Thought on Movie Protagonists

[ReaPsTA]

[I spoil a lot of different movies in this post.  But they're all older movies so whatever.]

There are many ways to categorize movie protagonists.  I think I've figured out a new way to do so that's very important.

The first type of protagonist is represented by guys like Dom Cobb from Inception and Indiana Jones.  These are guys that start off the movie with a skill.  Cobb can extract secrets from dreams and Indiana Jones as an ancient treasure hunter.  This immediately makes the characters badass and cool.  We want to see what they do.  The movie is about them changing emotionally as people.

The second type of protagonist seems to be more common.  This is the person who learns a skill over the course of a movie.  Luke Skywalker becomes a Jedi Knight.  Peter Parker becomes Spiderman.

The second type of protagonist comes bundled with a fundamental lie - You were born a hero.  Luke Skywalker possesses a prodigious connection with the force.  He's born a Jedi.  Neo is The One, period, because that's how the cards were dealt.

Even in a movie where the protagonist isn't literally born a hero, the lie is subliminally buried in.  The Karate Kid isn't called "Daniel Larusso - Schoolyard Misfit."  No one would care.  We know from the first frame that Daniel Larusso is the hero.  Within the reality of the movie, he works hard to gain his skills.  But we perceive him as living out his destiny.

A question about the second type of protagonist that's relevant is - What does this character bring to the table before he learns his skill?  What does this character do to make us care about him and like him?

The Matrix handles this well.  Neo makes and distributes pirated computer programs.  He gives Agent Smith the finger.  He follows the girl with the white rabbit tattoo on somewhat of a weird lark because he's genuinely curious about The Matrix and what it is.  This is good writing.  Neo is a real character before he starts doing physics-defying Karate moves.

Same with The Godfather, which is about Michael Corleone becoming the leader of his mob family.  In the beginning, he doesn't really understand the mafia business.  He's a bit idealistic.  But, as we see from how he interacts with Kay, he is the real deal.  He is a Sicilian man.  He's also a war veteran, which means he's tough.  He's bringing something to the table.

But what about Daniel Larusso?  I don't remember him bringing anything to the table.  There's nothing he does to make us think "Oh wow, this is an aspirational or interesting character who I want to see a movie about."  So, the movie makes us empathize with his plight.  This is fine.  Nothing wrong with it whatsoever.  But it's still done under the expectation that he's going to become the Karate Kid.  We empathize with him because we know it's going to pay off.

The conundrum then that I'm seeing is that movies seem to create a situation where the protagonist either is badass/cool/accomplished/whatever at the start, or that he's destined to be this way.  It circumvents the brutal truth of the real world.  Heroes aren't born, they're made.

So how do you make a movie where the hero is made?  No matter how well crafted, the audience assumes the ending of the movie and thus views the heroism as pre-destined.  It almost has to be unintentional.  Samwise is the real hero of Lord of the Rings.  He drags dumbass idiot Frodo through the whole movie.  We don't think he's a hero at the beginning because we're not told he's a hero.  So when he becomes a hero, it's genuinely through his actions.

Sucker Punch had the main character become a hero in a different way than the audience thought was going to happen.  The main character sacrificed herself to lobotomization at the end so her friend could get away.  But the audience hated this and the movie bombed.  Guess not.

In the end, this conundrum kinda doesn't bother me.  If you watch these kinds of movies with a realistic perspective, you can appreciate them based on their internal reality and not based on the implicit lie.  If somebody sees the first Rocky and sees a movie about a world champion boxer who was stuck doing collections for the mob, and not a movie about a guy who used a golden opportunity to genuinely make something of himself, that's not entirely the movie's fault.

Here's the more important question – How do you make a movie about someone who's not a hero?  You can make the protagonist relatable as opposed to being aspirational or interesting. 

Peter Gibbons in Office Space isn't especially good looking, charming, skilled, smart, or anything else.  The Bobs tell him he has management potential, but both he and the audience know it's B.S.  He rebels against the system, but it's more because of the hypnosis than anything really inside him.  He's just an ordinary guy.  He leaves the computing business at the end, but it's not really heroic.  We don't expect it.

So, in order for us to care about him the whole movie, he has to be victimized and sometimes stupid.  He thinks Jennifer Aniston slept with Lumbergh.  The program he installs in the computer network takes more money than it should. 

This all sounds fine in theory.  But let me ask a really important question - what if Office Space were a drama and not a comedy?  The whole thing would fall apart.  None of the characters are cool, but they do funny things, giving us something superficial (relative to their personalities) to make us like them.  The aesthetic of the movie is a wish fulfillment.  We wish our lives were that consistently funny and interesting.

50/50 is about a character who's a very ordinary guy who stays ordinary throughout the whole film.  But it's also about a guy who might die of cancer, so the inherent drama of the premise carries us through.

Is it possible to write a movie about ordinary people in ordinary situations?  I feel that, traditionally, movies play off the desire of the audience for wish fulfillment and deliver based on that.  Even when nothing about the plot itself involves wish fulfilment, the way things happen is way more interesting than real life, so wish fulfillment still happens.

Is it possible to write movies about real people in real situations that make money because audience members relate with the characters and want to see their own lives from a different angle?

[senecadawg2]

i'm going to read this novel later. Looks interesting, I just don't have the time right now.

[Super Dude]

Also going to say I can't respond to this entire thing, but the second bit is partly why I've gotten into the Japanese school life genre as of late, and why I've grown pretty weary of American story media (or rather, our inability to execute it well has). What makes these unskilled, "loser" characters appealing to us as an audience, what makes him interesting, is he is me. The everyman, the person we all are at the outset of the movie and in our lives. The person he becomes throughout the film is the person we want to be, the way we want our lives to go.

[The King in Crimson]

Let me just get this nitpick out of the way.

Protagonist =/= hero

Not necessarily.

A movie or novel or a television series could be made about, say, Darth Vader as the main character.  The audience follows him for the majority of the story or (in the case of a novel) sees the majority of the action through his viewpoint.  He would be the protagonist in the story, but that wouldn't make him the hero, he'd still force-choke everyone that makes fun of his breathing or looks at him funny.  Luke, Han and Obi-Wan would be the antagonists, but they'd still be the heroes.

[ReaPsTA]

What makes these unskilled, "loser" characters appealing to us as an audience, what makes him interesting, is he is me. The everyman, the person we all are at the outset of the movie and in our lives. The person he becomes throughout the film is the person we want to be, the way we want our lives to go.

Indeed.  And I'm fine with that in movies.  Otherwise, why watch them?

This is why I found the end of TDKR genuinely intriguing.  I didn't want Batman to just die.  That would have been meaningless and pointless.  What Nolan did instead was propose the idea that you can't both be Batman and be happy.  Something has to be sacrificed.  That was genuinely cool and refreshing.  In the hands of lesser director, the end of the movie would have been Batman fighting crime with Catwoman helping him out or something equally stupid.

Let me just get this nitpick out of the way.

Protagonist =/= hero

Not necessarily.

A movie or novel or a television series could be made about, say, Darth Vader as the main character.  The audience follows him for the majority of the story or (in the case of a novel) sees the majority of the action through his viewpoint.  He would be the protagonist in the story, but that wouldn't make him the hero, he'd still force-choke everyone that makes fun of his breathing or looks at him funny.  Luke, Han and Obi-Wan would be the antagonists, but they'd still be the heroes.

I totally agree with this.  In fact, really what I'm annoyed at is how we can't seem to tell stories in this culture where the protagonists aren't heroes.  Why is this?

[GuineaPig]

Is it possible to write a movie about ordinary people in ordinary situations?  I feel that, traditionally, movies play off the desire of the audience for wish fulfillment and deliver based on that.  Even when nothing about the plot itself involves wish fulfilment, the way things happen is way more interesting than real life, so wish fulfillment still happens.

Is it possible to write movies about real people in real situations that make money because audience members relate with the characters and want to see their own lives from a different angle?

There are tons of movies and TV shows about ordinary people in ordinary situations.

[senecadawg2]

Having read all of this now, I have to agree with GuineaPig. It is important to remember that 'ordinary' is completely relative. The Wire is a television program which captures the widespread systemic failure of countless institutions in the impoverished inner city of Baltimore. The show is laced with countless messages, delivered by seemingly ordinary people, in a seemingly ordinary situation. Of course, these people, and their situations, are nowhere near being 'ordinary' from my perspective in white middle-class suburbia, but that doesn't mean they aren't just that... ordinary.

[ReaPsTA]

There are tons of movies and TV shows about ordinary people in ordinary situations.

It's not that they don't exist.  But generally, they have a conceit to them that makes them way more interesting than every day life.

Have you personally seen any TV shows movies without a wish-fulfillment element that are still interesting?

Having read all of this now, I have to agree with GuineaPig. It is important to remember that 'ordinary' is completely relative. The Wire is a television program which captures the widespread systemic failure of countless institutions in the impoverished inner city of Baltimore. The show is laced with countless messages, delivered by seemingly ordinary people, in a seemingly ordinary situation. Of course, these people, and their situations, are nowhere near being 'ordinary' from my perspective in white middle-class suburbia, but that doesn't mean they aren't just that... ordinary.

I forgot about The Wire.  The characters are endearing without being traditionally heroic.  And none of what makes the show interesting - off the top of my head - is blatant wish fulfillment.

Good call.

[carl320]

With the mention of "The Wire," I was reminded of a show I saw from a PBS series that might be relevant.

Vic Mackey in The Shield is the protagonist, but is he a hero?  He's not a morally upstanding citizen but he also does what he needs to be to make things right in his eyes.  I guess that would make him an anti-hero... thoughts?

Anyway, here's the link to that show I mentioned: https://www.pbs.org/america-in-primetime/episodes/crusader/

[MetalJunkie]

I totally agree with this.  In fact, really what I'm annoyed at is how we can't seem to tell stories in this culture where the protagonists aren't heroes. 

Swordfish
American History X
Wicked
Beetlejuice
A Clockwork Orange
Dexter
Memento
Goodfellas
Sweeney Todd
American Gangster
The Shining
American Psycho
Talented Mr. Ripley
The Devil's Rejects
Law Abiding Citizen
Carrie
Reservoir Dogs
Scarface

To name a few.

[Zantera]

I think the problem is that in many movies where the protagonist actually has done something bad, the movie is made in a way that the audience will feel for the character. Like American History X for example, we have two brothers who are both Nazis, but as the movie slowly progresses, Edward Norton's character wants to leave that dark past and is trying to get his brother to stop with it as well. Without spoiling too much about the ending for those who haven't seen it, I've seen more people expressing sadness regarding the ending, than people saying "that was well deserved", so in the end I think they managed to take something dark as two men being Nazis, doing horrible things yet still characters the audience could feel for.

Law Abiding Citizen is another one where the main character is doing "bad" things, but most people who view it will most likely cheer for him. His family was taken away, the law won't do anything about it because it has flaws, and he takes matters into his own hands. I can relate to his actions and what he does because nobody else will help him, and I don't think you can just tell someone who has lost their family to "let go" when the system does nothing about it.
Regarding Memento: I don't think it counts because unless you see the twist coming, Leonard's past isn't revealed until the very last scene, so before that I think most people see him as the "good guy".

[MetalJunkie]

I think the problem is that in many movies where the protagonist actually has done something bad, the movie is made in a way that the audience will feel for the character.

I agree, but I think Reap seemed to exclude antiheroes as a type of protagonist, so I was pointing a few out.

[Super Dude]

What makes these unskilled, "loser" characters appealing to us as an audience, what makes him interesting, is he is me. The everyman, the person we all are at the outset of the movie and in our lives. The person he becomes throughout the film is the person we want to be, the way we want our lives to go.

Indeed.  And I'm fine with that in movies.  Otherwise, why watch them?

This is why I found the end of TDKR genuinely intriguing.  I didn't want Batman to just die.  That would have been meaningless and pointless.  What Nolan did instead was propose the idea that you can't both be Batman and be happy.  Something has to be sacrificed.  That was genuinely cool and refreshing.  In the hands of lesser director, the end of the movie would have been Batman fighting crime with Catwoman helping him out or something equally stupid.

Right, that's what I thought (hence, my remarks about it in my blog review).

There are tons of movies and TV shows about ordinary people in ordinary situations.

It's not that they don't exist.  But generally, they have a conceit to them that makes them way more interesting than every day life.

Have you personally seen any TV shows movies without a wish-fulfillment element that are still interesting?

Maybe I'm missing something, but I feel like those sorts of movies and shows are extraordinarily rare today in American culture. Partly because I feel like these days there are only four genres of movies in all of modern American cinema (five if you include children's movies): gross out comedies, Rom Coms, sci-fi action flicks (usually gritty or Transformers-y), and superhero flicks.

Actually one more: Oscar bait drama.

[Fluffy Lothario]

Tangentially related thought I've had for a while:

Is there a name for the characters who you seem to find overwhelmingly in TV comedies who I think of as "punching bag characters"? That character who just gets viciously shat on over and over throughout the show, by the writers as much as by the other characters.

Examples would be:
Butters
Meg
Milhouse, to some degree
Cory and Trevor (Trailer Park Boys)
Carlton (from what I remember of Fresh Prince)
potentially everyone on Seinfeld, though not to a great degree, since the suffering's shared

I don't even watch much TV, I'm sure there are tons more.

[rogerdil]

Sounds like ex post facto reasoning, i.e., classifying characters that you like into the first type of hero or even if he's in the second type of hero, he has some valid reason so it's okay.  I mean, Walter White would definitely be the second type of hero, although perhaps you'd say he a HS chemistry teacher so that is good training to be a drug kingpin and thus he's the first type of hero.  Where do the comic book heroes fall into this?  Iron Man and Batman, their underlying humans are super rich so does that qualify them as the first kind of hero?  They brought lots of money and smarts to the table?  So that makes it okay even though we the audience know that in the end, the superhero is going to prevail and the scenarios that unfold are way more absurd than anything that unfolds in The Karate Kid?

Speaking of which, it's been so long since I've seen the latter -- but didn't he get his ass kicked or want to impress some chick or something? Is it that out of the ordinary for a regular schmuck to train diligently enough to become proficient in karate out of feeling of revenge or perceived inadequacy? 

[Super Dude]

Well I think the distinction between 'action' and 'everyday' heroes does deserve acknowledgment.

[GuineaPig]

There are tons of movies and TV shows about ordinary people in ordinary situations.

It's not that they don't exist.  But generally, they have a conceit to them that makes them way more interesting than every day life.

Have you personally seen any TV shows movies without a wish-fulfillment element that are still interesting?

Party Down and The Office (UK) are two of my favourite TV shows, and they contain exactly zero wish-fulfilment. 

[RuRoRul]

Tangentially related thought I've had for a while:

Is there a name for the characters who you seem to find overwhelmingly in TV comedies who I think of as "punching bag characters"? That character who just gets viciously shat on over and over throughout the show, by the writers as much as by the other characters.

Examples would be:
Butters
Meg
Milhouse, to some degree
Cory and Trevor (Trailer Park Boys)
Carlton (from what I remember of Fresh Prince)
potentially everyone on Seinfeld, though not to a great degree, since the suffering's shared

I don't even watch much TV, I'm sure there are tons more.

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ButtMonkey

Thats tvtropes' name for it anyway.

[Ħ]

There are tons of movies and TV shows about ordinary people in ordinary situations.

It's not that they don't exist.  But generally, they have a conceit to them that makes them way more interesting than every day life.

Have you personally seen any TV shows movies without a wish-fulfillment element that are still interesting?

Party Down and The Office (UK) are two of my favourite TV shows, and they contain exactly zero wish-fulfilment. 

Jim/Pam and Michael/Holly was totally wish fulfillment.


@Reapsta: I get what your saying, but one thing you said is totally wrong. Batman isn't a hero. He's a silent guardian, a watchful protector. A dark knight.

[skydivingninja]

Note he said UK office, not the US office. 

[Ħ]

Ah I see.

[robwebster]

The second type of protagonist comes bundled with a fundamental lie - You were born a hero.  Luke Skywalker possesses a prodigious connection with the force.  He's born a Jedi.  Neo is The One, period, because that's how the cards were dealt.

Even in a movie where the protagonist isn't literally born a hero, the lie is subliminally buried in.  The Karate Kid isn't called "Daniel Larusso - Schoolyard Misfit."  No one would care.  We know from the first frame that Daniel Larusso is the hero.  Within the reality of the movie, he works hard to gain his skills.  But we perceive him as living out his destiny.

Fantastic post, not looking to dissect it, just wondering... is your argument not the wrong way round, here?

Because honestly, we know from long before the first frame that Daniel Larusso is the hero. Because metatextually, we know from the posters, and the trailers, and the title of the film. Or the box art, or the reviews - the very fact you've chosen to watch this film means you've chosen to watch the protagonist become a hero.

Almost everyone in any particular showing will have taken that preconception into the room with them. And while I totally advocate a huge, diverse range of different types of protagonists - to the extent that I find the conventional hero archetype fairly crass - there's only so long you can pretend this person's following a completely different path before the audience go "right, there's an elephant in the room here."

Not saying it's not doable, not by a long chalk. The first twenty minutes of Kick-Ass, for instance, do a superb job of convincing you that this guy is never in a million years going to become a proper superhero. And it was the best part of the film for it! Found it all a little banal from then on, but the first act was stupendous.

I don't think we know they'll be a hero because they come packaged with a lie, I think they come with an in-built lie because we already know they're the hero. It's as much the viewer's lie as the movie's, if not moreso.

[ReaPsTA]

Cool!  Lots of replies.  Thanks for reading my long post.  Let's go through them.

With the mention of "The Wire," I was reminded of a show I saw from a PBS series that might be relevant.

Vic Mackey in The Shield is the protagonist, but is he a hero?  He's not a morally upstanding citizen but he also does what he needs to be to make things right in his eyes.  I guess that would make him an anti-hero... thoughts?

Anyway, here's the link to that show I mentioned: https://www.pbs.org/america-in-primetime/episodes/crusader/

I'm not home right now, but I'll look at the PBS link when I'm there.

Re:  The Shield - I haven't seen the show, but from what I understand you're description of it is right.  The issue with the Shield is that we all secretly wish we could just throw off the rules of society and do what we want, even if it's sociopathic.  Vic is a sick kind of wish fulfillment.  Even if you truly believe what he's doing is wrong, you kinda enjoy it and understand it.

I totally agree with this.  In fact, really what I'm annoyed at is how we can't seem to tell stories in this culture where the protagonists aren't heroes. 

[list of movies]
To name a few.

I think you might have me on this.  It points to a broader issue, but these are indeed major movies with non-heroic protagonists.

I would still say that a lot of these movies (at least, the ones I've seen) still present some kind of wish-fulfillment for the audience.  And in all the ones I've seen or at least understand, you still are rooting for the protagonist, even if he's a bad guy.  Patrick Bateman lives by his own rules, kills guys that are kind of assholes, and can be excused for his actions because he's insane.  Know what I mean?

What makes these unskilled, "loser" characters appealing to us as an audience, what makes him interesting, is he is me. The everyman, the person we all are at the outset of the movie and in our lives. The person he becomes throughout the film is the person we want to be, the way we want our lives to go.

Indeed.  And I'm fine with that in movies.  Otherwise, why watch them?

This is why I found the end of TDKR genuinely intriguing.  I didn't want Batman to just die.  That would have been meaningless and pointless.  What Nolan did instead was propose the idea that you can't both be Batman and be happy.  Something has to be sacrificed.  That was genuinely cool and refreshing.  In the hands of lesser director, the end of the movie would have been Batman fighting crime with Catwoman helping him out or something equally stupid.

Right, that's what I thought (hence, my remarks about it in my blog review).

There are tons of movies and TV shows about ordinary people in ordinary situations.

It's not that they don't exist.  But generally, they have a conceit to them that makes them way more interesting than every day life.

Have you personally seen any TV shows movies without a wish-fulfillment element that are still interesting?

Maybe I'm missing something, but I feel like those sorts of movies and shows are extraordinarily rare today in American culture. Partly because I feel like these days there are only four genres of movies in all of modern American cinema (five if you include children's movies): gross out comedies, Rom Coms, sci-fi action flicks (usually gritty or Transformers-y), and superhero flicks.

Actually one more: Oscar bait drama.

Hold on, let me read your blog post....

(doo dodo dooooo doooooo)

I'm glad I wasn't the only person who liked how Batman wasn't in a lot of the movie.  And I agree with you about Batman feeding off of Bruce's pain.  Well put.

Sounds like ex post facto reasoning, i.e., classifying characters that you like into the first type of hero or even if he's in the second type of hero, he has some valid reason so it's okay.  I mean, Walter White would definitely be the second type of hero, although perhaps you'd say he a HS chemistry teacher so that is good training to be a drug kingpin and thus he's the first type of hero.  Where do the comic book heroes fall into this?  Iron Man and Batman, their underlying humans are super rich so does that qualify them as the first kind of hero?  They brought lots of money and smarts to the table?  So that makes it okay even though we the audience know that in the end, the superhero is going to prevail and the scenarios that unfold are way more absurd than anything that unfolds in The Karate Kid?

Speaking of which, it's been so long since I've seen the latter -- but didn't he get his ass kicked or want to impress some chick or something? Is it that out of the ordinary for a regular schmuck to train diligently enough to become proficient in karate out of feeling of revenge or perceived inadequacy? 

It's not really about like and don't like.  I think Luke Skywalker is a great character.  I love that LaRusso sticks it to the Cobra Kai, because they suck.

The issue is just that we don't root for them because of who they are (we have no reason to), but because of what we know they'll become.

The plot of the Karate Kid isn't out of the ordinary.  Within the reality of the movie, it's actually believable from an emotional standpoint.  It's the perception of that reality which colors things.

Somebody will probably say, "How could Daniel, who had only been training for a couple months, beat the Cobra Kai kids who had been training for years?"  In the end, it's not very likely, but remember that Daniel's whole life for a few months was school and karate lessons.  Sufficient dedication can cause drastic improvement.  But you don't really feel that because the movie reduces his training to a montage sequence.  The form of the message is the message, not the message itself.

@Reapsta: I get what your saying, but one thing you said is totally wrong. Batman isn't a hero. He's a silent guardian, a watchful protector. A dark knight.

I laughed when I read this.  Nice job.

Fantastic post, not looking to dissect it, just wondering... is your argument not the wrong way round, here?

Because honestly, we know from long before the first frame that Daniel Larusso is the hero. Because metatextually, we know from the posters, and the trailers, and the title of the film. Or the box art, or the reviews - the very fact you've chosen to watch this film means you've chosen to watch the protagonist become a hero.

Almost everyone in any particular showing will have taken that preconception into the room with them. And while I totally advocate a huge, diverse range of different types of protagonists - to the extent that I find the conventional hero archetype fairly crass - there's only so long you can pretend this person's following a completely different path before the audience go "right, there's an elephant in the room here."

You articulated this way better than I did.  Thank god I have no interest in being a writer.

Wait.

Anyway...

Not saying it's not doable, not by a long chalk. The first twenty minutes of Kick-Ass, for instance, do a superb job of convincing you that this guy is never in a million years going to become a proper superhero. And it was the best part of the film for it! Found it all a little banal from then on, but the first act was stupendous.

The beginning of Kick-Ass is a good example of the hero not being heroic at the beginning.  It also kinda illustrates my point.  Before he becomes Kick-Ass and makes doing good things his life's mission, Dave Lizewski is kind of an unlikable shit-head.  I actually thought "what did you think was going to happen?" when the criminal stabbed him.

I don't think we know they'll be a hero because they come packaged with a lie, I think they come with an in-built lie because we already know they're the hero. It's as much the viewer's lie as the movie's, if not moreso.

The lie thing is where I think I wasn't clear.

When you say "the viewer's lie," that's what I mean.  Deep down we all wish we were heroes.  The movie comes in and says "hey look, this guy's a hero and he sucks.  So you can definitely be a hero."  I hate that kind of manipulation.

If you watch these movies purely as what they are, they aren't necessarily false.  Like you said, in Kick-Ass you really get a sense of the character's progression.  But again, the movie isn't called "Dave Lizewski,"  it's called Kick-Ass.  The elephant in the room is there the whole time, on purpose.[/list]