So if he was gay he wouldn't be a man? Heh.


Whether he's gay or not is insignificant. The fact that Batman is such a "man" (stereotypically tough, straight male) speaks to the film's anxiety that someone might interpret him as being something else. It's less of an issue with the Joker because he's, well, the Joker. If you're dressed as a clown, you can play around more.

Well, now that I know Box isn't being serious (him saying the criminals see the Joker as effeminate seals the deal). Don't pay attention to him anymore. Like really, let all his posts die a horrible death.

I am being serious. You can ignore what I said, fine, but please don't insult me by saying I'm not serious.

No I never meant that, although I probably should have clarified that.

As for your other points, I still think you are really reaching for something that isn't there. I'll have to rewatch the movie again with your points in mind, however, before I decide if I agree with you or not. One thing to remember though is that comic books were originally created for young boys in an era when homosexuality was not accepted by any segment of society. That might have a lot to do with how the stories and societies are structured.

Why so Boxy?

Comics were almost ruined because of the charges that Wertham levelled against them. One of those charges was that they corrupted youth by promoting, you guessed it, homosexuality.


We're not talking about homosexuality here, though, at least not in the main. There's a big difference between homosociality and homosexuality.

What you find in TDK is no different from what you will find in the vast majority of films, comics, music, etc. in our culture. The homosocial elements in the film pervade every stratum of our culture and our lives. We're so used to this that we let it pass us by, because it is the norm.


I mean, didn't you find the emphasis on the gadgets and the vehicles in this film (as in every other action/superhero film) so interesting? Part of it is just for show, but why linger on it? The film plays out like a drama and then the film's narrative flow is interrupted while we gawk at the machines and vehicles Batman has. Batman is "the man" partly because he has a kick-ass automotive vehicle and a kick-ass motorcycle and kick-ass weapons, all valuable symbols of male heterosexuality in our culture. The film repeatedly insists that Batman is the epitome of "the man." Why is this? What is the film so afraid of?

Really now? None of them ever speak about his make-up in any feministic manner ever thoughout the film. In fact, if I recall, the criminal at the beginning refers to the make-up as war paint.

Batman is also not the typical "man" as you put him, he's a force of nature who is tough because he deals with the scum of the world. Bruce Wayne is a far kinder person (though I'm sure you'll construe that into a theory that it proves he's gay.)

I remember contemptuous comments being made about the Joker because of his makeup, and implications that he is weak.

At any rate, they don't have to say anything. What struck me about the scene with the criminals is that here you have someone who is visibly an outsider whom all these tough guys-a roaster of ethnic stereotypes-reject. Partly because he's ruining their business, partly because he looks like a clown.

But clowning itself is troubling. This play of identities is deeply disturbing to a group of, as I said, ethnic stereotypes. Those men have no unique identity, they are taken right out of some textbook on what tough guys are meant to look and act like (esp. the Italian mobster and the two Black guys). The Joker doesn't relate to others in the way other men do, he troubles the code which establishes the proper means of relation between men in society.

Part of that code is that you don't wear makeup as a man. In society, what do we think of when we think of a man who wears makeup? Be honest. We think he's effeminate, "gay", and so on. There is a history of coding the Joker as precisely that in the comics. TDK taps into that.



Well, there is a parallel with homosexuals in heterosexual society. Like all comic book heroes who have to keep their identity a secret, Bruce Wayne is in the closet, so to speak. Quite literally- it is in the closet where he changes from one costume to another and becomes Batman.

And if the connection is not obvious enough, just consider what image Bruce Wayne projects to the world when he's not Batman: a rich playboy living the straight guy's fantasy life, surrounded by hot women, etc. It's as if he's compensating for something by being hyper-straight, heh.

As I said, men like the Joker, Bruce Wayne, etc. they don't relate to other men in normal ways. To make them acceptable to a society dominated by straight men, they have to compensate for their otherness in some way. All the action in the film, the insistence on being tough, etc. is part of that attempt to compensate.

You are confusing Batman and Bruce Wayne. Batman is a persona Bruce puts on in order to intimidate the criminals. He himself, Bruce, is not presented as particularly macho.

As to the gadgets, the focus on them is to tie the film into the modern era, to make it feel relevant to the lives of today's young who are growing up surrounded by gadgets. This is smart and shows the attempt to modernize a musty old hero from the 40s by shifting emphasis without really changing him.

I'm not confusing them. Bruce Wayne might not be macho, but there is no question that Wayne himself makes the decision to represent himself publicly as the epitome of the straight man, after his own fashion. And this means hot women and hot cars.




That's what I'm trying to get at. It taps the film into the modern era where gadgets like that are symbols of male heterosexuality. Big cars, motorcycles, weapons, all those are codes for "cool, straight man." When was the last time you saw a gay man in a film associated with big cars or weapons? When it's a woman like Angelina Jolie, the woman is represented as the object of male fantasy.

He makes himself into a figure that he thinks will scare the criminals, that is the point of the persona. To instill fear because the message of the Batman comics is that criminals are just cowards at heart.

But they aren't. Machines used to be associated with men but what is different about our era, as epitomized by the iPod and iMacs is that they more than ever are being used by women and marketed with women in mind.

There are three Wayne personas:

-Batman
-the public Bruce Wayne
-the private Bruce Wayne


I was talking about the public Bruce Wayne; you're thinking of Batman.


My argument is that both Batman and the public Bruce Wayne persona are hyper-heterosexual, in different ways. They're clearly constructed as such.

That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the big cars and the motorcycles and the weapons.

Are those marketed toward women in the way they are toward men? Isn't there something about them that in our culture screams "real, tough man"?

box, just to clarify, this isn't your problem with the film is it?

My original problem with the film had to do with its morality, which is a totally different issue.


I find all the things I mentioned to be very problematic in the film too, I just didn't bring them up until now. I mentioned them in passing to Mike because, well, we're both gay and I guess I wanted to point those things out to him in case he was interested.

But this stuff isn't unique to TDK. It doesn't diminish my experience of watching the film, but that's because I'm aware of this stuff as I watch it. It does keep me from thinking of it as a particularly progressive film, which it is not (and doesn't claim to be).

I can do both things-enjoy the film and criticize its allegiance to cultural prejudices-which to me is the only healthy way of watching a film. What troubles me is that most people probably can't do that, and moreover, that some people enjoy this film because it contains certain cultural prejudices.

I'm 50% sure Box's real grade for TDK is A, and he believes having so much to talk about in the film is to its benefit (after all, he did make a thread once saying it's more important that movies are interesting than "good")... He's just playing us like he did for Indy.

My grade for The Dark Knight IS an A. I even posted an image of me grading the film an A in this thread.

See:

viewtopic.php?p=1239222#p1239222


And I'm not playing anything. The only playing I've done is occasionally teasing Chip and the people in the box office forum.

As I said, you can criticize a film and enjoy it at the same time. In fact, I think that's the only proper way to watch a film.

Oh ok, I was going by this



On a side note, that post was on page 29 when the majority of us had already seen the film. I can't believe there's been THIRTY pages since then. The entire CoM thread Snrub spam included. Jezus.

I changed the grade to make BJ happy I don't care about the grade, though. Based on pure interest, this is an A+ film, heh.

Oh, glorious IMAX. How I love thee, Canadian invention.

Box, I get what you're saying, yet I disagree for the most part and think you're reaching too hard in regards to this film. Though I could see Bruce Wayne as being homophobic. I don't care for him. And how annoying was it when he arrived at the fundraiser with three women by his side?

I didn't say that Bruce Wayne is homophobic, though. What I said is that the way he is constructed renders him hyper-heterosexual, rendering him the effect of a culture that is homophobic.

Are you suggesting that the film is heterosexist? LOL