The American Spectator

Reader Mail

Unfit for Second in Command

7.25.08 @ 12:01AM

(Page 4 of 6)

Mr. Bass it is clear you are no comic book fan. If you were, then you would not only be happy with the Dark Knight's presentation, you would know from where it comes. Batman, the comic, was never the campy, funny defender of truth and justice that the 1960's television show would lead you to believe. While you are absolutely correct that parents should do more research before they take their children to such a dark movie filled with adult situations, this movie is a faithful adaptation of the Batman comics. Then again, the Dark Knight's portrayal of Batman would also present scores of parents with good opportunity to talk about the difficulty of making good moral decisions. It's filled with imagery of the difficulty of the protector archetype. How do you fight the most evil, sadistic, and dangerous of people without becoming something like them? How can you keep yourself from going over the edge and into the pit of despair? I'm not going to attempt to answer these questions, I have no experience upon which to draw, not even second-hand. Instead, the Dark Knight makes a good-faith effort to answer these questions as does the comic book that is its inspirational source.

For all of you parents out there who wonder why comic book movies can be so dark and dangerous, try to remember something, please. Comic books are not necessarily for kids. Just because they have pictures in them doesn't mean the storylines or the characters are the kind of saccharine caricatures that we normally associate with children's entertainment. In Frank Miller's (yes, the same Frank Miller who did Sin City and 300) rendition of Batman, called The Dark Knight Returns, the Joker beats Robin to death with a crowbar. Let us not forget that Bruce Wayne is motivated by the senseless killing of his parents right in front of him when he was a child. Again, not something we normally associate with children's movies, is it? How "child friendly" is a story about a vigilante anyways? Batman has always been, from the very beginning, a story of a vigilante detective, struggling against the darkness of his city even as he struggles against the darkness within himself.

Wonder Woman was written by a polygamist (really). It's filled with imagery and storylines dealing with polygamy and homosexuality. X-Men characters are killed, mutilated, and otherwise darkly affected on a continual basis. Some of the latest storylines include battles between Wolverine and Cyclopes that end with Cyclopes dead and Wolverine missing a hand. Even Superman and Spiderman, the two most "wholesome" of DC and Marvel's main comic lines, have had their dark days.

The reason that Batman Begins and The Dark Knight are such very good films is that they stay true to the story and themes of the Batman storyline. The actors provide amazing performances and the screen writers are excellent, which helps their cause. But they wouldn't be such good movies if they attempted to return to the camp and silliness of the Batman TV show. For supporting evidence, I provide you with Batman Forever and Batman and Robin, both made good money but both were horrible movies.

I don't think the studios are really marketing this movie for children. The previews that I saw (and I saw plenty) all suggest the dark and dangerous atmosphere of the movie. And as for the action-figures, try to remember a couple of things. First, the collection of move-based toys has been a part of the geek subculture (the subculture that breaths and breeds comic books) sense the Star Wars days. And second, you can buy your child a Dark Knight action figure without taking them to see the movie.

And finally, I'm not about to suggest taking your child to see this movie. I wouldn't take mine, I know the Batman series well enough to know better. But once she has turned the corner into the double-digit range and shows the maturity to understand such dark and complex themes, I will have a different approach. However, when you consider the plethora of influences out there right now, you can do a lot worse than a brooding Dark Knight.
-- Charles Campbell
Austin, Texas

Finally, I'm not the only one who found the non-stop savage brutality sickening and unnecessary. I walked out after 1 hour and 40 minutes and was sorry I hadn't left earlier. How many good/innocent people would I have seen being viciously murdered if I stayed another 40 minutes? The only complaint I have heard about the film is that it was too long.

I'm not a prude but there is zero redeeming social value in this movie, just an exercise in the director and producer's indulging in their blood lust. Even if the bad guy (Joker) dies at the end, which I didn't stay to see, it is of no consequence or penalty considering the dozens if not hundreds he caused to be sickeningly and violently murdered. Cops and D.A.'s are just expendable fodder to be murdered to enhance the plot of this atrocity that opened with a bang. No wonder our children find it so easy to kill.
-- Stacey Greene

I haven't seen The Dark Knight, but I've gotten the gist now from plenty of sources that it's a bit much for children.

I can empathize.

In 1968, my Dad took me to the Star-Lite Drive-in outside Lansing, Michigan, to see the premiere of George Romero's original B&W "Night of the Living Dead." It was rated "M." I was 9 years old. We didn't go because I wanted to see it (as a matter of fact, I didn't know what was playing...I just knew it was a night out at the drive-in with my Dad), we went because HE wanted to see it and it got him out of the house while not having to pay for a babysitter.

Within the first 30 minutes of that movie, I was in the back of the car, crouching on the floorboards behind the front seats begging my Dad to go home. I had nightmares that night and occasionally after that about things I'd seen in the movie...and it obviously made an impression on me because I'm writing about it now 40 years later in great easily-recallable detail.

While most of the parents taking their younger children to see The Dark Knight are just ignorant and not keeping up on what's in the movie, there are I guarantee you a handful who want to see the movie themselves and look at the cost of the ticket as cheaper than a babysitter.

So to parents who take their kids to The Dark Knight, just remember: It's your own ignorance and poor decision making that are to blame for the kiddies nightmare phantasms later that night...not the movie's PG-13 movie rating.
-- Dave Schallert
Parker, Colorado

Mr. Bass is spot on is stating the ultimate responsibility for assuring children view appropriate movies is the parents. "PG-13: "'parents strongly cautioned'": it indicates that parents may find some content of the film unsuitable for children under thirteen." Parents can search hundreds of sites that give detailed information about movie content before they take their children to the cinema. The willingness to subject under aged children to completely inappropriate (and often nightmare inducing) movies reflects laziness, poor judgment or a willingness to allow children to make the adult decisions for their parents. (I do not exclude myself from this statement: I took my daughter to see Superhero Movie because the protagonist was played by Drake Bell, a favorite of my daughter from the Nickelodeon network. I was shocked by the adult nature of the humor and language. I was lulled into a false sense of security by my assumption that since Bell was a star of a children's show, any movie he made would be child friendly.) Ultimately, I was the one who failed my daughter, not Drake Bell or any marketer. They did their job. I did not do mine.
-- Ira M. Kessel
Rochester, New York

Letter to the Editor

topics:
Health Care, John McCain, Television, Business, Abortion, Books, Movies, Law, Military, Russia, NATO, Africa, Conservatism, Immigration, Oil