Arch Villains and Politicians

The tragedy or revenger style of Elizabethan theatre has given way to adaptations of books such as House of Cards, both the UK and US versions. Game of Thrones, the novel series and its TV adaptations hold much allure due to the focus on politics, although in context of the show really aims to show dynastic friction and character studies of psychological complexes. Succession is another popular series exploring grand families, institutions and political and financial domination and megalomania.

Where modernists, postmodernists and new schools of thought see a clear distance of the moustache twirling villain, or even the “anti-hero” as that term has shifted significantly over a period of time, as the idea of heroics is being less demeaned than it was a decade ago, it occurs to me that perhaps we are not enamoured of villainy, so much as people are interested in showing its forms.

Margin Call had Jeremy Irons playing as evil a character as Scar in the sense of the effect of an entire ecosystem, but those affected are plain people, and the cityscape and debt slavery are the replacement for being fed to the hounds. Office politics, the individuals who can lobby at a level effective enough to influence economy, and therefore policy has an enduring effect upon stories that require a good level of writing to sufficiently engage. Where there was once Whedon dialogue, this has shifted from a generation of witticisms in place of people wanting to feel the impression of data and social understanding, or to demonstrate with dark humour how a lack of it makes an executive foolish or dangerous.

I find it interesting, and have said often to friends that I would enjoy a series covering real political intrigue, but it would never happen until at least my children were grown. While we can point to state secrets for this, I think this sense of villainy in context of cinema, comics and gaming is very present. If you saw a politician in media, obviously considering that they are a person and not a capital H Hero; would they not be present as a modern Richard III?

A Politician is a role, and for quite a while has also been tied to a particular type of effective villainy, I say effective specifically because while there are numerous villains, especially popular villains such as Emperor Palpatine were so successful in their wide ranging goals due to possessing political power.

Are we enamoured of politics, real politics, or is it at the moment an effective guise to highlight the abuse of power and presence of threat as we used to knights in black armour and witches? What will be the next arch villain of our age, and how will the display of politics change as many nations and people find exasperation with populism, and the consideration of new ideas or disbelief in politics having any inherent worth at all shape the audience which makes narratives, the thing the powerful and especially politicians rely upon as throne and sceptre to win public opinion and brand recognition?