Vader vs. Voldemort

“Let’s be bad guys.”

Or at least let’s talk about bad guys. Villains, I mean.

The antagonist.

Film critic Roger Ebert says, “Each film is only as good as its villain. Since the heroes and the gimmicks tend to repeat from film to film, only a great villain can transform a good try into a triumph.”

As usual, this is true for novels, too. And if you think your book or screenplay doesn’t need an antagonist… just hold on, I’ll get back to you in a minute.

To understand bad guys, we’ll start with good guys.

Here are a few writer’s tools I’ve talked about before, used to make protagonists effective:

Eccentricity: memorable characters are not ordinary.

Envy: readers most love the characters that they wish they could be.

Yin-Yang Complexity: realistic characters have traits that are contradictory, making the character a paradox. (After all, you’re a paradox… aren’t you?)

Save the Cat: a scene that shows the reader that — despite moral ambiguity on the surface — this character has a moral center that makes him or her worth following.

So… can these tools make an antagonist interesting, too?

Some can. Let’s see which.

Eccentricity

It’s difficult to think of a great villain that’s not eccentric, although it may be only their villainy that makes them so. Hans Gruber, in Die Hard, doesn’t seem wildly eccentric… and yet he is. His eccentricity lies in the brilliant plot he hatched to rob Nakatomi Tower.

Some antagonists have their eccentricity bound up with the fantasy world they inhabit. Harry Potter’s nemesis Voldemort is the focal point of all the supernatural aspects of Harry Potter’s life.

(Plus, he’s like a snake dude. Come on.)

Likewise, the land of Middle-Earth is extraordinary to the reader, but Sauron is extraordinary to the characters in Middle-Earth.

So eccentricity for villains gets a big yes.

Envy

(This is a trait in the reader, not the character. Although villains can be driven by envy too.)

Do we envy a good villain?

Of course! It may be their raw physical power, or moxy, or charm, or sangfroide in the midst of panic and carnage. Smart writers make their villains intriguing by having them do and say things we wish we could do or say. Robert McKee channels the thoughts of the audience watching Silence of the Lambs: “If I were a cannibalistic psychopath, I’d want to be just like Lecter.”

So envy gets a yes, for bad guys like Hannibal Lecter, Hans Gruber, and maybe for Darth Vader, too. (You know you want a lightsaber.  And can think of someone you’d like to strangle at range.)

But wait… Sauron? And who envies Voldemort? Nobody — that guy is gross.

So there’s a split on Envy. Some antagonists yes, some no.

Yin-Yang complexity

This one splits, too. Some antagonists exhibit paradox, like Hannibal Lecter (the polite cannibal) and Hans Gruber (the charming terrorist. And one of my favorite villains, Rene Belloq in Raiders of the Lost Ark, is charming as well. Lots of writers make their antagonists more compelling by balancing their nastiness with charm.


Darth Vader’s Yin-Yang flip in Star Wars comes when he kneels before a hologram of the Emporer. Before that scene, Vader is simply a faceless tyrant, a bully. But when we hear him say, “Yes, my master,” we a new side of him. This contradiction (vicious tyrant vs. obedient servant) is just the beginning of Darth Vader’s complexity, which explodes when he says those immortal words to Luke, and his complexity becomes vicious tyrant vs. obedient servant vs. compassionate father.

What about Voldemort? Does he have a paradox? A flip-side? No. (You could maybe argue that his flipside is cowardice, since his fear of his own death motivates all his actions… but I don’t buy it.)

Nor Sauron.

They are just plain evil. And off stage most of the time, serving as forces rather than characters.

So not all antagonists have Yin-Yang natures, but I think this sort of complexity makes more compelling, more memorable villains.

(To pay off the title, I’m saying that Vader kicks Voldemort’s keister in the compelling-villain competition.)

Save the Cat

This one’s easy — bad guys don’t do it. Ever. If they do, they become good guys.


Jayne Cobb is not a villain (though he lies, cheats and steals, and serves as a sort-of antagonist for Malcolm Reynolds) because he’s always Saving the Cat… usually by blasting away at mooks who threaten the crew of Serenity.

Jayne’s violence makes him good, and his guilt makes him complex. (Wow.)

Writers need to be careful with this stuff, or they’ll end up with a villain who’s more compelling than the hero. All protagonists must want something, and go after it. All antagonists must want something, and go after it. Antagonists, like protagonists, benefit if their writers use the tools of Eccentricity, Envy and Yin-Yang.


But “the primary characteristic of the villain,” says Dwight Swain, “is ruthlessness.”

Now, what about skipping the antagonist altogether?

Go ahead.

The adversity your main character faces might be a mountain, a machine, a ticking clock, a screwed-up society, or a thousand other things. It need not be personified. You might not be writing that kind of story. I’ve written stories with villains and without.

SF writer Ben Bova even says that villains are unrealistic. “There are no villains cackling and rubbing their hands in glee as they contemplate their evil deeds. There are only people with problems, struggling to solve them.”

I don’t buy it. I think Bova is arguing against crappy villains, not all villains. Keep your tools in mind, and you can write cool villains — compelling antagonists who set up shop in the audience’s psyche and never leave.

(I left out some great villains. Norman Bates. HAL-9000. Moriarty. Have you got a favorite villain? Tell me in a comment.)

Advertisements

4 Responses to Vader vs. Voldemort

  1. anne says:

    Great article!

    I would disagree a bit. Lecter does indeed have an STC! moment, when, in his first encounter with Clarice, Miggs abuses her by throwing semen in her face. Lecter is outraged – and from that moment on, assumes a role of patient paternity in Clarice’s life.

    Norman Bates is a character chock full of STC! moments. A nice, handsome young man, trapped in an isolated, seedy motel with nothing but a demanding and half-mad mother to take care of. It’s fascinating that, after Norman discovers the first murder, we (the audience) become conspirators with him. We want him to be able to get rid of the evidence; as the car sinks, and then stops, we gasp… and wait for it to continue to sink to the depths of the swamp.

    Vader can have a psychological STC! in regard to his mask. We know he was once human; we know that something terrible happened to make him “this” way. And so, while we may not feel sorry for him, we are fascinated by him, and that fascination can even reveal itself as moments of empathy. In Episode IV (our first full introduction to him) he is being ridiculed as an antiquity; a servant to that “old religion” – this moment of ridicule can stir up a very deep seated response in the viewer. We don’t cheer from him, we know he is a Bad Man, and yet, he’s not a stereotype. We’re pretty ready to go along with him all the way.

    Voldemort is a little different in that we do eventually discover his past; we learn about Tom and the challenges that he faces – and so, while at first, Voledemort is little more than this shapeless evil “thing”, he does eventually, become a fully-dimensional character.

    I’d say that the above examples are all classic villains. An STC moment does not mean that we have to like the character (though for the protag it can help); what it does mean is that there needs to be some action – or situation – that challenges us into empathizing or having a deeper understanding of their character. We’re fascinated by them, and their Juno-esque duality, for the villian represents the dark that resides within us all, as the protagonist represents the heroic light within. The two faces of woman/man, present in every great story!

    • Aninhaa says:

      Seems like you’re on the same wavelength with me and Roth, haahha. The whole episode didn’t really make any sense, they just tried to throw everything and anything they could at it and came up with a jumbled mess. So why go through all that trouble, if Leena herself could have done the same thing while no one was looking and then take off??? Dennis

  2. I like this article a lot – I wonder if it’s more useful in Lord of the Rings Movies to consider the RING to be the villain. It’s against the ring that Frodo struggles so long and often, and it, for example, definitely has yin-yang. It’s power to make him invisible is useful, as is the strange power it gives him over Gollum. Then, obviously, it schemes, betrays, etc.

    Just a thought. Thanks for the thoughtful article!

  3. John says:

    When I read McKee’s book, I thought of that he wrote antagonism and not antagonist in several places. After that I viewed Mad Men, and Donald Draper has no real antagonist (most of the time), but his childhood and the cheating work as antagonisms.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: