cellio | heroes, anti-heroes, and ensemble casts

Generally when I'm reading/watching fiction that revolves around a main character, I want that character to be a hero -- someone I'm sympathetic to and whose actions, in context, I can more or less agree with. I said "more or less" -- nothing's perfect, after all, and following only characters like me would be boring. On the flip side, I can sometimes get into the right "anti-hero" as a character study if presented well.

This doesn't come up in all fiction, of course. A TV show with an ensemble cast, by definition, doesn't call out one character as "the main guy", and I find I both tolerate and relish many shades of gray there. B5's Londo is a fascinating character to me, for instance. I actually prefer ensemble shows, by the way, because they seem to allow for richer characters.

Jack Bauer on 24 tries to be a hero, but as this season goes on I'm becoming convinced that he is pretty much completely amoral, and there's nothing heroic about that. The character and the show do not fit any of the molds I've described as liking -- he's not a hero I identify with, he's not a fascinating character study, and 24 certainly is not an ensemble show. And yet I find myself watching it every week, and wanting to watch it on the broadcast night. I don't know why.

This ramble was inspired in particular by the last five minutes of this week's episode. There darn well better be consequences.

Edit: A cleaner way of saying this might be: if there is a main character then I want to either like or be fascinated by him; this is not true of Jack Bauer; yet I still watch.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I said to myself "It's a soap opera, with one big-ass bomb."

Hmm. I don't watch soap operas so I may have this wrong, but I thought the canonical soap opera was pretty much completely absorbed in the characters with nothing tending to happen "in the world". In other words, it's all about the love triangles and so-and-so's fight with $illness and so-and-so's descent into alcoholism and so on, but it's not about the larger world. Am I wrong?

I've seen the first and current seasons of 24 (and a little of last season). It seems to be a story of the larger world with character (soap-opera?) elements layered on top. It seems like there's more of that now than there was in the first season.

On the other hand, based upon screen time, he's not the star, he's part of an ensemble.

It's hard to say. Bauer is the constant; other characters come and go around him. Most of the CTU guys, for instance, weren't there last season, and the secretary of defense, his daughter (Jack's girlfriend), and her husband are all new this season. I expect they won't return; next season will be Jack and maybe one or two co-stars and another slate of new people. So while in any given episode Jack doesn't have the majority of the screen time, it's really the Jack show in feel. At least to me. An ensemble is balanced; for example, you might have solid (non-filler) episodes or even arcs that don't even involve some of the major players. I don't see that happening on 24.

Last season there was a rumor that they were going to kill Bauer in the middle of the season. This season, there's a rumor that they're going to kill him at the end.

I doubt they would do that, though. I think Sutherland is far too much the franchise for the producers (including himself, by the way) to risk alienating their audience by killing his character off.

After 24's first season, I felt they should have abandoned the format and either spun off to a new show called "CTU" or else promote some new show with the words "from the people who brought you 24." In a way, they proved me wrong; they can keep using the same formula every year, and I will come back to keep watching.

I almost didn't, though. I decided to give the second season only one episode to convince me to watch. And when I saw Bauer kill the criminal in order to present the guy's head to the bad guys so he would be accepted into their conspiracy as a double agent, I had to keep watching.

This season, there's a rumor that they're going to kill him at the end.

Story-wise it would make sense, particularly if the (ex-, I imagine) girlfriend is the one who pulls the trigger. Business-wise, though, I suspect you're right. They haven't built up any other characters enough to be able to go forward with a new central character, and practically no one shuts down a series because the story is done rather than because the business decision calls for it. (Ok, maybe they could do something with a Tony-centered story, but I don't think it would work very well.)

I haven't seen the second season yet, or most of the third. We started watching (via external prompt) about three-quarters of the way through the third season. I've gone back and watched the first season on DVD, but nothing else so far. I'm not sure if I will; reviews of the second season are weaker than those of the first and I don't feel a strong urge to pick up the earlier bits of the third season when I already know how it turns out.

And when I saw Bauer kill the criminal in order to present the guy's head to the bad guys so he would be accepted into their conspiracy as a double agent, I had to keep watching.

Did he at least angst over it a bit like he did before killing his boss to placate different criminals in the third season?

No, he didn't angst over it all. In fact, he kept arguing with the people above him that this was an absolutely necessary step if he was going to be taken seriously when he tried to infiltrate the bad guys.

Of course, he made that argument after killing the guy, so it was a done deal, but still...

heroes, anti-heroes, and ensemble casts

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject