I have nothing to say about that, not having read/watched a lot of villain monologues in the past few years--nor composed my own. Item 6
Such verbal gloating was a sign of vulnerability, of weakness. The villain needs something from his victim, some sign of pain or despair. Some writers give the victim (before the climactic table-turning later) a way to thumb the nose at his tormenter, to frustrate him. Some of the most notorious real villains didn't bother confronting those who are about to die to gloat or anything else. They didn't need any confirmation from their victims.
It's harder to show a hero's courage and defiance without such scenes, though.
2 comments:
I cannot remember what age I was, but I recall it was young when it occurred to me that if The Penguin or whoever would just kill these guys without having to make a production out of it they actually would take over the world.
AVI makes a good practical point.
I'm not sure I buy the vulnerability angle. I think writers instinctively understood the gloating bully-villain was celebrating achievement of the denied respect aka fear he felt due, and the coolly flippant response of the hero was meant to deny him that respect. In the current moment that immediately runs into the problem that the only acceptable villains, old white men, are on the 'wrong side of history' and thus their plans represent only the continuation of the status quo, not a fundamental negative change. Nothing is more boring than imagining that things are going to stay the same.
Post a Comment