The Dark Knight (Batman Movie) - A religious statement?

  • Thread starter Thread starter WindyHair
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Be hot or be cold! If you’re good, act that way! Stay that way! If evil, be evil! And let the world know you for what you are! The facade is not deceptive, it’s annoying!

you have a good point but here’s the dilemma,
EVERYONE claims to be the good guy,
and accuses others of being the bad.
everyone claims they have the truth
and the accuses the others of lies.

ofcourse WE aren’t the terrorists.
we only dropped 2 of the biggest bombs
in the world on innocent civilians.
what can be more terrorfying than
setting off nuclear bombs in cities?

it’s all a matter of perspective.
in the end there’s order and chaos.
but order is not always good,
and chaos is not always bad.
I’ve got to argue with that first point you made, and it’s really a simple common mistake ahem everyone makes and that is to stereotype, and say ‘All’ ‘every’ and ‘never’. See? Even I just did so. I think it’s a language problem. Anyhow, bigger than grammer is the fact that,👋 you’ve got one right here with no such claims to righteousness. But the point you made was valid.-ish.

Moving on then. Yeah, yeah, War is war, and we oughn’t waste our time with trying to justify or criminalize it. "The crueler the war, the faster it’ll be over’ as General Sherman used to say.

I’ll say it here, the end does not justify the means. Nor does the intent justify the means or the end. There is no justification. Someting is either utterly good, or entirely evil.

And though I’ve witnessed many a wicked order, I’m sincerely doubtful there has ever been or will be a good chaos. Pleasurable, oh yes, entertaining, quite. But good? No, as I see chaos as being anti-life, anti-growth. Chaos is decay of order, chaos is entropy, and thereby never good. Maybe.
 
Yeah, I understand the message they were trying to get across with the whole ‘social experiment’ thing at the end, but do you honestly think it would have worked out that way? Men aren’t good. No man is good. And one practically has to imagine goodness to see a glimmer of it in anyone.

Then again, such a dark film does bring out the pessimist in me, but I think the outcome would have been entirely different. On the prisoner barge? Possibly. The guilty yearn for justice. But on the passenger ferry? I envision the mother, in a frantic gesture to save her child, would have snatched the detonator away and turned the firing mechanism.

Which would, I think, have blown up the boat THEY were on, and not the other ship. Simply because, well, that’s how I’d rig it.

I think the Joker would have been much more pleased, not to see a dead Batman, but rather, a corrupted, or at very least broken one. In a way, he got just that, as Batman had to leave behind his place as Gotham’s hero to become it’s next monster. All so the people could believe a lie.

Essentially, I saw it very much so as being akin to the Watchmen, in which the evil means are presented as justifying the noble ends.

And to that end, I saw the Joker as being a degree more honest, depite the fact that he was a liar, in that his actions were in every way directed at a singular purpose, chaos.

Be hot or be cold! If you’re good, act that way! Stay that way! If evil, be evil! And let the world know you for what you are! The facade is not deceptive, it’s annoying!:banghead:
I am not sure how it would have turned out. You might be right. I deffinately agree that the Joker would prefer to see a corrupted Batman. That would prove his point. The Joker and Batman are almost like opposites. Batman tries to establish order while the Joker is chaos. But I don’t think that the Joker got his wish in the end of the movie with Batman being made the villan. Batman was only portrayed as the villan, it wasn’t reality that he was the villan. He took on the image of the villan for the sake of the people of gotham.

To WindyHair, when it comes down to it it is irrelevant whether the directors of Batman were trying to teach relativism(I don’t think they were). Whether they teach it or not doesn’t affect whether there is truth. Truth exists whether the directors of Batman think so or not. That said, movies are not a good guide to what is true or not.
 
My thoughts:

The whole thing really captivated me: the writing, the themes, the
acting, the suspense, the action even, which I usually don’t think twice about, the setting, the depth of the characters, and on and on. It really was much more than I had expected in a great way.

There were some things that seemed far-fetched of course, or at least, difficult to fathom. The Joker’s relationship with all of his ‘helpers’ was something that would have been interesting to explore more and it makes you wonder how he had the opportunity and the means to set up all his various grandiose plots and ploys throughout the film. The same could be said for Batman too, to some degree. And, I just couldn’t buy Two-Face fully in this film. There just wasn’t enough there or maybe there was too much. It’s hard to explain, I suppose, and I don’t mean that it was forced or that his choosing was a throwaway philosophical spin or anything like that. I suppose it’s just the turn of events with him seemed too jammed in. It just didn’t flow or work fully, though I wish I could articulate more why that is.

But regardless, the film was such that all of that really didn’t matter because it worked on so many other levels and if you accepted certain things, the film was practically perfect. I’d go so far as to say beautiful in some ways. It was not the least bit camp or trite and I found the ending particularly intriguing in regards to the notion of Batman as making the decision to be a further ‘sacrificial lamb’ type for what he invisions is the greater good, risking his own reputation and other hopes, it would appear (and then the Commissioner’s compliance with that). I think it’s that, above anything else, that takes this film beyond the usual conscience dramas and into a place that transcends easy moralizing.

It would be astonishing in some ways to see Batman even evolve into a type of character that comes to wrestle with God rather than with the impersonal good vs. evil dilemma, though I don’t know if that will ever happen. Indeed, God and Truth is behind the scenes in this film.

Often, you hear “justice” with superheros or even just heros in the normal sense, but rarely Truth. I think it actually is leaning towards a new realm though, which is promising. Batman, at least going by what he said in the last scene, is not merely about justice. If it were justice only, then maybe he could justify killing the Joker for the ‘greater good’, a kind of death penalty argument ethic. And with Dent turned Two-Face, and trying to protect Gotham further for their own good despite Dent’s bad choice, Batman seemingly accepts an unjust burden. He says essentially that he must bear this cover-up and be willing to take the blame, become the ‘villain’, etc. True, this isn’t truth in the sense of telling all of the facts straightforwardly and then accepting those necessary consequences (which justice would do, I think), but rather it’s love (agape love, not eros love) isn’t it? Isn’t that at least one facet of love, to turn over the self as a ‘gift’ of sorts, transcending the normal requirements boundaries of justice?

Sure, pop-psychologists will explain Batman away with a hero or messiah complex, but just as Two-Face is not, at bottom thought merely to be a victim of psychological forces but a spiritually depraved soul, then Batman too is the other side of that coin: whereas Two-Face willed his own ‘conversion’ into the dark side and ironically enough, became a kind of champion of ‘justice’ throughout the rest of the film (he wants to get Gordon’s family as payback), Batman willed the exact opposite, and not yielding to mere justice (which would have done away with the Joker and probably alot of other problems quite easily), he choses something higher. Perhaps Batman too has become converted a bit; you get the sense when he rides off into the distance at the close of the film that he’s doing this not merely because he ‘has to’, or because it’s his ‘fate’, or that he’s doing so begrudgingly, even that it’s merely still something stemming from his childhood loss (though I don’t deny that still must be part of his own psychological makeup), but that he’s doing so because he’s choosing so.

I suppose the next film will tell more fully who Batman is now that things are as they are. If he continues on in the way I see him at the end of this film, he may finally become, truly, a hero and the prior manifestations and masks throughout his journey may be shed to show, at bottom, that he is loving, and the resolution to the problems in Gotham and all of its characters are not found in ‘cleaning up the city’ with vigilante justice, but in transcending the scene and its normal demands altogether. If there is to be a resolution to the film series, I’d like it to be that one.
 
…True, this isn’t truth in the sense of telling all of the facts straightforwardly and then accepting those necessary consequences (which justice would do, I think), but rather **it’s love **(agape love, not eros love) isn’t it? Isn’t that at least one facet of love, to turn over the self as a ‘gift’ of sorts, transcending the normal requirements boundaries of justice?..

.
LOVE doesn’t LIE!
The Truth should always be sought over the Lie!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top