Comparison of the Villains from the Hunger Games, Thor, Star Wars and Harry Potter

April 13, 2021 by Essay Writer

There is most likely a villain in every movie you watch. Some movie villains are more memorable than others. A villain can be described as an evil person or character that is the main enemy of the hero. A villain strives to do the opposite of what the hero is doing. For example, in Harry Potter, Voldemort strives to take down Harry while Harry strives to take down Voldemort. President Snow from The Hunger Games trilogy, Loki from Thor and The Avengers, Darth Vader from Star Wars, and Lord Voldemort from the Harry Potter series are just a few examples of good movie villains. These movie villains are what make the movie plotline, thicken. Without them, their would probably be no conflict. My favorite movie villain is Loki from Thor and The Avengers. Loki provides a great story line and is very good at being a villain. [Thesis] The best movie villains are Loki from Thor and The Avengers, President Snow from The Hunger Games trilogy, and Lord Voldemort from the Harry Potter series.

While Darth Vader is probably the most famous movie villain, President Snow from The Hunger Games trilogy is a some-what, new movie villain. He acquires a victor each year in the annual hunger games, but when Katniss and Peeta defy that rule and get 2 victors, Snow tries to eliminate them. He tries his best at doing this which makes him a good villain. Although he doesn’t succeed, he still makes the plotline of the movie better. Without President Snow being in the movie, it would have been less conflictual. What makes President Snow a good villain is that he is very powerful and people have to do what he tells them to or else they get eliminated. Having power is a quality a villain needs in order to succeed in what they are trying to accomplish. Snow tries to eliminate Katniss and Peeta in the 75th annual Hunger Games but he fails. Katniss figured out how to break the Dome and she was rescued. However, Peeta gets captured by the President and gets brainwashed. President Snow has done something terrible that his enemy will eventually kill him for. I think Donald Sutherland played the character very well. I can not imagine a different President Snow.

On the other hand, Loki from Thor and The Avengers makes a great movie villain. Tom Hiddleston plays the part of Loki quite well. Loki has perseverance in trying to take over as King of Asgard and he stops at nothing to do it. His clever ways of transforming into another person and making things look different, is amazing. This is why he is my favorite movie villain. In my opinion, he is the best movie villain. He has failed at taking over as King of Asgard in Thor but in Thor: The Dark World he is seen sitting on the throne of Asgard in his Father’s place. That is how the movie ends. We don’t know if he has killed his Father, the King, but it seems like it. Loki is smart and knows how to trick people and Thor falls for his trick when he sees Loki dying after trying to defeat the elves. He acts like he cares about Thor but actually he is just trying to get closer to the throne to be king. His illusions are powerful and believable. Also, Loki has continuity as the villain throughout three movies which means he is dedicated at being a villain. He knows what he wants and what he needs to do it. I have watched a lot of movies but Thor: The Dark World is one of my favorites.

Next, we have Lord Voldemort from the Harry Potter series. He is played by Ralph Fiennes. In my opinion, Fiennes plays the character of Lord Voldemort extremely well. In the movie, Lord Voldemort tries to take over the wizarding world. However, Harry Potter stands in his way of doing that. Voldemort gets an army together to attack Hogwarts in the movie. This is a trait that makes him a good villain. He knows what to do to potentially take over Hogwarts and the Ministry of Magic. Although he does fail eventually when Harry defeats him, Lord Voldemort is an exceptionally good villain. He knows what Harry’s weakness are and uses it to his advantage. Also, Voldemort is not human. He was made the way he is for evil and wrong doings. People and wizards that know who Voldemort is, are afraid of him. This is a quality that makes a good villain, too. If people are afraid of you, they probably won’t mess with you. Unless they have a lot of people fighting together to defeat the villain like Harry does. Voldemort is smart to put together an army of people the way he does. He knows how to work his way around the other wizards to get to Harry.

Finally, I am going to explain why these particular movie villains are my favorites. First, Loki from Thor: The Dark World is the number one movie villain on my best movie villains list. He is smart, conniving, mysterious, and his power of illusion is what makes him a great villain. Tom Hiddleston plays the part of Loki very well in the movie and that is also why he is my favorite movie villain. Next, President Snow from The Hunger Games trilogy is the second best villain on my best movie villain list. He has all of the qualities that make a good villain. He is evil, powerful, and knows what to do to get rid of someone or something. He is hated by everyone in the lower and middle class society because some have lost their friends and relatives in the games. He has a lot of people working for him which makes him powerful. Lastly, Lord Voldemort from the Harry Potter series is the third villain on my best movie villain list. Voldemort is sneaky, evil, and will do anything to get what he wants. He murders everyone who gets in his way and doesn’t care. He is not human which is usually a trait most villains have. Voldemort is wise with magic and has a lot of people on his side. However, the one person he fears is Professor Dumbledore. When Voldemort plans Dumbledore’s murder and he dies, he becomes more powerful because he isn’t afraid of anything anymore. All of these qualities make a good villain. This is why Loki, President Snow, and Lord Voldemort are the best three movie villains.

Read more


Leslie Jamison’s Morphology of the Hit: Empathizing with the Traditional Villain

April 13, 2021 by Essay Writer

How to Empathize with a Stranger

The main character within a story is almost always identified as a hero. When reading a book, a person is typically expected to empathize with this character above all others, the villain especially. In her essay “Morphology of the Hit”, Leslie Jamison plays with this common conception, placing herself in the role of hero as she retells her story of getting attacked while working in Nicaragua. In borrowing concepts from another essay and interlacing them into her own, Jamison attempts to evoke feelings of empathy not for herself but for the person who hit her. By carefully examining the framework of the hero’s story, the advantages and disadvantages of her background, and her experience with this attack, Jamison introduces the idea of empathizing with the traditional villain in spite of the negative image we tend to hold against them.

Jamison appropriates elements from Vladimir Propp’s essay “Morphology of the Folktale” to distinguish the fantasy of empathy from its reality by comparing Propp’s theories to her own memories. She states clearly at the end of the first function, “Propp maps imperfectly onto the story. I keep coming back to his functions anyway” (57). With this faulty structure in mind, it is clear that Propp’s functions are used ironically to oppose the idea that empathy is strictly reserved for the hero. Jamison uses these functions to label certain instances within her story, but sometimes they do not always fit. Rather than leaving them out of the essay, she chooses to dispute them. One example is under “Maybe VI”, where the villain is supposed to “deceive his victim”. Jamison, instead, insists that her attacker’s gestures are honest, a first attempt at empathizing with the stranger, which suggests that, like Jamison, he may not fit his dictated role (57). This is also where the reader starts to become aware of the issue of identity within the essay. In stories, for instance, the hero and villain are identified from the beginning, whereas in reality, there is no way to know who the good guy is or who the bad guy is. By using these functions but not having them necessarily complement the events within the essay, Jamison sets herself up to be questioned by the reader as to whether or not she is right for the role designated to her by this framework.

As the story’s principal character, Jamison writes the essay from her point of view, which would normally indicate that she is this “hero” character. As such, the reader directly learns much more about Jamison than her attacker and should be much more likely to empathize with her. However, the thoughts shared in this essay also lead the reader to look into the theoretical life of the attacker, at least as far as it concerns Nicaragua and the United States. Jamison mentions the history between the two countries, using the word “hero” to describe Hugo Chavez, the former president of Nicaragua (57). Imposing this title cannot be done without its opposition being named as well. In short, Jamison may be the protagonist in the typical American’s eyes, but to the Nicaraguans, based on their reverence for Chavez, she is the antagonist. Jamison recognizes this in the moments following her mention of him: “Maybe that didn’t make it right that I got punched in the face. But maybe I wasn’t entirely innocent, either” (57). Of course, she is not alluding to anything that she had actually done to offend anyone but to the fact that who she is, where she is from, whom she interacts with, and who witnesses these interactions ultimately affects how she will be defined by others. As she mentions the advantages of being able to go to America, of being able to leave her attacker behind, one cannot help but compare that freedom to the humble living situation of the local Nicaraguans and wonder if what happened to Jamison was really so unfortunate (60). She loses some money, her stuff, yes, and even mentions the loss of her face, but Jamison still has means of fixing these things (58). In this way, the reader gets an idea of the assailant’s opposing lifestyle, which is far more worthy of pity than of resentment.

The greatest reach Jamison makes toward trying to empathize with her unknown attacker, however, is her use of language. Jamison is very careful throughout her essay to make sure she does not express blame against him. When she introduces the subject of her essay, she says twice, “I got punched.” (57). Jamison uses a passive voice; unaggressive and non-threatening. Even though Propp’s functions indicate which roles the characters play, inherently polarizing them, the way in which the incident is described contradicts these labels. This contrast informs the reader that there is no villain here, that who we think are is arbitrary in determining which side we are on. In Jamison’s essay, there is only the person who was hit and the person who attacked, but as to who is “good” or “bad”, there are no conclusions. The reader sees more of this type of conflict as Jamison tries to explain her feelings of guilt, anger, fear, and obsession (60). There was a resolution that she had wanted to take place: a confrontation, not between hero and villain, but between two people. However, without knowing where to find the other person involved, there could be no settlement.

And so we return to the problem of empathy and identity. As individuals, we are always so inclined to create labels: good, bad, hero, villain. But what it all comes down to is perspective. In the end, all anyone can really know is himself. We can try to understand others but will always be drawn toward people that are like ourselves because we equate understanding with love, with empathy. It is easy to assume villainy of people we do not understand. Perhaps it is not done violently, or even out loud, but it is acted upon. And these labels made against each other only encourage the segregation of people who are just as deserving of care and attention as anyone else. What is most daunting in “Morphology of the Hit” is not that Jamison was punched. It is that she can never empathize with her assailant. He is not a villain any more than she is a hero because the world is not as black and white as people choose to make it. Instead of being the hero of one’s own story, Jamison encourages looking at others as if they are the heroes of other tales. If we embrace this frame of mind, there can be no villains, and we will find love and empathy in place of the inclination toward judgment and fear.

Read more


Johnny Bear’s Representation as a Protagonist, Criminal and Victim

December 9, 2020 by Essay Writer

Johnny Bear

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life thinking that it is stupid.” It takes someone with a talent to completely imitate other people including their voices. In this world there is no such thing as a villain, hero or victim. When we look at Johnny Bear’s situation from different perspectives, he is a hero, villain and a victim as well.

A villain is not always a bad person because sometimes it is the villain who becomes the hero. In nature I don’t think that anybody likes to kill just for fun, but for the sake of somebody they truly love they would do anything for that person. If we take the enemies we fight against in the battlefield as example, we know that to us they are enemies and villains. If we even dare to put ourselves in the shoes of at least one of the enemies whom we fight against, some of them kissed their children ‘goodbye’ telling them that they were going to go fight for their future freedom knowing that they would never see them again and that they would have to risk their lives in the battlefield for the sake for their children. The people whom we think are villains then turn out to be the ones who fought to save the generation of their children. Amy might look at Johnny Bear as a villain because he would ruin her reputation, but I doubt that the person she had sex with thinks the same way.

For Johnny Bear imitating conversations was a way for him to make money because the people would just sit there and drink whiskey while he imitates and engage in different conversations. He was helping spread the truth, and at that time the civil rights of the Asians were not respected; rather they were treated as immigrants. I think that every person is a human being whether he or she is Mongoloid, Negroid or Caucasoid. Everybody can be a hero, but not everybody is a hero. If a person is lying on a sidewalk, everybody is walking by, but when one person steps to help others then start to help. I would say that that person is the hero.

If we looked at Johnny Bear’s situation from his perspective, he benefited from sharing people’s conversation because the more he shares things which people don’t want to hear the more he is going to get customers. If he continues doing what he does, then people would just listen to him because their reputation might be ruined by what he said. In the story we see that he would get smacked in the head to stop him from talking because he does not care about what type of situation he would be in if he copied people’s conversations.

The people who are at the top with power live a luxurious life compared to the people at the bottom. Once a person experiences such life where he or she can get anything he or she wants, then that person would then want to be at that place and would do a lot of things to stay there. Johnny Bear was an idiot because he did not think to calculate the risks of giving out information which would ruin someone’s reputation. In conclusion, Johnny bear being a villain, victim or a hero depends on the perspective of the person involved but from my point of view I think that even though he can imitate people along with their conversation and voice, I don’t think he has empathy for other people and that has him in trouble.

Read more