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?
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?