Deconstruction of archetypal structures in the images of antiheroes in fantasy works among sociology students

The sociology of cinema is one of the most significant areas within the sociology of culture, since cinema and television (hereinafter referred to as TV) series are a mass and most accessible form of art. However, the degree of development of the problems of the sociology of cinema, especially in the theoretical context, remains insufficient given the social significance. One of the areas within which a successful study of cinema and TV series is possible is constructionism, which allows us to study narratives, images, and the transformation of public opinion under the influence of cinema, and vice versa. In this case, the study of film characters is one of the most important parts of the study of cinema from the point of view of sociological theory. Therefore, the study implements the task of studying the development of the topic of representation of film characters from the point of view of social constructionism, and describes the results of a sociological survey devoted to the study of the perception of the characteristics of characters in fantasy films and TV series. Analysing the level of recognition and the content of students’ ideas about the characteristics of the characters, the author classifies them based on the severity of qualities. Based on the classification of the most frequently identified characteristics of characters in various groups, the typical positive and negative characteristics of antiheroes in the fantasy genre are determined. As a result, the author has come to the conclusion that the uniqueness of fantasy characters in general and antiheroes in particular lies in the fact that their characteristics are constituted of moral, strong-willed, intellectual and other qualities, unlike characters in other genres, where factors related to the possibility of association with social groups and external attributes are also important.

1. Zhabskiy M.I. Phenomenon of mass cinema: monograph. Moscow: Research Institute of Cinematography; 2004. 366 p. (In Russian).

2. Fokht-Babushkin Yu.U. Art in people’s lives: specific sociological studies of art in Russia in the second half of the twentieth century: history and methodology. St. Petersburg: Aleteya; 2001. 554 p. (In Russian).

3. Martynenko T.S. Cinema as a subject of sociological analysis: features of contemporary cinematography. Bulletin of Moscow University. Series 18. Sociology and Political Science. 2023;2(29):120–139. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.24290/10293736-2023-29-2-120-139

4. Dupak A.A. Main directions of research in the sociology of cinema. In: Actual sociology and challenges of our time: new trends in theory and methods: Proceedings of the VI Sociological School of St. Petersburg State University, St. Petersburg, October 26–29, 2016. St. Petersburg: Skifia-print; 2017. Pp. 64–79. (In Russian).

5. Timofeev M.Yu. New Russian hero on a rendezvous with America (ethnocultural semantics of masculinity stereotypes in A. Balabanov’s film “Brother 2”). Woman in Russian society. 2002;2–3:56–62. (In Russian).

6. Kabysheva E.V. The image of a “boy” as an expression of traditional masculine traits in Russian cinema: characteristic features and reasons for relevance. Bulletin of Tomsk State University. Cultural Studies and Art Criticism. 2018;31:56–64. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.17223/22220836/31/5

7. Romanov P.V. Brotherly: masculinity in post-Soviet cinema. Journal of Sociology and Social Anthropology. 2001;2(4):129–142. (In Russian).

8. Gerasimenko I.E. “The male point of view” and the theory of feminist cinema. Humanitarian Gazette of TGPU named after

9. L.N. Tolstoy. 2017;4(24):42–51. (In Russian).

10. Yarskaya-Smirnova E.R. Gender, power, and cinema: the main directions of feminist film criticism. Journal of Sociology and Social Anthropology. 2001;2(4):100–118. (In Russian).

11. Penzin S.N. Cinema as a means of education. Voronezh: Voronezh State University; 1973. 152 p. (In Russian).

12. Rondeli L.D. Film heroes and the problem of its popularity. In: Social life of film, problems of functioning of the repertoire. Moscow: All-Union Scientific Research Institute of Cinematography of the State Committee of the Council of Ministers of the USSR on Cinematography; 1983. Pp. 92–106. (In Russian).

13. Plotnikova S.O., Bolotin Yu.E. The Influence of cinematography on the worldview attitudes of young. Young scientist. 2017;1.1(135.1):95–97. (In Russian).

14. Voronina M.A., Rusakovich E.F. Visual history of social policy and disability: on-screen and off-screen. Journal of Social Policy Studies. 2012;2(10):259–266. (In Russian).

15. Dashibalova I.N., Bazarov A.A. Film recording of the Buryats: Soviet repertoire in diachrony. Journal of Sociology and Social Anthropology. 2014;2(17):180–192. (In Russian).

16. Petrova A.P. Evolution of the image of the film hero in domestic cinema of the 20th century. International Journal of Cultural Studies. 2021;2(43):60–86. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.52173/2079-1100_2021_2_60

17. Knecht N.P. The evolution of the image of Soviet women in Russian cinema: history and modernity. Economic and Social-Humanitarian Studies. 2020;2(26):153–159. (In Russian).

18. Filindash L.V. Specificity of mass culture in the era of digitalization. Vestnik universiteta. 2023;4:199–206. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.26425/1816-4277-2023-4-199-206

19. Smirnova T.V., Unzhakova I.A. Semiotic Knowledge of Umberto Eco’s mass communication and the problems of cognition of digital reality. Digital sociology. 2019;1(2):17–23. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.26425/2658-347X-2019-1-17-23

20. Berger P., Luckmann T. Social construction of reality. A treatise on the sociology of knowledge. Тrans. From Eng. E. Rutkevich. Moscow: Medium; 1995. 337 p. (In Russian).