The Dark Knight Trilogy (Christopher Nolan, 2005-2012)

[Matt]

Manola Dargis and A.O. Scott had a very good discussion/article about this very thing recently:

A critic who voices skepticism about a comic book movie — or any other expensive, large-scale, boy-targeted entertainment — is likely to be called out for snobbery or priggishness, to be accused of clinging to snobbish, irrelevant standards and trying to spoil everyone else’s fun.

What the defensive fans fail or refuse to grasp is that they have won the argument. Far from being an underdog genre defended by a scrappy band of cultural renegades, the superhero spectacle represents a staggering concentration of commercial, corporate power. The ideology supporting this power is a familiar kind of disingenuous populism. The studios are just giving the people what they want! Foolproof evidence can be found in the box office returns: a billion dollars! Who can argue with that? Nobody really does.

It's really sad, I think. Maybe it's because I've recently spend a lot of time reading about the 1930s, but I feel like I'm always on high alert for indications of rising fascism. The silencing of reasonable criticism by the masses is a really frightening trend, and it seems to be happening more and more often.

[matrixschmatrix]

I think there is, or can be, a snobbery to a critique such as Rex Reed's, which basically seems to read that he refused to engage with the material because of the nature of the story rather than anything about the way it's told. That seems legitimately to be priggish, regardless of how popular or big budget the thing being dismissed is.

Which isn't to say there isn't a real phenomenon of people attacking anyone who goes after blockbusters on the assumption that everyone likes those really, then just thinks themselves out of it- that really can be worryingly anti intellectual and so forth.

[Matt]

It's not the anti-intellectualism I worry about so much as the threats of violence and the website attacks. Stuff like the hacking of the PBS website after the WikiLeaks/Bradley Manning episode of Frontline and the reactions to Anita Sarkeesian's statements on women in video games.

[dx23]

Nobody really does. It's really sad, I think. Maybe it's because I've recently spend a lot of time reading about the 1930s, but I feel like I'm always on high alert for indications of rising fascism. The silencing of reasonable criticism by the masses is a really frightening trend, and it seems to be happening more and more often.

It's not the anti-intellectualism I worry about so much as the threats of violence and the website attacks. Stuff like the hacking of the PBS website after the WikiLeaks/Bradley Manning episode of Frontline and the reactions to Anita Sarkeesian's statements on women in video games.

I agree with you on that, especially when fanaticism turns into an irrational angry mob. It happens when someone questions religious believes and old school traditions. Still, there are many Rex Reeds and Armond Whites now that love this kind of shit. They belittle any film they want because the topic or source is not from something they think it's prestigious. They review these films with such contempt that it truly insults people like me, who have been following comics for years. Reed's review in particular reads like a snobbish, pseudo-intelectual piece whose purpose is too attack comic book fans and popular taste instead of actually analyzing the film by its own merits. While I often think that their contrarian views is just a ploy for attention and website hits, there are some like Reed that do this every time a comic book film comes out. Their dismissive, condescending attitude just fuels these people who are already in a defensive mode from being picked on constantly for their taste in reading material.

[matrixschmatrix]

It's not the anti-intellectualism I worry about so much as the threats of violence and the website attacks. Stuff like the hacking of the PBS website after the WikiLeaks/Bradley Manning episode of Frontline and the reactions to Anita Sarkeesian's statements on women in video games.

Obviously, the threats of violence are both frightening and indefensible. The website hacking doesn't seem like it really fits into this conversation, though- it's a complicated subject, and one where I have some sympathy with the hackers in a lot of cases (particularly as moneyed interests have such a monopoly on the 'legitimate' media outlets and thus generally have enormous control over what is reported on things like Wikileaks) but it seems to me to be part of a different phenomenon than the fanboys unable to take criticism thing.

[Matt]

Still, there are many Rex Reeds and Armond Whites now that love this kind of shit.

Well, that's the other side of the coin, isn't it? Irresponsible editors and publishers who hire professional cranks and contrarians just to stir up controversy and drive up pageviews.

But these terroristic reactions that are just out of all proportion to the perceived offense, over such innocuous things like movies and video games and comic books, are just so depressing. Can you imagine if all that rage was focused in a useful, constructive direction?

[MichaelB]

Talking of reasonable responses, Rush Limbaugh claims that the film is part of an anti-Romney conspiracy.

[Matt]

The website hacking doesn't seem like it really fits into this conversation, though- it's a complicated subject, and one where I have some sympathy with the hackers in a lot of cases (particularly as moneyed interests have such a monopoly on the 'legitimate' media outlets and thus generally have enormous control over what is reported on things like Wikileaks) but it seems to me to be part of a different phenomenon than the fanboys unable to take criticism thing.

You're right, the PBS/Frontline instance is a lot more complicated and probably not the best example, but people did succeed in taking down Marshall Fine's website after he posted his negative TDKR review.

[Jeff]

The virulently misogynist stuff I saw spewed about Christy Lemire at various sites was particularly vile. Think about the chilling effects this kind of stuff has on art criticism in general. Marshall Fine has already said he won't be the first to upload a negative review about this kind of film in the future. He says he'll still ultimately write what he believes, but he's stifling himself, to an extant, out of fear of violent mob reprisal.

[Professor Wagstaff]

I'm curious as to where we go from here in terms of the way the comic book audience has lashed out at critics (I'm still sore about Samuel L. Jackson's tweet to have A.O. Scott lose his job over panning The Avengers). The Lemire comments are unforgivable in that they take a really ugly and misogynistic turn from most of what came before. Is this really the audience that is dictating what movies we'll continue to see getting made in the future? Oh Christ...

[hearthesilence]

Outrageous and sad. It becomes more difficult to make the case for comic book films as valid art forms when the most vocal supporters make themselves out to be infantile, irascible misogynists.

[Grand Illusion]

Still, there are many Rex Reeds and Armond Whites now that love this kind of shit. They belittle any film they want because the topic or source is not from something they think it's prestigious. They review these films with such contempt that it truly insults people like me, who have been following comics for years. Reed's review in particular reads like a snobbish, pseudo-intelectual piece whose purpose is too attack comic book fans and popular taste instead of actually analyzing the film by its own merits. While I often think that their contrarian views is just a ploy for attention and website hits, there are some like Reed that do this every time a comic book film comes out. Their dismissive, condescending attitude just fuels these people who are already in a defensive mode from being picked on constantly for their taste in reading material.

The problem is on your end if you're personally offended when someone attacks comic books. You say you feel "picked on constantly." It's not up to a film critic to take into consideration people who have been "following comics for years." You're predisposed to like the stuff.

I say good on Rex Reed for calling a spade a spade. I don't agree with every detail he cites, but at least he's brave enough to call out the trend of comic book movies exhalted by "persecuted" fanboys. I've seen Batman Begins and Dark Knight, and I think they get a ridiculous amount of undue credit for their themes and their "bleakness". Dark Knight raises themes, such as surveillance, but never actually engages with them. These films are bleak for people who think getting stuck in traffic is bleakness.

Reed said that the characters are one-dimensional, the plot seems like it's being made up on the spot (like Marion Cotillard's character), and that the themes amount to nothing amidst the sound and fury. He doubts character motivations and finds the plots incomprehensible. These are all criticisims of the film, not the source material. And they're certainly not "picking on" the fans. I didn't find the original Dark Knight to be incomprehensible in terms of narrative, but it's themes are just nods towards actual intellectual concepts, not engagement.

But if we're being honest? Yeah, this has something to do with the source material. It's a film with guys in rubber suits fighting, sourced from a picture-book medium targeted at teen boys. We can criticize Twilight for its source material, and we can criticize this. If we're going to get defensive over critiques of source material, where does it stop? Can we critique Transformers for basing a film off plastic toys? What can we say when the first coloring book adaptation comes out? It's ultimately useless since this is a Summer blockbuster pre-ordained to make a billion dollars, but I say Reed is fighting the good fight in favor of a better cinema.

[Matt]

I think you're giving both Rex Reed and the mob too much credit. This is not about the source material and its pedigree. It's about fans who have already decided that TDKR is a perfect movie before having seen it and attempting to silence anyone who dares disagree. The outrage at Rotten Tomatoes was not about any particulars of the film or the source materials or any criticism thereof. It was about the critics who dared tarnish the 100% rating.

[matrixschmatrix]

The reason one can critique Twilight for the source from which it's adapted is that the source material, in ways carried over to the films, is both poorly constructed and full of noxious gender politics (not to mention boring as hell.) Criticizing Transformers for the material from which it was adapted is silly- the problem isn't that they're movies based on toys, the problem is that they're awful movies based on toys. The critiques should be limited to what the movie actually is and does, not the perceived cultural cachet of the source material.

Of course, getting up in arms about a negative review of a movie that hasn't been released yet obviously falls into somewhat the same trap- when people are angry for tribalistic reasons, because they feel that 'insulting' a movie one is insulting their fan community, that too isn't based on the content of the actual movie but the perceived cultural cachet of comic books or video games or whatever the hell. Which, again, is stupid.

[knives]

That's a grotesquely immature, inaccurate, and ignorant reading of comic books which as a whole medium is far more than what you have characterized it as. Even just amongst the superhero works, let alone great works like Black Hole, You have very mature and complex tales like Astro City and Moore's For the Man Who Has Everything which stands amongst the greatest works of 20th century art. To say that an entire medium is just for teen boys is just pure fallacy and renders what valid arguments you might develop completely invalid.

[Finch]

Anyone else think that Nolan & co should step in (in fact, should have stepped in when the same nonsense happened over the last film) and address the mob with a gentle reminder that polite disagreement is acceptable but misogynist bile and violent threats are not? If I was Nolan, I'd be utterly embarrassed by the manner in which some of my following behaved.

[knives]

I get the suspicion that he's not much of an Internet person so someone would have to inform him first.

[flyonthewall2983]

Anyone else think that Nolan & co should step in (in fact, should have stepped in when the same nonsense happened over the last film) and address the mob with a gentle reminder that polite disagreement is acceptable but misogynist bile and violent threats are not? If I was Nolan, I'd be utterly embarrassed by the manner in which some of my following behaved.

Absolutely (if he is even aware of it). I can't imagine my life as so empty to even be pissed off about a bad review of anything. At most, I get a little bit irritable but I get over it. These people should too, and as said before, put that anger to constructive use.

[Matt]

Is it too cynical of me to think Warner Bros. would not let him respond even if he wanted to lest he affect the opening box office?

[hearthesilence]

A more accurate description of these movies is "super hero" movies, really. (Better because it would rope in movies that aren't based on comic books but are really no different than what we're seeing anyway.)

Regardless, I think it's more or less understood that the detractors are thinking of these and not the comics knives had in mind - I'm sure there are plenty of fans of Ghost World and American Splendor on this board. Unfortunately, we're going to see Guardians of the Galaxy on the big screen a lot sooner than Chris Ware's Jimmy Corrigan or Paul Chadwick's Concrete.

[flyonthewall2983]

Is it too cynical of me to think Warner Bros. would not let him respond even if he wanted to lest he affect the opening box office?

It's crossed my mind. Probably why he didn't respond last time it happened, too.

[mfunk9786]

He can respond if he wants to, Warners' concerns be damned. He's just being a apathetic at best, a coward at worst. Or I suppose you could reverse those.

[knives]

A more accurate description of these movies is "super hero" movies, really. (Better because it would rope in movies that aren't based on comic books but are really no different than what we're seeing anyway.)

Regardless, I think it's more or less understood that the detractors are thinking of these and not the comics knives had in mind - I'm sure there are plenty of fans of Ghost World and American Splendor on this board. Unfortunately, we're going to see Guardians of the Galaxy on the big screen a lot sooner than Chris Ware's Jimmy Corrigan or Paul Chadwick's Concrete.

That's why I decided to mention For the Man Who Has Everything which is Superman story and you can't really get more superhero than that (also on recommendation is All-Star Superman which should be essential reading before people talk superhero comics). I was particularly rankled by his "picture-book medium targeted at teen boys" which largely says that even a master of multiple mediums and true pioneer like Winsor McCay was merely making picture books that should only be read by teen boys. If one were to limit their view so they could say that of any artistic medium ever and provides no contrustive thought to how the medium functions nor to its often times rich history.

[swo17]

To be fair though, we're taking it for granted that something like Twilight is targeted at teen girls, but a lot of the people reading it are adults. Is it really that insulting to insinuate that a work is primarily aimed at a younger demographic?

[Andre Jurieu]

Unfortunately, we're going to see Guardians of the Galaxy on the big screen a lot sooner than Chris Ware's Jimmy Corrigan or Paul Chadwick's Concrete.

If they're using the DnA source material for Guardians of the Galaxy, it's probably going to be a fairly entertaining movie. In fact, I thought the Guardians of the Galaxy source-material was more suited to Whedon's style/tastes than The Avengers, so it feels like a real missed opportunity.