Why can't we just have evil villains?

[Kegg]

from what I understand of the history of racism, European racism -- indeed, the very idea of Europeans as a separate "race" -- was in its very early stages during the late 1500s and early 1600s,

Though well along enough for Aaron the Moor to be a Shakespearean character (a man who is black and therefore evil, from Titus Anronicus). If nothing else there's a conscious black/white dualism going on here.

And doesn't Othello pass over Iago for a promotion? Been a while but I recall that being important.

 

[DevilEyes]

And doesn't Othello pass over Iago for a promotion? Been a while but I recall that being important.

At the start of the play, Iago is pissed off that Othello gave the promotion to Michael Cassio (the man he would later frame as Desdemona's "lover") instead of him. He also mentions in passing that there are rumors that his wife slept with Othello, and he doesn't know if it is true or not, but the mere suspicion is enough of a reason for revenge. (From everything we see in the play, this is so unlikely that I wonder if even Iago really believes it. In any case, he might see the mere rumour as enough of an affront. It's certainly not like he cares about his wife - throughout the play, the only interest he shows in her in getting her to help him in his schemes by bringing him Desdemona's handkerchief.)

I find Palpatine interesting, in the sense that I find a character like Iago from Othello interesting -- this sort of "motiveless malignity," as Samuel Taylor Coleridge described Shakespeare's villain. I do find that sort of pure archetypical evil to be fascinating -- but I also don't think it's the right kind of character for all stories.

Oh, Iago is far from motiveless IMO, whatever Coleridge might have said - in fact, I'd say that his motivation is pretty fucking obvious, unless one really doesn't want to see it because it makes them uncomfortable (which I suspect might have been the case with a lot of critics from previous centuries who seemed to have the fact that Othello is a black man in a very white society completely go over their heads).

Let's see, if a movie was made today about a respectable black guy in a position of power, and his ambitious, scheming, jealous white subordinate who plots to ruin his life - who is pissed off at his superior because he was passed on promotion, and bitches to himself in his monologues about his resentment of his superior, constantly bringing up his skin color, and even indulging in paranoid delusions that his wife had cheated on him with this respectable, powerful black superior - who happens to have a beautiful white wife from an influential family (even though it is obvious that this has nothing to do with the truth, as the black superior is madly in love with his wife and the villain's wife is mad about her husband - and that the paranoia has more to do with the villain's own issues...)...

... I wonder how many critics would be talking about the villain's "motiveless malignity"?

That's certainly a valid interpretation of the character, but I think you run the risk of projecting modern concepts of race relations onto Elizabethan characters; from what I understand of the history of racism, European racism -- indeed, the very idea of Europeans as a separate "race" -- was in its very early stages during the late 1500s and early 1600s, and as such I think it's just as valid to suggest that Iago is not racist, but instead merely seizes upon anything he can to find excuses for his inherent malice and sadism.

The only difference is that they wouldn't have used the term "racism" for it. But count the number of times that Othello is identified as an "other" in the play and the number of times his physical characteristics are mentioned by various characters, and the word "black" in particular, or "Moor".

Of course at heart of all this is malice, sadism and jealousy. But look at the people who blame immigrants or foreigners for their problems and see them as an obstacle for their own advancement - because they need to blame someone, and outsiders/people defined by their "otherness" make the easiest targets of hatred, malice and jealousy that comes from one's own inferiority complexes.

For men in traditional patriarchal societies, "getting" women, and ensuring their fidelity, is one of the essentials of masculinity, power and success, and "cuckoldry" the biggest humiliation and affront to one's masculinity.

And next to "they are taking our jobs", one of the most frequent racist complaints is "they are taking our women". We're certainly aware of how frequent is racist white men's fear of the idea of a black man being in a relationship with a white woman.

Othello, Act I, scene 1

(....)
Brabantio. What is the reason of this terrible summons?
What is the matter there?
Roderigo: Signior, is all your family within?
Iago: Are your doors lock’d?
Brabantio. Why? wherefore ask you this?
Iago. ’Zounds! sir, you’re robb’d; forshame, put on your gown
Your heart is burst, you have lost half your soul;
Even now, now, very now, an old black ram
Is tupping your white ewe. Arise, arise!
Awake the snorting citizens with the bell,
Or else the devil will make a grandsire of you. Arise, I say.

(...)

Roderigo: Sir, I will answer any thing. But, I beseech you,
If’t be your pleasure and most wise consent,
— As partly, I find, it is,—that your fair daughter,
At this odd-even and dull-watch o’ the night,
Transported with no worse nor better guard
But with a knave of common hire, a gondolier,
To the gross clasps of a lascivious Moor,—
If this be known to you, and your allowance,
We then have done you bold and saucy wrongs;
But if you know not this, my manners tell me
We have your wrong rebuke. Do not believe,
That, from the sense of all civility,
I thus would play and trifle with your reverence:
Your daughter, if you have not given her leave,
I say again, hath made a gross revolt;
Tying her duty, beauty, wit and fortunes
In an extravagant and wheeling stranger
Of here and every where.

Iago's monologue from Act I, Scene III

I hate the Moor, And it is thought abroad that ’twixt my sheets He has done my office: I know not if ’t be true, But I, for mere suspicion in that kind, Will do as if for surety.

 

[Anwar]

Heh, it really is true that Shakespeare is like 50% sex jokes...

 

[Harvey]

His remarkable success in succeeding in saving Luke from Vader by the way makes no sense and is an arbitrary plot contrivance that would be denounced as a deus ex machina if people didn't like the character. (You can't even pretend Han is using the Force to ruin his enemies' aim!)

Han's sudden arrival (at the absolutely last possible moment) is very convenient, but it's not completely unexpected. The way Chewie dogs him for not staying to fight and Han's farewell to Luke ("May the Force be with you") plant the seeds for his change of heart and return. For that reason, I'm not sure I'd define it as deux es machina, but of course it's damned convenient. If only Han had appeared earlier, poor Biggs (not to mention all of the other short-lived pilots) would have lived.

essentially everythig [Han] does is to get the hot princess

I think it's unfair to say that. Han goes in search of Luke at the beginning of The Empire Strikes Back because of their friendship, not because of Leia. And by the time Return of the Jedi roles around, I don't see Han joins the Endor mission because he's bought into the Alliance at that point. Of course, the romantic union of Han and Leia is completely a Hollywood convention, and one that is rarely believable when closely scrutinized. That's no different here. There's a reason Return of the Jedi doesn't dwell on this plot point for long.

Honestly, though, the entirety of the Star Wars saga (whether it be the infinitely watchable original trilogy or...those other movies) is a wish-fulfillment fantasy. In light of this, arguments over realism seem rather pointless. I'd say people latch onto Han's character more readily than Luke's because Harrison Ford is far more charming than Mark Hamill. I'm hesitant to agree that people don't like Anakin (in the prequels) because he's not cool enough. Surely it's a factor, but the fact that his lines are neither well-written nor delivered with conviction (at least Harrison Ford had the gall to challenge his director and revise his dialogue on-set) does much to make me dislike the character (in addition to the painful cute child who saves the day trope in The Phantom Menace).

 

[Trent Roman]

If only Han had appeared earlier, poor Biggs (not to mention all of the other short-lived pilots) would have lived.

Han suceeded because he mounted a surprise attack--one that even Vader didn't feel coming, engrossed in the battle as he was. If he'd shown up earlier, he would have just gotten caught up in the scrimage with all the other snubfighters.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[Harvey]

A decent justification, although it only points out how lucky Han was to show up when he did even more.

 

[Trent Roman]

Oh, absolutely. Your typical nick-of-time, one-second-before-the-bomb-goes-off type rescue.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[Harvey]

"It always stopped at one on the show!" is, coincidentally, my favorite moment in Galaxy Quest.

 

[stonester1]

Hey, I like Luke. I also like Anakin...once we get past Jake Lloyd, that is. TPM is a beautifully flawed film. What it does well, it does very well. What it does bad, though, it does HORRIBLY. And Anakin in that film is the lowest of the low. Badly cast, written, directed, sheer excrement.

 

[Australis]

No, Anakin stalking about like a petulant teen in a hoodie in Ep 2 is the low point (well, low point above Jar Jar).

 

[stj]

The murderers I've known personally were stereotypical snotty teens, much more like the Anakin on screen that the tragic hero some of our less sophisticated viewers wanted. The expectation that people turn to evil from noble motives is kinda nuts.

 

[Kegg]

The murderers I've known personally were stereotypical snotty teens, much more like the Anakin on screen that the tragic hero some of our less sophisticated viewers wanted.

Star Wars is an operatic melodrama and Anakin's story is supposed to be the central tragedy of the piece. Anakin is a man who falls into evil and is ultimately redeemed - the prequel trilogy then, to work properly, wanted us to identify to a point with Anakin and consider him worth redeeming. Past all the conscious and cloyingly obvious parallels Lucas gives him to Luke, though, the films consciously fail here.

The expectation that people turn to evil from noble motives is kinda nuts.

The road to hell good intentions paved, and so on. From a conceptual viewpoint Revenge of the Sith did get it right, if a trifle on the nose: people convince themselves what they're doing is good or for the greater good if they're idealistic and perpetrating horrific acts. This is altogether more common than one may think.

 

[stonester1]

I think Attack of the Clones hit it right, too. It showed Anakin as young, hotheaded and temperamental (like Luke at that age). It also showed him as a control freak (which tied directly into his fall). He simply couldn't let things take a course he didn't like, and the more emotionally he was tied into it, the more extreme actions he could be driven to. Those were on impulse, like his attacking Mace Windu, or murdering that tribe of Tusken Raiders. Other things, though just as emotionally driven, also had his underlying philosophical belief also informed by his control freak tendencies. That those he believed were "enlightened" should rule. They could rule more efficiently and justly than a large bureacracy muddled by so many competing interests.

If it was for a "greater good", his or the larger "greater good", he could rationalize all sorts of things.

There is how evil sometimes begins in good people, which Anakin was. He just had his fatal flaws which doomed him.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

I think Attack of the Clones hit it right, too. It showed Anakin as young, hotheaded and temperamental (like Luke at that age). It also showed him as a control freak (which tied directly into his fall). He simply couldn't let things take a course he didn't like, and the more emotionally he was tied into it, the more extreme actions he could be driven to. Those were on impulse, like his attacking Mace Windu, or murdering that tribe of Tusken Raiders. Other things, though just as emotionally driven, also had his underlying philosophical belief also informed by his control freak tendencies. That those he believed were "enlightened" should rule. They could rule more efficiently and justly than a large bureacracy muddled by so many competing interests.

Eh, I still think they failed to really present Anakin convincingly. Setting aside the problem of poor casting, having the guy be emotional makes him seem like a weakling and conflicts too much with the very much not-weak Darth Vader. It's too far of a leap.

I would have made his essential fault arrogance, and not have had him be the least bit weak. I'd also have played up how popular he was for being this great, war-hero Jedi who by all appearances was a flawless golden boy. The general public never knows the full story. Public adulation would have fed his ego and made it more plausible that he and Palps could drop-kick the Republic and get away with it.

They were on the right track having Anakin believe only the elite should rule, because isn't that pretty much implied by the whole Jedi order? They have direct access to the "mind of God" via the Force, so whatever democracy they have in Star Wars is always going to be precarious and threatened by this self-appointed priestly ruling caste. I'd have liked Anakin to blow some holes in the hypocrisy of it all.

And why have him be 100% just the dupe of Palpatine? Darth Vader has never struck me as dumb so having Anakin be a dummy is another gulf that cannot be bridged between those two characters. Why not just have Anakin genuinely believe in Palps' philosophy? If Anakin is the superior golden boy and warrior-priest beloved by billions, why shouldn't he rule with an iron fist?

The murderers I've known personally were stereotypical snotty teens, much more like the Anakin on screen that the tragic hero some of our less sophisticated viewers wanted. The expectation that people turn to evil from noble motives is kinda nuts.

Real life murderers are pathetic and uninteresting, based on your description. Just because something is true in real life doesn't mean that fiction should be based on it. Reality is boring. Fiction shouldn't be.

Star Wars is an operatic melodrama and Anakin's story is supposed to be the central tragedy of the piece. Anakin is a man who falls into evil and is ultimately redeemed - the prequel trilogy then, to work properly, wanted us to identify to a point with Anakin and consider him worth redeeming. Past all the conscious and cloyingly obvious parallels Lucas gives him to Luke, though, the films consciously fail here.

Yeah - if Anakin had been brave, smart, self-confident and above all, non-whiny, then his sole fault would be arrogance. Enough to cause his downfall, but also a nice, neat, single thing that if he managed to overcome, would reveal him as a noble hero we could root for. Otherwise, ROTJ doesn't make a whole lot of sense and this frakkin' story does need to synch up.

The road to hell good intentions paved, and so on. From a conceptual viewpoint Revenge of the Sith did get it right, if a trifle on the nose: people convince themselves what they're doing is good or for the greater good if they're idealistic and perpetrating horrific acts. This is altogether more common than one may think.

He doesn't even have to have good intentions. He could simply believe that he is superior to the common herd and destined to rule. He doesn't have to give a flip about anyone but himself. The Force has annointed him the One True Ruler of the Cosmos, and he'll crush anyone who gets in his way. Well, ok, we do have to account for his genuine loyalty to Palps, which is really a nice characteristic for him. He'd be perfectly reasonable to think even Palps was merely a step on his ladder to greatness and immortality. So the fact that he's willing to subordinate himself to someone he could stab in the back shows he ain't all bad!

 

[Kegg]

And why have him be 100% just the dupe of Palpatine?

So he can be redeemed, silly. Just like the Cylons needed John Cavil to play them like a piano.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

And why have him be 100% just the dupe of Palpatine?

So he can be redeemed, silly. Just like the Cylons needed John Cavil to play them like a piano.

He could have been redeemed even if he jumped into eeeevil, eyes open and feet first.

The essential flaw of the prequels was trying to mitigate Anakin's evil by having him being emotionally out of control and dumb. That just makes him seem contemptable. There's still no excuse for his behavior.

But you're right that the Cylons were given the same treatment. My way of doing things is a tough writing assignment - don't make excuses for the villain, yet turn around and redeem them anyway. Well, I wouldn't have bothered to redeem the Cylons and Anakin died right after returning to his own self in ROTJ. In both cases, the villain is still punished, regardless of whether they felt bad about what they did. Feeling sorry about things doesn't mean you should avoid the firing squad.

 

[Kegg]

But you're right that the Cylons were given the same treatment. My way of doing things is a tough writing assignment - don't make excuses for the villain, yet turn around and redeem them anyway.

Which is admittedly more interesting, but the problem with redeeming a villain in many cases is it means they either weren't responsible for their actions, or they were manipulated into their actions (Farscape's Crais even has this - to an extent. Poor farmboy conscript who went crazy because his brother died.) Someone who rationally and coldly turns to evil, well, it's a little harder to suddenly shoehorn them in as one of the good guys.

Well, I wouldn't have bothered to redeem the Cylons and Anakin died right after returning to his own self in ROTJ. In both cases, the villain is still punished, regardless of whether they felt bad about what they did.

This is also the most conveinent way to redeem a character. It allows you to bring them back to the good side without having to have any real consequences for that in the long term.

What if Vader survived the explosion of the Death Star? Would he have stood trial for his crimes against the galaxy? How would the 'Waah I miss my mommy and my surrogate mother, who was also creepily enough my girlfriend, waaah' defence go over, I wonder? Maybe get a good lawyer, have himself declared clinically insane, and he sips good galactic wine while in an asylum. Publishes a memoir; it's a bestseller. Etc.

How unbelievably unsatisfying is that? Better for him to die in Luke's arms. That's even preferable to him getting executed, since Star Wars is ultimately all about the family anyway and not galactic politicking.

 

[Myasishchev]

And why have him be 100% just the dupe of Palpatine?

So he can be redeemed, silly. Just like the Cylons needed John Cavil to play them like a piano.

Then they made a mistake, because the only Cylon I sympathized with was Cavil. He just wanted to see gamma rays, damnit.

 

[stj]

The last Jedi pupil Anakin kills looks like Luke Skywalker. I'm quite sure that is no accident.

For my part, I think the prequels' weak point is Amidala, who fails completely to look as though she could be tempted to respond to horny dog Anakin's corny come-on. As for falling in love with him? Even less believable. She didn't even seem to have quite grasped that he slaughtered all the Sand People, although Anakin tells her in some many words. Amidala loving Anakin is part of dramatizing his good side, so when that fails, it makes problems for the prequels. It's true that Portman didn't have very good dialogue to work with but she couldn't even wring any emotion out of a death scene.

The reason people don't notice how bad Portman is, but focus on Hayden Christenson instead, is that they wanted Darth Vader coolness while Anakin nobly turned to the Dark Side. Except that "evil" is weakness.

The "road to hell" cliche is nonsense meant to condemn political "idealism" without bothering to present real facts.

Political ideologies that dehumanize opponents contribute to all sorts of atrocities. But that hardly counts as good intentions by any sensible standard.

The notion of redemption, how its earned, etc. is pretty questionable. In Return of the Jedi, Luke redeems Darth Vader, not Darth Vader who redeems himself.

 

[Harvey]

Since when do people fail to notice how bad Natalie Portman's acting is in the prequel trilogy? People focus on Anakin because he's the alleged protagonist, but she hasn't been immune to criticism. Even Ewan McGregor gives a stilted performance in those films. It's hardly escaped the notice of most critics.