I know I said I would be “gone” for awhile, but I have buttons that other people unknowingly push. It happened to me over the weekend: on Friday my wife and I went to see Batman Begins, a movie I thoroughly enjoyed and plan to go see again. Back when I did movie reviews for the daily newspaper at which I wrote, this was the kind of movie I would recommend highly.

So I was minding my own business on Saturday when I ran across a post that pushed a button. I don’t know anything about the author but suspect (a) he’s fairly young - twentysomething, and (b) he hasn’t been a Christian very long. At least I’m hoping that’s the case.

Here are some of the comments from his post; I’ll provide some reactions as I go. (I’m not linking to him because I don’t want to appear to be attacking him personally; rather, I’m going to make a larger point from this seemingly trivial incident.)

I suppose I should have stopped reading when the author said in his first paragraph, “It just didn’t sit right.” That’s usually a sign that a visceral rather than cerebral post is about to follow - which is not always bad, but usually is when what follows is a negative evaluation.

Here we go:

We are, of course, reacquainted with another version of Bruce Wayne’s tragic childhood; only child sees his parents gunned down outside a theater, grows up alone, etc. However, this does not follow the script we heard in the first Batman movie . . .

In the first movie, you’ll remember it was a young Joker who murdered the Waynes and that act played a key part in its plot. This discontinuity soured the movie for me, at least for a little while. If we are to understand this movie as a prequel of sorts, then this change in the story trips things up. It would be like tampering with the original Star Wars movies in the prequels . . .

From the sounds of this, the reviewer didn’t grow up reading DC Comics in general and Batman in particular. The previous movies, not this one, departed from the original material: those of us who are familiar with the comic book knew that the Joker wasn’t responsible - at least not in my failing memory. This is an example of Steve Martin’s dictum, “Criticize things you don’t know about” (which immediately precedes “put a live chicken in your underwear”).

It’s also possible that the title of the movie has more than one meaning: it is, obviously, an account of why Bruce Wayne became Batman and why he was the way he was. But perhaps it’s also the writer’s way of saying that - in contrast to the earlier movies that were only pretenders and cheap imitations - the saga of Batman truly begins with this movie. At least, in my opinion, this is the first one that captures the mood and message of the comic book series.

He [Batman] refuses to forgive, refuses to let go of the pain, refuses to do anything but live in the past, embracing the moment of his worst agony. In this, we see that Bruce/Batman is actually diametrically opposed to the Christian ideal.

So? Did anybody go to the theater thinking that we were about to watch a Christian movie? In my 50 or so years of familiarity with Batman, I never suspected or expected him to be a Christian. In fact, God never explicitly shows up in either the movie or the comic series. Why expect Batman to emulate Christian ideals?

Apparently this critic has some experience in dealing with the violent, tragic death of his parents and feels that everyone should be able to “just get over it.” (Yeah, I know: it’s fictional!)

Re Batman’s willingness to have a murderer executed by the state, our critic observes:

There is no hint of trying to understand why the man committed his crime and if there might be elements that mitigate the deserved punishment. It is only this trifle of respect for the rule of law that separates Bruce from the criminal; he has no qualms about the use of violence, does not hesitate to instill fear and, in fact, is trained to use fear as a weapon, and certainly has no overall respect for the law. It also becomes abundantly clear later in the movie that Bruce/Batman has little respect for human life in his quest for ‘justice’ and the ‘good.’

What, exactly, are the mitigating circumstances that make murder an OK thing? Re violence, check out the Book of Revelation: God doesn’t seem to have many qualms, either. Unlike Batman Begins, however, God’s violence is going to be real, up-to-the-bridles-in-blood real. One-third-of-the-earth-dead real. All without qualms.

As the caped crusader rushes back to Wayne manor to save the life of his childhood sweetheart, the reviewer complains:

But his drive back to the manor is actually a car chase involving dozens of cop cars - many of which crash in manners that are likely fatal to the occupants. Further, Batman drives over rooftops, knocking debris onto the ground below in a complete disregard for any possible pedestrians. These innocent deaths do not matter to him so long as he can save his old friend; another mark of the selfishness that permeates Batman’s motivations.

NEWS FLASH!!! It’s a movie, OK? One of the requirements when going to see a fictional, superhero-genre movie is the ability to suspend disbelief. You don’t think about people dying in imaginary car crashes or from falling pretend debris BECAUSE THEY’RE NOT REAL PEOPLE! Is this really so difficult?

But here’s the clincher:

Which is why I left the theater thinking “is Batman an antichrist?” And the answer, I think, is an unfortunate yes.

The “antichrist”? Has our eschatological understanding of things come to this? Batman Begins has nothing to do with Christianity and it is unfair to impose Christian values on a non-Christian producer, director, writer, etc. As a movie it is outstanding. It doesn’t pretend or desire to be a Christian movie about morality and Christlikeness.

The “antichrist”? Maybe I missed it, but I didn’t hear Bruce or the caped crusader say anything about Jesus not being the Christ, or denying that Jesus came in the flesh, or - as a spirit - declaring that Jesus is not from God. The “antichrist”? Did I miss something?

OK, obviously this pushed a button or two for me. But here’s the point, or at least one of them: what do we really believe about non-Christians? Do we believe that they are capable of acknowledging God and glorifying Him without the Holy Spirit? Is our understanding of human depravity that shallow? Do we think so lightly of sin or the effects of the Fall? Do we think?

Practically speaking, though, is it fair to judge non-Christians by Christian standards? I have a hard enough time walking the talk even with 30+ years of salvation and the Holy Spirit within; why would I expect a nonbeliever to “get it right”? Or, for that matter, even try to get it right?

It would be like one of my non-Christian friends watching The Gospel of John and giving it a bad review because: (a) it didn’t follow the plot of The Da Vinci Code, on which it should have been based, (b) Jesus failed to use “the force” or a lightsaber, and (c) except for Zaccheus, there didn’t seem to be any hobbits in the movie.

If we’re going to catch a movie at Sodommark, we shouldn’t plan on seeing a biblical depiction of the nature of man, a demonstration of the need for salvation, or a didactic analysis of the difference between propitiation and expiation. It’s their party, not ours, and we are just a tad judgmental and self-righteous to judge the servant of another.

Besides, if you have eyes to see and ears to hear, you might actually catch a glimpse or whisper of the glory of God in the creativity of the writer or the artistry of the director and actors. And we should, above all else, remember this:

It’s a movie.


2 Cor 1.13