http://www.loewak.nl/2008/09/17/analysis-of-batman-the-dark-knight/ Independent media network Fri, 14 Oct 2011 01:05:56 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3 http://www.loewak.nl/2008/09/17/analysis-of-batman-the-dark-knight/comment-page-1/#comment-14503 Hello! Fri, 14 Oct 2011 01:05:56 +0000 http://www.loewak.nl/2008/09/17/analysis-of-batman-the-dark-knight/#comment-14503 you have a poor perception. Clearly you do not have the depth of a brain to understand the message of this movie. The movie shows more than good and evil within two characters, but rather the internal conflict between one and their "supposed" morals. How much pressure does it take for one person to throw all they believe in, in the bag. Watch it again, and see how good people, quickly go bad when a small amoount of pressure is applied. http://www.loewak.nl/2008/09/17/analysis-of-batman-the-dark-knight/comment-page-1/#comment-14456 Ryan Seymour Sat, 24 Sep 2011 19:42:31 +0000 http://www.loewak.nl/2008/09/17/analysis-of-batman-the-dark-knight/#comment-14456 Why are there so many people who are convinced down to their very core that movies such as the Batman films and other pop culture films are blights on America? Or more importantly, think America is a blight on the world. I'm not an America buff, I'm not a big patriot, but I do realize that America is not a bad country. At least in comparison to every other country in the world. I think the idea that America is viewed as a shining star across the globe, even in a negative context, is an overly nationalistic assumption. I digress; the Batman, and other comic book films, are not attacks on aesthetic sense, or on American culture and creativity. Especially what was suggested earlier of the dampening aesthetic sense being the core problem of today's society. Even if there was a dampening of aesthetic sense, that cannot possibly be a core problem. A core problem is war and disease and humanitarianism. Not if that movie you're watching in the theater resembles the olden movies you glorify in your minds so much. In truth, the world could survive without any art at all. I don't hate art, I'm just saying people shouldn't exaggerate what you think the problems of the world are. Entertainment in general is supposed to be used as an escape from the world around you, because the world in general (not just America) is rather draining. People don't always want entertainment that is intellectually engaging. Some never want it because they already have jobs and lives that are intellectually immersing. The Batman series is supposed to be just what entertainment is, an escape into a fantasy world where you can relax and feel the excitement or drama of someone else vicariously through the characters on the screen or in the book. I can understand if you only enjoy entertainment that is very intellectually engaging, because there isn't that much of it that comes out anymore. But that is in no way a bad thing. If you want more films like those that were made in the past, then get people who share common interests with you and raise money to support those films you oh so love. Please stop attacking America though. It is rather annoying. I mean, it's not like America is the only fat country, or the only one with problems in education or social issues, or problems in the government. It isn't the best country, but I'm assuming it is where most of the people who attack it on this discussion live. So you might as well get to like it, or go somewhere else. Just stop complaining about it. I digress; the Batman, and other comic book films, are not attacks on aesthetic sense, or on American culture and creativity. Especially what was suggested earlier of the dampening aesthetic sense being the core problem of today’s society. Even if there was a dampening of aesthetic sense, that cannot possibly be a core problem. A core problem is war and disease and humanitarianism. Not if that movie you’re watching in the theater resembles the olden movies you glorify in your minds so much. In truth, the world could survive without any art at all. I don’t hate art, I’m just saying people shouldn’t exaggerate what you think the problems of the world are. Entertainment in general is supposed to be used as an escape from the world around you, because the world in general (not just America) is rather draining. People don’t always want entertainment that is intellectually engaging. Some never want it because they already have jobs and lives that are intellectually immersing. The Batman series is supposed to be just what entertainment is, an escape into a fantasy world where you can relax and feel the excitement or drama of someone else vicariously through the characters on the screen or in the book. I can understand if you only enjoy entertainment that is very intellectually engaging, because there isn’t that much of it that comes out anymore. But that is in no way a bad thing. If you want more films like those that were made in the past, then get people who share common interests with you and raise money to support those films you oh so love.
Please stop attacking America though. It is rather annoying. I mean, it’s not like America is the only fat country, or the only one with problems in education or social issues, or problems in the government. It isn’t the best country, but I’m assuming it is where most of the people who attack it on this discussion live. So you might as well get to like it, or go somewhere else. Just stop complaining about it.]]> http://www.loewak.nl/2008/09/17/analysis-of-batman-the-dark-knight/comment-page-1/#comment-14309 Anthony Struth Fri, 06 May 2011 19:23:06 +0000 http://www.loewak.nl/2008/09/17/analysis-of-batman-the-dark-knight/#comment-14309 You quoted Mark Twain to attack the dark knight because of its unrealistic genre (comic book) I find that strongly hypocritical because I believe that the dark knight is a much more realistic film than a story about going to the centre of the earth
I find that strongly hypocritical because I believe that the dark knight is a much more realistic film than a story about going to the centre of the earth]]> http://www.loewak.nl/2008/09/17/analysis-of-batman-the-dark-knight/comment-page-1/#comment-9915 Jon Mon, 31 Aug 2009 07:23:45 +0000 http://www.loewak.nl/2008/09/17/analysis-of-batman-the-dark-knight/#comment-9915 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.
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.]]> http://www.loewak.nl/2008/09/17/analysis-of-batman-the-dark-knight/comment-page-1/#comment-3754 M.H.Benders Sat, 04 Oct 2008 13:02:56 +0000 http://www.loewak.nl/2008/09/17/analysis-of-batman-the-dark-knight/#comment-3754 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. http://www.loewak.nl/2008/09/17/analysis-of-batman-the-dark-knight/comment-page-1/#comment-3750 Guy Sat, 04 Oct 2008 06:30:41 +0000 http://www.loewak.nl/2008/09/17/analysis-of-batman-the-dark-knight/#comment-3750 wow. I got bad gramer an riting skilz http://www.loewak.nl/2008/09/17/analysis-of-batman-the-dark-knight/comment-page-1/#comment-3749 Guy Sat, 04 Oct 2008 06:27:13 +0000 http://www.loewak.nl/2008/09/17/analysis-of-batman-the-dark-knight/#comment-3749 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. 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.]]> http://www.loewak.nl/2008/09/17/analysis-of-batman-the-dark-knight/comment-page-1/#comment-3700 Brandon Butler Thu, 02 Oct 2008 05:26:16 +0000 http://www.loewak.nl/2008/09/17/analysis-of-batman-the-dark-knight/#comment-3700 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.
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.]]> http://www.loewak.nl/2008/09/17/analysis-of-batman-the-dark-knight/comment-page-1/#comment-3464 M.H.Benders Fri, 19 Sep 2008 23:19:50 +0000 http://www.loewak.nl/2008/09/17/analysis-of-batman-the-dark-knight/#comment-3464 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.
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.]]> http://www.loewak.nl/2008/09/17/analysis-of-batman-the-dark-knight/comment-page-1/#comment-3462 Samuel Vriezen Fri, 19 Sep 2008 22:18:26 +0000 http://www.loewak.nl/2008/09/17/analysis-of-batman-the-dark-knight/#comment-3462 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.
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.]]> http://www.loewak.nl/2008/09/17/analysis-of-batman-the-dark-knight/comment-page-1/#comment-3461 M.H.Benders Fri, 19 Sep 2008 21:54:03 +0000 http://www.loewak.nl/2008/09/17/analysis-of-batman-the-dark-knight/#comment-3461 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.
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.]]> http://www.loewak.nl/2008/09/17/analysis-of-batman-the-dark-knight/comment-page-1/#comment-3460 Samuel Vriezen Fri, 19 Sep 2008 21:41:57 +0000 http://www.loewak.nl/2008/09/17/analysis-of-batman-the-dark-knight/#comment-3460 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.
But Ledger’s acting is a lot of fun.]]>