We should indeed get a drink or something.

cynic librarian, the distinction between subjective and objective sounds interesting in relation to ideology and films, but I don’t follow your comment in detail; care to say more?

I think this issue of theory and critiquing films is important; when doing it, one doesn’t really say it’s only objective in a reductionist way, nor simply subjectivist, but you are saying that the film takes its material and arranges it in such a way that a capitalist would not disagree and which invites viewers to accept that way of life–as depicted in the actions of the characters–as legitimate.

Of course, once you even begin opposing subjective/objective, you create the illusion that these are somehow states of a kind or another. That’s the illusionary double-dealing language brings with it.

I like what you’ve done with the place.

I agree with the overall point of this piece. The difference between, say, Lenin’s and K-Punk’s views of the movie is really one of tone–as long as one doesn’t expect movies to deliver political effects, only political knowledge, then one can enjoy and learn from a movie that conveys a strong conservative viewpoint. The problem comes when critics commend a movie like The Dark Night for its critical and moral good sense, or when the movie engages critical positions only to neutralize them in its final 30-min. run-through of every action-movie cliche in the book. . . I think this is what irritates people about The Dark Knight, that it isn’t transparent like Transformers. None of this means I don’t find the movie interesting. Nor do I disagree with you that sometimes the “content” of ideology is a lot less important than it’s form. But content isn’t wholly insignificant, even if there is no non-ideological (in Zizekian/Althusserian terms) content that we can imagine.

I have to agree with a b, though, about the Schmittian overtones in the film. Pistelli could have phrased his claim a bit better, but I still think it’s true that being “the law” or “the executive branch” is, also, a la Benjamin’s “Critique of Violence”, being “outside the law.” And Bush’s arrogation of emergency powers to himself is pretty well-remarked. It’s probably more that saying Bush-Cheney allow for the executive to take on Batman-like powers–extraordinary rendition, black sites, enhanced interrogation. . .

Are you around this semester? We should grab a drink or coffee.

Jasper

But you’re right – this doesn’t say anything specific about Batman.

What annoys me about the left critics of the film, is they fail to see that Batman is neither particularly sympathetic or interesting. The film is about the Joker and Harvey Dent.

On the other hand, I find myself agreeing and disagreeing simultaneously with both of your claims in that comment; maybe that only proves your point!

As to whether all books as well as films embody capitalist ideology, I’d say yes, although perhaps “embody” wasn’t quite the right word to choose. What I mean is, the parameters of our thought are drawn from ideology – accepting and resisting ideology both exist in relation to it. This is why Capital is a critique of political economy, rather than a positive work of Marxist economics, because it employs (capitalist) political economy in a critical way. Likewise, films that resist capitalist ideology do so by making it visible in certain particular ways, rather than being outside of or offering an alternative to ideology.

I can’t agree with “To say that a film embodies capitalist ideology is not a criticism, it’s a banal fact, true of every film ever made.”[emphasis mine]. Would you say that about every book ever written? About Kapital? The relative invisibility of films that resist may be a fact, but so is their existence.

Your deeper point about ideology, though, seems spot on. But I’m not sure I’m willing to follow you all the way to the point of dismissing ideological critique in the way you have. For example, one of the DK’s ideological biases is against new deal liberalism, the failed policies of Bruce Wayne’s father. This claim is intensely ideological, but it exists at the level of realism (the storytelling claim that what happens in the film is a representation of reality) and it adds to the stock pool of common knowledge that Americans have about the ineffectiveness of government when it tries to do things like build mass transit or public water. Recognizing that as “ideological” isn’t quite the same thing as making the superhero=fascist fantasy connection, but something more akin to calling out Rush Limbaugh on using false facts and figures.