On ruining it

(x-posted, painfully, teaspooon by teaspoon)

The oddest complaint I've read about The Dark Knight is that its use of a philosophical stalwart, "the trolley problem," makes the film predictable to a certain tribe of cinematic sophisticates—as if all summer action films employ classic ethical problems and director Christopher Nolan's execution was simply sloppy. High-minded as they're meant to sound, such criticisms reveal the basic ignorance of the folks who mouth them: the purpose of stripping the problem of all context—of discussing "five people" or "a fat man" instead of "your Aunt Eloise" or "your dog Phil"—is to remove as much emotionally-charged information as can be removed from the larger ethical concerns under considerations.

Nolan deliberately presses against abstraction, dressing these bare philosophical bones with the accoutrements of character, then enlivening the situation by placing these characters in jeopardy. Knowing the various moral, ethical and political arguments about the trolley problem doesn't ruin the experience of The Dark Knight any more than knowing how to play chess ruins your appreciation of an elegant endgame. (Unless, I suppose, you're a fervert partisan of one proposed solution and Batman's decisions disappointed you, in which case, take it up with him.)

If you want an example of too much knowledge ruining something, consult the Star Wars cycle—or whatever its legions call it—as George Lucas' decisions to prequel robs the only three decent films of all dramatic effect. Consider the first-time viewer who decides, quite rationally, to begin watching the whatever-they-call-it with Episode I. In it, he learns Anakin Skywalker is quick-tempered but fundamentally decent-hearted. In Episode II or III—I've only watched them once and am not in a position to research fine points at the moment—he learns Anakin Skywalker fathers twins, one of whom is whisked away by some senatorial aide or whatever, the other to a small desert planet. I'm probably punting the details here, but it's only because I don't care they're irrelevant. My point is future viewers of Episodes IV won't wonder who Obi-Wan really is; won't be surprised in Episode V when Vadar is revealed to be Luke's father; and will consider Vadar's redemption in Episode VI a return to form.

Lucas hasn't added to his legacy, he's added spoilers to the only part of it worth preserving. A more interesting example comes from Iain M. Banks' Consider Phlebas, which comes from the "Death by Water" sectioned of T.S. Eliot's The Wasteland:

Phlebas the Phoenician, a fortnight dead,
Forgot the cry of gulls, and the deep sea swell
And the profit and loss.
               A current under sea
Picked his bones in whispers.
As he rose and fell
He passes the stages of his age and youth
Entering the whirlpool.
              Gentile or Jew
O you who turn the wheel and look to windward,
Consider Phlebas, who was once handsome and tall as you

Do you consider its titular allusion a spoiler? For those who've read the novel, did it diminish your enjoyment? Or is it obscure and/or clever enough to keep you guessing?

ON-THE-HEELS UPDATE: Not five minutes after posting, it occurs to me the better analogy between Lucas and Banks would be to the content of Consider Phlebas rather than its title. For those who haven’t read it, it’s the first in his series of Culture novels, but it’s told from the perspective of an opponent of “the Culture,” that vast, space-faring civilization whose idle, hedonistic citizens live dull utopian lives while sentient machines lift heavy objects. The Culture’s reviled by Horza, the novel’s protagonist, because he believes it is only a matter of time before the sentient machines realize their human equals are intellectually limited, temporally finite meat. This perspective is justified given the events and behaviors documented in Consider Phlebas, but subsequent novels reveal it to be an error born of Horza’s restricted purview. Not that there aren’t seedy elements within the Culture, only that they’re not what outsiders — readers included — assume them to be.

Point being, the transition from the first Culture novel to the next is supposed to be a jarring shift in philosophical and narratological perspective — except no one reads Consider Phlebas first, because it’s been out of print for years. So when I read it yesterday, I couldn’t help but be underwhelmed, as I recognized Banks setting up his “GOTCHA!” but didn’t get to experience it.

EDITED: To reflect I transcribe badly.

Comments

[Rich Puchalsky]

I have to shamefacedly admit that although I know and knew at first reading where the title was from -- Banks quotes two lines of the poem on his first page -- I still don't know what you think it spoiled.

Banks' last-but-one Culture novel was called Look To Windward, by the way. I once constructed a theory that, given the apparent authorial loss of faith in the Culture in it, and the fact that Consider Phlebas was the first, LTW was probably the last Culture book. But he's published another one, Matter, which has been sitting on my desk as I build up the courage to read it. (His last few books were really not that good.)

I think that it does no harm to read the Culture books in order of descending quality, by the way, and just stop when you feel you've gotten enough. In my opinion, that order is, vaguely:

Use of Weapons (if you don't think this is a good book, just give up on Banks)
The Player of Games
Excession / The State of the Art / Consider Phlebas
Look To Windward
Inversions

Banks' early Culture books -- Use of Weapons, The Player of Games, Consider Phlebas - all benefitted, I think, from being rewrites of his first-submitted but not published versions. Some of the later ones would probably have benefitted from that too. He has a distressing tendency to, or so he says, knock out a book in three months.

[Justin]

Who are the people who are making hay of the trolley problem? My first reaction is that there's nothing in the movie that parallels a trolley problem.

[j.s.nelson]

Quick, before you piss someone off! It's "Vader".

[Jake]

So the complaints are criticizing the film conceptually and not taking the dramatic elements that the audience experience into consideration?

[Jake]

I discovered some articles on the philosophical issues of Batman Begins and The Dark Knight, SEK, especially regarding the trolley problem. I thought you might be interested:

http://www.overthinkingit.com/2008/07/24/the-philosophy-of-batman/
http://www.overthinkingit.com/2008/07/26/the-jokers-magic-pencil/
http://www.overthinkingit.com/2008/07/31/the-philosophy-of-batman-political-sociology-edition/