Well, I finally took the opportunity to watch Harry Potter this weekend; we rented both films. I haven't read the books, nor am I inclined to, but curiosity finally got the best of me.
Despite the obvious comparisons that the media made when the first films came out, I found it to be not at all comparable to LOTR, as a lot of people said in the early days after both films came out. So that's not news. But I found it a perfectly fine movie. What really intrigued me, though, was Voldemort.
For me the heavy makes the movie. There have been threads in the past on the Nature of Evil and on favorite movie bad guys; I want to kind of thread the needle between them with this post.
WHAT DO THE BEST VILLAINS HAVE IN COMMON?
We see some common themes in a lot of memorable heavies...
--Fall from Grace
This is a common one. Darth Vader is obvious, so is Saruman. An argument could be made that Sauron falls into this category, as well, if you consider him as being "in Grace" as he was first conceived as an Ainur.
--Revenge
We often see stories where the villain is someone that's been around before, was thought to have been destroyed and has regained strength. Now, added to the normal "evil instincts" is a desire to get back at those that overthrew the villain in the first place. This is sometimes what produces the critical flaw in the villain's strategy, as he is so consumed with fighting his own past devils that he doesn't recognize his current devils (villains who return tend to change their tactics but not their character; however each succeeding generation of good guys -- taken as a single representative of "good", tends to change their character).
What I found very interesting about the first Potter film in particular is that we're actually seeing Voldemort not AFTER he's arisen but WHILE he's trying to arise. His first appearance on film in the Dark Forest has him as a ghoul, surviving off unicorn blood. In the second film he is more effective but still dependent upon others to empower him.
--Restrictions
Villains are often depicted as all-powerful, but that's not what makes the best villains. The best ones have specific, limited power, but must still operate within a set of physical or metaphysical limitations. But through preparedness or relentlessness or cleverness or intelligence, the villain gains an upper hand (you never see a villain cast as being the underdog).
In my mind the most effective villain in this regard was Vader, who has an immensely powerful ally in the Force, but it's a fickle ally. It operates very strongly and immediately at close range, and its nature changes and gets more diffuse and shadowy from a distance. It's a precise tool one-on-one (or one-on-many) but gives a less clear advantage in matters of broad policy (or, rather, it offers a perceived advantage with a much larger danger inherent in its interpretation).
But Vader has to use conventional means to get what he wants sometimes. Armies, lasers, interrogations, etc. His efforts are to accumulate all those that practice the Force and draw them to the Dark Side....only in larger numbers, spread out in strategic locations, does the Force really begin to pick up steam.
WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE VILLAIN SERVE?
That's simple. The villain does two things: he provides an immediate, physical obstacle for the good guys to overcome (a tangible measure of outcome), and he holds up a mirror to the good guys, allowing them to learn something about themselves.
Almost all villains do this. The best ones do the latter in ways that surprise the audience, and that's what makes them great.
Do you remember the first time you saw the Empire Strikes Back? Do you remember that moment when Vader reveals that he is Luke's father? That was a "holy sh*t" moment. I don't know about any of you, but that blindsided me. I was pretty young, of course, but it still blindsided me. We'd been built up to understand that Vader was the embodiment of everything Luke could become if he wasn't careful. That monkeying around with the Force has its bad side, and this was it. But still, in our own optomistic way, knowing that the good guy is going to win in the end, we're confident that Luke will be pure enough and good enough to withstand the call of the Dark Side. Besides, he has his father to avenge, right?
All that changes in one sentence. Because now he's not only fighting the nature of the Force but his very own nature. He's got to fight the instinct to love his father, the fear that he is destined to BE like his father, etc.
Oh, there may have been other examples earlier of this kind of villain-good guy relationship, but whether that's true or not, there is little doubt that Darth Vader and Luke Skywalker are the poster boys for this kind of relationship now.
In Potter, young Harry faces similar questions. How alike is he to Voldemort? Another great example is the Batman films, which twist the question around...is Batman himself a misguided villain?
Even the "Revenge" factor tells us something about the hero -- sometimes more -- than it tells us about the villain. It forces the hero to reflect perhaps on whether he is as good as those that came before him (those that were able to cope with this villain). It sheds some light upon the nature of the past heroes, that they were flawed in some way that even they couldn't see, which prevented them from putting a final end to the threat. And it implies that those same flaws are probably still there in the current good guy, and that he must overcome them as well as overcome the villain. This plays out quite obviously in LOTR.
The best villains warp the boundaries between villainy and heroism, and make you question where one begins and the other ends. So in my mind the most effective villains are the type that convince you that underneath it all they're just regular people. Again, for me, Vader does that effectively, especially with his black sense of humor. Here is a guy that, once you strip away the mask and the Force, is probably....well, a little like me, come to think of it. But in better shape.
Incidentally, I like Episode I and II just fine. But they definitely fell short for me in this respect. It's probably pretty obvious that I find Vader to be an extremely compelling villain, and I was looking for validation of these themes in I and II. I wanted Anakin to live up to what I thought he was like. But instead I found him to be a jerk. That was too bad.
HOW THIS RELATES TO LOTR
What I find interesting is that in LOTR Tolkien worked with all of these themes but he separated them out. Rather than embody all of this nastiness into one character he put a little here, and a little there. There's Sauron, the powerful force that had been overcome before, causing Aragorn and the others to question what it is about themselves as individuals that can overcome him again or what it is about their racial characters that failed them in the first place. There's Saruman, the one who falls from Grace, who makes us question where the dividing line truly lies between good and evil. There's Smeagol, the erstwhile decent Stoor, in whom Frodo sees a mirror image of himself. And with every villain there's a mirror image on the "good" side. Would Gandalf succumb and replace Sauron or Saruman? Would Aragorn or Boromir be another Isildur? Is Frodo just a step away from being Smeagol?
Having all these issues spread around so intricately helps bring home the issue that villainy and heroism, good and evil, are in constant struggle at all levels. Not that that in and of itself is a startling revelation. But it's among the most effective representations of it that I've ever read or seen.
"How do you celebrate your holy week?"
"Wedgies, mostly."
|
|
|
Well done!
If I may add something, I think that your comment of "The best villain warps the boundries between good and evil" can be broken down into another "type" of villian or aspect of "villany make-up" that makes for a really engaging villian, and that's the "Greek Tragic Hero". Oedipus was one of the first of these, a good man warped by fate, his tragic flaw being his inability to see what he was walking into. Greek loved these heros, great men like Agamemnon, who was a great king, and if it hadn't been for his impeity would have lived to emjoy his homecomming. Achillies, tragically flawed by his ego and bad temper. And so on, great men brought down by their own character flaws.
One of my favorite villians of all time is Magento from the X-Men. I've read the comic for years and he was always THE most entrancing character to me, because he wasn't wholely evil. He truly belived that what he was doing was right and good; the only way to protect his "people". Sort of the ultimate "end-justfies-the-means" type of guy. And given his background, surviving the holocaust, you can completely understand his motives.
He had incredible energy, intelligence, eloquence, drive, is THE most powerful mutant on the planet, not merely in raw power but the scope of his abilities (it's been theorized that he walking proof of the Unified Field Theory) and his ultimate goal is worthy, but he is flawed. Flawed by his zealotry and flawed by hubris.
Vadar as he was played in the orginal series (or at least Star War and Empire...) was more the staight villian, He almost had a Nazgul aspect about him as the faceless minon of evil. But that's after years of dwelling on the dark side. Ankin falls into this Greek Hero mode, he has incedible potential, but he is tragically flawed by his ego and his bad temper and those are manipulated by the Emporer
I think in answer to all of your questions to the second to last paragraph is "YES". That is the reason Gandalf and Aragorn won't take the ring, they know how close they are to becomming their worst nightmares. That's the initial power of the ring, what people like Galadreil and Boromir encounter upon meeting it, to show you the abyss within yourself. Which makes Frodo carrying the ring all that more heroic.
How would you feel about life if Death was your older sister?
|
|
|
 by -
lkalliance
(Sun Apr 13 14:53:32)
|
|
 UPDATED Sun Apr 13 14:58:01 |
Ah, kipling, thanks for adding that! You're right, I had forgotten the other villainy theme...the villain who is only made so by the context of his actions and not by his intent. Magneto feels justified in what he does and he has followers that also feel that way; just as the political leaders depicted in the film ALSO think they're doing the right thing but it doesn't jive with our own values.
Sounds like real life, don't it?
Batman is another example of that, twisted around, as I've mentioned in the original post. Batman's actions jive with our own values, so of course he's a hero. But vigilantes aren't always so roundly applauded (nor is the Caped Crusader by other characters in the actual stories himself, all the time, despite Adam West's best efforts).
I had so hoped that Anakin Skywalker would have some qualities besides physical skills that would make me want to like him and thus make his fall more tragic, and I'll have to see if this happens in III.
I've had cause in posts I've done long ago to dwell on what I've called "institutional evolution"...that besides the Hobbits the other characters in Tolkien's works rarely evolve as people but instead stand as archetypes of types of values, and that the nations and institutions evolve depending upon which archetype is the dominant one. Given that, it's small wonder there are so many characters; if he's going to be subtle about interlacing evil throughout his universe then each archetype of villainy needs its own character.
A really cool byproduct of that is that you get to have interactions among the different archetypes of villainy...not just between good guys and different villains. In the story of LOTR, we've got Sauron-and-Saruman, Sauron-and-Gollum, even Saruman-and-Wormtongue dynamics going on. Heck, there's even the Balrog and Shelob, who are yet another type of villainy...badness for its own sake ("The journey is the reward", as it were).
"How do you celebrate your holy week?"
"Wedgies, mostly."
|
|
|
Wow Elkie, trust you to come up with a whopping essay! A definite nominee for Post Of The Week, if you ask me...
Having seen both HP movies and having read the books (just out of curiosity) I must say that the evil-doers in the HP franchise cannot hold a candle to the baddies in LOTR. Voldemort may be quite interesting, but Draco Malfoy? Can a character be more one-dimensional? There is no development, no complexity, no nothing. Even children must notice the lack of imagination and realism!
Anyways, time for bed now, more later!
Begone foul dwimmerlaik, lord of carrion!
|
|
|
I know what you mean about Draco Malfoy, Wajz. I went into Potter expecting the themes to be pretty broadsided, given the audience, at least this early in the septology (?). In that I wasn't disappointed; but I also expected Voldemort to be equally straight-out-of-central-casting...and I didn't find him to be so as much as I expected. In my mind the scene in the forest where the ghoul arises and it proves to be an impotent form of Voldemort....I found that to have a twist of sophistication I didn't expect to find. Assuming that the Harry vs. Voldemort theme carries out through all seven books/films, I see some good potential there.
But back to your point, I agree, and I'm trying to be careful not to compare the two francises. LOTR is a symphony...it resonates with themes and counterthemes and undertones and cacophanies and sometimes it's a lot to take in. I think those of us who have read the books (in some cases many times over) and are already well attuned to the music can absorb it better.
Potter is a top-notch pop song. It's more accessible and it sticks in your head. And the real cleverness in it sometimes SEEMS a negative but isn't. Your noting of the "lack of imagination and realism" is a good example...one would think that the two would be antithetical. I found that it didn't push the envelope of storytelling but BECAUSE of that it stayed more real (if a little one-dimensional). Rowling has given her story the opportunity to delve inwards, because the issues it touches on are not far off the beaten path. By making her story fantastic but not TOO fantastic, she just bumps us out of perspective just a little bit and we don't have to work too hard to find the themes. But she's touched on some themes that can be expanded well, and built upon.
"How do you celebrate your holy week?"
"Wedgies, mostly."
|
|
|
I can see you have not read all four parts of HP... let me tell you that Mrs Rowling loses her momentum in a dramatic way... prepare for a boring read! No character development whatsoever... these books aren't sequels, they are remakes. By the way, HP5 seems to clock in at 850 pages! Yes, as much as TTT and ROTK together!
Begone foul dwimmerlaik, lord of carrion!
|
|
|
I think that's unfair, Wajz. The characters do develop in the third and fourth books, and the story (particularly with regard to some of the thematic elements Elkie has been discussing) does "delve inwards" in some very interesting ways.
I agree that Rowling does seem to be erring a leetle on the self-endulgent side in terms of page count, but I think writing off the later books as "remakes" is unjustified. She quite clearly has a fairly enormous story arc in mind, that is playing itself out over the course of the seven books.
~~~~~
 mindlessmunkey
WAR IS TERRORISM
|
|
|
Develop? The books grow thicker and thicker because Rowling lacks the ability to streamline herself and gets lost in her own plots, that's what I noticed. I was so annoyed to read that Draco Malfoy stays the same monodimensional twat all the way... don't people LEARN from experiences? Isn't that what we are supposed to teach our children??
Begone foul dwimmerlaik, lord of carrion!
|
|
|
I kind of see what you're saying Wajz. I am a big fan of the books, and I'm looking forward to The Order of the Phoenix. But one problem I have with the third is that at the end she spends a lot of time setting up plots that should have already been worked out before. This delayed exposition disrupts the flow of the book.
Other than that, I think they're quite well written, and offer a little bit of something for everyone. And, for those who haven't read HP, the movies do not even compare to the books (not at all). The books have more subtle humour, dark themes, and likeable characters.
How beautiful it is to do nothing and then rest afterwards.
|
|
|
I haven't read any of them I'm afraid...my impressions have been based solely on the movies.
"How do you celebrate your holy week?"
"Wedgies, mostly."
|
|
|
| by -
Amarantha_03
(Sun Apr 13 19:14:03)
|
|
| UPDATED Sun Apr 13 19:18:01 |
IMHO, I think the books are much better than the movies. There are so many little details that had to be left out of the movies for time purposes, but I would recommend that you read the books. In your first post, you wrote:
"What I found very interesting about the first Potter film in particular is that we're actually seeing Voldemort not AFTER he's arisen but WHILE he's trying to arise. His first appearance on film in the Dark Forest has him as a ghoul, surviving off unicorn blood. In the second film he is more effective but still dependent upon others to empower him."
True, in SS, we see Voldemort while he's trying to arise, but that is because he used to be the most powerful dark wizard in the world, and Harry somehow caused his downfall, so he has to try to work his way back up. He had arisen at one time, though. Rowling still has to explain some of these things in future books...I do not know how Harry caused the downfall. I just thought I'd clarify that detail for you (if it needed clarification  )
I have to disagree with Wajz in the fact that I feel there is character development. The trio have to become stronger, because the challenges are greater. There are events in book 4 that build Harry's character immensely. Since there are differing opinions, I would just suggest that you read the books for yourself and form your own opinion. I think that, since you enjoyed (or at least tolerated) the movies, you may enjoy the books, too. Edit: I just read the post a little further below about HP, and I agree with it!
When did this turn into a HP commercial? I'm sorry. But I would like to say that that was a great original post! Great thoughts!
"Let us always meet each other with a smile, for the smile is the beginning of love" 
|
|
|
Thank you so much lkalliance for this thought-provoking post. Once again you are a flame of on topic coherence in our ever-increasingly shambolic world.
I'd also like to note the way you've managed to discuss Harry Potter and Star Wars - relating their themes and elements to Tolkien in remarkably insightful ways - without ever swerving into the usual territory of making value judgements or comparisons. I think you're the only poster I've seen to date who has managed to do this.
mindlessmunkey
WAR IS TERRORISM
|
|
|
I'd also like to note the way you've managed to discuss Harry Potter and Star Wars - relating their themes and elements to Tolkien in remarkably insightful ways - without ever swerving into the usual territory of making value judgements or comparisons. I think you're the only poster I've seen to date who has managed to do this.
I agree mindlessmunkey...
|
|
|
Thanks paul and mm. I got awfully tired of reading those kinds of debates, too.
"How do you celebrate your holy week?"
"Wedgies, mostly."
|
|
|
Great post, lk!
Having all these issues spread around so intricately helps bring home the issue that villainy and heroism, good and evil, are in constant struggle at all levels. Not that that in and of itself is a startling revelation. But it's among the most effective representations of it that I've ever read or seen
You and kiplingkat did a great job of drawing out these illustrations of the struggles between good and evil both among people and inside each person.
On Harry Potter
IMO, there's some great stuff in the HP books about the complexities of good and evil. It's true that the Malfoy family is blatantly evil - but it's good for kids to learn from day one that the richest people of the snootiest bloodlines quite often get away with overt evil. The audience, remember, is children, and Rowling is introducing moral complexity gradually. Every book is supposed to take it a step further. I think kids who read all 7 books are definitely going to be well above average in contemplating deeper issues of good and evil.
By book 3, the story reveals more and more about what part people played in the past struggles with Voldemort. Some fought against him, some stayed out of the fight until they saw he was winning and joined him, some were cowards unwilling to rock the boat by getting involved, some were with him from the beginning, some framed others who spent years in Azkaban as a result, some acted as spies for one side or the other, some as double agents, some hid their involvement behind a mask of respectability and are now among the most powerful and respected leaders of society. In book 3 she raises doubts about whether bad actors in the past were accurately identified and appropriately dealt with, and in book 4 she raises more questions about which side people are on now.
A great point she made in book 3 is that there is a distinction between whether two people personally like each other and whether they can be allies in a larger struggle. In book 4 she focuses on the interaction of competition and cooperation. In all 4 books she makes points about how to evaluate others, as well as raising the question of how people should respond to the (re)growing threat of Voldemort.
I'm not saying she's Tolkien, just that I don't think the HP books present good and evil as simplistic or black and white - quite the contrary.
She is fearless and high-hearted. All love her.
|
|
|
I'm looking forward to what you're describing, adalheis. That's one of the benefits of getting exposed to a story like this while it's actually happening. By the time she gets to the end the kids that had started reading it when the first one came out will be a few years older, depending upon when they started. They get to grow with the story.
"How do you celebrate your holy week?"
"Wedgies, mostly."
|
|
|
That is one of the cleverest (and often underestimated) things about Rowling's writing in this series. Each successive book is pitched - in terms of themes, complexity, writing style, etc. - at readers of approximately the main characters' age. So as each book encompasses one year at the school, we see the characters age, and the "age" of the writing increases accordingly. (Thus far, so too does the page count; at this rate the seventh one will need to be released in a five-volume set!)
~~~~~
mindlessmunkey
WAR IS TERRORISM
|
|
|
As a publishing strategy, I agree that seems really cool. But what happens to the next generation, who has all seven books available to go through one after another, and finish in a couple of months?
Parental involvement seems key...let your child read one a year starting at age X (7 or 8 or so?).
Then again, I wonder how the book-publishing strategy goes. If you as publisher intend to make the bulk of your revenue on the first generation of readers (leaving aside the things like merchandising and movie rights) then it probably wouldn't matter. LOTR of course has a long history of gaining readers through the generations, but is that outside the norm?
"How do you celebrate your holy week?"
"Wedgies, mostly."
|
|
|
To take this line of thought another step, why is it that real-life villains and fictional ones (or even dramatised ones) are so different?
The fictional ones are often evil and know it. Their plans are for obviously evil ends, but real life villains always feel justified. They are not evil people in their own minds, they do what they do because they believe they are right, and are doing good, not evil. Hitler was the saviour of post WW1 Germany after France and allies punished it unmercifully in the post war land grab. He put the economy back on its feet and gave the people a much better standard of living. I believe that Hitler honestly thought he was right with all that racial purity crap. He didn't see himself as a monster.
Contrast this with Voldemort. He-who-must-not-be-named is knowingly evil, he knows that what he does is bad, he revels in his murder, and he is aware that his motives are selfish and malicious.
Dragons is so stoopid.
|
|
|
That's a good point, Nasty, and echoes what kiplingkat was saying. Kip's example was Magneto, which is a great example of someone doing something nasty but for ends that he perceive are just and even merciful. In Star Wars, I even detect a higher purpose in Vader's motives, to wit having to do with bringing "order to the galaxy" (though I don't detect the same type of thing in the Emperor.
I guess some would say that what Voldemort or any comic book villain is looking for is power as an end, though for what no one seems to say. Power for its own sake?
But absent a day or two to mull that over I'd intuitively agree with you that fictional villains seem to understand instinctively that they're evil and make no apologies for it. Perhaps that's a requirement to fully flesh out a good-versus-evil tale and drive home a moral?
Let's take this yet another step. I'd suggest that this dichotomy has left us as a people (however you'd care to define "us") looking for fictional representations of real life. It makes us want to color real-life instances in an equally black-and-white stance. Thus every political decision becomes motivated by good or by evil. It's comparatively rare when you see a government official's decisions decried as ineffective but well-intentioned. It's always wrong and intended to be so.
"How do you celebrate your holy week?"
"Wedgies, mostly."
|
|
|
I've made this observation in other threads. Fiction always paints things in black-or-white, either this or that, easy to understand ways. Real world is far from that simple. Deciding black or white requires you to draw the line in the sand and then decide which side of the line the thing is on, but the difficulty comes from complexity. People are never the cardboard cutouts that fictional characters so often are, they have many many different aspects, and to judge them requires you to decide on each and every aspect, in essence you have to draw hundreds of lines in the sand and assess the side of each aspect of the thing you are judging.
Tolkien brilliantly avoids even this simple judgement making in LOTR. Sauron is hardly a character in the book, we never are shown anything from his perspective, we never hear the tale told even in the third person from within Mordor (except of course when Frodo and Sam go there). Sauron can hardly be called a character, he has no personality, he is just an amorphous blob of badness, the quintessence of evil. If he patted a kitten you just know he did it for evil reasons, but you never ever see him do something that mundane as this would give him flesh. There is nobody in history who we can say this of, every bad person through the ages has had layer upon layer of complexity, they all were children once, had mothers who loved them and had hopes for them.
Dragons is so stoopid.
|
|
|
"Fiction always paints things in black-or-white, either this or that, easy to understand ways. "
Of course, otherwise it is impossible to resolve the plot within limited number of pages/hours. There is also an issue of "happy ever after", which also happens only in fiction.
I hope it will not offend you, but I think here you contradict yourself a little bit. Quintessence of evil equals black in fiction, therefore Tolkien already have judged for everybody as far as nature of Sauron is concerned.
|
|
|
That was the point I was trying to get across, I don't think its a contradiction at all. Tolkien presented sauron as so evil that there was never any need to even think about whether he is black or white, he's given to us "pre-painted".
Dragons is so stoopid.
|
|
|
Sorry, I was veeery sleepy  at the time. I see your point.
|
|
|
| by -
damianarlyn
(Sun Apr 13 20:17:45)
|
|
| UPDATED Sun Apr 13 20:24:44 |
Excellent post, Ikalliance!
The subject of villians is one that has always fascinated me. When I was a kid I heard a quote by a writer/animator from Disney (a studio that has certainly given us some memorable villians) who said "A story is only as good as its villian." Since then I have endeavoured to understand what makes a good villian (oxymoron?), what works and what doesn't. I even had a long period of time where I tried to actually define what a villian is (more difficult then you might think), what the difference is between a villian and an antagonist, a villian and an anti-hero, a protagonist and a hero, etc. I even thought about putting all my ideas into a book about some of the all-time greatest fictional villians of literature, film and television. I wanted to call it the No-Good, the Bad and the Ugly.
I liked all that points that you made and think they do apply to a lot of the great villians in our human storytelling history, but I have also discovered that (as is the case with most things) the "rules" are always breakable by somebody who manages to turn the format on its head and do it brilliantly. Thus, I think when we discuss what makes a great villian we need to frame it in the context of what kind of story we are telling.
I must sadly disagree with an earlier point that all real-life villians pursue evil for their own best interest. I used to think this way but in my old age (HA!  ) I am beginning to get a lot less optmisitic about human nature. I really do think there are some people who pursue evil for its own sake. Like that line in the chilling film 8MM: "There's no great mystery to it all. The things I do, I do them because I like them,... Because I want to." That quote was put into the film because, as Joel Shumacher reveals on the DVD commentary, it was an actual quote.
Nonetheless, I do think that in most cases, what we call "villians" in the real world almost always have a somewhat sympathetic motivation of some kind or an end goal that they are working to achieve. I do like it when villians have these qualities in stories as well. It humanizes them and makes them much more compelling (at least to me). I have tried to provide the villians in my own stories with the same thing (Cain in The Hunter for example).
Incidentally, some of my personal favorite movie villians are Gary Oldman in The Professional, the Joker in Batman, John Malkovich from In the Line of Fire, Alan Rickman from Die Hard, Norman Bates from Psycho, Hannibal Lecter from Silence of the Lambs and, of course, Darth Vader from Star Wars.
"The only way to have a happy ending is not to tell the rest of the story." -ORSON WELLES
|
|
|
Damianalyn -- what are you, a villain junkie?
Something interesting about villains to me is also cultural context (and sometimes propaganda.)
For instance, when I grew up watching John Wayne films on TV there was simply no doubt that the white guys were the good guys and the Indians were horrible savages with zero redeeming value.
Then a film came out about 1970 called "Little Big Man," based on the book by Thomas Berger. In it, the Indians were portrayed as interesting human beings who were often kind and fun-loving, but also willing to fight against overwhelming invaders.
The whites, symbolized by a monomaniacal General William Custer, were intent on taking over the Native Americans' lands and basically eliminating them.
This blew my mind! I had never even considered the possibility that the Indians might in fact be human beings before this film. And at the time, "Little Big Man" was considered an outrageous and possibly subversive film because it questioned the status quo about "good guys" and "bad guys."
|
|
|
"Damianalyn -- what are you, a villain junkie?"
Nope,..... just a villian!  BWA-HA-HA-HA-HAAAA!!!!!
"The only way to have a happy ending is not to tell the rest of the story." -ORSON WELLES
|
|
|
I LOVE Little Big Man, Val!!!
The re-thinking of conventional "Indians" vs "Whites" perspective made it quite groundbreaking (long before Dances With Wolves presented a similar re-thinking with a completely humourless and irritatingly sanctimonious tone).
Litle Big Man was also considered "an outrageous and possibly subversive film" because of the clever parallels it cheekily drew with America's questionable involvement in Vietnam at the time.
~~~~~
mindlessmunkey
WAR IS TERRORISM
|
|
|
| by -
Aule
(Sun Apr 13 22:04:39)
|
|
except for the fact that I agree. As usual, lkalliance, you have presented a very well thought out essay. I have nothing more to add, except that I saw Chamber of Secrets tonight. It was decent, but it lacked the charm of the first one. Having said that, I wasn't particularly fond of the last third or so the first one. It was okay, but I found it wanting.
|
|
|
Perhaps we should start a rumor that you and I are actually the same person. Has anyone ever seen us post different posts at exactly the same time?
I think when I watched the films my expectations were low. Well, not LOW but not to the same level as they were for LOTR, say. I was looking to get different things out of it. What things those were, I can't even begin to define. But it gave me some things that I didn't expect to find. Pure-bloods versus dirty-bloods. House elves and the social ramifications of them (reminded me of Imps, hehe). A more broad spectrum of "outsiders trying to fit in" than I expected.
I liked the first one better, too, but I found the second engaging enough, especially since I'm looking at these like I look at LOTR...I've just seen the first two chapters and it's far from over.
"How do you celebrate your holy week?"
"Wedgies, mostly."
|
|
|
This message has been deleted by the poster
|
|
|
This message has been deleted by the poster
|
|
|
Beautifully put! I think that what tokien has done by spreading out the evil(and good)qualities, that we are able to see a bit of ourselves, or people we know, in these characters. Our own flaws and strengths.
In the room the women come and go
Talking of Michelangelo.
|
|
|
Very interesting
|
|
|
I haven't contributed much of substance for a while now, so I may show evidence of being out of practice...
I'd like to elaborate my perspective on two good answers that lk gives to his own question about the purposes villians serve -- how they appeal to and serve our bond with the protagonist and our sense of justice/vengeance.
Villains add definition to heroes as foils and as the proving ground for the heroes strength, intellect, character, and perhaps mercy. Fictional evil masterminds and fraudulent CEOs notwithstanding, studies show that most real life criminals have below normal IQ. (That's an observation of correlation only.) But of course the greater glory is in the greater challenge, so our villain quite often possesses some measure of the qualities we will be led to admire. As lk pointed out, the more subtle and suprising the match-ups the better. (This thread is rife with excellent examples. This is just one more, but the movie "Unbreakable" pursued these themes in interesting ways.)
My favorite villains often have some measure of good intent which has been twisted. Why wouldn't it be more satisfying to soundly defeat unadulterated evil? Well, it can be. But I am more convinced of the strength of the villain (and thus led to greater love of the hero) when there is or was good in him. In part, this may come from a realistic understanding of the world. I do believe that a package of lies becomes more palatable, powerful, and ultimately effective when some truth is stirred in. I also believe that in acts of creation are one way humans are made in the image of God, that pure evil can only pervert but can never truly create or innovate. It also comes from a desire to think that good really is stronger, and that twisted fragments of good somehow enable the mental accuity and other powers of the villain. "Black hole" villains can make good stories (the Borg, Wrinkle In Time's void, other enemies that simply suck in all life and individuality) but to make any other kind we need to see that the hero could have been the villain and vice versa. Magneto (X-Men comics/movie) is one of my favorites for this reason. Even Professor Moriarty (antagonist for Sherlock Holmes) had a backstory.
I also mentioned our sense of justice and vengeance. For me, I seek not just for the villain to be extinguished, but for him to understand his error and feel the pain he has caused. Real life affords few such opportunities (and I am acutely grateful not be exposed so harshly to the total pain that has resulted from own actions on some occasions.) From my experience talking with the imprisoned and from what I've read, most people that the law has convicted do not see themselves as guilty. They did the best they could, they didn't do anything wrong, they had no choice. But I want my vicarious opponent to feel his own guilt, and be aware of his demise. I want the look on Christopher Lee's face as Saruman realizes that his tower will fall. In The Princess Bride (movie), when Inigo asks if he should kill the recently tied up Prince Humperdink, Wesley answers, "Leave him. I want him to live a long life alone with his cowardice." Orson Scott Card accomplishes the most satisfying redemption of a bad guy that I've ever read in the Homecoming Series (the 5th book Earthborn). Throug a setup I won't describe, a man is led into the minds of those he has influenced, following the effects of his actions all the way to the evil and pain he has distanced himself from.
Perhaps I've just catalogued some characters, more so than elaborated, but it was fun!
"If you're not for yourself, then who will be for you? If you're only for yourself, what are you?"
|
|
|
Actually, you have added something I hadn't considered before:
My favorite villains often have some measure of good intent which has been twisted. Why wouldn't it be more satisfying to soundly defeat unadulterated evil? Well, it can be. But I am more convinced of the strength of the villain (and thus led to greater love of the hero) when there is or was good in him.
I'll append to that: by introducing a kernel of good on the cob of reprehensibility, an author gives us reasons to root for the villain.
I've been to the stage production of Les Miserables many times...no one can understand why it is I root for Javert. Javert isn't evil...his every intention is "good" by the very strict rules in which he operates.
It further warps the definition of good and evil because it gives us reason to doubt the actions of the hero at some level. Yes, a good resolution is the removal of the villain. But better resolutions involve making use of that good kernel before the evil part is disposed of and eventually picked out from our dentures. That could mean redemption or it could just mean unintentional use of that amount of good for ends that even the villain didn't intend (I don't have any examples of the latter...I'm just theorizing. I am reminded of Khan Noonion Singh in Star Trek II, who in his attempt to destroy Kirk instead creates life. But I did not perceive that to be an outgrowth of anything decent in Khan, so that's not a perfect example).
The other point you brought up -- or at least mentioned -- is mercy. At what point does mercy cease to be a virtue and instead become a flaw? Why, when the object of that mercy IS monochrome evil. Mercy for the sake of a buried good can be laudable...mercy just for its own sake upon a villain with definitively NO redeeming value is arguably just plain stupid. In fact to me it feels less like mercy than it does like vanity (see Ar-Parazon and Sauron).
So without this element of good we lose mercy as a valid measure of the hero.
Dying is easy. Comedy is hard.
|
|
|
| by -
Aule
(Sat Apr 19 12:30:47)
|
|
I'll append to that: by introducing a kernel of good on the cob of reprehensibility
Thanks, Elkie! I just decided what I'm having for dinner tonight.
|
|
|
I just decided that all those rumors I've been hearing about you two being the same person are false. 
"If you're not for yourself, then who will be for you? If you're only for yourself, what are you?"
|
|
|
(drumming fingers together)
Eeeeeeexcellent.
Dying is easy. Comedy is hard.
|
|
|
| by -
GaugeMistress
(Sat Apr 19 14:16:20)
|
|
| UPDATED Sat Apr 19 14:46:16 |
 Unlike either of you, I don't believe I would have enough ideas to sustain two different personnas if I tried. Either of you could be simlultaneously exploring literary themes on multiple threads, spinning fantastic tales, and flirting with Shakra, like a grandmaster playing several games of chess at once**. lk, I think your distinctive sense of humor would give you away eventually, and Aule, I think your ability to unify and establish connections among ideas would eventually cause you to make a mega-post weaving together all the threads of thought you had been pursuing. Me, I'd get as far as making a new username, see a post asking for help with math homework, and it'd all be over. ("Hey, MeasurementLady, you sound an awful lot like...")
**Caution: This analogy is quite a stretch.
"If you're not for yourself, then who will be for you? If you're only for yourself, what are you?"
|
|
|
| by -
Aule
(Sat Apr 19 14:31:51)
|
|
Hey, it hasn't been easy.
|
|
|
"Hey, MeasurementLady, you sound an awful lot like..."
MY distincitive sense of humor? This elicited a quite-out-loud laugh over here. You make a mockery of my new sig.
Dying is easy. Comedy is hard.
|
|
|
"If you're not for yourself, then who will be for you? If you're only for yourself, what are you?"
|
|
|
Old Tom Bombadil is a merry fellow,
Bright blue his jacket is, and his boots are yellow.
|
|
|
This message has been deleted by an administrator
|
|
|
This message has been deleted by the poster
|
|
|
This message has been deleted by the poster
|
|
|
This message has been deleted by the poster
|
|
|
A friendly bump from Sponsor #11593: Lady Éowyn
 You are a daughter of kings. A shieldmaiden of Rohan.
|
|
|
A friendly bump from Sponsor #11593: Lady Éowyn
You are a daughter of kings. A shieldmaiden of Rohan.
|
| |
| | |
company.
Advertise on IMDb.
License our content.
