For no reason other than I haven't been able to get Futura's line out of my head....
« Filmbrain's Screen Capture Quiz: Round 16, Week 18 | Main | Great Moments in Uncriticism: Time & Newsweek in the 50s & 60s »
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345163ca69e200e553f027288834
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Pullquotes for the rest of us...:
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.
As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.
Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Not as good as "Why So Serious?" but it might reach a different, untapped market for the film.
Posted by: blackmailismylife | 2008.08.07 at 02:34 PM
You might enjoy this: "Nothing smoothes the task of empire more than the feeling that you are doing it humbly. " Nikil Saval @ n+1
Posted by: Jürgen | 2008.08.07 at 07:24 PM
God, I hate this movie.
Posted by: Erin | 2008.08.07 at 09:44 PM
Lenin's Tomb, K-Punk, and Le Colonel Chabert have all offered some really meaty responses to The Dark Knight and its politics, but beyond that, I'm rather tired of seeing this movie being discussed. It's time to move on.
HahaHahaHahahahaheeeHeeeHeeHohoHohaha.
Posted by: dbmanl01 | 2008.08.08 at 12:12 PM
Your story about the guy channeling The Joker/The Dark Knight actually reminds me of how fans of Clockwork Orange adore and worship Alex.
It'd be amusing to pull these "alternate" comments and reviews about the film to make a trailer showcasing just how terrible the film is.
Posted by: Mariko | 2008.08.09 at 06:58 AM
Superheroe movie in "possibly right-wing" shocker!
Let´s say this came out in 1997 instead of Batman on Ice. Nobody would write any stuff about terrorism or empire and so on an so on
Of course the movie, in a rather overearnest and clumsy manner, tries to "get with the zeitgeist" and the critics fall for it, but as a superheroe movie, is designed to appeal to a world market that in some cases doesn´t give a shit about the US and it´s woes.
The problem is that some critics think that because is the most popular movie of the year, it must mean something, and something politica maaaan. So we end up with rather pathetic attempts at "mass psychoanalysis" and serious cases of verbal incontinence.
And whatever happened to evaluating a movie beyond it´s supossed "content"? very very few stylistic "Bordwellian" analysis, too much talk about politics, "characters", acting etc, wich is ok, but please, is a movie completely exhausted after we "figured out" it´s politics? Is it possible to like a movie even if we find some of it´s ideological aspects a bit suspect? It seems to me that the inevitable backlash relies too heavily on an ideological disqualification that, applied to other movies, would forbid enjoying nothing but the most PC, well meaning films
BTW i don´t think is a great film (far far from it) but im interested in the way it provokes very suspect readings by admirers and detractor alike
sorry for any grammar mistakes, not native speaker me ;)
Posted by: MCH | 2008.08.09 at 05:03 PM
If this movie came out in 1997 its content would be completely different, so your point is moot, not to mention ridiculous, since it's the year 2008, and movies like Batman, Ironman and the Hulk serve their imperialist masters well in disseminating a particularly cringe-worthy string of cultural propaganda. If you think that's one person's attempt at attaching ideology to something that is impervious to ideology, then your understanding of how Hollywood films work is a bit naive.
Posted by: Dan | 2008.08.10 at 10:42 AM
Of course every movie has an ideology,you don´t have to very clever to know it. Maybe is true that in 1997 it would have been a different thing and this particular time is more sensitive to political readings, but sometimes it seems the actual movie won´t get in the way of the analysis that certain critics want to make just to score a few points denouncing (once again) imperialist Hollywood. And they have the most popular movie of the year and a (sort of) cultural phenomenon to do it. Almost too neat, too easy
If this would have been Batman vs Evil corporation or something,then critics would talk of liberal "Hollywood" and "70´s cinema" maaan. And that is completely plausible since comercial cinema is not so monolithical as to not let pass some mild "progressive" contents once in a while. So it just seems very flippant, anything goes sort of criticism. Interpretation gone wild
Posted by: MCH | 2008.08.10 at 03:00 PM
Death to the imperialist masters!
Posted by: Paris Hilton | 2008.08.10 at 03:20 PM
I know how Hollywood films work: Hollywood film makes money, Hollywood film gets re-make/sequel/spinoff/cheaper knockoffs.
The only ideology is this one: $$$$$.
Posted by: Steve | 2008.08.10 at 06:58 PM
If you don't like this movie, then you're not a good American.
Money is good.
This movie has no point. It's just a movie.
Buy your ticket, shut up, watch it, then tell everyone you know to go buy a ticket too.
No one cares what it makes you think about, unless it makes you think about seeing it again, and then buying the limited edition Dark Knight Pop-Tarts.
People who don't like this movie don't like themselves.
Don't take life so seriously. Life is supposed to be fun. Go see The Dark Knight again.
If this movie does have one point the point is this: we are fucking awesome.
God bless America.
Posted by: Futura II | 2008.08.10 at 11:26 PM
God bless the imperialist masters!
Posted by: Paris Hilton | 2008.08.11 at 05:11 AM
"The only ideology Is $$$$$$$$
Then how can you explain Rendition, Lions for lambs, In the Vally of Eeeelah and a dozen. They lost a ton of money and yet we still get War Inc, and half a dozen others still floating around.
They keep being green lighted by SOMEONE with a political agenda. Maybe you can say who.
Posted by: Idahoan | 2008.08.14 at 05:11 PM