Dark Knight: The Red And Blue Divide
Posted by Dirty Harry on Sunday, July 20th, 2008
In many ways, it’s the feel-bad movie of the summer: it’s hard not to stare into Ledger’s eyes and come away profoundly shaken. Though in the end good emerges at least slightly victorious — a temporary armistice against the forces of darkness — it’s one of the least happy endings for a mainstream American action movie in quite a while.
Many of the reviews from left-wing critics (and we know they’re left wing because they’re critics) talk about an unrelenting darkness in the film up to and including — as the above example shows – the film’s ending. **Spoilers below the fold**
***SPOILERS BELOW***
Personally, I found the ending inspirational — a message that in the end, when faced with forever crossing the line, the human spirit prevails. As a a people, we may bitch, moan, groan, harp, second guess, and flake out, but when it comes down to it most of us do what’s right.
As far as Batman’s final decision, that was the most inspirational of all. What a sacrifice. What a hero. Everything Alfred talks about leads us to that moment. It redefines heroism to fit it into present day terms; that sometimes the most heroic choice is to choose not to be the hero. Which, of course, is all about George W. Bush.
So we leave the theatre knowing our protector is out there sacrificing much more than life and limb to do the right thing. We leave knowing that the people of Gotham turned a corner and dealt the Joker a loss.
Complicated, certainly, but just the opposite of unhappy.
Filed in General |
mjkon 20 Jul 2008 at 8:29 am 1Most people who say they don’t like “unhappy endings” are the ones who complain about how Gone With The Wind ended or Casablanca or Schindler’s List or 3:10 To Yuma. They don’t end “and they all lived happily ever after.” They end with ambiguity.
Was Schindler’s ability to save a few thousand Jews from the crematorium such a great thing since 6 million others didn’t get that chance? What was a point of getting the bad guy in 3:10 to Yuma to the train? He’s only going to escape again. Why did Rick let Ilsa get on that plane? They love each other. Why did he pick the resistance fighting instead? Scarlett never got her man. The movie ended without any resolution.
But perhaps they need to understand the deeper need of movies to ask tough questions and not give childish and naive answers. Real life events rarely end with a happily ever after. They end with tough questions and was it all worth it questions. They end with ambiguity and often heartache. I often love movies that end with the questions with no answers.
Tommy Von 20 Jul 2008 at 8:55 am 2I’m reposting this from another thread because I’m actually started to get a little annoyed. Which is silly, granted, but…
I think saying Batman is specifically George Bush is taking it way too far and way too literally.
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 no way people are going to turn back now.
But I am absolutely right about this.
relaytvon 20 Jul 2008 at 10:04 am 3This is not red vs. blue.
Hating or liking Redacted is red vs. blue.
This movie is not a frontal assault on conservative values, it is a stealth bomber.
Underneath it’s seemingly conservative surface, This film has an underlying liberal message.
‘People will turn against a hero,’ is a liberal message.
Who but a liberal, could hate a hero?
Someone saves your life… and you hate them.
Sorry. I just can’t grasp it. To me it is insane.
Would any conservative person who reads this site, hate Batman for fighting the Joker at all costs?
I thought not.
I believe that accepting that good people can turn against a hero, who has already saved their lives, BTW, is BS.
If they do that they are NOT good people.
If, at the end of TDK, there was a scene where the people who had turned against Batman throughout the movie, had been shamed into realizing the error of their ways, then I would have loved the movie.
Instead, Batman and Gordon somehow, come up with the idea that it is better to lie, and have people hate Batman, than tell the truth.
Because, of course, the people cannot be trusted with the truth, or to do the right thing when confronted with it.
This movie screams the message, ‘if you are brave, be ready to be hated for it. If you are heroic, prepare to be reviled.’
Who but a liberal would think that way.
Who but a liberal could accept that logic.
At the end of Die Hard, did they lock up John Mclain? Did he become hunted as an outlaw?
Well why not, he killed many bad guys without the benefit of a trial?
He shot them, dropped bombs on them, and threw them out windows. He didn’t try to bring them in alive. He didn’t yell, “Put your hands up, you’re under arrest!” No miranda reading, no arrest warrant. He just killed them.
Was he arrested for it? No.
The cops thanked him (except for Deputy Chief Dwayne T. Robinson, who is mocked as an idiot throughout the movie) and the crusading liberal reporter got socked in the jaw.
That’s the way a true conservative movie ends.
Because that’s the way conservatives treat our heroes.
Finally, if Batman is GW Bush, then in the context of THIS MOVIE, Bush and Cheney invented the whole idea of BDS and lied to perpetuate it, because they know that the people of America would rather hate Bush, than face the truth that our former heroes have now turned evil.
In the context of the real life, if Batman acted like GWB, then Batman would have killed the Joker and told everyone the truth about Dent, and rolled with the hatred that some misguided people would have for him.
I am very conservative, and I love this site, but I did NOT love this movie, (way too long, too many endings, too many villains) or the underlying message. (if you do good, be prepared to be despised.)
GMKon 20 Jul 2008 at 10:04 am 4Tommy, rather than spam that to every item you disagree with, maybe you should write a blog that no one will read.
GMKon 20 Jul 2008 at 10:07 am 5But George Bush did get despised for doing good relaytv. I’d agree if the movie advocated the despite but it doesn’t, it points out how myopic and self-centered it is.
Audietooon 20 Jul 2008 at 10:15 am 6The old saying is “no good deed shall go unpunished” so the Dark Knight Story seems to be echoing an ancient human fault.
As for Red state blue state, I could not get tickets for my adult grandsons birthday today anywher in this area of North Idaho.
We the family, are all dying to see this movie.
relaytvon 20 Jul 2008 at 10:27 am 7GMK said,
“I’d agree if the movie advocated the despite but it doesn’t”
I disagree. This movie treats the hatred of batman as the norm, not the providence of a few liberal wackos. At the end, only Gordon’s kid loves the Batman.
In fact, at the end, it is Batman and Gordon who concoct the plan to offer the people someone to hate, because they know they will need it.
As I said above, if the people had been shamed for their hatred of Batman displayed throughout the movie, it would be a great message, but that never happens. The sock in the jaw that the people of Gotham deserve, never comes.
Instead our hero allow himself to be hunted and despised because the people need a hero to hate?
Only in liberal hollywood.
relaytvon 20 Jul 2008 at 10:39 am 8Audietoo said
“The old saying is “no good deed shall go unpunished” so the Dark Knight Story seems to be echoing an ancient human fault.”
Just one example of many. If memory serves, your namesake Audie Murphy DID go unpunished for his good deeds during WW2.
In fact, Audie played himself in the movie version of his autobiography ‘To Hell and Back’ which was the highest grossing movie for Universal till Jaws.
How did that movie end? Was Murphy hunted and despised for his bravery?
Oh yeah, they give him the CMH.
But hollywood was way different then.
ChrisBon 20 Jul 2008 at 11:11 am 9relaytv
‘People will turn against a hero,’ is not a liberal message. Do you not remember what the mob said to Pontius Pilate? Is the crucifixion of Christ a liberal narrative?
At their core, conservatives believe that people are not inherently good, that faced with evil, most people will do what they can to avoid confrontation as long as possible, and many will suffer greatly for it.
johnmark7on 20 Jul 2008 at 11:39 am 10Heroes generally die in stories making a heroic sacrifice for the sake of others. One of the reasons for this is that the popularity of heroes generally fades quickly since people don’t like being reminded of their own cowardice. The greatness of a hero is an insult to others who are not so good but want to feel otherwise.
Heroes are too good for this world. Nor do others want them to live on into their dotage revealing unwholesome tastes or proclivities in the passing years.
Tommy Von 20 Jul 2008 at 11:40 am 11Wow, GMK, that was bizarrely hostile. You might want to take a breather.
Relay, I still have no idea what you are talking about with “people will hate a hero” being a liberal message.
I still cannot see your point that this a liberal movie.
The filmmakers and the audience do not hate Batman. The characters in the film do.
If the filmmakers were clearly on the side that Batman is out of control and doing more harm than good, I think you would have the point. But the filmmakers succeed in having us NOT feel the way the people of Gotham do.
I just don’t think you’re making your case at all and you don’t seem to be backing down from it. You seem to be getting more adamant!
Kensingtonon 20 Jul 2008 at 11:42 am 12relaytv, I think it’s conceivable that George W. Bush decided a long time ago that he’s willing to be hated, if it’s for the good of the country.
Maybe that’s why he never fights back.
Kensingtonon 20 Jul 2008 at 11:43 am 13That said, I think your analysis is really interesting and obviously thoughtful, relaytv!
Blancon 20 Jul 2008 at 12:01 pm 14I don’t mean to mock anyone with my thoughts about this debate. I love this website (and Harry’s work at Libertas before) and I mean no disrespect, but I have very little interest in the political aspect of ‘conservative’. I find that much of what many here decry for political reasons fall in line with some of my personal beliefs. So, to a degree, I enjoy and can relate to ‘conservative ideals’.
I feel exactly like relaytv does about this movie. I thought it was wonderfully made, well-written and incredibly acted. It was also a huge downer. I appreciate that the topical allegories that you all find in it mean a lot to you, but I just wanted a great Batman movie. And in order for it to be that, Batman is a hero. When best written he is feared by all the right people, cheered by the ones he seeks to protect and is clandestinely supported by the other, more regular good guys.
I also don’t think hyper-reality is the best fit for a Batman movie. I loved the tone and atmosphere of Batman Begins, but Gotham is a hyperbolic symbol of the decadent, corrupt modern city. Because of that, Batman represents a hyperbolic morality. He’s only scary to those with a reason to be scared or a moral-immaturity that fails to recognize the fact that Gotham needs him. I think an argument about how a Batman-type vigilante would be received in New York or LA is beside the point. Batman operates in Gotham. It’s fiction. If you lived there you’d have to be a coward or an idiot to see him as anything other than a hero.
Davidon 20 Jul 2008 at 12:07 pm 15I’m glad somebody mentioned Jesus Christ, as he is the perfect example of this - Rememer how Jesus said “if they hate you, remember they have hated me first.” - it IS often hard for a hero to do the right thing specifically for this reason. The right thing is almost always the HARD thing, and most people aren’t heroes because it’s often easier to “go along to get along”.
This is why some of our greatest leaders had very low approval ratings while in office, only to grow in stature later. Lincoln was downright despised and almost lost reelection during wartime because of it. Real heroes very often are unpopular precisely because they are making the tough choices that noody else has the balls to make.
Eric Fon 20 Jul 2008 at 12:31 pm 16TommyV, I had suggested Batman as America, but I could go along with his being an ideology-made-flesh (so to speak).
ChrisB wrote:
I disagree. Conservatives believe in the good in people and from that is born the idea of a smaller federal government (and thus more power to the people). Granted, Christian conservatives (and liberals) may digress from that viewpoint. Liberals certainly do when it comes to their own issues, such as climate change (via legislation) and health care (via taxing).
relaytvon 20 Jul 2008 at 12:46 pm 17Making a case that Batman is a Christ figure, is alot more accurate in my opinion, than Batman is Bush.
However, Bush (and Jesus) did not invent a lies about himself to allow liberal wackos to comfortably hate him.
He just did what was right, and they hated him.
Take the last part out of TDK, like I said, and put in a scene where the people who hate Batman are shown to be idiots, and THEN you have a conservative movie.
As it stands, the subtle theme of the movie is - Fight against evil, and you WILL be despised.
Not may be despised… WILL be. Batman and Gordon do not take a Gallup poll before devising their ‘let them hate Batman plan.’ Only Gordon’s son is shown to love Batman.
Are you really trying to convince me that is a conservative message?
In my opinion, a true conservative movie would have the message:
If you fight for good, liberal idiots may despise you.
I only hope the people of Gotham get their comeuppance in the NEXT Batman movie (My bet is on Catwoman to make an appearance. Didn’t someone in TDK have a line about liking/disliking cats?)
Danielon 20 Jul 2008 at 12:52 pm 18I think there may be a point to the comment that Dark Knight is the “feel-bad movie of the summer”, but not for the reason noted. This description resonates with me because the film’s ending resonates so much with the world we live in.
Let DH’s spoilers alert stand for what follows:.
When I see Batman running into the night chased by barking dogs, jumping aboard the Bat-Pod to race into
sunsetstreet’s arclight glow I don’t necessarily see Pres. Bush. I see folks who live much closer to the fight. I see the brave soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines fighting everyday on the front lines. I see trained men and women standing watch on the wall, keeping us safe from terrors we wish didn’t exist. I also see left-liberal pseudo-intellectuals hiding in their ivory towers and media fortresses barking and throwing stones at these guardians of liberty; chasing after them instead of chasing after the real threat.Is Batman Pres. Bush? Perhaps. I rather think of him as America’s military. Left-liberals critics can’t stand this because it puts on the wrong side of the fight, going after the one force for good, instead of having the guts to stand up to evil.
I was as thrilled by The Dark Knight as I was deeply troubled. This could be the “feel-bad movie of the summer” because a lot of folks might grasp the film’s closing message and leave the theater pondering our current state of affairs. How bad does our real world have to get before those who should know better stop hunting the one force for good, the one source of hope, that we have against
Islamo-Nazismthe Joker.
Stephanieon 20 Jul 2008 at 1:09 pm 19Daniel I am thinking its more of the ideology that W has followed. I have filed away the statement from the White House that was written by Paul Wolfowitz rewriting our foriegn policy. Its pretty much what we have been doing for a long time now. Certain mushy, self centered, narcissists feel threatened with the real change aggressive pursuit of evil causes because they feel they are untouched. Look at the comments by foolish idiots here: They honestly probably think 9-11 was a TV show. Not one was touched really touched by terrorism that day. If they were there would be more a sense of urgency. The fact that W has been so successful in keeping us safe here has also caused them to feel there really isnt a worry. They of course are too stupid to understand that the reason why we haven’t been attacked again is because of teh measures taken to ensure our safety. Long ago we were told by the President that there would be victorys we would hear about, and ones we would not. 99 percent of the measures taken, people arrested, terrorists surveiled have gone below the radar of the media. That is how it should be. To the fools here that come and say W is lazy or hasn’t done enough…I ask you see any buildings blown up here in the US by some Islamonut lately? No. Any judges or public people molested or murdered by little Jihadi freaks? No. Why is that? Because of the security measures taken. Now, this also must be said. 9-10 was a nice day wasn’t it? Birds singing, late summer……awesome. But that was the past. You people need to let it go. The world changed on 9-11. They scream about wanting change but the day the world changed, 9-11 is a day they cannot allow to exist because that would be admitting for them, W was right. To me they are just sick, narcissistic, disordered poor spirited people. I often wonder if these whiners are even worth fighting for. And sometimes I don’t.
K. Bowenon 20 Jul 2008 at 1:22 pm 20Liberals see the ending as good being corrupted by the presence of evil. Conservatives see it as good making the best of bad choices in order to preserve the larger good. While I don’t think Batman and George W. Bush perfectly overlap, the final choice - absorbing public contempt in order to protect the public that hates him - is very George W. Bush.
Lexingtonon 20 Jul 2008 at 2:01 pm 21“As far as Batman’s final decision, that was the most inspirational of all. What a sacrifice. What a hero.”
Except it was a silly choice. As a friend of mine pointed out afterwards, “y’know, the Joker’s right there.” Would it really have been so hard to pin a few more deaths on the terrorist psychopath? Aside from serving the movie’s themes, the ending didn’t make any sense.
Eric Fon 20 Jul 2008 at 2:11 pm 22If we’re going to lie to the public, can we at least not falsely accuse people who may not be innocent of other crimes, but are of this?
Addison DeWitton 20 Jul 2008 at 2:23 pm 23This morning, while thinking about “The Dark Night”, I was reminded of Kipling’s poem, White Man’s Burden. It’s a taboo poem nowadays because it’s been branded as racist jingoism. But I like it and I think it captures a lot of what this film said to me. Some people won’t be able to get past the exceptionalism inherent in the title of the poem, but if we (and by we, I mean western civilization, not white men) reject our exceptionalism, we also reject any rationale for defending our civilization from attack.
Take up the White Man’s burden–
And reap his old reward:
The blame of those ye better,
The hate of those ye guard–
The cry of hosts ye humour
(Ah, slowly!) toward the light:–
“Why brought ye us from bondage,
Our beloved Egyptian night?”
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/Kipling.html
Matt Helmon 20 Jul 2008 at 2:25 pm 24This is the best review of the movie I’ve seen yet. Sophomoric, but hilarious.
Caution: Strong language.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTmOBXGqZI8
Phoenixon 20 Jul 2008 at 2:57 pm 25That stunt sure as hell recalls a plane impact, tell us again it’s Just A Story.
It’s not meant to be pure literal. “Bush doesn’t have a cowl”, and so on. Comparisons are not mirrors, so he’s just the current top parallel.
It shouldn’t be so exact that it reads like Bush’s press secretary.
He’s been hated and accused of acting strong but outside the law, etc. in pursuit of terrorists.
The Joker is a nutjob after society with wanton terror and a general call for recruits and chaos, whatever his damn manifesto.
Society is watching, and must be either with us or against us.
I always side with the Batcave kind of guy
:)
But libruls are among us, plus ten kinds of cop-outs and morons.
Welcome to WOT meets “Redacted”. The polls are not heartening.
Were these turncoats really framed as correct “good people”?
Or is it just more tough road for the exceptional non-denier hero?
Society continues on in a messy and unjust fashion.
I’ve learned not to believe any reviewer 100%, because inclinations color views (Iron Man was initially called a liberal smack at the defense industry), so I’ll have to wait to see for myself, I guess,
but I’ll hold out for The Batman
GMK:
Elegant solution : )
Wilson the Volleyballon 20 Jul 2008 at 4:43 pm 26I loved the ending. I loved that Batman didn’t whine and moan about Rachel Dawes’ death. He knew the life he had chosen. He knew the consequences.
I loved Harvey Dent. The psychology makes Batman Forever’s Two Face look juvenile. I was sympathetic towards him. I felt for his loss.
It’s much easier to be a hero when everyone acknowledges you’re a hero. It’s much harder when people think you’re anything but. Bruce Wayne made the bigger choice. The ending was inspirational.
Kiton 20 Jul 2008 at 5:32 pm 27relaytv,
Ever heard of these sayings:
“Do what is right, not what is easy.”
“No good deed ever goes unpunished.”
Kiton 20 Jul 2008 at 5:35 pm 28relaytv,
Also, creating the lies about himself makes him MORE feared by the criminal underworld.
They now fear that if he finds them, he may kill them. That could be one of the reasons he created the lie.
Danielon 20 Jul 2008 at 7:01 pm 29Addison, I think you’ve hit it out of the park. “White Man’s Burden” is the perfect parallel for The Dark Knight.
I don’t think there’s much to add to your comment. Perfect.
Stephen Tilsonon 20 Jul 2008 at 7:02 pm 30Something I was thinking about driving home after the movie:
Batman: George W. Bush, perhaps, or simply America. The one strong enough and willing to do what is necessary to fight evil, including allowing himself to become an outcast and a pariah.
Gordon: Tony Blair, or Great Britain. The older, more cynical ally of Batman who is vital to his on-going efforts, and who despite his cynicism, is still a strong idealist at heart.
Joker: Terrorists.
Dent: an ally who allows himself to be turned away from the fight when the cost becomes too great for him to bear; Spain, perhaps, post 3/11.
I realize the analogies aren’t perfect but I’ve had a lot of fun thinking about them. Can’t wait to see the movie again.
ChristopherMCon 20 Jul 2008 at 7:07 pm 31The point is, as I saw it, Batman is doing the right thing no matter the cost to himself. He’s not in a popularity contest, vying for the adoration of a fickle public.
Just saw the movie today, truly excellent. Definately comes down on the conservative side of things, though I can’t say if Nolan intended it that way. Certainly non-leftist. But even if it wasn’t, it’s still a great film. I will certainly see it again soon.
jrlon 20 Jul 2008 at 7:29 pm 32On Sheep, Wolves, and Sheepdogs
http://mwkworks.com/onsheepwolvesandsheepdogs.html
The Dark Knight, in a nutshell.
Troyon 20 Jul 2008 at 7:53 pm 33jrl… I love that. I’ve seen Grossman speak twice and read On Killing a few times and have used it in my courses. His analogy is spot-on.
Tommy Von 20 Jul 2008 at 7:57 pm 34Stephen,
I think a few people are turning more to the idea that Batman is America and not Bush.
I can’t remember who first postulated it, but the more I have thought about it the more I think it is more accurate.
I was first thinking that Batman was more an ideal and an ideology… but I think I was wrong. America seems a much better fit.
He is the wealthiest of the wealthy, has the technological edge over everyone, is willing to be hated to do the right thing, is blamed for the existence of psychopaths…
We all know the rest.
But it was the wealth and the technology that made me think that America was a much better fit.
Tommy Von 20 Jul 2008 at 8:06 pm 35JRL,
Great piece. Thanks for that link.
tranquilitason 20 Jul 2008 at 8:38 pm 36I’m pretty conservative but I didn’t go into TDK or leave it with a laundry lists of yeah or nays on its conservative points based on current headlines.
I think it’s too narrow to look at a film such as this and say it’s an analogy for Bush or the War on terror, etc.
I tend to look at movies like this with a larger template–good vs evil which has been the basis of all myths since the beginning of time. It’s worth reading Joseph Campbell and his work on myths. He reminds us that fairy tales are myths for children with a happy ever after ending. Adults make sense of their world through sturdier mythology that includes difficult choices and not always happy ever after (but a new way of looking at things or dealing with life).
I think of myself as a conservative not because of my voting record but because of my ideals. That there are things worth believing in even to the point of being the only one in the room to hold them dear.
It easy to take an event (Iraq war) or persons (GWB or terrorists) and lay it on top of the movie’s premise and try to measure it that way as conservative or not. But those things are not the correct standard of measurement.
The ideas that are true and worth dying for are the correct standards. I’m not sure I can articulate those ideas/ideals well but generally the fight against evil despite the personal cost has throughout history defined a hero. Not just a particular stand on a war or dictator.
Bruce Wayne takes on a cause not because he wants to be a hero but because he knows he has no choice. There is no joy or pride in the decision. Is it not true that the best heroes generally are the ones who don’t seek it? (George Washington didn’t want to be President. Wish that more of our “leaders” felt that way.)
As for the ending…in true heroic fashion Batman was wiling to let the accolades fall to Dent…to let the people have hope and believe that good can conquer evil..Batman didn’t need the approval –he was doing his duty…his calling no matter the consequences. He was willing to take on the additional burden of accepting the blame for the deaths caused by Dent. True those deaths could have been blamed on the Joker but I think that’s the story teller’s call. Having Batman take on that burden creates more interestng possibilities for the future of Batman. I didn’t see it as the people needing someone to hate as the point trying to be made but rather Batman trying to protect an ideal.
Now whether the Nolans et al used current headlines to flesh out the story I don’t know. Certainly current events can be measured by the standards I’ve mentioned–are there things in the world that are happening that are worth protecting to the point of dying for them? Yeah there are thus the similarities to the movie.
Jayemelon 20 Jul 2008 at 10:02 pm 37Anyone who says this movie isn’t conservative or about the War on Terror is blind or ignoring the truth on purpose. Still, people here are missing two key points:
1. Tommy V already said this. Batman is not Bush. Batman is America. Likewise, the citizens of Gotham are the rest of the world and:
2. Harvey Dent represents liberals. He saves the weak. He is the do-gooder.
Basically, this movie is a more complicated version of Team America World Police. Batman is a dick. Dent is a pussy. Joker is an asshole. Batman was a pussy when he was obsessed with idolizing Dent. This choice allowed the Joker to shit all over everyone, especially Dent, who became really shit. Then, when Batman fucked everyone, everything was alright again.
Re: The Bush Administration, Bush has done what needed to be done and let people thought what they wanted since day one. Does he ever defend himself? No. Contrast his PR approach with the 42nd President and you’ll understand what I mean.
MovieBobon 20 Jul 2008 at 10:39 pm 38It’s a downer ending. And I love it for that.
Almost every great “proposed trilogy” (or more) of films (or anything) tends to cap off #2 with a downer to create tension for part 3. Consider:
SPOILER WARNING
The Empire Strikes Back: Turns out Vader is Luke’s father and a former Jedi. So much for clear dilineation of good and evil. Han’s caught. Luke’s handless and screwed up.
Godfather 2: Michael becomes everything he once swore he’d never be. He’s gone all the way around the bend.
The Two Towers: Frodo is a giant spider’s doggy-bag. Gollum CANNOT, in fact, be rehabed. Sauron’s forces are heading STRAIGHT for Minas Tirith.
Spider-Man 2: Doctor Octopus fails to kill Mary Jane, meaning that Spider-Man and his audience will have to put up with her for ANOTHER whole movie in about 2 years.
Forward-looking speeches by eternal-optimist Comissioner Gordon aside, consider how “Dark Knight” actually breaks down:
Harvey Dent, an essential “daytime” component to Batman’s long-term goals, is dead.
Rachel Dawes, self-identified as the light at the end of the Bat-tunnel for Bruce Wayne, is dead.
The Joker has, essentially, won: He proved that even someone like Harvey Dent can be broken and descend into chaos with him. Batman and Gordon can’t refute this, they can only cover it up and try to contain the damage.
In his part of the cover-up, Gordon will now be in charge of hunting down his ally Batman. He’s a studiously honest man, and he now faces a devil’s choice: Be the right by-the-book example that his formerly corrupt department requires and hunt the fugitive Batman… or let Batman continue to skirt the edges of the law and become, on-balance, as corrupt as those who preceded him.
For his part, Batman - who is already not playing with a full deck (the whole rubber animal costume and all…) - must now retreat even further into the shadows and away from the rest of the world. And he’ll be fighting both the police and the supervillians now - a happy ending is now even less an option for him than it was before.
Scarecrow and Joker are both alive - boy, I sure hope they won’t be in the same institution or anything…
Jim Gordon’s son, who looks to be all of six years-old and ALREADY just got done mourning his dead father only to see him show up and say “just kidding!”, has now been manhandled and had a gun drawn on him by a literal walking nightmare, whom he then watched his father and a man in a giant rubber bat costume inadvertently cause the death of. Therapy? Not an option - he’s got his father and Batman’s secrets to keep. Might as well book him a room at Arkham and put a down payment on a mask and some henchmen now.
This is about as bleak as it gets, even if the final predicament has the noblest of intentions. Hell, if this were a “reimagining” run of comics this’d be the part where Batman either turns evil or needs to find a Robin to give him a broader since of humanity and purpose.
Mars vs Hollywoodon 21 Jul 2008 at 3:57 am 39Batman is clearly George W. Bush. Consider:
-He comes from a wealthy background
-He favors action over dialogue
-He favors aggressive, even violent solutions to problems
-He has a thing for gee-whiz combat hardware
-He consults with his allies, but doesn’t allow them to deter him from what he feels is necessary
-He has no qualms about getting a little rough when getting information from people
-His closest friend and advisor is a smart but somewhat crotchety old man
-He has a massive covert surveillance program that makes even people on his side a little nervous
-And finally, no matter how many bad guys he takes down, no matter how many tragedies he prevents, no matter how evil his adversaries are, he gets blamed for EVERYTHING.
Seems pretty solid to me.
David Marcoeon 21 Jul 2008 at 4:28 am 40The Joker has, essentially, won: He proved that even someone like Harvey Dent can be broken and descend into chaos with him. Batman and Gordon can’t refute this, they can only cover it up and try to contain the damage.
Well, no, he’s 1 for 2, or 1 for 3. His larger scheme failed, but in twisting Dent, he felled “the best of them” and still scored his figurative victory, even as he wasn’t able to drag Batman down. It is a mixed result, to say the least.
In his part of the cover-up, Gordon will now be in charge of hunting down his ally Batman. He’s a studiously honest man, and he now faces a devil’s choice: Be the right by-the-book example that his formerly corrupt department requires and hunt the fugitive Batman… or let Batman continue to skirt the edges of the law and become, on-balance, as corrupt as those who preceded him.
He’s still not as corrupt as the people who preceded him (not by a long shot), but he now has to hold two positions in constant tension, just to achieve the thing that he’s ultimately a police officer for.
For his part, Batman - who is already not playing with a full deck (the whole rubber animal costume and all…)…
Can we drop the whole “Batman is crazy” meme? Not only is that one of the worst misinterpretations of the character to keep floating to the surface, but Nolan’s interpretation of him as never once shown a hint of having bats in the belfry. He wears the bat costume to “make his enemies feel his fear” and to be a symbol because “as a symbol I can be incorruptible, I can be everlasting.” Sounds like a perfectly good rationale to me.
Jim Gordon’s son, who looks to be all of six years-old and ALREADY just got done mourning his dead father only to see him show up and say “just kidding!”, has now been manhandled and had a gun drawn on him by a literal walking nightmare, whom he then watched his father and a man in a giant rubber bat costume inadvertently cause the death of.
Seems to me like he got to see his father alive again, as well as him and Batman save the day. Granted, all that preceded it was not pleasant, but it isn’t exactly like it ended all badly (or that he was that distraught, when all was said and done).
I’m not seeing it as bleak as you are, naturally.
Jayemelon 21 Jul 2008 at 7:59 am 41Mars vs Hollywood,
Except all those things you said were true about Batman before Bush was ever president.
John Wrighton 21 Jul 2008 at 10:12 am 42“I am very conservative, and I love this site, but I did NOT love this movie or the underlying message. (if you do good, be prepared to be despised.)”
I am conservative as well. The message that good people end up being hated by those whom they benefit is an old and conservative message: I believe the movie THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST told that message, not to mention THE LION THE WITCH AND THE WARDROBE.
Rufus T. Fireflyon 21 Jul 2008 at 12:12 pm 43Jayemel,
You kiss your mother with that mouth?
RyanOHon 21 Jul 2008 at 5:27 pm 44Spider-Man 2: Doctor Octopus fails to kill Mary Jane, meaning that Spider-Man and his audience will have to put up with her for ANOTHER whole movie in about 2 years.
Bob: well played, sir.
MovieBobon 21 Jul 2008 at 8:44 pm 45David Marco
“Can we drop the whole “Batman is crazy” meme?”
If Batman is existing in anything even remotely resembling a realistic universe, he’s crazy. He’s not a psychopath, but he’s not “all there” by a long shot.
This isn’t like Captain America, who’s costume is a government-issued uniform, or Superman who wants to be a larger-than-life symbol, or Iron Man who’s wearing his weapons-cache: He’s dressing up in an animal costume recreationally - there are people who do that in real life, called furries, and I don’t think anyone is going to call them entirely sane (if you google that word to find out what I’m refering to, don’t blame me for what you see.) While doing so, he jumps off skyscrapers with a kite strapped to his back and punches muggers. His rationale for doing so (”I’m avenging my parents’ murders and crooks will be afraid of bats”) sounds like exactly what it is: a longform euphamism for “I’m PROFOUNDLY screwed up by the loss of my parents, but I’m richer than God so I’m merely ‘eccentric,’ and it makes me feel better to put on a bat costume and get into fistfights.”
David Marcoeon 21 Jul 2008 at 9:39 pm 46If Batman is existing in anything even remotely resembling a realistic universe, he’s crazy. He’s not a psychopath, but he’s not “all there” by a long shot.
“Criminals are a superstitious and cowardly lot, so my disguise must be able to strike terror into their hearts. I must be a creature of the night, black, terrible…” (a quote from one of the early Batman comics) The fact of the matter is that is that Batman was a pulp character, a throwback to a romantic period we’re no longer in touch with, and his costume was a half-explained element that was supposedly used to scare his enemies. Over the years, layers of explanation–that it makes him seem to be something other than human or that he stays to the shadows to make full effect of it–has been added to ground it in some plausibility. However, it is the weakest element of the mythos and simply requires a little more suspension of disbelief. If the character didn’t use the bat motif to invoke fear, it would have been something else.
However, you must not have studied much history. For thousands years, symbolism, decoration, and costuming were used by the military forces of every culture and civilization to invoke fear in their enemies as a form psychological warfare. In fact, that tradition elaborate of costuming was only abandoned in the West during WWI, when such things impractical for shifting styles of warfare and shifting cultural norms that made such flourishes seem ridiculous. Thus, the fact that he may make use of something to invoke fear in his enemies to gain an edge has plenty of historical precedent and does not require him to do so.
He’s dressing up in an animal costume recreationally…
“People need dramatic examples to shake them out of apathy and I can’t do that as Bruce Wayne, as a man I’m flesh and blood I can be ignored I can be destroyed but as a symbol, as a symbol I can be incorruptible, I can be everlasting.” — Batman Begins. Am I talking in a vacuum here?
…there are people who do that in real life, called furries, and I don’t think anyone is going to call them entirely sane (if you google that word to find out what I’m referring to, don’t blame me for what you see.)
It’s likely that everyone here already know what furries are. And comparing the use of a fearsome motif (at least, in the context of Batman’s universe) to someone who dresses up like a giant stuffed animal to have sex is like comparing apples and oranges. The motivations are different, the purposes are different, and the end result is entirely different. It is a conflation of two entirely things based upon a tangential connection.
While doing so, he jumps off skyscrapers with a kite strapped to his back…
So I guess soldiers must be crazy, since they jump into enemy territory with kites on their backs, dressed like their covered with leaves, and shooting flaming hot pieces of metal at people. Semantics are not an argument.
Flight provides a tactical advantage and sells the illusion of him being a “bat-man,” hence the urban legends of him being something other than human.
…and punches muggers.
Yes, because the last movie was entirely about “punching muggers.” It didn’t involve the mob, a crazy psychiatrist with a bio-weapon, or the leader of a secret society of ninjas trying to use it to kill a city.
His rationale for doing so (”I’m avenging my parents’ murders and crooks will be afraid of bats”) sounds like exactly what it is: a longform euphemism for “I’m PROFOUNDLY screwed up by the loss of my parents, but I’m richer than God so I’m merely ‘eccentric,’ and it makes me feel better to put on a bat costume and get into fistfights.”
So dedicating one’s life to fighting crime is for crazy people? I guess you should tell that to John Walsh on America’s Most Wanted, whose son was beheaded on a horrific and decided to dedicate his life to tracking down bad guys, but since he’s a TV host, he must profoundly screwed up because he’s obviously in for the attention and sympathy that comes with national TV exposure.
Batman gets into fist fights because he’s fighting crime on a street level, because the cops were too corrupt to do their job. He’s dressed like a bat because he’s uses the motif to invoke fear in his enemies and act as a symbol. He dedicated his life to fighting crime because the profound trauma of his parents death lead to a moral awakening. That’s it.
David Marcoeon 21 Jul 2008 at 9:46 pm 47Correction: does not require him to mentally ill to do so.
To add: Batman is a character that probably would’ve made more sense. In the Victorian or Edwardian eras, when that type of character would have tapped more deeply into the zeitgeist. In fact, Gotham by Gaslight does set Batman in Gotham, around 1890 or so.
Templaron 22 Jul 2008 at 6:02 am 48Well done, David. I wish I could write like that.
Stephanieon 22 Jul 2008 at 6:19 am 49I don’t think Bob has ever taken a history class that explains why the plains Indians wore giant head dresses of Eagle Feathers. The more feathers the better the warrior. Horses decorated with Coup marks…..enemies touched, hand prints, enemies killed in hand to hand combat. These symbols were from the primordial soup of human existence. The head dresses were never worn in battle but the owners horses showed their bravery in the painted marks, they painted their faces, bodies, in order to show their courage and strike fear into their enemies.
The Roman standard bearer who wore the Wolfs skin…a symbol of Rome as he carried the Legion’s standards into battle. The underlaying idea is taking teh essence of the animal….the eagle’s bravery, the wolf’s ferocity and allowing it to become part of the man part of the society. Remember Bob ancient cultures worshipped these animals as sacred beings. To earn an eagle feather was to have a piece of divinity attached to you. Batman’s use of the bat costume has to do with bats are dark, mysterious and yes they do scare the hell out of people.
MovieBobon 23 Jul 2008 at 1:06 am 50Stephanie
“I don’t think Bob has ever taken a history class that explains why the plains Indians wore giant head dresses of Eagle Feathers. The more feathers the better the warrior.”
And if Batman was occuring in that time period, it’d be a different story. But it’s not. Batman has always existed, with rare digression, in the current modern world in which his stories were taking place - a world in which dressing up like a giant bat is a pretty clear sign that someone isn’t entirely sane.
It’s not as though I’m saying it as a negative - the idea that Batman is to varying degrees a superhero who’s out of his damn mind is what makes him incredibly interesting. Most superheroes are either insufferably righteous (Superman) or informed by guilt and/or arrested development (Spider-Man.) Batman? Batman has SCARY issues and he’s got enough money to “work through them” using a bat costume and futuristic weaponry. That’s Interesting.
And it’s also not as though being crazy is some kind of impediment to his being a hero or admirable: Millions idolized Evil Knievel back in the day… anyone want to argue that HE was playing with a full deck?