By Britney Tran and Hien Bui
Villains act as points of conflict to push along the narrative of a story. The audience is meant to hate them—maybe even love to hate them.
Yet, fans often romanticize and empathize with villains. Filmmakers even work with psychologists to successfully shape the stories of “villain protagonists.” So what exactly is the psychology behind our obsession with villains?
Why do we feel for villains?
Villains that get sentimental treatment are usually given a narrative that provides depth for the audience surrounding their ideologies and motivations behind their actions. This lets a viewer develop a connection to the character or even an identity within them, as villains hold a mirror that taps into our cognitive empathy. We form a perception that allows us to feel second-hand experiences in the form of personal distress.
In direct opposition to this narrative is the villain who is clearly irredeemable but is still someone the audience subconsciously roots for. This trope finds itself primarily in the genre of stories where the “villain” is the protagonist, such as in the 2019 blockbuster “Joker.” The viewer chronicles Batman’s primary antagonist and his ascendance to the franchise’s resident murder clown. This framing of the narrative naturally creates a vehicle where the villain’s rhetoric can be understood and cognitively empathized with as they become the eyes in which they see the story through.
Todd Phillips, a psychological screenwriter, explains the targeted reaction of sympathy towards the Joker upon cinematography techniques that opposes the conviction.
“You’re not supposed to be rooting for him,” Phillips said. “There’s this idea of like ‘what happens if the villain is a hero’ at the beginning and then, because of Joaquin’s brilliant acting, I describe it as a volume knob from 0 to 11… where you’re really rooting for him and you feel for him and then there’s a point – and it’s different for everyone – where you’re like ‘I’m out!’”
Like Phillips said—it’s different for everyone. For some, the moral obligation of abandoning a character once beyond redemption gets lost in translation. This could be tied into the understanding of self-concept and the psychological distancing between the audience and the villain. An antagonist narrative allows us to explore the darker parts of ourselves without compromising our moral values and personal qualities of decency.
While you may find the standpoints of a criminal mastermind fascinating, you don’t necessarily have to relate to their psyche. Hence, our support for these characters grow reluctant to change, as we become increasingly devoted to their development and the recontextualization of typical heroic ideals.
Half-evils and deuteronomy
The word “villain” denotes an evil quality to it. It’s easy to conjure up one-dimensional villains who do wrong for the sake of advancing the plot. However, this black-and-white perspective ignores the intricacies that people possess.
As much as we can see ourselves in characters, we don’t classify ourselves or aspects of our world as inherently good or evil. Instead, we are probably more used to the existing in a morally grey area.
Villainous characters who fall into this same moral complexity can be closer to deuteragonists, playing largely ambivalent roles in their plots.
An example of this is the recent resurgence of interest in the “Harry Potter” iteration of this trope: Draco Malfoy.
Malfoy’s role followed a trajectory of childhood bully to one in the ranks of a hopeful dictator throughout the series. Despite his problematic actions and long-standing affiliation with the fictional universe’s version of bigotry, the character was able to rebuild his life at the books’ conclusion and end up on civil terms with his once sworn nemeses. He also endeared himself to many fans to teenage heartthrob status, with many calling for a greater redemption arc for him amidst other potential rewrites of the canonical world.
This sentiment wasn’t shared by the series’ author, J.K. Rowling, who, in a 2014 interview, remarked on her concern over fans romanticizing Malfoy.
“Draco remains a person of dubious morality in the seven published books,” Rowling said. “Draco was not concealing a heart of gold under all that sneering and prejudice.”
Undeterred, fans still sympathize and connect with Malfoy in their interpretations, citing his youth during the events of the series and the environment he was raised in as reasoning for his crueler moments. But even within the confines of the text, Malfoy isn’t evil on the grander scale that the main antagonist is, which may be why audiences are so ready to sympathize with him.
Psychology researcher Mina Tsay-Vogels explained this phenomenon in an article about morally ambiguous characters.
“If you had a really bad day and did something you weren’t proud of, you could go home and turn on a show that features moral ambiguity and bad characters—and feel significantly better about yourself,” Tsay-Vogels wrote. “We call this term morality salience, which is making people aware of their own moral actions.”
In other words, villains are a reflection of our faults and desire for our own redemptive arcs, but this also offers a dangerous two-way street where we could find justification for their actions.
Real-life “villainy”
While it may seem easy to discern these villains as fictional, the psychological reactions to them are real and can exist far beyond the realm of casual debate about the morality of fictional characters.
Fear and controversy enshrouded the release of the 2019 “Joker” film because of the Aurora, Colorado shooting where a man opened fire and killed 12 moviegoers at a screening of 2012 Batman universe installment, “The Dark Knight Rises.” Rumors of the shooter being dressed up as the Joker contributed to unease over the character’s influence. While this was debunked, the concern still mounted over the new movie’s overtures that it might potentially inspire copycats of the tragedy.
It’s imperative to recognize how lines between reality and fiction can blur and these characters created for entertainment can translate into real-life consequences. Villain ideologies, in nature, are easily identifiable and, to some, inspiring in their justification of “bad behavior.”
While audiences are welcome to delight in the moral complexities of villain characters, it’s important to also hold the actions of these roles accountable instead of completely romanticizing away the faults.
