By: Anthony Zangrillo
This past weekend, “Maleficent” reigned supreme at the box office, netting over 69 million dollars domestically and over 100 million overseas, even though the film has been critically panned and currently holds a 52% rotten rating on Rotten Tomatoes. While this fairy tale epic featured box-office bombshell Angelina Jolie, who was last seen on the silver screen in “The Tourist,” released in 2010, I still found “Maleficent’s” first week totals to be surprising.
So, why did audiences still come out in droves to be put under the sorceress’s spell, despite bad reviews? The simple answer: it’s good to be bad. General audiences love villains, since they usually are the more complex and interesting characters. Baddies like the Joker, Magneto, and Loki mesmerize audiences through their shocking villainous depths. Some fans have even clamored for certain iconic villains to receive a solo spin-off movie, in the vein of Maleficent.
Do these solo adventures need our heinous protagonist to follow a “hero’s” arc of redemption? Would it actually be more enjoyable for audience members to follow the unforgiving actions of our malevolent lead characters? Disney doesn’t think so, and it’s hard to argue with their box office results. “Maleficent” is a radically different re-telling of the Disney animated classic, “Sleeping Beauty.” The film argues that the Mistress of Evil that we are familiar with is really a just and kind fairy queen, who strays from her path of righteousness, as a result of a despicable betrayal. After Maleficent casts her horrific curse, she surprisingly saves the baby Princess Aurora on multiple occasions, eventually bonding with the little “beastie.” A majority of critics seem to be disappointed with this creative decision; however audiences have actually given the movie an “A” rating on CinemaScore. As long as audiences still want to see the same old redemption story, stemming from the hit musical “Wicked,” this pattern will not change.
Disney is one of the biggest culprits of this revisionist storytelling, and rumors persist that this is only the beginning of a long line of misunderstood miscreants. Various outlets have reported that the rumored Boba Fett spin-off of the Star Wars franchise was encountering creative problems because Disney didn’t know how to sell a villain movie without a redemption arc. It has been hypothesized that the original script gave Boba more redeeming attributes, painting a portrait of a bounty hunter forced into the profession, rather than a universally-renowned predator, who values credits more than innocent lives. I would be utterly disappointed if the final version depicts a misguided Boba, rather than a truly sinister scoundrel.
These problems have persisted with other studios, such as Sony and their “Sinister Six” movie, which features Spiderman’s most fearsome foes. It is no easy feat to produce a Spiderman franchise film without the titular character, and Sony clearly understands that this film is a necessary piece of their world-building endeavor. Drew Goddard, whose credits include the genre-breaking Cabin in the Woods, has even left Marvel’s Netflix series, “Daredevil,” in order to grant his full attention towards writing the screenplay and eventually directing “Sinister Six.” While some heroic dissent is more than welcome in these unlawful ranks, a climax where this team of outlaws ends up saving the day would be truly cringe-worthy.
I implore studios to give audience members more credit. An evil protagonist can be accepted by general audiences, and this creative move can break the stagnant cycle of the already clichéd heroic tale. It looks like Sony will be the first to heed this advice. However “Amazing Spiderman 2” underperformed, so I wouldn’t be surprised if “Sinister Six” is eventually delayed.
Do you think the world is ready to embrace an unforgiving evil? Share your thoughts on twitter using @nyumpc.
