is Riddler gay in Batman forever?
Patrick2480
in between his legs. and that scene at Wayne Manor he was awfully close to 2
Face. and he doesnt seem to be interested in females. he seemed to fake dancing
with Chase at the big party he threw. just some observations
ANIM8Rfsk
"hang out much in biker bars, bruce?"
DRAKE RETRO
Joel schmacher filled the last to bat films with so much gay inundo it was
sickning...
Nothing agaisnt homosexuals but batman is not gay..and I don't think that there
has been a gay character in the bat books yet...
Changing a persons color or orgin for a film is one thing..Changeing the
persons sexuality or insiuating it is anouther.
"I'm not a peice of chocalote.I'm not gonna get up in your cookie and melt when
you bake it!" D.RETRO 2001
Chris Small
>I seem to notice the way he talks sometimes and that one time he put the cane
>in between his legs. and that scene at Wayne Manor he was awfully close to 2
>Face.
*That* makes you gay?
~Chris
Brian Doyle
"DRAKE RETRO" <y2kr...@aol.comIsEVIL> wrote in message
news:20010507174059...@ng-cs1.aol.com...
> well I would hate to type cast the film by saying that..But..It's true
> Joel schmacher filled the last to bat films with so much gay inundo it was
> sickning...
> Nothing agaisnt homosexuals
Then it might be ebtter to avoid the use of the word "sickening" in context.
>but batman is not gay..and I don't think that there
> has been a gay character in the bat books yet...
Well, that's something we don't knwo about? There are lot's of characters who've
never discussed their private life.
Agreed Bruce, Dick, Tim, Jim, Alfred and Babs are definitely straight, but there's a
whole bunch of other characters out there who could be. It's just never been relevant
to reveal it in a story.
Look at Pied Piper in Flash, he was in the titles for over twenty years before
eventually someone decided that he had been gay all along, but it didn't contradict
anything important so what's the diff?
Cheers
Michael Parks
wrote:
Firstly, trying to read this post actually made my eyes bleed.
Secondly, I agree. Batman is definitely not gay. He's a macho, manly
man. In an effort to be more masculine, like Batman, I too now don
tights and a cape, and parade about with a scantily-clad teenage-boy.
Nothing against homosexuals, but, Lord, they sure do make me sick!
Mike
Brian Doyle
"Chris Small" <cs_b...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4ZEJ6.5210$vg1.4...@www.newsranger.com...
> Patrick mumbled:
> >I seem to notice the way he talks sometimes and that one time he put the cane
> >in between his legs. and that scene at Wayne Manor he was awfully close to 2
> >Face.
>
> *That* makes you gay?
> ~Chris
Well, obviously! It's all in the tone of voice and how you carry your cane.... Ummmm,
the sad part of that last statement was that there wasn't even a trace of a double
entendre implied! :)
Aletea Lily Holder
>
> Secondly, I agree. Batman is definitely not gay. He's a macho, manly
> man. In an effort to be more masculine, like Batman, I too now don
> tights and a cape, and parade about with a scantily-clad teenage-boy.
>
> Nothing against homosexuals, but, Lord, they sure do make me sick!
>
> Mike
I don't really know you guys around here, but I'm pretty sure you meant this
sarcastically, right? Like, please tell me this was sarcastic.
~*~
TASTE THE RAINBOW
The darkness ahead may be your brightest light
Rev. Owen Allaway
>> Nothing against homosexuals, but, Lord, they sure do make me sick!
>>
>> Mike
>
>I don't really know you guys around here, but I'm pretty sure you meant
>this sarcastically, right? Like, please tell me this was sarcastic.
Yeah, I believe it was a sarcastic dig at the previous post.
--
"Pathetic! You should learn the Shinarui way!"
Chris Small
> Mike wrote:
>> Nothing against homosexuals, but, Lord, they sure do make me sick!
>sarcastically, right? Like, please tell me this was sarcastic.
Mike was being sarcastic, I'm sure.
I think you'll find the majority of the regulars here to be open-minded about
this sort of thing.
Unfortunatly, the topic often brings out homophobic attacks from people who'd
never post otherwise.
Go figure. ;)
~Chris
Chris Small
> well I would hate to type cast the film by saying that..But..It's true Joel
> schmacher filled the last to bat films with so much gay inundo it was
> sickning...
> Nothing agaisnt homosexuals
Then don't use words like 'sickning' to describe 'gay inundo'.
> but batman is not gay..
Of course he's not. He's a fictional character. He can't have sexual
preference.
Writers, however, can give the character whatever preference they want to.
> and I don't think that there has been a gay character in the bat books yet...
I'm not sure if there has been or not, but what's your point?
> Changing a persons
Not a 'person' -- a character.
Batman has been interpreted in many different ways by many different authors in
many different mediums.
As written in the comics he's been consistently depicted as being interested in
women. Fine, so am I. But that doesn't mean that there cannot be books or
*films* (which
have nothing to do with the established continuity in the comics anyway) in
which
Batman has an interest in men -- or (as in the case of Joel S's films) has
homoerotic
symbolism behind him.
I wouldn't at all mind seeing a mature piece exploring Batman as homosexual. If
done right it could be an interesting piece.
Schumacher's films were just trash to begin with, regardless of any so-called
gay innuendo.
> color or orgin for a film is one thing..Changeing the
> persons sexuality or insiuating it is anouther.
Right. If you make a white character black, then most people applaud the choice
as
a gesture of good will with artistic merit, and the racists bite their tongue.
If you make a straight character gay, the homophobes come out of the woodwork
bitching and moaning that they can no longer feel secure about their sexuality.
Poor them.
~Chris
Michael Parks
<x-f...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> Firstly, trying to read this post actually made my eyes bleed.
>>
>> Secondly, I agree. Batman is definitely not gay. He's a macho, manly
>> man. In an effort to be more masculine, like Batman, I too now don
>> tights and a cape, and parade about with a scantily-clad teenage-boy.
>>
>> Nothing against homosexuals, but, Lord, they sure do make me sick!
>>
>> Mike
>
>I don't really know you guys around here, but I'm pretty sure you meant this
>sarcastically, right? Like, please tell me this was sarcastic.
Yes, it was sarcastic. Sorry, I was just mocking the bigot. Don't mind
me.
Mike
Michael Parks
<cs_b...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
>Batman has been interpreted in many different ways by many different authors in
>many different mediums.
>
>As written in the comics he's been consistently depicted as being interested in
>women. Fine, so am I. But that doesn't mean that there cannot be books or
>*films* (which have nothing to do with the established continuity in the comics anyway) in
>which Batman has an interest in men -- or (as in the case of Joel S's films) has
>homoerotic symbolism behind him.
>
>I wouldn't at all mind seeing a mature piece exploring Batman as homosexual. If
>done right it could be an interesting piece.
That reminds me of Joker's portrayal in Dark Knight Returns. I enjoyed
Miller's take on the character. I don't know if he was supposed to be
gay, necessarily, but he certainly was effeminate. Wasn't Bruno (the
guy with the swastikas on his prominent man-boobs) supposed to be
Joker's boyfriend?
Anyway, I thought it added an interesting dynamic to their
relationship. I've always wished somebody would run with the idea in
the Batbooks.
>Schumacher's films were just trash to begin with, regardless of any so-called
>gay innuendo.
Batman and Robin does have the distinction of being the worst movie
ever, though. That's gotta be worth something. I love how the actors
in the batsuits in all four movies have to turn their whole bodies to
look to their sides, or behind them. Those suits were hilariously
crappy - especially after Schumacher added the huge nipples to them.
>> color or orgin for a film is one thing..Changeing the
>> persons sexuality or insiuating it is anouther.
>
>Right. If you make a white character black, then most people applaud the choice
>as a gesture of good will with artistic merit, and the racists bite their tongue.
I think people raised a bit of a fuss recently when Marvel toyed with
the idea of turning Captain America black when they moved his book
over to the Marvel Knights line. At the risk of sounding like a
racist, I thought it was a bad idea too. I've always enjoyed the irony
of Cap being the perfect example of the nazi's ideal aryan superman,
but that's just me.
On a side-note, my spell-checker constantly tries to change the word
"Schumacher" to "Scoutmaster." Coincidence? I think not!
Mike
Rev. Owen Allaway
> love how the actors
> in the batsuits in all four movies have to turn their whole bodies to
> look to their sides, or behind them. Those suits were hilariously
> crappy - especially after Schumacher added the huge nipples to them.
Val Kilmer's description on "Inside the Actor's Studio" about what it's
like to wear the Bat-suit was hilarious. Apparently he had to spend more
time concentrating on standing upright than his acting.
It's funny, actually, Val Kilmer has a bit of a reputation for
being difficult, but he came over very well on that program. Okay, so all
the interviews are sickeningly sycophantic on the show, but not everyone
comes over as well as Kilmer. I did get the impression, though, that he
takes his work very seriously and it might not be a good idea to get in the
way of how he thinks he should play his character. Which is where the
reputation comes from, I suppose. Oh just ignore me, I'm rambling again.
Christopher Adams
> word "Schumacher" to "Scoutmaster." Coincidence? I think not!
"Nnnnget them, boys, ooh!"
--
Chris "The Tramp" Adams
I am the way of all flesh.
I think a mad scientist may be will need to destroy the earth.
- Kurt Stocklmeir
XEAUIK EREF EM-NEMMET
Your Procreative Organ Is Next
Upon The Sacrificial Altar.
Jeremy Henderson
>the idea of turning Captain America black when they moved his book
>over to the Marvel Knights line. At the risk of sounding like a
>racist, I thought it was a bad idea too. I've always enjoyed the irony
>of Cap being the perfect example of the nazi's ideal aryan superman,
>but that's just me.
>
black Captain America was going to be in the Ultimate line, not the
Marvel Knights line. The reasoning (which, sadly and frighteningly, is
fairly plausible) is that if the military were to test an experimental
drug on soldiers, they would use black soldiers as guinea pigs instead
of white soldiers.
"Come down off your cross, we could use the wood."
-Tom Waits
Aletea Lily Holder
Yeah, I tend to agree.
> I wouldn't at all mind seeing a mature piece exploring Batman as homosexual. If
> done right it could be an interesting piece.
I agree. It was always just assumed he's heterosexual, and it would be interesting
to see what would happen if Bruce Wayne, one of the most influentiel people in
Gotham, came out of the closet. Or for that matter, Babs or Dick or even Alfred.
> If you make a straight character gay, the homophobes come out of the woodwork
> bitching and moaning that they can no longer feel secure about their sexuality.
>
> Poor them.
I definitely agree. If after watching only one movie they no longer feel secure
about their own sexuality, than maybe they're having doubts and just don't want to
admit it. Plus, you could always just skip on the movie.
Aletea Lily Holder
> me.
That's what I thought, but like I said, I don't know you guys well enough, and I
do know people who acutally talk like that.
Rinuccio4
are just now learning to accept it. I personally am straight, but I have many
gay friends. It kills me to see how people still talk about it in
closed-minded ways, such as saying that Riddler seemed gay because of the way
he handled his cane. yeesh.
On teh subject of Batman Forever, I do think that Nygma (which Schumacher saw
fit to respell - or was it the Animated Series?) had a serious obseesion with
Wayne which could have very well included a sexual attraction. I am certain
that this wasn't the intention of the original story, which was not all that
bad. The script I have from the internet even ahs some cool scenes that
Schumacher chose to drop. I also think that both Kilmer and Clooney could have
been good as Batman with a better director. But given the circumstances, we
have what we have. Let's hope it gets better from here.
BatKnight
Josh Dull
> Uh, it's a joel shumacher film - EVERYBODY'S gay
>
> "hang out much in biker bars, bruce?"
Well, that explains why Bruce Wayne adopts the twenty-something
Dick Grayson!
Josh
DRAKE RETRO
make..Possibly because I am not the best speller on the planet and it was
(very) late night post..
What I meant by saying the word "sickning" was not that I think homesexuality
in genaral is sickning..In my personal life away from the internet.(Which some
people obviosly need to get..) I have gay friends and even they are disgusted
by the later bat films..If anything schmacher made fun of homesexual
typecasting..He used alot of homesexual typecasting that gays and people in
this group fight against .In a dry a dry attempt at humor..
The inundo of muscler half naked men,nipples on a suit,situations in dialogue
and countless other things implied this..(butt shots,etc)Was this the only
reason these films were not good? Nope..but they played their parts.
Like the post that started all this..The way the riddler used his cane and
spoke made him gay..Nope I think it was just Jim carrey using more toilet humor
we have come to expect from him...
Overly using cursing,sex,voilence and drugs can be sicking to a movie as well
and diminsh the overall story and product when thats not the focus of a
film.Just as some of the elements of gay inundo was
"sickning" to the batman film product..Write or look for whatever elseworlds
batman comic or film you want.But ever since bob kane drew the first picture of
batman. He has not been gay and was never meant to be.I never asumed
batman/bruce wayne was hetro,other then a father figure in alfred and son
figure in robin/dick I can't see where people would think he was gay..Asfar as
edward nigma being attracted to wayne..maybe so?
If that makes me homophobic or a bigot then so be it...
Brian Doyle
"Rinuccio4" <rinu...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010508160545...@ng-xc1.aol.com...
> It kills me to see how people still talk about it in
> closed-minded ways, such as saying that Riddler seemed gay because of the way
> he handled his cane. yeesh.
My respsonse was sarcasm based, I assure you!
> On teh subject of Batman Forever, I do think that Nygma (which Schumacher saw
> fit to respell - or was it the Animated Series?)
Actually, I thought "Edward Nygma" was always his name in the comics... up until the
point where he was retconned into a guy who was originally called "Eddie Nash" who
took the name nygma to show how obsessed he was. A pointless bit of re-engineering
IMHO.
>had a serious obseesion with
> Wayne which could have very well included a sexual attraction. I am certain
> that this wasn't the intention of the original story, which was not all that
> bad.
Wouldn't be sure about that, Riddler was always obsessive and his insane jealousy
towards Bruce would be hard prssed to come over as quite so deep without the
"stalker-love" mentality creeping in.
>The script I have from the internet even ahs some cool scenes that
> Schumacher chose to drop. I also think that both Kilmer and Clooney could have
> been good as Batman with a better director. But given the circumstances, we
> have what we have. Let's hope it gets better from here.
I actually quite like Forever, it had a more "comic book" look and feel to it than
either of the first movies and though heavily flawed had some decents scenes (I was
never _that_ fond of the first movie (Too many holes in the plot), and loathe
"Returns" for too many reasons to go into here)
'Course then he had to spoil it all by making one of the worlds most efficient pieces
of celluloid emetic!
Cheers
Chris Small
>He used alot of homesexual typecasting that gays and people in
>this group fight against .In a dry a dry attempt at humor.
I'll concede that point -- stereotyping is bad.
However, I never even *noticed* it in the films until someone pointed it out to
me, and usually
I'm good at picking up subtle themes.
>Like the post that started all this..The way the riddler used his cane and
>spoke made him gay..Nope I think it was just Jim carrey using more toilet humor
>we have come to expect from him...
I agree.
>Overly using cursing,sex,voilence and drugs can be sicking to a movie as well
>and diminsh the overall story and product when thats not the focus of a
>film.
I disagree here. Sometimes sex, violence, et al can be inappropriate to a
particular work, but
more often they can be used to propel a story, create mood and atmosphere, and
add additional thematic points,
even when it's not the main focus of the film.
> Write or look for whatever elseworlds
> batman comic or film you want.But ever since bob kane drew the first picture of
> batman. He has not been gay and was never meant to be.
What Kane meant him to be is a moot point because, as I said above, the
character has been
reinterpreted in many many ways since. At this point there is no definitive way
the character is
'meant to be', and any options are up for exploration.
> I never asumed batman/bruce wayne was hetro,other then a father figure in alfred and son
> figure in robin/dick
Other then? Being a father (or mother) figure has nothing to do with ones
sexual preference.
> I can't see where people would think he was gay.
I don't think anyone, in this thread or otherwise, has said "Batman is gay."
What we've said is
that it's a character analysis worth exploring. (which the films *may* have
tried, and failed, to do.)
~Chris
DRAKE RETRO
>particular work, but
>more often they can be used to propel a story, create mood and atmosphere,
>and
>add additional thematic points,
>even when it's not the main focus of the film.
I agree..maybe I did'nt pharse that as i should have..Notice I said "can be" A
movie that has a plot when can be ruined by too many sex sceens..Or the word
"f*ck" in a film can be used to many times..Don't get me wrong I'm not about
censorship..But I do feel when these things are overly used ,again with
exceptions can hurt the end product..
>At this point there is no definitive way
>the character is
>'meant to be', and any options are up for exploration.
This is true..But I guess what I am trying to say is since Kane created
batman..And as far as I know never gave any indication to him being gay..I feel
he should'nt be gay..It nothing homophobic about it..Nothing anti gay..Just the
fact that because of this I feel batman/wayne should not be gay..
>Other then? Being a father (or mother) figure has nothing to do with ones
>sexual preference.
I agree, what I was trying to say..Was I did'nt understand (movies excluded )
where people would get the possiblity batman/wayne was gay..other than the fact
that wayne had a close male to male bond with both alfred and dick...
Which makes me wonder..Was aunt harriet added to the tv show to try stop people
from even wondering this possiblity?
I can't even remember if she was in the comics or not.....
This has been an entertaining and interesting conversation thus far..
Even for a bigot ;oP
MadiHolmes
>This is true..But I guess what I am trying to say is since Kane created
>batman..
Kane also wrote him as a killer at first. At one point, Batman and Robin were
zipping through time and space, courtesy of Dr. Nichols, or were fighting big
tea cups and/or oversized typewriters.
>..And as far as I know never gave any indication to him being gay..I feel
>he should'nt be gay..It nothing homophobic about it..Nothing anti gay..Just
>the
>fact that because of this I feel batman/wayne should not be gay..
You know, I always find the irony in these statements when put in compared to
Wertham's statements.
>Was aunt harriet added to the tv show to try stop people
>from even wondering this possiblity?
Pretty much. They even "killed" off Alfred for a while to stop this. It didn't
work <his killing off, I mean>.
MadiHolmes
Rinuccio4
>until the
>point where he was retconned into a guy who was originally called "Eddie
>Nash" who
>took the name nygma to show how obsessed he was. A pointless bit of
>re-engineering
>IMHO.
You're right, but what I was getting at was the spelling. Until that point,
whether it was TAS or Forever, Nigma had been spelled with an 'i.' The
respelling with a 'y' never made sense to me. I think that the Eddie Nash
thing has been around since the '80's, according to an old DC who's who I have.
BatKnight
Brian Doyle
> You're right, but what I was getting at was the spelling. Until that point,
> whether it was TAS or Forever, Nigma had been spelled with an 'i.' The
> respelling with a 'y' never made sense to me.
Sureli, yt's just because yt makes yt more enygmatyc.
>I think that the Eddie Nash
> thing has been around since the '80's, according to an old DC who's who I have.
Okay NOW I feel old! :)
BD
Rinuccio4
if it makes you feel better, it's pre-Crisis! :)
BatKnight
D. E. Kesler
It is funny really. The writers at D.C. could easily end all this
discussion by having Batman simply state, "I am not the least bit gay.
Gee whiz, I love ladies." However, this will never happen because it
would lead to too many problems outside the comics. Critics would be
all too quick to ask if D.C. or their character, Batman, harbored some
sort of animosity toward homosexuals.
Personally, I have no problem with reading the Batman as gay. This is
especially true of the comics written in the late forties and early
fifties. In these tales, Robin is often shown in great peril - a role
traditionally occupied by the damsel in distress. Also, a couple of
tales feature Robin cross dressing. Perhaps more significantly, are the
many images of Bruce Wayne and Dick Grayson simply spending time
together and enjoying one another company. This is quite unlike other
characters from the same period like Captain America and Bucky, who
seemed to have nothing in common aside from busting the stuffings out of
Nazis.
Of course, I know that the writers did not intend for one to read their
efforts as gay. Please bear in mind, I am not talking about authorial
intent here. I am talking about how different readers can approach the
same material and arrive and very different readings of the text.
Joel Schumacher, who was very aware of the various gay interpretations
of Batman, made overt what was once subtle. Personally, I don't care
for it all too much. I like my subtext to stay put in the subtext. In
fact, I see that as one of the largest failings of the Batman movie
franchise. All of those elements that lurked between the lines and the
panels in the comics have been dragged kicking and screaming into the
foreground.
Consider the following. It is true that the Joker is a reflection of
the Batman, but that is the subtext. Likewise, it is true that there is
a sexual tension between Batman and Catwoman, but this too belongs in
the background. I remain ever hopeful that future Batman films will
focus upon giving us a good adventure yarn and simply allow the subtext
to take care of itself.
Regards and Best Wishes,
Donald Eric Kesler
DRAKE RETRO wrote:
>
> well I would hate to type cast the film by saying that..But..It's true
> Joel schmacher filled the last to bat films with so much gay inundo it was
> sickning...
> Nothing agaisnt homosexuals but batman is not gay..and I don't think that there
> has been a gay character in the bat books yet...
> Changing a persons color or orgin for a film is one thing..Changeing the
> persons sexuality or insiuating it is anouther.
Brian Doyle
> >Okay NOW I feel old! :)
>
> if it makes you feel better, it's pre-Crisis! :)
Don't think it is. It was first revelaed in a Question issue I think, and that puts
it at 89 or 90. Way post Crisis, but I'm over 30, so I recall a whole lote more than
that anyway (Put it this way, one of my first comcis was the X-Men with "The Dynamic
Debut of the Dazzler" in all her lycra, skates and mirrorball pendant glory...
>shudder<
Thanks for trying to make me feel better anyway! :)
D. E. Kesler
You know, your post made me realize that a gay Batman would be a very
interesting element in an elseworld tale. It would be boring if that
was the whole point of the tale, but would be an interesting element in
a tale that other plot devices also at work. I am surprised it has not
been done. Of course, sex and human sexuality is one of those human
passions that D.C. comics still approaches with a degree of caution that
one might deem prudish.
It is odd. Our society is far more willing to embrace violence as
entertainment. Violence is something that most of us will hopefully
never encounter. In contrast to this, sex, which is as natural as
breathing and eating, is still considered taboo.
Regards and Best Wishes,
Donald Eric Kesler
Rinuccio4
Hey, I tried! :) I really did think it was Pre Crisis. Oh, well.
BatKnight
Brian Doyle
"D. E. Kesler" <er...@fantasm.org> wrote in message
news:3AFAE3C2...@fantasm.org...
> Hello,
>
> It is funny really. The writers at D.C. could easily end all this
> discussion by having Batman simply state, "I am not the least bit gay.
> Gee whiz, I love ladies." However, this will never happen because it
> would lead to too many problems outside the comics. Critics would be
> all too quick to ask if D.C. or their character, Batman, harbored some
> sort of animosity toward homosexuals.
I'd say the assortmetn of women he's had sexual relations with, including at the very
least in assort continuity; Silver Saint Cloud, Selina Kyle and Talia would all
poijnt towards him being straight.
> Personally, I have no problem with reading the Batman as gay. This is
> especially true of the comics written in the late forties and early
> fifties. In these tales, Robin is often shown in great peril - a role
> traditionally occupied by the damsel in distress.
Again, that's a father and son relationship being amplified. Also, Bruce's girlfriend
at the start, the actress whose name escapes me, was also often in distress.
>Also, a couple of tales feature Robin cross dressing.
Usually becasue he's in a situation where a dark haired boy would stand out and
possibly lead to a compromise of his ID. (I'd add that young men pretending to be
women for the purposes of acting goes back waaaay further even than Shakespeare)
>Perhaps more significantly, are the
> many images of Bruce Wayne and Dick Grayson simply spending time
> together and enjoying one another company.
Again, that's their father/son relationship. Did you never just hang with your Dad?
>This is quite unlike other characters from the same period like Captain America and
Bucky, who
> seemed to have nothing in common aside from busting the stuffings out of Nazis.
Well, Bucky was the "camp mascot", (take _that_ pun any way you want to :) ) and
although Steve Rogers had a big brotherly realtionship with Bucky, there was no
formal link between them, as there was between bruce and Dick, Bruce took Dick in as
his ward, giving him a home. He'd have done this whether or not Dick had become
Robin.
> Of course, I know that the writers did not intend for one to read their
> efforts as gay. Please bear in mind, I am not talking about authorial
> intent here. I am talking about how different readers can approach the
> same material and arrive and very different readings of the text.
True, it can be fun to speculate and I hardly think you were working ona plan to
corrupt minors!
> Joel Schumacher, who was very aware of the various gay interpretations
> of Batman, made overt what was once subtle.
There's overt and there's !!! > > * * SCHUMACKER OVERT * * < < !!!
>Personally, I don't care for it all too much. I like my subtext to stay put in the
subtext.
It certainly lacked subtlety.
> Consider the following. It is true that the Joker is a reflection of
> the Batman, but that is the subtext.
I LOATHED that in the movie.
>Likewise, it is true that there is
> a sexual tension between Batman and Catwoman, but this too belongs in
> the background.
Apart form the fact that they got married and had a daughter in the old Earth 2
continuity.
>I remain ever hopeful that future Batman films will
> focus upon giving us a good adventure yarn and simply allow the subtext
> to take care of itself.
Now that would be NICE! Keep it more like the Animated series! I want a fun
adventure, I don't give a rats ass about on-screen Freudian subtexts! :)
KRothst402
>
>> Personally, I have no problem with reading the Batman as gay. This is
>> especially true of the comics written in the late forties and early
>> fifties. In these tales, Robin is often shown in great peril - a role
>> traditionally occupied by the damsel in distress.
>
>Again, that's a father and son relationship being amplified. Also, Bruce's
>girlfriend
>at the start, the actress whose name escapes me, was also often in distress.
To me, the 40s and 50s Batman could be seen as incredibly gay. Its some
fantasy world for male-male relationships.
"Bruce" spends his time traipsing around in silk paisley dressing gowns, "Dick"
is his only and closest mate, they share a bedroom together, spend much of the
time changing clothes in front of each other (and all that might imply as to
what they've seen of each other). Their bedroom sometimes has flowers, they
have yet another male as their servant, they spend their nights in revealing
skin tight costumes and often were in close physical contact as they escaped
from or were bound to traps.
Further, while "Bruce" had women, he never found success with them for *some*
reason, he repeatedly chose Robin over Catwoman, they resented Vicki for trying
to mess up their good thing.
I mean what is heterosexual about this arrangement?
D. E. Kesler
One of the finest examples that Batman's relationship with Robin is all
too akin to the traditional damsel in distress appears in JLA #44 from
May of 1966. The title of this tale is "The Plague that Struck the
Justice League."
The first page is a splash panel in which the fiendish villain Doctor
Bendorian taunts four members of the Justice League; Atom, Flash, Green
Lantern, and Batman. Doctor Bendorian states with a wicked smile, "Not
only are YOU doomed - but so is everyone else you have TOUCHED - !"
Worried expressions appear upon the faces of our heroes.
Atom thinks to himself, "Jean Loring - I have signed her death warrant!"
Likewise, Flash ponders, "I gave Iris West - the kiss of death."
A concerned Green Lantern thinks, "Carol Ferris - in deadly danger!"
What of Batman? Well, he too is fretting about another. "Robin - what
have I done to you?," worries the Dark Knight.
This really stands out on this panel because Batman's thoughts, reading
from right to left, appear after the other heroes have expressed their
unspoken concerns for their girl friends. The reader is all set up to
read yet another expression of concern directed toward a damsel in
distress.
It is ironic that this tale was written during the same period in which
efforts were being made to eliminate possible gay readings of Batman.
Consider how Alfred was slain in the pages of Detective Comics two years
prior in 1964 to make way for Aunt Harriet. The reason for this tragedy
was to break up the male domination of Stately Wayne Manor. It is
simply amazing to me that Julius Schwartz who was editing both Detective
and JLA at the time did not note the possible gay interpretation of the
panel I just described. After all, it was Schwartz who made the
decision to have Alfred eliminated. He was all too aware that it was an
issue at the time.
Regards and Best Wishes,
Donald Eric Kesler
MadiHolmes
>
>Hello,
>
>One of the finest examples that Batman's relationship with Robin is all
>too akin to the traditional damsel in distress appears in JLA #44 from
>May of 1966. The title of this tale is "The Plague that Struck the
>Justice League."
>
>The first page is a splash panel in which the fiendish villain Doctor
>Bendorian taunts four members of the Justice League; Atom, Flash, Green
>Lantern, and Batman. Doctor Bendorian states with a wicked smile, "Not
>only are YOU doomed - but so is everyone else you have TOUCHED - !"
>Worried expressions appear upon the faces of our heroes.
>
>Atom thinks to himself, "Jean Loring - I have signed her death warrant!"
>
>Likewise, Flash ponders, "I gave Iris West - the kiss of death."
>
>A concerned Green Lantern thinks, "Carol Ferris - in deadly danger!"
>
>What of Batman? Well, he too is fretting about another. "Robin - what
>have I done to you?," worries the Dark Knight.
>
So? Wouldn't you be worried over your ward/son? Why is it so wrong for a guy to
show any sort of paternal love for his son? Sure, Dick's not his "biological"
son, but he was as close as you could get.
This is what I don't get. <nonviolent> Emotions by guys have "homoerotic"
qualities <as does female bonding>.
Of course, it wasn't until people really started pointing out "sexual
undercurrents" that I even knew they existed. Most of the time (okay, ALL of
the time), it just blew over my head.
MadiHolmes
D. E. Kesler
I am certain that the writer, Gardener Fox, intended this panel to be
read exactly as you have read it, as a fatherly expression of concern;
nevertheless, the validity of a gay reading of this panel can't be
denied. Consider the matter this way. This is not an issue of
ascertaining authorial intent. We know that the author intended the
panel in question to be viewed in the manner which you have described.
The point I am attempting to make is that this panel all too readily
lends itself to a gay reading. Bear in mind, readers will often
discover things within a given text that was not intentionally placed
there by the writer. This does not invalidate the different reading.
At least, that is my take on critical readings of art and literature.
Regards and Best Wishes,
Donald Eric Kesler