Okay, let’s get straight to it. This week in class was pretty memorable for me. I did get the chance to read one of my stories, Alone. I’d say the response is pretty mixed to me. But it seems that most have the same suggestion. Motives, explanations and details would’ve helped make the story better. Somehow, I just disagree flatly.
To help refresh memories or those who have yet to read it, here is the story.
Alone
Slowly he wipes the blood off his hands. He looks in the mirror. His eyes are dead and cold. He slowly turns to the body lying in the bathtub and smiles wickedly. He caresses the corpse, savoring the moment, “Did you know something roomie, I never liked being with anyone.”
Okay so before i elaborate as to why I disagree, let me get started on what was in my head when I was writing Alone. Basically, it is a dark and gritty story. A maximum of fifty words, the story was to show the nature and actions of a psychopath. Yes, a psychopath. That explains quite a lot to me. I mean only one with mental disorder would do such a thing. Eyes, that is important to me. Those cold dead eyes. It shows evil. Evil and psychopath? Yes, psychopaths can be evil. His actions on the other hand shows how sinister he is. Caressing a corpse and savoring the moment. Does it not show he loves the atmosphere, proud of what he has accomplished? One who does that surely enjoys killing. Why? Simply because he is a psychopath.
Okay so inevitably, there are counter arguments. I chose being alone as a reason why he kills. So what I had in mind is, a psychotic murderer who has to live by himself.
So this leads to questions such as why would he have a roommate should he hate being with others. This is a psychopath, most of his motives do not make sense. For all we know, a psychopath like this takes pride in killing as he wants to be alone. Contradicting? Perhaps. In the story his roomie just happens to be the victim. This victim also doesn’t have to be his first roomie that he has murdered.
Why would he caress the corpse? He enjoys it that’s why. Intimacy perhaps. No, the roommate is not gay or female. But since when have we understood why psychos do what they do? If so there’d be none in this world. When a psychopath has a gay vibe and does things out of the norm, isn’t that creepier? For example take this, if you had a murderer and he has to have a trademark. Would you want him to carve out smiles on his victims or paint smiles on them with blood or lipstick. I think the latter is creepier then the gory former. A person who kills and draw smiles on corpses is far more frightening then one who just slashes away their victims. It shows that the psycho takes pride in his work and to him its art.
Aaaand motives and origins. Why and how did he become like that? This is the part I disagree the most. Why the need to explain every single thing? Perhaps, my views and opinions differ. But I see no reason to. To me origins should be ambiguous. Only then would a character, especially a villain, be mysterious and compelling. And in my story, the psychopath is a villain. I do agree that heroes on the other hand do need a back story. But this is the difference. To me a story, if they have heroes, should be about the heroes. The villain should come in as mysterious. This is where we see how the hero deals with this new villain. Does the villain make the hero change his beliefs? Does the hero suffer due to the villain’s actions? A story should never be about the villain, and never reveal everything about them. It is boring when you know everything about the villain. The best way to descrbe a villain is, He.Just.Is.
For an example, Anthony Hopkins played Hannibal Lecter in The Silence of the Lambs. He received an Academy Award for Best Actor for that role. One of the villains of all time undoubtedly. In that movie, there was no back story. He.Just.Is. Only years later did we get a prequel, Hannibal Rising. And that didn’t live up to the original. Guess what? Hopkins role in The Silence Of The Lambs is the shortest lead performance to win an Oscar. Hopkins appears only for about twenty minutes. It shows how ambiguity can work to great effects. Compelling and mysterious.
Another example, Darth Vader. In the original Star Wars films, George Lucas made Vader a terrifying villain. In the those films, we know very little about his past. We only knew what he was doing and what he has become now. And the recent prequels, leading up to Vader’s creation failed miserably. Again, He.Just.Is. Even Richard Donner used the same principle with the villainous General Zod in Superman II. Zod played by Terrence Stamp sort of had an ambiguous origin. We knew his motives but we’ve no idea how and why he became that way. Apparently, He.Just.Is.
And to most, Hannibal Lecter is the biggest villain in film history. Darth Vader is an iconic villain. And for comic book fans, we all know Zod is the biggest comic book villain to date along side Jack Nicholson’s Joker. (Though Heath Ledger’s performance as The Joker is going to top both in 2008’s The Dark Knight)
Need an example of a non-villain? Well I wouldn’t consider him to be a non-villain. But try watching American Psycho. Christian Bale’s performance in that film as the psychotic Patrick Bateman is a worthy mention. Watch it, and you’ll know what I mean.
Let me now give examples of characters/villains which is rather poor due to over explanation. Sandman and Venom in Spiderman 3. Utter Rubbish. We knew everything about them. Raimi wanted us to feel for the villains, but we can’t. We don’t pity or feel sympathy for their tragic origins. Another example is the Pirates of the Carribean: At World’s End. Captain Davey Jones was portrayed magnificently in the second movie. But when they tried to dig deeper into the character’s beginnings, it all fails. It just seems bland. From something different and original, he seems human-ed in the third movie.
Okay this next paragraph might be surprising. But I’m going to condemn the Batman movies made by Burton/Schumacher. (Yes, blasphemy for a Batman fan) What they go wrong in the old franchise was make the villain bigger than Batman himself. Don’t get me wrong, I love some of the portrayals. Notably Jack’s Joker. But in all of the movies, Batman sorts of take a back seat as we see how the villains are created. In Batman (1989) I’m sure I’m not the only one who actually rooted for The Joker to kick Batman’s butt. This where my argument lies, ambiguity should be used when dealing with certain characters especially villains.
I’m sure there’s no right or wrong, but that’s pretty much how I feel. And this may seem like a long rant. But its not directed to anyone who questioned my story or anything. Its just my Reflections for Week Three.
misterryan Said:
on November 12, 2007 at 11:59 am
And now, feedback in three parts:
Part one, a note of self-congratulation:
I feel very proud of myself that I criticized Joel Schmacher in your previous reflection before even reading this week’s reflection. It looks like the two of us have a mutual disrespect for his work.
misterryan Said:
on November 12, 2007 at 12:01 pm
Part 2, an act of self-defense:
I never said I wanted to know about his origins or why he does what he does. I said the beginning needed to be tightened up, because it wastes time on cliches.
After rereading it and listening to your rebuttal, I believe in my opinion even more strongly.
misterryan Said:
on November 12, 2007 at 12:11 pm
Part 3, in which the author will have to learn to take it if he wants to dish it out:
*Your assessment of Bateman in American Psycho is incorrect. He’s a representation of American corporate greed in the 1980s. If you go back to the source material, the Ellis novel, you’ll see the way he can gush with great emotion about a hi-fi sound system or a Whitney Houston power ballad at the same time he can nonchalantly describe dismembering a woman while she’s still alive. The book is a critique of greed and the way the 1980s in America was a period when greed was valued more highly than the human rights disasters in Angola or Latin America. To say Bateman ‘just is’ shows a lack of insight about the world in which the writer created the story.
As it applies to your story, to claim that something just is evil isn’t sophisticated. It turns psychological terror into a monster movie. The shark from Jaws for example. That one just is evil. There’s no rhyme or reason for what he does. It works because it’s a manifestation of human’s fear of the water, or extending that, the fear of the unknown.
We look at the Joker (in the Burton film. I defe the comics to your expertise). His is essentially a revenge story. And visually Burton works with light and dark, the way we associate light things to be good and dark things to be evil. In Batman, the white Joker is evil and the black Bat is heroic. To claim “it just is” negates what we do as writers, and the skills we bring to the table.
Salihin, you are both a talented writer and an insightful commentator. Your reflection this week has already inspired a longer response from me than anything else this semester. Thank you.
A mid-week pick-me-up « Storytelling is the new Black Said:
on November 12, 2007 at 12:14 pm
[...] A mid-week pick-me-up If you’re feeling bored, feel free to offer your opinions on the nature of evil by adding a comment on the Salihin-Ryan reflection 3 smack-down here. [...]
Sally' Said:
on November 12, 2007 at 9:05 pm
Wow, I never expected this long a response. I appreciate the kind words and am looking forward to more debates.
So let me reply the same way you did.
Part One:
Joel Shitmaker you mean? I’ve nothing nice to say about him. He destroyed the most tragic villain, Two-Face, in Batman’s mythos in BF. B&R was simply atrocious. The amount of camp in those two films is so unbearable that I flinch when I am reminded of them. And I am very honored to be on the same page as you.
Sally' Said:
on November 12, 2007 at 9:10 pm
Part Two:
The post was not directed at you or anyone else. It is my own humble opinion. I felt that I had to let my intentions be known and clear. I wrote that not to change people’s opinions, as I believe everyone’s opinions on things differ. I do appreciate each and everyone’s suggestions as it can only make me write better. I am open to criticism, never has it bothered me before.
I do understand where you are coming from, that I should make it fast-paced and explain less on the graphics. Am I right?
Sally' Said:
on November 12, 2007 at 9:20 pm
Part Three (First):
You are probably right, I hadn’t read the novel before watching the film. And what I remember of the film is pretty vague. But what was intriguing in the film was the psychotic nature of Bateman. The intensity Bale brought to the character was very astonishing. He made everything believable. The way he chased the prostitute naked, with a chainsaw in his hands and covered in blood is a memorable scene.
It is probably a bad example to say ‘he just is’, but the point I was bringing across was that he is just psychotic. If one were to say he is not psychotic, then please explain to me how a sane man would kill a beggar because he feels the beggar is not doing enough to be a successful person in this world.
Sally' Said:
on November 12, 2007 at 9:32 pm
Part Three (Second):
I hate it when villains have tragic stories. It does not work for me with the exception of a few. What happened to pure evil? A villain who creates chaos or pure anarchy is better than the one robbing the bank because he needs the money for his sick daughter’s operation.
People’s fear can be directed at actions of people. We fear what we do not understand. We do not understand the mind of a psychopath. It is a fear of the unknown.
A good example is Keyser Soze in Usual Suspects. We see him as pure evil. We see the terror he strikes in others. They fear him. And in that film, he just simply is. We do not need a back story. The vague reference we had was sufficient. Another thing I love is how we see the effect of his actions on the people instead of his actions. I’ve always believed that leaving it to the imagination is better than showing it.
Sally' Said:
on November 12, 2007 at 9:40 pm
Part Three (Third):
This is why I left the Joker out of my examples. I do not agree with the way Burton decided to make it a revenge story. Its cliche to me. You created me, I create you. Yes it makes it personal, but there’s more to Batman and Joker. They are mirror images of one another, and if I dare say they need each other to exist. But I’ve never been a fan of them creating one another. This is a discussion for another topic.
Burton’s Joker was psychotic yes, but he isn’t just is. I never said that ‘he just is’ is the only way to do a villain right. It is my preferred take, especially on The Joker. I am not limiting the options to create a great villain either. Because there are also other ways that can make a villain interesting.