Rashak Mani, have you ever considered that, living in Brazil, you don’t see a representative sample of American films? Sure, you see lots of American films, but it’s not quite what Americans see. It’s generally accepted among foreign distributors of American films that many sorts of American films don’t get distributed abroad or at least get very little distribution. They have a number of rules of thumb about which American films don’t do well in foreign distribution, and, because of this, they don’t even try to distribute them. Among the sorts of American films that actually do better in foreign distribution are action/adventure films, which are the sorts that are most likely to have psychotic villains.
I wrote an essay about how boring serial killers are as villains … all they wnat to do is kill people, something a REAL villain delegates to his minions most of the times.
I think psychopathic serial killers HAVE been overused as villains in B-movies and on TV. They’re overused in hackwork because they’re so convenient – they kill a victim in the opening scene, then continue to kill victims until captured/killed. Creates a continuous dramatic suspense, because the good guys are automatically working against the clock.
However, because psychopathic killers are so psychologically remote from normal human beings, or even SDMB members, they don’t offer any chance for an interesting resolution. They really are like hungry animals or killing machines … no sense of humanity to them, really. For that reason, the drama goes completely flat once the psycho is captured/whack – no further resolution prossible. That’s why it always occurs at the very end of the show.
There’s no real “villain”. Shady’s character has rivals but while violent, they are just other aspireing street rappers.
I would say that every character is psychotic on some level. But they are also complex, like all Tarantino villains.
Even when the character is a true psychotic - IE: Hannible Lechter, Keizer Soze, or Pattrick Batemen they are usually pretty interesting and complex characters.
Then again, sometimes it’s nice to have a simple movie with lots of explosions, two buddies who bicker like an old married couple and an evil villain with a European accent and Armani suit instead of a moustache and black hat.
And I think that’s the difference that Hannibal Lecter brings to the table (or, for that matter, Richard III). They’re psychopaths, sure, but there’s also something else communicated in the performances. Something that we can connect with that helps the viewer explore something within themselves.
A Freddy Kruger or whatnot? Not a chance.
And my vote for greatest villain of the last 20 years isn’t even on the list…
Hans Gruber, from Die Hard. Intelligent, well-mannered and suave. He simply has goals that A) conflict with societal expectations and B) sadly, conflict with the holiday plans of you know who.
Poor Hans. I wish he’d gotten away with it.
You took the words out of my mouth… great answer
My big issue isn’t american culture or lack thereof… its these boring villains and plots that come way too often. There seems a tendency to very weak character development in american movies, and weak villain stories.
SeVen had a pshycho… but an interesting one. **Hanibal ** too. Darth Vader is iconic evil without being boring too. (Darth Maul sucks big time though… athletic evil… boorriinngg) As for Hans Gruber… he falls into that other cliché: Villains have european accents. I liked Gruber… but it ended up predictable.
I’m quite ecletic and I do see some “indie” or different US films… but the regular fare is what I chose to focus on. Naturally I do like european movies… and they have come up with some wierd action flicks and stereotyped and boring villains too … its just that the US is more prolific in churning out this stuff. (I do like action movies… but a bit of effort would make them that more enjoyable.)
I think that this is a trait of movie villains in general, and I think there’s a simple reason for it. A movie is a fairly limited genre, in that you only have two hours, maybe three. In that time you need to do all of your character development, and also tell all of your plot, and show all of your various sorts of eye-candy (whether it be sweeping landscapes, big explosions, or T&A), bring out all of your background, etc. Two hours is not a long time to do that, so you need to take shortcuts. You can leave the audience guessing at pieces of the background, or trim down the plot, or show your eye candy in brief glimpses. Or you can use already-familiar archetypes for your characters. And the psychopath is the simplest villain archetype: For, say, the troubled soul archetype, you still need to develop just why that soul is troubled (which takes precious time), but for a psychopath, you just need to say he’s crazy.
Now, in a series of movies, or a TV show, you have more time to spend on character development (and on plot, backstory, and the rest), so the heros often end up better-developed. But even there, you still don’t usually get well-defined villains, because a typical villain will only last for one episode. The episode needs some resolution, which typically means a showdown between heroes and villain, and the heroes have to win for the show to go on next week. So a TV villain will usually only get a half hour or an hour of development time (along with everything else that happens on the show), so you’re still restricted in how interesting you can make them.
I agree that he’s one of the greatest but as for wishing he got away with it… are you nuts???
Remember part of his plan was to kill everyone in the building with or without the interference. Rememeber all that c2? He would have mass murdered for the sake of a few million dollars… not exactly the kind of guy I’d invite to a dinner party (especially if thgere is a few million in the basement)
I hate to be picky - but hell, I got nailed for misspelling “villains” - but those characters are not psychotic, they’re psychopathic. Similar words but different meanings. Actually, Hannibal Lecter might be psychotic AND psychopathic, but Keyser Soze is absolutely not psychotic.
Someone with psychosis has lost touch with reality, usually accompanied by serious hallucinations and such. The Son of Sam was psychotic.
Psychopathy means an inability to feel empathy. Ted Bundy was psychopathic.
Obviously, these are simplistic definitions, but generally good for this discussion.
Few?! Wasn’t it more like $640 million?
His escape plan didn’t make a lot of sense, though.
I think a distinction has to be made between villains, who have to be stopped in the name of justice, and antagonists, who are the people getting between the main character and his goals. If a villian is to be some kind of criminal, we expect him to be at least a little sociopathic because criminal behaviour is, to a degree, sociopathic. Antagonists would be the “bad guys” in every sports movie, for example, trying to stop the main character(s) from winning the big game, but not engaging in psychopathic behaviour to do so.
On the contrary, he was an EXCEPTIONAL thief.
His pretend escape plan (taking hostages into choppers) didn’t make sense. His REAL escape plan (escape with his minions in an ambulance) made perfect sense.
Anyhow, I’m not sure if this is what the OP was talking about, but one thing I am SO SICK of is the brilliant/insane criminal who “plays games” with the cops, leaving clues, knowing them by their first names, etc. This is one of those things that happens in movies/TVs 1000’s of times more often than it happens in real life, as far as I know.
I think the issue the OP is complaining about is not that the villains aren’t complicated (some of them are), but that they’re always **completely evil **- not a shred of good. Likewise the good guys are completely good.
LOTR is bad this way, Sauron, Moordor and the armies of Orcs are totally evil. The Fellowship et al is totally good.
The Matrix - same thing. A little better on a deeper level, as each side is only fighting for supremacy while ironically relying on the other to survive - but lapses into the same trap. Everybody knows flying mechanical octopus things with razor sharp claws are evil, and the last human city is “good” with no in-between.
What is needed are morally conflicted characters - the type of thing such that you’re not sure what side to root for exactly.
Good example of a recent such movie that I’ve seen is “Insomnia”, where the cop is played by Al Pacino and the criminal by Robin Williams.
The deal is that he wants to get the guy he knows is guilty to justice, but must make a moral decision on whether to plant evidence in order to do it. Also, Al’s character accidentally shoots and kills his partner early on, then hides it, which gets more interesting as we discover he’s being investigated down at the station for corruption by same partner.
Robin’s character seems to be evil at the start, but as the story unfolds we find that the murder was more or less accidental - and his motivation is just not getting caught/punished; not that he’s inherently evil. Still kinda plays games with the cops (Sorry MaxTheVool!), but in a much more interesting way, sometimes helping Al’s character as he just wants to stay free.
Nuh-uh. The ambulance was trapped in the parking garage where extraction would be tricky at best, and was he going to get himself, all twelve of his buddies and the loot into it? And even if you you assume he feels a bit of happiness at three-quarters of his accomplices being dead at that point (thus simplifying the division of the spoils), he was going to take Bonnie Bedelia as a hostage? Yikes.
This irritates me, too, and it’s usually acompanied by the incredibly miniscule and subtle clue left behind at the crime scene that only the head detective (with whom the criminal has a long history) could possibly spot or understand, thus letting “the game” continue. CSI has done this at least once, with an uber-brilliant serial killer playing a multi-episode chess match with Grissom. Give the hoary old cliché a rest, will you?
The loot was in the form of bearer bonds. Potentially not much more that a briefcase full of parer. A dozen people in an ambulance? Crowded, but certainly possible if you throw all the medical junk out.
Too many people in the world, anyway.
And sure, I might lock up the good silver…but I’m sure he’d be an absolutely charming dinner companion.
Heck, I once shocked a friend by telling him how much I identified with Richard III.
You could give a few examples, you know. Especially if it happens ‘way to frequently’, you could let us know what the heck it is that you are watching.
Because as it stands, your post reads like any one of your other anti-American rants.
But how were they going to get out of the building? The security gates were down. I can just picture that converstion:
Theo: [driving ambulance, in uniform] We came in from Mercy General. Where are the casualties?
Cop: Well, the firemen are heading up to the top floor, but it’s going to be hard to tell and… hey, how did you get inside the parking garage?
Theo: Uh… we took a shortcut.
Except that this does happen (not that often) in real life. See Son of Sam, Washington snipers, the Zodiac Killer, the Blind Toture Killer and possibly Jack the Ripper.
Rashak Mani writes:
> . . . the regular fare is what I chose to focus on . . .
What you call “the regular fare” is what I call “those mindless blockbusters that I don’t waste my time on.” Besides, where do you get the idea that Americans don’t know that many American films have a simplistic view of good and evil, have one-dimensional heroes and villains, and have plots that don’t make much sense? Of course we know that. And I’m not just talking about the would-be intellectual cinema buffs who deeply analyze each new film. I’m talking about the average, not particularly smart guy in the movie theaters who sits there munching popcorn and soaking up a new action film without trying to think about it. When I tell such people that the film they are watching is simplistic, unrealistic, and silly, their reply is “Well, of course it doesn’t make much sense. It’s just a movie. I know that if you think about it that the plot falls apart immediately. Who cares? Now shut up and let me watch the movie or I’ll dump my Coke on you.”
Well we could analyze which Villains had a greater impact on the public or that have had greater “fans” following. I’d venture the total wacko without substance won’t be high on the list. (There was a top 100 villains list in the internet…) Darth Vader was first… why ? Was it more the sucess of the Star Wars trilogy or the character itself ?
Still I wanted to see if it there was some underlying psyhcological reason to portray villains as totally wacko, corrupt and evil... vs humans with a tendency to the homicidal. Apparently there are all sorts of reasons. Its a fun discussion.I think you’re all missing the point here. If the villain is not an unredeemable psychopath then how can you justify the car chase and shootout that ends in a spectacular death for the villain? I mean, a movie’s got to have an ending, doesn’t it?