'Dark Knight' fan boys rip the head off another critic

OK, let's get one thing out of the way right up front. I am not a "Dark Knight" detractor. Chris Nolan is a really gifted filmmaker and he's made a film that has the intensity of heavy-metal cinema--it works on a hundred different levels, whether you find it totally involving or an assault on the senses. My problem is with the film's Bat Fan Boys who've been deluging film critics who abusive e-mail simply because they didn't join the crowd (or maybe we should call it the mob) and embrace the movie.

The first critic to take the hit was New York magazine's David Edelstein, who, as we wrote last week, was pummeled by unhappy Bat boys after calling the film "noisy, jumbled and sadistic." Edelstein took offense, writing a spirited defense of his position, noting--tellingly--that 99% of his attackers hadn't even seen the movie yet. But now "Dark Knight" fans have a new punching bag--the Wall Street Journal's eminence grise, Joe Morgenstern. The veteran critic didn't like the film, but his reaction was hardly knee-jerk dismissal. His review treats the film as serious but muddled art, calling it "a social experiment on a global scale, an ambitious, lavish attempt to see if audiences will turn out for a comic book epic that goes beyond darkness into Stygian bleakness, grim paradox, endless betrayals and pervasive corruption."

The reaction? As Morgenstern told me last night, while he was waiting for a plane in Chicago: "I've gotten 250 or 300 e-mails, almost all with the vilest, most abusive language you could possibly imagine. I was stunned. These people aren't just discourteous. They're insane." So what's going here? Are critics wrong to expect their readers to show civilized manners? Or have fan boys turned into droogs, the nasty gang of brutes who run wild in Kubrick's "A Clockwork Orange"? Is it time some people got a life?

   

I confess to being a bit baffled. On the one hand, I'm so used to reading the usual round of trash-talking on message boards that when I scrolled through the comments about Morgenstern's review on Rotten Tomatoes I was hardly fazed. I've read far worse, much of it directed at me. E-mail seems to be the perfect format for blowing off a head of steam. Readers questioned Morgenstern's manhood ("What an old queen!"), taunted him ("Prepare to be roasted!!!") and hooted at his bad taste (" 'Mamma Mia' over 'TDK'? Seriously? Wow, what a tool"). But when a guy whose e-mail handle is Super Nazi Moses blows you off, saying, "You are a moron ... Burn in Hell," you really have to consider the source. After all, what you would expect Super Nazi Moses to say?

But the soccer hooligan-style ferocity of the response really disturbed Morgenstern. "Suddenly we live in a new world full of trolls," he said. "I write for an educated readership and usually the responses to my reviews are courteous and collegial. But this was really ugly. It did feel like a mob. There's obviously a lot of anti-intellectualism at work, with some subtle undertones of anti-Semitism too. The roar of scorn was pretty unnerving. I've heard this language before--I've used it myself--but only when someone hit my car."

Morgenstern sensed that the response had the air of "Dark Knight" loyalists protecting their turf. "They're policing their comic book mythology from anyone who doesn't appreciate it sufficiently. Look, I know I'm critical. That's what I get paid for. But who likes to be brutalized--and brutalized over a comic-book movie?"

My suspicion is that a whole lot of fans feel just as protective of "Dark Knight" as critics feel of their favorite Oscar film. Both sides believe they are defending something under attack, even though "Dark Knight" has been such a pop culture blitzkrieg that it's hard to imagine it could possibly be threatened by a few nattering nabob-style critics. But rightly or wrongly, critics today are viewed as cultural snobs--it's hardly a coincidence that much of the Rotten Tomatoes comment traffic focused on Morgenstern being an elitist New Yorker, even though he's resided for years in Los Angeles.

So I ask you the question: What is crude and what is rude and what is nasty, by your standards? Is Morgenstern wrong to expect a more elevated discussion about his take on "Dark Knight"? At The Times, the paper's policy is to reject abusive comments or ones with vulgar language. But if you can make your case, PG-13 style, I'd love to hear where you draw the line when it comes to venting your spleen. 

Photo by Bob Carey / Los Angeles Times.

Comments

[Super Nazi Moses]

Burn in hell

[Big Shaker]

I've given up expecting much but hate and ugliness from the internet, which has become a far more vast wasteland than anyone ever dreamed TV could be. It has become the gang turf of angry, mean-spirited cowards who in real life are childish and powerless, but their online anonymity empowers them to throw off the shackles of civility and decency and to run wild, and not have to bear any real-life consequences for it. The wide-open nature of the internet frees them of any boundaries of behavior - crudity, vicious insults, even death threats are now the norm. It's giving these hooligans too much credit to say they're simply being "protective" of their movie.

[Larkin]

Its unfortunate "fan boys" have been sending such harsh comments to these critics. A well crafted and respectful criticisms would be more effective in my opinion. However in rare circumstances critics themselves unfairly review movies and insult the filmmakers who put so much passion and energy into a project. Its also interesting to note that some critics feel they are entitled to criticize a film anyway they want but believe its off limits for audiences to give criticism of their review as they see fit. Also isn't it a critics job is to inform the public about a film, but they often construct sentences with a vocabulary level beyond what the average person can understand. Its obvious most critics care more about sounding intelligent and sophisticated amongst their pears and less about informing the public about.

[Sonny]

stop being such a sissy and take it. So WHAT, you gotta field a few nasty emails once in a while. That's the behavior people exhibit on message boards and comment lists. Its called "the anger of anonymity" and it runs rampant on almost ANY message board where people can be questioned, challenged, and yes- destroyed. The Batman franchise is almost like the Oakland Raiders- the fans are die-hard. The movie debuted to an amazing amount of hype and so...what do you expect??? I think these critics ENJOY having an article written about them personally. This negative deluge happens, what- every 10 years? Its part of being a critic in a major newpaper- have you forgotten that? No more, hiding behind your words and being a quasi-invisile entity. Consider this karma for all the good movies that you've panned (including The Dark Knight)...and more importantly, get over yourself...people have REAL problems out here.

[Ro]

The majority of Movie Critics are completely out of touch with what the general public enjoys in a movie. While it’s true that Joe Morgenstern speaks to a different crowd in his reviews, he can hardly expect the fans of Dark Knight to appreciate his comments. Would Mr. Morgenstern be a fan of most Comic Book Movies? If he isn’t, then can he truly give a review that isn’t biased on his dislike of the genre? What the Dark Knight Fans lack in eloquence, they certainly make up for with enthusiasm. It would behoove most Film Critics to remember that the majority of movie goers are people who worked very hard for the $20.00 or more they are going to spend for that few hours in the movie theatre. It is time for the Movie Critics to take a step down from being elitists and to start judging a movie by its merits and not its genre.

[sdfadsaf]

The problem is not the fans. It's the critics. You expect to people to simply accept your opinion without question.

You are so detached from your readers which explains the surprise at how heated the debate gets.

The criticisms I have seen of Dark Knight indicate that snobs, sorry critics, like yourself, do not understand the Batman mythology. Some don't even know it's not related to the old Burton films, like Rex Reed.

Some thing Nolan's films should have humor like Spiderman. These are criticisms sure, but they aren't objective. They will be debated and the common rebuttal is that YOU, the "professional" critic, has no idea what Batman is all about, surely not what THIS interpretation of batman is all about.

Lets also keep in mind, that you people have the microphone. You're the ones whining in your websites about fanboys. We don't have a voice other than to email you and if you DO respond, you pick the worst of the bunch rather than the articulate meangingful ones.

So, you, the critic, controls the viewpoint and you skew it in your own favor to make us look like rabid fans.

[Danjer047]

I think it is horrible how people are attacking critics with death threats and "Get Fired"s. I really loved this film but I understand why people didn't. If the reviewer didn't like the movie, then people should come up with a rational reason to disagree. If something in the review does fit, then you should come out and talk about it. But, it's pretty sickening that people get on here and defend a movie with violence. You should use your brain and opinion to challenge reviews not your e-fists and tiny words.

[Vinnie Velvet]

Patrick Goldstein - thanks for the insightful read.
To me, critics have always been the lowest form on earth. These hacks who get paid for saying how good or how bad something is have got to be just as insane as the so-called "bat fan boys" you mentioned in your article.
David Lee Roth once said that "critics like Elvis Costello because they look like Elvis Costello."

'nuff said.

[sasha]

I've been on the net for almost fifteen years and I'll tell you that things were different in the early days; trolls were promptly exiled from any reasonable and interesting discussion. Somehow, between then and now there came this idea that anything goes online -- people say (I have said) things they would never dream of saying, nor have the courage to say, face to face. I don't tolerate it at my site and will promptly delete any abusive talk and try to ban the poster. If more blog owners took a hard line this stuff wouldn't happen as often. It isn't okay to attack the critic who didn't like your movie, folks. A high comment count isn't everything. Delete, delete, delete.

Having said all that, unfortunately, you have to develop a kind of thick skin to put yourself out there for unmoderated comments. Either that or be willing to go on the attack and slap the fanboy down. They will attack everything they know to attack -- usually, though, it's based on looks: bald, fat, ugly - because those are the things you can't say out loud usually, or haven't been able to since 1st grade. But I guess it can be racist and homophobic and sexist too. They do it because they can and because it largely goes unchecked.

It's a sorry state of affairs. Humanity has all but flown the coop. It's up to those who know better to keep their readership in line like you would a misbehaving toddler. Shutting them up and smacking them down is one of the perks of the job! :-)

[Armando]

When I was a kid I saw Batman by Tim burton about 3 or 4 times and loved it back then. Now almost 20 years later it is about time some people got it right. The Nolan brothers and David Goyer did a superb job and for the first time in maybe 20 yrs I and my better half have decided to see a motion picture twice. I think the last movie I saw twice was T2 Judgment Day...anyway my point is I guess with age you really do get wise. The First Time I saw TDK I was blown away. The second time hmmmmmm yes I began to see what some of the hateful critics have seen...like too many sub plots and all that munbo jumbo they wrote but nevertheless I still enjoyed it. I have read the Killing Joke, The Long Halloween, Arkham Asylum and other comic classics and this movie adaptationand also Batman Begins is the closest to those comics by far. Would I see it again for a third time? Maybe in blu ray or if someone will pay for me at the theatre. In My Opinion still the best movie I have seen this year and best superhero movie by far.

[Brian]

In these Internet times, there are no more standards. Unfiltered, unimaginable personal attacks can posted behind the comfort of online namesakes, without fear of accountability or responsibility.

Once upon a time, pranksters rang the doorbell after leaving behind a burning sack of you-know-what. Kids today have an unending supply of the virtual equivalent, and sadly can drop them off on any doorstep in the world.

More than ever, its a ding-dong, ding dong world.

[Harry]

It's always been a pandora's box to tap the power of fan bases - especially in flame wars where people can hide behind anonymous postings. BATMAN casting was powered by the fans, I remember. WB had their online pollls to test the waters. Bale, a big Internet fave with followings from AMERICAN PSYCHO and EQUILIBRIUM swept the vote. So it's no suprise that a grass-roots campaign to create the Nolan Batman is very protective. Sci-fi fans, demographically, are going to be more wired to the Net than say, oh, the fans of MAMMA MIA?

I think the fans should calm down. Learn to take criticism. Vote with your dollars, go see the movie, buy the special edition DVD, and ignore positive or negative reviews. That said, just because something is "popular" doesn't make it great. If that was the case, then McDonald's must be the best food in the world....

[Onun]

I feel sorry for the Batman loyalists. They are so blind in their devotion that they're missing the fact that this is a good movie.

[bob]

Its ok to be critical, but when your blatantly wrong, thats ok, but expect a backlash from everyone. Stop complaining. I'm not a comic book movie fan, but the Dark Knight is my favorite movie of all time, it is just an amazing movie. Some critic's opinions are independent of how good a film actually is. I personally like to think during a movie, I like how the Dark Knight has so much substance to it that you can think about if you want to. It is a masterpiece of a 'movie', has it all, action, wooh action, characters with genuine substance, its just an amazing movie on a level completely on its own. (It is more than a 'movie' by todays standards).

Why so serious? Lets put a smile on that face Mr. Patrick Goldstein

[Lianne]

I agree with Sonny that critics don't really understand the general moviegoers tastes and dislikes and assume that we will abide by what is being said by a person or persons reviewing the movie in their opinion. If it is harshly stated, I can see people being upset, but not going so far as to harm somone.
Sure review the movie, but maybe look at it in a way that will not reflect so negatively....word it different.

I have looked up reviews and read so many others feelings on how well this movie is and I don't disagree with that at all.....It is GREAT......and i have seen it twice and will be watching it again for a third time tomorrow..... It was just very well made and acted superbly.......

Need I say more...

Thank you.

[Michael Mohr]

The internet hasn't made us a worse society. It has simply made it more convenient for people to express their opinions directly to the source of their frustration. Many people would never take the time to track down a piece of paper, pen, and stamp, just so they could write a letter aimed at intimidating and emasculating a film critic. For some reason, that would just take too much time. But, in the heat of the moment, after reading a film review, political article, or other bit of reporting/analysis, a reader can immediately vent whatever foul response is on their mind, without consequence, and without much of an investment of their time. And, sadly, there are bigots in the world who are going to slip hate speech into their comments.

However, I am sure that these comments have always been muttered under people's breath or exclaimed to coworkers at lunch. Nobody likes to be told that they have bad taste, and that's often how it feels when a person really loved a movie, and then it gets a scathing review. Most people are happy to go about their day, shrug off the review, and agree to disagree. But, some less mature folk will always feel the desire to give the critic "a piece of their mind," and the internet is a simple and quick way to do that.

The internet also dissolves some of the boundaries that have always kept newspapers such as the Wall Street Journal insulated from the backlash of angry fans. As Morgenstern pointed out, he writes for a readership who tends to adhere to a system of manners which frowns upon the blunt and often ludicrous insults thrown by many Rotten Tomato readers. To simply imply that they are crass because they are less educated is unfair. They simply do not play by the same rules as most Wall Street Journal readers. Normally, they would never have noticed Morgenstern, for the exact same reasons Morgenstern is shocked by their behavior. He does not write for them, and they do not read him. But, Rotten Tomatoes brought Morgenstern to their attention.

It's important to note that Morgenstern was not targeted because of the Dark Knight's popularity alone. He was also targeted because he was in a very small minority, and wrote for one of the most prestigious papers who gave a negative review. That makes him an easy target.

Yes, it is a mob mentality. But, that's nothing new to human nature. What is new and disturbing for critics like Morgenstern, long protected from irate rants by their civilized readership, is that they are no longer above the fray.

So, I am sorry if Joe got a rude awakening. But, most people do not have the luxury of completely filtering out "the mob." Most people have to live with it, deal with it, and encourage people to rise above it when they have the opportunity to do so. And, the egalitarian nature of the internet makes it even more impossible to ignore the masses.

But, I will say one thing. People who get to live in the ivory tower have long dismissed mob antics by blaming the times, new technology, or the aspects of culture which reject intellectualism. All these reasons may contribute, but I imagine that mob mentality has less to do with situational factors, and more to do with human nature.

[Lee]

These reactions aren't restricted to the Internet. When my wife and I dared to say in a room full of friends that we had seen the trailers and really weren't that thrilled about "The Dark Knight," things got downright chilly. I don't understand at all where this comes from, but I suspect that something Edelstein wrote in his follow-up is close to the truth. People have invested so much emotional energy in this film that you can't raise even a minor criticism, let alone write a negative review of the whole film.

[cptnapalm]

The primary problem with most of the negative reviews is how unintelligent and condescending they are. There are critics calling the movie pretentious; if it were pretentious (think of your run of the mill indie film), they would be lapping it up. There are critics who seemingly paid no attention to the film and cannot even get basic plot points correct.

Edelstein's review... there is no review. There are a bunch of bold statements without any actual examples. There is basically a critic, who vaguely paid attention to the movie he was half watching. His "review" is slop.

The primary problem with critics is that they are narcissists. I can like something while knowing that it isn't very good. Example: I wanted to watch a particular kind of movie and the only thing fitting the bill was The Mummy. Is it a great film? Hell no. Is it even a particularly good film? Not really. But it satisfied an itch, so I have no hate for it.

The critic (or, since Frenchiness with caps is always more indicative of a jackass, The Critique) can not comprehend liking something but it not being brilliant. They cannot fathom disliking something and it actually being good. Real people, the kind you never find in indie films and rarely in mainstream ones, are perfectly content to say they do not like a genre whether it is superheroes, westerns or horror; they just go see something else and leave the fans alone saying "I just don't care for those movies". The Critique de Pompousness though is so thoroughly full of himself that he cannot even comprehend that the platonic forms do not revolve around his own likes and dislikes.

[Ryan]

I have to be honest. I saw the movie once, and I thought it was very good. When I went home, I started thinking about the plot and the characters. Then it dawned on me: people aren't so much as obsessed with the movie as they are with one thing in particular: Heath Ledger's performance as the Joker. And if I may say, he played the past villain comic book movies have ever seen by far. The character was sinister as well as humorous at times, just like the joker is meant to be. But sadly, the is where the amazing aspects of the film end. The plot was pretty good, but (much like Spider-man 3, but in a much smaller scale) sometimes had too much going on at once. The characters themselves, aside from the joker weren't really developed as well as I'd have hoped. Bruce Wayne/Batman took a bit of a step back in his nobility level between this film and the last. His development was kind of slow as well, suddenly changing all at once at the end of the film. Rachel Dawes was more annoying then anything else. Harvey Dent/ Two-face was short lived at best, and Alfred Pennyworth and Lucius Fox, played by two award-winning actors, were unfortunately not in the film as much as they should have been. So, it was a good movie, but the Batman Begins beats this movie's plot by a long shot.

As for those of you out there who find it necessary to verbally and physically attack critics who disagree with your opinion of a movie while hiding behind your masks of email addresses, I would just like to remind you: It's just a movie. Grow up.

[GM]

You can always expect to find the fanboys where their internet counterparts are. To me it's funny Morgenstern used the word "troll" when in this case, he may have been mistaken for one. We have from him- a critical review that so blatantly goes in the face of popular, critical & proven box-office opinion that one wonders if it wasn't written simply to garner attention. Internet Trolls, that bane of fan-oriented message boards, are known to lay down elaborate and reasoned criticism and nitpick at every conceivable flaw with inflammatory opinions- commonly referred to as "flamebait" to draw angered comments. And the fanboys can always be counted on to show up and deliver in "flames".

It is ironic to see a film critic "outed from under the bridge" because of what they do for a living. While I don't see anything too crass in the reader opinions quoted, I don't hold for abusive language under any circumstances. That said, an "elevated discussion" between both parties can only occur when responses have the same public visibility as the review itself.

[Michael F]

"Suddenly we live in a new world full of trolls"

I partly agree with Joe Morgenstern when he says that, but unfortunately it's nothing sudden or new. Has he ever visited the message boards at the Internet Movie Data Base (IMDb) website? If he did, he would find that trolls have basically been allowed to roam free there for years now! Morgenstern should be grateful that at least he has the ability to delete those hateful e-mails in his in-box with one click, while visitors to websites like IMDb have to endure some of the most vile and hateful nonsense on a daily basis.

[Kate]

While the rudeness is always unncessary, but seriously, what did you expect? First, this is the internet where people are already about 5x as rude as they are in real life, and plus, even if these fans met the critics in real life, they probably would have cursed them out anyway. It's not even about this movie or the Batman fanbase; when someone tells you your favorite book/show/car/dress/furniture or whatever looks like crap, I think the instinctive response is "screw you".
You can try to argue that most of them haven't seen the film but many other fanbase movies have received bad reviews before, and most of the time they really deserved it. You didn't see the fans lashing out then (notably, Batman & Robin, or Spiderman 3 etc.). That's because they agree with the critics, or see their reasoning. Or are you arguing that this is a phenonmenon that only happens to this particular movie and only to Batman fanboys?
This whole thing is just because the fans who really loved this movie felt insulted when they saw it criticized. In the heat of the moment, I don't think you can argue with them about "everyone entitled to their own opinion".

[Nonissue]

The irony here is telling...

Critics chafing at being criticized by the id of the fan base he insulted.

NO ONE is immune to criticism, including the critics.

Previous commenters are correct: 15 years ago (Pre-Net), critics could spout their pomposity from an aerie untouched by the "unwashed masses" and received praise trickled in from fawning sycophants. They would receive scant negative comments because people didn't deem it worth their time to assemble a coherent statement as to why they didn't like said critic. That unnecessary filter doesn't exist anymore.

Welcome to the 21st century.

You can't criticize something and not expect criticism in return.

Grow thicker skin Mr. Critic.

End of story.

[!]

So sad to realize some of these comments come from people older than 13.

[Speed Pacer]

I've never read a single comic book and I didn't watch another Batman movie more than once unless there was nothing else on. The Dark Knight was a completely different story. I purchased the DVD the day it came out after hearing about Heath Ledger's performance and I think it's an outstanding movie that deserves a lot of credit, and so do millions of others obviously, considering all of the other rave reviews and high ratings it received.

So, when a fancy pulitzer prize winning critic from the Wall Street Journal goes against the grain and uses a lot of big words to bash a movie under these circumstances, it's not surprising that the general public would react in this manner.

What's really gets under my skin however, is the fact that he continues to insult the general public with his holier than thou attitude, saying things like, "There's obviously a lot of anti-intellectualism at work, with some subtle undertones of anti-Semitism too."

In this reader's opinion, this makes him no better than the so-called "trolls" and "bat boy fans" criticizing his review, and I have little sympathy for him, and I'm really surprised anyone would be standing in his corner, unless of course their lips were attached to his butt cheeks.