The argument is often made that villains in fiction of any kind are better or more believable when they believe what they are doing that to others makes them so villainous is right or morally sound, versus the caricature of the black hat-wearing, mustache-twisting supervillain or über-manipulator.
However, that seems to imply that on the one end there is only that one level of extreme and no others -- but, is that really true? What about villains like Michael Myers of "Halloween?" How about Anton Chigurh of "No Country for Old Men?" The Joker of "The Dark Knight?" The strangers in -- well -- "The Strangers?" And, perhaps to a somewhat lesser extent, Hannibal Lecter of "Red Dragon," The Silence of the Lambs" and "Hannibal?"
I personally am of the opinion that a villain is at their most unsettling when they actually feel what they are doing is wrong or causing misfortune and they absolutely love it because of that very reason.
Now, what I am talking about goes beyond just some sort of sadism and it doesn't mean they are a so-called "sociopath" or "psychopath" in which they are incapable of feeling empathy or compassion towards others; they just simply most of the time either just enjoy causing mayhem, misfortune and destruction more so than not or don't just don't care enough to make a distinction.
This also makes them much more unlikely to be able to be reasoned with or manipulated out of what their desires or intentions are, which also makes for a more effective villain in my estimation.
So, what says you? This was all inspired by the below two-part write-up on the subject...
http://bigthink.com/against-the-new-...illains-part-1
http://bigthink.com/against-the-new-...-part-2?page=1
However, that seems to imply that on the one end there is only that one level of extreme and no others -- but, is that really true? What about villains like Michael Myers of "Halloween?" How about Anton Chigurh of "No Country for Old Men?" The Joker of "The Dark Knight?" The strangers in -- well -- "The Strangers?" And, perhaps to a somewhat lesser extent, Hannibal Lecter of "Red Dragon," The Silence of the Lambs" and "Hannibal?"
I personally am of the opinion that a villain is at their most unsettling when they actually feel what they are doing is wrong or causing misfortune and they absolutely love it because of that very reason.
Now, what I am talking about goes beyond just some sort of sadism and it doesn't mean they are a so-called "sociopath" or "psychopath" in which they are incapable of feeling empathy or compassion towards others; they just simply most of the time either just enjoy causing mayhem, misfortune and destruction more so than not or don't just don't care enough to make a distinction.
This also makes them much more unlikely to be able to be reasoned with or manipulated out of what their desires or intentions are, which also makes for a more effective villain in my estimation.
So, what says you? This was all inspired by the below two-part write-up on the subject...
http://bigthink.com/against-the-new-...illains-part-1
http://bigthink.com/against-the-new-...-part-2?page=1
Comment