Posted on 07/21/2008 6:22:11 AM PDT by Perdogg
If the audience didn’t know from the first movie that this was the original/ newer spookier darker meaner Batman then they should have paid attention to the previews. If they didn’t get the hint from the previews which made it pretty clear that none of these characters are particularly sane then they should have paid attention to the posters. If they didn’t get from the posters that this Joker wasn’t the funny crazy but really seriously disturbed then they’re just dumb.
This is a Batman movie. The character has been borderline nuts or worse for the vast majority of its existence. The first movie caught the movie Batman up with the comicbook Batman. The movie was titled Dark Knight. People really need to pay attention.
If the Joker is a pure demonstration of Nihilism and also supposed to be the worst villain ever, then wouldn’t the hero come across as anti-nihilism? And I sort of don’t know about the whole ‘telling a lie’ thing - most superheroes have secret identities, and there’s usually a significant amount of lying and deception involved in keeping those secret (ie, Peter Parker’s spider-man pics that he had his girlfriend or whoever take for the paper and are passing off as his is technically plagiarism or something like that).
Personally, I found it to be an amazing movie. Very dark and violent, and it presents some truths about humanity that aren’t pretty (like that humans tend to not be inherently good, that evil can’t be satisfied, etc) but I think I prefer that to light-hearted, ‘everyone comes through for good at some point or another because of internal warm fuzzy feelings and the villian even breaks down in tears about his tragic upbringing at some point in the movie’ kind of stuff you get way too often. And, overall, it had a pretty conservative message, if you want to view things politically. Not to mention good writing, acting that blew me away, great special effects, good camera work and lighting, etc.
The reviewer is a goob. It’s not a nihilistic movie. It’s very clear in the movie that Batman in the end is a good guy who stands for good things, he’s just not sane, and in this movie has issues with the side effects of being a vigilante (primarily being that the bad guys will fight back). He questions whether it’s worth the additional bloodshed that comes when the bad guys fight back, but in the end he’s reminded by two people and one major plot point event I won’t spoil that it is indeed worth the fight, both because bad guys do need to be fought and because the population is worth the effort.
I’m actually kind of surprised the movie did so well. The real Batman, the dark mean not sane Batman who wears Bruce Wayne as a mask has never struck me as good “popular” fodder. Americans are famous for their love of happy endings, something the non-happy Batman is basically not capable of. I’m not sure what this all says about the American people, I mean I’m OK with it because this is the Batman I like, but there does definitely seem to be a sea change when it comes to American entertainment with this.
To be fair about it, the comic book version of the character was going through a light-and-goofy phase during the 50s through early 60s -- the comics were only just starting to return to their grim and gritty roots when the TV show was on the air.
“wouldn’t the hero come across as anti-nihilism”
Not necessarily, he could simply be an adversary with different goals. Also secret identities or keeping a personal secret is different than a “the end justifies the means” motive.
“it presents some truths about humanity that aren’t pretty (like that humans tend to not be inherently good,) “
The themes that humans aren’t good and humans are inherently evil are exactly what I expect a nihilistic world view to present for both the good and the bad guys. I guess I’ll see.
I hope you’re correct. That is a movie I’d like to see. One of the themes of nihilism is that it’s corrosive effects destroy the good around it. These reviews saying Batman tortures someone and Batman lies (the “good” Batman can only fight evil with evil) are pretty much in line with that thinking. Hopefully it’s not true.
I don’t remember Batman torturing anybody, Harvey Dent does a little but not as much as it appears. Other than the normal lies one must make in order to protect a secret identity and have a secret plan within a seriously corrupt police force Batman’s only lie is to protect someone’s public image, and in the course of that lie he makes a major sacrifice. I can’t get deeper into it without completely blowing the ending but it’s definitely not nihilistic.
The humans not being INHERENTLY good part of the story (emphasis for importance) is a big part of the story of the redemption of the city. There’s a big situation where people CHOOSE good because the people of Gotham are learning to be good people. One of the big themes of the movie is that Batman and Dent (the Dark Knight and the White Knight) are leading a moral revival of the city. Prior to the first movie the citizens of Gotham accepted rampant crime, a corrupt police force and terrible living conditions, during the course of this movie they’re learning to not accept these things, to do good, to fight back, learning they can be something other than a criminal or a victim.
“but it wasn’t just one review - the ‘cool’ crowd is reveling in the way ‘good’ is pulled down to the level of ‘evil’”
The “cool crowd” is a bunch of idiots with little comprehension. I remember when people lamented falling eading comprehension. These dopes exhibit failing watching comprehension.
Without giving any spoilers, yes, one good guy does fall. That’s life, isn’t it? Good people sometimes fail to stay good. (Someone once said something about this, all people being flawed - I think he used the word sinners - and needing redemption?) Batman, though, refuses to “fall” and puts good above all else, even himself. Others do, too. Trust the “cool crowd” libdims to miss that, though.
You speak of Batman as if all of the comics portrayed the characters the same way. They are nearly 70 years old.
Dick Tracy comic strips were far darker than Batman was. The villians and others often died in the course of the stories (1930s-1950s).
Batman comics didn’t really get “dark” until the late 1960s (post tv-show). And they didn’t get REALLY dark until Frank Miller’s “futurist” take in 1986 and other graphic novels.
So this is the “history” for 20 out of 70 years. A lot of “reboots” and “deaths” only to see characters brought back again and again.
Yeah, that Watchman trailer blew me away, too...
Why can't we get a film about the terrorists we fight in the real world today that conveys this message?
Thank you to you and boogerbear. You apparently got something out of the film that the reviewers did not or could not. The left is so busy erasing the line between good and evil and celebrating the erasure that it seems to have missed the message that you two saw in the film.
Perhaps I will even rent it on dvd, thanks to your input, and see for myself.
That’s what science fiction (which comic books really are a part of) has always been for. If you’ve got something to say that might irritate people (like how some people just want to see the world burn and you might have to burn down the jungle to get them), especially when the people that might be irritated control the purse strings, you put a layer of technobabble on it and let the audience figure it out.
Between the politics of Hollywood and the way the terrorist movies they agreed with tanked they’re probably going to stay far way from war on terror statement movies.
What website? I saw Mamma Mia on one site, but it wasn’t very good.
You don’t always have to agree with a film’s moral position to appreciate it as good Art.
Which is true, but I prefer not to be highly annoyed or downright angry after shelling out those prices to see a film. I try to use my spending habits to reward the good and deprive the not good. People like Alec Baldwin and Barbra Streisand will never get a red cent out of me.
This is something that conservatives need to learn to do. The left uses financial boycotts all the time, but goes into high dudgeon when those same tactics are used by the right.
I stated explicitely “The Dark Knight” which is its own title within the Batman World, and is by far the darkest of the batman titles. I did not speak as all of Batman history.
You’re talking about the actions of people off screen I’m talking about the content of the film itself. Which was your initial objection.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.