I think one issue of confusion is what one means by “detective story”. That genre generally has two different off-shoots. There’s the Sherlock Holmes/Hercule Poirot-style stories, where the genius detective uncovers the mystery and is the main force in solving the crime. But there’s also the film noir-style stories, where the protagonist doesn’t necessarily solve anything until it is already too late (having been drawn along through the entire plot by a femme fatale and/or other sinister figures). The Batman is pretty clearly meant to be the later type of detective story.
I really enjoyed The Batman because I appreciate how they made the darkest, grittiest, most "I am vengeance" Batman movie to date; and then proceeded to make its entire theme about how stupid it is to be a dark, gritty, "I am vengeance" Batman. How the thing that would actually happen if someone got famous for putting on a mask and beating up bad guys is that a bunch of other, (more) unhinged people would put on masks and do even worse.
How familiar are you with 1930s-era hard-boiled detective fiction? A lot (though not all!) of those novels feature the detective as a tough-guy stand-in for the reader who descends into a morass of crime and corruption as the story unfolds around him. Even when the detective plays a more active role (as in Hammett's work), he is not aggressively piecing the clues together al a Sherlock Holmes or Hercule Poirot. Also, I think Batman's failure to solve the puzzle is the point. This is a movie about Batman's flaws -- the Riddler addresses that very issue when he discusses how disappointed he is, when he talks how he overestimated Batman's abilities and how Batman has failed him as a hero. At the same time, Batman must confront the fact that an obvious villain mistakenly believes that they are on the same side, and what that implies about his own motives and methods.
Also, spoilers suck! But I'll save that argument for another comment.
I am no expert on this, but it seems to me that one key reason that war worked as a focusing mechanism in Ukraine but not Afghanistan could be the sense of nationalism. I’m curious if anti-corruption was part of the nationalist movements of the 19th and 20th centuries.
Neither here nor there but a phenomenon that has always made me think that there is a bit of justice and fairness built into the world is that often when inhumanly beautiful celebrities have kids, there is some genetic reversion to the mean and those kids end up being reassuringly normal looking: think Lourdes Ciccone or either of David Bowie’s kids.
So with that as the framework it’s a little aggravating that Zoe Kravitz appears to be exactly if not a smidge _more_ good looking than you would expect the child of Lenny Kravitz and Lisa Bonet (my god) to be, and a ferociously talented actress on top of it.
As a note, one of the things that made Islamism so attractive to regular people was basically the idea that secular governments are extremely corrupt, and the Islamists not only 1) believe very deeply that God is watching everything they do so they might be less likely to do corruption but also 2) are very willing to just casually execute someone for violating public morality.
No idea whether or not Islamist governments really are/were less corrupt (in the personal self-serving way) than the secular governments in the same countries, but the political effects of corruption tend toward whichever group seems the most sincerely moralistic and the most willing to enforce that morality.
Personally, I think the United States, and the Democratic party in particular, would benefit from a religious crusader figure. Make him an Episcopalian so he doesn't hate gay people and such. #1 policy proposal: massive IRS and DOJ programs designed to root out and severely punish white collar crime and public corruption.
Would love a post on spoiler culture! I often spoil things for myself because I have poor impulse control but then enjoy finishing the book/show/movie anyway. We only tell ourselves so many stories, it's really the artistic details that matter.
I can't even be fussed if someone spoils a mystery, where the reveal is the whole point. There are so many other ones I can read to get the same aha! moment.
I haven't seen the movie yet but the part about the hand wavy solution of just removing one person solves the corruption problem highlights one of my biggest problems with a lot of people's political analysis. There are so many "it's the system, man" people who when asked for a solution say just replace the leader whether it's the president, mayor, DA or whatever.
To Matt’s point about the detective work, Batman is good at cyphers and decides that the villain is giving him important clues, so he follows the Riddler’s lead instead of trying to find the Riddler. It’s definitely an odd choice.
The Batman is a boring movie.
The Batman is a pointlessly long movie.
The acting and cinematography are excellent.
It’s difficult to tell where people are located during certain fight scenes, not because it’s dark, but because they can apparently and inexplicably teleport.
I’m disappointed that it’s a huge hit, because now we’ll probably get more movies that are slow and dull.
This is actually one thing where "The Dark Knight" trilogy did a good job showing how hard true reform is, and also does a good job showing how each villain either has a point, or at least an understandable motivation:
-Batman Begins: Bruce Wayne comes into his own and saves the corrupt city from destruction, rejecting the "burn it all down and start over" idea pushed by his enemies.
-The Dark Knight: Bruce & the police start actually attempting to root out corruption but...they get pushback from the people themselves. Gordon attempts to use corrupt cops to push his agenda and, despite being relatively pure himself, winds up falling victim to his cops betraying him. Batman eventually defeats the madman hired by the corrupt crooks and politicians who attempt to keep the system in their thrall, but it comes at a cost. At the end of the day, the best Batman can do to reform the system is to create a hagiography.
-The Dark Knight Rises: in the final film the hagiography's issues come back to bite Bruce and Gotham. The sins are revealed, and the systems problems are laid bare. Now, here is likely the weakest part of the series in terms of reform, Nolan never made it clear how the city reformed itself after Batman dies. But...I choose to believe that Batman became an actual symbol which inspired the city, not the fake one which he was in the second film.
Just my 2 cents. I have not seen "The Batman" yet.
I appreciate the spoiler alert (I didn't read beyond that) but I deeply resent the anti-anti spoiler footnote. As a left leaning, big government, class firster, I often disagree with MY but I respect and admire his perspective. However, being effectively pro-spoiler is an indefensible and frankly disgusting position. FOR SHAME!
I definitely thought Matty was advocating for more Phoenix Jones-like vigilantes when I saw this in my inbox. Maybe Matt himself is dressing up as a costumed superhero, to fight NIMBY crimes on the streets of DC!
"What about that tattoo on your chest? Doesn't it say, 'Die Batman, Die'?"
"No, that's German for, 'The Batman, The.'"
I think one issue of confusion is what one means by “detective story”. That genre generally has two different off-shoots. There’s the Sherlock Holmes/Hercule Poirot-style stories, where the genius detective uncovers the mystery and is the main force in solving the crime. But there’s also the film noir-style stories, where the protagonist doesn’t necessarily solve anything until it is already too late (having been drawn along through the entire plot by a femme fatale and/or other sinister figures). The Batman is pretty clearly meant to be the later type of detective story.
I really enjoyed The Batman because I appreciate how they made the darkest, grittiest, most "I am vengeance" Batman movie to date; and then proceeded to make its entire theme about how stupid it is to be a dark, gritty, "I am vengeance" Batman. How the thing that would actually happen if someone got famous for putting on a mask and beating up bad guys is that a bunch of other, (more) unhinged people would put on masks and do even worse.
How familiar are you with 1930s-era hard-boiled detective fiction? A lot (though not all!) of those novels feature the detective as a tough-guy stand-in for the reader who descends into a morass of crime and corruption as the story unfolds around him. Even when the detective plays a more active role (as in Hammett's work), he is not aggressively piecing the clues together al a Sherlock Holmes or Hercule Poirot. Also, I think Batman's failure to solve the puzzle is the point. This is a movie about Batman's flaws -- the Riddler addresses that very issue when he discusses how disappointed he is, when he talks how he overestimated Batman's abilities and how Batman has failed him as a hero. At the same time, Batman must confront the fact that an obvious villain mistakenly believes that they are on the same side, and what that implies about his own motives and methods.
Also, spoilers suck! But I'll save that argument for another comment.
Anti-spoiler culture is a drag until you don’t have it, then you’ll regret not having it. Fund the spoiler police.
I am no expert on this, but it seems to me that one key reason that war worked as a focusing mechanism in Ukraine but not Afghanistan could be the sense of nationalism. I’m curious if anti-corruption was part of the nationalist movements of the 19th and 20th centuries.
Wait, Batman and Bruce Wayne are the same guy? Damn spoilers!
Neither here nor there but a phenomenon that has always made me think that there is a bit of justice and fairness built into the world is that often when inhumanly beautiful celebrities have kids, there is some genetic reversion to the mean and those kids end up being reassuringly normal looking: think Lourdes Ciccone or either of David Bowie’s kids.
So with that as the framework it’s a little aggravating that Zoe Kravitz appears to be exactly if not a smidge _more_ good looking than you would expect the child of Lenny Kravitz and Lisa Bonet (my god) to be, and a ferociously talented actress on top of it.
As a note, one of the things that made Islamism so attractive to regular people was basically the idea that secular governments are extremely corrupt, and the Islamists not only 1) believe very deeply that God is watching everything they do so they might be less likely to do corruption but also 2) are very willing to just casually execute someone for violating public morality.
No idea whether or not Islamist governments really are/were less corrupt (in the personal self-serving way) than the secular governments in the same countries, but the political effects of corruption tend toward whichever group seems the most sincerely moralistic and the most willing to enforce that morality.
Personally, I think the United States, and the Democratic party in particular, would benefit from a religious crusader figure. Make him an Episcopalian so he doesn't hate gay people and such. #1 policy proposal: massive IRS and DOJ programs designed to root out and severely punish white collar crime and public corruption.
Would love a post on spoiler culture! I often spoil things for myself because I have poor impulse control but then enjoy finishing the book/show/movie anyway. We only tell ourselves so many stories, it's really the artistic details that matter.
I can't even be fussed if someone spoils a mystery, where the reveal is the whole point. There are so many other ones I can read to get the same aha! moment.
I haven't seen the movie yet but the part about the hand wavy solution of just removing one person solves the corruption problem highlights one of my biggest problems with a lot of people's political analysis. There are so many "it's the system, man" people who when asked for a solution say just replace the leader whether it's the president, mayor, DA or whatever.
The stock foto used to the article is from right around the corner from me (Madrid, Spain) which I find quite funny
To Matt’s point about the detective work, Batman is good at cyphers and decides that the villain is giving him important clues, so he follows the Riddler’s lead instead of trying to find the Riddler. It’s definitely an odd choice.
The Batman is a boring movie.
The Batman is a pointlessly long movie.
The acting and cinematography are excellent.
It’s difficult to tell where people are located during certain fight scenes, not because it’s dark, but because they can apparently and inexplicably teleport.
I’m disappointed that it’s a huge hit, because now we’ll probably get more movies that are slow and dull.
With respect to spoiler culture, I’m a libertarian in that regard - avoiding spoilers is an individual, not a collective responsibility.
This is actually one thing where "The Dark Knight" trilogy did a good job showing how hard true reform is, and also does a good job showing how each villain either has a point, or at least an understandable motivation:
-Batman Begins: Bruce Wayne comes into his own and saves the corrupt city from destruction, rejecting the "burn it all down and start over" idea pushed by his enemies.
-The Dark Knight: Bruce & the police start actually attempting to root out corruption but...they get pushback from the people themselves. Gordon attempts to use corrupt cops to push his agenda and, despite being relatively pure himself, winds up falling victim to his cops betraying him. Batman eventually defeats the madman hired by the corrupt crooks and politicians who attempt to keep the system in their thrall, but it comes at a cost. At the end of the day, the best Batman can do to reform the system is to create a hagiography.
-The Dark Knight Rises: in the final film the hagiography's issues come back to bite Bruce and Gotham. The sins are revealed, and the systems problems are laid bare. Now, here is likely the weakest part of the series in terms of reform, Nolan never made it clear how the city reformed itself after Batman dies. But...I choose to believe that Batman became an actual symbol which inspired the city, not the fake one which he was in the second film.
Just my 2 cents. I have not seen "The Batman" yet.
I appreciate the spoiler alert (I didn't read beyond that) but I deeply resent the anti-anti spoiler footnote. As a left leaning, big government, class firster, I often disagree with MY but I respect and admire his perspective. However, being effectively pro-spoiler is an indefensible and frankly disgusting position. FOR SHAME!
I definitely thought Matty was advocating for more Phoenix Jones-like vigilantes when I saw this in my inbox. Maybe Matt himself is dressing up as a costumed superhero, to fight NIMBY crimes on the streets of DC!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_Jones