document.write("

$\"Gravatar\"$ (crossposted from here)

This really is the definitive post on Dark Knight. But a few quick thoughts. First, I think Acephalous's attempt to rehabilitate the film from attempts to understand it solely as a \"balls-out obvious apolog[y] for the authoritarian, repressive 'excesses' of global capitalism\" is instructive, and definitely worth reading.

Second, Ryan writes that we are currently experiencing the\"repetition-as-farce of the '50s\"—but this doesn't strike me as a new phenomenon. Isn't it more the case that post-war American culture is perpetually returning to the '50s as a site of degrading, doomed unity?

This is to say that Jameson's claim that WWII is the moment of highest American nostalgia par excellence is, I think, fundamentally correct, with the revision that it's more the period from Dec. 1941 to August 29, 1949, the day the Russians exploded their first atomic bomb. The '50s are the memory of \"the good '40s\" combined with and juxtaposed against the reality of 8/29/49—they are the dawning but perpetually unfinished recognition of how it all will go / is going / has already gone wrong. In other words, the '50s themselves were a repetition-as-farce the first time around of the ideologically unacceptable, apocalyptic shock at the end of the previous decade—and we find ourselves going back to the '50s for answers whenever we get shocked again.

That's why, when 1973 is the year of disaster for American capitalism, Happy Days premieres in January 1974.
G C | Homepage | 08.07.08 - 10:25 am | #

$\"Gravatar\"$ \"The producers have figured out how to please everyone: maintain earnestness regardless of the inherent absurdity of the genre, be 'topical' by way of empty allegory, be spectacularly violent, never stop moralizing. Meet these requirements, and a great deal of variety is possible: one has free reign to be jokey or serious, bright or gloomy, undisguisedly sexist, racist, homophobic, or none of the above, 'ritical,' or 'wish fulfillment.\"

This is the most vague criticism I have ever read. This can apply to any movie ever made not just superhero romps. Most of the criticism and observations throughout the article are both completely obvious and can be applied to almost any movie ever made...
Charles | 08.08.08 - 10:48 am | #

$\"Gravatar\"$ I've not seen any of the summer's spectaculars, but - I never let lack of experience get in the way of theory! Which is why I've puzzled over why The Dark Knight evokes all these political readings, and Mama Mia evokes nothing - my theory being that this is a perfect example of the gender division within which American politics is defined. A movie about marriage and - inevitably - negotiating conflict is tossed into the woman bin, and couldn't be about politics. A movie about superheros that posits a violent solution to every conflict, on the other hand, is all about politics.

This is really the reverse of reality. Even the hotheaded militia types spend most of their lives negotiating. Acts of direct violence aren't more serious than acts of marrying, or taking out the garbage, for that matter. I think that part of the alarming drop in the narrative intelligence of American men - evidenced by seven years worth of insane analysis of the war on terror, and the gender skew to GOP candidates - has to do with the notion that politics is really only a form of war.
roger | Homepage | 08.08.08 - 11:31 am | #

$\"Gravatar\"$ roger, thanks, i agree -- though i think the prejudice also enters into the production, the effect being the dark knight advertises its topicality at every turn, maybe that's now the general expectation for such a big violent fantasy.

charles, yours is the most vague criticism i have ever read.

if you were looking for narrative rules, check the a.o. scott piece i referenced.
traxus4420 | Homepage | 08.08.08 - 2:12 pm | #

$\"Gravatar\"$ to G C - i'm just going to reply to you here from now on, this is from the other blog:

G C, thanks for the complements, that seems right about the ’50s as a fucked up security blanket.

i don’t get how acephalous’s post makes a counterargument to the ‘manifest content’ of the movie as an apology for capitalist excess — sure there’s nuance, some give and take, but as i think even he’s arguing, the core assumptions don’t change, no matter what our attitude toward them. you can go back and forth about whether it’s ‘ultimately’ pro or anti bush, but whatever your individual take there are some underlying ethical and political frames that are being retrenched, not just reexamined. for me it manifests as strain, overzealousness that should be comical except we’re ‘too close,’ a struggle to own the cracks in a rusty old facade unfortunately still relied on by hollywood blockbusters just as much as the state.
traxus4420 | Homepage | 08.08.08 - 2:13 pm | #

Commenting by HaloScan

$\"\"$ ");