I originally posted the following on a Facebook discussion group I participate in, but I thought it might be of interest to all you Alexandrians in the light of the tragedy in Aurora, Colorado.
I was just thinking about this–I haven’t seen The Dark Knight Rises yet, and I was trying to decide if I will, in light of Aurora. I saw “Batman Begins” and thought it was the best Batman movie made up to that time. I watched “The Dark Knight” and was both greatly disappointed and depressed. Unlike the majority of the critics who praised Heath Ledger’s performance, I found it flat, nasty, nihilistic, and hard to watch. I still think the best interpretation was in the animated series, where Mark Hamill did the voice of the Joker.
Before all this stuff went down, I was planning to go see The Dark Knight Rises in the hope that Nolan would redeem himself with the last entry in the series. I was unsure about having Bane in it (he’s so connected to the “Knightfall” arc in the comics that I’ve always thought he wouldn’t work as just a generic Batman villain in a movie), but Catwoman is one of the more interesting Batman villains, and I like Anne Hathaway. Then came the shooting and the discussion of all the darkness and the seeming fetishization of authoritarianism in the current movie. The hopes I’d had for the third movie were shattered. I’ve been trying to decide what to do. What I’ve come up with is this–I’m not going to see it in the theater. One, I don’t want to spend that much money to go out to see something I probably won’t enjoy; and two, just on the off chance that some crazed copycat happens to pick that theater–well, sounds crazy, but in this day and age, is a movie worth your life?
I think I will eventually see it on DVD or Netflix, but not because I “want” to. It doesn’t sound like something I’ll like, or that will make me feel good. However, I think it might be important to watch it in terms of seeing just what Nolan has done, what kinds of syncs and resonances it has, and what it says about contemporary pop culture in light of current events. In short, I think I might be obligated to watch it, not for fun, but to be able to discuss it intelligently in years to come. Like it or not, it’s a watershed, and I’d rather be able to dismiss it with intelligent discussion than to say, “Nah, never watched it.”
I’m interested in what everybody else thinks about this, especially those who haven’t seen the movie yet. What are your plans, and why?
I ONLY see flicks on DVD or streaming online, BUT I couldn’t disagree more about Ledger’s performance in “The Dark Knight.” I never saw the “Batman Begins” flick, so I can’t comment on that one.
Ledger’s performance is uncomfortable because it is dripping with absolute truth.
The interrogation scene particularly divulges a very basic truth we all know, but most of us try to choke down with all our might.
When he tells the Batman character, “…Don’t talk like one of them, you’re not, you’re NOT, even if you’d like to be. To them your just a freak, like me. They need you right now, but when they don’t, they’ll cast you out. . .like a leper. See, their morals, their “code,” well it’s a bad joke, dropped at the first sign of trouble. They’re only as good as the world allows them to be. I’ll show you, when the chips are down these…ehh…”civilized people”. . .will eat each other. See, I’m not a monster, I’m just ahead of the curve,” he is speaking a very basic and primordial truth that we all know, but most of us try to deny.
That entire rendition of that character (the Joker) by Ledger was a spectacular bit of acting and one that delivered actual insight into the human condition instead of the customary Hollywood (“feel good”) cliches.
One of the ironies of the James Holmes killing spree was that the character he sought to represent (the Joker) hated copy-cats and slaughtered imitators. STILL, as whacky as that is, those blaming guns or “access to guns” for the actions of a determined misanthrope are even crazier!
Guns don’t even make mass murder “easier.”
Holmes had a veritable arsenal and still killed just 12 people! Cost over $1,000.
Julio Gonzalez used less than $1′s worth of gasoline, a small glass jar he found and a makeshift wick (price UNDER $1) to kill 87 people at the Happyland Social Club on March 25th, 1990. There’s absolutely NO WAY to rein in the disaffected & misanthropic BEFORE they act, in a free society and there SHOULDN’T BE!
A society that can rein in the likes of Holmes and Gonzalez BEFORE they act is no longer free, as that kind of interdiction requires a veritable “police state.”
I won’t see the movie at the show either, for the reasons you outlined, JMK. Ledger’s performance was moving, especially one scene during an early car chase on Lower Wacker Drive when he has his head out the passenger window like a kid, and for a brief moment he projects this joy and innocence like he is remembering some brief joy from his youth. Also- I’m no Chris Nolan, but I have been tempted many times to do the disappearing pencil trick.
That was an excellent part and an excellent script. I hadn’t seen the first film (“Batman Begins”) and only saw this one because one of my brothers insisted it was great.
It was actually an excellent stand-alone film in my view.
It’s a shame that allegedly some sleep and other problems from taking on this role, may have led to his subsequent and untimely death. Lots of people don’t think about the counter-indications of OTC drugs mixed with alcohol, etc.
He joins the ranks of Brandon Lee, in departing right after delivering a final, very memorable role.
My plans are to avoid seeing anything in the theater until I’m done with my cancer treatment. (I don’t want to pay good money and then have to leave in the middle of the show if my illness or treatment side effects catch up with me, and, if I wind up having energy for just one big thing on the weekend, I want it to be something that gets me out exercising.)
When it comes out on DVD, I’ll decide whether I want to see it.
“My plans are to avoid seeing anything in the theater until I’m done with my cancer treatment. . .if I wind up having energy for just one big thing on the weekend, I want it to be something that gets me out exercising.” (LGS)
.
.
That’s generally a wise choice under all conditions.
Saw it, liked it, but I liked the last two quite a bit. This one was a bit of a step-down, but only in a Return of the Jedi sort of way, not a Spider-Man 3 sort of way.
As for Bane, he’s as changed as Ra’s Al Ghul was changed – a lot of details are different, but he certainly acts like the character from the comics.
“I haven’t seen The Dark Knight Rises yet, and I was trying to decide if I will, in light of Aurora.” (T)
.
.
I guess this (“in light of Aurora”) is the central question.
Why would someone who’d normally go to a movie theater & generally be interested in this series or this type of fare NOT do so “in light of Aurora?”
Is it out of respect for the dead, or a concern of copycats elsewhere?
As to the first, I don’t think abstaining from a movie is a fitting way to honor/respect those killed, any more than seeing it multiple times (given that they were all apparent fans of this series) would seem to be a fitting tribute.
Concern over copycats?!
That kind of senselessness can happen anywhere, at anytime for ANY or mostly for NO “reason” at all. I doubt that any of the revelers at the Happyland Social Club in the Bronx were expecting Julio Gonzalez to incinerate them that night.
I don’t think it’s possible to live your life that way.
IF a fear of copycats is going to keep someone from seeing this flick in a theater, than it logically SHOULD keep such a person from EVER going to ANY theater…and crossing ANY street (thousands of people are hit by cars each year)….or eating out (thousands more come down with food poisoning, salmonella and other such food-born illnesses) at ANY restaurant. . .etc., etc.
I’m guessing that it’s out of a sense of honoring the dead you asked that and NOT supportive of any widespread “fear of copycats,” so on that score, I’d just think there are much better and more appropriate ways to honor those killed.
Some seem to naively believe that “stricter gun control would’ve averted this tragedy,” despite the mountains of evidence to the contrary, including the fact that James Holmes was obviously adept at making explosives (which are NOT at all hard to make and many common household products can be used as ingredients) and as per Julio Gonzalez COULD have done more damage at less expense via an “alternate route,” BUT if that’s your view (pro-gun control), then donating some money to groups like Handgun Control might be in order.
Me, I’ve already donated some money to the NRA, in the firm belief that had there been just ONE locked and loaded goombah in that theater that morning, James Holmes may well have been perished about as soon as he started opening up.
In fact, I’ve said from the start, “Holmes was fortunate that he chose a suburbanite movie theater. Had he run into an inner city venue and started that shit, he’d have almost certainly been me with a fusillade of lead from a bunch of equally deranged gang-bangers, more than willing to exchange some “real-it-TAY” with Holmes.”
I think there are ways to honor those lost that morning, but an effective boycott of that movie, or movie theaters in general probably isn’t one of them.
The post, as I said, was copied from where I originally made it on another discussion group. The context was of disturbing themes in Nolan’s movies and my great dislike of the second Batman movie. I don’t think the movie caused the shooting–that would be absurd–but the feeling in the other discussion–to which I’m sympathetic–was that some of the themes in contemporary art and some of the actions of people like the shooter are both manifestations of the same underlying social pathologies.
I also didn’t put in the extra context that I typically watch no more than two or three movies in a theater in a given year, anyway. One of those is always the Pixar film of the summer, since we have a nine-year old. Thus, the question was this: do I want to spend the money and take the time to get babysitting, etc. for the only non-children’s movie I’ll see this year–for one of only one or two date nights with my wife–to see a movie that, based on its predecessor and the reviews I’ve read, I probably won’t like and will find depressing? Or should I see it in a different context?
I should also point out that I used to go see pretty much every significant movie that came out, whether I liked it or not. I sort of liked being up with everything. The last few years I’ve decided that I don’t have the time or money to waste. I watch movies not because they’re hot or culturally significant or controversial, but because I want to. Once more, I was unsure as to whether I’d like The Dark Knight Rises even before the shooting; and while in a sense that makes no difference in a strictly logical way, it would be there in one’s mind in the background. Not fear of what might happen, but sadness associated with the film, “rational” or not. Thus, I decided to see the movie on DVD or Netflicks–much cheaper–so that I could at least see for myself if the disturbing themes discussed were actually there, and to be able to discuss it intelligently if the occasion arose.
The only thing I’d add is to address the “if they’d had guns” canard. It’s a theater, tear gas has been thrown, it’s dark, chaos is breaking out. You really think a civilian, not combat-trained, not expecting anything to happen, in a dark, confusing situation, might not cause more casualties in trying to get the shooter than would be saved? But that’s not even necessary to posit. Consider the Fort Hood Shooting in which there were 13 deaths and 30 casualties–one of the ones shot was a policewoman–and which took place on an Army base. Yeah–good thing they weren’t civilians….
For the record, I own a handgun and am licensed to carry concealed, so I’m not anti-gun; and I’m also aware that the shooter at Aurora got everything he got legally. I do think the type of rifle he had and other assault weapons should not be available to the public. In any case, my point is that whatever side one comes down on, let’s not make ridiculous arguments based on counterfactuals that can be shown, in similar cases, not to hold water, anyway.
OK, the link seems bad to the Fort Hood Shooting; let’s try again
Your OWN link eviscerates your pro-gun control view; “President of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, Paul Helmke, said that “This latest tragedy, at a heavily fortified army base, ought to convince more Americans to reject the argument that the solution to gun violence is to arm more people with more guns in more places.”[112] However, Lt. General Cone stated: “As a matter of practice, we do not carry weapons on Fort Hood. This is our home.”[113] Military weapons are only used for training or by base security, and personal weapons must be kept locked away by the provost marshal.[114] Specialist Jerry Richard, a soldier working at the Readiness Center, expressed the opinion that this policy had left them unnecessarily vulnerable to violent assaults: “Overseas you are ready for it. But here you can’t even defend yourself.”
Pro-gun arguments 1 …. Gun-control advocates 0
How about the Lubby’s Luncheonette mass shooting? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luby%27s_massacre). . .oh wait a minute, all those military personnel and civilians were also unarmed.
We can keep looking, but it’s your turn.
“I don’t think the movie caused the shooting – that would be absurd…” (T)
.
.
Yes it would, though that wasn’t postulated by anyone else here, so far as I know.
What WAS actually posited were the 2 primary reasons people have given for not going to that flick; “honoring/remebering the dead,” & “fear of copycats.” neither of those seems at all close to “movie caused shooting.”
.
.
.
.
“…but the feeling in the other discussion – to which I’m sympathetic – was that some of the themes in contemporary art and some of the actions of people like the shooter are both manifestations of the same underlying social pathologies.” (T)
.
.
In virtually all such instances, it’s ART imitating (reflecting) life and NOT the reverse.
As an example, rap music was popular in the Inner Cities almost a decade before its initial commercial success and yes, the raunchier, the more degrading and the more anti-authority and sadly, all too often anti-white, the better.
All of that too, can be understood by looking at some of the common maladies of that cultural stream.
Beyond that, the most creative people “steal” (reflect) ALL their best ideas from life, NOT the reverse.
Rap didn’t “pollute the mainstream culture,” it merely reflected it. Why was rap so popular with 12 y/o white males? The same reason it was popular with inner city black males – a shared antipathy for authority and that finely tuned misogynistic thread that runs through males of that particular (early pubescent) maturity level.
We are, for better or for worse a somewhat pathological society. That happens when honesty about topics like race, gender, class etc are suppressed and worse still, the gripes of “protected groups” are encouraged and accepted despite the fact that the vast majority of citizens reject those “gripes” and hold their own legitimate grievances that often go unheard.
.
.
.
.
“It’s a theater, tear gas has been thrown, it’s dark, chaos is breaking out. You really think a civilian, not combat-trained, not expecting anything to happen, in a dark, confusing situation, might not cause more casualties in trying to get the shooter than would be saved?” (T)
.
.
In a word, yes.
The NRA claims that “over 600,000 homeowners protect themselves with guns every year” and that, according to their records, the defense ratio is very nearly “homeowners 100% – armed home invaders 0%. . .I find that last part hard to substantiate and somewhat difficult to believe, given that the homeowners is so vulnerable – very often asleep at the time of the home invasion, caught off guard and most people don’t regularly go to the firing range. However, it’s difficult to underestimate the level of craven cowardice of the typical home-invader, torture-murder type.
I’ve been trained to “eat” pepper spray, but apparently so have many protesters (though apparently many of them never complete that training – they carry re-breathers with them), and in my case, I’ve also been trained how to make high explosives from easy to collect household products (like sugar, bleach, ammonia,, aluminum shavings, etc) and how to weaponize various materials by grinding them to very small sizes (5 to 8 microns – “deeply breathable size”) and combine them with various aerosolizing agents), BUT I wouldn’t call that “combat trained,” as I did not get such training relative to any kind of military training.
A point of interest – EVERY victim of the military Fort Hood shooting was UNARMED, most were attending required medicals. “Lt. General Cone stated: “As a matter of practice, we do not carry weapons on Fort Hood. This is our home.” Military weapons are only used for training or by base security, and personal weapons must be kept locked away by the provost marshal. Specialist Jerry Richard, a soldier working at the Readiness Center, expressed the opinion that this policy had left them unnecessarily vulnerable to violent assaults: “Overseas you are ready for it. But here you can’t even defend yourself.” (http://www.latimes.com/news/la-na-fort-hood-shootings6-2009nov06,0,820085,full.story)
I’m actually a little surprised you chose to highlight the shot police officer’s gender, as that’s primarily been done to highlight the the ineffectiveness of female police officers under fire. While there’ve been numerous cases of female officers having failed to shoot fleeing suspects, etc., there have been numerous cases in which the gals have “done the right thing.”
This appears to have been a case of ineffective (poor) police work on the part of base civilian police Sergeant Kimberly Munley, “who had rushed to the scene in her patrol car, encountered Hasan in the area outside the Soldier Readiness Processing Center. Hasan fired at Munley, who exchanged shots with him using her 9mm M9 pistol. Munley’s hand was hit by shrapnel when one of Hasan’s bullets struck a nearby rain gutter, and then two bullets struck Munley: the first bullet hit her thigh, and the second hit her knee. As she began to fall from the first bullet, the second bullet struck her femur, shattering it and knocking her to the ground…”
THANKFULLY, “Sergeant Mark Todd arrived and shouted commands at Hasan to surrender. Todd said: “Then he turned and fired a couple of rounds at me. I didn’t hear him say a word, he just turned and fired.” The two exchanged shots, and Hasan was felled by five shots from Todd, who then kicked his pistol out of his hand and placed him in handcuffs as he fell unconscious…Hasan was hit by at least four shots, and is said to be quadriplegic. He is currently being held at the Bell County jail in Belton, Texas.” I DO NOT subscribe to the predominantly “liberal” view that women should not be police officers, a view very popular here in liberal New York City.
So, yes, in general, an armed populace is a safer populace as proven time and time again – Washington D.C. has one of the strictest and tightly enforced gun bans in the USA. . .and the highest rate of gun violence to boot. The gun violence has RISEN (as expected) after that ban. Places like Scottsdale AZ with concealed carry laws allowing people to carry guns, generally have much lower rates of gun violence.
Same with jolly old England – gun violence has skyrocketed in the wake of a renewed and tightly enforced gun ban. I can’t help finding things like the surge in gun crime in England endlessly interesting and amusing. How can so many people so damned naive about violence and human nature?
I’m not interested in having a debate on gun control; all I’ll say is that 1. I don’t have a problem with responsible gun ownership (I own guns and have a concealed-carry permit) 2. I’ve read lots of studies from different points of view, and there seems to be no cross-cultural, longitudinal studies that conclusively demonstrate one way or the other. Switzerland mandates gun ownership, and it’s almost impossible to own a gun in Japan. Both have very low rates of violent crime. England has had pretty tight gun laws for decades, and its crime uptick in recent years seems due to other factors. D. C. has draconian gun-control laws and is a combat zone. NYC has had some of the nation’s harshest gun control laws since the 40′s, and yet it was fairly safe in the 40′s and 50′s, got worse in the 60′s, became a cesspit of crime in the 70′s and 80′s, got better in the 90′s, and has been the safest large city in America the last two or three years. All through this time the gun laws were more or less the same, so obviously they weren’t the controlling factor. The point is there’s no clear evidence that banning guns–or having them easily available and widespread–has a consistent effect of reducing–or increasing–crime.
I strongly doubt that a bunch of people with guns would have made the Aurora situation better, but that’s a counterfactual, and strictly, one cannot argue from “coulda, woulda, shouldas”. Neither one of us can know what would have happened otherwise. All I can say is if our culture has become such that I feel I have to pack heat to go to a movie, there’s a damn sight more wrong in this country than issues of gun control.