| | If you haven't seen the movie, don't read this post. I expect it would spoil it for you.
So, I saw the Dark Knight yesterday. I have managed to miss much of the hype surrounding it. Perhaps that is due to my avoidance of typical advertising venues. Nevertheless, I ruined that avoidance by seeing the movie since there were about 5 hours of previews before it started. I haven't avoided some of the hype about the hype though. You know somethings wrong when people are reporting about reporting. I've seen more and more of that these days. Anyway, I'd rather talk about the movie. I can't pass up a good chance to put wax on philosophically.
Initial response:
Initial adjectives: dark, depressing, amazing, unbelievable (in the positive and negative sense), dramatic, etc.
There were times when I was watching this movie that I thought it was going to all end in a depressing non-triumphant way, where there is no good in humanity and all still seems wrong with the world. Maybe that's because I have an internal clock that strikes after two hours and I expect the movie to be over. Thankfully, it does end with the good side sort of winning. There were certainly several contrasting worldviews. Throughout the movie political implications were constantly infused. Another initial response I had was that this movie steps on some typical Hollywood plot toes. He doesn't save the damsel in distress, the bad guy doesn't die and the good guy doesn't get all the glory. What kind of comfy resolution does that bring to you?
Response after thinking a little more:
I've heard from the hype about hype that Keith Ledger steals the show. I completely disagree. If he would have stolen the show, then he would have done a poor job. He doesn't do a poor, he does an amazingly superb job. As my sister said, "you can't see Heath." He does such a good job of convincing you in his part that the actor completely disappears. He plays the role perfectly. As the obvious antagonist he does not steal the show. It's still about batman and his struggles. I could go on and on about how awesome or even devilish the joker character was, but I won't. I will say this, I never liked the idea of the joker until now.
What I enjoyed the most about the movie was the constant questioning of issues that were raised based on a certain worldview. The basic conflict came between the worldviews of chaos and chance versus the worldviews of hope, good and evil, and purpose in life. I've been frustrated with some movies in recent years where they blur the lines between good and evil and propagate a type of universalism where no one is really wrong and everyone is right from their own perspective. I've typically been fond of comic books that decry this notion and say that there are people in this world who are wrong, who are evil, and who believe lies. Our post-911 society has adopted some of this comic book anti-post-modernism mindset as they question pluralism. Not everyone can be right. There are some people who are wrong and who do evil things. Sure from their perspective they think they're right. But they're not. Truth stands above humanity's ability to judge and determine it.
The audience is taken on a journey of questioning. Are citizens and criminals basically the same? Are the systems of control that we have in place simply tools of evil men? Are mobs and governments seeking the same thing: stability for their own control of money? Are good and evil simply appearances? Are we left with no hope but chance itself?
The Joker's philosophy becomes very convincing at times. His basic premise is that everyone is the same. There is no distinction between good and bad people. Rules are established for control and that control is no different than what the so-called bad people are trying to do. Batman and the Joker are basically the same because they don't play by the rules, but the Joker is the purist in this philosophy in that he has no rules or limitations. The Joker's greatest effort is not to create chaos but to convince Batman that he is just like the Joker. This is almost convincing because Batman does break a lot of rules, such as non-violence or protection of privacy. Batman almost breaks his cardinal rule, not to intentionally kill, when he almost kills the Joker. The Joker is almost convincing when he sets up a sociological experiment pitting the citizens against the criminals almost showing that the citizens are no better than the criminals. (Side note: I thoroughly enjoyed the mockery of "civilized democracy" that was displayed on the voting boat. "It must be OK as long as we've voted about it")
Not everyone can resist the Joker's temptations. In fact the white knight of the movie concludes that if the Joker is right, then the only thing we are left with for hope in this world is chance. What a great demonstration of how nihilism is futile and unfulfilling.
But at the end of the movie, the Joker is wrong. Just because all men are similar in their bent toward evil does not mean that nothing good is possible. Our hope is that people will do good when given even a difficult choice, even one that threatens their own life. The Joker is wrong because there is no greater good than when a person lays down his life for another. What makes this good so glaringly beautiful is that the knight of this movie sacrifices his life for those who do not deserve it.
I like this movie because it portrays evil as massively pervasive but not overwhelming, not the victor and ultimately wrong.
My question I leave you with is this: Why did Batman have to take the fall at the end of the movie? Why not just blame those deaths on the Joker? (I ask this question as it is necessary for the plot and for the philosophy of the movie)
|
| | Posted 7/27/2008 4:31 PM - 42 Views - 4 eProps - 3 comments
- recommend
  - recs0
- share
- email
 - sent0
|
