MovieChat Forums > Attack the Block (2011) Discussion > The reason many people hate the main cha...

The reason many people hate the main characters...


...is not because they are racist or can't appreciate anti-heroes. There have been a lot of posts attacking people for not liking the main characters and I thought I'd add my two pence in defence of those critics.

I think the problem is that Joe Cornish has captured a subset of British society so accurately and the language, costume, setting and acting were spot-on.

The appeal of the anti-hero, such as bank robbers, hitmen, lone cowboys, is that they are at a remove from everyday life - none of us will likely ever be involved in a hold up, will ever be targeted by hitmen, or will ever be in the Wild West circa 1880. Furthermore, anti-heroes are normally never indiscriminate: bank robbers target a corrupt and morally bankrupt economic system that privileges the rich over the poor; the 'heroic' hitmen only tend to go after those who deserve it and don't attack the innocent; the gunslinger protects ordinary people and only takes on the violent. In each case, the anti-hero has a 'code' that they follow, and a cause that we can root for because it is far removed from everyday reality. And there's a vicarious thrill to seeing people do those things that we'd like to do but don't have the guts (Falling Down is a classic example).

The problem with Attack the Block's characters is that they are so real and so much a part of everyday life for those living in Britain and especially London. I think the further away you are from the reality, the better you can like the characters as anti-heroes, so Americans in particular, I have noticed, do like them. Unfortunately, when you are living in a place where gangs of feral youths make you fear for your safety when out after dark, when people are daily stabbed and shot on their doorsteps, when in the London riots last year the youth of our nation went on a vile and destructive crime spree that left a bitter taste in everybody's mouths, making those same people the main characters and asking the ordinary British audience member to identify with and like them is an incredibly difficult ask.

To further complicate matters, their opening action is to mug a hard working female nurse. Instead of taking on bully-boy police officers, a rival gang, frankly anything that could gain our sympathy, they threaten and rob an innocent, decent, vulnerable member of society that couldn't have been better calculated to make us hate them.

Admittedly, the film does settle down into a rather familiar story and character arc where the character does something bad and then seeks redemption through heroic action, and here the film gets it absolutely right too. John Boyega is also a star in the making, and if anyone has seen him in My Murder, in which he plays a real life murder victim in a similarly violent youth gang culture, I'm sure they can agree he's an exceptional British talent and one to watch for the future.

In short, I was rooting for the 'heroes' by the end, but was similarly repulsed by their behaviour at the start. I can completely empathise with people who cannot bring themselves to like them, regardless of their redemptive behaviour later in the movie. Labelling these critics 'racist' or 'unable to appreciate anti-heroes' is just wrong. While in some people, race is probably a factor, I think people don't like them because they so accurately portray the bogeyman of contemporary British society. That is its strength, but at the same time, also its weakness.

reply

I thank you sir for presenting a clear and concise arguement and analysis.

reply

[deleted]

You seem to have spectacularly ignored my entire post except a single point that you take exception to.

You say I'm an idiot, and yet I defended your point of view in my original post: I quite clearly wrote that the appreciation of these characters as anti-heroes was dependant upon one's distance from the reality of gangs of feral youths, and that I can fully empathise with people like yourself who, even by the end, were not on their side. It doesn't mean you're wrong, or racist, or unable to appreciate anti-heroes, it simply means you didn't like them, and that's fine. I didn't particularly like them either, but by the end I wanted them to win because, as I wrote in my original post, it was a familar narrative about redemption and followed a formulaic character arc and I could appreciate it for what it was.

Of course, in real life, I wouldn't root for the serial rapist who raped my wife, but that's not exactly the same thing as watching a movie about a bunch of fictional humans fighting a bunch of aliens, in which the narrative positions us on the side of the main characters, however reprehensible, against a faceless Other. The manipulation of audiences to support pernicious and indeed repugnant ideologies has obviously had a long history that predates cinema - Edward Said's theories on Orientalism being a prime example - and in the movies, this positioning is often played with to provoke reactions. What Joe Cornish achieved so well with Attack the Block was that he tried to align us on the side of people we find abhorrent, possibly for no other reason than to create controversy and generate a buzz - the fact we are even having this discussion shows that it worked.

Having had nine people murdered in the street within a hundred yards of my front door within the past three years, I do have experience of living in fear on a daily basis, but I don't understand what this has to do with whether I understand the meaning of the word 'nuance'.

Furthermore, I feel I provided a measured, considered opinion and explained why I felt the way that I did. Your assumption that I am somehow not an adult, your use of profanity (*beep*) and your resorting to calling me an 'idiot' because I have a different opinion to you, is hardly adding to a discussion about anti-heroes. Indeed, I agree with you that in real life, the true heroes are the ones like the nurse at the start of the film, and in my initial post I wrote that such a target could do nothing but justify our ire for these characters. But, at the end of the day, they are simply that - characters. The film is a challenge - I certainly do not feel in a hurry to watch it again - but I think it was interesting enough to discuss and that is why I am on here.

reply

Andy, that was a good post. Good stuff.

reply

How did rape got involved here?

reply

I totally agree with your post!! I loved the movie and I have even watched it several more times. It's amazing how the well written the script is! I think that the actors do TOO accurately portray the everyday actions of South Britain youth, and of course that would be a reason for us to hate these characters. However, we must realize that even though these characters may be too true to life, they are still just actors. So if you hate them.. It's probably because they make you feel. And that is exactly what a good movie is supposed to do!

reply

Indeed!

reply

I watched 'Neds' and there's no shortage of them in Scotland. Not sure why I haven't watched this yet? Maybe because I have a feeling that they'll all talk that moronic Ali-G-esque gangster nonsense.

I see contestants on 'Never Mind the Buzzcocks' that speak like that and it's just cringe worthy. A full film of that would be excruciating.


John Hancock

reply

Personally I think one of the reasons so many viewers (and I include myself) found the main characters unlikeable was that they had no charm, charisma, personality etc... to offset their bad behavior.

Three examples:

Alex - A Clockwork Orange
Hanibal Lector - Silence of the Lambs
Alonzo - Training Day

All three of these characters were FAR worse than any of the punks in Attack the block, but they all had the force of personality to make them somewhat sympathetic, or at least interesting, though they were all despicable.

The chavs displayed no personality other than their ghetto tough-talk that is so common as not be be interesting, just annoying and pathetic.

reply

And another thing about Alex, Hannibal and Alonzo is: their movies consistently portray them as evil. We're supposed to be horrified by a lot of their actions, but though we might end up sympathising with Alex during his horrific treatment or rooting for Lecter to get away, the movies never lose sight of the characters villainous traits. There's a reason that the final shot of Clockwork Orange shows that Alex still has depraved fantasies and that the final shot of Silence of the Lambs has Hannibal walking off to kill and eat another victim; it's to remind us of who these characters really are and to raise questions in our minds about our feelings towards them.

The equivalent to Attack the Block would be if Hannibal had used his newfound freedom to track down Jaime Gumb, saved Clarice and ended up being toasted by the FBI as a hero. After the characters in AtB had been established as mugging the nurse, beating a defenceless baby alien to death as reprisal for a scratch, parading its dead body and dealing drugs, the movie still hadn't lost me. I think it could have worked well as gang members vs aliens when there's nobody to root for and they're both as bad as each other. But that's not the direction this movie takes. The aliens are bad, therefore our protagonists must be, by default, good, and we're supposed to be concerned for their safety as the aliens run rampant and see them as heroes when they fight the aliens. Basically the movie falls victim to the either/or vision of good or evil that it thinks it's making an argument against. A Clockwork Orange, Silence of the Lambs and (to a lesser extent) Training Day don't do this, and remain morally complex and insightful films.

reply

@tinmen209

Those characters you mentioned were absolute,disgusting sick monsters,and psycho killers yet you think these kids in ATB are even WORSE than them? Something's definitely wrong with you. How in the hell do you equate the kids mugging of someone with a cannibalistic killer offing his victims in the most horrible ways? I mean, honestly,what those characters did was FAR worse then anything the kids did---I don't know how in the hell you could even MAKE that comparison,because there IS none to be made.

Wrong---I found the kids engaging and fun to watch,particularly after they dropped the fake wanna-be thug poses and you see them for what they really are---a bunch of scared kids up against a threat they have virtually NO experience in dealing with (the aliens) and all the fake gangster posing in the world wasn't going to save them from that situation. I hated what they did (robbing the nurse) because it was wrong as hell, and they deserved to go to jail for that, but they actually manage to redeem themselves in the end, by learning they can be more than just little gangster wanna-be's heading into the system. That's what made them more engaging in my eyes for me. And on top of that, the movie was just plain fun and exciting as hell---the only other flicks I've seen this past year that was more exciting was THE RAID and MISSION IMPOSSIBLE 4 and SUPER 8. And a little TV series called THE KILL POINT.

reply

kgreene12 248,

Excerpt from my post:

"Alex - A Clockwork Orange
Hanibal Lector - Silence of the Lambs
Alonzo - Training Day

All three of these characters were FAR worse than any of the punks in Attack the block, but they all had the force of personality to make them somewhat sympathetic, or at least interesting, though they were all despicable."

Your response:

"Those characters you mentioned were absolute,disgusting sick monsters,and psycho killers yet you think these kids in ATB are even WORSE than them? Something's definitely wrong with you."

If English is not your first language I guess I should excuse your obvious misunderstanding of what I wrote. If English is your primary language, please read posts more carefully before completely misinterpreting what I wrote.

reply

@tinmen209


First of all, back up off me with the childish insults. Yes, my first language is English (I'm American,BTW) but that has nothing to do with anything I said, and you know it. And, no, I didn't misunderstand a damn thing you wrote. I stand by what I said and if you don't like it or agree with it, that's your perogative. No need to insult me simply because I didn't agree with you. Why the hell can't people have a civil conversation on this board (or on IMDB period) without letting it degenerate into a bunch of silly, stupid-a$$ insults? I mean seriously, it's just so damn ridiculous.


I could care less how much sympathetic qualities the three characters you mention were supposed to be---that still dosen't take away the fact that they're straight-up monsters that did a lot of truly reprehensible s*** to other people,and they're all evil as hell on top of that. And yet you find THEM more sympathetic that a bunch of wanna-be gangster kids? That sounds crazy as hell to me---I was merely stating my opinion about that,and I also stand by my opinion that the main reason many people (like yourself) hate the main the main characters is because they're black and they are actually the center of a British movie seen in the U.S. for a change (something us Americans rarely see in a British film,anyway). I also believe these characters would get NOWHERE as much hate if they were white and doing the SAME exact thing these young black kids were. And from the countless posts I've read on this board alone expressing nothing BUT all this over-the-top hate and contempt for these characters,it's not just merely MY opinion, it's an obvious fact that this is the case,flat-out.

Also, if Dexter, a serial killer character given some redeeming features (I've rarely seen the show and think the idea is pretty disgusting,even though it's been a hit for a few years now) can be popular AND have his own show (don't know if the show is popular in England or anything) why the hell can't a bunch of wanna-be gangsta kids (and I emphasize the kid part) be seen as having some redeeming features of their own? The attitude expressed on this board, since this film came out, has been "How DARE these little thug scum bastards be shown busting up the lily-white pristine picture-perfect image of our dear Britain that we usually export overseas around the world! Damn the lot of them! And damn Joe Cornish for even daring to show that scum like this exists in our fair country! *beep* the whole lot of them!" Anyway, I'm through pontificating on this subject---have a nice day!

reply

Wow kgreene12 248, I hardly know where to begin!

Let's start with the "insults". I find it curious that you accuse me of being insulting when, on one of your first responses to one of my posts, you stated "Something's definitely wrong with you". To me that sounds like you were not looking to start a dialogue based on mutual respect. But hey, maybe you were angry at the time, so I can forgive what appears to be a vague and inaccurate diagnosis of my mental health. Here's a thought: If you don't want discussions to degenerate into an exchange of insults, don't start out by being insulting. Also, my comment had nothing to do with you not agreeing with me; it had everything to do with you stating that I wrote something that I did not.

Now pay close attention here. The reason I speculated that you might not have English as your first language was not primarily to insult you. If you will carefully review my post, I clearly wrote that the three villains I mentioned were "FAR worse than any of the punks in Attack the Block". You then responded accusing me of saying that kids in ATB were worse. Can you at least admit that you misread or misunderstood what I wrote? When you go off on an angry rant about something that I did not write, it causes me to question your language or reading comprehension skills. The fact that you managed to get my screen-name wrong on all four of your responses also does not indicate that you are paying attention to what you read. Or were you just intentionally getting it wrong to be insulting?

You also jump to the conclusion that I "hate" (your word) the characters because they were black. Firstly, I used the word unlikeable, not hate; there is a huge difference. Secondly, I never referenced the race of any character until now. Thirdly, one of the other villains I listed as being more interesting is also black. I guess I can just turn the racism on and off like a light switch, (that's sarcasm, since it seems like I have to spell things out for you). Fourthly, after accusing me of being a racist you used the phrase "lily-white" in regards to the image of Britain. With that you have officially made one more racist comment than I have. I did notice you had that comment in quotation marks; did someone actually write that or did you make it up as something that someone MIGHT say?

I am not sure why you referenced the popularity of "Dexter" in response to my post since I never mentioned that show. (I've never seen the show so I have no views towards the character whatsoever.)

Anyway, good luck with the anger, you seem to have a lot of it.

reply

[deleted]

by
activista
» Thu Oct 4 2012 04:45:44
IMDb member since June 2005



Post Edited:
Sat May 17 2014 00:14:43


Hey Activista,

How is it going?

I was curious about why you would take the time to edit your post after a year and a half, and STILL not correct your glaring misunderstanding of what I wrote.

reply

Exactly, you could easily switch the characters around and it wouldn't make a difference. Someone above said, "It's amazing how well written the script is." I say, It's amazing people think the script is well written.

reply

Totally agree with HugsFromLV426

I loved Alex from Clockwork Orange despite some of the horrible stuff he did more so in the book because he tried to go back to his old life when he got his freedom of choice back then realised he'd outgrown the old ultra violence anyway so he did finally rehabilitate of his own free will

Whereas in Attack the Block Moses was scum from beginning to end and I have don't think any of the characters went through any kind of redemption whatsoever. I totally don't get why the woman actually tried to stop the cops arresting him at the end as I bet if the film had tagged a 2 weeks later sign on the screen then the following scene would be these chavs selling drugs and robbing old age pensioners.

In short there was nothing to like about them and as for people saying John Boyega being a good actor I don't think acting as a Chav would be that hard considering in all likelihood this is probably his background

reply

It's all very self explanatory to why I despise these putred, vulgar apparently 'heroic' chavs.

Joe Cornish should stick to his BBC Radio show (or whatever he does), because he cannot storytell to save his life. First off the film delivers all kinds of mixed messages, not to mention it exploits and conveys the act of gang brutality as a good thing. Such as robbing someone and almost sending them into a depressive state, but as long as you return the property you stole, everything's a-ok! Brilliant role models (and some people might actually say that without the sarcastic overtone).

Do you ever see chavs in a positive light? Of course not, they're the epitomy of social depravity. I deteste chavs, notably ones that are portayed as valiant and heroic saviours. If it weren't for the useless alien attack (The aliens being perhaps being one of the most unintimidating so-called villains in cinematic history) the chav pact wouldn't have thought twice about helping the young woman out, not in a million years!

And the ending, lord have mercy, was dreadful. The majority of film goers often rant and rave about film endings, but clearly if you think you know bad, you clearly haven't feasted your eyes on this stinker.

Back on topic now, your point is satisfying Andy.

"Stop looking at the walls, look out the window." ~ Karl Pilkington On Art

reply

I think you missed the point chivers677. Joe Cornish is not showing gang brutality as a "good thing". He's showing it as it really is in South London. From what "andypaul_gill" (who lives there) has said, Mr. Cornish got it exactly right. The message is showing that is a desperate life and death matter, the depraved youths can change. Whether it was the aliens or something else that could steer them just a little away from being a corrupt brutal gang, is the positive message Cornish is trying to show. You can detest whatever you like, but it doesn't mean that there aren't chavs out there who can change.

As for the movie; it was entertaining. The ending wasn't great, but what do you expect from a sci-fi/horror film? I thought Prometheus' ending was worse. That was a much bigger budget film then this.

reply

If it was about changing ways of their corrupt brutal gang, the film would need to address their sub-culture, not a one-off event. The rude way they talk to each other, the way they forcefully negotiate, the way they big up their egos are all things that need changing. As one person said, they are the "epitome of social depravity". To get that title takes a lot of work, and it's an insult to the viewer to claim that that title can be so easily shed, revealing them as heroes. Sure it's fantasy, but even fantasy needs some reality to make it work.

reply

'First off the film delivers all kinds of mixed messages...'

But so does life, which makes the film even more realistic. Bad people do good things, good people do bad things, boys act macho when they're really scared, people can change, a 'chav' will treat his block like dirt but defend it whenever someone from the 'outside' talks badly about it and sometimes the police can be so overly eager to get it right, they make the wrong assumptions and get it wrong.
Such is life, such was the film. Nothing is so black and white.

reply

Good post, and I agree.

However, many people hate this movie because they are small minded racists, as well. One only need to take a peek at this very board to see that.

reply

Spot on. Good post, andypaul_gill

Except for the rooting part. I could never bring myself to do that.

----------
The IMDb forums: You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.

reply

I love the characters and actors... they acted in the manner they were suppose to portrait.

Good thing I don't take movie tips from IMDB... some people here are just wound way too tightly.

reply

The actors were great indeed and I'm sure they are very good guys in real life. The characters however are a completely different ballgame. We should keep those two things separated.

----------
The IMDb forums: You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.

reply

Hmm.. I am from America, and even with the distance, I found them to be annoying brats from the get-go. They just weren't likeable characters, and none of their actions throughout the film really allowed me to sympathize with their self-brought plight. They shoulda just stayed home and played Fifa.. none of that probably would have happened to them. At least if they were sitting there playing Fifa, and this story happened.. the characters against that backdrop bitching about getting arrested all the time after saving the nurse would have actually made sense. It seemed pointless to me, but maybe I just don't get it (though I did get why Moses mugged people).

I enjoyed watching it as a popcorn flick, but the characters fell flat for me (though, at least nurse was remotely intelligent in the film, and Nick Frost provided a few laughs).

reply

The reason many ppl hate the main characters is probably because these characters are ugly degenarate felon scum and toxic social pest? Just guessing though, hard to say something for sure these days.

reply


The reason many ppl hate the main characters is probably because these characters are ugly degenarate felon scum and toxic social pest? Just guessing though, hard to say something for sure these days.


indeed they were.

--

reply

Real good observation. I'm an American, and while living in Southern CA I'm well aware of inner city violence I definitely am not intimately familiar with youth gangs as depicted in 'Attack the Block.' I do think, however, a big reason I like this movie and its main characters is because they don't exactly pull punches establishing where the kids are coming from. While the film depicts the kids as coming from an under underprivileged socio-economic environment, they are still committing violent crimes against innocent, average, "everyday" citizens. By introducing the kids mugging the nurse, it sets the mood of the characters as "bad" as far as society is concerned. I think their character arc would be weakened if they were shown committing crimes just on authority or rival gangs. The fact they make such a (kind of) drastic 180 by the end of the film makes me care about them more.

Also, it sort of boggles the mind that people can look at a fictional film, especially one involving an alien invasion, and get hung up on disliking the characters due to their make believe actions. It's not like we're taking about a gritty realistic work of fiction with a clearly despicable antihero (like, say, the title character of "Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer"). Regardless, I think your theory is pretty accurate. As an American I find it an interesting possibility that more English despise the youths of the film than other countries. I guess if the situation in London is really that terrorizing the characters could polarize that audience demographic, but I've never thought of that before

reply