Batman carries on beginning in ... The Dark Knight

Both. Wasn't it the chihuahua that bit Batman's arm?

Also, say chihuahua phonetically, as loud as you can. I dare you.

i watched Silent Night, Deadly Night last night. omfg

I find people who say "There's nothing to discuss here" a thousand times more tolerable than those who go "WHY ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THIGNS ITS A MOVIE SHUT UP"

Like "I've parsed the ideas here and think they're not worth talking about" is way more interesting to me than "Y U RUIN IT WITH YOUR ANALYZING"

Oh come on. That complaint came up because people were whining that this movie was nonstop Bush apologia, which I personally think is such nonsense that it makes think the people saying it are dumber than I know they are.

after 300 I think a lot of people are now actively seeking out these Bush motifs.

whereas they were warranted there

yeah, it is nonsense. film is incoherent, partly deliberately (in the way that all blockbusters have a degree of incoherence) and partly out of intellectual cowardice and confusion.

i still liked it well enough.

wtf why can't I type

I didn't think the movie was incoherent outside of the "who was Batman trying to save" thing, which was obviously intentional but, having only seen it once, I don't know that I can say that I got what the intention was (ie, was Batman telling Gordon to go after Rachel or did the Joker do a switcheroo?).

incoherent w/r/t having a particular POV or w/r/t not being able to understand what was going on?

batman went to the address the joker claimed rachel was at

Oh come on. That complaint came up because people were whining that this movie was nonstop Bush apologia, which I personally think is such nonsense that it makes think the people saying it are dumber than I know they are.

-- HI DERE, Friday, August 8, 2008 11:18 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

Sure, I wouldn't suggest that it is some kind of "nonstop apologia" by any means. I think it's clear that Nolan is after some War on Terror resonance, though, and as such (intentionally or not) you can read the movie as a somewhat stretched allegory.

incoherent politically (incoherent as allegory). narrative incoherence was not too much of a problem, though they did botch the stuff you're talking about and didn't spend enough time establishing what was going on w/the barges (which was the worst part of the movie anyhow)

joker's behavior made little sense insofar as his omnipotence/omniscience beggared belief, though i guess that's a staple of the genre. for instance if he was after harvey dent during that (admittedly spectacular) car chase, why was it revealed immediately after that he "deliberately" had himself locked up in police hq? so he could get himself out again?

but lots of blockbusters don't withstand this type of narrative scrutiny.

i think the war-on-terror stuff was thrown in, in part at least, as critic bait. not cynically--i'm sure nolan thinks he is tackling big issues, since he's a director that obviously takes himself reasonably seriously and is not inclined to admit to making escapist films--but just the same.... i think critics who take strong positions concerning the film's political POV are giving it too much credit (or maybe not enough credit for slipperiness).

the thing is, the moral dilemma supposedly debated by batman and lucius fox (what a blaxploitation name--guess the character was invented in the 70s so it figures) is sort of mooted by the prereogatives of the genre whereby the superhero is defined by his essential goodness. whereas IRL there's no politician that we can trust, almost by definition, in this way. i would argue, therefore, that the context makes the allegory (as ambivalent and incoherent as it is) useless. i would also argue that anyone who truly disagrees has a very dim view of the film's audience--people know what the moral polarities of these films are, and know that they don't apply to the real world. except, maybe, little children (who shouldn't be seeing this film) and sociopaths.

the moral dilemma supposedly debated by batman and lucius fox is sort of mooted by the prereogatives of the genre whereby the superhero is defined by his essential goodness

that's the point of this series, though: ala miller, it's muddying the waters re: the "hero's" essential goodness. like kenan said upthread (he was speaking more generally, but I think this holds especially true in regards to Bale's Batman): "Bruce Wayne is Patrick Bateman

wow hang on

that's the point of this series, though

but it doesn't convincingly challenge this trope at all! it merely sort of scribbles around it.

and why it should want to challenge it, i honestly don't know for certain. maybe nolan wants to make a "real" movie about a nearly omnipotent vigilante who runs around in tights? seems like he's barking up the wrong tree, and anyways he's not up to it.

let's try that again:

the moral dilemma supposedly debated by batman and lucius fox is sort of mooted by the prereogatives of the genre whereby the superhero is defined by his essential goodness

I think that's part of the point of this series, though: ala miller, it's muddying the waters re: the "hero's" essential goodness. Kenan made a useful point upthread to the effect that this Bruce Wayne is essentially Patrick Bateman: a psychically scarred rich kid who, instead of beheading women, dresses up like a Bat and beats up criminals. More laudable than the former, certainly, but the "darker" Batmans of Miller/Nolan question the validity of vigilante violence to a much greater degree, and as such they're questioning the purported essential goodness of their "hero" too.

bah you've responded to my malformed post lol sorry

they're challenging (mildly, and not convincingly) his efficacy, not his goodness

i mean he becomes a CHRIST FIGURE at the end of the film for fuck's sake

the entire point behind Batman's character is that he is a "good guy" in the loosest sense of the word; the books and cartoons have been talking about the razor-thin line that separates him from the people he's chasing almost his entire existence. He is ostensibly a "good guy" but clearly one cast as crazy as the people he's hunting down. You're right in the sense that Bruce's moral compass is the focal point for his craziness so it's highly unlikely that he's going to go on a murderous rampage. There is a while lot of evil, fucked up shit you can do before you get to the murderous rampage part and most of the movie revolves around The Joker tempting him down that path time and time again.

Also, The Joker positioned himself in the jail so that he'd have the opportunity to take out the Hong Kong dude. It's not wholly realistic that he'd be that successful at manipulating people but that'ns a stylistic choice I enjoyed.

i don't really think they presented bruce/batman as being a sociopath, or at least all the familiar structures of identification/projection were in place with him and there was never ever any real doubt as to the enormous gulf separating him from the joker. i guess i feel like the genre's prerogatives just subvert even the hardiest attempts to create significant ambiguity on this count. (this was true of nearly all of the "revisionist" comics by moore, miller, et al as well.)

and honestly this was hardly a hardy attempt.

maybe i just wasn't attuned to what the film was trying to do, dramatically, with the wayne/batman character. but i feel that the attempts at moral shading were largely manifested in the rather unconvingly little monologues periodically delivered by major characters, but weren't truly embedded in the plot dynamics, therefore they didn't feel very essential or convincing.

sorry for poor word choice, bad grammar, typos, etc.

otm xp

fwiw I thought the monologues were terribly grating and not even especially well written

People keep calling the film incoherent and I don't understand what they mean because I don't think I misunderstood anything in the film? Like, Gordon asks Batman "who are you going for?" re; Rachel / Dent, and Batman says "Rachel", and Gordon gives his men the address the Joker gave for Dent; what's to misunderstand?

Re; Joker's omniscience; he's a very clever guy who's spent six months rigging the city and positioning himself so he can get 'a date' with Batman and drive the city mental while doing it. Yes, it's a film with realist overtones in many ways, but it's still about sociopathic ninjas and evil genius psychopaths; The Joker has pretty much always been painted as an evil schemer and mastermind in the comics, it's how he works; he sets up traps and lets people walk into them. The kerfuffle with the hospital generator and the failure of the ferries to blow up show that not all his plans always work. I also think the cellphone-stomach guy is probably just one of many devices Joker put into play "just in case".

I can't say any of the monologues bothered me, apart from Gordon's very last speech over the montage, which contained two heroic allegories too many. If you want amazing realist dialogue, watch a Mike Leigh film; THIS is a comicbook movie where people blow shit up and debate BIG MORAL DILEMMAS.

Re: Bruce as sociopath - maybe not in classic terms but HE DRESSES AS A BAT AND NINJAS FUCK OUT OF PEOPLE WITH NARY A THOUGHT FOR WHY THEY'RE BEING BAD, and then justifies it by pretending he's cleaning the city up which HE MOST ASSUREDLY IS NOT and that failure to do so, in fact that inspiration of escalation in criminal behaviour, is what the whole film is about; I personally cannot think of much more sociopathic behaviour. Isabelle Huppert putting broken glass in a piano prodigy's pocket and having rape-sex with younger men? That's also fucked up, but in a different way.

THIS FILM IS NOT A REALIST FILM. IT IS A FANTASTICAL ACTION-DRAMA WITH (for many of us) ENOUGH QUASI-CONVINCING EMOTIONAL / MORAL MOTIVATIONS THAT IT TRANSCENDS BEING DIE HARD 4.0. It's as realistic as 24 is.

WITH NARY A THOUGHT FOR WHY THEY'RE BEING BAD

I remember the batman interrupting and chastising harvey dent when he's interrogating one of the joker's henchmen after the assassination attempt on the mayor and saying just quit it because he's from arkham and is mental

I think what Nolan's set up in Begins and hammers home in TDK is that Batman is naive and deluded and that the people in his life tolerate it because he pays them money. (notice: Fox and Alfred aid & abet Batman, they are on his payroll; Rachel disapproves, she has her own job)

The Dent / Arkham nutter scenario is about the only one, and it's also more about not killing him (or anyone) (and especially not leaving justice to chance) than it is about not pummeling the shit outta him with fists.

don't forget in Batman Begins, not too long before he became a vigilante hero, Bruce Wayne was standing in a courthouse ready to shoot Chill in broad daylight.

he seems to still be searching for an identity, after all, it was Rachel Dawes scolding and slapping him that sort of forced him to see the error of his ways, and then he put thousands of motorists in danger just to save Rachel towards the end.

and he does seem to be somewhat careless and cavalier about what he blows up. woulda been interesting to see a Hancock markup on the movie.

"MY HYBRID PRIUS!!!11 YOU BASTARD!"

THIS is a comicbook movie where people blow shit up and debate BIG MORAL DILEMMAS.

right. but, contrary to your mike-leigh-fan strawman, some of us just didn't think it was a particularly good or well-executed comic-book movie where people blow shit up and debate big moral dilemmas. i get the feeling you can't understand how anyone could take the movie on its own pop-pulp comic-book terms and still not love it, but i guess you just have to take my word for it that it's true.

Which comic book movies with exploding shit and big moral dilemma debates do it better? Cos I haven't seen one I've enjoyed more.

Superman 3

for the record amateurist is over-analytical as hell

i liked x-men 2 a lot, both on its own and in terms of capturing the tone and moral themes of the comics. i don't remember if the crow had any big moral dilemmas, but it definitely blew a lot of things up and i enjoyed more than the bale batmans.

people in having different opinions shocker...

i don't remember if the crow had any big moral dilemmas

Did have a dead guy in clown makeup, though.

My post was specifically spurred by darraghmac's "there is no point to discussing this movie" post, which I found fatuous and unthinking

i don't think i've made any such post- i've been discussing the movie for the past week with everyone else on here, so you've either confused me with someone or misread me.

and, as far as summer blockbuster/superhero movies go, it's certainly had a lot worth discussing, so i really don't know where you've gotten that from.

I don't find Mike Leigh's dialogue particularly "realistic."

You're American!

the prereogatives of the genre whereby the superhero is defined by his essential goodness

Ok, this is absolute nonsense. Maybe, MAYBE if you're limiting it strictly to "major studio, major publisher comic book movies," but outside of that, it's so far off the mark as to be laughable. Seek ye one Wolferine for starters.

People keep calling the film incoherent and I don't understand what they mean because I don't think I misunderstood anything in the film.

I didn't notice than when the Joker is shooting at the police convoy from the truck, the truck has the slogan "laughter is the best medicine" on it, but the Joker has drawn a big red S so that it says "Slaughter is the best medicine" instead

also Dent was using the double sided coin and saying "tails you die" to the schizophrenic guy, so he was never actually going to kill him