Not quite the ring that "Batman" has, but nonetheless,
this article is a beautifully composed comparison.
A cry for help goes out from a city beleaguered by violence and fear: A beam of light flashed into the night sky, the dark symbol of a bat projected onto the surface of the racing clouds . . .
Oh, wait a minute. That's not a bat, actually. In fact, when you trace the outline with your finger, it looks kind of like . . . a "W."
There seems to me no question that the Batman film "The Dark Knight," currently breaking every box office record in history, is at some level a paean of praise to the fortitude and moral courage that has been shown by George W. Bush in this time of terror and war. Like W, Batman is vilified and despised for confronting terrorists in the only terms they understand. Like W, Batman sometimes has to push the boundaries of civil rights to deal with an emergency, certain that he will re-establish those boundaries when the emergency is past.
And like W, Batman understands that there is no moral equivalence between a free society -- in which people sometimes make the wrong choices -- and a criminal sect bent on destruction. The former must be cherished even in its moments of folly; the latter must be hounded to the gates of Hell.
"The Dark Knight," then, is a conservative movie about the war on terror. And like another such film, last year's "300," "The Dark Knight" is making a fortune depicting the values and necessities that the Bush administration cannot seem to articulate for beans.
And the ending, my favorite part:
The answers to these questions seem to me to be embedded in the story of "The Dark Knight" itself: Doing what's right is hard, and speaking the truth is dangerous. Many have been abhorred for it, some killed, one crucified.
Leftists frequently complain that right-wing morality is simplistic. Morality is relative, they say; nuanced, complex. They're wrong, of course, even on their own terms.
Left and right, all Americans know that freedom is better than slavery, that love is better than hate, kindness better than cruelty, tolerance better than bigotry. We don't always know how we know these things, and yet mysteriously we know them nonetheless.
The true complexity arises when we must defend these values in a world that does not universally embrace them -- when we reach the place where we must be intolerant in order to defend tolerance, or unkind in order to defend kindness, or hateful in order to defend what we love.
When heroes arise who take those difficult duties on themselves, it is tempting for the rest of us to turn our backs on them, to vilify them in order to protect our own appearance of righteousness. We prosecute and execrate the violent soldier or the cruel interrogator in order to parade ourselves as paragons of the peaceful values they preserve. As Gary Oldman's Commissioner Gordon says of the hated and hunted Batman, "He has to run away -- because we have to chase him."
That's real moral complexity. And when our artistic community is ready to show that sometimes men must kill in order to preserve life; that sometimes they must violate their values in order to maintain those values; and that while movie stars may strut in the bright light of our adulation for pretending to be heroes, true heroes often must slink in the shadows, slump-shouldered and despised -- then and only then will we be able to pay President Bush his due and make good and true films about the war on terror.
Perhaps that's when Hollywood conservatives will be able to take off their masks and speak plainly in the light of day.
1 comment:
dark knight is breaking box office records because it was smart to open on a friday, because of heath's death and because it's an r-rated movie that somehow got away with a pg-13 rating, i don't know if a lot of people are storming out of the theater saying "i love this movie because it reinforces my conservative ideals."
i didn't you leave a post earlier that said you don't agree with all the batman politicizing?
i don't think freedom and slavery are opposites anyway, that's kind of morally simplistic, and i'm not entirely sure what you're referring to. Are you saying if we didn't have an administration that uses fear-mongering tactics and enforces things like the patriot act, then we would be slaves, as in we would be chained and forced to be doing work on plantations? I think that's a highly irresponsible analogy to throw out.
I also don't define freedom as being safe from terrorist attacks.
I would be happy to live with a higher risk of terrorist attacks, if it meant that we didn't have to invade Iraq with all the problems that bought us or have the Patriot Attack or whatever other consequences are attached.
Besides, there are so many other ways where we could define freedom and slavery, here. Aren't soldiers who are forced to do extra tours of duty contractually enslaved by the current situation? Isn't Karl Rove's refusal to appear before congress, an abuse of freedom, and if it isn't how does that make us more free?
Post a Comment