FA+
Shop
a disturbing lack of villains in general media
7 years ago
the title is a bit of clickbait, apologies there, as it is overt exaggeration ... however it is a simple notion that I've been mulling over lately.
As per usual, this is a literary criticism journal, but it's also tied to some existential political/religious commentary. Obviously this is inescapable because literature (at its best) is itself commentary on society.
Being said...
One thing that you see crop up on multiple occassions, as of late, is a general lack to have a strong villain who flat out chooses to be evil. That or they soften, humanize, and even flatout justify evil actions.
(and I'm not jumping on the BAD MCU VILLAIN hype train because when you ask proponents of that to actually DEFINE what they're talking about they ramble about Disney destroys everything because they're evil and corporationy)
It's a complicated problem and there's a lot of different angles it can go. So ... firstly, to get it out of the way first here's the counter-point...
Syndrome is best villain. Fight me. You've all seen Incredibles, and if you're not smart enough to figure out how the following relate to the good execution of Syndrome you should go get smarter.
Being said, here's a few examples regarding bad villains ...
a) They aren't actually bad.
- Firstly, this is a fault of the naive "innate goodness of mankind" philosophy. The concept that society stains people, and that people aren't to blame for become corrupt but rather society (don't think about it too hard you'll go crosseyed).
- Rephrasing first point - they don't want to be seen as judgemental because we don't know their story and maybe they were wrong place, whatever
- The big problem with the first point is that it's... it's bad. Going all the way back to Greek Tragedy - bad circumstances happen to everyone. But if you feel sad because bad things, that's just pathos and actually a pretty shitty story. Classic tragedy happens when people make bad decisions. That's where the real problem goes more into play is the free will of the individual against the tides of fate. In a more modern context what you'll see is fate pushing against two people in the same way, then those two people behaving very differently.
- Secondly, moral relativism
- moral ethical bankruptcy? how dare I bring that into question about story telling! ... after all, Hollywood is a sanctum of activists and purity. 8I
- Right, anyways...
- Either that or people want to be like the literary critic's interpretation of their favorite author and question "everything"
- when you're not willing to pass a judgement against a character for being evil you ultimately defang them. And I don't mean PUNISHMENT ... rather the ethical judgement that they are in fact bad people.
- Incredibles 2 didn't really do too much about flat out condemning their villain, and Screen Slaver ultimately fell into the crowd
- Contemporary contrast: Kingpin and Prowler from Spider-verse both had understandable motives, but were also condemned for their actions
- Understandable motives v sympathy
- again, moral relativism. Basically "everything is ok because who are we to say something is bad. In fact, I think the good guys are bad for saying other people are bad!"
- Again, it's the difference between kingpin/prowler and ... honestly Killmonger. End of the day, the director was kinda saying Killmonger was right, which oddly both weakens T'Challa as a hero and Killmonger as a villain.
- Loki is a solid contrast. He never really receives the punishment he probably deserves. But while there is sympathy shown for him, he's never justified in his actions. As such he's generally regarded, still, as MCU's best villain.
- The Right Villain for the Right Story
- One size doesn't fit all (kinda breaks stride, but it's applicable)
- While I can rip on a lot of recent Disney films for bad villains... some of them work fine without (imo)
- Frozen's production history totally forced evil cis white males into an out-of-place theme in the story, that's bad
- the film prior, Tangled, didn't need a STRONG villain and was better off for not having one. Ultimately the story was about internal change and bucking off past shackles. Gothel and the robber brothers both fit that necessity, even if they had pretty limited screen time.
- Another underrated villain is Hela from Thor Ragnarok. Yes, she was straight up Rita Repulsa Power Rangers (and that really only hindered her at the film's climax) ... but that's not what the story was about. Really, the story was about Thor having another grow up session and he had a ton of growth ... off the likes of Loki and Hulk. Hela, Surtur, and Grandmaster were really just devastating hindrances and they fit that role to a T (Grandmaster and Surtur didn't overextend themselves, hence them being the best recieved).
- It's arguable that Gaston from animated Beauty and the Beast also got pushed a bit too far. He went from loveble asshole to murderous freak in a single scene.
and so, CYA time - Syndrome and how he fits into this
- Syndrome is flat out evil, and he himself explains where he went sour
- There's no question the film's stance, especially when Syndrome himself states the very scornful commentary on feel-good society "When everyone is special, no one will be"
- understanding v sympathy - in spades
- perfect villain for the story. Syndrome had enough screen presence to command the set piece spectacle. But more importantly his own internal conflict perfectly mirrored Bob's. (this connectivity is largely absent in most 'bad mcu' villains, and especially in screen slaver.)
There's a lot more to it, but that's the sort of jist of it.
And really it kinda stems to a core philosophical belief you need to ditch: don't go for moral relativism, since it will stain your works.
As per usual, this is a literary criticism journal, but it's also tied to some existential political/religious commentary. Obviously this is inescapable because literature (at its best) is itself commentary on society.
Being said...
One thing that you see crop up on multiple occassions, as of late, is a general lack to have a strong villain who flat out chooses to be evil. That or they soften, humanize, and even flatout justify evil actions.
(and I'm not jumping on the BAD MCU VILLAIN hype train because when you ask proponents of that to actually DEFINE what they're talking about they ramble about Disney destroys everything because they're evil and corporationy)
It's a complicated problem and there's a lot of different angles it can go. So ... firstly, to get it out of the way first here's the counter-point...
Syndrome is best villain. Fight me. You've all seen Incredibles, and if you're not smart enough to figure out how the following relate to the good execution of Syndrome you should go get smarter.
Being said, here's a few examples regarding bad villains ...
a) They aren't actually bad.
- Firstly, this is a fault of the naive "innate goodness of mankind" philosophy. The concept that society stains people, and that people aren't to blame for become corrupt but rather society (don't think about it too hard you'll go crosseyed).
- Rephrasing first point - they don't want to be seen as judgemental because we don't know their story and maybe they were wrong place, whatever
- The big problem with the first point is that it's... it's bad. Going all the way back to Greek Tragedy - bad circumstances happen to everyone. But if you feel sad because bad things, that's just pathos and actually a pretty shitty story. Classic tragedy happens when people make bad decisions. That's where the real problem goes more into play is the free will of the individual against the tides of fate. In a more modern context what you'll see is fate pushing against two people in the same way, then those two people behaving very differently.
- Secondly, moral relativism
- moral ethical bankruptcy? how dare I bring that into question about story telling! ... after all, Hollywood is a sanctum of activists and purity. 8I
- Right, anyways...
- Either that or people want to be like the literary critic's interpretation of their favorite author and question "everything"
- when you're not willing to pass a judgement against a character for being evil you ultimately defang them. And I don't mean PUNISHMENT ... rather the ethical judgement that they are in fact bad people.
- Incredibles 2 didn't really do too much about flat out condemning their villain, and Screen Slaver ultimately fell into the crowd
- Contemporary contrast: Kingpin and Prowler from Spider-verse both had understandable motives, but were also condemned for their actions
- Understandable motives v sympathy
- again, moral relativism. Basically "everything is ok because who are we to say something is bad. In fact, I think the good guys are bad for saying other people are bad!"
- Again, it's the difference between kingpin/prowler and ... honestly Killmonger. End of the day, the director was kinda saying Killmonger was right, which oddly both weakens T'Challa as a hero and Killmonger as a villain.
- Loki is a solid contrast. He never really receives the punishment he probably deserves. But while there is sympathy shown for him, he's never justified in his actions. As such he's generally regarded, still, as MCU's best villain.
- The Right Villain for the Right Story
- One size doesn't fit all (kinda breaks stride, but it's applicable)
- While I can rip on a lot of recent Disney films for bad villains... some of them work fine without (imo)
- Frozen's production history totally forced evil cis white males into an out-of-place theme in the story, that's bad
- the film prior, Tangled, didn't need a STRONG villain and was better off for not having one. Ultimately the story was about internal change and bucking off past shackles. Gothel and the robber brothers both fit that necessity, even if they had pretty limited screen time.
- Another underrated villain is Hela from Thor Ragnarok. Yes, she was straight up Rita Repulsa Power Rangers (and that really only hindered her at the film's climax) ... but that's not what the story was about. Really, the story was about Thor having another grow up session and he had a ton of growth ... off the likes of Loki and Hulk. Hela, Surtur, and Grandmaster were really just devastating hindrances and they fit that role to a T (Grandmaster and Surtur didn't overextend themselves, hence them being the best recieved).
- It's arguable that Gaston from animated Beauty and the Beast also got pushed a bit too far. He went from loveble asshole to murderous freak in a single scene.
and so, CYA time - Syndrome and how he fits into this
- Syndrome is flat out evil, and he himself explains where he went sour
- There's no question the film's stance, especially when Syndrome himself states the very scornful commentary on feel-good society "When everyone is special, no one will be"
- understanding v sympathy - in spades
- perfect villain for the story. Syndrome had enough screen presence to command the set piece spectacle. But more importantly his own internal conflict perfectly mirrored Bob's. (this connectivity is largely absent in most 'bad mcu' villains, and especially in screen slaver.)
There's a lot more to it, but that's the sort of jist of it.
And really it kinda stems to a core philosophical belief you need to ditch: don't go for moral relativism, since it will stain your works.
You're construing my use of the phrase "flat-out evil" to mean a by-definition sense of the phrase.
If I told you that's not how it was intended to be read your entire counter-point dissolves ... which is the case.
All I simply mean is that the film doesn't try to justify Syndrome's murder spree. It consistently portrays Buddy's actions (after Bob brushes him off) as evil.
Likewise, calling Bob a total dick is a disservice to his character and motives. He doesn't communicate clearly and really is trying to protect the people he loves, even if he can't express it (seen clearly with his breakdown on the sidewalk with Helen).
It's worth remembering that Bomb Voyage did nearly blow up Buddy, so Bob's not wanting a junior sidekick is solidly justified. Probably unstated like how Bob didn't want Helen and the kids to join the fight because he didn't want to see them get killed.