Rejoinder to Paul D'amato's attack on The Dark Knight

Paul's response to "Batman's Never-Ending Fight"
http://socialistworker.org/2008/08/28/views-brief

If the SW insists on maintaining a petty ultra left approach to the superhero genre, its opinion will remain useless, for it refuses on principle to glean any deeper readings from the material.

But of course, the SW wants to have it both ways. They want to deride Bruce Wayne for being a billionaire who fights "crime," while they praise to the sky a billionaire weapons manufacturer who fights "terrorists" in Afghanistan.

Paul D'amato's attempt to engage in amateur film criticism was pathetic. After declaring "theses" as if he were Lenin, Paul stumbles on to the novel concept that "the Batman story inherently glorifies conservative vigilantism--it is the whole premise of the story."

The whole premise of the superhero genre is vigilantism. Paul pretends to make a point, but doesn't.

Go down the line, from Spider-Man to Superman, even the most progressive of the bunch, the X-Men, are vigilantes who work within the logic of present day class society. They all inherently buy into the logic. The fact that they have powers means they inevitably over step their bounds.

If the SW decides to retroactively review the "Superman Returns" film, will it insist that it's giving a pass to Bush because he can hear (meaning spy) on every living voice on the planet? Is he a representation of some sort of satellite system we want to install? Or maybe that's reading into it too much. Knowing Paul's depth, we'd have a whole digression on the imperialist colors of his uniform.

It is a shame that Paul wants to downplay the scene in the ferries. First, the criminals are the heroes. They decide to throw out the detonator. Sure Nolan plays on current fears of the "black" inmate, but he does so only to challenge those ideas. Did Paul expect the passengers on the ferry to be conscious of how ideology plays on their "common sense"?

It requires real life to challenge those assumptions. So you have civilians arguing that those men "made their choice" and deserve the consequences. But as the clock ticks, the people realize the prisoners have made another choice--not to kill them in spite of the consequences.

And it's entirely petty to argue the fact that the social makeup of the ferries was a cross class one. Did millionaire Sean Penn not go into the flood waters of Katrina? DId millionaire Kanye West not call out Bush, while appealing to the better of our nature? Sure most of us don't live the "good life," but don't tell me that the only message to be drawn from that scene is a patriotic, reactionary one.

Human nature is not as corrupt as common sense tells us. People won't just turn on each other when things get tough. The Joker should not be seen as a real criminal, or "terrorist," but as the counter posed argument. The misanthropic nihilist, whose ideas predominate too much amongst the intellectuals in the movement.

On the other end of the spectrum however, is ultra leftism. An infantile disorder that finds nothing worthwhile about a story that the rest of the country has been captivated by--missing an opportunity to battle for ideas.