MovieChat Forums > Nightcrawler (2014) Discussion > Nina is The Real Villain

Nina is The Real Villain

posted 9 years ago by borimor
21 replies | jump to latest

Everyone talking about Louis but when I analyzed the film I reach to a differents conclusions.

First, lets talk about the two characters.

Louis

1) It is clear from the beginning of the film that he is probably a psychopath and that he had other psychological problems. He probably fit to stand a trial, he aware the difference between right and wrong. but still hard to ignore the fact that this guy is not normal.

2) His character represents the yellow press, underground media, always looking for the sensational, with no sentimental value. They don't have any red line about what is proper report and what not - each photo is legit.

Nina - (1) She is unethical person, she is greedy, do everything for the money but contrary to Louis she is completely sane.

(2)She represents the mainstream media, the institutionalized media. Which should have more responsibility about true and more responsible for what should be report and what not, contrary to, for example, news sites that aren't associated with the mainstream but like we seen in the movie, in practice this is not happening.

Conclusions:

First, Let's talk about responsible, when mother leaving her child alone in the kitchen, are she supposed to be surprised that the kitchen is now dirty? The answer is no. Louis does what he supposed to do, he is a psychopath, you can't really expect him otherwise. Nina is the one that let this monster to be in place he didn't need to be.She should be the responsible adult, but she rejected this role, with full awareness of the immorality in this kind of act.

Now I come to the important part of my argument. In the past there was a clear boundary between Louis & Nina, in the past Louis belonged to the backyard of the media or even more accurately to the cellars of the media. Things like framing, corpses, blood, distorting the truth, lack of consideration for the families of the dead belonged only to small and marginal independent groups of weird people - It was some type of sub-culture.

Today, the boundary between Louis & Nina are blurred. Everything is up grab, ISIS executed people - no problem we broadcast it; filming survivors second after a disaster - no problem we broadcast it; publish the names of the dead before the family know - no problem we broadcast it. The big responsibility are on the mainstream media (Nina), they didn't need to give people like Louis so much power, he didn't belong there, but he still there.

I don't think it's accidental that Louis is as a psychopath and shown as odd bird. This metaphor aims to show that he belongs to the margins of society and the fact that he is a central part of our lives are unnatural and unmoral.

So yes, I think that Nina is the real villain here, she's the one who making the decisions, she should be the one to stop this circus and she choose not to do it.
The reality is shaped by the 'Upper class', and Nina as salient representative of the 'Upper class'. The bottom line is that people like Nina, news producers and news editors, they are the ones who make the decisions, they are the ones who decide whether to open the door to strange neighbor who lives in the basement or leave him in the place he belong - the margins of society.

[–] klonkkuboy 9 years ago

Very good post! I also believe Lou demanding Nina to "do everything he wants in bed from now on" refers to the "dark media" completely taking over old news telling. Nina was also an older character, which was emphasized in the film.

[–] borimor 9 years ago

Thank you for your response.

Nice observation about the age difference, it's fit with her bio (the little we know), she lost two jobs likely because she didn't go the extra mile and now she corrupted in order to cope with brutal competition and with the new rules.

Also, Nina feel attraction and repulsion in the same time about Lou, she know he is a sick guy and what he do is unmoral but in the same time something about him make her want to be with him. It is quite obvious in the movie, that any time she could leave him and she chose not to do that, at the end of the film she even says "everyone should be like lou". I think that this is allegory about us, in one hand, we condemned this kind of acts, we seen in the news, sometimes with righteous indignation but in other hand, we are attracted to the excitement and voyeurism in this graphic images we seen on television.

[–] matheusmagalhaes10 9 years ago

There's a villain, it's called capitalism. It's what creates the offer and the demand for psychopaths like Lou. He has all the virtues these cognitive psychology theories and personal marketing/management preach. He is THE self made men embodied and his immorality is his job.

[–] borimor 9 years ago

Overall I am agree with your text, but I have a problem with the hidden context.

First, there is a many degrees of Capitalism, all societies today are capitalist.

Second, look like Capitalism became a new way for people to remove any responsibility for there actions (Nina is a great example, she say something like that "this is the rules of the game and there is no other choice to play by this rules"). I can not accept it.

Thirdly, people tend to forget about it, but postmodernism has a big impact on the mainstream media no less than capitalism.

[–] tempmail1974 9 years ago

I don't see how you can blame capitalism for this ... at worst the market is meeting public demand, and that still leaves the public to blame.

What alternative do you prefer?

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] matheusmagalhaes10 9 years ago

It's amazing to see people that actually couldn't get the absolutely clear critique of capitalism in this film. It's a rich film, there are other discussions going on but the main concern is the media as an example of an everyday field completely guided by market purposes and, most important, the fantasy of "managing" one's Life as a enterprise, basing oneself in success rates and the wish to minimize subjective aspects of the affective Life in order to "calculate" the odds of reaching Happiness (financial success and nothing more).

But then again I don't believe people don't get the critique; I believe they just refuse to understand since they're brainwashed every single day on believing that there's nothing outside capitalism and a life commanded by greed and egotism. "We're bad, that's what we are so we're alone and we have to stab each other's back to stay alive" - a lot of legendary movies helped to shape this empty nihilism as something cool or intellectual to say. It's not.

[–] borimor 9 years ago

Hey matheus thank you for your comment.

I think you not precise in your post, most people here, include me, agree that there is a critique of capitalism in this film. Actually, in this post I wanted to enlighten about other aspects in this film, moreover most users in this site only talk about capitalism and not about the media responsibility or ours responsibility (feeding the system) - so in that regard this post is more profound than most threads here in this movie board.

I am very critical about capitalism, but I think there people and establishments who used the capitalism narrative to justified there immoral decisions - it's quite similar to what you said. For me only after you stop playing the game than you can change the reality or at least your own reality.

Anyway, like I said I wanted to enlighten another aspects in the films, beside capitalism, for example the impact of postmodernism on the TV news.

[–] matheusmagalhaes10 9 years ago

Borimor, I understand and I didn't wanted to say everybody missed the point I made in my post. But, discussing this film online and even with friends, it seems to me that most people I talked to got the "media as vultures" message but, in some way, detached this from this broader discussion over morality under the capitalistic organization of modern life. It seems to me like what Hollywood does a lot, you know the drill: the big bad company run by a big bad *beep* that uses the "tools" to screw people and is overthrown by a dedicated white middle-class fellow that denounces his corruption. The problem isn't capitalism; the problem is Gordon Gekko as a human being only.

I get what you're saying, people hide behind abstract concepts to justify their corrupted moral choices. Yet I can't detach this corrupted morality from the upbringing one most endure under the postmodern circumstances of life. One aspect that, to me, was completely missed by most people is the very big importance of the "self-help mantras" the titular character keeps repeating for himself. There's the shadow of guilt behind him but there's this almost theological dimension of success that buries the humanity inside him. "Nobody is allowed to stand between me and my happiness". For me, this is the most important aspect of the film. The logical ending to what a bunch of phony psychologists are telling to people in lectures on companies (how appropriate!) or colleges is the kind of human being we behold with disgust in Nightcrawler.

Your mother cook socks in hell!

[–] borimor 9 years ago

You're a total moron

very unnecessary to used that words.

[–] ToHelenBackAgain 9 years ago

These are all some really good points. I thnk the overarching villain here is a complacent and increasingly callous society on the whole, but I definitely agree that Nina's lack of conscience is far more disturbing than Lou's. She was born with one and he wasn't.

"This is a problem that requires two minds with but a single malt."

[–] dark_frances 9 years ago

I'd say that Nina was just a cog in the system, like Louis. It was the system that jeopardized her safety, threatening to not have her contract renewed unless she generated the required ratings. Also, she was at the end of her rope - after a number of 2-year jobs, she ended up at the lowest rated station in Los Angeles - we can definitely assume that the other jobs had been in better rated stations, so she was going down. The only one to blame in all this is this system where it pays to deliver such news broadcasts. And we are all a part of this, every time we're investing time and attention in such horrific broadcasts. So are the powers that be, when they don't install a special tax for violent content and restrict it to late hours as much as possible.

there's a highway that is curling up like smoke above her shoulder

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] mamaspanka 9 years ago

Shall we dare to go even further? Maybe the real villain is the director who is glorifying with this film malevolent behaviour. I mean, go watch August Underground instead. This is the "real" thing. Or. YOU are the real villain. YOU are watching these kinds of news on a TV screen (and this movie in theatres) and giving them good RATINGS! And the circle goes round and round...

[–] Calinks 9 years ago

OR maybe the real villain is the people who eat this stuff up and give these institutions any power what so ever.

"Cool will get ya dead." -Former NBA Power Forward, Karl Malone

[–] Cydramech 9 years ago

Or the real villain is the people watching the news coverage, and the only hero in the film is the old hag that said she doesn't have a TV. If we want to talk about responsibility, it should start at home...

Only three things in this or any world that brings about change: money, blood, and guns.

[–] deborahkerr1992 9 years ago

Lou was definitely a psychopath and as any psychiatrist/psychologist will tell you, Psychopaths ARE sane. They are not psychotic nor do they suffer from schizophrenia. They are fully capable of making rational, logical decisions. They fully know the difference between right and wrong, they just don't care.

Lou was definitely a villain in this film. However, I do agree that Nina was also absolutely a villain since SHE, gave this creep the avenue and means, to do the things he did. She knew first hand what she was dealing with and she not only let him continue, she also encouraged it.

Personally, they both disgusted me.