Religion, Politics and World Events They make great dinner conversation, don't you think? plus Political Film

The Dark Knight is GW?

Old 07-25-08, 01:40 PM
  #1  
DVD Talk Legend
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 11,568
The Dark Knight is GW?

For real!

I'm sure a lot of you will get a kick out of this. I'll keep my opinion to myself.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1216...n_commentaries

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

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

Oh, wait a minute. That's not a bat, actually. In fact, when you trace the outline with your finger, it looks kind of like . . . a "W."
[What Bush and Batman Have in Common]
Warner Bros. Pictures

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

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

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

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

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

The moment filmmakers take on the problem of Islamic terrorism in realistic films, suddenly those values vanish. The good guys become indistinguishable from the bad guys, and we end up denigrating the very heroes who defend us. Why should this be?

The answers to these questions seem to me to be embedded in the story of "The Dark Knight" itself: Doing what's right is hard, and speaking the truth is dangerous. Many have been abhorred for it, some killed, one crucified.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Klavan has won two Edgar Awards from the Mystery Writers of America. His new novel, "Empire of Lies" (An Otto Penzler Book, Harcourt), is about an ordinary man confronting the war on terror.
aktick is offline  
Old 07-25-08, 01:45 PM
  #2  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 6,032
What Bush and Batman Have in Common

No highlighting, it's an opinion piece not a "news report"
What Bush and Batman Have in Common
By ANDREW KLAVAN
July 25, 2008; Page A15

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The moment filmmakers take on the problem of Islamic terrorism in realistic films, suddenly those values vanish. The good guys become indistinguishable from the bad guys, and we end up denigrating the very heroes who defend us. Why should this be?

The answers to these questions seem to me to be embedded in the story of "The Dark Knight" itself: Doing what's right is hard, and speaking the truth is dangerous. Many have been abhorred for it, some killed, one crucified.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Klavan has won two Edgar Awards from the Mystery Writers of America. His new novel, "Empire of Lies" (An Otto Penzler Book, Harcourt), is about an ordinary man confronting the war on terror.
Source

Let the shitstorm ensue

In before "Bush lied people died!! Batman doesn't kill!!!11!"

I watched Rescue Dawn last night, it was interesting watching a war film produced today. Bale's working his way up to the top of my cool book.

And speaking of the War on Terror, does anybody know where Frank Miller sits with his Batman vs. Al Qaeda comic?
MartinBlank is offline  
Old 07-25-08, 01:51 PM
  #3  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 6,032
Somebody listens to Rushbo
MartinBlank is offline  
Old 07-25-08, 01:52 PM
  #4  
Moderator
 
wendersfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Nuova Repubblica di Salò
Posts: 32,774
At least Mr Klavan understands his audience.
wendersfan is offline  
Old 07-25-08, 01:52 PM
  #5  
DVD Talk Legend
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 11,568
Copycat!

Somebody listens to Rushbo.

EDIT: My post makes no sense after the merge. Boo!

Last edited by aktick; 07-25-08 at 01:54 PM.
aktick is offline  
Old 07-25-08, 01:54 PM
  #6  
Moderator
 
wendersfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Nuova Repubblica di Salò
Posts: 32,774
Merged.

Martin, I'm going to delete your post because it doesn't have a link.

ETA, actually, you did supply a link so I guess I'll leave them both.
wendersfan is offline  
Old 07-25-08, 02:05 PM
  #7  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Th0r S1mpson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 36,443
I liked the movie, but without being too much of a spoiler... Morgan Freeman getting huffy about a certain something was really stupid. If it was scripted properly it could have played alright, but it seemed terribly awkward and in-your-face. Dumb.
Th0r S1mpson is offline  
Old 07-25-08, 02:05 PM
  #8  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 25,062
So is Mr. Klavan saying that Bush is a vigilante who ignores the law?
Tracer Bullet is offline  
Old 07-25-08, 02:07 PM
  #9  
DVD Talk Hero
 
JasonF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 39,461
JasonF is offline  
Old 07-25-08, 02:09 PM
  #10  
DVD Talk Hero
 
JasonF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 39,461
I haven't seen Dark Knight yet, but to highlight Spider-Man 3 as an example of Bush's view of good and evil is laughable. Spider-Man 3 is all about the fact that the line between good and evil is sometimes blurry and maleable.
JasonF is offline  
Old 07-25-08, 02:36 PM
  #11  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: in Bush territory!
Posts: 11,613
I'm insulted you would compare Bush to a bat! Bat's are actually quite intelligent mind you!
wabio is offline  
Old 07-25-08, 02:46 PM
  #12  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 799
Originally Posted by MartinBlank
And speaking of the War on Terror, does anybody know where Frank Miller sits with his Batman vs. Al Qaeda comic?
From New York Times:

“I have a bunch of drawing I want to do,” he said. One project, which began as “Holy War, Batman!,” a series with a post-9/11 context, has shifted. “As I worked on it, it became something that was no longer Batman. It’s somewhere past that, and I decided it’s going to be part of a new series that I’m starting.”
aJOHNymous is offline  
Old 07-25-08, 02:47 PM
  #13  
DVD Talk Hero
 
JasonF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 39,461
Frank Miller's spin notwithstanding, DC killed the "Holy Terror Batman" project. More power to him and his fans if he can salvage the work and publish it elsewhere, but it's not going to be a Batman comic if it ever comes out.
JasonF is offline  
Old 07-25-08, 03:39 PM
  #14  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: H-Town, TX
Posts: 3,662
You can certainly interpret The Dark Knight that way. By the end of the movie, most of Gotham hates Batman and blames him almost as much as the Joker for all the chaos in the city.

Much like by the end of his 2nd term, many Americans despise(or at least disapprove) of Bush and blame him for a lot of the problems in the world(some even think he was involved with 9/11).

It's obviously not that black and white, and I don't know if Nolan necessarily intended any sort of Bush/Batman allegory. But The Dark Knight certainly does touch on numerous aspects of the post-9/11 world including FISA, the War on Terror, torture, the media, the mood of the public, etc. It's what elevates it above your typical Hollywood summer fare.
Doughboy is offline  
Old 07-25-08, 03:48 PM
  #15  
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 173
Let's run with the article's interpretation of "The Dark Knight" for a moment. Batman = Bush. Joker = Evil Terrorists. There are crucial differences that Klavan seems to be deliberately ignoring.

Spoiler:
When Batman built his cell-phone tapping system, he gave one man, not himself, the ability to use it and the ability to destroy it. He recognized that he was taking too much power upon himself and, when faced with the perceived necessity of such power, he entrusted it to others. Batman also recognized that he would one day have to face judgment for his actions. He was even willing to face it at one point in the movie, although he was convinced otherwise.

Bush wields the power himself. Additionally, he has not only given himself power beyond what the constitution allows, but he has enacted legislation to retroactively protect himself and his underlings from prosecution for how they have used that power.

While Batman took steps to limit his own power and acknowledged that he would one day have to face judgment for his actions, Bush has fought all limits placed on his power and attempted to ensure that he never faces judgment.
Locomocha is offline  
Old 07-25-08, 06:24 PM
  #16  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 8,527
Originally Posted by Locomocha
Let's run with the article's interpretation of "The Dark Knight" for a moment. Batman = Bush. Joker = Evil Terrorists. There are crucial differences that Klavan seems to be deliberately ignoring.

Spoiler:
When Batman built his cell-phone tapping system, he gave one man, not himself, the ability to use it and the ability to destroy it. He recognized that he was taking too much power upon himself and, when faced with the perceived necessity of such power, he entrusted it to others. Batman also recognized that he would one day have to face judgment for his actions. He was even willing to face it at one point in the movie, although he was convinced otherwise.

Bush wields the power himself. Additionally, he has not only given himself power beyond what the constitution allows, but he has enacted legislation to retroactively protect himself and his underlings from prosecution for how they have used that power.

While Batman took steps to limit his own power and acknowledged that he would one day have to face judgment for his actions, Bush has fought all limits placed on his power and attempted to ensure that he never faces judgment.
Let's also not forget that when Batman feels an enemy needs to be defeated, he does the dirty work himself. Bush tells people to go fight, and then goes on vacation.
hahn is offline  
Old 07-25-08, 06:31 PM
  #17  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 6,032
Let's also not forget that Bruce Wayne is rich because of his daddy, just like Bush.
MartinBlank is offline  
Old 07-25-08, 06:34 PM
  #18  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,004
Originally Posted by hahn
Let's also not forget that when Batman feels an enemy needs to be defeated, he does the dirty work himself. Bush tells people to go fight, and then goes on vacation.
Not necessarily in that order.
movielib is offline  
Old 07-25-08, 06:54 PM
  #19  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Th0r S1mpson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 36,443
Cheney makes a crappy Robin.
Th0r S1mpson is offline  
Old 07-25-08, 08:40 PM
  #20  
Moderator
 
wendersfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Nuova Repubblica di Salò
Posts: 32,774
Originally Posted by MartinBlank
Let's also not forget that Bruce Wayne is rich because of his daddy, just like Bush.
Bush is rich because of his granddaddy, Prescott Walker Bush.
wendersfan is offline  
Old 07-25-08, 09:14 PM
  #21  
DVD Talk Godfather
 
DVD Polizei's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 52,450
I agree that Hollywood is unwilling to make realistic movies, depicting readical Muslims as terrorists (except for a rarity like The Siege, which was rather accurate in its message). It's normally Germans or Americans as former disgruntled men who want to get back at America. In reality, this is just bullshit. So, as to describing Hollywood's severe slant on terrorism, I do agree with this guy.

However, Mr. Klavan comparing TDK to Bush is simply being willfully ignorant of several facts. Mr. Klavan is unwilling to be a hero himself by acknowledging the several mistakes made after 9/11. How he can correctly perceive how Hollywood behaves and then overlook the Bush Administration's mistakes, is rather evident of a man who is unwilling to relinquish support, no matter how much evidence is presented otherwise.
DVD Polizei is offline  
Old 07-27-08, 09:57 PM
  #22  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 6,032
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/XPugAcQILRY&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/XPugAcQILRY&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
MartinBlank is offline  
Old 07-27-08, 10:55 PM
  #23  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Dr Mabuse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: 75 clicks above the Do Lung bridge...
Posts: 18,950
There are several duplicate posts in this thread.

Does that also somehow relate to the TDK?
Dr Mabuse is offline  
Old 07-28-08, 02:04 AM
  #24  
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
DarkestPhoenix's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 4,246
Here's a quote from the author of Batman: The Long Halloween, Jeph Loeb (paraphrased), which he wrote in a book called Superheroes and Psychology:

"Superheroes are first regarded as needed saviors, then are taken for granted and are finally resented by the population for doing what everyone else ought to be doing."

Which seemed appropriate.
DarkestPhoenix is offline  
Old 07-28-08, 04:34 AM
  #25  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: So Cal
Posts: 7,072
This is about as good as people who thought that GWB was Emperor Palpatine.
Superboy is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.