Star Wars has three prequels dedicated to telling a story about demise of the hero to a villain. And, as pointed out by others, Darth Vader is introduced before Luke. Both are characteristic of the Star Wars universe, and even of action movies as a genre. They reinforce the idea that fictional villains tend to be more interesting and dynamic than fictional heroes. I believe this happens because villains are more versatile: they not only provide the justitification and set an audience's expectations for the hero, but also challenge the storyline to process what values provide possibility for development of the hero's character and shape the reader's worldview. While I'm sure exceptions exist, mass-culture heroes cater towards the common ethics of the society they are marketed to, and once the growth period is over, can stagnate and become very one dimensional without the constant challenge of an opposing force. Luke Skywalker, for example, is fairly boring and predictable until he must come to terms with his own relation to the Dark Side. In terms of greater cultural significance, villains reveal more about the definition of heroes in a piece of fiction because they embody in more specific terms what a society fears and tries to contain through both the creation of a defined sense of wrong and the inevitable triumph of the hero over the threatening qualities personified. This is why there can exist multiple antagonists of equal importance in a work, but typically only one dominant protagonist, such as in superhero franchises. We see evil as more widespread and proliferous than those few extraordinary individuals who must combat it, and what is acceptable as popular conceptions of evil is more diverse than what is acceptable in the mainstream to be heroism.
What exceptions do you see to these ideas? Contradictions? Examples of more complicated heroism in popular works of fiction?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I would have to say I agree with the fiction villain being more versatile and deep than the hero. Marilyn Manson said it very well:
ReplyDelete"In any story, the villain is the catalyst. The hero's not a person who will bend the rules or show the cracks in his armor. He's one-dimensional intentionally, but the villain is the person who owns up to what he is and stands by it."
I feel as if the hero strictly goes by a feeling of "that's wrong, that shouldn't happen." He or she goes strictly by a moral compass. Most villains have a background which introduces you to the reason they are that way, and it adds another layer of depth to the character of a villain that most heroes just doesn't have.
Interesting points, both of you. And who better than Marilyn Manson to turn to for understanding? : )
ReplyDeleteTarushi, excellent points. Your statement " This is why there can exist multiple antagonists of equal importance in a work, but typically only one dominant protagonist, such as in superhero franchises" is being tested right now. Certainly the Avengers is a case study - each of those characters has an arc. Guardians of the Galaxy begins as the story of a hero but becomes the story of a team. As the genre gears itself more and more toward creating multi-film universes, we will see this point challenged more and more: Avengers: Age of Ultron, Batman V Superman (leading to a Justice League), and even, perhaps, Captain America: Civil War, according to this: http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Captain-America-3-Feel-Like-Another-Avengers-Sequel-According-Anthony-Mackie-69229.html
PS: Great post, Tarushi. Try to write titles that will guide your reader to the topic.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with your assertion that villains are more interesting and more dynamic than heroes. Often time heroes cannot define themselves outside of a clear-cut enemy whether it be a person, an organization, or even an idea. Villains, on the other hand, have clear cut goals and ideas that they work towards while heroes just try to stop them. In comic books and other media heroes are usually seen as the defenders of the norm and champion of the people and common perception, whether that be good or bad. Villains are their own unique self and, in a sense, what our culture claims to purport. They have their own ideas and goal that they go about doing despite what everybody else believes while the heroes are the dreaded people who support common opinion. This brings up the idea of people who use the same methods as the villains, but for good, who are more commonly known as anti-heroes. The interesting thing about heroes is that the more common they are, the more important their relationships among each other are and the more important the villains become. Maybe the issue with heroes in our society is that there is rarely only one singular hero and one singular villain in the entire story since it is more interesting to read/watch about the same character beating stronger and smarter people.
ReplyDeleteThis is a really interesting point, that villains are necessary for heroes to show what makes them heroic. And I definitely think that that's true: without a villain to test a hero's morals, heroes wouldn't have any chance to show their heroic side, therefore not really being a hero. In order for heroes to exist there must be a villain (or more) present. They must exist together even though their objectives include getting rid of the other. Very interesting, something I'll be thinking about more as we continue to watch the film.
ReplyDelete