The Dark Knight
The Dark Knight
I should have been prepared to see a very dark tone movie with a title like " The Dark Knight", but I guess I was not prepared to see so much relentless violence. Even though I claim to 'understand' violence in movies, I was disturbed by all of the violence in this movie. There was violence done on women, children and animals. This movie really glorified violence. We saw the movie in IMAX. There were some incredible performances in this movie, I enjoy Batman's character, but I can't recommend this movie.
"Condemn me not because of mine imperfection,... but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been." Mormon 9:31
Re: The Dark Knight
I'm not sure that the film had significantly more violence or more graphic violence than many other films. My take is that the violence was amplified in its appearance and effect by the context and tone. Here's a film where the bad guy is not some zany super-villain with telekinesis or a Death Star at his disposal. The violent acts don't take place on a field of battle in some distant, fantastic world. And in this film, the "hero" doesn't save each bystander in the nick of time. A lunatic who was abused as a child is on the loose with knives and the only one with the capabilities to combat him marches in without the superhero fanfare. He's a "dark knight." His presence doesn't immediately conjure up any rays of hope, nor does his handiwork in any particular scene summon a sigh of relief from the audience. The applause that broke out as the credits rolled were by force of habit from other comic book movies--we're so used to the good coming out on top in the end. That doesn't happen here, so why are we clapping? This film plays the Prometheus card: the poor, troubled Bruce Wayne will just have to keep fighting at his own expense while the pitiful citizens do nothing. And where is the good that he claims to be fighting for? It's not found in Gotham. In fact, nearly 3 hours of film went by in a pre-Noah society that pretty much makes you wish Ra's al Ghul had been successful in the previous film. And when Batman isn't fighting crime, he's leading three buxom women through the door of a booze party. Put a cape on Commissioner Gordon and you might have a chance at a positive film. As it stands, it's a dreary, hopeless mess with no projected victory for good, as the good's already vanquished before the film begins.
So take these somber surroundings and throw in a colorful, charismatic villain whose wit is topped with sadism. Ledger is the sideshow freak become ringmaster in a frightfully desolate circus. And we've got no choice but to fix our eyes upon center ring. Even in the end when the lights come up, you walk out of the Dark Knight's tent feeling...well...dark!
I can't recommend the film either.
So take these somber surroundings and throw in a colorful, charismatic villain whose wit is topped with sadism. Ledger is the sideshow freak become ringmaster in a frightfully desolate circus. And we've got no choice but to fix our eyes upon center ring. Even in the end when the lights come up, you walk out of the Dark Knight's tent feeling...well...dark!
I can't recommend the film either.
When God can do what he will with a man, the man may do what he will with the world. ~George MacDonald
Re: The Dark Knight
i should have known better than to see this movie. the violence is unrelenting. i'll echo a few movie critics who, unlike most critics, didn't gush over this film:
It's grimly sadistic. It doesn't fight terror, it embraces it.
Ledger [the Joker] becomes, in a curiously twisted way, the moral centre of the film, and this makes The Dark Knight an unintentionally sick spectacle, pretending to justify law and justice, but in reality celebrating violence and chaos.
Full Review
“The Dark Knight” has been made in a time of terror, but it’s not fighting terror; it’s embracing and unleashing it—while making sure, with proper calculation, to set up the next installment of the corporate franchise.
Full Review
This sociological bloodsport shouldn’t be acceptable to any thinking generation...
A bleak Batman entraps us in a commercial mechanism, not art. There’s none of Burton’s satirical detachment from the crime-and-punishment theme. In Nolan’s view, crime is never punished or expunged. (“I am an agent of chaos!” boasts The Joker.) The generation of consumers who swallow this pessimistic sentiment can’t see past the product to its debased morality. Instead, their excitement about The Dark Knight’s dread (that teenage thrall with subversion) inspires their fealty to product.
Ironically, Nolan’s aggressive style won’t be slagged “manipulative” because it doesn’t require viewers to feel those discredited virtues, “hope” and “faith...”
It trashes belief systems and encourages childish fantasies of absurd macho potency and fabulous grotesqueries....
Nolan’s single trick is to torment viewers with relentless action montages; distracting ellipses that create narrative frustration and paranoia. Delayed resolution. Fake tension. Such effects used to be called cheap. Cheap like The Joker’s psychobabble: “Madness, as you know, is like gravity—all it takes is a little push.” The Dark Knight is the sentinel of our cultural abyss. All it takes is a push.
Full Review
so let it be written... so let it be done.
Re: The Dark Knight
This is a very good review of Dark Knight -
M E R I D I A N M A G A Z I N E
“Dark Knight” of Hollywood 's Soul GrassTopsUSA Exclusive Commentary
By Don Feder
Editors' Note: This is an edited version of Don Feder's commentary on the “Dark Knight.” Used by Permission.
"The Dark Night," sequel to "Batman Begins," is the most disturbing movie I've seen in ages -- and, believe me, I see a lot of movies: the good, the bad and the hideous.
It's not because "Dark Knight" is graphically violent (violence has become the sine qua non of action films), but because it's sickeningly sadistic and nihilistic to the point of howling-at-the-moon madness.
In other words, it's pure Hollywood .
“Dark Knight" is the summer's smash hit, breaking all records for an opening-weekend box office. Audiences are flocking to see it, like dodo birds moving toward the edge of cliff. Parents are bringing children, which should qualify them to have "moron" stamped on their foreheads.
People who smoke around their kids are treated as social pariahs. People who don't use children's car seats are indicted for gross negligence. Parents who buy their children toy guns are charged with warping delicate psyches.
Yet nothing is said of those who expose their children to a film in which a pencil is rammed into a gangster's eyeball, a bomb is sewn into a man's stomach and a crusading district attorney has half of his face burned away, leaving a skull, unadorned by flesh, partially exposed. This is about as innocent a summer pastime as taking the kids to a slaughterhouse and urging them to grab a mallet and join in the fun.
I've seen films where the violence was more graphic. In "Wanted," still in theaters, bullets exit head wounds in slow motion, like comets with tails of blood and brain matter.
But "The Dark Knight" positively revels in suffering. The Joker's is a Nazi death camp guard on overdrive. His signature is a permanent grin carved on a victim's mouth. Like a gourmet at a banquet, he savors each morsel of agony wrung from anguished innocents.
He's a virtuoso whose instruments are knives, bombs and pencils (nothing as impersonal as a gun for him). He is relentless and seemingly unstoppable.
The Joker exists to kill, maim, mutilate and inflict psychic pain. Other than creating chaos, he has no motivation -- not greed (he burns a mountain of money to prove his disdain for wealth), not power, not lust and not revenge.
The movie may be called "Dark Knight," but it's the Joker who dominates the film. He has the eye-catching make-up (a punk Emmett Kelly, Jr.), the antics (tongue flicking over dry lips like a reptilian harlequin) and the memorable lines.
By contrast, the hero is monochromatic. Bruce Wayne is an anguished billionaire, an Armani empty suit, who can barely work up a good grimace. In Batman drag, he's as stiff as an accountant at a funeral. It's the Joker who's hellish fun.
But typical of Hollywood 's hypocrisy, "Dark Knight" wants to have it both ways. Intermingled with scenes of pornographic violence, there are moments of preachy piety, as when District Attorney Harvey Dent (who becomes Harvey Two-Face) says, "You either die a hero or live to see yourself become a villain."
One of the few critics to get it right was Chris Tookey, who wrote in the London Daily Mail : "It's grimly sadistic. It doesn't fight terror, it embraces it. Ledger becomes, in a curiously twisted way, the moral centre of the film, and this makes 'The Dark Knight' an unintentionally sick spectacle, pretending to justify law and order, but in reality celebrating violence and chaos."
I'm there -- except for the "unintentionally" part.
In the end, justice of a sort prevails. The Joker is captured (to caper another day?). All it costs the hero is the death of the love of his life, the loss of the man he most admired in Gotham City (Dent), after he's been turned to the Dark Side, and the destruction of his reputation. Batman is no longer seen as a crime-fighting vigilante, but a cold-blooded killer every bit as depraved as the criminals he stalks. Virtue is punished and evil gets its giggles before being hauled off to the loony-bin.
"The Dark Knight" gives a nod of the head to good-vanquishes-evil. It winks, leers and fairly drools at anarchy and nihilism.
This they call entertainment. But, like other forms of cultural corruption, it has consequences.
Heath Ledger was so messed up by his performance (getting into the Joker's character) that he suffered from insomnia. Ledger used six different prescription medications, including the elephant-gun painkiller Oxycotin and anti-depressants like Valium and Xanax. He ended up dying of an overdose in January.
His co-star, Christian Bale (Batman), has played a succession of violent roles, including a serial killer in "American Psycho." Shortly before the European premiere of "Dark Knight," Bale was taken into custody in London for allegedly assaulting his mother and sister. He admits to suffering from depression and insomnia. According to friends, the 34-year-old Welsh actor has trouble controlling his anger. Ya think?
Yet Hollywood insists that cinematic violence has absolutely, positively, undeniably and reliably no connection to the real thing.
All of those graphic scenes of torture, decapitation, severed limbs, geysers of blood and bullets trailing brain-matter have no effect on adolescent (need one add the cliché "impressionable"?) males -- the motion picture industry absurdly maintains. Children leave the Multiplex after viewing Saw 37 with a beatific smile on their lips looking for a church choir or a Salvation Army band to join.
Advertisers (including Hollywood ) spend billions annually to influence human behavior, and then have the chutzpah to claim that what's shown on television or in the movies has no effect on the way people think and act.
Why did the school shootings that plague the nation accelerate at breakneck speed in the 1990s? From 1968 to the end of the '80s, there were 9 such tragedies in the United States . Since 1991, there have been 40.
There were plenty of guns, drugs and psychosis in America in the '70s and '80s. What those decades lacked were "Natural Born Killers," "Pulp Fiction," "Kill Bill" (1 and 2) "Saw" (1,2, and 3), "Fight Club," "Sin City" and their clones.
In 1999, after the Columbine massacre, then President Clinton (who raised millions from the Hollywood crowd) proposed a Federal Trade Commission investigation of whether the entertainment industry targets children in advertising violent movies and video games -- like a question exists in the mind of anyone outside of studio PR departments.
There are studies up the proverbial wazoo linking cinematic violence to aggressive behavior in children, including those conducted by the Surgeon General, American Medical Association, American Psychological Association and U.S. Attorney General.
This is not to say there's a direct, cause-and-effect relationship. Obviously, most consumers of ultra-violent movies never murder, maim, assault or torment small animals. And whatever the influences in their lives, people are still responsible for their actions.
But, like the ceaseless drip, drip, drip of water on a rock, cinematic violence has a cumulative effect on our culture -- wearing away inhibitions, altering attitudes and desensitizing audiences to real-world suffering.
Hollywood has a morbid fascination with death and destruction. Its penchant for ultra-violence is said to be a commercial calculation -- a lure to draw adolescents on which the box office depends. While this is certainly a factor, money may be the most innocent motivation for blood-drenched cinema.
Having given up on God, Hollywood is on an endless quest for a substitute. Violence confers God-like power on characters -- the ability to dispense life and death.
Since the late '60s, writers, directors and studio executives have been infatuated with the anti-hero. Hollywood is fixated on characters who are uninhibited and out of control.
Like the Joker, it revels in destruction for destruction's sake -- exploding buildings, crashing cars, jack-knifing trucks and bullet-riddled bodies. If the universe makes no sense -- other than making no sense -- then why not worship brute force?
Listen to Hollywood 's alter ego, the Joker, explaining his modus operandi to Harvey Dent (lying in a hospital bed with his fiancé dead and half his face burned away): "Do I look like a man with a plan, Harvey . I don't have a plan. The mob has plans. The cops have plans. You know what I am, Harvey ? I'm a dog chasing cars. I wouldn't know what to do with one if I caught it. I just 'do' things. I'm a wrench in the gears. Yours, theirs, everyone's.... (People with plans are) schemers trying to control their worlds. I'm not a schemer. I show schemers how pathetic their attempts to control things really are."
That's not a psychopath in badly smudged clown make-up speaking from a padded cell. This is reality, a la Hollywood .
M E R I D I A N M A G A Z I N E
“Dark Knight” of Hollywood 's Soul GrassTopsUSA Exclusive Commentary
By Don Feder
Editors' Note: This is an edited version of Don Feder's commentary on the “Dark Knight.” Used by Permission.
"The Dark Night," sequel to "Batman Begins," is the most disturbing movie I've seen in ages -- and, believe me, I see a lot of movies: the good, the bad and the hideous.
It's not because "Dark Knight" is graphically violent (violence has become the sine qua non of action films), but because it's sickeningly sadistic and nihilistic to the point of howling-at-the-moon madness.
In other words, it's pure Hollywood .
“Dark Knight" is the summer's smash hit, breaking all records for an opening-weekend box office. Audiences are flocking to see it, like dodo birds moving toward the edge of cliff. Parents are bringing children, which should qualify them to have "moron" stamped on their foreheads.
People who smoke around their kids are treated as social pariahs. People who don't use children's car seats are indicted for gross negligence. Parents who buy their children toy guns are charged with warping delicate psyches.
Yet nothing is said of those who expose their children to a film in which a pencil is rammed into a gangster's eyeball, a bomb is sewn into a man's stomach and a crusading district attorney has half of his face burned away, leaving a skull, unadorned by flesh, partially exposed. This is about as innocent a summer pastime as taking the kids to a slaughterhouse and urging them to grab a mallet and join in the fun.
I've seen films where the violence was more graphic. In "Wanted," still in theaters, bullets exit head wounds in slow motion, like comets with tails of blood and brain matter.
But "The Dark Knight" positively revels in suffering. The Joker's is a Nazi death camp guard on overdrive. His signature is a permanent grin carved on a victim's mouth. Like a gourmet at a banquet, he savors each morsel of agony wrung from anguished innocents.
He's a virtuoso whose instruments are knives, bombs and pencils (nothing as impersonal as a gun for him). He is relentless and seemingly unstoppable.
The Joker exists to kill, maim, mutilate and inflict psychic pain. Other than creating chaos, he has no motivation -- not greed (he burns a mountain of money to prove his disdain for wealth), not power, not lust and not revenge.
The movie may be called "Dark Knight," but it's the Joker who dominates the film. He has the eye-catching make-up (a punk Emmett Kelly, Jr.), the antics (tongue flicking over dry lips like a reptilian harlequin) and the memorable lines.
By contrast, the hero is monochromatic. Bruce Wayne is an anguished billionaire, an Armani empty suit, who can barely work up a good grimace. In Batman drag, he's as stiff as an accountant at a funeral. It's the Joker who's hellish fun.
But typical of Hollywood 's hypocrisy, "Dark Knight" wants to have it both ways. Intermingled with scenes of pornographic violence, there are moments of preachy piety, as when District Attorney Harvey Dent (who becomes Harvey Two-Face) says, "You either die a hero or live to see yourself become a villain."
One of the few critics to get it right was Chris Tookey, who wrote in the London Daily Mail : "It's grimly sadistic. It doesn't fight terror, it embraces it. Ledger becomes, in a curiously twisted way, the moral centre of the film, and this makes 'The Dark Knight' an unintentionally sick spectacle, pretending to justify law and order, but in reality celebrating violence and chaos."
I'm there -- except for the "unintentionally" part.
In the end, justice of a sort prevails. The Joker is captured (to caper another day?). All it costs the hero is the death of the love of his life, the loss of the man he most admired in Gotham City (Dent), after he's been turned to the Dark Side, and the destruction of his reputation. Batman is no longer seen as a crime-fighting vigilante, but a cold-blooded killer every bit as depraved as the criminals he stalks. Virtue is punished and evil gets its giggles before being hauled off to the loony-bin.
"The Dark Knight" gives a nod of the head to good-vanquishes-evil. It winks, leers and fairly drools at anarchy and nihilism.
This they call entertainment. But, like other forms of cultural corruption, it has consequences.
Heath Ledger was so messed up by his performance (getting into the Joker's character) that he suffered from insomnia. Ledger used six different prescription medications, including the elephant-gun painkiller Oxycotin and anti-depressants like Valium and Xanax. He ended up dying of an overdose in January.
His co-star, Christian Bale (Batman), has played a succession of violent roles, including a serial killer in "American Psycho." Shortly before the European premiere of "Dark Knight," Bale was taken into custody in London for allegedly assaulting his mother and sister. He admits to suffering from depression and insomnia. According to friends, the 34-year-old Welsh actor has trouble controlling his anger. Ya think?
Yet Hollywood insists that cinematic violence has absolutely, positively, undeniably and reliably no connection to the real thing.
All of those graphic scenes of torture, decapitation, severed limbs, geysers of blood and bullets trailing brain-matter have no effect on adolescent (need one add the cliché "impressionable"?) males -- the motion picture industry absurdly maintains. Children leave the Multiplex after viewing Saw 37 with a beatific smile on their lips looking for a church choir or a Salvation Army band to join.
Advertisers (including Hollywood ) spend billions annually to influence human behavior, and then have the chutzpah to claim that what's shown on television or in the movies has no effect on the way people think and act.
Why did the school shootings that plague the nation accelerate at breakneck speed in the 1990s? From 1968 to the end of the '80s, there were 9 such tragedies in the United States . Since 1991, there have been 40.
There were plenty of guns, drugs and psychosis in America in the '70s and '80s. What those decades lacked were "Natural Born Killers," "Pulp Fiction," "Kill Bill" (1 and 2) "Saw" (1,2, and 3), "Fight Club," "Sin City" and their clones.
In 1999, after the Columbine massacre, then President Clinton (who raised millions from the Hollywood crowd) proposed a Federal Trade Commission investigation of whether the entertainment industry targets children in advertising violent movies and video games -- like a question exists in the mind of anyone outside of studio PR departments.
There are studies up the proverbial wazoo linking cinematic violence to aggressive behavior in children, including those conducted by the Surgeon General, American Medical Association, American Psychological Association and U.S. Attorney General.
This is not to say there's a direct, cause-and-effect relationship. Obviously, most consumers of ultra-violent movies never murder, maim, assault or torment small animals. And whatever the influences in their lives, people are still responsible for their actions.
But, like the ceaseless drip, drip, drip of water on a rock, cinematic violence has a cumulative effect on our culture -- wearing away inhibitions, altering attitudes and desensitizing audiences to real-world suffering.
Hollywood has a morbid fascination with death and destruction. Its penchant for ultra-violence is said to be a commercial calculation -- a lure to draw adolescents on which the box office depends. While this is certainly a factor, money may be the most innocent motivation for blood-drenched cinema.
Having given up on God, Hollywood is on an endless quest for a substitute. Violence confers God-like power on characters -- the ability to dispense life and death.
Since the late '60s, writers, directors and studio executives have been infatuated with the anti-hero. Hollywood is fixated on characters who are uninhibited and out of control.
Like the Joker, it revels in destruction for destruction's sake -- exploding buildings, crashing cars, jack-knifing trucks and bullet-riddled bodies. If the universe makes no sense -- other than making no sense -- then why not worship brute force?
Listen to Hollywood 's alter ego, the Joker, explaining his modus operandi to Harvey Dent (lying in a hospital bed with his fiancé dead and half his face burned away): "Do I look like a man with a plan, Harvey . I don't have a plan. The mob has plans. The cops have plans. You know what I am, Harvey ? I'm a dog chasing cars. I wouldn't know what to do with one if I caught it. I just 'do' things. I'm a wrench in the gears. Yours, theirs, everyone's.... (People with plans are) schemers trying to control their worlds. I'm not a schemer. I show schemers how pathetic their attempts to control things really are."
That's not a psychopath in badly smudged clown make-up speaking from a padded cell. This is reality, a la Hollywood .
"Condemn me not because of mine imperfection,... but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been." Mormon 9:31
Re: The Dark Knight
This is another review from Meridian disagreeing with the last review, all of the comments that this man mentions I have read over and over in reviews defending this movie. As a side note; I was struck by the addition that was put in the pamphlet For the Strength of Youth in 2001 the word violence was added, that is a new addition from the other youth pamphlets. I am reminded that the earth was flooded around Noah's time because the earth was filled with violence.
"The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence," - Genesis 6:11
M E R I D I A N M A G A Z I N E
The Dark Knight is a Powerful Morality Tale
By Jonathan Decker
(Note: The following contains potential plot spoilers for those who have not yet seen the film).
Quite the contrary to Don Feder's take on The Dark Knight, I found the film to be a riveting moral drama whose hero inspires audiences to hold fast to their values and not make ethical compromises. The movie is dark, to be certain, and definitely not for children; however, the use of darkness can be effective when its purpose is to let the light shine through, as this film does brilliantly. The Joker seems metaphorical for the devil, a being for whom bringing misery to others is the only source of pleasure. And yes, just like in the real world, even the very elect can fall, as is the case with Harvey Dent.
However the film is upliftingly full of virtuous heroes who stand against evil. Take Bruce Wayne/Batman, for example. While The Joker is indeed an “agent of chaos,” who devilishly appeals to the “natural man” instincts of Wayne , the fact that the latter does not give in to the serpent's temptation and refuses to become a killer speaks volumes to the film's favor.
While many Hollywood heroes casually and callously dispense bullets and vengeance, Batman is refreshingly hesitant to take a life. Furthermore, the hero puts himself in great danger to protect innocent people, and is willing to give up his own freedom in order to save human lives. He specifically risks his life for a man who is out to ruin him; in doing so, Bruce Wayne gives a fine example of “love your enemies, do good to them that hate you” (Matthew 5:44-45). Furthermore, the powerhouse finale finds Batman making great self-sacrifice to maintain the integrity of Harvey Dent, a man victimized into madness by the Joker. The hero willingly allows himself to be falsely accused, hated, and hunted in order to protect the people and restore their hope.
Bruce Wayne/Batman isn't the only moral hero of the film. What of Commissioner Gordon, a family man whose commitment to his wife, to his children, and to saving lives provides another layer of humanity to the film? His desperate cry of “We have to save Harvey ! I… have to save Harvey !” gives us a man dedicated to redeeming a friend who has lost his soul. Gordon is a character who is penitent for his mistakes, who upholds the law, and who loves his family. These are virtues seldom found in Hollywood productions, and they are to be applauded.
What of the boat passengers (including criminals) who, in a powerful scene, selflessly refuse to take the lives of others to save themselves? Do they not exemplify the great love, spoken of by the Savior, of offering one's own life for another? What of Lucius Fox, a man of principle, dedicated to the freedom and agency of the people? What of the character of Alfred? The loyal butler encourages Bruce to “be the outcast and make the right choice” declaring (as did Mormon, Moroni , and Joseph Smith) the importance of standing for correct principles even if we are alone in doing so.
The Dark Knight is a dark film, but it is also a fantastically moral film, with positive messages about our nature. The portrayal of violence is clearly divided between the evil, who kill and destroy, and the good, who use force when necessary for self-defense or defense of the innocent. The Joker is sadistic and selfish, and he believes the rest of the world to be so; Batman believes in the inherent goodness of humanity. The moral climax of the film comes when The Joker waits for the terrified citizens of Gotham to turn on each other, only to be shocked when, instead, they band together and follow their consciences. Seeing The Joker's puzzled expression, Batman states: “What did you expect, that they were all like you? You're alone. This city is full of people ready to believe in good.”
Furthermore, Don Feder's personal attack on Christian Bale is unwarranted and doesn't take all the details into account. Countless news reports (including this week's People magazine) affirm that A) Bale was not charged with anything, B) he was extremely cooperative with the police, and that C) the incident involved Bale defending his wife's honor when his mother and sister insulted her. Bale was accused of assault by his mother and sister; assault, not battery. There is a huge difference: the definition of assault in England (where the incident occurred) could mean anything from shouting to forcibly ejecting his mother and sister from the hotel room, once again, after they insulted his wife. If not excusable, then certainly understandable; Bale is as imperfect as the rest of us. On the flip side, those who work with Bale describe him as a hardworking man who eschews celebrity and the Hollywood lifestyle, and is incredibly devoted to his wife and daughter. Feder's appeal to current gossip feels like a desperate attempt to use scandal to support his views.
In conclusion, I disagree with Feder's opinion, though he is certainly entitled to it, that The Dark Knight is a sign of Hollywood 's corrosive influence. To the contrary, I feel that it is one of the most morally-centered films of recent times, one whose theme might be summarized as: “Evil exists in the world, and it is seductive and at times seems insurmountable. Standing for the right often requires courage, sacrifice, steadfastness, and the willingness to endure loneliness.”
The world is growing worse, and the Joker reflects that madness. However, in resisting him Batman provides a deeply virtuous protagonist who inspires us to not compromise our values. Ironically, it is the Joker who describes the hero best, when he asks Batman, with a fascinating mixture of shock, disgust, and begrudging respect, “You truly are incorruptible, aren't you?” The Dark Knight provides us with a hero worth rooting for.
"The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence," - Genesis 6:11
M E R I D I A N M A G A Z I N E
The Dark Knight is a Powerful Morality Tale
By Jonathan Decker
(Note: The following contains potential plot spoilers for those who have not yet seen the film).
Quite the contrary to Don Feder's take on The Dark Knight, I found the film to be a riveting moral drama whose hero inspires audiences to hold fast to their values and not make ethical compromises. The movie is dark, to be certain, and definitely not for children; however, the use of darkness can be effective when its purpose is to let the light shine through, as this film does brilliantly. The Joker seems metaphorical for the devil, a being for whom bringing misery to others is the only source of pleasure. And yes, just like in the real world, even the very elect can fall, as is the case with Harvey Dent.
However the film is upliftingly full of virtuous heroes who stand against evil. Take Bruce Wayne/Batman, for example. While The Joker is indeed an “agent of chaos,” who devilishly appeals to the “natural man” instincts of Wayne , the fact that the latter does not give in to the serpent's temptation and refuses to become a killer speaks volumes to the film's favor.
While many Hollywood heroes casually and callously dispense bullets and vengeance, Batman is refreshingly hesitant to take a life. Furthermore, the hero puts himself in great danger to protect innocent people, and is willing to give up his own freedom in order to save human lives. He specifically risks his life for a man who is out to ruin him; in doing so, Bruce Wayne gives a fine example of “love your enemies, do good to them that hate you” (Matthew 5:44-45). Furthermore, the powerhouse finale finds Batman making great self-sacrifice to maintain the integrity of Harvey Dent, a man victimized into madness by the Joker. The hero willingly allows himself to be falsely accused, hated, and hunted in order to protect the people and restore their hope.
Bruce Wayne/Batman isn't the only moral hero of the film. What of Commissioner Gordon, a family man whose commitment to his wife, to his children, and to saving lives provides another layer of humanity to the film? His desperate cry of “We have to save Harvey ! I… have to save Harvey !” gives us a man dedicated to redeeming a friend who has lost his soul. Gordon is a character who is penitent for his mistakes, who upholds the law, and who loves his family. These are virtues seldom found in Hollywood productions, and they are to be applauded.
What of the boat passengers (including criminals) who, in a powerful scene, selflessly refuse to take the lives of others to save themselves? Do they not exemplify the great love, spoken of by the Savior, of offering one's own life for another? What of Lucius Fox, a man of principle, dedicated to the freedom and agency of the people? What of the character of Alfred? The loyal butler encourages Bruce to “be the outcast and make the right choice” declaring (as did Mormon, Moroni , and Joseph Smith) the importance of standing for correct principles even if we are alone in doing so.
The Dark Knight is a dark film, but it is also a fantastically moral film, with positive messages about our nature. The portrayal of violence is clearly divided between the evil, who kill and destroy, and the good, who use force when necessary for self-defense or defense of the innocent. The Joker is sadistic and selfish, and he believes the rest of the world to be so; Batman believes in the inherent goodness of humanity. The moral climax of the film comes when The Joker waits for the terrified citizens of Gotham to turn on each other, only to be shocked when, instead, they band together and follow their consciences. Seeing The Joker's puzzled expression, Batman states: “What did you expect, that they were all like you? You're alone. This city is full of people ready to believe in good.”
Furthermore, Don Feder's personal attack on Christian Bale is unwarranted and doesn't take all the details into account. Countless news reports (including this week's People magazine) affirm that A) Bale was not charged with anything, B) he was extremely cooperative with the police, and that C) the incident involved Bale defending his wife's honor when his mother and sister insulted her. Bale was accused of assault by his mother and sister; assault, not battery. There is a huge difference: the definition of assault in England (where the incident occurred) could mean anything from shouting to forcibly ejecting his mother and sister from the hotel room, once again, after they insulted his wife. If not excusable, then certainly understandable; Bale is as imperfect as the rest of us. On the flip side, those who work with Bale describe him as a hardworking man who eschews celebrity and the Hollywood lifestyle, and is incredibly devoted to his wife and daughter. Feder's appeal to current gossip feels like a desperate attempt to use scandal to support his views.
In conclusion, I disagree with Feder's opinion, though he is certainly entitled to it, that The Dark Knight is a sign of Hollywood 's corrosive influence. To the contrary, I feel that it is one of the most morally-centered films of recent times, one whose theme might be summarized as: “Evil exists in the world, and it is seductive and at times seems insurmountable. Standing for the right often requires courage, sacrifice, steadfastness, and the willingness to endure loneliness.”
The world is growing worse, and the Joker reflects that madness. However, in resisting him Batman provides a deeply virtuous protagonist who inspires us to not compromise our values. Ironically, it is the Joker who describes the hero best, when he asks Batman, with a fascinating mixture of shock, disgust, and begrudging respect, “You truly are incorruptible, aren't you?” The Dark Knight provides us with a hero worth rooting for.
"Condemn me not because of mine imperfection,... but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been." Mormon 9:31
Re: The Dark Knight
...though the fact that he often tromps around with multiple women and ruthlessly beats down evil and/or intentionally drops it from buildings onto the street below also speaks volumes.However the film is upliftingly full of virtuous heroes who stand against evil. ...the fact that [Wayne] does not give in to the serpent's temptation and refuses to become a killer speaks volumes to the film's favor.
Innocent people? Were they the ones who voted to blow up the other boat? Or those who tried to kill the man with Batman's identity? Or the entire corrupt police force? Remind me who was innocent again...the hero puts himself in great danger to protect innocent people
...but makes sure the man knows it was him who did the deed to make sure he wouldn't go through with it.He specifically risks his life for a man who is out to ruin him
....in a needless display of masochism as he could have placed the rightful blame on the Joker and none of this would have been necessary.The hero willingly allows himself to be falsely accused, hated, and hunted in order to protect the people and restore their hope
You don't think there were hundreds of passengers on both boats who were angered by the fact that those two single individuals didn't go through with it? Let's not forget the vote. Just because someone doesn't want to be the one to push the button doesn't mean they wouldn't like it if someone else did the dirty deed.What of the boat passengers (including criminals) who, in a powerful scene, selflessly refuse to take the lives of others to save themselves?
...which is ironic coming from the guy who chastises Bruce for it shortly before Wayne orders an emergency evacuation of his manor in Batman Begins.The loyal butler encourages Bruce to “be the outcast and make the right choice”
...or breaking legs, or smacking around criminals in a locked interrogation room, etc.The portrayal of violence is clearly divided between the evil, who kill and destroy, and the good, who use force when necessary for self-defense or defense of the innocent.
Give each passenger his/her own anonymous button and we'll see if some boats don't burn...there was more than one angry look when a button was thrown out the window.The moral climax of the film comes when The Joker waits for the terrified citizens of Gotham to turn on each other, only to be shocked when, instead, they band together and follow their consciences
So if he did assault his mom and sister, it's nice to know it was for the benefit of his wife. Family first.the incident involved Bale defending his wife's honor when his mother and sister insulted her.
"Then the empire has already won..."In conclusion, I disagree with Feder's opinion, though he is certainly entitled to it, that The Dark Knight is a sign of Hollywood 's corrosive influence. To the contrary, I feel that it is one of the most morally-centered films of recent times
When God can do what he will with a man, the man may do what he will with the world. ~George MacDonald
Re: The Dark Knight
Touche. (and picture, if you will, a little accent mark on that "e")
I found the film's pretentions of morality very disturbing. I regret having seen it and having PAID to see it.
I find myseil perilously close to making sweeping indictments of the whole genre of "comic book heroes".
I wish that I saw as much frenzy of enthusiasm over the heros of truly great literature..."out of the best books".
"I miss civilization, and I want it back!" (Marianne Robinson)
I found the film's pretentions of morality very disturbing. I regret having seen it and having PAID to see it.
I find myseil perilously close to making sweeping indictments of the whole genre of "comic book heroes".
I wish that I saw as much frenzy of enthusiasm over the heros of truly great literature..."out of the best books"."I miss civilization, and I want it back!" (Marianne Robinson)
"Music's golden tongue flatter'd to tears this aged man and poor."
Re: The Dark Knight
i haven't seen the movie but I did read about the incident between Bale and his mother and sister, the assault that they spoke of was verbal, not physical.
Re: The Dark Knight
the wall street journal had an article yesterday about the warner bros' movie studio and their plans for future dc comics movies. i'm worried about some of the comments by warner bros. president jeff robinov. it seems that they're going to use the dark knight as a model for future movies. i highlighted some of his comments below:
Warner Bets on Fewer, Bigger Movies
By LAUREN A.E. SCHUKER
August 22, 2008; Page B1
Emboldened by this summer's success with "The Dark Knight," Warner Bros.' movie studio is setting a new strategy.
The Time Warner Inc. unit, like some other Hollywood studios, is planning to release fewer films into the crowded marketplace. But the studio, known for making more big, expensive movies than most rivals, plans to make even more of those -- some centered on properties from its DC Comics unit, such as Batman.
Warner Bros. Pictures Group President Jeff Robinov wants the studio to release as many as eight such movies a year by 2011. "The long-term goal of the studio is to take advantage of what has become a very global market by focusing on bigger films that require a bigger commitment," he says. Warner Bros. films released last year grossed $2 billion internationally, about 42% more than their $1.4 billion domestic take.
Mining the comic-book franchise is central to the success of Warner Bros.' strategy. Its lineup of "tent poles" -- Hollywood-speak for big movies that are the foundation of a studio's slate -- has thinned. Warner Bros. has been slow to capitalize on DC, and it now faces a rival in Marvel Entertainment Inc.'s Marvel Studios, the company behind box-office gusher "Iron Man."
Superhero films based on comic-book legends, like "The Dark Knight," have emerged as some of the strongest players in the global market, in part because they're natural candidates for tie-ups with consumer products and games that can also be marketed globally.
"Superheroes are more global than ever in today's commercial world, existing in 30 languages and in more than 60 countries," says Paul Levitz, president and publisher of DC Comics. The characters are "a world-wide export," he says.
"Films with our DC properties have the opportunity to support other divisions in the company in a way that our other movies don't," Mr. Robinov says, for example, with products such as a Superman game or toys. By 2011, Mr. Robinov plans for DC Comics to supply the material for up to two of the six to eight tent-pole films he hopes Warner Bros. will have in the pipeline by then.
While big ambitions can result in a huge payoff, they can also end in huge losses. Warner's car adventure "Speed Racer" bombed at the box office in May. The film, said to have cost as much as $150 million, has taken in only $43.9 million in the U.S. Some other big-budget Warner films, such as spy comedy "Get Smart," also have failed to meet expectations.
Earlier this year, Warner Bros. shut its two art-house labels, Picturehouse and Warner Independent Pictures. The studio currently releases 25 to 26 films a year. By 2010, Mr. Robinov plans to pare production to 20 to 22 movies a year.
A movie referred to internally as "Justice League of America," originally said to be for next summer, was planned as one of the studio's major releases. With that film, starring a superhero team, Warner hoped to spark interest in DC characters like Green Lantern who haven't yet attained the level of popularity of Batman. But script problems, among other things, have delayed the movie.
The studio said last week that "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince," originally slated for November release, would come out next July -- on the same weekend that "The Dark Knight" opened this year. The Batman sequel made more than $150 million in the U.S. that weekend. "We just needed a July movie," said Alan Horn, president of the studio, at the time.
Warner Bros. also put on hold plans for another movie starring multiple superheroes -- known as "Batman vs. Superman" -- after the $215 million "Superman Returns," which had disappointing box-office returns, didn't please executives. "'Superman' didn't quite work as a film in the way that we wanted it to," says Mr. Robinov. "It didn't position the character the way he needed to be positioned." "Had 'Superman' worked in 2006, we would have had a movie for Christmas of this year or 2009," he adds. "But now the plan is just to reintroduce Superman without regard to a Batman and Superman movie at all."
One of the studio's other big releases planned for 2009, "Watchmen," is the subject of a high-profile copyright lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California by News Corp.'s Twentieth Century Fox.
Based on the premise that superheroes are real people grappling with their own problems, "Watchmen" is an apocalyptic vision of their world. Fox says it is seeking an injunction to enforce its copyright interest in the film. Last week, a federal judge ruled that it may have rights to the property. News Corp. is the parent of Wall Street Journal publisher Dow Jones & Co.
With "Batman vs. Superman" and "Justice League" stalled, Warner Bros. has quietly adopted Marvel's model of releasing a single film for each character, and then using those movies and their sequels to build up to a multicharacter film. "Along those lines, we have been developing every DC character that we own," Mr. Robinov says.
Like the recent Batman sequel -- which has become the highest-grossing film of the year thus far -- Mr. Robinov wants his next pack of superhero movies to be bathed in the same brooding tone as "The Dark Knight." Creatively, he sees exploring the evil side to characters as the key to unlocking some of Warner Bros.' DC properties. "We're going to try to go dark to the extent that the characters allow it," he says. That goes for the company's Superman franchise as well.
The studio is set to announce its plans for future DC movies in the next month. For now, though, it is focused on releasing four comic-book films in the next three years, including a third Batman film, a new film reintroducing Superman, and two movies focusing on other DC Comics characters. Movies featuring Green Lantern, Flash, Green Arrow, and Wonder Woman are all in active development.
Many of the studio's directors credit Mr. Robinov for taking Warner Bros.' films in a darker and deeper direction. Christopher Nolan, who directed "Batman Begins" and "The Dark Knight," says Mr. Robinov "really encouraged the logic of the villain" from "Batman Begins." That led to focusing heavily on the Joker in the sequel. "At the script stage, Jeff really wanted us to be very clear on the Joker's lack of purpose," he says.
so let it be written... so let it be done.
Re: The Dark Knight
whoa.
Or should I say,
woe.
Or should I say,
woe.
"Music's golden tongue flatter'd to tears this aged man and poor."
Re: The Dark Knight
So I had a long conversation with one of my best friends when Batman came out about the violence and terror of this movie, the which he defended and I assailed. He felt that the movie was no different than that of The Lord of the Rings or Star Wars, and I used many of the quotes and expressions here to try and demonstrate otherwise. He refuted it at the time. Well, a bit ago he came by, and said he needed to to apologize. He had gone to see the movie again, and as he watched, he said he realized that it really was so much worse than what he had remembered that he walked out and came straight to me to say that it was true - the movie is pure violence unleashed. And he was grateful that he hadn't been too desensitized to see that. It takes a lot to admit that your opinions have changed (though I assured him he had nothing for which to apologize, at least not to me), but apparently this movie is disturbing enough to do that. At least there are people who can still see that.
"All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us"
Re: The Dark Knight
I like many of you are saddened by the Aurora, Colorado tragedy. Though this James Holmes made the irrational choice to commit such horrific acts of violence. I still hold the media responsible for the content that caused Holmes to act like the deranged 'joker'. This evil kind of influence from the dark knight has had a tragic consequence. This is my opinion and have no interest in seeing the next movie.
"Condemn me not because of mine imperfection,... but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been." Mormon 9:31
Re: The Dark Knight
the killer is responsible for his actions, but there can be no doubt that the movie had a profound influence on him.
Again I say, leave it alone. Turn it off, walk away from it, burn it, erase it, destroy it. I know it is hard counsel we give when we say movies that are R-rated, and many with PG-13 ratings, are produced by satanic influences. Our standards should not be dictated by the rating system. I repeat, because of what they really represent, these types of movies, music, tapes, etc. serve the purposes of the author of all darkness.
Elder H. Burke Peterson, “Touch Not the Evil Gift, nor the Unclean Thing”, October 1993 General Conference
so let it be written... so let it be done.
Re: The Dark Knight
2 Nephi 2:27, a favorite of mine:
Wherefore, men are free according to the flesh; and all things are given them which are expedient unto man. And they are free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil; for he seeketh that all men might be miserable like unto himself.
When God can do what he will with a man, the man may do what he will with the world. ~George MacDonald
Re: The Dark Knight
An open letter to Christopher Nolan, Sean Penn and Warner Brothers
The Washington Times
Tuesday, July 24, 2012
By Charles Hurt
It is all so perfectly fitting that in the wake of a murderous rampage in which 70 people are shot —12 fatally, including a 6-year-old girl — and countless families are sacked with unspeakable grief, you would take the time to share with us your feelings.
Because, really, at this moment, all that matters to most of us is what a bunch of smutty purveyors of violent fantasy, half-rate actors and an industry of sick narcissism is feeling at this moment.
Director Christopher Nolan, speaking on behalf of the cast and crew of "The Dark Knight Rises," you told us how much you love going to the movies and how they are "one of the great American art forms."
You are devastated that such an "innocent and hopeful place" — here you are talking about the movie theaters that play your twisted movies — would be violated in such an "unbearably savage" way. I mean, really, who could think up such monstrous hatred and nihilistic violence? Umm, have you watched any of your own movies lately?
And, in the selfless modesty that is the hallmark of an Academy Awards ceremony, you tell us that your "feelings" about the massacre are so deeply profound that the mere words of the English language built up over hundreds of years are simply not up to the task of describing them. Wow. You do have a gift for fantasy.
But the real clue that you remain shrouded in guilt-free delusion is when you mention the "senseless tragedy that has befallen the entire Aurora community."
Senseless? Really? If by "senseless" you mean carried out almost precisely from the scripts of your own movies, then, sure, it was "senseless."
As for you, Sean Penn, you paragon of endless moralizing, we would like to thank you, too, for underwriting last week's ultra-violence and real-life carnage at the movie theater. One of the last scenes that 6-year-old saw in her precious life was a trailer for your movie.
In the final clip of a trailer filled with orgiastic bloodshed, you have some classy "actors" with machine guns unload from behind a movie screen into a crowd seated in a theater, watching a film. Ring a bell, Sean? Sound familiar?
I realize how busy you are, so loudly and obnoxiously jet-setting around to save the world, but do you have time to think about what you have done here? What your life amounts to at this moment?
No, you did not pull the trigger in this case. You did not don the gas mask. But you were the inspiration, and you are the architects.
Your celebrations of diabolical mayhem and pornographic violence prey on the fantasies of sick, fragile minds. You insulated them from the painful reality of bloodshed. You have inspired mass murder. You are the Osama bin Laden of this travesty.
This, of course, is all legal and has made you a fabulous fortune. But, never forget, this is who you are. It is what you do. This is your legacy.
When you die, your gravestones should read: Here lie men who created such horrific, meaningless violence in such realistic scenes that a sicko carried it out for real and shot 70 people, killing 12, including a 6-year-old girl.
To be fair, you haven't only inspired murderous rampages. It is true that you have also entertained. But is the fleetingness of that entertainment nearly so profound as the terror you inspired here? Will it outlast the irreversible permanency of 12 deaths, including that of a 6-year-old girl?
Which brings us to Warner Brothers, those titans of decency. You bankrolled "The Dark Knight Rises" and so many other pointlessly violent movies that infect feeble minds and bring hatred upon America. You, it is reported, are feeling really sad about those poor saps who paid to see your wicked movies — only to have the very scenes come alive and kill them in the dark, sticky rows between seats of a movie theater.
Out of your "respect" for these people, you declared you would not announce box-office receipts from this weekend's snuff film. Instead, you will count your $150 million in bloody money — privately.
One day, you will meet the original Joker, the inventor of all evil who is diabolical and depraved so far beyond your furthest, sickest imaginations and there, in his lair, you will spend the rest of eternity wishing you had had a little decency back when you had the chance.
so let it be written... so let it be done.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest