Batman Begins
—Photos
—About this Film
—Spiritual Connections
What does it take to create a legend? Batman Begins tells the tale of one man’s battle against corruption, of a man who feels the need to dress up as a bat in order to do it. The thing about the movie is how plausible it makes this entire venture seem, or at least how it treats the venture as if it is plausible. The movie is grounded, if that makes sense, in the reality of Bruce Wayne’s humanness (the bat suit doesn’t make an appearance for almost a full hour). We know (and I use the word “we� to refer to those of the comic book intelligentsia familiar with the origins of Batman) that it is the tragic loss of his parents at the hand of a street criminal, and his subsequent thirst for Justice, that drives him into his new life. But the exact path that this journey entails hasn’t been depicted until now. This movie, with the hopes of reinvigorating the Batman movie franchise, chooses to explore the tortured psyche of a man who would don some sophisticated latex and fight crime, examining the issues that shaped the man into the hero he is destined to become. 
Christopher Nolan (Insomnia, and writer/director of the brilliant Memento) returns the Dark Knight mythos to center stage. Christian Bale (Equilibrium, American Psycho) is wonderful as Bruce Wayne (capturing his playboy spirit and tortured angst better than, say, Val Kilmer who was my favorite Bruce Wayne) and captivating as Batman (who, odd as it may sound, had been done best by Michael Keaton). The star power of this movie doesn’t stop there: Michael Caine (the faithful manservant, Alfred), Rutger Hauer (Earle), Ken Wantabe (Ra’s Al Ghul), Morgan Freeman (scientific genius, Lucius Fox), Gary Oldman (Lieutenant James Gordon), and Liam Neeson (Henri Ducard) all give rousing turns chewing up scenery. The camera work gets a little too close to the action, at times obscuring the fight scenes and at other times conveying the speed of the action.
The movie provides a depth to the character and nature of Bruce Wayne/Batman, explaining his identification with bats and his relationship with his parents. It also shows that Batman couldn’t be Batman alone, but needed quite a bit of help to perfect his method. Lucius provides the tech, Alfred the wisdom in covering his tracks, and Bruce Wayne has to develop his playboy persona.
The complex plot of the cadre of villains to destroy Gotham City aside, this movie is (spiritually) about two things: being lost and fighting corruption.
As the movie opens, Bruce Wayne has chosen to live among the criminal element in order to better understand the criminal mind. However, what he is unaware of is that he had become lost (despite his intentions of joining in the mission of the pursuit of Justice): lost in impossible anger and pain, at the loss of his parents. How we respond to tragedies in our lives form us. We can become embittered and vengeful or maybe we can grow through the trial. His anger and pain, the need to pursue Justice, drove him but also threatened to destroy him unless he put it in check. Part of his learning meant realizing that Justice equals harmony while revenge is only about making himself feel better.
We come to varying points in our lives when we realize that things aren’t as they should be. Our world seems implacably marred by corruption—as we live in a state of fear, despair—careening down a path of destruction and death. We have the feeling that something is missing, but we don’t know how to fix it. This incompleteness drives us; however, in our rush to fill this void, we run the risk of filling it with the wrong thing. Maybe the discontent we feel needs to be re-thought. Maybe it isn’t entirely bad. Maybe the missing pieces in our lives should move us toward some sort of conclusion about life.
“All of this is not me. Inside, I am ... I am more.� Bruce Wayne
“It’s not who you are underneath, it’s what you do that defines you.� Rachel Dawes
As one lesson learned, compassion is what separates the Batmans of the world from the Ra’s Al Ghuls of the world, since Batman isn’t willing to defeat evil by any means necessary. Bruce Wayne also comes to realize the power of symbol, the power of story to teach, inspire, and transform others. Thus he creates the myth of Batman, an ideal and example for others to follow. (Batman, however, apparently also has no compunctions about the sheer amount of property damage that he inflicts in his pursuit of Justice.)
The constant fear is another symptom of the corruption. Crime, despair—this is not how men were meant to live. Gotham City, this modern day Babylon, is rotting; excess decadence is its chief sin. Its taint takes many forms, infiltrating every aspect of their society until it blooms full form in the mob, the crooked police force, corporations run amuck, the Scarecrow, and Ra’s Al Ghul. No society stands a chance of survival if its good people choose to do nothing.
“To manipulate the fears of others, you must first master your own.� Ducard.
A trinity of good people are at the heart of the movie: Batman, Assistant D.A. Rachel Dawes (Katie Holmes) and Lt. Jim Gordon. They provide the hope for the city, serving as reminders that those without decency must be fought. Until all evil is defeated, we are to fight corruption where we see it, be it where the corruptions starts (in our own hearts) or as it becomes symptomatic in society (crime).
Even moreso, and better done than Star Wars Episode III: Return of the Sith, this is the movie that we’ve been waiting to see—the movie that returns the character of Batman to where he should be. The movie succeeds because it emphasizes character and story over special effects and nipples on the bat-suit, creating an adult drama from what my grandmother used to refer to as “funny books.�
And I couldn’t be happier.
—Overview
—Photos
—About this Film
—Spiritual Connections
68 Comments:
Hello,
I saw the Batman movie (2005) this weekend. What I've heard people discuss so far is the character of Batman as it might fit with the ternets of Christianity. However, Batman has much in common with the shaman traditions: a series of tragic, dangerous, and fear-inspiring traumas, trials of facing one's fears, and going into the wilderness, the desert, the wasteland to gain a spiritual ally. In this case the spiritual ally or totem spirit is the Bat. Shaman use speak of journeying into the underworld where they suffer and are transformed by a spiritual being into a stronger more powerful person. This process is apparent when Bruce falls into the well, his experience with Ra's Al Ghul, his further discovery of a deeper underworld or "bottomless pit" under the well. Bruce is constantly associated with death, descending into the abyss, and ascending from the pit as a were-bat. This is very shamanistic, it is further reinforced by his "powers": the use of darkness, theatrics, technology to call upon the Great Bat Spirit" with the mechanism in his boot.
Three times he experiences a type of being energized by the Bat-Spirit that resembles Jesus' experience of the dove descending upon him during the baptism. Bruce's encounters with bats and water are an empowerment by the Bat-Spirit.
*It is significant that three figures in this movie can be seen as associated with the three main aspects of the male supreme being in the West. For example, it is a very significant factor is that Bruces's father, a great genius resembles the benevolent culture hero who creates, who wants to create an actual utopia. He is the Creator.
Bruce as Batman is the dark savior, the hero as combatant, and the Preserver principle. Ra's Al Ghul, although, he is seen as a villain; he is actually the Destroyer Principle of deity or nature. Most people don't like this idea especially if they are part of the corruption that needs to be destroyed. Christians like Jesus the Avenger, who will destroy and start things anew; but in actuality Ra's reveals that this so-called necessary destruction to make things "right" involves a very heavy price.
***These points in the movie need to be discussed because the writer/s thought it was essential to the story for this movie.
Sam
this is an interesting perspective. i'd be willing to bet that i could take this same point of view and apply it to my review of the comic book, "black panther". the shamanist perspective is more obvious considering that the black panther is their totem.
something to think about.
Samuel Ewing, I was going to say that, but you've pipped me to the post!!
(Anyway, I still haven't seen the movie... it's only just opened, in my neck of the woods, in Britain!)
But anyway, this thing about the Batman being a shaman - and the Bat being his totem spirit - BANG ON!!!
First really astute thing I've seen on Maurice's page for ages, ha ha...
(Of course, by my OWN reckonings, they ALL are shamans/wizards, ALL the major costumed characters of this comic, they all use the archetypes, only they don't all use animal spirits.)
But the Batman as the shaman dedicated to the Bat spirit - BANG on!!!
(I hinted at this weeks ago, but I didn't actually say it - because I am reluctant to discuss magic out loud! I will do it, but it costs me nerves!)
Anyway, to those with eyes to see - which seems to me pretty FEW people in the "mainstream" press - this whole ISSUE of the Batman as shaman and devotee of the Bat spirit - WAS IN FACT VERY ADEQUATELY PRESENTED IN THE MOVIE "BATMAN FOREVER" - which most (idiot) critics and (idiot) "fans" said was "non-serious"!
Oh how LITTLE do ye know, and how blind are eyes that will not see!
Actually that movie was PACKED with symbolism, it actually had a plot which made sense (plus LOADS of irresistible humour) - and - and - the "central section", the bit which dealt with Wayne's backstory, was in fact a version of the Hero's Journey into the Underworld, through and through.
I bet I won't really like the BB movie, though, because I don't like boring, over-serious things - even if they DO take magic seriously.
(Anyway, maybe too MANY people are now getting to know the Lucas/Campbell paradigm - and, guys, do you know what happens when spells get used too much? THAT's right - they do wear out!!)
"Batman Forever" tried to balance the "dark knight" interpretation of batman and the 1960s depiction of him. fans, like myself, hated the version of two-face (especially reduced to role of side kick villain) in the movie.
j. michael strazcynski explored the shamanist idea behind super-heroes in an Amazing Spider-Man storyline preceeding the "sins past" storyline that i reviewed.
it was an interesting take. i think DC comics also explored a similar idea (elementals) with some of their characters in the late 80s/early 90s.
let me know what you think of the movie AFTER YOU SEE IT. (-:
Will do! Am intending to! Didn't say a peep ABOUT it yet on any page here; just on what Samuel Ewing said about shamanism (IN THE COMICS IN GENERAL, I would assume!)...
And something on Kevin's lengthy comments concerning what he thinks the role of the Batman SHOULD be... in future productions, his ideal version of the hero.
Saying nothing YET!!! In fact, I've even avoided reading TOO many reviews of BB, because I DO think there might be something TO this one (though not entertainment!)... and I don't want to spoil it for myself. Wait wait!
Yeah, though, it will have to be no. 3 as the "way" for me! I already know that that is the Batman movie I shall ever respond to with most visceral pleasure and recognition. Though even THERE they didn't get everything right - morally I mean, and I might discuss that with Kevin at some point. Bet the movie isn't reviewed on this site, (too old?) is there an "entry" for it? Must look!
I THINK I know what you mean by them "reducing Two-Face to sidekick villain"... but didn't silly old F. Miller make too MUCH of him, anyway??
But that's what HAPPENS if you have 2 or 3 major villains in just one movie!! B.R. was just the same!
I LOVED his hideout, though! AND the fact that he had not one, but 2 floozies! 1 for each personality side - that tickled my imagination! Comics, even supposedly "adult" Batman ones, are NEVER that - sexually frank.
"Batman Forever" was remarkably frank about a lot of things. Including the class war between Nygma and Wayne. (Which poor Nygma predictably lost.) I compared it to "The Merchant of Venice", actually, in my own mind. With class not race as the issue. (AH, you see!!)
Anyway - you may or may NOT like to know, with regard to B.F. and its two villains; I interpreted the dynamic between both of them differently. They were friends. (Perhaps more than friends!) This came out in the movie because of the nice interplay between the two actors - and it WAS very neat!! Neither Carrey nor Jones let the side down. (Both excellent comedy actors.) The friendship didn't come out in the novelization (see, I DO collect Batstuff!), but it did in the movie, because the actors made it thus. One supposes.
In this story, The Riddler got Two-Face to befriend him. (Yes, villains CAN be friends, if they have enough in common, and I'm REALLY surprised there isn't a SINGLE comic that explores that idea properly; but most modern comics writers are dumb, as I've said; too dumb to imagine that people who have a LOT in common + a common enemy and who all end up doing time together would form a kind of freemasonry, however riven with disagreement!)
In the movie, initally Two-Face is the senior partner (and sugar daddy if you ask me.) However, as The Riddler grows in power, megalomania, etc, he turns the tables somewhat, and without meaning any harm to Two-Face, he transforms him into his own sidekick. The student out-excels the master. That was MY reading of it.
So there!!
i don't think frank miller made too big a deal out of two-face. after the joker, two-face is probably batman's biggest nemesis.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Hello,
Maurice, I agree with you that the Black Panther is a shaman. As a matter of fact his origin story explains beyond the shadow of a doubt that he is a shaman. *Now for those who are Christian; I wonder how many of them are aware that many of the biblical prophets were shaman too? ***The second point that has special significance for me concerns another important aspect of Batman that is never discussed: Batman is a SUPERMAN. How could this be? If the readers of my statement will examine the concept of the Superman in Western literature prior to and including Nietzsche they will discover that Batman fits many original types of the Superman as defined in the West. If the reader looks to Hindu literature they will find that Batman is associated with the B-Atman of Hinduism. As an African American I was fascinated to find out that the idea of the Batman was written about in ancient African cultures as the Ba-at Man or Boatman. I would be very interested to here from you and others concerning the fact that Batman is a SUPERMAN.
Sincerely,
Sam
P.S.: It becomes quite clear
upon further reflection that
all heroes and superheroes are
SUPERMEN.
all of this discussion about shamans has reminded me that there is a whole tradition of the early church that was basically shamanistic. they were referred to as the "desert fathers".
for that matter, christ was a shaman after a sorts. i think back to when he withdrew into the desert and pursued what many would call a vision quest.
(not to mention john the baptist or elijah, for that matter)
i'm not up on my nietzsche, but batman and superman would both be supermen under his definitions. i'm not sure if i would buy into all of the nietzchien implications of that though.
Hello,
Regarding Batman being a SUPERMAN; here are some things that come to mind:
1. According to Renan and Gustave Flaubert they conceived of the Superman as an effective intellectual who has the capacity to prevent the destruction of society by malefactors. Batman fits the criteria of an Intellectual Superman.
2. Batman is said to represent the apex of physical perfection and human achievement. This idea is similar to the physical culture philosphies of the 19th and 20th centuries that discussed that we already have the knowledge to train and educate a person to become a Physical Superman who can contribute to society's welfare. Muscular Christianity, Eugene Sandow, Charles Atlas, Jack Lalanne, George Jowett, the Mighty Atom (Joseph Greenstein)etc. are just a few examples of this idea. Batman fits the idea of the Physical Superman.
3. Ibsen particularly, to some extent Dumas (Count of Monte Cristo), and the character Rocambole combine three ideas that were prevalent in the 19th-20th centuries. The idea of a Napoleon of Capitalism as the Superman, the idea of a Man of Mystery Superman hence the term "Mysteryman," and the idea of the Superman as Innovator/Inventor. Batman, like Sherlock Holmes is the continuation of the genre of the Detective Superman that started in the 19th century. Batman fits these three ideas as well. The characters Count of Monte Cristo, Rocambole,Scarlet Pimpernel the Shadow, the Spider, Spy Smasher etc. are other Mystery Supermen who laid the path for the Batman character that was developed later.
4. P.D. Oupensky writes an entire chapter about the SUPERMAN in his book A New Model Of The Universe. He emphasis the fact that there have always been ideas on various types of Supermen in religions, folklore, fairytales etc. He particularly points to prophets, magicians, classical heroes of various cultures, kings, chiefs, knights who kill monsters and rescue ladies as examples of the Superman. These supermen fight against diabolical forces, they surpass men in knowledge, insight, cunning, courage, and physical prowess. They usually have the responsibility of acting as mediators between humans and deities, they bring new ideas, knowledge, laws, that restore (make whole) a society. *Batman fits these roles as the "Dark Knight" he is the modern Knightly Hero. Thses supermen, according to Ouspensky, are associated with magic, mystery, new revelations, hidden knowledge or secrets, and a deity/spiritual forces. Again, Batman fits the criteria of a SUPERMAN.
5. In regards to Nietzsche, what is associated with him is the Nazi doctrine, this is an error, Nietzsche would not have agreed with it, as a matter of fact he predicted this atrocity by warning against Prussian belligerence. Nietzche spoke of a global society, the benefits of various ethnic groups coming together, and it is only with the perverse use of his writings by Nazis that you might have a negative impression of him. Nietzsche is famous for condemning Richard Wagner who was a fervent Anti-Semite.Anti-Semitism was one of the reasons Nietszche ended his friendship with Wagner. *On the positive side Nietzsche spoke of the Ubermensch in terms of an intelligent, self-reliant, courageous, and noble figure, who lives in solitude, but from time to time may act to protect the weak or guide the people for a short while. Batman again fits Nietzsche's idea of the superman.
I hope that others will give their perspective on Batman as a SUPERMAN.
Sincerely,
Sam
you present a fascinating portrait of batman as superman. i'm not real versed in this, but how
would Christ fit in within the definition of a "superman"? does He? He does fight against
diabolical forces, he surpassed men in knowledge and insight. i was just wondering how well He
would stack up.
Sam Ewing, you and your ideas are absolutely fascinating... You look like you've done some original research, which I admire... But Batman as the B-Atman of Hindu mythology/thought... come on now, are you having us ON?? It seems so PAT... (The PUN, I mean... I just wonder if I'm being "had"!)
I know there's such a thing as an Atman in Hindu thought, though I don't know it that well... it means world-soul or something, it comes from atma, which means "breath" or "soul"... (German "Atem"... all Indo-European languages are the same at their root!)
But a B-Atman? Machst Du wohl Spass, Mann??
ooh, and I like the idea of their being POSITIVE applications of the "Superman" ideal, in 19th-century culture, but I think you have it a bit wrong.. well, rosy-spectacled, in saying that Nietzsche wasn't racist/anti-semitic. He was definitely anti-semitic; he was always moaning about Jews; (and women), and he was racist, but he was also really weird... ie, someone said that the only race he really admired was a) one of which he wasn't a member b) one that didn't exist yet. (Ie, as you say, an "international" one, melded (genetically engineered?) from a variety of different "super-races", that would rule the world in some future time...)
Anyway, people who say that he WASN'T racist, say that his writings were later altered by his sister... (I think!) Well you could say the same about Wagner; you could say that what he said was altered by his surviving wife, Cosima... (Who should have known better than to team up with Nazis but didn't.)
Anyway, Friedrich Nietzsche, although an interesting intellectual phenomenon all by himself - too interesting to be dismissed by later centuries - was a friggin' racist - and a war-monger. (He frequently spoke of the glory of war. He was a twisted invalid.) And a misogynist. So I don't like him, so there!
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Oh... sorry it was so long! Definitely over 500 wds! But - it was a proper professional blog-type review, which I am posting on my blog - the first one I've started over at livejournal!
Oh, and another point.... Kennedy scenario, anyone?? As an "explanation" for what REALLY happened to the Waynes senior, in "Batman Begins"....
If we want a REAL conspiracy theory... (Actually, I KNOW what happened; I have an entire meta-theory, all based on the Batman's origins/genesis scenario, that ties in several of the other characters, which I've been sitting on happily for several years and which I never shall reveal - and that none of you fanboy dopes ('scuse me! You should see what I've been saying to fanboys over at IMdB!) shall ever come close to, not even if I hint at it - because it's FAR too clever - so I shall never say, not unless I find the right artist, and DC let me publish it as a comic!)
I'm much more clever than their scripters - I am! Why - because I'm female, of course! (Is one reason.) And they employ hardly any female writers. But LOOK what cunning, complex and convincing "plotters" women writers make - Agatha Christie, J K Rowling... (Actually Kane took his original inspiration for the Batman from a FEMALE writer, a play by Mary Roberts Rinehart... bet you didn't know that...) All these greats... Actually, most of the best detective/cop writers ARE women, so far as I can see... Only I don't care to write the "gritty" stuff. Grit for me is stuff you find in your sandwich down the beach.
Genial realism is more my thing!
(My own invention, substituting "genial" for "magical" in above phrase.)
Anyway, before I boast any more: This "Batman Begins" was full of noise and air about conspiracy theories... but they were all comfortingly vague. For the modern audience! No-one was ever taxed to think: "But WHY does this cult want to do this... What is their REAL motivation?"
And then there was all this in the movie, I'm sure you both noticed it, Maurice and Sam Ewing, that the deaths of the two Waynes somehow "galvanized" the rest of the ruling class into fighting the downfall of the city into "decadence"... I do believe Ducard states as much! But - what do they, the rich, the powerful, do?? To combat the city's slide? Into "decadence" - ie, economic inequality and squalor? They still must be pressing for bigger and bigger tax cuts, this richest 10% - because Gotham looks like a TOTAL TIP by the time the Batman has become a young man... the monorail his father built looks like it has gone for years without cleaning!
I know what they can ****ing well do for a start - catch all the criminals, OK, fine, including all the petty ones AND the drugs dealers - oh yes, AND Carmine Falcone - and make them ALL, high and low, clean the whole bloody thing up, and polish it till it's like a new pin! That would do better than locking them up in some dump!!
(I LOATHE dirty cities.)
But the rich elite will still have to pay their taxes to maintain basic public services. Which I daresay none of them any longer wish to do, which this movie did not make clear.
I mean - how did the Waynes' deaths improve things, as Ducard said that this tragedy did? That it shocked the politicians into doing something - what?? (Other than just locking criminals up, I suppose.) I don't see it.
I tell you what I DO see. I see that if there WERE such an old-style philanthropist in Gotham City such as Thomas Wayne, a mixture of Andrew Carnegie meets FDR meets Albert Schweitzer the doctor (not that I'm mocking that, we need MORE rich guys like him!! And not like all the venal ones and the crypto-fascists like Bush, Schwarzenegger et al)...
But if there WERE such a guy, such a family, as the Waynes... they would be an INSTANT, immediate target, like the Kennedys, I think... and THAT'S why Thomas Wayne had to die. NOT because of "Boss Carmine Falcone". Not ULTIMATELY, of course not.
Who is Boss Falcone "in" with, who is he TRULY supported by? (And I BET this is what Frank Miller NEVER said!)
Is he REALLY acting on his own, guys?? I think NOT... Is he the pawn of unspecified or vague, cultish FOREIGN interests? Likewise, I think not!
Who is he underwritten by? The very TOPS of society, of course, by a significant and sinister section of the elite. This has ALWAYS been so in U.S. politics. Like J Edgar Queerpants Hoover said to the American people that "there wasn't a mafia", because he was known to be in with the biggest bosses of them... he let them slide and do what they wanted, because the plans of the elite of organised crime are very congenial to those of the rest of the criminal capitalist elite; so it was and so it still is to this very day.
So there! Lesson in REAL reality!
"They" don't want any reformists. FDR only got in because of a thorough crisis - and he was nearly toppled by a secret coup in 1934. The freres Kennedy - we know what happened to them. Killed, or emasculated by set-up scandals. Even John Kennedy Jr. was killed, in a "convenient" plane crash, along with his wife and sister-in-law.... (he was said to be one of Princess Di's lovers, by the way - I KID YOU NOT - a story on Yahoo! News about a new book about him proves this!)
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/050627/323/fm2kf.html
CO-INCIDENCES, anybody? I think not....
NO reason to go blaming weird Oriental cults (aka Muslims, another code word for?!?) for the problems and the evils of the West! Its evils are all right in its own heartland.
Like the CIA caused the drugs problem. And all that sort of thing.
That's the sort of thing that these films, cop or superhero, or spy or whatever, NEVER can bring themselves to say - ie, that the "corruption" is DOMESTIC and that it reaches RIGHT to the very top... and yet that would make these kind of films MUCH more realistic....
And satisfying, to an audience! Because it would actually TELL them something, give them a useful paradigm. Affect their voting habits, ha ha!
Oh, I must be SO evil, to think of THAT last one! I must be as bad as Michael Moore and/or the Joker...
Well I am!!
God and Gaia help me, so I am!
But people prepared to think bad (irreverent, disruptive, hurtful, disturbing) thoughts are actually much more USEFUL to society, in the long run...
Than all the sheep!
Oh, and Sam Ewing, if you're still there... Just a (fairly) quick one! Don't you think, though, that the version of the "Hero's Journey", Bruce Wayne makes his way into the underworld (cave) to MEET the Bat-Spirit and to emerge as the Batman... was MUCH better done, in the section that dealt with it, in Schumacher's "Batman Forever"?? (I mean, we actually got to SEE the Bat-Spirit there! Which is one idea I think S. MIGHT have lifted, I shall have to check, from Frank Miller... Probably his ONLY good idea, in DKR, which otherwise was fascist dross durch und durch...)
Seriously?? Wasn't it much more dreamlike, intense, archetypal? DIDN'T Schumacher keep on harping and harping on the symbols of the archetypes, again and again, to properly drive the point home, to drive the audience wild with symbolism and sensuality! (He did me!!)
You have to really drive this in - like with sex, wouldn't be a bad example! The Batman's bat-vision. Two-Face's coin - seen again and again, and caught so beautifully in close-up at the point of apogee, as he throws it, near the beginning of the movie - blending with the moon and the Bat-symbol. (How could anyone say that movie had no serious content or movie-making art behind it?! Seems to me, that when you get a lot of right-wing fanboys together in a room, the morons, as soon as something shows a sign of HUMOUR they dismiss it out of hand... even though there might be serious points lurking behind the humour.)
The Riddler's question mark - again, we see it again and again - (you HAVE to drive the symbols home, like sledgehammers!) and, in a brilliant display of laser technology (this was the best thing in the movie!) it briefly TRUMPS the Bat-symbol, cleverly making it into the mere point at the end of his mocking green question mark in the night sky... (The Batman must be furious at that!)
Only for a little while, of course! The villains are allowed their brief naughty triumphs!! As long as they're only brief.
But SYMBOLS were used so cleverly, in this movie by Joel Schumacher.
With "Batman Begins", the Batman's shamanistic underground wanderings were ALL made so prosaic - like, like just normal cave exploring, you know??
I really don't see what was poetic about that!!
And as for the scene with Bruce as a little boy... Well, that was nice, in a way... The idea of him FIRST falling into the cave and then being rescued by his father... Nice...
But wasn't the idea of falling into the cave supposed to have come AFTER the Waynes' death... as in "Batman Forever"... wasn't Bruce supposed to go running blind in grief, and THEN fall into the cave... I'm sure that's what I remember, and I think that's probably the way F. M. has it too... though I should have to check...
Or maybe he fell into this cave umpteen feckin' times - or at least once or twice, as a boy.... I don't know, I haven't written (this bit of my own version) yet!!
It needs further research.
Any opinions, welcome!!
Hey, I liked the bit that they had in B.B. with the little bat flying into his room at Wayne Manor while he was working on the Bat things, though... Least they put THAT in, from the original comics, Miller didn't.
But I wish that they could go on to combine the realistic bits from early comics, with the fantastic bits thereof.
P.S. Re-reading some of the comments above... just WHY are you "fanboy" dipsticks... OK, OK, TYPES!! OK! So WORRIED, so obsessed about trivial details in the movies, such as in Batman Forever, like when the "Batsuits" (and "Robin-suit") had "nipples" - tiny little dots that I didn't even notice on the first few views??
I mean - WHY fuss about these things? It's SpongeBob SquarePants all over again, isn't it? You resisted the "bait" on that one, but many of your fellow conservatives didn't!
If you're GOING to have skintight moulded rubber costumes that are moulded to resemble the body's muscles... if they look like the male human anatomy anyway, then why wouldn't they have nipples? If they have deltoids or whatever they're called, over the breast bone??
(OK, so maybe then they could also have fake penises (I'm sure if they were savage tribesmen they might!); but superheroes are always known to wear sturdy jockstraps; or "underpants over the trousers" as it is known.)
Do you find male nipples erotic? I certainly don't! But then, I was never much of a "breast person".
So who cares about a little dot on a superhero suit?? (I wouldn't care if Superman had them, either!)
FANBOYS do, though... because they are nerdy, insecure neurotic homophobes!!
Who would probably really love everything to have nipples... so that they could... no I won't go there!
Maurice? Is it nice and sunny over where you are?
How so is Two-Face "probably" Batman's biggest nemesis (in the comics) after the Joker??
I mean, why? From the point of view of the Batman, is it because the Batman feels so sorry for him?
(I always wondered why he NEVER really felt sorry for the Joker. (He never is, not even in the Golden Age comics.) I always thought, no, it's because the Joker is just that bit too KNOWING for you, isn't he, Batty?? He UNDERSTANDS things, like the sexual dynamic in the superhero/supervillain dynamic, which you would LOATHE to discuss, hey, Batsy? (Which is one reason why you've never had a psychoanalyst, except I think in about one not-brilliant story.)
Yes, Batman, I thought to myself. The Joker KNOWS and understands and is on to too much. To all the dirty-behind-the-facade-business. The Fool is too WISE - as they usually are, and that is why he is reviled!
AND - he LAUGHS at you, Batman! WHAT CRIME COULD BE WORSE?!? Ie, than not taking a superhero/a crime fighter seriously?
That's what I've always cynically, yet smilingly, thought to myself!
But that is one of the MAIN pillars which in MY view make the Joker THE - GREATEST (comic book villain, fictional villain, EVER, with the possible exception of Milton's Satan.)
But - anyway. No one ever feels sorry for Fools, because they are too clever by half - eg. Michael Moore, anyone... and THAT is one of the reasons why they have it so hard...
Yes, but what about Two-Face... Now, you see, the thing is, I am thinking that the fanboys are only thinking that Two-Face is "the greatest" villain next to the Joker, because Frank Miller said so... Ie, it's like they're TAKING HIS WORD FOR IT...
(I'd never take Frank Miller's word for anything!)
But I think that one has to study Frank Miller's possible reasons for writing "DKR" as he did...
It was really a very weird comic, if you think about it... I mean, oddly unsatisfactory, whether or not one liked the style or agreed with the aims. Because, it was like a "comeback" comic, in fact that's what the title referred to, like a one-last-boxing-bout for an old champ, an OLD MAN, as the Batman actually was in this story... he was actually supposed to be 55, but my dad looked a lot younger at 55 (that's actually when he had me...) - this Bruce looked more like 70!
Yet, you'd think for his last "match", before he retires... He'd think of getting together a good SELECTION of all his adversaries/ former adversaries... any who could still WALK, basically! And I bet a lot of them would still be game - including the Penguin, who by this time would probably be in a retirement home! (I just KNOW he'd grin nastily but with great jollity, stumble up out of his wheelchair, grab his umbrella, put a potassium nitrate spray in the top pocket of his tux... and off he'd be, to join the last Ragnarok...)
(Kia Asamiya actually thought of this point, of having a last farewell of villains, and his Batman wasn't yet past it - are you aware of the GN to which I refer?)
But anyway, Frank Miller chooses to bore the whole world (well he did me) with some faux-apocalyptic tale about Gotham nearly getting nuked, and the Joker having to resort to some totally roundabout scheme to persuade the Russians to nuke it... sigh!! (Why WOULD he, anyway? And why would HE need to drug the politician to provoke Russia - America's politicians did it all the time, quite without any spurring!! They'll wrap themselves in the flag without an evil clown's suggestion, as well... it's what American politicians DO!)
Anyway, he had this faux-realistic plot, and because of that he didn't really have much room to put in many costumed villains, true... But it's obvious why he chose THOSE two... (and he libelled them BOTH cruelly, and EVERYBODY believed it... I'm just waiting for Kevin to review this damn stupid graphic novel so that I can point out the libels Frank actually introduced into the comics, quite without protest from anybody, in the press or anything, as most things DO go down in these times, in modern America...)
It's obvious why he chose those two. It was because they were the most "serious" of the costumed criminals, or at least he thought so, and he could make them into the inhuman boogeymen he required for his - post-Nietzschean fantasy. (He might have also used the Scarecrow for the same purpose, much as Batman Begins did... though at least that didn't make out that the Scarecrow was some kind of sexual pervert.)
There ARE, of course, much more "quirky" villains in the Batman mythos... SCORES of them... the best-known is the Riddler, who, like the Joker, is highly intelligent, he is a criminal genius, potentially one of the greatest criminals and most successful robbers Gotham has ever known (as Neil Gaiman once briefly admitted in a story), but he too has his gimmick jones, and it's a much more narrow obsession than that of the Joker, one might argue... he has this overriding passion for rather joky, silly, albeit witty riddles and also popular culture (carnivals, game shows) which was brought out quite nicely in Batman Forever.
So why not put the Riddler into position no. 2 on the villains' podium?
It's because he's too "silly", isn't it?? And individualistic, in a quirky way... the Riddler is human, not a shell.
And of course there are many other, yet more quirky, yet more fantastic and far-fetched villains in the Batman canon...
The Penguin for example. The Penguin was ALWAYS the no. 2 villain in the old comics. AND in the TV series. (Actually in the TV series, Burgess Meredith made him into no. 1!)
And the first four Warner movies RECOGNISED this ranking... the traditional one! First, OK, the Joker. Then, the Penguin. (And the Catwoman - she actually appeared in the same original comics story that the Joker first appeared, so as ARGUMENT, SHE could have been the subject of the first movie; but we all know that comics and Hollywood both are and remain basically sexist; so she could never head the bill. But, she can be put into nearly-joint second positioning, which I'm sure Michelle Pfeiffer didn't mind too much...
THEN the Riddler. (He is the PERFECT entertaining villain - the Joker without the disfigurement issue, basically!) Who in this movie was ranked equally with Two-Face... maybe Harvey should have been no. 3, I don't know... But any movie with Carrey in it, Carrey steals the show...
Then finally the movies could move onto more minor villains like Mr Freeze and Poison Ivy.
The MOVIE industry (despite its faults) knows which way it works, and in what order the public find the Batman villains fascinating, Maurice... even if you and comics fanboys don't. They're - you're - out of touch (and such opinions WERE, horrendously, over the last two movies in that sequence: which both were very successful at the box office, despite critics, and comics fans, hating the fourth one - but critics (same goes for fanboys) are SO seldom "right" about what the public will go for! As Michael Medved said! And didn't YOU think that the notion of Batman forgiving and co-operating with Viktor Fries was at least a very SENSIBLE idea, especially as Fries himself had something to offer the Batman's household - his technology saved Alfred! That was a GOOD plot, not a DUMB one! If that had appeared in old-time comics, all the readers would have been FOR it... it's only modern "fanboys" who aren't, because a lot of them are fascists! And I personally thought that storyline reflected the US position at the time - ie, a slightly increased willingness, during the Clinton regime, to CO-OPERATE with foreign countries, even with those it finds troublesome, instead of trying to dominate and annihalate all the time! Modern comics have a LOT to answer for, for feeding the latter sort of fantasies, in America's youth!)
The Penguin, now HE'S a great character, however you look at him. And deserves a lot more fuss in graphic novels! He is an awful oddball little middle-aged man who is however very cunning and shrewd. That's the whole POINT of him, isn't it? Plus, in most portrayals, he DOES have a sense of humour... Much wryer than the Joker's!
(The Penguin is a darling! Own personal opinion!)
But Frank MILLER would never write about the Penguin, not in a month of Sundays, because HE does not like funny little men, no matter if he can make them into serial killers or whatever.... Well I suppose he can try, in a movie, like with Elijah Wood - the hobbit serial killer, yeah right.
NO, Frank Miller does not LIKE droll little men, and he doesn't like humour, full stop. Humour and right-wing thought does NOT MIX, PERIOD.
Whereas lefties - now they make EXCELLENT comedians, when they want to!
Yes, the other oddballs... There are SO many in Batman... Gotham City is rather like an old-fashioned sideshow, if you think about it... The Ventriloquist... he's a newer invention, isn't he... never liked him yet! But he could be interesting. The Tweeds - they're an old standby! Only occasionally used, but good for a laugh, or they can be!
Actually I think that one of the quirkiest characters is the Cavalier, what's his real name... I used to know them ALL! Anyway, he's that insane guy who comes from the same social stratum as Bruce Wayne, who is a great swordsman, with the rapier, and in his mind is always stuck in like the 17th century, and he acts like that in modern Gotham, which is what, in THAT setting... makes him both criminal, and mad!!
Actually I think HE'S worth a graphic novel, just a one-off, as one of the lesser-knowns, and I would like to write it!
But anyway, IF you say that Two-Face is DEFINITELY the best next to the Joker... for whatever reason, you have to JUSTIFY it - he has, as you can see, got a LOT of competition!
And the one thing I don't want to hear is: "it's because Frank Miller said so!"
What does HE know?
Hello,
Maurice to answer your question concerning Jesus the Christ; according to the studies I am doing on the idea of the Superman prior to its presentation in Western civilization, a researcher will find direct ties to Africa, India, and other ancient cultures. In Afro-Asiatic cultures, including Semitic cultures Jesus qualifies as the prototypical Superman or God-Man. I am not Christian myself, but I readily acknowledge as does P.D. Ouspensky, that the Superman includes prophets,priests, messiahs, kings. and founders of religions. According to the Christian tradition, if one believes in it, Jesus fulfilled the role of Prophet, Priest,and King. If Jesus had met only one of the criteria for the religious type of the superman he would have easily qualified, but he appears to be "over qualified" for supermanhood. Of course this might be concluded about other religious figures as well.
***I want to address this paragraph to Liz the Brit. Back in the late 1980s I met a Hindu Priest, Sri Ramesh, at the Hindu temple in Beavercreek, Ohio. He informed me about what Hindu thought had to say about Batman being the B-Atman, furthermore, he showed me an article written in Hinduism Today, a newspaper that deals with the religious, political, and historical culture of India, that talks at length about the B-Atman/Batman. This article is entitled: Hinduism Today September 1989, "Holy Hindu Names Batman!" ***Note, the article is online at http://www.hinduismtoday.com/archives/1989/09/1989-09-01.shtml
I'm not in the habit of "putting people on," and the idea of the Batman as the Superman is not a fad or flight of my imagination. If one can has easily understand that Batman is a shaman, then with the appropriate historical facts that should readily make transparent, that there is much more to learn about this subject beyond any personal or religious views held by any one person. I for one ask the questions that hardly ever get asked, that are seldom thought of, or that the majority are afraid to ask, then I look for the historical and cultural perspective on the subject. I would be interested in your opinion concerning the article that the Hindu priest directed me to and any further insights you may have as a result of reading this article.
Maurice, as always, you provoke deep, profound thought in your discussions. I'm glad that critical thinking is made practical here.
Sam
Hello Maurice,
I thought you might find it of interest that in P.D. Ouspensky's
A New Model Of The Universe, Chapter# 3: SUPERMAN, he shows a diagram of Gichtel's version of the Superman. Gichtel was a 17th century mystic and the diagram is from his book, Theosophia Practica.
Gichtel's Perfect Man is a Christian form of the Superman. The diagram of a man with various sources of supernatural powers as circular centers corresponding to the human anatomy. For example, the Holy Ghost is present in the Superman's forehead, Understanding is located around the face and mouth, Wisdom, The Mirror of God is in the throat region, Jesus is located in the heart region, Jehova is located in the solar plexus region, and the Root of the Souls at the Center of the Universe (Dark World) is located in the groin and hip regions. So here represented is a SUPERMAN according to a Christian perspective. I am immediately reminded of similar diagrams of Hindu origin that deal with chakras of the human body and the portrayal of various Hindu Avatars in which various deities are located in various parts of their bodies, thus accounting for their superhuman abilities.
2. The next insight that comes to mind is related to the Batman character. If one takes note, more than a few of the leaders of the DC Pantheon of Superheroes are aristocrats/of the nobility. Examples: Superman, Aquaman, Wonderwoman,versions of Hawkman, Hawkwoman, Captain Marvel, as himself (not Billy Batson), and Batman is certainly in this category. Now, some scholars take the view that some supermen are expressions of aristocratic values. That would certainly be one reason Batman would feel comfortable among them. I contrast this with the Marvel Pantheon which seems to have fewer superhero leaders who are aristocratic. Thor, Hercules, Iron Man, and Submariner are of the nobility. However, the predominant category of superheroes in this pantheon seem to be the struggling middle class and the intellectual prodigy type of supermen. In the latter category I place Peter Parker/Spiderman, Tony Stark/Iron Man, Bruce Banner/the Hulk etc. appear to be examples of intellectual supermen. This is not a set classification, but just a quick observation.
Sincerely,
Sam
sam i just wanted you to be on the look out for a book called "the gospel according to superheroes". it has a chapter called "the true ubermensch: batman as humanistic myth." here's a sample:
Contrasted with the weakness of the “herd,� this übermensch or
superman is independent, strong, and, above all, healthy. He is full of intense
passion but always in control of that passion, operates in the real world
instead of dreaming of the afterlife, and affirms life precisely because he
understands suffering and “the eternal recurrence� of events. The
übermensch “breaks tablets and old values…writes new values on new
tablets,� and thereby ultimately threatens both the bad and the good alike.9
Criminals fear him, but so do the just. Indeed, the latter loathe and dread him
most, for to them the acts of criminals simply reinforce the system of justice
that already exists. Such persons break laws, but in doing so fortify the
system of law itself created by the shepherds. The superman, however, by
nature of moving beyond the usual categories of good and evil, challenges
the entire moral paradigm altogether. “It is terrible to be alone with the judge
and avenger of one’s own law.� Thus, the just fear him, hate him, and call
him “lawbreaker.�
liz, the reason two-face is batman's second greatest nemesis is two-fold: one, his recurrence in the role as nemesis is second only to the joker. and two, in two-face, batman sees what he could be if he crossed that line. after all, he and harvey dent were friends and both fought for the law.
maurice- following your suggestion to post my thougths...
Batman and Nietzsche
"In order to fight the monster, you must act like the monster; but beware that you don't become the monster. You stare into the abyss, and the abyss stares back into you."
-Nietzsche-
"In order to conquer fear you must become fear."
-Batman Begins-
I went out and saw the movie with pete saturday night after spending all day in downtown St. Louis, and it fascinated me to no end how much this movie was influenceced by the philosophy of Nietzsche. I found it brilliant how they made the internal conflict of Bruce Wayne/Batman come into real life with the full surrender to the darkness by the League of Shadows.
There is a difference between accepting the darkness that is within you, and surrendering to it to the point of making it a religion.
I understand that, and considering what has been going on since I have started accepting the things that are within me and around me, I know that it is a fine line, and doesn't take that much to bend to either influence.
"Be careful that you don't become the monster."
-Alfred-
This is the constant danger that we face living in this world. We are constantly at war with evil, but three choices are made, and that is to fight it, surrender to it, or coexist passively with it, and become a pawn for it. The unfortuante reality is that in order fight against it you must learn it's tactics without surrendering to it. It is quite difficult, but possible.
"Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves." -Jesus, The Gospel of St. Matthew 10:16-
In the end, Bruce Wayne found that balance, and how to maintain that by battling the evil that was around him in the everyday world of the office, and then at night as Batman. In both arenas of his world, he faced his fear by becoming his fear, and taking control of it. Accepting it as a part of himself without losing himself. That is the flaw I see within Nietzsche's philosophy: Without the balance within you and the world, you cease to be human; and the world becomes more of a savage place.
Wow, Sam Ewing, you're fascinating!
Found your comment on Elisabeth Leitch's review of BB. Wanted to remember where on the blogs I'd "questioned" you and now I've found it - sorry chaps, I haven't been all over Maurice's pages for a while - but now I've found you I can explain, Sam!!
I always do this - doubt, question, mock, even... it's one of my character traits, everyone will tell you about me who encounters me on any blog. I'm a natural sceptic (as well as a believer!), it's nothing personal, you clever thinker, you! (Now you've provided references, I'm FASCINATED...)
I'm also however used to people "winding me up", as Brits say, from schooldays on. This is something Brits in PARTICULAR do and are prone to; which is why I don't trust my own nationality, especially the men! (Not that I know where you, Sam, hail from!)
The Brits have a wonderful sense of humour, but it HAS become "meaner" and colder in recent decades, as I believe series like "The Office" testify, Maurice...
(I really DO trust no-one! Friendly to all; trust none; that could be a motto.)
And if you say really original things on blogs, you can expect to be teased by any Brit around too... that's another national character trait, and I display quite a few of those!!
So you see I ALWAYS ask... and sometimes people come up with the goods, as you have done!! I love it when that happens.
See?? So it's fine. E-mail me. Address on the other Elisabeth's blog!!
And Sam likes the chakras... ain't he astute? And he knows about medieval medicine... I'm truly impressed for the first time in weeks!
Yeah, I DID come back, again and again, for several days, to see what Maurice had put about "why Two-Face ranks as Number Two Batfoe", and if Sam had anything to say, or if I'd chased him away... (That is always a possibility, and I AM aware of it - but I still choose to be me!! Naughty as ever!)
And I didn't see anything for what seemed like ages... and suddenly, it feels like it, here are dozens of new posts!
Anyway, Sam and Maur. Yeah. You're great, anyway, the both of you... Always something intellectual to say. I wish I'd known people like YOU... or like Kevin... or like that young fella John on the livejournal that I like... when I was at university... no such luck!! My dears!!
But yeah, I knew LOADS of guys who liked to bullshit and make things up... for sure I did!
Bless "the goods". Kudos to original research.
Oh yes, and what ELSE did I want to say, you chaps... You know, Sam, I always WANTED to read Ouspensky the mystic, ever since I heard British author Colin Wilson (you know the one? Pretty famous; went in for the paranormal from the 1980s onwards.)
But I NEVER GOT A ROUND TUIT!!
(An old British joke.)
'Thus, the just fear him, hate him, and call
him “lawbreaker.�'
Yes, and Maurice love; didn't they just call Jesus the same - the Pharisees and that, I mean.
BUT: We must not all get too carried AWAY here! Just because someone is or thinks he (they usually ARE "he's") a "superman", does not just give him the right to do ANY old thing.. like in Frank Miller's version!!
(Frank Miller wants a kick in the arse! Sam - agree or don't agree?!)
He's got to think; he's got to turn things over; and he's ALSO got to try to do something to fit in with society as he finds it... we all do... that's one thing which the Batman resolved pretty early on in his career, when he decided to work WITH the law (as Sherlock Holmes does!) and stand WITH the cops (as Sherlock Holmes does; only the Doyle character is a genuine aristocratic snob because his Holmes despises Lestrade; whereas Batman - loves - Gordon and I think even looks up to him a bit. I don't think Batman knows snobbery... well, he calls his butler by his first name and all that and has always done so... a British aristo would NEVER do that!)
Do I think Batman LIMITED himself by teaming up with the Law? yes, I do. How so? Ha ha, I'll TELL you - I too have fireworks up my sleeve!! It is BECAUSE: it largely prevented him and hampered him from seeking SOCIALISTIC/ultraliberal/medicinal remedies for crime, as Doc Savage did in the older pulps; he cured criminals instead of sending them to jail; Batman can't because he agreed to work with the bourgeois legal system... and I just wonder if he kicks himself secretly ever so often for it... after all, Arkham doesn't seem to be doing the crims much good!
But I still know why Batman did it - giving up his superman's autonomy, I mean... it is because he doesn't want to be SEEN as this high-handed creature, who just STAMPS all over democracy whenever he can!! Which is course, is the Frank Miller ideal of the "superman"... bleuch.
Superheroes are sensitive to issues such as the above! I believe. Civics and all that.
Of course, WHETHER it will work or not for him... I'll tell you when it won't. When society ITSELF becomes fascistic; when it is run on a completely neo-liberal model.... THEN the old superheroes could no longer work with it, and would rebel against it.
And we shall NEED them! We who stand against the forces of the Right.
Oh and guys... you know something else? It DOES help to have a sense of humour, even if you DO happen to have superpowers... whatever!!
"liz, the reason two-face is batman's second greatest nemesis is two-fold: one, his recurrence in the role as nemesis is second only to the joker. [IS it, Maurice? I've never read any REALLY great graphic novels starring Two-Face SINCE Miller's effort... there was one in about 1995, but it wasn't that good! Recommend me some good ones if you think there are some, please!] and two, in two-face, batman sees what he could be if he crossed that line. after all, he and harvey dent were friends and both fought for the law."
OK, Maur... if that's how you WANT it... I'll take your word for it... but you really MUST admit that that the emphasis on Two-Face as "arch-villain" in the comics is really due to Frank Miller's influence...
I really do hate that guy, though! Miller I mean. He accuses EVERYONE in his stories of being sexual perverts - when the real pervert is just him, I think!
Well, look, guys. Miller subtly makes out that the hero is a pervert... ie, a sort of "repressed" child molester.. that that's the dynamic between him and "Robin". Yes, he does! BUT Frank thinks that the REAL crime is not sex between the generations (as we can see with "Sin City" - the pedophilia theme is again present in the character of Hartigan there)... the real crime for Frank is homosexuality (he is SUCH a dick!) so that is why he makes Robin into a girl, "Carrie Kelly", because he is admitting what he thinks Batman's interest in her is, and he's implying: "as long as she's not a boy it's OK"!
HE is SO transparent! To any psychoanalyst. And yes, I am one. It was part of my witch training.
And the accusations of perversions against the villains of DKR are simply overt as opposed to covert - THAT is Frank Miller all over again! (I think he is SUCH a twisted freak mental case!!)
Well, look. (I was disgusted at the age of 19 or 20! Yes, "ick" a girl out at that age, you'll "ick" her away from you forever!!)
In DKR, Frank Nutcase makes out that Two-Face is this pointless pervert who does stuff like: Kidnap Siamese twin girls (oh yes, ha ha, SO apt!)... and then he kills one and sees what happens to the other!
Well only Pervert Frank could come up with that!
The Joker of course Frank sees as a gay (with elements of bisexuality - THIS makes him the ULTIMATE archvillain, you see, HAS to be, in ANY American work of fiction... gay, clown, skeptic... yup - THAT'S the ur-blueprint for "bad person"! From the, well, right WING's POV of course... as well do I know).... a bisexual who hates women (much like the portrayal of "Buffalo Bill" in "The Silence of the Lambs", come to think of it... your American culture is SO transparent, again...
And the Joker, among his other totally pointless antics in this story, (not ONE thing he does herein is either clever or funny) does stuff like: kills kids, tries to poison vast swathes of Gotham (it NEVER appeared thus in the comics before, boys)... tortures and beats up the Catwoman and covers her with what look like either scratches or fine knife cuts... STUPIDEST story I ever read in my life!!
(It would have never happened in "real life", ie a real STORY... the Catwoman would have beaten him to the floor!)
I'm really surprised, actually, Maurice, Ron, Kevin, anyone else who is on here, that Christians could even TOLERATE all the above antics in Miller's intepretation of Batman! But then, I suppose you tolerated "Sin City"... anyway, I'll save the rest of my remarks on this for Kevin's review of the Dork Nite Reruns.
Oh and chaps - you are all SURE to be so curious... actually the funny thing about myself is, that although I know so much about it, I'm actually not gay! Nor am I *really* bisexual, I don't think. (But I am twin-souled! Ask the Native Americans; they know what I mean. And they know ALL about the Trickster too!)
Do I appreciate camp? Does the Joker have a sense of humour?!?!?!?!?!
And I stand by THIS comment of mine above, too! "The MOVIE industry (despite its faults) knows which way it works, and in what order the public find the Batman villains fascinating, Maurice... even if you and comics fanboys don't."
Fanboys ARE out of touch with "normal readers". (Or female readers; or anyone who doesn't subscribe to the "pompous macho" mythos.) I think they are!!
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Humanistic weirdo villains.
Of COURSE the Penguin is a humanist - he likes Shakespeare, one of the most progressive writers of the Renaissance.
And as for Keats... d'you think he's just trying to be posh?? Oh well, why wouldn't Cobblepot be going for, I don't know what, Tennyson, or indeed, Nietzsche?
No, he doesn't. He goes for Keats. Because ALL the English poets of Keats' generation... well, they were practically all early socialists, for a start. Progressives to a man! Keats was one of the less "political" of the lot, unlike his contemporary Shelley.... But the Tories HATED him... they said he was a working-class upstart or something; plus he was for, above all, Truth and Beauty... how DIFFERENT that makes our friend Keats from Frank Miller or any of the rest of his sub-Nietzschean, sub-Randian contemporaries... goodness me yes!!
And hell yes, do you know what ELSE I found out when I bothered to research Keats, once I'd got an encyclopedia on disk, in the 90s, and once Tem (I want you to read his story and tell me what you think! He's actually a horror writer, so you should like it, Maurice) had put me onto the idea... I'm not much of a poetry person myself, always viewed it as a luxury... Except for Milton!! Necessity of life, that one!
But... there it was. Keats was, among other things... only about five feet tall!!
And NO-ONE told me that! Not Bill Finger (who was the one that started it I am sure!) Not S. R. Tem. (Though he must surely have known!) I had to find it out for myself.
Research, however small but overlooked, it pays off, friends.
No wonder the Penguin loves John Keats and hates Frank Miller.
Hey Maurice! "Killing Joke" was and is revolting: that is my META-analysis of it!
What's your opinion? We can make it relevant to the review at the top; because people on IMDB.com are discussing whether it's going to be the basis of, or a strong influence on, the plot of the next Nolan Batman movie - which HAS to, because of the ending of the last one, feature the Joker as main villain!
My answer to that is NO: because mainstream Hollywood would NEVER (yet) be sick enough, to put something like Moore's KJ on the screen.
Still, they MIGHT very well go for the idea, which I also saw on the other site - of making Harvey Dent try the Joker; the latter take exception (he WOULD, he would you know, Maurice; especially if he was threatened with the electric chair!!) and have the Joker be the guy who disfigures Dent and turns him into Two-Face...
It's non-canonical; but I think it would WORK, in a movie. Only I wouldn't LIKE it: because I don't like the way in which they have to make everything - in modern movies AND comics - more "personal" - ie, this and that hero does it because it's "personal", not for some high-minded ideal... Just another example of the decay of Western (capitalist) society! Which I believe to be a fact.
i love the idea of the killing joke being the basis of the next movie, since i loved that comic (it was the book that convinced jack nicholson to take on the role in the first batman movie).
i even like the idea of it being the joker who deforms harvey dent. i don't mind straying from the canon if it means telling a better story.
Hmm. So you LOVED "Killing Joke", did you Maurice?? I must say, I CERTAINLY didn't have much time for it! It was glossily produced "porno-sadism", as my communist mentor David Walsh likes to describe such ideas in movies!!
I didn't think you liked it THAT much. Shows poor taste on your part! Shows bad taste on Nicholson's part, too, if it "convinced" him to take the role of the Joker in the first Batman movie. Still, I always thought Jack was probably a misogynist.
Well - would YOU be more convinced, as an actor, to take the part of a famous stock (or historical) character - if someone just wrote a new book about him, making out, quite out of the blue, that Robin Hood, or whoever, that he was a woman-hating kid-killer, or some such?
Anyway, that is such CRAP! The Joker was NEVER portrayed as a misogynist, in the traditional comics. He NEVER did anything to women at all (he occasionally employed one or two), and he didn't kill them, because his career as a professional criminal did not require him to. Actually, in the very first story he appears in, he and the Catwoman are RIVALS - they're both after the same criminal "prize" - and he doesn't do anything to HER....
Anyway, he wouldn't be physically CAPABLE of besting Catfraulein...
So EVERYTHING Miller and Moore have ever written on the subject of both characters - just EVERYTHING - is COMPLETE PIFFLE.
But this surprises me not a jot; as I know how stupid (and reactionary) most modern comics writers are, and how the IQ of even the most successful of them... well, it would fit on a pinhead, I think! They're just good self-marketers.
I know, I know you think I'm being horrible; but one day Goddess willing I'm going to write a book that proves it, once and for all!
"KJ" - yuck! Well, TELL me how it is possible to LOVE it, Maurice... how does one love the repulsive?
When I talked to an American comics fan at the time - a fairly nice lad - the only thing that attracted him to the comic was the visual style, and the lavishness of these new glossy style of comics, which he preferred to the old simple ones. He didn't like Frank Miller's visual style, by the way. He wasn't crazy about "Joke" - there were other graphic novellas, including Batman ones, one about a cult or something, that he liked far better... He told me something at the time that I hadn't realised about "Joke" before he said it... and it was pretty sinister!!
Like I tell you: please GO onto IMDb.com, and see me discuss it all on the Batman Begins boards there! I'd love it if you guessed my "handle" there; feel free to e-mail me with your opinions on my thoughts there, if you do!
I think Alan Moore is sick and deranged: and I don't care who I tell it to!
As for the idea of it being the Joker who deforms Harvey Dent... well, like I said, that was suggested to me by movie fans... but if you LIKE that idea, maybe you'll like some of the ideas I had AROUND it - my own little movie script synopsis, as it were! That I've just posted right on the end of one of Kevin's "Batman Begins" blogs: "Ithink I can finally forgive Tim Burton", I think it was! It just seemed to follow on naturally there!
I've disturbed him with the idea: I think I'd like you to go over there and take a look before he deletes it, as he could!!
http://www.hollywoodjesus.com/comments/kevin/2005/06/i-think-i-can-finally-forgive-tim.html
(Seriously! If you dig Alan Moore's fatuities... I think I'd come off as George Eliot next to him!)
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Maurice? WHY does Two-Face do that thing with the Siamese twins in DKR - and did YOU personally believe him capable of it, or that it would be a likely thing for this criminal to do??
(I mean, if there's a guy you know who's a criminal... I dunno, DO you... I think you probably know a LOT of people! WOULD you be expecting him to do diseased things to twin girls??)
Or WOULD you rather put this element in the plot of said graphic novel, down merely to porno-sadistic fantasies on the behalf of its porno-sadistic author?!?
I mean, do you think Miller rendered Two-Face or the Joker in a BELIEVABLE fashion??
I'm sorry, but I just don't (I didn't then, and I don't now) think it's fair when the criminals in my favourite comic nearly ALL get "accused" of being perverts! (Well, actually they ALL do, because Miller unfairly accuses the Catwoman of being a prostitute (his big OBSESSION, isn't it?) which is the female equivalent of a male - rapist, I suppose!! In the sleazed-out imagination, anyway.)
I don't think criminals in real life would like it either... They'd have Frank Miller I'm telling you...
Sam Ewing, are you still around?? What do YOU think of "Dark Knight Returns", if I may ask??
Sam? Your opinions on Frank Miller? Do you idolize him like Maurice does, or let him get away with everything (which is IMO what it amounts to) like Kevin does, because he serves as a "release valve for negative emotions" - or something?!
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Hello,
In regards to Frank Miller's interpretation of Batman I think he was showing the inevitability of a Batman working within a Western Republic whose social mores have become absurd. The trend ultimately moves towards fascism.
I don't idolize Frank Miller, but I can give you my perspective.
As an African American who has written a critique of Paul Laurence Dunbar's "We Wear the Mask" (1896) and "Sympathy" (1899); I would say that Western culture is a prison. The gilded cage that is made of social mores and customs that are in the best interests of the rulers not the citizens. I think that the mask that people wear, in which they give the appearance of being happy when they are filled with pain and fear is the internal prison placed upon the individual by Western mores. No religion no matter how pompous its claims can dissolve these two forms of the prison. In fact one can make a strong argument that religion as it exists today is one of the causes of this existential dilemna.
The issue as I see it is the struggle to be an individual not a slave, the struggle of the individual vs. the collective, the community vs. the collective, personal excellence vs. mediocrity & subhumanity, critical thinking vs, blind belief, facts vs. denial, ignorance, and stupidity, strength vs. weakness.
It is my opinion that Western society does not want indivduals to grow into adults who are physically, intellectually, artistically at their best. The present society does a great job of producing the exact opposite. therefore, what is required is a counter culture/counter movement that will energize those in the masses who desire to be the best that they can be. The components of this movement must be artistic, intellectual, heroic, aesthetic, life-affirming, and promote the idea of the individual literally as a form of Living Art. The movement may have to be started quietly at the grassroots level so that it can't be stopped by the Privileged Dummies who rule society.
The overall aim is not to save everybody from their slave status. The goal is to transform a collective into a community, to create Thinker-Doers, a type of culture-heroes and innovators who can be the leaders to enculturate authentic people via education and training.*No religion, deity, or fantasy will create a society that will permit the production of exceptional people. The key to producing more exceptional people is education and training.
Do I think that people should be guided or ruled? Yes, I think they should be guided if one is to have a collective or a community one still needs leaders. I think it is better to have a community based on authenticity and respect than our present collectives. No, I don't think people should be ruled.Therefore the neo-culture-heroes would act as guides and occasionally problem-solvers. Not rulers. Should they have authority over the Privileged Dummies who currently rule? Yes, The Privileged Dummies only goal is to continue the manipulation and exploitation of the masses. The culture-heroes need to put a heel on them.
Do I think that the masses think? No. The masses have been indoctrinated in how to feel, believe, act, and react. They don't aspire to anything that doesn't involve their stomachs, their desires, and comforts.They are anti-intellectual, anti-artistic, anti-achievers, and anti-heroic. As the decades pass they become more coarse, gross,and beastly in their actions. They are unable to see the gilded prison they live in or comprehend how wretched they are.
*Personally, the type of hero I prefer the best is a Cultural-Superman, not Batman.
"I think he was showing the inevitability of a Batman working within a Western Republic whose social mores have become absurd. The trend ultimately moves towards fascism." i think that this is exactly what frank miller's point was in the dark knight returns. railing against the fascist tendencies of governments and the consumeristic-corporation ruled nature of the western system are common themes to his work.
i would disagree with you about the power of religion to make people free. "one can make a strong argument that religion as it exists today is one of the causes of this existential dilemna." i agree with this, but just because many of the followers/leaders miss the point of a religion doesn't mean that the religion is invalid. for example, i subscribe to christianity. i believe that many modern/western ideas have crept into the religion, as practiced today, and have caused many to miss the point.
i think that's why there's a movement to have people re-examine the original ways that historic Christianity was practiced. ways that call for authenticity and community (community being one of the central points of the church in the first place). our lives right here right now are gifts, and they are unspeakably good, so we long to give ourselves in wild abandon to the One who gave them to us. we long to be students awakened to the process of learning to create in the way of the Master Artist. the whole mission of the church is to help people resist empty ways of living life by becoming fully human by patterning themselves in the way of Jesus. the church is a place that we can connect with God (by learning and worshiping in community) and join with God in His mission to bless the world.
by the way, "we wear the mask" is my favorite poem
Hello,
For some reason I was unable to identify myself in the previous post and it turned out as Anonymous. I respect your view on Christianity, Michael, but the movement you speak of isn't making the kind of impact I would like to see. Whether it is local or regional in its effects the overall situation still leaves a lot to be desired.
I certainly offer no panaceas, yet I am always interested in practical solutions through education and training that will cause a momentum in a more positive direction. Christianity, like most religions, constantly offers itself as a panacea. At best, it appears to be just another religion that encourages the status quo.I'm not interested in the status quo, the mediocrity, the cowardice,apathy,ignorance, denial, and stupidity sanctioned under the guise of "we fight a spiritual war." Fine, by all means fight "the spiritual war for Jesus"; however I'm more interested in the real world and the individual. I'm not interested in anything that is not going to help me or others in the here and now. Christianity does not appear to be producing exceptional people or heroes as much as it has many celebrities.
Christianity and the American Civic Religion as a political hybrid for use by conservatives is not leading the masses to illumination, knowledge, beauty, excellence, heroism, literacy, and it is not producing the best of the best out of any particular ethnic group. Don't get me wrong, I 'm not Republican or Democrat.
I think Du Bois' Talented Tenth is a small example of what I have in mind particularly for African Americans. Religion doesn't have to have a place here, it already has its place as far as I'm concerned. Religion is not causing any great motivation towards nobility and strength of character, or art, or culture, or critical thinking. Religion is about mediocrity, "don't be the best you can be, be the same as others", "be as a child,", "be one of the flock," "agree to everything," "sacrifice yourself totally for the mob," and "please don't make us feel uncomfortable, jealous, or envious because you are striving for achievement, accomplishing it, while we have been trying to discourage you at every turn."
I prefer that there would be a few who will come into adulthood as human beings,who include facts and history into their lives,people who will be able to act as wise mentors for their community or ethnic group, and who will have authority to thwart the machinations of the Privileged Dummies in Washington and Hollywood. Furthermore, in accepting the fact that the masses aren't very keen, they and the privileged should not be allowed to
crush the aspirations of those among them who represent a more exceptional type. Unfortunately Washington and Hollywood have been effective in manipulating the masses into stopping the flowering of the best and brightest in various ethnic groups. I'm at the point of maximum disgust and revulsion about this situation. *My goal is to undermine the subhumanizing process used by Washington and Hollywood. I'm learning as much as I can about how a counterculture and renaissance of excellence might be initiated.
The main point of this is when the theatre exit opens perhaps instead of relying on a Batman or a religious figure of myth to give people hope there will be real cultural "supermen" who can raise the consciousness of the masses. Who needs James Bond or Superman when there have been real examples like Booker T. Washington, W.E.B. DuBois, Shirley Chisholm, Mary Mcleod Bethune, or Josephine Baker?
Sincerely,
Sam
i think that the movement will take some time to fully be felt. right now, it is more like an on-going conversation throughout Christianity. a lot of it centers around the very points that you mention. for example, Christianity is to be a transformative religion, and yet people can sit in the pews of their church for years, be perfectly entertained (or guilt ridden or feeling whatever it is they go to church to feel) and still be untransformed. so something is not being effectively communicated.
"I'm not interested in the status quo, the mediocrity, the cowardice,apathy,ignorance, denial, and stupidity sanctioned under the guise of "we fight a spiritual war."" you know what? neither am i. i am called to be a light in this world, that doesn't mean focus on getting my butt into heaven. it means looking around, seeing the injustice going on around me, and stepping up to do something about it. it means putting "love your neighbor as yourself" into action, not just a quaint saying.
i think that the Church is on the verge of being irrelevant and the worst thing that could happen to it would be it becoming the american civil religion. Christianity is about pursuing "wholeness", living life in light of God's mission to be a blessing to the world. i think the problem is because your sentiments of ""be one of the flock," "agree to everything," "sacrifice yourself totally for the mob," and "please don't make us feel uncomfortable, jealous, or envious because you are striving for achievement, accomplishing it, while we have been trying to discourage you at every turn."" has been too many people's experience with church.
i think that we've lost what it means to truly make disciples (what you called "come into adulthood as human beings") and to live and learn in community with one another. here's where i disagree with dubois: i think christianity calls for all of us to be a part of that "talented tenth". that's the call, the reality is up to us; to use the gifts that we've been given to the best of our abilities, not for ourselves, but for the sake of the world.
Hello,
Maurice, I think that the thought that "Christianity calls for all of us to be part of that talented tenth" is a very nice thought. However, the problem as I referred to in various ways is that the masses have no desire to be part of a talented tenth. The very idea of the talented tenth implies that only a few will come forward who hve toiled to get to that state of being and then they are ostracized by the envy/jealousy of the masses. We have to be practical in understanding that neither the masses or the priviliged dummies that rule them will let this talented tenth make things better. The challenge is how to make gain victories that will allow for a talented tenth and then how can they be effective? That is what I'm studying now.
Christianity is not able to do this. In order for it to be effective toward even creating a talented tenth it would have to make sweeping changes within itself that would not be accepted by the ruling orthodox; it would no longer be Christianity if it chose to change. What is needed is something different. *As a matter of fact were a talented tenth to be developed in any ethnic group it is very likely that these illuminated beings would find Christianity totally irrelevant to their existence.
The bigger questions for Christians is: who among them will stand up publicly and move the masses towards real critical thinking? How do you get the majority who doesn't want to think to think?
If there are to be a talented tenth or group of culture heroes Christianity does not appear to be the place to look for them.
Sam
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
ONE thing I can say about you, Sam, is that you are uncompromising in your ideals - let's break that down:
1) You have strong ideals in the first place! (Unlike so many people these days...)
2) You are totally uncompromising about the VALUE and worth of these ideals and their promotion - it is obvious that you sincerely believe in them and that
3) You demand "something better" than the current status quo - in ANY society, art form or religion. And you won't compromise your exhortations just in order to make various people "feel comfortable".
And I must say Sam, I ****ing admire that!!
Well, it'd take me AGES to respond to any of the points you made in your above posts, to me or to Maurice. I probably will in a bit. But I'll leave the blog alone for now, to see if Maurice responds to the post I made above largely for his benefit/attention.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Hmm. I tried to make a post on here responding to Sam's points, two days ago. I thought it had "gone through"; but then it didn't appear on the blog... so I thought I'd leave it 24 hrs or so to see if it turned up there - it occassionally has before now in a similar situation!
But no. Well, I daresay it's lost to the world, then!
Maurice - how about a comment from yourself instead?
Isn't that WEIRD! My "lost post" has just appeared!!
OK now! Seeing as this blog seems to be accepting my posts properly once more, I am on a roll!
Sam: with regard to all your ideas, yes, they certainly DO deserve responses, from both myself AND Maurice... come on, Maurice! For the one thing you are Sam, or maybe the two things, is independent-thinking and very forthright.
(Least the guy doesn't beat about the bush when it comes to his cause!)
But - I'm just worried about the intrinsic *self