The debate surrounding Marty Supreme's likable factor has left many viewers scratching their heads. On one hand, Timothée Chalamet's portrayal of the lead character, Marty Mauser, has earned him a significant following despite his questionable behavior and self-centered attitude towards life. The film's writers cleverly exploit Marty's charisma to make audiences root for him despite his numerous misdeeds.
While Chalamet's star power cannot be understated, it is indeed possible that his perceived likability factor may be influenced by his youth and the conventional perception of an 'actor' as someone who embodies certain traits. However, this assumption overlooks the very real possibility that Marty Supreme will elicit a visceral reaction from some viewers - a reaction born out of distaste for Marty's arrogance rather than empathy.
The notion that likability conversations may be tied to the male lead in particular is also intriguing. Past movies with self-interested protagonists have rarely sparked the same level of discourse around their character's moral fibre as Martin Mauser has. One notable exception, however, was Leonardo DiCaprio's portrayal of Jordan Belfort in The Wolf of Wall Street, which similarly raised eyebrows regarding its perceived glorification of a questionable figure.
The problem lies not with Chalamet himself but rather the expectation that cinema must provide a universally likable protagonist. Cinema has long been an art form capable of catering to diverse tastes and preferences - sometimes catering to our desires for escapism or emotional investment.
Ultimately, it is futile to try to reconcile one's own moral compass with someone else's actions, particularly when those actions are the result of a calculated performance rather than genuine character development. And yet it cannot be denied that there lies something peculiarly compelling about being allowed to engage with an 'unlikable' character - perhaps a testament to cinema's ability to weave complex narratives and manipulate our emotions.
In this case, Marty Supreme represents a unique example where likability may indeed feel like a curse as much as a blessing.
While Chalamet's star power cannot be understated, it is indeed possible that his perceived likability factor may be influenced by his youth and the conventional perception of an 'actor' as someone who embodies certain traits. However, this assumption overlooks the very real possibility that Marty Supreme will elicit a visceral reaction from some viewers - a reaction born out of distaste for Marty's arrogance rather than empathy.
The notion that likability conversations may be tied to the male lead in particular is also intriguing. Past movies with self-interested protagonists have rarely sparked the same level of discourse around their character's moral fibre as Martin Mauser has. One notable exception, however, was Leonardo DiCaprio's portrayal of Jordan Belfort in The Wolf of Wall Street, which similarly raised eyebrows regarding its perceived glorification of a questionable figure.
The problem lies not with Chalamet himself but rather the expectation that cinema must provide a universally likable protagonist. Cinema has long been an art form capable of catering to diverse tastes and preferences - sometimes catering to our desires for escapism or emotional investment.
Ultimately, it is futile to try to reconcile one's own moral compass with someone else's actions, particularly when those actions are the result of a calculated performance rather than genuine character development. And yet it cannot be denied that there lies something peculiarly compelling about being allowed to engage with an 'unlikable' character - perhaps a testament to cinema's ability to weave complex narratives and manipulate our emotions.
In this case, Marty Supreme represents a unique example where likability may indeed feel like a curse as much as a blessing.
I just saw this thread about Marty Supreme and had to chime in. I think what's really interesting is how we're conditioned to root for characters who are, let's be real, kinda sketchy. It makes me wonder if we're more invested in being entertained than actually critiquing the dude's behavior 
. And yeah, it's weird that likability conversations often revolve around male leads - like what about the female protagonists? Don't they deserve some moral fibre discussion too? 
It's like, can't we just watch a movie without feeling guilty about our emotions? I'm intrigued by how this phenomenon ties into male leads in cinema - has anyone else noticed that guys tend to get more scrutiny when they're flawed than women do? The Wolf of Wall Street comes to mind... was that just DiCaprio's charm or something? Anyway, can we please just accept that sometimes unlikable characters are actually kinda fascinating? 
.
. It's like, our brains are wired to respond to those kinds of emotions, you know?
. Its not fair to say chalamet is overrated just cuz of his young age tho, he's actually a talented actor 
. But yeah, it is weird how we're always gonna find ourselves rooting for the "bad boy" archetype... maybe its cuz we see bits of ourselves in them