Batman Begins: The Thread

What Gotham are you talking about? There are several Gothams in Batman stories, and most of them don't appear as pits of chaos that would absolutely necessitate the existence of Batman. I'd say the Gotham in Batman Begins belongs to this category, but I guess you diagree. Also, whether or not vigilantism is "necessary" (and who decides that?), it has other problems: in a chaotic situation, eberyone of course wants to protect their loved ones, maybe even other innocent folks. But a vigilante takes a more dynamic role, actively fighting against "bad" people. But since he has only his own morality to guide him, those "bad" people can be whoever they choose. In superhero comics, of course, the vigilante obviously battles only the "real" bad guys, and without going to extreme measures (no killing), but in real life that isn't the case.

Yes, but it was even more wrong for the Russians and the Germans to attack. Also, remember that the individual soldiers aren't really to blame for wars, except that they chose to take up arms rather than become conscientious objectors (if, however, the other options are jail or execution, that is sorta understandable). I think soldiers often realized that the men on the opposite side are just as little responsible for the war as they are - hence, the famous "Christmas truce" during WWI, for example.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/books/12/11/review.mythology/story.batman.jpg

This covers the sodlier, but also the firefighter.

what is your problem with vigilanteism if the law is derived from something as 'abstract' as the nation state. if morality is personal, asit would be for you, then what's wrong with batman?

Anyway, a thought: (and, I'm not picking on you Tuomas, I admire your tenacity on this thread) in your form of pacifism, you would defend yourself, right? And let me know if I'm wrong, but you'd also defend your family? Friends? Now, using an old science fiction trope for a handy hypothetical, imagine we were aware of impending attack/invasion by extra-terrestrials. Would you join a military unit to defend Earth? If you would -- and I imagine most of us would if we are able-bodied -- why do you/we think it's alright to defend small localised groups of known humans, and (in this case) large abstract species-wide aggregates, and yet something in between (countries, nation-states, provinces, states, counties?) is verboten? I'm asking this less to dissect your own position than to confront questions around my own dodgy logic that keep surfacing as I follow this fascinating discussion.

I think the one unchangeable right is everyone's right to their lives. That's the individual part. But human beings also live in communities, and communities have to have some sort of common ethics to make them work. So I'm not an hyperindividualist in that sense. However, because the right to life overrides all other ethic principles, no community can force it's member to sacrifice himself for it. And that's what happens in war. But, except maybe for wartime, the right to life is also something recognized by most communities. And Batman violates that communal ethical rule (alongside others) by treating criminals like he does. That no one has died because of Batman beating him up is only because he lives in a fantasy world, and he still needs to be the hero of the story.

"I might try to defend someone's live if it's in immediate danger, but only then."

try and think of practical examples where this makes sense. at what point does it become preemptive? when the gun is drawn? when it's cocked? when?

The one you live in, for example. Or has Britain brought back the death penalty?

try and think of practical examples where this makes sense. at what point does it become preemptive? when the gun is drawn? when it's cocked? when?

You're trying to cross hairs here. As I said, it depends on the situation. There's no absolute principle: you have to make judgement whether someone's life is in danger according to the situation. But a gun cocked or a knife drawn out would be good examples, yes.

It's okay the defend all the individuals in a country, obviously. But war is rarely just defending the individual. The stage of war is often somewhere else than where most individuals are, and rarely the purpose of a war is to kill all the individuals on the other side: war has to do with politics, power, and other abstract things, and killing for those is wrong.

as for the 'in the given situation' gloss on when it's okay to kill in the defense of life, you haven't really clarified the moral issue at stake. killing someone because they have drawn a gun is questionable in your own terms: 'you can't make calculations like that: no one knows what happens in the future', apparently. i would agree that you have to leave it to the given situation, but that's a recognition that absolute moral strictures against killing just won't work in the real world.

While I liked many aspects of the film, I found it hard to work out what Ras' lot were actually trying to do. I mean, go to some dump of a city in the USA and smash it up, why?

Or maybe Ras is like the Ras from the comics, and has some hyper-intelligent long-run plot, and all that stuff about the fire of London and the Roman Empire was just fluff for the Bat.

He did say that, but as i) Ras is very clever and ii) what he said wasn't very convincing, I feel that it must have been a smokescreen for his real intentions, whatever they were.

How dare you find me out; now I must forego my plot to destroy Pierre, South Dakota.

Dan's larger point OTM, of course, it's as much about symbolism as anything else.

Once again, Gotham is not a real city. It's a fictional society that was created to serve whatever point the author was trying to make. Gee, what a big surprise that it was portrayed in a way that makes vigilantism seem forgivable or even inevitable.

i don't see how *any* film, from 'the godfather' to 'battleship potemkin' could be watched using your criterion here.

walter: "Once again, Gotham is not a real city. It's a fictional society that was created to serve whatever point the author was trying to make. Gee, what a big surprise that it was portrayed in a way that makes vigilantism seem forgivable or even inevitable."

okay, here goes. gotham is not a real city: agreed. was it created to serve an author's intention? maybe, but the process is *liable to be a little bit more complex than this*. but this aside, where is the problem? any fiction effectively invents its setting by slection and ommission. the new york of 'taxi driver' or the paris of 'les enfants du paradis' for two examples. this is standard practice.

but by doing this the artists give us a vision of the world, or an extrapolation from it. was chicago in the '30s like gotham. no, but it was a bit, from certain angles. terrible (racist) exploitation meets civic corruption and gangsterism. is vigilanteism as bad as you say in this bleak setting? i don't know: that's the problem posed by 'batman'. otoh, batman is no ordinary vigilante, and he has a complex relation with the law.

but in your view a work of fiction ought to conform to given ideas about society? this would basically mean only one book is possible, and thatall questions have been answered, wouldn't it?

So yeah, it's a valid criticism that seems to miss the entire point of the story to such an amazing degree it's hilarious.

Actually, I never said vigilantism was bad per se. I have said that think that Batman Begins creates a typical fascist narrative where a powerful individual fights to clean up a corrupt and degraded society. Coming back and saying "but the society is corrupt and degraded!" doesn't really make sense.

but in your view a work of fiction ought to conform to given ideas about society?

Of course not, I never said that. I'm saying that if we're going to analyze and criticize the politics of a story, the setting of the story is part of the author's creation and needs to be taken into account as well. I feel like many of the defenses of Batman Begins are treating Gotham like it's a real place: the old "it's just reflecting reality" argument.

Batman Begins creates a typical fascist narrative where a powerful individual fights to clean up a corrupt and degraded society

I'm not sure whats inherently fascist about that.

But why do we need to clean Gotham up at all? Once again you're acting like it's a preexisiting reality that needs a solution rather than a scenario the author set up to create a certain type of hero.

BECAUSE IT'S ONE OF THE BASIC PARAMETERS OF THE STORY THAT IS BEING TOLD.

xpost