DHP REVIEW: The Dark Knight
Posted by Dirty Harry on Friday, July 18th, 2008
He hasn’t come for money, he hasn’t come for power. He can’t be reasoned or negotiated with, he can’t be reached for any kind of appeal. Void of mercy and humanity, the Joker (Heath Ledger) has only one goal: to launch a campaign of nihilistic terror for the very soul of Gotham City. And it’s not just the citizens of Gotham the Joker is sure can be terrorized into becoming just like him, it’s the Batman (Christian Bale), as well.
The Dark Knight may well be the most conservative movie since 300. There’s just no arguing that the Joker is al-Qaeda and Batman George W. Bush. In between are the citizens of Gotham who have a choice: They can cave to terror, turn on their protector and blame his aggressive crime fighting for the rise of the Joker, or they can understand that appeasing a criminal status quo in their city doesn’t convince the Joker’s of the world to see the light and enroll at community college.
Dark Knight is neither an action or comic book film. What it is, is a stunningly realized psychological thriller brilliantly using familiar genres to comment on the battle between good and evil currently being played out in faraway deserts, but more importantly, right here at home. It’s a film that fundamentally understands that the war will either be won or lost in the souls of those who inhabit our own Gothams.
The film asks one question: Will Gothamites appease the terrorist? All they need do to satisfy the Joker is to turn on Batman, and until they do, the Joker promises wanton murder and destruction. If the people blame the Joker’s reign of terror on Batman’s refusal to appease him, the Joker wins. If the people turn on each other like animals out of fear and panic, the Joker wins. If Batman becomes the Joker to beat the Joker… Well, you get the point.
The allusions to the war for civilization George W. Bush is waging and winning don’t stop there. Blown out buildings evoke the World Trade Center. Only its not a President rallying the nation from a pile of rubble, it’s a tortured superhero silhouetted by construction lights dealing with the emotional cost of being the hero Gotham needs instead of the one they want. Massive, intrusive surveillance may offend some’s sensibilities, but is it worth the lives saved? And then there’s Michael Caine’s Alfred stating outright that Batman will not give in to the whim of a terrorist and reminding that choosing not to be the hero is sometimes the most heroic choice.
As each one of the film’s 150 minutes tick by the themes deepen, increasing your emotional investment into the Batman character until the very end arrives and his final choice moves beyond expression. In an age when too many are ready to go over to the Joker’s side enabling evil dictators for the stability they promise and appeasing just a little terrorism for a little peace, co-writer/director Christopher Nolan’s rumination on what it takes to be a hero today is as relevant as it is fresh.
Heath Ledger’s Joker will have us all asking, Jack Nicholson who…? Behind those eyes, horrific make-up and flicking tongue is something so dark and unreachable that his every moment evokes the final shot in Alfred Hichcock’s Psycho: Anthony Perkins, forever “Mother”, eyes dark as coal, wondering about the fly. Bale’s Batman is intense, tortured, and determined, and Aaron Eckhart’s square-jawed Harvey Dent a walking enigma when it comes to figuring out which side he’s on.
As was the case in Batman Begins, Gary Oldman as the buttoned down Jim Gordon is a brilliant bit of casting. All the madman baggage that comes with an actor like Oldman enriches the bespectacled milquetoast with an undercurrent of possibilities. And while neither Morgan Freeman nor Michael Caine gets enough to do (when do they?), leaving you wanting more is part of their respective gifts.
The only weak link is once again the Rachel Dawes character, this time played by Maggie Gyllenhaal stepping in for Katie Holmes. For such a dark film, Rachel has a few too many Tess Trueheart moments and Gyllenhaal doesn’t do sincere much better than Holmes did adult-professional.
Director Nolan makes the best use of the great city of Chicago of any filmmaker since directer Andrew Davis’ salad days with The Fugitive (1993). (Nolan even cast Davis regular Ron Dean in a small but pivotal role as a Gotham cop). While the setting for Batman Begins felt more real than the hyper-real locations directors’ Tim Burton and Joel Schumacher set their Batman’s in, The Dark Knight is downright organic; filmed on so many practical locations you forget its a comic book story. Batman truly feels like a real character in a real city.
And in many ways he is a real character in a real city, choosing to be the hero we need instead of the one we want. The one battered, beaten, scorned and derided for making the hard choices which keep us safe. There is him, there is the other side, but it is those of in between who will determine our own fates. Christopher Nolan’s taken his side and is communicating it using the art of film as rich allegory. The Dark Knight is a masterwork, one that will only get better with repeated viewings.
Filed in Movie Reviews |
Troyon 18 Jul 2008 at 4:25 pm 11/2 a star???? Dude. Commit.
GMKon 18 Jul 2008 at 4:32 pm 2Holy hell
Max Poweron 18 Jul 2008 at 4:34 pm 3I can’t wait to get this puppy on DVD and watch it 10 million times!
Stephanieon 18 Jul 2008 at 4:37 pm 4You had me at hello………….heh…….gon’ see this one. Next week when the crowds will die a little.
Dougon 18 Jul 2008 at 4:41 pm 5I just got back from seeing it, and let me tell you: This movie just does not let up. I don’t know if they’ll be able to top this one. Best superhero movie ever made (easily), and probably one of the greatest action movies ever made, too.
Christopher Coleon 18 Jul 2008 at 4:45 pm 6I am still unable to grasp the whole “Batman is George W. Bush” thing. I think the mere suggestion of that before the release has tainted this review.
But it really doesn’t make a whole lot of sense either. Batman became Batman to not only fight the crime in the city, but to fight the corruption that put criminal friendly people in power. Batman works outside the corruption in order to put both the criminals and the leaders on notice that the citizens weren’t going to put up with it anymore. If the movie was truly analogous to real life, it would be the special interests that have corrupted both major political parties that would have something to fear.
Stephanieon 18 Jul 2008 at 4:53 pm 7No one asked you Cole.
Forlournedon 18 Jul 2008 at 4:54 pm 8Tried to catch this at the local Imax, but it was sold out for the whole dang weekend except for the 2am showing on the weekend. I just aint that committed to stay up that late for anything. So I stayed up a little longer after the graveyard shift and watched it at the 11am showing today -still kinda packed- and had an interesting experience. People laughed when the movie told them too, but nobody was willing to whoop when something amazing happened in my opine.
Pathetic bunch they where and I was somewhat disappointed near the end of the show for that obvious -safe- conclusion.
Rogue Maleon 18 Jul 2008 at 4:59 pm 9>
I’d look more for analogies to the UN, Saudi Arabian oil money, the MSM, …
GMKon 18 Jul 2008 at 5:05 pm 10Cole,
Whether or not it makes sense in terms of your take on Batman canon has little to do with what the director’s allegorical intent was.
Jimboon 18 Jul 2008 at 5:07 pm 11Harry I have respect your opinions but leaving off a half star on The Dark Knight is a joke. If this movie doesn’t deserve full 4 star rating I don’t know what does. This movie was a masterpeice an unbelievable acheivement in just about every level. Perfect casting, amazing action, a great moral compass, emotional intensity, and simply the scariest villian in the history of cinema. I can’t praise this movie enough. If I can think of a flaw it would be that making the jokers white skin the result of make-up instead of a chemical accident seemed like an unnessesary change to the source material. Other then that a movie I can’t find flaw with. I hope this movie breaks box office records and sends a message that superhero movies should be like this.
HARRY HERE: I didn’t want to go into it — wanted to get the review up and nitpicking seemed silly — but I thought it was a little long, the Rachel Dawes character was a real mess as far as defining her (we should’ve cared more about her), and the emotional dots with Harvey Dent didn’t quite add up for me. In an average film these issues would be major, but the rest of the film is so fruh-eeking masterful it only cost it a half-star. It’s not perfect. Not a masterpiece. Damn close.
Christopher Coleon 18 Jul 2008 at 5:08 pm 12And did he actually come out and say it was an allegory to Bush?
JimmyCon 18 Jul 2008 at 5:09 pm 13“The Dark Knight may well be the most conservative movie since 300.”
As if I wasn’t excited enough to see this already.
JohnLockeon 18 Jul 2008 at 5:09 pm 14Awesome. I’m leaving to see it right now. And I’m so glad I got mine ahead of time. It actually sold out at my local southern Illinois theater.
whiskeyon 18 Jul 2008 at 5:16 pm 15Cole I will explain it to you in simple terms:
After the fall of the USSR, the West broadly (and heck before that) felt it was at “the end of history” where human nature just suddenly changed, well BECAUSE! dang it and evil had been overthrown. That there was no risk to Western Civilization and freedom, instead just ourselves causing problems.
Then, the little known villain Osama became a much bigger problem, and Jihadis around the globe told Westerners what books they could read, what cartoons they could draw and see, what movies they could see, what animals are forbidden (dogs, pigs) all on the pain of death.
There were no good, clean, fantasy solutions. Either cave in, and create a police state executing those who might offend Muslims anywhere and everywhere, or fight and kill a lot of people to avoid even worse slaughter. Worst of all, the fantasy that the “end of history” was at hand, human nature transformed into goodness and light, where Unicorns prance about, was as dead as a doornail.
JUST LIKE GWB, Batman sees the rise of one villain (the Joker) at the fall of the first (Rais Al Ghul). The Joker wants … total submission. It’s a fantasy akin to bin Laden’s dream of ruling the world through murder and brutality. JUST LIKE GWB, Batman lacks the powers that say, Superman or Green Lantern have to stop the Joker. He MUST use fear, intimidation, brutality, non-stop surveillance, etc. if he wants to avoid a mass slaughter. He’s just a man … a wealthy, highly trained, and driven one but still subject to the limits of mortal men. He’s not a Kryptonian, does not have a power ring, is not the fastest being in the Universe, does not have magic powers, etc.
Batman does not kill people … but he’ll go right up to that line against brutal opponents who do. Just as GWB does not nuke cities, but will go right up to the line against opponents who will.
Like GWB/the US, Batman could just walk away, leave Gotham to it’s fate, and be the wealthy Bruce Wayne. This is the Leftist/Pat Buchanon paleocon position.
I can understand why liberals hate this film — it destroys their fantasy of the “UN” or Superman “fixing everything” by one big speech or something silly like that. Evil has always existed, it was inevitable given the hypercharged emotions and intellect of modern humans. The “message” of Batman is that to avoid a true slaughter and enslavement, and mass counter-slaughter, someone has to fight evil.
Troyon 18 Jul 2008 at 5:17 pm 16Chris… the purpose of an allegory is so that it doesn’t have to be spelled out for folks. We on the right watch and often enjoy allegories all the time with which we don’t agree. Suck it up and enjoy the ride on this one.
Chris Nolen is not going to cut your meat for you.
mjkon 18 Jul 2008 at 5:18 pm 17Cole,
When the last Harry Potter movie came out, everyone was comparing Voldemort to George Bush and the US government. Did anyone with the movie say “Look it’s George Bush!!!”? Perhaps they did. I just didn’t hear it.
People’s interpretation of movies make the movies more interesting. A very very good director/writer can make a movie that you can interpret anyway you like.
For the record, the Harry Potter movie made me think of the people in the government bound and determined to pretend that there was no terror running around and determined to act like life is all the same.
But that’s just me and my ability to you know, think critically.
This movie, I’ll be seeing. It really sounds interesting.
Stephanieon 18 Jul 2008 at 5:20 pm 18Whiskey that was an awesome post…………
Stephanieon 18 Jul 2008 at 5:21 pm 19What do they teach you at that so called “Top” Ten school there Colie? Do you know what allegory is?
Bridgeton 18 Jul 2008 at 5:23 pm 20OK, DH, since you do like putting up the cheesecake for your own tastes, I gotta point out just how smokin’ hot Christian Bale is…
HARRY HERE: Well, hello stranger! Hope you;re good and well!!!
Christopher Coleon 18 Jul 2008 at 5:30 pm 21You still don’t get what I am saying. Wow. Why can’t this just be a good vs. evil film not wrapped up in some homage to George W. Bush or anyone else? Why do Neocons have to read so much into movies what is going on in the world outside of Hollywood?
Good vs. Evil is a common theme throughout history, why can’t it just be another story like that? Why do neocons have to say this is about George Bush? Why can’t they differentiate between fantasy and reality? Are you so desperate for something good to hang your hat on that you’ll hijack anything and put a GWB spin on it?
And if this is supposed to be an allegory to Bush, shouldn’t there be a resurgence of the League of Shadows (resurgence of the Taliban)?
You neocons make me laugh.
Christianon 18 Jul 2008 at 5:32 pm 22Frickin a! That is awesome, as is the fact that so many liberal critics have heaped praise on it. You’d think there would have been much more given the political content. Thanks for the review, DH.
Mareon 18 Jul 2008 at 5:34 pm 23Great review. Great comments. But, come on, 1/2 star?????
People, this is a four star movie. Just saw it and this review is accurate.
The only weakness I saw, the Rachel character. Having the Joker say she is beautiful won’t make it so. She was a bit of a stretch.
Christianon 18 Jul 2008 at 5:36 pm 24Yo Cole-it’s OK to just disagree and, you know, act like a normal semi-adult rather than having to engage in a little socio-political snobbery. I’m more than happy to hear everyone out, especially those who disagree with me, and I think most people at this site would feel the same. We’re all friends here-you can leave the self righteousness at home.
Morganon 18 Jul 2008 at 5:46 pm 25You know, DH, your reviews are a deciding factor in what movies I go see at the theaters. Before reading your review of The Dark Knight, watching the trailer left me wanting to see it. After reading your review, I am now 10 times more determined to go see it, and I mean real soon. Thanks for the review.
Wilson the Volleyballon 18 Jul 2008 at 5:49 pm 26Saw it at midnight last night. We had our seats two hours before showtime, and I’d do it all over again.
I’ve been thinking about this film all day. Harry’s right; this will get better with time. There are so many layers to this film, it’s impossible to catch it all with one viewing.
One of the best actions films I’ve seen. The Nolan brothers are geniuses. I can’t wait to see what else they have up their sleeves.
JohnFNWayneon 18 Jul 2008 at 5:49 pm 27Saw it and loved it.
Felt the beginning was kind of slow, but it picked up and it was a ride the rest of the way.
Oldman, Eckart, Bale and Ledger - probably the best ensemble cast of the last 20 years. I can’t think of one better in that time. The scene on the rooftop between the three protagonists was fantastic.
I read the Batman-is-GWB posts and didn’t place much into it. I tend to interpret movies differently than most. But it was really hard not to see the symbolism - it was creeping there, and here, and then the scene with Fox toward the end it slaps you right in the face. The Joker isn’t just a criminal here, he’s a lifeless terrorist. He’s Bin Laden, Hezbollah and the Hussein brothers rolled into one. This might be the finest movie about “terrorism” ever made. You feel it, it oozes off the screen and into your pores and you understand the choices people make. It’s clearly not a black-and-white hero-beats-the-bad-guy serial, but it shows the viewer what you are truly up against when confronted with pure evil (if you don’t feel terrorists can’t relate to that, read the Al Qaeda charter one of these days). It’s hard to see Gotham and not think Baghdad, Gaza or Beirut.
Agree with DHP, Freeman and Caine have too little to do, but man, they make full use of the time they got. Caine’s story about Burma was another highlight. He’s Bruce Wayne’s guiding light. His speech (and if you saw the movie, you know the one I’m talking about) puts the whole series into context and bridges another gap between reality and Nolan’s fear-gripped city.
Nolan wonderfully uses familiar faces in great roles. He makes it all work. Anthony Michael Hall as the news guy on TV, Eric Roberts as the mobster, Michael Jai White (remember Spawn?), William Fichtner and Tommy Lister, in my favorite moment from the movie. Just like Rutger Hauer from the first movie, there are plenty of pleasant surprises throughout.
There is a ton to love about the new Batman films, but my favorite aspect is the relationship between Gordon and Batman. That aspect was barely examined in the Burton-Schumacher set of films, but it is the heart of the new series. Oldman is fantastic as Gordon. Yes, Oldman’s old history of roles is an interesting backdrop for the character, but Oldman’s sincerity and pure acting chops make him stick out. He’s the link that makes the whole series work, without him, this is just another super hero movie.
You go into a movie, you know where the limits are. This movie pushed them off the cliff. You learned to expect anything. It was a throwback feeling, one I hadn’t felt in a while. I experienced it a little during Iron Man, watching Tony Stark perform self surgery in his garage. Knowing that hole was there and his life was hinging on a little battery. The Dark Knight took it to another level. The Joker was capable of any horror you could imagine. It was pure Hitchcockian at times.
As far as great comic book movies, I loved the first two Spider-Man, Iron Man and Batman Begins. Those four belong in their own special category, with X-Men 2 languishing a bit behind. This movie doesn’t belong in that category. It uses comic book characters, but this film lives in the real world. Sam Raimi keeps you in a comic book world, Nolan’s is pure reality. As DHP mentioned, Burton’s hyper-reality scenery is replaced for places we all know. Parking lots, roof tops, buildings, offices, alleys - most settle for making the comic and placing you in it. This takes the comic characters and puts them in your world, and once they are there, you find out The Joker is no laughing matter.
Is this movie as conservative as 300? You can’t dismiss the themes - terror and such. The theme of escalation would dismiss that, but the way it’s portrayed and the way Caine, who is Batman’s soul throughout the series, puts things into perspective, it’s hard to say conservatives can’t claim this movie.
Go see it. Leave the kids at home, because Ledger will have them messing their pants.
amzarakon 18 Jul 2008 at 5:52 pm 28Whiskey, I second Stephanie on your post.
JohnFNWayneon 18 Jul 2008 at 5:52 pm 29Why can’t this just be a good vs. evil film not wrapped up in some homage to George W. Bush or anyone else? Why do Neocons have to read so much into movies what is going on in the world outside of Hollywood?
You neocons make me laugh.
This may be the most ignorant statement posted on the history of this site.
Nate Winchesteron 18 Jul 2008 at 6:00 pm 30Watch it again Harry and you will see it add up. (remember the coin is key)
Lexingtonon 18 Jul 2008 at 6:06 pm 31“Chris Nolen is not going to cut your meat for you.”
Unfortunately, this (among other reasons) is why I didn’t find either Dark Knight or Batman Begins to be very good - like the Spider-Man flicks, they’re never happy to simply let their themes emerge organically from the story, but have their characters enunciate them for the dense. Some subtlety would be appreciated.
That and the fact that Bale’s Batman is just too silly to take seriously. The pumpkin head and ridiculous voice ruin every damn scene he’s in.
PtM at the Movies: The Dark Knight « Provoking the Museon 18 Jul 2008 at 6:08 pm 32[…] W. Bush? Was The Dark Knight “the most conservative film since 300? My favorite movie-blogger Dirty Harry thinks so. He also thinks the movies was awesome. On that last part, we can […]
Stephanieon 18 Jul 2008 at 6:10 pm 33Gee Lexington I am shocked you didn’t like it…note hint of sarcasm……
Me I can’t wait to see it.
Anyone ever notice that when we like a film or Harry gets excited about a movie like Dark Knight the leftists that come here have to poo all over the enthusiasm…..just hate to see people who disagree with you having fun dontcha leftists.
Denis Ambroseon 18 Jul 2008 at 6:14 pm 34DH, great review as always. I have a slightly different take on the movie, which I posted to my crappy blog. Here’s my conclusion:
So, is Batman George W. Bush, doing that which is necessary to protect, but not always doing what is right? Is GWB the hero we need, not the one we deserve, just like the Dark Knight? The argument is an interesting one, especially when the Joker is so clearly a terrorist; I also think it has some weight. Without getting into spoiler territory, the movie makes it clear that fighting evil is a dirty business and sometimes your hands have to get dirty. But (and the movie makes this very clear), there is always the danger of becoming what you swore to destroy, as happens to one of the characters.
So, while this movie might be an allegory on the War on Terror, it is perhaps better to understand it as an allegory of man fighting against evil: beware that you do not become what it is you hate. And that’s a much bigger, and more important, lesson to learn. How do we find that balance between doing what is necessary only and doing what is right only? That’s the fundamental question of the movie; that’s what we are supposed to ask ourselves.
Lexingtonon 18 Jul 2008 at 6:20 pm 35Gee Lexington I am shocked you didn’t like it…note hint of sarcasm……
Eh, I think this movie’s really going to please anyone who feels the need to bring their politics to Gotham - liberals are going to see it as a stern lecture in not becoming the evil you fight, and conservatives will, as Harry’s shown, see Batman as the lonely conservative fighting the good fight and protecting the ungrateful public. Take your pick. Personally, I wouldn’t want to identify with a hero who constantly sounds like he’s having an asthma attack, but, as always, your mileage may vary.
Christopher Coleon 18 Jul 2008 at 6:22 pm 36Steph, I want to see it. I am a huge Batman fan, have been my whole life. I just don’t think he should be an analogy to other people, and for me especially Bush.
It’s also so funny and sad at the same time that everything Hollywood does has to be interpreted through this neocon lens you have going on here. Mind you, I would be saying the same thing at other sites as well. Movies are escapes into a fantasy land where a story is told. Unless the director, producers, or studios say specifically why they made a particular movie, I believe it is wrong to read stuff into it. Why can’t a movie just be a movie?
Davidon 18 Jul 2008 at 6:23 pm 37It was very good, but not perfect.
SPOILERS
The biggest failings are some character motivations in the script. I didn’t buy for one second the people turning on Batman for what the Joker was doing. I realize it’s allegory, but it still needa to play in the drama at hand, and it did not. I was just baffled as to why the people turned so hard on Batman so quickly, for almost no reason.
Equally as head-scratching was the Harvey Dent turn to two face. I understand being bitter, but I didn’t elieve for a second his quick and dramatic turn from crimeasfighting good guy to a guy willing to kill a kid to “get back” at a guy who did asolutely nothing to him.
These and other motivations didn’t feel like they were organically justifying certain character actions and story beats.
Otherwise, I really, really liked it.
gzirraon 18 Jul 2008 at 6:27 pm 38All the madman baggage that comes with an actor like Oldman enriches the bespectacled milquetoast with an undercurrent of possibilities. And while neither Morgan Freeman nor Michael Caine gets enough to do (when do they?), leaving you wanting more is part of their respective gifts.
Haven’t seen TDK yet, but you could’ve written that paragraph for Batman Begins and it would’ve been spot on.
It also just happens to be so descriptively well-written, that graph alone would be enough to keep me coming to Dirty Harry’s Place for years.
how you say… “I wish I’d written that?!?”
Stephanieon 18 Jul 2008 at 6:29 pm 39Steph, I want to see it. I am a huge Batman fan, have been my whole life. I just don’t think he should be an analogy to other people, and for me especially Bush.
It’s also so funny and sad at the same time that everything Hollywood does has to be interpreted through this neocon lens you have going on here. Mind you, I would be saying the same thing at other sites as well. Movies are escapes into a fantasy land where a story is told. Unless the director, producers, or studios say specifically why they made a particular movie, I believe it is wrong to read stuff into it. Why can’t a movie just be a movie?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I think this statement is almost as ludicrous as the ignorants statement for the very reason MOVIES REFLECT THE TIMES THEY ARE MADE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Chrissie….here is something for you to do: Read Hamlet, then read some Tudor history. Then read Julius Caesar…read more Tudor history…Read Romeo and Juliet then read about how Henry VIII created the Church of England. It does not take a genius to understand that Shakespear wrote the plays not about what they were about but about the times he lived in. He was making commentary and the people who went to the Globe to see them understood that. Nothing has changed in that respect. Who the hell teaches these kids history and english? WTF is going on with our education system?
Fiftyfooton 18 Jul 2008 at 6:33 pm 40Puh-leeze. Time to drop the lube and grab the kleenex you people!
Christopher Coleon 18 Jul 2008 at 6:36 pm 41And again Steph you have missed it (surprise surprise). Did Shakespeare ever tell his audience how his plays were to be interpreted? How about the people that say Shakespeare was anti-semitic because of Shylock? How about the people that say he wasn’t anti-semitic because of Shylock?
And guess what? Good and evil is not solely a possession of this time and place in history. It’s a common theme throughout history. Unless Christopher Nolan specifically comes out and says “I based my view of Batman on George W. Bush”, or the producers come out and say that, or the studios come out and say that, I see no reason to think that it is an analogy to Bush in any sense.
Stephanieon 18 Jul 2008 at 6:39 pm 42You know Chrissie the grade you get for teh lesson I was trying to give you is a resounding F. My dog, who is not a genius understands what I was saying…..your as dense as lead. Now please go bother and whine in that too young to have a clue way to someone who gives a care. I am done.
Neil Winchellon 18 Jul 2008 at 6:46 pm 43Cole said:
“Unless the director, producers, or studios say specifically why they made a particular movie, I believe it is wrong to read stuff into it. Why can’t a movie just be a movie?”
I’m not entirely sure it’s possible:) I think it comes down to the fact that the audience is not a vacuum of thought or presumptions. We go into the film with different experiences, and a group of eighty-year old grandmothers will see a movie like ‘Juno’ differently then a group of pregnant teenagers.
Since many of us here at Dirty Harry’s are conservatives swimming in the sea of liberal Hollywood (though I’m located in Exhibition Bay) it’s inevitable that we’re going to view almost every movie through our prism of experience. I’m sure that most other film sites will be enjoying ‘The Dark Knight’ and discussing a completely different set of themes. The cars, the stunts, the pros and cons of latex body suits:)
Coming to a conservative film site and expecting us to not look for conservatives themes is probably not going to happen:)
NCCon 18 Jul 2008 at 6:47 pm 44Ledger was great. Aaron Eckart was very good.
The movie was unrelentingly grim. I did not like the ending. Gordon should have simply responded to Batman’s suggested coverup with a taunt of “Martryr, martyr” and then thought of another fall guy to pin the murders on. Lord knows, there were enough dead bad guys to take the fall.
Obviously, yet another film will follow picking up where this one leaves off. But if not for Ledger’s tour de force, I’d feel rather silly for having taken the afternoon off to sit through 2 1/2 hours watching this film.
While I don’t like the liberal bias in Hollywood, I don’t value a film based simply on how conservative it strikes me. Having said this, I do not consider this film particularly conservative. Or, except for Ledger’s performance, great.
Christopher Coleon 18 Jul 2008 at 6:49 pm 45I could say something to that, but I am a nice guy so I won’t.
I will say that I don’t see the validity in your point. You see, while Shakespeare may give those of us living 400 years after he did a glimpse into his world, he never left us anything as to how his works were to be interpreted. Some artists do that, some don’t. For those that don’t, interpretation is left up to the person experiencing it. To make the claim (even before the movie opened) that Bush is Batman when neither the director, nor producers, nor studio has said anything to that effect, is presumptuous. Comic book heros, particularly those in the United States, have tended to embody the larger themes of humanity rather than specific persons, places, and things. Only few counter examples exist, and Batman isn’t one of them.
CTDeLudeon 18 Jul 2008 at 6:55 pm 46You know, Oldman basically gave the best performance channeling the Joker back during the Professional. Guy knew how to play just straight chaotic.
Blah…just waiting to see this. The wife’s schedule is all over the place while mine, waiting for shipping off to Basic, is very static. Gives me far too much time in thinking about what I’m missing until I see it.
Stephanieon 18 Jul 2008 at 7:06 pm 47Chrissie one more time in order so you can get it tard boy
Shakespear did not have to tell his audiences what he was really saying they knew it already. Only a flippen moron (you) couldn’t figure taht out. Next time just for you I will get my 3 year old nieces big crayons to draw you a picture…would taht help? They sure don’t teach squat at the so called big school you go to. Unless its a school for special boys and your real name is Warren and you have a sister named Mary.
Christopher Coleon 18 Jul 2008 at 7:17 pm 48They taught me enough, and there was plenty of varying opinions on what Shakespeare was saying, even in his day, let alone 400 years later, the Merchant of Venice being a prime example.
And though you call me a tard, I still will not stoop to your level. I will take the high ground. Also, you might want to make sure you spell “that” right. And “don’t teach squat” is technically a double negative. Perhaps you meant “do teach squat” or “don’t teach anything.”
But as for the movie, I will see it for myself, and come to my own conclusions. But I am willing to bet that is another movie with the common comic book theme of good vs. evil rather than what neocons say about it.
whiskeyon 18 Jul 2008 at 7:26 pm 49Cole, the problem with “just a simple tale” is that A. Hollywood is intent on moralizing on the need not to fight when say, Muslims demand we don’t publish cartoons (or they will kill us) in movies like oh I dunno “Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer.”
So casual, ordinary action films are filled with Hollywood’s denial that basic, human freedoms in the West are under assault from Muslims intent on making the entire world live under the Taliban in Afghanistan’s rules.
DK covers basic problems that Liberals have never addressed: if you don’t fight terrorism at all, which is what Liberals demand, then people of this country are subject to GREAT EVIL. Liberals are demanding we summarily imprison people who might make a cartoon, or a movie, or a book that Muslims are offended by, and then respond in the usual mass-casualty terror attack (by Muslims).
Our choice is a Gulag of anyone who criticizes Islam, to avoid another Madrid, or London, or Beslan, or Bali, or 9/11, or to fight back. Liberals are choosing the GULAG with “Human Rights Commissions” sending Canadian comics to jail (for offending Lesbians this time, Muslims the next). Heck I’m sure they’ll try and jail Mark Steyn for accurately quoting Imams.
Stephanieon 18 Jul 2008 at 7:30 pm 50Whiskey don’t try and rationalize with this boy. Its beyond hope. He doesn’t get it. You think he would by now but I have seen blocks of cement with more brain power.
Christopher Coleon 18 Jul 2008 at 7:36 pm 51I am all for fighting terrorism, just not at the cost of our Constitution (illegal wiretapping, invading sovereign nations, holding people without charging them with anything, etc).
Stephanieon 18 Jul 2008 at 7:38 pm 52I rest my case. Shaking my head……..
Audietooon 18 Jul 2008 at 7:40 pm 53Okay I will colledt kith and kin and actually get off my duff and pay some money to see this. What a great cast (excepting Maggie of course). And I also trust DH’s reviews as well as the views of assorted posters.
Is it my imagination or is it so that since DH decided to take the high road and give permission to try to debate certain posters they are becoming more numerous and more vocal.
TROon 18 Jul 2008 at 7:43 pm 54Saw it. Was good. Ledger was remarkable. Maggie was not a good choice. She was a waste in the movie. Very bad choice. The politics were subtle but noticeable and I think more on the side of Bush than otherwise.
The movie was indeed grim. And the audience reflected that by not clapping at the end and buzzing about it as they walked out. Nor was the crowd before us.
I don’t think it was a masterpiece as is being claimed. But I am sure I am in a minority.
Stephanieon 18 Jul 2008 at 7:44 pm 55Audie these are just trolls. You cannot explain something to someone who doesn’t want it explained. They just come here to bug people. They come and go. We had a few over at Libertas that were staggeringly insane….Matt Cornell….a couple of others….this one is very young, not very smart and proves it by trying to prove to people how smart he is.
Mr. Naronon 18 Jul 2008 at 8:14 pm 56The best compliment I can pay this movie is that it is now tied with my favortie superhero movie of all time…
Swamp Thing!
No, I’m talking about Iron Man. The film makers in both cases got it exactly right.
Jimboon 18 Jul 2008 at 8:16 pm 57The animated The Dark Knight tie in Batman Gotham Knight also seemed to lean right politically. In one scene Batman goes to rescue a Catholic minister kidnapped by Scarcrow. It mentions that the reason Scarcrow attacks this man is because as a Christian he protects the weak and saves people and the Scarcrow doesn’t want them saved. It also features Batman giving a speach about guns fit for the NRA. For a character often reduced to a gun hater this was very well recieved on my part. Since Gotham Knight and The Dark Knight had many of the same creaters I wouldn’t be surprised if some are closet conseratives.
Danilaon 18 Jul 2008 at 8:21 pm 58I’ve seen so many bad (Wanted, Miami Vice, Next, Jumper) and mediocre (Indiana Jones, The Incredible Hulk) action movies lately that I had forgotten what it was like to sit through a great one. This movie was great: the writing, the acting, the direction (yay, no shaky cam, no mysterious slow motion) and the score.
I will agree that Maggie Gyllanhaal is enough reason to leave off half a star. I felt nothing for her character except some annoyance over her perma-smirk, and I really needed to care something about her in order to properly understand Dent’s arc. That said, this was a heckuva movie.
It was so good, that I accidentally walked into the wrong theater and saw the last 20 minutes (thinking I was just late and that it was the weirdest intro I’d ever seen), but I still didn’t mind sitting through it again, knowing how it ended.
Miles Archeron 18 Jul 2008 at 8:39 pm 59Attempting to pimp one’s ideology thru any movie is, to be blunt, a thinwit’s game, and one far too easily played. Let’s see, in As Good As It Gets, there’s just no arguing that Jack Nicholson’s OCD character is GW Bush and Helen Hunt is the conservative movement. Sure, everybody thinks Nicholson is a rude, arrogant, fool. But Helen Hunt sees the beauty in him! We win!
Or something like that.
Two more things. First, there isn’t a shred of evidence to suggest that ‘liberals’ have a problem with the movie due to the supposed political message. However, some might have a problem with people distorting the film for their own political purposes. (Tho’ it’s more annoyance than problem.) Second, this is one of those Marshall McLuhan/Annie Hall moments when one truly wishes Chris Nolan would stop by long enough to tell you exactly what he thinks of those who would turn his movie into a political wet dream.
Oh, one more thing. What a great movie.
memomachineon 18 Jul 2008 at 8:43 pm 60Hmmmm.
FYI
A “neocon”, or “neo-con”, stands for “neo-conservative”.
This is someone who is entirely liberal in all *social* policies but who has adopted roughly conservative viewpoints when it come to national security. Which essentially is an aggressive foreign policy oriented around killing our enemies in someone else’s backyard.
A regular conservative, such as I, could not be classified as a “neo-con” because I’m all the way “con”.
memomachineon 18 Jul 2008 at 8:55 pm 61Hmmmm.
Frankly every time I get the “let’s not become the evil we’re fighting” lecture I really have to laugh.
1. We exterminated 50+ million native Americans, starved the remainder into submission, rounded them up and pushed them off onto the most worthless land we could. And then spent the next 100 years stealing as much as possible from what little they had left.
2. We invaded Mexico on a pretext and then stole millions of acres of land at gunpoint.
3. We incinerated 100,000+ Japanese civilians in firebomb raids on Tokyo. Not mentioning the atomic bombs.
4. We basically melted Dresden.
5. We killed over 1+ million Vietnamese, most of them civilians.
…
Frankly the list is pretty long as I’ve only included a couple highlights. We’ve done some extremely nasty things to quite a few people over the years and, if you’ll take a look around, the current generation of children aren’t overly affected by it.
And, in case this is a question, I don’t have many moral qualms about any of it.
CTDeLudeon 18 Jul 2008 at 8:55 pm 62Hell Memo…in truly historical terms we’d be consider Classical Liberals.
Christopher Coleon 18 Jul 2008 at 9:01 pm 63That was Manifest Destiny. It started off on this continent, and then some people said “Hey, why don’t we extend it?”, and so we did.
Besides, now we get Casinos out of the deal with the Indians. We took their land, they take our wages.
Perseuson 18 Jul 2008 at 9:06 pm 64I’ve recently discovered this site, and I think it is wonderful.
I’ll be seeing B-man soon.
What’s with this Cole guy? He seems to think the entire critical tradition (books, plays, movies, music…) is some sort of neocon conspiracy.
Mr. Cole, do you even know what neocon means?
People are perfectly free to read popular culture into movies. If movies were just movies, they wouldn’t be worth reviewing or talking about…GEEEZ!
Get over the BDS, buddy.
memomachineon 18 Jul 2008 at 9:09 pm 65Hmmmm.
“Besides, now we get Casinos out of the deal with the Indians. We took their land, they take our wages.”
And for a bonus … cigarettes!
Synner_manon 18 Jul 2008 at 9:12 pm 66It’s not just conservatives that are seeing the parallels of the film with the Bush administration. Here are a couple of complaints that have been rolling in at a movie forum I frequent (teeming with liberals):
“The movie is definitely commenting on a post-9/11 world. Whether you think it’s “brilliant” is another question, but it’s definitely is a film about terrorism and the climate of fear that comes with it. To think otherwise is self-delusional.
My main problem with the film is I’m not sure I like what it’s saying in that regard.”
“Fear rules, people have no hope to cling to except in lies like the white-knight figure of Harvey Dent. In this environment, Batman is justified in using his whatever-means-necessary techniques to stop the terrorists. Nolan made the parallels between Batman and the USA clear as day with the not so subtle patriot act reference, but in the end that act was justified in its role in helping take down the terrorist. Batman is making the right decisions for us and we should trust him, but instead he’s pursued by the cops and a public who’d rather believe in a lie about the viability of peaceful ways of solving Gotham’s problems than the ugly truth. Given the parallels made I don’t think it’s too much of a stretch to think that it’s Bush or America [REDACTED BY ME TO AVOID SPOILERS] at the end, the world’s ‘Dark Knight’. Ugh.”
“The entire film acted as a defence of the Bush administration’s policies for the last eight years:
[GIVES A LIST OF SEVERAL ALLEGORIES THAT HAPPEN THROUGHOUT THE FILM]
Obvious. Stomach churningly bad.”
“I agree 100% with everything you said, and I’m surprised more people haven’t noticed the incredibly unpalatable messages behind this film.”
I expect to see much more of this once more people see the film.
Perseuson 18 Jul 2008 at 9:13 pm 67Oh, and memo to memomachine:
The British bombed Dresden, there weren’t 50 million Native Americans on the continent to begin with, the Japanese were free to surrender at any point prior to the fire bombing, the North Vietnamese Communists killed and imprisoned more Vietnamese that we ever did, and Abe Lincoln actually helped Mexico when he was in office.
What is with these folks? They think to be a self-hater somehow makes them smarter than everyone. Victims of the multi-culti education system, I suppose…no perspective.
Perseuson 18 Jul 2008 at 9:15 pm 68My bad, memomachine. Just read the final line of your post…
Dho!
Danilaon 18 Jul 2008 at 9:26 pm 69Thank you Synner_man, for those liberal quotes. I really think the conservative themes in this movie are unavoidable.
whiskeyon 18 Jul 2008 at 9:29 pm 70Then Mr. Cole I suppose you would rather have Lincoln lost the Civil War and accepted Slavery. Since to win, he had to suspend Habeaus Corpus, jail newspaper editors, jail sitting Congressmen, imprison spies without trial (and hanged quite a lot of them)?
If want Superman to swoop in and make everything right (one of his first issues had Superman abducting Hitler and Stalin for “trial” by the League of Nations in 1938) then you live in a fantasy world.
This is why Superman, though he’s a wish-fulfillment fantasy, is not “real” in the way Nolan can make Batman “real” in the film. Batman is a man with limits. He’s not God. If he wants to stop the Joker, compromises must be made. Otherwise he can just play Bruce Wayne while people die. Batman is not god nor like Superman, a Demi-god.
Cole, you assume that the US has the power of God. The US is not God. The President, Obama’s Shamanistic pretensions to be the Messiah notwithstanding, is merely a man at the head of a powerful but cumbersome and bureaucracy laden government that can marshall great resources but has the nimbleness of an Elephant stuck in molasses in January.
Obama, btw, is truly frightening. He wants an “Obama Corps” of “Civilian Defense” people as many and as well armed as the US Military. To what end? Why it’s his own private Storm Troops of course.
“Manifest Destiny?” False. THAT was making sure the Russians, Spanish, French, and British did not hem the US in, either at the Appalachians, or points West. The American-Indian conflict was characterized by pure chaos. Braves could and did break treaties by waging war when they felt like it in the old tribal way, and could not understand why settlers did not fight like fellow tribespeople (low level, endemic slavery, particularly sex slavery, murder by ambush, etc.) but instead like typical Europeans — wiping out all Indians on the principal that if they’re dead, they certainly can’t wipe out your family. Occasionally it went the other way around, but for most of the conflict, settlers with families did not go looking for trouble and war. But would respond ruthlessly and non-tribally to tribal warfare.
Christopher Coleon 18 Jul 2008 at 9:37 pm 71You forgot to mention that Lincoln also violated the Constitution by going to war with the South. The States were given the right to leave the United States should they have their rights violated. The industrialized North and an extremely high tarrif was destroying the South, so the South left. Slavery was a minor issue. The big issue was states rights. What also isn’t taught is that thirty years prior to the start of the Civil War, Massachussettes was the first state to threaten to leave over the same issue: states rights.
And I don’t believe our government is God. I just don’t agree with them playing God.
And I don’t support Obama for president. I don’t support McCain either. Bob Barr is the guy I support.
JohnLockeon 18 Jul 2008 at 9:44 pm 72Just got back and I was absolutely blown away. Forget best superhero film, this was a better crime film than “The Departed.” The script, the acting, the tension, the atmosphere, the score, everything (save the Rachel Dawes character, which is apparently the Achilles Heel of Nolan’s Batman universe) was done with a quality miles beyond even the biggest summer blockbusters. And the themes did indeed strike me as “doggedly conservative,” as one reviewer put it.
And it takes incredible talent for an actor to slip into a role so seamlessly that he can have you laughing while at the same time keeping you completely on edge. What a great actor we lost in Heath Ledger. Not only has he given us one of the most chilling and psychotic villains in the history of modern cinema, he has given us a classic moment that will forever be known as “The Pencil Scene.”
“I understand being bitter, but I didn’t elieve for a second his quick and dramatic turn from crimeasfighting good guy to a guy willing to [omitted due to spoiler] to “get back” at a guy who did asolutely nothing to him.”
Nate Winchester is right, David. The coin is the key. In the scene where he is threatening one of the Joker’s men, he uses the coin as an act, giving the man the appearance that he genuinely leaves grave matters to fate and relinquishes personal accountability. After the event that leaves him “bitter,” the Joker comes in and gives him “a little push,” as he later referred to it. The Joker’s speech leaves him with the idea that chance really is the only form of true morality, the only thing that’s fair.
As for the “guy who did absolutely nothing to him,” Harvey felt that this man, because of the position he was in and because of the circumstances that led to the event that drove him to the edge, was partly responsible and was the only one left who could be held accountable, after the Joker was let off the hook.
M23on 18 Jul 2008 at 10:04 pm 73I am all for fighting terrorism, just not at the cost of our Constitution (illegal wiretapping, invading sovereign nations, holding people without charging them with anything, etc).
Then you’re going to LOVE the scene where (SPOILERZ!) Batman kidnaps a mobster from Hong Kong so said mobster can be arrested without proper extradition. And the scene where Batman spies on Gotham city by making a device that turns every cell phone in the city into a sonar.
END OF SPOILERS
I’m reluctant to say that the Bush parallels were intentional, but they definitely can be drawn. But I don’t think they’re the kind of shoehorned relevance that will look dated in a decade, because they’re rooted in a theme that (however appropriate to our time and place) is ultimately timeless: Combating evil without giving up… but without stooping to evil’s depths either.
Plissken79on 18 Jul 2008 at 10:12 pm 74Cole, you are extremely ignorant when it comes to history. I am glad I do not have too many students such as yourself. The whole “states’ rights as opposed to slavery” as why the South seceded is nonsense, the only “states’ right” that drove seccession was SLAVERY. Jefferson Davis admitted it, so did Thomas Jackson, Robert E. Lee, and most other political and military leaders of the Confederacy. When it was about a “state’s rights” issue other than slavery, such as the nullification controversy during the Jackson administration of the 1830s, the Southern states backed down. Over slavery, specifically over the legitimate election of a president hostile to slavery’s expansion in 1860, the South seceded. Anyone who claims that Southern slavery was not the main issue driving the American Civil War is deluding themselves. Only extreme right-wing and left-wing nuts (Patrick Buchanan, meet Howard Zinn) think otherwise. I will not respond to any pathetic counter-argument you attempt to make, too many posters waste time indulging your ridiculous rants over and over again.
Getting back to the Dark Knight, it is a stunning film, excellently done on every level. Ledger was brilliant as one of the most terrifying villians in cinema history, but Bale and especially Eckhart are just as impressive, Two-Face was just as superbly realized as the Joker. The film definitely has a conservative message to it, just like Iron Man, but I will not claim it is definitive analogy for GWB. It is, however, a strong argument for not compromising with true evil (a concept liberals deny, except for McDonald’s and Wal-Mart) and not wincing from the cost of combating it.
The Dark Knight has also accomplished something that looked impossible, it has made Joel Schumacher’s pathetic Batman films look even more ludicrous than they already were
Carlitoson 18 Jul 2008 at 10:14 pm 75Equally as head-scratching was the Harvey Dent turn to two face. I understand being bitter, but I didn’t elieve for a second his quick and dramatic turn from crimeasfighting good guy to a guy willing to kill a kid to “get back” at a guy who did asolutely nothing to him.
Harvey Dent was ripe for the turning. Yes, he represented the Law, but don’t confuse that for him being a “good guy.” He was 100% behind Batman’s methods. In the end, he became what he thought Batman was– a vigilante.
Miles Archeron 18 Jul 2008 at 10:24 pm 76It’s probably worth pointing out that the film’s ‘message’, such as it is, is hardly any different from the one at the heart of Frank Miller’s reinvention of the Dark Knight in 1986. Attempting to superglue current events to it doesn’t change the provenance of the tale one bit.
GMKon 18 Jul 2008 at 10:25 pm 77Look, there is one part of the movie where Batman does something to find the Joker that is allegory that might as well be beating you over the head with a crowbar it’s so obvious. A skywriter could have written I AM MAKING A COMMENT ON THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION over Batman’s head and it wouldn’t have been any more obvious than it was. Cole, it’s clear you’re a highly invested True Believing Leftist or you wouldn’t have to drag out names like “neocon” that (in your abject ignorance) you think is in ansult. You also haven’t seen the movie. It’s clear that the idea that the movie might have a message you disagree with makes your vagina hurt. I suggest you obtain some soothing salves and powders at the local apocathary and go see the damn movie before you start telling everybody how it is.
Carlitoson 18 Jul 2008 at 10:28 pm 78Re Batman = Bush,
Batman was accused of illegal wiretapping. Same with Bush.
Batman was blamed for the escalating violence as he waged his war against terror. Same with Bush.
Batman was willing to endure public opinion in his quest to fight the terror. Sam with Bush.
Chris Nolan was telegraphing his views about the War on Terror, and that made this conservative very happy!
Tommy Von 18 Jul 2008 at 10:30 pm 79It doesn’t really matter if the parallels are intentional or not.
They are either apt or they are not.
History and fables are filled with parallels of our experience today, personal, political, cultural or otherwise.
Needless to say, these were not intentional. They were simply born from certain truths.
Either Batman taps into these truths or it doesn’t.
Whether Nolan intended or not (he’s a smart guy, I suspect he did) is really pretty irrelevant. Even if Nolan comes out and says it’s really a story about Bill Clinton in Arkansas and all of us conservatives were stupid thinking it was about Bush, it would change absolutely nothing. It will be Nolan who missed the truth and not us.
baconboyon 18 Jul 2008 at 10:32 pm 80Mr. Cole,
Dirty Harry is not the only one to find parallels to George Bush, even the mostly liberal Slate magazine could see it. Here’s their money quote:
“The long, intricately braided story that follows will include vast wiretapping networks, suicide-bomb threats, and moral clashes over torture and prisoners’ rights. In short, Chris Nolan does more nuanced thinking about the war on terror than we’ve seen from the Bush administration in seven years. And despite a falsely heroic closing speech from Gary Oldman’s character, police Lt. Jim Gordon, the movie seems to arrive at much the same conclusion about Batman as Americans have about Bush: Thanks to this guy, we’re well and thoroughly screwed.” (full review: http://www.slate.com/id/2195523/)
Now obviously they come to a different conclusion about Bush than Dirty Harry does, but if it seems such an obvious allegory to both conservative AND liberal reviewers, then maybe it really is an allegory, and not some ‘neo-con’ misreading of the story.
The more interesting question to me is whether the Joker is really a terrorist or if he is just a psychopath. I think most definitions of terrorism would include the requirement that it has a political or religio-political goal, which is certainly the case with Irish and Islamic terrorism. Not having seen the movie yet, I wonder if the Joker is more of a psychopath that commits horrible, terrifying acts than someone who has a political goal (chaos, I don’t think, really qualifies) and uses terror to achieve those goals. Maybe that’s too fine of a distinction for a movie like this, but I keep reading reviews calling the Joker a terrorist and wonder if that’s really the right label.
Carolynon 18 Jul 2008 at 10:35 pm 81Harry - (Insert ‘bow down’ icon here.) Because of you I am now going to do something I NEVER do. I am going to actually go into a theater and see this damned movie instead of waiting until it gets out on DVD.
Man, this is just like “LA Confidential”. That incredible twofold high of not just seeing an incredible film but realizing Hollywood can still make one.
Again, thanks, Harry.
Carolynon 18 Jul 2008 at 10:50 pm 82Whiskey - your posts are awesome. Just awesome!
I am afraid, however, I can’t emulate your patience in replying to Cole. I tried, I really did - but the instant I read his post I suddenly saw in front of me this little baby in its crib screwing up its face, clenching its little fists and grunting hard so it can poop its diapers.
After that, I couldn’t reply because I was too busy cleaning the spit off my screen.
D.J. Bettencourton 18 Jul 2008 at 10:52 pm 83Did any one catch the cameo by Vermont Democrat Senator Patrick Lahey? He has a small role at the dinner party and tells the Joker that he wont back down to thugs. He is then tossed aside…
Igoron 18 Jul 2008 at 11:21 pm 84I have not seen The Dark Knight yet, but I’m confident in predicting the following.
If you look at the film through the right leftwing lens, you can make a case that GWB = Harvey Dent.
And considering the standard Hollywood views on politics. You know the ones folks like to ridicule on this blog.
And I don’t blame you.
I wouldn’t be all that surprised if that is closer to Hollywoods intended mark than GWB = The Batman.
jrlon 18 Jul 2008 at 11:28 pm 85Just got back from an 11:15 show. Absolutely amazing. The Dawes character is a bit off, but you can easily look past that. Dent’s arc could have been a bit more forceful, but I think it worked well enough. My only real complaint is the sonar scenes - that I could have done without. Other than that - Wow. I saw it on a regular screen, but you can tell when the IMAX scenes cut-in - more amazing.
I can’t wait for the numbers to come out. This film deserves to rake in cash. Well worth the $9 admission. Anecdotal evidence says it does, yes, amazingly well. I saw it at a 20-screen theater with a huge parking lot. I’ve never seen that lot more than half full. It was packed tonight. At $9/ticket in southeast Michigan that’s saying something.
“Sometimes people need to have their faith rewarded.” It was, Mr. Nolan, it surely was. Thank you.
relaytvon 18 Jul 2008 at 11:57 pm 86This movie made me long for the days of Kilmer and Clooney, at least they knew what they were doing was crap.
I am amazed how easily you have all fallen into the trap of believing that this is a conservative film. It isn’t.
It’s the same Hollywood, anti-hero garbage they have been sticking us with since Bonnie and Clyde.
The gaps in logic and plot holes are far too numerous to address so…
Let me cut to the chase, at the end of this insufferably long movie, Commissioner Gordon must make his son lie because the people of Gotham will not want to hear the truth, that Harvey Dent was corrupted by the Joker?
That is so far from conservative values, it is laughable.
A true hero does not force children to lie because people want to believe that lie. A true hero tells the truth, and good people respect that, even if it hurts, or forces you to see that the world and people sometimes fall short.
I know that it has been such a long time since we have seen a true hero in a Hollywood film that we sometimes grasp at straws, but try and remember back to Superman 2. There was not shot of Superman being hunted by the cops or the army at the end of that movie. remember, Superman flew a new American flag onto the roof of the reconstructed White House. No hero must be a villain to perpetuate a lie, crap. Just a hero being thanked.
George Bush is not Batman. From all accounts, Bush never walked around doubting his purpose. Bush never asked to be thanked, but he also knew what he was doing was right, The Batman of this film is not so sure.
And the Joker is not Al Queda. T Osama bin Laden and his Ilk do not terrorize just for terror’s sake. They have specific, political goals, and a definite purpose that they use to justify their wicked behavior.
The problem is that Hollywood is absolutely incapable of making a true hero movie anymore.
Hollywood ruined Superman, they ruined James Bond, now they have ruined Batman. The difference is that Mr. Nolan and company are far better filmmakers than the others, so it takes more work to see through their propaganda.
Harry, I love you, and read your site without fail, every day. But you, and apparently many others, were fooled by a slick Hollywood con job of a movie, whose ultimate message is that good is bad, and bad is good. And people who do good will be hated for it.
That is not only untrue, but it is Unamerican.
Mike18xxon 19 Jul 2008 at 12:00 am 87> If this movie doesn’t deserve full 4 star rating I don’t know what does.
Dark Knight is not in the same league as the best films of all time. Ten years from now, it’ll be forgotten; just another superhero genre installment (”Iron Man” will last a lot longer, IMO). Regarding the morality plays — those are a staple of half the cartoon episodes, so it’s really nothing new to fans of those (superheros are there to kick butt, and plenty of it).
It’s a good movie and all — but “Seven Samurai” or “Paths of Glory” it is not.
Flashon 19 Jul 2008 at 1:37 am 88I am probably going to be get a lot of flack for this but…
I was left with a heavy sense of “meh” here. I was going to wait until Monday to see it but my friend was so jazzed by it I went to the last showing tonight. I went home kind of annoyed.
Don’t get me wrong, there was a LOT to like here. Some of the best action sequences I have ever seen, a Joker that would actually make you crap your pants if you ran into him, and some damn clever twist and turns. So what was the problem? Well…
*SPOILER ALERT!*
It was TOO FREAKING LONG for starters. By the time I get the the big show down I was starting to fade and I still had more to go. It should have been broken into two movies. The Joker story should have been act two ( Batman Begins being act one ) with the Two Face story being act three. ( And a story about redemption for both Two Face and Batman but that is just how I would have done it.) Harvey Dent got short changed here as far as story goes.
I just did not buy that he would be that psycho after his girlfriends death here. If they dropped hints about a him having a fragile emotional state before hand it would have been easier to swallow but he was shown to be a too well adjusted and brave and logical to flip out like that. The Two Face show down was a pointless drag that felt tacked on after the real ending.
And don’t think for a minute that I did not notice that his scars were the same as Johnna Hex’s…ok, that is just the geek in me talking. I used to draw Hex a lot when I was a kid.
The Joker did not die! We were robbed of the release of someone who is the walking definition evil being meeting a fate at least as terrible as that he gave to others. Yeah Batman does not kill and you need to keep him around for a comic book but that does not mean he can not meet his fate at the hands of others in a movie. Yeah, maybe they wanted to use him again but sadly we all know that is not going to happen and no one is going to buy anyone else as the Joker for a long time now.
The rest are just minor points like Batman down grading his suit to the point that he is able to be shot by anyone with a handgun so he could move better. He moved pretty freakin good before! And Fox going nuts about the sonar monitors. This is a man who had no problem with Bruce using military grad weapons to chase thugs but gets weak in the knees about a him using something that could he could use to reduce crime in the city to double parking and cable theft in a manner of months.
*End Spoilers*
I could go on but it would just be nit picking and it is late. Out of the nine dollars I paid to see it I would say I got six dollars worth. Good but not great.
Katoon 19 Jul 2008 at 1:42 am 89As to why the film falls short of masterpiece status, Harry said it well: “I thought it was a little long, the Rachel Dawes character was a real mess as far as defining her (we should’ve cared more about her), and the emotional dots with Harvey Dent didn’t quite add up for me.”
SPOILERS below, so beware:
I would also add that I felt antsy during the last third of the film. There was a lot of fat in the third act; they easily could have trimmed 15-20 minutes overall. And the lack of an overarching goal on the part of the Joker took the air out of any narrative drive, as did the lack of any emotional chemistry between Batman and Rachel Dawes. When the latter died I felt nothing.
Overall, the only emotion evoked by the film was a blood-chilling disgust with the Joker (which was the intended effect, bravo — I agree with others that he was one of the most hair-raising villains in a long time, leave the kids at home). I hate to admit it but, frankly, when the Joker was not on the screen, I got a little bored sometimes, especially in the second half. Poor Christian Bale had almost nothing to do most of the time, he was virtually a supporting, rather than, lead character — a 180 degree turn from the first film.
The whole sequence of pitting the boats against each other was kind of an interesting scenario, in the abstract, but since we didn’t care about any of the characters involved, it didn’t make us very anxious about what would transpire. The movie’s lack of emotional involvement is its Achilles heel. Nevertheless, I think it still deserves at least 3, maybe 3 and a half stars. But 4? Sorry, no.
USS Benon 19 Jul 2008 at 2:13 am 90Great review, Harry!
I loved this paragraph (hell, I loved the whole thing!):
“Dark Knight is neither an action or comic book film. What it is, is a stunningly realized psychological thriller brilliantly using familiar genres to comment on the battle between good and evil currently being played out in faraway deserts, but more importantly, right here at home. It’s a film that fundamentally understands that the war will either be won or lost in the souls of those who inhabit our own Gothams.”
This is the Frank Miller Batman, and I’m glad that Nolan understands that, ’cause that is the definitive Batman.
I especially like your allegory! Obviously, Leftists can’t see anything beyond the surface (if that), or any of the SELF EVIDENT Truth’s our Founding Fathers understood so well, so it’s no surprise they are confused.
All the more reason to watch this great flick!
BTW, we saw the same response to 300 by the Leftists.
The only things that are self evident to Leftists is bitterness and envy, not to mention “victimization.”
They simply cannot see the crystal clear Truth’s in anything, nor the crucial importance of those Truth’s.
Thanks for an outstanding review, Harry! :^)
And I might add (so I will) thanks for the excellent comments from those commenters that get it!
Bobon 19 Jul 2008 at 3:13 am 91The movie is damn near perfect.
The review is quite good, but the specific paralell just doesn’t work. Sorry, no.
As others have said, the Joker makes a poor stand-in for any current terrorist threat because they all actually have end-games. He’s a troublemaker with no goal aside from that - a literally satanic figure - so that’s an entirely different concept.
Any movie about Batman is going to come off, if done properly to character, fairly “conservative” as the word is currently (mis)used - it’s just how he is. By the same token, any proper movie about Superman is going to come off fairly liberal. The Bush analogy breaks down right away because Batman is actually GOOD at his job.
HARRY HERE: The Joker makes quite clear that he in fact does have an end game: The soul of Gotham — which, of course is the terrorist goal.
MASSIVE SPOILERS HERE ON OUT
Moreover, are you really eager to go down this route? Cuz, remember, Joker makes it pretty clear that Batman’s existence DID bring him into being. Also, Joker pretty much WINS the argument he’s set up for the film: He CAN and does turn a genuinely heroic figure into an urepentant monster like him, and he DOESN’T turn back - instead, the good guys have to LIE about winning in order to preserve relative order.
HARRY HERE: What movie did you watch? First, of couse Joker blames Batman for his existence. Just like Bin laden et al… (and their friends on the American left) blame Bush and America for terror. That’s the whole point. Do you think Joker would be in community college without Batman? Of course not, he’d have another excuse just like the terorrists would. One day its Bush, then our bases in in Saudia Arabia, then it’s Israel… The movie’s basic theme is: Will you appease the terrorists (Joker) by turning on the only one protecting you from him for a little peace at the cost of your soul?
And if you think that at the end Batman is some kind of unrepentent monster, please send me what you’re smoking, brother.
Hey, man, think about changing your handle to MOVIE BOB here, so we know it’s you.
K. Bowenon 19 Jul 2008 at 5:42 am 92SPOILER: I think the choice at the end of the film - to absorb public contempt in order to protect those who hate him - is very George Bush.
Stephanieon 19 Jul 2008 at 5:46 am 93Carloyn
I couldn’t help myself with Cole and realized you cannot debate someone as ignorant as he is. I to have no patience.
Like I said before, every movie ever made, every play written is an allegory or reflection of the times they were written in.
If Cole cannot get that in between the vast empty space between his ears well what ya gonna do? He is a lost cause and its not a cause even St. Jude would pay attention to.
K. Bowenon 19 Jul 2008 at 5:55 am 94By the way, how does a guy named Dirty Harry neglect to mention that TDK is a modern update and expansion upon the original Dirty Harry?
Dirty Harry’s Place… » *Pow!* *Whap!* *BAM!* George W. Bush, er, I mean, Batman Breaks Opening Day Record: $66 Millionon 19 Jul 2008 at 6:36 am 95[…] Batman is George W. Bush. […]
JohnLockeon 19 Jul 2008 at 7:24 am 96“But you, and apparently many others, were fooled by a slick Hollywood con job of a movie, whose ultimate message is that good is bad, and bad is good.”
[SPOILERS AHEAD]
Relay, that’s just not true. How can the message be that good is bad after Gordon’s speech at the end? Batman is acknowledged as the hero that Gotham needs. At most, “good” is portrayed as being forced to get your hands dirty when you’re pitted against evil, which is true in many instances, especially in our modern fight against terror. You say that telling someone to lie because people want to believe that lie. But you’re looking at the ending the wrong way. Batman wasn’t just spreading a lie so that people can feel good. He was desperately trying to preserve the image of bravery and heroism in the minds of a public that, thanks to the Joker, was on the edge of chaos. It wasn’t just about letting the people feel good. It was about doing what Batman tried to do with his crusade against crime but couldn’t because of the unpopular things he has to do to keep the people safe. He realized that there was a difference between the glorified image of the “white knight” hero, and reality of the kinds of things true heroes need to do to keep citizens safe. And what he does at the end is a selfless act that gives the people a legendary martyr in their white knight as he goes on to continue his gritty fight as the dark knight.
As for bad being portrayed as good, I don’t know how anyone can walk away with that perception after seeing the Joker.
“And people who do good will be hated for it.”
Now that IS a message of the film, and not only is it often true, it is also very relevant and applicable to modern times. Isn’t Bush hated by many Americans for doing the right thing? Similarly, Batman is reviled by the citizens of Gotham. It’s not an untrue or un-American message, nor is it a cynical one. It’s often the reality. The film doesn’t attack the old idea of the hero. It deconstructs the old image of the hero, and comes to the conclusion that the heroes that people need aren’t always knights in shining armor or figures like Superman. The heroes that people need are often the people that are willing to do the right thing even when it’s unpopular.
photomanon 19 Jul 2008 at 7:52 am 97The only thing that keeps “The Dark Knight” from being a classic was the “performance” of Maggie Gyllenhaal as Rachel. I just felt like Ms. Gylenhall decided that she would try and smirk like Katie Holmes from the first one and leave her face that way.
“MAJOR SPOILER” I felt nothing when they killed her off except relief that should the series go forward we won’t see her again. “END SPOILER”
Also, I’ve heard that Christopher Nolan has not “signed on” for another installment. I’d be interested to know if he has any idea where he’d take the Bat Man next.
GMKon 19 Jul 2008 at 8:05 am 98>George Bush is not Batman. From all accounts, Bush never walked around doubting his purpose. Bush never asked to be thanked, but he also knew what he was doing was right, The Batman of this film is not so sure.
The movie in a lot of ways, to me, seems to be an argument being pitched to liberals to rethink their position. For example: you and I aren’t being wiretapped. The actual intrusions that exist in the Patriot Act are really quite small, but to True Believing Liberals, who just respond on a glandular level to what they read in Slate or the New York Times, the truth is that we are in a police state now where everything we say is subject to surveillance. But the truth is if you don’t call Saudi Arabia, you’re not getting surveilled, and even then, probably not, unless they have a tip. The movie could have portrayed Batman spying on only calls that went into known gang areas from known gang areas, and having the press portraty it as him spying on everyone. That would have been more conservative, and more correct allegorically.
But asking a liberal (or anyone emotional) to give up any cherished belief once they have internalized it is a lost cause. The route you and I might like for them to take is to beat them over the head with their own anti-American irrationality through particularly cutting metaphors. But to be effective in changing their minds, you have to wave some shiny alternative viewpointto distract them so they drop the malignant one and grab something better, and that’s the route the movie takes. It romances liberals out of folly. It indulges them a bit in the process, but that is probably the price you pay to reach them at all. And in the end, the message that is sold is one that we agree with, and it serves to put us on the same page. Ultimately the greater good is served by pandering a bit. It doesn’t serve to make me any less misanthropic, but it’s practical.
If we have to hang a few mobiles over their cribs that pander to their cherished beliefs, so be it.
Stephanieon 19 Jul 2008 at 8:11 am 99GMK your kidding. You believe that for one instant the President didn’t have his doubts? Every leader since the caveman chief of Tyrol who went to war with his neighbors over territory has had his doubts. Just because W has never expressed fear or doubt doesn’t he has never had them. Lincoln had doubts, FDR had his doubts……..
I believe very strongly that the allegory here is on par with what people are saying…America=W because he is the driving force behind things like going after the Taliban, and bringing down Saddam. Without his expressed wishes to take down the terrorists everywhere they were none of those things would have occured. If you think W has no doubts or had no doubts a person would also have to assume he is not human.
Stephanieon 19 Jul 2008 at 8:13 am 100Bob your so misinformed…….Bush has been too good at his job…..if he wasn’t you would know big time. Only a complete drip would believe otherwise.
Christopher Coleon 19 Jul 2008 at 8:23 am 101Plissken, do you know what Lincoln’s solution to slavery was? Free them and then send them back to Africa. It didn’t matter that they had no money, education, or means of support. That was his plan.
And the issue was States rights, but history revisionists love to pull out that it was slavery because that is much more politically charged issue. The North was devestating the South economically and was denying due process in Congress as to prevent them from making their concerns heard. The high tarrif was great for an industrialized North, not so great for an agrarian South. And Lee said he would never raise his sword against Virginia, not because he agreed with slavery (he didn’t), but because he could not fight against his home state.
Also, on kind of a sidenote, I find it interesting that those on the “right” say that they can hold a more intelligent argument by not resorting to namecalling and other childish measures. But led by Stephanie, you have been nothing but rude to me. I could easily return the favor, but I haven’t. I have been the one who has tried to keep this on topic, but you insist on taking it in other directions. Everything from William Shakespeare to Abraham Lincoln. You have been everything that you rail against trolls for. I have not stooped to the levels in which you have gone because that would make me hypocritical.
I simply do not believe that Batman is allegorical to any political figure, because over-the-top criminals have always been part of Batman universe. There have been times when Batman was derided even before this last installment. And while I have said it very well could be a conservative film, that still doesn’t mean it’s about Bush. Some of the legislation and actions Bush has taken on is an afront to conservatives. And the Republican Party is feeling it. They are losing their base voting bloc.
Batman has always been about fighting corruption. He’s fought the systems that put the criminals in positions of power, and he’s fought the corruption found in Gotham’s public domain. And then he’s taken on the criminals themselves. Both the major political parties are rife with corruption. They speak of change but the reality they are already bought and paid for, whether it is friendly mortgage terms or Haliburton. Only a hero who is free from corruption could actually fight corruption.
Nate Winchesteron 19 Jul 2008 at 8:55 am 102Some points you missed. 1) Dent was under a lot of stress. It’s quite realistic that he would eventually snap with all the pressure. (In fact, I’d say he and Batman were to be contrasted. One who endured the pressure, the other who could not.) 2) Gordon did do something to Dent (sort of). Off and on they were politically struggling through the movie because Dent didn’t trust any cops under Gordon’s unit and wanted a bunch relieved. Gordon trusted those under his command, and as a result plants on the inside were able to get Dent and his girl. It was a twisted result of Dent being right, Gordon shouldn’t have trusted anyone.
Say this in a comic convention. I dare you.
How have they ruined Batman? These movies are perfectly in line with Bob Kane’s original stories, as well as the return to ‘grit’ that the comics drifted to after Frank Miller’s rework. Do you even read comics or watched the 90’s animated series? (which was so freakin’ awesome - until now, its movie “Mask of the Phantasm” was the best Batman movie ever)
Templaron 19 Jul 2008 at 8:58 am 103Whiskey:
Batman does not kill people …
Actually, it’s fairly safe to say that he does. There’s no way the driver of that one truck survived having his cab crushed into the roof of the tunnel by the Batmobile, for example, and flipping a semi end-over-end is not exactly the most non-lethal of techniques.
Lexingtonon 19 Jul 2008 at 9:01 am 104Flash sez,
Harvey Dent got short changed here as far as story goes.
He really did, which completely undermined the last third or so of the movie. Compared to Ledger’s Joker, Dent/Two-Face was like a lost dog, wandering about the sets and performing his actions by rote. His motivation just wasn’t there, and he felt like a weak threat compared to the film’s main villain. As Flash said, he’d have worked much better if got more of a hint that Dent wasn’t as together as he seemed. There’s a whole movie in Two-Face, but he’s wasted as a footnote here.
After the boring first act, there’s about a third of really solid movie here, but it loses steam quickly. Looking beyond the Big Important Themes that everyone’s arguing about, it’s something of a mess, which I hope people will eventually start to realize.
Carlitoson 19 Jul 2008 at 9:09 am 105Batman does not kill people …
Batman does not MURDER people would be more accurate. But kill? Yeah, he kills.
Templaron 19 Jul 2008 at 9:25 am 106RelayTV:
A true hero does not force children to lie because people want to believe that lie. A true hero tells the truth, and good people respect that, even if it hurts, or forces you to see that the world and people sometimes fall short.
Actually, there’s a short Father Brown story by G.K. Chesterton that makes almost exactly the same point as The Dark Knight, or at least a very similar one. In The Sign of the Broken Sword, the priest-detective has discovered that a deceased British military hero was not the good and honourable man that he seemed to be, but decides to keep the truth to himself, on the grounds that people need heroes to look up to and be inspired by.
relaytvon 19 Jul 2008 at 10:18 am 107–Relay, that’s just not true. How can the message be that good is bad after Gordon’s speech at the end?–
One summation speech does not undo an entire movie full of the opposite message.
1. From the very beginning of the movie, Batman is referred to as an outlaw. A standing order to arrest him, in fact the only people who seem to like him are Gordon and his Son (that becomes important later because those are the very 2 people who must lie about him.)
2. Harvey Dent’s money line “You either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain.” That’s a great excuse for Him doing what he does, but only in the ‘Everyone’s corrupt, trust no one world of Gotham is that true. In the real world we revere our heroes.
3. That leads to the big one: Only in Hollywood are heroes reviled. In the real world, we go out of our way to find them and honor them, even going so far as to call people heroes who don’t really deserve the title (sports figures, ‘working class heroes’, 3 yr. old kids who dial 911, Valerie Plame, you get the picture.)
4. The ferry boats - It is the giant psycho criminal guy (Tiny Lister I think) who does the right thing and throws the detonator overboard, the average citizen is not brave enough to do that, and only sort of chicken’s out. The ‘good’ person is not brave, he wants to kill the criminals, he just can’t bring himself to do it. (Good is bad, bad is really good.)
5. Harvey Dent taking the fall for Batman. Anyway you slice it, Batman looks like a coward. Maybe that’s why you all hate the Rachel Dawes character, because she calls it what it is. The one who comes off the hero is Harvey, who we all know, in the end, is bad. It would have worked if the movie had actually ended there, like it should have, but because the movie drags on for another 40 minutes, we are forced to see that it was really the Joker’s plan all along to get arrested.
BTW, there is no way that the Joker could have pulled off all of the things that he did without him being omnipotent. The accidents of timing and circumstance that he used to advance the plot, only worked because the filmmakers needed them to. not because any of it made sense. (fat guy with bomb inside him blows up, and everyone in the jail except the Joker and the guy from Hong Kong are killed! Oh help me Rhonda!)
–”The movie in a lot of ways, to me, seems to be an argument being pitched to liberals to rethink their position.”–
I think you are wrong. This movie makes the argument that if you do good, you will be hated, so get used to it.
If you think for one minute that Batman is a GWB then you are saying that it is OK that liberals hate him, because in the Dark Knight, everybody except a few enlightened souls, hates the hero.
You are saying the BDS is a valid way feel about President Bush.
Not one person at the end of the Dark Knight, including Batman himself has any faith in the people of Gotham to, when confronted with the truth, do the right thing.
Hmmm, the average person can’t be trusted to do the right thing, sounds like a big government, liberal, socialist, POV to me. Certainly NOT conservative.
–”Batman wasn’t just spreading a lie so that people can feel good. He was desperately trying to preserve the image of bravery and heroism in the minds of a public that, thanks to the Joker, was on the edge of chaos.”–
Lying to protect an image is still lying. Only in a murky, ‘there is no right and wrong, just shades of grey’ world is that acceptable.
Your logic only holds true if you believe that the average person can’t face the truth. That they are not intelligent enough to see ALL the facts, and still hold to an image of bravery and heroism, even though out heroes are fallible.
And if the filmmakers really agreed with you, then why is Gordon’s son any different that anyone else in Gotham? By your logic, he should be the first one to turn against Batman because he has arguably suffered more than the average citizen, but he still knows Batman is good.
Also, if Batman is so confident that the people of Gotham (including it’s criminals) will NOT blow each other up, (when there is a gun to their heads) Then why is he willing to believe that they will lose all faith in heroes, when they find out Harvey Dent went bad?
It doesn’t track logically, but it’s just one of 100 logical gaps in the movie’s plot.
Look, I get the conservatives feel persecuted, so maybe that’s why you are identifying with a persecuted hero.
Maybe that’s why everybody likes the spiderman movies.
But the persecution of heroes, and the rise of the anti-hero is a liberal media MYTH.
“And people who do good will be hated for it.”
Now that IS a message of the film, and not only is it often true, it is also very relevant and applicable to modern times. Isn’t Bush hated by many Americans for doing the right thing?
If you think the majority of Americans HATE GWB for fighting the war on terror, then you not only believe the liberal media myth, but you have a much more pessimistic view of America than I do.
A low approval rating does not mean that people hate you, it means that they don’t APPROVE of what you are doing. If the majority of Americans HATED the President, the he would be impeached of dead.
AGAIN, to accept that people who do good will be vilified, is to accept evil.
That is NOT the American way.
Deriding bravery is what a coward does to make themselves feel better about being a coward.
If every conservative accepts that they will be vilified for doing what’s right, then they have won the right to be called a martyr, but lost the war, just the same.
Bobon 19 Jul 2008 at 10:42 am 108DH
“HARRY HERE: The Joker makes quite clear that he in fact does have an end game: The soul of Gotham — which, of course is the terrorist goal.”
Al Qaeda’s goal isn’t “the soul” of anything. They want to eradicate the West and make way for the establishment of a new global Islamic Caliphate. The Joker has no such ambition, he just wants to make the world see the “truth” that EVERYTHING is just as random and heartless as he is.
“HARRY HERE: What movie did you watch? First, of couse Joker blames Batman for his existence. Just like Bin laden et al… (and their friends on the American left) blame Bush and America for terror. That’s the whole point. Do you think Joker would be in community college without Batman?”
The Joker THANKS Batman for his existence. Remember the end of Batman Begins? Gordon tells Batman that he’s worried about “escalation” - the idea that a theatrically-inclined, rule-breaking, larger-than-life hero like Batman will give rise to an opposite number, and hands him Joker’s calling-card as proof. It’s right there in the two movies: Batman fights evil unilaterally and with massive aggression, and in doing so he stirs up the hornets nest and motivates greater evil to rear it’s head.
That doesn’t NEGATE the idea that the movie is about the age of terrorism (which it most-definately is, otherwise they wouldn’t call Joker that or reimagine him as essentially a mad bomber) I’m just wondering if you REALLY want people looking at it through the specific lens of Bush and Osama - because if you do, the paralells kinda say some things that I don’t think you agree with or want said by this or any other movie. So far, one of the story points of these two (thus far) films is that greater crime/terrorism is the innevitable side-effect of hyper-aggressively fighting crime/terrorism. Bruce Wayne puts on a bat costume and takes it to the mob, some random nameless psycho sees that and goes “ooh, fun!” and puts on Joker makeup. You SURE you want this to be about Dubya?
Zundfolgeon 19 Jul 2008 at 11:07 am 109Christopher Cole said: It’s also so funny and sad at the same time that everything Hollywood does has to be interpreted through this neocon lens you have going on here.
Chris, of all the asinine things you’ve said on this site, or even in this thread THAT takes the cake.
It says it right at the top of every page, right above the picture of the S&W model 57 .41mag (pretending is a model 29 in .44mag); Dirty Harry’s Place: a conservative look at film, punk.
If you’re so tired of the conservative look at film that goes on here, why do you come here?
Do you complain that you can’t get cocktails at Starbucks or Sushi at McDonalds too?
Christopher Coleon 19 Jul 2008 at 11:26 am 110I never go to Starbucks, and I hardly eat at McDonald’s.
And a neoconservative is not a conservative. A neoconservative takes their cues from the ideas promoted by Trotsky and FDR, whereas conservatives are closer to Madison and Jefferson.
And a review should be as free from bias as possible. If it is a soapbox for a particular ideology that may or may not be present, then it isn’t a review. It’s an op-ed.
NeoConJedion 19 Jul 2008 at 11:41 am 111Christopher:
Your idea of a neoconservative is a generalization.
The “neo” part pretty much relates to foreign policy. And since you bring up Jefferson … he actually sent the Marines to Tripoli to fight Muslim pirates.
That intervention along with his hatred of dictators would also classify Jefferson as a Neocon.
In response, a Neocon is indeed a conservative. No matter what type of conservative you may be, our core beliefs are the pillars of this great country: Self governance, and personal accountability.
Tommy Von 19 Jul 2008 at 11:45 am 112Bob,
Your flawed premise is the same flawed premise of any liberal.
That without Batman the Joker would have been a nice middle class kid who didn’t cause any problems for anybody.
It’s a silly argument designed to get to a desired outcome rather than a logical step that brings one naturally to an unplanned outcome.
When Great Britain finally declared war on Germany, Germany’s army got bigger. Much bigger.
But I never hear anyone say that Great Britain’s declaration of war made more Nazis. It’s a silly argument that serious people would be embarrassed to make. Yet the idea that fighting terrorism makes more terrorist is taken as serious policy consideration in liberal circles.
It’s why American do not take liberals seriously when it comes to national security.
If liberals genuinely see Batman as the cause of the Joker than the parallels are even deeper than I thought.
As I write this I remember that these kind of discussions are quite pointless and people are dug in, and have their egos and self-image invested in “their point” and they will never back down with, no matter the mountain of facts or logic.
I don’t think I have ever seen a post with the general take of, “you know, that’s a good point. You might be turning me around on this. I hadn’t thought about it that way before.”
Rogue Maleon 19 Jul 2008 at 11:49 am 113It’s funny watching libs get so het up because cons see parallels between one of their leaders and a movie character, especially with the memory of watching Eleanor Clift seriously suggesting on The McLaughlan group that the portrayal of the ex-fighter jock prez in Independence Day evoked…Slick Willie.
Katoon 19 Jul 2008 at 12:14 pm 114Cole: The number of errors you make in your comments, both factual and logical, is simply breathtaking.
Just to take your most recent comment:
A review IS an op-ed. It’s not an objective news article. It’s one man’s opinion.
Your response to the Starbucks/McDonald’s comment reveals your complete lack of understanding of metaphor.
And this mistake has been made by others as well on this thread: A neocon is not another word for foreign-policy hawk. It is a conservative who used to be a liberal, full stop.
JohnLockeon 19 Jul 2008 at 12:23 pm 115“1. From the very beginning of the movie, Batman is referred to as an outlaw. A standing order to arrest him, in fact the only people who seem to like him are Gordon and his Son (that becomes important later because those are the very 2 people who must lie about him.)”
Uh, Batman IS an outlaw. He’s a vigilante. But the film makes a clear distinction between vigilantism and evil behavior. Batman can be a hero AND a despised vigilante.
“2. Harvey Dent’s money line “You either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain.” That’s a great excuse for Him doing what he does, but only in the ‘Everyone’s corrupt, trust no one world of Gotham is that true. In the real world we revere our heroes.”
If everyone revered heroes in the real world, Hollywood would quit making films that attack our troops.
“3. That leads to the big one: Only in Hollywood are heroes reviled. In the real world, we go out of our way to find them and honor them, even going so far as to call people heroes who don’t really deserve the title (sports figures, ‘working class heroes’, 3 yr. old kids who dial 911, Valerie Plame, you get the picture.)”
Just because we give the title to undeserving people doesn’t mean that’s an extension of hero reverence in the real world. There are plenty of people that attack our troops in the “real world.” There are plenty of people who genuinely hate Bush for his actions and there are plenty more people who don’t give him the credit he deserves in the “real world.” It’s the same with Reagan, Churchill, Patton, etc. Heroes and people who do noble things aren’t always held up on a pedestal and are often opposed and even vilified by people.
“4. The ferry boats - It is the giant psycho criminal guy (Tiny Lister I think) who does the right thing and throws the detonator overboard, the average citizen is not brave enough to do that, and only sort of chicken’s out. The ‘good’ person is not brave, he wants to kill the criminals, he just can’t bring himself to do it. (Good is bad, bad is really good.)”
You say that I can’t boil the film’s themes down to one speech, but then you turn around and boil the film’s themes down to one scene? One criminal doing the right thing doesn’t advocate the idea of “bad is really good.”
“5. Harvey Dent taking the fall for Batman. Anyway you slice it, Batman looks like a coward. Maybe that’s why you all hate the Rachel Dawes character, because she calls it what it is. The one who comes off the hero is Harvey, who we all know, in the end, is bad. It would have worked if the movie had actually ended there, like it should have, but because the movie drags on for another 40 minutes, we are forced to see that it was really the Joker’s plan all along to get arrested.”
First of all, Batman had no idea Harvey was going to take the fall. Second, the film seemed to me to emphasize Alfred’s position on the matter when he talks to Rachel, that this is about something bigger than any one person. Bruce revealing himself as Batman would’ve been a form of appeasement that betrayed what Batman stands for.
And to use the logic that since Harvey comes off as a hero in that one scene and then ends up as bad later to argue that the film takes a moral relativistic stance is stupid. Harvey is meant to be a complex, tragic, Shakespearean character with an arc that takes him from idealism to cynicism. He’s not evil when he makes the “heroic” decision.
“(fat guy with bomb inside him blows up, and everyone in the jail except the Joker and the guy from Hong Kong are killed! Oh help me Rhonda!)”
I hate to nitpick, but since you’re trying to find plotholes, I figure I might as well try to fill them. We don’t know that everyone was killed. Many were probably shell-shocked. The Joker was the only one expecting the explosion so he had ample opportunity to grab Lau and get the hell out of there without being impeded.
“If you think for one minute that Batman is a GWB then you are saying that it is OK that liberals hate him, because in the Dark Knight, everybody except a few enlightened souls, hates the hero.
You are saying the BDS is a valid way feel about President Bush.”
We’re not saying it’s valid, we’re acknowledging that it’s a reality. There are people who hate Bush. But the film never makes the argument that it’s “OK” for the citizens of Gotham to hate Batman.
“Not one person at the end of the Dark Knight, including Batman himself has any faith in the people of Gotham to, when confronted with the truth, do the right thing.
Hmmm, the average person can’t be trusted to do the right thing, sounds like a big government, liberal, socialist, POV to me. Certainly NOT conservative.”
Now you’re just making wild comparisons. This isn’t just simple “faith in people to do the right thing when confronted with the truth.” As Gordon said, the Joker took the best of them and turned him into a monster. That’s not something the citizens need to hear. It was never about a coverup. It was about preserving an ideal.
“Lying to protect an image is still lying. Only in a murky, ‘there is no right and wrong, just shades of grey’ world is that acceptable.”
That’s like saying killing to protect an innocent is still killing. While true, it throws context out the window.
“Your logic only holds true if you believe that the average person can’t face the truth. That they are not intelligent enough to see ALL the facts, and still hold to an image of bravery and heroism, even though out heroes are fallible.”
The situation in the film is not average circumstance. The Joker has thrown the city into a frenzy. And before him, there was still the massive amounts of crime in the streets. The citizens were against Batman, the man who was protecting them. They wanted to appease the Joker. What do you think would happen in the minds of such people if they knew what had happened to Dent?
“Also, if Batman is so confident that the people of Gotham (including it’s criminals) will NOT blow each other up, (when there is a gun to their heads) Then why is he willing to believe that they will lose all faith in heroes, when they find out Harvey Dent went bad?”
We don’t know that he was completely confident. If he had the chance to end the whole situation without them having to make a choice, don’t you think he would’ve? Besides, it was a completely different situation. You’re taking away context again.
“If you think the majority of Americans HATE GWB for fighting the war on terror, then you not only believe the liberal media myth, but you have a much more pessimistic view of America than I do.
A low approval rating does not mean that people hate you, it means that they don’t APPROVE of what you are doing. If the majority of Americans HATED the President, the he would be impeached of dead.”
I never said that the majority of Americans hate Bush. Obviously Gotham isn’t a perfect allegory. Even so, many disapprove of his actions in the Middle East, which still means that they are against him.
“AGAIN, to accept that people who do good will be vilified, is to accept evil.”
Again, we’re not accepting it as right. We’re acknowledging the reality. Just because we acknowledge that true evil exists doesn’t mean we accept it. Similarly, just because we acknowledge the fact that not all heroes are admired by the people doesn’t mean we accept that, either. Aren’t conservatives vocal on the issue of false troop support and downright military-hating? We WANT heroes to be respected. Sadly, they sometimes aren’t.
“Deriding bravery is what a coward does to make themselves feel better about being a coward.”
When did the film ever deride bravery?
Rogue Maleon 19 Jul 2008 at 12:40 pm 116Libs don’t just resent the idea that Batman is GWB; they resent the implication that they (BDS-libs) are the ones portrayed in the film as attacking the hero. Touched a nerve there.
Templaron 19 Jul 2008 at 12:45 pm 117John Locke:
Uh, Batman IS an outlaw. He’s a vigilante.
1: Could be wrong, but I’m pretty sure that actual outlawry isn’t a functional element of the contemporary American legal system.
2: Vigilantes, as I understand it, were in American history typically groups of people banded together to hunt outlaws.
Flashon 19 Jul 2008 at 12:55 pm 118Heh!
http://www.cracked.com/video_16496_why-all-cool-kids-want-dark-knight-action-figures.html
JohnLockeon 19 Jul 2008 at 1:01 pm 119“1: Could be wrong, but I’m pretty sure that actual outlawry isn’t a functional element of the contemporary American legal system.
2: Vigilantes, as I understand it, were in American history typically groups of people banded together to hunt outlaws.”
You’re technically right, but this is all just semantics. The fact is that Batman operates outside of the law, which the film acknowledges as a reason for much of the anger directed at Batman. A reason, but not an excuse. Batman can be a hero without doing it entirely legally.
Stephanieon 19 Jul 2008 at 1:34 pm 120It’s funny watching libs get so het up because cons see parallels between one of their leaders and a movie character, especially with the memory of watching Eleanor Clift seriously suggesting on The McLaughlan group that the portrayal of the ex-fighter jock prez in Independence Day evoked…Slick Willie.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
She actually said that? OMFG! No freaking way……..that is hilarious. Yeah…Willie flew fighters? Maybe in the legend he was making in his pot induced haze? Hell there are probably leftwing zombies out there wondering if Bats is really Obama…..
But honestly debating Chrissie, Relay or others of the undead variety isn’t helping. THey are here to harass. Period.
And BTW Chrissie your not a libertarian…libertarians are lamenting the closure of those Starbucks…its called economics idiot. The jobs lost. But wtf does a concieted little brat care about people losing their jobs eh, Chrissie?
Stephanieon 19 Jul 2008 at 1:36 pm 121Libs don’t just resent the idea that Batman is GWB; they resent the implication that they (BDS-libs) are the ones portrayed in the film as attacking the hero. Touched a nerve there.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Which is why the goon squad, Relay, Chrissie, etc. are here freaking out. Hey the guy curled up under the desk screaming for his Momma? Thats you guys. The guy charging at the Joker (William Fichtner) with a shot gun….that would be the rest of us.. who died a better death?
JohnLockeon 19 Jul 2008 at 1:39 pm 122“The guy charging at the Joker (William Fichtner) with a shot gun….that would be the rest of us.”
Uh, I wouldn’t make that comparison, Steph. That guy was running a mob bank and died talking about criminals with moral standards.
jrlon 19 Jul 2008 at 1:42 pm 123**SPOILERS**
The Dent-Dawes-Gordon plot.
I’m not sure we were supposed to feel anything about Dawes’ death except dread at what it would do to Dent - the final straw of pressure on what was already a fracturing character. That might be my impression because I knew going in what Dent turns into. There’s no suspense about that - just a series of events that pound relentlessly towards tragedy. Dawes is used, is necessary to that extent, but is otherwise irrelevant.
Dent and Gordon were at odds from the beginning. As someone else wrote, Dent didn’t trust some of the cops in MCU. Gordon may not have either, but he had to “do the best I can with what I’ve got.” Dent is looking for the perfect at the expense of the good, and if he can’t get perfection…
Batman vs. Dent
Dent is arrogant - he can do no wrong. He claims repeatedly that he can take whatever repercussions his war on the mob may bring. But when the mob reacts and Dawes dies, he doesn’t blame the mob, the actual murderers - he blames Gordon.
He is a reckless braggart, and slowly the cracks in his facade begin to show - culminating on that dark street, threatening to blow a helpless thug’s head off until Batman shows up and pulls him back from the edge. We don’t know if Dent would have actually gone through with it - he’s like the character on the ferry who insists he will push the button, but ultimately can’t do it.
And that’s the point: We’re never quite sure what Dent is capable of, but we want to believe the best. It increasingly becomes clear that, unlike Batman, Dent has no limits. That comes to fruition after Joker gives him a little nudge out the door, as Two-Face deciding his actions from the flip of a coin. Yeah, that arc could have probably been done better, though I have no suggestions as to how.
Finally, Batman, unlike Dent, is capable of accepting the inevitable sacrifices his war on the mob necessarily entails - even while constantly questioning his ability to do so. That introspection is what sets him apart from Dent, is what ultimately makes him capable of doing what Dent isn’t. It causes him to be the hero.
Stephanieon 19 Jul 2008 at 1:46 pm 124John
I know how one upsmanship is prime sometimes….but I haven’t seen the freaking movie yet. I saw that part. Considering teh wider context just how was I supposed to know that?
I used it as an example…find a better one? OK?
JohnLockeon 19 Jul 2008 at 1:59 pm 125Oh, sorry. Thought you had seen it.
misterdon 19 Jul 2008 at 2:18 pm 126As a card carrying comic nerd, I’ve done my best to stay away from spoilers, but the online community being what it is, enough has seeped through for me to have picked up the war on terror parallels. More importantly, I picked up a “do what you can, and even though there will be blow back, don’t give up” theme. I suspect that the creators would be amazed to see a pro-W theme being read into their story, much as Joss Wheedon was in the last season of Buffy (which essentially translated to - no more law enforcement - we’re at war with bad things, and we’re going to take that war to them).
That’s the amazing thing to me - the number of times self-avowed liberals will accidentally stumble into conservative themes and then have to run away from what they wrote. There were at least 2 episodes of latter-day Star Trek (1 TNG, 1 DS9) that accidentally told pro-life, metaphorically anti-abortion, stories, and they were truly shocked when then were called on it.
I’ve got my tickets for IMAX on Monday afternoon. I can’t wait to see it.
misterdon 19 Jul 2008 at 2:23 pm 127Uhm, Cole… Has it never reached your ears that Batm… er, George W. Bush is a man born to privilege who took a tragedy and used it to fight his enemies in defiance of the international community and outside the bounds of the United Nations? And somehow this has no correlation to Batman’s story?
Voodooon 19 Jul 2008 at 2:28 pm 128The problem with the analogy is that George Bush slavishly follows the law even if it puts us in danger. I wish he were a little more like Batman (and gave the liberals something tangible upon which to base their boundless hate for him).
misterdon 19 Jul 2008 at 2:29 pm 129Stephanie -
You do know the movies Dave and Wag the Dog, right?
In Dave the president was a womanizer and philanderer, with a marriage that existed solely for political expediency.
And Wag the Dog? The president, with sagging poll numbers and running a reelection campaign against a dull, dry, is caught in a tawdry affair, then manipulates the media to drop the matter by staging military strikes?
In both cases, the filmmakers SWEAR that they were trying to depict…
…George Herbert Walker Bush
Honest injun!
misterdon 19 Jul 2008 at 2:30 pm 130Sorry, last post should have read “dull, dry opponent”, the filmic equivilent of Bob Dole.
Christopher Coleon 19 Jul 2008 at 3:03 pm 131Mistered, I have absolutely no love for the United Nations. The five countries that make up the security council are also the five countries that deal most in arms sales, and who buys them?
And Stephanie, I am a Libertarian. Libertarians run a gammet of beliefs, but the central ones are that we mind our own business and return the government to its Constitutional size. Unwarranted wiretapping, the erosion of civil liberties in the name of security, these are things that real Libertarians (and for that matter real Conservatives) are upset about. Barr, the Libertarian candidate, refused to sign the Patriot Act until safeguards were put in that would ensure civil liberties would not be taken away. When they were, he cried foul and turned in his Republican membership. Oh yeah, he was also one of the most conservative members of the House during the Clinton years, and even was a leader in the movement to impeach Clinton, not for Monica, but because of other things.
I also don’t resent anything except that you Stephanie are incapable of posting without resorting to some childish remark, and meanwhile I have not posted one negative thing against your character. Oh, if I was truly a liberal, I would love to rip into you, but I am not a true liberal. And I still maintain that Batman is not GWB, or any other political figure (which has been my argument all along). Batman/Bruce Wayne is Batman/Bruce Wayne. Never has Batman/Bruce Wayne been George W. Bush, or Dick Cheney, or Al Gore, or Al Franken, or Harry Carry, or Chim Chim the acrobatic monkey. He’s a fictional character in a fictional city fighting against fictional bad guys in a story that is as old as humanity, which is the struggle between good and evil. Nothing more, nothing less.
And Jefferson attacked those people off the Barbary Coast because they were pirates who tried to extort nations that relied on shipping. They were not suspected pirates, and there was no promise of keeping our forces in Tripoli for 100 years. There was also no full-scale invasion. Hardly the same thing as what we are getting today. Also there was no resurgence of those pirates.
Carlitoson 19 Jul 2008 at 3:32 pm 132And Jefferson attacked those people off the Barbary Coast because they were pirates who tried to extort nations that relied on shipping. They were not suspected pirates, and there was no promise of keeping our forces in Tripoli for 100 years. There was also no full-scale invasion. Hardly the same thing as what we are getting today. Also there was no resurgence of those pirates.
LOL. What trivial “distinctions” you hang your hat on. Jefferson’s enemy were real, Bush’s are “suspected”. Right! And seizing upon, and then distorting, McCain’s “100 year” comment. What a disingenous dope you are. If you’re wondering why I haven’t yet bothered to engage you in discussion, this is a pretty good example why.
relaytvon 19 Jul 2008 at 3:37 pm 133John Locke,
“And to use the logic that since Harvey comes off as a hero in that one scene and then ends up as bad later to argue that the film takes a moral relativistic stance is stupid.”
Implying that I am stupid doesn’t help your argument.
Stephanie,
“Which is why the goon squad, Relay, Chrissie, etc. are here freaking out.”
“But honestly debating Chrissie, Relay or others of the undead variety isn’t helping.”
I knew when I disagreed with Harry on this that you would eventually call me names, decry me as a liberal, label me a troll, etc.
However, for the record, I neither agree with Chris, nor enjoy his commentary. (Not that I believe my words will have any effect on you.)
But let me just offer my humble opinion that; instead of attacking conservatives with a frontal assault, liberal hollywood has out flanked us this time.
This ‘conservative’ movie was greenlit by Warner Bros. the same company that distributed Body of Lies, Conspiracy of Fools and Harold and Kumar Escape Gitmo, Michael Clayton, and The Good German.
Do you really think that this little Batman movie ’slipped through the cracks’ over there?
I feel that they have created a trojan horse of conservative plot points (fighting an unpopular war, universal surveillance, etc.) to get you to swallow a liberal message (the people will despise heroism if it brings them hardship.)
If you are all ok swallowing that message, great, because I’m positive, with the success of this film, we are going to see many more ‘conservative’ films use the same tactic.
Katoon 19 Jul 2008 at 3:47 pm 134“Also there was no resurgence of those pirates.”
Wrong yet again. There were two Barbary Wars: one from 1801-1805 (during Jefferson’s presidency), and another in 1815.
I notice a pattern, Chris. You don’t respond to the more reasoned arguments against your positions, but rather, you wait until one of the more hot-headed on this site post, then you respond to their arguments instead.
And another thing: you’ve commented numerous times on this thread, arguing over the meaning of the metaphors in Dark Knight. And yet you haven’t even seen the movie.
I repeat, for everyone’s benefit: You haven’t seen the movie.
Plissken79on 19 Jul 2008 at 4:22 pm 135Warner Brothers is, like all movie studios, a business. Their primary motivation, like all other businesses, is to make a profit. They will and do release “liberal” (The Good German, Syriana, Michael Clayton) and “conservative” films (The Dark Knight, 300) if they think it will help them at the box office and at the awards ceremonies.
Christopher Nolan has certainly set the bar extremely high for future comic book films and any more Batman films. I am sure he will do one more, but he has put himself in a bit of a corner with future villians. Now that the Big Three have been used (The Joker, Ra’s Al Ghul, Two-Face) it is hard to see which other popular Batman villians fit into the world created in Batman Begins and The Dark Knight. Mr. Freeze, Poison Ivy, Catwoman certainly do not, the Riddler perhaps as minor villian, the Penguin would be very tricky. It will be interesting to see what Nolan does
(spoiler)
although the Joker survives, there is no way he will be back, as it will be impossible for another actor to take over from Ledger’s brilliant take
Kiton 19 Jul 2008 at 4:23 pm 136I just watched DARK KNIGHT.
It was amazing!
The entire cast was great (including, I’m sorry, Maggie)!
Heath Ledger should get an Oscar for the role for two reasons:
(1) His performance was PERFECT! You actually believed that he was a murderous psychopath.
(2) People will actually pay attention to the Oscars.
One more thing.
I know some people will hate me forever for this comment, but I have to say it: I preferred Maggie Gyllenhall (or however her name is spelled) over Katie Holmes.
Go ahead, “Hit me!”
GeronimoRumplestiltskinon 19 Jul 2008 at 4:26 pm 137Mr. Cole,
The last time I addressed you was almost 2 weeks ago, in my last comment in the discussion about the roots of Christianity. I hadn’t revisited that thread since that day, but today I did get a chance to read your follow up comment to my final entry in that discussion. While extending that discussion would be rather pointless, I did see that you asked about the inspiration for my posting handle “GeronimoRumplestiltskin”. Though I have been posting under that handle for almost a year now on various boards (political, theological, film and culture…and, of course, the most important of all subjects: Notre Dame football), you are the first to inquire about it. So I’ll give you the (somewhat long but relatively entertaining) whole story:
When I finally got married in April 2007, my wife Lynda hemmed and hawed a bit about having to change her last name, though not for the stereotypical “anti-male chauvinism” reasons: “loss of identity”, “subordination of women”, “hegemony of the patriarchy”, etc. No, her reticence on the issue stems from the fact that to change your last name in Texas, it takes more phone calls, paperwork, and bureaucratic “you need to fill out these forms in triplicate, present 4 forms of ID, and had to have saved at least two of your baby molars”-type demands than it takes to bring high-grade plutonium into the country. This is in Texas, the land of no state income tax and generally unobtrusive local government; I can’t imagine what it would be like in a more regulation and government-heavy state like Maryland or Massachusetts.
Taking my vow seriously to share equally in life’s burdens with my new bride, I proposed that we share this particular burden: instead of one taking the other’s surname, we both should change our last name to a mutually agreed upon third name. Does this not exude brilliance and bear the mark of true equality, or what?
Now we had to mutually agree upon a third name. Again in the spirit of true equality, I proposed some surnames that mixed my Irish heritage with her Hispanic heritage:
Jerry and Lynda O’Rodriguez
Jerry and Lynda McGonzalez
Jerry and Lynda de la Flanigan
None of these were suitable. After much thought, reflection, and throwing darts at pages of the phone book, we decided on our new surname:
Jerry and Lynda Rumplestiltskin
Of course, you may be wondering why we chose this particular moniker. One afternoon when we were still dating, Lynda and I fell asleep on the couch. Arising from our slumber, we took notice that our clothes were somewhat wrinkled, or as Lynda said, “rumpled”. Lynda, thinking of Rip Van Winkle and his long nap but getting her fairy tale names mixed up, came up with this little bon mot: “Maybe that’s why they called him Rumplestiltskin….because he was rumpled!”.
Sadly, this is actually the best offering to come from her unique joke-authoring ability. Another sampling, this one recent:
Lynda: I wonder why they call it ‘Caesar Salad’…
Me: I don’t know…
Lynda: Maybe it’s because he cut off so many heads. (Laughs at her own ‘joke’)
Me: (Puzzled look on face, brain searching for some possible connection)…
Lynda: You know, the salad’s got heads of lettuce…get it?
Me: (Dumbfounded look)…
Lynda: (Laughing hysterically) That’s hilarious!!!
Me: (Slamming head against table)…
Lynda: Oh, wait, I’ve got another one…
Me: Waiter, check please!
Of course, Lynda thinks she is Shecky Greene reborn, and is offended that I do not share her own enthusiastically positive appraisal of her ‘humor’. When she suggested ‘Rumplestiltskin’, in honor of her ‘joke’, I agreed for the most noble of reasons: since we waited until we were married - more than two years - to enjoy connubial bliss, I’ll be damned if I’m going to upset her now and endanger access to said connubial bliss. I may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer, but I’m not an idiot.
Having some time to digest the idea of being Jerry Rumplestiltskin, I have come to see the upside of having such a distinctive last name. Though I have devoted much time and effort in my theological/philosophical/historical studies, I have little in the way of fame or stature in that field. I have long resigned myself to the fact that my reluctance to share in many modern (and popular) scholars’ disregard for the limits of historical-critical exegesis makes me somewhat of an oddball. However, among the things that I have learned from reading great philosophers and theologians like Jacques Maritain and Hans Urs von Balthasar is that my primary obstacle to becoming a world renowned philosopher or theologian is that I don’t have a really cool sounding name like “Jacques Maritain” or “Hans Urs von Balthasar”. Obviously, some tinkering with my first name is required to accomplish my goal. At this point, it would be easy and tempting to go too far, and since the best way to avoid temptation is to give in to it immediately, I saw no reason not to do so.
Growing up, I was often asked where “Jerry” came from, since my official first name is John. When I said it was from my middle name, the person asking would immediately blurt out “Gerald?”. I would answer, “No, Gerard.” and they would make some facial contortion indicating their less-than-positive opinion of “Gerard”. After about the 200th time this happened, I started answering the “Gerald?” question with “No, Geronimo.” That a good number of people actually believed me made it even more fun than just seeing the surprised look on their face.
So there you have it: Geronimo and Lynda Rumplestiltskin
Of course, with an exotic-yet-authoritative name like Geronimo Rumplestiltskin, my career as a famous philosopher and/or theologian can now commence! Of course, I could spend years crafting my contributions to the canon of human knowledge and insight, gleaning the best from the great works of classic Greek philosophy, the passion and wisdom of the Early Church Fathers, the stunning intellect of Aquinas, the deep probing of Kant, Descartes, Hume, and Pascal, the genius and madness of Nietzsche, the groundbreaking work of Newman, and the wellspring of insight of Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI…….but this would seriously cut into my time watching “America’s Next Top Model”. No, for my first work - in the spirit of Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, and Sam Harris - I have decided to emulate their more recent examples of theological and philosophical exposition, where a) I consider everyone who went before me to be a paste-eating moron, b) repeatedly compliment myself on my own bravery and insight while c) doing little actual research on, nor expending much effort in the understanding of, nor even bothering to actually engage the arguments put forth by those who disagree with me. The working title for my forthcoming tome is
The Purity And Truth Of My Own Thought, And How Anyone Who Does Not Reflexively Agree With Me Is A Towering Ignoramus
By Geronimo Rumplestiltskin
New York Times best-seller list, here I come. Oprah, warm up the guest chair…..
So now you know.
Enjoy the rest of your weekend,
GR
Stephanieon 19 Jul 2008 at 5:19 pm 138I saw Wag the Dog and Dave….and they were parallels but not of whom the makers made them of……and they know it. Heh.
Nate Winchesteron 19 Jul 2008 at 6:27 pm 139Remember what I said about the coin being key? Once you realize the truth, that scene takes on new meaning for it means that Dent’s threat was empty. The coin he was flipping was NEVER going to come up tails and get the criminal shot.
I say the coin is a symbol of the things which held Dent from the edge (itself, Rachel, Batman, etc) and when he was scarred, the coin was as well, representing the loss of any restraint. Remember that if the coin came up wrong, Dent was going to kill himself (and is there any doubt he wouldn’t have?). In the beginning, Dent was resisting even the slightest hint of corruption. He wanted to be the shinning hero. But at the end, he snaps and embraces the darkness that we all struggle against and gives up his will, his freedom of choice to chance.
Kiton 19 Jul 2008 at 6:37 pm 140Nate Winchester,
“I say the coin is a symbol of the things which held Dent from the edge (itself, Rachel, Batman, etc) and when he was scarred, the coin was as well, representing the loss of any restraint.”
I think I agree with you. It was a double headed coin. One-faced and when he was scarred, so was the coin.
Harvey Dent is a tragedy in the vein of Macbeth.
Boon 19 Jul 2008 at 7:07 pm 141Ledger really is that good.
Tommy Von 19 Jul 2008 at 8:32 pm 142Just saw it.
Batman is not George Bush. But the film clearly aims to explore and take a stand on the moral questions and test of courage the country has faced throughout the war on terror.
The film, and Batman himself, obviously takes the same side George Bush has and the film certainly wants to comment on all the hatred Bush has generated.
I don’t know how you could make a different argument and I don’t see how Nolan could have missed it.
The idea that this is a liberal message film disguised as a conservative film seems equally indefensible.
JohnLockeon 19 Jul 2008 at 9:01 pm 143“Implying that I am stupid doesn’t help your argument.”
I’m gonna give you a line that my parents gave me so many times as I kid that I got sick of it: I’m not implying that you’re stupid. I’m saying that your argument is stupid.
And I can’t for the life of me understand why you think of the suggestion that people will turn on heroes as a liberal message. I have as much faith in the American people as you do (which is why I said that Gotham isn’t a perfect stand-in for America), but the truth is that many (note, I did not say the majority) Americans and people throughout the world have, at numerous points in history, objected to heroic actions and vilified noble and heroic people. That’s not liberal propaganda. That’s a fact. Yeah, we all wish BDS would just go away. But it won’t. That’s just the way it is. But it doesn’t change the facts about Bush and the War on Terror. After World War II, they booted Churchill out of office. But that doesn’t change the facts about him and the great things he did.
Adrianon 19 Jul 2008 at 9:18 pm 144my favorite conservative element of the film, which harry doesn’t really mention in this great post, is how well the filmmakers mock the idea of root causes. Not only do they deliberately avoid a Joker origins story, they actively and repeatedly mock the idea through the Joker’s frequent, satirical, mock-solemn autobiographical stories, which act not to flesh out his past but to illustrate the contempt he holds for people who try to ‘understand’ him rather than just deal with him as the twisted s.o.b. he is. Anyway, that was my favorite element of the movie.
My least favorite, and the only cringeworthy textbook liberal hollywood moment, was (slight spoiler alert) the very cheesy ‘magical negro’ moment. You know what I mean if you saw the movie. I saw this coming a mile away, the set-up was as obvious as jelly beans on a President’s desk, it could have come straight out of Crash. At the very least the guy should have been hispanic or something to make it just a little less obvious (or how about having it be the scarecrow? i was a bit confused by the opening, but couldn’t he have been in that scene as well?).
Templaron 19 Jul 2008 at 9:27 pm 145my favorite conservative element of the film, which harry doesn’t really mention in this great post, is how well the filmmakers mock the idea of root causes. Not only do they deliberately avoid a Joker origins story, they actively and repeatedly mock the idea through the Joker’s frequent, satirical, mock-solemn autobiographical stories, which act not to flesh out his past but to illustrate the contempt he holds for people who try to ‘understand’ him rather than just deal with him as the twisted s.o.b. he is.
Good point.
Kiton 19 Jul 2008 at 9:47 pm 146SPOILER ALERT!!!
IF YOU HAVEN’T SEEN THE MOVIE YET, STOP READING RIGHT NOW!!!
REALLY, HUGE SPOILERS!!!
Now that the customary warnings are done: Here is my question:
Did anyone else notice this: Rachel was not killed instantly, in the blast, we saw her on a gurney and she blinked, then we hear that she died.
Did I miss something?
Is it possible that she survived the blast and is somehow being hidden?
SPOILERS OVER!!!
DO NOT READ THE ABOVE COMMENTS IF YOU HAVE NOT SEEN THE MOVIE!!!
Plissken79on 19 Jul 2008 at 9:56 pm 147SPOILERS
No, Rachel is gone, I did not see her blink or do anything other than to indicate she was very dead. Two-Face is much more likely to come back (especially since the Joker will not). Nolan left it just ambiguous enough, although I am fairly sure Harvey Dent did not make it.
The only other Batman villian who might make an appeatance in the next film (besides possibly the Scarecrow) is the Riddler, no way the Penguin or most of the others work in Nolan’s Gotham City
Kiton 19 Jul 2008 at 10:51 pm 148Plissken79,
SPOILERS
I’ll be watching it again and I will look for her lack of blink, though I am pretty sure I saw one on the Gurney.
MovieBobon 19 Jul 2008 at 11:26 pm 149Plissken
“The only other Batman villian who might make an appeatance in the next film (besides possibly the Scarecrow) is the Riddler, no way the Penguin or most of the others work in Nolan’s Gotham City”
The Penguin works just fine - outside of the mutant Tim Burton version, he’s always just a pudgy, diminutive gangster who tends to dress like an anachronistic aristocrat - hence the nickname. The Mad Hatter (mind control) Ventriloquist (MPD with “dominant personality” expressed via a puppet) Bane (really, really, really strong) Killer Croc (really strong, birth-deformities make his skin looky reptile-esque) and plenty of others would work as well. (FYI, early rumors about this installment had Philip Seymour Hoffman playing Penguin as a British-based arms dealer.)
Remember, the FIRST of these movies had a cult of hallucinogen-huffing Tibetan ninjas under the sway of a psuedo-immortal Arab mystic and a gas that makes you visualize your fears literally, so I’d say the “acceptibility” bar in terms of out-there concepts for bad guys is pretty damn high already. Anything “supernatural” is probably right out, but sci-fi to an extent would probably work. Mr. Freeze, in the end, works just fine as a crook using goosed-up liquid nitrogren to open vaults or whatnot, ditto Poison Ivy as an eco-terrorist (I’d even say okay to a big-ass venus flytrap or two, but that’s me.) Hell, I’d go so far as to say a version of “Man-Bat” would be plausible (that one works because it writes the whole movie for you: “big human/bat hybrid flyin’ around killing people - WHO are they gonna blame?”)
The million-dollar question is will they try to use Catwoman or will the memory of the Halle Berry movie scare them off?
Phoenixon 20 Jul 2008 at 12:44 am 150That’s good!
and that’s gonna be good!
The political shades sound dead-on in mythic depth.
Oh God, I’m there.
Four Bat-signals already.
As for inexact parallels, when is there any other kind?
Vigilantism involves executing sentence. Anything less is Guardian or Bounty Hunter (haven’t seen this yet, but usually he’s cool).
Superman liberal? Does he catch muggers or greedy tax payers?
Batman caused Joker? He’d have been content as an accountant?
You can’t “stir up a hornet’s nest” unless THERE IS ONE, dumbass.
4 star pathetic.
Katoon 20 Jul 2008 at 12:50 am 151Nate, you can keep saying that the coin explains everything until you’re blue in the face, but it doesn’t change the fact that it was insufficient. You’re posing a logical explanation, but it isn’t an emotionally satisfying one. The bottom line is, there wasn’t enough chemistry between Dent and Rachel for us to buy the change when you-know-what happened. We didn’t FEEL the change. This is a movie, not a research paper, and thus emotion is what matters.
Kiton 20 Jul 2008 at 7:34 am 152MovieBob,
‘Mr. Freeze, in the end, works just fine as a crook using goosed-up liquid nitrogren to open vaults or whatnot, ditto Poison Ivy as an eco-terrorist (I’d even say okay to a big-ass venus flytrap or two, but that’s me.) Hell, I’d go so far as to say a version of “Man-Bat” would be plausible (that one works because it writes the whole movie for you: “big human/bat hybrid flyin’ around killing people - WHO are they gonna blame?”)’
I agree with you on e verything but the Man-Bat. But I doubt they will do Mr. Freeze or Poison Ivy, due to bad memories caused by Old Joel (”Let’s kick some ice!”).
Kiton 20 Jul 2008 at 7:36 am 153MovieBob,
Catwoman might be okay as the memory of Michelle Pfeiffer could cancel out the memory of Halle Berry.
Plissken79on 20 Jul 2008 at 9:05 am 154Given the disasters that were Batman and Robin and Catwoman, there is no way Mr. Freeze (a gimmicky villian anyway, except in the 1990s animated series, which did a good job with him), Poison Ivy, or Catwoman appear.
I actually think the Penguin as an arms dealer or crime boss (without the deformed hands and the black guck coming out of his mouth) might work, but David Goyer and Christopher Nolan have already ruled him out. Mad Hatter, Ventriloquist, Killer Croc, Killer Moth, etc, are not strong enough villians for their own film and are too goofy in Nolan’s world, Bane perhaps in a supporting role (they cannot do worse with him than Schumacher did).
What Nolan is trying to avoid is the trend of so many comic books and films based on them, that they eventually turn into stories of our hero fighting a group of super-powered goons in silly costumes.
Again, in 2010 or 2011 when the next Batman film comes out (Nolan will do one more, the Dark Knight’s ending is too open to end it here), I think we will see the Riddler and possibly the Scarecrow, Two-Face is a long shot but again, his “death” was not absolutely certified. Only the Joker will not come back, no one can replace Heath Ledger now that he was provided the definitive Joker
relaytvon 20 Jul 2008 at 9:37 am 155JohnLocke said
“I’m gonna give you a line that my parents gave me so many times as I kid that I got sick of it: I’m not implying that you’re stupid. I’m saying that your argument is stupid”
I suddenly understand why you ‘debate’ things in the polite way you do.
“And I can’t for the life of me understand why you think of the suggestion that people will turn on heroes as a liberal message.”
Now we’re getting to the heart of the matter.
I can’t understand why you think that ‘people will turn against a hero,’ is NOT a liberal message.
Who but a liberal, could hate a hero?
Someone saves your life… and you hate them.
Sorry. I just can’t grasp it. To me it is insane.
I believe that accepting that good people can turn against a hero is BS. If they do that they are NOT good people.
If, at the end of TDK, there was a scene where the people who had turned against Batman throughout the movie, had been shamed into realizing the error of their ways, then I would have loved the movie.
Instead, Batman and Gordon somehow, come up with the insane idea that it is better to lie, and have people hate Batman, than tell the truth.
Because, of course, the people cannot be trusted with the truth.
This movie screams the message, if you are brave, be ready to be hated for it. If you are heroic, you will be reviled.
Who but a liberal would think that way.
Who but a liberal could accept that logic.
At the end of Die Hard, did they lock up John Mclain? Did he become hunted as an outlaw?
Well why not, he killed many bad guys without the benefit of a trial? He didn’t try to bring them in alive. He didn’t yell, “Put your hands up, you’re under arrest!” He just killed them.
Was he arrested for it? No the cops thanked him and the crusading liberal reporter got socked in the jaw.
That’s the way a true conservative movie ends.
Because that’s the way conservatives treat our heroes.
“I have as much faith in the American people as you do ”
Obviously not.
“Americans and people throughout the world have, at numerous points in history, objected to heroic actions and vilified noble and heroic people.”
But when conservatives make movies about that behavior, we call it what it is: stupid and illogical. We DON’T portray it as acceptable or the norm.
“Yeah, we all wish BDS would just go away. But it won’t.”
But we don’t let people make movies justifying it, without calling it BS, do we?
Finally, if Batman is GW Bush, then in the context of THIS MOVIE, Bush and Cheney invented the whole idea of BDS and lied to perpetuate it, because they know that the people of America would rather hate Bush, than face the truth that our former heroes have now turned evil.
In the context of the real world, if Batman was really GWB, then Batman would have killed the Joker and told everyone the truth about Dent, and rolled with the hatred that some misguided people would have for him.
I can’t make my thoughts on this any more clear than I have.
If I have not persuaded you by now, I guess I’m not going to.
But thank you for clarifying how you see these things, because I now know exactly why we disagree.
misterdon 20 Jul 2008 at 9:55 am 156Penguin works perfectly. No need to go with the prosthetic nose. He’s an anti-social genius with a severe need for validation who attempts to prove his brilliance and take revenge on those who mock him through criminal endeavors.
Catwoman? If we can have man as bat, we can have woman in cat costume.
Riddler? Pretty easy to make plausible, but he’s always been hard to do as a serious villian. Worked much better in the Adam West days.
Mr. Freeze? If we can get rid of Joker’s white skin and green hair, we can get rid of Freeze’s cold suit. Imagine Freeze as No Country For Old Men’s Cigurth, but with liquid nitrogen instead of an air canister.
Poison Ivy is perfect as an eco terrorist.
Bane? C’mon! What’s so unbelievable about a crook on steroids?
Killer Croc? Granted he’s become far too cartoonish in the last decade or so of the comics, but originally he was just a guy with a very real (but inaccurately portrayed) skin condition. You could also go the route of some animal-fetishist, as a guy who uses tattooing and cosmetic surgery to increase his resemblance to a specific animal.
Harley Quinn is a great idea - a former psychiatrist who goes insane after a few therapy sessions with Joker. Just drop her super strength.
Azrael - Technically not a villian, but could be used to examine the flipside to the Joker - Batman inspiring others to engage in vigilante activity, but perhaps going too far (the Reaper would also work in this capacity).
And there’s lots of villians, like the Scarecrow, who have little or no supernatural ability or weird appearance. Just rework their “costume’ or gimmick a little to fit in the universe. And not all need to be major villians. Some, like the Ventriloquist, could be tossed in as a random criminal Batman apprehends, either at the start of a film (ala Bond films that opened at the end of another story) or just in place of your random bankrobber/mugger. I have to figure that after the Joker, a lot of criminals are going to follow in his footsteps, by adopting a colorful look and name. These include, but are not limited to:
Talia
Black Mask
Hugo Strage
Hush
Ventriloquist
Maxie Zeus
Clayface (original)
Firefly
Cain
Lady Shiva
Bat-Mite
Firefly
Mr. Zsasz
Anarky
Abbatoir
Holiday
The Hangman
Deadshot
Mad Hatter
King Snake
Magpie
Tally Man
Great White Shark
True, very few of these characters would be marquee names like the Joker, but if introduced in films with more notable villians, the profile could be elevated for future sequels. Besides, I don’t recall Scarecrow or Ra’s al Ghul being familiar to the average movie goer.
Plissken79on 20 Jul 2008 at 10:32 am 157Compating the situation of John McClain in the first Die Hard to Batman in the Dark Knight is an obvious example of apples and oranges. The comparison does not work for a number of reasons.
SPOILER
Besides, relaytv keeps forgetting one of the most important reasons Batman takes the fall for Dent’s crimes, mainly that the convictions Dent achieved while he was DA would all be overturned if it came to public knowledge Dent became a murderous vigilante named Two-Face
Again, I think the Penguin (played by no one other than Philip Seymour Hoffmann) could work as a realistic villian, but Nolan and Goyer have basically ruled him out. I think they will try to avoid most of the other villians of the Burton/Schumacher era with the possible exception of the Riddler and perhaps Bane, so Penguin, Catwoman, Mr. Freeze, and Poison Ivy are out. Most of the other villians mentioned are simply not strong and complex enough to serve as the main villians of a Batman film
Nate Winchesteron 20 Jul 2008 at 11:36 am 158Well I admit I’m a little bias because of my love of the DCAU.
But when you get into feelings, no real debate is possible, as different people have different feelings towards something. Of course, we’d probably be more emotionally invested with the couple if we had seen the beginning of their relationship. As it was, I was satisfied with it enough as is. It was nice to have a “quiet” relationship on screen rather than having hollywood slap sex up there as emotional shorthand.
Nate Winchesteron 20 Jul 2008 at 11:59 am 159misterd, don’t forget calendar man!
Or the clock king.
Or ten eyes.
lol ok ok, 3 villains that we can HOPE will never be in a Nolan flick.
I once said that putting 2 villains in a superhero flick was always a bad idea (first batman wave, spider-man, etc) but Nolan has figured out a formula where 2 villains are tied so intricately, that I have revised my statement. I think the question is which 2 villains would be the best fit together?
I’d actually like for them to keep Catwoman out of this series. Maybe Croc and Ivy? Hmmm….
Flashon 20 Jul 2008 at 12:06 pm 160Well, since they blew their wad with Two Face in this one I guess they could use…
Talia- Picking up where her dad left off with the Shadow Warriors and looking to get revenge on Batman.
Bane-Juiced up merc who could slap Batman around like a ragdoll hired by the mob to “protect their interest”.
Deadshot- High tech assassin who is not afraid to kill or be killed.
Firefly- Arsonist for hire ( more of a supporting villain )
Hugo Strange- Brilliant shrink who is obsessed with Batman creates a profile of him and deduces that he is Bruce Wayne. Could have him brainwash his subjects at Arkham to go out and “test” him. Motivation needs to be fleshed out but it is a start.
Killer Croc- Make him a street gang leader with a bunch of raised tribal scars. Why does Batman only have to go after the “respectable” mob?
Riddler- A well off if not highly respected man who starts a secret life as a criminal for the trill. Taunts the cops and Batman like the Zodiac killer.
Poison Ivy- Narcissistic sociopath eco terrorist that is immune to some toxins. Uses drugs to fund her cause and manipulate others.
I think this list is pretty good for “realistic” villains.
JohnLockeon 20 Jul 2008 at 1:59 pm 161“I believe that accepting that good people can turn against a hero is BS. If they do that they are NOT good people.”
Harvey Dent has a great line that explains this. He says during the press conference that the people are calling for Batman to take off his mask and offer himself into custody because they are afraid. They were happy to have Batman clean up their streets until a maniac came along and made it seem as if Batman was the cause of their problems. Which of course ties into the parallel between the Joker’s deceptive monologues and the “reasons” that terrorists give for what they do. Sure they can say that they hate us because of our presence in the Middle East. But if we weren’t there, their excuse would be an offensive cartoon or Israel’s latest “crime.” But that doesn’t matter to the “blame America first” crowd. They take what the terrorists say as gospel truth, which causes them to turn against their leaders and protectors. In the same way, the people of Gotham seem to believe that Batman turning himself in will solver all of their problems with the Joker, but that’s only because they’re afraid. Remember the Joker’s line. “The thing about chaos: it’s fear.” And fear, as we’ve seen here in America, provokes two major responses: fight or flight. Battle against terrorists no matter what the cost, or try to appease them and turn on the people who want to defend us. Remember how united America was after 9/11? Then Bush went after Iraq, and there was an insurgency, and things started to get bad. To many people, success seemed impossible, and terrorists sent out messages claiming that America had brought evil upon herself. And so many people turned on Bush, people who were just fine with him after 9/11 and during the war in Afghanistan. That’s what the film is getting at: it’s easy to rally behind a hero when you think that he can claim easy victory. But will you still trust him when the going gets tough?
“Instead, Batman and Gordon somehow, come up with the insane idea that it is better to lie, and have people hate Batman, than tell the truth.”
Harvey was, as the Joker said, the “ace in the hole” in the fight for Gotham’s soul. The people put their faith in an ideal and the man who stood for that ideal, and that man, the “best” of them, was corrupted. If the people knew that, the Joker would’ve won. As Batman says, sometimes people deserve more than the truth. Sometimes people deserve to have their faith rewarded.
“This movie screams the message, if you are brave, be ready to be hated for it. If you are heroic, you will be reviled.”
A more accurate way of putting it would be that if giving in to evil seems easier than fighting it, the people will turn on those who fight. Not a bright and encouraging message, but it’s true.
“At the end of Die Hard, did they lock up John Mclain? Did he become hunted as an outlaw?
Well why not, he killed many bad guys without the benefit of a trial? He didn’t try to bring them in alive. He didn’t yell, “Put your hands up, you’re under arrest!” He just killed them.
Was he arrested for it? No the cops thanked him and the crusading liberal reporter got socked in the jaw.”
Again, Harvey pointed out that the people were happy when Batman was cleaning up the streets. But when a true psychopath with the connections, the intimidation, and the desire to do real, terrible damage to the city comes along and claims that he’ll stop if Batman will turn himself in, that’s when the people turn on their protector. It’s not about hating heroes so much as hating people who make the hard choice. Even Bruce asks, “People are dying, Alfred. What would you have me do?” Do you think he ever had to ask that BEFORE the Joker? No. But the point is, as Alfred makes very clear, that when things get bad, the right choice can become the unpopular choice, but it must be made anyway.
“We DON’T portray it as acceptable or the norm.”
But that’s not what the film does. They make that clear during the press conference.
“Finally, if Batman is GW Bush, then in the context of THIS MOVIE, Bush and Cheney invented the whole idea of BDS and lied to perpetuate it, because they know that the people of America would rather hate Bush, than face the truth that our former heroes have now turned evil.”
The people turned on Batman long before what happened to Harvey. In addition, you’re trying to poke holes in an allegory, which, unless you’re pointing out a broad theme that counters it (which you’re not), is really a pointless endeavor. It’s like saying Batman can’t be Bush because Bush’s parents are still alive. Obviously the character of Harvey Dent doesn’t exactly fit into the connection to Bush, but the spirit of the decision Batman makes at the end does: the spirit of selflessly putting up with opposition and hate to continue to do the right thing.
Plissken79on 20 Jul 2008 at 2:18 pm 162Not a bad list at all, Flash, I would like to see Bane and the Riddler correctly interpreted on film as opposed to what we saw in the Schumacher travesties.
Hugo Strange might work, but the Nolan series already had one “crazy scientist turned villian who worked at Arkham” with Jonathan Crane
misterdon 20 Jul 2008 at 10:02 pm 163Nate -
The beautiful thing about Catwoman is that she can simply replace the love interest/damsel in distress, which leaves a lot more room for a second villain than if you tried two male villains.
Hmmm…
Images now of Talia and Selina fighting over Bruce…. rrowwrrr!
MovieBobon 20 Jul 2008 at 11:27 pm 164The MAIN problem with most Batman villians is that most of them aren’t very “super” - all the best ones are just gangsters or theives with nicknames, gimmicks or compulsions. Catwoman is just a burglar with a fetish getup. Riddler is just a thief with an OCD-hangup about leaving a trail in the form of brain-teasers. Mr. Freeze… sprays cold stuff on you (and it even makes sense for him to wear a protective suit while doing it, with or without the “body needs to be below-zero origin.) Fine set of characters, but none of them something you can hang a whole blockbuster movie on (hence why the two films so far have been “big villian, small villian” affairs.)
brianon 21 Jul 2008 at 9:13 am 165i didn’t read all 164 comments…but i sincerely hope somebody mentions the fact that batman does quite a few illegal things (i.e. beating information out of people, illegally surveilling the whole city) as means to his end in this film. Also, Bruce Wayne’s entire crusade is based on vengeance.
As much as those things remind me of GWB, you seem to be missing points of the film that illustrate that going too far, becoming the villian, usually blow up in these characters faces.
So i’ll have to go ahead and disagree on the conclusion that batman is supposed to symbolize GWB.
jbwon 21 Jul 2008 at 3:57 pm 166The backlash is beginning, front of Yahoo askes if Dark Knight is too “dark”?? it scares kids!!!!
JohnLockeon 21 Jul 2008 at 4:15 pm 167“As much as those things remind me of GWB, you seem to be missing points of the film that illustrate that going too far, becoming the villian, usually blow up in these characters faces.”
Batman never suffered negative consequences for beating up Maroni, and his surveillance system actually did help him find the villain and save hostages. So when exactly does the film show Batman going “too far” and then having it blow up in his face? After all, he’s the one being compared to Bush, not Harvey or anyone else.
David Marcoeon 21 Jul 2008 at 4:31 pm 168I didn’t read all 164 comments…but I sincerely hope somebody mentions the fact that Batman does quite a few illegal things…
His whole existence is “illegal” from the outset. He exists specifically because Gotham’s institutions have become so corrupt, the law can no longer effectively operate. Hence his whole crusade, to restore, root out corruption, and pull the city back from the brink.
…beating information out of people…
And I’m sure you would be concerned with a prisoner’s comfort while he held information about people who were going to be killed.
…illegally surveilling the whole city…
To find a bomb…
as means to his end in this film.
I love how saving hundreds of people is “his end.”
Also, Bruce Wayne’s entire crusade is based on vengeance.
Did you see the first film? Do you happen to miss its central theme with multiple lengthy scenes about Bruce Wayne choosing justice over vengeance, refusing to kill people, choosing instead to deliver them to the (uncorrupted) authorities? Or are you just trying to stir up the crap pot by making ignorant statements and seeing if people get angry?
David Marcoeon 21 Jul 2008 at 4:36 pm 169Correction:
to restore justice
To add:
He allows Lucius Fox to destroy the surveillance system at the end of movie, only being used to find the bomb and not to surveil the general populace, which shows that he draws a line.
Stephanieon 21 Jul 2008 at 4:40 pm 170Did you see the first film? Do you happen to miss its central theme with multiple lengthy scenes about Bruce Wayne choosing justice over vengeance, refusing to kill people, choosing instead to deliver them to the (uncorrupted) authorities? Or are you just trying to stir up the crap pot by making ignorant statements and seeing if people get angry?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I choose this. Why else would anyone say what Brian said….
brianon 21 Jul 2008 at 11:06 pm 171It just seems like people are being a little selective with their comparisons.
At least batman stops surveilling the entire city on his own.
Possible Spoiler (you may not want to read if you haven’t seen the movie): Regarding beating the joker to get information…correct me if i’m wrong, but didn’t the joker lie to him? Maybe it’s just me…but that situation didn’t pan out too well.
I just find something strange about people comparing a president to a vigilante who acts OUTSIDE of the law, and then act like that reflects well on the president.
I’ll give you the point regarding vengeance though…the line between vengance and justice is more well defined in the movies than it is in the books. I was probably basing that more on the books.
David Marcoeon 21 Jul 2008 at 11:27 pm 172Possible Spoiler (you may not want to read if you haven’t seen the movie): Regarding beating the joker to get information…correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t the joker lie to him? Maybe it’s just me…but that situation didn’t pan out too well.
He switched the addresses they were at, but gave the addresses. Of course, the Joker is a rather unique personality, so most of the rules go out the window with him anyway. Still, I don’t see you providing an alternative to what he did, or showing how their lives could have been saved without trying something. Note I am not talking about advocating torture, but that in the middle of a life or death situation, with minutes on the clock, the prisoner’s total physical comfort is going to be a distant concern.
I just find something strange about people comparing a president to a vigilante who acts OUTSIDE of the law, and then act like that reflects well on the president.
Well, aside from the fact that it isn’t a 1:1 metaphor–I don’t see GWB wearing a bat costume–his existence outside the law, which I already explained before, can’t be helped. Vigilantes have existed, historically, where law and order was either too little or too corrupt to deliver justice.
I just find something strange about people comparing a president to a vigilante who acts OUTSIDE of the law, and then act like that reflects well on the president.
He’s fighting a war. Things need to be done in war that aren’t done in peace time. The legal questions of Batman’s actions are confined to his own world and beyond the scope of the metaphor, which you are are taking too literally.
I’ll give you the point regarding vengeance though…the line between vengeance and justice is more well defined in the movies than it is in the books. I was probably basing that more on the books.
Ok, but even in the books he has a prohibition against killing and delivers the criminals to the authorities.
Templaron 22 Jul 2008 at 6:10 am 173Ok, but even in the books he has a prohibition against killing and delivers the criminals to the authorities.
Not when fighting flying vampire werewolves, he doesn’t…
Mikeon 23 Jul 2008 at 3:24 pm 174I agree that the film carried some “giving in to terrorism” themes. But this guy is making unrealistic reaches and passes them off as gospel.
“There’s just no arguing that the Joker is al-Qaeda and Batman George W. Bush.” Hmm… I’d like to argue that.
“The film asks one question: Will Gothamites appease the terrorist?” Oh, is that the only question it asks, Harry? I counted a bunch of other thematic questions posed by the film. Like “what lines is it okay to cross to fight evil?” “Can one’s obsession with justice lead them to be a criminal?” “Will a freakish crime-fighter spawn a new breed of freakish criminals?”
“It’s a film that fundamentally understands that the war will either be won or lost in the souls of those who inhabit our own Gothams.” Dude, I don’t even know what you’re trying to say here. That Joe Average, living here in America, is going to affect the outcome of Bush’s crusade on terror?
“The allusions to the war for civilization George W. Bush is waging and winning don’t stop there. Blown out buildings evoke the World Trade Center.” Wait a minute… you mean every action movie that featured a blown-out building was a reference to 9-11? Did any buildings blow up in Live Free or Die Hard? I don’t remember. But if they did, then it was clearly a metaphor for our post 9-11 climate. With Justin Long symbolizing the CIA, Bruce Willis as G.W. Bush, and Timothy Olyphant a less Joker-ish Al Qaeda.
Dude, this blog does more reaching than a yoga class.
Stephanieon 23 Jul 2008 at 3:33 pm 175Ohhh Mike your so witty I nearly blinked an eye….try harder Mike….yawnnnnn………..
Flopping Aces » Blog Archive » Is “W” the Signal for “The Dark Knight”?on 17 Aug 2008 at 12:14 pm 176[…] also writes in his movie review, The Dark Knight may well be the most conservative movie since 300. There’s just no arguing that […]
Terence Agnewon 19 Aug 2008 at 6:26 am 177Batman is George Bush ? Only if Batman was a lazy intellectually changelled alcoholic drug abuser who has used his position to line the pockets of his puppet masters by plundering everything he can get his hands on . Big oil , Halliburton etc .
I don’t remember Batman starting a false war killing 4000 of his own people and 800,000 Iraqis . Batman also gets his man unlike Bush who let OBL go scott free and while the US had locked down the airspace in the days following 9/11 , where not even one plane could fly except a private jet that flew around the country picking up members of the Bin Ladan family to wisk them away to Saudi Arabia . I would say he is more like ‘ The Joker ‘ Although the Joker is intelligent .
GTO Bobcaton 23 Aug 2008 at 5:35 pm 178I realize I’m WAY late to the party, but, nonetheless, here’s my spoiler-free — and long-winded — review of “The Dark Knight” (a.k.a. TDK)…
GTO’s TDK Review, Part One
There’s a part of me that, after first seeing TDK, recalled Roger Ebert’s 3.5 (out-of-4) star review of “Aliens” (1986), where he said: “[’Aliens’] is so intense that it creates a problem for me as a reviewer: Do I praise its craftsmanship, or do I tell you it left me feeling wrung out…? It has been a week since I saw it, so the emotions have faded a little, leaving with me an appreciation of the movie’s technical qualities. But when I walked out of the theater, there were knots in my stomach from the film’s roller-coaster ride of violence… Yet I have to be accurate about this movie: It is a superb example of filmmaking craft… [Ultimately] I’m giving the movie a high rating for its skill and professionalism, and because it does the job it says it will do [read: terrify the audience].”
The phrase “and the film is damned exhilarating, too!” appears nowhere in Ebert’s review — which was, and continues to be, my experience of Jim Cameron’s masterful sci-fi/horror/actioner: it’s scary as hell, but it’s also fun as hell.
Similarly, TDK is (1) jarringly intense, particularly psychologically-speaking and in its one notable instance of gore; AND (2) incredibly invigorating, particularly in terms of its expertly-staged, Jim Cameronesque action sequences and its clear-eyed message about good vs. evil.
Regarding my 1st point, I must say that TDK is the latest example of ratings-creep, a phenomenon in which cinematic content that would’ve garnered an R-rating 10 or 15 years ago receives a PG-13 today. Although the film is entirely devoid of cussing and largely bloodless, the film’s psychological intensity is vise-like, drawing you captive and holding you there for significant stretches, especially whenever the Joker (depicted in TDK as the most diabolical villain since Hannibal Lecter) lets loose with one of his twisted schemes, such as kidnapping any Gothamite, no matter how powerful or well-known, and forcing that person to read psychotic propaganda messages in Al Qaeda-style video clips that the Joker then releases to the news media.
Then there’s the character of D.A. Harvey “Two-Face” Dent (played by Aaron Eckhart), who switches to his amoral alter-ego after a series of personal, Joker-instigated calamities, including the disfigurement of his face. Nolan and Eckhart do such a fine job of making Dent human and likable, that I found myself dreading his ultimate transformation, not wanting to see Dent become severely scarred physically and mentally. And when that moment does come, it’s a real shocker, quite reminiscent visually of the gory make-up FX from the R-rated horror/actioner “Darkman” (1990).
As a result, there’s no question in my mind that TDK should’ve received an R-rating. Its PG-13 is as silly and unhelpful to parents as when the MPAA gave a PG-13 to “Alien vs. Predator” (2004), in which the lead character drops the “f”-bomb; or “Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom” (1984), wherein the lead villain literally rips out a guy’s heart, getting by with a simple PG.
To Be Continued…
GTO Bobcaton 23 Aug 2008 at 5:38 pm 179GTO’s TDK Review, Part Two
Regarding my 2nd point, Nolan and his filmmaking team deserve major credit for eschewing the Michael Bay route, instead giving the audience action sequences that are both imaginatively-constructed and visually-coherent. This is no small feat nowadays, an era defined by big studios spending hundreds of millions of dollars to choreograph amazing action sequences and then allowing all that work to go to waste thanks to directors obsessed with jittery camerawork, unusually-slow shutter speeds and overly-quick cutting, thereby making it highly difficult to see what has been photographed. Thankfully, Nolan’s approach is more like that of director Michael Mann or the aforementioned Cameron: shoot & cut as clearly and artfully as possible, allowing the audience to know exactly what the heck is happening. In fact, TDK contains so many smooth and beautifully-composed, big-rig-filled car chases that one wonders if Nolan did a Vulcan mindmeld with Cameron & Mann during preproduction.
Furthermore, while there’s been a lot of talk within the conservative blogosphere about TDK’s message, I have no doubt that Nolan & Co. are NOT conservative. In fact, Nolan is probably a pretty typical, contemporary, arts-world liberal in his political outlook. But that only makes TDK all the more remarkable, because Nolan chose to present the Batman character and Batman’s universe in a way faithful to the Det. “Dirty” Harry Callahan-like source material rather than needlessly graft his own politics onto the film’s screenplay. Like the movie “Dirty Harry” (1971), TDK’s tone is gritty and even pessimistic, not rah-rah, with a sense of grim resignation about the fact that the world is filled with evil, unfixable villains who must be fought rather than appeased.
I found the following assessment of Nolan’s film by the N.Y. Post’s Kyle Smith (via Smith’s blog) to be dead-on accurate…
>>> There is no pretending necessary to fear the Joker (Heath Ledger, in a role that is already a screen landmark). It is said of the Joker that “Some men aren’t looking for anything logical, like money. They can’t be bought, bullied, reasoned, or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn.”
How to deal with such a figure? There is no easy answer, and here is where “The Dark Knight” strikes me as a conservative movie.
Liberals live in a world of “and.” Full security and full civil liberties. Universal health care and the best quality with no waiting. A dynamic economy and full welfare and unemployment benefits. Liberals, in other words, live in that scene in “Spider-Man” in which Spidey, forced to choose between saving a tram car full of innocent civilians and saving his girlfriend, chooses both. Liberals live in a fantasy.
Conservatives, though, live in a world of tradeoffs, of either/or. For having this relationship with reality, conservatives are caricatured as grumpy, stingy and negative. Surely all it takes is a bump in taxes on the wealthy and everything will be affordable? Where’s the Hope? Where’s the Dream? Yes, We Can!
“The Dark Knight” lives on a razor’s edge of tradeoffs. In the coin flips of Harvey “Two-Face” Dent there is a message that not only can’t you choose both heads and tails, but sometimes you’re up against a trick coin that ensures you lose either way. >>>
P.S. I saw TDK again a few days ago, and I’m left even more convinced of its greatness. If the Oscar voters have any sense, they’ll nominate it for Best Picture.
GTO Bobcaton 23 Aug 2008 at 7:20 pm 180Re: The Question of Whether TDK’s Gotham City is Supposed to be a Stand-In for: (a) the Entire U.S.; or (b) a Large, Northeastern-Type Metropolis?
Having seen the hyper-realistic TDK a few times now, it appears obvious to me that — despite whatever broader, allegorical messages about America and the War on Terror that TDK’s makers were perhaps trying to send — Gotham City is supposed to mainly represent a large, northeastern-type metropolis.
For one thing, “Gotham” is a nickname for New York City.
For another, the dim view that so many Gothamites take of Batman — after the Joker starts killing people en masse and decrees that Batman must publicly unmask himself for the bloodshed to end — shouldn’t be seen as so alien a turn of events. Keep in mind that NYC and most other big American cities are hotbeds of left-wing thought and activity, where conservatives & Republicans are typically outnumbered by leftists & Democrats 9-1 and “anti-war” (a.k.a. anti-military) protests are frequently-staged and impressively-manned. And this is nothing new. For example, back in the ’80s, there was an anti-nuke/anti-Reagan protest in NYC that drew hundreds of thousands.
As a result, the notion that a significant number of Gothamites would stupidly blame Batman for the Joker’s misdeeds shouldn’t be all that surprising. Sad but true, I’m afraid. Just as it’s sad but true that a significant number of New Yorkers (and those living in other big American cities) feel that Osama Bin Laden’s terrorism is driven by an “imperialistic” U.S. foreign policy.