I just don't understand what wetdog is trying to say.
That
The Dark Knight isn't serious art. That any Batman film cannot be serious art.
Nothing wrong about being serious with any sort of film. But:
The Dark Knight is not a serious film. Neither were the Burton films. But the Burton films didn't
take themselves seriously. They weren't pretending to be something they weren't.
Psychological implausibility at its
very core; simplistic, reductive,
unreal view of social conditions.
Okay, forget (as I've said several times recently) the signifying term: forget "serious art". Forget that wetdog ever said serious art. Now take the signified meaning: "Art that looks penetratingly and critically at reality". If you're going to argue that
The Dark Knight does this, do so. As it is, all you're doing is evading wetdog's arguments and throwing "it's all subjective" back at him.
Which is it?
If you understand wetdog's criticisms of the film, then why aren't you arguing that
The Dark Knight looks penetratingly and critically at reality? Why
isn't it skirting bewildered at its edges? Why isn't it running away from reality altogether?
Okay. So roll with it.
- Does The Dark Knight have a point?
(What does "having a point" mean? What's your point? Do you mean The Dark Knight's point is to make money? To interrogate serious social concerns? To make people laugh?) - Does The Dark Knight know why it exists?
(This is a rather problematic question to ask of a work, but does the answer not come down to commerce? Is this any different to the previous bullet point?) - Does The Dark Knight create characters or scenarios that are interesting and different?
(Is being "interesting and different" a pre-requisite to "looking penetratingly and critically at reality"?) - Does The Dark Knight care to reflect at least something about our lives?
(Is "caring to reflect something" the same as "reflecting something"? What does The Dark Knight reflect? What insight does The Dark Knight shed? What can it shed?)
After all of these have been answered, wetdog's point still remains.
How so?
I don't know what any of this means. In fact, I'd say it means fuck all.
All of what you're saying is inverse snobbery. This thread opens with you saying, "This is popular art at its best", as if that's the highest pinnacle
popular art can achieve (and "best" is, really, but I don't know it can ever be argued objectively). You'd never say, "This is obscure, unpopular art at its best". And the fact you're addressing its popularity gives commercial connotations. (Refer back to the question of, "The film knows why it exists".)
Haneke's
Hidden was an unexpected hit at the UK box office on the arthouse circuit, but you'd never say that film is "popular art at its best". You'd say, if you were going to observe the film in such commercial terms, "Art cinema at its most popular". (Reading that back,
Pan's Labyrinth is a better example.)
How is saying "Popular art at its best" any different to saying, "This is art at its most popular"?
The difference is that the latter is a cultural observation; the former is a subjective response with hierarchical notions. And I'm not saying you mean popular art is higher than non-popular art; if anything, I'm saying the opposite: By including
popular in your summation, by making that conscious decision to describe what "kind" of art it is (in terms of commercial aims), and then making a qualitative judgement of how good that art is ("at its best"), you're limiting art in terms of audience appeal. You're
acknowledging the need for the distinction. "Popular art at its best" implies popular art isn't expected to be good, and that this film
is good, and so needs especial praise.
You say: "The comics were written as
pulp trash for kids. It's true. It was
mindless entertainment and
corny at best. But I don't see why these films can't
aspire to take their origins and aspire to be something more."
What you really mean there, what you're implying, by saying "something more", is
something better. And you're taking
better to be
serious. Returning to your four bullet points, then:
What was the point of the comics?
"To provide mindless entertainment, being corny at best."
What is the point of the film?
"To take the
mindless entertainment of the comics, which were
corny at best, and aspire to be
something more. (Something
better.)"
But the problem of this approach was addressed in one of wetdog's first posts in this thread:
You're saying, "What's wrong with being serious"?
I'd say:
what's wrong with being mindlessly entertaining, and/or corny at best? Why the need to "expand" a character and make him into serious art, when
fundamental nature of the character is totally unserious?
It'd be as pretentious if I suddenly wanted to make a
Noddy film, bringing in all sorts of serious, adult explanations for him and his universe; and then aspiring to seek critical acclaim
because of that attempted seriousness.