#Film criticism

[sapphiresaphics]

The biggest misunderstanding about Caitlyn from fans actually comes from season 1, not 2. Fans see Caitlyn break Vi out of prison and talk to Ekko about empathy and think that she’s learning and growing as a character and then when season 2 hits they think all that growth was somehow “abandoned” or “reversed.”

But that’s not true.

Caitlyn has ALWAYS been a spoiled little rich girl who came from a family of rich people who are so used to how much power they have in the city that they don’t regard ANYONE’S feelings or respect ANY rules. Both Marcus and Salow spell this out to us.

Marcus: “She’s a Kiramman! Just like them she does what she wants! I can’t control her!”

Salow: “It’s the name! It bewitches people.”

Time skip Caitlyn is introduced investigating the botched Jinx job at the shipping docks. She is not an official detective and Marcus makes it clear she isn’t supposed to be there. She’s supposed to be guarding her family’s pavilion, but she ignored both her mother’s AND the sheriff’s wishes to investigate a crime because she’s bored.

She breaks Vi out of prison AFTER she’s been effectively laid-off by Marcus, using her connections to Jayce to forge her release papers. Reminder: at this point in the story she is technically not a cop anymore. She’s doing all this stuff with noble intentions of trying to uncover Silco and bring Jinx to justice… but what she’s doing is technically illegal. And the only reason she’s able to get away with it is because she’s a spoiled rich BRAT.

Her privilege shields her from repercussions in season 1, just as they do in season 2.

The difference is that she’s now been traumatized by Jinx. Her bodily autonomy was violated by Jinx kidnapping her when she was literally naked in the shower, she was most likely tortured by Jinx, was tied up and painted on, threatened to be executed at gun point by Jinx, and then to top it all off Jinx murders her mother in a terrorist attack.

And Caitlyn tries to hold it all in. She tries to confide with Vi, she tries to let her hatred go… but both times she is denied her the ability to grieve properly. First by her privilege and not understanding that asking Vi to become an Enforcer would be rejected. And then by Ambessa by funding the attack on the memorial service.

She has no parental figure to guide her, her rage and hatred for Jinx is boiling over… so she resorts to what she always does and what she did back in season 1. She just does what she wants to get her way. She convinces Jayce to develop hextech weapons, she assumes the role of leader for house Kiramman, and she uses her unique position in power to bend systems her family put in place to protect Zaun against them.

Caitlyn in season 2 is very much the same Caitlyn we’ve always known from season 1. The difference is that in season 1 we were rooting for her because we like Vi. She exhausted the same disrespect for authority and people back then but they were in service of things we, the audience, liked. So we gave her a pass. We excused her rule breaking. We ignored her unique brand of privilege because we liked what her privilege could unlock for us.

Season 2 slams that door shut and tells us “no, actually, you weren’t supposed to like this because nobody in power is innocent.”

But rather than learn more about Caitlyn and understand her character better… people are dismiss this all as “bad writing” or “character assassination.”

And what’s more frustrating is the whole “dictator arc.” Because frankly I would argue that by that point Caitlyn HAS learned her lesson about privilege and power, but it’s too late to stop things now. Just as Jayce going vigilante in season 1 was the start of a cataclysmic event, Caitlyn gassing Zaun to look for Jinx results in Caitlyn losing everyone she trusts and respects. Broken up with Vi and alone, she is suddenly granted even MORE power than she’s ever had by Ambessa. And you can see it affect her. In that moment she realizes that Ambessa is the one who spearheaded the attack on the memorial. After seeing what happened between her and Vi, she realizes that by taking this role she will be responsible for even greater atrocities.

She has 2 choices. Let it all go, or use the position of power to her advantage. And just like before in season 1… she chooses the later. Her goal may still be to get Jinx, but she does NOT want to be a part of Ambessa’s dictatorship. This is why she’s so reluctant to join even with all the peer pressure. This is why she’s so slow and hesitant to walk forward. And she only accepts the cape she is crowned with once Ambessa says “your mother will have justice.”

What’s most important about this scene is that SHE KNOWS Ambessa is using her. That’s why when we see her in Act 2 she’s already trying to counter Ambessa’s plans. That’s why she’s constantly challenging Ambessa with “why is peace always the excuse for violence?” That’s why when Ambessa says “you don’t trust me?” Caitlyn responds with a resounding “no.” And that’s why when Vi drops back into her life she realizes she has an opportunity to correct her mistakes. She doesn’t switch on a dime because Vi fluttered her eyes and called her “cupcake.” She switches because she was already looking for an out. And this is why when Vi confronts her in Act 3 she screams “I KNOW.”

Caitlyn’s arc is that of someone who always had privilege and power coming to realize too late how dangerous and harmful that power is. By the time she learns her lesson she’s already entrenched with Ambessa and stuck in this hateful miasma for Jinx. Season 1 was setup for what was going to follow with how her character was going to learn and atone for her mistakes.

And what’s so god damn frustrating about all the discourse around Caitlyn is how reductive and dismissive it all is. So much of the discourse completely ignores the actions she takes to fix things in favor of trumping up the actions she took to get there. All of her transgressions in season 1 are ignored and her own internalized growth is reduced to a joke about Vi calling her cupcake. It’s MADDENING.

[humanoidhistory]

Mad Max 2, aka The Road Warrior. Critics seem to like it!

[enbycrip]

YES.

ALL OF THIS.

THIS is why this film still hits so hard after all these years.

It’s not some sugary BS about “you can think yourself out of suicidal depression by just learning to appreciate what you’ve got”.

It’s about the fact that people who work really fucking hard for their communities experience active, targeted, criminal pushback from exploiters.

About the fact that caring, in all its manifestations, is incredibly physically and mentally taxing and is often done by disabled people - YES, George Bailey is a disabled protagonist. His impairment prevents him from military service and actively causes him chronic pain that, as a person who lives with it, *will* affect his energy levels and fatigue constantly.

Notably, IAWL actually has a bunch of disabled characters. Not only is George disabled, but I’d put money on his uncle who loses the money being ADHD and very possibly having other learning disabilities and the film *actively* flagging that fact to the audience, even if it doesn’t necessarily know what ADHD is.

Which casts a whole new light on its principal villain being disabled. Instead of Old Man Potter being a flat caricature of “disability = evil”, what he *actually* is is a fantastic example of the fact that marginalisation in one axis does not prevent someone being an active oppressor - and wealth and class privilege, in particular, tend to mean a person actively acting to oppress other people who share their marginalisation in order to privilege the interests of their own class as a whole. Sometimes even damaging their own individual interests to do so.

It’s also super interesting that the *material* miracle in the film is not the appearance of an angel to show George what life would have been like if he had never existed, but the *community solidarity* that saves him from jail and his family from penury. The supernatural intervention can change his *mindset*, and that is *incredibly* important, given it *literally* stops him killing himself, but the *material* intervention is mutual aid from his own community that he has given so much to.

Which is incredibly radical as a message. It’s not saying “faith is worthless”; it’s saying “faith can be an incredibly important factor in creating resilience in moments of despair, but we can’t, and *need not*, wait for a supernatural miracle to save us; we have the capacity to save ourselves and each other in our hands right now”.

[davidhudson]

Roger Ebert, June 18, 1942 – April 4, 2013.

[forthegothicheroine]

Thinking long and hard about why we dislike what we dislike can be just as crucial to the formation of a distinctive and articulate sensibility as thinking through why we love what we love. Helpful criticism is criticism that leads us into interesting territory, and negative territory can be plenty interesting. Attending to negative criticism helps us avoid complacency. Over time, we develop habits for engaging with art. We focus on certain elements but ignore others, interpret films from certain directors more charitably than others, internalize cultural dogma without realizing it, and so on. Reading negative criticism about movies we are disposed to view charitably can shake us out of our complacency and disrupt our habitual strategies for engagement. Although this can damage our liking for a particular movie, it stands to enhance our relationship with the medium overall. Getting too entrenched in our habits can cause our relationship with film to stagnate, as we become so comfortable in our established outlook that we stop growing.

Matthew Strohl, Hard to Watch: How to Fall in Love With Difficult Movies

[vital-information]

Meditative TV

Tales from the Loop // Mushishi // Joe Pera Talks with You

“Many films diminish us. They cheapen us, masturbate our senses, hammer us with shabby thrills, diminish the value of life. Some few films evoke the wonderment of life's experience, and those I consider a form of prayer. Not prayer "to" anyone or anything, but prayer "about" everyone and everything. I believe prayer that makes requests is pointless. What will be, will be. But I value the kind of prayer when you stand at the edge of the sea, or beneath a tree, or smell a flower, or love someone, or do a good thing. Those prayers validate existence and snatch it away from meaningless routine.”

—Roger Ebert, “A Prayer Beneath the Tree of Life”

[kaccvcate]

Black Cat White Cat (1998), in Romani titled Crna machka, beli machor, is a romantic comedy set in a Romani community on the border between Serbia and Bulgaria. The dialogue is a mix of Romani, Bulgarian, and Serbian, as the characters are fluent in all three languages. This makes it a linguistically unique movie (to my knowledge.)

This has got to be just about the funniest god damn movie ever made. The characters are each vibrant and unique, and the way they play off each other is like no other movie on planet earth. The acting is all phenomenal, especially the performances by the diverse animal actors (of course, animal actors always have perfect performances, which is why the best movies have lots of them.)

The story follows the interplay of three compelling romantic couples (two human, one cat), who all have such incredible chemistry together that you can’t help but feel engaged. The sets and costumes are amazing, every space is filled with so much artistry and detail, you never run out of things to look at, and each scene brings a new hilarious surprise or ironic turn of events that will keep you guessing.

I really can’t recommend this one enough. It’s so far and away one of the best movies I've ever seen, really it’s impossible not to love.

[courseyoulovemeyoudontknowme]

Peter Pan (1953, Hamilton Luske, Clyde Geronimi and Wilfred Jackson)

16/09/2024

[thefugitivesaint]

In case you didn't know dear reader, 'Every Frame A Painting' has returned with a new video essay (it's been about 8 years since Taylor Ramos and Tony Zhou put a video essay together outside of some special features they crafted for The Criterion Collection [examples one & two], Filmstruck, and for the Netflix series Voir). It seems like this return is set to be a "limited series" of video essays. The series will be followed by a short film called "The Second," starring Paul Sun-Hyung Lee & Ethan Hwang (which is briefly described as being about "an alternate version of today’s world where dueling is still acceptable Philip, a man of tradition, must perform the role of “Second” on the day of his only son’s duel.") if you enjoy movies and you have an interest in video essays, then I highly suggest giving 'Every Frame' a watch. The essays are concise, insightful, and well crafted. The duo of Zhou and Ramos are often credited for establishing video essays as a "legitimate" medium on Youtube. Whether or not this claim is valid is besides the point, all I know is that their channel was one of the few channels I subscribed to and was always happy to watch. Glad to have more from them to enjoy.

[sapphiresaphics]

Alright, let’s do this.

Part 1 because this video is 2 hours long and I can barely get through 20 mins without breaking down all the ways this video is not only wrong but grossly misrepresenting the source material.

LET’S GO!

Starts off on shaky grounds by complaining that Vi being in the enforcer uniform in the trailers for season 2 bugged her. Uses the term “copaganda” to describe it, despite that’s NOT what Arcane is about or supports. So we’re off to a good start huh?

Then they start by defining the terms for liberal and conservatism. Okay, that’s fine. If you’re gonna talk about these things you need to make sure everyone is on the same page.

During the description of how Season 1 begins they make the claim that Arcane is about these two sisters and that season 2 fails in this regard. This is a frustrating remark because Arcane IS about these two sisters. It follows their journey all the way through the show and both begins and ends with Vi and the song sung here.

BUT… they are not the ONLY main characters. And if they were the main characters they must be doing something wrong cuz Vi disappears entirely for 2 whole episodes across BOTH seasons. So rather than see Season 1 and 2 as two halves of a whole, you’re starting off with a bias that there’s a split and that season 1 is better than 2 inherently. I despise this leading commentary in an analysis video, but let’s see where we go from here. We’re only 8:40 into the video so it can’t be that bad, right?

10:11 wait… what’s wrong with brothels? You gonna come back to that weird throwaway line?

12:00 alright, yes… this is basically just explaining what the conflict is between the two cities. Many of the writers have stated that the central theme of the show is the cycle of violence, so having a conflict between these two cities makes senses. Where I think you screw up though is you seem to think this is a story about the left overcoming the right, instead of a background setting for the characters to be thrust against.

12:30 uh… Caitlyn DOES react to it though? That’s her whole questioning of Vi is about. She’s trying to figure out why Vi is there if there’s nothing recorded. It’s her first taste of the corruption she’s been oblivious to. And it’s odd enough that she feels sympathy for Vi and her situation. Don’t gloss over that.

12:50 okay but that’s not a fair comparison? If Vi HAD been processed normally and gotten a fair trial she likely would’ve been in a cell with a bed and all that stuff too. Markus DELIBERATELY BURIED her to cover his own skin. As commented on later “Markus felt it was more of a mercy to lock her up than to kill her.” The corruption surrounding Vi is UNIQUE to Vi. That’s WHY Caitlyn comments on it.

Noticing a lot of casual negativity being tossed around in here too. Suggesting Shimmer is the only form of medicine Zaun has is WILD and WRONG, but fine, let’s let it slide for now…

“Why Season 1 seemed Leftist”

Oh boy, that’s a title… alright whatcha got?

13:34 “ive given a detailed recap of what Season 1 says about Piltover and Zaun.” Actually… no you didn’t. You laid out the conflict and the story… but you said NOTHING about what this actually means. Describing police brutality isn’t a detailed recap of what the show is saying, you’re just describing plot points. And badly at that as I’ve already pointed out… you’ve said nothing yet.

14:21 “Vi was a burgeoning little revolutionary in Act 1” woah woah woah… slow down there, no she wasn’t. Vi has NEVER cared about revolution. What she WANTS and what she VOICES is that she wants Powder to have a better life than hers. She wants her family to be safe, and she’s foolhardy enough to risk her life getting there. And importantly: Vander talks her down from this. Because he’s been where she was. He knows how easily this talk of violence can spiral out of control and take away the people you love. And he asks Vi who she is willing to risk sacrificing for this violence… and when push comes to shove Vi CHOOSES NOT TO START A REVOLUTION because Powder being alive is more important to her. And at NO POINT PAST EPISODE 2 does Vi champion for Zaun’s independence or revolution. FAMILY is all that matters to Vi, so you’ve fundamentally misunderstood her character from the jump.

14:31 calling out the actions of Piltover’s isn’t fermenting a revolution though. She’s holding them accountable for their actions and begging them to change. And when they don’t follow through she falls back on her only method of getting stuff done that she knows… vigilante Justice. Vi has no interest in starting a revolution, she just wants Powder to be safe and taking out Silco is the way she thinks she can do that.

Also, Ekko is an isolationist. He keeps people AWAY from Piltover and Zaun while still benefiting from what they have to offer. He has good intentions, but pretending the conflict isn’t happening isn’t beneficial in the long run (as we will see in season 2).

16:00 “Caitlyn seemed to be going down the path of a character who would play a critical role in Zaun getting equal treatment and independence.” Yeah… that’s called setup. It SEEMS like that’s where she’s going. And If Jinx hadn’t blown up the council building maybe yeah that IS where she would’ve gone…. But the cycle of violence rears its ugly head and everything falls apart. That’s how story progression works. This isn’t a negative, this is just you projecting what you wanted to see happen.

17:10 “Vander believed it was better to submit to Piltover instead of fighting against it.” Uh… no… no he didn’t? Vander didn’t submit to Piltover at all. He made a deal with them. They don’t bother him, he doesn’t bother them. And when push came to shove he refused to give up his people and was steadfast in keeping the peace. That’s not “submitting to Piltover.” Submitting would’ve been giving his people up to maintain peace. And Vander didn’t do that. That’s a BAD READING of what Vander’s politics were.

Is now a bad time to remind everyone this user is a SPONGEBOB RECAP CHANNEL?

“Season 1 vs Season 2”

I have a feeling this is where a lot of my disagreements are gonna come into play…

18:16 you just SKIPPED OVER the fact that Caitlyn was TRYING to maintain the peace and objected to the invasion of Zaun and are intercutting scenes of Caitlyn AFTER the SECOND attack on the memorial with the scenes of BEFORE the attack to lump her in with the council. This is deceptive editing and you are misleading your audience here.

19:24 important key information left out here, the Riktus arrests weren’t sanctioned by Caitlyn or the city of Piltover. That was Ambessa’s men doing it against her wishes, something she SPECIFICALLY CHASTISES Ambessa for doing earlier.

Hey, what are these politics again? You haven’t really said anything is left or right, you’re just assuming that if you recap the story WE WILL KNOW what is or isn’t left and right wing. We are 20 minutes in and you haven’t really detailed the politics at all or explained WHY someone might think something is left or right wing. You had a WHOLE SECTION on it and yet you said nothing? That’s a little odd…

19:43 Caitlyn not using those low level cells is kinda important information, don’t gloss over that.

19:48 “Jinx uses MCU humor.” Oh for fuck’s sake. “MCU humor” is not a real thing. I’ve gone into this in other posts, but the idea that there’s this specific TYPE of humor that ONLY MCU films use is absurd. It also has its origins in right-wing talking points, which is why I called you right-wing when I first saw your initial post. As a leftist you shouldn’t be using the terms the right create to hate on things they despise. If you want more information, the term came about roughly around 2016 when the DC team up movie Justice League bombed at the box office. Right wing fans were angry that Joss Whedon was brought in to fix Zack Snieder’s version of the film and started demanding the “Snieder cut.” Because Snieder is known to be “serious” with his filmmaking and Whedon was from Marvel and is more lighthearted, this idea that any joke or form of lighthearted fun that was added to Justice League was “MCU humor.”

So fuck you as a leftist. You’re using RIGHT WING ideological talking points to back up an argument that the show isn’t “leftist enough?” This is one step away from using right-wing version of the term “woke” unironically.

20:31 “we aren’t told why the Zaunites come back other than seeing enforcers being nice influences them” no.. no that’s not what’s going on there. I’ll cite this as an example because it’s easy for leftists to understand, but segregation, civil war, and the genocide of native Americans were still fresh in peoples minds during WWI and WWII, and yet some of the bravest and best soldiers we had during then were black peoples and native Americans. Native Americans specifically used their native tongue to encode messages that the Nazis couldn’t understand. Why would minorities and people abused by the system of America come to the aid of America when fighting against such a huge foe? It’s not because some of them saw police officers being kind to them. It’s because deep down this is their HOME. For better or worse. And they believe that fighting for their home is more honorable than leaving it to rot and die. I dunno, maybe before passing judgement on these people who came back to defend their homes you consider the historical implications and see what minorities and Native Americans had to say about it their fighting in the wars?

I dunno, maybe it’s cuz you’re young and inexperienced with life it really pisses me off when kids like you imply these people shouldn’t have come back and that they’re some sort of traitors…

20:39 Jesus I can’t even go 8 seconds without you putting your foot in your mouth. Zaun comes to fight IN EARNEST because JINX showed up. Jinx was the symbol of the revolution to Zaunites. So when SHE chooses to fight, they rally behind her. Just like they WANTED to do back in episode 4.

20:51 what you call “being snarky” about Zaunites coming back to save their home from obliteration, I call being grossly disrespectful to the many men and women who gave their lives defending a country that does not have their best interest in mind all the time. Again, segregation was legal and women couldn’t vote during WWII, yet women got jobs and fought for their rights while black and minorities defended a country that only a few decades back had a literal civil war over their rights as property. I do not understand why I need to explain this to you, but I’m guessing school just hasn’t taught you to be respectful to people who sacrifice their lives for the prospect of the greater good.

Like Jesus Christ, how does someone who’s left leaning shit on this? It boggles my mind.

21:10 yeah… that’s the TRAGEDY of Piltover and Zaun. Sevika being added to the council is a COMMENTARY on the theme of the show. Because yes, you ARE supposed to be critical of this decision. You ARE supposed to be mad she’s the only Zaunite there. You ARE supposed to question if this is a bandaid solution that doesn’t really solve anything. Because Piltover and Zaun are ALWAYS going to be in conflict with one another. Piltover and Zaun represent the cycle of violence. What happened before will happen again. The solution to the systemic issues WASN’T solved.

And if you think that’s the show saying that’s a GOOD thing, you really missed the message of the show. Because the message is that we need to break out of the cycle of violence. That we need to NOT follow in these easily trodden footsteps. So Sevika being put on the council as a bandaid solution is a WARNING. It’s telling the audience that this ISN’T how you break out of the cycle. That this is yet another way in which the cycle is going to be allowed to continue.

THIS IS THE SHOW TELLING YOU THIS IS NOT GOOD, and you’re looking at it going “I guess the show thinks this is good?!!!???” Seriously, how do you misinterpret this as “centrist” or not a left leaning message????? The show is DIRECTLY CRITICIZING IT!!! OMG

[sasheneskywalker]

This video is not about The Batman | Renegade Cut

Transcript [emphasis added by me]:

"Okay, stop me if you've heard this a million times before. Why doesn't Batman use his wealth to solve poverty instead of punching criminals? That's a pretty loaded question huh. The most common counter argument is: Batman has the Wayne Foundation. Don't you read the comic books? The statement in this counter argument is technically true. The fictional narrative of Batman in the comic books and sometimes other media references the Caped Crusader’s charitable donations. But this counter is only meaningful if we're talking about whether or not the fictional Bruce Wayne gives some of his fictional money to a fictional city which we're probably not. The question “why doesn't Batman use his wealth to solve poverty instead of punching criminals” is not a condemnation of Batman as if he were real, like a real guy. It's not some righteous indignation about some man, some bibatted man who doesn't exist. It's only a question about our values in the real world. This question about Batman is not about Batman. The question is really “can there be justice under capitalism”? 

Capitalism does not resolve poverty. Capitalism simultaneously enforces poverty through stratified economic classes and income disparity all the while criminalizing poverty to protect private property interests of the ruling class. Marginally improving conditions under capitalism does not serve to resolve capitalism but to stabilize the labor class enough to continue labor. Furthermore many crimes are the products of poverty and crime cannot be resolved under a system that enforces and criminalizes its own poverty. The contradictions of capitalism cannot be resolved. This question about Batman is not really about judging or exonerating Batman. Thus the answer to this question cannot be about judging or exonerating Batman either. 

I mean I think we all love Batman. Or we all hate Batman, I can't keep up. The Wayne Foundation counter-argument applied to the real world is simply another way of saying that this is the best we can hope for. Capitalism with a somewhat more socially conscious ruling class. A teeny tiny bit less Jeff Bezos and a centimeter more Oprah Winfrey. And that's it. Isn't this perspective the result of capitalist realism? Thinking that this is as good as it gets and we should all ever expect. We enter into our viewing of The Batman with this cultural bias about our relationship with wealth and the wealthy. A presupposition that helps hold up the narrative and a presupposition that could be deconstructed. Isn't this fun? Talking about art, seeing how art relates to reality, trying not to get too defensive about it. I enjoy this.

Let's talk about film criticism.

A structuralist approach to film criticism puts more emphasis on the fixed nature of language conventions and code to convey particular information. A structuralist analysis relies on the premise that communication has a specific goal or meaning and that finding that meaning through signifiers and the signified is the essence of analysis. Here is that tree you've seen before. A structuralist analysis of The Batman would emphasize how Batman's character arc fits into the pre-existing conventions of film, how well it adheres to this and how much it subverts it. 

A post-structuralist analysis to film criticism recognizes that words and images we choose to convey information are imperfect and that this communication contains contradictions. A post-structuralist approach to film criticism might emphasize the pre-existing cultural biases of the creators of the film as well as the presumption of those cultural biases in the audience. For example the Batman addresses race and class but spends more time ignoring grievances related to race and class than it does acknowledging these grievances. Mere absence is not immediately meaningful but absence as contrast might be. For example the absence of a floating pink elephant in The Batman might not be meaningful to a post-structuralist because there is no opposite of this, no signifier of its contrast. But the absence of significant commentary on criminogenic conditions in a film that frequently references crime and comes to its own conclusion about how to resolve crime might be meaningful to a post-structuralist. 

At the risk of being reductive a structuralist analysis of a film places greater emphasis on the author signifiers and signified as the primary subjects of examination whereas post-structuralist analysis of a film places greater emphasis on the viewer, the existence of the viewer, and the viewer's world between the signifiers and signified. Just to be clear this is not a complete definition of post-structuralism or a proper lesson. Also, in reducing these terms this way I run the risk of inaccuracy but this is also, you know, a youtube video.

Here is a structuralist approach to explaining The Batman. In the beginning of the film Batman's inner monologue mythologizes crime in Gotham City. We experience it as a force of nature or human nature, something in the air or something in our blood, but in either case inevitable. Batman is skeptical of our humanity and believes more should be done to fight crime. Batman is visually represented as shadow, as the darkness of night. His first targets are thrill-seeker criminals performing unambiguously vindictive acts on complete strangers. Randomized violence with no goal except the act itself and perpetrated by a stylized evil visage that is completely dehumanized. When his voice over monologue is complete, his first spoken words are “I'm vengeance”. At the climax of the film Batman recognizes that vengeance is not the same as justice. Batman leads his people out of darkness and toward the light, visually represented by his torch and finally by the dawn that shines on them on this new day.

A structuralist analysis might conclude that justice outweighing vengeance is the authorial point of the film or the message of the film or the meaning of the film because it has laid bare at the climax where it's supposed to be and because it is foreshadowed many times and that this is the progression of the protagonist's character arc. It was dark but now there is dawn. Justice has been served, Batman is a hero, a pseudo-biblical figure that leads his people from bondage and sends them towards the heavens. Whatever else this is, rest assured that this is justice. This is what the movie is trying to say.

A post-structuralist approach might say that at the end of the film Batman uses different words to describe Gotham City and his mission and he is visually represented differently but he still mythologizes crime as a force of nature or human nature. Within the film there are multiple explicit references to income inequality and a passing reference to a comorbidity of racial inequality and income inequality. But this is all practically suppressed by what Batman tells the audience, both before and after his character arc is complete. The audience for The Batman is expected to have a cultural bias about criminogenic conditions, the circumstances that produce crime. The Batman ritualistically moralizes crime and speaks in platitudes that are originally dark, eventually uplifting but always vague and most importantly: apolitical. 

The passing reference to the conditions that create crime are covered under the banner of an apolitical unity that tends to ignore disparate racial and economic power dynamics. 

In the film the company called the Gotham Renewal Corporation, originally intended to assist Gotham City, has been corrupted by a series of criminals. In the end these criminals are exposed or pushed out and the day is saved. This relies on the presupposition that our systems are good and are only corrupted by bad apples. What is vengeance in The Batman anyway? Is Batman saying he simply needs to exercise a lighter touch? Because it feels like what Batman is instead pushing back against is corruption and radicalism. Corruption in the form of Renewal and radicalism in the form of those who oppose Renewal. The Riddler and his people and Catwoman's willingness to use more violence than Batman is willing to use. Radicals are portrayed as only seeking vengeance instead of justice and the audience's presuppositions about our systems and about radicalism are what makes this ring true to them in the end. 

In The Batman justice seems to be working within our institutions. The Batman recognizes corruption and acknowledges corruption but recognizing corruption is not a condemnation of our institutions because corruption is the institution not working as intended. Recognizing corruption only condemns corruption and may still tacitly endorse the institution. But what if the institutions working as intended create and enforce poverty? What if they create and enforce injustice? What if they must be replaced by something more than reform, something that requires more than voting? Well, that's radicalism and in The Batman that is portrayed as vengeance not justice. For only within our institutions can justice be found, no matter how much evidence exists to the contrary. The mayor was dirty but the new mayor will not be dirty. The bad politician is bad but the good politician is good. Trust in liberal democracy.

The police initially do not trust Batman and there are dirty cops but Batman tells Jim Gordon that he's a good cop. The bad police are bad but the good police are good. Trust the police. The wealthy criminals control much of Gotham but Bruce Wayne has sway in Gotham as well and Alfred reminds him of his responsibilities. The bad billionaires are bad but the good billionaires are good. Trust in capitalism. 

Batman also operates outside the system but in the end he is part of the system, an ally of the system with all that that implies. Trust in our institutions. Corruption and radical politics are both outside of the system in equal measure and in the center an apolitical unity that ignores the actual causes of crime and indeed the causes of injustice.

Is this a good take? Is this a bad take? I  don't know. As always that is entirely for Twitter to decide. To clarify, I'm not judging who is right within the confines of the narrative that they made. The Riddler kills a bunch of people and floods a city. I'm analyzing why the narrative looks like this in the first place and what it says about our culture. The Riddler is not right but the Riddler is also not real. The portrayal of his fight for the downtrodden perspective as radical, dangerous, terroristic, and motivated only by vengeance and not justice is a choice by the filmmakers. The conclusion of the film that basically serves as a love letter to the good people who reinforce our ultimately good institutions that exist to serve justice is also a choice. These choices do not necessarily have these intentions but finding authorial intention is not the goal here. These choices are worth thinking about because they reveal cultural biases and presuppositions that existed prior to the creation of the film and outside of the industry of film."

[everything-in-retrospect]

Thought I’d contribute this to the discussion :)

[professionallush]

While you're over on substack subscribing to @murielsweating excellent Murder, She Wrote newsletter why not also subscribe to my ill-advised Jake Gyllenhaal newsletter?

[davidhudson]

Gene Siskel, January 26, 1946 – February 20, 1999.

With Roger Ebert.

[capricorn-0mnikorn]

Artists (mostly musicians, but not always) on YouTube that I always click on, when I see they've uploaded a new video:

Note: Not all of these are their newest, but I've chosen the older ones for being among my favorites:

ViHart (Mathemusician):

David Grubb (Jazz composer, band leader, violinist):

Rhiannon Giddens (Folk singer/songwriter, music historian):

Every Frame a Painting (short video essays on film-making):

El Pony Pisador (folk music band out of Catalonia, Spain):