And in any case, I don't think, from Batman Begins, you can really say what Batman's attitudes are. He's confused and plagued by doubt!
― Alba (Alba), Tuesday, 2 August 2005 16:54 (eighteen years ago) link
― Alba (Alba), Tuesday, 2 August 2005 16:56 (eighteen years ago) link
― Shakey Mo Collier, Tuesday, 2 August 2005 17:00 (eighteen years ago) link
I wasn't saying that, I was just saying I don't like films where vigilantism is portrayed heroic. Superhero stories in general are so far away from real life and real politics that you don't much care for their ethical implications. Dark Knight Returns and Batman Begins, however, are much more political and realistic, and therefore you have to choose whether you accept the morality of the story or not.
― Tuomas (Tuomas), Tuesday, 2 August 2005 17:03 (eighteen years ago) link
― j blount (papa la bas), Tuesday, 2 August 2005 17:08 (eighteen years ago) link
― The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Tuesday, 2 August 2005 17:21 (eighteen years ago) link
That was one of my favourite parts of the movie!!!This bit (which is completely absent in the comics Bat-Mythos) shows young Bruce as much more human than the whole 12-year-old making a vow at his parents' gravesite did. He spent most of his life just pissed off and angry at the world, and it took seeing his long-fostered revenge fantasy being played out--only by someone else!--to challenge that.So of course, once he puts the cape and cowl on, seven years later, he's still generally not that concerned with the world beyond his own immediate goals. He's reckless and shows callous disregard for anyone beyond his little cadre. Asshole Bruce Wayne isn't entirely the mask Batman wants us to think it is.Hopefully, the sequel will give us Batman Matures and we'll see him forced to deal with some of the consequences of this stuff.Like maybe Gordon will get his ass kicked by his fellow cops for being buddies with the guy who sent so many of them to the hospital.
― Huk-L (Huk-L), Tuesday, 2 August 2005 17:21 (eighteen years ago) link
But I don't think Batman Begins does that. I'm probably almost as much as a pinko liberal as you, but the film didn't offend me, because I didn't see it as pushing a simple "vigilatism-is-good" line. The overall feeling one got was one of a lack of moral resolution. You don't even have to identify with the particular ethical struggle he's going through to respond to him as a conflicted, morally serious human. We all have struggles of our own of some sort.
― Alba (Alba), Tuesday, 2 August 2005 17:23 (eighteen years ago) link
this happens in Miller's "Batman: Year One" (actually the cops try to kill Gordon's baby - after their initial beating fails to dissuade him), and I'd be surprised if something close to it does not come into play in the films.
― Shakey Mo Collier, Tuesday, 2 August 2005 17:27 (eighteen years ago) link
― walter kranz (walterkranz), Tuesday, 2 August 2005 18:32 (eighteen years ago) link
you're telling me?
Huk-L on Every Major Batman Storyline of the Last 20 Years
― Huk-L (Huk-L), Tuesday, 2 August 2005 18:36 (eighteen years ago) link
― The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Tuesday, 2 August 2005 18:48 (eighteen years ago) link
I have nothing morally convoluted protagonists, but I don't see them as heroes. The guy in Taxi Driver is not hero. The problem with Batman is that, according to the superhero logic, he still needs to be hero. And that what makes taking him seriously problematic.
― Tuomas (Tuomas), Tuesday, 2 August 2005 19:00 (eighteen years ago) link
― Huk-L (Huk-L), Tuesday, 2 August 2005 19:08 (eighteen years ago) link
― Huk-L (Huk-L), Tuesday, 2 August 2005 19:10 (eighteen years ago) link
(x-post)
― Tuomas (Tuomas), Tuesday, 2 August 2005 19:18 (eighteen years ago) link
I agree with Ebert, but he apparently sees this as a strength, whereas I see it as a weakness.
― Tuomas (Tuomas), Tuesday, 2 August 2005 19:20 (eighteen years ago) link
― RJG (RJG), Tuesday, 2 August 2005 19:21 (eighteen years ago) link
Given the quasi-fascist tendencies inherent in Batman, there are still different ways one could treat the story. One Batman could be so campy, clownish, and nonviolent that he's basically a stand in for the revenge fantasies that are buried somewhere in everyone's head. Another Batman could be an unabashed celebration of fascist vigilantism. Or as Tuomas says, Batman could become an anti-hero whose killing puts him on the same level as his enemies. I felt like Batman Begins fell in between all of these approaches and ended up being weaker for it.
― walter kranz (walterkranz), Tuesday, 2 August 2005 19:22 (eighteen years ago) link
― Tuomas (Tuomas), Tuesday, 2 August 2005 19:26 (eighteen years ago) link
― The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Tuesday, 2 August 2005 20:04 (eighteen years ago) link
Seriously though, I don't see how the League of Shadows changes anything I've said. Basically the point of view of the film is that yeah, Batman may break a few eggs when he goes on his vigilante rampages but hey, at least he's not trying to bring down the whole society! It's a similar dynamic to the Bush administration's defense of the use of torture or the war in Iraq. "What we're doing may be bad, it may be technically illegal, but hey we're fighting these other guys who are much worse so can't you see that we're heroes?"
― walter kranz (walterkranz), Tuesday, 2 August 2005 20:18 (eighteen years ago) link
― The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Tuesday, 2 August 2005 20:26 (eighteen years ago) link
― The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Tuesday, 2 August 2005 20:34 (eighteen years ago) link
― walter kranz (walterkranz), Tuesday, 2 August 2005 20:40 (eighteen years ago) link
― walter kranz (walterkranz), Tuesday, 2 August 2005 20:44 (eighteen years ago) link
― walter kranz (walterkranz), Tuesday, 2 August 2005 20:48 (eighteen years ago) link
And I think that as Tuomas pointed out Batman is already a hero by default, based on the character's cinematic history and the nature of the superhero form itself. So it's a huge uphill battle to sell that idea of a ambiguous, conflicted Batman to an audience that is just there for the action and destruction.
It's such a huge uphill battle that the movie has made over $100 million in the US alone! Clearly no one wanted to see a movie like this.
― The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Tuesday, 2 August 2005 20:58 (eighteen years ago) link
― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 2 August 2005 21:00 (eighteen years ago) link
― The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Tuesday, 2 August 2005 21:07 (eighteen years ago) link
you correctly assume that I (and others) would argue that this is a dubious assertion, that "superhero" = inspirational role model. The term itself is misleading, as it is derived from the most lillywhite of morally virtuous characters, Superman. But most of my favorite superhero stuff functions more as allegory, or myth, or cautionary tale, or morality play, etc. On some juvenile level, as a kid, sure I thought dressing up in long underwear and beating up people would be TEH COOLEST - but as I grew older I found myself gleaning different "lessons" from this kind of material.
(cue Stan Lee: "with great power comes great responsibility!" etc.)
― Shakey Mo Collier, Tuesday, 2 August 2005 21:09 (eighteen years ago) link
― Shakey Mo Collier, Tuesday, 2 August 2005 21:16 (eighteen years ago) link
The alternative was what? The utter destruction of Gotham City? All of the negatives you listed are overshadowed and presumably justified by the fact that he saved the city. Do you honestly believe that the audience was supposed to think Batman's actions were a mistake?
Huh? I said it was an uphill battle to convince audiences that Batman is anything but a hero. The movie didn't automatically succeed in that task just because millions of people saw it. I doubt a significant portion of that audience's response went beyond "awesome! Batman kicked some ass, drove a fast tank and had a naked romp with 2 hot chicks!"
― walter kranz (walterkranz), Tuesday, 2 August 2005 21:31 (eighteen years ago) link
sounds like the soft bigotry of low expectations! heheh
seriously, yr criticisms all stems from your assumption that Batman must be a character worthy of emulation, when he has a rich history of being much more morally ambiguous. I can't count the number of times/scenarios in which Superman has scolded Batman for being too violent/harsh/fascistic...
― Shakey Mo Collier, Tuesday, 2 August 2005 21:38 (eighteen years ago) link
― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Tuesday, 2 August 2005 21:40 (eighteen years ago) link
I never said he must be. I said that I think he is portrayed that way.
Hint to Tuomas and Walter: you don't actually have to claim that all depictions of superheroes are necessarily heroic.
Hint to Andrew: neither of us made that claim.
― walter kranz (walterkranz), Tuesday, 2 August 2005 22:11 (eighteen years ago) link
― Shakey Mo Collier, Tuesday, 2 August 2005 22:15 (eighteen years ago) link
― walter kranz (walterkranz), Tuesday, 2 August 2005 22:24 (eighteen years ago) link
― walter kranz (walterkranz), Tuesday, 2 August 2005 22:26 (eighteen years ago) link
― walter kranz (walterkranz), Tuesday, 2 August 2005 22:31 (eighteen years ago) link
― Alba (Alba), Tuesday, 2 August 2005 22:35 (eighteen years ago) link
I don't think there are any real clear-cut examples, but there are ones where the "hero's" heroic aspects openly conflict with other impulses - the Incredible Hulk TV show (there are some heroic aspects to the Hulk being "wrongly persecuted", at the same time, he gets pissed and randomly smashes things). Wolverine in the X-Men movies (who, btw are NOT crimefighters, in the strict sense of the term, in either film) is clearly portrayed as having an amoral side.
The main problem with yr query is that the majority of superhero stuff has all come out in the last decade or so, and most of them (horrible as they are) have been lame cash-ins on a freshly established formula - up until then the "costumed avenger" trope was usually deliberately "dumbed down" for a children's audience (and hence morally simplified). so there isn't much to choose from. Comics, however, provide a much wider range of interpretations and material.
― Shakey Mo Collier, Tuesday, 2 August 2005 22:44 (eighteen years ago) link
― Shakey Mo Collier, Tuesday, 2 August 2005 22:47 (eighteen years ago) link
― Huk-L (Huk-L), Tuesday, 2 August 2005 22:54 (eighteen years ago) link
― Huk-L (Huk-L), Tuesday, 2 August 2005 22:59 (eighteen years ago) link
― Shakey Mo Collier, Tuesday, 2 August 2005 23:03 (eighteen years ago) link
― Huk-L (Huk-L), Tuesday, 2 August 2005 23:04 (eighteen years ago) link
― The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 3 August 2005 04:33 (eighteen years ago) link
Oh no! Dumped by a woman with whom he had absolutely no chemistry or any sort of believable relationship.
while sifting through the wreckage of his house
Oh no! The billionaire's home is wrecked. But this time we'll make it even more swanky says Alfred.
after being told by the police that a large section of town is a no man's land being torn apart by its residents
Those ungrateful plebes!
and shortly before being told that the criminals are following his lead and getting theatrical.
Yes, that little teaser of the Joker at the end certainly seemed like a serious plot point and not at all like a lame attempt to set up the sequel.
Forget the historical framework
Umm, OK.
there is a gigantic, non-subtle informatation dump at the end of the movie that says "Batman is messing up things almost as much as he is fixing them" which makes your argument ill-informed and completely at odds with the facts displayed within the framework of the movie.
Facts! Ill-informed? I respect the fact that most people might interpret the movie in a different way than I did but I don't see where "facts" enter into it. We saw the same movie and we simply got different things out of it. I guess if I'm going to be accused of being ill-informed, the Batman Begins plot is as good a field as any to plead ignorance.
― walter kranz (walterkranz), Wednesday, 3 August 2005 06:15 (eighteen years ago) link
Well, without Batman this would've happened to the city, no? So he's still supposed to be the hero of the day. And the final exchange of words between Gordon and Batman ("I never said thank you." "And you never have to.") certainly frames him as a hero. He's not a clean-cut hero like Superman, rather than a flawed one. He starts out misguided but he faces his "hero test" while fighting the "true" vigilantes of the League of Shadows. If you're claiming that Batman in the end was still presented as morally corrupt character who isn't the hero of the story at all (a tragic hero, maybe, but hero nevertheless), I guess we were watching a different film. Remember, this is not Taxi Driver, this is the film that's supposed to start a whole new Batman franchise.
As I said, the problem with the film wasn't that Batman fought the criminals, but the fact that it took the problematics of vigilantism seriously, through the comments made by Alfred and Rachel, but in the end still shyed away from the issue. Batman was supposed to have been better than the League of Shadows because he didn't kill the criminals, but yet at the final countdown he was directly responsible for Ducard's death, and did nothing to save him. So, as I said, he has blood in his hands. From what I know about Batman comics, in them he never kills or lets someone die intentionally.
I do realize that the problem of vigilantism is ingrained at the very heart of the character; it's not just this movie that faces that problem (Dark Knight Returns is a much more glaring example of the same). This is why I've never much liked Batman in the first place. Other superhero stories, such as Superman or the X-Men, can more easily sidestep vigilantism by making their heroes fight against aliens or the prejudice of mankind. But Batman's modus operandi has always been the fight against criminals, the "disease" of crime. When he fights against vampires or the Joker, I can deal with that, because that is clearly fantasy, escapism. Batman Returns evaded the issue of vigilantism by telling a modern fairy tale and Batman Forever by not taking Batman too seriously. You can do all sorts of stuff with Batman, and I guess that's the reason for his longevity, even though his original "heroism" is rather out-of-date. But Batman Begins expects the viewer to both evaluate Batman's morality and ultimately accept him as the hero, and for me that doesn't simply work.
― Tuomas (Tuomas), Wednesday, 3 August 2005 07:05 (eighteen years ago) link