I'm a Harry Potter fan, and that puts me into a huge company of people from across the world. I think it's good to start out a blog entry with a basic fact like this, you know, since I don't always take a proper amount of time to introduce myself and all of my interests. Anyway, I am a Potter fan, and like so many others, I watched the series come to an end this summer, and yes, I will admit, I felt a part of my childhood end too.
It's funny because throughout my childhood I've had a thing for villains. I wasn't Obi Wan Kenobi for Halloween...I was Darth Vader, and later Darth Maul...and later still Jango Fett. To this day, I fully understand the "Draco in Leather Pants" trope that appears in entertainment today. Villains tend to be very interesting people, you know, so it makes sense to admire them, especially since I've never really seen it be the case where the good guys are in power and they're fighting off a lesser villain destined to destroy them (note to self: write that.).
Interestingly enough, I never felt this with Lord Voldemort. I thought that being an unhibited Dark Wizard would be cool, but I never really had an interest in being a Death Eater or something like that. Upon further inspection though, Voldemort makes a great villain to analyze. He has good points and he has bad points about him. He's not the most successful villain ever, but he's certainly got some good things going for him.
Let's start with the good things. I really like that he's not some sort of ancient Eldritch Abomination that has been released from his can. He's not an ancient evil or something that existed and nearly destroyed the world a thousand years ago. Granted, the only real difference is that he was transplanted from a few thousand years ago to a few decades ago, he's still recent enough to have people remember him from the first time, which is kind of cool. On top of that, we get to see how he was created...and that's one of his most interesting feature.
I have to admit, I'm kind of smitten with Voldemort's backstory. I'd better be, considering that's pretty much what Book 6 was. It pays off though, since it takes a bit more of the "nature" side of the argument rather than the "nuture," in that it was Voldemort's creation that made him what he was rather than having him develop some Freudian Excuse as to why he wants to kill everything. It was expertly done though, subverting a lot of different things about the creation of villains. His mother was the crazy one and did the raping, for one, and the irony that goes along with her wanting the thing that her son ended up hating to death is great. I mean really, she names the kid completely after his aloof father, who poofed out of existence before Voldemort was born, and then she poofs out of existence too, only leaving behind the hope that young Tom would be just like his father. And instead he ends up like her father, who she hated, and who hated pretty much everyone. That was really, really good.
It's a shame, then, that he represses his backstory in later years, aside from making his horcruxes based on them. Which brings me to Horcruxes. It's really surprising that Rowling doesn't play video games, because Horcruxes are perfect plot coupons...just like the Medallions from Ocarina of Time or the pieces of Triforce from...a lot of other Zelda games. It's pretty impressive that not too many other parallels between horcruxes and adventure games came up, in all honesty. The soul-splitting bit was really good too, as it explained a large part about his appearance and composition when we see him in the present time. (And the bits of soul serve as great bosses...) It's cool that our protagonist was facing a villain that had actually obtained immortality.
That then brings me back to the fact that Voldemort was created, not released. Much of his power he acquired for himself, and not through some ancient excuse hole. Granted, Rowling cheated him a bit when she gave him the time honored moniquer of "quite possibly the best student we've ever had." Indeed, they said the same thing about Anakin Skywalker, whose teenage years were much like Voldemort's: they were great at using their new abilities, but they had suspicious judgment. With that in mind, we know how most people felt about Anakin Skywalker...even though I'm sure he'd have been much well received if you removed the names "Hayden Christensen" and "George Lucas" from that particualr neural network. Still, the degree to which Voldemort was explained was a great literary move, and most of the villain's fun came from learning his backstory.
But Voldemort becomes a bit more dull in the present. I understand, spending the better part of two decades as a giant aborted fetus could make you go impossibly loopy, but in the Land of Villains, that usually is a good thing. When he's revived in Book Four, he stops subverting tropes (or rather, he doesn't really subvert tropes, and then subverts them retroactively later). He becomes something like Darth Vader: there as a big bad villain for the whole story until the end where he duels the hero in a nice battle scene. The difference is that Darth Vader didn't wear a black shower curtain. Yes, I understand it's the movie that made him a little less imposing, but...the movie made him a little less imposing.
One big place where Voldemort fails at being the daddy of all evil is that he's not really the daddy of all evil. He's a little disturbing maybe, but he lacks something in his presentation...and yes, it's more than a nose. I can't really suggest what might have made Voldemort look a little more evil other than a pair of shoes, because the barefoot thing is pretty narmy, even if it works as an inadvertant Cruciatus toward anyone at his feet (I was pretty sad to remember that the already dead Cedric was the prime example of his use of feet.) Other than his deformed appearance and cloak of pure darkness, Voldemort is just a skinny bald man...I'm not even sure he's all that tall and for all his snakelike qualities, he didn't have fangs.
I was originally going to slam Voldemort for not even having good followers, but in some ways, that's a good part of his character. Although the ways in which he makes people fear him are pretty cliche'd, it does illustrate how much of a heartless bastard he is. Still, he is not the master of evil, and not even the master of darkness, as he lacks the ability to not only attract those with a proclivity toward darkness, but unlock the darkness within other people as well. Voldemort has been described as the type to want to throw out mooks to do his dirty work...yet he does not manage to make mooks in his image. You would think that someone like Voldemort would be incredibly proud of the power he possesses and...show off a little more, especially while Harry Potter is still alive.
It's on that note that Lord Voldemort suffers the most. He is supposed to be the Dark Lord. He's supposed to be the most dangerous wizard of all time. He kills people all the time...but when it comes to Harry Potter, he's incredibly incredibly impractical. He likes to have people do his dirty work for him, yet he never thinks it's a good idea just to have someone else slit Harry's throat...even after he fails to kill him several times. In the face of Potter, Voldemort just looks stupid. He (and honestly a good portion of the characters) suffers from a great lack of cunning. Yes, he's devoid of warmth and anything relating to it, but he's also the most brilliant mind ever to come through Hogwarts, and he has no inhibitions. In the end he's killed by a terrible case of "Did Not Do the Research." Which doesn't set the bar very high for the intelligence of the wizarding world. You can still be a cocky psychopath without being a moron. It does happen.
Unfortunately for Voldemort, he does not seem to have too much in the way of brute force either. He largely owes this to his overuse of the "Avada Kedavra" spell, which he only doesn't use against Dumbledore (in the books anyway, as in the movie he does a bit more, which I think was brilliant). Voldemort never brought down any buildings or proved his power in any big way (his shattering of the barrier in DH2 was the best example of this, as the MoM in OoTP just needed a few windows replaced). He did not prove that, at any given time, he could do some serious damage to the wizarding world, with or without his followers. He took over the ministry primarily through stealth, which was clever of him, but he did not seem to get very far with this. He took his time getting rid of muggle borns within the ministry, instead of causing a muggle instant holocaust somewhere in the world. No, instead of a great wizard, Voldemort came across as a spammer. I'd really really hate to play a match of Brawl or Halo with this guy.
In the end, Voldemort really was merciful. He did not possess the genre savviness to stop giving his enemies time to recuperate and embolden the only person who could kill him. Right, let's focus on that once more: there was only one person in the entire world who could kill him. You don't wait for a duel or something special, Voldemort. Life does not work that way. Make Hogwarts explode and be done with it. If he was so great a wizard...that is, the darkest of ALL TIME (sorry, Grindelwald, I'm happy for you and Imma let you finish) he'd have known how to take down Hogwarts and at least a few main characters in the process.
Was Voldemort a worthy evil to serve as the main antagonist of the worldwide phenomenon known as Harry Potter? Is he really the next Darth Vader? I don't think so. He's an iconic villain for sure, but his ineptitude lacks reason. He's not all that imposing in a big, villainous way...and he honestly did not get that much screen/page time. I feel like overall, his past self got more face time than the Big Bad version. The old Voldemort was much more developed an interesting. The modern Voldemort was just your average villain with a few neat twists. This is just as well, I believe, as Harry Potter is a series that truly rests on the strengths of its heroes. We see them a lot more, we know them a lot better, and they tend to be at least consistent. All of that means we feel a lot more for them.
So what do other great villains have that Voldemort doesn't? (Besides a nose). Darth Vader had a change of heart to undergo, a very powerful voice and presence, and a unique look. The Emperor was a complete and total asshole who was winning his final fight until his apprentice of 20+ years got angry at him. In a way the Emperor was a flawless villain in that the only thing that could kill him was another villain. His death was pretty awesome too. Look at something like Lord of the Rings too. Sauron was the villain, and he didn't need much backstory...he was only a great villain because he was able to corner the heroes at every single turn (though I admit, the fact that LotR is one big, continuous adventure helps its pacing tremendously). The Joker of The Dark Knight is notorious for being one of the most cunning villains of our age. He HAD no weakness whatsoever. He was an exceptionally good villain because he just was. He didn't have motives...he didn't have a master plan or even one that was incredibly grandiose. In fact, The Joker built himself into a position to where there was nothing to lose on his end, ever...and in the end, he won. Dent died and Batman was forced to become the antithesis of what he really wanted to be.
I could go on and on about villainy...and someday I think I will...but I singled out Voldemort because he's in a series that is destined to become legend. Harry Potter is the closest this generation has to its own Star Wars, and that means that Voldemort is the closest thing it has to its own Darth Vader. I personally do not feel that Voldemort redefines the villain for a new age as the story he's in does for modern epics. He just never gets his moment to shock everyone and shine. Snape stole that moment, and a whole host of other things, from him. Similarly, it's not Voldemort but Snape who will go down in history as the iconic character form this series aside from its hero.
Expect more on Harry Potter in the future. Im interested in reviewing DH2 when I see it again on blu ray. I'm also interested in comparing DH2 to Kingdom Hearts 3 and looking into what that means for gaming. And look for more character reviews like this one, because analyzing the effectiveness of someone else's character might allow me to improve my own.
No comments:
Post a Comment