character in The Pursuit of Happyness I found today. The only true antagonist in this film would be the situation and his 'pursuit', which got me thinking about how to develop this in my own writing.

So, what are your views on this? Do we need a definite antagonist? Can we simply give a character a multitude of barriers and this will suffice? Does this film diverge from the conventional structure? And so on.

I haven't seen the movie, but from what I recall based on the traileer, didn't he have some personal demons that could suffice as an antagonist?

The antagonist can be something other than a person.  It mainly has to be an obstacle for the protagonist.  Without the obstacle, the journey is dull and uneventful.


Phil

The protagonist and antagonist are always people or groups of people.  They can be the same person or group - working against themselves but they are always a character.   (of course they could be non-human but it must be a character).    

To my mind, there isn't a character who acts as the antagonist here, at all. In his pursuit of happiness, he encounters a set of obstacles (the government retrieving tax money from his account, for example) which he must overcome to attain his goal of becoming a broker. So as Mike suggests, and I mentioned, it's the situation which becomes his antagonist. There is not one single character who embodies that struggle for him. That in turn makes me wonder about how we view the 'goal' of a protagonist.

So the antagonist is "the world".

I forgot where I C&Ped this from but... yeah, you're onto something other than the usual "boogey man" conflict.
Sometimes the situation is the antagonist, like in 127 HOURS.

There are two types of conflict:
1)  External - A struggle with a force outside one's self.
Internal conflict adds meaning and complexity to the external conflict, but it's the external conflict that forces a character to make internal choices and changes. And the key to a story’s tension is that a character has choices to make. Which will it be? What will be the fallout? For readers to care about a story the choices and the resolution must have consequences for the main character

In the broad perspective, a novel's need of an antagonist is really the main character's need of something to force him or her to make choices. Characters, like ourselves, don't easily take difficult paths. No thank you. If we're not forced to, we simply don't.  

One of the best ways to force a character into choices is to develop an antagonist who will naturally jab into the root of a character's internal conflict and who's goal is opposite that of your hero (the hero, by the way, doesn't need to explicitly know their goal). The 'antagonist' doesn't have to be an evil outlaw with a sweaty hat, it can be a storm or society or a new job or a worm.  

2)  Internal - A struggle within one's self; a person must make some decision, overcome pain, quiet their temper, resist an urge, etc.
Internal conflict is the dilemma facing the character inside and its impact on that character. Writers typically choose internal conflicts that arouse a universal emotion in people, whether it's inner need, desire, belief, or turmoil.  

Like us, a novel's characters have little holes in their lives, bits of their tapestry somehow torn, experiences that scarred them. This is their vulnerability, and what they must confront as a direct result of what happens to them in the novel. The resolution of this confrontation, whether it's constructive, destructive, successful or not, allows us to see how a character has grown.



There are four kinds of conflict:
1)  Man vs. Man (physical) - The leading character struggles with his physical strength against other men, forces of nature, or animals.

One person or group is pitted against another usually in a physical way.
In The Last of the Mohicans Indians and the white men fight against each other. The same pattern happens in a race between two athletes in Chariots of Fire. In The Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck, man's inhumanity to man leads to rage, rebellion, and to self-respect.


2)  Man vs. Circumstances (classical) - The leading character struggles against fate, or the circumstances of life facing him/her.

In Toni Morrison's Song of Solomon, when her husband flees to Africa, Ryna who is left behind has to deal with slavery, racism, and the care of her children. Using Offred's character in Handmaid's Tale, Margaret Atwood tells the story of the subjugation and the dehumanizing of women.


3)  Man vs. Society (social) - The leading character struggles against ideas, practices, or customs of other people.

In The Wall by Jean Paul Sartre, Pablo Ibbieta attends his own trial after being captured by the Falangists. In Silas Marner by George Eliot, Silas has to deal with the society of Raveloe. In the movie Star Wars, a young man rebels against tyranny. In Meridian by Alice Walker, young activists try to bring an end to racism and segregation.


4)  Man vs. Himself/Herself (psychological) -  The leading character struggles with himself/herself; with his/her own soul, ideas of right or wrong, physical limitations, choices, etc.

In Jane Austen's Emma, Emma constantly deceives herself. Gustave Flaubert's Madame Bovary and Tolstoy's Anna Karenina also work against themselves while they stand up against social norms.

If anything, the antagonist is money and the distribution of wealth. Considering that this movie is set in the '80s, there is a resonance to that notion. There could be an interpretation that this film glorifies money, but I would argue it's a deliberate irony.

Did anybody see this?

I haven't seen it Andrew and it could in fact be classical as Ray suggests but usually classical things end with Deus ex machina.  Did it end with some kind of divine intervention?

However, I think it's likely that you will find it's a group of people like the Man vs Society in Ray's suggestion.  

Though of course screenwriters experiment so it could be just about anything.  The fact that it was made though would be a good indication that it wasn't that experimental.  

The logline is

True story of a once-homeless single father, Christopher Gardner, who raised himself up to become a successful stock broker.

which seems to indicate Man vs himself to me.