Originally Posted by
David Walton
I see Batman differently, but just to be clear, I think your interpretation is credible. I mean, Frank Miller stopped just short of Bruce actually being possessed by a bat-entity in TDKR. And his work is, it goes without saying, brilliant.
But he stripped away a lot of elements to achieve that effect. Even as "the Batman" became a darker figure in the 70s, he was still a very active philanthropist who believed in people, and didn't see his mission in terms of 'war.' There's a great sequence--I'll see if I can find the image later--where Bruce takes some kids camping, and they're talking about what they think Batman really looks like, and he tries to scare them with his costume. They just laugh it off and he thinks something to the effect of, "Batman was created to scare criminals, not children.'
I think Batman is a creation meant to play on the fears of criminals, and while the Batman does use violence when necessary, it's the theatricality that's most important. The more violent interpretations of Batman tend to skew toward the idea that Bruce doesn't see a distinction between himself and the Batman, whereas more balanced models have Bruce infinitely aware that Batman is his creation, not a manifestation of his truest self, if you will.
And again, this brings us back to Miller, who was on the extreme end of the 'monster on our side' spectrum because his Bruce literally feels as though the Bat is a demon inside him.
I'd counter that his catharsis actually comes from keeping other kids from losing their parents.
I'd argue that there are many more dimensions to soldiers and police officers than violence (or potential violence), at least ideally. Both professions value service, not indulgence. And the same is true of Batman. He's not there to enjoy hitting people; he's there to save lives.
Thanks!