This article http://www.worldcomicbookreview.com/index.php/2017/07/18/dark-days-forge-1-review/ describes “Batman as weathervane”: "There is a theory that Batman is a barometer of social and political change. Some of the examples supporting this theory might be considered judicious or even outright cherry picking, but tracing the timeline is instructive."
On the other hand, we do have the recent Mike Allred Batman '66 comic book revival, which features Batman as a continuation of the goofy, fun 1966–68 television series, and which bucks the trend.
I was thinking about the paradigm for other comic book characters. Captain America dropped the star spangled costume and shield in 1974, as the Vietnam War was winding up in 1975.
From 2007-2009, Steve Rogers was dead, and replaced by a gun-wielding version (Bucky Barnes). This coincided with the beginning of the GFC.
More recently, in 2010, Wikipedia notes, "During the “Two Americas” storyline that ran in issues #602-605, the series drew controversy for the similarity between protesters depicted in the comic and the Tea Party movement. Particularly drawing scorn was a panel of a protester holding sign that read “Tea Bag the Libs Before They Tea Bag You!”[38] Also drawing controversy were remarks made by the Falcon implying that the crowd is racist.[39] In his column on Comic Book Resources, Marvel Comics Editor-in-Chief Joe Quesada apologized for the sign, claiming that it was mistake added by the letterer at the last minute.[40]"
Do such iconic characters capture the mood of the moment? Do they predict it?
All such pop culture things are bellwethers. Pick something, anything that’s been around a long time and it will reflect the current culture.
Okay, exceptions abound. E.g., many comic strips like Little Orphan Annie and such were stuck in a time-free zone when they were running new strips. And Playboy magazine. (Interesting pairing.)
Maybe I read too many Illumanati-like novels, but sometimes I think it is the other way. The entertainment media is there to shape public opinion.
For example, right after 9-11 we get 24, a show whose main character acts above the law to do what needs to be done. The Constitution be damned, if by following it “millions will die.” The show seems to be tailor-made to indoctrinate audiences to getting used to the government trampling over personal freedoms and rights, as long as there are threats to the US. If you’re not with us, you’re against us. It’s almost perfect propaganda.
On the other hand, in Dark Knight Rises, Batman uses the if-not-illegal-than-it-should-be cell phone spying system to catch the Joker, but then he destroys it after he uses it. A mixed message, perhaps?
I know enough people in diverse positions in the entertainment industry to say that they are overall most interested in creating a product that the general public wants to buy. They do not drive culture but they certainly can reinforce trends.
Pop culture which does not reflect the current zeitgeist fails to sell to enough of the population. Pop culture which does not change with the times is nostalgia and even nostalgia reflects the time it was created. (Happy Days says more about 79s culture than 50s.)
So no, Batman is not a bellwether as the character does not lead opinion but merely reflects.
You remember 24 but that was just one of the three dozen or so shows which debuted that Fall, and unless you can show that According to Jim, Scrubs, or Danny were conceived to carry the Bush administration message I think that is weak sauce.
We remember the products which caught the country’s mood and easily forget the ones which did not. The entertainment industry throws a lot of different tomatoes at the wall and only a few stick.
Unless you’re suggesting that the producers knew about 9/11, this proves the opposite of your assertion. 24 premiered in November, meaning it had been written, approved, and shot before September. Its reference point was the Balkans, the previous war under the previous president. There’s never a shortage of situations that some people want to use as an excuse to go hardass. Every administration has one or more. 24 got lucky because the lag between reality and its appearance was just long enough for another reality to appear; that coincidence powered the show to iconic status, not the other way around.
I sometimes think these are self-perpetuating echoes. Fascism gave rise to monumental fascist architecture, which perpetuated fascist culture. Did monumental fascist architecture contribute to the rise to Mussolini? I don’t know. I’d be fascinated to know.
Art nouveau has its roots in Japanese art, the concepts of which were brought into Europe upon the Meiji Restoration. Did the rise of art nouveau in Europe coincide with the success of the Empire of Japan in the Russo-Japanese War? I think 1904-5 post-dates art nouveau’s popularity in Europe?
The beginning of the machine age led to machine age art and architecture, eclipsing art nouveau. Did things like the Chrysler Building enthuse people to do machine age-y things. I’d assume so.
So, in the comics and the movies and the video games Batman presently wears paramilitary armour, because the zeitgeist is all about soldier-esque apparel (and the assumption that a guy grey in tights shouldn’t be fighting a guy with a machine gun without something better over his chest). Does this inspire teens to join the army? I’d suggest perhaps.
In the 1960s, Batman wore purple and grey tights and did the Bat-tuzi. Did that encourage teens to get wacky? I’d suggest probably.
And a good correction. I should have confirmed. (I haven’t even seen TDKR yet. :eek: oops)
Maybe they did. Hey, I’m just asking questions.
In my illuminati fantasy (which I do not believe, BTW) the government shapes TV. It’s indirect control. Producers are not aware they are being subtly manipulated. THEY knew that an attack was coming, so they started “getting things ready”. They are aware of how long it takes to make a show. All they wanted is a “government is good - don’t question” type of show. It doesn’t have to be 9/11 specific. Plus, plausible deniability.
Mussolini took power in 1922. That allowed him to build fascist architecture, not the other way around.
At that time, the Bauhaus in Germany dominated art. It was founded in 1919 and flourished until Hitler came in and denounced it. Bauhaus was machine age art on top of a structure of the older hand craft movement. If art were predictive and influential, Hitler couldn’t have happened.
Art nouveau was a mixture of many sources. One of them was Japanese art. But it had been around for 50 years before the Russo-Japanese War.
