Tendencies Towards Fictional Immorality, and the Enigma of Villains

HEMIKA NAG

Fictional media, for the longest time, have been a means to explore the outlines of good and evil, and test the boundaries of morality. From how the Grimm brothers extracted from folklores and cautionary tales, as collectors of stories, publishing gruesome fairytales, to how in recent years, Disney villains are granted redemption and justification through retellings, there is something within the naturally evil that draws in people.

To understand the attraction towards the fictional evil, one may find the Jungian 'Shadow' to be a vital point of reference. Carl Jung, in his model of psyche, emphasizes on something called the shadow of the self. According to him, while people present themselves with certain characteristics, and reserve their true selves for a smaller circle, if anyone at all, people also have a side to them they'd rather not acknowledge, even to themselves. A hidden aspect of one's self that is difficult to acknowledge, and may even consist of a desire for the wrong. As cited from the Collective Works of C.G. Jung, the human shadow is explained as such - "If it has been believed hitherto that the human shadow was the source of evil, it can now be ascertained on closer investigation that the unconscious man, that is his shadow does not consist only of morally reprehensible tendencies, but also displays a number of good qualities, such as normal instincts, appropriate reactions, realistic insights, creative impulses etc."

With that in mind, it is now easier to understand why both creators and audience are drawn to immortality. It should be considered that creating a morally apprehensible character or scenario, as a fictional material, is considered as a cathartic experience, and helps expunge the innate evil onto paper, rather than unto other living beings. The same can be said for the audience, viewing violence and manipulation is more excusable than acting it out, especially when no real people, animal or environment is actually being harmed.

This idea exists, of course, not without criticism. The foremost question that arises is that if one can conjure, and even enjoy atrocities in fiction, is that not a reflection of their real selves. After all, the media is simply a means, and it has been used to propagate false facts, and harmful ideologies. However, there is a stark difference between documentaries, and intentional manipulation of historical facts in media, and fiction as a genre. Fiction, as defined by the Oxford dictionaries, is creative works, mainly in narrative forms, and based primarily on imagination, thus bearing little consistency to facts, by nature. Therefore, when a piece of media is published as fictional, it comes with the disclaimer that the characters, events and places are not to be taken as reality. As such, if one is consuming fiction, they are choosing to indulge into narratives they know to be untrue. If one cannot make that distinction, that is a problem within the individual, and may be a sign of a psychological lapse. In the same sense, it is important to educate people, especially children, about the distinctions between reality, that which is shown in media, and fictional narratives.

Now, to bring into the discussion, the role of a villain. The acts of evil represented on screen may be a complex catharsis of human nature, but what of the characters that do these acts? Is it simple enough to say that one is drawn to a villain because one can relate to the darker desires of him. Perhaps, it is just another form of exploring the unsafe, in a safe space. However, when it comes to characters, there is always a layer of closeness. A character is closer to a person, because a character is like a person. A character, may it be a human, animal, or any sort of creature, especially when enacted, in theatre and cinema, by actors (including voice actors), involves the illusion of being a human person (Pavis, 1998). In essence, a character is an object of interest on screen, that is easiest to connect with, as humans. Therefore, while the atrocities committed may be entertaining to watch, or read about, knowing it's not real, one can't help but think if the character committing the atrocities should be condemned in all possible ways. 

To describe the most basic role of a villain, the structure of a narrative becomes imperative. A narrative consists, in the simplest structure, three acts, a set-up, a confrontation, and a resolution, as described by Syd Field (1979). A set up is where the environment and characters are introduced, and the normalcy of the world is established. Furthermore, a conflict is presented that challenges said normalcy. The subsequent acts consist of, as the names suggest, confronting the point of conflict, and what happens after the point is resolved, if it is resolved at all. The part relevant to the discussion, is the conflict introduced in the first act. This conflict is where the action takes place, while the normalcy of a fictional world can be splendidly interesting, it is the conflict that holds the most potential to lock in the most attention. In innumerable narratives, a villain, or an antagonist is this conflict. A character that disrupts the protagonist's normal life, an anomaly that threatens the peace. The villain is the one needed to be confronted. Therefore, one may draw the conclusion that the reason a villain is so attractive is because structurally, a villain moves the plot forward, or even deviates it from expectations, and in doing so, naturally increases the interest levels towards a narrative. 

At the same time, we have iconic villains, like the Joker, from Batman, or perhaps the evil mastermind Moriarty from the Sherlock Holmes books, who are more than just structural conflicts, but rather fluid entities that are difficult to predict. When the villain is so well crafted, and poses real difficulties for the protagonist, it brings a great amount of engagement.

Bringing back the Disney villains, it has become a staple to make them more sympathetic, like Maleficent, or Cruella De Ville. There has been a desire within audiences and creators alike to make the villain win. The question is why? Although there may be different answers, from different people, analysis and deep dives into narrative styles and creative reversals, this discussion has been about human nature and shall delve into that yet still.

As mentioned before, a character is the representation closest to a human person, and there has been a long running discourse about representation itself. The Oxford Review defines media representation as “how individuals, groups, and communities are portrayed across various forms of media, such as television, film, news, social media, and advertising. Media representation is the way in which media depicts people, events, issues, and cultures. It includes the choice of imagery, narratives, language, casting, and framing used to portray different groups, especially those historically marginalised. Good media representation is accurate, diverse, and inclusive, while poor representation may lead to misunderstanding, bias, or harm by perpetuating harmful stereotypes or excluding certain groups altogether.”

Throughout history there has been a pressing issue about representation, and how the presence of certain groups of people and their cultures, or lack thereof, have created stereotypes and misconceptions. For example, it is often a woman shown as nothing but a love interest, or an Arabic man that is shown as a con artist. An African character is often shown as violent, or a mobster. Even when considering Indian cinema, the north-eastern character is often only a comedic relief, or a non-active victim and very rarely is represented whole-heartedly, culture and all. The people in power decide who is entitled to representation, and who deserves positive or complex portrayal. Such skewed representation is contributed by white supremacy, classism, elitism and the heavy censorship during the 1900s towards topics like violence, perceived deviance including homosexuality, and mental disability, by codes like the Hays Code, and the Comics Code. People took advantage of these guidelines and demonized otherness, and even physical disfiguration. The only way to represent these characteristics which were conveniently attributed to various minority groups, was if they were condemned. Hence, we were left with a plethora of desperate, wronged, disabled, oppressed and ridiculed people of colour represented by villains in every other TV show, movie or book. 

With these characteristics often being the outline of villains, people from the groups labelled as minorities, perhaps cannot help but wish for the villains to win. To some capacity, some of these characters are not villains at all, in the eyes of who they represent, but rather angry victims that chose to outwit the heroes and reject the ‘normal’ that excluded them.