Let's Talk About Villains: Reluctance to Act Evil

So this I've done two things that started me down this kind of thinking:

1. Rewatched The Hunchback of Notre Dame (Disney's Animated) and witnesses the special-ness of Lord Frollo again
2. Started House of Cards Season 2 and subsequently aimed for a slight jab by saying F U > W W

I've said it before, but I don't like narratives focused solely on the villain. Call me old fashioned but I want to see the hero. When creatives try to focus a movie on the villain, there is a small margin of error between contrived and meaningful. Reason being, villains end up "seeming" more interesting because it deals with the sully aspects of human life; things we don't want to admit. Just look at the recent Superman thread, more than a few people said they did not like Superman or Captain America because their moral fiber lacks interesting choices. But is it so easy to choose the right thing to do? Think about every day of your own life, do you really think you make the truly honorable and "good" choice every time?

Not only that, but a focus on villainy has a very good chance to over-moralize the character's actions. Even the ability to rise the notion of someone being a "bad arse," is enough proof of that. "Bad arse" admits fear and almost affection for a particular embodiment. People like villains, which, simply put, is kind of scary. So it goes with two very popular properties that I don't have much affection for: Breaking Bad and The Godfather. And, as I am always prone to over-think these things, I'm going to go ahead and swing for the fences on this one.

(And I do want to admit something: Whenever it comes to a property, like a BB or Godfather, that I just don't connect with, when it seems everyone else does, I'm the kind of person that's going to look for a why. If anyone read my write-up for the Godfather long ago, I fully recognize it as a great film, I just despise the movie internally. The Godfather, to me, is Requiem for a Dream, less effective and actually celebrated for the wrong things.)

So let's talk about moral fabric. The world isn't black and white. That much is certain, and that's the main draw of "dark heroes," and "villain-focused" creative works. We want to see the intricacies, the greys. We want to live vicariously in those places even. And while I think that's ok, the scale of the interest in a grey world is culturally problematic. Concurrently, with so many "grey" properties, We're losing our grip on both the black and the white. In any given situation, there will always be a matrix of choices, some more bad than others. When a characters takes action in film, that choice will merge with whatever understanding we currently have about the "film world." But in either case, we know what SHOULDN'T be done. Not necessarily what's right, but among those matrices of choices, we can have a good idea of the line to cross however vague that may be. So the problem, I think, in many instances, is the reluctant villain. And that's a very specific term. A villain who believes he is doing right, or has no other options, but still doesn't want to do evil are other entities entirely. That is much different from your Hans Grubers, Lord Frollos, and Frank Underwoods. They are compelling because of their relation to the bad they doing, but not specifically because they are reluctant to it. I name those three for three reasons:

1, For Hans Gruber, poor morals are inconsequential to the goals. The ends justify the means
2. For Lord Frollo, this specific struggle is the battle between what he feels is right but what he KNOWS is wrong
3. For Frank Underwood, everyone is either a pawn or trying to screw you over. There is no middle ground. It is his pure belief of power that compels him to act.

But none of them are purely reluctant to evil acts or to their idea of what evil acts are. And I don't think great villains do. I think reluctant villains are just lying to themselves, and there's no struggle when there should be. I don't want to get into the specifics of that in relation to characters seeing as how that can easily devolve an argument.

With the modern trend towards not only grey morals, but villains who we either cheer for or try to "understand," there's a risk of diluting what it means to be good all at the same time. I think there is a natural trend to moralize when reluctance comes into play: "But he didn't CHOOSE to be the villain! He was just born that way!" or "But he was put into a position, he had to be evil! He doesn't really want to," which then can evoke pity. And it takes our hope from a classical place of good succeeding, not to evil turning to good, but to evil succeeding. And that's a dangerous place to be.

But, damn, I hope Frank Underwood becomes President.