Last edited: