Batman Begins: The Thread

Did you actually watch this movie? I mean, with your eyes open? Because I can't see how you could have seen more than fifteen minutes near the beginning and fifteen minutes near the end and type something that far removed from what was actually happening in the story. I can't see how you could have not have noticed that the mobsters were running the town, had been running it for twentysome-odd years and they owned most of the police and judicial branch. The reason why the League of Shadows were able to get the foothold into the city they had was because the majority of its governmental infrastructure was mired in shady, criminal dealings. You are acting like the narrative is lying to you and painting a false picture of the state of Gotham and really all of the law enforcement agencies had a handle on the issues facing the city and none of them were at all complicit in pushing it towards the edge of chaos that overwhelmed the poor section of town and threatened to subsume the entire city.

Furthermore, this rigid insistence that you can only use comic book conventions if your work is projected through an unambiguously liberal moral filter is narrative fascism.

Actually, I don't think the movie ever stated so. It said that there were corrupt cops and judges, but never was it mentioned that the whole city was corrupt. They were able to arrest and charge Falcone, weren't they?

it's also made clear that the only people pursuing Falcone (and being obstructed at every turn) are the DA's office - specifically Katie Holmes and her much less morally upright boss. (where was Harvey Dent in this movie...?)

x-post

I can't see how you could have not have noticed that the mobsters were running the town, had been running it for twentysome-odd years and they owned most of the police and judicial branch. The reason why the League of Shadows were able to get the foothold into the city they had was because the majority of its governmental infrastructure was mired in shady, criminal dealings.

How does this contradict anything I've said? The city is a moral cesspool and it needs a strong, larger-than-life man to come in and clean it up. That's basically the standard narrative of fascism and I don't see how pointing it out is even remotely controversial.

You are acting like the narrative is lying to you and painting a false picture of the state of Gotham

You're acting like Gotham is a real place and not a fictional city created to serve a particular narrative.

Furthermore, this rigid insistence that you can only use comic book conventions if your work is projected through an unambiguously liberal moral filter is narrative fascism.

WTF Dan? Nobody is saying that. Personally I just enjoy a movie like X2 much more than Batman Begins. And actually these criticisms of the film's politics are separate from my enjoyment (or not) of the movie. As I said way way upthread my main gripes were the poor action scenes and some of the laughable dialog. I actually thought that the movie was pretty good but not really exceptional and nowhere near the best superhero movie ever. But I also respect and understand Tuomas' point of view that he cannot enjoy a film like this because of its politics.

So are you saying it's a criticism of the fascist impulse?

Which leads to my point: it was exactly because the movie felt more real than many other Batman stories, because the crime in Gotham wasn't simply a disease to get rid off, and because it showed Batman as pretty self-interested rather than a noble crusader, that his vigilantism felt so condemnable.

xpost

I meant how his portrayed to the reader; being loathed by the police et al just makes him the underdog, and therefore easier to root for, and the fact that police don't like his methods can simply be used as a justification for his vigilantism ("The justice system is weak and can't handle crime, but Batman can."). Certainly his quest of punishing criminals is rarely questioned.

I think, so but Miller's essential points are that vigilantism is justifiable and that it's okay to kill criminals so they won't do more crime. Also, no analysis whatsoever on why people become criminals. And Batman fights against the government because it's corrrupted, and only he is strong enough to oppose corruption. Plus, Dark Knight Returns is pretty fascist in nature: Batman leads an army of kids who inexplicably turn from street punks to fanatic Batman followers, and who dress up as Batman too.

(x-post)

I think all of the evidence that has been given to support that interpretation could be read in a different way. Certainly the film uses Katie Holmes as the voice of reason but it's interesting that people here have said that a liberal Katie Holmes p.o.v. version of the story would have been uninteresting. She is essentially portrayed as a nagging presence that Batman doesn't necessarily have to take seriously. Likewise, Alfred and Gordon also act as voices of reason but I think there's a really strong feeling that Batman alone knows what must be done and so he occasionally has to exercise his own will and disregard the advice of the people around him.

The scene where he plans to murder his parents' killer felt less like a moral turning point and more like a case of frustration over unfulfilled revenge. The fact that the killer ends up dead anyway takes away some of the guilt and allows us to sympathize with the frustrated revenge fantasy.

Even the negative consequences such as the destruction of Wayne Manor only make us sympathize with Batman. The impression is that Batman's role as a savior is a burden he has to bear and that these negative consequences are noble sacrifices he must make to restore order to Gotham.

The bottom line that undermines any criticisms of Batman's actions is the fact that without Batman, Gotham would have been utterly destroyed. He had no choice. So despite the objections of the people around him, Batman really did know what was best.

This is where I disagree with Tuomas' opinion that the League was the less objectionable enemy in the movie. When Batman simply puts away a few gangsters here and there it's much less of a moral imperative for him to exercise his power. This is the same reason I don't object as much to something like Taxi Driver or film noir. Noir films are overwhelmingly cynical and the protagonists usually only win minor victories that barely challenge the status quo. Batman Begins on the other hand sets up a situation where the hero must exercise his power to save the world and ignore the objections of society.

But I think it's important that criticisms of right-wing vigilantism are not confused with a criticism of vigilantism in general. Of course there can also be left-wing vigilantism. I'm curious what Tuomas thinks of someone like Dashiell Hammet who essentially wrote communist vigilante stories. This is also why I think there can be better depictions of Batman that maintain his essential qualities without becoming fascist parables.

I'm not familiar with Miller's comic books but I don't agree that fascism is a logical extension of superheroism so either way he's writing from a right wing point of view.

I agree with Shakey, Batman Begins definitely is more liberal than Miller's work.

I think it's only more liberal in the sense that it soft pedals the right wing tendencies and buries them under the surface. At least something like Sin City didn't pull any punches.

OTM. Beat me to it.

Oh, let's not go to that direction. I'm not a deconstructionist, and never will be. I think it's absurd to eliminate the artist's intentions from art altogether, because art wouldn't exist at all without the artist feeling he needs to communicate something.