Just saw Batman Begins, finally
Oct. 19th, 2005 11:25 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
tocryaboutMy main complaint was the editing -- several times things were unclear, which caused me to waste precious neurons thinking about what had just happened. I'd give examples, but I don't care to have them explained to me with fanwank should any beardos find this entry. And also I'd have to mess with spoiler cuts and stuff. But I think the editing issues were obvious; I know what they were trying to do, but sometimes you can cut too much.
I would also have liked much more Cillian Murphy, but that desire does not come from a pure intention for the betterment of art, so I will discount it.
It was silly in other ways, like the cliche of the wide-eyed kid, but that's part of the charm of the superhero movie. I roll my eyes when an adorable moppet is awed by Batman (and then PUT IN DANGAR OH NOES!!), but it doesn't disrupt anything. I get the pleasure of feeling superior, and also I'm not made of stone, dammit. If Batman were on my fire escape I'd be impressed too.
The moral issues were somewhat troubling, and here I may have to put a cut. Some of this may be obvious and done-to-death in fandom, but fuck that, it's my journal.
Basically, the lines that Batman draws are very arbitrary. They're aimed at making Batman feel better about what he's doing, not towards helping anyone else. "I won't execute this criminal directly in cold blood, but I'm happy to put many more people in harm's way while pursuing other criminals, or basically doing anything else I deem as important." How many cops do you think died in that chase sequence? More than one, I'd bet. Those cars took quite a beating. Wayne argues that the prisoner hadn't been tried, but that doesn't stop him later on other occasions from being reckless and leaving people to die. The people who suffer for his actions are both the guilty and the innocent.
So what's the deal? It seems like the writers wanted to show that Batman isn't just a heartless vigilante -- I get the impression that we're supposed to read Wayne's refusal to execute the man as the moral choice. Which it is, but not for Bruce's reasons. What are his reasons, anyway? I think he's just reluctant to admit to himself that he is a violent person who has killed and will kill again. In other words, it's all about him.
The same goes for Batman's verdict on Ducard. When death is certain (and it would be in the real world, in that situation, although who knows when we're talking about superhero movies), and when action to save a person is feasible, the moral difference between outright murder and neglecting to save is negligible. I think it's plain that Batman's intent was definitely for Ducard to die. The only reason not to kill him personally was to keep a superficially clean conscience.
These are not the actions of a man who refuses to kill because he values the life and dignity of every human being. They're not the actions of someone who values a harsh retributive justice. They're the actions of a consummate politician who doesn't want to take responsibility for his actions.
In light of my past entry, I'll mention that I don't think this moral arbitrariness is a fatal flaw. The movie problematises it a bit; we're at least not compelled to approve of Batman's actions. Even the criminals and the (presumably corrupt) cops aren't utterly dehumanised, and while Batman is a hero there's still a sense of danger to him. In the moral world of the movie, there's some ground for saying that not everything Batman does is okay. We the audience can even have a jolly ends-justify-the-means argument about it. Movies like Hannibal and Se7en* close off this debate by manipulating the tone and the presentation of the characters.
Finally, what lends some humanity to the story is that Bruce is ashamed of killing Chill. (He did, didn't he? That was one of the odd bits of editing.) We don't get much of it, and in a story so concerned with vigilantism, revenge and the permissibility of violence towards a "good" end, I'm disappointed that this event isn't dealt with more. It would also be better if we saw similar twinges of conscience whenever he lets someone die, not just when he's the direct cause of it. What we have in the movie is casuistry, and while it's not bothersome enough to ruin the picture, it's still a problem.
Spoilers over! After that ethical fagsplosion, I should say that I really did like this movie, Alfred kicked ass, Morgan Freeman was not wasted (something that can't be said for a lot of movies), and the villains were fun to watch. Also, there was ninja therapy.
________________________
* Remind me to post sometime about Se7en, since it's a much tougher target than Hannibal. Like the latter, it's a reprehensible movie, but this one is actually well-written.
I would also have liked much more Cillian Murphy, but that desire does not come from a pure intention for the betterment of art, so I will discount it.
It was silly in other ways, like the cliche of the wide-eyed kid, but that's part of the charm of the superhero movie. I roll my eyes when an adorable moppet is awed by Batman (and then PUT IN DANGAR OH NOES!!), but it doesn't disrupt anything. I get the pleasure of feeling superior, and also I'm not made of stone, dammit. If Batman were on my fire escape I'd be impressed too.
The moral issues were somewhat troubling, and here I may have to put a cut. Some of this may be obvious and done-to-death in fandom, but fuck that, it's my journal.
Basically, the lines that Batman draws are very arbitrary. They're aimed at making Batman feel better about what he's doing, not towards helping anyone else. "I won't execute this criminal directly in cold blood, but I'm happy to put many more people in harm's way while pursuing other criminals, or basically doing anything else I deem as important." How many cops do you think died in that chase sequence? More than one, I'd bet. Those cars took quite a beating. Wayne argues that the prisoner hadn't been tried, but that doesn't stop him later on other occasions from being reckless and leaving people to die. The people who suffer for his actions are both the guilty and the innocent.
So what's the deal? It seems like the writers wanted to show that Batman isn't just a heartless vigilante -- I get the impression that we're supposed to read Wayne's refusal to execute the man as the moral choice. Which it is, but not for Bruce's reasons. What are his reasons, anyway? I think he's just reluctant to admit to himself that he is a violent person who has killed and will kill again. In other words, it's all about him.
The same goes for Batman's verdict on Ducard. When death is certain (and it would be in the real world, in that situation, although who knows when we're talking about superhero movies), and when action to save a person is feasible, the moral difference between outright murder and neglecting to save is negligible. I think it's plain that Batman's intent was definitely for Ducard to die. The only reason not to kill him personally was to keep a superficially clean conscience.
These are not the actions of a man who refuses to kill because he values the life and dignity of every human being. They're not the actions of someone who values a harsh retributive justice. They're the actions of a consummate politician who doesn't want to take responsibility for his actions.
In light of my past entry, I'll mention that I don't think this moral arbitrariness is a fatal flaw. The movie problematises it a bit; we're at least not compelled to approve of Batman's actions. Even the criminals and the (presumably corrupt) cops aren't utterly dehumanised, and while Batman is a hero there's still a sense of danger to him. In the moral world of the movie, there's some ground for saying that not everything Batman does is okay. We the audience can even have a jolly ends-justify-the-means argument about it. Movies like Hannibal and Se7en* close off this debate by manipulating the tone and the presentation of the characters.
Finally, what lends some humanity to the story is that Bruce is ashamed of killing Chill. (He did, didn't he? That was one of the odd bits of editing.) We don't get much of it, and in a story so concerned with vigilantism, revenge and the permissibility of violence towards a "good" end, I'm disappointed that this event isn't dealt with more. It would also be better if we saw similar twinges of conscience whenever he lets someone die, not just when he's the direct cause of it. What we have in the movie is casuistry, and while it's not bothersome enough to ruin the picture, it's still a problem.
Spoilers over! After that ethical fagsplosion, I should say that I really did like this movie, Alfred kicked ass, Morgan Freeman was not wasted (something that can't be said for a lot of movies), and the villains were fun to watch. Also, there was ninja therapy.
________________________
* Remind me to post sometime about Se7en, since it's a much tougher target than Hannibal. Like the latter, it's a reprehensible movie, but this one is actually well-written.
