They Get What They Deserve

Building Better Baddies - PART 2

In crafting a compelling narrative, satisfying conclusions for your villains can be just as important as resolving those of your protagonists. The kinds of endings our villains receive, reflect the cosmological and moral structures of our fictional worlds. In addition, they are core building blocks used by Narrative Designers to aid in creating catharsis for audiences and players.

Catharsis:

The process of releasing and thereby providing relief from, strong or repressed emotions.

To achieve this emotional goal, it is important our antagonists meet with fates that are diverse, emotionally resonant, and fitting, whilst also delivering or originality and surprise.

As my old screenwriting teacher used to say:

“Give them the ending they deserve, just not in the way we expect it.”

---

In my previous essay - The Unholy Trinity of Villains - we began with an exploration of popular antagonists found in media. We saw that when we really dig into them, these figures almost always tend to be tragic in some way - they are the tormented products of larger systemic issues within their worlds.

We discussed the three most popular villain archetypes in fiction:

• The Evil Incarnate,

• The Mad-Man, and…

• The Morally Complex Villain.

We walked through the nuanced characteristics and motivations of each, seeing how they interact with their larger narratives to shape compelling challenges for our protagonists.

In this essay, we’re going to dive a little deeper. Specifically focusing on how the kinds of actions villains take, have a direct affect on the justice (or lack therof) they receive.

Think of this like a Narrative Equation:

Character + Crimes + Relationships + Themes = Apropriate Judgement

Unlike a math equation, the above formula is a guideline only. Take it from someone who has lost count of how many books on writing he’s read: rarely is anything in storytelling a hard rule. The craft is full of ambiguities and contradictions. The best anyone can do is learn as many frameworks as they can, try them out, and find out what works for them.

With that being said, I strongly stand by the above idea because it is helpful in ensuring successful endings. Handing out the wrong kind of conclusion to any character - be it a villain, a hero, or a mix of both, becomes destructive to your story. It ends up feeling unsatisfying and in the worse cases - Unjust.

An Unjust Ending

Recently, the highly anticipated Joker: Folie à deux, arrived in cinemas to overwhelmingly negative responses from critics and fans alike. And while that movie has a whole laundry-list of problems, the ending is in my opinion one of the worst.

SPOILERS INCOMING

In the film’s climax, Joaquin Phoenix’s Arthur Fleck finds himself brutally stabbed to death by another inmate. The response to this narrative decision by both critics and fans speaks to that sense of injustice. Somebody made a critical error with Arthur Fleck’s judgement equation. They posited it as:

At every stage of this equation, I would argue, they fundamentally misunderstood both the Joker of Batman lore, and, more importantly, the Joker of their own world. So let’s have a look at who he really is.

1. Character: Arthur is an emotionally complex and unsettling figure. We can evidence this by pointing to the non-linearity of his character arc. Unlike a traditional arc, Arthur does not begin at Point A, then move to Point B, then Point C, and Point D. Rather, he bounces all over the place. He makes progress one minute, then regresses the next. Sometimes he stumbles upon untapped aspects of his Psyche, other times, he sticks to the tried and true. You could say that Arthur is a soul in search of an identity. He is a pitiful victim one minute, an agent of chaos another, or he’s an entertainer, or a lover, or a resistance leader, a star, and even at times, a hero. The second film culminates with Arthur deciding on a permanent identity: He rejects the mask of the Joker, taking responsibility as Arthur for his crimes. This could have worked, if through that, he experienced some sort of real redemption. But sadly, that’s not what happened. We’ll discuss the concept of Redemption shortly, but for now, let’s carry on.

2. Crimes: Arthur has murdered a total of 7 people, which sounds severe until we consider the context of each:

   1. Three arrogant Wall Street businessmen after they pursue and bully him.

   2. His former co-worker Randall in revenge for the loss of his employment.

   3. His own mother, Penelope after a life time of emotional, physical and sexual abuse at the hands of her and one of her boyfriends.

   4. The talk show host, Murray Franklin on live TV, after being ruthlessly mocked and humiliated by him.

   5. Arthur may also have killed Thomas and Martha Wayne, after his fantasy of being Thomas’ son was dashed - though we never see this with any certainty.

3. Relationships: Arthur’s interactions with those around him all work to create a messy, but ultimately sympathetic portrait.

   1. His abuse at the hands of his mom, her boyfriend, the Wall Street Bankers and others is extreme, but relatable. Who amongst us has not experienced some form of bullying or abuse in the past?

   2. His relationship towards his neighbor and imagined girlfriend is disturbing, but an externalization of a very human longing for connection.

   3. His relationship with Gary Puddles is ultimately toxic, but Arthur genuinely cares for him. Gary was one of the few to show him kindness.

   4. His relationship with Harley Quinn is ultimately a one-sided deception, but through it, he is able to use fantasy to explore his desires of a better world.

4. Themes: Though films like Joker 1 and 2 lend themselves to multiple interpretations, the one that stands out as especially strong to me is:

   1. Monsters are Made: Both movies explore this theme by looking at Gotham City as a broken system. They suggest that through abandonment, alienation and the stripping away of basic human rights, such a system is capable of victimizing those it is meant to serve, twisting them into the very monsters it claims to hate. Both movies consider how, in the absence of empathy and true leadership, people and communities languish. Hiding in tribalised echo-chambers, they search for a hero to save them. And when true heroism cannot be found, they elect wolves in sheeps clothing instead.

So while Arthur’s callous murders would make sense in an equation like this:

The actual equation, by my estimate is more like this:

Character: An alienated and broken man + Crimes: Desperate lashing outs + Relationships: Confused but mostly genuine + Themes: Monsters are Made = ???

Redemption

Redemption can be an incredibly powerful conclusion for certain villains, though it’s often difficult to pull off. It requires an intricate balancing of accountability and mercy. When done well, it gives villains a chance to escape the broken system that created them. But while many villains have redeeming aspects, not all are worthy of total redemption.

Redemption, it seems, is a sliding scale. Let’s take a closer look.

Complete Redemption

The villain, seeing the error of their ways, repents and either leaves entirely, or is reintegrated into their community.

Complete Redemption happens when a villain has a change of heart and is forgiven for their crimes by the heroes of the story. At this point, they are free to either go their own way and live a quiet life (usually one of contemplation), or they can rejoin the normal world and side with our heroes in one final showdown, a denouement, or a sequel.

A villain that commits crimes considered “socially more acceptable” than murder (i.e. stealing, deception, kidnapping etc.) are usually still able to achieve total redemption because their crimes are considered, on the moral scale (at least in storytelling), to be lesser than things like murder, or S.A.

Murder is an interesting one though. We see it as an ultimate crime, in in certain narrative contexts it is unforgiveable. But in others (as is in the case Arthur Fleck), a villain that kills can still be redeemed. In these cases, their body count is usually either very small, or it’s emotionally justifiable.

When we move into the territory of murder for pleasure, selfish gain, as genocide, or of a child or family member, that’s when things become increasingly harder to forgive.

Incomplete Redemption:

Personal Forgiveness, Cosmic Punishment

The Villain sees the error of their ways and receives forgiveness on a personal level. But they must still face consequences for their crimes on a “cosmic” scale.

Here, the Villain has a change of heart and is forgiven by those most important to them. Naturally, this requires some set up to create sympathetic relationships between the Villain and at least one other - often the protagonist themself.

Whatever relationship is used, the audience need to understand its complexity and many nuances throughout the course of the story. The crimes of the villain, alongside the emotional position they occupy in the other character’s life, need to be heavily grappled. Forgiveness is a difficult, self-sacrificial act on behalf of the forgiver, doubling as a weapon that allows them to overcome their own internal darkness at the same time.

Ultimately though, there’s a catch. And that catch is this: Despite receiving personal forgiveness, the Villain is still required by the cosmological laws of the universe to take responsibility for their crimes. Whether or not they have turned over a new leaf is irrelevant here. If they’ve murdered multiple people, or taken part in even worse, they are required to pay the piper with their life, or something else of incredibly high value to them (their career, a loved one, a dream, etc.) Usually this payment occurs in an explosive, or emotionally poignant final scene.

This kind of redemption is one I think could have worked for Arthur Fleck in Joker 2. Arthur’s decision to accept responsibility for his crimes as Arthur, rather than the Joker, performs the narrative function of him seeing the error of his ways. If this had led to him receiving some sort of forgiveness on a personal level, whilst still being punished cosmically, then it would have worked. However, it requires the establishment of stronger interpersonal relationship between him and at least one other. Harley Quinn could fulfil this role, but her character would need to be drastically re-written. As it is, Harley is a manifestation of Arthur’s shadow. She’s not someone who can really be hurt by him, nor someone who can really forgive him. Rather, her whole agenda seems to be the opposite. She wants Arthur to give in and become the Joker full-time…

Incomplete Redemption:

Cosmic Forgiveness, Personal Punishment

The Villain sees the error of their ways and makes amends with the moral agency of their world. But they are unable to be forgiven by those around them and/or they are unable to forgive themselves…

In this outcome, the Villain accepts their actions as evil and set about making amends. Usually this is through taking an action that ensures the protagonist’s success. After, the Villain appeals to the protagonist, or a key relatonship in their life for forgiveness. Sadly however, usually that forgiveness cannot be given. Alternatively, some villains may find the forgivness of others, but be unable to forgive themselves. As a result of both instances, the Villain goes into some kind of permanent exile - whether by removing themselves from the setting, or by removing themselves through death. A third possible conclusion we sometime see is the Villain being forgiven by all except one. The one unable to do so, ends up becoming “villainous” themselves by taking matters into their own hands for a tragic flourish.

If Joker 2 wanted to go this direction (which, in many ways, it had already begun to), they would need to clarify how the larger “world” forgives him. Sure, we see hundreds of Arthur’s followers outside the Court room, but they are never painted as a sympathetic symbol of the larger story world. Instead, they are depicted with what I would describe is disdain. In a film that is clearly trying to grapple with the ideas of systemic societal issues, they really miss an opportunity here to show these people as genuine revolutionaries who have elected Arthur as their imperfect leader. Instead, they are presented as crazy, violent, criminal anarchists and this only muddies the film’s ultimate themes. If Arthur had admitted he was responsible, then gone on to impactfully demonstrate how the system that now judges him are the true creators of Joker, and his followers were painted in the way I just suggested, we would have a very different story. You could even keep the stabbing scene at the end - just clarify how Arthur’s killer was a relationship he had, who could not forgive him.

DEATH WITH IRONY

Moving on from Redemption types, we now come to Death With Irony. This is a relatively simplistic ending for a villain, but one that can be highly satisfying to audiences. What we want to see here is the villain getting their just deserts. More satisfying than just a simple death, death with irony uses the Villain’s own darkness (or their own plan) against them, prompting us to all jump out of our seats shouting:

“YUSS!! GET SOME! GET SOME!”

Such deaths are typically low-brow. They can be clean or grotesque, slow and painful, or quick and explosive. Some great examples include: The devouring of Ramsey Bolton by his own dogs in Game of Thrones, the explosive death of Zorg in The Fifth Element, or, for a more child-friendly example: Dorris Umbridge being carried away by Centaurs in Harry Potter and The Order of The Phoenix.

GETTING AWAY WITH IT

This one’s more of a bleak ending than the others, and one mostly confined to horror stories. Getting Away With It is when the villain achieves their goals, often resulting in the death of the protagonist. This ending occurs usually for two reasons:

• Because the overarching narrative themes dictate it, and/or

• Because the protagonist (who usually has less moral leeway compared to a villain) has been found guilty of an unforgiveable sin. What is an unforgiveable sin, you ask?

  It is either:

  • the succumbing to their own shadow (their own selfish internal desires), or…

  • the breaking of a meta-narrative code.

For the former, you can look to pretty much any Antihero storyline ever, and for the later: slasher movies are a great example.

In these films, characters that engage in things like sex before marriage are the first to be dispatched. They are being punished for breaking a meta-narrative. Originally, back when Slashers began, that code was comprised of conservative, Christian moral standards. These teenagers were punished for their arrogance towards God in their actions.

Eventually, as our society moved away from Christian dominance and more towards secular ideas, that meta-narrative code evolved. Now, the teenagers who “sin” in modern slashers deserve to die not because they’re rejecting the bible, but because they believe themselves to be untouchable, immortal, youthful and beautiful.

The catharsis that we feel from their deaths is more about all us older people (jealous of no longer being young, hot teens) indulging in an irrational revenge fantasy against their youth, naivety and optimism. Teenagers can still enjoy slashers too, but for them, it’s likely more about the nudity, the gore, the thrills.

ESCAPE

Lastly, we have Escape. We won’t spend too long on this one as it is typically reserved for more jovial affairs. In this outcome, the villain’s plans have been thwarted, but at the last minute, they manage to escape, ready to come back and fight another day.

Personally, I’m not a fan of this approach, and debated whether or not to include it at all in an essay about building better bad guys. But for the sake of covering our bases, here it is.

This outcome is one that lends itself well to highly serialized, episodic stories, or stories directed at young kids. Each episode can function as a stand-alone idea connected by various protagonist and antagonist threads. Here, the intention behind the story’s narrative themes is light-hearted entertainment. This kind of silly: “I’ll be back!” mentality with no serious consequences, allows for a “reset” each episode, making it simple and easy to engage with if you’re not in the mood for deeper themes.

Conclusionary Thoughts

At the end of the day, the fates of the villains in our narratives play a crucial role in shaping the emotional experience of our audiences. By carefully considering the nuances of each villain’s journey - whether through redemption, ironic justice, or a more bleak and unsettling outcome - we are able to craft endings that resonate deeply and provide satisfying moments of catharsis. By navigating the intricate dynamics of crime severity, character development, relationships, and thematic significance, we can create a rich tapestry of moral complexity to enhance the narrative interplay between our heroes and their antagonists, whilst also provoking thoughtful reflection on the nature of justice, consequence and our moral structures.

Ultimately, the effectiveness of a villain’s conclusion is found in the emotional truth it conveys. As storytellers, it is our job to yes, entertain, but also to provoke questions and honor the moral complexities of life.

Until next time,

Nick