The Dark Knight - a Neo-con's Battle Cry?
Posted by Bryant Daniels on 07.29.2008
W: "I am the Batman!"
Something fun for my first post on 411mania politics, furthering this websites decent into Batman-mania; Conservative writer Andrew Klavan wrote an op-ed piece for the Wall Street Journal comparing Batman to President Bush, basically arguing that President has been vilified much in the same way Batman is within Gotham City because of his strength against terror, even going so far as to call the new film, "a conservative movie about the war on terror." The full article can be viewed here.
In response to the WSJ article Deep-focus.com offers a semi-rebuttal and review of the film, which can be viewed here.
Be warned, spoilers are abound, especially in the left leaning rebuttal. Both sides offer interesting points, with deep-focus taking on a more philosophical approach than the WSJ's simplification. It is a bit interesting when put into proper context, that anyone would be willing to make the argument for a political agenda by comparing it to a super-hero movie, which, despite filmmaker Christopher Nolan's best efforts, is still grounded outside the realm of realism. Ultimately Batman can do what no one else can because Batman is not real, and neither is the world he inhabits. So while Batman may use techniques that are unquestionably unconstitutional, but ultimately effective, the argument will still remain, "well Batman did it, so why can't we?" And that, my friends, is just batshit insane.
I don't see Dark Knight as a direct political analogy but rather a question maker on Philosophy, which can easily be used to discuss politics, religion, and psychology.
I think that American needs a harder rougher Military and and police force with less focus on being nice to the bad guys (I'm also against High security prisons getting TV, legit food, workout equipment, recreation areas, air conditioning and lighting and showers. But I digress) but almost every religion, as well as the Consitution, is against a hardcore police state for a reason. It could be very easy to get carried away until Law Enforcement becomes a way for bullies to get away with being bullies after high school. America as a society has to be careful about these things. One man's interigation is another mans S&M, is another's torture.
Posted By: Davis (Guest) on July 29, 2008 at 11:44 PM
Having read the two reviews, I have to say that only one of of the writers seems to have actually seen the movie, and that's Bryant Frazer, the one who wrote the response. Klavan takes the broadest of broad details, that Batman is hunted and misunderstood and uses that as a launching pad for his essay. Even the one quote he uses could have come from trailers. Bryant's description of an ambiguous, nuanced reflection of current events is closer to the mark.
Posted By: Sly Reference (Guest) on July 30, 2008 at 01:56 AM
I have heard the Gary Oldman is a BIG neo-con.
Posted By: Capt. Smooth (Guest) on July 30, 2008 at 04:57 PM
Finally saw the movie last night, and while the parellels to our current climate aren't hard to see, Dubya is no Batman and only the loopiest of Neo-Cons would try to make that case.
I'm a liberal, so you could say that it's only natural that I'm going to agree with the p.o.v. of the rebuttal, but I don't have knee-jerk reactions to anything and the deep-focus review is so just so much more well thought out than the WSJ one that it's not even funny.
Posted By: Michael O (Registered) on July 31, 2008 at 07:35 PM
STAY CURRENT