As a short introduction — George Warleggan is the antagonist of Poldark series, the main villain and the ultimate 'what a man shouldn't be' in comparison to Ross Poldark or any other positive character on the show. Weirdly, despite being a deeply flawed character, George Warleggan makes a poor villain for his lack of faults.
What's George like?
He's cunning, manipulative, ambitious and envious — a strong and dangerous combination in itself, and with money and influence it makes him an almost unstoppable villain. Despite the early on introduced struggle of being seen as just a banker, a lower-born man, George really doesn't have to struggle for success as much as Ross — it's not like he has to walk around the fields half-naked, working his ass off farming and mining to feed his family. It only takes some convincing and a clever bribe to get what he wants and set his trap.
As a matter of fact, he becomes this omnipotent 'evil force' rather than a human character. That's what makes him a not so good villain, unfortunately, despite the potential.
Money makes George omnipotent — and destroys the potential for character development
Unfortunately, both in the real and fictional worlds money does matter. It enables you to make choices that are only damaging to others and not to oneself. Unlike Ross, George doesn't have to face the same challenges, he isn't driven by hunger, or the need to feed his family or friends. Lack of money — Ross' big motivator in the first couple of seasons — is not George's problem. He doesn't have to come up with an elaborate plan to stay afloat, does he? There's no tragedy or sacrifice in him committing horrible things, because the stakes are not nearly high enough. Where you forgive Ross for risk-taking and see the hardship of poverty he has to face, with Warleggan you think: 'dude, why don't you just sit back and enjoy your life, if you can't be generous enough to help others? You have it all worked out...'
What can be the possible motivation for anyone who already has power and money to act in such a spiteful way? What can possibly drive George to go to extremes? George, who leads a comfortable, respectable life? Apart from his glaring insecurity, of course.
Goals
Which brings me to another question - what is George aiming for? In the last season we learn about the deeper rivalry over Elizabeth's love and that all this time what he really wanted was to be loved by her the way Ross was. To me personally, this revelation came too late — by that time George was established as an envious, arrogant and lacking empathy whatsoever, driven by some sort of rivalry made up in his head.
What were his reasons before that? Ross rejected him as his equal. Fair enough... But really? That's annoying, and you might want to teach him a lesson by proving you're better than him, or just successful — but why aim to completely destroy another man's life? What, out of wounded pride? That seems a bit extreme and not very human of George.
Insecurity becomes George's primary characteristic
Clearly, the only explanation for George's behaviour is his insecurity — about not being loved by Elizabeth, not respected by the nobles (although I got that sense more in the 2-3 seasons rather than in the first one...), not being as loved by people as Ross (although it doesn't seem to bother him as much as everything else), not being influential enough.
Does he have any other motivation?
Well... not really. His pride comes from insecurity, his rivalry with Ross comes from insecurity and wanting to be just like Poldarks, even his love for Elizabeth is rooted in insecurity.
Now, that does make a good motivation for a villain to an extent. It shows a very human weakness that a lot of us are prone to at some point in our lives. We can understand how insecurity can drive a man to extremes at times, and how hurtful it can be. The actor playing George confirms that:
"In my mind from the start was the idea that George has got to be fuelled by insecurities and a sense of inadequacy and that his true feelings are somewhere hidden beneath. So that we believe in him as a person and don’t just think of him as a force for bad, because he’s not that."
Jack Farthing on his role as George Warleggan for Radio Times
However... Throughout the series I saw more of the 'force for bad' than a person in George, unfortunately. And it is not because of Farthing's take on him at all, but for the lack of his character's development.
George Warleggan in season 4 is the same person as in season 1
It feels that because George Warleggan made such an effective omnipotent villain, Ross' ultimate enemy, that the showmakers (or the writer in the original novel — I can't judge without having read it) decided to not give him much of a character arc to play with. Throughout the series Farthing has to play exactly the same character — the same sulking, envious, insecure, greedy man who doesn't see much past his own nose.
In all fairness, Ross doesn't have much of a character development either, and next to both of them Demelza shines with her change from a shy, obedient kitchen maid into a mature woman, a mother and Ross' equal in more than just taking care of the family. Even Elizabeth changes, going from a doubtful, insecure young woman to a politically savvy Warleggan and into a determined mature woman — ready to do anything for self-preservation and keeping her family in tact.
But coming back to George. For the first three seasons he's exactly in the place where he started — sly, envious, insecure, manipulative and rich. The last season offers him both a chance for redemption - his love for Elizabeth, — and a chance to show more depth and explain his motivation - showing how much he loved Elizabeth from the start and paranoia about Ross' baby.
Apart from that... George hasn't changed at all. He attempted to give up his insecurity to be with Elizabeth but there wasn't even a proper way for him to get over his enmity towards Ross, or change his goal to bring him down to a better one. So, is this clever, resourceful, ambitious man going to chase Ross for the rest of his life? That seems like such a waste for both the show and his character.
In a way, the writers do address this problem — when Ross, enraged, asks him what else George wants. He has everything. Why is there still place for hatred and jealousy in their relationship? Why can't they just move on to another challenge to overcome? Why is he so stuck in his ways?
Maybe it does make George's character somewhat more realistic than Ross. It shows the tragedy of a man wasting his opportunities and life on his own pointless insecurity and undefined goals.
However, it doesn't make a great TV villain in 21st century any more. The days of simply evil characters are long gone - now we want unapologetic Cersei Lannister who keeps getting more reasons to hate her brother and become a tyrant, we want Walter White — chemistry teacher gone rogue, whose life is turned around when he learns he has cancer, we want Frank Underwood, who has a clear defined goal — and the means justify the ends in his case, for him. And it certainly isn't good enough for a character-driven tv show.
What would George Warleggan be without Ross Poldark?
Don't know, maybe a boring sulking banker in Cornwall. It's not like he had any clear goals before Ross reappeared, did he? If not for his strange rivalry with Ross, what would he actually plan to do with his life? For such a close-to-life character, seems like he has no clear direction and anything that would define him, apart from Ross's presence in his life. For Demelza and Elizabeth it can be forgiven — at that time women were often defined by their husbands/lovers. But for a self-made, ambitious, influential man? Not a great place to settle for. Especially for a smart villain.
Poldark’s Jack Farthing on playing George Warleggan, stripping off on camera and his crush on Timothée Chalamet, Radio Times
Give Poldark's George Warleggan the plot he deserves, Vera Kurian blog