tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580771530471531574.post2998294979482241832..comments2023-07-12T09:16:45.437-04:00Comments on The Cinema: Terrorism, Criticism, and Opinionism: Observations on The Dark KnightTed Pigeonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04789041055263853568noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580771530471531574.post-32999818687815239022008-08-24T16:39:00.000-04:002008-08-24T16:39:00.000-04:00P.S. I wanted to update my initial impression, I ...P.S. I wanted to update my initial impression, I think some or most of my initial disagreement with you was due to me being in too much of a rush to figure out what you were saying (ironically!). I do not think we disagree as much as I first thought. <BR/><BR/>I think what I was saying about the film not having a reductive political statement was actually very similar to part of what you were saying, on my second read through. <BR/><BR/>I still stand by my subheadings suggestion, and also the film appreciation suggestion, but my most recent beef with the post after reading it again is what seems to me to be a sort of atheist-like wallowing in meaninglessness. As if there is no truth, and everything depends on subjective experiences and ideologies. <BR/><BR/>If you clear your mind of the past and the future and speak from the heart and your audience connects with you with a mind unclouded by prejudices and preconceived ideologies, the truth of what you are saying can be felt in that moment, if you look inside yourself and really ask how you feel about what it is you are hearing. <BR/><BR/>When you say that meaning depends totally on subjective interpretations, that does not ring true with me. Your mind is so addicted to hearing itself tear down meaning and saying that truth is unattainable and dependent on subjective factors, all of which are created equal (so don't bother trying to weigh and evaluate them), that you seem to have difficulty relaxing and experiencing something truly beautiful when it comes along (like this movie, for example). <BR/><BR/>In the words of my social studies teacher from high school, "some cultures are bad." The mindset that says what you think of something is totally dependent on and relative to subjective, meaningless factors is the same thinking that leads to complete moral relativism, for example. <BR/><BR/>I believe if you strip away all the cultural standards and subjectivity there is an inherent beauty, independent of the subjective, learned beliefs of the beholder, in works of art that should not be torn down by a mind addicted to skepticism and self-doubt. <BR/><BR/>Anyways, I mostly was feeling a bit bad that my first post was saying we disagreed when in fact I do not think you were saying something much different than my post.Bennethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15566754924602369375noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580771530471531574.post-61690945851549892932008-08-23T12:41:00.000-04:002008-08-23T12:41:00.000-04:00I thought it was interesting when you talked about...I thought it was interesting when you talked about the target audience of your Internet blog, hoping they were intelligent--I think in YOUR case, your target audience consists solely of people with 20 minutes of distraction-free time to spare in order to read your post word for word hoping to find the point as you hop from your opinions about the discussion of the film to your own discussion of the film, somehow forming a cohesive whole. You may want to consider using sub-headings, so less emotionally invested and less patient readers can figure out your main points in a minute or two. Although I do not mind your wordiness, per se. <BR/><BR/>I like that you have given so much thought to the movie, but as a movie appreciator as opposed to a movie critic, I think you could stand to be more forgiving of your cinematic experiences as they happen--allow yourself to enjoy the movie for what it is, not what you want it to be. In the words of the Beatles, "let it be." <BR/><BR/>Even if we concede that this movie could have the most disorganized, nonrhythmic narrative structure in history, but you shouldn't have these baseless expectations if those same expectations cause you to have a bad time for 2+ hours. There should be enough in this movie for you to have a good time, for your own sake. <BR/><BR/>Personally, when you are grasping "for what end" the movie sets up that the struggle of order against chaos, and what point it's making, I feel you are missing the point--the movie isn't trying to present a discrete, tangible opinion about Bush, something that can be reduced down to a thesis statement, it has bigger fish to fry: The film is merely creating a stage for a timeless struggle that is totally pertinent to the human condition as a whole, and, incidentally, to America in modern times. The Joker is seductive because his opinion, just like Batman's, is very real and very interesting--people are fine as long as it's "all part of the plan," even if the plan is horrifying. If 15 soldiers are going to die tomorrow, nobody cares (because it's all part of the plan), but if the mayor is going to die, everyone loses their minds. The fact that this character could be very angry at the world is not only understandable, it's something we all feel from time to time, which makes it all the more real and horrifying. <BR/><BR/>Anyways, even though I don't agree with every single point you made, kudos for writing such a thoughtful conversation-starter (it was more interesting to read than a lot of the reviews I have come across).Bennethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15566754924602369375noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580771530471531574.post-58280844020863637692008-08-08T11:58:00.000-04:002008-08-08T11:58:00.000-04:00"His notions of ethics seems steeped within a mora..."His notions of ethics seems steeped within a moral universe of good and evil, where there is an absolute order."<BR/><BR/>One of the most interesting aspects of the film, which is to some extent drawn from the comics of Alan Moore and Frank Miller, is the extent to which the Joker and Batman mirror and feed off of one another. The Joker's moral universe is <I>also</I> absolutist, which is why he's continually posing his ethical dilemmas to Batman and Gotham's populace as either/or choices between good and evil. The scene with the boats has been much criticized as a too-obvious metaphor, and it's probably not a realistic portrayal of human behavior, but it does fit in with the film's underlying themes quite well. This scene is the only ray of hope in a film that is resolutely grim and pessimistic in its portrait of society -- and the hope in this scene emerges from the fact that the people on the boats <I>reject</I> the Joker's either/or, good/evil proposition. By refusing to make that choice, they're acknowledging that morality exists in shades of gray. This is something that few of the film's other characters understand, either as heroes or villains. Only Jim Gordon seems to recognize the costs of his outside-the-law dealings with Batman, and in the ending showdown explicitly takes responsibility for what happened to Harvey Dent. <BR/><BR/>The film's other characters seem trapped by their rigid conceptions of morality, and this includes the Joker, who overestimates the moral degradation of Gotham. The Joker's moral absolutism consists of a sustained attempt to make others like himself, to push others across the line that leads to pure evil. He succeeds with Harvey Dent, but fails in a larger sense because most people don't think in such absolutist terms. Dent's transformation does not bode well for the future of Batman, something the film strongly hints at. Nolan is positing that absolutist thinking is inherently dangerous, whether it's on the side of "good" or "evil." The Joker, Batman, and Dent have more in common with each other than any of them do with Gordon and the other citizens of Gotham. <BR/><BR/>This central trio thinks in absolutes, believing totally in their respective ethical formulations, and believing by extension that nearly anything is justifiable to uphold their conception of morality. In Batman's case, his absolute belief in his own goodness leads to his abusive interrogation techniques, spying on civilians, and in the end lying to uphold a false sense of order and goodness. This is all clearly meant to be resonant with real-world politics, of course, but not in any proscriptive way. The film leaves it to the viewer to find his or her way through these ruminations on morality and justice. Nolan never spells any of this out, and as a culture we're apparently so used to being spoonfed -- especially in summer blockbusters -- that our critics have proved incapable of parsing the film's thematic ambiguity.Ed Howardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18014222247676090467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580771530471531574.post-12045454876895517032008-08-08T11:32:00.000-04:002008-08-08T11:32:00.000-04:00John: I think you're right that this movie captur...John: I think you're right that this movie captures the collective pulse of much of the country, in that people who don't ordinarily like to actively reflect on or discuss movies seem to be so willing. I've noticed that quite a bit. Some of this is commercial influence, no doubt, but there is something intangible about it as well. It's as if the stars aligned for this movie to be <I>the</I> movie of the year, if not the decade.<BR/><BR/>Ed: Your comments nicely represent a concise critique of much of the discourse on <I>The Dark Knight</I> in that, even with pieces that aren't taking a stand on whether it's a good or a bad film, they still seem to be looking at the film as if it endorses X or supports Y. In other words, we're still caught up in the binary machine of right and wrong.<BR/><BR/>You're absolutely right that Nolan's exploration of various thematic threads and current policies is deliberately ambiguous. And I think he is insightful enough to know what he's dealing with in terms of source material. We've all been raised on stories of good and evil, right and wrong, etc., Comic book stories tap that collective desire, which is why perhaps it's so hard for some people to see a superhero film essentially that's about ambiguities, about not having answers.<BR/><BR/>What's especially interesting is the progression of these themes from the first film to the second. I believe that <I>Batman Begins</I> was a much more nuanced film (thematically) than it was given credit for -- and the beauty of it is that it really created a tension between desire for the myth of the hero and a disdain for it. Despite all the closure, precision, and overally optimism of the film by its end, it was made very clear that Bruce Wayne / Batman was headed down a path that would destroy him.<BR/><BR/>That's why this new film is so interesting. It seems to emerge from the first film's fusion of these disparate ideas. And I suppose it might represent a new level of the inferno, if you will, perhaps suggesting that Batman's attempts to do good, despite echoing a good moral journey, will only result in more destruction and chaos. Chaos, after all, is like gravity.<BR/><BR/>Batman's "rule" not to kill anyone is what's central to this whole premise, and it may eventually become his undoing. His notions of ethics seems steeped within a moral universe of good and evil, where there is an absolute order. But if the two film's thematic progressions are indicative of anything, it's that these ideologies simply don't work, and may actually result in more coldness and brutality.<BR/><BR/>As Noam Chomsky reminds, where morals are absolute, ethics are contingent. This notion seems to be the core of the two films so far. And that tension comes through in Bruce Wayne / Batman's journey towards being a moral protector.<BR/><BR/>Hmmm... there is <I>much</I> more going on in these movies. Thanks for the comments so far, guys! Hopefully we can keep this going.Ted Pigeonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04789041055263853568noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580771530471531574.post-49456237163908759242008-08-08T10:42:00.000-04:002008-08-08T10:42:00.000-04:00"Unlike in Begins, this film seems to fully take p..."Unlike in Begins, this film seems to fully take place in a more "real" world controlled by fear, where it has become nearly impossible to feasibly envision a hero."<BR/><BR/>Very true, and I think one of the film's great strengths is the way it subtly critiques and diminishes its hero. It's the first Batman movie in which Batman's name doesn't appear in the title, which at first seems like a bit of marketing trivia but in the context of the film itself takes on greater significance. I think in this film Nolan is very ambivalent about the actions of his "hero." Some people have taken the film's ambiguity as simple confusion, and criticized it for not being more explicit with its political allegories, but I think Nolan's ambiguity is quite intentional. Far from being "pro-Bush," I think the film is intended to provoke thought about the costs of ethically questionable means in fighting crime or terrorism.Ed Howardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18014222247676090467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580771530471531574.post-16255075912034610012008-08-07T09:47:00.000-04:002008-08-07T09:47:00.000-04:00Some ramblings:I must say that the film left me mo...Some ramblings:<BR/><BR/>I must say that the film left me more than a little confused in a way. I absolutely loved the film. But the conflict between seeing the film as detached from current events and as a direct comment on current events was one which I could never resolve. I think it works sensationally as a stand-alone film, without drawing any connection to the real world (aside from a certain general nihilism). <BR/> But the film toys with so many issues that can be construed as being about terrorism and the fight against it (out of which the cell-phone element seemed to be the one that was most blatant), that I have a hard time coming to a bottom line about it's implications. The Joker is showing the hypocrisy of everyone, wants to show that man's natural state is chaos. Neither of these have to do with terrorism as we know it. And also, revealing hypocrisy is not an altogether undesirable thing. If anything, I think the movie could have done a better job at making a case for hypocrisies that are crucial to our functioning as a society, and those that are harmful to society. But that's just a small observation.<BR/><BR/> All that being said, I find that the movie taken at face value is a very visceral and moving experience. There were few movies this year that captured the ambition and the yearning for greatness that this one did, and I found that a most welcome respite from the Apatow/Marvel on-slaught of self-congradulation for being hip and ironic and doing their own thing (even though I'm quite a fan of Apatow). I felt a strong sense of storytellers wanting to tell a great story on an epic scope.<BR/><BR/> I do agree that the discussion of this movie has been quite limited...however, I also find, that among non-movie people, the movie stirred a desire to discuss more than just about any other. I had a long conversation with friends of mine -who generally dislike analytical talk of movies- about the question of The Joker's characterization, about how do we come to terms with the fact that we enjoy the psychopathy and murders of The Joker. It was one of the most fascinating discussions I've had about a film with my friends(and, incidentally, it's a topic that I have an impossible time coming to terms with). I don't think we've spoken so heatedly about a movie since we saw Fight Club a few years back.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com