The Dark Knight Trilogy (Christopher Nolan, 2005-2012)

[Binker]

Does this thread really need a voice arguing against high-level discussion in general? If you can put forth an argument against cde's interpretation, please do. This shit

You are looking way too deep into the film.

Honestly, give it up. The film is a Batman movie and if you are going to start drawing post 9/11 parallels to make a conspiracy theory out of the film, you are wasting your time.

People like you know how to suck the life out of anything. Your comments belong in junior college film classes where you try to find every piece of non-existent symbolism.

is just blatantly anti-intellectual and contributes nothing.

[Cde.]

"An atmosphere of dread in which we have to trust a guy who is acting unethically and spying on us using sophisticated technology in order to get anything done and save the day. Aren't I allowed to object to that?

I feel like your entire motivation for discussing these themes was expressed in this statement.

Quoting you isn't putting words in your mouth.

Nowhere in that sentence does it suggest I was looking for attention.

In that sentence I said that the film makes a point of defending the actions of a man who uses the same techniques that Bush has in fighting terrorism. I object to the film's morals just as I object to Bush. Given the political climate, that the film makes the points it does and romanticises its hero for them is disturbing. I asked if I was allowed to object to this because of the way you started likening my comments to those of the students of "junior college film classes" who "suck the life out of anything".

This is a discussion board where we discuss. My points were made for the sake of discussion, and to get them off my chest, not merely for attention. If someone disagrees with you, it isn't necessarily the case that they actually agree with you but just want attention as you have suggested.

[Cold Bishop]

This thread is getting as redundant as Bush's second term!*

I'm just waiting for Barmy to chime in.

[Cde.]

Does this thread really need a voice arguing against high-level discussion in general? If you can put forth an argument against cde's interpretation, please do. This shit

You are looking way too deep into the film.

Honestly, give it up. The film is a Batman movie and if you are going to start drawing post 9/11 parallels to make a conspiracy theory out of the film, you are wasting your time.

People like you know how to suck the life out of anything. Your comments belong in junior college film classes where you try to find every piece of non-existent symbolism.

is just blatantly anti-intellectual and contributes nothing.

Yes! Yes ! Yes!

I'd love to see a response that seriously engages with the film and tells me why I'm wrong rather than just, "Naaaw, it's just a BATMAN movie, Gawd!"

If you have an argument against what I wrote, please say it!

[moviscop]

Does this thread really need a voice arguing against high-level discussion in general? If you can put forth an argument against cde's interpretation, please do. This shit

You are looking way too deep into the film.

Honestly, give it up. The film is a Batman movie and if you are going to start drawing post 9/11 parallels to make a conspiracy theory out of the film, you are wasting your time.

People like you know how to suck the life out of anything. Your comments belong in junior college film classes where you try to find every piece of non-existent symbolism.

is just blatantly anti-intellectual and contributes nothing.

Yes! Yes ! Yes!

I'd love to see a response that seriously engages with the film and tells me why I'm wrong rather than just, "Naaaw, it's just a BATMAN movie, Gawd!" If you have an argument against what I wrote, please say it!

Seeing as Nolan has never made a film with any discernible agenda, it is hard to believe that he would make such blatant statements on a franchise and "super-hero" he holds in such high regard.

Nolan: "As we looked through the comics, there was this fascinating idea that Batman's presence in Gotham actually attracts criminals to Gotham, attracts lunacy," he says. "When you're dealing with questionable notions like people taking the law into their own hands, you have to really ask, where does that lead?"

The film is a big example of anarchy and the aftermath. If I spoke to Nolan, I could possibly dismiss your ideas. However, I can only combat what I find a ridiculous attempt at digging too deeply into a film. After all, how can I possibly dismiss completely, a notion that is in your head?

[Cde.]

[quote="moviscop"Seeing as Nolan has never made a film with any discernible agenda, it is hard to believe that he would make such blatant statements on a franchise and "super-hero" he holds in such high regard.

Nolan: "As we looked through the comics, there was this fascinating idea that Batman's presence in Gotham actually attracts criminals to Gotham, attracts lunacy," he says. "When you're dealing with questionable notions like people taking the law into their own hands, you have to really ask, where does that lead?"

The film is a big example of anarchy and the aftermath. If I spoke to Nolan, I could possibly dismiss your ideas. However, I can only combat what I find a ridiculous attempt at digging too deeply into a film. After all, how can I possibly dismiss completely, a notion that is in your head?[/quote]
Will you stop that? The point I was making was that it actually contributes something to a discussion board if you grapple with ideas rather than dismissively saying "it's all in your imagination!"

Yes, the film is about anarchy and the aftermath, its effects on the population. I think towards the end these ideas were underdeveloped, especially in regards to the

Spoiler

two boats, and Harvey Dent's murderous turn against Batman and Gordon's family.

Just because Nolan hasn't made a film with this kind of political undercurrent running through it before doesn't mean he never can, especially considering he's never made a film about urban-terrorism and how to deal with it before either. I'd say that if Nolan holds a super-hero and franchise in high-regard then he would think that it can support complex ideas and themes.

The idea about the Joker being attracted to Gotham City because of Batman is an interesting one in theory, but I don't like what Nolan seems to be saying in the context it was presented. The Joker arises because of Batman, but we don't see what Batman did that caused this other than act as a force for good. Suddenly this guy pops us who 'just wants to see the world burn'. Sounds like what we are told about terrorists to me. The suggestion is that terrorists arise merely because a force for good exists, which I think is stupid. In reality, there is a much more complex cause/effect relationship between the two which the story casually dismisses. No major enemy really wants to cause chaos and anarchy merely to 'watch the world burn'.

If you really want to get caught up in Nolan's intentions, then fine, it is possible he may not have intended all of these themes to be read into his work, but I think that he has created a film, consciously or not, which definitely advocates a certain way of dealing with (and the film uses this word) terrorism, and I think it is one that sits uncomfortably close to that taken by Bush's government.

[John Cope]

Seeing as Nolan has never made a film with any discernible agenda, it is hard to believe that he would make such blatant statements on a franchise and "super-hero" he holds in such high regard.

I'm not sure what constitutes a "discernible agenda". I could certainly point to a philosophic continuity or continuity of ideology that threads through his features but I have yet to see Dark Knight so I'll wait to pose that till then.

[blindside8zao]

If this film wasn't an allegory for america they wouldn't have made it here, duh.

[moviscop]

I just find that when you over examine a film, you take away the entire experience of it being imaginary and "a theatrical experience."

I cannot stand when people try to find real-life agendas in a film that is meant to be enjoyed as a way to seperate yourself from the outside world for 2:30 minutes.

I witnessed a fictional story.

[AWA]

Does this thread really need a voice arguing against high-level discussion in general? If you can put forth an argument against cde's interpretation, please do. This shit

You are looking way too deep into the film.

Honestly, give it up. The film is a Batman movie and if you are going to start drawing post 9/11 parallels to make a conspiracy theory out of the film, you are wasting your time.

People like you know how to suck the life out of anything. Your comments belong in junior college film classes where you try to find every piece of non-existent symbolism.

is just blatantly anti-intellectual and contributes nothing.

Apparently pathetically lazy blantant riffs on issues the news is filled with is no match for pretty pictures and stuff blowing up.

I'm sure that when Nolan wrote the film, he was completely oblivious to the idea of putting in justifiable spying on the masses to catch one man, acceptable interrogation torture and including a mass population driven by a climate of fear made my threatening home movies made by terrorists broadcast on local news. Unless Nolan has has been living in his own effing BatCave for the past 8 years with no connection to any kind of media, these points are God Damn Obvious. Blatant and completely unavoidable. Any kind of discussion beyond menial plot points like "Batman sure punched that guy hard!" and "the Joker sure was scary lookin'" will get down to the plot devices such as Batman's choice to employ unethical wiretapping, abusive interrogation, and over-riding international law to bring about justice.

This can not possibly be up for debate, least of all a place such as this where I go to find people who aren't interested in denying the obvious. For crying out loud, Nolan admits it as much himself:

Q:It's also something of a grim time in our country, which is why so many themes in this movie feel relevant. There's a line about how heroes always become villains if they stick around long enough. The idea is that, eventually, we turn on our heroes.

CN: Yeah, we do. There are all kinds of famous examples. We talk about Caesar in the movie. But also Winston Churchill, who was thrown out of office after World War II. We try to portray Batman as a real person, and if a heroic figure is a real person—someone who the entire population of a city puts their hopes and dreams onto—that hero will inevitably disappoint in some way. We will turn on them.

Q: 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.

CN: 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.

Q: 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.

CN: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.

Q:So it's not a stretch to look at Gotham and see shades of Baghdad?

CN:Well, where I suppose I would see a parallel is the threat of chaos, which is something we very much deal with in this film. And in today's world, Baghdad is a powerful illustration of that. It's frightening to imagine in one of our own cities.

Q: This is heavy stuff for a summer blockbuster.
CN: [Laughs] In a way, but I hope it's also entertaining stuff. All of the political echoes that we're talking about—they're all things that rattle around in your brain afterward. The movie itself aims to be entertainment. But you've got to have some real fear that things are not going to turn out well. What we're trying for is genuine peril.

It would be like saying "why can' you people just listen to John Lennon's pretty piano playing in Imagine and stop reading into it? You're ruining a pretty song!"

You don't write something this obvious with that many parallels to current issues and moral choices without it being subject to analysis of what your intended message is. This isn't just some story about a guy in a bat costume, they didn't have wiretapping in any of Tim Burton's movies did they?

moviscop = you now have it straight from the writer and director's mouth that this was made with clear allegorical references to modern American political situations. You may now admit that it is just simply wrong to suggest otherwise and, by doing so, move this discussion forward and stop playing pretend.

[domino harvey]

I just find that when you over examine a film, you take away the entire experience of it being imaginary and "a theatrical experience."

I cannot stand when people try to find real-life agendas in a film that is meant to be enjoyed as a way to seperate yourself from the outside world for 2:30 minutes.

I witnessed a fictional story.

I know you're just starting out with film, but this is 101 stuff

[moviscop]

I just find that when you over examine a film, you take away the entire experience of it being imaginary and "a theatrical experience."

I cannot stand when people try to find real-life agendas in a film that is meant to be enjoyed as a way to seperate yourself from the outside world for 2:30 minutes.

I witnessed a fictional story.

I know you're just starting out with film, but this is 101 stuff

My stance would be completely different in dealing with Criterion-grade films. In the case of popcorn cinema, I go to have a good time and don't enjoy deep examination. I think you can agree with me.

And I'm not necessarily just starting with film, I am just beginning to explore European cinema for the first time.

[domino harvey]

I meant that you've fallen under the intentional fallacy and decried analyzing popular films for subtextual evidence, two things you learn about in Intro to Film.

[AWA]

I just find that when you over examine a film, you take away the entire experience of it being imaginary and "a theatrical experience."

I cannot stand when people try to find real-life agendas in a film that is meant to be enjoyed as a way to seperate yourself from the outside world for 2:30 minutes.

I witnessed a fictional story.

I know you're just starting out with film, but this is 101 stuff

My stance would be completely different in dealing with Criterion-grade films. In the case of popcorn cinema, I go to have a good time and don't enjoy deep examination. I think you can agree with me.

And I'm not necessarily just starting with film, I am just beginning to explore European cinema for the first time.

ANY good film, be it art-house or popcorn, works well when it addresses it's audience as human beings with concerns, morals and ethics in play in society. Film, even when big budgeted popcorn flicks, are still ART and ART works when it is addressing it's audiences hopes and fears. Nolan admits in interviews that this was written intentionally to address those issues today - it is not debatable therefore to suggest that this somehow gets a free pass from being subject to interpretation of what it is conveying. This is the reality you are faced with - deal with it and stop pretending that the obvious isn't there - it is, it is intentionally there to at least provoke this discussion in some manner, either in public spaces or somewhere within your own mind.

ETA: It should be noted that bad popcorn movies are often bad simply because it assumes it's audience is stupid and does not need to work on such hopes, fears, morals and ethics and just present "a story" or, worse yet, some "really cool CGI graphics and special effects". The content is still there, since it is obviously written by a human being that is a member of some society and culture no matter how apolitical they might try to pretend they are, but the less of that there is, 99.99% of the time the worse the film is - case in point every bloated budgeted popcorn film you've seen that failed miserably to present any kind of meaningful story because it was just a CGI workout.

[Cde.]

I witnessed a fictional story too, but one which I think drew parallels with current politics in a lot of ways.

I don't think art is or should be just escapism from the world. I think it enriches our life and gives us things to think about and discuss. Art can change the way we look at the world. At the same time, art cannot be viewed as being completely detached from the world that surrounds it. Artists are inspired by what they see; as I said, their art does not exist inside a vacuum. Therefore, their work can be said to incorporate a range of different real world concerns in a fictional story.

I would say that is the case for all works of art, even the most obviously disposable.

It's not possible for me to view a film as being completely separate from the world in which it was born.

Because of this, I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest the Nolans have created a film that speaks to real world issues and advocates a certain course of action.

[John Cope]

God knows I can go the opposite extreme here but I think the issue is that to just generally disregard the prospect that mainstream entertainment can do more than entertain, to automatically assume that there can be nothing of any substance going on in "popcorn cinema", is to essentially allow that to remain the prevalent norm, unchallenged and expected. This is an unnecessary capitulation. It is also not an encouragement to those like Nolan who attempt more.

[moviscop]

I meant that you've fallen under the intentional fallacy and decried analyzing popular films for subtextual evidence, two things you learn about in Intro to Film.

I don't dismiss the fact that this film can be discussed in an intelligent way. However, the important themes tend to not be the (possible) political ones. It seems like the true themes of the film are in reference to human nature and the value of human life.

Christopher Nolan will obviously not dismiss the idea of not having political themes in his film, but he doesn't say there are any in that interview either.

As any decent director, it is a goal to keep projects open for discussion to avoid locking it down.

[exte]

If anyone has the script, please PM me. Thanks!

[AWA]

I don't dismiss the fact that this film can be discussed in an intelligent way. However, the important themes tend to not be the (possible) political ones. It seems like the true themes of the film are in reference to human nature and the value of human life.

You just ruined your own argument right there. Welcome to the discussion, finally.

But first I'd like to hear you try and explain how the value of human life and human nature at play in the ultra-modern society depicted in that film is not political or comparable to the issues at hand today. It's not like a single day goes by where those issues aren't brought up as the center of the debate of the so-called "War On Terror".

[Jeff]

Seeing as Nolan has never made a film with any discernible agenda, it is hard to believe that he would make such blatant statements on a franchise and "super-hero" he holds in such high regard.

I'm not sure what constitutes a "discernible agenda". I could certainly point to a philosophic continuity or continuity of ideology that threads through his features but I have yet to see Dark Knight so I'll wait to pose that till then.

I agree, John. I look forward to reading your take after you see The Dark Knight. While I'm not really buying of the "Batman is Bush" take (Bruce Wayne is tormented by the moral quandary of whether his means justify an end and whether he does his thing for the good of the populace or just to exercise his own demons. I don't think W. has ever given such philosophical questions a second thought.), Christopher Nolan certainly has a lot more on his mind than putting dudes in costumes and making stuff blow up.

I hope that when he has a few more films under his belt somebody a lot smarter than me will write a book about the themes (men driven by obsession, perception versus reality, the illusions we create to delude ourselves, the duality of man, self-destruction by vengeance, the construction of self-serving codes of morality) that run through all of Nolan's work.

Nolan still has no idea where to put the camera, can't stage action scenes, and doesn't really have much of an eye for composition (thank goodness for the immaculate lighting of Wally Pfister), but I think he and his brother Jonathan are two of the smartest and most thoughtful scenarists working in English-language cinema. Even more impressively, they are able to smuggle (as Scorsese would say) their heady philosophical questions in tightly constructed mainstream genre fare.

[moviscop]

Discussion Spoilers Herein

I really felt like the film analyzed human nature as inherently good instead of evil. This was an obvious theme in that the Joker continued to try to prove that human kind would turn on itself and be evil when they were threatened.

The interesting thing was that when the businessman's life was threatened on the TV show, everyone came after him with guns. However, when the 2 boats were given the choice to kill each other they didn't.

I suppose what is such a cool theme in all of this is the value of one life in comparison to a "boat" of lives. Is it ok to sacrifice only one in an attempt to save many? According to the film, it seems like that is a true statement.

(And I apologize if I was coming off a bit strong in my previous posts. I was coming off of a high on the film and the last thing I wanted to hear was people comparing it to the Bush administration.)

[Cde.]

As any decent director, it is a goal to keep projects open for discussion to avoid locking it down.

Exactly. I don't think he needs arguments like the ones you've been putting forward to do that for him.

[AWA]

Seeing as Nolan has never made a film with any discernible agenda, it is hard to believe that he would make such blatant statements on a franchise and "super-hero" he holds in such high regard.

I'm not sure what constitutes a "discernible agenda". I could certainly point to a philosophic continuity or continuity of ideology that threads through his features but I have yet to see Dark Knight so I'll wait to pose that till then.

I agree, John. I look forward to reading your take after you see The Dark Knight. While I'm not really buying of the "Batman is Bush" take (Bruce Wayne is tormented by the moral quandary of whether his means justify an end and whether he does his thing for the good of the populace or just to exercise his own demons. I don't think W. has ever given such philosophical questions a second thought.), Christopher Nolan certainly has a lot more on his mind than putting dudes in costumes and making stuff blow up.

I hope that when he has a few more films under his belt somebody a lot smarter than me will write a book about the themes (men driven by obsession, perception versus reality, the illusions we create to delude ourselves, the duality of man, self-destruction by vengeance, the construction of self-serving codes of morality) that run through all of Nolan's work.

Nolan still has no idea where to put the camera, can't stage action scenes, and doesn't really have much of an eye for composition (thank goodness for the immaculate lighting of Wally Pfister), but I think he and his brother Jonathan are two of the smartest and most thoughtful scenarists working in English-language cinema. Even more impressively, they are able to smuggle (as Scorsese would say) their heady philosophical questions in tightly constructed mainstream genre fare.

I don't think it's literally as straight forward as "Batman = Bush", but it's more Batman as American conscience - he struggles with these issues, just as the Americans who have put these policies into place have. Those who voted initially for the Patroit Act are not all in unison several years later about how justifiable it is.

To add to your list there - is justice a form of vengence and which motivates which?

[Cde.]

Seeing as Nolan has never made a film with any discernible agenda, it is hard to believe that he would make such blatant statements on a franchise and "super-hero" he holds in such high regard.

I'm not sure what constitutes a "discernible agenda". I could certainly point to a philosophic continuity or continuity of ideology that threads through his features but I have yet to see Dark Knight so I'll wait to pose that till then.

While I'm not really buying of the "Batman is Bush" take (Bruce Wayne is tormented by the moral quandary of whether his means justify an end and whether he does his thing for the good of the populace or just to exercise his own demons. I don't think W. has ever given such philosophical questions a second thought.)

That makes Batman, as a character, human though. That makes him identifiable. You don't think that Bush has given a second thought to these issues (I have my doubts too) but that doesn't mean the film doesn't either.

I'm not saying that the parallels are perfect and neat, but The Dark Knight sure does invite them.

EDIT: I agree with AWA, Batman is not literally Bush, but he seems to represent the ideals he has been putting into action and serve as the voice of contemporary conservative America

Spoiler

right down to being pursued and hated for doing what he knows was the right thing to fight terrorism[/i]

And yes, Nolan's certainly does have auteurist recurring motifs and themes.

[Cold Bishop]

SPOILERS:

(Bruce Wayne is tormented by the moral quandary of whether his means justify an end and whether he does his thing for the good of the populace or just to exercise his own demons.)

...and the movie works best when it recognizes this conflict, and at points it does seem to examine the question of maintaining justice in a chaotic world and it does it rather intelligently within the framework of a comic book movie. It's during the points where it seems to fully take one side (the voiceover about how people sometimes need "lies" because they don't know whats best for themselves), or sidesteps the questions it raises (Lucius making the case the spy gear is too much power for one man, but having no problem taking up the mantel himself) that the film stumbles.

I don't want to write off the films politics as neo-conservatie right away - or the film itself which, politics aside, is very well put together (though I agree the Nolans are better writers than visual filmmakers) and entertaining - and I''m not going to go as far as to accuse Nolan as a Bush apologist, yet by the time the film ends, the film seems to support the need for vigilante justice and its ability to sidestep our rights to an extent that's nothing short of dubious.

In the end, if the film did more to recognize the ambivalent qualities of the decisions Batman and company made, I may have been able to accept those decisions. Earlier in the film, it does seem to treat the moral quandaries not as right or wrong decisions, but as just decisions, each with their positives and catastrophic negatives. It's when the complex questions are tied up into neat answers that I feel we have to question Nolan.