Leaqio.com
SecondWindGroup from patreon
SecondWindGroup patreon

[COLUMN] In The Caped Crusader, the Real Villain is Gotham | by Darren Mooney

🕑 Added 2024-08-02 14:00:15 +0000 UTC

Comments

Brian Pemberton

Something I really loved was the inversion of the use of Two-Face's face. Historically, they show the unscarred face when Two-Face is being nice, and the monstrous face when he's being monstrous. But in the Caped Crusader, the monstrous face is pensive and, if not well meaning, at the very least aware of the consequences of his actions. It's the beautiful side that is narcissistic and cruel.

Darren Mooney

Yep. Although I do hope they do bring in more B-, C- and D-list players like Firebug and Onomatapeia.

Darren Mooney

Yep. I found it very charming.

Darren Mooney

Interestingly, I'd argue "The Batman" still circles around the Waynes. You have the Riddler's obsession with Thomas Wayne and the tease that he might even be Bruce's half-brother. And then the whole Falcone/Thomas Wayne angle stuff. In terms of Marvel and DC, I think it's worth considering how the universes were created in the comics. Allowing for exceptions like Cap and Namor, the bulk of the MCU was created by Lee/Ditko/Kirby in the 1960s intended to fit together from the beginning. So it makes sense that they all cohere relatively well. In contrast, DC was created piecemeal. Originally, Batman, Superman and Wonder Woman didn't share a continuity. And then you had the addition of Barry and Hal in the 1950s. Then you had characters who weren't created by DC, but were bought from rival companies - like Shazam or the Atom or the Question. So, I think it makes sense that those don't always mesh cleanly. More broadly, though, there's also the studio thing. Disney is a very corporate studio, interested in itself as a brand and fitting everything within that. Jon Favreau is Disney's go-to auteur, to illustrate the point. I got no issue with Favreau. He seems lovely. But he doesn't exactly scream "guy with a strong perspective on the world." In contrast, Warner Bros. have historically been more creator-driven. More trusting of artists. They are home to Eastwood. They were home to Nolan and Kubrick. They fostered long-term creative relationships with people like Bradley Cooper. They generally trusted artists. So, as a result, their stronger stuff tends to be more driven by individual perspectives.

Darren Mooney

To be fair, I'd disagree with the argument Bruce has historically been underserved. I know people point to the two Tim Burton "Batman" movies as an example, but I love that version of Bruce as a sort of inverse Burton protagonist. He's surrounded by the kinds of weirdos and freaks that typically populate Burton movies, but he's ultimately a normal guy who tries to express his inner freak. ("You're just jealous cause I'm a real freak and you have to wear a mask!" "You might be right.") I think that's a fun and interesting angle on the character, one that stands apart from the tortured orphan and gritty urban vigilante that is the default. He's one of Burton's most interesting lead characters because of that, and one that I think about a lot. That shot of Bruce waiting in his study for the Bat-signal to come on "Batman Returns" tells me more about him as a character than I know about, say, the internal psychology of Mark Ruffalo's Hulk. And the Nolan "Batman" movies are very firmly rooted in Bruce's internal psychology. I think "Batman Begins" is maybe the best superhero origin story ever, because it really commits to the idea of "... what would it take for a guy to think that this was a good idea?" and it explores how a man could get to the point where creating "Batman" seems like a rational act. And then "The Dark Knight" is about Bruce reckoning with what he has created, and realising that he's trapped himself within a monster that he has built. As such, I do tend to - personally - treat "The Caped Crusader" as the exception rather than the rule. And I think that adds to the show's novelty. Its disinterest in Bruce isn't part of a larger pattern, but a deviation from it.

Darren Mooney

Oh yeah. The beauty about comic books is that they are populated with archetypes and metaphors, built on symbolism and imagery, and so lend themselves to this sort of abstract storytelling, where watching two people in costumes pummelling one another takes on a sort of mythic resonance. After all, Superman is the ultimate American, for example. It's something I love about the superhero genre.

Andrew Shugg

I love the art direction in this series. The look and feel of the world and the characters is gorgeous! The sense of huge space everywhere is incredible - Gotham sprawls, and its civic buildings, mansions and even utilitarian spaces are cavernously large. Yet the land is not choked with development - outside the city proper, there is a lot of natural space between features. It is like Gotham is too big for the influence of Man to have any lasting effect upon her. Buildings may be blown up or burned down, but the city stands unchanged. There were some interesting and deliberate animation choices, with all the people walking or running with almost comically short steps - not shuffling, but looking like their strides could not cover much ground - I think that accentuated their smallness within the massive scenes. This all leads me to agree with you, Darren - THIS Gotham is a villain, a chaos, an entropy that can be pushed back but never beaten. I enjoyed the few Easter eggs that I spotted - I'm sure there were many more - with the reference to Dozier Street delighting me the most (William Dozier directed the 1966 Batman TV series and spin-off movie). Looking forward to Season 2, where we will see the Joker, and the likely return of Harley Quinn and Catwoman.

Aaron Von Seggern

Really enjoyed how the series worked like a warm blanket delivery system for the majority of the season with a sprinkle of radical ideas throughout

Precious Roy

There is one adaptation that didn't labor over Bruce's backstory - The Batman. The movie shows us how he feels about an orphaned boy and lets us fill in the rest, which I absolutely loved it for. Also, with this show, and the HBO Harley Quinn, and even the Suicide Squad Isekai anime, it seems like DC is content to let all these parallel universes exist as their own thing, rather than trying to stitch them all together the way Marvel has done. Any thoughts on how it's been working so far?

Jesus

One of the criticisms that some people have with the series is the lack of screen time the titular character has. Which begs the question is Batman the least interesting character in a story? In most of the live action movies he not the focus in many of them and is overshadowed by the villains. Barbara in this series is probably the most interesting character with her being a lawyer and being in conflict with her father.

Ryallen

Batman's supervillains work really well as an analogy for the various issues that plague Gotham: Penguin represents the corrupt elite, Two-Face represents the corruption and incompetence of the legal system, Poison Ivy represents the environmental issues that Gotham faces, Dr. Freeze represents the abuse of scientific advancement, and Catwoman represents the allure and appeal of crime (in that so many of her depictions make her out to be a professional thief, someone who steals to pay her bills and make a living rather than out of some sense of sadism or thrill.) Joker represents the pure chaos and danger the city presents at all times and I would argue is a symbol that Gotham, as a city, is beyond saving. Other villains brought in could stand in as other issues that Batman will have to face, like Ra'as al Ghul serving as an allegory for the age and inflexibility of Gotham's societal systems or Killer Croc/Grundy being the criminal world's muscle and violent underbelly


More Creators