Scott at 2010-04-19 18:08:56:

@Tony: That's an interesting thought re the parole board, as they certainly do stand in opposition -- twice -- to Red gaining his freedom. However two things: (1) The third time he appears before them, he does gain his freedom. (2) If the parole board is his nemesis, then shouldn't the movie be over once he's out of prison?

In the parlance of the primary character archetypes I use -- Protagonist, Nemesis, Attractor, Mentor, Trickster -- I might be more inclined to look at the parole board as playing a Trickster function. A Trickster tests the Protagonist -- to prep them for Final Struggle. Also a Trickster sometimes is the P's ally, sometimes an enemy. Twice the board rejects his case -- enemy; once the board accepts his plea -- friend.

@Matisse: TWBB may be a story where there is no formal Nemesis character. Certainly Plainview is driven by internal 'demons' and I think you can make the argument that he is, in the end, his own worst enemy. So perhaps you're right. I look forward to screening the movie again with your thought in mind.

James at 2010-04-20 00:13:07:

To the OP's question, I think the protagonist is ALWAYS "his own worst enemy" simply because they are resistant to change.

Got me thinking on a little different tact though... A couple movies come to mind where we are actually rooting for the Antagonist, or the Protagonist fulfills the role of the Antagonist.

HARD CANDY

Act One sets things up to be one way. A possible sexual predator invites a young Ellen Page to his home. Act Two reveals that she knew all along and set him up for some seriously demented torture and payback.

Which leaves us with a bunch of questions -- who is the good guy? Is he a sexual predator? Does she have the right guy? Is she going too far?

In terms of a thriller, Ellen Page is a by the numbers villain. Which is strange because she is the protagonist. AND we are rooting for her.

LAW ABIDING CITIZEN

does something similar in terms of reversing the roles of Antagonist and Protagonist. It takes THE FUGITIVE and spins it on its ear. Instead of putting us in the shoes of a man trying to find his family's killer for his own freedom, we are forced into the shoes of a man who maniacally, cold bloodily, and meticulously orchestrates the death of his family's killers, while sending a message about how messed up the justice system is.

The problem is, in making him a strong motivated bad guy, they made it much harder to identify with him.

The other problem is that Jamie Foxx's character now takes the role of Protagonist, but his journey never really means anything to the audience. Or to his character.

And it pales in comparison to the tragedy of the antagonists journey.

We end up with an understanding behind the motivations of both characters, but no real person to side with.

Why does Hard Candy work and not Law Abiding Citizen.

I imagine it has something to do with the premise. Hard Candy takes a strong stance against those that prey on young girls. Law Abiding Citizen splits itself. Jamie Foxx and Gerard Butler aren't really opposite sides of the same coin. Both believe in justice. They just have different definitions. And that becomes incredibly murky when you have your sympathetic character becoming everything he hates just to prove a point to another character, we (the audience) really have very little vested interest in.

Just some random thoughts.