Re: Mr. Monk's Last Case
Last night I watched Mr. Monk's Last Case. I am, or was, a major fan of the original show, and I couldn't help but enjoy a pleasant taste of nostalgia. However, the movie did fall into certain traps which detracted from pure enjoyment. There was certainly a ghost, at least, of DEI; every new character, except the villains, of course, had to belong to one of the better classes of people than white men, but as this never affected the story, it's mostly a distracting window dressing. It only betokened that the teeth had been taken out: there weren't going to be jokes where people misunderstood Monk's germaphobia as racism (Mr. Monk and the Marathon Man), or over-the-top characters like the nurse Varla Davis (Mr. Monk and the Girl Who Cried Wolf).
Putting that aside, my real criticism regards the villain. Sloppy. The richest man in the world murders his business partner to become the richest man in the world. We're never given a real reason, and it would be very easy to do so. However, any reason you'd give the villain for his crime might make him appear like a real person, and that would get in the way of the propaganda against ultra-rich people. It's hard to explain without going into detail, but there's never any consistent characterization. He's a creative genius who can't deal with his problems except by throwing money at them. He can be personal enough to win Stottlemeyer over to his side, but is so obtuse regarding human behavior as to be shocked when Stottlemeyer betrays him.
The hired assassin is such a bumbler that I thought of that sarcastic line of Poirot, something like, "he is not very obliging, our murderer," except, he was. I will give it to the writers, however, that the plot to liquidate the assassin was reminiscent of the original show.
Now, I don't mean this post to be wholly a review. There was a real problem with the villain that detracted from the story that I think might make a good discussion for writers. I don't hold that all villains have to be three dimensional with intricate backgrounds, or even, necessarily, realistic, but they ought to be consistent, believable within the story. That's where I think this villain fails. He simply accommodates the plot, suave when suave is needed, bloodthirsty when bloodthirsty is needed, and no attempt to fit all his characterizations together. The writers seem to go in hating ultra-rich entrepreneurs, assuming you hate them just as they do, and never bother to actually make a character that can be hated. He's only a series of random actions meant to further the plot.
- Are you a Monk fan? Did you watch the movie?
- How do you write a good villain? Who are some of your favorite villains?
- What are some pitfalls writers fall into when writing villains?
