They Stole My Batman
Every afternoon as a kid, I would run home from the bus stop, to watch my Batman. If you weren’t an early adolescent during the mid 90’s, Batman: The Animated Series (“TAS”) aired from 1992 to 1995, and it was brilliant. Developed by Bruce Timm and Eric Radomski, it had quality animation, voicework, and plotting. More importantly, it was my Batman, my childhood cartoon, and it set an impossible standard which no comic book television show, cartoon or otherwise, has ever matched. The broad subject of TAS was heroism. The aesthetic was film noir. The essence was Batman.
I rewatched TAS, and it is remarkable how well it holds up, both as a cartoon, and as a meditation on the heroic. TAS presents a compelling, humane treatment of a superhero who was above all else a humanitarian. The ass kicking was secondary — great, but secondary. Batman was a detective and, yes, a slightly superhuman ninja with vaguely magical technogadgets. However, his principle study was neither Crime, nor Vengeance, but the vagaries of the human condition. His enemy was what corrupted people, what lead them down a bad pass. He was an obsessive redeemer.
Every TAS villain, with one exception, was treated as a tragic, human figure. Clayface was a giant polymorphic rock monster to most. But to Batman, he was a wounded man, alone. Mr. Freeze was a grieving husband. Scarecrow was a victim of his own reckless experiments. Even the Joker was, to Batman, more a giant mass of scar tissue that had suffocated a human being than he was some evil force. Batman understood that he was himself almost a Batman villain. The loss he suffered did not merely fuel his obsession. It fueled his approach. He saw himself in his villains. He was always willing to do the hard work of empathy, and to reckon just how closely he and they danced along the edge of the Abyss.
One of my favorite episodes is “Harley’s Holiday,” (S03E06) in which Harley Quinn is released from Arkham Asylum on probation. Through a series of comical mishaps, she gets caught up in and railroaded by the system because of her past criminality. Batman’s arc in the episode is not to capture or defeat Harley Quinn, but to save her from a probation violation. He believes utterly in her chance to do and be better. Her rehabilitation was just as important to him as her original capture. When she asks Batman why he worked so hard for her, to save her from her “really bad day,” he replies, “I had a bad day too, once.” He used his pain to understand hers.
And consider one of the more iconic episodes, “Appointment in Crime Alley” (S01E12) The villain is Roland Daggett, perhaps the only major villain of the series who never enjoyed a redemptive arc. He was not a wounded soul like Harley Quinn or Mr. Freeze; he was a corrupt and venal plutocrat. His plot was to demolish a neighborhood in time to deliver a speech before a zoning board, and, through graft and eminent domain, destroy a block of people’s homes, and the free clinic which served them. His goal was to profit from the redevelopment.
Batman races through the titular Crime Alley, a ghetto of struggling, working people menaced by Daggett’s cartoon thugs. He defeats them, as he must, each step bringing him closer to Daggett himself. In the course, those thugs threaten the intrepid social worker and recurring character Leslie Thompkins, who is arguably a dearer friend to Bruce Wayne and Batman than even Alfred. When Batman finally confronts Daggett, thugs in tow, snitching on the industrialist jerk, Daggett escapes in plain sight. He is untouched, shielded by wealth and privilege, and Batman damn near loses his temper and goes off to reduce Mr. Daggett to a smug-shaped pulp. It’s Leslie Thompkins who stops Batman in his tracks.
She reminds him that they have an appointment to keep, which was what brought Batman to that neighborhood that night in the first place. Their appointment is at the gravesite of Thomas and Martha Wayne. There, Batman lays two roses. He stands side by side with Ms. Thompkins, the social worker who held him all those years ago, when he was just a boy named Bruce, after his whole world shattered. Leslie has her own moment of doubt there, grieving the old days of Crime Alley, when good people lived there. But Batman reminds her, as she reminded him, when he was a boy: “Good people still live in Crime Alley.” As far as Batman is concerned, good people will always live in Crime Alley.
I also recently re-watched all three of Christopher Nolan’s Batmans. At the time, I didn’t think too much of them — literally. They were perhaps the loudest, most thumping and pounding of Nolan’s movies. I liked them pretty well for what they were, good entertainment, like standing at the well of a nightclub. There was so much noise and so many rapid jump cuts, you could never fix on a single point. On a technical level, they had strong and weak points. (Heath Ledger’s Joker really is a truly amazing performance, RIP.) But on a philosophical level, they were just thumping noise and trumpets.
In hindsight, I was overly kind to these movies. Nolan Batman is an angry, growling man. His pain is a wall he hides behind, peering angrily at the world. He seeks no understanding. He has no empathy. His villains are murderous, insane, and, to the narrative, all categorically beyond redemption. In Batman Begins, he even leaves Ras al Ghul to die in what the trademark Nolan musical sting suggested was a Nietzchean moment of mighty hero praxis. It wasn’t. He just left a man to die, not even because he was a bad man, but Nolan Batman was angry. That anger was presented as a counterfeit dollar, like it was virtue. It wasn’t. He just left a man to die. That’s not Batman.
So many moments of Nolan Batman are written like heroism, but they aren’t. At the end of The Dark Knight, Commissioner Gordon gives a truly bizarre, now infamously parodic speech about the constructed nature of heroism to his own son (“he’s the hero Gotham deserves”, and other such nonsense). His son is terrified, was just held at gunpoint by a mutilated psychopath. But Gordon just blithely delivers his speech, in which heroes are mere inhuman symbols for lesser people to hide and rally behind, whose conduct is immaterial, whose truth is irrelevant. This is not Batman.
Finally, The Dark Knight Rises ends with an utterly confounding action scene where a bunch of cops in dress uniform have a fistfight on the steps of a neoclassical bank-looking City Hall. They fight a ragtag band of extras who look like Occupy Wall Street protesters who spent a decade on the road with Rammstein. There is nothing of heroism in this. There is no redemptive desire, no moral stance. This is just people punching one another, each wearing abstruse costumes ripped from headlines and iconography, then reassembled like a letter from a hostage taker. This, too, isn’t Batman.
Batman — my Batman — occupies a moral space. He defends people, from criminals, and from themselves. His enemy is not the Riddler, or Bane. His enemy is the cruelty and destruction that produces Riddlers and Banes, and which goes on to keep them from redemption. He look at Harley Quinn not as a horrible menace, but as Dr. Harleen Quinzel, a clinical psychologist who he dearly hopes will return one day to sanity in full. His enemy is nihilism and vengeance, the idea and impulse that there exists a point at which reason and understanding fail, and people become monsters permanently. His enemies are the systems which produce those outcomes, which tie people to them, which reify pain and tie folks down. He hates noted philanthropist Roland Daggett, but he does not hate the Joker.
My hindsight is unkind to Nolan Batman, not because they were movies which didn’t age well. Rather, I dislike them in passing because they stole my Batman. They stole his ideals and better nature, then hid them with anger and loud noises and creeping protofascism. They made my Batman a Batman villain, and they never really sought to redeem him, like my Batman would. I see this thread in many current superhero movies, where violence and self-assured speeches and mere stagecraft take the place of humanity and empathy. It’s not a good look. Those movies made in that cast won’t age well, unlike my Batman.
The Batman of Batman:The Animated Series is the best because he is dark but not too dark. With the more grittier incarnations of Batman you find in the later comics and movies, you can’t quite believe he has a strict do not kill rule he adheres to. The Adam West version was too light-hearted to take that seriously. Batman of the Animated Series is serious but light enough where you can see him taking the do not kill rule as a cardinal value.Report
I liked both TAS and the Nolan films. The Batman of my childhood was Adam West, so there’s a chance I’ve just been ground down and gotten used to the many retellings of the story. Or maybe I was never too strongly wedded to “my” Batman, because it was a pretty lousy show.
But I’m more comfortable with reinventions of Batman than I am with those of probably any other superhero. It’s part of his story that he’s hard to define. He varies in shades of darkness, and even when he’s basically good, he exists in a surreal world of horrors. You can’t (easily) tell a Superman story in shades of gray; he’s got to be either white or black. With Batman, you’ve always got an ostensible hero who looks like a villain, and is cloaked in mystery. And is also somewhere between brilliant and devious.
It’s been a long time since I’ve seen the animated series, but I remember there was one episode that dealt with the different Batman legends. It was really well done. I’m sure you remember it better than I do. It didn’t try to define which Batman was real, and that’s a position I’m ok with.Report
The Animated Batman is absolutely delightful and is also my favorite… but it feels like it comes from a very particular moment in time: after the Cold War ended, before the Forever War started.
I like what Frank Miller had to say about Batman:
“There are 50 different ways to do Batman and they all work. In fact, I’ve probably done about ten of them. I was once asked if I felt like I’d been handed a Ming vase” when he first took on the character. “I said no, it’s more like an unbreakable diamond. I could smash it against the wall or ceiling without hurting it. It’s just a matter of finding a facet no one’s used before.”‘
Nolan’s Batman wasn’t about Batman, really, it was about 9/11. It was an attempt to process what happened in the wake of what happened.
I want to go back to the Animated Batman too. I prefer that moral narrative.Report
Nolan’s Batman wasn’t about Batman, really, it was about 9/11. It was an attempt to process what happened in the wake of what happened.
IIRC and FWIW, Jonathon Nolan created the TV show Person of Interest as well as the HBO show Westworld, but he also co-wrote, with his brother Christopher, the Dark Knight scripts.Report
Person of Interest is one of my favorite shows. I recommend it to anybody and everybody.
It’s also a Batman story. They just split Bruce Wayne off from Batman and make him two different people.
(They explore a lot of the same themes in the show and in the Batmovies too…)Report
Re: some of the criticisms of Nolan’s dark, cynical Batman in the OP, I thought about a line John Reese delivered early in the show (season 1, maybe?): “Maybe there aren’t good people, maybe there are only good decisions.”* I think that line – which is cynical – captures where the Nolanses collective heads were at when making those shows/movies.
*And then he goes on to ask the guy he *really* wants to kill to help him make a good decision. Outstanding!Report
I thought I was a minority in my dislike for Nolan’s Batman. Whew. Even as a kid watching Adam West, I knew this was a campy version of the Dark Knight. TAS was so well done. The writing of course. And the animation was a throwback the the Fleisher cartoons that were ahead of it’s time.Report
There are nine-and-sixty looks
For a Batman comic book
And every single one of them is rightReport
Nicely done.Report
It looks to me that beyond some noisiness and that one fight scene, the real complaint about Nolan is that his Batman operates in a different moral space than the TAS Batman. I take the praise of TAS’ Batman-as-redeemer, a sort of moral lifeguard, at face value.
The Nolan Batman is a vigilante. He is ultimately aimed to buttressing the forces of law and order, not necessarily the forces of moral good. And he has made the decision to use the tools of chaos against the agents of chaos. He knows he’ll have to get his hands dirty to do this but believes it necessary. Like all vigilantes, he sees the existing civil justice system as too weak to fulfill its purpose, and so he arrogates to himself the power of violence.
I see criticism in the OP of Batman’s decision to leave “a man” on the train to die. That man was Ra’s al-Ghul. The Nolan Batman has concluded that Ra’s al-Ghul is irredeemable, the justice system too vulnerable to his abilities (he would either bribe or escape from incarceration), and too dangerous to be left at large. I think the OP is right that Batman does not ever really seriously even consider rescuing Ra’s al-Ghul. The moral choice of redemption is framed thus: Ra’s al-Ghul is right that Gotham’s government is corrupt to its very core; his (ostensible, we may question his sincerity) solution is to destroy it utterly that something better might be created afterwards in its place. Batman sacrifices Ra’s al-Ghul that a different path towards a better, stronger Gotham might be pursued.
There are different permutations of aspiring to advance law and order through using the methods of chaos and evil in the second movie (which I agree had a ham-fisted ending) and the third (whose true moral hero was Catwoman, who was both redeemed and then became a redeemer herself, offering Batman love as an escape route from the unsustainable life of the vigilante).
What I’m saying is that you’re looking to the Nolan films to fulfill the same role as the TAS Batman did. Vigilante stories are inherently about flirting with fascism, the abrogation of due process. They’re inherently about a morally murky space between ends and means. So to appreciate them fully, you need to be comfortable with a resting point to the story that is gray rather than black or white.Report
Yes, Nolan’s Batman is a lot more like Frank Miller’s “Dark Knight Returns” Batman than “TAS” Batman.Report
I hate to be a nit-picker. But fascism uses fear within the context of populism, and lone vigilantes operate as elitists, whatever their personal status. Evil Batman isn’t a fascist; he’s a terrorist. Also, I love nit-picking. I love it so much that I’m compelled to point out that my claim to hate nit-picking is false.Report
Since we are all observers of Batman, you can think of the different ‘takes’ as merely observer perspectives. For the mugger who just got a knuckle sandwich from Batman, he’s a thuggish vigilante. For the mugging victim who just got saved, perhaps he’s seen as the savior or redeemer. But because Batman is human, and mysterious, he can be seen in so very many different ways.
Whereas Superman is almost always seen as a Demigod.Report
Occasionally, there’s a Batman story told from the perspective of a low-level person. A henchman’s lackey or a kid in the projects. Their experience of Batman is that of The Little Guy and they see this formless demon capable of delivering great violence in the pursuit of preventing violence. Fear, awe, this sense of going up against a Force of Nature…
So, too, for Superman. But those stories tend to focus on how good superman is. Sure, he’s awesome, but he also radiates… decency. Like Mister Rogers. Except he’s bulletproof.Report
I agree completely with you on this. How they can get these characters so wrong is amazing.
The basic idea behind Batman should be “There, but for the grace of God, go I”. This is the reason why he always uses their names (usually their first names) when he talks to them. He is trying to reason with the person, not confront the monster.
Superman is also just as easy. His true weakness isn’t Kryptonite, it’s the squishy people he loves and desperately tries to protect. Making him into a callous, uncaring oaf takes away his only true limitation.
This is one of the reasons why I find the DC movies disappointing. Minor changes like costume tweaks or altered origins (like Spider-Man being bitten by genetically modified spider in stead of a radioactive one) are fine but they have to retain their cores or they are NOT Superman or Batman.Report
Yeah, the insight that Superman, deep down, is Clark Kent but Bruce Wayne, deep down, is Batman is an awesome insight.
(There was an issue of Wonder Woman where the three of them held the Lasso of Truth and each said their “real name”. Superman said both Clark Kent and Kal-El. Batman said Batman.)
When written correctly, both Batman and Superman think that the other one had disadvantages that would have crippled themselves, and when they look at themselves, they only see the advantages that the other didn’t have.
Too many writers see them as opportunities for self-insert fanfics. (Those can be fun stories for a moment, but they’re usually forgotten the second you put the comic book down.)Report
{Redacted by editors}Report
CS Lewis has a quotation that says “When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up.”
You can get the complete series here.Report
{Redacted by editors}Report
If you want to read stories where hope has been abandoned, there’s always The Punisher.
I recommend the Garth Ennis Punisher Max series.Report
{Redacted by editors}Report
Yes, Nolan’s Batman is a lot more like Frank Miller’s “Dark Knight Returns” Batman than “TAS” Batman.Report