Have any of you seen the new Batman movie, "The Dark Knight"? As many of you know, Andy and I are movie buffs, but I've been deterred from this movie by some reviews and articles commenting on how violent and, well, dark the movie is. They all comment on how well Heath Ledger plays The Joker, but that at times it's too much.
It all started a few months ago when I saw a preview for "The Dark Knight." My impression was that it seemed more disturbing than the previous Batman. So last Friday I hastily opened to the movie review in The Wall Street Journal, eager to read the verdict of the paper's well-respected critic. His description was that, despite its PG-13 rating, this movie is "hyperviolent." The review in our local paper, The Columbus Dispatch alluded to the same thing. "It luxuriates in the allure of clever villainy with a maximum of violence accepted by the PG-13 rating (which the filmmakers managed to finesse by avoiding even the slightest profanity). This isn't a children's movie.." What struck me is that critics, often seen as a callous and jaded bunch, who see movies for a living and have clearly sat through their share of gory flicks, comment on the show's violence. To me, that says something.
The New York Times review didn't focus as much on the violence as the artistry of the movie, but another article in today's Wall Street Journal really caught my attention. Particularly this part: "All color, lyricism, and virtually any humor that doesn't partake of the macabre is gone from this Batman story. There isn't even a hint that this PG-13 film might be suitable for youngsters, as many parents of distraught preteens have discovered. The Joker's psychotic brutality -- he impales one character on a pencil and in a shocking scene blows one of the franchise's leading female characters to smithereens -- makes a mockery of the rating system."
Disclaimer: I am not anti-action movies. As a fan of the Bourne triology, the recent James Bond movie, "Batman Begins," and other such flicks, I enjoy seeing the good guy kick someone's trash as much as the next person. I'm just bothered by the fact that often gratuitious violence replaces good characterization, smart dialogue, and clever plotlines as a mode of entertainment. It's as if the movies' creators don't think we are capable of handling subtlety. Instead, we must be bludgeoned over the head in order to keep our attention. If it's too much for children, why isn't it too much for adults? Are we just presumed to be desensitized by much of our culture's disrespect for life?
With that said, I'm interested to hear your thoughts if you've seen the movie, or whether or not you're planning to and why.
21 comments:
Nathan and I went to see it this morning since we had the day off from school (only in Utah). I don't know if I'm bad with handling violence or what, but I averted my gaze for probably half of the movie. It was just too dark and too violent. There were points when the Joker would dispose of somebody with gruesome wit and I personally didn't think it was funny at all. I didn't like when other people laughed even. We ended up leaving about three-fourths in due to a killer headache on Nathan's part and frankly, I wasn't devastated.
This comment is though coming from the girl who is still freaked out watching Hocus Pocus. So scary that Bette Midler.
Yeah, I've been going through the debate, too. Kurt told me about the review in the WSJ and I am wary. I totally agree with your last couple sentences about the difference between adults and kids.
What I'M excited about is the X-files movie we're going to see tomorrow with our fellow X-philes (yes, I know I'm so clever), Matt and Lizzie. :) Yea for the rebirth of X-files!
Very thought provoking post, you are such a journalism junkie! I heard an NPR review of this film today which made it sound good but given what you've discovered in your research, I think it is probably way over my violence tolerance limit.
Hope you and your men are doing well, it's fun to check up on you guys on the blog. If I wasn't so lame I'd have one too!
I loved it. First movie I've seen in the theater in a long time that I'd willingly pay to see again.
It's dark as all get out, and perhaps shouldn't have been rated PG-13, but it blew my socks off.
Ledger's Joker is brilliant because he's a truly believable villain--he's so scary because he feels like a real person. And I think that upsets people. Previous installations of Batman have been populated with cartoonish villains. But in the recent films, Batman lives in the real world. Our world.
And it freaks us out.
I'm so glad you posted about this. I have decided not to see this one (although I loved the Bourne movies as well). My brother saw it and loved it, but told me he thought it was too dark for me.
I don't want to fill my mind with those negative and disturbing images, even if there are some brilliant aspects to the film. Not worth it for me.
Aaron is really anxious to see this movie. I hesitate due to the reasons you've listed in your post. My brothers (16 and 13) loved it. While Heath Ledger may give a legendary performance, I don't think I need to be reminded that he is just an embodiment of all the evil in the world. I can watch the news for that. Eventually, thanks to netflix, I'm sure this movie will find it's way into my home.
Aaron wanted me to add that our brother-in-law says that in the comic Batman is a cannibal. I don't think I'm going to research that...even I have limits. ;)
A few more thoughts.
Comic books have always been allegories. That sheds some light on how we might approach a film like this.
Since it sounds like y'all aren't going to go see it anyway, I'll give those who are a spoiler alert and continue with my thoughts, while trying to be vague enough for those who are still on the fence.
The movie is about the battle between the good and evil parts of human nature. The Joker's whole scheme is to prove that there's no depth that people won't sink to if provoked. He manages to use one of the main characters of the film to prove this (that's all I'll say on that).
However, one of the climactic points of the film is when he has laid out an elaborately evil plot which involves provoking a group of normal citizens to pre-emptively destroy another group of criminals, in order to save themselves. The threat is fabricated--it's a social experiment the Joker has constructed.
Seeing that dark potential in humanity, and being forced to come to terms with it, is where the lesson lies. Stories like this help to cement in our minds what kind of person we want to be, because we are given a glimpse of shadows of ourselves.
There's a book I know which many of you might place in your top four favorite books. It contains graphic depictions of violence. Violent abuse of family members. Dismemberment. Decapitation. The self-destructive implosion of entire civilizations.
That book doesn't even have a happy ending, and yet we find it enlightening. Why? Because it reflects the truth. It's an important into our nature and our potential for both good and evil. But it's a violent, violent book.
Our aversion to death is a modern product of our circumstances. We're conditioned to react strongly to the ugly realities of life.
Perhaps those of us who react the most strongly are the most coddled. Don't get a job as an undertaker. Don't join the military. Don't come to terms with the world you live in.
Motion pictures are perhaps even more affecting than the written word, because we remember images much better than words. And we remember feelings even better than we remember images.
There are those will watch a movie like Batman and enjoy it for its violence. All they see is violence for the sake of enjoyment. But if you look, you'll find you can learn something.
That it's told and performed with some amazing artistry is what makes me want to see it again. It's an important film. It's a powerful film.
Powerful stories are relevant to the human experience. Indeed. If you look, you'll find that the film, indeed, sheds light on us.
Rikker, I knew this would evoke a response from you. :) For those of you who aren't famililar with my family, Rikker is my very eloquent (as you can read for yourself) and media minded brother. He is an avid reader and a movie/music conosseiur.
I like the point you bring up about how violence can teach lessons about our own human nature and be precautionary to keep us aware of what we are capable of. But since images are so much more powerful than pictures, we should accept that people can choose how much violence they subject themselves to. We can internalize the lesson it teaches, but not wallow in it just because it's there. It's not that a person is trying to not "come to terms with the world we live in." There is much dark material in the world, but there's also much good and I'd rather wallow in that.
I'll confess, part of that was trying to be intentionally provocative. :P
Naturally, I recognize each person's right to regulate their own activities.
Me, I think the movie has a redeeming message.
But here's something for you: In the cartoon Book of Mormon we read to the baby from, in Alma 44 when Moroni cuts off Zarahemnah's scalp and holds it up on the tip of his sword, magically in the illustrations it becomes the guy's pony tail. It even shows him cutting the hair well away from the scalp and everything.
What I make of that is that there are things that are not appropriate for children. We sugar coat and shield them from things. I strongly reject the notion that it's a least-common-denominator game for all age levels. Kids don't get to drive. Kids don't get to vote. Kids don't get to be in the military. We try to tell kids not to have sex, but they're resourceful little rascals. They aren't allowed to make their own decisions about much of anything. Many things require some maturity to be able to properly parse and interpret. Otherwise you'd have all these kids whose favorite scripture stories are the really violent ones. Oh, whoops. Too late.
I think this movie is probably not appropriate for a 13-year-old. Most movies aren't. And come on, much of the scriptures aren't, either. Let's face it: life isn't. If we shield ourselves from Batman, do we also shun the 6 o'clock news? There's far less redeeming content in that. They're not even pretending to try to edify. That's the real wallowing in the dark and evil things of the world.
And lest someone demand I get exed for comparing Batman and the Bible, the point is that there are accounts of deeply evil acts in our most sacred books. So I don't buy the argument that things with dark themes should be rejected out of hand, or that they have no value.
Also, the cinematography's great. :P
Hey Nollie -- Elliot and I went to see it with Sean and Laura Whiteley last weekend and we all thought it was incredible. It's by far the scariest movie I've seen in a long time, but I stay away from anything remotely "horror"-ish so I think it's probably pretty tame compared to a lot of the true violence out there. (Although i did close my eyes several times.) The Joker is unlike any character i've seen recently and Heath Ledger's performance is sure to get him a posthumous award. It's been a long time since I've been in a movie where the whole audience collectively gasps at the originality of an image or the intensity of a scene. I thought it was truly original and artful entertainment.
Nollie-
I was on Morgan's blog and found your link! I miss you guys so much! It was fun to read of a few of your posts and to remember how well spoken you (both) are. I wish you lived closer.
This is also the only posting I have ever made on a blog...so I better say something about your comments. As someone who shares your affinity towards movies, I really wanted to see this one. We love the Bourne series! But like you, we have decided not to see the latest Batman installment because of the violence factor. Two of Amy's siblings came back very disturbed at what they saw. There is so much hype surrounding the Joker that I worry my curiosity may get the better of me, but for now I'm sticking to my guns.
You haven't heard from of seen me in over 5 years, but now you know my take on Batman. Tell Andy hi!
Steve
All I have to say to you is:
Why so serious?
Ha. Hope you got the joke (double pun, haHA!). I have not seen the movie yet, but look forward to doing so, despite several less-than-enthusiastic reviews and adult weenies/party-poopers' attempts to dissuade prospective moviegoers like myself (No offense). I, for one, am sort of intrigued in a car-crash-watching sort of way when it comes to creepy movies. I saw The Silence of the Lambs on tv a couple years ago and actually kind of liked it. Alas, I will give my take on The Dark Knight when I see it.
Muahaha. Good on you, Kaylee.
Honestly, I think the Bourne movies are worse. But I liked those, too. The pencil scene? It's shocking, sure, but hardly graphic.
The Saw movies or the insufferable Hostel movies are torture porn, sick and twisted violence and suffering for the sake of cringe-inducing entertainment.
Even just a week after its release, this movie deserves to be canonized as the Greatest Superhero Movie Ever, because it seriously is. It's the Godfather II of the superhero genre. It's a work of art.
th15 m0vi3 t0t411y r0x!!!1! it's 2r00, i ch3cked!
I can pretty much guarantee that Nate and I are about as out of it as ANYONE. Never ever saw any of the Lord of the Rings stuff, don't even know when/if I saw the other Batmans (getting the idea?), etc. So I am so not interested in this movie...mostly because it DOES feel dark. But as you can see...what do I know? :)
SO glad to have read your post today. Curtis and I were debating seeing it, but I get disturbed ridiculously easily by violent images, so after reading your research the Dark Knight gets moved into the "no" category. We'll probably just wait for it to come out on DVD and let Clearplay clean it up and watch the 10 minutes that's left. Hey, I'll take 10 minutes of Christian Bale over none at all.
To continue the string of intentionally provocative comments, Rikker, your argument reminds me of 2 Nephi 15:20. I suppose the difference between the scriptures and violent movies is that prophets counsel us to embrace one and to avoid the other.
It makes me sad every time I'm interested in having a discussion and people fail to actually respond to my arguments.
In particular, the ad hominem attack veiled in scriptural authenticity is particularly troubling. Like Two Face's coin, that verse has two sides, and is a warning to both parties.
It's not like I'm trying to have the movie canonized or shown in the temple visitor's center, for Heath's sake.
I saw it as a dark film for dark times--a warning tale of the trajectory of modern society, with an ultimately hopeful message. I don't think it's over the line of what edifies me.
See the movie, then let's talk some more about it.
Quickly...
I had a feeling I shouldn't see it, and I shouldn't have. I went with my Mom, who was effected emotionally by it for at least two days...we're talking on the verge of tears.
That said, P. really liked it, on a literary level even (he liked "fight Club" too). From his perspective, I can see why (he thought the Joker character was interesting on several levels) but the darkness of the movie had a different effect on me...I won't be seeing it again.
Also, I think any instance of holding family members hostage and threatening to kill them in front of each other should be classified as "torture" in the ratings system. Ugh.
OK, now that I've actually read all the comments here, P. would agree with Rikker. And I can see why.
But I still didn't need to see it. I don't like to go away from movies with knots in my stomach! (And pay for the privilege!)
Please allow me to clarify. My attack was not intended to be veiled, but explicit and I'm actually accusing you of violating both sides of the coin: one, for reducing the scriptures to the banality of pop culture and, the other, for elevating comic book fare as something more than entertainment.
I'd be happy to more directly address a couple of your arguments, which I find to be unsettling.
Argument #1: Because the scriptures contain violence, viewing violent material is acceptable if it's accompanied by a good message.
Applying this same logic in a different context illustrates how preposterous this argument is. A murderer who quotes poetry or Shakespeare is still nothing more than a murderer. In fact, we are warned that one of the tactics of the adversary is to enshroud evil in some element of goodness. To quote from an older blockbuster, "A spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down."
Argument #2: Judgement that comes with age or maturity enables us to interpret movie violence properly thus reducing its impact.
I would argue that, although I am older and wiser than I once was, I am still adversely impacted by viewing violence. Violent images make me tense and anxious, and much more easily provoked to anger. You would presumably argue that I've been "coddled" and I would argue you've been desensitized. The counsel of prophets and apostles regarding violence in movies is not age-specific. We are encouraged to avoid media with violent content regardless of our age.
P.S. Nollie, my wife wants me to be sure and clarify that she isn't the author. :-)
Thank you for making a real argument.
What you call my argument #1 is not, in fact, my argument. It's a simplistic reduction, and is preposterous, as you say. I don't, in fact, have an argument that can be so pithily reduced.
Rather, it's my opinion that life is violent, as reflected in all aspects of life, from the sacred--e.g. scripture--to the entertaining--e.g. movies.
So all I was saying was that for me, is that violence is not a deal-breaker for me when it comes to seeking edification. And I feel that in ways not entirely dissimilar to my experience with the scriptures, stories which contain violent material can edify. Many "popular" movies edify me a heck of a lot more than the admittedly well-meaning, but trite, PR-scrubbed fare that shows in visitors centers. I really like the last several minutes of The Testaments, but the rest, particularly the love story, I find to be a mess of heavy-handed, hackneyed heartstring pulling. Uh-oh, now I've really dug myself a hole.
Argument #2 is a decent extrapolation of what I said, even though I didn't make that argument directly. Mainly I said that it's my belief that there are things appropriate for adults that are not appropriate for children. Do you reject this notion?
But running with how you've paraphrased me, I'll boil it down to this: your mileage may vary. Think what you like about my deadened soul.
Let's agree to disagree, because you're not going to convert me to your way of thinking in this venue, certainly. If I were ever to see the error of my ways, I'm pretty sure it would have to be through personal spiritual experience, rather than through explicit attacks on my opinions. There's a reason the church discourages bible-bashing. Some techniques just don't work.
I'll be happy to continue to discuss the film The Dark Knight with you, but I'm not really interested in continuing to discuss theoretical issues. I know what is written in the Ensign and said in General Conference. So if you've seen the movie, then please share your thoughts.
In the meantime, carry on living in your enviably unviolent world.
Post a Comment