A Second Hand Conjecture

Review of The Dark Knight

ChrisB on Jul 15 2008 at 10:50 am | Filed under: Around the Web

2 Responses to “Review of The Dark Knight”

1. on 24 Jul 2008 at 10:24 pm 1synova

   

   Can I comment with spoilers?

   I saw Dark Knight last weekend and was thinking I ought to bite the bullet, make my husband’s computer over into my own personal space (my computer is permanently dead and not soon to be replaced), retrieve my log-in information, and write a post about how the movie supports a non-Obama win this fall. 

   Alas, I am a slacker.

   I can’t make the argument without major Spoilage.   Granted, we all know that Batman wins.   It’s not that.

   If anyone intends to see the movie and has not…  go no further.   Do not read another word!   This is not a review, it is an analysis.   It might be a half-baked analysis but that is what it is.

   To some extent all popular entertainment is social commentary.    At some level it has to connect with the audience or no one will go to see it.    The best is not intended as social commentary at all but simply lets the resonance with the audience fall where it may.

   There are a couple sort of disjointed elements of Dark Knight.    For example, the murderous masses so willing to kill anyone the Joker said to kill suddenly came to their senses and refused to kill other people in order to save their own lives.   The “message” was that people were good and that the Joker was wrong about them, even when he was mostly right.    Harvey Dent, though he became a villain, was set up to be a hero at the end because the people needed a White Knight even more than they needed the truth.     And Batman, the real hero, took on the public reputation of a criminal and murderer.  

   Sure, there were some peace-nik messages and moments but lets review and weigh what I consider three underlying and inescapable assumptions made by the movie.    First…  that sometimes there is no reason for a terrorist to blow stuff up.    And the Joker was, indisputably and explicitly, a terrorist interested in creating terror and chaos.    Second… that giving in to terrorist demands never never works.    And third, and possibly most important…  reputation takes a back seat to what is necessary and right.

   Not everyone is going to recognize that the sort of terrorist that the Joker is is different only in degree from those who we see in real life.   His motivations make sense to him, they are important to him on a philosophical level… the Joker wants to force knowledge of the truth of people’s true natures on them.   And he doesn’t see innocents as anything other than a tool to use to gain that end.    But who will watch and not accept the “truth” of the irrational purpose of the Joker?   

   The failure of appeasement might get explained away because of the Joker’s extreme insanity but the movie itself won’t even make sense if the person watching it doesn’t agree that appeasement is an expression of fear.   And that it doesn’t work.

   As for the importance of reputation…  Who is going to watch and insist that reputation is the most important thing?   Being viewed as a villain rather than a hero or even simply a vigilante isn’t going to make it easier for Batman to fight crime.    And outright saying that a false hero is more important than the truth?   Who is it that has been trying to tell us that publicly trashing our White Knight reputation in the name of honesty makes no difference whatsoever?

   Okay, so maybe that’s a bit bipolar…  are we heros accepting a bad reputation in the world for a higher cause or is it important to lift up a false image, white-washing our crimes, in order to inspire everyone (including us) to live up to it.    Both, maybe.    Because the real world is funny that way.

   I came out of the movie with the thought that audiences couldn’t connect with the movie without accepting certain things as true, at least sub-consciously.   If the movie does very well, and I assume it will, I think that it says more about what people think about the world than even what they *say* they think about the world.   It seems to me that the comic book exaggerations of Gotham are closer to “real” in most people’s minds than the mere wishful thinking of “No War in Iraq/Iran” lawn signs and demands that we simply STOP because if we do then no one will want to hurt us or hate us any more.

   There is at least a chance this will come through in the voting booths this fall.

   (For what it’s worth… this is a little bit more involved than the basis for my 2004 prediction of a Bush win.    In 2004 I predicted that Bush would beat Kerry on account of all the camo print children’s clothing in stores. )

2. on 24 Jul 2008 at 11:00 pm 2Lance

   

   You should check out Ilya Somin’s review, which tries to do the same kind of analysis at Volokh Conspiracy.

   And yes, write a few posts;^) We miss you.

Leave a Reply