Travis Bickle and Bill Munny are the protagonists of their respective movies and both try to do good (as their twisted mind sees it). That is why they are anti-heroes. Despite not being good persons, the movie presents them in such a way, that you find yourself rooting for them.
The story arc was that William started out interested only killing 'bad guys" (for cutting up a woman) for profit and evolved into him wanting to eradicate the evil he saw in the town as personified by Little Bill.
Anti-hero’s motives are self-serving, and their sense of morality fall outside of the norm. You might not think what Mr. Munny was doing was eradicating evil, but I think in Munny’s mind, he was.
Except we all agree on that. No one is arguing the antihero doesn’t have to be a protagonist. The argument is whether that alone is enough or doing good, heroic, things (in an unheroic way) is also required
He started out interested in killing whoever the people with the cash wanted him to kill, evil or otherwise. He ended up wanting to kill the man who killed his friend (to assuage his guilt as the real reason his friend got killed)
Eradicating evil never came into it, that’s kind of the whole point of the movie. Everyone in the movie was “evil” to a greater or lesser degree.
An anti-hero, at the least, has to be doing things that they, in their own mind, think is heroic. Some examples of protagonists that that aren’t being heroic (and thus are not anti-heroes) are Tony Montana (Scarface), Patrick Bateman (American Psycho), Vincent ( Collateral), among others.
I’m happy to agree to disagree. Just because he was “evil” as society deems it, doesn’t he can’t be an anti-hero.
Take Lucas McCain (The Rifleman), is he evil? Of course not. But he killed at least one person every week, for years! He was not a lawman or in any other way authorized to enforce the law or kill people. If someone acted like that today, I’m quite sure they would end up in prison. Shows frame how we view our protagonists.
This part I would disagree with. It’s certainly possible for an antihero (or a hero) to have poor self-esteem (justifiably or otherwise) Dexter Morgan, for instance, knows he is seriously mentally ill and trying to deal with it in a relatively prosocial way. He doesn’t think that he’s somehow superior to all the people who aren’t murdering anyone at all.
I don’t really understand this point. Anti-heroes don’t have to feel superior to others to act on what they feel is the right thing. They just (usually) feel that there is an injustice and they have the impetus and will to act against it. I don’t think (feelings of) superiority have anything to do with it.
Although in the specific case of Dexter, it wouldn’t surprise me to know he does have a bit of a superiority complex, though I won’t argue the point.
Little Bill: I don’t deserve this!
Bill Munny: Deserve’s got nothin’ to do with it.
If Munny thought he was “eradicating evil,” he’d have said something like, “Yes you do.” He’s not killing Little Bill because Little Bill deserves it, he’s killing Little Bill because he doesn’t like Little Bill, and there’s no one left who can stop him from doing what he wants.
That’s a fair point, but you also have to factor in that he feels Ned was treated unjustly and that Little Bill treated Delilah, whom he came to care for, unjustly. Regardless of what he said, I think he was trying, in some small way, to tip the scales of justice back the other way the only way he knew how.
You said they have to feel that they are “heroic”, which I think implies being superior to the ordinary run of humanity. And not every narrative revolves around fighting injustice. Walter White and Tony Soprano just wanted to get paid. I don’t think either of them believed that their activities were making the world a better place.
The Simpsons: Homer and Bart are both antiheroes. Lisa and Marge, in the episodes where they function as protagonists, are flawed heroes. Mr. Burns is a villain. Everyone else in Springfield is a schmo who would be an antihero if they were the protagonist.
So, I can’t find a single definition of the word “antihero” that contains this stipulation. Every source defines it as some variation of, “A character who is notably lacking in traditional heroic virtues.” Full stop.
Merriam-Webster: “a protagonist or notable figure who is conspicuously lacking in heroic qualities”
OED: “A person who is the opposite or reverse of a hero; esp. a central character in a story, film, or drama who lacks conventional heroic attributes.”
Vocabulary.com: “An antihero is the main character of a story, but one who doesn’t act like a typical hero. Antiheroes are often a little villainous.”
Britannica: “a protagonist of a drama or narrative who is notably lacking in heroic qualities”
Wikipedia: "An antihero (sometimes spelled as anti-hero or two words anti hero) or anti-heroine is a main character in a narrative (in literature, film, TV, etc.) who may lack some conventional heroic qualities and attributes, such as idealism and morality.
All those definitions seem to beg the question of what are “heroic qualities”, though the last one at least tries to take a stab at it. I think most of us would consider bravery, intelligence, physical strength and resourcefulness as heroic qualities, and many antiheroes and outright villains have those in spades. It seems like it’s only certain heroic qualities we’re interested in.
Perhaps we could say that an antihero is a protagonist whose most significant actions don’t have what we would consider morally acceptable motivations.
American Heritage gives idealism and courage as typical heroic qualities that an antihero may lack. Just because someone is heroic does not mean they are doing the right thing, though.
I think, though, that a hero by definition has to think that they are doing the right thing, or at least trying to do so. Someone who knows they are doing evil and doesn’t care can’t be a hero.
Yeah 100%. The idea anyone in the movie, most especially William Munny, is attempting to eradicate evil is as wrong as the idea nurse Ratched is “kind hearted”