Posts
Thus was titled the NR review when Tim Burton's stylized vision of the Caped Crusader debuted some 20 years ago. While I have forgotten the precise spirit in which it was written, I believe the review made the point that Batman's ideology was discerned in his open embrace of vengeance as a motivation for chasing the Joker. None of Superman's "truth, justice and the American Way" in the abstract for him; no, with Batman, it was personal.
This particular aspect of Batman's character didn't last even through the second movie, and is nowhere present in Chris Nolan's more gritty reimagining of 2005. Yet, it is hard not to view last year's The Dark Knight as other than an extended apology for the War on Terror, and specifically the widespread use of electronic surveillance by the Bush administration.
That said, Batman's alleged infractions are pretty tame. Other than monitoring the cellular network, his exercise of private violence is common to the superhero genre. He doesn't even kill the Joker! And the express theme at the close -- that Batman will choose to shoulder the burden of public obloquy -- is, in context, a head-scratcher. For he doesn't shoulder this burden for the public safety: for "doing disagreeable things so that common people can sleep safely in their beds at night," in John le Carre's memorable phrase. Rather, he shoulders it for something he didn't do, so as to protect the reputation of prosecutor Harvey Dent. Why? Something about how Dent's reputation gives people faith and hope in . . . something. But Dent understandably went off the deep end, and he's dead anyway, so what's the point, why not come up with a better cover story than this?
The film is ambitious and raises some good questions, but the story ultimately falls short of its potential.
1 comment:
I believe the review made the point that Batman's ideology was discerned in his open embrace of vengeance as a motivation for chasing the Joker.
It's worth noting that in the comic book community this was a departure and rather controversial. Batman from the comics has not killed since the 50's. It's pretty central to the character. Even Superman has killed before, as did the second Robin, but not Batman (no matter how obvious it is that it is the only solution to prevent the further taking of life). In many respects, Nolan's vision is much closer to the comic book Batman than anybody else's. The biggest detour he took was the whole outlaw thing at the end of Dark Knight.
This particular aspect of Batman's character didn't last even through the second movie,
I think that one of my original complaints about the movie is that the climax consists of Batman pretty much standing around watching his opponents either die or kill one another.
Yet, it is hard not to view last year's The Dark Knight as other than an extended apology for the War on Terror, and specifically the widespread use of electronic surveillance by the Bush administration.
As a condemnation of Bush's actions in the WoT, it's pretty weak. Sure, Fox objected to the cell phone setup and Batman destroyed it when they finished, but they used it as the threat required, it was handled responsibly, it was successful, and they couldn't have won without it. A good portion of the movie was dedicated to the (pro-WoT) proposition of doing whatever you have to do in order to get done what needs to be done.
But Dent understandably went off the deep end, and he's dead anyway, so what's the point, why not come up with a better cover story than this?
On this much, we can certainly agree. That was kind of a needless turn. They could have preserved Dent's secret without making Batman's job significantly more difficult.
Post a Comment