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.)
I agree that the idea of the people of Gotham's inherent goodness was an important one, but I don't see how this needs to be the only idea in the film. Can't it be multilayered? Also, why can't this be likened to the political viewpoint I was talking about as well? The Joker is a terrorist who aims to reveal the worst in people, but in the end he is incorrect; people are good but they need someone like Batman to fight for them using whatever means necessary.
Also, wasn't Batman depicted as right in sticking to his morals to the end, believing it's not alright to sacrifice one life for many?
Jeff wrote:(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 seems to examine the question of maintaining justice in a chaotic world and it doesn't 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 completely 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 handled - 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.
This is how I feel as well. At first, the film is questioning of Wayne's methods and morals, but by the conclusion it has, in a typical reassuring ending, assessed that his convictions are right and all of his acts did help the achievement of justice. In sticking to a standard film formula Nolan abandons the moral and ethical dilemmas that were, for a politically and intellectually questionable stance.
Cde. wrote:In sticking to a standard film formula Nolan abandons the moral and ethical dilemmas that were, for a politically and intellectually questionable stance.
It doesn't sound like he's abandoned them, Cde. It sounds like he's just handed them off to you.
Jeff wrote:(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.
Yes, that and it is a complete and utter cop-out to not give the Joker ANY back story - the Joker's only back-story comes from him and he is obviously lying as he changes the story several times. But when Batman and Alfred trace his fingerprints, they get no matches (of course - this is a world where everyone apparently freely submits such information for the "greater good" so that no one is without fingerprints on file). To make a "terrorist" with no human history, to suggest that they just "exist" without any cost is not only lazy writing it's just plain simplistic. They're not born, they're made. No baby comes out of the womb with the desire for militant terrorist vengeance.
Also - not mentioned previously but the film also works to justify background checks, as they run one on the guy in the car with Gordon and the man from the TV. As if Gordon needed Batman to text message him a warning about the guy after finding out some personal information on his computer check. Gordon has eyes and should be able to see the guy is thinking about pulling the trigger, especially when Nolan is cutting away to the guy's nervous expression all the time.
AWA wrote:To make a "terrorist" with no human history, to suggest that they just "exist" without any cost is not only lazy writing it's just plain simplistic. They're not born, they're made. No baby comes out of the womb with the desire for militant terrorist vengeance.
Yeah, but maybe Nolan's point is that his backstory is irrelevant, that his actions define him and he embodies, for good or ill, what they represent. And to attempt to dialogue with him via some understanding of his motives is equally irrelevant as it would require too much of a capitulation. Whether this is a profitable approach is, obviously, up for discussion.
AWA wrote:Yes, that and it is a complete and utter cop-out to not give the Joker ANY back story - the Joker's only back-story comes from him and he is obviously lying as he changes the story several times. But when Batman and Alfred trace his fingerprints, they get no matches (of course - this is a world where everyone apparently freely submits such information for the "greater good" so that no one is without fingerprints on file). To make a "terrorist" with no human history, to suggest that they just "exist" without any cost is not only lazy writing it's just plain simplistic. They're not born, they're made. No baby comes out of the womb with the desire for militant terrorist vengeance.
While I have no way of knowing what Nolan was thinking, I can't shake the hunch that Joker's story was going to reveal itself in the now impossible third part.
That, and in the comic, Joker, regardless of his history, kinda just terrorizes for the sake of terrorizing.
Doesn't really explain away what you're saying, but I'm willing to believe there were other forces than political ideology motivating Joker to be written the way he was, and I think the Joker's motive isn't the least of the films problems. Symbols play such a big part in superhero-mythology, that I can buy Joker as a symbol of pure chaos (even if it doesn't do justice for the real reasons behind terrorism), I can't buy the way that chaos is handled with.
Seems most of you are responding to the film independent of its essential origins; the Batman legend, character, world and material. Which is fine obviously.
But let me ask this; is it possible to make a Batman film that does NOT support vigilante justice?
If you consider the traditional morality of Batman, (Batman IS the hero, he IS doing the right thing often by doing the "wrong" thing, the public and local government often turn against Batman and do NOT know what is best for them) could this film could be seen as a liberalized Batman story for even dwelling on these questions? Is it possible Nolan was locked down by the concrete heroes and villains of a comic book story and said something he didn't really mean to say? Possible that he simply wanted to explore these ideas but the Batman model forced him to land definitively on the fascist side? Nolan wanted to make a Batman film of ideas. What are the ideas of Batman? Vigilante justice, sacrifice for order, becoming the enemy to stop the enemy, etc, ... It's pretty easy to get from there to the War on Terror. And it's pretty fucking hard to not come off pro-Bush when the reason your hero was created is to operate outside the law, outside authority or overseer, and to get the shit done that needs doing.
On the other hand, Nolan must have realized all of this. He knew whose side he was on. Its almost certainly not giving him enough credit to think that he would specifically target his film towards these issues and not realize where that would take him.
I just got back from seeing this a little bit ago and found it to be absolutely fantastic.
As far as the joker and his lack of backstory, I remember wondering about it at one point, but now I don't care. He's just MAD, and it worked quite well in my opinion.
It reminds me of Rob Zombie's abortive attempt to try to give Michael Myers a lame Zombie-recycled backstory that would have people say "oh, that's why he's mad" instead of just accepting that he just fucking snapped one day for no reason (therein being even more horrific).
John Cope wrote:
It doesn't sound like he's abandoned them, Cde. It sounds like he's just handed them off to you.
Hmm. That's an interesting comment; maybe the problem I see here is with me and my beliefs and not with the film. Maybe it is, like Pauline Kael said of Straw Dogs, "a fascist work of art" that simply can't sit well with me because of its approach but will seem fine, even commendable to others.
I can't believe that Nolan intended to take an ambiguous stance, though. I didn't see any moral confusion in the ending. There is no uncertainty about whether the ethical position that Batman has decided on are right, or whether Batman's success was worth the sacrifice of ethics that brought it about. Instead, he seems to be arguing in the defence of these methods. The ending glorifies Batman as the lone warrior who will fight for what is right for us even if it means we view him as the enemy.
Binker wrote:Seems most of you are responding to the film independent of its essential origins; the Batman legend, character, world and material. Which is fine obviously.
But let me ask this; is it possible to make a Batman film that does NOT support vigilante justice?
If you consider the traditional morality of Batman, (Batman IS the hero, he IS doing the right thing often by doing the "wrong" thing, the public and local government often turn against Batman and do NOT know what is best for them) could this film could be seen as a liberalized Batman story for even dwelling on these questions? Is it possible Nolan was locked down by the concrete heroes and villains of a comic book story and said something he didn't really mean to say? Possible that he simply wanted to explore these ideas but the Batman model forced him to land definitively on the fascist side? Nolan wanted to make a Batman film of ideas. What are the ideas of Batman? Vigilante justice, sacrifice for order, becoming the enemy to stop the enemy, etc, ... It's pretty easy to get from there to the War on Terror. And it's pretty fucking hard to not come off pro-Bush when the reason your hero was created is to operate outside the law, outside authority or overseer, and to get the shit done that needs doing.
On the other hand, Nolan must have realized all of this. He knew whose side he was on. Its almost certainly not giving him enough credit to think that he would specifically target his film towards these issues and not realize where that would take him.
I hope to see this tomorrow.
All of what you say does need to be taken into consideration, but as you say, I'm sure Nolan also likely took into consideration how the messages this film presents would be viewed. To add to this, he goes further in suggesting that, while it's Batman who can truly get things done, the public needs to hold onto the idea that a 'White Knight' (Harvey Dent) is able to solve problems peacefully so as to maintain order.
Binker wrote:But let me ask this; is it possible to make a Batman film that does NOT support vigilante justice?
If you consider the traditional morality of Batman, (Batman IS the hero, he IS doing the right thing often by doing the "wrong" thing, the public and local government often turn against Batman and do NOT know what is best for them) could this film could be seen as a liberalized Batman story for even dwelling on these questions? Is it possible Nolan was locked down by the concrete heroes and villains of a comic book story and said something he didn't really mean to say? Possible that he simply wanted to explore these ideas but the Batman model forced him to land definitively on the fascist side? Nolan wanted to make a Batman film of ideas. What are the ideas of Batman? Vigilante justice, sacrifice for order, becoming the enemy to stop the enemy, etc, ... It's pretty easy to get from there to the War on Terror. And it's pretty fucking hard to not come off pro-Bush when the reason your hero was created is to operate outside the law, outside authority or overseer, and to get the shit done
I never had any illusions it wouldn't come out on any side other than that of the vigilante, but its where the vigilante stands, and how you come to land on that side that's the problem. Like I said, all I ask for is a little more recognition of the problems in Batman's decisions within the film, and not for it be treated as the unqualified right. That would of been enough, and would have "left the answers to us", as John Cope said. Vigilantism and the bending of justice as a moral dilemma is a perfectly fine question, and in a state of emergency the way Gotham is in the film, its one that needs to be asked since you really can't expect things to operate with all due process; its the pat answer the film gave that puts a sour taste in my mouth.
Vigilante justice has always been a theme in the Batman series and has constantly been utilized in the franchise. However, it was not until the Dark Knight that the true "rebel" nature of Batman could be seen.
Apart from some of the comics and graphic novels, the Batman films have been about him tracking down enemies and defeating them, with no commentary from the city and no clashing with the authorities.
I think what made this film so good was the fact that the true vigilante side of Batman was put into action on the big screen. It is one thing to make a cat and mouse film where Batman realizes a problem, examines it, is confronted with it, and conquers it. It is quite another to actually create a conflict with Batman and the people he is protecting in the process. I find it unfair to assume that Batman was not confronted by the city he was a part of in the previous films. This film added that necessary layer to Batman and made the story come to life as a "human" tale and not a "superhuman" one.
Do you even have any idea what you are talking about? Batmans reputation in Gotham City is dubious as fuck. He's always been shown as a rebel and a vigilante. It's a key feature of his mythology. Citizens and leaders of Gotham are by turn painted as hateful, terrified, and indifferent of Batman.
I'm talking about the comics, animated series, and graphic novels here btw.
I have been a Batman fan my entire life, and until now, no other live action production has done the sort of job Nolan did of expressing Gotham's citizens.
Chris Nolan wrote: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
One of the problems of the arguments being lined up is that they refuse the idea that Batman's actions (because he's the hero, because he saves the day) are ambiguous. Chris Nolan, if one listens to many of the posts here, is setting up nothing more than straightforward propaganda. The above interview fragment certainly doesn't reflect that. Nolan is clear that there are inherant moral problems in what Batman is doing, indeed in being a hero generally. Far from being the "right road, where the ends justify the means," it's a "very, very dangerous road." Nolan does not understand Batman's actions as being cut and dried, black and white; he believes Batman's position makes it very easy for him to slip into unethical or immoral behaviour without even realising it; and considering Batman has always verged on a noir anti-hero, I have to wonder why anyone else would believe Batman's psoition is clear-cut. If we were talking about Superman, sure; but Batman seems like a hero we're allowed to remain ambivilant about.
The argument boils down to this, as far as I can read: Batman = Hero. Hero = Supreme Good. Thus Batman = Supreme Good. Fine, as long as you're able to prove that Batman = Hero is fully and fundamentally true, without any ambiguities. Does the movie fall apart if we choose to disagree with some of Batman's actions? Can someone make unethical decisions--be indeed a flawed person--but still come out as someone laudable? Important questions these movies raise that no one seems to want to engage with.
Greathinker wrote:Does Christopher Nolan still edit his films like he's cutting a trailer?
Lee Smith edits Nolan's films. If you are referring to average shot length, yeah I guess I wish it were longer, especially during action scenes.
Another big problem with the film, agreed. Half the time it was terribly hard to understand the geography and logic during the action sequences it was just so damn chaotic.
There were many areas in the film that were left short with no resolution. One example is the stories Joker kept telling of how he got the slits. I wish they would have expounded, but perhaps that was the point, to lead us to no resolution for why he chose to disfigure himself.
I saw this with some friends this afternoon. All in all, it was excellent; I was kind of confused by some of the plot points (what exactly was The Scarecrow doing in that first scene?), but the characterizations, the atmosphere, really just about everything is top-notch. The fight scenes definitely seemed better to me than in the first film, albeit still not particularly strong; they just sort of happened and kept the story moving. But that's still better than in the first film, where they were poorly done and frequently distracting.
Ledger, wow--all those accolades are absolutely deserved. What a painful loss to have this guy die so young when he was just coming into his own as a major film persona. Bale was even better this time around than in the first one, I think; he's more natural and at ease with the various tone shifts from scene to scene, moving between Wayne and Batman, etc. Oldman was an inspired casting choice in the first movie and does a great job with an expanded role this time around. Everyone else in the cast ranges from solid to excellent.
As for the political overtones, I'm in the middle on some of the disputes thus far in the thread. I don't buy that the Joker's lack of any backstory or broader motivation is an endorsement of the Bush argument of "they hate us for our freedoms." The Joker is a movie villain who craves chaos, and that element of his character has a firm establishment in the overall history of the Batman story world across multiple media. So making his motivations inscrutable in this specific instance of a Batman story is a major character choice that does not, IMO, require any political context.
On the other hand, the spying/Patriot Act business is awfully hard to write off as existing in a political vacuum. This is not some firmly established concept in Batman lore. Dramatically, it comes almost out of nowhere, and the dialogue setting up the conflict seems heavy-handed. I suppose it could be argued that it's just a way of creating a dramatic choice for Morgan Freeman's character, and a mechanical function for severing his support from Batman at the conclusion of the story, leading into the final situation/set-up for the next film of Batman being really and truly "alone." But, it's way too specific a plot point--and way too similar to a widely debated issue in our current-day politics--to be written off as an entirely apolitical story choice.
Now, does this mean that the film--whether the Nolans intended this or not--is arguing in favor of the Bush/Republican "throw the Constitution out to get the bad guys" thesis? I think this is actually more complex than it appears at first glance. In real life, if someone could actually prove that he saved thousands of lives by torturing someone in an honest-to-goodness "ticking bomb" scenario (and I'm positing this in a general sense, not relative to anything specific in The Dark Knight), then I would be grateful to him. But, of course, real life doesn't present such scenarios in any easily recognizable fashion, and the real-life consequences of actually legalizing torture are infinitely more likely to be the unconscionable abuses of Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, etc. Real people should stick to governing ourselves by laws, not fanciful scenarios; the vanishingly unlikely scenario of the ticking bomb falls vastly short of justifying the legalization of torture.
So when it comes to massive violations of privacy via simultaneously tapping all cell phones in a major metropolitan area, I think we need to consider fact vs. fiction. In fact, Bush has demanded (and, unfortunately, largely received) legal cover for spying in perpetuity, not "just this once, and we'll never do it again." Batman, on the other hand, knew very well that his trusted friend would only do it for him once, if that, and that the price would be the complete loss of trust and support of that valued friend (indeed, Batman specifically told him to enter his name into the system to blow it up once the situation had passed).
Now, is that an arguably ham-fisted attempt to incorporate a real-life issue into a purely fictional dramatic scenario? Yes, but I don't think it's necessarily the same as arguing for the actual legalization of what Batman did. The fact that Batman is a dark and tortured soul who does heroic things beyond the reach of the government is not necessarily a specific dramatic endorsement of the idea that "our government should be more like Batman."
Jesus, the fan backlash towards critics who didn't like this movie is unbelievable. The ridiculous Rotten Tomatoes comments section aside, Keith Uhlich's negative review over at The House Next Door has garnered nearly 100 comments from people who I've generally never seen comment there (I'm a frequent House reader) of just mean-spirited, nasty stuff. I liked the movie a little more than Keith did but I think his review is excellent and points out a lot things that are wrong with the film. But as for the commentators, why so serious?
Figured I'd chip in, having just seen this a few hours ago.
First off, I was rather surprised to find that the cast functioned very much like an ensemble rather than focusing on Batman, which I liked. I feel like we saw more of Ledger and Oldman and Eckhart than we did Bale. Not that I don't like Bale.
It seems there are mixed opinions on the Joker; I don't mean the performance (which is fantastic and almost universally seen as such) but the nature of the character and its place in the story. A lot of people want to view him in a certain light (the natural inclination to provide a history, which the film pointedly avoids), while it seems clear to me that the character is meant to be chaos manifested. He's not out for vengeance or even pure destruction (worth noting that someone else says the Joker wants to watch things burn, not the Joker himself); he has a certain philosophy to his approach. He wants to inject chaos into an ordered society and watch the chemical reaction (with chaos and order being loosely equated to evil and good).
Now, one can debate the effectiveness of such an allegorical character (especially when all the other characters have such a firm, realistic basis). Batman is allegory too, but it's mixed with a distinct humanity, whereas the Joker teeters toward abstraction. I kind of like it, but I can see how it might be jarring.
(A side note of some relevance: I'm having a lot of trouble with the fingerprint plot point. Let's ignore the fact that Batman gets the fingerprint with his magical bullet reconstruction laser, that's acceptable. But I have other problems: why, when he's in the police station, can they not identify the Joker via fingerprint or anything else; why does the bullet have a fingerprint on it, when even if he did touch the bullet the fingerprint would be on the casing and probably not the bullet itself; how does the Joker know that Batman will find the apartment so conveniently near to the funeral (and who's apartment is it?). I think it's just lazy writing, but the point is, I don't think anything about the Joker's identity is revealed.)
Regarding political concerns, the parallels are obvious. My friend called the cell phone sonar mapping device the Patriotactatron. I think it's perfectly reasonable to read the film on this level, but one runs a risk: not of reading too deeply, but too narrowly. It's easy to read it on that level and ignore the others, like the Batman mythology, the allegorical and emblematic qualities, the moral statements (which may or may not be tied with the political ones), the necessity that it entertain.
Again referring back to the Joker, we see him called a terrorist and we've been viewing him as such for the political discussion. AWA talked about how creating a character without human history was irresponsible, that no one comes out of the womb full of vengeance. But the Joker clearly has no interest in vengeance (or other regular motives), and we're viewing him on the political plane alone. Consider the fact that he can be read as representative of the public's perception of crime and terror; he is called a mad dog in the film, someone let loose by other men. Perhaps he represents the crime itself and not the criminal; the criminals are thoroughly represented through the mob, through corrupt cops and investors, through the deteriorating Eckhart. If the Joker's crimes seem to lack motivation, it's because people have a difficult time understanding a criminal's motivation. It's hard, when you're on the receiving end. I'm just tossing out ideas, hopefully there's some coherence to them. Maybe the Joker is the self-perpetuating criminal mechanism that started rolling sometime way back and people keep turning it, if only because they don't know how to make it stop.
We return to whether Batman's methods are reasonable, whether the ends justify the means, if success dictates righteousness. But that's just the paradox inherent in the Batman mythology, or any vigilante figure. It's not even an American phenomenon. Everyone likes vigilantes, all over the world. That's why Hollywood capitalizes on them.
In addition to all of that, my friends and I enjoyed the movie a great deal and had a lot of fun discussing its awesomeness and the hilarity of its inconsistencies and all sorts of things. You know you've had a good time if you spend half an hour in the parking lot afterward, talking.
