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

[Steven R]

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

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

Let me rephrase. Why would I want to make Biff Tannen three dimentional?

He's a stock character, an archetype, and he's every bully that has ever lived. His only purpose is to be an obsticle for Marty and George. He's a cartoon, but we need him to be a jackass so that when he gets laid out int he parking lot by George we cheer and when we see what his life in like in the new 1985 we're glad he got his comeupance. Giving Biff a background, insight into his upbringing, showing his homelife, providing some deep emotional process risks that glee we get when Biff finally gets what's coming to him. Biff doesn't need to be anything more than what Biff is.

In contrast, John Doe needs his motivation. He needs the audience to despise him, but also accept some of his words about how the world is Sodom and Gamorrah writ large ring true. We need that, not just because it makes him scarier, but it also provides Somerset with his arc and the payoff, going from a point of view where the world sucks to deciding the world is worth fighting for.

D-Fence in Falling Down is another example. We see the film through the eyes of a guy who just snapped, but we can all understand his frustrations of traffic, not getting an Egg McMuffin because it's 10:03 and they stopped serving breakfast at 10, and gang members. We cheer for him...until we realize he's the antagonist and Robert Duvall is the protagonist of this film.

[asjah8]

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

I would argue that Biff isn't necessarily the antagonist (per se) of Back to the Future. At least not in the way antagonist is defined as the central opposition. I think Marty is both the protagonist and the antagonist. Biff doesn't need to be fully dimensional because he's an aspect of what is lacking in Marty. Same with his alcoholic mother, weak father, pretty girlfriend, the Doc, the terrorists, etc. All of them together combine to create one opposition which exists within Marty himself; a hero who needs to be heroic.

I dunno, that's just my interpretation of the story which may or may not be correct.

[Steven R]

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

I would argue that Biff isn't necessarily the antagonist (per se) of Back to the Future. At least not in the way antagonist is defined as the central opposition. I think Marty is both the protagonist and the antagonist. Biff doesn't need to be fully dimensional because he's an aspect of what is lacking in Marty. Same with his alcoholic mother, weak father, pretty girlfriend, the Doc, the terrorists, etc. All of them together combine to create one opposition which exists within Marty himself; a hero who needs to be heroic.

I dunno, that's just my interpretation of the story which may or may not be correct.

I agree that Biff is not the antagonist. If anything, Marty getting all his ducks in a row to go home is the antagonist, such as it is. It's a Man vs. Environment kind of a situation. That said, Biff is the villian of the film. He's an recurring obstacle for Marty and George to overcome, but for different reasons (Marty so he can get his parents together and George to come out of his shell).

[asjah8]

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

Ahhh, very tricky. I think I'm rolling with you. Thank you that was helpful.

[nmstevens]

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

Let me rephrase. Why would I want to make Biff Tannen three dimentional?

He's a stock character, an archetype, and he's every bully that has ever lived. His only purpose is to be an obsticle for Marty and George. He's a cartoon, but we need him to be a jackass so that when he gets laid out int he parking lot by George we cheer and when we see what his life in like in the new 1985 we're glad he got his comeupance. Giving Biff a background, insight into his upbringing, showing his homelife, providing some deep emotional process risks that glee we get when Biff finally gets what's coming to him. Biff doesn't need to be anything more than what Biff is.

In contrast, John Doe needs his motivation. He needs the audience to despise him, but also accept some of his words about how the world is Sodom and Gamorrah writ large ring true. We need that, not just because it makes him scarier, but it also provides Somerset with his arc and the payoff, going from a point of view where the world sucks to deciding the world is worth fighting for.

D-Fence in Falling Down is another example. We see the film through the eyes of a guy who just snapped, but we can all understand his frustrations of traffic, not getting an Egg McMuffin because it's 10:03 and they stopped serving breakfast at 10, and gang members. We cheer for him...until we realize he's the antagonist and Robert Duvall is the protagonist of this film.

The reason that you want a villain to be more than one dimensional is the same reason that you would want *any* character to be more than one dimensional.

It's because it makes the character more interesting.

And the fact is -- Biff Tannen is not a particularly interesting character -- and for exactly that reason. There's very little to him. He's essentially a plot device. And that's tough considering how much time he's on screen and in how many different incarnations over the three movies.

Whenever he shows up, he's never all that interesting, even as a villain.

That's the point about stock characters. They're not particularly interesting and if you rely on them, whether for central characters or minor characters, you should pretty much depend on their not being particularly interesting or engaging.

Yeah, sure, you can have a guy with a black hat who kills the girl or the little kid in act one and predictably kills the good guy's best friend (or the rookie, or the guy who was about to retire) in act two, and everybody's going to cheer when he gets blown away in act three --

-- but don't assume that because you've pressed the appropriate story buttons that you've created anything that's really memorable in terms of a character.

NMS

[The Road Warrior]

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

I don't see why villians have to be self-aware. Depends on the character I guess.

[Dr. Gonzo]

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

"It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead."

Chigurh and the T800 have a lot more in common than you think.

Could also describe one Michael Myers as well...

[FoxHound]

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

One of my alien bad guys lacks an "empathetic plexus amid his parietal lobes," which he believes excuses him from "evil" deeds.

It brings up the old philosophical debate over whether morality is an abstract idea or just a neurological response.