While Netflix’s live-action reimagining ofAvatar: The Last Airbenderwon’t come out until the end of February,the series has already found itself at the center of some social media controversy.It all started with a simple interview with the show’s young cast members, conducted byEntertainment Weekly. Talking about their characters, brother and sister duo Sokka and Katara,Ian OusleyandKiawentiiowent over some of the changes that new showrunnerAlbert Kimmade to the source material created byMichael Dante DiMartinoandBryan Konietzko. That was whenKiawentiio revealed that the new series removed one of the key elements of Sokka’s original characterization:
“I feel like we also took out the element of how sexist [Sokka] was. I feel like there were a lot of moments in the original show that were iffy.”
This threw theAvatar: The Last Airbenderfandom into somewhat of a frenzy.While Kiawentiio defended the choice, arguing that some things just hit differently in live-action, many fans were quick to point out that Sokka’s sexism existed in the original series for a reason.As a matter of fact, it existed for a pair of reasons: to show us the prejudices of the Southern Water Tribe in which he and Katara grew up, and, of course, to be undone by the rest of the plot. Over the course of the animated series, especially throughout its first season, Sokka, then voiced byJack De Sena, was challenged in his worldviews and, not without some difficulty, learned to respect Katara (Mae Whitman) and other women who crossed his path. Surrounded by strong girls, from Yue (Johanna Brady) to Suki (Jennie Kwan), Sokka also learned how to better understand himself and eventually figured out his own role as a member of Team Avatar. As a non-bender, it was easy for him to believe that he had inherent value for being a man, a kind of belief that held him down as he remained useless as anything but a comic relief.By unlearning this toxic mindset, Sokka was forced to look into who he truly was, becoming a valuable asset in the war against the Fire Nation.
Getting rid of Sokka’s sexism entirely is, thus, a terrible mistake. But, more than just that, it might indicate a worrisome trend in television. With so many TV remakes on the way, fromTwilighttoHarry Potter, are we about to have a slew of characters changed in order to make them less problematic? While that isn’t always a mistake — no one is complaining, for instance, about the Doctor becoming less of an a-hole throughoutDoctor Who— it sure is a problem when the flaws presented by said characters serve a narrative purpose. And though some fans insist on pointing out problematic characters just for the sake of it, conflating wrongful worldviews portrayed by fictional villains or buffoons with the views of their creators,there are many instances in which bad or even toxic personality traits are essential to keeping a story on track.
Avatar: The Last Airbender
A young boy known as the Avatar must master the four elemental powers to save the world and fight against an enemy bent on stopping him.
Problematic Characters Are Essential for Good Redemption Arcs
A flawed character can serve the purpose of giving the audience a much-beloved storyline: the redemption arc.Sokka is a great example of a character being changed by his journey, butAvatar: The Last Airbenderis also remembered for having one of the best redemption arcs in recent history for Prince Zuko. Voiced in the original show byDante Bascoand set to be played in the remake byDallas Liu, Zuko is initially a hateful villain, a colonialist prince who will do anything in his power to kill the Avatar, keep the Fire Nation’s rule over the world, and regain the respect of his cruel father. Over the show’s three seasons, however,Zuko realizes the damage that the warraged on by his colonial empire brings upon the world and sees the error of his father’s ways. By the end of the series, he joins forces with Aang (Zach Tyler Eisen) and his crew.
The same can be said about Zuko’s Uncle Iroh (MakoandGreg Baldwin), though most of his redemption arc takes place off-screen, with just a few glimpses provided to us via flashbacks. A warmonger through and through, Iroh eventually realizes the harm that he was doing to the world after the death of his son and changes his ways. At the beginning of the series, he’s already a much more collected and peaceful man, whose ties to the Fire Nation come down mostly to blood and to his concerns about Zuko instead of ideological affiliation.
Despite their differences, Zuko and Iroh’s arcs are similar in that the two characters are deeply altered by the challenges the narrative places in front of them.Much like Sokka’s transformation, they teach us an important lesson: that people can change. Of course, they might not always earn their forgiveness, but we must believe in the possibility of people evolving and becoming better through time and experience. Otherwise, what’s even the point of trying to defend anti-racist or anti-colonialist worldviews if no one’s able to change their minds? Iroh and Zuko’s arcs offer us heartfelt stories about trauma, pain, and the transformation that stems from it.
But said stories and lessons can only be taught because the characters are originally extremely flawed. Let’s face it, you can only become a better person if you start from a not very good place, and the serialized format is perfect for these kinds of stories because it gives viewers time and space to fully comprehend a character before and after their pivotal moment. By taking away problematic characters, showrunners run the risk of robbing their story of not just a very important message, but also of an extremely satisfying type of narrative.If we don’t see Zuko, Iroh, or Sokka adhering to harmful worldviews, we will never be able to see them change, and we will never understand how these mechanisms of transformation might work.
Some Characters Are Problematic Precisely Because That’s the Whole Point
However, not every flawed character exists to be transformed by the plot.Sometimes, a character being problematic is precisely their whole point.That is the case, for instance, with your Tony Sopranos (James Gandolfini) and your Walter Whites (Bryan Cranston). While there are, of course, many viewers who end up glorifying said characters, the point of their stories is not that they are in the right, but that they are horrible people doing horrible things and ruining the lives of those around them. They are not heroes, but merely protagonists in stories that are better told from the point of view of deeply flawed human beings. From these perspectives, these stories also serve as a form of criticism, as they portray their characters drowning in their own hubris and becoming progressively alienated from the world around them.
Perhaps no show best exemplifies what we’re talking about here than HBO’sBarry.Played byBill Hader, the series’ titular hitman-turned-actor is always portrayed by the narrative as being a horrible, horrible man. Barry is not just a cold-blooded killer — he’s also abusive, manipulative, a compulsive liar, and so much more.His actions are so beyond redemption that he will never be able to become a good person, no matter how much he tries.There’s simply no going back from killing all those innocent people. The best he can hope for is a movie that will clear his image by transforming him into some kind of tragic anti-hero. We watch Barry not because we are looking for a character to root for, but because we want to see a critique of the American military, of Hollywood, or of toxic masculinity.
While characters like Walter White and Barry are meant to be understood, albeit not sympathized with, in their awfulness, a downright baddie likeGame of Thrones’ Cersei Lannister (Lena Headey) offers us someone to hate over the course of a narrative in which, despite its attempts at complexity, the line that separates good and evil is pretty clear. We need someone to root against as we follow characters such as Arya Stark (Maisie Williams) and Jon Snow (Kit Harington) reclaiming their place in the world. Said characters also present us with some moral dilemmas when they become victims of other villainous forces,prompting us to reexamine our own notions of good and evil. Again,this teaches audiences an important lesson about how bad people have feelings too, and how it’s not always okay when horrible things happen to them.
Getting Rid of Problematic Characters Deprives Audiences of Important Debates
Still, Sokka is not a villain to be hated or redeemed, nor is he an anti-hero in a complex story aimed at adults. He’s a comic relief in a show for children, no matter which version ofAvatar: The Last Airbenderyou choose to watch. So what do we lose when we lose important character flaws such as his sexism? Well, children are still very much exposed to sexist worldviews. Sayings like “boys don’t cry” or “you run like a girl” are still pretty common in a child’s life, even with all the debate about equality that has been going on in the past few years.By presenting a character with these kinds of opinions becoming the butt of the joke precisely because of them, a show such asAvatarmakes it clear to its young viewers that such beliefs are unacceptable.In showing a character unlearning such worldviews,Avatar: The Last Airbenderhelps its audience to unlearn them as well.
With adult-oriented series, this becomes much more complicated. It can be hard to draw the line that separatesCommunity’s Pierce (Chevy Chase), always pointed out as ridiculous for his outdated beliefs, fromSouth Park’s Eric Cartman (Trey Parker), whose racist jokes are sometimes played for laughs with no counterpoint. However,in children’s media, in which morality is much more clearly defined, a character such as Sokka plays an important role. He’s akin to another well-known character in another famous animated series,Adventure Time’s Ice King (Tom Kenny). While also serving as a metaphor for how old age and dementia can erode someone’s personality, the Ice King, in his sexism and his obsession with kidnapping princesses, also serves as an opportunity for the show to tell its young audience what not to do.
By refusing to show us problematic characters, television writers run the risk of depriving us, no matter how old we are, of important messages. They risk depriving us of moral conundrums, relevant social critiques, and even straightforward life lessons. In the end, they also risk making their stories less interesting and harder to relate to. We all have our own share of flaws, prejudices, and past mistakes to deal with. Do we really want to engage with media that doesn’t reflect who we are as people?Do we really want a completely sanitized version of our world to be shown on screen?Or do we want to face who we are head-first and question our most damaging certainties? There are two ways of answering these questions, but only one of them shows maturity and willingness to change.
Avatar: The Last Airbenderwill be available on Netflixin the U.S. on February 22.
