Casual Deconstruction, "Watchmen" and "The Dark Knight"

[studiodekadent]

Casual Deconstruction, "The Dark Knight" and "Watchmen"

By Andrew Russell

In recent times, two critically and commercially successful superhero films have graced our screens. "Watchmen" and "The Dark Knight" are in and of themselves good films; however they are fascinating in terms of how they are both radically different from each other yet are both deconstructions of their genre.

The term "deconstruction" has two uses. The first is to refer to a completely impenetrable and usually nonsensical form of postmodernist academic analysis which essentially aims to show that "that-which-is-deconstructed is self-contradictory tripe." This essay is most emphatically not using "deconstruction" to refer to this academic style of deconstruction. Rather, this essay is looking at the second use of the term: a casual deconstruction.

A "casual deconstruction" of any specific idea involves taking this idea and playing it in a realistic context. For instance, in her novel "Atlas Shrugged," Ayn Rand deconstructs the Marxist idea of "from each according to his ability, to each according to need." Specifically, she demonstrates the consequences of implementing it in a realistic context, being when the Twentieth Century Motor Company adopts the principle and calamity results. In academic terms, a casual deconstruction is basically reductio ad absurdum: a common recurring trope or theme is implemented in the storyline and is demonstrated as leading to a result wholly different from what previous works in the genre showed (and allegedly, this new outcome is meant to be the realistic one).

The immediately obvious question is: "what is a realistic context?" In short, the deconstructor's fundamental view of how reality and entities within it operate will govern their deconstruction. Restating this; a deconstructor deconstructs a trope/idea/meme according to their philosophical assumptions.

The superhero genre has been deconstructed many times over. A reason for this is how the genre deals with heroism, i.e. what people find morally admirable (taken, admittedly, to absolute extremes). In deconstructing superheroes, one deconstructs people's moral beliefs. To take a superheroic embodiment of, say, optimism, and demonstrate said character as being locked up in a mental asylum, is to essentially argue that optimism is unrealistic.

Both "Watchmen" and "The Dark Knight" are deconstructions of superheroes. Yet they are extraordinarily different. This article will argue that this difference fundamentally stems from the radically different philosophical assumptions, held by the deconstructors, concerning the nature of human behavior.

"Watchmen" was originally a graphic novel written by Alan Moore. Moore, a political leftist, believed that the election of Ronald Reagan was psychologically a manifestation of the American public's desire for a heroic figure to "save" them. In the light of this, Moore set out to deconstruct the hero. What would drive a real human being to put on a silly costume and fight criminals?

The words "a real human being" are indicative of the underlying area of philosophical concern. What ultimately motivates human beings? Is it abstract concerns over 'truth, justice and the American Way?'

According to Watchmen, no. Nite Owl II is motivated by fanboyism of Nite Owl I. Silk Spectre II is motivated by a desire to please her mother. Doctor Manhattan is so detached from the human condition he hardly has any motivation to speak of. Ozymandias, at least in the film version, is motivated by a desire to atone for his parents Nazi past, and in the graphic novel he seems to be motivated by a sense of intellectual superiority that rivals a Platonic philosopher-king.

The only character truly motivated by abstract ideals and principles is Rorschach. And he is not portrayed in a particularly sympathetic manner. A deconstruction (according to Moore's premises) of the pseudo-Objectivist heroes created by Objectivist comic creator Steve Ditko, Rorschach is an acontextually moral-absolutist sociopathic archconservative conspiracy theorist with extreme psychological revulsions towards sex (stemming from his prostitute, abusive mother) and ultimately a belief that he is free to scrawl any moral design he wants on a random world.

The ultimate assumption about reality is: "sane people in the real world are not motivated by abstract concerns."

"The Dark Knight," Christopher Nolan's second entry into the Batman franchise, is also a deconstruction. It is deliberately set in the real world, in a Gotham as real as Hong Kong, and without any overly medieval archictecture. Superhero costuming is portrayed not as unstoppable magic armor but as real equipment with tradeoffs in its design. Thus the film clearly establishes that the internal logic of its world is that of our world (or at least alleges that).

Bruce Wayne's superhero double life is portrayed as taking a heavy psychological toll on the man (especially when things go wrong). It interferes with his social commitments and even his romantic life. As such, Superheroing is not portrayed as a 'we'll be home by Christmas' glamorous adventure but rather a significant commitment.

However, what truly makes "The Dark Knight" fundamentally important as a deconstruction of Superheroes is that it is, fundamentally, the response to "Watchmen."

"The Dark Knight" is not a casual reconstruction. Just as a casual deconstruction performs reductio ad absurdum upon genre conventions, a casual reconstruction accepts that the preceeding deconstruction was correct in its underlying depiction of 'how things work in reality' and then proceeds to rebuild said genre conventions in a way that is realistic according to the preceeding deconstruction.

Since "Watchmen," comic books have been getting progressively more cynical and pessimistic about human nature. In short, they accepted that "Watchmen" had the correct view of human nature, i.e. 'humanity is incapable of being principled,' and as such made their superheroes progressively less principled. Those that hold principles are at best mildly hypocritical about them, or they have to fight against their own nature to abide by them (Wolverine from Marvel's work is an example of this), or they are little better than Rorschach.

"The Dark Knight" is a deconstruction of this cynical view of human nature. What would someone be like if they had no principles?

They would be like the Joker. They wouldn't care for themselves or for money or for any person, even themselves. They would think all morality was no more than a really bad joke. And ultimately, they'd need to prove to themselves that no one could be principled. This is the reason the Joker sets up his "social experiment" at the climax of the film.

Whilst "The Dark Knight" in no way beleives that principled men are unbreakable (for instance, Harvey Dent), it brutally deconstructs the belief "Watchmen" holds about human nature. Wheras Rorschach shows the result of a rationalistic, Kantian devotion to abstract, acontextual perfect duties (the kind of moral principledness that was embodied by the Golden Age superheroes), The Joker shows the result of having no moral principles at all.

Whilst superficially, "The Dark Knight" is a dark film, it holds a much more positive view of human nature than the less superficially dark "Watchmen." The Dark Knight does not believe that consistent principledness is impossible, nor does it believe said principledness (in itself) leads to insanity. Whilst it does not necessarily advocate a return to Golden Age superheroics, it certainly does protest against the continuing 'downward spiral' that comic book's portrayals of human nature are in.

Heroism as a concept is connected to both Objectivist aesthetics and Objectivist ethics. Heroes by definition are meant to embody the good; they are meant to be concrete representations of moral principles. Villains are the inverse and meant to be concrete representations of evil.

Traditional golden age heroism tended to embody the moral beliefs of 50's and 60's America, or more correctly the beliefs that were considered conventional at the time. In general these codes were ones of Protestant Christian altruism with a healthy amount of lip-service towards "freedom," usually used as a codeword to mean 'loyalty to the current administation.' Objectivists are no friends to these principles: altruism destroys individualism, conformity destroys individuality and creativity and entrepreneurship, and loyalty to the administration often involves treachery to the underlying principles of the Declaration of Independence.

However, as a philosophy that advocates the position that moral principles are in fact a survival need, Objectivism is not friendly to any assumption that devotion to moral principles is impossible and/or insane. As such Objectivists would not be impressed with the idea that the only potentially realistic heroes are at best hypocrites and at worst lunatics. Thus, the "Watchmen"-initiated (in the comic book world) assumption that humans cannot be principled is not our friend either.

As such, at least in the view of this Objectivist, "The Dark Knight" should be praised for rejecting this belief and showing us, through The Joker, the consequences of such a belief.

For everyone sick of portrayals of man as hypocrite, "The Dark Knight" is, in spite of its title, an antidote. This is one film that sees man as capable of morally principled conduct (without being crazy).

Does "Watchmen" have anything to offer to Objectivists? Whilst I enjoyed "Watchmen" for its cynical tone and focus on superheroes as something more than a plot device to string together fight sequences (and yes, overall I liked the film), I profoundly disagree with its philosophical message. I do not accept the belief that humans are inherently doomed to hypocrisy (a belief shared by "BioShock" (an amazing game that all people should play)). Additionally, Alan Moore made no secret of his political bias even in the graphic novel itself (and the resulting film (which was extremely authentic)). For instance, the graphic novel and film both have a moment where a pack of evil businessmen accuse Ozymandias of being a socialist for coming up with a method to produce an infinite amount of energy (apparently this would make John Galt a socialist, and additionally this ignores the distinction between socialism and post-scarcity economics). Additionally, Rorschach is meant to be a deconstruction of the characters created by an Objectivist, yet Rorschach clearly holds cultural beliefs that are conservative and suffers an extreme case of sexual repression (wheras Rand was rather pro-sex). The conservative-liberal false dichotomy is fully bought into (being the left's best weapon against Classical Liberalism, this isn't surprising).

As such, I would conclude that Objectivists would probably derive more enjoyment from "The Dark Knight" than from "Watchmen." This Objectivist certainly did.

I would hope that "The Dark Knight" is as influential on the superhero genre as it deserves to be. Clearly the genre is chafing under the weight of "heroes" motivated by things ranging from small and petty to absolute sociopathy. Respectable motivations are highly outnumbered, and this Objectivist would hope that "The Dark Knight" will begin making the idea of at least the somewhat noble man come back into fashion.

[anonrobt]

Casual Deconstruction, "The Dark Knight" and "Watchmen"

By Andrew Russell

In recent times, two critically and commercially successful superhero films have graced our screens. "Watchmen" and "The Dark Knight" are in and of themselves good films; however they are fascinating in terms of how they are both radically different from each other yet are both deconstructions of their genre.

The term "deconstruction" has two uses. The first is to refer to a completely impenetrable and usually nonsensical form of postmodernist academic analysis which essentially aims to show that "that-which-is-deconstructed is self-contradictory tripe." This essay is most emphatically not using "deconstruction" to refer to this academic style of deconstruction. Rather, this essay is looking at the second use of the term: a casual deconstruction.

A "casual deconstruction" of any specific idea involves taking this idea and playing it in a realistic context. For instance, in her novel "Atlas Shrugged," Ayn Rand deconstructs the Marxist idea of "from each according to his ability, to each according to need." Specifically, she demonstrates the consequences of implementing it in a realistic context, being when the Twentieth Century Motor Company adopts the principle and calamity results. In academic terms, a casual deconstruction is basically reductio ad absurdum: a common recurring trope or theme is implemented in the storyline and is demonstrated as leading to a result wholly different from what previous works in the genre showed (and allegedly, this new outcome is meant to be the realistic one).

The immediately obvious question is: "what is a realistic context?" In short, the deconstructor's fundamental view of how reality and entities within it operate will govern their deconstruction. Restating this; a deconstructor deconstructs a trope/idea/meme according to their philosophical assumptions.

The superhero genre has been deconstructed many times over. A reason for this is how the genre deals with heroism, i.e. what people find morally admirable (taken, admittedly, to absolute extremes). In deconstructing superheroes, one deconstructs people's moral beliefs. To take a superheroic embodiment of, say, optimism, and demonstrate said character as being locked up in a mental asylum, is to essentially argue that optimism is unrealistic.

Both "Watchmen" and "The Dark Knight" are deconstructions of superheroes. Yet they are extraordinarily different. This article will argue that this difference fundamentally stems from the radically different philosophical assumptions, held by the deconstructors, concerning the nature of human behavior.

"Watchmen" was originally a graphic novel written by Alan Moore. Moore, a political leftist, believed that the election of Ronald Reagan was psychologically a manifestation of the American public's desire for a heroic figure to "save" them. In the light of this, Moore set out to deconstruct the hero. What would drive a real human being to put on a silly costume and fight criminals?

The words "a real human being" are indicative of the underlying area of philosophical concern. What ultimately motivates human beings? Is it abstract concerns over 'truth, justice and the American Way?'

According to Watchmen, no. Nite Owl II is motivated by fanboyism of Nite Owl I. Silk Spectre II is motivated by a desire to please her mother. Doctor Manhattan is so detached from the human condition he hardly has any motivation to speak of. Ozymandias, at least in the film version, is motivated by a desire to atone for his parents Nazi past, and in the graphic novel he seems to be motivated by a sense of intellectual superiority that rivals a Platonic philosopher-king.

The only character truly motivated by abstract ideals and principles is Rorschach. And he is not portrayed in a particularly sympathetic manner. A deconstruction (according to Moore's premises) of the pseudo-Objectivist heroes created by Objectivist comic creator Steve Ditko, Rorschach is an acontextually moral-absolutist sociopathic archconservative conspiracy theorist with extreme psychological revulsions towards sex (stemming from his prostitute, abusive mother) and ultimately a belief that he is free to scrawl any moral design he wants on a random world.

The ultimate assumption about reality is: "sane people in the real world are not motivated by abstract concerns."

"The Dark Knight," Christopher Nolan's second entry into the Batman franchise, is also a deconstruction. It is deliberately set in the real world, in a Gotham as real as Hong Kong, and without any overly medieval archictecture. Superhero costuming is portrayed not as unstoppable magic armor but as real equipment with tradeoffs in its design. Thus the film clearly establishes that the internal logic of its world is that of our world (or at least alleges that).

Bruce Wayne's superhero double life is portrayed as taking a heavy psychological toll on the man (especially when things go wrong). It interferes with his social commitments and even his romantic life. As such, Superheroing is not portrayed as a 'we'll be home by Christmas' glamorous adventure but rather a significant commitment.

However, what truly makes "The Dark Knight" fundamentally important as a deconstruction of Superheroes is that it is, fundamentally, the response to "Watchmen."

"The Dark Knight" is not a casual reconstruction. Just as a casual deconstruction performs reductio ad absurdum upon genre conventions, a casual reconstruction accepts that the preceeding deconstruction was correct in its underlying depiction of 'how things work in reality' and then proceeds to rebuild said genre conventions in a way that is realistic according to the preceeding deconstruction.

Since "Watchmen," comic books have been getting progressively more cynical and pessimistic about human nature. In short, they accepted that "Watchmen" had the correct view of human nature, i.e. 'humanity is incapable of being principled,' and as such made their superheroes progressively less principled. Those that hold principles are at best mildly hypocritical about them, or they have to fight against their own nature to abide by them (Wolverine from Marvel's work is an example of this), or they are little better than Rorschach.

"The Dark Knight" is a deconstruction of this cynical view of human nature. What would someone be like if they had no principles?

They would be like the Joker. They wouldn't care for themselves or for money or for any person, even themselves. They would think all morality was no more than a really bad joke. And ultimately, they'd need to prove to themselves that no one could be principled. This is the reason the Joker sets up his "social experiment" at the climax of the film.

Whilst "The Dark Knight" in no way beleives that principled men are unbreakable (for instance, Harvey Dent), it brutally deconstructs the belief "Watchmen" holds about human nature. Wheras Rorschach shows the result of a rationalistic, Kantian devotion to abstract, acontextual perfect duties (the kind of moral principledness that was embodied by the Golden Age superheroes), The Joker shows the result of having no moral principles at all.

Whilst superficially, "The Dark Knight" is a dark film, it holds a much more positive view of human nature than the less superficially dark "Watchmen." The Dark Knight does not believe that consistent principledness is impossible, nor does it believe said principledness (in itself) leads to insanity. Whilst it does not necessarily advocate a return to Golden Age superheroics, it certainly does protest against the continuing 'downward spiral' that comic book's portrayals of human nature are in.

Heroism as a concept is connected to both Objectivist aesthetics and Objectivist ethics. Heroes by definition are meant to embody the good; they are meant to be concrete representations of moral principles. Villains are the inverse and meant to be concrete representations of evil.

Traditional golden age heroism tended to embody the moral beliefs of 50's and 60's America, or more correctly the beliefs that were considered conventional at the time. In general these codes were ones of Protestant Christian altruism with a healthy amount of lip-service towards "freedom," usually used as a codeword to mean 'loyalty to the current administation.' Objectivists are no friends to these principles: altruism destroys individualism, conformity destroys individuality and creativity and entrepreneurship, and loyalty to the administration often involves treachery to the underlying principles of the Declaration of Independence.

However, as a philosophy that advocates the position that moral principles are in fact a survival need, Objectivism is not friendly to any assumption that devotion to moral principles is impossible and/or insane. As such Objectivists would not be impressed with the idea that the only potentially realistic heroes are at best hypocrites and at worst lunatics. Thus, the "Watchmen"-initiated (in the comic book world) assumption that humans cannot be principled is not our friend either.

As such, at least in the view of this Objectivist, "The Dark Knight" should be praised for rejecting this belief and showing us, through The Joker, the consequences of such a belief.

For everyone sick of portrayals of man as hypocrite, "The Dark Knight" is, in spite of its title, an antidote. This is one film that sees man as capable of morally principled conduct (without being crazy).

Does "Watchmen" have anything to offer to Objectivists? Whilst I enjoyed "Watchmen" for its cynical tone and focus on superheroes as something more than a plot device to string together fight sequences (and yes, overall I liked the film), I profoundly disagree with its philosophical message. I do not accept the belief that humans are inherently doomed to hypocrisy (a belief shared by "BioShock" (an amazing game that all people should play)). Additionally, Alan Moore made no secret of his political bias even in the graphic novel itself (and the resulting film (which was extremely authentic)). For instance, the graphic novel and film both have a moment where a pack of evil businessmen accuse Ozymandias of being a socialist for coming up with a method to produce an infinite amount of energy (apparently this would make John Galt a socialist, and additionally this ignores the distinction between socialism and post-scarcity economics). Additionally, Rorschach is meant to be a deconstruction of the characters created by an Objectivist, yet Rorschach clearly holds cultural beliefs that are conservative and suffers an extreme case of sexual repression (wheras Rand was rather pro-sex). The conservative-liberal false dichotomy is fully bought into (being the left's best weapon against Classical Liberalism, this isn't surprising).

As such, I would conclude that Objectivists would probably derive more enjoyment from "The Dark Knight" than from "Watchmen." This Objectivist certainly did.

I would hope that "The Dark Knight" is as influential on the superhero genre as it deserves to be. Clearly the genre is chafing under the weight of "heroes" motivated by things ranging from small and petty to absolute sociopathy. Respectable motivations are highly outnumbered, and this Objectivist would hope that "The Dark Knight" will begin making the idea of at least the somewhat noble man come back into fashion.

Interesting - am wondering what the 'next step' will be in this?

[Max Eichelberger]

This was a great read. I would vote it up, but I seem to have used my quota of positive points for today.

[studiodekadent]

Thank you all for your kind comments. I'm glad you found the article interesting.

And Areo, you can always vote it up tomorrow

[Max Eichelberger]

This is the third day of having used my quota of positive points, without having given one out. It must do with my status as a newcomer to the board. I'll continue until I can give a point out.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

We don't use post rating.

Michael