who is the most evil evil guy

[molly bloom]

The Inquisitor in 'The Brothers Karamazov' as played by John Gielgud.


The paratroopers' commander in 'The Battle of Algiers'.


Henry & Ottis in 'Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer'.


The assorted worthies and gentry in Pasolini's 'Salo: or the 120 Days of Sodom'.

[beingofone]

"I am a man of simple means, all I want is Australia"
- Gene Hackman as Lex Luthor

[beingofone]

"I am a man of simple means, all I want is Australia"

"The greatest criminal mind the world has ever seen, and I am surrounded by idiots"

- Gene Hackman as Lex Luthor

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Lawrence Olivier was better than Ian McKellen as Richard III.

Nope.

Laurence included a tiny degree of ham that makes his performance unkosher.


McKellen's was a more measured and also knowing performance- his psycho is bad, knows he's bad and enjoys it.

[Frankychan]

Lex Luthor=Australia.

Awesomeness.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by molly bloom
Laurence included a tiny degree of ham that makes his performance unkosher.


McKellen's was a more measured and also knowing performance- his psycho is bad, knows he's bad and enjoys it.

Of course Olivier was a ham. That's Olivier. His portrail of Richard III made him seem more human and his wooing of the Lady Anne is far more believable than McKellen's. Don't get me wrong, I love McKellen's portayal, and I thought I'd hate Olivier before I saw it, but I have to hand it to him. He really is a damned fine actor. Where Olivier's version falls flat is at the end, where he gets all artsy.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by molly bloom
Henry & Ottis in 'Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer'.

That movie scared the **** outta me.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Of course Olivier was a ham. That's Olivier.

Ugh, no! Olivier was more than capable of subtle, nuanced performances. Watch the BBC King Lear he did, for instance.

I think Olivier's performance was great, just not as great as McKellan's. I think McKellan knows that role better than anyone and this portrayal captured the spirit that Shakespeare meant. Richard does his evil with a twinkle in his eye. Olivier just didn't have that mischief--he was all heavy.

[Provost Harrison]

My God, the luvvies have arrived

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
How could I forget... opera's evil villains!
-Iago in Verdi's Otello. Closely follows the Shakespeare, except he gets a deliciously evil soliloquy ("Credo"), and in the end he gets away.

Yes, Iago has to be one of classic literature's great villains.

-Hagen in Wagner's Gotterdamerung. He's a vile, greedy beast who is after the ring of the gods. He murders hero Siegfried and his own half-brother Gunther before being drowned in the Rhine while diving after the ring.

What about Wotan himself? His theft of the Rhine maidens' gold started the whole tragedy. He took the stolen gold and used it to finance the construction of a new castle. I've always thought of the Niebelungreid as an allegory of political corruption, in which a single greedy act sets forth a series of events ultimately ending in ruin.
]

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
What about Wotan himself? His theft of the Rhine maidens' gold started the whole tragedy. He took the stolen gold and used it to finance the construction of a new castle. I've always thought of the Niebelungreid as an allegory of political corruption, in which a single greedy act sets forth a series of events ultimately ending in ruin.

That's not quite how it happens. It's Alberich who steals the gold from the Rhine maidens, not Wotan.

Wotan is egged into building Valhalla by his wifey, Fricka. He has no means of paying for it, so he offers Fricka's sister Freia (at the suggestion of Loge, mind you) as payment to the giants building it (Fasolt and Fafner). But when the giants come to collect, Wotan tries to weasel out of it. Loge clues him in on the Rhine gold that Alberich has, so they go and steal the gold and the ring from Alberich. Wotan even gives up the ring to the giants to save Freia. So he doesn't act with evil, really.

The giants are evil, though. Fafner kills Fasolt (his own brother) on the spot to get the ring. He then turns into a dragon.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


That's not quite how it happens. It's Alberich who steals the gold from the Rhine maidens, not Wotan.

Wotan is egged into building Valhalla by his wifey, Fricka. He has no means of paying for it, so he offers Fricka's sister Freia (at the suggestion of Loge, mind you) as payment to the giants building it (Fasolt and Fafner). But when the giants come to collect, Wotan tries to weasel out of it. Loge clues him in on the Rhine gold that Alberich has, so they go and steal the gold and the ring from Alberich. Wotan even gives up the ring to the giants to save Freia. So he doesn't act with evil, really.

The giants are evil, though. Fafner kills Fasolt (his own brother) on the spot to get the ring. He then turns into a dragon.

OK, first he offers his wife's sister as a barter item, then he offers twice stolen gold. Sounds pretty evil to me.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
OK, first he offers his wife's sister as a barter item,

That was Loge's idea. And Wotan tells Fricka that he never intended to let the giants have Freia anyway--it was a just to get them to build the castle. So he was conning the giants, who are themselves evil.

then he offers twice stolen gold. Sounds pretty evil to me.

But he only steals the gold and offers it to the giants to save Freia. If he were evil, he could have just let them have her and be done with it, keeping the gold for himself. Instead he gives them the gold AND the ring. Giving up the ring to save Freia was certainly selfless, as with it he could have wielded a great deal more power.

I'm not saying Wotan is a nice guy, but I don't think his actions qualify as "evil."

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


That was Loge's idea. And Wotan tells Fricka that he never intended to let the giants have Freia anyway--it was a just to get them to build the castle. So he was conning the giants, who are themselves evil.



But he only steals the gold and offers it to the giants to save Freia. If he were evil, he could have just let them have her and be done with it, keeping the gold for himself. Instead he gives them the gold AND the ring. Giving up the ring to save Freia was certainly selfless, as with it he could have wielded a great deal more power.

I'm not saying Wotan is a nice guy, but I don't think his actions qualify as "evil."

Wasn't Wotan supposed to be the god of treaties? Wasn't the magic of his staff that it carried treaties binding the warring nations together? He was the law amongst the gods, but it seems he wasn't much of a role model. For a man of law and order to con evil people into working for him could be considered both stupid and corrupt.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Of course Olivier was a ham. That's Olivier. His portrail of Richard III made him seem more human and his wooing of the Lady Anne is far more believable than McKellen's.

Yeah, over her husband's coffin. I don't think so...

In any case, Olivier wasn't simply a ham, just sometimes his performances are too decorated- like his West Indian Othello, who's been closer to Jamaica than North Africa.


His Hamlet and King Henry V are much better- Olivier's Richard III has too much of Snow White's nemesis in it.