Heroes and Villains have been with us since… well, day one, when God and the devil emerged donning the original white and black hats. Good guys and bad have been around since the birth of pop culture, as well: The first official movie blockbuster was something of a Batman-versus-Joker superhero saga, a provocative, reflection-of-its-times epic about caped crusaders who wore horned masks and a mad rogue who wore makeup. It was D.W. Griffith’s 1915 Ku Klux Klan-centric Birth of a Nation, a Titanic-like phenomenon of its time that is now regarded as a major (if cringingly racist) cinematic milestone.
Nearly a century later, stories about heroes and villains have never been more popular. Kids and parents alike have been mesmerized by the literary and cinematic clashes between Harry Potter and his nemesis, Voldemort. (The sixth film, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, opens July 17.) And then there’s Spider-Man, Batman, Pirates of the Caribbean, 24, Lost. Even American Idol. (Dream-squashing Simon Cowell = Jedi-killing Darth Vader. Come on!) At a time when nebulous terrorist threats and pending environmental catastrophe have left our country profoundly rattled, we should logically be drawn to tales of strong, valiant souls who can control their destinies and bring an easily definable fiend to justice. And yet, so many of our heroes these days are unheroic: Showtime’s Dexter is a vigilante who kills criminals, because he happens to be a serial killer. Jason Bourne is a cipher to himself who can’t understand why he reflexively snaps people’s necks. 24’s Jack Bauer often acts like a terrorist so he can catch one. Do drastic times make for drastic heroes, like Christian Bale’s Batman-or was Heath Ledger’s Joker correct in arguing that "good" and "evil" are meaningless concepts? "The line between heroism and villainy has become blurred," sums up Stephen King. "We’ve come a long way since The Rockford Files."
Getting to the point where we can’t accept pure good or evil has been a 50-year evolution. Or devolution, depending on your point of view. Start with 1960’s Psycho. Alfred ? Hitchcock’s landmark thriller, suffused with trendy pop psychology, imploded traditional hero-driven stories to showcase a more complex kind of deviant than Dracula or Robert Mitchum in The Night of the Hunter. Norman Bates was mad and mundane, random yet explainable. He also minted the slasher/serial killer, paving the way for Michael Myers, Jason Voorhees, and Freddy Krueger. When James Bond first appeared on film in 1962’s Dr. No, he created the modern mold for the cool, quippy action hero, and his license to kill gave him an edgy amorality, conferring upon him a coldhearted ruthlessness antithetical to conventional white-knight do-gooding. That same year, Stan Lee and Steve Ditko revolutionized the superhero with Spider-Man, an alienated young man for whom the mantra "With great power must come great responsibility" was a lesson to be painfully learned, not innately understood. "I wanted to write characters that I thought readers would find interesting," says Lee. "And the only way I could do that was to write characters I could relate to. And I couldn’t exactly relate to Superman."
Neither could the filmmakers of the Vietnam/Watergate era. Bonnie and Clyde (1967), The Godfather (1972), and One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest(1975) turned criminals into heroes and justified the flip-flop bypainting the Powers That Be as hypocritical, corrupt, and controlling.In 1971, Dirty Harry told us that our justice system was a joke. The Exorcist(1973) questioned God’s goodness by infecting a girl with Satan and apriest with doubt. Things swerved back to the simplistic in 1977, when Star Warsseemingly chased off negativity with its high-tech gloss onswashbuckling and gunslinging. (And yet, with all due respect to Lukeand Obi-Wan, it was the self-preserving Han Solo and thecharismatically fearsome Darth Vader who captured our imagination.)Old-fashioned escapism continued into the ’80s with Indiana Jones,adventure incarnate. But as the blockbuster decade progressed, heroesgot slicker, glibber, and more cynical. The Planet Hollywoodtriumvirate of Sly, Arnold, and Bruce were urban cowboys who packedcatchphrases, huge guns, and a "by any means necessary" ethos.Meanwhile, in the comics, Frank Miller’s The Dark Knight Returns replaced Superman with a grim Batman as DC’s dominant superhero archetype.
Indeed, by the end of the ’80s and into the ’90s, heroes regularlyco-opted villainous traits (nihilism, sadism, indifference to rules).In comic books, "grim and gritty heroes became all the rage, and that’sa shame," says author Neil Gaiman. "Everyone stole all the wrong riffs[from The Dark Knight Returns and Watchmen]. The ideawas to become more ambitious and sophisticated, not more cynical." Withthis twisted sameness pervading heroes, villains started stealing theshow: They were bad with flair, and put heroism on the run. (Literally:The Fugitive.) Wall Street’s Gordon Gekko and The Silence of the Lambs’ HannibalLecter were charismatic, quasi-enlightened human vampires who feastedon naïveté, ignorance, and idealism. This led into the jaded,alt-culture decade of grunge and Tarantino, "I am not a role model"superstar athletes, and Slick Willie politicians-the latest (and notthe last) in a long line. Selling heroism to the public wasn’timpossible-especially if Harrison Ford and Toms Cruise and Hanks wereinvolved-but it often needed to be served with irony (Buffy the Vampire Slayer) or nostalgia (Apollo 13). The noble docs of ER lost as many patients as they saved, while the truth-?seeking agents of The X-Files mostly lost. By the end of the century, The Matrix depicted reality itself as the ultimate villain, one requiring a machine-gun messiah to vanquish it.
The current state of heroism can be summed up in a word: Lost.Like the castaways of ABC’s mystery drama, today’s would-be heroes areso flawed or messed up, they need to be saved from themselves beforethey save anyone else. Some succeed, like Iron Man’s ethically murky Tony Stark. But many others-Anakin Skywalker; the meth-cooking cancer dad on Breaking Bad;almost anyone on HBO, Showtime, or FX-find it more empowering toembrace the dark side. These characters reflect a culture that feelspowerless and pissed: We desperately want good to triumph over evil,but we can’t staunch our doubts that good is up to the task. "We wantheroes to know the difference between good and bad, and we want them tobe strong," says Lost exec producer Damon Lindelof. "However,it’s hard for such a person to be accessible unless they’re alsoextremely effed up.because only a seriously disturbed individual wouldwant to be a hero."
The decade’s plague of monolithic fantasy villains are just astortured. Voldemort and Magneto are timeless and timely embodiments ofevil: intolerant, fanatic, corrupted. Yet like so many morally iffyheroes, these scarred rogues have world-saving ambitions, albeit warpedby hateful worldviews. The Joker and Saw’s Jigsaw Killer arepsychotic vigilantes persecuting society for failing to live up totheir potential or ideals. We need more from pop culture than justseeing good guys and bad guys in action-we need to see how they’remade. Case in point: Harry Potter. J.K. Rowling’s seven-book saga tookus deep inside the boy wizard’s trial-and-error transformation from aworld-wounded young boy to a young man who saves the world withoutcompromising himself or his values. We believed it, because Rowling-andHarry-did the hard work of proving it.
The era of the reconsidered hero will continue this year with asuccession of high-profile flicks that aspire to reboot old favoriteswith new relevance: Wolverine, Star Trek, Terminator Salvation, Sherlock Holmes.Hollywood clearly knows that we are not only fixated on heroes andvillains, but deeply familiar with their whole history, too. In thisweek’s EW, we will salute the ones who have best captured ourimaginations, as well as the results of an EW.com poll asking for yourpicks. (Judging from your No. 1 good-guy choice, old-school heroismisn’t totally dead. Now if only they could re-create a movie franchiseworthy of him.) You will also find a gallery celebrating four of themost dastardly villains ever to appear on screen. They’re nice people,as it turns out, though the one with the hungry eyes just might makeyou fear for your liver.
What do you think, PopWatchers? Who are some of your all-time favorite heroes and villains? Which hero-villain cinematic match-ups are you most looking forward to this year? How do you think the notion of what defines a hero has evolved over the years?
Comments (1-30) of 38 Add your comment
Dr. J. – Stop the PopWatch posts and give us the ‘Lost’ recap!
Hopefully none of the ravenous “Lost” fans sees this before your recap is officially posted. They might fire-bomb your office due to your dereliction of duties.
Uh-oh, I was too late. It’s begun.
we JUST answered these questions on those frakking hero and villain polls … btw, jensen, god and the devil? day one? dualistic much?
but anyway, Caprica Six. Now there’s an arc of development that found a character changing dramatically in order to become truer and truer to herself.
Nix and the others: Since this is going to be in this week’s magaizine, I assume this post was written before Wednesday night. Nix you said the questions where in the polls. Some people didn’t check the polls and again this will also be in the magazine.
I think one of the reason the film “Taken” has been so popular is that is has an unapologetic hero who isn’t afraid to do the hard things, but who isn’t really burdened down by his “dark side” or some junk like that. We need more film heroes of that sort.
Hero or villian? Sometimes it seems the answer is one and the same. Its easy to see Superman/Batman etc as a hero but all to often it seems we like our hero to be flawed & can often make the villian the hero if there is somthing entircing about him/her. Vampires, pirates, gansters are villians by nature yet we associate with them & make them the hero: Twilight, Pirates of Carribean, Johnny Depp as Sweeny Todd or Michael C. Hall as Dexter. I think its the mix or ambivilance of the characters that we relate to & if the actor is charming or handsome – then we can overlook the character’s flaws (even major ones like murder) see Harrison Ford as HanSolo, Warren Betty & Fay Dunaway as Bonnie & Clyde, sexy young vampires or Catherine Deveuve in The Hunger. Maybe we are attracted to the danger or just like the actors/actresses.
“However, it’s hard for such a person to be accessible unless they’re also extremely effed up.because only a seriously disturbed individual would want to be a hero.”
Lindelof’s comment had me thinking Ben immediately.
Rorschach vs humanity – one man belief of to clean up what is wrong can be taken to the darkest places and we know he is right.
average joe vs corporate / politician types. – us little guys can only handle the AIG execs of the world for so long before their plans of world domination are stopped. see : Enemy of teh State. The International. even Deathrace 2000
Agree with Rahul–LOST RECAP PLEASE!!! My mind is about to blow!
Magneto’s not evil: he’s exactly the sort of nuanced villain you’re talking about. He’s a Holocaust survivor, a victim early in life, determined to see that such horror never happens again and protect his (sub)species from the human norm. Rest of the article was so interesting that that rather glaring error leapt out at me.
It’s the rejection of dualism (a la “Nix”) that’s led to the now-boring glut of “villainous hero” archetypes. Think of the Whedonverse, herald of the popular if philosophically/theologically illogical (yay tongue-twisters!) idea that there are only two forces: evil and uncaring (Paradox much? Whedon’s ‘neutral’ Powers That Be perpetrated evil through inaction, deception, and lack of love on a regular basis). This is why I like Jim Butcher’s “Dresden Files” books – he’s mature and realistic about this stuff, and so his supernatural hero is imperfect without being a “defeat the baddies at all costs, morals don’t matter” (hi again, paradox!) ass. Exploring heroism and villainy from multiple perspectives is interesting; the parade of one-dimensional “evil heroes” got dull long ago.
Jeff, you are the first writer I have read on this stupid blog that actually sounds like he has some sense of what he’s talking about in a reasonably intelligent manner! What the hell are you doing working for EW???
Damn, this is the best thing I’ve read that EW’s churned out in a while. Kudos!
Very good read Doc. Interesting and a thinker….
I don’t know how you can discuss heroes and villians and not bring up the conflicted and most complex comics villian, Doctor Doom. Here is someone who is a twisted reflection of Reed Richards, brilliant in some areas that Richards is not as knowledgeable (magic and time travel). Doom, who defeated the Beyonder and Mephisto, and who once was Emperor of the planet and strangely used his power to end hunger, war and racism and to bring order to the planet.
John Mclain. He is the best. A hero who finds himself in the wrong spot at the wrong time constantly but fights the fight because as we learn in Die Hard 4 “hes that guy.” Sure he curses and taunts but hes a good man inside fighting to protect like his job describes. A hardworking doing what he is asked and above and beyond. If that is not the heart of the American work force i dont know what is. John Mclain…a working mans hero…yippie kay yay
Interesting article… but at the risk of sounding like a pedantic nitpicker, I’d like to remind whomever it may concern that if you’re going to use em dashes to set off parenthetical material (as Doc Jensen does repeatedly here), they should be real dashes and not just hyphens with no spaces on either side. It makes it a little difficult to read otherwise. Thanks. Namaste!
Good piece, Jeff – except for your complete mis-read of The Joker.
He’s not evil, as such – he is Chaos personifed. He has no ideals. He just is. And he just does. [Which is why he's my number one choice for all-time villain].
fantastic article! very thoughtful, and a lot of truth to it, i think. another example from a recent film- 3:10 to yuma. christian bale is determined to do the right thing and be heroic, which ends up getting him killed, but his actions make russell crowe do something uncharacteristically good.
As good as this article is, we also have the reluctant hero – a guy who is forced into his role. Examples of this include Charles Bronson in the Death Wish movies, Frank Castle’s Punisher and more recently, at least on the surface, Jack from Lost. I know this doesn’t fit well into the theme though. The history of westerns does though. Up until the late 1950’s hero’s were generally portrayed as colorful and pure of spirit (Roy Rogers, John Wayne, etc). The 60’s introduced us to the antihero – where we routed for the guy who wasn’t a good guy but was less evil than the people around him (Clint Eastwood’s Man with No Name, “The Wild Bunch”). This is similar to comics’ hero progression. Nowadays, I think we recognize more than ever the need for heros and take them however we can get them.
No villain will ever be as evil and well-played as Margaret Hamilton in The Wizard of OZ! You and your little dog too!
I think that a hero is someone who sacrifices to make sure the people that they love are taken care of. My favorite hero/villian combo is Harry Potter and Voldemort. Half Blood Prince is going to be amazing and then we will have the ultimate showdown in The Deathly Hallows. Harry is the perfect hero because he died in order to save everyone. He was given his life back and killed Voldemort, but he didn’t think that was going to happen. He thought his death would end everyone’s suffering and was ready to give up his life. I think that Voldemort is the ultimate villian. He literally hates everything good. Who would murder people just to split their soul and live forever?? Harry said it best in Order in the Phoenix that Voldemort “will never know love or friendship.”
Good read. And some nice comments. I agree with the Die Hard 4 explanation of what is a hero.
I disagree with Captain Average’s movie-only interpretation of the Joker. That was chaos sure, but follow the 70-YEAR HISTORY of the character- he is completely evil because he knows exactly what he’s doing (blowing up Robin, shooting Barbara, etc.) and he doesn’t care.
wicked witch of the west
catwoman (michelle pfeiffer)
‘nough said
Jeff, very well written article I thought it was awesome that you brought up how much heroes and villains are being used today in light of things in the real world. And it’s something I’ve thought of as well writing my own hero/villain story. That’s the exact point of it! I think bringing these kinds of characters out in such a time makes them more enjoyable for the reader…and so far just hearing from my friends, and teachers – they love the story because of how real the characters seem to be.
I think the reason a good villain is so compelling is that he or she provides a tragic double for the hero, and for the viewer. The best villains are ones who retain some measure of humanity – the ones we can watch and say, “There but for a twist of fate go I (or the hero).”
There is a liberal-guilt mentality for many villains. They are redeemed by explaining how society has wronged them and driven them to their villainy. “The Dark Knight’s” Joker, on the other hand, mocks this penchant for excusing evil. The Joker tells his story, explaining his features and his behavior. We accept his pop-psychology pity party, until he tells the story again and again. Each time the stories are different, leaving us without an explanation. He is not motivated by money or revenge or any of the other explainable and understandable motivations. He is the essence of terrorism, performing evil out of some self-defined need to warp the world into his way of thinking. to prove that the world is just as perverse as he is. I ti snot that I am apposed to complex villains. The Joker is masterfully villainous in his very ambiguity, he does not need explaining to be interesting. The apologists for evil may need to wake up as see that evil sometimes is its own excuse.
Since the show actually explored the philisophical and phychological consequences of being a hero you’d think Buffy (and Angel) would have had more than a mere mention in this article.
Also, kinda annoying that the author mentions a pole, alludes to the winner but then doesn’t show results or link to the article