6 Surprising Ways to Make Better Use of Your Villains

It’s a lot of work to craft a compelling, complex, and truly formidable antagonist, so once we’ve put in that time, it makes sense to wring as much value out of those characters as possible. Here are six surprising ways I’ve found to make effective use of an antagonist:

  1. Use delayed gratification of an antagonist’s punishment to increase narrative tension.

    The more your villain wins, and the more he deserves to lose, the more desperately we’ll be turning every page (or hitting that “next episode” button) to see him finally get his comeuppance. This is especially effective if the villain is pretending to be a good guy and some of your protagonists haven’t figured it out yet.

    The first time I realized the power of this dynamic was while watching The Sopranos. In the third season, there’s a character that everyone on the show loves but who the audience knows is terrible. It is enraging to watch this character be coddled and cheered in every episode when you know he’s secretly a villain. I was glued to my screen that entire season, desperate for the satisfaction of seeing this character be found out and brought to justice.

    Similarly, I’m watching Game of Thrones now for the first time and this line in a season 1 episode recap, referring to Joffrey, sums it up perfectly: “I will watch this show even if it goes on for a hundred seasons if they promise me gruesome violence against that little kid.”

    Joffrey is another great example of a character who continually gets what he wants when he doesn’t deserve it while doing increasingly despicable things, building narrative tension in the audience as we froth at the mouth to see him get what’s coming to him.

    Are there ways you can ratchet up the tension in your story by making things easier and easier for your terrible antagonist, delaying our gratification in seeing his eventual punishment?

  2. Use lesser antagonists to take some of the load off your Big Bad.

    Whether you’re writing a TV show or a feature film, you almost certainly have multiple layers of antagonists, not just a single villain. And I don’t just mean a “Big Bad” and his three henchmen, I mean other types of antagonists who are causing problems for our hero on all sides.

    Some of those antagonists are mere nuisances or even well-meaning characters who are nevertheless blocking your heroes from doing what needs to be done, but others are more serious threats that will help the hero train for her eventual climactic fight against the Big Bad.

    You can find examples of this in pretty much any movie or TV show, but one great example you’ve probably seen is Die Hard (1988). Of course Hans Gruber is the Big Bad and John McClane will have to defeat many henchmen before he can fight Hans, but there are several other antagonists to contend with as well: Harry Ellis (John’s wife’s arrogant coworker who reveals John’s identity to Hans), Dick Thorburg (the irresponsible reporter who carelessly exposes the identity of John’s wife and children), and Dwayne Robinson (the police chief who doesn’t believe John that the building is under siege or that John is a cop).

    Hans Gruber

    These “lesser” antagonists can do some of the dirty work of your Big Bad, which helps your main villain retain an aura of mystery while still keeping your heroes under constant threat.

    One of the movies most famous for a mysterious antagonist is Jaws (1975) — so much of what made that shark terrifying is that we rarely actually see it. If every time something bad happened in that movie it had to be the shark eating someone, that would get old very quickly and the shark would lose his power to frighten. By having other, lesser antagonists in the movie, we were able to have continuous conflict and obstacles without getting burned out on shark attacks.

    Is your Big Bad doing dirty work in your story that steals some of her menace? Can you farm out those conflicts to lesser antagonists instead?

  3. Use a lesser antagonist as a more narratively satisfying deus ex machina to save your hero from another, worse villain.

    You’ve probably heard this famous writing advice from Pixar story artist Emma Coats: “Coincidences to get characters into trouble are great; coincidences to get them out of it are cheating.”

    But sometimes you really do need a satisfying way to get a hero out of an impossible jam. Even the best stories need an occasional deus ex machina, but we’ve all felt that disappointment when a sidekick just happens to ride up at the exact moment a hero needs help. We wanted them to get out of trouble, but not like that!

    Another benefit of having multiple layers of antagonists is that you can have a lesser antagonist be the deus ex machina that saves our hero from a much deadlier one.

    A movie that does this to great effect is Attack the Block (2011) which has its heroes running scared from cops, a murderous drug dealer, and aliens all at the same time. There is at least one moment when a well-timed attack from one antagonist gives our heroes a means to escape another.

    This is much more narratively satisfying because it’s not completely fixing the hero’s problem — they still have to deal with this new problem, it just saves them from a truly impossible one.

    Do you have an unsatisfying deus ex machina in your story that you could make more satisfying by having an antagonist come to the rescue instead of a helper?

  4. Use an antagonist to make a challenging protagonist more palatable.

    Your protagonists don’t have to be innocent Pollyannas for the audience to care about them, they just have to be not as bad as the antagonistic forces against them.

    On another series, a conceited mean girl would be the antagonist, but because Sansa Stark is the victim of much crueler characters on Game of Thrones, we empathize with her. You can make even the most horrible character empathetic by putting them at odds with someone even worse.

    This is a good opportunity for those smaller antagonists who aren’t quite to the level of Big Bad Villain, but are thorns in the side of your hero.

    In your story, is there an opportunity to make an unlikable character more empathetic by giving them an even more unlikable opponent?

  5. Use your villain to help the hero see her own dark side.

    Someone told me once in a job interview, when I’d failed to find a satisfactory answer to the question “what is your greatest weakness,” that weaknesses are usually the excess of our strengths.

    Often, a great villain is simply the hero run amok; it’s someone with the qualities of the hero taken to their terrible logical extreme. This can create a great opportunity for your hero to look inside herself and see her own flaws and the danger that awaits her if she doesn’t change, as it does in Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 (2017) and in The Last Jedi (2017).

    Is there a way you can make your Big Bad a better “upside down” reflection of your hero, or make better use of that reflection?

  6. Use a secret antagonist to upend the audience’s expectations.

    I can’t give examples of this without spoiling the stories, but there are several extremely successful movies and TV shows in recent years that involved an antagonist initially posing (to the hero and to the audience) as someone who was on the protagonist’s side.

    This is tricky to pull off without pulling the rug so hard out from under the audience’s feet that they have nothing left to stand on, but when this works for a story, it really, really works. Is there an antagonist in your story who you could initially portray as good? Or a protagonist in your story who you could make secretly bad?

 

How to Build Suspense: 5 Lessons from The Walking Dead

how to build suspense

How to Build Suspense: 5 Lessons from The Walking Dead

Whether it’s the mounting dread that any second now a zombie is going to jump out at you, or the pit in your stomach as tension builds between two characters and you know one of them is not making it out of this episode alive, if there’s one thing The Walking Dead does well, it’s build and maintain suspense.

But how do they do it?

Here are five effective tactics they use a lot that work really well.

NOTE: This post only contains spoilers through Season 3.

The Bomb Under the Table

In a now famous conversation with François Truffaut, Alfred Hitchcock said the difference between “surprise” and “suspense” is that surprise is when a bomb unexpectedly blows up from under a table, and suspense is when you see the bomber put it there.

A great example of this from The Walking Dead is in Season 3, Episode 13 when Rick and the Governor meet to discuss a possible truce. The Governor makes a big show of putting away his weapons and convinces Rick to do the same, but after sitting down, we see that the Governor has a gun taped under the table. This makes the scene much more suspenseful because as tensions rise in the room, we know that the Governor has a gun, and we know that Rick doesn’t know.

gun under the table S03E13

Several times during the scene, the Governor’s hand moves near where we know the gun to be and suspense builds – will he go for it? Similarly, there’s a moment when Rick lowers his guard and takes his eyes off the Governor for a moment. We want to shout at the screen, “Keep your eyes on him, Rick! He has a gun!”

The writers could instead have not shown us the gun but had the Governor suddenly pull it on Rick at an unexpected moment. This would have been surprising, but not suspenseful. We’d have spent the whole scene thinking the two were having a pleasant chat over whiskey and might have gotten bored.

On the other hand, they could have not shown the gun and not had the Governor pull the gun, but then shown after the scene was over that the gun had been there all along. That’s an interesting approach, but it would not have been as effective in this particular scene.

The Takeaway: Surprises can be great, but it doesn’t always have to be the audience that’s surprised. Sometimes the most suspenseful thing of all is when the audience knows something a character doesn’t.

The Silent Treatment

In several episodes through the series, the episode’s cold open (the part before the title credits) has no or almost no dialogue. Two examples are Season 3, Episode 1 (“Seed”) and Season 3, Episode 13 (“Arrow on the Doorpost”).

These scenes are incredibly suspenseful, even without the context of knowing where the characters are or what exactly they’re doing, and part of what makes it so tense is the lack of dialogue. We wonder why everyone is being so quiet – are they hiding from something?

S03E01 silent cold open

Also, the extreme quiet makes us think something very loud is about to happen. It’s not a bad guess.

The Takeaway: Not every scene needs dialogue. If you want to ratchet up the tension, try taking out the talking.

Everybody’s Right

If you break down the average episode of The Walking Dead, you’ll see that a large portion of the story is groups of characters in various combinations debating what to do about something. In a single episode you might have three separate debates raging between three different collections of characters. We rotate between these debates with episodes of zombie hunting (and other “fun” scenes) sprinkled in like seasoning.

What makes these debates interesting to watch is that in most cases, all of the characters are right. Or at least they’re partly right. Or they’re wrong, but you understand why they feel how they do and you wonder if you would feel the same in their shoes.

everybody's right S03E13

There are no easy answers and we can’t predict with certainty how things will end. The opposing sides of the debate set up two or more possible directions for the episode to take, like a Choose Your Own Adventure book you read as a kid.

We follow the debate like a tennis match as each side volleys its argument over the net, and the suspense comes from wondering who will finally win. Hint: sometimes when you win, you really lose.

The Takeaway: Show your audience two or more ways the story could go and have different characters lobby for each option. Make all the options equally bad, but give the characters good reasons for wanting what they do. Keep the audience on the edge of their seat wondering who will win, and what price they will pay for winning.

Somebody Screws Up

This is a situation where things are already tense, but then someone does something stupid – they make a noise when they were supposed to be quiet, they go outside without a weapon to check out a strange sound, etc. It adds suspense because it creates that classic horror movie trope where you scream at the TV: “DON’T GO IN THERE!”

This is a dangerous one because it’s wildly overused and can be frustrating for the audience when it isn’t earned. It works best in my opinion when two qualifications are met:

(1) the stupid thing the person does is surprising, and yet

(2) the stupid thing the person does is exactly what they would really do.

It doesn’t work, for example, for a kid whose constantly whining to start whining at the exact moment that the family is silently hiding from the killer. That’s annoying because it’s not surprising (the kid is always whining) and it’s also not super believable (they’re hiding from a killer). What does work is for the bratty kid’s toy he stole earlier and stuffed hurriedly in his pocket (but that you forgot he had) to suddenly roll out of his pocket in front of the killer’s feet. That’s surprising, but is also exactly the kind of stupid thing that kid would do.

A good example from The Walking Dead is from Season 3, Episode 14 (“Prey”). Andrea and Milton are talking about the Governor while standing in an open catwalk above his torture chamber when the Governor unexpectedly walks into the room below. Milton immediately hides, which is smart, but Andrea continues standing in the open, watching the Governor, where she’s in grave danger of being seen by him (which would likely result in him killing her and Milton).

S03E14 somebody screws up

This is incredibly stupid since the Governor could look up and see her at any moment, and it’s surprising because it’s so phenomenally stupid, but it’s exactly what Andrea would really do in that moment – she’s much braver than most people, is not afraid of confrontation, and is incredibly curious, especially about the Governor, so it makes sense that she would stay in the open where she can see what he is doing, even though that means she’s also in danger of being seen by him. That scene is incredibly suspenseful and would have been much less so if Andrea had ducked out of sight like Milton did.

The Takeaway: If a scene needs more tension, maybe somebody needs to screw up – just make sure they’re screwing up in a way that is both surprising and yet also in character.

I’m Ready for My Close Up

Next time you watch this show (or any scary movie), notice how often the camera crops close on a character’s face during a tense scene. This serves two purposes:

(1) it zooms in on the character’s facial expression (usually fear or tension), which heightens our emotional response as we naturally empathize with the character, and

(2) it restricts our view of the character’s surroundings.

This second part is important. All we can see is the character’s face and maybe a sliver of out of focus background, but what we want to see is the place the character is in – is there something behind them? Is there something around the corner ahead of them? Look out, look out, look out!

S03E13 suspenseful close up

This is a directorial choice but it’s something we can do as writers as well. It’s basically a tactic of withholding information when we know the audience is very anxious to get that information as soon as possible. Maybe more on that in a future post.

The Takeaway: Withholding information can make an already tense scene even more suspenseful. Think about how you can do this with your writing (and look forward to a future post on the topic).

***

You can now like this page on Facebook! Click the “Following” dropdown and select “See First” and “Notifications On” to get notified of new posts.