We've been having a great discussion at work today about films with equally likeable and admirable antagonists. These are characters that, as the film goes on, you really want to see survive. They are almost anti-antagonists in that sense. They are the bad guy/girl, but it is hard to not admire their position/dedication/code.
One film comes to mind right away.
Robert Deniro in Heat
He is the antagonist and under normal circumstances we are supposed to be rooting for Al Pacino to bring him to justice. The great thing about Heat is that it includes an interesting protagonist as well as an equally interesting antagonist. I respected Deniro's code. He is a bank robber, but he adheres to an almost "mafia-like" code. We go in. We rob. We get out. Nobody gets shot unless somebody tries to be a hero. He and his band of bank robbers are "good thieves".
How many more films adhere to this form? Where we genuinely come to admire/respect/like the antagonist? I don't mean that he is cool, or his character is well crafted. Lots of bad guys are well written. However, not many of them come to justice at the end of a film and the audience feels a sense of loss. I really liked Deniro's character in Heat. I actually thought Pacino should have died with him. Much like how Resevoir Dogs ends.
It's called ANTI-HERO. Think about movies like Taxi Driver, Bonnie & Clyde, A Clockwork Orange -- the protagonists of those films are all bad guys...
Anti-heros are protagonists that should be considered bad guys.
The question is, what are antagonists who should really be considered good guys?
Anti-villains?
Quote from: The Silver BulletAnti-heros are protagonists that should be considered bad guys.
The question is, what are antagonists who should really be considered good guys?
Anti-villains?
probably. like anakin should turn out in Star Wars ep.III. it's a great concept.
well hannibal lector is the first one i think of. there are tons in scorsese's stuff, as mentioned w/ taxi driver. also raging bull, casino/goodfellas (specifically joe pesci's characters, altho really its basically the same character) and most recently w/ bill the butcher in gangs.
Dog Day Afternoon... Pacino was great.
More recently, Phone Booth... (EDIT: SPOILER!) I didn't want Colin Farrel's character to get killed... or maybe I did... that would have ended the movie quicker...
Nick
Quote from: TheVoiceOfNickDog Day Afternoon... Pacino was great. More recently, Phone Booth... I didn't want Colin Farrel's character to get killed... or maybe I did... that would have ended the movie quicker...
Nick
thanks for the spoiler warning u a-hole.
Michael Douglas in Falling Down?
Quote from: ©bradQuote from: TheVoiceOfNickDog Day Afternoon... Pacino was great. More recently, Phone Booth... I didn't want Colin Farrel's character to get killed... or maybe I did... that would have ended the movie quicker...
Nick
thanks for the spoiler warning u a-hole.
it doesn't really matter with phonebooth
ooh, and what about the child molester in happiness? did anybody really dislike him in that film? i felt kinda sorry for him......
The best example would be Tom Ripley.
Quote from: ewardwhat about the child molester in happiness? did anybody really dislike him in that film? i felt kinda sorry for him...
Hell yes. I was willing to support this guy's child-fucking habit by the time the movie ended. I can honestly say I nearly cried when he had the final talk with his son ("I'd probably just jerk off instead"). Mmm, that's some good filmmaking...
aw
Quote from: jokerspathI can honestly say I nearly cried when he had the final talk with his son ("I'd probably just jerk off instead"). Mmm, that's some good filmmaking...
aw
Yeah, one of the most powerfull scenes ever made. But I didn't feel sorry for Mr. Mapplewood, fuckin' pervert!
"...and Mr. Mapplewood, your so cool!"
Quote from: ©bradQuote from: TheVoiceOfNickDog Day Afternoon... Pacino was great. More recently, Phone Booth... I didn't want Colin Farrel's character to get killed... or maybe I did... that would have ended the movie quicker...
Nick
thanks for the spoiler warning u a-hole.
Sorry... I thought either that everyone who wanted to see this crappy movie had seen it, and those who didn't want to see it never would have at this point.
Nick
(Created a thread earlier but noticed one of my own threads relative to my question in a search..)
:yabbse-wink:
Can anyone think of some examples where the antagonist is difficult to pin down, or maybe doesn't exist at all? I watched Lost in Translation tonight and that's a tough one to pull the antagonist out of. Do some films simply not have a antagonist? Mulholland Drive is another example.
Spoilers on Lost in Translation and Mulholland Drive possible.
This may be too broad a generalization, but I find that films with a clear-cut antagonist are way too simple to be anything important. This answers your question about whether some films have an antagonist or not.
Consider the conflicts: ManVMan, ManVNature, ManVSelf -- maybe one more, I forget. All of these, if the second party is easily identified or lacks abstraction (that is, if the film is one-sided, so one party seems to BE the actual antagonist), the film doesn't say much. This is especially the case in ManVNature. Consider: any number of thrillers where natural disasters take place and all that happens is people try to cope. Now consider more thoughtful examples, such as Limbo (off the top of my head), where that is the issue, but there is so much going on in the realm of ManVMan and ManVSelf.
Lost in Translation, if pressed, would have two conflicts of ManVSelf (WomanVSelf -- Womyn?VSelf -- heh), excuse me, for all the feminists out there). Bob and Charlotte both have to cope with their lives, they don't fight each other, Bob's wife is only heard on the phone (and she seems like a nice enough woman considering how absent Bob is), and Charlotte's husband is there, but the distance (physical and mental) is evident between them too.
Mulholland Drive works so well for some people because of the nature of the conflicts. They are all of the ManVMan and ManVSelf variety, but they are complex and multi-faceted. What's more is, the initial conflicts seem to split off and spiral out of control as each of the two protagonists split off into these other women until we're not sure what's what anymore. There is no antagonist, and that's why I find beauty, maturity, and intelligence in films that lack a true antagonist: these films portray life accurately. No one is really the bad guy. Everyone is just trying to seek out happiness.
To answer your question, in life, antagonists change frequently, and are difficult to pin down. The conflicts in life could be any number of things, Man, Nature, Self. The best films reflect this and also exhibit these same characteristics. They are painted gray instead of black-and-white. Sideways has no antagonist (some would argue Jack, I would disagree). About Schmidt, no antagonist. ManVSelf there. Eternal Sunshine, BIG ManVSelf and ManVMan, too. Multiple. You can see what I mean about the best films having these multifaceted conflicts and lack of a true, conventional "antagonist."
Lost in Translation, maybe it's me, but it seems obvious the antagonists are Giovanni Ribisi, the faux Cameron Diaz, and Bill Murray's long-distance wife. But all of those add up to outside conflicts and responsibilities that Johansson and Murray have to deal with, so you could say life outside of their relationship is the antagonist.
again, ping pong.
hero.
twilight samurai
the five obstructions
the blade runner
do the right thing
once upon a time in china
the celebration