The Thought Salesman

Well, the Canadian election turned out a predictable result: Conservative Minority.

Stephane Dion, a Doctor of laws, was made out to be an insane bumbler by the Conservative party, and it worked. Dion’s political career is essentially over, and he is resigning as leader of the party as soon as a new leader is chosen.

Layton and Duceppe are in the same standing they were before the election, and the Greens again failed to gain a single seat, despite having something like 5-8% of the popular vote (I give a range because I remember it being somewhere around there on election night, but I’ll be damned to research it, because you get the idea either way.)

So in short, here’s what’s changed: The Conservatives are still short of a majority. The NDP and BQ matter only a little, the Greens no longer matter at all, and the Liberals are broke with a new leadership convention coming up.

But in other news: http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Christopher-Nolan-Signed-For-Batman-3-104...

This next to unknown website claims (as of October 4th) that Christopher Nolan (the director of Batman Begins and The Dark Knight) has signed on to direct Batman 3.

Well, not only am I going to accept this possible falsity as gospel truth, but I’m going to go further and speculate:

WHO IS GOING TO BE THE NEW VILLAIN?

Firstly, let’s establish some criteria.

The new villain has to be able to be portrayed in a realistic fashion, although not necessarily one who has been portrayed as such in the past. The Scarecrow dressed in a full scarecrow suit in the cartoons, yet in the first movie, he wore only a mask, and that mask was functional rather than fashionable (it served a dual purpose, gas mask and tool to scare the bejesus out of anyone who breathed in his scary gas). The Joker has been portrayed both by Cesar Romero and Jack Nicholson in a way that was closer to Bozo the Clown than the realistic anarchist, John Dillinger-esque gangster of Heath Ledger.

So, basically this excludes any villains that are inherently unrealistic, but not necessarily those that are merely eccentric or flamboyant. This means that villains like Mr. Freeze (who relies on science fiction technology beyond the scope of simply having ‘better Kevlar’ like Batman) are automatically excluded. Clayface, Killer Croc, Killer Moth, Poison Ivy, Man-Bat, and the Penguin are also unlikely to make an appearance.

The new villain must also have the emotional depth to carry a story. The Scarecrow and Ra’s Al Ghuul from Batman Begins both had this to the spades. Ra’s was his mentor turned nemesis (that’s right, it’s a spoiler), and Scarecrow was the archetypical “nut running the nuthouse.” The Dark Knight followed this up with The Joker and Two-Face. The Joker was an absolute anarchist that really carried the movie; he was the adversary, the nemesis, the irrevocable evil. He was Gannon to Bruce Wayne’s Link, he was Set to his Horus, he was Ravana to his Rama, Lucifer to his Michael, and Butter to his Margarine. The Joker represented the villain archetype perfectly, and in the second half of the movie Two-Face was a wonderful representation of the friend turned foe.

This eliminates fluff villains like the Mad Hatter, the Ventriloquist, Calendar Man, and of course the “best forgotten” villains like Teedledum and Tweedledee.

So who does this leave?

Well, my guess would be a villain that is close to Bruce Wayne (either initially or eventually), and would fill the shoes of Ra’s Al Ghuul and Two-Face. A villain that fills in the emotional side of the good vs. evil struggle is what needs to be filled first. I have a fairly limited knowledge of Batman, aside from the 1990’s cartoon I used to watch, but I can think of only two villains that remain that could bring this sort of breadth to the series. These are Catwoman and Talia Al Ghuul.

Catwoman is Batman’s kindred spirit, and is both thief and hero. There is a lot that can be done with Catwoman; she could present a sort of difficult choice for Batman: capture her and turn her in, or tolerate her crime because she also does great good? The way for Catwoman has been opened up by the death of Rachel Dawes, after all, Batman needs a love interest, but he’s a one woman man.

The other villain, Talia Al Ghuul, also eventually becomes a love interest of Bruce Wayne (although she later dies). Talia is the daughter of Ra’s Al Ghuul, who took on the role of the emotional villain in Batman Begins. This neatly ties the new movie to the series in a way more akin to tacking-on than shoehorning. Ra’s knew Batman’s true identity, and that means that conceivably his daughter might too, even more, she would likely have undergone the same ‘blue flower’ training as Bruce has. You know what they call that? An instant storyline.

If I had to bet though, I’d choose Talia. Since Nolan never planned to direct a Batman movie after the Scarecrow/Joker story arch, she would probably be the better fit, since her story could be fit within Nolan’s framework.

This leaves the ‘other’ villain, the ‘archetype’ villain, the ‘the’ villain. The Scarecrow and The Joker both filled these roles in their respective movies. This is the interesting villain, the villain that is a bit of a stretch, but what makes it a real superhero movie. I can think of only a few villains that could ever fit this role, most notably Bane and The Riddler.

Bane is a South American masked wrestler, who is both incredibly aggressive (and unlike his ‘leatherhead’ portrayal in the near unwatchable “Batman and Robin” movie), and very intelligent. He was the brooding, festering raging villain. He broke out of a Santa Prisca prison, and sought out Batman in order to kill him, and curb the growing worldwide settling of the dusts of anarchy that was started by Batman’s existence. He uses combat drugs in order to become an incredibly strong ‘berserker.’ In his primary storyline he engineered a breakout in Arkham Asylum that released every one of the criminally insane supervillains stored there back into Gotham (although The Scarecrow already did this in Batman Begins), the recapture of all of these supervillains taxes Batman’s abilities to the limit. Bane then broke Batman’s back in an ambush at Wayne Manor (after using his detective skills to figure out Batman’s true identity). Batman then has his friend (the superhero Azrael) take on the Batman mantra, while he undergoes physical therapy and experimental surgery (there is an easily omitted supernatural component to this healing as well). Bane almost kills Azrael-Batman several times, and then when Batman finally returns, he has an epic battle with bane where he barely takes him down.

The Riddler is an egomaniacal mastermind. His crimes are often over-the-top and he always leaves clues in the forms of riddles to stump, yet provide a glimmer of hope for the police and Batman. The Riddler, if he is selected as the villain of choice, would have to be more than a sissy Joker. I think this is the biggest hurdle that Nolan would have to overcome in adapting the character, where The Joker was hyperactive crazy, The Riddler would have to be evil-genius crazy. An interesting thing about The Riddler: he doesn’t write riddles by choice, although it’s often these riddles that lead to his downfall, he keeps writing them. The Riddler suffers from Obsessive Compulsive Disorder.

The Riddler as a mastermind will probably be the choice by Nolan, he’s the better known villain, and it’d be a nice way to close the series with a bang. Also, if Talia Al Ghuul were chosen, it would be unlikely that there would be two villains who learn Batman’s identity in the same movie.

Anyhow, that’s my take on the matter. I just hope however the picks go, Nolan doesn’t phone in the third movie.

The reasons I chose to write about Batman as opposed to any real topic are two: one, I’m excited that there will be a third movie, and two the American presidential race (The only REAL news left) has devolved into a despicable show of hate-mongering.

McCain’s campaign has been demonizing Obama in ways that make it seem like Dion got off easy. That is saying a lot.

The Thought Salesman