I suppose I should preface this post with a confession and an expectation. Confession: I have not seen The Dark Knight. Expectation: Most people who have seen it will not like what I’m about to say.
I’ve been fascinated watching the marketing, reading the early reviews, and seeing the masses reaction to The Dark Knight. Two things I’ve found in these observations: it’s an amazing movie, and, its name speaks for itself.
TIME Magazine’s Richard Corliss said that director Christopher Nolan wants audiences to “stick their hand down the rat hole of evil to see if they get bitten,” adding that it was "black" and "toxic." He also said it was “puzzling” that the movie received a PG-13 rating due to the “mayhem and torture wreaked by saint and scum.” He finished the review saying that it would “haunt you.” But he still loved the movie. Others have echoed this sentiment. RT critics called it “terrifiying” and said that they've never seen something push the PG-13 envelope like this. The Boston Globe wrote that audiences will "come away impressed, oppressed, provoked, and beaten down." Our own Jeff Vice also wondered whether the dark film merited its PG-13 rating. Despite this talk about darkness, mayhem and torture, the critics love it, almost unanimously. And it shows. Batman is at 94% on the RT-Meter. That is very rare for any film, let alone a summer action flick.
The masses have had a similar reaction. One man told USAToday that he wished there had been a disclaimer saying what exactly was in the film for his kid’s sake. Another woman went expecting a comic book movie, not a film noire. She also said it should have earned an R rating. A theater critic went to see it, and said she left feeling edgy, yelling at her friend, "driving like a bat out of somewhere, and needed something sweet to eat." But they still loved it. Generally, the general public loves it. And it shows. Batman broke a weekend box office record this weekend, raking in $155 million dollars. A blockbuster overnight.
That’s what is disturbing to me. It seems that we are calling evil good and good evil (Isa. 5:20). We’re praising something that depicts torture, violence, and destruction. The film's attraction may have something to do with what Joseph Conrad called the “fascination with abomination.” Christopher Nolan knows how to suck us into a thought-provoking storyline, as he proved with The Prestige and Batman Begins. He moves beyond the physical and enters the psychological. His action sequences stimulate the heart while his plots wrap around the mind. He owns his audience. And on that note, I'm certain The Dark Knight would captivate, entertain and grip me if I were to see it. I'm just not sure that's a good thing. That's been a major part of my conflict over all of this. I want to see it; it really looks amazing. But how can I consciously go see something after reading the above critics' reactions? If someone who watches movies for a living, and has most likely become desensitized to anything Hollywood can throw at them, calls it "black" or "toxic" or says that you'll be "beaten down" by seeing it, why should I feel invulnerable?
The Dark Knight has successfully received a PG-13 rating because there is no graphic violence or excessive amounts of profanity. Kidsinmind.com went pretty easy on it, rating it closer to Prince Caspian and Spider-man than anything else. And if you read the MPAA’s justification, you’ll see that it has this rating due to “intense sequences of violence and some menace.” But, from what I’ve read, from the short clips and previews I’ve seen, and from the other films of his, I can predict the kind of spirit that the film thrives on. As one critic put it, "The carnage here is felt, not seen. But oh, how we feel it. The camera may blink, but your mind's eye doesn't. The Joker forces us to imagine every cut and tear. And frankly, I think I squirmed more through Knight than through the splatter-happy Saw IV. Why? The violence here feels more real, visceral ... painful." The devil doesn’t even need a mask anymore. It appears he’s running rampant throughout the film, with a smeared, bloody-red smile. I’m sure Nolan and Heath Ledger didn’t make the movie under conscious supervision from the devil. I’m just perplexed that we all love it and want more of it. PG-13 means less to me than it ever has. This opened the rating up for a whole new pack of possibilities. The devil sure was patient. I wonder if he planned, decades ago, for something so innocent and friendly as Batman -- with its lunch boxes, underwear, Saturday morning cartoons, and really bad Joel Schumacher movies -- to spawn The Dark Knight.
Look how far we've come.
Okay, this one is even better.
9 comments:
I think Cesar Romero was pretty creepy!
The second one is better. I like the green-haired surfers.
I agree that the world has definitely come a long way. It is truly frightening.
Interesting post, and you bring up some good points. However, having seen the movie, I don't think it would be an entirely fair assessment to equate it with evil.
While the film is dark and has two small moments that I thought it could have done without, overall, I have to admit it's one of the best films I have ever seen. And it's not because it's the fascination of the abomination (which is unfortunately increasing in occurrence these days though).
It's a great film for a number of reasons: 1) Incredible acting. Heath Ledger was absolutely phenomenal and was also surrounded by many other talented actors. He could delve into the depths of insanity while being laugh out loud funny at times. 2) Great story line. The thing that absolutely amazed me about "The Dark Knight" was everything that happened just made sense. I could have never guessed what was going to happen next, but when it did, it felt like it couldn't have happened any other way. 3) Great cinematography. This film was beautifully shot and was at times a feast for the eyes. There's probably more things I could go into, but really, it's an incredible movie.
Moreover, I think you would be pleased to know that among the darkness, there were some pretty inspiring themes: 1) Choosing the right no matter the consequence. Doing the right thing, even if it means being hated for it. (Batman made that choice by the way). 2) Trusting in the goodness of humanity. The Joker was relying that when the chips were down, Gotham would tear itself apart. Batman was relying that when the chips were down, Gotham would do the right thing. (Batman won on that one too.) and 3) To lift a line from the movie "Is not the night darkest before the dawn?" While it's dark, this film is a prologue of better times to come. Batman's story is a story of redemption. Saving something that nobody else thought was worth saving and when nobody else would. It's a movie about a savior figure standing up to evil on our behalf, no matter how scary that evil is. (Which scary evil this movie depicts almost too well.)
I think that's a common theme throughout many great movies and is a theme that naturally resonates within our own hearts (For understandable gospel reasons). Think about it, why do we love superheroes? It's because they do something for us that we could never do for ourselves. They watch over us and protect us... While the analogy is not perfect, I really do think that mankind naturally yearns for somebody (even if it is a superhero) to play that role in our own lives.
However, the question remains though: Does the show of greatness compensate for the wickedness depicted in this movie? Does the good outweigh the bad when it comes to "The Dark Knight"?
I'm not sure on that one. But either way, I can't argue with the fact that it's an incredible movie. For better or worse, "The Dark Knight" is amazing.
Great comment Spencer. Thanks. A compelling argument for the truth and virtue found in "Dark Knight." I completely agree with you on superheroes paralleling Christ as someone to believe in and look to for comfort and protection. I've always been a Spider-man fan, and I think that may be part of why.
And I never questioned the quality of "Dark Knight." I know the director's capability, not to mention the actors'. I'm sure it is just what you said, amazing.
That said, I'm still torn over your thought-provoking last question. Does the good outweigh the bad? Does the fact that it is of "good report" and "praiseworthy" make the moments that may not be "virtuous" or "lovely" worth it? Should we mine for truth wherever we can find it? Or should we look for it only when we don't have to sift through the philosophies of world to find the truth mingled amid them?
These are sincere questions. Maybe I'm taking this all too seriously, but being a big fan of film, I think that for myself, it's important for me to figure out.
Nope, it's all good. I've felt the same way about some things that others would say "why is that even a big deal", but nonetheless, it was a big deal to me. Good luck in your decision.
Hey you don't know me but Nikki told me she knew someone else who shared my opinion on this movie so I found you through her blog.
Good for you for doing your research. I wish I hadn't seen this movie. As for earlier comments, IN NO WAY does Batman or ANY superhero for that matter parallel Christ our Savior who is perfect. Even Batman is reduced to lying to cover up for others in the name of 'heroism'. In the words of someone else: "just because it's great writing/acting it doesn't mean that Satan doesn't use it to embed little seeds of evil into his viewers.Yes, there is a real evil in this world and that doesn't mean we should go around denying it and live under a rock, but I also believe that the more you expose yourself to those kinds of evil...especially with an 'entertainment' mindset, the more you are opening yourself up to being desensitized to the horrors of Satan' and the less you are shocked when you see something that would grieve God." I am not perfect by all means but I do know that there are no gray areas. It's black or white, evil or good. There spirit could not dwell there. I am disturbed that so many people loved it and even make excuses for it.
Hello the few that will read this. This is Spencer Staples, not the first Spencer. This is my first post to this discussion board. To bat? Or not to Bat? Is that our question? Here are my opinions/thoughts.
First: I love Andrew's comments, though I do not think I agree fully with them. Also, I love Andrew's ability to defend a position, influence others, and agree to disagree. Some of my most cherished discussions are with Andrew. Also, I appreciate Holly's comments. I don't know her, but enjoyed her comment even though I think I disagree.
Second: I share the thoughts and feelings Spencer (the other one) and Andrew stated about superheros being PARALLELS to Christ. In no way does this equate the two. I would never suspect Andrew (I don't know Spencer) of thinking as much. A parallel between two things can still be separated by eternities of differences. Such is the case with superheros and Christ. Christ is real, batman is not. Christ is perfect, no superhero is. The list is eternal, so lets not even go there. The point, Holly, is that those of us who consider superheros as parallels to Christ are trying to suggest that they could be considered as "types" or fictitious saviors in terms that they save people, usually from physical threats, and people necessarily depend upon them and revere them for this.
Third: I would now like to express my current position on the Dark Knight controversy. I saw Dark Knight (DK) before I both had a personal conversation with Andrew, and then read this post. Also, I later saw the DK a second time.
Here is what I think: The issue at hand should be shifted from a debate over whether or not the DK is a "good/bad" movie morally, to whether the movie is right/wrong for the individual. This is because, despite what Holly said, there IS a gray area and it seems quite fruitless to define "black and white" in this situation. To illustrate what I mean, there is not a temple recommend question concerning one's position on the Dark Knight. There is not even one concerning movie ratings. I'm even willing to bet that some general authorities will see the DK and enjoy it. HOWEVER, this does NOT mean that the film would be enjoyed by everyone, or should be viewed by everyone. I believe that it comes down to listening to the spirit guide us in our individual decisions. Maybe film is a tempting and impactfull medium that can throw your testimony off. If this is the case, and the spirit supports it, don't see DK. For me, I enjoyed the show, and found therein a number of testimony reinforcements. But thats me. For me, film is largely escapism with useful "morals of the story". Christopher Nolan is indeed a psychological thrill-writer-director and for some...that won't go over well. So don't see it. But I LOVED it. What does that mean exactly? I don't know. But I find it presumptive to cut a clear line and define this film as either black or white. If it were that simple, why then are there inconsistencies amongst worthy members of the church? Some Stake Presidents probably own or have seen some R rated movies, while others don't. Some Mission-Presidents encourage social activities to promote unity and bonding, while other Presidents consider the exact same activity as distracting to the missionaries and unnecessary. Bishops and High Counsels don't have few standardized disciplines for transgressions. Why? Because it depends on the individual. Case by case decision making, with the assistance of the spirit. There are FEW clear answers. That is one of the great challenges to this life. Its my least favorite one, potentially. I LOVE tithing. Because I can budget it. Its exact. I'm perfect at it. Little else is so easy.
Conclusion: I still have other ideas on the matter, but I'm short on time and Im curious if anyone will even read this. So, to conclude, I do not subscribe to moral relativity at all. But I think the Dark Knight is a tough gray area that must be personally explored. I welcome further discussion. I'm interested to see if anyone even responds. Ok, long and boring I have been. Sorry. Bye.
Spencer, what you say is certainly on target. There are no defined lines from church leaders when it comes to the media, and certainly none when it comes to a particular film (though President Hinckley did reference "Chicago" in a general conference talk they year it won best picture). That said, I believe things are black and white in the sense that they bring you closer to Christ or pull you farther away from Him. I'm tempted to say everything that we see, hear, say, think and do takes us closer or further from Him, and I think I have some chapter and verse to support that argument. That said, the argument you've made seems to say that DK has enough redemptive values in it that it qualifies for leaving a person better than they were before. Point taken, and I can't argue that, since I haven't seen it. Of course it is up to the individual to choose and be guided by the Spirit as you said. On that point, would the Spirit direct someone to see something (or be indifferent to their choice) if a child is not permitted to see it? If we are to be like little children then why see something that they are not allowed to see? It's a radical argument, I know, and I would never claim to be able to do this in all circumstances. But it is something to consider.
In conclusion, I do think that DK is gray in that there is no specific commandment to see or not to see it. But I also feel that the Spirit would not prompt us to see something that reflects wickedness. It's tricky. Like you said, that's just part of the mortality bargain. And it is one of the most exciting things about mortality: to figure out what is right and wrong, and how to prepare to return to God's presence on our own, without specific instruction from leaders. That's why this bloggy conversation has been so healthy, because we're all trying to figure it out for ourselves, while sharing our views with each other. I guess that's what I have to say. There's always more to say, but not time to say it.
Post a Comment