Did This Knight Have To Be So Dark?
One summer day when my nephew was around the age of six, we rode from Brooklyn to Manhattan on the "C" train for his first Central Park Zoo adventure with his uncle. I fished around his (okay, my) Batman knapsack, where I had stashed a variety of snacky treats, child repair standbys such as band aids and antiseptic, and his yogurt-stained copy of Maurice Sendak's Where The Wild Things Are. But as I navigated around the sack's many treasures, I also grazed some action figures my nephew apparently dumped-in before we left the house. I assumed they were the Batman, Superman, Spider-Man, etc., superhero action figures he scored from our traditional Saturday morning comic shop runs.
Blindly retrieving a "guy" from the knapsack (a term we used for action figures), I found the first of my nephew's superhero army was Todd McFarlaine's Spawn, a demonic-looking critter that had nothing to do with the tamer DC or Marvel universes his father and I were exposing him to. I asked where he got this interloper, and he confessed to trading his Superman for it at school, plus swapping-out Green Lantern, Flash and Robin with park pals and even his sitter's boyfriend. I reached into the bag again and this time, I liberated an even creepier, unfamiliar guy, which prompted me to check out the entire stash. Monsters and disfigured creatures completed the complement, and I was afraid I had uncovered some potential behavioral problem... hey, I was an uncle, not a parent.
Curious about how he perceived these macabre figures, I asked him to teach me which ones were the heroes and which were the bad guys. Handing him the plastic stack, the six-year-old looked at the first one, paused, and having difficulty deciding, raised his little head and asked, "I don't know. Hero or bad guy?" He repeated this with every guy until we got to good ol' Batman. This time, he confidently informed me, "Batman's a hero, but he's a bad guy too." Those words stuck with me the rest of the day -- which, by the way, ended happily, full of junk food and souvenirs, and with my nephew's first glimpse of zebras and leaf-nosed fruit bats.
Years later, I recalled that trip to the zoo with a comic book writer friend of mine who shall remain nameless (hint: he co-created Comet Man with Miguel Ferrer for Marvel Comics). We geekishly reminisced old Legion Of Super-Heroes books (in which teenagers from the future are so inspired by Superman that they start an inter-stellar, crime-fighting team... yes, I just typed that). We also discussed and were saddened by the "graying" of the superhero from its original black and white parameters as well as its continuing descent from role model to complicated or damaged antihero. Currently, in the world of comics, that image has been embraced thoroughly, with heroes who are beyond corruption practically non-existent -- even Superman killed. And now with The Dark Knight, we get such an incredible, boundary-breaking piece of pulp whose twisted philosophy is so convincing and noir so effective that, en masse, we most likely will see comic books and their relative movie and TV franchises adopt an even darker tone.
So did this knight have to be so dark? In order to create such a magnificent film, yes. But I have to say, I was concerned for all the under-ten kids at the two showings I attended. No, my generation wasn't prone to dropping anvils on people's heads after growing up on Looney Tunes. Still, the bat's out of the bag and it will be interesting to see the cultural ramifications of this new level of dark chic.
Follow Mike Ragogna on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ragz2008
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
The question is, why did the movie have to be so soulless? Why did it not have a single character anyone could care about? This is a decent, mildly interesting movie, overhyped as if it were great. Yes, the action scenes and technology are great, but the script is mediocre at best.
I dunno, I kind of liked a few of the characters who were given time to develop as characters over the course of both movies. And I kind of think it was a great movie especially when compared to most testosterone-driven epics. But the pacing didn't allow any of the characters to grow except Lucious, Alfred and Harvey, kind of....
Ironman was not so dark, and it did just fine, thank you. Spiderman also has done fine without needing to go super-dark.
Current batman fans really love the super-dark, and I think it is because they are trying to purge from their minds that super-campy TV show from their childhoods.
Until the Christian Bale movies, Miller's (and I guess Kingdom Come's) potential had yet to be fleshed-out on screen. With this movie, we finally get that level of darkness and it does leave you in awe. But yeah, Battlestar Galactica pulls off darkness and bleakness in a way where there's enough humanity left, so to speak. On the other hand, I believe this is what most fans have always wanted out of Batman.
cont...
Thirdly, from the progression of the films so far and the prominence of the phrase "I believe in Harvey Dent", I get the impression that the third film is going to be partly an adaption of "The Long Halloween" book. That book was deliberatly an homage to film noir and in feel, dark as the ace of spades. So in order to create a workable transition between the two films, this one needed to be fairly dark and the third will be darker still (and should get an R rating). BTW, I know Harvey's fate in this installment but this is superhero films we're talking about.
In the end, a Batman film should be fairly dark because it has to be. Superman is the bright, optimistic, noble one. Batman is the opposite: suspicious, paranoid and very nearly as crazy as his enemies. Batman's methods are ultimatly about violence and fear and even in the comics, they always were (the very, very early Batman stories had him killing enemies). You see the logical end result of that in Kingdom Come. While you can retcon the stories of Batman killing his enemies, you can't really alter his methods without reinventing the character totally (as was done with Constantine which turned out to be awful).
Besides, Adam West is a little too old now.
Cool. Batman is Batman and needs to go to those extremes, yup. You know, the coolest thing about this blog wasn't the blog itself, it's the debate and passion that came out of it in these many comments. To me, yeah the movie had to be that dark, I conclude that in the piece. I raise those other questions to stimulate discussion because, just as I opened myself up to getting beaten up on those topics, everyone here sported a terrific comment with their own unique logic and thoughtfulness including yours. And the wiseass flip-offs were ok too. ;) I'm just throwin' it out there for thought...
Understood. To be honest, I dobt the film would have much effect on even the very young. People have been having this discussion pretty much since the invention of cinema and yet, how much actual effect has it had? Are kids today more violent, more antisocial, more drug addled? No on all counts. They're provably the least violent they've been since WWII, least drug addled since the seventies. Of course, you wouldn't know that wacthing the evening news but kids aren't worse, they're just more televised. The actual evidence that pop culture affects a kid's outlook on life is weak to say the least. The most reliable indications of problems in later life have always been poverty and parenting (of course, knowing many, many bad parents, that's not hugely reassuring).
More to the point, these things cycle. TDK is violent but is it really any more disturbing than Polanski's Macbeth or as violent as Rambo (and it's knock-offs) or Aliens? I don't think it is. And unlike those films, the morality play in TDK is clear, Batman might use similar tactics as the bad guys but he never becomes them: He never kills.
I think it did have to be this dark, yes. Firstly, Batman's story was always about childhood trauma and the need for revenge (or at least, resolution). It was always about the effect that the murder of Thomas and Martha Wayne had on young Bruce. A traumatised child spends every waking moment of his entire life consumed by the need to (metaphorically) avenge himself on the underworld. We're talking about a guy so traumatised that he spends his nights running around in an armoured Halloween costume. Clark Kent grew up in rural Kansas, Bruce Wayne grew up in Gotham (a mix of Chicago in the 1930s and NYC), was heavily traumatised early in life and his closest friend is a man he employs (Alfred). So this story was always going to be pretty dark. Not Frank Miller dark maybe but certainly Alan Moore dark.
Secondly, doing a decent rendition of the Joker is going to be dark. Unlike Two-Face or Catwoman, the Joker has no redeeming features, he's a mass murderer without a whiff of conscience. Nicholson's portrayal simply used more stylised violence to make the point but with Nolan going for a stripped-down realistic (or as "realistic" as superhero movies get) feel, there really wouldn't have been any way to make the Joker any less menacing.
cont...
..
These comments were old school sentiments in 1995.
This Batman is a reflection of the 1990s...it
Not a hard archetype to disect, really.
.
Again, nothing against Batman, loved the movie, intend on seeing it a few more times, And I've been buying the books for over three decades now, including the '90s. This movie is an artistic zenith and I think it's fair to take a pause and reflect on it and potential ramifications of its brilliant extremeness. And absolutely, mine isn't the right or only opinion on this. But I do feel we're just being dumb taking our youngest kids to see this level of intensity.
Are you serious?
Not ragging on Batman, love Batman, just wondering the ramifications of a culture's pop going darker and darker...a
If you're concerned about kids being exposed to this level of darkness then don't expose your kids to it.
The responsibility for managing children should rest firmly on the shoulders of their parents. Not on everyone else.
Comic books and their adapted movies just aren't for kids anymore. Kids stopped buying them, and adults started. Comics are mostly very dark noir pulp, and any parent should READ a comic before they get them for their kids. Any comic shop will have plenty of manga (japanese comics) that are much more age appropriate.
So I'd be very careful in purchasing comics for your child. However you should read them yourselves! Especially independent comics. They're not just stories for adults, they're GREAT stories for adults. And now they're all sold in graphic novel form as well, so you don't have to buy single issues one at a time.
I'd recommend the first trade paper back book of Y THE LAST MAN to start. I don't have a single friend who I gave that comic to who didn't love it, even if they were not into comics at all. It's about a plague that wipes out every male mammal on earth.exce
Y The Last Man is a very cool book, quite adult and you offer a great tip about the parent reading it and deciding if it's appropriate. By the way, that last issue was so satisfying, amazing conclusion!
I've noticed more complaints about Batman's darkness here than, say, Wolverine's killing impulses in X-Men 2, or the Punisher, or Daredevil, let alone Rambo or any Tarentino flick. Some would say it's because Batman used to be such an innocent character, but they really don't know the history (and this blogger, with his LSH reference, certainly should) of the character OR the medium. It's a cycle, which will come back around to cater to the precious innocents (hopefully without Congressional hearings this time). But, if you don't mind, could you let some of us enjoy the current realistic portrayals in peace? It's not as if it will last.
And if Dark Knight was too intense for you, I'd suggest you stay away from Watchmen. Your head might explode.
That's fair, but I don't think anyone's going after Batman because he's some sort of easier mark than Rambo or Tarentino's flicks. Actually, I don't think anyone's going after Batman at all! But this is a franchise that markets to both adults and the under ten crowd, and means a bit more to the culture having endured generations of fans. Batman's influence is considerably more than the obvious cartoon-ba
You're right, it's not the end of civilization as we know it and no one is suggesting censorship. But we all know the pattern when it comes to turning a dime and how the studios copycat what they perceive is the reason for huge success. In this case, they probably will be running over each other to out-darken their next project, not really understanding why The Dark Knight was so brilliant and successful. In the blog, I'm just wondering if we should be concerned about this and if it's wise to bring younger kids to see this level of intensity. If the answer is "yes," so be it, then that's our choice as a culture. But there are other perspectives on these issues too and personally, I feel that we at least should be aware of the choices we're making.
In 1939, two Jewish teenagers from New York created the Ubber-mensch of Superman to tackle all the societal ills they felt ill-equipped to take on themselves. A little over a year later, a (at the time) rival comic producer responded with the Bat-Man. Based on Zorro, this hero acted without invulnerability or any other powers, but with exemplary detective skills and an arsenal of clever gadgets.
During this time, sales for comics were astronomical. Superman, Action, Whiz, Detective, and a host of other titles were selling in the millions (a feat never repeated by the industry, even during the speculative glut of the late 80s early 90s). But the really interesting thing is that they weren't just selling to kids. Plenty of adults were enjoying the pulp escapism of these heroic characters, right up until Congress (with the help of Dr. Frederich Wertham) decreed the majority of these books (which were mostly horror and war comics) too graphic for our precious youth.
While sales plummetted, Marvel Comics released a new brand of Super Hero (Spiderman, Fantastic Four, X-Men, etc.) that focused on the "real" depicition of the lives of the heroes, while DC (Superman and Batman and Wonder Woman, now under one roof) kept their titles more youth friendly, embracing the campiness that the TV Batman seemed to prove so popular.
Then came Frank Miller...
Yeah, Marvel was the champ at that and apparently understood their audience was leaning over 18. I think DC got there too, eventually.
Look, I love some of the darker storylines, especially in Miller's and Moore's works. Is it fair to ask if there are ramifications from continuously, perhaps even exclusively, pushing that direction? I think it's worth the question. Does a constant diet of this start becoming unhealthy? And hey, do the studios really have to cross-promote the movie to under ten kids?
You are SO right. Where are the good good guys? Did you know that Marvel killed off Steve Rogers (Captain America) and the guy wearing his costume now is a hothead running around shooting people with a gun? For shame.
And I'm not sure how the Skrull storyline will resolve the Marvel universe, especially Iron Man. You know, I have to add that I'm not a big fan of the restart button that was used on Spider-Man. I think JMS did a great job complicating Peter Parker/Spidey, which is one way of handling making a character "darker" without the fetishism.
Because Batman was created as a foil for the far sunnier and well-adjusted Superman, that's why.
He is a great foil, and that balance is portrayed well in the current run of Batman/Superman.
whats a foil
The movie was PG-13 and frankly it should've been rated R. Anyone bringing kids under 13 should have their head examined. Maybe people need to remember that comic books aren't always for kids and movies derived from them aren't always meant to be family entertainment. I for one am glad this Batman takes itself seriously. They embraced the reality of a masked vigilante and used it very cleverly comment on the times we live in. Maybe when these kids grow up and watch this movie as adults, they'll realize what this decade was like and how the supposed good guys broke the laws to fight evil and how the public gave into fear and paranoia. That's the real brilliance of this movie. The fact that it's main character dresses up as a bat is almost incidental.
Yeah, it's so well done that after the first ten minutes or so, you don't even realize you're watching a movie with costumes. And great point on the decade....
There's a simple reason.
Because comics stopped being just for kids. If you want black-and-white beyond-corruption heroes read the comic companies' "family friendly" lines.
Yeah, they're not just for kids, I'm with you.
Two points for Mike Ragogna:
1. You're not by some chance refering to the Mike Grell Legion comics, are you? (Did I just type that?)
2. To me, the issue is far broader, that conflicted anti-heroes. When comics came back in the 80's, it was a fun ride for a number of years, whether it be DC, Marvel, Image, or Vertigo. But there came a point where the success of Image's teeth gritted/fist clenched raging maniacs spread everywhere. Where Supes was once noble, now he assumes the grit teeth/clenched fist RAGE position..
This image of eye burning FURY is my bigger question. I know kids have trouble handling emotions and so they can identify with heroes on the same verge of emotional detonation, but am I to understand that adults will pour in droves to the local plex to participate in the same RAGE?
We're apparently an extremely angry people, if we need to constantly watch ANGRY people RAGE. These characters are all powerful, where most of us are not. Interesting. Is it so far a leap to conclude our rage is born of our lack of power?
I don't disagree with anything here, you're right. And I am a fan of the Vertigo line. What I'm saying is, from my perspective, it's a shame that superheroe
I think now, our "Super-Heroes" have become the "Super-Eve
I believe the entire reason the new Superman movie was considered 'okay but disappointing' was that Supes was noble and kind. He wasn't 'bad ass'.
(Thanks for reply and thoughtful piece.)
This Batman movie was so incredibly complex and riveting (due to the Joker's presence) that yes, it did need to be that dark. It would completely lose all of it's force if it were "on the lighter side". I think the Nolans wanted to have this series hug reality a little bit tighter. Meaning, they wanted to portray Gotham as a real city with real people, real villians and "real" heroes. Of course, after all, this WAS a Batman movie. Kids can't understand these subtle nuances in film. They just see explosions, cool acrobatic and martial arts choreography and killer lines (why so serious?). I don't think the younger ones will walk out of the movie in a catatonic state dwelling on their bleak futures and that of the world as it relates to the powers that be. To them it was simply a Batman movie. Nothing more.
Yeah, true. And the way "reality" was portrayed in this movie made it that much more incredible. Really brilliant. But I'm not sure I agree that under ten kids aren't absorbing anything more than explosions and cool cars and costumes. We still are careful about what we expose that age group to in many other areas. They may not be leaving the theaters in a catatonic state, but I can remember practically every movie I saw as young kid and I think all of us would say we've been affected by at least the theme of our favorites.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
