We once pondered aloud what Homer had in mind with his claim that Batman's a scientist. Since then, and I'm sure because of it, a new movie about Batman has been released. Now Jon Barnes at the Times Literary Supplement traces seven decades of evolution in the Batman character and persona.
The adaptive behavior of Batman to his cultural ecosystem has yielded some strange variations. (I wonder as well if knowing this history would help scientists.)
From "a violent vigilante from his earliest appearances in May 1939" to guy with "a teenaged sidekick, battl[ing] against the Axis powers in the comics" to his appearance in "a pair of big-screen serials, [where he was] a jovial post-war father figure at the head of an extended family that included a Bat-Woman and a Bat-Hound" and then onto a career where he "encountered primary-coloured robots and aliens at a time when flying saucers were de rigeur at the (B-) movies." Then--and this goes on--to his stint acting as a "ninnyishly lantern-jawed straight man to a succession of bad puns and pratfalls in the television series of 1966-68." That must be everyone's favorite (or at least the favorite of the Family Guy writers). Then a "suave, James Bondian globetrotter" and then in "the 1980s and 90s...a plethora of different versions" and now "in The Dark Knight...a grim and desperate mirror image of the twenty-first century."
Would you say he has adapted to the changing conditions around him? Passing on those genes which help his later versions fit better into the ecosystem? Or was he just bigger and stronger from the start and then capable of molding himself to his new environs? Wait, this one's better: has Batman survived because his neck was longer and so he could eat the leaves from the tops of trees when his peers couldn't? Or did he survive this last 70 years because he passed on neck-growing genes to his offspring, allowing them to adapt to the tall trees where others couldn't? Jim Jarmusch's next version, street-wise yet framed by Bukowskian bouts of grit, awaits your answer.
Thanks to The Morning News for this diversion.
- Log in to post comments
Good one! Maybe Batman survived hence the analogy between him and the USA' s unilaterist foreign (and somewhat domestic) policy. Just like the USA, Batman is a fighter of the good will(!). Having Bin Laden and Saddam as the chaos- lover Jokers, all Batman (the states) tries to do is to calm down the country and introduce permanent peace for all. Even better, Batman, despite all the luxury and capital it has, is a good hearted person. He is a responsible and considerate citizen, who is humble and very very very rich. How often do you see that? Therefore I think, Batman survived because of the accurate analogies that it formed between the times that it is being recorded. Also the utopia that he represents. I can talk about his eating habits later :)
As a point of geek culture, Batman has been the dark character for far longer than he has been the father fun figure. After all, he wasn't mr.fun until the introduction of Robin in 1940. In the late 60s Neal Adams brought back the dark version, so if you were to add up the number or years Bats has been dark, it's been longer than he's been mr.happy. Which I don't think you can do in evolution, lose a characteristic and then re evolved it, or can you?
Of course you can, Phil. Expression responds to the environment. We had the Batman we needed when we needed him, and his genome carries the alleles for all of the Batmans we have had.
Clearly, Batman is evolving in the way a star evolves, rather than in the way a population evolves.
[By the way, Batman (1966) is the definitive Batman movie. Nobody--even Jack Nicholson--can best Cesar Romero as the Joker.]