'The Dark Knight' gets shock therapy

It's an old marketing maxim in Hollywood that you can tell that a movie is really a pop culture phenomenon when the buzz migrates to the op-ed pages. This has happened to "The Dark Knight" in spades. We know from today's Times story that the latest installment in Warners' Batman franchise has been racking up box-office milestones at a record pace, but it has also been inspiring an unlikely array of opinion pieces, especially from conservative commentators, who have been on something of a desperate search for new heroes lately.

The most provocative of the pieces, an essay by mystery writer Andrew Klavan that ran in the Wall Street Journal the other day, positions the film as a conservative movie about the war on terror, with Batman as--gasp!--George W. Bush. As Klavan puts it: The film is "at some level a paean of praise to the fortitude and moral courage that has been shown by George W. Bush in this time of terror and war. Like W, Batman is vilified and despised for confronting terrorists in the only terms they understand...."

The most playful of the pieces, by New York Post film critic Kyle Smith, proposes that Batman is--double gasp!--a dead ringer for the current administration's vice president. Once you relax and stifle your gag reflex--and if you're a liberal, this requires some serious yoga-style gag reflex contortions--you have to admit that Smith is on to something:

"Batman is not charming. He isn't popular, partly because he's a zealot and partly because he doesn't bother to explain himself to the press. He is independently wealthy, having spent years as the head of an industrial company. His methods are disturbing, his operations bathed in darkness. He is misunderstood, mistrusted, endlessly pursued by the attack dogs of the night.... And he lives in an undisclosed location. Isn't it obvious? Batman is Dick Cheney with hair."

Where does it end? Will Larry David soon surface on the op-ed page of the New York Times, claiming that the Dark Knight is really a nice Jewish boy simply in need of some serious psychoanalysis? Or will Arianna Huffington weigh in, arguing that the movie is a metaphor for the limits on American power and influence in the world? Is there anyone out there who is actually making sense? Actually, amazingly, we've stumbled onto someone with a surprisingly sane point of view:

Julia Keller, a Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter at the Chicago Tribune, contends that Batman, like so many of this summer's comic-book-based superheroes, is ill at ease in our frenetic world. Making the argument last night in her role as a guest essayist on "The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer," Keller contends that virtually all of our favorite superheroes are lonely guys. Even Will Smith's Hancock, for all his boozy brashness, has a remote retreat in a squalid trailer on a mountaintop. Everyone needs to get away, as we did when we were kids, in our secret hideouts. As Keller puts it:

"Superheroes are lonely. They are singular, unique. Because of their marvelous and astonishing powers, they don't fit in anywhere. Those who know Superman's biography know that the only place in which he feels truly comfortable is his fortress of solitude. Most love affairs with comic book characters begin in adolescence. And has there ever been a teenager who did not crave, deep in her or his hormone-roiled and massively misunderstood soul, a place such as Superman's fortress of solitude, a place well beyond the world's grubby reach, a place such as Batman's bat cave, a monastic cell that vibrates not with a Gregorian chant, but with the steady hum from a sleek array of computers?"

Keller ends her piece with an apt snippet of dialogue from the film. Michael Caine, as Alfred the butler, tells Batman: "Know your limits, Master Wayne." When Christian Bale responds, "Batman has no limits," Caine replies: "Well, you do, sir."

"The Dark Knight" photo by Stephen Vaughan / Warner Bros.

Comments

[Michael Wayne]

Perhaps this is why it is such a great movie. So many layers.

[Elaine Morinelli]

I went to see this film at midnight because my 15 year old daughter wanted to go. Otherwise I would probably not have gone to see it as I don't go to the movies much, finding them endlessly vapid and boring, or full of unbelievable special effects that strain the willing suspension of disbelief and I have my own interpretation of it, of course.

To me, Batman is Harry Potter, is Gillgamesh, is King Arthur, is Beowulf. The Hero's Journey. I felt the message was that to be on the side of good carries its own responsibilities. It is not all sweetness in the Light. There is a coldness at the heart of the Light, and sacrifices have to be made.

Batman's dilemma was that he had to find the borderline between doing the right thing, no matter what others think of you (and this position makes you a loner, believe me, I know) and being a vigilante. Being on the side of good is not a popularity contest.

However, I very much enjoyed reading all the interesting blogs about this film. I think even if we ask the director or the writer if they had these themes in mind, it doesn't matter. What makes it a masterpiece of pop culture is that everyone can embrace it for their own reasons and share in the phenomenon. Its another way of making us all feel connected.

[Dave Erickson]

Can a movie heavily based on a 1986 comic book portrayal of a 1939 comic book character be meant as an allegory for the current Presidential administration? I find it interesting that so many are trying to find modern meaning for what is a timeless story.

[elaine NoMorinelli]

Elaine,
For someone who claims they think all movies are "vapid" and "boring," you sure have seen alot of them.

[carmelit]

They are right about the Heroes being lonely and not in the spotlight. Now think about you average Dem. and Lib....I have never really seen them avoid the spotlight to rant their beliefs onto others.

[James]

"To me, Batman is Harry Potter..."

I think that should be the other way around. Given that the character was conceived 50 years after Batman was, and a year after the 1st Batman film by Tim Burton hit theatres.

[Correction]

Comparisons to the Bush administration are a bit overblown I think. But as a Batman fan I'm really irked when people who have really no clue about a subject weigh in with their socioanalytical theories and big words.
Kyle Smith wrote "He is independently wealthy, having spent years as the head of an industrial company."
Well, no. Bruce Wayne is the heir to his father's conglomerate, Wayne Enterprises. If you had watched the first Batman (or...gasp! - read any of the comics as a kid) you'd know that, Mr Smith. And you'd know that Bruce Wayne himself doesn't concern himself much with business affairs. He's an heir and doesn't really "head" anything because his heart and soul is poured into his Batman persona. So there.

[Blake]

They are interesting theories, but honestly, none of them would've been ever brought up without the whole "invasion of privacy" thing in the movie. and, Dave, just to let you know, the movie in now way is based on The Dark Knight Returns, the Frank Miller graphic novel. But yes, it IS based on a character that's been doing the same things to get the job done in comics for 70 years.

[David]

"Can a movie heavily based on a 1986 comic book portrayal of a 1939 comic book character be meant as an allegory for the current Presidential administration? I find it interesting that so many are trying to find modern meaning for what is a timeless story."
It's the very fact that modern issues can be found that makes it a "timeless story." A timeless story is one that is just as relevant today as it was in 1986 or 1939. If it wasn't it would have gone the way of so many early comics, or would have been constantly reinventing itself like so many others. I don't see too many people rushing out to make movie adaptations of the Superman Nazi bashing stories. They just don't have the same emotional resonance today that they did 60 something years ago. The fact that we can look at this story and find modern allegories is what gives it it's timeless quality.

[jic]

"Can a movie heavily based on a 1986 comic book portrayal of a 1939 comic book character be meant as an allegory for the current Presidential administration?"

Of course it can. That doesn't necessarily mean that it *is*, but it certainly *can*. Sure, batman has existed since 1939. Sure, the new movie is supposed to have been strongly influenced by the 1988 comic *The Killing Joke*. But the idea that means that it doesn't contain allegorical material about current events and politics doesn't doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

[Steve (noreply@blogger.com)]

Nolan based his version of Batman on Theodore Roosevelt - saw this in a History Channel program on the Psychology of Batman. So, he is based on a political figure, and when you think about it, most high-ranking politicians share characteristics with Batman, regardless of party affiliation.

[Christian Toto]

Entertainment Weekly cornered Christopher Nolan about the film's political bent recently and he acknowledged some of it is intentional. And then ... the mag doesn't offer a follow-up question. Were they afraid of the answer they'd get, or was it a case of Lousy Journalism 101?

[Brooke]

To Dave Erikson:
Harry Potter, Gilgamesh, Beowulf, and King Arthur were all classic literary characters before they were box office heroes. Go read a book.
Sincerely,
Your high school English teacher

[John Locke]

"Is there anyone out there who is actually making sense?"

Mr. Goldstein, it is your implication that these conservative commentators are making insane analyses that doesn't make any sense. Did you (or any of the other critics here, for that matter) actually read any of these op-eds thoroughly? I mean, think about it: The primary villain in this film is labeled as a "terrorist" twice, he blows up buildings, straps bombs to himself, tortures and terrorizes innocent people, and sends out twisted videos of him terrorizing his victims while making demands not for monetary items but victories in his fight for the hearts and minds of fearful citizens. He says that it's about "sending a message." The hero, when confronted with this monster, is forced to use forceful interrogation methods, "spy" on citizens via cell phones, and "endure" (just another word for "stay the course") in his mission despite public backlash. It is hardly nonsensical to draw a comparison between the Batman in this film and George W. Bush. It seems to me that you and other such critics are just afraid that audiences might find a message in a summer blockbuster that is contrary to your way of thinking. And not just contrary, but outright critical. Through the speeches of two characters, the film makes a strong case against the appeasement of terrorism and against throwing in the towel when things get rough (Iraq, anyone?).

In the end, it seems that you and others like you are incapable of making reasonable arguments against these theories and must resort to suggestions of insanity. No surprise there. You critics just can't stand intellectual diversity, can you?