Stirring The Hornets Nest…
Posted by Dirty Harry on Sunday, July 20th, 2008
A comment from Bob, our favorite contrarian:
The Joker THANKS Batman for his existence. Remember the end of Batman Begins? Gordon tells Batman that he’s worried about “escalation” - the idea that a theatrically-inclined, rule-breaking, larger-than-life hero like Batman will give rise to an opposite number, and hands him Joker’s calling-card as proof. It’s right there in the two movies: Batman fights evil unilaterally and with massive aggression, and in doing so he stirs up the hornets nest and motivates greater evil to rear it’s head.
This, of course, is a major theme in the film: Is Batman to blame for the existence of the Joker? The parallels with the left blaming Bush’s aggressive action in the Middle East for the creation of terrorists is unmistakable.
But we must remember that were it not for this “theatrically-inclined, rule-breaking” Batman Scarecrow would’ve wiped out Gotham City, killing who knows how many… Right? So, the real question is, who/what/where would the Joker be without Batman? A good citizen? Are “hornets” like the Joker and al Qaeda best left alone to sting here and there when the only alternative is to wipe them out with a direct attack which stirs them up?
For me that question was answered on September 11th, 2001. We saw the result of not stirring up the hornet’s nest — the “here and there” sting. In the case of Islamofascism the hornet’s nest is tyranny. Free nations may deal with homegrown terrorists like the IRA but they do not create exporters of terror – international terrorists — legions of terrorists.
The choice is simple, we can cave to the left and accept a 9/11 now and again or we can do the hard work of stomping out the hornets nest of tyranny where this evil blooms and forever kill it off with liberty and self-determination.
Batman is George W. Bush.
But going back to Bob’s point of the Joker thanking Batman for his existence… This strikes me as a psychological ploy to get in Batman’s head and win the soul of Gotham. The allegory with al-Qaeda’s shifting rationales (American bases in Saudi Arabia, Israel, Iraq…) is laughably obvious. And director Christopher Nolan makes clear the absurdity of this by having Joker continue to spout new rationales for his being at every chance.
Remove Batman from the Joker’s world. Is the Joker now less dangerous?
Filed in General |
promon 20 Jul 2008 at 7:35 am 1Spot on, DH. Yes, the movie definitely uses the if I-attack-the-terrorist-I-produce-only-more-terrorists premise but only to thoroughly debunk it.
Remember, Joker tries to break people by giving them complex reasons of what they fear. He succeeded with Harvey Dent and the Mob. He spews this “blowback” theory to Batman precisely because that’s the thing Batman fears and that’s the only thing that can be used to control him.
promon 20 Jul 2008 at 7:37 am 2I meant to add this but forgot. Not all things are true simply because the villains espouse them. Their strategy is clear: to confound the heroes in their tracks. That doesn’t make what they say automatically true or false.
Kendamaon 20 Jul 2008 at 7:50 am 3I haven’t seen the movie yet, but let me add my two cents.
You have to remember, the evil always exists. Evil people always exist. Imagine how an evil person would act if he knew that no one would challenge him? Evil people are not disgusted by the overwhelming ease of conquering their victims.
Troyon 20 Jul 2008 at 7:51 am 4prom…. I can attest to that. Having worked in and taught criminal justice for nearly 15 years…. criminals are often the least reliable source for motivation. Sociopaths are especially good at the manipulation-game. Joker would be an extreme version of that of course.
For Bob and others to think the Joker would just sit and play “Crazy 8s” with his buddies unless Batman somehow poked him in the eye is naive. In the real world is naive AND dangerous. We have a word for that applies to al-Qaeda/Joker types …. “implacable”. Some folks will not be appeased or reconciled — ever.
GMKon 20 Jul 2008 at 8:03 am 5I don’t think Bob really thinks that. I think Bob just wants to see the world burn.
JGUNSon 20 Jul 2008 at 8:13 am 6I saw this movie last night and LOVED it. I would have to say it is the best picture of the year so far. They way that it dealt with REAL issues of terrorism and very strong parallels between the Joker and modern day islamofascist terrorists was spot on, and I was stunned that this movie made it out of Hollywood. I told my wife afterwards that I must be missing something, Hollywood could not put out a movie that was so clear on how to deal with terrorists, the moral clarity of recognizing and fighting evil, and the way that citizenry react to terrorist threats (weak and willing to give in), that I have to think that somehow those that greenlighted this movie see this as some sort of affirmation of liberalism in some way… I just don’t see how. Batman is the first truly “real” superhero to come out on the bigscreen in the modern era.
Stephanieon 20 Jul 2008 at 8:15 am 7Well I wont’ say what I think about the Contrarian…..
however the idea that criminals, terrorists, Nazi dictators, Commie dictators are not the most reliably truthful people is a fact. Look at Hitler….everything he wanted to do was laid out in Mein Kampf and yet the Neville’s of the world (Bob’s of today) didn’t see it that way.
A comic back in the day made a funny comment in a German accent about Hitler…..
“I VANT PEACE, I CRAVE PEACE!
A piece of Poland, Austria and a piece of Czechoslovakia…”
Thats the kind of peace…Joker, Bin Laden, Ahmadinajad and others want. History proves that time and time again. Give and inch they take an inch pretty soon there are no more inches.
I honestly think leftists and contrarians are so sad and bitter they would choose to live on their knees to the evil thats amongst them than to die on their feet. Me, rather die on my feet with a gun in my hands than live like a slave head bowed on my knees. But hey, maybe it is simply miserable people want to make everyone feel miserable. I don’t know. Its a complex question. And remember this, the Devil’s greatest victory was convincing people he doesn’t exist. I think leftists and Bobs are people who are convinced there is no evil in the world and they are its ultimate victims. The rest of us refuse to be victims.
JGUNSon 20 Jul 2008 at 8:19 am 8I won’t spoil the ending here but I do have one complaint. In the end, I believe that the citizens in real life wouldn’t have performed as well as they did in Batman. Everyone who has seen the movie should know what I mean. I wonder what kind of powerful commetary that would have made should the movie have been changed to reflect that. If Batman is George Bush, he is really the only one that has the fortitude, strength of will, and moral clarity to carry out the war. If we go by our own polls today and see how confused our own population is, and plug that into the equation of the movie, the American populace could easily be the architect of our own demise.
rrpjron 20 Jul 2008 at 8:39 am 9I don’t think this argument is very contrarian. I have many and old friends on the Left. This point is a virtual reflex for them. A few years ago one of them (a Harvard-educated, Academy-award nominated film editor) said to me — “we just need to accept that terrorism is a way of life, as Europe has.” Bush’s refusal to accept — his militant determination not to — infuriated and continues to infuriate them, for it cuts to the quick of their conceits and shoved their faces into a debate — good vs. evil — they always prefer to temporize away. They will never forgive him, just as they will never concede the point, no matter the evidence.
Dylan Brunson 20 Jul 2008 at 8:42 am 10Well, I’m glad to see that normals act more heroic than other movies. Thats what pisses me off about X-Men, and the crap they pulled in Hellboy 2. The people are laughable caricatures of real people, and act much more idiotic.
Also, I think most people are less inclined to fight, mainly because Bush went heavily on the offensive. That helps security at home, but it costs tons of money. Because of the success, people see money flowing out, and never see what its fighting. If a terrorist like the Joker was blowing up Chicago over a period of weeks, I think people would help fight him.
misterdon 20 Jul 2008 at 8:43 am 11I think it’s a good thing that the film is seen differently by different sides. The good thing about using speculative fiction as a allegory is that it allows one to step back and see the issue in a new light without all the same baggage. This doesn’t mean that everyone will come to the same conclusion, which I think is often a sign of a great film - Nolan is not preaching to us that Bush is right, or Bush is wrong. Rather he’s allowing the audience to decide for itself, and for that I thank him.
(note: I still haven’t seen the film - 4:00 tomorrow, IMAX at the Palisades Mall!- just going by what I’ve heard reported)
Tommy Von 20 Jul 2008 at 8:45 am 12I wish George Bush was as effective as Batman.
Again, I think saying Batman is specifically George Bush is taking it way too far and way too literally. Though it does aggravate liberals more to be that specific. Which is always fun.
Batman represents a way of addressing evil. He represents a world-view. An ideal. Yes, the same one Bush jolds, but also the same as Tony Blair, the same as Winston Churchill until he was ultimately vindicated and then later voted out of office. Others as well. Thousands of brave men and women of our armed forces. Are we going to say that George Bush is the one taking the bullets and not them? Batman risks his life. George Bush risks his approval ratings and his “legacy”.
George Bush does not fight this alone like Batman ultimately does. That difference is enough to tell me that Batman does not represent just one person. He represents a set of principles and ideas. In Batman Begins his mentor tells him to devote himself “to an ideal” and then become “a legend”.
Batman is not a man. He is an ideal. Therefore, he does not represent one man, but rather an ideal.
More importantly, I am not interested in any allegory that does not give proper credit to the The United States military.
I know we have invested the last three days in “Batman is George Bush” and there’s probably too late to turn back now.
But I am absolutely right about this.
Stephanieon 20 Jul 2008 at 8:51 am 13Tommy while you are right in being a little aggrieved over the 0 credit to our military…you have to remember active duty troops are not allowed by our constitution to be deployed with in our own borders….so….Batman doing his thing outside of the law is an OK analogy with Batman being America = W’s ideas on fighting terror.
If Gotham is the west….then Batman is America=W.
Bonnie_on 20 Jul 2008 at 8:58 am 14Of course people are heroic when called upon. Did you watch what happened on 9-11? I saw hundreds of acts of heroism in real time. Most of them ended in death, because 9-11 was a day of death, but they were acts of courage and heroism just the same, carried out by ordinary citizens.
Then of course there is Flight 93, and “Let’s Roll.” Americans brought down the terrorists on the airliner armed with nothing but their bare hands.
I haven’t seen “The Dark Knight” but I think Batman is more than George Bush — I think he’s America, all of us, fighting the lone fight against terrorism. We elected George Bush twice, you know.
Audietooon 20 Jul 2008 at 10:33 am 15Great debate, I second Troy. Islamofacism is a slave society and still my liberal friend excuses it by saying “the women are as bad as the men, they like Islam as ,much as anybody.
That is why we now have honor killings in Canada, US, UK etc.
Tommy Von 20 Jul 2008 at 11:46 am 16Stephanie,
Even then, are we taking credit away from the FBI, the coast guard, all the people fighting on our side? The ones who actually get shot at?
George Bush is a leader. He requires other people to actually execute his strategy and he does not get into the line of fire himself. He does not take personal risk. This does not minimize his contribution, where he goes, America goes, I believe,
But to say Batman is George Bush is giving George Bush way, way, way too much credit.
Batman works alone and takes on those risks alone.
I think we have taken a conservative themed film and we are diluting it and making ourselves look pretty damn silly by saying Batman is George Bush.
I think you can make a better case that Batman is America rather than George Bush.
But I still think he represents an ideal - he represents an approach to evil and a world view.
To say he is George Bush… I think we look pretty desperate.
Kensingtonon 20 Jul 2008 at 11:47 am 17I love the hornet’s nest analogy. If you get stung by a hornet from a nest in your backyard, you don’t try to find which hornet did it and spare the others. You take out the whole damn hornet’s nest.
Kensingtonon 20 Jul 2008 at 11:50 am 18George Bush doesn’t take personal risk!?!
He’s probably the most reviled man on the planet and will surely need that secret service protection for the rest of his life.
Short of manning the front lines himself with a rifle in his hand, I’d say he’s taken a lot of personal risk over the last seven years.
Mareon 20 Jul 2008 at 12:12 pm 19Just because the Joker SAYS that Batman is responsible for his existence does not make it the truth.
Radical Islam may SAY we are responsible for their escalation but that does not make it the truth. Just saying something does not make it true, which is my one of my biggest problems with the left. Pelosi says Bush is a failure at everything. Mrs. 9% approval rating sounds like an idiot. It’s just talking, yammering actually and it diminishes her already pathetic level of credibility.
Bob says Batman stirs up the hornet’s nest by aggressively fighting back. But why would Batman or the U.S. fight anything if it didn’t already exist?
Question: Are we (as individuals or a nation) not supposed to fight evil because it may get worse? Should we ignore it? Don’t be stupid.
whiskeyon 20 Jul 2008 at 12:17 pm 20Bob’s argument has been made by Liberals since the beginning of the rise (in the late 19th Century) of those who wanted to tear down society and “start from Zero.”
The anarchists, Stalin, Trotsky, Mao, Shining Path, Pol Pot, Jim Jones, Tim McVeigh, Osama, etc. all fall into that category and Liberals (with the exception of the “conservative” or “white” versions of the “tear it down” crowd: McVeigh and Eric Rudolph and the Branch Davidians) argue we should just “take it.”
This is at it’s heart an aristocratic, elitist argument. It argues that the “ordinary people” are “revolting” and basically deserve what they get for having ideas above their station. If hip-cool trendoids were being killed by the trainloads, if David Geffen and Barbara Streisand and the other aristocrats were slaughtered like cattle, rest assured Liberals would be screaming for retaliation and devastation.
This is the Liberal fantasy. Punishing the average person for not being a “cool Aristo” or wanna-be like themselves.
The reality, particularly in America, is that absent law and order and with lots of independent, white middle class people, you either get an out-migration (see the White Flight form America’s cities for a half-century) on a massive scale or when people are “stuck” … vigilantism.
Vigilantism happens when people have no recourse but to kill or be poor. We saw it in the King Riots in LA, where Korean shopowners protected their life savings with rifles and shotguns. The shot people too. It happened in San Francisco where a lot of Mexican War vets were fed up with the protection rackets of the Irish gangs and went on a rampage, hanging the worst gang leaders on sight. Vigilantism does not distinguish between shades of guilt. It is the response of the people to the failure of government to fulfill it’s duty to protect them by mass infliction of death, pain, and fear. It can often have a racial component and end up as a gigantic pogrom.
Bob’s ideas are unsound, based on a fantasy of how people act rather than the reality. Evil exists and will always exist because people are not wind-up automatons. Someone will always figure it’s easier to murder to get what they want than work hard. With intelligent beings having great talents for tool-making, and hypercharged emotions and intellect, it could hardly be the case where unicorns and rainbows push aside darkness.
Humanity is not all darkness, but evil is not pushed aside by talking and posturing.
JBon 20 Jul 2008 at 12:19 pm 21“George Bush doesn’t take personal risk!?!”
Yeah, that was probably one of the most ignorant things I’ve read all day. If I were Tommy I’d slink away in shame.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Presidential_assassination_attempts#George_W._Bush
Tommy Von 20 Jul 2008 at 2:56 pm 22JB,
Not only do I not shrink away in shame I think your point is kind of ridiculous.
I will put the physical courage of the men and women of the US military over the most protected man on the planet any day.
Any day, any hour, any minute.
I like George Bush, I voted for him twice and I defend many of his choices on a daily basis… My cat is named Miss Laura Bush.
But the idea that the choices he makes against islamo-fascism puts him in at more personal risk beyond the simple fact that he is President is going to be a very tough case to make.
And then to tacitly compare it to the men and woman in the field by virtue of arguing the distinction I made between the two?
JB, that is a pretty desperate argument in a vain attempt to say Batman is George Bush.
Stephanieon 20 Jul 2008 at 3:11 pm 23OK Tommy
Did you see the news from Israel lately….President doesn’t take personal risk eh? Then whats this Al Queda idiot getting arrested for planning to shoot his helicopter down when he landed in Israel? HMMMM? And just what if that had happened? Like any other terrorist attack all it would ever take is once. You have no idea if he risks his life everyday. What about in where was it Brazil or Chili when his own Secret Service guy was assaulted…who stepped in stupidly I’d say to break up the fight? W. Now was he taking his life into his own hands then? Uh YEAH!
Give me a break. I think some conservatives are pissed at him and plain don’t want to give him credit when he deserves it. And what about POLITICAL RISK he has taken? The mans approval rating is in the toilet because he took a gamble he knew might not be popular in the long term but he did it anyway because it was right thing to do. I hate it when W is trashed by people because he doesn’t wear a uniform and gets shot at. Would you like it better Tommy if he led his troops like Caesar? For crying out loud. What risks did he take when he went to Bagdad for the first time. I think its time for people to give the man a break. THe risks he has taken are more than sufficient. And to say his life isn’t in danger when Israelis are arresting jihadi jackasses for planning his assasination is ridiculous.
Phoenixon 20 Jul 2008 at 3:22 pm 24The liberal mind is enamored of their shallow, smarmy contrarian twisting without rational consideration.
Batman does nothing more than the required opposing of evil, and that increases evil? Even this kind? The “thanks” was a dirty claim by a twisted psycho, Bob. Check his face for a clue.
Bob is such a Joker.
Tommy Von 20 Jul 2008 at 3:38 pm 25Stephanie,
I like Bush a lot. I’m not pissed at him in the slightest. I have no axe to grind at all.
I’m just using common sense.
That being the President is not the same kind of personal risk as being a US Marine or soldier in Iraq.
Those are the guys on the front line.
The idea that Bush takes the same personal risk as our troops or even the fictional character of Batman is just plain silly.
Just because I am a big fan of George Bush doesn’t mean I have to throw common sense out the window.
You don’t want your President on the front line. It’s bad for the chain-of-command. There’s nothing wrong with that. I’m not criticizing him for it at all.
I am just making it clear that it’s not Batman either.
Trust me, saying Batman is not Bush is not an insult to Bush.
Is that the new level by which support for Batman is now judged? You either think Bush takes the same personal risk as Batman or you’re not a “real” supporter of George Bush?
This thing got silly pretty quick.
Eric Fon 20 Jul 2008 at 4:22 pm 26It could be argued that the Joker only showed up in Gotham because he knew the Batman was there. But would he have upped the ante from robbing the Mob to terrorizing Gotham without him? Therein lies the question.
Kensingtonon 20 Jul 2008 at 6:21 pm 27Tommy,
You’ve changed your whole argument, morphing from, literally, “George Bush doesn’t take personal risk” to “George Bush’s risk isn’t as high as some soldier on the front lines.”
Those are two very different assertions, and you’re now acting like you only made the second. You made the first, first, and that’s the one I disagree with, whole-heartedly.
Kensingtonon 20 Jul 2008 at 6:24 pm 28So, again, the idea that George Bush hasn’t taken personal risk is ridiculous. There’s a reason why he’s the most protected person on the planet, and it’s the same reason he’ll likely have to have people looking over his shoulder for the rest of his life.
Stephanieon 20 Jul 2008 at 6:40 pm 29Kensington…well said.
Tommy Von 20 Jul 2008 at 7:11 pm 30Kensington,
Actually my argument hasn’t changed. The argument was that Bush’s risk cannot be compared to Batman’s risk. The level of risk Batman takes is much greater and destroys the attempt to conflate the two. I then noted that Batman’s personal risk is much more closely aligned to the men on the field. (One has to completely ignore the origins of the argument to miss this. People thought I was insulting Bush so they JUST HAD TO DEFEND HIM without thinking of whether he was even under attack or not).
Perhaps it was overstated that he takes “no personal risk” but the risk is quite minimal in comparison and in the context of the argument was clearly as a comparison to Batman, not as a binary “risk or no-risk” answer. We don’t congratulate Bill Clinton for his personal courage of being President, nor do we congratulate Obama for his physical courage for running for President. Why are we suddenly elevating Bush to a man “risking his life to be President”.
If people are ready to say how much they admire Bill Clinton’s physical courage for being President I might take their protest more seriously. I still wouldn’t agree with them, but at least I would know they meant it and they weren’t just flailing about because they thought someone criticized George Bush.
It was those who wanted to dispute my comparison who changed the argument. If you dispute the notion that Bush and Batman are not taking the same risk, you are therefore stating that they are. Otherwise, what exactly are you disputing? And by the logic of the argument, you are saying he is taking as much risk as the military on the ground.
I think Bush has shown great moral and political courage in the last 7 years. In this regard he is a hero of mine. But the idea that his physical courage is equal to that is… well, just not sustainable.
It’s a ridiculous argument by those who did not want to admit that there was a serious flaw in the Batman is Bush comparison. So in an effort to keep this thing going, we are now arguing that he takes the same personal risks as Batman and the US military.
Again, just silly.
The joke is that Bush would be the first person to agree that he does not take the same risk as the men and woman on the ground.
Rather than tie myself into such logical and moral knots, I think I would rather have just admitted, “Yeah, Bush isn’t taking that kind of risk, but…”
Tommy Von 20 Jul 2008 at 7:35 pm 31
Tommy Von 20 Jul 2008 at 7:36 pm 32Sorry. Didn’t mean to blockquote this section.
This makes it clear (the quotes above) that when I said Bush “takes no personal risk” it was in comparison to those who get “in the line of fire” themselves and the ones who “get shot at” and that I did not “change my argument”.
Batman takes on the risk alone. George Bush does not. The military get shot at and IEDs blow up around them (A lot less now thanks to Petreaus and Bush) and Bush does not got through this.
I can’t believe I am even taking the time to make this point it so frickin’ self-evident.
I’m sorry, Stephanie, I think sometimes you just post as a reflex without really thinking things through.
I agree with you guys 95% of the time you’re so committed to this Batman is Bush thing that it’s kind of disappointing.
Kensingtonon 20 Jul 2008 at 9:11 pm 33Tommy, the reason why Bill Clinton is not admired (by me, at least) for his courage and risk taking in being president, is because he didn’t really take any risks or show any courage. Bill Clinton is free to run around the world kissing international ass as much as he’d like for the rest of his life.
Barack Obama, similarly, is also not taking the same level of personal risk that George Bush is by running for president, because, so far, he is also not taking any particular risks. Indeed, he’s being over backward to capitulate to the worldview of everyone else in the world who hates George W. Bush.
On the other hand, George Bush, who has taken the brunt of the world’s irrational hatred, will probably have to be much more careful about where he goes and what he does lest he end up in The Hague because some foolish leftist finds some way to charge him with war crimes.
I’m not committed to the Bush is Batman allegory. Hell, I haven’t even seen the film yet. I just do think that you are underrespecting the risks that George Bush takes or how much the choices he has made as President have (and probably will) cost him in the future. He will probably remain hated, and targeted, by the craziest of leftists for the rest of his life.
pandaxon 20 Jul 2008 at 9:11 pm 34I haven’t seen the movie yet. I will see it this Friday, along with the 12 other people who haven’t seen it.
I’ve been a deputy for 5 years and worked most of the time in the county jail. I interact with inmates on a daily basis. I can tell you that 95% of them never think the reason they’re in jail is their fault. It’s always someone else. So I can see the Joker blaming Batman because he’s just the latest excuse for why he’s the way he is.
The biggest flaw in Bob’s arguement is World War II. Didn’t Britian and France bend over backwards to please Hitler to stop futher aggression? What did it get them? Almost 6 years of global war with 50 million dead. Sorry but not confronting evil with the excuse of it will only stir up things is one of the lamest reasons ever given. All your doing is just buying a little more time and making the butcher’s bill bigger.
Tommy Von 20 Jul 2008 at 9:57 pm 35Kensington,
It was never my intention to disrespect George Bush. Like I said, I think he has shown impressive moral and political courage over the last 7 years and I, for one, am happy he was President on 9/11 and that he won re-election so we could win the Iraq War.
We can certainly both agree that he is a target and will be for the rest of his life, and reasonable people can disagree on how to rate that danger.
So I am content to say that I overstated the case to make a point when I said, “he takes no personal risk”. That was incorrect.
But the underlying point, that his daily personal risk pales in comparison to those on the front line, and therefore an allegory that Bush is Batman, is inherently disrespectful of those men and women, is one I still stand by.
MovieBobon 20 Jul 2008 at 11:07 pm 36Oh for the love of…
Y’know, it’s funny. Today at work I got the distinct yet intangible feeling that dozens of people were rocketing toward a point of mine at great speed, then missing it by ever-widening margins. Now I come home and see this. Sorry y’all, I’ll try and make the circumference of the point bigger next time, and I sincerely hope you all landed comfortably wherever you finally landed
First off, it’s not even really MY point, it’s the movie’s plot: Movie #1 ends with Gordon postulating that this new Joker character has come about in part as a reaction to Batman. In Movie #2, Joker comes right out and says this: He sees himself as the ultimate agent of chaos, and he’s fixated on engaging in combat the ultimate agent of order - Batman. Obviously, he was already a psychopath and a small-time hood before this, but the presence of Batman has given him something to aspire to. This isn’t exactly unheard of in the world: For every man who dreams of building the tallest tower, there’s another who dreams of being the one to knock it over.
Batman begets The Joker. That’s not just how it works here, that’s how it works almost every time they’ve EVER given Joker anything resembling an origin: In the comics, an early-career Batman accidentally knocks a still-unknown crook calling himself “Red Hood” into a vat of chemicals; he comes out on the other side as Joker. In the Tim Burton movies and the 90s Animated Series, it’s the same story but with a regular gangster. That’s how it works for a certain majority of A-list supervillians in comics, the genre is VERY big on dualism - evil rising in proportion to a newer, purer form of good. (Lex Luthor, for example, was just a bullied science nerd in Smallville until a hair-incinerating lab accident he incorrectly blames on Superboy refocused him into a hero-hating megalomaniac.)
Secondly, MY only “point” leading off of this was that, given that “Joker is here because Batman is here” is a stated, concrete point being made BY the movie as part of it’s story, ‘conservatives’ might wanna back away from tying this in to “their guy.” See, I DON’T happen to think that Bush or even American foriegn policy is to blame for terrorism, Islamofascism or 911. I happen to think that that’s a simplistic, overly-arch application of, well, “comic book logic” to the real world and politics. So, basically, I DON’T think Batman and Joker are a good paralell to Bush and Osama because I’m quite certain that Bush DIDN’T create Osama.
Eric Fon 21 Jul 2008 at 7:10 am 37Bob just loves the attention.
akatoshon 21 Jul 2008 at 7:13 am 38To join the fray, albeit fairly late, I think everyone is missing a key point made in the film. The Joker says to Batman that he needs him, that if he killed him he would have nothing to do. It is precisely this why comparing the Joker to “islamofascists” completely falls apart. The Joker has no ideology, no condition for winning. He doesn’t want money or care about politics. He, as Alfred says, truly does just want to watch the world burn. But, he also sees it as a game that can only be played if Batman is around. I could be wrong, but I don’t think any member of Al-Qaeda would shed a tear if America crumbled.
As usual, whenever politics enter the discussion from either side, there is a willful misreading of what actually occurs in the movie.
****SPOILER ALERT****
When Batman tries to torture the Joker into telling him where Rachel and Dent were, not only does the Joker enjoy it, but it results in him giving misleading information and breaking out prison. When Dent threatens to kill one of the Joker’s men, Batman tells him that he can’t be seen doing something like that because it would erode his moral authority. Batman creates the surveillance system, but realizes the potential for misuse and destroys it. He gives up his power and allows himself to become a villain. He realizes that he lives completely outside the law and that is why ordinary people should look at someone like Dent in order to be inspired.
*****END SPOILERS******
In the end, the triumph of The Dark Knight is its ability to encompass many different aspects of good vs. evil, put it in a modern context, and then let the viewer decide how they feel. Are there references to the post 9/11 world and the need to fight terror? Absolutely. But to say that this is the only message in the film, and that Batman is somehow the incarnation of George Bush on film is a disservice to the complexity and brilliance of the film.
narcisoon 21 Jul 2008 at 8:07 am 39Actually the Joker is a two bit gangster and a thug; he is the apotheosis of what the Mob pretends to be; behind it’s organization charts, honor codes,double breasted suits, and money launderers like Lao’s corporate facade. The crimes they commit are never ‘victimless’ which is the argument against going after them. From the opening bank job, one realizes anyone who puts his trust in the Joker’s honesty or integrity is a fool’s game. To put it another way, the joker is Zarquawi or even Ayub al Masri; a butcher who disguises his handiwork in theological garb. The Joker, tries to offer up a rationalization for his sadism on two occasions; which just show the level of his derangement. The scale of his villainy at the Hospital, and the ‘prisoner’s dilemma’ on the ferries. is almost beyond comprehension. He thrives on human weakness, in the former example, the accountant’s greed
and the mob instinct for self preservation. In Brian De Palma’s updated ‘Untouchables’ challenging Al Capone’s reign of terror and extortion did have consequences to Ness’s team; almost every member was killed, and brutally, but he was ultimately put away. The question, hanging above the whole enterprise is Malone’s anguished query, “What are you prepared to do” and an acknowledgement of the Chicago rules. Interestingly, some would say Carbonell’s Mayor Garcia, who quite nearly suffered an impromtu firing squad had a real life analogue in Chicago’s Anton Cernak, ‘executed’ in 1933 in Miami, by Zangara a mob patsy. The Mob didn’t go away in 1933 after Prohibition, they hid in the guise of legitimate businesses like Lao’s organization. When there was a new offensive in the 60s, some say they enacted their revenge against who they saw as the persecutors. It was discovered some time ago, that the most recent crusader, Guiliani, was also under death threat for his work at the US Attorney’s Office and later as mayor. But that didn’t deter him from the goal at hand.
The analogue is made to the Bush administration’s tactics nearly the last seven years, and whether they ‘created more
terrorists’. Interestingly the critics are almost uniformly opposed to very tactic at every level. We have to give them
attorneys even though they don’t believe in the legitimacy of secular laws. We have to give them Geneva Convention protections; even their behavior contradicts the conditions for them. The examples of Daniel Pearl, Nicholas Berg, Paul Johnson, ;his was the real life version of the attempted decapitation at the climax of the “Kingdom”, and the butchery of Tucker, Menchaca & Green are proof of that. When they are released, we have to listen to their attorneys rationalize their atrocities, based on some slight.We must let them pronounce Miranda warnings, so we can’t find out what their brethren are going to do next. We must engage them only in Afghanistan, even though they were active in 60 countries before them; and that location wasn’t sacred ground until 1979. Iraq is a distraction, even though the people, and the terrain have proven to be much more hospitable to our message. We have to a court order in order to intercept their international communications; even though we can’t know who to intercept unless we cast a wide net. We must draft everyone, although the protesters are almost invariably the ones who would put obstacles in the way of any renewed selective service. That is just some of
the list of charges put forth against George W. Bush in the indictment for war crimes, genocide, murder as Bugliosi’s
fevered rants suggests.
Tommy Von 21 Jul 2008 at 8:31 am 40Bob:
Yes, Batman has to exist for the Joker to challenge him, but that’s not exactly an innovative point.
For Batman to truly beget the Joker you would have to make the argument that the Joker would have been a reasonably law-abiding citizen if Batman had never showed up.
You can choose to believe that, certainly, but I don’t buy it, and there’s far more there to make the opposite case, in my opinion.
We will have to agree to disagree on this.
Eric Fon 21 Jul 2008 at 8:59 am 41Lt. Gordon’s premise in the first movie was 180 degrees incorrect to begin with. Law enforcement usually lags behind criminal escalation.
Stephanieon 21 Jul 2008 at 9:54 am 42OK…..Saudi Barracks bombing……
Mogadishiu
American Embassy bombings in Africa
USS Cole
and ta da…………….9-11…..3,000 Americans butchered…
irrevocable damage to our economy…..
That is what I call escalation. How in the hell did going after terrorists create that escalation when..funny enough…..we didn’t before and they got bolder, and more fearless….they thought we wouldn’t do anything about it…even after watching the WTC fall. Not taht any Leftwing brain dead oxygen thieves care about the people that died…somehow we caused it. Right sure. Batman…aka W didn’t exist when the Cole was attacked, when our embassys were attacked and there was no going after Bin Laden.
Robert Lindseyon 21 Jul 2008 at 11:57 am 43I humbly submit my review of the movie at http://rantsbyrobert.blogspot.com/2008/07/dark-knight-movie-review.html. I talk about the tie in with the last movie and the opposing worldviews of Batman and Joker.
MovieBobon 21 Jul 2008 at 8:54 pm 44Tommy V
“For Batman to truly beget the Joker you would have to make the argument that the Joker would have been a reasonably law-abiding citizen if Batman had never showed up.”
No, because we’re talking about The Joker and not whoever this nut was BEFORE he “became” The Joker. Those scars have obviously been healed for awhile, and it takes time to learn all those bomb-making and demolition skills, so it’s reasonable to assume that he’s been a wandering nutcase for quite some time before he put his makeup on (I wonder if we’re supposed to assume that he and maybe other future villians started as Arkham inmates who got loose during the prison-break at the end of Batman Begins…) So, duh, of course this guy was already off his gourd. But THE JOKER - the guy with the makeup and the anarchy hangup who’s obsessed with Batman - that persona came into being because whoever he really is/was saw Batman and had some kind of perverse “revelation” about what to do with his life.
Templaron 22 Jul 2008 at 7:52 pm 45But THE JOKER - the guy with the makeup and the anarchy hangup who’s obsessed with Batman - that persona came into being because whoever he really is/was saw Batman and had some kind of perverse “revelation” about what to do with his life.
Insofar as the scars (which are clearly and obviously intended to elongate his smile in a hideous fashion) are, as you admitted, a long time healed, and essentially have no meaning without the clown make-up, that’s a false conclusion.
MovieBobon 23 Jul 2008 at 1:10 am 46Templar
“Insofar as the scars (which are clearly and obviously intended to elongate his smile in a hideous fashion) are, as you admitted, a long time healed, and essentially have no meaning without the clown make-up, that’s a false conclusion.”
Not at all. The scars only widen his mouth, the red lipstick is what forms it into a definate smile. And since we still don’t know where or how he came by them, we can’t say for certain that they exist strictly for his Joker persona.
More to the point: If he DID exist and was operating at the same level and ‘goal’ before Batman came about… why exactly is Gotham not ALREADY a smoldering crater back in Begins?