"shear cinematic power" How about "sheer"?

Ouch. Thanks for the catch.

Thanks, Jim. I suppose the notion of "cutting or clipping with a sharp instrument" doesn't make a whole lot of sense in that context, does it? Perhaps I was trying to make a point about Editor Lee Smith's contributions to the film, and just didn't realize it.

The editing was excellent.

(And thanks for fixing that, Brian. It will serve as yet another reminder that I rely a bit too heavily on Microsoft Word's AutoCorrect feature for my own good. I can't really expect it to catch homonyms like that...)

Your comments on the Joker as a presentation of irrational evil are spot-on, but I might take it even further. Films of this sort typically have villains in them, it's true. Sometimes they're even monstrously evil villains. But no superhero film I've ever seen before (and precious few films in general) have actually had Evil itself as a character. There have been evil characters before, naturally, but mere criminals - even arch-criminals - are still motivated by a desire for the good in one way or the other. They want prosperity, or security, or what they believe to be a sort of justice, but their brush with evil makes them pursue these things through illicit means like deception, theft or murder. They are certainly sinners, but they are not Sin.

For the Joker is not an evil man; he is Evil itself, illogical, unmotivated, unpredictable, and (seemingly) unstoppable. He cares nothing for his own safety or enrichment. All he wants, if he can be said to want anything, is to seek out goodness and order, no matter where they are, and destroy them completely. The spine-chilling soliloquies he delivers are quite masterfully wrought. The whole interrogation scene is great, as you say, but his entirely accurate taunt as Batman is beating him senseless has a sort of staggering depth to it: "You've got nothing - <i>nothing</i> - you can threaten me with. Nothing you can do with all of your strength!" This is what Despair and Futility say when they meet Hope and Purpose.

<i>The Dark Knight</i> captures all of this perfectly; whereas <i>Batman Begins</i> was about a man "becoming a concept" in the creation of the symbol that is Batman, in this case we have something more terrible still: <i>a concept becoming a man</i>. The Joker's lack of origins (and his lies about same) make this quite compelling, and his constant, serpent-like contortions and rhetorical eloquence lend him a menace that hearkens back to a Being that our general parents once had the misfortune to meet face to face, however briefly. His clothes show no sign of having been made in a conventional way, for such would require far more organization and planning and general order than he would allow. The film's marvelous score has no "Joker's Theme" that plays when he's around; it's just an awful, stomach-churning chord, drawn out uncomfortably long. Any actually melodic music would need too much co-operation and artistic sympathy, and he can brook neither.

The Joker is the Abyss given a body and a tongue, and he is no longer content merely to stare back.

Please forgive the ugly <>'s in the post above; I just assumed it used HTML for encoding and barely even glanced at the formatting buttons that were right in front of my face.

Joseph, this movie is astonishing, I agree with you completely. Yes, it's not art house pretending to be a summer blockbuster, but it has the moral complexity of an art house movie without the boring bits. I would warn our readers that this is not a movie for young children -- the figure of the Joker is the stuff of nightmares. Ledger's performance will be written about for decades to come; he IS the man who just wants to "watch things burn." What is so remarkable to me what he does with his body, somehow is inhabits the form of rag-doll with terrifying force. I will go back to this film because some many details were passing me by before I could process them, especially the character of the police commissioner, played by Gary Oldman, who's usually the wierdo in any movies he's in. NOT THIS TIME!

AFter seeing the movie yesterday, I agree with everything that's said...but there's one caveat that really needs to be addressed: the ending. The Dark Knight does eveything it can to tell us that "the ends don't justify the means" only to completely "shoot itself in the foot" at the movie's end.

This is indeed an excellent movie - it's the only superhero movie I've ever seen that I can truly say is deserving of an academy award - but goodness gracious, I can't emphasize enough how problematic the ending is. And Deal is right to warn everyone about the need for parental guidance here, as well. Batman Begins was dark, but this sequel ups the ante by leaps and bounds.

Hey guys -- just a note, if you want to be extra careful about "hiding" spoiler comments: You can highlight the spoiler text and change the text color to white, so that it can only be read by readers highlighting the empty space. Try highlighting the words after this colon: spoiler comments here

Like so. I'm trying extra hard to avoid any possible spoiler detail on this one, so I thought some others might appreciate it, too. Heh.

Nick and Deal:

Needless to say, I am in complete agreement. The unique existence of the Joker is exactly what I was trying to reference in the title to this piece; I think it is essential to my understanding of the film's message (and ending) that he be seen for what he is: Evil incarate. The lack of backstory and the amazing dialogue in the interogation room (and later in the hospital) underscore that interpretation, I think.

Andy:

I believe I understand your concern. I do think that there are several ways to interpret the finale, and the one you appear to be advocating needs to be addressed. I'm at a bit of a loss as to how to address it without being more explicit about the film than might be prudent here. (I will admit to a high level of paranoia when it comes to spoiling these sorts of things...)

So, I've put the next comments in "White Text." I'm hoping that makes them invisible to the casual reader. But if you highlight them, you should be able to read it.

Are you refering to the fact that the film to undercut the notion of heroes? Or that it is advocating lying to the people of Gotham about Harvey Dent's demise?

Or perhaps it is something else altogether?

Joseph and Andy, remember Plato's "noble lie"?

WARNING: Acres of White Text and Bizzare Musings Ahead. And my apologies in advance for the length. I can’t seem to think any short thoughts when it comes to this film.

I can see both sides of the coin on this one. The notion that “the people can’t handle the truth” strikes me as both occasionally true, and frequently problematic. And it did cause me a bit of consternation during the film’s final moments. But the theory that began to form in my sleep-deprived mind as I thought more and more about the closing moments was of a different kind entirely, based on a different level of symbolism I saw present in the film.

The more I thought about The Joker’s clearly demonic presence, the more I was struck by Batman’s final actions. The fact that his opponent is the Devil leads one to consider what corresponding spiritual figure Batman represents, and I must admit that Satan’s Eternal Opponent seems like the most obvious option.

Harvey Dent was a hero. His courage and ideals were with him from the moment he first arrived on the screen to the moment when I believe he left it: the death of Rachel. Two Face is not Harvey Dent. He is the product of the unbearable weight of suffering Dent endures, and I do not think his crazed actions should be seen as connected to the White Knight. So, telling the people of Gotham that he died a hero is justified, at least in my mind. He was a hero.

But in spite of his heroism, there is the undeniable fact that he – like all of us – has fallen. Batman, recognizing both Dent’s sins and the paradoxical heroism of the man, takes the consequences of Dent’s fallen nature upon himself. My recollection of the language at the end there is not as clear in my mind as I would like, and the fact that the theater I attended had problems with the sound levels does not help here, either. But I felt that the exchange between Gordon and Batman was much stronger than simply saying: “Let’s just tell folks that I did it instead of Dent.” He is far more active; accepting the sins and taking them upon himself in a way that makes them his own – Christ-like. (Dent is made whole through this action, as is clearly indicated by the last image we have of him – the huge photograph behind Gordon at his eulogy, where both sides of his face are clearly in view. He is no longer Two-Face, and I don’t think it’s simply because Gothom is being kept in the dark.)

Batman recognizes that because he (as Alfred says) can endure, his greatest gift to the city of Gotham is not his role as a dark and terrifying vigilante of Justice, but as a victim soul for the transgressions of the whole city. He is not only the scapegoat for Harvey Dent’s sins, but for the entire city. Think of the crushing weight he takes up himself as he flees from Gordon’s reluctantly summoned cops. And yet, his sacrifice is small compared to the one made by He who became Scapegoat for the entire human race.

I cannot begin to describe how grateful I was to Nolan for a single small detail in those final moments: the presence and insight of Gordon’s son. As Batman begins his hunted life through the eternal night of Gotham, the little boy says (paraphrasing slightly): “But he’s not bad, Father. He hasn’t done anything wrong.” Perhaps the adults of the city are not ready for the Truth, but the youngsters – those who see clearly – recognize that Batman is not evil; that he is in fact the true hero of Gotham. That’s the message that stays uppermost in my mind, even now.

There you have it. At times, I wonder if I’m reading far, far too much into the finale, and I think that there is much here that Nolan would not have explicitly intended. But I strongly believe that his efforts to deal with the larger themes of Good and Evil – of self-sacrifice and redemption – make them implicit in the work regardless of his intentions.

Now I need to see if I can find a way off this theoretical twig before it snaps under the weight of my own musings.

I have yet to see this film, so I'll refrain from engaging on any of the fine points stated above (and won't opt to de-cloak the white text.)
I am intrigued and warily anticipating to take in the work of Bale and Ledger.
But I'd like to regress back to a few other recent "embodiments" of evil and cite them so that comparisons and contrasts with the Dark Knight and Joker might offer perspective before I see the film.
In the post-Hitler, late 20th century, I saw Hannibal Lecter as the then post-modern archetype of evil inhabiting the human, particularly in the book and film of "Silence..." and the books _Red Dragon_, _Hannibal_, and _Hannibal Rising_. In a word, Lecter's soul is conflicted, and to me, that suggests the Evil has purpose. That Lecter was so maligned both enabled his demons to surface "at will" but also disabled him from recognizing that his actions were immoral, criminal. As Will Graham said "You have a disadvantage: you're insane."
Now, in the space of a year we've seen the portrayal of two newer and different archetypes: the assassin (Javier Bardem) in "No Country..." and the oil baron in "There Will Be Blood"
In the former I could not detect an ounce of humanity or conscience in this horrifying character. And he still moves about the earth seemingly without purpose or clear motive other than to kill. In the latter, well that seemed to me more like a microscopic litany exposing the deadly sins taking root and going the cycle.
What does the Joker bring to the table that exceeds the malevolence of his literary and film version predecessors?

Thanks for not destroying the ending, going to see it tonight and i can't wait, especially after that review! Pax..

I hesitate to speak too categorically about all the particular literary and cinematic predecessors, both because there are many I have yet to experience and because not everyone will respond quite the same way to various evil personifications. But I'll take a stab at it.

To my mind, the unusual (perhaps even unique) aspect The Joker offers is his single-minded focus on the corruption and destruction of order. Anton Chigurh, who does seem to suggest a demonic presence, is still very much focused on violence and killing, and seems to have at least a nominal end he hopes to achieve though his actions. The Joker, while certainly willing and even pleased for death and destruction to follow in his wake, is primarily interested in chaos. To me, he highlights the irrationality and wilfully wrong-headed nature of evil, and the fact that his motivations and actions are incomprehensible to Gotham's "traditional" crime lords is exactly the reaction I think we are supposed to have. (Again, though I am repeating myself, I think the lack of a backstory is essential. There is no "becoming" for The Joker; he simply is.)

Lecter and Plainview both seem to me to deal more explicitly with the effects of evil on human beings. And since I believe that The Joker is meant to be seen as an inhuman being, I would distinguish them from one another for that reason.

And from a purely emotional perspective: I found that I was more profoundly disturbed by The Joker's very presence - the rag doll aspect Deal mentioned, for example - than by any other villain since John Wither. I found myself hoping that Batman would triumph almost as much because The Joker would no longer be present onscreen as I did becuase I wanted the good to "win out." (I'm sure this is at least partially true because he is so fresh in my mind, but my skin is still crawling...)

I would like to add at the question:
What does the Joker bring to the table that exceeds the malevolence of his literary and film version predecessors?

This, Dante´s bottomless literary painting of the devil malice: instead of unpredictability (the Gospel says he tries to imitate God, but the backfiring is predictable), another aspect:

The impartial side of the name Joker: represents that the worst enemy we face is our satanic pride self-delusion, or the permanent jokes on our lives, that we perform gratis.

Cheers!

Joseph, I think you have nailed it, but I hope folks who have not seen the movie will resist reading your "white" posts. It occurs to me, also, that this has been a very good year for depictions of evil, notably, Javier Bardem's Anton Chigurth in "No Country for Old Men." Both are remarkable performances based upon screenplays for genius, in my opinion.

I did a post on The Dark Knight yesterday (on vox-nova.com); to really appreciate and understand the philosophical underpinning in the story, one must go back to de Maistre and his response to the chaos of the French Revolution. The answer he gave for the chaos is to have someone to take on the role of executioner (or Batman, as the case may be here), who will be both praised as doing what is needed to save society, while also becoming an outcast and hated for doing what they do. They touch evil, they take it on to themselves. It's a semi-messianic role (and in Batman, he is even "wounded" for society's transgressions). To make Batman the executioner, the Caped Crusader, he had to become reviled and feared; and he can't be seen as working within the law, because then the law is an easy target (as happened in this movie). While I would have suggested another way for that to be done than mere lies, it is understandable: and it is showing how Batman himself is tained by the chaos, even as the Joker can never let Batman die. He must have someone who can judge the chaos from outside of it. Batman must always be that man.

In this way, Batman can either represent the ultimate humanistic messiah figure, or someone following the path of Christ; but because his way is the way of violence, not love, I suspect the first is more apparent than the second.

Thanks to everyone for the restraint on the spoilers -- and thanks to Margaret for the great idea to hide them. I wanted to see what Catholics thought about the movie, but I won't be able to see it until my husband returns from his trip later next week.

I'm VERY excited to see it after all these reviews!

Warning: Pertains to the End

Joseph I think you have got it as well. My impression of the final scene (Gordon's talk in particular), especially the language about Batman as Guardian of the city, I could not help but think of the Saints - and in that regard a little Christ of course - and especially about his sacrifice/martyrdom of being persecuted for upholding justice.

All the characters, and especially Ledger, were amazing for sure!!!

But to go back to the Ferry scene, especially when the convict throws the detonator away, that was certainly one of the most powerful scenes for me. It invoked "judge not lest ye be judged" in a very vivid way - and I like how that played off the People of Gotham "overthrowing the Devil's reign (aka Joker" - with Batman personally overthrowing him. The parallel between Christ overthrowing the Devil and us, now part of the Kingdom, participating in the rebellion - Brilliant (even if unintended)!

Again, A White Text Warning.

I loved the ferry scene. I was on ideological pins and needles the entire time, and when the huge black convict said: "I'm going to do what you sould have done 10 minutes ago," my heart fell. I was convinced that Nolan was going to take the easy way out, and paint the ferry situation in the cynical light the Joker was cultivating throughout the film.

Shame on me.

Instead, the convict recognizes that, despite the crimes he and his fellow criminals have committed against humanity, if they take the awful step the Joker presents to them, the very idea of humanity will be meaningless.

I was also struck by the fact that the Joker is only truly nonplussed once in the entire film, and it is at that moment. He is so utterly convinced that the worst, most fear-filled part of human nature will dictate the actions of the ferry passangers that he is at a complete loss when there is no explosion.

He tries to conceal his consternation with the flippancy that "if you want something done right, you need to do it yourself," but he's definitely affected by his misjudgement, and his moment of distraction is enough for Batman to turn the tables. The fact that Batman is so convinced that there will be no explosion points to the fact that Nolan is fundamentally an optimist - a bit strange, given the incredible darkness in which he operates.

A great, great scene.

"They touch evil, they take it on to themselves. It's a semi-messianic role (and in Batman, he is even "wounded" for society's transgressions). To make Batman the executioner, the Caped Crusader, he had to become reviled and feared; and he can't be seen as working within the law, because then the law is an easy target (as happened in this movie).

In this way, Batman can either represent the ultimate humanistic messiah figure, or someone following the path of Christ; but because his way is the way of violence, not love, I suspect the first is more apparent than the second.[/quote]"

This exemplifies the problem with the first film. In attempting to create philosophical underpinnings for a comic hero they create an Antichrist. Notice how he embraces evil in order to fight it. This is not Christ's way. The Christian soldier does not take evil into his own heart. He is able to remain pure of heart, knowing violent actions may be needed to keep the peace. But he does not embrace the demonic the way Batman clearly has when he returns to Gotham in the first film. Notice simply the way he speaks. I've not yet seen the second film, but have seen countless clips of Ledger's performance as the Joker. Suffice it to say that I am less impressed with a depiction of evil than others in this discussion. Sure it's a necessary part of story telling, but certainly not the most interesting. Evil is quite clearly Hollywood's deepest expression of reality, and they mesmerize their public with countless "tour de force" performances of actors embracing evil and showing us how it destroys them and others. Pretty banal stuff in the absence of Christ's redeeming light. Where's that in this film? We have an antichrist versus a devil for the ultimate cage match in hell. Count me out.

August:

The Bocaccio´s depiction of Dante´s ultimate evil is a face of “malicious impartiality”: this in all of us mean that wheat and bad weed are GROWING, till Our Redeemer separate the sheep from the goats.

My point with the jokers’ game is: most of us don’t want to see the impartial nature of the judgment or its evolution process, and DO want to obscure the daily negotiations with our not so black-white pride self-jokes.

Cheers!

I'm not enough of a philosopher to really delve into some of the topics mentioned on this thread, but I'm still very excited about seeing TDK!

Re: Hollywood's expressions of reality, I agree with August, but sometimes truth is so large that even H-wood can't ignore it. Witness the pro-life message of Juno or the "power corrupts" message (among others) of the Godfather series.

I thought one of the best examples of good vs. evil in recent memory was Spiderman II. The hero didn't take on evil characteristics, and was, in fact, made to suffer for his "good" decisions. Any thoughts?

August:

I agree that Hollywood is frequently obsessed with the portrayal of evil - all too often at the expense of the redeeming light you mention. And I agree that the man held up as a hero at the end of Batman Begins is more than a little problematic. (I am not at all sure I'm willing to call him an antichrist, but that is probably a discussion for another time.)

However, it is also true that the understanding and portrayal of evil is essential for a fully coherent, nuanced consideration of the good and heroic. And while it is right to say that Hollywood frequently focuses on the darkness at the expense of the Light, a film that presents us with a deeply disturbing view of Evil does not necessarily do so at the expense of its counterpart.

Some of the issues we’ve discussed in the spoiler-safeguarded comments here – comments that folks who have yet to see the film should definitely avoid – deal with the very concerns you express here. While it might be small consolation to you (and might in no way increase your interest in seeing the film), I do not believe that your description of the film as “a cage match between a devil and an antichrist” accurately reflects Nolan’s vision.

I think that Batman undergoes a profound transformation between the finale of Batman Begins and the end of The Dark Knight, and I believe that Christ’s redeeming light is very much on display. And while Hollywood’s (and Warner Brothers’ Marketing’s) obsession with The Joker is troubling, the film has no such obsession.

Hi August, this has to delve in to the movie a little:

There is a major difference with how violence is used by batman in this movie compared to many others - or even the first. He doesn't kill anyone. This is major, even when we see him in TDK have lots of reason to mow down the Joker or even just "let him die", even after the joker kills the one closest to him (and it's not Alfred)...watch the movie and you'll understand. The use of violence by Batman is to serve Justice, and he never kills the criminals. It is not working within the framework of the laws of Gotham, but it is certainly within a moral framework which is why the movie and his figure is so compelling.

Joseph,

Thanks for your thoughtful response. It does seem to me that part of the brilliance of this series is that it has taken a fantastical superhero of children's imaginations and made him and his adversaries flesh and blood characters who could actually exist under the laws of nature. In fact, they're making a serious action adventure film that grapples with all of the philosophical questions alluded to in many above posts. But the Batman of the first film certainly returns in a demonic fashion. Simply observe the difference in character between Bruce Wayne and Batman. If a real human being spoke in those demonic tones you'd call for an exorcism. So you're suggesting the character arch in the second film moves him from this place to some place better. Okay, I'll have to see it. But I'm gonna wait until it shows for free on television, and not give money to another Hollywood film marketing the devil.

That's the way I would characterize the difference between the two films, August. And I can sympathize with your reluctance to contribute to an industry that so frequently displays its fascination with the satanic.

When you do eventually see it (on TV), I would be very interested to learn if your interpretation mirrors mine, or if the darkness continues to overwhelm the message, in your mind.

Joseph,

I'll be sure to catch up with you again when you review the third installment of this series, at which point I can speak with an equal lack of knowledge of that film, while either panning or praising the second. Until then...

August

While I have some problems of who Batman is and even becomes in the film, I have no problem with the question of evil being a primary focus for us to address. Indeed, once one accepts that there is evil, that there is a devil, and that people can embrace both, it points to the fact of the necessity of God (as The Brothers Karamazov shows). And since we experience its effects more and can see it around us more than some other ages, I think it is an important thing to consider, to point out, to show; the danger, however, is that it can become attractive in the demonstration. How do we avoid that? I do not know.

Congrats Henry for your line: “think it is an important thing to consider (the devil), to point out, to show; the danger, however…” besides his many attractive imageries, is what could be called Halloween-ization or trivialization.

Benedict XVI insists: our pervasive culture -in films specially-, is busy force-feeding the notion of an existence without God, with all His Law implications.

One favourite device for so doing is the banal characterization of evil, painting it in the mentally retarded (and beloved?) black and white heroes of yesteryear.

The culture of death, insidiously promotes ever new-evil-hero-angles, like the recent film of Meryl Streep-Aydan Quinn Chinese student of “black matter”, killing at large. The subtext of those Hollywood productions, infecting simpleton minds is almost boring: our life has no meaning, so waste it.

Cordially

Did anyone else see parallels between the Joker and the Walkin' Dude from Stephen King's The Stand? Both are interested primarily in chaos, neither has a real past, and both of them are just unhinged enough to leave you smiling, and then wondering why you were smiling at all. I would not be surprised if King's character played a role in developing the character of the Joker.

Why does Batman disguising his voice mean he's demonic? I found his "demonic tone" simply a realistic vocal mask to match the mask on his head.
And other than his voice, what indications were there that he embraced a demonic side?

Good question. The brilliance of the movie is in its fusion of a comic hero classic with realism. There's an explanation for everything it seems. Bruce Wayne/Batman is an ordinary man with extraordinary abilities and a drive to combat evil. But if we are appropriately drawn into this semi-realistic world we must invariable make at least semi-realistic assessments of it. Batman is something of a megalomaniac. Of course, I'm speaking of his character in the first film. But there's an excellent review of the second film at the New York Times (not their recent article about box office stuff, but the actual review). It seems to confirm this assessment. Of course, the above writer and other commentators have grappled with Batman's persona as well. So, what if we are just watching a megalomaniac square off with the devil? Sounds like a lot of action films, and certainly there might be deep philosophical insight to be drawn from it as writers here have done. Perhaps it's personal taste that I detest such films. But, if our hero is a megalomaniac who's working his way out of that into the light, I think we're placing too much faith in a Hollywood action series to take us there. My hunch is that they're gonna string this thing along in all it's darkness for several films. And, even if some brilliant writer can bring it out the other side, what we will have been invited to watch and revel in for countless hours before that will be, well, a cage match in hell. I like serious stories that grapple with good versus evil. I believe that art must do this. But art must also entertain, and there's no more thrilling art form in my opinion than great film. What are we thrilling ourselves with? Is it the philosophical underpinnings of this expose of evil, or the evil itself? And beyond the Catholic intellectual set that people this website, what does this kind of film do to our culture? Do you want to take your teenage son to see this film? Because that's who it's aimed at. And what do you tell them after the film? Don't be like Batman? He's a nut job? Because if you don't tell them that, I can assure you countless teenage boys will be taking something vastly different away from these films than we are.

The portrayal of evil provides the lust of the eyes with instant gratification. We like it. We are drawn to it and speak with great enthusiasm about it. And we want more...insatiably.

The praise given to the Joker, under the guise that it's good to see real evil (when in fact we see it every day; or at least should be able to see it)is problematic at best and could be a sign of more serious trouble.

The portrayal of Love is beyond Hollywood and most mediums of the media, and yet there are glimpses here and there of that all-powerful, self-emptying Mystery.

When the Dark Knight appears on TV for "free" (at the expense of the soul bombarded by legions of commercials) I'll have to check back here for the hurrahs. The TV in our house got traded for the woods this summer. Even mosquitoes are better than commercials in this Dark Age.

I am absolutely astounded that good Catholics who pray "lead us from temptation" can in any shape or form justify such a film. This film creates a darkness so overpowering that the small little good at the end can never justify the murkiness, the mood, the macabre, the toying with evil images. It is sad that modern men believe that they cannot be touched by evil.

We are weak creatures who need the protection of Our Lord and the prayers of His mother. How one can watch such a film is beyond me. It is time to say no to the whole output of such works which use "redemption" as a justifying theme, when really one is rationalising away the triumph of evil in every aspect of the film except a sordid little victory for a small good at the end. I think my argument goes: disproportionate evil means by the film makers to gain a good - a small good.

David,your comment "The praise given to the Joker, under the guise that it's good to see real evil (when in fact we see it every day; or at least should be able to see it)is problematic at best and could be a sign of more serious trouble", IS the general problem of NOT being "able to see REAL evil".

The one INSIDE us.

We know that every day: "like a lion makes his rounds", but for the present Hollywood dogma: we exist without God, and the devil is JUST for FICTION Halloween-superbaddies jokes, not real of course for the zombie deadliving goodie-folks, who just want to see "pure evil" in crazy soaps.

Cordially

I wonder how August, David and Michael would react to the novel Joseph Susanka referred to in his original review: _That Hideous Strength_ (albeit a novel which Lewis resisted having turned into a film). Or anything by Flannery O'Connor?

Ralph McInerny once said that, in Catholic theology, evil is the privation of good, whereas, in Catholic fiction, good is the privation of evil.

I haven't seen TDK yet, but it dawns on me that there is an obvious difference between THS and TDK: In THS, Lewis's goal is to show that, behind the facade of scientific rationalism, "population control," "polite society," and all the influences the world uses to lure us institutionally away from God, behind all that is the Chaos-Bringer, to borrow a term from _Transformers_.

Yes, most movies have villains that are either too shallow or too sympathetic. However, when Hollywood does express this kind of *stark* evil, as in the case of the Joker, (or the demons in _The Exorcist_), it tends to be in a situation where the person is clearly "the bad guy." Lewis always showed the malic and depravity behind the people the world presents as "the good guys." That's a key difference.

I don't see how, in a Church that used to put gargoyles on its cathedrals, we can really take offense at Bruce Wayne adopting the frightening persona of Batman.

I also don't see how anyone can call him evil when, like most superheroes, Batman, as a matter of principle, refuses to use lethal force or to kill (a major flaw in the 1989 movie and its sequels). That is just part of the character, and not a particular "spoiler" of this film (O'Connor, BTW, had some interesting comments regarding "spoilers" in "On Her Own Work").

Interestingly, this sets most "superhero" characters apart from most traditional "good guys" like knights or cowboys. Superheroes have the *ability* to kill but know that to kill would set them apart from the rest. One of the most obviously "Catholic" themes that strikes me in _The Lord of the Rings_ is Gandalf's requirement that they show mercy to all captured enemies, even Saruman.

In the campy 1960s TV series, Batman is always talking about trying to reform the villains (especially their attractive girlfriends). Yet that is as much an aspect of the "true" Batman (in a mythic sense) as the "Dark Knight" image of the last 20 years or so in comics and films.

I also don't think it's fair to categorize him as a megalomaniac. Was Mother Teresa a megalomaniac for "fighting evil" an in extreme way by living among the poorest of the poor? Are sidewalk counselors "megalomaniacs" for going out and "fighting evil" in the way that seems most important to them? Each of us is called in a special way to "fight evil," in accordance with our stations in life.

Bruce Wayne is a billionaire. He could use his fortune to fund Planned Parenthood, as most real world billionaires do. He could use his fortune to live a Jet Setter lifestyle, as he pretends to do. Instead, seeing the greatest immediate need in his own city is to fight corruption and crime, and seeing how his own father's philanthropic efforts backfired in a corrupt system, he decided to adopt an alternative means, in accordance with his station in life.

In Christian Bale's own words in reference to Bruce Wayne: "Batman is his hidden, demonic rage-filled side."

Definition of megalomania: infantile feeling of omnipotence when retained later in life. A psychopathological condition characterized by delusional fantasies of wealth, power, or omnipotence. An obsession of grandiose or extravagant things or actions.

Okay, so it's an action movie, but they're inviting us to take it very seriously. Batman has no superpowers, he's an ordinary human being. Let's make an accurate assessment of how Batman relates to the human condition. He's not a messiah, as some above posts have suggested. He does not represent God, as has astonishingly been suggested. He's not the figure of a Saint. And he's not a model for Christian soldiers.

"A psychopathological condition characterized by delusional fantasies of wealth, power, or omnipotence. An obsession of grandiose or extravagant things or actions."
Thank you for proving my point. Bruce Wayne does not have delusions of wealth or power; he is wealthy and powerful.

"Batman is his hidden, demonic rage-filled side."
That gets to Hollywood's mentality that demons are all about "rage". OK, that's a comment by the actor, but what about the writers and directors, and the original characters.

I would not so quickly dismiss an actor's take on the character he is creating. And a wealthy man who would see his role in life in this way would be a megalomaniac. We must surrender our power to God and use it in the service of His Church. Strong men may be called to fight, but they do it within the confines of Catholic just war theory. A soldier who wants to go beyond that and what it can accomplish must put down his sword and take up the conversion of souls. Am I taking this all too seriously? Look at the posts above that refer to this character in messianic and God-like terms. Pretty dangerous stuff. God revealed himself to us most poignantly in the person of Jesus Christ, who showed us the way of humility and the true power of God. Batman does not embody this, so let's put down the overblown rhetoric about his saintliness. I'll return to a quote by the actor, about his character in the film: "He's no angel," he says with a grin. So what is he? Let's be honest at least and know what darkness Hollywood is feeding us.

August, the statements above are engaging in a tried and true Catholic practice of typology, seeing Christ's role reflected in individuals.

I will have to see the film to make a final judgement about the nuanced discussions, and that won't be till it comes out on DVD, because it sounds farr too intense for me to see in the theater.

But I feel your comments mostly apply to the *character*, and I can speak to the character.

I'm not going to follow the red herring of just war theory. I really don't see how a guy saying, "I'm in a position to help people, and no one else can help them, so I should do it," is contrary to just war theory or megalomaniacal.

In theory, the reason all Batman's adversaries end up at Arkham Asylum is the hope that theyll be reformed.

And I have a hard time seeing how your complaints could not apply just as easily to FLannery O'Connor or J. R. R. Tolkein.

So it's down to two people who haven't seen the movie debating it. This is rich. The writers and editors of this blog who have seen the movie must be getting a kick out of us. But I hope they will respond to some of the more nuanced questions that I've raised. How does Batman's character relate to real life in that we are supposed to see him in that light? Is he a model for behavior? If we see ourselves capable of single handedly combating crime by martial means in a lawless city does that make us insane? Is this a Christian model for addressing such a problem? I complained about how teenage boys will take all of this. Will they start storming out of the house to deal violence to criminals? And if they do, is that an advisable tactic? We want to raise tough young men in the Catholic/Christian tradition, capable of action but disciplined in their use of it, always in service, not in rogue manners. You think this sort of thing won't translate? We've had anti-abortionists take the law into their own hands. Why are they wrong, under the new self-appointed martial-messianism of Batman?

I see that an interesting debate continues to rage here, but I find myself faced with the same problem I had when August first raised his concerns several days ago.

I feel that the end of The Dark Knight shows us Batman in an entirely new light, and not at all the one that the finale of Batman Begins would have suggested. There are a number of important questions August asks that I believe are addressed quite explicitly in the film, but I find myself in the frustrating position of trying to answer those questions without actually saying what happens. I am unsure how to say more without potentially spoiling a quite spectacular finale for those who have yet to see it, and so I fear that I must leave my un-white-texted thoughts vague for the time being.

A general comment about my understanding (or misunderstanding?) of Christ figures in film might be helpful, though. When I used the term, I was thinking of a fairly specific literary/cinematic notion. There is a figure sometimes referred to as a "Jesus Figure" that is best described as one who represents Christ "straight up" - something from The Greatest Story Ever Told or Jesus of Nazareth, for example. That's not what I'm talking about, and I'm sorry if my rhetoric became overblown to the point where some folks thought I was saying that Batman is The Second Coming.

A "Christ Figure," on the other hand, usually means someone who displays characteristics that are commonly associated with Christ: working miracles, for example; or sacrificing one's self for the good of others; or healing the sick; or dying for one's beliefs; or that old Hollywood sci-fi favorite: death and resurrection. When I call Batman a Christ figure, I simply mean that he displays certain likenesses that help to remind us audience members of that True Superhero.

I can think of any number of these "Christ Figures" - Neo, from The Matrix films; Leon, from The Professional; Klaatu, from The Day The Earth Stood Still; Spock in Star Trek II; Killer Kane in The Ninth Configuration; John Coffey from The Green Mile; and the title character from The Iron Giant, to name a very, very few - where I (and pretty much anyone) would stop well short of saying "go thou and do likewise." They do not act or sound like Christ in every respect, or even in most respects. And they often crop up in the most unexpected and incongruous places.

But they also bring a certain light and grace - I am struck by JC's Flannery O'Connor nod - into situations that would otherwise seem hopeless: a breath of fresh air, so to speak. And while I can recognize the very real dangers of being misled into seeing evil for good that you mention, August, I think that there can be many cases where the figure should be more properly thought of as bringing good out of evil...or at least bringing good out of the broken human nature in which we find ourselves. And that is not dangerous; it is inspiring.

Whether Batman falls into the first of these cases or the latter is certainly a matter for debate. I, as is fairly obvious from the acres of white text in the above comments, feel that it is a case of great good bring brought out of our (or in this case, Batman's) darkest hour. Whether you would think that, August, is another matter altogether. I do ask this of you, though: try not to judge The Dark Knight film or Batman's spiritual condition at the end of this sequel by what you saw in Batman Begins. I think we are dealing with a much larger character arc here.

I hope that, if you decide to finally watch the film, you will read it the way I have, August, because I think the darkness and despair that exists for much of the film makes the subtle optimism present at the end much more shocking and ennobling than it might otherwise seem. But even if you don't see that optimism, or don't see that "the light is worth the darkness one must wade through to reach it," I think you will see that this is a more complex issue than simply that of Hollywood feeding us poison disguised as honey. Nolan’s portrayal might be incorrect (or more likely, incomplete), but I do not believe that it is either evil or without value.

Oh, and I love that McInerney quote, JC. I've been trying to put my feelings on the portrayal of evil in fiction and film into words, and now I don't have to. (Or at least now I shouldn't, because I can't possibly say it better than that.)

Thanks so much for your response. I've already overextended myself on this one, but I do think the questions I've raised in the last post are worth addressing. I will have to see the film if I want them answered. Perhaps then I will submit my own review of the series to Inside Catholic. It's a great resource. I enjoy the insightful articles, and the intellectual honesty in searching for the truth exemplified by the above author.

I am in complete agreement with you here, August. They are fascinating questions, and well worth considering. In particular, the question of how much (if any) evil one should expose oneself to is an issue I've been trying to clarify in my own mind for some time now. I don't know that we quite see (or will see) eye-to-eye on it, but I would love to discuss these in more detail with you once you've seen the film and can better judge for yourself the level of my theory's craziness.

Please remember to look me up once that time comes. I'll be waiting...

If they do, then they didn't pay attention to the movie, which addresses that.

"You're Batman!"

Seinfeld quote: George Costanza speaking to Kramer regarding his greatness.

Well, I'm one of those editors who has seen the movie, and I must say I've really enjoyed your back-and-forth with Joseph. I've thought about jumping in a few times, but he always managed to say what I would have said, only more clearly, so I let him have at it. I'm glad you found it to be a worthwhile exercise (as I have enjoyed following it).

As for the "kids leaving the theater wanting to be Batman" phenomenon...eh, I don't think that's so much a worry. Kids who are at an age to see this film in the first place (i.e., teens) are much more likely to emulate the attitudes rather than the behaviors they see on-screen; I don't see them wanting to fight crime personally -- which, as Donato mentioned, is actually addressed in the film -- so much as perhaps taking the lead character's world-view to heart. And, as Joseph said, Batman undergoes a bit of an "attitude adjustment," to use a horribly trite phrase, in the course of TDK. They could find worse role models than a superhero who believes in the good and defending what's right in the face of overwhelming odds.

To August Driscoll,

I have seen the movie and I believe your cautions are right on the mark. The film is most certainly a cage match in Hell between the devil and the anti-christ -- however, I will give Nolan, the director, the benefit of the doubt for not having that intention.

I would like to cautioning everybody about making Christ-like comparisons to Batman -- that seems blasphemous on the face of it, to me. Furthermore, I disagree with those comparisons because Christ was NEVER violent except for the time when he defended His father's rightful property by chasing the money-changers from the temple. Christ never intervened physically to stop any injustice. Christ intervened by spreading The Word.

"How does Batman's character relate to real life in that we are supposed to see him in that light?"
Batman wields a tyrannical level of power. His benevolence is assumed and taken on faith. For all we know, Batman could be the ultimate villain intent on killing his competition in Gotham. If I faced somebody in real life who laid claim to the same coercive force as does the Batman, I would not trust him.





To Joseph Susanka,

It is unwise to rationalize Harvey Dent's conversion into Two-Face as the "product of the unbearable weight of suffering" and to reject it as an embrace of Evil for a few reasons:
1) it is impossible to know the motivations of an other person, much less your own -- only God can do that.
2) you are actually opening up the door for apologizing for The Joker's evil because you do not know his background -- for all you know, he could have been the product of the same suffering.
You are absolutely right that "the lack of a backstory is essential" and I suspect you may not realize how essential it may be. You can not say: "There is no "becoming" for The Joker; he simply is." because he must have come from somewhere.

With regards to Dent being made whole again at the end of the film, I would like to suggest that a person's true moral character usually comes to light when they are under stress. Harvey Dent IS Two-Face and The Joker most certainly can claim his conversion as a victory.




To NorthoftheBorder,
You are right, the Batman does not kill anyone but he does wipe out his competition -- even fellow crime-fighters. Yes, those fellow crime-fighters are bumbling amateurs who probably end up creating more harm than good. You can not say: "The use of violence by Batman is to serve Justice," because you do not know the motives of the Batman -- such omniscience is for God alone. Hitler, Mao Mao Zhe Dong, Stalin and Pol Pot presented themselves as servants of justice too by justifying their actions as means to a higher end.



To Charles CAVEATS,

I believe what The Joker brings to the table is the blurring of good and evil -- which is a form of chaos. Objectively, there is no difference between the two, anyway. You need God -- or some other super-natural entity or faith -- as a frame of reference to be able to identify evil. Without God, contrasting good and evil is as intelligent as explaining why cats chase mice.

While buying a bicycle at the Sports Authority today, I noticed some posters for sale. Posters of the Joker in all of his satanic anti-glory. Yet glorified for public consumption, with the caption: "Welcome to a world without rules." Without irony, as well, the hell was being sold...hook, line, sinker, and millstone.

To those who defend The Dark Knight as a sort of Dostoevskian morality tale, your tortured logic does no good for the kids you're helping down the drain by supporting the pushers of nuanced (just enough to convince you it has worth) filth.

And to compare the Dark Knight to the works of Flannery O'Connor is like comparing Ozzie Osborne to Hildegard of Bingen. An awareness of evil does not equal wisdom in answer to evil.

G.B. Shaw once tried to argue that Shakespeare was a pessimist, based upon the "Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow" speech from Macbeth. Thank God, God gave us G.K. Chesterton. GKC pointed out the simple and obvious fact that the speech was put into the mouth of a coward, murderer, and tyrant on the eve of defeat and damnation: clearly, Shakespeare was not endorsing its ideas. "It is not his fault if he wrote better pessimism than the actual pessimists." I will grant you that The Joker, like Milton's Satan, can be an attractive figure, in a hideous kind of way, for his power and his "purity." (I really like the phrase "anti-glory," by the way.) Although surely the fact that Batman triumphs in the end, and--crucially--WITHOUT compromising his own principles, counts for something? But that's not the point I wished to address. I only wanted to point out that the teenagers whom we are advised to shield from this movie, will inevitably encounter evil, chaos, and malice when they cease to be teenagers and go out into the world. Let us, by all means, show them movies like Therese and Bella. But are we really doing them a favor by letting them see no glimpse of evil, in a fictional form which amounts to a sort of spiritual training so that they can recognize it without being crippled by horror when they meet it face-to-face? If we lived in a world without rape and torture and genocide, I would agree that no one should watch movies like The Dark Knight. There is, however, one small problem with that "if."