The (Anti) Hero Paradox
Down with three posts, and audiences have rightly, by and large, identified the one common theme in my blog posts, my unabashed and unapologetic praises for the rather controversial figures in mythology and history. I wouldn't go so far as to call them straight out villains, but rather be more subtle and tag them as Anti Heroes. But then, just like with everything else, there is a catch here too. The important thing here is that there is a thin line between what separates a villain from a Anti hero or what separates an antihero from a white meat babyface.
Now, i come across this question a lot, a lot of my readers have posted it too, that does an Antihero exist ? Or is it just a imaginative figure, an internet darling, a script seller, restricted to the realms of imagination potrayed only in books and movies ?
I, on the other hand, blessed with a somewhat twisted mind, with a fetish for all things unconventional have another prominent question "Does the quintessential Hero actually exist ? " Isn't it too good to be true ? In the modern world where blasphemy is rife, corruption is the norm and humanity is non existent, isn't the anti hero the "REAL HERO" of the masses ? Even if the conventional heroes might exist, its the Outlaw, the one we love to hate, that we need.
Its simple, the Anti Hero gets the job done.
Take the Mahabharata for instance, Yudhisthir is the golden boy, the one true truthful champion walking the path of honesty, unwavering in his approach, loyal to self. So much so, he lets his wife get raped in broad daylight. Why ? Because he lost a game of what i understand as some form of pre historic ludo or chess. Ooops, sorry, breaking down the barriers here ! The hero in this case is futile, i would say highly incompetent. Nor does the hero win the battle. The battle is won by the Anti Hero, Krishna. At least that's what i believe he was/is, he lies, he cheats, he manipulates, he is the mastermind, pulling all the strings. He is the safety vent for all of mankind, not because he believes in true heroism. but because he fights evil, gets the job done, even if by questionable means. When the going gets tough, the tough get going, and no,Rajnikant doesn't exist in real life, so lets shed this ideology of one man fighting the system head on. Sometimes to fight a system this corrupted, one must break the system. even if it requires certain "Backdoor" means. These anti heroes are the voice of the voiceless, the representative of the marginalised, who take things into their own hands. And yes, they exist. But they are shut down as soon as they rise. because the world loves it virtues, and even more so, love the ones who abide by it. But in a world of challenged faith and societal upheavals, the traditional hero is too hard to come by, and harder still to love. Even if it is the hero we want to root for, its seldom the hero we need. The world, for far too long has a playground for the mighty and powerful, what it needs is a figure that questions, challenges a set of laid down assumptions, not only fights the system, but breaks it.
What really makes a difference, is the use of an anti hero, for a character who so effortlessly straddles back and forth between good and evil, its a thin line to walk on. An amalgamation of good and evil, the antihero is two people in one, on neither side of the fence, combining the two extremes of human nature, thus a true representation of human behaviour.
Dexter Morgan, the protagonist of the hit show Dexter, is a serial killer who kills criminals freeing the society of the serial offenders while really becoming one of them. What is a great thing at first, is really representative of what the world has become, a safehouse for criminals. The one killing criminals, transitioning into one himself.
So, what are these Antiheroes like ? I don't know, frankly no one does i believe. For a character representative of such a variety of shades in itself, it becomes difficult to objectify is belonging to either good or bad. I don't support these figures, but again, it becomes hard to completely keep them aside too. Vigilantes are here to stay, they might not always be prominent due to personal inhibitions in the real world, but in reel life, they will be the central characters. Someway or the other, they will be kept alive, because the world loves its Walter White's and Dexter's. And quite frankly, it needs to vigilantes, because the only thing more secure than actual safety is the absolute feeling or idea of being safe, just like the blind watchman Aamir Khan narrates in 3 idiots, whereby the villagers would have sound sleep because ironically a blind guard would shout "All is well". Life is a game between the head and the heart, and usually when the heart is comforted, the head thinks better. We all. naturally being hopeless romantics, even if we might never agree to it, enjoy the notion of having someone who has our back. I began my first ever blog saying "The world needs its heroes" and it does, it just so happens to be that the concept of the modern hero has evolved and will continue to do so. It was always about perspective from the very beginning though, wasn't it ?
Now, i come across this question a lot, a lot of my readers have posted it too, that does an Antihero exist ? Or is it just a imaginative figure, an internet darling, a script seller, restricted to the realms of imagination potrayed only in books and movies ?
I, on the other hand, blessed with a somewhat twisted mind, with a fetish for all things unconventional have another prominent question "Does the quintessential Hero actually exist ? " Isn't it too good to be true ? In the modern world where blasphemy is rife, corruption is the norm and humanity is non existent, isn't the anti hero the "REAL HERO" of the masses ? Even if the conventional heroes might exist, its the Outlaw, the one we love to hate, that we need.
Its simple, the Anti Hero gets the job done.
Take the Mahabharata for instance, Yudhisthir is the golden boy, the one true truthful champion walking the path of honesty, unwavering in his approach, loyal to self. So much so, he lets his wife get raped in broad daylight. Why ? Because he lost a game of what i understand as some form of pre historic ludo or chess. Ooops, sorry, breaking down the barriers here ! The hero in this case is futile, i would say highly incompetent. Nor does the hero win the battle. The battle is won by the Anti Hero, Krishna. At least that's what i believe he was/is, he lies, he cheats, he manipulates, he is the mastermind, pulling all the strings. He is the safety vent for all of mankind, not because he believes in true heroism. but because he fights evil, gets the job done, even if by questionable means. When the going gets tough, the tough get going, and no,Rajnikant doesn't exist in real life, so lets shed this ideology of one man fighting the system head on. Sometimes to fight a system this corrupted, one must break the system. even if it requires certain "Backdoor" means. These anti heroes are the voice of the voiceless, the representative of the marginalised, who take things into their own hands. And yes, they exist. But they are shut down as soon as they rise. because the world loves it virtues, and even more so, love the ones who abide by it. But in a world of challenged faith and societal upheavals, the traditional hero is too hard to come by, and harder still to love. Even if it is the hero we want to root for, its seldom the hero we need. The world, for far too long has a playground for the mighty and powerful, what it needs is a figure that questions, challenges a set of laid down assumptions, not only fights the system, but breaks it.
What really makes a difference, is the use of an anti hero, for a character who so effortlessly straddles back and forth between good and evil, its a thin line to walk on. An amalgamation of good and evil, the antihero is two people in one, on neither side of the fence, combining the two extremes of human nature, thus a true representation of human behaviour.
Dexter Morgan, the protagonist of the hit show Dexter, is a serial killer who kills criminals freeing the society of the serial offenders while really becoming one of them. What is a great thing at first, is really representative of what the world has become, a safehouse for criminals. The one killing criminals, transitioning into one himself.
So, what are these Antiheroes like ? I don't know, frankly no one does i believe. For a character representative of such a variety of shades in itself, it becomes difficult to objectify is belonging to either good or bad. I don't support these figures, but again, it becomes hard to completely keep them aside too. Vigilantes are here to stay, they might not always be prominent due to personal inhibitions in the real world, but in reel life, they will be the central characters. Someway or the other, they will be kept alive, because the world loves its Walter White's and Dexter's. And quite frankly, it needs to vigilantes, because the only thing more secure than actual safety is the absolute feeling or idea of being safe, just like the blind watchman Aamir Khan narrates in 3 idiots, whereby the villagers would have sound sleep because ironically a blind guard would shout "All is well". Life is a game between the head and the heart, and usually when the heart is comforted, the head thinks better. We all. naturally being hopeless romantics, even if we might never agree to it, enjoy the notion of having someone who has our back. I began my first ever blog saying "The world needs its heroes" and it does, it just so happens to be that the concept of the modern hero has evolved and will continue to do so. It was always about perspective from the very beginning though, wasn't it ?
Comments
Post a Comment