I saw “Dark Knight” over the weekend. It was pretty good. I still think the movie Batman costume with the fake muscles is idiotic and ugly to boot — and, indeed, the movie’s design as a whole is pretty unmemorable. But the effects for the Joker and Two-Face were very nicely done — and Heath Ledger is great. The plotting is also very good; conistently suspenseful and clever. I’m on the fence about the movie’s message. The intimations of the war on terror, spying and torture as criminal justice measures, the limits of democracy, appeals to fundamental decency — it’s all clever enough, but seemed a little facile. The basic super-hero morality of good vs. evil is never challenged in any fundamental way (as it is in Watchmen, say, or even Dark Knight to some extent). As a result, the political/moral pronouncements, such as they are, seem there more for their exploitable emotional rush than for any actual desire to think things through. But what the hey — as a summer blockbuster action extravaganza goes, it’s pretty darn good.
Maybe the most interesting thing for me, though, was what was in the previews — or what wasn’t. Specifically, there were lots of ads for Coca Cola and for action adventure movies (I’m looking forward to the new James Bond, even if the title, “Quantum of Solace”, seems to have been designed by picking random words out of a dictionary.) But there were not advertisements for comics. Indeed, unless I blinked and missed it, I don’t believe the movie acknowledges it’s most immediate comic-book inspirations in the credits (Batman: Year One and The Long Halloween are the stories the director tends to cite, I think.)
This isn’t suprising, of course — despite the huge success of super-hero movies, there’s rarely much effort to redirect audiences from the big screen to the four-color source material. You’d think as a condition of licensing, the companies might try to get a 15 second preview spot, mentioning the relevant titles (maybe they could even get the stars or directors to issue an endorsement — seems like the least they could do for the creators they’re ripping off.) Or they could try independent ad campaigns; even, say, bookstore displays might have a big result. Why not put Heath Ledger’s Joker atop a table with a bunch of Batman graphic novels? As it happens, I was just in Borders, and they did have the Long Halloween and Year One displayed prominently — but there was no material to let civilians know that these books were the inspiration for the movie. I can’t help but believe that, if you told people it was a movie tie-in, they’d be more inclined to buy it. At the very least, you could spring for a new cover — special movie edition releases of the relevant books. How hard would that be?
Comic-book marketing, in other words, is almost entirely insular; it’s all directed at folks who are comics-nerds already. There’s no effort to invest in creating a larger audience. As a result, comic-book characters like Batman and Spider-Man or even Iron Man sell gazillions of tickets to all sorts of people, and yet this popularity has virtually no effect on the comics industry, which continues to trundle on, soliciting the dollars of the same shrinking pool of aging man-boys. The big two more and more look like vestigial appendages to their own properties. How long, I wonder, until these companies cease to publish comics altogether, and just become holding companies for licensed characters?
“The basic super-hero morality of good vs. evil is never challenged in any fundamental way[.]”
Man, I really disagree with you here. To my mind, the movie was a critique of the Batman/good/normal’s relation to the repressed Joker/bad/violence. The whole notion of (super-) heroism is called into question. Rather than a triumphant ending, the Joker turns out to be pretty much right, yet has to be stopped, anyway, for the “good” (normal functioning) of society.
Charles
How is the Joker “pretty much right” in this movie. Neither boat blows up the other, after all…in the single most unbelievable scene in the movie, we learn that people are “pretty much good”—which seems ridiculous…although for the most part I did enjoy the movie.
Barnes and Noble is one up on Borders here, then…since Batman product (including Long Halloween and Bats: Year One) is on a special “movie tie-in” table, along with various Iron Man and Hellboy product. In fact, most of this summer’s movie tie-ins are comic books! (Even Indiana Jones, apparently, with a big Dark Horse omnibus collection). I saw an article in the newspaper (USA Today, maybe?) a couple weeks ago saying how DC and Marvel are doing super-well these days…although no mention of comic book (magazine) sales actually being up… The “bookstore” market for collections is up though, as, obviously, is money made off movies.
Maybe you’re right that the marketing of the comics is lousy…but I think that sales are up on these characters (and these books in particular) anyway. They are cross-marketing to some degree in the bookstores…
Have you seen Ambush Bug: Year None btw? Out in July was issue #1 (#2 this Wednesday, maybe?) It’s not what it was twenty years ago..but still enjoyable. Apparently they’re planning a “Showcase” edition, which should include most of the 80’s material in black and white…
Hey, good for Barnes and Noble. Nice to hear that the big two haven’t completely missed the boat in every venue.
Charles, I think you’ve got to really push things to claim that the Joker is ever presented as being anything but an evil loon; a really problematic set-up considering that he’s *also* linked more or less specifically to terrorists — who may be evil, and may be loons, but also tend to have complicated ideological, religious, and political reasons for their actions. Also, Dark Knight turns Batman into a Christ figure; not exactly a subtle moral move.
I haven’t seen Ambush Bug yet, but I’m looking forward to it….
Eric,
To quote myself:
“In the corniest example of his Eastwood growl, Batman claims it’s because these people are “good.” He wasn’t privy to what we viewers got to see, however. On the criminal boat (a significant proportion of whose occupants were, in all likelihood, put there by Batman), a single black man cons his way into possessing the detonator, only to throw it overboard, determining the fate for all. Contrary to a popular religious myth, one lone martyr is hardly an argument for the good of all. On the law-abiding boat, the passengers take a vote, and overwhelmingly elect to kill the criminals. The button isn’t pushed because of virtue, but due to a lack of resolve. Violence to restore stability is fine when done abstractly through a representative (an executioner or a soldier), but not when it takes on a personalized meaning. The “goodness” that saves Gotham’s (or Batman’s belief in Gotham’s) dignity turns out to be cowardice.”
Noah,
The way I see the Joker is as hyper-rationality based on pure desire, with no object to ever satisfy it. In order for a society to function, such desire has to be channeled and repressed in certain ways. The Batman is what does the channeling. The Joker gives him a reason for being. As for Batman-as-Christ, the film is critical of Gordon’s take at the end:
“As a heroic figure of repression, Batman remains unchanged by the Joker’s games of pitting objective violence against its subjective counterpart. Like the Joker, he’ll just keep on keepin’ on. Harvey Dent, however, is thoroughly contaminated. With Rachel dead and his face now horribly disfigured on one side (dripping pustular goo all over his suit), he becomes the stochastic angel of vengeance, Two-Face, meting out violent retribution with a flip of the coin. The only system of justice left to him is chance, where everyone’s (even Gordon’s kids’) guilt or innocence is determined randomly. Can there be any doubt that the Joker has won? Rather than allow the truth about Gotham’s corrupted hero get out, Batman takes the rap for Dent’s crimes, further perpetuating the illusory hope that real change is just around the corner. Batman is certainly the hero Gotham needs, but Two-Face is the one it deserves.”
Yeah, the Joker is evil, but Batman’s goodness is a product of the same system. The whole good-versus-evil thing is left hollowed out, metaphysically arbitrary.
Charles, you’re really arguing that Christian morality is a crock. Christianity is based on the idea that one person can take on the sins of others; that sacrifice is actually cleansing. Batman’s decision to sacrifice himself, therefore, isn’t a lie; it’s the truth — the most important truth. Change, in the movie’s world, is, in fact, just around the corner; Batman’s sacrifice will have real consequences. This change isn’t radical (the end of capitalism) but it isn’t therefore negligible (increased security.) The movie rests on a vision that isn’t at all metaphysically arbitrary; Two-faces randomness is explicitly repudiated. If you don’t believe all this stuff, that’s fine: I’m not a Christian myself. But it seems to be pushing it to claim that *the movie itself* rejects basic good vs evil morality. It’s *you* who are rejecting the movie’s moral framework.
I don’t know, Noah, who stops most of the leading criminals and bad cops? Batman and Gordon, or Joker and Two-Face? I think it was the latter pair. I find it hard to believe any Christian could find THE DARK KNIGHT as a supporting allegory for their faith. However, I do grant that Christians will be divided. But this guy (from the link) has it right: “Even the characters originally portrayed as ‘good’ or upstanding succumb to evil-including trusted cops. Even Batman is reduced to lying to cover up for others in the name of ‘heroism’.” I’d argue that the ones who do see it as a Christian allegory are wrong. Jesus’ sacrifice wasn’t utilitarian, but Batman’s lie clearly is.
Jesus’ sacrifice is absolutely utilitarian. He does it to save the world.
Batman lies to protect the city and the reputation of a good man who was destroyed through his love for others.
I don’t think the movie’s morality is especially smart or well done…but it’s really not a bleak vision….
Uh, no. What you’re doing is rationalizing the Crucifixion in utilitarian terms (that if it brought about more good than bad, it was justified). A Christian believes in the morality of Jesus’ sacrifice based on its being the absolute right thing to do (the Truth that it reveals), regardless of how many people are helped as a result of his setting the precedent. Batman’s lie was based on hiding the truth from people, because he believed the consequence of doing so would lead to a greater good. That’s utilitarianism.