• Wondering which camera, gear, computer, or software to buy? Ask in our Gear Guide.

Protagonist - a cruel murderer - what do you think?

I

Inarius

I've got a story idea, in which the protagonist is a terrorist, a manipulator and a cruel murderer. He will do some shocking atrocities to draw attention. But what is his goal?

Suppose there are two groups fighting all the time. And you want to make peace and unite them. How you do it? That's right! You create a common enemy, a strong one. The 2 fighting sides eventually understand, that they have to join forces and beat the invader. So the protagonist is ready to become the "strong enemy" himself to unite those two groups and their constant war and bloodshed. But in order to succeed, he must show power, means and violence. He must be seen as a cruel murderer, a terrorist. In other words, he wants everybody to unite against him.

The question is, how will the audience react if they see the protagonist burns a man alive or shoots someone just because he is a family member of the one he wants to get angry? And what if he shoots a woman and a child, but only towards the end of the movie we will see, that both weren't really shot? And what if the protagonist manipulates a terrorist organization to rebel against the government, allowing them to kill innocent people?
 
Last edited:
Sort by date Sort by votes
Not all protagonists are good people so I wouldn't worry about it so much. i.e. Henry Portrait of a Serial Killer. Just tell the story YOU want to tell without worrying about the audience so much. Often, these kind of protagonists are great because they stand out from the normal "Save the Cat" routine. Good luck man.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
So the protagonist wants to create peace between two sides by making himself a common enemy through terrorism? It sounds hard to make believable, but could be a really interesting plot.

I really love films that ask you to sympathise with stereotypically unsympathetic characters - which it sounds like your idea may have elements of. Films such as Seven Psychopaths (the character Billy) and arguably The Silence of the Lambs (although he's not the protagonist, Hannibal Lecter is simultaneously likeable and disgusting).

The manga/TV show Death Note is a good example of a protagonist with a similarly honourable but completely warped ideology, which could be good to look at. The protagonist (and the main antagonists - if they can even be called that) are really interesting characters to study who go to some pretty extraordinary lengths to do what they believe is good.

A slightly different example, but films like Requiem for a Dream (and other Aronofsky films) don't necessarily have heroic or likeable protagonists, but they're still interesting to watch.



To answer your question, I like the idea. Personally I'm more inclined to like an evil (or not stereotypically likeable) protagonist - but my tastes are probably a bit different to the average audience members. Your audience will be upset/horrified (and it's your job to make them so) by such acts of terrorism - where you have to sell it is making the character interesting enough to want to follow and become invested in, even if they don't like them.

On the flipside, it'd be really interesting if you can make your audience like them for committing such acts of terrorism (see Haneke's 2007 Funny Games - it makes similar comments on viewership, making the audience realise they want to see horrible acts of violence).
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I'm still not sure, whether to show his main goal throughout the movie, or to reveal it at the end. Because he has another goal, the one he accomplishes in the middle of Act 2 - which is revenge. After the revenge is done, only then he begins the terrorism. So, I'm not sure about choosing one of the following:

1) - Do not reveal his goal of making peace until the end, and show it as if he is just blinded by revenge. And of course, intrigue the audience with his actions. So they will ask, - "Why he's doing that? What is he doing? What's his goal?"

2) - Hint somehow about his goals.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Adversaries uniting against a common enemy is something history has shown many times: Sparta and Athens against the Persians comes to mind.

'V for Vendetta' comes to mind when we're talking about a terrorist protoganist. Where we should take note that the label terrorist comes from one side of any conflict. Most people considered terrorists probably would label themselves as freedom fighters or rebels.

Your story and protagonist maybe needs a personal motivation first instead of an explaination.
Why does he choose such a dark path? (At least you, the writer should know that motivation.)
The question remains: will it be told in the beginning or throughout the story?

It should be doable.
I see you live in a nation that's in need of peace, so I can imagine you can put a lot of 'critisism on society' from your own observations in it. Most of us in here don't have such direct experience with an ongoing war in our own environment, so we can only imagine suck things.
(In essence: everybody wants to be happy and live in peace, but still we, as humanity seem to forget that all the time. Does your protagonist want to give the gift of peace by selling his own soul?)
The big question is: what happens after the protagonist is defeated/dead/retired? Will the old confict relight? Or do you leave that outside of the scope of your story?

You will findout in the process what will lead to a better story: showing his motivation throughout the story or in the end.

Go write!
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
WalterB said:
The big question is: what happens after the protagonist is defeated/dead/retired? Will the old confict relight? Or do you leave that outside of the scope of your story?
Click to expand...

He will be defeated by the united forces, which were enemies before. And those united forces will live in peace. How long? Nobody knows.

In "V for Vendetta" the protagonist fights against a totalitarian government, which keeps everything under control and notices everything he does. Because it disrupts their "peace". Suppose if I really make my story happen in the Middle East, the things V has done will not be so meaningful, because there is no peace there in the first place, not even an illusion of peace. So, in order to be noticed, one must do something really outstanding. So this is where the protagonist comes and says, - "You guys s*ck, I'm the man here", - declares a war against everybody and shows he's got more power than both sides do, and he's much worse than just a terrorist, he's a damn Satan. So those 2 sides understand they need to unite against him.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Try not to confuse 'protagonist' with 'hero'. "Protagonist" is the lead character the story follows. It could be someone despicable. The "antagonist" is the character that is opposed to the efforts of the protagonist.

Understand that human nature is to support the underdog and be sympathetic towards the "nicer" party, even if that's not the protagonist. The challenge with an antihero or criminal lead is you need to keep them engaging and captivating to the audience. If the only view the audience has is the brutality, you will lose them quickly. Bring in elements of vulnerability and even instances of humanity that contrast starkly with the inhumanity and you engage your audience.

Your storyline parallels that of "The Watchmen". My only concern is that by openly having him provoke everyone, the viewer will miss the story's point and only see him as sick and be rooting for the others to put him down. Getting the message out that he's manipulating events for a better end will be lost.

If I were thinking about this, I'd make the brutal events seem random at first while we follow one man. Then as we focus in on his life slowly draw in the pieces so we know he's behind the gruesome events. So you have a like-relatable dynamic shift to shock-revulsion. Then I might show the follow up of the events--a large amount of money left to the widow after the guy is immolated. The appearance of the mother and daughter in a train station after being "shot" with a flashback to an abusive home situation. Then lead up to the big bad confrontation and martyrdom. It brings full circle the innocence, despicableness then purposefulness in the character arc. It can work but you need the audience to be able to relate to this guy before you make him the mass murderer.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Inarius said:
Suppose there are two groups fighting all the time. And you want to make peace and unite them. How you do it? That's right! You create a common enemy, a strong one.
Click to expand...

No, that's NOT right! What virtually always happens is one (or a combination) of 3 things: 1. One group gains an advantage and obliterates or subjugates the other group or 2. The cost (economic and/or political) reaches a point which forces a negotiated settlement or 3. A superpower steps in and forces a settlement. Where is the logic or moral justification in trying to end the bloodshed/atrocities of a conflict by creating a third group specifically to commit bloodshed and atrocities so much worse that it actually unites the conflicting sides? AFAIK, there is no precedent for what you're suggesting. There is also the logical problem WalterB mentioned: History has shown (and is still showing!) that once the disparate groups have defeated the common enemy, they go back to their old conflict again.

I'm not saying your story can't be made to work but you're going to have to come up with some intriguing rationale for it to make any logical sense or be believable.

G
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
FantasySciFi said:
Try not to confuse 'protagonist' with 'hero'. "Protagonist" is the lead character the story follows. It could be someone despicable. The "antagonist" is the character that is opposed to the efforts of the protagonist.

Understand that human nature is to support the underdog and be sympathetic towards the "nicer" party, even if that's not the protagonist. The challenge with an antihero or criminal lead is you need to keep them engaging and captivating to the audience. If the only view the audience has is the brutality, you will lose them quickly. Bring in elements of vulnerability and even instances of humanity that contrast starkly with the inhumanity and you engage your audience.

Your storyline parallels that of "The Watchmen". My only concern is that by openly having him provoke everyone, the viewer will miss the story's point and only see him as sick and be rooting for the others to put him down. Getting the message out that he's manipulating events for a better end will be lost.

If I were thinking about this, I'd make the brutal events seem random at first while we follow one man. Then as we focus in on his life slowly draw in the pieces so we know he's behind the gruesome events. So you have a like-relatable dynamic shift to shock-revulsion. Then I might show the follow up of the events--a large amount of money left to the widow after the guy is immolated. The appearance of the mother and daughter in a train station after being "shot" with a flashback to an abusive home situation. Then lead up to the big bad confrontation and martyrdom. It brings full circle the innocence, despicableness then purposefulness in the character arc. It can work but you need the audience to be able to relate to this guy before you make him the mass murderer.
Click to expand...

The protagonist IS the hero, isn't it? The main character of the story. He will regret what he's doing, but the urge to reach his goal will always be stronger. And of course we're talking of someone who's life is ruined, who has nothing to live for.

BTW, yes! I was inspired by Watchmen! An act of evil to unite 2 adversaries!

AudioPostExpert said:
No, that's NOT right! What virtually always happens is one (or a combination) of 3 things: 1. One group gains an advantage and obliterates or subjugates the other group or 2. The cost (economic and/or political) reaches a point which forces a negotiated settlement or 3. A superpower steps in and forces a settlement. Where is the logic or moral justification in trying to end the bloodshed/atrocities of a conflict by creating a third group specifically to commit bloodshed and atrocities so much worse that it actually unites the conflicting sides? AFAIK, there is no precedent for what you're suggesting. There is also the logical problem WalterB mentioned: History has shown (and is still showing!) that once the disparate groups have defeated the common enemy, they go back to their old conflict again.

I'm not saying your story can't be made to work but you're going to have to come up with some intriguing rationale for it to make any logical sense or be believable.

G
Click to expand...

Well, the two sides will return to their conflict after defeating the common enemy, but it won't happen immediately. Plus, the common enemy doesn't have to be completely defeated. Suppose, the protagonist has created a gang, or an army of fanatics. So the leader is dead, but the organization is still dangerous.

And the end of the story doesn't have to mark the end of the conflict and create an eternal peace. It's enough that it gives some hope to both sides of the conflict. It was done before, not in a movie, but in a video game - Legacy of Kain series. The last chapter marks the beginning of a new struggle, but this time with the protagonist well prepared.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
Inarius said:
Well, the two sides will return to their conflict after defeating the common enemy, but it won't happen immediately.
Click to expand...

This is just blatantly untrue, there are plenty of historical (and even current) examples of the two sides going straight back to their original conflict once the common enemy has been defeated and quite a few examples of where the resumed conflict was far worse than it was before. As with your first post, you can't simply make a statement which is obviously untrue and expect anyone to believe it unless you provide some believable rationale to explain it.

Regardless of how immediately the conflict resumes though, the fact is that it commonly does resume, so again you have to provide some convincing rationale as to why your protagonist would believe his/her solution would actually solve anything.

Inarius said:
Plus, the common enemy doesn't have to be completely defeated. Suppose, the protagonist has created a gang, or an army of fanatics. So the leader is dead, but the organization is still dangerous.
Click to expand...

So you've now got a three-way conflict with an escalation of bloodshed/atrocities, I can't see how that "gives some hope to both sides"? If anything, this just proves the fallacy of the original premise of creating the third even worse group, which brings us back again to creating a convincing rationale for your protagonist's belief in this unfeasible "solution".

G
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Convincing rationale? Hm...
Total annihilation would work if the conflict is between some local gangs or drug cartels. :)

What if the one, who kills/defeats/imprisons the protagonist creates an opposition to the protagonist's atrocities, an ideology of love and peace and blah blah blah... (which is also a part of the protagonist's plan). So that the "national hero" is actually the "heir" of the protagonist. The conflict parties will unite under his rule, and he, in turn, will do his best not to let their conflict resume.

It's like a stage play. "I'll be the bad guy. You defeat me. They applaud and love you". What do you think?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top