It is the perfect Hollywood machine – so much/too little plot and incident it becomes incoherent, violence and power as spectacle but savvy enough about its ‘demographic’ it can create flattering illusions of being left-wing, right-wing, liberal, mystical, dialectic or whatever (discussion boards invoking Nietszche, Milton Friedmann, Leo Strauss, Walter Benjamin, Heidigger, George Lukacs, Aleister Crowley, Michel Lacan etc. etc. to discuss a cartoon character in a rubber suit). Oscar-nominated/winning actors coupled with a smart-ass ‘indie’ director to give this huge merchandising operation a surface sheen of being ’serious’ (with ‘dark’ being as meaningless as ‘cool’ as a term of praise). Ugly, sadistic imagery choreographed to beat/seduce the viewer into sumbmission. No characters per se – just archetypes explaining what they are (as if we wouldn’t know from 70-year old characters), in case the 13 year olds get bored between car chases. Technological fetish (in and outside the narrative). Racial stereotypes supposedly balanced by a ‘magic negro’ – to absolve us of our fevered pleasure in conservative backlash fantasies. Witnessing characters we would hate in real life (ambitious law and order politicians and their psychotic financial backers/enforcers) ’struggle for their souls’. Vaguely defined villainy as an immovable mysterious force from nowhere (see also I Am Legend (and its variants), There Will be Blood and No Country for Old Men – those oscars love their demonic forces, don’t they?).

In short, a masterpiece! Can’t wait to see it again…

While the film may be ambiguous as to what it portrays, as you note, the careful viewer should look at what’s been left out. With regard to every issue raised by our current state of emergency also present in the film, certain concessions have already been made to authoritarianism: Dent himself allows that the Batman’s extra-legal actions are necessary for the time being; torture may not be effective but it’s still OK as long as the extra-legal collaborator performs it (recall that the Batman only stays Dent’s hand in playing Russian roulette with the Scarecrow for the practical reason that it would sully Dent’s reputation); and finally that the extra-legal force is almost sanctified for taking on a responsibility that ordinary people can’t understand.

There are many things in the movie that are meant to mitigate or confuse the sympathy with authoritarianism, but in the end it’s clear where are sympathies are supposed to lie: with the Batman as the extra-legal bulwark that maintains order against the wholly other, irrational forces of evil. The darkness, loneliness, and isolation into which Batman flees is a glurgesome celebration of authoritarian force: oh, what a thing it is stand alone against evil, armed only with the tacit assent of the state and a fabulous arsenal of the highest tech war toys imaginable.

Here are some reasons why Batman does not represent Bush:

Batman gives up his emergency power (tapping into millions of people’s cellphones) at the end of the fight. He refuses to violate his self-imposed limit not to kill anyone. And Alfred argues, convincingly I think, that the rise of the Joker is Batman’s fault – he is the criminal world’s reply to Batman, the anti-Batman, if you will.

Furthermore, the author of this piece does not even discuss the positively progressive side of the movie, when the two groups of people in the ferries refuse to blow one another up. They refuse to participate in the Joker’s sick game that pits them against the other. One of the most emotionally powerful moments in the movie is when a big, muscular black convict tells the captain of his boat to give him the remote detonator so that he can do what should’ve been done 10 minutes ago. Just when you think the prisoner is going to hit the button and save his boat, he throws the detonator out the window, goes back to his seat, and sits quietly.

When neither boat blows the other up, Joker is furious that he’s wrong – that the masses are just as capable of solidarity as they are capable of being greedy and selfish, even in life-and-death situations.

I agree with the comment that the author of this piece just wanted to say something negative about the movie. The movie’s political and social messages are fairly complex – it’s certainly not a kill-em-all rah-rah USA USA guns and explosions type of movie – and that’s a big reason why it’s getting rave reviews from professional critics and is breaking a lot of sales records.

Why be a forum troll and a jerk, insulting the way other people enjoyed the movie? Maybe we’re not looking into it too much, you’re just too incompetent to look into it further. We aren’t overanalyzing, you’re underanalyzing.

And yes I’ve partially dignified your post by responding…

(my own attempt at tapping this new happiness is here – Green Island http://www.rudemacedon.ca/greenisland.html – it’s the story of a new democracy making the American capitalists unhappy, but when they try their usual regime change operation, they get their asses kicked a bit – I thought there was a good meme to be tapped here, but I’m still forced to tend to the day job ….. )

And actually, I doubt this most recent edition was written and filmed at great cost to redeem the damage done to Batman by earlier films, I expect the motive was somewhat more mundane – making money. Allegories and memes all aside.

I’ve read numerous reviews and critiques of this movie, and I’ve seen it twice myself. You’re all reading WAY too much into it. Christopher and Johnathan Nolan wrote this story to do justice to a story that was completely ripped apart in the 2 installments of Batman prior to Batman Begins. If anyone had ever seen Batman Forever or Batman and Robin, you know what I’m talking about.

Did no one go into this movie just to enjoy the movie? Did EVERYONE go into this movie to rip it apart and apply it to real life? Does NO ONE understand that this is FICTION, FANTASY? It’s not reality!

The writers did not write this story to reflect what is going on in the real world. If you read comic books at all, then you would know that a lot of the themes and points made in the movie are a lot of what happens in the comics. Do comic book/screenplay writers sometimes take from what’s happening in real life and apply it to comics? Sure, but it’s not a play-by-play re-enactment of life.

I don’t know if most of you know this, but there really isn’t a guy in a bat suit that goes around and captures criminals. There really isn’t an insane bank robber with clown makeup that preaches anarchy and chaos. There isn’t even so much as a do-gooder attorney- or anyone with a government job, really- that honestly goes out and puts the bad guys away.

It’s a flippin’ movie, people. Stop trying to make it out to be some twisted metaphor for real life.

I thought the movie was brilliant because it was a summer blockbuster superhero film (not to mention a SEQUEL!) that included classy philosophical dialogue (classy = most of the dialogue in the LOTR movies, unclassy = ALL of the dialogue in “Troy”). Usually superhero movies are all aesthetics with little substance, but TDK brings a little more to the table, and it exposes a larger audience to ethics, if they are inclined enough to listen. Which I why I give Chris Nolan “mad props.”

Hyperviolent? No. Violent? Yes. Heterosexist creepiness? Um, I don’t know where that’s coming from…I didn’t see anything that really promoted heterosexuality or was offensive to homosexuality. Pretty neutral in my opinion. I mean should one claim the movie is discriminatory towards any ” group” not featured in the movie? Maybe you should check your brain for bias.

In the context of the film, the word “anarchy” seems to mean “orderless” in the sense that no ethical code of conduct will exist, and no justice will exist. The Joker’s seems to desire exposing the people of Gotham (through psychological games) to the contingency of morality and justice. He may or may not believe that justice and/or morality exist, and he seems to enjoy other people dealing with the conflict. Justice and morality are contingent, they are human concepts. Nothing new here.

For Joker to expose the contingency of these concepts (and really any other concept the people of Gotham take for granted), he must taint individuals who are physical entities of these qualities. Harvey Dent is a person, through his actions, that illustrates people can live justly. Batman is larger than a man (like both Chris Nolan movies emphasize) the symbol of justice and morality. Both must stumble, in a very dramatic manner, to throw the people of Gotham into despair (the existentialist void). So Joker, who is as philosophically driven as Batman and Dent, and seeks the torment of others for entertainment (or has a bone to pick with the world view of Batman and Dent) will stop at NOTHING to “destroy” the two heroes.

Finally, a supervillainous man (Joker has no “superpowers”) who ONLY wants the destruction of others, or the torment of others. He doesn’t want money or fame or anything else. Alfred said, “Some men just want to watch the world burn.” which was excellent because it’s true about the Joker. No other motive, but satisfaction through the harm and suffering of others. Frightening concept. But very real. Of the 6 billion people on this planet, at least a few are like this. They do exist. A truly unacceptable human, by ANY moral code that values human life. Joker isn’t a Palestinian terrorist if he’s fighting for resources, but he is if he is fighting against the “West” and using fear to promote his philosophy, especially if the philosophy is harmful (I’m making no judgment here – I’m simply saying that people will kill “civilians” for a variety of reasons, and I’m not giving anyone with questionable moral judgment like that “the benefit of the doubt.”

Batman on the other hand, seems to subscribe to the concepts of justice and morality. He is ALWAYS fighting his own humanity to uphold the higher logic of what he believes. As a human he feels love, pain, despair, anger, sorrow, etc. The Joker tries to expose Batman’s humanity (which he does with some success I feel, but in the end Batman prevails) to the people of Gotham so that the entities he stands for are weakened.

As a conceptual entity, Batman must adhere to his own dogma at all costs to prevent his own internal destruction. Which means even though he could kill Joker and save lives, he does not because he believes all people should have the right to a fair trial (or whatever type of judgment system he believes him, Batman just does not believe he is a judge). BATMAN DOES NOT BELIEVE THE ENDS JUSTIFY THE MEANS. That is so clear in this movie that it sickens me someone would see otherwise. Comparing Batman to right-wingers is ridiculous, in fact it’s downright misleading and deceitful. Judging by your writing Mr. Pistelli, you’re intelligent enough to know better than that.

I believe the central theme to this movie is (illustrated by Batman’s dialogue, Harvey Dent’s transformation into a villain, and the dialogue concerning the cell phone radar) “how does one defeat someone who wants him destroyed without sacrificing the ideals that are arguably the only entities separating the two foes?” How far must Batman go to preserve justice – how much must he sacrifice – measured in human life, measured in his own pain and philosophy, measured in the preservation of Gotham? I don’t have the answer. Batman, Alfred, Gordon, Dent, Rachel, Lucius, and Chris Nolan didn’t either.

To me, very reminiscent of the issues in Plato’s Republic.

Ira Grunberg’s comment about the “noble lie” is insightful. Batman and Gordon chose to lie. However, pretending that everyone in society can handle the truth I feel is very, very naive. This forum alone illustrates human bias, even among those who are aware, confronting it, overcoming it, avoiding it. Critical thinking is a learned method. I’m not sure most use it. Or that some are even capable of developing it. If one is to believe that higher concepts of justice and morality do exist (that is above human emotion), then adherence to these concepts will probably vary among people. Who should have a voice depends on what society values. So if you think everyone has a voice that should be heard, and all voices are equal, what happens when someone else wants your favorite toy? Which voice is right? (Yes you could share, play together, whatever, the point is, who has right to exist when someone would enjoy killing you as much as you enjoy living?)

Gordon and Batman chose to lie because it was the right choice, because justice and morality are important, and probably didn’t sacrifice any morality in doing so. This action alone let’s you see more into their moral code, because if they believe “lying” is wrong, then they sacrificed their code, and justified the ends by the means. But I don’t feel they justified the ends by the means, because lying is situational. If you lie in the name of comedy or to spare feelings, those things are arguably right. Did Joker kill anyone? That would be for a court to decide, and even if he had blatantly killed someone, a penalty of death is rarely given. Also, Dent and Batman, lied by saying Batman committed the murders, not someone else. So how does that morally fit in to lying? Without knowing the values of the initial morals in Batman’s moral code, or any moral code, logical evaluation of the code seems difficult…

Pomposity, heterosexist creepiness, idiotic hyperviolent childish movie. I hated this movie squared a million times!!

P.S.: The “radical” in the subtitle is a bit affected don’t you think?

Let me note a couple of things – I will not waste a lot of time on something so unworthy, but it’s hard to let it go entirely unremarked –

‘homosocial erotic rivalry’ -?!?!? hunhhh???? is that modern psychobabble for two guys competing for the same girl??? (what about two girls competing for the same guy – would that be lesbosocial erotic rivalry??)

- Batman represents Bush/Cheney as they fight for freedom in the world through means not approved of by their constituents?!?!?! What f***ing planet is this guy from?!?!?!?! About 99% of the intelligent people in the world understand that Batman is the GOOD guy, and Bush/Cheney et al are the BAD guys – no ????? Is the writer a new breed of ’semi-intelligent’ troll or something? This stuff makes absolutely no sense – I keep reading only out of a sense of curiosity to see where it’s all going ….

- refrigerator girl syndrome – geez, one identified woman killed, along with dozens of male characters, and that death defines the whole film and means the writer hates women? What about the whole hospital getting blown up? Does that mean – no, I better not even start …

- he says it is ‘humorless’ – early on the Batman imitators ask what’s different about the real thing – he replies, under his breath, ‘I don’t wear hockey pads’ – and that is genuinely funny, an unexpected humorous moment that evokes a genuine chuckle, not a belly laugh, just a moment of genuine humor – there are others, but obviously the writer is not tuned in to such things ….

- I can’t even get into the last bit, the writer has fallen into some kind of complete psychotic fantasy that has nothing to do with the actual film at all – Batman enhances his own power?!?!?! – no, actually Batman decides to quit being Batman because he sees he has too much power; and “… the baddest bad man, the Joker, reveals to us that freedom is a dangerous delusion and an insane temptation..” – but actually, the end of the film shows the people taking control of their own lives, making their own decisions, refusing to be manipulated by the Joker.

One could write at length about the nonsense in this ‘review’, but I’ll waste no more time.

Actually, the film is quite ambiguous in many ways, thus the varying interpretations – but that is, in the McLuhanian sense, what it is all about – the medium is the message – the world does not work in a Bushian ‘we good they bad’ way (which seems to be the mindset of the writer of this piece as well, in various ways), but is much more complicated – and what is required is for We the People to stand up and talk about things, and try to work our way through this very complex world of some very good things and some very bad things (both very good and very bad often inexplicable), and of course endless shades of grey things in the middle, as best as we can – and as the near to final scenes on the ferries show ( OH NO!!!! Is ‘ferries’ a secret homoerotic message?!?!?!?) – we can do it. Not achieve Nirvana or anything, but if we keep our faith (in one another, not some superhero), and keep working at it – we can. Do it.

Go Batman. It was a GREAT movie.