Saturday, April 16, 2011

Batman vs Superman

Today I'm giving feedback on my students' rough drafts of their final argumentative paper; the first paper I read was one arguing that Batman is better than Superman. The following are some of my marginal comments, taken out of context:

"Wait, Christopher Reeve isn’t considered one of Hollywood’s actors?? And Adam West is good campy fun, no dispute there, but one of Hollywood’s greatest actors?? That’s stretching it."

"Yeah, but Clooney sucked as Batman; did you see “Batman and Robin?” Two words: nipple suit."

"Keaton I whole-heartedly agree with: http://www.theonion.com/articles/study-87-percent-of-movies-would-be-better-with-mi,19268/"

"And I loved Val Kilmer in “Real Genius” and “Top Gun” and “The Doors,” but c’mon: have you rewatched “Batman Forever” since 1996? Sucks.

I mean, sure, “Dark Knight” is better than “Superman IV,” but “Superman “is way better than “Batman Forever. “ Don’t compare one’s worst film against another’s best; compare best to best and worst to worst for fair comparisons."

"What, no love for Kevin Conroy from the Animated Series? I prefer his Batman voice to Bale’s."

"A mere 3 Twilight films grossed $1.7 billion; by your own criteria, does that mean Twilight is better than Batman? Be careful with quantity vs. quality."

"But it took courage and bravery for Superman to give his life to defeat Doomsday! And it took ingenuity to defeat Emperor Zod and his fellow super-prisoners in “Superman II.”"

"This by far is your most salient point: expand on it. Because Batman is a detective, right? So he’d do his research to find some, have Catwoman break into a museum and steal some kryptonite (or just buy some since he’s filthy rich Bruce Wayne), then he’d lure Superman to the Batcave, then beat the living crap out of Superman."

"Fun fact: the term “Superman” comes from 19th-century German philosopher Freiderich Nietzsche, who posited that certain individuals, by virtue of their superior gifts, are above common morality; therefore, they are under no compunction to be “good” and deserve to rule over others. Lex Luthor, for example, would consider himself a Nietzschean superman. Hence, the comic-book Superman subverts Nietzsche by positing a Superman who adheres all the more closely to a code of morality. I mean, would you prefer Superman use his powers for evil??"

"Doesn’t Batman's quest for vengeance mean he’s mentally unbalanced and driven by questionable ethics in a way Superman is not?"

"You might stress more that Batman uses his money (powers) to help others, not on himself. (Though again, Superman does the same thing)."

"Yeah, but Superman is an immigrant, an illegal alien (quite literally) who came to America to reach his full potential (just like our ancestors). And, he comes from a proud working class background; he defends the poor against the rich man (Luthor) who keeps oppressing them (Superman supports the Union!) Doesn’t all this make him more American, salt of the earth, and relatable than the Batman who is among the top 1% of wage-earners?"

"By the same standard, how is Batman not being condescending by being a filthy rich billionaire playboy heir who uses his money to battle crime for the poor?"

"Doesn’t Batman’s immense wealth make him just as inaccessible, privileged, elitist, and unlike the rest of humanity as Superman’s alien background? In fact, isn’t Bruce Wayne more like Lex Luthor, a rich genius who thinks himself above the law."

"And incidentally, this is the most fun I've had giving feedback ever."

And for the record, I gots love for Superman, but Batman is totally way more awesome.

3 comments:

  1. You make good points, but I still think Batman is more relatable and accessible than Superman. Also, is it entirely accurate to characterize Superman as coming from a working class background when he was a foundling whose aristocratic biological heritage affects all aspects of his life? When a fairy tale prince is raised by peasants, we still call him a prince, not a peasant. Maybe I've read too many class-obsessed Victorian novels, but I don't read "comes from" to mean the same thing as "was raised in."

    ReplyDelete
  2. I should point out that I don't agree with such novels' take on the nature-vs.-nurture debate, but in this case it seems to be a debatable issue.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Valid points Cindy (whoever you are); I would only note that your Victorian examples are British, not American ones; and Superman is, if nothing else, distinctly American. Many immigrants, and especially refugees (which would be Superman's true legal status, I suppose) coming to America today were themselves PhDs, wealthy, influential, etc, in their war-torn lands of origin, only to start over lower-class and non-descript when they come here; so in that sense, Superman fits the American immigrant narrative much more snugly than the aristocratic, privileged hero that is at once more European and more Batman. The fact that Superman's creators were Jewish, and of therefore immigrant origin, strengthens this immigrant reading.

    Put more succinctly, Superman being of poor immigrant/refugee background renders him statistically more typically American than the extreme minority of billionaire heirs that is Bruce Wayne's caste.

    ReplyDelete