The Hero We Create: 9/11 & The Reinvention of Batman

In order to understand the breach this situation represents, it’s valuable to compare it with an analogous rescue scenario. In Joel Schumacher’s Batman Forever (1995), the Riddler, who is similar to the Joker in his role as the twisted, insane trickster, sets up a similar scheme.74 Both Robin (Batman’s sidekick) and Dr. Chase Meridian (Batman’s love interest) are captured and suspended above a deep pit with jagged rocks at the bottom. As in the Joker’s scenario in The Dark Knight, Batman must chose one person to save. “Not enough time to save them both,” the Riddler says mockingly: “Which will it be, Batman? Bruce's love or the Dark Knight's junior partner?”75 Confronted with this horrific choice, the pre-9/11 Batman naturally goes right ahead and saves them both. In juxtaposition with the post-9/11 Joker’s scheme, this ending seems almost grotesque in its optimism. The Batman Forever rescue scenario is predicated on the assumption that Batman remains in control. The Riddler turns the scenario into a twisted game and it is Batman who refuses to play by the rules. The Riddler presents Batman with the choice and Batman subsequently refuses to acknowledge this choice, deftly saving both Robin and Dr. Meridian.

In contrast with Schumacher’s Batman Forever, Nolan’s Dark Knight deprives Batman of control. The Joker’s twisted scenario as well as his willful misdirection thwarts Batman’s ability to “save the day” and forces him to play by the Joker’s rules. He is deprived of the ability to save both Dent and Rachel; moreover, he is deprived even of the choice of who to save. The power dynamic has shifted: Batman no longer dictates the “rules of the game” but is instead manipulated by the Joker’s terms. He is prevented from saving Rachel and arguably fails to save Dent as well (as I will show later on in this chapter). Batman, for all his power and strength, is rendered impotent by this impossible rescue scenario. “You have nothing – nothing to threaten me with!” the Joker taunts, “Nothing to do, with all your strength!”76 Challenged by an enemy that does not fear his threats of violence, Batman must abide by the Joker’s plan and only learns the location of Dent and Rachel when it is too late. In effect, a contract that existed between hero and villain, established through narrative expectations, is breached. The Joker fails to offer Batman the requisite opportunity to foil his evil plot and thus, like the real-life terrorist, has suspended the rules of war. The Joker deprives Batman of agency, as the Riddler does not, and makes a mockery of the notion that there exists a set of rules of engagement that governs their antagonism. As a result of the Joker’s duplicity, Batman cannot control the situation and cannot make the choice he wants most: the choice to save Rachel. This profound deviation from narrative expectations is symptomatic of the rupture or breach that the 9/11 terrorist has produced in the Manichean narrative.

Batman’s Troubled Morality

This violent breach of expectations stems from an anxiety that society has in fact entered a “world without rules,” that, in the aftermath of 9/11, the predictable triumph of Good over Evil dictated by the cultural monomyth is no longer assured. Batman resonates with contemporary audiences because he embodies this concern. The complexity of Batman as well as the reason for this resonance can be reduced to a simple question: What is Batman’s quest truly about? Is his essential purpose to seek vengeance for his parents’ deaths or to promote justice? A similar question might be asked about our own response to 9/11: was the American response founded on a desire to spread democracy and root out terrorism or was it a matter of seeking vengeance on those who carried out the attacks? It is this unresolved anxiety that pervades the two films and is reflected in Batman’s troubled morality.

For all his commitment to justice, Batman is a character beholden to conflicting motives. Deeply scarred by the death of his parents, his pursuit of justice has always been inextricably bound to his desire for vengeance. “It’s important to understand,” Lou Anders, a columnist and science fiction writer, argues, “that the Batman has something to prove… Batman does what he does for himself, for his needs. That society gains from his actions is incidental, an added value… but not the primary reason for his activities.”77 Batman’s motivation stems primarily from a desire to avenge his parents’ deaths. His actions are thus always tinged with anger, his goals framed in the context of the smoldering rage that burns within him. Yet his overall goal is noble: he seeks justice and endeavors to improve society through his actions. This fore-grounded tension between revenge and justice is what fuels the character’s complexity in the modern Batman franchise.

Due to his anger, Batman engages frequently in morally questionable tactics in the name of achieving his professed goal of defending justice. From torture to spying, Batman continually undermines his own moral authority and, consequentially, calls into question the nature of his purpose. The most troubling aspect of this behavior is that Batman condemns others for actions that he is willing to commit himself. As Chuck Tate notes in The Psychology of Superheroes, “The Batman resorted to intimidation, other fear-inducing tactics, and physical violence to rouse, confuse, and ultimately subdue criminals and continues these practices to the present.”78 These specific moral ambiguities make Batman uniquely resonant, especially in the years after the start of the War in Iraq when many analogous transgressions came to light. In 2008, it was this type of conduct that prompted Kristine Kathryn Rusch to assert “President George Walker Bush is the closest thing we’ve had to Batman in a long time.” Bush, she claims, in his attitudes and moral conduct, resembles the Dark Knight to a disquieting degree. In a manner similar to how Faludi defines the mythic hero of the frontier, Rusch argues that “we believe in the lone wolf. We believe in the man who, for moral reasons, will act in a solitary and often violent manner. We believe in him – if he’s always right. And therein lies the rub.”79 This compelling and somewhat unsettling analogy ultimately points to an explanation for why Batman behaves in this way and why his audience tolerates such moral ambivalence.80

Examples of morally dubious behavior abound in both Batman Begins and The Dark Knight. Moreover, these examples draw heavily on contemporary moral quandaries such as warrantless wiretapping, forcible extradition, and issues surrounding torture and interrogation. In one explicit reference to contemporary anxieties, the creators of The Dark Knight explore the morality of spying on the citizens of Gotham. By tapping into Gotham city’s cell phone network, Batman creates sonar that allows him to spy on the entire city. While Batman is in awe of his own creation, Lucius Fox, Bruce Wayne’s trusted adviser, immediately recognizes the dangerous and morally questionable function of the machine. The following exchange takes place between Batman and Fox, when Batman unveils this powerful and dangerous tool:

Batman: Beautiful, isn't it?

Lucius: Beautiful. Unethical. Dangerous. You've turned every cell phone in the city into a microphone.

Batman: And a high-frequency generator/receiver.

Lucius: You took my sonar concept and applied it to every phone in the city. With half the city feeding you sonar you can image all of Gotham! This is wrong.

Batman: I've got to find this man, Lucius.

Lucius: But at what cost?

Batman: The database is null key encrypted. It can only be accessed by one person.

Lucius: This is too much power for one person.

Batman: That's why I gave it to you. Only you can use it.

Lucius: Spying on thirty million people isn't part of my job description.

Batman: This is an audio signal. If he talks within range of any phone in the city, you can triangulate his position.

Lucius: I'll help you this one time. But consider this my resignation. As long as this machine is at Wayne Enterprises…I won't be.

Batman: When you're finished, type in your name.81

Fox calls the machine “unethical,” “dangerous,” “wrong,” and “too much power for one person.” Yet Batman seems immune to Fox’s moral condemnation, saying simple “I’ve got to find this man, Lucius.” Batman accepts that this instance of ethical transgression is worth it if it means catching the Joker. He sees himself, in this moment, as somehow excused from moral responsibility. In his or Fox’s hands, Batman considers the machine a tolerable exception to moral conduct. That Batman designs the machine to ultimately self-destruct only reinforces the implication that he knew its use was immoral in the first place.

Other examples of moral transgressions are numerous. In both films, Batman tortures crooks in order to gain information: in Batman Begins, he dangles a corrupt police detective off of a building and in Dark Knight he tosses the mob boss Salvatore Maroni from a fire escape, breaking both of the crook’s legs. Likewise, in Dark Knight, Batman resorts to violence while interrogating the Joker. Pushed to the brink by the Joker’s sinister rescue scenario, Batman’s anger takes control of him; he blocks the door to the interrogation room with a chair and begins violently beating the Joker to extract information. Earlier in the film, he facilitates the extraordinary and illegal extradition of a foreign national, the corrupt banker Lau. “We need Lau back,” Dent argues, “but the Chinese won’t extradite a national under any circumstances.” “If I get him to you,” Batman replies, “can you get him to talk?” The subsequent action sequence involves a covert break-in and kidnapping, followed by a dramatic forced-extradition by plane. All these examples only serve to affirm Batman’s moral flexibility. In addition, they engage the same moral questions of torture, unilateral action, spying and interrogation that have plagued the American response to 9/11.

 It is Batman’s moral ambiguity that makes the Joker such a compelling foe. The Joker delights in proving the moral depravity of individuals, especially Batman. In the final dramatic sequence of The Dark Knight, the Joker sets up a scenario in which two ferryboats, one filled with average citizens and the other with prisoners, are wired to explode. Each boat’s passengers receive the detonator for the other boat and are given a deadline to decide whether they will blow up the other ferry or die themselves. The Joker’s goal is to demonstrate that all people are amoral in the right situations; specifically, the Joker has always hoped to prove that he and Batman are alike in their moral conduct: “without rules.” This has been a burning question in the history of Batman; “Why doesn’t Batman Kill the Joker,” as Mark White asks in Batman and Philosophy.82 This is Batman’s one rule, the “one rule” that the Joker insists he will have to break to achieve his ends. The Joker, past and present, has tempted Batman to break this rule, to kill in the name of justice and Batman has invariably refrained. Despite this, Batman’s vigilantism allows him a degree of moral flexibility that manifests itself in other ways, such as spying on the citizens of Gotham. Though he takes the moral high ground against the Joker, he continually struggles with the questionable tactics he employs in all other instances.