« Choosing On Choice | Main | Bleg »
February 13, 2007
Heroes
Via Kevin comes this data point on the increasing representation of torture as a tool of heroes. From 1996 to 2001, prime time television had 102 torture scenes. From 2002 to 2005, there were 624. But it wasn't only the quantity that change. "During this uptick in violence, the torturer's identity was more likely to be an American hero like "24's" Jack Bauer (Kiefer Sutherland) than the Nazis and drug dealers in pre-9/11 days."
A competent analyst of culture could probably wring a three-book deal from the datum, but let me just say this: There's been an unsettling change in not only what heroes do, but what makes a hero at all. Any comic book reader knows that what separates heroes from evildoers is their unwillingness to kill, torture, or even personally punish the guilty. Restraint, in and of itself, is a heroic attribute. DC's Identity Crisis series spends quite a bit of time on that question. A few caped crusaders have spent decades covering up the one night when they went too far against an enemy, as they know the larger community of superheroes would be enraged if they discovered the transgression. It isn't that their actions were indefensible, or even particularly avoidable. The merits of the act itself are beside the point. You can't transgress ever, or you blur that line separating you from your enemies (another treasured trope is the defeated villain taunting the hero to give in and kill him, the subtext being that if the evildoer can make the hero act the villain, he will have won even as he died).
Bauer, of course, is the antithesis of that attitude. His heroism stems from his brutality, his willingness to dissolve every ethical boundary in pursuit of higher ends. His is a heroism for a weak and scared nation, one that's decided the old ways of restraint and ethical exceptionalism are insufficiently effective and is trying to convince itself that a loosening of those bonds could restore order and security. That's a scary shift in the culture. An America that looks to Bauer rather than Batman is an altered nation indeed.
Crossposted to Tapped
February 13, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
Well, last night on 24 it was only the Terrorists who performed torture. Bauer, who did in earlier episodes, is now reaping both scorn from his superiors and from his own conscience because he killed his own brother by torturing him (or so he thinks.)
I suppose you could argue had Graem never died, would Jack have this same guilt? No, I suppose, but I think the writers have turned a bit of a corner this season, focusing on what seems to me strong doubts on the moral correctness, or lack, of Jack's past.
Posted by: Adrock | Feb 13, 2007 2:40:26 PM
I dunno... Kevin says the LA Times article provides specifics, but outside of the graph he quotes, there's really no specific descriptions of which scenes on which shows are being counted as torture. I'm not saying there hasn't been an increase, or that torture presentations aren't being used in a disturbing way to say that the methods are okay; but I think some specifics on this would help. And frankly, I don't watch 24, I don't understand the appeal of it, and hearing this stuff about torture just confirms my doubts about the show's value in any case. I am more concerned that cop shows, in order to increase drama are letting dicey questioning techniques get shown as having few consequences - that may be the state of things these days, but rarely is it even mentioned as being dicey. But still, outside of 24, what shows regularly depict torture, and for that matter torture done by the protaganists? I may be naive, I just don't recall seeing that much.
Posted by: weboy | Feb 13, 2007 2:50:16 PM
Assuming it's really there, it's an important shift indeed, but no surprise. We saw immediately after September 11th that Americans were willing to put aside past moral and consitutional constraints to a greater degree. Attitudes go back and forth about such things depending on how much fear we feel. The popular media messages can be mixed. The morally proper Superman was the most popular superhero while we were firebombing civilians in WWII, something that had wide public support, but there was also plenty of popular media that portrayed the enemy civilians as evil and less than human.
Posted by: Sanpete | Feb 13, 2007 3:04:46 PM
I remember watching the classic Batman cartoons from the early 1990s and being FURIOUS when Batman would just arrest a villain, or not let go as the bad guy helplessly clinged to him above a pool of lava. Of course, the point here is that I was a kid. Joe Lieberman, if that New Yorker profile is any indication, would be furious today.
Posted by: JF | Feb 13, 2007 3:12:00 PM
There's been an unsettling change in not only what heroes do, but what makes a hero at all.
I'm not sure that's true. There is a long tradition of heroes whose heroism lies in their willingness to do what must be done, no matter how ugly it appears to be. It's been a central charge against Dems--too soft to do what needs doing--for years and years, and my general sense is that perspective has been reflected in entertainment. I haven't seen any of them (that I can recall), but isn't this idea what motivates the "Dirty Harry" movies?
Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Feb 13, 2007 3:20:50 PM
I think this is an interesting discussion (your weekender, John had a string of similar posts tackling this issue up earlier this week), but I find it strange you mention comic book heroes (especially Batman) as unwilling to torture. Frank Miller's Batman (considered by many to be the ultimate incarnation of the Dark Knight) frequently tortures while taking an ostensible joy in it.
Posted by: Eric the Political Hack | Feb 13, 2007 3:56:37 PM
I only started watching 24 this season (Nuke in LA? Whaaa?) and immediately connected Jack Bauer with "The Operative" from Serenity. In The Op's own words: "I'm a monster.What I do is evil. I have no illusions about it, but it must be done."
Of course, it's a big difference that The Operative is portrayed as a villian, and Bauer as the Hero.
Posted by: Nathan | Feb 13, 2007 4:04:45 PM
Word. The Batman/JLA analogy even works if we run with it. Batman can't really acheive his goals by just becoming a prosecuter or cop, so he dons the cape and cowl. But neither can he work with the heat of the Gotham PD down on him. So he abides by certain rules, and he doesn't cross certain lines, and therefore is allowed the freedom to pursue his goals by the larger society. Likewise, our allies are more or less convinced of the benign nature of American projections of power so long as we play within some guidelines, even as they recognize that we will eschew more binding strictures in order to acheive broader goals that only American power can acheive. It's when we cross these lines (e.g. extraordinary rendition) that our power becomes a threat even to allies and it becomes *harder* to acheive goals. So Batman cultivates an alliance with the Gotham authorities and he allows them to exert broad justice, rather than meting out his own extrajudicial punishments, and thus more readily acheives his goals of cleaning up Gotham's streets. Sure it means he's got to fight the Joker again every couple of years, but it's better than the alternative: a Bat-Ruled Police State where Batman's goals would be crushed under the heel of his methods. It's the Batman Theory of Foreign Policy. I propose it as a counter to the already articulated Green Lantern Theory.
Posted by: justin | Feb 13, 2007 4:05:53 PM
last sentence should read: "I propose it as a compliment to the already articulated Green Lantern Theory."
Posted by: justin | Feb 13, 2007 4:24:14 PM
It seems to be so easy to forget the Helsinki principle. If the end justifies the means then you/your community/your society will commit unethical acts. It certainly must be difficult to teach this to children in the context of today.
The consequences of these acts brand you forever as the modern version of 'A Good German'.
Posted by: Richard | Feb 13, 2007 4:50:11 PM
You know, I've often said that if I were a hero in DC, at this point I'd kill the Joker. I totally agree with the general case of 'Don't kill, maintain the distinctions that make you a hero and not a villain', but in the specific case... look, you're not doing the man or his sanity any favors by locking him up in Arkham, which is a circle of Hell, and he'll just get out again and kill a bunch of people. He's not going to get any better, and the people he kills deserve protection. Jack Bauer is a travesty, but some people really do just need killin'.
Of course, I spent some time the other day thinking about the relationship between prisons and rehabilitation and punishment per the recent posts about prison rape here and superheroing, taking responsibility for the capture of criminals but not for what happens afterwards. From that perspective, there's a bit of an arbitrary line there. If Batman really is concerned with justice but only spending his time on police work, he's got blinders on. (see also: The Authority and Miracleman)
Posted by: NBarnes | Feb 13, 2007 5:00:30 PM
I think you've hit the nail on the head, Ezra: His is a heroism for a weak and scared nation, one that's decided the old ways of restraint and ethical exceptionalism are insufficiently effective...
This isn't the first time, either. Back in the late-Seventies & early-Eighties there were the Bronson Vigilante movies and Clint's Dirty Harry franchise. Although there are major distinctions to be made between the national mood then and now, the sense that legal proceduralism has become an impediment to "getting the job done" seems to be a common thread.
Posted by: Headline Junky | Feb 13, 2007 5:09:20 PM
Don't count on Batman. Frank Miller is among those suffering untreated PTSD as a result of September 11, and he's working on a project in which he pits Batman against terrorists. He did one of those NPR "This I Believe" pieces recently, in which he professes that that day was the first time he knew how it felt to face an "existential menace." This from a guy who had to have been in his 30s when the Soviet Union collapsed.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5784518
Posted by: wolfstar | Feb 13, 2007 5:11:51 PM
Well, I think that Batman clearly prizes order as much as he does justice. And you have to remember that we're dealing with a universe that runs on the Comics Code so there's no prison rape. The analogy cannot be perfect. Batman is ultimately an optimist of control. He thinks that if he props it up, society will work.
Though, at this point, I would totally kill the Joker. He's clearly the most dangerous man in the comics. Even Lex Luthor is afraid of him.
Posted by: justin | Feb 13, 2007 5:13:28 PM
But still, outside of 24, what shows regularly depict torture, and for that matter torture done by the protaganists?There's The Shield, for one.
Posted by: KCinDC | Feb 13, 2007 5:25:42 PM
Don't count on Batman. Frank Miller is among those suffering untreated PTSD as a result of September 11, and he's working on a project in which he pits Batman against terrorists.
As I mentioned in an earlier comment, Miller has always written Batman as torturer. In The Dark Knight Returns Bats throws criminals through windows in order to soften them up for some good ole fashioned information pumping.
Posted by: Eric the Political Hack | Feb 13, 2007 5:26:08 PM
(another treasured trope is the defeated villain taunting the hero to give in and kill him, the subtext being that if the evildoer can make the hero act the villain, he will have won even as he died).
He he... that reminded me of this, for some reason. Same motivation I suppose - spite.
http://www.ctrlaltdel-online.com/comic.php?d=20070212
Posted by: Sandals | Feb 13, 2007 5:27:13 PM
But still, outside of 24, what shows regularly depict torture, and for that matter torture done by the protaganists?
There's The Shield, for one.
Also Lost has had its fair share of protagonist induced torture.
Posted by: Eric the Political Hack | Feb 13, 2007 5:28:11 PM
Obligatory comics nerd commentary:
1.) The Dark Knight Returns isn't even close to being considered "the ultimate Batman" except by very casual readers who read Batman comics when they were a kid, then twenty years later someone shoved Dark Knight on them and it BLEW THEIR MINDS, MAN. The Steve Englehart mid-70s run that re-established Batman as "the Dark Detective" (and re-introduced Commissioner Gordon as a hard-bitten cop rather than a dorky fat guy, introduced Arkham Asylum, first to make the Joker genuinely scary as well as funny, etc.) is easily the leader for "definitive Batman," probably followed by some of the mid-80s writers, to say nothing of Alan Moore's The Killing Joke.
2.) Lex Luthor isn't afraid of the Joker any more than a soldier is afraid of a rifle; the Joker, to Luthor, is just a tool, like a grenade or a bomb. He's just dangerous to use. (In a story from a couple years ago where Joker captures and tortures Luthor, Lex just laughs in his face when Joker offers him mercy.)
3.) The Joker, more than any other character in comics, has been horribly, horribly mistreated by writers during the last fifteen years or so, who just write him as a psychotic murderer. The Joker, when written properly, is an avatar of chaos (to properly be pitted against Batman, a guardian of order); he should be scary because he's completely insane and unpredictable, not because he kills a lot of people.
Posted by: chdb | Feb 13, 2007 5:28:18 PM
Batman was always a moral anomaly in comics. He doesn't kill but often tortures, he often invokes religious moral views (Bruce Wayne is noted as having been raised Christian as an orphan) while eschewing religion as a concept, he adheres to his own system of vigilante justice while glorifying police procedure, and he believes in the utmost of high-tech weaponry and power of force but abhors guns. There are often arguments as to Batman being a Democrat or a Republican and the usual consensus is that Batman, befitting a comic book, is a form of politics that simply doesn't exist in real life.
As for Jack Bauer, I also abhor the glorification of torture made excessive in 24, but the general theme of Bauer's character is far from new. In narrative study it's called the "anti-hero," and it rose from the success of Western and cowboy stories following the era of WWII movies and a more good/bad moral play. Clint Eastwood played Jack Bauer before Sutherland was even born. I think the difference is the former played to fit a character in fantasy whereas the latter is an attempt to place the character in reality.
Posted by: August J. Pollak | Feb 13, 2007 5:34:44 PM
There's been a general trend towards fascism in America since WWII, as corporate interests have progressively gained more and more control in the political sphere. This is what Eisenhower warned about on his way out of the presidency, the so-called Military-Industrial complex.
That process has accelerated sharply under Bush; but I think it would be wrong to lay the whole thing at his door. He didn't muscle Gore aside in 2000 all by himself. I think the powers-that-be looked ahead at the coming energy crunch, possibly even global warming, and anticipating a sharp increase in world tensions, made a decision to put the pedal to the metal to 'bushify' the country, in spite of the (now all-too-apparent) risks.
Torture, we often hear, doesn't produce useful intelligence, and I expect that those ultimately responsible for promoting these policies know that. If so, then I think we must look at what torture actually does do in order to understand why there's this drive to get it accepted in the culture.
Torture is indispensible when you hope to terrorize a whole population into submission, as in Iraq. That's backfired somewhat, as we all know. But there's another purpose as well, of value at home. It's a great generator of confessions, which can be as terrifying as you like.
A flood of terrifying confessions is, in turn, the base ingredient of a good old-fashioned witch-hunt. In medieval Europe at least, witch-hunts had a funny way of breaking out whenever some radical movement came along that seemed to threaten the established social order, as regularly happened. The witch-hunt acted then as a kind of divide-and-conquer strategy against the general public. People would be too busy spying on and denouncing each other to worry about onerous taxation, or whatever got them upset in the first place.
My feeling now is that a modern ruling class is reaching for the same tool, but in this case the objective is not so much to protect an existing social order, as it is to protect an emerging social order.
Those that approve of this brave new world, struggling to be born, will also approve torture. That demographic will consist of those who hold power (at the top), and also those who prefer to live their lives in thrall to power (at the bottom). The rest of us, I fear, are nicely caught in a pincer made up of these two groups.
Posted by: RLaing | Feb 13, 2007 5:39:17 PM
The Dark Knight Returns isn't even close to being considered "the ultimate Batman" except by very casual readers who read Batman comics when they were a kid, then twenty years later someone shoved Dark Knight on them and it BLEW THEIR MINDS, MAN.
I'd have to disagree. I know many fans who are more than "casual readers" who consider TDKR to be the best of the Bat. Including one comicbook-store-owner friend.
Posted by: Eric the Political Hack | Feb 13, 2007 6:25:18 PM
Ezra, I think you meant Superman, not Batman. Batman is always roughing up the bad guys. Superman would try to find ways to prevent, restrain, or oterwise disrupt the evil schemes.
Hmmm... maybe that's why you didn't like Superman Returns -- not enough beatings for your post-9/11 tastes? (joking)
Posted by: PapaJijo | Feb 13, 2007 7:26:43 PM
2 points:
1- I'm just thrilled to death to see this conversation happen. I feel like I've been the only person looking at ads for 24 for the past few years and thinking "Oh my God, what will my grandchildren think of me?"
2- Frank Miller is a horrible, horrible person who should never be cited as an example of anything even remotely positive. TDKR is virtually unreadable, TDKSB is even worse, Sin City is an abomination, and if you've ever heard the man speak about psychiatry and then read any of his work in which a psychiatrist appears, you would quickly draw some very disturbing conclusions about what goes on inside his skull. The man simply destroys the idea of subtlety or realistic characters. His stories are incoherent. I've got 1 degree of seperation to Frank Miller- I am friends with a guy who inked one of his comics before Frank hit it big- and after my friend was finished working with Frank, he was happy never to meet the guy again; he apparently gives off this dark aura of misery and despair as he repeatedly inflicts the unknown traumas of his (eternal) childhood upon the fiction around him.
Posted by: Gutter Monkey | Feb 13, 2007 7:45:23 PM
"Batman Theory." Good one, justin.
NBarnes: "Jack Bauer is a travesty, but some people really do just need killin'."
He is one for summary executions, that's for sure. If Jack Bauer decides he's got you where he wants you, and he doesn't want to have to track you down again, you're toast. Like Nina Myers and Chris Henderson. The problem is when he plays judge, jury & executioner for the more petty inconveniences -- and not just the bullet-magnet henchmen. (Though, to be fair, Bauer is usually in the position of trying to keep some bad guy alive long enough for him to spill his guts, only to have something unfortunate happen in the final minute, prompting a gravelly "Nooooo!")
Posted by: Grumpy | Feb 13, 2007 8:47:40 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
