This week I saw two of the most recent comic book movies, Spiderman III and The Dark Knight, both starring jewish superheros.* It's really striking how opposite the two are: Spiderman is sappy yet realistic, Batman is cold yet romantic; Spiderman draws on the powers of his body to define himself while struggling against alienation, Batman's power lies in his mind (and his pocketbook) with a crystal clear picture of justice; the enemies in Spiderman are cool and flashy - even enviable, Batman's baddies are as unsavory as they are interesting. This last difference embodies the core difference between the two, which i see as: a deliberate and thought out portrayal of good and evil (Batman) vs. a deliberately ambiguous and near amoral portrayal of existentialist problems (Spiderman).
One of the main differences between Spiderman and Batman is what exactly they point their "powers" at. Since half of Spiderman's enemies are within himself in the form of identity problems, he uses his powers to gain respect and admiration by the citizens of NYC. In fact, Parker's happiest moment in the series is when a parade is thrown in his honor. And what citizens of NYC admire the most is flashy theatrics such as stopping runaway trains and cranes. The bad guys also have something in common with the runaway crane operator: they just made an honest mistake. The movie is constantly trying to get you to sympathise with the baddies. Now this just rubs me the wrong way. What exactly is spiderman doing while he's flipping through the air like a jackass? Well, mostly just doing flips, but what he's not doing is what a hero should be doing: fighting evil or anything that requires principles. What's more, spiderman's baddies are more principled than he is, saying things about him like, "That just doesn't seem right to me." The result of having baddies who are only victims of circumstance is that Spiderman ends up using his powers to save people from themselves. That seems to me like the job of a mom, not a super hero. And just like a mom, this has the effect of showing NYC that it would be helpless without him, and by asking for nothing in return, the citizens have no choice but to love him. Even when I managed to turn my brain off, I still didn't care who won. When both sides have the same amount of justification, and the bad guys are way cooler - I mean come on, he's made out of sand! - how am I supposed to root for Spiderman?
Batman, on the other hand, wouldn't dream of wasting his time caring what society thinks. Batman turns away from social reality and Gotham's concept of justice in favor of his own view of justice as dictated by nature. He spends half of his fortune on flashy sports cars and party entrances, on creating the Bruce Wayne everyone expects him to be - a carefree playboy. But the real carefree in Gotham are baddies like the Joker and the Riddler, people without principles or purpose, but with a makeshift and laughable sense of morality (remind you of spidey?). What makes Batman's baddies so interesting is that they represent some form of evil according to the author, which is also what creates their unsavoriness and makes you root for batman.
And as for the obvious question: Batman would kick Spiderman's ass - he's got to have a can of raid on that belt somewhere.
______________________________
*Ironman, however, is not jewish, but his sidekick, Goldman, the clairvoyant accountant, is.
