Batman Begins: The Thread

Remember that the League of Shadows is fully entrenched in the GCPD (or GPD, as they're seen in the film). Also, Ra's Al Ghul had already made intimations that he may indeed be immortal (as the character is in the comics), and you'll notice that he can be seen assuming some sort of mediation stance as the train goes down.

Yes, that little teaser of the Joker at the end certainly seemed like a serious plot point and not at all like a lame attempt to set up the sequel.
Are you shitting me? Gordon's bit about escalation quite pointed says, "You have fucked up the natural order, Batman."

and what about killing in the defense of helpless third parties? it's absolutely terrible that an innocent man was killed in london by the police, recently. but if he *had* been a suicide bomber, the police would have been 100% right.

xpost -- sorry, that's my last non-batman post

But Batman doesn't know this, does he? So as far as he's concerned, Ducard dies.

Yes, that is an exception too. But again, rarely is it needed to kill the potential murderer, if there are other ways to stop him. A suicide bombing is a case where that may be required though, obviously.

It is also the source of much soul searching recently in the comics when he kind of realises that the "he catches 'em, they escape from prison, they kill again" riff means he is partially responsible for future murder sprees.

(x-post)

xxpost

this is a funny point - considering that Ras al Ghul is immortal and can't be killed (as was hinted at in the movie). what does it mean when a "vigilante" "murders" an immortal? it's sorta inconsequential - just Batman being vicious.

(x-post)

Shakey, Batman doesn't know Ducard is immortal (nor does the movie explicitly state so - you can't use your comic knowledge to evaluate the film, they're two different worlds). This is pretty clear from his last line to Ducard ("I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you.").

xpost,
"Blah blah blah, become something more than a man, must become blah blah legend, blah blah mind your surroundings."

No, I think he only mentions that "we", The League of Shadows that is, have been around for millennia, but that is the same as saying "we communists have fought capitalism for 150 years". In only one scene, the one at Bruce Wayne's birthday party, does he imply that he himself could be immortal. And if Batman had believed him, why would he have made that last comment to him?

But Gotham is not a real city. You're missing the point that the portrayal of Gotham itself is done from a fascist point of view: the idea that the common people are decadent, violent and unruly and therefore society needs a strong man to take power and restore order.

A large part of me is also wondering exactly what Tuomas was expecting from this movie; it's not like it was marketed as feel-good popcorn flick and it was directed by Christopher Nolan, a man best known for the frothy, transparent films "Memento" and "Insomnia". If you have a hardline moral code that states "vigilantism is wrong and I cannot accept or enjoy entertainment that gives it any level moral acceptability", what is making you think you'll enjoy a movie where the protagonist is a comic-book vigilante?

In fairness Dan, he may have been expecting/hoping for something like Batman Returns.

TS: "the common people" vs "the people in power". That's a non-trivial distinction that the movie spells out with a gigantic point-making sledgehammer. You are making the exact same mistake and judgement that the League of Shadows made.

(Also, my reference to way upthread to "historical context" that seemed to baffle you was in response to your thought that people with comic book baggage are viewing this differently from people without it, a point which has at lest one datapoint in Alba that refutes it.)

And frothiest of all, "Following."

??? What does that mean? Are you agreeing with me?

As I've said, I've read several enjoyable Batman stories, and they weren't problematic because they either don't focus on vigilantism (Batman fights vampires), or they're so removed from reality that it doesn't really matter (Batman fights the Joker in a fun house). Batman Returns is a good example of a "dark" Batman film that's still a lot less problematic. I didn't expect Batman Begins to be light, but I didn't expect it to be so damn serious either.

(xxxx-post)

Yes, you're right. But that's also a central dynamic in fascism. Fascist leaders always create some corrupt enemy that's supposedly in a position of power. I don't think you need me to point out examples.

But if he was immortal, it wouldn't have mattered whether or not Bruce had rescued him the first time either. I'm sorry, but I'm just not buying your theory.

Did you actually watch this movie? I mean, with your eyes open? Because I can't see how you could have seen more than fifteen minutes near the beginning and fifteen minutes near the end and type something that far removed from what was actually happening in the story. I can't see how you could have not have noticed that the mobsters were running the town, had been running it for twentysome-odd years and they owned most of the police and judicial branch. The reason why the League of Shadows were able to get the foothold into the city they had was because the majority of its governmental infrastructure was mired in shady, criminal dealings. You are acting like the narrative is lying to you and painting a false picture of the state of Gotham and really all of the law enforcement agencies had a handle on the issues facing the city and none of them were at all complicit in pushing it towards the edge of chaos that overwhelmed the poor section of town and threatened to subsume the entire city.

Furthermore, this rigid insistence that you can only use comic book conventions if your work is projected through an unambiguously liberal moral filter is narrative fascism.

Actually, I don't think the movie ever stated so. It said that there were corrupt cops and judges, but never was it mentioned that the whole city was corrupt. They were able to arrest and charge Falcone, weren't they?

it's also made clear that the only people pursuing Falcone (and being obstructed at every turn) are the DA's office - specifically Katie Holmes and her much less morally upright boss. (where was Harvey Dent in this movie...?)

x-post

I can't see how you could have not have noticed that the mobsters were running the town, had been running it for twentysome-odd years and they owned most of the police and judicial branch. The reason why the League of Shadows were able to get the foothold into the city they had was because the majority of its governmental infrastructure was mired in shady, criminal dealings.

How does this contradict anything I've said? The city is a moral cesspool and it needs a strong, larger-than-life man to come in and clean it up. That's basically the standard narrative of fascism and I don't see how pointing it out is even remotely controversial.

You are acting like the narrative is lying to you and painting a false picture of the state of Gotham

You're acting like Gotham is a real place and not a fictional city created to serve a particular narrative.

Furthermore, this rigid insistence that you can only use comic book conventions if your work is projected through an unambiguously liberal moral filter is narrative fascism.

WTF Dan? Nobody is saying that. Personally I just enjoy a movie like X2 much more than Batman Begins. And actually these criticisms of the film's politics are separate from my enjoyment (or not) of the movie. As I said way way upthread my main gripes were the poor action scenes and some of the laughable dialog. I actually thought that the movie was pretty good but not really exceptional and nowhere near the best superhero movie ever. But I also respect and understand Tuomas' point of view that he cannot enjoy a film like this because of its politics.

So are you saying it's a criticism of the fascist impulse?