Batman carries on beginning in ... The Dark Knight

(note: I know these are not part of the same storyline, just asking!)

Yeah, he also blew up the Joker's Smilex factory in the first one with absolutely no warning to anyone who might be inside. Frankly, his "no killing" rule has always kinda meant "no just outright shooting guys." Crippling and maiming, or putting them in the ICU, is perfectly OK.

those were the "can the end justify the means" portion of Nolan's movies, I s'pose. pretty sure IRL, law enforcement would have let Batman let the Joker fall...Batman must have one guilty conscience about things.

shouldn't have been a 12A

Batman isn't really given any power at all -- he simply does what he wants, operating outside the law. Gordon and the citizens of the city may condone or even celebrate this, but Batman is more free than he is powerful.

This is a big pile of horseshit. Batman is insanely wealthy, has an advanced technology company at his disposal, and has the support of the police force up until the end of the movie, where even still the head of the police force is covertly still supporting him. I defy you to name a more powerful individual in Gotham.

The point where the Bush analogy falls over is where Batman spends most of the movie looking for a way to stop his slide into authoritarianism via the proxy that is Harvey Dent; where is the analogue for Bushco? Who are they holding up as the legitimate power who should be handling these problems "the right way" (aka "the legal way" or, to be more blunt, "the liberal way")? Batman thinks due process can take over for him with a person like Harvey Dent spearheading the charge and spends most of the movie trying to make this transition happen; everything he does isn't so much in the name of stomping out The Joker as much as it is in eliminating his position and elevating Harvey Dent. How is that analogous to Bushco?

Similar actions can be used to drive vastly different agendas, particularly when comparing reality to fiction.

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.

tdk definitely articulates political points of view, but to what end? I see the film as more conflicted than you do. it's not an anti-dubya film, but calling it pro-dubya seems like a gross misreading. should the us president be viewed as a shadowy vigilante? it that positive?

there are a number of places where the film diverges from a one-sided reading. for instance, if it were a wholesale endorsement of bush admin tactics then batman would've beaten the joker to a pulp, extracted the info he needed, and saved the day - yay, torture vindication. instead, he is fed false information which sends everything spiraling further out of control - he loses the most important person to him, dent is destroyed, and the joker is set free to cause more havoc and destruction.

I understand the argument that merely by conflating bush/batman a situation is created that implicitly confers hero status upon bush. but there's no triumph or glory in this story. there's only a bitter, pyrrhic victory. if you see tdk as a celebration of bush policy then your standards for celebration must be pretty freakin' low.

I guess you can object to the film as a wish-fulfillment scenario for persecuted bush supporters, but I don't reject the film on those grounds anymore than I would reject a clockwork orange for inspiring gang hooliganism.

Right. I agree with all that.

And that batman's final gesture can be seen as analogous to either dostoevsky's grand inquisitor or plato's "noble lie" in the republic I find very interesting! At first I found it to be authoritarian but it could also be Batman rejecting it.

What's really cool about is that is that it's clearly Batman trying to find some way to handle what he's created, and the inadverdent mess he's created with his hubris.

And it's really some kind of scandal that it's not R rated.

its funny; dent spends the whole movie wishing he was batman; batman spends the whole movie wishing he was dent--the only person happy with who he is is the joker

I didn't get the impression the Joker was a really personally fulfilled dude. I think upthread was more accurate in saying he hates everything, just himself a little less than the rest of it.

i just mean that hes not constantly trying to be something or someone else

i mean the way i imagine it, until batman joker didnt really have any idea who he was--he has so many different stories about his scars--but then he finds this guy who gives him a semi-stationary place, a better-defined identity. frankly the joker is the only person in the movie who seems happy!!

batman, meanwhile, sees in dent everything he wishes he was--and is crushed at the end of the movie when he realizes that his counterpart isnt harvey dent (i.e. the duality isnt white knight/dark knight but at least theyre both knights), its the joker--good crazy and bad crazy, but theyre both crazy.

The point where the Bush analogy falls over is where Batman spends most of the movie looking for a way to stop his slide into authoritarianism via the proxy that is Harvey Dent

Don't you think the film undermines this, tho? What with Rachel's letter (you can never stop being Batman) and Dent's eventual transformation into Two-Face? Even if Batman initially wants to place Dent as the true hero (and even tho he does so under false pretenses in the film ending) too many things seem to subvert that as to make it less than self-evident that this is Nolan's "message."

crushed at the end of the movie when he realizes that his counterpart isnt harvey dent (i.e. the duality isnt white knight/dark knight but at least theyre both knights), its the joker--good crazy and bad crazy, but theyre both crazy.

That's really interesting. Because Dent also ends up as his duality counterpart (also bad crazy). Do you think that Batman's attempts to make Dent into his counterpart force him into this actual duality?

i dont know--i havent thought that far--but if youre thinking 'duality' dent turning into two-face is obviously important

Right. I just meant, Batman tries to force Dent into being his counterpart (Caped Vigilante V Public Hero), but arguably, by forcing Dent into being the Public Hero, he sets him up for the Joker's response (which is very much a Chigurah'esque force of nature) which turns him into Batman's actual counterpart... another crazy person.

Dent does "pretend" to be Batman...

from an interview with nolan:

Newsweek: You also seem to be commenting on the impossibility of heroism in a brutal world, because any hero will inevitably be faced with unthinkable choices, and simply by choosing, the hero becomes a monster to many.

Nolan: The Joker gets pleasure from taking somebody's rule set — their ethics, their morals — and turning them against each other. Paradox is the way you do that. Giving people impossible choices. What Batman is doing is heroic, but it can be seen in another way: as vigilantism, as a dark force outside the law. That's a very, very dangerous road to go down. He's always riding a knife edge in moral terms.

Newsweek: The film implies that Gotham's latest wave of psychos exist partly because of Batman, not in spite of him. His presence has unintended consequences in the same way that the U.S. presence in Iraq has consequences.

Nolan: At the end of the first film we introduced the idea of escalation. Batman creates this extreme response to crime in Gotham—putting on a mask and jumping off rooftops. Well, what's that going to inspire from the criminals he's fighting? Batman has changed the world, but not all for the better. The use of force against an enemy is a tricky and fascinating thing to have in a story. And the film tries to make the point that everybody loses in these situations.

ah, that's nice to have!

He was also on Radio 4's Film Programme last week, talking about how he saw the brutal interrogation scene as illustrating the futility of torture. Granted, this sets up terrorist suspects as being as purely evil as the Joker.

# Batman carries on beginning in ... The Dark Knight [Started by Alba (Alba), last updated 2 minutes ago] 234 new answers
# HIV/AIDS cure??!!??!? [Started by Oilyrags, last updated 3 minutes ago] 34 new answers

Scanning over thread titles, I sort of read this as "Batman cures HIV/AIDS," and for a second I was way more interested in seeing this movie

Anyway, the only site that really matters on the movie:

http://www.moviemistakes.com/film6359

Batman is insanely wealthy, has an advanced technology company at his disposal, and has the support of the police force up until the end of the movie, where even still the head of the police force is covertly still supporting him. I defy you to name a more powerful individual in Gotham.

-- HI DERE

The point where the Bush analogy falls over is where Batman spends most of the movie looking for a way to stop his slide into authoritarianism via the proxy that is Harvey Dent; where is the analogue for Bushco?

-- HI DERE

understand the argument that merely by conflating bush/batman a situation is created that implicitly confers hero status upon bush. but there's no triumph or glory in this story. there's only a bitter, pyrrhic victory. if you see tdk as a celebration of bush policy then your standards for celebration must be pretty freakin' low.

-- Edward III

And it's really some kind of scandal that it's not R rated.

-- ryan

Edward: Nolan quote is fascinating and resolves some of my intent-related questions. I can see as how this story may be intended, to some degree, to subvert the heroism of Batman and his methods -- but I don't think it effectively does this. He remains the hero, and while we might quibble with his choices, the film retains respect both for his basic mission and for his personal integrity. That respect seems appropriate to me in a Batman film, even essential, but it does raise some difficult issues when actual, real-world foreign policy issues are evoked, even metaphorically.

in tone it's r-rated but there's very little actual direct shots of gore. there's also no sex/nudity or extensive language, and we all know that's what really gets the mpaa's panties in a bunch.

He remains the hero, and while we might quibble with his choices, the film retains respect both for his basic mission and for his personal integrity.

You know, I wonder about that, actually. I find the take of the film to be less about retaining respect and more being observational.

That's really interesting. Because Dent also ends up as his duality counterpart (also bad crazy). Do you think that Batman's attempts to make Dent into his counterpart force him into this actual duality?

-- Mordy, Wednesday, July 30, 2008 1:18 PM

Dent does "pretend" to be Batman...

-- ryan, Wednesday, July 30, 2008 1:24 PM

Yeah, I was just going to say, Dent does pretty OK for himself, aside from being briefly endangered by the Joker at Bruce Wayne's fundraiser, up until he stands up at the press conference and says "I'm the Batman." That's the real beginning of his troubles.

I find the take of the film to be less about retaining respect and more being observational.

I don't want to overstate the case -- clearly there's a sense of respect at play, but at the same time what I think is interesting about how the film plays out on that front is that while Batman's 'rule' is paramount, everything below that rule is up for grabs, and that the film doesn't end on a note of absolute, easy to accept resolution on that point.

I said it way upthread, but I don't TDK is a Bush apologia. I do very much think it can be read as an unusually sympathetic critique.

Its resonance re:post-9/11 government overreach is rooted more in sadness and understanding than anger, IMO

The point where the Bush analogy falls over is where Batman spends most of the movie looking for a way to stop his slide into authoritarianism via the proxy that is Harvey Dent; where is the analogue for Bushco? Who are they holding up as the legitimate power who should be handling these problems "the right way" (aka "the legal way" or, to be more blunt, "the liberal way")? Batman thinks due process can take over for him with a person like Harvey Dent spearheading the charge and spends most of the movie trying to make this transition happen; everything he does isn't so much in the name of stomping out The Joker as much as it is in eliminating his position and elevating Harvey Dent. How is that analogous to Bushco?

to play devil's advocate here, I'd say the analogy is like the old joke: what is a conservative? a liberal who's been mugged.

batman's a believer in dent's promise, but he comes to realize that dent's methods are not up to the task. only batman's ability to operate outside the system can end the joker's reign of terror. this echoes the bush attitude that human rights are great, but they should be discarded when the chips are down.

I do very much think it (TDK) can be read as an unusually sympathetic critique. Its resonance re: post-9/11 government overreach is rooted more in sadness and understanding than anger...

Re: Edward -- I did kinda see Dent as representing the promise of liberal/humanitarian values. He looks good on paper, but is hollow underneath and brings no useful tools to the table. The people will rally behind him because he promises something better, but behind the scenes, it's up to dirty men to do the dirty work.

well yeah, i think these situations have a logic and momentum of their own...hence Nolan's idea of "escalation"...or an observational film about the old security/freedom conundrum and people grappling with that. Doesn't mean it supports one side or the other politically, but it does dramatize the conflict, which is real and a part of all of our lives.

I'd say Gordon, more than Batman, is the character that were supposed to identify with most. Hence the humanity of Oldman's performance is so important.

i mean, once the joker appears, it's not as if Batman can simply go away and not clean up the mess he made....there is something tragic and inevitable about the arc of the film. but because the film sees the situation as having this tragic inevitability doesn't make it pro-Bush, or Republican. It MIGHT make it conservative in the classic tragic sense though. but then a LOT of art is like that. In fact I'M like that in my heart, but i still vote liberal.

there is an important line that hasnt been mentioned. When Batman is confronted with the deaths the joker is causing and asks Alfred "What am I to do?"

Alfred says "endure, take it"--and while he says this to convince Batman not to turn himself in, I think in some ways it can be seen as the liberal heart of the film...which is itself a tragic response to suffering and terror that differs greatly from the presumed conservative "escalation."

in fact, if there is a non-tragic response to implacable evil, i'd love to hear it.

re: alfred's advice: could also be read as a "stay the course" mentality, too

yeah that is probably the right interpretation. the line did kinda stick out for me though.

I'd say Gordon, more than Batman, is the character that were supposed to identify with most. Hence the humanity of Oldman's performance is so important.

Absolutely. More than anyone he is the audience substitute. (And notably, of all the major characters, he is the only one with a family -- everyone else might as well be orphaned and isolated like Wayne.)

Rachel is almost as much an audience substitute as Gordon. I'm not sure, but I think she even gets more screen time.

...there is something tragic and inevitable about the arc of the film. but because the film sees the situation as having this tragic inevitability doesn't make it pro-Bush, or Republican.

kind of changing the subject here, but what about the lies at the end of the movie? the classic take on the hero is that he's always honest - he won't win by being deceitful, because that what's separates him from the bad guys.

but at the end of tdk, the remaining good guys are all caught in some kind of falsehood. batman/gordon are lying about dent, alfred's deceived batman by burning rachel's letter, even fox could be said to be compromised by helping batman "just this once" against his princples. everyone's personal integrity (including batman's) is in tatters.

yeah absolutely. i really hope nolan makes a trilogy and that this the "dark" middle part...wondering where this arc is going...seems like a very pessimistic place for it to end. then again, i've interpreted nolan's other films as having pessimistic endings. the prestige also has the theme of the illusions we keep for our own good.

hell, doesn't memento end in a similar fashion? i can hardly remember.

And thus you, Ryan, become part of that very film.

now where were we

http://www.brownbatterystudios.com/sixthings/images/tutorial06/final.jpg

This doesn't necessarily make it pro-Bush, but I'd argue that, if the analogy holds up, it's more sympathetic than condemnatory. It's a tragic story, and while Bats has his flaws, he's still our (dark, conflicted) hero protagonist.

or maybe the film implies we need a different kind of hero? or that our heroes - whether they are bush or batman - are not equipped to handle the challenges before them? the general tone of hopelessness throughout the film seeems to lend it to such conclusions.

I think that kind of summary conclusion will have to wait until after we see where he goes with the third one (presuming there is a third one and that Nolan directs it).

but at the end of tdk, the remaining good guys are all caught in some kind of falsehood. batman/gordon are lying about dent, alfred's deceived batman by burning rachel's letter, even fox could be said to be compromised by helping batman "just this once" against his princples. everyone's personal integrity (including batman's) is in tatters.

as far as i can remember the only honest hero in the whole movie is tiny lister jr.

x-post -- Yeah, that third film idea is not yet set in stone, though of course the sheer success of the film makes it clear there will be one. If Nolan does it and he wants to push the ideas he's already put in place even further, that could be astonishing.

batman's a believer in dent's promise, but he comes to realize that dent's methods are not up to the task. only batman's ability to operate outside the system can end the joker's reign of terror. this echoes the bush attitude that human rights are great, but they should be discarded when the chips are down.

I might buy this line of rhetoric if the film supported it in the slightest. Batman bends over backwards to make Dent the hero throughout the movie; if he is repudiating anything, it is himself. Everything he does is in service of making himself irrelevant; that doesn't jibe at all with the idea that Batman doesn't think Dent's methodology is not worth pursuing. In fact, taking the rap for Dent's freakout is an explicit renunciation of Batman's methodology; he turns himself into a criminal in order to protect the path he sees as the way the city should go forward. (Whether anyone buys it is a whole separate issue.)