The guts of scariness: power, or intent?

[BlackShanglan]

I've been thinking about this since my BSG/Torchwood thread. In it, I mentioned being frustrated with Torchwood's villains because, while they were physically powerful, I personally didn't find their motives convincing.

With Halloween coming, that made me wonder which really makes a creepier villian - someone with the ability to do terrifyingly powerful things, or someone with deeply malevolent and powerful purpose? What drives you under the bed faster - the velociraptors in Jurassic Park or Hannibal Lecter? And who are the great, super-creepiest villians who live in your memory?

I think that the alien race in the Aliens movie series deserves some kudos. They're horrifying both in physical capacity and in gruesome intent. It doesn't get much uglier than being turned into a living incubator for their young.

 

[TheeGoatPig]

I think that the alien race in Aliens movie series deserves some kudos. They're horrifying both in physical capacity and in gruesome intent. It doesn't get much uglier than being turned into a living incubator for their young.

That is what I would have brought up if you hadn't.

 

[Safe_Bet]

I've been thinking about this since my BSG/Torchwood thread. In it, I mentioned being frustrated with Torchwood's villains because, while they were physically powerful, I personally didn't find their motives convincing.

With Halloween coming, that made me wonder which really makes a creepier villian - someone with the ability to do terrifyingly powerful things, or someone with deeply malevolent and powerful purpose? What drives you under the bed faster - the velociraptors in Jurassic Park or Hannibal Lecter? And who are the great, super-creepiest villians who live in your memory?

I think that the alien race in Aliens movie series deserves some kudos. They're horrifying both in physical capacity and in gruesome intent. It doesn't get much uglier than being turned into a living incubator for their young.

Most definitely Hannibal Lecter. For me it's the intent that creates an evil villian. Velociraptors were'nt evil. Hannibal Lecter was evil. They both ate people but one did it because it was their nature and the other solely by intent (against human nature if you will.)

 

[BlackShanglan]

Game over, man! Game over!

 

[epiphany65]

For me, the scariest movie I've ever seen by a long shot was "The Exorcist". Second to that was "Carrie", then "The Omen". I find supernatural powers, or villains with them, to be more frightening than anything or anyone that is just flesh and bone. A person or animal can be stopped by conventional weapons, but how does an average person successfully battle something they either can't see or is impervious to anything that would normally kill a human or animal...?

 

[BlackShanglan]

Most definitely Hannibal Lecter. For me it's the intent that creates an evil villian. Velociraptors were'nt evil. Hannibal Lecter was evil. They both ate people but one did it because it was their nature and the other solely by intent (against human nature if you will.)

When I think of that sort of evil, I always end up back at Des Essientes, the protagonist of Huysmans' A Rebours. One of his projects is to take a young boy from the turn-of-the-century Parisian slums and take him to bars and brothels, treating him to expensive luxuries he could never otherwise afford.

One day, as the boy is off with her girls, the madame of the brothel remarks that she never took Des Essientes for a fancier of boys. He responds that he isn't, and that he has quite a different project underway. He plans to give the boy another month of the high life, then utterly abandon him to the squalor in which he found him.

With any luck, says Des Essientes cooly, the boy will driven to pursue the joys now out of his reach, and embark on a life of crime and cruelty. He closes by saying that he watches the papers carefully, with high hopes that some say he will see his protege a murderer.

Always makes my blood run cold, and not least because it's so damned plausible.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Villains.

Theyre always the people you least expect to hurt you, and they often impress people as Good Samaritans. Albert Fish was maybe the best example of this.

He was a kindly old man who helped out poor people with money and jobs, gained their trust, and ate their children.

So my villains take this form. They are soooo nice until they kill you.

I once worked with a guy whose thing was crawling around camp grounds at night. He went inside the tents and took items as the people slept, and he left behind a knife stuck thru the floor of the tent.

 

[BlackShanglan]

For me, the scariest movie I've ever seen by a long shot was "The Exorcist".

That scene where she's crawling around weirdly backwards is deeply creeply. *shudders*

 

[BlackShanglan]

Oops, wrong thread.

 

[epiphany65]

That scene where she's crawling around weirdly backwards is deeply creeply. *shudders*

The Spiderwalk Scene... that was left out of the original cut because it was considered too frightening and due to time constraints.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

The Spiderwalk Scene... that was left out of the original cut because it was considered too frightening and due to time constraints.

It WAS too frightening. *shudder* I freaked out when I saw it on the uncut version. Followed by the peeing on the floor scene.

 

[epiphany65]

It WAS too frightening. *shudder* I freaked out when I saw it on the uncut version. Followed by the peeing on the floor scene.

There was a scene in one of the sequels (the 2rd?) that took place at a senior citizens' home where an old woman scurries across the ceiling, then someone who's possessed says something like "The old ones are the easiest to possess." That scene still gives me chill too.

 

[gauchecritic]

Mr Pin. In the The Truth.

Carcer in Night Watch.

 

[BlackShanglan]

I have a soft spot for Mr. Teatime.

"You've seriously considered how to inhume the Hogfather?"

"And the Soul Cake Duck!"

He's so damned cheery.

 

[jomar]

Intent. Being cruel not for revenge or any other reason than just to be cruel.

 

[Lady_Guenivere]

Most definitely Hannibal Lecter. For me it's the intent that creates an evil villian. Velociraptors were'nt evil. Hannibal Lecter was evil. They both ate people but one did it because it was their nature and the other solely by intent (against human nature if you will.)

For me it was "Buffalo Bill" in Silence of the Lambs....
Ultimate in creepiness...

Buffalo Bill: It rubs the lotion on its skin. It does this whenever it's told.

Catherine Martin: Please mister, let me go! My family will give you anything you want!

Buffalo Bill: It rubs the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again.

A pure psychopath....terrifying.

 

[Liar]

I have a soft spot for Mr. Teatime.

"You've seriously considered how to inhume the Hogfather?"

"And the Soul Cake Duck!"

He's so damned cheery.

Did you see the Hogfather movie? Pretty much exactly what I imagined Teatime to look and sound like,

 

[voluptuary_manque]

I think the lack of intent is why I find Otello so unsatisfying. Iago's motivation for destroying his commander is inadequate to justify the pure nastiness he does. Mindless evil doesn't take joy in its expression. It's the pleasure of pain and suffering that makes the stomach turn.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Did you see the Hogfather movie? Pretty much exactly what I imagined Teatime to look and sound like,

Yes! I was deeply impressed. I had had a sort of general, vague impression of what he would look like, but as soon as I saw that movie I knew they had it perfectly right. It was excellent acting to put that cherubic face into such a disconcerting blankness.

Blood and snow. I love Pratchett for that line.

 

[Liar]

I think the lack of intent is why I find Otello so unsatisfying. Iago's motivation for destroying his commander is inadequate to justify the pure nastiness he does. Mindless evil doesn't take joy in its expression. It's the pleasure of pain and suffering that makes the stomach turn.

That's actually a pretty common Shakespeareian flaw, from tragedy to comedy.

I'm directing Much Ado About Nothing with a young cast right now, and we've had lengthy discussion about exactly what crawled up Don J's ass and died. We still don't know, after reading two translations and the version alledgedly truest to the original in English that we could find. And we still can't figure it out.

 

[BlackShanglan]

I think the lack of intent is why I find Otello so unsatisfying. Iago's motivation for destroying his commander is inadequate to justify the pure nastiness he does. Mindless evil doesn't take joy in its expression. It's the pleasure of pain and suffering that makes the stomach turn.

I agree, and that's speaking as someone who finds "Othello" still to be one of his very best. Othello's suffering is so powerfully built and has so many levels - not just his jealousy, but his isolation from the culture around him - that it always sucks me in.

But it has to, because as you say, Iago is harder to make a real human of when you look closely at him. If only he'd worked the angle of Iago suspecting Othello of cuckolding him a little harder and earlier, it would have made a great deal more sense. Or Desdemona turning him down for a proposition. Or something! It just needs more.

 

[BlackShanglan]

That's actually a pretty common Shakespeareian flaw, from tragedy to comedy.

I'm directing Much Ado About Nothing with a young cast right now, and we've had lengthy discussion about exactly what crawled up Don J's ass and died. We still don't know, after reading two translations and the version alledgedly truest to the original in English that we could find. And we still can't figure it out.

There's that whole "humors" subtext from that time period - the belief that some people had a basic personality element that was just part of how they were made, whether morose or hot-tempered or what have you. When Shakespeare uses a light hand and lets the nature sing like it would in a real person, it comes out well - I'm thinking, for instance, of Mercutio and Tybalt in "Romeo and Juliet," a mercurial and a choleric / combative man who just feel like they really were born that way.

But that works best with minor characters whose motives don't have to be complex. Sometimes he makes it work with the leads - what on earth could a man of McBeth's uncertain nature DO with a kingdom, anyway? - but other times he relies too heavily on nature as a motive rather than as a source of tension distinct from the motive itself. You can have a vengeful nature, but you can't have an inherent desire to hate some bloke called Othello.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

There's that whole "humors" subtext from that time period - the belief that some people had a basic personality element that was just part of how they were made, whether morose or hot-tempered or what have you. When Shakespeare uses a light hand and lets the nature sing like it would in a real person, it comes out well - I'm thinking, for instance, of Mercutio and Tybalt in "Romeo and Juliet," a mercurial and a choleric / combative man who just feel like they really were born that way.

But that works best with minor characters whose motives don't have to be complex. Sometimes he makes it work with the leads - what on earth could a man of McBeth's uncertain nature DO with a kingdom, anyway? - but other times he relies too heavily on nature as a motive rather than as a source of tension distinct from the motive itself. You can have a vengeful nature, but you can't have an inherent desire to hate some bloke called Othello.

Earlier in my life I felt the same way about The Merchant of Venice. It didn't resonate with me in any particular way until I had the good fortune to see this centurie's definitive Shylock perform at Stratford on Avon. It was a gripping, spellbinding performance and you could see the man's distress turn to bile before your very eyes. Magnificant. No performance of Otello that I've watched has even come close. So I am still left dissatisfied and baffled by two of what are called masterpieces, Otello and King Lear. The rest are pure delight.

 

[BlackShanglan]

I saw a wonderful production of "The Merchant of Venice" that set the action in modern times and really brought out the racial identity subtext. They didn't alter any of the lines, but they did add one small dumbshow scene: Jessica, after running off with her father's cash, sitting in a chair and watching slides of him playing with her as a child. That and some well-acted scenes of her growing isolation and misery as her new "friends" mocked her faith and her father gave the piece a hefty punch.

I'm never sure, with that play, how much the author would have seen it that way, and how much he would have accepted "He's a Jew" as reason enough for the malevolence. It's certainly a very actable play, though, that really shows how the interpretive element of drama can help keep alive characters written many generations and many changes of thought ago.

 

[JagFarlane]

I've been thinking about this since my BSG/Torchwood thread. In it, I mentioned being frustrated with Torchwood's villains because, while they were physically powerful, I personally didn't find their motives convincing.

With Halloween coming, that made me wonder which really makes a creepier villian - someone with the ability to do terrifyingly powerful things, or someone with deeply malevolent and powerful purpose? What drives you under the bed faster - the velociraptors in Jurassic Park or Hannibal Lecter? And who are the great, super-creepiest villians who live in your memory?

I think that the alien race in the Aliens movie series deserves some kudos. They're horrifying both in physical capacity and in gruesome intent. It doesn't get much uglier than being turned into a living incubator for their young.

Hmmmm I'd honestly go with the deeply malevolent and powerful purpose. For them there is no end in sight, except your death or complete torturing. To that end they'd stop at nothing for you.

[oh and if I had to deal with velociraptors, do I get a Browning BAR? ]