Monday, January 25, 2016

What really makes a villain, according to Alan Grant?

When we think of villains, we think of the classic ones from popular Disney movies. Their intent is usually pretty clear, gain power, destroy the good guy and turn the world into their evil little empire. I can’t help but think of the seven deadly sins when it comes to my idea of the bad guy. Greed, gluttony, and vanity, especially. They don’t shy away from what they want to accomplish, and often their reputation is not one of reputable quality. It’s open and shut – defeat the bad guy and live happily ever after. That’s one lesson Disney has done a good job of. Drilling this idea that good vs. evil is so black and white.


Grant is a detective, he believes in facts, figures. He doesn’t trust what he hears, he has to be able to prove it. I think that’s why it might be difficult for him to see Richard III as a villain.  He tries to understand this man, and what might have made him want to kill his nephews. It’s so interesting to me that he interviews each person that comes into his room about Richard. As if they’re suspects and he wants to dissect their opinions, which could very well be motive. It draws the comparison of hearsay, and what is actual fact. Most people just accept what they think they already know about history, but Grant is determined to find out what really happened to the boys. He wants to know why Richard actually has such a bad reputation.



Carradine and Grant conclude that Henry VII was a pretty ruthless guy. His rivals were put to death. While with Richard, his allies and foes, were allowed to have a different opinion, and could live amongst one another. After Grant and Carradine spend all of this time uncovering facts, just to realize that no one really knew the boys were even mission for a period of time, really forces him to take a step back and reflect. He was sure that Richard III wasn’t guilty, and being the brilliant detective that he is, he was able to uncover the truth. Grant isn’t quick to jump to conclusions, as he relies on his own intuition to determine the character of others. By studying the portrait of Richard, Grant wanted to know the real story behind the man with a bad reputation.

Grant ends up accomplishing quite a bit. He even begins to show favor towards his nurses, who he once enjoyed making fun of. I wonder if he considered them to be villains, forcing him to eat hospital food or read stale books. In a way, I’d say he solved his way to his own recovery.




3 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I liked that Grant wanted to find the proof behind what others said about Richard III and not just accept it. Maybe Grant was determined to not only change his own beliefs about Richard III but everyone's beliefs about him. Also, I agree when you said that the people he asked about Richard III were like suspects, because as Grant asked more people he received new stories and facts that he did not know which helped his research.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I really liked how you described Grant's motives behind discovering the truth about Richard III. It makes things so much clearer. Grant tries to get as much information as he can from everyone he encounters. Almost all of the people he talked to had something different to say. It seemed like there were no actual facts that could help Grant on his case.

    ReplyDelete