The Batman (2022)

→ in
Tools    





Victim of The Night
Which threatens the other endless debate about whether the book itself is fascist or just militaristic. Paul Verhoeven obviously leaned into fascism in the movies (just look at the outfits and propaganda reels), but we could debate that as well.
It's been a few years since I read the book but I don't remember society being at all fascistic and I didn't think it was that militaristic either until they were in the war with the bugs.



It's been a few years since I read the book but I don't remember society being at all fascistic and I didn't think it was that militaristic either until they were in the war with the bugs.

The book was cool, because it included the combat suits that the troopers used to be super commandos. Arguably, Batman should have that sort of thing. It would explain why he can move with so much agility while wearing bullet proof armor.



We've gone on holiday by mistake
It was fairly good, but I can't help comparisons to the Dark Knight trilogy and this seems like the cheap TV series of Batman when compared against the former.

It's been said a million times but it's such a shame we can't get proper time periods between Batman or Spiderman's next incarnation, but that's not the world we live in, someone owns these franchises and why wouldn't they want a few hundred million $$ every few years.
__________________



Victim of The Night
If there is anything I take away from that that is absolutely true today, "I doubt any of you (Americans) would recognize Civic Virtue if it reached up and bit you in the ass."



Victim of The Night
The book was cool, because it included the combat suits that the troopers used to be super commandos. Arguably, Batman should have that sort of thing. It would explain why he can move with so much agility while wearing bullet proof armor.
I was much more interested in the sociopolitical implications of the governmental structure. Specifically the part they hand wave very quickly in that video, that earning the right to participate in societal decision-making maybe isn't the worst thing.



I was much more interested in the sociopolitical implications of the governmental structure. Specifically the part they hand wave very quickly in that video, that earning the right to participate in societal decision-making maybe isn't the worst thing.

There is a danger there too. If your government is supposed to be of, by, and for the people, but only some of those people have political power, then the government can filter out voices they don't want to hear (e.g,. Jim Crow laws in the 20th century) and turn out not to be really responsive to the general will.



On the other hand, few forms of government have proven to be more volatile than direct democracy, right? The United States is (allegedly) a republic. It puts a filter between the mercurial fluctuations of the masses and the control panel of government. Thus, the Bill of Rights is not simply a check on government, but a check on the people. It is there to save us from "the people" (because "the people" can be stupid). It is an anti-Democratic check on the enthusiasms of the masses.



I am all for checks and balances. I think "compulsory" voting is a bonkers idea. I am even in favor of voter ID (you know, what every other nation in the world requires of their electorate). However, the right to vote turned into a privilege of the special few who are determined to be worthy (or unworthy) by those in power is not a great idea, IMO.



“Sugar is the most important thing in my life…”
Anybody else notice we have 2 threads?

https://www.movieforums.com/communit...=46686&page=21

I find myself enjoying this in small bites. Watch something on HBO, finish and click over and watch a bit. The Riddler stuff gets worse for me. Paul Dano just comes off as a clown. All the talk of trying on the glasses and the plastic wrap just seems too “try hard” for a result that wasn’t there.



My friends told me they watched it at the movies, but they said it s boring and nothing like the nolan trilogy



It could have been a little more exciting




There is a danger there too. If your government is supposed to be of, by, and for the people, but only some of those people have political power, then the government can filter out voices they don't want to hear (e.g,. Jim Crow laws in the 20th century) and turn out not to be really responsive to the general will. .
This stuff gets complicated and contradictory real fast. The appeal of a Batman sort of character, a vigilante with his own resources, acting "in the name of justice" is tempting as long as it's MY Batman, and not YOUR Batman. That sort of judge-jury-executioner power only differs from tyranny when the vigilante hits the guys I don't like.

No organized society can tolerate that sort of thing for very long because it's inevitable that, sooner or later, Batman or Superman or whatever will take out somebody that I like and eventually start to look an awful lot like the Klan or Murder for Hire. That idea that Batman only goes after bad guys is a comic book fantasy at best, left for the minds of 9 year olds.

It does have some sort of escapist fantasy value, but that's about it.



as long as it's MY Batman, and not YOUR Batman.
And this mirrors American society. What one side views as a protest another side views as a riotous mob. We're already living Gotham. One person's Joker is another person's Dark Knight.
No organized society can tolerate that sort of thing for very long
And this is why I suspect our society is in deep trouble.
That idea that Batman only goes after bad guys is a comic book fantasy at best, left for the minds of 9 year olds.
People love it though. We've pushed the "it's OK if they're bad guys" idea as far out as the character of Dexter (the serial killer who is "OK," because he only kills serial killers) and various Riddick-type characters. In Chronicles of Ridickulous none other than Dame Judi Dench is given the line,
"In normal times, evil would be fought by good. But in times like there, well, it should be fought by another kid of evil."
In short, we've pushed all the way through to evil is good (when the target is evil).
It does have some sort of escapist fantasy value, but that's about it.
Unfortunately, our fantasies carry ideological freight. As Weaver titled the book, "Ideas have consequences." Those nine-year-olds grow up pretty fast and today we find rather uncomplicated utilitarians: No bad tactics, just bad targets. Speech is violence when it is against "our side," but so too is silence.

I am not saying we need square heroes who don't dance or only shoot guns out of the bad guys hands. But we do need heroes who abide by the rules that make society sustainable, who don't take shortcuts, who will take a loss in the name of rule of law. We need more Dave Toschi's and fewer Dirty Harry's.
I'm Robert Graysmith. I work at the Chronicle with Paul Avery.

Dave Toschi. Nice to meet you.

Dave! That Harry Callahan did a hell of a job with your case.

Yeah. No need for due process, right?



These concepts are as old as history:
Robin Hood - a thief and highwayman (a criminal) who stole from the rich to give to the poor = a political class hero.
The Count of Monte Cristo - a man of humble beginnings, unjustly imprisoned who took revenge in the name of justice to the level of an art form while always working in disguise and outside the law.
The Scarlet Pimpernel - an Englishman who, in disguise, helped people of the French Aristocracy escape the Reign of Terror = regarded as a seditionist & terrorist by the reigning powers in France.
Arsene Lupin & A.J. Raffles - "gentlemen thieves" & criminals who worked on the side of good.



Yes, the formal pattern is with us. It's primal. So long as there is a tension between self-interest and societal rules, between the principled and the practical, between emotion and reason, between Id and super-ego, this pattern has been with us and will be with us. But that does not mean that we cannot share concern here. Consider,

The poor have also always been with us and always will be. Concerns about poverty are as old as history. Does this mere fact automatically deflate any concern, for example, about a sharp rise in poverty?

Fiction is a good release for psychological tension. And since it is our anti-social tendencies which are largely suppressed in day-to-day life it is our individualistic and instrumentalist impulses which need a release through narrative fiction (e.g., this is why we like villains and anti-heroes). Thus, we're more likely enjoy Robin Hood than Dudley Do-Right. But consider the difference in the quantity and quality of these characters.

Robin Hood - a thief and highwayman (a criminal) who stole from the rich to give to the poor = a political class hero.
Compare to Travis Bickle, Wade Wilson,Walter White, John Wick, Harley Quinn, Beatrix Kiddo, etc.

Consider the prevalence of stupid super hero movies (punch evil in the mouth and burn it with your photon rays!). Consider the pornographic darkness of heroes in our films, our Tarantino revenge heroes.

I am not saying we need to do away with such tales or characters, but that our heroes need to be more complicated, more subtle, stand more closely to the line of law and principle, and also remind us of the consequences of tearing the social contract in Dyonistic frenzy.



This isn't a counterpoint, just an observation:

With vigilante anti-heroes like Batman, they become a requirement by society (story-wise) because there's an acknowledgement that the system is broken: police, prosecutors & politicians are corrupt - they are literally often in league with the criminals - and thus justice for the weak, poor & defenseless has been significantly lessened as crime in the street, political corruption & victimization rises (particularly relatable in real life right now.)

(With Robin Hood, the once-just kingdom fell into the hands of a corrupt & greedy monarchy that sought not to protect citizens but only to profit from them.)

In such cases, the only person who can deliver true justice to victims & protection from predators is someone outside the law (since the law can no longer be depended on).

I'm actually a bit surprised there hasn't been a rise in real-life vigilante activities over the last few years as law enforcement has been demonized & degraded into impotence, while crime continues to rise and officials seem more on the side of criminals than their victims.

This is why vigilantes who work outside the law have always been popular - they not only protect the weak from the criminal predators but they protect the society from the government that has either lost the abilities or the will to do their job of protecting the populace.

Conversely, the heroes who want to work within or with the law (the Boy Scouts: Superman / Captain America) can just as easily be turned against the populace as a weapon of enforcement by corrupt governments (see Superman's role in The Dark Knight Returns graphic novel).

P.S. Although, Captain America has traditionally done a good job at maintaining his autonomy by either turning against his government when their edicts counter his values, or giving up his mantle whenever the government tried to control, utilize or weaponize him as their subordinate.



This isn't a counterpoint, just an observation:
I think you have already provided a good counterpoint - earlier I was playing Sheriff Bell lamenting the dismal tide and you played Ellis, reminding me that we've always had questionable hero-types. This applies pressure to me, pushing me to show that there is something worse going on today, that our new dark heroes are concerning in quantity and quality. In short, your existential counterpoint applies pressure to me to show that things have gotten worse, somehow. Now, I do think things have changed a bit and I think I offer some evidence of that, but it is difficult to comprehensively say that things really are worse and just not "different." In short, you have not only offered a counterpoint, but a valid one which applies respectable pressure to my whinging about Batman. This is all to the good. You're offering a guardrail against excess and gentle pressure to provide proof.

With vigilante anti-heroes like Batman, they become a requirement by society (story-wise) because there's an acknowledgement that the system is broken:
Sure, our heroes must be reluctant in some way and righteous. Batman trades on our need for things to "be broken" so that we have an excuse for a violent daydream. Also, Batman reflects our fears of a broken society, our feeling of being unsafe in places like Chicago. Likewise, I must find Batman to "be broken" so that I may sling words against him and get my fix of internet shitposting (my own Id that wants to Hulk Smash). However, Batman also reflects my actual concerns of the infantile obsession we now have with endless vigilantes in capes and masks.

Batman's excess is justified by just how very broken Gotham is presented. Gotham is a hyperbole of Chicago and other cities. The dangers of American city life have to be exaggerated considerably to create a fantasy space where we (as represented by the Bat) can POW! ZING! and BIFF! a world which resists our will. Likewise, the more I can exaggerate Batman, the more I can kick him while he's down and make him out to be a menace rather than light entertainment.

However, our real-world cities are not that broken that we need a billionaire in a BDSM costume to pummel people in the poorest parts of town. We should not justify our light entertainment on the basis in an analogy to the exaggerated dreamworld of Gotham, right?

The only person who can deliver true justice to victims & protection from predators is someone outside the law (since the law can no longer be depended on).
Sure, and every now and then we need a violent revolution to overthrow a tyrannical government. But it's a dangerous thing to do. It comes with great risk, terrible cost (even if you "win"), and is a permanent move. I wouldn't want a revolution every week, any more than I would want a vigilante on every street corner.

Once you stand outside the law, you're tearing the social contract (the thing which also protects you and from which you benefit) and making yourself accountable to no one but yourself. It is only in the most desperate of circumstances that we could allow for this to happen. Society, in effect, has to be completely broken to justify this. Once you go rogue, you've made yourself a threat (so you'd better be sure you really are a good guy) and if you don't have a plan with good odds, you'll probably just make things worse (if you strike at the king....).

I'm actually a bit surprised there hasn't been a rise in real-life vigilante activities over the last few years as law enforcement has been demonized & degraded into impotence, while crime continues to rise and officials seem more on the side of criminals than their victims.
There was the Phoenix Jones and company thing going on on the West Coast for a few years.

This odd little comedy went on for a while until Jones got arrested for selling drugs. "You either die a hero..."

On the East Coast you've got the Guardian Angels of NYC subways.

The Angels have had much more success, because their scope is limited (subway safety), they work in teams with electronic communication, they work with the police, they don't carry weapons, and they don't generally do crazy violent stuff, but merely break things up and do citizen's arrests.

The Batman model was tried on the West Coast, but failed (in fairness to Batman, they were wearing Hockey Pads). The East Coast model is more of a citizen's watch.



One of the greatest depictions of a comic book-type hero in reality came from the TV series Hill St. Blues.



In four episodes actor Dennis Dugan portrayed "Captain Freedom" - a street level crimefighter who dressed in a superhero costume and accompanied his crime fighting with inspirational speeches. He tries to work with police, but is, by definition, a costumed vigilante.
While his intentions are pure, his sanity is brought into question just over his penchant for dressing up in a costume and attempting to fight crime without any protection or weapons.
Sadly, he ends up shot to death while trying to intervene in an armed robbery.



One of the greatest depictions of a comic book-type hero in reality came from the TV series Hill St. Blues.



In four episodes actor Dennis Dugan portrayed "Captain Freedom" - a street level crimefighter who dressed in a superhero costume and accompanied his crime fighting with inspirational speeches. He tries to work with police, but is, by definition, a costumed vigilante.
While his intentions are pure, his sanity is brought into question just over his penchant for dressing up in a costume and attempting to fight crime without any protection or weapons.
Sadly, he ends up shot to death while trying to intervene in an armed robbery.

Hard to be a superhero without superpowers. Batman is implausibly well-trained, uses weapons, wears armor, uses every tech trick money can buy, and travels in military grade vehicles. Even then, I think a real-world Batman would have a very short career, if not short life (e.g., Parkour fails, getting shot in the face, police helicopter tracking, GPS tracking, the Batmobile getting towed, someone finally doing a little research into who makes Batman all his stuff, the reality of 6 vs. 1 combat). The most realistic superhero is really a person with superhuman powers. I can see why the cops would lay off Superman. What are you going to do, arrest him? Are you going to catch the flash? Are you going to run up a building after Spider Man? Even so, the anonymity of these characters is terribly implausible -- so you have the problem of where do you sleep? Where do you do eat? What do you do when baddies and governments lean on your loved ones to get leverage? A Superman who lives on the moon in a fortress of solitude and comes down just to put work in is probably the most "realistic" superhero I can imagine.