Oh great. First British cooking and now French social theory. Next we'll be talking about that wonderful SACD: Favorite Chinese Instrumentals. (I'm Chinese so I can make fun of that SACD.)
By definition, yes. In practice, all too often not.
You are right that the conflicts that face the protagonist have been trivialized and none so more than in Hollywood films. It is sad to witness the non-coverage of the inner journey that is taken and the moral conflicts that arise.
The problem with Hollywood heroes is the fact that they are too often made out to be fundamentally good people and will innately choose the right path in the face of conflict even if that path is more difficult. It is almost a given in Hollywood. This polarization is unrealistic and the lack of coverage heightens the stereotype. "Ours is not to reason why, ours is but to do and die." (Lord Tennyson for those who are curious.)
This flatness of character is frankly very unappealing. It's almost an "I'm too stupid to do anything else." There is a complexity of character that is all too often missing in Hollywood films. There is so very little introspection on the part of most protagonists that they seem so much more one-dimensional.
Some of the best protagonists are those who are initially almost anti-heroes. Reluctant heroes who face their moral struggle between what is right for them and what is right for the greater good. And it isn't just a singular decision. It is an ongoing tug of war between the selfish human and what is morally right.
We cannot read minds. We cannot always infer what is going on in the mind of the protagonist or any character in fact. We cannot always infer what thoughts a character is thinking by their physical actions.
That is where theatrical drama has an edge over a lot of films. There is no real "scene" other than that which is defined by the actors and more importantly by their verbal interaction. There is more reflection and dialogue and less physical action. Granted, it isn't realistic that a protagonist is going to partake in a soliloquy in the middle of a scene but it is a device that at least gives us a much deeper glimpse into the psyche of the character and the inner struggles that just don't come out on their own.
Human beings like to solve problems for themselves. Males in particular. Females tend to talk a lot more not necessarily to find a discrete solution but use the entire process of expressing themselves as part of the solution. Some would call it informal therapy.
Devices in movies would include voice-over narrative, flashbacks, reveries and dream sequences and you are right that it takes a very talented writer to do it justice. Most of the time the dialogue is stilted and without impact.
It's easier for villains because we all know that villains LOVE to talk. They take pride in telling everyone around them their master plans.
A twisted thought came to mind. Terrorism works because I think the "good" guys are looking for an informational hand-out complete with diagrams, 3D models and time schedule. Movies and TV certainly condition us to expect the absurd.
Antagonists are necessarily burdened with inner conflict. It's rare that social deviants are the way they are just because. There are very deep and influential reasons why an antagonist is the way they are. A child abuser is almost always a former victim of child abuse. I cannot believe that there is not some kind of inner conflict when an abuser abuses. It is that self-loathing that manifests itself in the act of abuse.
The thing with antagonists is that they don't know how to deal with the conflict and their antagonism is their "knee-jerk" mechanism for dealing with conflict.
I just find that movie scripts tend to give more texture to antagonists. Why? Because they are "bad boys" and to some extent we as the audience look up to them in a perverted way. They are dastardly in an roguish fashion. They do what we deem is socially unacceptable for us regular people to do but there is a dark fascination with it. It is how a lot of people express some of the darkness inside of them. Voyeurism, living vicariously, etc.
I think that is why British actors seem to make the best villains. There is almost a "nobility" in their evil. Rogues and pirates have been romanticized through the ages and people admire that to some extent. To hear the lilt in Christopher Lee's devilish voice certainly beats the hell out of listening to Billy Bob Thorton's twang.
Villains are almost always portrayed as more intelligent than the heroes because it takes some genius to take over the world (and if someone mentions Pinky and the Brain, I'll slap you silly). The evil machinations and subterfuge. Heroes are almost stupid in comparison.
I'm assuming Jaws as in the shark and not the Bond villain. Last time I watched the movie, I didn't recall a British actor playing the part of a man eating shark.
Do heroes in film always learn something? Are they aware that they learned something? Does the audience even realise that a moral lesson has been played out before them? That is beyond the basic good versus evil.
Frankly, audiences of Hollywood movies are looking to be entertained. They aren't looking for Aesop's Fables.
Hollywood is too driven by dollars and bottom line and that is a shame.
Unfortunately, they pander to the lowest common denominator and that friends is a very scary thought.
My favourite British villain? Ian McKellan in Richard III (the movie).
On a side note, British comedy is light years ahead of Hollywood comedy. They are actually witty and their humour quite cerebral. That's not to say that they are not bawdy because they are capable of all of that as well. I'll take Rowan Atkinson as Edmund Blackadder any day of the week over any Hollywood comedian (although I dislike Mr. Bean and Johnny English looks ghastly).
