Kevin's Watch

Lord Mhoram, I see what you mean. Batman did agonize over issues you raised. I misunderstood; I thought you were talking only about his final choice, and not the lead-up to it.

How did the system of Gotham fail the people? Together with Batman, the cops captured the Joker, and were kicking the mob's ass.

The people of Gotham failed. They went from impersonating Batman at the beginning, to calling for his head to save their skins. They were reduced to p*ssies by a little danger. It took a criminal with the sack to do the right thing on the ferry.

I'm trying to keep separate my views of the real world with my views of the movie, but it's difficult. I think people in America are nearly as whimsical and weak when it comes to, for instance, fighting terrorism. We blame the government so quickly when something happens to us like 9/11 ("government failed us!"), and yet we call for government's "head" when we disapprove of their response to terrorism. We want them to save us, but then complain about the way they do it. If the government misleads us, is there any wonder as to why it is necessary?

Ok, back to the movie . . . do you think Batman's choice was wrong? Should he have told the truth to these people who were about to blow each other up? Sometimes protecting the people also involves protecting them from themselves . . . especially when this means protecting them from mob behavior induced by widespread panic.

Lord Mhoram wrote: You say that the people are "dependent" upon the system. If they are, it's because the "system" has drawn them in with what propagandists call "necessary illusions" like the outright lie that Dent died a saint so that people would continue to have faith in the governance of Gotham. If you really want to glean people off the government, stop lying to them to increase their dependency.

I don't know if you're talking about the movie, or your own opinions of our government. When did the "system" make the people of Gotham dependent upon itself by drawing them in with "necessary illusions?" The only time this happened was at the end. The people were dependent upon Gotham's police and Batman long before this illusion. And they were dependent because they were weak.

This isn't a criticism of them. Lots of people ARE weak, and they can't help it. Not everyone can be a superhero, or even a regular hero. However, because some people are weak in terms of physical ability, they allow this to translate into "spiritual" weakness, too. In other words, they allow their physical limitations to cause them to be unable to face unattractive truths . . . namely, the necessity of physical might. Because they lack it, they try to pretend that it's not necessary. And so they lie to themselves that everything they want/need can be accomplished merely by being "a good guy." But when the chips are down (e.g. on the ferry), they don't even have the strength to be a "good guy." No, they decide to blow each other up (but don't even have the balls to do that). It's the "bad guy," who ends up doing the right thing on the ferry.

So, what do you do with a bunch of people who are ready to throw their hero under the bus, who are ready to blow each other up to save their own skins, who are easily unhinged when their self-imposed illusions crumble (that illusion: being a "good guy" is all you need, not fighting dirty or sheer might)??? What do you do with these people? Well, you lie to them. Because their physical weakness is merely impotence, but their spiritual or mental weakness can be downright dangerous to society. They'll either blow up each other, or try to cut the balls off the very people who are protecting their weak asses.

No, I vehemently disagree. The dependency upon the system (either Gotham's government or our own government) comes from people voluntarily giving up their power to the system by not being strong enough to face unattractive truths such as: 1) the need for increased self-sufficiency, as well as 2) the need to step out of the way and let government do its job when you aren't sufficient (or willing) to do it yourself. The "necessary illusion" comes from a refusal to acknowledge 1 and 2. It is a reaction to dependency, not a cause of it.

Whether or not you agree with that in the real world (I'm betting you don't ), I believe that's the only interpretation that fits The Dark Knight. The illusion came at the end, in response to the weakness (both physical and "spiritual") of the people of Gotham, NOT as a means to make them dependent upon Batman or Gotham police.

Malik23 wrote:Sometimes protecting the people also involves protecting them from themselves . . . especially when this means protecting them from mob behavior induced by widespread panic.

Ahh, I see other's feel the same about that band as I do.

Sorry.

Nothing to see here.

Carry on.

I can understand why the lie at the end seemed appropriate, and yet how awful would it be to reveal

Spoiler

that white knight Harvey Dent went insane after his love was killed (instead of him) and he was horribly disfigured?

How hard would it be to spin that the 5 people he killed were either mafia figures or corrupted by them? Why did that have to be laid on Batman? To justify the title Dark Knight?

The more I think about it, the more it feels contrived.

The regular citizenry was not a panicked mob.

Spoiler

On the ferry, they voted, but were too appalled to act (though I find it hard to believe that just one tried).

How does this final lie prevent a mob atmosphere?

Besides, the truth is easier to remember.

IIW, good points. True, the people weren't acting quite like a mob yet. They did vote. However, there is always the potential for mob behavior during a crisis (think: Katrina).

I agree that the ending seemed a bit contrived. Perhaps there was an element of preserving Batman's "dark" aspect as a character. He's not Captain America. He's a vigilante. I think this move was intended (in part) to keep up that divide between the hero and the people he served, to retain his beyond-the-law status. It was meant to absorb the payoff from the press conference scene, when Bruce almost gave himself up--to retain that public outrage against our hero. This manipulates us, the audience, to have even greater sympathy for him (feeling that he is unfairly judged).

But I also think that it was a comment on the people, themselves. Perhaps it's a bit too neat and tidy, as a "moral" at the end of the movie. And maybe that's why it feels contrived to you. But I think the point was built up for the entire movie, with the corruption of the police, with the necessity to use Batman to do their illegal dirty work, with the people willing to throw Batman under the bus, with the people willing to kill each other to save themselves. Joker's monologues about chaos, and how this can bring out people's animal nature, also ties into it. The point was that society is held together by a very thin thread of hope in the goodness of man, and the justice of those who are in control. I think that the point was that our "goodness" and our stable society are very unstable illusions. We're all very close to becoming the Joker, ourselves. All it takes is enough of what we care about to pass away, for us to realize the illusion. Batman and Gordon weren't inventing this illusion, they were merely maintaining it. The people had already been fooling themselves for so long, they deemed it too dangerous to show them the truth at such a critical time.

I'm curious to see how these themes are expanded and resolved in the next movie.

Currently #49 adjusted, #3 non-adjusted.

Saw it again today, enjoyed it a lot more. The preachiness didn't bother me nearly as much.

I still thought the final act took too long, however, given the payoff. I think the problem is that the Joker's big trick (getting caught, interrogation, Rachel/Dent, etc.) had already been played, and having the ferry scene sputter to an anticlimax, combined with the patients disguised as bad guys, was a really weak way for him to go out. I suppose technically, Dent is his final act. And that's quite clever, as it develops narratively from the Rachel/Dent switcheroo. But since I've got problems with Dent on his own, I thought the movie really shambled its way to an end.

Oh well, not much more to add. I saw the same flaws, but was able to look past them and really enjoy the first 4/5 of the movie much more than the first time around. I'm really excited about an extended addition.

There's an extended addition on the way? Nice.

I'm just hoping. I heard there was 3 hours worth of material.

Harvey Dent is dead.

I asked Chris [Nolan] that question and he goes, "You're dead" before I could even get the question out of my mouth. "Hey Chris, am I?" "You're dead!" Alright, cool.

Fuck. That.

it just means they have to wait until Nolan is no longer a part of the franchise .. heck, we all know that no one in comics is ever truly dead.

No-one's fancied mentioning the rumoured casting of the next film?

There is no way I can see that working.

I dont think she'd be that bad, much better than Halle Berry or someone. A different take on Catwoman might be good.

I actually think it's a better choice than Berry. It makes the role more interesting.

And since Cher's roughly that crazy cat-lady age......

As a massive Batman fan, the news that Cher might be in the next film as a lead makes me die a little inside.

I hate that woman.

If Cher is the next Catwoman, it will just cement my reasoning for getting the real Catwoman tattooed on my back.

Jeezus, you might as well just go ahead and cast Eartha Kit, their about the same age.

From a purely objective standpoint, Cher as Catwoman doesn't make sense. Catwoman is approximately Bruce Wayne's age; she's supposed to be his occasional lover/rival, not his creepy aunt.

My immediate reaction was a combination of horror and disbelief, but that was my reaction to Heath Ledger's casting too, and that worked out. So I can't really justify dismissing Cher...yet.

Cail wrote:I actually think it's a better choice than Berry.

No offense to Berry or fans of the movie, but Catwoman was IMO one of the worst movies I have seen. 104 minutes of my life senselessly stripped away.

Cail wrote:And since Cher's roughly that crazy cat-lady age......

Cher has had more career revivals than most cats have lives. Although not a fan of hers I (hopefully) objectively don't think she will fit the part well.