Triumph of the T.V. Anti-hero

This article may contain spoilers for many currently running series’ so beware if you haven’t seen any yet but plan to watch them in future.

Over the last few months I’ve gone through several seasons of highly successful TV shows, with some of the highlights being Boardwalk Empire, Dexter, Mad Men, Sherlock, Game of Thrones, Breaking Bad, and The Walking Dead among others. Thinking back, one of the biggest elements that unite the shows together is the fact that, for the most part, I wouldn’t like the central protagonists if I knew them in real life. The main characters of these shows range from smug narcissists to insane sociopaths, and are generally the sort of people I try to either ignore or restrain myself from kneecapping if I meet them in reality. So why do their stories interest me so much? Why are these the most popular narratives on TV? The answer to this seems to vary depending on the individual writing and delivery of each show. A pattern is definitely emerging however, and it seems to be that each new show that comes out is centred on a group of despicable (yet entertaining) assholes. As each show continues, their techniques of shaping their characters to be as horrible, yet compelling, as possible becomes ever more refined.

Broadly speaking it of course has to do with characters requiring flaws that precipitate conflict. If the characters lacked flaws then nothing would happen. Flaws create problems that need to be solved and this is the general theme behind every episode on these shows. However there’s more to it than that, as this is a trope that covers almost all narratives you see. For example Big Bird from Sesame St has “flaws” (e.g. childlike naiveté) that lead to conflicts yet nothing so dramatic as on the above-mentioned shows, and he remains loveable despite, or even because of, these flaws. On the adult shows, the characters’ flaws make them (supposedly) unlikeable to varying extremes. A popular term used to describe many of them is “anti-hero”, i.e. a protagonist that lacks conventional heroic attributes yet is the “hero” of the story nonetheless. For some reason we all find these anti-heroes’ stories enthralling.

Asshole characters, of both the deliciously evil and despicable kind aren’t unknown to television, but only very recently have they become “anti-heroes”. I can’t be certain but I think a vast majority of the blame can be levelled at Dexter. This show managed to step over the line into dark edginess whilst still keeping a foot firmly in the “safe zone”, setting a formula for other shows to follow. They managed this by showing his role as an emotionless killer that keeps his urges in check by following a morally ambiguous, yet “acceptable” code of hunting criminals. The series has been carefully constructed to try and make the audience like Dexter despite his existence as a serial killer that butchers people. The fact that he only kills “villains” disguises him as a conventional hero at face value. Even the rare occasions where he has caused the deaths of innocents have been played down as accidents or at least tolerable in a weird sort of way. The creators have tried to make him as much of a “good-guy” as possible whilst also keeping him a serial killer. Even just twenty years ago this sort of thing would never have been allowed to air. Hell shows often weren’t allowed to have criminals “win” half the time in case it gave people the wrong impression about crime, especially when the shows involved police. Dexter seems to be holding that middle ground balancing itself out morally. He sabotages police investigations but catches the bad-guy himself.

While it wasn’t even close to being the first show to feature this sort of anti-hero, it was one of the first to be popular on such a large scale, with the Sopranos being another. Their success seems to have led to the rise of a flurry of new shows starring a higher level of nasties. Here, the safe method of toeing the morality line seems to have been thrown out the window, most notably with Breaking Bad and Boardwalk Empire.

The characters in these shows are not good people. They have some good qualities, sure. They may even attempt or wish to be morally sound. But despite all their efforts and hopes, they are horrible, despicable people and for some reason it’s all so damn entertaining. Well, mostly. And here’s where I get confused. Thematically speaking, there’s not a lot of difference between Breaking Bad’s Walther White and Boardwalk’s Nucky Thompson. Both men start off their journeys in a Dexter-ish way as fairly decent people despite a certain amoral leaning. They have people around them constantly causing problems, through idiocy and ineptitude, which they need to solve. They care for their families and generally try to do the nice thing for people around them. As their stories continue however, both men start to have their fall from grace, becoming more vicious and Machiavellian, resulting in a fairly high level of bloodshed, as they realise that being the “nice guy” gets them nowhere. Where my confusion comes in however, is that despite the apparently strong narrative similarities I love Boardwalk and can’t f**king stand Breaking Bad. 

I suppose it has something to do with how well Breaking Bad is actually made. The characters in the show are so realistically despicable, reflecting the sorts of people that drive me insane in reality that I just can’t keep watching. I’ve rarely felt that level of frustration watching anything (I’ve even survived the final Scrubs season). On the other hand I almost feel that the writers have reached a peak on the asshole scale with the characters. To me, Walther ends up being the only sympathetic character while everyone else around him goes about their horrible business, which doesn’t feel right. It comes back to the issue of flaws. A character that is flawed is compelling, because it means there’s depth to that person, and it makes us curious about them and how their flaws will effect their lives. In Walther’s case he continuously does horrible things because he wants to help his family. Everyone else around him does horrible things because they want to help themselves, which is fine except that throughout its first season they never seem to break out of that motivation, nor gain any others of a meaningful sort.

Boardwalk Empire by contrast, does its utmost to give each important character the same level of depth given to Walther in Breaking Bad. Almost every character is a criminal, many based on historical counterparts, yet we find out their backgrounds and motivations beyond the need for making money through crime. Well to be fair not every character gets this treatment. To bastardise the Game of Thrones tag, the characters either evolve or they die. Any character that doesn’t change, learn, or reveal anything about themselves usually gets killed. I’m not just talking side characters as well. If a central character reaches a point where they aren’t evolving anymore they often find themselves on the chopping block. me, this style of writing works better as it not only reflects the criminal system it’s depicting but helps keep the narrative fresh. It also delivers the gritty, criminal aesthetic in a far more effective and realistic way. If this style were used for Breaking Bad, everyone in it would probably be dead by now.

Game of Thrones itself follows a similar pattern. The characters all have to keep contributing to the titular game, or they find themselves outliving their usefulness. It’s a masterpiece of writing as you’ll find that every single character somehow contributes to the overarching plot in some sort of significant way, even if it might take them a season or so to get there. A vast majority of these characters also fall into our little band of despicable, scheming protagonists as well. However, having a cast of thousands also means that many characters are very sharply and quickly defined, with only a few getting extended development (such as everyone’s favourite Imp). This changes the formula around a bit but still keeps things fresh for the audience.

So where does this leave us? Each of these shows has their own variety of assholes, schemers, evildoers, ruffians and reprobates leading the way through a narrative of misery and murder, yet delivering them in a unique (and highly watchable) style. While Dexter did its utmost to ensure its protagonist is ultimately seen as a good guy, these shows make no such efforts, yet we still find ourselves empathising with, and sometimes even liking them, in spite of all the atrocities they commit.

I’ve gone on about how their construction and design tune us in, and it’s very effective, but at the crux of the game there’s also something simpler at work. We just love villains, and the producers are actually playing towards what the audience wants. Film has already covered this ground at great length. When we think of Star Wars or Silence of the Lambs the first images aren’t of Luke Skywalker or Clarice Starling but of Darth Vader and Hannibal Lecter. The James Bond and Disney films are known for their particular brands of villain. Anti-heroes are also a well-travelled area in films, from Travis Bickle to “Dirty” Harry Callahan. Having the villain as the hero is a combination that makes gold. And its continued success seems to prove its not getting old for audiences anytime soon.

Television has reached a new level of quality, in both production value and writing, and this new set of anti-hero protagonists are making their mark, upon viewers and the medium itself alike. There have been many successes over the last two decades, but not leaving this level of impact. Lost was a huge success in its day but I bet this is the first you’ve thought of it in a hell of a long time, (except for when it’s used as a punch line in a comedy). The restrictions of twenty years ago are mostly gone, giving show-runners the freedom to produce grittier and harder hitting narratives than ever seen before, and we’re glued to our screens waiting for more. I suppose the next interesting thing to see is just how far this trend is going to go. I mean, surely things can’t get any darker than they are…right? 



Marcus Rockstrom

The Kings Singers in Concert

The Kings Singers are an all male acapella group from England who have not graced our shores for 27 years. I saw them just recently as they finally returned to perform around Australia. The first half featured madrigals both secular and sacred. Although it started to have a sense of sameness to it after the third madrigal, you could not doubt their skill. With an enviable blend between their voices their musicality could not be denied. It was when they started their traditional set that I felt they came into their own. Greensleeves was stunning and Danny Boy brought tears to my eyes. Their Botany Bay was more than just a tune, but was arranged to show off their distinctive style. However it was truly their version of 'The Band Played Waltzing Matilda' by Eric Bogle that had everyone on the edge of their seat. I could have had them repeat it the moment they finished it.

The beginning of the second half was a commissioned work by Australian composer Elena Kats-Chernin. A four movement work titled 'River's Lament' it put the six men through their paces, with many technically challenging moments. Contemporary but with many nods towards the madrigal tradition it was a terrific work that caught the imagination. Each movement looked at a particular aspect of a river's life, from when it's born through to drought and rebirth.

The final part of their concert was where they stood aside from their music stands and performed a selection of popular works. As one of them said, 'A Kings Singers concert is not complete without a song from the Beatles'. Which, with their four encores, they performed two from them as well as a whole host of other works. With humour and joy, they performed and it was so much fun! Although it was certainly fantastic that their madrigals were perfect, it was their traditional and popular repertoire that really shone.

I wasn't sure what to expect when I got a ticket to their concert. I had seen their Christmas DVD and although was suitably impressed by their technical ability I felt it was well, very safe and not really very interesting musically. Seeing this live performance I was thrilled not only by their versatility, choice of repertoire but their humour and engagement with the audience. Should they ever return to our shores again, I will certainly be getting tickets.

One Night at the Melbourne Fringe Festival

The Melbourne Fringe Festival is always interesting. There are some good shows and there are some terrible shows but there is something exciting about not knowing what to expect. I went to two shows in the one night that were very different but the contrast is the beauty of the Fringe Festival. It's always a new experience, and you just accept it for what it is.


I feel like people are scared of The Fringe Festival due to these "risks" of it not being amazing but it's the rawness and creative aesthetic that drives this festival, not so much the picture perfect quality. In fact most people put on shows to refine and get feedback for perhaps larger performances. It's also a great avenue for the areas such as mixed media, burlesque and installations that may not get that much attention if they made shows away from the festival.


What is most appetizing about the festival is the fact that what you experience is new and different. The experimental qualities usually mean you're in for a night of creative exploration. I thoroughly enjoyed my one night out at The Melbourne Fringe Festival where I did come home with a fuzzy feeling due to the fact I felt I was supporting the young and talented artists. People should get on board!

By Alex Rockstrom

My MIFF Experience

It was only two years ago that I was properly introduced to the Melbourne International Film Festival where I was naive to the barrage of film and culture it withheld. Melbourne is known for it’s large array of festivals and cultural events where I almost get to the point where half of them blend in, dates overlap and it becomes too much of an effort to find out when/where/how etc. Never have I disagreed more with my own laziness in truly getting involved in something. Films are amazing, yet we are only introduced to a very small amount of movies each year due to popular demand and the fact that so much money and a famous name is required to get full cinema release. We hear names like the Cannes Film Festival or Sundance and we think these festivals are the true arty-film festivals but Melbourne is yet to receive any such recognition even for it’s multicultural background and film scope. But Melbourne and this festival in particular are only growing and establishments like ACMI, Astor Theatre and Palace Cinemas are only helping the cause by keeping the trend going all year round.

The most heart-warming part of the festival is its movie-going vibe. There is the excitement and anticipation of whether you’re going to laugh, cry or walk out (which is invigorating in itself). Never have I ever gone to a full, packed to the rafter’s cinema of respectful people who actually applaud at the end of the film! This festival brings back the culture of movie going, what a great feeling for a film-lover. The smell of salty popcorn, the film banter ringing through the crowds and old people yelling at young people to turn their phones off are all part of the festivals charm. Even more exciting is the fact you might be lucky to be at a film that has a Q and A with some of the cast and crew providing further insight into the wondrous world of creating a film. There is definitely more appreciation, respect and education about the film industry in general and the creative process, when you get to hear the years of love and devotion that go into some of the projects, which is mind blowing at times. Last year I was fortunate enough to listen to Adrien Grenier (most notably Vince from HBO’s Entourage) talk about his documentary Teenage Paparazzo, which was not only a great film, but after hearing Grenier talk about the 5 year experience it took to make the film, the whole movie became so much more meaningful and I could walk away with a true sense of why it was made.

The final, wonderful part of the film festival, is the “MIFF Special Colour Coded Spreadsheet”. This is the true testament to the devoted festival-goer. The MIFF Special Colour Coded Spreadsheet is more for those getting a mini-pass, which has become very popular for the devoted festival-goers, as it provides you with 10 films to see with 3 bonus films that are scheduled before 5pm any weekday. Then the guide comes out, spreadsheet comes up and you work out what films you have to see (coded with green), films you could want to see (blue), films that are in the free times (red) and now, seeing as it’s popularity has elevated, films that friends are seeing (yellow). This process can take up to a week due to the fact you have to avoid clashes with other film times and with outside influences such as work or studying but if you become devoted, it’s all second to MIFF. 

By Alex Rockstrom