Batman
I’m interested to see that Batman is back in movie theaters, and just as Spiderman is fading from our memories, too.
As someone who is tracing the way the concept of the hero plays out in various cultures, I’m always interested by such things. Clearly the American public is, also (although perhaps in a different way), because the movie has made all sorts of box-office cash registers overflow.
At a time when such movies are so popular we have a right to ask whether they reflect some aspect of the American psyche, and if so, what?
The fight between good and evil is a perennial favorite, and casting the bad guy in the role of madman is a time-tested formula. Having the determined fearless hero pursue right because it is good is a likewise sure-fire winner.
Unfortunately it’s the very same logical structure that we see our politicians use. Saddam Hussein was a mad Joker; and now the whole country of Iran is cast in a similar role. They’re dangerous; they must be stopped, etc etc. Bring out the marines!
When are we going to ask the difficult questions? When are we going to face that we helped make Saddam into who he became, and that we had a huge amount of input, over decades, in turning Iran into what it currently is. The Shah of Persia was our, imposed, puppet ruler of that hapless country until even his own people could stand the corruption no more.
Superheroes in the movies are one thing, but let’s not get confused and think this is the only way to deal with problems in the real world of politics. The best way is to try and make sure the problems don’t arise to begin with, of course, but when they do we can also engage in higher level dialog than we currently seem to be using.
Our politicians are capable (for the most part) of those higher level discussions. But they are voted in by people who like Batman, who believe in simplistic moral structures, and who think wars can be ‘won’ in a decisive way. These are the shareholders in the company that is the USA, and if they are ignorant then they decisions they will force their leaders to take will be similarly ignorant. Because those leaders will do exactly what the voters want, for the most part.
I see that Batman has broken box office records and I tremble to think that this overwhelming preference may reflect on the quality of some of my fellow citizens’ moral awareness levels. For they outnumber me, badly.
But it’s only a movie, right?
on July 25th, 2008 at 9:38 pm
The cause lies much deeper than blaming the consumer/viewer. I believe the violence of the film points to the real issue— it’s entertainment as diversion. For good or bad people need/want a diversion in their lives. It’s the world many people live in or choose to live in.
I personally don’t want to spend my life making a product that is a diversion but our society has created a powerful mechanism (parts of Hollywood) to produce these types of films to fill various voids in our lives.
You touch on a really interesting point in this post… That maybe a story can guide human beings to immoral or moral actions? It seems to me that modern society has lost faith that stories convey morality. We live in a world that is a technocrats wet dream— and I suspect that most technocrats are closest to the Orphan, although I could be wrong in specific cases.
In some ways it seems that the powerful will always use stories to pursue their own interests. That is the very reason good stories are needed to counter-balance that influence.
Where have the storytellers gone?
I wonder this often… and whether stories are moral creatures?
on July 26th, 2008 at 1:32 am
Excellent points! And I can only agree that technocrats, who like to work within systems for the most part, are highly likely to be Orphans pretending that they don’t know they’re Orphans.
The stories any culture tells itself are usually pretty good indicators of the values that a culture wishes to endorse and promote. The Batman tales aren’t bad, they’re just not particularly sophisticated, nor do they have real depth in my view. Life is constructed upon many bases, and three that matter to me are mystery, beauty, and passion. There are wonderful mysteries to the human heart, there are beautiful actions that exist in bleak environments, and there are passionate engagements with living that are possible for all of us - - and all of these things are about enhancing life, not reducing it to a good guys versus bad guys diagram.
Could it be that the good story tellers have all defected in their formative years to Hollywood and the big bucks? Some, assuredly, become politicians, too….
Stories that are shallow or facile (to answer your question) are artifacts that tend to reduce the wonders of our world to something that could be written on a fortune cookie. To that extent they betray the real, honest, nature of existence.
As ever, Allan
on July 26th, 2008 at 10:23 pm
Thanks for the great reply. Yes, reduction is necessary to sell many products. As someone who defected into a more lucrative field for a while after college (NOT Hollywood), I agree with your “greener” pastures theory. It makes me sad, although I can see counter-examples of good storytelling that does not grovel at the feet of its audience like The Wire, independent films and independent media. There are a lot of nameless people making great art and telling important stories. For example:Ashkon (an Iranian-American hip-hop artist) - Soldier Boy (remix) http://media.libsyn.com/media/thornmorris/soldierboy.mp3
Your comment reminded me of a video I recently saw by the famous academic Martin Seligman…
In particular, in the last few minutes of the presentation (watch the whole thing, it’s worth it), he talks about how technology, entertainment and design can be harnessed to increase positive emotion, flow and meaning in life. I already see this happening with technology (in small ways like blogs/podcasts) but entertainment and design have huge opportunities.
I enjoyed your recent book! You should do a post on your (summer) reading…
on July 27th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
Yes, we’re definitely in tune on this one. Great comments! Seligman’s idea harks back to Plato, I suppose, who proposed in ‘The Republic’ that art should be used to strengthen the population’s sensibilities - although in his case it looks dangerously like propaganda…. Despite this, for centuries the worth of art was upheld by sufficient people feeling it to be of enduring value, and nothing more formal was needed. Of course, this led on occasions to some very strange societies and some extremely unhappy human situations (as for example when the Church told everyone to read only the Bible, nothing else, and then wondered why they had wars on their hands…)
I think it is every thinking citizen’s duty to complain about third rate art, just as we should complain about adulterated foods and polluted air and contaminated water. Bad art makes us feel sick, just as rotted food will, and we can feel that in our viscera.