Objective Morality in a World of Antiheroes

How Hollywood convinced a culture there is no difference between good and evil

By Josh Ball

We know the difference between good and evil. Or at least, we used to. C.S. Lewis used this concept of objective morality for the starting point to his deduction of God’s existence in the first part of “Mere Christianity.” Yet, since its release in 1952, our culture has lost this sense of virtue. Hollywood, which produces most of our art, appears incapable of crafting a story with this in mind. In a time when most people are concerned with political activism in films, this is the far more concerning trend in Hollywood.

The leading artists, thinkers and storytellers forge the culture and what it values. In postmodern Hollywood, that means blurring the lines between good and evil.

This trend, like much that is bad in the film industry, was spearheaded by Disney. “Maleficent” reimagines the early classic “Sleeping Beauty.”

The film took the stance that Maleficent, the evil sorceress who cursed young Aurora, was not really evil. According to Disney, she just had a tragic backstory and really was a caring, compassionate character, led to take extreme measures because of pain inflicted on her by others.

Good stories inspire “what if” thinking. Fans to this day make videos wondering, “What if Boromir ducked just one arrow?” or “What if Anakin made the right decision?” Maleficent proposes a question that blurs the line of right and wrong: “What if evil and good were indistinguishable?”
Hollywood writers hide their “misunderstood villains” behind the veil of the antihero. But in this, they reveal another misunderstanding.

“We can’t help but like them, but they don’t have many redeeming qualities,” said Sarah Southard, an English teacher at Susquehanna Township Middle School in Pennsylvania. “It’s worth noting that the antihero isn’t the same as the villain.”

An antihero is a hero who does not portray perfect honor and selflessness but who still pursues what is good in the end.

The name “Maleficent” means “causing harm or destruction, especially by supernatural means.” When producers made Maleficent a sympathetic character, it caused an inherent contradiction. The use of the misunderstood villain, Hollywood’s “antihero,” here is clearly used only to confuse what good and
evil are.

Han Solo from Star Wars is an example of the antihero done right. The charismatic smuggler is adored by fans all over the world. Constantly wise-cracking, he helps the heroes despite not displaying Luke’s pure heart or Leia’s wholehearted honor. Yet at every opportunity, he chooses to stay and fight the Empire, because it is right. This is crucial when crafting an antihero – and moral complexity – keeping a clear distinction between good and evil.

“It is important for the film to make sure we understand that there is a moral code that these characters aren’t living up to,” said Elise Hunnemeyer, a senior history major researching similar trends in westerns.

“Moral complexity” is the usual label applied to the antihero. Once again, this can be done well, but writers have rejected the bases that are required for its execution. Moral complexity supposes that no one is completely free from the vices of the world, so the hero can make moral mistakes. What this creates, without objective morality, is flat characters who have no depth and thus do not feel real. For no contemporary on-screen caricature is this more true than Amazon’s Galadriel from “Rings of Power.”

Sauron desires the betterment of Middle-Earth the same as Galadriel, the heroine. Both of these characters have good ends, but pursue them through evil means. It leads to a protagonist and an antagonist who are, under the surface, indistinguishable.

No one knows who to root for. Studio executives want viewers to believe it is in the name of moral complexity, but this is simply not the case. It is an erasure of the defining lines of objective morality. Real moral complexity looks much different.

The Bible confirms this reality time and again. Morally complex players plague its stories: David was an adulterer, Abraham a liar and Moses a murderer. Yet the Bible calls David “a man after God’s own heart.” The trouble, then, is to rectify this truth with our minds: that people can be so deeply sinners and also men to whose standard the Christian ought to aspire.

C.S. Lewis points out in “Mere Christianity” a “Law of Human Nature.” He talks about “some kind of Law or Rule of fair play or decent behavior or morality.” Paul, in Romans, calls this the conscience. This is the other crucial piece in moral complexity. It is the means by which a person judges between what is right and what is wrong.

Conscience plays an active role in every Biblically morally complex character. There comes a time when they must choose between what they know is right and what they know is wrong. Of course, they do not always choose the right path, but through the God-given guidance of conscience, they repent of their sins. This is what makes the Christian able to see moral complexity in biblical characters: a decision which deeply impacts their soul.

Every character, from Han Solo to Galadriel, faces this choice. The most powerful characters are often those like David and Moses, such as J.R.R. Tolkien’s Boromir who make mistakes and must acknowledge them with humility, doing whatever they can to fix the mistakes and turn from them.

Without objective morality, such powerful moments lose their meaning. What makes the most impactful character beats are the pivotal nature of the choices. When the gravity of the moral charges is lost, they become just another decision with no narrative weight, rather than a determining, fatal decision.

Southard asked, “If there isn’t objective good, why does it matter?”

The tragedy is this: moral complexity is the framework which most closely reflects the real world. Good stories do that. But the reason moral complexity can exist is because of the objective nature of good and evil in the world where we live.

There are far more detrimental consequences than just meaningless stories as a result of these trends.

When asked about the deterioration of the antihero, Southard said, “There’s been a loss of critical thinking that makes us feel more sad than disgusted at villains, but I think that’s a two-way street. Writers give too much sympathy, whether it be from other characters, the music or some of the scenes where the villain features, which makes us lose our critical thinking skills until they have to oversimplify everything.”

As long as this is true, Hollywood will make increasingly meaningless characters (and, therefore, stories) because its audiences are unable to think deeply about meaning.

Misunderstood villains as a trend dominate Hollywood’s storytelling industry. In the name of realism, writers confuse moral complexity and use it to justify characters which serve the sole purpose of blurring good and evil. Take notice and expect better from our leading philosophers and artists, especially as Christians. It is time to demand a higher standard where Hollywood recognizes that there is a good, and we know what it is.Josh Ball is a junior history major. He enjoys comparing the worldview of stories to the Bible. He yearns for the old days when people cared enough about the stories
they told to tell meaningful ones.