The Start of my Villain Arc

Why do we love the villain so much? The stock character of the villain has always been here, and is necessary for a story. But lately, there has been a surge in villainy that the audience now embraces rather than despises. I am hearing threats of people starting their villain arc and then they laugh. How has being the bad guy become the new trend and how did villainy even begin in film and TV? There is a great paper on the evolution of the screen villain, but I’ll give you some of the highlights and add my own thoughts in this entry.

When you think of a villain, what do you picture? 

Maybe these people: 

Some actors are just known for playing the villain. When I saw Jack Nicholson as a romantic lead in a movie I HAD to click off – did not make sense in my brain. Some actors are typecast into villain roles because of the way that they look, because they fit into the villain template that we have created in our heads. With the villain stock character, in literary and screen works, there would be characteristics that made them an ‘other’, like a witch with a long nose, a long twirling moustache, an ‘old hag’ or literally being non-human, for instance, a beast. Even with human villains, the portrayal depends on the audience. In the early screen times, villains were cartoony with a sidekick and exaggerated movements to compensate for the lack of sound. This technique is still used today in comedies like ‘Home Alone 2’. The burglars were tame villains and used for comedic relief instead of being a true foil. These villains were there to cater to the hero and weren’t too intimidating so that the audience still had a soft spot for them. One burglar being tall and lanky and the other short and stout aligns with the some physical quirks of a villainous duo.

During the Cold War in the 20th century, many villains were from Eastern Europe and reflected who the Americans wanted to villainise. As Screenscope always reiterates, film and culture are interlinked, therefore the frequent portrayal as a villain looking a certain way or being from a certain place can be extremely negative in society and can foster unconscious prejudice. Shoutout to the very few women who got the villain role but were mainly portrayed as ageing women who lashed out because they were upset that their ‘prime’ had passed. The ‘otherness’ of the villains has made it easier for the audience to separate ourselves from them and their mentality. That still rings true for some slasher films, that have masked villains like ‘Scream’, ‘Darth Vader’ or ‘Michael Myers’. The horror aspect makes the villain otherworldly, maybe embodying your deepest fears and shrinking us back to our childhood horrors.

Naturally, the rules change with genre and throughout time. The audience doesn’t look at the label of “villain” based on looks anymore – we need more convincing. The problem with this is that more screen time gives the audience more permission to empathise with the villain. We have this with ‘Despicable Me’, ‘Shrek’ and ‘Wreck It Ralph’ – seemingly villains with their looks. But these animation films humanise them and make it seem like all villains have a heart to do good eventually. Even with the movie ‘Megamind’, we see that even for kids, the “hero” title is depicted as overrated and staged, and the underdog story of a bad boy gone good is better and could even be sought after. Then the audience has mercy and the “villain” label is replaced with the “anti-hero”, which seems to somehow makes the wrongdoings okay, because they are still the hero – somehow.

What is the difference between a villain and an antihero? To me, it felt like a copout for villains to avoid their true description, but antihero is loosely defined as someone who has moral ambiguity rather than outright evil. This reflects movies from the 1970s, where there were race riots in the US and villainy in the street was a response to metropolitan chaos. The wickedness was not senseless, but a response to poverty, disrespect or for the ‘greater good’. ‘The Godfather’ is a great example. Is the Corleone family villainous for trying to maintain the family business through violence? Many people don’t see them that way despite their actions, because it wasn’t depicted as self seeking or for personal ambition but for the family legacy. It’s all about framing and morals seem to become more ambiguous as we have grown older.

So, how do we frame villains now? Before, they were defeated by the hero and the audience could take solace in the fact that the villain would always be beaten – but now we seem to root for the villain to have the upper hand. Villains have had spinoffs, like the 1969 show ‘Dastardly and Muttley’ (the most popular moustache twirling villain), however these villains were comedic and silly and usually didn’t do anything too severe. I think of a lot of the content that we have now: ‘You’, ‘The Penguin’, ‘Joker’, ‘Loki’ and many more that are fuelled by dark intentions instead of light hearted antics. Even the comic book antagonists that naturally fell into the literary villain tropes, are getting a platform to be three dimensional, despite supposedly getting the worst title of ‘super-villain’ with the intention of being disliked – and yet their series are getting renewed for season 2. Many villains used to hide behind a mask and reveal themselves later, but nowadays, there is less hiding, the villains want you to see who they are. The villains aren’t just killing either, the villainy is more nuanced and rooted in societal problems (it’s still twisted though), making it easier for the audience to understand their plight. Anthony Hopkins, who famously played the villain Hannibal Lecter says, “audiences are drawn toward the magnetism, toward the darkness”.

Is this true? Do we live vicariously through these villains that kill and hurt and taunt so we can satisfy our urges that we can’t act on in real life? Are villains taking more of the centre stage because we as a society, have become more cynical and less morally led?

Or maybe I’m just overthinking it.