Attack of the TV Antiheroes

'The Following' to 'Bates Motel': Attack

Series increasingly revolve around morally corrupt characters

Lately on TV, bad guys appear to be having all the fun, with a wave of programs romanticizing — if not quite glorifying — those who do terrible things.

Some of TV’s most compelling characters of the current generation have been antiheroes, from Tony Soprano to “Breaking Bad’s” Walter White. Yet the appeal of the dark side looks to be growing, branching beyond the permissive confines of cable to major networks as well.

Television often gets an unfair rap regarding violence, with academics and pundits overreaching to make the case for a correlation. That said, there is something unsettling — or just plain icky — about the media and public fascination with figures like real-life cop-turned-killer Christopher Dorner, who upstaged President Obama’s State of the Union address on cable news.

In the wake of the Newtown school shooting, critic Roger Ebert quoted from his review of “Elephant,” which placed any media blame for inspiring such mass shootings on news, not drama.

All that seems true. Yet there is something distasteful, at the very least, about dramatic programming making killers the cool kids, having the hottest sex and driving the nicest cars.

A brief sampling of the coming weeks finds audiences being asked to hang around with a young Norman Bates (A&E’s “Bates Motel”) and Hannibal Lecter (NBC’s upcoming “Hannibal”). They join the suave serial killer at the heart of Fox’s “The Following,” who always seems to be several steps ahead of the bedraggled FBI agent on his trail; and the handsome mob boss who steals scenes, among other things, in ABC’s “Red Widow.” Heck, even the evil side of NBC’s short-lived Jekyll-and-Hyde knockoff “Do No Harm” was far more interesting than his good side.

To be fair, pity the poor broadcast networks. Put on procedurals where the good guys where white hats, and they’re accused of boring cookie-cutter development. Try breaking (or at least stretching) the mode, and people wonder if they’re not helping breed sociopaths.

It’s simplistic to say that focusing on antiheroes glorifies violence. After all, the willingness to explore moral ambiguity has yielded some of the best and most provocative shows on TV, from “Dexter” to “Homeland,” “Breaking Bad” to DirecTV’s “Hit & Miss,” a pleasant surprise that unearthed unexpected depth from a transgender hitwoman.

Where such portrayals cross into unsavory territory is a matter of context, and highly subjective. Still, if a show is defined by a disreputable protagonist who faces opposing forces more depraved and odious than he or she is, you might be skating on thin ice.

For a cinematic example of this, think back to “Hannibal,” Thomas Harris’ sequel to “The Silence of the Lambs.” The novel and subsequent movie’s underlying notion was to take the monstrous title character and essentially promote him to hero, albeit by introducing a hideous adversary.

It’s also worth noting that TV operates somewhat differently than movies. On the bigscreen, spending time with a morally flawed character is a one-and-done experience. By contrast, series demand an ongoing relationship, and while that doesn’t require liking the characters, viewers do have to care about what happens to them.

That’s one reason why something like FX’s “American Horror Story” — which revels in nastiness for its own sake, offering few redeeming qualities among its assorted characters — is such a grim, nasty exercise. Rebooting the show for a second season only exacerbated this fundamental flaw.

As noted, the preoccupation with criminals — the more outlandish the better — is hardly confined to drama (Investigation Discovery has built a profitable niche around it), and time will determine whether the audience’s appetite is expansive enough to support this latest wave of scripted fare.

Nevertheless, casting more evildoers in starring roles does hand ammunition to TV’s cultural critics. Because while it’s easy to say this is nothing new, the sensation is different when TV goes from a couple of empathetic bad guys to one on every channel.

Filed Under:

Want to read more articles like this one? SUBSCRIBE TO VARIETY TODAY.
Post A Comment 3

Leave a Reply


Comments are moderated. They may be edited for clarity and reprinting in whole or in part in Variety publications.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

  1. Alex says:


  2. Anita says:

    My thoughts on this might not be as “mainstream” as others and I hope I don’t offend anyone with this but I personally think that there is something pure and natural in knowing that anyone is capable of killing another human being if pushed to their limit. Anyone would fight to the death for their own life or their loved ones lives if presented with a situation where it would be necessary. So when faced with a character that is so at ease with this cruel fact of life, and how it is so relatively easy to take a life, it could be seen as a strength. People that don’t accept this fact and feel they couldn’t do it naturally feel the need to respect a person that can, such as Joe, Tony etc. They might see it as an asset to be used, or if for nothing else, they respect it for their own self-preservation because someone so used to it is always a threat to their well-being. Generally in history it seems that people who’ve killed before, don’t lose fights for their lives as often as those who’ve never been put in to that situation. I suppose knowing you got what it takes makes it that much easier. Of course, I’m still talking about self-defense.

    But if you think about soldiers, people admire them too, especially if they are war heroes with several kills under their belts. They are seen as alpha males. No one thinks there’s anything wrong with that.

    And girls always seem to fall for the bad guys at least once in their life, guys seem to want to be those guys friends, so I’d say our genes too are responsible.

    And lets remember that killing in general has been considered damning for such a short time (if we think of the history of us as species, we are relatively new creatures on Earth,) and it wasn’t that many centuries ago when people still killed each other over silly disputes and it was deemed just part of every day life. Still to this day you can expect to find a murder or two in the daily newspaper, and only the cruelest cases shock people.

    I don’t think shows like these will create more bad people on Earth, but it might influence and encourage those to act that already were beyond the norm of what is consider healthy in modern society. But those would find their “reasons” eventually without television shows too.

    And no, I’ve never killed anyone, so what would I know. But I do think James Purefoy is truly mesmerizing in The Following and this was just my 2 cents on why I think that is. There’s just something pure and alpha’ish in his character. (I’m more scared of the writers who come up with these characters…)

  3. laurie carasso says:

    I don’t think The Following glorifies evil at all. I think Kevin Bacon’s character is clearly the good guy, albeit his flaws also keep him human. We have seen real-life monsters like Purefoy’s character, e.g. Ted Bundy-good looking, charasmatic and soulless.
    For me, there is no glory in evil, but there is fascination with characters, real or fictional, that are so beyond evil as to be unbelievablew, yet they always get devoted, morally skewed followers (think Manson!) To carry out their nefartious deeds. For me it is not the deeds, but the psychology of the cult mentality that fascinates me. I hope Ryan gets his man in the end!

More TV News from Variety