In thinking about bad guys (again), I realized that I left out a big category the last time we talked about the various kinds of bad guys out there: Monsters. (Shout out to North who mentioned this sort of thing in comments.)
For the most part, the monsters are there to provide enough of a threat (moral, existential, otherwise) to allow us to cheer for our heroes despite the fact that they’re doing stuff like “engaging in a great deal of violence”. In cartoony movies like the Indiana Jones flicks, just putting someone in a Nazi uniform is good enough. Indiana Jones can shoot a bunch of them while yelling at his father and it’s comic relief. In the Alien flicks, the only reason to not shoot a Xenomorph is because it has acid for its blood. Vampires are metaphors for some weird sex thing, I’m told, and Werewolves are metaphors for the same thing, only more so (or maybe it’s the pendulum swinging too far the other way that they’re a metaphor for). Zombies have morphed from metaphors for consumerism to a metaphor for the government (no politics).
For the most part, these monsters exist to provide the storyteller an opportunity to explore the stories about what a person who fights monsters day in and day out eventually turns into. The Walking Dead, as I understand it, is not about zombies at all but about what fighting zombies does to a person after a while. Aliens did as good a job exploring the difference between The Xenomorphs and Paul Reiser as I’ve ever seen anywhere (spoiler: Paul Reiser is worse). Over and over again, we explore the theme of what happens to those who battle with monsters. (Has there been a story dedicated to those who fight those who fought against the monsters? I’m thinking that one of those, if done well, would be very popular.)
In any case, the stories where the villain has a distinct personality (any of the Bond villains, The Joker, any of Spiderman’s bad guys) allow for stories to be told about the heroism of Our Protagonist. The stories where the villain is an implacable force of nature (for lack of a better term) allow for stories to be told about how the process of fighting turns heroes into something else.
It’s always interesting which of these reflect our culture best, and which of these reflections is most closely embraced. There are some heroes that worked perfectly 50 years ago but don’t work quite so well in 2012. There are heroes in 2012 that you wouldn’t be able to get the Hays Code people to agree to watch *BEFORE* they said “retitle, rework ending, remove 80% of everything in the beginning and middle”.
And I’m wondering who our heroes will be over the next handful of years… and who (or what) our heroes will be fighting.
cheer for our heroes despite the fact that they’re doing stuff like “engaging in a great deal of violence”
More than any other genre, this always struck me with zombie flicks. Not only are zombies the most human of the “big” monsters (no fur or fangs; they’re us, just dead and hungry); the violence in zombie flicks may dwarf even slasher flicks in their sheer dedication to violence, viscera and gore, and a plenitude of them.
Decapitations, headshots, severed limbs, eviscerations, machetes chunking into melons, all shown in loving closeup. I really think on some level these films do allow the viewer to engage in wish-fulfillment sensations or emotions of giving oneself over to complete animalistic mayhem; where we can imagine committing the most otherwise-obscene acts of violence and mortification of flesh, with no moral qualms.
just putting someone in a Nazi uniform is good enough
Any excuse to link to the Mitchell & Webb “Baddies” sketch:
http://youtu.be/hn1VxaMEjRU
More to chew on (guess this is what you meant by “chewy”!) so I will try to check back in tomorrow. Need to try to sleep.
The zombie thing reminds me of how they do this in cartoons for kids. instead of zombies, they do robots. The all time classic for this was the 90’s X-men cartoon with Wolverine. The only time his claws conetted with the bad guy was when it was a robot like the Sentinals. Robot guts and viscera are okay to show. This still happens today with TMNT, Ben 10, Clone Wars, etc.
Robots are the children’s zombies.
I always like G.I. Joe. That bad guys would eject from exploding tanks and parachute to a safe landing.
Forgot about this one. Where it is easier to shoot a gun out of a person’s hand than to actually shoot the person.
And of course Lucas went to town with this in the prequels. Robot armies can be cut down without qualm.
The distinction I am trying to make though is that I think in other genres, we use non-human stand-ins like robots or monsters to *blunt* the visceral effect of the violence and our emotional response to it; in zombie media, I think we use zombies as *semi-human stand-ins to heighten them*.
Zombies are as close as we can get to the real thing (they are “human”; in battling them, we are mutilating corpses; this is normally taboo in the extreme) without crossing over the line into true obscenity.
I dunno, to me it seems like psychologically, zombie movies may be a special case.
There’s also the issue of zombies having a fairly decent probability of having been someone you knew (if not liked, if not loved).
So now you’re standing with your back to the wall, fire axe in hand. Fifteen feet away is Sally Jenkins, with whom you achieved a solid double back in ’97. “Graaaaaaaaah”, she says.
What base is eating your brains?
All your base, obviously.
The more relevant fear is, back in ’97, where were your “brains” located; and will any sort of residual memory propel Zombie Sally in that direction?
Yeah, this is one of those weird niche things that defies categorization. This side of the Mississippi, it might be considered somewhere around first base kinda stuff. That side of it, it might be “if you touch brains, you’d best be prepared to go all the way”.
Like earlobes or something.
The “villain” that comes to mind is the Gorn Captain which Kirk battles and chews scenery with across the SoCal desert. Of course the Gorn costume is unbelievably old fashioned for modern tastes. The boulders were so, so Styrofoam and Kirks flying kicks are classic. By classic of course i mean funny. And of course Star Trek suffers from the dreaded epithet of being “utopian.” Of course there is some truth to that. But my point is that “villains” can also be a mystery that gives us a chance be our best. To modern tastes be our best means become the unstoppable quiping and killing machine every American is just sure that truly are. At least with Star Trek “villains” weren’t always bad or evil or what they first appeared. I’m pretty sure we’ll never see another Star Trek that has a sense of wonder about the universe or where the bad guy turns out good or Kirk aims for what is best about humans instead of a whole lot’o’splosions. Maybe we could use a few more villains that aren’t actually villains. Maybe what we should be fighting is our worst impulses.
My understanding about The Walking Dead is that Kirkman means it to be a study in human behavior. The show is about the humans, how they deal with things, etc…not the zombies themselves. They are just the catalyst for human interaction at an extreme level.
Well, the thing about zombie movies in general is that they are the ultimate “all bets are off” scenario. Civilization has collapsed; the cops and army aren’t coming; your fellow survivors are as, or more, dangerous than the monsters. There is only 1 rule anymore, and that is “survive as long as you can, by any means necessary”.
As much as Kirkman (and Romero, and others) like to imagine they are telling stories about morality or humanity, I think a large part of what viewers are semi- or unconsciously reveling in is the complete lack thereof in these films.
Fight or flight, kill or be killed – as terrifying and nihilistic as this reduced view of life is, on some level I think we as viewers find it freeing and even exhilarating fantasy, to not have to worry about any other dimension of our existence or actions.
Now I’m doing a compare/contrast for (insert zombie movie here) and The Road.
(zombie movie) is a lot more optimistic.
The Road doesn’t revel in violence the way zombie movies do though. Related, The Road is less of a fantasy than zombie movies (barring advances in bath salts).
The Road was so bleak because apparently the earth itself had failed so humanity was dying with no real hope of survival. That scene where they arrive at he ocean and it looks completely dead was unsettling. With zombies, there is still hope. Make a safe place, plant some crops, try to rebuild society and live a good life.
I only read the book (I was underwhelmed). I haven’t felt like depressing myself with the movie.
I’d rather re-watch “Road Warrior” instead. Now THERE’S a flick!
I’m still waiting for Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome to be released on Blu-Ray.
If the second half of the movie was as good as the first half, we’d be talking about Thunderdome in the same breath as Citizen Kane.
I should re-watch Thunderdome. I suspect it is better than my memory and its reputation indicate.
“Road Warrior” remains a stone-cold classic in any case. I love the fact that it’s essentially a post-apocalyptic Western, with cannibal biker gangs standing in for the Indians and a tanker full of gas standing in for a stagecoach full of gold.
The Man with No Name comes in from the desert, and ends up helping the townsfolk against his cynical initial inclinations.
And man, those action sequences STILL pack a punch. Because those are real guys, in real cars, doing real things. No CGI nonsense.
The guy in the metal hockey mask holds the microphone to his throat and calls himself the “Ayatollah of Rock and Rollah.” That’s about as cool as an antagonist can get.
And it’s still cool to learn at the end who the narrator is, even after you know it’s coming.
As for Thunderdome you get Tina Turner in a chainmail dress and the immortal line “Two Men Enter, One Man Leaves!” which is sure to get a smile out of nearly anyone from a certain age bracket.
Glyph, Road Warrior, indeed. But I liked Mad Max better, had that campy quality. And how prescient, too, featuring Mel Gibson’s fall from grace.
Has anyone here read A Rage For Revenge?
“Has there been a story dedicated to those who fight those who fought against the monsters? I’m thinking that one of those, if done well, would be very popular”
This was sort of Blade Runner, but I don’t think quite there in the way you imagine.
Walking Dead is going in this direction now. The living are having their own conflicts outside the struggle with zombies.
Phillip K. Dick was lightyears ahead of all of us.
I was thinking of something more straightforward… sort of a team of heroes that fights what Batman (or whomever) has turned into. That sort of thing.
Star Trek has sort of hit something similar, but with “dangerous autonomous ancient weapons that are still around though their war is long over” – like in “Doomsday Machine”. (Come to think, “Iron Giant” is sort of like this too).
Per my comment above Star Trek also went in a very different direction often. Villains turned out to be not evil, but misunderstood ( the Horta) or conflict was the result of lack of communication/understanding ( the Gorn) etc. The solution was often not war and death, but being good and communicating and respect.
“No Kill I”, indeed.
Side note: I googled to make sure I wasn’t misremembering that phrase, and I discovered this; they bill themselves as “Sacramento’s Finest Star Trek Punk Rock Band” (not sure there is a lot of competition for the title).
Here is their s/t song:
http://youtu.be/Ve4cyx81m1c
Irredeemable kinda explores what happens when “Seriously: Not Superman” goes nuts… but that was the story of a Superman who had a messed up emotional life who ended up snapping.
They tell the story in an interesting way, though, one that I could see done with what I’m thinking.
Flashback story to a four-color adventure where Our Hero fights The Horde for the first time. Flashforward to Our Hero seriously f’ing up The Horde. Flashback story to a four-color adventure where Our Hero fights Vaudvillain! Flashforward to Vaudvillain in the deepest, darkest hole in the deepest, darkest prison eating a rat that he’s caught and cooked. Or show Our Hero finally doing a calculus and saying “I should have done this in 1973” and breaking Vaudvillain’s neck.
That sort of thing.
In Watchmen, IIRC, Rorshach reflects that early on in his career he made the “mistake” of going too easy on criminals; after he has the case with the SPOILERY EVENTS, he changes and handles criminals differently.
Yeah, but I’m more thinking about a superhero that isn’t obviously right.
Wait, what? In what way is Rorshach obviously right, at least with regards to how he treats the criminals he pursues? Or do you just mean that he’s not exactly a “superhero”?
He certainly had Veidt pegged.
(But that was me engaging in “wait, what?” humor.)
There was a character named Mike in Breaking Bad (played by the awesome Jonathan Banks) who’s an enforcer for a drug lord. He tells the main character (Walter the high school chemistry teacher/meth cook played by Bryan Cranston) about when he was a cop. There was a serial wife-beater that he used to arrest repeatedly, until one day he beat his wife so badly that Mike beat the crap out of him and said “next time I’ll kill you.” Unfortunately, next time the wife was killed. “The moral of the story is, I chose a half measure, when I should have gone all the way. I’ll never make that mistake again. No more half measures, Walter.”
Let me guess…did that advice ever come back to bite him in the hindquarters in an unpredictable, yet ironic fashion? 😉
Walter did take that advice in a wholly unanticipated direction.
Ender’s Game, kinda sorta.
One variant story that I enjoy immensely (but which is understandably rare) is the noble antagonist version. The villain isn’t just understandable, he/she isn’t really a villain. Equally valid perspective, equally valid methods, completely incompatible with Our Hero.
I’m trying to think of examples, but coming up short. Fringe, to a degree. Whedon shows often have believable conflict amongst the protagonists; a disagreement in which no side is clearly wrong, but where each have valid viewpoints leading them to differing conclusions re: the best course of action. But that is not quite the same thing (though it is still good writing for the characters).
BSG at times, maybe.
What examples are you thinking?
I guess Kong and Frankenstein, maybe.
I’m not sure Franky qualifies as a villain. I’d through Godzilla, in some incarnations, in as creature who isn’t a villain but isn’t compatible with people
Um. I swear I’ve read some. But now I am also coming up blank. Thanks a lot, Past Self, for not leaving any indicators.
I’ll think about it again if I EVER get over this miserable upper respiratory crap, and if I come up with things I will let you know.
The Shadows from Babylon 5?
Or the Wicked Witch Of The West from The Wizard of Oz?
There’s a novel by Steven Brust called To Regin in Hell, which is about the war in heaven. Satan, Lucifer, and that crowd are perfectly sympathetic, and Yahweh only a bit less so. (Jesus is kind of a drip.)
Are there any Whovians here? Would you consider the Doctor as a hero? He certainly transcends time. We always know that there will be Daleks and Cybermen and the every reappearing the Master, who is turning from someone who was just an evil sociopath to someone who is it is easier to be more sympathetic to.
I’m a bit of a Whover. The doc is a classic hero. Transcending time….well yeah… i think he hits that. The Doc does have a dark side though. But if you’ve saved the earth about 358 times and the universe another 23 times, i think you are easily a hero.
The Doctor does indeed have a dark side: he can be, seemingly at random and more frequently when he is without a moral anchor in the form of a strong-willed Companion, indifferent to death and indeed obstinate about it, even if he does very little of the killing himself.
I think Ned Stark would have little but contempt for The Doctor — who presumes to decide himself so very often who shall live and who shall die, dismissing the death of others as simply part of the flow of the universe, but who so rarely is willing or even able to get his hands dirty and take the lives himself.
I can imagine that it would be easy to get lost in his own mind and memories. He has seen the birth and death of the universe. He has lost many companions. He has lost his homeworld and many times thought he was the last of his kind. He has seen countless beings try to take over or destroy others. Pretty reasonable to think he could become callous and jaded. Like greginik said he has saved the earth and the universe many times. I love his sonic screw driver and the ever awesome scarf but I wouldnt want to be him. The happiest they ever had him in the show, that I remember, was when he thought he was human and had his memories locked in the pocket watch.
They play around with that theme of ‘fighting the people who fought the monsters’ at the very end of Tenant’s run and as the main story of Smith’s second season, methinks.
The silence is what made me think of the doctor for this topic.
here are some heroes that worked perfectly 50 years ago but don’t work quite so well in 2012. There are heroes in 2012 that you wouldn’t be able to get the Hays Code people to agree to watch *BEFORE* they said “retitle, rework ending, remove 80% of everything in the beginning and middle”.
I think I’m going to disagree with this on general principle though am open to examples. Good heros and good villains – more distilled, good stories – are timeless and why the Illiad and Shakespeare et al still resonate to this day.
I was thinking of “Kick-Ass” when I wrote about the Hays Code.
Ah, never seen it.
I think it’s actually quite an interesting superhero movie. I laughed out loud several times when I saw it, thought it had two absolutely perfect scenes (one where Kick-Ass explains why he does what he does, one where Big Daddy is calling out maneuvers to Hit Girl), and found it to have a surprisingly moral center.
There are worse movies to get drunk and watch, I tell you what.
Yeah. that movie was fun. apparently we get sequel!