Villians: The "necessary evil" for the Hero archetype?

In all honestly I’ve wanted to come back to these movie archetypes discussions for a bit of a while, just to balance out the discussions with the hero genres. It seemed only fair to do a focus towards the antagonists as well, since they are an equal and necessary part of storytelling, especially in movies.

Think about it, just how far and how good a film would be without the right type of villain or foe to show the endurance of the characters, the characterization of the antagonist, in comparison to the protagonist, and the storyline itself? In my opinion, probably not that far or that great.

Now I know I mentioned this before, but just to set the record straight once again this is not me glamorizing evil or its ideology, etc. This is just a discussion on the role of the antagonist in storytelling, and more specifically why we have them.

Prequels to Sequels... Yay or Nay?

In case any of you were wondering, here was the situation that brought me to this particular topic. I was out with two friends of mine not long ago and as usual our conversation eventually shifted towards media, and movies. We were all anticipating (and that the same time loathing) this year’s lineup for spring/summer seasons. At some point tin the conversation, one of us pointed out that lately, certain genres of movies have been over saturated within the last several years or so. In this case superhero type films, such as the X-Men based movies. With the X-men, there have been at least 4 affiliated films, in the past 10 years, with a 5th one “X-men: First Class” out this spring, and apparently 4 more confirmed titles out within the next 7 years or so. Yikes…

Sucker Punch, visual eye-candy with no substance, or something more?

Well, I guess with a movie this questionable yet visual, it was inevitable that someone to a review on it. And I guess that someone will be me…lol.

Some have said Sucker Punch is simply over-stimulated eye candy (in more ways than one) in a 120min extended fanboy commercial. Other say it’s a new rendition of GG live version of a anime, or a videogame. While even a few have compared its female empowerment ala fem fatale-ness approach is reminiscent to films like La Femme Nikita or Thelma and Louise. For myself, well…it’s hard to sum up a film like this, but I can try to put my two cents into what I felt about it.

The Soloist and the dignity of non-judgment

 

The Soloist, based on a true story, shines a heart-warming ray of light into squalor, blight and hopelessness.

The backdrop is Los Angeles, which ultimately serves as a metaphor for the human condition, and it's depressing. 

Throughout the film we are shown alternating images and vistas of beauty and ugliness, order and chaos, light and darkness: in one scene, the camera pans upwards from the literal underbelly of streets where the homeless Mr. Nathaniel Anthony Ayers (played by Jamie Foxx) lives to the bright shiny streets of downtown Los Angeles where Times writer Steve Lopez (played by Robert Downey, Jr.) works. There are plenty of more visually disturbing scenes to offset the bright, sunny beautiful scenes worth seeing almost for their own sake. But the screenplay is not the driving force of this movie. The driving force of this movie is, absolutely, the story - no car chase, no explosions, no '"big reveal" twist ending...just a heartwarming story.

Fustration with Hollywood..Plus other movie Pet Pevees:

I originally wanted to get back to the ongoing topics regarding hero/villain archetypes, (continuing with looking at the villain side of things so to speak), however I was compelled to get this topic out first. Ever notice that in many films (and TV series) both in the past and current that deal with or take place in history (fictional or otherwise) during ancient Rome, Greece, Norse, Israel, Persia, and even Egypt, more often than not, the actors always speak in strong proper English and/or Scottish accents? I mean I’m pretty sure the English language was not even in existence when the era of when these films are depicting. Yes I’m aware that it’s for the benefit for the audience and all, but way always that accent?

Fallen Heros: The blurred grey line between them and the Anti-hero

Well, now that we have a good discussion in regards to the hero/anti-hero archetype, I’m curious to see if we can take this topic a bit further, and slightly darker, so to speak. Since we can agree on anti-hero types as complex characters, how would be describe a character that possessed true heroic ideals, but due to some sort of tragedy (which could be anything) slowly and inevitably become the full antagonist he/she once strived so hard to fight against. In short I present the Fallen hero.

Anti-heroes, the Good? the Bad? or something in between?

We all know in the majority of all storytelling, there are protagonists (whom are typically the archetypal heroes and focal characters of the story), and the antagonists (whom are usually the ‘villains’ or main opposition to the protagonists). Both are prevalent and are usually included in most story genres, including movies. At time however, those typical archetypal roles, can be blurred and not as clear as to whom the ‘hero’ or ‘villain’ is. This is epically true with more complex storylines and the likeness of the characters within genres of storytelling, movies, being no exception. Some do not carry the typical morals of the atypical hero. Some are deeply flawed in personality or by interaction. Some do not always take the moral high road, yet might pick certain heroic traits here and there (though not all of them). As you’re probably aware by now, this it what we refer to as Anti-heroes.