TwIsTeR Ramblings: Batman

Filed under: by: wj

When the Dark Knight movie was released, it left many of us in awe. We were stunned by the sublime combination of tension, psychological thriller and visual effects. In my opinion, it was the one true film that represented Batman perfectly.

I have always been a fan of Batman. He is the perfect human being, defeating villians with a mixture of cold, logical deduction, martial skills and money. No powers were required, unlike his outlandish DC heroes comrades like Superman or Wonderwoman.

But the main reason that so intrigued me was the use of psychology and philosophy within the comics and the Dark Knight. Batman was not the happy-go-lucky superhero that the previous films try to portray, blame it on sugarcoating for kids. He was an anti-hero, not unlike Venom form Marvel, Constantine from Vertigo's Hellblazer and Spawn from Image.

An anti-hero is one where the so-called hero will go through means that would most likely disagree with the majority of ppl in order to achieve their form of justice. Batman is supposed to be like that. He would use interrogation techniques that left villians with broken limbs, ignore traditional forms of law keeping like the police to investigate murders and basically willing to do anything at any cost to achiever his ends, unless it involved guns and killing.

In so doing, Batman puts forth numerous questions to our morality. From the latest film, questions such as 'Will you sacrifice a single life to save many?', 'Would you take away privacy, and in a larger extent freedom, of ordinary citizens to cope with terrorism?', 'Would you sacrifice your own life for others?' and 'What is truly incorruptible form of justice look like?' are asked. Such questions were bound to batman from the very beginning.

Another aspect of batman that I enjoy is the psychology involved. Any psychologist or psychology student should study Batman as a case study. Question: When was Batman truly born? Was it the time when Bruce Wayne witnessed the death of his own parents? or perhaps when he went around the world to study the meaning of Justice and Morality? Or even when he was training in the mountains?

Other issues within Batman and Bruce Wayne was which was the true essence of the character? The flamboyant Bruce Wayne or the cold, unfeeling Batman? This seems like split personality given form to me. Furthermore, after prolonged crimefighting, what will his psychological profile be like?

Batman accumulated numerous allies throughout his career. Robin, Nightwing, Batgirl, Batwoman, the Spoiler, Sasha Bordeaux, the Oracle and, of course, Alfred were just a few examples of allies that helped Batman almost exclusively. This however also brought more questions as the storyline goes on. Questions on how Bruce treats them: Are they considered family as he claimed? Or perhaps a small army? Does he seem them as troops or allies? Batman seems to understand that he is unable to fight crime and corruption on his own, yet prefers to be the loner that he is.

Of course, the questions of whether Batman is needed by Gotham or by Bruce Wayne is ever-present. In fact, it seems to be the main reason that prevents Bruce Wayne from having a sustainable love-life, even if the other party involved was fighting crime with him or not. Whether Bruce actually enjoys being Batman and fighting crime in the dark is without a doubt. The control of power in the night, armed with an arsenal of gadgets, Batman is perhaps a manifestation of Bruce's dark side. This question is pressed further by the numerous psychotic villians that seem to turn up. Many have questioned that perhaps it was Batman's presence that attracted these lunatics, such as Catwoman, the Penguin, the Scarecrow and most terrifying of all, the Joker. The eternal chicken-or-the-egg issue is a valid one, considering that Gotham never had such characters before the Dark Knight showed up.

I invite Janell, Teng Soong, Tannie and other psychology-loving friends to give me a comment or 2 on Batman. It would be fun to discuss this intriguing character.

2 comments:

On December 6, 2008 at 5:55 AM , Anonymous said...

Me too, always been a fan of Batman. though i didn't really read the comics, i just think he is really awesome, not the kind of hero who has an easy time saving the world. i think the Dark Knight movie is one fantastic movie that touched me truly. the values, the battle of wits, and the brilliant display of his massive wealth. the fact that Gotham never had such psychotic criminals before the Batman showed up is a very good point brought up, and although i'm on Batman's side, i must say that it is really possible for criminals to want to challenge him just for the fun of it. however, it is not Batman's fault that this happened and it is not fair for the people of Gotham to blame him for it. well, this world is never fair, isn't that right?

 
On December 6, 2008 at 11:25 AM , Anonymous said...

Yupz. Though it is strange. The villians were more of a psychotic nature, or at the very least eccentric, a direct contrast to the cold rational mind of the Batman. For example, the Joker was always said to be the antithesis of Batman. "Some men just want to see the world burn" was what Alfred said. The Joker, although, or a better word would be because, is insane, he seems to understands human nature very deeply. Especially the dark side of human nature, which ironically is something that Bruce Wayne battles with everytime he dons his costume.

Perhaps such villians would not appear in Gotham if Batman never showed up. The important question is: Was Gotham better off before Batman arrived to after he arrived? Or perhaps that future where Batman is no longer needed is an ends justifying the means, even if Gotham wasn't better off with Batman? The answers could either justify or condemn the existence of Batman.