I don’t know about Seinfeld, but the point I was making about dating in sitcoms, is that often they don’t really allude to the relationship history much, and the audience isn’t supposed to think of the stars as very experienced. Often we’re not even shown the relationships definitively ending.
When it comes to dating, we’re all supposed to have goldfish memory.
That way, the writers can make lots of jokes and observations about dating without the main character being too much of a “hit em and quit em” jerk. Ergo, it might be viewing these shows in the wrong way to tally the relationship history and infer that they are sexual predators.
Part of this is the Everybody Is Single trope, where for purposes of plot opportunities vast numbers of people are single and available at all times, including many if not most of the main cast. This goes back to shows like Mary Tyler Moore, with the main character at one point estimating that she’d gone on 2,000 dates over the course of the show. With basically no one really ever elevated to even boyfriend status it seems. Even given that I’m sure a character that looked like MTM in a reasonably large city COULD have gone on that many dates, doing that over a course of seven years with no end game in mind seems mentally exhausting. Eventually it would just be so many repeats of first dates in the same places and this is the fourth ex football player I dated and I don’t know how anyone could stand to do that. But the character seldom show any real signs of wear and tear, they just bounce right back up.
My nominee is EVERY teenager whose family is put into a witness protection program. They start out as cute and sweet and in love, but mildly entitled. By the second act, they’ve completely disregarded the very specific instructions of the US Marshals to never call/see their BF/GF. The result is the immediate death of several Marshals, all of whom have wonderful kids and some of whom are only six days away from full retirement.
Of course, the teen goes all cute when they find out that they were the reason all these people died, but they usually aren’t a bit sorry. “I just wanted to let Taylor know I was OK!!”
I mean, I know there’s a musical that exists called Wicked, and it’s some sort of prequel involving Glinda and the WWW, but other than that I know nothing about the plot.
He started out as a relatively non-violent CIA operative, who would rather get his job done with a minimum of casualties. Then he got framed as a violent psychopath by people using the dossier of an actual violent psychopath but making it look like Westen did it all, so they could recruit him as a “bad guy” operative.
Over the course of seven years, in an attempt to get his old job/life back, he becomes more like the person he was framed to be. He becomes more and more violent, he undermines the CIA when he actually starts working for them again, he helps spring Simon (the guy whose file was used to frame Michael) from high security prison and lets him lose on the public, he erases killer and all around bad guy Ansen’s file in the CIA, he outright murders his old CIA boss, and finally he joins a terrorist organization, ostensibly to undermine it, but his actions become indistinguishable from those of an actual terrorist. Oh and he’s more or less responsible for his mother’s death.
Individually, any episodes’ actions can be justified, but in aggregate, Burn Notice is more like the SW prequels. It’s the story of Darth Vader’s creation. But I don’t think the show runners realized what they were doing.
There’s got to be a difference between “not good people” cast in protagonist roles, active villains, and good guys who aren’t so good when seen through a different lens, but who still aren’t villains.
I mean, the classic example would be Johnny Lawrence of Karate Kid & Cobra Kai fame. If you watch the movie again with a critical eye, Johnny’s not quite as bad as he’s made out to be, and Daniel’s not nearly as good. And Cobra Kai more or less points this out in the first few episodes, before it goes off into karate la-la-land. (I still enjoy it, but it’s kind of like a karate-centric telenovela or something).
I can’t think of one where the protagonist was portrayed as “good”, but who wasn’t at least good from his own perspective, even if his opponents didn’t see it as such. If that’s the case, then they’re clearly anti-heroes, a-la Vic Mackey of “The Shield”. Nobody thinks he’s good, but he’s definitely the protagonist of the show. And he’s a villain.
Basically what I’m getting at its that it’s all about perspective.
Yeah, my OP is closest to the third part of this I bolded. Not characters who started out good but turned bad; not bad characters who had a redemption arc.
Characters who, in the canon of the TV show or movie, and throughout the entire run of it, were intended as “good guys”, but if examined through a different lens, are not so good, or could even go so far as to be considered villainous.
My two OP examples were:
Jim from the Office: Clearly intended to be a good guy, and along with Pam were the sweetheart main protagonists of the show (the fictional show AND the show-within-a-show documentary, explicitly stated by the filmmakers in the final season). But, Jim repeatedly and quite cruelly pranked Dwight, who despite his sales acumen, seemed to have a personality disorder socializing with and understanding people, which Jim exploited, causing untold workplace disruption and lost time.
Glinda the Good Witch (movie version): Clearly the movie intended her to be good: it’s in her name, after all! She appeared to be helping Dorothy, but on closer review she was lying to and manipulating Dorothy the entire time, putting her in mortal danger, hoping that Dorothy would do the dirty work and take out her Witchy competition to the West, just as Dorothy did to her Eastern counterpart.
Another couple examples I thought of, that I don’t think have been mentioned:
Ferris Bueller: Portrayed in the movie as a kid who was literally ‘too cool for school’; he wanted a day off, and kept one step ahead of the buzzkill principal and his envious sister who were trying to get him into trouble for taking a skip day and just enjoying life with his best friend and girlfriend. But actually he was a manipulative sociopath who took advantage of his friend Cameron and broke probably a dozen laws in the process of enjoying his day off.
Then there were the “Revenge of the Nerds” nerds. Picked on by the jocks and cool kids on campus, they retaliate with several acts of sexual assault up to and including full-on rape.
Of course those last two examples are from 80s movies, which had very sketchy ethics, so there are probably many examples of “good guy” protagonists from movies of that era who are awful from the perspective of our era. Several John Hughes movie characters probably qualify as well, but I’m not as familiar with them.
And this is not a new phenomenon. The Merchant of Venice has pretty much the same problem. The main character doesn’t pay his debts, wimps out on the “pound of flesh” commitment, and eventually gets Shylock completely screwed over, and forced to convert to Christianity, and is unequivocally portrayed as The Good Guy for all of this. Even Shylock’s “Do I not bleed?” monologue is treated as humor.
I don’t know that Ferris Bueller was really a villain though, nor was he a psychopath. Everything in that movie’s got to be viewed through the “unreliable lens” of the camera; the whole movie sets him up as a sort of larger-than-life character- the cops know who he is, everyone in a rather large school knows who he is, and so forth. He’s able to just do what he wants- get his girlfriend out of school, go on a crazy joyride in downtown Chicago, go to a Cubs game, fake his way into a fancy restaurant, and so forth.
It’s sort of like a fever dream fantasy on Ferris’ part, and then Principal Rooney, his sister, and in parts, Cameron are the ones grounded in reality. They’re where the fantasy meets reality, and where the dramatic tension of the film comes in. But I’m not entirely sure Ferris was a “real” person in the sense of actually being able to get away with all this; even as a middle schooler, I always had this sort of feeling that maybe Ferris was idealized or highly embellished- like this was Ferris as some sort of fifty-something raconteur telling this tale to his grandkids, and making himself look better/more cool, and making the principal and his sister look more uncool than reality actually had it.
It’s sort of like Ted Mosby as an unreliable narrator; we watch the show and think this is how things went down, but have to actually step back and remember that this is Ted telling a story to his kids, and Barney is kind of like the Ferris Bueller of that story- a bit outlandish, a bit extreme, and pretty unrealistic when you actually think about it. But Ted’s embellishing him with what Ted thinks is cool, and making him a bit of a larger than life character. I always felt like Ferris was the same way, just without the explicit device of the tale being told in the future by an unrealistic narrator.
Well, maybe “villain” is a little extreme, though I know I used it in my OP title. Going back to my first two examples, I think a case can be made for Glinda as villain, but Jim, even viewed through the most negative prism, is really more of a jerk and low-level bully than actual villain (Dwight may disagree though).
My calling Ferris a ‘sociopath’ is not to say he’s Hannibal Lector-level evil, just that he’s acting entirely in his own self-interest above all else and does not care about, or is not even able to even comprehend, the wants and feelings of others.
There’s a ‘fan theory’ out there that Ferris did not actually exist at all; that he was Cameron’s ‘Tyler Durden’; an anthropomorphized representation of his ID, which he conjured up to help him stand up more for himself, and ultimately stand up to his controlling father.
Ferris Bueller is one of those films certain types of people overanalyze trying to sounds clever or whatever.
All Ferris really did was skip a day of school and convince his somewhat anxiety-prone to borrow his dad’s car. The fact that the car is a Ferrari and the various escapades they get into are exaggerated so as to be played for comedic effect. But lets not pretend that a trio of affluent late teens skipping school and spending the day in Chicago requires Oceans 11 level heist planning.
Principal Rooney’s reaction was over the top, unprofessional, illegal, and otherwise unrealistic. Basically he abandoned HIS actual duties as principal to try to “catch” some kid who AFAHK was legitimately excused from school by his parents. It really didn’t matter if Ferris was actually sick or his parents let him take a “mental health day” to goof around Chicago. Really Rooney was lucky that all he got was a beating from Ferris’s sister and getting bit by a dog.
I look at Ferris Bueller’s Day Off not so much as an “unreliable story told by an adult to his kid” as it is a typical 80s teen / young adult idealized fantasy that reflects the culture of the era.
This I would agree with in regards to HIMYM. I mean I guess it’s the same thing as FBDO. An idealized fantasy of 20/30 somethings living in New York City in the mid 2000s. Being a product of both eras, I can see elements of reality in both. But there is clearly comedic license taken. it’s just that HIMYM waves it away through the lens of Future Ted’s tale to his kids.
Wellll…but Ferris was a serial offender who had so many absences he had to hack into the school computer to change the absence amount so he wouldn’t be expelled. And “borrowing” the Ferrari?
More like breaking into a government computer database and theft of a high-end automobile. And that was just the beginning of the crime spree that day. A modern-day sequel of what Ferris turned into might make for a fun movie. I’m thinking a “one last heist” type of genre.
I’m not sure that sociopath = “extremely self-centered”, which is about all you can actually realistically hang on Ferris. I mean, he’s sympathetic to Cameron pretty much the entire movie, and even offers to take the rap for the Ferrari. And as best as I can remember, he wasn’t deceptive to anyone except for adults, which were largely viewed as the “enemy” in the movie from the teenaged perspective.
Exactly- fundamentally, they’re both fantasies. Like you say, in HIMYM, it’s waved away, but in FBDO, it’s just not addressed. So it could be Cameron’s “Tyler Durden” fantasy, it could be that Ferris was a real character whose exploits are embellished, it could be totally true, or something else. We don’t know, and I agree that it’s not really important for a fantasy movie.
And I don’t see Ferris as a villain, except only maybe through the most uptight, law-and-order adult perspective that would see a kid who skips school as some kind of threat to order and peace and a bad example for everyone else.
Oh, and Ferris didn’t steal the car. Cameron took his dad’s car and let Ferris drive it. There’s a huge difference there.
From the article below. Sound like any likeable high school rogue you know?
People with the condition might seem charming and charismatic at first, at least on the surface, but they generally find it difficult to understand other people’s feelings. They often:
break rules or laws
behave aggressively or impulsively
feel little guilt for harm they cause others
use manipulation, deceit, and controlling behavior
Oh, sure, good point, you’re right-- Cameron took the car of his own volition and free will. Absolutely no manipulation or coercion there …
Cameron: “If I didn’t want it, I wouldn’t have let you take the car out this morning.”
Ferris: “I made you take the car this morning”
Cameron: “I could have stopped you. It is possible to stop Mr. Ferris Bueller, you know.”
Sure looks like Cameron went along with it willingly, even if he did mildly protest at first.
I’m not so sure he’s all that manipulative. Deceitful to adults, but that’s part of the fantasy/comedic license. Not particularly controlling either. I’m not seeing any aggression, and impulsiveness is a teenaged thing. But he’s also very much the opposite- his whole plan to fool his parents, get Sloane out of school, etc… show a lot of forethought and planning. After that point it’s impulsive, but why not? That doesn’t make him a sociopath to not have a grand plan for his day of playing hooky.
Ferris misses on two of those criteria. He’s never at all aggressive in the movie, and while he does some stuff that’s impulsive, he also makes some pretty meticulous plans to enable his day off. And he absolutely feels guilt when he gets Cameron in trouble for wrecking his car, and shows concern for his well being when he falls in the pool. Further, there’s a strong subtext that Cameron is struggling with depression, and Ferris recognizes this and plans the day off specifically to help his friend, which argues against both the self-interest and inability to understand other people’s feelings that would are the hallmarks of sociopathy.
Really? Did you watch the same clip I posted? Ferris started the car and drove it out of the garage to Cameron’s repeated protests.
And, in your clip, where Cameron says he could have stopped Ferris if he wanted to, it sounds like Cameron was more trying to convince himself than anything else. Also, it could be seen as one more example of Ferris’ manipulation: Ferris: “I made you take the car; I’ll take the heat for it…” Cameron: “No, it was my decision, I’ll take the blame” Ferris (smiling smugly): “…ok”.
I mean, yeah, it’s a silly 80s teen comedy that didn’t age all that well, like most 80s comedies, and shouldn’t be taken all that seriously. But still, I think a case can be made that the Ferris character is almost a textbook sociopath.
On the other hand…
This is a great argument against “Ferris = sociopath”. Although, the criteria was aggressive or impulsive. Ferris is not aggressive but clearly impulsive, and I don’t know whether or not sociopathy means lack of ability to plan ahead at all. Planning the day off specifically to help his friend? Maybe, or maybe he just wanted to have a fun day for himself. He does seem to show some guilt for his actions at times. I believe sociopathy is a spectrum, like many psychological traits, so maybe he does possess some empathy towards others. Or, the appearance of guilt could fall under the guise of manipulation as well.
Abe Froman gets pretty aggressive with the maitre d’ when he suggests the Sausage King of Chicago is not who he says he is.
Ferris probably wouldn’t have made the “in 2 weeks you’d have a diamond” joke if he really thought Cameron was genuinely depressed, nor the “his roommate will kill him” joke. It’s more like he just thinks Cameron is too uptight and he’s trying to open him up. I mean, Ferris thinks he’s helping Cameron (and maybe he is), but he’s doing it by getting Cameron to do something he (Ferris) wants to do, not what Cameron would probably want to do. That makes Ferris lean more toward the self-interested side. That doesn’t make him a sociopath, though, just a teenager.
Minor point, in that most teenagers (male at least) act like sociopaths. Well, of course I exaggerate, but most of the traits @solost listed would be a pretty typical teenager analysis. Now when you show all those traits at 20+ they start saying you need to grow up, and if you hit 30 or more, you’re either a hideously successful (and possibly soon to be indicted) businessman/politician and/or (heh) sociopath.
