heroes, anti-heroes, and ensemble casts

[cellio]

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.

Comments

[mabfan.livejournal.com]

I have not seen the most recent episode of 24 yet, but I agree that Bauer is not so much of a hero as a rogue. His actions and beliefs encapsulate the idea that the ends justifies the means. And for an American audience, when the ends are saving the USA from terrorism, the harsh means by which he sometimes accomplishes this can be made to seem necessary.

A recent recap on Television Without Pity posits (with sarcasm) that the whole thing is a critique of how we're letting the government get away with eroding our freedoms for the sake of security.

As for why one keeps watching every week -- well, it is a cliffhanger show.

[cellio]

Good points. They're certainly, quite intentionally, doing this for a post-9/11 America, after all. And yeah, I guess cliffhangers are pretty strong.

It's funny: I used to be plot-driven, with character being secondary. Twenty years ago a talking-heads story like Tuesdays with Morrie would have driven me absolutely batty. (Well ok, I would have stopped reading/turned off the TV.) As I've matured, though, I've come to realize that good characters can be put in just about any situation and make good stuff happen. (And no, I never really cared for "action" movies without either good plot or good characters.)

A recent recap on Television Without Pity posits (with sarcasm) that the whole thing is a critique of how we're letting the government get away with eroding our freedoms for the sake of security.

Ooh. They've got a point. I wish I could muster enough confidence to attribute that motive to the producers, but I'm not sure I can.