film / tv / lists / guides / news / love / celeb / video / think pieces / staff / podcasts / web / politics / netflix / advertise / cbr

Intelligent Television Drama and the Death of "Good" and "Bad" Characters

By Dustin Rowles | Think Pieces | March 19, 2013 | Comments ()

It's an interesting development, and one that is far more frequently seen in television: We don't root for the "good" guys; we root for the interesting characters. But there's an even more interesting wrinkle to that equation, and that's shows in which there are no finely defined good or bad characters; they're just characters. Justified is obviously the best example of this: Raylan Givens fits the good guy mold because he wears a marshall's hat and apprehends and kills criminals, but how good a person is he, really? There's a lot of Arlo on him, and as Boyd Crowder has suggested on several occasions, Raylan is not much different than he is. He's just working for a different side. The series as a whole, however, is peopled with characters who it's difficult to fit into a good-or-bad category: Boyd and Ava Crowder, Mags Bennett, Drew Thompson, and even Limehouse. They often do bad things, but their motivations are not necessarily evil.

"Game of Thrones," likewise, is populated almost entirely with people who we root for because we like them, and not because of their motivations. Yes, we hate Joffrey because he is a spiteful little sh*t (see also Pete Campbell), but there are a lot of characters in this show -- ruthless, cold bastards -- who we like and want to see succeed regardless of their intent, but because they are fascinating, well-developed characters. We were rooting for Tyrion Lannister in the Battle of Blackwater, for instance, because we love that character, despite the fact that his success would've meant a victory for Joffrey. Moreover, given how fun he is to hate, do we really want Joffrey to die? If our choice was the survival of the well-drawn Joffrey or the less compelling Sansa Stark, who would we choose?

"Breaking Bad," likewise, is most often about good people with evil intentions; Olivia Pope in ABC's "Scandal" is an adulterer who rigged a presidential election, and yet we root for her success; and Nucky Thompson on Boardwalk Empire is a piece of sh*t, but we pull for him anyway.

The most recent example of this trend is FX's new, phenomenal series, "The Americans," which has no good or bad people. They're just people. Phillip and Elizabeth Jennings are KGB spies trying to bring down American capitalism, and yet we root for their success. Meanwhile, FBI Agent Stan Beemer aims to eradicate the threat posed by KGB agents, and we are also pulling for him, at least until his interests come in direct conflict with the interests of The Jennings. At that point, our rooting interests will likely lie not with the motivations of the characters, but which characters are the most compelling at that time. What does it say about us that we could cheer for the overthrow of American capitalism? Does that make us bad people?

No. "Good" and "bad" are archaic categories in the modern television landscape. We value complexity and intelligence, although a little bad assery certainly doesn't hurt. So, please "The Walking Dead": If you must take either Andrea or The Governor, let it be Andrea first. There's still plenty to explore inside the sociopathic mind of The Governor.

The Station Agents "Girls" Finale Controversy Edition, Episode 13 | 5 Shows After Dark 3/19/13

Bigots, Trolls & MRAs Are Not Welcome in the Comments

A Complete List of Fall TV Premiere Dates

Recent News

Recent Reviews

Privacy Policy