TV Today: Why We Love Anti-Heroes

If you are a TV aficionado, then you have probably been hearing the term “anti-hero” a lot in the past decade.  In fact, Showtime has made a fortune off of its “anti-hero” platform showcasing its series DEXTER, WEEDS, HOMELAND, NURSE JACKIE, CALIFORNICATION, as well as its upcoming new series RAY DONOVAN.  These are perfect examples of shows that feature the joys and triumphs of “anti-heroes.”

But recently the “anti-hero” craze seems to have reached such a saturation point that no one can exactly define what an “anti-hero” is and how it differs from just being a villain or a hero.

The standard dictionary definition of “anti-hero” is someone who lacks heroic virtues, such as being morally good, courageous, or noble.  Whereas classic heroes are “white knight” types who are noble, good of heart, moral, and who try to behave in an exemplary fashion.  Villains on the other hand are diabolical, have evil in their hearts, do not seek to do good, and behave immorally.  So the more dubious classification of “anti-hero” would suggest a more blurred line between hero and villain, not quite a hero and not quite a villain.

So what qualities make up an “anti-hero”?  The “anti-hero” may at first look like a villain because his deeds or words make it look like he is selfish and uncaring of others.  But the “anti-hero” is a lot more complex than that.  The “anti-hero” will do bad things, but will have good motivations in his heart or will be seeking to redeem himself for his bad behavior.  Simply put, the “anti-hero” will have the appearance of a villain, but the heart of a hero.

Looking across the television landscape, we have dozens of examples of “anti-heroes.”  They are the scoundrels we love, despite their bad habits.  Dexter Morgan (Michael C. Hall) is perhaps one of the easiest examples to identify.  Dexter is a serial killer. There is no gray area about it; Dexter has killed a lot of people. But the subtle distinction is that Dexter tries to kill only those who truly deserve it.  He knows perfectly well that killing people (even bad people) is wrong.  But he has this compulsion to kill and he tries to channel it in such a way that it gives a positive result – he kills other killers that have escaped the justice system.  He is like the garbage collector, and he takes out the trash for society.  He also strives to be a better man every day.  His actions are bad, but in his heart he struggles to do the right thing and be a better person.

“Hannibal”

But looking at two other serial killers currently on television: Norman Bates (Freddie Highmore) and Hannibal Lecter (Mads Mikkelsen), are they “anti-heroes” or just your average villain?  Knowing how their stories end, we know perfectly well that Norman Bates and Hannibal Lecter are not trying to do anything good. They are evil through and through – albeit, Hannibal is a bit more aware of his evilness than Norman is at this point.  But neither is really seeking redemption or to help society. They are only trying to satisfy their dark urges and celebrate their darker natures.

Other good examples of “anti-heroes” would include Sawyer (Josh Holloway) from LOST, Malcolm Reynolds (Nathan Fillion) from FIREFLY, Jax Teller (Charlie Hunnam) from SONS OF ANARCHY, Sheriff Hood (Antony Starr) on BANSHEE, Dylan (Max Thieriot) of BATES MOTEL, Philip Jennings (Matthew Rhys) of THE AMERICANS, Oliver Queen (Stephen Amell) on ARROW, Aiden (Sam Witwer) on BEING HUMAN, Detective Corcoran (Tom Weston-Jones) on COPPER, Cullen Bohannon (Anson Mount) on HELL ON WHEELS, Pope (Colin Cunningham) on FALLING SKIES, Duke Crocker (Eric Balfour) on HAVEN, Roman Godfrey (Bill Skarsgard) on HEMLOCK GROVE, Brodie (Damian Lewis) on HOMELAND, Boyd Crowder (Walton Goggins) on JUSTIFIED, Hook (Colin O’Donoughue) on ONCE UPON A TIME, Miles Matheson (Billy Burke) on REVOLUTION, Huck (Guillermo Diaz) on SCANDAL, and Damon Salvatore (Ian Somerhalder) on THE VAMPIRE DIARIES.

“Banshee”

Each one is a “loveable rogue.”  They are criminals, murderers, traitors — men who live outside of the law. Yet we still see the goodness in them.  They cannot be judged solely on their actions, but by their intent.  They may do bad things, but they are desperately trying to bring justice into the world, avenge wrongs, protect others, and be better men worthy of the love of a good woman.  It’s just that their instincts to do whatever it takes to achieve their goals and happiness steps outside the moral boundaries that society has placed upon them.  The fact that they have committed bad acts that makes it hard to justify their actions and forgive them entirely.  But we desperately want to.

Interestingly “anti-heroes” may be criminals, murders and other undesirables, but when it comes down to a dire situation, they will be the first ones who step up.

There is also a certain sexiness to the “anti-hero.”  Perhaps we have to blame Hollywood for that.  They have cast the “anti-hero” in such a way that the role demands a certain amount of charm and seductiveness.  But the lure of the “anti-hero” dates back as far as Emily Bronte and her depiction of Heathcliff in “Wuthering Heights” and Charlotte Bronte’s Mr. Rochester in “Jane Eyre,” or even Alexandre Dumas’s “The Count of Monte Cristo.”  There is a universal appeal to the “bad boy” that classic literature and modern film and television have all embraced.

But no matter how you describe the “anti-hero,” our heart always seems to recognize him no matter what he looks like.  He is the one that will surprise everyone and do the right thing; whereas a villain will never be able to conquer his urges to do something bad because in his heart he really wants to be bad.  Villains are sociopaths – people who do not feel remorse for their bad deeds.  They only feel joy from it.  They have no conscience to weigh upon them and keep them from repeating their amoral behavior, and for many, they get a certain “high” or rush from their acts.  They enjoy the sensation of power it gives them.  Yet the “anti-hero” will feel pain and remorse and will seek ways to atone for their bad deeds.  It is an interesting dichotomy.

Should “anti-heroes” be entitled to forgiveness and adoration?   I chalk it up to our various religious upbringings. It is in our nature to forgive and give people a second-chance. We just need to sense that they want to change and be better, and the genuineness of their contrition is what makes it possible to forgive and forget.

Some would argue that only the “white knight” hero is worthy of our adoration and commendation.  Yet it is impossible to ignore the appeal of the “anti-hero.”  Should they be condemned simply because they have committed sins in the past or they live by a different code?  Fortunately, our society has always allowed for the possibility of reformation and redemption.  It makes us feel like we can strike back at the evil surrounding us if we can win one more heart to the side of good.  It is a precarious balance and “anti-heroes” are the wild cards working in our favor.

Regardless of the real-world implications and appeal, “anti-heroes” hold a special place in our hearts in entertainment. They are surprisingly addictive and we find ourselves craving them to spice up storylines.  We just love seeing such reluctant heroes fight their own nature to do the right thing.  It also gives us hope and we feel rewarded when we see them conquer the darkness and take a step back towards the side of good.  Plus, “anti-heroes” are just plain fun. The world would be a more stark place with only “white knights” and “black-hearted villains.”  Anti-heroes keep us guessing and give us something to have hope for.  We are a society impossibly addicted to hope – and as we constantly see, we are addicted to “anti-heroes.”  We want to believe in the goodness inside people, and we feel justifiably rewarded when we catch glimpses of it in someone who we did not initially perceive as being good.  It’s like discovering hidden treasure.  So long live the “anti-heroes” – our lives would be a bit more colorless without them.

Where to find this article:

 

http://www.thetvaddict.com/2013/05/03/tv-today%C2%A0why-we-love-anti-heroes/

 

 

“Once Upon A Time”

THE GOOD WIFE Redux: A Trap Is Sprung

“The Good Wife”

Perhaps there was no more heart-breaking moment on THE GOOD WIFE than in the 2^nd season episode  “Foreign Affairs” when Alicia (Julianna Margulies) found out that her estranged husband Peter (Chris Noth) had slept with her new best friend Kalinda (Archie Panjabi).  We could just see the glass shattering around Alicia as her carefully constructed façade of control began to slip.  With expediency that one can only marvel at, Alicia had the locks changed on her apartment, packed Peter’s things, and rented an apartment for him — all within hours of learning of his latest betrayal.  Peter had betrayed her one last time and she was not going to take it anymore.

“The Good Wife”

Yet throughout the 3^rd and 4^th seasons, we were chagrined as Peter began to woo Alicia again and as she slowly began to allow him back into her life.  Fortunately, it was not without a rebellious phase as Alicia threw caution to the wind and embarked on a torrid affair with her boss Will Gardner (Josh Charles). But then her better instincts prevailed and she called the affair to a halt before it destroyed both her professional career and her delicately-balanced personal life. So the affair was almost over just as soon as it started.

However, for the majority of this past 4^th season, Alicia chose to rekindle the relationship with her husband, albeit from a distance.  She still would not allow him to move back in, and she always initiated their romantic liaisons.   So she was in control of the relationship and she assisted Peter in his campaign as far as it continued to serve her interests as well — meaning she used it to gain status in her professional life which led to a coveted partnership offer.  So just as much as Peter used Alicia to further his political career, she used him to gain respect and stature in her career as well.  It was mutually beneficial to both and provided them both with an accepted sexual partner as well – one that would not blow up their strategically-planned career paths.

“The Good Wife”

But then Peter threw a curveball into the game, which Alicia quickly seized to her advantage.  He wanted to renew their wedding vows as a way of showing Alicia and everyone watching his campaign that he was a changed man.  No one was more surprised that the viewing audience. We were incredibly surprised that Alicia would accept his proposal. Yet a glimmer sparked.  Alicia must know that the timing was suspect and that Peter would only propose such a thing because it was advantageous to him.  So why would she go along with it?

It was the perfect time to spring the trap Alicia had been carefully laying for the past couple of years.  Her time for revenge had come.  How to best hurt Peter the way that he had publicly and privately hurt her?  Peter had given her the perfect opportunity – she would stand with him seemingly ready to recommit her life to him, and then utter the one word he would never expect to hear: “No.”  It would devastate him and perhaps damage his public persona in a way that he may never recover.  Payback is a bitch.

And the timing was ripe for another big power play.  The 4^th year attorneys were covertly planning to leave Lockhart Gardner to start their own firm and an offer had been extended to Alicia to leave with them.  Yet why would Alicia make such a leap on the heels of finally being offered partnership?  Given the callous disregard that the partners of Lockhart Gardner operated and how ruthlessly they used Alicia and her connections to get exactly what they wanted,  regardless of how it may damage her relationships with her clients or her reputation, Alicia was not feeling very happy with her partners.  In addition, they would not look favorably upon Alicia’s well-timed revenge stroke against Peter. They would fear the back-lash on their firm.  So the timing is perfect for Alicia to leave Lockhart Gardner, reclaiming her self-respect and giving back as good as she has endured under the Lockhart Gardiner regime.

“The Good Wife”

The crowning moment would be if Alicia were to tell Will: “I quit” and in the same breath ask him to marry her.  Who knows if Alicia would actually have the guts to go so far as to quit and then propose to Will, but the timing is perfect.  Dating the boss was frowned upon, but she would not be so constrained once she left Lockhart Gardner.  It would also be the final payback for her soon-to-be ex-husband Peter who always suspected that Alicia’s heart belonged to another.

The two-pronged revenge plan would be executed flawlessly.  This is assuming that Alicia is strong enough to go through with it.  But if anything we have seen over the past 4 years is that Alicia’s core strength.  She is not a woman to be trifled with and she will bide her time to strike back. No one ever sees it coming and she makes them bleed in ways they never anticipated.  The saying “hell hath no fury like a woman scored” is more than apt.  The show is called THE GOOD WIFE after all.  It was always a play on the words as Alicia was only a “good wife” so long as it suited her.  Peter’s infidelities and public humiliation of his wife were not going to go unpunished.  He may have served his time for his professional transgressions, but Alicia certainly had not forgiven or forgotten to how deeply he had hurt and humiliated her.  She was just more patient and had waited for the perfect opportunity to enact her revenge.

This is all wild speculation, but it certainly fits the woman we know as Alicia Florrick.  She has been the “good wife” and the “good employee” for too long.  It is time for her to reclaim her life, her pride and her dignity.  We will be anxiously watching this week’s episode “What’s In the Box” with breathless anticipation.  Will Alicia’s perfect trap be sprung at last?  We are praying that it is.  What a glorious revenge that would be.

To see what Alicia ultimately does, be sure to tune in for the 4^th season finale of THE GOOD WIFE on Sunday, April 28^th at 9:00 p.m. on CBS.  The clock is ticking down on Peter’s fate.

Where to find this article:

 

http://www.thetvaddict.com/2013/04/28/the-good-wife-redux-a-trap-is-sprung/

 

 

“The Good Wife”

DOCTOR WHO Speculations: Driving The Doctor Mad

Four episodes into the travels with Clara Oswald (Jenna-Louise Coleman) and we have begun to notice a pattern with The Doctor (Matt Smith).  He is frantically driven to try to protect Clara and yet simultaneously unravel the mystery “The Impossible Girl.”   In the “Bells of Saint John,” The Doctor dashed to be at Clara’s side and then ferociously fought the Spoonheads to save her.  In “The Rings of Akhaten,” The Doctor was challenged to show Clara something amazing costing her something precious in return.  In “Cold War,” The Doctor negotiated with the deadly Skaldak to spare Clara and save Earth.  And in “Hide,” The Doctor once again tries to find a way to subtly solve the mystery of Clara Oswald with the help of a psychic.

As charming and fun as each of these adventures have been, it does not quite erase the constant worry from our minds that The Doctor may be slowly being driven insane because he cannot fathom the mystery of Clara – and that he could not save her twice before in “The Asylum of the Daleks” and “The Snowman.”  As much as it could not possibly have been the same girl, each time it was.  She called herself Clara Oswald or Clara Oswin (Oswald-for-the-win).  She used the exact same key phrase: “Run, you clever boy . . . and remember.”  And she was unmistakably Clara.  She was head-strong, independent, curious and not at all intimidated by The Doctor.  It was just enough of a coincidence for The Doctor to deem her “The Impossible Girl” and to begin searching for her throughout time and space to try to figure out how and why Clara kept popping up in his life, only to die a tragic death.

“Doctor Who”

Being a Time Lord and knowing the rules of the time-space continuum, that there are fixed points and other times when time is flexible and may be rewritten, The Doctor is used to thinking outside-the-box and considering all the possibilities.  There literally has never been a mystery he could not solve.  But who is Clara Oswin and what does it mean that she keeps appearing in The Doctor’s life?  It is like stepping into a fun-house and seeing the walls of distorted mirrors, each showing a sliver of the true reality.  The Doctor is only seeing a piece of who Clara is and it is distorted each time, so he cannot see how her life fits all together.  And just like those who stand too long in the fun-house staring at all those warped mirrors, The Doctor will slowly start to lose his perception of reality simply because he is looking into a distorted reflection of what is really there.

This last episode “Hide” perhaps offered a clue.  The episode featured a time-traveler trapped in an alternate universe that was co-mingling with our universe.  She was just traveling at a different speed of time and in our universe; thus it looked like she was a ghost because she would appear only from time to time in the same fixed spot.  Perhaps this is exactly what is going on with Clara.  She too is a figure trapped in time, caught up in an infinite playing loop so that she literally pops up in different places at different times in The Doctor’s life.

“Doctor Who”

We have seen before how those who travel throughout time are affected differently.  For some, their entire body chemistry could have been altered by their exposure to time-travel and the different variations of their molecular make-up from being disassembled and reassembled.  We know that Captain Jack Harkness (John Barrowman) became cursed to live nearly forever and that Donna Noble (Catherine Tate) nearly lost her mind trying to take on being psychically-linked to The Doctor.  Then what of Rose (Billie Piper) and Mickey (Noel Clarke) — they traveled to alternate universes and became a part of those worlds for a time.  As for Martha (Freema Ageyman), Amy (Karen Gillan) and Rory (Arthur Darvill), they too are not unaffected as their adventures changed them forever as well.  Could a normal life ever be as satisfying after having seen all the mysteries of the universe?  And then there’s River Song (Alex Kingston), conceived on the TARDIS, born of Amy and Rory, kidnapped by Madame Kovarian and then falling in love with The Doctor – her life was perhaps affected more than them all.

So why would Clara be immune?  We may not have yet seen the origin of her lifespan intersection with The Doctor, or perhaps we have and we have not yet figured out how it came to pass.

“Doctor Who”

Regardless of where Clara came from or who she may be, what we do see is the effect she has on The Doctor.  To be confronted with the ultimate mystery and forced to watch her die over and over again, The Doctor’s mind and emotions are taxed to capacity.  He has run himself ragged watching Clara Oswald’s life at various points in time and trying to search for clues to the meaning of her.  Yet it is like watching a brilliant scientist beat his head against a wall.  Is it no wonder that The Doctor sought solace in the peace and tranquility of the monastery of Cumbria in 1207 to contemplate the mystery of Clara.  He knew he needed the down-time to recuperate.  But now that Clara is there and a daily part of his life, The Doctor is getting no rest, no peace and his mind seems to be in perpetual motion.  He literally cannot stop thinking about the meaning of her.  So if The Doctor seems a bit more frantic and anxious to please, it is perhaps he feels that the sands of time are working against him.  He knows that Clara will die again and likely soon.  It is a race against time and destiny.  As a Time Lord, The Doctor has circumvented time over and over again, but can he this time?

That franticness is taking its toll.  Are we watching The Doctor slowly lose his mind?  We only hope that he can solve the mystery of “The Impossible Girl” before it is too late – not only for Clara, but for The Doctor.  Imagine if some diabolical villain had found the perfect way to eliminate The Doctor by simply posing a mystery so unsolvable that it would drive The Doctor mad. Ingenious.  Now we just have to hope that the hands of fate are being pulled by destiny and not some evil puppeteer.

We too now will be beating our heads against the wall wondering if we’re watching The Doctor slowly go mad.  Pray it is not so!  In the meantime, be sure to tune in for the final four episodes of this season: “Journey to the Centre of the TARDIS” (April 27^th), “The Crimson Horror” (May 4^th), “Nightmare in Silver” (May 11^th) and “The Name of the Doctor” (May 18^th), Saturday nights at 8:00 p.m. on BBC America.

Preview:

Where to find this article:

http://www.thetvaddict.com/2013/04/27/doctor-who-speculation-driving-the-doctor-mad/

“Doctor Who”