…and can legitimately be said to be fundamentally about ideas which are central to the NeoCons. (Such as Strauss and the concept of a “noble lie.”)
I was just using that as an example, as nearly every scene or plot from both of the movies so far has come from books that are at least 20 years old. You could form the same opinions on the War on Terror by reading them.
I think that he, Miller, and everyone else you’re arguing with would say that one can create a film that addresses the War on Terror without making it a polemic in favor of any particular side. Miller is absolutely right when he points out your foolishly reductionist “it has to be either pro-left or pro-right” attitude.
And speaking as a lefty who didn’t really give a shit about the Batman franchise until recently, you’re seriously grasping at straws. It’s hilariously ironic how you think other people are the ones mapping these movies onto their preconceived biases.
Really? And what, do you suppose, was my “preconceived bias?”
I think it’s entirely possible there are minor-pro Right Wing motifs in Nolan’s superhero movies, but this is the key point: these movies are not about that, whatsoever. They are about fairly traditional tellings of storylines that come from comic books. 95% of these movies is inspired literally by stories out of the comics, and the desire is to generate audience appeal by showing the heroic exploits of a well known comic book superhero.
I think it’s also doubtful if you can ascribe any crazy “conservative apologism” motivation to a director of these films. Superhero movies are not meant to make big statements on the world or society, and by and large the concept of superheroes is conservative. Not “big-C”, but it’s definitely a right wing idea. Basically that “supermen” gifted with extraordinary prowess or ability can single-handedly take up the reins of law enforcement (and sometimes the role of judge, jury, and executioner.)
In the scene from Iron Man where he kills a bunch of terrorists who are almost in textbook comic-book fashion using women and children as human shield by using some advanced targeting system to shoot all of the terrorists without harming a single civilian it’s pretty blatantly trying to hit chords with that “right-winger in all of us.” Namely that part of most people’s pysche that think, “yeah, fuck those guys using women and children as human shields, they do need to be shot dead right away, and it’s satisfying to see that done in a way that doesn’t hurt any innocents.” It’s not realistic, but that’s exactly what a superhero is, someone who does unrealistic, but satisfying things.
It’s kind of annoying when you only respond to half the argument. Any response to the rest of my post about Alfred’s speech?
No, the parable is about the unintended consequences of creating a massive power vacuum without having any sort of contingency plan to deal with the chaos that will result. You’re correct that actual method of catching Lau doesn’t change that, and I’m not arguing that the scene is about how bad an idea extraordinary rendition is. I do think it can be read as a statement on the concept of needing fast solutions to intractable, long term problems. Things like extraordinary rendition were justified as necessary to keeping us safe. The film shows us that even when these techniques work, we don’t end up any safer. By taking Lau off the board, the citizens of Gotham were made less safe.
If you want to turn this into an analogy on the War of Terror, then if the Joker is Osama bin Laden, surely Lau and the traditional Gotham mob are Saddam Hussein. Sure, the Joker is still going to be out there regardless, but while the mob was in power, he had to work against both them, and the legitimate authority in Gotham. Taking out the mob made it easier for the more dangerous enemy to act freely.
For the record, I want to note that I think taking the film to that level of allegory is probably a mistake. Nolan used elements of the War on Terror to punch up his film and give it some resonance with current events, but I don’t think his ultimate goal was to Make a Statement one way or the other.
You’re dead wrong about what I think.
My bias is that of a rabid proponent of individual rights. On that basis alone, I would hate Bush’s guts. I would gladly set the stupid motherfucking Congress members who voted for the Patriot Act on fire and piss on the ashes afterward, since it doesn’t look like we can realistically put all of them under same kind of surveillance and harassment they subjected the populace to. I’m the kind of loonie who thinks everyone should use strong encryption for their email because — fuck the police, fuck the FBI, and fuck the whole fucking government — you should have to have a specific, justified, good goddamn reason to look at my private communications.
Batman is one of the most complicated, conflicted, yet highly principled characters in comics. Nolan did a superb job of building a film around the best interpretations of the character, including those damning flaws Batman possesses. Any justification for right-wing tactics is wholly in the minds of the viewer and is not supported by what is shown on the screen.
Sorry. Busy day. Christmas and whatnot. I’ll try to get you a more complete response tomorrow. 