The Avengers

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Ron always raises some good points.

I concur--there were things going on the Avengers that could have been explored and would have been explored in some other format--comic book, novel, or TV series. I didn't miss the somewhat moralistic sermon presented--even if we dislike each other, we must work together or perish against threats that doom us all. I don't know what threats Mr. Whedon was implying but I suppose it doesn't matter. Still....very comic-book-y.

I still feel the way I feel about TDK because for most of the movie Batman is only reacting to events, not actively doing things, and I didn't see any character development from him. Also, that Gotham and the people in it now base everything on lies--the Joker lied to everyone about everything, Alfred lied to Bruce about Rachel, and both Batman and Gordon lied to Gotham about Dent.

The destruction of the hero and the rise of the anti-hero were necessary in 1986, with The Dark Knight Returns and Watchmen. Now, though, I think the tide needs to turn back to heroes as heroes. I guess I am just tired of the whole "everything must be dark, down-and-dirty, gritty, and realistic". If I want reality, I'll go outside and get some of it.

I think what you are seeing, Ron, is also the fact that Mr. Whedon didn't fill in character development into the Avengers, which normally gives rise to truly good movies. That could happen in TDK or Spiderman II (I also agree--the best one of those three) because there were only a few characters, thus allowing more time for development.

[Orlion]

The destruction of the hero and the rise of the anti-hero were necessary in 1986, with The Dark Knight Returns and Watchmen. Now, though, I think the tide needs to turn back to heroes as heroes. I guess I am just tired of the whole "everything must be dark, down-and-dirty, gritty, and realistic". If I want reality, I'll go outside and get some of it.

The general public is always behind trends in media by a while. Whereas comic book readers all ready got through the 'anti-hero' phase and are now on to something else, the public has only just fairly recently dove into that phase. Tim Burton's Batman was a start, but I do not think it actually became part of the public consciousness until around Nolan's Batman. That's just how public perception works. For example:
- The public idea of how an atom looks is based on the Bohr model of 1920ish, a model that has been rejected since 1940s.
- The public is only now getting wind of the idea of 'gritty fantasy' through A Song of Ice and Fire. To them, Martin is a visionary that is revolutionizing the genre. What they do not realize is that twenty years earlier, Jack Vance and Michael Moorcock were all ready do that, and in the case of Moorcock, it's much grimmer (one of his first novels ends with the protagonists annihilating humankind from existence).

Luckily, Marvel seems for the most part ignoring the current public trends in viewing 'gritty heroes' as being superior. They're just out to make fun movies, and luckily, it's working veeery well.

[I'm Murrin]

Well it helps that Marvel is also basing it all on the versions of the characters a couple generations down from the whole gritty antihero phase, where the lessons of that have filtered down in a way that makes more rounded characterisation the norm even for the all-good heroes.

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

Hashi, I think what I am mostly reacting to is the dualistic universe the Avengers call home. It makes for great entertainment, but is not exactly a treasure trove for the profound contemplation of the human condition, except in relief. Spiderman II counts the personal cost of an extraordinary destiny like no other movie, but it does not question the dualistic foundations of that destiny. So while it is a very engaging recapitulation of the Christ story (disclosed so poignantly via Spiderman's railway crucifixion), it does not really address the question of man's mutual ethical obligations in a world blanched gray. (I would not elevate it past TDK, though I consider it a close second.)

TDK is a counterpoint to this, IMO. The duality is inner rather than projected outward. It is important to recognize that Batman, while a seemingly indispensable protector, is simultaneously a tyrant that has usurped the power of law (Caesar himself is invoked in the movie). And the Joker, while an agent of chaos that revels in destruction, also embodies the dignity of the individual will that will asphyxiate without the chaos that cannot be separated from freedom. He is the Professor of Ethics older brother of Alex from Clockwork Orange, gleefully slapping Batman in the face with his own hypocrisy even as he un-apologetically destroys everything he touches (this very destructiveness implies a singular integrity that surpasses Batman).

In this context, Batman's heroism is inner rather than outer, it is the will to soldier on despite doubt and disillusionment. It is the recognition that only the will and the heart that drives it can make a world worth fighting for, despite what the eyes and brain tell us. He steps over the ledge into the moral free fall of the existential abyss not as an act of despair, but as an act of affirmation and sacrifice. He wills that Gotham become a place worth saving, and he is willing to be destroyed in that cause, morally as well as physically. That is the only heroism that is possible in the world of gray.

[Ananda]

I'm glad Joss Whedon got a hit. I havent seen this film yet, but I hoped it would suceed so he could get another serial.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

I read an article today--even though it was probably a couple of weeks old by now--that was tracking the top-grossing superhero movies. Avengers, Thor, both Iron Man movies, all three Spiderman movies, X-Men III, TDK, and the 1989 Batman. What this tells us is that movie audiences go for heroes (or flawed heroes, in the case of Iron Man, who is a hedonist, a playboy, and on the verge of being an alcoholic like he was in the comic books). Of course, it also tells us that movie audiences like familiarity and franchises, so take the other with a grain of salt.

It is interesting to note that in TDK, just like in the 1989 Batman movie, the Joker claims that he is what he is and does what he does specifically because of Batman. Wayne makes the leap that other are neither able to nor willing to make and the Joker is the logical result. Where Nolan's Joker surpasses Burton's Joker, though, is his mystery--we never find out anything about him at all. There is no who and no why, only what is. In that context, what we say about him actually tells about us, not him. I agree, though, in that we rarely find a character who consistently stays true to himself and his own nature more than Joker. The little fluctuations may change but overall picture never does.

Now for the big question, though, that takes us from comics to philosophy: is the world gray? Even in the Avengers things aren't as black-and-white as they seem because we are told that both Widow and Hawkeye are cold-blooded killers; the only exception is that Widow seems to regret her days of killing and Hawkeye merely accepts it. So...the world gets saved by murderers and, in the case of Hulk, rampant beasts even more savage than the aliens attacking the planet.

Nick Fury, as portrayed here, also doesn't bother with ethical concerns or questions of abuse of authority; instead, he acts as he sees fit based on the moment. We know he isn't bothered about lying to people to get what he wants and that he is willing to use people as pawns to win whatever game he is playing. He is almost as bad as the villains in that regard.

Anyway...back to the question: is the world gray? Or is the world gray only if we choose to see it that way? Rorshach, a fanatical realist if ever there were one, declares that we make the world and that we see what we want to see. Even if we presume that the world is gray, does that make black-or-white decisions incorrect? One of the defining characteristics of the Hero, according to Joseph Campbell, is that the Hero views the world as black or white and even when the outer layers are peeled away to reveal gray underneath, as in the case of Luke Skywalker (who cannot stop the Emperor without destroying his own father, but if he destroys his father he, himself, will be lost), the decisions they make to resolve these gray situations are ultimately black or white. Of course, self-sacrifice is another characteristic of the Hero, according to Campbell, so Batman's willingness to be viewed as a criminal as the price to save the city or Spiderman's psuedo-crucifixion...and no one sacrifices himself for the gray, only the black or white.

Note, of course, that gray can be viewed two ways: either as a mixture of black and white or an inability to distinguish between the two. This could resolve the disconnect between an Avenger's world and a TDK world.

I suppose the most pertinent question we could ask people, then, to determine their view of the world is this: did Ozymandias do the right thing?

*whew* Ron takes it to the next level from time to time.

[Orlion]

I suppose the most pertinent question we could ask people, then, to determine their view of the world is this: did Ozymandias do the right thing?

Indeed. He did save the world. He did what we traditionally would consider the hero's job. But his joy at accomplishing what should have been an impossible task is very demonic (that feeling when he says, 'I did it!' was one of the most unfortunate victims of the movie adaptation. Even knowing it was coming, having watched the movie first, those two comic panels were far more haunting).

Then you have that other pertinent question: Did Rorschach do the right thing dropping off that journal? Watchmen seems to be about the aims of the hero vs. the ideals of the heros, and which is more important.

[Zarathustra]

Hashi, nice post!

or flawed heroes, in the case of Iron Man, who is a hedonist, a playboy, and on the verge of being an alcoholic

I'm not seeing the flaws there.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

That is why Watchmen stretches our boundaries of right and wrong. He personally killed millions of people yet did theoretically save billions; because he did it the way he did it his actions make him the greatest mass-murderer in human history--Hitler, Stalin, Mao Tse-Tung, and Pol Pot didn't commit all those deaths themselves (in fact I don't think Hitler himself ever killed anyone, only ordered their deaths).

Yes, Rorshach also did the right thing. The problem is the venue he chose--no one is going to believe the ultra-right-wing rag The New Frontiersman (I think that was the name). In fact, what will happen is that either Veidt will sue them for libel (and win) or, presuming he already owns the paper, bury the article so that it never sees print.

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

Hashi, I would counter that Batman's heroic descent into the moral abyss is not the illusion of moral compromise assumed for the benefit of the public, it is a willful choice that entails the breaking of laws and the compromise of core principles. How else are we to interpret the killing of Two Face, the sadistic beating of the defenseless Joker, the lawless eavesdropping on Gotham's cell phones, and the lies that accompany them? TDK does not try to sweep the dirt off Batman's cape, either, even as he goes riding off into the electric sunset. But one gets the sense that in the universe of the Avengers, those quandrys get shunted to the side with a shrug as if to say 'we're facing certain death from outer space, what is the alternative?' And indeed a veneer of consternation is all the Avengers muster, just as the veneer of Tony Stark's ignobility shatters the second he is needed. I'm not saying I don't like the character, but let's recognize the difference between characters placed into situations that are ambiguous and those that are not. That is what I mean by dualism. In TDK's universe we are left to wonder if the cure isn't worse than the disease. That isn't even a possibility for the Avengers.

[Zarathustra]

I don't know about black/white ... Loki didn't seem all that bad to me. Right in line with other totalitarians who try to get you to believe freedom is a code word for the worst in humans. For about half of our population, he's actually right.

Hell, I bet he could even beat Obama in the primaries. West Virginia, for sure.

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

Justice/tyranny
Freedom/chaos

Pick your poison.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Hashi, I would counter that Batman's heroic descent into the moral abyss is not the illusion of moral compromise assumed for the benefit of the public, it is a willful choice that entails the breaking of laws and the compromise of core principles. How else are we to interpret the killing of Two Face, the sadistic beating of the defenseless Joker, the lawless eavesdropping on Gotham's cell phones, and the lies that accompany them? TDK does not try to sweep the dirt off Batman's cape, either, even as he goes riding off into the electric sunset. But one gets the sense that in the universe of the Avengers, those quandrys get shunted to the side with a shrug as if to say 'we're facing certain death from outer space, what is the alternative?' And indeed a veneer of consternation is all the Avengers muster, just as the veneer of Tony Stark's ignobility shatters the second he is needed. I'm not saying I don't like the character, but let's recognize the difference between characters placed into situations that are ambiguous and those that are not. That is what I mean by dualism. In TDK's universe we are left to wonder if the cure isn't worse than the disease. That isn't even a possibility for the Avengers.

I see what you are saying here. Most superheroes are actually vigilantes so every time they go out doing what they do they are breaking laws. Normally, this is dismissed because the threats they face are ones that normal law enforcement are unable to face; however, this is not the case with Batman--most of his usual foes could be fought by the police with varying degrees of success.

TDK (or Batman in general) is, in this regard, similar to 24--Jack Bauer could only successfully defend the system he was sworn to protect by breaking the laws and ideals of that system. It will be very interesting, indeed, to see how Nolan places Gotham into the position of needing the person they now vilify to rescue them...but I digress.

You are correct, though, that Batman made several choices that he didn't have to make. Joker was going to tell him where Rachel and Dent were, anyway, so beating him was pointless and unnecessary. Of course, he couldn't have known that but, given the Joker's nature, why would he believe anything he says to be the truth? Joker knew Batman would go after Rachel, though--he figured that out at the party.

Zarathustra, even after we saw Thor, Loki still wasn't cemented in our minds as a "villain", which is why we had the build-up at the opera--we had to see him doing something apparently random and hurtful to make it "real". hrm...I cannot recall which opera it was now--the choice of opera will, of course, somehow tie into the movie's themes. Still...his schtick seemed a little out of 1984 with the whole "freedom is slavery" motif. *shrug* He was just stalling for time until he could get himself captured on purpose (a typical tactic that some villains employ--I have used it in games, myself--got a supervillain sent to the meta prison specifically to get access to other supervillains).

Many people wouldn't know what to do with unlimited freedom if they were given it.

[Fist and Faith]

That is why Watchmen stretches our boundaries of right and wrong. He personally killed millions of people yet did theoretically save billions; because he did it the way he did it his actions make him the greatest mass-murderer in human history--Hitler, Stalin, Mao Tse-Tung, and Pol Pot didn't commit all those deaths themselves (in fact I don't think Hitler himself ever killed anyone, only ordered their deaths).

Yes, Rorshach also did the right thing. The problem is the venue he chose--no one is going to believe the ultra-right-wing rag The New Frontiersman (I think that was the name). In fact, what will happen is that either Veidt will sue them for libel (and win) or, presuming he already owns the paper, bury the article so that it never sees print.

Rorschach did not also do the right thing, because Veidt did not do the right thing. It is not right to sacrifice one person for the sake of another. Not even for the sake of many others. This is Le Guin's Those Who Walk Away From Omelas. How can anyone possibly have the qualifications to make that choice? You can't. There are no such qualifications. Find another way. Any of the billions who die because you did not find another way fast enough are not on your head for not having murdered the others.

[Ki]

Hashi, nice post!

or flawed heroes, in the case of Iron Man, who is a hedonist, a playboy, and on the verge of being an alcoholic

I'm not seeing the flaws there.

Ahem

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

That is why Watchmen stretches our boundaries of right and wrong. He personally killed millions of people yet did theoretically save billions; because he did it the way he did it his actions make him the greatest mass-murderer in human history--Hitler, Stalin, Mao Tse-Tung, and Pol Pot didn't commit all those deaths themselves (in fact I don't think Hitler himself ever killed anyone, only ordered their deaths).

Yes, Rorshach also did the right thing. The problem is the venue he chose--no one is going to believe the ultra-right-wing rag The New Frontiersman (I think that was the name). In fact, what will happen is that either Veidt will sue them for libel (and win) or, presuming he already owns the paper, bury the article so that it never sees print.

Rorschach did not also do the right thing, because Veidt did not do the right thing. It is not right to sacrifice one person for the sake of another. Not even for the sake of many others. This is Le Guin's Those Who Walk Away From Omelas. How can anyone possibly have the qualifications to make that choice? You can't. There are no such qualifications. Find another way. Any of the billions who die because you did not find another way fast enough are not on your head for not having murdered the others.

Some necessary actions cannot be morally justified, or ethically cleansed by their intent. What is needed then is men that are willing to bear the moral burden of irrevocable paradox, lest they become psychopathic monsters.

[Fist and Faith]

What I'm saying is that such an act is not "necessary". As SRD said, we are not required to save the world. It was not Veidt's responsibility. It's nobody's responsibility. Fine to do so without committing murder, and a few other things. But not at any cost. I'd be horrified to learn that I was saved at such a cost. Who is worth that? How can it be necessary to save me at that cost?

It could be argued that, by doing what he did, Veidt did become a psychopathic monster.

[I'm Murrin]

But Veidt just carried on the cycle of violence through a different means. A war happens, many people die, it has a profound effect on the world... and then the world recovers, moves, on people forget, and it happens again. Veidt just replaced the war with his own attack - eventually people would forget and start fighting again.

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

What I'm saying is that such an act is not "necessary". As SRD said, we are not required to save the world. It was not Veidt's responsibility. It's nobody's responsibility. Fine to do so without committing murder, and a few other things. But not at any cost. I'd be horrified to learn that I was saved at such a cost. Who is worth that? How can it be necessary to save me at that cost?

It could be argued that, by doing what he did, Veidt did become a psychopathic monster.

You have been saved at such a cost. Many, many times.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

As SRD said, we are not required to save the world.

No, we are not required to do so...but that doesn't mean that we cannot choose to do so.

Not that this would ever happen, the situation being completely hypothetical, but if presented with a button that, when pushed, will result in the deaths of 1% of the world's population, would you push it? No one has to answer that question, of course, but it something to think about. Plenty of people would definitely push the button and not succumb to the guilt of their actions. Sometimes, though, the right decision is neither ideal nor pretty.

Veidt just replaced the war with his own attack - eventually people would forget and start fighting again.

For all his intelligence, I am uncertain if he had thought about what would happen afterwards--he was too focused on the immediate goal and not on long-term ramifications other than being positioned to capitalize on the new economy. This, of course, is why Jon told him "nothing ever ends" before leaving. At that moment, Veidt realized that even his momentous accomplishment--momentous only to three people in the world, given that no one else knows about it--would ultimately become moot. He is in his early 40s; even with his excellent physical condition and healthy lifestyle he probably has only 50 or 60 years of life remaining; possibly 70 with advances in life-extending medical technology. Once he dies, though, there would be no one left to shepherd the world he helped bring about--within a century of his death the world will probably be back on the path to self-destruction.

Some necessary actions cannot be morally justified, or ethically cleansed by their intent. What is needed then is men that are willing to bear the moral burden of irrevocable paradox, lest they become psychopathic monsters.

I couldn't agree more. That being said, I can state with calm certitude that I would push the button I mentioned above.

Sometimes, in order to attain what we want most we have to be willing to sacrifice ourselves, or some other dream or goal we hold dear, or something else equally important. Three examples to highlight this:
Dr. Doom, in Triumph & Torment, sacrifices his mother's love in order to free her soul from Mephisto--a price he is willing to pay.
Hartigan, from Sin City, is willing to endure years of brutal beatings in prison and ultimately confess to being a child rapist to keep Nancy Callahan safe--a price he was willing to pay.
Warden Dios--a man who needs no introduction here--is willing to allow his career to be ended in disgrace and is even willing to die to bring down Holt.

Extreme choices, to be sure. However, in the face of extreme circumstances can those decisions be considered "wrong" in the normal sense? I believe that the extremity of the circumstances nullifies any sense of "normal" and leaves us with "that which must be done regardless of the cost".