An open thread dedicated to discussing books, movies, and tv shows we love. And occasionally some politics.

So I went to see the Lego Batman Movie. I wanted something fun, and my relationship with Hollywood is a bit dicey lately; it's usually best to stick to long-established stories like James Bond, Marvel Comics, or, well, Batman movies. I've never seen any of the Lego movies because honestly, I didn't see the point (I do now. More on that later), but when I'm at a loss, I always steer toward the comic books. Mostly because they're not usually victims of the Great Warding Off (tm) (more on that later, too.)

This movie had me cracking up with its first line. The line is delivered against a black screen:

"Every important movie begins with a black screen."

SNORT. Silliness, self-mockery and meta right up front. That's got me hooked, but then I'm a Gen-Xer, and that stuff is our bread and butter.

But Lego Batman doesn't stay silly. Well, it does, but it's silliness with a meaningful center, like a cinematic Tootsie-roll pop. Batman, in this movie, is a grim loner with difficulty relating socially because of Bruce Wayne's early trauma of watching his parents get murdered. That's what Batman is like in every movie, but in this case, Batman is seriously criticized for it. His desire to be a solitary vigilante is contrasted with a team spirit/togetherness/work through the law (kinda, sorta) point of view represented by "Bo-Go," Barbara Gordon, the famous Commissioner's daughter, who, at the beginning of the movie, takes over her father's job. Her point of view is shared by Alfred, Bruce Wayne's butler and father-figure, who after reading How to Deal With Your Out-of-Control Child for half the movie, does this :

[SNORT. Putting a parental lock on Batman. Like I said, this movie hooked me early.]

It's always interesting to me when movies talk about politics without talking about it. Like, for instance, when Hollywood talks about a perceived divide between the Republicans and the Democrats, the right and the left, by making a Lego Batman movie. How do I know that Bruce Wayne/Batman symbolizes the right wing, and BoGo and her lawful "team spirit" the Democrats? Guess what Barbara Gordon calls her new approach to policing?

"It Takes a Village."

Now, in a movie this snarky, I don't have to take things literally. But in a movie this snarky, I don't have to assume things are accidental, either. A spunky woman unexpectedly takes power in an ordinarily masculine role and immediately starts talking about togetherness and law enforcement? I think I know who that is. (On the other hand, Barbara Gordon is voiced by Rosario Dawson, hardly a Hillary supporter, but well-known as a leftie, so perhaps BoGo is a catch-all image of people on the left).

What's interesting about this identification of Barbara Gordon, her lawfulness and emphasis on teamwork, with the Democrats, and, let's just say it, Hillary Clinton, is that it reveals an incredibly outdated and stereotyped notion of left and right. The idea that Republicans are rugged individualist strongmen who only work alone, while Democrats are friendly people who want to work together and abide (mostly) by the rules, hasn't been true since...well, actually it's never been true. I mean, really. The Republicans work alone? For fuck's sakes, they can't even work without Saudi Arabia and Israel! Even if you're talking about the way the right has organized domestically, and at the rank-and-file level, Republicans absolutely run in groups. In fact, up until about 2010, the Republicans were the ones that never ever criticized another Republican in public. Ever. Evereverever. If things got really bad, as in Iraq, there were whispers of criticism. Open secrets. But look, folks, the right-wing is not Grizzly Adams to our Minnie Pearl. They are not Luke Skywalker to our Enterprise bridge crew.

But what I care about more is the stereotyped notion of Democrats. The idea that the Dems, or the left, or Hillary, are about working together rather than being alone, relying on relationships rather than one's own brute aggression, being somehow more legal and civilized, is out of date and out-to-lunch. It's hard to pinpoint the date when it became untrue. I felt it was true in 2004, when Kerry was running against Bush, even though there was already a profoundly ugly dynamic within the Democrats, like an unacknowledged abusive relationship, between the leaders and the rank-and-file, the rightist Democrats and the liberals. But in comparison with the Republicans in 2004, we were actually advancing the cause of civilization against, for instance, the cause of war, the rule of law against the brute exercise of power. We were lifting up teamwork and interdependence against bullies.

What are we doing now?

Look, maybe the Left might still have some connection to those ideas. It's hard to say, since the Left is coming apart. But the Democrats certainly don't, and Hillary Clinton?!? It takes a village, seriously? In what universe can any thinking being say those words seriously now? And yet, late in her campaign, the Secretary released a "Love Trumps Hate" sign. I'm guessing she thinks she's "Love."

What's frightening is how current these outdated ideas are. By that I mean, the ideas haven't been true for a long time (if ever)--yet very large numbers of people currently believe in them. One example of the right=dangerous violent loner/left=civilized team spirit girl: how many people assume that Hillary Clinton would be less likely to get us into a nuclear war than Trump would. They assume she must be less dangerous. I'm not sure if it's because Trump is male, Republican, or says shitty things freely on TV (I guess if someone is constantly and openly bigoted and crappy that means he'd be more likely to launch missiles than someone who's only strategically bigoted and crappy behind closed doors? How does that work? "Well, Trump's a mean guy, so clearly he'd push the button.")

But I don't want to give you the idea that I don't like Lego Batman. I actually encourage all of you to see it, for two reasons.

First the Lego movies have done something groundbreaking. They have replicated, in cinema form, the childhood experience of making up a story and playing it out with your dolls (action figures, Transfomers, little guys you build out of Legos, etc.)

Second, they deal with the extremely adult issue of apocalypse. And while I don't agree with their assumptions about right and left, I agree absolutely with their message about apocalypse.

Did I mention that Joker was also in the movie?

LEGO Joker is very different than the Joker people remember from the comics, the movies, and the animated TV show. He sounds more like a hurt and neglected girlfriend or best buddy than anything else. He's as upset that Batman insists on being a self-centered loner

as everyone else is:

Joker is upset because Batman won't acknowledge his importance to Batman's work ("You've never even said you hate me. Not once," he says tearfully.) This movie includes the enemy
, not just rivals and friends, in the circle of connection. Even the criminal, the bad guy, needs to be acknowledged as part of that web--otherwise the LEGO city will, quite literally,fall apart and into an endless abyss below.

This message, combined with the idea that we're riding along in a child's imagination while he's playing with his toys, makes LEGO Batman one of the best feel-good movies I've seen in a long time. And despite the outdated notions of right and left, the idea that The Most Important Thing is To Not Fall In the Abyss (are you listening, MIC?) makes this movie one of the best things I've seen in a while.

After all, even the Joker needs a city on which to wreak havoc.