Social War Room Lounge v260: Pls no bully Geg

Best bourbon cocktail?


  • Total voters
    35
Status
Not open for further replies.
See my post above yours. I'm less concerned about the police state and surveillance stuff.

I don't disagree with your analysis in that post (although there is no mention of redistribution; rather, the bandit was throwing the money away). And the "burn the forest down" always stuck out as a thematic weak point of the movie, however cool it sounds. However, I also don't think that the story weighs that heavily against the larger real-time narrative.
 
Yeah me too. I really enjoy that movie a lot. I actually own a Blu Ray copy of it. I love that early Skateboarding era Coming out of So Cal.


I also like Stacy Peralta and his vision. The bones brigade Documentary is one of my favorites
Did you skate when you where younger?


@Cubo de Sangre @Jesus H. Sherdog @essie thanks for caring and yes the last couple months have been kicking my ass badly.
 
I'm aware of the Dark Knight Returns but I don't know why its existence detracts from the very clear evidence in the film the Dark Knight that it is supportive of brutal fascism.
Propaganda for "brutal fascism"?Seems like a stretch.
"Alfred Pennyworth : With respect Master Wayne, perhaps this is a man that *you* don't fully understand, either. A long time ago, I was in Burma. My friends and I were working for the local government. They were trying to buy the loyalty of tribal leaders by bribing them with precious stones. But their caravans were being raided in a forest north of Rangoon by a bandit. So, we went looking for the stones. But in six months, we never met anybody who traded with him. One day, I saw a child playing with a ruby the size of a tangerine. The bandit had been throwing them away.

Bruce Wayne : So why steal them?

Alfred Pennyworth : Well, because he thought it was good sport. Because some men aren't looking for anything logical, like money. They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned, or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn."

The local government Alfred is working for would be the British in their occupation of Myanmar for a century. Alfred speaks of leveraging wealth as a means to influence tribe leaders. His example of a man he doesn't understand is a radical who stole his bargaining chip in an effort to subvert military influence in occupied land. This bandit is redistributing wealth against an imperialist power. Alfred concludes that this man could not be influenced by money, which he lists as illogical. This is an almost direct nod to fascist capitalism. He says they can't be bullied. Again, he is saying this is a negative. He says that this mans actions, which hurt no one, were tantamont to burning the world.

Later Batman asks Alfred how he caught the bandit. Alfred replies "we burnt the forest down". Alfred is literally describing burning the world to rid itself of radical resistors and it is being framed as just.

This is just a small example as there are many.
The function of that scene isn't to endorse what Alfred did there. That's what's ominous about the "we burnt the forest down" line, the function of the scene is to demonstrate that men like the Joker sometimes make monsters out of the men trying to stop them which becomes an important theme in the film.

Batman's "burning of the forest" moment is when he creates the surveillance state which is framed as an ethical dilemma to be approached with extreme caution and moral fortitude. He could've kept that tech to go after other criminals but he doesn't.
It doesn't. I just don't think that very clear evidence exists at all.

In fact, if anything I think it's more arguably anti-fascist, from its presentation of the ethical dilemma between encroachment of the security state and the upholding of social contracts to its climax where criminals and civilians alike make an ethical choice to spare one another without guidance or intervention from the political or spiritual leader.

A fascist rendering would cast the imposition of a security state as being a good thing rather than a sin borne by an antihero. It would cast criminals as fundamentally bad and political decision making as fundamentally good.
Well said. It definitely has right wing undertones but propaganda for brutal fascism? I think that's a stretch.
 
Last edited:
There just isn't a strong argument for your side imo. It's the most decorated comic book movie of all-time. Has the most Oscar nominations, highest audience scores, and, until Black Panther, highest critical ratings of any film in the genre's history.

The great Roger Ebert gave it 4 stars - the only comic book/superhero movie to ever get that rating from him - and Ebert called it "one of the finest films ever made."

https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/the-dark-knight-2008

"I didn't find it believable" or " I thought it was boring" aren't equally weighty arguments.

It was boring is a correct subjective judgment, but it was absurdly implausible is not. Of course, plausibility isn't necessary for a movie to be good, but it did make it impossible to take it seriously, which it seems to ask.
 
I like Batman Begins the best of the trilogy.

Towards the end the Dark Knight starts to go off the rails. Too much is going on at once and it gets screwy.

I think it happens once the joker manages to blow up an entire hospital without anyone noticing him walking around in clown makeup. And that boat scene was really
Corny and bad imo
 
HelplessFrayedAmericanquarterhorse-max-1mb.gif

Tim Burton sucks









































Look its Batman part 25 or watch centrists to the right of Attila the Hun beat off to 80s punk all night.
 


Deo.jpg


Not what I was expecting. I was looking forward to some Enya.... maybe lil duran duran



Like I said, you're treading on a 100 year discourse here. And the result of the original discourse and it's legacy heavily tinges how these issues are viewed today.

That discourse of course, being the debate between Booker T Washington and W.E.B. Du Bois and the so called "Atlanta Compromise". Washington of course was a proponent of working within Jim Crow and accepting white political rule. Du Bois, initially favorable, turned into one of the biggest opponents, stating in no uncertain terms that our rights were just that and should be taken with no reservations. That's a simplification, but the crux of one of the most important political discussions in African American history.

The winner of course, would be Du Bois, and his belief in equality by any means necessary would be the backbone of black political theory into the current day. The Civil Rights movement, the Panthers, Black Power, all of those are the ideological descendents of W.E.B. Du Bois. And it's no coincidence that those are some of the most effective movements that we've seen with regard to securing our rights in this country.

With regard to Barkley, he's more Washington to Du Bois, and that's why he gets the face of respectability politics label. His tirade about "unintelligent blacks" was especially egregious because in his tirade, he has the audacity to mention "taking shit from black people" as if he's not doing the same thing he's complaining about. We have documented phenomena regarding how inner cities got that way, and it wasn't "crabs in a barrel" that made it happen. In fact it was the exact opposite in many cases, having to make do while being denied services provided to everyone else. It's very much moving the target after the bullet is shot and then calling out the person for missing.

We're not even a full generation removed from segregation. Schools were never fully integrated to begin with. We still have significantly more permissive uses of police force against us and adverse medical outcomes as a result of racial conditions. The same issues affecting white coal miners that we moved heaven and earth to fellate were the same that we saw in inner cities, only we got bootstraps instead of a bailout. When crack ravaged our communities, we got locked up, not an epidemic declaration. A black family on average has TEN TIMES less net worth than an average white family. Those aren't problems caused by "crabs in a bucket" mentality, those are systemic issues that people far more invested than Charles Barkley are breaking their backs to find the answers to.

So for Sir Charles to open his meathole and proclaim "unintelligent blacks" as the reason all these problems exist is Washington in a nutshell, only with the benefit of hindsight to tell us that Du Bois was the correct angle to take. How would you respond if someone told you the sole reason you are able to enjoy the rights you do today is actually the wrong way of doing things? You'd probably call them a giant dumbass and point to the fruits of your action huh?

WR Post of the Week. 0 Likes. SMH. Also credit to @mkess101 for being one of (if not the most) intelligent, reasonable, good faith conservative and/or right-wing posters on this forum by far. And I'm not just saying that 'cause... :p
@Deorum really staking a claim for a top spot on p4p WR poster rankings. Really loving this dude (in the way a straight man with no curiosity loves a gay man LMAO) and his contributions here. Keep up the good work brother, it is noticed!
Seriously though, anybody that can get Falsedawn (or @Limbo Pete) to even bother is doing something correct in how they approach and engage in discourse.
 
Propaganda for "brutal fascism"?Seems like a stretch.

The function of that scene isn't to endorse what Alfred did there. That's what's ominous about the "we brunt the forest down" line, the function of the scene is to demonstrate that men like the Joker sometimes make monsters out of the men trying to stop them which becomes an important theme in the film.

Batman's "burning of the forest" moment is when he creates the surveillance state which is framed as an ethical dilemma to be approached with extreme caution and moral fortitude. He could've kept that tech to go after other criminals but he doesn't.

Well said. It definitely has right wing undertones but propaganda for brutal fascism? I think that's a stretch.
I didn’t get that at all from the scene. Alfred and Batman are still the heroes and are discussing a villain.
 
It was boring is a correct subjective judgment, but it was absurdly implausible is not. Of course, plausibility isn't necessary for a movie to be good, but it did make it impossible to take it seriously, which it seems to ask.

It asks you to take it as seriously as an other action film from Aliens to the Terminator. It’s not taxi driver. It’s the exact right balance for a comic to action film, unlike that rocket penguin thing.
 
Yikes, looks like the mask has come off entirely.

More concerning is people shrugged it off (Even Liberal), and Google is burying it. He essentially got away with it.

Whether or not it's a clown making the statement, the mask is off, and a lot of people heard it. Those are militant words, to suggest non European immigration was the greatest terrorist act against America.
 
I didn’t get that at all from the scene. Alfred and Batman are still the heroes and are discussing a villain.
Sure but the film explicitly deals with the idea that sometimes there's a fine line between villains and heroes. I mean it wasn't even very subtle, Harvey Dent literally says "You either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain" and later has a near death experience and becomes a villain.
 
Sure but the film explicitly deals with the idea that sometimes there's a fine line between villains and heroes. I mean it wasn't even very subtle, Harvey Dent literally says "You either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain" and later has a near death experience and becomes a villain.
You get a sense then that the film thinks Alfred is a villain?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top