The Dark Knight

[jpark]

Impressive.

The film achieved genuine darkness.  This is not a film you assume somone is safe because of their importance in plot mechanic - you don't know what is going to happen next.

The "support" casting was almost too good - it was hard for Bale to have the spotlight in this one.

The ending was genius.

[Lakov_Sanite]

Not spoiling but yes the ending was one of those moments were it felt RIGHT, you watch it and I wasn't sure where they were going but when it got there you go

"OH.....well yes, that makes sense, that's how it should be"

[UnSub]

Thinking about it, the fact the film is called "The Dark Knight" is very true - it's a film with Batman in it, but it is about a lot more than just Batman. It's actually a lot more about Gotham and the other people who interact there in terms of law and order. It is very "Heat" in that regard.

[jpark]

I like the Heat comparison. 

I am already thinking of Batman 3 now - in specific regard to the ending...

[HaemishM]

Jesus Fucking Christ, what a plate of awesome. Whoever here said this movie was like the Empire Strikes Back of the Batman trilogy was spot on. Just an absolute masterpiece from top to bottom. It wasn't a comic book movie, it was a crime thriller that happened to have a superhero in it. It was absolutely DRAINING PHYSICALLY to watch, because it was just that intense. Like edge of your seat intense. I had no idea where they were going with the story, despite being a huge comic book nerd and big time Batman fan. I just let the movie take me and take me it did.

Iron Man was a fantastic comic-book movie. This wasn't a comic book movie. It just wasn't. The Heat comparison is apt as well, because it was such a well-crafted piece of work at all levels that it transcended the genre labels. I think trying to compare Iron Man and Batman is useless. They were both so good at what they were trying to do but what they were trying to do was completely different from the other. Two totally separate movies with really completely separate genres.

Heath Ledger... fuck.   

After having seen that portrayal, what happened to him is completely understandable. The writing on that character was so spot on and SO DISTURBING. This performance will go down as one of the truly great performances of all time. Hannibal Lector? Pussy. Ralph Fiennes in Schindler's List? Not close. No other actor should ever ever ever even think of trying to pull of a Joker performance in a live-action movie again. He just absolutely owned the role. If he doesn't win an Oscar... well, we all know how idiotic the Oscar selections are, but really, he deserves the hardware for what that role had to do to him.

I was actually happy to see that Batman was a secondary character in the movie. He was in the shadows as Batman should be. He was the core around which Gotham moved in the story, but he wasn't the story itself. I was also happy to see the shaky cam combat lessened a bit. The only complaint I would have about the movie is that without the shaky cam, you see some of the awkwardness of fighting in that costume. But it was so small and minor, it didn't matter.

I hope Batman 3 has the Riddler as the main villain. With the elaborate plans these guys wrote for the Joker, plans that worked perfectly within the context of the world they'd established, I'd love to see them deal with a character whose whole schtick is cooking up elaborate riddles as crimes.

[Litigator]

I liked the Joker a lot. It's a great performance from a promising actor who is now dead.  There's no justification for criticism of Ledger or his performance. 

But there's a lot to criticize about the movie he appears in;

First of all, the purported distinction between Batman and Joker is that Batman follows the "rules" and Joker does not.  Yet Batman engages on multiple occasions in illegal and tortuous interrogations, commits a criminal, extrajudiciary kidnapping on foreign soil, and builds a rights-invasive surveillance system with the capability of producing sound and images of the entire city, a system so offensive to the basic notion of personal privacy, that Nolan had to write in Lucius Fox objecting to it on moral grounds.  This Batman is the Donald Rumsfeld of superheroes.

Yet, he elevates himself to puritanical sainthood, taking on the mantle of the outcast to protect the reputation of Harvey Dent and be "the hero the city deserves."  This is fundamentally at odds with the appealing contradictions of the Batman concept.

First of all, Batman is unabashedly transgressive.  Tim Burton understood the inherent kinkiness of these characters, and "Batman Returns" is really about that, with the sexually charged fight scenes between Michael Keaton and Michelle Pfieffer, and Danny DeVito's lascivious Penguin.  Joel Schumacher unfortunately camped this aspect of the character up until "Batman and Robin" turned into dollar draft night at Club Manhole, and it's understandable that Nolan is trying to distance himself from Schumacher in resurrecting the franchise. 

However, there is something at least arguably wrong about being a masked vigilante; this is a guy who dispenses punishment without process.  He's essentially a fascist, much moreso than, for example, Dirty Harry, who is reviled as a right-wing monster, but who at least does not hide behind a mask, making him impossible to hold accountable.  He's the ultimate example of an end justifying a means; a sacrifice of all conception of due process or rights in exchange for a drop in crime. 

And a lot of people would argue that there is something wrong about being a trust-fund heir to a billion-dollar industrial company.  Arguably, the only difference between Batman and the villains he fights is that his vast legitimate wealth gives him a powerful interest in maintaining stability and the status quo, which counterbalances his vengeful rage over the murder of his parents.  There is also something racist and classist about a rich white man who leaves his suburban mansion at night to go into the city and beat the shit out of gangbangers and drug-addicts.

As a practical notion, most people to the left of Attilla the Hun would find him at least somewhat troubling, and if Nolan invites us to take Batman seriously, he needs to address these issues.
He's interesting because he's mean and angry and scary and unbalanced and because he thinks he's beyond the law.  But when you understand that about Batman, you realize that the interesting aspect of the relationship between Batman and the Joker is the similarity between the two. 

Nolan doesn't seem to get that, and "The Dark Knight" becomes a parable with a moral that apocalyptic terrorism requires a response of greater invasion of the rights of all. 

And also, the bit with the bombs on the boats was bullshit. That was supposed to signify the redemption of the Gothamites and their refusal to play the Joker's sick games.  But no viewer is really going to believe that nobody on either one of those boats would be willing to push that button. 

[Big Gulp]

Ever heard of a spoiler tag?  Make use of it.

[Morfiend]

I thought it might be fun to look back over that last thread now, you know the about Heath Ledger playing the joker.

Thread Here.

I found this bit pretty quick:

This is the Joker, man. Not some bullshit part. "Fine", my ass. Even if does "fine" (which he won't), I don't want "fine". Even Jack Nicholson sucked balls as the Joker. Heath Ledger is a million times worse.

Still though, that doesn't mean there isn't at least 20 actors who could do it better. Because there is. That's why I'm pissed -- Because of all the things that could have been.

Is that crow or foot your eating Stray. 

Heath Ledger is more than a mimbo. I think he can pull it off. As for the picture, I think it's perfectly in keeping with Nolan's style for Batman. He made the fucking Scarecrow actually scary, do not discount what he can do with the Joker, a character who IS in fact scary.

And who would have guessed.

Best joker ever.

That's serious shit.

[Venkman]

Geezus, schild called it?!

There's spoilers here. You were warned.

Yet, he elevates himself to puritanical sainthood, taking on the mantle of the outcast to protect the reputation of Harvey Dent and be "the hero the city deserves."  This is fundamentally at odds with the appealing contradictions of the Batman concept.

A valid point but not really off concept. Batman is there to do what others cannot because of his disdain for the normal way of doing things. The Joker happened to be more abnormal though, showing Batman what his limits were. That's the undercurrent of the movie and the comic series. There's certain things Batman won't do. But there's a LOT of shit he will do that others cannot or won't. This movie established much better than the last one that he's going to run off and do it his way because that's what he thinks he needs to do, no matter who's in his way.

I think Nolan gets exactly that, shoved it in our faces, and Batman's, and made it real again. Batman got too chummy with the cops. Then they didn't like what they saw in the interrogation room, and were ready to throw him to the wolves when Dent stepped into the role. Unlike the safe and friendly but only ever implied "massive task force" from the first movie, the cops in THIS movie were actually out to get him.

After having seen that portrayal, what happened to him is completely understandable. The writing on that character was so spot on and SO DISTURBING.

I just told my wife that not five minutes ago. With all of the "getting into the role stuff" any good actor has to, this one could easily fuck up anyone.

And that's my impression of the movie. Fuck it being a good Batman movie, or even a good comic book movie. By default it is both. This was a fantastic movie by it's own rights, with the true edge of the source material usually reserved to just that source material, and certainly rare in big budget summer stuff. I've never seen a big budget comic book movie get so close to the heart of the IP. And I am genuinely shocked Nolan was permitted to do this by the purse holders.

I'm still digesting it. It wasn't a long movie per se, but it had a lot going on. Easily material for three different movies in there. That too is rare for comic book movies. Shit, it's rare for movies in general with their clean linearity and resolution. I've complained in the past about Old Country for Old Men not having the sort of resolution I usually look for. But in Dark Knight, the lack of clean resolution makes sense in the context of the movie.

The one thing I will say is this is not a PG-13 movie. I guess the MPAA doesn't consider psychological impact. I saw a lot of kids in the showing, the sort a parent usually thinks is tough enough for PG-13 ("they'll be 13 in a few years, and heck, they play GTA"). I also saw a good amount of people leaving with those kids. This movie requires a pre-screening for anyone who has kids under, say, 17. Nolan made the first R-rated Batman.

I'm personally damn glad he did. But this is neither a kids movie nor a date movie unless your SO is really into Batman too.

[Zar]

nor a date movie unless your SO is really into Batman too.

My wife generally finds superhero movies boring enough that she falls asleep during the first hour.  She walked out of this one saying "That was one of the best movies I've seen in years."

I think it has something to do with what some said above: this is more than just a "superhero" movie.

[Nebu]

Being a golden age comic fan, I can't help but wonder why there exists a trend to make these movies so dark.  What I'm saying is that I remember him to use tools at his disposal and a sort of indifference toward the plight of his enemy, but it always felt more like pulp fiction than Goth.  Maybe I just missed the boat. 

I guess it's evolving the superhero to make changes in culture, but I'm not sure I like what this says about current culture. 



Note: I need to quit making stupid posts that don't add to the thread.  My bad.

[Lakov_Sanite]

Being a golden age comic fan, I can't help but wonder why there exists a trend to make these movies so dark.  I guess it's evolving the superhero to make changes in culture, but I'm not sure I like what this says about current culture.  The batman comics I read as a child were never like this.  It really ruins the nostalgia for me.  I guess that's the cost of bringing Batman to today's jaded youth. 

I'm 28, I don't know if I'm considered 'youth' but as long as I can remember batman was the single darkest character in comics, beyond that I can't emphasize how much this movie is a must see.

[Viin]

Awesome movie, very dark. I'll probably have weird dreams/nightmares about it if I go to bed too soon.

And you are right about the psychological stuff Darniaq, the Joker especially really messes with you.

[HaemishM]

Nolan doesn't seem to get that, and "The Dark Knight" becomes a parable with a moral that apocalyptic terrorism requires a response of greater invasion of the rights of all. 

Actually, I think Nolan DOES get that. I think he gets that all too well. Notice how the torture of the Joker didn't work, and that in the end, all his attempts at control of the situation really came down to things and people out of his control. The people on the boat who did not push the button. He couldn't save them if one of them had pushed the button, despite all his attempts at control. As Frank Miller said, Batman is the ultimate right wing fascist hero and I think Nolan's portrayal hit it perfectly. The Joker is the ultimate anarchist, the Batman the ultimate authoritarian dictator, and NEITHER of them succeeded completely. The Joker corrupted Harvey, Batman rescued the hostages and Gordon, but he did so at the cost of the Batman's reputation.

And also, the bit with the bombs on the boats was bullshit. That was supposed to signify the redemption of the Gothamites and their refusal to play the Joker's sick games.  But no viewer is really going to believe that nobody on either one of those boats would be willing to push that button. 

Actually, I believed it. The guy on the civilian boat illustrated it. It's easy to say you'd push that button, until you have to actually push that button.

EDIT: Nebu, to your point about Batman being a dark character, even in the first appearance of Batman, he was a dark character. He dresses like Dracula, stalks only the night, and in that first adventure, was all too willing to let the villain die. Yes, some of the darkness of the character was in the subtext because the books were written for kids, but before the '50's, parents didn't really coddle their kids when it came to death as much as they do now.

This definitely was not a kid's movie. The psychological impact alone should make parents of kids under say 13 (and maybe older) blanch. It's just that powerful.

[Litigator]

Actually, I think Nolan DOES get that. I think he gets that all too well. Notice how the torture of the Joker didn't work, and that in the end, all his attempts at control of the situation really came down to things and people out of his control. The people on the boat who did not push the button. He couldn't save them if one of them had pushed the button, despite all his attempts at control. As Frank Miller said, Batman is the ultimate right wing fascist hero and I think Nolan's portrayal hit it perfectly. The Joker is the ultimate anarchist, the Batman the ultimate authoritarian dictator, and NEITHER of them succeeded completely. The Joker corrupted Harvey, Batman rescued the hostages and Gordon, but he did so at the cost of the Batman's reputation.

Actually, I think the moral of this story is that democratic or rights-sensitive institutions, like Dent (or the US justice system), are weak and corruptible, and ultimately not up to taking on apocalyptic or nihilistic movements like the Joker (or Al Quaeda, or psychos). 

Batman is, indeed an authoritarian force in Gotham, with power derived from the resources at his command and the carte blanche he gets from Gordon.  But Nolan gives a total pass to the power exerted by Batman, by portraying Batman as being unfailingly noble and fair in his exertion of extrajudicial force and unwarranted spying. 

The guy is about one temptation away from being the worst possible supervillain Gotham could have, and if you make him chaste and measured and Christlike, you totally undercut the magnitude of the power he's seized for himself.  Instead of a fascist dictator, he's a philosopher-king. 

I'd like the movie better if he beat a hood to death in a rage after seeing Dent and Rachel togther.  I'd like to see him use his sonar network to spy on them.  I want him to be mean and a little creepy.  This needs to be a character we have a little trouble rooting for.  Frank Miller certainly understood that. I don't think Nolan got that far. 

[ahoythematey]

Lots of stuff that was almost completely wrong.

I don't think you get the batman stories, and as much as I love The Dark Knight Returns storyline, this is not supposed to be Frank Miller's version of Batman, even if it takes aspects from his work on the character.  Also, I have a sneaking suspicion that you are european, but that's probably personal bias lashing out against somebody with a dissenting opinion of The Dark Knight.

You filthy communist.

And also, the bit with the bombs on the boats was bullshit. That was supposed to signify the redemption of the Gothamites and their refusal to play the Joker's sick games.  But no viewer is really going to believe that nobody on either one of those boats would be willing to push that button. 

United Flight 93 kind of proves that this sort of civilian nobility can and does happen in the real world.  That you would think it is complete bullshit probably says more about your own opinion towards random others and not the average viewer's opinion.

[Venkman]

The guy is about one temptation away from being the worst possible supervillain Gotham could have,

But that's sort of the point isn't it? He's constantly warring with himself, by setting up his own boundaries. I thought the best example in the movie anyway was how only Lucius could control total 3D spy machine. Batman knew that a) building it in Wayne Enterprises, b) assigning it to Lucius; and, c) putting in the kill code were the best things to do to prevent him from abusing it. He didn't need Fox to convince him of that. Batman takes the genie out of the bottle, but he puts it back in too.

THAT is why I like the character so much.

[Aez]

Randoms rambling with SPOILERS (if it's still needed - might has well edit the title).

Ledger's performance is amazing.  I'm not sure it's so hard to be good has the joker. It's probably the opposite.  It's a great opportunity to shine.  I often think pepole admire psychotic role because they think it's hard to play.  It's not that hard.  I rarely see a movie were the psycho character is badly played (AAA titles of course).

One great scene no one mentioned was when Gordon becomes arrogant and doesn't want to give a chance to Batman but his snipers would have killed all the hostages.  It was a genius move from the Joker.

An other great part is the pissed off mafia/bank manager in the opening scene.

I also liked how they talked about Rome's emperor.  Overall, the moral dilemma were really good.



A few nitpicking for fun :

There's no way the regular mafia would such a band of pussies.  WTF?

Is the Joker superpower omniscience?  His plans are nice but they a ridiculously well crafted.

Not enough cool fights.

I still think he has the uglies batman mask I ever saw.  WTF?

The boat dilemma... I would have pressed the button in less than 10 sec if I was on the civilian boat.  I would have never stayed downstair, two feet away form the criminals if I was a cop.  Even the prisoner evacuation is complete bullshit, not to mention realizing the boat is loaded with explosive half way trough the river...

[HaemishM]

Actually, I think the moral of this story is that democratic or rights-sensitive institutions, like Dent (or the US justice system), are weak and corruptible, and ultimately not up to taking on apocalyptic or nihilistic movements like the Joker (or Al Quaeda, or psychos). 

You're doing it wrong. Batman didn't succeed against such a movement either. At best he won a pyhrric victory. And Nolan showed that against such an anti-establishment outfit as the Joker's, extreme methods do not succeed. The torture of the Joker? Didn't work, and Batman was given the WRONG information by a clever opponent. It ended up with Rachel being dead. I.e. torture doesn't work. The surveillance? Yes, it found the Joker, but it didn't help him beat the Joker or save the hostages on the boats, because they had to face their own inner demons to save themselves. They had to, in other words, NOT turn into callous, indifferent monsters in order to save themselves.

Batman is, indeed an authoritarian force in Gotham, with power derived from the resources at his command and the carte blanche he gets from Gordon.  But Nolan gives a total pass to the power exerted by Batman, by portraying Batman as being unfailingly noble and fair in his exertion of extrajudicial force and unwarranted spying. 

He in no way portrayed Batman as unfailingly noble and fair. Batman did a lot of bad shit, violated a lot of moral codes and is now branded as an actual outlaw. He went too extreme in trying to counter the Joker's extreme methods, and it cost him the love of the city and his cozy relationship with Gordon and the help of the police force.

The guy is about one temptation away from being the worst possible supervillain Gotham could have, and if you make him chaste and measured and Christlike, you totally undercut the magnitude of the power he's seized for himself.  Instead of a fascist dictator, he's a philosopher-king. 

I'd like the movie better if he beat a hood to death in a rage after seeing Dent and Rachel togther.  I'd like to see him use his sonar network to spy on them.  I want him to be mean and a little creepy.  This needs to be a character we have a little trouble rooting for.  Frank Miller certainly understood that. I don't think Nolan got that far. 

How is he NOT mean and creepy? Women can't get close to him, not really, he's spectacularly alone in his personal life, and the Batman, who was getting some measure of love and respect is now branded an outlaw and a murderer. A COP KILLER, in fact. This is a torturer, a man who regularly violated civil liberties and is really pretty brutal and creepy. If you don't have trouble rooting for him in this movie, you have problems of your own. Batman isn't meant to be someone that is easy to root for. He's a hero, but only just and he's always walking a fine line between hero and brutal dictator. I really think you need to see the movie again, because you took all the wrong conclusions from it.

[Litigator]

The guy is about one temptation away from being the worst possible supervillain Gotham could have,

But that's sort of the point isn't it? He's constantly warring with himself, by setting up his own boundaries. I thought the best example in the movie anyway was how only Lucius could control total 3D spy machine. Batman knew that a) building it in Wayne Enterprises, b) assigning it to Lucius; and, c) putting in the kill code were the best things to do to prevent him from abusing it. He didn't need Fox to convince him of that. Batman takes the genie out of the bottle, but he puts it back in too.

THAT is why I like the character so much.

Yes. That's the point.  He always uses his fascist powers responsibly.  That's the cop-out.  That's as unbelievable as nobody on either boat being willing to push the detonator.  How convenient is it that they can find a guy who is selfless and pure and incorruptible to grant these scary, overarching powers?  

When you have the lawyer who is going to reveal Batman's identity, does Wayne kill him to keep him silent? No! He saves the guy's life!

When he builds the Bat-Wiretap, does he use it to spy on people? Nope! He gives it only to Lucius Fox, a man who is apparently more noble and incorruptible than even Batman because he is Morgan Freeman, the magical black guy.  

The realistic measure is that we need rights that put hard limitations on the exertion of coercive state power, because we can never fully trust the discretion of the people who wield that power.  In Nolan's Gotham, we don't need rights, because Batman's discretion is flawless, his power is never used selfishly, and, thus, he is the hero Gotham deserves and a safe and responsible custodian for absolute power.

For example, the Bush administration is arguing that it needs broad unsupervised wiretapping priveleges because this is a state of national emergency, and the taps will only be used to monitor terrorists.  And everyone shits a brick.

In the movie, Batman says he needs a vast wiretapping network that records not merely audio on people's phone calls, but effectively captures always-on video of their homes, because it's a state of emergency and the taps will only be used to hunt the Joker.  And Lucius Fox says "I guess it's okay, just this once."

[Litigator]

He in no way portrayed Batman as unfailingly noble and fair. Batman did a lot of bad shit, violated a lot of moral codes and is now branded as an actual outlaw. He went too extreme in trying to counter the Joker's extreme methods, and it cost him the love of the city and his cozy relationship with Gordon and the help of the police force.

Well, torture and hard interrogation are even less of a problem, when you only use them on the terrorists.  The problem is, we don't trust the government to only turn the screws on the really bad guys, like we apparently can with Batman.  And we're concerned, given the nature of power to creep, that any exception will swallow the rule.  Batman, with his perfect judgment, can, of course, apply torture on a case-by-case basis, and he'll never throw someone off a building who doesn't deserve it.

And Batman ultimately had to become the outlaw to cover-up the fact that the Joker had corrupted Dent, who basically symbolizes the Constitution. 

The moral of "The Dark Knight" was actually that we have to torture and wiretap terrorists, because they will turn our rights against us.  It's like the film version of the Gonzales memo.

How is he NOT mean and creepy? Women can't get close to him, not really, he's spectacularly alone in his personal life, and the Batman, who was getting some measure of love and respect is now branded an outlaw and a murderer. A COP KILLER, in fact. This is a torturer, a man who regularly violated civil liberties and is really pretty brutal and creepy. If you don't have trouble rooting for him in this movie, you have problems of your own. Batman isn't meant to be someone that is easy to root for. He's a hero, but only just and he's always walking a fine line between hero and brutal dictator. I really think you need to see the movie again, because you took all the wrong conclusions from it.

No. Sacrificing his reputation was his final saintly act of the movie.  If he'd let Dent take the fall for kidnapping Gordon's family, the city probably would have declared martial law and made Batman its chancellor.  And of course one of the great fiction of expanded emergency powers is that the people to whom they're granted will willingly relinquish them when the emergency ends, which is effectively what Batman is doing here.

I didn't think the film presented a single instance in which Batman's decisions turned out to be wrong. He is like Benito Christ.

[HaemishM]

Ummmm, you really need to watch the movie again. In fact, they say MULTIPLE TIMES that the uncorrupted Harvey Dent is the hero Gotham deserves, but that Batman will have to do until that white knight can come along. They almost hammer the point home that Batman is a substitute for what they really need. He is NOT the ideal.

As far it being convenient, well, it IS fiction, built around this character. Of course he's going to be the guy that can get things done, but he's hardly flawless in doing it.

The moral of "The Dark Knight" was actually that we have to torture and wiretap terrorists, because they will turn our rights against us.  It's like the film version of the Gonzales memo.

You are watching the wrong movie. Holy fuck, but you are watching the wrong movie. Torture didn't work. The torture only got Rachel killed because the clever captive fed the wrong information. Hell, Batman dropping Meroni off the building (torture) only got Meroni to tell him nothing. Meroni wasn't scared of the Batman's torture because he knew Batman wouldn't kill him. Batman could have crossed that line and become the complete savage.

[Lakov_Sanite]

Don't bother Haemish, I think litigator may be mildly retarded as he seemed to draw every conclusion in the movie 'opposite' of what is was trying to portray. Sometimes people walk into things with their own agendas which is clearly the case and no about of discussion will ever correct this.

The very fact that this movie raises such questions of morality, fascism, terrorism and anarchy speaks volumes about the movie as a whole and it's a goddamned comic book adaptation, so...chew on that for a moment.

[Litigator]

Ummmm, you really need to watch the movie again. In fact, they say MULTIPLE TIMES that the uncorrupted Harvey Dent is the hero Gotham deserves, but that Batman will have to do until that white knight can come along. They almost hammer the point home that Batman is a substitute for what they really need. He is NOT the ideal.

As far it being convenient, well, it IS fiction, built around this character. Of course he's going to be the guy that can get things done, but he's hardly flawless in doing it.

I mean, if you want to turn the thing into an allegory, which was clearly intended, I think Dent represents process, Batman represents force and Joker represents terrorism. 

Dent is everyone's ideal of the solution he represents, but, when applied to the Joker problem, Dent falls short. He is ineffective against the threat and ultimately corrupted by it.  The idealization of Dent and his fall both inherently reflect the filmmaker's opinion of the institutions he represents.  It's all well and good to talk about rights and process and everybody wants that in an ideal world, but in Nolan's worldview those ideals can't go to where the terrorists live and put the jackboots on their throats.   This is best exemplefied in the party scene, where, as soon as trouble arrives, Wayne locks Dent in a closet and starts beating the shit out of people.

This isn't countered either, by Dent's early success in locking up a bunch of mobsters; first, that achievement relied on Batman's extrajudicial kidnapping of the mob financier, and, second, that just mirrors the Bush administration-type argument that the Constitution and the mechanisms that operate within it are sufficient for ordinary problems, but that terrorism presents a special circumstance that requires special expansion of executive power.

And, granted, the Joker problem can't be solved costlessly by Batman, but it can't be solved at all by Dent, who is ultimately exploited in service of Joker's agenda.  And the ultimate costs are Joker costs, rather than Batman costs; a more reasonable conclusion of this parable is that Batman gets rid of the Joker, but the city is left with a Batman who peers into their bedrooms and listens to their private conversations on his Bat-wiretap, and beats up whoever he feels like. 

[Litigator]

Don't bother Haemish, I think litigator may be mildly retarded as he seemed to draw every conclusion in the movie 'opposite' of what is was trying to portray. Sometimes people walk into things with their own agendas which is clearly the case and no about of discussion will ever correct this.

The very fact that this movie raises such questions of morality, fascism, terrorism and anarchy speaks volumes about the movie as a whole and it's a goddamned comic book adaptation, so...chew on that for a moment.

Shut the fuck up and crawl back into your rancid nest of crusty Kleenex, you filthy little degenerate.

[HaemishM]

A more reasonable conclusion of this parable is that Batman gets rid of the Joker, but the city is left with a Batman who peers into their bedrooms and listens to their private conversations on his Bat-wiretap, and beats up whoever he feels like. 

They already had that before the Joker. The problem presented is that that approach also spawned the necessity for the Joker from the criminal's side, which required Batman to go ever further down a path from righteous force to outright oppression. And down that path lies Two-Face, the corruption of good. Only by withdrawing from that path, by not becoming that ultimate fascist did any sort of victory emerge. There are some problems for which escalation is not the answer, but sometimes that lesson is a hard-learned one. Batman has learned that lesson.

Indeed, the movie parallels the current comic version's plight as well. In the comics, Batman builds the Brother Eye satellite system, which gains sentience, turns on him and releases the Omacs to kill all the superheroes. He has to learn to work with his fellow superheroes without so much ultimate control in order to fix the problem of his own creation.

No one should ever feel comfortable with a Batman running around out there. They illustrate quite clearly with the copycats early on when the copycats ask "What's the difference between you and me?" Batman replies "I'm not wearing hockey pads," meaning he had the arrogance to assume that his efficacy made his actions right. This movie showed him the error of that statement.

[Litigator]

A more reasonable conclusion of this parable is that Batman gets rid of the Joker, but the city is left with a Batman who peers into their bedrooms and listens to their private conversations on his Bat-wiretap, and beats up whoever he feels like. 

They already had that before the Joker. The problem presented is that that approach also spawned the necessity for the Joker from the criminal's side, which required Batman to go ever further down a path from righteous force to outright oppression. And down that path lies Two-Face, the corruption of good. Only by withdrawing from that path, by not becoming that ultimate fascist did any sort of victory emerge. There are some problems for which escalation is not the answer, but sometimes that lesson is a hard-learned one. Batman has learned that lesson.

Indeed, the movie parallels the current comic version's plight as well. In the comics, Batman builds the Brother Eye satellite system, which gains sentience, turns on him and releases the Omacs to kill all the superheroes. He has to learn to work with his fellow superheroes without so much ultimate control in order to fix the problem of his own creation.

No one should ever feel comfortable with a Batman running around out there. They illustrate quite clearly with the copycats early on when the copycats ask "What's the difference between you and me?" Batman replies "I'm not wearing hockey pads," meaning he had the arrogance to assume that his efficacy made his actions right. This movie showed him the error of that statement.

I'm not sure what the point of the Batman-wannabe vigilantes was, except that they were cribbed from "Dark Knight Returns," and they give the Joker somebody to rub out in the first act.  If one guy, with virtually unlimited resources, decides to be Batman with the acquiescence of the state, he's a unitary executive.  If everybody decides to be Batman, it's obviously anarchy. 

I think they do develop the theory that the Joker emerges as a response to Batman, which is the film's real criticism of the Batman idea (and that was also cribbed from Dark Knight Returns).  But even if Batman creates these problems, the only effective solution still winds up being more Batman.   

[HaemishM]

It IS a Batman movie.

[Lakov_Sanite]

Don't bother Haemish, I think litigator may be mildly retarded as he seemed to draw every conclusion in the movie 'opposite' of what is was trying to portray. Sometimes people walk into things with their own agendas which is clearly the case and no about of discussion will ever correct this.

The very fact that this movie raises such questions of morality, fascism, terrorism and anarchy speaks volumes about the movie as a whole and it's a goddamned comic book adaptation, so...chew on that for a moment.

Shut the fuck up and crawl back into your rancid nest of crusty Kleenex, you filthy little degenerate.

Next time spank my ass when you say that.

[SurfD]

One thing you have to wonder about the Boat Dilemma.  This is the Joker.  Do you REALLY believe he gave you the detinator to the OTHER boat?  REALLY?  I might not be so sure.

[jpark]

Thanks for all the work Haemish - I agree with you on your points in responding to Litigator.  Very well put. 

In thinking of the dilmma Batman faced in this film, in confronting himself, I hope that somone out there thinks of Guantanamo Bay :(

[ahoythematey]

Wow.  I think it's kind of sad how much personal bias you let yourself project into your theatre-going experience, and how mistaken your analysis is because of your incorrect observations.  Litigator, you missed out on seeing a phenominally good film.

[Abagadro]

I really enjoyed the flick. Very well done all the way around.

When I first walked out I did have the vague sense that I had watched an apologia for the Bush administration though, so I don't think Litigator is totally off base. I think he takes a bit too far though in ignoring the costs that Batman incurs both for himself and those around him and the recognition by the characters themselves that it is not ideal. In fact, he misquotes the line I believe. Batman is not "the hero Gotham deserves."  He is specifically "not the hero Gotham deserves, he is the one it needs."  A necessary evil that even Batman himself wants to get rid of.  That's not a rah-rah cheerleading for fascism in my eyes, but more of an examination of what is a common feeling, i.e. "do whatever you need to protect us as long as it is against the bad guys and we don't have to take responsibility for it" and the ramifications of it. It's the tension between utilitarianism and idealism that is being fought here. Just because utilitarianism wins to some degree in the film doesn't mean it is necessarily an endorsement. There may be a longer arc at work here so I'm interested in seeing the inevitable 3rd one.

I did like that the "prisoner's dilemma" scenario that the Joker set up involved actual prisoners on one side of it, which I hope was intentional.

[HaemishM]

I kind of expected that the Joker wanted the prisoners to riot, kill their captors and steal the devices. But really, I think the Joker just wanted to see somebody, anybody burn.

I'm happy to see that such good political discussion can be had about the film without feeling like we projecting something onto the film that isn't there. I always get pissy when people try to project their own personal hangups onto films (like that crazy feminist who tried to claim that all consensual hetero sex is rape and as such Firefly/Serenity is a misogynist's wet dream), but it seems like Dark Knight actually wanted to explore some of that ground without being ham-fisted and overstated.

[Abagadro]

It's interesting if you think about it that most of the exegesis on the topic is put directly into the Joker's mouth.  He was one of the few who understood the ramification of a system of rules coming into conflict with someone who was so nihilistic that rules only became a hindrance. His last statement that the two of them (as allegories in some way for chaos and order) "would be doing this forever" was both highly cogent and damn depressing.