I wish they had called DAY OF THE JACKAL something else.
It’s mostly because the show seems determined to do something that the book at least avoided (I can’t remember if I saw the film): to wit, make the Jackal a villain. In a very particular way, in the book he is not. The Jackal has no interest in his target, no agenda past his contract, and feels no need to offer a justification for his actions. He is… a force of nature, as implacable as his human frame will let him be, and the heroes don’t need to understand him. They simply need to kill him.
Is a tornado a villain? A mudslide? A swarm of angry bees? No, no, and no – but you can enjoy watching all of those being defeated. Humanizing the Jackal here feels like it’s just catering to what people think is the current taste for comprehensible, understandable villains. I’d rather they didn’t try to bother.
Moe Lane
PS: That being said: now I want to reread the book. And (re?)watch the movie. And… oh. Wow. That would work. That would absolutely work.
Nevermind, will tell you later.
#commissionearned
I’m quite sick of “rationalizing evil”.
I don’t give a flying rat’s sphincter why beyond what I need to know about the villain to prevail…. every additional word is just authorial onanism … in my not at all humble opinion.
Mew
An understandable villain can be good, but it depends on the story.
What I really hate, is when authors are seduced by their own villains.
Hannibal left a dent in my wall.
I’d expand, but I’m about to start a digital detox, and won’t be able to clarify or contribute for about a week.
Belatedly: enjoy!