Wasn’t bad. Ledger certainly personified a reactionary’s notion of “anarchy.”
And that’s what the Batman formula is (reactionary, I mean). The character and his narrative are 100% hardwired with the Florentine Republican ideas that J.G.A. Pocock has done the best job of elucidating (coming from a vantage point that is anathema to me). All he wants to do is hang on. Exercise virtu and excise “corruption.” Keep the money in the hands of the people that are already (“legitimately”) rich, and the underclass in its place. The only “systemic” critique this concept is capable of generating is a law n’ order screed against legal loopholes that allow the criminals to go free.
That’s why I hate Batman–but you already know that if you’ve hung out here before. I really should check out what Morrison has done with the character–’cause Morrison, as you also probably know, is the one writer (or, the one living writer–’cause Mark Gruenwald had pretty much the same agenda) who seems to believe–along with me–that superhero comics should make inexorable war against the status quo/totalizing narratives.
I also saw the trailer for Watchmen.
Now there’s a concept that could go any way at all–politically. But who can tell from that trailer where that 300 guy is going with it? I’m not optimistic. How could I be? And what’s the point of a Watchmen movie anyway? The book was so cinematic that I would argue we’ve all SEEN the best film that could possibly have been made out of it. The trailer would seem to support that statement. It looks GREAT–’cause it looks EXACTLY like the comic panels…
Of course I’m gonna go see it.
Then I read this thing on The Spirit.
My only response to that is–the spirit is willing, but the Miller is weak.
good evening friends!