Select Page
Why Humans are now the Bad Guys in the Movies!

Why Humans are now the Bad Guys in the Movies!

In films such as AVATAR, THE PLANET OF THE APES, and even the recent BLADE RUNNER 2049, not to mention TV series like WESTWORLD, we are starting to see that more and more humans as bad guys. In cinema’s constant hunt for new villains, stories reflect how we’ve banished the monsters and hazards from our real world, only to find our worst demons in the mirror and deep inside ourselves.

But why are big Hollywood companies risking hundreds of millions on films where the main villain is, well, us? Why would they risk it all, on us paying to go and blame ourselves for what’s wrong in their fictional worlds? Cinemas are usually the place we go for escapism – to get away from what’s happening on the news. If people are causing so much bad news, why would we want to see that amplified on screen?

In AVATAR, we enter an idyllic eco-topia where all nature – however scary – turns out to be symbiotic, and the threat comes from the human invaders who are determined to ravage the planet for its resources. Our protagonist is human – but lives most of his life in the film as a Nav’i and joins with the planet’s forces against the humans.

In the most recent PLANET OF THE APES trilogy, the human-centric story of the 1968 original – which saw humans struggling to survive in an society ruled by apes – is not merely discarded but inverted. We now find ourselves primarily following the ape CAESAR, who fights to lead his people to safety in a world where they are hated and feared by human beings.

And in BLADE RUNNER 2049, Ryan Gosling’s character – like Harrison Ford’s before him, we finally confirm – is the latest in a long string of replicant assassins employed to kill his own kind, to protect humans from the repercussions of their own creations. The story’s sympathies are clearly with the replicants, not the humans, taking the established Blade Runner theme of ‘what it means to be human’ to a new level.

Volcanoes: less often the villain now than humans.

Just watch a news broadcast, and ask yourself ‘who are the villains here?’, and ‘what’s causing the problems here?’. Apart from earthquakes and volcanos, you’ll usually only get one answer: people. Even when the problem is ‘nature’, like fires and hurricanes, we’re slowly having to admit that actually yeah, we are making things worse, putting ourselves in the firing line when we could live in safer places, and even causing many problems in the first place. A constant flow of research articles and bad-news stories tells us that we humans have enormous influence over the world around us, even if we can’t control it or ourselves.

This is reflected – unsubtly – in AVATAR. Like the earthly colonialists of recent centuries, the humans in AVATAR arrive under the guise of exploitative “trade”, backed up by formidable military intent. Like Vikings and colonialists of our world in past centuries, they are determined to get their way – whether peacefully or by violence. They come to a thriving tropical word, and pillage it for their own needs – sound familiar? The devastation caused by the humans is felt equally by the native species, the animals and even the plants, and this causes some humans to change sides and help the victims, like how people today try to help ‘save the rhinos’. The rest of the movie is totally told from the side of the natives, who our protagonist joins and even becomes.

In the news, we’ve also seen the tribal biases of the past starting to give way to a more balanced view. News stories used to put us solidly on one side of the important divides of the time (humans good, nature dangerous; ‘Western countries’ good, ‘Eastern countries’ bad; ‘civilization’ good, ‘primitive’ cultures bad…). But decades of peace in most of the world have given us the time to take a better look at ourselves, instead of ganging up together against the ‘other’. In fact, these days the news agenda and emphasis is mostly on the victims of war, crimes and abuse (such as sexual harassment or other cruel things done by ‘bad people’ to ‘innocent people’), and we’re much more suspicious than supportive of our leaders and politicians.

In most countries, the news media now is much more likely than before to take the side of victims, and even to fight to tell their story, rather than helping governments and powerful people cover up their abuses and mistakes – even if it often takes famous cases to bring much more widespread everyday abuses into the public eye, such as the Hollywood sexual harassment revelations focusing on the “big name” perpetrators and victims. In the past, history was always written about ‘great men’ who dominated their times. But these days, we emphathize more with the victim than the powerful aggressor. Filmmakers are using this angle in their films to reflect this concern by giving center stage to the victim of a story as opposed to whoever is causing the damage.

Top filmmakers will take the element of escapism and use it to reflect what is going on in the real world. They’re just tapping into the underlying messages behind our modern world and the news we consume every day. These films work because they tap into what we’re preoccupied with, what we now recognize, or think we understand, about the real underlying logic of our world. Filmmakers and production companies have to respond to our modern fears, expectations, preoccupations and feelings in order to tap in to them, get ahead of the curve, and create a cinematic experience that will stick with us. People who aren’t interested in GAME OF THRONES mostly assume it’s ‘just a fantasy story’, when actually it takes the world of fantasy and spins it, to tell vivid stories about some very modern preoccupations – female empowerment, and the brutality of fate – that they’d probably be a lot more interested in.

Why, though, are we happy to go see a film that villainizes humans rather than the aliens or monsters of past films? Well, nowadays people are more open minded than we used to be – peace makes that possible. Where we used to see other cultures as dangerously different, we can now recognize them as the victims of our own culture and values.

THE DARK KNIGHT trilogy mostly works well as a piece of superhero escapism and a reflection of our fears of domestic chaos and terrorism. AVATAR succeeds with its outlandish sci-fi setting and the eco-allegory about rainforests and nature in a symbiotic but fragile harmony.

So, like us, many Hollywood and filmmakers have recognized that humans are the problem – that we are the only real bad guys in this world, now we’ve crushed the monsters and natural environments that created so many threats to us in the past. They are now using this to tell stories from the point of view of humans’ victims, to create compelling stories where we can empathize with the characters victimized by people like us, and recognize the demons and drives within ourselves that cause problems for others in the world.

Then again, maybe it’s just because humans have got so powerful in our own world that we don’t have many other places to turn when we’re looking for villains and excuses for blockbuster mega-stories. Either way, it works.

INSIGHTS – Writing Sociopaths in Scripts: What really makes people (and characters) ‘bad’ or ‘evil’ (or sometimes just brilliant) – PART ONE

INSIGHTS – Writing Sociopaths in Scripts: What really makes people (and characters) ‘bad’ or ‘evil’ (or sometimes just brilliant) – PART ONE

INSIGHTS – Writing Sociopaths in Scripts: What really makes people (and characters) ‘bad’ or ‘evil’ (or sometimes just brilliant) – Part One: What is a Sociopath and what’s it got to do with writing?

iankennedyinsights

What really makes people (and characters) ‘bad’ or ‘evil’ (or sometimes just brilliant) and what’s it got to do with writing? By Ian Kennedy, WriteMovies Director of World Wide Development.

The author, made to look like a bad'un by a vlittle girl who was actually the one stealing his phone.

The author, made to look like a bad’un by a cheeky little girl who was actually the one stealing his cellphone. Early signs of her future disposition? Or just harmless good fun? Well, better not to judge and presume.

I was lent a fascinating pop-psychology book last year which really opened my eyes. Now the bad things that people do in the world all make good sense to me, and the things that other people agonize about in ‘public morality’ don’t trouble me. But what’s most useful about this book and this approach – which we should all handle with caution anyway – is what it can teach writers about how to understand and explain ‘bad’ people in their stories. Really, it’s an interesting account of a vital aspect of life, that we should all be aware of, especially writers, and which gives us a great view into it.

I treat all theories as a kind of prism. You can look through them to see the world from an interesting, vivid new angle. But they’re never a total, complete or full picture of things – in fact the deeper you go into them, the more distorted you’re probably making things look. But the perspective they give can be extremely useful. I’ve actually found this one very therapeutic in life – I’ve been able to relax about a lot of things in life that really used to trouble me, after a year of watching these ideas playing out in the world.

For writers, a very high proportion of antagonists – and a growing number of protagonists – fit the personality type I’ll describe in this article, so understanding the reasons behind it is extremely important for writers. In this article, I’ll show you how to use this aspect of human character to help you craft driving characters who’ll convincingly challenge your other characters right to the limit. We see so many stories in which the ‘villains’ feel hollow, stereotypical and one-dimensional. But if a writer can truly understand the cause of that person’s condition, then they can ensure that their ‘bad’ or ‘evil’ characters can still transcend stereotypes and truly convince us. Stories are always at their most powerful when they’re utterly convincing, about some important aspect of life.

Sociopaths leave a long shadow, but then again don't we all. Author self-portrait by proxy

Sociopaths leave a long shadow, but then again don’t we all. Author self-portrait by proxy

I’ve laid the article out with a series of activities, to help you put yourself into the mindset of these people and characters better. Too often, the problem with antagonist characters, is that they’re written “from the outside” rather than with the understanding that enables us to let them speak and act convincingly for themselves. We tend to lose interest in stories with one- or two-dimensional villains once we’re reaching adulthood, because they just don’t feel real or threatening enough.

 

Firstly… think back through all the news stories about people whose actions have ever shocked or appalled you. Write out this sentence starter, and complete the sentence, for every story you’ve ever been appalled by.

How could anyone…?

 

 

The main inspiration for this article is: THE SOCIOPATH NEXT DOOR, by Martha Stout phD (Officially: THE SOCIOPATH NEXT DOOR: The Ruthless Versus the Rest of Us, Broadway Books 2005).

Stout is a practicing psychologist, and she’s an instructor in the psychiatry department at Harvard Medical School, so she’s got the credentials to back up her work. But there are plenty of fair criticisms of the book – such as this hostile review in the New York Times, from another psychology author: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/06/books/review/the-sociopath-next-door-ruthless-people.html?_r=0. So I recommend we look at this theory in the way we would one by Freud or Marx. It’s not necessarily true – but it’s interesting and potentially a powerful tool for us as writers, if we handle it right.

 

One of Stout's examples is a guy who just serially leeches off women with a pool in their garden. Lazy, yes. But evil? Arguably not.

One of Stout’s examples is a guy who just serially leeches off women with a pool in their garden. Lazy, yes. But evil? Arguably not. Capitolo, Italy

Is bad really bad? How bad is bad? – The difference between a sociopath and a “psychopath”

Well actually, there’s no reason to assume that someone who is a sociopath – or even a psychopath – is actually bad at all. They may use their energies and talents to pursue goals that actually do a lot of good in the world – maybe in a destructive way sometimes, but with good intentions. But as writers, we probably need to most improve our understanding of the ‘bad’ or ‘evil’ ones, who we often rely on to give our stories some kick.

Clearly, a lot of violent people can be described as ‘psychopaths’, and many of us might use the term interchangeably with ‘sociopath’ – but we’re wrong to. When we consider their crimes, it’s easy enough to recognize that known psychopaths are somehow ‘different’ from the rest of us, and that ‘no normal person’ would do the things they seem to do – mass murder, serial killings etc. But what is a ‘psychopath’? What’s the definition of this? Can you suggest the difference between a psychopath, and someone who is “only” a ‘sociopath’?

Complete this sentence:

The definition of a psychopath is someone who…

Only scroll down when you’ve sketched out a few ideas…

 

 

 

 

 

There are lots of forms of violence, many of them are fun and socially acceptable. Sumo robot fighters, controlled via the internet. Berlin's hacker-maker HQ, 2015

There are lots of forms of violence, many of them are fun and socially acceptable.
Sumo robot fighters, controlled via the internet. Berlin’s hacker-maker HQ, 2015

A definition of “psychopathy”

Well, let’s handle all this carefully as well, for reasons you can see here: http://www.medicaldaily.com/psychopath-definition-may-be-different-you-thought-7-facts-about-psychopaths-361112. But the most useful definition of a “psychopath” I’ve come across is that a psychopath is a person who cannot empathize with others. They can’t relate to the feelings of other people, and are therefore less likely to respect that other people (or animals) therefore deserve to be respected, valued or given any rights in life. So if you’re writing a character who behaves in those ways, that’s your working definition of this person’s personality type: they have no empathy with others. This is the cause – and the behaviour they exhibit in your story is the effect. It’s important to write these characters that way round – to avoid cliché and stereotyping, and to generate genuinely new and convincing stories and characters.

Now, it’s important to say that even a “psychopath” isn’t necessarily a violent or dangerous or even bad person – lots of “psychopaths” successfully integrate into society and can be excellent at the work they do – perhaps especially if it needs a ruthless streak. For example, boxer Tyson Fury and soccer star David James have both said on public record that they suspect they may have the “psychopath” personality type (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/boxing/34341535, https://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2013/feb/09/david-james-psychopaths-football). Most of the time, when people refer to psychopaths, what they mean is “violent psychopath”.

Of course, a lot of psychopaths may also be sociopaths – there’s plenty of overlap. But I’d like to suggest that we find the actions of sociopaths much harder to recogniZe, accept and deal with than “violent psychopaths” – because these people are not different from everyone else in any recognisable (or even provable) way!

So now try to complete this sentence. Try several options before you scroll down:

The definition of a sociopath is someone who…

 

 

 

Darth Vader's revenge (by carving knife, on a Yoda cake). Star Wars party, Nottingham, England 2015

Darth Vader’s revenge (by carving knife, on a Yoda cake). Star Wars party, Nottingham, England 2015

A definition of “sociopathy”

According to Stout, a sociopath is someone who has no conscience.

That means they also have no guilt, shame or remorse. Ever. But in every other way, they can come across as a completely normal human being. And – crucially – because they do have the power to empathize, they are able to present themselves much more convincingly as a perfectly normal – even wonderful – human being. Which is the front behind which they can pursue their goals with the kind of ruthlessness that Stout is preoccupied with.

I’ll explain a bit about the possible causes and clinical and treatment aspects of this in a follow-up article. But it’s vital to recognise that because of this definition – it’s actually impossible to ever know if someone is a sociopath, and probably libellous to infer that they are. Better to keep your views to yourself – but it’s useful to be forewarned and forearmed about these kinds of people’s existence, and that’s the point of Stout’s book. She gives eye-opening true examples of children, bosses, boyfriends and many other people who – in so many different forms – are playing out sociopathic personalities and goals unnoticed within society, but wreaking havoc upon the people unfortunate enough to fall under their influence. It’s a quick, vivid read.

The subtitle of Stout’s book is “The Ruthless Against the Rest of Us.” Apparently, 1 in 25 Americans is a sociopath – that’s a huge number of people we can’t help dealing with in life, and no doubt a disproportionate quantity of the people in the news. But significantly less people become sociopaths in cultures like Japan where the culture insists more on the interrelatedness of all things. So perhaps sociopathy correlates with individualist cultures and attitudes. Indeed, it’s easy to see how someone who refuses to accept any kind of shame, guilt, or regret would also refuse to take responsibility for personal actions or obligations to society, and therefore would naturally champion individualism and deregulation in all matters in life – but of course many perfectly responsible people also favour those views, and I’ve heard enough firsthand stories from all sides to confirm that there are horrible people on every side of the political spectrum. I suspect that a sociopath has no shame about pursuing whatever their goals or values are, and are liable to egotism and a superiority complex (even a ‘moral superiority’ complex) – out of their sense of how foolish and inferior other people are to let their lives be stunted by a naïve sense of conscience when such higher goals ought to be within their reach. What losers!

And it is a typical trait of sociopaths to see life as a game, in which there are only ‘winners’ and ‘losers’. Sociopaths are usually determined to be winners – but what they consider to be ‘winning’ could take any number of forms. So the key is always to understand what this person actually wants. Because it may be as simple as ‘a picture postcard family’. And there may nothing that they may stop at, in order to achieve it. And no regrets about the collateral damage they cause in order to do so. Dumping their dying spouse might be a perfectly valid method to achieving that goal, in their minds. But this doesn’t mean that in their way they’re not generous, responsible, thoughtful, and kind, in every other context in life.

Now take a look at these three characters who some might consider to be showing sociopathic traits – the three I’ve chosen I’ve chosen intentionally because what they do is not “bad”, nor are they what most people would consider as bad, but the personality traits are there that we might associate with a sociopath.

  • Greg House is someone who views each patient as a puzzle, as a game, and he has to figure it out before time runs out. This is his game – he wins by curing the patient and loses if they die. Now we do see over the 8 seasons of HOUSE that he can empathize with others, of course, he also has that infamous House ego, too. But on the rare occasion he does show guilt… but is it mainly guilt at his own failure?
  • A clearer example may be the character on which House is based, Sherlock Holmes, especially in Benedict Cumberbatch’s BBC incarnation (who describes himself as a “high-functioning sociopath”). His character has the ego, and when someone smarter (Moriaty) comes along he must ‘outdo’ him, and he wins this game by ultimately cheating death in the episode “The Reichenbach Fall”. Sherlock is the smartest and greatest detective there is. Sherlock even has the catchphrase “the game is on” to really show that he thinks life and these cases are just a game.
  • Work in progress, in Berlin's hacker-maker community HQ. 2015

    Work in progress, in Berlin’s hacker-maker community HQ. 2015

    Finally, Sheldon Cooper of THE BIG BANG THEORY, another egotistical character who believes he is better than everyone else. Sheldon is even a childish person who loves comic books, science-fiction, and more “nerdy” things. While his friends and colleagues also like this stuff, they live their lives as adults and are not as attached to these things as Sheldon is. Importantly, Sheldon does show some limited ability to empathize with others, but when apologizing he does so with a sarcastic manner – he knows he should apologize but he doesn’t really mean it. But is Sheldon actually a sociopath, is he somewhere on the autistic spectrum, or is he just a headstrong geek? Either way – he is a multi-dimensional comedy character.

These characters all show some sociopathic traits and they have been specifically chosen because they aren’t bad people or what we would usually associate a sociopath as being.

Spend the next week looking around for signs of sociopathy at work in the world. Then come back to my follow-up article with a view of whether or not you actually think these ideas are useful for us as people or writers. This article is a speculation, about things that can’t really be proven. So you should treat it as a point of departure for your own view of the world – not a ‘grand theory’ to shoehorn everybody and everything into somehow. Next time out, I’ll show you how to use it as a tool to build strong and convincing characters who will naturally generate antagonism around themselves.

 So what do you think? Agree, disagree? Do you have better definitions or examples? Keep the discussion flowing on our Twitter and Facebook pages!

Click here to read PART TWO…

 

Exclusive to WriteMovies – To syndicate this content for your own publication, contact ian (at) writemovies dot-com.

© WriteMovies 2017

Sign In

Register

Reset Password

Please enter your username or email address, you will receive a link to create a new password via email.