Thoughts from the Usher Podium: The Dark Knight Trilogy Analysis Part 1

No doubt the Dark Knight Trilogy will go into the annuls of movie history as one of the definitive movie franchises ever created; certainly one of the best in the first part of the 21st century. With its dark, naturalistic tones, its complex characters and its timeless source material, generations to come will revel in it's glory much like they did with Star Wars. Its the rare beast that appeases huge populous audiences and those who imposed themselves as the guardians of good cultural taste i.e. critics, film historians, academics and the like.

But what makes the trilogy so timeless and important doesn't only depend on it's ability to entertain. There is something much more universal that resonates underneath. A point of view that needs to be given pause and contemplation beyond simply saying it was a good set of flicks. There is a well constructed framework that in some cases is purposely put there by the creators and in some cases subconsciously placed there because it operates within the confines of a collective worldview. This three part analysis aims to put the Dark Knight Trilogy into a historical context to reveal its ultimate political ends and its Judeo-Christian roots. I posit that the Dark Knight Trilogy, has a politically authoritarian bent and is religiously conservative.

A disclaimer: just because I believe these opinions, themes and subtexts exist doesn't mean I endorse them. I only think its neat to contemplate and fascinating to find. If you read these articles and ultimately think the Dark Knight Trilogy endorses your worldview or conflicts with it, keep in mind they're still just movies.

Batman Begins starts with our hero, a young Bruce Wayne falling down a well on his family's estate. There he faces an imprinted fear of bats immediately followed by his father Thomas Wayne imparting the only known lesson he'll give before his untimely death. "Why do we fall, Bruce? So we can learn to pick ourselves up." Now some may find direct correlation to that message and the conservative mantra of "picking yourself up by your bootstraps" but Thomas Wayne's character is a little more nuanced than that. On the way to the family's fated final curtain, they take the Gotham mass transit system where Thomas is revealed to be more attuned to Andrew Carnegie's "Gospel of Wealth" than the allure of a laisse faire economic philosophy. During Bruce's time with the League of Shadows Ducard explains Thomas was one of the "do-gooders" who insured the League's plan to use "economics" as a means of destroying Gotham didn't work.

When the Waynes are dispatched and Bruce disappears he's inducted into the League of Shadows and adopts a second more totalitarian father figure, the inscrutable Ducard. While training, he overcomes his fears and ultimately learns the necessary skills to become the Batman. Then comes the pivotal point when Bruce rejects Ducard's ultimate ends i.e. destroying Gotham for the greater good. Bruce refuses to believe Gotham is beyond saving and when back with Alfred (a more motherly figure in that his love is unconditional) He concocts the idea for the Batman. Yet notice while Bruce rejects the ends of the League of Shadows he does not deny the usefulness of their means. While the League of Shadows aims for dubious ends their philosophy is succinct. They serve as a check to the powerful, preaching a philosophy similar to Gore Vidal only with an authoritarian streak reminiscent of German Fascism. They believe history is cyclical and the only way to ensure humanity marches towards progress is to mix the pot. Now who serves to be a check on them is a concern that ultimately has their philosophy buckle under scrutiny but mixing the pot to the point of revolution or renaissance is not altogether a bad thing. They're just more goose-steppers than they are Occupy Wall Street.

Noam Chomsky wants you to kill and eat babies!!!

Batman is mean't to be a symbol revered by the city whist being a symbol of fear and order for Gotham's criminal class. Fear is the ultimate force that informs Bruce's world and thus he still holds to the identity of the League. When Bruce adopts the Batman as a persona some claim he channels Nietche's ubermensch; a man above and beyond man; but I would reject such didactic simplicity. Bruce is not creating a moral philosophy based on This-worldliness. He rejects his father's philanthropy for a more solipsistic approach to crime solving. An approach that rejects nuance and attempts to stop crime at its supposed source. During Bruce's first outing as Batman he corners Carmine Falcone, the only crime lord in Gotham we as the audience have met and the only crime lord Bruce seems to know. The fact that Falcone's men killed Joe Chill, the man who killed Bruce's parents before he could is not mentioned but hangs in the theater like a meal best served cold.

Later replaced by better actress...then killed off.

Falcone is ultimately deemed unfit for trial over the objection by the DA office which includes Bruce's longtime friend and love interest Rachel Dawes. It is then that we come face to face with our primary villain, Scarecrow aka Dr. Jonathan Crane. His plan is to release an air-born fear-inducing hallucinogen into the Gotham water supply. Crane is mean't to be a foil to Bruce and Batman. Like Bruce, Crane has an alias and uses his intelligence and fear to achieve his goals. Furthermore both of their goals up until this point are nebulous. One's stated goal is to stop crime yet he has way better means of achieving it while the other is revealed to work with the League of Shadows. But what does Crane get out of his dealings with them? Money, is he insane? Is he a full-fledged member of the League and therefore wants to destroy Gotham because it represents everything evil and bad? His motives are never truly addressed.

What is clear is if Scarecrow gets his way Gotham will descend into chaos, but how? The drug can only be inhaled not drunken. We're reintroduced to Ducard now revealed to be Ra's al Ghul and the last piece of the puzzle is dropped. The microwave emitter stolen by Wayne Enterprises earlier in the film will be used to evaporate the water in the mains and release the hallucinogen into the air where it can be inhaled by its victims. Much like Hannibal, al Ghul uses "all roads lead to Rome" as a mode in his conquest. The mass transit system that leads directly to Wayne Tower and conveniently to the entire city's water supply will be used against Gotham. Due to widespread corruption and ineffectiveness of the city the only people aware and/or able to do anything about al Ghul's plan are Sgt. Gordon, Rachel Dawes and Batman.

...and lo, the lord saith, "Get off my plane!"

Now let's talk about Sgt. Gordon for a moment. In order to arrest Falcone and his brood, Batman enlists the help of the only honest cop he knows and Gordon becomes a prophet of sorts preaching the gospel of Batman. A gospel that preaches order through fear. He makes the initial arrest of Falcone and is rewarded with the only vial of antidote for the hallucinogen not meant for mass production. Therefore he raises above the law, able to perform certain functions such as helping Batman in the climactic final battle and the ceremonial lighting of the Bat-signal at the end of the movie. Yet at this point in the trilogy we are in the prenatal stages of Christian dogma. Most characters identify with one "God" over many. Falcone: money, Rachel: justice, Scarecrow: fear etc. Through Batman and his disciple Sgt. Gordon Gotham unites under one banner, one mantra and that is order. Through order there is salvation, through order all good things come. Yet order through fear is not enough as later installments will highlight. Batman is less a Christ-like figure than he is an old testament prophet, forcefully proclaiming "Do this and you will live, for I fear God" Genesis 42:18.

In the climactic battle for the heart and soul of Gotham, Bruce destroys the images of both of his father figures in one cathartic action-piece. He derails his biological father's rapid transit system while "refusing to save" Ducard. Bruce is no longer ascribes to his father's humanistic economic philosophy or Ducard's "serve the greater good" mentality. He instead does the opposite of both. His billionaire playboy persona and his solipsistic Batman persona both belie a selfish streak. Bruce Wayne or rather "Bruce Wayne" doesn't care about poor people and while the comics highlight the Wayne Research Institute, The Thomas Wayne Foundation and the Martha Wayne Foundation as altruistic ventures, none are addressed in the world of The Dark Knight. Meanwhile Batman continues to utilize the tool of fear to keep denizens of Gotham in check. A fear-mongering creature now with the unofficial endorsement of the Gotham PD. No wonder Rachel ultimately rebuffs his advances. It is only in The Dark Knight that order through fear is replaced by order through sacrifice. Whose sacrifice remains to be seen.

Though I'll give you a big freakin' clue

Kingman: The Secret Service

Year: 2014
Genre: Action/Spy Film
Director: Matthew Vaughn
Stars: Colin Firth, Taron Egerton, Samuel L. Jackson, Michael Caine, Mark Strong, Mark Hamill, Sofia Boutella

How do you parody something that already parodies itself? James Bond boasts 23 cannon films. 25 if you include David Niven's Casino Royale (1967) and Sean Connery's remake of Thunderball (1965), Never Say Never Again (1983). Those who venture to see the whole series will no doubt understand just how far-fetched and outlandish the world of James Bond is. Crazy megalomaniacal villains, convenient gadgets, patronizing (at best) treatment of women; Maybe Daniel Craig's severe take as 007 has made audiences forget just how silly the series had gotten over the years.

Does Spike Lee have to slap a bitch?

Kingman: The Secret Service is the story of a British hood named Eggsy (Taron Egerton) who is given the chance to prove his mettle as a member of an elite secret service organization. Colin Firth plays his mentor (codename: Galahad) because years ago Eggsy's father saved his life during a mission. While Eggsy is in training, an eccentric tech billionaire (Samuel L. Jackson) is in the final stages of his nefarious plan to stop global warming. Can the Kingmen stop him before he submerges the world in chaos?

Critics are calling this movie a cheeky send up of the spy film genre. "Stylish, subversive and above all fun..." says the rottentomatoes.com banner over a 74% critic score. I must have missed something. Stylish? I suppose if you think the interiors of an old-timey tailor shop mixed with the interiors of Professor Xavier's School is stylish. Subversive? Does this movie subvert conventions? No it embraces them. Fun? Well, if your definition of fun is a church full of innocent people getting slaughtered while "Free Bird" plays in the background then maybe you should re-examine your life.

Pictured: Much better movie

Now I'm not saying that gratuitous amounts of violence can't be fun. Who can't see a movie like Shoot'Em Up (2007) without a sense of awe an infectious giggling. But in that movie there was a premium on innocence. Those not directly related to the plot were omitted from the bloodletting and the one innocent in the film (the baby) was the one thing Clive Owen was protecting. The point driven home in Kingmen is there is no innocence. By virtue of being alive (and living in London, Rio or Kentucky) you're a participant in the villains endgame and an "entertaining" pawn in the story.

But hey, the good guys succeed in the end right? Well they do but the villain convinced nearly every head of state to go with his plan so realistically the world would still descend into chaos anyway. And what of our heroes? An organization that is old-money-rich, white, and British with one co-opted hood laying the kill stroke. Meanwhile the conspiracy they stop is diverse, largely new money and Samuel L. himself is black and if the medallion around his neck is to be believed, Muslim.

Each scene that doesn't involve gratuitous violence is rushed at the expense of the actors humanizing their characters. Firth sits in an office full of Sun headlines and explains that each headline represents a day he accomplished a mission for the Kingmen and the world never noticed. Egerton leaves his mother's house by taking a moment to comfort his little baby sister. These are moments that could have shown emotional resonance but were undermined by the villain making an appearance and Egerton escaping baddies with parkour respectively. Why get to know the characters at all when we could briskly move onto the next martial-arts set piece.

All in all, Kingman is an overloaded male fantasy with a fatalistic view of human behavior and an insultingly out of touch, Anglos-know-best mentality. The action, while occasionally cool to look at, can't hide its hatred filled heart and its attempts at parody are at the very most half-assed. Yet despite all this, I'm taken aback by the movie's critical success and the formation of a cult following. What is society coming to when we celebrate the demise of hundreds with computer chips in their neck and laugh at the potential deaths of billions who only wanted free cellphone service.

Final Grade: F

Thoughts from the Usher Podium: 10 Movies Better Than 50 Shades of Grey

First let me make a confession; I have not seen 50 Shades of Grey (2015), nor have I read the book. I can only judge based on the reviews from professional reviewers, those in my circle of influence who actually saw it and cultural talking-heads who cry foul at its supposed rapey-ness. If I may I would like to side step the chorus of complaints with the movie and instead focus on what I know for sure: Thematically, there are elements of sado-masochism. Its an unconventional love story and it initially started as Twilight fan-fiction. So until I get a chance to see the film (which I refuse to pay money for but rest assured I will see it), this is for those who did see it and feel disappointed. This is for the people who went to see it because their base curiosity brought them to the theater and instead of being rewarded with prurient kink got mindless dreck. Here is a list of movies with similar themes and circumstances that are (probably) a whole lot better:

10. Tie Me Up! Tie Me Down! (1989)
A strapping, young and certifiable Antonio Banderas plays a recent patient of a mental hospital who tracks down an ex-lover played by Victoria Abril. She's a popular porn star with no intention to settle down so when Banderas shows up unannounced and asks for her hand in marriage she refuses. Then things get weird as the title would suggest. While far from a masterful denial of misogyny, director Pedro Almodovar's eye-popping cinematography makes the movie very pretty to look at. Plus with an NC-17 you know you're in for a lot and I mean a lot of nudity.

9. Crash (1996)
No not the 2005 Best Picture winner about racism and Michael Pena's unadulterated balling. Crash is a David Cronenberg film about a sub-culture of car crash fetishists. That's right, that's a thing. Highlights include James Spader using Rosanna Arquette's vulva shaped scar which she got from an accident that claimed her leg, fetish videos of car safety tests and a recreation of the crash that killed James Dean. Messed up? Of course, but if you're watching 50 Shade of Grey for the shock value you might as well go the full car length.

8. Belle de Jour (1967)
Of course if weird sexual behavior coupled with blood and violence isn't your thing you might want to try out Luis Bunuel's classic Belle de Jour. The movie about a bored French housewife making use of her days as a prostitute has a lot to offer to the 50 Shades crowd. It has sado-masochistic flights of fancy, a beautiful lead in Catherine Deneuve and best of all a dollop of Catholic guilt. Let's face it, sado-masochism wouldn't be as interesting if not for the Roman Catholic Church.

7. The Night Porter (1974)
Of course couples dressing up as priests and nuns isn't as notoriously linked to S&M as much as Nazis. Because no one ever said you should have good taste in the bedroom. So if feeling up a swastika while your lips quiver is your thing then check out The Night Porter. It's a love story of sorts about an ex-concentration camp officer who sexually tortured a beautiful Jewish girl in WWII. Now years later he lives a secret, unassuming life until he comes across her again and they reignite their masochistic affair.

6. Tokyo Decadence (1992)
Okay thus far we've been delving into some unsavory territory as far as the psychology of sexual dysfunction. My guess is if you want to see 50 Shade of Grey you're probably not a psychology major. In Tokyo Decadence we follow an unhappy prostitute who acts out elaborate scenarios for her Johns most involving S&M and humiliation. Titillating and very aware of its target audience, Tokyo Decadence is also visually pleasant to watch, if a little crude.

5. Private Parts (1972)
Director Paul Bartel has made a name for himself exploring the sexual mores of the 70's and 80's. Following his explosively subversive short film Naughty Nurse (1969) came the equally shocking Private Parts. The movie follows a young naive girl (Ayn Ruymen) who takes refuge in her aunt's dilapidated hotel. While there she becomes fascinated with it's odd occupants including a perverted priest and a reclusive photographer. A sordid coming-of-age tale like nothing you've ever seen to be sure.

4. Basic Instinct (1992)
Ah yes, the infamous Basic Instinct. Maybe a little dated by today's standards but let's not forget how salacious the movie was when it premiered. A mix of film noir tropes, liberal amounts of nudity and yes, bondage make Basic Instinct arguably the second closest in spirit to 50 Shade of Grey. Try very hard to avoid the sequel though. Yeesh!

3. Sex, Lies and Videotape (1989)
Less of a bondage-centered love story than a psychologically perverse exploration of middle-class emptiness, Sex, Lies and Videotape, more so than most movies of the time, fostered the American Independent Cinema movement of the 1990's. It's bold, its character-driven and very sexy, yet still manages to be bittersweet. Again James Spader makes an appearance on this list which makes me wonder about his sex life.

2. Nymphomaniac Vol. 1-2 (2012-2013)
Lars von Trier's controversial pair of films center on the life and times of a self-diagnosed nymphomaniac. The less I say about it the better but let's just say there's a complex tapestry of emotions and lots of unbridled sexual exploration. Plus there's Shia LeBeouf's wang. If that's a draw for the ladies then so be it.

1. Secretary (2002)
James Spader again! This time paired with Maggie Gyllenhaal who plays a submissive secretary to a demanding lawyer. It's an unconventional love story which mirrors almost perfectly with 50 Shades of Grey only this time the characters are three-dimensional, the acting is sensational and the build-up palpable. In my humble opinion Secretary should be the breakaway success. Secretary should be the representative of S&M relationships to the public, Secretary should be seen by everyone dammit!

Jupiter Ascending

Year: 2015
Genre: Sci-Fi/Space Adventure
Director: Andy & Lana Wachowski
Stars: Mila Kunis, Channing Tatum, Eddie Redmayne, Sean Bean, Douglas Booth, Tuppence Middleton

On the one hand Jupiter Ascending is a compendium of sci-fi tropes and influences. The energy is palpable, the visuals when not jarringly all over the place make for something to watch and the acting...well they tried. On the other hand Jupiter Ascending is such a cobbled mess of a movie that the general movie watching public might just as well take a rain check. Seriously, take a hike this movie is not for you.

This movie is for royalty only.

Jupiter Ascending involves an unnecessarily complicated plot which brings to mind the worst parts of 1984's Dune. There's palace intrigue involving the house of Abrasax, a family of genocidal ancient aliens who's three siblings want ownership of planet Earth. There's a hitch in their plans however and that hitch is a singularly disinterested Mila Kunis, an Earthling and housekeeper who can't help wearing makeup to look good for the toilets she cleans. To top it off she's protected by a man-wolf named Caine (Channing Tatum) who skates around in gravity cancelling moon boots. I think that bears repeating...a man-wolf who skates around in gravity cancelling moon boots. Somewhere out there the ghost of Starlight Express is cackling maniacally.

Today the train depot...tomorrow the world!

The Wachowski siblings have a penchant for front-loading their films with many complex themes and ideas and flashes of visual flare sometimes resulting in brilliance like The Matrix (1999) and the criminally underrated Cloud Atlas (2012). More often than not however their films suffer from philosophical and visual overload a la The Matrix sequels (2003) and Speed Racer (2008). Jupiter Ascending not only falls in the later category I would agree with the consensus that this movie is probably the worst they've made.

Coming in with the proper mindset however you may find something to like if not love about Jupiter Ascending. To be sure it may be the best misfire of the 2010's. Say what you will about the Wachowski's later career but when they do something they do it big. This is movie so spectacularly over the top that you just can't help but giggle while choking on Milkduds. Lo in generations to come people may have Jupiter Ascending parties much like they do Troll 2 (1990) and Breakin' 2: Electric Boogaloo (1984) parties (okay there are no Boogaloo parties but dammit there should be). To the unencumbered this movie is a fevered dream; a stream of consciousness tale that shoe-horns every sci-fi trope you can think of.

Whether on accidental or on purpose, here's my haul from the sci-fi (and other) Easter egg hunt that is Jupiter Ascending (spoilers):

• The cloak and dagger stuff involving the Abrasax and the mysterious crystals has Dune (1982) written all over it.
• Many spaceships have a Romulan/Alien (1979) vibe to them.
• The completely unnecessary bureaucracy sequence is brought to you by Brazil (1985) complete with a Terry Gilliam cameo.
• The three quarreling siblings are reminiscent of Dostoevsky's "The Brothers Karamazov."
• An android has a similar name to that of one in Demolition Man (1993).
• The mining base on Jupiter is reminiscent of  Blade Runner
  
  (1982) and by extension Metropolis (1927).
• By virtue of Sean Bean being in this movie he brings to mind everything he's been in including Lord of the Rings (2001-2003) and Equilibrium (2002).
• Aliens possess mind-erasers a la Men in Black (1997).
• Genetic mutations which are mixes of various animals and humans: "The Island of Dr. Moreau"
• Tuppence Middleton climbing out of a pool all slinky-like: Beowulf (2007)
  
• Eddie Redmayne's incredibly campy performance as the villain; there are so many in mind but I think John Carradine's Billy the Kid Vs. Dracula (1966) comes closest.
• The moon boots can be linked to Andrew Lloyd Webber's "Starlight Express" but most of the time I was thinking of Napoleon Dynamite (2004).
• Dragons...no reference here I just want you to know there be talking dragons in this movie.
  
• A seemingly ordinary hero thrust into a battle of good and evil? Star Wars (1977).
• Eugenic-y vibe brought to you by Gattaca (1997).
• Caine able to survive hanging on to a spaceship in the vacuum of space while at warp speed? WALL-E (2008).
• Caine being jettisoned into space and impossibly saved at the last minute..."Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy."
• Weird incestuous relationship you realize only when you think about it for a little; Star Wars again.
• Dude marrying his mother: "Oedipus Rex" anyone?
• Flash Gordon (1980)...that's all I have to say.

Now go forth! Find more Easter eggs if you dare. I will be here pausing Jupiter Ascending frame by frame to pin-point the exact moment the Wachowski siblings realized they dug themselves into the critical and financial hole too deep to get out of.

You'll find this in said hole.

Final Grade: C-