Morals in Movies (and books)

[Melville]

Which works of art (or philosophy) have offered the most profound moral vision, most deeply influenced your thoughts about how you should live your life, or just best expressed the convictions you already held?

Some of my choices:

Capra's It's a Wonderful Life and Heidegger's Being and Time
—for their insistence that life is to be found only out in the factical world, that Being is Being-with-others and that to do right means to engage in that world.

The Dardenne brothers' The Son
—for how it shows that the real moral challenge is not merely to follow one's principles and forgive and do right in the abstract, but to wrestle with the reality of another person, to forgive another person in all their existential weight.

Dostoevsky's The Brothers Karamazov and Oe's The Silent Cry
—for their exploration of the problem of openness, of stepping out from behind the veil of everyday conventions and letting others know what you really are, what you've genuinely experienced and thought in your depths.

Dostoevsky's Notes from Underground
—for its rejection of pragmatism, utilitarianism, and 'common sense' as moral guides, and for the way it shows the difficulties of seeing and piercing one's own convictions out in the open amongst others.

Kierkegaard's Fear and Trembling, Tarkovsky's Nostalghia, and Dreyer's Ordet
—for their avowal of believing in the impossible, in transcendence, and of unyielding striving in that belief.

[Izzy Black]

Awesome thread idea and great selections. I am out to eat posting from my iphone so I can't provide much in this post but I really wanted to post so I'll list a key influences for me and try to explain in more detail later.

Philosophy
Hume's Treatise on Human Nature and Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals
P.F. Strawson's paper Freedom and Resentment
Dostoevsky's Notes from the Underground
Nietzsche's On the Genealogy of Morality
Kant's Critique of Practical Reason

Film
La Strada
A Clockwork Orange
Dogville
Crimes and Misdemeanors
Pulp Fiction
Dekalog
Bad Lieutenant

Obviously they are a vast number of films that deal with moral issues, particularly those at the political level, so I've tried to narrow it to the more philosophical films that seem to concern more fundamental moral dilemmas that seem to ask questions about the very foundations of morality, films that attempt to articulate the very nature of morality (as opposed to practical problems such as how to apply principles, i.e Lee's Do the Right Thing. Actually that's a great example of a film for an applied ethics list. Maybe I should make two lists)

More later.

[Izzy Black]

Actually I think I misinterpreted the thread. I wouldn't necessarily say that all of these works offer a single most profound moral vision that compliments my own, just that they've been influential in shaping my view of morality in some way (some in terms of my disagreeing with their conclusions). I'll clarify more later and perhaps provide some examples that best my reflect my personal view of morality.

[Melville]

Actually I think I misinterpreted the thread. I wouldn't necessarily say that all of these works offer a single most profound moral vision that compliments my own, just that they've been influential in shaping my view of morality in some way (some in terms of my disagreeing with their conclusions).
I think that fits with the purpose of the thread; I purposely left my question very broad. If I were to include things that strongly influenced me due to my vehement disagreement with them, I would include something representative of utilitarianism. And possibly Pride and Prejudice.

I like the Dekalog choice, though I still have only seen 4 episodes (plus A Short Film About Killing). Definitely interested in your thoughts on some of the others, like Pulp Fiction.

[Qrazy]

Andrei Rublev and La Dolce Vita are the two films whose lessons I think about on a daily basis.

[Melville]

Andrei Rublev
Yeah, that definitely belongs on my list, largely for the balloon at the beginning and the bell at the end.

[Izzy Black]

The most influential figure in my moral thinking is certainly Hume and his Treatise. I largely share his moral sentimentalist view and his response to the problem concerning free will and moral responsibility. I draw influence from P.F. Strawson along the same lines for his contribution to what turns out to be a very Humean moral framework.

I am also influenced by Dostoevsky's Notes from the Underground for many of the same reasons Melville cites, and particularly the Underground Man's critique of moral hyper-rationality, Kant and the Enlightenment project, and his analysis of free will and moral responsibility.

I draw on Nietzsche for his attempt to naturalize morality and his methodological critique of transcendental a priori moral systems, although I don't necessarily share all of his conclusions about morality.

Lastly I cite Kant, more as historical precedent in shaping my view than for any particular claims or ideas. Kant is what first got me into really investigating questions of morality. His moral theory is the first persuasive account that I encountered, although I would later go on to reject most of his views, but there are still some things I like and respect about Kant. His influence is monumental, since he had an impact on all the moral thinkers that came after him.

As for film, I look to La Strada and Bad Lieutenant for their examination of moral guilt. These are notably Catholic treatments of moral themes, and understandably so, given their respective directors. I actually prefer Ferrara's overall body of work as a provocateur of Catholic moral thought, but he hasn't made a film that really touches La Strada. But then again, few have.

I choose A Clockwork Orange for perhaps being the best and arguably only film that seriously engages the problem of free will and moral responsibility (I heartily welcome counter-examples though!). At some level, Kubrick's entire career has had this problem somewhere in the background or at the forefront of his films, and this film is the most canonical and exemplary exposition of the problem ever put to film. It's a true masterpiece of classic moral cinema.

I like Crimes and Misdemeanors for its Dostoevskian moral themes and Dogville for its pointed examination of the practice and nature of moral justification and moral reasoning.

Dekalog is perhaps one of the most comprehensive and ambitious films to explore moral problems (no surprise Kubrick was in awe of it). Episode V, the most famous and clearly the finest of the set (later expanded into A Short Film about Killing), attempts to find moral agency and moral meaning against the mysterious complexity of human nature. These films find their value in the questions they ask rather than in their conclusions, primarily because they are presented as moral dilemmas and thought-experiments more than they are as treatises. Kieslowski is one of cinema's greatest moral poets and thinkers, and very few directors, if any, have had such a keen sense of the thorny problems of morality and the mysteries of human agency as he. I adore the man's work for this fact.

And lastly, perhaps my most controversial selection, is Pulp Fiction. I've been a Tarantino advocate for well over a decade now, although I was not a fan of him in the beginning. What sold me on Tarantino was his sophisticated treatment of moral themes. Not only do I think that Tarantino is one of the only directors working in mainstream film that really tackles moral problems seriously, but I think he's one of the best to ever do it. Tarantino locates moral problems in the everyday, his populist palette and sensibility is precisely what makes his explorations all the more relevant and interesting. His films work not as arcane academic explorations of theoretical moral problems, but really attempt to locate the nuts and bolts of our moral lives often in the most seemingly mundane of situations and always with a clear eye and ear to modern cultural norms. (Just a heads up, I've touched on the following points in other QT threads.) His biggest genres are, rather obviously, revenge and crime stories, but these stories always only serve as the backdrop to more resonant problems of moral complacency and ethical self-awareness. In this sense, his fondness for Shakespeare's Hamlet is understandable. Tarantino's approach is less with particular moral theories and doctrines or classical problems (like Ferrara, Fellini, Kubrick, or Kieslowski) but rather with arguably morality's very starting point: self-knowledge. His films, and Pulp Fiction in particular, seem to evoke the Socratic principle that "The unexamined life is not worth living." His films are concerned with shaking up and awakening (or at the very least exposing) the morally ambivalent egoist, placing them in extreme circumstances where they are forced to face difficult moral realities and ultimately confront themselves.

[Izzy Black]

I seriously considered Andrei Rublev (top 10 movie), but I excluded it, along with Tarkovsky's other films, on grounds that I think his films, and this film, are more concerned with ontological/existential questions from a theological point-of-view than with moral ones. Bergman seems to also have this tendency. Andrei's defiant act of compassion at the end of the film - a powerful and touching moment - seems to function more as an indication of the possibility of hope and faith in God in the face of world weary desperation, inhumanity, and abysmal living conditions than with a particular revelation about the nature morality. It still deals with moral themes, but I do not really consider it a film that's chief concerns are moral ones (as opposed to, say, artistic and theological). I could be wrong though.

[Qrazy]

I seriously considered Andrei Rublev (top 10 movie), but I excluded it, along with Tarkovsky's other films, on grounds that I think his films, and this film, are more concerned with ontological/existential questions from a theological point-of-view than with moral ones. Bergman seems to also have this tendency. Andrei's defiant act of compassion at the end of the film - a powerful and touching moment - seems to function more as an indication of the possibility of hope and faith in God in the face of world weary desperation, inhumanity, and abysmal living conditions than with a particular revelation about the nature morality. It still deals with moral themes, but I do not really consider it a film that's chief concerns are moral ones (as opposed to, say, artistic and theological). I could be wrong though.

I consider the issue of faith in life, struggling with despair and finally recognizing the true value of art to be a moral concern.

Certainly he is also considered with ontological concerns, but they overlap.

[Izzy Black]

Sure, a moral concern, broadly speaking. I am not disputing that. I suppose I was just leaning more on films that look at "foundational" problems.

[B-side]

Um. I like Nietzsche?

Yeah. Also, what I know of Mill/Bentham's utilitarian ideals run right along the path with my intrinsic moral philosophy.

[Melville]

Sure, a moral concern, broadly speaking. I am not disputing that. I suppose I was just leaning more on films that look at "foundational" problems.
I think he makes ontological problems into moral ones. Andrei Rublev addresses the most foundational moral problem: how should one live and engage with the world? The story about the bell maker is also a tremendous moral parable.

Interesting points about Tarantino, though I think his exploration of morality is often substanceless and sometimes obnoxious (e.g., Death Proof).

Kant's categorical imperative doesn't grip me like it used to, but it has probably been the longest-lasting influence on my moral thinking. I read Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals in first year of undergrad and it's still a touchstone for what I think is right.

[Izzy Black]

I think he makes ontological problems into moral ones. Andrei Rublev addresses the most foundational moral problem: how should one live and engage with the world?

In a very broad since, yes, that's true, but I think that spreads the criteria too thin (I'm only speaking for myself). In some sense, most movies, as cultural and human mediums, deal with this question. Spider-Man, for instance, deals with this question, but it's not exactly the type of film I get deep insights about morality from. That's not to level Andrei Rublev and Spider-Man because they're quite literally lightyears apart. The point is a matter of emphasis. This is why I've tried to distinguish 'practical' problems from foundational ones (taking a principle and then asking, what should I do? versus taking an action before the principle and asking, why should I do it?).

Again, I'm not denying the moral content and themes of Andrei Rublev. I was only explaining that the sense in which I was invoking morality - at the level of philosophical foundations - does not seem to be a chief concern of the film.


The story about the bell maker is also a tremendous moral parable.

I addressed this in the spoiler tags above.


Interesting points about Tarantino, though I think his exploration of morality is often substanceless and sometimes obnoxious (e.g., Death Proof).

I won't defend Death Proof, but I don't think his explorations of morality lack substance in most of his work, and especially for his best work, such as Pulp Fiction and Inglorious Basterds.

Kant's categorical imperative doesn't grip me like it used to, but it has probably been the longest-lasting influence on my moral thinking. I read Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals in first year of undergrad and it's still a touchstone for what I think is right.

Interesting. I suspected otherwise. For me, it has very weak influence in a direct sense. I respect his emphasis on intentions, but I get all of that in Hume without Kant's hangups on rationality.

[Pop Trash]

Malick for sure. Esp. Tree of Life and The New World (both of which touch on similar philosophical themes for me)...agree with some of the better Woody Allen films too (Manhattan/C&M/Hannah).

[Boner M]

Of recent film, Margaret immediately jumped to mind.

[Sven]

Nashville, for its equalizing panoply of perspectives, successes, failures, foibles, and pleasures.

Dumbo, for its powerful insistence on jouissance and triumph of the individual over crippling social circumstance.

Kikujiro, for locating and making resonant the ecstatic childhood heart.

[Sven]

Also, the Rankin/Bass Hobbit is probably my favorite work of fiction that explores decision-making. I think about Bilbo's choice to enter Smaug's chamber all the time. Once in the chamber, there's no turning back, so it's the decision to enter that presents the truest difficulty.

[Russ]

Conflicted women who find themselves at moral crossroads: Emily Watson in Breaking the Waves and Mimi Rogers in The Rapture.

[Pop Trash]

Of recent film, Margaret immediately jumped to mind.

Did you ever write about this at length? Here or elsewhere?

[Boner M]

Did you ever write about this at length? Here or elsewhere?
Just a 150wd capsule for print that was inevitably the most reductive thing ever.

[max314]

I don't know if it counts as a "moral" commentary, but The Matrix Trilogy has some pretty lofty ambitions as a dramatised discussion of apparently competing philosophical, theological and mathematical doctrines, culminating in what appears to be a conclusion of perenniality.

A uniquely spectacular cinematic artifact.

[Izzy Black]

LOL.

[dreamdead]

I would list the following as primary (sometimes contradictory) influences on my ontological/spiritual beliefs:

The Thin Red Line
Ordet
Tree of Life
The Son
Naked
Manhattan
Yi-yi
Secret Sunshine
Before Sunset

I'd like to rewatch some of the Kieslowski and Tarkovsky films that I'd seen back in '04-0.

In terms of literature, I'd list my main influences this way:

Magister Ludi: The Glass Bead Game, Hermann Hesse (which directly pushed me toward an English major)
Underworld, Don DeLillo
The Big Money, John Dos Passos
In the Lake of the Woods, Tim O'Brien
Native Speaker, Chang-rae Lee

[Lucky]

LOL.

And we wonder why new posters aren't flocking to Match-Cut.

[Pop Trash]

LOL.

Don't be an asshole Izzy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RynFTJdyldg

[Izzy Black]

And we wonder why new posters aren't flocking to Match-Cut.

Yes, I'm sure my incessant trolling as clearly evidenced by my lol'ling is the chief cause.

[Izzy Black]

Don't be an asshole Izzy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RynFTJdyldg

I'm just ribbing him. Max knows very well that I have nothing but respect for him. I like to give him a hard time about the matrix and philosophy.

As for Žižek, he's what I would call a pseudo-intellectual. I'm unmoved by his sophistry.

[transmogrifier]

I can't say I hold up any film or book as influential on my own moral code. I just don't really see films in that light; there are plenty of films that have amazing, multidimensional thematic concerns that are intellectually stimulating, but I never try to contextualize them with my own values. To me, the only truly interesting moral discussion involves actual people and a conversation. Films are just a snapshot of someone else's view of the world, and that doesn't really get me all sexed up in that way.

Mostly, my reaction to film is definitely on the emotional side first and foremost, investing in the characters and their story, rather than my own intellectual appreciation of the morals on show.

[Pop Trash]

I'm just ribbing him. Max knows very well that I have nothing but respect for him. I like to give him a hard time about the matrix and philosophy.

As for Žižek, he's what I would call a pseudo-intellectual. I'm unmoved by his sophistry.

Yeah, I'm just ribbing you too. Keep up da good posts. :pritch:

[Izzy Black]

:P

[megladon8]

Batman taught me that it's better to be a villain than to be the hero people maybe don't need right now.

Or something.

[DavidSeven]

Batman taught me that it's better to be a villain than to be the hero people maybe don't need right now.

Or something.

The Dark Knight is actually a really interesting film in terms of moral/ethical quandary. I'm sure people will think immediately of the Joker's boat scheme, but truly, its examinations course through the entire film. And its ideas are complex. I think it's a lot more thought provoking than, say, No Country for Old Men, which explores some vaguely similar terrain, but in a far more simplistic and superficial way in my opinion (though I still like the film to some degree).

[DavidSeven]

Also, In the Company of Men and The Sweet Hereafter immediately jumped to mind when I initially saw this thread, but I think more for their deeply resonant outlooks as opposed any effect they had in coloring my own moral vision. Dogville and Bad Lieutenant are great ones that have already been mentioned. Definitely want to think about it some more.

Cool thread.

[Irish]

The Dark Knight is actually a really interesting film in terms of moral/ethical quandary. I'm sure people will think immediately of the Joker's boat scheme, but truly, its examinations course through the entire film. And its ideas are complex. I think it's a lot more thought provoking than, say, No Country for Old Men, which explores some vaguely similar terrain, but in a far more simplistic and superficial way in my opinion (though I still like the film to some degree).

Interesting, but what does this even mean?

Whatever complexities present in TDK are carried over from the comics. Outside the unoriginal premise that even the most powerful men can't be in two places at once, the movie doesn't offer anything that's not inherent to the character of Batman and the city of Gotham (Batman as broad fascist and personal narcissist; Gotham as the collective moral failing of its inhabitants).

It gets a gold star for trying and offering a little bit more depth than the usual action/comic book caper, but on the other hand, man, that's just such a low bar. I don't think we should throw around too many accolades because TDK didn't resolve all its plot strands with a fist fight and Bay-like F/X (eg: The Matrix).

[Raiders]

The Dark Knight is actually a really interesting film in terms of moral/ethical quandary. I'm sure people will think immediately of the Joker's boat scheme, but truly, its examinations course through the entire film. And its ideas are complex.

I think it is a very intriguing film, but as Irish (Brude) states, most of that is tied to the history of its main character. It works on various levels of duality, which is central to the very indentity of Batman and Bruce Wayne. It sets up a lot of two-sided conflict; the already-existing struggles of Batman; the real fight between the last strands of order and civilization and the anarchy of the Joker; Two-Face and his coin flips; the dichotomy of the two boats in the Joker's grand act; Batman's choice between the future of Gotham and his own love (tying back to the nature of man vs. symbol).

I don't find it to be much of a moral film though. I think the film affirms its characters in the way any comic book film would do. I don't think it presents us with a vision of society that challenges any ideal or presents any kind of ethical or moral statement or question. Even its most sensitive moment with respect to moralism, that of the greater good vs. individual liberties (the cell-phone invention with Fox) is handled in the most black-and-white, sledgehammer fashion. Nolan leaves little to chew on or any great lingering thoughts or questions regarding the moral and ethical nature of its characters and their thoughts and choices.

I will not presume that someone could not find its very defined and popular morals to be influential, but I don't think it is a challenging work on most any level.


I think it's a lot more thought provoking than, say, No Country for Old Men, which explores some vaguely similar terrain, but in a far more simplistic and superficial way in my opinion (though I still like the film to some degree).

Now this is a film that presents a statement and I don't think it is in any way similar to that of Nolan's film. The source material and the Coens' faithful adaptation work on the overall lack of any great moral order defining our existence. Good (God) doesn't always triumph and in many ways, our existence is made up of chance and happenstance. Chigurh is definitely a spiritual cousin to the cartoon villains of a film like The Dark Knight, he's part Joker's chaos and certainly part Two-Face "let fate decide." The personal, apocalyptic randomness of the last little speech by Jones informs us that he has been living all along with the assumption that some order would guide him and the world around him, that there was an ending up ahead he could look forward to out in the dark wilderness, but that final line which haunts the entire film reveals that his retirement comes at the realization and "waking up" to the world that does not exist to his order and beliefs.

The film and book I think create an extremist vision of the present-day American west in order to critique those who cling to the beliefs and ideals that governed their lives separate from the realities that exist around them, including a large number of social issues we deal with today. I think the work presents Bell as a bit of a coward, laid-back and almost willfully staying a step behind. The one moment where he acts and the film provides a brief glimpse of Chigurgh, whether real or imagined, is intriguing because it becomes a non-event. It's a little too late for heroism.

I don't argue with those who claim it is a bit simplistic and superficial. Indeed it is. Yet, I think its the ramifications of its implications and the title itself that give into thoughts that extend well beyond simply the narrative it shows us. I think it smacks a large portion of our society in the face. Your beliefs, your rose-colored view of the "old days," your unwillingness to engage with the real nature and order of the world around you, though it is dangerous, is why you now find yourself morose, retired and relaying sad dreams of a time that may never have been.

[Irish]

You need to fix the system so I can rep that a few more times. Amazing post, Raiders, & a great read. I think you nailed the core of NCFOL perfectly.

[Dukefrukem]

Great post by Raiders.


I don't know if it counts as a "moral" commentary, but The Matrix Trilogy has some pretty lofty ambitions as a dramatised discussion of apparently competing philosophical, theological and mathematical doctrines, culminating in what appears to be a conclusion of perenniality.

A uniquely spectacular cinematic artifact.

I'd like to support Max here. I know most people think of the Matrix themes as over the top metaphoric exploitation, but I don't see/feel it that way. I wrote a pretty extensive review of the Matrix trilogy in 2003 on my old website, but can't find it at the moment. I talked about a lot of these philosophical themes- a lot of time spent on the obvious ones (symbolism with the names of the main characters, Neo, Trinity, ) but some talk of the deeper less obvious ones- the 101 references, Simulacra and Simulation, by Jean Baudrillard (The simulacrum is never that which conceals the truth--it is the truth which conceals that there is none. The simulacrum is true (thanks Wiki)), Nietzsche philosophy (man overcoming man) and the Oracle references. In greek history, "know thyself" was inscribed in Latin in the Matrix, which can be contributed to Plato's established wisdom.

[Izzy Black]

Interesting, but what does this even mean?

Whatever complexities present in TDK are carried over from the comics. Outside the unoriginal premise that even the most powerful men can't be in two places at once, the movie doesn't offer anything that's not inherent to the character of Batman and the city of Gotham (Batman as broad fascist and personal narcissist; Gotham as the collective moral failing of its inhabitants).

A few things. Even if it's moral themes are carried over from the comics (they're not entirely), so what? That doesn't inherently undermine either its depth, complexity, or relevance, and only reinforces the general reference to the Batman mythos as dealing in moral problems. Secondly, The Dark Knight clearly takes on moral themes no other film in the entire franchise does, all the way from Burton's flicks to Nolan's others (that includes TDKR). The ethics of vigantalism and the threat of moral nihilism is never really brought up, questioned, or explored in Burton or Schumacher's films, and its downplayed even in the other two Nolan's films. What's especially significant, here, too, is the backdrop of post-9/11 fears and anxieties with terrorism and its capacity to undermine the moral integrity of institutions of law and order.


It gets a gold star for trying and offering a little bit more depth than the usual action/comic book caper, but on the other hand, man, that's just such a low bar. I don't think we should throw around too many accolades because TDK didn't resolve all its plot strands with a fist fight and Bay-like F/X (eg: The Matrix).

TDK is no masterpiece, and I have more than my fair share of criticisms of it, but it still has some interesting things going on. And I don't think a lack of meaningful forays into moral subject matter in action/comic book movies has simply set the bar too low. It shows that TDK is doing something movies of its type haven't been doing and it's something that I think we've been waiting to see in mainstream commercial cinema for a while. Filling a void can be an important contribution in its own right, particularly in this kind of context.

[megladon8]

Brude-rish really has a chip on his shoulder with anything genre (or even worse, comic book related), so I don't imagine I (or anyone for that matter) could come up with anything that could be seen by him as a valid argument for TDK's thematic and moral depth.

I don't understand how an admitted non-fan of comic books can make such a claim as to say that the film had nothing to it that couldn't already be found in the comics. And as Israfel said, I don't see how that's an inherent negative anyways.

However I will say bravo to Raiders for that post. Great work, loved your words about the final speech in No Country...

[Izzy Black]

I think it is a very intriguing film, but as Irish (Brude) states, most of that is tied to the history of its main character. It works on various levels of duality, which is central to the very indentity of Batman and Bruce Wayne. It sets up a lot of two-sided conflict; the already-existing struggles of Batman; the real fight between the last strands of order and civilization and the anarchy of the Joker; Two-Face and his coin flips; the dichotomy of the two boats in the Joker's grand act; Batman's choice between the future of Gotham and his own love (tying back to the nature of man vs. symbol).

I don't find it to be much of a moral film though. I think the film affirms its characters in the way any comic book film would do. I don't think it presents us with a vision of society that challenges any ideal or presents any kind of ethical or moral statement or question. Even its most sensitive moment with respect to moralism, that of the greater good vs. individual liberties (the cell-phone invention with Fox) is handled in the most black-and-white, sledgehammer fashion. Nolan leaves little to chew on or any great lingering thoughts or questions regarding the moral and ethical nature of its characters and their thoughts and choices.

Can't say I agree (although I do about the poorly handled 'Bat-Sonar' dilemma). The film clearly posits moral dilemmas all throughout the film. Batman is torn between his "one rule" and his vigilante ethics. At his core, Batman is a utilitarian about ethics. He's interested in maximizing welfare, even if that means breaking the law through vigilante tactics for the better of the whole of Gotham. The problem is that this leads to what the filmmakers have described as the problem of "escalation," or the escalation of violence and copycats that has the opposite effects that Batman had intended. So rather than reducing crime and maximizing welfare, his vigilante behavior seems to have, on some level, contributed to an increase in crime, violence, and corruption. This really challenges the very core of Batman's ethical framework. This is a especially exacerbated when Joker, set on breaking down all of society's rules and values, exposes the dubiousness of his so-called "one rule," (he won't kill), and that the entire logic of Batman's vigilante enterprise seems to be blowing up in his face, thereby not only undermining Batman, but morality itself.

You might say Batman's role as a vigilante is somewhere lurking in the background of the other Batman films, but I simply cannot see how any of those films really tackle or engage these themes head on the way TDK does. Burton's films are more hung up on the duality of the Bruce Wayne/Batman identity. It's an interesting psychological portrait of this problem. The Schumacher films obviously emphasize the camp and abandonment complex of the character and the Batman mythos, but none of those films really try to explore the complex interworkings of the relationship of Batman's moral campaign, its practical influence and effects on society, the attempt to address, control and maintain crime and corruption through aggressive unorthodox means, and the impact acts of mass scale terrorism, excessive violence and corruption has on the moral fiber of the collective and individual.


Now this is a film that presents a statement and I don't think it is in any way similar to that of Nolan's film. The source material and the Coens' faithful adaptation work on the overall lack of any great moral order defining our existence. Good (God) doesn't always triumph and in many ways, our existence is made up of chance and happenstance. Chigurh is definitely a spiritual cousin to the cartoon villains of a film like The Dark Knight, he's part Joker's chaos and certainly part Two-Face "let fate decide." The personal, apocalyptic randomness of the last little speech by Jones informs us that he has been living all along with the assumption that some order would guide him and the world around him, that there was an ending up ahead he could look forward to out in the dark wilderness, but that final line which haunts the entire film reveals that his retirement comes at the realization and "waking up" to the world that does not exist to his order and beliefs.

Sure, but similar threats of nihilism and "lacking control" certainly come up in TDK, even if they aren't the defining characteristic of the film as they are in NCFOM.


I don't argue with those who claim it is a bit simplistic and superficial. Indeed it is. Yet, I think its the ramifications of its implications and the title itself that give into thoughts that extend well beyond simply the narrative it shows us. I think it smacks a large portion of our society in the face. Your beliefs, your rose-colored view of the "old days," your unwillingness to engage with the real nature and order of the world around you, though it is dangerous, is why you now find yourself morose, retired and relaying sad dreams of a time that may never have been.

I tend to agree with DavidSeven here as I found TDK more engaging and relevant than NCFOM.

[Irish]

Even if it's moral themes are carried over from the comics (they're not entirely), so what?

Because it means on a narrative and character level, the comics (and by extension, the pop culture image of Batman) is doing most of the heavy lifting for the movie.


The ethics of vigantalism and the threat of moral nihilism is never really brought up, questioned, or explored in Burton or Schumacher's films, and its downplayed even in the other two Nolan's films. What's especially significant, here, too, is the backdrop of post-9/11 fears and anxieties with terrorism and its capacity to undermine the moral integrity of institutions of law and order.

Burton & Schum had different goals, and the point isn't really about a comparative approach to Batman movies, but whether TDK is a good example of the "moral movie" posed in the OP.

Good point about post-9/11. Now I'm wondering if the same thing could have been achieved with John McClabe and a Diehard movie that never was. If it could, what does that say about TDK?

[Izzy Black]

Great post by Raiders.



I'd like to support Max here. I know most people think of the Matrix themes as over the top metaphoric exploitation, but I don't see/feel it that way. I wrote a pretty extensive review of the Matrix trilogy in 2003 on my old website, but can't find it at the moment. I talked about a lot of these philosophical themes- a lot of time spent on the obvious ones (symbolism with the names of the main characters, Neo, Trinity, ) but some talk of the deeper less obvious ones- the 101 references, Simulacra and Simulation, by Jean Baudrillard (The simulacrum is never that which conceals the truth--it is the truth which conceals that there is none. The simulacrum is true (thanks Wiki)), Nietzsche philosophy (man overcoming man) and the Oracle references. In greek history, "know thyself" was inscribed in Latin in the Matrix, which can be contributed to Plato's established wisdom.

Even the most philosophically untrained can't miss the philosophical references in the Matrix. It's the most blatantly and self-consciously philosophical movie made for the mainstream, "Welcome to the desert of the Real...." - proceeding with what basically amounts to a game of Philosophy 101 spot-referencing. I think it's all pretty shallow and weak, but I won't mount a full-armed attack here on the Matrix. I just want to make it clear that criticizing the film for a lack of substance isn't to fail to recognize these references or the clear fact that the film obviously wants to be taking seriously.

[Izzy Black]

Because it means on a narrative and character level, the comics (and by extension, the pop culture image of Batman) is doing most of the heavy lifting for the movie.


Could be, but again, I'm not really seeing that as a problem. It's an adaptation of a comic book. I'd expect that the source material in most cases (not all) does most of the heavy lifting for just about any comic book adaptation.


Burton & Schum had different goals, and the point isn't really about a comparative approach to Batman movies, but whether TDK is a good example of the "moral movie" posed in the OP.

I was trying to address the point about originality, but right, needless to say, I think TDK is, in fact, a great example of the "moral movie," which is not to say it's the very best of its kind.


Good point about post-9/11. Now I'm wondering if the same thing could have been achieved with John McClabe and a Diehard movie that never was. If it could, what does that say about TDK?

I don't know. I'm not familiar enough with the franchise. I know that TDK, however, is pretty aggressively engaged with the problem of terrorism. Nolan has said as much in interviews. So it's not an esoteric reading of the text in any way that I can tell, and it certainly makes more sense to talk about post-9/11 themes and realities in the context of TDK than it does most other recent mainstream action movies.

[Dukefrukem]

Even the most philosophically untrained can't miss the philosophical references in the Matrix. It's the most blatantly and self-consciously philosophical movie made for the mainstream, "Welcome to the desert of the Real...." - proceeding with what basically amounts to a game of Philosophy 101 spot-referencing. I think it's all pretty shallow and weak, but I won't mount a full-armed attack here on the Matrix. I just want to make it clear that criticizing the film for a lack of substance isn't to fail to recognize these references or the clear fact that the film obviously wants to be taking seriously.

I can't argue with that, but I think it's appealing to two audiences. There are two stories going on- The path of the One, and substance that connects the stories together- the audience that ignores the philosophical / ancient references. Even the example you mention, "Welcome to the desert of the Real...." How much of the mainstream knew about Jean Baudrillard before the Matrix?

[Izzy Black]

I can't argue with that, but I think it's appealing to two audiences. There are two stories going on- The path of the One, and substance that connects the stories together- the audience that ignores the philosophical / ancient references. Even the example you mention, "Welcome to the desert of the Real...." How much of the mainstream knew about Jean Baudrillard before the Matrix?

You don't need to get the direct or specific references to grasp that the movie is trying its very best to be philosophical. The "desert of the Real" needn't be acknowledged by the fact that it's a reference to Baudrillard. You can gather its attempt to be philosophical just in the sense of the film trying to ask the question, "What's actually real anyways?" It's psuedo-philosphical musings about Reality with a capital R, Free Will (my eyes glazed over after the Oracle tells Neo when he knocks over the vase, and I'm paraphrasing, "The real question is whether you would've knocked it over if I hadn't said anything"), and the idea of a society controlled by machines and not humans is as blatant and self-conscious as the religious metaphors and symbolism sprinkled throughout. It's all pretty unmistakable. It wears its intentions on its sleeve.

[max314]

It's psuedo-philosphical musings...

[...]

It wears its intentions on its sleeve.

First, I don't get what's so bad about a film wearing its philosophical intentions on its sleeve.

Second, I don't get how wearing its philosophical intentions on its sleeve makes the film "pseudo-philosophical."

What, in your mind, would have made the film...I dunno..."vrai-philosophical"?

[Qrazy]

First, I don't get what's so bad about a film wearing its philosophical intentions on its sleeve.


Typically burying ones ideas and themes within the work will lead to a subtler, more nuanced piece of art. It's like weaving a rug. You want to layer in the stitching and the patterns as fluidly as possible so it all seems of a piece. This way there are no moments which grind the narrative to a halt in order to ruminate philosophically (the architect's room, limbo, etc). The ideas discussed in those places could have been layered into the fabric of the film without being stated explicitly via dialogue.

Is subtlety to be admired? I think so, others may prefer bombast.

[megladon8]

Could be, but again, I'm not really seeing that as a problem. It's an adaptation of a comic book. I'd expect that the source material in most cases (not all) does most of the heavy lifting for just about any comic book adaptation.


I would go so far as to say any adaptation of anything (not just comic book films).

Unless it's an adaptation that takes the base concept of the original work and runs with it on its own (for example, Kubrick's The Shining), most all adaptations allow the original work to do most of the "heavy lifting".

[max314]

Typically burying ones ideas and themes within the work will lead to a subtler, more nuanced piece of art. It's like weaving a rug. You want to layer in the stitching and the patterns as fluidly as possible so it all seems of a piece. This way there are no moments which grind the narrative to a halt in order to ruminate philosophically (the architect's room, limbo, etc). The ideas discussed in those places could have been layered into the fabric of the film without being stated explicitly via dialogue.

Is subtlety to be admired? I think so, others may prefer bombast.

You appear to be swerving between two alleged consequences of The Matrix Trilogy's scenes of — as you refer to them — "philosophical rumination": the first is a detrimental affect upon narrative drive; the second is trading subtlety for bombast. The two specific scenes you mentioned were those of the Architect's revelations (i.e. the climax of Reloaded) and Mobil Ave (i.e. one of the two storylines constituting the first act of Revolutions).

With regards to narrative drive, the Architect's scene is thoroughly propulsive. Everything we thought we knew about the world of The Matrix is being turned on its head. What's more, this vertiginous onslaught of cataclysmic information is delivered in the most understated way — as a quiet conversation between two characters in a small room. That's style for you. At the same time, Neo is being thrust into a huge character moment as he is forced into making a decision between humanity and the woman he loves.

The narrative drive of the Mobil Ave scenes is also strong. Specifically, Neo is attempting to understand his present situation — stuck as he is within a connection point between the Matrix and the Machine Mainframe — and, in the process, to escape. As in the Architect's scene, we learn more about the mechanics of the Matrix, thus further modifying our understanding of the world. It is also the first genuine humanisation of the Machine world that we see (we see a program "family") which contributes quite crucially to Neo's character arc.

On the point of bombast versus subtlety, I'd argue that there is room in a film for a bit of both. The "philosophical rumination" that takes place is always in service of character and story, and is a unique and thought-provoking colour in the trilogy's palette. At the same time, what's discussed in the text is by no means all there is to it. There's a lot of substance percolating in the subtext. Indeed, the indications in the text are really just signposting a great reservoir of far richer material that is left for the viewer to decode.

[Izzy Black]

First, I don't get what's so bad about a film wearing its philosophical intentions on its sleeve.

I wouldn't say there's anything inherently bad about it. I would obviously argue the point in this case, but that wasn't the point I was making. I was simply denying that the film was particularly subtle in its references and/or themes.


Second, I don't get how wearing its philosophical intentions on its sleeve makes the film "pseudo-philosophical."

That's not what makes them psuedo-philosophical. I am simply describing the film that way. I think this for different, although not entirely unrelated reasons.


What, in your mind, would have made the film...I dunno..."vrai-philosophical"?

It would've had to have been a very different movie altogether. For instance, I think Blade Runner is a classic example of philosophical science fiction. Not only is it subtle in its expression and handling of its themes (at least in the non-theatrical release versions), but I think it explores them more genuinely and with a depth of insight, feeling, and complexity that's sorely lacking in the Matrix trilogy. In any case, that's a debate for another thread and another time (that I've perhaps already had on one too many occasions), but that should at least give you an idea of where I am coming from on this point.

[Izzy Black]

I would go so far as to say any adaptation of anything (not just comic book films).

Unless it's an adaptation that takes the base concept of the original work and runs with it on its own (for example, Kubrick's The Shining), most all adaptations allow the original work to do most of the "heavy lifting".

Right, well, the exception you mention here is precisely the kind of case I was trying to make room for. No real disagreement here.

[Irish]

I would go so far as to say any adaptation of anything (not just comic book films).

Unless it's an adaptation that takes the base concept of the original work and runs with it on its own (for example, Kubrick's The Shining), most all adaptations allow the original work to do most of the "heavy lifting".

No, they don't. Other adaptations don't have the cultural reach and significance of Batman.

Nolan's movie benefits from aspects of the comics, because any audience is going to be familiar with the broad outlines of the character and setting. This is not as true for other properties, outside maybe Sherlock Holmes, Superman, and James Bond.

So in the context of this thread, that makes TDK a less interesting example of a "moral movie" as posed by the OP.

[Skitch]

I didn't intend to post in this thread, but since we're going all Batman and Matrix...

Chuck Palahniuk's novels have always been wonderful for me. Not that they shaped me morally per se, but they ask such intriquing questions, or put such interesting perspectives on moral issues that not only can it force some to see the other side of the issue, you almost see the photo-negative/inside-out side of an issue. He has such a talent for the little micro-stories within a story that every new novel is a reminder to keep an open mind to every situation.

Plus most of them are funny as hell.

[Izzy Black]

No, they don't. Other adaptations don't have the cultural reach and significance of Batman.

Nolan's movie benefits from aspects of the comics, because any audience is going to be familiar with the broad outlines of the character and setting. This is not as true for other properties, outside maybe Sherlock Holmes, Superman, and James Bond.

So in the context of this thread, that makes TDK a less interesting example of a "moral movie" as posed by the OP.

The rule applies to any popular novel or comic, and most adaptations are only made in virtue of the popularity, cultural significance, and shared appreciation of the source material. This especially applies to Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter, which enjoy these very same "benefits." I don't see how the mere popularity and public knowledge of the source material negates the depth, quality, and value of their adaptations.

[Izzy Black]

I didn't intend to post in this thread, but since we're going all Batman and Matrix...

Chuck Palahniuk's novels have always been wonderful for me. Not that they shaped me morally per se, but they ask such intriquing questions, or put such interesting perspectives on moral issues that not only can it force some to see the other side of the issue, you almost see the photo-negative/inside-out side of an issue. He has such a talent for the little micro-stories within a story that every new novel is a reminder to keep an open mind to every situation.

Plus most of them are funny as hell.

I used to hate Fight Club, but I've come to appreciate a lot of things about it (film and novel).

[Skitch]

Fight Club is probably his most...hmm what would be the word...blantant, maybe...of his novels. I've found more profound ideas in some of his following books.

[Izzy Black]

Oh, OK, then nevermind.

[Skitch]

Oh, OK, then nevermind.

What? I didn't mean that as a negative, really, just don't judge him all by that. Another thing I find fascinating about him is his shifts in writing styles. Some of his books are downright mindblowing to try to wrap your head around how he came up with it. Rant is a good example. He could have written it straight forward, but instead wrote it as a collected works of diary entries from everyone around the main character.

Edit: sorry if I'm derailing the hell out of this thread. :)

[Irish]

The rule applies to any popular novel or comic, and most adaptations are only made in virtue of the popularity, cultural significance, and shared appreciation of the source material. This especially applies to Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter, which enjoy these very same "benefits." I don't see how the mere popularity and public knowledge of the source material negates the depth, quality, and value of their adaptations.

You're speaking in a general sense and I'm not. I'm only considering it from the contect of the OP's original question.

(I'd also argue that LOTR and Potter don't enjoy the same benefits, because despite being popular they're decidedly more niche & in one case, don't enjoy the long history of Batman).

[max314]

It would've had to have been a very different movie altogether. For instance, I think Blade Runner is a classic example of philosophical science fiction. Not only is it subtle in its expression and handling of its themes (at least in the non-theatrical release versions), but I think it explores them more genuinely and with a depth of insight, feeling, and complexity that's sorely lacking in the Matrix trilogy. In any case, that's a debate for another thread and another time (that I've perhaps already had on one too many occasions), but that should at least give you an idea of where I am coming from on this point.

Not wanting to derail the thread into a Matrix debate, I'll simply say that the primary difference between Blade Runner and The Matrix Trilogy is, for me, merely their genre.

Blade Runner is a piece of detective fiction. More specifically, it's a piece of slow burn detective fiction that de-emphasises the "detection" part of its DNA and instead chooses to emphasise its "artistic" merits. There's plenty of dialogue on what it means to be human (the film's central thematic conceit), but it also harbours cul-de-sacs of silences and spaces that feel all the more profound on account of the sheer scale of the spectacle surrounding it.

By contrast, The Matrix is an action-adventure story. A quest. A Western. A superhero story. It is no less thematically resonant than Blade Runner, and is arguably even more thematically ambitious. But, stylistically, it is less about silences and spaces, which is probably what gives the impression of something less meditative, less profound. But that was the intention behind the series — to combine low brow and high brow filmmaking to create "mono brow" films. Yes, this is where we giggle.

So, for me, the comparison is primarily a tonal one, and does not serve to demote the skill with which the philosophical aspects of The Matrix Trilogy are handled.

[Dukefrukem]

Typically burying ones ideas and themes within the work will lead to a subtler, more nuanced piece of art. It's like weaving a rug. You want to layer in the stitching and the patterns as fluidly as possible so it all seems of a piece. This way there are no moments which grind the narrative to a halt in order to ruminate philosophically (the architect's room, limbo, etc). The ideas discussed in those places could have been layered into the fabric of the film without being stated explicitly via dialogue.

Is subtlety to be admired? I think so, others may prefer bombast.

This. I totally get where Isy is comin from, but I think sums it up nicely.

[Dukefrukem]

Blade Runner is a piece of detective fiction. More specifically, it's a piece of slow burn detective fiction that de-emphasises the "detection" part of its DNA and instead chooses to emphasise its "artistic" merits. There's plenty of dialogue on what it means to be human (the film's central thematic conceit), but it also harbours cul-de-sacs of silences and spaces that feel all the more profound on account of the sheer scale of the spectacle surrounding it.

By contrast, The Matrix is an action-adventure story. A quest. A Western. A superhero story. It is no less thematically resonant than Blade Runner, and is arguably even more thematically ambitious. But, stylistically, it is less about silences and spaces, which is probably what gives the impression of something less meditative, less profound. But that was the intention behind the series — to combine low brow and high brow filmmaking to create "mono brow" films. Yes, this is where we giggle.

So, for me, the comparison is primarily a tonal one.

And in Brude's world, Blade Runner may not even be considered intelligent sci fi. Rmeove the sci-fi elements, it becomes a detective movie.

[megladon8]

No, they don't. Other adaptations don't have the cultural reach and significance of Batman.

Nolan's movie benefits from aspects of the comics, because any audience is going to be familiar with the broad outlines of the character and setting. This is not as true for other properties, outside maybe Sherlock Holmes, Superman, and James Bond.

So in the context of this thread, that makes TDK a less interesting example of a "moral movie" as posed by the OP.


This reasoning just...doesn't make much sense. I will write more when I'm home (currently at work on my phone), but this is a "straw man argument" if I ever saw one. And while I thought Nolan's films were interesting thematically, I by no means think they're masterfully adept moral and ethical examinations. But they deserve a little more credit than what you're claiming they don't have simply because they're Batman.

[max314]

...while I thought Nolan's films were interesting thematically, I by no means think they're masterfully adept moral and ethical examinations.

If memory serves me, Nolan said in a recent-ish interview that the Batman films aren't really about communicating any sort of socio-political opinion; rather, they just threw a bunch of relevant-sounding stuff at the wall and hoped something would stick.

My thematic problems with Nolan's Bat-verse actually started with Batman Begins, which spent much of its runtime attempting to prove the thesis that one need not become a murderer in order to fight murderers. And yet, the film resolves by having Batman kill Ra's Al Ghul by derailing a train and sending him plummeting to his death.

Then the film expects the audience to be okay with it, because Batman only "shot him. The bullets and the fall killed him." Or was it, "I won't kill you. But I don't have to save you"? And then, in The Dark Knight, Batman inadvertently sends Joker tumbling off the side of a tall building...and Batman intervenes to save him.

Nolan believes he is an entertainer first and foremost, so I don't think thematic consistency matters as much to him as making the audience go, "Wow."

That's not a bad thing, of course. Movies should be entertaining. But it does mean it's probably not the best idea to spend too much time dissecting ideas from a film whose sole purpose — according to its own creator — doesn't extend far beyond base audience stimulation.

[megladon8]

If memory serves me, Nolan said in a recent-ish interview that the Batman films aren't really about communicating any sort of socio-political opinion; rather, they just threw a bunch of relevant-sounding stuff at the wall and hoped something would stick.

My thematic problems with Nolan's Bat-verse actually started with Batman Begins, which spent much of its runtime attempting to prove the thesis that one need not become a murderer in order to fight murderers. And yet, the film resolves by having Batman kill Ra's Al Ghul by derailing a train and sending him plummeting to his death.

Then the film expects the audience to be okay with it, because Batman only "shot him. The bullets and the fall killed him." Or was it, "I won't kill you. But I don't have to save you"? And then, in The Dark Knight, Batman inadvertently sends Joker tumbling off the side of a tall building...and Batman intervenes to save him.

Nolan believes he is an entertainer first and foremost, so I don't think thematic consistency matters as much to him as making the audience go, "Wow."

That's not a bad thing, of course. Movies should be entertaining. But it does mean it's probably not the best idea to spend too much time dissecting ideas from a film whose sole purpose — according to its own creator — doesn't extend far beyond base audience stimulation.


Ehhh....can you find a link for that interview? Because that doesn't sound like Nolan's attitude towards the films at all.

Considering the amount of time he and his brother spent meticulously putting together the stories to cohere thematically (both individually and as one large whole) I find it hard to believe that their attitude was just "let's throw some shit together and hope it works".

[Dukefrukem]

Ehhh....can you find a link for that interview? Because that doesn't sound like Nolan's attitude towards the films at all.

Considering the amount of time he and his brother spent meticulously putting together the stories to cohere thematically (both individually and as one large whole) I find it hard to believe that their attitude was just "let's throw some shit together and hope it works".

He may referring to the third movie, which Nolan didn't really want to do in the first place.

[max314]

Ehhh....can you find a link for that interview? Because that doesn't sound like Nolan's attitude towards the films at all.

Sure:


We throw a lot of things against the wall to see if it sticks. We put a lot of interesting questions in the air, but that's simply a backdrop for the story. What we're really trying to do is show the cracks of society, show the conflicts that somebody would try to wedge open. We're going to get wildly different interpretations of what the film is supporting and not supporting, but it's not doing any of those things. It's just telling a story.

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/movies/news/christopher-nolan-dark-knight-rises-isn-t-political-20120720#ixzz2AE2uxblN


Considering the amount of time he and his brother spent meticulously putting together the stories to cohere thematically (both individually and as one large whole) I find it hard to believe that their attitude was just "let's throw some shit together and hope it works".

Nolan's Batman films aren't exactly thematically vacuous, but I'd argue they're not particularly thematically meticulous either.

Batman Begins is about proving the thesis that you don't have to become a murderer to beat murderers — despite betraying this thesis in its most crucial, climactic moment in exchange for a cheap cheer and some sophistic justification for kicking said thesis squarely in the balls.

The Dark Knight is about how far one can go to fight the good fight before tipping over into evil, and delivers a two-pronged answer in the form of Harvey Dent, who becomes outright evil, and Batman, who is merely perceived as evil. Of course, the motivation behind Dent's turn is full of holes when he forgives the Joker — his lover's murderer — and instead decides to exact "revenge" upon his former allies; this is evidence of a less than "meticulous" handling of theme and character, even if it does at least manage to bludgeon home the basic thematic point.

And The Dark Knight Rises is a mish-mash of thematic fragments that never quite form a cohesive whole. Batman had to overcome fear to become Batman, but must then submit to fear in order to escape the Lazarus Pit, then overcome fear to sacrifice his life, but then it's revealed (rather cheaply, one might argue) that Batman in fact survived the blast radius of an atom bomb despite being shown at the explosion's epicenter mere seconds before it occurs. What is the film trying to say about fear? About sacrifice? About the value of cheap plot twists?

I'm not saying that Nolan's Batman trilogy isn't one hell of a ride. I, for one, find the whole thing unstoppably watchable. But I'm afraid I find it hard to accept that it is the result of the Nolans "meticulously putting together the stories to cohere thematically...both individually and as one large whole."

I wish it was true. Memento and The Prestige are two of my all-time favourite films and Christopher Nolan is a personal idol whose work continuously influences my own. But, as much as I wish him to be a filmmaker who is also a meticulous craftsman of thematic content, it pains me somewhat to say that he simply is not.

What he is, however, is a bloody good entertainer. And there ain't a damn thing wrong with that.

[Irish]

And in Brude's world, Blade Runner may not even be considered intelligent sci fi. Rmeove the sci-fi elements, it becomes a detective movie.

Well, not so much. Blade Runner pretends to be a noir detective piece, but it's not much of a mystery (Ford even complained at the time that he "played a detective who did no detecting.")

Even if you ignore the themes running though every scene, the movie depends on the idea of artificial humans and off-world colonies to drive the plot, especially at the start.

If Deckard isn't hunting replicants, then he's hunting humans & that would be a very different kind of movie, far removed from the story Blade Runner was trying to tell.

[Dukefrukem]

Whoops. I somehow forgot about the humans "hunting" replicants aspect of Blade Runner even though I recently rewatched it this summer.

[megladon8]

He may referring to the third movie, which Nolan didn't really want to do in the first place.


I think you're confusing Nolan not wanting to do the movie, with him saying he didn't want to do it just for the sake of doing it - he wanted to wait until they had a story worth telling.

He said the same thing after Batman Begins.

[Dukefrukem]

I think you're confusing Nolan not wanting to do the movie, with him saying he didn't want to do it just for the sake of doing it - he wanted to wait until they had a story worth telling.

He said the same thing after Batman Begins.

No I remember that, but he also said he didn't want to do a third movie because he didn't think he could top DK.

[Irish]

This reasoning just...doesn't make much sense. I will write more when I'm home (currently at work on my phone), but this is a "straw man argument" if I ever saw one. And while I thought Nolan's films were interesting thematically, I by no means think they're masterfully adept moral and ethical examinations. But they deserve a little more credit than what you're claiming they don't have simply because they're Batman.

I get the impression that neither you nor Izzy understood what I meant by "heavy lifting," which is my fault because I shorthanded it & didn't explain.

Here's an example: Do you remember the opening scenes of Wall-E? The little robot hero is sitting in his wasteland hovel, and he turns on a video of Hello, Dolly. A song plays which illustrates for the audience exactly what is missing from Wall-E's life and what he wants.

In that scene, the song is doing the "heavy lifting" for the writer. Stanton is using a work outside his narrative to drive his story. (This is a little cheap in my mind, but it's also necessary because he's set himself up with an impossible narrative problem right from the start: A desolate setting and two non-verbal characters.)

Now, in terms of the morality surrounding TDK -- the history of the comics, the public consciousness around this character and the nature Batman himself as a character does a lot of "heavy lifting" for Nolan.

Nolan never has to directly touch on any question around vigilantism. He never has to depict Gotham as a crime ridden hell hole. He never has to have any character address any of the issues the audience is already well familiar with by virtue of this being a Batman film set in Gotham City. All of that is taken care of form him before a single line of dialogue is written and the first set is dressed. Similar to the Stanton example, Nolan is using -- or at least gets the passive benefit from -- work outside his film in order to create themes and subtext.

We can say theres a lot of interesting questions around the movie but not many of them are inherent to it. In that sense, I think TDK becomes a much less interesting answer to Melville's original question.

[Izzy Black]

Sure:



Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/movies/news/christopher-nolan-dark-knight-rises-isn-t-political-20120720#ixzz2AE2uxblN

We have to be careful about how to read Nolan's responses in some of these interviews, and even with using them as textual evidence in the first place. Part of the tenor of his response stems from the aggressive, simplistic questioning by the interviewer, but his responses elsewhere tend to be more measured on the issue. For instance:


Groucho: This film has a lot of relevance to the post 9/11 world, with the fear-toxin anthrax and the terrorism and response to that. How did you hit on that angle, and how helpful is Batman as a model of response to human devastation?

[B]Christopher Nolan: I think we hit on it as a model simply through drawing from the history of the comics and relating thematically to what's most interesting about Batman, which to me was the idea of fear and the use of his symbolism of his greatest fear to turn fear against his opponents. Everything really stems from that. There really wasn't any conscious attempt to reflect the world we live in. I just think that—myself and David Goyer, in writing the script—you know, we all live in the same world, and we're influenced by the same things. But certainly, everything came very much from the comics and mythology of the comics. As far as Batman as a model of response, I mean, I—he's a very dangerous model of response, but that's partly the point of the story. I think that if one were to see the film for a second time or be watching a particular way, there are quite a few drawbacks that are presented to his approach and his response. But that's what's interesting about him as a character. He is flawed. He has very dark impulses, and whilst he's channeling those into something heroic—and there is a great deal of positivity and heroism relating to that—there is a price to be paid for it.

Nolan clearly denies any conscious political angle, but he doesn't deny the cultural and political sentiments and feelings of the times that may inform their particular reading of the text. His first and main commitment is to the character (and his wording here suggests something far more deliberate than the random "shit against the wall" comments might suggest). The more sensible claim is that their interpretation of the character is particularly relevant to a post-9/11 world. In particular, the creation of these films, and the overall response and reaction to them, seems to amount to a perfect storm of timing and relevance.


Nolan's Batman films aren't exactly thematically vacuous, but I'd argue they're not particularly thematically meticulous either.

The Dark Knight is about how far one can go to fight the good fight before tipping over into evil, and delivers a two-pronged answer in the form of Harvey Dent, who becomes outright evil, and Batman, who is merely perceived as evil.

Of course, the motivation behind Dent's turn is full of holes when he forgives the Joker — his lover's murderer — and instead decides to exact "revenge" upon his former allies; this is evidence of a less than "meticulous" handling of theme and character, even if it does at least manage to bludgeon home the basic thematic point.

I don't think that's what The Dark Knight is about. I've gestured at some ideas above. It's more complicated than that. I think the film is primarily interested in exploring the ethics of vigilantism and making sense of the proper response to large scale terrorism and widespread corruption. This is all firmly rooted and seated in the Batman mythos and symbolism. I don't think it's trying to comment on the nature of "evil" in any specific sense; Dent is to be understood more as a complicated tragedy. It's important to remember that Dent is a tragic character, not merely and reducibly "evil" as a foil to Batman's false symbol.

[megladon8]

I get the impression that neither you nor Izzy understood what I meant by "heavy lifting," which is my fault because I shorthanded it & didn't explain.

Here's an example: Do you remember the opening scenes of Wall-E? The little robot hero is sitting in his wasteland hovel, and he turns on a video of Hello, Dolly. A song plays which illustrates for the audience exactly what is missing from Wall-E's life and what he wants.

In that scene, the song is doing the "heavy lifting" for the writer. Stanton is using a work outside his narrative to drive his story. (This is a little cheap in my mind, but it's also necessary because he's set himself up with an impossible narrative problem right from the start: A desolate setting and two non-verbal characters.)

Now, in terms of the morality surrounding TDK -- the history of the comics, the public consciousness around this character and the nature Batman himself as a character does a lot of "heavy lifting" for Nolan.

Nolan never has to directly touch on any question around vigilantism. He never has to depict Gotham as a crime ridden hell hole. He never has to have any character address any of the issues the audience is already well familiar with by virtue of this being a Batman film set in Gotham City. All of that is taken care of form him before a single line of dialogue is written and the first set is dressed. Similar to the Stanton example, Nolan is using -- or at least gets the passive benefit from -- work outside his film in order to create themes and subtext.

We can say theres a lot of interesting questions around the movie but not many of them are inherent to it. In that sense, I think TDK becomes a much less interesting answer to Melville's original question.


No I understood what you meant. It's just incorrect.

I think you greatly over-estimate the knowledge the "general public" has of Batman and the Batman universe. Sure, everyone knows who Batman is (which is why the retelling of his origin is getting so, so very tired), but most general audience members don't know specifics of the story, the plot, or the universe. Most people outside of comic book fandom aren't really all that aware of who Bane is, let alone the "breaking point" (intentional lame pun to avoid using spoiler tags) for his character with Batman.

And I don't see how Nolan is ineffectively conveying Gotham as a crime-ridden purgatory. The very first scene of The Dark Knight is a bank robbery (where it turns out the bank itself is owned by the mob). We also see through all three films how the mob and corruption run rampant through all levels of of the city (from petty crime like the death of the Waynes right up to the mob influence in the judicial system and government). And through the three films we also see Batman/Wayne's evolution in how he tackles this crime - realizing that fighting thieves and muggers is redundant - it's the big fish, the corrupt in the higher echelons of society that need to be dealt with for any real change to occur.

Do we really need to see a montage of muggings, or have someone get shot dead on the street every 10 minutes to see that this city is pretty messed up?

And your statement about Nolan never having to directly touch on vigilantism is just blatantly wrong, I'm sorry. That's like, the entire thematic subtext of The Dark Knight, and he even includes a sequence where Batman copy cats attempt to kill criminals. That was The Dark Knight - Batman/Wayne dealing with the can of worms he's opened by turning to vigilantism.

[Izzy Black]

I get the impression that neither you nor Izzy understood what I meant by "heavy lifting," which is my fault because I shorthanded it & didn't explain.

Here's an example: Do you remember the opening scenes of Wall-E? The little robot hero is sitting in his wasteland hovel, and he turns on a video of Hello, Dolly. A song plays which illustrates for the audience exactly what is missing from Wall-E's life and what he wants.

In that scene, the song is doing the "heavy lifting" for the writer. Stanton is using a work outside his narrative to drive his story. (This is a little cheap in my mind, but it's also necessary because he's set himself up with an impossible narrative problem right from the start: A desolate setting and two non-verbal characters.)

Now, in terms of the morality surrounding TDK -- the history of the comics, the public consciousness around this character and the nature Batman himself as a character does a lot of "heavy lifting" for Nolan.

I don't think I misunderstood your point about the "heavy lifting." I've simply stated repeatedly that I don't see why it should matter. My argument hasn't been a defense of Nolan's supposed novel invention of a character that didn't exist outside of the Batman's mythos. In fact, it hasn't been a defense of Nolan at all (who I routinely lambast as a director on the whole). It's about, in particular, The Dark Knight, which I think puts forward the most interesting moral landscape for the character. It's all based on core elements from the Batman mythos. That's right. There's no question about it. Check the quote above - Nolan himself said that was his main priority: fidelity to the comics and character. No problem. What of it? How does it make it less interesting? It doesn't. Certainly not for me.


Nolan never has to directly touch on any question around vigilantism. He never has to depict Gotham as a crime ridden hell hole. He never has to have any character address any of the issues the audience is already well familiar with by virtue of this being a Batman film set in Gotham City. All of that is taken care of form him before a single line of dialogue is written and the first set is dressed. Similar to the Stanton example, Nolan is using -- or at least gets the passive benefit from -- work outside his film in order to create themes and subtext.

This isn't entirely correct. The ethics of vigilantism, as you agreed above, isn't an emphasis of the other Batman films, for instance. So even if audiences are aware of this issue, that doesn't mean they have seen the problem explored in this particular way as put forward by Nolan's team, nor that they've actually thought through the consequences and interesting dilemmas posed by it. And even if they had, that doesn't change what the film is about and whether it has value for being about that thing. Even if the audience got exactly what they expected and wanted in the character, and the film's interpretation of the character is a 1-to-1 correlation of the audience's interpretation of the character, that doesn't inherently undermine the value of the film and its themes. That's something you have to argue for rather than just assume, which so far, you haven't. I don't think this is a problem of interpretation here. We gather what you want to say, you just haven't convinced us (or at least me) of it.


We can say theres a lot of interesting questions around the movie but not many of them are inherent to it. In that sense, I think TDK becomes a much less interesting answer to Melville's original question.

Here's another problem. These questions are inherent to the movie to the extent that they are inherent to the character of Batman. You can't conceive of The Dark Knight, for instance, as existing apart from the Batman mythos. It is very much a part of it and a continuation of that legacy, and arguably a now canonical expression of it. If you want to say that these themes somehow are not inherent to the film, then you would need to cite an example of a single Batman comic after the original first issue that doesn't, in some sense, appropriate all the "heavy lifting" from the original. If that doesn't work, then I take it you think that the entire history of Batman comics are uninteresting examples of exploring the morality of the mythos since they came after issue #1?

[Izzy Black]

You're speaking in a general sense and I'm not. I'm only considering it from the contect of the OP's original question.

Again, as I've said, I don't see what difference that makes. Melville's question was specifically which works of art have had a profound influence, or have otherwise offered a profound vision or view of morality for us. The Dark Knight is certainly a viable candidate some people. Yes, it ably draws on the Batman mythos just as any good adaptation should. That in no way hurts its relevance, value, and importance. It's this latter claim you have yet to prove, walking around the issue and dodging the question, but restating your position as though you've made this fact clear.


(I'd also argue that LOTR and Potter don't enjoy the same benefits, because despite being popular they're decidedly more niche & in one case, don't enjoy the long history of Batman).

I'd say say LOTR enjoys a very long history and certainly has had greater artistic and literary influence. Harry Potter is more recent, but arguably just as popular. I don't see why Batman's longer history should make a difference if they're nearly approximate in popularity, and audiences walk in with the same fairly complete set of expectations and understanding of the character.

Another problem in your reasoning is you've been arguing as if Batman presents a completely, unified, coherent narrative history, when it certainly does not. Batman has seen various different interpretations and has been re-envisioned and represented many times over. There are some core elements, but even those elements have been shaped over time. You've admitted yourself Nolan emphasizes and presents particular interpretation of the character different from the other films. If that's true, then it's not altogether clear that the audience is walking in with the exact same expectations about the character, as if we all share one united interpretation understanding of Batman, with its complete 70 year history neatly seated in our minds. And, of course, again, it's not clear why any of this should matter even if we did bring these concepts and expectations to the film.

[Izzy Black]

Not wanting to derail the thread into a Matrix debate, I'll simply say that the primary difference between Blade Runner and The Matrix Trilogy is, for me, merely their genre.

So, for me, the comparison is primarily a tonal one, and does not serve to demote the skill with which the philosophical aspects of The Matrix Trilogy are handled.

I disagree. I don't think The Matrix Trilogy and Blade Runner share mostly the same things outside of genre. They both attempt to channel philosophy, but different areas. Blade Runner is more concerned with personal identity and our moral attitudes toward sentient artificial intelligence. Matrix, on the other hand, seems more concerned with free will and our relationship to technology and machines in a post-industrial world. I simply think Blade Runner handles its themes better than the Matrix and explores them with greater depth and insight, but I reserve my reasons for this opinion for another thread and another time.

[Irish]

No I understood what you meant. It's just incorrect.

Then I'm not sure how you can say every adaptation benefits from its source in the same way. There are plenty of examples -- LOTR, Potter, Halloween, TCM, The Thing, etc -- which require no knowledge of, nor receive any particular benefit from, their sources.


I think you greatly over-estimate the knowledge the "general public" has of Batman and the Batman universe.

We're talking about a character who has spanned three or more generations, and since 1965 has appeared in several high profile TV shows, cartoons, and movies, and has done so consistently every fifteen or twenty years. (The only other characters that have managed to do that -- lasted so long every half generation has "their" version of the character -- are Sherlock Holmes and James Bond, and maybe Doctor Who.)

I'm not saying everyone knows the specifics behind Crime Alley, Oracle, or Bane, but they do know the broad outlines. He's got to be one of the most famous modern characters from the Western canon.


Do we really need to see a montage of muggings, or have someone get shot dead on the street every 10 minutes to see that this city is pretty messed up?

No, and I never said that Nolan was ineffective in portraying Gotham, just suggesting that the nature of the character and setting allow him a lot more leeway in how he does it. He could have, and mostly does, ignore a lot of these issues.

Good point on the copy cats. I thought Max said it well in a previous post -- basically that Nolan isn't overly concerned with subtext and much more interested in making the audience go "Wow."

There's a few ideas we could throw back and forth around this, but since I seem to be "blantantly wrong" on a few counts, there probably isn't much point, so I'll leave it there.

[Irish]

@Israfel - It makes it less interesting because a lot of the setups Nolan uses in TDK aren't unique to Batman. They'd be right at home in a James Bond or Diehard movie. In that sense, I can very easily conceive of large chunks of TDK apart from the Batman mythos.

- I disagree about LOTR. Sure, it had an enormous influence on a niche subgenre and got embraced by the counter culture but .. Outside Ralph Bakashi's animated film, I don't find it (or any high fantasy) particularly well represented in pop culture until the last decade.

- You're right that the comics aren't a unified history, but there has, especially in the last several decades, an attempt to present something of a contiguous story. That's the biggest difference between the comics and the movies.

- If you take morality, or moral systems, as an attempt to answer the question "how do I live my life?" then I think movies like Dawn Patrol, The Searchers, The Wild Bunch, The Godfather, Part II, and even Get Shorty are vastly more interesting than TDK.

[Izzy Black]

@Israfel - It makes it less interesting because a lot of the setups Nolan uses in TDK aren't unique to Batman. They'd be right at home in a James Bond or Diehard movie. In that sense, I can very easily conceive of large chunks of TDK apart from the Batman mythos.

This seems to be a different argument. It seemed like you were saying before that it was less interesting because the source material was doing all the heavy lifting for Nolan. Now the claim seems to be that it's less interesting because Nolan is doing things beyond the source material. Unfortunately, I don't find this claim any more convincing than the former. The Heat-inspired heist setup in the beginning is - by most accounts - very well executed and one of the better sequences in the film. In any case, this seems to be a concern with the action sequences rather than the moral subtext in the film. How do Nolan's setups somehow undermine the moral themes of the film, or more generally, the film itself as offering an interesting moral commentary?


- I disagree about LOTR. Sure, it had an enormous influence on a niche subgenre and got embraced by the counter culture but .. Outside Ralph Bakashi's animated film, I don't find it (or any high fantasy) particularly well represented in pop culture until the last decade.

Lord of the Rings was one of the most popular and beloved fiction series in the West long before the films were made. The books had sold up to 32 million copies prior to 2001. After the success of the first film, the sales almost doubled. Thus, by the time of the third film, many of the people who saw the film probably had read the book and/or had even more extensive knowledge of the series than they even did for the first film. I suppose ipso facto - given your argument - that makes Fellowship the most interesting film in the series?

Is this really the kind of argument you want to make? As I've said, the reason for a film adaptation of a novel in the first place is almost always because the novel is popular and studios are confident that people will come and watch it because they already have prior knowledge - and prior love - of the novel or series before they even start filming. That's why most adaptations are crap, because the studios don't even need to try to make a good movie to fill the seats on opening night. But why in the world should the universal love and shared knowledge about a particular adaptation some how inherently make it less interesting and valuable as a work art? I must say that I really find this entire line of reasoning quite absurd. It doesn't even strike me as remotely plausible.


- You're right that the comics aren't a unified history, but there has, especially in the last several decades, an attempt to present something of a contiguous story. That's the biggest difference between the comics and the movies.

How is that? Think of the role robin plays in the Schumacher films versus the Burton and Nolan films. Or the fact that Schumacher included Batgirl and the others didn't. Or that the Joker killed Bruce's parents in Burton's films but a petty thug does in Nolan's films. These are some pretty significant, consequential changes and differences. And trust me, I can go on. That's just the tip of the iceberg. The thematic differences, as I note above, are far more striking and significant, because they conceive of what's important in the Batman mythos very differently. Schumacher prioritizes the problem of abandonment and the aesthetic of good-natured camp over the emphasis on vengeance, vigilantism, and the aesthetic of gritty realism of Nolan's films. That's not to say there aren't similarities, but it's wrong to say that the films don't differ as much in their interpretation of the character and mythos as the comics do. The films are, in effect, essentially unique interpretations and expansions of the story at the hands of different interpreters and artists in the very same way the comics are.


- If you take morality, or moral systems, as an attempt to answer the question "how do I live my life?" then I think movies like Dawn Patrol, The Searchers, The Wild Bunch, The Godfather, Part II, and even Get Shorty are vastly more interesting than TDK.

That's fine by me, but saying you find other films more interesting examples of moral cinema than TDK is far cry from saying that TDK isn't interesting for the reasons you've been trying to give. The answer we give to the question is in many ways inherently subjective because each of us are probably informed in different ways about our moral views and opinions. What's less subjective, in my view, is what constitutes moral cinema. Either a film engages these kinds of questions or it doesn't. And the barometer of the level of interest it invites certainly doesn't seem to hinge on the extent to which external sources informs its content. This strikes me as an utterly arbitrary criterion.

[Izzy Black]

Then I'm not sure how you can say every adaptation benefits from its source in the same way. There are plenty of examples -- LOTR, Potter, Halloween, TCM, The Thing, etc -- which require no knowledge of, nor receive any particular benefit from, their

This is false. Harry Potter was a massive success before the films were ever green-lighted. So was LOTR, as I mentioned, with a long history. How in the world does their popularity undermine their value and interest? Even if LOTR and Harry Potter were less popular than Batman, does that make, say, Halloween and The Thing more interesting adaptations since they were less popular and "benefited less" from their sources than did LOTR and Harry Potter? That's simply ridiculous. The logic here is way too slippery and based on vague armchair sociological assessments about shared cultural sentiments at various points in time, which in themselves seem to have zero effect on the inherent value of a given artwork or adaptation.

[Qrazy]

I get the impression that neither you nor Izzy understood what I meant by "heavy lifting," which is my fault because I shorthanded it & didn't explain.

Here's an example: Do you remember the opening scenes of Wall-E? The little robot hero is sitting in his wasteland hovel, and he turns on a video of Hello, Dolly. A song plays which illustrates for the audience exactly what is missing from Wall-E's life and what he wants.

In that scene, the song is doing the "heavy lifting" for the writer. Stanton is using a work outside his narrative to drive his story. (This is a little cheap in my mind, but it's also necessary because he's set himself up with an impossible narrative problem right from the start: A desolate setting and two non-verbal characters.)


It's cheap because it's emotionally manipulative or it's cheap because someone else's work is interacting with the film at that moment? If you feel it's the former then okay. If it's the latter, that's ridiculous. So the end of Strangelove is cheap? Or a Tarantino soundtrack? Or pretty much any instence of using something that wasn't tailored made to your film?

[Irish]

This seems to be a different argument.

No, it's the same argument, just from a different angle.


How do Nolan's setups somehow undermine the moral themes of the film, or more generally, the film itself as offering an interesting moral commentary?

I'm only saying he's getting some of his subtext for "free" because of the character & that history.

I never said Nolan was undermining anything. But if the questions he does raise on his own are so broad and so generic that they'd be at home in any modern action picture, what's so special about Batman?

It seems to me that if you're going to say "TDK" in response to Melville's question, then there better be something unique to the film, something that's got a certain "Batmaness" to it for that answer to be meaningful at all.

Otherwise, even though the answer fits the bit and is roughly "correct" (if that's what you're looking for), it's also just not very interesting.


Lord of the Rings was one of the most popular and beloved fiction series in the West long before the films were made. The books had sold up to 32 million copies prior to 2001.

Wheel of Timel, for example, has sold $40 million dollars in less time than LOTR. It's just as niche.

I wasn't arguing that the LOTR books weren't read or didn't sell. I specifically argued that they were not represented in the popular culture up until very recently.

Anything after the movies is a moot point, because they gave Tolkien's work a massive global audience.


But why in the world should the universal love and shared knowledge about a particular adaptation some how inherently make it less interesting and valuable as a work art? I must say that I really find this entire line of reasoning quite absurd. It doesn't even strike me as remotely plausible.

It doesn't, and I never made this argument. You got this into your head a page or so back and it didn't come from me. If you think it did, then you've been wildly misreading my posts.


How is that?

Read it again, because you seem to have gone far afield in this one. My point was:

Comics: Attempt a contiguous story
Movies: Not so much

Comics have the benefit of editors-in-chief which stay at their posts a decade or more. Writers and artists come and go, and the turnover there is much more frequent than you may realize.

That kind of situation doesn't really exist when in comes to blockbusters, and particularly anything produced by the bureaucratic clusterfuck that is Warner Bros.


That's fine by me, but saying you find other films more interesting examples of moral cinema than TDK is far cry from saying that TDK isn't interesting for the reasons you've been trying to give.

The difference is in the intention. The other films in this thread tried, in one way or another, to explore certain moral and ethical ideas. They are self contained. They don't depend heavily on outside sources to drive their story or inform their themes.

In Nolan's films the thematic material seems, at best, a byproduct of what he was really trying to do -- deliver a kick ass summer blockbuster.

[Irish]

This is false. Harry Potter was a massive success before the films were ever green-lighted. So was LOTR, as I mentioned, with a long history. How in the world does their popularity undermine their value and interest? Even if LOTR and Harry Potter were less popular than Batman, does that make, say, Halloween and The Thing more interesting adaptations since they were less popular and "benefited less" from their sources than did LOTR and Harry Potter? That's simply ridiculous. The logic here is way too slippery and based on vague armchair sociological assessments about shared cultural sentiments at various points in time, which in themselves seem to have zero effect on the inherent value of a given artwork or adaptation.

Yeah. Okay. You seem to be slipping back into viewing this from general terms. I'm not making blanket statements about the value of art here.

I'm saying knowledge of source material -- even if it's vague and ill defined -- colors the interpretation of a work.

The grand themes you're picking up on in TDK aren't coming from Nolan. They're largely coming from your own foreknowledge of the character and setting.

And that's fine, and Nolan's not a bad guy for taking advantage of that, especially because, as I said, I don't believe he really cared too much about delivering that kind of movie.

[Irish]

It's cheap because it's emotionally manipulative or it's cheap because someone else's work is interacting with the film at that moment? If you feel it's the former then okay. If it's the latter, that's ridiculous. So the end of Strangelove is cheap? Or a Tarantino soundtrack? Or pretty much any instence of using something that wasn't tailored made to your film?

Both -- but I don't like your examples. In Wall-E, Stanton backed himself into a corner early and used Hello, Dolly to get himself out of it. There's nothing else in that scene, no character level writing, that communicates the message of that song and the robot's emotional state to the audience. That's what I'm calling a bit cheap (but again, considering his circumstances I can understand why he did it.)

Wall-E's use of Hello, Dolly is entirely different that using stock footage (the bombs?) in Strangelove or a song on the radio in Pulp Fiction. In those examples, outside works are used for comedic effect, for budgetary reasons, or to underline and enhance the primary action on screen.