Why Sympathetic Villains in Movies Are on the Rise? A Psychological Take on the Villain Origin Story Craze

A famous quote says, “A villain is a victim whose story hasn’t been told.” It seems right in several instances since nobody is born a villain. Every human has their own kind of suffering and has to go through their own tragic backstories.

Why are sympathetic villains in movies a growing trend? Why are you drawn to these characters? Some of the recent sympathetic villains like Joker from Batman, Maleficent, Cruella, Thanos, etc., have sparked this central question.

And I will be looking through a psychological lens to answer this question- with empathy, moral ambiguity, and character relatability. 

Defining the sympathetic villain

What makes a villain “sympathetic” vs. “evil”? A sympathetic villain is someone who has redeemable qualities and understandable motivations rather than pure sinister motives with disregard for morality. 

A sympathetic villain often has a tragic backstory that has made him bitter towards life and people. On the other hand, an evil villain takes pride in hurting people, is truly sadistic, lacks moral qualities, and acts with malevolence, whose pure intentions are to cause harm for selfish reasons.

A sympathetic villain has common traits like trauma, misunderstood motives, social rejection, and gray morality. The most common, recent, and prominent example is the film Joker (2019), where Joaquin Phoenix’s Joker is Arthur Fleck in reality, who is facing life troubles, making him a sympathetic villain.

It should be understood that there is a distinction between justification and explanation of evil behavior. People don’t engage in immoral acts unless they think it will be acceptable socially or morally. If they commit immoral behavior, they tend to justify it by thinking their act is serving a purpose. 

Historical context: From black-and-white to shades of grey

Villain archetypes represent some typical core dynamics of these typical figures that serve to the protagonist in unique ways and add narrative to the story. They either:

• Add more conflict
• Add comic relief to the story
• Hinder the protagonist from achieving his goals
• Help the protagonist achieve his goals
• Or facilitate necessary knowledge and information for the story’s depth

Before moving forward, let me present you with a brief overview of the villain archetypes found in movies. 

The mastermind: This villain archetype has superb intelligence with meticulous planning, or in some instances, a calm demeanor. Lex Luthor in the Superman (2025) film is not calm as such, but definitely has resourceful technology and intelligent creations like metahumans.

The henchman: This villain archetype is loyal to the main villain and fulfills his orders without any question. Karl in Die Hard (1988) was fully dedicated to avenging his brother, and nothing could stop him from his drive to do so. 

The nemesis: This villain is a full mirror image of the protagonist, but in an evil way. General Zod in Man of Steel (2013), with his military power, was almost as powerful as Superman, giving Superman a tough challenge at every step. 

The beast: It is simply a villain full of fear and horror, generally in the form of an animal with unstoppable force. For example, the shark in Jaws (1975) is a splendid portrayal that had unfathomable menace and the utmost ability to instill fear. 

Several other villain archetypes include the authoritative figure, the bully, the criminal, the disturbed, the machine, and Mother Nature. I will have to write another full article to explain them all, but here, I wanted to shed light on the term “villain archetypes” so that a transition from traditional villains to more nuanced ones could be understood over the filmmaking timeline.

Psychological drivers behind the trend- reason for sympathetic villains

Since I have mentioned the villain archetypes, do you feel “the disturbed” feels a little familiar for a sympathetic villain type? I mean, let me explain first: the disturbed archetype is driven by psychological issues that are evident in his erratic, dangerous, and violent behavior. 

What are the psychological drivers behind this trend? Let’s have a closer look:

Relatability and complexity

Modern audiences are desensitized to flat characters. And to be honest, I’m too. We crave complexity and relatability- doesn’t matter if it is in villains. When villains have sympathetic backstories, we can see their flawed personalities and struggles that resonate with ours. It gives an overpowering combo of complex and human characters that the audience can instantly connect with. 

Deeper moral exploration

Sympathetic villains allow us to figure out what is actually ‘good.’ It sets our brain cells into action, forcing us to think about deep human conditions and questioning the morals of humanity. For example, as cited before, Joker is a symbolic example of someone who had a difficult life with mental health issues and systematic neglect. His circumstances made the audience sympathize with him, blurring the lines between a hero and a villain as we saw him descending into madness. 

Emotional connection

Continuing with the example of Joker, his falling victim to circumstances made an emotional connection, as already mentioned, which is a completely relatable trait for the viewers. The harsh realities of the world around him fueled his transformation to an evil self- a completely graspable human trait. 

Realism and nuance

Viewers start seeing themselves as the affected ones and tend to picture themselves in the same situation. Villain origin stories reflect this shift as trauma narratives and cultural shift, making people accept moral complexity. The external factors affect a villain’s action that adds layers to the origin story, corroborating what I just said in the beginning: no one is born a villain. 

The underdog effect 

Nothing makes the audience incline more towards sympathizing with the villain than the ‘underdog effect’. It is the presentation of a villain as a disadvantaged individual, and viewers identify with those villains as flawed characters. Somewhere in this projection lies the rise of the “us vs. the system” narrative embedded in institutional distrust- perfect for villain origin story characterization.

A research study (2022) published in The Criterion, An International Journal in English, mentioned, 

“When people identify with a certain media character, they tend to project their own negative traits and qualities on them, which provides a safe haven from self-criticism or judgment.” [Source] 

This gives them a safe spot to bridge the gap between the villain’s bad characteristics and their own darker selves. The psychological mechanism works in the form of need gratification in people, when they create a similarity with the fictional villains. 

The role of media and franchise storytelling

Media’s role is the strongest in making an impact on people’s minds. Stories and fictional characters are a means to justify different psychological mechanisms that take place in a villain’s mind, leading viewers to sympathize with their negativity. 

Pre-exiting franchises

Studios these days love capitalizing on villain origin stories, mainly to expand their intellectual property (IP). Joker (2019) and Maleficent (2014 and 2019) are successful villain origin stories that tapped into trauma and social commentary in unique ways.

The franchise revitalized the characters and gave us a new dimension to look at these characters, generating new cinematic universes and even launching spin-off franchises intelligently. 

Shift in storytelling 

Richer narratives and the audience’s curiosity to know more about the villainous character have paved the way for the franchises to make more villain origin stories. An upcoming example is the debut film of Clayface from the famous Batman comics. It is certainly a story that I am looking forward to since we have never known Clayface before-  a body horror villain whose origin story could be emotional or entirely evil. Will it be a sympathetic villain, too? 

Audience investment 

Of course, why wouldn’t the audience be invested in established franchises that take pride in introducing villain origin stories and making them more compelling through emotional bonding? Deeper dives into their backstories encourage wider character analysis and more realism to storytelling- a magnetic strategy for audience investment, huh?

Are sympathetic villains in movies a problem? A critical look

Let me give you a bigger picture of this psychological analysis of sympathetic villains in films and their origin stories, and present it in a tabular form for clearer understanding.

Pros of sympathetic villain in movies	Cons of sympathetic villain in movies
Promotes empathy and deeper character analysis	Risk of glorifying harmful behavior
Adds realism and moral nuance to storytelling	Blurring moral lines to the extent of desensitizing audiences
	Potential narrative fatigue: Are all villains worth sympathizing with, hence worth redeeming?

Wrapping up…

Keeping the psychological appeal and cultural relevance aside for one minute, but the villain origin stories and the growing trend of sympathetic villains in movies remind us to think about how important the choices that we make and the values we hold on to are. 

When rewriting the rules of morality, understandable actions and villainous ones should draw a boundary between good and evil. Such origin stories do give us a new perspective while we still cheer for the good guys. 

Which sympathetic villain made you question your idea of right and wrong — and why? Express your heart out; we’re listening.