How Bad Can It Be?: “Batman Year 100″

My primary brief, with How Bad Can It Be?, is to look at media product that for whatever reason — an unpromising premise, a poisoned reputation, a creator’s track record — gives me no reason to expect that it’ll be any good, and to try to give that work the benefit of the doubt. But occasionally, something comes along that, on paper at least, should work. The question then becomes, “What went wrong?” Such is the case with Paul Pope‘s Batman: Year 100 (DC Comics).

More powerful than a locomotive... wait, that's the other guy

The Batman, of course, is a hugely iconic property, and it’s easy to see why. Through all the various artistic takes and interpretations he remains a strangely inspirational figure; he’s One Man making A Difference, overcoming the trauma of his origins to recast himself as a protector of the weak, with no powers but his own indomitable will. For all that he is a terrifying badass, the Batman is perhaps the most lovable of superheroes, and his hard-edged altruism has proved a durable storytelling engine.

And Paul Pope? He’s your genuine comics rock star. From his earliest small-press works like THB and Escapo to more polished recent productions like Heavy Liquid and 100%, Pope has trafficked in SF adventure with an art-house sensibility. It’s bracing stuff — blazingly paced and compulsively readable, justifying the self-bestowed nickname “Pulphope,” shot through with smart speculative elements and moments of aching tenderness. And it’s all rendered in a kinetic, swaggering line, crackling with energy.

So when DC Comics announced that Pope would write and draw a four-issue miniseries re-imagining the Batman in a near-future setting — 2038, to be precise, 100 years after his debut in Detective Comics — it seemed like an aesthetic sure bet.

EGAD!

And yet it’s just sort of … blah. Oh, it’s a beautifully-rendered book, and it tells a perfectly competent quasi-military sci-fi story. The thing is, it’s not really a Batman story at all — it’s a Paul Pope story, all the way through.

The root of the problem, I think, is Pope’s politics. Like a lot of guys who started making good money at a young age, he leans Libertarian. Elements of his political philosophy have crept into his work before, but here they’re at odds with the underpinnings of his main character.

Christopher Nolan‘s Batman movies, especially The Dark Knight, keep the focus on the sacrifices that Bruce Wayne must make to protect the city he loves — letting go of the woman he loves, even taking the blame for a murder he didn’t commit, all for the greater good. But for the Libertarian — as for the Objectivist — the “greater good” is a sham, and sacrifice is for suckers.

Batman Year 100, like the earlier Heavy Liquid, plays out in a dystopian U.S. that has come under U.N. control. And who is the Big Bad? Let’s meet him.

Gasp! Horror! The White House is being run by a tea-sipping English bureaucrat! Who does a comical spit-take at the mention of the BAT-MAN OF GOTHAM! And why does the mere mention of that name cause this boutonniéred Euro-fop to hork his Oolong? Because the Batman is free — and therefore uncontrollable; in a world without privacy he keeps his secrets. And so Year 100 becomes that right-wing SF staple, a tale of One Man vs. The State. Foolish Mega-City Judges! YOU CANNOT STOP THE BAT-MAN OF GOTHAM!

Batman: Year 100 begins in the same way that The Dark Knight ends, with the Batman on the run from the cops. But Paul Pope’s Batman is only trying to protect his own interests. There’s a passing mention of his role as a vigilante, but we never actually see him fighting street crime, as such — only in taking down the government.

That’s a bad move. By keeping his public-spirited actions offscreen, Pope strips away any sense of the compassion driving the character — strips away, not to put too fine a point on it, his heroic qualities. He’s different from any other Pope protagonist only in that he’s got better gadgets.

FEAR THE WRATH OF JOHN GALT!

What’s funniest about all this is that Year 100 actually marks Pope’s second attempt to turn the Batman into an Objectivist superhero. Included in the collected edition is a reprinting of 1997′s “The Berlin Batman,” which imagines the caped crusader as Baruch Wane, a wealthy young Jew of pre-war Germany fighting — I swear I am not making this up — to keep the documents of arch-conservative economist Ludwig von Mises from falling into the hands of the Nazis. It’s every bit as bizarre and ham-fistedly doctrinaire as it sounds.

Theme and subject matter are fatally mismatched here. Rather than bringing anything new to the old warhorse, Pope has fundamentally misunderstood what made the character work in the first place. The core element of standing up for the little guy — obliquely as the philanthropist Bruce Wayne, directly as the Batman — is irredeemably distorted by the Libertarian ethos of “rational selfishness.” Indeed, one wonders what attracted Pope to the character in the first place. Most of us admire the Batman because he’s out to save the city he loves, armed only with bottomless reserves of determination; Paul Pope, it seems, digs him mostly because he’s good-looking and rich.

The Batman will survive this mistreatment. His myth remains intact even in the face of many different interpretations of his motives. Making him over into a capes-and-cowls diversion for the Ayn Rand set only serves, in the end, to damage Paul Pope. FOOLISH OBJECTIVISTS! YOU CAN LAY NO CLAIM TO THE BAT-MAN OF GOTHAM!

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]



  • http://www.popdose.com DwDunphy

    A wholesale character reimagining must maintain the core of what the character is in order to really sell the surrounding story. Painting Batman as a one-man army taking on the corrupt government, or even as a badass truancy guard picking up kids playing hooky and swatting them back to school, denies that core. It is something Nolan did beautifully: the hero is just the villain with the character flaw of conscience, if only a tiny bit.

    I pitched DC with an Elseworlds story concerning Superman. Superman is both immigrant and savior. That's his core, and almost every story concerning him that diverted from that core has rung hollow. So, the fact that the inhabitants of Krypton were truly alien, body-snatchers no less, was that their appearance on Earth meant they were literally putting humans on as skin-suits. Even though Kal-El has come to defeat his enemies (General Zod, et. al.) he is always aware that he has “killed” Clark Kent to assume his life, and that he's not only vanquishing enemies, but killing innocents at the same time.

    It won't work if Superman had no crisis of conscience every time he kills an enemy. We know Superman instinctively otherwise. While a kick-ass Supes who rips new assholes with impunity makes for dynamic visuals, it betrays that core. It don't work.

    By the way, DC Comics, I have lots of documentation that I pitched this in 2000, so don't let me catch y'all hawking Invasion Of The Super-Snatchers, because you will be hearing from my people.

  • http://www.yocowholesale.com/ Wholesale Clothing

    The post really nice , i like it ,thanks for sharing,thanks for your post, i will keep read your blog everyday

  • Pingback: Now is not the Rhyme. » Lead Story » Batman: Year 100

  • JustABatmanFan

    But they did mention Batman fighting crime several times. Sure, it wasn't shown upfront, but that doesn't mean it was a bad story.

    I wonder what you thought of V for Vendetta?

  • JustABatmanFan

    But they did mention Batman fighting crime several times. Sure, it wasn't shown upfront, but that doesn't mean it was a bad story.

    I wonder what you thought of V for Vendetta?

  • JustABatmanFan

    But they did mention Batman fighting crime several times. Sure, it wasn't shown upfront, but that doesn't mean it was a bad story.

    I wonder what you thought of V for Vendetta?

  • Charles

    So if a man stands up against the government is always for “rational selfishness”? Or does he seeks the “common good” by fighting policies that end up hurting the people?

    Pope's Batman is not selfish. He wants to stop a plan that involves killing millions of people. Police States (that emerge from big government plus the abolition or violation of individual rights, which are the real “common good”) end up killing a bunch of their own people always, no matter in which country or continent they are, they always do, and people should be more aware of this fact, specially americans (I'm not one).

    I also like the Batman, because he is the greatest example in comic history of what an individual can achieve with the power of his own free-will; he believes in Truth and the lines that separate good from evil, never compromising his believe; and finally, he defends the honest guy from the abuses of society's collective failures or “criminals”, and if the crooks happen to be in government, that does not changes anything.

  • Emote Control

    You fail to point out the ending. How does Batman defeat the conspiracy? By making the plans for their doomsday weapon publicly available on the Internet! Sure, he leaves some of the instructions out. But how hard will it be for other competent scientists to fill those gaps in? In fact, it seems to me that Batman has made the world a much more dangerous place.

  • Dgrey395

    Eh, sort of. Bruce Wayne didn’t create Wayne Enterprises, his father did. Bruce inherited all of those millions and the infrastructure to make all those cool toys. That’s what bugs me about Batman (and Superheros in general): the reader is supposed to identify with them on some level and maybe even learn something. But unless the reader is born super-rich or an intergalactic super immigrant, the moral is mostly lost.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1176057910 William Coventry

    Which would likely lead to a stalemate/Mutually Assured Destruction. Worked for nukes at least so far.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_WHUEOY2XWTO5G67YTDUUJZP5AA Pater Tenebrarum

    Mises is not an ‘arch-conservative’ economist, he was a defender of classical liberalism and among the leading intellectual lights of the Austrian school of economics. In fact, the vigilante Batman accords far more with the ideas of classical liberalism than anything else. He is not appointed by the State to ‘do good’ – he does it out of his own volition. He intervenes where the State fails. He is not a state-sanctioned law-man – in fact, the history of the Batman as it stands today describes his relationship with the state-appointed police as highly ambivalent (for instance, in Miller’s ‘Year One’, the police try to arrest the Batman, forcing him to fight them – vigilantism is illegal, after all). The essential point that Pope grasps is not only that the Batman ‘stands up for the little guy’, but that he does so regardless of the fact that the government would rather he go away. Bruce Wayne/Batman would not act the way he does if he were not a libertarian. He would instead call 911 and hope that the intervention of police – if they arrive in time – will suffice to ‘help the little guy’.

  • Rorshach Sridhar

    Classical Liberalism = Modern day Libertarianism.