Greetings,
You know what I was thinking about the other day? The awesome movie that is Ransom. Probably because I was thinking about Gary Sinise. Probably because it was Memorial Day. And if you know anything about Gary, you'll know why that is. Anyway, there is something about that film that made me realize how messed up Hollywood is these day, creatively, I mean, and it has a good lesson on how they can correct things. I know I just talked about the problems with that town's creative health a couple of weeks ago, but, hey, they need a lot of help out there.
Before I go on, I should warn you guys. If you have not seen the movie Ransom, don't read this. Also, shame on you, because it's amazing. In order to do what I have to do today, there will be spoilers galore. Although, I think even people who haven't seen this already know what I'm talking about. Irregardless (which is totally a word!) go see it, then come back. Is everybody who wants to be gone, gone? Okay, good. Let's get started.
It has been nearly twenty years since we were graced with the presence of this fantastic movie, and I have never met anyone who doesn't like it. It's exciting and well-written and has good twists in all the right places done correctly not just...well, not just because. But I'm not here to review this thing. I am here to discuss but one character - Jimmy Shaker. He's the villain. And he is an actual villain. Remember those?
Let me explain myself. For many decades of movies, we had a lot of villains who were just bad guys. Why? Well, because they were bad, of course. In other words, one dimensional baddies. We still have those, but the trend of the last several years has been the idea that, in order to make a villain more complex, he or she must have a backstory that makes them sympathetic. Or, even worse, not bad at all but a hero. Not even an anti-hero, but just a straight up hero. What?! Okay, that last one does not happen as much, but I think we can all agree that the "sympathetic villain" is kind of a thing now. And it's all Marvel's fault! Well...
Okay, it's no secret that, generally speaking, I am no fan of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Maybe I'll give some extended info on that some time later. And nowhere will you find a more "sympathetic villain" than Loki. Don't get me wrong. I certainly like Tom Hiddleston and how he portrays Loki, and, honestly, I can deal with Loki as a character. Kind of. But as a villain? Yeah, no. I mean, talk about a weak motivation. I have said this before, but think about his backstory. Abandoned by biological family, taken home by an old, rich guy of a different race who raises him as his own son in a big fancy house. Hey, Loki! Your life is the plot of Different Strokes! So, yeah, stop whining and throwing world destroying tantrums.
And don't even get me started on what went down in movies like Oz, the Great and Powerful and Maleficent. So, is the color green like a bad thing or something? Whatever. Moving on.
I guess I just don't understand it. Is it really that hard to make a bad guy bad AND complex at the same time? Apparently not, because the people who wrote Ransom knew how to do it. And now that I'm done rambling about others, here is my analysis on the How and the Why...and probably other things concerning Jimmy Shaker.
So, unless you've got problems or something, there is no point in this film where you feel sympathy for Jimmy Shaker. He has, at present time, no redeeming qualities, not one. However, due to some clever exposition and great examples of the "show don't tell" rule, we do learn about how and why Shaker is what he is. At least, that's how I see it. And am I ever wrong? Yeah...anyway...
First of all, the exposition. We have that fantastic scene where Gary Sinise as Shaker and Mel Gibson as Tom Mullen are driving around and talking on the phone to each other. Hey, shame! Anyway, Gary goes on and on about the rich and the poor of the world by way of a Cliff's Notes version of The Time Machine. By the way...THERE! That scene is a better remake of The Time Machine than that 2002 mess. Anyway, in what he said, we could see why he was doing what he did. He was a cop who risked his life on a daily basis for very little pay to put the bad guys away, and some of those bad guys who had money were flat out buying their way out of a jail sentence. And he's not wrong. That is exactly what Tom Mullen did. You understand his plight and yet, are not willing to excuse his crime. I think because we know that all of that would make a genuinely good cop try that much harder to get ALL the bad guys put away. Even if they fail, they try, instead of turning to the dark side and pretty much giving up.
Next, the "show don't tell". Even though it's quite clear that he is a bad guy now, we get the impression that Shaker was a good guy at some point. Not because of what we're told. No one ever says "Hey, didn't you used to be on the right side of things?" No, we see things. We see his commendations. We see how he interacts with other cops and the way they respect him. Clearly, he did good things to earn all of this. And, going back to that scene of exposition, we even see it in Gary Sinise's performance. The look in his eyes, his expression as he speaks those words, the unsaid attitude to Mel Gibson's character of "Screw you, rich man. How do you like it?". No matter what he was saying, we could see it all.
So, in other words: great writing, great acting, great directing (I didn't forget you, Ron Howard!) equals great villain. Not to mention one with some serious staying power with the public at large. And I'm not the only one who thinks so. I mean, "Jimmy Shaker Day" is in the Urban Dictionary, for crying out loud. Granted, their definition fits in better when it comes to what was actually said in the movie, as it should be. My definition is more like "Hey, when are we gonna get more villains like Jimmy Shaker! Won't that be a wonderful day?" But I think we can all live in the world together despite those differences.
And I think I'm done with this. Man, I should have taken a class in this kind of stuff. I feel like I just did a thesis on the subject. Okay, maybe those things are a bit longer. A bit. But I digress. Bottom line, just try harder, all of you writers in Hollywood. Remember, a villain is pretty much always the antagonist, but an antagonist does not have to be a villain. If you want your bad guy to be sympathetic, make them an antagonist. If you want your bad guy to be bad, make them a villain.
Love and full moons,
Becky the Writer
