![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
The Case for Remaking Batman
May. 3rd, 2015 11:18 pmThe aforementioned problems with superheroes apply to Batman. Batman does have a motivation for his vigilantism rooted in low-level crime, exactly the kind of thing that seems simple but is too complicated to punch in the face and tie up for the police. It's still a problem.
Recent Batman fictions have been good about creating a world that needs something like Batman. In Batman Begins and in Gotham, the city of Gotham has corruption so heavily embedded in the police force that it's nigh-impossible for any individual officer to survive without becoming corrupt.
The problem, here, is that they treat corruption as something specific and easy to recognize, police being under the authority of the mafia. Bribes, extortion, or just cowardice before powerful entities that have everybody else bribed, extorted, or just as scared as you are.
There's another type of corruption, one that's just as harmful and less recognized as corruption until it's gone too far. It's when the police, either in the individual or as a force, start seeing their communities, or demographics thereof, as the enemy.
In recent months, we've seen more focus on the results of that kind of corruption. And, that kind of corruption is a large part of that general problem of crime, a part of the reason it cannot be punched in the face and tied up for the police.
There's another Batman-specific problem. At the end of one episode of Gotham, in which Jim Gordon investigates and captures a murderous vigilante, young Bruce Wayne makes the statement that the vigilante killed, thus making him a bad guy.
This is more blatantly exemplified in an exchange at the beginning of The Dark Knight, between a Batman copycat and Batman himself.
"What's the difference between you and me?"
"I'm not wearing hockey pads."
You might think that's a declaration of preparation, with regards to equipment. It's a declaration of wealth.
I'm of the mind that one should not tell someone their choice is wrong unless one has a reasonable better choice at the avail. The problem is that the vigilante in the episode did not have that better option and neither did the Batman copycat.
When "do nothing and wait for someone else to make it better" is a reasonable option, Batman is unneeded and more likely to be a part of the problem.
In the fix, Batman's origins should remain the same. His parents lost to a mugging gone wrong and nothing more. His motivation is the same mixed-motivation that he had in The Animated Series, revenge and so that children don't suffer the same loss in future.
Bruce Wayne should not don the Cowl with a naive understanding of crime. Desperation born of police corruption, a nigh omnipresent mafia, and a lack of alternative opportunity are all elements he should be familiar with. But, after taking on the Cowl, he should face something that shakes him.
Batman intercedes in a police shootout, naturally taking their side. Only, during the shootout, he finds out that he's not helping them find a bad guy. He's helping them find a law-abiding citizen who just happened to fit part of the wrong description. Without any of the first, more easily recognized corruption, the police were the bad guys.
This isn't every incident, of course. Police make mistakes and, sometimes, that mistake is in good faith. Sometimes, however, that mistake is because police have taken to viewing themselves as inherently the good guys and certain demographics as inherently criminal. The Jesus Problem that corrupted Superman in Man of Steel produces a narratively recognized corruption in the police.
This will identify Batman's challenge as different than he thought. He thought he would fight a battle against injustice. He needs to fight a battle against those who have a corrupted notion of justice from the start.
This Batman cannot claim that others taking up his same task are invalid, because they are facing even more of the same losses and same pressures he faces. This Batman cannot say that a vigilante is just bad for killing, this Batman has to not just be a vigilante, but truly earn the title of Dark Knight.
The ideal notion of a Knight (we're admitting the reality is quite different) was to be a model for others to follow. Chivalry may be dead, but Batman needs to make it anew in the Dark Chivalry of the Dark Knight.
This Batman must not only fight the likes of Twoface and The Joker, but must do so in a way that provides an alternative to killing the bad guys that can't otherwise be fought.
Thus, one of Batman's defining early victories must not be a battle against an evil villain in the crime world. It must be in providing damning evidence against corrupt cops and presenting it in a way that cannot be denied or ignored.
Batman fights not just so that you don't have to. He fights so that you can see how to fight when the system isn't an option.
Recent Batman fictions have been good about creating a world that needs something like Batman. In Batman Begins and in Gotham, the city of Gotham has corruption so heavily embedded in the police force that it's nigh-impossible for any individual officer to survive without becoming corrupt.
The problem, here, is that they treat corruption as something specific and easy to recognize, police being under the authority of the mafia. Bribes, extortion, or just cowardice before powerful entities that have everybody else bribed, extorted, or just as scared as you are.
There's another type of corruption, one that's just as harmful and less recognized as corruption until it's gone too far. It's when the police, either in the individual or as a force, start seeing their communities, or demographics thereof, as the enemy.
In recent months, we've seen more focus on the results of that kind of corruption. And, that kind of corruption is a large part of that general problem of crime, a part of the reason it cannot be punched in the face and tied up for the police.
There's another Batman-specific problem. At the end of one episode of Gotham, in which Jim Gordon investigates and captures a murderous vigilante, young Bruce Wayne makes the statement that the vigilante killed, thus making him a bad guy.
This is more blatantly exemplified in an exchange at the beginning of The Dark Knight, between a Batman copycat and Batman himself.
"What's the difference between you and me?"
"I'm not wearing hockey pads."
You might think that's a declaration of preparation, with regards to equipment. It's a declaration of wealth.
I'm of the mind that one should not tell someone their choice is wrong unless one has a reasonable better choice at the avail. The problem is that the vigilante in the episode did not have that better option and neither did the Batman copycat.
When "do nothing and wait for someone else to make it better" is a reasonable option, Batman is unneeded and more likely to be a part of the problem.
In the fix, Batman's origins should remain the same. His parents lost to a mugging gone wrong and nothing more. His motivation is the same mixed-motivation that he had in The Animated Series, revenge and so that children don't suffer the same loss in future.
Bruce Wayne should not don the Cowl with a naive understanding of crime. Desperation born of police corruption, a nigh omnipresent mafia, and a lack of alternative opportunity are all elements he should be familiar with. But, after taking on the Cowl, he should face something that shakes him.
Batman intercedes in a police shootout, naturally taking their side. Only, during the shootout, he finds out that he's not helping them find a bad guy. He's helping them find a law-abiding citizen who just happened to fit part of the wrong description. Without any of the first, more easily recognized corruption, the police were the bad guys.
This isn't every incident, of course. Police make mistakes and, sometimes, that mistake is in good faith. Sometimes, however, that mistake is because police have taken to viewing themselves as inherently the good guys and certain demographics as inherently criminal. The Jesus Problem that corrupted Superman in Man of Steel produces a narratively recognized corruption in the police.
This will identify Batman's challenge as different than he thought. He thought he would fight a battle against injustice. He needs to fight a battle against those who have a corrupted notion of justice from the start.
This Batman cannot claim that others taking up his same task are invalid, because they are facing even more of the same losses and same pressures he faces. This Batman cannot say that a vigilante is just bad for killing, this Batman has to not just be a vigilante, but truly earn the title of Dark Knight.
The ideal notion of a Knight (we're admitting the reality is quite different) was to be a model for others to follow. Chivalry may be dead, but Batman needs to make it anew in the Dark Chivalry of the Dark Knight.
This Batman must not only fight the likes of Twoface and The Joker, but must do so in a way that provides an alternative to killing the bad guys that can't otherwise be fought.
Thus, one of Batman's defining early victories must not be a battle against an evil villain in the crime world. It must be in providing damning evidence against corrupt cops and presenting it in a way that cannot be denied or ignored.
Batman fights not just so that you don't have to. He fights so that you can see how to fight when the system isn't an option.
