And writing this blog helps.
Here's a question: In several recent films, the villain is almost a blank slate, no psychological or other motive is given for his infamy. Is this a good thing? Is evil so universal that we don't need to understand it? If we require psychological underpinnings for our heroes, why not our villains? Even cartoon villains used to have a back story. What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Potentially dangerous. Everyone does things for a reason, even if it's as simplistic as "I enjoy hurting people". Sometimes through their actions their motivation is clear.
It is why The Wire stands so far above most of what's out there.
I think that characters, both good and bad, need personality more than backstory. Backstory doesn't impress me, and too often it's used in place of real character development. As I read somewhere, your characters aren't their resume`s.
By contrast, pick up a good book and you know all you need to about the characters as soon as they open their mouths.
I can see what Graham's saying, but where is the personality in No Country. I loved the movie but he is no more than a machine that kills what's in his way. American Gangster, same thing.
Yeah, I wasn't speaking to NO COUNTRY specifically (I haven't seen it yet). But I think you can invest a character with a personality just through what they say and do, without a giving their history.
I agree with Graham. I'm sick of back stories. Usually they're about abuse. Spare me. You should read No Country For Old Men. One of the best books I've read in years.
I don't necessarily think there has to be a long back story but should we accept in fiction that villains are mere killing machines with no reason to kill except for love of money or sadism. I blame this on Steven Spielberg who began this trend with that story about the driverless truck or with Jaws. It may make a good thriller but does it really make a good story. Shouldn't we want well-developed villains? Shouldn't we require of them what we require of our protagonist?
The antagonist is often more important to moving the story along than the protagonist.
If not for Judas, Christ would have just been another pissy rabbi the Romans could ignore.
I think they absolutely have to be fleshed out. If they have no motives, no backgrounds, then there's nothing to pin the conflict on.
They have to be in some kind of opposition to the protagonist in order to work.
Well, Spielberg wasn't original enough to come up with the truck menace...that was Ed Gorman's hero (and not his alone) Richard Matheson (the elder). Peter Benchley for the shark. But blank-slate villains are pretty dull...Matheson loves Mysterious villains, such as the trucker or the protagonist of "The Distributor". Blank slate bad guys bore me as much as they do anyone here, as much as Pyoor EEeevul sorts such as Hannibal Lecter do. At least he has some wit, but happily he's not really the whole show with either RED DRAGON nor THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS, both novels weakened by the PE of Lecter...haven't bothered with the further books, which I understand get pretty banal.
And sorry about the troubles...
Good post.
Post a Comment