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

You make an interesting point. Having been through a mugging myself (and one that was considerably more violent than the one portrayed in the film) I had some trouble with the underlying message the director seems to want to put across - ie, that the hooded thugs roaming the streets and causing trouble are just disadvantaged kids who only steal to help their families out and are really just loveable urchins with hearts of gold when you really get to know 'em. That said, even I was rooting for them by the end.

Another reason people might have trouble identifying with them is because even with anti-heroes, writers and directors usually work hard to make you like them as quickly as possible. In this case it takes half the film to even get to know the boys, let alone identify with them. Moses in particular is a tough nut to crack because he behaves like such a thug in the early scenes (I honestly expected him to be the first to get killed, because he couldn't possibly be the hero) and it's not until towards the end that we really find out anything about him. It wasn't until he gave Sam her ring back that I finally started to think "You're alright, kid."

It helps, of course, that the film gives us a real thug (in the character of Hi-Hatz) to reserve most of our dislike for. I know I had a big smile on my face when his was getting chewed off.

reply

This started on FilmFour a while ago, but I've switched it off. Just can't get behind such hateful characters.

The point was made above that characters like Hannibal Lecter are far more evil yet garner sympathy from viewers. For me, the difference is, that the hateful kids in this movie are the kind you see every day. Hell there are many near where I live, giving people *beep* just for walking past them. Women cross the road to avoid them. People avoid walking past them at night.

So to see such similar kids on screen is not something I want to do, when I'm expected to start rooting for them. Not going to happen.

And I'd hate to think that any little idiots hanging around street corners acting in the same way, would watch a movie like this, and think they are "cool".

And to the poster above me, I don't think I'd ever think someone was "alright", just because they gave something back to someone that they stole in the first place!! Get real.

reply

And to the poster above me, I don't think I'd ever think someone was "alright", just because they gave something back to someone that they stole in the first place!! Get real.
Which is a good example of why you really need to watch a film (or rather, finish watching it) before you comment on it. It takes the entire film for Moses and Sam to completely trust each other and get past the fact that their relationship started out on opposite ends of a mugging, and him returning her ring is the last little symbolic act of redemption before the two of them risk their lives to save everyone else in the block.

Like I said, I was able to appreciate this even as someone who had trouble with the opening scene in the first place, because I've been in that same situation - although the guys who jumped me didn't even bother with threats, they just started throwing fists. Don't tell me to "get real" because you couldn't get past your own hangups enough to bother watching the whole movie.

reply

I don't think I'd ever think someone was "alright", just because they gave something back to someone that they stole in the first place!!
Aah but that's not what he's doing. At the point in the film where he demands that Pest return Sam's ring, Moses is not returning a stolen item. It is rather a sign of his regret and is personally intended for Sam. The way you write it makes it an empty gesture and it's not.
Fatima had a fetish for a wiggle in her scoot

reply

[deleted]

The problem is that the film shows us people all too close to our lives who we ordinarily labelled and objectified (note the many posts doing just that) and then are shown to change and we gain some insight into their lives, most notably Moses's sorry lot. I think only people who believe in rehabilitation of criminals and can keep alive optimism for people to change can like the characters. Equally only those comfortable with their own flaws and aware of how badly many of us treat various others in our lives can like them. I liked the characters.

Fatima had a fetish for a wiggle in her scoot

reply

I actually didn't have too much of a problem with the mugging - as others have pointed out, it took place largely due to Moses and the gang's impoverished circumstances and the ring / growing relationship between him and the nurse acts as a nice vehicle for Moses to change / get redemption. I don't think the clumsy social message of the film or the character's change from 'yobs' to 'people' particularly work that well, but I can see what the filmmaker was trying to do.

For me what made me really dislike Moses and the rest of his gang was the way they brutally killed the first alien. That the gang's initial reaction to this creature (they're not even sure it's an alien at this point) is to chase it down and murder it totally put me off them.

It's an old screenwriting trick that if you want the audience to dislike a character you just show them being cruel to an animal, so I can't understand why the director would want to alienate (no pun intended) the audience from his principle characters even further right off the back of the mugging scene? It makes it so much harder to bring the audience back onside and make them like the characters, which seems to be one of the main problems many viewers have with the film.

Yes the gang pay the price for their cruelty, but I can't help but feel they'd be a lot more easy to like if the alien had just died when it landed / impaled itself on a fence / something that wasn't the gang's fault.

"I can see in the dark you know. I've been here quite a while!"

reply

That's a good point about the alien. I didn't like them for doing that either and felt sorry for all the aliens, especially the one set alight. But I think it illustrates how close to being a murderer Moses was - it is he who wants to kill the alien, the others act as cheerleaders. When Moses wakes up and realises his actions have consequences he is prepared to face dying for what he did as reparation.

Fatima had a fetish for a wiggle in her scoot

reply

@Poppy

Just to clarify:

Moses and his gang killed the alien for the simple fact that when it first crash-landed through the car, and he stuck his hand in to see what he could steal, the thing attacked him and scared the s*** out of him. That's why he attacked it back----the fact that neither he or anybody in his gang even knew what the hell the thing was made it even scarier. Sorry, but if something who looked like that alien jumped on me, I'd be beating the hell out of it too! Thst didn't make him a "murderer", he just wanted to get rid of the damn thing before it did gods know what to him or anybody else!

reply

Well hey there kgreene!

Congratulations on the new name!

"Sorry, but if something who looked like that alien jumped on me, I'd be beating the hell out of it too! Thst didn't make him a "murderer", he just wanted to get rid of the damn thing before it did gods know what to him or anybody else!"

Considering the alien was running away as fast as it could, I doubt it was going to do anything to him. I guess Moses and the gang were just out to help the community when they killed it eh? After all, they had already proven themselves to be upstanding citizens on the lookout for the well-being of their neighbors. (Care to spin the mugging of the defenseless woman in a "community service" light?) Or in your world is self defense defined as bunch of thugs chasing something across a park, cracking jokes, saying its "payback", and killing it when it's cornered?

I am glad to see that even with your new name you have kept up with your two favorite hobbies:

1) Defending the behaviour of thugs.

2) Being wrong.

reply

@tinman


Hell,no,I'm not defending the behavior of ANY damn thugs----I myself almost got mugged some years ago by some old bastard street punk,and hollered like hell until he ran off like a scared rabbit. I hate them just like anybody else does, so stop twisting my words to show how superior you think you and your mere opinion is, please. BTW, the thing BIT Moses, that's why he went off on it--it was obviously dangerous,which the rest of the aliens proved to be later on. And yes, it was time for a change--got tired of the old one. 'Nuff said. I'm done.

reply

Personally, Their realness made me like them more. I didn't feel insulted by the characters, they were who they were and the movie didn't try to force me to like them.

reply

I don't like them because they're black.

reply

[deleted]

What gets me about all these people who say the characters were villainous from the start is the fact that none of them mention that they were kids. Not as in 20 or 21. As in the oldest one was FIFTEEN YEARS OLD, for God's sake. Kids. Raised in a bad part of town, under, shall we say, less than optimal circumstances, and who DO change throughout the course of the film and come to regret their thuggish behavior. Yet there's a review stating that a "real anti-hero" would be the guy who comes to the Sam's rescue and shoots the muggers.

Let me just go over that again. A guy who charges out of an alley and shoots a bunch of low-income gang kids in their early teens would have been MORE sympathetic than the kids themselves, who've had few other options while they're contending with poverty and real, unrepentant, ADULT bad guys like Hi-Hatz. GAAAAH! I'm sorry, but that's just terrifying! Seriously!

reply

- No-one's completely bad or good, neither the film nor its director are conveying any kind of 'message', and it's perfectly possible to enjoy watching a film whose protagonists you would not like in real life and whose actions do not meet with your complete approval.

- I doubt I'd get along with Clint's character in the Dollars trilogy or Max Rockatansky, but the films in which they appear are entertaining - just like Attack The Block.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OI3shBXlqsw

reply

I have to agree completely. I am watching it at the moment, and I have zero sympathy for any of the gangmembers there. In fact I find myself hoping they will get killed off. They are brutal, ignorant punks. There is just no way I can find myself appreciating them in any regard.
Still the movie is not bad so far, somewhat compelling to watch.

reply

[deleted]