When is a trend not a trend? (re - Wednesday openings)

John Horn of The LA Times has a piece up now basically trying to make a 'trend' out of the fact that a few late summer films are choosing to open on Wednesday rather than Friday ('Wednesday Is The New Friday in Movie Releases'). In the next two weekends, Sisterhood Of The Traveling Pants 2, Pineapple Express, and Tropic Thunder will open on Wednesdays instead of Fridays.

First of all, Sisterhood Of The Traveling Pants opened on a Wednesday on June 1st of 2005, so Warner Bros is following the pattern that worked last time. Actually, 2005 was the summer where non-Friday openings were rather commonplace. The three most anticipated movies of the summer - Revenge Of The Sith, War Of The Worlds, and Batman Begins all opened on Thursday or Wednesday. And, even of those three, Batman Begins was the only stand out. July 4th movies, such as War Of The Worlds, always, ALWAYS open on Wednesday or Tuesday and live-action Star Wars movies have never opened on Friday (I have to add 'live action' because the animated Star Wars: The Clone Wars actually opens next Friday).

The other two entries are comedies, the kind of things that open occasionally on Wednesday to give word of mouth a chance to spread. There's Something About Mary opened on Wednesday, July 15th 1998 and came in third place over the Fri-Sun portion (against weekend 01 of Mask Of Zorro and weekend 02 of Lethal Weapon 4). It's solid five-day number coupled with incredible word of mouth propelled the film into the rank of the leggiest film of the year (it reached number one on its eighth weekend on the way to a $175 million final gross).

To be fair, Horn is right when he states that R-rated comedies can benefit from word of mouth spreading about gags too raunchy to put in a trailer. As it is, the most likely reason to open on Wednesday for these three movies is fear of the Summer Olympics, which start Friday. Spreading your opening weekend out theoretically gives audiences more of an opportunity to see the movies in question without missing their favorite event (prevalence of DVR recording technology not withstanding).

Oh, and using The Dark Knight's Wednesday grosses to declare that Wednesday is a healthy weekday is like saying that the success of LeBron James means that all teen basketball players should try to get into the NBA straight from high school. Horn basically states this and then makes an example out of The Dark Knight anyway.

Point being, this is just another case of someone noticing two or three of something and deducing that it is a trend that has something to say about the state of entertainment. Remember back in early 2006, when more than one film journalist wrote an article on the 'trend' of high school film noir. Their examples? Brick - a movie that no one saw and Veronica Mars - a (great) TV show that no one watched.

It is worth noting that this is the rare summer where only two of the major tent polers are opening on a non-Friday. And, again, both fall into established patterns. Indiana Jones films always opened on Wednesdays and part 4 opened on Thursday (for Lucas, Thursday is the new Wednesday as it's the international release day and thus helps combat piracy). Hancock was a July 4th tent pole film and those, always open on Wednesday or Tuesday.

Compare that to even last summer when Live Free Or Die Hard, Transformers, and Harry Potter And The Order Of The Phoenix all opened on Wednesday or Tuesday on three consecutive week. But each film had their own specific reason for doing that. Live Free Or Die Hard wanted to get out of the way of Transformers, which was opening the very next Tuesday (with Monday night 8pm screenings). Harry Potter 5 wanted a few more breathing days before the book release of Harry Potter 7. And Transformers was a July 4th monster. Also, Transformers had balls of steel (no pun intended) and decided to use a Tuesday opening (with Monday night advance screenings) to get the entire week of July 4th holiday time to crank in cash. It was a huge risk as the demand could have flamed out by Friday, but it paid off with a colossal 'opening week' figure ($155 million over 6.5 days looked a lot better than $70 million over three-days).

Point being, if you think your film is good and you think you can weather a lesser three-day take for a higher five-day total, then open your film on Wednesday. But, if you're a tentpoler that is expected to open huge regardless, it might not be in your best interest. Sometimes, a higher five-day number actually results in worse press than a smaller three-day opening would have garnered.

The most obvious example is Star Wars: Episode I: The Phantom Menace in May, 1999. Switching to Wednesday somewhat close to the last minute (officially, to give hardcore geeks a chance to see the film and not crowd out the family audience over the weekend), Phantom Menace failed to break the three-day opening weekend record, instead cruising to $105 million in five days. It did $64 million in the Fri-Sun portion, number two at the time. Point being, at the time, it took a lot of heat for not breaking the three-day record regardless of the fact that it had set a five-day record. Not until it collected another $66 million over four days on its holiday second weekend did people stop complaining (I remember thinking - $200 million in 13 days - now it's acting like a Star Wars film). Had it opened on Friday, it would have easily clobbered the Lost World's $72 million three-day record (a three day take of $85 million would have been plausible) and there would have been no hand-wringing in the least.

Ironically considering the current box office charts, the $73 million five-day for Batman Begins, coupled with an underwhelming $48 million three-day would have looked a lot more impressive as a simple $60 million three-day opening weekend had they chose to just open on Friday (sounds like Warner got the message this time around). At the time, I was so shocked by the under performance of the three-day portion that I feared for the future of the franchise. Another example is King Kong, which had to fend off negative press over a $8.9 million opening Wednesday, never mind that it out grossed the three day portion of Fellowship Of The Ring ($66 million five-day, $50 million three-day). For the record, all three of these films had legs and ended up being financially profitable, but oddly only Batman Begins didn't have to fend off stories of 'under performance' in the mainstream media.

And, for the record, had Shrek 2 opened on a Friday, it could have easily converted its $125 million five-day (a mere $19 million of that before Friday) into something besting Spider-Man's $114 million three-day. I remember being shocked that Shrek 2's opening Wednesday ($10 million) was less than the opening Wednesday for Pokemon The Movie ($10.5 million) back in November 1999. Lesson - if it's a movie that people can wait till Friday to see (like King Kong and Batman Begins), do not risk negative exposure for poor weekday numbers by opening on a Wednesday.

As I've stated previously, there are several movies that came out between Spider-Man in May, 2002 and Pirates Of The Caribbean 2 in July, 2006 that I believe probably would have broken the three-day opening record if they had come out on Friday. The Matrix Reloaded, Return Of The King, Passion Of The Christ, Spider-Man 2, and Revenge Of The Sith - all would have likely made a claim on the Spider-Man number had they opened on Friday.

Of course, as I've also mentioned before (and, not to brag, but boy did this early May article turn out to be dead on), the biggest factor of Wednesday openings is the 'Godzilla Rule'. That of course means that, if your film is a steaming pile of crap, DO NOT open on a Wednesday (and certainly don't schedule advance-night Tuesday screenings for goodness sake). I was at a Tuesday night Godzilla screening with several friends and believe me, by the time Friday rolled around, everyone knew. Same goes for the tragic five-day openings of Superman Returns and The Matrix Revolutions. If your film is bad, do not open on a Wednesday.

Scott Mendelson

Weekend Finals (08/03/08)

The List

As I occasionally do, I thought it best to wait till the finals were released as there were a few issues still in contention (such as, I dunno, which movie would end up number 01?).

Anyway, The Dark Knight pulled a rare three-peat with $42.6 million. This puts it second on the list of best third-weekends (behind Spider-Man, which made $45 million against the $80 million opening weekend of Star Wars Episode II: Attack Of The Clones). It fell a mere 43% and its total is now a whopping $394 million (global total - $596 million). It'll cross the $400 million mark either today or tomorrow. At this point, barring some unknown variable (thank goodness, Morgan Freeman is alive and doing ok), The Dark Knight has no chance of catching Titanic and will have to settle for a mere $530 million and the title of second-highest grosser of all-time in the United States. Interestingly enough, every weekend it creeps farther ahead, percentage-wise, of Pirates Of The Caribbean 2: Dead Man's Chest. It's now 22% ahead after starting 17% ahead of Sparrow's opening weekend. Still, it would have to gross 148% of what Pirates 2 ended up with to catch that $605 million.

The Mummy: Tomb Of The Dragon Emperor pulled in a slightly disappointing $40 million for second place. The word of mouth for this allegedly terrible film has already started to spread, and Universal is now depending on foreign grosses to recoup its $145 million budget. Me thinks that Universal took some of the expenses for Wanted and stuck it with Mummy 3, explaining the mere $75 million tag for the Jolie/Freeman action craptacular. Still, even if it has already done 40% of its business as of yesterday, Mummy: Tomb Of The Dragon Emperor will still cross $90 million in the US.

Plus, don't discount the effect of the complete saturation of Mummy ads that will be seen during the Summer Olympics on NBC (expect higher ratings than usual due to this being the first Summer Games that many people can watch in HD). Regardless, Mummy 3 has already taken in $60 million overseas, leading to a $100 million global opening weekend. It may not be the mega-hit that the first two were, but it should make decent coin before DVD/BluRay. Oh, and congratulations on Brendan Fraser having two $90 million+ grossers in a single month. Journey To The Center Of The Earth now has $72 million and is still going strong. Wouldn't it be incredible if Mummy 3 really crashes and Journey To The Center Of The Earth out grosses it?

Swing Vote crashed and burned, making a mere $6.2 million. Still, it's a shame that so many journalists seem to be criticizing Kevin Costner for (allegedly) putting up $20 million of his own money for fund this little comedy. It's the kind of thing that stars should do more often and he shouldn't be mocked for putting his money where his mouth is.

Midnight Meat Train - $35,000. $335 per screen. Game over until DVD.

Frozen River - $70,000. $10,000 per screen. Not very impressive, but we'll see if the Oscar heat can sustain this one for a little while.

X-Files: I Want To Believe - $3.3 million. Down 66%. New total - $17 million. It will be bested by Space Chimps (new total - $20 million). For what it's worth, here's a nice article defending the character-driven and theamatically rich but still boring and lifeless sequel.

Scott Mendelson

Batman In The Movies - Sillier than 'Swear to ME!'

Glad to see I'm not the only one. When I first saw The Dark Knight in early July, one of my biggest issues was the over-the-top, obscenely goofy vocal put-on that Christian Bale affected for Batman. Whether it was aided by audio effects, or whether Bruce Wayne himself uses a voice modifier on his suit, it's still a silly voice. Sounding basically like a young weakling trying to sound older and more bad-ass, it's been compared to McGruff: The Crime Dog and it's been compared to 'sounded absurdly deep, like a 10-year-old putting on an `adult' voice to make prank phone calls.' (a reference actually referring to Bale's voice in Batman Begins, but far more accurate a description for The Dark Knight).

I'm all for Wayne changing his voice as Batman. I love the bit in the pilot for Batman: TAS when Batman, in costume, switches to his Bruce Wayne voice to take a phone call. But the issue is the quality of the voice he chooses. The voice in Batman Begins was a little shocking, mainly because no actor had made that choice (to intimidate with primal fury rather than subtle threats and sly posturing) in a prior Batman project. Still, it was effective and only slightly goofy in certain spots ("It's not who I am inside, but what I doooooooooo that defines me." comes to mind). Had Bale just stuck with that voice this time, it wouldn't have been nearly as silly.

But this new voice is even more over-the-top raspy, with a more affected lisp thrown in for good measure. It's not a deal breaker, but it does lessen the effectiveness of several dramatic scenes (especially towards the end, when he uses the voice in long, thoughtful and/or quiet conversations). And I'm glad I'm not the only one annoyed.

Oh, while I'm thrilled that Jake Coyle gave credit to the vocal performance of Kevin Conroy (correctly noting that many fans consider him the definitive Batman), he makes the lazy mistake of stating that Batman: The Animated Series came from "DC Comics of Batman as envisioned by Frank Miller, whose work heavily informs "Batman Begins" and "The Dark Knight."

First of all, once again, dark and gloomy Batman was not invented nor was it patented by Frank Miller. From a previous related essay-

Oh, and for the record, despite what writers seem to keep saying, Batman comics were dark, introspective, and violent again by 1969, a full seventeen years before Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns. Yes, it was a groundbreaking piece of social satire, but crediting Miller with single-handedly saving Batman from the camp of the 1950s and 1960s is a slap in the face to Neal Adams, Denny O'Neil, Steve Englehart, Marshall Rogers, and all of the other writers that did so much good, truly groundbreaking work in the 1970s and 1980s.

Second of all, if you watch the show, it takes bits and pieces from every era of Batman, but it feels to most resemble the tone of the 1970s Batman comics. Batman was a dark, driven adventurer with genuine issues, but he was not a sociopathic nutcase. He was able to maintain relationships with friends and quasi-family. The villains were murderous and somewhat three-dimensional, often sympathetic, but never so overburdened by psychosis that it overwhelmed the story telling. Ironically, this was the era that Batman Forever seemed to try to emulate, with mixed success (aside from Jones' terrible portrayal of Harvey Dent). But Timm/Burnett/Dini/Radomski beat them to it by a full three years.

Scott Mendelson

Hidden Gem - Superhero Movie (2008)

Superhero Movie
2008
75 minutes
rated PG-13

It isn't Meet The Spartans. It isn't Date Movie or Epic Movie (no one involved in those late-term abortions is anywhere near this one). In fact, it isn't even Scary Movie 3 or 4 (the previous films Craig Mazin has written). Like The Comebacks from last year (the unrated director's cut, that is), Superhero Movie is an honest-to-goodness spoof with real jokes, an actual plot, and a bare minimum of pop-culture references (and, shock of shocks, a couple of those references are actually funny). And yes, David Zucker (the hardcore right winger of the Zucker Abrahams Zucker comedy trope) is involved as a producer.

The plot basically is the first Spider-Man film, but not in an iron-clad sense. Ironically, while Spider-Man worked best when Willem Dafoe was onscreen, Superhero Movie excels when it's villain, 'The Hourglass' (Christopher McDonald) takes center stage. The teen leads, Drake Bell and Sarah Paxton, are fine, but the supporting cast really shines here (McDonald, Brent Spiner, Leslie Nielsen Jeffrey Tambor). The first act is superior to the rest, but the entire film works surprisingly well as an old-fashioned spoof. There are absolutely no scenes where a laugh is attempted based on 'hey look, he's in the costume from that other movie!' It feels far more like The Naked Gun than Meet The Spartans. It's absolutely worth a rental. It's not perfect, but it's just plain funny.

Grade: B

Friday Numbers and the Melissa Leo 'controversy'

The list

Not much to report. Mummy 3 will do between $40 and $45 million, The Dark Knight will do the same (the two will duke it out for number one), and Swing Vote is toast (only $2 million yesterday).

Oh, and Midnight Meat Train did a whopping $94.12 per screen on 102 screens. It's no secret that Lionsgate buried the Clive Barker-approved adaptation as part of an effort to move away from the horror genre, and buried it is (those 102 screens were mostly second-run and/or dollar theaters). Basically they got a $350 million loan and want to use to it to try to become a major studio, as opposed to a niche home for R-rated horror, Tyler Perry, and the occasional Oscar bait (expect the latter two to stick around though). Still, expect this film to attain cult status on DVD as 'the film that Lionsgate wouldn't let you see' or 'the film that was too extreme for theaters'. In Lionsgate was smart, they'd hold off the October DVD release and use the allegedly decent horror vehicle as the star attraction in their next 'After Dark Horrorfest' this fall (they screwed the pooch last year by advertising and then not including Frontiers).

Alas, the allegedly wonderful Melissa Leo vehicle Frozen River pulled in a mere $17,000 on seven screens. It'll finish the weekend with about $50,000 for a $7,000 per screen average. Oh well, I hope this vastly undervalued actress gets an Oscar nomination anyway. And, as for Tom O'Neil's insane rants about her being a diva because she got into a emotional disagreement with her female director, would this even have been news had the star and director been male? Oooh... cat fight, screams the bored male columnist!

All things considered, it's amazing that Melissa Leo isn't actually a grump. Remember, this is a woman who was fired from her leading role on Homicide: Life On The Streets after five years (at which point the show immediately ceased being the best damn show on television). The firing was partially because she wasn't officially sexy enough and partially because her ex-boyfriend was stalking her and NBC didn't like the negative publicity . Who's the ex-boyfriend? John Heard, who still works regularly on various NBC television shows, more often than Leo. The ex-boyfriend is bonkers, so they fire his ex-girlfriend, but continue to employ the offender.

When I first moved out to LA in late 2004, I actually spent two days on the set of Mr. Woodcock as an extra, and she had a small supporting role. She was on set the whole time and was nothing if not courteous. Everything I've seen and read suggests she's a class act and this sounds like a bit of sexism at its basest.

Scott Mendelson

Weekend Box Office Bingo (really quick)

The Mummy: Tomb Of The Dragon Emperor - $45 million. Or, about the $43 million that The Mummy opened to in May of 1999 (I still take pride in being alone in calling that one, when everyone else was predicting $25 million). The original was well-liked (and it's aged well), and the sequel rode a wave of good will and the buzz surrounding The Rock to a stunning $69 million (number 2 all time opening at the time).

Alas, seven years, cast changes, and mediocre reviews will prevent this one from even equaling the inflation-adjusted opening of part 01 (about $60 million). Let's see... director Stephen Summers has been replaced by Rob Cohen (he of Stealth and XXX). Rachel Weisz has been replaced by the far less intriguing Maria Bello. Arnold Vosloo's original mummy seems to have stayed dead. Finally, Oded Fehr's bad-ass Ardeth Bay is nowhere to be found (was he really that busy or was Rob Cohen too stupid to ask Fehr to reprise the role that made him a star and a heart throb?). The only real link to the franchise is lead actor Brendan Fraser and supporting comic relief John Hannah. New to the franchise are Jet Li and Michelle Yeoh, but Li is barely worth $10 million on his own these days. Point being, familiarity, good will towards the first two films, and the need to see another tentpoler inbetween seventh and eight Dark Knight viewings (cough - Hellboy II - cough) are the only things this one has going for it. One weekend and then kaboom for this one.

Swing Vote - $10 million. Costner hasn't had a real hit since August 2003, with the fantastic western Open Range, so this should do about Mr. Brooks numbers. Again, middling reviews won't help, nor will a premise that's so topical that people may feel like they can see it on TV for free.

The Dark Knight - $46 million. Expect Warner to pad the numbers just enough to get past Spider-Man's record for the biggest third-weekend of all time. Also expect it to cross the $400 million mark by Wednesday at the latest (a mere 20 days). The thing just celebrated two full weeks in theaters by hitting $350 million.

Check back tomorrow for info on the Friday numbers.

Scott Mendelson

I feel better already...

From The New York Times, a fun top-10 list of stuff that many of us worry about, apparently needlessly. The shark attack thing is pretty obvious, but I was shocked to realize that plastic bags are better than paper for the environment. Of course, it only works if you actually recycle the plastic bags and most of us do not. Free tip - plastic bags from Target and the like make perfect size garbage bags for small trashcans for the bathroom and other small rooms (for that matter, giant bags from Toys R Us and Babies R Us work perfectly with the large trash cans too).

I'm also glad to realize that I'm not poisoning myself with bisphenol-a when I re-use my wife's empty water bottles and fill them with whatever beverage I don't buy in cans or bottles (V8 Fusion, chocolate milk, orange juice, basically anything other than soda and Naked Juice etc). I still think that bottled water is a waste of space and money, but at least the bottles are getting more than one use (followed by a trip to my work's recycling bin).

Some of this stuff I hadn't even heard about. Missing matter? Unmarked wormholes? I didn't know I should be concerned about that, so imagine my relief to discover that I shouldn't be.

Scott Mendelson

Alas, there will be no song entitled 'Quantum Of Solace' (a sampling of great terrible movie songs).

Looks like the Bond producers will be taking the easy way out. According to Variety, Jack White and Alicia Keys will be producing the theme song to Quantum Of Solace. But, alas, it will be called the much blander and easier to work with 'Another Way To Die'. Granted, it's the first duet in Bond song history, but I was genuinely hoping that some poor soul would have to make a workable tune out of 'Quantum Of Solace'.

Still, just because it isn't called Quantum Of Solace, doesn't mean we should give up that it will be terrible. How I yearn for the golden 80s, the glory days of terrible movie-based songs. In fact, there are few songs more terrible than terrible songs used in cheesy 80s and early 90s movies. Yes, when we had songs actually called 'The Living Daylights', or 'Lethal Weapon'. And, let's not forget the double-whammy of Rambo songs. Dan Hill's 'A Long Road' from First Blood or Frank Stallone's 'Peace In Our Life' from Rambo: First Blood Part II, both of these have become camp classics of overwrought lyrical emotionalism ("It's a real war... right outside your front door, I tell ya!"). In fact, Long Road has the gall to be set to Jerry Goldsmith's beautiful instrumental Rambo theme that has been used in all four movies.

Some favorites stand out -

Princes Of The Universe (from Highlander) - Flash Gordon is an epically goofy movie theme song, but at least it's tongue and cheek and it's faithful to the source. Did Queen actually read the script to Highlander before creating this hard-metal epic that slowly becomes some kind of sports rally pep tune? I'm guessing not as the song starts blabbing about romance, kings, passing the test, and people talking about them. This, for a movie about a super-secret clan of immortal Scotsman who run around beheading each other with broadswords. Most people have heard the first verse, but you really need to hear the rest.



It's A Long Road (from First Blood) - Dan Brown's obviously well-intentioned ode to the war within that Vietnam vets faced upon returning home quickly cascades into cheesy, overwrought platitudes from a guy who sounds too young to shave or drive, let alone enlist and return from war. Granted, it's a moodier and vaguely anti-war peace (and thus more faithful to the original intent of the First Blood novel and movie), but I prefer Billy Joel's 'Goodnight Saigon' thank you much.



Peace In Our Life (from Rambo: First Blood Part II) - Frank Stallone pens this allegedly touching ode to the sacrifice that vets made for their country. Alas, it's high-cheese factor and, I dunno, the fact that it's Frank Stallone, renders this about as an appropriate thank-you to the troops as Gulf War Syndrome, decrepit veterans hospitals, and Michael Bay's Pearl Harbor.



The Burning Heart (from Rocky IV) - Sorry to keep piling on Stallone, but the guy had a thing for cheese ball theme songs in the 1980s (even 1993's Demolition Man had a hard-rock theme song for the closing credits). This song by Survivor obviously tries to cash in on the popularity of Eye Of The Tiger, the unofficial theme from Rocky III. This jingoistic little ditty sells the film's apparent concept that this boxing match between Rocky and Drago is a battle for the souls of the world, the ultimate showdown between capitalism and communism. Favorite lyric - "There is so much at stake! Seems like freedom's up against the walls!"



The Glory Of Love (from The Karate Kid Part II) - Actually an entertaining, sweepingly corny love ballad. Peter Cetera tries to pull off the ultimate 'hero-complex' love song and it's oddly sincere. I suppose the reason I'm including it here is that it's one of those songs that everyone from the 1980s inexplicably knows most of the words to. It's terrible, but it's also kinda great.



The Living Daylights (from The Living Daylights) - The first Timothy Dalton Bond film may be the most realistic, intricate, and complicated of any Bond picture, but this Ah Ha theme song is utterly incomprehensible. I have, to this day, no idea what they are singing about or how it relates to our favorite 00-agent. It's catchy, but it's terrible. While Duran Duran's 'Dance Into The Fire' (from A View To A Kill) is equally terrible, it's a bit more comprehensible and it has a groovy, bad-ass dance beat that makes it a blast to listen to. The Living Daylights just stinks.



Batdance (from Batman) - I could easily include this entire album of really mediocre to terrible Prince songs (Party Man, anyone?). But this whacked out ode to uh, something related to Batman is an acid-trip mishmash of color, incomprehensibility, and attempted controversy (the random inclusion of hard profanity, a long scene in which a row of Vicki Vale's are shot dead) that has stood the test of time. But at least Burton had the good sense to use Danny Elfman's score as the driving music, with Prince only in the vague background. Originally, the studio wanted Prince to do a main theme, Michael Jackson to do a love theme, and then just have Elfman fill in the blanks. Random Oddity - When Prince is dressed up in Joker attire, his gaunt body shape and his wild poofy hair actually renders him a dead ringer for the comic book Joker, more so than anyone who's ever played him onscreen.



Original Sin (from The Shadow) - Alas, this one is unable to be embedded, and it's actually a loose remake of a 1986 tune, but Taylor Dane's theme song for the 1994 'Shadow' feature was the last grasp of hardcore movie-based cheese before the trend of a soundtrack comprised of unrelated songs 'inspired by the motion picture' settled in. Most impressive is how Dane finds a way to substitute various lyrics to incorporate the line 'Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men?' into a rising rock beat. Here's the original for comparison.




Feel free to submit your favorite movie theme songs from the days of ole.

Scott Mendelson

"Did you know, Sir? Then?"

Here is the teaser to Harry Potter And The Half-Blood Prince, which debuts in theaters on Friday (go here for downloads). It's an incredibly confident teaser, with two brief shots of Harry and not a glimpse of Hermione, Ron, or Snape. The only flaw comes at the very end, when they have a flash of 'you know who', and they pick the cheesiest, least frightening shot from the last movie (you'll know it when you see it). Better to have not even revealed who that young child is, as if anyone watching couldn't figure it out. Other than that, it's a fantastically creepy and moody teaser.

Scott Mendelson

Batman In The Movies - Debunking the 'Dark Knight endorses the Bush/Cheney doctrine' stupidity...

Once a narrative gets going, especially a juicy one, it's hard to put back in the bottle. In the last two weeks, the official talking point, both of righteous conservatives and allegedly offended liberals, is that Chris Nolan's The Dark Knight explicitly endorses the 'War On Terror' doctrine that Bush and Cheney have carried out for the last several years. Absolute nonsense, as you'll see below (it's long as it's a bit of a 'point by point' rebuttal). Basically, the film asks many provocative questions and dares to not provide every answer. But, in the end, it comes out in favor of humanity's basic compassion and capacity for hope, community and sacrifice as opposed to self-interest and selfishness.
Heavy SPOILERS follow -

At the heart of this current madness is the 'chicken/egg' fallacy. Since taking office in January 2001, and especially after 9/11, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney have conducted themselves in manner suggesting that they believe themselves to be cowboy super heroes, be it Batman, John Wayne, or Jack Bauer, fighting the forces of absolute darkness. They believe in simplistic notions of good and evil, might and right, and the ends justifying the means. Thus, it stands to reason that some of their rhetoric would resemble the very comic book superheroes they attempt to emulate. It's not a case of Batman sounding like Bush, but rather Bush trying to come off as a truly heroic figure such as Batman to justify his unheroic policies.

But aside from words, the actions do far more to differentiate the two. Even Batman's vigilantism is presented as something that is selfless and meant to inspire the people of Gotham to feel safer and take control of their corrupt city. Batman does not kill and never harms the innocent. Yes he does walk that fine line in terms of being judge and jury. Any movie about a superhero must deal with that, but that doesn't make Batman a right-winger.

Even as a vigilante, Batman is primarily concerned about protecting the innocent, even at the expense of punishing the guilty (he always chooses saving a life over capturing the villain, as seen at least twice in the film). Bush and co are primarily concerned with punishing the (allegedly) guilty, even at the expense of not protecting and/or punishing the (allegedly) innocent. One could argue that this is the defining split in liberal/conservative ideology. Speaking in broad terms, liberals are more concerned with protecting the (allegedly) innocent while conservatives are more concerned with punishing the (allegedly) guilty. And Batman constantly goes after the people who are actually responsible for the crime in Gotham, be it The Joker or the mob, rather than choosing straw men to hold up as evildoers. If you use the logic of the Bush administration, after discovering the location of The Joker and the intent of his plan, Batman would immediately dash after The Riddler or The Penguin and punish them severely while The Joker ran free.

In fact, the one character acts in that nature, who becomes a true Bush-type vigilante is presented as a tragic villain. As Harvey Dent becomes Two-Face and rampages through the Gotham underworld, he kills purely based on the flip of a coin rather than rational thoughts of justice. He becomes so determined to kill 'the evildoers' that he takes his anger out on the children of his alleged enemy. Not content to wrongly blame Jim Gordon for the death of Rachel, Harvey Dent decides to murder Gordon's young children as a form of punishment. In fact, Two-Face spends the last act of the film attempting to murder everyone tangentially connecting to his maiming except the person actually responsible: The Joker. So Two-Face targets everyone except the one person truly responsible for his plight, and then chooses innocent bystanders when those targets don't suffice. Almost sounds like Bush attacking Iraq to avenge the aggression Osama Bin Laden and 19 Saudi nationals.

As for the picture being right-wing because the Joker is a motiveless killer, that's just a variation on a right-wing cliche (that liberals make excuses for every criminal and thus want to set them all free). Hell, James Gordon himself made a speech about that subject in an Ed Brubaker written issue of Gotham Central (a series that The Dark Knight cribs from heavily). Basically, Gordon acknowledged that it is fine to feel compassion for criminals who are simply messed up or make stupid childish mistakes, and we can certainly sympathize with their actions now and then. But in order for society to function, it still can't be completely tolerated, so off to jail they go. I don't recall Nolan feeling too much pity for Jonathan Crane or Ra's Al Ghul or Carmone Falcone in Batman Begins. That Nolan presented Joe Chill as a flawed and guilt-ridden human does not make him a tree-hugging hippie, nor does his presentation of The Joker as an soulless demon make him an advocate for the Heritage Foundation.

Also used as ammunition is the idea that The Joker is an alleged stand-in for Osama Bin Laden, a wanton terrorist who kills indiscriminately and slaughters civilians on a whim. But the film shows quite clearly that this is not the case. The Joker kills only when he finds it necessary, and he only kills just enough people to cause panic in the city. In the course of the film, he kills slightly over 20 people, almost all of whom are cops, criminals, judges, vigilantes, or public officials. He does not explicitly kill a single bystander, even when left alone in Wayne's penthouse, because that is not part of his fiendish plan. He does not randomly blow up buildings and he does not randomly slaughter the innocent. The only time he even targets random bystanders is at the conclusion of the second-act chase scene, where he opens fire on random cars to goad Batman into using lethal force. Otherwise, the people that Joker chooses to kill are specific and intentional, with malice and forethought. Oh, and super villains have been videotaping their kidnappings and murders since the 1940s. Jack Nicholson's Joker did the exact same thing to an unlucky Smylax test subject in Tim Burton's Batman.

Further more, The Joker does not hate us for our freedoms anymore than Osama Bin Laden does. Whatever Bin Laden's motives are, The Joker simply wants to test his theory that people are generally selfish and evil and that when pushed, they'll turn on each other. One could fairly argue that Bin Laden's goal for the US is similar, to watch the country burn, but then one must acknowledge that in our current state, Bush has given Bin Laden exactly what he desired. The Joker is a much closer relative of the Zodiac killer (note how he mentions how few people he had to kill and how little destruction he had to cause in order to drive the city into panic).

Besides, in the end The Joker's experiment fails because the people of Gotham are shown to be unwilling or unable to be so self-centered that they would slaughter innocents to save themselves (as opposed to the stereotypical right-wing view that countless dead Iraqis are a fair price to save a few American lives). In one of the most emotional scenes, a hardened convict chooses to toss his ship's detonator out the window, potentially at the cost of his own life, rather than play a part in the shedding of innocent blood. In Nolan's world, criminals are not beyond rehabilitation and redemption, and thus Batman's mercy towards them is justified. Needless to say, Bush and co are not known for their mercy.

As far as Harvey Dent's cries about not giving into terrorism during the second act, let us remember that, immediately after 9/11, it was Bush who immediately closed the military bases in Saudi Arabia (which was one of Bin Laden's chief demands against the US). Bruce Wayne immediately wants to cave but is advised against it by Rachel and Alfred, two out of three of his moral compasses. Furthermore, Batman doesn't just want to quit because The Joker is killing people to expose him. Batman wants to quit because he doesn't want to become the type of man who would 'burn the forest down' to catch this madman. And, in the end, he doesn't have to. He does not kill The Joker and he still saves the lives of every person on the two doomed ferries. He even finds time to save the lives of Jim Gordon and his family. Yes, he has done things that maybe should be condemned, but he does them with a heavy heart, rather than a boastful chuckle.

Does this all mean that The Dark Knight is a liberal movie? Probably not anymore so that it's a conservative tract. In the end, Batman still tramples on the constitution as a matter of course (as he has done for seventy-years in the comic world). And yes, Batman commits an act of something strongly resembling 'extraordinary rendition' (the abduction of Lau from Hong Kong). It's more like rendition in the fashion that Clinton originally intended it when he (wrongly) allowed it back in 1998 (no torture, for one thing), but it still gave me the liberal heebie-jeebies. Although, one could argue, it is this extreme and illegal action that instigates the entire rampage by The Joker, since the mobsters overreact and hire The Joker out of desperation (and of course, Alfred warns him as it's happening). IE - Batman told them to 'bring it on', and they did in the form of a murderous clown. Whether or not Batman's actions resemble right-wing behavior, one would find it hard to argue that the film is championing this behavior, considering the blow back that occurs as a result. Again - questions but no solid answers.

It's true that Batman wiretaps every cell phone in Gotham in a desperate attempt to locate The Joker, but the film leaves the issue opened-ended. Yes, it's a ticking-bomb scenario, but it's strongly condemned by one of the film's chief moral outlets (if Morgan Freeman condemns something, most movie goers will believe him). Furthermore, unlike Bush's warrant-less spying, Batman does not keep copies of the phone calls, he does not spy on lawyers and political opponents (allegedly), he does not listen to the phone calls that are being monitored. When Lucius Fox discovers the machine, the audio is an indecipherable blur, with only the audio of The Joker himself distinguished amongst the masses. And, tellingly, as Gordon states in his closing monologue that 'sometimes people deserve to have their faith rewarded', we see Fox smile just a bit as he realizes that Wayne has programed the machine to destroy itself once its one-time use is finished. Point being, Batman knows damn well that what he is doing is wrong, but it may be necessary in this one case, in a manner which violates no one's privacy, since no one's phone call is actually listened to. It's still constitutionally awkward, but it's quite different than an illegal ongoing wiretapping program that collects countless random phone calls and stores them in a database for who knows what purpose.

And the finale of the movie brings about all kinds of questions, but it also exposes the fallacy of the whole right-wing argument in regards to The Dark Knight. In the end, Batman chooses to take the blame for Harvey Dent's murders so that the people of Gotham can still have their unwavering symbol of lawful justice and lawful heroism. On one hand, Nolan is stating that people desire symbols of people who do good within the law and within the system that has been set up for a civilized society (as opposed to Bush and Cheney, who brag about going above and outside the law in their pursuit of terrorists). On the other hand, it brings up the propaganda campaigns involving the fake rescue of Jessica Lynch and the false story surrounding the death of Pat Tillmen.

I'd personally argue that Batman's falling on the sword is unnecessary because the people of Gotham can be inspired by the selfless actions of the ferry passengers. Point being, The Dark Knight implicitly seems to endorse the idea that its ok for figures in authority to lie to people in order to make them feel better about themselves. Again, at the very least, Batman is making a sacrifice for the good of his city and as a way to make the criminal underworld afraid of him once more. Regardless of whether I endorse that decision, it must be acknowledged that it's based on the absurd notion that the criminals arrested by the squeaky-clean Dent would go free because he was kidnapped, brutalized, and snapped under duress.

But the biggest reason that The Dark Knight fails as an endorsement of Bush/Cheney is that Batman is actually successful at saving Gotham and he sacrifices for it. Batman loses his best friend and would-be lover, and he loses the trust of his business partner. Furthermore, in the end, he has lost the faith of the very people he strives to protect, choosing to forgo their love to protect their lives. While some argue that Bush and Cheney forgo the love of their constituents in order to keep us safe, the fact still remains that they have lost the faith only because they have failed in that duty outright. The Iraq war has left the Middle East in chaos, Bin Laden is still free, our country is going broke, and the average family is struggling like never before with such necessities as health care, food, and gas.

Batman is not Bush because Batman succeeds in his primary goal. He captures The Joker and saves countless lives without killing his enemy. Batman is not Bush because he makes sacrifices and pays horrible tolls for his quest, while Bush and Cheney have not only not sacrificed but benefited financially through their various business enterprises that have in turn profited from the various military engagements. It's a complicated, messy movie that wrestles with big questions. I don't think it completely aspires to any rigid political dogma. I'd argue that the film as a whole is a blistering bleak commentary on how we, as Americans caved into fear and irrationality following the 9/11 attacks (as The Joker states, we are only as civilized as circumstances allow us to be). But it sure as heck doesn't champion the unsuccessful and counter productive policies that make up the current 'War On Terror'.

Scott Mendelson