The Dark Knight (2008)

[ronnierocketago]

What I want to know from wetdog is what he thought of the well-made MASK OF THE PHANTASM animated film, or the well-written books like BATMAN: YEAR ONE and THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS?

Better yet, can't the Joker be someone who simply loves to fuck with people, and gets off on the manipulation of them?

[seyfried]

Perhaps, this response from a friend's blog can mollify this question:

"The Fellini films that you valorize as an alternative to Batman are not just fantastical — they’re ludicrous. They’re great art, but to claim that Juliet of the Spirits is an inherently more adult film than Batman is to claim that sexual fantasies involving buxom mother figures or lithe Ganymedes are somehow inherently more adult than violent power fantasies. They aren’t; the only possible difference is that one turns your crank more. With that, we have certainly left the realm of objective aesthetic or political evaluation.

Because you haven’t seen the film, you can’t picture in your head why “a couple of teenagers with kitchen knives” wouldn’t have been able to defend the Joker in the scene with the disappearing pencil, but that’s besides the point. You can’t make an objective argument based on what kinds of stylization you’ll accept. In fact, in “real life,” nobody would disappear like the woman in L’Avventura, nobody would play invisible tennis like the people in Blow Up, nobody would hold a lungful of smoke for the duration of a john’s kiss as the prostitute does in My Life to Live, and so forth. Batman is fantasy violence, true, but every film is a fantasy.

The way you are thinking about genre and convention here misses the crucial difference between genre classics and genre exercises. The Maltese Falcon and Snake Eyes are both mysteries, and both follow genre conventions, but one is a classic and the other is a bore. Above all, good genre films provide convincing reasons for the necessities of the genre narrative, just as Shakespeare provided convincing subjectivities for stock characters.

The differences between the Joker and Randall McMurphy, as well as between Batman and Nurse Ratched, are so enormous that the analogy just can’t survive them. The Joker isn’t a liberator, he’s a provocateur. McMurphy isn’t a satanic orchestrator of moral theater, but rather a blunt instrument of rebellion. The Joker is inventive, whereas McMurphy sticks to a very well-established plan of drinking, screwing, and brawling. He’s a conformist who happens to follow a different code than Ratched."

[svsg]

Your friend should be castrated with a rusted copper wire and then sodomized repeatedly by a herd of donkeys. After that he should be made to apologize in front of Antonioni's grave. ;D

[svsg]

BTW, Snakes on a Plane is the ultimate human achievement in terms of art.

[seyfried]

He's being (purposely) sardonic with that reference, mind you. The meta discussions of Batman (or rather, what SHOULD be meta discussions) remind me of Zacharek's critique of Day-Lewis's performance as Plainview:

Day-Lewis doesn’t so much give a performance as offer a character design, an all-American totem painstakingly whittled from a twisted piece of wood… I recently received an e-mail letter from a professional actor who was dismayed both by Day-Lewis’ performance and by audiences’ response to it: “Weird how so many people confuse ‘acting that you can see’ with great acting,” he wrote — as concise and honest a summation of the way we want to be impressed by craft as I’ve ever read…. Day-Lewis plays emotions, not objectives — that is, he decides on the emotion, or the effect, instead of allowing the emotion to emerge from the situation. We may know what Plainview is feeling (or not feeling) by the look on his face, but Day-Lewis, hampered by his heavy brocade cloak of technique, is less effective at navigating the fine gradations of action necessary to define a supposedly complex character. Why does Plainview feel and act the way he does? We never know… His performance in “There Will Be Blood” is wrought, not felt: It shows the grit of discipline and forethought but lacks spontaneity, fire, life… Day-Lewis portrays Daniel Plainview as if he were playing to a mirror, not an audience. The character’s self-loathing comes off, paradoxically and unintentionally, as a manifestation of an actor’s self-love…. Caught in the trappings of supposed greatness, [Day-Lewis] is just an actor, a puppeteer pulling a series of color-coded strings to make us think and feel.

Which ironically, but inevitably, became the web's greatest appraisal of his performance. Of course, there's an inherent haughtiness, of playing the whole contrapositive shtick (re: Zizek's take on 300), but, personally, a lot of these "fantasy critiques" are indicative of what I liked best of The Dark Knight and especially, the Joker.

What did you think?

[svsg]

Aug 5, 2008 19:48:52 GMT seyfried said:

Of course, there's an inherent haughtiness, of playing the whole contrapositive shtick (re: Zizek's take on 300), but, personally, a lot of these "fantasy critiques" are indicative of what I liked best of The Dark Knight and especially, the Joker.

More explanation please, I didn't understand.

[seyfried]

I think my original post in this thread notes it, but why not go back to the source:

"a guy that dresses up like a bat clearly has issues"

But it's one-step further:

The Joker's always playing our surrogate, he's always playing the campy canon's rightful attorney: Batman IS ridiculous.

That’s why it’s ridiculous to criticize The Dark Knight on the grounds that it is a children’s film or infantile; it is about infantility, and raises questions about how much we can really escape from apparently embarrassing wishes.

Being Batman is an incredibly excessive, libidinal kinkiness, but it is also a sort of splendor, without which the impetus to fight crime is lacking. It may seem ridiculous to assert that we have to let people dress up as sleeker versions of furries in order to persuade them to wield the baton, but in truth The Dark Knight is just illuminating the fantasies that play themselves out more tamely in normal professional lives.

[seyfried]

Moreover, this is why the sickly fascist interpretations go over so well. But while Iron Man (and Wall-E to an extent) occupies a quite accurate vision of HOW Iraq War, neoliberal fervor seeps its way, murkily, into pop culture, The Dark Knight's fascist fantasies are all part of Nolan's excessive vendetta against the previous texts. It's almost DiCaprio syndrome - just do it hardcore and we'll forget you were so "girly" in the first place.

But it's also a hell of a lot of fun. Even if it's, you know, bombastic and what-not.

[svsg]

Even if we were to dismiss a lot of criticism on the grounds that the premise of it being a "fantasy film" precludes it from a lot of those criticisms, how does one explain the popularity of the movie? When some of my friends who haven't watched the movie ask me "is it really that good? should I watch it?", I don't have a good answer. I usually tell them that I did not find anything great in the movie, though I tell them to watch it, because a lot of people seem to think that it is the greatest movie of all time.

[RNL]

OH FIREFOX! I BOW TO THEE!

I wrote a big response and then somehow accidentally closed the tab. But there's a 'Recently Closed Tabs' memory function now.

Sigh...

[RNL]

Aug 5, 2008 18:20:27 GMT ronnierocketago said:

What I want to know from wetdog is what he thought of the well-made MASK OF THE PHANTASM animated film, or the well-written books like BATMAN: YEAR ONE and THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS?

I haven't seen that film or read those comics.

Better yet, can't the Joker be someone who simply loves to fuck with people, and gets off on the manipulation of them?

He can be whatever the filmmakers want him to be. But he can't be taken seriously.

[RNL]

Aug 5, 2008 19:00:49 GMT seyfried said:

Perhaps, this response from a friend's blog can mollify this question:

I don't see how. I haven't once criticised the film on aesthetic grounds or on the grounds that it's fantastical.

And I don't valorize Fellini either. I think there's a fair amount of division on the subject of Fellini's status as a serious artist anyway.

[RNL]

Aug 5, 2008 17:58:50 GMT Mike Sullivan said:

Anarchy and chaos and trying to destroy society in order to prove a sick point about the moral bankrupcy of humanity isn't frightening?

Since I'm an anarchist, no; anarchy doesn't frighten me (sorry; a mandatory correction). But if being bent on chaos is all it takes to be frightening then I suppose half the baddies from children's cartoons are too. What about all the ones who had no desire but to destroy the world? They ought to be terrifying. But they're not, because they're ridiculous. I don't see a reason to dwell on this, frankly. You find the Joker frightening and profound, I find him silly and meaningless.

But what point is he trying to make about "moral bankruptcy"? And how do his actions contribute to his making it?

And I hate to tell you: The Joker is no terrorist. He's a mad man. I've never referred to him as a terrorist and nor did the film. And you can't really take anything that charecter says seriously. That "Dog chasing cars" quote is as reliable as the multiple origin stories the Joker makes through half of the film. You just have to sit there in awe of his insanity and his persuasiveness; regardless of the fact that he's constantly changing his tune.

The Joker is a terrorist in the most clear and common sense of the word: he issues a demand to the city of Gotham that Batman unveil his identity, and states that if his demand goes unmet he will kill people.

That's terrorism.

I don't believe the "dog chasing cars" line to be comparable to his various origin stories. He's describing the way he's been behaving during the film, not why he is the way he is. And other characters see him that way too, more or less. Not that he's meant to be acting purely on instinct, but that he has no goals and no plans.

That metaphor obviously is unsuitable (from our critical perspective), since he obviously does have goals and plans--long-term goals and intricate plans--and is obviously to some extent motivated by ideology (he says as much, numerous times).

But you've gotten me curious now. If indeed the Joker is an absolutely unknowable cipher, then where does that leave the social criticism? What objective social conditions is the character supposed to relate to?

You call a life and death decision in the film as contrived as a scene in Saw? Well; geez, wasn't the Joker supposed to be nothing short of a mad man, trying to prove a point? That this world didn't deserve any rules?

Sorry, I don't follow you...

I'm not disputing that the Joker is supposed to be mad. He's a "psychopathic mass-murdering clown" according to Ledger, and "pure evil" (again: what?) according to Nolan. That seems to be about as much thought as went into the meaning behind this character. But I don't get how his being these things makes the contrived moral crisis imposed on the passengers of those boats in this near-universally critically applauded film any more meaningful or relevent than one of the myriad similar contrived moral crises imposed on the victims in the near-universally critically derided Saw films.

And I still fail to find what is psychologically impossible about Bruce Wayne. He is a vigilante. It's a choice he's made. He's a man who's motivated and willing to succeed at almost any cost. In order to put fear in the criminals that he combats; he dresses like a bat. I know; it sounds silly sometimes. But he does it and he gets results by using fear and excessive force to take down criminals. It seems silly; but what is so hard to understand about the psyche of Wayne? You call it Freduian-guff. You obviously must be educated in psychology. So who would you feel would say that Wayne's decision is impossible to come to?

Again: I said implausible, not impossible.

And I know his methods are effective in the story. That's not relevent. He could be dressed as an ostrich and his methods could be effective in the story. That's up to the writers.

And I'm sorry, I really don't mean to be confrontational, but I can't avoid saying I don't believe you. I don't believe you "fail to find what is psychologically [implausible] about Bruce Wayne." The reason I don't believe you is that you've taken to arguing that the explanation for his behaviour is some form of psychosis. You can't come up with a reasonable explanation for why a person of sound mind would do what he does. Nor should you be able to. But think of the paradox here: you're arguing that Bruce Wayne is psychologically relatable because he's psychologically unstable. How can you relate psychologically to a delusional psychotic? Your argument goes nowhere.

I don't agree that the groundwork has been laid for a thorough dissection of Wayne's psyche in these films. Some gentle jibes at the extremity and unorthodoxy of his methods are the most we've seen. And Alfred and Rachel and Gordon and the people of Gotham in general do not think that Bruce Wayne/Batman is psychotic.

See, the logic (if we're being very generous) behind Wayne's course of action is predicated upon the peurile and profoundly unreflective conception of crime that these (and many, many) stories give form to. Surely little orphaned Bruce Wayne's first course of action, in the real world, would be to use his vast fortune to improve social conditions in Gotham and thereby lower the crime rate. Surely the farthest thing from his mind would be fancy-dress vigilantism. There is NO conceivable way that that'd be the first thing he'd try. In the real world. But what does he do? He travels the globe getting into fights with random convicts in an attempt to "understand the criminal mind" (which we must presume is something different from, say, the mind of a person subjected to certain social conditions).

And I called it sub-Freudian guff. It's just random notions about childhood traumas and phobias and primal fears and whatnot, it's all just cobbled together, it's not psychologically serious at all. Batman is couched in Freudian notions (he was created in the 1930s, so it's not surprising).

And the idea that Wayne perhaps is delusional or almost psychotic; at least in the motives and methods he uses; it's TRUE. The film notes this several times between the duality of Batman and The Joker. Man people still think that Batman is a freak. Perhaps he is. Perhaps he is delusional. but he gets results. This is a saga, hopefully continued into a third film and alot of these issues you bring up perhaps may me touched on in the third script. Remember that it's still evolving.

I'm starting to repeat myself.

Yes, I won't be in the least bit surprised if the series moves in the direction of exploring Wayne's personal life. I will be surprised if it isn't as half-baked and disingenuous as this film's exploration of the ethics of vigilantism.

And I will be surprised if they embark on implications that Batman is literally a delusional psychotic, because they will not slander such a beloved character. He's a scientist and a businessman and the "world's greatest detective" and all that, remember; he's supposed to be very together upstairs, not living in a dreamland.

Oh; and I agree on one thing. These films are being made by Warner's for money. Pure and simple. Remember, it's a popular, blockbuster film. the brilliance of it is the deep moral and psychological discussions you can get into after watching it.

That's really the only thing we agree on? Then why are my posts so much longer than yours? You've kept your focus on the two issues where individual emotional response is a big factor: whether the Joker is frightening and whether Wayne's behaviour is psychologically relatable. What about my other points?

What about Alfred? Is he also deranged? Was Rachel?

What about the artistic integrity of the film? The observation about the film's raison d'être that you just responded to was accompanied by two others; besides, you only responded to the premise of that argument - do we agree on the conclusion?

[ronnierocketago]

Aug 6, 2008 0:57:46 GMT RNL said:

Aug 5, 2008 18:20:27 GMT ronnierocketago said:

What I want to know from wetdog is what he thought of the well-made MASK OF THE PHANTASM animated film, or the well-written books like BATMAN: YEAR ONE and THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS?

I haven't seen that film or read those comics.

Better yet, can't the Joker be someone who simply loves to fuck with people, and gets off on the manipulation of them?

He can be whatever the filmmakers want him to be. But he can't be taken seriously.

Well go rent MASK OF THE PHANTASM. Come on now dog, I just double-dog dared you, LOL.

Anyway, you mean YOU can't take Joker seriously, right?

[RNL]

I think Batman cartoons are going to have to stay on the long finger for now...

And what I mean is that the film is not serious art. Clearly a lot of people attach a great deal of gravitas to the characters and the stories, but I've yet to hear an argument for how any of it is artistically serious. In fact, I've yet to receive a counter-argument to most of the criticisms I made. I was expecting to take on the world here - you're lettin' me down, guys!

[ronnierocketago]

Aug 6, 2008 2:51:27 GMT RNL said:

And what I mean is that the film is not serious art. Clearly a lot of people attach a great deal of gravitas to the characters and the stories, but I've yet to hear an argument for how any of it is artistically serious. In fact, I've yet to receive a counter-argument to most of the criticisms I made. I was expecting to take on the world here - you're lettin' me down, guys!

First off....what the fuck exactly is serious art or artistically serious anyway?

[svsg]

Aug 6, 2008 0:59:54 GMT RNL said:

And I don't valorize Fellini either. I think there's a fair amount of division on the subject of Fellini's status as a serious artist anyway.

All those who question Fellini's artistic intentions should be given the same punishment as Seyfried's friend.

[svsg]

Aug 6, 2008 4:33:43 GMT ronnierocketago said:

First off....what the fuck exactly is serious art or artistically serious anyway?

Whoever wants to defend the artistic qualities of Dark Knight, please do do without dragging down Fellini and Antonioni ;D

[RNL]

Aug 6, 2008 4:33:43 GMT ronnierocketago said:

Aug 6, 2008 2:51:27 GMT RNL said:

And what I mean is that the film is not serious art. Clearly a lot of people attach a great deal of gravitas to the characters and the stories, but I've yet to hear an argument for how any of it is artistically serious. In fact, I've yet to receive a counter-argument to most of the criticisms I made. I was expecting to take on the world here - you're lettin' me down, guys!

First off....what the fuck exactly is serious art or artistically serious anyway?

I defined it already:

I consider serious art to be art that looks penetratingly and critically at reality and doesn't just react unconsciously to it, or skirt bewildered around its edges, or run away from it altogether.

[The Ghost of LLC]

Real art is anything that affects someone, even if the majority opinion is that it sucks or is trash or whatever.

I think art is usually pretty circumstantial depending on the individual.

Of course, The Dark Knight probably wasn't made with the intention of shifting minds or creating highly sophisticated ideas, and I think Mick has brought on that argument many, many times, and we're probably all familiar with it. But that doesn't make it less enjoyable, and enjoyment of a film or piece of music or literature is usually a rather euphoric, flushing emotion that comes over you... Which is a pretty remarkable reaction, I think.

And that's what art is all about, right? Evoking emotional reactions.

So, is this movie genuine art? I have no fucking clue... But I would say I enjoyed it.