Matthew Yglesias (July 25, 2008) - Bush and Batman (Culture)

How faithful is The Dark Night film to the comic book?

Posted by blah | July 25, 2008 3:35 PM

No, that really isn't a viable interpretation of the film. It is obviously true that those issues are being considered, but it's difficult to see Dark Knight as an unqualified endorsement of any of that stuff. And there is absolutely no reason to think that Batman is intended to evoke Bush in particular.

Posted by NCS | July 25, 2008 3:38 PM

Then does 2000 McCain + 2008 McCain = Two-Face?

http://strategy08.wordpress.com

Posted by Dan | July 25, 2008 3:41 PM

Blah - which comic book? The movie isn't based on any one particular comic. Dark Knight Returns and The Killing Joke amongst others are obviously sources it draws from, but it's an original story.

Posted by NCS | July 25, 2008 3:42 PM

The linked post almost touches on something nonpolitical that struck me about the movie: the fact that the Joker, along with the rest of the Arkham escapees, has presumably been driven at-least-half-mad by the fear gas from the first movie is completely unmentioned. (And this, even though the Scarecrow is seen briefly towards the beginning.) I can see why it doesn't fit into the attempted meaningfulness of TDK, but I really admired the attempt to explain in a unified way why there would be so many bizarre people running around Gotham.

Posted by DonBoy | July 25, 2008 3:56 PM

This reminds me of the neocons who used 24 as inspiration of how interagation works in the "real world".

Posted by Roman | July 25, 2008 3:59 PM

The big problem with the Batman analogy is exactly the same as that with the 24/ticking time bomb scenario. Very few people would have a problem with 'whatever means necessary' if you knew for absolute certain that the alternative was lots and lots of people dying and that those means would actually work. In the real world we rarely know for certain whether someone is a definite bad-guy let alone if he is about to set off a ticking bomb.

If the terrorists went around in clown make-up and basically announced to our forces 'I have initiated an evil plot which will culminate at 4:00pm EST' then bend some rules but until then let us admit the limits of our knowledge and exercise some care...

Posted by sven | July 25, 2008 4:01 PM

Andrew Klavan: 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.

Why do liberals insist on putting heroes like Charles Graner behind bars for their efforts to preserve our peaceful values?

Posted by RSA | July 25, 2008 4:03 PM

I don't think the issue is really "Joker =/= bin Laden." I actually think bin Laden's chaos-related motivations are underplayed sometimes. Al Qaeda has this clear list of political greivances, but if those conditions didn't exist, they'd find different reasons to blow people up. bin Laden obviously enjoys watching the world burn, so to speak.

I think the problem with this interpretation is more "Bush =/= Batman." Batman explicitly chooses the non-Dubya route at every turn. He's in a position to torture people he's interrogating, but he doesn't (I don't think knocking the Joker around at the police station counts as torture. It's completely in line with the beatings Batman always gives criminals. And of course, in the earlier interrogation he's the one counseling against brutality). He has the ability to spy on everyone's phone calls, but he obviously realizes that's a bad idea and he destroys the system after one use.

Posted by too many steves | July 25, 2008 4:04 PM

And in the next installment of WSJ editorial page idiocy, they'll revert back to raving about how Hollywood is only a bunch of effete liberals who are out of touch with real American morality.

Posted by Edward, the mad shirt grinder | July 25, 2008 4:04 PM

While the WSJ piece is absurd, Matt is right to say that it is a viable to find the movie somewhat right-wing. But this is in spirit with the book. The Batman-styled vigilante is generally something of a right-wing figure -- he's a non-governmental outsider who has to clean up the city because the government can't do the job. To look at it another way, is there a political movement closer in spirit to Batman than anti-immigrant group The Minutemen? (This implication teased out by Alan Moore in The Watchmen, making the vigilante Rorschach an explicit anti-social wingnut.)

Posted by Ryan W. | July 25, 2008 4:04 PM

Osama bin Laden isn't actually like the joker

Really? Aaaaah! I thought they were exactly the same!

This is even more interesting than Matthew's assertion earlier today that MoveOn isn't exactly like the Klan.

This is why I read Matthew's blog. He's always telling us things we don't know. If it weren't for Matthew, I would never, ever understand when someone uses an analogy.

Posted by Al | July 25, 2008 4:09 PM

Isn't it time that the season's other hit movie, Mama Mia, be subjected to interpretation to bring out its political meaning? Myself, I think the love for ABBA can be translated into a love for all things swedish, from farmer's cheese to pacifism as a national policy. The choice between the three fathers is the choice between Barr, Obama and McCain. And of course, Meryl Streep represents Hilary Clinton.

So - where is the Yglesian review of Mama Mia, anyway?

Posted by roger | July 25, 2008 4:14 PM

He writes:

"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"?"

This idiot answers his own question. The reason is because in fantasy movies, everything is black and white. There is no ambiguity as to who the bad guys and good guys are. The lines are drawn clearly. THEY ARE FANTASY. That's not how the real world exists. Unfortunately, this how too many right-wingers think. This WSJ piece is absolutely terrible.

Posted by Stacy | July 25, 2008 4:16 PM

And again the inability of certain people to read the exploration of an issue as anything other than allegory boggles. It shouldn't need to be repeated, but Yglesias is right that apparently it does: the Joker isn't Osama, whatever Frank Miller might think. The point, Al, is that in searching for the best allegorical fit, people ignore the importance of the differences the analogy crudely elides. We're talking, basically, about poorly thought out counterfactuals, I guess: "Look! Hollywood blockbuster supports conservative agenda!" only works by pretending the Joker and Osama are actually pretty similar. Or, if you like, imagines that the world to which the Joker belongs is just like our world except for lack of a Joker. It's really not.

Battlestar Galactica runs into this a lot; to step aside from the big picture of cylons/humans and who's supposed to "represent" who in the real world (hint: nobody), there was an episode that received at least some minor outcry because President Roslin wound up banning abortion. The episode doesn't play favorites as far as I recall, but I think Roslin was right, and I suspect Ron Moore (the showrunner/[re]creator) does as well. But guess what? I don't favor criminalizing abortion, and I bet Moore doesn't either! The situation in Battlestar, where the human race is literally in danger of extinction, is not the situation we face today! There is no allegory!

To be fair, people inside comics frequently don't get this either; Marvel in particular seems to be trapped in a quest to make its books more "realistic" where "realism" means "dropping superheroes into our world without thinking through all the implications of what that really means."

Posted by Medrawt | July 25, 2008 4:17 PM

Al Qaeda has this clear list of political greivances, but if those conditions didn't exist, they'd find different reasons to blow people up.

And those Palestinians, too! If the Israelis weren't occupying their country, they'd all be out committing terrorist acts against Jews anyway! Arabs! Those guys are loco!

Posted by James Gary | July 25, 2008 4:18 PM

Although I actually think that The Dark Knight does have a bit of ambiguity to it. To interpret it as a liberal or conservative movie misses the point completely.

Posted by Stacy | July 25, 2008 4:20 PM

See this comment from Ackerman:

http://washingtonindependent.com/view/an-open-letter-to

Posted by Z | July 25, 2008 4:21 PM

I think in general it is like BSG. There are themes that apply in general but it isn't a direct analogy.

If it were an anaolgy for Bush and the War on terror then I'd say it is a repudiation of Bush. At every turn Batman has the opportunity to take the route Bush did (torture, spying and so on) and in every case he puts limits on himself.

Posted by eric k | July 25, 2008 4:24 PM

Meanwhile, I liked John's liberal internationalist reading that stitched Dark Knight together with Batman Begins and sees the Joker as a kind of blowback phenomenon.

All you needed to realize this were Gordon's last words in the first movie.

Posted by Chris O. | July 25, 2008 4:26 PM

I mean, really, is this author suggesting that Christopher Nolan holds some type of right-wing ideology? I highly doubt that.

Posted by Stacy | July 25, 2008 4:26 PM

Here's the glaring flaw in Kliff Klavan's logic:
"...certain that he will re-establish those boundaries when the emergency is past."

Eternal war-on-terror advocates contend that the emergency will NEVER be past. It's all part of the Unitary Bat-Theory. Look it up.

Posted by T Paine | July 25, 2008 4:29 PM

"This reminds me of the neocons who used 24 as inspiration of how interagation works in the "real world"."

Isn't it just plain old conservatives who like to be tough guys? Why the need to blame everything on the Jews? You one of those guys who reads Antiwar.com?

For the Wall Street Journal writer, I'd point to the scene where a desperate Harvey Dent has a crazy Joker flunky tied to a chair.

Dent is pursuing the conservative pro-torture route, whereas Batman talks him out of it, using liberal reasoning.

Pace John, the liberal internationalist, I don't see the Joker as blowback. In the Batman Begins, Batman saves Gotham from destruction. Was that wrong? Are liberals supposed to say, see I told you there'd be blowback?

He writes:
"A great way to set up the sequel, sure, but the wider point is that in a sense, the Batman could only ever invoke the Joker, or someone like him. At one point in the Dark Knight, Wayne asks Alfred "Did I bring this upon [Gotham]?" Of course he did, though we're not supposed to say that."

I don't see this as evidence, just assertion. Batman and Gordon brought it on Gotham by pushing the mob too hard and backing them into a corner? What kind of reasoning is that?

As others have said, I don't see the movie pushing a certain political agenda. It's just very thought provoking.

Joker at the end, though, did remind me of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Al Qaeda in Iraq, where one boat is Shia and one boat Sunni, and they were pitted against each other to increase Chaos and sink the American project in Iraq. AQI would hide behind innocents, too, in a classic insurgency, like the hostages wearing Clown masks. Luckly that vigilante Batman stopped the Joker, but not until after a lot of damage had been inflicted. Anti-war people would blame Batman for the collateral damage and not the Joker, when Batman's just trying to stop the Joker.

If there had been proper law enforcement, Bruce Wayne never would have felt the need to become Batman.

Posted by Peter K. | July 25, 2008 4:32 PM

Conservatives who try to analogize Batman to Bush should note that not even Batman really goes for torturing his enemies. The one time he even kind of crosses the line (with the Joker in the holding cell), he receives inaccurate information and unwittingly plays into his enemy's schemes. Food for thought?

Posted by milt | July 25, 2008 4:34 PM

It does seem Nolan was saying something by having the cameo with Patrick Leahy telling off the Joker.

Posted by Peter K. | July 25, 2008 4:35 PM

"Marvel in particular seems to be trapped in a quest to make its books more "realistic" where "realism" means "dropping superheroes into our world without thinking through all the implications of what that really means.""

One of the things that fascinates me about the modern super-hero audience is how they don't seem to like genuinely realistic or mature takes on the concept. WATCHMEN aside, those sort of books never sell all that well. What they want is to keep a lot of the unrealistic fantasy elements of super-hero stories, but then arbitrarily mix in certain elements of realism without ever addressing or resolving the conflict between the two.

For example, in the real world the government certainly would register and control all super-powered beings within its borders, ala CIVIL WAR. But such government sanctioned and regulated super-powered agents would certainly not be allowed or even want to dress up in colorful costumes and give themselves ridiculous code-names.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | July 25, 2008 4:35 PM

James Gary, where did I say a word about the Palestinains? I happen to think that the anti-Semitism you see among Palestinians is a symptom of the underlying political conflict. If the conflict were settled, they wouldn't want to blow up the Jews.

I was talking about Al Qaeda, which I think is much different and does have more Joker-like motivations. Or do all those A-rabs look the same to you?

Posted by too many steves | July 25, 2008 4:35 PM

Having seen the excellent Dark Knight last night, I can now give an opinion about something other than whether my kids will see it.

TDK throws a lot of terrorism-related themes into the movie, but doesn't hit you in the head with political points. So, you can see people claiming the movie from all points of the political compass. For instance, even though Batman is a vigilante, he sees the need to have a legitimite crimefighter cleaning up Gotham. You can extend that point, for example to say Bush can use American power to clean up the world, but he needs the legitimacy of the UN or NATO. Or maybe it'll be better if Barack cleans the world up.

I'd say see the movie and enjoy it as a movie, you can think about the allegorical aspects later. It's very good, though I think it should have been rated 'R' for its overall intensity. It never crosses the language or blood 'n guts lines that divide PG-13 & R, but it's certainly no movie for young kids.

Posted by American Citizen | July 25, 2008 4:36 PM

Al Qaeda has this clear list of political greivances, but if those conditions didn't exist, they'd find different reasons to blow people up.

I had the same reaction to this as James Gary. Where do you get the evidence for this statement, Too Many Steves? It certainly parrots the conservative view that "evil" just up and springs from the ground, that "terrorists" however they're defined have no motives and commit acts just for the sake of it. Al qaeda has real motives. They're not just in this for the hell of it.

Posted by Francisco The Man | July 25, 2008 4:36 PM

I dunno if the liberal internationalist interpretation of Dark Knight holds water, in part because I haven't seen the movie. But still -- something is off about it. How are the Joker, et al., blowback from anything Batman did? Or more precisely, how could better law enforcement in a non-Batman having Gotham City handled the situation in Batman Begins such that it didn't result in the inmates being let out of the assylum, so to speak?

The blowback is actually from Ras Al-Ghoul's idea that in order to save the earth, Gotham needed to be destroyed ... and that it was peachy keen to aid and abet an out of control scientist (AQ Khan? the "Students" -- aka the Taliban?) to defeat larger forces of evil ... there is a liberal internationalist spin of the Batman series (at least in Batman Begins and from what I've heard of Dark Knight), but I don't think the description in the link quite captures it ... can people who've actually seen both movies tell me if my intuition is on the right track?

Posted by DAS | July 25, 2008 4:37 PM

Did Batman get bitten by a radioactive bat, or am I confusing it with something else?

Posted by blah | July 25, 2008 4:38 PM

I think that's definitely a viable interpretation of the film.

OK, but check out Eric Rauchway's take at Edge of the American West.

Posted by David in Nashville | July 25, 2008 4:44 PM

"Pace John, the liberal internationalist, I don't see the Joker as blowback. In the Batman Begins, Batman saves Gotham from destruction. Was that wrong? Are liberals supposed to say, see I told you there'd be blowback?"

The concept of blowback in this circumstance works like this.

1. Batman is an extraordinary, extra-legal effort to smash organized crime in Gotham.

2. The pressure that effort puts on the mob makes them accept and embrace an insane force of chaos like the Joker, who they would otherwise be just as interested in stopping as anyone else.

It's the reverse of what would happen if the mob started killing cops and judges indiscriminately. That action would lead to a draconian, totalitarian response from law enforcement, a response largely embraced by the public.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | July 25, 2008 4:45 PM

"Or more precisely, how could better law enforcement in a non-Batman having Gotham City handled the situation in Batman Begins such that it didn't result in the inmates being let out of the assylum, so to speak?"

BB embraced the traditional comic book concept that the existence of the super-hero is justified by threats that cannot be dealt with through conventional means. TDK takes that comic book concept and starts to work out the implications of it with real world logic.

It's not that Batman creates the Joker. It's that the changes in social/cultural norms caused by Batman's actions create the conditions for someone like the Joker to emerge.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | July 25, 2008 4:55 PM

MBunge -

(Warning: going WAY off topic)

I'd suggest the crucial difference between Watchmen and Civil War - aside from authorial skill - is that the former takes place in a closed universe explicitly designed to engage the questions it engages. Moore would never have imposed the plot of Watchmen into a title that was expected to keep running indefinitely after the events of the final issue. (On the other hand, you can imagine that Watchmen had been running for twenty years and we just read the triumphant conclusion.) Plus the kinds of heroes in the book are carefully modulated to the thematic material; we've basically got a bunch of Batmans and Punishers running around and one guy who's, basically, as powerful as the Phoenix. Moore intentionally elides the averagely powerful superhero from the DC/Marvel paradigm to make his explicit points: in a world as realistically rendered as that of Watchmen, guys like Batman are thinly veiled thugs running around beating up on less thinly veiled thugs, and the appearance of someone like Dr. Manhattan is a world-shaking event, frightening and incomprehensible.

The DC/Marvel continuities are capable of telling mature stories (and they have), but they're constrained (not necessarily a bad thing) artistically by the weight of what's already established. The problem so many people have with Civil War is that in addition to basically engaging in (witting? unwitting?) character assasination of people like Tony Stark and Reed Richards, it's not well integrated into the existing Marvel framework on any number of levels. (The comic still, apparently, sold quite well, so I'm presuming the critics, including myself who skimmed it in stores, are in a minority of the audience.) If superheroes started appearing in our world we might want them to register (but the details of the Super Hero Registration Act are probably unconstitutional), but the Marvel U. isn't our world in some pretty fundamental ways. Marvel also didn't understand this, IMO, w/its 9/11 reaction, which ignores the fact that in the Marvelverse Manhattan is getting blown the fuck up all the damn time. Actually, more fundamentally, 9/11 probably wouldn't have happened in the Marvelverse at all, because the existence of superheroes and villains would so radically skew the mechanisms in which violence is used in service of ideology.

And if 9/11 did happen in the Marvelverse, the USA wouldn't have had to go to war in response because, taking the comics seriously, a team composed of, say, the Avengers + the Fantastic Four (and maybe take someone like Cyclops along for the ride) would've destroyed Al Qaeda and dragged bin Laden to justice in about a week.

Posted by Medrawt | July 25, 2008 5:00 PM

This is all you need to know about the far right that runs the place right now, between this, 24 and Murphy Brown and the runup to Iraq it's obvious they cannot tell fiction from reality.

Posted by Kyle | July 25, 2008 5:05 PM

"I'd suggest the crucial difference between Watchmen and Civil War - aside from authorial skill - is that the former takes place in a closed universe explicitly designed to engage the questions it engages."

I think you're right and I also think something similar can be said about Nolan's Batman films. He hasn't created a world where Bruce Wayne is fanatically compelled to fight crime or a comic book world where an extra-legal force like Batman is a necessary thing. Thematically BB and TDK are more similar to cop movies from the 70s where civilization is breaking down and hardasses like Dirty Harry are needed to hold things together. Except Nolan pretty clearly wants to make that point that the hero riding in on his horse to fix everything for everybody else isn't a workable idea in the real world.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | July 25, 2008 5:12 PM

It would be hilarious to see a super-hero movie in which the protagonist simply can't find an effective way to fight crime.

First, he would hang out on dimly lit streets hoping to stop a robbery but eventually realizing how unlikely it is he'll be at the right place or time.

Next, he would buy a police scanner and in a series of dramatic cut scenes he would show up after the crime was already over and have no next step to take.

Finally, he could 'go Batman' and try to beat information out of people but discover it is tough to know who to beat up and hey, the information they give me is bogus....

Posted by sven | July 25, 2008 5:17 PM

It would be hilarious to see a super-hero movie in which the protagonist simply can't find an effective way to fight crime. - sven

You might wish to check out the newspaper comics version of Spiderman lately. It doesn't quite have the scenario you describe, but it features an awful lot of Peter Parker being too sick with a head-cold to fight villains, etc.

It engenders much snark, which can be found on the internet.

Posted by DAS | July 25, 2008 5:29 PM

I take it none of you have read The long Halloween. That story (which TDK draws pretty heavily from) is pretty explicit about how the mob's fear of Batman led to the rise of the freaks. Anyway, if you asked the average citizen of Gotham if they'd rather have to deal with Carmine Falcone or the Joker, what do you think they'd say?

Posted by Chris D | July 25, 2008 5:48 PM

Alfred: Master Bruce, you received this missive.

Bruce Wayne/The Batman: {reads missive} "Joker determined to attack in Gotham City."

Alfred, we must act at once, there's no time to lose! Ready the Bat Bass Boat. I must ignore this warning and go fishing immediately!

Posted by ed | July 25, 2008 5:51 PM

I mean, really, is this author suggesting that Christopher Nolan holds some type of right-wing ideology? I highly doubt that.

Stacy,

The Right reinterprets anything they like as supporting Conservative views. Since to them anythign not conservative is liberal biaseds (see mainstream media for example) and they can't like anything liberal so QED if they liek it it must be conservative.

This is how you get nonsense like the top Conservative Rock songs of all time list with The Who's Won't get Fooled again #1. You get them thinking Born in the USA is a patriotic anthem (actually I'd argue it is but by a liberal's definition of patriotism, not their gradeschool level understanding of it) And really hillariously one of the Corner doofuses (I think it was Miller) talking about how Neil Young's Rockin' in the Free World captured the sense of euphoria when the Berlin Wall came down. Did he even hear the lyrics?

Posted by eric k | July 25, 2008 6:08 PM

Peter K,

See Matt's newer thread on Leahy.

DC Comics must have bought off Leahy with the Cameo in exchange for extending their copyrights:-)

Posted by eric k | July 25, 2008 6:13 PM

One thing I like about Batman is his competence. Even though he goes to the dark side, which is not good, I sort of know that he'll probably get 'er done over there. But even if it's possible to compare Batman and some neocon wetdream about the virtues of vigilantism as embodied by George W. Bush on the basis that they are both vigilantes, it doesn't mean that Bush's vigilantism is good just because Batman's is. Bush's incompetent vigilantism just seems to put everyone in a dark place.

Posted by jimmybiscuit | July 25, 2008 7:25 PM

The movie doesn't explore the topic, but I don't imagine Gotham citizens would be too impressed by some smartassed rightwing pundit telling them they should go shopping, be gratetful for the honor of being caught in Batman's crossfire, and wear those Bat-butt prints on the roofs of their cars like so many badges of pride.

Posted by Aatos | July 25, 2008 7:28 PM

Holy Bat Guano!!!

Another stupid posting by Matt discussing Dark Knight in connection to national politics.

Dark Knight is an effing summer movie.
The Bush/Cheney war on civil liberties is reality.

You don't need to drag Batman into the conversation to critique George Bush, Dick Cheney, or John McCain. In fact it trivializes politics to mix into a discussion of popular culture.

Just because Eric Alterman and the Wall Street Journal were stupid enough to do this, doesn't mean that Yglesias should repeat their stupidity.

Posted by Seth | July 25, 2008 7:30 PM

Holy Bat Guano!!!

Another stupid posting by Matt discussing Dark Knight in connection to national politics.

Dark Knight is an effing summer movie.
The Bush/Cheney war on civil liberties is reality.

You don't need to drag Batman into the conversation to critique George Bush, Dick Cheney, or John McCain. In fact it trivializes politics to mix it into a discussion of popular culture.

Just because Eric Alterman and the Wall Street Journal were stupid enough to do this, doesn't mean that Yglesias should repeat their stupidity.

Posted by Seth | July 25, 2008 7:31 PM

The Dark Knight is about as plausible as a right-wing film as March of the Penguins is.

Batman tries torture--it explicitly does not work, and in fact is counterproductive. Batman torturing the Joker is the Joker winning. Batman pretty much realizes this, as he explains to Harvey Dent when Dent is threatening to murder his prisoner--Batman tells him that if this little Abu Ghraib got out, that would be a huge victory for the bad guys. (And Batman's advice is not to be more sneaky about it.)

Think of the boat scene: When the citizens are voting on whether to blow up or not, how would the Wall Street Journal be voting? They'd really be for doing the right thing and taking the risk of being blown up? Because that's clearly what Nolan thinks they ought to do. It's the Journal that's on the side of the Joker here.

Posted by Jim Naureckas | July 25, 2008 8:23 PM

Here's an interview with one of the film's screenwriters, Jonathan Nolan, where he discusses this, among other topics related to the film:

http://media.libsyn.com/media/creativescreenwritingmag/TheDarkKnightQandA.mp3

Posted by Nate | July 25, 2008 8:25 PM

OK, Seth, since the other thread is abandoned, I'll ask it here: what's so ridiculous about analogizing to our current political situation whent you're talking about a movie that deals with, among other things, fighting a terrorist and whether its ok to torture him, and whether its appropriate to spy on everyone's cell phone calls in order to catch that terrorist? It's a pretty fucking obvious connection. It's not like taking, say, the Incredible Hulk and making analogies with the War on Terror.

I agree with Matthew that the movie isn't overtly "political" in the sense of taking a side on these questions, but Nolan is obviously interested in tackling these issues.

I don't see how it "trivializes" politics to relate politics to a movie like this. In fact, since I think The Dark Knight is pretty awesome, while politics, as a general rule, sucks, maybe it trivializes The Dark Knight to bring up George W. Bush in the context of a pretty cool movie.

Posted by too many steves | July 25, 2008 8:47 PM

too many steves

Many people have access to the Internet, C-SPAN, Pacifica radio, and NPR. There are programs, podcasts, symposia, hearings, and interviews with scholars, academics, journalist, researchers etc who have studied and examined issues connected with the war on terror, homeland security, and civil liberties. If you are really concerned about torture and eavesdropping, you can avail yourself of this information where you'll learn something of value.

Dark Knight is entertainment. Batman is not an educational resource, research guide, or teaching tool.

Watching Dark Knight is not a substitute for doing your own research on the issues that are important to you.

Posted by Seth | July 25, 2008 9:49 PM

Seth,

The bottom line is your a pompous ass who likes to jack off in public about it.

Do you have a google search that tells you whenever Matt writes about TDK so you can show up?

Posted by eric k | July 25, 2008 10:06 PM

eric k,

The quality of this thread has been tremendously enriched by your unparalleled pearls of wisdom.

You're a true credit to the readership of the Atlantic and a priceless treasure to the blogosphere.

Posted by eric k | July 25, 2008 10:26 PM

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.

So okay, here's one thing: Batman is a vigilante, not a constitutionally established legal authority. We used to think that kind of distinction was kind of important. Here's another: the whole advantage of the current situation, from the p.o.v. of the guys who want to turn the U.S. into a police state, is that the emergency will never be past. That's what's so nifty about declaring war against a) a tactic, "terrorism"; and b) an abstraction, "evil." So no, Bush--or more accurately Cheney--has absolutely no real intention of rescinding any of their "regrettable," "sadly necessary" depredations against the Constitution, ever. Matter of fact, I don't think I've ever heard either of 'em even claim to have any such intention or make any sort of reference to what things will be like "after" we win the so-called GWOT. This is because there is no plan, however fraudulent, for there to be any "after." Which indicates at least some vestigial fragment of integrity lingering in their moral conscience, since by definition it isn't possible for such a "war" ever to be said to have been won.

Posted by DrBB | July 25, 2008 10:49 PM

Seth must be a blast at parties. "Pop culture is
not an educational resource!"

But seriously, if we're reading this blog we're already pretty informed about politics through the traditional sources you mentioned. I don't see the harm in talking about how that stuff relates to a movie.

Posted by too many steves | July 25, 2008 10:51 PM

Matt,

Why don't you follow David Appell's advice and stop posting so many entries each day.

You blogging as if you had a quota to fill.

Posted by Seth | July 25, 2008 10:58 PM

Matt,

Why don't you follow David Appell's advice and stop posting so many entries each day.

You are blogging as if you had a quota to fill.

Posted by Seth | July 25, 2008 10:59 PM

It is funny how it physically pains some to see Bush cast in a positive light (of any kind). I'm not a Bush fan but the fact that the Dems hate him so much makes me think he must be doing something right. "It is better to be hated for who you are than loved for who you're not" Take note Obama.

Posted by WTF over | July 25, 2008 11:11 PM

It is funny how it physically pains some to see Bush cast in a positive light (of any kind). I'm not a Bush fan but the fact that the Dems hate him so much makes me think he must be doing something right. "It is better to be hated for who you are than loved for who you're not" Take note Obama.

Posted by WTF over | July 25, 2008 11:12 PM

It is funny how it physically pains some to see Bush cast in a positive light (of any kind). I'm not a Bush fan but the fact that the Dems hate him so much makes me think he must be doing something right. "It is better to be hated for who you are than loved for who you're not" Take note Obama.

Posted by WTF over | July 25, 2008 11:12 PM

too many steves,

Whatever floats your boat, but you did misquote me. I said "Batman is not an educational resource" not "Pop culture is not an educational resource."

I love pop culture. I just think too many political bloggers, Yglesias, Alterman, etc are getting carried away with these comparisons between Dark Knight and Bush's anti-terror policies.

Posted by Seth | July 25, 2008 11:19 PM

Batman might be "certain that he will re-establish those boundaries when the emergency is past", however for Bush and successors the emergency will never be over, so that point is moot. Anyway, the emergency was never great enough to justify torture, indefinite detention without trial, suspending habeus corpus and an unprovoked war of aggression.

Posted by CSI | July 26, 2008 12:39 AM

Leaving aside the moronic absurdity of using comic books as a map to the real world, the WSJ editorial is completely at odds with remarks made by Batman in the film --namely that is VITAL that public officials and civic leaders not engage in behavior like Batman's.

Let's see --is Bush a lone vigilante? Or is he POTUS?

For crying out loud --is it a secret job rule among pundits to NEVER, ever have the slightest idea what you are talking about?

Posted by Tim Connor | July 26, 2008 12:57 AM

"Just because Eric Alterman and the Wall Street Journal were stupid enough to do this, doesn't mean that Yglesias should repeat their stupidity."

Yes, it does. This is what Yglesias DOES: repeat stupidity, instead of, you know, thinking for himself.

I don't agree that TDK isn't a "political" movie in some sense, but I'd say it's likely because borrowing themes from current events is standard fair for media. It's usually fairly heavy handed, but TDK does pretty well with it - although I thought Lucius Fox cell phone scanner dialog went a bit overboard. That part DID sound political, as opposed to merely story-telling.

The problem with that whole bit was the "no man should have that level of power" concept. The movie both acknowledges and ignores the fact that both men - the Joker and Batman - ALREADY have "that level of power" simply by the technology and tactics they're applying to their goals. The whole point of Batman or any superhero is that they have POWER - power that the conventional person or the states they support do not have.

Where the movie does well is demonstrating what could happen if one guy - either a Joker or a Batman - could actually pull some of that stuff off in reality. Like all such action movies, they gloss over how many actual problems attempting to do those things would bring up and how much actual WORK it would take to do them. But they expose the consequences pretty well.

So consider this: what if you had a guy who had the Batman's abilities and technology - and the Joker's philosophy and attitude?

That's the movie I want to see. A movie where the "villain" or more precisely the "anti-hero" wins. "V for Vendetta" came very close but even he had to die in the end. I would have let him escape, like G. Gordon Liddy used to demand when he appeared on "Miami Vice" - his contract said his character always had to escape capture.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | July 26, 2008 1:10 AM

This Anti-American talk of torture is the usual liberal way to distort the truth to bash Bush. If we have a guy that has information that could potentially save thousands of lives and he refuses to cooperate, then what do you suggest? Give him a dozen roses? I'm sorry but who really gives a crap about terrorists that are willing to kill thousands of innocent people?

Posted by Rob | July 26, 2008 1:37 AM

very mature seth, if you're going to insukt me at least have the guts to use your own name. When I call you a pompous ass I do it under my own name.

And I stand behind it, when you came to the first thread on TDK to say it is just a silly popcorn movie so discussing what means is a waste of time, fine, people disagreed and explained why. Coming back in every thread to simply restate the same thing is what makes you a pompous ass, we got it the first time.

Posted by eric k | July 26, 2008 2:27 AM

Hey Rob. Forget comic books. You should watch 24. Rather, apparently you do. But do see if you can find a single example of where torture during a ticking time-bomb scenario actually worked. Virtually all interrogation experts say that information taken through torture ends up being junk. What I suggest is that we do what the Israelis do, which is talk to people in a very calm voice, using inescapable logic, until they shits in their pants and sees the error of their ways, meanwhile attepting to establish some relationship through false empathy in order to persuade the terrorist that saving lives is their own choice. The Israelis, our beloved, do not torture, from what I understand. If that's the case, why should we? If you are the one to be tortured and I kick you in the balls, you'd curse me. If I kicked you in the balls again, you'd spit on me. If I kicked you in the balls a third time, you'd pass out. And there goes my chance to save a couple thousand American fucken innocents.

Posted by jimmybiscuit | July 26, 2008 3:05 AM

eric k

Did it ever occur to you buddy boy that not every reader of Matt's blog is as doggedly committed to following every single comment contained on every single thread as you are?

God forbid, maybe someone skipped reading a posting or two along the way.

People sometimes enter during the middle of a conversation without backtracking all the way to the beginning.

Simply because you obviously have nothing better to do in your life than check Matt's blog every 2 minutes of every hour, don't assume everyone in the blogosphere is just as anal retentive as you are.

Posted by Seth | July 26, 2008 4:02 AM

Seth,

You are a noble man, spending your time making sure that no reader of Matt's could possibly miss your opinion that TDK is a silly popcorn movie.

We are humbled by your sense of obligation to your fellow man.

Posted by eric k | July 26, 2008 9:23 AM

Jimmybiscuit,

I've never seen 24, but I would like to some day. I'm not for torture specifically, but if every method has failed to extract information including the ones you mentioned and the guy is still refusing to cooperate, then why not? Poor terrorist, boo hoo.

Posted by Rob | July 26, 2008 10:36 AM

So, if Bush is Batman, then -- given the frequency with which he flip-flops -- does this mean McCain is Two-Face?

Posted by Bruce Moomaw | July 26, 2008 5:33 PM

Rob, not saying you're for torture, but I don't really get your logic. I guess if a guy doesn't respond to getting kicked in the balls, and he still hasn't given up information which you know, you just know, could save thousands of lives - even though you don't know what that information is, which is why you're torturing him - then you should probably just torture him to death. Where's the money Lebowski. Where's the money Lebowski.

Posted by jimmybiscuit | July 26, 2008 6:53 PM

I'd just like to throw my two cents in here and say that "The Dark Knight" is not only an allegory for the Bush presidency, but also tries to justify his unlawful and deceitful actions as necessary evils to win the war on terror. Bush lied to the Senate, Congress and the American people about the threat of Iraq in order to start a war. He broke the law by wiretapping American citizens without a warrant. He set up secret prisons outside of the United States so he could torture people for information. He is a bad guy and should be brought to trial. Just the fact that the Wall Street Journal recently posted an article about the parallels in "The Dark Knight", and that it praised the actions of Bush/Batman, should set off all your alarms. It is time for America to demand more of their government and media adn I would like to see more people talking about these issues in a reasonable way.

Posted by Milkman | July 27, 2008 12:51 AM

Batman tortures people and they tell him lies that get people killed. I *really* don't think that's the GWOT party line there...

Posted by Ed Marshall | July 27, 2008 1:32 AM

Ed, I'm not sure I understand your comment that says "I really don't think that's the GWOT (Global War on Terrorism) party line there...", could you clarify your position? Do you mean to say you don't think these themes were present in the movie?

I would just like to add that this movie presents a Bush/Batman allegory which distorts the truth. Bush is a bad guy and should be tried for his crimes, not praised through propaganda such as "The Dark Knight".

Posted by Milkman | July 27, 2008 2:11 AM

I find it substantially inaccurate for any one person to relate "The Dark Knight" (or for that matter any comic-based movie) to real life political figures; be it George W. Bush or anyone else. Yes, there are many films that advocate to at least some level of political influence, but most do not. And it's not just The Wall Street Journal, but a myriad of conservative opinions see the same comparisons about Batman.

The largest inaccuracy that Klavan fails to address is the fact that Bruce Wayne was not chosen to become Batman, but rather becoming him as an act of revenge differentiates him from Bush to no end. Batman is well-known as a vigilante, pursuing his own agenda that he feels is for the good of others. The public NEVER INITIALLY COUNTED on Batman to save Gotham, they just got lucky that he came around - unlike Bush - who IS COUNTED on by the American people to perform at the best of his abilities for others. If Klavan wishes to draw the similarities between Wayne and Bush, he cannot solely interpret Batman's methods of vigilantism and ignore the other aspects of his character, such as "never breaking his one rule," and focusing on only crime as his need for being a hero. Contrary to Bush, who's job it is (somewhat) to fix crime, but also economic standards, foreign affairs, among dozens of other topics.

I also agree with the point of comparing the Joker to Bin Laden fallacy you guys brought up. The Joker never sought revenge on society (America and Christianity in Bin Laden's case), but rather only pursued his own evil intentions for the sole advocation of chaos and anarchy. The Joker was not "Us against Them," but rather "Me against the World." He had no agenda, unlike Bin Laden, but just the desire to watch the world burn.

As soon as the word 'terrorist' was mentioned in the script you'd have to believe someone in the journalism world would jump on the movie-real life relativity band wagon. At no point do I believe Klavan understood that Batman's character in "The Dark Knight" had always had his set of rules - you know, decades before Bush entered office. He was always the way Bale portrayed him, not just suddenly in the near-end of Bush's 2nd term.

One other thing. Christopher Nolan, the director, is not a conservative, nor has he indicated he ever was.

Posted by Korman | July 27, 2008 2:14 AM

Hello Korman, I read your post but I disagree with some of the viewpoints you present.

"I find it substantially inaccurate for any one person to relate "The Dark Knight"...to real life political figures; be it George W. Bush or anyone else."

Well, I would say based on the proliferation of torture, wiretapping, videotaping of hostages, falsifying the circumstances of death, and Joker as terrorist references within the movie, it would actually be quite accurate to relate "The Dark Knight" to real life political issues, especially Bush's presidency. I would like to hear more on your take though.

"The largest inaccuracy that Klavan fails to address is the fact that Bruce Wayne was not chosen to become Batman, but rather becoming him as an act of revenge differentiates him from Bush to no end."

I think what you're saying, correct me if I'm wrong, is that Batman's backstory doesn't line up exactly with Bush's, so the Batman as Bush comparison does not exist in "The Dark Knight". I don;t agree with you there because I believe the filmmakers were making -allegorical- references to Bush. There are a lot of themes in the film that directly relate people and situations to real-world counterparts. Batman is how Bush would like to be seen. It doesn't mean that the Batman on screen is exactly like Bush. Bush would like you to think he is Batman, sacrificing his reputation for the good of America. That is why I classify "The Dark Knight" as propaganda. Bush and Batman are different entities, but in this movie, I believe Batman was -portrayed- as Bush would like to be seen, in an effort to justify Bush's unlawful policies.

"[The Joker] had no agenda, unlike Bin Laden, but just the desire to watch the world burn."

In real life, Islamic fundamentalists have reasons for the things they do. They may think westerners are invaders and that is why they fight. I'm sure it's different for different people. Bush, however, wants you to believe that they just want to "watch the world burn". The Joker is portrayed as a stereotype of a Muslim terrorist. This is how Bush wants you to picture the insurgents in Iraq. That is why it is propaganda, and that is why the movie is bad.

"At no point do I believe Klavan understood that Batman's character in "The Dark Knight" had always had his set of rules - you know, decades before Bush entered office."

It is clear that Batman and Bush have separate histories. The writers of "The Dark Knight" however, capitalized on whatever similarities there were to be found between them, and used those similarities to paint a false picture of the Bush administration. They drew comparisons to the wiretapping and torture scandals that Bush was involved in, and tried to justify his unlawful choices as necessary evils. If you have any questions about my response please let me know.

"One other thing. Christopher Nolan, the director, is not a conservative, nor has he indicated he ever was."

I think it is possible that Nolan is pro-Bush but doesn't talk about it. For example, when Bush ran for office, he portryed himself as an honest, religious person, but in reality he was just saying that to get votes. It turns out he might be the worst president in American history because of all the lies he told. Thank you for your post and I look forward to your response.

Posted by Milkman | July 27, 2008 6:59 AM

I agree that this Bush thing has gone a little too far. It's a comics movie for god's sake! If you are interested check out my analysis at Encefalus.

Posted by Encefalus | July 27, 2008 3:30 PM

“Holy W, Batman! You’re like Bush?”

I read the Wall Street Journal’s piece comparing the trials and tribulations of Batman to those of President Bush. Wow! Was that a bat signal in the sky, or the letter “W?” I found the comparison interesting but have my own opinions about heroes and battles against evil.

On the rope of life, heroes climb above their weakest point, putting themselves at risk for the benefit of others. Love, compassion, duty and honor call them forth and they respond. Still, even heroes on a worthwhile quest against evil must search their own hearts for smoldering embers of hate or vengeance that could influence their actions and bring dishonor and disaster. We are only human. Heroes or not, we often fight our deadliest battles against ourselves and the best way to tame our dark, snarling inner desires is to flood those beasts with light.

We live in the real world, one with presidents and CEO’s but no superheroes of fantasy fame. Public awareness and debate about all sides of political and social issues must comprise the beams of light in our darkened skies. And we should all vote according to the signals in which we believe. That “W” stands for “We, the people,” if we let it.

Laurel Anne Hill
Author of “Heroes Arise,” a parable about the necessity and complexity of breaking the cycle of vengeance. (KOMENAR Publishing, October 2007)

Posted by Laurel Anne Hill | July 28, 2008 12:21 AM

Encefalus, I read your article, but you seem to criticize those who see "The Dark Knight" as Bush propaganda, while providing no proof of your claims that the allegory can be portrayed as both pro and anti-bush. You disniss those who see the parallels as "paranoids" and portray their views as "extremes", while at the same time admitting that there really is a resonance to real-world scenarios. That seems contradictary to me. I would like to know why you think torture, wiretapping, videotaping hostages, terrorist activities, falsifying the circumstances of someone's death, and other themes, were used in this movie. My view is that the producers of "The Dark Knight" are pro-Bush advocates that try to justify his unlawful and deceitful crimes as being a necessary evil in the war on terror. I have yet to read or hear anybody tackle those issues head-on and, through a reasonable discussion, persuade me that I am wrong.

To Laurel Anne Hill, I think the Wall Street Journal takes the parallel and uses it for their own pro-Bush purposes. There is indeed a parallel to the Bush presidency, but the WSJ turns it into a "paeon of praise to the fortitude of Bush." The movie is actually a paeon of praise to the lies and crimes of Bush. That's what makes it a propaganda film. WSJ realized that the parallel was blatantly obvious in the film, and they embraced it. This effectively dissuaded left-wing people from even considering the parallel to be accurate. Everyone should be aware that the parallel is true, just not the way WSJ portrays it. Bush lied about the reason to invade Iraq, he set up secret off-shore prisons to torture people, and he broke the law through illegal wiretaps of American citizens. There is no "fortitude" there to praise. This noble image of Bush is flat-out propaganda that has been promoted through pro-Bush news media such as Fox and WSJ. I hope I was clear in my statements, because I know this is a confusing and sensitive issue for a lot of people. I would welcome any further discussion on the subject.

Posted by Milkman | July 28, 2008 1:00 AM

Milkman:

I would like to know why you think torture, wiretapping, videotaping hostages, terrorist activities, falsifying the circumstances of someone's death, and other themes, were used in this movie. My view is that the producers of "The Dark Knight" are pro-Bush advocates that try to justify his unlawful and deceitful crimes as being a necessary evil in the war on terror. I have yet to read or hear anybody tackle those issues head-on and, through a reasonable discussion, persuade me that I am wrong.

Yes, these things were represented in THE DARK KNIGHT, but that doesn't mean the movie is endorsing them. It's already been said on the other thread, but in what way does this movie endorse torture? When Dent does it to a schizophrenic, Batman points out why it's pointless. When Batman does it to the Joker, the Joker tricks him by switching the addresses. Then when the cop goes to beat up the Joker, the Joker turns the situation against him and winds up escaping.

When the wiretapping system is used, Lucius says how it is too much power for one person, says he will resign if it remains, Bruce lets only him use it, then has it automatically destroyed when he's done. (Hard to imagine Bush/Cheney taking that route.) Furthermore, its use is not entirely helpful to Batman: a/ it blinds him at a key moment, and b/ it's not clear that it would have made any difference in catching the Joker.

I think the biggest problem with your argument is that the Nolans clearly are ambivalent about whether or not Batman is right to do what he does at all. At the end of BATMAN BEGINS, Gordon posits the idea of escalation, implicitly asking if the existence of Batman is worth it. This is explored in depth in THE DARK KNIGHT, and at the end of this movie the answer is still ambivalent.

The Joker exists because Batman exists (this probably deserves a whole essay of its own). That's hardly a neoconservative, pro-Bush thesis if you're intent on the Bush:Batman::Al Qaeda:Joker analogy. The Joker's existence leads to destruction and countless deaths, including Batman's love and also the one person he erroneously thought could eventually take his place in a non-vigilante fashion. And the moment where Wayne is (ultimately wrongly) convinced that Dent is incorruptible is right after Dent praises Batman by comparing him to Julius Caesar. If that doesn't highlight on multiple levels that Batman might be somewhat misguided, I don't know what does. Then, to top it all off, Batman winds up violating his one moral code by having to kill someone (Two-Face) to save an innocent.

Yes, it's clear that the Nolans think that Batman means well, but that doesn't mean they think he isn't doing more harm than good. If you're intent on the Bush/Batman analogy, maybe ambivalence rather than outright disgust is too generous for you (it would probably be too generous for me if I bought the analogy in the first place). But that hardly qualifies it as propaganda.

Posted by Hunter H. | July 28, 2008 5:28 PM

I have a question:

Why does the Joker wire Gotham General with hundreds of finely timed
explosives, in order that he can later set them off by remote control ?

Wouldn't it be far more expedient to fly a small plane (presumably also by remote control) into the top floor of the building, initiating a 'pancake collapse'?

I don't think the Joker is meant to represent Bin Laden. If he were, wouldn't he use the same methodology, rather than the methodology proposed by 'Loose Change', 'Zeitgeist', et al ?

I think you're all missing the point.

Posted by Theodore Trout | July 28, 2008 5:33 PM

I have a question:

Why does the Joker wire Gotham General with hundreds of finely timed
explosives, in order that he can later set them off by remote control ?

Wouldn't it be far more expedient to fly a small plane (presumably also by remote control) into the top floor of the building, initiating a 'pancake collapse'?

I don't think the Joker is meant to represent Bin Laden. If he were, wouldn't he use the same methodology, rather than the methodology proposed by 'Loose Change', 'Zeitgeist', et al ?

I think you're all missing the point.

Posted by Theodore Trout | July 28, 2008 5:36 PM

To Hunter:

Your post is very convincing and I see where you are coming from, but I would like to respond with an alternative point-of-view. I think the movie presents the themes of torture as a logical course of action for Batman. This sends a message that these same policies, when used by Bush, were logical. The movie endorses torture because in every instance that it is used, the villains are portrayed as people deserving torture for their crimes. Harvey Dent believes that the criminal ought to be shot in the face (before he finds out the guy is insane). Batman feels justified in using torture on the mob boss. In two separate scenes both Batman and the cop justify their use of torture on the Joker. Even though the information they receive is not entirely true, they are still able to obtain some information (i.e. where the hostages are, and Maroni gives some info as well). Torture is presented as a logical course of action. My view is no one deserves that kind of treatment, and when you sink to the level of your enemies, you become the very thing you fight against. “The Dark Knight” however, portrays these themes as necessary evils to fight crime. The film promotes the idea that if you use torture, you can still be considered a hero, or at least an anti-hero. That is how the title of the movie fits in with the pro-Bush theme. The movie’s message is that, in certain times, we need a dark knight who is willing to use torture on criminals in order to fight crime. I just think that’s wrong.

The wiretapping is called into question by Lucius, but the technology is once again seen as a necessary evil to fight crime. Lucius ends up using it, which sends a message that illegal wiretapping is a good way to catch criminals. I think Bush should have gone through the FISA courts and not broken the law, but this movie justifies his actions. The machine is destroyed at the end, and I’m sure that’s how the Bush administration would like you to view their wiretap program, but I don’t trust Bush and Cheney. After seeing the level of corruption that can be maintained in the office of the president, I have a hard time trusting any of the candidates. They shouldn’t have free reign over the surveillance of America without some checks and balances, but the movie says otherwise.

I don’t think the filmmakers were “clearly are ambivalent about whether or not Batman is right to do what he does.” One of the last lines of the movie was a child referring to Batman and saying something like ’But he didn’t do anything wrong.’ This, to me, shows that the filmmakers were coming from a specific political point of view, one that justifies Bush’s lies and crimes as logical and necessary courses of action.

You wrote that “the Joker exists because Batman exists.” I think that goes right along with the Bush doctrine that terrorists hate our freedoms. Bush turns a complicated political situation into a good vs. evil battle, and “The Dark Knight” reinforces that distortion. You also wrote “Batman might be somewhat misguided.” I think that the filmmakers went out of their way to show that Batman/Bush does indeed make mistakes but in the end is working for the safety of the people he is sworn to protect. That is propaganda. I think it’s fairly obvious that Bush is not working for the safety of America. He lied to get us into a war, he broke international human rights laws, and he has taken away many of our civil liberties. All in the name of fighting terror. You write that the Nolan’s portray Bush/Batman as meaning well, but possibly “doing more harm then good.” I think the situation is far worse than that, because Bush does not mean well. I have come to that conclusion based on his actions in office. It is for these reasons that I believe the movie was propaganda. I would like to talk with you about this further, so please comment back.

Posted by Milkman | July 29, 2008 3:07 AM

"I would just like to add that this movie presents a Bush/Batman allegory which distorts the truth. Bush is a bad guy and should be tried for his crimes, not praised through propaganda such as "The Dark Knight"."

Milkman, if you see TDK as propaganda you're a sad cat. Priggish, politically correct, unfun, overly serious. Get a life.

Posted by Peter J, | July 29, 2008 11:57 AM

I agree that Klavan's interpretation isn't viable at all. I did my best to make that point in my latest blog entry (http://adamanthenes.blogspot.com/2008/07/andrew-klavan-misses-point-why-dark.html).

There are so many things at odds with the view that Batman is allegorical for Bush that it becomes a cherry-picked point of view that doesn't hold any weight whatsoever when examined closely.

And to "blah" at the very top, it's not based on the comic book. The movie uses the entire canon as a source, so no one comic book can claim to have sole influence on the movie.

Posted by W.E.B. Adamant | July 29, 2008 12:57 PM

I agree that Klavan's interpretation isn't viable at all. I did my best to make that point in my latest blog entry (http://adamanthenes.blogspot.com/2008/07/andrew-klavan-misses-point-why-dark.html).

There are so many things at odds with the view that Batman is allegorical for Bush that it becomes a cherry-picked point of view that doesn't hold any weight whatsoever when examined closely.

And to "blah" at the very top, it's not based on the comic book. The movie uses the entire canon as a source, so no one comic book can claim to have sole influence on the movie.

Posted by W.E.B. Adamant | July 29, 2008 12:57 PM

Lame-O Milkman:

"Batman feels justified in using torture on the mob boss. In two separate scenes both Batman and the cop justify their use of torture on the Joker. "

I know!!! What will the children think, that it's okay to use torture??

Batman doesn't kill the Joker outright. Bush would kill Osama. Bill Clinton tried to kill Osama before 9-11. Probably pissed him off.

Why did Nolan use Patrick Leahy in a cameo? Huh, smart guy?

Posted by Peter K. | July 29, 2008 2:10 PM

Milkman:

The movie endorses torture because in every instance that it is used, the villains are portrayed as people deserving torture for their crimes. Harvey Dent believes that the criminal ought to be shot in the face (before he finds out the guy is insane). Batman feels justified in using torture on the mob boss. In two separate scenes both Batman and the cop justify their use of torture on the Joker. Even though the information they receive is not entirely true, they are still able to obtain some information (i.e. where the hostages are, and Maroni gives some info as well). Torture is presented as a logical course of action.

I agree with you that Batman feels justified in torturing the Joker and Maroni, but I think there is a distinction between how Batman feels and what the movie thinks about he's doing. (Likewise with Harvey--it's clear at that point that his personality is in the process of deranging, so I don't think it would be accurate to say the movie endorses anything he does from that point onward, or necessarily all of his previous actions, for that matter.)

I can't remember the exact dialogue between Batman and Maroni, so I can't refute your statement that he gives up some information, but I do remember Batman being pretty frustrated that he didn't find out what he wanted to know (the whereabouts of the Joker). With regard to the Joker giving up information, I think that given the fact that one of the Joker's main goals was corrupting Harvey Dent, I'm pretty sure that he would have told them the same thing anyway, because he wanted those particular circumstances (Batman saving Harvey, but Rachel's death tormenting them both). If anything, I think that the movie is pretty explicitly saying that torture is useless at best and counterproductive at worst.

The wiretapping is called into question by Lucius, but the technology is once again seen as a necessary evil to fight crime. Lucius ends up using it, which sends a message that illegal wiretapping is a good way to catch criminals. I think Bush should have gone through the FISA courts and not broken the law, but this movie justifies his actions. The machine is destroyed at the end, and I’m sure that’s how the Bush administration would like you to view their wiretap program, but I don’t trust Bush and Cheney. [...] They shouldn’t have free reign over the surveillance of America without some checks and balances, but the movie says otherwise.

How the movie views the wiretapping system is a little more ambiguous, I will admit that. I think that ultimately, the system itself is more useful than not to Batman in the rooftop climax (though it is shown as being counterproductive at a key point), so I can see why someone would think that it's pro-wiretapping. I do think the movie is saying something about checks and balances though, by the fact that Batman won't even let himself use it; he entrusts it to a single person, Lucius (who is certainly one of the moral compasses of the whole movie), who happens to think that it is inherently a bad idea and destroys it at the end. If there's someone in the Bush administration who actually has that viewpoint, I'd be pretty surprised.

One of the last lines of the movie was a child referring to Batman and saying something like ’But he didn’t do anything wrong.’ This, to me, shows that the filmmakers were coming from a specific political point of view, one that justifies Bush’s lies and crimes as logical and necessary courses of action.

I'm not sure I would jump to the conclusion that this is the entirety of the movie's viepoint. The wisdom/fallacy of the child's viewpoint is that on some level it's true--Batman did not intend to do anything wrong--but also that it is inadequate. No, Batman didn't kill the officers that Two-Face did, and he is being pursued for the wrong reasons. But he arguably set in motion all the events that took place in the movie because of his existence, so he does bear some responsibility. It seems to me that the movie is saying that the vigilante, regardless of intent, and a government/police force intent on upholding the rule of law cannot coexist. If you want to to take the Bush/Batman analogy to its logical conclusion, that would mean we would have to impeach Bush/Cheney. I can live with that.

You wrote that “the Joker exists because Batman exists.” I think that goes right along with the Bush doctrine that terrorists hate our freedoms. Bush turns a complicated political situation into a good vs. evil battle, and “The Dark Knight” reinforces that distortion.

This is my fault for not going into more detail on this point, but see the link Matt provides to the blog post comparing the Joker to blowback. Alfred makes this point in the movie: that because of the effectiveness (on a certain level) of Batman's extra-legal vigilantism, the criminals turned to this insane clown genius they--and, importantly, also Batman, Alfred points out--obviously didn't understand.

Batman at one point even asks himself if he brought this on Gotham. I'd say that, while the movie doesn't definitely resolve the question, that's much closer to recognizing a complicated political situation than the oversimplifications of Bush and company. Again, taking the Batman/Bush analogy to its logical conclusion, in terms of foreign policy, would be basically arguing the same thing Ron Paul used to say at the Republican debates about blowback (to equal amounts of cheering and booing).

You also wrote “Batman might be somewhat misguided.” I think that the filmmakers went out of their way to show that Batman/Bush does indeed make mistakes but in the end is working for the safety of the people he is sworn to protect. That is propaganda. I think it’s fairly obvious that Bush is not working for the safety of America.

I think where the Bush/Batman analogy irrevocably breaks down is on the level of Batman's moral code of not killing. Bush talks about "hunting down and killing the terrorists". Batman, meanwhile, won't kill the one person who is unambiguously a villain. And it's not hard to imagine that his responsibility in killing Harvey Dent is going to cause him much personal anguish in the future. That's a pretty substantial difference.

Like I said before, the movie is ambivalent on a lot of these questions. And I would be kidding myself if I thought the movie was a subversive left-wing critique of Bush that viewed Batman as explicitly wrong in all his actions. But just because it doesn't assume bad faith on the part of Batman doesn't mean it is, in the end, endorsing his overall vigilante project. Like you, I do assume bad faith on the part of the Bush administration, and to not do so, I think, is too generous. But THE DARK KNIGHT raises these questions without answering them, so I think that disqualifies it from being propaganda.

Posted by Hunter H. | July 29, 2008 3:14 PM

Bush most makes me think of Anakin SkyWalker from Star Wars 3.

Posted by Tadd | July 30, 2008 12:40 PM

Most good movies have some kind of contemporary theme. It makes them easier to relate to. Way to go, Chris Nolan, for making a relevant work of fiction. He asks a lot of good questions:

While the themes are kind of spot on to current events, comparing Batman to George W. Bush is going too far.

Listen, Superman, Jason Bourne and even Austin Powers don't "negotiate with terrorists".

Shaft, Axel Foley and Dirty Harry didn't "play by the rules" either. The Ghostbusters (part 2) were unpopular to the city they were trying to protect.

Parents, coaches and bosses throughout history have always made unpopular decisions for the sake of the team/company/family. George W. claiming his war is in our best interest is not a new idea.

Finally and most importantly: Gotham City has ALWAYS had a love/hate relationship with Batman. He's always been a misunderstood anti-hero with questionable motives fighting "terrorists", EVERY comic book villian is a terrorist. They're bad guys with selfish motives. If anything, REAL LIFE is borrowing from action movies.

Posted by Scott J | July 30, 2008 4:57 PM

Most good movies have some kind of contemporary theme. It makes them easier to relate to. Way to go, Chris Nolan, for making a relevant work of fiction. He asks a lot of good questions, basically, how far is too far to fight for justice?

While the themes are kind of spot on to current events, comparing Batman to George W. Bush is going too far.

Listen, Superman, Jason Bourne and even Austin Powers don't "negotiate with terrorists".

Shaft, Axel Foley and Dirty Harry didn't "play by the rules" either. The Ghostbusters (part 2) were unpopular to the city they were trying to protect.

Parents, coaches and bosses throughout history have always made unpopular decisions for the sake of the team/company/family. George W. claiming his war is in our best interest is not a new idea.

Finally and most importantly: Gotham City has ALWAYS had a love/hate relationship with Batman. He's always been a misunderstood anti-hero with questionable motives fighting "terrorists", EVERY comic book villian is a terrorist. They're bad guys with selfish motives. If anything, REAL LIFE is borrowing from action movies.

And Hunter: REALLY good points about Batman's entire philosophy. He wants Gotham City to

Posted by Scott J | July 30, 2008 5:00 PM

Most good movies have some kind of contemporary theme. It makes them easier to relate to. Way to go, Chris Nolan, for making a relevant work of fiction. He asks a lot of good questions, basically, how far is too far to fight for justice?

While the themes are kind of spot on to current events, comparing Batman to George W. Bush is going too far.

Listen, Superman, Jason Bourne and even Austin Powers don't "negotiate with terrorists".

Shaft, Axel Foley and Dirty Harry didn't "play by the rules" either. The Ghostbusters (part 2) were unpopular to the city they were trying to protect.

Parents, coaches and bosses throughout history have always made unpopular decisions for the sake of the team/company/family. George W. claiming his war is in our best interest is not a new idea.

Finally and most importantly: Gotham City has ALWAYS had a love/hate relationship with Batman. He's always been a misunderstood anti-hero with questionable motives fighting "terrorists", EVERY comic book villian is a terrorist. They're bad guys with selfish motives. If anything, REAL LIFE is borrowing from action movies.

Posted by Scott J | July 30, 2008 5:02 PM

There's no comparison whatsoever. Bush is willing to put our soldiers into harm's way and kill innocent Iraq citizens based on lies and false information. Batman has an ethnical code that he lives by that he will not take a life- even The Joker's.
If I had the opportunity I would suggest to "W" to watch The Dark Knight and maybe he'd see what it's like to have such traits. But, he'd probably be disappointed that it was not the "Adam West" Batman that he grew up on.

Posted by Brian B. | July 31, 2008 1:45 AM

Bush and Batman

Comments (94)

Search

Books by Matthew Yglesias

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Weekly Archives

Categories