
(source)
Some of our seniors may not wish to see the Christopher Nolan trilogy or any comic book movie in general (Lawrence Auster, Dr. Fleming, New Sherwood). They do not understand the appeal of the trilogy or of comic book movies. Without heroes either from stories in a traditional canon that is part of a people's heritage or from history, to what else can Uhmerican males refer except to the pop culture upon which they were nourished? We may be critical of the format and its associations with our political economy, but sometimes we have to engage with the "culture" as it is and lead people to the true and good from where they are situated.
Men are looking for stories featuring male heroism. Superhero movies such as Nolan's Batman trilogy, is entertainment that addresses male psychological and spiritual needs. Men want to make a difference to achieve and excel through physical and intellectual ability (as in the case of Batman) - a combination of brain and brawn. Protecting others, working for something greater than one's self, and to find honor and glory therein.
Granted, movies are rather ephemeral in the minds and imaginations of the audience once they are out of the theater and are probably ineffective in shaping the moral imagination and thus inducing long-lasting moral conversion or commitment.
What if the studios or the comic book companies decided to do some gender-bending,
switching the sex of the hero. There's already a Batgirl, but the change could be explained away as being part of an "alternative universe." How many male fans would accept this?
Some have claimed that Batman has been turned into the wrong kind of hero, seeking revenge because of anger, rather than acting out of a sense of justice. Hence this version of Batman is just too dark. I don't see how anger and a desire for justice are incompatible, and it's not clear to me that the trilogy attributes to Batman a single motivation or such a simplistic psychological state. After all, there is his desire to protect the good people of Gotham City as well as the desire to avoid being an executioner (and hence avoidance of guns) that defines his vigilantism. This sets him apart from the League of Shadows, which sees itself as an force for restoring balance when the corruption of a city or civilization is overwhelming. This goal justifies all sorts of vicious acts by the League of Shadows.
Maybe I'm missing something subtle about Batman's characterization in the Christopher Nolan movies. Or I have to watch the first movie, Batman Begins, over again. But I don't think Nolan's Batman is anything close to the TV character Dexter, for example.
The movie is not without its defenders, though this post asserting that the movie is a Christian allegory may be a bit too much. Then there is the Nietzschean/"traditionalist" intepretation given over at Counter Currents (and other alt right websites) which finds much to praise in the movie.
Batman: Anarcho-Fascist mp3
Rotten Tomatoes
IGN
Was the movie too long? I don't think so. Some of the disappointment is understandable - Bruce Wayen's quick recovery does not seem plausible. Given Chris Nolan's balancing act between comic book movie and "realistic" drama, I was mostly satisfied with his conclusion to the trilogy. But maybe that is because I related to the story in a different way than others. Would the scenes that were cut improve the storytelling if inserted back in?
I would watch the movie again.
*spoiler warning*