The "Villain Problem" in Disney Films

Doug Walker, aka The Nostalgia Critic, is a man that I respect. I especially like how his recent trend, i.e. the past few years, has been alternating between a review and an editorial, as it gives variety and colour to a concept that was clearly getting old and boring. But every-so-often he says something I disagree with, hence today’s discussion:

Hmm… (Courtesy of Channel Awesome.)

Now, Doug has a point: modern Disney villains lack the finesse of classic ones. It’s something I’ve noticed myself, especially since Disney antagonists haven’t had a solo number in almost 7 years, or a memorable one in almost 8. Disney’s villains, put plainly, aren’t as stand-out as they used to be, and as a Disney fan this is disappointing. However, to say this is bad, or even that they’re not memorable, is misleading. Because it’s not true.

I don’t think villain culture in movies is healthy. It’s not “bad writing” to have them in films from-time-to-time, but it’s no different than, say, drinking beer. An occasional cold one with friends is fine, but too much can lead to drunkenness, alcoholism and erratic behaviour. Also, those hangovers are a killer! Movie villains, though not quite the same, are like that beer, as too many can warp your mind and make you think that all of life’s problems can be be solved by fighting the big-baddie and not have compromise or co-operation.

Allow me to use three examples to demonstrate that. First, the MCU. For all of its strengths and weaknesses, the one area that people agree on is that the baddie roster is pretty weak. Most of the antagonists consist of a “monster of the week” formula, except replace “monster” with “villain” and “week” with “film”. They exist to challenge the hero in the finale and die horribly, that’s it. Their motivations are weak, their arcs are flat and they’re boring.

There are exceptions, however. Loki, for instance, became a fan-favourite with The Avengers, due, in-part, to Joss Whedon liking the character and upgrading him from his outing in Thor. I’d argue that Zemo from Captain America: Civil War was also strong, although he wasn’t the focus of that movie anyway. But then there are the Netflix villains, all of whom get the advantage of time to be fleshed-out. However, the key is believability in motivations, something a great villain needs. You need to understand or sympathize with the baddie to an extent.

Next up, Star Wars. The franchise practically thrives off of villains, but none are more iconic than Darth Vader. He’s been in seven movies and has had direct and indirect development in two shows. He looks cool, sounds cool and has been part of one of the greatest plot twists ever. Surely he’s a great villain, right?

Well…kinda. Darth Vader didn’t start out deep. He arguably wasn’t even given a character-arc until the conclusion of The Original Trilogy. Even the Prequels, for all their flaws, fleshed-out dimensions to his character. For the most part, he was a stereotypical bad guy, irredeemable and shallow. He was memorable, but not complex.

I mention this because two other antagonists in the Star Wars universe have more life and complexity than him. The first is Kylo Ren, who manages to be more humanized in one film than Darth Vader was in six by, ironically, trying to mimic him. You saw his inner-strife, constantly being torn by the Light and Dark sides of The Force. He was an awful person, don’t mistake me, but he’s was still sympathetic. He wasn’t your typical Star Wars baddie, in other words.

The other one is Grand Admiral Thrawn, who’s become more popular since his inclusion in Season 3 of Star Wars Rebels. Thrawn isn’t deep either, but his composure is human: he’s well-behaved. He rarely loses his cool. He speaks in a quiet register. He’s clever, cold and calculating, always reading his opponents like an expert chess player. As a result, he’s really interesting and creepy, and he has much more depth than Darth Vader.

The reason I mention these two characters is to reemphasize the point about shallow villains: they’re not as interesting. It took a 2-minute scene at the end of Star Wars: Rogue One to finally make Darth Vader scary, and part of that was the lighting (or lack thereof) in it. Meanwhile, Thrawn is creepy by sheer fact that he’s never angry. It took two trilogies, a spin-off film and two shows to give Darth Vader a complete arc. Meanwhile, Kylo Ren was interesting instantaneously. Villains are like any other characters, in that the best ones are the best-written ones.

Finally, let’s discuss one of my favourite living directors: Hayao Miyazaki. Miyazaki is an anime director known for being critical of his industry. That said, his philosophy on villains in film is fascinating, as he’s not fond of the traditional antagonist:

“The concept of portraying evil and then destroying it - I know this is considered mainstream, but I think it is rotten. This idea that whenever something evil happens someone particular can be blamed and punished for it, in life and in politics is hopeless.”

It’s worth noting that Miyazaki has done traditional villains before. Colonel Muska was a fun baddie in Castle in the Sky, while Count Cagliostro was a menacing creep in The Castle of Calgiostro. Both films made their antagonists devious and slimy, and both suffered at the hands of their own arrogance. Miyazaki wrote these characters to be hated, but they were also written early on in his career, and I doubt he’d make them that way had they come out now.

For the most part, Miyazaki’s villains are complex and multi-layered. They might commit evil or selfish acts, but it’s usually in the name of understandable motives. Princess Kushana in Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind wants to beat her family at their own game of domination, while Spirited Away’s Yubaba is trying to make a living. And then there’s Lady Eboshi from Princess Mononoke, who, while villainous, is shown as kind and nurturing to her community. The people of Iron Town look up to and respect her, and not without good cause. In fact, that she takes up villainy because she’s blackmailed by Jigo, a monk out for self-glory, makes her somewhat tragic.

Then there are the films where Miyazaki has no villain at all, or keeps it metaphorical. The antagonist in My Neighbor Totoro is mortality, and only in the last 20 or so minutes. The antagonist in Kiki’s Delivery Service is self-doubt. The antagonist in Porco Rosso is the growing tide of fascism. Even Ponyo, which starts with a villain in Fujimoto, is really about over-protective fathers. This hits home far more than a black-and-white baddie, especially in a family movie. Sure, having someone to hate is fine…but sooner or later you have to accept that life doesn’t work that way. Kids need to learn that life is more complicated than good or bad, and that’s something I applaud Hayao Miyazaki for with his films.

Which leads back to why I think Doug missed the point with his editorial. Yeah, the classic Disney villains are fun. Yeah, I miss villainous musical cues. But to say that modern Disney villains aren’t memorable is missing the reality that, yeah, they kinda are. They’re simply not the 2-dimensional cut-outs of the 20th Century, and that’s fine. Depth can make for additional intrigue, something kids' films need badly. And if the film has no villain and still works, like Inside Out, then kudos! It’s equally important for children to understand that people are capable of being their own enemies, and that working to fix that is more important than a baddie of the week.

Then again, I think that Frozen’s third-act villain reveal was weak, so what do I know?