The Dark Knight and the Politics of Admiration

At the end of the most recent (and I think the best) Batman film, The Dark Knight, the caped crusader says, "Sometimes the truth isn't good enough. Sometimes people deserve more. Sometimes people deserve to have their faith rewarded."

Friedrich Nietzsche says something similar in On the Use and Disadvantage of History for Life. People abuse what he calls "critical history" when they use to debunk everything that is admirable and noble, everything that might inspire people to heroic lives of great accomplishment. In every exemplar of the human race--a Washington, a Jefferson, a Lincoln, to use only American examples--there are certainly blemishes to be found. Though the nobility of these great men is true greatness, their faults are also true faults. But for the sake of inspiring people to live life most fully, Nietzsche warns against the abuse of historical investigation that "asks a thousand impertinent questions." If you make a public display of what these great men were in every ugly detail, people will cease to believe in the possibility of goodness and nobility and will no longer rise to the challenge of embodying those virtuous qualities. The world will sink through and through into bland mediocrity. I would add that this is especially a danger in an age when people have largely ceased to believe in God or do not set their sights as squarely as they should on the God in whom they do believe.

A film like Flags of Our Fathers (2006; dir. Clint Eastwood) takes the opposite approach. That film burrows irreverently and wrecklessly into the historical details behind the raising of the American flag at Iwo Jima. It reduces that dramatic declaration of victory at the end of an heroic and decisive battle to a staged photo opportunity. It paraded the heroes as shams and drunks. The premise is that if you burrow into the facts behind every hero you will find a disappointment. Everything we have been taught to admire is a lie. There is no greatness. There is no virtue. There is "nothing to kill or die for."

If someone had torn Lincoln's clothes off him as he delivered the Gettysburg address, or old Churchill's clothes off him (try not to think about it) as he delivered his Iron Curtain speech, everyone would have seen these men's blemishes and how ridiculous and ordinary they are underneath the lies that are their clothes. But that exposé would also have distracted us in each case from something genuinely praiseworthy in these men and their deeds, something human beings need, in their life together, for their flourishing. In such cases, what is ordinary--character flaws and unflattering circumstances--masks the extraordinary. And what we would have to admit, if we were forced to confront it, is not actually what is most important from a political standpoint.

Advocates of this debunking approach to history of course have their own heroes. Whereas they are quick to debunk George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and so on, they jealously protect names of John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King Jr., and Barack Obama...as well they should. But they should note that he who lives by the debunking spirit will also die by it, and the civilization we share will die in turn, and is dying.

I draw your attention to Andrew Klavan's insightful reading of the film in his Wall Street Journal article, "What Bush and Batman Have in Common" (July 25, 2008).

There seems to me no question that the Batman film "The Dark Knight," currently breaking every box office record in history, is at some level a paean of praise to the fortitude and moral courage that has been shown by George W. Bush in this time of terror and war. Like W, Batman is vilified and despised for confronting terrorists in the only terms they understand. Like W, Batman sometimes has to push the boundaries of civil rights to deal with an emergency, certain that he will re-establish those boundaries when the emergency is past. And like W, Batman understands that there is no moral equivalence between a free society -- in which people sometimes make the wrong choices -- and a criminal sect bent on destruction. The former must be cherished even in its moments of folly; the latter must be hounded to the gates of Hell.

"The Dark Knight," then, is a conservative movie about the war on terror. And like another such film, last year's "300," "The Dark Knight" is making a fortune depicting the values and necessities that the Bush administration cannot seem to articulate for beans. Conversely, time after time, left-wing films about the war on terror -- films like "In The Valley of Elah," "Rendition" and "Redacted" -- which preach moral equivalence and advocate surrender, that disrespect the military and their mission, that seem unable to distinguish the difference between America and Islamo-fascism, have bombed more spectacularly than Operation Shock and Awe.

I offer this as a third take on The Dark Knight. In the end, Batman becomes a Christ figure. He is despised and rejected, taking to his own name the evil deeds of another, in order to save the city. Though Batman is the Dark Knight, the Bible offers Jesus Christ as the Crimson Knight, "clothed in a robe dipped in blood," leading an army of White Knights, "arrayed in fine linen, white and pure" (Rev. 19:11-16). We just cannot escape the power of that gospel message.

Principal Children's Films

Now that three of our children are between ages six and nine, we've seen many children's movies. Of course, you have to be discerning. Even G-rated films contain a lot of potty mouth, back talk, and rebellion that is unhelpful to be pouring into the tender souls of little people. There was a lot of gutter humor in Cars, and in The Little Mermaid Ariel defies her father and she is neither reproved nor suffers unhappy consequences for it.

There are also social and political messages that Hollywood wants children to internalize. They are generally the self-congratulating themes of that spoilt and irresponsible 1960s generation--wise in their own eyes--with which they continue to indoctrinate the rest of us. Essentially, they tell us that families are hopelessly dysfunctional, children are wise, and parents are foolish, and so children must save their parents and the world.

But there are films, even recently made films, that teach children in artful and entertaining ways that family is good, parents are wise, and children have a lot to learn. They teach that there are worthy objects of striving, and that obtaining them requires great effort, moral self-restraint, and even sacrifice.

Here are some examples.

The Sound of Music (1965; Dir. Robert Wise) - Both the children and the nanny learn self-control. On the other hand, the uberdisciplinarian and distant father learns humanity. Together, led by the father, an Austrian army officer, they defy and eventually flee the inhumane and tyrannically disciplinarian Nazi occupiers. The film is about love, charitable discipline, and healthy relationships in both the family and the political community.

The Incredibles (2004; dir. and screenplay, Brad Bird) and Meet The Robinsons (2007; dir. Stephen Anderson) - Both films celebrate the irreplaceable value of a loving, traditional family.

Pinocchio (1940; Disney Studios) - The wooden boy has a conscience! He disobeys his father and gets into trouble! He goes to an island where children get to indulge their selfish desires, but they end up enslaved. Sin does that. Notice how he gets to be a real boy.

Peter Pan (2003; dir. and screenplay, P.J. Hogan) - Peter can indulge all his childhood fantasies forever, but he has no family, no mother and father to love him and care for him. His freedom is premature, stunting, and unsatisfying. The children see this and head home to their parents. The end of the film is touching.

Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory (1971; screenplay by Roald Dahl) and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005; dir. Tim Burton) - Both these films set bad children in contrast with a good child who loves his family and sacrifices his pleasures for the sake of his moral obligations.

Chitty Chitty Bang Bang (1968; Disney Studios; screenplay by Roald Dahl and Ken Hughes) - The father is an oddball inventor who ekes out a living, but he works hard to provide for his children. It is he who must save them from Baron Bomburst after they disobey their father and succumb to temptation. The baron's vice is not fundamentally that he hates children, but that he is altogether childish himself, which would be fine except that he is not a child.

Mary Poppins (1964; Disney Studios) - In this film, the parents are foolish, but it is not the children who save them. It is a nanny named Mary Poppins, a gracious, otherworldly woman who is full of adult wisdom. Clearly, a father should not be so devoted to his work that he neglects his family which is the more important responsibility. If you save the company but lose your children in the process, you are a failure. But the film drives the lesson too far. In the end, all the elders of British banking have learned to be childish and silly. They have cut back their hours at the bank and are flying kites instead.

Wolf in Sheep's Clothing category:

Nanny McPhee (2005; screenplay by Emma Thompson) - One lesson we learn in this film is a good one. Well-mannered children are a blessing both to themselves and to others, and that begins with simple habits such as saying please and thank-you, and going to bed without complaining when one is told. What mars this otherwise edifying film is that it presents the little boy as wiser than his father who, he says, "never listens." So it is not surprising that it is the children (in their suddenly discovered wisdom) who save the day in the end.

There is also one very regrettable line near the end of the film when Evangeline, the girl whom the family has employed as a maid, tells old Aunt Adelaide to "Sod off, you old trout." Regardless of old auntie's behavior, this rebuke is appallingly disrespectful on account of both its content and its source. But the film holds it up for admiration. That alone would be enough to disqualify this film for recommendation to your children.

Though there is a good lesson at the beginning, the end of the film undermines it. Through firm but wise discipline (albeit magical), Nanny McFee swiftly trains the children to be self-controlled and obedient, and thus frees them to be happy and sweet (but, alas, also wiser than the adults). In the end, however, they save the day through the same wild, ill-mannered, childishly destructive behavior--although now put to a "good" purpose--and all the good adults join in the fun. The children learn a degree of self-control from Nanny McFee, but only enough to know how to use terrorism selectively for socially constructive ends, and the adults learn to be more like the children. While this film is styled after Mary Poppins, it is no Mary Poppins.

A few other great children's films:

Narnia: The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe (2005; dir. Andrew Adamson) - This is C. S. Lewis's great allegory of the gospel. In Edmund, we see repentance, and in the great lion, Aslan, we see redemption through Christ's substitutionary atonement.

Narnia: Prince Caspian (2008; dir. Andrew Adamson) - Peter brings disaster upon himself and others when he follows his own wisdom and trusts in his own strength rather than waiting for Aslan and trusting in his wise, almighty and gracious provision. Aslan, of course, represents Christ.

Anne of Green Gables and The Sequel (1985 and 1987; dir. Kevin Sullivan) - Simply one of the most delightful films ever made, and a fitting tribute to the classic of Canadian literature.

Heavens Above! Ambassador Bill?

Apparently, Sean Rubin is not only a good cartoonist, he's also a mind reader.


Message to President Clinton: If Barack Obama offers you the new post as "Ambassador to the Stars," you should not envisage yourself hobnobbing in Hollywood.

Actually this is the way Peter Sellers' Heavens Above (1963) ends. It was his last film before rocketing to stardom. It is actually a fine film that explores the moral and economic consequences of thoughtless charity understood as giving to the poor. It could have been subtitled, "The Tragedy of Christian Compassion." Marvin Olasky take note!

At first, it might seem to be a condemnation of Christian morality from the point of view of modern economic science, but the film is more multilayered than that. It is seems to be more of a dialogue than a message. The idea for the film came from Malcolm Muggeridge, but the film predates his conversion.

Market Identifies Which States are "Christian"

The free market cannot do everything, but it can supply us with some information quite accurately. Is America a Christian nation? Well, some states are more Christian in character and sentiment than others, and the market may have identified which of the fifty states are "Christian."

A film about Billy Graham, Billy: the Early Years of Billy Graham, opens on October 10 in select states, not necessarily near you. They are: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia. That is 12 out of 50 states.

So much for "Jesusland."



The website describes the film:

Most of us know Billy Graham as the self-assured and charismatic preacher who became one of the most important figures of 20th Century Christianity. Now, with the release of Billy: The Early Years, we meet Billy as the earnest and promising young man at the crossroads of faith and doubt, ultimately facing the moment of decision that launched one of history’s most powerful evangelistic careers.

Most compellingly, Billy: The Early Years paints its portrait of Graham against the backdrop of his relationship with Charles Templeton, another gifted young preacher who’s faith could not withstand the onslaught of scientific skepticism. He and Graham parted ways and in the film, Templeton comes to personify the rising tide of disbelief into which Graham launched his crusades.

Filmed in Tennessee, Billy: The Early Years captures the feel of the Depression-era tent revival where Graham heeded the altar call, and follows him through the doubt and resolution of the next decade. The film was directed by the versatile actor/director Robby Benson – the voice of The Beast in Disney’s Beauty and the Beast. The movie’s power lays in its honest portrayal of Billy’s struggle with the ideas represented in Templeton’s eventual unbelief and shows how Billy’s faith, so dramatically portrayed in the film, goes on to change the face of modern evangelism.

Now that this movie is out, it strikes me as odd that Hollywood didn't get to it first. It is a compelling story that would draw a large audience and make a lot of money. Instead, they make Milk, the story of San Francisco supervisor Harvey Milk, the country's first openly homosexual elected official, starring Sean Penn and due for release in December. But, as Michael Medved has shown, the ideological left in America is moved less by the profit motive than by their moral priorities. Yes, aggressive moral agendas are not solely the province of the Christian political right.

The God-like Powers of Science

"MPs back creation of human-animal embryos" is the headline of today's UK TimesOnline
(http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3964693.ece). By an overwhelming margin, Britain's Parliament voted to rescind restrictions on this sort of Frankenstein experimentation, the benefits of which even its most ardent supporters admit is highly speculative and years, if not decades, away. (See Joe Carter's piece on Prime Minister Gordon Brown's naive boosterism here--http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=13246). The moral hazards are brushed away as simply the troglodyte recalcitrance of conservatives mired in humanity's religion-obsessed childhood. Time to grow up, and stop arguing with Science!

As I read the Times Online piece, I recalled a movie--"The Dark Crystal"-- about a world where strong creatures drain the "life force" out of small, helpless creatures in order to sustain their own immortality. I thought it prescient at the time, and now decades later we find ourselves on the doorstep of such a moral enormity staining our actual world. The pressure forcing us toward some dark dystopian future seems inexorable, where, as in Bladerunner (partly about the moral complexities of the different but related problem of creating artificial life), the rich and powerful live in the luxury begotten of science, far removed from the crime, misery, and short lives of the rest.

I recommend "The Dark Crystal" as a meditation on science, morality, and the value of life, despite the generally Eastern, mystical, new age kind of milieu.

Outrageous Film You Must See: Fitna

Fitna is a film that the politically correct do not want you to see. See the 10 minute film here. Read the BBC story on it. The man behind the film, Geert Wilders, claims that Islam is uncivil and the problem stems from...Islam itself. Because he expresses this view, he requires an around the clock guard to protect him from being murdered by upset Muslims.

If you have any experience with children you know that when one hurts or upsets the other, and the offended child kicks up a raging tantrum in response, your primary concern as the supervising adult is to discipline the child who is out of control. "It doesn't matter what he did, you may not respond this way. The game is over. Go to your room." Civilization begins with civility and thus with a just and ordered way of dealing with incivility. Regardless of what one thinks of Salmon Rushdie's The Satanic Verses, Jyllands-Posten's Mohammed cartoons or Geert Wilders' Fitna, people who respond to these expressions with murder and mayhem commit far greater, universally directed and unambiguous evil.

I would strongly disagree with a lot of Theo van Gogh's views and methods, but when someone takes it upon himself to silence the maker of Submission (2004) with bullets and with knives in his chest, we are all profoundly threatened because such people strike at the lawful order and civil decency on which most of the goods we enjoy depend.

"It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt." — John Philpot Curran: Speech upon the Right of Election of the Lord Mayor of Dublin (July 10, 1790).

Must See Outrageous Film: Expelled

If a free society in which all truth-claims, whether scientific, theological, moral or political, are open for discussion and testing, then you must see Expelled when it opens on Friday, April 18. In this film, Ben Stein explores the fear and hatred within the university establishment directed against highly accomplished scientists whose only offense is that they see evidence of an intelligent architect behind the beauty and order of the universe. Watch the trailer.

Be sure to see it this Friday on opening weekend. The box office response will embolden producers to back a string of films waiting in the wings that deal with moral, religious and philosophical themes that the liberal elite considers beyond the pale of reasonable discussion.

I saw the film at a advanced screening for the King's College community and some others in New York. I must say that my expectations were not high going into it. But it was not long before I was riveted. The connection the film draws between the evolutionary view of the world and the architects of the holocaust is intellectually compelling and deeply moving. If you recognize that the civility of Western civilization is founded upon and fortified by what are for many people assumptions about our shared human nature and about the nature of the world we inhabit, then after viewing this film you will see that the evolutionary view of the world is like battery acid to those foundations and supports.

The film introduces a Berlin Wall theme from the very start. When a regime's theoretical justification becomes widely and publicly questioned, it's leadership begins to panic and becomes repressive. The premise of Expelled is that we are seeing this in academia, the network of colleges and universities that are training tomorrow's leaders. The evolutionary establishment gets in a big panic over the least suggestion that a teacher or scientist might entertain the notion of an intelligent designer behind the universe (which is not conceding much, by the way) because, like the speech stifling communists of the 1980s, their untenable theories are crumbling. Expelled hopes to give wider freedom for honest and able scientists to question those theories, come what may.

Dith Pran 1942-2008 on the Cambodian Holocaust

In November of 1986 at Boston College, I heard Dith Pran relate his experiences in “the killing fields” of Cambodia under the radical communist Khmer Rouge (as if communist weren’t radical enough). Many are familiar with him as the photojournalist in the 1984 Roland Joffe film, The Killing Fields. He died Sunday in New Jersey of pancreatic cancer at age 65. This is what he told us that day.

The population of Cambodia was 7 million in 1970 when Cambodia entered the Vietnam War. The Khmer Rouge took power in 1975, and by 1978 when the Vietnamese toppled them they had killed 2-3 million Cambodians, one third of the country’s population. They did this for the good of humanity.

Dith became convinced that something was monstrously wrong when the Khmer Rouge began emptying the hospitals. They also emptied the cities, abolished all institutions, even money.

To establish a truly communist society and build a new humanity, everyone whom they did not kill had to become a peasant. Put simply, the people must work the land. To reach this goal they killed off the educated class. Wearing eye glasses was sufficient indication of one's corruption by education. If you were a high official, you and your whole family were killed. Lower officials were also killed, but not their families. People would tell the Khmer Rouges what they used to do as an occupation in the hope of getting their jobs back, but they were put to death unless they were unskilled. Teachers would admit to being so because they could not imagine a country without education. These were not killed right away, but sometimes a few years later. To save his own life, Dith pretended to be an illiterate taxi driver.

Generally, people’s imagination for evil fell far short of the plans the Khmer Rouges executed. Dith said it was as though they were from another planet. But of course they were not. They share the same human nature that we do. What restrains us? What civilizes us? Whatever it is, are we preserving it, or eroding it? This question gets scant attention in our universities. (Obviously, it is a central concern at The King’s College in New York City where I teach.)

The Khmer Rouges came in both male and female form, he said. Both were brutal. People had to pull both plough and wagon. Eighty year olds had to work. Everyone who ate had to work. There was no mercy. They killed children in front of their parents. Husbands and wives were tortured in front of each other. They separated husbands, wives and children. They buried the dead in wells (the only source of water), B-52 craters and trenches.

People played stupid. “The Khmer Rouges has many eyes.” If you said, “I miss coffee” or “I miss noodle soup,” you had an imperialist, capitalist mind. When they gave you your meager food ration and asked you, “Is that enough?,” you were sure to say, “yes.”

Dith said that The Killing Fields is a very accurate account of his experiences although the film is mild compared to what actually happened because American audiences can't stomach anything stronger. I require my Introduction to Politics students to see The Killing Fields (or one of a number of other films of that sort) in order to make them dramatically aware of the stakes that are involved in political life, the dimensions of evil that can proceed from the human heart, and thus how important it is for them to understand tyranny and liberty, wise and unwise political institutions, the importance of political culture and citizen character, the dimensions of God’s amazing common grace, and where we are and in what direction we are moving on the spectrum between the Founding and the killing fields.

Of course, this is just a glimpse at the horror. Sydney Schanberg, the New York Times journalist whose life he saved, wrote The Death and Life of Dith Pran (1980). Dith himself wrote Children of Cambodia's Killing Fields: Memoirs By Survivors (Yale, 1999). Haing Ngor, a Cambodian doctor with no acting experience who played Dith in The Killing Fields, wrote Survival in the Killing Fields (2003). You may also read Dith Pran's obituary in The New York Sun.

Luther (2003) a Big Screen Service to Christ

Following up on my invitation for you to suggest the Principal Christian Films, I watched the 2003 Joseph Fiennes version of Luther. I'm no film critic, and I don't pretend to be, but these are my impressions.

Given the state of the Lutheran churches and given how hostile people are these days to the message of the cross, I was expecting either Barthianism or some vague message about a nondescript "God." Instead, I was moved almost to tears of joy (I could have let loose) when Luther introduced his congregation to the gospel that had been withheld from them all their lives. When Satan reminds you of your sins and accuses you, your response as a Christian is to admit those sins in all their wickedness, and respond in peace, "...but what is that to me?" Then (and this is the heart of the gospel!) you point to Christ in confidence and look to Christ in hope saying, "He died for me, and in dying he bore the wrath and curse that I deserved for my sins." I forget what exactly he said in pointing to Christ, but it was definitely Christ to whom he pointed and specifically to his work of substitutionary atonement.

The whole film said, Look to Jesus! Look to Jesus! True to Luther's life and ministry, the film sets in sharp contrast the futility of rituals and religious labors for finding peace with God, and the serenity of seeking that peace simply by faith in Christ, freely offered in the gospel. Luther shows us the tyranny and avarice of the medieval Roman church, and by contrast the freedom which the Christ-centered gospel brings.

In the WORLD magazine review, David Coffin wrote:

What's most remarkable about Luther, though, is the weight of its theological content and the strength of its message—the "Christ stuff" is fully intact. Mr. Clauss told WORLD that despite the need to compromise during production, he would not allow three scenes to be cut: two in which Luther addresses his congregation in Wittenberg and one in which he agonizes in his monk's cell, crying out in despair for a merciful God. These scenes are some of the most powerful in the film. Christ is central in all three, not only as the agent of that mercy, but also as the sacrificial recipient of God's wrath, justly directed at man's sin.

The film was bankrolled largely by Thrivent Financial for Lutherans, a Wisconsin based benevolent and financial services organization.

This film is definitely on the forthcoming list of Principal Christian films.

Principal Christian Films

I have said just about all that I have to say about the various candidates and, quite frankly, I'm tired of the horse-race commentary. I'm also at wit's end as to who the GOP should nominate--although, all things considered and on balance, I still incline toward McCain, taking into consideration character, policies and electability. At this point, I am happy just see who the collective wisdom of the Republican electorate will choose.

So I would like to return to the subject of film and ask for your input. What are the best "Christian" films? That is a more difficult question than "what are the best New York or political films?" New York is featured in a film or it is not. A film has an explicitly political theme or it does not. But what makes a film Christian?

There are films that have featured stories from the Bible. Gibson's The Passion of Christ is an recent one. The Greatest Story Ever Told was an earlier presentation of the gospel story. Campus Crusade for Christ's Jesus Film has had worldwide impact.

Some films that have featured Jesus Christ were blasphemous and thus not Christian at all. The Last Temptation of Christ and Jesus Christ Superstar fall into this category. I think that Godspell is unintentionally blasphemous. In that film, Christ is unwisely depicted as some sort of clown, and so I would exclude it.

But I would also exclude the first three respectful treatments of the life of Christ because, standing in the historic Protestant and Reformed theological tradition as I do, I believe that any depiction of Jesus is distorting, misleading, idolatrous and thus blasphemous. (Westminster Larger Catechism Question 109: What are the sins forbidden in the second commandment?) Cecil B. DeMille's The Ten Commandments is a film classic, but insofar as it introduces extrabiblical elements such as the love story, can it count as a great Christian film? The animated Prince of Egypt misrepresents Moses as being more concerned for his Egyptian adoptive brother than for the holiness of God and of his people, as I recall. Bible movies are problematic.

Don't bother mentioning Left Behind (bad film; bad eschatology) or It's a Wonderful Life (bad angelology).

I'm thinking along these lines:

Les Miserables (1935; Fredric March, Charles Laughton). The bishop's forgiveness scene is marvelous.

Sergeant York (1941; Gary Cooper)

Shadowlands (1994; Anthony Hopkins)

Luther (2003; Joseph Fiennes), although I have to view the 1973 Stacy Keach version, and review the 1953 Niall MacGinnis version.

The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (2005; Andrew Adamson dir.)

Amazing Grace (2006; Ioan Gruffudd, Albert Finney)

What about Gods and Generals (2003)?


What do you think? Can anyone help me here? Was there nothing appropriately Christian put into film between 1941 and 1994?

Principal New York Films

I have finally got around to assembling my list of the greatest films that feature New York City. This completes the project that began with "New York City Film Classics" and "Again, the Big Apple on the Big Screen." If you think I am missing a very important title, please let me know. I will either quickly correct the mistake before my shame on the point extends further across the globe (I don't say planet; it's so Gore lefty secular Saturday morning cartoons), or I will make a point of watching it before too long.


If you consult the lists in either the left or the right hand column, you will see these Principal New York Films:

King Kong (Fay Wray, 1933)
Citizen Kane (dir. Orson Welles, 1941)
Miracle on 34th Street (dir. George Seaton, 1947)
An Affair to Remember (Cary Grant, 1957)
On The Waterfront (Marlon Brando; dir. Elia Kazan, 1957)
West Side Story (Natalie Wood, 1961)
Godfather (dir. Francis Ford Coppola, 1972)
Mean Streets (Robert De Niro, dir. Martin Scorsese, 1973)
Serpico (Al Pacino, dir. Sidney Lumet, 1973)
Death Wish (Charles Bronson, 1974)
Dog Day Afternoon (Al Pacino, dir. Sidney Lumet, 1975)
Annie Hall (Woody Allen, 1977)
Taxi Driver (Robert De Niro, dir. Martin Scorsese, 1976)
Manhattan (dir. Woody Allen, 1979)
Crocodile Dundee (Paul Hogan, 1986)
Metropolitan (dir. Whit Stillman, 1990)
Newsies (Christian Bale, 1992)
A Bronx Tale (dir. Robert DeNiro, 1993)
Men In Black (Tommy Lee Jones, Will Smith, 1997)
Gangs of New York (dir. Martin Scorsese, 2002)

A friend in Toronto added this to one of my original posts:

For your consideration, three new films using NYC as a backdrop/nemesis/protagonist. Naked City (1948) was one of the first on-location movies to be filmed in New York. A good little film noir. Sweet Smell of Success (1957), starring Burt Lancaster and Tony Curtis, portrays New York in a very dark way (literally and figuratively). Curtis plays against type beautifully. On the Waterfront (1954) - well, what can you say about this classic? Shame, David, for not including it in your first round!

Certainly now that New York City is a lovely town full of polite people, we can expect that any films that take the city as their theme will be strictly historical in nature, like Newsies ('92), Bronx Tale ('93) and Gangs ('02). The citizen's gain is the moviegoer's loss.

Hypocrisy and Just Plain Human

In addition to giving us good laugh, part of which I shared in my previous post, Mark Steyn, in "A Measure of Hypocrisy" (New York Sun, Sept. 4, 2007), also makes a serious point about the principled life. "A measure of hypocrisy is necessary to a functioning society." He does not quite identify why it is necessary, but I would agree that it is at least inevitable, being a function of our human, all too human, condition even under the best circumstances...indeed, I would say precisely under the best circumstances.

There are those on the left who would recognize no standards when it comes to this sort of personal behavior. "The left gives the impression that a Republican Senator caught in a whorehouse ought immediately to say, 'You're right. I should have supported earmarks for hookers in the 2005 appropriations bill.'" They forget (or suppress the fact for political expediency) that there is always a gap between principle and practice -- in a nation, in a political party, and in each one of us. "Your inability to live up to your own standards does not, in and of itself, nullify them." Anyone with with even marginally serious moral standards who isn't simply self-righteous can see this.

It is the nature of principles that they are never fully realizable because it is the nature of human beings, fallen as we are, to miss the mark which they establish, even by a soul crushing distance. But that does not necessarily either discredit our principles or identify us as hypocrites (and here I depart from Mr. Steyn). Samuel Huntington once described what he called the American IvI gap -- American ideals versus American institutions, or the distance that always exists, to some degree or another, between the principles we hold as a nation and our faithful practice of them. Huntington sums it up: "Critics say that America is a lie because its reality falls so far short of its ideals. They are wrong. America is not a lie; it is a disappointment. But it can be a disappointment only because it is also a hope."

Cynics like to seize upon these human failings to deny the validity of any such principles. Flags of our Fathers, a particularly cynical film, is an example of such debunking on a political level. It presents the Battle of Iwo Jima, the flag raising, the use of the memorable photo to promote war bonds, and various falsehoods and tragedies that underlay and surrounded the event. "There are no heroes" is the explicit moral of the story. Assuming the accuracy of everything the film reports, the film's conclusion does not necessarily follow. The world is not ideal. We know this. But that does not mean that there are not true ideals.

The particular circumstances of Senator Larry Craig's arrest in a Minneapolis airport restroom -- the tapping foot, the baggage against the door -- seem inconclusive on their own as evidence of guilt. But judging by his "sad and pathetic" post-arrest interview as well as other reported incidents, Craig certainly appears to be guilty, though I have learned to reserve judgment even in seemingly obvious cases. Life is complicated. Nonetheless, Steyn is likely correct in saying that "he should disappear from public life as swiftly as possible and embrace full time the anonymity he cherishes in his sexual encounters."

As to how sincerely Larry Craig has held his moral principles in the course of his double life, I cannot say. I don't know what's lurking in the dark subterranean passageways of his soul. But I do know that many of the principles that he advocated are true, regardless of his or anyone's inability to honor them. Is this record of failure evidence that the standards which these principles set are inhumanly high? No. The problem is not the principles, but the humanity. The solution is not in defining evil away by removing the principles. The solution is partly political and ultimately spiritual: a political system such as the Founders gave us that takes into account both the nobility and the frailty of those involved, and, on a personal level, a divine administration of grace, "the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world."