About Lee: Former students' union president and intermitent blogger since the turn of the century, who's aim is to promote objective thinking and a break from partisan politics when discussing the issues of the day. Batman, the Dark Knight review.
Wed 30th Jul 2008 – (41 Comments)
It has to be done, I'm a big Batman fan and to overlook the chance to review this film would be...well...I wouldn't feel right, so here it is, like it or not. If you don't want to read someone else's opinion I would recommend Millennium Elephant's account, though be warned, there are spoilers. But then, there will also be spoilers in my review, so if you haven't seen it then perhaps you should check out some Politalks stuff that will be coming back soon.
So, Batman for me started not that long ago. I managed to get my hands on the huge and supremely thought provoking No Man's Land set of stories (along with Cataclysm and Contagion). If you're at all a comic fan...nay, if you're a good story fan then you should check them out. They also, for me, go a long way to defining the type of Batman movie we now see in front of us. These stories tell of utter desperation, the necessity of taking responsibility and the sway that rumour and gossip can have over the good and the bad.
These are all themes expertly picked up in the Dark Knight which, despite being what some may call a blockbuster, was for me a poignant and relevant modern commentary on western politics, media, morality and, uh, facepaint.
Now about these politics. Who would have thought a summer movie could be quite so thought provoking? Throughout the film there are three strands of personality woven together, that of the Batman who still believes in the ends justifying the means, of Harvey Dent and true dogged justice and the Joker with an all more archaic point of view on what is good for society. The film starts with Batman as a saviour of the people, and gradually turns to the end of him becoming the villain. The cause? Public perception to a degree, but more ultimately a public need driven by the media for the easiest solution to present itself for them.
Like the recent situation here in the UK with the massive civil liberty infringements on our children due to perceived anti-social behaviour and knife crime, it is the public and ultimately their lack of comprehension that a complex and long term solution to their problems is required that has forced people in to the corners they find themselves when the credits roll. One thing is for sure, I'm sure Jacqui Smith would be tutting at Batman telling the vigilante wannabes to stop pretending to be him...we should all stand up to crime after all.
There are also other telling reflections upon our own society, when the two ferries have to choose to blow the other up (or not) we see that the non-prisoners are the ones quick to determine the value of a person's life. They also undergo a democratic proceeding to make a decision which is ultimately an exercise only in displaying their concerns with no-one truly willing to act on consensus. Meanwhile the supposed criminals are not eager to enact mass murder, nor were they given any vote on the matter either. No doubt it was ultimately just a plot situation put there to wrong foot the Joker, but to me the parallels with our societies attitude on crime, rehabilitation and justice are strong.
But centrally it is this idea that one person can change the world, as put by the first film Batman Begins, is not necessarily true as all it takes is one other man to stand in his way. A defeatist attitude perhaps, but one rife in the source material this character comes from, that a level of criminality is almost certainly always going to exist. Yet it is the boundaries of what that criminality do that are ultimately flexible and, more importantly, pliable. How was it though that Batman was ultimately able to defeat the Joker? Only through a mass surveillance device that could track down any individual in the city through peoples cell phones. Ok, so it's a major plot device but in all honesty it fits in the universe...it's also perhaps a not too subtle nod towards Batman's tendencies for keeping dossier's on everyone, and the creation of a massive spy satellite Brother Eye, in the comics.
But what about the rest of the movie as a piece of entertainment, I hear you cry!?
Well, I know people have played it down but Heath Ledger's portrayal of the Joker was perfect. If he was portraying a real life person he would be applauded (albeit posthumously) for managing to capture the essence of that individual. Well, the Joker is as fleshed out a character in any area you'd wish to observe in a real person and as such I have to applaud his performance as the brilliance it was. However to focus on Ledger is to ignore that there was an equally brilliant performance in the film, that of Aaron Eckhart. His portrayal of Harvey Dent and his ultimate downfall to Two-Face is the true backbone of this movie, with everything else woven around it. The tragedy of his situation, of Batman being fooled in to saving him rather than his childhood love, it struck at you as much as any intelligent film would manage in the run up to Oscar season.
Batman too had his rightful place, too often in these movies Batman becomes the side show to the villains...but not here. His intrinsic involvement in Harvey Dent, the GCPD and in the games of the Joker mean that he is as much of a character with true involvement and merit as any other actor in the film.
Some may begrudge that Batman was perhaps less prominent than in the first film, but this was never a film about Bruce Wayne and Batman as much as about Batman and the rest of the city. I also have to say that I was happily surprised that Two-Face featured for so much of the final part of the film. To me Two Face in the comics is a deep character that is at his best when the issues being tackled in the story are morality, ethics, personal choice, jealousy and how they all come together. To have revealed Two Face at the end, in all of the beautifully crafted CG glory that it was, as a teaser to a third movie would have worried me. Not quite as much as Joel Schumacher being re-employed to do the next movie, but the prospect of a movie with Two Face as the main villain is one of a very conflicted plot that would find it hard to concentrate on both him and Batman enough to do either character justice.
Action wise the movie lives up to expectations though in all honesty doesn't exceed them, and I could certainly have done with a bit more ball busting by the man in the cape, but when a movie is as well balanced as this one should probably not complain too loud about the small niggles.
So there we have it, for a blockbuster it managed to both be an amazing film with emotional depth and top class acting, while also politically spanning the issues of surveillance and illiberal practices in our war on crime, media power, the ignorance of the masses, and the resulting effects of conflicting ideologies.
But sexism and 9/11 connotations? Let's get real...
Rating 5/5
Share this article: 
Facebook
Digg
StumbleUpon
Subscribe: Site RSS feed - don't miss a post!
Comments
2. Lee Griffin - 31 Jul 2008 - 00:31
Hahaha, nice comment on Cillian (I’m not sure if it was him, apparantly it was, need to check IMDB).
Basically no, as I say I don’t see the sexism. I have been around the feminists too long of course as one of the first things I asked myself in any scene containing a woman was "is this going to be sexist", and of course my answer was no. For every damsel in distress moment there was a moment of personal, independent power. I hate how people can claim sexism existed in one situation while ignoring the complete opposite of sexism existing elsewhere.
Rachel as a character is one of few attorneys that has the strength of character, conviction and simple courage to stand up to the mob, in both films, yet this isn’t recognised so that some can claim some kind of subversive sexist agenda.
Barbara Gordon was essentially not in the film, and to count her what...three scenes(?)...as evidence of sexism rather than simply a) plot devices or b) displays of how a family would react in those situations is to me stretching it more than a little.
I asked myself would anyone have claimed sexism if the joker had grabbed Michael Caine at the party and thrown him out of the window, and indeed tied him up at the end. Sometimes it seems our annoyance of prejudice can actually lead to perceiving prejudice where it doesn’t exist, every supposedly "sexist" thing that happened had it’s place in the character and/or plot development of the film and could have been achieved with or without a female being it.
You have a point about the population ratio but ultimately the Batman universe doesn’t exactly have a lot of female figures in it. Perhaps that in itself is sexist, but I absolutely guarantee that when/if they come around to putting Talia Al Ghul in a film sexism will be cried at that too.
The fact that Barbara Gordon was only there as a plot device IS the sexism, Lee. And all the lines that little Jimmy had at the end? That should have been Barbara Junior’s?
4. Lee Griffin - 31 Jul 2008 - 00:54
I absolutely just have to disagree I’m afraid. It wouldn’t have been homophobia if a gay lover was used, it wouldn’t have been racism if a black person was used. The director was trying to cement the point that Gordon was dead, and the best way of making us think that was through people actually going to the lengths of making his family believe that he was. I can’t really see any sexism in the whole of his family being kidnapped either.
As for Jimmy’s lines....I’m afraid I don’t get what you’re trying to say, because the boy got to ask why Batman was running it’s sexism?
No, because by the history of the comics, it should have been Barbara Junior asking the questions about and being interested in Batman, but that would never do because she’s female and has to cling to her mummy.
As for the kidnapping and stuff: you really, REALLY need to do some research into Women in Refrigerators Syndrome.
6. Lee Griffin - 31 Jul 2008 - 02:10
Here’s the situation Jennie. Two face wants to punish Gordon, and the film-makers need to get a showdown happening. Gordon is currently pretty wrapped up in the Joker’s business, and simultaneously the ending means that Dent can’t just come out and threaten Gordon in public...indeed the public can’t know Dent is walking around just yet. How do you get Gordon to prioritise going after a guy that as yet isn’t known by Gordon to be anything other than angry, than staying with the op to take down the Joker?
Oh yeah...you use the family. Where is the sexism in this move? Oh that’s right there isn’t any. No discrimination has taken place here, and not every character, large or small, needs to have any real purpose in the film beyond plot development.
I get what you’re saying about the real Barbara, but there are other reasons that Barabara junior isn’t so involved, primarily I would say to make sure fanboys don’t go in to over speculation mode about batgirl is a good starter for 10.
Seriously, I honestly don’t understand where you’re reading sexism in to this. My number one test for sexism is could the situation have happened any differently were it not a female in the situation. Given that Barbara is family it’s pretty hard to replace her with anyone, female or otherwise.
Maybe it’s familyist, god damn them for portraying families as being unable to survive against schizophrenic maniacs while being unarmed, those bastards!
Here via Jennie, but you knew that.
There appears to be a problem with your layout - where the actual post should be I can only see comment #6, so I’m going to have to respond to the comment thread.
Barbara jr is reduced to a sniveling back-of-head in the one scene she gets, while her brother is given lots of lines about how wonderful Batman is and how he’s a hero, &c. The girl is ignored in favour of the boy, and the fact that it’s such a well known girl completely stripped of all agency to have it handed to the male child just makes the decision more obivious and grating.
OK, I can read the original post now, and I loved everything else you had to say. I cover more of the sexism (including Montoya/Ramirez) here in my blog:
http://innerbrat.livejournal.com/554346.html
And if you want more on the Women in Refrigerators trope, try the ever-wonderful TV Tropes:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WomenInRefrigerators
She’s not even reffered to as Barbara Gordon in the credits. She’s just "Gordon’s daughter."
Oh and the whole "lets see who you love the most?" bit? Gordon would pick the little boy, right?
I liked the film, I just think they could have handled the female characters better. As it stands they were damn lazy with them.
10. Lee Griffin - 31 Jul 2008 - 11:50
Gina: I think you’ve put it best, they were lazy with them I’ll certainly admit that. You also say...
"She’s not even reffered to as Barbara Gordon in the credits. She’s just "Gordon’s daughter.""
If that wasn’t proof enough that the writers want to ensure that no speculation occurs as to the future batgirl (which I’ve no doubt will never again occur if these people have any say), I don’t know what is.
11. InnerBrat - 31 Jul 2008 - 13:45
Lee,
If that wasn’t proof enough that the writers want to ensure that no speculation occurs as to the future batgirl.. I don’t know what is.
That’s exactly the point. It’s not enough for the movies to just not have Batgirl - which is fine, no one’s wanting a replication of the comicsverse - they had to remove any trace of Barbara Gordon from ’Gordon’s daughter’. It’s not just lazy, it’s actively diminishing the female character in favour of the male (James).
Do you not see the correlation between them being lazy with the female characters and sexism?Honestly, were they lazy with any male characters?
13. Lee Griffin - 31 Jul 2008 - 14:14
First, apologies for comments looking silly, I need to fix that :)
Gina: Yes, they were lazy with the black mob boss, they were lazy with commissioner Loeb, the mayor, the weaselly company snitch, the Chinese security guards. They took stereotypes where they were useful, they made simple decisions where complicated decisions weren’t.
What they did do in the film was portray Rachel as a hugely courageous, independently minded and intelligent individual that made her own choices and accepted them. It is regrettable that she was one of so few women in the film and in all honesty the only woman with any character development at all, but then that is also the nature of the Batman universe that the stories come from...rightly or wrongly.
Plenty of people, male or female, black or white, were used in ways to progress the plot...to simply sit here and pick out one small minority of those used in such a way and then try to attribute some agenda to that is in itself lazy.
14. John Coxon - 31 Jul 2008 - 15:36
I agree with Lee’s analysis - plenty of characters have been lazily portrayed, both male and female, and the main characters have been treated equally as far as I can see. There are less main female characters than male ones, true, but then, this is also true of the source material on which the film is based, so I’m not happy to attribute that to a fault with the film (take it up with the many, many writers who have been a part of Batman over at DC Comics).
As for Barbara Gordon, well, you don’t know why the film director reattributed those lines - to assume sexism is lazy thinking, IMHO. For instance, isn’t it possible that the little girl portrayed in Dark Knight hasn’t been credited as Barbara so that the director can feel free to bring in an older actress as Barbara later on in the films (and explain it by saying that she had moved out at the time that Batman Begins/Dark Knight are set) and thus get Batgirl in? Nobody is exploring the possible motives here, everyone is just saying ’this is sexist’ without any real argument other than ten seconds of speech at the end of a cumulative five hours of film.
15. marrog - 31 Jul 2008 - 16:15
I’m interested that your only excuse for the pitiful lack of interesting or strong female characters on the cast is ’it was like that in the comics’, which to me seems to be not an excuse at all. Perhaps it would wash if the films were set in the same era as the early comics, with all the contextual sexism that would require, but as the set-dressing, political context, music, pop culture, gadgetry etc etc are updated to today’s world so, surely, should the gender politics?
16. Lee Griffin - 31 Jul 2008 - 17:50
It’s not an excuse, it’s just stating that such is the way it is. Was the film any worse for not having so many women in it? Certainly not. Would the feminist cause have been benefited by shoehorning more female characters in...ultimately as villains or love interests given the saturation of "main" roles caused by the use of prevalent and historic characters from the batman universe. Marrog, I don’t think that you understand just where Nolan and his crew reside on this, with those crying sexist on one side (thankfully seemingly low in number) and those baying for blood at the slightest sign of the source material being butchered for the sake of political correctness.
"For instance, isn’t it possible that the little girl portrayed in Dark Knight hasn’t been credited as Barbara so that the director can feel free to bring in an older actress as Barbara later on in the films (and explain it by saying that she had moved out at the time that Batman Begins/Dark Knight are set)"
Most instances of Barbara Gordon happen to be an adoption scenario, so I would expect if they do choose to bring her in it would be on that kind of basis...perhaps not abortion but distant relation or circumstantial partnership of the gordon family and herself.
I alluded to it before but I’ll say it now. Would the situation at the end of the film been any different had only his son been taken? No doubt that would be sexist because it assumes a man would only care about his son. So instead just take the women..oh shit, women in ovens or something ;) Ramirez as a crooked cop (as opposed to the many male others across the two films, would it made any difference to the character if it were a man saying how they had been "caught early"? The effect was to show just how strong and historic corruption is, female or male.
In fact on that note the guy(s) that almost killed the snitch after the news broadcast. Where is the outcry about their beaviour, because I know for a fact that if a woman officer had been in that car with the gun you guys would be on here complaining about how it had to have been a woman because sexist directors couldn’t have a guy emotionally breaking down on the job at the thought of losing her man.
As it happens there were limitless examples of small levels of emotional depth in bit part players, male and female, the fact that only the female ones are being picked up on just goes to show how, ultimately, you are blind to the balance of the portrayal of the genders in the film and that you’re not really fussed about the portrayal of women as weak or insignificant (which taking into account the demographics they were no more so than the men), what you’re really fussed about is that women are ever portrayed as anything other than strong, independent and resilient at all. At least that’s how it’s coming across to me.
* is wondering why Lee is talking to everybody BUT Debi *
To quote Andrew on my LJ:
"Active sexism: When people of one gender are caricatured and made to look bad.
Passive sexism: When there are no good examples of one gender depicted, and all of the protagonists/role models are of the other gender.
Most people can spot active sexism, a lot of people seem to have a blind spot for the latter."
I’d say there’s both in The Dark Knight, but I can see arguments against the first. There’s certainly the second, though.
lol@ lazy thinking.
Aw, sorry I brought you outside your comfort zone. Jennie is right- It’s passive sexism, and sadly you can’t spot it.
I’d like to believe the theory that they want to bring in an older actress, but the very fact that you can hardly see her face blows that one right out of the water.
And you accuse US of grasping at straws?
19. Lee Griffin - 31 Jul 2008 - 19:57
"Passive sexism: When there are no good examples of one gender depicted, and all of the protagonists/role models are of the other gender."
Uh...Rachel? Who exactly is meant to be blind here? ;)
I apologise if it appears I’ve ignored Debi, I thought I responded to her point through someone else.
"I’d like to believe the theory that they want to bring in an older actress, but the very fact that you can hardly see her face blows that one right out of the water."
What relevance does barely seeing gordon’s daughter’s face have to the potential for bringing in an older character...i.e. a completely separate character?
I’m still yet to be swayed at all to the idea that passive sexism can exist if the film actively portrays the lead female as strong as they did. It’s like saying all blacks never aspire to anything....you know...if you ignore Martin Luther King, Senator Obama, Jesse Jackson, etc...
20. Lee Griffin - 31 Jul 2008 - 19:59
"Active sexism: When people of one gender are caricatured and made to look bad."
Also this is utter bullshit by the way. If ALL people of one gender were caricatured and made to look bad I would agree that is active sexism. Sadly for the case of sexism in this film that didn’t happen. You can’t pick and choose when sexism exists and when it doesn’t. It is either inherent or it is not there, it is either the director choosing to make all women in to something they’re not or it is different characters satisfying different roles.
Rachel was not a strong female character, Lee, she was a trophy to be fought over. I can’t believe that you’re seriously trying to pretend otherwise.
22. Lee Griffin - 31 Jul 2008 - 20:40
She was a character with a powerful career, a strong will and a determination. She showed courage throughout the film as well as integrity in keeping Batman’s secret. She was the only person from the non-criminal/vigilante world that was willing to step up to the Joker to save lives in the whole film. She was the one that made her relationship choices and she was the one that kept her cool despite facing death while her boyfriend freaked out. Now, just how much of that sort of character is weak?
Interesting though, at what point does a love triangle become sexist?
What a bunch of arse.
I’ll accept that Rachel’s character has been downgraded from Batman Begins, but so what?
Batman is a boy’s film.
Girlies are merely invited. If you enjoy comics, GO YOU! But I wasn’t kicking off about the piss-poor representation of men in Mona Lisa’s Smile. I just dismissed it as a chick-flick. Hey, it got me out of the house, and Olga enjoyed it.
24. harpymarx - 1 Aug 2008 - 11:54
I too wrote my own review of the film as I liked it esp. Heath Ledger’s excellent portrayal of the Joker...
http://harpymarx.wordpress.com/2008/07/27/the-dark-knight-whatta-joker/
BUT I have to say that Maggie Gyllenhaal’s Rachel was squandered as she is caught between 2 men. Her storyline revolves around 2 men. She isn’t a character in her own right instead she caught between a rock and a hard place....
It did make me think that was all Rachel’s character was about...to simplify things, the love object. Whether she was a good DA was secondary to her function as the love interest. What made Rachel "tick"?
Who knows, we didn’t really find out. She was the woman in the background caught between to leading men. Her scenes revolved around these 2 men.
25. InnerBrat - 1 Aug 2008 - 12:00
Lee,
Apologies first off if I repeat what I said in the comments on Jennie’s blog: I assume it’s all more useful here.
It seems like you’re ignoring me mostly because you’ve ignored my comments re: Barbara Gordon.
What they did do in the film was portray Rachel as a hugely courageous, independently minded and intelligent individual that made her own choices and accepted them.
Uh, no. The only decision she made was to choose one man over the other. A decision that was overridden by another man when he burned the evidence of it.
It is regrettable that she was one of so few women in the film and in all honesty the only woman with any character development at all, but then that is also the nature of the Batman universe that the stories come from
No it isn’t, and I suggest you pick up a comic from the DC line and read it before you ever make such a sweeping statement again.
Plenty of people, male or female, black or white, were used in ways to progress the plot...to simply sit here and pick out one small minority of those used in such a way and then try to attribute some agenda to that is in itself lazy.
Oh, we could also go on about the problemmatic treatment of people of colour as well, if you like. It’s just that YOU said the movie wasn’t sexist. You’re the one who defined the conversation to be about gender issues.
Interesting though, at what point does a love triangle become sexist?
At the point in which the woman’s choice is shown to be irrelevant to the actual plot of the film - she had no agency, all decisions were made for her.
Would the situation at the end of the film been any different had only his son been taken?
Yes. It wouldn’t have had Barbara Gordon, the ORACLE, cowering in fear in her Mum’s arms while her bother is singled out as the favourite child.
What if the situation had been reversed, Lee? What if for some reason or other, it was the Flying Graysons deeply involved in the plot, and all the important lines were given to Dick’s barely-canon sister, whie the boy who may or may not become Nightwing is reduced to a non-entity? Would you be complaining about "shoehorning more female characters in", or would you still be making excuses like "well, maybe the people who cast Katie Holmes and Maggie Gyllenhaal to play the same person didn’t want to be tied down to an adult casting choice by casting a child"?
women in ovens or something ;)
Silly boy. If you knew your DC, you’d know that it’s mothers that go in ovens. Girlfriends go in fridges. ;)
Aaron,
Honestly, I’m not sure I can fully give this the response it deserved without resorting to profanity on a stranger’s blog.
So you’re not a fan of romance. Good for you. If you want to go and talk about the misandry in Mona Lisa’s Smile, go to a place where they’re discussing that movie and talk about it there.
Batman is not a boys’ film, it is a film for fans of Batmam, of which I happen to be one, and it’s as a fan of Batman that I noticed and took umbrage with the character assassinations being performed on Barbara Gordon and Renee Montoya. It’s as a feminist comic fan that I noticed that both those characters were women - and the only women brought over from the comics.
Just because you don’t care about sexism doesn’t mean it wasn’t there.
26. Lee Griffin - 1 Aug 2008 - 12:38
Harpy: "Who knows, we didn’t really find out. She was the woman in the background caught between to leading men. Her scenes revolved around these 2 men."
Well the film was primarily about these two men. This is ultimately where I find trouble with sexism claims, is that the film wasn’t about Rachel. Yes she was a major player in the emotional fall out of the film through her interaction with the main characters. Is this wrong or sexist? I don’t see it as such, I see it as just being the plot of the film. It’s not like the writers have said "Women are only good for being a plot device", they’ve just written a film where Two Face is born from the tragedy of her loss. Why read more in to it than that?
InnerBrat: "It seems like you’re ignoring me mostly because you’ve ignored my comments re: Barbara Gordon."
I’ve not ignored them, like I said above I believe that the daughter was too young in the first film to do anything with and hence the son was the one with the fascination with batman. We don’t even know if the daughter is ever being written as the Barbara Gordon we know from the comics. Could they have given the daughter more exposure? Sure. Does it really make any difference? No. I also think you greatly over-estimate how many lines James has in the film which I seem to remember as being two.
"A decision that was overridden by another man when he burned the evidence of it."
Yes, but it was her decision. It’s not like it was influenced by money or power thus degrading her s a woman was it? She came to her own conclusions on what was best for her life. As for the "over-riding" of that decision...pah...the point of the film’s ending is that sometimes we all need to believe what we want in order to be able to move on. Her decision wasn’t changed, nor her empowerment in making it.
"No it isn’t, and I suggest you pick up a comic from the DC line and read it before you ever make such a sweeping statement again."
I suggest you don’t assume I haven’t read the comics. I can count on two hands at most how many female villains there have been directly related to Batman, whereas there are countless dozens of male/mutant ones. Batman’s helpers? That would be roughly 50/50 which also is reflected in the film perfectly. The simple fact is that in the DC universe the female population in the Batman corner of it is very slim by comparison to the male.
"Oh, we could also go on about the problemmatic treatment of people of colour as well"
There was no problematic treatment of anyone, that’s my point. You’re seeing ghosts that aren’t there.
"At the point in which the woman’s choice is shown to be irrelevant to the actual plot of the film - she had no agency, all decisions were made for her."
Her choice wasn’t irrelevant to the plot though, it’s through her telling Dent that she is ready to commit that makes the tragedy all the more poignant, that cements the idea that he has lost not only a lover but his family.
"Yes. It wouldn’t have had Barbara Gordon, the ORACLE, cowering in fear in her Mum’s arms while her bother is singled out as the favourite child."
Who says it was the same character you think it was? I think you’re taking huge almost fanboyish leaps of logic here, firstly for assuming just because there is a daughter that it is definitely the barbara gordon we know, and secondly that a young child isn’t going to be scared shitless by a man with half his face missing.
"What if the situation had been reversed, Lee? What if for some reason or other, it was the Flying Graysons deeply involved in the plot, and all the important lines were given to Dick’s barely-canon sister, whie the boy who may or may not become Nightwing is reduced to a non-entity?"
Assuming they treated it the same way, i.e. never naming or making a point about dick actually being dick, then I’d respect the film writers decision to write the movie as they wish.
I can’t make any sense out of where you were going with the sentence after that, sorry.
"and it’s as a fan of Batman that I noticed and took umbrage with the character assassinations being performed on Barbara Gordon and Renee Montoya."
Montoya wasn’t in the film, they didn’t call her Montoya specifically BECAUSE of wanting to have her be corrupt. For all we know Barbara Gordon wasn’t even in the film as we know her, that’s the film makers choice..same as they chose to not use Robin, to not have joker "created" from falling in to a vat of something, and to change the batmobile in to a tank.
I can at least see the problem now, you like (as I do) the female characters in the Batman universe, and you are making personal leaps in assigning those characters to those that are not explicitly defined as being them...the trouble is you then find outrage at how they’re treated based on your own assumptions.
27. Unity - 1 Aug 2008 - 13:10
Dear oh dear.
This is all getting a little hyperventilated over at what was, at best, a minor addition to the Batman universe.
Rachel’s character may have been downgraded from Batman Begin’s and Gordon’s daughter remains a cypher for the time-being, maybe a hint at the introduction of Batgirl, maybe not... so what!
What no one seems to seeing as yet is that by ’clearing the decks’ of female characters in ’The Dark Knight’ the team behind this new series of films has opened the way for the possible introduction of a far more significant and interesting female character in the next film - Selina Kyle.
Outside of the Batman/Joker relationship, exploring the Batman’s ambiguous relationship with Kyle is by far the most interesting direction that the next film could take, particularly if they take the hint from Kyle’s brief appearance in Miller’s ’Dark Knight Returns’ as to just how much history the two share.
As a new exploration of the Batman universe, I don’t think you can really judge how the overall attitude towards gender roles will shape up until Kyle enters the frame, not even if you bring in Barbara Gordon, short of them taking the very radical step of emulating Miller by bringing in Robin as a teenage girl.
28. Lee Griffin - 1 Aug 2008 - 13:20
Totally agree Unity, which is largely a situation caused...as I said...by the amount of accessible female characters that exists in the Batman universe (to this type of film anyway). They could stick in Leslie Thompkins but she should have been in it from the start if she was to be the motherly and moralistic character from the comics, and they could have a good crack at putting montoya in properly.
But ultimately, as you say, I’m confident that the writers will treat (as they have done as far as I’m concerned) any female character with the intelligence they have applied to the rest of the film.
Also...Selina Kyla begs that Black Mask and a wider selection of low level henchmen are a must as far as I’m concerned ;)
Tried 4 times to post this...
Innerbrat,
Lee’s cool. Be as vitriolic as you please.
You know, some boys like ponies and play with dolls. They’re still girl’s things though. In the main, Batman was, when conceived, aimed at comic-reading boys. Some comics, say X-Men, are less clearly defined. But of course you know I’m teasing. I wish my partner shared my love of comics, video-games, and South Park - alas she thinks they’re silly, and instead spends her spare time watching House and thinking of new ways to decorate the living room.
Just because you don’t care about sexism doesn’t mean it wasn’t there.
The thing is, we all consume media through a prism. If one was looking for prejudice towards pot-plants, I’m pretty sure it could be found in the movie (did you notice the sheer lack of shrubbery in that last scene? Outrageous).
The film had many deliberate themes. It is very much a post-9/11 movie, and it also deals with important super-hero related issues such as vigilante vs. legitimate lawmen, something comic-books have dealt with forever.
Maybe it did deal the female characters a shitty hand. But I don’t believe this was deliberate. The story revolved around Batman-universe characters and their struggle, it chose 3 men from a very male list. It’s careless - and maybe a *touch* sexist - that Rachel et al were handled so lazily, but as I don’t think it was so controversial.
30. InnerBrat - 1 Aug 2008 - 16:38
Aaron:
I don’t think a hearty "Fuck you" is all that vitriolic ;)
You know, some boys like ponies and play with dolls. They’re still girl’s things though
If ponies and dolls suffered from a strong vein of misandry (they might do: I haven’t had much encounter with either), I’d expect my pony-liking doll-playing male friends to be pointing it out, as well. Certainly, if a girl claimed "there is no misandry in ponies" and a bunch of pony-liking men said "uh yeah, there is," I’d expect her to actually listen to what they said, and not just dismiss it with "oh go and read comics then and stop complaining, you silly boys who see misandry everywhere", because that’s just rude.
If one was looking for prejudice towards pot-plants, I’m pretty sure it could be found in the movie
If a pot-plant said to me after the movie: "you know, I think that that movie was unfair to pot plants, because of x,y,z", I’d listen to it, because let’s be honest: I have never experienced anti-pot plant prejudice, neither am I as well versed in pot plant prejudice as an actual pot plant. If I turned to the pot plant and said "geez, you pot plants see pot plant prejudice everywhere. Go and watch the Gardening channel so we humans can carry on pretending you don’t exist."
See where I’m going there? You might as well be excusing a Minstral show because only white people watched them.
Innerbrat,
You actually made me laugh with that pot-plant line. Thank you. :)
Okay. I concede that this debate has merit, if only to ensure future directors of the series take the female roles as seriously as they did the male ones. Rachel was no-where near as complex as she was in Batman Begins, where she had an impact on Batman beyond being a hot piece of skirt to save half-way through.
As I said before, it may have been careless, but I don’t think deliberate.
32. Innerbrat - 1 Aug 2008 - 18:14
Aaron,
Acknowledging the merit is all I need, ta :)
Unfortunately it wasn’t deliberate, no: as Jennie said above: it’s a form of passive sexism, when sexism happens because people aren’t paying attention.
33. Lee Griffin - 1 Aug 2008 - 20:30
Yet passive sexism is not sexism at all, it’s just an opinion over how much better something could have been done from the view of one person. As Aaron said, passively this film could have discriminated against many things by your definition. If you wish to believe that women have been hurt by the lack of complexity in rachel’s character among other things, then that’s cool...I’ll just continue believing that movies are written with a finite scope and timescale to work to, and not every aspect of human life can be equally portrayed for the sake of not "passively" offending everyone.
Passive sexism, if it exists at all, is only in the minds of those that also believe in political correctness as far as I’m concerned. Feel free to tell me why I’m wrong. 
34. Innerbrat - 1 Aug 2008 - 22:06
Lee,
Oh boy. OK, before anything else - how much knowledge do you have of feminism rhetoric about fiction?
"Batman is a boy’s film. "
And Aaron is a complete tosser! See, I can make sweeping and inaccurate statements too!
Seriously, mate, that sort of shit is beneath you.
36. Lee Griffin - 2 Aug 2008 - 10:16
Innerbrat: What does that have to do with my question about how passive sexism as defined on Jennies blog not being able to exist?
Don’t ask me how much knowledge I have on a subject, it’s relative and to ask it is patronising. Tell me what you think and what your point is, if I knew beforehand what lead to that opinion (if it is based in feminism rhetoric) great, if I don’t then even better and I’ll consider myself educated while reassessing if it changes my stance.
Seriously, mate, that sort of shit is beneath you. ~ Jennie #45
But of course you know I’m teasing. ~ Aaron #29
Yes, and there’s a time and a place for it, and generally that time and place is somewhere where people who are lurking and might not know you can see your body language and hear your tone of voice and know that you are teasing too.
C’mon Jennie, lighten up.
40. ginasketch - 3 Aug 2008 - 18:45
Oh look, you told someone in a feminist argument to lighten up. We’ve never heard that one before.
Oh for fucks sake.
Seriously. I give up on this twatting medium.
Top 5:
Latest Comments:
wow gold in... The clever/dumb balance is restored
wow gold in... A short one: Great post re: Vince Cable
wow gold in... A short one: Great post re: Vince Cable
Lee Griffin in... Tories actually are preparing to govern...
Jennie Rigg in... Tories actually are preparing to govern...
Lee Griffin in... The Redruth curfew - a truly illiberal act
Eddie Osborne in... The Redruth curfew - a truly illiberal act
septicisle in... How far the mighty have fallen...
Lee Griffin in... The nail in the coffin for a windfall tax?
UK Voter in... The nail in the coffin for a windfall tax?
Calendar:
| « July 2008 » | ||||||
| Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat | Sun |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | |
| 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 |
| 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 |
| 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 |
| 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | |||
Search:
Latest Politalks:
So what the hell is going on, Labour are slumping in the polls and yet those most naturally in their shadow able to take their place (the Lib Dems) are failing to capitalise in the polls. And even though the Tories are enjoying high times so much they must think it's the 80's all over again (in more ways than one) they have failed to deliver one serious or credible attack against the government that would show them to be the true heir's to the throne. So to speak. Anyway, on with this weeks Politalks. NSFW as usual, transcript can be found if you go through to read more!
(Wed 30th Apr 2008) SUBSCRIBE
Transcript and full size video
Latest News:
Casting the Net: 7th August - My Birthday, Bristol wasting money, NHS rat problem, Belgium and ITV (2)
Cycling away (0)
Categories:
Bloggers (20)
Post (246)
--Art (1)
--Bloggers under attack (1)
--Comedy (2)
----Satire (4)
------Politalks (10)
--Community (4)
--Countries (0)
----Australia (1)
----China (2)
----Counties/Towns (0)
------Bristol (3)
------Cornwall (2)
----Darfur (3)
----EU (12)
----Iraq (1)
----Italy (0)
----Middle East (5)
----USA (18)
--Critical response (26)
--Culture (4)
--Deaths (4)
--Demographics (0)
----Children (12)
------Boys (0)
------Girls (0)
------Yobs (7)
----Disability (2)
----Farmers (3)
----Pensioners (1)
--Disgusting traits (6)
----Apathy (4)
----Authoritarianism (27)
----Avoiding questions (11)
----Boring (2)
----Clandestine (12)
----Discrimination (17)
----Flip flopping (6)
----Forced worship (2)
----Hidden agenda (12)
----Hypocrisy (17)
----Immaturity (3)
----Misrepresentation (4)
----Moronic (18)
----NIMBYism (4)
----Neglect (6)
----Over-reaction (3)
----Petulance (3)
----Prejudice (10)
----Selfishness (18)
----Undermining (8)
----Vigilantism (3)
----Vile (5)
----Xenophobia (2)
----\"Positive Action\" (1)
--False Priorities (28)
--Film (2)
--Gaming (5)
--Internet (7)
----P2P (3)
--Language (2)
--Lists (2)
--Long time coming (7)
--Music (2)
--Oddball (8)
--Organisations (1)
----BBC (10)
----BBFC (1)
----Charity (2)
----Compass (2)
----Councils (4)
------Bristol Council (4)
----Dentists (3)
----FSA (1)
----ITV (1)
----Liberal Conspiracy (20)
------Casting the net (16)
----MAMAA (1)
----Mary Whitehouse (1)
----Media (28)
------Daily Mail (0)
------Grieving Widows (1)
------Guardian (0)
------Telegraph (1)
------The Sun (0)
------Times (1)
----NHS (8)
----National Lottery (1)
----Northern Rock (5)
----Police (9)
----Television (2)
------Big Brother (1)
----Transport (9)
------First Bus (1)
------Oyster cards (1)
------Trains (1)
----Women\'s Institute (1)
--Other traits (0)
----Best practice (6)
----Common sense (6)
----Cool (0)
----Fairness (4)
----Honesty (4)
--Politics (133)
----Crime issues (15)
------Child Abuse (2)
------Justice (3)
------Knives (5)
------Law (13)
--------Libel (1)
------Prohibition (7)
------Sex Offenders (1)
----Economic issues (18)
------Benefits (10)
------Budget (3)
------Fuel Poverty (8)
------Housing (7)
------Inflation (4)
------Minimum Wage (2)
------Money (37)
------Nationalisation (3)
------Poverty Line (2)
------Privatisation (2)
------Rich/Poor divide (5)
------Salaries (6)
------Taxes (18)
--------Windfall tax (3)
------Unemployment (5)
----Education issues (17)
------Schools (9)
--------Exclusions (1)
--------National Curriculum (4)
--------Teachers (1)
------Students (3)
--------Student Loans (2)
------University (5)
----Elections (28)
------Electoral reform (7)
------US Primaries 2008 (0)
----Ethical issues (3)
------Abortion (4)
------Age restrictions (4)
------Animal cruelty (4)
------Animal testing (1)
------Capital punishment (2)
------Corporate Profits (3)
------Curfews (1)
------DNA (2)
------Deportation (1)
------Detention without charge (17)
------Feminism (1)
------File sharing (1)
------ID Cards (6)
------Organ donation (4)
------Prostitution (3)
--------Brothels (1)
------Surveillance (6)
--------CCTV (1)
------Terrorism (9)
----Foreign issues (2)
------Military (5)
------Trafficking (1)
------War (3)
----Global issues (4)
------Climate change (11)
------Environment (11)
--------Energy (2)
----------Renewables (1)
----Liberalism (2)
----Local issues (3)
----Parliament (18)
------Bills (6)
--------Changing clocks (3)
------Debate (1)
------MPs (8)
--------Alan Johnson (1)
--------Alistair Darling (3)
--------Bill Rammell (2)
--------Boris Johnson (1)
--------Caroline Flint (3)
--------David Cameron (12)
--------David Davis (1)
--------David Lammy (1)
--------Derek Conway (2)
--------Frank Field (1)
--------George Osbourne (1)
--------Gordon Brown (30)
--------Harriet Harperson (0)
--------Hazel Blears (1)
--------Jack Straw (1)
--------Jacqui Smith (14)
--------Julia Goldsworthy (1)
--------Keith Vaz (2)
--------MP Expenses (2)
--------Maggie Thatcher (1)
--------Nick Clegg (13)
--------Norman Lamb (1)
--------Tim Yeo (1)
--------Vince Cable (4)
------PMQs (13)
----Personal issues (6)
------Age (4)
------Health issues (10)
--------Alcohol (11)
--------Food (10)
----------Fast Food (1)
--------Obesity (1)
--------Smoking (1)
------Patriotism (1)
------Sex (5)
------Work-life balance (1)
----Political Parties (3)
------Coalition (0)
------Democrats (10)
------Labour (46)
------Lib Dem (33)
------Rebellion (1)
------Republicans (5)
------Tory (34)
----Political vernacular (0)
------Balanced and Sustainable (3)
------Change (5)
------Crisis (2)
------Gimmick (3)
------Propaganda (4)
------Targets (10)
------Waste (4)
----Race issues (3)
------Immigration (7)
----Scandal (4)
------Political donations (3)
----Strikes (0)
----UK Constitution (1)
--Protests (10)
--Public engagement (9)
----Polls (7)
----Referendum (2)
--Public figures (0)
----Barack Obama (13)
----Celebrity (2)
----Heath Ledger (2)
----Hillary Clinton (11)
----John Edwards (3)
----John McCain (0)
----
1. Jennie Rigg - 31 Jul 2008 - 00:07
Lee, seriously, you didn’t spot any sexism at all? The population of Gotham is 80% male, and the female 20% are there to be either evil or to have a Terrible Fate in order to motivate male characters? Both Barbara Gordon and Rachel Dawes are classic women in refrigerators, and to do this to Barbara Gordon in particular...
Seriously, I enjoyed the film, but I repeat to you what I said on Millennium’s post: just because you didn’t notice sexism does not mean it wasn’t there. I didn’t notice Cillian Murphy, but am happy to accept that he was actually in the film.