Indeed, seeing real-life people as "pure evil" is not at all the correct thing to do; it's not charitable or nuanced. However, in movies (which are fiction, anyway) we're sometimes presented with a "pure evil" character who has no motive for their evil; I'm thinking of Heath Ledger's Joker in The Dark Night, or Anton Chigurh in No Country for Old Men. I have a theory that "pure evil" characters are more easily presented in films than "pure good" characters are; it's hard to find a movie character who is good in the fundamental, motiveless, unreasonable way that Chigurh is. There are several such characters in books--Heidi, in Joanna Spyri's novel, or Myshkin in Dostoevsky's The Idiot--but not so much in films. Perhaps because films show us actions, and books are better at showing relationships--and an evil action is more easily depicted onscreen than a good action, which derives its goodness from the relationship it happens in. What do you think?
It seems to me that when characters appear to have no motive for their "evil" they are nevertheless portrayed as crazy, which becomes the de facto "motive." However, I think "crazy" is just another way of saying "evil."
I think a lot of movies are very good at showing relationships, but I agree that an "evil" action may more easily be depicted on the screen than a "kind" or "good" action because audiences generally can agree on what is bad, but it's not so easy to agree on what is good. Someone's act of kindness may be someone else's bossy, overbearing, or intrusive act, and can actually be interpreted as "evil" if the person really disagrees with it being a "good" or "kind" act.
Quite so--the "good" action can sometimes require a great deal of context to be interpreted correctly. But what do they always say about movies? "Show, don't tell."
Indeed, seeing real-life people as "pure evil" is not at all the correct thing to do; it's not charitable or nuanced. However, in movies (which are fiction, anyway) we're sometimes presented with a "pure evil" character who has no motive for their evil; I'm thinking of Heath Ledger's Joker in The Dark Night, or Anton Chigurh in No Country for Old Men. I have a theory that "pure evil" characters are more easily presented in films than "pure good" characters are; it's hard to find a movie character who is good in the fundamental, motiveless, unreasonable way that Chigurh is. There are several such characters in books--Heidi, in Joanna Spyri's novel, or Myshkin in Dostoevsky's The Idiot--but not so much in films. Perhaps because films show us actions, and books are better at showing relationships--and an evil action is more easily depicted onscreen than a good action, which derives its goodness from the relationship it happens in. What do you think?
It seems to me that when characters appear to have no motive for their "evil" they are nevertheless portrayed as crazy, which becomes the de facto "motive." However, I think "crazy" is just another way of saying "evil."
I think a lot of movies are very good at showing relationships, but I agree that an "evil" action may more easily be depicted on the screen than a "kind" or "good" action because audiences generally can agree on what is bad, but it's not so easy to agree on what is good. Someone's act of kindness may be someone else's bossy, overbearing, or intrusive act, and can actually be interpreted as "evil" if the person really disagrees with it being a "good" or "kind" act.
Quite so--the "good" action can sometimes require a great deal of context to be interpreted correctly. But what do they always say about movies? "Show, don't tell."