The Romanticisation of Villains: The Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes
Features Editor Chloe Barrett
This article contains spoilers for The Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes.
The genre of dystopian fiction is facing a much-needed revival, with Suzanne Collins at the helm of this resurgence. Since the release of her world-renowned The Hunger Games trilogy in 2008, her series continues to shape the reading tastes of young people around the globe to this day. If you are my age, you most likely will remember the excitement of watching the movies in the cinema during the vital years of 2012-2015 after spending all-nighters frantically flipping through pages to read the fates of Katniss Everdeen and Peeta Mellark. And you are probably aware of the enthusiasm surrounding the series’ prequel: The Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes. While I enjoyed the novel itself, swinging between a three and four-star rating, a glaring issue with its adaptation quickly became obvious to me while watching it on the big screen: Snow was not represented like the villain he was supposed to be.
If you have been present on social media in the last few months, particularly TikTok, you might have noticed your feed being inundated with edits of dear old Coriolanus Snow. These videos, usually paired with a seductive song playing in the background, feature the character in moments that some viewers decide are attractive. With these clips compiled, a sultry filter is often added, and then boom, the video is uploaded online. They are basically thirst traps of a fictional character, to put it briefly. This phenomenon touches on the problem of romanticizing people that should not necessarily be seen in this light. The finely crafted line of morally grey characters seems to have been blurred to an outrageous extent in recent times, especially in the new wave of ‘dark romance’ books that have flooded both the physical shelves and the online Kindle store. Call me a buzzkill, but I do not find blatant abuse romantic! I would argue that it is quite the opposite. Now, I am completely aware that this is a fictional character in fictional circumstances that we are discussing, but need I remind you of the recent rise in people finding certain serial killers attractive?
The novel, which focuses on President Snow’s upbringing and how he turned out to be the antagonist that plagued the original trilogy, is written from a first-person perspective. Essentially, this means that his monologue is front and centre of the book. All his manipulative thoughts are littered throughout the five hundred or so pages, making his sinister intentions inescapable. The movie does not have this privilege, so one might think that other methods might be taken in order to showcase his evil intentions. Unfortunately, it does not. This is not to say that Snow having the moniker ‘evil guy!’ floating above his head would encourage others to see him any differently either. Take the reception of Joe Goldberg in the popular TV show You, I, for one, have seen far too many thirst edits of that fictional serial killer online. Penn Badgley, the actor behind bringing the villain to life, has even repeatedly spoken about his distaste for the character, and how he is quite concerned by the heavy romanticisation of him online. In an interview with Entertainment Weekly back in 2019, Badgley summed his character up quite profoundly by saying ‘He's not actually a person who just needs somebody who loves him. He's a murderer! He's a sociopath. He's abusive. He's delusional. And he's self-obsessed.’ I think this is some great energy that we should all be carrying with us into the New Year and beyond. No more romanticizing toxic men, people! We are so much better than that.
Anyway, back to the topic at hand. Throughout watching The Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes, I noticed that some of Snow’s other incredibly questionable acts are also toned down to portray him as a more neutral character. I would like to touch on two of these, so be warned, there are spoilers ahead.
The beautiful thing about art is the discussions surrounding it, and what interpretation you gain from said artwork because no two people will have the same answer. What is this recent urge to make media simplistic?
The main difference that I noticed immediately while in the cinema was both the novel and the movie’s climax: the final moment when we see Lucy Gray, Snow’s love interest. She discovers that he has been lying to her and was ultimately the reason for Sejanus’s death, and therefore escapes into the woods in an attempt to survive him. In the book, the scene is pages of pure tension. Her ending is completely ambiguous, as Snow fires his rifle into the surrounding trees. He shoots everything in his sight, leaving nothing unscathed. While her body is never revealed, many readers believe that he hit her, leaving Lucy to die on her own in the forest. Others are more hopeful and think that she managed to escape him once and for all, spending the rest of her life hiding from him. It shows the extreme lengths that Snow will not hesitate to take to put himself first. That scene was one of the best parts of the novel, and something I was incredibly excited to see played out on screen. However, the reality that viewers experienced was something of a letdown and removed all ambiguity from the scenario. While Snow grabs the rifle and fires it, in the movie the bullets are directed harmlessly towards the sky and treetops. Unless Lucy Gray has expert climbing skills under her District Twelve belt, there is just no way that Snow had the intention to kill her. Now, don’t get me wrong, Lucy Gray's survival is not a bad thing. In fact, I like to imagine that she escaped his grasp and lives among the flowers, writing her beautiful melodies. What I am angry about is the impulse to make Snow, an inherently evil character, into a more tolerable and digestible man, because what is the point? The same question can be asked for stripping all ambiguity from the scene, why was it necessary? The beautiful thing about art is the discussions surrounding it, and what interpretation you gain from said artwork because no two people will have the same answer. What is this recent urge to make media simplistic?
The other issue that I found within the movie that I believe romanticises the character of dear old Coriolanus Snow is after he sends his alleged best friend, Sejanus, to his death. After Sejanus’s murder in the book, Snow roots through the dearly departed’s belongings, and comes across an old photo featuring the two of them. He begins to sob because he is terrified that his own death is forthcoming. The sadness is not evoked by guilt or the absence of his friend but for purely self-preservation reasons. The character of Sejanus quickly became a fan favourite due to his political actions and determination to get the games vanquished once and for all. Snow’s betrayal is a heartbreaking revelation, as is his selfish reaction in the aftermath. In the movie, Snow still cries at the photograph, but the way that the scene is framed alludes to his grief and actions. It wants to provoke sadness in the watcher, not for the death of Sejanus, but for the actions in which Snow has to take. You are not supposed to share Snow’s grief at this moment, but to feel a sense of rage directed towards this man. The intention is completely warped in order to portray Snow in a better light, which he has no right to stand in. Once again, what is the point? I genuinely do not know.
It really feels like the movie is trying to push an agenda of Coriolanus being a troubled, morally grey heartthrob, all of which he is originally not. As I mentioned before, this has led avid internet users into taking up this mantle and running with it. Need I truly remind you of what that man did to Katniss and Peeta? Sometimes a good movie about a villain is warranted, people!
