Aquaman is a Pescepublican
Recent articles about the political leanings of popular comic book characters got me thinking about the uncanny valley between fictional and real-world ideologies. We’re happy to have characters speak in broad terms — “With great power comes great responsibility” — but the minute they start referring to specific issues, we become very uncomfortable.
How does The Flash feel about immigration? Is Wolverine pro-choice? Does Black Canary support the First Amendment rights of hate groups? We don’t know, and really don’t want to know.
To be certain, comics sometimes do have their characters take specific, controversial political stands. Famously, Frank Miller’s Superman in The Dark Knight Returns
Wonder Woman’s homeland of Themiscyra is isolationist, as the U.S has been at times. The Green Lanterns police the universe, like U.N. peacekeepers writ large. And X-Men are mutants who fight prejudice, discrimination and mutant-phobia.
Sometimes the analogies are transparent. Black Adam rules Kahndaq with an iron fist — he’s literally a weapon of mass destruction, and a danger to the free world. But the facile Iraq/Al-Qaeda parallels only go so far. Yes, he’s a tyrant, but there’s no religion or oil at stake, no greater cause beyond his own ego. If Black Adam were to get sucked into a magic scarab, or sent to the farthest reaches of the universe, there would be no more “Kahndaq crisis.” 1
And this is probably a good thing. I’d argue that the thematic success of comic book characters, and comic book storylines, comes from how closely they can approach the line separating Real from Too Real, without crossing it.
For example, this summer’s The Dark Knight is set in the most realistic Gotham City yet, but its characters still speak in broad philosophical proclamations. Just listen to Batman:
Sometimes, truth isn’t good enough. Sometimes people deserve more. Sometimes people deserve to have their faith rewarded.
Sometimes, dialogue should only be spoken while wearing a mask. His statement makes sense in abstract, but you wouldn’t want it applied to, say, the invasion of a sovereign nation based on false evidence. Even Commissioner Gordon seems to understand that Batman is better suited to villain-thumping than leadership. His improbable answer to his young son’s question about why Batman is running:
Because he’s the hero Gotham deserves, but not the one it needs right now…and so we’ll hunt him, because he can take it. Because he’s not a hero. He’s a silent guardian, a watchful protector…a dark knight.
(MUSIC RISES.)
Efforts to place TDK’s Batman on a real-world political spectrum are doomed. Sure, he’s tough on crime, but he’s also anti-gun. He holds himself outside the law, but destroys his own phone-tapping technology. Is he a Conservative? A Liberal?2 A Libertarian?
Nope, he’s just Batman. And as a comic book character, he’s allowed to hold simultaneous incompatible philosophies.
I think fans are responding to this latest wave of superhero movies not because they’re more realistic, but because they safely insulate us from reality, letting us address epic themes without uncomfortable details. Law versus Chaos is entertaining in TDK, but messy when you look at Iraq. The military-industrial complex is, well, less complex when Tony Stark can simply stop making weapons. And become a weapon. Or something. (The important thing is, he beat up Jeff Bridges, who was visibly evil and bald.)
The episode of Heroes: Origins I was set to write and direct last year deliberately crossed that line between “somewhat believable” and “far too realistic.” It was structured as an installment of A&E’s great documentary series Intervention, and followed two addicts with superpowers. We never shot it — the whole series got shelved — but I’m not sure it would have worked. And the producers were certainly nervous. In Iron Man, Tony Stark’s alcoholism is fundamental but non-threatening; real addiction is too real, too uncomfortable.
On some level, we want to keep our heroes just pure enough to fight the bad guys without encumbrance.
- As recent history has shown, simply getting rid of the leader achieves less than you’d think in the real world. ↩
- Note: Dry humor at link. You have to read a few entries to get the gist of it. ↩
Articles
August 13th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
One of my favorite thing about Heroes is that the good are not purely good, nor the bad purely bad (in most cases). It would have been interesting to see this Heroes: Origins of which you speak. However, since it got canned, let me just say that I hope you get to do something else for the series, because it’s awesome, and you appear to be awesome.
Especially since you pointed out how awesomely awful that Dark Knight dialogue is when you really think about it. :)
August 13th, 2008 at 5:59 pm
I fell off the Heroes wagon with the first few episodes of Season 2, but that take on the Heroes universe–already drawn in very, very broad strokes–would have been (at the least) a cool exercise in tonal contrast. Removing some of that comic book stylization to poke at a hyperreal interior would have lifted some of the weight the show seemed to suffer from (bowing under its own solemnity and mythology, or at least so I thought when I stopped watching. But I’m sure a huge number of people level that criticism at Battlestar Galactica, which I love).
I’m glad you find some worth in the escapist notions prevalent in many comic books (and comic book movies), especially since they are so often dismissed as escapism. Ultimately I think the purpose of the escape is less to provide a blank slate void of any relevance, but rather to abstract current concerns and allow reflection on them without real-world baggage.
August 13th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
Hi John,
I was wondering what ever happened to the web series pilot you shot during the strike. Maybe you wrote on it and I missed it? I clicked “The Show” link filed under Projects – but the last entry there is from March, saying that you were seeking funding. Anyway, just wanted an update. Thanks!
August 13th, 2008 at 6:34 pm
@DJ:
NBC/Universal took the pilot as a possible web series, with a ticking clock that will ring in a couple of months. So it may happen, or it may not. If it doesn’t, I’ll find a way to get at least the pilot out there.
August 13th, 2008 at 7:22 pm
One of the appealing elements of the Ironman & Batman characters is that they are NOT superheroes but rather normal, albeit filthy rich, guys driven into action by circumstance.
August 13th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
I was just having a discussion with a friend about Dark Knight last night (I FINALLY saw it), and one of the things she said she didn’t like was that it was TOO grounded in reality, which meant that the film wasn’t an allegory for something. She also felt, as you alluded to, the comic book dialogue simply didn’t work in such a grounded reality.
I loved it partly because it WAS so grounded in reality. I’ve never been a big fan of movies, including comic book movies, that are too fantastical without them being based on logic. It’s why I’ve always had a problem with the Superman/Clark Kent thing. To me, it just doesn’t make sense that glasses do ANYTHING to hide someone’s identity. If I can’t `buy’ something, I really have a hard time enjoying the movie.
Another reason I really enjoyed The Dark Knight was that I simply didn’t know what was coming next in the story, which is extremely rare for me. One of the unfortunate things about having seen so many movies, and knowing about the structure of most Hollywood films, is that I am rarely surprised by what I see on screen. I was with Dark Knight.
August 13th, 2008 at 11:10 pm
Really interesting. Good points there.
August 13th, 2008 at 11:35 pm
Having seen The Dark Knight twice now… yea yea… I think you hit the nail on the head. It is grounded in some form of reality. Or at least, it allows things to get messier and pulls far less punches than any super-hero movie we’ve seen. But it never crosses the line to where morality questions become uncomfortable.
In the real world, where there aren’t black and white choices, it is comforting as you say, to be able to approach it as so. The Dark Knight just has the most appearance of shades of grey so far. Though, I don’t know what the Watchmen will bring us.
August 13th, 2008 at 11:51 pm
Even comic book heroes should live in a world like ours with real consequences, and I believe the more serious and realistic approach that Nolan took with dark knight took the super hero film genre to a new level. obviously the reviews are rewarding this approach. The question is : when one is writing a true story with a hero who was actually a living, breathing, human being at one point in time, can one get away with dramatizing the issues he was dealing with at that period in time while helping the audience follow along with lines that are considered by you to be ‘broad philisophical proclomations’?
August 14th, 2008 at 5:04 am
I finally got to see The Dark Knight a few days ago, and despite all the other issues I had with it, it was this contrast, or rather, incongruity which struck me as the most notable busted component of this turgid, tedious machine of a movie.
It was the contrast between its very real setting and its arch dialogue; its very real setting and the hero’s rasping, butch, post-produced ‘voice’; its very real setting and a MAN IN A RUBBER BAT SUIT!
Generally, the film was torture to sit through, and it just went on and on and on…
August 14th, 2008 at 7:31 am
I’d argue that the thematic success of comic book characters, and comic book storylines, comes from how closely they can approach the line separating Real from Too Real, without crossing it.
I agree. Look at Brian Vaughn’s Ex Machina series. Vaughn manifests all-too-real political views in his Great Machine character (who’s also the Mayor of NYC): legalization, gay marriage, crime, terrorism, etc. I found it to be preachy, or at best mundane. And the character’s beliefs (assumed to be Vaughn’s as well) are well aligned with mine. But I didn’t want a civics lesson, thank you.
The point is, we want superheros to be, well superheros. Not civil servants. We want them to effect great deeds, not anguish over polls and bureaucratic minutiae.
August 14th, 2008 at 10:35 am
Interesting article. You might want to check up on the meaning of “uncanny valley” — it refers to the valley formed near the upper part of what is otherwise a simple curve on a chart (specifically, a chart whose axes are, roughly, “resenblance to humans” and “acceptability by humans”). It’s not a simple metaphorical gap between two different ideas, as you use it.
Thank you for letting me pedantic. :-)
August 14th, 2008 at 10:44 am
Come on John, you’re smarter than this. While the political leanings of Dark Knight are ambiguous, Iron Man is one big, Rah-Rah-America piece of Jingoism.
Classification of Arabs as either good or bad, Check. Minorities subordinate to Caucasians in every case, Check. Females punished for acting sexually, Check. Weapons of mass destruction are where we think they are, Check. Reaffirmation of Jesus mythology, Check. News media is accurate, Check. White man needs to save all the brown people from themselves, Check. A war based upon possible, but not acted upon, threat, Check. Reaffirmation of the inherent righteousness of the military and its actions, Check. Glorification of conspicuous consumption disguised as a tale of rugged individualism, Check. The inherent righteousness of giant corporations, Check. Glorification of the Military-Industrial-Complex as the pinnacle of American achievement, Check.
I could go on all day. Racist, sexist, misogynistic and incredibly dull the second time through, Iron Man has it all.
Look man, I love your work. Well, I love the work that is YOURS, (The Nines is one of my favorite films, ever), but you should be more critical of the for-hire work you do. I don’t mean to shame you for having worked on Iron Man. I’m sure it’s a better film for your involvement. But now that the cheque has cleared and you’re discussing it in retrospect, it’s time to admit that the morals and values of that movie were totally screwed up.
August 14th, 2008 at 10:44 am
That said, I do see why you bring up the uncanny valley. Perhaps you simply meant that the uncanny valley is on the realism curve, between, as you say later, Real and Too Real. Or maybe its between Not Real Enough and Real. So Real it’s creepy, but Not Real Enough to be beleivable .
August 14th, 2008 at 11:25 am
“The military-industrial complex is, well, less complex when Tony Stark can simply stop making weapons. And become a weapon. Or something.”
This brings up my big pet-peeve about Iron Man, about which you as one of the writer’s might have insight (you were one of them, though uncredited, correct?). First, I really enjoyed the movie, so this isn’t a rant. But Tony Stark’s epiphany about his contribution to war through weapon making clashes with his next act–to make a WEAPON.
Your comment’s “Or something” leads me to suspect you agree with this complaint. I suspect the illogic was a result of wanting to compress the source material into one movie. In the comic book origin story, Tony Stark wasn’t so anti-weapon when he made the suit. He came to the movie’s epiphany much later in the series, during the Vietnam War. Any thoughts about this? Any inside scoops? Did reality and world box-office have a hand in the decisions?
August 14th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
@Christopher Fahey:
Yup, I was deliberately appropriating the uncanny valley terminology for a new-but-similar application.
@Joel:
I like Iron Man a lot. My rewriting was much less fundamental than the questions we’re asking here. I did stuff with the reactor, Pepper, and miscellaneous dialogue tweaks, almost none of which you can really pick out in the final picture.
@Hunter:
See above. Though it’s easy to argue against anything on your checklist.
August 14th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
There’s actually a big debate as to whether “The Dark Knight” is an allegory for the Cheney/Bush administration. And allegory is a great way to (as you said it) address epic themes without uncomfortable details.
http://www.google.com/search?q=cheney+dark+knight
Allegory is interesting because it connects with the audience’s subconscious. What made the original “Planet of the Apes” hit a nerve with people? It’s an allegory for racism.
There’s even plenty of writing speculating that it’s no coincidence that the the “torture porn” sub-genre took off about the same time as Guantanamo and Abu Ghirab.
But yes, if you make a blatant “message” movie, you’re bound for failure. I know I’m in the minority, but I couldn’t stand “Crash.” Maybe I missed the point, but it seemed like Hollywood was patting themselves on the back for creating a movie important enough to show us that racism is bad.
And as much as I love “Star Trek”, I can’t stand the “I’m not half-white, I’m half-black” episode, although maybe things were a little different at the time it originally aired. Compare the blatant message of that episode to “The Doomsday Machine”, which was an interesting exploration of nuclear escalations going on in the real world at the time.
Is there a point to all these ramblings? I guess so. The way keep from crossing the line from “Real to Too Real” is to couch the issues in allegory.
August 14th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
I think the Iron Man point about weaponry is exactly that he has become stuck in an endless cycle: weapons manufacture–>weapons “in the wrong hands”–>iron man suit–> suit tech “in the wrong hands”. I think it makes the character contradictory, but not necessarily the story. Iron Man, just like Spider-Man, Reed Richards, and many other Marvel characters, once made a mistake that cannot be undone. In Iron Man’s case, escalation (a Nolan keyword, coincidentally)is the only option he sees available. The character is doomed to repeat himself forever, just like Spider-Man will never save Uncle Ben and Reed Richards cannot undo his family’s transformation. This vein is hard to mine much in the film, but it is there.
August 14th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
What about Watchmen?
I think that you’re talking about comics when you should stick to screenwriting. There are very important differences between the two. When its relevant, yeah, Scott Summers is going to talk about the president. The huge factor in comics is “what if?”, and the real-world references come in when we give these characters real-world problems. And those references progress as we do. You have to take in to account what the writers are trying to do with characterization. Alpha Flight was just a Canadian flyer.. Now he’s a gay Canadian flyer. When Colossus came out it had a huge impact on the Kitty Pryde relationship, as well as with Nightcrawler, and it could be said that this lead to his entrapment, as well as the recent “death” of Shadowcat (tear)
August 14th, 2008 at 5:59 pm
Well if figures that you did Pepper. The bits where she got to be a character are some of the film’s strongest.
Thank you for taking the time to reply.
August 14th, 2008 at 6:15 pm
I get an aching feeling in the pit of my stomach when the door bell rings, I answer it, and find that some stranger is trying to sell me their religion.
I get the same nausious feeling when I pay to see a movie, sit down, and realize at some point that the filmmaker is trying to force their political point of view or message into the film that I just paid $8 to see…even if it is in alignment with my own ideology.
The interesting thing to me is that we bring our own ‘lenses’ into a film as an audience member. When a story is talking about corrupt and unstrustworthy politicians that dissapoint a society, half of the audience is thinking…’Cool, they are talking about Bush.’ The other half of the audience is thinking ‘Cool, they are talking about Edwards or Clinton.’ We relate some of these stories and apply our own points of view, even if the film doesn’t spell it out.
Dark Knight broke many rules and remained brutal throughout. I’m not going to begin to debate it. I loved it.
August 15th, 2008 at 5:57 am
Hey, John, I’m sorry for off-topicking, but what’s the line spacing for the main text in your blog? I really like it, but I cannot determine the exact number looking in the CSS.
Thank you!
August 15th, 2008 at 5:59 am
P. S. Will you one day be able to publish the scripts for films Tim directed?
August 15th, 2008 at 9:33 am
Real people, not just comic book characters, hold beliefs that are “contradictory” within the realm of prepackaged belief systems with convenient labels. Not only Batman can be both “tough on crime” and against private gun ownership, for example. In that sense, comic book writers are sometimes doing a better job of contemplating the relationship between politics, social issues, and personal belief than various mainstream news and opinion media outlets. That’s a pretty sad reflection on the level of discourse permitted by these medial outlets, especially regarding certain hot-button issues.
August 15th, 2008 at 11:09 am
One would only have to read Marvel’s “Civil War” cross title epic to see that there is virtually no line between the comic world and the real world. What makes Marvel’s comics so damn good is that they are specific. From the 60′s Fantastic Four where Sue Storm would spout off about the “Reds” and “Pinkos” to the recent issues of X-Men, Spiderman, and the Avengers where the Iraq War is freely discussed.
I do think you’re talking about screenplays. Not comic books.
August 15th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
@Kevin Arbouet:
I’m talking about comic book movies, to be sure, but I’m really making the greater case about how closely comic book characters in any medium can comment upon or address specific real-world issues. If Batman, in any form, patrolled the Mexican border to keep out immigrants, we’d have a problem. Ditto if Wonder Woman endorsed Hillary Clinton. We ask these characters to stand for ideals, not details.
August 15th, 2008 at 5:59 pm
Mr. August,
This is off topic…in regards to your Zombie Western movie…I saw a direct-to-dvd movie of the zombie western vein at Blockbuster called “The Quick and the Undead.” I have no idea if it’s even remotely good…didn’t rent it…but, there you go.
August 15th, 2008 at 9:34 pm
I don’t completely agree with you. One of the japanese series that was a huge success in europe was Akira dealing with unconfortable concept like drug addiction and religion yet a lot of people I know of my generation (20-30) in france, have seen it and liked it…
But it’s an interesting take on comics nonetheless
August 16th, 2008 at 7:23 am
After 9/11, Frank Miller set out to write a graphic novel called “Holy Terror Batman” in which Batman directly takes on Al Qaeda. He never finished it as far as I know, but given what John wrote, (even though I’ve never been the biggest Frank Miller fan) I think it would be interesting to see how the author of Dark Knight Returns would have tackled the idea. Maybe the fact he never finished it is validation of John’s comments (#26).
August 17th, 2008 at 5:54 am
John, could the rest of us get our answers? It won’t take much of your time, I hope, and it would really help. :-) Sorry if I’m annoying.
August 17th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
Great topic for an essay, John, something I’ve been thinking a lot about (and blogging about in my posts about TDK). One can’t help but watch a film become such a huge phenomenon and not wonder why; the “realism” factor is a huge element of its success, IMHO. But it’s movie realism, it stays true to its own world; it’s not meant to be totally realistic to our world, as you point out. Of course, there’s no way the Joker could have pulled off every step of his massive, ornate plan, but that’s not the point. The point is the examination of how a random, deadly aggressor with seemingly no Achille’s Heel can affect a society and those sworn to protect it. The exhilarating plotting of this journey, the character arcs that develop during it, the active expression of theme, and the brilliant ending that brings it all together is why we’re flocking to see it. As one who welcomes new takes on comic book and movie heroes, I love it and love this discussion. Thanks, John.
p.s. That’s not Cillian Murphy playing the Scarecrow. He’s a lookalike.
August 17th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
To Dan-TWB (#31): Actually, it is Cillian Murphy. Here’s the link to the imdb page confirming it.
August 17th, 2008 at 9:28 pm
@Rick: I know how to find imdb; I’m saying I don’t buy it. His face and voice are different, it’s not him. If the DVD comes out and the special features show Murphy on the set shooting the scene, I’ll eat my hat. But not before visual proof.
August 18th, 2008 at 8:06 am
@Dan-TWB: My bad Dan. I thought you were merely confused, I didn’t realize you were a full blown conspiracy theorist.
I can’t believe I’m going to bother with this, but… there are numerous reports of Murphy on the set already on the internet, SAG rules would NEVER allow the film to credit Murphy as an actor if he were not in the film, and for what it’s worth, he looked and sounded like himself to me (and I’ve never heard anyone else, except you, say otherwise).
Moreover, why bother? You seriously think Nolan couldn’t get Murphy? Or couldn’t afford him? Or Murphy is too busy starring in…. uh… something else?
That’s my 2 cents. Now believe what you want.
August 18th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Great post. THE DARK KNIGHT left me wondering about exactly this subject, for some of the same reasons you mention (especially the final lines by Batman and Gordon) – and others totally contrary to your general idea: I thought that the screenplay in THE DARKK KNIGHT was extremely cunning in injecting concrete/”real” politics/worldviews into its main characters, all under the radar.
The Joker, Alfred, and Harvey Dent stand out to me in that regards. Yes, they all have their vague assertations of grand-scale comic-book philosophies (“The only sensible way to live in this world…”, “…He’s not being a hero, he’s being something more”, “…And I promise you, the dawn is coming!” – respectively).
And then they make very personal (i.e. it feels like the characters sharing their views with us, not the filmmakers) comments. The Joker’s “All according to plan” bit in the Hospital rung especially clear on this note – especially the reference to soldiers.
Alfred reminisces about a time when he worked for an imperial government to bribe tribal leaders (his words, not mine) – and very sharply equates someone wanting to thwart those bribing attempts with incomprehensible, anarchastic impulses. Meanwhile, later in the film, the Joker’s invitation to “upset the established order” feels almost like a direct response to those sentiments.
(It’s also interesting to note that Alfred accuses the Joker of wanting to “watch the world burn” – but what was Alfred’s solution back in Burma? Tie that into the Joker’s commentary things going according to plan – “Even if the plan is horrying!”)
Dent, while a far more complex “white knight” than I’d expected, has an interesting political bent that shines when he defends Batman at the dinner. (“Suspend democracy” is a particularly interesting choice of words.) Rachel calls this out specifically, too.
(I also thought Dent’s acceptance of an extravagant, unnecessary fundraiser from a personal friend – when remembering that Dent made a name for himself fighting corruption – particularly awkward, character-wise. But I chalk that event to plot necessity, not character commentary, and that I read too deep into that.)
Punchline: I thought THE DARK KNIGHT was very “political,” and that its success in toeing that line isn’t owed to dodging politics entirely, but including them intelligently (rather than an elphant-in-the-room situation, à la IRON MAN and Iraq).
Jonh, anyone – thoughts?
August 18th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
And I apologize for my typo-rific post. I’m still riding out painkillers, a busted foot, and the end of a vacation wherein I spoke very little English.
August 19th, 2008 at 11:23 am
i think you’re wrong. and i sense a little bitterness because as good a writer as you are, john, you’ll never, ever be able to make the two or three comic properties you’re working on anywhere near as politically relevant as tdk is. or as sophisticated and riveting.
August 19th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
I thought CIllian Murphy looked different in the movie, and I wondered if it was him, but if he’s in the credits, it must be him. Also, if he wasn’t available (which would make no sense considering how small his part was), it would make no sense to recast him when they could just leave the character out.
It’s interesting to read all the political interpretations of movies like Iron Man and TDK. I don’t get how Iron Man would be jingoistic at all – Stark is hard core pro-military and corporation at the beginning, but the whole point of the movie is that the military fails at getting the bad guys and the corporation ends up corrupt, so Stark ends up taking matters into his own hands.
And really, taking offense at using villains who share the nationality of some real life villains? Personally, I’m tired of the years of nothing but british villains because nobody had the balls to have bad guys with any ethnicity out of fear of offending people. The original Iron Man had the origin story set in the vietnam war, updating to afghanistan is just going from period piece to present day.
August 21st, 2008 at 11:47 am
Isn’t the real problem the fact that people like to wrap up their “real-world political spectrum” into simple absolute boxes? While you say that Batman doesn’t fit on a “real-world political spectrum”, who does? How many people are 100% conservative or are liberal about everything? The Dark Knight fits into the real world political spectrum BECAUSE of the seemingly incompatible philosophies.
While I agree that some of the monologues (of which there were FAR too many) were borderline groan-inducing, I believe The Dark Knight did a great job of portraying the real world scenarios in which you realize that right and wrong aren’t always so different after all.
August 23rd, 2008 at 9:02 am
In the second week of September, DC Comics will release the first issue of a four part series called DC Universe: Decisions. They plan to actually spell out the political leanings of some of their most popular characters.
http://www.dccomics.com/dcu/comics/?cm=10136