In the grand tapestry of Hindi cinema, the villain has always held a special place, from the mustache-twirling rogues of old to the nuanced nemeses of today. Bollywood’s bad guys have evolved dramatically over the decades. In earlier years, on-screen antagonists were often cartoonishly evil, like the flamboyant Mogambo or the scheming Shakaal, serving as clear-cut foils to the hero. Their motives were simple, their personalities exaggerated, and their appearance unforgettable. Fast forward to the present: modern Hindi films and streaming series boast villains such as Kancha Cheena of Agneepath (2012) or Guruji of Sacred Games (2018) who are complex, layered characters. These new-age antagonists come with deep backstories, psychological depth, and even a twisted sense of righteousness.
This article delves into “Villains Then vs Now”, comparing the caricatured villains of older Hindi films with the complex antagonists of contemporary cinema and OTT platforms. We will explore how character motivations, visual styles, psychological complexity, and sociopolitical undertones of villains have transformed. Through examples from classic Bollywood hits and modern films and web series alike, we’ll see how changing audience expectations and cultural shifts shaped this evolution. Let’s step into the lair of Bollywood’s villains across eras, from the campy theatrics of yesteryear to the grey-shaded intrigues of today.
The Caricatured Villains of Yesteryears
Hindi films from the 1960s through the 1980s often featured villains as larger-than-life caricatures. These were the glory days of over-the-top bad guys who were impossible to miss and even harder to forget. In these decades, a villain usually meant a character who was evil simply because there was little need to justify their cruelty beyond greed, power, or pure malice. Storytelling in that era painted morality in black and white: the hero was nobility incarnate, and the villain was “evil incarnate.” This straightforward approach made it easy for audiences to root against the bad guy and celebrate his eventual defeat.
Common traits of classic Hindi film villains included:
- Exaggerated Persona: They laughed maniacally, spoke in a booming baritone, and often delivered melodramatic monologues. Many had trademark dialogues or laughs that became as famous as the films themselves.
- Flamboyant Appearance: A signature look was a must. Think of eye-catching costumes and props, a villain might sport a flashy suit, a giant cigar, dark glasses, or a menacing scar. Some even had peculiar traits (like a metal claw for a hand or a constant pet by their side) to emphasize their villainy.
- Simple Motives: Their goals were usually straightforward: wealth, power, revenge, or domination. The classic villain rarely had a nuanced rationale; he was after a treasure, seeking to rule a kingdom or the underworld, or simply out to destroy the hero’s life out of spite.
- Moral Clarity: These antagonists were irredeemably bad. Films offered no backstory or justification for their evil behavior. They existed as a foil to highlight the hero’s virtue. Audiences were never meant to sympathize with them, only to hate them and cheer their downfall.
- Dramatic Demise: Fitting with their cartoonish evil, their defeat was often equally grand, maybe falling into their own crocodile pit or dying in a fiery explosion, ensuring the audience’s sense of poetic justice.
Iconic Old-School Villains and Their Traits
To understand the old-school villain template, let’s look at a few legendary Hindi film villains from the past and what made them memorable:
Mogambo (Mr. India, 1987) – Perhaps the poster child of caricatured villains, Mogambo (played by Amrish Puri) is a military-uniform-clad megalomaniac. He lives on a hidden island base, complete with loyal henchmen in matching outfits and a pit of acid for those who disappoint him. Mogambo’s goal is nothing less than world (or at least India) domination. With his famous catchphrase “Mogambo khush hua!” (“Mogambo is pleased!”), uttered whenever his evil plans progress, he delighted audiences. Mogambo’s motivation is simply to wreak havoc and rule, and he revels in being evil. His exaggerated evil laugh and grandiose style made him scary yet cartoonish, a villain straight out of a comic book.
Shakaal (Shaan, 1980) – Inspired heavily by James Bond antagonists, Shakaal (portrayed by Kulbhushan Kharbanda) is a suave, sophisticated crime lord with a completely shaved head and a penchant for deadly gadgets. He operates from an extravagant island lair equipped with sharks and trap doors – an Indian twist on 007’s arch-enemies. Shakaal’s character is pure Bond-villain flamboyance: he presses buttons to eliminate his own men when displeased and asks chilling questions like, “Ab zinda bachoge, nahin?” (“Now, how will you survive?”) with cold cynicism. His motives aren’t deeply explored beyond being an underworld kingpin who enjoys power and instilling fear. With no backstory given, Shakaal is evil because it’s fun to be evil, a stylish villain who exists to be vanquished by the heroes in the end.
Gabbar Singh (Sholay, 1975) – A dacoit (bandit) who became one of Indian cinema’s most iconic villains. Gabbar (played by Amjad Khan) is a ruthless bandit chief terrorizing a village. While he is more gritty and less technologically flamboyant than Mogambo or Shakaal, Gabbar is still a larger-than-life persona. He has unforgettable lines like “Kitne aadmi the?” (“How many men were there?”) and a sadistic streak; he casually plays games to decide his captives’ fates. Gabbar’s motivation is typical bandit greed and revenge against the local ex-cop, and the film doesn’t humanize him beyond showing his brutality. Yet, his charisma and quotable dialogue turned him into a folk legend. Gabbar’s evil is not explained by any deep psychology; he’s simply the face of lawlessness, meant to be feared and ultimately defeated by the heroes.
Crime Master Gogo (Andaz Apna Apna, 1994) – A comedic parody of the classic villain archetype, Gogo (played by Shakti Kapoor) still deserves mention for illustrating how ingrained caricature villains were in pop culture. He dresses flamboyantly in a cape and eye-mask, calls himself the nephew of Mogambo (a tongue-in-cheek reference), and threatens absurd things like “Aankhen nikal ke gotiyan khelunga” (“I’ll pluck out your eyes and play marbles with them!”) in an exaggerated tone. While intended as satire, Crime Master Gogo shows the familiar tropes – eccentric costume, quirky threat, and a theme music, that defined villainy in earlier Hindi films. The fact that audiences got the joke in 1994 means these tropes were well-loved and understood.
These examples underscore how villains of the past were often straight-up caricatures of evil. They were written and performed to entertain and to make the hero’s victory sweeter. Decades ago, viewers took delight in hating these villains, booing them on screen, and clapping when they got their comeuppance. Their simplistic nature was not seen as a flaw but rather a virtue in the context of morality plays; the focus was the struggle between good and evil, not the inner life of the antagonist.
Motivations and Simplicity in Early Villainy
In older Hindi films, the antagonists’ motivations tended to be simple and overt. There was rarely an attempt to explain why a villain turned out the way he did. This simplicity was partly a product of the times, films were designed as morality tales or masala entertainers, where too much realism or complexity wasn’t the goal. The villain’s job was to be bad so the hero could be good. Let’s break down the key aspects of early villain motivations and characterization:
Greed and Power: A huge number of classic villains were smugglers, bandits, corrupt landowners, or crime lords. Whether it was smuggling gold, hoarding wealth, or usurping a throne, greed for money and power was a primary driver. For instance, many 1970s villains are depicted as mafia dons or smugglers in posh suits smuggling gold and drugs, reflecting real issues of that era in a simplistic way. They wanted to expand their criminal empires at any cost.
Revenge or Personal Vendetta: If not greed, then revenge was a go-to motive. Sometimes the villain had a cursory backstory like “the hero’s father jailed me years ago, now I’ll destroy his family”. However, these backstories were generic and served only to kickstart the conflict. They did not necessarily invite sympathy or deeper understanding. An example is the classic trope of a dacoit seeking revenge on a village or family for a past incident; we know revenge is the reason, but the story never pauses to explore the villain’s feelings; it’s just a plot device.
You May Also Like to Read
Psychopaths without Context: Some villains were portrayed as downright psychotic or sadistic for no real reason besides amplifying the drama. They might laugh insanely and commit heinous acts (like the memorable villain Gokul Pandit, played by Ashutosh Rana in Dushman (1998), who was a terrifying stalker and murderer). In the older framework, such a character is presented as a “madman” to heighten the hero’s challenge, and the script doesn’t delve into how he became a psychopath. The villain simply is evil, and that is taken at face value.
External Evil: Often, villains symbolized an external or societal evil in a very direct way. For example, many 1950s–70s movies had villainous characters like the exploitative zamindar (feudal landlord), the treacherous moneylender, or the evil capitalist. These characters were written to embody social evils (feudal oppression, debt traps, industrialist greed) in a singular human form. They were not nuanced individuals, but rather stand-ins for an idea the hero (often a common man or farmer) had to defeat to restore moral order. In Mother India (1957), for instance, the moneylender Sukhi Lala is an outright villain abusing poor farmers; he’s basically a symbol of oppression with no redeeming quality.
The villains of the classic era were purposefully one-dimensional. This simplicity made them universally identifiable and the conflict easy to understand. Audiences of the time, who enjoyed loud dialogues and clear heroes and villains, embraced these portrayals. Even without complexity, these villains left a mark, many became cultural icons (how many times have people mimicked Gabbar Singh’s or Mogambo’s lines?). The fact that we still quote those dialogues today shows the power of those portrayals, simplistic as they were. However, as times changed, viewers began to crave something more from antagonists than just a curled mustache and an evil laugh.
Shifting Shades in the 90s: The Anti-Hero Emerges
By the late 1980s and into the 1990s, Hindi cinema began to blur the line between hero and villain. Indian society was changing, and with it came films that experimented with moral ambiguity. The result was a new breed of characters: the anti-heroes and the nuanced villains. These were pivotal in the transition from caricature to complexity.
Several trends defined this era of shift:
Heroes with Grey Shades: In a significant break from tradition, some films made their heroes embody villainous traits. The most famous examples are Shah Rukh Khan’s characters in Baazigar (1993) and Darr (1993). In Baazigar, the protagonist intentionally murders and deceives to achieve his revenge, he is both hero and villain of the story. In Darr, Shah Rukh played an obsessive lover whose slogan “I love you K-k-k-Kiran” sent chills down spines; the film’s lead was actually Sunny Deol (the conventional “good guy”), but the audience came away remembering the crazed stalker Rahul (SRK) more. These films were commercially successful, proving that audiences could accept (and even root for) a protagonist with a dark side. It was a radical idea that the one we are following could be the villain in many ways. This opened the door for richer antagonists across the board.
Sympathetic Backstories: Around this time, filmmakers started giving villains a bit more story. While not fully fleshed out by today’s standards, we saw attempts to provide motivations that evoked a degree of sympathy or at least understanding. For example, in Khalnayak (1993), Sanjay Dutt played Ballu, a criminal on the run. Through the film, we learn about how society and circumstances led him astray. Even though he’s the antagonist to the upright cop (Jackie Shroff), the narrative makes us see Ballu as a product of neglect and poverty, a shift from pure evil to a tragic anti-hero. Similarly, the 90s classic Vaastav (1999) shows the making of a Mumbai gangster (played by Sanjay Dutt) from an innocent man; by the end, he’s doing terrible things, but the viewer has seen his journey into crime, which adds layers to his character.
Villains with Personal Motives: Instead of grandiose world-conquering plans, 90s villains often had more personal, intimate motives for their misdeeds, which made them feel more realistic. For example, in Sadak (1991), the villain Maharani (a sinister brothel owner played brilliantly by Sadashiv Amrapurkar) wasn’t out to destroy the country; her villainy was rooted in personal greed and sadism in the context of the red-light district, which felt horrifyingly real. And in psychological thrillers like Gupt (1997), the “villain” turned out to be someone close to the hero with a very personal vendetta, not a random evil stranger. This trend made the stakes more relatable and the antagonists more intriguing, as viewers would think “Why are they doing this?” during the film, eager to uncover the villain’s agenda.
Notable Scary Villains: The 90s also delivered some memorably scary, more realistic villain characters who left an impact because of how shockingly evil yet believable they were. A standout is Ashutosh Rana’s portrayal of Gokul Pandit in Dushman (1998), a truly chilling character who is a sadistic serial rapist/murderer targeting the heroine. He had no flamboyant outfit or funny one-liners; he was depicted as an everyday-looking man with a monstrous mind. His scenes were terrifying because he felt like someone who could exist in real life. Another example is Rana’s role as Lajja Shankar in Sangharsh (1999), a quasi-religious fanatic serial killer who performs human sacrifices. He gave the role an eerie howl and intensity that made the character frightening yet far from the cartoon villain mold, it was a deeper kind of psychological horror. These portrayals in the late 90s indicated Bollywood’s readiness to create villains who could truly disturb or provoke thought, not just entertain with campiness.
This era was essentially a bridge between the old and new. Filmmakers were experimenting with the formula, and audiences were showing an appetite for change. The success of anti-hero films and the impact of more layered villains proved that viewers didn’t need the villain to be a mustache-twirling buffoon; he or she could be complex, maybe even partly sympathetic, and that could make the story more engaging. Indian cinema was getting influenced by global films, and a more aware audience base, people who had started watching Hollywood action thrillers or reading about crime psychology, were ready for richer storytelling.
By the end of the 90s and early 2000s, we see the stage set for the fully realized antagonists that define contemporary Hindi cinema. The notion that “bad guys are not born but made”, or that evil can wear a pleasing mask, started seeping into scripts. This transition leads us into the modern era, where the villain is often as much the focus of the story as the hero is.
Modern Antagonists: Complexity and Depth
Step into the 2010s and beyond, and you’ll find that Hindi cinema’s villains have evolved into some of the most complex characters on screen. Today’s antagonists are rarely all-evil for the sake of evil; instead, they live in the gray areas of morality. They often believe they are the heroes of their own story. Modern villains come with nuanced motivations, detailed backstories, and psychological realism that make them far more three-dimensional than their predecessors. Importantly, the rise of streaming platforms (OTT content) in the last decade has supercharged this trend by allowing long-form storytelling, where villains can be developed over multiple episodes and seasons. Let’s look at what sets the new-age villains apart and highlight a few standout examples from recent films and web series:
Defining traits of contemporary Hindi screen villains:
Layered Motivations: Unlike the single-note greed or revenge of yesterday’s baddies, today’s villains often have a mix of motives. They might desire power or revenge, yes, but there’s usually an underlying reason, a personal trauma, an ideological belief, or a reaction to societal injustice, that explains why they are doing what they do. Many modern scripts strive to answer the question: “What made this person turn to the dark side?” This doesn’t justify their crimes, but it provides context that makes them more human and sometimes even evokes empathy or at least understanding from the audience.
Internal Conflict and Psychological Depth: Contemporary antagonists are not just external obstacles for the hero; they often struggle with their own inner demons. They may have moments of doubt, emotional vulnerabilities, or a moral code of their own. It’s not uncommon to see a villain who loves someone, has a family, or shows an unexpected kindness in one scene while committing heinous acts in another. These contrasts make them unpredictable and intriguing. A great villain now could carry an entire narrative on his shoulders because he is as fleshed out as the protagonist.
Realism and Relatability: Many recent villains are frightening because of how realistic they are. They often blend into society, a friendly face with dark secrets, rather than a cackling, obvious fiend. This banality of evil (ordinary on the surface, deadly underneath) gives a sense that evil can lurk anywhere. For instance, a corrupt politician in a film might appear as a respectable gentleman publicly but orchestrates violence behind closed doors. This makes viewers reflect on real-world parallels. Even when a villain is very eccentric or dramatic, the film often grounds their circumstances in realism (e.g., a terrorist character might be shown with real ideological motivations and training, rather than being a generic “bad guy”).
Sociopolitical Undertones: Modern antagonists frequently represent or comment on contemporary issues. They have become a vehicle to explore topics like religious extremism, political corruption, systemic injustice, and more. In doing so, villains have become more relevant to the audience’s world. The stories are not happening in a fantasy bubble; they often hold a mirror to society’s dark side.
Now, let’s highlight some notable modern villains in Hindi cinema (including web series) and see how they embody these traits:
Kancha Cheena (Agneepath, 2012) – In the 2012 remake of Agneepath, Sanjay Dutt’s portrayal of Kancha Cheena is miles apart from the suave gangster played by Danny Denzongpa in the 1990 original. This modern Kancha is a menacing, bald brute with a philosophical streak, he frequently misquotes the Bhagavad Gita to justify his cruelty. Kancha rules an island village called Mandwa with an iron fist, turning it into a drug haven. What makes him a modern villain is the attempt to give him a quasi-ideological angle: he sees himself as a sort of necessary evil, cleansing the weak through fear. His childhood trauma (hinted at in the film, as he is ridiculed for being the illegitimate son of a village head) and his warped spiritual beliefs shape his monstrosity.
Visually, he’s intimidating, draped in black clothes against the backdrop of a barren village, but gone is the need for a snazzy suit or overdone theatrics. Kancha is terrifying largely through his actions (public hangings, merciless beatings) and his twisted reasoning. While he’s still definitively evil, he’s portrayed with a gravitas that shows the filmmakers wanted a formidable adversary with personality, not a caricature. In fact, Kancha Cheena was designed to be even more powerful than the hero Vijay, pushing the protagonist to his limits – a sign that in modern narratives, the villain’s strength and depth directly elevate the hero’s journey.
Guruji (Sacred Games, 2018-19) – On the Netflix series Sacred Games, which brought cinematic quality storytelling to OTT, the ultimate antagonist is Guruji (played brilliantly by Pankaj Tripathi). Guruji is a far cry from the loud Bollywood villains of old; he appears as a soft-spoken, enlightened guru leading an ashram. But beneath the spiritual facade lies a fanatic plotting a nuclear apocalypse to “purify” the world. What makes Guruji a standout modern villain is his psychological sophistication and ideological motivation. He genuinely believes in his utopian ideology to the extent that he can brainwash others (including a notorious gangster like Gaitonde) into doing his bidding. Throughout the series, Guruji’s calm, composed manner makes his malice even more chilling. He quotes scripture, talks about devotion and transcendence, but orchestrates mass murder.
This dichotomy, outwardly benevolent, inwardly malevolent, exemplifies the nuanced writing of today’s villains. Guruji also reflects sociopolitical undertones: he is loosely inspired by real-life cult leaders and the nexus of religion and violence. Unlike a Mogambo who would gleefully declare his evil plans, Guruji justifies his plan as a pragmatic sacrifice for humanity’s greater good, which is terrifying because it sounds almost reasonable when he says it. Audiences are compelled to consider how charisma and rhetoric can mask extremist intentions. In the end, Guruji’s mission in the story carries on even after his death, showing that a villain can cast a long shadow on a narrative, something older films rarely explored once the villain was disposed of.
Kaleen Bhaiya (Mirzapur, 2018-2020) – Another product of the OTT boom, Kaleen Bhaiya (played by Pankaj Tripathi, again showcasing his range) is the principal antagonist in Amazon Prime’s Mirzapur series. He is a mafia don in a small town, controlling the illegal gun and carpet trade. What makes Kaleen Bhaiya compelling is his dual life: he is a ruthless crime lord in one sphere, but also a family man dealing with a hapless son and a second marriage at home. The series gives him ample screen time to demonstrate a shrewd mind and a certain code of conduct, he is not outright psychotic; he’s calculative and diplomatic when needed, violent when provoked.
He spouts local proverbs and witticisms even while making deadly threats, grounding the character in the milieu of Uttar Pradesh’s heartland. The writing allows us to see his perspective: he believes in maintaining order (albeit a criminal order) and often appears more measured than the hot-headed younger characters. In Kaleen Bhaiya, we see a humanized villain; you may not sympathize with his crimes, but you understand his pride, his worries about his heir, and his survival instincts. The authenticity of such a character, who could very well be loosely based on real gangster-politicians, makes him a far more textured antagonist than the old single-tone villains.
Khaleen “Khilji” (Padmaavat, 2018) – In Sanjay Leela Bhansali’s epic Padmaavat, Ranveer Singh portrayed Sultan Alauddin Khilji as the antagonist. While Khilji is an example of a relatively mainstream film villain (and a historical figure fictionalized), the performance and writing gave him multiple layers. Khilji is shown as barbaric and power-crazed, yes, but also as someone who is unpredictably mercurial, at times almost poetic in his madness. He’s given moments of vulnerability (paranoia about betrayal, a twisted kind of love for his slave-general) that make the character larger-than-life yet not flat.
Ranveer’s Khilji became a talking point for being magnetic and fearsome without resorting to any clichéd “evil laughs”, he felt like a believable mad king driven by ambition and lust. This is indicative of modern cinema’s approach: even when portraying an out-and-out villain from history, infuse him with charisma and personal quirks, so he’s not just an evil cutout but a memorable character on his own.
Tabu as Simi (Andhadhun, 2018) – It’s worth noting that the evolution isn’t limited to male villains. In the thriller Andhadhun, Tabu plays Simi, a deceptively charming woman who commits murder and goes to extraordinary lengths to cover it up. She is an antagonist who is intelligent, opportunistic, and morally bankrupt, yet she doesn’t look or act like a typical “vamp”. Simi is attractive, initially sympathetic (she’s stuck in a bad marriage), and displays quick wit.
As her crimes pile up, we see her fear, desperation, and cold calculation. This character marked a departure from the old trope of female villains being either seductress vamps or evil mother-in-laws. Simi is a modern, realistic criminal who happens to be female, and Tabu’s nuanced portrayal made the audience simultaneously marvel at her audacity and despise her actions. The success of this character showed that female antagonists in Hindi content can be just as complex and central to the story as their male counterparts.
From the above examples, a clear picture emerges: modern Hindi cinema and OTT have reshaped the villain into a fully-realized character, often as important as the hero. The antagonists today can carry social commentary, emotional weight, and unpredictable twists on their shoulders. Audiences have responded positively to this change, we often come out of a film or series discussing the villain’s motivations or quoting their philosophy (think of Guruji’s cryptic lines or Kaleen Bhaiya’s one-liners) as much as we discuss the hero’s bravery. In some cases, the villain even steals the show, by virtue of being more unconventional or fascinating (for instance, many found Ranveer’s Khilji far more entertaining than the straight-arrow protagonists in Padmaavat).
Crucially, this complexity has added intensity and credibility to the conflicts in stories. When a hero faces a villain like these, the battle isn’t just physical; it’s often intellectual and emotional. The audience is kept on edge because a nuanced villain is less predictable; they might spare someone unexpectedly or commit an atrocity we didn’t see coming, because they aren’t bound by the old formula of “scream, kill henchman, kidnap heroine”. In essence, modern villains have made Hindi cinema richer and more layered, elevating the overall storytelling to compete with international standards.
Visual Representation: From Theatrical Flair to Realistic Grit
One of the most immediately noticeable differences in villains then vs now is how they look and present themselves on screen. The visual representation of antagonists has shifted to match the changing tone of storytelling.
In the old days, subtlety was not a priority. Villains were designed to be visually distinctive and overtly menacing or quirky in appearance. This theatrical flair served a purpose; it made the villain stand out and emphasized that we’re watching an escapist drama. On the other hand, modern villains often adopt a more understated, realistic appearance, blending into their setting or using visual symbolism in clever ways. Let’s break down this contrast:
- Costumes and Styling:
- Then: The costumes for villains were often extravagant or symbolic. If a villain were a mafia don, he might wear pristine white suits or a velvet bandhgala, signifying wealth. Military-style outfits were popular for big bosses (Mogambo’s costume is essentially a dictator’s uniform in blazing gold and red). Accessories like eye-patches, elaborate rings, or distinctive hats (remember “Lion” Ajit with his suits and omnipresent cat, or the smuggler characters always in sunglasses) immediately told the audience who the bad guy was. This was a time of visual exaggeration; a scar or an eye patch signaled past evil deeds, a flamboyant outfit signaled power and arrogance. Women villains or vamps wore heavy makeup, sultry saris or Western dresses, emphasizing a “deviant” boldness compared to the chaste heroine.
- Now: The styling has moved towards realism. Villains today often dress like any normal person in their socio-economic background. A corrupt politician villain will just be in Khadi kurtas or safari suits like actual Indian politicians, not a cape or anything crazy. A gangster might simply wear a shirt and trousers appropriate for the area (e.g., Ganesh Gaitonde in Sacred Games wears fairly ordinary clothes; Kaleen Bhaiya wears simple vests and shirts). This grounded approach makes them feel like part of the real world. Of course, there are exceptions in stylized films, e.g., in Agneepath (2012), Kancha Cheena’s all-black robe-like attire and bulky kohl-eyed look was deliberately crafted to appear ominous (almost neo-gothic). But even then, it suits the realistic setting (he looks like a thug who has styled himself as a local despot). Overall, you won’t see modern villains wearing anything that shouts “I’m evil!”, no capes, no horns (unless it’s a fantasy genre). They might even be well-disguised in plain clothes, which in a way is more unsettling.
- Physical Appearance and Demeanor:
- Then: Classic villains often had a trademark physical demeanor. Some were ostentatiously calm and sinister (speaking slowly, petting a cat, etc.), while others were loud and boisterous. A number had a unique laughter (Amrish Puri’s booming “Hahahaha!” or Amjad Khan’s chilling chuckle). There was an element of performance in how villains moved and spoke, think of Pran’s exaggerated sneer or the way Amrish Puri might bulge his eyes in rage. The acting was intentionally stagey to sell the villain’s larger-than-life aura. This made them entertaining and easy to caricature (hence popular mimicry targets).
- Now: Modern antagonists often go for understated menace. Many of the scariest villains hardly raise their voices. Pankaj Tripathi’s Guruji rarely changes his calm tone, which paradoxically makes his words more chilling. Nawazuddin Siddiqui’s unscrupulous antagonist in Raman Raghav 2.0 (2016) speaks softly and politely even while confessing to murders, which feels more realistic and spine-tingling. When villains do erupt in rage, it’s portrayed with authenticity, messy, uncontrolled, not a rehearsed evil laugh. The body language is also more true-to-life; a crime lord might slump in a chair like any exhausted businessman, or a terrorist might blend in with ordinary crowds. This naturalistic approach can make their violent acts shockingly sudden.
- Environments and Lairs:
- Then: Who can forget the lairs of villains in older films? It was almost a requirement that a big villain had a grand hideout. Mogambo had a technological fortress with gadgets and an army, Shakaal had a high-tech island with a shark tank, many smuggler villains had secret warehouses with stacked gold biscuits and a private army. Often these lairs came complete with a throne-like chair for the villain, large portraits or statues, and maybe a world map on the wall, basically a space that screamed “ultimate villain headquarters”. Even smaller-scale villains often had a “kothi” or den where they would be shown doing evil plans. These settings were often deliberately unrealistic, adding to the camp charm.
- Now: The concept of an outlandish lair has faded for the most part. Villains operate in environments that are believable and sometimes disturbingly ordinary. A modern gangster might operate from a regular urban home or a warehouse that actually looks dingy and real, not a decorated set. In the web series Paatal Lok (2020), for example, the “mastermind” antagonist isn’t sitting in a lion’s den but pulling strings from behind a political office. Similarly, in films like Article 15 (2019), which deals with caste violence, the villains (upper-caste perpetrators) are seen in fields, police stations, and everyday settings, which grounds the conflict in reality. This shift means that the focus is more on the villain’s actions and influence rather than on props or gimmicks. Of course, high-budget mainstream films may still indulge in stylized visuals, e.g., the gangster-enclave set pieces in Raees (2017) or KGF (2018, though another language originally), but even these are tempered with grit (rusty factories, mines, etc., not laser-beam doors or sharks).
- Use of Technology: One interesting visual aspect is technology. Older villains often had random high-tech gadgets (for that time) in their lairs, fancy control panels, intercoms, etc., even if the film’s world was otherwise grounded. It made them seem powerful. Modern villains, living in a truly tech-enabled era, are shown using technology in more realistic ways: hacking, surveillance, bombs, etc. For instance, the antagonist in a film like Baby (2015), an anti-terror thriller, uses burner phones and encrypted messages, reflecting real terrorist modus operandi, rather than, say, a Bond-like ticking time bomb device with LED lights.
The visual tone around villains has shifted from theatrical spectacle to authentic detail. This doesn’t mean modern villains can’t be stylish; they often are, but in a more believable fashion (a modern corporate villain might wear sharp business suits, which is realistic for a corrupt CEO character, rather than a cape and bowtie of a comic-book baddie). The reason behind this change is directly tied to storytelling: as scripts started to aim for more realism and complexity, the look and feel of characters had to follow. An audience today might chuckle if a villain came on screen stroking a cat and laughing loudly; it reads as parody now. To genuinely instill fear or awe, today’s films dress the villain in the skin of reality. Sometimes, that normalcy itself becomes the scary part, the idea that the guy next door or a mild-looking guru could be the monstrous villain makes us think and fear on a deeper level.
Changing Sociopolitical Undertones
Bollywood has often used its villains to symbolize the fears, issues, or anxieties of society at any given time. As India’s sociopolitical landscape has evolved, so too have the undertones in how villains are written. This evolution is a fascinating mirror to what audiences found threatening or immoral in different eras, and how filmmakers chose to address (or exploit) those fears. Let’s explore how the sociopolitical context of each era influenced the portrayal of antagonists, and how the meaning of a “villain” in cinema has broadened in modern times.
- The Early Symbolism: In the decades post-Independence (1950s–70s), a lot of villains were allegorical representations of then-prevalent social issues. For example, the oppressive feudal landlord, moneylender, or corrupt official in many old films represented the old hierarchical order and corruption that the common man was fighting against. These characters were written almost as propaganda to validate the struggles of the poor and righteous. A movie like Naya Daur (1957) pits villagers against a greedy capitalist boss, the villain isn’t just a person, he’s the embodiment of exploitative industrialization. During the Cold War era and India’s own internal political churn, some villains were depicted as foreign agents or traitors (there were films in the 60s where villains worked for “Dongaland”, a fictitious enemy nation, reflecting security anxieties). But these undertones were usually simplistic: villain equals “bad element of society”, hero equals “the ideal common man or patriot who fixes it”.
- Villains of the 70s and 80s – The Socio-economic Angle: The 70s saw the rise of the underworld smugglers and mafia dons as primary villains, which coincided with real issues in India. These were the years of emergency, censorship, and the prevalence of black markets due to heavy economic restrictions. Gold, drugs, and weapon smuggling rings were a real menace, often with alleged political patronage. Films like Deewaar (1975) touched on this, where the hero’s fight is indirectly against the socio-economic system that creates criminals. The villains in Deewaar or Don (1978) aren’t given sociological depth, but their presence points to the growing impact of organized crime. Also, the corruption in politics and police started to feature, e.g., in Sholay, it’s significant that Thakur (a lawman) had to go rogue to defeat Gabbar because the system failed, hinting at systemic inadequacies. Still, in these films, while issues are hinted at, the villains themselves remain a fairly straightforward “face of the problem” rather than a nuanced exploration of it.
- 90s and Early 2000s – Reflecting Turbulent Times: As mentioned earlier, the 90s introduced terrorists and extremists as common villains, reflecting the rise of global terrorism (Kashmir conflicts, insurgency, etc.) and the impact of events like the Mumbai bomb blasts. Movies like Roja (1992, Tamil but watched nationally in Hindi dub) and Bombay (1995) humanized people on different sides of communal and militant conflicts, showing a more nuanced take. Bollywood’s mainstream also had its share of one-note terrorist villains in action films (where they’re generic bad guys with bombs), but a film like Dil Se (1998) dared to portray a terrorist (Manisha Koirala’s Meghna) as a tragic figure with a cause (Northeast separatism), a sign of changing mindsets. By the early 2000s, underworld gangsters in films like Company (2002) or Black Friday (2007) were depicted in a realistic manner, directly reflecting the real underworld and even naming names (or thinly veiling them). The sociopolitical undertone here was that crime was no longer a cartoon; it was shown as deeply interwoven with politics, economics, and social factors. The villains in these films were practically anti-hero protagonists (e.g., Company follows a Dawood Ibrahim-like figure), forcing viewers to see the society that creates such criminals.
- Contemporary Themes: Now, in the 2010s and 2020s, Hindi cinema and series have become bolder in using villains to comment on current issues. For example:
- Corruption and Abuse of Power: In many recent films, the villain is not a single person but a system. A film like Article 15 (2019) presents caste oppression as the villain; while there are individual antagonists (upper-caste men who perpetrate a crime), they collectively represent the systemic evil of caste discrimination. Similarly, in Jolly LLB 2 (2017), a corrupt cop and lawyers are the antagonists, symbolizing corruption in law enforcement and the judiciary. The sociopolitical commentary is front and center, audiences are meant to leave thinking about those issues.
- Religious and Ideological Extremism: Through characters like Guruji in Sacred Games or the terror cell in The Family Man series, storytellers are examining how extremist ideologies can take root. These villains aren’t monsters from another planet; they sometimes are depicted as ordinary folks transformed by radical beliefs or communal hate. It’s a reflection of real concerns in society about radicalization. Rather than paint one community or the other as purely evil, the better writers try to show the process and mentality that leads to villainous acts. This is a big leap from older times, where, say, a villain might simply be a stereotyped “ISI agent” with no depth.
- Gender and Patriarchy: Interestingly, some modern narratives present patriarchal mindsets or misogyny as the “villain”. For instance, in Thappad (2020), the antagonist is essentially the deep-rooted societal belief that “a little slap is okay” in marriage; there’s no single villainous character, but an idea being fought. When there are villain characters in such themes, they are often crafted to show a realistic face of these evils, like an abusive husband, a lecherous boss, etc., portrayed with some nuance.
- The Villain Within: A few experimental films have even done away with a traditional antagonist, instead exploring the dark side of the protagonist as the villain. For example, in Kabir Singh (2019), the hero’s own anger and toxic masculinity serve as the “villain,” ruining his life (though the film was controversial for seemingly glamorizing it). The point is that modern storytelling sometimes treats the character’s inner flaws or society’s ingrained evils as the adversary, rather than an external villain. This is a huge shift from the days of Mogambo, where the villain was always an external entity to be defeated, not a facet of the hero’s own psyche or environment.
The sociopolitical undertones in villain portrayals have moved from simplistic symbolism to more direct engagement with issues. In older films, you could typically swap one villain with another, and it wouldn’t change much; they were generic bad guys serving a role. Today, a well-crafted villain is often unique to the story’s context and deliberately raises specific questions. For example, Sacred Games wanted to delve into the nexus of religion, politics, and crime, hence, a villain like Guruji was conceived, mixing elements of godmen cults and terror conspiracies that India has witnessed.
You May Also Like to Read
From a cultural standpoint, this evolution also shows that audiences have matured. Viewers today often prefer a story that doesn’t spoon-feed a moral, but rather one that challenges them to think. A villain who might have a point of view, however twisted, can spark debates about right and wrong. People discuss Killmonger from Black Panther or Thanos from Avengers in Hollywood for their ideological stands; similarly, Indian audiences have found themselves intrigued by a Guruji or empathizing with a troubled gangster in Yaara or Gangs of Wasseypur. This engagement indicates that Hindi cinema is no longer just projecting societal fears in a simplistic way, but also examining them.
However, it’s also worth noting that not every modern film has an intelligent sociopolitical layer; many masala films still feature throwback villains (corrupt politicians, brute criminals) without much nuance, purely to give the hero a punching bag. But the trend, especially in acclaimed films and streaming content, is definitely towards making the antagonist a thought-provoking element of the narrative.
Old vs New: A Comparative Snapshot
We’ve talked at length about how villains have changed over time in Hindi cinema, now let’s put some key differences side by side. The table below provides a quick comparison of classic Bollywood villains (roughly pre-2000s) versus modern villains (roughly 2000s to today) across various aspects:
| Aspect | Classic Villains (Then) | Contemporary Villains (Now) |
|---|---|---|
| Characterization | One-dimensional, purely evil with no ambiguity. Often a caricature of villainy (evil just because). | Multi-dimensional; exist in moral grey areas. May have sympathetic or logical facets alongside their misdeeds. |
| Motivations | Simplistic goals like money, power, revenge, or “destroy the hero”. Little to no backstory explaining their evil. | Complex motivations with backstories. Personal traumas, ideologies, or social circumstances often explain why they became antagonistic. |
| Personality & Depth | Loud, overtly menacing, and melodramatic. Predictable in their cruelty (the audience knows they’ll do bad things at every turn). | Subtle and psychologically rich. Can be unpredictable, might show kindness or conflict at times. The audience is often shown their inner conflicts or justifications. |
| Visual Style | Flamboyant and theatrical. Distinctive costumes (uniforms, suits, flashy accessories) and signature quirks (evil laughter, catchphrases). Lairs and settings are exaggerated (secret hideouts, villain dens). | Realistic and understated. Look and act like real people in similar positions would. Costumes blend into the setting (a gangster in ordinary clothes, a cult leader in simple robes). Settings are authentic (everyday locales, realistic offices or homes), focusing on atmosphere over spectacle. |
| Representation of Evil | Clear-cut personification of evil or social ills (e.g., “he’s a corrupt Thakur oppressing villagers”). The villain is the single face of wrongdoing to be defeated to restore order. | Often represents complex issues (e.g., systemic corruption, fanaticism) and raises questions. Sometimes the “villain” is not a person but an idea or the protagonist’s own flaws. Defeating the villain might not magically fix everything, but there’s an acknowledgment of larger problems. |
| Audience Reaction | Audiences loved to hate them and often enjoyed the campiness. Iconic dialogues and styles made them fan favorites despite being evil. The payoff was seeing them punished. | Audiences may feel a mix of emotions – hate, fear, even pity or admiration for their intelligence. Modern villains can be conversation starters (viewers dissect their psychology or even quote their philosophies). There’s appreciation for well-written villains as integral to the story, not just as foes. |
| Examples | Mogambo (Mr. India), Shakaal (Shaan), Gabbar Singh (Sholay), Dr. Dang (Karma), Crime Master Gogo (Andaz Apna Apna). | Kancha Cheena (Agneepath 2012), Guruji (Sacred Games), Khalil (The Family Man series), Khilji (Padmaavat), Kaleen Bhaiya (Mirzapur), Tabu’s Simi (Andhadhun). |
This comparison makes it clear that the role of an antagonist in Hindi content has transformed from a plot device to a profound character. Earlier, if you knew one villain, you almost knew them all; they’d behave similarly. Now, each villain is unique to their story’s needs and the creator’s vision, often as fleshed out as the protagonist.
It’s also interesting to note that while classic villains were more “fun” in a way (with their theatrical antics), modern villains are more “interesting” and “real”. This doesn’t mean one is categorically better than the other; Mogambo and Gabbar are timeless in their own right, and part of their charm is that they are so larger-than-life. However, the shift has allowed Hindi cinema to tell more diverse and gripping stories. Villains can drive the narrative in unexpected ways now, and sometimes the line between hero and villain even blurs (for instance, is the determined cop hero in Mardaani any less ruthless than the human trafficker villain she’s chasing? The hero uses extra-judicial methods, raising moral questions).
The table also highlights audience adaptation: we went from cheering a villain’s defeat as pure catharsis to sometimes being left in thought about what that villain represented. A show like Mirzapur ends its seasons not with tidy justice but often with the villain still at large or a new one rising, reflecting the episodic, ongoing nature of modern storytelling and perhaps a more realistic view that “evil” isn’t vanquished so easily. This evolving dynamic keeps viewers hooked for the next installment and engages them on a deeper level.
Why the Evolution? – Changing Audience & Storytelling Trends
The transformation of Hindi cinema villains did not happen in a vacuum. Several key factors drove this evolution, rooted in audience expectations, industry trends, and broader cultural shifts. Understanding why villains changed is just as important as observing how they changed. Here are some of the major reasons behind this shift from caricatured baddies to complex antagonists:
Audience Maturity: Perhaps the biggest factor is that the audience itself has matured and changed over the decades. Indian viewers today are more exposed to global cinema, TV series, and literature than ever before. They have seen sophisticated storytelling from around the world and naturally started to crave the same depth in local content. The once-thrilling trope of the cackling villain began to feel outdated as people wanted more realism or at least innovation. Also, as literacy and education levels rose, viewers became better at recognizing clichés and desired more believable characters. Filmmakers responded to this by crafting antagonists with as much detail as protagonists. In short, demand grew for smarter narratives, and a simplistic villain no longer satisfied that demand in serious stories.
Global Influences: Bollywood in the 70s and 80s was quite insular (aside from being influenced by Hollywood action for set-pieces). By the 2000s, Indian filmmakers and writers were drawing inspiration from everywhere, from American TV shows with anti-heroes, to European arthouse films, to Japanese thrillers. This cross-pollination led to experimenting with genre and character. For instance, the idea of an anti-hero (like Tony Soprano from The Sopranos or Walter White from Breaking Bad) likely emboldened Indian creators to write characters like the gangster heroes in Gangs of Wasseypur or Sacred Games, where the traditional hero-villain dynamic is subverted. Even mainstream directors upped their game; you see a villain like the tech-terrorist in Enemy (2021 Tamil film) being quite tech-savvy and complex, clearly a result of consuming hi-tech espionage narratives globally.
End of Censorship Taboos: In earlier times, there were moralistic pressures (from society and the censor board) to ensure that good triumphed clearly and that the hero was unquestionably righteous. This often forced villains to be painted absolutely evil, so that there was no moral confusion when they were defeated. However, as censorship standards relaxed a bit and filmmakers pushed boundaries, it became possible to explore morally ambiguous situations. For example, a film like Satya (1998), which had a very realistic gangland portrayal, or Omkara (2006), which showed an anti-hero committing villainous acts, could get made and appreciated. The success of these films proved that the sky wouldn’t fall if villains weren’t black-and-white. Nowadays, with OTT, there’s even more freedom; shows can have anti-heroes, villains can sometimes “win” for a while, and complex social evils can be depicted without hammering a simplistic resolution. Audiences, especially on digital platforms, are comfortable with open-ended or morally grey narratives.
You May Also Like to Read
Rise of the Writer and Actor Driven Cinema: Over time, Bollywood has seen the emergence of strong screenplay writers and directors who value character development. Along with them, actors too have shown eagerness to play negative roles that challenge them. In the past, being typecast as a villain was often career-limiting to a handful of actors (Pran, Amrish Puri made a whole career out of it). Today, top-rank actors occasionally take on antagonist roles to stretch their range and make a critical impact, for example, Aamir Khan played an edgy negative role in Earth (1998) and Shah Rukh Khan, who was a romantic hero icon, started his career doing villainous roles and even returned to a grey character in Fan (2016). This openness means villains are no longer relegated to a stock “villain actor”; any talent can portray them, often with a lot of preparation and nuance. Moreover, dedicated villain actors like Nawazuddin Siddiqui or Pankaj Tripathi have achieved leading-man status in the audience’s eyes because their antagonist roles were written so well. In essence, better writing + dedicated performances = deeper villains.
Storytelling Format – The OTT Revolution: A special mention must be made of how streaming series changed the game. With multi-episode formats, writers can devote entire subplots or episodes to fleshing out an antagonist’s backstory, something impossible in a 2-3 hour film that must focus mostly on the hero. Series like Mirzapur, Sacred Games, Paatal Lok, and Delhi Crime have shown villains (or antagonistic forces) in great detail, sometimes even from their own perspective. This naturally leads to more complex villain portrayals, which then influence audience expectations for films as well. If a web series can give me a layered criminal boss, why should I accept a cardboard baddie in a movie? Filmmakers sense this and are upping their game even in movies. Additionally, OTT content isn’t bound by the need to appeal to “all four quadrants” at once (as theatrical big releases often try), so they can target a more niche, mature audience and take risks with villain portrayal. This filters back into cinema as well, raising the bar overall.
Reflecting Contemporary Complexity: As society modernizes, people generally understand that real-life issues are complex. There’s less appetite for believing in a singular cause of society’s problems. Movies and shows reflect that by often having multiple antagonists or showing that even villains are part of a chain of events. For instance, in Udta Punjab (2016), the drug problem is the villain, and multiple people, from dealers to corrupt officers to politicians, collectively form that villainy. The audience can appreciate this layered take because it rings true. The simplistic “knight kills the dragon, all is well” narrative feels too fairy-tale for contemporary urban audiences, so filmmakers provide a touch of realism, maybe the dragon was created by a polluted swamp, and even if killed, the swamp remains (metaphorically speaking).
Nostalgia and Parody: Interestingly, the industry is also self-aware. Those old-school villains are now sometimes played for nostalgia or parody in modern works. A film like Om Shanti Om (2007) had a villain in the 70s masala mold (complete with a dramatic lair) to pay homage to that era. Comedians and sketch shows often mimic Mogambo or Shakaal to get laughs from millennials who recall them as beloved cheesiness. This shows that while we have moved on to serious, realistic villains, the charm of the old ones is fondly remembered, but largely for fun or homage, not as a template for new writing.
The evolution of villains in Hindi cinema was inevitable and necessary. As India changed and as filmmaking evolved as a craft, characters had to grow in sophistication. A hero is only as good as his villain, so to have more compelling heroes dealing with more realistic challenges, the antagonists had to level up, too. Today’s audience, with exposure to The Joker’s of Hollywood or the complex antagonists in K-dramas or anime, expects nothing less than well-thought-out villains in their own cinema. The industry, facing competition not just from other films but also from video games, streaming, etc., has realized that compelling storytelling is key to keep people engaged, and that means no more cookie-cutter villains.
The Changing Face of Evil: Final Reflections
From Mogambo’s theatrical evil in the 1980s to Guruji’s subtle menace in recent times, the journey of Hindi cinema’s antagonists is a reflection of Bollywood’s own maturation. Villains, in many ways, are the soul of a good story; they present the conflict, they challenge the hero, and often they carry the film’s deeper message. As we’ve seen, the villains of yesteryear were straightforward monsters, offering us thrills and a sense of moral clarity. We laughed at their campiness, booed their cruelty, and felt satisfied when the hero vanquished them. Those characters became immortal in pop culture; even today, a single line like “Mogambo khush hua” brings a flood of nostalgia and a caricatured image of ultimate villainy.
Today’s antagonists, however, leave us with something more than just a clap when they die; they leave us with questions and contemplation. A series like Sacred Games ends, and we find ourselves debating the nature of faith and fanaticism. A film like Andhadhun concludes, and we marvel at how a seemingly normal person became so selfishly murderous. The modern villain often forces society to confront uncomfortable truths: that evil can wear an ordinary face, that circumstances can create monsters, or that under the right (or wrong) conditions, anyone could be a villain. This is a far cry from the old reassuring formula where only “other people” (smugglers, bandits, etc., far removed from our daily life) were villains and they always lost.
Changing audience expectations have played a huge role in this evolution. Viewers now enjoy nuanced storytelling where even the antagonist’s perspective is explored. We take an interest in the villain’s dialogues, their psyche, sometimes even their style (how many fans did Ranveer Singh’s Khilji unintentionally earn by sheer swagger?). Filmmakers have responded by writing villains that can nearly overshadow heroes, and in doing so, ironically, they have strengthened the impact of the heroes and the story as a whole. After all, a victory feels earned when the opponent was truly formidable and well-crafted.
Cultural shifts have also influenced what kind of villain resonates with audiences. As India grapples with new challenges, be it technological crimes, socio-political divides, or introspective questions about morality, our films and series mirror that. It’s no coincidence that in an age of intense political discourse, a web series like Tandav attempted to show morally grey politicians, or that in a time of increased awareness of women’s rights, a show like Delhi Crime presented societal evil without a single cackling villain but rather a collective failure. Our entertainment and reality are in conversation, and the villain’s character often sits at that crossroads.
For both general readers and film enthusiasts, observing this shift is rewarding because it shows how Hindi cinema has grown and adapted. It underscores that Bollywood is not just a song-and-dance factory, but a living industry that learns and changes with its audience. The caricature villains of old have not vanished entirely, they live on in spoofs, tribute performances, and the fond memories of simplicity. But the baton has surely passed to the multi-faceted antagonists of today, who make us think even as they make us shudder.
In closing, one might ask: what’s next for Hindi cinema villains? If the past is any indication, they will continue to evolve. Perhaps future villains will tap into new fears, maybe themes of technology (imagine an AI antagonist or a cyber-terrorist portrayed with realism), or environmental stakes (a corporate villain causing ecological ruin). Perhaps we’ll see even more stories where the line between hero and villain is blurred to the point that roles invert. With the constant churn of OTT content and films, writers are likely to keep pushing boundaries, and actors will be hungry to bring the next unforgettable antagonist to life.
One thing is certain: the era of the flat, purely evil villain is long gone in serious storytelling. Hindi cinema will keep producing antagonists that are as evolving and dynamic as the society they spring from. And whether we yearn for the nostalgic simplicity of a “Mogambo” or embrace the intricate wickedness of a “Guruji,” we as an audience have a richer palette of villainy to savor than ever before. As viewers, we can only look forward to what new face of evil our films will unveil, because each new villain tells us a little something about ourselves and the world we live in. And that journey, from “Mogambo khush hua” to the next iconic line of a nuanced nemesis, is what keeps storytelling fresh and exciting in Hindi cinema.