Villains are meant to be the evil counterpart of our protagonist. However, there is a recent trend on telling stories in which the protagonist is meant to be villanous. He is always better than his nemesis, and his villanous behavior is somehow "justified".
This moves further from the "villain song", which even though promotes the perversion of the villain, tends to be a disturbing sequence and children may or may not be influenced by it. Now the villain is the "hero", a misunderstood guy whose circumstances forced him to became evil, but he is not that evil so he does good things at the end of the movie.
This is existentialist: the belief that experiences determine your morals, since Mr. Naughty can't stop himself from being Naughty since society forced him to be Naughty, so you better respect his way of being, because he is less Naughty than his rival, and his conversion isn't shown as hard.
It is true that we don't live on a "black and white society" when all the manifestly good men are on one side and all the manifestly evil men are on other side. It is true that good intentions have bad consequences and viceversa. It's fine for children to understand this, but I suppose there are better ways of dealing with the topic than with a goofy kiddie comedy full of poop references and jokes, particularly for very small children.
In most of this movies, Mr Naughty becomes not-so-naughty and happens to do good things, even though he is somehow still "Mr Naughty". Repetance stories are good, in fact, many stories have this message, like Little Red Riding Hood where she learns that she shouldn't trust strangers. However, unlike the following movies, Litle Red Riding Hood doesn't go parading and boasting about how imprudent she is. Get it?
Shrek:
Shrek was the first movie to represent a villanous character as protagonist-. Shrek is an ogre, but appart from being rude and wanting people outside his house he is mostly harmless. Not that you should be like him - it's stupid to tell your children to show manners when their hero baths in mud, farts happily, brushes his theeth with catterpillars and eructs loudily - Since ogres are meant to be villanous, the descomposition of the perception of good or evil begins.
Despicable Me:
In Despicable Me, Gru is a villain who wants to steal the moon. However, when he adopts three little girls he learns to be a good person. It's a heartwarming story, but the names don't change. Despicable Me. Dr. Nefarious. Minions. You name it. Seeing how taking care of the girls helps him to improve his life is nice but perhaps it would be better to have clearer-roled characters.
I think the second is better since Gru doesn't start as a villain, except for his cross-dressing as a fairy for the birthday party. The third film destroys years of character improvement as Gru is expelled from the anti-villain agency and starts to be tempted into evildoing again.
The precuel "Minions" is far worse than anything the other films could offer, for the Minions never become good or even nicer. They are always the same stupid pill-shaped yellow creatures obsessed with serving the most powerfull villain ever - kind of like St. Christopher in reverse. St. Christopher served satan thinking he was the most powerfull lord in the world, but left him after he discovered God was stronger. If the minions were in St. Christopher's place, they would have stayed with satan since they were looking for the strongest villain, not for the strongest lord.
Minions are superbly popular; in 2014 they would appear on candy, cakes, pencils, kinder decorations, toys, videogames, cereal (pictured below) short videos, and they appear always in the introduction of Illumination Entertainment films. Besides the fact that they are stupid and speak unintellegibly, and the fact that they used to accidentaly kill their evil masters.
Megamind:
Megamind is an alien who was sent to earth after his planet of evildoers was absorbed by a black hole. Megamind grows up in a prison and later learns to envy his nemesis, the lucky Metroman, and decides to pursue a life of evil as revenge for being misunderstood. If they wanted him to be evil, then he was going to be the most evil of them all!
Megamind only learns to behave decently after falling in love with a reporter, but his fish-gorilla minion is heavily dissapointed. He wants to continue being the bad boy and takes Megamind's conversion as a betrayal.
One of Megamind's master plan involves creating a superhero that will need to fight against him. The superhero later decides to be evil himself, at the displeassure of Megamind whose only purpose in life is having a "good" nemesis to fight against. Imagine that. Megamind followed the stereotypes society forced him to follow only to discover he actually wanted to be good.
Megamind constantly backtracks from being the villain to acting as a hero, perhaps to emphasize the fact that he never embraced evil fully. But then, no-sinner fully embraces evil, so Megamind still isn't an apropiate role model. Particlularly when you dance the song "Bad" by Michael Jackson at the end of the film. Both Despicable Me and Megamind eventually make their protagonist behave better, at least, than what they used to do, but they do make evil look funny, particularly when you think they are supposed to be villains since the beginning.
Maleficent:
You are suposed to pity Maleficent because the bad King Stefan cut her wings, caused her immense pain and betrayed her for greed. In the movie, appart from loving and eventually saving the princess he cursed, she doesn't do anything good. How many movies are based around the tale of revenge? Although Maleficent repents of cursing the princess as revenge, she doesn't repent of hating King Stefan (not that I justify him).
However, looking at the context of Maleficent as a character, we discover how bad this film actually is. Maleficent, whose first apperance was the original Sleeping Beauty, is supposed to be the encarnation of evil, meaning, the devil. Her malice is not just cursing the princess, she has fun torturing prince Phillip, whom she ties and mocks with pleassure. Now we are told that this story was fake history bc Maleficent actually Beneficent. It is true that some "good" people turn to be evil (think: John Paul II), but hey, maybe there are better ways of introducing your child to fake history than with this creepy Angelina Jolie remake.
The Grinch:
The Grinch is bad because he steals "Christmas", however, he beomes good because he gives it back to the villagers.
The Grinch is apparently guilty of hating the villagers - again, because they didn't accept his green, ugly face. His one and only way of expressing his detestation of the villagers is trolling them and eventually robbing Christmas, but it seems that more than actual or vicious hate his only purpose is to receive their attention and appreciation, as it is shown at the end of the movie after the little girl convinces him to be a friend to all villagers again. Moral: bad ppl are only misunderstood or discriminated. Having said this, the treatment that the Grinch received at the hands of the villagers wasn't good either.
But my biggest complain is that Christmas for the villagers is no more than a materialistic and superfluous festivity. Thus, the sin of the Grinch is not contempt for Christmas as a religious feast, but only the theft of Christmas decorations. If I were the Grinch, even if I wasn't guilty of hating the villagers, I would love to destroy their miserable caricature of Christmas.
Cruella:
Cruella breaks the record for "good villain" movies. Cruella never becomes a better person, never cleans the city from trash, never adopts three litle orphans, never saves the princess from curses and never gives Christmas back. She doesn't even become nicer.
In Cruella, we are told about a girl named Stella, a black-and-white haired girl who was misunderstood because she was weird. Her mommy died thrown from a cliff by three dalmatians, after which she dyed her hair orange and was taken care off by two male robbers.
She wished to be a fashion designer, so she started her career working for a fashion company. However, the young woman learns fastly that the environment is rough, mean and if she keeps her weak attitude she will not thrive. So instead she develops the "Cruella"persona: a woman who is ruthless, ambitious, mean, and authoritarian, as she constantly competes with the owner of the fashion designer: another very bad woman.
After endless scenes of bullying between the two rivals, Cruella discovers that the owner is her real mother, who abandoned her (sñigg buaaahh poor villain scene) and so she plans her big revenge. At the end, she is just like the woman she disliked so much.
Just that instead of killing the woman who took care of a child she herself abandoned, she robbed 101 dalmatians and menaced to turn them into expensive fashion suits.
Some people have compared this movie to "The Joker", since it tells the alleged background story of a fictional villain. While I don't endorse the Joker, I may say on it's defense that The Joker is a much more serious movie for adults in which the main character suffers from serious mental health issues, not a PG-13 movie that probably will be seen by younger children, about a cartoon character that appeared on a movie with talking animals. Evil is a very serious topic,
Cruella surrounded by the anarchist symbol. For me it's just like people who disguise as the "V for Vendetta" character for fashion, however, I find two interpretations:
1: Cruella is an anarchist. Stella was born good but was made evil by society. Stella must now rebel against society. Anarchists are proud of their "bad guy" image, meaning, people who are willing to do unacceptable stuff for the sake of being offensive, breaking rules and destroying civilization. The producers mixed her for some reason with the 1970's punk fashions, which is kind of contradictory since she never rebels against society.
2: Cruella is some sort of anarchocapitalist. She thinks that her greed is good because it brings progress to society, and even though she is mean, she produces things that will be purchased and enjoyed. I don't think Disney has this view on economy. But Cruella is greedy and she likes it that way.
The Good Monster Trope
Monsters like the ones pictured above are usually associated with children.
Other people have noticed the "good monster" trope in movies.
Monsters are always meant to be evil and not merely because they look bizarre or ugly: it's because they are agressive, dangerous, they eat people, they are destructive and in ocassions they are diabolical.
The "good monster" trope it's ussualy an acceptance movie: The monster is misunderstood, since he is actually very nice and has a huge heart.
I agree that some people (eg; those who have deformations or say, cerebral palsy) are avoided because they are ugly, but they don't have to be evil because their exterior is repulsive. In fact, beyond the awkward and sometimes creepy face of handicapped children, you can easily find amazing souls with great talents and virtues. The acceptance message is fine in this situations.
But the "good monster" trope is not about handicapped children. It is about vampires, who suck your blood and tend to have deals with the devil. It is about witches, who curse people and engage in atrocious occultist activities. It is about Frankenstein, a monster made of various corpses by the pride of a crazy scientist. It is about pirates, who in the past used to rob, torture, kill, (and I suspect rape) poor sailors. It is about dragons, who ussualy represent the devil. It is about zombies, who, while not malicious, will come, bite you and eat your brains with their ugly rotten theeth.
On the other hand, "monsters"like Elmo are supposed to be monstruous, but the truth is that they look like cute, hairy humanoids. I don't see why they would be called monsters, being that they are so fluffy and harmless. Sesame Street calls all its characters monsters, yet none of them actually is monstruous. That's stupid. Monsters are supposed to be realted to the demonic, yet, Elmo doesn't look like Beelzebub. That's confusing for children's minds.
Some movies and books with the good monster trope:
Monsters Inc
Hotel Transilvania
Shrek
Uglydolls
Family Adams (the CGI version)
The Tickle Monster Book
Where the Wild Things Are, by Maurice Sendak
Love Monster, by Rachel Bright
Other productions are based around the children petting the monster and training him to do his bidding. Some argue that this could be used as a metaphor for controlling your own inner passions; while others say that it is not very different from the occultist who control devils and make them do their bidding. While I am not saying that your children are neccesarily going to become occulstist if they watch this shows, it may be a valid point to consider. Specially when they look like Slifer the Sky Dragon, from Yu-Ghi-Oh!.
Wanna pet that?
However, since most franchises on this catergory are complex tv shows, this may require a separate post. A small list of play-with-your-monster franchises is present here:
Digimon
Pokemon
Yu-Ghi-Oh!
Bakugan
Skylanders
Friendly dragons are increasingly common in books for children. They are directly associated with satan since 1) Dragons represent satan in both Scripture and Tradition and 2) Dragons are commonly worshipped in pagan religions. (eg; Quetzalcoatl)
Some examples would be:
The epic fantasy novels Eragon
How to Train Your Dragon (books and films)
The Pacifist & Diverse Wings of Fire Franchise
Dragon Heart (this movie wouldn't even pass for blasphemy)
Some people may argue that the "good-monster" trope may help children to cope with their night time fears. (that is, if they dont watch horror films) Maybe. But maybe, there is a better way to teach them not to fear darkness. The good-monster trope is a symptom of a society who thinks that difference is necesarily equal to good. Monsters no longer represent evil for us, or at least that is what we think.
Things get stronger if we look at horror films. While Freddy Krueger, Jason, Chucky and others are genuinely evil, they seem to attract people and inspire fandoms. It starts with gentle jelly monsters, and then it moves into a fascination with fake serial killers.
Conclusion
What can we say about our fascination with evildoers? Perhaps some of their "qualities" and powers are a temptation to us. Some people say that we would benefit from admiration of evil doers since they are fully themselves - unlike us. So what? The fact that we are tempted to be like them is the reason we should never try to emulate, obsess over, and dialogue with them and their ways.
If you want to write the story about a villain who learns to improve himself, the best thing would be to chose one who doesn't have a strong allegiance with evildoing - like Megamind - and focus more on his current well-behaving than in the past.
I let Pope Pius XII have the final say:
Movies in Relation to Religion
The first: in the plot-films, is it permitted to take religious topics as subject-matter of plot-films? The answer is that there seems no reason why such topics should be, in general and on principle, excluded; the more so, since experience, tested in this type, has already given some good results in films whose content is strictly religious.
But further, when the theme is not expressly such, the ideal plot-film should not pass over the religious element. Indeed, it has been noted that even films morally above reproach can yet be spiritually harmful if they offer the spectator a world in which no sign is given of God or of men who believe in and worship Him, a world in which people live as though God did not exist. A brief moment in a film can sometimes be sufficient, a word on God, a thought directed towards Him, a sigh of confidence in Him, an appeal for divine help. The great majority of people believe in God, and in their lives religious feeling plays a considerable part. Nothing, then, is more natural and more suitable than for due account to be taken of this in films.
Films Representation of Evil
The second question about the content of the ideal film of action concerns the representation of evil: is it lawful to choose, and with what precautions must one treat, evil and scandal, which without doubt have such an important part in the lives of men? Surely human life would not be understood, at least in its great and momentous conflicts, if our eyes were closed to the faults which often cause these conflicts. Pride, unbounded ambition, lust for power, covetousness, infidelity, injustice, depravity -- such, unhappily, are the marks of the characters and actions of many, and history is bitterly interwoven with them. But it is one thing to know evil, and to seek from philosophy and religion its explanation and cure; quite another to make it an object of spectacle and amusement. Yet for many there is an irresistible fascination in giving artistic shape to wrongdoing, in describing its power and its growth, its open and hidden paths, and the conflicts it generates or by means of which it advances. One might say that for a basis of story and picture many know not where to look for artistic inspiration and dramatic interest except in the realm of evil, even if only as background for good, as shadow from which light may reflect more clearly. To this psychological attitude of many artists corresponds an analogous one in the spectators, about which We have spoken previously.
Now then, can the ideal film take such matter for its theme? The greatest poets and writers of all times and of all peoples have grappled with this hard and thorny theme, and will continue to do so in the future.
To such a question a negative answer is natural, whenever perversity and evil are presented for their own sakes; if the wrongdoing represented is at least in fact, approved; if it is described in stimulating, insidious or corrupting ways; if it is shown to those who are not capable of controlling and resisting it.
But when none of these causes for exclusion are present; when the struggle with evil, and even its temporary victory, serves, in relation to the whole, to a deeper understanding of life and its proper ordering, of self-control, of enlightenment and strengthening of judgement and action; then such matter can be chosen and inserted, as a part of the whole action of the film. The same criterion applies here that must rule any like artistic medium: novel, drama, tragedy, every literary work.
Even the Sacred Books of the Old and New Testaments, faithful mirrors of real life, contain in their pages stories of evil, of its action and influence in the lives of individuals, as well as in families, and peoples...
Therefore the ideal film should flee from any form of apology, much less of glorification, of evil, and should show its condemnation through the entire course of the film and not merely at the end; frequently it would come too late, i.e. after the spectator is already beguiled and entrapped by evil promptings.
You can read the whole writing in here.
