It is really, really too hot.
The weekend was good - on Saturday, my pal from the suburbs came into town. We grabbed some food at an English-style pub and checked out Batman Begins on the big screen.
This was my 2nd time seeing Batman Begins, and it's so keen I can't really get over it. [SPOILERS FOLLOW!] Yea, it has some issues: why don't microwaves bake people who are 70% water? Why does Batman fly around so much (I suppose that's mostly b/c it's hard to figure out how to have him on rooftops and actually get him down in a timely manner)? Why does Christian Bale keep doing that shitty "Batman" voice?
But those are minor - it's great fun watching Nolan build a *real* Gotham City and all of those performers dig into these characters. Even the goody, exposition-laden lines that Liam Neeson, Morgan Freeman, Katie Holmes, Michael Caine, and Rutger Hauer are burdened with come out smelling sweet.
The best thing about the movie is how it integrates right into the Batman mythos. In many ways, Nolan and Goyer are responding to Frank Miller and The Dark Knight Returns. Miller's graphic novel is a great expansion and deconstruction of Batman. Ultimately, what Miller asks you is: Is Batman a fascist? And, if he is, what does that make you, you sick-o fanboy? In the end, Miller really can't answer his own question. He paints a picture of Batman that is as much about blood as it is about heroics. The best that Miller can give us, it seems, is: Yea, Batman's a fucking whack job, but at least his psychosis works for the common good. Hardly a thrilling moral victory.
But Nolan and Goyer don't seem happy with this. So, they foil Batman nicely with Ras As Ghul (I liked the cute nod to "immortality"). Ras *is* a fascist. His obsession is with order and imposing his will on others. The big reveal of his authoritan nature is *not* the destruction of Gotham itself. Rather, it is two interesting bits of story:
1. His argument that criminals who violate "law" should be punished. In this sense, "law" becomes an absolute standard. It is not a process or a political fixture that can be challenged. It is eternal and enforced, without hesitation (re: a trial), by those in power.
2. HIs obsession with will (itself a clue to his political leanings). But will is narrowly defined by Ras: only those who *agree* with Ras seem to possess "will." Ras of course argues that Thomas Wayne was not a strong man of will - that is why he murdered, that is why he was so foolish as to try and save Gotham. But, of course, Thomas Wayne is a man of will: his civic virtue led him to use his economic might to save the city (and note: Ras ALSO used "unmanly" economic tools). Thus, Ras has a narrow conception of what "the good" is - and he is the final aribter of that definition.
Anyway, Batman becomes clear as not a fascist, but as (of course) a (small-r) republican. Batman is driven by compassion, justice, and a sense of duty to a place/population. He is not a fascist at all - rather, he is a man of action and virtue. There is a blurriness there, b/c he does act outside the law and he does like the ultraviolence. So, he's not a *perfect* figure. But, he is *not* a maniac or a totalitarian. He has hope; he believes in liberty (Gotham has a right to live, and the possibility to change). This makes him much different than the League of Shadows. I thought it was great stuff, with a fun subtext going on underneath that really appealed to my current state.
Oh, and if you complain b/c the fights are "confusing," you're just wrong.
One last thing: As a fan of urban politics, I felt the need to comment on the Supreme Court's decision that "property" could now be taken via eminent domain so long as the new developer planned to make it more valuable. Frankly, this sucks. I mean, eminent domain is a good idea - sometimes the state has to step in to secure the common good. But this sucks, as it grants large developers a great deal of power and infringes on personal liberty. Sucks to that I say.
On the other hand ... it's not a big deviation. I know *legally* it's a huge shift, and that matters as it could empower more "bad behavior" in the future. But, a lot of development for "the public good" in cities, anyway, already involved taking land away from folks who were not using it up to its full potential and giving it to developers. In that vein, a lot of "urban renewal" was nicknamed by activists as really being "Negro removal." In fact, such urban renewal plans really fucked Democrats, who tried to please developers by granting them land AND please minorities with various grants and programs (who were getting hosed by the same developers). It was a tenuous coalition that tore itself apart. So, anyway, the decisions just cements what was already occuring. Not that that makes it OK, I'm just not sure that we'll see a lot of big changes from this - just business as usual.
The weekend was good - on Saturday, my pal from the suburbs came into town. We grabbed some food at an English-style pub and checked out Batman Begins on the big screen.
This was my 2nd time seeing Batman Begins, and it's so keen I can't really get over it. [SPOILERS FOLLOW!] Yea, it has some issues: why don't microwaves bake people who are 70% water? Why does Batman fly around so much (I suppose that's mostly b/c it's hard to figure out how to have him on rooftops and actually get him down in a timely manner)? Why does Christian Bale keep doing that shitty "Batman" voice?
But those are minor - it's great fun watching Nolan build a *real* Gotham City and all of those performers dig into these characters. Even the goody, exposition-laden lines that Liam Neeson, Morgan Freeman, Katie Holmes, Michael Caine, and Rutger Hauer are burdened with come out smelling sweet.
The best thing about the movie is how it integrates right into the Batman mythos. In many ways, Nolan and Goyer are responding to Frank Miller and The Dark Knight Returns. Miller's graphic novel is a great expansion and deconstruction of Batman. Ultimately, what Miller asks you is: Is Batman a fascist? And, if he is, what does that make you, you sick-o fanboy? In the end, Miller really can't answer his own question. He paints a picture of Batman that is as much about blood as it is about heroics. The best that Miller can give us, it seems, is: Yea, Batman's a fucking whack job, but at least his psychosis works for the common good. Hardly a thrilling moral victory.
But Nolan and Goyer don't seem happy with this. So, they foil Batman nicely with Ras As Ghul (I liked the cute nod to "immortality"). Ras *is* a fascist. His obsession is with order and imposing his will on others. The big reveal of his authoritan nature is *not* the destruction of Gotham itself. Rather, it is two interesting bits of story:
1. His argument that criminals who violate "law" should be punished. In this sense, "law" becomes an absolute standard. It is not a process or a political fixture that can be challenged. It is eternal and enforced, without hesitation (re: a trial), by those in power.
2. HIs obsession with will (itself a clue to his political leanings). But will is narrowly defined by Ras: only those who *agree* with Ras seem to possess "will." Ras of course argues that Thomas Wayne was not a strong man of will - that is why he murdered, that is why he was so foolish as to try and save Gotham. But, of course, Thomas Wayne is a man of will: his civic virtue led him to use his economic might to save the city (and note: Ras ALSO used "unmanly" economic tools). Thus, Ras has a narrow conception of what "the good" is - and he is the final aribter of that definition.
Anyway, Batman becomes clear as not a fascist, but as (of course) a (small-r) republican. Batman is driven by compassion, justice, and a sense of duty to a place/population. He is not a fascist at all - rather, he is a man of action and virtue. There is a blurriness there, b/c he does act outside the law and he does like the ultraviolence. So, he's not a *perfect* figure. But, he is *not* a maniac or a totalitarian. He has hope; he believes in liberty (Gotham has a right to live, and the possibility to change). This makes him much different than the League of Shadows. I thought it was great stuff, with a fun subtext going on underneath that really appealed to my current state.
Oh, and if you complain b/c the fights are "confusing," you're just wrong.
One last thing: As a fan of urban politics, I felt the need to comment on the Supreme Court's decision that "property" could now be taken via eminent domain so long as the new developer planned to make it more valuable. Frankly, this sucks. I mean, eminent domain is a good idea - sometimes the state has to step in to secure the common good. But this sucks, as it grants large developers a great deal of power and infringes on personal liberty. Sucks to that I say.
On the other hand ... it's not a big deviation. I know *legally* it's a huge shift, and that matters as it could empower more "bad behavior" in the future. But, a lot of development for "the public good" in cities, anyway, already involved taking land away from folks who were not using it up to its full potential and giving it to developers. In that vein, a lot of "urban renewal" was nicknamed by activists as really being "Negro removal." In fact, such urban renewal plans really fucked Democrats, who tried to please developers by granting them land AND please minorities with various grants and programs (who were getting hosed by the same developers). It was a tenuous coalition that tore itself apart. So, anyway, the decisions just cements what was already occuring. Not that that makes it OK, I'm just not sure that we'll see a lot of big changes from this - just business as usual.
I'm sure a lot of these compenents make up the mentality of a facist, but it's a common theme in any story where people obtain power. I see it more as a simple psychological drama. ie. Lord of the Rings, Akira, Howl's Moving Castle, etc.