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

[Haggai]

It still sounds messed up, though. Being accused by some random person on the street would be one thing, but getting reported by your mother and your sister sounds kind of serious.

[swo17]

Not to turn this forum into E!, but Bale has not been charged with anything.

This just in...Christian Bale is showing a baby bump!

[Antoine Doinel]

It still sounds messed up, though. Being accused by some random person on the street would be one thing, but getting reported by your mother and your sister sounds kind of serious.

That really depends on the kind of relationship you have with your mother and sister.

[flyonthewall2983]

You also have to remember that the British media loves nothing more than a celebrity witch-hunt as well.

[Haggai]

It still sounds messed up, though. Being accused by some random person on the street would be one thing, but getting reported by your mother and your sister sounds kind of serious.

That really depends on the kind of relationship you have with your mother and sister.

Yeah, that's true. I don't want to jump to any conclusions about what did or didn't happen. Still, it's a pretty weird story.

[filmnoir1]

I finally got a chance to see this yesterday during a matinee which was sold out. This film is going to make a tremendous amount of money, which is interesting because the film is so dark and asks American audiences to faceup to their worst fears and their willful neglect for their inability to act over the last eight years.
The first film in 2005 was all about the notion of fear and what that emotion can lead people to become and actively participate in. Thus Bruce Wayne's fears drive him into the obession of making amends for allowing his parents to be killed and for having been deceived by someone whom he thought was a friend and mentor. The figures of The Scarecrow and Ras Al Ghul are merely the catalyst that authenticate bruce's deceision to become a vigilante crime fighter and in that sense it could be argued that they are parrallels to the "terrorists" who are destablizing the globe, Western philosophical thought and its form of government. In essence Nolan seems to be arguing that the emotions of fear being felt by white wealthy men are driving the actions of a nation- to the point of starting wars and enacting all levels of violence on people simply to assuage their guilt and to calm their fears that they are losing control of their position/power.
In The Dark Knight, Nolan expands this line of thought by exploring the ideas of control, corruption, justice, and violence. In referring to The Joker as a terrorist, Nolan is able to show that there are some evil forces that can't be rationalized and in the same instant make the argument that many of these evils are the result of "schemes" or political policies. Like the 9/11 conspirators who were more familiar with our security and way of life than we are, so too is The Joker. More importantly The Joker understands that fear is a tool of chaos and that terror is the weapon of choice in a mass mediated society because it captures the attention of everyone. I do not believe that the Joker is a psychopath in the film but is instead a man engulfed by the rage of being ignored by society, the government, and its attempts at control. Therefore in order to be heard he uses the tools of nations in order to capture the nation/citys attention.
The figures of law and order in this film are shown to be a slim deceision away from enacting the horrors of terror on their populace and the enemy. But at what cost? Nolan's answer seems to be that America is like Batman- willing to go to any links and use any level of force or option whether it is legal or illegal as longs as the means justify the ends. This is why we discover that Bruce has been building a massive grid of cell phone links- he is willing to sacrifice everything in an effort to reclaim his masculinity and to protect his psyche. The Joker is a villian but it seems to me that one could argue so is the city itself because Gordon, Dent, Batman and everyone are willing to work outside the bounds of law, as long as they get the result they are wanting, which is complete control and the restoration of "norms"
In the end, the film seems to argue that no matter what all forms of human endeavor are tinged with the dangers of corruption, violence, and death. Batman is hunted just like "the truth" in contemporary America so that those who control the levers behind the scenes can still function without impunity or identification. Thus Batman's crusade ( a word tinged with Western bias and racism) becomes one to legitimize his view of the world. A view crafted by his WASP connections and expectations of a world where those who have money, education and opportunities find safety and everyone else struggles.
Together these two films speak to the horrors and dangers of the last 8 years and the ways in which Americans have idly stood by as the very government and ideals so celebrated have been made worthless words, and for what?

[Svevan]

I have a niggling problem (and this isn't necessarily in response to your post filmnoir): aren't we being too simplistic in comparing the Joker to any and all terrorists? Or maybe the film was too simplistic about it (certainly they DO use the word terrorist in reference to the Joker, but I'm inclined to say that we're not supposed to make overly specific real-world application/interpretation). I just don't think any terrorist that I can recall wreaks havoc for the sake of havoc, or chaos for the sake of chaos; there's always an underlying philosophy or dogma preached through their violent actions. Muslim Extremists may have as a goal the destruction of America, but do they wish to destroy it just for the sake of destruction, or rather so they can replace it with something else? (McVeigh and the unabomber, for example, believed American society needed to be "reset.") It seems to me that the goal is the philosophy, dogma, extreme belief; the method is chaos, fear, and violent destruction.

The idea of a psychotic and destructive malevolent force with no real motive is much more common in the movies than in real life, I think (Michael Myers in Halloween has an origin story, but is "pure evil," killing for no reason, even though his killings have an implicit moralistic structure, like the Joker's explicit moral questioning).

I think describing terrorists as "chaos-lovers" is simply wrongheaded, and if that's the movie's ultimate depiction of the (for-all-times, not specifically post 9/11) terrorist mindset, then the movie's being dishonest. Cinematically, I much more like the idea of a purely evil force because it cannot be reckoned with and in some ways has no real-world counterpart. Or help me out and prove me wrong: where else do we see this motiveless villain in literature, film, or in the real world?

[Chull]

I think too much stock has been put into the "want to watch the world burn" quote. Or rather, that this is taken to mean that he is an unreasoning psychopath. I don't think that the Joker is an embodiment of evil. I think he has very definite motives. As someone mentioned several pages back - his interest is in arranging abnormal (terrifying) circumstances and watching the chemical reaction. Rather like a malevolent anthro/socio/psychologist. I'm not sure that "terrorist" is the most apt term to describe him, although maybe because I think of that term as describing someone who simply uses terror as a means to an end (political, religious or whatever.) Of course, the Joker uses terror as a means, but they almost seem to be the end itself. It's the terror that interests him. I don't know, perhaps it is a more pure form of terrorism?

[Jean-Luc Garbo]

All I have to say is that I really enjoyed the film. It wasn't exactly what I had hoped for, but it was very surprising and enjoyable nonetheless. I will have to see it again because the "politics" of the film flew over my head although in retropspect they are rather obvious. Anyway, I do wish that the dialogue wasn't so heavy-handed. Whoever said it felt like a philosophical conversation was right. It could have used a little finesse to make it less expository. Bale's Batman voice arguing about right and wrong was a little too much to take. Aside from the dialogue, I only wish the film had more of Ledger as the Joker. As much as I love Batman (and Bale), the Joker really stole the show for me. This may not be the perfect summer film, but it's certainly one of the recent best. Having seen the Watchmen trailer as one of the previews, I can only hope to love that film next year. FWIW, I'm glad to see a reasonable discussion of politics in art especially here.

[Antoine Doinel]

Couldn't get into a screening because it was sold out? Sleep a little better knowing that Hollywood suits had trouble seeing the film too.

[flyonthewall2983]

I think too much stock has been put into the "want to watch the world burn" quote. Or rather, that this is taken to mean that he is an unreasoning psychopath. I don't think that the Joker is an embodiment of evil. I think he has very definite motives. As someone mentioned several pages back - his interest is in arranging abnormal (terrifying) circumstances and watching the chemical reaction. Rather like a malevolent anthro/socio/psychologist. I'm not sure that "terrorist" is the most apt term to describe him, although maybe because I think of that term as describing someone who simply uses terror as a means to an end (political, religious or whatever.) Of course, the Joker uses terror as a means, but they almost seem to be the end itself. It's the terror that interests him. I don't know, perhaps it is a more pure form of terrorism?

It could be. I really thought of him more along the lines (though not exactly) serial killer, with the weapons capacity and knowledge of a terrorist. A pretty unique combination of qualities in a villain of any kind of film, not just this kind.

[noelbotevera]

The Dark Knight (Christopher Nolan, 2008)

[Nothing]

the most blatant split between an awesome beginning and a lack-luster second and third act since Full Metal Jacket

Oh, not that old turkey again.

Muslim Extremists may have as a goal the destruction of America?

Al-Qaeda have as a goal the removal of US troops from Saudi Arabia.

[Two Cent James]

Al-Qaeda have as a goal the removal of US troops from Saudi Arabia.

The US hasn't had troops in Saudi Arabia since 2003.

Is it so difficult to believe that the Joker was insane? Must he have a backstory or motive to justify his destruction? I had no problem viewing Joker as an emblem of unbridled evil or anarchy, and even thought he worked better that way by presenting the opposite side of Batman.

Batman strives to create order, Joker strives to abolish it. Any other motive for the Joker would just dilute the dichotomy.

[noelbotevera]

You want true dichotomy, give Joker his backstory. Moore provided a superb one.

Simply put, I find motiveless evil boring. It's like a hurricane--it hits, you don't understand why, you pick things up and move on. Whereas when someone who you know and understand moves against you, you agonize over his point of view (especially when he has a point), and how to resolve it with your own.

[Morbii]

Of course, the Joker uses terror as a means, but they almost seem to be the end itself. It's the terror that interests him. I don't know, perhaps it is a more pure form of terrorism?

But isn't the goal of terrorism to install fear? Whether or not you want to mold that fear into a separate goal almost seems to be besides the point.

You want true dichotomy, give Joker his backstory. Moore provided a superb one.

But Moore's "documentaries" are probably more fictional than this film. I don't want a backstory for Joker, I prefer to think he's intelligently mad and feel it works better.

[kaujot]

You want true dichotomy, give Joker his backstory. Moore provided a superb one.

But Moore's "documentaries" are probably more fictional than this film. I don't want a backstory for Joker, I prefer to think he's intelligently mad and feel it works better.

But...Alan Moore doesn't make documentaries.

[souvenir]

You want true dichotomy, give Joker his backstory. Moore provided a superb one.

This incorrectly assumes a backstory somehow explains evil tendencies. You can read about famous criminals for years and it doesn't always add up. I don't see a need to create a real "Daddy didn't love me" scenario here when the audience filling-in of the gaps is vastly more interesting.

[kaujot]

You want true dichotomy, give Joker his backstory. Moore provided a superb one.

This incorrectly assumes a backstory somehow explains evil tendencies. You can read about famous criminals for years and it doesn't always add up. I don't see a need to create a real "Daddy didn't love me" scenario here when the audience filling-in of the gaps is vastly more interesting.

From Wikipedia's article on Alan Moore's seminal The Killing Joke:

The man who will become the Joker is an unnamed engineer who quits his job at a chemical company to become a stand-up comedian, only to fail miserably. Desperate to support his pregnant wife, Jeannie, he agrees to guide two criminals into the plant for a robbery. During the planning, the police inform him that his wife has died in a household accident involving an electric baby bottle heater. Grief-stricken, the engineer tries to withdraw from the plan, but the criminals strong-arm him into keeping his commitment to them.

At the plant, the criminals make him don a special mask to become the infamous Red Hood. Unknown to the engineer, this disguise is simply the criminals' scheme to implicate any accomplice as the mastermind to divert attention from themselves. Once inside, they almost immediately blunder into security personnel, and a violent shootout and chase ensues. The criminals are gunned down and the engineer finds himself confronted by Batman, who is investigating the disturbance.
Bolland's iconic image of the Joker, from Batman: The Killing Joke
Bolland's iconic image of the Joker, from Batman: The Killing Joke

Panicked, the engineer deliberately jumps into the chemical plant's toxic waste catch-basin vat to escape Batman and is swept through a pipe leading to the outside. Once outside, he discovers, to his horror, that the chemicals have permanently bleached his skin chalk white, stained his lips ruby red and dyed his hair bright green. This turn of events, compounding the man's misfortunes of that one day, drives him completely insane and results in the birth of the Joker.

[Morbii]

But Moore's "documentaries" are probably more fictional than this film. I don't want a backstory for Joker, I prefer to think he's intelligently mad and feel it works better.

But...Alan Moore doesn't make documentaries.

Ugh! I actually searched up a page to make sure that we weren't talking about a different Moore. I suppose I assumed based on all the G-Dub/Patriot Act theories. Oops.

[Chull]

Of course, the Joker uses terror as a means, but they almost seem to be the end itself. It's the terror that interests him. I don't know, perhaps it is a more pure form of terrorism?

But isn't the goal of terrorism to install fear? Whether or not you want to mold that fear into a separate goal almost seems to be besides the point.

So far as I understand (not being a terrorist), yes, the goal is to instill fear, but then that is used to attain some objective. Using that fear (and the threat of more terrorism) seems very much the point. At least, to me.

[Two Cent James]

You want true dichotomy, give Joker his backstory. Moore provided a superb one.

I'm vaguely familiar with "The Killing Joke," but I have yet to read it. But as souvenir pointed out, providing a backstory doesn't necessarily give the Joker a motive for his anarchy.

Simply put, I find motiveless evil boring. It's like a hurricane--it hits, you don't understand why, you pick things up and move on. Whereas when someone who you know and understand moves against you, you agonize over his point of view (especially when he has a point), and how to resolve it with your own.

Thats funny, I find motiveless evil endlessly fascinating. If it rings true, it raises very interesting questions about the nature of man. I was discussing this with a friend a few months ago when I saw Verdi's opera "Otello." In Iago's soliloquy, he explains himself:

"Your demon drives you,
And I am your demon, . . .

I believe in a cruel God who created me
Similar to Himself, and whom I name in my wrath . . .

I am wicked
Because I am a man;"

While demons (motives) drive other villains, Iago IS that demon. If God created Iago in his image, than what does that say about God?

Not to go too far off topic, but these could all perhaps apply to the Joker, which I find much more interesting than "he was betrayed by his friends and now he's pissed off."

[Nothing]

The US hasn't had troops in Saudi Arabia since 2003.

Okay, bad choice of words - replace 'troops' with 'CIA advisors, private military contractors and despotic puppet government'.

[ChristianN2]

It's possible I skipped over it somewhere, but I don't think anyone has mentioned this yet. Did anyone else think that Maggie Gyllenhaal was a bad choice for Rachel Dawes? Or rather not a bad choice; she just missed the mark.

[Antoine Doinel]

I thought Maggie Gyllenhaal did fine, especially considering there wasn't much to the character except to act as a catalyst for the arcs of Bruce Wayne and Harvey Dent.