Google, discrete on its source, defines an antihero as a central character in a story, movie, or drama who lacks conventional heroic attributes. In Wallflower, 'lacks' is a misnomer, lacking - unironically - the villainous amorality shown by the pro, sorry.... antognist of the film. The example illustrates better: "with the age of the antihero, baddies and goodies became less distinguishable from one another".
The film has artistic merit. No qualms there. But let's face it... plenty of people have engaged in violence as a form of artistic expression. Whether it's Hitler's paintings or Trump's tweets, I'd still prefer to spend my time gazing on a tortured soul's attempt at expression over a villain's version of "art". Put more directly, given the choice between good and evil, the writer choices ambiguity, but loses touch with morality in the process.
The film has artistic merit. No qualms there. But let's face it... plenty of people have engaged in violence as a form of artistic expression. Whether it's Hitler's paintings or Trump's tweets, I'd still prefer to spend my time gazing on a tortured soul's attempt at expression over a villain's version of "art". Put more directly, given the choice between good and evil, the writer choices ambiguity, but loses touch with morality in the process.