Character’s Capacities for Evil (And Good) In Netflix’s Daredevil

Aside from the jaw dropping action and talented actors we get to see in Netflix’s Daredevil–there’s a lot that draws non marvel fans and comic book nerds alike to this series. One of the things Daredevil does well (with most of its characters–Karen is another story all together) is portray the lines between good and evil. All the way down to what’s black and white or seemingly gray–Daredevil gives us several characters with vastly different lines they’ve either pushed, or ready and waiting to cross. The real question is: what makes each character willing to commit atrocities? Is it nature or nurture? Or is there much more going on besides a troubled childhood from some of our crew?

Why does thinking about characters this way matter?

Because when crafting your own characters, and even as a viewer–authenticity ABSOLUTELY MATTERS. If we don’t buy a character’s reasons or understand why they do what they do, we don’t believe their performance. On screen or on the page. Granted that answer doesn't always have to be a detailed horrific backstory or a dramatic complex family line (for those of you who watch Naruto or any anime you understand what I’m talking about). But ask yourself:

-What does this character believe?

-What does this character want?

-What is this character willing to do?

-What events in their past made them capable of doing such things?

Sometimes, all of these questions aren't clearly answered and we as an audience have to piece them together. An example of that would be in Dark Knight, where we really have no idea whether it was Joker’s father, wife, or anyone else that gave him the scars; but, based on evidence or traits that were provided, we can make theories or assumptions as to what truly is the reason for his seemingly mad actions.

So what makes characters in Daredevil do what they do? Let’s look at theories.

Nature Vs. Nurture:

A perfectly valid argument is the ever common question: How were they raised? It might seem old fashioned, but let’s look at a couple key characters in the show.

• Elektra had a beyond troubled childhood and trained with Stick as a little girl. Her training was physically torturous and borderline abusive. She was taught to be a weapon and then spurned as a monster for being capable of killing. Elektra therefore believes that she was designed to harm and kill. When she’s met with Daredevil’s approach of being good, the idea is foreign to her because violence is all she’s seemingly known for.

• King Pin had a horrible childhood in which his mother was the only light or representation of love or affection. His father was abusive, constantly put him down and raised him to believe he had to be an aggressor otherwise he would be weak. There was no success or light at the end of the tunnel for Wilson Fisk except to become the stronger person and in Hell’s kitchen this is achieved through criminal actions.

• Matt Murdock was raised by a single father in a less than charmed life but he was taught values like commitment, discipline and selflessness. All demonstrated by the way he witnessed his father care for him up until his death. Even after Matt was taken in and later left by Stick, he still held to his Catholic upbringing and maintained his sense of servitude to others.

Upbringing definitely plays a role, but what else can we see looking at these facts? Two of these characters are redeemed and one isn’t (Daredevil was a hero from the beginning so he wasn't in need of redemption as a character but that’s another story). Elektra suffers horrible things and believes she’s only capable of violence, but in the end she dies to save Daredevil. Kingpin grips sins till the end and is never convicted that he needs to stop oppressing Hell’s kitchen. Another example of a character who’s suffered horrible trauma (and is guilty of many flaws but isn't a villain) is Jessica Jones. Jones has been through horrible tragedies but she still has a desire to help others however reluctant she might be about it. Circumstances don’t make the person, they shape them–but they can’t define them.

You could argue Elektra loves Daredevil and that her affection for him is the reason behind her redemption. However, I hate to pose this fact that all YA female fans will hate–but a person CANNOT be your salvation. Can that person be utilized as an instrument to lead you to redemption? Yes. But they can’t save you. So Daredevil doesn't save Elektra. So what’s really the difference between the people driven to cross the line and never turn back, and the ones who don’t?

Is there a Difference Between Being Moral and Being Good?

It’s not as simple as being raised one way or another (though statistically speaking it definitely plays a role). We see this not only from the comparison of Elektra and Kingpin but other characters in the show. In season 3 we meet Benjamin Poindexter (Dex), a character who by all accounts seems like a law abiding FBI agent with a history in the military and working for a suicide prevention unit. This character poses the idea that a seemingly good citizen can have the capacity for extreme violence and even criminal actions. Let’s look at what we know of this character:

-What we see of Dex’s childhood is vague. All we know is that he played baseball, had a phenomenal pitching arm and a propensity towards hurting other living creatures. We aren't given a reason why he had this problem but it led him to being in therapy at a young age.

-By the conversations with Dex and his therapist we see he always had a complete lack of empathy for other living creatures. He knew it was unbefitting to civilized society to lack that trait but he can only feign empathy even as an adult. Hence his sole reaction to all struggles from other human beings: “That’s hard, really hard.”

-Dex knows enough about moral standards to know he should be a law abiding citizen with a purpose, and he should care about other human beings but he’s incapable of doing it on his own. Therefore he emotionally latches onto a person who by all appearances is good: Julie Barnes.

The key difference between someone like Dex and Julie (there are MANY but most flagrant) is that he has to feign the traits of a good human being and obey society because he knows that's what’s considered moral. The traits he feigns are ones other characters like Matt Murdock, Julie and Claire already have. We’re given the impression he held out at the suicide prevention unit because Julie was his north star to his fractured moral compass. She seemed to call his behavior good so he continued down that road. He had no personal conviction or reason to be good in and of himself. This also goes back to why a person can’t be your saving grace. If your character’s whole reason for being good is steeped in a flawed human being, then it will be easily fractured based on their relationship with that person. Julie is good for the sake of good–not because she’s forced to be. In other words, it seems like Dex is a character lying in wait for someone to condone what he really wants to do: hurt people. This is why he latches onto Kingpin. Kingpin condones, enables and encourages Dex to hurt and kill other people. As soon as Dex is granted this chance, he grabs it. There are some people you couldn't force to commit atrocities if you tried. Following rules of society generally accepted as moral allows people to believe they are a “good person.'' However, if when pushed they can commit violent terrible actions, they lacked conviction and integrity to begin with.

What is really each character's capacity for evil and good?

Hitting the nail on the head that’s really what's going on with a lot of these characters and many others: what are they capable of?

-Kingpin falls in love with Vanessa, a seemingly normal woman with no criminal history. Yet when she finds out who he is, she isn't afraid–she’s intrigued. It’s her idea to kill Agent Nadeem as soon as she learns he might leak information on her criminal fiancé.

-Dex tries to use Julie as a moral crutch and inspiration, but when she learns of his obsessive unhinged tendencies she flees. Julie is only interested in Dex being redeemed, not in any of his negative qualities.

-Matt Murdock undergoes many unfair tragedies but it never leads him to unjustly harm anyone innocent.

-Agent Ray Nadeem chooses to speak out against how he assisted Kingpin even though it costs him his life.

You can see a lot of the negative aspects of humanity in this show, but at the same time we see just enough good overcoming evil in the end. These breakdowns all go back to something I touched upon in my “Frankenstein and the study of a chaotic villain” article. When characters are pushed, and put under traumatic pressing circumstances typically one of two things emerges: a hero or a villain. There are subdivisions like anti-heroes and rogues ect. It’s not always clear cut, but often characters fall into one of those camps. When Daredevil’s pushed, he'd sacrifice his own happiness and well-being to save Hell’s kitchen. When Kingpin is pressed he finds other means to intimidate and hurt those who stand against his power. When given the opportunity, Poindexter finds he really enjoys violence. And Elektra meets the end after a long road of mistakes, by saving the life of another and finding redemption.

Hero, villain, or anti-hero, which do your favorite characters fall under and why do you think that is?