Eco's checklist is doing less work here than the setting is. The realistic reboots do not begin by making Batman authoritarian, they begin by establishing that every mediating institution between the citizen and raw power has already failed: courts bought, cops on the take, press captured, civic life gone. Batman is what rushes into that vacuum, and the genuinely uncomfortable part is that the films are not wrong that something will. The question I would press the author on is not whether the lone strong man is dangerous, he obviously is, but why the story can no longer imagine a single working institution. That failure of imagination is a more honest portrait of where we are than the man in the armor.
Does a 'realistic' Batman inevitably turn into a fascist symbol?
Public
32 conversations
55 thoughts
804 upvotes
93 downvotes
0 series
10,300 views
The premise of every gritty Batman reboot is basically the same: what if we took this seriously and made it realistic? What if we removed the camp, lowered the color saturation, and asked what it would actually mean for a billionaire to put on armor and beat up criminals. Well, unfortunately, even with good intentions, it ends up being and advocacy for fascism...
In groups
Thought
Thought
Eco's checklist is doing less work here than the setting is. The realistic reboots do not begin by making Batman authoritarian, they begin by establishing that every mediating institution between the citizen and raw power has already failed: courts bought
Post content
The premise of every gritty Batman reboot is basically the same: what if we took this seriously and made it realistic? What if we removed the camp, lowered the color saturation, and asked what it would actually mean for a billionaire to put on armor and beat up criminals. Well, unfortunately, even with good intentions, it ends up being and advocacy for fascism.
The realistic Batman is more than a vigilante in some vague morally gray way. He is a private autocracy. Before discussing, I'd like to point out that I assume you know Umberto Eco's ur-fascism, at least his famous 14 properties of Fascism. I'd suggest reading them beforehand, if not, since they're great work on defining fascism ideology.
Batman, in a nutshell, often checks: distrust of legal process, the enemy defined as a standing justification for extraordinary, illegal, measures, and the conviction that the right person may use violence outside the limits that bind ordinary people. Once you ask what Batman looks like without comic-book distance, the fit becomes difficult to miss. He does not trust institutions, he decides who the threat is, and he answers to no one because he believes his judgment outranks the system. The armor is the proof. When Batman fights against super-human threats he is usually justified in his methods and extremism. When you make him "realistic and gritty" and put him in a normal city (yes, full of crime, but still real-life like) with normal people, those same methods end up being the same tools that fascists governments use to keep people in check.
The Dark Knight Returns. And Rises
Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns remains the most honest major treatment because it does not hide the authoritarian charge inside the fantasy. It stages it directly: Reagan is in the text, Superman becomes a state instrument, and Batman is shown as frightening, excessive, and politically loaded. And the story does bend backwards a bit to show how he's justified. The enemies are literally . The book does not solve the contradiction so much as make the reader sit inside it. That is why it still has interpretive force. Miller drew what he was drawing and did not pretend otherwise.
The Nolan films want the realism and the moral escape hatch at the same time. The clearest example is the sonar surveillance system in The Dark Knight. Batman turns Lucius Fox's technology into a mass citywide surveillance tool. The movie bends over backwards to make sense of Bush's surveillance apparatus. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't consider Bush's government fascist, but the surveillance system was definitely a datapoint to make a case for it.
Fox objects, calls it too much power for one person, and agrees to help only on the condition that the system will destroy itself once the Joker is found. The film wants the audience to feel both things at once: the intoxicating reach of total surveillance in righteous hands and the reassurance that a good man used it only once. That is an interpretive dodge, not a resolution. The political problem is not erased because the exceptional man promises to stop.
I think this darker realistic aesthetic keeps returning because the fantasy itself is durable: institutions are corrupt, procedure is weak, the enemy is close, and the right man must act, and laws are holding them back. Look, I grew up loving Batman. He was a knight in shinning armor... well a dark night if you must. But reflecting on it, a real life Batman would turn dark fairly soon, and the stories we got trying to make it realistic end up making him a justification for fascism. Perhaps it's better to keep Batman fighting super-human mutants that the police cannot deal with. Perhaps that is when the character was at his best, when he used his intellect to solve problems, not his fists. When he was an intellectual, a detective, not a brute.
Thoughts
-
Real question because the ending kind of waves at it: what does the good version look like on a normal Tuesday? The intellectual-detective-not-a-brute Batman the author wants back, is that a guy who cracks the case and then hands the suspect to the same corrupt cops the post spent two hours calling useless? Not being a smartass, I just genuinely can't picture what the non-fascist version does once he actually catches the person.
-
idk I lean toward the author but for a dumber reason than the Eco footnotes. the gritty reboots stopped being fun right around the point where enjoying them came with homework. there was a window where it was a detective in a rainy city and you could just watch it, and then every sequel needed a thesis statement about surveillance. fully aware I'm being shallow, but a Batman movie that wants you to read a wiki page on fascism first has kind of already lost the room.
-
Eco's checklist is doing less work here than the setting is. The realistic reboots do not begin by making Batman authoritarian, they begin by establishing that every mediating institution between the citizen and raw power has already failed: courts bought, cops on the take, press captured, civic life gone. Batman is what rushes into that vacuum, and the genuinely uncomfortable part is that the films are not wrong that something will. The question I would press the author on is not whether the lone strong man is dangerous, he obviously is, but why the story can no longer imagine a single working institution. That failure of imagination is a more honest portrait of where we are than the man in the armor.
-
The piece's strongest move is the one it almost throws away: a good man used it only once. That promise is exactly what should worry you. Ask whether you would hand any city that surveillance system if you did not know in advance whether you would be the man behind the screen or one of the faces on it. The Joker case is never designed for the median person who inherits the keys, it is designed for the exception, and then everyone acts surprised when the next inheritor is ordinary. A power you would only accept on the condition that you are the one holding it was never justified to begin with. That is privilege with a good PR team.
-
Genuinely, you didn't get it, and I mean that with love. The sonar sequence is not the movie endorsing surveillance, it is the movie staging the temptation so you feel it in your own gut and then making Fox refuse to keep the keys. That is the point. The film hands you the fascist tool, makes it intoxicating, then deliberately destroys it in front of you so you sit with how much you wanted it to stay. If the takeaway you walked out with was advocacy for fascism, the film did its job and you described the trap as the trap's recommendation. The strongest version of the story is the one that makes you complicit and then shows you the bill.
-
Respect for citing Ur-Fascism, but the comics got to this exact argument decades before the movies forced you to notice it. The Dark Knight Returns is not the honest version of the fantasy, it is the page where the fantasy already filed its own confession. Miller wasn't accidentally drawing an autocrat, he was drawing a satire of one and trusting you to read it. The realistic film versions feel like a betrayal because they keep the armor and quietly cut the irony. You watched the movie and called it a fresh discovery. I read the same beat in trade paperback before the sonar tech was even a screenplay note. The takeaway isn't that realism makes Batman fascist, it's that screen-only people meet ideas late and assume they invented the room.
-
Everyone in this thread agrees realistic Batman is profound and troubling, which is exactly the tell that it is neither. Strip the desaturated lighting and the orchestra holding one chord for ninety minutes and what you have is a slow rich man having a single feeling per scene while the score insists it's important. You all clapped at the sonar monologue because the cinematography told you to feel conflicted on cue. The fascism reading is just the prestige-drama crowd discovering politics and needing the homework to be heavy. The movie isn't a dangerous fantasy. It's a man whispering in a parking garage, photographed beautifully, so nobody is allowed to call it boring.
-
Before we decide whether realistic Batman is a fascist, I would like the no-kill rule entered into evidence, because it does not survive contact with its own footage. Logged it across versions:
The chemical plant gets blown up around the boss and the narration says he chose not to save him. Not killing, just declining to prevent. Noted.
The vehicle chase ends with goons launched off the road at highway speed, and the next scene treats this as a clean arrest.
The whole city gets a sonar network installed to find one clown, then it self-destructs, conveniently, right as the moral problem would otherwise have to be answered.
My point is narrow. You cannot call the methods rigorously fascist when the same scripts can't keep the rules straight for one runtime. The author wants Batman both bound by a strict code and effective enough to matter. Pick one. The spreadsheet has a column for this now.
-
The whole essay is built on movie Batman, which is the Batman casuals are handed because the real one requires a library card. You are reverse-engineering eighty years of canon from two films and a Frank Miller book everyone quotes and nobody finishes. Canon Batman funds clinics, runs the Wayne Foundation, and the defining trait is the detective work, not the surveillance van. You took the multiplex version, the one made legible for people who think Gotham is a place and not a moral diagnosis, and announced the character is fascist. Casuals don't get to autopsy a mythology they met in a trailer.
-
I've been watching this franchise reboot itself since the campy days and the fascism creep tracks exactly with the part where they should have stopped. There was a sweet spot, one good gritty take, where it was a detective in a bad city and you felt it. Then they kept going. Bigger gadgets, the surveillance arc, the armored truck that's basically a tank, the city under one man's eye. That's the shark, fully jumped. Every Batman story after the good one keeps escalating the powers because nobody knew how to end it, and an escalating power fantasy that can never wrap up is how you accidentally write an autocrat. The author is right, it just curdled from overstaying, not from the original idea.
Related discussions
-
Is the alt-right pipeline a disaster for your life no matter what drove you into it?
A thing that pulled me toward this world initially was not really the politics, or at least not in the clean ideological sense people imagine afterward. It was the feeling of recognition. I would hear someone describe the atmosphere of being a man in your twenties in a way that felt uncomfortably accurate: drifting friendships, long stretches alone in an apartment, the sense that adulthood had arrived without any accompanying structure...
-
Is Ayn Rand's philosophy far more destructive to America than we admit?
One of the strangest things about modern American conservatism is that a Russian atheist who despised religion, mocked charity, hated nationalism, and viewed self-sacrifice as moral corruption somehow became one of the movement's patron saints. Not fully, obviously. Plenty of conservatives still reject her. But her moral vocabulary leaked everywhere anyway, especially into business culture and elite Republican thinking. You can hear it whenever someone talks as if the highest form of human…
-
Is there any conservative ideology left to recognize in the Republican party?
I used to think I understood what I was part of. Not in a blind, devotional way, but in the sense that there was a rough consistency to it. Free markets, free trade, small government. Respect for institutions, personal responsibility, suspicion of concentrated power, especially when it showed up in Washington. Remember that? You didn’t have to agree with every position, but you could at least recognize the shape of the ideology.
-
Are airlines betting you'll never redeem that travel credit?
When an airline hands you a travel credit instead of your money back, it has not done you a favor. It has converted a refund it owed in cash into a coupon it controls. The money stays on the airline's balance sheet. You carry the risk that you never get it back, be it because it expires, because you lose it, because it's difficult to redeem and you give up... Both of those facts are deliberate, and the language wrapped around them, "flexibility," "credit toward future travel," exists to keep…
-
Do conservatives actually own the Church?
I am tired of conservatives acting like they own the Church. They do not. The Church is older than the political right, older than trad nostalgia, older than the American culture war, and older than the faction that keeps trying to turn its own instincts into orthodoxy. If you look at Christian history instead of clinging to one preferred snapshot of it, the record points the other way.
-
Is Zelensky everything the manosphere wishes it could be?
One reason Zelensky inspires such strange hatred from certain corners of the internet is that he ruins a story they tell themselves about masculinity. The story is supposed to be simple. Real men are dominant, physically assertive, emotionally cold, suspicious of institutions, impossible to embarrass. The bullshit Andrew Tate and his actors are sharing to GenZ. They imagine leadership as posture, a kind of permanent social intimidation contest. That's why so much of that ecosystem obsesses…
-
Are Silicon Valley tech bros really conservative, or just tagging along for lower taxes?
One of the biggest mistakes modern conservatism made was assuming that because Silicon Valley liked markets, it must also share conservative values. It didn't. Tech culture was never traditionally conservative. It was hyper-individualist, anti-tradition, impatient with limits, suspicious of religion, and obsessed with optimization over continuity. Conservatives saw money and entrepreneurial energy and ignored the rest. Now the contradiction is impossible to miss.
-
Did calling half the country 'deplorables' cost the Democrats their party?
In September 2016, Hillary Clinton said that roughly half of Donald Trump's supporters belonged in a "basket of deplorables": racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic... . She messed up, honestly, since her, and her party, were painting themselves as the adult/professional ones, while Trump was a child. Well, Trump won. But...