While I love villians, I perfer my villain remain partly mysterious.
I think too much focus ruins them because they become too humanized and possabily creating empathy. I don't wanna feel sorry for a villain, just like I didn't wanna feel sorry for Anakin/Vader. I don't care why a villain is evil, I just accept they are.
I think too much focus ruins them because they become too humanized and possabily creating empathy. I don't wanna feel sorry for a villain, just like I didn't wanna feel sorry for Anakin/Vader. I don't care why a villain is evil, I just accept they are.
It's actually pretty fashionable to flip stories these days and explore the viewpoint of a villain. Wicked, for example (more the book than the musical). Finn is another recent example - a book which tells the tale of Huckleberry Finn's horrid, abusive father's life. The movie Bram Stoker's Dracula made the villain the protagonist. Shakespeare's Richard III certainly has a villainous lead.
But let's look at Hannibal for the dangers of making the villain the protagonist. Some, in fact a lot, of villains work so powerfully because their actions are not directly seen, but rather felt by the protagonist. Too much of a villain can undermine the mysterious dread that comes with him or her. It can also be tricky to build sympathy for the villain and still keep them villainous - this is what happens in Wicked the book, and the Star Wars prequels. Once you see the struggles of the villain, you either sympathize and don't want to see them come to their bitter end (we have no appreciation for grand tragedy any more), or you are happy to think of them in their fully evil persona and find that having seen them as weak, vulnerable victims of fate takes away their delicious evilness.
I think a good story with a villain as a main character can certainly be great - as people have pointed out, there's the Sopranos, and I'd throw Deadwood in there as well, though some might argue that Al Swearingen isn't the main character. But I don't know if, say, Joker would work that way. Professor Moriarty might. You have to think about what makes a villain work to choose the right one for this sort of thing.
But let's look at Hannibal for the dangers of making the villain the protagonist. Some, in fact a lot, of villains work so powerfully because their actions are not directly seen, but rather felt by the protagonist. Too much of a villain can undermine the mysterious dread that comes with him or her. It can also be tricky to build sympathy for the villain and still keep them villainous - this is what happens in Wicked the book, and the Star Wars prequels. Once you see the struggles of the villain, you either sympathize and don't want to see them come to their bitter end (we have no appreciation for grand tragedy any more), or you are happy to think of them in their fully evil persona and find that having seen them as weak, vulnerable victims of fate takes away their delicious evilness.
I think a good story with a villain as a main character can certainly be great - as people have pointed out, there's the Sopranos, and I'd throw Deadwood in there as well, though some might argue that Al Swearingen isn't the main character. But I don't know if, say, Joker would work that way. Professor Moriarty might. You have to think about what makes a villain work to choose the right one for this sort of thing.
The Joker would probably suck, because he's basically motiveless, a force of nature, and not really much of a character. Might as well write a story about clouds or tectonic plates.
I loved Alias (hey, back when BMB was good!), and the Purple Man was an awesomely awful person and antagonist, but like you said... a serious story focusing specifically on someone like him would be pretty nasty--the premise of Funny Games is pretty similar, and that's a good but pretty unpleasant film. Although one must admit that The Purple Man could make a pretty good porno.
Hermiod said:
I loved Alias (hey, back when BMB was good!), and the Purple Man was an awesomely awful person and antagonist, but like you said... a serious story focusing specifically on someone like him would be pretty nasty--the premise of Funny Games is pretty similar, and that's a good but pretty unpleasant film. Although one must admit that The Purple Man could make a pretty good porno.
True! That was an AWESOME show. We watched it via Netflix and it was definitely a show ahead of its time.
For me, the hero (as in the central character) of tv shows have never really been the most interesting or compelling. Their sidekicks and villains have often been far more interesting. I don't know, though, if the villain became the central character he would still be as compelling as before. I'm thinking about Spike. He's always been a favourite of mine, but I don't know if he'd be as interesting if he was the hero. I always liked Angel a great deal, but I thought he wasn't as interesting when he became the main character of his own show.
Yeah but you don't find out that he is the villain until the end of the film.
Especially the version form the CGI series.
A show about Lex Luthor - as portrayed in the comic "Lex Luthor, Man of Steel" would be a huge hit, IMHO.
Lex was actually rather sympathetic in that one.
Lex was actually rather sympathetic in that one.
You'd either have to go down the comedic, frustrated villain like Dr. Horrible or you'd have someone like Purple Man who is an utterly reprehensible piece of dirt.
Otherwise, all you've really got is an anti-hero, not a villain.
Any of the Francis Urquhart miniseries: House of Cards, To Play the King & The Final Cut.
All almost completely told from FU's perspective, complete with charming yet usually totally evil asides to the viewer, breaking the 4th wall in a wonderful way, actually convincing you of his point of view. A totally corrupt, morally bankrupt character and yet you really root for him.
If you haven't seen them, I can't recommend them highly enough.
Profit (mentioned upthread) and American Psycho are also examples of this kind of storytelling. I'd argue Wall Street is too, because Bud Fox actually far commits far more criminal acts than Gekko (who doesn't get his hands all that dirty, really).
EDIT - I just realised this topic's in SFF rather than TV&Media, so these shows don't exactly apply. But there's no reason a SFF show couldn't do the same.
All almost completely told from FU's perspective, complete with charming yet usually totally evil asides to the viewer, breaking the 4th wall in a wonderful way, actually convincing you of his point of view. A totally corrupt, morally bankrupt character and yet you really root for him.
If you haven't seen them, I can't recommend them highly enough.
Profit (mentioned upthread) and American Psycho are also examples of this kind of storytelling. I'd argue Wall Street is too, because Bud Fox actually far commits far more criminal acts than Gekko (who doesn't get his hands all that dirty, really).
EDIT - I just realised this topic's in SFF rather than TV&Media, so these shows don't exactly apply. But there's no reason a SFF show couldn't do the same.
The uber SF/F example is probably Michael Moorcock's Elric, though it's a little foggy as to whether Elric is really evil, though he makes pacts and agreements with Chaos Lords and so forth.
And the Elric example makes me think also of John Constantine in Hellblazer - definitely more of an anti-hero than a villain. But then Lucifer spun off into his own comic. Definitely a villain. Actually, Lucifer spun out first from Sandman. There's a good case to be made that Morpheus is actually the villain of Sandman (certainly he commits several heinous acts), at least until his rebirth.
And the Elric example makes me think also of John Constantine in Hellblazer - definitely more of an anti-hero than a villain. But then Lucifer spun off into his own comic. Definitely a villain. Actually, Lucifer spun out first from Sandman. There's a good case to be made that Morpheus is actually the villain of Sandman (certainly he commits several heinous acts), at least until his rebirth.
Sure I'd watch. A sci fi version of Dexter would rock! 
Well...we should have been, if it had been handled right...
But there's a difference between not being able to bring yourself to side with the villain versus having total and utter contempt for a badly mangled character who needed at least one rewrite and a recasting.
Maybe I'm skewed but most of my favorite shows either have a villainous main character or major characters:
Lost - Most of the best characters are partly or mostly bad.
Dexter, Breaking Bad, Sons of Anarchy, Archer - Main characters are various types of bad.
24 - Lead character would scare Dick Cheney.
Entourage - "Bad" characters have stolen the show out from under the "good" ones.
Big Love - Main characters are considered heinous by mainstream society.
The Tudors - This Henry XIII is even crazier than the historical one (maybe to make up for the fact that he's staying strangely svelte?)
Caprica - Can't tell yet, but given its pedigree, I expect to hate everyone soon.
I saw a trailer for this just the other day, I think it's just starting to be shown over on this side of the pond. I must admit, the trailer looked quite fun and I generally like Ron Perlman's acting. It's worth watching, I take it?
It's impossible for any sane person to consider Margene evil.
Definitely! There are a lot of great actors on the show, including Perlman and Katie Sagal. The plotlines can get somewhat melodramatic and contrived, but they are carefully structured so that the various threads come together for great, surprising payoffs - that can't be easy to do. Like Lost, Big Love, Breaking Bad and Dexter, Sons of Anarchy is a great example of bravura serialized writing.
Yet put her on a talk show - say, Oprah - and ask her to defend her lifestyle and I'm sure she'd get ripped to shreds or at the very least dismissed as a pathetically brainwashed victim.
Barb and Bill are far from being evil, too. Nicki isn't evil, exactly, just tragically screwed up.
Villains appeal to the desire to throw off all constraints and be the bad ass who wins. A lot of us also feel a little guilty so the custom is for the audience to enjoy the villain winning, winning, winning until the end, when morality is reaffirmed by his defeat. It's a little tongue in cheek, to be sure. Personally I'm pretty shallow and I can get into enjoying something like the Joker in Dark Knight Returns in a turn off your brain way, at least long enough to sit through a couple hours of movie.
The question is, can you enjoy a villain who doesn't reaffirm morality, even in the more or less pretend way, by losing, but keeps winning? Certainly there are people who do not believe in the concept of morality and despise the people who do. So they could certainly buy in.
The notion of the villain as the one who always wins seems to express the feeling that life is a struggle and the winners are the ones who are ruthless enough to do what it takes. The villain as hero thus seems designed to affirm a world view. In my judgment, this world view is fairly popular, but it is even more popular amongst the elites, for whom it serves as ideological anodyne. And Hollywood producers, and writer/producers, most certainly consider themselves amongst the elite. The Social Darwinist view of life has been rigidly promoted for years, even from before Darwin published, so it's conventional wisdom. People will not examine their ideological biases as expressed in the arts, however.
But in television and movies, the notion that the bad guy is the winner because he's the ruthless one certainly requires suspension of critical faculties. Nobody ever makes up a story to mislead Jack Bauer; Walter White can toss nitroglycerine bombs around to terrify yet another Mexican gangster but doesn't accidentally blow himself up; Dexter Morgan is a better detective than Batman; people will always listen to Ben Linus, so on and so forth. These villains are commonly accepted in the internet.
The heroes rarely have things so easy. There are a couple of exceptions, House and Patrick Jane on The Mentalist. So they have interesting tragic pasts or problems to disguise the wish fulfilment aspect. But these heroes are often rejected by the internet posters.
So it seems the real issue is affirmation of a Social Darwinist worldview. That being the case, I would judge that there would be a limited audience in the general population, but a wide and vociferous audience in the elites. Such series would win high praise but not have a big audience. There appear to have been several such series already.
Personally I don't care so much for them. Breaking Bad may be going off the rails, Lost is a failure, Dexter is complicated by the fact that Dexter is also a domestic comedy with Dexter as heroically committed to family as Ward Cleaver.
(Reluctant heroes are still heroes. Antiheroes are extremely rare, because antiheroes are, well, not heroic. They tend to be incompetent, or might be cowardly. Dr. Zachary Smith or Dr. Gaius Baltar are genuine antiheroes.)
The question is, can you enjoy a villain who doesn't reaffirm morality, even in the more or less pretend way, by losing, but keeps winning? Certainly there are people who do not believe in the concept of morality and despise the people who do. So they could certainly buy in.
The notion of the villain as the one who always wins seems to express the feeling that life is a struggle and the winners are the ones who are ruthless enough to do what it takes. The villain as hero thus seems designed to affirm a world view. In my judgment, this world view is fairly popular, but it is even more popular amongst the elites, for whom it serves as ideological anodyne. And Hollywood producers, and writer/producers, most certainly consider themselves amongst the elite. The Social Darwinist view of life has been rigidly promoted for years, even from before Darwin published, so it's conventional wisdom. People will not examine their ideological biases as expressed in the arts, however.
But in television and movies, the notion that the bad guy is the winner because he's the ruthless one certainly requires suspension of critical faculties. Nobody ever makes up a story to mislead Jack Bauer; Walter White can toss nitroglycerine bombs around to terrify yet another Mexican gangster but doesn't accidentally blow himself up; Dexter Morgan is a better detective than Batman; people will always listen to Ben Linus, so on and so forth. These villains are commonly accepted in the internet.
The heroes rarely have things so easy. There are a couple of exceptions, House and Patrick Jane on The Mentalist. So they have interesting tragic pasts or problems to disguise the wish fulfilment aspect. But these heroes are often rejected by the internet posters.
So it seems the real issue is affirmation of a Social Darwinist worldview. That being the case, I would judge that there would be a limited audience in the general population, but a wide and vociferous audience in the elites. Such series would win high praise but not have a big audience. There appear to have been several such series already.
Personally I don't care so much for them. Breaking Bad may be going off the rails, Lost is a failure, Dexter is complicated by the fact that Dexter is also a domestic comedy with Dexter as heroically committed to family as Ward Cleaver.
(Reluctant heroes are still heroes. Antiheroes are extremely rare, because antiheroes are, well, not heroic. They tend to be incompetent, or might be cowardly. Dr. Zachary Smith or Dr. Gaius Baltar are genuine antiheroes.)
Breaking Bad is not going off the rails.
Lost is not a failure.
But I don't think any TV show can ask the audience to sympathize with anti-hero lead characters unless they, at the very least, are following their own brand of morality, even if it's at odds with societal norms. Big Love and Sons of Anarchy are shows about people who reject societal norms, but as long as they are loving and loyal towards their own little families (by blood or otherwise), the audience will be fine with it.
The real acid test would be an anti-hero who is a loner and doesn't give a fuck about anyone but himself. I can't think of a single drama that has pulled that off, or even has tried to.
Lost is not a failure.
But I don't think any TV show can ask the audience to sympathize with anti-hero lead characters unless they, at the very least, are following their own brand of morality, even if it's at odds with societal norms. Big Love and Sons of Anarchy are shows about people who reject societal norms, but as long as they are loving and loyal towards their own little families (by blood or otherwise), the audience will be fine with it.
The real acid test would be an anti-hero who is a loner and doesn't give a fuck about anyone but himself. I can't think of a single drama that has pulled that off, or even has tried to.
Similar threads
