You Can’t Fight Darkness With Darkness
I fully expected to write a review of The Dark Knight at some point, a review that weighed in on the superior acting merits of Maggie Gyllenhaal, Morgan Freeman, and especially Gary Oldman, but having just seen it with my wife for our date night, my ideas have taken a markedly different turn.
I remember when The Crow came out in 1994, its first posters carried the tagline, “Darker than the bat.” That was a badge of honor, you see. The highest compliment our popular lexicon can now bestow upon anything is that it is dark. When was the last time you saw something lauded in the media that wasn’t termed edgy?
The “bat” that The Crow was comparing itself to, of course, was Batman, and the newest installment of that series is the apotheosis of our society’s obsession with darkness. I knew that this movie would be about identity, and I wasn’t surprised to see a commentary on the nature of heroism, with its corollary of the demarcation of good and evil, develop; but I feel like I’ve been shocked out of a stupor by the “lessons” that The Dark Knight wishes to convey on those subjects.
The Joker’s insistence that “there are no rules” goes unchallenged. He taunts the movie’s ostensible heroes to break their own codes of honor, and often succeeds. This is where modernism–that great intellectual cancer of the 20th century, the assertion that meaning is malleable and subjective–comes in: The Dark Knight wants us to think that it’s a ground-breaking meditation on the complicated reality of good and evil in this oh-so-confusing world of ours, what with terrorism and whatnot (several overt references to such are made in the film); but it just comes across as more of Hollywood’s worship of relativism, and an especially obnoxious brand of it.
Not only is The Dark Knight loaded with cliches that are all the more sad because they’re clearly meant to be taken as genuine insights, but they’re communicated in the context of a story that revels in its sadism. Make no mistake about it, The Dark Knight is a film about torture: twisted scenarios for wrenching suffering out of people are thrown at us like fastballs in a batting cage. What really shocked me was that the theater full of people around me weren’t weary of this barrage; rather, they were elated by its novelty–the director was pushing the envelope, taking PG-13 to a bold new frontier. Hooray.
As the movie progressed, I thought about 24 and Casino Royale and more examples of Western Civilization’s growing acceptance for revenge, vigilantism, torture, and a celebration of mental illness (which is what the Batman series really is). If the adversary wants us to believe he doesn’t exist, surely another successful weapon in his arsenal is the idea that heroes can turn his savagery against him and remain untainted.
Modernism rears its ugly head again: the concept of flawed anti-hero is all fine and good, but why have all of our heroes been reduced to this? Why is it forbidden to tell stories about idealized heroes today? I see that Indiana Jones isn’t even in the top ten anymore, and Superman Returns was such a disappointment that the director actually apologized for its earnest tone and promised a “darker” sequel.
Others who have seen The Dark Knight might protest that there are some scenes of nobility, of sacrifice. I object that most of these, in context, are hardly laudatory. The scene with the two boats, for example, was not only too little and too late to redeem a movie that should be far too depressing for a summer blockbuster, but stuck out like a sore thumb, so badly did it fit in this film. Clearly, the makers of the movie realized how sinister it was and wanted to throw us a bone. But no dice.
Perhaps now fans will chime in with this question: “What else were the heroes supposed to do when faced with Joker’s plots?” The answer is, those plots shouldn’t have been there. Works of art are artificial, not natural; they are shaped according to the whims of their creator. No writer or director should be cobbling together such sadistic fare and offering it as entertainment. If such hopeless circumstances ever present themselves in real life, so be it, but I don’t need to pay ten dollars to have nihilism thrust in my face (First Harevy Dent, then Batman himself, come to believe that “you either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain.” Not terribly inspiring.).
I have no doubt that this film will break records and be accounted a triumph, and I’m reminded of Moroni chapter 9 as I think so: a society that actively celebrates such degradation is a society ripe for destruction. Ironically, I posted on another forum just yesterday that, in order to thrive in the 21st century, our lives are going to have to resemble those of the FLDS in Texas more than those of most of our neighbors. Tonight, I feel that even more strongly.
I’m sure the makers of The Dark Knight and its millions of fans feel that this story represents a positive morality for our age, a morality that eschews black and white in favor of one big pall of satisfyingly unchallenging gray, replete with the anguished evil it can only coexist with but never defeat. Such an offering is a sad testament to our lost vision of righteousness.
I hope America rejects The Dark Knight. I hope as many people as possible will turn from the mire that’s being slopped into our troughs and passed off as nutritious and will rediscover the vitality of the 13th Article of Faith. I hope we draw a line in the sand for ourselves that we will no longer tolerate being told that there is no such thing as pure light and that only a lighter shade of gray can combat the darkness in the world.
Friends, no matter how much the mainstreamed counterculture wants this “cool” idea of theirs to be true, there is just no such thing as a dark knight.
Haven’t seen it yet (and won’t for a few weeks still; bound by a blood oath to wait until a sibling returns from his mission), but this is the first negative thing I’ve yet read about it.
Comment by Latter-day Guy — July 19, 2008 @ 1:44 am
It appears it’s to be expected that those of a liberal persuasion will not care for “The Dark Knight.” For a more favorable view from a more, ahem, conservative publication with an occasionally religious slant, see:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YWU5ZDk5OGQwZDU3YzQ3ZTA0YzE1MzYzZmMwNzkyNTU=
Comment by R.W. Rasband — July 19, 2008 @ 2:00 am
Forgive me, one more enthusiastic conservative reviewer:
http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/328xilsf.asp
Comment by R.W. Rasband — July 19, 2008 @ 2:08 am
Dude, chill. It’s just a movie.
Comment by MCQ — July 19, 2008 @ 2:56 am
I’m going to see it soon, and I have to agree with MCQ. I’m really not going to see it for any moral lessons it may or may not offer; I’m going to see another interesting comic book adaptation.
Comment by Dan Ellsworth — July 19, 2008 @ 5:26 am
R. W., I don’t think your ideological theory really works out. The Village Voice loved the film. Perhaps they’re overrun with neocons these days? Or this isn’t really a film that divides liberals and conservatives in predictable ways?
Comment by J. Nelson-Seawright — July 19, 2008 @ 5:28 am
Indiana Jones isn’t out of the top ten because it’s light, it’s out of the top ten because it’s been released for months. That and it got pretty mediocre reviews. Superman was a jumbled story with some poor acting by the main character and Kevin Spacey. Neither one is a good example for this post.
Besides, comics in general became more mature in their themes over twenty years ago, I think it’s great that the movies are following suit. Just because the lead is a guy wearing tights doesn’t mean it’s for children.
Yeesh, Batman is the very definition of an anti-hero that steps over the line most of the time. His worls is all gray. What exactly did you think you were getting when you sat down in the theater?
Comment by jjohnsen — July 19, 2008 @ 5:40 am
Jamie H - Just wondering. What have you done to become more like the FLDS?
Comment by sscenter — July 19, 2008 @ 5:41 am
Or is it because all of our heroes are flawed, and that is reality? You really haven’t been watching 24, Jack Bauer has currently lost everything (’course he keeps going because Kiefer Sutherland needs the work)
I think we read political subtexts into every movie we see (see the anti-American brouhaha over Wall-E) and those subtexts may not be what the filmaker intended.
Besides, stories about perfectly good people are boring, because you always know what their going to do next.
Comment by angrymormonliberal — July 19, 2008 @ 5:43 am
anyone wonder why our country doesn’t show any real outrage that we legalized Soviet torture techniques? Didn’t our own Dick Cheney say we needed to go “dark?” Didn’t many say we needed to “take the gloves off?” Why exactly?
Jamie, I wholeheartedly agree with you. I was considering seeing this movie, but I’ll stay away now. It isn’t worth it.
Comment by Dan — July 19, 2008 @ 6:15 am
“there is just no such thing as a dark knight.”
Oscar Schindler comes to mind. Winston Churchill, from a Mormon perspective, comes to mind. In fact, lots of “dark knights” come to mind.
“the concept of flawed anti-hero is all fine and good, but why have all of our heroes been reduced to this? Why is it forbidden to tell stories about idealized heroes today?”
Perhaps we just live in a more realistic age, when people want a hero with whom they actually can relate - one that doesn’t make them fell crushing guilt because they have no hope of measuring up to the idealized definition of “hero” you employ. Maybe they want examples of those who struggled to be heroes, but who ended up being heroes nonetheless.
Also, perhaps they realize there really are deeply evil people in the world, and truly powerful evil can be seductive. Perhaps they don’t see things in the black and white way this post seems to present as ideal.
**Disclaimer**: I am reacting only to the quotes in this post. I am working only off of them - and the discussions I have had about the movie with my sons.
Comment by Ray — July 19, 2008 @ 8:14 am
You guys may want to check out this article:
Why Superman Will Always Suck
Just an excerpt from it:
Superman sez: all criminals are bad. All lawbreakers deserve punishment. If Superman were in charge of the DEA, roughly 70% of college students across the country would be serving time in prison right now.
Superman has no values of his own, so he’s content to just uphold the values of the ruling class; this prevents him from becoming a dangerous vigilante a la Frank Castle, but it also means he has no legitimate opinions of his own where crime is concerned. In Paul Dini’s storybook series on DC superheroes, Batman had to deal with gangland violence, Wonder Woman fights terrorism, and Superman tries to end world hunger. This is no accident – Superman is way too morally simplistic to deal with complex things like the “wars” on drugs or terror. In Batman: War on Crime, Bats comes up against a young boy holding a gun on him. Batman, understanding the complexity of crime and the reasons for its existence, talks the kid into dropping the gun and giving up a life of violence.
Superman would probably just use his heat-vision to melt the gun, then put the kid in prison where he’d become a hard-bitten thug who’d murder somebody a few months after getting out.
I’ve never liked Superman all that much. He seems like an intellectually lazy device for moral absolutists who wish that being good didn’t require quite so much actual thought.
Comment by Seth R. — July 19, 2008 @ 8:15 am
Btw, do you like the Star Wars movies?
Comment by Ray — July 19, 2008 @ 8:15 am
Actually, my wife and I saw the movie last night, and both felt it was outstanding. Not perfect, but outstanding. I won’t say more — not wanting to spoil anything — but my review (which has a spoilers section at the end) is over here. ..bruce..
Comment by bfwebster — July 19, 2008 @ 8:32 am
“What else were the heroes supposed to do when faced with Joker’s plots? The answer is, those plots shouldn’t have been there”
???
In real life torture shouldn’t be there. I’d much rather explore these issues through art than stay detached in real life. I like Superman, but #12s juxtaposition of dark and white knights is outstanding.
Comment by NorthboundZax — July 19, 2008 @ 8:45 am
I am writing this comment in the line to see DK. I’ll let you know in a few hours whether or not I agree, but my gut reaction is that I will probably disagree with you. Not that all movies are awesome; see my review of Wanted @ KB. But I suspect you simply got overloaded this time.
PS welcome to our new guest, Jamie!
Comment by Steve Evans — July 19, 2008 @ 8:45 am
batman will surely be living in outer darkness–along with the film-makers and anyone who sees this movie. satan is among us and living in hollywood, er gotham.
[Editor's note: use that original moniker again and you'll mysteriously find yourself banned, Hans]
Comment by Hans — July 19, 2008 @ 8:47 am
Thanks for all the feedback so far to this, my first post at BCC. I wonder if the backlash is coming from a perception that I’m critical of all those who merely see or even like anything in this movie. Surely not, as others might have thicker skin, or might focus on other aspects of it, etc. However, I still assert that there’s a strong case to be made that this film goes too far.
R.W., I’m a political conservative, and the only person who’s been favorable towards my post so far is a democrat named Dan, so no, I don’t think my distaste is political. I don’t refer to “torture” to make a point about current controversies in politics, but about the deepening neurotic darkness of the American psyche.
MCQ, “it’s just a movie”? Ain’t no such creature. There is a persistent worldview in popular culture, and this movie advances it more dramatically than any other I’ve seen so far. Hopefully we don’t need to debate whether or not media influences life. I’m sure those “Saw” films are more extreme, but “The Dark Knight” is part of the same family, and the fact that it’s supposed to be a mainstream blockbuster is disturbing. Plenty of people, sadly, will let their six year olds see this.
JJohnsen, I still disagree. The failure of Indiana Jones and Superman to be as important to our culture today as they were in the past is definitely a symptom of our increasing tolerance–and desire–for darkness. I remember plenty of kids teling me they didn’t like Superman for exactly that reason, and the director’s apologies speak volumes.
I think it’s dangerous to automatically judge things based on the “maturity” of their themes (please forgive me if that’s not what you intended). It’s one of Hollywood’s lies that something is only “mature” if it focuses on death, darkness, no-win situations, nihilism, etc. That’s not art reflecting life; it’s art exploiting our basest impulses.
But you’re right–I should have known better going in. That’s why I say I was shocked out of a stupor.
SSCenter, I said that our lives will need to start resembling those of the FLDS more than resembling those of most of our neighbors. What am I doing towards that end? Well, for starters, I won’t be seeing “The Dark Knight” again, or anything like it.
Angrymormonliberal and Ray, I ask in my post why must “all” of our heroes be anti-heroes today. Your attempts to justify it based on the contemporary difficulty of urban life is totally valid, but I can’t shake the feeling that this philosophy–black and white is boring, we need deeply flawed heroes to feel better about ourselves, our perception of reality doesn’t count unless it’s dark and gritty–serves to forward the agenda of evil more than promote that of good. It’s not healthy.
Prefering light to darkness is not the same as having one’s head in the sand; quite the opposite, in fact. I’m sure all of you reading this can screen out the moral implications of this movie as aided by the Spirit, but do you think it’s going to be more of a benefit or a hindrance to inviting light into the world in general? I’ve long thought that if people see darkness everywhere, it might be because of where they’ve stuck their head.
Sorry if that was flippant. Let me summarize this way: we all know that public standards are declining. Do we have a line in the sand? If so, where? Isn’t the trend towards glorifying sadism and nihilism an appropriate place to draw it? If we don’t draw it yet, how much further must Hollywood lower its bar before we get uncomfortable?
I’m have no special authority here, and I hope this discussion will be spiritual and civil, but if all anybody wants to do is defend something because it’s cool and edgy, shouldn’t that send up some red flags?
Comment by Jamie H — July 19, 2008 @ 8:49 am
I think it’s a little much to throw Jamie’s comments to the side as if she’s overreacting. My wife had serious problems watching this movie and thought it went over the line. And she’s a huge Batman fan. She cried all the way home.
It’s been a while since I’ve seen a movie like this. It went places I never thought it would. Jamie mentioned Saw in her last comment and considering the final scheme, it’s a fair comparison.
I will also say that it’s been a while since I’ve seen evil like the Joker. Truly haunting. If you read some of Ledger’s final interviews he talks about how hard a role it was for him and it took to depths he had never before entered. He was on barbituates, one of the drugs that ended up killing him.
That being said, I’m a fan of the movie for what it is. It’s a crime drama masquerading as a Superhero movie.
Comment by Tim J. — July 19, 2008 @ 9:00 am
Jamie, I liked your review, although I haven’t, won’t, and wouldn’t have seen the movie anyway. It seems to me that part of the difficulty for Mormons trying to engage with cultural products like this is that we don’t have any positively defined aesthetic–our whole approach to art generally, and movies particularly is based on what we don’t approve of or find uplifting. So we can say we don’t want sex or violence or swearing, and argue around the edges about how much blurring of those standards we’re willing to tolerate, but we really don’t have any philosophical tools for trying to come up with either a realism that isn’t nihilistic or an optimism that isn’t saccharine. I think your post is an interesting step in that direction, and I’d be interested in you (or other commenters) thoughts on how to get busy building cooler sandcastles at the other end of the beach instead of worrying about exactly where to draw the line in the sand.
Comment by Kristine — July 19, 2008 @ 9:05 am
Steve and I happen to be sitting in the imax theater…next to an eight year old. (Can you say poor parenting choices?). Anyway, beyond the factual assertions on the methodology of “darkness,” I think, Jamie, that you are confusing what modernism is.
Comment by J. Stapley — July 19, 2008 @ 9:55 am
Have any of y’all seen this:
http://www.drhorrible.com
?
I just watched it last night, and it came to mind when I read this post. The protaganist is the villian, the hero is a narcissistic boor. I’m not a comics reader, but I’ve read that complex characterizations are not out of the norm. Take a comic book, and and singing and dancing. Good stuff.
I haven’t seen the Batman movie and probably won’t, because I don’t generally like “dark” unless it’s heavily tempered by “funny.”
Comment by Ann — July 19, 2008 @ 10:17 am
This reviewer says that Batman is George W. Bush and the Joker is al-Qaeda.
Myself, I wonder why so many people seem determined to find political hay in everything. Of course, you can apply politics to the movie if you wish, but I see no reason to constantly make hay over whether a given movie will get your guy more votes in November or whatever.
[And I really, really tire of those who blame Bush and Cheney for everything bad thats ever happened. Church having problems in Russia? Bush's fault. Batman too depressing? Bush's fault. Whatever. Some people need to find a new tune.]
Anyway, Batman is what he is, and if you’ve been reading the comics, this movie is about 20 years behind the times. Batman’s been this dark for awhile.
As for Superman Returns and Indiana Jones - they didn’t do very well because they were poorly produced and badly written. Superman Returns’ problem wasn’t that it was all lightness and smiles, it was that Superman was played as an emotionless stalker, and the Christ imagery was too heavy handed. Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull had many, many problems as well. It was easily the worst film of the four. So, using those as comparisons doesn’t really work in my book, since they just weren’t well done.
A better comparison might be the Nancy Drew movie, which was excellently written, perfectly acted, and relentlessly upbeat and cheerful - but it bombed at the box office (mostly due to inept marketing, I think). People who complain about dark movies or how Hollywood doesn’t produce family friendly fare and yet ignored the Nancy Drew movie need to feel a little ashamed. Hollywood produced exactly the movie many on the cultural right were asking for, and for the most part, we all ignored it.
Comment by Ivan Wolfe — July 19, 2008 @ 10:19 am
Where’s Ronan?
Comment by Norbert — July 19, 2008 @ 10:26 am
Just got home not an hour ago since catching this flick and have now somehow happened upon this post.
And I’m now stuck on this sentence from your review:
Because, oddly enough, it strikes me as a pretty apt description of what the movie was attempting to convey.
Comment by Chino Blanco — July 19, 2008 @ 11:05 am
I’ve been debating about seeing this movie. I often don’t like movies that a majority of people love (and love the movies people hate). This one has been getting so much love, I figured I’m not going to like it. But what’s bugged me most about it is how all the advertising seems to only show the Joker. I figure they did that because Heath Ledger just died and it bugs me.
I have a feeling I’m going to agree with you, Jamie, about this movie, so I’ll probably skip it. Even in the dollar theater.
Comment by Susan M — July 19, 2008 @ 11:13 am
If we all agreed to stop thrusting our nihilism in your face, would you agree to check your ressentiment at the theater door?
We’ll keep watching The Sound of Music at least once a year in our house.
And I’m quite happy to defend Ledger’s performance in The Dark Knight. It was, as happens from time to time, something beyond even what I’d been led to believe it might be.
Considering the pre-release press, who wouldn’t be a skeptic going in? Having actually seen the movie, I’m not.
Comment by Chino Blanco — July 19, 2008 @ 11:49 am
If there’s a “persistent worldview” in popular culture, I must be missing it, because it seems to me that everything I experience in popular culture has a different worldview, not the same one. If every piece of popular culture espoused the same worldview, I would stop watching immediately through sheer boredom. Maybe that “persistent worldview” you’re seeing is hiding out from me, like the “gay agenda.” I can never find that beast lurking in the forest either.
I watched about five minutes of Saw and was done. Not interested in that at all. To equate this movie with Saw is extremism at least and outright misrepresentation at worst. I agree that parents should be more selective about what kids are allowed to see. My earlier comment was not meant to suggest that media has no effect on life. Rather, I’m pointing out that your reaction to this piece of art is extreme and out of all proportion to its intended message and possible influence.
Oh, and I agree with Stapley that you appear to be demonizing the term “modernism” far more than is warranted by its actual meaning.
Comment by MCQ — July 19, 2008 @ 12:24 pm
First of all, to see where I’m coming from, you can check out my review at
thehouseofmilo.blogspot.com
I am a shameless fanboy. I love Batman, and it was Tim Burton’s dark vision that introduced me to the world of vigilantism and anti-heroes. Hilariously, I still have posters hanging in my garage from high school, one of Tim Burton’s Batman, and the other? The Crow. Just an interesting aside. Also, for full disclosure, I count Jamie as among one of my closest and most longest tenured friends, and I am a daily visitor to his blog (and in all honesty, you should be too). Finally, although I am a registered Democrat, I consider myself a political moderate. So, I’m going to reveal myself to be the centrist, wishy washy fence sitter that I am…
Can it be possible that I loved The Dark Knight and agree with Jamie on several points as well? Let me dispense with my critiques of the review so I can get to where I agree.
My knee jerk reaction to Jamie’s review was two fold. First, my question was, what were you expecting? This is Batman, a world full of moral ambiguity populated with psychotic villains. I accept this review as a critique of the general world of Batman and not just of this film, but in terms of what to expect, especially when some reviews (including mine) have likened this film to a horror movie, I’m a little surprised that Jamie was so shocked. To temper this, however, I completely agree that movie tie-ins geared towards children are COMPLETELY inappropriate for this film, and believe you me, I was APPAULED at the age of some of the kids that were in that theater. Yes, I sat in righteous judgment, and believe me, I’m not a fan of having to explain to my son why he can’t see the new Batman movie (he has also not, and will not, see Batman Begins).
My second reaction was “Dude, it’s just a movie!” I’m sure he can even imagine my intonation. Now, that argument has already been shot down (and rightly so) but members of the church in genenral are at differentlevels of spiritual development. TDK did not offend my sensibilities (which may just be an indictment of my own desensitized nature) but it is important to maintain a healthy dose of critical skepticism in every choice that we make in media, and in this I heartily agree with the spirit of the review.
Personally, I am of the opinion that in the war in Iraq, as in war in general, we do get scarred and see horrendous things and pick up scars along the way. This movie highlighted those choices. Where does the government draw the line on an “aggravated” interrogation of an enemy combatant? While in life I do agree with absolutes, there are some questions that are complicated. Where is the scripture we can turn to for guidance on how much waterboarding is too much? A little later, Jamie talks about black and white being a bit boring. I’ll be honest, if I’m going to a movie, it is a little. My life is lived in black and white, and for me, I’m willing to accept this bit of escapism. I think that we must be conscientious consumers of media, and I am not going to mock or critique a review of this movie if it did cross someone’s line, as it so obviously did in this case. Batman is facinating to me, but for those who are less discerning and who don’t critically examine their media, I can see how this could contribue to their slide into moral relativism. For me, I’m willing to accept a dark little romp through this playground, content to leave the emotional scarring at the theater door.
And to any posters who are disagreeing with Jamie’s review just because he doesn’t agree with many critics, he’s offered some great, valid arguments why he doesn’t. Showing that other conservatives liked the movie is not necessarily a great argument as to whether this conservative should like it. While I find myself siding with the majority on this (still love the movie) his comments have provoked me to re-evaluate aspects of the film and more carefully examine how we are influenced by the world. Good job, Jamie. But now I know not to invite you when I see it again on IMAX:-)
Comment by Steve — July 19, 2008 @ 12:25 pm
Just got out, Jamie’s wrong, movie ruled.
Comment by Steve Evans — July 19, 2008 @ 12:38 pm
“Why is it forbidden to tell stories about idealized heroes today?””
Jamie, this strikes me as the exact same question that my mother asked so many years ago: “Why isn’t there any good music anymore?”
My answer to each question is the same:
“It isn’t (There is). There are tons of stories about idealized heroes today (good music today); you just have to look around a little more openly and find them. They are numerous.”
Frankly, that was my biggest problem with the review - the idea that “modernism” is all about dark and troubling and disturbing images and stories (and music). That simply isn’t the case.
Comment by Ray — July 19, 2008 @ 12:39 pm
Wow everyone, way to roll out the welcome mat for a new guest blogger, LOL! If I’d have gotten a reaction like this to my first guest post I would have just died. Have a hug, Jamie! (Though from your initial responses it sounds like you have a much thicker skin than I do.)
Haven’t seen it. Sounds like I wouldn’t like it–not really my preferred aesthetic and I don’t have much of a stomach for violence in my entertainment. But for the record I don’t have a problem with conflicted heroes. I like them.
Comment by Cynthia L. — July 19, 2008 @ 1:05 pm
What Ray said.
Comment by Cynthia L. — July 19, 2008 @ 1:06 pm
On modernism.
Comment by J. Nelson-Seawright — July 19, 2008 @ 1:08 pm
Jamie,
Tough crowd, huh.
Think of Gotham like the Old Testament, where heroes do unthinkable things in the name of a greater good. In the OT, darkness is fought with darkness all the time.
Comment by Dan Ellsworth — July 19, 2008 @ 1:14 pm
Seriously, I think Jamie is partially right — this is a violent movie and a dark one for dark times. It presents extremely disturbing and challenging ideas about human nature. Ultimately however I believe Jamie’s conclusion about the film is wrong. This movie does not condone or applaud torture; it presents violence and chaos as horrible things, things to be fought. I can’t blame Jamie for his response, but I think he missed the point of the movie.
Oh, and he’s off re: modernism.
BUT — Kudos to Jamie for producing such an absolutely great conversation-starter.
Comment by Steve Evans — July 19, 2008 @ 1:16 pm
“I’m sure those “Saw” films are more extreme, but “The Dark Knight” is part of the same family, and the fact that it’s supposed to be a mainstream blockbuster is disturbing.”
Absolutely wrong, unless the family is “films.”
Comment by Steve Evans — July 19, 2008 @ 1:18 pm
“As for Superman Returns and Indiana Jones - they didn’t do very well because they were poorly produced and badly written. Superman Returns’ problem wasn’t that it was all lightness and smiles, it was that Superman was played as an emotionless stalker, and the Christ imagery was too heavy handed.”
AMEN Ivan.
Comment by Steve Evans — July 19, 2008 @ 1:20 pm
Jaime,
I disagree with virtually every sentence of your review. It’s hard to even know where to begin. But, to sum, this movie was NOT a celebration of what Harold Bloom calls “our augmenting darkness”, but a condemnation of it - I can’t off the top of my head recall any movie that is so thorough in its condemnation of our society as this one. If there is a valid complaint it might be that the movie overmakes its point. Our society is not as bad as this … yet. We sense, however, that we are well on our way to it. There is a whiff of prophecy in the film. There is no particular moral, hence all the talk of the moral ambiguity of the film. Sure, not every movie needs to be this completely ambiguous. But this is not every movie, it is only one movie. And it is very very far from a typical movie so that dismissing it as indicative is a clean miss.
~
Comment by Thomas Parkin — July 19, 2008 @ 1:36 pm
I, like J. Stapley, question your understanding and usage of the term “modernism.” This site might be helpful in clearing up your apparent misunderstanding.
Now for the rest of your review. I want to begin by carefully and clearly stating that I have not yet seen the movie, but I fully intend to.
As an artist and filmmaker myself I’d like to first address an issue that seems to frequently crop up in discussions concerning the media and its apparent affect on our lives. It is very important to distinguish between the portrayal of evil, the portrayal of base elements, the presentation of “dark” themes, and the glorification of them. Your review is littered with phrases like “worship of relativism,” “celebration of mental illness,” and “celebrates such degradation.” In this day and age, because of the satanic subtleties which surround us, it is more important than ever to be able to distinguish between presentation and glorification.
Although you don’t explicitly state it, and you very well may not be completely aware of it, but you seem to be leaning towards an aesthetic centered on “inspirational” themes, and art that portrays good always triumphing over evil. Your preference for movies such as Superman and Indiana Jones indicate your taste for such plots. I find absolutely nothing wrong with this, excepting the fact that these types of films portraying idealized heroes typically oversimplify the darkness; they grossly over-exaggerate evil by presenting villains which are relatively easy to identify and bare little or no resemblance to the complexities of human life. Unfortunately evil in the real world is not so easy to recognize. The difference between black and white in the real world is rarely obvious, and the evils consuming human souls are rarely, if ever, so plain and innocuous that we are able to easily place the “bad guys” in the proper lineup.
Over-simplifying evil is in and of itself a modern evil. Thankfully we are advanced enough beings that we are able to explore the basest of our emotions, intentions, and evils through a completely artificial medium: art (and I use the word art because I think Christopher Nolan would be offended if you suggested that his films were mere entertainment, not that they aren’t entertaining). You say that “It’s one of Hollywood’s lies that something is only ‘mature’ if it focuses on death, darkness, no-win situations, nihilism, etc. That’s not art reflecting life; it’s art exploiting our basest impulses.” To claim that this is one of Hollywood’s lies is an exaggeration, the reality is that “mature” means to have reached an advanced stage of mental and emotional development, and that part of being a mature human means that you are able to come to terms with the elements of your own reality.
To deny that there is a portion of Joker or Batman in ourselves is the true evil, lulling ourselves into a pleasant fixation on the light while conveniently ignoring the dangers of darkness. If we are to literally believe that Jesus is our brother, then we are just as equally brothers with Satan, and we too posess his genes, and the spiritual potential to become like him. That fact is intensely frightening, and it ought to be, because my fear (and likely the reality) is that Satan is much darker and much more evil than any one of us is able to comprehend, and to convince ourselves that we are immune to his subtleties if we try to ignore them is the great lie.
I face demons on a daily basis, and I am grateful that I have been exposed to great art that thoroughly explores this element of our humanity so that I am better equipped to deal with it when the time comes. You claim the film is “replete with the anguished evil it can only coexist with but never defeat.” Do you know how to defeat evil? Do you have the power to grab it by its throat and rip it out of your own soul? Are you courageous enough and wise enough to admit that there is a darkness in yourself much darker than any film could ever convey? If you know how to do any of these things, please tell.
I do not celebrate this fact, indeed, I abhor it, but to utterly deny this is the true danger of innocence. To repeat yourself “That’s not art reflecting life; it’s art exploiting our basest impulses.” Wrong. That is art reflecting life, and it’s art exploring our basest impulses, not exploiting them; those are the impulses that we are in such a dire need of understanding, so that we may better comprehend and face them. Big big difference, and being able to tell the difference takes maturity, honesty, insight, and spiritual understanding.
Comment by SamR — July 19, 2008 @ 1:38 pm
First of all, Dark Knight is nothing like the Saw movies, the second of which someone gave me and I ended up throwing in the trash. That comparison is totally off the wall.
Secondly, Ivan makes some great points in a much better way than I did. Superman and Indiana Jones didn’t suffer because they were light, the suffered from being poor movies. Word of mouth on both were pretty bad after that first weekend.
Thirdly, Ivan (again!) is correct about Nancy Drew. We rented it on a whim a couple of days ago and I was amazed. Great writing, great characters, and very family-friendly. I was absolutely shocked that someone made the decision to have a teenage girl be the heroine, and then didn’t feel like they had to make her “cool” by putting her in belly shirts and lots of make-up. They actually went the opposite direction any other movie would with a makeover scene. I’ll follow Ivan in telling any of you that have ever complained about Hollywood making good family movies to go and rent or buy this right now.
Too bad it didn’t make any money, but I’d blame that on lack of marketing instead of it being light or family-friendly, I’d never heard of it before.
Comment by jjohnsen — July 19, 2008 @ 1:58 pm
Amen Brother Q.
Thanks, Jaime, for giving us all an opportunity to agree with each other.
Comment by Norbert — July 19, 2008 @ 2:07 pm
I saw it last night. I was pretty sweet, but I did feel a bit disturbed by the darkness and twistedness of Ledger’s character. It makes you feel creepy when leaving but also somewhat in despair because no question is really answered about how one should combat such mass crime. Te decisions the heroes must make are gut-wrenching. Does anyone know if there is another part planned?
Just a note about #17 Hans. That wasn’t me so it looks like there is more than one of us in the world.
Comment by Hans — July 19, 2008 @ 2:12 pm
I feel a fool for asking, Steve, but what is KB (re #16)?
Comment by Latter-day Guy — July 19, 2008 @ 2:21 pm
It seems to me that the theme of the movie had more to do with what Gordon (love Gary Oldman) said at the end of Batman Begins about “escalation.” The better it gets, the worse it gets. No Batman, no Joker. This theme led to what was probably the best line of the movie, “You complete me.”
I’m actually trying to think of how Batman fought darkness with darkness and am not seeing it.
Comment by Tim J. — July 19, 2008 @ 2:22 pm
KB is Kulturblog.
Comment by Tim J. — July 19, 2008 @ 2:23 pm
Here’s another question:
Why do I come out of this movie so much firmer in my resolve to become a better and better man?
~
Comment by Thomas Parkin — July 19, 2008 @ 2:27 pm
I have no problem with shades of gray or anti-heroes.
But “Dark Knight” sucked. It had a tedious storyline.
Comment by California Condor — July 19, 2008 @ 2:27 pm
I know the limitations of the following comment, but the narrow point it makes is valid, imo. I hesitated to make the analogy, but I think the last few comments are spot-on regarding “presentation” vs. “celebration”.
There is an older film that portrays evil as very seductive and handsome and convincing and suave and enticing - that evil personified can be indistinguishable from you and me based just on physical appearance - that it is easy to succumb and can be resisted only by single-minded focus on God. In one part, it also portrays evil as nearly universal - that the person who resists is the anomaly - that the world is hopelessly lost and ruled by powerful evil. In fact, I think such a message can’t be ignored as one of the central themes. It’s an older movie, so the “darkness” of the presentation style doesn’t rival our more modern movies (relying almost exclusively on music to make the mood reflect the message), and the overall message is a happy ending, but the message of the section that deals directly with evil personified is fascinating.
One of the central protagonists succumbs to this evil and is saved from it only by the resistance of another protagonist. Interestingly, I think most members who have seen this movie classify the one who succumbed as the ultimate hero in the end - or, at least, just as much a hero as the one who stood fast in opposing the evil. However, I wouldn’t say the film glorifies or celebrates evil in any way - even though it clothes it in such a “pretty package”.
At least, I don’t think that was the intention of the prophets and apostles who approved it - and who ask us to see it on a regular basis.
As to the idea of preferring idealized heroes, if one of the central messages of TDK is that deeply flawed people who often fail in their struggles to resist temptation still can perform heroic acts and be respected and admired and loved because of it, what I have read of Joseph Smith leads me to believe that he would rather be characterized in this way than as an “idealized hero”.
Comment by Ray — July 19, 2008 @ 2:39 pm
Jamie, I disagree with almost every word you say here. So much so, in fact, that I have to wonder if you really understand what’s going on in the movie. Do you understand the choice that Batman makes in the very end? It’s as noble and self-sacrificial as you can get.
The Joker’s insistence that “there are no rules” goes unchallenged.
This is transparently false – in fact, it is Batman who proves the contrary to the Joker in their final scene together.
(First Harevy Dent, then Batman himself, come to believe that “you either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain.” Not terribly inspiring.)
Not so. When Batman says “become the villain,” he doesn’t mean it in a genuine sense. The statement is a bit of wordplay foreshadowing his final decision.
there is just no such thing as a dark knight.
It depends how you define “dark” and I think you and the film are using the word in different ways. I don’t see that the film intends to include ‘morally suspect’ in its usage.
Comment by Eric Russell — July 19, 2008 @ 2:58 pm
So, uh, do you guys agree with me or not? It’s OK, I just want to know where you stand. Please stop sugar coating your responses.
Actually, the oddest thing so far has been, due to a tangential reference on my part, everybody wanting to take me to school on modernism. Call it an abuse of the method if you will, but the practical application of this tool (and of postmodernism), especially in popular culture, has been to promote faithlessness and to excuse subsequent wicked behavior. I’m on pretty solid ground here–The Closing of the American Mind had a substantially similar thesis.
There are far too many comments now for me to reply to them individually, but there are some trends that bear discussion. The first is the idea that we can watch something that’s disgusting and violent if we scratch our chins and muse on the fallen nature of mankind. Such a philosophy would also serve to justify watching a graphic depiction of child molestation if, you know, the film obliquely condemned it somewhere. No, that’s not too extreme. C’mon, guys, if The Dark Knight had been released 10 or 20 years ago, would we be reacting the same way? Do you really think this increased desensitization is a good thing?
Nor am I convinced that there is a worthy morality dominant in The Dark Knight (I’m a little more sympathetic to Fox and Gordon). The conclusion of the film is hardly a resounding victory for virtue. The argument that this is exaggerated tragedy that can help us refine our thinking and behavior in the real world doesn’t seem to hold up, either. If it were true, the last thirty years of Hollywood would have made us all perfect by now!
For example, those speeches about “the hero Gotham deserves versus the hero Gotham needs.” Such a false dichotomy only makes sense in the manufactured dystopia of the media. Accuse me of wearing rose-colored glasses if you will, but perhaps those who agree with the movie’s sentiments might check to see if their own shades are tinted a bit too much.
And I’ll defend my lumping this in with Saw. The Dark Knight may be “torture porn lite,” but its constant bombardment of acute suffering was not just a harmless rumination on human nature, it was a surgical strike to any light within us.
Now Dan had an insightful comment when he compared Gotham to the OT, but I’m not sure if that stands–maybe it does. Jacob, David, etc, were certainly flawed, and certainly made hard choices at hard times–indeed, this is one of the most relevant things about the OT. But these men would have had a hard time fitting in in Gotham. The schizophrenia and deceptions by some of Gotham’s “heroes” is something I have a hard time imagining being permanently condoned in scripture.
Let me try to add something diplomatic here. I’m not judging anyone who saw or liked the movie, nor am I saying that liking it is necessarily a bad thing. It’s certainly possible to intellectually agree to disagree here. But it bothers me that so few of us seem concerned with the large-scale influence of a film like this on the world, or what it says about the majority of society that will lap it up. The arguments being put forward in defense of the film may all be in line with the Spirit as it operates within each of us individually, but the fact that such language could also be used–and, indeed, has been–by those looking to excuse indulgence in inappropriate things should give us pause and suggest that we should be careful.
Well, this sure has been fun, but I kind of hope this one is winding down. I can’t imagine that there’s much left to say here, and I think I’ve absorbed about as much love as I can take for one day…
Cheers!
Comment by Jamie H — July 19, 2008 @ 3:03 pm
Jamie, just to repeat an earlier question, since I meant it in complete sincerity:
What do you think of Star Wars?
Comment by Ray — July 19, 2008 @ 3:09 pm
Dan E.,
#35,
Really? Where? What are the examples? “All the time?”
Comment by Dan — July 19, 2008 @ 3:15 pm
Jamie, you think this one is winding down? God bless! This is the internet, and you’re calling a geek-fantasy film evil. I wouldn’t be surprised if this thread had a hundred more comments in it.
I’d also note that Bloom’s Closing of… discussion is widely disputed and not a reference that I’d use to establish any kind of consensus or solid ground.
Comment by J. Nelson-Seawright — July 19, 2008 @ 3:33 pm
Yeah, I think this thread is just getting going, Jaime. I think it’s a terribly interesting discussion overall, even if I think in this case you are dead wrong in your view of DK. If you had been talking about Wanted, for example, I’d be right there with you.
Comment by Steve Evans — July 19, 2008 @ 4:08 pm
PS - Jamie, have you seen any of the Saw films? I ask only because if you have then your comparisons to DK would seem truly out-of-whack; Saw is a pretty frequent object for comparison whenever one wants to talk about “torture porn,” but the two films are extremely different.
Comment by Steve Evans — July 19, 2008 @ 4:13 pm
Jamie H, don’t get discouraged — reviewing any movie from a gospel perspective is likely to get you panned.
Personally, I never liked the darkness of the Batman series, and the trailers of “Dark Knight” with the Joker reveling in his evilness just don’t do it for me. I won’t be seeing this movie, and your review is part of the reason why.
Comment by Geoff B — July 19, 2008 @ 4:15 pm
Geoff, quite right — including sometimes reviewing our own church movies!
Comment by Steve Evans — July 19, 2008 @ 4:17 pm
One more PS, for the road — thanks again to Jamie for being such a good sport and engaging the discussion, and for being so nice with the people who have disagreed with him. Although we’re clearly not all Dark Knight fans, at least the conversation has been interesting.
Comment by Steve Evans — July 19, 2008 @ 4:24 pm
Geoff B., true enough. I remember people being slammed both for liking States of Grace from a gospel perspective and for hating the same film from a different gospel perspective. The trouble with this sort of discussion is that there are so many very different gospel perspectives on art!
Comment by J. Nelson-Seawright — July 19, 2008 @ 4:25 pm
and, even if it was wrong, the review was exceptionally well written.
Comment by Ray — July 19, 2008 @ 4:29 pm
Although this certainly isn’t the post’s intent, I think it’s kind of awe-inspiring that a comic book movie has generated these kinds of serious discussions, here and in other contexts.
Comment by J. Nelson-Seawright — July 19, 2008 @ 4:31 pm
Fwiw, three of my sons collectively have seen the movie 5 times already. One of them is studying drama in college (and is a very good actor); one of them is studying to teach high school English and Drama. Their reaction to Ledger’s performance was that it was “astounding”. I asked if their perception was influenced by his death, and the actor said, “I thought it would be, but it didn’t register while watching the movie. It was one of the best pure performances I have ever seen. It was brilliant, Pops.”
Comment by Ray — July 19, 2008 @ 4:45 pm
It was a great performance. Utterly mesmerizing, horrifying and amusing all in one.
Comment by Steve Evans — July 19, 2008 @ 4:46 pm
Disclaimer: I adore Batman. Fangirl squee blah blah blah. I’ll drag my hub as soon as I can find a babysitter.
Ray #11:
As it was defined for me in my creative writing program, the hero is a protagonist with one fatal flaw; the anti-hero is one with one redeeming quality.
I think the anti-hero gives us a sense of hope that if he can be redeemed even a little bit, then that is its own triumph, aside from whatever good he does while climbing up the moral ladder. I per-sonally get tired of the white hat not killing the villain when he has the chance and turning his back. It’s really stupid when you stop and think about it.
Seth #12:
Agreed, and though I have never heard Superman’s schtick described as quote, Seth, I agree with that too.
My problem with Superman v Batman (since I was a wee lass) is that Superman has supernatural powers and Batman’s a regular (albeit it rich) dude with a killer workout and the budget for gadgetry. Batman’s motivated from somewhere deep within him and Superman is society’s gadget.
Steve #29:
Agreed.
Indeed.
Comment by MoJo — July 19, 2008 @ 5:08 pm
After reflecting on it, I think the last act of Dark Night was a complete failure. For a story that tries to base its plot in a measure of realism, the genesis and arch of the new foe is simply stupid, overly graphic (the entire look of him is not only unreal it is totally ridiculous). Further, the plot contrivances are completely ham-fisted.
The most disturbing portions of the film deal with representations of psychopathy. Psychopathy is unsettling because it defies what we generally view as human. How we deal with psychopathy is an interesting question, though I don’t think the movie successfully gets at it. It conflates chaos with the inability to empathize.
Comment by J. Stapley — July 19, 2008 @ 5:44 pm
Hi Jaime,
I too would like to applaud you on the way you are leading this thread. Bravo to the blogger who can both dish it and take it, . . . all while keeping his cool! Thanks.
Now, . . . I’d like to take you to school again with your usage of modernism
The specific reason why your original references to modernism seemed somewhat flawed was the persistent relationship you were drawing between modernism and a supposed brand of relativism or subjectivity. Modernism is typically generalized by a craving for objectivity not subjectivity, and it is typically associated with the search for universal truths (sounds a bit like Mormonism, eh?) 
In any case, I completely agree with your sentiment about the need to be careful when trying to make judgments about these types of things. That bears a strong relation with my original post, #40. The fact that Satan is far more subtle than he is frequently portrayed is incredibly problematic. I actually find it bothersome sometimes, for fear that we are teaching our children how easy it is to make the the correct decisions as long as they pray, go to church, and read the scriptures. The point being that when faced with evil and darkness the correct decision is rarely clear (if it was would this life be a “test”?). We perceive “gray,” whether we admit it exists or not. If you’re only looking for black and white you will not only live in an incredibly dull world, but you will be frequently stumped by the opportunities and moral dilemmas that present themselves to you.
Familiarizing ourselves with our own complexities, and carefully exploring them, should be part of our own spiritual education. That’s what great art frequently does: it explores. Although I haven’t seen the film yet, I have an inkling that it does exactly what Thomas Parkin suggests it does in #39:
“This movie was NOT a celebration of what Harold Bloom calls “our augmenting darkness”, but a condemnation of it - I can’t off the top of my head recall any movie that is so thorough in its condemnation of our society as this one.”
Comment by SamR — July 19, 2008 @ 5:47 pm
A few more comments:
– I read a mainstream media review of TDK sometime today where the reviewer said, in so many words, “The Joker is Satan, doing his best to draw out the worst of everyone and bring them all down to destruction.” Besides being a brilliant insight (particularly in a secular news source), it also made me wonder what the temple film would be like with Heath Ledger playing Satan. Betcha no one would fall asleep during that part of the endowment.
– Many, if not most, of the OT ‘heroes’ have significant weaknesses and often are morally flawed. Isaac and Jacob make major mistakes. Jacob’s sons — the heads of the twelve tribes of Israel! — sell their younger brother into slavery; Reuben has sex with his father’s concubine, while Judah fathers twins upon his daughter-in-law, whom he thinks is a prostitute. Many of the judges of Israel are likewise suspect, cf. Sampson. And then we get to the first three kings of Israel: Saul, David, Solomon. All three are chosen of God; all three are great heroes of Israel; all three fall due to their own sins.
– Meanwhile, in the Book of Mormon, Nephi kills a drunk and unconscious Laban to get the brass plates (”better that one man should perish…”), which is about as complex a moral situation as you could ask for (short of Abraham’s having to offer Isaac as a sacrifice). We also have Omni, who notes that he has “fought much with the sword to preserve my people…But behold, I of myself am a wicked man.” (Omni 1:2)
– Even Captain Moroni, whom Mormon holds up as a great example (and after whom he names his own son), reaches a point in his wars against Nephite dissenters and Lamanites to threaten them with invasion and genocide (cf. Alma 54:9-13).
In short, there are plenty of morally complex and flawed heroes in the scriptures — many of whom could well be called “dark knights.” ..bruce..
Comment by bfwebster — July 19, 2008 @ 6:41 pm
J., I disagree with you re: the final act. I do think there was too much going on, but the new villain was essential to the theme and to the establishment of what the Joker’s real danger was. So, thematically essential but a bit ham-fisted and overcomplicated, sure. But you are overstating things a bit by calling it a complete failure.
Comment by Steve Evans — July 19, 2008 @ 7:22 pm
I haven’t even seen it–and I agree with, J..
Comment by Jack — July 19, 2008 @ 7:41 pm
And I agree with Jack.
Comment by Ardis Parshall — July 19, 2008 @ 7:54 pm
Hmm… well, Batman has always been the dark hero.
What you are pointing out is why I prefer Superman’s more rosy imaging of morality.
Putting aside comic book heros though you do point out something that has been going on for a long time now. Movies made for adults are little more than candy bars made from violence, sex, and moral relativism.
I think the last really good movie, one that I saw and thought “This is going to be a classic” was The Incredibles. Which I think is in many ways far mature then almost any of the movies targeted towards adults.
There have been a few others, but they are almost all adaptations of older works. Pride and Prejudice, Chronicles of Narnia, Lord of the Rings. Even most of those I can tell Hollywood has attempted to make them Darker and Edgier- as if they weren’t already.
It’s not even the shades of gray aspect that bothers me- I mean Casablanca has lots of gray- the difference is that in those older shades of gray movies the characters at least aspire to some morality- even if they fail. These new movies seem to argue that even trying to be moral is a sign of foolishness.
I don’t know, I like to be more optimistic and hope for a cycle of renewal of or nation’s moral roots. I don’t think it’s a lost cause just yet.
Comment by Cicero — July 19, 2008 @ 7:57 pm
Cicero, your last sentence is, I believe, the ultimate message of The Dark Knight.
Comment by Steve Evans — July 19, 2008 @ 8:04 pm
Strangely enough, The Dark Knight wasn’t even the scariest movie to come out this weekend. The Joker has nothing on Pierce Brosnan’s voice.
Comment by Eric Russell — July 19, 2008 @ 8:14 pm
I think I figured out the problem, here. You and I go to movies for completely different reasons, Jamie. I think you’re expecting way too much from your entertainment dollar.
Comment by MCQ — July 19, 2008 @ 8:36 pm
By the same token, if “dark” themes and violence desensitize and deprave us, then the last thirty years of Hollywood would have made us all evil by now. Alas, violent crime rates are falling.
Comment by Eric Russell — July 19, 2008 @ 8:52 pm
I’ve not seen the movie yet and I suspect most readers haven’t been able to yet. It’s too bad these sorts of discussions couldn’t wait until most of us have seen it. C’est la vie I guess.
Having said that though I’m not sure I buy the idea of desensitization. Movies in the 70’s were often much worse. With a lot more evil. Anyone remember China Town and the ending? Ugh. Tell me that ending didn’t hit you hard.
If anything there has the last 10 years been an inexorable move to toning down all R-rated films. The 70’s and 80’s were the heyday of R-rated film. Often with very disturbing subjects. Now it has been marginalized by the studios.
As for 10 years ago. Anyone remember Fight Club or earlier Pulp Fiction?
Comment by Clark — July 19, 2008 @ 9:26 pm
“C’mon, guys, if The Dark Knight had been released 10 or 20 years ago, would we be reacting the same way?”
Actually I believe the answer is yes.
Comment by Steve Evans — July 19, 2008 @ 9:54 pm
I have not seen it, maybe I will. The discussion sort of reminds me of the first verse in David Crosby’s and Phil Collins’ song Hero:
It was one of those great stories that you can’t put down at night
The hero knew what he had to do and he wasn’t afraid to fight
The villain goes to jail while the hero goes free
I wish it were that simple for me
Comment by DavidH — July 19, 2008 @ 10:00 pm
I just saw Get Smart.
What does that say about our moral character as a nation?
Interestingly, I can’t bring myself to even try to answer that question. Going back to MCQ’s #75, I must go to movies for roughly the same reason he does.
Comment by Ivan Wolfe — July 19, 2008 @ 10:25 pm
I liked it, and I think that SamR (#40) got the point of the movie, which was highlighted by the yin/yang presentation of Joker and Bat-Man in their scene together on the skyscraper, Joker, white-faced and updside down; Bat-Man black-faced and right side up.
Then the camera rotates to align the audience with the Joker in a visual metaphor: we all start by identifying with the Bat-Man, the never-a-hair-out-of-place, always serious, rule-honoring, good guy; but the complete circle accounts for the Shadow, as well, the wild-haired, laughing, rule-unbound bad guy. The one can’t kill the other; the other won’t kill the one. The talk of a padded cell for both of them was a nice touch, I thought. In this regard, I like the line I heard attributed to a pscyhologist once who was commenting on the revelation of secret misdeeds of a prominent public figure: “The back is always as big as the front.” The movie demonstrates that teaching. Perhaps our reactions to the movie do the same.
Psychologically, there are ways to weld ego and shadow together, but this isn’t a movie about the successful integration of the two, so instead, the movie visually presents the other prominent character as what can happen when the effort to unite them runs amok.
While I would defend anyone’s right not to watch this (or any other) movie, I think there’s much to be gained from seeing it. We preach, after all, of a Man who descended below all things in order to lift us up.
Comment by greenfrog — July 19, 2008 @ 11:46 pm
There are many films that are not good for us to watch. The Dark Knight is not one of them, it is a good yarn and nothing more than a basic adventure story. The bleeding hearts always look for moral codes and reasons in press articles, movies and music. Why can’t we just read, listen and watch something without someone kindly pointing out to us the moral dilemmas of a comic book hero.
Comment by Deacon — July 20, 2008 @ 12:21 am
If you’re going to pan this movie, the way to do it is not to go looking for dangerous moral relativism (which absolutely does not exist in this movie any more than it does in your favorite episode of any random network cop show). No, if this movie is to be taken to task it should be for something it actually deserves: the appalling lack of believability in the crimes the Joker is able to pull off with no apparent effort whatsoever.
He claims at one point (in a truly hilarious and show-stopping soliloquy) to be “not a planner,” and others repeatedly characterize him as “a mad dog” but the staggering scale of crimes that the Joker pulls off in this movie would take months of careful planning and a crew of hundreds, not to mention the complete cooperation of the entire police force and most of the citizenry.
It’s a comic book story, so suspension of disbelief is part of the price of admission, but this storyline strains even the conventions of that genre.
Despite that, it’s a pretty well executed movie, and worth seeing for Ledger’s performance alone, but it’s not particularly horrifying and whether you are a crime drama afficianado or a moralist looking for a scapegoat for the ills of civilation, this is not a movie you should take seriously.
Comment by MCQ — July 20, 2008 @ 2:30 am
MCQ,
I pretty strongly disagree, I think.
This: “it’s not particularly horrifying” is a subjective response - it wasn’t mine. The thing I found most horrifying is the pervasive feeling of fearfulness at being good that permeates - of a society in which simple acts of … choosing the right, like telling the truth or allowing yourself to protect your family, can turn against you in awful ways. We perhaps live in a society where if you manage to stay clear of the mob and some of the worst business scandals you will not find yourself in that position. But, really, when someone says play this game or I’ll see you go down and I’ll take your family with you, that sends chills up and down me. I’ve seen enough to know that the world plays like that. What happens as simple morals - not lieing, cheating, or digging a pit for one’s neighbor - lose their authority is this: as the geography of corruption expands, we get a world where simple acts of goodness become increasingly dangerous to our livelihoods; if nothing else, our ability to live without fear of bad guys. The fearfulness of the Joker is a fear of something truly worse laying wait in a darker reality beyond but made possible by corruption.
Beyond that …
I think some scenes - I’m thinking of Batman’s interrogation of the Joker, are pretty viscerally horrifying, as well. There are several others which are definitely more than a little cringe-worthy. I can certainly understand why Jaime would cringe at them, revolt at them.
The problem, I think, with Jamie’s responce is not overreaction to some really bleak stuff, it is that he imagines that since he didn’t like the movie because of the displeasure those scenes caused him that people who liked the movie must have felt a pleasure at those same scenes. It misunderstands why people enjoy authentic portrayals of “darkness” and moral ambiguity. Maybe a sadist would take some minor pleasure in this movie - but a real sadist has so much meatier stuff to sate them in this world. It doesn’t follow that the only reason to like this movie is because it resonates with one’s sadism, and that only a sadistic culture would “lap it up.” There _are_ movies - the Saw movies do come to mind - that contain little or nothing beyond an advocacy of sadism.
As for suspension of disbelief. If you’re busy wondering how the Joker got all the bombs in exactly the right places at the right times, then your suspension needs some work. Those seem pretty much standard Joker fair, though. Did you read Scientific American’s appraisal of Batman? Looks like he wouldn’t be able to do the things he does, either. Ditto Superman. And Dr. Doom, too! I can see that a person can distance themseles from the film’s potential impact by saying, hey, the Joker couldn’t do that. I noted the tension in that hospital speech between his claim to not be a planner and his actual ability to carry out any plan. But, I think the broader point is that he has no real agenda beyond a desire to destroy.
Probably about 1000 more words, but I have to get up in 3 hours.
~
Comment by Thomas Parkin — July 20, 2008 @ 3:58 am
Thomas, if the Saw movies are an advocacy of sadism then zombie movies are all an advocacy of eating human flesh and vampire movies all an advocacy of drinking human blood.
Comment by Eric Russell — July 20, 2008 @ 7:49 am
“Works of art are artificial, not natural; they are shaped according to the whims of their creator.”
Wow. This statement, in my opinion, exhibits a gross misunderstanding of the creative process.
I’m also unsure how you define modernism, because…well, that word you keep using, I do not think it means what you think it means. Thanks to those that have pointed our misinformed friend to proper sources.
“[...] the assertion that meaning is malleable and subjective [...]”
Now, you could maybe draw a parallel between this definition and aspects of POSTmodernism.
Finally, can I just say that this discussion has me even more excited to see this movie? I personally love viewing artistic portrayals of the struggles of moral ambiguity.
Comment by JimJiminy — July 20, 2008 @ 8:33 am
Thomas:
I honestly can’t imagine what the horrifying part is. Batman repeatedly punches and hits a suspect during interrogation. Seen worse in NYPD blue. People who want to clean up the city are threatened with assassination. Seen worse in The Godfather. Pretty standard stuff.
And let’s be clear about one other thing:
There is not a single scene of physical torture in this movie. Not one. Anyone who calls this movie “Torture Porn” of any kind has no idea what those words actually mean.
There are scenes where the good guys must choose between rescuing one person or another. There are scenes where people must choose whether to kill others in order to save themselves. Standard action movie tropes. Emotionally troubling? Ok. Intense and gripping? Sure. But not torture. Not remotely.
Comment by MCQ — July 20, 2008 @ 9:15 am
MCQ, the horrifying part for me was the possibility that the Joker was right in saying, “I’m just ahead of the curve.”
Comment by Steve Evans — July 20, 2008 @ 9:33 am
When did society start celebrating mental illness? I must have missed that.
Comment by MikeInWeHo — July 20, 2008 @ 9:52 am
Steve: That was another great speech, and clearly, he was.
Mike: I think Jamie is saying that the movie celebrates mental illness, not society, and he’s probably right about that to a certain extent. Batman and the Joker do what they do because of a type of mental illness. The movie is saying that it takes someone with a mental illness to really, really excel. And there is some truth to that.
Comment by MCQ — July 20, 2008 @ 12:58 pm
The Hypomanic Edge (great book) links success to a subset of bipolar disorder.
Comment by MoJo — July 20, 2008 @ 1:06 pm
I do not know if this thread still has legs, but I wanted to stick up for Jamie. I thought that a lot of the violence was unnecessary. By that, I mean that I think that the questions presented in the movie would be better treated by developing the characters more and killing a lot less people.
Some of the posts have been extraordinarily long and hard to follow, either condemning or justifying the film. I would refer them to Moroni 7:14-17 (by the way, look for the humorous homonym in verse 15). If you felt like you left the movie with a firmer belief in Christ and a desire to do good, then I would say that you should watch the movie again and again. If you left the movie feeling degraded as I did, then I would avoid this and future Batman movies as long as they follow their current course.
I won’t be recommending this movie, nor will I view similar Batman movies in the future. However, I also will not be picketing future releases or judging people who enjoy the films. I feel like I have been given the way to judge and this one was not for me.
As a final thought, I did think the movie deserved an R-rating. I do not think it is appropriate for teenagers who are in all likelihood going to miss the message completely regardless of what you felt the message was. A 16-year old boy is going to see murder, mayhem and explosions.
I should also say that I thought the movie was extremely well done and the acting was superb. It just was not for me.
Comment by Mateo — July 20, 2008 @ 4:41 pm
Years ago, the “New Yorker” film critic Pauline Kael caused an uproar when she wrote that Clint Eastwood’s “Dirty Harry” was “a fascist movie.” TIME magazine critic Richard Schickel then demonstrated that “Dirty Harry” was an ambiguous and tragic movie, more in the tradition of film noir, and definitely not deserving of the label “fascist.” It seems to me that “The Dark Knight” is in danger of similar misunderstanding, given the example of this post with its dislike of having liberal shibboleths challenged combined with the traditional Mormon aversion towards ambiguity. It’s healthy to be aware there is more than one way of looking at these things.
Comment by R.W. Rasband — July 20, 2008 @ 6:03 pm
Count me in with the “disagree with every word” camp. Sorry.
Having said that, Jamie’s response to the movie reminds me of my own response to Fight Club, a movie I viscerally hated on several levels, most significantly a moral level. I saw it as nothing more than “fight porn,” and spilled my share of ink, er pixels, decrying what it all meant to “society.” Ha.
Funny thing, I saw it on HBO last year for the first time since its original theatrical run. I kept waiting for the feeling of moral outrage to return. It never did. Instead, to my astonishment, I found myself actually enjoying the movie.
Now I look back on my original reaction and wonder what happened? Have I changed since then? Has the world changed? Or did I just have a bad day?
So I’ll be curious if you change your mind re The Dark Night if you ever see it again, especially years later.
Comment by Matt Thurston — July 20, 2008 @ 6:12 pm
Matt, funny you should say that about Fight Club. Toward an LDS Cinema has a very long, detailed post deconstructing it vis a vis LDSs.
Comment by MoJo — July 20, 2008 @ 6:19 pm
R. W., again with the “liberal” thing. I don’t think too many people who see Allan Bloom as the last word in defining modernity would meet most definitions of “liberal.” I think you’re probably barking up the wrong tree here.
Comment by J. Nelson-Seawright — July 20, 2008 @ 7:04 pm
I don’t think I should blog anymore. This ticked me off too much. It’s only a movie.
Three more comments to get to 100.
~
Comment by Thomas Parkin — July 20, 2008 @ 11:27 pm
My father is famous among our family for his love of “happy ending” films like Harry met Sally, Sleepless in Seattle, and “Parent Trap”.
He really does not want to be challendged at all by a film. I got him to watch “platoon” years ago and he hated it and was a annoyed that I recommended it. He said he couldn’t sleep that night. I was fascinated by it and used my sleepless night to help me understand and come to grips with the social turmoil caused by the Vietnam War in this country not having been in Nam myself.
Challenging films such as DK or others can help us explore and understand the intense moral dilemmas and life lessons of our existence without having to actually experience everything ourselves.
Our theology puts us on earth to be tested, to learn about humanity and moral choice on our own without a constant Divine presence, and, having done all this, to crawl on our knees back to salvation through Christ.
Those who snootily avoid this in the name of virtuous, good-report stories run the risk of short-changing the purposes of this short probation on earth in order to get through life as nicely and quickly as possible.
And maybe that’s fine, or maybe there are just some people who are determined to drink deeply of the essence of the life God has created for us without all the risk management. Either way, how we live our life is our choice–and it is what it is. Wow, now that’s relativism!
BTW, thanks, SAM#40–you nailed it.
Comment by Homer — July 21, 2008 @ 2:04 am
Having made over $300 million in the U.S. alone I would hardly consider Indiana Jones a failure.
Comment by Anon. — July 21, 2008 @ 5:56 am
Pete refused to see Dark Knight yesterday, so it was Mamma Mia instead. Wonder if we could get 100+ comments if I wrote a scathing critique of that film’s moral universe?
Comment by MikeInWeHo — July 21, 2008 @ 7:21 am
Methinks the bloggernacle doth protest too much!
I wasn’t planning on wading into this bloody fray again, but some of these comments cry out for perspective. I’ve admitted from the first that my review is idiosyncratic, but some of the criticism that’s popped up here is just stubborn, defensive, and, dare I say, ever-so-slightly less than perfectly charitable?
To seize on perhaps the dominant train of thought over the last half of this thread, my thesis that The Dark Knight’s ethical blathering is skewed too far out of acceptable decency appears to be not only debatable but–surprise!–excatly wrong. It turns out, apparently, that this popular Hollywood movie is in fact a Powerful Spiritual Metaphor; no, not only that, but a Crucial Part Of Our Mortal Mission.
Dang! All those years I spent dealing with the tainted nature of humanity with service, fasting, and prayer, when I really should have been watching Batman! Doubtless I’ll have to answer for this at the pearly gates someday.
At any rate, I thought I might help deflate some of the intensity of the backlash by sharing something I added to my own blog last night:
UPDATE: 90 responses later, I’m curled up in a corner, licking my wounds. The comedian (joker?) Eric Snider did a bit on his site about faking a bad review of the movie on Rotten Tomatoes, which earned him a world of invective. Well, I’m just flabbergasted. Snider ended his experiment with this lesson:
I guess you can add that to your list of things that shouldn’t be treated lightly:
- God
- National tragedies
- The Holocaust
- Reviews of Batman movies
No. Flippin’. Joke.
Good thing nobody actually wrote a bad review. Boy, a guy like that would have to be crazy, which is odd since, if he were crazy, you’d think he’d be more likely to enjoy the film…
Anyway, back to nursing these bruised ribs and working up the strength to crawl to the emergency room. Anybody got an ice pack?
Comment by Jamie H — July 21, 2008 @ 7:41 am
I suppose I’ll try to keep my heresy in check and not blaspheme against The Cult of the Holy Bat again.
Comment by Jamie H — July 21, 2008 @ 7:47 am
Way to reinforce stereotypes Mike
Comment by jjohnsen — July 21, 2008 @ 8:07 am
It’s not really Batman Jamie, I think people actually believe this one is a pretty great movie. Feel free to say whatever you want about the earlier movies.
Comment by jjohnsen — July 21, 2008 @ 8:09 am
The majority of reviews for this movie are in a position of liking it, and from the fact that it is the number one opening for a movie and it will continue to make more money: people like the movie (mormon and not). So are you surprised, Jamie H, that people would disagree and are you again surprised that in the Bloggernacle they would voice that disagreement? I think you should’ve guessed that you would get this kind of feedback…
Comment by DoubleL — July 21, 2008 @ 8:43 am
Jamie H., you are brilliant, and in no uncertain terms, my hero…
Comment by Steve Hendricks — July 21, 2008 @ 9:07 am
JNS #96
I think you’re being unfair to Jamie. He did not call Bloom the “last word in defining modernity”. He cited Bloom as *an* authoritative voice in defining modernism.
Comment by KLC — July 21, 2008 @ 9:21 am
It’s interesting to see the “it’s only a movie” comments and the “it helps me explore my moral universe” comments both marshalled against the OP.
Comment by KLC — July 21, 2008 @ 9:24 am
See that you don’t!!!
Comment by Rabid Bat Fan — July 21, 2008 @ 9:51 am
KLC, I guess Bloom is seen as an authoritative voice by his partisans among the Straussians; from other positions, which constitute a majority among people who study this stuff, he and the other Straussians are seen as more than a bit eccentric. But the comment you’re discussing doesn’t really hinge on this point. I was just suggesting that few people other than fairly serious and entrenched conservatives would offer Bloom as an authority at all; R.W. is clearly off track in characterizing this post as a liberal assault on the movie in question.
Comment by J. Nelson-Seawright — July 21, 2008 @ 10:22 am
Really fascinating series of comments. Didn’t see the movie over the weekend. I didn’t plan ahead and the lines were too long, so I took my wife to Hellboy II instead.
There is a point in that much lighter movie, liberally sprinkled with humor, where Hellboy’s wife/girlfriend (I’m not entirely sure) has to make a huge decision with obvious moral ambiguity. Bear in mind that Hellboy, as I understand, is the spawn of Satan, sent to bring about the ultimate destruction of humanity, but because of being raised by a kindly professorial father figure, has become a defender of mankind against evil. Selma Blair has to decide whether or not Hellboy is to live to fight evil for a short while, at the same time being told in no uncertain terms that he will play a part in the eventual destruction of mankind by evil. She chooses to save him, which leads to a satisfactory conclusion to the current crisis, but that “Spawn of Satan/Destroyer of Mankind” thing is still out there.
I think that Jamie was getting at a similar thing with The Dark Knight. What are we willing to tolerate in the short term to satisfy what we perceive to be the higher, long-term goal? What sacrifices need to be made for expediency that might someday come back to haunt us later? Will the right choice now really turn out to be the right choice ten years down the road?
But since I haven’t seen Batman yet, I’ll have to defer any direct comments.
Comment by kevinf — July 21, 2008 @ 11:03 am
Jamie:
I think you misunderstand the reaction to your post. I guess I can speak only for myself, but I was not trying to be a defender of all things Batman, nor to suggest it was necessary to our earthly mission, and I hope that I was not uncharitable. I actually assume that you are brilliant and gifted otherwise you would not be guest-blogging here (In my experience, all guest-bloggers at BCC are far more intellectually gifted than the permabloggers, for example).
I think your review was interesting, and got me thinking about the movie more seriously than I otherwise would have. I was astonished that someone would see it the way you did, and was just trying to give you my perspective on it. Hopefully, you didn’t take it personally. Thanks for your review.
Comment by MCQ — July 21, 2008 @ 12:06 pm
Batman has always been my favorite superhero. No special physical gifts, just money, gadgets, and grit.
I loved the first Tim Burton/Michael Keaton Batman, but none of the rest. I think Christopher Nolan’s Batman Begins is the best superhero movie ever, partly because I’m partial to origin stories, and this is the best superhero origin story ever.
And this new Batman, The Dark Knight, it’s magnificent, really it is. A masterpiece of film making.
But while I enjoy visiting, I don’t want to, I CAN’T live in the darkness. I love the dark, Se7en is the best thriller I’ve ever seen. But give me something, I need a beacon, a shining light, a Bat Signal. I can deal with regret, with anger, even revenge, from my hero. Regular humans like Harvey Dent, they can suffer moral ambiguity, they can be Hamlet, but not my Batman. You can be a Dark Knight and keep your moral compass.
I allow that terrorism has changed the world, and that the Joker represents terrorists. But this is BATMAN we’re talking about, not Oliver North, not George W, not freaking Dick Cheney. BATMAN. Batman does not torture. And if you don’t think dropping someone off a ledge to break his legs, or beating a prisoner up in the interrogation room is torture, um, really? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture
Heath Ledger is amazing, really outstanding, right up there with Anthony Hopkins’ Hannibal Lecter villain-wise. The movie generally–amazing. Props.
But don’t take my Batman away from me. I need him. I need him the way he was.
Comment by dug — July 21, 2008 @ 12:13 pm
dug, Batman’s been a torturer at least since Frank Miller got his hands on him back in the 1980s.
MCQ, yeah, we permabloggers do tend to be idiots.
Comment by J. Nelson-Seawright — July 21, 2008 @ 12:20 pm
Jamie, I agree with all you’ve said 100%. I loved the first Batman Begins and was thrilled to go see the second installment. Little did I know that my very soul would be wounded from sitting through the darkest most disturbing movie I’ve ever seen. Was it well acted? Amazingly. Well made? Incredible. Plot complicated and unexpected? Yes. Stunts and effects believable? Yes. Was it worth the overwhelming evil feeling that I just couldn’t shake? NO. I wanted to walk out so many times but I just made myself stay because I thought there has to be some kind of redemption, there has to be. Nope, nada.
And I’m not as nice as you Jamie so I will take people to task, those who did like it are seriously desensitized.
Comment by Eliza — July 21, 2008 @ 12:26 pm
Eliza, I want to feel outrage at your last sentence, but for some reason just can’t muster any feelings at all.
Comment by Steve Evans — July 21, 2008 @ 12:31 pm
Steve #116, now that was funny.
Comment by Matt Thurston — July 21, 2008 @ 1:18 pm
I loved the movie because of its inherent quest for goodness that existed above the tyranny throughout. The most disturbing thing to me was the audience reaction - laughter - especially during the Joker’s most sadistic moments. I read that as either a sad reflection on the audience (they love sadistic killers) or the audience simply not knowing how to respond at such gross indifference for life (the only choices being to laugh or cry).
Comment by green mormon architect — July 21, 2008 @ 1:31 pm
yeah, dug, what’s new about that? My comment excluded such things from the definition of torture because Batman has always beat people up. I’m seriously having a hard time understanding where people are coming from who suggest that this movie represents a dramatic change in tactics or behavior for Batman. It simply doesn’t show that, unless I’m missing something completely.
JNS, my comment was directed at the consistent high quality of the guest-bloggers. No insult to the permabloggers was intended or should be inferred.
I’m willing to believe that you had an overwhelming feeling of evil from this movie and saw no redeeming quality in it, but I sure would like to understand the source of such feelings, because neither I nor my 14 yr old son and his friends felt the same way.
Can you be more specific as to why you felt this way? As for redemption, what about the fact that Batman is willing to reveal his identity to stop the killing? What about the fact that he sacrifices his reputation for the good of the citizens and takes the rap for Dent’s behavior? Is that not a noble and redemptive act?
What about the fact that the Joker turn out to be wrong, that the people on the boats, even the convicts, refuse to kill each other to save themselves? (Jamie is very dismissive of this, but gives no reasonwhy?) Isn’t it the ultimate expression of innate goodness overcoming a capacity for evil? You can’t make a statement that there is no redemption in the movie and make it true only because you choose to ignore all evidence to the contrary.
Comment by MCQ — July 21, 2008 @ 2:09 pm
gma, no, the Joker’s speeches, while depraved, are in fact very funny. I laughed hard during the “I’m not a planner” speech because the words and the delivery are extremely funny. It’s dark humor, certainly, but it is humor.
Comment by MCQ — July 21, 2008 @ 2:12 pm
Hey - I don’t agree with Jaime H.’s read of Batman, though I do agree (perhaps) with his overall point about the darkness of society.
Overall, though, it was a good post and got some decent conversation going. Along with others, I applaud Jaime for his thoughtfulness. I think he’s dead wrong on many levels, but I don’t think he’s stupid or unthinking. He’s clearly put a lot of thought into the issue.
So don’t take the few attacks personally. For the most part, it’s been a fascinating discussion.
Except comment #116, which makes me so angry I could just break things (just kidding Steve!)
Comment by Ivan Wolfe — July 21, 2008 @ 2:14 pm
Batman does not torture.
and
Batman’s been a torturer at least since Frank Miller got his hands on him back in the 1980s.
Batman’s been a torturer since Bob Kane and Bill Finger created him back in the 30s. Seriously - go read the Batman archives from DC. A lot of it was “off panel” - but Batman tortured quite a bit. He (inadvertently) killed and (deliberately) injured criminals without a care.
If you think the Adam West TV series is Batman, you’ve got a very distorted picture. Since the 30s, Batman’s been dark and rough. Adam West’s TV show was an aberration.
Comment by Ivan Wolfe — July 21, 2008 @ 2:21 pm
Ivan, my numbed senses and dead spirit are unable to generate enough will to give you anything resembling a witty rejoinder.
I agree with your comment, though, about Jamie’s post. I already mentioned the movie Wanted a couple of times; here’s another review of that movie (warning: language) which is more in line with what Jamie is, I think, trying to decry. There exists out there some moral peril if we start loving violence.
Comment by Steve Evans — July 21, 2008 @ 2:24 pm
Ivan, I agree; the reason I only specifically mention the Frank Miller iteration is that it’s so bleak as to be pretty indisputable…
Comment by J. Nelson-Seawright — July 21, 2008 @ 2:25 pm
JNS, I have had no training in theories or definitions of modernity and I have no idea what Harold Bloom’s reputation is among those that do have such training so I defer to you on that. But the comments you made don’t really hinge on my point.
You appeared to include the OP as part of a group that considers Bloom to be the “last word in defining modernity”. But he said no such thing.
After being patted on head and told he knew nothing about the subject by several commenters he offered Bloom as evidence that his comments about modernity were not something he had dreamed up while writing this post.
It wasn’t a comment about the quality or the standing of Bloom in the modernity community, it wasn’t a comment about Bloom’s standing in the OP’s own mind. It was only meant to illustrate prior art as my patent lawyer friends say.
Comment by KLC — July 21, 2008 @ 2:41 pm
On Sunday I was walking down the hall at church when I overheard a couple of priests talking about TDK. I mentioned to them that I had seen it twice, and this one priest gets this amazed smile on his face and gives me a huge high-five. I think maybe they couldn’t process at first that an adult at church would be so into that movie…
Comment by Kevin Barney — July 21, 2008 @ 3:16 pm
I laughed a lot at the Joker. I laughed especially hard at that scene in the beginning when he suddenly, effortlessly impales a guy with a pencil.
The