Ali Khaidir, Safitri Hariani


This study is conducted to analyze revenge reflected in Fast and Furious 7 movie, and to find out the factors and the ways the antagonist’s revenge in the movie script. This study uses the theory from Baron, Byrne and Branscombe for the factors of revenge, and the theory from Mc Cullaugh for the ways how the antagonist takes the revenge. The factors of revenge analyzed in the movie script are anger (aggressiveness) and injustice. The ways of revenge being analyzed are threatening (doing terror), murdering (homicide), and aggression (attacking). The descriptive qualitative method was applied because the process of the result and discussion are accomplished descriptively. The descriptive qualitative method was applied to describe the factors and the ways the antagonist takes the revenge from the dialogue in the movie script. The results of this study show that the antagonist takes the revenge because his brother is defeated by the protagonist. The antagonist keeps giving terror to the protagonist in the movie to take the revenge.


Full Text:



Adams, J. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 2, 267-99.

Baron, B., & Branscombe. (2000). Social psychology. Boston, US: Person.

Collins Dictionary. (2021) Retrieved from

Fast and Furious 7. (2017). Retrived from

Govier, T. (2002). Forgiveness and revenge. New York, US: Routledge.

Holman, C., & Harmon, W. (1992). A handbook to literature. New York, US: Macmillian, Inc.

McCullough, M. (2008). Beyond revenge the evolution of the forgiveness instinct. San Fransisco, US: Jossey-Bass.

Prunckun, H. (2019). Counterintelligence theory and practice (2nd ed.). New York, US: Rowman & Littlefield.

Santosa, P. (2008). Materi dan pembelajaran Bahasa Indonesia sd. Jakarta, ID: Universitas Terbuka.

Schumann, K., & Ross, M. (2010). The antecedents, nature and effectiveness of political apologies for historical injustices. In D. R. Bobocel, A. C. Kay, M. P. Zanna & J. M. Olson (Eds.), The psychology of justice and legitimacy: The ontario symposium (pp. 299–324). New York, US: Psychology Press.

Uniacke, S. (2000). Why is revenge wrong? Journal of Value Inquiry, 61-69.

Walster, E. G., & Berscheid, a. E. (1978). Equity: Theory and research. Boston, US: Allyn and Bacon.

Zeid, M. (2004). Metode Penelitian Kepustakaan. Jakarta, ID: Yayasan Obor Indonesia.



  • There are currently no refbacks.

Fakultas Sastra
Universitas Islam Sumatera Utara (UISU)
Jln. Sisingamangaraja Teladan Barat Medan, Indonesia
Phone: +627869911  | e-mail: