Re: Armond White
Mike Findlay <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.music.dadl.ot |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
I think your point would be better directed to Batman Begins. In any event I see his point. He is talking about the viewer's faith and hope, not the comic book characters. When watching the movie you don't need to have morality, the comic book characters do. No one but the larger than life, imaginary characters have any morality - the citizens of Gotham are only props and the viewer is pretty much in the same place as they are - we are observers not participants in the morality play and if you are only observing you don't even need your own morality. I know that could be said to some extent of any movie, but it seems to apply more explicitly to The Dark Knight. Mike F. ________________________________ From: Peter T. Chattaway <petert-LOVM4QxV+tDq6eQxt3vRmLDks+cytr/[email protected]> To: DADL (off topic) <[email protected]> Sent: Thu, January 20, 2011 4:20:51 PM Subject: Re: [DADL-OT] Armond White On Thu, 20 Jan 2011, Mike Findlay wrote: > That being said I don't thihnk I agree with White, (haven't read the full >review yet), but you have to admit he has a point with this: . > > ."...because it <The Dark Knight> doesn’t require viewers to feel those >discredited virtues, “hope” and “faith.” Like Hellboy II, this kind of sci-fi or >horror or comics-whatever obviates morality. No, I don't think he *does* have a point. The Dark Knight does, admittedly, put hope and faith through the wringer -- but Batman wouldn't be who he is, or do what he does, unless he had at least a twinge of those things. The character is defined, after all, by his refusal to give in to the lethal judgmentalism or nihilism of Ra's al Ghul's gang. -- dadl-ot mailing list http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot