In addition to the Rambo comparison, I thought of another movie/character that has a similar theme: the incredible Hulk. On Landon's take of accountability, it works much better, because you have a character in the Hulk who literally turns into a monster who is so powerful, more powerful than any government or military, follows no rules, that no one could even try to make him accountable. What makes it relevant is that the Hulk is sometimes a Superhero, and often characterized by outsiders as such, yet he wears the green and purple colors of the comic book villains. His alter-ego, Bruce Banner, is the heroic one, in that he tries to keep the Hulk in check. (Jeckyl and Hide). What made him heroic was his actions in the origin story, where he rescues another person caught in a gamma blast, only to absorb the radiation and suffer the transformation himself. (Incidentally, this aspect was missing from the earlier film, accounting for part of that film's unpopularity.)

This has relevance from an Objectivist standpoint, btw...On the issue of making superheroes too "Real" and "psychological." Rand wrote about this decades ago in the Romantic Manifesto:

 [On horror stories]: "Popular literature, more honest in this respect, presents its horrors in the form of physical monstrosities. In 'serious' literature, the horrors become psychological and bear less resemblance to anything human; this is the literary cult of depravity."

The comics have done just this in recent years: taken the "metaphor" and translated it into "psychological" studies. Rand adds that "what they are saying is that they 'feel' as if life consisted of werewolves, Draculas and Frankenstein monsters." Batman was a cartoony gargoyle, not meant to be taken literally. But Rand nailed the current situation decades ago when she wrote: "in its basic motivation, this school belongs to psychopathology more than esthetics." 

 Of course, Landon, with your talk of "we need new heroes..." well, we discussed Rand's different take on heroes, of course...but it just dawned on me...

The heroes of Galt's Gulch reverse the rules of Hammer's Paradox...it is not the hero who cannot rejoin society, but the society that must rejoin the world of the hero...this is discussed in Stephen Cox's "Insiders and Outsiders" article, I think...but it surely turns the tables on the old myths! 

That's pretty interesting, Landon. I'm not that familiar with Hammer, but it jives with the idea that the American hero differs from the classical hero in that the latter hero eventually rejoins society after he defeats the dragon or tyrant, while in the American myths the hero is an outsider who "rides off into the sunset." The one explanation is that the American hero is a type of fascist who imposes order (Batman). But I wonder if another explanation is that in older societies, the people simply had less aversion to violence, living with it on a daily level, while in the American ideal, we have the luxury of delegating defense to the police. 

(Of course, there is a cultural difference within the American ideal; the urban people, the southern mentality, and the frontier mentality seem to have less of an aversion to violence as an answer.) 

 Incidentally, you know who else fits your model? Frodo. He is a hero, yet his experience, and what it does to him, leaves him unfit for the Shire, and he goes off with the Elves to their new home.

Mike Hammer's paradox. It appears elsewhere but no where is it more clear than in the book One Lonely night. The idea is presented that Hammer is selfishly dealing with evil on its own terms, as such he's made himself into something which doesn't fit into society. But his whole goal is to create a world that he doesn't fit into.

He wants to create a world where to most people, the evil he deals with on a daily basis seems like an impossible nightmare, while he offers an invaluable service, that to some degree he wants to go unappreciated.

---Landon

Never mistake contempt for compassion, or power lust for ambition.

http://www.myspace.com/wickedlakes

to it Landon...

one thing in the meantime, sinc eyou quoted from the movie earlier...when Rambo says "you can live for nothing or die for something..." well, Rand had the third way..."you can live for something..." SO I detect a bit of the Byronic view at play...but like you said...we need new heroes.

So, thanks btw.

But I really like your thoughts as well Joe. I just started a slightly deeper level of thought on the subject and once I have my thoughts a little more clear I'll give your responses to my response a proper, er response.

---Landon

Never mistake contempt for compassion, or power lust for ambition.

http://www.myspace.com/wickedlakes

"Landon is right about one thing when it comes to both characters: they are meant to be transitional to a better way. Rambo's world is primitive, Batman's devolved. But they are necessary. A hero, like art, is not always pretty. Both say things that need to be said in service of what might and ought to be. That does not make the artist any less an artist, or the hero any less a hero."

 I want to bring this closer to home with a quote from Ayn Rand:

"It is impossible to write about heroic characters or a romantic story in today's setting. The world is in such a low state that I could not bear to put it in fiction." She wanted to write about light-hearted action heroes, but instead turned to the battle of philosophic ideas. She was transitional herself, fighting the ideological version of the Dark Knight's battle. Some say she herself became as dark as Batman. But she was paving the way for the Harvey Dents of the world. Yet she did it without the shame and guilt afforded to Batman. 

 The difference? Rand was not Utopian, Batman is. Batman has to learn that "the price of liberty is eternal vigilance." Batman thinks that there will be a day where the Harvey Dents will be all we need. Rand knows that Harvey Dent is an ideal to be reached for, but backed up when needed. And never apologized for.

 Landon and I have been going back and forth on this, and at his urging I finally saw RAMBO (the new one.) I am glad I did. RAMBO is the movie that the DARK KNIGHT wishes it was. (Or, more accuratley, the movie I wish it was!).  Same themes, same basic archetypal characters, but without the burden of the superhero genre. Rambo IS seen as a hero to some (Ronald Reagan?) and a villain to others (Roger Waters?). Rambo is Batman without the money or the toys. But instead of trying to answer unanswerable questions, the movie deals with an all-too-true reality (the massacres in Burma) with real-life butchers who make the Heath Leger's Joker look like Caeser Romero. (You did warn me, Landon!). Even the Christian themes are dealt with in a more realistic manner. The result: there are no easy answers, the protaganist is NOT ineffective or afraid to get his hands dirty. He knows what he is, but knows that the false alternatives in BATMAN are exactly that.

The movie does what Batman fails to do: it addresses the fallacy of the "armchair" peacemakers who think that "all you need is love" to stop a war. Batman gives in to the "tsk-tsk." Rambo shows the finger-waggers the reality and questions the audacity of those who would moralize, from the comfort of their Western decadence, against those who are living in life-or-death situations for doing what needs to be done. (I say "western decadence," not in support of the usual connotation, but in the manner of another Stallone movie, DEMOLITION MAN. In this movie, Stallone's character, a police offer who goes to extremes, is punished by suspended animation, only to be revived in a future where his arch-enemy has been revived as well, only in this future, the peacemongers won: violence has been eradicated to the point where no one is capable of countering the villain. It's an America where "the price of freedom is eternal vigilance" is not affordable for the lambs that the people have become. In a word, "limp-dicked."Hence, decadence.)

On the issue of accountability that Landon brought up....(and I already know what he means, I think) but I'd like to ask for the sake of debate: accountability to who, or what? Comparing the two films: Batman does indeed hold himself, at the end, accountable to the people he protects, and their laws and rules, the rules the Joker urges to cast off. Gordon follows these rules unswervingly, similar to the character of Javert from LES MISERABLES. (The Joker is partly based on a character from THE MAN WHO LAUGHS...am I seeing a pattern here?). The flaw with the Joker's (and the hero's) logic is that they are approaching rules as an absolute, despite the context. (A hero must NEVER kill.) 

Rambo, in contrast, knows better. When he takes on the task of transporting missionaries into enemy territory, and his boat is boarded by pirates who want to rape the female, he kills them first. When the Christians start saying they have to report him because "killing is always wrong..." you see the ridiculousness of their statement. (Indeed, the very man who threatens to report him learns how to wield a rock in the end...) Rambo IS accountable, to the requirements of life. And in some contexts, the requirement is "kill or be killed." Or, as Landon likes to say, "it all comes down to flight or flight." 

Of course, they tell Rambo that they know he thinks he's doing what had to be done...but, of course, they think they are right because God said so. They think that what Rambo does only perpetuates the cycle. But as Rambo proves, "unless you're going in there with weapons, you're not changing a thing." Because they would have been dead. Is it better to be a noble lamb for the slaughter or be able to change into a wolf when needed?

 The biggest difference needs to be pointed out here: Batman goes out looking for these situations; Rambo just wants to be left in peace. He is approached by missionaries and mercenaries alike for his services and only accepts reluctantly. The Batman, by contrast, has a personal mission to accomplish. But also it needs pointing out that Gotham is "somewhere" in the United States, while Rambo's world is that of a backwards jungle village of warlords and peasants. The warlords answer to no rule of law but their own. But is there much difference? The warlords of Gotham pay lip service to the law while manipulating the system to their own ends. They wear suits instead of soldier's uniforms, but the mindset is the same. Batman and Gordon have the luxury of hiding behind rules and laws in order not to do what ultimately needs to be done. Rambo lives in a land without rules, where the authority is the man with the biggest gun. To whom would you report such a man for murder? 

Landon is right about one thing when it comes to both characters: they are meant to be transitional to a better way. Rambo's world is primitive, Batman's devolved. But they are necessary. A hero, like art, is not always pretty. Both say things that need to be said in service of what might and ought to be. That does not make the artist any less an artist, or the hero any less a hero. 

BTW, here's another article that people might be interested in, I thought it had some good points:

http://dwarfhippo.wordpress.com/2008/07/21/another-take-on-the-dark-knig...

I second that, Landon, and particularly liked:
'Once you've chosen lawlessness as the standard of value, the anarchist is king.'
And the Joker rides it for all it's worth.
I saw the film again last night, this time in IMAX. If you haven't seen it in IMAX, then you really haven't seen it. I enjoyed it even more this time. It was an added 1am show since the earlier shows were sold out, and it was Packed. 1am on a weekday. Incredible.

http://fawstin.blogspot.com/

and thought provoking contribution, I really enjoyed it!

Scott DeSalvo

www.desalvolaw.com
FREE Injury Report and CD Reveal the Secrets You Need to Know to Protect Your RIGHTS!