Redeeming Villains in Stories - Right or Wrong?

[Fragglemuppet]

I agree with the point that some people made, and would ilaberate on it further by saying it may not be as important whether a character is redemed, but why. If all stories were a case of, this character magically turns from perfectly evil to perfectly good, then I might agree that it's harmful. That's only a maybe. At the very least, it would be absurd and boring. If it's going to work, it doesn't necessarily need to happen over a large period of time, (while some passage of time is usually helpful, a snap decission to help followed by some later reflection can work too). The villain however better have a darn good reason for deciding to become good. Also the reason I said they shouldn't change from one extreme to the other is because it's more realistic, (and yes, for the most part, realism at least in universe is my thing), to have them not be perfect at first. Some of them, kinda like in real life, had bad home environments, and never really learned how to be good, while some may believe or have been taught that only weak or stupid people are good. Therefore, when they're trying to reform, they may make some blunders and even backslide a bit at first. Some of them, and this device has it's merrets too, might try being good and just decide being bad is easier, or more fulfilling for them. But all of that aside, I have always had a soft spot for redemed villains, or those that tread the line between good and evil, leaving people guessing. And I agree that you would have to be pretty disconnected from reality not to be able to tell the difference between fiction and real life. Unless you're an extremely young child, in which case it's the job of a parent or some other authority to explain to you the parts of the fiction that may get you in trouble, while attempting to still keep the magic intact, of course.

 

[CensoredAlso]

But all of that aside, I have always had a soft spot for redemed villains, or those that tread the line between good and evil, leaving people guessing.

I mean when it comes down to it, villains are often ten times more interesting than the good guys. To a certain extent, the good guy has to be serious and responsible and it can get boring. And makes them feel inhuman and unrelatable The villain often has more freedom to be humorous or charismatic and even if we can't quite relate to them, we wish we could.

Great example with Ferris Bueller's Day Off - if not for all the language, it would be a great movie. I don't care for some of those aspects of it- but otherwise I love the movie. "Ferris Bueller, you're my hero."

Thanks, yeah I love Ferris Bueller's Day Off as well; it's one of those perfectly executed films, as far as script, characters, climax, etc.

Oh and here's that essay I mentioned:

Ferris Bueller: Psychopath
http://www.ruthlessreviews.com/5911/ferris-bueller-and-ed-rooney-misunderstood/

"Here’s a slam dunk. Bueller charms everyone, save his sister and Rooney, who can see through him. Though charming, his interactions with others are almost exclusively glib and superficial. What he understands about the people in his life, he uses only to manipulate them."

Again, I feel like this reviewer is judging the character only by the beginning and middle of the film, without taking the ending into regard where it turns out there was a purpose to it all.

I mean Ferris Bueller's a little different from the characters we've been discussing. He's not a reedemed villain; more like a hero who has what we would consider villainous traits (lying, stealing, ditching school, etc.). But we excuse his deviant behavior, in part because of his charm, but also because the adults in his world are so foolish or hypocritical (only a slight exagerration of the real world, heh).

 

[minor muppetz]

I never saw Ferris as a villian type. He is the star of the movie, the one we're supposed to care about. Though I would have wanted his sister to get him in trouble (I don't, however, think I'd have wanted Mr. Rooney to win). Sure, he does a bad thing, skipping school and making others think he's really ill... But as far as deliberately doing bad things go, I think him taking somebody else's restaurant reservation would be the worst he did.

Going slightly off-topic, I've often wondered why Jeannie saves Ferris from getting in trouble at the end. She had a big problem with Ferris always getting away with things, had left school to expose him, drove home way past the speed limit just so they could get home before Ferris did so the parents could see that Ferris was skipping school, getting a speeding ticket in the process... But then when Ferris does get caught by Mr. Rooney, she suddenly has a change of heart and tells Mr. Rooney that Ferris walked home from the hospital.

And then she tells Mr. Rooney he dropped his wallet, throwing it out. And Mr. Rooney gives a shocked look on his face... What was up with his shock? And why didn't Jeanie just show it to her parents (or the police) as evidence that somebody had broken into the house? Did John Hughes just want to have audiences wonder these things?

I recall long ago finding a copy of the script reprinted on a website. In that copy of the script, after that scene Ferris and Jeanie had some kind of conversation, though I don't recall the conversation giving any kind of explanation to why Jeannie helped him.

 

[CensoredAlso]

I never saw Ferris as a villian type. He is the star of the movie, the one we're supposed to care about....(I don't, however, think I'd have wanted Mr. Rooney to win).

Right, well that's what bothers some people, that Ferris Bueller glorifies naughty behavior without showing kids the consequences. But again, I think the idea of the story is that the whole time Ferris was trying to force Cameron to stand up for himself. They were all about to graduate and if Cameron didn't learn to be a man now, he never would. And yeah, Rooney is a pathetic idiot, not the hero.

Going slightly off-topic, I've often wondered why Jeannie saves Ferris from getting in trouble at the end.

Well according to John Hughes' commentary, it was a sort of sibling solidary thing. Like she can insult her brother, but she won't allow anyone else to.

Plus I always thought she already felt pretty satisifed by the end. She got complimented by the guy at the jail (won't mention the actor's name, heh) and did managed to put the fear of God in Ferris so to speak by silently threatening to beat him home, lol.

And then also she wasn't going to let Rooney win; he'd broken into her house and scared her to death, lol.

I recall long ago finding a copy of the script reprinted on a website. In that copy of the script, after that scene Ferris and Jeanie had some kind of conversation

Oh was this is?
http://www.idiotsavant.com/bueller/script.htm

Ferris: Thanks, Jeanie.

Jeanie: No problem.

Ferris: By the way, I borrowed some cash from you. I'll pay you back.

Jeanie: You don't have to.

Ferris: I want to.

Jeanie: You don't have to. I've been ripping off your wallet for years.

::Ferris gives her a proud smile.::

Jeanie: I'm sorry I've been riding your buns for so long.

Ferris: It's completely cool.

Hmm, well this scene was a nice idea; the final film doesn't have too many moments of Ferris and Jeanie actually being siblings. But I can kinda see why this scene didn't make the final cut. It reads a little like an episode of Growing Pains rather than a John Hughes film, lol. Plus Ferris had already offered to help Cameron, only to be turned down. Which makes this scene with Jeanie kind of redundant.

 

[minor muppetz]

Right, well that's what bothers some people, that Ferris Bueller glorifies naughty behavior without showing kids the consequences.

There's a lot of fictional characters who glorif naughty behavior who aren't portrayed/viewed as bad guys, like Bart Simpson and maybe Stewie Griffin.

Well according to John Hughes' commentary, it was a sort of sibling solidary thing. Like she can insult her brother, but she won't allow anyone else to.

I hate it when people defend their brothers or sisters, especially if I'm making fun of them. I feel like those who insult their siblings should encourage and be happy with others making fun of their siblings. I enjoy it when others make fun of my brother.

Oh was this is?
http://www.idiotsavant.com/bueller/script.htm

Ferris: Thanks, Jeanie.

Jeanie: No problem.

Ferris: By the way, I borrowed some cash from you. I'll pay you back.

Jeanie: You don't have to.

Ferris: I want to.

Jeanie: You don't have to. I've been ripping off your wallet for years.

::Ferris gives her a proud smile.::

Jeanie: I'm sorry I've been riding your buns for so long.

Ferris: It's completely cool.

I think that was it. I don't have much time to read through it. Though when looking at the Wikipedia page, I saw that they pretty much shot the movie from the original draft, and most changes were left on the cutting room floor. I'll read it later, but I feel like the script did have scenes different than in the film, not just by being removed.

 

[GonzoLeaper]

Interesting to read that deleted scene between Ferris and Jeannie- and yeah, it does kinda sound like an episode of "Growing Pains"- lol. (which is fitting since Mike and Carol definitely fit the model of Ferris and Jeannie- but the TV show started in 1985- I wonder if John Hughes got some slight inspiration from it?)
I like the scene though- I could hear the characters saying the lines- it could've worked.
But the movie is okay without it- I think the main thing was that Jeannie was getting revenge on Mr. Rooney and that her conversation with Charlie Sheen's character helped her loosen up and so now she was able to reconcile some with Ferris.
Regarding sibling rivalry and such- I prefer not to let anyone make fun of my siblings and try not to make fun of them myself either.

 

[CensoredAlso]

Interesting to read that deleted scene between Ferris and Jeannie- and yeah, it does kinda sound like an episode of "Growing Pains"- lol. (which is fitting since Mike and Carol definitely fit the model of Ferris and Jeannie- but the TV show started in 1985- I wonder if John Hughes got some slight inspiration from it?)

Well I think that kind of character was just very big in the '80s overall, the middle to upper class suburban teenage boy, whose preppy appearance belies his rebellious nature, hehe.