(Photo Illustration by Nathan Graber-Lipperman)

Hannibal Lecter is the perfect villain for viewers to despise. In addition to being a ruthless psychopath, he murders and eats people in twisted artistic displays. During The Silence of the Lambs, Hannibal perversely toys with a senator who was trying to gather information on her kidnapped daughter. The scene was the psychiatrist’s nefarious sadism at its finest. For that reason, Hannibal should be an appalling character; one that audiences should long to see taste his own medicine.

But that is not Hannibal Lecter’s movie legacy. He is one of the most electrifying film characters of the 21st century. Anthony Hopkins’ performance as Hannibal in The Silence of the Lambs carried the movie to the lauded quartet of Oscar awards, winning Best Actor, Best Actress, Best Screenplay, and Best Picture — accomplished by only four films in the award show’s entire history.

While behind bars for most of the movie, Hannibal’s impenetrable personality paired with his one-step-ahead gravitas made him a walking enigma to viewers. People remember and commemorate Hopkins in the film more than Jodie Foster (the protagonist) and Ted Levine (i.e Buffalo Bill). Even while witnessing Hannibal’s infamous killing spree and getaway, it didn’t seem like the audience was supposed to dread him. Viewers were supposed to admire Hannibal’s cunning and wits for escaping maximum security. We wanted to root for him while he was violently maiming people.

Since Silence of the Lambs, rooting for the villain has become more prevalent in 21st century entertainment. Even in superhero flicks, which have typically carried perfunctory antagonists, fan groups have begun identifying with and championing the villains. The growing phenomena has become a subculture in and of itself. Yet, it chides against one of the fundamental building blocks of storytelling: the villain is despicable, therefore the audience should want him to fail.

Those sentiments conflict too much to coexist. We cannot want someone to succeed and fail at the same time. So the question then arises: is it wrong to root for the villain?

ter bugging my mom for what must have been four entire days, I got permission to go to the midnight screening of The Dark Knight when I was eight years old. Going into the film, I knew it was not an ordinary superhero flick. For one, it was filmed in Chicago — an underrated setting for big-budget action films and where I personally grew up. Second, and more importantly, the movie featured The Joker as the main antagonist. He was an eccentric character whose fans had waited 20 years for his on-screen return. Though within Christopher Nolan’s Batman trilogy, The Dark Knight left no stone unturned to make The Joker the main advertising draw of the film.

As soon as I got into Cineplex, I found the sight of white makeup and red lipstick unavoidable. Diehard supporters of Gotham City’s trickster had come out in full force that night. The fanfare after The Joker’s infamous opening sequence is still etched into my memory. It was one of the most iconic entrances in recent history, and I got to experience it with the character’s utmost fanatics.

I may forget the minor details of that night, but one message will undoubtedly stay with me: people genuinely loved The Joker. Some of that acclaim must definitely go to Heath Ledger’s Oscar-winning performance; it stole the show and is my foremost memory of the film 10 years later. But with the exhilaration after each hospital explosion and devious plot twist, there was a more deep-seated sentiment taking place on opening night. It’s the same audience-inspired feeling that allowed a horrendous Suicide Squad to gross 750 million dollars and granted The Joker his own cinematic spin-off.

At a time where real storytelling holds less of a premium, we have become increasingly enamored by exceptional characters regardless of their morals. The Joker, with his whimsical style and see-the-world-burn revelry, is a fascinating figure. It’s a fictional world, so actions are inconsequential to us. We would rather play armchair psychiatrist and dissect his internal complexity.

This holds true especially in television, where some of the most successful shows (e.g. Breaking Bad, The Sopranos, and Mad Men) featured antihero protagonists. Based upon their actions, Tony Soprano, Walter White, and Don Draper were villains. They cheated, murdered, and dealt drugs. But, it didn’t matter to us. Once the screen pixelates, our morals are put into a storage locker for later use. And that’s not necessarily wrong.

We root for the villains because, at their core, they are conflict creators. That conflict not only takes root in the cinema world to compose the plot but it more importantly manifests itself within the audience. The story may be the line that reels people in, but the internal strife is what keeps them engaged. It provides an escape from the crummy nine-to-five or long school week.

That is precisely why it is not wrong to root for the villain. They grant us the chance to escape and depersonalize from our own lives. It’s also a moment to append onto another’s reality and live peacefully within its moral inadequacies.

While we are rooting for the villain in any story, it’s almost like we’re sitting next Hannibal Lecter at the end of The Silence of the Lambs. Sipping our Mai Tais and blithely watching him “enjoy an old friend for dinner.”

Karim Noorani is a Senior Creative at UNPLUGG’D , an entertainment junkie, and an avid NBA fan. You can follow him on Twitter here.

Is It Wrong To Root For The Villain?

Our world, delivered