Is Batman George W. Bush?
Posted by Dirty Harry on Sunday, July 6th, 2008
In Variety’s mostly positive but less than rave over Dark Knight, this stood out:
Pic shrewdly positions the Joker as the superhero-movie equivalent of a modern terrorist (one of several post-9/11 signifiers), who threatens to target Gotham civilians until Batman reveals his identity. Batman, Gordon and Dent uneasily join forces, but the Joker seems to have the upper hand at every step, even from a jail cell; the city, turning against the hero it once looked to for hope, seems more fractious, vulnerable and dangerous than ever.
Sound familiar — uneasy alliances, citizens turning against their protector?
Bush made some tough decisions to keep us safe and look at how shrewdly the terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan go after high-profile, strategically useless targets (in a battlefield sense) to get the public to turn against him. Of course, the terrorists are ably abetted by terrorist appeasers in the media, Democrat party, and Hollywood, but still there’s a connection to be made here.
Director Christopher Nolan’s politics are unknown to me and nothing he’s put on the screen thus far has tipped his hand, but just a few months ago The New York Times tried to ruin Dark Knight for we right-wingers and Nolan was having none of it. He may not be one of us, but surely he seems too reasonable to be one of them.
Sure wish I had the muscle to wrangle my way into an early screening of this one.
Filed in General |
Troyon 06 Jul 2008 at 7:43 pm 1I thought Batman Begins was a very conservative movie. It had a Magnum Force quality to it (though it was better than Magnum Force I thought) — I’ll go pretty far to combat evil, but not THAT far. Nolan seems reasonable at least — and that stands for a lot.
If Dark Knight has this flavor then it will have legs and could break all sorts of records. We want heroes — heroes who will hunt down — righteously — and kill those who would kill us.
Troyon 06 Jul 2008 at 7:44 pm 2Of course Batman could be Cheney — he lives in an undisclosed location and is tied to a huge corporation.
Kensingtonon 06 Jul 2008 at 8:18 pm 3I don’t know Nolan’s politics either, but it’s pretty hard to depict Batman as anything other than a hard-line right-winger, no matter how hard even the staunchest leftist writer might try.
Carlitoson 06 Jul 2008 at 8:36 pm 4Ditto Kensington. Batman is RIGHTWING to the marrow of his bones.
whiskeyon 06 Jul 2008 at 8:42 pm 5Look at the first movie. Ras Al Ghul, “the Demon” (in a fairly faithful move from the comic books to the movie) considers modern society totally corrupt and wishes to completely destroy it to “start from zero” and rebuild humanity according to HIS design. Naturally, with himself.
Batman/Bruce Wayne has sentimental attachments to the institutions and transit systems his father helped create, and the city his father tried to save. Batman/Bruce Wayne battles evil BECAUSE IT WAS WHAT HIS FATHER DID, in his own way. Tradition, values, belief-faith in the Western way of life, absolute refusal to “start from zero” is what Batman is all about.
Ras Al Ghul could not be more liberal, and Batman could not be more conservative. The screenplay was masterful.
Brendanon 06 Jul 2008 at 9:33 pm 6Well, it beats being compared to Hitler ad nauseam.
maatkareon 06 Jul 2008 at 10:04 pm 7Personally, I’ve always seen Batman as Bats**t insane–he dresses like a freakin’ bat for chrissakes! I would love to have a Batman in Los Angeles: he wouldn’t have revealed a potential witness’s identity to some gang bangers during interrogation-resulting in her immediate murder as some of our stellar detectives recently did. In the comic book world, Superman is usually portrayed as the more conservative and thus unimaginative–the Big Blue Boy Scout–and in some tales, such as Frank “300″ Miller’s “The Dark Night Returns” which has inspired all the modern Bat-mythos, this is the core of Batman’s rivalry with Superman: Batman regards him as an unimaginative, by-the-book government tool. It’s interesting to view him with the fictional Dirty Harry: they both can certainly be seen as conservative and heroic and yet–forgive me, I saw Wall-E and mushy love is on my mind–Superman has Lois. Bruce Wayne and Dirty Harry are merciless crime fighting machines, but never get the humanity of love.
jrlon 06 Jul 2008 at 10:32 pm 8Instead of a comparison to President Bush, or any other individual, why not America itself - in the sense that Kyle Smith described Hancock. With Batman, however, there’s the added depth of someone who knows he has to battle evil while also knowing the battle will inevitably inflict pain and death on innocents. That is, introspection - a constant critique of motive and method. That constant inner struggle of weighing action and inaction against consequence - of doing things that would otherwise be abhorrent.
The more I read about this movie, the more I think it’s a positive allegory for the military. Having not seen it, that may be wishful thinking. But if I’m right, Stallone slipping Rambo past the lefty censors will look like a tiny accomplishment in comparison. Especially with all the praise being heaped on The Dark Knight that wasn’t there for Rambo.
Even if Nolan’s politics aren’t exactly aligned with my own, so what? Same goes for the actors in this film. They’re doing something special here - so it seems so far.
@Whiskey…
There’s a few other things about Batman Begins that struck me as rather Conservative - growing out of what you wrote.
First, Wayne was a private citizen doing what he could for the city within the private sphere - there’s no hint at lobbying for government programs. The thought struck me recently with the death of Jesse Helms who has been described, by more generous critics, as being a very generous man in private life while doing anything and everything he could to curtail government largess.
Second, Bruce Wayne has an undeniable optimism. While some may feel Gotham is lost and needs to be remade, Wayne is firm in his belief that Gotham, while not perfect, is worth defending, it’s worth improving. It’s nearly Reagan-esque in outlook.
Bobon 06 Jul 2008 at 10:34 pm 9Can we please NOT insult the pampered rich-kid who dresses up as a fantasy figure with a put-on phony voice in order to throw his machismo around by comparing him to George Bush?
Vincent Wongon 06 Jul 2008 at 10:38 pm 10Harry (erm, John),
“mostly positive but less than rave”
from Variety’s opening ‘abstract’:
“An ambitious, full-bodied crime epic of gratifying scope and moral complexity, this is seriously brainy pop entertainment that satisfies every expectation raised by its hit predecessor and then some. That should also hold true at the box office…”
Dude, sounds like a rave to me.
Kiton 07 Jul 2008 at 12:42 am 11Looks good.
magdajhawthorneon 07 Jul 2008 at 5:38 am 12I’ve always thought that George Bush was Spiderman (not necessarily the Tobey McGuire version, but just Spiderman in general). The press irrationally hate Spiderman and thinks he is a menace, but the American people know better.
Stephanieon 07 Jul 2008 at 6:24 am 13Oh there is Bob again…heh…
Its an interesting analogy. I can see where people might think it could be a story analogous of whats going on now. Films seem to reflect the world they are made in no matter what they are about. Batman understands good vs. evil. As far as the Hancock analogy there was a quote I forget by whom and it stated that America is like a big dog, we wag our tails and knock over Belgium. Thats what Hancock reminded me of.
Batman isn’t like anyone else. He dresses funny, he believes in something that most people on the planet or in his case Gotham don’t believe in anymore honor, dignity, the world being black and white not full of convienient grey areas.
JohnLockeon 07 Jul 2008 at 6:40 am 14Whiskey, Ra’s al Ghul and his organization struck me more as an allegory (intended or not) for Islamic terror. An eastern organization that is dedicated to an ideology rather than money or power, and that intends to carry out the merciless destruction of what they perceive to be Western “decadence.”
That’s what so refreshing about Nolan’s major villains: they’re not greedy corporate fat cats, they’re terrorists driven by ideology (and not a “radical Christian” one) rather than desire of monetary benefit. And that’s the kind of villain that Americans can identify with in this day and age. In addition, they’re not characterized in such a way that we’re supposed to somehow sympathize with or admire them, like Dexter Morgan or Hannibal Lecter. They’re portrayed as flat-out evil, as monsters that should not be sympathized or negotiated with, but should be fought. That in itself is a right-wing notion when put in contrast to the typical Hollywood bad guy.
Kiton 07 Jul 2008 at 6:59 am 15Interesting…
Mighty Skipon 07 Jul 2008 at 7:24 am 16I’m surprised the moonbats didn’t swoop down on you for this one… ooops, nevermind there was Bob.
JohnLockeon 07 Jul 2008 at 7:41 am 17From the review over at Bloody Disgusting:
“In one sequence Batman uses the city’s mobile phones to emit sonar signals so he can watch everyone in the city. During that scene Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman) says to Wayne “If this technology exists in the Batcave you can consider this my resignation,” implying that quite possibly our “protectors” - or government - or taking away our rights in order to protect us.”
I won’t know what to truly make of this until I get to see Wayne’s response, but…
Plissken79on 07 Jul 2008 at 8:16 am 18Trying to place a comic book superhero in the “real world” is always a dicey proposition, but if anyone can pull it off, it is Christopher Nolan and Christian Bale
Sammy B.on 07 Jul 2008 at 9:13 am 19Whiskey, Ra’s al Ghul and his organization struck me more as an allegory (intended or not) for Islamic terror. An eastern organization that is dedicated to an ideology rather than money or power, and that intends to carry out the merciless destruction of what they perceive to be Western “decadence.”
If wikipedia hasn’t been lying to me, Ra’s al Ghul in the comicbooks was Arabic, rather than European. But rather than an ideologue fighting for his twisted definition of justice, comicbook-Ra’s was an ecoterrorist.
GEBIVon 07 Jul 2008 at 9:16 am 20There was a great little piece written by Mike the Marine over at From the Halls to the Shores after Batman Begins came out.
You have to scroll down a little to read it, all I can do is link to the archive month, but you’ll see why America IS Batman.
Sammy B.on 07 Jul 2008 at 9:18 am 21So maybe Nolan changed al Ghul’s nationality so as to make the “Islamic terror” allegory less overt (or to intentionally undermine it). Or maybe Nolan just really liked Liam Neeson’s audition.
Full Metal Deer Platoonon 07 Jul 2008 at 10:05 am 22JohnLocke
In the comics Batman has always kept an eye on the other Supers - just in case. So that seems entirely consistent with his character.
JohnLockeon 07 Jul 2008 at 10:11 am 23I’m not saying what Batman did is wrong. I’m worried that Lucius Fox’s criticism will be heeded or at least held up as the “right” way of thinking.
Full Metal Deer Platoonon 07 Jul 2008 at 10:14 am 24Well, Lucius is portrayed by Morgan “Instant Dignity” Freeman, so you may be right.
Bobon 07 Jul 2008 at 10:40 am 25In the comics, Ra’s Al Ghul is supposed to be so old that nationality is kind of a moot point. The name is Arabic, it means “The Demon’s Head.”
jbwon 07 Jul 2008 at 3:01 pm 26I can’t be certain of Nolan’s political views; some conservatives did adopt Batman Begins as a conservative movie.
Regardless I saw a scene today, that I swear contains a cameo by Senator Patrick Leahy of VT. Perhaps I am wrong but I swear it looked like him. The fun part was the joker appeared ready to kill him.
JohnLockeon 07 Jul 2008 at 3:37 pm 27“Regardless I saw a scene today, that I swear contains a cameo by Senator Patrick Leahy of VT. Perhaps I am wrong but I swear it looked like him. The fun part was the joker appeared ready to kill him.”
It really was him, according to Wikipedia. Apparently, he’s a big Batman fan. I found it ironic that in this scene, his character said, “We won’t be intimidated by thugs.” This from the man who voted against extending the Patriot Act.
(John)on 07 Jul 2008 at 3:49 pm 28http://www.theage.com.au/news/film/defending-the-blockbuster/2005/07/14/1120934352863.html
^ David Goyer admitted awhile back that the film version of Ra’s Al Ghul was based on Osama bin Laden. Also, when I view Begins, it’s hard for me not to think of 9/11 toward the end. Remember that Al Ghul’s final plan is to ram a big piece of public transportation into the huge tower in the middle of the city in order to economically destroy Gotham and drive its citizens crazy with terror… sounds a bit familiar.
Stephanieon 07 Jul 2008 at 5:19 pm 29Leahy is in it? Jeez………that is right up there seeing Gods and Generals and recognizing Robert KKK Byrd all decked out in Confederate General’s Garb. Or Phil Gramm sitting in the Conderate Legislature…or Ted Turner…….or Rudolph Giuliani in the Out of Towners.
JohnLockeon 07 Jul 2008 at 5:31 pm 30Well, I was able to enjoy “The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford” despite James Carville’s cameo. But still, it’s not exactly a positive sign to those of us trying to find a right-wing message in this film.
Christopher Coleon 08 Jul 2008 at 12:17 am 31Why would Bush be Batman? Bruce Wayne/Batman has a clear plan of attack, gets all of his facts straight before doing anything rash, is decisive, and doesn’t kill unarmed civilians nor torture merely suspected criminals/terrorists. He knows who the bad guys are, and he doesn’t get side tracked by criminals in other cities who have nothing to do with the chaos in Gotham.
So I am failing to see your connection between Bush and Batman here.
Stephanieon 08 Jul 2008 at 7:40 am 32Why would Bush be Batman? Bruce Wayne/Batman has a clear plan of attack, gets all of his facts straight before doing anything rash, is decisive, and doesn’t kill unarmed civilians nor torture merely suspected criminals/terrorists. He knows who the bad guys are, and he doesn’t get side tracked by criminals in other cities who have nothing to do with the chaos in Gotham.
So I am failing to see your connection between Bush and Batman here.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The foolishness and ignorance of the facts on the GWOT in this statement is well breathtaking. Even if I would agree with a third of it, it is still…..wow…..
Stephanieon 08 Jul 2008 at 7:41 am 33JohnLocke
on 07 Jul 2008 at 5:31 pm
30Well, I was able to enjoy “The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford” despite James Carville’s cameo. But still, it’s not exactly a positive sign to those of us trying to find a right-wing message in this film.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Here is a little bit of advice….stop trying to find the knife. There isnt one. OK? Even if Leahy is in it. Politicians, especially leftwing morons are not especially the brightest spark plugs in the V8.
Christopher Coleon 08 Jul 2008 at 8:12 am 34Stephanie, what did I say that is wrong? Where is the proof that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11? Did we not indeed invade a sovereign nation based on bad evidence? Did not the government hire contract killers (Blackwater) who took out 17 unarmed civilians, and at least 14 of them had no reason to die (many of whom were women and children)? Has not the Bush administration used torture methods on persons that might not be terrorists at all?
Batman would get his facts straight, do the proper investigation, not go after anyone who wasn’t involved, certainly not target civilians, and he wouldn’t use torture on anyone that he didn’t know for certain was involved in the crime going on in Gotham City. He also leaves Metropolis alone because those criminals don’t have anything to do with the crime in Gotham.
So unless you can prove otherwise, GWB is definitely NOT Bruce Wayne/Batman.
JohnLockeon 08 Jul 2008 at 8:54 am 35“Where is the proof that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11? Did we not indeed invade a sovereign nation based on bad evidence?”
Oh, so we had no right to invade a nation that admitted to being in possession of or producing thousands of weapons and weapons agents that were in violation of the Gulf War ceasefire? We had no right to invade a nation that refused to comply with U.N. resolutions time after time after time? We had no right to invade a nation that provided funding and shelter to terrorists and terrorist groups, including one of the masterminds behind the 1993 WTC bombings? Don’t give me this “bad evidence” nonsense. By 1998, we had a concrete list of WMDs that the Iraqi government admitted to producing, weapons that Iraq was not allowed to produce. Forget CIA speculation. Forget the intelligence reports. This was stuff Iraq ADMITTED to having. And Iraq not only failed to provide credible evidence that these weapons had been destroyed, but also actively worked to hinder U.N. investigations.
“Did not the government hire contract killers (Blackwater) who took out 17 unarmed civilians, and at least 14 of them had no reason to die (many of whom were women and children)?”
Private contractor guards who happened to be under government contract went a little nuts and killed civilians? Oh, that evil George Bush! Shit happens in war, Chris. Yes, that was a terrible incident. But do you really think innocent people never got shot without cause by the Allies during World War II? You cannot judge a war or the Commander and Chief executing the war based on the renegade actions of a few Blackwater guards. Bush did not “target civilians.”
“Has not the Bush administration used torture methods on persons that might not be terrorists at all?”
The definition of torture is subject to debate, and if a person is in government custody, I think it’s fair to assume that he is being held for a reason.
“Batman would get his facts straight, do the proper investigation, not go after anyone who wasn’t involved, certainly not target civilians, and he wouldn’t use torture on anyone that he didn’t know for certain was involved in the crime going on in Gotham City. He also leaves Metropolis alone because those criminals don’t have anything to do with the crime in Gotham.”
Well, you certainly deflated Harry’s comparison there. Nevermind the fact that you’re being glib and even downright disingenuous when it comes to Bush’s handling of the war, as I proved above. But hey, while you’re at it, why don’t you bring up the fact that Batman doesn’t have a southern accent? And hey, isn’t Bush just a little bit older than Batman?
Give me a break. Harry was making a generalized comparison. Sure, if you zoom far enough in, you’re gonna find discrepancies. Hey, no allegory is perfect.
thecobrasnoseon 09 Jul 2008 at 10:40 pm 36Batman Begins is a neo-con movie, all about the struggle to practice the responsible use of tremendous power and wealth in a chaotic world. In the movie, the villains are explicitly fanatics who want to turn back time and technology through terrorism. The hero is the misunderestimated playboy goof who realizes good intentions are not sufficient: “It’s not who I am underneath, but what I *do* that defines me.” In this, he rejects the ethos of his limousine liberal parents (murdered before his eyes, due in part to their limp reaction to street crime) and returns to his ancestral politics and ideals. The association with northern industries and the underground railroad strongly hint these were Republican.
I thought it odd that most of the cast were English or European. Did Nolan think an American cast would pick up on the analogy and rebel?
hector garzaon 20 Jul 2008 at 8:41 pm 37“JohnLocke,” it’s tough to understand how you reconcile your neocon worldview with that of an enlightened individual such as your ineptly chosen namesake. Are you serious with the cr*p you post? Or are you a closet-liberal engaged in some covert campaign to discredit actual conservatives by posting retarded comments while posing as one?
“By 1998, we had a concrete list of WMDs that the Iraqi government admitted to producing, weapons that Iraq was not allowed to produce. Forget CIA speculation.”
Are you able to even follow the debate surrounding 9/11? You sound like you’re information is limited to a small but distrubed community of ultra right-wing conspiracy theorists. What was the actual, recent and cogent intelligence about WMD immediately prior to our intervention? If you were capable of following the conversation you’d understand this was the proper point to address.
It’s poorly thought out individuals such as yourself that give actual conservatives a bad name.
Paulon 22 Jul 2008 at 1:26 am 38You are all absolutely right, I thought this the moment I left the theatre, only just now got around to googling for a like-minded analysis of the movie.
BUT the far, FAR more important thing here is not what the movie is saying, but the audience’s reaction!
What percentage of Americans do you think left the movie theatre disgusted with Batman’s morality?
I’ll give you a hint: the figure is microscopic in comparison to how many disapprove of Bush’s morality. microscopic.
We must use this—I already used it on a liberal friend of mine and after they admit they like Batman’s morals they have no argument against the basic ideas the war is based on.
I believe this is not only a great film, it has the ability to open minds.
Donon 28 Jul 2008 at 6:34 pm 39Batman is not a “right-winger” or a “left-winger.” Do you think a masked vigilante tormented by the death of his parents and the destruction of his city would have some flimsy political alliance? Also, Batman is not George Bush you fucking degenerate mongloids. When Batman wages a war he actually fights in it.
Stephanieon 28 Jul 2008 at 6:43 pm 40Wow another leftwing loser found his way here. Donnie I can call you Donnie..if you want to make points make a good arguement. Your just spreading hate filled Daily Kos graffiti. And unless your a 14 year old street urchin from east LA it doesn’t become you. Grow the F up little man.
Flopping Aces » Blog Archive » Is “W” the Signal for “The Dark Knight”?on 17 Aug 2008 at 12:12 pm 41[…] Dirty Harry’s Place also notes another article that sees The Joker as a super-terrorist: In Variety’s mostly positive but less than rave over Dark Knight, this stood out: Pic shrewdly positions the Joker as the superhero-movie equivalent of a modern terrorist (one of several post-9/11 signifiers), who threatens to target Gotham civilians until Batman reveals his identity. Batman, Gordon and Dent uneasily join forces, but the Joker seems to have the upper hand at every step, even from a jail cell; the city, turning against the hero it once looked to for hope, seems more fractious, vulnerable and dangerous than ever. […]