Saturday, August 02, 2008

What Bush and Batman Have in Common

I don't usually write about politics but was struck by this interesting article in last week's Wall Street Journal: What Bush and Batman Have in Common

Click here to read a copy.

What Bush and Batman Have in Common

By ANDREW KLAVAN
July 25, 2008; Page A15

A cry for help goes out from a city beleaguered by violence and fear: A beam of light flashed into the night sky, the dark symbol of a bat projected onto the surface of the racing clouds . . .

Oh, wait a minute. That's not a bat, actually. In fact, when you trace the outline with your finger, it looks kind of like . . . a "W."

There seems to me no question that the Batman film "The Dark Knight," currently breaking every box office record in history, is at some level a paean of praise to the fortitude and moral courage that has been shown by George W. Bush in this time of terror and war. Like W, Batman is vilified and despised for confronting terrorists in the only terms they understand. Like W, Batman sometimes has to push the boundaries of civil rights to deal with an emergency, certain that he will re-establish those boundaries when the emergency is past.

And like W, Batman understands that there is no moral equivalence between a free society -- in which people sometimes make the wrong choices -- and a criminal sect bent on destruction. The former must be cherished even in its moments of folly; the latter must be hounded to the gates of Hell.

"The Dark Knight," then, is a conservative movie about the war on terror. And like another such film, last year's "300," "The Dark Knight" is making a fortune depicting the values and necessities that the Bush administration cannot seem to articulate for beans.

Conversely, time after time, left-wing films about the war on terror -- films like "In The Valley of Elah," "Rendition" and "Redacted" -- which preach moral equivalence and advocate surrender, that disrespect the military and their mission, that seem unable to distinguish the difference between America and Islamo-fascism, have bombed more spectacularly than Operation Shock and Awe.

Why is it then that left-wingers feel free to make their films direct and realistic, whereas Hollywood conservatives have to put on a mask in order to speak what they know to be the truth? Why is it, indeed, that the conservative values that power our defense -- values like morality, faith, self-sacrifice and the nobility of fighting for the right -- only appear in fantasy or comic-inspired films like "300," "Lord of the Rings," "Narnia," "Spiderman 3" and now "The Dark Knight"?

The moment filmmakers take on the problem of Islamic terrorism in realistic films, suddenly those values vanish. The good guys become indistinguishable from the bad guys, and we end up denigrating the very heroes who defend us. Why should this be?

The answers to these questions seem to me to be embedded in the story of "The Dark Knight" itself: Doing what's right is hard, and speaking the truth is dangerous. Many have been abhorred for it, some killed, one crucified.

Leftists frequently complain that right-wing morality is simplistic. Morality is relative, they say; nuanced, complex. They're wrong, of course, even on their own terms.

Left and right, all Americans know that freedom is better than slavery, that love is better than hate, kindness better than cruelty, tolerance better than bigotry. We don't always know how we know these things, and yet mysteriously we know them nonetheless.

The true complexity arises when we must defend these values in a world that does not universally embrace them -- when we reach the place where we must be intolerant in order to defend tolerance, or unkind in order to defend kindness, or hateful in order to defend what we love.

When heroes arise who take those difficult duties on themselves, it is tempting for the rest of us to turn our backs on them, to vilify them in order to protect our own appearance of righteousness. We prosecute and execrate the violent soldier or the cruel interrogator in order to parade ourselves as paragons of the peaceful values they preserve. As Gary Oldman's Commissioner Gordon says of the hated and hunted Batman, "He has to run away -- because we have to chase him."

That's real moral complexity. And when our artistic community is ready to show that sometimes men must kill in order to preserve life; that sometimes they must violate their values in order to maintain those values; and that while movie stars may strut in the bright light of our adulation for pretending to be heroes, true heroes often must slink in the shadows, slump-shouldered and despised -- then and only then will we be able to pay President Bush his due and make good and true films about the war on terror.

Perhaps that's when Hollywood conservatives will be able to take off their masks and speak plainly in the light of day.

Mr. Klavan has won two Edgar Awards from the Mystery Writers of America. His new novel, "Empire of Lies" (An Otto Penzler Book, Harcourt), is about an ordinary man confronting the war on terror.


3 comments:

Jason Fisher said...

I don't usually write about politics but was struck by this interesting article [...]

What you don't say is what you thought of it, or whether you agree with its author. (And perhaps this is why we don't usually post about politics, eh? Because of the cans of worms those posts might open ... :)

For myself, I couldn't disagree more. I find the article, frankly, ridiculous. As tempting as it is to dissect it, sentence by sentence, I will instead simply summarize my reaction: the comic-book world is not the real world. One would think that should be obvious, but I guess Mr. Klavan missed the memo. Perhaps GWB wsould be in the right if we lived in a comic-book world (and it's only a perhaps, not a certainty). In our own real world, in my view, he's absolutely in the wrong. And the conceit of the comparison in this article is facile and risible. I won't presume to say more, unasked, here in the comments of your blog. But if you want a more detailed response to the op-ed, feel free to ask me, and I will happily oblige.

The Cat Bastet said...

(And perhaps this is why we don't usually post about politics, eh? Because of the cans of worms those posts might open ... :)

Exactly. :)

I'm pretty conservative and frustrated with W's inability to articulate his reasons for his decisions to the public, so I thought it was interesting that this person tried to defend him in such an unusual way (even if I don't agree with all of the author's points).

Wow, that's more than I've said/written about politics in years! You should feel honored. :)

Jason Fisher said...

I'm pretty conservative [...]

And I'm pretty liberal. It takes both to make the world go round, eh? You got your chocolate in my peanut butter! You got your peanut butter in my chocolate!! ;)

and frustrated with W's inability to articulate his reasons for his decisions to the public, [...]

I can imagine. Setting aside all question of right or wrong, he's just not an articulate man. His attitude, mannerisms, and diction remind me of Nixon. (Not first-hand; I was in diapers during Nixon's administration.)

so I thought it was interesting that this person tried to defend him in such an unusual way (even if I don't agree with all of the author's points).

Personally, I think the article is pure rhetoric, with no legitimate basis for comparison behind it. One might as well say that Osama bin Laden is the Joker. Or wait, maybe he’s the Riddler. Two Face? No, the Penguin. Catwoman? Or why not Lex Luther? No, no, crossing comic books undermines the validity of the whole argument ... *rolls eyes* :)