Messing with the Batman
Aug. 1st, 2008 07:22 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
phoenix64I've been noodling over some things about Batman that are actually related more to Batman Begins than The Dark Knight.
For the most part I'm a big fan of reinventing classic stories. Shakespeare in outer space? Go for it. I actually think the US remake of Touching Evil was pretty good (though I'd almost gladly volunteer to sabotage the US remake of Life on Mars).
But I still have my touchy areas, and a big one is Batman. Don't get me wrong, like any long-lasting character I've seen different writers do all kinds of interesting things with Batman and I usually like the results. But you DO NOT MESS with Batman's backstory.
Batman's parents were the victims of a random crime. To me that is almost as vital as Batman not having any special powers. (Yeah, I know, not counting his wealth.) Because just as in real life no one has special powers, in real life a lot of the bad things that happen are not part of some grand plan, they just happen. Every time a writer tries to retcon the killing of the Waynes as deliberate for some reason but only made to look like a random crime I get very pissy. Even writers I have a lot of respect for, like Andrew Vachss, will not escape my ire. You do not mess with Batman's backstory.
So when Christopher Nolan made changes to that backstory in Batman Begins I got a bit cranky. The opera? What, was a movie too common for the Waynes? And what about the pearls? Bruce blamed himself for what happened to his parents because he thought Joe Chill had been tempted by his mother's pearls, because he had asked his mother to wear her pearls even though she normally reserved them for special occasions. He had asked her to wear them to make the evening a special occasion. To completely discard that and structure things so that Bruce blamed himself because they'd left the theatre because he's been afraid, well that ... okay, that actually ... damn. It works. Especially because you have be able to treat the movie as a discrete entity, a whole and complete story, and that entire movie is about fear. A large part of the reason that Batman Begins is such a good movie is that it tells a good story and it tells it well and it does so standing on its own. It really deserves to be judged for what works within that space and that space alone.
Which also means that any argument about bringing in "non-canon characters" is null and void. So Rachel Dawes deserves to be judged for what her character does in that story. As I mentioned in a previous TDK-spoilery post, I ended up appreciating Rachel even if she doesn't have that much to do, because she gets to do something that previous canon supporting characters haven't always been able to do, which is to be someone who has known Bruce almost his entire life and can clearly see the parts of himself he has had to give up to be Batman. Alfred is there first and foremost to serve Bruce in whatever capacity Bruce needs, so that's not a role that Alfred can play as easily. Rachel could speak to those changes, and she may even serve as someone who can mourn those changes. Life involves a lot of choices to be the person we want to be, and we often need to mourn the choices we have to make, to mourn the path we didn't choose and the lives that are lost to us because of the life we choose. Bruce could never grieve for himself, but some of the choices that he has made should be grieved over. Rachel was perhaps able to do that for him, and for us.
In conclusion: sacred-cow hamburgers may be calorie-free yet they can still be nutritious brain food. Thanks for reading!
ETA: Mild spoilers for TDK in the comments.
For the most part I'm a big fan of reinventing classic stories. Shakespeare in outer space? Go for it. I actually think the US remake of Touching Evil was pretty good (though I'd almost gladly volunteer to sabotage the US remake of Life on Mars).
But I still have my touchy areas, and a big one is Batman. Don't get me wrong, like any long-lasting character I've seen different writers do all kinds of interesting things with Batman and I usually like the results. But you DO NOT MESS with Batman's backstory.
Batman's parents were the victims of a random crime. To me that is almost as vital as Batman not having any special powers. (Yeah, I know, not counting his wealth.) Because just as in real life no one has special powers, in real life a lot of the bad things that happen are not part of some grand plan, they just happen. Every time a writer tries to retcon the killing of the Waynes as deliberate for some reason but only made to look like a random crime I get very pissy. Even writers I have a lot of respect for, like Andrew Vachss, will not escape my ire. You do not mess with Batman's backstory.
So when Christopher Nolan made changes to that backstory in Batman Begins I got a bit cranky. The opera? What, was a movie too common for the Waynes? And what about the pearls? Bruce blamed himself for what happened to his parents because he thought Joe Chill had been tempted by his mother's pearls, because he had asked his mother to wear her pearls even though she normally reserved them for special occasions. He had asked her to wear them to make the evening a special occasion. To completely discard that and structure things so that Bruce blamed himself because they'd left the theatre because he's been afraid, well that ... okay, that actually ... damn. It works. Especially because you have be able to treat the movie as a discrete entity, a whole and complete story, and that entire movie is about fear. A large part of the reason that Batman Begins is such a good movie is that it tells a good story and it tells it well and it does so standing on its own. It really deserves to be judged for what works within that space and that space alone.
Which also means that any argument about bringing in "non-canon characters" is null and void. So Rachel Dawes deserves to be judged for what her character does in that story. As I mentioned in a previous TDK-spoilery post, I ended up appreciating Rachel even if she doesn't have that much to do, because she gets to do something that previous canon supporting characters haven't always been able to do, which is to be someone who has known Bruce almost his entire life and can clearly see the parts of himself he has had to give up to be Batman. Alfred is there first and foremost to serve Bruce in whatever capacity Bruce needs, so that's not a role that Alfred can play as easily. Rachel could speak to those changes, and she may even serve as someone who can mourn those changes. Life involves a lot of choices to be the person we want to be, and we often need to mourn the choices we have to make, to mourn the path we didn't choose and the lives that are lost to us because of the life we choose. Bruce could never grieve for himself, but some of the choices that he has made should be grieved over. Rachel was perhaps able to do that for him, and for us.
In conclusion: sacred-cow hamburgers may be calorie-free yet they can still be nutritious brain food. Thanks for reading!
ETA: Mild spoilers for TDK in the comments.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-08-01 04:20 pm (UTC)I like her. I think she works on multiple levels: not only the childhood friend who sees the man Bruce became and mourned for the boy- I was watching Batman Begins last night while I was going to sleep and the scene where she slapped him and told him his father would be ashamed was a powerful scene. This is someone who knew him, knew his parents and wasn't chastising him in a parental capacity like that line from Alfred would have been. It was a peer who was ashamed. She works because if you go by (some) comics canon a lot of the fucked up things in Bruce's psyche can go down to isolation. There's a scene with Alfred musing about how when Bruce was a child, after his parents died, they'd seek out and search for first edition books and authentic them. It was the only thing that made Bruce animated and act like he was happy. Dude. That is not a childish hobby. He stopped being a child when his parents died.
But, change that. Make it so he had friends, a childhood and still became the man he did. That's interesting. That's down to choice, that's not isolation. ...And that's interesting.
And on the other hand.Spoilers for TDK
There's Rachel, who knows Bruce, knows about Batman and tells him they can be together ...after Batman. Bruce is indicated to be in love with her, to love her and want to be with her.
And he still makes the choice to continue to be Batman.
That? Is interesting.
no subject
Date: 2008-08-01 04:53 pm (UTC)In TDK, that note? Broke me into little pieces. With or without what happened to that note and why. Broke me.
no subject
Date: 2008-08-04 11:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-08-05 02:39 am (UTC)In other words, kill it, kill it with FIRE.
The rest of the original LoM is definitely worth tracking down. I'm hoping it'll get released on DVD here soon. *crosses fingers*