Saturday, December 31, 2011

Fuck Yeah Dick Grayson!, Bruce’s actions as Batman are extremely...

Bruce’s actions as Batman are extremely oppositional — He might be the World’s Greatest Detective, but overall he’s a crimefighter, and everything he does, from his training in martial arts right down to his costume, are built on physicality and intimidation. Robin, however, is rooted in an entirely different philosophy. Batman’s there to fight against crime for taking away his parents, but Robin’s role has barely anything to do with getting revenge against Boss Maroni for killing the Flying Graysons. He’s not there for vengeance, he’s there to help.
I think it’s actually a pretty poetic element that ties their actions into their origins: If Bruce had been a massive, intimidating martial artist who knew seven ways to disarm a thug from any position — one of which hurts — then he could’ve saved his parents from getting gunned down. All Dick Grayson’s parents needed, however, was a safety net.
Fuck Yeah Dick Grayson!, Bruce’s actions as Batman are extremely...

Monday, December 26, 2011

Fuck Yeah Dick Grayson!


He’s lost his family in a way that perfectly echoes the tragedy that drives Batman, but with one crucial difference: When Bruce Wayne’s parents died, there was no Batman to help him. When Dick Grayson’s parents die, there is.

Batman doesn’t just help Dick track down the guy who killed his parents, he adopts him. He takes him in. Batman takes the place of his family, and in doing so, Batman also takes the first step in rebuilding his own family. And as a result, in one of the most brilliant evolutions of a character ever, Dick Grayson grows up to be a very different person than Bruce Wayne.

Wednesday, December 7, 2011

Robin is Necessary to the Batman Franchise...

...if you want the franchise to be about Batman.
__________________________________________________________________________________

     Why is it that the Batman movies always end up focusing on the development of the villains, no matter who's directing the franchise? People find evil more fascinating than good, the villain/anti-hero more intriguing than the hero, at least in our culture people see good as static, unchanging, you know, "Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way." However I believe that one series, Naruto, has shown that to not necessarily be true. Also, the villain in each movie is a new character whose development is unknown. Basically there is stuff going on in the character's life that is plot worthy. Changes in his or her perspective, choices to be made, etc. The Batman problem is that once you move beyond the early years of Batman's career, there's something of a... plateau in his character. While he does face new enemies and new situations, once Batman/Bruce Wayne has figured out how he wants to be Batman, he's in a rut until something comes to shake him up.

     The most obvious way to shake up Batman's life is to introduce a new love interest, preferably one that has dubious morals. Many writers have this done excellently with characters such as Catwoman, Andrea Beaumont, and Talia al Ghul (Whom I greatly dislike, but that's another post entirely. Let it suffice to say that her character serves its purpose.). However, Batman has mastered the art of love 'em and leave 'em (not to say that he hasn't been left as well). The problem here is that romantic dalliances are too easy to get rid of. Be an ass, get absorbed in "work", forget a few birthdays and monthly anniversaries, disappear in the middle of every other date, and basically be emotionally unavailable. It does hurt if Batman actually likes the person, but it's not hard to do, especially when he has a subconscious belief that he might not really deserve love working against him.

     The one life-shaking commitment that Batman hasn't been able to get rid of are his relationships with his sons, and I believe that an objective read through of the comics and the cartoons will show that Dick Grayson is the person who remade Batman into Bruce Wayne. Before bring Dick into his home, Bruce could disappear into the cowl, and there's nothing that anyone--even Alfred--could do about it. Bruce's reasoning seems to be that with both romantic assignations and parental relationships, the people involved are adults; they got into a relationship knowing who he is and what he's after, so whatever pain they feel at his choices, while regrettable, is their choice to experience. They walked in and they can walk right out. The same cannot be said for the young boy that Bruce first gave shelter to, and the love and responsibility that he feels for Dick turns his internal world upside down. There's nothing that any writer has added to the Batman mythos that's been as effective at throwing Batman out of his character rut as introducing Robin. It pains me that a certain director is so set against including Robin because it's "unrealistic" (as if a man dressing up as a bat and revolutionizing crime and law enforcement in crooked metropolis because his parents were killed in front of him at nine years old is realistic).

     That is not to say that I don't appreciate Mr. Nolan's vision; his Batman movies has completely revitalized the franchise and I love that he takes the story seriously, treats it like what it is-a story-and make the best story possible. If anyone can shake Batman up without Robin, it is Mr. Nolan, but--call me a doubter--I just don't think that's possible. And I do believe that that's why he is focusing on the beginning of Batman's career before he reaches that plateau that requires a Robin, when the shaping of Batman's identity is still very much  in flux. I believe however that it may leave the franchise... incomplete and I worry that the next director of the franchise will not approach the franchise with the same skill or gravity. I am looking forward to the Dark Knight Rises (in my mind I call it Inception 2), so really it's nothing more than a waiting game since Mr. Nolan's tenure is almost up.