Batman

Sorry boys, but I'm Batman. At least, that's what the Batman quilt on my adult-owned bed says. Batman and his Rogues have always been something woven into my DNA and are the main reason I ended up choosing Psychology as one of my majors.

Over the years, I've consumed many types of Batman media. I have seen Adam West's Batman show, Batman: The Animated Series (please go watch it), Batman: Brave and the Bold, all of the Batman movies, Gotham, Titans but just Jonathan Crane's scenes, the Arkham games, the Lego Batman game, the Brave and the Bold game, several comics, and probably a lot more that I am forgetting. I own action figures, an actual movie theater poster of "The Batman," and tried bartering my way in to see Joker (2019) when it was out in theaters despite the fact that I was 14. All in all, I love Batman, and I want to psychoanalyze some of my favorite psychopaths, sociopaths, narcissists, and weirdos with you!

If you look me in the eye and ask me who I think the greatest character in all of Batman is, I would immediately respond with the Scarecrow aka Jonathan Crane. There is some unspoken understanding between myself and Crane’s character. I understand him, why he does what he does, and that is what makes him so special to me personally. It’s hard to place exactly where this miniature obsession began, although it probably started when Christopher Nolan decided to cast Cillian Murphy as Crane and then give him the sexiest, sluttiest pair of glasses to ever exist. This infatuation with Murphy led me to do lots of research on Jonathan Crane, which has changed my life in a myriad of ways (one of them resulted in me being initially exposed to Gotham, another led to a flirtation with Psychology). Crane is cold, calculated, and focused on his work. He does what he does not for the enjoyment (although it can be inferred that that naturally bloomed over time), but to experiment. What lengths wouldn’t one driven scientist take to prove that he’s right? Crane assumes the identity of the Scarecrow for his crimes to get back at the people who tormented him, which directly interferes with any preconceptions of him not having emotions in his work. He is a walking enigma (pun sort of intended) and an oxymoron of himself. He’s a trauma victim who uses his stereotypical identity of a calculated strategist and scientist to make decisions that he tries to convince himself are for science, but are really a way that he’s fighting back at everyone who has wronged him in the past. He’s a brilliant character, and one that I cannot recommend researching enough.

Because there are so many versions of these characters, I also decided to tell you my favorite version of them. For Jonathan Crane, Vincent Kartheiser’s portrayal in Titans is my favorite. I feel like not many incarnations of Crane focus on how emotional he truly is, except for Titans. In the show, he is painfully aware of his own situation due to his previous work as a psychiatrist, and yet seeks out other people (his mother and Batman) to diagnose him in a feeble attempt to convince himself that he is not ultimately flawed himself. He is surprisingly charming, and is not treated like a joke when he walks into a room (cough, Arkham Asylum, cough, the Animated Series, cough, most Batman media) all while being ultimately likeable to the audience (sorry, that might be just me). I just think he is the star of the third season because of how unassumingly complex he is under the surface. Have you ever paused to look at his cell in Arkham? Probably not, but the guy has cat photos above his desk. What does that say about him? More importantly, what does that say about him that previous incarnations of his character have been unable to come close to saying about him? All in all, Kartheiser’s Jonathan Crane is spectacular and he’s my favorite version of Jonathan Crane because he actually feels like a person instead of a facsimile of some kind of calculated scientist.

I like the Riddler mostly because of how much variation different versions of his characters can have. If you had a line-up of Frank Gorshin, Jim Carrey, Cory Michael Smith, Paul Dano, and Wally Wingert’s Riddlers, they are all almost completely different from each other. Each one has different beliefs in themselves, the world around them, and how they occupy their specific world.

For my favorite versions of the Riddler, I want to talk about both Paul Dano’s Riddler and Wally Wingert’s Riddlers from the Arkham games because they are incredibly stark contrasts to each other. Also, shout out to Paul Dano for writing Riddler Year One, which provides loads of insight and is the basis for most of my opinions on his character. To separate them, I’m going to be calling them Nashton for Paul Dano’s Riddler and Nigma for Wally Wingert’s Riddler. Let’s start with Nashton, who is a shy accountant working a dead end job. He doesn’t have the confidence to talk to his boss, never mind the confidence to become the Riddler. He sees puzzles as a solace to escape the trauma and shitty world view bestowed upon him through the torment he received as a child. In addition, he has a very specifically good view of Batman, who he initially believes is “hope incarnate” and going to save Gotham from the hellhole he believes it has become. However, the heinous actions Nashton uncovers leads him to assume the role of jury, judge, and executioner himself, and leads to him becoming the Riddler to help Batman. Inversely, Nigma is extremely confident in himself, despite a similar traumatic upbringing. He initially worked at Gotham PD in the Cybercrimes division and learned about the wrongdoings of government officials there. Surprisingly, Nigma takes a similar approach to Nashton through hoping that Batman would agree with his methods of curing evil (blackmail), but ends up finding the Dark Knight incredibly flawed compared to him. Opposed to Nashton, whose world view and view of himself shatters when Batman doesn’t agree with him (leading to an ingenious scene acted by Dano, the infamous “NO NO NO NO” and the screaming, which I will defend until I die), Nigma uses that anger to finally become the Riddler and assume the name Edward Nigma.

The nuances of each of these characters does not separate them, but bind them together to make a wholly interesting villain who is hellbent on convincing Batman that he is right and Batman (and everyone else) is wrong. And, to be even more cool, this separation of me vs them results in the isolation of Nashton and the god complex of Nigma throughout their respective media. Nashton, despite every attempt to do something with himself and every attempt to connect with someone he views very highly, will always be alone, whether that be in his little dingy apartment or in a cell at Arkham. Nigma, despite every attempt to prove Batman was wrong about him and prove that he is better than Batman, will always see himself as alone because no one could ever reach the level of intellect that he has. Both characters, while different and similar in their own ways, show how amazingly complex the character of the Riddler is. Above all of the minutiae, the Riddler is a character who will always be alone and will continue to be alone until he eventually becomes -ironically- smart enough to admit his wrongdoings.

Thomas Elliot is a renowned surgeon who has based his entire existence off of the Waynes. He grew up alongside Bruce and they remained friends despite both of them losing parents. The only difference is that they both have starkly contrasting opinions of wealth, family, and themselves. Thomas Elliot is really awesome. He uses his training as a surgeon to physically change his appearance to match Bruce’s. I only wish that his face was slightly different from Bruce’s to show that no matter how talented an individual is, they can never replicate another human being. This is where Tommy’s real intrigue comes in: he can never be truly perfect.

In Batman: Hush, it’s revealed that Tommy tried to kill both of his parents in order to receive their money and failed. Meanwhile, Bruce’s parents get gunned down in an alleyway and Bruce is “lucky” to inherit his fortune at a very young age. Already, Tommy is flawed in comparison to Bruce. No matter how much he will try to reach Bruce’s level of influence, fortune, renown, he will always be upstaged. That is the terrifying aspect of Hush: the fact that he will stop at nothing to reach perfection. Unfortunately for Bruce, he is perfection in Tommy’s eyes and becomes this idol for Tommy to base his personality on. We can break this down through social psychology and the concept of human mimicry to increase their competence in the eyes of others. When you want to connect with someone, you can’t help but replicate speech patterns and body language. Tommy does this on an absurd level, focusing on becoming Bruce Wayne entirely.

It is said that Tommy’s anger towards Bruce is because of Thomas Wayne saving his mother after Tommy attempted to kill him, but I think there is so much more to him than that. I really dislike when comics attempt to squish down complex characters in order to make it more palatable to an audience in general. In my opinion, Tommy’s anger towards Bruce is because of this perfection that Bruce has so nonchalantly achieved. While Bruce and the reader see him as a flawed individual who fights the same criminals every single night in some vain attempt to redeem his parents, Tommy sees the pinnacle of perfection. That is what makes him so interesting, is his core belief that he is lesser than Bruce Wayne and therefore needs to kill him in order to assert some kind of dominance.

Now to get to the rumors of Thomas Elliot being the main villain of the Batman Part 2. I hope with every fiber of my being that they hold off on Tommy. In my opinion, Batman: Hush needs the other characters like Clayface, Nightwing, Oracle, Jason Todd, Tim Drake, and Poison Ivy to be central to the story. The reader is supposed to feel like this is an epic part of Bruce’s life that includes all kinds of people from his past, and I don’t think that Matt Reeves’s universe has been set up to be that vast yet. In addition, the Riddler is a huge part of the original Hush story, with his knowledge of Batman’s identity being the central twist of the story. Personally, I don’t see Dano’s Riddler being at the center of a scheme this vast. In the Riddler: Year One, Edward is depicted as a shy person who only became the Riddler out of necessity and anger towards the systematic oppression that affected people like himself. He does harbor resentment towards Bruce Wayne that could translate over towards a Hush storyline, but it’s a stretch.

In order to make it work in any sense, the entire movie would have to heavily focus on Bruce Wayne and his relationship with society now that he’s established his relationship with being Batman. To reduce the redundancy of the Riddler, simply eradicate him from the story and make Tommy the main villain. I personally think that the magic of Batman: Hush lies in the fact that Bruce is forced to confront this later in his life as Batman, but I do think that it could be a changing point for him in the earlier years. While Tommy Elliot is the main villain, I would personally partner him with the Scarecrow (shocker!) as the B villain. I hate when Jonathan is shelved and given the lesser treatment like he had in Batman Begins, but I think if we’re going to delve into the psyche of Bruce, let’s get in there. We can also hypothesize Harvey Dent being a massive part of Part 2 (as of writing this, Sebastian Stan is highly expected for the role). As a man who can do what Batman does in the light almost as successfully, Batman sort of becomes irrelevant. This could lead to the emphasis on Bruce Wayne throughout the movie and could set up Tommy as a formidable final villain. Obviously I’m rooting for a Hush-Harvey-Scarecrow trio for this hypothetical Part 2, but who knows where the road will lead us.

Tommy Elliot fails at every turn, and his perseverance and intensification of his methods are what make him so interesting. His fruitless pursuit of perfection can be seen through his common mimicry of Bruce Wayne and his rampant jealousy that affects him long after cut brakes and shattering pearl necklaces. While I think he would be an interesting addition to the Batman: Part 2, he needs to be partnered with other villains and characters that can reflect the original Batman: Hush storyline without all the necessary background characters. All in all, Tommy Elliot is awesome, and a great addition to Batman’s rogues gallery.