Hollywood joins Batman, Iron Man to
promote Truth, Justice, American Way

It's good to see the "biblical principles" of capitalism being embraced by so many movie-goers.

WWJD? He'd go to see "The Dark Knight" and "Iron Man", that's what!

I doubt very much that what people were thinking, as they walked into "The Dark Knight" or "Iron Man," was "Boy, I'm really looking forward to a good old pro-captitalist romp. Maybe they'll beat up Karl Marx. That'd be cool."

I think mostly what they were looking for was to enjoyably waste two hours and accidentally stumbled into some pretty good movies where, in order for the heroes to bust around in those high-tech costumes, you're going to need slightly more money than you can get working the night shift at Kinko's.

Or so I assume.

As a Christian, Baehr and Snyder embarrass me. After reading something like this, it's no wonder why so many can't take Christianity seriously. The last time I read the New Testament, I didn't recall a capitalist agenda. If anything, it's agenda is closer to communism, or just plain becoming a homeless person.

I really do have to wonder how Jesus would have responded to art. But would he really be so shallow as to seek out and approve only family friendly films? I see no indication in either his teachings or those of the NT that we are supposed to embrace some sort of saccharine vision of the world.

Sorry everyone. I'm not being very articulate now, because it's pretty late, and this sort of thing really pisses me off.

Maybe the real issue is this: capitalist films do well, because capitalists (who have money) want to see films that gratify their own positions. They have no problem going to the theater. Communists, on the other hand, have no money, and so they wait until it's on DVD so that they can all chip in to buy the movie that supports their position, and share that DVD for the rest of their lives. Capitalists also purchase DVD's, but each DVD that they buy accounts for 2-3 people, while each communist DVD accounts for 9-10.

JE: There's nothing uniquely Christian about their logic, but it's fairly typical of the WSJ opinion pages.

These people are making my head hurt. Maybe the reason Chicago 10 didn't make any money was because it was a documentary. Maybe Bolt and Fly Me to the Moon were successful because they were kids movies (which almost always top the box office charts). Maybe that's also the reason they aren't dark and depressing.

Obviously these people never learned that when you're using numbers to compare things across a single variable (here, ideology), you have to control for the other variables. Of course foreign films are going to make less than domestic ones, fiction movies are going to make more than docs, children's movies are going to make more than adult ones, and summer action blockbusters are going to make more money than just about anything else. What you need in order to actually draw some conclusions are two groups of movies that aren't any different, except for their take on capitalism. I'm not sure that's possible to find, but that doesn't make these bogus calculations any more viable.

Side note:
"In "Iron Man," the second-most popular movie with American and Canadian moviegoers in 2008, a capitalist playboy and billionaire defense contractor stops working against the interests of America and its citizens and uses his wealth to defend America and its free-market values."

I don't think whoever wrote that actually saw Iron Man. The movie I saw had its hero fighting against a corporate executive and the idea that companies should be able to do whatever they want (like sell weapons under the table to America's enemies). If anything, the movie is anti-capitalist (although it's not strong in either direction).

Y'know, comparing excellent mainstream high-profile big studio movies to indie films with small distribution/promotion and, well, BAD high-profile studio movies seems a bit like a stacked deck to me. Hey, "Wanted" did big business, and it was about assassins, so let's also assume most Americans are in favor of killing people for money. And we're anti-big business, as evidenced by our support of "Wall-E." We're pro-CIA cover-up, as evidenced by our support of "Burn After Reading."

I could go on and on and on... but really, let's cut through all of the nonsense, and be honest, we're in favor of good movies that entertain us. And your "analysis" is nothing more than biased charlatanism trying to make a point you believe in seem true... when it really isn't. Sorry fellas. Try again next year.

I've been racking my brain trying to find a reason why anyone would call "Vicky, Cristina, Barcelona" a pro-communist film. Can anyone help me out here?

I didn't know one needed stats to talk nonsense. I hope next time WSJ leaves the trouble of going through all the numbers.

Scratching my head over this one. How exactly is Vicky Cristina Barcelona a pro-Communist film? Is it because Barcelona was on the side of the anti-Fascist left during the Spanish Civil war, or something so blindingly obvious I missed it (like The Red Flag played over the opening credits)?

Moviegoers in the U.S. (and most moviegoers overseas) prefer inspiring, heroic stories that extol free-market principles and limited representative government.

Absolutely. The main reason I love Ratatouille is its sheer dedication to Reaganomics. Lost your job in the current economic turmoil? Well, turn that frown upside down buddy, because it's just what you need to bring out your natural entrepreneurial instincts.

I'm really having a hard time remembering how Vicky Cristina Barcelona espoused a communist philosophy. Because of the menage a trois? Is that somehow communistic (because the three people living together are a commune)?

I knew I was in for a treat from the third word of your post.

I like the suggestion that people flocked to the new Indy movie because they hated Communists. That's wonderful. But that does bring up The Phantom Menace, which was within the last decade or so, and whose villains were super-capitalist aliens. And of course Episode I outgrossed all the films cited above with the exception of TDK (and adjusted for inflation, it might catch it).

So - by the really kind of endearingly stupid logic employed - the success of The Phantom Menace meant that late 90s America was, essentially, Russia circa 1916.

Actually, to be serious for a second, this 'logic' does die - if not in the womb, then at the Star Wars films. Those movies have made more, I suspect, than any other series of films, and are, from the good trilogy, to the bad trilogy, and everything in between, cheerfully anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist. But of course that's not why people go see them.

Christianity has nothing to do with communism or capitalism, and to use the theology of the Old Testament, the Gospels, the Epistles, etc. to expound either is not only exegetical irresponsibility, it is dangerous. If anything the Bible is a critique of both: greed on the one hand, disillusionment of the state of human sinfulness and depravity on the other.

As for using box office receipts as a barometer for how much moral and religious gleanings can be taken from a movie, well that is sine qua non if I have ever seen one. "2001: A Space Odyssey" is one of the most deeply religious films ever made (the themes in it, not the creators), but it did not exactly smash records in 1968. It is 122nd for for all time (adjusted for inflation) for box office receipts.

The communist "Che", and the "nihilist" "Wanted" made more money than "An American Carol" and "Fly Me to the Moon" and "Fireproof" and "Bottle Shock" and "City of Ember" combined. And on average, the first two also made significantly more. Therefore, all Americans clearly support nihilism and communism over Americanism and whatever else. Obviously.

I'm actually quite disturbed that there are people who consider "The Visitor" to be anti-American. But that's beside the point, I guess.

Huzzah! Americans love whatever's contained in the movies they love! Henceforth, I will be proposing legislation requiring all passenger ships to be hit by icebergs, all genetically engineered animals to be set loose on an island and given children to chase, any extra-terrestrial life to be given to suburban families, and all gold jewelry to be thrown into volcanoes.

It's what the public demands! Who are we to stand in the way of democracy?

The Dark Knight has moral values? I must have missed that one...

I'm not so sure that "The Dark Knight", "Iron Man", "Wall-E", and "Slumdog Millionaire" are the best examples of thoroughly upbeat, pro-capitalist dogma. But it's hard to argue the conservative bias of films dealing with "coping with Nazi tyranny"; we'd do well to remember that grand arch-conservative tradition, as embodied by FDR and Truman.

Did you see that they also extolled "Rambo" for its more conservative content. Rambo ... really?

If you cherry-pick your data points, you can prove anything. Especially if it includes a $317 million-dollar block-buster to skew the stats.

Figures never lie, but liars figure.

Breaking News: I just did my own thoroughly researched study, and came up with these shocking results:

Total combined letters in the titles for "An American Carol," "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull," "City of Ember," and "Fly Me to the Moon": 82. Total combined letters in the titles for "Che," "The Children of Huang Shi," "Gonzo," "Trumbo," and "Vicky Cristina Barcelona": 57. Since the first group of movies earned a far greater average than the second group, the only obvious conclusion is that American audiences greatly prefer seeing movies with longer titles.

Also, the titles to two of the four movies in the second group end with the letter "O" -- this cannot be ignored as a mere anomaly, and further research into why American's detest movies with titles that end in "O" is warranted.

Or, in Kyu's far more direct words, "Obviously these people never learned that when you're using numbers to compare things across a single variable (here, ideology), you have to control for the other variables."

It seems these groups, calling themselves Christian but without an endorsement from the Vatican, are always attempting to insert an agenda for mainstream entertainments they find to be, somehow, in keeping with the tenants of Christianity.

I can remember being a youth and being told that I could not watch Captain Planet because the show extolled the pagan virtues of an Earth mother instead of the upright and true ID virtues I suppose (this would have been in reference to Gia, or Gaya, the spirit of the Earth as voiced by Whoopie Goldberg). All I can say is that they were right in their warnings for I spend most days making offerings to Pan to ensure my days are filled with wine and carnal pleasures and appeasing Zeus lest he lay me down with a mighty thunderbolt.

They're schizophrenic to a tee. They see the conspirators working against them whenever they may and yet will applaud these same poisoned well-wishers if they release material that will fall in line with not the overarching, or dare I say, important tenants of their faith but more or less politically conservative ideologies. I have the same problem with Christian rock/pop/anything other than Gregorian chant. I don't recall Jesus requesting some uninspired musicians to dress up flaccid pop songs with religious references so that the youth can listen to something comfortably within that groups idea of "young people music". They acknowledge the need for something of their generation but will offer it with weak platitudes and ineffectual sonics. I'd imagine wanting the youth to rise above these petty concerns and read their Bible. Basically I see these groups as being members of the socially incapable. They want to belong, they just have these funny notions that keep them in the corner, hugging and singing bad bad bad music to each other, rejoicing that Batman is rich and that Americans are too ADD to sit for four hours to watch a movie on Che Guevara, a movie made seemingly as an act of artist expression since the artist involved could not have imagined this would break 600 million at the box office. I think Jesus would appreciate that more. I also think stuff like this scares me more than being in the woods near Camp Crystal Lake on the most unholy of Fridays. It also makes me wonder where the joy comes in a life spent looking for allies and enemies. I love movies and am thankful to the billions of chemical processes that allowed me to be here to love it. Viva Cinema. Viva Life. And Gooooooo Planet!

So THAT'S how the Joker's schoolbus emerged from the bank without a scratch on it. He must have been PRAYING! God bless our noble capitalist filmmakers, and may he smite Woody Allen and his heathen ways!

Wait, wait, wait, haven't there been religious groups that criticized the "demonic" or "pagan" presence in other Indiana Jones films? A 5 year old would see these statistics are wrong.

"As a Christian, Baehr and Snyder embarrass me."

As humans, Baehr and Snyder embarrass us all. There's absolutely no logic or statistical rigour in any of those figures (though I admit I haven't read their whole report - but come on...).

I'm so very sick of this agenda driven, come up with the answer first, type of sorry excuse for a "research" report. And not just because I disagree with their points of view - I hate it when any side uses these techniques. It dumbs down the discussion.

Then again, I guess that's what they want. Black and white, pick a side, don't ask any questions, you're either with us or against us.

Feh.

Enjoy it while you can. Come summertime you will all be branded as worshippers of Satan condoning occult rituals due to the new Harry Potter movie invading the box office.

Jim, I can't help but think that you're just becoming more and more in love with the theory that 'The Dark Knight' is just not good. Close to no one took your stance because the movie appealed to several film goers. I honestly think that your found this article written by a couple of pseudointellectuals who also happen to be liberals and thought, 'these guys are liberals, the masses must assume they're right.'

As a liberal myself, I can assure you that most people aren't fooled by box-office numbers. Nolan wasn't trying to say anything about the good natured capitalist business owner here, and the people who see it weren't looking for a strong story of anti-marxism. People went to see it because it's Batman, and he is up against his arch-nemesis, Joker. There's no hidden agenda here, and you're just trying to find yet another reason to get everyone to hate it.

JE: Curses! My insidious plan has been foiled!

I love reading arguments from the Christian right. They are truly the greatest sources of unintentional comedy the world has ever known.

Funny, but I seem to recall "An American Carol" and "City of Ember" both flopping big-time at the box office. Also, perhaps the reason "The Dark Knight" and "Iron Man" did better numbers than "Gonzo" "Trumbo" and "Che" is because the former two are big-budget Hollywood summer blockbusters based on popular comic books that opened in nearly every multiplex in America, whereas the latter are somewhat lesser-known documentaries and art-house films that were primarily released in selected cities. The entire budget for "Trumbo" probably didn't cost as much as the catering on "The Dark Knight". This is an unfair and ridiculous comparison and a classic example of the apples-and-oranges type of debating style favored by members of the Christian right.

Also, the idea of capitalism and wealth being a conservative "family value" would seem to contradict what it says in the Bible about how much easier it is for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of Heaven. But then I guess people like Baehr and Snyder think that they can just pick and choose whichever parts of the good book support their arguments and disregard the rest.

I have to admit that as a liberal gay atheist baby-eater, I did honestly find this kind of thought-provoking in the way it was intended to be.

I mean, obviously the math is...dubious, the titles are cherry-picked within an inch of their lives, production and advertising budgets apparently aren't a factor, and describing 'The Dark Knight' as "inspiring and uplifting" is about as close to a flat-out lie as you can get with a subjective medium. The enthusiastic mingling of Christianity and capitalism is unsettling and odd, as well. Even without all that, the article is ridiculous just for ignoring that most of these amazingly successful films were sequels or adaptations that capitalized on already-established brand names.

And yet, it did make me ponder what kind of themes and ideas end up scoring mammoth productions and advertising campaigns, and which still make a big profit. It's obvious (and not very sinister) that less challenging movies would be safer bets, and when all of the movies he listed did get successfully produced and exhibited it's not like there's some big status-quo conspiracy or anything...but there could be an interesting study made, by someone with better ideas of how statistics work, on what themes and messages consistently qualify for bigger funding and/or meet with more success.

Keeernin: I actually found your comment more entertaining than the blog post. Thanks!

Way to miss the point of BatMan. How hard does the message "Don't become the monster that you're fighting" need to be hammered in to your head?

You know, like that guy... use to be president... George something... ends with an 'ush'.

Jim, I gotta say, I believe you are responsible for the letters chosen for posting on the Ebert page - and this complaint has been lodged before - but that new one, the Star Wars freak, please, no. I know there's maybe the temptation to post it and prove Ebert right about how idiotic fanboys are, but everybody knows that anyway. And there's something inexpressibly sad in knowing the guy will not realize he's been humiliated by having that letter posted. See what I'm saying? Something like that, and really any letter that will really make someone look stupid, you have to be kind. Often kinder than those people deserve.

JE: Actually, that one went straight to Roger. I thought it was a prank when he passed it along for publication, but it was from a real person. Bio here: http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Jimmy_Mac

Did these math wizards have any explanation for the huge grosses for Mamma Mia!, a buoyant musical about a woman who slept around so much she raised a child alone, uncertain of who the father was, in a Bohemian lifestyle on a free-spirit island?

To refute Baehr and Snider: most "conspiracies" can be explained by the nature of film itself.

As a visual medium with a two-hour run time, popular filmmaking, by its nature, lends itself to certain themes.

It is easier to make a film in which violence solves problems than it is to make a film in which peaceful communication solves problems. Why? Because violence is visual.

It is easier to make a film which focuses on the success and choices of an individual (capitalism) than on the success and choices of the community (socialism). Why? Because we only have two hours.

A run-of-the-mill action movie is BETTER filmmaking than a run-of-the-mill romantic comedy. Why? Because it's easier to make a shoot-out more visually appealing than two people talking. It's easier to visually convey the meaning of a shoot-out than it is to visually convey the meaning of an argument.

(That's partly why movies like "Eyes Wide Shut" and "The New World" are so remarkable: they're romances that are as visually appealing as action movies.)

It is easier to make a film about hard work than about laziness. Why? Because work is movement and laziness is static.

It is easier to make films about rich people than about poor people because bigger houses allow for easier and more varied camera set-ups than small houses. They also look better.

It is easier to make serial fiction (movies that come in series, TV shows, comic books, etc.) about rich people than about poor people. Why? To not limit the number of things they can do. This is why superheroes are always rich and why the characters on "Friends" inexplicably live in a cavernous NY apartment despite unemployment, jobs as waiters, etc.

It is easier to make every movie funeral a Catholic funeral because they have the best-looking churches. (Think about it: if a movie character's religion doesn't matter, his funeral is always Catholic. Maybe Orthodox.)

It is easier to make movies about characters with superpowers because natural ability takes less time to explain than years of hardwork and setback.

It is easier to make Disney movies about one-child single-parent families than about children from large families. Why? Because then you don't have to waste time explaining why the hero's family can't help him and he has to solve his problems on his own.

So, in conclusion, it's easier to make popular movies about rich loners who use violence to get what they want. It's a little bit easier to see those movies as "conservative" rather than "liberal."

Visually, there's nothing communist about "Che." He's just another violent, hardworking loner with hardly any family. In broad visual strokes, the bulk of "Che" -- guerrillas fighting in the forest -- is the same as the bulk of an anti-communist flick like "Red Dawn."

By Eric on February 17, 2009 5:47 PM
But then I guess people like Baehr and Snyder think that they can just pick and choose whichever parts of the good book support their arguments and disregard the rest.

A time honoured tradition, that (at the risk of getting labeled "Captain Obvious").

I'm sure if Steven Soderbergh had made a 5-hour movie about Adam Smith, people would have flocked to it. Batman couldn't compete.

Also, I thought "Iron Man" was about a guy who was sickened by the industrial military complex and his role in it, so he decided to take it upon himself to help the down trodden. Without compensation. Also, his suit is red. Clearly it is a communist parable. In "Iron Man II" he helps Obama destroy capitalism once and for all.

When an editorial makes the remainder of the Wall Street Journal opinion page seem sober and incisive by comparison, you know that it has mined new depths of idiocy.

That being said, let's put the article to task and measure it's central thesis against the Top 10 box office draws from last week (courtesy of IMDB):

1. Friday the 13th

If Baehr and Snyder think "The Visitor" failed to draw a huge numbers because of its "very strong...nihilistic content," how does it explain why teen slasher films like this one continually open at the top of the box office?

2 He's Just Not That Into You

A movie about well-off young urban professionals who suffer from fear of commitment. Reminds me of an Obama rally I attended last fall.

3 Taken

A thoroughly Europhobic film about a man who goes medieval on continental sex traffickers. It hardly espouses "Christian" values, but it admittedly sounds like a neocon's wet dream.

4 Coraline

It's a morality tale about respecting parental authority, yet, at the same time, it pulls the curtain on social conservative fantasies by revealing a cauldron of unspeakable horrors that lurks behind the veneer of an ostensibly perfect "traditional values" household. In the end, the distracted and neglectful parental set proves to be the lesser of the two evils.

5 Confessions of a Shopaholic

Is it a cautionary tale about excess consumerism or is it fashion porn? Or, did some evil Hollywood fat cat steal the title of Sarah Palin's forthcoming autobiograhy? Any way you cut it, this is not exactly a heapin' helpin' of red state hash.

6 Paul Blart: Mall Cop

Next

7 The Pink Panther 2

If you enjoy films that reinforce the most insipid cliches about the French, you just might be...a redneck.

8 The International

The film's tagline says it all: They control your money. They control your government. They control your life. And everybody pays.

Or, as Karl Rove calls it: "the feel good movie of the year!"

9 Slumdog Millionaire

After this film wins Best Picture, the Michael Medved commentary will probably go something like: hey, if a poor Indian kid from the lowest caste can pull himself up by his bootstraps, why can't a welfare mom living in South Central LA? Well, if getting ahead in the capitalist system means relying on serendipity by way of a quiz show, perhaps Republicans should have appointed Regis Philbin to be their party chair.

10 Push

From a conservative perspective, the only thing worse than big government is people who resist the overreach of big government. Too bad this film isn't about a band of Rush Limbaugh loyalists who successfully prevent the transfer of Medicaid benefits to homeless people.

So, among last week's top ten films, there are two that legitimately reflect conservative values (I still refuse to extract ANY cultural insight from the success of "Mall Cop"). Interestingly, both films play less on ideology and more on xenophobia. It's little wonder that the conservative movement has done nothing so much as help us all become more fearful of outsiders. Regardless, the good folks at Movieguide may have a bit more work ahead before they fully implant their narrow-minded Biblical worldview into our collective cultural subconscious

Even better is the neo-con reading of The Dark Knight over on National Review:

This film gives us a portrait of the hero as a man reviled. In his fight against the terrorist Joker, Batman has to devise new means of surveillance, push the limits of the law, and accept the hatred of the press and public. If that sounds reminiscent of a certain former president — whose stubborn integrity kept the nation safe and turned the tide of war — don’t mention it to the mainstream media. Our journalists know that good men are often despised by the mob; it just never seems to occur to them that they might be the mob themselves.

Of course! Batman is actually George Bush. It makes sense I guess - everyone knows it was Alfred who made all the real decisions.

*sigh

Well, I suppose I had it coming jumping into an argument I didn't fully understand. So, at risk of making yet another grand fool of myself, ere is how I see this column

Jim: You, like most writers, are a good writer but with a clear agenda. Maybe I've been misreading your 'Dark Knight' posts all along, but to me this just came across as yet another attempt prove that 'The Dark Knight' is nothing more than standard Hollywood fluff, only this time it has a pro-capitalist agenda that panders to the depths of the collective American psyche.

When I watch 'The Dark Knight' or 'Iron Man,' the things that cross my mind really have nothing to do with 'look at this rich, white, capitalist monster creating an anonymous representative of the heroes we wish we had.' When I watch, 'Indiana Jones' (a movie I wasn't really fond of) my thoughts were far away from 'what a wonderful satirical discussion about the ruthlessness of country entrenched in communism.' To me, these movies were more about entertaining than they were about sending a message.

I'm not the first to notice that I'm really not a smart guy, but when I read this post, it just seems like you found someone else to drive your point home.

And still, this 'food for thought' seems kind of over-the-top. I understand that it's supposed to be some thoughtful insight to what is really, secretly entertaining America, but perhaps my blindness can only allow me to take away what I see on the surface, which is a high-budget summer blockbuster that's popular because it's Batman, and not because it's a rich man representing all rich men.

Flame ready.

JE: One of the things I've always tried to do here is to separate what's being said from who's saying it -- to avoid the (fairly ubiquitous these days) ad hominem tack of ignoring or discounting what somebody says because of who they are, or some (usually unsubstantiated) speculation about their motives for saying it. The posts about "Expelled" and Intelligent Design and "No right to an opinion" were (quite openly, I thought) other approaches to/illustrations of the same idea. I wish I could have left out that these guys had identified themselves as Christians, but I think that would have been dishonest and misleading because they describe, up-front at the top of their web site (as I quoted them), the approach they take to movies. I found two things fascinating about their WSJ Opinion piece: 1) their interpretations of movies as being "pro-capitalist" or "pro-communist," etc. -- I didn't see the movies in those terms, either; and 2) their blatant distortion of box-office numbers (e.g., defining a category and then putting a huge-grossing movie into it, along with some far less popular ones, in order to dramatically affect the "average").

As I've said all along, I don't know why some people think I'm out to ruin THEIR fun when I make a specific observation about something in "TDK." Rather than look at what I'm saying and responding to that, they simply go hater and ascribe the same motives to me. So, I'll say it again: I DON'T HATE "TDK." And, even if I did, it shouldn't matter. I've learned things from watching it several times and going over parts of it in great detail, shot by shot. If I thought it was worthless, I wouldn't have bothered. And if it hadn't become the phenomenon that it was, I wouldn't have bothered. Lots of movies have similar strengths and shortcomings, in my opinion. But the interest in this one, I thought, provided an opportunity to look closely at it. Some thought that was just nitpicking -- while, if I'd made the same observations but withheld any evaluative comments, they might simply have examined the evidence on the screen for what it was. That, I think, was my mistake -- it allowed opinion to completely overshadow straightforward analysis. I don't want, nor do I believe I have the influence, to persuade someone who thinks otherwise to change their mind about "TDK." It's not about them. It's about what's in the movie. It's about ME and what I see in it! I write to challenge myself, to communicate what I see, and to learn from others what they see. Most flame mail is just pure reactionary emotion, signifying nothing. I honestly thought you were pulling my leg. (There's still time to admit you were!)

First of all Jim, I think you're really trying to aggressively push an idea that from the get go is flawed.

"Here's to "The Dark Knight," "Iron Man," "WALL-E" and "Slumdog Millionaire" -- movie heroes of 2008 who fought so valiantly for free-market principles and limited representative government. Long may they run." Huh?

...sigh...I'm trying to pile on sarcasm with sarcasm and satirize people for not getting your posts and attacking you instead...I just don't have the energy for it today...but it could have been really funny!!!

These two are morons!

Well, then I'm just going to have to beg your forgiveness, as I was wrong in my assessment, and clearly did not understand your posts. All of them.

And I really do mean that.

For what it's worth:

"1) their interpretations of movies as being "pro-capitalist" or "pro-communist," etc. -- I didn't see the movies in those terms, either; and 2) their blatant distortion of box-office numbers (e.g., defining a category and then putting a huge-grossing movie into it, along with some far less popular ones, in order to dramatically affect the "average")."

Re-read article. Feeling Stupid.

Sorry, Jim.

JE: No apologies necessary. These things just take on a life of their own sometimes! I think some people honestly thought I had written to complain about how the bus in the bank robbery sequence had insufficient dents in it after the crash. I don't recall even thinking of that, much less writing about it -- and that's not at all what I was writing about, anyway. Sometimes comments (not from me) get retroactively attributed to something I've said -- and quite innocently, when commenters are replying to other comments and...

Capitalism? Communism? Considering the age range and "family films" these films are marketed to I'd love to see how many of the audience members could even define those words. What a couple of dinosaurs. Or should I say men who ride dinosaurs in museums about dinosaur-riding people.

You think Jamal from Slumdog millionaire was a pro capitalist crusader fighting for "free-market principles and limited representative government"? Are you serious? What movie were you watching?

This article sounds like a joke.

I think I may have failed to understand a use of sarcastic commentary. If that is the case I apologize.

JD,

Actually, I think in "Slum Dog" the capitalist hero was the brother. Any communist can win on a game show but pimping orphans or encouraging them to pull themselves up by their empty eyesockets for loose change takes good old-fashioned American chutzpah....and guns--sweet, sweet guns.

Neil ... I did the same damn thing. Don't even worry about it. At least you didn't have the audacity to make a total jackass out of yourself before you discovered that it was a joke. Ugh.

JE: Don't fret, guys...

By oz730 on February 18, 2009 12:53 PM
Even better is the neo-con reading of The Dark Knight over on National Review...Batman is actually George Bush. It makes sense I guess - everyone knows it was Alfred who made all the real decisions.

Actually, I've been pondering, on and off, about the similarities and differences between George W. Bush and Bruce Wayne for some time.

Think about it. Bruce Wayne decides he must do something about the lawlessness of his home city, and the decision he takes is to act in whatever means is necessary. He decides that the law doesn't apply to him.

Many commentators have taken the perspective that the GWB administration was filled with people who felt the law didn't apply to them. Let's run with that for a minute.

What makes Batman a hero, and GWB one of the worst presidents ever (see the debate in the comments to Roger Ebert's blog entry "Here's What I Think...")? If they both decided the law doesn't apply to them to achieve their goals, what's the difference in them that results in the difference in our judgements of them?

Is it the ostensible goals themselves? Batman wants to rid Gotham of crime. GWB and his people wanted to rid the world of Saddam Hussein. Is either inherently bad?

Is it the fall-out from the pursuit of those goals? If you accept the evolution of the Bat-universe according to Miller, when Batman appeared there was the mob. But, as Batman's presence becomes tolerated and then accepted, and he becomes more successful in reducing organized crime, a new type of criminal steps into view - the costumed super-villain. He didn't create them, but he created the environment where they could flourish and provided them with the precedent of running around in a costume outside the usual structures of society. Whereas, GWB has mired the US in several years of "Vietnam in the Desert", ballooned the US federal deficit and current account deficit (hello, falling dollar - in fact, no one on this or Roger's blog who talks about GWB's effect on the economy links his stupendous spending on Iraq with the worsening US economy), eroded the US Constitution, etc.

Is it the scale? Batman is a one-man operation (well, until you get into the different Robins, Batgirl, Nightwing and other Bat-sidekicks - excuse me, superhero support). GWB dragged an entire nation into war.

Is it the purity of their motives? Batman is motivated by his desire to fight crime, and he never uses the knowledge he acquires as Batman to enrich the pockets of Bruce Wayne. GWB and his administration are widely suspected of having had not one, not two, but as many as three hidden agendas (oil, Project for a New American Century, and religious conservativsm).

Ultimately, I think this last factor is the crux of the matter. Batman, being a fictional character, can safely be incorruptible. GWB and the members of his administration, being real people, are not and can not be incorruptible ("can not" in the sense that as much as might they try, it is impossible, not "can not" in the sense that they should not be).

In short, the issue comes down to trust. People can trust Batman because he doesn't let them down. The majority of Americans never trusted GWB, and that majority increased as time wore on until even those who sided with him needed to put a little distance between them, in order to politically survive.

The other thing that always bothered me about GWB was that, after he got himself moved into the White House, the first movie he wanted to see was "Air Force One". Is this really how the real US President felt how a US President should act? The whole shtick with the "Be Afraid" speech Harrison Ford delivers at the beginning of the movie - he catches political hell (mildly worded) from his advisors for it because it's not legal, but he staunchly maintains it's "morally the right thing to do", and (of course) it's wildly popular with the electorate.

Is it just me, or is the perception that GWB has his reality defined by unreality (Hollywood action movies) one of the scariest thing about the last 8 years?

I just caught your Barry Lyndon appreciation on cinepad by way of The House Next Door and I just wanted to thank you for a wonderful appreciation of a truly great and under-appreciated work. Sorry it's off topic but kudos sir, kudos.

JMW: I think the big thing separating Batman from George W. Bush is indeed the scale --- the fact that Batman makes a decision about the applicability of the law, and acts on it himself, whereas President Bush was primarily putting other people --- soldiers --- at risk. The people at risk when Batman acts are ones who would be at risk from others even without him, and you can't seriously argue that the threat of escalation in a town that was already falling apart at the seams means that the man should never have acted. (And though this is peripheral to my main point, I think it's worth mentioning that Batman does investigate meticulously before acting, and acts with supreme expertise and finesse; in fact, perhaps Bush's little war would have ended better, and not worse, if he paid more attention to Batman. Yikes, there's some food for thought).

JE: One of my problems with "TDK" was that I never believed Gotham was a town coming apart at the seams. But both "TDK" and "Iron Man" made explicit reference to aspects of the "Bush Doctrine" -- although I sure didn't interpret them along the same lines as Baehr and Snyder do, as testimonials to free-market capitalism! ("Iron Man" was an open rebuke to war profiteers and companies like Halliburton -- or maybe I'm completely misreading the movie to fit my own politics... ?

JMW--

I've said this before on TDK threads, but I think the primary difference between Batman and George W. Bush is that Batman is a private citizen and George W. Bush is the President. There's the matter of the example, the precedent, being set by each. One of the things Batman learns over the course of the film is that if he's going to break the law, he should be seen as the bad-guy. When people look up to him as a hero, they try and emulate him, and chaos ensues. However, when he's seen as a criminal--which he is--it allows him to break the law without damaging the society that those laws create. When Bush breaks the law, however, he is striking a fundamental blow at the rules that govern our society. He's the man charged with enforcing the law, yet he treats it as if it doesn't matter. That's corrosive to the rule of law itself.

JMW: That is indeed scary if GWB internalized "Air Force One." I might rewatch it and I might understand the last eight years a bit better.

The Bush/Wayne comparison doesn't get the real issues people have with Bush. There are two kinds:

1. Some of the things he did were wrong. Like lying about the reasons for getting into the war, misusing the post 9/11 goodwill for his own ends, wiretapping civilians, torture, etc.

2. Some of of the things he did WENT wrong. They weren't immoral but they were stupid--like cutting taxes without cutting spending (thereby running up a huge deficit), underfunding and misappointing and basically shredding our federal bureaucracy, going into Iraq with absurd optimism and without any post-war planning, pulling resources out of Afghanistan (thereby letting Bin Laden get away), not responding properly to Katrina, letting 9/11 happen in the first place, etc.

Batman does some of column A, and for the most part he doesn't get a pass. He uses cell phones to eavesdrop, and torture to get information, and the movie doesn't approve of either. He takes the law into his own hands when fighting crime, and the movie essentially says, "It's okay as long as that's the only way the crime will stop." Batman's actions are acceptable until Harvey Dent comes along and (paraphrase) puts half the criminals in Gotham behind bars without using a mask. According to Harvey: We elected the Batman by refusing to clean up our own streets.

The difference, then, between Batman and Bush is that Bush's strategies didn't work and his immoralities weren't necessary.

Great point by Stephen. Bush was an elected representative of the people; in that capacity, he must obey the law. There's a lot more in common between Dent and Bush than between Wayne and Bush.

Max Matherne on February 19, 2009 12:16 PM
I think the big thing separating Batman from George W. Bush is indeed the scale --- the fact that Batman makes a decision about the applicability of the law, and acts on it himself, whereas President Bush was primarily putting other people --- soldiers --- at risk. The people at risk when Batman acts are ones who would be at risk from others even without him, and you can't seriously argue that the threat of escalation in a town that was already falling apart at the seams means that the man should never have acted. (And though this is peripheral to my main point, I think it's worth mentioning that Batman does investigate meticulously before acting, and acts with supreme expertise and finesse

Max, I like your points about GWB putting soldiers at risk instead of himself, as an illustration the the point about differnece of scale, and about Batman's finesse. Batman is indeed surgical, because he is a one-man operation. He is better equipped to go in after one man - be it Carmine Falcone or Joker - than GWB. Compare this with the toll of over 100,000 Iraqi dead, to remove Saddam Hussein.

JE (in reponse to Max):
One of my problems with "TDK" was that I never believed Gotham was a town coming apart at the seams...

That's one of my problems wtih TDK as well, Jim. TDK shows events that happen a couple of years after Batman Begins (BB). Presumably, Gotham should be in a better state of order than in TDK than it was in BB, and when Joker appears and begins his campaign of chaos, the thin veneer of order that's grown in those two years is ripped away and the underlying chaos erupts.

But we see none of that process. Or hardly any. The movie skates past so many story points at breakneck pace, and I think it really detracts from the story.

Kyu on February 19, 2009 8:50 PM
The Bush/Wayne comparison doesn't get the real issues people have with Bush. There are two kinds:

1. Some of the things he did were wrong...
2. Some of of the things he did WENT wrong...

Batman does some of column A, and for the most part he doesn't get a pass.

Sorry, I should have clarified. Yes, within the movie Batman doesn't get a pass - but Batman has been doing this kind of thing for 70 years, and the story-consuming public have always considered him a hero. GWB is widely considered to be a failed president, if not actually criminal. Yet their methods are similar. So my issue is why is OUR judgement of the two so different?

So what exactly is Syner/Baehr's argument...that people should only make non-challenging movies that make money,or that only "right wing" movies are in touch with the public that elected Barack Obama with an overwhelming majority...

Even the stuff about Batman/Iron "defending" capitalism is just wrong. Both of those characters delt with terrorists, but also the corrupt bussinessmen/establisment that worked with them. That's pretty cynical and leftist my any standard.

And if Americans connected to these films. Because they felt played and these movies provided them with just the right kind of escape at just the right time. Or maybe the Iron Man/The Dark Knight are just fun accessiable action movies people are over analyzing!