The Dark Knight

So I have seen the new Batman movie twice now. Once on a regular screen, and the second time on the IMAX screen. Quality wise, of course the IMAX experience blows you away. The pictures are larger and sharper, the sound is louder and clearer and the right mix of sounds can rock the theatre as if you are in the middle of the action. Only gripe, wish it were in 3D too.

Okay, now that the techincal details are out of the way, I can focus on the substance of the movie. Action movies generally don't have a lot to offer in terms of substance, thought, philosophy and so on. You go in, you get entertained, you come out, you forget every bit of it. But I guess every now and then there comes along a movie which doesn't let go of you even after you are out of the theatre. The Matrix was such a movie. It haunted you. There were parts you didn't understand, parts you did and parts you thought you did. It made you question a few fundamental things. I mean okay it was not a lecture class with Plato and wouldn't endure two millenia but it sure stayed with me for more than two months. The Dark Knight has a similar, if not more, enthralling charm. But it's not the pleasant butterflies in your stomach kind. It is a rather dark kind of charm. Beware of the powers of the dark side!

Batman is fine. He wears a mask, doesn't show a lot of emotion, chases criminals, gets hurt, wins some, loses some &etc. We know Batman. Although I personally wish they had chosen a bigger guy to play the role. The animated series had Bruce Wayne a much taller than the others and bigger male, who in his batsuit could be very menacing. Christian Bale isn't taller or bigger than the criminals he fights. Just perhaps more agile and strong. Strength and speed helps but the menacing presence of the animated series just isn't there.

Harvey Dent, Commissioner Gordon, the mafia, the small time criminals all are there. They play their parts well. Aaron Eckhart, as Harvey Dent, plays a major role, and as I read somewhere, is the backbone of the movie. He is Gotham's White Knight. Eckhart is better than other Dents in previous movies. But he sometimes overdoes his role, especially in a fundraiser scene or in an alley where he confronts a criminal.

And then there is The Joker.

I have seen Jack Nicholson as The Joker and I have heard it being said that Heath Ledger had to fill very large shoes. Well. first of all, I have no clue what the buzz about Jack Nicholson is. He plays the same role in every movie. He merely plays himself under a different name. Eccentric person with weird facial expressions just about sums Nicholson. And it doesn't matter what movie it is, what character it is, that's the role he plays over and over. And that 1989 Batman movie was no different. Jack Nicholson played himself in a purple suit and face paint. A mobster with a funny face, a ruffian dressed as a theatrical clown. I don't even remember what his complain against the world was. Was it the fact that someone did a bad job of plastic surgery on his burnt face? Did he even have a complaint?

Not so for the new Joker. We have no idea where this Joker comes from. He has no name and no past. And he doesn't care for money. To The Joker, money is no object. He is a philosopher. He blows up things and kills people to make a point. Batman is smart; The Joker is smarter. What he lacks in gadgets and physical strength he makes up for with his intelligence. He wants to show that people follow rules not because they are ethical law abiding good citizens but because they are afraid to break the law and face the consequences. And if he takes away those consequences people would do anything. He shows that people don't think, but they like structure, even when the structure is terrible. He shows that the thing people are most afraid of is uncertainty. And therefore it is easy to control large crowds by inserting a little hysteria. He wants to show that people are depraved, evil, malicious and spiteful and the only thing that holds civilization together is, ironically, a thin thread of selfishness. And with a little push, the same principles that make a person noble can make that person a monster. The Joker is the personified antithesis of the Social Contract of Locke and Rousseau.

The Joker is dark, his jokes are lethal, but the clarity of his thought is mesmerizing. The best villains are those who even in their villainy, are able to elicit your sympathy or admiration for them. You want to hate The Joker , but as you hate him, you also admire him. Because, although he takes away Gotham's White Knight, he gives them The Dark Knight.

The Daily News

Today is June 3, 2008. It's a Thursday. And yesterday, June 2, 2008 Ingrid Betancourt, three American contractors and 11 other hostages were freed "in a daring mission" from Colombian rebels who had held them for over five years. Great news! The only problem is I didn't even know who Ingrid Betancourt was till yesterday. I know now, because that's the only thing on the news all the time.

Honestly, how many people, American or Canadian or Briton or anybody, knew who Betancourt was, what she stood for, under what conditions she was captured and why she was held prisoner? Even more importantly, how many people does this news impact? And how many people will even remember this after one week? So why is it on the news all the time?

Daring rescue of hostages.
Betancourt hugs her children.
Hostages home after five years.
...
...

Is there nothing else that could be of importance to the American people, or people in general, American or otherwise? What about the things that actually impact people's lives? Laws enacted by the government, policies undertaken by government agencies, wars, treaties, inflation, poverty, education, climate change... why are those things not reported by the news channels?

I remember the extensive coverage of Anna Nicole Smith's death and whatever followed after. It's sad she died at a young age. But she was a Playboy playmate and a model! Really, was she that important? Or take Britney Spears for instance. Her first wedding, its annulment, her second wedding, her kids, her absolutely uncivilized behavior in public, her divorce... and the news coverage of it all.

Who the hell cares??

You have to be wondering, is this some kind of opium the media constantly feeds the public to keep them from thinking or asking serious questions? If so, why? And if not, then how did the journalists and the broadcasters become so dumb and what can be done about it? There is plenty of news out there that is actually important and affects people's lives. Well, to be fair, it seems people don't care about important stuff anymore anyway. They have grown accustomed to live from one useless news flash to another useless news flash. They talk about it for the next three to four days. By the end of the week they have forgotten about it. And by the time next week rolls around, there is another flashy, jazzy irrelevant breaking news item all over again.

Free press.