The Trial of Kylo Ren: Hero or Villain?

First and foremost this post will contain spoilers concerning Star Wars: The Force Awakens.  A lot of spoilers.  MAJOR spoilers.  If you’ve not yet seen the film and wish to remain spoiler-free then I suggest you just save this page and come back to it later.  If you’ve seen the film or simply don’t care about knowing everything keep on reading…

Seriously though, from now on there will be spoilers!

There have been many theories about Star Wars: The Force Awakens concerning the characters, their pasts, and their potential futures.  Everything from “Rey is Obi-Wan's granddaughter” to “Supreme Leader Snoke is actually a tiny man a’la Wizard of Oz” have been bandied about and broken down by countless fans.  All are fairly intriguing possibilities, some I even root for being truth (I’m looking at you Poe and Finn), but none are as intriguing as those surrounding the main villain of the film, Kylo Ren.  Already a fascinating character - a young man on the Dark side feeling himself constantly pulled by the Light - Kylo is made all the more captivating by one of the main theories about him: He’s not the villain, he’s the hero.  Rather than the angry young man turning on his family, Kylo Ren is a brave lad undercover for the Resistance.  Like I said, intriguing.

I have no particular stake in this theory either way, but I am curious enough to take a closer look at it.  Give Kylo Ren a trial, so to speak, to determine if the theory he is a hero holds any water.  So let’s proceed with the evidence for, against, and somewhere in between to see what shakes out.

The Pull of the Light: 

Throughout the film Kylo Ren notes the feeling of being pulled to the Light side of the Force.  It seems to haunt, even torment, him.  The Light side of the Force is all about honesty, compassion, mercy, self-sacrifice, and other heroic concepts.  Given this it immediately suggests that Kylo is not instinctually as evil as his behavior suggests.  It is not in his nature to be cruel, selfish, or aggressive (traits of the Dark side).  If this is the case, if he is going against his nature, then that does suggest he could be playing a part.  Whether he’s playing a part hoping to fake it until he makes it - which is the surface presentation - or for the greater good is hard to tell, but we’ll give this to the “Kylo Is Hero” camp for the moment.

The Murder of a Father:

Kylo Ren is revealed to be Ben Solo, the son of Han Solo and Leia Organa (Skywalker).  With this bit of background you can see why fans might make the argument he could be a hero; between his lineage and Force-power he’d be someone the First Order would want to recruit, but not necessarily suspect of being undercover.  However, it’s just as likely to me that fans want a way around the idea of Han and Leia’s only son turning on them and all they stand for.  It’s terrible and makes the fact that Kylo kills Han completely tragic.

Upon reuniting father and son have an emotional discussion in which Han encourages Ben to come home.  Ben explains that he has a mission that he’s unsure he can complete and asks his father for help.  Han says he’ll do whatever is needed as the young man hands over his lightsaber to his father…then there’s the sound of the weapon coming to life and Han is run through.  Nothing else is seen and directly after there is pandemonium as Rey, Finn, and Chewbacca fire upon Kylo before he escapes.

Naturally this is not a point for Kylo being hero.  There have been some theories that Han was in on it — that he either knew Kylo had to kill him to solidify himself within the First Order or Han actually killed himself with the lightsaber (given it was last shown in his hands) — but I find that a bit of a stretch.  If this was all truly to sell Kylo as on the First Order’s side, why wouldn’t they arrange something more public?  A big capture and public execution before Hux, Snoke, and others who might be watching and making determinations about Ben’s commitment to their side.  Also, public or not, a fair amount of things would have had to fall exactly in the right place at the right time for this agreed upon “murder” to occur.  Then there’s the fact Chewbacca clearly considered this a real murder, a real betrayal, and I’d think Han would let him in on the plan if only to ensure Chewie didn’t hurt Kylo (which he did).

I don’t see any truly logical way around this one…This act falls into the “Kylo is Villain” column.

The Insecurity:

There is one other comparable villain in Star Wars named General Hux.  Like Kylo he is young and working for the First Order, but unlike Kylo he seems utterly sure of what he is doing.  Hux has no moral wavering about what he says, does, or has others do.  He doesn’t waver at all.  He is dispassionate and frequently butts heads with Kylo, even chastising him about letting his personal feelings cloud what needs to be done.  It could just be that Hux has been born and breed to be this sort of militaristic person who doesn’t question orders once given…but then so was Finn and he had so many doubts he defected.

Kylo, on the other hand, seems continuously torn about what he’s doing.  He speaks to the destroyed helmet of Darth Vader asking for the fortitude to carry on and “finish what [Vader] started”.  It implies that Kylo is not comfortable with the evil’s he doing, that he feels unsure of his motives and guilt over his deeds.  Concerning the murder of his father he confesses aloud he’s unsure he can do it and seems very close to falling apart over even the thought of it; he nearly backs out completely until the last second.

Purely from what’s onscreen, without searching for any hidden meanings, Kylo’s a young man trying to be tougher, more frightening, than he actually is.  This isn’t exactly an unprecedented thing for any male (or female) youth and equally unsurprising would be such a person getting in over their head and deciding they have no option but to keep up the front.  This could certainly be the case with Kylo: He wants to be feared, a badass, and after being manipulated by Snoke he ends up falling to the Dark side where he really doesn’t belong…but rather than backing out and heading home Kylo presses on determined not to be seen as weak. 

Even if he isn’t undercover this insecurity shows he could still become a hero by being honest with himself and doing the right thing in the end so I'll throw this to the “Kylo Is Hero” side .

The Tantrums:

One of the most significant (and sometimes amusing) behaviors Kylo Ren indulges in is tantrums.  I could call these rages or violent outbursts, but they all play out like the tantrums of a toddler.  I’m not certain if this is a matter of having more anger and/or less control than others, but it makes him more dangerous than any other character in the film.  Hux and Snoke are dangerous, but really only to those who stand against them.  They are both controlled individuals, there’s little risk of them flying off the handle and killing those on their side, but that’s not the case with Kylo.  When disappointed he just goes off, destroying the closest thing with his lightsaber and causing nearby Stormtroopers to decide patrolling elsewhere is the wisest move.

In the real world this sort of behavior tends to lead to men (and women) who are in and out of trouble with the law.  Those that fight at the drop of a hat and are abusive within their relationships.  Those that explode only to come back after cooling down to apologize and swear they won’t do it again.  But they usually do it again, over and over, until eventually they kill someone in the heat of passion.

For that reason alone I’d have to say his tantrums point to “Kylo Is Villain”.

The Saves:

Ironically, despite those tantrums, Kylo does tend to avoid killing others.  He destroys consoles and chairs, roughs up First Order soldiers, even beats on himself, but is only clearly shown murdering two people.  One is Han and the other is a man named Lor San Tekka who’s helping the Resistance find Luke and seems to know who Kylo really is.  That’s not as many as one would expect from a guy with uncontrollable anger who wants everyone to think he’s the ultimate badass.  (Side Note: It's implied there are more pre-film, but none are blatantly shown.  Also I’m not counting destroyed planets as that seemed more Snoke and/or Hux’s doing.)

Kylo has plenty of opportunities to kill, but seems to go out of his way to prevent others from being destroyed even when it might be easier (and wiser) to do so.  He takes Poe prisoner, Forces information out of him, then orders him transported to a cell…Why?  Kylo has the needed information; it would be smarter to execute the Resistance’s best pilot and move on, but he doesn't and during transport Finn helps Poe escape.  Kylo even insists that BB-8 be taken unharmed despite Hux pointing out it would be just as beneficial, if not more so, to take the intel from the droid after it has been destroyed.  Rey too seems somewhat spared; even after realizing how strong she is in using the Force Kylo leaves her alone with a single guard from whom she promptly escapes with little trouble.

After touching Luke’s lightsaber for the first time Rey is overwhelmed by visions from the past and future.  Exactly whose they are is a little hard to tell, but many seem to either be hers or Luke Skywalker’s — or, at least, those are the two that make the most sense.   Within these flashes there is one key scene involving Kylo Ren’s apparent attack on Luke’s Jedi students.  In the vision Rey is put in the position of potential victim as one of the Knights of Ren stands over her, seemingly about to kill her, when Kylo’s lightsaber runs the man through.  If this occurred as Rey’s Force-fueled images suggest than it’s the most significant life-saving act Kylo performs.  It suggests that not only will Kylo go out of his way to not kill, he’ll go out of his way to save those he should kill as someone working in the First Order.

Whether it was Rey or Luke - the point-of-view of Rey’s visions are not clear - the Force-fueled image heavily suggests that Kylo killed an ally to save a proclaimed enemy.  This fact along with the other “saves” undoubtedly go into the “Kylo Is Hero” pile.

The Verdict:

First off, I don’t think the theory that Ben Solo is actually just undercover in the First Order as Kylo Ren is true.  It’s a good theory, an interesting one with at least a bit of circumstantial evidence to support it, but it's still incredibly unlikely.  A lot of things would have had to happen just right for things to work out as perfectly as it seems they have…also I think, as the leader of the Resistance, his mother wouldn’t just know, but would have been in charge, of such a delicate plot and there’s no evidence of that at all.

There’s a lot of evidence for Kylo Ren being a hero and a villain.  In some cases it would seem the same information can be read both ways.  So who is this guy?  The villainous Kylo Ren or the heroic Ben Solo?  Neither.  Both.  The most accurate answer is probably that he’s a young guy that’s somewhere in the middle.  He’s not some psychopathic villain, but he’s not really a heroic guy either.  It’s what makes him so fascinating to start.

What’s to come in the next movie(s) is hard to say, but at the moment it seems possible - though not probable - that Kylo Ren could turn out to be a hero.  Possible because he shows signs of compassion along with hesitation and guilt over the more terrible things he does, but not probable given both his explosive rage and how he was left at the end of The Force Awakens - scarred, enraged, and presumably more determined than ever to destroy.

WHY Tough Women Have Traumatic Pasts...and It's a Problem

In the previous post I described some various ways in which tough women inevitably have traumatic pasts, but so what?  I mean, sure, that’s strange and all, but there are lots of tropes out there in the pop culture world.  True...but not all of them indicate a key issue that still plagues the world of entertainment and beyond.  Inequality.

While strong men may have tragic backstories they don’t have to and, honestly, usually don’t in the end.  Women pretty much have to.  There are precious few female characters that kick ass and take names without first having been through some of the worst experiences imaginable - loss of family, assault, sexual abuse, kidnapping, rape, attempted murder.  Men are frequently portrayed as capable of surviving in harsh, even post-apocalyptic, environments without really having gone through much beforehand while surviving for women seems to have to be old-hat with the worst having happened to them long before the world fell. 

Not all portrayals of this inequality are the same, but all ultimately lessen the strength, the toughness, of the female character.

What a Strong Woman!

On the surface there’s nothing wrong with strong women.  They’re great!  It’s important, crucial even, to show that women can match their male counterparts in inner and outer strength.  That women can overcome adversities, even terrible ones, and they can be all the tougher for it.  In certain cases overcoming adversities where others might fail shows that they can be even stronger than the men around them.  …That a woman is strong is not the problem; it’s that many are shown primarily as weak first.

When I discussed The Walking Dead’s Carol Peletier and The Silence of the Lamb’s Clarice Starling I pointed out how, first and foremost, these two were introduced as the weak and the abused.  Carol is small-framed, middle-aged, mother with an abusive husband who loses pretty much everything (including her daughter) within the first few weeks of the show's timeline.  Clarice is consistently shown as short, even tiny, compared to her male FBI cadet peers and there’s more than one incident of a man at least attempting to push Clarice around…and then there’s the earlier death of her father and being unable to save those slaughtered lambs.  It’s only over time that their strength is revealed - as they take on greater and greater threats and are able to repeatedly come out on top.

There’s an implication with both women that without the traumas in their life they would not be so strong.  Clarice idolizes her father who was killed in the line of duty and seems to have an underlying goal of making him proud, even becoming like him.  Those lambs she couldn’t save haunt her so now she aims to save others no matter the danger.  Carol only begins to really be someone after her abusive husband is eaten by Walkers.  Only then does she speak and stand up for herself and others.  Carol’s development as strong woman takes on another layer when, after losing her daughter as well, she’s even tougher…becoming (violently) proactive in defending herself and those she cares about.  Women first.  Strong second.

In the end it takes away a bit from the toughness these ladies have.  They are greatly admired (and should be!), but I’ve never heard anyone credit them with just being strong.  It’s always about them being strong women and not just strong.   …It ends up reminiscent of a politer version of “pretty tough…for a girl”.

She’s Not Hard, She’s Just Troubled

Some women onscreen spend most of their time being brusque, callous, and totally unwilling to take anyone’s shit.  They are what’s popularly referred to as the HBIC - Head Bitch in Charge.  Initially no one’s completely sure why they are this way; it seems to just be a matter of personality, but that can’t be right.  Women can’t be so naturally harsh, can they?   Then their past is revealed.  A past filled with pain and humiliation and (almost always) sexual abuse.  Now these women makes sense, their true selves have been discovered…deep down they are just scarred, scared, little girls.

This is essentially what happens to both Ani Bezzerides of True Detective and Claire Underwood of House of Cards.  The women start off as tough characters.  With knife always at the ready Ani is running raids, casually bedding partners, and giving glares and snarky replies to anyone who suggests she tone herself down.  Claire is tough for both her and her husband, doing whatever she deems necessary to advance their careers, even threatening pregnant women, all while keeping a calm demeanor.  They are aggressive, determined, and unmoved by what others think.  Both practically dominate the male-based worlds of law enforcement and politics they are in.  While not always the kindest people they are admirable in their fearlessness and command of others.  …Then their pasts are revealed.  Pasts filled with sexual abuse and feelings of helplessness.

Even more than with the other two (Carol and Clarice) this manner of dealing with traumatic pasts lessens the strength of these women.  Now that the ice queen’s veneer is cracked she can be a woman again.  Just a woman who’s been abused and is afraid of becoming a victim again.  That’s why she’s so aggressive and unwilling to play along, that’s the real reason she’s so tough.  She’s not the cold, calculating, woman in charge, but the girl scared of her next potential attacker.  Their traumatic pasts soften these women, change them into someone (something) more manageable and palatable to audiences - especially the misogynist ones.  

There’s also the sense that the traumatic past was added as an afterthought to explain the women’s aggressive behaviors in these cases.  Whatever toughness they have - which is a great deal - can now easily be dismissed as a reaction to their previous assault.  The women’s actions and reactions run the risk of being taken less seriously once the majority of their behaviors can be linked to a serious past trauma…even the women themselves can, potentially, be taken less seriously.  Again, they aren’t hard individuals that shouldn’t be messed with, but instead troubled women still dealing with what happened to her in her youth.  It becomes hugely unfair to the characters and the audience - Ani and Claire were already multidimensional female characters, why couldn’t they just stay the hardcore badasses they were for the majority of their storylines?

It’s not to say that no female characters should have traumatic pasts, but not all female characters need them either.  When the trauma is used as a cover explanation of or sole reason for the character’s behavior it becomes a problem.  Not everyone who is independent, strong, or even aggressive is that way as a result of an earlier devastation.  Some women, like some men, just kick ass and have always kicked ass.  (Though some men may, in fact, have traumatic pasts and more such men should be represented in pop culture to help fight this sort of gender inequality.)  A traumatic past - whether of a female or male character - should only be part of a characterization and never used as the sole explanation for their personality.

Tough Women Have Traumatic Pasts

It takes a special kind of woman to be as tough as the men and in pop culture it takes one with a traumatic past.  Something that’s hardened her enough to hang with the guys, do a “man’s” job, and perform those tasks most often considered masculine in nature.  The trauma itself is not always the same - domestic violence, sexual abuse and rape, the death of a parent at a very early age - but the results are.  Someone tough and determined enough to live and succeed in a male-dominated world, but never without some terribly painful past that underlines she’s still the “softer” sex. 

Carol Peletier

There is little known about Carol’s past before the Walker-apocalypse, but the moment you see her in The Walking Dead you know she’s a victimized woman.  Her husband, Ed, is a brute who shows little kindness to his wife or daughter (Sophia) even as strangers are pulling together for survival.  He doesn’t hesitate in hitting Carol, roughly dismissing Sophia, or even lashing out aggressively towards others…add to that Carol later mentioning his tendency to “look” at their preteen daughter and it causes a shudder to think what he was like behind closed doors.  It’s clear the Peletier house was neither a happy nor safe one.  As the first two seasons progress the traumas compound for Carol with first Ed dying (though that one might’ve been a relief) and then Sophia going missing only to be found as a Walker locked up in a barn days later.  It’d be enough for anyone to fall apart, but Carol is a woman forged in fire.

Six seasons in Carol is one of the most dangerous characters on the show.  She’s the one who does the things others would (at the very least) hesitate over.  She’s Rambo in a pastel shirt and matching cardigan doing whatever it takes to ensure her and her loved ones’ survival.  Over the years she’s killed innocent people and single-handedly taken down entire communities.  Would this new, badass, “Scarol” be around if she hadn’t lived with a man like Ed for (I’m guessing) more than a decade beforehand?  Possibly…But even the actress, Melissa McBride, confessed that one of the reasons Carol is so good at surviving in the zombie apocalypse is because she had a lot of practice beforehand.  Living in Ed’s household she learned how to protect herself and her daughter by keeping a low profile and having to constantly assess, then diffuse, dangerous situations.

Clarice Starling

Agent Starling didn’t have an abusive childhood, but she did have a rough one.  A worshiper of her sheriff father her world falls apart after he’s shot on the job.  She watches him cling to life for weeks before finally succumbing to his injuries, then she’s shipped off to her uncle’s farm in Montana.  There Clarice is further traumatized by witnessing the slaughter of Spring lambs causing her to attempt to free them, running off with one only to be caught and ultimately sent to an orphanage.  These things shape her both in her need to save and her tough exterior.  

The Silence of the Lambs film goes to fair lengths to show just how physically small Clarice is compared to her male FBI cadet counterparts, but also her ability to take their hits without being moved.  Without much strain she keeps pace with and, according to her teacher/boss Jack Crawford, surpasses many at the academy.  It’s made very clear that she’s one tough lady before she’s ever sent out to interview Dr Lecter and she’s the only one mentally strong enough to have any kind of affect when she does interview him.  Clarice is so determined to become an FBI agent and save others there’s the suggestion that she’ll do whatever she needs to; share personal stories with Lecter, stand up against all the male superiors around her, and take on (and take down) a serial killer alone.

Ani Bezzerides

Like Clarice, Ani loses a parent early in her life with her mother’s suicide.  Her father stays in the picture as a hippie who raises his two daughters in a small commune - one that Ani says had four other group members she was part of; two of whom went on to commit suicide and two of whom ended up in prison.  While that alone may qualify as trauma things get worse for Ani when, at about age ten, she’s lured into the wilderness by a pedophile drifter.  While she blocked out most details of the assault Ani knows that she was missing for approximately four days and she willingly went with the man initially.  

The result is a young woman ready, willing, and able to make any man who touches her bleed out in under a minute.  Ani isn’t the skittish, jumpy, female victim though; she’s the gravelly-voiced, e-cig smoking, combative, detective running raids and sleeping with her coworkers like so many of her male pop culture counterparts.  She’s trained herself to take down men physically and verbally (even when they try to compliment her) and comes off as almost eager to push back against anyone that suggests she soften her personality.  Ani’s been a victim in the past, she’ll be damned if she becomes one again. 

Claire Underwood

Claire is probably the clearest example of early trauma equals tough woman.  The truth is there’s little known about her past outside the fact that, in college, she was raped.  A trauma that is clear and undeniable - just like her generally cold demeanor throughout House of Cards - and one of the only things that seems to jar her.  Seeing the man again years later is able to throw her off her usual calm presentation enough those around her take note.  Discussing it with her husband, confessing to the feelings of helplessness it caused, leaves Claire truly shaken for the first time on the show.  She basically says that the event is one of the key contributors to her hardened shell as, after the incident, she swore to herself never to let anyone make her feel that powerless again.

While the connection between trauma and toughness is always made clear, how the women and their traumas are handled differs slightly.  Carol and Clarice are first shown as women, then as strong; Ani and Claire are first tough, then women.  Carol’s introduced as an abused wife, loving mother, and generally caring person…it’s only over time that she grows into the badass “Scarol” that fans now love and admire.  Clarice is shown as smaller and thus implicitly weaker than nearly every male around her so that the fact she is there, unwilling to be pushed aside, and able to achieve what others aren’t - a report with Hannibal, stopping the killer, saving the girl - shows her strength.

On the opposite end Ani comes on the scene as a hardened detective raiding a house.  She is combative towards most and when a male detective, Ray Velcoro, suggests she soften (“haven’t you ever heard you get more flies with honey?") she gives a snarky rebuff (“what the fuck do I want with flies?”).  It isn’t until she goes undercover towards the end of the season that her gender is displayed - now she’s dolled up in makeup and a sexy dress, now she’s put-upon (made to do drugs, touched and drooled over by men twice her size).  Even after she fights back her feminine side is exposed as she reveals her traumatic past to her new lover, Ray Velcoro.  Like Ani, Claire is first and foremost strong.  Cool, calm, and collected, very little ever rattles Claire as, like her husband, she manipulates her way up the political ladder with no real remorse for those she leaves crushed in her path.  Even more than Ani Claire has the potential to come off as a real bitch to the audience…then she goes to an awards ceremony and comes across her rapist once more.  The icy exterior melts and Claire is distinctly female complete with angry husband swearing vengeance who she must soothe into a clearer mindset.

These aren’t the only strong women with traumatic pasts, just a small sample in the wide world of pop culture (books, TV, film, comics, and beyond).  The concept is so prevalent it’s a trope; something that occurs so frequently across the spectrum of entertainment media that it is expected.  It's hard to find a female character without a hauntingly painful past, as if one can’t exist without the other.  If there’s a strong woman, a woman who kicks ass and doesn’t care what those around her think, you can bet good money she’s got a traumatic past.

When Characters Get Real, Audiences Get Mad

Certain characters achieve a level of venom from audiences that can be surprising.  Even when they aren’t the main antagonist, trying to take over the world, or even all that villainous, people loathe them…but why?  Why is it that certain characters garner more hatred than others?  Is it that they aren’t as clever, physically attractive, or entertaining as their more tolerated counterparts?  …Sometimes, but not always.  Usually there is a deeper reason behind the audience’s intense dislike.  It would seem that those characters on TV, film, and in comics who really get our blood boiling are those we’ve met - in one way or another - in real life before.

Dolores Umbridge

Just thinking of her makes me want to curse and throw things at the wall.  She’s the only person (real or fictional) to ever get my curse-averse friend to use the “C-word”.  Ms Umbridge isn’t the Big Bad of the Harry Potter series, she isn’t even a Death Eater henchman, yet more people seem to loathe her than Tom Riddle.  This woman with a love of pink, cutesy, things and a cruel streak towards those she deems “less than” is enough to make one consider using the Killing Curse.  Why?  Because we’ve met her before.  All different versions of her throughout our lives and whether we “beat her” or not, there’s always the possibility of another version cropping up in the future.

Remember that teacher who treated all her students like drooling idiot toddlers and enforced ridiculously harsh punishments for having your own opinion?  That’s Umbridge.  She was also the one calling you a liar or cheat when you weren’t and refused to listen to your side…or let anyone else listen to your side for that matter.  On the outside she was sweet and meek, she probably had others fooled, but you knew better.  You knew she was the worst teacher ever, but could never find a way to prove it.  She left you either playing her game by her rules or with a D average in the class.  You hate her still.

Just because you've moved into the corporate world doesn't mean you’re rid of her type either.  Now she’s the middle-management boss that tows the company line to the detriment of those under her.  Think there’s a problem with the way the company runs things?  Now you’re doing double-overtime whether you spoke up or not because the Umbridge in your office has been spying on you (or had others doing it for her) the whole time.  

She’s not the knife at your throat or even in your back, she’s the splinter just under the skin…unlikely to kill, but a constant irritant you just can’t get rid of.  Add to that Umbridge was a condescending bigot and hypocrite who pretended she wasn’t as terrible as she was so…yeah…it’s little wonder people hated her so much.

Kilgrave

What an asshole, am I right?  He’s the pinnacle of callous as he uses his powers of mind control to make those around him cater to his every whim.  It’s clear he doesn’t care at all about those he forces his will on as he either ignores or minimizes their pain greatly; he even goes so far as to play the victim himself.  He’s symbolic of the worst aspects of white male privilege: snobby, misogynistic, abusive, and self-righteous.  He expects others to feel bad for him as he gets his way consistently.  He enforces his will on protagonist, Jessica Jones, to develop a sexual relationship with her and gets offended when she declares (rightly) that he’s raped her.  As if to make him all the worse he frequently imposes his will for the most selfish and banal reasons: to get cushy digs to hideout in, as petty revenge for being pestered (“pick up that coffee…throw it in your face”), and to get the girl, as it were.  He’s basically a bully with superpowers and no one likes a bully, but everyone’s run into them throughout their lives.

In the schoolyard he was the one taking your money, saying nasty things about you, or getting you to do terrible things (smoking, drinking, cutting class) with/for him…or all three.  Kilgrave’s the man who feels you owe him that smile he wants.  When he buys you a drink, you owe him the act of drinking and then thanking him for it.  You should be flattered by his interest, don’t you know?  He’s the abusive, controlling, boyfriend who doesn’t see date rape as rape because he just took you to a high-end restaurant and bought you a very expensive necklace…you owe him.  If you’re lucky enough to get away, get free of his controlling and abusive behaviors, he fast becomes the stalker.  

People are incensed by Kilgrave because they’ve all met someone like him.  They’ve dated him, been abused and manipulated by him, or at least know someone who has.  He gives other men, good men, a bad name.  He’s rightfully terrifying because women come across various versions of him everyday from the random guy who tells you to “smile” to the abusive ex who raped them to the stalker slowly dismantling their sanity.

Skyler White

Disclaimer on this one: I didn’t hate her, I didn’t really have a problem with her at all given her circumstances.  That said I know the vast majority of Breaking Bad fans hated her with a passion.  They complained about her nagging, attempts to prevent Walt from doing as he wished, and butting into his business.  She went from calling Walt on his lies to refusing to allow him near their children, to becoming his sort of partner in running the carwash he laundered money through.  The only running theme for Skyler was asking Walt when he’d stop being so dishonest.  So the main question is: Why do people hate her so much?  For the same basic reason they hate the other two…familiarity in the real world.

I know a lot of people summarize that Skyler was hated mainly because she was in opposition to Walt being the badass everyone (if only reluctantly towards the end) admired.  I disagree.  There were plenty of others on the series who tried to stop Walt from his foray and rise in the drug business and none seemed to be hated with the same venom as Skyler.  Case in point: Gus Fring.  Not only did he attempt to stop Walt, but actively tried to kill him and Jesse and threatened to do the same to Walt’s entire family.  Still, people liked Gus.  They thought he was cool with his eerily calm demeanor, grandiose schemes, and frequent success despite the odds.  So…yeah, just being an antagonist to Walt is not why Skyler got so much hate.

It’s that every other guy out there has met or dated someone like Skyler…someone who won’t just sit back dumbly, take the bullshit they’re told at face value, and let their significant other do whatever they like without complaint.  Skyler really isn’t that different from other wives and girlfriends out there; she wants an honest, decent, man who doesn’t lie and (of course) isn’t a danger to her and her children.  That being said, when circumstances call for it, she’s willing to break the law to protect those she cares about.  It’s not a “ride or die” thing, it’s a “protect my family from the madness my husband’s created” thing…if Walt falls, they all do, and she won’t allow that for her children.

Of course, men weren’t the only ones to hate Skyler White.  Women did too.  They gave the same complaints (nagging, whiney, etc), but it still wasn’t the real problem.  While I feel the reasoning is slightly different from the men, it was still related to the realism of Skyler, just...different.  It was that, rather than make a clear choice, Skyler found herself a terrible, trapped, middle.  She didn't sit back and do nothing or happily go along, but she didn’t outright turn Walt in either.  Most would like to think they’d choose one or the either.  They would go along as Walt’s willing partner-in-crime or they’d do the legally right thing and turn him in outright.  They don’t want to think they’d end up just as trapped as Skyler did - working alongside a man she once loved hoping only to keep herself and children safe until he dies.

These three characters are all quite different on the surface.  Umbridge is a viciously saccharine woman who bullies anyone she feels she can, Kilgrave is a misogynistic abuser, and Skyler’s the wife of a drug dealer she hates more every day she finds herself with him…but they still all have a key characteristic to them.  Realism.  It’s this realism, this ability to find real life versions of these characters in everyday life (even within one's self), that brings up the heated, aggressive, feelings.  Many audiences use films and TV series as a form of escapism, but those characters all remind them that reality still exists.  They represent the more negative, irritating, and tedious aspects of life as well; the ones we’re trying to escape.  It’s hardly a surprise these characters tend to be the most hated and frequent subjects of our wrath, whether they deserve it or not.

Twisted Love: The Sharpes of Crimson Peak

Spoilers Alert!

For the film Crimson Peak director Guillermo del Toro said he wanted to take the classic Gothic Romance story and twist it.  As an example he pointed out that it’s not necessarily the woman who needs rescuing by the man, but the reverse.  Whether he realizes it or not he also put twists on the classic concept of the serial killer couple.  While the one in Crimson Peak realistically follows the basics of how these sorts of pairings function it also subverts the cliches found in most fictional portrayals for a fresh take. …But before I continue please note, if you’ve not seen the film, there will be lots of spoilers to come…

…Seriously, I’m going to reveal plot points and secrets…

…Last chance…

Okay, if you read past this, it’s your fault!!

At its most basic Crimson Peak is about a young American woman, Edith Cushing, who falls in love with a man named Sir Thomas Sharpe, marries him, and moves into his super spooky rundown mansion with him and his sister, Lucille, in England.  There Edith starts seeing way too many ghosts for one’s own comfort or sanity and decides to investigate.  It’s a pretty straightforward plot honestly, but what Edith discovers is anything but.  Without realizing it she’s stumbled right into the web of a serial killer couple.

To keep themselves afloat in their dilapidated castle of Allerdale Hall the Sharpe siblings have turned to an effective, if unorthodox, method of gathering funds.  Thomas woos and marries wealthy women with no familial or social ties, brings them back to Allerdale Hall, and the two bilk them out of their inheritance as his sister poisons them.  By the time the women are dead the Sharpes have all their money and the bodies are tossed into vats of liquid red clay for disposal.  When the money runs out the two do it again somewhere else.

The method of seduction into marriage and then murder has been used frequently enough by other killers that there are names for it - females are known as black widows and males as bluebeard killers.  Females more frequently use this method and rarely does it involve two people working together, but there have been two major cases of it recorded - in both cases the two were women and, in one, sisters.  The sibling black widows were Catherine Flanagan and Margaret  Higgins who killed not just husbands, but other relations and lodgers in their home, for what was basically insurance money.  Interesting trivia: Catherine and Margaret were actually active just about twenty years prior to when the majority of Crimson Peak takes place - the sisters killed in 1880-1883, the Sharpes are killing up until 1901.

In the vast majority of killer pairs there is a dominant person and a more submissive one; the dominant drives the murders and calls the shots - when, where, how, who - while the submissive, well, submits.  In the case of male-female killer couples the dominant is typically the man, but that is decidedly not the case with the Sharpes.  While it does seem that Thomas picks the women - when Lucille questions his choice in Edith it’s implied that he also picked previous brides-to-die - that’s about all he does.  It is Lucille that is consistently pushing things forward, insisting they must go through with their plans immediately, and that they have to keep doing it over and over.  She's the one who insists on staying at Allerdale Hall, that the only way to keep going is to do these murders, and that Thomas has to stay with (and loyal to) her.  Just like the men in these murderous couples - such as Gerald Gallego who bullied his wife, Charlene, into luring girls to kidnap and be his sex slaves - Lucille is the one driving the murders with demands Thomas bring in new victims to satisfy her darker desires.  She's the dominant; her needs are taking precedence over Thomas’.  (It’s likely she is also the one that instigated and continues their incestuous relationship since their pre/early teens…she killed her mother to keep it going, after all.)

Another unique aspect of their murderous relationship is the roles taken within the context of the crimes themselves.  No matter the motive it is the male that most often commits the actual murder while the woman most often lures the victims, but with Thomas and Lucille the opposite occurs.  One could claim that it is Lucille who murders the women only because poison is used - which is considered a more “feminine” method given it’s hands-off, requiring no physicality - but she doesn’t just poison.  She hatchets, bashes, and stabs victims; Lucille seems not only skilled at violence, but to enjoy it.  Even without Thomas I’ve little doubt she’d have developed into a serial killer between the cold, hard, logic of her murders and the enraged outbursts of violence when things don't go her way.  She also does something that serial killers are well-known for…she keeps trophies.  In a private drawer Lucille has a collection of hair clippings from each of her victims.  She may claim to Thomas and others that it’s all about the money (and not getting caught), but the fact is Lucille enjoys killing.

Thomas, on the other hand, is not truly capable of any violence on his own.  When told to get rid of a previous victim’s dog he puts it outside rather than kill it outright; even when pressed by Lucille to kill someone he asks the victim where to stab that won’t actually be fatal.  This alone sets him apart from most submissive partners found in killer couples as there’s rarely a case in which the submissive doesn’t take part in the violence in some way.  While they may later claim they were so terrified and abused by their dominant counterpart that they had to go along it's been shown time and time again that they were equal contributors in the victims' sufferings and deaths - including the female perpetrators in the Barbie and Ken Killers (Karla Homolka and Paul Bernado) and Moors Murders (Ian Brady and Myra Hinsley) who were both proven not only to be spurring on, but very active in, the violence.  To his credit Thomas never participates, encourages, or seems to enjoy any of it.  In fact he’s most frequently trying to convince Lucille that they don’t have to kill anyone.  If it were up to him he’d get funds through legitimate investors in an invention he hopes will dig up rare red clay under Allerdale Hall that he can then sell for a profit.

So why does the empathetic, passionate, guilt-ridden Thomas Sharpe go along with his serially homicidal sister?  He loves her.  That he loves Lucille so much gives a final, ironic, twist to the serial killing pair that are the Sharpe siblings; there is some genuine love between them.  The problem is, in the words of Lucille Sharpe herself: “Love makes monsters of us all.” 

Secret Psychopath: The Dark Knight's Joker

Psychopaths are not easy to spot; in no small part because they are masters of disguise, skilled at fitting in even when they stand out.  With the ability to read a room and the expectations of those within it they can follow social norms to fly under the radar or openly defy them to whatever advantages there might be.  Whichever they choose though rarely are psychopaths spotted for what they are.  It’s only if you look closely, dissect with a rational mind, that you can see beyond the surface behaviors to the true person beneath.  It holds in real life and it holds in the fictional world…there are a number of characters in TV, film, and comics that hide themselves behind either subdued or over-the-top behavior so that you don’t notice who, what, they really are.

The most likely to be missed are actually the ones that present as outrageous.  Those so wildly over-the-top that you can’t help but presume they have some severe mental issues.  Those like the Joker, who’s been labeled with everything from schizophrenia to general psychosis to just plain crazy without any diagnosis.  While understandable given the clown get-up, cackles of laughter, and tendency to really enjoy causing chaos whenever he can none of these diagnoses are accurate.  The truth is the Joker’s a psychopath.  A cunning, happy to subvert the status quo, creatively violent, remorseless, psychopath.  He knows the things he does are wrong, he just doesn’t care.  Murdering others, blowing up places, and generally terrorizing an entire city aren’t things that bother him and neither is the concept of any potential consequences for his actions.

Of course the Joker could do everything he does without the “crazy” clown get-up and giggles, but I think that’s where he’s actually the most cunning.  For starters it’s a built-in defense should he get caught and brought to court on charges - “I can’t be held accountable, look at me, I’m clearly insane!”  This defense is used even outside the courts when the Joker visits Harvey Dent after the explosions he caused that mutilated Dent and killed Dent’s love, Rachel Dawes.  When Dent declares that, physically there or not, the Joker is responsible as it was his plan the Joker replies: “Do I really look like a guy with a plan?  You know what I am?  I'm a dog chasing cars.  I wouldn't know what to do with one if I caught it!  You know, I just... *do* things.”  On the surface it’s a good argument because the Joker genuinely doesn’t look like he’d be capable of any sort of plan.  The truth is though the Joker is more than capable of incredibly complex plans as evidenced by the opening sequence of the film as well as the ferry “experiment” he set up pitting criminals against everyday citizens.  (Even while that one didn’t work it wasn’t an issue with a faulty setup, but instead the Joker underestimating the humanity of those in Gotham, law-abiding or not.)

The Joker’s surface appearance and behavior frequently leads to misconceptions by those around him that he can then use to his advantage.  The mobsters of the city don’t take him seriously to start, dismissing him as a nobody, a wack-job, and a freak.  They see him as useful in hiding their illegally obtained funds, but not as a threat.  Because of this the Joker is allowed to live, plot, and scheme for a significant period of time before any of the mob bosses decide he is more threat than asset and by then it’s too late.  By then the Joker’s obtained significant influence over the criminal underlings so that they turn on their bosses.  Even Batman initially makes the simplistic categorizing of the Joker as a just another criminal, one that’ll be easily captured once he figures out what the Joker wants.  Alfred has to point out that the Joker is not that sort of criminal, he’s not someone with a clear or even logical motive that can be manipulated to catch him.

Interestingly though, not even Alfred is completely correct.  He suspects that the Joker might be doing what he’s doing because he considers it “good sport”, which isn’t entirely accurate.  The Joker himself explains that he wishes to upset the order of society, to cause chaos, in order to prove (he presumes) people are only as good as their surroundings allow.  It’s still not the usual, still an intangible, thus still not something that Batman can easily exploit to stop Joker, but it is a motive beyond just some twisted fun.  The Joker is unlike any of the other criminals Batman has gone up against up to that point - he is intelligent, determined, unpredictable, and delights in the terrible results of the things he does.

There is also a more metaphorical reason for the Joker’s bizarre costume and behavior…it both calls attention to and subverts Batman as an icon.  It’s unlikely anyone or anything will get Batman’s attention faster than a “crazy clown” cackling as he terrorizes the city and it’s equally unlikely that said crazy clown will make people think of anything other than that other costumed citizen of Gotham.  Both men are hiding their true identities, both use theatrics to shock, and both are physically aggressive so that the only true difference between them is motive; the Joker to deconstruct the city and promote chaos and Batman to try to keep order and safety.  A key difference, but one potentially overlooked by terrorized citizens.

Up until the Joker appears in the Gotham of the Nolan trilogy the man in the costume was the hero while criminals stuck to either mob suits or functional, bland, outfits.  With the introduction of the proverbial Crowned Prince of Chaos that’s no longer the case; now the one hiding behind a cartoonish alias and mask can also be a terrorist.  This leads to Batman’s hero status being questioned: What do we really know about the Bat-Man?  Wasn’t he involved in a number of destructive and dangerous events around the city?  If this man’s presence can cause someone like the Joker to appear, do we really want him in our city?  Suddenly the few who’d been questioning Batman’s presence - both in need and helpfulness - become the many.  He’s no longer an unchallenged icon of vigilante heroism after the Joker…now he’s something darker, more suspect, and ultimately the one being hunted for multiple murders.

After doing enough damage that the golden boy and white knight of Gotham, DA Harvey Dent, must be killed by Batman after going murderously mad and Batman himself becoming public enemy number one the Joker is finally caught.  If identified as a psychopath he’d be deemed legally sane and thus responsible for all the crimes he committed…at the very least this would mean life in prison.  But because of his presentation, because of his bright clothing, wild makeup, and delighted giggles at terrible events in humanity, the Joker does not present as sane.  As such he is wrongly found insane and instead of prison is sent to the mental institution, Arkham Asylum.  Some might argue that the asylum is the worse place, but given how frequently people escape from there it seems the better to me.  So, again, the outrageous presentation works for the Joker.  He knows this.  It’s why he almost never shows his true self - a cunning, manipulative, psychopath completely aware of himself, his actions, and the consequences of those actions.