Any DU'er have link to "Progressive Review" of Batman Movie? I need to refute the WSJ's Review

that the movie is favorable to BushCo...because one of our Repug "friends" sent us the Wall St. Journal Review to "stick it in our eye" that the "Dark Knight" shows why Bush has been a great P-Resident saving us from terrorists.

This Repug "friend" is a Tom Friedman reader who doesn't think beyond the WSJ/NYT about anything...but he was chortling to us about how the "latest Batman" proved we "liberals are wrong" and that BushCo. was correct.

If anyone has a good "Progressive" review that this reader of NYT or WSJ might actually read and think about...it would be appreciated! HELP! There must be some review that the "Dark Knight" actually talks about "Invasion of Privacy?"

:shrug:

Thanks in advance if you have one....

koko

On Edit: We were ready to go see "Dark Knight" this weekend. After the WSJ review ...I don't want to give the theater or "movie makers" my bucks for admission, popcorn and coke because of the e-mail I received saying the movie "supports BushCo."

A Batman for the 21st Century
It’s not just about good and evil anymore—it’s about order and chaos.

As the Bush era drags on, I seem to be developing an irrational hatred of summer blockbusters, those gas-guzzling, road-hogging, radio-blasting Hummers of the entertainment business. The fact that they get worse and worse and still make tons of money doesn’t say much for the national character. New York Times columnist Frank Rich recently conjured up an image of Americans flocking to the movies this summer to escape their woes, as if we were all dust bowl farmers hoping to banish the Great Depression from our thoughts with flickering images of Clark Gable and Mickey Mouse. But while our leaders are waging preemptive wars, torturing innocent people to death, tossing out habeas corpus, and gutting the Fourth Amendment, we probably don’t need to escape as much as the rest of the world needs to escape from us.




http://www.chicagoreader.com/features/stories/moviereviews/080717/

and accordingly...I'm gonna' skip it until it comes out on DVD... It's a cool, but subtle Review...kind of saying it's "sort of propaganda." I'm not supporting any BushCo. Props...NO WAY..

And that "Time-Warner" is the backer of this movie is also a reason...

One would hope they would be "fair" but allowing WSJ to "praise the Film as REDEMPTION of BUSH/CHENY makes me want to run from this thing and not spend my money on Admission/Popcorn/Coke/Taco's with Cheese.

Let the Time/Warner's ROT IN THEIR CHEESE NACHOS doing Apologias for BUSH/CHENEY!

I'm not spending my few bucks on this Propaganda!

Anyone who saw the movie and says that missed the entire fucking point.

the end does not always justify the means and to become the monster to fight the monster is ultimately the wrong path to take. Batman makes a choice not to kill, a choice which actually costs more people's lives because he doesn't do what he "should" to stop the Joker.

Maybe I'm sick, but damn. There's just something about a man who will burn a giant stack of money.

The delusion of the Bush supporters is a sight to behold. Truly amazing. Don't waste any time over it.

Batman is a comic book hero. It's not real. Go enjoy the movie.

but how does a fantasy sci-fi movie based on a comic book prove liberals are wrong?

I think using summer blockbuster movies to justify our failed foreign policy is edging into the world of surreal. I know George Bush often acts like a comic book character but it sure isn't Batman.

would never have let Morgan Friedman bully him into not using the latest, civil rights breaking technology after "just this once!"


It's just fantasy. Have fun with it, or don't. It's a silly (but fun) movie!

It is just a movie (and a damn good one), and I have no problem separating fantasy and reality.

However, I have met some mouth breathers who think torture should be allowed, because it works so well in "24"...
:banghead:

You beat me to it. Comic book character is so,so accurate.

She was waiting for her care to be serviced and figured, "what the hell", and regretted the price of the ticket.

for nights after seeing this movie.

It's evidently a movie for "Thrill Seekers...who will Take out of the Film...what they "SEE"..(from their own perspective.) Not giving the money to "Time/Warner."

Sad...that one has to get "REVIEWS" before going to a movie for those of us who don't want "PROPAGANDA" thrown in our face to manipulate our minds...when we just want a Great Summer Flick to get us through this Recession/Depression.

This Flick seems to be too controversial for some of the more "serious/sensitive" of us who have lived through Bush/Cheney for almost 8 years..:-(

Thanks!

I read the review by AlterNet (provided by DUer hard rains, above) and I suspect that my son has the same take as the author. My son knows well about my political opinion & he's not one to recommend to me a movie that would go against his mom, so I called him, read the following passages from the review, & asked for his take:



My son loved the snippets from the review & asked for the link. It makes me proud that my thinking was correct about his wanting me to go see the movie, & that he recognized the moral implications of the movie. I'm going to make it a point to go see it.

feeling that anything that the movie had parts that were very anti-bush/cheney anti-terror ideals. Remember that the machine is destroyed after the one use, and Lucius Fox is happy about it. This is not a bush and cheney is right as far as I am concerned.

You're already in trouble. Tell him that. :rofl:

If anything, it was a Harvey Dent movie. And a good one at that.

I guess if you reach far enough, you can "prove" that anything supports just about anything else. Arguing that a movie based on a comic book/cartoon is some sort of presidential mandate for Bush is, in a word, dumb.

Really, if one of your "friends" is using Batman to argue that Bush is correct, I'd say you've pretty much already won this argument.

to send my "Repug Friend." IOWD's....

"Really, if one of your "friends" is using Batman to argue that Bush is correct, I'd say you've pretty much already won this argument."

What you say...we Dems often "OverAnalyze" movies, etc. Sometimes...the simplest reply is the best.

Thanks! :D....I'm an "over-analyzer." You kinda got it in one sentence.

I've got a few Republican/Conservative friends as well and I'm constantly amazed at some of the things they'll politicize (is that a word?).

If they have to reach for a grown man prancing around in a costume and mask* to prove their talking points and defend their president, then you automatically win the argument. However, if you want a solid retort, go see if you an find a script of South Park Johnny Cocoran's (sp?) Chewbacca Defense. That'll keep their heads spinning.

"Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, Chef's attorney would certainly want you to believe that his client wrote "Stinky Britches" ten years ago. And they make a good case. Hell, I almost felt pity myself! But, ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, I have one final thing I want you to consider. Ladies and gentlemen, this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk. But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about it; that does not make sense!

Why would a Wookiee, an eight-foot tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of two-foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense! Look at me. I'm a lawyer defending a major record company, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberatin' and conjugatin' the Emancipation Proclamation, does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense! If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests.



*Edit to add, this should not be considered a dig at Batman. Batman rules.

It's a little long, and a little contrived, and it's not a "chick flick", but it is a very interesting movie nevertheless.

It's worth the money. Support BushCo? Don't think so.

But it raises some thought-provoking points, for those that want to consider vigilante morality versus a corruptible legal system.

if ANYONE (Repug or Dem) manages to get into power and "control it all?" :shrug:

Are you saying that either side of "Polarized America" could see their own side given some credence from this Movie? :shrug:

I saw it more as an plot artifice to move the storyline along, not as some latent political argument.

And it is a technically ridiculous plot artifice, which actually serves to point out that this is, after all, a movie based on a comic book character.

As much as it would seem to be us here on DU should be just looking on this as just a "plot artifice...movie based on a comic book character" (to quote you) I think so many of us worry that this is "Propaganda Flick" and that the WSJ did a review saying it "supports Bush/Cheney's Actions" after "9/11" makes it worrysome for those of us here who don't want to give some bucks for admission, popcorn, drinks and maybe other treats, to see the thing if it makes Bush/Cheney look at all "reasonable" in how they acted both before and after "9/11."

:shrug: Just saying...that some of us who've been watching this Junta for years might not find "Dark Knight" ...just a movie...after what we've been through. So, we need more "info" before we plunk down our "shrinking dollars" to see the thing.

Solitary. masked, misunderstood hero uses questionable tactics to fight evil?

Like this?



Man, those coservative warriors are all the rage, huh?

Cool Avatar or whatever ...but I didn't get a link I could read. Thanks, though.

I think I'm gonna wait for this one to come out on DVD...watch at home. It doesn't sound like something I'd sleep soundly after seeing.

Thanks for linking that review that I'd missed. Other reviews here confirm...it's not something I'd find as a "Mid-Summer Escape Movie." UGH!

as a witness to his parents' violent murder, Batman is very anti-gun ...

Now what self-disrespecting Repuke would be against using a gun against a criminal? Certainly not the guy in Texas who TOLD the 911 operator he was going to go out and kill two unarmed men ...

no matter how dangerous or deadly, to the police where they may face charges and be tried in open court. Sure, Batman does some nasty shit. But the two most recent movies are quite clear that he is not a straight-up good guy; he is a vigilante with a deep and powerful dark streak. He uses fear as a weapon, and often causes considerable collateral psychological damage in the process; one can hardly claim that Gotham is healthier at the end of Dark Knight than it is at the beginning, nor can you absolve Batman for all culpability in that; he almost single-handedly created the environment of public and criminal fear/faith in symbolism that the Joker uses to tear the city apart.

At the end I thought, what's the message? Despair?

i want NO part of the alternate reality that writer was living in (or those who actually thought there was any rational thought in the piece)

Maybe you should just go have fun and quit worrying how people perceive a movie about a man in a bat suit?

Is your buddy in a coma?

on WSJ is trying to capitalize on its success?

to prove their point I think they already lost the argument.

how pathetic and desperate.

*******QUOTE*******

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3679688&mesg_id=3679688

had this "cultural expert" on claiming that he "sees" veiled (masked) references to Shrub in the Dark Knight: to wit, that they both HAD

* "to fight terrorists"

* "to resort to violence to combat violence"

* "to push the limits of (violating) our civil liberties"

* and the kicker, "to sacrifice their popularity among the people they were protecting."


They said there was no Robin, per se, but that (some deputy commisioner or somesuch in the movie) was in charge of turning on and turning off (the civil liberties, and that THIS was CHEENEE.


The "cultural expert" also twisted what we have all heard in literature classes, that in times of political repression, authors resort to code language and symbolism as in fables, fantasy, and science fiction, to communicate messages of freedom. He PERVERTED this observation to say that Batman/Shrub was MASKED because (something like, unpopular to praise him right now). The "cultural expert" said that when movies are UNmasked and are openly LIBERAL, they become "boring," like Rendition or (the anti-Iraq one). Barf!1


ON EDIT (this paragraph): Oh, and the disgusting capper: The "expert" said that he could see the comparisons SO clearly, that by the end of the movie he expected to see a "W" flashed in the spotlight into the sky!1


I don't go to movies just for pleasure much except for a new Hamlet or Gladiator, and I make a special effort when something politically controversial comes along (Passion of the Christ, Brokeback Mountain)-------but I definitely will NOT be seeing Dark Knight.

After all, Bush lovers would also twist Passion of the Christ into a paen to W, if it was released today.

Pay them no attention; they're just making noise hoping to somehow correlate the movie's success to the sorry-ass failure that is GWB.

It is a very interesting movie.

we'll be interested in hearing your take on it.

Never mind the jackasses trying to use it to justify Bush.

especially that Shrub is a great leader? the GOP does base everything in fiction/fabrications.

Spoilers:




Batman does use a spying device in the film but it causes one of his most loyal accomplices to resign because of the ethics of it. "No one man should hold such power", Batman rigs the "wire tapping" machine he uses to destroy itself after the Joker is caught.

I think the fact that Batman decides ultimately not to keep the power he has, is his redemption in the end. Also in the end Batman's public image goes from being a hero to being a villian. To protect the reputation of another fallen hero.

......I heard all this same bullshit when "Iron Man" came out about how it was "pro-war" or "anti-war".......who cares? Both movies kick ass.

I've seen it four times and am itching to see it a fifth time.

I admit that the first time I thought it was pro-fascism too unless you were rooting for the Joker. Although I still loved it and still dragged my husband back the very next night.

But on repeated viewings - nah. Like people here have said, Batman uses his TABS (my name for it - Total Awareness Bat Sonar) once and then destroys it. And he's all conflicted about that one use.

It's not black and white. It's glorious shades of gray.

On surfing through the net, I've found some people who interpreted Batman as more of a Christ figure. Can't really explain why without major spoilers.

I think that everyone will find the meaning that most appeals to them. Like for me - I am in love with the Joker's character and so I interpret it as the Trickster bringing chaos and upsetting the established order.

I like this post about it.

http://scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts/2008/07/the_dark_knight.php

I've heard an interview with one of the writers in which he says that the movie is really about what happens to Harvey Dent. Again, I don't want to spoil it for you, but I can see how you could also say it's about what happened to the US.

It is not pro-Bush. It is not propaganda in any way, at least in the definition of framing things in such a way so as to protect and uphold the system of those in power.

I really think you should see it, but then I guess I'm sort of like a Christian convert that way - I want everyone to hear the Good News of The Dark Knight.

Last night the theater was pretty packed and at the end someone whooped and then everyone broke out in applause. One of the most fun things about seeing it has been the reactions of the audience, so I definitely recommend seeing it while it's still in theaters.