Villains: Better that They Don't Believe They Are "Evil?"

[Craig Mazin]

Re: Villains: Better that They Don't Believe They Are "Evil?"

Villains don't have to believe they're not evil. Frankly, evil is beside the point.

The villains should be motivated by something *positive*. I don't mean positive as in "nice," but positive as in "moving toward something."

Villains can be motivated by greed, lust, fear, envy, ideology, madness, insecurity, rejection, religion... pick your poison.

They must be motivated though.

[Jon Jay]

Re: Villains: Better that They Don't Believe They Are "Evil?"

How do you write Biff Tannen as anything more than a bully?

It's been a while since seeing the films, but I vaguely remember scenes where Biff's Grandma (who he lives with) bullies him. So although it's just a passing moment, there's a hint at where his behaviour comes from.

[J Linc]

Re: Villains: Better that They Don't Believe They Are "Evil?"

I don't see any point in arguing which is better. We've seen both types of villains be effective in their own ways.

I suppose so.

The Joker isn't pure evil, he's trying to get a point across. And in the end he did.

I'm not saying he is "pure evil" as even the most horrendous person can have their more positive attributes or personality traits; still, if "evil" exists at all I'd consider The Joker to fit into that category quite comfortably.

On the contrary, this might make for much more superficial villainy. However I think it's a false dichotomy, a false premise. It all has to do with context and relationships and I don't see how the type of evil motivation can be the factor that determines how unsettling the villain is.

We can certainly agree to disagree, which we seemingly do, but to me a motivation (or lack there of) can make a difference in how I receive a villain or their villainy and how affective they are.

Why does a bad guy have to have any redeeming values or a point of view that makes him think he's doing good? Iago gets Othello to kill Desdemona and when questioned why he simply refuses to answer. Aaron the Moor laments that he didn't do more evil in his life.

Yeah, your bad guy can have some deep seated philosophical motivation, yeah he can sleep at night because he has some self-justification, yeah he has some point of view the audience can relate to...

...or your bad guy is a bad guy because he is simply a bad guy. He's a force of nature, he's a piece of crap, he's just a bad guy.

Thank you.

Let's start with Lecter. Lecter in "The Silence of the Lambs" didn't think he was evil. He thought he was above human morality. Understanding that difference is the key to understanding this sort of villain (although, to be fair, Lecter isn't actually the villain of "Lambs"). The whole point of Lecter is not that he thinks he's evil, but that he thinks of normal people the way normal people think of cows: dumb creatures with no particular right to their lives, but who can be entertaining or nutritious.

In his moral universe, what he's doing is just fine. Godwin's law and all, but think about Hitler: Hitler thought he was doing the world a favor by getting rid of Jews and putting Aryans in their rightful place on top of everyone else. (I don't know if you've seen "Downfall" but it's most chilling moments are the moments when you see people rationalizing horrible actions because in their moral view those are the best choices.)

Solid point(s) about Hannibal, but I would also reiterate that he's a far too intelligent individual to not know that what he often does to others causes horrendous suffering and/or death, and still does it anyway because he enjoys it besides having his own moral view or justification for it.

Michael Meyers and the kids in The Strangers are, ultimately, not characters. They're masks. Slasher horror is a different sort of thing. They have no motivation. We don't understand why they do what they do in any meaningful way throughout the course of the script. They just do it. Even the answer in "The Strangers" ("because you were home" or some such) is ultimately not really an answer.

And that kind of stuff can be really good. (I really liked "The Strangers" for the most part.) But you don't really have to worry much about characterization for those characters.

Just because they don't have well-developed personalities (although, I'd argue that's not necessarily the case with Michael Myers) doesn't mean they aren't still legitimate characters in my estimation. As long as they have a clear presence in the story and affect it in some way, they are characters at least to me.

I personally found, "Because you were home" to be an actual answer as well because it clearly explains why they've been put through this ordeal: because they were the house that they picked or were the first people to actually answer the door. It all implies that this is just what they enjoy doing, and out of random chance they unfortunately made the decision to be spending the evening out at that locale and/or answer the knock at the door.

Someone doing something for no other reason other than because they have a desire to or enjoy doing said thing is as much a motivation to me as revenge, greed, fanaticism or anything else, and also the most terrifying in my opinion.

My villains believe they are doing what is best and what is right...

They are heroes if the story was told from their POV.

- Bill

That's certainly fine and I seem to be in a minority on this, anyway. Still, I find it interesting to ponder a story in which our "hero" doesn't believe what they are doing is right, morally just or for the good of mankind and yet you still find yourself almost liking them/rooting for them due to other qualities they display that are positive/likable/interesting.

But then there's Simon from Die Hard With a Vengeance. He's in it for the money, but he's also in it to avenge his brother's death.

I'd argue Simon Gruber is a much better villain than Hans Gruber.

To me, that ultimately makes Simon a more sympathetic, understandable and also sad villain, which takes him down a notch or two on the intimidation or scariness scale for me.

Doesn't mean he's still not a well-written or good villain in that sense, but he just would never be one I'd signal out as an absolute favorite.

In real life, it seems that villains are either mentally ill or they see themselves as the good guys.

I'll respectfully have to disagree.

Villains don't have to believe they're not evil. Frankly, evil is beside the point.

The villains should be motivated by something *positive*. I don't mean positive as in "nice," but positive as in "moving toward something."

Villains can be motivated by greed, lust, fear, envy, ideology, madness, insecurity, rejection, religion... pick your poison.

They must be motivated though.

What about if their motivation is nothing more than just whatever they are doing is what they like to do or enjoy doing? Or, what if their motivation remains more or less mystery?

Either of the above options to me are the most unsettling or fear-inducing, but obviously again this appears to me a minority opinion as for many others seemingly it's nowhere near the most satisfying.

[Fortean]

Forteans Don't Really Believe In "Evil"...

Writers limited by their Manichaean morality constantly identify their protagonist as a "good" guy versus the "bad" guy antagonist. Perhaps, most writers at DD are too young to remember when the cowboys in westerns were so easily identified as "good" guys or "bad" guys by their hats. Before the age of the anti-hero, there was the Code, (and the Legion of Decency), which constantly infected films and television with melodrama.

The trouble still remains that a large segment of audiences going to see films do believe in "good" versus "evil", (as much as some screenwriters believe in redemption as part of an anti-hero's character arc). So, (with a condescending laugh), I sez: "Go ahead, conform with the other hacks. Make that black sheep think that it's as morally correct as, (if not superior to), all those white sheep. To a big bad wolf, (or to a Fortean), knowing what "evil" lurks in the hearts of the flock, they're all just mutton, under the fleece.

The true story was made into a film - '55 Days in Peking'. What makes it interesting is that the entire film is done from the point of view of the bad guys - who somehow saw themselves are the 'heroes'.

Please don't confuse the Opium Wars with the Boxer Rebellion. And, the misery caused by the opium trade was trivial compared to the death and destruction in China wrought by Hong Xiuquan and the Taiping Rebellion.

[ATB]

Re: Villains: Better that They Don't Believe They Are "Evil?"

You're kinda talking about a certain type of movie. One that scares the **** out of its audience.

That's not every film. Sure, The Strangers is scary. It's interesting in the way that the actions of a serial killer are interesting. You just wanna know why. And when you can't, you have to fill in the blanks yourself.

Same goes for The Joker and Anton Chigurh. They instill fear. And they do so without cause or motivation. They just seem to... enjoy it.

But these are only one type of iconic villain. You've also got, as someone mentioned, Hannibal Lecter and Bane and Magneto and The Replicants from Blade Runner and Harvey Dent and John Doe (from Se7en) and Max Cady and Gollum and Gordon Gekko and Norman Bates and Alonzo Harris and Doctor Octopus and Don Logan and Alex (from A Clockwork Orange) and even Leatherface.

All relatable villains in some way. All have a reason for what they do. All of them are... human. And that makes them all the more terrifying to us.

[nmstevens]

Re: Villains: Better that They Don't Believe They Are "Evil?"

How do you write Biff Tannen as anything more than a bully?

Pretty much every bully is himself bullied by someone somewhere -- and on some level or other thinks of himself as a victim.

Bullies create a sense of power for themselves by attacking those who are weaker and can't fight back -- by creating situations where they are sure to win -- because they can't tolerate the idea of losing a fight, of being humiliated or losing.

That's something that happens to someone when humiliation is a real part of their lives. In order to maintain a sense of self-worth, they have to take it from inside and put it onto someone else.

And in order to write any kind of character effectively, you can't write it from the outside, for a position of judgment. You have to write a character from the inside, from a position of understanding who that character is -- not analytically, but by understanding the *feelings* -- the needs -- that drive him to do what he does.

I don't think I'm going out on a limb if I were to say that you've done bad things in your life.

But I also doubt that you consider yourself a villain.

It's true for all of us.

We get to say (of ourselves) -- I've done bad things -- but I'm not a villain. I'm not a bad guy.

Remember what Roy Cohn in "Angels in America" said -- "I'm not a homosexual. It's not possible for a man in my position to be a homosexual. I'm a heterosexual man -- who happens to screw around with guys."

We all live at the center of our own moral universe. There, our actions, whatever they may be, are justified, rationalized, or condemned.

For character like The Joker, or Hannibal Lechter, or Roy Cohn in Angels, their actions are completely justified within their own moral universe. By that standard, they are not evil, whatever the rest of the world might think.

Take a movie like On the Waterfront. The "bad guy" -- Johnny Friendly -- from his perspective, what he does is completely justified.

But from the perspective of Terry Malloy, the good guy -- what he does, from the beginning, in covering up the murder of his friend. At first, he rationalizes (because at some level, inside, he knows it's wrong) -- and finally condemns.

Terry comes to a full understanding that he has done wrong. Johnny Friendly, from his point of view, will *never* achieve that understanding. He will always believe that he was completely justified in what he did.

Even though we clearly understand, from the outside, who the "hero" and the "villain" are in this movie, when you look at it from the inside, it's Terry who comes to realize that he's the one who's done wrong and needs to make amends, whatever the cost.

Johnny Friendly from beginning to end, will always think of himself as a stand-up guy who looks out for his friends.

NMS

[TheConnorNoden]

Re: Villains: Better that They Don't Believe They Are "Evil?"

To tag in late on this I think different films call for a different breed of villain. But I'm really struggling to think of a villain who is pure evil for no reason. Every single villain has the shred of humanity.

The Joker's come up a couple of times, read The Killing Joke, the reason for why he is the way he is can be found there.

Kevin from We Need to Talk About Kevin can almost pass as pure evil but even he wasn't born evil.

Even Dr Evil had his reasons. It's not about choosing to be good or evil it's just reactions to doing what they believe is right for themselves.

Personally I like the type of villain who only becomes that way because of the protagonist, it makes the whole dynamic more complex. Without Batman Harvey Dent would be Harvey Dent. Lex Luthor without superman would be one of the planet's best humanitarians. That way it gives the protag a clear goal to undo the mess they created.

[one seven spectrum]

Re: Villains: Better that They Don't Believe They Are "Evil?"

Anton Chigurh. He is the most evil and fearing villain of all cinema.

[Jon Jay]

Re: Villains: Better that They Don't Believe They Are "Evil?"

Anton Chigurh acts logically throughout. He kills people for a reason - often a fairly slender reason and not a reason any sane person would understand, but reason nonetheless.

The most heavily trailed scene of that movie was the one where he flips the coin and lets the old guy at the gas station live. He has a system. A belief structure of sorts. He returns to kill Kelly MacDonald because he offered Brolin the chance to save her and he declined. He's simply doing what he said he would.

If he was pure evil he'd just everyone regardless and would be less interesting because of it.

[Mr. Earth]

Re: Villains: Better that They Don't Believe They Are "Evil?"

Anton Chigurh. He is the most evil and fearing villain of all cinema.

While he might be scary, a strong case could be made that Chigurh is not evil. I won't get into the debate I had on one of those marathon threads about how I think how Chigurh actually represents death, but it's precisely that kind of reasoning that could make the argument that he is "just doing his job" in a matter of ways. Is death evil? I guess one might think so if it's calling for you, but looking at it objectively from the outside? Not really. He's just doing his thing.

What about Keyser Soze? Pure evil, no doubt.

But aside from some portrayals of the devil incarnate and hellbent, insane psychopath slashers, what do almost all villains have in common? They are all selfish. Greed is the root of all evil and greed makes you perform selfishly which automatically makes you a villain in the eyes of most people.

I challenge anyone to write a villain or come up with an example where he/she isn't motivated by achieving their own selfish goals....oh, crap, maybe the shark in Jaws is one. Okay, besides the devil, psychopaths and forces of nature, come up with some examples of non-selfish villains.

[sc111]

Re: Villains: Better that They Don't Believe They Are "Evil?"

Really interesting thread.

I agree that different villians are required for different stories. But I think what they have in common is they're not psychologically or emotionally complex. They don't reflect on their actions or choices.

They're like toddlers who want what they want when they want it and when asked, "Why," the answer is usually, "Because I want it."

There's no rationalization of their motivation other than desire for the result or object they seek.

As for Iago, it's been awhile since I've deconstructed the play in school but I recall scenes in which it was very clear Iago envied all Othello was and had. Especially Desdemona.

And I think he hated the fact he could never be a man like Othello. So he had to destroy him, to remove any reminder of what he could never be. Still, I think Iago also falls into my toddler theory.

[emily blake]

Re: Villains: Better that They Don't Believe They Are "Evil?"

I really liked Aku, the shape-shifting master of darkness from Samurai Jack. He was just evil because he was evil. But he was also funny. And Mako.

[NoirDigits]

Re: Villains: Better that They Don't Believe They Are "Evil?"

Same goes for The Joker and Anton Chigurh. They instill fear. And they do so without cause or motivation. They just seem to... enjoy it.

Going to have to respectfully disagree with this one. I think The Joker has a very clear objective: chaos and anarchy. While he's definitely sadistic, his actions aren't illogical. When he places the gun in Harvey's hand at the hospital, we realize The Joker believes in chaos so strongly he's willing to die for it. When the prisoners and the civilians fail to blow each other up, he's upset because ultimately it's order winning over chaos. Both boats had a figure of authority that took control and brought order to the frightened mobs.

[Deion22]

Re: Villains: Better that They Don't Believe They Are "Evil?"

Wait till you see THE COUNSELOR with Ridley SCOTT, FASSBENDER, and PITT. one of the most chilling scripts I've ever read, that doesn't have a true ANTAGONIST per say. Though some may argue the Femme Fatale is. The story delves into the murderous nature of the Mexican Cartels that no movies have before. What's truly frightening is the script shows how desensitized we have become to violence and the cartel murders in general that are going on at the borders. It also shows the murders the CARTELS are doing have become a keeping up appearances method, and aren't done to serve a purpose these days. If they stick with the ending, this movie will be classic. And lead to lots of discussions afterwards.

Anton Chigurh and The JOKER are two of the greatest villains in cinema. Anton is flat out scary. I love villains like these two.

[ATB]

Re: Villains: Better that They Don't Believe They Are "Evil?"

True, he does want chaos. But why? He enjoys it.