This line of thought has been existent in my mind since I read a post comparing Batman with Superman a few years ago. And after watching the movie 'The Dark Knight', I have decided to put it down in as much detail as I can remember.
Compared to other superheroes, I love Batman the most. And it is not just the mystery and the glamour that he carries best, it is also because of the following reasons:
1) He does not have superpowers
Superman can fly. He has X-Ray vision. He also has superhuman power that no one else has. In case of Spiderman too, it is his agility and supernatural strength that makes him what he is. Everyone in the team of The Fantastic Four has his or her own superpowers. Batman has none. He is an ordinary man with no gift whatsoever. And still he can do what he does.
How often can ordinary men strike fear in hardcore criminals? The Batman has created such a scare among the goons and mafia dons of Gotham City that just a look of the Dark Knight makes them run for safety. And he does this with just gadgets and guts!
2) His energies are focussed
Show a damsel in distress or an old woman about to be crushed by speeding truck, and you know Superman or Spiderman will come to the rescue. Nothing bad about it. Except that, most superheroes waste a lot of time and effort, by wanting to make a difference anywhere and everywhere. They assume responsibility of the wellbeing of the entire human race, just because they are "gifted".
Not the case with Batman. He picks his battles. He is clear that he will fight crime and criminals. His energies and time are not split across all the calamities human beings bring upon themselves.
3) He does not fight alone
Yes, like almost every superhero, the Batman too has a secret identity. but unlike most superheroes, he does not work alone. He is open to ask for support, and make himself vulnerable to that extent. His butler, Alfred, the engineer who works on his suits, gadgets and vehicles, his girlfriend, all know that it is Bruce Wayne who 'moonlights' as the Batman. In the movie 'The Dark Knight', the auditor conducting a due diligence check on Wayne Enterprises also comes to know about him, and the Batman is fine with that. He is also open to the idea of growing his team, and including Robin and Batgirl.
While this does make him vulnerable, it saves him the trouble and dilemma of whether to reveal his identity to people he is "hiding" from. This makes it very difficult to blackmail him into anything.
4) He is ok even with being branded a criminal
The Batman is clear about his goals. He exists to fight crime. Other things don't matter much to him. He is ok with breaking laws to achieve his objective, and he is also ok with being branded a criminal. He is not in it for the fame or appreciation.
5) He is a superhero by choice
It was his vow that Bruce Wayne became Batman. He was not gifted with great powers, and therefore great responsibilities. It was him who decided his power, and it was him who decided his responsibilities.
What's more, he can stop whenever he wants. And still, every day, he becomes the Batman by choice and by his commitment to his vow. You can't force him into becoming the Batman, it is entirely his choice. And this makes me admire him more.
Nov 4, 2008
Oct 22, 2008
Time is money!!!
Funny, how age-old sayings can translate to completely different meanings in modern times.
Jagran Solutions, a below-the-line agency (in marketing jargon, called on-ground activation, marketing communications agency) in India took this saying and gave it an amazing twist online.
This Diwali, they tied up with an NGO (Akanksha) and posted about it on a blog. The NGO works in the field of education for underprivileged children. The post invites comments to itself, and Jagran contributes "a humble amount" for each comment posted.
While I would loved to know the exact amount that Jagran will contribute for my comment, I am going by the logic of something is better than nothing, and that this act of mine will add to whatever I do otherwise too.
So here's cheers for the effort!
And you can contribute too by visting the blog here.
Jagran Solutions, a below-the-line agency (in marketing jargon, called on-ground activation, marketing communications agency) in India took this saying and gave it an amazing twist online.
This Diwali, they tied up with an NGO (Akanksha) and posted about it on a blog. The NGO works in the field of education for underprivileged children. The post invites comments to itself, and Jagran contributes "a humble amount" for each comment posted.
While I would loved to know the exact amount that Jagran will contribute for my comment, I am going by the logic of something is better than nothing, and that this act of mine will add to whatever I do otherwise too.
So here's cheers for the effort!
And you can contribute too by visting the blog here.
Sep 12, 2008
Arts and Sciences
The whole idea seems cliche actually.
We have been probably talked about this for years now, especially whether a particular thing is an art or a science. This post is a different take on the argument.
We always consider these two as two separate concepts. What I believe is that these two are stages of an evolution. Think of them as first floor and second floor. Science is the first floor, and arts is the second.
Why do I say so?
The idea is based on a lot of thoughts related to activities we consider analytical, and therefore scientific, and other activities which we consider creative, and therefore artisitic. For almost every field of man's efforts, things start with taking more and more information and organising all of it.
Let us take the example of a science considered as one of the purest of sciences - physics.
The quest to the physics knowledge bank that we have today started out with the inventions of the natural numbers, and then moved to whole numbers, rational and then real numbers. Of course, on the way, we invented equations, mathematical operations. We also created all theories of phenomena that we considered natural and factual in the world around us - geometry, gravity, repulsion, e=mc2, et al.
But then, we got stuck at finding out the square root of -1. Here, the analytical brain stopped, but the creative brain took off... and created an imaginary number i. It led to more discoveries and inventions.
What's more, it is in the field of physics (the pure science) that we have probably the most number of creative theories. The Big Bang Theory, sub-atomic particles, multiple Universes, string theory, the list goes on. Most of them have their own set of believers and critics. But none of them can conclusively prove or disprove their own convictions. Talk of purity of science!
Let's look at the arts field. How does one start off in painting or photography? By understanding the science of colour combinations and brush strokes. And by understanding the impact of lighting and perspective on the final photograph.
What are the first things taught to dancers? Understanding their body movements and the science of beats.
What is the first thing taught to musicians? The science of the sargam (Sa Re Ga Ma or octaves).
It is from this basic understanding of science that becomes the launchpad for take off in the unexplored and unexpressed forms of colours, images, dances and sounds. Take any good piece of art, and chances are that the fundamentals of that work would be in place too.
If science and art were indeed opposites, what would you call this post - an article on science because it's rational, or a piece of art because it's a unique point of view on things around us?
We have been probably talked about this for years now, especially whether a particular thing is an art or a science. This post is a different take on the argument.
We always consider these two as two separate concepts. What I believe is that these two are stages of an evolution. Think of them as first floor and second floor. Science is the first floor, and arts is the second.
Why do I say so?
The idea is based on a lot of thoughts related to activities we consider analytical, and therefore scientific, and other activities which we consider creative, and therefore artisitic. For almost every field of man's efforts, things start with taking more and more information and organising all of it.
Let us take the example of a science considered as one of the purest of sciences - physics.
The quest to the physics knowledge bank that we have today started out with the inventions of the natural numbers, and then moved to whole numbers, rational and then real numbers. Of course, on the way, we invented equations, mathematical operations. We also created all theories of phenomena that we considered natural and factual in the world around us - geometry, gravity, repulsion, e=mc2, et al.
But then, we got stuck at finding out the square root of -1. Here, the analytical brain stopped, but the creative brain took off... and created an imaginary number i. It led to more discoveries and inventions.
What's more, it is in the field of physics (the pure science) that we have probably the most number of creative theories. The Big Bang Theory, sub-atomic particles, multiple Universes, string theory, the list goes on. Most of them have their own set of believers and critics. But none of them can conclusively prove or disprove their own convictions. Talk of purity of science!
Let's look at the arts field. How does one start off in painting or photography? By understanding the science of colour combinations and brush strokes. And by understanding the impact of lighting and perspective on the final photograph.
What are the first things taught to dancers? Understanding their body movements and the science of beats.
What is the first thing taught to musicians? The science of the sargam (Sa Re Ga Ma or octaves).
It is from this basic understanding of science that becomes the launchpad for take off in the unexplored and unexpressed forms of colours, images, dances and sounds. Take any good piece of art, and chances are that the fundamentals of that work would be in place too.
If science and art were indeed opposites, what would you call this post - an article on science because it's rational, or a piece of art because it's a unique point of view on things around us?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)