Batman carries on beginning in ... The Dark Knight

That's pretty much how I view it; the film isn't trying to give an answer.

if anything it makes a case that the city doesn't need a hero -- a potentially interesting idea that is of course just left dangling because the only real point of the scene is to give tick-tock tension.

If you want to get nitpicky about it, the point of that scene is to create a massively huge diversion for Harvey.

I read that Nolan interview Ned just linked sometime last week - it is indeed fascinating.

And the whole idea of escalation raises the idea of whether Gotham needs a hero - it certainly suggests it doesn't need one like Batman.

well it says it needs one like harvey, or like the fake harvey batman and gordon invent through their deception. a martyr, basically. except really it's presenting 2 martyrs, since batman martyrs himself (morally at least) to preserve the fiction of dent's martyrdom. that's a whole lotta martyring, and some pretty tortured moral logic to make it seem somehow necessary.

Radcliffe Joker-casting rumors for Batman Begins 2 start NOW

-- latebloomer (posercore24...), July 28th, 2006 3:09 PM. (latebloomer)

-- the doaple gonger (nickalicious), Tuesday, 1 August 2006 11:37 (2 years ago) Link

hmm?

-- darraghmac, Monday, August 11, 2008 12:28 PM (4 hours ag

ya don't think he looks joker-like here?

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41939000/jpg/_41939536_radcliffe2_bodygetty.jpg

i liked this line from mr. k-punk:

Secondly, what [the right wing] readings also miss is the actual nature of the model of virtue presented in the film. If this is (neo)conservative, it is not at the simple level of utilitarian calculation of consequences. What we are dealing with is a far more complicated Straussian meta-utilitarianism whose cynical reasoning is akin to that of Dostoyevsky's Grand Inquisitor. Deception - of the masses by the elite - is integral to this account of virtue: what is 'protected' is not the masses' security but their belief (in Harvey Dent's campaign).

well it says it needs one like harvey, or like the fake harvey batman and gordon invent through their deception. a martyr, basically. except really it's presenting 2 martyrs, since batman martyrs himself (morally at least) to preserve the fiction of dent's martyrdom. that's a whole lotta martyring, and some pretty tortured moral logic to make it seem somehow necessary.

Bruce and Gordon say that Gotham needs a hero like fake Harvey; the movie spends a good amount of time showing the audience that Bruce and Gordon don't actually know all that much about the man they're championing (Gordon's disagreement with Dent's judgment about the crooked cops on Gordon's staff; Batman's misjudgment about Dent's willingness to kill the crazy henchmen). Also, the movie itself takes a lot of time to show Harvey as a man whose judgment is by and large dead on about pretty much everything wrong with the current state of affairs in Gotham, then proceeds to slap him down about as hard as you can imagine.

If the movie is saying anything, I think it's asking "Is it too late to save Gotham?" Obviously Batman doesn't think so but I don't know that we're automatically supposed to agree with him.

What we are dealing with is a far more complicated Straussian meta-utilitarianism whose cynical reasoning is akin to that of Dostoyevsky's Grand Inquisitor.

yes totally. I tried to say this upthread in a halting and half thought-out way.

Yeah, Dent's position is interesting - Dent wants to be Batman, to be the romantic, masculine, fighting hero; neither Batman nor Gordon will let him be that, though. The snap of bravado when he punches the guy in the dock, the quick soundbite machismo, the claiming to be Batman...

Meanwhile, simultaneously the greatest and creepiest thing ever -- especially since in light of an earlier discussion on this thread the post contains the words "Woulda been interesting to see these guys re-enact the infamous “pencil scene” with a Crayola..."

Deception - of the masses by the elite - is integral to this account of virtue: what is 'protected' is not the masses' security but their belief (in Harvey Dent's campaign).

-- goole

Speaking of morality, a writer at Human Events is not pleased:

Some people defend Dark Knight because it is smashing box office records. So what? Crack cocaine is popular too, but that doesn’t mean it’s good for society.

Others defend Dark Knight for its “conservative” values. It does acknowledge the difference between good and evil. The hero stands up to the villain, subdues him in the end, and takes the blame for the district attorney’s crimes to preserve hope in Gotham City. The movie also sends a constructive topical message about the need to defend ourselves against terrorists.

These points may be true, but the defense rings hollow. It smacks of making excuses for enjoying the movie. How can we justify Dark Knight’s indulgence in the pornography of violence? What if Hugh Hefner made a movie featuring two hours of skin and sex, but ending with the hero losing his marriage? Would Hefner deserve credit for warning us of the dangers of adultery?

Dark Knight is rated PG-13, compelling evidence of the inadequacy of the present rating system. This movie is a pleasure cruise through the depths of moral perversion. It cries out for a new category: U-99, Unfit for any age.

Within what we take to be the film's own moral POV, are Batman and Gordon in any sense right that Dent has value to the citizens of Gotham? Does the city really need him? We could just as easily argue that Batman and Gordon believe they need Dent.

I thought that was the ultimate point of the movie.

hey just to be clear i'm quoting someone up there

I thought that was the ultimate point of the movie.

-- HI DERE

I don't think it's trying to say whether B&G are "right" or "wrong", so you're right in that it isn't very clear on that point.

You get where individual characters stand on the state of the city and what needs to be done but the film itself doesn't really make a grand pronouncement about what the "correct" answer should be (depending on how much weight you give Gordon's last monologue, of course).

Meanwhile, goofs:

The recent Batman sequel "The Dark Knight" is affecting audiences in more ways than one.

Some playing cards turned up at the Walmart in Pearisburg over the weekend. They had threatening messages on them, implying nine people will soon die.

Bryan Eugene Stafford and Justin Colby Dirico, both 18, were arrested Tuesday and charged with conspiracy to commit an act of terrorism.

They reportedly confessed, saying it was a practical joke inspired by the new Batman movie.

I don't think it's trying to say whether B&G are "right" or "wrong"

which isn't far from saying it doesn't have a point of view at all. which maybe can be read as complex, but i just read as confused.

Am sick of people going 'why so serious?' to me when I admit I haven't yet seen the film. Will start being violent.

a film that allows its audience to make a moral decision! heavens! xp

I kind of don't need a Batman movie to tell me what is right and what is wrong.

Batman the Joker Slayer

And as another example of shoehorning in something popular to talk about one's own preferred field:

I’m sure you’ve all heard about the new Batman movie, “The Dark Knight.” I saw it with my kids while on vacation and I can report without giving away the story that there’s definitely trouble in Gotham City. The Joker is the most malevolent character I’ve seen in a lo-o-o-o-n-g time. He’s the most ruthless enemy Batman’s ever faced. It’s a good thing that a considerable chunk of Bruce Wayne’s fortune is secretly being diverted in order to fund Batman’s private weapons development program. The tools they come up with are astounding — powerful, technologically advanced and very, very effective.

As I watched the story unfold, I realized that it paralleled what’s happening in the residential mortgage industry.

haha what

that is some serious shoehorning

Okay that's kind of impressive

I don't think it's trying to say whether B&G are "right" or "wrong", so you're right in that it isn't very clear on that point.

-- HI DERE

which isn't far from saying it doesn't have a point of view at all. which maybe can be read as complex, but i just read as confused.

-- tipsy mothra

When did complexity become a necessary component of ambiguity?

The film's political implications are similarly half-baked. They're clearly there, but they don't quite work, and I suspect that's why there's been so much debate on this point.

I think that, since anyone watching the movie can basically read whatever agenda they want to into it, the political implications worked pretty well.

What HI DERE said. This film's been claimed by EVERYBODY now.

Complexity is not necessarily a component of ambiguity, as this film demonstrates. Complexity is, however, often a component of intersting, and it's tempting to imagine that there's something intellectually compelling hiding behind The Dark Knight's mumble-mumble nonsense.

What HI DERE said. This film's been claimed by EVERYBODY now.

-- Ned Raggett

I'm most satisfied when my entertainment doesn't hector me with a moral.

Is to seriosly engage with moral questions necessarily to "hector"?

but the MORTGAGES dan, it's all so CLEAR

lol

Contenderizer, what you wanted out of the movie is hectoring. You wanted the movie to take a strong moral stance on the actions that occurred within it, unambiguously saying, "This is right, and this is wrong." Instead, the movie said, "This is what happened," and, for whatever reason, you are dissatisfied by that.

http://www.solarnavigator.net/images/troy_achilles_brad_pitt.jpg

"HECTORRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!"

Contenderizer, what you wanted out of the movie is hectoring. You wanted the movie to take a strong moral stance on the actions that occurred within it, unambiguously saying, "This is right, and this is wrong." Instead, the movie said, "This is what happened," and, for whatever reason, you are dissatisfied by that.

the screenplay cynically tears certain elements from contemporary headlines without quite thinking them through

Every new episode of Law and Order must give you a freakin' conniption fit, then.

Dick Wolf's Batman

DUN DUN DUN

I don't think the movie tries to have a point of view at all!

I'm with contenderizer here, but I'm busy now with a ham and salami sandwich.

"In the criminal justice system, the people are represented by two separate yet equally important groups: the police, who investigate crime; and the district attorneys, who prosecute the offenders. Also, Batman."

(multi-xpost)

i think you're conflating 'thinking through' with 'having a definite answer'

http://img221.imageshack.us/img221/7475/1200343179086vc1.jpg

loling at Batman working the courtroom as lawyer in full getup. defense attorney would be Unfrozen Caveman, obv.

no wait he's wearing a suit but still has mask and cape on

I want to see this happen.