"Madness, as you know, is like gravity. All it takes is a little push."
~ The Joker, The Dark Knight
The Dark Knight will go down as one of the most successful, and most violent, films of all time. My former employer, Warner Brothers, has released one doozy of a movie. The Dark Knight is smashing records and taking in millions. After watching it yesterday, I can see why.
* SPOILER ALERT *
Heath Ledger delivers a masterful performance as the Joker ... a villain who wins Mr. D's vote for the most nihilistic villain ever portrayed on film ... hands down.
The philosophical themes in the movie are deliciously thought provoking. A day later, I still find myself thinking about the complexity of the twists and turns of this film.
The Dark Knight will test your ethical system like no other. As my friend Trey asked me, "who do you think represents good in this movie?" My answer was Batman. Trey responded, "many think commissioner Gordon is the purest form of good in the movie."
There in lies the rub. While pure evil is easy to identify in the film, pure good is not. It reminds me of the series 24. Batman, at moments in the film, morphs into a caped crusader version of Jack Bauer. He tortures, beats prisoners, breaks international law and so on. Yet, unlike Jack, he stops short of killing terrorists ... even the Joker. If anyone deserved the death penalty, it would the Joker ... trust me.
Commissioner Gordon, on the other hand, seems to stay cleaner and as Trey pointed out, dispassionate in the face of injustice. Gordon maintains control. Batman loses it. That gives the edge to Gordon.
But Batman sacrifices his own reputation to take the fall for something he didn't do. To the more theologically astute film watcher, this is an allusion to substitutionary atonement of Christ. Does this act of self-sacrifice give Batman the tip as the more redeemable character of goodness.
Perhaps, except for this ...
"Sometimes, truth isn't good enough. Sometimes people deserve more. Sometimes people deserve to have their faith rewarded."
~ Batman, The Dark Knight
Oh dear. This is a problem.
Batman believes the people's need to have a "hero with a face" is more important than having the truth. The hero with a face is Harvey Dent, the fearless district attorney of Gotham. Harvey starts out as a good guy out to clean up the crime problem in the city. Following the death of his girlfriend, and a little push from the Joker, Harvey flips to the dark side. Harvey becomes part of the crime problem and becomes Gotham's newest villain with half a face. (Incidentally, it will be hard to forget Harvey's two-faced face for some time ... that should easily win an Oscar for best make-up).
Batman throws truth under the bus in order to protect the people's faith and hope in Harvey Dent, even though Harvey is a cruel monster. Bad call.
Is truth not good enough?
I recognize that there are times when lying is required because of the situation. Read Exodus 1:15-22 about one such situation in which lying is condoned and rewarded. The question is, is protecting people's faith in a district attorney one of those situations?
Batman thinks so. Mr. D disagrees. But then, Mr. D is not a humanist. Batman is. Well ... Batman is an idealist, and he seems to want to protect people who symbolize those ideals.
The film had many interesting worldview pieces to it. It had an overall Platonic dualistic feel to it. Good and evil seemed equally balanced ... so did chaos and order ... Joker and Batman ... Harvey Dent and Lt. Commissioner etc etc.
The Joker's nihilism is also thought provoking. He is so nihilistic, that he seems beyond being tempted by money. He robs from the mob and kills gangsters. That kinda makes him a good guy at points in the film, in a twisted sort of way.
I liked the depiction of chance in this film.
"The only morality in an amoral world is chance."
~ Harvey Two Face Dent
Not true, but great line.
The other great good versus bad twisting was the scene with the two ferry's loaded with explosives. I love when the big criminal dude grabs the detonator and says, "I will do what you should have done long ago." Instead of detonating the other ferry, he tosses it out the window.
Good moral choice. And unexpected. Nice, nice touch.
I don't recommend this movie for anyone under the age of 15. It is too violent and disturbing. The violence in this movie is deep because it takes place in your mind. It is hard to describe.
Still, for those of you interested in film and worldview, you should see it. There is so much to think about and talk about. My post only scratches the surface.
I really want to see this, which means I need to watch Batman Begins first. :)
Posted by: tgirsch | July 28, 2008 at 14:32
Can't agree with you more on the movie though I have to say that though the evil was usually clear there was a wonderful range of it. Joker's chaotic evil. Two-Face's (I think his face was CGI rather then makeup) adherance to chance. The female cop who did evil to pay her mother's medical bills.
And I have to disagree on Gordon. I'll agree with Batman and say Dent was the pinnacle of good. After all, even Gordon was hostile to Dents IA days and willingly turned a blind eye to some of the corruption in his fellow cops.
And yes, I loved that moment with the detonators on the ferry. The criminal did good out of a sense of self-sacrifice. The "good" citizen did good out of a cowardly failure to do evil. All good deeds are not equal.
All in all a movie worthy of a philosophy class and one my kids will HAVE to see...Once they're old enough to deal with the violence and horror elements.
Posted by: Dawn | July 28, 2008 at 19:00
"(I think his face was CGI rather then makeup)"
Yep. My bad. Is there an Oscar for best CGI ? :)
"And I have to disagree on Gordon. I'll agree with Batman and say Dent was the pinnacle of good."
The more I think about it, the scary looking criminal on the ferry who tossed the detonator was the pinnacle of good in the movie ;)
Posted by: Mr. D | July 28, 2008 at 19:17
SPOILER ALERT
I can't belive they killed the girlfriend. My jaw hit the floor on that one.
Posted by: John M. | July 29, 2008 at 10:49
Hey Mr. DT,
I thought the movie was philosophically challenging and really good for discussion.
I also agree that clearly Batman was the best represenative of good in the film. The statement that you pointed out about people having their faith rewarded did make me cringe, but also remember that the director/writer's perspective is not necessarily a Christian worldview either. For instance, Batman is called the Dark Knight because he is willing to punish evil in a way that Harvey Dent could not. It was only after Harvey Dent fell that he was able to take a life, but this was in personal revenge and also disproportionate.
The director and/or writer's worldview is flawed, so some of the conclusions are not accurate (that a representative of Good could not longer be considered good if he seeks to punish evil or will take a life to prevent it.) Thus, I attributed that statement about faith being rewarded as a non-Christian view about the atonement - ie, Jesus as a hero with a face instead of the truth.
I see Harvey Dent as a type of Adam - created good, but who fell. Harvey "Two-Face" reminds me of a physical represenation of Romans 7.
Still thinking about it... Definitely, The Joker was the most nihilistic villain I've ever seen.
Thanks!
Posted by: Deb | July 29, 2008 at 13:06
"I thought the movie was philosophically challenging and really good for discussion."
Definitely. As I told a friend, my only concern is that TDK is so philosophically challenging, that some may throw their hands in the air and conclude that there is no such thing as good or bad. I hate to see the world filled with more ethical relativists ;)
I think Xns ought to use this film as an opportunity to apply good moral reasoning. It is hard to think of a movie with more challenges than this one.
"but also remember that the director/writer's perspective is not necessarily a Christian worldview either."
Clearly true. I walked away feeling that the writer was a blend of humanist and dualist in the ancient Greek sense. I understand that his viewpoint is not based on scriptural truths. I think it is useful to juxtapose viewpoints with the Bible and show where the thinking is different (or the same).
One of the huge blind spots of humanism, for example, is putting faith in people. People will disappoint ... even heroes. I am realist when it comes to people. My heroes are men and women who are humble enough to admit to their failings and demonstrate a life of ongoing repentant faith. That is a hero ... not someone who claims to be good. Make sense?
"Harvey "Two-Face" reminds me of a physical represenation of Romans 7. "
Good thinking. That two-facedness is something we all struggle with, isn't it? From Gollum / Smeagol to Harvey / Two Face to the Apostle Paul to you and me.
"Definitely, The Joker was the most nihilistic villain I've ever seen. "
Anyone disagree with Deb and Mr. D?
Posted by: Mr. D | July 29, 2008 at 13:50
The problem with the film and many of the characters (at least the good ones) is that they do have so many nuances and each make their fair share of good and bad decisions. I may retract my opinion of Gordon, because I believe it depends on what system you are evaluating them on. Batman is a Machiavellian Good, Harvey Dent is an Idealist, and Gordon is Pragmatic. Depending on which philosophy you find most alluring, the most "good" character could be anyone.
For the blogging philosopher this may be slightly disappointing since there really is no end in sight for an exhaustive winner. For the Christian, however, there is a ray of light at the end of the tunnel, because the Bible does supply us with an Ultimate Good, to know God through saving faith in Christ. By this definition all characters fail, and we have an avenue for showing their deficiencies in that spiritual sense. In the end The Dark Knight's good is self-righteousness in many coats, and that opposition has warred against the Gospel long before enigmatic, superhero movies.
I doubt you will find many people willing to disagree with you assessment of Ledger's performance as the Joker. In my opinion it was a masterful performance that showed just how unsettling nihilism is at its' zenith.
And was it just me or did you find yourself wondering why you anticipated the Joker's every appearance even though more evil would ensue? Why was I drawn in a way to see just how far he would go?
It is interesting that Mr. D found the convicts throwing out of the detonator so positively. I actually that it was completely uncharacteristic of movie as a whole. By that point, I believe that director Christopher Nolan had painted such a dark, sin-ravaged picture that he felt obligated to award the audiences faith, even though it wasn't "true." Problem is, it didn't fit.
If you spend so much time deconstructing you main good protagonist, how am I supposed to believe that at least some convicts wouldn't be willing to use force to save their lives? What parent is going to be so dispassionate as to not try to save their child(ren) by any means necessary?
The final question that the movie leaves you with, and indeed one that I continue to ponder, is "Who won?" When all the cards are sorted out, who is the victor? Perhaps to answer that one has to ask the question, "What is winning? What's the end game?"
We may just have to wait 3 years for the sequel to find that out.
Posted by: Trey J | July 31, 2008 at 10:00
Trey, great comment! I enjoyed your analysis. Don't know what the "end game" is either, (other than to bury nihilism?) so will wait the three years.
As to why the Joker is anticipated.. maybe because we all know that even though he is worse than us, he is a vicarious reminder to us of the result of acting out on the darkest, deepest thoughts in our hearts??? I dunno. I'm stretching...
I guess the detonator challenge between the criminals and the regular citizens was another element to draw contrast with the Joker. To me, the scene sort of reinforced the idea that while human nature is inherently prone toward evil or madness, there still remains a measure of general grace (image deo) in the human conscience of those who have not been completely given over to evil. But I also think that scene seemed a bit contrived.
It's hard to know the director/writer's intent entirely, but the outcome of detonator challenge may have also been affected by an indirect reaction by people in Gotham to the Joker's evil. Even the mobsters become somewhat reformed by the end of the movie, in the face of the Joker's embodiment of evil. Just a thought.(I'd also add, excellent casting on the criminal who tosses the detonator!)
Posted by: Deb | August 01, 2008 at 08:16
And was it just me or did you find yourself wondering why you anticipated the Joker's every appearance even though more evil would ensue? Why was I drawn in a way to see just how far he would go?
It was not just you, Trey. I spoke with a close friend last night about TDK. He made an astute observation. He said TDK is the only film he can remember where the star of the film turned out to be someone other than the protagonist. He found himself looking forward to seeing what the Joker would do next … and then almost guilty for wanting to see what the Joker would do next. The director of the film nudged us in this direction by having the Joker steal from mobsters and murder the murderers. The Joker became an instrument of justice in a way.
I think nihilism both fascinates us and frightens us. What does it look like to try and live with no rules? Technically, the Joker had one rule, of course. That rule was that there are no other rules that mattered.
The irony, of course, is that the Joker’s ethics were probably the most logically consistent with his worldview of anyone in the film.
The relativists and pragmatists all made up their code of ethics out of thin air … including Batman. Their was no underlying, objective, universal foundation for their ethics.
”It is interesting that Mr. D found the convicts throwing out of the detonator so positively.”
I concede that the scene was contrived. The director threw a bone to the audience. That is good movie making, in my opinion. He surprised the audience with a glimmer of hope that people aren’t always as bad as they seem. That is the humanist hope, true?
Is it ultimately true? No, of course not. While people do have the imago dei, and people can make a good moral choice from time to time, the great lie is that people can redeem themselves. They can’t. They can’t wash away guilt. They can’t change their natures through force of will. They can’t make themselves righteous, as you pointed out.
The convict scene was a feel good moment in a sea of moral confusion. That’s all. If you were trying to find a character that didn’t screw up at some point during the movie, it was the huge convict.
”When all the cards are sorted out, who is the victor? Perhaps to answer that one has to ask the question, "What is winning? What's the end game?"
No one won. Truth lost. Justice lost. There was no redemption.
I think this plays well, however, with the average man on the street who thinks that evil is easier to define than good. That is why the typical comment you hear from someone who watched TDK was “good movie … dark … but I liked it.”
Posted by: Mr. D | August 01, 2008 at 09:41
Hi there
You were saying: "... dispassionate in the face of injustice. Gordon maintains control. Batman loses it. That gives the edge to Gordon."
Are you sure that being *dispassionate* in the face of injustice gives the edge to *Gordon*? I haven't seen the movie yet -- so it's just the philosophical/theological content that I'm not quire sure I buy.
Take care & God bless
Anne / WF
Posted by: Weekend Fisher | August 02, 2008 at 21:51
"Are you sure that being *dispassionate* in the face of injustice gives the edge to *Gordon*? I haven't seen the movie yet -- so it's just the philosophical/theological content that I'm not quire sure I buy."
Me neither. We are to seek justice and be passionate about it.
Batman gets angry and loses control. It is not necessarily a righteous anger either. That's what disturbed some folks.
Posted by: Mr. D | August 04, 2008 at 09:11
The ferry solution only worked because the joker didn't blow them both up as promised. The most ethical solution would have been for the two ferries to communicate, and for them to either agree among themselves which ferry would voluntarily sacrifice itself, or for there to be an agreement that the choice would be made by some fair method involving chance. Self-sacrifice is ethical...sacrificing another without consent is not. And allowing both ferries to be destroyed when one can be saved is not ethical either; it's just stupid.
Posted by: Jack Marshall | September 01, 2008 at 01:12