Monthly Archive for February, 2009

‘The Dark Knight’

Published on February 19, 2009 in TV and Movies. 2 Comments Tags: , , , , , , .

I’ve heard some stuff. Maybe not a testament to the general consensus, and certainly not thought-out, but I’ve encountered similar versions of this mindset more than a few times, and would like to give the retards who possess it the attention that they deserve.

Here’s an example instead of an explanation of what I’m talking about (from some message board):

Heath Ledger is Overrated

Why on earth is Ledger getting so much praise? before he was dead, no one was talking about this guy. even once the dark knight was announced and we all knew he was playing the joker, everyone said, ‘jack nicholson is the only joker’. but then once he died, before the movie was released, they said this was the ‘performance of the year’ and nonsense along those lines.

The word overrated is itself: overrated. Any use at all is abuse, and you’re a mindless chump. About every time, this word is used when describing something of artistic merit (or alleged merit, I guess, with which the critic evidently disagrees), rendering its application entirely useless.

Saying the Joker in ‘The Dark Knight’ is overrated is to say that the role (two things: the creativity that went into its design, and the skill required to play it the way Heath Ledger played it) isn’t worthy of the received praise. For everybody who’s made something like this statement, or at least agrees with it: (a) you’re a moron, and (b) you’re a moron who can’t see that this is an entirely impossible and purposeless point to try for. There exists NO translation of ‘technical difficulty and invested effort’ to ‘merit of the end result,’ and all you’re essentially saying is, “I do not like the Joker in ‘The Dark Knight’ as much as some other people do.” And that makes you a liar in the first place, but more importantly, you never notice this distinction, and associate your “overrated” statements with a person who has an opinion (e.g. YOU); you make the claim and offer your words as fact, as having some application outside of your own skull. You’re wrong. Shutup.

But let’s have a review (hint: it’s my opinion). Dig this…

‘The Dark Knight’ is piggybacked by its lead villain. Marketed and anticipated through the Joker’s role, and he’s the remaining impression after it all. Every discussion concerning ‘The Dark Knight’ as a whole doesn’t merely include The Joker; it probably surrounds him entirely. Be it amazement, or some asshole liar saying how “overrated” the character is, the Joker, by himself, decides and dictates impressions of the entire film. And it is not necessarily a bad thing that the villain in any movie receives a lot of attention, but it absolutely is a bad thing that the villain (or any one role in a movie that tries to feature many significant roles) overshadows and distracts from the movie itself. And that’s exactly what’s going on here: with ‘Dark Knight,’ you find yourself sincerely rooting for the Joker to win, and when he isn’t on-screen, you’re waiting.

‘The Dark Knight’ is not a bad movie otherwise; it’s okay. My point is that the Joker distracts you from a lot of the otherwise (this movie’s title should be his name). The plot is about average, on par with the caliber of an okay action movie. And make no mistake; that’s what ‘Dark Knight’ essentially is: an okay action movie. It is NOT a superhero movie. There is no epic plot or even super powers. Nothing of the setting seems even slightly fictional or at all contrived. You do not watch ‘Dark Knight’ and feel like an onlooker and outside observer of unreal characters existing in an unreal setting, Gotham City; you feel like you’re watching mostly believable characters existing in present day New York or some other huge urban city you’ve been to or know about. Even Batman himself seems much more like a cop than a superhero, like he’d be more appropriate fighting crime outside of the cape and mask. Superheroes are supposed to slap-down common criminals en route to the big-time villain, and jet from the scene before the cops cuff the crippled and wounded bad guys. What’s supposed to happen is, the cops are losing in some shootout or are unable to catch somebody, and then, “Batman to the rescue!” But In ‘Dark Knight,’ Batman works beside and directly with the cops all the time, thus seeming like a direct report of Gordon, and just a really good cop himself.

Batman is no superhero in this movie.

Further, Bruce Wayne is no Batman in this movie. Instead of the expected, a superhero and his alter ego, two separate people exist. There are two entirely detached entities. The egocentric and chauvinistic nature of Bruce Wayne in ‘Dark Knight’ hugely conflicts with the selflessness and overall attitude towards people and society required to be Batman (or any superhero, since I guess Batman is at least supposed to be one of those). Bruce Wayne and Batman aren’t even similar in this movie. And some might argue that this conflict of identities is accounted for, and represented by the debate Batman faces as to whether he should just retire and give up. Somebody might say, “It’s true; Batman doesn’t have the mind to be a hero, and that exactly is why he thinks about giving up on the whole gig.” And that’s fine, BUT the situation is not presented to us in this manner. Any talk of Batman giving up is due to his realization that he might be causing more harm than good; Batman considers retiring with the people’s best interest in mind and at heart, and his demeanor conflicts with Bruce Wayne’s dickheadedness and ego just the same (cue the spotlight on Bruce as he shows up at a charity that’s in somebody else’s honor, in a private jet, with really, really hot sluts). Bruce is an asshole when his mask is off and he isn’t Batman, and here is the personality that his name should’ve existed through:

harveydent

(Matter of fact, I’ll take an entire actor swap. Is there actually even any dispute as to who has the better Batman chin?)

Politician, Harvey Dent. And he is the man. Sleek. Charismatic. Charming. Determined. Really.

Throughout ‘Dark Knight,’ there exists some huge discrepancies inside Rachel’s (Bruce’s woman) head, as to who she wants to be with, Bruce or Harvey. And I’m really left wondering what any of the confusion is about. Rachel eventually reveals her intent to be with Harvey rather than Bruce, but even so, there is an outward expression of all kinds of uncertainty until then, and it should’ve been a no-contest from the start. I think what I’m trying to say is this: I’m glad Rachel dies in this move. (Spoiler alert.)

A breakdown:

- Heath Ledger’s Joker is great, unlike anything you’ve seen. Harvey Dent is owed a second place trophy as far as characters are concerned, and the movie would’ve truly been improved considerably, had (a) a personality much like Harvey’s been adopted for Bruce Wayne, and (b) Aaron Eckhart played the God damn part. The Batman you get instead is just alright, and unarguably contradicting, both with his unmasked alter ego, and what is expected in a superhero. Rachel flat-out sucks. Other characters are just right: Gordon is a good cop. Alfred is wise. Morgan Freeman is number one in all our hearts (in ‘Dark Knight,’ he’s an inventor and a bad ass called Lucius Fox, but I prefer to call him Morgan Freeman in all of his roles).

- The story is what’s expected: Mayhem and destruction, and something needs to be done about it.

- A certain burn victim towards the end of the movie is fucked more because of CGI than the actual fire, but the movie has mostly great visuals (was incredible in IMAX). The sound is…well, whatever. ‘Hero’ by Nickelback wasn’t featured during the end credits, so it’s all good.

Overall, ‘The Dark Knight’ is worth checking out. Okay storyline (good amount of ass-beatings and stuff blowing up, at any rate). Hot chicks and Christian Bale/Aaron Eckhart (depending on your fancy). And, as I’ve made painfully obvious by now, the Joker is unreal (and absolutely deserving of the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor he’ll probably win in three days, as well as the awards he’s already won).

7.4 out of 10

A Short History of Morals and Ethics

Published on February 11, 2009 in God and Religion and The Rationalizing Man. 3 Comments Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , .

Some Christian ammunition is the question, “How could we know right from wrong, if there is no governing presence, nothing to decide what’s right or wrong?” It’s an argument for the existence of God. There are certain rules and there is a certain moral order to everything going on, so somebody or something must’ve ordered everything to go on this way. “Our morals come from God,” they say.

And they’ve got it completely wrong.

Here’s how morals, and the implications of adhering to them could come to be, and how they did. Here’s an idea anybody can fit their head around, and how our ancestors did. Dig this…

Homo sapiens (and cousins of ours which no longer exist) were stomping around on this cooling and disgusting planet between 10,000 and 50,000 years ago. This is about the time that communities and cultures were first really getting started, and falling in-line with what we now understand them to be. Before then, people were using tools and fire, but nobody was really figuring much else out (a harmless combination). And not long after, people had already started painting each other’s faces and making calendars. 10,000 to 50,000 years ago is when we need. And picture this: nasty and primitive versions of us, biting and bashing each other around, taking sexually whatever dirty members of the other gender appeared to have the least lice bugs (or maybe more lice bugs was more appealing, and maybe nobody was picky about their mate’s gender); food was probably scarce and probably fought back (or at least our ancestors fought for it); weather wasn’t understood by anybody. It was fucking chaos. Madness, nonstop and all over the place.

Given this, it isn’t difficult at all to consider that somebody, at some point, realized or thought that there might be a better way to conduct one’s self, and deal with all the predator and lice bug and weather crap. That there’s a better way than fighting and struggling, and dying miserably anyway. You can conceive of a thousand different scenarios that this might’ve first happened inside the context of, all equally likely and possible.

Two cavemen, like usual, were murdering and beating the shit out of each other. Some kind of battle to decide who got to take home and enjoy the rotting mastodon or elephant corpse they both had stumbled into simultaneously enough. Then, an idea. Something was imagined. “Fuck, there is food here for both of us! And if we work together, we can relocate and prepare it more efficiently!” Maybe they didn’t have words like “efficiently” or “fuck,” or any speech other than grunts, but you can see my point without our language. Celestial intervening to the side, it was realized and communicated that there is a mutual benefit to combining goals. Things can get done faster, and with less effort. Something like teamwork. It isn’t hard to think that this realization went on, and was reaffirmed and repeated many times (and long before any alleged 10 Commandments delivery atop Mount Sinai; humans never would’ve made it that far had they been killing each other at every whim before then).

From the start, we’ve been working things out. And ideas like this one are absolutely the foundations for tribes and small societies, how ubiquitous and universal rules — call them morals if you’d like to — were realized and first passed into any kind of legislation. People noticed that they can get more done and generally have a better time doing so if they look out for one another, and they started spreading that message. I’m not finding any question that necessitates a miracle as an answer. It is all that simple, and we are all — still — that capable.

I think a lot of people are confused or get confused, and think they can’t pull apart morals and religion. Mostly (only) because they never have actually tried to think about it this way. And thus, some of the nonsense expressions and conventional wisdoms that get passed around amongst us: “He found God,” with the implications that whoever we’re talking about will correct their wrongs and live a better, more fulfilling life than they would’ve otherwise been capable. Fundamentalist parents that would shit and piss all over themselves (and each other), if they were to learn that their child is dating “an atheist!” Stuff like that.

There’s a fantastic conversation in our history, which begins with French scientist Pierre-Simon de Laplace being asked to come and present his work by the Emperor Napoleon. Laplace developed and wrote a model and book called Mécanique Céleste (Celestial Mechanics), which uses mathematical equations to demonstrate how our solar system operates. Laplace is cited as the first to show all of this. Overwhelmed and confused, Napoleon asks why there is no God portrayed in Laplace’s system, to which Laplace replies, “Je n’ai pas besoin de cette hypothèse.”

He says he doesn’t need it.