Christian Bale: Not just a hero on the screen


RipplecutBuddha
 Share

Recommended Posts

Except that he makes extremely violent films that encourage violence. Several friends of Heath Ledger state that his attitude changed drastically after his Joker experience, leading to his suicide. Now we have another Joker coming forth, influenced by a society of violence. Heroes are not the ones that come after the bloodshed and pat injured people on the back and sign autographs. Heroes are the ones that seek to end the violence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was the right move for Mr. Bale, however, I would expect the leading cast members to reach out. I couldn't imagine Bale remaining in silence after such a horrific event. It seems only right, or at least, what one should offer to do in such circumstances. I don't see his actions as being heroic but indeed, a kind gesture to appear and show condolence for the victims and their families. In addition, the real heroes seem to be the ones behind the scenes rather than in front of the cameras but not always, of course. The men and women that go in and clean up such havoc messes, and the medical teams that work long hours to save and rehabilitate people from unthinkable traumas - they're heroes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Christian Bale wants to impress me, then he can donate all of his earnings from this Batman movie (and perhaps the other two) to the victims of this tragedy. Otherwise, it is just a photo op moment to try and save this Batman movie from losing money.

Christian Bale does not owe the families anything. This terrible event was not his doing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He was the main character in three violent films that influenced the murderer. If actors refused to act in extremely violent films we would have fewer of them. Instead, they seek to make millions by continually "pushing the envelope" of what is good/evil. They took the Batman of the 1960s and turned him into a very dark and evil character. So, now there is little difference between good guys and bad guys?

If someone isn't part of the solution, then that person is part of the problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Christian Bale wants to impress me, then he can donate all of his earnings from this Batman movie (and perhaps the other two) to the victims of this tragedy. Otherwise, it is just a photo op moment to try and save this Batman movie from losing money.

This is a little bit similar to my first impression. However, it appears that Mr. Bale called ahead to the hospital to ask permission and to ask that no media be informed. One of the people he called on Facebooked a picture, which is how word got out. So I won't fault Mr. Bale for trying to do something to alleviate the suffering of the survivors. Even if some may think it was clumsy, I believe it was sincere and a nice gesture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps it is a sincere gesture. But sincere gestures do not fix major problems in society. If he's serious about it, then he needs to make some big changes. No more acting in violent films, and encouraging others to not support such films. Donating part of his millions to organizations that support victims of violence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He was the main character in three violent films that influenced the murderer. If actors refused to act in extremely violent films we would have fewer of them. Instead, they seek to make millions by continually "pushing the envelope" of what is good/evil. They took the Batman of the 1960s and turned him into a very dark and evil character. So, now there is little difference between good guys and bad guys?

If someone isn't part of the solution, then that person is part of the problem.

There are influences of all sorts in our world. But WE, as individuals, are responsible for our own actions. Christian Bale is not responsible for what happened in that cinema. The shooter who injured and murdered those people, is. To make a bold statement, as you did, that Mr. Bale should be expected to give up his earnings etc to the victims and their families is beyond extreme. We don't know how genuine or sincere his appearance was but from what I read, those involved did feel that his visit was genuine and sincere. He didn't have to do anything at all but he did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it appears that Mr. Bale called ahead to the hospital to ask permission and to ask that no media be informed.

According to this article, "[interim president of Medical Center of Aurora] Voloch revealed he was notified that Bale wanted to visit the injured, but was asked not to notify the media the actor was coming."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He was the main character in three violent films that influenced the murderer. If actors refused to act in extremely violent films we would have fewer of them. Instead, they seek to make millions by continually "pushing the envelope" of what is good/evil. They took the Batman of the 1960s and turned him into a very dark and evil character. So, now there is little difference between good guys and bad guys?

If someone isn't part of the solution, then that person is part of the problem.

Posted Image

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not blaming guns or spoons. I am blaming those who are creating a violent culture for strongly molding and influencing our culture of violence.

Just as tobacco manufacturers are responsible for how they advertise their products, I think Madison Avenue is partially responsible for our obesity problem, btw. They spend millions annually to indoctrinate us in buying and eating the biggest burger, the tasty fries, etc. That said, one usually does not find 70 people seriously injured or killed in an instant from sitting down at a McDonalds. The level of comparison is important here.

The Book of Mormon warns us concerning violence and breeding violence. I don't think we need to abrogate freedom of speech, but when someone says or does something, their action can and should be held responsible for any negative outcomes. If a series of extremely violent movies and video games lead to a massacre, then the makers of the movie should be partially responsible. They take the risk when they make the film or game, knowing they are influencing society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not blaming guns or spoons. I am blaming those who are creating a violent culture for strongly molding and influencing our culture of violence.

Just as tobacco manufacturers are responsible for how they advertise their products, I think Madison Avenue is partially responsible for our obesity problem, btw. They spend millions annually to indoctrinate us in buying and eating the biggest burger, the tasty fries, etc. That said, one usually does not find 70 people seriously injured or killed in an instant from sitting down at a McDonalds. The level of comparison is important here.

The Book of Mormon warns us concerning violence and breeding violence. I don't think we need to abrogate freedom of speech, but when someone says or does something, their action can and should be held responsible for any negative outcomes. If a series of extremely violent movies and video games lead to a massacre, then the makers of the movie should be partially responsible. They take the risk when they make the film or game, knowing they are influencing society.

Being the result of something, and being responsible for something, really are two different things but they are easily muddled. A man that was sexually abused by his father, and then goes out into the world and sexually assaults another, that is HIS doing and not his father.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not blaming guns or spoons. I am blaming those who are creating a violent culture for strongly molding and influencing our culture of violence.

Just as tobacco manufacturers are responsible for how they advertise their products, I think Madison Avenue is partially responsible for our obesity problem, btw. They spend millions annually to indoctrinate us in buying and eating the biggest burger, the tasty fries, etc. That said, one usually does not find 70 people seriously injured or killed in an instant from sitting down at a McDonalds. The level of comparison is important here.

The Book of Mormon warns us concerning violence and breeding violence. I don't think we need to abrogate freedom of speech, but when someone says or does something, their action can and should be held responsible for any negative outcomes. If a series of extremely violent movies and video games lead to a massacre, then the makers of the movie should be partially responsible. They take the risk when they make the film or game, knowing they are influencing society.

Okay, so now that we're into hair-splitting, do you honestly think Mr. Bale had anything to do with the screenplay, it's writing or interpretation?? He was merely the physical representation of a fantasy situation based on a comic book. Nothing that the killer did (except trying to look like the Joker) resembles any part of the Dark Knight series, and in that exception he followed Heath Ledger rather than Christian Bale. Yet somehow Mr Bale is still guilty by association??

The only connection I would allow in my logic is that Mr. Bale is part of the great hollywood machine that has no fear of using violence and death to attract the allmighty dollar. Keep in mind he and his wife (yep gals, Christian Bale is married) went to Denver on their own initiative, as quietly as possible. Even the film's studio went out of their way to state that his visit in no way represented the studio. That alone may or may not tell you where you could place your mistrust rather than continue to hold the sword of public injustice over the neck of a man who was compelled to do the right thing in the midst of an awful tragedy.

What about the camera crews that filmed the movie? Are they just as guilty? How about the director, or maybe the catering crew that was on location for the filming?

I know, let's try blaming this awful tragedy on the dipweed that actually had the weapons in his hands, and realize that if it weren't for the Batman movies, he'd have likely found another source of inspiration for his idiocy, and it may or may not have had anything to do with Hollywood. Madness has existed for a far longer time than Hollywood, and countless people have died throughout time at the hands of such maniacs.

Blame it on deep mental issues that nobody caught in time, and realize that when Judgement Day occurs, I highly doubt Christ will ask Christian Bale anything about it.

Edited by RipplecutBuddha
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr Bale chose to be in three violent films. Studies have long shown the impact violent films have on people. While he did not write the screen play or direct, he accepted millions of dollars to be its spokesperson. Up until the tragedy, he was hitting all the talk shows promoting the film. Guess what? He's responsible for his part in it.

As for the abused child that goes out and harms, the abusive father IS partially responsible. D&C teaches that parents are responsible for what they teach their children:

D&C 68:25-28

"And again, inasmuch as parents have children in Zion, or in any of her stakes which are organized, that teach them not to understand the doctrine of repentance, faith in Christ the Son of the living God, and of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of the hands, when eight years old, the sin be upon the heads of the parents..... And they shall also teach their children to pray, and to walk uprightly before the Lord."

D&C 98:16 teaches:

"Therefore, renounce war and proclaim peace, and seek diligently to turn the hearts of the children to their fathers, and the hearts of the fathers to the children;"

Joseph Smith and other leaders were often chastised by the Lord for not teaching their children. Yes, I also blame parents for accepting such violence into their homes and lives.

Sometimes I think we Christians have it all wrong when it comes to violence. We scream at sexy movies and music, etc., and we should. But then give full license for our kids (and ourselves) to enjoy as much violent as we can get in these things. Had the movie been about child rape, and the perpetrator had sexually harmed several kids, we would all be after the movie makers and actors. Yet, because this is about violence, we try and defend those who promote violence.

I'm here to promote peace and denounce violence. And I am denouncing those who are teaching our children violence. Yes, the BoM is violent. But it has a purpose, in showing how evil that violence and hatred is, and the importance of proclaiming the love and peace of Christ. It does not glorify violence. Batman has been made into a "dark knight" that seems to enjoy the violence too much. That is not a hero. And anyone who plays such a violent character is not a hero (as the OP suggests).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rame, I think you're barking at the wrong movie. I agree that there are movies that glorify violence. This is not one of them.

Batman is one of those classic superhero movies - geared towards the younger set so the violence is controlled. It is the same level as the Star Wars movies. Of course, you can't have a superhero movie without the fist-a-cuffs just like you can't have a football game without the running back getting violently smacked to the ground.

But, Batman - and I'm talking Dark Knight - does not glorify the violence just like having a super cool Darth Vader does not glorify violence. It glorifies that no matter how bad the bad guy gets, Batman always wins by walking the moral high ground. There's always a debate, of course, on whether Batman's decisions were morally sound - for example, in the movie with the Joker in it, Batman used surveillance technology (similar to the one talked about in the Patriot Act) to stop the Joker. But, Batman gave the responsibility to Lucius Fox, the only guy that he feels is qualified to have "the power". And he gave Fox the code to destroy the surveillance technology because Lucius refused to take the power. In the new movie, Wayne Enterprises came up with a machine that can power Gotham City with clean energy. When a nuclear scientist found a way to weaponize that technology, Bruce Wayne issued a press statement that the machine did not work, effectively hiding the technology from the public.

It's not a gory movie. No blood even. And interestingly, Batman with all his gadgets does not use guns and he repeatedly says that he chose not to in the movie. So, good guy - no guns, bad guy - has guns.

It is titled the Dark Knight because the series focuses more on Batman's inner struggle - the fight to overcome his darkest fears so he can rise above them to protect the city that he loves. It does not, in any way, shape, or form, have anything to indicate that Batman desires violence. All 3 movies touch deeply on Batman's inner struggles - something that the other Batman movies has not done - that in the 3rd movie, Batman has a lesser screen time than Bruce Wayne. Even his black mask has a purpose in the movie - In the first movie, Batman dons the suit saying (paraphrased) - "Batman needs to be a symbol of heroism, he should not be looked at as a person but as a symbol. Anybody can be Batman". And in the 3rd movie - Batman tells Robin - (paraphrased) - "if you want to fight on your own, don a mask - it is not there to protect you, it is there to protect those closest to you".

So, just because one idiot decided to use the Joker to kill people does not make Batman a bad movie. Because, you don't know how many people there are that the media doesn't cover who got inspired to overcome their darkest fears and do good for people. Islamic terrorists shouting the name of Allah before they blow things up does not mean that Allah encourages terrorism.

And that's why I put the picture of the spoon. A spoon is not good nor bad. The spoon becomes good or bad depending on the people who use it. A Batman movie does not make people commit mass murder. A movie is just that - a movie. The parents sending their kids to watch movies is responsible for how their children are shaped in society.

And I'm going to say this again - there is something to be said for how America is such a peaceful country that a Batman movie becomes such a big deal when it comes to violence. You may not see it as such but as somebody who grew up in the Philippines, I see it as an American luxury. You go to the Philippines - you won't need to watch Batman to see violence. We don't have the luxury to languish in constant peace. Interestingly, growing up in violence doesn't make Filipinos terrorists.

Edited by anatess
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, I'm going to re-state my case very carefully.

You seem intent to point out that the only reason this nutball did what he did was because of the Dark Knight series. You seem intent to state that it was the movies and the movies alone that was the trigger to his actions. You seem further intent to state that Christian Bale is somehow liable for the actions of a severely disturbed individual. You seem to disparage Christian Bale for a heartfelt expresson of shock and sorrow for what occured and a desire to lift the heavy hearts and heal deep spiritual wounds.

Please allow me to point out some items.

2 Nephi 2:26

26 And the Messiah cometh in the fulness of time, that he may redeem the children of men from the fall. And because that they are redeemed from the fall they have become free forever, knowing good from evil; to act for themselves and not to be acted upon, save it be by the punishment of the law at the great and last day, according to the commandments which God hath given.

D&C 29:39

39 And it must needs be that the devil should tempt the children of men, or they could not be agents unto themselves; for if they never should have bitter they could not know the sweet—

Now, I understand your position on violence in our culture, and largely I agree with you. However, you seem to be attempting to lay this atrocity at Christian Bale's feet when you and I both know that's not how accountability works. That's not how the Gospel works.

According to your rationale, I could go kidnap a busload of tourists on your birthday and run it off a cliff screaming the whole time "I'm Rameumpton!!!! I'm Rameumptom!!!!" And magically, you'd have to change your screen name and feel guilty and sorrowful the rest of your days for something utterly disconnected to you. We both know that's not right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anatess, look at the Joker. They made a very compelling and interesting bad guy that people liked! People talked more about Heath Ledger's character than Batman, and he earned several awards postmortem over it. They glorified the Joker's violence. All other actors involved were complicit in the level of violence, etc., in the movie. What did the murderer call himself when the cops arrested him? "I'm the Joker."

Another point, for the last few weeks an upcoming Sean Penn movie has had its trailer in the movies. In this one, a bunch of bad guys come through a movie theater screen and shoot up the audience. Hmmmmm. I wonder where the murderer got his idea to do something like that?

Edited by rameumptom
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anatess, look at the Joker. They made a very compelling and interesting bad guy that people liked! People talked more about Heath Ledger's character than Batman, and he earned several awards post-partum over it. They glorified the Joker's violence. All other actors involved were complicit in the level of violence, etc., in the movie. What did the murderer call himself when the cops arrested him? "I'm the Joker."

Another point, for the last few weeks an upcoming Sean Penn movie has had its trailer in the movies. In this one, a bunch of bad guys come through a movie theater screen and shoot up the audience. Hmmmmm. I wonder where the murderer got his idea to do something like that?

First, it's post mortem, not postpartum (the recovery period after giving birth).

Second, that trailer was filmed many months or even years before the recent events. And it has been announced that that scene is being cut from the film due to recent events.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, it's post mortem, not postpartum (the recovery period after giving birth).

Second, that trailer was filmed many months or even years before the recent events. And it has been announced that that scene is being cut from the film due to recent events.

That is considerate of the producers. Though, unfortunately, we rented a BluRay and it had that very trailer and scene. I can only imagine how upsetting seeing something like that would be for the families.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point is WHY does it need to be taken out of a film? Because it is wrong to have in the first place!

I will admit that over the years I have enjoyed violence in my films. But as I now look at life and the goings on throughout the world, I see unwarranted violence as a slap in God's face. When the world collapses into violent chaos as it did prior to the Flood, I think we will all mourn the day we were so cavalier about violence and refusing responsibility for it. In doing so, we lie to ourselves and God, and I fear that for many of us the repentance will come at an expensive price.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point is WHY does it need to be taken out of a film? Because it is wrong to have in the first place!

The particular scene you reference to is violent, however, that is not why it was removed.

When the world collapses into violent chaos as it did prior to the Flood, I think we will all mourn the day we were so cavalier about violence and refusing responsibility for it. In doing so, we lie to ourselves and God, and I fear that for many of us the repentance will come at an expensive price.

This tone comes off very high, and even a bit, pitchy.. Your concerns are valid but you misplace the blame. Are the construction workers that build these cinemas equally responsible because they have provided a venue for people to watch all mannerisms of movies?

Regardless, if Batman is categorised as violent or not - we are responsible for our own actions, period!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My opinion: the gunman is ultimately responsible for what he did and I am pretty sure that at judgement day he is not going to get much taken off because of a violent movie.

However, I believe that violent movies in general are a big problem in our society and certainly aren't helping.

This might be a tangent, but I remember hearing that people who work full-time in slaughter houses are more likely to have mental disturbances of the violent sort.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share