Hell Hath No Fury Like a Fanboy Scorned (or: Why exactly must Keith Uhlich die?)

Why so serious indeed?

If ever a tagline was perfectly suited to a film (and the critical/audience adoration of it) it would have to be this three word gem created by a marketing superhero for Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight, the film that currently sits at #1 on the IMDB Top 250 films of all time, and has been proven to cure cancer, put an end to all wars, and solve erectile dysfunction.

As with most long-underwear films (why must superheroes wear tights?), it's not uncommon for the legion of fanboys (and girls) to take it as a personal affront when confronted with a dissenting opinion. However, if you consider the emotional and financial investment given to comic books, figurines and other items related to the mythology, it's not terribly surprising that anyone daring to criticize the celluloid representation of their idol is treated like a heretic.

Yet with The Dark Knight, the seething anger and raging bile that's been ejaculated on dozens (if not hundreds) of pages of comments all over the Interweb far exceeds the typical zealotry. Nolan's film is stirring up reactions and emotions that I've heretofore never encountered, and I've spent the past few days trying to figure out why.

First, a confession. I saw The Dark Knight, and, well, I had a grand time. Compared to other summer blockbusters I suffered through (Indiana Jones and the Zzzz..., Iron Man) Nolan's film more than adequately delivered what I want from a Hollywood mega-production. Well written (though painfully overearnest), gorgeous to look at (some of the IMAX sequences were stunning), genuine suspense, and top-notch performances from (nearly) all. Doubly impressive when you consider that it's the single-most marketed masscult object of the year. I just refuse to take it as seriously as Nolan would like me to.

That's not to say I didn't have problems with it. [Note: potential spoilers follow.] The kill-or-be-killed conundrum of the third act was vastly overdone, and the kind of scenario you'd expect to find on an Introduction to Ethics final exam. Yet rather than truly explore the idea (such as Fukasaku did in Battle Royale), Nolan uses it as a cheap (and unnecessary) narrative device to illustrate the already obvious dichotomy between Batman and The Joker's respective world views, while at the same time exposing the audience's prejudice with a haughty condescension that is a more than a tad unbearable. (Thank you, Professor Nolan, for teaching me that large, black male convicts can be human after all. I never would have imagined...)

That the entire film is painted in such broad strokes is its greatest offense, and this may be the root cause of the war that's being waged online. As co-screenwriters, brothers Christopher and Jonathan Nolan have filled their screenplay with basic philosophical/ethical/moral struggles that will hardly come as a revelation to anybody who has ever picked up a work by Hobbes, Sartre, Nietzsche, or Kant, or knows a thing or two about deontological ethics. Chaos/order, chance/fate, free will/determinism, the rule of law and the rejection of reason — these are but a few of the themes that the brothers touch upon in discourse-heavy scenes that clearly have had an impact on impressionable minds. (Not since The Matrix has a populist work tried this hard to convey "deep thoughts." I wonder if Zizek will write a book about this one as well.)

In his pan of the film, Armond White opens with the line, "Every generation has a right to its own Batman." Though he hated the film's "hip, nihilistic tendencies," I think this is precisely why the film has stuck so deep a chord with so many, for The Dark Knight addresses the zeitgeist of our post-9/11 world, but does so without the annoying complexity of real-world issues. There's no ideology, or clash of cultures/religion at play here — the Joker is unquestionably a terrorist and Batman unquestionably good, even though he occasionally employs methods that are ethically/legally questionable. (Sound familiar?) What the film does do well is capture this new age of anxiety in which we live, and its nihilism is perfectly suited to these dark times. With a senseless war being fought overseas, an imaginary war on terror at home, and a collapsing economy to boot, people seem to be taking comfort in the film, and, judging by some of the comments I've read, its effect has been outright cathartic. How else to explain such vitriol when faced with a negative review?

There's been much debate over the film's politics, and both sides of the spectrum have claimed Batman as one of their own. (Andrew Klavan's Op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal comparing Batman to Bush is particularly pathetic.) I haven't spent much time thinking about its political bent (nor do I care to), but on the surface it appears, like most Hollywood films these days, to play it extremely safe, ensuring that neither side is offended. Batman violates civil liberties, but only to fight evil, but then destroys it blah blah blah. Yawn. Imagine if people spent half as much time thinking about gross political violations occurring in the real world...

Critics who refused to swallow the red pill have been treated as enemy combatants. About.com's Jürgen Fauth and The House Next Door's Keith Uhlich (both friends, I should add) are two such critics. Neither of their reviews was intended to provoke, nor were they playing the contrarian — they simply didn't like the film. As of this writing there are 938 comments in response to these reviews. (Both at their sites as well as their links on Rotten Tomatoes.) Some go no deeper than Fag!; some are actually amusing -  Keep your head in Little Women and Suffrage texts you pansy, but others are downright ugly. On Rotten Tomatoes, someone felt it would be beneficial to post as many personal details about Jürgen that they could find, while another likened his crime to Joan of Arc's:

This guy is a terd [sic], let him rot. Lets [sic] burn him at the stake!

The comments left for Keith are even more vile, particularly this one, which the author later claimed was written while channeling his inner Joker. Yikes. (All [sic]):

You know, some people have been so enraged by your little opinion piece that they want you to kill yourself. Please DON'T!!! You know why, because I am going to have so much fun killing you myself! I promise, it WON'T be painless. I am going to carve a smile in your face. And then I am going to carve you stomach. And you know why? Because i just want my phone call. You're my bitch now! I am going to track you down through your IP address and then I am going to f@#%!%* kill you!!!

Oh the humanity! Perhaps the Joker is right and that, given the slightest push, we one day truly will destroy ourselves. 

As I said, I believe this to be more than a merely a case of "when fanboys attack". The Dark Knight has become a religion, an opiate, and an ethos. It's Thus Spoke Zarathustra for the post-literate set. (Ouch...now who's guilty of haughty condescension?)   

Comments

[pacheco]

It really bothers me that THIS is perhaps the biggest story about The Dark Knight; it's no longer about the film itself.

I heard the reactions to Keith's piece were harsh, but geez. He's handled it with class, as usual (and I'm assuming Jurgen is as well) but it's just awfully frustrating to see these kinds of reactions. This is really the best people can do? That's how they justify their love for a film?

It's funny, because comic/graphic novel fans claim to want respect for their favorite medium, having long been dismissed as "nerds" (or a lot worse) for liking it. But when they react like this, they're definitely not helping their cause. I love graphic novels and now I don't want anything to do with these people.

[IHateFilmbrain]

Fag!

[paul haine]

Discussion of this behaviour needn't be limited to reactions to negative reviews of The Dark Knight, though - you get stuff like this pretty much anywhere on the internet where the ability to leave comments exists. Gaming websites, newspaper websites, they all suffer from it. The phenomenon even has a name.

[Phil]

It would be terrifying if these fanboys found a united political program. Most of the responses on Keith's site were the verbal equivalent of a punch in the face: fight club with fanboy. They make Comic Book Guy look like Bazin in comparison. Criticism requires distance. In our age of narcissistic consumerism, that distance is taken as a threat. What I'd like to know is what are the psychological mechanisms at work here? I have the feeling that Adorno and et al.'s study of the authoritarian personality might be a good starting place.

[mike]

sorta curious - i am not reading the remainder of the article in case I decide to watch this on DVD (spoiler alert) but a fairly level headed movie friend of mine said that "hands-down Heath ledger will win Best Supporting Actor and he would have won best supporting actor even if he didn't die."

Hyperbole? Should i bet him $20.

Anybody? Anybody? Bueller? Bueller?

[James McNally]

My lack of love for superhero movies is the only thing keeping me out of the upper echelons of web nerdery, but I truly have never been able to get it. Normally media-savvy people turn to goo when a man in tights appears on a screen to blow shit up. I'm not even interested in seeing this, but will have to just to stay culturally literate, I suppose. Your thoughts here are the first intelligent thing I've read about the entire thing. The strangest thing is that there really can't be that many people who actually read comic books anymore, are there? But everybody sees the movies. I mean, this summer has seen Iron Man, the SECOND Hulk movie and now the umpeenth Batman movie. I think I need to read more from Mr. Adorno and Mr. Zizek to explain to me why people go so stupid in the summertime.

[Filmbrain]

Pacheco -- An excellent point. With this type of reaction, comic book fans certainly aren't scoring any points in the "I'm-not-a-social-misfit" category.

IHateFilmbrain - Oh, you!

Paul - that's brilliant! Cracked me up.

Phil -- Distance, exactly.

Mike -- love or hate the film, Ledger did a fantastic job. He owns the role, and does indeed deserve praise for it. Even in the tiniest of gestures he gives his all. As for the Oscars...well, I gave up on them ages ago. Sure...bet the $20.

James -- thanks for the comment. I've mentioned before that I didn't read superhero comic books as a kid. I didn't like them, and I just didn't get the appeal of a character who possesses some sort of super-human power. I did love the Adam West Batman series, which I watched in syndication for years, but mostly the camp factor (and the beautiful women). I enjoyed the Tim Burton films, though I haven't seen them since they were released.

[Tom Russell]

Of course, not all fans of superheroes are idiots, and I dare say that most people who buy superhero comics-- far, far, far fewer people than those that see superhero movies-- do not generally make death threats. It's still appalling no matter who's doing it.

That being said... since I haven't seen the movie yet myself, I'm restrict my commentary to something interesting that Filmbrain said in the comments:

"I just didn't get the appeal of a character who possesses some sort of super-human power."

I strongly believe that the appeal of superhero stories, whether that hero has super-powers or not, is that true superhero stories are optimistic in their outlook. They posit a world in which one person or one group of people can make a difference. Maybe not a big difference, and the best superhero stories don't lie to us by claiming that everything can be all honky-dorry if you punch the right guy in the face.

But people aren't helpless, either. Even Batman-- as dark and lovely an icon as there ever was in this day and age-- is profoundly optimistic. Is his quest to end crime in Gotham City doomed to failure? Certainly!

But he doesn't given in to despair. He keeps trying and that, in itself, is profoundly optimistic. (Or quixotic. Take your pick.)

As far as the super-powers are concerned-- well, part of that is juvenile empowerment fantasy, sure, and part of that is allegory for other kinds of power, but mostly, I think, that's the "cool" factor, the same thing that's appealing about science fiction and fantasy. And a big part of that cool factor is the result of imagination and extrapolation.

Good super-powered superhero stories show us new, interesting, weird and different ways that the various powers can be utilized. Some heroes tap directly into this-- Jack Cole's Plastic Man, who can take any shape, and the various Green Lanterns, who can create anything they can think of/will into existence-- they're all about the power of imagination; they're great extrapolations into the exterior. Some great extrapolations of common superhero fantasy tropes and powers are on display in Kurt Busiek's Astro City series-- witness what life would really be like for a cartoon lion come to life, see what goes on in the head of a synthetic being, or a man whose skin in covered in steel. The stories I just described are about extrapolating inwards-- they're about life, about people, and they use these powers as a sort of jumping-off point-- to delve into complex issues of identity, destiny, whatever-else-have-you in new and interesting ways.

The best superhero stories, then, are about DETAILS: about texture, about thought. And because it really is a diverse genre-- having many of the tropes of soap operas, crime sagas, science fiction, fantasy, ghost stories, drama, comedy, coming-of-age stories melded into one vital whole-- there's a lot of different ways to cross-pollinate and extrapolate those details.

There are, of course, a lot of anti-superhero stories. Anti-superhero stories still provide details, but they do so in a manifestly cynical fashion. Or, rather, not cynical-- cynicism is something that's earned and in many cases warranted-- but pessimistic: the kind of knee-jerk pessimism that's oh-so-fashionable for twenty-something philosophy students drinking ten dollar coffees at a cafe. The kind of thing that, hopefully, most actual people grow out of by the time they're twenty-three-- the belief that anyone who has any kind of power will abuse it and that anyone attempting or aspiring to a form of altruism is actually feeding some deep psychopathic need.

Stories about people like that are certainly interesting-- but a belief that *everyone* is like that, that every single person is a filthy perverted selfish hypocrite or a helpless stupid rube-- that's not just against superheroes, that's against life itself. Even the cruelest of writers and filmmakers-- the only film I'll never watch again is Fassbinder's Chinese Roulette, began it just fucking shattered me to pieces-- love at least some of their people.

That's probably a bit ramble-y, but I've actually been rewriting this comment for damn near an hour now-- you should have seen the first draft! But those are, in short, some of the things I find appealing about the genre-- the variety, the details, and the belief that people can love and help one another out.

Granted, since it's still about people in weird outfits beating the snot out of each other and apparently being at least tolerated by legitimate law enforcement, any superhero story is bound to be some kind of fantasy anyway. It's a hurdle a lot of people have trouble getting over, and it's one reason why some people consider the genre to be inherently juvenile or fascistic. I personally disagree with that assessment-- and hope that those who never really got into it will give the genre another look.

For those who want to see what it's capable of, Busiek and his Astro City are a good place to start. Are they the best superhero comics ever? No; and a lot of them do err a bit too much on the side of short-story-with-epiphany. But they're not bad, not by a long shot, and some of them-- I'm thinking the "Confession" collection-- are pretty great. (Alan Moore's Watchmen is good too, and I think it successfully straddles the line between a superhero story and an anti-superhero story.)

==Tom

[tom h]

Interesting article, thanks. In my opinion, to understand the vehemence and vitriol that characterises the reaction to negative reviews to TDK, you would also need to figure in the fact that much of this debate is taking place online - and people don't communicate online the same way that they do in person. A film, released before the Internet, may have stirred similar emotion investment in the past, but that may not have manifested itself in such a striking way. This curious phenomenon would make an interesting case study for any psychologists or cultural critics who want to understand what happens to human communication in these days of cyberspace.

[gmail]

I saw this film the daz it opened in mz country and even though I enjoyed it, it kinda annoyed me that everybody was so excited about it, anarchy ruled the theater, people started talking and yelling and noone cared about the rest.
After it was finished mz girfiend was talking to me about fiction that tries to receate the reception of it...and how it was a nice thing to live or to read it that way, because anyways these huge things dont live more than 10 years, and can be useful to stereotypize (how do i spell that) decades...

in the other hand you have this whole weird marketing...
heaths dead...
which made me google him and watch the jokers face for the first time...
bruce wayne (whose name i just forgot...which kinda proves my point) beating up his mother the day the film opened (and then it being a lie)

what i mean is: of course it isnt a great movie, but in a way it is so extremelz contemporary that it should be read that way, not only what the film is telling but how the whole hollywood parafernalia is developing some kind of consciousness about it being a fiction (not as a lie, just as a telling) ...etc, etc, etc..

i cant develop ideas in english, hopefully this is understandable

[lichman]

omg! u stoopid critiks kant understand how aweseom teh batman iz!!

but yeah, the fanboy backlash is interesting--no seemingly gave a damn when it came to mild reviews of Hellboy or the utter praise of Iron Man's all-rounded tendencies. So why Batman? Specifically, Nolan's Batman?

The terrorist/hero aspect seems spot-on and combined with the "bawwww, Heath iz ded!!! give oskar!" outcry, the film appears untouchable. Of course, that shouldn't be the case. But whatever.

Also--you're missing a key point: that wasn't just any "large, black male convict," sir. That was Tiny Lister, the man who knows no boundaries.

[Filmbrain]

Tom --

Thanks so much for the explanation. From childhood I guess I've always been a cynic who has never depended on the kindness of strangers -- I'm pretty much a glass half-empty guy, so the goodness and the "one person can change the world" axiom has never floated my boat.

What I found particularly interesting about The Dark Knight is that we hear throughout the film just how bad things are in Gotham, yet we never see the people of Gotham, of their sufferings due to rampant crime, drugs, etc. Until that third act, all we see are police, government officials, and the media. Oh, and memebers of the elite -- those that attend Bruce Wayne's party.

But you know what? I really like that about the film. It adds a sense of madness to it all -- as if these characters are acting out their own little drama from within the confines of an institution.

I have read Watchmen, and enjoyed it tremendously. But I never saw anything in it that reminded me of the *KERPOW* of classic comics. I guess Moore's darkness appealed to me.

[Filmbrain]

gmail --

Anarchy in the theater? Sounds almost appropriate.

I agree that between the viral marketing campaign, and the real-world events surrounding the film, there has been this odd crossover. People looking too deep at Heath's role to try to explain his death, or finding it hard to believe that Batman (allegedly) beat his mother and sister.

[Filmbrain]

Lichman --

You are teh suck.

On Rotten Tomatoes, many of the fans are floating a conspiracy that it's only New York critics who are against the film. In fact, it happens to be true that many of the bad reviews have originated from Gotham. But why? Could it be that, after 9/11, New Yorkers are a bit more sensitive about (or at least tired of) depictions of terrorist acts on a city that's meant to be ours? I'm usually bothered by that as well, but it didn't even enter my mind while watching the film, probably because I found it too fantastical to actually associate it with a real place.

I mean...come on...Anthony Michael Hall as the host of a CNN talk show? This is crazyland!

[Tom Russell]

Well, the big problem with that axiom, and with blindly obnoxious optimism in general, is that it results in (1) passivity and (2) bad art-- the kind of sickly-sweet crap that lies to the audience: love conquers all, hearts of gold, ya-da ya-da ya-da.

Sane optimism isn't the belief that we can depend on other people to make things right. It's the idea that _I_ can make things right, if only in some small way. That, to me, is the appeal of the superhero-- generally, ordinary people given an extraordinary opportunity to do _something_. And, frankly, the best stories are not about those given that extraordinary opportunity-- it's about those who create that opportunity for themselves.

Susan B. Anthony-- she didn't bring about voting for women on her lonesome, just as MLK didn't chuck off Jim Crow laws with a mighty shrug of his shoulders. But they saw something wrong and did what they could to fix it, and they inspired others, and they got something done. That's optimism at work-- optimistic without being stupid.

To me, optimism, whether in life or in art, isn't opposed to cynicism (i.e., intelligence), darkness, or failure. Look at THE WIRE (just finished watching Season Four). It's all about how everything and everyone is compromised and how systems destroy people. It's cynical, it's dark and lovely; but it's not pessimistic.

It loves and understands all its characters, and even-- and especially!-- the most flawed (and thus, most interesting) people in it are trying to do something good. Sometimes they succeed, sometimes they fail. But the very act of trying to make things better, and those times when they make some small difference in a single human life-- that is optimism. Changing that life is changing the world.

And it's not just politicians and fictional people in gaudy tights that can effect change. Artists can do it, filmmakers-- they can celebrate the dignity of human beings without lying or getting maudlin about it.

That's how Ozu changed mine.

[Phil]

Well, the NYT Magazine has an article on troll behavior. Seems like Keith was lulz'd. The barbarians are at the internet portals...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/03/magazine/03trolls-t.html?hp=&pagewanted=print

[Phil]

Sorry to post twice, but it occurs to me that the 'lulz' phenomenon mentioned in the story is similar to the Joker's aims in TDK.

[Steven Erickson]

Is Anthony Michael Hall supposed to be playing Glenn Beck?

[Jimmy]

Tom,

I've often thought you make good points and make them well, and your comments here are thought-provoking. I for one did not outgrow pessimism at twenty-three. Instead I grew into it. I'm so misanthropic and negative I make Filmbrain look like Leo Buscaglia. But I don't want to debate you on the relative merits of love and hate.

I did want to make one observation in regard to your thoughts on the superhero genre and those devoted to it: There are superhero comics and then there are superhero comics. In fact, I am not all that familiar with the state of affairs today, but I know that for a while things like Maus (I don't know if that has any relation to the material you've discussed, Busiek, etc.) enjoyed a sort of underground status, though when anything makes an appearance on The Simpsons, clearly it's no longer underground by any stretch of the imagination. The point is that one probably cannot tar one's superheroes with too broad a brush.

That said, I would like to point out that for many, the one and only archetypal superhero is none other than the Man of Steel himself, beside whom all other life forms, superheroes included, are as so much flimsy scrap paper. I just don't see how that brand of superhero can be considered an illustration that one person can make a difference. It illustrates that one alien from a distant planet who is more or less immortal and omnipotent can do whatever the hell he wants, and thank God he's not too pissed off. Superman in the past was always an icon of "truth, justice and the American way." He was a role model, but a superhuman one. Maybe Batman better fits your mold: one man can make a difference if he happens to be the billionaire heir to an industrial fortune with essentially unlimited material resources and untold leisure time (and yes, all right, fine, backbone, grit, dedication). Perhaps Bill Gates puts on a unitard and a funny hat and goes around Seattle fighting bad guys in the middle of the night. I really can't say.

The point is, there may be some newbie superheroes who are no more than ordinary schmoes with balls of steel fighting the good fight. But to be called a "super" hero one usually has to have a super power or at least super resources of some description.

Honestly, I think that superheroes are America's secular answer to saints, who were in turn the Catholic Church's answer to heathen mythological figures. The Protestant Reformation did away with saints and put nothing in their place. Superheroes are distinctly American, and let's not forget how heavily Evangelical America is (I'm not talking about San Francisco). Around here it's not cool to worship anyone other than Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, so we're not allowed to have supernatural heroes. But even those who are never late for church on Sunday believe in better living through science (they may have some problem with Darwin, but they love their microwave ovens), and from a literary standpoint superheroes take a lot of their inspiration from science fiction. Yes, they have much in common with folk heroes like Zorro and Robin Hood, but Spider-Man was bitten by a radioactive arachnid, and as discussed, Kal-El son of Jor-El is not originally from Smallville. He moved there from a different neighborhood. Fallout Boy was accidentally irradiated by a dental X-ray machine. Jimminy jillikers! We all know the story. And if you need further illustration from The Simpsons that I am always right about everything, and no one should ever question me, consider Ned Flanders' remark to Apu Naha-- Nahas-- Nah, I'll never get it right. When Apu invokes a Hindu deity, Flanders grouses, "Why don't you just call Hawkman?" Superhero comics draw on the pop-culture reservoir of science fiction to fill a gap that Evangelical Christianity isn't able to. They are larger than life and able to do things none of the rest of us can do.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have some hating to do.

[Nguyen]

It's too bad your viewing and criticism of DK were marred by the "overzealous fanboys" out there because beyond the first three paragraphs it is a fine and interesting review. You started out by making it about the Cult of Filmbrain Vs. The Cult of Fanboys. "raging bile that's been ejaculated"? You're suprised that the 'fanboys' are angry at you? Maybe it's because of you're pompous punditry. The only thing that's missing from this review is the dismissive eye role.

I agree that a lot of it was overwritten and overwrought. There are a lot of characters that are kind leading you with their wordy introspection (Caine and Oldman) and maybe they felt like they and to beat the audience over their heads with the themes. It also suffers from a similar problem with a lot of these movies when they have more than one villain. Because they wanted him to become Two-Face Harvey Dent's character storyline had to be accelerated and he flipped too quickly for me to find plausible.

Any superhero is inherently fascist in some way because they are vigilantes. The whole idea of the Right wing adopting this movie is like the Nazi's adopting Nietszche. Those are isolated incidents(those guys are nutty) and let's not forget that this is a movie and it is not real. It is a fantasy. A fanboy's fantasy if you will and sometimes it is interesting to peer into somebody's dreams.

I think you mentioned earlier a certain misanthropic tendency to the oscar movies such as 'No Country For Old Men' 'Sweeney Todd' and 'There Will Be Blood'. This is just the comic book superhero version(though a lot of hardcore fans will say that early Batman comics were dark).

Nolan mentioned the Influence of Michael Mann's 'Heat' which i think a lot of audiences are responding to the level
of sophisticating and verisimilitude. Any auteur theorist and proponent can understand that whatever that material is(man in tights or not) it's really about the execution. This is what I appreciated about DK because for many moments I was 'sold'. It was just good opera. So yes you're right, let's not make too much of it ('Why So Serious?')

These superhero movies are almost always blockbusters and we all know the fandom involved so it is totally disingenuous to be surprised that it is #1 anywhere. Are we not fans of something. Are we not fan's of Godard. Isn't this site named after the New Wave muse herself. If you are a serious reviewer than you should not stoop to the level of those fanboys. Because then you're just Kevin Smith.