This is in response to Andrew Klavan’s article, “What Bush and Batman Have in Common.”
Klavan writes, “There is no moral equivalence between a free society– in which people sometimes make the wrong choices– and a criminal sect bent on destruction. The former must be cherished even in its moments of folly; the latter must be hounded to the gates of Hell.” We must free ourselves from this delusion that somehow the deplorable actions committed in the name of righteousness are somehow different from the deplorable actions committed in the name of villainy. Actions are actions, regardless of intent. As Stephen Fry once so eloquently put it, “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.” While many consider the acts of terrorists to be monstrous, there are many that praise these same acts. The same occurs with actions committed by U.S. military forces.
The author goes on to point out that conservatives must hide their ideals in films like Batman, while liberals simply display them outright, in works such as “Redacted.” He dually notes that the latter, and others like it, failed miserably. The reason that these films flop is not that people don’t agree with the sentiment, its that no one wants to be confronted by these questionable ideas when they are merely looking for a film to take their mind off of the real world. The reason that conservative messages are able to penetrate films such as “The Dark Knight,” is that no one is looking for them. These opinions are not rubbed in the face of the viewer, they are merely presented in the background, on an almost subliminal level.
I find it hard to believe that anyone came out of “The Dark Knight” thinking, “You know what? Good ‘ole G.W. isn’t really that bad of a guy.” It is foolish to say that films such as this one are more successful than more “liberal” offerings because of their conservative message. Films like these are more successful because they have better special effects. The reason that these films are more successful is that they involve a man in a rubber suit, who flies off of the sides of skyscrapers. It’s FANTASY that people want. I shall point to the success of a little known film, dubbed “WALL-E.” This film was absolutely filled with green-liberal propaganda;” however, it grossed over 63 million dollars in its first weekend (thanks imdb). Why was this film so successful? I’ve got two words for you, robots and spaceships. The underlying theme of the movie could have been, ” Global warming doesn’t exist,” and it still would have made 63 mill (maybe 62; I hear Al Gore saw it several times). People don’t want overt social commentary, be it conservative or liberal; they want mindless entertainment. Out of all of the things that people want in a movie, reality is not one of them.
The author states that conservatives MUST be more suttle, when it comes to social commentary. I call shenanigans on this. Conservatives are free to make blatantly conservative films; hoever, the public is also free not to watch them.
“The moment filmmakers take on the problem of Islamic terrorism in realistic films, suddenly those values vanish. The good guys become indistinguishable from the bad guys, and we end up denigrating the very heroes who defend us. Why should this be?” Now we are getting somewhere. The point of “realistic” films is to do exactly that, to show the flaws and moral contradictions in the actions of our “heroes.”