Comic Book Philosophy (Part 3)

Those interested in this blog entry will be interested in the other two superhero facadesaside posts (Parts 1 and 2). One was on the nature of parallel and opposite enemies versus superheroes, and the other was about the Hobgoblin.

By the way (three posts ago) my friend Rick loves the Joker as shown in Batman: The Dark Knight. He's a Hegelian. He's the reason I took my 19th century philosophy course this semester, and he likes the Joker because there has to be action taken.

An Aside About 2Face:

That's where, so to speak, facades must be put aside if they are there. In the movie the commissioner and the Batman try to eschew their roles (the role of Batman? I want you to think about these questions) and rally behind a new district attorney, Harvey Dent who later becomes Two Face.

This plot (I agree with Denby that the movie itself doesn't really help out here, the plot only really implies some emotional depth) gives two face more credit than he deserves. In the comic book, which I haven't read enough of, and the early 1990's cult classic cartoon show, Two Face was a 2-Dimensional character, and always did the same thing. He chains up Batman on a giant quarter (with two faces, get it?) and roles him down a hill or something.

Now, Two Face needs a coin to make decisions. He is grossly superstitious and, ahem, does not believe in his own free will. In the cartoon show, they point to Harvey Dent actually being superstitious before the accident where he loses half of his face.

So there's this thing about Free Will and superstition. By foiling Batman with a character who is indecisive and immoral (when the coin lands down, he'll murder someone, rob a bank, and so on) because of outside and external happenings; it reveals that Batman himself has such a choice and uses such a choice. So it's this really cool thing about freedom and morality going on.

Generally speaking, this is the big character flaw for Dent-2Face; in addition to this moral conundrum. It's a pragmatic problem, too. For example, when he has Batman rolling down the hill on the quarter, he'll flip a coin and the coin will make him untie batman. This, too, has a neat take home message.

Of course, this is an eternal message that you could do pretty good with. Just as easily, the message could get in a quagmire, or the message could fall prey to overemphasizing the characters, or overemphasizing the plot.

For example, this was completely glossed over in the movie.


Why Rick Loves the Joker:

Considering the foil-aspect, the Joker is Batman's foil in the way that Batman represents restraint, positive proactive established justice, and on and on; all with the "serious" demeanor of doing so. There's established order versus anarchy. The many levels and facets of the relationship are part of what make it enduring. The Joker represents the opposite of Batman so many ways. I think we could break this down into free will, too. Pay attention: we don't want the "free" will of Joker anyway, in the way that such a will would be overly spontaneous; or overly corrupt. Because it's a shoddy free will, it is undesirable.

My friend Rick loves the Joker because Joker is applicable to Hegelian dialectic. Rick says at the point where the Joker comes in and raises chaos, he either has to be answered or he will do whatever he wants. He is pure chaos.

This is a take it or leave it, trial by fire situation, then. This is because when these two forces of Batman and the Joker collide, there has to be one winner or the other will be revealed to be a facade.

When discussing this with my friend Rick, I found myself alarmed. I said to Robert that it is okay for a comic book to have such a moral lesson, but it is alarming to position this to real life. I said that while maybe this is the scenario, we should not have to posit evil in order to assert standards. We do not "need" evil in the way that the Joker "needs" Batman. It makes the story interesting, certainly, but it is a crude misunderstanding to believe that we need this in non-comic book life.

This is only part of what my friend was saying, however. While I realize that my moral impression is pertinent, I think that Rick's criticism needs exploration.

Thought terminating cliche:

I'm out of gas! End