Previous piece of writing

The Dark Knight, IMDB, populism, and egalitarianism on the web

I don't think there was any doubt in anyone's mind--at least not in mine-- that 'The Dark Knight' was going to break box office records. How could it not? It had one of the most extensive viral campaigns for any movie. It reached a point where you couldn't turn anywhere without seeing something for this movie. Add to the mix the death of Heath Ledger; there was most definitely going to be a certain aura surrounding the film, which would eventually lead to huge profits for the studio. Even I bought into the hype.I saw the film on Friday night, and it would be a lie to say that I was not caught up in the excitement. I, along with hundreds of people, were in a line that had extended to outside the theater. Needless to say, every seat in the room was filled. I should mention that I liked the movie. I can’t decide whether I loved it or whether I just though it was pretty good, but I know that I liked it enough that I am willing to go see it a second time. The acting was outstanding—particularly Heath Ledger playing a very demented Joker—and the direction was impressive. The writing did everyone a favor by wanting to recreate the dark Batman of the 1980s.With that said, The Dark Knight is NOT the best film ever made, and to say so is both ludicrous and appalling. IMDB users, however, overwhelmingly disagree with me. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0468569/ratingsAs of right now, 69,135 people who voted gave the movie an average of 9.6 out of 10, with 54,224 people giving it a 10. That’s roughly 78.4% of total voters that think that The Dark Knight was flawless (or as close to perfection as you can get), that it far surpasses anything ever made both in storytelling and narrative, technical filmmaking, editing, acting, etc. The people have spoken!Obviously I’m being very tongue in cheek, but I think what’s at hand here is the negative effects of the internet, and its egalitarian nature. Anyone with an internet connection can give their two cents and their opinion, unfortunately, counts just as much as the discriminating expert.A couple of months ago I read a very interesting book titled ‘The Cult of the Amateur: How Today's Internet is Killing Our Culture written by Andrew Keen. In his book, he writes that the internet "worships the creative amateur: the self-taught filmmaker, the dorm-room musician, the unpublished writer. It suggests that everyone — even the most poorly educated and inarticulate amongst us — can and should use digital media to express and realize themselves. Web 2.0 'empowers' our creativity, it 'democratizes' media, it 'levels the playing field' between experts and amateurs. The enemy of Web 2.0 is 'elitist' traditional media." At the risk of coming off as an elitist, I think Mr. Keen touches upon a very interesting point. I don’t agree with him entirely, as I do feel that the internet is a great opportunity for people who actually have something of value to contribute to society .However, I think that as a society we mustn’t water down culture and its production. Culture is essential for a society and a civilization to exist and survive, and thus a certain set of standards must be set in place and maintained. After all, just because I have access to a medical book doesn’t mean that I am qualified to give out any medical advice.