Why are people so dumb?

[wolven7]

What to read a ridiculously wrongheaded "review" of 'The Dark Knight,' comic book movies, and comics in general?

No?

Well neither did I. Too bad.

http://www.nplusonemag.com/dark-knight

Don't read it [or the comments of this post], if you haven't seen the movie.

Comments

[mastergode.livejournal.com]

For the sake of the argument, I'm curious as to what you found particularly objectionable in that review, and why.

Again, for the sake of the argument, I'll point out that the review did have quite a number of solid points, such as the Joker = terrorist and Batman = Bush administration.

[wolven.livejournal.com]

The comments here (http://3quarksdaily.blogs.com/3quarksdaily/2008/08/the-dark-knight.html), by "Buck Theorem," pretty much sums it up.

The "review" is arrayed in a way that the movie cannot win. It is either too juvenile, or too above its station, in trying to be anything other than a comic movie, and it Fails for not trying harder to raise a level of discourse. If it meets any one of these charges, then the reviewer will level another, possibly contradictory charge.

He gives no credence to the field of comics history and displays a striking and disturbing lack of familiarity with the genre as a whole. To that end, the casting of the Joker/Batman dynamic as "Terrorism/Bush Administration" is a possible reading, yes, but any familiarity at all with the tactics of Batman, through history, shows that he has always had surveillance, always known the weaknesses of his enemies, and has used them in ways that may not quite mesh with the legal. But he admires and respects the law, even if he knows that he can't live in it.

Which is to say that it would be more correctly stated that the Bush Administration's so-called "War On Terror" is trying to emulate Batman's long-standing tactics, than the other way around.

Trying and failing, which makes the question, what is it about Batman that people will accept?

Also, re: Lucius Fox, Batman, recognizing and agreeing with the unethical nature of the device, supplies the means to Destroy it. A complete disanalogy to the current administration's tactics.

The entire point of Any piece of art is to raise questions. To say that this film didn't desire to cause discourse on methods and behaviours is to beg the question, at the outset. You've already decided that it isn't art, and so the discussion of what might make it art are unacceptable. They can find no purchase.

Everyone I know who saw that film came out of it with questions about morality, about the limits of legality, and the necessity to live within it, even as we find it restrictive and oppressive. The nature of chaos, and staring into the Nietzschean abyss. Yes, I know people who are predisposed to thinking about those kinds of things, and even trained for it, but I know others who Aren't. This film made people think, deeply, and about things they never thought before, and not just about nominating Heath Ledger for an Oscar.

And while Batman may have been the protagonist, in all of this, he was NOT the "hero." His actions get people hurt and killed and that is made very clear.

Crane's presence was there to show that Batman has made a new and persistent type of criminal. It was the equivalent of a one-shot issue, between story-arcs.

Finally, and least important, but somewhat more irksome: The second suit looked completely different. COMPLETELY. Lack of cape, more segmented armour, with Kevlar mesh, between the plates, for increased flexibility.

I may be considered equally wrongheaded, but...

[iconnu.livejournal.com]

"Everyone I know who saw that film came out of it with questions about morality, about the limits of legality, and the necessity to live within it, even as we find it restrictive and oppressive. The nature of chaos, and staring into the Nietzschean abyss. Yes, I know people who are predisposed to thinking about those kinds of things, and even trained for it, but I know others who Aren't. This film made people think, deeply, and about things they never thought before, and not just about nominating Heath Ledger for an Oscar."

I came out of the film with questions about why everyone seemed to think it was the second coming of cinema and an overwhelming sense of, "Meh."

It wasn't terrible. I wouldn't have wanted my money back. I didn't feel like I was robbed of 2 (3?) hours of my time. But, I wouldn't watch it again, and if it were on NetFlix, I would have turned it off or ended up tuning out to read a book halfway through.

It wasn't terrible. It just wasn't good.

Re: I may be considered equally wrongheaded, but...

[wolven.livejournal.com]

I don't think anyone wrong for not liking it.

Taste and opinion are different from ill-informed and, in cases, clearly just plain Factually Wrong vitriol.