Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 >
Topic Options
#486528 - 02/15/13 06:48 PM Villains
Emilio Largo Offline

CoS Member

Registered: 02/12/13
Posts: 122
Most of us here, I suspect, hold a special place in our hearts for the villains of print and screen. One commonality among us, probably, is that we often find ourselves rooting for the bad guy. We want the arch enemy not only to win, but to find happiness in doing so, and get the girl or guy besides, if there's one to be gotten. Perverse? Perhaps. Or maybe - Satanic.

In this thread, please draw attention to some villain, of either gender, of any species if the genre is sci-fi or fantasy, and of any medium, even video games.

I will give a shout out to Sylar of the much maligned Heroes TV show, the first season of which held my attention very well, probably because in that season Sylar was allowed to be unambiguously bad, driven, and dangerous. What I love about him is his quiet nature, his soft way of speaking, his stillness, his deceptive gentleness. He's like a kitten. A kitten with a dragon's bite and appetite.

_________________________
Elite because we smell the bullshit and do not deign to wallow in it.

Top
#486530 - 02/15/13 06:56 PM Re: Villains [Re: Emilio Largo]
Lust Offline


Registered: 11/02/05
Posts: 4214
I enjoyed Gerard Butler's performance as, Clyde Shelton in Law Abiding Citizen.
_________________________
�Love is one of the most intense feelings felt by man; another is hate. Forcing yourself to feel indiscriminate love is very unnatural. If you try to love everyone you only lessen your feelings for those who deserve your love. Repressed hatred can lead to many physical and emotional aliments. By learning to release your hatred towards those who deserve it, you cleanse yourself of these malignant emotions and need not take your pent-up hatred out on your loved ones.�
Anton Szandor LaVey, The Satanic Bible

Top
#486532 - 02/15/13 07:24 PM Re: Villains [Re: Emilio Largo]
Delta Offline
CoS Member

Registered: 12/18/07
Posts: 6755
Loc: Nar
Only one? One? That's villainy in and of itself. I'll try putting aside Giger's Alien, Al Pacino's Devil, Javier Bardem's recent follow-up to your namesake, GLaDOS and HAL, Darth Vader and Senator Palpatine, Voldemort, Ursula the sea witch, Lord Summerisle, the politicians of Salo and about 50 other amazing villains for now. If I have to choose just one-

Iago

Iago is closer to pure evil than most depictions of Satan himself. He's not a beauty that was cast out seeking revenge, he's not motivated by any attempt to make the world better or even to seize it for his own greed, not a thief or animalistic monster, he's just evil. Pure, cruel, horrible evil.

He uses the most vicious, saddening means to hurt an innocent man as badly as he can and it's gruesome to watch, making Othello even more cruel than Titus Andronicus or Macbeth. More sickening than any modern bad guy who does something horrible for the greater good (A motive used too often these days), more sadistic than DeSade himself.

I've not yet seen an actor do him justice in a movie, even Brannagh or MacLiammóir. I would love to have seen Andy Serkis play him at the Manchester Royal Exchange but can't find any footage.
_________________________






Top
#486533 - 02/15/13 07:42 PM Re: Villains [Re: Emilio Largo]
Shade Offline
CoS Witch

Registered: 07/08/06
Posts: 6135
Loc: A Trailer Park
Hannibal Lecter. Because manners matter.
_________________________
"What happens in the shadow, in the grey regions, also interests us – all that is elusive and fugitive, all that can be said in those beautiful half tones, or in whispers, in deep shade." ~ The Brothers Quay

We're Just Regular People

Top
#486534 - 02/15/13 08:09 PM Re: Villains [Re: Emilio Largo]
Zaftig Offline
CoS Witch

Registered: 09/23/06
Posts: 3409
Every hot wicked bitch in every soap opera. The Susan Lucci's that steal husbands, get rich, and always look great doing it.

There are so many wonderful villains. I am currently obsessed with Netflix's House of Cards, a most Satanic of shows, and its main character, Frank Underwood. He schemes and lies and manipulates to get what he wants.

At a moment of tension, when he's standing in a church, he addresses both god and the devil, ultimately dismissing them both, and then declares:

"I pray to myself, for myself."

He's a lying, cheating bastard. And you root for him. It's amazing.


Top
#486539 - 02/15/13 08:54 PM Re: Villains [Re: Zaftig]
Emilio Largo Offline

CoS Member

Registered: 02/12/13
Posts: 122
Witch Zaftig, I think we root for a villain like Frank Underwood at least partly because he's so honest with himself, so untainted by hypocrisy, so true to what he knows he wants and is, so uncompromised - so pure. How strange to the outsider it must seem, probably, that what many a Satanist longs for, deeply - is purity. And where the Satanist finds it, sometimes, is in the literary or cinematic bad guy or gal, if the character is presented as demonic. For what is the demonic, but evil purged of impurities?

Here is a villain very different from Sylar of Heroes. Since I waxed adoring of Sylar's quiet nature, some might be tempted to ask me why I see this other villain as so different, since he's presented as silent. Ah, but as anyone who really appreciates the genre well knows, the silent movie is misnamed, for it is anything but silent. The music! The music is this villain's voice, and he roars.

_________________________
Elite because we smell the bullshit and do not deign to wallow in it.

Top
#486540 - 02/15/13 09:09 PM Re: Villains [Re: Delta]
Emilio Largo Offline

CoS Member

Registered: 02/12/13
Posts: 122
Delta, what do you think of this Iago? I find it reptilian, and I think the actor selected the right species.

_________________________
Elite because we smell the bullshit and do not deign to wallow in it.

Top
#486541 - 02/15/13 09:43 PM Re: Villains [Re: Emilio Largo]
Delta Offline
CoS Member

Registered: 12/18/07
Posts: 6755
Loc: Nar
Not bad at all but more understated than my taste would be. Fiennes nailed it with Coriolanus, you could feel the hatred dripping off of him like sweat even in his most subdued scenes. Rather than full cold and calculating, though he is both, I imagine Iago at an almost Patrick Bateman level when it comes to rage under the surface. Or maybe a less restrained Daniel Plainview at his worst, though I don't consider Plainview to be a villain.

Coriolanus and Bateman also belong in this thread somewhere, this could also very easily turn into a great performances thread...
_________________________






Top
#486542 - 02/15/13 11:15 PM Re: Villains [Re: Emilio Largo]
John Prophet Offline

CoS Member

Registered: 04/06/09
Posts: 996
Loc: My suburban lair
Originally Posted By: Emilio Largo
One commonality among us, probably, is that we often find ourselves rooting for the bad guy. We want the arch enemy not only to win, but to find happiness in doing so

This is most definitely a sentiment that I can relate to .

I agree that Sylar was awesome in the first season of Heroes, a real joy to watch.

I'd also like to point out that despite those differences, Nosferatu was actually the inspiration for certain elements of Sylar-

http://heroeswiki.com/Nosferatu#.07.25

Here are a couple of things that I have written before on some of my favorite anime villains and business villains . These are two of my favorite categories of villainy.

Delta already mentioned Bateman, who should be included in any good thread about choice villains.

I'm going to offer one of my favorite anime villains that I didn't feature in the article that I linked to above; Muraki from Descendants of Darkness. He's an angelic looking mad doctor clad in white, with a homosexual obsession with the series protagonist, various occult powers and who does some serial killing on the side. He's also secretly keeping his brother's head alive in a jar so that he can eventually revive him, just so that he can kill him again later.


_________________________


Top
#486543 - 02/16/13 01:21 AM Re: Villains [Re: John Prophet]
TheDegenerate Offline
CoS Member

Registered: 11/11/07
Posts: 3567
Loc: Cowtown
Wolf Larsen from The Sea Wolf, hands down.

From his misanthropic worldview to his immense strength and self taught knowledge, he is truly a Satanic superhero, and a foe so adherent to his Darwinian thinking that, even in the midst of blindness and on his deathbed, he still manages to be a terror to his admired antagonist, the soft hearted writer, Humphrey Van Weyden.

I could write a novel about this character. From the mistreatment of his crew on the Ghost, to his philosophical lessons, he alone makes The Sea Wolf worth multiple read throughs. It's a bit of an unfortunate book in the fact that the latter half is largely concerned with a blooming romance, and the building tension between Wolf and Van Weyden fizzles for awhile after the halfway point. But I felt the ending of it was satisfying just in the fact that, true to Wolf's idea of "eat or be eaten", he refuses to let another man get the best of him, at it is ultimately nature that ends up being the tool of his demise.

Cruel, cunning, heartless, and brutally terrifying in his power, Wolf is one of the most compelling antagonists I have ever seen, and a true villain in that sense. I find him to be personally very sympathetic in the fact that he seems to have some glimmer of envy for the life of the ignorant masses, not because he wants what they have, but because he is simple incapable of relating to them on their level. His innate intelligence and curiosity, his exposure to all kinds of literature and the sciences have essentially opened the floodgates for him, which can never be closed again. He is a true outsider in that respect, one who really is on the outside of the box looking in.

I love that book and character so much, I up until recently had two copies of it; one I would write in, and another very nice hardcover edition with illustrations. The book was also free and came installed on my eReader which is where I was first exposed to it a couple of Christmases ago. I just noticed recently that Doktor LaVey mentions the film as an influence in Speak of the Devil, and Magister James D. Sass refers to the book in Essays in Satanism as well.

But yeah, it is hard to name only one; villains are the best part of many stories. Wolf Larsen tops them all in my opinion for being such a well rounded character with such a well extrapolated worldview, one that I relate very closely too in some ways.

Top
#486548 - 02/16/13 03:15 AM Re: Villains [Re: John Prophet]
John Prophet Offline

CoS Member

Registered: 04/06/09
Posts: 996
Loc: My suburban lair
As was just pointed out to me, Gordon Gekko from the 1987 film Wall Street is another character that definitely deserves mention here.

His ambition and Darwinist view of the world are definitely Satanic traits in my opinion. And his infamous "Greed is good" speech has caused him to often be associated with that particular and delightful "sin". He's also a blatant materialist and it is implied in the film that he is a self made man.

Perhaps the most appealing thing about him is that he is an unapologetic financial predator. He embraces what he is and does not deny his own nature. Gekko is pragmatic, and has a hard nosed understanding of the realities of the world and of humanity. Of course there's also something to be said for the character's success and opulent lifestyle, and in some ways he has become a symbol of that as well.

Oliver Stone once said that anyone who thinks that the message of the film is "greed is good" didn't get the point and he lamented how many people idolized the character of Gordon Gekko and wanted to be like him. But that's what you get when you create such a compelling villain. It can be argued that John Milton made the same mistake. coopdevil

_________________________


Top
#486551 - 02/16/13 04:50 AM Re: Villains [Re: Emilio Largo]
MagdaGraham Offline
CoS Priestess

Registered: 06/23/04
Posts: 13369
Loc: Scotland
Shakespeare’s Richard III
In real life Richard III was a good king, but the history of the vanquished is written by the victor. Shakespeare would have risked death if he had told the truth. However, the genius dramatist refused to toe the Tudor party line. Richard III had to be portrayed as a villain – therefore Shakespeare made him the most magnificent villain who ever strode across a stage.

http://www.criterion.com/films/366-richard-iii

"Oh I can smile and murder whiles I smile"
_________________________
We are the makers of manners. (Shakespeare)

http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/clickToGive/home.faces?siteId=3

Top
#486553 - 02/16/13 05:32 AM Re: Villains [Re: John Prophet]
Emilio Largo Offline

CoS Member

Registered: 02/12/13
Posts: 122
John Prophet, your reference to Oliver Stone with regard to Gordon Gekko's popularity draws our attention to the seductive attractiveness of villainny. In line with my previous comment to this thread, I will argue that what attracts us is not corruption, but rather purity. The artistically successful antagonist, literary or cinematic, will typically be uncompromising in his or her pursuits. It is in fact humanity's proclivity for compromise that constitutes the true corruption in this world. Wherein lies the root of compromise, most often? In the realm of suffering.

The hero and the villain, in my mind, divide precisely at the question of suffering. The bad guy inflicts misery on others for the sake of self. The good guy endures the misery of self for the sake of others. A story that doesn't depict some form of torture, physical or mental, cannot be said to have depicted heroism or villainny at all.

The suffering hero can be seductive in his or her own way. I'm sure there are many (perhaps not among us, but out there somewhere) who have fallen head over heels in love with the tortured protagonist who presses on through pain and anguish toward an altruistic end. This, after all, is the story of Jesus, and hopefully it won't surprise anyone to read that yes, for many Christian women (and, I presume, gay men) their alleged Savior is the object of full blown Eros.

But this is a thread about the bad, not the good, and since, incidentally, I've noted thus far a preponderance of masculine references, here's a little something to get us thinking about the female side of the equation, and, for me at least, provide another reminder of the seductive attractiveness of our subject.

_________________________
Elite because we smell the bullshit and do not deign to wallow in it.

Top
#486557 - 02/16/13 07:59 AM Re: Villains [Re: Emilio Largo]
Shade Offline
CoS Witch

Registered: 07/08/06
Posts: 6135
Loc: A Trailer Park
No Ilsa? shocked

I didn't think Buffy was bad, per se, but honestly how could she compete with the bunny butcher herself, the Marquise de Merteuil? Similar to what you said about purity, it was her conviction that impressed me. And no one fucks with Glenn Close.

_________________________
"What happens in the shadow, in the grey regions, also interests us – all that is elusive and fugitive, all that can be said in those beautiful half tones, or in whispers, in deep shade." ~ The Brothers Quay

We're Just Regular People

Top
#486561 - 02/16/13 09:10 AM Re: Villains [Re: Emilio Largo]
Inés Offline


Registered: 11/06/11
Posts: 77
Loc: Germany/Spain
My favourite female villain has always been Maleficent from Disney's Sleeping Beauty. She is regal, elegant, beautiful and wicked. I am always amazed at how well her movements were drawn, especially her hands. She is one of those old-school animated evil ones that doesn't have an ounce of ridicule or is softened down in any way. She has the best voice a villain should have and the music underlines her darkness. Plus she turns into a dragon, that is always a good thing. wink

My favourite male villain is King Haggard from the Last Unicorn. Another regal bad guy, but older and a tad nostalgic. To me it is Christopher Lee's voice that makes this character stand out. You grow to feel sympathy for his longing/obsession even though you can tell that there is a very deep darkness within him. I love how he gets killed off, tumbling with his decaying castle into the ocean.

But better then these two and at the top of my list is always going to be this guy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3J91bPrW9A

Tim Curry is one creepy sonofa, no matter what he is acting in. The voice, the stance, bodylanguage, his entire performance as Darkness is absolutely perfect in this film.
_________________________
amor vincit omnia

Top
#486563 - 02/16/13 09:48 AM Re: Villains [Re: Emilio Largo]
Labyrinthine Offline

CoS Member

Registered: 02/05/12
Posts: 541
Loc: America
Sylar is a great one.

One of my many favorites is Lex Luthor. His whole complex about Superman is great. Luthor would be the greatest man of Metropolis if Superman, an invading, alien, menace weren't there to steal the show. He wants to be the best and change the world "for the better", (though still led by him,) through the use of advanced technology but has this mad hatred for Superman that just consumes him, so you have to wonder what he'd be like if Superman weren't around.

Luthor lacks superpowers, so I have the same admiration for him as I do for Batman, Iron Man, Catwoman, the Punisher that he uses his highly intelligent (but not super) brain to put himself on equal terms with superpowered comicbook heroes and villains. He can be suave and charming, he does the whole corporate villain thing well, and he's evil, yet sometimes convinces people that what he's doing is in their best interest (the guy got elected President!) and even fools himself on some level.


Top
#486565 - 02/16/13 10:32 AM Re: Villains [Re: Shade]
Emilio Largo Offline

CoS Member

Registered: 02/12/13
Posts: 122
Witch Shade, do you think that was Buffy? It was Sarah Michelle Gellar, certainly, but might she have been performing one of her movie roles? I didn't see the film, but I'm thinking Kathryn from Cruel Intentions might have made the cut as a best villainness.
_________________________
Elite because we smell the bullshit and do not deign to wallow in it.

Top
#486566 - 02/16/13 10:49 AM Re: Villains [Re: Emilio Largo]
Shade Offline
CoS Witch

Registered: 07/08/06
Posts: 6135
Loc: A Trailer Park
Sorry, I know who the actress is and I've seen Cruel Intentions, I just always call her Buffy. Being a modern teen take on the older film (Dangerous Liasons, 1988) I had to compare the two portrayals of what was essentially the same character (Kathryn Merteuil vs. Marquise Isabelle de Merteuil). I love Buffy but as a best villainess she didn't come close to Close.
_________________________
"What happens in the shadow, in the grey regions, also interests us – all that is elusive and fugitive, all that can be said in those beautiful half tones, or in whispers, in deep shade." ~ The Brothers Quay

We're Just Regular People

Top
#486567 - 02/16/13 11:19 AM Re: Villains [Re: Shade]
Zaftig Offline
CoS Witch

Registered: 09/23/06
Posts: 3409

Top
#486568 - 02/16/13 11:53 AM Re: Villains [Re: Emilio Largo]
Drake_Bamboozle Offline
CoS Reverend

Registered: 06/25/02
Posts: 10581
Loc: England
One of the greatest movie villains of all time. Lee Van Cleef as Angel Eyes in The Good, The Bad And The Ugly.


Attachments
angeleyes1.jpg


_________________________
"u.v.ray blends the dark street poetry of Nelson Algren with the swagger and style of a young Iggy Pop."

www.uvray.moonfruit.com





Top
#486572 - 02/16/13 03:25 PM Re: Villains [Re: Emilio Largo]
Bill_M Offline
CoS Magister

Registered: 07/28/01
Posts: 11570
Loc: New England, USA
"Ours is the victory ... They talk of democracy, freedom, fairness. Those are the creeds of cowards. The ones who would listen to a thousand opinions and try to satisfy them all. Achievement comes through absolute power, and power through strength! THEY have lost!"




"There are so many rock heroes. We need a rock villain. I want to be the rock villain."

_________________________
Reverend Bill M.

http://www.devilsmischief.com: Carnal Comedy Clips, Netherworld Novelty Numbers,
New hour every week. Download the mp3 now!

http://www.aplaceformystuff.org: Tales of Combat Clutter and other Adventures

(Wenn du Google's Übersetzer verwendest, um diese Worte zu lesen, dann bist du ein Arschloch.)

Top
#486573 - 02/16/13 03:34 PM Re: Villains [Re: Drake_Bamboozle]
NornIrnbloke Offline



Registered: 01/07/13
Posts: 46
Loc: United Kingdom
To me at the moment, the ultimate bad guy has to be Bryan Cranston's character Walter White from the series Breaking Bad.

Walter starts off as the geeky "Butter wouldn't melt" school teacher who wouldn't hurt a fly. Then after finding out he has lung cancer, ends up turning to a life of crime as a 'cook' of methamphetamine.

It all starts out quite comical two characters in over their heads trying to make enough to support Walters family when he dies.

I don't want to spoil the show for anyone who still want's to watch it but as the series progresses Walter turns out to be the real bad guy, and what started as "honourable" motives in the beginning becomes about him securing his power base. So much so that his wife, partner Jesse and even the cartel become absoloutely terrified of him!

It's been a while since I've enjoyed a TV series and been captivated. The final season concludes later this year and I'm looking forward to it. Have a nosey if you get a chance.


Edited by NornIrnbloke (02/16/13 03:35 PM)
_________________________
The trouble with having an open mind is that people insist on putting ideas into it!

Top
#486575 - 02/16/13 05:20 PM Re: Villains [Re: Shade]
Emilio Largo Offline

CoS Member

Registered: 02/12/13
Posts: 122
Originally Posted By: Shade
Being a modern teen take on the older film (Dangerous Liasons, 1988) I had to compare the two portrayals of what was essentially the same character (Kathryn Merteuil vs. Marquise Isabelle de Merteuil). I love Buffy but as a best villainess she didn't come close to Close.


I see now, Witch Shade, that much of your prior comment went straight over my head. I knew nothing of the one film being a remake of the other, or of why in fact you were comparing Close and Gellar. A sad commentary on myself, I'm sure. Thanks for educating me!
_________________________
Elite because we smell the bullshit and do not deign to wallow in it.

Top
#486577 - 02/16/13 06:01 PM Re: Villains [Re: NornIrnbloke]
TheDegenerate Offline
CoS Member

Registered: 11/11/07
Posts: 3567
Loc: Cowtown
Originally Posted By: NornIrnbloke
To me at the moment, the ultimate bad guy has to be Bryan Cranston's character Walter White from the series Breaking Bad.

Walter starts off as the geeky "Butter wouldn't melt" school teacher who wouldn't hurt a fly. Then after finding out he has lung cancer, ends up turning to a life of crime as a 'cook' of methamphetamine.

It all starts out quite comical two characters in over their heads trying to make enough to support Walters family when he dies.

I don't want to spoil the show for anyone who still want's to watch it but as the series progresses Walter turns out to be the real bad guy, and what started as "honourable" motives in the beginning becomes about him securing his power base. So much so that his wife, partner Jesse and even the cartel become absoloutely terrified of him!

It's been a while since I've enjoyed a TV series and been captivated. The final season concludes later this year and I'm looking forward to it. Have a nosey if you get a chance.






Two of the greatest scenes ever on the show, and on television for that matter.


Edited by TheDegenerate (02/16/13 06:03 PM)

Top
#486578 - 02/16/13 06:23 PM Re: Villains [Re: MagdaGraham]
Emilio Largo Offline

CoS Member

Registered: 02/12/13
Posts: 122
Priestess MagdaGraham, and Degenerate, your respective choices (Richard III and Wolf Larsen) give me occasion to talk a bit more about villains in general. There are two pairs of types, differentiated by the question of indifference, with respect to two different concerns.

Indifference first came to my attention as a thing to be thought about when I learned that H.P. Lovecraft was a self-described indifferentist, by which he meant, and I quote, “Contrary to what you may assume, I am not a pessimist but an indifferentist- that is, I don't make the mistake of thinking that the... cosmos... gives a damn one way or the the other about the especial wants and ultimate welfare of mosquitoes, rats, lice, dogs, men, horses, pterodactyls, trees, fungi, dodos, or other forms of biological energy.”

I too am an indifferentist. I suspect many of us are. In the context of our discussion on this thread, I will suggest that many literary and cinematic villains, but not all, are presented as taking the role of the cosmos onto themselves, and interacting with each sorry atom, be it human or otherwise, with a profound indifference to that atom's suffering. Meanwhile, other villains aren't in this sense indifferent at all, but rather take delight in causing suffering as an end in itself. (Heroes could with equal ease divide similarly, but interestingly, as far as I can recollect via examples, don't. Per my admittedly limited memory, heroes inevitably are indifferent to their own suffering. They feel it, certainly, often intensely, even tragically, but allow it neither to dissuade them from their course, nor to become an end in itself. A character who sought suffering of self as an end in itself would strike none of us as a hero, I think. There is probably something important there to consider, but not on this thread, I don't think.)

I would say Richard III is indifferent to the suffering of others - my caveat being, I am the furthest thing from a Shakespeare scholar, and if I am wrong here, I welcome correction. Sadly, I sometimes get lost in Shakespeare's elevated (to say the least) use of language - but it seems to me that Richard III pursues his goals by any means available, including the suffering of others, which for him is always the means to an end. By contrast, Wolf Larsen is quite ready to inflict suffering on others for the pleasure of it. In fact, inflicting suffering is probably the great pleasure of his life. For this reason, he has no need to aspire any higher than captain of a ship, since as captain he is in the best possible position to indulge his appetite for tormenting those physically or strategically weaker than himself.

Here we have a matter of taste, then. I prefer the villain who, like Richard III, is indifferent to the suffering of others. I tend not to favor (aesthetically) the villain who inflicts suffering as an end in itself. In the modern sci-fi novel, Nastragull (Pirates), by Erik Martin Willen, we get treated to a villain of the Wolf Larsen type, one Captain Zuzack, who is admittedly far more depraved than Jack London could ever had gotten away with, even if he had wanted to go to such extremes with Wolf Larsen. I find it psychologically impossible to root for Captain Zuzack. Others may well have the capacity to do what I cannot.

The other mode of indifference, or absence thereof, has to do with the multi-dimensional strength of one's opponents. With the same caveat as before, regarding my lack of sophistication with regard to all things Shakespeare, I will say that as far as I can tell, Richard III is indifferent to whether his opponents are physically/intellectually/psychologically weak or strong, though of course he takes note of such facts from a strategic or tactical perspective. I never get the sense that he specifically selects his opponents because they're weak, or because they're strong. Wolf Larsen is a different matter entirely, and here I find reason to be somewhat attracted to him. Wolf Larsen, presented with weakness, will seek to destroy it, out of contempt, even a sort of moral outrage. Presented with strength, he will, again, seek to destroy it, but not at all out of contempt - quite the opposite, for he will be compelled to test himself against the challenging strength and prove once and for all who is stronger, he or the other, and all the time he will admire his opponent, perhaps even in the end, when and if Wolf Larsen stands victorious - perhaps even then he will admire his opponent for having put up a good fight, and his admiration will have a moral dimension, for when Wolf Larsen says, "might is right," he means more than merely, "the mighty make the rules." As noted already, I find this attitude attractive in a villain.

Two pairs of types, then, differentiated by two different questions of indifference, or the absense thereof. Given the first question, I prefer Richard III, and given the second, I prefer Wolf Larsen, aesthetically.
_________________________
Elite because we smell the bullshit and do not deign to wallow in it.

Top
#486580 - 02/16/13 06:56 PM Re: Villains [Re: Emilio Largo]
TheDegenerate Offline
CoS Member

Registered: 11/11/07
Posts: 3567
Loc: Cowtown
Originally Posted By: Emilio Largo
Priestess MagdaGraham, and Degenerate, your respective choices (Richard III and Wolf Larsen) give me occasion to talk a bit more about villains in general. There are two pairs of types, differentiated by the question of indifference, with respect to two different concerns.

Indifference first came to my attention as a thing to be thought about when I learned that H.P. Lovecraft was a self-described indifferentist, by which he meant, and I quote, “Contrary to what you may assume, I am not a pessimist but an indifferentist- that is, I don't make the mistake of thinking that the... cosmos... gives a damn one way or the the other about the especial wants and ultimate welfare of mosquitoes, rats, lice, dogs, men, horses, pterodactyls, trees, fungi, dodos, or other forms of biological energy.”

I too am an indifferentist. I suspect many of us are. In the context of our discussion on this thread, I will suggest that many literary and cinematic villains, but not all, are presented as taking the role of the cosmos onto themselves, and interacting with each sorry atom, be it human or otherwise, with a profound indifference to that atom's suffering. Meanwhile, other villains aren't in this sense indifferent at all, but rather take delight in causing suffering as an end in itself. (Heroes could with equal ease divide similarly, but interestingly, as far as I can recollect via examples, don't. Per my admittedly limited memory, heroes inevitably are indifferent to their own suffering. They feel it, certainly, often intensely, even tragically, but allow it neither to dissuade them from their course, nor to become an end in itself. A character who sought suffering of self as an end in itself would strike none of us as a hero, I think. There is probably something important there to consider, but not on this thread, I don't think.)

I would say Richard III is indifferent to the suffering of others - my caveat being, I am the furthest thing from a Shakespeare scholar, and if I am wrong here, I welcome correction. Sadly, I sometimes get lost in Shakespeare's elevated (to say the least) use of language - but it seems to me that Richard III pursues his goals by any means available, including the suffering of others, which for him is always the means to an end. By contrast, Wolf Larsen is quite ready to inflict suffering on others for the pleasure of it. In fact, inflicting suffering is probably the great pleasure of his life. For this reason, he has no need to aspire any higher than captain of a ship, since as captain he is in the best possible position to indulge his appetite for tormenting those physically or strategically weaker than himself.

Here we have a matter of taste, then. I prefer the villain who, like Richard III, is indifferent to the suffering of others. I tend not to favor (aesthetically) the villain who inflicts suffering as an end in itself. In the modern sci-fi novel, Nastragull (Pirates), by Erik Martin Willen, we get treated to a villain of the Wolf Larsen type, one Captain Zuzack, who is admittedly far more depraved than Jack London could ever had gotten away with, even if he had wanted to go to such extremes with Wolf Larsen. I find it psychologically impossible to root for Captain Zuzack. Others may well have the capacity to do what I cannot.

The other mode of indifference, or absence thereof, has to do with the multi-dimensional strength of one's opponents. With the same caveat as before, regarding my lack of sophistication with regard to all things Shakespeare, I will say that as far as I can tell, Richard III is indifferent to whether his opponents are physically/intellectually/psychologically weak or strong, though of course he takes note of such facts from a strategic or tactical perspective. I never get the sense that he specifically selects his opponents because they're weak, or because they're strong. Wolf Larsen is a different matter entirely, and here I find reason to be somewhat attracted to him. Wolf Larsen, presented with weakness, will seek to destroy it, out of contempt, even a sort of moral outrage. Presented with strength, he will, again, seek to destroy it, but not at all out of contempt - quite the opposite, for he will be compelled to test himself against the challenging strength and prove once and for all who is stronger, he or the other, and all the time he will admire his opponent, perhaps even in the end, when and if Wolf Larsen stands victorious - perhaps even then he will admire his opponent for having put up a good fight, and his admiration will have a moral dimension, for when Wolf Larsen says, "might is right," he means more than merely, "the mighty make the rules." As noted already, I find this attitude attractive in a villain.

Two pairs of types, then, differentiated by two different questions of indifference, or the absense thereof. Given the first question, I prefer Richard III, and given the second, I prefer Wolf Larsen, aesthetically.





It's so refreshing to take a peek into the wasteland of the upstairs forums and find an individual who has such remarkably thought provoking things to say.

I have to agree on your second point about Wolf Larsen. His view of the "ferment" leads him to lend a curious eye on matters of human suffering. Van Weyden himself is a curiosity, one who is treated as a plaything for Wolf Larsen, someone with whom to exercise his intellectual side. But Wolf Larsen never falls into the trap of repentance; his character remains an iron pillar throughout the entirety of the novel. Van Weydens quote, "at least you are consistent." is the perfect descriptor for Larsen through and through. All of his actions are dictated by his Darwinian worldview, and the existence of weak things, and their conviction that there is meaning in life is perplexing and irritating to him.

That is also what generally separates a story like The Sea Wolf from the constant onslaught of fictional drivel eaten up by the masses on a daily basis who claim some "superiority" because of their ability to read, even though they devour only the most mindless crap for the most part; real lessons and real philosophy interlaced between the pages of the book. It's pretty easy to see why Doktor LaVey assumed Might is Right to be a creation of Jack London, even though there doesn't seem to be much compelling evidence to link him to that diatribe; the theme of might is right is certainly prevalent throughout many of his writings, although in the case of The Sea Wolf, it feels more like a mark against that kind of grim philosophy rather than being in favor of it.

Nevertheless, I would almost say that The Sea Wolf should be, at the very least, some very highly recommended reading for Satanists, not only due to the character of Wolf Larsen, but to the rest of the cast in that book, and Humphrey's own journey in discovering the glory of strength and self-reliance. Although he maintains his moral character through and through, he goes through a transformation throughout the story that leads him to at least have a rudimentary understanding of why Wolf Larsen looks at the world the way he does.

I'm going to stop now because I could talk about Wolf Larsen for about fifty pages exhaustively, and it wouldn't scratch the surface of why I like the character; I don't buy into the cult of personality, but if their was a real life Wolf Larsen, he would certainly be my idol.

Top
#486582 - 02/16/13 08:26 PM Re: Villains [Re: Emilio Largo]
Discipline Offline
CoS Warlock

Registered: 08/25/03
Posts: 6796
Loc: Forever West
_________________________
"I've learned . . . that life is like a roll of toilet paper. The closer it gets to the end, the faster it goes." ~Andy Rooney

"At last I shall have time to devote myself seriously and freely to the destruction of all my former opinions." ~Descartes

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself—and you are the easiest person to fool.” ~Richard Feynman

Top
#486583 - 02/16/13 08:44 PM Re: Villains [Re: Emilio Largo]
Shade Offline
CoS Witch

Registered: 07/08/06
Posts: 6135
Loc: A Trailer Park
I think you're being very generous, I know I can be unclear (if not downright incomprehensible). Thanks for being so gracious. smile

And I highly recommend Dangerous Liaisons, great cast!

Something about the idea of indifference reminded me of Anton Chigurh (Javier Bardem in No Country for Old Men). There was definitely a purity in his actions. He had a code, principles, carried himself with a quiet dignity and unblinking certainty. All of which was oddly comforting.

This clip because, "If the rule you followed brought you to this, of what use was the rule?"

_________________________
"What happens in the shadow, in the grey regions, also interests us – all that is elusive and fugitive, all that can be said in those beautiful half tones, or in whispers, in deep shade." ~ The Brothers Quay

We're Just Regular People

Top
#486585 - 02/16/13 10:35 PM Re: Villains [Re: Emilio Largo]
JayLucif Offline

CoS Member

Registered: 11/09/02
Posts: 1705
Loc: Helheim
Hum since there are many villains already here, I have a few I enjoyed which I did not notice here yet.

Melkor from J.R.R. Tolkien's The Silmarillion, and of course Sauron from the Lord of the Rings Book series.

On film which I did not notice posted yet was http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0086336/ Jonathan Pryce as Mr.Dark from Ray Bradbury's, Something Wicked This Way Comes, which Ray also wrote the movie screen play as well.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0107665/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1
Max von Sydow as Leland Gaunt, from the movie version of the Stephen King story Needful Things.

There are also many Villains in the adult fantasy Book series A Song of Fire and Ice, which is also an HBO serial series now called just Game of Thrones.

The villain role seems to shift from character to character depending on who is currently alive in a particular book and also who is the current antagonist, the book series also has multiple antagonists at once. Currently I am enjoying the "villainy" type role of Melisandre who is starting to come across as a villain in the books, but this is hard to tell at the moment, as I am currently waiting for the next book in the series to see what happens to a certain character's fate to see if she is really a villain or a true ally in disguise. As Melisandre seems to have some interesting "magical" powers.

Melisandre of Asshai, Melisandre is a Red Priestess of the Lord of Light cult which starts regaining power and recognition again. This is after magic starts to arrive again in the book fantasy world, after the birth of the three Dragon eggs Daenerys Targaryen has birthed back into the world. But this Cult uses Fire and blood magic in order to work their sorcery.

I have also enjoyed the villain role of Tywin Lannister, and Tyrion Lannister not really a villain per say but a Satanic role none the less, this character is a Satanic opportunists. This character is the 2nd son and 3rd child of Tywin, but Tyrion was born as a dwarf and somewhat stunted and deformed, and so he has had to resort to guile, manipulation, misdirection, and being able to see the long game of others as a means to stay alive to make up for lacking in the brawn department, and ohh he has a hell of a voracious appetite for fine food, and women as well. I think his dedication of educating the mind is something any Satanic person of worth would hold in high regard.

And how about The Joker, from of course the Batman franchise. I still think that Jake Nicholson played the best Joker yet on film. And I thought Jim Carrey was fantastic as the Riddler. I thought both of these actors brought out the psychotic side of these villainy characters extremely well, and with the right touch of power.

Of course there is the supreme villain and rebel in chief, which has been touched on here, John Milton's Paradise Lost. His Satan character, I think has kind of set the ground work for all Satanic/Devil roles that has followed since. Milton must have had old scratch whispering in his ear when he wrote his ten thousand plus line poem.

Ahh what the heck, how about Bram Stoker's Dracula? I can not believe I am almost overlooked this character, brought the Vampire myth into the modern age.


Edited by JayLucif (02/16/13 10:38 PM)
_________________________
------------------------------------------------------------

Freedom, baby is never having to say you're sorry. Guilt is like a bag of fuckin' bricks. All ya gotta do is set it down. John Milton - The Devil's Advocate!

I'm gonna pull the whole thing down. I'm gonna bring the whole fuckin' diseased, corrupt temple down on your head. It's gonna be biblical. Clyde Shelton - Law Abiding Citizen!


------------------------------------------------------------

Top
#486586 - 02/17/13 01:22 AM Re: Villains [Re: Emilio Largo]
Dax9 Online

CoS Member

Registered: 10/16/10
Posts: 780
Loc: near Baton Rouge, LA
Many of my first choices have already been mentioned here, but I can still think of many more, especially in the gangster movie genre. Of course, I'm not going to list any of the obvious ones from the most commonly known mafia flicks.

I enjoy watching the performances of Malcolm McDowell in his evil roles, particularly his part in the movie Gangster no. 1 .


I would also include Denzel Washington as Alonzo in Training Day .



Attachments
Gangster No 1.jpg

Training Day.jpg




Edited by Dax9 (02/17/13 01:24 AM)
_________________________
"The difference between the man or woman who's a practicing Satanist, from an identity Satanist is that the practicing Satanist looks at the picture, while the identity Satanist studies the frame."
-- Anton Szandor LaVey

"Anyone without a sense of humor is too pretentious to be a good magician."
-- Anton Szandor LaVey

Life Everlasting

World Without End





Top
#486587 - 02/17/13 01:47 AM Re: Villains [Re: Dax9]
Drake_Bamboozle Offline
CoS Reverend

Registered: 06/25/02
Posts: 10581
Loc: England
>> I enjoy watching the performances of Malcolm McDowell in his evil roles, particularly his part in the movie Gangster no. 1 .<<


Except for the fact he's barely in the film. 90% of that role is played by Paul Bettany. I thought the discrepancy between the actors was ludicrous, since Bettany is about a foot taller than McDowell. I never thought Bettany quite had the right look to play a hard-man. Not a bad film though.
_________________________
"u.v.ray blends the dark street poetry of Nelson Algren with the swagger and style of a young Iggy Pop."

www.uvray.moonfruit.com





Top
#486588 - 02/17/13 02:06 AM Re: Villains [Re: Emilio Largo]
Hagen von Tronje Offline

CoS Priest

Registered: 06/28/01
Posts: 10146
...dare I say, Hagen von Tronje? A villain so valorous that Germans interpreted him as the hero. Even in story [spoilers], after he kills his host's children, slaughters ten thousand men, drinks blood in a flaming building, and tricks his nemesis into killing her brother after he himself murdered her husband and children, his death provokes his enemy into avenging him for the injustice of such a heroic man suffering a death outside of battle. The man is a collosal bastard, and yet the most stone-cold badass in literature.

But also, I agree with Wolf Larsen. He's a villain so sympathetic that The Sea Wolf is really only worth reading for him. The nominal protagonist looks like a simpering pussy beside him, and gets intellectually outplayed to boot. It's not even really clear that London meant for Hump to be the real protagonist, so strong is Larsen's presence.
_________________________
"The devil I'll bring you," answered Hagen. "I have enough to carry with my shield and breastplate; my helm is bright, the sword is in my hand, therefore I bring you naught."

Top
#486589 - 02/17/13 02:21 AM Re: Villains [Re: Hagen von Tronje]
Drake_Bamboozle Offline
CoS Reverend

Registered: 06/25/02
Posts: 10581
Loc: England
>> The nominal protagonist looks like a simpering pussy beside him, and gets intellectually outplayed to boot. It's not even really clear that London meant for Hump to be the real protagonist, so strong is Larsen's presence.<<


Another flaw in the book as a whole is that Maud would never have chosen Hump over Wolf Larson.
_________________________
"u.v.ray blends the dark street poetry of Nelson Algren with the swagger and style of a young Iggy Pop."

www.uvray.moonfruit.com





Top
#486593 - 02/17/13 06:59 AM Re: Villains [Re: Emilio Largo]
Emilio Largo Offline

CoS Member

Registered: 02/12/13
Posts: 122
I noticed some liking for Westerns in the replies, which reminded me of another villain who fascinated me, one Al Swearengen from the HBO series Deadwood, which, incidentally, had Shakesperean conceits, from what I'm told. Al Swearengen, I should note, would occasionally cross the line over to antihero, which I define as someone who does things normally considered bad, for reasons normally considered good. For example, in the clip below, when you hear him say, "You can go now, brother," be aware that what you just saw him do was actually an act of mercy. Al also had a soft spot for women and, interestingly, the disabled, though he was always gruff and crass in his manner of expressing it, which didn't stop the disabled person from appreciating what was being done and why - in fact I think the disabled person probably liked Al's manner of expression, as there was nothing condescending in it, as he was gruff and crass with everyone. Make no mistake, though. Al was a stone cold killer.


_________________________
Elite because we smell the bullshit and do not deign to wallow in it.

Top
#486595 - 02/17/13 09:53 AM Re: Villains [Re: Drake_Bamboozle]
TheDegenerate Offline
CoS Member

Registered: 11/11/07
Posts: 3567
Loc: Cowtown
Originally Posted By: Drake_Bamboozle
>> The nominal protagonist looks like a simpering pussy beside him, and gets intellectually outplayed to boot. It's not even really clear that London meant for Hump to be the real protagonist, so strong is Larsen's presence.<<


Another flaw in the book as a whole is that Maud would never have chosen Hump over Wolf Larson.


I'm actually surprised their wasn't more of a love triangle there. I'm surprised about a lot of what happens at the halfway point in the book, really. Wolf Larsen is by far the most interesting element of that book, so to see him disappear near the end only to be replaced by pages of sweet nothings until he is brought back for a minimal climax is a real shame.

Blemishes and all though, it still remains a favorite. And having Wolf go a slow, painful death yet still using every remaining ounce of his strength to attempt to "eat" Hump at the end was a good choice, and really highlighted the consistency of the character as a whole.

But yeah in real life, I'm pretty sure Maud would have wanted to fuck Wolf Larsens brains out.

Top
#486597 - 02/17/13 12:35 PM Re: Villains [Re: Emilio Largo]
Callier Offline

CoS Warlock

Registered: 08/30/06
Posts: 2210
I'm going with Bane. He hijacked a FBI plane, blew up a football field, trapped the entire police force underground, let loose all the prisoners in the city, robbed the stock exchange building and put Batman in retirement. I mean he really fucked him up pretty bad. Nearly broke his back. He looks and sounds menacing as well.

The only time I recall him ever using a gun is when he told one of his goons to follow the commissioner down the sewer. When he refused the order, Bane took that guy's gun and shot him in the leg. Bane snapped a lot of necks. His main weapon was his bare hands.
_________________________
$$$ Get Rich or Die Tryin' $$$

Top
#486599 - 02/17/13 12:59 PM Re: Villains [Re: Emilio Largo]
MagdaGraham Offline
CoS Priestess

Registered: 06/23/04
Posts: 13369
Loc: Scotland
Yes, now you mention it, I think indifference is very important. He [or she, but it’s too clumsy to add “or she” every time] must not be affected by the destroyed adversary.

To be affected in any way, even deriving pleasure from the destruction, allows the destroyed adversary a certain power, however illusory.

A villain must have total self-control.

On the other hand, Shakespeare’s Richard III often joked about his destroyed adversaries.
_________________________
We are the makers of manners. (Shakespeare)

http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/clickToGive/home.faces?siteId=3

Top
#486614 - 02/18/13 01:37 AM Re: Villains [Re: Drake_Bamboozle]
Dax9 Online

CoS Member

Registered: 10/16/10
Posts: 780
Loc: near Baton Rouge, LA
Originally Posted By: Drake_Bamboozle
>> I enjoy watching the performances of Malcolm McDowell in his evil roles, particularly his part in the movie Gangster no. 1 .<<


Except for the fact he's barely in the film. 90% of that role is played by Paul Bettany. I thought the discrepancy between the actors was ludicrous, since Bettany is about a foot taller than McDowell. I never thought Bettany quite had the right look to play a hard-man. Not a bad film though.



I still like how McDowell narrates much of the film. The scene where Bettany kills Lenny Taylor is classic! Such violence with that gentle song "Why" sung by Authony Newley in the background.

I'm sure a parallel is being made to the "Singing In The Rain" scene from A Clockwork Orange.
_________________________
"The difference between the man or woman who's a practicing Satanist, from an identity Satanist is that the practicing Satanist looks at the picture, while the identity Satanist studies the frame."
-- Anton Szandor LaVey

"Anyone without a sense of humor is too pretentious to be a good magician."
-- Anton Szandor LaVey

Life Everlasting

World Without End





Top
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 >


Forum Stats
12281 Members
73 Forums
43880 Topics
404441 Posts

Max Online: 197 @ 10/04/11 06:49 AM
Advertisements