When all the protagonists in a movie are evil, it makes things more difficult for the viewer. Should they empathize with Villain 1 or Villain 2? The sociopath or the psychopath? The axe-wielding murderer or the creepy torture dude?
In a way, lacking a sympathetic hero makes a movie more engaging because it keeps the viewer uncertain of how they should feel – instead, letting them draw their own emotional conclusions in the lack of any traditional templates as to how they should feel. It’s not to say that any two unlikeable schmoes will do, however. They must be smarter, stronger, or faster than the viewer. To be incompetent inspires contempt. But grudging admiration – admiration that is earned by the character’s great and terrible deeds, rather than by designated “hero” status, is best. Anti-heroes are usually way more popular than heroes, anyways. Han Solo has more fangirls than Luke Skywalker. Batman is way more interesting than Superman. And a movie pitting villain against villain rather than hero against villain – where once was simpleminded, formulaic admiration is now conflicted fascination.
One could further state that the current political situation in Ontario is one of Evil vs Evil vs Evil, and that the voters are the researchers or townsfolk stuck between them. While there is no way for the redshirts of the world to bring about total victory, their best strategy is to put their lot in with the least evil choice. For example, in Freddy vs. Jason, the townsfolk side with Jason, because while he has a higher body count, Jason is much more predictable and usually confines his murdering to Camp Crystal Lake. Freddy, on the other hand, tends to actively stalk children. Similarly, in Alien vs. Predator, one would rather side with the Predator than the Aliens, since allowing the Alien to get loose would turn Earth into a no-holds-barred xenomorph breeding ground. On the other hand, Predators tend to leave the planet after gaining sufficient honour from their kills.
To side with neither villain – or to abstain from voting altogether – is to resign oneself to being gored in the path of the beast.
Here’s five movies depicting the struggle of evil against evil.
Hard Candy (2005)
In one corner we have Ellen Page playing a precocious prebubescent psycho, Hailey, with a penchant for TORTURE. In the other, we have Patrick Wilson as a photographer, Jeff, who may or may not be a PEDOPHILE. Their arena is a smartly furnished modernist house! You choose who to cheer for 😀
This movie successfully made me very uncomfortable. Ellen Page is… well, perfect. Patrick Wilson does fine – in a normal movie, he’d probably put in an outstanding performance, balancing the roles of victim and predator. But in Hard Candy he just can’t hold a candle to her morbid genius. Most people have only seen her in fairly PG-13 ingenue roles. Seeing her in as a younger, more innocent-looking villain is a brilliant shock to the system.
I also liked that Hailey – although preternaturally cold and remorseless – is not perfect. She screws up occasionally. Her entrapment of Jeff is imperfect. He breaks loose several times, and she fails to fabricate convincing stories for the neighbour.
Good luck trying to guess how it all ends.
Alien vs. Predator (2004)
A team of Weyland Industries scientists in Antartica investigates a heat bloom. They wake up a Xenomorph queen just as a ship of Predators land. Then the Aliens fight the Predators, with the scientists caught in the crossfire.
Well, Alien vs. Predator is an acceptable monster movie. It has a modicum of suspense, creepy things in the dark, and alien-impregnation gore. One might wish for the humans to have more sense – being scientists and all, wouldn’t they be WHMIS certified and know not to touch potentially biohazardous extraterrestrial wing-wong without an MSDS? But obviously here the humans are simply raygun fodder for the CGI bogeymen.
The only thing elevating Alien vs. Predator above the ilk of Freddy vs. Jason is the pedigree of one of its protagonists. Alien is a milestone of the alien-suspensefully-
Freddy vs. Jason (2003)
Freddy from Nightmare on Elm Street is trapped in Hell after his franchise died. He manipulates Jason Voorhees, who is also in Hell after his last Friday the Thirteenth movie in 1993, to rise from his grave and kill children on Elm Street in his name. Jason cottons on to Freddy’s plan eventually, but not soon enough: this movie should be called Freddy and Jason, BFFS 5EVA.
I accidentally watched the first twenty minutes of this movie when I was ten. It’s really not as scary as I thought it was. And there is only one bit of gratuitous nudity. So yeah, it’s campier than anything else. Freddy wears a Mr. Rogers sweater and his facial burns resemble swiss cheese more than Harvey Dent’s bad side. Meanwhile, Jason has a huge, manipulable Freudian excuse – preventing him from being truly terrifying – and actually reminds me of the Pyro in Team Fortress 2.
Sweeney Todd: Demon Barber of Fleet Street (2007)
Benjamin Barker (Johnny Depp), barber extraordinaire, returns to Fleet Street after escaping imprisonment by Judge Turpin (Alan Rickman). But alas, his wife has poisoned herself with arsenic after the Judge raped her, and his daughter is being raised as a ward of the Judge. Mrs. Lovett (Helena Bonham Carter), being smitten with the barber, helps him reestablish his business in the guise of Sweeney Todd, so that he may take revenge on his enemies by slitting their throats while in the barber’s chair and turning them into meat pies sold by Mrs. Lovett.
Sweeney Todd is a masterfully produced musical. The crawling stench gothic 1833 London atmosphere is perfectly rendered. The cast is perfectly morbid. Johnny Depp doesn’t smile. It’s like Les Miserables simultaneously more and less melodramatic, and infinitely more stylish, particularly without Anne “I Finally Have An Oscar” Hathaway hogging all the publicity. Alternately, it’s like watching Tim Burton trying to out-Burton himself and succeeding. Even happier numbers – like Mrs. Lovett’s absurd seaside fantasy ditty – are surrounded by rot and cynicism.
Naturally, there are no happy endings in Sweeney Todd. Les Mis had a bit a the end where everyone who died was apparently singing in parades through happy democratic la-la heaven. None of that in Sweeney Todd. Almost all sympathetic tendencies possessed by the characters are stomped out by the bloody finale, too, which is a downer for anyone hoping for redemption. So yep. Major kudos to Tim Burton for staying true to his characters throughout.
The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly (1966)
Three men in the Civil War-era Wild West – the good, the bad, and the ugly – become aware of the existence of a secret stash of gold in a graveyard. But no one of the three know all the information needed to get to the gold, and all three are enemies.
I loved this movie, because for such an iconic and parodied western – it still felt fresh and unexpected. The plot twists were difficult to predict, the characters generally avoided being stupid, and the settings – ranging from desolate deserts to grimy battlefields – were gritty and savage, having been filmed in Spain. Surprisingly though, The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly contain multiple instances of humour, mostly in the form of sarcasm from “the good” whenever he can be bothered to dignify another character with speech.
The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly also features Ennio Morricone’s most famous score. It is absolutely excellent and integral to maintaining the tension in several scenes – particularly the three-way Mexican standoff at the climax.
One can certainly appreciate that the morality of all the characters is ambiguously evil. “The bad” is a stone-hearted, sociopathic mercenary. “The ugly” is an unstable, murderous bandit. “The good” is an amoral bounty hunter who runs scams with “the ugly” to collect bounties, and ends up stranding “the ugly” in the desert, 70 miles from civilization, on foot. Yet clearly one is to cheer for “the good,” and to wonder whether he is to choose to ally with “the bad” or “the ugly.” Why? Because he’s Clint Eastwood? Because he has a tenth of the lines of any of the other leads and snarks in almost all of them, while “the ugly” is prone to fits of buffoonery and “the bad” will happily murder anyone and everyone for profit? Well, never mind that. This film would be over in 90 minutes instead of 180 if there was only one villainous character.
Leave a Reply