“You think the city’s better now?” the Joker leers at the Law through a video screen. Matted hair, caked-up makeup and eyes wild and wide. “THIS IS HOW INSANE GOTHAM IS!” And he personifies the madness into which society is descending.
I’D LIKE TO COME BACK to my film reviews more often, but they are one of the most time-consuming efforts I make, though one of the most satisfying. If I had another few hours in a day, I’d probably keep a wholly separate blog for film, photo, and all things visual. But just as your host is mestizolicious, so is this blog a blend of various elements, from human rights to political engagement to graphic art to people-powered notions to polemic to environmental concern to humor to film review. Anyway, on with it.
For purposes of categorization (and time!) this will be a “Film Overview.” Meaning, I see a film once, talk about it at home without further viewing capability, without having taken notes, without being able to grab stills. This means that my quotes may be off by a word or two as they are paraphrased, but the essence will be accurate as I was making mental notes and connecting the insights I had to specific film elements.
For the other types—especially Review and Full Analysis—I prefer to have a screening copy on hand and the ability to select any still image to illustrate a point. So this will be rather broad and only as detailed as I expect I can make it. For those who are new to UMX, my (formal) training and practice in visual art began in 1988 and I specifically majored in Film/TV at my second school, NYU. A handful of radio reviews that I did for Radio Pacifica can be found here and the written reviews I’ve posted here.
This will be an overview of Batman: The Dark Knight. There are spoilers! So you may want to skip this and bookmark it for later if you haven’t yet seen the film. However, I will do my best regardless to not mention anything gratuitously and only what I need to in making my points.
I realize it’s only fair to begin with a synopsis, but I’d rather quote someone else on that part, because my main interest here is stripping bare the underlying message. So here’s two summaries from imdb.com.
Batman raises the stakes in his war on crime. With the help of Lieutenant Jim Gordon and District Attorney Harvey Dent, Batman sets out to dismantle the remaining criminal organizations that plague the city streets. The partnership proves to be effective, but they soon find themselves prey to a reign of chaos unleashed by a rising criminal mastermind known to the terrified citizens of Gotham as The Joker. Written by Peteagassi
With just one year passed after taking out Ra’s Al Ghul’s plan to have Gotham eliminated and the mysterious disappearance of Dr. Jonathan Crane AKA the Scarecrow, after the city was nearly plundered with his toxins, Bruce Wayne and his vigilante alter-ego the Batman, continue the seemingly-endless effort to bring order to Gotham, with the help of Lt. James Gordon and newly appointed District Attorney Harvey Dent, but a new threat has now emerged into the streets. The Dark Knight faces a rising psychopathic criminal called The Joker, who’s eerie grin, laughter, and inhuman morality makes him more dangerous than what he has yet to unleash. It becomes an agenda to the Batman to stop the mysterious Joker at all cost, knowing that the both of them are in the opposite line. One with no method at all and seeks to see the world plunge into the fire he has yet to lit. One who represents the symbol of hope and uses his own shadow to bring the peace and order he has yet to accomplish on doing. Written by Anonymous
Okay, good. Got that? Porque I’m not even going to work my way up to the heart, I’m going directly between the ribs and yanking it out first. And I’m glad that “Peteagassi” used the phrase “war on crime” because
The Dark Knight is a fun, dark, cinematic delight wrapped around a pro-George W. Bush, pro-P.A.T.R.I.O.T act, anti-left, pro-GWOT, neocon message.
The film trumpets the views that:
a) Terrorists have no reasoning, nor any actual complaint. They simply want to see the world burn.
b) Those who would try to deal with the issue in terms of law and reason are using the wrong tools in dark and terrible time and will lose. [update as a reader reminded me below:] To win, you must “burn the whole forest down.”
c) Wiretapping is necessary to save us from lurking dangers.
d) George W. Bush is a Christ-like figure who is doing the right thing with no current recognition, but this is a sacrifice he has undertaken and will soon be hunted for it.
There are of course, other messages in here. But these are the overriding ones. And of them, I have no doubt. And most of these were hardly subtle, to tell you the truth.
I’m glad to find the poster image above. This was even after I formed my opinions (which was while watching it.) Take another look at it. WELCOME TO A WORLD WITHOUT RULES is important. As is the burning building (kind of…looks like a plane flew into it, eh?)
The “World without rules” fits under part B.
a: “You would have us be reasonable people in cruel times!” screams a major character, who gets badly disfigured because he was a shining example of law and tried to fight crime by the books. This is right in line with the CheneyBush Doctrine, of course, echoed again when Batman (Christian Bale) is trying to squeeze information from a mob boss. “Nobody will give you information. They won’t turn on the joker. They’re afraid of him. You have rules. The Joker doesn’t have any.” It’s the cry of the cop who goes crooked. How can we fight crime if we play by the rules while the criminals don’t have any? It’s the dark, dark, dark protestation of he who foregoes principle and embraces the Means Justify the Ends philosophy.
Multiple times the word “Terrorist” is tied to the Joker (played by Heath Ledger). That part was very blatant. From a barely audible TV droning out news reports in the background eventually finding its way to louder spaces, like directly from character’s mouth. Talk of “giving in” to “terrorist” demands.
The joker also blows up a hospital, and the way the papers float to the earth in the smoky aftermath of the building’s explosion, well. You didn’t have to live in NYC in 2001 to have certain images—played on our TVs over and over and over again—stick in your mind and remind you of exploding office buildings.
The Joker has a suicidal bent—like the extremist Muslim fanatics we are always hearing about—begging the oncoming cycle to mow him down, asking to be killed when at the end, relishing it. He laughs when you belt him. Each and every time.
It’s easy to get caught up here in this character. Not only is the media pushing this Joker aspect due to Heath Ledger’s death, but we do love a good villain. And he’s a good one. You can see the depth of the character’s pain at moments, but there is a fury there, too that leaps out only at moments and wakes you up from the act he puts on, which settles a sort of spell of revulsion and fascination over you.
He is a devil of sorts. He receives his joy from watching you fall, from knowing there is no goodness, from forcing you to choose that Ends Justifies the Means philosophy. He wants self affirmation that all is corrupt and people are terrible and dark inside, when you throw away all the conceits and affectation. He likes to murder because in someone’s last moments, you see who they truly are.
This is the character exploration and filmmaking that captivates. This is the part the movie relishes. This dark, haunted, killer.
“You think the city’s better now?” he leers at the Law through a video screen, caked-up makeup and eyes wild and wide. (Even the parts where he has his victims face the camera and read his notes reminds me of certain actual broadcasts from the Middle East in which US citizens were abducated and put on their knees in a green, gauzy, gray room and made to repeat and speak to the watchers, us.) Then he shoves his maniacal face into the lens. “THIS IS HOW INSANE GOTHAM IS!” And we know that he personifies the madness into which society is descending.
Some messages speak against the right wing mantras, as outlined. But you will always have multiple messages, some that contradict, in all except the most clunky flicks. I stand by my reading of the broader overreaching and lasting messages.
The Joker begins by pulling off a complicated bank heist. But he doesn’t even really want the money, we learn. He doesn’t have reasons. He unfolds this amazingly complex and successful crime and then gets the loot and burns it. (With the Crooked Asian Weakling Type sitting atop the ten-foot stacks (three? as in three towers?) of money. Burning. Think “centers of finance” think “Towers.”) Because “some people just want to see the world burn.”
At first when we hear the story of his scars we feel for him, feel terribly. A child whose father victimized both his mother and himself. Later, the writer deftly snatches our sympathies away by having the Joker tell a different story of the origins of his scars, this time self-inflicted. You realize that you cannot trust his reasons, that he is just insane, and his revealing of the scar’s origins is a game he plays moments before he disfigures someone else. Now you feel used by him for your sympathies and are set against him even more.
b) Those who would try to deal with the issue in terms of law and reason are using the wrong tools in dark and terrible time and will lose.
I touched on this some already. But it is highlighted in stark example when Batman, desperate to find the Joker turns to wiretapping. The Joker is upending the very order of society by killing scores of cops, judges, lawyers involved in the prosecution of the mob (who has foolishly hired the Joker not knowing he is not a Regular Criminal but insatiable and deranged). Batman uses some technology already developed (ahem) by his friend Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman) to tap into every single cell phone in the city, which then sends out sonar and visually maps and triangulates any person’s presence or voice in a massive ghostly three-dimensional landscape. Lucius protests and insists he must resign if this technology is going to be present.
But he will help this one time. Because it’s THAT important. As I said, the very fabric of their society is crumbling. What? Is Lucius just going to refuse? And let the terrorists win?
So we see the symbol of AT&T/Comcast, etc given the face of THEEEE world’s most benevolent actor (Morgan Freeman) as he kindly and justly agrees Just This One Time to do something horribly unethical and invasive. For the People’s good. We’re even shown that “to reward people” for doing the right thing, Batman programs the room to self-destruct when This One Time is over.
We actually see the ticking time bomb scenario play out not once, but twice! Does torture work? Batman beats the hell out of the Joker, who only seems to enjoy dragging Batman down to his level (terrorists winning) but he does get the information (Torture justified) the first time. The second…well, that’s tooo much of a spoiler. But it involves a “social experiment” in which he pits people’s fear of being killed and distrust of others and self interest against reason and trust and believing in others. And I’d say the ultimate message is that fear and self-interest are not reinforced that time.
c) George W. Bush is a Christ-like figure who is doing the right thing with no current recognition, but this is a sacrifice he has undertaken and will soon be hunted for it.
I know! This is the part where you are like all “Whoa Nez, that’s just out of control. Batman as Pro-P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act? The Dark Knight as Bush? Aren’t you, yanno, reading INto it a little too much or sumfin?” But not really. It’s quite clear. Especially if you follow from a to b to c to d, and the movie really leaves little doubt. Though I do see how it’s easy to focus on the character elements, the wicked good filming of fight scenes (can be hard to do, can be confusing or just disorienting or alternately, not kinetic or surprising enough), the seriously disturbing moments of violence (tag this “that fall won’t even kill me!”) the dark and emotional and convincing acting pieces, or the beautiful soaring and hang-gliding action that batman does with his cape.
Batman—he who fights terrorists with illegal and unethical but important and necessary means—will let someone else be the public hero-who-gives-hope. (He takes the rap for something to preserve the illusion of this hero the city needs in someone else.) Bushatman is the Christ figure, taking the weight on his back for the People. Sacrificing his good name and image and public adoration to Do the Right Thing, the Reviled Thing, but the Thing Necessary to Win and Beat the Terrorist(s). He is the “hero the people need now but that they don’t want now” says the Gary Oldman character, summing it up for us at the end. He will even be hunted for his taking on this weight, he goes on. But oh, how lucky we are to have him being whatever it is we need. Doing the things we deem illegal and wrong in our silly attempts to be reasonable in a cruel time with people so mad they have no reasons for their destructive actions, and only want to see our world burn.
Hola! If you're new here, you may want to snatch up a juicy salsamatic subscription to the worldfamous Unapologetic Mexican RSS feed.
This message will show only a few times so read it while it's hot! Gracias!
By commenting at UMX, you grant, in perpetuity, the rights for your words to be used in any fashion Nezua chooses, whether that be quoting them, reprinting them, converting them to representational fractals, or painting them on a t-shirt made for an anarchist's Chihuahua.
You can follow los comentarios por esta entrada with the RSS 2.0 feed.
hmmm. did you type in a URL? i dont think one registered if so.
and…democommie. old pal. here i just fnished one post and you are asking me to write another without even commenting on this one and you are the first to comment on it? i feel sad. i have let you down. i have not inspired you to remark at all on my delicious movie talkings. and i know so much more about film than i do about cuban@s, too. what luck would i have with that post? 
I’m amazed that no one else has pointed out the fundamentally reactionary and racist nature of the last two Batman movies. I hated “Batman Begins” so much I was shaking when I left the theater. I mean, I’m not that serious when it comes to pop culture, but these movies are very, very seriously racist and reactionary. Every time I tried to talk about this with almost anyone, I was told, “Dude, it’s only a comic book.” Thanks for a review that actually means something.
Word. In a way you can’t blame people…I mean, it’s amazing to me that even in one of the most acclaimed film schools in the world (NYU/TSOA) they don’t, as a matter of course, teach you to see the racist elements of so many movies. I mean, we pored over and over films like Birth of a Nation and never once talked about how racist it was. But the system in place has reasons for what it supports and what it ignores, many things contributing to others until you have willfull ignorance being taught (for almost $40K a year!). (You could argue that this would be more in the purview of a sociology cinema studies class and you’d have a good argument. We pored over it in other classes, some for cam, some for production, editing, etc) My point is, I learned how to read film on many levels, but I had to spend years on my own studying how the dominant culture reifies and erects and reinforces its hold on many memes and then combine that with my film education to get the rest. I didn’t see a lot of the things before that I do now. So I guess I can understand why a lot of things slip under the radar.
I had big problems with the last Batman, too. I didnt write on it, but that’s what I said to la novia as we walked out of this film. “Didn’t I have big problems with the last Batman, too”? And there is that split consciousness because I really love a lot of cinematic elements in both.
Thanks for your comments.
I came out of the dark Knight with a bad taste in my mouth for the reasons you stated. it was instances when Gary Oldman was explaining to bat man that sometimes people dont want money THE “logical thing”(because abstracts like “logic” can only be evaluated from the frame of reference of capitalist society right?), or that he(Oldman) caught the bandit in burma the one who was stealing huge precious stones and giving them away, by burning down an entire jungle. Couple that with city wide cell phone spying, and rhetoric about roman suspended republic in “times of crisis and emergency” That rang to me as a war on terror puff piece. quite the pre release hype machine too.
yes yes! you hit a piece i forgot to write about. how you have to burn the forest down to kill the lurking madmen who have no rules and cant be bought or reasoned with.
total war on “terror” puff piece, you said it. but people really need to think about it. we are There. the grid. everything is joined, corporations, govt, our phones, our conversations via twitter and google groups and IM and its all tied together and piped right into the govt’s back rooms. its a big control machine and of course they’ll use media when they can and more and more.
i also didnt hit the misogyny, how passive a rag doll batman’s Great Love was shown to be.
You’re right about 3/4 of the analysis… I just have to disagree with the Christ-figure label. Yeah, Batman sacrifices his personal life for his nighttime activities, but I wouldn’t label it Christ-like. Superman (especially in the most recent one) is suuuuper Christ-figurey, to the point of annoyance.
i’d love to hear you expound on the other 1/4 if you don’t mind!
most superheroes are painted with the martyr/christ brush. taking on weight and pain for the masses. i do think very much that batman was heavily written in this way. simply pointing out that superman was a stronger messiah metaphor (i agree with you) is not really negating how batman was written. plus, you have to view it also in the metaphor i’ve laid out (GWOT/Bush), not isolate just the superhero batman.
Democommie, I hope the cookies do their work…does your name stay in the box once you’ve typed it in? Does it show up when you load a page or do you have to retype it each time?
Hey, I loved The Dark Knight and your review. 
You should definitely write more movie reviews. Btw have you seen the new film “The Other Mexico”? It’s actually a documentary but it’s really interesting. It’s about Mexico’s poor and indigenous citizens who have no voice in the political system as well the growing Zapatista movement. You can watch a clip of it on http://www.choicesvideo.net and maybe even on youtube.com. Hope you check it out.
Ooooh. Thank you! I will!
If anyone came off Christ-like in the film or was supposed to give off that messianic veneer, it was Harvey Dent — and the web publicity campaign for the movie included a faux-Harvey Dent campaign scheme that rivaled Obama’s believe message.
The racism was disturbing. I think the entire new Batman saga can be added to the list of movies where the white guy(s) magically learn and adapt to everything, and the Asian characters are either evil, emasculated, or subservient. Not to mention Morgan Freeman as Magical [Technological] Negro.
As for the rest of your analysis, I’m not going to use the “it’s just a comic book” copout; but I will say that the movie points out the vulnerabilities of Batman’s choices in a way that you can see in the comics. The metaphors, however, are clearly there but no moral choice in the movie really goes unquestioned. The entire movie explores moral limitations, and Batman, Harvey Dent, and Joker kept pushing those limits. I don’t think the message is a pro-Bush, pro-war one. If anything, the metaphor shows how that idea is a failed one, how Batman is a flawed hero in his own right and in the eyes of others (esp. the Joker, biased as he is), and how Gotham is not a concrete jungle to be razed to the ground, and it’s not a place that any amount of money will be able to cure (seen through Joker’s burning of the money and the fact that we know that in the meta-plot this billionaire dude dresses up as a bat for a very long time). Corruption runs deeply and hits everyone.
For example, I do not think Batman created the Bat screen without people seriously questioning his judgment. And that damned screen isn’t going to disappear forever, either. Just likely won’t be used for spying.
I think the most powerful scenes were the social experiment, Joker’s pep talk, and the hostage/SWAT scene. More later, but I’m not denying your interpretation. I just don’t think it’s as one-sided as you’re suggesting.
how do you explain the last five minutes, then?
christ metaphor: batman will be “hunted” as they said. he will be the villain, the active villain. for doing good that nobody sees.
harvey dent…is an illusion. the illusion of perfection. not a messiah metaphor. feel free to argue.
For example, I do not think Batman created the Bat screen without people seriously questioning his judgment. And that damned screen isn’t going to disappear forever, either. Just likely won’t be used for spying.
1. people questioned his judgment. i addressed that. do you have comment on how i addressed that?
2. “and that damned screen isnt going to disappear forever…”
what? how do you know? you assume narrative not shown. i reflect upon narrative shown. you assume. i cannot counter nor comment upon assumptions.
If anyone came off Christ-like in the film or was supposed to give off that messianic veneer, it was Harvey Dent — and the web publicity campaign for the movie included a faux-Harvey Dent campaign scheme that rivaled Obama’s believe message.
Just so it’s clear, I am not commenting on who “came off” a certain way. I am commenting on cinematic elements, metaphors, devices used.
I also connected Dent with Obama by my comments on how Bushatman was allowing the New Faux Hope figure to buoy the people’s spirits, while he shouldered the hate. If you have comment on that, I am open to hearing it.
1. No. 2. The presumption that it will be used again stems from knowledge of what happens in the meta-narrative of the comics. In fact, he will likely abuse it again.
And if you read the conclusion of my comment, you see that I say I do not disagree with your analysis; rather, you dismiss challenges using the complexity of the film with this throwaway line:
Some messages speak against the right wing mantras, as outlined. But you will always have multiple messages, some that contradict, in all except the most clunky flicks. I stand by my reading of the broader overreaching and lasting messages.
More later.
Saw Dark Knight yesterday (Knight = Crusades? Hmmmm). I always leave these type of cultural feeding frenzies feeling like the Grinch, but man! Hadn’t found anyone else who wanted to “go there” which sent me on a google hunt leading to your piece. The social experiment towards the end was the one thing that made me question the entire motivation of the film as outright propaganda for “Big Brother” but even that… AND WHAT ABOUT THE EXTRAORDINARY RENDITION SCENE IN CHINA!?! So bizar!! Oh!!!! And the films endorsment of privatizing security to the discression of a wealthy white male!!! Was Eric Prince a producer? I’m gonna google that next And maybe try to find some Soma.
Sylvia, I am only commenting on the movie as it stands. Not the comics, just this narrative alone. I cannot assume the room will be used again. I am looking for a sign within the narrative discussed that it will be used again. Can you offer one? I’m not saying there isn’t one. I don’t see it there, though.
Sarah, great observations. Crusades is a good one, fits in. And yes, you are right. I kept going over that kidnapping scene in my head. It was sticking with me. Now I know why. Good call.
The social experiment was a counter narrative to the mentioned themes, I agree.
actually i finally looked google in the bat eyes today and realize that there are many many reviews that are saying this is a pro-bush pro-GWOT metaphor. i guess it’s not surprising after all…they slam you in the head with it over and over.
and sylvia…it doesnt mean we can’t still enjoy the filmmaking, you know?
Nezua:
My apologies, dude. I haven’t seen the film, I don’t watch the news anymore and, still, I see racism, sexism, misogynism and fundamentalism 365/24/7.
I know film is your thing and you’re very good at it, and a lot of your regulars are very astute folks who want to have sane discussions which I was not going to be getting into. Except for my usual goofiness, I didn’t really have anything to contribute. I put the comment on that post because I knew it was likely that you would see it there.
Having said all of this, I liked the first Batman movie a lot and I really liked some of the performers in other films–Chris Walken is like a funny mannequin–and the last Batman I saw was beyond fucked-up imo.
Now, you want to talk about film with me? Let’s get on Fritz Lang’s “Metropolis”, “Starship Troopers” (compared, favorably, with Leni Riefenstahl’s “Triumph Of The Will”) or “Mars Invades” (I feel it gives “Citizen Kane” a run for its money).
I don’t want you to ruin it for me, but does the Batman finally shtupp Robin in this one?
oh its all good. i mean you know i don’t care to get uptight about it. but if you are the first on a post, and you go in a wholly different direction, others may follow. and gee, that would make for a lonely movie post. guess it’s all relative to what you are expecting! life. gotta be careful not to let those expectations cement.
on the substance of your second graf i’d only say you dont have to feel pressure on a post like this to talk about the points or contents within in any certain arrangement. talking with you is almost always good, and HEY here we are! cool.
i’m totally down with talking Fritz Lang or Starship Troopers! Great stuff.
on your final question, yes. and shows himself to be rather inventive with those wings. but that’s another post.
and sylvia i dont’ really know why i got so terse with you! my good friend. i think its because you are in law school so i thought you could bring it like that. but law is not film and while i was more getting into stance in the name of cinematic analysis jousting, i end up sounding dicky! lo siento. besos.
Nezua:
Okeedokee.
I understand where you are coming from, and there are obvious parallels drawn to current geo/military/political affairs going on in America and the world, but my interpretation is very very different then yours.
A) Despite that the Terrorist lablel is used for him in the movie, the Joker is more American nihilist then symbolic of Al-Queda or any socially/politically motivated “terrorist” organization. I think you would have to be either really reaching or completely uninformed as to what modern “terrorism” is about to think he is symbolic of terrorism. In a sense Joker is an odd emodiment of America, in that he has no history before his appearance on the world stage (in the jail scene they mention no fingerprints, dentals, custom clothes, etc. Even in the comics the history of Joker is very muddled. Note that Ledger Joker gives multiple narratives as to a part of his origin in the movie but never really talks about his past in any larger sense, strongly implying he doesn’t very much care about whatever his past life was). Very much a, “New World” Man in that regard, no connection with any history, religion, or culture of the, “New” or “Old World” like AQ. He specifically rejects political and economic advancement, unlike actual real terrorists and terrorists groups who, for example, want America to withdraw from a certain country, or a certain politician to step down, etc.: remember when he burns hundreds of millions of dollars, and he also targets the Mayor and other high ranking political figures without making any demands on them for social and political change that they could bring about. He’s an original American socio-pathic nihilist, pure and simple.
B) Batman has a line he will not cross (No killing) that Joker crosses with abandon. Anytime you get into a fight, a man willing to cross a line you won’t (using a weapon, killing, whatever) has a distinct advantage over you. Batman’s entire struggle through the film is finding a way to win without crossing that line; if he did, he would be no different from the Joker. Its not advocating any “Bush-Cheney” doctrine of unbridled agression, as Batman endures and finds a way in the end (though he pushes in other directions, a method that also brings critique and rebuke in the film). Its a story of a man fighting for what he believes in which is the higher moral ground WHILE desperately holding onto the higher moral ground. And when he DOES go too far with violence in the movie it doesn’t work out: dropping Salvatore from the building earns him nothing but laughs and scorn; torturing the Joker just gets him false information that leads to the death of his loved one and the creation of a bitter Two-Face. That doesn’t necessarily sound “anti-law and order” to me as much as–when you look at it as a whole–acknowledging the dirty complexities of it all.
C) Batman acknowledges the sonar system is too much power: which is why he gave it to someone he trusts to use ONCE, which is why Lucius very specifically objected and handed in his resignation, which is why Batman built in the self-destruct sequence (hence Lucius typed his name in at the end). In that sense even Batman himself acknowledges that while he hasn’t crossed the ultimate line that draws the difference between him and the Joker–killing–he still has gone too far, if in a slightly different direction, and its not something to respect or make a habit of.
D) You really want to say that Batman is symbolizing GWB in this movie? Really? Bruce Wayne/Batman is young, intelligent, articulate, capable, and isn’t full of fail. He does his absolute best to not kill while trying to save the city he loves in as annonymous a way as possible (Unlike, “Mission Done” GWB). He pushes the boundary in many ways but acknowledges his mistakes and has good people around him to keep him in check. When he thinks he can no longer cut it he is a step away from voluntarily giving up (ever have the feeling GWB was about to resign? Yeah me neither). Yeah, he’s pretty much the anti-GWB.
On a very important note, mind you all of this has been in the comics for decades, way before anyone in America knew who Osama Bin Laden was. Joker was an evil nihilist who brought fear and panic to Gotham. Batman struggled not to kill constantly recurring villans who would have killed him in a heartbeat (remember Joker’s speech at the end as to how they would be fighting forever?). Batman also operated on the edges of power, co-ercing/harassing/illegally assitting Gotham cops, using technology to his advantage, being a little too rough in interrogations, etc.
Read Batman: Year One, The Long Halloween, Dark Victory, and The Dark Knight Returns (All published before 2000) if you want to see the primary sources Nolan used for The Dark Knight.
I understand where you are coming from, and there are obvious parallels drawn to current geo/military/political affairs going on in America and the world, but my interpretation is very very different then yours.
Yes. As I’d expect it to be. And I appreciate the view from your position. However, it is not incidental to the discussion that this is an American made movie. This culture and audience is the intended primary target market. This will be the buttress of my claim that overall, my interpretation is right on.
A) Despite that the Terrorist lablel is used for him in the movie, the Joker is more American nihilist then symbolic of Al-Queda or any socially/politically motivated “terrorist” organization. I think you would have to be either really reaching or completely uninformed as to what modern “terrorism” is about to think he is symbolic of terrorism.
Yes, he is nihilist. I agree. As well as sadistic, masochistic, and insane. And just the Joker. But you really have to look at the whole layout. What is happening in the USA, the tale of the Burmese thief, the American Left’s resistance to body counts, the current debate on FISA re: the wiretapping, etc. It’s not just that I look at the Joker and say “Ah! A perfect metahpor for Al Qaeda! No, no. Not at all. I’d never even think of them were it not for the barrage of messages the movie creates that directly relate to the ongoing debates in the USA right now. And we really do have to see it through the lens of American politics as seen by the mainstream movie-going public’s perception. Although it is entirely valid as a Cinema Studies technique to simply study a piece independent of the maker’s intentions, it is always taken into account the social context surrounding the film. And I am saying that this is exactly what this film is speaking to on many levels.
He’s an original American socio-pathic nihilist, pure and simple.
You lay out a great interpretation of his brand of chaos…and I agree that seeing him as a “terrorist” is very simplistic and inaccurate, but as this is an American blockbuster movie you better believe it is quite simplistic in terms of how it is talking to us about our current political system and international situation (and google tells you right away that I am not alone in that interpretation…tho I didn’t know that until I googled. And usually I do read other reviews while doing mine to see where others are at. But I just came home burning because of all these messages, and so didn’t research first).
I don’t know how aware you are of how our international situation is presented to exactly the crowd that this movie is aimed at, but most honestly, I’d guess that most people here don’t really understand the roots of what is going on in the GWOT nor how “old world” Al Qaeda is at all. Hell, unless you are talking to politically savvy people (like bloggers) you might find folks surprised that all our gravest enemies were once great friends!
B:
Batman has a line he will not cross (No killing) that Joker crosses with abandon. Anytime you get into a fight, a man willing to cross a line you won’t (using a weapon, killing, whatever) has a distinct advantage over you. Batman’s entire struggle through the film is finding a way to win without crossing that line; if he did, he would be no different from the Joker. Its not advocating any “Bush-Cheney” doctrine of unbridled agression, as Batman endures and finds a way in the end (though he pushes in other directions, a method that also brings critique and rebuke in the film).
Let me unpack this because you have a few things going on.
1. Batman has a line he will not cross (No killing) that Joker crosses with abandon. Anytime you get into a fight, a man willing to cross a line you won’t (using a weapon, killing, whatever) has a distinct advantage over you.
Yes, this is what I addressed above. Cops, law, ends-means, etc. It relates directly to our current debate on if tortures makes you “as bad as the terrorists.” The NeoCons say we need to do it all. That resisting these means (secret prisons, torture, wiretapping) is (the film now) “being reasonable people in a cruel time.”
2. Batman’s entire struggle through the film is finding a way to win without crossing that line; if he did, he would be no different from the Joker.
Well. It’s not the “entire struggle” but it is a conflict of his.
Its not advocating any “Bush-Cheney” doctrine of unbridled agression,
No…it’s not advocating “unbridled aggression.” But you know what is? Advocating “burning the whole forest down” to get to the one target.
as Batman endures and finds a way in the end (though he pushes in other directions, a method that also brings critique and rebuke in the film)
He endures by crossing a line, the wiretapping. And that directly references a huge debate right now in the USA of course. And in this film, he does it and it does just what the Neocons claim. It saves the day. And just as they tell us here, it will only be used when necessary.
Yes, ethical balking at his choice is shown…but that is not important. What is important in terms of the “message” overall, is that IT WORKS. He finds the Bad Guy.
C:
And no of course I don’t think that Batman is really actually literally supposed to represent Bush. But I stand by my interpretation of the sly analogies meant to slip into our (USA fed) minds and influence public opinion and pose Bush’s almost universally despised choices as heroism, and the NeoCon agenda as necessary.
Look at that image above, for example. The one that says “A world without rules.”
What do you see? Just a burning bat symbol? To us here in the USA, and perhaps especially who lived in NYC at that time, it pretty much looks like one thing. In fact, my wife came up behind me and saw it and didn’t even know it was supposed to be a bat. Thought it was an airplane gash.
Finally, it matters not how much meat came from the original Batman. I’m an longtime comic book fan and I’m 39! I know the story. You can still fashion a message for the current political conversation using even the oldest film. In fact, it’s done every day.
I know it was a rough sketch and I could have drawn it out more carefully, but this doesnt pay!
I do appreciate your interpretations and argument. Especially as they pertain to character. Great stuff.
Thanks.
Nezua:
This is where I ask if you know the difference between the Batman and pretendsident for lice, George Bush?
One is a nightmarish, grotesque caricature of all that is decent and honorable, the other one’s just a character in a DC comic.
I know we’re both busy (got an exam in Jpense 402 tomorrow -_- ) and I don’t want to spam your blog so I’ll keep this short and make it my final comment.
I do think you’re being very unfair to Nolan, in that A) the vast, vast majority of this material pre-dates 9/11 (ie the comics) and therefore wasn’t specifically created with our current political viewpoints in mind, so one might want to be more careful with the, “propaganda” label and B) more importantly, Nolan deals with very difficult and complex subjects in a nuanced manner. For example, can you honestly say Batman ever WINS in this movie? Even when he pushes the boundaries too far? He finds the Joker by “wiretapping,” yes, but then he loses his friend, confidant and primary businessman because of it. (He also had his identity discovered and almost outed because of it, too). Batman breaks Sal’s legs and tortures the Joker, only to be greeted by laughter from Sal and mis-information that lead to horrible consequences from the Joker. He plays the political game (becoming involved with Dent’s campaign) and goes about independent extraction of a foreign national from another country’s soverign territory only to be faced at the very end with a horrendous choice of letting his efforts being for naught and 500 criminals go free or taking the blame for a crime he did not commit. Batman struggled with various moral boundaries, and didn’t always end up on the best side of them. But I don’t think you could claim he, “won” the day, or even appeared to be much of a, “good guy” in the end, so I don’t see the glorification of crossing those lines (ie, glorifying the Bush-Cheney doctrine) and therefor the claim of propaganda falls flat on my eyes.
Twas good talking with ya.
democommie, here’s where i ask you if you’ve ever heard of metaphor and analogy.
Alexander, you’re right. Did I tell you already? I burned my tortillas trying to take the time to answer you fairly!
I dont’ care how many times you comment, it’s all good. Not “spam.” You speak with respect and are thoughtful, it doesn’t bother me.
But I’m being unfair to Nolan? Because most of his material predates 9/11? I don’t see how you connect the two,really. 99% of his material could have been written in the age of Blondie and Vans and tight white bellbottoms and still, one film can be exactly something else. So the appeal to…what? Fairness? Halo effect? doesn’t really seem to fit in my eyes. This actually feels as if you are defending against his reputation. I don’t mean to stain or impugn his reputation or talent at all. I didn’t say he was a “propagandist“!
I was, actually, coming home and conveying my immediate reaction. I even stated it was without notes, without repeat viewing and without screenshots or a screening copy. I’m sure further viewings would deepen my perception. But…still doesn’t implicitly negate my initial reading.
more importantly, Nolan deals with very difficult and complex subjects in a nuanced manner.
Yes, the “overview” (not even a review!) was unfair in the sense that I only talked about what bothered me. Or …78% talked about what bothered me, this is true. That’s why I created a new category that fell short of “Review.”
For example, can you honestly say Batman ever WINS in this movie? Even when he pushes the boundaries too far?
Yes….I love the tragic quality of his character. It was beautiful! If I wrote an actual review, I would definitely go into that.
He finds the Joker by “wiretapping,” yes, but then he loses his friend, confidant and primary businessman because of it.
You are right, that is a more nuanced view of the message.
Batman breaks Sal’s legs and tortures the Joker, only to be greeted by laughter from Sal and mis-information that lead to horrible consequences from the Joker.
I can’t remember…the entire chain of events, but I could take your word for it. I did find it notable at the time that the man was tough enough to just scorn batman after having his legs broken. I think there, there was a message that torture doesn’t work. But at the same time, what was the information batman gained? It was that nobody was afraid of Batman, or rather, would roll over on the Joker because batman had rules. Thus, the “terrorists” as the film kept referring to the Joker, ridiculously hammering it home, would win if he didn’t adapt. Nuanced, indeed!
He plays the political game (becoming involved with Dent’s campaign) and goes about independent extraction of a foreign national
I like your phrase, but I have to say, I definitely see it as a rendition metaphor. And that is agreeing with a comment left without my even saying as much.
goes about independent extraction of a foreign national from another country’s soverign territory only to be faced at the very end with a horrendous choice of letting his efforts being for naught and 500 criminals go free or taking the blame for a crime he did not commit.
Those weren’t his only choices. That is lingual adroitness on your part.
Yes, he was a tragic figure. And it was written according to rules of Tragedy. Great loss, new hope born from or found amidst the wreckage of great loss.
Batman struggled with various moral boundaries, and didn’t always end up on the best side of them. But I don’t think you could claim he, “won” the day, or even appeared to be much of a, “good guy” in the end
He was, in fact the Goodest of guys. the martyr. y punto!! he made that choice of going from hero to exile and all for the city’s good!!! oh, the pain to watch them break that bat lamp! It was ruinous to watch. Poignant.
… so I don’t see the glorification of crossing those lines (ie, glorifying the Bush-Cheney doctrine) and therefor the claim of propaganda falls flat on my eyes.
Again, we have to refer to the current political conversation right now. Bush’s messianic complex and how HE sees the deeds he has undertaken. For him, he is walking away hated, but feels …well. I’ve gone over this. I don’t mean to say the film is blindly cheering on everything they are doing. But the framing of the narrative follows the neocon vision of Bush and what he has done when it comes to that aspect at least.
And I sure don’t want to fight over a word like “propaganda.” It carries a lot of resonance especially in Europe given the history of fascism, and I don’t need the word, really. But I do stand by the fact that the film narrative was fashioned to support, overall, the war on “terror.” At least I think I’ve made enough of a case for that being one valid reading of it.
You made a good case for your points, too. Gracias.
alexander, i’d also add that re: your ’spamming your blog’ comment, i guess i don’t always enjoy going back and forth in depth. so, yeah. but when i talk about movies…i mean, that’s half the fun, right? when you get out of the theater and tear it up!
suerte on studying for your exam.
***Spoilers***
So does this mean that Rachel Dawes’ character represents the ideal, American white-womanhood, that must be protected from the *Brown Islamofascist Menace (*The Joker)? And if “we” fail the terrorists will *ravage “our white wimminfolk” (*Rachel’s death in an explosion)? Because sure, I can somewhat see that, if we add a gender component to your analysis. Great analysis by the way.
you could surely argue as much. and mostly i agree with your implication that she was rendered an utterly passive creature, sigh, torn between what? marrying one or the other. sheesh. what year is this? what are we STILL teaching our daughters?
thank you, and yes, i should have spent more time on the sex/gender angle.
Update: The WSJ agrees with my interpretation ala bushatman.
although it seems we feel very differently about that message! ugh. how can they be serious.
Yet another reason not to see the Hollywood products.
true enough.
When I saw this movie these themes nearly punched me in the face with the repition. So much so that I came home and searched ‘dark knight propaganda’ to find something like this blog. (thank you btw) When I tried to tell my friends who I saw the movie with about what I saw in it, they wrote me off as being subject to some kind of confirmation bias in favor of my field of study (Poltical Science). What I’m wondering is whether propaganda, well made and popular propaganda, is more or less dangerous when people don’t see it as such? Can such ideas affect people at a sub-conscious level? Or are such political decisions made at the rational conscious level? Could a movie such as this make an impact in how people see the real world? Or is the effect relegated to a minor shift in the popular imagination and very subtle?
it’s a good question. i’d guess that it can depend on the viewer’s age, and probably a few other things. i don’t know for sure, but i’m personally guessing that you don’t need to be cognizant of an overarching message or the particulars of it to be influenced by it. Having behaviors or choices modeled for us tells us they are valid paths, and learning the lesson of a + b + c = d must surely make an imprint…especially given years of repetition. I don’t have any particular studies in front of me but this is much of how society reifies all its current hierarchies, anyway, isn’t it? you end up feeling its normal that certain types or kinds or sexes of people are assigned certain values or traits, even though its really cultural conditioning. and sometimes, right from the TV! i think, like the brain can’t tell a dream from lived events in many ways, the brain can’t tell the difference between a scripted movie and scenes lived, when it comes to absorbing certain lessons. on the other hand, i think if you are raised with media savvy parents who constantly use prevailing media to deconstruct media’s mechanisms, you may very well just train a child to be extremely resistant to propaganda, even well-fashioned. what do you think?
sylvia, i got hooked on our disagreements, and didn’t go back to heartily agree with certain parts or properly answer others.
The racism was disturbing. I think the entire new Batman saga can be added to the list of movies where the white guy(s) magically learn and adapt to everything, and the Asian characters are either evil, emasculated, or subservient. Not to mention Morgan Freeman as Magical [Technological] Negro.
you totally called that one, and it’s been written elsewhere since. he totally is. i don’t know why it is that the usa so needs its magical negro. what was the last movie i saw where it really stood out…steven king. right, green mile. is it bad that i always love the magical negro? oh yeah another favorite, Hudsucker Proxy, i’m pretty sure the clockkeeper is, as well.
as far as racism, i remember the first moment i felt queasy. it was when the joker was making his first group murder. and i’m watching him cut down all these black guys. it was the black mobsters. i was like ‘okay….why am i watching a guy in clownwhite murder a bunch of black guys?” it just felt weird. i remember a million years ago i felt these things just happened. just happened to be a bunch of black characters killed first. (i know, i really bought into the illusion, probably not all do as much. but hey, i’m also the cat who called all actors by their role names! harrison ford was “han solo” to me. in any movie.)
later of course i learned to say “why? why that choice? what does it serve?” and examine that and know if it were gratuitous or not…and there’s really no reason they had to be black. sure, there’s no reason they had to be white, either. but in these movies, white is of course the Universal, so to make other choices should always come with a reason that is organic. else, … the reasons get murky. you probably know all this already, i’m just laying out my thoughts, cuz i really did narrowly hit this movie. i had so many other thoughts. (but those messages bugged me, i had to vent.)
of course later when the italian guy had his accent mocked (ANY time this is done, it just wakes me up cuz of my own name and growing up with THAT whole trip!) “freak,” and yeah, Joker was mocking being called a freak, but how tricky that in the course of that, he gets to mock an accent, too. it counts. and of course add that to the asian guy who just has to be shifty, and we see what kinds of messages are getting laid down.
As for the rest of your analysis, I’m not going to use the “it’s just a comic book” copout; but I will say that the movie points out the vulnerabilities of Batman’s choices in a way that you can see in the comics. The metaphors, however, are clearly there but no moral choice in the movie really goes unquestioned.
True. I wasn’t trying to say it’s a clunky, simplistic, obvious and full metaphor for GWB and his GWOT. It might feel that way because I just came home and dumped. I do agree there is nuance to this movie. And I loved the ethical dilemmas.
The entire movie explores moral limitations, and Batman, Harvey Dent, and Joker kept pushing those limits. I don’t think the message is a pro-Bush, pro-war one. If anything, the metaphor shows how that idea is a failed one, how Batman is a flawed hero in his own right and in the eyes of others (esp. the Joker, biased as he is)
Yes, you are right. The movie explores moral limits and ethical conundrums. I think I wrote my piece so it feels like all there is to it is a Neocon message. That’s because I wrote it in such haste and emotion! The messages I saw in it are in it. I do stand by that. I do admit it explores a lot. But in the end, it does reinforce certain messages.
If anything, the metaphor shows how that idea is a failed one, how Batman is a flawed hero in his own right
We have to keep in mind, though, that Batman by his very nature IS an Antihero. So his being a flawed person in any story in which he appears doesn’t take away from his heroic quality…that’s exactly how he’s written.
and in the eyes of others (esp. the Joker, biased as he and how Gotham is not a concrete jungle to be razed to the ground, and it’s not a place that any amount of money will be able to cure (seen through Joker’s burning of the money and the fact that we know that in the meta-plot this billionaire dude dresses up as a bat for a very long time). Corruption runs deeply and hits everyone.
I agree. That is a message of this film. “Two face” is a good embodiment of that. Even our most glorious heroes are rife with charcoal and scar and rage. The movie is complex in its themes.
Yet, the antihero batman saves the day by using wiretapping. And the joker, who wants to see everything burn, including batman’s aura and myth, and also the public’s trust in batman and batman’s ability to operate (exposing his identity) is taken in by his using these unethical and illegal means. In that sense, the ends justified the means, no? Nobody understands that this is what was necessary. And so is burning down the entire forest sometimes, to kill that crazed destroyer who wants only to see the world burn, and cannot be reached by reason or coin. But Batman does. And he must be exile for the people’s good. And he will be hunted because that’s just what a beautiful martyr he is. The ultimate antihero.
While I admit many other elements operate in this film, I do not think acknowledging any of them negates the reading I was able to offer.
i want to add also, i forgot to add above that what i did like about their use of black characters is that they were the ones to speak up in a crowd (twice, when the joker was milking the mob and when the jokers were holding up the bank, i think…a woman spoke up?) and confront the person who was trying to victimize the group. in each instance they were angry, righteously so, and being attractive actors, felt very heroic to me. i noticed that at the time, and felt it was great to see these changes in the roles cast in blockbuster movies over time.
one thing that I really noticed in the movie was how much of a parallel was drawn between the concept of “criminal” and the concept of “mental illness.” I think they really took those two concepts and paired them throughout. The Joker was a case study, but if you look at other parts, there were subtle comments made about how the kind of people the Joker attracted to his gang were mentally unstable, etc… There was also a part where some of the jokers gangmembers were in a police cage and one was crying to a guard for help because of the voices in his head and how the joker promised to give him medicine or something to quiet the voices, at which point the officer told him to shut up i believe.
I like the evaluation though. Propaganda is a tricky word to use, but there were definitely viewpoints being presented, and not in a manner that leaves open questions for the viewer to answer. What strikes me is the response that this movie is getting. People just seem to think it is incredible, whereas I can’t decide yet. The whole thing was shot in a strange manner. Scenes didn’t really resolve well, and there were times where multiple scenes were intercut like a long montage, but while each scene had a different tone and mood, there was the same music underlying it all which made it difficult to follow the actual emotion of the scenes. It made it seem like the emotion of the initial scene where the music began carried over for all of them. Good article and followup discussion though. I’d be interested in your views after you’ve seen the movie again.
You know, mateo, that’s interesting. I noticed that the criminals the Joker gathered about him were rife with mental illness…but I didn’t think beyond that the Joker himself did, so it made sense to me, also in that he could better control them. So there are organic reasons for those choices, but what you’re saying is interesting to me because I remember the moment I, too, was struck by the prominence of mental illness in the film. I will keep an eye on that next screening. As I will your notes on editing. I’m guessing just by your description that they did, indeed, want to connect the scenes and used music to do so. The question I’ll have in mind when I watch it is “to what end?”
Thanks again for commenting.
We will be seeing much much more of this kind of crap in the coming years. ‘Hollywood’ has always been the propoganda arm of the pentagon. Always
i agree that the Game teaches itself to play through many means: films, school, media.
i’ve watched propaganda reach new blatant heights since the Bush administration stole the elections and had itself judicially installed by means of the crooked supreme court. since rumsfeld the war criminal declared our own populace was a valid target for PSYOPS; since massively popular networks became mouthpieces for the government.
the wider the divide is gouged between the have-souls and the have-nots, the harsher must come the means of control to prevent uprising and rebellion on many levels. included in that is deeper militarization of our culture, greater police powers and abuses, and media being taken over more and more by ulterior agendas.
es la verdad! my main concern about this movie is the editing. i have a feeling that people who really liked it got hooked by the great intro scene, got lost during the middle where the suspicious information was presented, and then regained their mental composure at the end. many people i’ve talked to gave the account of being confused through a lot of the movie (yet still said they thought it was great!).
It’s been a while I’ve been quiet, but I’ve been reading. And now I’m commenting on a week-and-a-half old thread
I don’t have the film criticism background to engage with a lot of what you say here; but there’s one point on which I’d like to raise a disagreement.
a) Terrorists have no reasoning, nor any actual complaint. They simply want to see the world burn.
b) Those who would try to deal with the issue in terms of law and reason are using the wrong tools in dark and terrible time and will lose. [update as a reader reminded me below:] To win, you must “burn the whole forest down.”
I understood the “some men just want to watch the world burn”/burning the forest down exchange (which was between Wayne and Michael Caine’s Alfred, btw, not Gary Oldman’s Gordon) very differently. I think it tells us much more about Alfred than anything else. Bear in mind the context of his story: Alfred used to be a secret agent, Bond-like, for the British government (this is backstory from the comics and animated TV show; I get that, from a film crit perspective, what’s outside the film doesn’t, but I don’t know that it’s helpful to disregard such an enormous body of literature when the film is explicitly based on it…but as I say, I’m not trained for this). When he says he was in Burma “with some friends” working for “the local government,” he means he was there with other Brits, working for the British colonial government. The bandit he describes was stealing the gems the British wanted to use to buy the loyalty of the tribal leaders, and discarding them in the villages rather than trying to sell them (which could have been traced). Alfred means this to be an analogy to the Joker, an insane nihilist who wants nothing but to create havoc, but all he’s really told us is that this “bandit” stole from the British government, preventing their bribing local leaders, but didn’t do it for money. That he couldn’t imagine any other motivation but money, and so assumed the “bandit” was simply mad, and that he and his “friends” were willing to destroy the entire forest, with no thought for the life therein, or the people who might depend on the forest for their livelihood, speaks volumes about him. I do not think Nolan means the audience to take Alfred as the legitimate moral center of the film, however. (That position is, I think, shared by Dawes, Fox and Gordon, which is problematic in itself, of course.)
That exchange tells us Alfred is, below his kindly exterior, a monster, and that he’s trying to turn Wayne into a monster (or more of a monster) as well. It doesn’t, I submit, coming as it does from a morally unreliable narrator, constitute a message to the viewer that, indeed, “terrorists just want to watch the world burn.”
Jump to comments
Nezua:
Love the new look, except I have trouble seeing if my blognomen and address are correct.
I know you’re always ahead of me on all things LatinoICEfuckings but The Coyote Chronicles (http://coyotechronicles.wordpress.com/) has a piece about the Villegas story that I thought you might want to look at–yeah, I know, time is not an infinite resource, but what the hey!
Have you ever done one of your long pieces on the dichotomy between Cuban emigres and all the other 3rdworldhued?