Batman carries on beginning in ... The Dark Knight

the thing is some of you guys are reading this ass-backwards - it's like, here we have a superhero, but he's doing all this stuff we ethically object to - might as well comment on it instead of tossing it under the rug. its excusing the characters actions, not the motherfucking bush administrations. this is such a preposterous argument yr making contenderizer

i don't think it's preposterous to think there's a parallel, but it is kind of silly to think this movie is seriously making an argument in favor of bush, even as an allegory.

Thanks for pointing that out, Ned -- hadn't read it. Much more finely nuanced and better supported than my argument, but yeah, I'm basically saying the same thing. Ackerman's point about the essentially Phyrric nature of Batman's tactics and eventual victory is especially interesting. The film doesn't quite condone what Batman does or must become in order to fight the Joker/terrorism -- in fact, like Lucius and Alfred, it expresses strong reservations -- but it does accept the necessity. And I suspect that's very much the way Cheney would privately characterize Bush admin. policies. Not so much that they always, unambiguously did "the right thing", but that they did what had to be done -- knowing full well that it wouldn't sit right with a lot of people who didn't have to make the hard choices.

From the Ackerman piece, regarding Batman's tragic, hunted withdrawal to the darkness at the film's conclusion:

In so doing, Nolan's version of Batman is motivated by moral philosopher Michael Walzer's "dirty hands" argument. Walzer grappled with the problems on display in "The Dark Knight" and proposed, in an influential 1973 essay, that the key to engaging in morally dubious activities, like torture, during times of emergency is to acknowledge their heinousness and, once the emergency passes, accept legal sanction for the burden of saving the world.

there ARE parallels, definitely, & obviously intentional ones (the surveillance thing was whacking you over the head) - whereas before bush you mightve had batman doing that same shit & itd just be like WHOA BADASS now you have morgan freeman standing in their as yr conscience saying dude thats fucked up then blowing it up at the end xp

YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TROOTH!

The film doesn't quite condone what Batman does or must become in order to fight the Joker/terrorism -- in fact, like Lucius and Alfred, it expresses strong reservations -- but it does accept the necessity. And I suspect that's very much the way Cheney would privately characterize Bush admin. policies.

the difference is that one is a somewhat thoughtful take on a comic book movie & one has killed hundreds of thousands of people

What this actually makes me think more obliquely of is the nature of 'Gotham' as a location/society -- with Nolan making the Batman universe more realistic, Gotham shifts from being a generalized representation of 'the city' to something much more concrete, a location in the here and now just like, say, Hong Kong. And where there's an interesting bit of cognitive dissonance lies in what in the movie (and arguably the previous one but even more so here) appears to be Gotham's isolation from American society -- the most we get is the National Guard, and that only towards the end (whereas in the real world we'd now expect the FBI to have been crawling all over this, statements from the President, etc., at least as everything ratchets up further). It's an interesting dilemma that's ultimately insoluble in terms of strict dramatic representation, but it doesn't cripple the film.

No one thinks bush is as virtuous as Batman. The moral ambiguity only applies to someone with intentions as good as Batman! So I don't think the film needs to be held to the idea that it thinks bush is virtuous, when no argument or allusion as such is made in the movie. In fact I'd say the film is extremely critical of authority figures, and it suggests that vigilantes are hypocrites. Batman holds others to a higher standard than himself. He is not a victim at the end of the movie. Hence my mention of the grand inquisitor upthread.

the difference is that one is a somewhat thoughtful take on a comic book movie & one has killed hundreds of thousands of people

-- deeznuts

It's an interesting dilemma that's ultimately insoluble in terms of strict dramatic representation, but it doesn't cripple the film.

-- Ned Ragget

contenderizer, how should the movie have handled the political tangles it was gonna get itself into? ignore them? ultimately be an anti-batman movie? because of a bunch of cocksuckers in the white house? i dont think so.

xp i dont think it has a negative view of the bush admin

just because the movie takes the time & energy to provoke a little thought & comment on some of the questionable actions of its superhero, the fact that it ultimately comes down on his side does not mean its supportive of the bush administration, it means its a goddamn batman movie

The "goodness" of authority is seen as an illusion that the people somehow deserve to have foisted on to them! Dent's goodness is corrupted. Gordon is good but he does go along with Batman (interesting to note he he decieves his own wife though...worth thinking about)

I don't think the film has to take a side in these ethical dilemmas, by the way! That's the advantage of being a movie.

I do think Nolan is very philosophically inclined. All his movies tend to end in aporias, as well as being pretty pessimistic.

if a movie comes out, in 2008, with an unmissably pro- attitude to torture, wiretapping, extra-legal violence by authority, all in the name of security, bush is in that movie.

I didn't see that movie you speak of goole!

'unmissably' maybe, but definitely not 'unambiguously'

xp

i didnt either

what i really meant to say was 'stfu deeznuts'

you really dont get the idea of making a genre movie & examining that genre w/out subverting it do you

if it helps ,i have repeatedly said that bush is very much in the movie

Plus all this goes back to western mythology as stated above. See the end of the searchers, for instance. The anti-hero creates the possibility for the home on the range but he must be excluded from it. These ideas certainly predate bush.

I'm not sure why the film has to be an explicit condemnation or vindication of the bush administration. I prefer the idea that tdk reflects ideas in society at large as moral conundrums to be examined and worked through. again I'll ask the question, does anyone walk out of the theater feeling upbeat about a superhero triumphing over evil? or are they left with conflicted feelings about heroism after a brutalizing confrontation with evil? and how does this not reflect the current national mood?

don't think the film has to take a side in these ethical dilemmas, by the way! That's the advantage of being a movie.

-- ryan

Now, there's nothing wrong with any of this. Nolan's free to make whatever kind of film he wants. But given my own beliefs, I was a bit troubled by The Dark Knight -- especially in light of its MASSIVE popularity and the broad public reluctance to admit its obvious political subtext. I don't think, as deez suggests, Nolan should have made an "anti-Batman" movie, but he could have very easily made a different kind of Batman movie.

For what it's worth, while I was restless/bored during most of the last hour, and while I came out of the theater with very mixed feelings, a lot of it was cool as hell and I'm looking forward to seeing it again.

These ideas certainly predate bush.

-ryan

Goole OTM.

That's well said contenderizer, but I can't agree about the film's intentions. And also Edward III otm.

the people of gotham and what they believe about gotham are the hidden part of all this. wayne set out not to be a vigilante but to 'become a symbol.' a symbol that simultaneously meant fear to criminals but hope and, what, retribution? to a fearful populace. this doesn't really work, so he needs dent to be the one to make people believe. i think that's really interesting and it kind of gets lost -- underlying the whole force/legitemacy theme is the idea that ordinary people's beliefs in their own safety are the key element to that safety. it's got a very broken-windows mentality, i don't know what i think about that. step one in saving a city: get the people to stop being afraid. step one in stopping the fear: save the city. every character seems to be on the edge of figuring out that they're stuck on a loop, but there's always another bomb going off.

there are other movies about the morality of vigiliantism but none have so many characters calling out 'what will the people think now?'

xps no i'm not otm, really, bush being 'in' the movie isn't an endorsement one way or another. of COURSE a high-tech vigilante movie from this year has a wiretapping reference, and of COURSE someone objects

"while I came out of the theater with very mixed feelings, a lot of it was cool as hell and I'm looking forward to seeing it again."

"there are other movies about the morality of vigiliantism but none have so many characters calling out 'what will the people think now?'"

"does anyone walk out of the theater feeling upbeat about a superhero triumphing over evil? or are they left with conflicted feelings about heroism after a brutalizing confrontation with evil? and how does this not reflect the current national mood?"

why are we arguing again? (that was really beautifully said btw edward)

xpost

Fair enough, goole, and the wiretapping reference really was the thing that pushed it over the edge for me. But there's more to it than just that.

I, too, was intrigued/mystified by the movie's focus on "the people" as this not-so-mysterious herd being manipulated by symbolic contrivances. The Batman has always been concerned with what he represents, both to criminals and (to a lesser extent) to the public at large, but this film pushed that angle almost to the breaking point. It was very hard for me to accept the public need for Dent the way Batman and Gordon did. Especially since, in the end, the mob has been crippled by both Batman and the Joker.

I'm about to see this in IMAX in about 40 minutes. So I'm sure ill change my mind about all of this!

It's also worth noting that Nolan probably has at least the idea of a sequel in mind, so who knows where this is going as far as intention goes.

"Fair enough, goole, and the wiretapping reference really was the thing that pushed it over the edge for me. But there's more to it than just that."

the wirtetapping basically reference goes:

batman: hey look i can spy on the whole fuckin city!
lucius: fucked up. dont do that, asshole. youre not good enough.
batman: i know im not! but YOU are.
lucius: ok whatever fine.

[batman apprehends joker using this system]
[freeman blows it the fuck up]

in other words, the film has extraordinarily mixed feelings about its own superhero using this power - in fact, its superhero doesnt even trust himself with it. and in the end, its destroyed by the one man he does trust.

how can this really be read as 'pro-wiretapping', esp when its done by a faceless monolithic entity like the NSA? if anything id read it as very much anti-wiretapping (keep in mind this wasnt just wiretapping but that batman/freeman could actually SEE YOU AT ALL TIMES - spooky shit!)

Free-man!

like i said, the debate w/in the movie is more like an excuse for this hero using this technology at this particular time, while taking the time to point out that like, in the real world, this shit doesnt fly. somewhat ambiguously, yes, but who wants a superhero movie with a an actual political agenda?? xp lol

who wants a superhero movie with a an actual political agenda??

Warner Bros sure hopes you do come March.

The film's argument is basically this: Domestic wiretapping ("spying on six-million people", in Lucius' words) is a terrible thing. But, as evil as it seems, it may be an absolute necessity. Given the circumstances, aren't we lucky that only the best-of-the-best good guys are doing it?

the movie is more like an excuse for this hero using this technology at this particular time, while taking the time to point out that like, in the real world, this shit doesnt fly.

It was very hard for me to accept the public need for Dent the way Batman and Gordon did. Especially since, in the end, the mob has been crippled by both Batman and the Joker.

exactly! they need someone on their side who can actually appear in public, has a real name and face, that they can vote for, etc. it seemed reasonable to me.

going to see this tomorrow night (finally!) - STAY TUNED

it may be an absolute

ha i hope you havent been reading this thread, ive been ignoring avoiding spoiler type shit for awhile

thanks... in a way this discussion has come back around to what the pinefox and I were debating upstream. mainly about how bringing your moral viewpoint to the movies can blind you to what a movie's really trying to convey.

whether you're pro or anti-bush, if you watch tdk with an eye towards how the movie is supporting or violating your political beliefs, you're not going to get the full impact. this discussion gets a lot more interesting when we admit that there isn't a simple answer to the question of whose side this movie is on.

also, imagine christopher nolan walking into a room full of hollywood bigwigs and pitching his $180M-before-marketing-costs blockbuster as "the batman is dubya".

"...may be an absolute necessity..." Sounds goofy, but what I meant is that even if the necessity IS absolute, we're denied total certainty. I'm a relativist trying to talk about absolutes, so of course things get a little muddy.

they need someone on their side who can actually appear in public, has a real name and face, that they can vote for, etc. it seemed reasonable to me.

-- Jordan

"The film's argument is basically this: Domestic wiretapping ("spying on six-million people", in Lucius' words) is a terrible thing. But, as evil as it seems, it may be an absolute necessity. Given the circumstances, aren't we lucky that only the best-of-the-best good guys are doing it?"

the best of the best good guys? as in SUPERHEROES? yes, we are very lucky to have superheroes like batman/dick cheney walking amongst us.

really? I imagine that although dent went down in flames (hur hur) the promise that someone could relieve batman + gordon from living the life they were leading (the dark vigilante and his covert enabler) was still an ideal worth pursuing for them (and us).

xpost to contenderizer

it's still probably better to have dent as a martyr than as another symbol that the joker won (by turning good citizens into murderers and criminals), but i see what you mean.

xp

whether you're pro or anti-bush, if you watch tdk with an eye towards how the movie is supporting or violating your political beliefs, you're not going to get the full impact. this discussion gets a lot more interesting when we admit that there isn't a simple answer to the question of whose side this movie is on.

also, imagine christopher nolan walking into a room full of hollywood bigwigs and pitching his $180M-before-marketing-costs blockbuster as "the batman is dubya".

-- Edward III

For what it's worth, I didn't watch with "an eye towards how the movie is supporting or violating" my political beliefs. I just watched it, and I felt that The Dark Knight went out of its way to articulate a political point of view. The film's politics did rub me the wrong way, but I don't think they're something that I simply conjured up without any outside help. I mean, no one seems to be seriously arguing that this is an anti-dubya film.

(And no, I don't imagine Nolan pitched it as "Batman=Dubya". But then, I doubt he had to pitch it at all.)

it seems more like an admittance that there are politics to comic book heroes, & that nolan went a bit out of his way to engage with them to make the movie seem more close to the bone to his audience - you really seem stubborn about the idea that the movie justifying (more or less) its heroes actions is in any way equivalent with justifying bush's. it's playing off the national consciousness, & obviously doing it pretty well: it's not justifying wars or wiretapping or anything else, really, except its own main character.

this is probably the part where i stress again that that main character is a man who dresses up like a bat

And Aslan is just a really big lion.

i think the point is, the movie says that lawbreaking by the powerful is sometimes ok because the people doing it are fundamentally good, use wisdom, and the results are heroic, even if people are concerned about the details. it more or less has to say this, because it's an action movie about a superhero -- it's not just genre but drama itself that militates against obvious policy positions even as it demands "engagement with" hot-button topics of the day.

i think david addington believes that kind of thing about himself, the trouble is, he's not a man who dresses up like a bat, as far as we've been able to find out.

you never know

I think it says it is never ok, and those that do so are necessarily excluded from a lawful society because they undermine it. Batman's methods are not sustainable because he does not hold himself to any law.the aporia is common:law as such is ultimately sustained and protected by something outside the law.

Or, more pessimistically, that law and justice are illusions we subscribe to without recognizing their contingency.