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.

[–] KingCobra686 9 years ago

I think Nina is feeling like she is backed into a corner and has no choice but to let Lou do his thing. She knows that it isnt fully ethical, but she realizes that it is the best way to keep her career from failing.

Lou does realize to some degree that he is breaking the law and acting unethically. He plans everything out very meticulously and he has viable excuses for his actions whenever the cops come around. If he was completely oblivious he would have been caught much easier.

[–] danavenell 8 years ago

I think Nina is feeling like she is backed into a corner and has no choice but to let Lou do his thing. She knows that it isnt fully ethical, but she realizes that it is the best way to keep her career from failing.

Some people project stuff onto Nina that isn't in the text - yes she initially rejects Lou's sexual advances, but that's purely because she seemingly doesn't find him attractive at that point. Very soon, as he powers through that rejection, you can see that change. Apart from that she shows not an ounce of morality in the whole film. Show me where she behaves ethically at any point! What, is it cos she's a *lady* people make excuses for her? Yes, she's just as bad a person as Lou, they are both amoral in their own ways.

Another thing, any movie with a photographer or cameraman as a protagonist - chances are its saying something about film-making too. As well as being about news media, this movie was also about the way a storyteller, like a film-maker, can take in the horrors of the world, find then fascinating, and then process and sell it to you as a story, even if that story has a moral core. Rather than a more human reaction which is just to think 'ugh!' Get it?

[–] KingCobra686 8 years ago

My point was that they are both to blame, but for different reasons. Lou is the one committing the crimes and I do not believe that he is crazy enough to be excused from taking responsibility for his actions. Nina is just as much at fault for allowing all of it to happen. She might not be the one out there trespassing and interfering with crime scenes, but she passively allows it to happen.

[–] danavenell 8 years ago

I agree. I was responding to your and other posts which excuse Nina. I think the movie shows us she really has no more ethics than Lou, just knows how to present herself socially better. I think the movie shows how someone as sociopathic as Lou can still be attractive; he is manipulative which means people do what he wants - on another level a woman like Nina may well just find this strange person, with no shame no doubt, a desirable partner.

I think the film is a masterpiece, I rated it 10/10, partly because it is the best, most detailed and true portrayal of a sociopath I've seen in a movie (dispassionate fascination with crime scenes for example), that doesn't take the usual psychopath=Hannnibal Lector movie villain route. And partly because of what the film says about our news media. And then what it says about the artistic process in general (and the audiences part in that). And finally, what it says about how many women will go for a complete nut like Lou. 'Chicks dog a bad boy'. Or more strictly speaking, women are often very attracted to sociopaths.