Comments | richardf8: Dark Knight: Less fun than having your appendix out.

richardf8

Dark Knight: Less fun than having your appendix out.

Aug 03, 2008 08:50

After reading much critical acclaim Morgan and I went to see this with a friend of ours from Shul.

( While I am cutting this for spoilers, I will note that having read a review like the one I have written would have spared me the worst movie-going experience I have had since Alien: Resurrection. )

movies

Comments 21

jack_mirth August 6 2008, 00:12:08 UTC

there's a couple of issues i have to take with your assessment, mostly that this review doesn't really seem to be about the film The Dark Knight at all. obviously your own personal morality is your own personal morality, but when you "review" a film, your goal is to try to discover the point of the film or the meaning of the story and then discuss how well or poorly the film achieved it's goal of putting across its point or meaning in an engaging way. you don't just say "i didn't like the moral of the story and so the story sucked."

the only moral course of action is to kill him. And Batman fails to do this. Why? I can't tell.

the whole point of the Nolan retelling of the Batman story is to try to get it as far away from the idea of the "superhero" as possible. Nolan has gone to excruciating detail to tell stories about a world in which the Batman is realistically possible. first of all, in Nolan's version Batman hasn't read the last 80 years of Batman comics. the character of Bruce Wayne doesn't know that the Joker is ( ... )

jack_mirth August 6 2008, 00:12:33 UTC

as for Gordon and Wayne's cover-up of Harvey's fall...all of those criminals that Harvey imprisoned will now be free. his life works are in vain. the only thing left is the ability of his memory to inspire others to carry on his work and try to succeed where he failed. can you imagine what would happen if it were revealed that George Washington was actually a mass murderer? what about MLK Jr.? all of their work would be undone in a moment. one of the main points of the movie is that one man cannot solve Gotham's problems - they can only inspire others to rise above the darkness. seen from that point of view, i don't see Bruce and Jim's decision to hide the truth about Harvey as "paternalistic bullshit" at all, but a kind of necessary lie for the greater good.

you say this film was "morally bankrupt" in the same breath that you condemn it's morality for not being punitive enough. i think perhaps i don't quite understand your definition of "entertainment."

richardf8 August 6 2008, 03:02:36 UTC

It could have panned out to ways: Batman could have eliminated the Joker, or the Joker, seeing both ferries remaining intact, could have had a moment of clarity. Leaving a predator at large at the end of a narrative falls outside my definition of entertainment.

A truer narrative would be to say that Harvey gave up everything, his sanity included, for the good of Gotham. There is inspiration to be derived from that without destroying the truth. But Wayne and Gordon seem to think the public can't handle the truth, and that disturbs me.

jack_mirth August 6 2008, 03:09:45 UTC

it would be more disturbing to me if it was a documentary, but as realistic as it is, it's still a movie and there are certain suspensions and assumptions one makes. one of the assumptions one has to accept in Batman Begins and The Dark Knight is that Gotham is a city on the edge of collapse and despair, and needs only a push to send it into anarchy and chaos. they really would be unable to handle harvey's fall, and no one would ever attempt to clean up the streets legitmately again. if you make a public announcement that "the District Attorney went crazy and died trying to clean up the streets, so who wants to go next?" i don't think you'll have very many volunteers ( ... )

childings August 6 2008, 04:37:47 UTC

Honestly, I don't think they could handle the truth. In a city as corrupt as Gotham, it was difficult for people to rally around a politician the way they did with Dent in the first place ("I believe in Harvey Dent") -- so if news of his criminal killing spree were to come out to the public, they might no longer put their trust in another elected official the way they did with Dent.

A good parallel is how the American people view the office of the President after Watergate. The press reporting on that story changed the country's attitude towards the President, and now every President elect is subject to less respect, higher levels of scrutiny and more cynicism from the American people than was evident in the years before Watergate. I mean, Eisenhower had at least one marital affair but nobody knew about it at the time and therefore it didn't stain his reputation.

In other words, Gotham's next DA would have a hell of a time in office if Dent's killing spree was public. Not only that, but in this way he dies as sort of a martyr.

wub September 9 2008, 18:51:45 UTC

Holy Jewish geography, Batman!! Erm ( ... )

richardf8 September 11 2008, 03:45:14 UTC

What time is Kabbalat Shabbat?