AIBU to wish that movies would stop giving villains disfigurements or scars?

[SpotandDot]

For full disclosure I haven't yet seen the new Bond Movie but yet again we have a villain with facial disfigurement/scarring. Why do so many movies have to use this as a sign of evil? It just enhances the stereotypes of people with disfigurements as evil or people to be feared. It's becoming terribly tedious.

AIBU?

YANBU
Really upsets me that they still do this.

This is something I love about the Harry Potter books/films. Often the baddies are very good looking, perfect even, but evil on the inside. Then the goodies are not perfect, rough around the edges, scarred, have missing limbs/body parts, but amazing people. I do love J K Rowling.

I honestly thought they'd stopped doing this stuff, and you were more likely to get good-looking smooth-talking heroic types who turn out (gasp!) to be villains. But maybe it depends what sort of stuff you watch my taste is crap

I agree. I have the classic baddie scar of a line running down my face. I’m an English teacher and sometimes I’m reading creative writing books for kids which tell the children to give evil characters exactly that scar. It makes me feel embarrassed and sad. My scar is the result of something horrible and it is a daily reminder of my ongoing trauma.

I completely agree with you OP.
It's not only lazy, it's a very unpleasant notion that "evilness" is visually apparent on someone's face, and therefore the externally imperfect must be awful inside.
Just as all "heroines" must be petite and beautiful.
All kinds of wrong.

@theDudesmummy

YANBU. One of the many lovely things about the film Moonlight is that the romantic lead (played by Nicholas Cage) is missing a hand. But too often any form of disfigurement is put there to symbolise something negative.

That AND... the problem is not the villain having a disfigurement. The problem is lack of imperfections among the heros & protagonists & romantic leads, etc. I'm very bored by perfectly pretty people in films. Not interesting, not relatable.

I thought in the books the witches do have physical differences (bald heads, no toes that mean shoes don’t fit well, something with their hands that mean they need to wear gloves). I haven’t seen the recent film and I’m not defending the trope of using those differences associated with evil, but at least some of that is in the book.

In the book it's because the witches have "thin curvy claws" instead of fingernails, not limb differences. That isn't in the book and that's the issue.

This is something I love about the Harry Potter books/films. Often the baddies are very good looking, perfect even, but evil on the inside. Then the goodies are not perfect, rough around the edges, scarred, have missing limbs/body parts, but amazing people. I do love J K Rowling.
However if you ask people to name someone with a missing hand in literature/films there is a very high chance that their second name will be Peter Pettigrew (first being Captain Hook).
In some ways he's worse than Captain Hook because he's portrayed as a character with no redeeming characteristics, and has deliberately maimed himself to further evil.
Captain Hook is more of a pantomime villain.

I agree, it's a very, very old idea (centuries) that the a person's inner goodness or badness shapes their outer form. Similar to the doctrine of signatures I guess - that the outer form or appearance of a thing shows god's intention for it's use / it's true essence. With birthmarks and deformity it would have been seen as the mark of the devil, or that the mother had sex with a demon or something.

It's incredibly lazy writing to continue to rely on it as a visual metaphor for anything at all (be it trauma, exclusion, or just plain baddie-ness) now.

I agree with the pp who talked about the reversal of this in Harry Potter. The Malfoy family are stunningly beautiful, for example, as is/was Bellatrix. Tom Riddle (before he became Voldemort) was an incredibly handsome young man. But at the same time, it's not a simple flip / reverse - Fleur Delacor is an absolute stunner (magically so, being part-Veela) but is good. And Harry, Ron and Hermione are all pretty much average looking in the books.

Weren't most of the bond baddies with disfigurements caused by bond, mi5 or their own foul acts?
Blofeld- bond
Sean bean- bond
Spanish guy- mi5

Korean guy- bond

I saw something about the new Bond film yesterday, for the first time. And I had exactly the same reaction.

The producer was taking about how Bond has developed into a more sensitive and nuanced character, as if the genre had moved on. Yet we have this dated insensitive caricature of a villain.

YANBU.

But Pettigrew didn't maim himself out of choice. He was forced to cut off his hand as part of the spell to resurrect Voldemort. And he does have a tiny moment of redemption at the end of his life (in the book) he hesitates from trying to stop Harry et al from escaping Malfoy manor and as a result of that betrayal of Voldemort his silver hand strangles him to death. I'd argue that whole aspect of his character is more about showing the depths of Voldemort's evil rather than Pettigrew's character. It's the damage Voldemort does to those around him, even his supporters.

But I might just care waaaay too much about Harry Potter!

Unbelievable that the new bond film has done this!
YANBU

@SirSamuelVimes

But Pettigrew didn't maim himself out of choice. He was forced to cut off his hand as part of the spell to resurrect Voldemort. And he does have a tiny moment of redemption at the end of his life (in the book) he hesitates from trying to stop Harry et al from escaping Malfoy manor and as a result of that betrayal of Voldemort his silver hand strangles him to death. I'd argue that whole aspect of his character is more about showing the depths of Voldemort's evil rather than Pettigrew's character. It's the damage Voldemort does to those around him, even his supporters.

But I might just care waaaay too much about Harry Potter!

It's says in the books that Voldemort's spell requires the flesh of a servant, willingly given. That sounds exactly like he maimed himself out of choice.

Barring the hesitation (and it was only that, hesitation, you can't say he would have let them escape if his hand hadn't done that) can you think of anything good about his character?

“Barring the hesitation (and it was only that, hesitation, you can't say he would have let them escape if his hand hadn't done that) can you think of anything good about his character?”

He’s a very unpleasant character. But there are plenty of pleasant characters who have disfigurements in Harry Potter, and plenty of beautiful evil characters.

Willingly given, yes, but I'd still argue coercion. Good qualities? Well, he was a Gryffindor, so he must have been brave, daring etc. Obviously he was pretty clever as well, he outsmarted dumbledore and the ministry for 12 years after the fall of Voldemort/ death of Lilly and James. But yeah, he's obviously mostly a complete dick!

But - Mad Eye Moody. Also missing a limb (leg) and an eye, and has masses of scarring on his face. And he's a massive hero, a warrior, totally good, fights and dies to protect Harry.

I have a very noticeable facial scar. I loathe the fact that films like the Bond series still make the villains have facial deformities and the heroes are perfect

@BlusteryLake

I find that film makers use all sorts of irritating shorthand baddies. In American films, English people nearly always being bad guys is another one.

Or if its a bloke they have a moustache.

Gosh yes, I hate being relegated to a prop, baddie or sympathy side kick.

It’s a sign that once you have a disability or a disfigurement you are defined entirely by your disability/disfigurement.

And that is the sum total of who you are

…. Unless you are a crazy psychopath baddie or demon possessed witch of course

Just saw the advert and thought that exact thing. So bloody lazy and offensive.

@SpotandDot

For full disclosure I haven't yet seen the new Bond Movie but yet again we have a villain with facial disfigurement/scarring. Why do so many movies have to use this as a sign of evil? It just enhances the stereotypes of people with disfigurements as evil or people to be feared. It's becoming terribly tedious.

AIBU?

Yes yabu. I always took scars suggested they've been involved in violence in their past through fighting.

@Shelddd

You sound like a lot of fun

Yeah that's helpful. What's ' fun' about equating disfigurement with evil? Go on, I'm waiting for your no doubt fascinating cultural insights.

Yes yabu. I always took scars suggested they've been involved in violence in their past through fighting

Then why does James Bond (and "heroes" generally) retain a *handsome and unblemished face, despite all the super violent, near-death scrapes he's been involved in? Where are his scars?

*I don't find Daniel Craig to be remotely good looking, but I think he and all other Bonds are supposed to be regarded as handsome.

Obviously Pettigrew isn't the nicest of chaps, but his missing limb is something that happens as part of the story, rather than it being a (lazy) defining feature of the character from the start symbolising his evilness. I really think the HP books are the best example of how it is a completely unnecessary tactic.