"Batman and Robin must be gay because they live together." Yea, yea I get it. That was barely funny when I was in 4th grade and it's even less so now.

If I recall correctly, the Robin character was created so kids could have someone they could relate to. That's all there was to it. There was no secret homosexual agenda at play.

And there's really no point in mentioning that Batman was "irresistibly attractive to young readers whose sexuality was already inclined away from heterosexuality." Batman appeals to all people, regardless of race, sexual preference, religion, etc. That's why the character is as popular as he has ever been, despite being nearly 70 years old.

Whether homosexual subtext is intended by authors or merely inferred by readers, Batman is a character who is a perennial bachelor with a secret taste for dressing up in a costume and grappling with other men. When a gentleman of such dubious habits takes on as his ward an adolescent boy, eyebrows are appropriately raised.

There are serious hurdles to get over in making audiences take this guy and his kinky, easily-mocked lifestyle seriously, and the character has spent much of his 70 years failing to avoid those pitfalls.

The idea of the Batman as the physical manifestation of the characters' internal anguish is something that audiences have sort of bought in the stylized Tim Burton movies and the cartoon shows. In the Christopher Nolan film, the bat-suit is reimagined as high-tech body armor. When Frank Miller saved Batman from becoming a total joke in the 80's, he turned Robin into a girl.

Adding an ambiguous relationship with a young boy to all the other Batman ridiculousness topples the careful stage-setting that allows the audience to take this character seriously, and makes all the character's conventions into elaborate sex games. Once Robin is in the equation, the inevitable conclusion is nipples on your latex bat-suit and gratuitous Joel Schumacher ass-shots.

@crawford

"Batman is a character who is a perennial bachelor with a secret taste for dressing up in a costume and grappling with other men. When a gentleman of such dubious habits takes on as his ward an adolescent boy, eyebrows are appropriately raised."

I think this interpretation of the Batman suffers the complexity of the character an unjust reduction.

Firstly, the Batman witnesses the murder of his parents as a young boy. His feelings of helplessness and a desire for revenge causes him to become a vigilante. Secondly, he wears the costume, inspired by a bat, to instill fear and dread in the hearts of the male and female criminals he fights because he surmises that criminals are a superstitious and cowardly lot. He also wears the costume to protect his identity, because unlike many other super heroes the Batman does not have any super powers. He also protects those he loves. His quest for vengeance is tragic cause he will never be able to bring his parents back. In the mean time he will try to spare others the pain which tortures him even in his old age.

All these facts form the cornerstone of the Batman's complex character, but they sadly take second place in pretentious post-modernist 'discussions' of the character.

Finally, a fact that escapes many, Bruce Wayne legally adopts the boy Richard Grayson aka Robin, after he witnesses his parents' murder. We could either chose to read this as his empathizing with another person's tragic loss and hoping to fill the void left in the now orphaned boy's life, or we could read that his being a closet incestuous pedophiliac as well.

So yea, enough with the "Gay Batman" BS.

Batman and Robin, Brokeback Forever:

<link>

SuperNovaStar,

I am aware that the idea behind Batman is that the costumed vigilante is the manifestation of the rage and anguish he hides in his ordinary life.

But you have to understand, even if it's a crimefighting thing, the mask and the costume have a sexual implication. It doesn't take much to turn the Batsuit into a latex sex-gimp costume, as Schumacher proved in "Batman and Robin." The "Brokeback Batman" YouTube posted above is actually less gay than the movie it lampoons.

And because Batman has no guns or lasers or powers to shoot fire or ice or whatever, he spends a lot of time wrestling with the bad guys. Which is kind of gay.

And there's no Lois Lane character in Batman for the hero to constantly proclaim his heterosexuality to.

But the point where viewers are no longer unable to look past all the stuff that's kind of gay about Batman is the point where he adopts an adolescent boy. That's where people stop following Batman on his tortured revenge trip and start laughing at him. That's where it turns into Adam West and Burt Ward. That's where it treads into Joel Schumacher territory.

Crawford,

There has only been one filimic interpretation of the Batman that comes close to the character's history and identity and that has been Nolan's Batman Begins. Christian Bale's interpretation of Bruce Wayne was also superior. Tim Burton's (one of my favorite directors) is a distant second. Shumacher's interpretation canned and if you did some research you would see what sort of reviews his play with the character received. Additionally, I feel that as the character originated in the comics, an argument for understanding the character ought to take into account the character's representation through the comic books. For instance, we would see that there have been several female love interests in Bruce Wayne's life: Vicki Vale, Sasha Bordeaux, Silvia St. Cloud, Celina Kyle (Catwoman), and Talia al Ghul with whom he had a son called Damien. His commitment to fighting crime has often meant that he sacrifices his personal life, another tragedy in the character.

People will read what different things from a character's on screen treatment, which largely depends on the director, and imho, Schumacher should be the litmus for how NOT to play Batman on screen. 'Cause he got it wrong.