Batman and Dualism

Like all superheroes, Batman has died time and time and time again. There have probably been as many funerals for the Dark Knight as there have been for the Man of Steel. Like all DC Comic’s heroes, however, he is always back and locking baddies in Arkham within the month.

But there is something very unique about Batman’s many funerals: the attendees. The Dark Knight’s entire rouge gallery is nearly always in attendance. Poison Ivy weeping quietly, propping up her head against Harley Quinn. Penguin looks absolutely devastated, and the Joker… the Joker looks the saddest of all… as if his best friend in the entire world has just passed away. What is going on here?

One of the central philosophies surrounding the Batman mythos is that the crime that pervades Gotham created him, and that he in turn is the reason that crime in Gotham continues. Hugo Strange even explicitly states in Arkham City that Batman is the reason that the criminals exist; the corruption in Gotham is his fault. (See footnote 1)

The Joker, however, is the main character to espouse this belief. The Clown Prince of Gotham truly is the antithesis of Batman. He is joyful where Batman is gloomy; he finds immense satisfaction in what he does while Batman is often conflicted and unsure of what he is supposed to do next. Their stories are often like a dark and intricate dance; the Joker initiating an event and daring the Dark Knight to chase him down and solve the mystery, right the wrong, save the citizen. Sometimes the Joker seems to do it simply for the pleasure of the crime, but more often than not, it becomes clear that he simply missed Batman and wanted to “hang out”… even if it is on his own terms and in his own twisted way.

In Grant Morrison’s Arkham Asylum there is even a sexual undertone to the Joker’s relationship with Batman, even though it is not reciprocated by Batman himself. The Joker wears high heals throughout this book, and occasionally makes quips about the fact that the person closest to Batman is a young boy (Batman’s sidekick Robin). In Frank Miller’s The Dark Knight Returns, the Joker even goes so far as to wear makeup.

As I said before, what on earth is going on? Dualism, my friends.

Josiah, what’s dualism? Well, to understand dualism we’re going to have to go back a bit… And by a bit, I mean a lot.

Dualism started with the Greeks, or at least the Greeks gave it its most prevalent form, in that good and evil coexist, always have coexisted and always will. Dualism does not necessitate the belief that good and evil will continue to coexist forever , but the most consistent dualists view both as co-eternal. A more common dualistic view is that of good and evil both existing at the beginning of things and then one triumphing over the other by the end of time. Examples include Norse mythology where chaos will ultimately triumph over good, and Platonism where the opposite is true.

This notion of dualism has even permeated the circles of Christian thought, where it is now incredibly hard to see a world where God existed and evil did not. (See footnote 2) Most Christians readily accept the fact that God and Christ will triumph over Satan and death at the end of time, but for most modern Christians, it is very hard to separate God from the world we live in. But as Christians we must accept that He is completely self-sufficient. He did not need us, but made us solely because He willed it and for His own joy.

The central philosophy of the modern Batman flies in the face of the idea that good can exist without evil. While it would probably be accurate to blame the Dark Knight’s eternal fight against crime on the comic industry’s need for continued sales, since Batman is one of DC Comic’s most popular characters, it does not negate the fact that he never triumphs. Batman is locked in an eternal struggle where he can not defeat his enemies and his enemies cannot defeat him. One or the other may die, but eventually Batman and the Joker will be back at it again with some new quarrel.

Paul Dini’s Arkahm City is the closest I have seen a Batman story come to closure. (WARNING, SPOILERS AHEAD!!!!) The story chronicles the story of Arkham Asylum after super villain Hugo Strange expands the madhouse to take up the entirety of Gotham’s northern island. Batman, while looking for Strange, and trying to shut down the Asylum expansion (which has become a liability for Gotham itself and its citizens), he is kidnapped by Joker, who infuses Batman with some of his blood. It turns out the Joker is dying of a chronic illness and with the blood transfusion he has given the disease to Batman as will. Batman scrambles to find the cure, running into many of his old enemies along the way. Eventually Batman is able to procure a treatment for the disease and takes it to Joker. The Joker, however, wants the cure all for himself and intends to leave Batman for dead. In the resulting scuffle, Joker destroys the last vial of half-drunk antidote, which would have been used to save his life.

The Joker realizes that he is finally finished, and laughs as Batman tells him that if had he not destroyed the vial, he actually would have healed the Joker. The final scene depicts Batman cradling the dead body of the Joker and carrying out of Arkham into an impending dawn.

While this story will probably not be accepted as the canonical death of the Joker, I like to view it as such, for it ends the dualism of Batman. Evil is finally defeated for good, yet Batman himself never caves to murder, and remains untainted as the compassionate defender of Gotham City.



(1) This was not always the case. The yin-yang relationship between Batman and the villains that he is continually fighting is a modern notion that began in the 70s and 80s when British writers like Grant Morrison and Alan Moore took over writing the adventures of the Dark Knight. They decided to take a rather pessimistic view of Batman as a sort of reaction to the happy-go-lucky tone of Batman comics in the 50s and 60s. I blame this on the pessimism of the period, not on the British, of course.

(2) This is dealt with in Saint Augustine’s theory of sin and evil as the absence of God. However, this is about Batman and dualism, not Augustine, so that will have to wait until another time.

(500) Days of Pure Evil

OK, this one has been a long time coming, so I figured I would take a break from playing Plant vs. Zombies, studying Greek and checking email in order to bring you this well thought out and coherent (ahem) essay explaining why 500 Days of Summer is a horrible, awful, no good, very bad movie. You all had better appreciate it! (insert sarcastic wink here)

Now, as a second preface, I must say that I had been looking forward to this movie for a long, long time. I think it might have even been one of those films that got me stuck in the paper mill of advertising, and I was near salivating to see it. (Wow, that's kind of a disgusting metaphor.) On top of that I am an enormous Joseph Gordon-Levitt fan, Brick and Inception being in my top 15 favorite films. So by the time it came to our little second run theater here in Moscow late summer '09, there was pretty much no way anyone was going to stop me from going.

I went alone... which in retrospect was probably for the best. I'm not sure I would be comfortable watching that movie with anyone at this point in my life. I would either be embarrassed, break down crying, try to kill everyone in the room, shield my friends' eyes, or perhaps attempt to do all four simultaneously. I am not to be held accountable for anything I do to you while watching this movie.

Now that I'm done ranting (no I'm not), I'll beginning with my logical explanation:

The movie starts with not the opening credits, but a dedication of sorts... kind of like at the beginning of a book. "For my dog Frank, who was always there for me," or "To my Dad, for keeping me honest," or something of that sort. The opening dedication for 500 Days of Summer goes a little something like this:

"Author's Note: The following is a work of fiction. Any resemblance to persons living or dead is purely coincidental. Especially you Jenny Beckman... Bitch."

Hmmm... bitter much?

While watching it for the first time (to this date the only time I have been able to watch the film in its entirety. I tried again a few months later, but was unable to get further than the 30 minute mark), I promptly forgot this first warning sign and watched on... very sure that this film was describing my heart-broken life in all its bitter detail.

The film begins with the classic boy meets girl. Tom works as a greeting card writer in a fashionable part of L.A. Summer begins working there as a secretary. Tom and Summer are very different. "How?" you ask? Well, let me put this as bluntly as possible: Tom's a girl, and Summer's a dude. Yes, it's weird; no, it's not what you think. Let me explain:

Tom is a sensitive guy. Not only is he sensitive, but he's whiny, needy, "in touch" with his emotions, and is kind of pathetic. He's clingy, and obnoxious, and all the things that guys really find gross and unattractive in women. Tom is a guy technically, but he represents all the bad stereotypes of women.

Summer is a head-strong girl. Not only is she head-strong, but she's immature, cavalier, sexually obsessed, and doesn't really see the point of committing to a relationship when you could just "have fun." Summer is a girl technically, but she represents all the bad stereotypes of guys that women hate.

The movie would be bad enough if it was Tom being the sex-obsessed guy, and Summer being the whiny girl. In fact, I am pretty sure that if that movie were ever pitched to any forward thinking Hollywood production company they would reject it outright, their brains bleeding after they hemorrhaged at hearing such a horrible and stupid idea. So why, when the gender roles are reversed, is it suddenly acceptable, and not only acceptable but cool and a movie worthy of putting on film critics' "Best Movies of the Year" lists?

In the end the relationship explodes (duh) after a conversation where Summer compares them both to Sid and Nancy (if you don't know who Sid and Nancy are, click here, then come back and read the rest of my rant/essay/reviewishthingy). Tom is offended by such a comparison and retorts: "But Sid stabbed Nancy with a knife! I hardly think I'm Sid Vicious!"

"Noooooo...." Summer replies. "I'M Sid."

"Oh... so I'm Nancy," Tom says, a little dazed.

The gender flipping is explicitly referenced here. How could it be missed? Soon after, Summer tells Tom that the relationships should probably end. The sex has been good, but Summer still doesn't believe in "love." What a mature, upstanding woman.

For the last half-an-hour or so of the film, Tom follows Summer around like a pitiful puppy dog, until he at last learns that she's gotten engaged. Tom (with good reason) is incredulous. Summer talks him down though, reassuring him that he taught her what love really was... he just wasn't the right guy for her. They share a tender moment where Summer encourages Tom to pursue his dream of becoming an architect instead of a greeting card writer, and then she leaves.

The final scene is Tom waiting for an interview at an architecture firm. While waiting he meets one of the other applicants, a girl... they agree to meet for coffee. And with the final credits fast approaching, Tom calls out as she's walking away:

"What's you name?"

"Autumn!" she calls back.

To quote a friend of mine: Really? REALLY??? How am I supposed to believe, or have any kind of faith that either of them really learned anything at all? How do you know that Tom will grow a skin and not get his heart torn out by Autumn too? The name kind of implies that the cycle is just continuing. What about Summer? When the sex isn't good anymore, won't she just dump her shiny new play thing and move on to whatever is the newer, shinier thing? The sequel would probably begin with them just as broken and hallow and empty as they were when they first broke up.

The film is not about real life.... well it is, but not the right kind. It really does represent where our wonderful world is headed: Men chickening out, and women taking the lead... or becoming really screwed up versions of men as the case may be. But that is not the way that God created the world. The version of the world that 500 Days of Summer portrays is badly broken, and not something we should emulate. Not only that, but it is not something we should enjoy watching either. The first time I watched it, it simply induced a pity party of supernova proportions. Living in the suckiness of the past is a lame way to live your life, however accurately or inaccurately the film might portray past events of your life. Get out of yourself. No... life is not all about you. There is more to this life than sex and getting instant gratification, or simply getting, getting, getting from a relationship. Where's the give? Where is the givING for that matter?

I have fallen into the self-pity trap more times than I can count. There is no getting around that. But instead of that hurting my ethos, I hope strengthens my exhortation to the small number of readers that I have: I've been there. I've done that. Don't fall into the horrible, horrible stereotypes of this film. Read your Bible... there are some pretty good stereotypes to live up to in there.

All that said... I may still go to work for a greeting card company someday.