Reply to Topic
I have no problem with Nazis as villains in non-fiction films. Schindler's List, Band of Brothers, and Valkyrie are all great films where having a Nazi as a villain makes enough sense to illuminate the past and teach a lesson.
But too many fiction writers just throw in Nazis as the go-to villain. And I'm not talking about films that take place directly in WWII, or during the Nuremberg trials, or even movies that have Nazi villains as comic relief, like in the Blues Brothers. I'm talking about films where the Nazis are inserted as villains into movies where they don't seem to belong.
Take Indiana Jones. I never really understood why they had Nazis at all in the movie. In Raiders of the Lost Ark, Indy travels to South America, Nepal, Egypt, and Indonesia. He retrieves a golden idol, has a brawl in an Arab bazaar, and dresses up in robes to blend in with the natives. But the Nazis appear out of absolutely nowhere. Why would Egyptian workers work for the Nazis? Why would Nazis even be in Egypt (at the time a British colony)? Why would the secular Nazis even look for an Ark whose existence is based on Jewish scripture?
I think Belloq would've made a better villain. Like Indy, he is a cunning archaeologist who is a bit more ruthless but who has a real reason to oppose Indy and seek the Ark. He also has a history with Indy, as shown when he takes the golden idol from Indy. Indy's own personal vendetta against Germany is not really explained by anything besides "Nazis. I hate these guys."
The moment the Nazis appear, any need to explain or enhance your villain is gone. The swastika takes the place of any character backstory or development. No need to explain your villain's goal, ambitions, or character traits--the term Nazi takes care of all of that. It's a crutch and frankly, a lazy writing technique.
Nazis made sense in the Last Crusade but that's also because a) part of the film takes place in Germany and b) the Nazi villainess, Elsa Schneider, is given some depth as a character. She wasn't as bland as the glasses-wearing guy in Raiders with the burnt hand. The audience got the time to know Elsa and genuinely feel betrayed when she reveals her allegiance. As opposed to Raiders, where once we see the Nazis we know immediately who to hate.
I'm going on too much about Indiana Jones. Other films that use this lazy technique are TV shows like The Man in the High Castle, which asks "what if the Nazis won WWII?" Their portrayal of an Axis-dominated world is exactly what you would guess if you've ever cracked open a history book. There's nothing new to add.
Some movies have even changed their villains into Neo-Nazis to avoid offending people or out of laziness. For example, in 2002 there was a film adaptation made of the Tom Clancy novel The Sum of All Fears. The film writers replaced the book's team of Arab, East German, and American Indian terrorists, each with their own backstories and individual reasons for being terrorists, into one bland Austrian neo-Nazi. It was clichéd and boring, and frankly painful to watch. And it made the plot ridiculous. The movie's villain, Richard Dressler, wanted to provoke war between the US and Russia so that he could create a Nazi Fourth Reich across Europe. In a world where Nazism is so demonized and discredited, why would a US-Russia war cause Nazism to resurge?
It seems Godwin's Law is not just for the internet. If a movie wants to use Nazis as the villain, that's fine. But using Nazis or neo-Nazis as your villain is using a crutch. Using them as villains does not excuse the writer from creating three-dimensional, realistic, and plausible villains and stories.
But too many fiction writers just throw in Nazis as the go-to villain. And I'm not talking about films that take place directly in WWII, or during the Nuremberg trials, or even movies that have Nazi villains as comic relief, like in the Blues Brothers. I'm talking about films where the Nazis are inserted as villains into movies where they don't seem to belong.
Take Indiana Jones. I never really understood why they had Nazis at all in the movie. In Raiders of the Lost Ark, Indy travels to South America, Nepal, Egypt, and Indonesia. He retrieves a golden idol, has a brawl in an Arab bazaar, and dresses up in robes to blend in with the natives. But the Nazis appear out of absolutely nowhere. Why would Egyptian workers work for the Nazis? Why would Nazis even be in Egypt (at the time a British colony)? Why would the secular Nazis even look for an Ark whose existence is based on Jewish scripture?
I think Belloq would've made a better villain. Like Indy, he is a cunning archaeologist who is a bit more ruthless but who has a real reason to oppose Indy and seek the Ark. He also has a history with Indy, as shown when he takes the golden idol from Indy. Indy's own personal vendetta against Germany is not really explained by anything besides "Nazis. I hate these guys."
The moment the Nazis appear, any need to explain or enhance your villain is gone. The swastika takes the place of any character backstory or development. No need to explain your villain's goal, ambitions, or character traits--the term Nazi takes care of all of that. It's a crutch and frankly, a lazy writing technique.
Nazis made sense in the Last Crusade but that's also because a) part of the film takes place in Germany and b) the Nazi villainess, Elsa Schneider, is given some depth as a character. She wasn't as bland as the glasses-wearing guy in Raiders with the burnt hand. The audience got the time to know Elsa and genuinely feel betrayed when she reveals her allegiance. As opposed to Raiders, where once we see the Nazis we know immediately who to hate.
I'm going on too much about Indiana Jones. Other films that use this lazy technique are TV shows like The Man in the High Castle, which asks "what if the Nazis won WWII?" Their portrayal of an Axis-dominated world is exactly what you would guess if you've ever cracked open a history book. There's nothing new to add.
Some movies have even changed their villains into Neo-Nazis to avoid offending people or out of laziness. For example, in 2002 there was a film adaptation made of the Tom Clancy novel The Sum of All Fears. The film writers replaced the book's team of Arab, East German, and American Indian terrorists, each with their own backstories and individual reasons for being terrorists, into one bland Austrian neo-Nazi. It was clichéd and boring, and frankly painful to watch. And it made the plot ridiculous. The movie's villain, Richard Dressler, wanted to provoke war between the US and Russia so that he could create a Nazi Fourth Reich across Europe. In a world where Nazism is so demonized and discredited, why would a US-Russia war cause Nazism to resurge?
It seems Godwin's Law is not just for the internet. If a movie wants to use Nazis as the villain, that's fine. But using Nazis or neo-Nazis as your villain is using a crutch. Using them as villains does not excuse the writer from creating three-dimensional, realistic, and plausible villains and stories.
