Thursday, October 09, 2008
Thinking About Batman
The Dark Knight, this past summer's Batman film, has long since gone, and I have resisted the urge to comment on it until now because it is not your run of the mill comic book hero movie. It is an excellent film and joins the Christopher Reeve Superman II and Spider-Man II in my pantheon of GREAT comic book movies, but it remains a thing apart from them.
Unlike those other two very good movies, this film does not just probe the characters, it probes issues. It deals in a world where the line between good and evil is not distinct - almost. There has been a lot written about it, notably here is something from Blue Fish in the UK and the Out of Ur blog, both discussing the lack of clear lines of good and evil in the film.
I disagree with this analysis in spades. There is a hard line in Batman, it is one that has been debated in the comics for some time and the movie reflected it pretty well.
Start with this premise, Batman and Joker are two sides of the same coin. Both are mentally disturbed and both are willing to go to extraordinary lengths to give expression to their unique obsessions. You can protest all you want that Batman is a good guy, but be realistic, to go to the lengths he goes to to deal with the murder of his parents is seriously indicative of mental illness. He may channel it more productively that the Joker, but he is nonetheless seriously disturbed.
The clear line between them lies in the fact that the Joker kills indiscriminately and Batman NEVER kills. I think we can all agree that the indiscriminate deaths caused by the Joker are evil, but the real question concerns whether Batman's NEVER kill stance is always good.
The line for Batman appeared back when the Comic Code came into existence and originally was simply as a compromise point where his vigilantism would be tolerated by local law enforcement. But in the ensuing years things have changed, considerably. We now live in a world where the Joker's madness guarantees his "treatment," when his crimes demand the death penalty. And Batman's "no kill" policy has taken on a decidedly moral tone, as if it is the line between good and evil.
Now, it must be remembered that if the Joker actually died, it would be the end of the greatest comic rivalry in history, so there are very practical reasons why it has not happened. But even given that - why the moralism? Why not just have him, in typical comic style, undergo some transformative process where he was unkillable? I think because we have truly come to believe in the west that to kill evil is evil in itself - and that is a problem.
Jesus, on the cross was not a martyr, He was a warrior. He was no victim of evil, He was its destroyer. True, He did not take the traditional glorious path to such destruction, but make no mistake, it was the destruction of evil, accomplished finally in the resurrection that was His goal all along.
Batman's failure to destroy the Joker (forget the movie for a second, even there, Batman fails to save the Joker's life, he does not destroy it) is his heroic flaw - more it makes him in some sense a partner to the Joker's truly unimaginable evil. To be Christ-like, Batman would achieve his heroism in a totally self-sacrificial manner. (Perhaps accepting society's punishment for killing the Joker where society would not?) To be TRULY heroic Joker's death is demanded. His continuing life is moral cowardice. His being allowed to take his own life (which is really what happened in the film) is also a form of moral cowardice.
The problem with the movie and the Batman ethos in general is not the moral fuzziness of the Joker, but the moral ineptitude of Batman. Evil must be destroyed.
I long for the days when the Batman's failure to kill was based on adherence to the law, and not in some grossly misguided moral code.
Technorati Tags:batman, joker, morality
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator
Unlike those other two very good movies, this film does not just probe the characters, it probes issues. It deals in a world where the line between good and evil is not distinct - almost. There has been a lot written about it, notably here is something from Blue Fish in the UK and the Out of Ur blog, both discussing the lack of clear lines of good and evil in the film.
I disagree with this analysis in spades. There is a hard line in Batman, it is one that has been debated in the comics for some time and the movie reflected it pretty well.
Start with this premise, Batman and Joker are two sides of the same coin. Both are mentally disturbed and both are willing to go to extraordinary lengths to give expression to their unique obsessions. You can protest all you want that Batman is a good guy, but be realistic, to go to the lengths he goes to to deal with the murder of his parents is seriously indicative of mental illness. He may channel it more productively that the Joker, but he is nonetheless seriously disturbed.
The clear line between them lies in the fact that the Joker kills indiscriminately and Batman NEVER kills. I think we can all agree that the indiscriminate deaths caused by the Joker are evil, but the real question concerns whether Batman's NEVER kill stance is always good.
The line for Batman appeared back when the Comic Code came into existence and originally was simply as a compromise point where his vigilantism would be tolerated by local law enforcement. But in the ensuing years things have changed, considerably. We now live in a world where the Joker's madness guarantees his "treatment," when his crimes demand the death penalty. And Batman's "no kill" policy has taken on a decidedly moral tone, as if it is the line between good and evil.
Now, it must be remembered that if the Joker actually died, it would be the end of the greatest comic rivalry in history, so there are very practical reasons why it has not happened. But even given that - why the moralism? Why not just have him, in typical comic style, undergo some transformative process where he was unkillable? I think because we have truly come to believe in the west that to kill evil is evil in itself - and that is a problem.
Jesus, on the cross was not a martyr, He was a warrior. He was no victim of evil, He was its destroyer. True, He did not take the traditional glorious path to such destruction, but make no mistake, it was the destruction of evil, accomplished finally in the resurrection that was His goal all along.
Batman's failure to destroy the Joker (forget the movie for a second, even there, Batman fails to save the Joker's life, he does not destroy it) is his heroic flaw - more it makes him in some sense a partner to the Joker's truly unimaginable evil. To be Christ-like, Batman would achieve his heroism in a totally self-sacrificial manner. (Perhaps accepting society's punishment for killing the Joker where society would not?) To be TRULY heroic Joker's death is demanded. His continuing life is moral cowardice. His being allowed to take his own life (which is really what happened in the film) is also a form of moral cowardice.
The problem with the movie and the Batman ethos in general is not the moral fuzziness of the Joker, but the moral ineptitude of Batman. Evil must be destroyed.
I long for the days when the Batman's failure to kill was based on adherence to the law, and not in some grossly misguided moral code.
Technorati Tags:batman, joker, morality
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator
