The Dark Knight, a conservative movie, breaks records

Cosmo

Purple Hawk wrote:

http://online.wsj.com/article_print/SB121694247343482821.html

What Bush and Batman Have in Common
By ANDREW KLAVAN
July 25, 2008; Page A15

A cry for help goes out from a city beleaguered by violence and fear: A beam of light flashed into the night sky, the dark symbol of a bat projected onto the surface of the racing clouds . . .

Oh, wait a minute. That's not a bat, actually. In fact, when you trace the outline with your finger, it looks kind of like . . . a "W."

There seems to me no question that the Batman film "The Dark Knight," currently breaking every box office record in history, is at some level a paean of praise to the fortitude and moral courage that has been shown by George W. Bush in this time of terror and war. Like W, Batman is vilified and despised for confronting terrorists in the only terms they understand. Like W, Batman sometimes has to push the boundaries of civil rights to deal with an emergency, certain that he will re-establish those boundaries when the emergency is past.

And like W, Batman understands that there is no moral equivalence between a free society -- in which people sometimes make the wrong choices -- and a criminal sect bent on destruction. The former must be cherished even in its moments of folly; the latter must be hounded to the gates of Hell.

"The Dark Knight," then, is a conservative movie about the war on terror. And like another such film, last year's "300," "The Dark Knight" is making a fortune depicting the values and necessities that the Bush administration cannot seem to articulate for beans.

Conversely, time after time, left-wing films about the war on terror -- films like "In The Valley of Elah," "Rendition" and "Redacted" -- which preach moral equivalence and advocate surrender, that disrespect the military and their mission, that seem unable to distinguish the difference between America and Islamo-fascism, have bombed more spectacularly than Operation Shock and Awe.

Why is it then that left-wingers feel free to make their films direct and realistic, whereas Hollywood conservatives have to put on a mask in order to speak what they know to be the truth? Why is it, indeed, that the conservative values that power our defense -- values like morality, faith, self-sacrifice and the nobility of fighting for the right -- only appear in fantasy or comic-inspired films like "300," "Lord of the Rings," "Narnia," "Spiderman 3" and now "The Dark Knight"?

The moment filmmakers take on the problem of Islamic terrorism in realistic films, suddenly those values vanish. 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.

Leftists frequently complain that right-wing morality is simplistic. Morality is relative, they say; nuanced, complex. They're wrong, of course, even on their own terms.

Left and right, all Americans know that freedom is better than slavery, that love is better than hate, kindness better than cruelty, tolerance better than bigotry. We don't always know how we know these things, and yet mysteriously we know them nonetheless.

The true complexity arises when we must defend these values in a world that does not universally embrace them -- when we reach the place where we must be intolerant in order to defend tolerance, or unkind in order to defend kindness, or hateful in order to defend what we love.

When heroes arise who take those difficult duties on themselves, it is tempting for the rest of us to turn our backs on them, to vilify them in order to protect our own appearance of righteousness. We prosecute and execrate the violent soldier or the cruel interrogator in order to parade ourselves as paragons of the peaceful values they preserve. As Gary Oldman's Commissioner Gordon says of the hated and hunted Batman, "He has to run away -- because we have to chase him."

That's real moral complexity. And when our artistic community is ready to show that sometimes men must kill in order to preserve life; that sometimes they must violate their values in order to maintain those values; and that while movie stars may strut in the bright light of our adulation for pretending to be heroes, true heroes often must slink in the shadows, slump-shouldered and despised -- then and only then will we be able to pay President Bush his due and make good and true films about the war on terror.

Perhaps that's when Hollywood conservatives will be able to take off their masks and speak plainly in the light of day.

...
The dumbest of dumb... comparing a Hollywood movie (which originated in a comic book) to partisan politics.

fuck

Cosmo wrote:

...
The dumbest of dumb... comparing a Hollywood movie (which originated in a comic book) to partisan politics.

I'm confused, have movies never played roles in propaganda?

pdalowsky

can anyone be bothered to read all that?

Cosmo

_outlaw wrote:

I'm confused, have movies never played roles in propaganda?

...
Movies are entertainment. Anyone who forms their opinions based upon movies... well, you make the call.

timsinclair

I havn't seen the film but, to the starter of this thread, its refreshing to hear some clarity on this forum. If the thread is still going when I watch the film, I will join in.

Igivesuchgoodparadym

http://forums.superherohype.com/images/smilies/joker.gif

Purple Hawk

Cosmo wrote:

...
The dumbest of dumb... comparing a Hollywood movie (which originated in a comic book) to partisan politics.

I think the article did a good job of summing up how the movie portrayed conservative values in a positive light.

I don't believe you even understand the term "partisan poltics." but as long as you called the other side dumb, i guess it makes your pont.

mammasan

OK I saw the movie and I can honestly say that I did not see the connection, then again I just went in with the mindset of seeing a great action flick. Since the comparison has been made I will try to comment.
I don't think that Batman was a salute or a nod to the Bush administration for it's handling of terrorism. What I did see is how those in power can easily do harm even if they have the best intentions. The Joker was a product of Batman's actions. Without Batman there would have been no Joker. Batman's intention where pure, clean up Gotham City, but he never stopped to concider what the reaction from those he fought would be.
Not that I believe that the movie was trying to make this point but if anything Batman can be viewed as the US. A self described savior of the planet who's actions may be fueled by the best of intetions but at times end up doing more harm than good.

Purple Hawk

mammasan wrote:

OK I saw the movie and I can honestly say that I did not see the connection, then again I just went in with the mindset of seeing a great action flick. Since the comparison has been made I will try to comment.
I don't think that Batman was a salute or a nod to the Bush administration for it's handling of terrorism. What I did see is how those in power can easily do harm even if they have the best intentions. The Joker was a product of Batman's actions. Without Batman there would have been no Joker. Batman's intention where pure, clean up Gotham City, but he never stopped to concider what the reaction from those he fought would be.
Not that I believe that the movie was trying to make this point but if anything Batman can be viewed as the US. A self described savior of the planet who's actions may be fueled by the best of intetions but at times end up doing more harm than good.

I disagree that the Joker was a product of Batman's actions.

The joker was described as a "terrorist"...evil if you will..

I think the movie portrayed the Joker as pure evil. In Batman Begins, Bruce Wayne became his fear. and he used that against the common criminal. But in this movie, it didn't work because the Joker had no fear. he was just evil. I think this was summed up at the end when Batman saved the joker from death and the joker was amused by this.


But thanks for an honest response!


i mean...why so serious?

yah, that was bad

mammasan

Yes The Joker was pure evil, but I believe that at one point in the movie he stated the he would never kill Batman because without Batman their would be no Joker. Just like without light there would be no darkness and vice versa. One can not exist without the other. Without evil and crime there would be no Batman. But I'm straying off course here. I guess I will just have to watch the movie again to see if I can see the connection the article makes. Either way it was a great movie.

Purple Hawk

mammasan wrote:

Yes The Joker was pure evil, but I believe that at one point in the movie he stated the he would never kill Batman because without Batman their would be no Joker. Just like without light there would be no darkness and vice versa. One can not exist without the other. Without evil and crime there would be no Batman. But I'm straying off course here. I guess I will just have to watch the movie again to see if I can see the connection the article makes. Either way it was a great movie.

I agree with this post...I think the movie did illustrate how good cannot exist without evil...and vice versa...and how the lines are so often blurred.

i again have to say that i normally HATE comic book movies...but batman begins and the dark knight are NOT comic book movies...they are deep, philosophical movies that make us think about broader themes.

mammasan

Purple Hawk wrote:

I agree with this post...I think the movie did illustrate how good cannot exist without evil...and vice versa...and how the lines are so often blurred.

i again have to say that i normally HATE comic book movies...but batman begins and the dark knight are NOT comic book movies...they are deep,
philosophical movies that make us think about broader themes.

It definitely was not just some mindless action flick. It definitely delved into some deeper issues.