After the all the Dark Knight discussion here's a review of mine a few weeks ago:
Originally posted at: http://the-eclectic-rambler.blogspot.com/2008/08/dark-world-needs-light-knight.html
Warning: Spoilers. On Monday I saw the most hyped film of year: The Dark Knight. Unfortunately, as well as rather predictable, it didn't live up to the billing. That said it's a perfectly competent film, but nothing more. Everyone has been rightly raving about Heath Ledger. He puts in a fantastically disturbing performance as the nihilistic Joker. However, possibly the best performance comes from Gary Oldman as Lt James Gordon. He is just incredibly believable as the good cop stuck in an evil world. The script is laced with black humour through out. The best line being delivered by Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman): "Let me get this straight: You think that your client, one of the wealthiest, most powerful men in the world, is secretly a vigilante who beats criminals to a pulp with his bare hands. And your plan is to blackmail this person? Good luck." Pure genius. The cinematography coupled with some excellent direction creates a sinister atmosphere throughout the film. Consequently the violence is some of the most disturbing I've seen since Battle Royale. It’s not though explicit. Nolan eschews modern convention of always showing the gory details and cuts away allowing you imagination to do the work. Particularly notable is the scene where the Joker has the knife to that guy's neck for an inordinate length of time and cuts away when the inevitable happens. Tim Burton would have been wise to take heed of this style when making Sweeney Todd. This brings me neatly on to the rating of 12A by the BBFC. Those guys are absolute jokers (pun intended). The relentless violence and hopeless undertone make it wholly unsuitable for even 12 year olds; note with the 12A rating a child of any age can view it with an adult. If my sister, who is 11, would have seen it she would have been traumatised for days afterwards. This demonstrates that the BBFC's main rating categories of sex, violence and swearing are insufficient to rate a film properly. To their credit, breaking down the ratings into these categories was a step forward. Back to the film- The frequent action sequences are suitably spectacular though nothing out of the ordinary for a film with a huge budget. Hans Zimmer soundtrack lacks the sparkle of his best work, Gladiator and Pirates of the Caribbean for example, and just sounds as if he's going through the motions. The main problem with the film is the crucial aspect of all narrative art: the writing. Contrary to most expectations it is not a Batman versus the Joker film. They merely provide the frame for the centrepiece- District Attorney (DA) Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart). The major themes throughout the film are summed up with Dent's own line: ‘You either die a hero, or live long enough to see yourself become the villain.” And the Joker's: "I took Gotham's white knight, and brought him down to our level. It wasn't hard. Y'see, madness, as you know, is like gravity. All it takes is a little...push." Harvey Dent's character embodies these two lines. He is the clean cut DA determined to clean the filth from the streets by any means who then turns into an amoral two-faced individual after being pushed. Batman and the Joker provide the moral framework of the story. Batman is the principled (well, essentially) crime fighter. The Joker, the Devil. With these glasses we chart the demise of Dent. There is nothing inherently wrong with this story structure but it doesn't pull it off. The main reason for this is that there are too many significant characters in the film. It is firstly cluttered by Lt Gordon and perversely, Batman himself. The only purpose Batman serves in the whole film is to prompt the escalation of violence from the Mafia. However, for whatever reason (probably to satisfy the producer), they give Batman a bit of a run around just to say- this is a BATMAN film and this is who you paid to see. Hence the entirely pointless escapade in Hong Kong. With the screen time divided up so much there is a lack of emotionally engagement with the characters; something which wasn't a problem in Batman Begins. If the Batman and Gordon would have been sufficiently sidelined to focus more on Dent the emotional impact of the death of Rachel Dawes, for example, would have been far greater. Apart from Dent, Dawes is just another in the long line of wet female characters who's sole purpose is window dressing. This again demonstrates my contention that ensemble casts are in general a bad idea. The best example of them working is in Paul Thomas Anderson's excellent Magnolia. The reason this works is that you have characters with parallel experiences which compares and contrasts their reactions to them. It also helps that it is 3 hours long. This could have been possible with the Dark Knight but would have required the rewriting of the Joker. Instead of being an immutable pillar of evil, one would have had to flesh out his background, in particular his childhood, to chart his development into the man he is today. This would have provided a character foil for Dent. A similar change of writing could have done the same for Batman and Lt Gordon. Now having said all that, Christopher Nolan should be credited for making a mainstream blockbuster film which is essence is an ideas film. And this is where the Joker becomes more than creepy. Ostensibly all he does is cause wanton destruction. The interesting part is his reason why. He says at one point, "I believe that whatever doesn’t kill you, simply makes you…stranger." which is a corruption of Friedrich Nietzsche's phrase "whatever doesn't kill you makes you stronger." Keeping Nietzsche in mind he also says this: "It's a schemer who put you where you are. You were a schemer. You had plans. Look where it got you. I just did what I do best-I took your plan and turned it on itself. Look what I have done to this city with a few drums of gas and a couple bullets. Nobody panics when the expected people get killed. Nobody panics when things go according to plan, even if the plans are horrifying. If I tell the press that tomorrow a gangbanger will get shot, or a truckload of soldiers will get blown up, nobody panics. But when I say one little old mayor will die, everyone loses their minds! Introduce a little anarchy, you upset the established order, and everything becomes chaos. I am an agent of chaos. And you know the thing about chaos, Harvey? It's fair." The whole point of the Joker is that he undermines people’s beliefs, especially those in people. This is the reason he sought to give Dent a little push- to show that all men are evil, given time, and thus cannot be believed in. Notice the irony with the campaign badge which states "I believe in Harvey Dent”. This provides interesting comment on the disciples of Barack Obama who herald banners declaring "Change we can Believe In ", which in fact means "We believe in Obama". The Joker also usurps the principles of Batman (the surveillance system at the end), thus demoting him of hero status, and indirectly Lt Gordon's by causing the employment of Maroni's (Eric Roberts) men inside his department. Belief in law enforcement to keep society safe is certainly undermined. All Batman’s crusade results in is an escalation in the retaliation of the Mafia. However, unlike Batman Begins which gives hope that Batman can redeem the streets of Gotham The Dark Knight provides no such hope. The film merely raises problems and asks questions but never solves or answers any of them. Annoyingly the character of Batman himself has the seeds to the answer to crime. He is a response to the utter failure of the police and legal services. Batman succeeds where the police fail. Why? Because Batman is a form of private law enforcement contra the monopolistic provision of the government. Due to the enforced lack of competition the government’s price of justice rises and the quality of it falls. Higher price and lower quality are the universal results of the monopoly. The reason for seemingly immovable Mafia the film has even less of a clue. The truth is that they can only thrive under prohibition of victimless crimes. It used to be alcohol. Now it’s drugs and prostitution. If these freely consented to acts were legal then most of their funds would dry up; thus removing their teeth and the problem. See my Economic and Social Costs of Drugs Prohibition. http://the-eclectic-rambler.blogspot.com/2008/01/economic-and-social-costs-of-drug.html One of Nietzsche's major critiques of society was its herd mentality. People don't think about what's right and wrong but follow what someone else believes. This belief system originated with the master-slave relationship which he repudiated. And since God is the ultimate master it is the case that "God is dead, we have killed him." For a replacement for God, the ultimate basis of all previous moral systems, Nietzsche substituted the ubermensch- the superman: any individual who created his own moral and ethical framework. This was to be each man’s goal. (NB Nowhere in Nietzsche's writings is the plural ubermenschen used. The Nazi interpretation of Nietzsche is not accurate and was done solely to serve political means). A great critique of the herd mentality was the absurd voting scene. The Joker claimed that the two boats would be blown up at 12am but if one boat had the moral fortitude to blow the other up he’d spare the other; he provided detonators for both boats. On one boat the passengers voted on whether they should destroy the other which was almost comical. This is further reinforced by the lack of will power of any passenger to actually take the decisive step to push the detonation switch after the “people” had decided to. Perhaps this is also a comment on those things people vote for but would not do themselves. Further reinforcing the herd point was the Joker’s perfectly accurate line that if he killed the Mayor Gotham would descend into chaos. People don’t take responsibility for themselves and palm it off on to those in political leadership. Therefore when a leader is removed people panic and chaos ensues until a new leader emerges. The most cutting part of Nietzsche's philosophy is alluded to by Two-Face's line: “Chance is the only reality in this cruel world. Unprejudiced. Unbiased. Fair.” As Harvey Dent his coin had two heads on it demonstrating his belief that there was something out there he could hope in which he could in someway bring about. As Two-Face he sees the world as it really (sic) is: meaningless. Since there is no meaning the ubermensch is necessary to confer meaning. With meaning and morality dispensed with the film endorses forms of utilitarianism: Batman’s use of the surveillance system to catch the Joker and Gordon’s employment of Maroni’s men to bring him down. It is most clearly endorsed when Dent makes the statement that Caesar would have been a hero if he had died soon enough. The idea seems to be that authoritarian government is sometimes necessary but needs to be curtailed afterwards. Enabling Act anyone?! This worldview explains why the film is so depressing. It believes there is no meaning. The last film I saw this depressing was Ingmar Bergman’s Cries and Whisper’s. If you’re ever slightly down don’t watch it or you’ll probably end up slitting your wrists. Yet there is a ray of hope thrown in the Dark Knight unlike Cries and Whispers. On one of the boats with the big mean looking black prisoner is the only one to have any courage and takes the detonator. But he throws it out of the window declaring no-one has a right to blow up the boat and sits with his fellow prisoners and seems to pray. This comes deus ex machina with absolutely no justification. My contention is that unlike Bergman, Nolan cannot make a film consistent with his belief system. He intuitively believes there is hope but cannot justify it. So just throws it in there.
The atoms tell the atoms so, for I never was or will but atoms forevermore be.
Yours sincerely,
Physiocrat
As an atheist I must protest that last paragraph as not only out of nowhere, but completely ignornant. Do I go shooting up people in the streets because I know I won't be punished eternally by Mr. G? No, I do not. Equally said, I do not attempt to be a 'good' person for the holy rewards. To say that the world would founder into chaos without a god fathoms only one response from me, speak for yourself. Men make their own hope, as for the material world, which in the end is all that matters, we look to liberalism as the means to prosper in a bleak and scarce world.
If you cannot embrace the coldness of a world without your god, that is swell; but do not reproach me for being a materialist when your philosophy inevitably leads to an endless wait for something that may never come. Sorry to say it, but all we have is eachother.
But as Mises said, I do not blame you for wanting something more, you can shut yourself up in a closet in peace; just let us go our own way as well and we will let you as well.
<></>
http://www.myspace.com/telpeurion
I second that. It was a great post--right up until the atheist-bashing began out of nowhere. I have no idea why people conflate atheism with nihilism. But I tell you this: they aren't the same.
Physiocrat, you can continue in your ignorance or you can take hold of reality. It's your choice either way. But don't pretend that you know what you're talking about wrt atheism; you don't. Stick to reviewing films, and leave the "theological" comments to yourself.
Knight_of_BAAWA: I second that. It was a great post--right up until the atheist-bashing began out of nowhere. I have no idea why people conflate atheism with nihilism. But I tell you this: they aren't the same. Physiocrat, you can continue in your ignorance or you can take hold of reality. It's your choice either way. But don't pretend that you know what you're talking about wrt atheism; you don't. Stick to reviewing films, and leave the "theological" comments to yourself.
My point was that Nolan throws a ray of hope in the film without any justification and the reason for this is that he can't just quite remove a thiestic remnant from his film unlike Bergman. The "atheist-bashing" did not come out of nowhere but continued my attempt to answer the questions the film raises as with the seemingly immovable mafia; it capped the theme of the essay.
Now to clear things up- Being an atheist does not necessarily mean you are a nihilist; Nolan is probably an existentialist. I know there are many atheistic worldviews which are not nihilistic which I admire such as the classical eudamonists. My contention is that if you are a consistent atheist nihilism follows and any attempt to do otherwise is to smuggle God in via the backdoor.
A plea- on this thread can we discuss the film rather than does atheism lead to nihilism. I am more than wiling to do this if people are interested in a seperate thread.
Intersting article until the utterly horrid religious bullshit at the end.
Truly, outstanding analysis, well argued and better than my own attempt. But I have to agree that the religious material was not necessary, and I say that as a religous person.
Jeffrey TuckerEditorial VP, Mises
I don't think you got the point of the movie at all. It is about heroism. The heroism of Dent, who risks his life multiple times to fight the mafia (pointlessly as it may be), the small heroism of the Gothamites who refuse to kill to play along with the Joker, and ultimately the non-heroism of the Batman, which is a man who must hide behind a character in order to fight for his own brand of justice as he is too cowardly to fight as Bruce Wayne (as established in Batman Begins, Bruce Wayne is vulnerable, much like Arthur Dent). This is why in the end, Batman decides to take the blame for the crimes of Two-Face, because as he says he's not a hero and Dent is the true hero.
There is also a lot of insight into the nature of organized crime and corruption. The mafia lords turn to the Joker for protection from Batman when they are pressured too hard, the white knights having pushed them to extinction thanks to the protection they enjoy from Batman, who is a man allowed to break the rules of criminal law (as seen in his "extradition" of Lao). The Joker cannot pull off most of his stunts without support from the crime lords, even though in the end he destroys them. While in Batman Begins the corrupt cops are in it for money, in this film they are clearly just victims themselves.
The lesson here is that the harder that "crime" is fought, the more corrupt society risks to become. Fighting crime lords may not be a good course of action.
Microsecession as a strategy for revolution | Challenge to minarchist | How would a private road system work?
atheism (lack of a belief in a supernatural being/beings) =/= nihilism (belief that existence has no meaning or purpose)
Market anarchist, Linux geek, aspiring Perl hacker, and student of the neo-Aristotelians, the classical individualist anarchists, and the Austrian school.
You can't take the sky from me.
Physiocrat:My point was that Nolan throws a ray of hope in the film without any justification and the reason for this is that he can't just quite remove a thiestic remnant from his film unlike Bergman.
See? Atheist-bashing. Hope is NOT exclusive to theists, so please eradicate your erroneous notion.
Physiocrat:Now to clear things up- Being an atheist does not necessarily mean you are a nihilist
You quite clearly believe it does, so please do not lie to me. You made it quite clear.
Physiocrat:A plea- on this thread can we discuss the film rather than does atheism lead to nihilism. I am more than wiling to do this if people are interested in a seperate thread.
IFF you remove the atheist-bashing. If not: fair game. You bashed atheists, you get to deal with the consequences. It's part-and-parcel of your review of the movie, so I can't see how you're going to have one and not the other, though.
Knight_of_BAAWA: See? Atheist-bashing. Hope is NOT exclusive to theists, so please eradicate your erroneous notion.
It is true that atheists do have hope and attempt to justify it in their systems. My point is in doing so they are inconsistent.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Physiocrat:Now to clear things up- Being an atheist does not necessarily mean you are a nihilist You quite clearly believe it does, so please do not lie to me. You made it quite clear.
No I made it clear that I believe that nihilISM necessarily follows from atheISM. My contention is that most atheists are not consistent.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Physiocrat:A plea- on this thread can we discuss the film rather than does atheism lead to nihilism. I am more than wiling to do this if people are interested in a seperate thread. IFF you remove the atheist-bashing. If not: fair game. You bashed atheists, you get to deal with the consequences. It's part-and-parcel of your review of the movie, so I can't see how you're going to have one and not the other, though.
OK. I'll remove the last section of my post. I will then author a piece something along the lines of Atheism leads to Nihilism and post here in the next couple of days so we can have a proper debate.
Stranger: I don't think you got the point of the movie at all. It is about heroism. The heroism of Dent, who risks his life multiple times to fight the mafia (pointlessly as it may be), the small heroism of the Gothamites who refuse to kill to play along with the Joker, and ultimately the non-heroism of the Batman, which is a man who must hide behind a character in order to fight for his own brand of justice as he is too cowardly to fight as Bruce Wayne (as established in Batman Begins, Bruce Wayne is vulnerable, much like Arthur Dent). This is why in the end, Batman decides to take the blame for the crimes of Two-Face, because as he says he's not a hero and Dent is the true hero.
I can understand your position to point but if you remember the vote on the boat came out in favour of blowing the other up. Further it doesn't explain the change from Dent's double headed coin to the single headed one as Two-Face and the Joker's clear argument that there isn't a hero since all you need to do is to give them a push. On your point about Wayne being to cowardly to fight as himself I can't comment since I can't remember that part of Batman Begins and don't have time to watch it again. I've already done three times.
Stranger: There is also a lot of insight into the nature of organized crime and corruption. The mafia lords turn to the Joker for protection from Batman when they are pressured too hard, the white knights having pushed them to extinction thanks to the protection they enjoy from Batman, who is a man allowed to break the rules of criminal law (as seen in his "extradition" of Lao). The Joker cannot pull off most of his stunts without support from the crime lords, even though in the end he destroys them. While in Batman Begins the corrupt cops are in it for money, in this film they are clearly just victims themselves. The lesson here is that the harder that "crime" is fought, the more corrupt society risks to become. Fighting crime lords may not be a good course of action.
I think I can agree there. Since the Dark Knight doesn't understand where the mafia garners most of its power fighting them can only lead to reprisals. The greater the fight the greater the reprisals. So your point that it may not be worth fighting the mafia fits in with the film's utilitarianism.
Knight_of_BAAWA:See? Atheist-bashing. Hope is NOT exclusive to theists, so please eradicate your erroneous notion.
Physiocrat:It is true that atheists do have hope and attempt to justify it in their systems. My point is in doing so they are inconsistent.
Ipse dixit and strawman. You should not speak of things which you have no knowledge thereof.
Knight_of_BAAWA:You quite clearly believe it does, so please do not lie to me. You made it quite clear.
Physiocrat:No
Yes, and now you're trying to couch it in weasel-terms. Please don't do that.
Physiocrat:OK. I'll remove the last section of my post. I will then author a piece something along the lines of Atheism leads to Nihilism and post here in the next couple of days so we can have a proper debate.
But there won't be a debate; there will simply be your uneducated ramblings and people laughing at it. The only people who will agree with you are those who are actually dumb enough to be swayed by apologetics. You can keep your McDowellian/Zacharais nonsense to yourself.
Physiocrat: I can understand your position to point but if you remember the vote on the boat came out in favour of blowing the other up. Further it doesn't explain the change from Dent's double headed coin to the single headed one as Two-Face and the Joker's clear argument that there isn't a hero since all you need to do is to give them a push. On your point about Wayne being to cowardly to fight as himself I can't comment since I can't remember that part of Batman Begins and don't have time to watch it again. I've already done three times.
Remember that, even though people voted to blow the other boat up, no one actually was ready to initiate the detonation. On the criminal's boat, everyone yelled at the warden to do it but no one actually would detonate the other boat. Eventually the one prisoner talks the warden into giving him the detonator; "give it to me, you don't want to die but you don't know how to take a life, you can tell everyone I took it by force, give it to me, and I'll do what you should have done 10 minutes ago". On the civilian boat, one honest man rises up, tries to figure out all sorts of justifications for killing the people on the other boat, but in the end can't bring himself to kill either. This entire sequence illustrates how power is transferred in society, how people give thugs the power to kill because they are not brave enough to fight for themselves. In this case the prisoner turns out to be the true hero by throwing the detonator out of the window, and the honest man turns out to be something of a cowardly hero by putting the detonator back into the box.
It was probably the best choice anyway, given the Joker's affinity for switching choices as seen from Batman's choice of rescuing Rachel.
Perhaps the point with Dent's heroism is that Dent is, much like everyone else, human, and he cannot be an invincible hero. That is the role of the Dark Knight. To be something more than human.
Let me quote from Batman Begins:
Henri Ducard: No, no, no. A vigilante is just a man lost in the scramble for his own gratification. He can be destroyed, or locked up. But if you make yourself more than just a man, if you devote yourself to an ideal, and if they can't stop you, then you become something else entirely.Bruce Wayne: Which is?Henri Ducard: A legend, Mr. Wayne.
Stranger: Remember that, even though people voted to blow the other boat up, no one actually was ready to initiate the detonation. On the criminal's boat, everyone yelled at the warden to do it but no one actually would detonate the other boat. Eventually the one prisoner talks the warden into giving him the detonator; "give it to me, you don't want to die but you don't know how to take a life, you can tell everyone I took it by force, give it to me, and I'll do what you should have done 10 minutes ago". On the civilian boat, one honest man rises up, tries to figure out all sorts of justifications for killing the people on the other boat, but in the end can't bring himself to kill either. This entire sequence illustrates how power is transferred in society, how people give thugs the power to kill because they are not brave enough to fight for themselves. In this case the prisoner turns out to be the true hero by throwing the detonator out of the window, and the honest man turns out to be something of a cowardly hero by putting the detonator back into the box.
I agree with most of that and make reference to it in my OP; people vote for things they wouldn't do themselves. However I wouldn't characterise the criminal as the hero as such and think he is an anomaly. Here we presumably have a hardened criminal who refuses to blow the other boat up to save himself and then goes and prays. The rest of the film portrays people falling from grace given the push- the point being you can't believe in anyone. There is no reason alluded to why the prisoner would do such a thing except the fact he does. The prisoner is the ray of hope thrown wihtout justification.
Stranger: It was probably the best choice anyway, given the Joker's affinity for switching choices as seen from Batman's choice of rescuing Rachel.
But they wouldn't have knwon that.
Stranger: Perhaps the point with Dent's heroism is that Dent is, much like everyone else, human, and he cannot be an invincible hero. That is the role of the Dark Knight. To be something more than human. Let me quote from Batman Begins: Henri Ducard: No, no, no. A vigilante is just a man lost in the scramble for his own gratification. He can be destroyed, or locked up. But if you make yourself more than just a man, if you devote yourself to an ideal, and if they can't stop you, then you become something else entirely.Bruce Wayne: Which is?Henri Ducard: A legend, Mr. Wayne.
Dent is flawed we agree but he isn't portrayed in a heroic manner. His attempts to beat the mafia turn out to be futile which he realises then relies soley on chance to defeat them.
Batman is a symbol as is evidenced by his copycats. But he too is undermined by his surveilance of the whole of Gotham. I think the film is saying you should follow ideas not people. And due to the films existentialism these ideas are created not discovered by man.
Physiocrat: But they wouldn't have knwon that.
If they had known that, it would no longer be heroism to deny the Joker.
Physiocrat: Dent is flawed we agree but he isn't portrayed in a heroic manner. His attempts to beat the mafia turn out to be futile which he realises then relies soley on chance to defeat them.
It is not simply a matter of being flawed but of being vulnerable. Dent risks his life and puts his loved ones at risk to fight the mafia. Batman, by definition, cannot be killed and does not have any loved ones (other than his general love for Gothamites). As such he does not take any risks fighting evil, and that means he cannot be a hero. Dent risks everything and loses everything, and that is why Batman protects his name in the end by saying that Gotham needs its true hero.
The Joker is himself invulnerable for different reasons, which is shown when he is being interrogated by Batman and tells him that even with all his strength Batman has nothing to threaten him with. His approach to fighting Batman is to terrorize the city into making Batman reveal his identity, which implies that he would then become vulnerable to the usual mafia tactics.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Ipse dixit and strawman. You should not speak of things which you have no knowledge thereof.
Overinflated, pretentious diction. Thereof means "of it" or "of that." You're actually saying, "You should not speak of things which you have no knowledge of it."
As a teacher who reads a lot of pretentious student essays, I find -- to use your own words -- uneducated ramblers revel in using thereof, and often do so incorrectly, as you have done here.
Your passion for atheist crusading makes you look foolish when you set out to write, or at least it does in this instance.
*yawn*
*snore*
It's amazing what people will bump.
Right on time for the DVD release.
I love this movie. It's really ironic that only superhero movies (and maybe some action and martial arts flicks) are about the only ones entertaining the idea that private justice in the form of the "vigilantes" can be more more successful and more just than the official law enforcement. Of course, it's only because these guys are so much better than an average person.
If I hear not allowed much oftener; said Sam, I'm going to get angry.
J.R.R.Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap