November 28, 2005
Review Corner: Batman Begins
I blogged favorably about "Charlie & The Chocolate Factory's" displaying good, Schumpeterian economics.
Well, I saw "Batman Begins" this weekend and parity is conserved. The movie has good narrative, texture, and acting. It's well worth a look (I could not say the same for "Wart of the Worlds" but these are admittedly not my genre!).
But the Hollywood twaddle that was espoused in "Batman" is grating. The comic-book dystopia of Gotham clearly suffers from corrupt government. We are told every judge and cop is on the take -- only a brave (and cute of course) D.A. will fight crime and corruption.
Yet we are assured that people are poor and the depression continues because rich folks, unlike Bruce Wayne's altruistic dad, are too greedy and won't give to the poor. Dad rejected business to practice medicine; he gave a monorail to the city so that poor folk would have good public transportation; he begged to get the other rich people to do their part...
Good movie, bad economics, jk gives it 2.5 stars.
It strikes me that they offer DVD's in a "Director's Cut." How about an "Economists' Cut?" You would offer "Seabiscuit" with the sad bolt-on New Deal nonsense stripped out. I'd buy that. "Michael Douglas's "Wall Street" would be stripped to nine minutes.
Posted by John Kranz at November 28, 2005 10:06 AM
I'm glad you posted this JK. (I thought about it but was kind of burned out with the intensity of our 'Serenity' review commentary.) But I, as you'd suspect, have a different take on the new Batman.
It does portray depression in Gotham, but in the same era as Wayne senior's altruistic contributions to the city. It wasn't as if the depression coincided with Mr. Wayne's death - it existed in spite of his largesse.
The failure of other millionaires to be altruistic COULD be seen as the cause for the depression by those who want to see it that way, but recall that Ra's Al Ghul admitted sabotaging Gotham's economy in order to kill it (the city) which was necessary because its government was corrupt.
I think the larger philosophical theme is the dichotomy between Ra's and Batman. Both are devoted to eliminating crime but Batman will not kill in the process - Ra's will, and does.
Batman has often been compared to Nitsche's "superman" but I think that comparison is more fitting for Ra's. Nitsche said the great man (super-man) has an obligation to the human race to destroy its weaker members. Ra's does this. Batman is more optimistic about human kind and attempts to release the greatness of humanity by destroying the criminal BEHAVIOR of its immoral members. Furthermore, Batman does not go out searching the world for crime and corruption that must be eliminated, as Ra's and the League of Shadows does. He only wants to defend Gotham, his home, from evil doers no matter their motive.
In closing, you should have noticed that what "saved" Gotham was not altruism, but the principled acts of a few heroic men. Yes, they saved "others" and yes, they risked harm to themselves, but they also saved things that mattered to them: Their lives, their homes and their sacred honor.
I'm glad you posted this JK. (I thought about it but was kind of burned out with the intensity of our 'Serenity' review commentary.) But I, as you'd suspect, have a different take on the new Batman.
It does portray depression in Gotham, but in the same era as Wayne senior's altruistic contributions to the city. It wasn't as if the depression coincided with Mr. Wayne's death - it existed in spite of his largesse.
The failure of other millionaires to be altruistic COULD be seen as the cause for the depression by those who want to see it that way, but recall that Ra's Al Ghul admitted sabotaging Gotham's economy in order to kill it (the city) which was necessary because its government was corrupt.
I think the larger philosophical theme is the dichotomy between Ra's and Batman. Both are devoted to eliminating crime but Batman will not kill in the process - Ra's will, and does.
Batman has often been compared to Nitsche's "superman" but I think that comparison is more fitting for Ra's. Nitsche said the great man (super-man) has an obligation to the human race to destroy its weaker members. Ra's does this. Batman is more optimistic about human kind and attempts to release the greatness of humanity by destroying the criminal BEHAVIOR of its immoral members. Furthermore, Batman does not go out searching the world for crime and corruption that must be eliminated, as Ra's and the League of Shadows does. He only wants to defend Gotham, his home, from evil doers no matter their motive.
In closing, you should have noticed that what "saved" Gotham was not altruism, but the principled acts of a few heroic men. Yes, they saved "others" and yes, they risked harm to themselves, but they also saved things that mattered to them: Their lives, their homes and their sacred honor.
Posted by: johngalt at November 28, 2005 3:10 PMI forgot. I also wanted to include this link to what 'Batman Begins' writer had to say on the subject: http://www.darkhorizons.com/news05/bat4.php
(About half-way down)
David Goyer: "The point is, and the main point, is that I don't think the movie necessarily falls on either side, but we wanted to engage the audience in those debates in a real way. I mean, Bruce debates with Rachel--Bruce debates with Ra's--Bruce debates with Gordon--Bruce debates with Alfred. That's the point. Some of those questions can never really be answered."
I disagree with this final conclusion, of course, but this passage and that which surrounds it is very insightful into what the filmmakers thought.
Posted by: johngalt at November 28, 2005 3:13 PMHmm. May have to go down to McDonalds and cough up the $1 and see it again. I was going to open the review with "Don't see it JohnGalt!" I'm glad I didn't step in that!
As I said, I liked it. And I agree that some of the complex questions were nicely left to be resolved in viewers' minds. But I never saw any repudiation or serious counter evidence to the swellness of Papa Wayne's altruism.
I'll agree as well that Ra is a better übermensch to Batman. Batman has a compassion that betrays that for me. (The best literary übermensch for me has got to be Mayor Richard Wilkins III in Buffy, but I've used my Buffy quota for the week.)
Posted by: jk at November 28, 2005 5:04 PMIt's called "compassion" in the movie, but what I observed in Batman should more accurately be called "optimism." He believes that mankind's heroic potential will trump its immoral baseness when given half a chance.
JK sez, "I never saw any repudiation or serious counter evidence to the swellness of Papa Wayne's altruism." Well, how about when Ra's tells Bruce, "You aren't to blame for your father's death. HE is. He and his family were threatened and he did nothing." (Hat tip: Dagny) Why did he do nothing? Maybe it was because he "disapproves" of violence (even in defense from the same) but more insightfully, he was HAPPY to just turn over his wallet to the "poor, disadvantaged, needy" street thug. It was only when his WIFE resisted doing so with her jewelry that they were both murdered. Papa Wayne was a contemptible weasel. Not because he was a billionaire, but because his altruism blinded him to the fact that his own family is far more valuable (to him at the VERY least) than the poor and downtrodden who would happily rob him blind when given the chance.
And by the way... I forgot to ask yesterday: When did you develop such a sour taste for altruism anyway?
Posted by: johngalt at November 29, 2005 3:42 PMI would say that he is repudiating father's pusillanimity, not altruism.
Hmmm, now where could I have picked up an aversion to altruism? Seriously, you have pushed me on this. Mind you, I am still not convinced that the soldiers serving us in Iraq are not to be especially lauded for their sacrifice to me -- whom they have never met -- but rejecting Hollywood's attempts to push it down my throat? I'm there!
Posted by: jk at November 29, 2005 5:04 PMYours is certainly a valid explanation, but coupled with Ra's earlier complaint that "people like [papa] allow the corruption to continue" (by propping it up with their charity) I think my equally valid explanation is more apt.
I'm pleased that my anti-altruism rants have not been completely in vain. Thanks for clearly stating the ground yet to be covered, which I may as well start on right now: Do you also posit that Bruce Wayne's motive for becoming Batman and fighting crime in Gotham is altruism, either primariLy or tangentially?
Posted by: johngalt at November 30, 2005 12:38 AMI have been colored and persuaded on many issues by my blog brothers and sisters. You have made many trenchant cases, even about the soldiers.
To be fair, you were able to start with an Ayn Rand fan and conservative. Let's see you bring my brother around!
Posted by: jk at November 30, 2005 9:52 AM | What do you think? [7]