Batman: Antihero or Hero?

[storyteller]

Batman is a hero with a darker side then most. He is by no means a boyscout, but good ol supes does more damage then the dark knight.

 

[Keyser Sushi]

Batman is a hero with a darker side then most.

It's THAN, dammit. A darker side THAN most. Not then. THAN.

"Then" denotes a point in time. "He fell down, and THEN I laughed. "Than" is a comparitive term. "Sue is taller THAN Jane."

Get it? Got it? No you don't.

 

[7Hells]

Main villain? The main villain is Hans Gruber, played by Alan Rickman. The Bruce is the hero. He kills the bad guys.

Yes, I think you misunderstood. Bruce was brutal with a bunch of bad guys we werent emotionally invested in. Not the main villian. I cant think of many heros in movies that brutalize the main enemy when we and the hero have an emotional investment. He may rough them up a bit, but in the end, its usually a bloody nose, or clean death and justice is served because the hero is portrayed as being beyond the type of violence the main villian is capable of. In the end, for most movie heros, it comes down to self defense.
Batman may try to be beyond violence but his actions state otherwise. Its how he serves his justice.

He'll KO them, hog tie them and leave them for the cops. He'll drag someone like the Joker back to Arkham in one piece, perhaps a bit bloodied but all in one piece.

Thats pretty much my point. Batman has less control over his "justice" than the squeeky saint image of which he was molded after. Thats the difference of his creation compared to Superman and why him being a realistic superhero works. He has reason for it and that reason is a dark one that makes him do dark things.

The beating that Batman administers is not part of the justice.

Its not part of societies justice but it is part of his justice. The heavy handed submition is all Batman. Whereas Superman has no need to become as violent as Batman he also chooses not to because he doesnt have the same personal drive for such acts as Batman. There are no real demons in Supermans past besides his parents abandoning him which is why he will never abandon "us" and is why he usually takes pity, unlike Batman, on his opponents while defeating them.

Probably because salvation is an issue that is very personal to him as well... Batman is the way he holds on to his humanity... by turning his pain into something constructive and useful to society.

Which is also the reason he goes too far at times. Its also the reason, at his conception, he had no problem killing his opponents and now has no problem administering pain to his opponents. Especially the opponents we are, as is he, emotionally invested in which is depicted opposite with movie heros.

So yes, Batman and Superman are very opposite in many key ways... and yet, Batman was created to be the new Superman. It's a fact.

Just like its a fact Batman was an antihero at conception.

 

[7Hells]

It's THAN, dammit. A darker side THAN most. Not then. THAN.

He is just being a poo face to you, storyteller, because he is too much of a gentlemen to take it out on me and Keyser is known for his sarcastic debates

 

[Keyser Sushi]

Yes, I think you misunderstood. Bruce was brutal with a bunch of bad guys we werent emotionally invested in. Not the main villian. I cant think of many heros in movies that brutalize the main enemy when we and the hero have an emotional investment. He may rough them up a bit, but in the end, its usually a bloody nose, or clean death and justice is served because the hero is portrayed as being beyond the type of violence the main villian is capable of. In the end, for most movie heros, it comes down to self defense.

Hrmmm... so you're saying that Hans being shot and dropped out a window was less brutal than the other deaths... okay, I might grant that... but I think a "boss fight" as it were always has to set itself apart because it is the culmination of the conflict thus far. It needs to be more personal in some way. Technically it's not too different from the way Ra's went out in Batman Begins... they fought a while but it was a stalemate, until Batman parachuted out of the train and let Ra's take the 6 o'clock to hell. So at least in terms of the filmic incarnation of Batman, this would seem to be consistent. In Batman '89 Batman dropped Joker off a roof (accidentally, of course). In comic books Batman drops most guys with a single punch -- the only exceptions being the brawlers like Bane or Croc, or the occasionally Ninja psycho like the KGBeast.

Batman may try to be beyond violence but his actions state otherwise. Its how he serves his justice.

I don't think Batman tries to be beyond violence at all. I think violence is his tool and he uses it. Sometimes I wonder if what you and I are disagreeing on at the core here is the question of whether or not violence can ever be noble or heroic.

Thats pretty much my point. Batman has less control over his "justice" than the squeeky saint image of which he was molded after. Thats the difference of his creation compared to Superman and why him being a realistic superhero works. He has reason for it and that reason is a dark one that makes him do dark things.

If by less control you mean he lacks supernatural powers, I agree. On the other hand fighting well is a science unto itself, and Batman is nothing if not a control freak. But I do agree that there is an inherent darkness and roughness to what Batman does. But that's real and I like that type of story. Does this make him less a hero?

Its not part of societies justice but it is part of his justice. The heavy handed submition is all Batman. Whereas Superman has no need to become as violent as Batman he also chooses not to because he doesnt have the same personal drive for such acts as Batman. There are no real demons in Supermans past besides his parents abandoning him which is why he will never abandon "us" and is why he usually takes pity, unlike Batman, on his opponents while defeating them.

The Batman I know feels both pity and compassion. He is nasty to nasty people, but he always wants to help them... he is good to children, he is smooth with ladies, he is at all times the coolest man in the room.

Which is also the reason he goes too far at times. Its also the reason, at his conception, he had no problem killing his opponents and now has no problem administering pain to his opponents. Especially the opponents we are, as is he, emotionally invested in which is depicted opposite with movie heros.

I agree with part of this and disagree with part of it. LOL. I agree that Bruce needing Batman as an avenue of salvation or completeness gives him the opening to cross the line now and then.

You know, people talk about a moral tightrope as if it's something to be avoided, but the truth is that morality IS a tightrope. Anything basically good that people do can be done for the right or the wrong reasons. Some actions are clearly always wrong - molesting children, for example, is evil no matter how you cut it. Killing a person is a more subjective act... that is to say that there is murder, and there is self-defense, and beyond that, there is the much higher call, which is protecting the innocent. Again the example of Die Hard - McClane had no real alternatives but doing what he did. Killing those terrorists was unpleasant, but it was also quite necessary in the view of the greater good. He saved all those hostages by blowing those bad guys away. There was no other way to do it, because the bad guys weren't interested in negotiating and they weren't planning to release anybody. So killing in that setting was necessary.

And the problem of course - the tightrope aspect - is that once you give yourself liscense to kill for any reason, the next time it's easier to be all, "well, I felt it was necessary," until one day you find yourself going, "well, I thought it was necessary to strangulate that baby with dental floss because I was convinced that he was the spawn of the devil and needed to be slain for the greater good."

LOL. So yes, if Batman is operating on his own moral code, there is a chance of crossing a line or bending his own rules in a way that compromises what is right. As in "Begins," he was rather reckless escaping from the cops because he wanted to save Rachel and the cops were in his way. And as Alfred reminded him, "what you're doing can't be personal." But of course it can't help being personal, he's a person and a victim.

So obviously I agree with you thus far. The part I disagree with is the assessment of his handling of villains in which we are invested... That is to say, in his earliest incarnations, he killed the bad guys... often death by dropping, LOL... which is quite consistent with the cinematic deaths of major baddies. Does that necessarily make him less a hero than John McClane?

That period of Batman's existence was quite brief, too... since then he has been strictly in favor of not killing his enemies. That being the case, I would say it requires a lot of strength (of character) not to kill a freak like the Joker, but instead to try and help him. I certainly can't say that's particularly anti-heroic behavior.

Just like its a fact Batman was an antihero at conception.

LOL. Possibly. The killings he did in those early stories... give me some examples of context. Did he hunt them down and execute them because they were scum, or did he kill them because the writers, who were not particularly great, did not know how else to resolve the stories, which were not particularly great?

 

[Keyser Sushi]

He is just being a poo face to you, storyteller, because he is too much of a gentlemen to take it out on me and Keyser is known for his sarcastic debates

I admit I don't have it in me to be nasty to you. But to be fair, the "then / than" thing IS one of my pet peeves.

And the phrase "poo face" amuses me. I may have a new custom status.

 

[7Hells]

But I do agree that there is an inherent darkness and roughness to what Batman does. But that's real and I like that type of story. Does this make him less a hero?

I think this is actually where we misunderstand each other.

Batman being an antihero makes him more of a hero to me.

He could have went the other way.
Batman was a villian that made the right choice. That, to me, makes him more of a hero. He wasnt granted some incredible power that could do good. He did it out of pure choice against the normal decision of characters with the same background who chose the opposite.

For me Batman originated the word antihero. There were two incarnations one more anti and Batman the more hero. Since Batman is the only one left today he is the original antihero and so all my definitions of antihero derive from him.

And the phrase "poo face" amuses me. I may have a new custom status.

lol

The rest I will reply to tomorrow as my head is filled with the TV show Heroes

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

I agree, as an audience, we are so eager to relish in the victory of our hero getting the bad guy we disregard the lengths he takes it at times. And Batman always takes it further than any superhero from his era and most superheros in general.

And I think it's b/c of that, really, that ultimately....the Batman is an anti-hero.

I mean, no....he doesn't kill. But, I think he does just enough to still count as an Anti-hero.

I could definitely see the logic to saying the Frank Miller-style Batman is an anti-hero (hell, DKR Batman definitely is). And in continuity, Batman did definitely degrade into that. But now, DC's starting to try and shift away from that more extreme and unlikable characterization so, hell, he may be switching back to hero again.

Good point.

But, I have a feeling his characterization will probably get toned down in terms of how he plays out with his allies. I mean, he's been different now with Tim, for example. And even with Bullock (a convo he had, which a year ago Batman would never have ever done) and even with the new Cop he met during the FACE THE FACE arc.

But, I think his approach and tactics toward his enimies will probably remain the same.

Still, the whole definition of anti-hero is very much up to interpretation. My dictionary defines it as "A main character in a dramatic or narrative work who is characterized by a lack of traditional heroic qualities, such as idealism or courage." Traditional heroic qualities could mean anything. Batman's definitely courageous, and belives in the sanctity of life, and law and order, and all of that stuff, so by that standard, I'd say any version outside of DKR would be a hero

Well, The Punisher and Wolverine both have courage.....and, I think Wolvie has a sense of idealism since running with the X-Men.

But, really....Batman isn't exactly your traditional hero, I think. He's darker, scarier....really.....he'd probably seem more like a villian to some, just in the aura he surrounds himself.

Funny thing too, Batman is sometimes a contradictory character. I mean, yeah...he believes in law and justice.....yet he still does his vigilante thing.

My opinion is, Batman is most likely the most heroic anti-hero in comics. While he has done heroic things, and genuinely wants to help, there will always be different interpetations to his actions. To me, the character is a complete study on contradictions.

Agreed.

He's basically as close to the light side that a dark hero can get, I think....while still being the very much dark hero.

As for his tatics--I do think that his practices should be a bit extreme, I think he should be the guy who's willing to break a guy's arm to find out who killed someone or where the latest escaped supervillian is hiding.

Oh......I think he is. Just enough to not kill the guy.

Batman is a hero with a darker side then most. He is by no means a boyscout, but good ol supes does more damage then the dark knight.

What do you mean?

 

[Keyser Sushi]

I think this is actually where we misunderstand each other.

Batman being an antihero makes him more of a hero to me.

LOL! Well what's funny is I love anti-heroes... hell the characters in my books tend to be anti-heroes. My favorite comic hero is Batman... but I love Punisher and Wolverine and all the roughnecks. They're my guys. But to me Batman isn't so much like the anti-heroes I use to define the term. To me, anti-heroes are a bit nastier than Batman. I don't even read guys like Superman, I've no time for heroes like that. I do like Spiderman, primarily because it sucks to be Spider-Man and that's relatable. It sucks to be most of us.

But I think that's what it comes down to. I like my heroes to be human. Relatable. Superman isn't relatable. He's an ideal, and an ideal that I respect and love, but he's not relatable to me and that makes him less interesting as far as I'm concerned. But just being flawed and pissy isn't enough to make a guy an anti-hero in my book. If it was ,there'd be no real-life heroes.

He could have went the other way.
Batman was a villian that made the right choice. That, to me, makes him more of a hero. He wasnt granted some incredible power that could do good. He did it out of pure choice against the normal decision of characters with the same background who chose the opposite.

Yeah, he did, and I agree. It makes him more of a hero than the Punisher, for instance. That's why I classify Batman as a hero. Because to me, even as human as he is, he's still idealized. He's a consummate athlete, a master detective, an escape artist, illusionist, forensic scientist, ninja master, and McGyver all rolled into one. He's as powerful as a normal human being could ever get. And he's got a moral center, to boot. As you say, he makes right choices most of the time.

For me Batman originated the word antihero. There were two incarnations one more anti and Batman the more hero. Since Batman is the only one left today he is the original antihero and so all my definitions of antihero derive from him.

You ever wonder whether we're arguing over something like whether a quarter has George Washington on the front or an eagle on the back? Because I think we like the same stuff about the character, but we use the same stuff to gravitate to separate sides of the same coin. I dunno. The analogy may be flawed but you'll understand.

lol

The rest I will reply to tomorrow as my head is filled with the TV show Heroes

LOL. I must be the only comic geek in the world who doesn't watch that show.

Anyway, I'll be looking forward to the rest of your response. And look, now we've split it in half. It's replicating!

 

[bdsproductions]

a anti-hero.

 

[Qoèlet]

Hero. Right to the core. So what if he scares people, beats on them: that's HOW he brings them to justice. If he wanted to bring justice to them himself, he'd have killed half of them long ago. He DOES think that the Joker deserves to die, but he chooses to let the criminal justice system deal with him. This is a man that strictly adheres to a sense of justice. Imagine this: if Batman had Superman's powers, he wouldn't need to be so violent. I'd submit that if he had Superman's powers he would do things like Superman does... except smarter. The differences between their methodologies are superficial: Batman's still on the side of the angels, even if he won't admit it. You know this, if for no other reason than that the big blue boyscout actually works with him, is FRIENDS with him. Superman has the most acute moral compass in the universe: if he thought Batman's actions were anything but heroic, he would take him down. Period. Such is Superman's purity.

That's not to say the man doesn't have flaws, lots of flaws, but flaws don't make an anti-hero. If they did, there would be no such thing as a hero in literature outside of Superman comics. He might be tempted to do dark things from time to time, but he doesn't. And despite what anyone might say, his motives are not dark. He doesn't want vengeance: that's nonsense. He wants justice, he wants a better world. If he was your antihero, he wouldn't risk his life every night to make the world a better place.

 

[Arach Knight]

Anti-Heroes are always people who have their own agenda and are usually neutral in position. However, when a concious call must be made, they tend to side with good. Batman is a far cry from being one of those people. I wouldn't even label Punisher as an anti-hero. A hard ass maybe, but not an anti-hero. He does unlawful actions for the sake of good (which most people commonly confuse with being an anti hero) but he is ALWAYS the good guy. A true anti-hero, would be Spawn. He is an agent of hell, he isn't on their side. He isn't on heavens side either however, he merely objects to the servitude of hell and its lords. But, when the moment arrives, Spawn does act heroically when necessary. But again, I stress that he is on neither heaven or hell's side. His actions are mostly personally driven (at least in the original Spawn books). Another anti-hero who is a bit closer to home, would be Black Adam. Obviously good enough to have been chosen as a champion, but harsh enough to be abandoned as the chosen champion of Shazam. But as seen in Black Reign, Adam is capable of good, even if it was selfishly driven (liberating his own homeland where his family is buried).

Batman has a fairly strict code about killing people, even though Batman acts on vengance. He always saves the innocents, even when it is not to his advantage. Batman also has one crucial difference. He works in conjunction with the law. He may not be an actual police member, but his closeness with the Gotham Police department, speaks volumes for his actions and characterization. So much so, that nobody but the mayor and the Commissioner are allowed to touch the Bat Signal. This shows how much trust and acceptance there is for Batman. At best, you could classify Batman as a vigilante. But I woldn't say anti-hero.

 

[Rynan]

Hero. Batman inspires hope within the people of Gotham city. He protects them from the evils of crime. While he strikes terror in the hearts of criminals, the innocent have no need to fear him. He saves children, the homeless and all of Gotham's citzens.

And that is what makes him a hero.

 

[Buttman]

Hero.

Anyone who says different doesn't understand the character.

...

IMO, of course.

 

[storyteller]

It's THAN, dammit. A darker side THAN most. Not then. THAN.

"Then" denotes a point in time. "He fell down, and THEN I laughed. "Than" is a comparitive term. "Sue is taller THAN Jane."

Get it? Got it? No you don't.

I find you your post a waste of batmans time. I say darker side THEN most.

 

[Texas Zombie]

he doesnt kill people like the punisher

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Anti-Heroes can inspire courage and justice.

To be an Anit-Hero.....you don't need to kill.

 

[Keyser Sushi]

I find you your post a waste of batmans time. I say darker side THEN most.

You're the reason 75% of the people I meet at work every day are unable to operate a plastic bag.

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Yeah, those plastic bags can be tricky. I mean, those things kill like..a millions animals every year. We need to bring those ****ers to justice, I say.

 

[Sandman138]

This is part of another argument I made in a different thread, but it sums up my perspective on the character.

Batman will never be a superhero to me. Superheroes are, at their core, ideological paragons; if Superman stands for the American way, it is because the man-who-is-more-than-man understands that way, and by extension those who implement it, to be inherently right. Likewise, Captian America not only legitimizes the ideology of America, but of militray supperiority, while Captain Marvel legitimizes the supperiority of Western Civilization. They are designed, from their appearence to their motives, to be infallible, thus making what they stand for unimpeachable as well. Captian America's costume is the American flag, and his indistructable shield protects him from all that would threaten it. Superman fights for truth, justice, and the American way because he understands these things to be inherently right. Batman is much more complex.

Let's start with his costume. Sure, it fits the general blueprint for a superhero costume, but it's of a bat. He doesn't dress the way he does to inspire veneration, but rather to strike terror. More to the point, he assumes the role of a monster and phantom to accomplish his ends. His totemistic representation carries with it connotations of malevolence within Occidental mythology. Now, most argue that he only does this to scare criminals, but there are two things wrong with this argument: the first is what he represents regardless of his motives, the seconed is that I will argue his motives themselves are far from righteous.

To start with the first problem, regardless of who he intends to terrorize, his entire identity is a horrific one. His macabre nature disturbs even those who trust him. So it doesn't matter who he wants to be a monster to, because in the end he is a monster to everybody.

Batman's motives, however, are what seperate him most from the definition of a superhero. While Superman does what he does because it's the right thing to do, and Spider-Man does it out of a sense of repentance, Batman does it for retribution.

He is driven by a desire for vengeance. He couldn't find retribution from the man who killed his parents, so every night he becomes a monster and preys on criminals who take that man's place. Like The Shadow, it's not only about stopping criminals, it is about giving them nightmares for the rest of their lives. On another level, it's psychosexual. Batman is more or less a man-child. His obbsession with his mission took away a chance for him to develop into a fully functioning adult. He may be rationally intelligent without peer, but emotionally he is incredibly unstable. So he creates a routine that includes a variety of expressions for what he can't do as himself: dress up/role play/fetish (and the role he chooses hides in the dark; his fetish, the object that he siphons his desires into is the icon of a bat), and domination (otherwise known as control). Such motivations are selfish ones, and though he may protect the innocent and accomplish heroic deeds, I don't believe that is the reason why he goes out every night to hide in the shadows among the depraved.

So, if Batman is not a superhero, what is he? First and foremost, he is a detective, and, as Sherlock Holmes was, a testament to the rational mind (I should also point out that though Holmes's intellect was marvelous and his mission just, he was also an opium addict). He also has a great deal in common with the heroes of the pulp serializations and the Western "hero in a black hat".

He is definatly an anti-hero.

 

[7Hells]

That post fits much better in this thread Sandman.

teehee, made ya look my loverly poo face!!

 

[Sandman138]

That post fits much better in this thread Sandman.

teehee, made ya look my loverly poo face!!

Yeah, deathfromabove isn't gonna comment and I'm starting to grate on nerves over there. But goddamnit, I wanna ****ing debate! I've been waiting for like a day now.

 

[trustyside-kick]

I've always seen that Batman had a lot of traits of an Anti-Hero but I still voted for Hero. He doesn't have enough of the traits to be defined as one in my opinion.

 

[Keyser Sushi]

teehee, made ya look my loverly poo face!!

Yes, sweetie. Yes you did.

 

[Keyser Sushi]

This is part of another argument I made in a different thread, but it sums up my perspective on the character.

Wow. That was a very good piece, now that I have read it. I disagree with half of it, but it's good and well thought-out. The main part I disagree with is your assessment of Batman's motives.

The Batman I know is not frightening to the innocent. Part of what he does by making himself a symbol (Batman Begins made a point of stating it, but it's always been true in the comics and in TAS, as well) is that as a symbol he is something for the innocent to rally around. He's their protector, an avenging angel of the night. They cheer for him because he protects them from evil.

Look, gargoyles look demonic but they are meant as protective totems to frighten away evil spirits... because all creatures feel fear... especially the scary ones.

He is definatly an anti-hero.

No, he is a hero, a symbol of hope, safety and protection to the innocent, a symbol of retribution to the guilty. Much like the police are intended to be (though these days it seems the innocent have an irrational fear of them as well... WTF?)