Post by Jack Napier on Jun 7, 2007 22:00:56 GMT -5
Split from: Batman+%26+The+Nature+of+Guns
I may be opening a can of worms here, but I thought I might throw this one out for discussion.
I was reviewing the 1939 comics today. In the famous story that pits Batman against the Mad Monk, Batman shoots the Monk with silver bullets and proclaims, "Never again will you harm any mortal being!"
Of course, one can argue that the Monk is a vampire and already dead, but throughout these early comics, Batman seems to be more than just an early version of the Punisher (a character who kills just about any criminal he encounters). When he kills in these stories, it is usually by accident when he's trying to defend himself or someone else (to which he doesn't feel bothered about it since they probably "deserved it" from his standpoint).
The best example is probably in Detective Comics #27, he punches Alfred Stryker, who is about to claim his final victim. From the blow, Stryker trips back and falls into a vat of chemicals, to which Batman responds is a "fitting end for his kind."
In very rare cases does he attack with the intent to kill (i.e. The Monk and Dala, and Dr. Hugo Strange's Monster Men) and when it is, it is so that they will "never harm any human being."
Another related case is arguably in Batman Begins where Batman tells Ra's Al Ghul, "I won't kill you. But I don't have to save you" and leaves him on the train that's about to derail.
There's been a lot of argument surrounding this on message boards I've been to. Some believe Batman contradicted himself and his previous declaration "I'm no executioner. " Others believed that he did not.
An argument I hear sometime that supports Batman's decision in the movie is that Batman had saved him before when Ra's was Ducard and realized that if he didn't, then it wouldn't have gotten this far. So in refusing to save Ra's from certain death this time, he knew that he'd be preventing further acts from the League of Shadows.
This argument seems quite similar to the rationale of the 1939 Batman.
Of course there are other examples throughout comic book history that seem to allude to this original interpretation. Batman's relationship with Joker in A Death in the Family (in which he leaves the wounded Joker on the helicopter that's about to crash, instead of dragging him out to join him), The Dark Knight Returns, and Hush (both of which have a Batman intent on ending the Joker's reign and implying that if he had killed Joker years ago, then he could've saved countless lives).
There's also the idea that Batman doesn't mind it when others kill criminals.
In Year One, Gordon kills some of the mobsters who try to kidnap his wife. Batman never refers to it. And I imagine that Gordon- as a cop- has had to resort to killing criminals when he was unable to use anything else to defend himself or defend someone else.
Batman's willingness to stand by and allow Superman to kill Lex Luthor (and then cover it up to look like an accident) in the first arc of Superman/Batman.
I also don't have a specific example for this one, but I haven't found anything that has Batman against the death penalty of the people that he's brought in. Now, obviously there's a difference between a criminal dying in the electric chair and a criminal dying at Batman's hands. Many would probably say that Batman wants the law to enforce justice, rather than him. However, Batman- as a vigilante- isn't exactly abiding by the law. He sees that there's a line between "true justice" and the "justice system" that can be corrupted or ineffective when the guilty go free. He doesn't use warrants and he breaks into houses. He doesn't mind assaulting and threatening criminals to get what he wants. He takes evidence from the police. In fact, one could say that Batman exists because he finds the justice system ineffective (implied in the comics when the Waynes' killer was unknown; used as a plot point in Batman Begins).
I know that a majority of Batman fans are for the anti-killing Batman, but I'm just curious what people think of an interpretation of the Batman who is not against having criminals die.
I may be opening a can of worms here, but I thought I might throw this one out for discussion.
I was reviewing the 1939 comics today. In the famous story that pits Batman against the Mad Monk, Batman shoots the Monk with silver bullets and proclaims, "Never again will you harm any mortal being!"
Of course, one can argue that the Monk is a vampire and already dead, but throughout these early comics, Batman seems to be more than just an early version of the Punisher (a character who kills just about any criminal he encounters). When he kills in these stories, it is usually by accident when he's trying to defend himself or someone else (to which he doesn't feel bothered about it since they probably "deserved it" from his standpoint).
The best example is probably in Detective Comics #27, he punches Alfred Stryker, who is about to claim his final victim. From the blow, Stryker trips back and falls into a vat of chemicals, to which Batman responds is a "fitting end for his kind."
In very rare cases does he attack with the intent to kill (i.e. The Monk and Dala, and Dr. Hugo Strange's Monster Men) and when it is, it is so that they will "never harm any human being."
Another related case is arguably in Batman Begins where Batman tells Ra's Al Ghul, "I won't kill you. But I don't have to save you" and leaves him on the train that's about to derail.
There's been a lot of argument surrounding this on message boards I've been to. Some believe Batman contradicted himself and his previous declaration "I'm no executioner. " Others believed that he did not.
An argument I hear sometime that supports Batman's decision in the movie is that Batman had saved him before when Ra's was Ducard and realized that if he didn't, then it wouldn't have gotten this far. So in refusing to save Ra's from certain death this time, he knew that he'd be preventing further acts from the League of Shadows.
This argument seems quite similar to the rationale of the 1939 Batman.
Of course there are other examples throughout comic book history that seem to allude to this original interpretation. Batman's relationship with Joker in A Death in the Family (in which he leaves the wounded Joker on the helicopter that's about to crash, instead of dragging him out to join him), The Dark Knight Returns, and Hush (both of which have a Batman intent on ending the Joker's reign and implying that if he had killed Joker years ago, then he could've saved countless lives).
There's also the idea that Batman doesn't mind it when others kill criminals.
In Year One, Gordon kills some of the mobsters who try to kidnap his wife. Batman never refers to it. And I imagine that Gordon- as a cop- has had to resort to killing criminals when he was unable to use anything else to defend himself or defend someone else.
Batman's willingness to stand by and allow Superman to kill Lex Luthor (and then cover it up to look like an accident) in the first arc of Superman/Batman.
I also don't have a specific example for this one, but I haven't found anything that has Batman against the death penalty of the people that he's brought in. Now, obviously there's a difference between a criminal dying in the electric chair and a criminal dying at Batman's hands. Many would probably say that Batman wants the law to enforce justice, rather than him. However, Batman- as a vigilante- isn't exactly abiding by the law. He sees that there's a line between "true justice" and the "justice system" that can be corrupted or ineffective when the guilty go free. He doesn't use warrants and he breaks into houses. He doesn't mind assaulting and threatening criminals to get what he wants. He takes evidence from the police. In fact, one could say that Batman exists because he finds the justice system ineffective (implied in the comics when the Waynes' killer was unknown; used as a plot point in Batman Begins).
I know that a majority of Batman fans are for the anti-killing Batman, but I'm just curious what people think of an interpretation of the Batman who is not against having criminals die.
I feel that Bruce Wayne wants justice to take the place of lawlessness in Gotham. He's offended by the lack of speed in the corrupt and burreacratic justice system, so, in an effort to uphold the law, he takes it into his own hands. This contradiction is one of the elements of the Dark Knight that makes him such a fascinating character. He bends the rules, but seldom does he break them... Save, for his instances of murder...
