Essays:

“How to Write a Villain“

By: Ilaria von Eschenbach

Darth Vader, Thanos, Hannibal Lecter, the Joker, Terminator, Patrick Bateman. These names are among the greatest and most recognizable movie villains of all time. Great villains can often cement a movie in history and become as beloved as the heroes they oppose. But what makes a villain compelling? What separates the good from the bad? How do you write a villain that your audience will love to hate?

In the opinion of acclaimed screenwriter Aaron Sorkin (A Few Good Men, The Social Network, Moneyball), a villain’s validity and widespread appeal comes down to a single factor: motivation. Sorkin asserts, “[Your villain] has to have a valid argument. You have to believe, at least temporarily, in that argument when you’re writing it. If you don’t, you run the risk of said villain not being compelling, exciting, or even believable” (Developing Characters 5). According to Sorkin, the villain’s motivation or justification for their actions has to be convincing on some level in order for him or her to be plausible to the audience. This theory seems to hold up; very rarely does the audience find it sufficient that a villain does wrong simply for the sake of “being evil”. There has to be some feasible underlying motive– even if it is deeply flawed or carried out through sinister methods. This motive or “argument” affords depth and realism to both the villain and the movie as a whole.

A poignant example of this theory of motive can be found in Sorkin’s debut film, A Few Good Men (1992), a courtroom drama that follows young lawyer Daniel Kaffee (Tom Cruise) as he works to uncover and litigate a scandal within the Marine Corps. Unlike many courtroom dramas, the antagonist of this film is not the prosecution, but rather the intimidating Colonel Nathan Jessep (Jack Nicholson). Jessep comes across as a classic, almost stereotypical Marine: menacing, gritty, and tough as nails. But he also has a sly, ambitious side to him that is punctuated by an excellent performance from Nicholson. The plot follows the murder of PFC William T. Santiago, who was tied up and beaten in the middle of the night by two Marines in his unit. While at first this appears to be an act of personal vengeance, by the end of the movie it is revealed that Colonel Jessep ordered the assault as a “Code Red”– a form of discipline for the sub-standard Santiago. This reveal is done in epic fashion; many remember Jessep’s iconic outburst on the stand, “You can’t handle the truth!” (Sorkin 163). But just as memorable is the dramatic soliloquy that follows— Jessep’s “argument”, in Sorkin’s words. “Son, we live in a world that has walls. And those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who’s gonna do it? You? […] I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and you curse the marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: That Santiago’s death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives!” (164). The “badness” (to use a broad term) with Jessep is very self-evident. Sorkin has no need to have him declare how evil he is to the courtroom outright. Rather, what makes Jessep a fascinating villain is the justification for his actions, as outlined in the speech. This murder was only bad from our narrow way of looking at it; in Jessep’s mind, it was defensible– necessary, even. The courtroom is horrified by this, as are we, but it gives Jessep dimension and realism. He didn’t order the Code Red because he’s evil and felt like murdering someone, he ordered it because, in his estimation, that’s what it takes to defend America. It’s brilliant writing.

Villains, like any other character in a film, need strong underlying motivations to seem believable to an audience. Though Colonel Jessep proves an excellent example of how motivations give an antagonist depth, this theory proves an effective benchmark for measuring the appeal and validity of any villain. How many villains would consider themselves truly evil? Probably not many– and screenwriting should reflect that. In the end, a well-crafted villain not only terrifies but also reminds us of the complex humanity that resides within every character, no matter how sinister their actions may be.

Works Cited

A Few Good Men. Directed by Rob Reiner, screenplay by Aaron Sorkin, Columbia Pictures, 1992.

Sorkin, Aaron. Aaron Sorkin Teaches Screenwriting, MasterClass, https://www.masterclass.com/classes/aaron-sorkin-teaches-screenwriting

Author Bio:

Ilaria von Eschenbach is a freshman at Brown University.