While contemplating which movie I would analyze, I thought
it would be best to re-watch a movie that I haven’t seen in a while and try to
catch something worth analyzing through the new-found theoretical lens that I
have developed from partaking in this class. I decided that I would re-watch Suicide Squad. As I re-watched this
train-wreck of a movie, I found myself intrigued by why I felt so connected to
Will Smith’s representation of the villain, or "anti-hero," Deadshot, and as I pondered this connection
further, I think that the root of this feeling is causing a new wave within the
realm of cinema as a whole.
In Suicide Squad, Will Smith portrays an
assassin who goes by the name Deadshot. Deadshot is a criminal. He is a
professional murderer. On paper, you shouldn’t find yourself rooting for him.
But, something about Will Smith’s character struck a chord with me. As the
movie progresses, I find myself viewing Deadshot as a hero. There are moments
where he shows great virtue. He has an opportunity to turn against his friends,
but he doesn’t. He has the opportunity to run away, but he doesn’t. He stays
and fights because he wants his "daughter to view him as something more than a
screw-up." In spite of all of his flaws, he wants to be a hero. And at the end of the movie, I found myself disappointed when he has to return
to prison. As the credits began to roll, I didn’t find myself counting up all
of the times a phallic shape was used by a myriad of overly-sexualized
characters, but I was asking myself why I saw this professional killer as a
hero and why I found myself identifying with him.
To better
analyze my question, I considered some of the film theory that we had learned.
I found Mulvey’s application of Lacan’s Imaginary Order to be extremely useful.
Essentially, we identify with the characters in the movies we watch. Mulvey likened this
with a "(child imagining) itself to be more adult, more fully formed, perfect, than it really is." These ideas were further developments of Baudry's ideas on the cinematic apparatus that he first wrote about in 'Ideological Effects of the Basic Cinematographic Apparatus' in 1970. What these works demonstrated was that we portray ourselves onto the idealized characters in a movie. I believe
this to be caused by our desire to be the characters on the screen. I want the
status of Bruce Wayne, the intelligence of Sherlock, and the virtue of
Superman. This, though, always leads me to disappointment. I will never live up
to these heroes. I see myself as who I wish to be, but when the movie is over,
I then see myself for who I really am, and I don’t measure up. I'm not an idealized person, and because of this I have a split
within myself. I have things about myself that I am truly proud of, but I have
things I wish I could change about myself or my past. I believe this is
something within everybody. This, though, is not something within Superman,
Iron Man, or any other grandiose character, but it is a struggle within
Deadshot. This is where I think my conflicting view of the villain Deadshot
comes in. Deadshot showed characteristics that I hope I have as well. He was
skilled, intelligent, brave, and loyal. He wasn’t perfect though. He had
qualities that I hope I never show, for he was still a villain. When the movie
was over, and when the larger-than-life character was gone and I was just left with
myself, I didn’t feel the disappointment that I do when a Sherlock or Superman movie is over. It was for this reason that I think I found myself rooting for a “bad
guy.”
To take this concept further, I
think this is why I, and many others, have a tendency to root for and identify
with the anti-hero. I think that this dynamic is what makes Breaking Bad, Sons
of Anarchy, and Deadpool so successful. But I don’t think that the
anti-hero is becoming just a niche genre within Hollywood, though. This “anti-hero”
concept is starting to bleed into other films as well. Characters are becoming
darker and less perfect. Compare the Batman movies from the 90s to Christian
Bale’s Batman. Bale is a much darker, more broken version of Batman.
Further, even though he has money and status, Bale’s Bruce Wayne isn’t perfect.
This concept has even made its way to the new Star Wars movie. Luke Skywalker
was an idealized hero in the 70s, but in the new film he is much darker and
less perfect. He doesn’t always show the virtues that marked him in the
original trilogy. I think that this interestingly marks an aging Luke, but also
a changing society where anti-heroes are not only accepted, but praised.
None of us are perfect. We all have
a split within ourselves. When we portray ourselves on to the grandiose characters we see on
a screen, we won’t measure up. I believe that characters like Deadshot show us
that this is okay. Even though he was a villain, he wanted to be a hero, and he
became a hero in spite of a troubled past. The concept of the anti-hero isn’t
new, but a recent wave has made them far more prevalent. And as audiences
continue to grow tired with idealized human perfection, the prevalence of
anti-heroes will only grow.
I've always been fascinated with the concept of "anti-hero" ever since I first encountered the terms. Google defines anti-hero as: "a central character in a story, movie, or drama who lacks conventional heroic attributes." Wikipedia's definition expounds on that by adding "...attributes such as idealism, courage, and morality. Although antiheroes may sometimes do the right thing, it is not always for the right reasons, often acting primarily out of self-interest or in ways that defy conventional ethical codes" I think in modern cinema (I'm also including tv and games in this definition of cinema) the idea of "Anti-Hero" has taken on two different representations. The more chaotic neutral character who starts from a amoral position and acts purely out of self interests. Your Deadpools/ Gwenpools, Jack Sparrows and Han solos (though usually these types end up fight on the side of good that justified by either giving them a moment where they want to be altruistic or because happenstance dictates they have to fight for good) Or you parented hero, villain or every-man archetype who is pushed through circumstance beyond their control to behave in ways that are outside of their canonical characterization at the time a la Joker's "one bad day" philosophy from The Killing Joke. These are your Walter Whites, Deathshots, El DIablo, Ghost Riders ect.. I think both give us some pretty interesting insight into how humans really feel about atypical morality in society, especially in western society that values individualism above all else. The allure of both depictions of that sort of renegade lifestyle is heightened by the contradiction that most people in the west have to live with daily. Which is the idea that your living in a place that says you can be whatever you want to be if you try really hard; but at the same time funnels you through pre-established social institutions into a limited selection of choices that it offers to you based on you location. this is also why I think philosophies like post modernism are becoming more and more popular; which in a way also kind of explains the rise off anti-heroes, but that's a conversation for another time.
ReplyDelete-Kenneth
I really liked how you connected your thoughts on this movie to the in class readings. I agree with your thoughts that most people will always connect with a main heroic character in a film and when the film is over, the audience is wanting more. For villains, this is an afterthought. Most people will forget a villain immediately after a film because their story, their motives, etc. typically end when the heroic character "wins". It takes a good villain, one with traits and storylines besides the main hero-villain drama, to catch the audience's attention. I guess my question is what makes a villain who has a more fleshed out story different from an anti-hero? Are they the same thing? Why call it an anti-hero then rather than a fleshed out, well conceived villain? Is it because of the redeeming qualities as you discussed Deadshot had?
ReplyDelete- Jared Islas
I agree with you that we see ourselves in the characters in shows, I think that's the reason superhero movies are popular in the first place. We want to be like the characters we see on screen because they are important and extraordinary, and everyday people can feel useless and plain. These films show us amazing acts of strength or speed, that we want to believe we could be like that one day. I know my favorite super power and one I would choose over any is the ability to fly, I just think it would be really fun plus very handy for going places. Superhero movies give us a chance to see what it's like, and yes it can be disappointing, but it also can be enjoyable.
ReplyDelete-Carter
Your analysis is very interesting! I found that theory particularly interesting as well. I think it's very applicable to movies, like you demonstrated, but also to other media as well. It probably plays a part in why ads are so successful as well- we are constantly unhappy with ourselves because we compare ourselves to what's on screen. In the case you presented, I agree we do identify with the underdogs or with the "bad" guys sometimes. We all have our own insecurities and have made mistake; some of us worry about being a bad person because of these insecurities and mistakes. Maybe we identify with underdogs and "villains" because we want to believe that we aren't so bad either.
ReplyDelete- Bailey West
I think that this is an outstanding analysis of not only of the movie you analyzed, Suicide Squad, but also a great analysis of the synonymous of the other shows you referenced such as breaking bad. I liked how you showed specific events in the movie that support the claim you made that support why he was a moral being. I think that this is also a good ploy by the directors also, humanizing even the villians in the movie, so that a great analysis like this can be conducted.
ReplyDelete-Kyra M.