![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I've been watching Cobra Kai. I hesitated to watch it because, even though I was a Karate Kid fan, I a) didn't want them to screw it up and b) had some complicated feelings about making the villains into the protagonists. As I keep saying in my Poly-ish Movie Reviews, I am character-driven. If I don't like the characters, I won't like the story no matter how well it's told, and if I do like the characters I will probably like the story no matter how terribly it's told.
Which makes unlikable protagonists very challenging for me. And Cobra Kai is about an unlikable protagonist.
One of Franklin's favorite books is about an unlikable protagonist. He holds it up as an example of how to write that kind of character well. I disagree. I hated that character from the beginning, I never felt sympathetic towards him, and I wasn't surprised at all at how bad he turned out to be (I may have not guessed the very specific details of the ending, but I wasn't surprised that he turned out as evil as he was).
Some unlikable characters are popular because we love to hate them. Bestor from Babylon 5 is one of these for me. He's written in a pretty nuanced, complex way, and yet I still hate him no matter how many little humanized tidbits the show throws at us to make him relatable. I think those humanized bits make him so deliciously evil that I really enjoy hating him. I want him to suffer and I enjoy every time he loses.
Then there is the "flip the script" or "mirror" method of telling a tale from the other perspective. Such as in Maleficent, where we are presented with an origin story or "reasons" why someone's actions may have been interpreted as evil depending on the perspective of the storyteller.
If you look at a war in progress, the "other side" is evil because they're the other side, but if you tell the story from that other side, then the first side is evil because THEY are the other side. Maleficent waging war on humans makes complete sense when those humans keep coming into fae lands to massacre all the fairies. But to the humans, she's an existential threat.
Johnny Lawrence is not Maleficent. There is even an episode where he tells someone else the story of Karate Kid but from his perspective, where Daniel LaRousso was the bully. And I can see how he reached that conclusion. But he's actually wrong. It's like how I can see how Republicans reach their conclusions, but they're factually wrong about them.
Johnny Lawrence is an asshole. He is the bad guy. No amount of "understanding his reasons" changes that. And yet, I care about what happens to him. A lot of the time I want him to suffer, but I want his suffering to teach him a lesson so that he'll stop being an asshole.
This isn't an origin story. But it kind of is. Now that Johnny is an adult, he is able to perpetuate the abuse that he suffered as a kid onto a whole new generation of kids. So we can see exactly how you can take someone who is kind and compassionate and considerate and slowly warp him into someone who is cruel. And how that can be done without even necessitating malicious intent.
Johnny Lawrence is, and always was, an asshole. But it's possible that he may have a redemption arc. What I'm liking about this show is that it's not a clear arc. It's also possible that he will never find redemption, depending on where they take his character. As long as his methods result in what he sees as success, he has no reason to see why he's a bad guy. Both possibilities is what makes this story interesting for me.
That's where the conflict really is - will Johnny redeem himself, or is this just a Walter White or Thanos situation? He succeeds and yet remains a bad guy with no redemptive arc? Some people will just straight up tell you in what way they are evil and completely believe they are in the right. Nazis, racists, misogynists, domestic abusers, etc. Johnny could be written by people like that, or by people who want to tell that kind of character's story. Or he could be written by people who want to believe that even those kinds of people can see the light. Which character is Johnny Lawrence? We'll find out.
I think the actor playing Johnny is pretty brave to bring back this character and tell his tale. At least, in the way that it's being told. If this had been basically like that one space movie where it's just a 2 hour ride justifying violence and violation because reasons, I wouldn't be saying this. I think this show (so far) stays on the right side of the line between *explaining* violence and *justifying* it.
After completing the first season, I don't like Johnny Lawrence. I'm not supposed to like him. And I dislike him enough that I'm not even rooting for him. He could change, and I would be glad to see that change, but I don't root for him to win the fights he gets into or hope that he comes out ahead in his interpersonal conflicts. I want him to get his ass kicked. I want the people in his life to leave him. I want him to fail. But if he somehow manages to learn from those failures and become a better person, I'd like to see that too. He is simultaneously an exercise in hope for growth and in schadenfreude. He's Schrodinger's anti-hero.
I don't like him and I'm not rooting for him. But I'm *invested* in seeing what happens to him.
And *that's* how you fucking write an unlikable character.
Everyone else is fairly boiler-plate, and yet also still well written and acted. Each of the characters has a predictable path or an archetypal role. But there are a *lot* of them. This isn't a black hat-white hat good vs. evil story where everyone is basically the same character (or no character) except for the one rogue they throw us as a bone.
There are several different archetypes in the show, each with their own arcs and developments, and each face enough nuanced conflicts that their arcs have several pivot points that could take them in one of several directions.
But this show is really about Johnny Lawrence, an unlikable character as the main character. This is more than just an anti-hero story. In all the anti-hero stories that are popular right now, they're anti-heroes but they're also somehow likable. They're bad guys but they're charming, or they're ethically grey but sympathetic, or something along those lines.
We've been "flipping the script" for a while now, telling anti-hero stories or telling a story from the villain's perspective. And in order to get the audience to be invested, ultimately we end up making those characters likable who just make poor decisions or who have something terrible happen to them. While terrible things did happen to Johnny that molded him into the person we see now and who makes poor decisions, he is ultimately someone who is not likable. He is toxic masculinity personified.
They had a difficult job here, because the '80s movie was pretty standard with writing the antagonist as a clear-cut villain. Johnny was a bully and there was no real reason for his bullying other than he was an asshole. Yes, his sensei made him an asshole, but he was definitely an asshole with no depth underneath.
Now we want to tell his story? Not how he became an asshole, but to tell the story OF an asshole? How do you give depth to a character originally written as shallow? He has to really be an asshole, even with that depth. There has to be a reason why he seemed to take pleasure in beating the shit out of Daniel and why he treated Ali the way he treated her.
He is very much like a lot of my backstage coworkers, who are assholes and, honestly, unlikable, but I can get along with them fine because they're real people and real people are messy, complicated creatures.
Johnny Lawrence is an asshole. I don't like him. I'm not supposed to like him. I'm probably supposed to root for him? But the writers and the actor keep him as an asshole so maybe I'm not supposed to root for him. Either way, I'm not rooting for him.
But I am invested in him and his outcome.
I think this show is exploring a lot of complex themes and emotions and ethical dilemmas. In some ways, it's still a little heavy-handed, like the original source was. But by telling the story from the antagonist's perspective while still maintaining those same morals and themes, it complicates the story and gives it a lot more character and a lot more grey areas.
And I really liked the pinnacle season conflict in which it didn't matter how that conflict was resolved, Johnny Lawrence could not win either way. So how do you root for him when both outcomes would suck for him? You choose which moral lesson you want him to learn from the two possible losing options?
In anti-hero stories, we root for the protagonist to succeed at, what is actually an "evil plot" - we want Danny Ocean to rob the casino. In Bandits, we want Joe & Terry to succeed at robbing banks and to "get the girl" Kate. We want Dexter to continue to kill people, or at least not get caught for it. We want the bad guys to get away with what they're doing because they're the protagonists and we get attached to them.
But I don't want Johnny Lawrence to succeed. I'm not rooting for him. I don't like him. And I'm not supposed to. At least, not yet. So they gave us a conflict in which he can't win, even if he succeeds. He is still unlikable. Anti-heroes are likable. Or, at least, sympathetic.
I do not like stories with unlikable characters at the helm. I like to dislike certain unlikable characters as foils or villains. And I really strongly dislike stories that romanticize or justify unlikable characters ("but he was abused!", "but she wanted it!", "but he started it!"). I'm also totally over "privileged white man has some kind of challenge that actually a lot of people have but his challenge turned him into the asshole he is today, so let's spend yet another show explaining his story" kind of tales.
But, at least through season 1, I think Cobra Kai does an excellent job of creating a realistic, nuanced unlikable protagonist that is keeping me engaged and invested in the outcome. And I have to say that I'm impressed. I heard good things about the show, but I was still expecting to not like it, or at least find it meh. Instead, I actually think it's really good. I'll get back to you after a few seasons before I go so far as to say it's brilliant. But it could be.
Which makes unlikable protagonists very challenging for me. And Cobra Kai is about an unlikable protagonist.
One of Franklin's favorite books is about an unlikable protagonist. He holds it up as an example of how to write that kind of character well. I disagree. I hated that character from the beginning, I never felt sympathetic towards him, and I wasn't surprised at all at how bad he turned out to be (I may have not guessed the very specific details of the ending, but I wasn't surprised that he turned out as evil as he was).
Some unlikable characters are popular because we love to hate them. Bestor from Babylon 5 is one of these for me. He's written in a pretty nuanced, complex way, and yet I still hate him no matter how many little humanized tidbits the show throws at us to make him relatable. I think those humanized bits make him so deliciously evil that I really enjoy hating him. I want him to suffer and I enjoy every time he loses.
Then there is the "flip the script" or "mirror" method of telling a tale from the other perspective. Such as in Maleficent, where we are presented with an origin story or "reasons" why someone's actions may have been interpreted as evil depending on the perspective of the storyteller.
If you look at a war in progress, the "other side" is evil because they're the other side, but if you tell the story from that other side, then the first side is evil because THEY are the other side. Maleficent waging war on humans makes complete sense when those humans keep coming into fae lands to massacre all the fairies. But to the humans, she's an existential threat.
Johnny Lawrence is not Maleficent. There is even an episode where he tells someone else the story of Karate Kid but from his perspective, where Daniel LaRousso was the bully. And I can see how he reached that conclusion. But he's actually wrong. It's like how I can see how Republicans reach their conclusions, but they're factually wrong about them.
Johnny Lawrence is an asshole. He is the bad guy. No amount of "understanding his reasons" changes that. And yet, I care about what happens to him. A lot of the time I want him to suffer, but I want his suffering to teach him a lesson so that he'll stop being an asshole.
This isn't an origin story. But it kind of is. Now that Johnny is an adult, he is able to perpetuate the abuse that he suffered as a kid onto a whole new generation of kids. So we can see exactly how you can take someone who is kind and compassionate and considerate and slowly warp him into someone who is cruel. And how that can be done without even necessitating malicious intent.
Johnny Lawrence is, and always was, an asshole. But it's possible that he may have a redemption arc. What I'm liking about this show is that it's not a clear arc. It's also possible that he will never find redemption, depending on where they take his character. As long as his methods result in what he sees as success, he has no reason to see why he's a bad guy. Both possibilities is what makes this story interesting for me.
That's where the conflict really is - will Johnny redeem himself, or is this just a Walter White or Thanos situation? He succeeds and yet remains a bad guy with no redemptive arc? Some people will just straight up tell you in what way they are evil and completely believe they are in the right. Nazis, racists, misogynists, domestic abusers, etc. Johnny could be written by people like that, or by people who want to tell that kind of character's story. Or he could be written by people who want to believe that even those kinds of people can see the light. Which character is Johnny Lawrence? We'll find out.
I think the actor playing Johnny is pretty brave to bring back this character and tell his tale. At least, in the way that it's being told. If this had been basically like that one space movie where it's just a 2 hour ride justifying violence and violation because reasons, I wouldn't be saying this. I think this show (so far) stays on the right side of the line between *explaining* violence and *justifying* it.
After completing the first season, I don't like Johnny Lawrence. I'm not supposed to like him. And I dislike him enough that I'm not even rooting for him. He could change, and I would be glad to see that change, but I don't root for him to win the fights he gets into or hope that he comes out ahead in his interpersonal conflicts. I want him to get his ass kicked. I want the people in his life to leave him. I want him to fail. But if he somehow manages to learn from those failures and become a better person, I'd like to see that too. He is simultaneously an exercise in hope for growth and in schadenfreude. He's Schrodinger's anti-hero.
I don't like him and I'm not rooting for him. But I'm *invested* in seeing what happens to him.
And *that's* how you fucking write an unlikable character.
Everyone else is fairly boiler-plate, and yet also still well written and acted. Each of the characters has a predictable path or an archetypal role. But there are a *lot* of them. This isn't a black hat-white hat good vs. evil story where everyone is basically the same character (or no character) except for the one rogue they throw us as a bone.
There are several different archetypes in the show, each with their own arcs and developments, and each face enough nuanced conflicts that their arcs have several pivot points that could take them in one of several directions.
But this show is really about Johnny Lawrence, an unlikable character as the main character. This is more than just an anti-hero story. In all the anti-hero stories that are popular right now, they're anti-heroes but they're also somehow likable. They're bad guys but they're charming, or they're ethically grey but sympathetic, or something along those lines.
We've been "flipping the script" for a while now, telling anti-hero stories or telling a story from the villain's perspective. And in order to get the audience to be invested, ultimately we end up making those characters likable who just make poor decisions or who have something terrible happen to them. While terrible things did happen to Johnny that molded him into the person we see now and who makes poor decisions, he is ultimately someone who is not likable. He is toxic masculinity personified.
They had a difficult job here, because the '80s movie was pretty standard with writing the antagonist as a clear-cut villain. Johnny was a bully and there was no real reason for his bullying other than he was an asshole. Yes, his sensei made him an asshole, but he was definitely an asshole with no depth underneath.
Now we want to tell his story? Not how he became an asshole, but to tell the story OF an asshole? How do you give depth to a character originally written as shallow? He has to really be an asshole, even with that depth. There has to be a reason why he seemed to take pleasure in beating the shit out of Daniel and why he treated Ali the way he treated her.
He is very much like a lot of my backstage coworkers, who are assholes and, honestly, unlikable, but I can get along with them fine because they're real people and real people are messy, complicated creatures.
Johnny Lawrence is an asshole. I don't like him. I'm not supposed to like him. I'm probably supposed to root for him? But the writers and the actor keep him as an asshole so maybe I'm not supposed to root for him. Either way, I'm not rooting for him.
But I am invested in him and his outcome.
I think this show is exploring a lot of complex themes and emotions and ethical dilemmas. In some ways, it's still a little heavy-handed, like the original source was. But by telling the story from the antagonist's perspective while still maintaining those same morals and themes, it complicates the story and gives it a lot more character and a lot more grey areas.
And I really liked the pinnacle season conflict in which it didn't matter how that conflict was resolved, Johnny Lawrence could not win either way. So how do you root for him when both outcomes would suck for him? You choose which moral lesson you want him to learn from the two possible losing options?
In anti-hero stories, we root for the protagonist to succeed at, what is actually an "evil plot" - we want Danny Ocean to rob the casino. In Bandits, we want Joe & Terry to succeed at robbing banks and to "get the girl" Kate. We want Dexter to continue to kill people, or at least not get caught for it. We want the bad guys to get away with what they're doing because they're the protagonists and we get attached to them.
But I don't want Johnny Lawrence to succeed. I'm not rooting for him. I don't like him. And I'm not supposed to. At least, not yet. So they gave us a conflict in which he can't win, even if he succeeds. He is still unlikable. Anti-heroes are likable. Or, at least, sympathetic.
I do not like stories with unlikable characters at the helm. I like to dislike certain unlikable characters as foils or villains. And I really strongly dislike stories that romanticize or justify unlikable characters ("but he was abused!", "but she wanted it!", "but he started it!"). I'm also totally over "privileged white man has some kind of challenge that actually a lot of people have but his challenge turned him into the asshole he is today, so let's spend yet another show explaining his story" kind of tales.
But, at least through season 1, I think Cobra Kai does an excellent job of creating a realistic, nuanced unlikable protagonist that is keeping me engaged and invested in the outcome. And I have to say that I'm impressed. I heard good things about the show, but I was still expecting to not like it, or at least find it meh. Instead, I actually think it's really good. I'll get back to you after a few seasons before I go so far as to say it's brilliant. But it could be.
