Batman carries on beginning in ... The Dark Knight

i think the movie goes to great lengths to call into question Batman's methods and motives...if anything i guess the great sin of the movie is that our moral outrage is so numbed in the current cultural climate that batman pointlessly beating a suspect or spying on the general populace, or lying to them "for their own good" that these things are not OBVIOUSLY seen as bad anymore

agree with this 100 per cent. but the bigger problem is that it's an action movie, these guys are being immoral constantly, they kill people all the time! the bit with the spying on people was intensely stupid.

I mean seriously did anyone think "OH BATMAN, FOR SHAME, FROM SUCH HEIGHTS YOU HAVE NOW FALLEN"?

^^ and it is weird, that moral stance of it... and there's a cultural aspect to it as well - Americans (Westerners?) are very bothered by the idea of spying on its citizens but we way out here in "paternalistic, authoritarian" (obvs not my terminology) Southeast Asia just kind of look at that sonar thing and think "Wow, that's awesome. Now Batman can save everybody!". That was my sister's reaction, by the way, and it took her more than a second before realizing that, when Lucius said "This is.. WRONG", he wasn't joking. so yeah it was interesting to see what seemed like an obvious moral argument play out in a different cultural context to different conclusions.

and yes i know this is kind of incoherent and I'm generalizing about everything here - i just thought it was interesting to think about and I'm leaving the house in a few minutes anyway.

My reaction wasn't as viscerally thrilled and "wow!" as the first time, but the couple of bits I thought were overcooked didn't bother me as much as I thought they might have

How disappointing.

Misery guts.

Pretty much everything that's being used as evidence to equate Batman to the Bush administration were the points in the movie where other characters were explicitly saying, "Okay Batman, at this point you are fucking up royally." The propaganda thing with Harvey at the end is a criticism you can level at either political party; it rings truer with the Republicans because they've had the figurehead in office for the past 8 years but don't think for a second that those types of shenanigans haven't applied to every single President we've had.

-- HI DERE

if anything the movie is a giant conservative apologetic

-- roxymuzak

Batman has to make the tough choices in fighting crime/terrorism. In doing so, he runs enormous risks, both political and personal. He isn't perfect, and his imperfections (authoritarianism, brutality, ambition, lack of faith/trust in others) put his mission and his people at risk. But when you come right down to it, he is a man of integrity and honor, and no one else is willing or able to do the dirty work. While he crosses certain lines (riling up maniacal fiends, brutalizing/torturing suspects, domestic spying), he's only doing what's necessary. In the end, he retreats, honorably shouldering a burden of blame he doesn't really deserve, so that a newer, more hopeful symbol can lead and inspire his people. From where I sit, the implications are pretty clear...

Interesting that "brutalizing/torturing suspects" is "only doing what's necessary"....

Remind me again how the first movie ended?

I'm genuinely surprised that this argument (Batman = Bush admin.) is at all controversial.

I'm sure you and Spencer Ackerman will be happy trading notes.

well i never heard this idea until just now.

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.

No one thinks bush is as virtuous as Batman

I know some people who might disagree with you.

I mean you just as easily read the film as saying that bush has fallen to the jokers level.

Xpost: you're right! But they are nuts.

ryan otm, the parallels were striking & obvious, but a)the surveillance equipment was destroyed, b) george w bush is not fucking batman

I mean you just as easily read the film as saying that bush has fallen to the jokers level.

true, manipulation & deceit also being key facets of the bush admin

A lot of this stuff is implicit in the nature of the Batman character, being as he is, you know, a vigilante. Vigilantism -- at least as it manifests itself as individuals doing what needs to be done to preserve order and the law if the government itself isn't up to the task -- is a pretty conservative notion. But I think reading this movie as a Bush admin apologetic particularly is sorta nonsense, especially as Batman is ultimately at least partially successful at what he does.

You want liberal superheros, wait for a Green Arrow movie.

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