In a lot of ways I like that knowledge. I like knowing when I visit their blogs also more or less what kind of viewpoint I will find. This is true whether that writer presents a view of their own philosophy of life or not. Philosophy governs a lot of how we operate, and it doesn't require that it be openly discussed for it to show up in words and actions. Personally I think that's good.
Maybe being a writer, I am more aware of these nuances of philosophy than others might be. Although I think it does matter for life, for others it isn't probably as necessary. For me, it's life blood.
This week because I was curious about the philosophy behind the two films that came before the Colorado theater shootings, I watched the first of that trilogy, Batman Begins, and thought that's not so bad as I was expecting. A lot of life philosophy in it even if not all positive. Right off, I admit I have never been a big Batman fan although I did enjoy it when Michael Keaton played him.
After watching that one, I came across The Dark Knight at a cheap price for a Blu-ray and bought that one. It was a film I definitely had never figured I'd see because I had seen photos of Heath Ledger playing The Joker, and I didn't want any part of it. It seemed evil personified, and I don't go out of my way to experience anything like it.
The thing is the philosophy in the first one was a bit vague. Bruce Wayne really didn't have a handle on right and wrong (as I saw it). He knew wrong when he saw it but didn't know what to do about it. It was his weakness as that villain saw it. That villain got it (played by Liam Neesom, yum) with a personally consistent philosophy for life even if you and I would be horrified by what it was.
One key point about a consistent philosophy of life. It doesn't have to be positive or good. It just has to be steady, constant, and what that person lives by. A philosophy of life can be detrimental and destructive to self and others which is why I say consistent not healthy. Of course, for the most part whether that philosophy is healthy is mostly subjective as it varies a lot from culture to culture and religion to religion.
The second film, The Dark Knight was very disturbing, and I will not keep that one. I'll probably though sell it not destroy it because it wasn't evil but what it presented was more complex.
Unfortunately the only one with a solid philosophy of life in Dark Knight (and I do mean only one) was The Joker. Now it wasn't a good one for society or even himself but he got it for what he believed and he lived it.
Bruce Wayne though, he did not and that was what made it a disappointing film. Batman, as a supposed hero, blew it time after a time for having a vague sense of goals, but no clear idea (at all) how to go about attaining them. In fact some of his ideas were outright wrong (again in my opinion).
Admittedly, I like my serious films to be tidy where at the end you have this feeling of wisdom been shown. Not so with that one. It was very disturbing all the way through with NO reward for having taken the time to watch it. Lots of action, great cast, and maybe for a lot of people that made up for the failure in the hero. Possibly they forgave him because he meant well. Or maybe that's why so many wanted to see the third one to get that resolution.
The philosophy of the Joker, a complete psychopath, was that humans are weak and destructive, selfish and uncaring of others. He set up scenarios to illustrate that, to play with other humans and did it just for his own amusement. Now whether his philosophy regarding human behavior was solid and sustainable, well who knows as a movie is like a book. It's manipulated by its creators. Creators enjoy playing around with solutions and results, and I had the feeling not only The Joker did that in the second of this trilogy.
Whenever the director changed what might have actually been human nature, it fouled up The Joker. He simply could not assimilate it because it went against his own life philosophy. So The Joker did stay consistent at least to his own philosophy even if nobody else did. It led to his demise.
Some have wondered if the Colorado shooter, because he called himself The Joker, had been influenced by the films. I don't personally think so-- unless it was the joy of being a psychopath or fascination with destruction. I don't think he 'got' what they were even about and he didn't wait to see the third to find out what the eventual resolution would be and whether Bruce Wayne could come up with a sustainable life philosophy.
The actions of the humans though in the theater that night, illustrated that anybody who bases their own philosophy on thinking they can always predict human responses-- didn't get it either. We saw the best and worst of it in the stories that have come out.
Unfortunately I really don't think a lot of people think enough about philosophy; and the kind of readers I believe I mostly have here, who are living a philosophy with which they feel it fits life, people who live aware lives, I think that's rarer than it should be.
Schools used to do more to teach different sorts of life philosophies and let the students look at the results to see what works. I have a feeling there is less and less of that. Too often a philosophy of life comes from a religion and frankly we see how consistently that works with Mitt Romney...
After I had written this, I did a little search to find out what others had come up with regarding this latest Batman trilogy and what they believed it taught philosophically. I thought this one was worth putting a link.
Masked Morality Batman Trilogy
Photos from the gravel road alongside our land
of wildflowers-- although some might call them weeds
Photos from the gravel road alongside our land
of wildflowers-- although some might call them weeds
14 comments:
When you see a movie you really see a movie. I have seen one or two batman movies which I watch with only one eye and one ear. They are distractions for me. I do not like any of the superhero movies; they are too simplistic and too over the top with noise and violence. But I agree that they don't make people crazy...although they may provide a crutch to help them do crazy things.
Personally, I have not liked any of The Batman Movies...and the one before this latest one, which I have not seen yet) I truly hated...It was so filled with horrible things and The Joker was, in my opinion, so nuts, as to make me crazy. I probably will not see this third one in this particular trilogy---All the Violence just does not interest me. And, in all honesty I don't care about any if their 'philosophy of life'....
As a kid, I LOVED the Batman Comic Books when they first came out. I don't even remember why, now--but I think it was more because I liked the way it was drawn...The clean lines and the colors...I also liked "Nancy" for the same reason....(lol)....
At this point in my life, I want to be entertained, or moved or feel something positive about the films I spend time watching. These Batman movies just don't fit into that criteria. So...I would rather go back and watch "MEET JOHN DOE" for the 50th time, or whatever, and be moved and feel I have learned something about humanity that is positive. Just my feelings, my dear Rain.
“Weeds are flowers, too, once you get to know them.”
― A.A. Milne
I've always wondered philosophically what it is that attracts people to violence in real life and in movies, and I have to say I just don't get it. I don't watch much of anything that is violent and so haven't seen the superhero movies and won't. My son says he enjoys them, and horror movies also, because they are so unreal. It is really scary to find these movies are now becoming real. It's interesting how many of the killers in real life seem to be from "good" families and all are men. Perhaps they get a feeling of being less impotent or powerless over their lives. Meanwhile, the men in poverty and ghettos kill only each other, and it makes me wonder if there is a difference in the sort of anger and powerlessness they feel. I'm sure there is a difference in thinking patterns. So many questions.
For awhile I thought I might write another blog on philosophy regarding operating philosophy versus that which is bedrock in us. Operating philosophy is when we know we have to be doing things, haven't worked out all we believe, but have enough we can use it. I am though going to give it some time before I do that, get away from the topic and think about it a bit before I write more on that.
Philosophy is one of my favorite topics and exploring famous philosophers is part of that. Interesting the worldviews that have come up and often totally opposed to each other.
I should add I will see the third of this trilogy just to see if there is some kind of redemption for the creator, tying it altogether and giving me the resolution that the second one denied. It won't be in the theater though as I don't like going to movies, hard on my neck and don't care much for the big screen especially not with a lot of action. I'll see it on DVD or blu-ray though. I might in the meantime watch the one Batman I have liked when Michael Keaton played him in what I felt was the ultimate way. Keaton is such a diverse actor and he brought something different to that role.
I was never attracted to the fantasy super heroes of my generations comic books, including Batman. I think the idealistic noble efforts these heroes were created for, to entertain young minds, have been prostituted by older people motivated by greed to exploit through shock and awe.
But then movies are always primarily about the story and characterizations first and foremost for me. Special effects, just like music, support and enhance the production, but do not overwhelm it as has occurred in so many movies for many years now.
Perhaps, as with TV's broadcast programming expansions, the excessive quantity of productions has diluted the quality -- making it significantly more difficult to even ferret out what is worthwhile if a person doesn't want to dedicate hours and hours of viewing time to do so.
Impressive publish! STICK WITH IT!
Never have I cared for a male superhero. Give me Wonder Woman any day!
That said, I'll leave movies and philosophies to others who are more interested. There are ethical standards by which I wish to live; but, personal philosophy? No. Go for it!
Cop Car
I think by the time people have reached our ages, whether they call it philosophy or ethics, they do know the code by which they live and they have made it consistent with their actual actions. It'd be hard not to. Although I used to hear my father say, much younger than me, I too old to change-- so you should-- whenever we came up with a conflict. I do NOT believe that. I think anybody at any age can change-- IF they see a reason to do so that improves their life
Sometimes a movie with violence is balanced with an inspiring message. Recently, we watched Hildago, a 2004 movie about long distance rider Frank Hopkins. The story is focused on racing his mustang, Hildago, in a 1891 race in Arabia against pure blood Arabian horses. After winning the race, Hopkins who was half Lakota went back to the States and bought and freed the wild mustangs that were going to be killed by the government. The movie stars Viggo Mortensen and Omar Sharif. Hope this adds something to the conversation.
Woops! The Hildago message is from Julie. Forgot to add that.
I saw that film also, Julie and liked it. I think that with a positive ending, it does make a difference.
I liked the Keaton Batman too. Maybe because It was the first movie after the Adam West TV series. West will always be the real Batman.
Post a Comment