The Saturation Point

A long overdue post.

We all love villains, it's true- the escapism of a hero fighting a great villain is something that continues to entertain us constantly. Loads of villains, all in one place? Sounds like Heaven, right?

Wrong.

The saturation of villains is something that's annoyed me for a long time, especially within the media of film. More specifically (though not exclusively) in 'superhero' films. Villains should be a dangerous antagonist within their storyline, a true antithesis to our hero. By having multiple villains within a narrative, the writer or creator risks diluting the fear that an enemy should create within the audience. With every villain added to the narrative, the effect builds up- the audience is simply left with one or two favoured enemies within the story, and the rest are forgotten or simply become a frustration to them.

Maybe some examples could help explain.

1. Iron Man 2

No. of Villains: 2

Bugged me from the very beginning. In all fairness, it had the same number of villains as its predecessor, but it was Justin Hammer that tipped this scale over the edge of stupid. Ivan Venko (in the comics, named Whiplash, though this is never mentioned in the film) was, in my opinion, more than enough of a villain to match Tony Stark: his physical threat is enough of a challenge to create a viable threat and his intelligence prevents him becoming a simple task for Stark. The exoskeleton- style suit he creates towards the beginning of the film could very easily have been extended later, just as Iron Man's was during the first film (possibly mirroring the process with his own Russian twist on proceedings). The development of this character that would be threatening in every way would have been far more interesting than what actually transpired.

The problem with Hammer is that he didn't really DO anything- he funded Venko, and the robotic minions at the climax of the film, but didn't truly threaten Stark at any point. Even when they were together, and actually having a battle of wits or intelligence, Hammer ended up as the one thing a villain absolutely must not be: comic relief.

The Rightful Villain: Ivan Venko

2. Batman and Robin

As much as I love Batman (And believe me, I do) this has always got on my nerves. Mr Freeze is a well crafted, inspired villain, when written properly (see Batman:Sub Zero for a perfect example). Poison Ivy is... well, she's Poison Ivy. Her manipulation of the mind with pheromones could actually sound genuine- with the right scientific jargon, anyway.

The next part of this is best explained in the style of the Animaniacs:

GOOD IDEA: Make a superhero film with two villains who's superpowers can be explained within the realms of science, giving them both opposing views in their quest for world domination, and having a great betrayal between them.

BAD IDEA: Make a film with two villains, played by Arnold Schwarzeneger and Uma Therman, creating rubbish and exaggerated origin stories with a ridiculous script and fill it with cheesy one-liners.

Rightful Villain: The film should never have been made

The Slow Erosion of the Thousand-Year Reich

(Please keep in mind that the post is from an objective standpoint, and gives no indication of the writer's political standpoint. This is an analysis of members of the Nazi party in FICTION)

Nazis have been villains in fiction for as long as I can remember- conventions born of over half a century of taking the role of villain in fiction find themselves recurring over and over again. I have come to the conclusion that over the years, the writers, directors, authors and actors have slowly caused the 'root' of the terrifying nature of the Nazis to erode away. If one were to look at the volume of fiction with a member (or many members) that are part of the Nazi party as villains, and then looked a how many of these were characters the viewer/reader genuinely thought about- I imagine the proportion you find will be disappointingly small.

This is to be the first historical example of villainy here, and I feel that such an example can be categorised just as any other, once the term 'Nazi' I will be using has been clearly defined. For the record, I am using the term 'Nazi' as a blanket term for any character infatuated to the political, ideological or religious forms of Nazism during World War 2. Without defining this, any member of the Nazi party (even the hundreds of thousands who were forced into membership) would be included within the frustratingly vague term- unfairly. The motivations and analysis that follow are an analysis are of the archetype created through the media as a representation of those infatuated members of the party mentioned earlier.

Now that the term I will be using is defined, I can begin to analyse this archetype- beginning with their motivations.

Firstly, 'M2' is easily applied to many of these characters, when used in its nationalistic interpretation- one of the main pillars of the Nazi indoctrination system was the sense of duty to their country they instilled into the population- most clearly seen through the Hitler-Jugend (Hitler Youth). They continue this passionate feeling of duty into the time-frame of their fiction's plot, creating a character that believes it necessary, in many cases, to commit the evil acts we witness. As a political and militaristic movement, the category 'M3' is also clear- the domination of nations or other people. (I doubt this requires further explanation)

'M4' is also a motivation that would apply to some of the soldiers of the Nazi archetype-though these are less common within fiction than they would have been in history itself.

Nazis have been used in an insurmountable array of example of fiction- from the monochrome masterpiece of 'Schindler's List' to the musical mirth of 'The Sound of Music'; a political party that did unspeakable things, it is unbelievable how many pieces of fiction they have 'invaded'. (Apologies for the terrible pun) As previously mentioned, it is my belief that the recent iterations of the archetype have become just that- archetypes. Not characters, but an archetype- a two dimensional, predictable character with little to no character development.

For a recent model of this, I would suggest the film 'Captain America: The First Avenger' (2011)- the antagonist, 'Red Skull', played by Hugo Weaving, is an unfortunate stereotype of a Nazi villain, with no redemptive characteristics to draw an audience member in. On the other hand, Ralph Fiennes performance of Amon Goeth in the 1993 film 'Schindler's List' was- in a word- masterful; the character is evil without a doubt, but has redemptive characteristics in his love of fine food and his musical taste, his charisma and command of the scene. Evil the latter may be, but never dull, as I often found the former.

In conclusion, 'The Nazi' is an unfortunately overused stereotype; there are, of course, innumerable example of them, and this is the problem. With each over-the-top German accent or unnecessary reveal of their diabolical plans, the true horrors of the Nazi regime are slowly forgotten and apathy is cultivated. We feel no horror at the things we see often, or have become accustomed to. Heaven forbid the day when the erosion is completed, and the mention of the Nazi horrors creates nothing but apathy.

NOTE: It is a strong belief of my friends and I that any Nazi officer in fiction can be 'rated' on how evil he/she is by their clothing and appearance. Watch out for: Black trench coat (bonus if leather), hats, black gloves, medals on the chest, jackboots, a comb-over and monocles. Facial hair of any kind, strangely, has no correlation. The next time you see a Nazi in film or television and look out for the features I have mentioned- the higher the number, the more villainous they are- enjoy. (Also, there's probably a fantastic drinking game somewhere in there!)

Going Ape for Ceaser

Caesar: 'Rise of the Planet of the Apes' (2011)

(SPOILERS MAY FOLLOW)

First things first- Caesar is an ape. The fact is irrefutable yet undeniable- one's first thought of a thing such as an ape being viewed as a villain would be "But he doesn't know what he's doing- he's an ape!" However, it is due to the unique context of the film he is in that it is indeed feasible to do such a study. His intelligence and cognitive ability is improved vastly due to a fictional treatment in the film. Predictable as any other cinematic medical advancement designed to 'change the world', the result is an experiment gone horribly wrong- Caesar breaks free and begins the titular revolution for primates world-wide. (Or in this particular installment of the narrative, the San Francisco area).

So, with that out the way, it is due time to categorise the test subject; firstly, his motivations. Caesar is firstly cared for within a safe environment and is then stripped of these luxuries and this care when sent to a nearby sanctuary, where he is abused. His 'revolution' in the second half of the film is symbolically begun by the exhuming of the very one who abused him- a cruel worker at the sanctuary. This act, and those that follow, can then be easily argued to be a part of the motivation designated M7 (An act of vengeance upon another character creates and drives the villain). Caesar is enacting vengeance for the cruelty he has felt at the hands of humans by taking over the area they claim as their own (I realise this is similar to the motivation M3, but this is not the reason for our perceiving him as a villain- it is merely the act he performs because of M7). One must keep in mind that he is also working to liberate fellow primates from the same clutches he found himself in- a rare example of a duty felt to a species. I would argue that this, though not as I had originally as described, would be an example of M2; Caesar feels a duty towards his fellow primates, and must commit evil acts in which to fulfil this perceived duty.

We must now decide, in keeping with the last post, whether he can be argued to be a villain by nature, or whether Caesar is a villain by objection. In my personal opinion, though it can indeed be argued from either side, Caesar is more clearly on the side of a villain by objection- his motivations are not in their truest form in fact 'evil', but it is clear that the humans of the Earth would probably prefer to stay as its dominant life form. (Of course, any objections, post in the comments)

Caesar's motivations are, in some ways, difficult to define, though easy to understand. Some who would label individuals such as Che Guevera and the Mujahadeen as examples of villains, should also bear in mind that any of these examples can also be defined by others as 'freedom fighters'- food for thought, I think.

With motivations similar to those of many resistance leaders through the ages, and a resonance to an aspirational feeling of valour and duty the audience ends the film aspiring to, Caesar is a rare thing- a simple character, yet one with the potential to develop into a great villain.

Or maybe he's just stopped giving a monkey's.

Villain or Enemy?

As a continuation of yesterday's post on motivations, it occurred to me that many motivations are not in their most fundamental state evil. A character's motivations and drives are what set them apart from all others; they are also what decides on their 'side' in the film, book or game. In the current line of thinking, once it is established that a character has motivations or objectives that clash with those of the protagonist, they are immediately put into the box of 'villains'. Admittedly, some characters within this category could be categorised as 'reluctant allies', 'anti-heroes' or 'freedom fighters'- in most instances, these are better terms for these characters than 'villain'.

A character that an audience would rightly name as a villain has an objective within their narrative that is acknowledged by that character to be 'evil', or any other wording that acknowledges their motivations as the wrong thing. An example one may see of this would be the aptly named Dr. Evil from 'Austin Powers' (though a comedic example, he is a perfect one in this context). Even from his name, the audience knows that he does things because he knows it is the wrong thing to do, and for the express purpose of showing himself as evil, or for the personal pride of doing so. I would name this as a 'Villain by Nature'.

Of course, there is a another side to any coin, I would steer readers towards the villains of films who I would arguably not name as a 'true villain'. The opposite of this 'Villain by Nature' would be a type of character I would name as a 'Villain by Objection'. I would point out as a perfect example the primary antagonist of the video game 'Bioshock'- Andrew Ryan (It is no secret to those who know me that I could speak for hours on this character!). His objectives and ideologies go against those of the player, and the mentor watching over them- from this, it is clear the game has named and labelled him as the antagonist. However, the ideologies he announces and openly shows to the player are not evil- different, without a doubt, but in no way can the ideology be described as an evil act. The game pits the player against Andrew Ryan, and so the player immediately sees him as a villain. This is the reasoning behind a Villain of Objection- a character who has little to no evil acts associated with them, but is put against the protagonist, and so is immediately perceived as their opposite and inverse.

Think of 3 examples of villains from any media- are the a Villain by Nature, or a Villain of Objection?

Categorisation of Motivation

Any villain, human or otherwise, is driven by the same thing that drives us all- their motivations to commit the acts for which they are branded as evil. Most examples have a much more focussed motivation than a protagonist might have- and often more varying than the 'save the world' objective of the latter.

To exemplify this, I have placed these motivations into 9 categories, giving some examples along the way. Nothing more to say except put any antagonists you remember into these categories- any that can't be placed, post a comment!

Categories:

M1: The actions are for material gain of any kind. (i.e Goldfinger from the film of the same name)

M2: The actions are in keeping with some patriotic/nationalistic/vocational sense of duty or responsibility. (i.e Nameless henchmen from innumerable sources)

M3: For the purpose of domination of people or nations. (i.e Stalin, The Roman Empire)

M4: The antagonist is forced by some higher power to commit the acts.

M5: The antagonist commits the acts in order to teach/punish/preach to either the protagonist, the victims or the general public through these acts.

M6: To do such things is in the nature of the villain itself- either through supernatural reasons or otherwise (i.e Pazuzu from 'The Excorcist')

M7: To exact vengeance or to spite either the antagonist or another faction/group.

M8: For their own personal pride, or for what they see as personal achievement- often used as 'finishing a life's work'. (i'e The Killer in 'Seven')

M9: For unexplained reasons, or as the result of the character's insanity, or for what they see as their amusement.

Of course, many examples will fit into a number of these categories- for example, Darth Vader (Star Wars Trilogy) would fit into both M2 and M4; Hannibal Lecter (Silence of the Lambs, Hannibal, Red Dragon) would fit into M1, M5 and M8.

In future, any characters I analyse or redesign will include one of these categories- once again, think of any examples you wish and try to fit them in!

Introduction

No matter the story,

No matter the hero,

No matter the place:

The villain is what creates memories.

Of course, a 'villain' can be any number of things in any context- it may be a maniacal genius driven to the domination of the globe, a deadly assassin driven to eliminate the protagonist with destruction in their wake, or even the rain stopping you from going outside for a leisurely stroll. All these things are villains in their own particular contexts and stories- a force of any kind one could describe as 'evil'.

My argument for my opening statement is, admittedly, purely from a personal standpoint: I have no doubt that it is a small minority attending the showing of 'Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2' that are rooting for Voldemort to succeed at its climax. It is merely that I have noticed recently that any book I read, game I play or film I see sticks in my mind for a simple reason- an engaging, interesting antagonist. I have no doubt a list will follow at some point in these postings in the near future. A villain is a character, faction or other force within the media that is an acting antagonist within their plot- often one without the morals of the protagonists, a lack of inhibitions and with clear goals and motivations- it is also these qualities that make a villain so compelling.

The 'usual suspects' of any list one would care to create naming the 'Top X Greatest Villains of all Time', there will always be something in common between the plethora of wrong-doers: we want more of them. We want to read more, see more and play through more of their exploits- we want the next twist and turn they conjure up, the next plot twist and their next plan. A fact that, unfortunately, is so rarely said of an antagonist's counterpart.

A conclusion to this slow ramble?

Great stories don't force a great protagonist upon an audience, they allow a great antagonist to thrive within them.