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

[Jake]

Thanks for giving your perspective Filmbrain.

While I too found the film absolutely awesome, one of the best action films of the summer thus far, possibly the year -- I disagreed with those that this film was somehow deeper than it initially appeared, and that was ground-breaking moment for cinema itself. This I couldn't believe at all, and it has, to some extent, ruined whatever it was I liked about the film, because how can I watch it now when I'm too much of a fool to see the PROFOUND MEANING burned into the screen?

I feel I already know what's happening here: a majority of comic book fans, in their urge to somehow be taken seriously--I don't think there's anything infantile or childish about comics by the way, and I have respect for all the great writers of comics or graphic novelists, who I would rather read than watch their terrible film adaptations anyways--are trying to have their cake and eat it too. It's not enough this film has thrills and chills, it has to be invested with philosophical power. They can enjoy the action entertainment, but in case anyone dares question their lover, they will be rightly silenced with the film's pretensions. At least that's how I felt.

I think Andrew Tracy nailed the consequences of this stuff with his RS review of Hellboy II, though.

[Futura II]

I am as smart as you and all of your friends, Filmbrain.
Just because I get bored reading books doesn't mean I wouldn't understand them if I had the patience to read them.
And maybe I don't have a girlfriend or a wife.
Or maybe I do, but maybe she's not what you would call conventionally attractive.
That's not the point.
The point is that I eat pizza three times a week and Lucky Charms for breakfast.
It's hard for me to have a conversation lasting more than a couple of minutes.
Sometimes I get confused by peoples faces.
It's like I'm talking to them and trying to see if they're listening to me at the same time, but I can't really tell if they are, so I just stop talking.
I bet I've seen as many movies as you have, Filmbrain.
You think you're so smart because you have a website but so do I, so what.
The point is that The Dark Knight is the greatest movie ever made because everyone says so, or at least more people think it is than not.
You live in a democratic society and the people have chosen.
You can say that The Dark Knight isn't the greatest movie ever made, and that's fine, you can pick something by Renoir or Welles or Kubrick or whomever, but it doesn't matter, because only a small percentage of people are going to agree with you.
That makes you in the minority.
That makes you one of the elite.
How come what you like matters more in the long run?
Because you studied movies in school?
So did I.
So did a lot of people I know.
A lot of people I know love movies just as much as you do, but maybe they don't have the writing or talking skills that you do, so they become marginalized by snobs like you and Uhlich and Fauth and all the other creeps who can't except the fact that they are getting older and that tastes have changed.
I've tried to watch Godard and his movies bore the shit out of me.
Masculine Feminine.
Alphaville.
Le Mepris.
Weekend.
Maybe 40 years ago these movies were relevant, but not today.
What's relevant today is The Dark Knight.
And that's the point.
The point is that The Dark Knight makes you feel irrelevant, so you're lashing out at the movie, saying, Hey, wait a second, I'm a relevant type of guy, I get what's happening in the world, I'm hip, I know what's good and what's bad, as a matter of fact, I think I know better than 90% of the people in this world, because I'm a cool downtown white dude with broken in running shoes and a devil-may-care attitude about the absurd nature of existence and I like mumblecore because it's the cinematic equivalent of punk rock, and so on, and maybe that way of thinking was on the cutting edge back in 2003, but now it's not.
Now you're just another old guy who stayed too late at the party.
Is The Dark Knight heavy handed?
Fuck yes, it is.
But since when is heavy handed a bad thing?
Maybe heavy handed is just what the people need right now.
Obviously it is what the people need right now.
And some people need to be taught that large, black convicts are human.
You don't, of course, because you already know everything, right?
Except why the people are so fanatical about The Dark Knight.
Which means that maybe you're not as smart as you think you are.
Which means that maybe for the first time in your entire life you and your snobby pals should juts shut the fuck up and listen.

[Tom Russell]

Well, Maus isn't a superhero comic-- it's a holocaust memoir-- but it's still good comics for what it is and certainly worthy of the Pulitzer it won.

I could go on a bit about Superman, his history and his evolution, but I think that might cause a bit too much topic drift. (This is, after all, a film blog.) Some other time or place, perhaps.

But to clarify: when I said someone found themselves with an extraordinary opportunity, I was not only referring to a wrong needing to be righted, but, in the context of the genre, the extraordinary abilities used to right that wrong: i.e., super-powers, gadgets, wealth. Perhaps my use of "ordinary person" was too much my love of chiasm, because, if you think about it, all life forms might be considered "ordinary" to start with.

[Jimmy]

Tom, Thanks for the reply. I agree, it's off topic. Back to our regularly scheduled program.

[Filmbrain]

Though some of what Jimmy wrote is verging off-topic (but please feel free to continue -- I find it fascinating), I think that there's much to be said about our collective obsession with Bruce Wayne, who, as you point out, is ludicrously wealthy. It reminds me of the incredible base that Bush has with the poor and working class -- people Bush, for all accounts and purposes, hates. Or at the very least has zero concern for. (Katrina, anyone?) Yet we adore Bruce, because he spends his billions not only on luxury penthouse apartments, but super-cool gadgets to fight evil. Batman couldn't be Batman without all that money, just as Bush would never have become president without his family's money. Hmmm...

America does love to make heroes out of people with oodles of money. If not heroes, then at least celebrities of the highest order. Why should (and do) any of us give a fuck about Paris Hilton, or Donald Trump....

Ok...now I'm veering off topic. Sorry.

[Filmbrain]

Nguyen --

If it's pompous of me to be irritated/angered/disgusted by the comments left on RT (and elsewhere) then, well, guilty as charged. But calling me Kevin Smith? Now...that's hitting below the belt.

I do find it somewhat ironic that fanboys are calling Keith and Jurgen pretentious for not liking the film, when the brothers Nolan themselves give new meaning to the word.

[Filmbrain]

Jake -- well said, thanks. I shall take a look at Andrew Tracy's review of Hellboy II, though I must admit I was unable to process the first film. I had no idea what was going on.....

[Filmbrain]

Futura --

Though it's highly critical of me, I love your comment...honest. There's something very poetic about it....its flow is almost Bukowskian, and I mean that sincerely.

Sometimes I get confused by peoples faces.
It's like I'm talking to them and trying to see if they're listening to me at the same time, but I can't really tell if they are, so I just stop talking.

I'm with you 100% on that one. And I too eat pizza several times I week (though I shouldn't.)

This has nothing to do with a level of intelligence....I'm all for any film that results in discussion, but not when it turns into a crusade.

I have more to add, but at the moment I have to put on my broken-in running shoes and head over to Williamsburg to listen to Bon Iver with Joe Swanberg.

PS - Hating on Godard is totally in right now, so you might want to reconsider that position.

[Jimmy]

I was for an unrelated reason just looking over this snippet from Touch of Evil, but I thought it seemed relevant to this discussion, so here it is:

Quinlan: Our friend Vargas has some very special ideas about police procedure. He seems to think it don’t matter whether a killer’s hanged or not so long as we obey the fine print in the rule books.

Vargas: Well, Captain, I don’t think a policeman should work like a dog catcher, putting criminals behind bars, no. In any free country, a policeman is supposed to enforce the law, and the law protects the guilty as well as the innocent.

Quinlan: Our job is tough enough.

Vargas: It’s supposed to be. It has to be tough. A policeman’s job is only easy in a police state. That’s the whole point, Captain. Who’s the boss, the cop or the law?

I think that part of Bush's appeal to those who vote for him is indeed his vigilantism, his bring-it-on-smoke-em-out bravado. Americans love a bad boy who breaks all the rules as long as his heart is in the right place. Kill a baby (well a white baby anyway), and you're a filthy murderer. Kill evildoers, and who cares about "the fine print in the rule books"?

(And, Tom, by the way, mea culpa about Maus. Shows what I know about comics/graphic novels/etc.)

[Futura II]

I was just playing the devil's advocate, Filmbrain. I love your site. I was just trying to get into the headspace of one of those goons who leaves hateful comments to the critics of this film, a film I saw and think is mediocre at best.

[Filmbrain]

LOL, Futura....quite brilliant, in fact. You had me going. I still think the comment is a work of art....

[HarryTuttle]

Filmbrain : "why must superheroes wear tights?"

I liked the self-conscious comment by Will Smith in Hancock, where he says "what? it's a little bit tight..." about his new "superhero uniform", and "gay" to the comics covers shown by his P.R. That was a fun self-derision of the genre (not to mention the film itself).

Didn't see Dark Night yet...

[gcgiles]

SPOILER ALERT! SPOILER ALERT! SPOILER ALERT!
Maybe Jurgen meant that Maggie Gyllenhaal's ACTING talents are wasted. OK maybe not, but it seems most of the vitriole directed toward his review revolved around the fact that he gave too much away--whatever. I remember one time in Darjeeling when I was bored and lonely, I blew the ending of a Max Beerbohm story to some poor wayward western traveler. I was so eager to bond, I said, "Oh, is that the story about...?" Completely blew it for him. Felt pretty bad, lost a potential friend over a heavily anthologized Beerbohm story about a compulsive liar (oh, shit, I did it again!). But movie reviewers blowing plot points--I don't know--it never seems to bother me. If a movie's worth seeing, a movie's worth seeing, regardless of who lives or dies (in the movie, mind you). Who goes to Psycho, for example, even first-comers, without knowing the twist? And who, worth their movie-going salt, regrets seeing that movie even with the plot revealed? I know the moniker "fanboy" is dismissive and derogatory, but comic book fans (mostly boys; I was one myself before I sold all the mint condition John Byrne/Chris Claremont X-Men for twenty dollars before I went to college) give themselves away when they obsess over plot points and "story arcs." I think this whole sacrosanct "spoiler" credo is a symptom of plot hysterics. Movies aren't made and unmade by their plots. If a film depends on a plot twist for its worthiness, then it's a bad movie (ref. Sixth Sense). I think my favorite response to the ridiculous furor surrounding this movie is the fellow who calls himself Sandman, responding to Dave Kehr's lambast of Dark Knight (which film I thought, too, could pretty much knock the buzzard off a shit wagon, sorry to say):
"I wonder if it's a mistake to elevate an action film like The Dark Knight to the level of serious film discourse. I read names like Godard and Lean and wince. Nolan is an accomplished filmmaker who has sold a bit of his soul to make a blockbuster and as penance has inserted evocations of serious issues into this movie - i.e. the references to 9/11, domestic surveillance, torture, etc… I don’t think he’s really dealing with the issues so much as co-opting them to project a veneer of respectability. It reminds me of the scene in Children of Men where one can clearly see an image appropriated from the Abu Ghraib photos - it was the least effective part of an otherwise incredible film, and unnecessarily heavy-handed."
I think Godard loved "action films"--especially Z-budgets (ref. Monogram)--and that any piece of crap is worth serious discourse, but I agree with Sandman and Filmbrain that the socio-ethico-political (phew!) issues inserted within Dark Knight, aside from what Frank Miller already wrote into his graphic novel Dark Knight Returns (e.g., copycat Batmen), were a little too calculated and disingenuous. Bad source material, bad adaptation, bad tracheotomy voice on the part of Christian Bale. Great Joker (RIP Mr. Ledger). But yeah, Jack Nicholson prancing around an art gallery to Prince music was pretty bad, too. There just hasn't been a good Batman on screen.
I agree Klavan's piece was a piece of crap. Like Bush takes any measure to avoid killing people.
But Iron Man ruled, Filmbrain. Just give into that fact. Give in... (I'm wiggling my fingers in front of your blog).
Apropos of nothing, I want to know what that fat cat Stan Lee is doing with all his wealth.

[Steve]

Damn, and here I was hoping Futura was legit.

I've half-jokingly pointed up your elitism in the past, and I think that does stand as valid criticism now...in the past months you've on several occasions made comments I found a tad annoying, as if you were in some kind of Balkanesque vault perusing rare manuscripts, looking down on the minions of the streets below. As a working stiff with an artistic streak I take offense at that sort of thing, but I also know nothing will come to me if I don't make it happen, and clearly you've made your life and it works for you and you deserve to enjoy the perks...I'd chat up Swindle and Jameson after a long jog too, if I had the time and they were in town.

I think the bigger issue is that people on boards expose themselves as horrible human beings, and they act out in ways we would never see were it not for the mask the interweb provides. Don't like someone's comments, reasoned or otherwise? Call them harsh names or threaten them and disappear into the ether. Don't like someone's criticism of a film made from content you hold sacred? Same thing.

Worse, however, is the frightening volume of irrelevant and desensitized commentary from people who think pain is not a tragic thing. If you go to IMDB and look up a film like Salo, for example (an extreme example I admit), some of the comments and their tangential discussions make your skin crawl. People talk about the worst aspects of humanity with such glee and fervor that it makes you worry. Torture, gore, violence have all become giggle-worthy to a certain type of mind that feels very welcome in message boards. I find it very disconcerting.

(Personally, I think TDK is a great film and will place in The List for 2008...even with five more months left to examine. Yep, right up there with In Bruge, The Fall and Mongol...)

[Futura II]

I always thought that for a movie to be able to tap into some kind of national psyche/zeitgeist/collective unconscious wellspring, the movie in question had to be honest, which The Dark Knight is not.

Existential man with no choice but the wrong choice.

Good grief.

Too bad Peter Watkins never got to direct a Batman movie, because if he had, you better believe he would've cut to the heart of the matter at hand, these United States of America, with Batman old, lazy, bloated and greedy instead of dark and broody, which actually says at lot about how America see itself (James Dean crossed with Clint Eastwood), and nothing about how we actually look (Chuck Norris crossed with Fat Elvis). The main question the Peter Watkins movie would've posed: How is it that Gotham City, with the help of its politicians, media and influential citizens, manages to make it look as if Batman is still a hero, without anyone ever caring what a shoddy production it all is, with carefully orchestrated spectacles of daring and drama. Thrown fights. Slow-motion car chases. Obvious stunt doubles.

Chris Nolan's movie poses this question: What does it mean for a man to sacrifice himself for the better of those in his care.

I mean, are you fucking kidding me? That's a question that meant something back when people sat and stared at the radio.

The Dark Knight is the fever dream of a white supremacist who listens to way too much Wagner.

And that's why the chorus for this movie is armed and screaming.

I seem to have lost my point.

I had a lot of energy and was thinking clearly just minutes ago.

But I walked four miles today in a pair of sandals and I have bad eczema.

Maybe I should go to sleep.

I won't be dreaming of The Dark Knight.

I'll be dreaming about Electroma.

Right now I wish I was a robot.

Never have to speak or have to worry about your skin.

Sounds like heaven.

[Tom Russell]

Having been given the blessing to go off-topic-- and I wanted to note that when I worried about topic drift, it was knowing my own tendency towards digression, especially given the right opportunity to do so-- I'll probably post a stirring (and lengthy) defense of the Man of Steel, the various attitudes towards his alienness, et cetera, ad naseum, when I have enough energy to put my thoughts into complete and coherent sentences. (Just finished logging footage from a shoot. Ugh.)

Having noted the name of the incomparable Max dropped in these parts, though, and knowing full well that this is topic drifting of perhaps a more egregious variety, I do feel compelled to note that I'm currently rereading Zuleika Dobson. As much as the special pleasures of the novel are very literary ones, and as much as would be lost if not ruined completely if anyone was fool-hardy enough to adapt it, I am still surprised that, as far as I know, it's never been made into a film.

Not that that has any real bearing on anything under discussion, but it's nearly three in the morning, and so there you go.

[logboy]

i found the film far too long, complicated, almost like two films in fact. apparently it works better when you've seen it a few times. i suggest those willing to see it more than once - or even at all, perhaps - have an interest beyond the normal or everyday, beyond the issues that could be said to play out in the film... you've have to have, wouldn't you? why else would you want a film that's intended to be broadly popular and intensely commercial to actually not quite work on one single viewing? i read - though i can now see - there's a " terrorism versus war on terror " theme going on, but it didn't come across to me at all at the time; perhaps i didn't expect any attempt at depth, and i certainly didn't expect one relating to issues that, although still important, have been hammered home so regularly in the media that i'm probably not alone in feeling a little more than insensitive to how repetitive and manipulated the messages seem to be, all too often.

[Filmbrain]

gcgiles -- I love the Beerbohm anecdote, which itself would make a great short story.

I agree with you that it's not worth getting apoplectic over spoilers. Some months ago, I was speaking with somebody about an image in There Will be Blood of the gushing oil well on fire. He hadn't yet seen the film, and got angry that I spoiled it for him. Ummm...what?

As for Iron Man, well....even under torture I don't think I can ever forgive Favreau of his sexism. But, like Batman, here too is a super-hero born from a super-cool super-rich dude.

Phil -- thanks for the link to the NY Times article. That is the most frightening thing I've read in quite some time, and I honestly don't know what to think. But you are so right in the similarities to the Joker!

Steve -- I admit that I have been burying myself in the past for a few months now, but every time I do stick my head up to see how things are going in notre temps, I just get too depressed.

Futura -- Watkins directing Batman might just be the most brilliant ever.

"The Dark Knight is the fever dream of a white supremacist who listens to way too much Wagner. I might just have to mock-up a DK poster with that as a pullquote...it's too perfect not to.

Tom -- I read Zuleika Dobson earlier this year and had a similar thought. What's say we write the screenplay together? Could be a great vehicle for that Vanessa Hudgens the kids are all crazy about...

Logboy -- I'm tempted to see it a second time for one single scene (which was shot in IMAX format) -- Heath in a dress walking away from a hospital as it explodes. The lighting, the composition, his performance -- spine-tingling stuff.

[Nguyen]

Filmbrain,
Sorry about the Kevin Smith comment. I guess I haven't been following the internet chatter so I wasn't aware of the crazy fans and I don't understand why they would even post comments on this site knowing it's history. I actually read this blog seriously and enjoy reading it so I just thought it was a waste of a review to spend so much time on the fanboys. But I guess I misunderstand the whole blog format means you have to engage the fans sometimes. (Which I appreciate you responding)

Lemme just say that just because someone likes a film or a book it doesn't mean that they share the same opinion as another person who liked the same film. And furthermore if I quote Barthes Nietzsche or Twain it doesn't mean that they are on my side. Maybe I am just jusing them politically.

I think it's interesting that you had to confess to liking this movie. Which I think the 'fanboys'/your crazy critics seemed to have missed. I love it when people say that they like a big budget movie then they are coming in with no expectations or that they are just going to see a popcorn movie or going for a thrill ride. As if they're brains are just floating off in outerspace separate from their bodies. The movie experience is the same for me. I never shut off my brain because of the movie is an action genre and I never turn off my emotions when I'm watching an indie/foreign movie. I recommend viewing a movie like Bresson talks about filming it. Like you've seen it for the first time.

I think people should remember that everyone has a different experience at the movies. I liked Keith's negative review as much as I liked Manohla Dargis's positive one. They are both right about it. I actually prefer reviews that can talk about a movie for awhile before giving the thumbs up/down at the end. Sometimes I have contest with my friends on how long we can talk about a movie before giving the final word.

[Jimmy]

Nguyen, I've been thinking quite a bit about your remark that just because someone likes a film or a book it doesn't mean that they share the same opinion as another person who liked the same film (or the filmmaker or the book's author, for that matter). That's an excellent point, and reflects a phenomenon that occurs in lots of different spheres, I think. I guess I'm about to get a little off topic again. (Tom's not the only one given to digression.) Sue me.

I play chess online quite a bit. I see these other players who are rated a thousand points above me. In regard to chess, they are like demigods compared with me. But then their profiles bear these ridiculous little poems they've composed themselves, or they express ghastly political views. One opponent gently chided me when I persevered in a hopeless game: "You just don't give up, do you?" I jocosely quoted John "Bluto" Blutarski from Animal House: "Did the Germans give up when we bombed Pearl Harbor?" That prompted a hideous racist diatribe about the Japanese. (He clearly didn't get the film reference—and see how artfully I've made this tangent film-relevant?) I resigned rather than play on against him. My resignation note: おめでとうございます。 ("Congratulations" in Japanese—though I doubt he had installed the East-Asian fonts that would have been required to read it.)

And I think anyone over twenty-three has probably come to the realization that there is often little or no correlation between intelligence and politics. I for one, many years ago, used to make that assumption: that anyone who had a brain would agree with me politically. In Das Unbehagen in der Kultur, Freud wrote, "One thing only do I know for certain and that is that man’s judgements of value follow directly his wishes for happiness—that, accordingly, they are an attempt to support his illusions with arguments."

Not only am I prone to rambling digression, but also to intuitive, illogical (even irrelevant) leaps and generalizations. Here's one: I think that people (including me) often congratulate themselves for "reading" people or "reading between the lines." They see someone do something, and they assume they know why she did it. They assume that because she says X or likes Y or worships Z, that they understand her motives. And so, quite by mistake, they lump her into some category with other people who say X, like Y or worship Z. They think they know their own motives and beliefs, though as Tom Reagan asked Leo in Miller's Crossing (see! see! another film reference), "Do you always know why you do things?" We often assume people who share our interests, likes, dislikes, etc., share the motives we think we have and the values we espouse. We assume that people who disagree with us have the opposite motives and beliefs. Of course, in no small part, Freud's own work and that of his successors is based on reading people in a similar way: inferring unacknowledged motives from their actions, ideas, dreams, etc. But such inferences are often just dead wrong. (I'm sure psychologists and psychoanalysts are paragons of intellect and never err in the slightest. I'm talking about myself and other mortals. There's no need to crawl up my ass in defense of Freud, of whom I am in fact fond.)

David Hume (among others) observed that logic is a faculty that people must develop (by contrast with whatever it is that allows inference of causal relations, which is available to infants, idiots and animals; no one ever sticks their hand in a flame twice) and is often subject to error. If someone (like me) has difficulty with a modest syllogism, it's easy to see how they might erroneously conclude that someone who is good at chess shares their belief in universal equality or that people who like superhero films also listen to Les Rallizes Desnudes.

And as to your related point about Barthes, Nietzsche and Twain: Is it possible to misappropriate material from a book or a film? As Holly Martins said in The Third Man: "Yeah."