Andrew Klavan Misses the Point: Why The Dark Knight is Not Allegory for the Bush Administration

Posted by Unknown , Tuesday, July 29, 2008 9:05 AM

Before I get to the substance of my post, it's worth mentioning that there are a lot of people out there who have had a shot at trying to discuss Batman on an ideological level, and among them are greater writers than myself (Matthew Yglesias and Spencer Ackerman, for example). But when Klavan's analysis of the movie was brought to my attention, I could only shake my head. I felt (and feel) that he completely missed the point of the movie. To be fair, Klavan doesn't posit that the entire movie is allegory, but I don't think you can take the character out of the movie as if it were a vacuum.

Andrew Klavan:

There seems to me no question that the Batman film "The Dark Knight," currently breaking every box office record in history, is at some level a paean of praise to the fortitude and moral courage that has been shown by George W. Bush in this time of terror and war. Like W, Batman is vilified and despised for confronting terrorists in the only terms they understand.

See, this is only the third paragraph, and it's already gone awry. The thing is, Batman isn't vilified and despised for confronting criminals on their terms because that's not what he does. He's vilified in the beginning for being a vigilante, which is against the law, but the public comes to accept him and depend on him. His presence is a benefit, and people know that. There is a scene in the movie where Harvey Dent has almost snapped after an attempt on the mayor's life and has kidnapped one of the suspects to interrogate him. He threatens him with a gun and flips his coin to see the fate of his victim. At that point, all we know is that Dent has reached the limits of the law, and that he might fall off the edge into the abyss of vengeance. When Batman stops him from making the biggest mistake of his life, we find out all of his threatening was for naught because Dent assumed something that wasn't true.

Do you see where I'm going with this? In our world, Bush threatens and executes (not quite literally, but close enough), bandying about a gun with no Batman to stop him. In Gotham, Dent threatens and almost executes, bandying about a gun with the Dark Knight there in the nick of time to stop a fatal error. This is only reinforced by the rest of the movie after that point. When Batman has a chance to kill the Joker, he doesn't. When Batman has a chance to end the life of the lead mob boss, he doesn't. What Andrew Klavan misses is that Batman, unlike Bush, doesn't push the limit because he knows it opens a gate that he cannot close. Take this passage from the graphic novel Under the Hood when Batman has the chance to kill the Joker once and for all:

For years a day hasn't gone by where I haven't envisioned taking him... taking him and spending an entire month putting him through the most horrendous , mind-boggling forms of torture. All of it building to an end with him broken, butchered and maimed... pleading - screaming - in the worst kind of agony as he careens into a monstrous death... I want him dead - maybe more than I've ever wanted anything. But if I do that, if I allow myself to go down into that place... I'll never come back.

Bush, with his pushing on the limits of constitutional law and international treaties, doesn't understand that the limits were there in the first place to stop men like him.

But back to Mr. Klavan:

Like W, Batman sometimes has to push the boundaries of civil rights to deal with an emergency, certain that he will re-establish those boundaries when the emergency is past.

We're still in the third paragraph, people. This is what I was talking about when I said that the laws were in place to stop men like Bush. And to this statement, we can turn to Harvey Dent again. There's a scene where Bruce Wayne is trying to figure out if he can trust Dent. When prompted about the caped crusader, Dent says that Batman is needed, and refers to the fact that old Rome, when faced with danger, would do away with all traces of democracy and appoint a single leader to lead through the "emergency." To which Rachel points out that the last leader they appointed was Julius Caesar, and that "he never gave up that power." Even after pointing that out, Harvey still holds fast to his belief that sometimes it's the right thing to do.

Even Batman doubts himself every once in a while. Harvey Dent is more of a cutthroat than we believe he is. He is willing to offer up power to one man as long as it keeps people safe. Just like Caesar, this person may wield this power to himself, but at least there is no danger. To Klavan's credit, Bruce Wayne nods at Dent's sentiment. However, I believe this is only because Wayne knows he can trust Dent after he said those things - not because he necessarily agrees that one man should hold all of the keys.

Here again Bush is more Dent than Wayne. Bush has worked very hard to consolidate power into his position without realizing what would happen if and (probably) when it backfired. Now the country hates him, and will more than likely swing the other way in an election, taking power away from those he labored so hard to give it to. As has been said many times by now, the next president will have more power than ever before, and all due to the machinations of George W. Bush. He gambled the Harvey Dent way and is ultimately going to lose.

To drive that point home even more, there is a point where Batman has somehow managed to tap every cellphone in the city. Lucius Fox despises the technology, but Batman has made it something destructible and undoable, and is looking for something specific. When the Bush Administration did somewhat of the same thing, they cast the net so wide that it caught considerably more than it ever should have. Will wiretapping ever go away? Probably not. But Batman was able to do it without it becoming a conscious part of society, without infringing on the rights of others, and with a target in mind. No, I'm not saying it's right. But there is definitely a difference. Bush may say the target is terrorists, but just how many can he say the government has caught, and how many innocent people has it stepped on along the way?

Almost forgot that Andrew's still talking:

And like W, Batman understands that there is no moral equivalence between a free society -- in which people sometimes make the wrong choices -- and a criminal sect bent on destruction. The former must be cherished even in its moments of folly; the latter must be hounded to the gates of Hell.

Right about now, it's obvious that Andrew and I are totally ideologically different. But aside from that, this is where he is most correct in the entire piece. He's right that Batman sees the world in black and white, but he forgets that the Joker steadily chips away at this resolve. The Joker's bad, yes, but Batman sees every man as having an understandable motive. The Joker must want money, power, fame - something that other men want, right? Yet we learn quickly that the Joker is not just another man, and that his motives aren't those of other men.

Klavan is consistently striking the same spot with the hammer, but he is completely missing the nail. Batman learns that his perceptions of the world cannot be definite, and that Batman may be "incorruptible" as the Joker calls him, but he is still learning that the world is not in black and white. But there is something else here that Klavan overlooks in order to make his point.

There is a scene when the Joker has rigged two ferries to blow - one carries criminals from the prison, the other carries normal citizens. They've been given the detonator to one another's ferry, and they have to hurry in case the other ferry decides to save itself and blow up the other. To try and not spoil it, I'm going to quote MightyGodKing's "One sentence review":

There are many reasons to see The Dark Knight, many of which have been repeated elsewhere many times over, but I will merely say this: any movie starring Christian Bale, Heath Ledger, Aaron Eckhart, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman which trusts one of its most powerful and emotional moments to Tiny Lister [article], and makes it work perfectly, is a movie that is a cut above.

Meanwhile, Joker and Batman are trading jabs. The Joker says that one of them will blow the other up. Batman (who we assume knows who are on the boats) says that he's wrong and that nothing is going to happen. The Joker is betting that human nature is violent, while Batman is betting that people are good and will do the right thing.

I won't say who's right in this battle of philosophy, but who wins isn't the point anyway. In this scene, the Joker is betting on instinct, a "better-you-than-me, guts-over-brains, feral cat in a corner, life on the line, survival autopilot" kind of instinct where anything goes. He's also betting on paranoia to aid his plans. The Model Citizens constantly assess that their lives are worth more than those of criminals, and that since they are inherently the scum of the earth, they will detonate the bomb first. They work themselves into assurance before they even begin contemplating the actual deed. Yet the Joker didn't account for the societal programming in each Model Citizen. For crying out loud, the Model Citizen Ferry even takes a vote on whether they should detonate the Criminal Scum Ferry, and they still waffle.

Shocking Bottom Line: In this scene, Bush most resembles the Joker. Bush has been betting on paranoia, raising threat levels, constantly reminding that Al Qaeda is right behind you, provoking gut responses by saying our children are in danger. The Joker sees the world as most like himself when it's in its most primitive form - fragile, shallow order on indestructible, deep chaos. While I don't think Bush is chaotic, I do believe that this may be how he sees the world. After all, he is the closest we've ever come to an outright evangelical president, and many conservative evangelicals believe that the world is an evil place. What is more evil than absolute chaos?

Am I overreaching and becoming too psychoanalytical? Perhaps. But think of this: if Bush were a betting man, and he were placed in that situation, would he have faith that they would do the right thing? Or would he bet on one or the other as the most likely to detonate first? Considering how the world sees men in orange jumpsuits, I can guess who he could have bet on.

Yet this is where the movie turns real world logic on its head. The fact that the scene goes the length to point out there is redeeming value in everyone, even criminals, shows that it wasn't trying to make allegory for anything the Bush Administration has done. When you believe in absolute evil (which is debatable whether Batman does or not), and that people cannot be redeemed, or that when they are reduced, they will choose not to redeem themselves, you become rigid in a fluid world. The Bush Administration, and even conservatism in general, are the rocks in the river. They believe once a criminal, always a criminal. But there are flaws in this worldview. As with the deathrow inmate who tries to prevent children from taking his path, or the prisoners who (some of which) were just in the wrong place and the wrong time, seeing the world as inherently evil and stubbornly making decisions on this non-fact is dangerous and hardly without consequences. Even Batman consistently believes in the redeeming value of criminals, as Jason Todd, one of Batman's Robin sidekicks, met Batman while stealing the hubcaps off of the Batmobile.

Non-Shocking Bottom Line: Andrew Klavan doesn't get it, but he tries really hard anyway.

The rest of the article devolves into "crazy liberal Hollywood needs to let more conservatives direct," as if Chris Nolan was card-carrying member of the RNC (he may well be, but I don't think anybody really knows that). If you want to see what people say about the rest, I suggest going to see MightyGodKing's post "Well, if Dick Cheney's the penguin..." Matt Yglesias responded to the article as a whole here.

(crossposted at vdcc.net)

When thought is the enemy.

Posted by Unknown , Friday, November 23, 2007 6:51 PM

Yesterday afternoon when we were about to sit down to Thanksgiving dinner, my grandmother said, "Oh, did you hear about that new movie that's coming out that's atheist?" I could barely contain myself from making a snide Harry Potter comparison (“Oh, and Harry Potter had magic!”). I think I did more to hurt my grandmother’s feelings, as she was truly only trying to bring up a concern that she had heard in her church circles. But I had already heard it at school. There, we laughed about it. Here, I got serious glances. Perhaps my flippancy scared my grandmother, but I can’t help but feeling like no good could come of any conversation we could have about it.

The chain emails and religious media are focusing on Philip Pullman’s His Dark Materials, a children’s book trilogy written between 1995 and 2007. The Golden Compass supports atheism, they say. Well, I’ll let you read a couple of them. Quoted from Snopes.com (contains some spoilers):

[Collected via e-mail, October 2007]

There will be a new Children's movie out in December called THE GOLDEN COMPASS. It is written by Phillip Pullman, a proud athiest who belongs to secular humanist societies. He hates C. S. Lewis's Chronical's of Narnia and has written a trilogy to show the other side. The movie has been dumbed down to fool kids and their parents in the hope that they will buy his trilogy where in the end the children kill God and everyone can do as they please. Nicole Kidman stars in the movie so it will probably be advertised a lot. This is just a friendly warning that you sure won't hear on the regular TV.

[Collected via e-mail, October 2007]

I don't just generally dismiss a movie or book just because someone 'says' it's meant to be something else...but this is worth knowing if you plan to see it (or plan to take your kids).

"Hi! I just wanted to inform you what I just learned about a movie that is coming out December 7, during the Christmas season, which is entitled THE GOLDEN COMPASS. It stars Nicole Kidman and it is directed toward children. What is disturbing to me is that this movie is based on the first of a trilogy of books for children called HIS DARK MATERIALS written by Philip Pullman of England.

He's an atheist and his objective is to bash Christianity and promote atheism. I heard that he has made remarks that he wants to kill God in the minds of children, and that's what his books are all about. He despises C.S. Lewis and Narnia, etc. An article written about him said "this is the most dangerous author in Britain" and that Pullman would be the writer "the atheists would be praying for, if atheists prayed." Pullman said he doesn't think it is possible that there is a God and he has great difficulty understanding the words "spiritual" and "spirituality." What I thought was important to communicate is what part of the agenda is for making this picture. This movie is a watered down version of the first book, which is the least offensive of the three books. The second book of the trilogy is THE SUBTLE KNIFE and the third book is THE AMBER SPYGLASS. Each book gets worse and worse regarding Pullman's hatred of God. In the trilogy, a young girl becomes enmeshed in an epic struggle against a nefarious Church known as the Magisterium. Another character, an ex-nun, describes Christianity as "a very powerful and convincing mistake." As I understand it, in the last book, a boy and girl are depicted representing Adam and Eve and they kill God, who at times is called YAHWEH (which is definitely not Allah). Since the movie would seem mild if you viewed it, that's been done on purpose.

They are hoping that unsuspecting parents will take their children to See the movie, that they will enjoy the movie and then the children will want the books for Christmas. That's the hook. Pullman says he wants the children to read the books and decide against God and the kingdom of heaven.

If you decide that you do not want to support something like this, I suggest that you boycott the movie and the books. I googled a synopsis of THE GOLDEN COMPASS. As I skimmed it, I couldn't believe that in a children's book part of the story is about castration and female circumcision.

And so on and so forth.

Okay. I understand the kneejerk to this. “Let’s band together and boycott this picture for our children, because we are discerning parents who care for our children’s mental health (or souls, depending on how bold people are willing to be).” But there is a lot more to these concerns than simply being mad at Philip Pullman for writing “atheist” books.

I read His Dark Materials when I was in high school, and it was a crucial time for me to read them. I was just old enough to catch the themes in the book (while children are perceptive, I doubt they’ll be able to grasp all of the themes the book employs), and it was at a time when I was fighting with the world and with my religion. I didn’t know how to reconcile the two, because I felt I was losing perspective and the meaning of being Christian. Therefore, I read Pullman’s series at a time when it would mean the most to me. I was enthralled in its pages, and actually cried at its saddest moments. It meant more than anything I’d ever read, and affected me more as well.

Does His Dark Materials promote atheism? I’m hardpressed to make an argument that says it doesn’t, no matter what Philip Pullman or any of his fans have said on the subject. In fact, Pullman has said that he’s not promoting atheism in the books:

As for the atheism, it doesn’t matter to me whether people believe in God or not, so I’m not promoting anything of that sort. What I do care about is whether people are cruel or whether they’re kind, whether they act for democracy or for tyranny, whether they believe in open-minded inquiry or in shutting the freedom of thought and expression. Good things have been done in the name of religion, and so have bad things; and both good things and bad things have been done with no religion at all. What I care about is the good, wherever it comes from.

While Pullman establishes that kindness, democracy, and open-minded inquiry are good, the books lean toward making cruelty, tyranny, and shutting the freedom of thought and expression synonymous with religion. I am saying this as a lover of the books and believer in Pullman’s message as he states it in the quote above. I think Pullman’s message is quite clear, but that’s not all there is to these books.

Pullman’s books made me think. I was steeped in religion. I had perfect attendance at church for thirteen years. I lived in a very small community with churches galore, including three or four Baptist churches, a Presbyterian church, a non-denominational or two, and one Methodist church where I attended. I had constantly been trying to grasp why God didn’t speak to me like other kids my age. I read Pullman’s books and began to see that the world may be different than I had been taught.

Now, that may be exactly what Christians are railing against. They don’t want their kids to see the world in different ways because they believe the way they’ve taught is the only way. They don’t translate this to any other religious belief but their own (whether they are, Muslim, Jewish, other Christians, or card-carrying members of the “heathen horde”), and totally leave out that the founder of Christianity was known for questioning what he was taught when it enabled ignorance and harm. But moving on from this, there is still more at the root of this hullabaloo.

There are a lot of people in the world today who are scared by the idea of children asking questions, so they teach them not to. If they have questions, the answers are in the holy texts. If they don’t know how to read the texts or don’t know how to interpret them, then they are to have it interpreted for them. If they don’t accept the interpretation, then someone needs to explain why they should. The war on Philip Pullman and his books is not about Christianity vs. Atheism. There are a lot of arguments there, and these books are just indicative, a symptom, of the larger conversation. No, this war is about Thought vs. Insulation.

A parent’s first duty is to protect his or her child. There is no greater charge that a parent can have. But one has to wonder if shielding and insulating the child is truly protecting her. It is keeping her from experiencing the unexpected hardship of defending one’s beliefs with rational arguments. It is keeping her from understanding that the world is a curious place, not an evil one with an agenda from Satan. It keeps her from feeling the triumph of struggling with oneself over belief or non-belief – and winning.

Instead of these things, children are taught not to ask the questions and to keep them bottled inside. They are taught to be wary of their parents and the answers (even punishments) that they might receive. So they bottle up the questions and sit on them for years. Now there are quite a few people who make it to adulthood scarred but alive from these experiences as children. They are just as obsessive with protecting their children as their parents were, without paying any mind to the struggles that they had to go through.

But then there are those who bottle them up and have someone or something come along at just the right moment and uncork them. It could be anything from a sentence to a piece of art to a series of experiences, but it’s all it takes to totally leave theism behind and never look back.

If you are still wondering if you should take your kids to see the movie, I’d suggest doing so. Then discuss with them. Give them the books. Tell them the arguments. Don’t pretend that they don’t have the brains to cope with the message. Don’t act like children need to constantly have a guiding hand not only in their physical lives but their thinking lives as well. They needed to be treated intelligently, because they will know when they are being simultaneously coddled, dodged, and avoided.

Believe it or not, I’m speaking from experience. After I read His Dark Materials, I felt too distant from my parents to be able to ask them the questions I needed to. It didn’t help that when I did eventually ask, no one could give me a good answer. Because of this, I began questioning everything, not just the messages I had picked up on in the book. I found it hard to believe in anything because I was so incredibly skeptical of everything I’d been taught.

This type of situation can be avoided – not by burning the books and boycotting the movie, but allowing these things to run their course with careful discussion and a sharing atmosphere. As a result, a child raised in a theistic worldview will be able to approach the arguments and challenges to their religion and spirituality throughout their entire lives. If it’s not handled this way, it can be potentially disastrous. But that’s how it is with everything, not just a few books.

Obviously, this is my opinion. But I’m speaking from an experienced position. If someone chooses to wage war on thought, how can they honestly win? Thought and thinking should be welcomed, not shunned, so that children’s minds may be free to experience the world instead of being caged in a box of ignorance. Theism and thought, religion and philosophy, reason and belief -- they can all go together and make us all grow. To encourage these wondrous gifts that we’ve been given as humans into disuse is miserable, distressing, heart-wrenching.

Children should share in the world, not be taken from it. It is theirs to experience as well. Only responsible adults and parents can give them the facilities to appreciate the world and all of its wonder and mystery. Keeping them from seeing a movie or reading a book or asking a question is impulsive and suppressive, and can only do harm.