July
25
George Bush, The Dark Knight? Be Careful What You Wish For.
Meanwhile, outside Comic-Con, a Wall Street Journal editorial claims that The Dark Knight is actually a clever way of praising the presidency of George W. Bush. One Variety editor says the writer may not know how right he is.
[Posted by David S. Cohen]
Is George W. Bush the Dark Knight?
That’s what mystery writer Andrew Klavan argues in a Wall Street Journal op-ed. He opines that The Dark Knight filmmakers are secret conservatives who must mask their real opinions by putting them in a comicbook movie.
But let’s unpack this a bit. One of the surreal aspects of the post-9/11 world is how much Osama bin Laden resembles a comicbook villain, complete with exotic costume and a fondness for monologues. In a Batman comic, he might have been The Sheik — and in the self-righteous pose he strikes as he plots the destruction of the United States, he is a cousin to R’as al Ghul, the villain Liam Neeson portrays in Batman Begins.
Al Ghul isn’t just a villain, though. He’s also Bruce Wayne’s mentor, the man who teaches him the courage and skills he uses to become the Batman. In fact, al Ghul calls him “my greatest student” and serves as a dark father figure for Bruce Wayne, who seems to be working out all kinds of father-son issues throughout the film.
In Batman Begins, Gotham is plagued with crime and corruption; Batman attacks the mob and saves the city from the Scarecrow and al Ghul’s WMD attack. Yet once Batman shows up, the Joker’s nihilistic terrorism is unleashed. The film ends with Lt. Jim Gordon warning Batman about escalation — that he’s inspiring not only the good people of Gotham, but also the criminals. This suggests Batman called the Joker into existence.
If Batman is George W., should we then conclude that the Batman Begins filmmakers think Bush’s methods inspired the Al-Qaeda and bin Laden? That’s more in line with anti-Bush arguments, including many made by Democrats over the years.
I don’t know anything about the politics of Christopher Nolan, Jonathan Nolan or David Goyer. But I think Klavan misses the point when he writes:
“The moment filmmakers take on the problem of Islamic terrorism in realistic films… The good guys become indistinguishable from the bad guys, and we end up denigrating the very heroes who defend us. Why should this be?
“The answers to these questions seem to me to be embedded in the story of The Dark Knight itself: Doing what's right is hard, and speaking the truth is dangerous. Many have been abhorred for it, some killed, one crucified.”
This brings to mind one of the most unsettling scenes in The Dark Knight, in which Batman beats up the Joker in the police interview room as the police look on, hoping to force him to reveal what he’s done with good guys Harvey Dent and Rachel Dawes.
My first reaction to the scene, which has been endlessly reproduced in publicity photos, was that it was a huge visual blunder. Batman looks cool and sinister at night, in the shadows; in the harsh light of the interview room, he looks ridiculous.
But then I thought more about the scene. As Batman confronts the Joker, the film cuts away to the police, the normal people, watching them from the other side of the one-way mirror — just as we, the audience, are watching Batman and the Joker through the movie screen.
This is also the scene in which the Joker taunts Batman: “What would I do without you? You complete me,” and warns, “To them, you’re just a freak. Like me.” Those words may come from the mouth of the villain, but the filmmaking suggests the Joker has, like a Shakespearean fool on PCP, hit on a harsh truth: Batman has more in common with his killer-clown foe than with the normal people he means to protect.
So should we conclude The Dark Knight argues that Bush and bin Laden are two sides of the same coin? If so, the Nolans actually come down somewhere to the left of Michael Moore.
In fairness to Goyer and the Nolans, I also think that The Dark Knight is the Act II of a three-act play. It’s a helluva second act, but I sure hope that in Act III they’re going to take a clearer point of view, rather than just asking provocative questions.
Subscribe to this blog's feed
I don't get it. What is exactly that one sees in this movie?
It satisfies the basic need of the american audience for explosions, fights, bloodshed and a very basic representation of good and evil (important to maintain the lack of grey areas in the perception of the world around us), but it adds a micro touch of something ever so slightly high browish as the question of the cost of enforcing ones values (without actually questioning those values themselves) and critics are raving about the "auteurship" of the movie. Have the standards been lowered so much that it is now enough to make a super hero waver inside for critics to think they have found "novelty" and brains in an otherwise mindless entertainement?
Is that enough to shadow the fact that the film is too long, disjointed, poorly acted (except by the one actor who is covered in makeup), and brushes over every issue it raises?
I just don't get it. Entertainement is entertainement. This is entertainement. Judging it as anything else will not save critics from their position in the Hollywood system.
Posted by: Alex | July 25, 2008 at 04:14 PM
I dunno David. Your analysis stretches the facts a little too much. Al Qaeda and Bin Laden were active way before the Bush years began, and certainly way before 9/11. I think you missed the point of Klavan's column.
On the other hand, I think you read the movie correctly.
Posted by: Other Alex | July 25, 2008 at 04:29 PM
Not exactly a hot news flash. How is Batman different in this regard from, for example, Jack Bauer? The theme of the good man who has to "become what [he] beheld" in order to protect civilization is one of the oldest in American movies. Most of the greatest Westerns make the same point, including, most famously, "The Searchers." It's an aspect of the tragedy of the pioneer hero who must become half savage himself in order to defeat savagery: he will never be welcome in the new society he helps create. IOW, Mr. Cohen is re-inventing the wheel, film-critically speaking.
Posted by: David C | July 25, 2008 at 05:13 PM
This is a well-reasoned, interesting piece, but I couldn't possibly disagree more with the conclusion:
"...I sure hope that in Act III they’re going to take a clearer point of view, rather than just asking provocative questions."
Real art, which "The Dark Knight" at least tries to gesture toward, is all about asking provocative, sometimes uncomfortable questions. You're right that the film explores the essential similarities between ruthless evildoing and ruthless crime fighting. This will not make conservatives comfortable. But it also calls into question whether it's sometimes right to torture and brutalize and spy on people, and maybe even allow innocent people to die, in order to serve the greater good. For us Bush-haters, this is an uncomfortable position to see a hero in. But the film doesn't tell you what's okay and what isn't. If it did, then it would be in solid Sean Hannity or Michael Moore territory, and therefore a "message movie," as opposed to what it is now, an interesting, ambiguous movie that merits repeat viewings.
Propagandists draw straightforward conclusions; artists pose questions.
Posted by: Mr. Pudding | July 25, 2008 at 07:09 PM
"My first reaction to the scene, which has been endlessly reproduced in publicity photos, was that it was a huge visual blunder. Batman looks cool and sinister at night, in the shadows; in the harsh light of the interview room, he looks ridiculous."
And that's the point, isn't it? Here we have a character, a superhero, revealing his impotance. Not only does he look the fool, but ***SPOILER WARNING***
.
.
.
even once he's managed to gain some apparent control, its revealed that he's failed yet again, tricked into performing the very opposite action of his intentions. For all Batman's bravado, once he's in the garish light of the day (or interrogation room), he's just a man in a mask, the very image derrided by al Ghul in the first film.
It seems very clear to me that we are still in the midst of an origin arc with these first few movies. Despite all his efforts, Batman is still just a vigilantte. It seems Nolan is confronting the very notion that a genuine superhero could exist in our world, and he's exploring that idea over the course of several films. It we follow that trajectory, then it seems likely the third film will finally address the ultimate question: whether Batman will take on a life of his own, or whether, in the end, he's really just Bruce Wayne in a costume effacing a menacing growl.
Do themes like this have a current events relevence? Of course. As does all good art. Does that mean we're watching a concious allegory of the times? Why should it have to? That we can still find relevence in the works of Shakespeare suggests that the best works will always be topical, because human nature, despite whatever situations we find ourselves in, remains the same.
Posted by: Smokeblue | July 26, 2008 at 07:33 AM
From one David C. to another:
I could not disagree more with your disagreement. Artists inherently have a point of view, and a work of art inherently expresses that point of view. The "it's only the artist's job to ask questions" idea describes the storytelling of many large-budget films, in part because scripts that go through studio development, rewrites from multiple writers and testing before final cut, almost always dilute whatever point of view they may have started with. But for an artist to take that stand is, I think, rather timid.
The history of art has many more masterpieces that challenge the audience with a point of view than simply ask questions. Picasso's Guernica doesn't ask whether it is right to bomb civilians, it's a scream of protest. Goya's engravings are as well. Moliere's "Tartuffe" doesn't inquire about the morality of hypocrites who use religion for venal ends, it exposes them to ridicule.
Going back to the very earliest roots of drama, "Agamemnon" and "Oedipus Rex" show the dangers of hubris -- they don't just ask whether overweaning pride might be bad and whether some measure of humility might be good; they take a stand. The art is a vehicle for illustrating the artist's point of view.
In that respect, I'd argue that making art -- and perhaps writing most of all -- is a fundamentally aggressive act. It is an attempt to make the viewer/listener/audience see the world through the artist's eyes. It is meant to provoke and persuade, to make someone else feel and think what the artist feels and thinks.
I think the storytellers of this Batman saga have done something admirable. They've taken a well-established modern equivalent of a Greek hero, the Batman, and used him as a vehicle to explore important issues for our time. Over acts I and II, they've raised a lot of great questions. But I look to artists to, as Alfred says, "be the outcast," to say the difficult thing. This is exactly what Klavan thinks the "Dark Knight" filmmakers have done. My point is that their point of view on these issues is far from clear some five hours into the saga.
My wife thinks -- and she may well be right -- that the Batman filmmakers are really exploring the nature of true heroism rather than anything specific to the war on terror. If that is their real interest, then their point of view is actually fairly clear: Heroism demands conquering your fear, putting aside your ego and giving up everything, even your good name if need be, for the greater good. Those are answers, not questions.
Posted by: David Cohen | July 26, 2008 at 11:33 AM
George W. Bush can't be The Dark Knight, since the latter is competent.
Posted by: Tom | July 26, 2008 at 04:49 PM
I would just like to quickly point out all the allegories between Batman and our current political situation with the war on terror: wiretapping, torture, videotaping hostages, kidnapping foreigners without due process, blowing up buildings using 9/11 imagery, along with the Joker's other acts of terorism and lack of motivation (other than pure hatred). There are also whole allegorical scenes in the movie such as the ferries (pre-emptive strike) and the public demanding batmans unmasking (Americans wanting an end to the Iraq War). If someone wants to respond back with an alternative reason why these themes would be present in the movie, I will keep an open mind to consider their point of view. As far as I can see though, all these plot points are used to justify Bush's unlawful and deceitful policies. Bush is a bad president because he has lied about the threat of Iraq in order to go to war there, he has set up secret off-shore prisons to torture people for information, and he has broken the law by wiretapping American citizens. This movie is wrong because the allegory it presents praises Bush's actions as a necessary evil, instead of criticizing him for his unconstitutional policies. Thank you for reading this and I would enjoy further dialogue on the subject.
Posted by: Joe | July 26, 2008 at 10:35 PM
I agree with what you have written. I think that these allegories can very easily change into whatever anyone wants them to be. If you want check my analysis at http://www.encefalus.com
Posted by: Encefalus | July 27, 2008 at 12:33 PM
To Encefalus,
I read your article on your website, but I don't think you portrayed the debate accurately. I would like to quote you when you say:
"Just like paranoids use abductive reasoning to conclude that everyone is after them, so the author of that article concluded that Batman is George Bush...I believe such parallelism to be of the extreme kind...It’s easy to prove anything in that whole "allegory" context."
First, you compare those who see the Bush/Batman parallel to "paranoids", which I think is an effort to discredit those who disagree with your assessment. I don't believe that seeing a Bush/Batman parallel is "extreme", because wiretapping, torture, videotaping hostages, Joker as terrorist, and lying to the public, are all themes that are blatantly obvious within the movie. Finally, you say that it's hard to prove anything in "that whole allegory context". I don't see your view as accurate for a number of reasons. The Joker wasn't the one using wiretapping. Batman wasn't the one who was using terror. The parallels were very clearly drawn, but you dismiss them without backing up your arguements. I have tried to consider your website article with an open mind, and I found some parts interesting, but the conclusions you readh are flawed in my opinion, though I would like to talk about this with you further.
Posted by: Joe | July 27, 2008 at 06:01 PM
I have a question:
Why does the Joker wire Gotham General with hundreds of finely timed
explosives, in order that he can later set them off by remote control ?
Wouldn't it be far more expedient to fly a small plane (presumably also by remote control) into the top floor of the building, initiating a 'pancake collapse'?
I don't think the Joker is meant to represent Bin Laden. If he were, wouldn't he use the same methodology, rather than the methodology proposed by 'Loose Change', 'Zeitgeist', et al ?
I think you're all missing the point.
Posted by: Theodore Trout | July 28, 2008 at 02:54 PM
To Trout:
I think there wer many allegories that linked Joker with the stereotypical terrorist. Joker videotapes his hostages right before he kills them. Joker never explains his motivations, but is driven by pure hatred of Batman. Joker blows up buildings and the film uses 9/11 imagery to link Joker with terrorism. Joker is even described as a "terrorist" within the movie. It is for these reasons that I find the Joker was an allegory for the stereotypical Islamic fundamentalist. I hope that helps to answer some of your questions.
Posted by: Joe | July 29, 2008 at 12:17 AM
I think that much of the imagery joe pointed out was definitely to remind us of the US's current involvement with terror. I think the director's DO want us to consider, "what if gotham = the USA, batman = the current administration, joker = a terrorist threat."
I DON'T think they intend to come down on one side or the other, or that they need to. Given the threat posed to Gotham by a foe that seemingly can't be reasoned with or bought out, what should they do? What kind of hero is required? The question is similar to the one for the USA, so some of the answers they try are similar. The film's characters are divided over what ways are acceptable; and not just what ways, but what PHILOSOPHY of dealing with the threat.
I think some people are saying this movie is pro-Bush merely because it sympathetically shows why someone might make the choices the Bush administration has made. I applaud that move, even while I oppose Bush's (and Batman's) decisions. The movie did not condone Batman's "bush-similar" decisions. Those who've watched it don't need me to flesh that out here. Suffice it to say that that's taken care of by invoking the story of the Caesar as a framing story.
I think the movie succeeds as a cool action movie. As anything else, it will be successful if it deepens and nuances our coffee table/workplace/bar discussions about real life.
Posted by: jon f | July 30, 2008 at 01:15 PM
I loved Klavan's article. I think Mr. Cohen is looking too deep to put his own left-wing spin on it. I can understand that... the article talks about people who NEED to find reasons to hate Bush. The truth is that good and evil DO exist, and the fact that standing up for what's right will embolden those who "just want to watch the world burn," doesn't mean we shouldn't! I mean, come on! Suggesting that Bush made Bin Laden REALLY shows how you feel about your country. It's so sad.
Another thing-
Much like I sensed the first few rumbles of the earthquake yesterday before the big shaking started, I sense that this country is in the beginning stages of an awakening, or re-awakening, not felt since the days after Sept. 11. As Bush's term comes to an end, everybody is starting to realize how safe they felt with him. And much like the rebelious teenager that vilifies his father only to become close with him in adulthood, the people who vilified Bush are beginning to rethink their opinion about their President. I don't know for sure if what I'm feeling is being felt by most Americans, but I hope it is. Americans need to believe that they're exceptional again.
Trent
Hollywood, CA
Posted by: Trent | July 30, 2008 at 02:28 PM
When I was scrolling through the comments, I noticed a single, very snide one-liner about halfway down the list that I immediately assessed was from a highly unintelligent person that drinks the anti-Bush Kool-Aid. Looking a little closer after 10 minutes, I notice it's the author of this article.
Posted by: Trent | July 30, 2008 at 02:46 PM
Trent:
While I am rarely short of snide one-liners, if you are referring to this one:
"George W. Bush can't be The Dark Knight, since the latter is competent"
that wasn't from me, but from "Tom." The byline appears below the post. I made the same mistake, addressing my reply intended for "Mr. Pudding" to "David C."
I try to reserve my snark for showbiz people, not pols. On this blog at least.
Posted by: David Cohen | July 30, 2008 at 10:18 PM
What kind of a name is Mr. Pudding?
Posted by: David C. | July 30, 2008 at 10:35 PM
What kind of a name is Mr. Pudding?
Posted by: David C. | July 30, 2008 at 10:36 PM
WHOOPS! SO sorry, David! I LOVED your comment. The way you tied this movie in with the earliest roots of drama and compared Batman to a Greek hero was SO interesting!
Posted by: Trent | July 30, 2008 at 11:58 PM
But, as for this one, David: "For us Bush-haters, this is an uncomfortable position to see a hero in." THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THE ARTICLE IS SAYING! That's exactly why YOU are not the hero! The film doesn't tell you what's okay and what isn't??? BS!!! It's a HERO movie! BATMAN is the HERO! Kids are supposed to look up to BATMAN. The movie isn't leaving this one in the air. It clearly advocates doing what needs to be done in times of extreme emergency even if it stretches the boundaries of civil rights. Of course, that work is for REAL heros, most of which are NOT linguine-spined liberals.
Posted by: Trent | August 01, 2008 at 12:56 AM
Intellectuals should refrain from going to comic book inspired movies. The movie was pure unadulterated entertainment. No Bush motives. Batman was acting on emotion of the love he had for Rachel and Harvey and that's it in a nutshell. Did the directors also portray the black actors as villains? The answer is a resounding yes. Did the directors also protray Morgan Freeman as a man with substance and morals? Another resounding yes! With Freeman's character, is it possible the writers and directors wanted to imply he has Obama morals? Don't think so! Pure entertainment at it's best! So-called intellectuals, get a life! All you've done with your intellectual comparisons is boost incompetent Bush's ego referring to him as "Batman".... Please!
Posted by: Windsorwoman | August 02, 2008 at 04:02 AM
Trent: That "Bush-haters" comment wasn't from me, either. That was from "Mr. Pudding," too.
Posted by: David Cohen | August 02, 2008 at 12:31 PM
Mr. Pudding sounds like the name of a B-list Batman villain. Michael Moore could play him in the next movie.
Posted by: David C. | August 02, 2008 at 02:07 PM
D'OH!!! My God, how did I do that TWICE??? Sorry again. Windsorwoman, I think you missed the point completely. Maybe you should actually READ the article.
Posted by: Trent | August 02, 2008 at 07:51 PM
Bush's ego??? WHAT ego?!?! Now, Obama... THAT'S another story.
Posted by: Trent | August 02, 2008 at 07:55 PM
Like it or not people, the symbolism is totally there. The references to terrorism, the unpopular hero who won't waiver, the patriot act etc...This movie is about fighting the good fight, because its the right thing to do, even when it's hard, even when it's unpopular and even when it pushes the boundaries of ethics. The movie represents sacrafice, and the high cost of ensuring a way of life. This movie rocks, and I wish there were more movies like this.
Posted by: Eric | August 04, 2008 at 08:56 AM
Eric, you'll never write for The New Yorker.
Posted by: David C | August 04, 2008 at 04:11 PM
I'm pretty sure that Batman is much more smarter and effective than George Bush so there could be no comparison. There's a reason why hes called the Detective and he is one hell of a built guy with knowledge in martial arts and psychology. Plus Batman is freakin Batman and he kicks ass.
Posted by: Jack | August 04, 2008 at 04:32 PM
Hey I totally agree with Jack on this one which is right above me. I mean come on, how can you compare a movie, [which by the way was a great and excellent piece of art by Chris Nolan], to today's current events. Batman is Batman and his main goal is to prevent crime and deal with the curroption that takes place in gotham city.
I don't know about Bush but curroption is a something that can be related to his current administration.
Plus Batman is a fictional character in DC Comics. I mean like come on, why whould someone compare an actual person to a fictional character which is like I can compare myself to Superman, Wonder Woman, Spiderman, Iron Man all at once.
The best thing about Batman is that it doesnt seem to have any political stripes and it gives on hell of an action packed storyline that was excellent piece of crime drama.
Last words, Bush and Batman have nothing in commmon because as Everyone in the world knows that Batman is hell of a lot smarter than Bush and they have nothing in common.
Plus the Bat signal is a freaking bat signal, not the letter W!!!
Posted by: Larry | August 04, 2008 at 04:47 PM
The WSJ article was spot on with regards to The Dark Knight. Your spin is completely left-wing and uneducated for that matter. George W. Bush has done the best he could for this country given the circumstances. Iraq was a danger to the US, no matter what the liberals say (Saddam had no WMDs, we shouldn't have invaded Iraq, etc.) The simple fact is; Saddam used poison gas on his own citizens (read: the Kurds) and he possessed the ability to do it again. Plus, Iraq was a breeding ground for terrorists. And anyone who tells you different doesn't know the facts. W may not have the theatrical presence of Batman, but what he has done and his choices reflect a lot of what the movie is trying to convey. It isn't easy fighting evil, one must resort to tactics considered unpopular and abhorrent by those who don't have the courage to act, and sometimes one must become the villain to ensure the safety of the masses.
Posted by: MBH | August 04, 2008 at 09:54 PM
To say that Batman is Bush requires more assumptions about the beliefs of the movie creators than is necessarily true.
Lets assume that the Joker = Bin Laden / Al-Qaeda.
Thing is, there are currently 4x as many troops in Iraq than Afghanistan. It is not inaccurate to assume that most eyes and attention is on Iraq.
A movie equivalent of this would be something like... Batman hears second hand that Scarecrow (Saddam) has resurfaced... and is gassing people in Brazil or something. The Joker is the one who made direct attacks on Gotham (US/911), but Batman has diverted resources to go off and chase Scarecrow.
Now, chasing Scarecrow (Saddam) can be totally legitimate, if you believe that he does have Gas(WMDs). [There is a lot of differing belief about this] Problem is, nothing is found.
Of course, nothing like this happens in the movie at all. Comparing it to the Bush situation doesn't work, because people do not question whether the Joker (Bin Laden/Al-Quaeda) is a threat... but they DO question whether Iraq/Saddam are.
In the TDK, the threat is rather cut-and-dry. The joker is a single-direct-unquestionable threat (Joker ~ BinLaden/Al-Qaeda). This is untrue of the current situation. Again... it may be completely valid for Batman to go off and chase Scarecrow (Saddam) [depending on your beliefs], but this is clearly not what happens.
The parallels between Bush and Batman seem even further ridiculous in the following light...
Bush:
The threats to Bush are mainly to his image/reputation (but he is tenured in the White House anyway). He bears little personal risk of life/limb and relatively little risk to his loved ones. These risks are far less than any soldier he sends to war. And the deaths that Bush is ridiculed about are mainly the deaths of soldiers he has sent to war.
Batman:
Is THE soldier. He has personally sacrificed life/limb, and his body and loved ones bear the scars of it. The deaths he is ridiculed about are not soldiers he sends to war... they are people very clearly killed by the "bad guy".
Pretty much most comparisons between the two don't really make any sense to me, as the two situations are completely different in the nature of the ridicule, credibility of threats, number of threats dealt with, degree of personal risks, degree of direct personal involvement, etc.
Posted by: Michael H. | August 05, 2008 at 01:27 AM
Some finer points that everyone seems to be overlooking in this.
- Batman's interrogation of Joker is ultimately useless. The Joker even says so -there is nothing Batman can do to Joker to make him talk. Through the whole beating, Joker is LAUGHING at him. It's only because the Joker wants Batman to play his little game that Joker says anything at all, and then reveals information too late for Batman to stop both deaths. Not to mention, the Joker LIES about their locations - he switches their locations, sending Batman in the wrong direction. (It's significant because Gordon makes a lot of commotion to rescue Dent but "fails" - and Dent calls him on that later on, for failing to save Rachel. Did Gordon want Dent to die? He certainly had his reasons...) Joker could have even just plain lied altogether, but it was more fun for him to give the real locations switched around.
What does this say to us about the reliability of interrogation?
- In the end, Batman doesn't rescue the ferry hostages - they save themselves by refusing, ultimately, to save themselves at the expense of others. They refuse to play the game of the terrorist. The terrorist works on the premise that people are scared of death and will do anything to save themselves from death - at any cost. What does it say about us that in the film, both civilians and prisoners alike are unwilling to kill each other in order to save themselves from death - yet here at home, we're willing to continue sacrificing soldier after soldier in the false hope that this will save civilian lives? Ultimately, Batman cannot singlehandedly save these people - they had to make their own moral choice to not play the terrorist's game.
How long are we willing to play the terrorists' game in reality?
Posted by: mnk | August 06, 2008 at 08:19 AM
Interesting how much the comments above have been about whether Bush=Batman. My point was not that Klavan was wrong about Bush and the War on Terror -- something I wouldn't presume to address on someone else's blog -- or even that he was wrong about the filmmakers' opinion of Bush, which I can't determine. My point was that Klavan's argument is invalid; that is, his reasoning is faulty, regardless of whether his conclusion is correct. I stand by that.
Posted by: David Cohen | August 06, 2008 at 12:42 PM
I totally agree with my man David Cohen. Klavan's argument is invalid because they are both two separate things.
Plus, the bat signal is a bat signal and the bat signal actually looks cool. Who the hell would want to see the letter W, Wman?
Posted by: Larry | August 06, 2008 at 02:14 PM
There is nothing invalid about his argument or faulty about his reasoning. He simply came up with a more creative and thought-provoking piece than you ever will. I think you just saw an easy opportunity to win some admiration from your Bush-hating peers and your Bush-hating(albeit very few) readers. Guess that's why he's printed in the Wall Street Journal while your posting on somebody else's blog.
Posted by: Trent | August 06, 2008 at 04:14 PM
You do raise some interesting points, though. None of them refute ANYTHING that Klavan writes, but it at least shows how you can draw the first movie into the conversation and expand on the ideas that Klavan has presented.
Posted by: Trent | August 06, 2008 at 04:35 PM
Funny cause i just watched the movie and came to the same conclusion as Klaven. The similarities to America's current predicament are obvious. I don't know that the Bush administration/Batman comparison was completely intentional but it's there for sure.
Posted by: Sam | August 08, 2008 at 01:34 AM
"Guess that's why he's printed in the Wall Street Journal while your posting on somebody else's blog."
Yes, and what are you doing exactly?? Besides simply being published does not make you more qualified (we're discussing the symbolism of a BATMAN movie here, not rocket science), nor does it make his arguments immune to criticism in any way whatsoever.
I think there's a serious problem with your arguments, Trent (and of course Klavan's), which is that you take the evidence which supports your conclusion and yet ignore the other side, and consequently the full picture.
For example, you take the earlier phrase: "For us Bush-haters, this is an uncomfortable position to see a hero in" and think 'aha! EXACTLY! end of argument,' while ENTIRELY forgetting the other side of the post to which you refer, which clearly stated: "the film explores the essential similarities between ruthless evildoing and ruthless crime fighting. This will not make conservatives comfortable." So surely NO-ONE should feel smug about their own position, the point being that there's a lot of ambiguity in the film. And as someone observed, even the Batman-Bush analogy is not at all clear-cut, since Batman is very much a true action-hero (albeit also an outcast in an inherently corrupt society), and not simply a politician who sends others to war, gaining much rabid applause in the process from those who should know better...if anything, the comparison reveals Batman to be the far more principled (and sophisticated!) character.
Posted by: Fixthesky | August 08, 2008 at 08:58 AM
The movie talks about the use of extreme, potentially unethical techniques for law enforcement. When it does, the point is not "these things are necessary and OK", but rather, the point is to talk about exactly how not-OK they are. For example, Alfred resigns after use of the sonar spying machine, and insists (with Batman's agreement) that it only be used once, and then destroyed after the emergency has past. These are key differences to Bush that Batman demonstrates, on a background of similarities. This point represents a message being delivered from the political left, to the bush administration, in a new way: rather then the vitriolic criticism a la Michael Moore, it is finally an admission of understanding the value of the techniques, yet immediately followed up by the necessity of checks and balances, which the Bush Administration does not respect. The message is an olive branch, with potential for healing between a world split into two species of politics becoming ever more polarized.
Posted by: Peter | August 08, 2008 at 10:56 PM
Fixthesky, first, I'm not in journalism. I don't aspire to have my words read by the most amount of people possible. A comment is different than an op-ed and an editor for Variety is different than a lowly server/actor. Apples to oranges. Second, I agree with you that no one is more qualified than the other since this is an opinion piece. I'm just saying that to get printed, an article has to make sense and be interesting, qualities Cohen's article lack. Klavan's, on the other hand, is shrewd in its observations and communicated with simplicity and clarity. It doesn't need convoluted explanations. Third, I really don't understand when you say I don't consider evidence that supports the other side. What's the other side? That Batman DOESN'T portray conservative values? I've heard from all the people on this site that disagree with Klavan and I still haven't heard anything that refutes anything he writes (the few anti-Klavan commenters on this board actually ENFORCE to me what he writes). Am I supposed to NOT say what I believe and just say EVERYONE'S right? Constantly in consideration of ALL opinions? Give me a break. Fourth, and this one's big, the fact that "the film explores the essential similarities between ruthless evildoing and ruthless crime fighting" DOESN'T MAKE CONSERVATIVES UNCOMFORTABLE!!! We know there are similarities - THAT'S THE POINT! Batman, just like Bush, has to fight fire with fire when it comes to terrorists. There's nothing pretty about it. But while democrats cringe and pretend they're above such things (in real life, of course - they'll still cheer for the masked man in a superhero movie), conservatives praise these people as heroes. Lastly, what do you mean Batman is more principled and sophihsticated? I mean, he is... especially sophsticated (Batman's a pretty complex guy), but that doesn't mean that W isn't! Who, excluding fictional characters, is more principled than W? Also, he sure hasn't helped with his poor public speaking abilties, but the people who know him know how smart he is.
Posted by: Trent | August 09, 2008 at 03:21 AM
I'm perfectly aware that you don't aspire to journalistic recognition, which is why I highlighted the hypocrisy of your earlier attack on someone for not being a published writer - as you know, it doesn't matter.
And while I value "simplicity and clarity" as much as anyone else, I feel that Klavan grossly OVERsimplifies matters, firstly by thinking in terms of childish, black and white polarities ("freedom is better than slavery" etc) which are OF COURSE obvious to everyone (as he indeed points out), and then implying that because left-wing pot-smoking hippies/fags/infidels(delete as appropriate) see morality as a bit more complex than this in practice, then they are somehow lacking in moral fibre or backbone. I do NOT, as you suppose, think that everyone's opinion is equally right! That's crazy, and would be a form of ABSOLUTE relativism, which you'll find is extremely rare as it negates all values and hence just becomes a form of nihilism. Misrepresenting the opposition so massively in this way is akin to propaganda, or is at least dangerously ignorant. And while I do also have an opinion, I will of course CONSIDER other points of view, even if I end up rejecting them (read "tolerance...better than bigotry").
In an abstract sense, many ethical values are indeed absolute - e.g. good being better than evil (duh). But when you apply them to real life situations, it's far more complex than this, as Klavan, and yourself, point out. This is the point of the movie. No course of action is ideal, and yet we must try our best to uphold some kind of principles, yes? But this is where Batman and Bush differ so hugely...Batman, even when dealing with the most deranged comic-book villains, has a conscience when it comes to interrogation techniques and violence (assuming they actually work), whereas Bush has institutionalised such methods against far more human 'enemies,' who are often innocent. I'm sure there are very few real-life jokers out there, which is why I would hope that such a situation DOES make people uncomfortable, or at least seriously question their own convictions.
That's what the movie is getting at, which is why it astounds me that Bush supporters take this as representing a simple case of 'hero vs. villain'...are they even watching the same movie? Of course Batman is ultimately a kind of hero or 'anti-hero,' but principally because he stands up for the values which Bush does not (despite ranting about concepts like "freedom," which he barely understands). No wonder conservatives look for messages of support in "fantasy or comic-inspired films" - because sadly, they're not rooted in reality.
And, Bush...complex? Principled? Smart? I'm seriously worried you actually think that.
Posted by: Fixthesky | August 09, 2008 at 08:36 AM
Fixthesky - No, they're not watching the same movie everyone else is. It's like they've dipped their toes in the shallow end, and think they've swum in the middle of the ocean.
Posted by: mnk | August 09, 2008 at 09:50 AM
The difference between Bush and Batman is a mattero of looking at both of them differently. Bush is trying to work within the law while Batman is working outside of the law. Batman has his own set of ethics and code but he is still working outside of the law fighting against criminals.
The analogy between Batman and Bush would have to be Bush working as a person outside of the law of the land and that I cant really imagine happening.
Its true Batman sometimes goes far when trying to catch someone or trying to prevent something bad from happening, but he would never resort to killing and as Batman says, "knowing how to kill doesn't mean you must kill"(Read Batmans: No Man's Land).
Bush, well he started a whole freakin war.
You decide.
Posted by: Fix the logic | August 09, 2008 at 11:09 AM
See what I mean by simplicity and clarity? What am I supposed to bring from that convoluted response? You can really see the intelligence of these Democrats by reading their comments. Really, go back and count up the misspellings and you'll see they're almost all from anti-Bushies. I can't wait 'til the fall when Barack Hussein loses. Going to be a lot of angry dummies.
Posted by: Trent | August 09, 2008 at 12:40 PM
Fixthesky, you don't know how to debate! Just like what Cohen did to Klavan, you take a point of mine, say it's crazy, and then proceed to argue against a totally unrelated point!
Posted by: Trent | August 09, 2008 at 12:43 PM
EDWARDS' LOVE CHILD - I LOVE IT!!! You all know it's going to be his, too.
Posted by: Trent | August 09, 2008 at 12:55 PM
Hahaha. Sorry, what exactly is so difficult to understand about my post? I don't think the problem is with my argumentation - it's perfectly comprehensible, but I'm sorry it's not 'simple' enough for you. That's a cop out response, and you know it. I'd also REALLY like to know where my supposed misspellings are...go on, name a few!
I'm not a Democrat, being from the UK, it all seems a bit dodgy to me...although I intensely dislike Bush. That's another example of the pigeon-holing that Bush supporters love so much...doesn't it make life lovely and simple? Us vs. the Evildoers. Democrats don't share our opinion, so they must all be evil or stupid. Brilliant! Meanwhile, in the REAL world...
Posted by: Fixthesky | August 09, 2008 at 03:16 PM
Fixthesky, you certainly are a fantastic speller (wasn't referring to you), but your writing is a bit "dodgy." Try using less adjectives and modifiers, and avoid phrases like "In an abstract sense." Not that I can't follow what you write, it's just difficult for me to WANT to read it. As your friend Bill Shakespeare once said: "Brevity is the soul of wit."
I'm not going to go over every error in your argument because, frankly, I think it's a big waste of time. I know I'm just going to get another loaded response with references to absolute relativism and nihilism (both of which I understand, but make me feel as if I'm speaking to an 80-year-old college professor that never gets laid and smells like cabbage). Besides that, you're a Brit! You don't even vote! If I knew that I never would've responded to you in the first place.
Go ask Tony Blair or any other dignitary how smart Bush is, besides the kooks like Chavez and Ahmadinejad. Even the democrats that know him know that he is very smart. That's their dirty little secret.
As for the whole opinion thing, I was meeting you halfway in your statement "simply being published does not make you more qualified" to say that everyone is entitled to their opinion. You twisted that into something brilliant.
And stop just arguing that things are COMPLEX! Life is complex, and so is the art that represents it. It's a cop-out for you to say that we conservatives don't recognize the complexity of things.
We are, after all, talking about GENERAL UNDERLYING themes of the movie. And those themes are obviously CONSERVATIVE, no matter how much "complex consideration" (two words you love) has gone into it. You don't know what's in Bush's brain. You don't know how difficult it was for him to make these life and death decisions that affect the whole world! Biggest decision you ever have to make is crumpet or scone.
I'd really like for you to just give me one simple statement that describes the position of this "other side" you refer to, because you have simply, or very complexly I should say, argued NOTHING so far! When I read Klavan's article and then come back to scan this drivel, it's not hard to see where the intelligence lies!
Oh, and one more thing: Stop being so naive. There are real life Jokers in every city. I don't know about your little neighborhood in jolly ol' England, but we have no shortage of monsters here that would not think twice about taking your life. You can bet there are worse in darker corners of the world.
And what's this about not considering
Posted by: Trent | August 09, 2008 at 07:01 PM
Real-life CHINESE Joker just killed one of my fellow Minnesotans at the Olympics today...
Posted by: Trent | August 09, 2008 at 07:47 PM
...or maybe the knifeman that threw himself off the tower was just a henchman and the real Joker is still out there. I'm just saying it smells fishy.
And you want to talk about unethically starting a war? Look at your Russian friends. Where's the world hatred against Medvedev and Putin? I'm sure they had a GREAT reason to go to war and take the lives of all those innocent Georgians.
Jon Voight rocks!http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jul/28/voight/
Posted by: Trent | August 09, 2008 at 08:06 PM