In Defense of Darkness
When is an villain a villain? when the protagonist of any story butts heads with an opposing force taking the form of an antagonistic nature, then likely you have your villain.
But when is a villain wrong?
 |
Is he really that bad of a guy? Short answer, yes. But... |
How many times has it been hammered into minds that the one person standing opposite you is against you and therefore wrong and must be figuratively- or literally obliterated.
Nearly every single time we sit down to a film, game or book. But what if they aren't the true antagonist, the true evil of the story? Just because they are opposite, doesn't make them in the wrong. Does it?
The current example to fuel this monologue is the recent Star Trek into Darkness film, where the ever iconic cast of Trekkers meets a likewise iconic and by all means of the word ‘villainous’ caricature of continuity past. (FYI: Highlight spoilers from here on)
Khan who happens to be superior to the lead role captain James Kirk, literally down to the genetic level is ruthless, capable, a superb liar and more than willing to shred the world of our key players apart - but does his defined role as an antagonist simply make him a villain?
The caricature of the dark caped, mustachioed sneer of film villains is no longer discernible with black or white clarity in today's culture. Perhaps that comes as a no brainier to some but it begs the question, How DO we define the villain nowadays?
Despite Khan clearly not being a ‘good’ man his due process of egotism, collateral endangerment of civilians and often destructive nature is matched only by our lead role James T. Kirk. As both protagonist and antagonist alike lead all those around them in a hapless dance of revenge and counter revenge; how then can we differentiate which of the two to cheer for and invest our hopes in favor of their success, If either?
 |
| Most Trekkies have had furrowed brows over the new films direction of canon |
Kirk has a nasty habit of breaking rules and endangering the lives of others around him at a whim when it best suits his needs- or his mood. A caustic character to lead a star ship indeed. Yet as he does it out of his own morally self-awareness and is driven by his ‘heart being in the right place’ then its all good and well yes? After all, he DOES act with the good of his crew in mind- most of the time anyway.
Yet as does the resident naughty boy that we are meant to believe must be stopped at all costs. Khan’s crew and family are all that he really has- super intellect and brawn aside- and he makes a worthy case for himself in saying he’d do anything for said crew. Even going the distance of sabotaging military installations and inciting a private war on the Federation. After all, it was them who opened up that can of worms first, so they had it coming to them from the start. But more on that later.
It was Starfleet who took Khan’s abilities and intellect hostage to their own ends. Creating a war ship purely out of paranoia of an impending enemy invasion that might be really disastrous. Then they’re led to destroy any 3rd party opposition to cover tracks. Creating more opposition on the way. Obviously quite the villainous thing to do.. The corrupt contemptuous beast of militarization in direct hypocrisy of claiming yourself to seek peace. (Poetic spoilers)
Its not the most original of stories, in fact it may be overplayed as a trending plot, but it leaves us to categorize Khan's role as possibly the not-really-as-bad-as-this-other-bad-guy guy. And perhaps that is enough of a character anchor for him. Maybe being the not-nice bad guy that fights the not-nice good guy is really all there is to their on screen roles.
Perhaps, but for the sake of questioning the status quo let's take another look into this formula.
 |
| There's a lot more to criticize but at least it makes a colorful film reel |
Universe of Into Darkness rolls over itself by the powers of circular dueling between three key players.
You have the flawed anti-hero Kirk who despite see-sawing between good captain and space cowboy action hero, still manages to make a glorious mess of things without ever coming out on top. Seriously- except for one small instance of debilitating a single enemy aircraft, he manages to lose every fight he’s in and still be looked to as a leader *Yeash*
Then we have the turncoat manipulative admiral seeking power for some arms race ideal of self preservation for himself and for those he swore to protect; yet all too willing to kill those he swore to protect if it means doing what is necessary AKA starting a war with another race so he can fulfill his own prediction of all out war. A jab at foreign policy within current US military-centric idealism, albeit a shallow one.
And then there is Khan who makes a proper mess of the competition but less out of a self-centered villainy, but more out of reactionary motivation to free his colleagues from ransom and free himself from an advantageous oppressor. As Khan only seems to react impulsively to the danger and loss of his Popsicle crew locked down in cryogenic sleep of 3-centuries and then some; he is less the intellectual menace we are led to believe and are instead offered the vision of an emotionally driven and vengeful renegade. Traits which we could just as easily pin to any of the stories lead roles- meaning this in of itself is NOT ENOUGH to vilify the villain. (If that makes any lick of sense.)
What's even more compelling is the loss of James Kirk’s life that drives Spock to don the new mask of emotionally vengeful and rule rebelling and seek pure revenge upon the one responsible.
The same course as Kirk.
The same course as Khan.
Get it? They’re all driven by the same motives to take the same actions of abandoning all pretense of self control and let the hate flow. Master Yoda would have a field day backwards ranting about how that just leads to darkness and all that jazz, but seeing as darkness is kinda the theme anyways we’re getting there no matter what Jedi Nematoad has to say.
 |
| This reference is far too old and I should never be mentioned henceforth. |
As if any more metaphor was needed convey the whole ridiculous similitude of these high strung- cross wired captains, lets boil down the idea to its simplest form.
Envision a sandbox in a childs playground. Among the sprawling sandscape are miniaturized child terrors running amok and doing what kids do best, act impulsively, competitivly and trivially immature ways.
One kid breaks another sand castle. The other throws dust in an eye. A third pulls another's hair.
You have a playground fight over who did what and why and in no time, motives no longer matter, only reactive violence in response to violence and a bunch of scrapes and bruises remain to show for it. So what does that leave us?
It leaves us with a charmless movie and an overhyped drama living off the expansive name of its franchise rather than its stand alone merits. is the quintessential parallel of the ensuing space drama that is Star Trek Into Darkness. Who is to say who the true heroes or villains are and how to tell them apart. Is it decided by the best looking hair? The player with the most heart? Or whoever does the least damage during their time to rampage on screen?
Honestly this may be looking into it WAY too much-but i’ve never been one to simple lay back and let a film glaze me over with its eye popping effects and shallow attempts at homage to a history of nerdom past. If that were enough to win me over then backyard fan films would be enough for me.
So i submit my own (un)apopcalyptic proposal that in the same way that Kirk is an anti-hero, Kahn embodies the role of the anti-villain.
The man who does bad not because he is bad but because bad has been done to him- and in turn aims to direct his misdeeds at those responsible actually makes him a kind of villainous hero in his own right. Right?
 |
| "Right!" |
Because the admiral was willing to start a war with the Klingon Empire for the sake of throwing the first mighty blow- which makes him the unequivocal villain IF that plan had succeeded; then in the current battle we do see he must ALSO be the true villain of this conflict as he made forced Kahn to be what he will be manipulating him to be villainous against his will.
In closing- Admiral ass-hat is the real bad baddie and Kahn is kinda just the bad luck baddie. Bad or not I say that makes all the difference to me. Which brings me to the lesson I learned from this all: Its best to not be overly critical of a villain, just because he seems villainous.
Unless that villain is JJ Abrams who has a habit of committing cinema malpractice within his third acts. Not the first film that has ended more disingenuous than expect. Remember Supre 8? Big alien terror that just kinda- skidaddles at the end- not all too remarkable. And considering the original Wrath of Khan film climaxed in a pulse racing chess like battle of strategy and skill, a fist fight is a pretty inglorious way to end off this films keynote battle. A waste and a pity.
Ciao~
(Note that it was mentioned Kahn may have had an itsy-bitsy Killing spree a few hundred years ago that had to do with his elitist mindset of destroying everyone perceived not as perfect as he-a tad on the nazi side of the bad-man meter. but this wasn’t proven to be the pure case with THIS kahn, not an alternate dimension Kahn who is essentially a whole different person AND the truth cannot be so clearly defined considering we learn these compelling ‘facts’ from our manipulative villain of less than genuine character. I only take these facts with a grain of salt.)
Image Cites
http://latino-review.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/StarTrekIntoDarkness-app-photo2.jpg
http://www.startrek.com/legacy_media/images/200508/mov-002-khan02/320x240.jpg
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_loxf049vhF1qzy115o1_500.jpg
http://cocafilms.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/star-trek-into-darkness-pstr07.jpg
http://www.screenslam.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Star-Trek-Into-Darkness-Kirk-Spock-Black-Shirts.jpg
