Vox Nova at the Movies: In Opposition to Batman
I thought The Dark Knight was excellent, and that Heath Ledger’s performance was nothing short of stunning, but something didn’t sit right me with. I came out of the movie feeling rather uneasy. Having slept on it, I think I know what was bothering me. I think that the movie portrays Batman not as a hero, but as a self-centered vigilante who is is actually partly responsible for the carnage unleashed on Gotham. I ended up not liking Batman very much.
The plot is simple. Batman’s crusade against crime is so successful that the mob bosses feel cornered. Then along comes the Joker, an demonic agent of pure chaos, who delights in wanton carnage simply for its own sake. The movie makes clear that the Joker arrives on the scene because of Batman. He is obsessed with him, even telling him, in one of his many ironic one-liners that “you complete me”. He is not in it for material gain, but for the sheer thrill of going against Batman. The implication is plain: Batman and the Joker are more intimately entwined that the former is comfortable admitting. And in his single-minded zeal to stop Batman, the Joker threatens to keep murdering innocents until Batman turns himself in.
I think the lesson is quite clear. To secure a certain end- curbing crime- Batman stepped outside the law. Guided by vengeance– related to his personal history– he was willing to suspend the moral law when needed to secure a particular end. Batman has embraced consequentialism– up to a limit. For him, the ends may indeed justify the means. Most importantly, he is a proponent of fighting violence with violence, and the narcissistic macho swagger is never really absent. What Batman comes to realize is that his actions can have consequences. The emergence of the Joker is a direct response to his campaign. To use somewhat familiar language, he has helped unleash evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. His war is not just. Although he is not personally responsible for the Joker’s murderous activity, he nonetheless set in motion a sequence of events that produced him. For an approach based on vengeance, based on setting aside the law, ultimately leads to chaos– and the Joker is simply chaos incarnate. Sounds familiar, doesn’t it?
(Warning: Spoiler Alert…)
The tragic element of the story is that Bruce Wayne is aware of what he has unleashed. His intentions might be misguided, but he retains his moral compass. He might be willing to use great violence to extract information, but he doesn’t kill at will– evidenced by his refusal to run over the Joker who was standing on the road on front of Batman’s manic motorcycle. The beauty of Nolan’s approach is that he brings out the psychological element, as Batman internalizes the damage he has wrought, but at the same time he remains proud, never really learning humility. His conflict brings no resolution.
The climax of the movie centers on a pure consequentialist moral dilemma. The Joker has rigged bombs to two ferries (one full of convicts) and each ferry has the trigger for the other ferry’s bomb. He tells them that he will blow them both up at midnight, but if one blows up the other first, the remaining boat will be spared. In the end, nobody can do it. Nobody is willing to sacrifice the innocent to save their own life. Of course, when midnight comes, Batman has managed to overpower the Joker and disarms the trigger mechanism, so nobody dies. The hero saves the day.
Or does he? In another twist, another character– the unflappable anti-crime DA, Harvey Dent– embraces evil because the Joker kills his girlfriend, and he too becomes motivated by vengeance. He passes a clear line in the sand that Batman never did. But Batman too is partly responsible for Dent’s fall from grace, a point that Dent makes quite forcefully. As the movie ends, Batman is on the run, taking the fall for Dent’s crimes, so that the now-deceased Dent can be memorialized with honor. And the beacon used to signal Batman is smashed up. For in a city that passed the Joker’s ferry test with flying colors, there is no more need for a fake hero. And that is how it ends.
Comments are closed.
I don’t know if you can blame Batman for Dent’s fall. Others lost loved ones due to the Joker/Batman death grapple. It doesn’t seem that any of them turned into demented murderers. Also, Dent decided to be a supporter and even an active participant in Batman’s work. Doesn’t Dent need to take responsibility for his own turn to bitterness and vengeance?
I haven’t seen it yet, but one of the guys in my community saw it, and he had a similar response take as MM. However, he seemed to think that the movie’s POV justified Batman’s motivations, you seem to think the movie exposed it in a more critical way (?).
I think the rash choice to save Rachel instead of Dent was the moment of greatest selfishness for Batman (of course, the Joker played Batman on this one). Batman places his feelings for Rachel over and above his greater hope in Dent to save Gotham. In this sense, the moral dilemma is resolved by Batman by an appeal to egoism rather than consequentialism.
By the way, MM, you nailed it with the consequentialism bit. The Dark Night is chock full of consequentialist scenarios, some of which eerily resemble Bush policies (e.g., spying on citizens without their knowledge in order to achieve a political/judicial objective).
On a side note: Batman comes through at the end with his moral conviction not to kill the Joker and let him rot in a jail cell forever, thus proving himself (to a degree) incorruptible in the way Dent was not. But what if Gotham City has the death penalty? Isn’t it conceivable that, moral or not, the people of Gotham (or a new DA) would go for the death penalty in a heart beat, thus kind of undercutting Batman’s moral decision?
Even more complicated: is it possible that the Joker meets the criteria for a just death penalty? It seems the arguments can be made that prisons can’t hold him and he is a very serious threat to the entire society (though I’m not sure I fully agree). In this case, is it possible that Batman merely kept him alive so that the people of Gotham could kill him?
Pax Christi,
Good post. I would disagree that Batman is motivated purely, or even primarily, by vengeance. Your use of Just War Doctrine was also something of which I hadn’t thought. Taking for granted the fact that he’s not a competent authority, your analysis of the aftereffects rendering his “war” unjust seems to hold water, although I don’t know if it was foreseeable. I agree that there are cases of consequentialism-the fact that the commissioner frames Batman disappointed me since he was a just man who I “expected” more from, so the end of the movie left a bad taste in my mouth. As I’m somewhat familiar with Batman-my friends are comic nuts- I wasn’t surprised that he tortured the Joker (please don’t think that I’m excusing his committing an intrinsically wrong act).
X-Cathedra, I would tend to think that the Joker would be one of the rare cases where the death penalty is just, seeing how he is nigh unjailable. Maybe Batman doesn’t kill because he recognizes that he isn’t a competent authority to wage war or kill. I don’t know his opinions on the death penalty per se-he may accept it if the necessary conditions we’re all familiar with were met. If that is why Batman doesn’t kill, I don’t think that would be undercutting his decision.
Have you read the opinion piece in the WSG that Batman’s character is an allegory for George W Bush? Watching the movie, I thought it was rather blatant: the resolve to fight terror despite the cost, the interrogation methods, the eavesdropping on citizens, the refusal to cowtow to what the authorities think he should do, the general misunderstanding and dislike of him by the media, government, and public…. This might explain MM’s dislike…
But I believe Bruce Wayne went to Princeton, not Yale:) And he speaks coherently…
Pax Christi,
I found the real action was conducted on a supernatural level. The Joker may be the finest representation of Evil ever brought to the screen. Kind of a combo of Clockwork Orange and The Exorcist merging into one meditation. It’s made clear in the holding cell and interrogation scenes that he is not so much a person as a Spirit, with any doubt removed when Batman saves The Joker’s life before he plunges to his death while emitting his trademark disemboweled cackling. A very chilling glimpse into the heart of darkness.
I would not see Batman as Bush, as Batman displays a level of introspection lacking in the latter. But I do think there is a moral in terms of what can happening by acting like Bush. I have not see the WSJ, but my guess is that they are making the comparison in a positive way. I would not.
Actually, what I liked about the movie is that even Batman did some bad things (torturing the Joker). It was very much like what we see in No Country for Old Men, that all of the characters there are actually evil. Like NCOM, we are really powerless against evil.
Also, there seems to be a type of substitution theory in Batman, where he places all the guilt on himself. Pretty nice. However, I actually didn’t like the fact that they said that truth is not enough and that truth should be hidden.
I disagree with Michael that Batman choosing Rachel over Dent is egoism. In that situation, I don’t see why choosing a loved one rather than someone else, even if that person can do great things, is selfish or immoral. It may be more morally praiseworthy for Batman to save Dent, but it is not wrong for him to save Rachel. A mother has a choice between saving her daughter or 20 people. She saves her daughter. Nothing wrong there. Maybe it’s more praiseworthy to save 20 people, but it does not make her immoral to save her daughter.
Finally, the boat dilemma thing is a pretty good example of how there is actually a difference between killing and letting die.
It wasn’t like Batman just threw Dent to the dogs when he left to save Rachael. The Police were going to other person.
Most importantly, he is a proponent of fighting violence with violence, and the narcissistic macho swagger is never really absent.
If you don’t want to see fighting violence with violence, a good heuristic would be: never watch movies. Anyway, Batman tries not to kill, he refuses to carry a gun (even when he seizes it from a bad guy) and he uses violence to a much lesser degree than any of the people that he fights against.
The reference to “narcissistic macho swagger” clarifies something — I think your objections to “violence” arise mostly from sheer aesthetic distaste.
What Batman comes to realize is that his actions can have consequences. The emergence of the Joker is a direct response to his campaign. To use somewhat familiar language, he has helped unleash evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. His war is not just.
That conclusion is out of the blue. Within the context of the movie, there’s no way you can make the case that it is “unjust” for Batman to seek to have the mobsters prosecuted, which is what sets the chain of events in motion (but not due to anything that Batman intended or could conceivably have foreseen).
A more interesting theme — and potentially more troubling — is that people should often be kept from the truth. Batman and his friend hide the truth from the public at the end of the movie; and Batman’s butler hides the truth from Batman about the note that Rachel had written.
I would not see Batman as Bush, as Batman displays a level of introspection lacking in the latter.
Well, if you don’t like Bush, of course you wouldn’t. If you did like him, however, and you were creating an action movie character that was faced with similarly-themed choices, you would give that character positive attributes, as opposed to the bumbling idiot that many people who don’t like him would portray him as.
A character based on, say, Barack Obama, from an anti-Obama slant, would portray him as a calculating, narcissistic, elitist pied piper. If you liked Obama, you would portray a character based upon him as an inspirational leader with the ability to change the world.
“The reference to “narcissistic macho swagger” clarifies something — I think your objections to “violence” arise mostly from sheer aesthetic distaste.”
I used to love action films full of violence. As I grow older, not only do they no longer appeal to me, but I now believe that they contain something very wicked: the notion that taking a human life is a form of entertainment.
MM,
Do you think Shakespeare’s plays contain the same ‘very wicked’ notion, that the taking of a human life is a form of entertainment?
Do you think we should rid our entertainment of characters who sin?
As I grow older, not only do they no longer appeal to me, but I now believe that they contain something very wicked: the notion that taking a human life is a form of entertainment.
And yet, this movie got your $10.00 (or whatever the going price of a ticket is these days)? ;-)
Bush is not Batman:
http://bp1.blogger.com/_fnsOmb0Fvog/SIwe5OIzfuI/AAAAAAAAAlU/EvIefVWqsqg/s1600-h/bush-boy-blunder.jpg
Zach: the issue is not the use of violence, or murder, in a work of art or even entertinament. It is the use of that violence and murder for nothing other than cheap titillation.
Zach: the issue is not the use of violence, or murder, in a work of art or even entertinament. It is the use of that violence and murder for nothing other than cheap titillation.
Zach has a habit of taking what one says and distorting it.
MM I definitely agree with your views about most action movies. I do think that the Batman myth is much more rich than most bonehead action movies. The Batman character, in the best presentations, is ambiguous, both a hero and a villain.
I think seeing Batman as a symbol for Bush is stretching it a bit… but I do think it’s reasonable (and probably quite obvious) that Batman (especially in this new incarnation) can be understood as a symbol for america. And while in this film Batman can’t be equated with Bush, there are some clear suggestions that he is meant in some way to represent what america has become under Bush. But there again, the presentation is not pro or con but ambiguous.
MI,
I just try to ask questions. I don’t waste my time insulting you. Why do you do insult me?
I mean, from my point of view, your perspective is severely distorted by your passion for material equality. But I don’t turn it into an insult and say you distort everything I say.
MM,
Thank you for your answer: “the issue is not the use of violence, or murder, in a work of art or even entertainment. It is the use of that violence and murder for nothing other than cheap titillation.”
I agree that some movies have wanton violence. I don’t think Batman is one of those movies.
Zach – I didn’t insult you. There you go again, seeing what isn’t there.
I can’t believe I have to explain this.
When you tell someone that they distort everything you say, you are saying something about the person. You are saying that person is either
1. stupid, in their understanding of your ideas.
or
2. malicious, in that they are ignoring the truth for some other purpose
Either of those things is an insult.
Zach – I think it was pretty clear what MM was saying above. I tend to think I am generally clear when I present my own ideas. Either you 1) have a consistent problem understanding what people say, or 2) you are constantly looking for the most “uncharitable” way of understanding people or 3) you deliberately misrepresent what they say. In no way is this meant to be an insult, but an identification of a tendency. You are the only one who knows what lies behind the tendency that you have.
Michael I., Zach asked a question, MM clarified, they appeared to be on the way to discuissing the point(s) of the post, and you interjected with a derailing and personalized characterization. It was uncharitable. And even if you think he distorts, why not allow for the benefit of the doubt and let the questions, points, and clarifications continue?
This is one of the frustrations of Internet discourse and something we should all watch out for in ourselves.
jonathan, I derailed nothing. I contributed to that part of the conversation, in fact. My comment about Zach’s tendencies was merely a side comment. Do not lecture me about being “uncharitable.”
Michael,
It seems that the biggest difference between me and you is that I do not think everything is so obvious and clear-cut. If you think that makes me stupid, I’m fine with that.
Whether or not you intend your unnecessary and unrelated comments to be insulting, I must insist they are. To explain why, I’ll try an ad hominem. If I told you that you were habitually acting like an idiot, and that I said that I was simply identifying a tendency you had, would you not be insulted? I think you would. I think you might also see how identifying that I thought you were an idiot had no bearing on the matter at hand. It is a distraction, a way to avoid the real conversation.
In the future, I’d appreciate your insults to be forthright. If you think I’m an idiot, just say it if you really feel the need, eh?
But for the record, I don’t have any malicious intention. I am only interested in what is true. I asked MM a question. I was trying to understand what he said. I didn’t think it was clear. I disagreed with his opinion of the movie, and I was trying to understand why he thinks the way he does. After hearing his answer, I see more clearly his reasoning.
Zach,
For reasons that can only be known by Michael himself, he has remarkably little interest in intellectual engagement and a strong preference for rhetorical posturing. Perhaps, in honor of Mornings Minion, we could call this tendency “codpiece intellectualism”.
In no way can this observation be considering any sort of insult towards Michael. It’s simply an identification of this tendency of his…
Do not lecture me about being “uncharitable.”
Then do not fail to charitably give commentators the benefit of the doubt.
Do you think we should rid our entertainment of characters who sin?
If this is a question that truly represents a desire to come to the truth, fine. But to me it looks like a question that says “C’mon, MM, get real. What, do you want us to rid our entertainment of all characters who sin, or something?!”
If you think I’m an idiot, just say it if you really feel the need, eh?
Please. You are clearly not an idiot. I have real problems with many of your views and I think you have a tendency to misrepresent people. That is all. If you interpret this as thinking you are an “idiot,” then you maybe have a self-esteem problem.
jonathan – It’s funny to watch who you will defend and who you will not. It’s funny, because it’s so predictable.
Michael – have you considered it possible that your hostile e-pretense does not at all make it more likely others will take you and your ideas seriously? That it is, instead, much more of a distraction and, on occasion, a source of amusement?
Michael –
That question enabled me to see that MM doesn’t oppose violence in movies per se, but just the reckless celebration of violence for its own sake. This helped me see that MM and I agree on this point. I don’t think movies that celebrate violence for its own sake, like 300 and Sin City imho, are of much artistic value.
It then enabled me to make the further judgment that he has an impoverished understanding of the Batman movie. Why? Because he thinks that the violence in Batman is gratuitous or exists simply to titillate. I think this is a bad judgment.
Just curious- which views of mine do you have a problem with? Probably my belief that free markets better serve poor people than do centralized, state-planned economies. But I find it interesting that you seem to know so clearly what I think, especially when I haven’t given expression to many of my opinions, at least in the “online” forum.
jonathan – I’m not being hostile to Zach.
I certainly can be “hostile” on occasion, but often the ideas themselves are interpreted in such a way because they strike at idols which some VN readers hold dear. Jesus was often “hostile,” was he not? Like any of us who hope to be disciples, I try to take my cues from him.
Well, please be sure to include humility in any listing of your admirable qualities, and thanks for the amusement. No more procrastination – pleasant evening.
jonathan – Thank you for the lecture. Please note the humility below. Perhaps I should become your disciple instead.
Zach – If you truly did not pick up on that idea in what MM had written above, then I stand corrected. I thought it was quite obvious.
Just curious- which views of mine do you have a problem with? Probably my belief that free markets better serve poor people than do centralized, state-planned economies.
Here is yet another example, though, of what I am talking about. Where have I ever said that I favor a “centralized, state-planned” economy?
Michael,
I think you may have uncharitably interpreted Zach’s question, but you know him more than I do (I think) so I may be wrong.
Zach,
Terrible way to do ad hominem. If you’re going for ad hominem, go for better words like “dumbass” rather than “idiot.” Or, just add an adjective before “idiot,” like..the f word. It gives it emphasis.
Anyway…I may disagree with what MM said. I love UFC and other MMA stuff.
Where have I ever said that I favor a “centralized, state-planned” economy?
Where did Zach ever say you did?
Batman kicks ass.
Michael,
I have to say as well, as one who often appreciates the seemingly “hostile” ie. serious que you take from the gospel, this came across as uncharitable. It’s such a tiny thing to bother about. Claiming that Zach has a tendency to take what one says a distort it: if you can’t see that as even potentially looking like an insult, than you are distorting things. It’s not at all unreasonable that Zach would take that as an insult, so why act like him doing so is just another example of his distortion? And to claim that perhaps he has a self-esteem problem? There is no charity here.
Apolonio,
I am a martial artist myself. While I agree with MM that the exploitation of violence for entertainment’s sake is deplorable, it need not always be taken this way. There is a big difference in my mind between the a sparring match, a karate tournament, or a capoeria dance, and 300. There is something, in this fallen world, genuinely artistic about the skill of fighting.
Pax Christi,
What a weird thread.
Translation: The Joker is the victim because of Batman’s willingness to do something, anything? I don’t get this. Batman wants to do something right, there will be sacrifice, there will be victims. This is nothing new. This has never been new. I don’t recall the saints living “Charmed Easy Lives” in their quest to do what is right. Batman sins our redeemed by taking on the sins of Harvey Dent at the end. The director actually has him driving (chased actually) his Batpod (I.E Horse) into a Bright Light at the end of the film. Batman’s refusal to believe that chance and chaos are the pistons of human reality also motivate him and especially in his confrontation with Dent at the end. This is significant as he doesn’t allow the “Coin of Chance” to touch Dent’s hand when he is threatening Gordon’s family. As if the Coin, is some kind of concentrated evil.