Should we hate Batman?

I finally saw Batman Begins last weekend, and while I enjoyed it, I was a bit underwhelmed by it. It's not that it was a bad movie, it was that we've seen it before. But this isn't a movie review, it's a critique of the whole Batman ethos. The movie nicely brought something up that the comics almost never do: why does Batman exist when Bruce Wayne could be more effective fighting crime?

A few weeks ago the always-interesting Tim O'Neil (with one 'l') posted a couple of long essays about why he hated Batman. Part One is here and Part Two is here, if you're curious (they're good reading, but don't go there until you're done here - that's an order!). I may reiterate some of his thoughts, but I'm confident I'll be original enough for the demanding readers here.

Tim points out what a stupid character Batman is. I tend to agree with him without hating the character as much as he does, but for different reasons. He points out the immaturity of the character, as opposed to a man from another planet with strange powers and someone who was bitten by a radioactive spider and didn't convulse and die immediately. That's a cheap shot, because the point is sound, and I'm going to expand on it a bit, if I may. Of all the major superheroes, Batman's motivation is the dumbest.

Superman is an alien with superhuman powers. He kind of has to be a superhero. Same with, say, Spider-Man or the Fantastic Four. Sure, they could lead normal, happy lives, but as writers have pointed out several times over the years, whenever Peter Parker tries to give it up, he realizes he must use his powers for the good of mankind! Wonder Woman is technically an ambassador. Green Lantern is a deputized police officer. Flash ... well, he's fast. Captain America works for the government (well, he should - that would be a better comic book, especially since they own his ass). You get the gist.

Batman? He's rich and bored. That's it. Don't give me this crap about punishing the criminals. I'll get to that. He has no job, he's spoiled (well, until he was eight and his parents ate some bullets), he has more money than J.K. Rowling. What's a young man to do? Well, some people base jump. Bruce dresses like a bat and kicks ass. That's all.

Is that any reason to hate him? Well, no, not really - if he wants to dress up like a bat and kick ass and no one thinks he's, well, psychotic, that's fine and dandy. That's where the movie comes into things, and where the reaction to the movie comes into things. Tom Peyer linked to a bunch of reviews of the movie, in which generally right-wing people loved it. That doesn't change my enjoyment or lack thereof of the movie, but it's interesting to note:

This Batman is the antithesis of your entire sick, parasitical, eat-the-rich, blame-the-victim-not-the-criminal, sacrifice-the-individual-to-the-collective-gang view of human nature and society.

Along the way, [Bruce] stages a hostile takeover of the publicly traded Wayne Enterprises, puts a dent in an evil mental health system, proves that individual initiative and guts are more effective than entrenched bureaucracies (in this case, Gotham's compromised police department) and, perhaps most notably, turns the typical Hollywood trope of rich-businessman-as-villain on its immaculately coiffed head.

The generation gap between the Wayne parents and son, Bruce, marks a transition from detached liberal philanthropy to engaged conservative crime fighting. Bruce’s generous parents live at a safe distance from the city in a protected mansion. Bruce converts to conservatism the old-fashioned way — a liberal mugged, not so much by reality, as by, well, a mugger who kills his parents. Delicate, liberal philanthropy collapses in the face of violent evil; Bruce is left with fear and nihilism, the pointlessness of his life. His response is to create a purpose for his life by exploring and striving to overcome his fears.

Although the central theme of Batman Begins is how Bruce controls his own phobia (bats) and redirects it to fight fear (personified in the villain Scarecrow), the film also presents a picture of a businessman -- an extraordinarily wealthy businessman -- that overcomes stereotypes about such people as almost inevitably corrupt, unethical, and heartless.

Now, this view of Batman is somewhat antithetical to how he has been portrayed in the comics. Not completely, but somewhat. The reason Batman is, well, silly is because of this balance between fascism and socialism in Batman's character. First, the fascism. Call it satire if you want, but The Dark Knight Returns definitely established Batman as a take-no-prisoners kind of hero with fascist undertones. There is no excuse for criminal activity - none. Criminals must be punished with extreme prejudice, and Batman cares little for the rule of law. "You've got rights. Lots of rights. Sometimes I count them just to make myself feel crazy," he tells one felon after he throws him through a window. As visceral literature, this is awesome, but as someone who cares about civil liberties - not so much. This Batman has become increasingly the norm over the 20 years since Dark Knight, as Tim points out, but it always has to balance with the DC edict that Batman doesn't kill. This means that no matter how "fascist" he gets, Batman always has that element of "soft-on-crime" that conservatives can bash him about. Does anyone - anyone - really think leaving the Joker alive all these years is a good thing? Tim makes the point that someone would have killed the Joker years ago, and I agree. How can Barbara Gordon even look at Batman? How can Jim Gordon - his daughter and his wife dead because Batman didn't kill the Joker years ago. There was even a graphic novel (by Dixon and Nolan) in which Batman has to clear the Joker of a crime he didn't commit or he'll get the death penalty! The reason conservative "tough-on-crime" movie reviewers love Batman Begins (and probably the other Batman movies too) is because this Batman does kill. Okay, in the latest movie he doesn't technically kill anyone, but a lot of people die directly because of his actions (that's the extent of the stuff I will reveal, for those who haven't seen it yet).

So is that the real reason why we should hate Batman? Again, not really, but it's an element. One thing all the conservative reviews mention is the glamorous portrayal of Bruce Wayne, über-capitalist. This is much more pronounced in the movie than it has been in the comics, and it's where my thoughts turned to why Batman is a menace. I don't agree with these conservative (and libertarian) reviewers that this movie shows how great Bruce Wayne is because he takes back his company from evil Rutger Hauer (I miss the young Rutger Hauer - Ladyhawke was on HBO today - what a cool movie). Thomas Wayne, it is made clear, was a saint-like figure - he endowed the city with a transit system, he gave money to the downtrodden - all without giving up his wealthy lifestyle. While the conservatives trumpet this as how society should run (rich people deigning to help those less fortunate than they are and government staying the hell out), this essay points out that Thomas Wayne gave up the capitalistic career to be a doctor, and Bruce is essentially a spoiled rich kid who didn't earn any of his wealth.

My point is, if you want to look at Batman realistically, he is hurting Gotham City with his dress-up antics. Like I said, of the major superheroes, he has the least justification for what he's doing. This is driven home whenever someone else tries to do what he does, and he comes down hard on the interloper. The writers eventually have to have the interloper commit some sort of crime so that they can be vilified while Batman remains the hero. The most obvious example of this is the Huntress. I like Helena more than I like Batman, actually, because she has a clearer focus (well, she used to) and she's not afraid to make the tough choices about dispatching foes. Since she's not as popular as Batman, however, the writers constantly have to cast her in a bad light so Batman's disapproval of her is justified (her scene in JLA with Prometheus leaps to my mind instantly, but there are other examples).

So Batman has no justification. Does this mean he's hurting Gotham? Well, sure. As Batman, he can only go after the symptoms of crime - the criminals. I don't want to get too touchy-feely liberal here, because criminals should be punished, but that doesn't mean there aren't root causes of crime, which Batman never addresses. I'll get back to that in a minute. Batman hurts Gotham because of the fact that the police can't actually convict most of the people he brings in - Batman doesn't testify in court - and because he hamstrings the cops when they're dealing with criminals. Say what you want about him, but Batman is technically an innocent bystander - and the cops probably flinch before using deadly force against, say, the Joker when Batman is in their way. To say nothing of the abuse the cop who accidentally puts a bullet in Batman's head would face!

Back to the root causes of crime. In the movie we're specifically told that when Thomas Wayne died, the city spiraled into corruption. I hate to break it to the conservatives who crow about the lack of enterprise causing the decline, but Wayne Industries hummed along and presumably made lots of money after his death. What was missing was the enlightened guidance of the company. Unlike most businessmen that today's conservatives admire, Thomas Wayne did not appear interested at all in using his money to make more money. He used it to help his city. Bruce does not. Instead he dresses like a bat and beats people up. Ultimately, he could do more good if he followed his father's example. How about instead of buying 10,000 (faulty) gas masks from Asia (a very funny scene in the movie), he use that money to improve the mass transit system so that poor Katie Holmes doesn't fear riding the train? Why doesn't Bruce run for office so that he can work on cleaning up the corruption in the police force instead of swimming with supermodels? In the comic books, a simple revamp of Arkham Asylum so that it's not a Gothic horror house haunted by the ghost of its founder and is instead a place with adequate security means Batman doesn't have to kill the Joker but he won't be running around slaughtering thousands of people. All of this stuff could be accomplished much more easily by a Bruce Wayne committed to making his city better, and it would alleviate some of the guilt he feels over his parents' murder. Putting more police on the street, as proved in the United States in the 1990s, helps lower crime far more than some crazy loner dressed like a flying rodent.

Of course this won't happen. Bruce Wayne, Super-Capitalist or Bruce Wayne the Mighty City Councilman wouldn't exactly sell well. It's worth pointing out, though, because although we have to suspend disbelief when we read superhero comic books, Batman strains even that credulity. I still like Batman, because of the other aspect of his character - his tragic and hopeless nature. However, the question remains - based on how Bruce Wayne is portrayed, should we hate Batman?

Read More