Fine, let me restate: The narcissitic nature of the classical hero.

Jake La Motta's is not the concept heroism I'm referring to. The concept I mean is the one embedded in our culture - the firefighter saving a kid from a burning building, the ordinary citizen standing up to injustice, or the superhero combating the forces of evil. The Dark Knight deconstructs (demythification) this notion and then reconstructs (remythification) it in a modified form.

...Man, the more I discuss this film, the more enamored I become with it. It's a post-modern/neo-classical film that incorporates some of the best aspects of a post-classical film.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Cinematical,

quote:

Originally posted by REDking:
No I'm right.

Oh... okay then. Just making sure.

quote:

Originally posted by Cinematical:
Fine, let me restate: The narcissitic nature of the classical hero.

Since you need to restate, you'll admit that Raging Bull explores the theme of "the narcissistic nature of heroism" better than TDK?

And even so what's a more classical american hero than the champion of the world? Certainly not a man in a bat suit.

No, Raging Bull does not explore the theme better; it explores a different theme entirely.

Superheroes are some of the best examples of classical heroes. As someone mentioned earlier, they compose our modern mythology. This concept reaches back to Odysseus, King Arthur, and Beowulf.

Raging Bull devotes itself to deconstructing the notion of the self-made man. Its focus is, from the very beginning, on narcissism. Because American culture values striving to become the best and the idea of being "self-made" you might be able to call La Motta a hero, of sorts. But it's not the same as classical heroism. It must be noted that Batman does touch on this idea, but more briefly in The Dark Knight and certainly not to the extent as Raging Bull.

It's a bit of a stretch to say Raging Bull deals directly with heroism. That's not the case with The Dark Knight. It seems that you're unable to reconcile the connection between a comic-book character and these vaulted themes - but your inability, or lack of desire, to move past this doesn't change the fact that many people have been able to and can enjoy the film on various levels.

Argh.

You stated the theme, then changed it when your argument didn't hold up. You attempted to redefine the idea of heroism as only applying to classical heros. If you have to make that many adjustments to you argument chances are your simply off base. And TDK does not explore it's core themes as well as the movies you asked me to state.

And yes Raging Bull deals directly with "the narcissistic nature of heroism" how on earth could you say it doesn't? la Mottas external goal is to be the champ, a title that by definition belongs to a heroic figure or "a man of distinguished courage or ability" and the fact that the title itself doesn't actually help anyone in any way makes it empty and narcissistic. His obsession with and tool for this goal (violence) ultimately lead to his downfall. And it's all very nicely mirrored and punctuated with his obsessive relationship with the young girl. not bad guys in clown masks.

And I should add that I have no bias against comics as I truly think that until they make a movie version of the Dark Knight Returns by Frank Miller then the Batman movies will all be cheap imitations.

Anyway it's great having this super film geek argument and since we are the only ones who currently care! Thank you Cinematical but I have to say you simply overstate the importance of TDK.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: REDking,

.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: braininabox,

Trust Hatts to take this civil conversation down to a scatological level!

Hatts, please review REDking's posts. You can be passionate and steadfast, without flaming.

I know you could probably care less about getting banned or suspended, but come on, you really can't expect people to hold any respect for your opinion if you treat them that way.

Aww... Hatts' post got edited before I got back. Anyone care to catch me up?

I'm a curious fella.

And REDking... I don't agree with probably 60% of the points you make, but you make them well. So I guess I gotta give you kudos.

Here's how I look at it though... While I was sitting in the theater watching TDK I wasn't really psychoanalyzing how in-depth Nolan took his themes, and what themes (and with what specific wording) did he incorporate... I felt that the film could simply suspend my reality and bring me into a world with a villain who's able to literally redefine nihilism for me and show me an evil that I've never even imagined... and make me feel something.

I tend to watch films in a pretty detached state... I always have, so when a film like TDK is able to draw me in like it did I'm impressed with it and I have to give it credit. I felt like this movie connected with me emotionally in a number of different ways, from Batman abandoning his love to save Gotham's "hero with a face," to the little details like the expression on Ms. Gordon's face as she slaps the Commissioner when he returns home. That's how I judge a movie... by the impact it can make on me. Call me shallow.

Well now that we have successfully agreed on everything, I guess we need something new to talk about....

Oh!

How about the fact that Johnny Depp has already won an Oscar for his performance in BatmanIII even though there is no substantial evidence yet that he has landed or is even being considered for a part.

Whoa, I really hope a new curse doesn't start where actors who play Batman villains pass away before the films release. Then again, I guess that wouldn't be so bad as long as Hayden Christensen accepted the role of Penguin and Steven Seagal took on the role of Catwoman.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: braininabox,

I thought Andre the Giant's posthumous turn as Mr. Freeze should have garnered the Oscar, but kudos to Depp!

I think good ol' Andre would be more appropriate as Bane Y'know what I mean?

Yeah, I know. "Shut up you nerd!"

How is it that people need something as ridiculous as a man in a giant Batsuit fighting a clown to make them feel something? Why didn't Citizen Kane make you feel something or engross you? Not enough "Bat-eyes" or Chinese embezzelers being carried out of skyskraper windows?

By the way: Heath Ledger didn't play the most evil villain ever. Calm down. And maybe wait a month, at least, before calling something "legendary".

Yeah, Roy, I tried to make that point earlier about appreciating subtlety/simplicity. I had just watched The Apartment and was really impressed by how it completely drew me in and engrossed me, even though there were no fantastical elements or high-stakes drama or people learning valuable life lessons or fast-paced action sequences. I find it amazing that I was literally on the edge of my seat over a guy sitting at a nightstand just talking and playing cards with a girl in bed.

I've never been so drawn in to any of the other Batman movies... so I don't think you can say that it was the guy in the batsuit that did it for me.

I've been into other movies... even ones that weren't so spectacular. The other day I watched Funny Games U.S. I guess not a lot of people liked it... but I thought it was great. That's another film that drew me in. And I'm going to get stoned for saying this... but Star Wars (any of them) didn't do it for me either. I respect those films for what they are but I can't call them favorites... because they ended up just being face-value for me. I think it boils down to personal taste. Perhaps mine isn't as refined as yours... but if you think about it... what does it matter to you if I can appreciate subtlety/simplicity or not? What's a "good taste in movies" anyway? Isn't that just a similar taste to yours?

No, good taste in movies is a general liking of good films. It can't really be described. If you like stuff like White Chicks, Larry the Cable Guy, and think black and white films are "gay", you definately have very bad taste- in everything.

Bad taste is a lot easier to determine.

And anyway I just get mad that people on this site and budding filmmakers my age go crazy over The Dark Knight but there's never a huge thread for Ingmar Bergman or Steven Soderbergh or Michael Mann or some other really great and interesting director. It's always the summer blockbusters, and it's always people being amazed at how they "felt" things. Yet the films where you can have your heart broken or life changed are rarely brought up, and many classics are simply given slight nods. Even then it's just "meh...overrated" or something thick headed.

Oh I don't mean that the elaborate, intense films are any better or worse than simple, subtle films...

I just think that these huge, fast-paced movies have caused a lot of people to be unappreciative and unaware of quieter beauty. We've got this massive group of people that are so sculpted by MTV and Michael Bay, that they can't watch 10 minutes of Casablanca or Eraserhead or Elephant without complaining of boredom.

quote:

Originally posted by Roy Hatts:
but there's never a huge thread for Ingmar Bergman or Steven Soderbergh or Michael Mann or some other really great and interesting director.

I do my best to bring up David Lynch and Alejandro Jodorowsky on every occassion I get

*Also, Raging Bull isn't about heroism or even becoming the champ. It's about how ****ing self destructive LaMotta was. He didn't go in the ring to be a champ, he went in the ring to show that nobody could knock him down.

See: the key scenes where he knocks the **** out of a guy in the ring, then stares at his wife in the crowd, and then juxtapose the scene where Sugar Ray beats his face in with the scene towards the ends where he's beating a cement wall completely in vain.

Now THAT made me feel something.

quote:

Originally posted by REDking:
You stated the theme, then changed it when your argument didn't hold up.

No, I clarified. I honestly thought it would be assumed that everyone would know what form of heroism I was talking about, considering the movie being discussed (a superhero movie...). I failed to take into account the scope of a term as broad as "heroism", and for that I paid the price of digression.

quote:

Originally posted by REDking:
Anyway it's great having this super film geek argument and since we are the only ones who currently care! Thank you Cinematical but I have to say you simply overstate the importance of TDK.

I've also enjoyed the debate. A discussion just isn't interesting if people don't disagree. Oh, and for the record, I think you vastly understate the importance of TDK.

I think Hooha has a good point - the purpose of (narrative) film is to involve and engross the audience in a story. The Dark Knight did this for me and millions others. So it's a good film.

Roy - you make pompous comments like "Heath Ledger didn't play the most evil villain ever. Calm down" without any form of support or courtesy. Your opinion is not authoritative; indeed, the way you generally state it makes it quite irrelevant, which is a shame for when you do engage thoughtfully in a discussion. As for this particular logic-hole, I'll say this: a performance's status and prestige is directly dependent on how it fares the cultural memory. It all ultimately comes down to what those who saw the film think (with a distribution of weight that favors critics, historians, and the like, but is still by and large dominated by the general masses). So far, nearly every single person I've talked to who's seen the film has gushed over Ledger's performance, most calling it one of the best villains ever. Indeed, many have called it one of the best PERFORMANCES ever. This group ranges from my family, friends, and coworkers, to fellow student filmmakers at USC, Chapman, and NYU, to film professors. I can't speak for an entire culture, but from my sampling, this performance will not fade, and will remain among the elite cinematic villains. So I feel confident that, so far, the facts support the assertions we've made.

And Brain, come now, I know your tastes, and it doesn't always involve subtlety. Requiem for a Dream? Mulholland Drive? Neither very subtle, and it's what makes them brilliant. Bombastic films come in many forms; this one just happens to be a guy in a bat suit battling with a psychotic clown. It is possible to appreciate both subtlety and explosions, even within the same film.

Well I'll agree that not all the films I like exemplify subtlety and simplicity. But I do think its a quality that is overlooked.

It seems like there is just way too much going on in a lot of movies. I would much rather just sit back and watch Clint Eastwood stare into the camera for 3 hours in The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

But then again, this is all coming from a guy who loves watching Dogme95
and

one of Andy Warhol's friends eating a mushroom for 45 minutes.