Bush and Batman? Satire — or Silly


An op-ed in today’s Wall Street Journal is either brilliant satire (New Yorker cover artists, take note) or the most breathtakingly silly form of wish-fulfillment one is ever likely to find in those otherwise august pages.

The author – Andrew Klavan, an award-winning mystery writer, according to his bio – asserts that the latest Batman installment, “The Dark Knight,” is “at some level a paean of praise to the fortitude and moral courage that has been shown by George W. Bush in this time of terror and war.

“Like W, Batman is vilified and despised for confronting terrorists in the only terms they understand. Like W, Batman sometimes has to push the boundaries of civil rights to deal with an emergency, certain that he will re-establish those boundaries when the emergency is past.

“And like W, Batman understands that 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 Dark Knight,’ then, is a conservative movie about the war on terror.”

Well, that’s one way to look at what is just another incarnation of an established – some might say “clichéd” – genre of filmmaking known as revenge fantasy. Think of the 1970s “Dirty Harry” flicks, which were hardly original on the only-the-alientated-antihero-taking-law-into-his-own-hands-can-save-us theme, if you want an idea of how old this kind of thing is.

Revenge fantasy has always had a lurid appeal for the right wing: Call it personal responsibility in extremis. Which, by itself, isn’t a bad thing. The problem has to do with the fantasy part: Real-life vigilantes aren’t ever so successful in limiting their violence only to the deserving, and rarely is the problem ever truly resolved except in their own minds.

The reality is that real life is never so simple as revenge fantasies would like it to be. Klavan disagrees, of course, alleging that “Leftists frequently complain that right-wing morality is simplistic. Morality is relative, they say; nuanced, complex. They’re wrong, of course, even on their own terms.”

The Left has its problems – like often refusing to acknowledge when the right is right – but Klavan is putting up what lawyers and debaters call a “straw man” argument. What leftist with any brains has ever said morality is relative? Unsentimental leftists will only argue that morality isn’t as neat, tidy or, yes, simple as the far right thinks it is.


Filed Under:

Want to read more articles like this one? SUBSCRIBE TO VARIETY TODAY.
Post A Comment 2

Leave a Reply


Comments are moderated. They may be edited for clarity and reprinting in whole or in part in Variety publications.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

  1. Daniel says:

    “What leftist with any brains has ever said morality is relative?”
    Ever read Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals”?

  2. Crown Royal says:

    Hmmm….something must be wrong. The part where you refuted AK’s analogy with facts didn’t load on my computer.

More Biz News from Variety