In regard to villains, I don't think that being redeemable is a criterion for an interesting villain. In some cases, it can be a serious drawback, because it sets significant limits on how effective a villain a character can really be, lest their ultimate redemption seem hollow. (If the villain has been torturing people and kicking puppies, how much are you really going to buy an eleventh-hour change of heart?)
I would say that to be interesting, a villain has to have significant qualities that are (a) admirable and/or (b) enviable and/or (c) sympathetic. By admirable, I mean things like being handsome, dapper, or possessing a scrupulous sense of honor -- qualities that would be admired regardless of whether the character was a villain or not. Enviable, in contrast, means that the villain does or says things that the audience wishes they could (even if they never would).
An interesting villain doesn't have to fall into all three categories. For instance, Gordon Gekko in the original Wall Street is not what I'd call admirable -- he's unscrupulous, unethical, and whatever pretense of personal loyalty he ever suggests is purely opportunistic. He's certainly not sympathetic, either (and the efforts to make him more so in Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps ended up making him less interesting as a character). However, he is enviable: he's rich, he's cunning, he always has an angle, and he gets all the good lines. Conversely, I can think of villains who are admirable despite not being particularly enviable, driven by a sense of personal honor the heroes don't necessarily share.
Interesting villains can be sympathetic, but I don't think it's a requirement. Hannibal Lecter and the Joker can be fascinating to watch, but I've never felt any sympathy for either of them, and they're certainly well beyond any sort of redemption. However, in their better moments, they're very engaging, pointing out things that the heroes are unable or unwilling to see. (The Joker's portrayal in the animated Batman: Mask of the Phantasm is an interesting example of the latter -- the Joker figures out what's actually going on long before Batman does, and seems genuinely puzzled that Bats takes as long as he does to get the picture.)
I was thinking of two pairs of villains from tv shows I watch. DH and I were chatting about it last night and I was saying that I prefer villains who are ambiguous. He said, "you mean human"?:D
Do you watch tv? I am watching Once Upon a Time (how this conversation originated) and I am thinking about The Evil Queen vs Rumplestiltskin. EQ is just evil. We know every time we see her that she's going to do something nasty. It's gotten boring (although her most recent actions caused something happy, completely unintentionally on her part, so that is interesting).
Rumpy/Mr Gold is much more ambiguous. We think he's evil, but he does things and it's hard to understand his motivations. I'm always curious to see what he does.
(and now I'm falling asleep, so I have no idea if this has made any sense).
I haven't seen anything but the posters for Once, but I see what you're saying. The premise of the show reminds me a lot of the Bill Willingham comic series Fables, which I think is probably conceptually very similar, if perhaps broader.
One the conceits of Fables is the idea that similar characters in different stories were really the same character; Prince Charming, therefore, is a handsome cad who's romanced and then jilted Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, and a bunch of others. Among these integrated characters is the old witch from Hansel and Gretal and a number of similar fairy tales, who now calls herself Frau Totenkinder. She's an ally of the other exiled Fables, ostensibly because Snow White, not knowing who she was, saved her after Hansel and Gretal threw her in the fire. However, she's still a rather sinister figure, and there are sometimes indications that she's playing a much larger game of her own. It makes her one of the more interesting characters in the series, because every time she appears, you wonder what she's up to.
I think the point is that a good villain needs to be fun to watch: they're cathartic (like Gordon Gekko from Wall Street or his spiritual antecedent, J.R. Ewing on Dallas), they're funny, they're intriguing, etc. It's okay if the villain (or, for that matter, the protagonist) is reprehensible as long as you're happy to see them on the screen or on the page.
Yes, for me, I think that what you say at the end there is exactly the point.
It makes her one of the more interesting characters in the series, because every time she appears, you wonder what she's up to.
I think the point is that a good villain needs to be fun to watch: they're cathartic (like Gordon Gekko from Wall Street or his spiritual antecedent, J.R. Ewing on Dallas), they're funny, they're intriguing, etc.
I would say that to be interesting, a villain has to have significant qualities that are (a) admirable and/or (b) enviable and/or (c) sympathetic. By admirable, I mean things like being handsome, dapper, or possessing a scrupulous sense of honor -- qualities that would be admired regardless of whether the character was a villain or not. Enviable, in contrast, means that the villain does or says things that the audience wishes they could (even if they never would).
An interesting villain doesn't have to fall into all three categories. For instance, Gordon Gekko in the original Wall Street is not what I'd call admirable -- he's unscrupulous, unethical, and whatever pretense of personal loyalty he ever suggests is purely opportunistic. He's certainly not sympathetic, either (and the efforts to make him more so in Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps ended up making him less interesting as a character). However, he is enviable: he's rich, he's cunning, he always has an angle, and he gets all the good lines. Conversely, I can think of villains who are admirable despite not being particularly enviable, driven by a sense of personal honor the heroes don't necessarily share.
Interesting villains can be sympathetic, but I don't think it's a requirement. Hannibal Lecter and the Joker can be fascinating to watch, but I've never felt any sympathy for either of them, and they're certainly well beyond any sort of redemption. However, in their better moments, they're very engaging, pointing out things that the heroes are unable or unwilling to see. (The Joker's portrayal in the animated Batman: Mask of the Phantasm is an interesting example of the latter -- the Joker figures out what's actually going on long before Batman does, and seems genuinely puzzled that Bats takes as long as he does to get the picture.)
Reply
Do you watch tv? I am watching Once Upon a Time (how this conversation originated) and I am thinking about The Evil Queen vs Rumplestiltskin. EQ is just evil. We know every time we see her that she's going to do something nasty. It's gotten boring (although her most recent actions caused something happy, completely unintentionally on her part, so that is interesting).
Rumpy/Mr Gold is much more ambiguous. We think he's evil, but he does things and it's hard to understand his motivations. I'm always curious to see what he does.
(and now I'm falling asleep, so I have no idea if this has made any sense).
*waves* Nice to see you:D
Reply
One the conceits of Fables is the idea that similar characters in different stories were really the same character; Prince Charming, therefore, is a handsome cad who's romanced and then jilted Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, and a bunch of others. Among these integrated characters is the old witch from Hansel and Gretal and a number of similar fairy tales, who now calls herself Frau Totenkinder. She's an ally of the other exiled Fables, ostensibly because Snow White, not knowing who she was, saved her after Hansel and Gretal threw her in the fire. However, she's still a rather sinister figure, and there are sometimes indications that she's playing a much larger game of her own. It makes her one of the more interesting characters in the series, because every time she appears, you wonder what she's up to.
I think the point is that a good villain needs to be fun to watch: they're cathartic (like Gordon Gekko from Wall Street or his spiritual antecedent, J.R. Ewing on Dallas), they're funny, they're intriguing, etc. It's okay if the villain (or, for that matter, the protagonist) is reprehensible as long as you're happy to see them on the screen or on the page.
Reply
It makes her one of the more interesting characters in the series, because every time she appears, you wonder what she's up to.
I think the point is that a good villain needs to be fun to watch: they're cathartic (like Gordon Gekko from Wall Street or his spiritual antecedent, J.R. Ewing on Dallas), they're funny, they're intriguing, etc.
This bit here. Yes. I can't say it any better.
Reply
Leave a comment