Who is the most horribly misunderstood character in fiction? I'll start

[LexiMax]

22 hours ago, Xcalibur said:

But I will say that media can be an outlet, a way of expressing things that are not allowed in polite society, and as a way to experiment with boundaries and core assumptions. That's true for the Dissident Right, and for other demographics too.

 

There are two problems with that framing:

 

The first is that the frustration is wrong-headed.  Foster thought that as long as he "followed the rules" he would be rewarded.  It is one of the great lies some of us tell ourselves, but it's fundamentally a point of view that you only believe if you come from a position from privilege and feel like you "lost" something along the way.  Most people don't feel that way - they are quite familiar with being at the bottom of the food chain, and are well aware of how unfair society can be.

 

The second is that in most of these movies, there is an awful lot of collateral damage towards folks who are just doing their job and have very little say in the greater societal shift they're also having to deal with.  The POV character might have legitimate gripe with - the price of a Coke for example - but their solution almost always seems to be punching down or sideways.

 

If that is what is considered a form of escapeism, an outlet or catharsis for some folks, I would suggest that they have misdiagnosed the source of society's ills and have completely wrong-headed ideas of what a solution would look like.  There might be many ways to read art, but I think value judgements can be made on specific interpretations.

Edited August 3 by LexiMax

[Skullzrawk9]

Another character I just thought of, who seems to be misunderstood by a lot of people is Jacket from Hotline Miami. In fact, Hotline Miami 2 directly critiques those who thought of Jacket as a hero.

[hexagonopus]

kind of a weird answer, but the little girl from Lolita is probably a good example. The whole point of that story is that a "child seductress" cannot possibly exist, that the main character of that book projects this identity onto a child who he has arbitrarily fixated on due to his own unresolved sexual experiences from his youth. She herself isn't really doing anything to tempt or seduce this guy. But most pop culture versions of the character just play it straight as a sexy little girl which i think is rather extremely gross and unfortunate.

[Xcalibur]

On 8/2/2024 at 8:04 PM, LexiMax said:

 

There are two problems with that framing:

 

The first is that the frustration is wrong-headed.  Foster thought that as long as he "followed the rules" he would be rewarded.  It is one of the great lies some of us tell ourselves, but it's fundamentally a point of view that you only believe if you come from a position from privilege and feel like you "lost" something along the way.  Most people don't feel that way - they are quite familiar with being at the bottom of the food chain, and are well aware of how unfair society can be.

 

The second is that in most of these movies, there is an awful lot of collateral damage towards folks who are just doing their job and have very little say in the greater societal shift they're also having to deal with.  The POV character might have legitimate gripe with - the price of a Coke for example - but their solution almost always seems to be punching down or sideways.

 

If that is what is considered a form of escapeism, an outlet or catharsis for some folks, I would suggest that they have misdiagnosed the source of society's ills and have completely wrong-headed ideas of what a solution would look like.  There might be many ways to read art, but I think value judgements can be made on specific interpretations.

 

1. Again, this is a Leftist/Marxist perspective, viewing the world as oppressor vs oppressed. Don't get me wrong, this is a useful lens, but it's not the only one. I'd argue that most people don't feel like persecuted victims, at least not when this movie came out. Some do, certainly, especially minorities, and still others acknowledge the plight of minorities. But aside from that, many believed that their society is, for the most part, fundamentally fair. They were told over & over that if you study & work hard, stay out of trouble, do what you're supposed to do, then opportunities for success will be there. And then the economy crashes in 2008, their small business gets screwed over by excessive regulation and Covid lockdowns, inflation saps their savings, and so on. Or in the case of Foster, he gets screwed out of his engineering career and his family by a recession and an unjust court decision, respectively. There's this sense of holding up your end of the social contract, and your society failing to deliver, and that's on top of corruption, waste, social issues, and an overall lack of cohesion. And that sense of betrayal can lead to a boiling-over, as seen in the film.

 

2. Yes, and that introduces moral ambiguity into the story, as there should be. Sure, he gets provoked and obstructed, but his actions tend to be disproportionate, taking out his anger at larger issues on random targets. I'm not arguing that Foster is heroic, but he's not portrayed as villainous either -- antihero is the closest term to the complex characterization.

 

3. That's certainly true! We have to put more or less weight on views depending on the preponderance of evidence.

[LexiMax]

Falling Down is not about oppressed vs oppressor, it's about a person buying into a lie and throwing a tantrum when he realizes the lie is built out of sand.  Nearly everyone else in the movie either already knew that life was unfair, or figured that out really quickly after being dealt an incredibly rough hand by life.

 

And speaking of being dealt a rough hand, let's not forget about Prendergast.  Despite losing his two-year-old daughter - a loss that would totally eclipse any single one of Foster's microaggressions - he handles himself in a very even-keeled way throughout the movie.  This is a deliberate contrast with Foster, who takes out his frustrations on people who had nothing to do with his life circling the drain.

 

In this context, the ending fits perfectly as the two meet face to face.  In short, Foster complains about the way his life is headed, and Prendergast essentially responds with "I was also dealt a rough hand, but I didn't use that as an excuse to go on a rampage."  In some ways, it reminds me of Batman: The Killing Joke.

[Xcalibur]

2 hours ago, LexiMax said:

Falling Down is not about oppressed vs oppressor, it's about a person buying into a lie and throwing a tantrum when he realizes the lie is built out of sand.  Nearly everyone else in the movie either already knew that life was unfair, or figured that out really quickly after being dealt an incredibly rough hand by life.

 

And speaking of being dealt a rough hand, let's not forget about Prendergast.  Despite losing his two-year-old daughter - a loss that would totally eclipse any single one of Foster's microaggressions - he handles himself in a very even-keeled way throughout the movie.  This is a deliberate contrast with Foster, who takes out his frustrations on people who had nothing to do with his life circling the drain.

 

In this context, the ending fits perfectly as the two meet face to face.  In short, Foster complains about the way his life is headed, and Prendergast essentially responds with "I was also dealt a rough hand, but I didn't use that as an excuse to go on a rampage."  In some ways, it reminds me of Batman: The Killing Joke.

 

Yes, there is an intentional parallel/contrast between the two. Aside from that devastating loss, Prendergast gets dumped on in many other ways, yet keeps it together, showing that there is a better path.

 

Also yes, the Killing Joke is a good comparison. Foster is reminiscent of the Joker, who in all incarnations did not start out bad, but was pushed too far and snapped, although the Joker is much more villainous.

 

As for everyone else in the film understanding that the promise of success was a lie, that had alot to do with who he interacted with -- gang members, homeless, various ppl on the margins of society; even the rich golfers probably got there through unscrupulous means and knew the deal. Although there are exceptions, like the black guy protesting the bank who I mentioned -- "not economically viable"  -- of course he know about unfairness, being black, but he's still angered at getting the short end of the stick; the difference is that he doesn't go nearly as far as Foster does.

 

My point is, not everyone is on the margins, or a ruthless capitalist "in the know". Those like Foster may be under-represented in the film itself, but there are a great many like him, who believed in the American Dream of promised opportunity for success, and felt savagely betrayed when it turned out to be a lie (many of them voted for Trump, btw). Moreover, the film portrays this response in a sympathetic light -- this is an antihero out for morally questionable revenge, not a villain terrorizing society.

[LexiMax]

20 hours ago, Xcalibur said:

Moreover, the film portrays this response in a sympathetic light 

 

I disagree.  It is not a point of view supported by the movie when viewed in its entirety, and speaks a selective viewing of seeing only what they wanted to see - possibly even only seeing short YouTube clips of some of the action scenes, sans context, or a YouTube essayist who glosses over or never addresses the contradictions.  I think that says more about the person watching the film than anything.

 

Also, let's not forget that even if you sympathize with Foster, he is the one who ends up at the bottom of the pier at the end of the movie.  Viewed through the flawed lens of righteous fury, it's an admission that his rampage was impotent.  He did not die a noble death, he was a patsy, a rube, a sucker, someone who was used up and spit out when they overstepped their bounds, a glitch in the system that was corrected.  For everyone else, they might have a few more traumas than they had before, but life goes on.

Edited August 5 by LexiMax

[Xcalibur]

On 8/5/2024 at 11:48 AM, LexiMax said:

 

I disagree.  It is not a point of view supported by the movie when viewed in its entirety, and speaks a selective viewing of seeing only what they wanted to see - possibly even only seeing short YouTube clips of some of the action scenes, sans context, or a YouTube essayist who glosses over or never addresses the contradictions.  I think that says more about the person watching the film than anything.

 

Also, let's not forget that even if you sympathize with Foster, he is the one who ends up at the bottom of the pier at the end of the movie.  Viewed through the flawed lens of righteous fury, it's an admission that his rampage was impotent.  He did not die a noble death, he was a patsy, a rube, a sucker, someone who was used up and spit out when they overstepped their bounds, a glitch in the system that was corrected.  For everyone else, they might have a few more traumas than they had before, but life goes on.

 

I've watched the film in its entirety, and came away with different interpretations than you did, because humans tend to diverge.

 

Of course Foster goes down in the end, and you could also see that as a sort of tragicomic conclusion, the inevitable end to any rampage, no matter how justified, relatable, or cathartic. It's vaguely reminiscent of Christopher Dorner's mass shooting years back, a man who was a straight arrow his whole life, tried to do everything right, then got screwed out of his career by the notoriously corrupt LAPD; to add insult to injury, he lost his career for doing the right thing: reporting on another officer who struck a mentally ill person who was handcuffed (iirc kicked his head into the wall, or similar). I'm not defending his rampage, or his murder of the police chief's daughter to strike back indirectly (truly cold-blooded), but it's not hard to see how a person could completely snap under those circumstances. It reads like the backstory of a comic book villain, or a character like Foster, except it happened for real. But in real life as in fiction, one person cannot take on an entire society and hope to win, even if that society is in its corrupt, decadent, late imperial stage.

 

Ultimately, I think Foster was a cautionary tale about being pushed too far, and also about the state of the US. The latter point feels far more relevant now than in the early 90s, and it's even more prescient when you consider how much more common mass shootings have become in the decades since Falling Down came out (while not a mass shooting in a literal sense, the events of the film have more than a passing resemblance).

Edited August 7 by Xcalibur

[Bobby :D]

6 hours ago, Xcalibur said:

Ultimately, I think Foster was a cautionary tale about being pushed too far, and also about the state of the US. 

I think the movie plainly codes the message: evil justifies its anger after the bloodshed. The breakfast scene is a classic display of this, where Foster is simmering in his desire to get breakfast and it begins to manifest in aggression with his piece, as he tries to go philosophical to rationalize his frustration but all the “accidental” hostages can see is a man with a gun going haywire, and they are right to think that. It’s a film that blatantly critiques the “gray area anti-social anti-hero” troupe that rose out of the 70s and 80s counterculture (which then became the culture) by posing Foster first as an impulsive personality who manifests his anger and frustration with everything first before he rationalizes it, and once he makes it back to his ex, he can no longer mentally justify the violence as he has no one to blame anymore; Foster was “pushed too far” only in so far he could now justify his anger with wax about the state of society or the inadequacies in fast food breakfast times being so arbitrary. However, Foster didn’t realize he was being arbitrary till the end. The film reminds me more of something like Raging Bull, where the protagonist continuously can’t help themselves to impulse from jealousy until the people they demand attention and control from can’t bear to be abused no longer. 
 

Edit: also to be honest Falling Down is kind of ass. Part of what makes the film a bit polarizing is that the writing is vague and preachy, which makes recognizing Foster as a impulsive jerk a bit hard to recog- oh wait he violently assaults everyone he disagrees with, never mind. 

Edited August 7 by Bobby :D

[Xcalibur]

11 hours ago, Bobby :D said:

I think the movie plainly codes the message: evil justifies its anger after the bloodshed. The breakfast scene is a classic display of this, where Foster is simmering in his desire to get breakfast and it begins to manifest in aggression with his piece, as he tries to go philosophical to rationalize his frustration but all the “accidental” hostages can see is a man with a gun going haywire, and they are right to think that. It’s a film that blatantly critiques the “gray area anti-social anti-hero” troupe that rose out of the 70s and 80s counterculture (which then became the culture) by posing Foster first as an impulsive personality who manifests his anger and frustration with everything first before he rationalizes it, and once he makes it back to his ex, he can no longer mentally justify the violence as he has no one to blame anymore; Foster was “pushed too far” only in so far he could now justify his anger with wax about the state of society or the inadequacies in fast food breakfast times being so arbitrary. However, Foster didn’t realize he was being arbitrary till the end. The film reminds me more of something like Raging Bull, where the protagonist continuously can’t help themselves to impulse from jealousy until the people they demand attention and control from can’t bear to be abused no longer. 
 

Edit: also to be honest Falling Down is kind of ass. Part of what makes the film a bit polarizing is that the writing is vague and preachy, which makes recognizing Foster as a impulsive jerk a bit hard to recog- oh wait he violently assaults everyone he disagrees with, never mind. 

 

As usual, you frame your interpretation of the film as its intent. Claiming Foster "violently assaults everyone he disagrees with" wildly misrepresents what happens -- as I said, Foster gets repeatedly provoked and obstructed, and then responds excessively. Nor is it especially arbitrary, with much of the conflict tying into larger themes of societal decline or injustice. Also, it's clear that Foster spent his life not doing this, putting up with all the absurdities, wrongs, and microaggressions, until one day he decides he's not having it anymore, and snaps. That ties into the cathartic element of the movie, where Foster actually does what lots of ppl feel like doing, but don't. It's important to consider the larger context of a character, and not just the seemingly impulsive rampage that the movie focuses on.

 

With that said, I think there are deeper, embedded issues at the root of this disagreement, which we're not addressing directly, and that's why we're not finding common ground. Also, why do I keep getting pulled into back & forths online, lol. I've been trying not to do this, but oh well.

[ReX]

On 7/19/2024 at 1:08 PM, Skullzrawk9 said:

I’m surprised no one has mentioned Rorschach from Watchmen.

Rorschach was inherently a sociopathic (maybe even psychopathic) person. But Alan Moore did give him a terrific backstory that made him a sympathetic character.

 

Other crazy and dangerous characters in Watchmen: The comedian, Ozymandias (Adrian Veidt), and Doctor Manhattan (Jonathan Osterman).

 

The movie sucked, by the way. As do all movies made from Alan Moore comics (the worst of which was From Hell).

[ReX]

On 7/19/2024 at 1:35 PM, OniriA said:

 

 

Sauron (Mairon) was not a misunderstood character. JRR Tolkien made him out to be (or to have become) a truly evil character, following closely in the footsteps of his equally monstrous master, Morgoth (Melkor). [Both characters, notably, were once noble beings.] One can argue that the single-minded pursuit of power does not make one "evil", but Sauron was ruthless and wantonly destructive. So, no, in my opinion Sauron was not misunderstood.

 

But Boromir, on the other hand, might have been construed to be misunderstood. If not for his sacrifice in the service of Merry & Pippin, he might have gone down in the history of fictional characters as a villain.

[Gez]

I'd say that any protagonist -- the characters that the story follow, and whose point of view the audience gets to share -- is sympathetic by definition. They might fail at being sympathetic, if the writing is bad, but just making them the point of view characters means that the audience gets to share their pain -- the etymological meaning of sympathy (and also compassion, that's the same thing but in Latin instead of Greek).

 

Really that's all there is to it. I remember a documentary about a trapdoor spider in a jungle where you'd see its life, fending off predators, fending off more predators, attacking prey, and fending off yet more predators, until eventually some tribesmen catch it and eat it. And that made you feel bad about the spider.

 

So yeah, "character being sympathetic" isn't the same as "character being morally good"; it's just "character the author made you empathize with regardless of everything".

[SitarA]

11 hours ago, ReX said:

Sauron (Mairon) was not a misunderstood character. JRR Tolkien made him out to be (or to have become) a truly evil character, following closely in the footsteps of his equally monstrous master, Morgoth (Melkor).

 

Fair enough Genghis Khan.

[ReX]

12 hours ago, OniriA said:

 

Fair enough Genghis Khan.

Ha, ha! Well played, @OniriA

[MrFlibble]

On 8/8/2024 at 6:59 PM, Gez said:

I'd say that any protagonist -- the characters that the story follow, and whose point of view the audience gets to share -- is sympathetic by definition.

I would like to only partially agree, because the protagonist is not defined by being the character whose point of view is shared with the audience. This point of view might switch to other characters depending on how the narrative is constructed, while the protagonist is a role in the conflict of the story -- the central role, as it happens. But a story can very well have portions dedicated entirely to the antagonist and showing the antagonist's point of view, sometimes very intimately, without the antagonist becoming the protagonist, or vice versa. Moreover, the point of view thing can have various depth, achieved by using the first- of third-person narration in text, choice of word connotations, or equivalent means in film or theatre.

 

It is also not a given that the audience should necessarily identify with the protagonist. For example, in the structure of Doctor Who's narratives, the audience is very clearly intended to identify with the human companion, rather than with the Doctor who is still the protagonist none the less. Some stories have the narrator figure, who may also part of the action, and gives the point of view for the audience (without necessarily identifying with either the narrator or the protagonist), such as in Sherlock Holmes stories which are related through Dr. Watson's POV -- but indisputably it is Holmes who is the protagonist.

 

Very basically, the protagonist is the character who does things, or has things happen to them in the story. In some archetypal sense, the audience is indeed supposed to "root" for the protagonist, or sympathise with them, but this is something largely inherited from Greek plays, and has been greatly expanded upon and subverted in the millennia of literary experimentation thereafter. Take Shakespeare's Richard the Third, Richard is clearly the main focus of the narrative, and the audience is shown his point of view from the very start of the play; yet he is very certainly a villain and intended to be as such, and gets what he deserves at the end.