Editorial:
Loewak is an Intelligent Media network. We offer news, articles and perspectives no one else offers.Our aim is to build a new media that actually rewards instead of punishes intelligence. We are looking for writers, journalists, scientists and artists to form an alternative to the big media. Choose 'Blog hosting' from the top menu to see what we can offer you.
Ad network
Fantasmania:

Analysis of Batman, the Dark knight

Yesterday I saw the film ‘Batman, The Dark Knight’, a film that has been praised highly by many as the ‘best film of 2008′ and has a surreal rating of 9.0 on IMDB, and is replacing many film classics on its top 100 list of movies of all times.

Some time ago there was a small but interesting news rapport of a scientific research program that proved children nowadays do not have nightmares about witches and demons anymore but that comic book characters and villains played an important role in their nightmares. This is a very interesting fact which proves that dreams are culturally shaped, and it also proves that the American comic book mythology has high impact on our subconscious mind.

I think the reason we all can’t really let go of the ‘American Dream’ is simple: it’s mythology has nested itself in our genes. The Americans have, so to speak, patented the idea of magic. Whenever we think of Christmas we see a red lighted Coca Cola Truck passing by. By patenting our dreams and our sense of magic the Americans have in fact done a very clever thing: the whole world feels as if America is somehow the centre of its hopes and dreams, which is clearly hogwash but its a superstition almost impossible to get rid of: that is one of the basic characteristics of such propaganda.

The film ‘Batman, the Dark Night’ is a good film in it’s genre, but not much more than that. It’s infact a fully hackneyed film, montaged together out of stolen bits from other films. It’s completely formulaic as all hollywood works are nowadays. To call it ‘one of the best films of all times’ is a big insult to the film industry, even would we limit its scope to Hollywood.

Writer Mark twain once wrote that in writing credibility is everything. Once credibility is thrown out of the window a story simply cannot be good, he said. I think he is right, and I also think the majority of people nowadays simply don’t have any sort of idea any more what a good story actually is. There is not a single part of ‘Batman The Dark Night’ that has any credibility. Of course not, I hear you think, it’s a comic book adaptation. Well, there exactly lies the problem.

‘Batman, the Dark Knight’ reminds me of another rather painful development in our modern day world: that the best of our scientists are busy researching rather uninteresting projects purely because commerce demands it and they lack funding to do anything else. This is exactly what is going on in the film world. The best of its directors are *forced* to make these sort of comic book films, simply because a real film wouldn’t be profitable enough. It’s like seeing someone build a castle with Lego stones as it firmament: one cannot, ever, get around the fact that the basic premise of the story is childish and simplistic – ‘Batman, the Dark Night’ does its best to pretend some literary depth, especially towards the end, but the fact is that if the basis of a story is a childish fairytale you can be as eloquent as you want, but somehow that basis will always shine through.

There simply are no adult films any more. We are getting into a situation where Batman and Harry Potter films will soon be the only sort of films available, at least in the cinemas, and we see a bunch of critics lauding them like they would be classic literature. I think that is a scary development, that fits perfectly to the major developments in our world nowadays: its the propagandistic caricaturisation of our cultures. We don’t have real people as presidents any more, we have flat marketing concepts: the war hero, the Negro, the woman. It’s an attempt to hijack elections by product placement. ‘Batman, the Dark Knight’ is an attempt to hijack literature by postulating it would no longer be necessary: its enough to cut and paste strong lines and themes from other movies to have a ‘script’ nowadays, all that matters is the *suggestion* of literature rather than literature itself.

But as the major public seems content with this approach we can expect more of the same for many years to come. Having ones children dream about comic book villains might even have some advantage: it’s easier to dispel the Joker than it is to dispel an evil witch. All one has to do is flap ones wings and beat him. The New dark Batman, no longer a gentleman: is this supposed to prepare us for the next US president?

11 Responses to “Analysis of Batman, the Dark knight”

  • Abraxis Everblast:
    “it’s mythology has nested itself in our genes”

    I would say memes instead of genes. Familiar with the concept of memes?

    “Once credibility is thrown out of the window a story simply cannot be good, he said.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspension_of_disbelief

    Good analysis, overall. But I don’t think it will be as bad as you picture it. There will always be independent companies making movies with depth. But real good art often reaches a relatively small audience.
  • Henk-Jan van Maanen:
    Hmm interesting.

    I just found out about this site. Seems I disagree with most I read on it but it is challenging because the intellectual level and use of language is pretty much ok.

    Anyway, about Batman: I disagree with your analysis. You main point is that ‘Once credibility is thrown out of the window a story simply cannot be good, he said’

    He is wrong. In my opinion imagination is one of the greatest gifts presented to mankind (to put poetically) So if a story is based on a fantasy world/personage it can still contain all the dept you seek for in a great story. The metaphore has long since been a great instrument in literature or storytelling.

    An example: The Lord of the Rings. Widely considered as a great achievement in literature. Its basic premise might seem childish but the story contains all important themes in literature and live. Same for Batman DK. If you look through the surface of the comic book character you can see the valuable background of the story
  • Batman might have had some depth if there were an actual relation between his being outside the law and there being lawlessness. As it is, the Joker just crashes onto the scene, mad like any terrorist (who, as we all know from the papers, are not motivated by anything strategic or political but “because they hate our way of life”) and acting for no reason. And the Batman remains too much of a hero for him to develop anything like a credible dark side in the movie. Sure, there’s a reference on the side to Bush’s illegal wiretap program. But like the real illegal wiretap program, it’s of no real consequence in the movie. Then, the intellectual high point is an ethics puzzle which seems to be based on the prisoner’s dillema yet again – so the intellectual depth of the film is, what, Ethics 101 or something? Doesn’t convince me!

    But Ledger’s acting is a lot of fun.
  • That’s exactly what I felt like – the movie is sort of a propagandistic endorsement of the current political situation. The joker is the wild crazy terrorist, Batman the Bush Administration that, oh pardon, at some point ‘loses its nerve and starts torturing the joker’ because, well, because he’s so bad.

    There is, of course, some magnificent chaos theory behind the movie that impresses loads of people including me. I found it very impressive that the Joke could rig and blow up an entire hospital and yet, as we know, he never plans anything. But he does announce plans, in fact, he just doesn’t really mean it, and when he blows up hospitals its entirely circumstancial.

    As to fantasy, I have read loads of science fiction and fantasy. I dont like lord of the rings much – i always preferred Jack Vance, Tanith Lee, Ursela leGuin and R.A.Lafferty. Much better. Lord of the rings isn’t great literature. It has the same kind of flaws this Batman film has.
  • LotR is great stuff if you’re the right age I guess. I loved it at 11 and through much of my teen years. Probably couldn’t make my way through it today: it has got too many tedious passages. Though I do still find the level of detail with which Tolkien imagined his world impressive. Still, it’s a kind of impressiveness that may also strike you in, say, people who know everything about model trains.

    The other thing that is interesting is that the book is apparently so mesmerizing that nobody minds reading all that claptrap about kings of pure blood and restoring ancient empires for thousands of pages – it’s just a reality short of being the ultimate fascist wet dream.

    Vance is great. I still think the two Cugel books are among the best books I know.
  • To me Tolkien seems to write from a very Christian-fundamentalist sort of viewpoint: Good is good, evil is evil, and there are no real motifs or character development. Good example is that ultimate evil creature who never gets anything to say, he’s just there, he’s just evil. Essentially no character development at all, and no motiv either, which makes the entire story uninteresting.

    Vance is my favorite SF writer. Vance has a great imagination, a great sense of humor, and he’s an intelligent cynic that makes fun of everybody and everything. I’d much rather see a movie made of Tschai, but I think that’s be much harder to make than that supposedly ‘unfilmable’ lord of the rings book.
  • Brandon Butler:
    I’m sorry, but I don’t buy a lot of these notions about “what a good film is”.

    Listen: Lord of the Rings as a decent book, but not even as murky as these Batman films. With the exception of Gullom and Grima Wortongue, good is good and evil is evil. The themes are appreciable, but clearly the greatest accomplihsment is the massive worldbuidling. Lord of the Rings was originally built on languages Tolkien created — two, in fact. It did not come the other way around.

    The notion that childish fairytales will always hold something back, that form supercedes substance, is complete rubbish. Far too many stories carry themselves on ‘highbrow’ reputation that mean NOTHING. “House of Sand and Fog”? What, someone loses thier house due to thier own incompentence and suddenly they’re a tragic hero? “The Crying of Lot 49″? What the heck is that about? “Ulysses”? Wow, great experiment: but why don’t I just write a math equation instead?

    These same kiddie fairy tales are the same basis for which Shakespeare got his plays. He didn’t spite form, and neither should others.

    As for films, one of the top 3 movies ever made, “The Godfather” was made from a paperback tale that was written for money after Puzo felt all his better ideas weren’t selling.

    Batman’s got a lot of things in there that symbolize our fears and psychosis. All of which is present in the source material post 1985. Batman himself and his quasi-fascistic leanings. The Joker the ever-present Id and cipher. Two-Face the rampant super-ego. Penguin the “lesser man” every bit as slothful and distasteful as Joseph Conrad’s general manager from “Heart of Darkness”.

    Know your stories. Never spite the form it which they come.
  • Guy:
    First of all, you fail to use any facts to back up your claims. You say the Dark Knight is just a bunch of bits and pieces thrown together from other films, but do not say from which films these came.
    Second, the plot doesn’t have to be that complicated as long as the uncomplicatedness is done well, as can be shown in Winnie the Pooh movies (the original ones). People need to conquer their repulsion to children’s stories and realize that they’ve got some good stuff, whether they’re simple or not.
    I fail to see how the Dark Knight is even a childish fairytale in the first place however. Here is a typical plot of a fairytale: a guy goes and rescues a damsel in distress from a dragon or something and then they live happily ever after. The Dark Knight explores psychological themes and has multiple storylines betwixted into one another.
    Furthermore, you claim that the whole movie relates to the whole terrorist Bush Administration junk. But do you realize that the movie was based on a comic book written before any of that ever happened?
    Lastly, what was so different about older movies? They don’t seem to have any more complicated plots.

    If a plot gets too complicated, eventually there will be no plot, but just events. A plot needs a main controlling purpose, and according to you if a movie has that it is childish.

    Stories are just as good whether the person telling them invented the story or not; the substance of a story does not change due to credibility, unless you are afflicted with poop.

    You are completely wrong about almost everything you said. But I do agree with one thing: Harry Potter movies stink.
  • Guy:
    wow. I got bad gramer an riting skilz
  • M.H.Benders:
    Thanks for replying, folks. I can’t really say much except that ‘the dark knight’ to me is a movie in as far those two ‘debates’ last weeks were ‘debates’. Anything that comes out of the US seems so iconoclastic it ends up just looking like a persiflage. Your opinions that there is nothing wrong with stories or plots that lack any credibility whatsoever is a typical phenomenon that essentially points to the corruption of the aesthetic sense. Once the aesthetic sense has been corrupted far enough that it regards ‘we have to win this war because america is beautiful’ as a credible argument one can just stand aside and gasp. This corruption of the aesthetic sense is the core problem of these times, and I regard the fact that it returns in movies as a byproduct of the real problem, which is that to most people propoganda and truth have essentially become the same phenomenon, even if they do not believe in any of it.
  • Jon:
    Exactly *who* says the Dark Knight is the best film of all time? Other than diehard comic book fans and pop critics (and sometimes it is hard to tell one from the other), I have not heard how The Dark Knight is the best film of all time. You cite IMDB, but that is hardly a collection of expert connoisseurs of film, just by peeking at its forums one can recognize that.

    Then there is your reasoning that directors are forced to make these movies and the dumbing down of culture. That again is just ridiculous. With an increasing amount of distribution methods to sell their films or even to give them away via internet streaming, there are a wider variety of movies than ever before. This isn’t even touching on going *OUT* of Hollywood (imagine that!) and seeing excellent movies made in Europe and Asia.

    And I wonder what sort of cultural utopia are you comparing contemporary culture too? It can’t very well be in the past, where art was patronized and consumed by the elites and some of the best period films are essentially propaganda pieces.

    I understand if someone is jaded with pop art, but that is what it is. Its disposable entertainment that is mostly harmless. One can decry how the Internet and cable television have irreversibly fragmented our culture, but to use a popular film like the Dark Knight to signal the end of Great Culture is narrow minded.

Leave a Reply

Who are we
Loewak is currently made by Martijn Benders and Jeroen Nieuwland. Martijn Benders is an award winning Dutch poet and philosopher that is currently working on a tetralogy of four books simultanously. Jeroen Nieuwland is a Berlin based avantgarde poet, teacher and art lover.
Ad network
Categories