How not suprising. This guy knows nothing about the history of comics. When Frank Miller's controversial Dark Knight came out, in the wake of Alan Moore's The Watchman, the point was to show that "villians" and "heroes" can be difficult to tell apart. I do see that the movie glorifies Batman's vigilantism, perhaps more than it questions it, despite Morgan Freeman's disgust with Batman's methods. Perhaps the movie did not capture enough of the gray area which permeated the comic. Or maybe the movie was just what it was, and it's easy to see things the way one wishes to see them (like the recent New Yorker cover and the attendant outcry). Alan Moore did a much more direct job of condemnding vigilantism in The Watchman, but Alan Moore is Alan Moore, and Frank Miller has never been Alan Moore.The Dark Knight was around a LONG TIME before Bush, as were these moral questions.I have to admit, my jaw dropped while reading this piece.
Moore's The Watchman is in post-production as I write this. My wife's sister is supervising it. I look forward to seeing both films.
The thing that makes me laugh about the WSJ piece is that the right-wing, which has come to be defined by the Christianists, claim to be moral absolutists. The literal word of God, and all that. What has become all too clear is that they are only absolutely as relativistic about morality as they claim we progressives are. Their opposition to abortion is offset by their support for capital punishment (and torture). Their support for American "freedom" is offset by their support for Bush's warrantless eavesdropping programs and their disdain for the Constitution.