Posted: Tue Jul 29, 2008 6:43 pm
I'm with Luci, it's a COMIC BOOK movie. Made for entertainment and moneymaking purposes. SHEESH. 
Kevin's Watch
Official Discussion Forum for the works of Stephen R. Donaldson
https://kevinswatch.com/phpBB3/
The Dark Knight: Tomatometer 94%
Page 8 of 12
Posted: Tue Jul 29, 2008 6:48 pm
I caught a review on TBS (The Trinity Broadcasting Station) by mistake yesterday, this big guy was almost cowering as he listed some reasons, that had nothing to do with the comic, why he disliked the movie-he made no sense at all, but you could see him saying, behind his eyes, "The Joker is evil, Batman is evil you'll burn in hell if you see this movie." It was tremendously weird, to say the least...
Posted: Tue Jul 29, 2008 6:51 pm
This movie, like onions and parfait, has layers. We don't all need to see or appreciate all the layers to like or dislike the movie. Is it a popcorn flick? Art? Political commentary? Social chastisement? A blend?
Seeing and analyzing the deep political layer can either enhance or ruin the experience - and that's a matter of taste.
Perception is reality, and we all filter those perceptions through our own views, misgivings, prejudices, expectations, interests, slants, etc.
And sometimes a movie is just a movie - unless it's an expertly packaged vehicle to push the typical liberal Hollywood apologist agenda.
dw
Seeing and analyzing the deep political layer can either enhance or ruin the experience - and that's a matter of taste.
Perception is reality, and we all filter those perceptions through our own views, misgivings, prejudices, expectations, interests, slants, etc.
And sometimes a movie is just a movie - unless it's an expertly packaged vehicle to push the typical liberal Hollywood apologist agenda.
dw
Posted: Tue Jul 29, 2008 6:51 pm
(Replace the ' with %27; and it will work ... doesn't everyone know that?Cail wrote:Meh. I futzed with it too, I can't get it to work.
[link])Posted: Tue Jul 29, 2008 6:54 pm
"Excuse me, stewardess, I speak ASCII."wayfriend wrote:(Replace the ' with %27; and it will work ... doesn't everyone know that?Cail wrote:Meh. I futzed with it too, I can't get it to work.
Posted: Tue Jul 29, 2008 7:01 pm
No, some of us like women....wayfriend wrote:(Replace the ' with %27; and it will work ... doesn't everyone know that?Cail wrote:Meh. I futzed with it too, I can't get it to work.
Posted: Tue Jul 29, 2008 7:17 pm
Cail wrote:No, some of us like women....wayfriend wrote:(Replace the ' with %27; and it will work ... doesn't everyone know that?Cail wrote:Meh. I futzed with it too, I can't get it to work.
Posted: Tue Jul 29, 2008 7:50 pm
I know it's "just" a comic book movie. However, I think you sell it short to insist that it can't be something *more.*
There was a reason Nolan abandoned the CGI fantasy Gotham of the previous film, and replaced it with real cityscapes from Chicago and Hong Kong. He invites us, with this imagery, to root this comic book story in our experience with the real world. And when you have main characters comparing the vigilante quest for justice with real-world fallen dictatorships like Rome, I think it's impossible to say that the director/writers didn't want us to take this comparison right back to the real world from which the fictional characters borrowed it. If they didn't want us to make these kinds of comparisons, why would they have their fictional characters make judgments and comparisons with real world history? The writers have already crossed this divide for us. I can't believe their conclusions could only be said to apply within the fictional world.
Sure, Tolkien could get away with saying LotR wasn't allegorical. But then, you never had a scene where Frodo was telling Sauron that he was worse than Hitler.
There was a reason Nolan abandoned the CGI fantasy Gotham of the previous film, and replaced it with real cityscapes from Chicago and Hong Kong. He invites us, with this imagery, to root this comic book story in our experience with the real world. And when you have main characters comparing the vigilante quest for justice with real-world fallen dictatorships like Rome, I think it's impossible to say that the director/writers didn't want us to take this comparison right back to the real world from which the fictional characters borrowed it. If they didn't want us to make these kinds of comparisons, why would they have their fictional characters make judgments and comparisons with real world history? The writers have already crossed this divide for us. I can't believe their conclusions could only be said to apply within the fictional world.
Sure, Tolkien could get away with saying LotR wasn't allegorical. But then, you never had a scene where Frodo was telling Sauron that he was worse than Hitler.
Posted: Tue Jul 29, 2008 9:37 pm
There's also the fact that if it were allegorical, the story would have been drastically differentMalik23 wrote: Sure, Tolkien could get away with saying LotR wasn't allegorical. But then, you never had a scene where Frodo was telling Sauron that he was worse than Hitler.
Posted: Tue Jul 29, 2008 9:59 pm
OK, good review.
The connection to the current American regime makes sense to me, though I still don't see anything more than a passing reference to 9/11 itself.
The connection to the current American regime makes sense to me, though I still don't see anything more than a passing reference to 9/11 itself.
Posted: Tue Jul 29, 2008 11:06 pm
This is the supposed 'explicit' link the guy makes??:
And the Joker collecting hostages and setting off bombs is another link to 9/11?? Because, that's never been done in either any other film before, or by anyone else in world history before, has it?
That review was borderline pathetic.
None of the themes TDK deals with are anything new. They've been swimming around in various forms for a long, long time. Rigel makes an excellent point re: Nietzche. If it hadn't been used by so many other films before, starting TDK off with the famous "If you look long into the abyss, the abyss also looks into you" quote would have been entirely appropriate. Sure, the ideas of corruption of supposedly 'just' causes have been common in the media since 9/11, and I wouldn't be surprised if - in some small way - they may have indirectly inspired the film makers, however, that reviewer's parallels are staggeringly paper-thin.
So, one of the most common ways to open a big-budget film with a contemporary urban setting (a slow pan, on high, of a cityscape) is a statement on 9/11? Jesus. That's the best this guy has to offer?Nolan explicitly signals the connection in the opening shot - a camera, like a silent plane, flies towards the window of a skyscraper. And, for its chief villain, we have the Joker (Heath Ledger), who collects hostages and sets off bombs.
And the Joker collecting hostages and setting off bombs is another link to 9/11?? Because, that's never been done in either any other film before, or by anyone else in world history before, has it?
That review was borderline pathetic.
None of the themes TDK deals with are anything new. They've been swimming around in various forms for a long, long time. Rigel makes an excellent point re: Nietzche. If it hadn't been used by so many other films before, starting TDK off with the famous "If you look long into the abyss, the abyss also looks into you" quote would have been entirely appropriate. Sure, the ideas of corruption of supposedly 'just' causes have been common in the media since 9/11, and I wouldn't be surprised if - in some small way - they may have indirectly inspired the film makers, however, that reviewer's parallels are staggeringly paper-thin.
Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 12:24 am
Guys, if you want to talk about politics and religion, there are forums for that. This is the Flicks forum, so let's just talk about the Batman movie, okay?
Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 1:26 am
Sorry, Dan - had no intention of making this a debate on conservatism vs liberalism or politics in general, I just wanted to bag what I thought was thin logic on the part of the reviewer.
Here was an amusing article I just found:
latimesblogs.latimes.com/the_big_pictur ... night.html
Just for a laugh, I decided to type Dark Knight and one other phrase (common conspiracy theory words like aliens, 9/11, homosexuals, nazi, and Jewish) into Google, just to see the number of hits I got. Topping the list was "aliens" with 2,960,000. For an added laugh, I typed in Dark Knight + my real name, and I got 183,000 hits. I was bored, but it amused me.
Anyway, in the interests of staying totally on topic, that's the last I'll say on it.
Here was an amusing article I just found:
latimesblogs.latimes.com/the_big_pictur ... night.html
Just for a laugh, I decided to type Dark Knight and one other phrase (common conspiracy theory words like aliens, 9/11, homosexuals, nazi, and Jewish) into Google, just to see the number of hits I got. Topping the list was "aliens" with 2,960,000. For an added laugh, I typed in Dark Knight + my real name, and I got 183,000 hits. I was bored, but it amused me.
Anyway, in the interests of staying totally on topic, that's the last I'll say on it.
Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 1:41 am
Well, when your real name is Wayne Bruce, you sort of have to expect that type of thing.......Montresor wrote:For an added laugh, I typed in Dark Knight + my real name, and I got 183,000 hits. I was bored, but it amused me.
Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 2:14 am
No, it was merely one of the first points he had to offer. Given that it was the opening shot of the movie, I think it's a fair place to start.Montresor wrote: That's the best this guy has to offer?
I don't think he was arguing that the messages were new. I think he was arguing that they are especially relevant given our post-9/11 world. Perhaps it is inevitable that this will affect people's interpretations (which would make your point that people are reading too much into this), but couldn't it also inevitably affect director's perspectives, too? Do you think it was merely coincidence that he had Rachel talk about vigilante justice leading to dictatorship of history's most powerful empire? What does that have to do with Batman? Was Batman up for reelection?Montresor wrote: None of the themes TDK deals with are anything new. They've been swimming around in various forms for a long, long time.
I can see how it might be standard comic book jingoism to warn that vigilante justice leads to chaos, but not dictatorship. That's a political message, not a standard narrative tradition. And it's aimed at "empires," not Gotham.
When I stop talking about Batman, let me know. If we can't talk about religion and politics in the movie forum, then I guess we can't discuss Dogma or Fahrenheit 911. I'm talking about the symbolism, message, and themes of this work of fiction. Are those story elements off limit? In the Wall-e thread, should we delete all discussion of the social subtext it presented? [Edit: actually, I did make some statements that were way too political for this thread. See post below for apology.]Guys, if you want to talk about politics and religion, there are forums for that. This is the Flicks forum, so let's just talk about the Batman movie, okay?
No one is talking about conservatism vs liberalism in general. We're talking about the symbolism of this movie and how it might relate to the real world. Is it Watch policy that comic book movies can't possibly relate to the real world?Sorry, Dan - had no intention of making this a debate on conservatism vs liberalism or politics in general, I just wanted to bag what I thought was thin logic on the part of the reviewer.
I don't understand how that is funny in any other sense except as an example of missing the point. Did those stories actually have as their subject matter aliens, homosexuals, nazis, etc.? Were there millions of articles talking about nazi themes in The Dark Knight?Montresor wrote: Just for a laugh, I decided to type Dark Knight and one other phrase (common conspiracy theory words like aliens, 9/11, homosexuals, nazi, and Jewish) into Google, just to see the number of hits I got. Topping the list was "aliens" with 2,960,000. For an added laugh, I typed in Dark Knight + my real name, and I got 183,000 hits. I was bored, but it amused me.
Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 2:15 am
dANdeLION wrote:Well, when your real name is Wayne Bruce, you sort of have to expect that type of thing.......Montresor wrote:For an added laugh, I typed in Dark Knight + my real name, and I got 183,000 hits. I was bored, but it amused me.
Though I'd shoot myself if that was my real name . . .
Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 3:39 am
DAn, ok you've got a point. I went back and reread my original posts on this issue and realize that I was being too political, rather than merely analyzing the symbolism. I'm sorry, I shouldn't go there in this thread (e.g. telling liberals they would be consistent if they had reaction x or y, as I did on the last page). You're right that this kind of talk isn't making a point of artistic analysis, but instead one of political baiting. Sorry about that guys! Really.
With that said, I think there are still some valid things to say about this movie relating to our post 9/11 world (which is also unfortunately too political). We can talk about our culture after such a transformational event without pointing partisan fingers, too. And the more I think about this movie, I'm beginning to believe that one particular political slant wasn't intended. It actually presents both sides (and some of the middle), especially with where Batman ends up at the end of this movie. It wasn't strictly, literally a condemnation of Batman, even though that was in there on a one level (think about Gordon's final words and what a Dark Knight is). The thematic criticism of Batman's deception and lawlessness may actually be an illusion just like the illusion set up in the movie's final words. Those words certainly didn't sound critical of Batman, but an acknowledgment of his necessity.
Therefore, Montresor may have a point that the review was trash--but not for the reason he thinks.
The reviewer wasn't seeing the other side.
With that said, I think there are still some valid things to say about this movie relating to our post 9/11 world (which is also unfortunately too political). We can talk about our culture after such a transformational event without pointing partisan fingers, too. And the more I think about this movie, I'm beginning to believe that one particular political slant wasn't intended. It actually presents both sides (and some of the middle), especially with where Batman ends up at the end of this movie. It wasn't strictly, literally a condemnation of Batman, even though that was in there on a one level (think about Gordon's final words and what a Dark Knight is). The thematic criticism of Batman's deception and lawlessness may actually be an illusion just like the illusion set up in the movie's final words. Those words certainly didn't sound critical of Batman, but an acknowledgment of his necessity.
Therefore, Montresor may have a point that the review was trash--but not for the reason he thinks.
The reviewer wasn't seeing the other side.Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 3:50 am
I don't have an issue with what anybody posted; I just would rather you post the political stuff in the Tank.
Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 6:53 am
OH MY GOD!!!! Is it dANaggedan? dAN and I finally agree. Talk about how you liked the movie not about it's potential hidden agenda or meaning. Or it's implied political agenda... the movie, the movie the movie! I loved the way Heath/Joker stopped a room whenever he took the floor. His portrayal earned that with his embracement of the insanity and fearlessness that makes the joker a fabulous charactor.
Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 7:24 am
I was commenting on the fact that the writer said the 9/11 theme/reference was explicit, and that he used the skyscraper shot as the explicit evidence. It's an extremely conventional kind of shot in cinema, and though it might be construed as a 9/11 reference, it's hardly explicit by a long shot.Malik23 wrote: No, it was merely one of the first points he had to offer. Given that it was the opening shot of the movie, I think it's a fair place to start.
Neither do I.Malik23 wrote: I don't think he was arguing that the messages were new.
As I said in my earlier commentary, yes I do think it's possible that it effected the film makers. I'm not convinced by the writer's argument, however.Malik23 wrote: Perhaps it is inevitable that this will affect people's interpretations (which would make your point that people are reading too much into this), but couldn't it also inevitably affect director's perspectives, too?
I agree, it's political. I don't agree that it's explicitly 9/11 based. It's a theme that's always topical.Malik23 wrote: Do you think it was merely coincidence that he had Rachel talk about vigilante justice leading to dictatorship of history's most powerful empire? What does that have to do with Batman? Was Batman up for reelection?
I'm not debating the fact that TDK may have themes which relate to the real world - of course it does. I'm only knocking the paper-thin logic of the reviewer, that's all.Malik23 wrote: No one is talking about conservatism vs liberalism in general. We're talking about the symbolism of this movie and how it might relate to the real world. Is it Watch policy that comic book movies can't possibly relate to the real world?
It was funny because, as the writer in the article I linked observed, there are a whole bunch of people coming out and using TDK to draw various parallels to a range of different topics which, on the surface, seem to have nothing to do with it. Obviously, aliens have nothing to do with TDK, yet it almost doubled the number of Google Hits of the next most popular search I employed. That was what I found amusing . . . oh, and the number of hits I got when combining my own name with TDK in a search.Malik23 wrote:I don't understand how that is funny in any other sense except as an example of missing the point. Did those stories actually have as their subject matter aliens, homosexuals, nazis, etc.? Were there millions of articles talking about nazi themes in The Dark Knight?
And I lied, I know.Montresor wrote:
Anyway, in the interests of staying totally on topic, that's the last I'll say on it.
