Batman carries on beginning in ... The Dark Knight

Is the idea that the public can not be trusted with/interpret the truth a liberal or conservative idea?

it's certainly authoritarian. It's like the fucking Dostoevsky's Grand Inquistor speech.

Is the idea that the public can not be trusted with/interpret the truth a liberal or conservative idea?

yes

lol

it's probably wrong to think that Batman is wrongly pursued at the end of the movie...on some level he deserves it....his lack of faith in the people of gotham provokes it. (and his lack of faith is probably wrong...they dont blow each other up, for example)

This is an interesting idea to chew on until I see the film again.

Just thought I'd pop in to add my vote to the "BEST MOVIE EVER" column.

Just saw it tonight finally. STill dazed by the heaviness of it all, but loved it. This might sound REALLY dumb, but the final scene, with Gordon's son calling out to Batman left me with 'Shane' goosebumps. Perfectly tearjerky. Maybe overdone for others, but gave a nice finality, and hammered home Gordon's 'dark knight' speech. Loved it. Definitely seeing it again. And Heath. Attaboy tiger.

saw it a third time tonight. safe to say I won't see it again until the DVD release. begun to memorize too much of it.

still enjoyable though

I'm debating donating another $10+ to see this in IMAX for a 2nd time (3rd overall), if only to enjoy the IMAX experience (IMAX!) w/out a 5-year-old girl in my goddamn row crying after every explosion, gurgling during every key bit of exposition and BANGING HER CHAIR for the final 30-45 minutes. (Morbs wannabes w/ "exposition" zingers can save it for the Film Comment mailbag.)

NB: I will pay $1-2 extra if movie theaters set up in-house daycare for lazy-ass families that think it makes sense to take kids to the theatre if they actually think taking their kids to movies like this or 30 Days of Night sounds like a good way to kill 90+ minutes, for the love of shit.

Kind of stunned this has already made more US $$$ than Indiana Jones after just 2 weeks.

There's a thought in that 2nd paragraph, somewhere...

that sounds as bad as the lady who was making orgasmic noises during every violent scene of No Country for Old Men....my friend and I couldn't stop laughing

but the final scene, with Gordon's son calling out to Batman left me with 'Shane' goosebumps

Hahah, I was thinking about this tonight myself! I'm surprised I haven't seen it referenced around more but it's a pretty obvious nod.

Kind of stunned this has already made more US $$$ than Indiana Jones after just 2 weeks.

Less than 2 weeks even! I suppose I'd be stunned if the Indiana Jones movie had been a truly good film...

LA Times piece on the now standard 'will it beat Titanic?' buzz. I doubt it but you never know; couple of good bits:

Distribution executives have started debating in earnest the potential total "Dark Knight" haul, which already has passed $300 million and is projected to eclipse the $400-million mark on Aug. 4 or 5. Although half a dozen industry insiders surveyed Monday said "Titanic's" record appeared safe for now, the majority of distribution executives placed the film's probable final gross just past $500 million, thanks in part to repeat business from across the audience spectrum.

...

"The Dark Knight" is also drawing a steady stream of repeaters; one rival distribution executive said his teenage kids had seen the film three times. And that kind of can't-get-enough interest has helped start the "Titanic" comparisons.

"We are honored to be considered in that company," said Dan Fellman, the domestic distribution chief for Warner Bros. "But I think 'Titanic' will hold that record for eternity."

...

"This has become a cultural phenomenon on so many levels," said Greg Foster, the president for Imax Filmed Entertainment, whose "Dark Knight" sales have surpassed $16.4 million, a record. "Even my dad [septuagenarian movie producer David Foster] has seen it three times."

that sounds as bad as the lady who was making orgasmic noises during every violent scene of No Country for Old Men

Would've preferred that to College Bro sneaking beers into No Country, muttering to his pals throughout, scoffing vocally during the 2nd half, then pronouncing that the movie SUCKED SO HARD (paraphrase) right after the final credits started.

To be fair to Indy, it's pulled in $400+ million overseas, so Batsy's got some work to do.

wtf was up with those idiots at NCFOM. At the very end, some dumb redneck shouted "piece of sheeeeeeeeeitt!", and the sheep around him almost applauded him. as if they couldn't fathom a movie that didn't have a tidy conclusion where the bad guys lose.

Saw this again last night; it holds up. My reaction wasn't as viscerally thrilled and "wow!" as the first time, but the couple of bits I thought were overcooked didn't bother me as much as I thought they might have (moral black prisoner; Gordon's final speech). I'd go again, I think.

i think the movie goes to great lengths to call into question Batman's methods and motives...if anything i guess the great sin of the movie is that our moral outrage is so numbed in the current cultural climate that batman pointlessly beating a suspect or spying on the general populace, or lying to them "for their own good" that these things are not OBVIOUSLY seen as bad anymore

agree with this 100 per cent. but the bigger problem is that it's an action movie, these guys are being immoral constantly, they kill people all the time! the bit with the spying on people was intensely stupid.

I mean seriously did anyone think "OH BATMAN, FOR SHAME, FROM SUCH HEIGHTS YOU HAVE NOW FALLEN"?

^^ and it is weird, that moral stance of it... and there's a cultural aspect to it as well - Americans (Westerners?) are very bothered by the idea of spying on its citizens but we way out here in "paternalistic, authoritarian" (obvs not my terminology) Southeast Asia just kind of look at that sonar thing and think "Wow, that's awesome. Now Batman can save everybody!". That was my sister's reaction, by the way, and it took her more than a second before realizing that, when Lucius said "This is.. WRONG", he wasn't joking. so yeah it was interesting to see what seemed like an obvious moral argument play out in a different cultural context to different conclusions.

and yes i know this is kind of incoherent and I'm generalizing about everything here - i just thought it was interesting to think about and I'm leaving the house in a few minutes anyway.

My reaction wasn't as viscerally thrilled and "wow!" as the first time, but the couple of bits I thought were overcooked didn't bother me as much as I thought they might have

How disappointing.

Misery guts.

Pretty much everything that's being used as evidence to equate Batman to the Bush administration were the points in the movie where other characters were explicitly saying, "Okay Batman, at this point you are fucking up royally." The propaganda thing with Harvey at the end is a criticism you can level at either political party; it rings truer with the Republicans because they've had the figurehead in office for the past 8 years but don't think for a second that those types of shenanigans haven't applied to every single President we've had.

-- HI DERE

if anything the movie is a giant conservative apologetic

-- roxymuzak

Batman has to make the tough choices in fighting crime/terrorism. In doing so, he runs enormous risks, both political and personal. He isn't perfect, and his imperfections (authoritarianism, brutality, ambition, lack of faith/trust in others) put his mission and his people at risk. But when you come right down to it, he is a man of integrity and honor, and no one else is willing or able to do the dirty work. While he crosses certain lines (riling up maniacal fiends, brutalizing/torturing suspects, domestic spying), he's only doing what's necessary. In the end, he retreats, honorably shouldering a burden of blame he doesn't really deserve, so that a newer, more hopeful symbol can lead and inspire his people. From where I sit, the implications are pretty clear...

Interesting that "brutalizing/torturing suspects" is "only doing what's necessary"....

Remind me again how the first movie ended?

I'm genuinely surprised that this argument (Batman = Bush admin.) is at all controversial.

I'm sure you and Spencer Ackerman will be happy trading notes.

well i never heard this idea until just now.

No one thinks bush is as virtuous as Batman. The moral ambiguity only applies to someone with intentions as good as Batman! So I don't think the film needs to be held to the idea that it thinks bush is virtuous, when no argument or allusion as such is made in the movie. In fact I'd say the film is extremely critical of authority figures, and it suggests that vigilantes are hypocrites. Batman holds others to a higher standard than himself. He is not a victim at the end of the movie. Hence my mention of the grand inquisitor upthread.

No one thinks bush is as virtuous as Batman

I know some people who might disagree with you.

I mean you just as easily read the film as saying that bush has fallen to the jokers level.

Xpost: you're right! But they are nuts.

ryan otm, the parallels were striking & obvious, but a)the surveillance equipment was destroyed, b) george w bush is not fucking batman

I mean you just as easily read the film as saying that bush has fallen to the jokers level.

true, manipulation & deceit also being key facets of the bush admin

A lot of this stuff is implicit in the nature of the Batman character, being as he is, you know, a vigilante. Vigilantism -- at least as it manifests itself as individuals doing what needs to be done to preserve order and the law if the government itself isn't up to the task -- is a pretty conservative notion. But I think reading this movie as a Bush admin apologetic particularly is sorta nonsense, especially as Batman is ultimately at least partially successful at what he does.

You want liberal superheros, wait for a Green Arrow movie.

the thing is some of you guys are reading this ass-backwards - it's like, here we have a superhero, but he's doing all this stuff we ethically object to - might as well comment on it instead of tossing it under the rug. its excusing the characters actions, not the motherfucking bush administrations. this is such a preposterous argument yr making contenderizer

i don't think it's preposterous to think there's a parallel, but it is kind of silly to think this movie is seriously making an argument in favor of bush, even as an allegory.

Thanks for pointing that out, Ned -- hadn't read it. Much more finely nuanced and better supported than my argument, but yeah, I'm basically saying the same thing. Ackerman's point about the essentially Phyrric nature of Batman's tactics and eventual victory is especially interesting. The film doesn't quite condone what Batman does or must become in order to fight the Joker/terrorism -- in fact, like Lucius and Alfred, it expresses strong reservations -- but it does accept the necessity. And I suspect that's very much the way Cheney would privately characterize Bush admin. policies. Not so much that they always, unambiguously did "the right thing", but that they did what had to be done -- knowing full well that it wouldn't sit right with a lot of people who didn't have to make the hard choices.

From the Ackerman piece, regarding Batman's tragic, hunted withdrawal to the darkness at the film's conclusion:

In so doing, Nolan's version of Batman is motivated by moral philosopher Michael Walzer's "dirty hands" argument. Walzer grappled with the problems on display in "The Dark Knight" and proposed, in an influential 1973 essay, that the key to engaging in morally dubious activities, like torture, during times of emergency is to acknowledge their heinousness and, once the emergency passes, accept legal sanction for the burden of saving the world.

there ARE parallels, definitely, & obviously intentional ones (the surveillance thing was whacking you over the head) - whereas before bush you mightve had batman doing that same shit & itd just be like WHOA BADASS now you have morgan freeman standing in their as yr conscience saying dude thats fucked up then blowing it up at the end xp

YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TROOTH!

The film doesn't quite condone what Batman does or must become in order to fight the Joker/terrorism -- in fact, like Lucius and Alfred, it expresses strong reservations -- but it does accept the necessity. And I suspect that's very much the way Cheney would privately characterize Bush admin. policies.

the difference is that one is a somewhat thoughtful take on a comic book movie & one has killed hundreds of thousands of people

What this actually makes me think more obliquely of is the nature of 'Gotham' as a location/society -- with Nolan making the Batman universe more realistic, Gotham shifts from being a generalized representation of 'the city' to something much more concrete, a location in the here and now just like, say, Hong Kong. And where there's an interesting bit of cognitive dissonance lies in what in the movie (and arguably the previous one but even more so here) appears to be Gotham's isolation from American society -- the most we get is the National Guard, and that only towards the end (whereas in the real world we'd now expect the FBI to have been crawling all over this, statements from the President, etc., at least as everything ratchets up further). It's an interesting dilemma that's ultimately insoluble in terms of strict dramatic representation, but it doesn't cripple the film.

No one thinks bush is as virtuous as Batman. The moral ambiguity only applies to someone with intentions as good as Batman! So I don't think the film needs to be held to the idea that it thinks bush is virtuous, when no argument or allusion as such is made in the movie. In fact I'd say the film is extremely critical of authority figures, and it suggests that vigilantes are hypocrites. Batman holds others to a higher standard than himself. He is not a victim at the end of the movie. Hence my mention of the grand inquisitor upthread.

the difference is that one is a somewhat thoughtful take on a comic book movie & one has killed hundreds of thousands of people

-- deeznuts

It's an interesting dilemma that's ultimately insoluble in terms of strict dramatic representation, but it doesn't cripple the film.

-- Ned Ragget

contenderizer, how should the movie have handled the political tangles it was gonna get itself into? ignore them? ultimately be an anti-batman movie? because of a bunch of cocksuckers in the white house? i dont think so.

xp i dont think it has a negative view of the bush admin

just because the movie takes the time & energy to provoke a little thought & comment on some of the questionable actions of its superhero, the fact that it ultimately comes down on his side does not mean its supportive of the bush administration, it means its a goddamn batman movie

The "goodness" of authority is seen as an illusion that the people somehow deserve to have foisted on to them! Dent's goodness is corrupted. Gordon is good but he does go along with Batman (interesting to note he he decieves his own wife though...worth thinking about)

I don't think the film has to take a side in these ethical dilemmas, by the way! That's the advantage of being a movie.

I do think Nolan is very philosophically inclined. All his movies tend to end in aporias, as well as being pretty pessimistic.

if a movie comes out, in 2008, with an unmissably pro- attitude to torture, wiretapping, extra-legal violence by authority, all in the name of security, bush is in that movie.

I didn't see that movie you speak of goole!

'unmissably' maybe, but definitely not 'unambiguously'

xp

i didnt either

what i really meant to say was 'stfu deeznuts'

you really dont get the idea of making a genre movie & examining that genre w/out subverting it do you

if it helps ,i have repeatedly said that bush is very much in the movie