Grading Batman

In a recent video I did in response to John Green, I spent some time defending Batman in his general direction. (No evidence that he himself ever saw it, but thanks to all who shared it at him!) It was a bit inspiring and so I sat down to BE Batman again by replaying the video games Batman: Arkham Asylum, and Batman: Arkham City. And while I was playing them, while I always enjoyed myself, a realization struck me…

Sometimes? Batman can be a bit of a jerk. And even stupid in how he relates to others.

Now of course, that was one particular version of Batman, and that got me thinking… we (and by we I mean the Internet) have this understanding of Batman as a singular fictional character, when really Batman is many fictional characters as understood by many different writers, artists, and actors. So I decided to take the ones I was aware of and really look at them, and see if any of those characters actually deserved some of the criticism directed at them.

Adam West Batman: There is a bit of revisionist history out there that would like to think that this version made Batman camp, but in reality this understanding of Batman was pretty accurate to the Silver Age version of the Caped Crusader, with a focus on outlandish gadgets and toys rather than brooding and detective work.

So how was he for Gotham? Pretty good, actually. His villains rarely (if ever) actually managed to kill anyone, and even stolen goods were usually returned at the end of the day. We didn’t see much in the way of charitable work by this Bruce Wayne (there was some implied by different affairs he went to, but you rarely saw much actual giving) so this version of Batman could perhaps be accused of being more about upholding the status quo then bringing about any lasting change to Gotham. That said, of all the versions of Gotham city, this would undeniably be the most pleasant to live in, with minimal poverty and violent crime. Other than a wave of colorful thieves and an equally colorful thief catcher, it looks a lot like Southern California. I give Adam West’s Batman a B.

Tim Burton’s Batman: For a kid who had always looked forward to when the TV show would be on, 1989’s Batman, starring Michael Keaton and Jack Nicholson as the Joker, was a serious paradigm shift, and that shift was taken even further for Batman Returns. Suddenly the Caped Crusader was the Dark Knight, scary, ominous, brooding. He lived in a Gotham that was dark, poverty stricken, and full of villains that were more than capable of killing. The movie and its sequel undeniably launched Batman into a new realm of cultural significance and proved that superhero movies did not require Superman in order to succeed.

Sadly, great for the franchise though the movie may have been, this version of Batman may have been the worst when measured by heroism. It is Batman’s very presence that inspires Joker to his murderous heights, and short of punching the occasional thug, it isn’t entirely clear what Batman’s long term plan was, or if he even had one. His plan isn’t justice, but revenge, as is made brutally clear by punishments given to the criminals who cross his path, along with a clear willingness to kill. With charity work as Bruce Wayne practically invisible (again save for some parties thrown) there is very little to redeem this version of Batman from being a vigilante who can afford a fancy bulletproof outfit and crazy toys… which in the end, makes his dividing line from his enemies fuzzy to the point of invisibility. I give him a D.

Joel Schumaker’s Batman: The Dark Knight from Batman Forever and Batman and Robin is credited, in most geek circles, as the worst of all of them. Shumaker’s return to the camp roots of the Batman have been blamed for the apparent death of the series until it was saved by the Christopher Nolan reboot, derided as being too cartoony, too colorful, too stupid. But how was this Batman at being Batman?

In short? Better than the Burton Batman by basically every measurable metric. Not only do his foes have a greatly reduced bodycount, we actually get to see Bruce Wayne not only as a much more active philanthropist (enough so that Commissioner Gordon thinks it makes sense to take a young Dick Grayson to him), but also as an Employer of someone other than Alfred, head of the Wayne Corporation, who insists that a deceased employee’s family receive full benefits despite an apparent suicide that is not covered by the health plan. Beyond even that? This Batman actually GROWS. From his acceptance of his dual identity in Forever to his development as a team player in Batman and Robin, Schumaker’s Batman shows a willingness to admit to, and overcome, personal flaws and obstacles… something more or less unprecedented elsewhere. Basically an improved version of the Adam West character; which earns him a B+.


The Dark Knight Returns: Credited alongside Watchmen for launching the “serious” side of modern comic books (as well as, it should be said, giving credence to the graphic novel as literature), The Dark Knight Returns featured an older, retired Batman who had lost his connection with a Gotham that had spiraled out of control, and in a world where Superheroes had been driven underground. When he takes up the mantle again, with a new Robin at his side, the world has to decide whether or not it has a place for a Dark Knight, while world events spiral even further out of control, until it is unclear if there is any way to live in the world WITHOUT a hero like Batman.

Which is odd, because as Batmen go, this one is decidedly not great. Villified psychologists call him insane, but it almost seems as if the writer agrees with them, with the Batman behaving in the beginning as a raging Id inside of the aging Bruce Wayne. Where Shumacher’s Batman grew, this one regresses, eventually taking up the mantle of Gang Leader. His reemergence brings back certain Supervillians, and all philanthropy has apparently ceased, with the comic book telling us flatly that any attempt to fix Gotham as Bruce Wayne had failed, with the publicly apparent Death of Bruce as well as the actual death of his conscience/butler Alfred paving the way for the future. He has his moments of clarity, but when the book itself makes such a strong case for Batman’s futility, it is hard to argue with. He gets a C, tops.

Batman, Year One: Now THIS guy is interesting. Before DC took to rebooting their characters every other year, this was part of a reboot effort that was a shining success compared to some other failures. Batman, it was discovered, did not need a complete reimagining, if anything, our world had become more suited to this kind of hero than it had originally been. A new coat of paint, and a new telling of his origin, was all it took.

And the result was a good one. Here we see a young Bruce Wayne struggling to become Batman, building an identity. We don’t really see any big picture stuff (Bruce lives into a perception as a careless playboy) but we see how deeply he cares about the people he fights and fights for, his desperation to not be a killer, to protect anyone he can. We also see the beginnings of his relationship with James Gordon, the start of a partnership that lends legitimacy to what otherwise might be seen as vigilantism. He’s not perfect, but also not meant to be. This is a developing work in progress, and that earns some bonus points. B-, with a bullet.

Dick Grayson: The death of Bruce Wayne was false, and short lived, but while it did we were treated to Dick Grayson wearing the cowl, with Damian Wayne (Bruce’s Son) becoming Robin. It created a delightful change of pace, with a fun-loving, lighthearted Batman mirrored by a brooding Robin.

And you know what? It worked. Dick got the benefit of being unblemished by questions of whether or not Batman should exist… in the story where he took the cowl in the first place, it had been made obvious that Gotham needed a Batman. All the old baggage was left with Bruce, allowing Dick a clean slate. He also didn’t have to play the “wastrel Playboy” line. Folks knew who he was, Bruce’s adopted son, and so he didn’t have to be Bruce. And he did a good job. A-.

Christopher Nolan’s Batman: Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, and The Dark Knight Rises marked the return to domination of the Batman, boasting a “gritty realism” to divorce the movies from the Schumaker era. The trilogy embraced a timeline of batman, from his origins in Begins to the height of his heroism in The Dark Knight to the end of his career in Rises. Definitely a new approach, with a Batman who, at the very least, cannot be accused of simply seeking to preserve the status quo.

So how good is this Batman at Batmanning? Well… not bad. His motives are strong, as is his dedication to not killing. He clearly values charitable work, and is willing to take huge monetary losses if he isn’t sure of the safety of a product. All of that said, when this Batman makes mistakes, they are devastating on a scale that the others can barely even scratch. And, like with The Dark Knight Returns, it’s hard to escape the idea that Batman himself is primarily responsible for Gotham’s dive into Madness. A solid B, but I can’t grade him higher.

Arkham Videogame’s Batman: The guy who inspired this post, this is the Batman from the video games that, more than any other, made you really FEEL like Batman. So much fun to play, from creeping through the claustrophobic environs of Arkham Asylum to the Dystopian Arkham City. And yet…

I cannot get past the feeling that Rocksteady, while believing that it would be lots of fun to be Batman, don’t think he’s very effective at, well, anything. How many people do you “save” in the Asylum only to see their corpses littering the ground later? Massive death tolls in both games. And worse, Batman frequently manages to do precisely the wrong thing with various supervillains he’s forced to work with, leading to catastrophic results. I can’t overemphasize how good the games are, but sadly, he gets a poor Batman score. C-

Animated Batman- Batman: The Animated Series, kickstarted the DCAU into hyper prominence that no Marvel property has even scratched on the small screen. And of its heroes, Batman is clearly without peer. He manages to control the death count of his villains, works solidly in charitable foundations, seeks to understand both his peers and his enemies. He’s an undisputed leader of the Justice League, a solid father figure to his various protégés, strikes a perfect balance between frightening and funny.

He is, and will probably always be, THE Batman by which all others are judged. A+