Peikoff answered a question on his podcast today about Aristotle's doctrine of the mean and why it's antithetical to Objectivist ethics. Towards the end of the question, he talked of the unintended consequence of Aristotle's idea of compromise...and said that one of the unintended consequences is that heroes and villains are distinguished "only by how much they do a certain thing..."...I thought this was interested as a possible alternative to the Christian motivation for keeping characters like Batman from killing...it's ok to punch a villain in the face to stop them, but not to kill them...or something like that...

In addition to the Rambo comparison, I thought of another movie/character that has a similar theme: the incredible Hulk. On Landon's take of accountability, it works much better, because you have a character in the Hulk who literally turns into a monster who is so powerful, more powerful than any government or military, follows no rules, that no one CAN hold him accountable. What makes it relevant is that the Hulk is sometimes a Superhero, and often characterized by outsiders as such, yet he wears the green and purple colors of the comic book villains. His alter-ego, Bruce Banner, is the heroic one, in that he tries to keep the Hulk in check. (Jeckyl and Hide). What made him heroic was his actions in the origin story, where he rescues another person caught in a gamma blast, only to absorb the radiation and suffer the transformation himself. (Incidentally, this aspect was missing from the earlier film, accounting for part of that film's unpopularity.)

This has relevance from an Objectivist standpoint, btw...On the issue of making superheroes too "Real" and "psychological." Rand wrote about this decades ago in the Romantic Manifesto:

 [On horror stories]: "Popular literature, more honest in this respect, presents its horrors in the form of physical monstrosities. In 'serious' literature, the horrors become psychological and bear less resemblance to anything human; this is the literary cult of depravity."

The comics have done just this in recent years: taken the "metaphor" and translated it into "psychological" studies. Rand adds that "what they are saying is that they 'feel' as if life consisted of werewolves, Draculas and Frankenstein monsters." Batman was a cartoony gargoyle, not meant to be taken literally. But Rand nailed the current situation decades ago when she wrote: "in its basic motivation, this school belongs to psychopathology more than esthetics." 

 As Marcus posted on another thread, a Glenn Beck guest drew the obvious parallel between the Dark Knight and the Patriot Act ( the scene in which Batman reveals his surveillance system.) This is one of the things Landon is right about, dead on: who watches the watcher? Anyway, the parallel is even more revealing of the state of the culture: the terrorists (aka the Joker) are bad, sure...but aren't we just as bad as Americans (the Batman equals the Bush Administration and the erosion of civil liberties, etc.). 

 What gives even more credence to Landon's take is that in the comics, Batman had taken the "detective" angle to its extreme conclusion, to the point of violation. The reason it works in the comics, to an extent, is because he is contrasted by the other heroes like Superman and Wonder Woman on a ideological level; the Dark Knight versus the Big Blue Boy Scout. It makes for great drama and ideological conversation. Superman works on inspiration and trust, Batman on fear. Wonder Woman, of course, is the Amazonian diplomat wielding sword and olive branch...

Perhaps she would make a better Objectivist role model?  

Joe, thanks for that.

The heroes in the Dark Knight, for all that they achieved, are ultimately ineffective. You are right. The only good thought about it is that we are left to fight another day - as if we might figure all this out at some future point.

My take on the Dark Knight's popularity is that the movie is actually better than most of the art that is coming out today. It is, at the very least, an attempt at an integrated work. And as I said earlier, there are spiritual values at stake - not just car chases and explosions. When you see that the money means absolutely nothing to The Joker - that's a very good concrete of hatred of the good for being the good. That's a valuable concretization to put out there in the culture: Evil is real. What evil really wants is to kill your spirit.

I don't see The Joker as any kind of a hero - of course, I don't - but I don't think anyone really takes The Joker as the hero. He is a masterful Villain. And clearly a Villain. I'm happy to see this movie having success because relative to the unbelievable trash that is out there this movie has elements of humanity in it.

"It's the whole thing there is no accountability, and a hero can't be a hero unless he is accountable for his actions."

 I think that's where you and I are getting off track: yes, what you say is true, to an extent with the character and the film, but I view that treatment of Batman as suspect. The flipside is Superman, who is held accountable; despite his power, he submits to the U.S. Government. Frank Miller takes this to its extreme by making him nothing more than a puppet.

I asked earlier about what you thought about Ragnar and accountability, but I think a better example is Roark, because he was held accountable in civil court for damages. That's why I think the emphasis is wrong: cops are held accountable, if they violate private property of innocent people. (There's the human shield element, unfortunately, as well.) If Batman violated someone innocent in the process, I think Bruce Wayne would surely compensate them, that's been established. 

 But you are right, Batman has been portrayed as a law unto himself, and it's never made clear what holds him back. He is not Objectivist, so we have no idea if he's a minarchist or anarchist for certain. The only thing that is suggested is the secular Christian ethic. 

 But it's the package-dealing of heroes with dictators that's the real issue. You're right, and I'm right. And in that context, you are right when you say Batman is a transitional hero. 

 But that means we need to concretely define "hero," doesn't it?  And if the filmmakers are going to contradict the etymology, what are they offering in its place? THAT is the cultural barometer: what is the culture going to accept? 

Familiar with Preacher but I've never actually read it. Closest I came was the Punisher run done by the same writing and art team (Steve Dillon on art and Garth Ennis writing) did a great run on the Punisher series for Marvel. The best story from this run was the initial one which actually ties into this discussion.

It was entitled "Welcome Back Frank" in reference to the fact that the Punisher series had ended, the Punisher had been killed off, brought back with a supernatural element that didn't work and was now being brought back in the form of a no powers murderous vigilante for the first time in years.

A subplot of the story involved three copycat vigilantes. Mr. Payback, a marxist wearing a Red bandana as a mask who busted in on board meetings and killed everyone in the room. The Elite, a wealthy white suburbanite who took to killing vagrants, pot dealers, litterbugs and the like for "lowering the tone." And I don't remember the last one's name but he was a priest who had taken to killing people who confessed, initally it was murderous gang members but eventually it lead to killing people who had comitted relatively minor infractions.

It's the whole thing there is no accountability, and a hero can't be a hero unless he is accountable for his actions.

Oddly enough it gives one of the best most sympathetic discussions of the Punisher's morals. There is a place in the story where he sets up a lifeboat situation. Daredevil is working in his civillian guise to defend a mobster, who happens to be innocent of the particular charge he's up on. The Punisher knocks Daredevil unconscious and brings him to with a gun in his hand aimed at the Punisher's head as the Punisher is about to take out the mobster with a sniper rifle. "You can save this life but you have to take mine in the process and realize this man will continue to sew death everywhere he goes, or you let me stop him right here with full knowledge"

Daredevil responds with "What kind of decision is that" The Punisher responds with a great line "The one I make everytime I pull the trigger."

Other than that another book which comes up a lot when you talk about Preacher is Transmetropolotin by Warren Ellis and Darick Robertson(art). It's cynical but hopeful and it takes on pop-culture and politics in a sleazy sarcastic fashion.

But I can't personally vouch for Preacher.

As to your points on the movie, you seem to be one of the people who gets one of the points I'm making. Batman isn't the hero, he's the intermediate stage. He's necessary, but it's also necessary that he doesn't stay around forever. And even though everyone thought Dent was the hero, the real hero hasn't arrived yet. He's not impossible, and he's very necessary. And I think that's why I found the film so refreshing, I'm waiting for the real hero more than anyone.

I saw Batman's "sacrifice" as an extension of the good side of his "rule." Deep down he knows he needs to be accountable, and this is his form of accountability. He's not protecting a villain, he's protecting the IDEA of a hero and that one may still come.

As to the Ledger "dying because of the roll" statement that goes back to a conversation Joe and I had right after his death.

Charlieze Theron was under tremendous stress the whole time she played Aileen Wurmos (the first female american serial killer sentanced to death). It was a great performance that required a lot of delving into things most people never should. It apparantly took her hours to decompress every day after filming.

Also I personally researched serial killers for the project I'm working on right now for about 4-5 years. And to be honest it gets to be a little too much for you if you do it right. There were long periods of time the knowledge I had just haunted me. It's one thing when you hear the titlating facts like "heads in a refrigerator" but once you get to the point that you realize that the "head" had friends and a family who miss them very much and that the "head" may have had hopes and dreams that will never get fulfilled because they were cut down in their prime, it affects you. Not to mention delving into the mindset it takes to actually committ those crimes, just the sheer nihilism, and hatred of the good for being the good. It can be too much for a lot of people who are touched by this.

I'm not so sure I still believe that "roll killed him," but it sure as hell didn't help/come at a good time in his life.

---Landon

Never mistake contempt for compassion, or power lust for ambition.

http://www.myspace.com/wickedlakes

 Since the thread is going off on tangents, and there is a lot of material in the review, I'll be generous and boil it down: the good guys in the movies (and comics) have no articulated answer for what they do. When the Joker spouts his nihilism, that we're all just a joke away from breaking down, that he's simply "ahead of the curve," the heroes, beyond the physical realm of ZAP! POW! BANG! have no philosophic answer to give. They're speechless. The only answer given is the same stale bread (as you mention.) Only in this movie, it's implied much more limply than in other adaptations, making the heroes, in the end, inneffectual. (I believe the SOLO lexicon lists this as "limp dicked.")

 Of course, we Objectivists have a fresh bread basket of whole grain goodness in the moral defense offered by Ayn Rand. If the culture at large, the "Randless," so to speak, are seeking answers outside the moldy, spongy wonderbread of morality, so be it. At best, this movie is a demonstration for the cultural and moral disintegration, or revolution, take your pick. But as a cultural barometer, it's a telling tale, one that really demonstrates the DIM hypothesis. The Joker is disintegration, and the heroes are misintegrated. Where is the integrated hero in our culture?

'Eat the stale bread or starve.'

Very well put, Lance, of where we're at today with our art.

http://fawstin.blogspot.com/

Jmaraune wrote:

‘….if you dont' want the heroes to kill, don't give them villains worth killing. Simple. Stick with Caeser Romero and bat shark repellent. Don't give your hero life-or-death lifeboat situations to deal with. And if you can't deal with the nitty gritty answers, don't ask the questions.’

Landon wrote:

‘…the strength of what makes a character like Mr. A or the Question so moral (both Steve Ditko characters written around Objectivist ethics) is the fact that they make all their decisions in context, there aren't arbitrary absolutes like "Never kill"

Great stuff, guys, thanks.

http://fawstin.blogspot.com/

Joe-Joe, I did read your full article and I don't quite get what you're saying about the cultural barometer bit. Can you give me your meaning in an abstract sentence for two? If I missed it in your piece I apologize.

Hi Matty, yeah that last bit in the movie is really terrible. They just wrapped up the movie there...as if it's the end of the episode and they'll be getting back to us about it in the next movie. But it's doubtful that they will. The movie is for the thrill. The ideas are definitely bad.

The right idea is to tell the people the truth. And then to kill or imprison the bad guys. But the right ideas - that's not what these things are about. It's not great art, but it's in the top tier for movies in 2008. Eat the stale bread or starve.

"Because he's not the hero. He's a silent guardian,
watchful protector .The Dark Knight."

 This just shows the shallowness of thought put into the movie. A hero, strictly speaking, is just that: a protector! 

(as I paste lazily from Wikipedia:)

Etymology

The literal meaning of the word is "protector", "defender" or "guardian"[citation needed] and etymologically it is thought to be cognate with the name of the goddess Hera, the guardian of marriage; the postulated original forms of these words being *ἥρFως, hērwōs, and *ἭρFα, Hērwā, respectively. It is also thought to be a cognate of the Latin verb servo (original meaning: to preserve whole) and of the Avestan verb haurvaiti (to keep vigil over), although the original Proto-Indoeuropean root is unclear.

And although the original usage does involve self-sacrifice, it also did not preclude justified killing. The idea of self-sacrifice with turning the other cheek comes from Christianity. And ultimately, that line just goes to prove the Kantian/Christian ethic of the movie and comic book ethic in general.

 (Sorry for the tone, I have a stomachache and can't sleep...either that or I'm possessed by Charles Bronson...anyway, I want to add that the main point is not that the Batman should kill every villain, even it he should kill the Joker at some point. It's the idea of the moral equivalency, between the hero and villain, and the hero being better than the villain only through the (unnamed) Christian ethic.)

Landon,

I thought yours was a very interesting and thoroughly thought out interpretation of TDK. Same goes to Joe, though I disagree with your take more. Both were stimulating reads.

I have no consistent philosophy. If I have to, I call myself a humanist because the label is open and though I wouldn't go so far as to call myself an atheist(practicing agnostic) I think that all morals should be found outside of any god or general mystic presence that may or may not be judging us. I believe in good and evil .

Batman (or The Dark Knight) to me represents a moral conscience that refuses to see the world shrivel up and die in the face of nihilism and hopelessness.
He is the last resort. Gotham, so far, doesn't exist in
reality. There is still hope for us. But in the world of Batman almost all hope has been lost. Anything goes, the criminals rule the city.

Batman, The lawless vigilante seems to be the only person who can save the
city from itself. This is certainly the message Batman Begins leaves us with, a
movie which I also love and which Joe inexplicably enjoys more than The Dark Knight.

When we move in to The Dark Knight the theme of mindless anarchy and destruction reaches a new height with the introduction of the joker (a role which Heath Ledger played perfectly though I very much doubt it killed him.) The Joker believes that there are no morals and that everyone is just as bad as him deep down inside the very core of their being, a notion which is entertained until the films conclusion.

At the end of the film the citizens of Gotham refuse
to bow to the whims of this psychopathic terrorist. The only person who submits to The Joker’s hateful crap is Harvey Dent.

This is where altruism comes in, I’m not sure if Objectivists find the following idea evil but for the record I found this segment touching and tragic. When Harvey Dent (now Two-Face) tries to kill Gordon’s son in an act of revenge, Batman stops Two-Face and takes the blame for the incident. He does this because he doesn’t want the people of Gotham to find out that Dent, the cities White Knight, who represents what the rule of law can really do, who shows us that not all officials are corruptible, can be reduced to such despicable violent acts. He doesn’t want the people of Gotham to lose hope.

Last lines of the film: After Gordon’s son asks his father why Batman has done this and why the police are chasing him:

"Because he's the hero Gotham deserves, but not the one it needs right now. So we'll hunt him, because he can take it. Because he's not the hero. He's a silent guardian, watchful protector .The Dark Knight."

Landon, I still say your argument, while valid as it is, is a strawman, because you're ignoring the larger comic book context that comic book heroes are NEVER allowed to kill because in its ethics it is intrinsically bad to kill at any cost. It's gone so far as to have Superman refuse to kill the aliens from the ALIEN franchise in a crossover. The vigilante issue is a separate issue from whether or not heroes should kill ever. 

 And accountability only works among honest men. The scenario is set up in the first movie to show that the law in Gotham is corrupt, that the authorities are the ones who show no accountability. You talk about the people who say "go Batman! Now get the fags!" Yet that's another strawman, because those people are the ones who are perverting the point, not Batman. Batman is stopping criminals, protecting people from others. Batman would just as surely smack those people with a batarang then take their advice to get the fags. But it's precisely the criminals in Gotham who were running the town. 

 Batman is, in the long run, less a vigilante and more a minuteman... 

What is your take on Preacher?  It's a comic I've been wanting to check out for a while but I know nothing about its ideas. I'd be very intersted to hear your take as I 'm loving everything you've posted about TDK (my simplistic take is coming soon)

It still goes back to needing accountability. As for Batman not killing his villains. In all the previous films (save Batman begins) the villain dies at the end so it's not a perpetuation thing. If a character dies in the movie it doesn't affect the comic and vice versa. In fact it almost makes more sense because a film is a much bigger production than a monthly comic, to reuse the same villain (no matter how good) often seems cheap so they're better off killing.

My main objection comes from the fact that people would be cheering if Batman had murdered the Joker in a police station after he had been arrested. I can't get away from anarchy/minarchy/accountability when analyzing stories like this. It's good that Batman has a rule, I'd hate a world where police, soldiers etc didn't have rules I especially don't want someone self appointed not having rules.

There is a section about this danger in Dark Knight returns. Man on the street interviews where people either deride Batman entirely and wonder why the city is going to hell or you get comments like "Batman is great the way he's cleaned up the city. He's taken on the muggers, maybe next he can take on the fags."

There was also a comic from the 90's called Shadowhawk which did a storyline where the hero spawned a copycat who once caught by his inspiration said to him "Hey why are you against me, I only take on the people you fight... NIGGERS." At which point the hero unmasked for the first time in series history revealing himself as a black man.

The strength of what makes a character like Mr. A or the Question so moral (both Steve Ditko characters written around Objectivist ethics) is the fact that they make all their decisions in context, there aren't arbitrary absolutes like "Never kill" (Batman Spider-man ad infinitum) or "Kill em all let god sort em out" (The Punisher et al) or even Shadowhawk's unique method of "Break their spine paralyze them for life, but don't kill."

The Question and Mr. A were both reporters, so they discovered instances of corruption far before others. They investigated, and if necessary took it upon themselves to bring the people they found to justice. If placed in a situation where killing is necessary, he doesn't hesitate, but he also doesn't seek it out each time. He wants to be held accountable to the laws others are held accountable to. These heroes are more about finding the perfect piece of evidence rather than simply beating an opponent into submission.

---Landon

Never mistake contempt for compassion, or power lust for ambition.

http://www.myspace.com/wickedlakes

 Lance, I think my article said what I wanted to say.

 As for the Batman killing Joker, no one blinks when Harrison Ford or Bruce Willis or John Wayne shoot the bad guy. And the original Batman (in the comics) DID kill. But comics in the 40's were solely kids stuff. Batman, however, was based on the pulp characters like THE SHADOW. (Incidentally, yes, the Joker was partly based on THE MAN WHO LAUGHS, just look at the movie cover...). The parents had a conniption fit over the brutal Batman, so he was softened, with Robin added to boot. 

 The problem is that the comics have grown up, and so has most of the fanbase. The kids have their kiddy verison of the superheroes, but this Batman is definatley NOT for kids. (WHICH IS WHY I DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE MERCHANDISING via HONEYCOMBS AND LUCKY CHARMS!).

 As for the adult fanbase, they are the ones who grew up with the ethic that heroes never kill in comics. WHY? Ask Jesus. But at any rate, (not you directly Lance) if you dont' want the heroes to kill, don't give them villains worth killing. Simple. Stick with Caeser Romero and bat shark repellent. Don't give your hero life-or-death lifeboat situations to deal with. And if you can't deal with the nitty gritty answers, don't ask the questions.   

Joe-Joe, it's a given that Batman is not gonna kill The Joker. Why? The marketing department would go ballistic. When you have running characters that become so marketable it messes with the dynamic - it limits what you can do with the story. (Incidently, it has been suggested that The Joker might have been drawn from Gwynplaine, the fine, fine character from Victor Hugo's The Man Who Laughs.

These episodic things that go on and on to infinity are nice for business but the upside on the artistic experience is limited. With that understood, I can't imagine a Batman movie getting much better than this one.

Now what is it you wanted to say about the cultural barometer?

 Hi, Lance! 

I thought it was clear my review was a review not of the movie itself, but of the movie as a cultural barometer. If not, I'm making it clear now. :) 

Joe, I certainly agree with you that The Dark Knight is based on false and terrible philosophical premises. My difference with you seems only that I went into the movie certain that this would be the case.

I enjoyed the movie - the action was well-integrated and the values were high-stakes spiritual values. Heath Ledger was absolutely dynamite as The Joker. It's the only film I've ever seen him in - wow!!! Far and away the best Joker.

Unfortunately Joe, movies cannot and will not get much better than this until artists grasp and hold the right philosophical ideas. It's just a fact. It's the same in politics. There cannot and will not be a good political candidate today - and that won't change until the ideas driving the culture changes.

There is another dimension mentioned in the movie and discussed in greater detail in the comics, namely THE NEW FRONTIER: the idea that the hero should inspire, not create fear. Specifically, the heroes nowadays are more feared then admired, and not only Batman, but Superman, Wonder Woman, etc.

With BATMAN, the issue is his modus operandi: a scary batsuit, because criminals are a "cowardly, superstitious lot." He is meant to invoke fear in the enemy. But as pointed out in THE NEW FRONTIER, he had to tone it down, because kids were scared of him. "I set out to scare criminals, not children." That still doesn't make a case for moral equivalency, it means that the kid was caught in something he wasn't meant to see. But in the movie, Batman treats all of Gotham as children, trying to shield them from the horror of what must be done. That's why he wanted Harvey Dent to remain a "shining white knight" who didn't get his hands dirty." Rand may have been apprehensive of Ragnar, but she knew that he had his part to play when necessary.

 But the others aren't feared because of a scary Bat costume, but because of the power and potential. Especially Superman, the most powerful of all. The fear is that they could go "rogue" and enslave humanity, etc. It's one thing to submit to a rule of law, and Landon's points about vigilantism is valid (so is Rand's). But the greater implication is fear of any one with ability, SUPER powers, SUPER heroes. If you don't believe that the comics are that specific, see Alex Ross's MARVELS, which is one of the rare instances you see Spiderman's J. Jonah Jameson offer an explanation for his hatred of Spiderman, and heroes in general: "If they're special, what does that make US?"

Landon, you can point to specifics, but the abstract position one walks away with (not just in the movie, but comics in general) is that it is NEVER ok to kill a villain, even in the heat of battle. 

I started to rethink my review in light of the idea that it may be a trilogy. This movie would be the second act, like EMPIRE STRIKES BACK, where the heroes stand momentarily defeated, as a cliffhanger. But I don't know that it is, unlike the Star Wars trilogy, which we knew would be continued. Second, based on how these things usually turn out, if it is a trilogy, I bet I can tell you NOW what will happen: the hero will realize that the hero's journey is all about fighting the demon within, that the villain is a shadow of the hero, that we must learn to forgive, that there is good in the worst of us, etc. Thank you RETURN OF THE JEDI. Thank you Carl Jung. 

 You can argue due process all you want, justifiably, but somehow, I don't think this is going to end like a Ditko story. 

(BTW, where was Dagny's accountabilty?) 

I get how everyone thinks Batman should've killed the Joker. But look at it this way. If a police officer kills someone in the line of duty it still has to be determined to be justifiable, same with a private citizen, same with a soldier.

A self appointed vigilante was left alone in a police interogation room which he locked the police out of. Where's Batman's accountability.

---Landon

Never mistake contempt for compassion, or power lust for ambition.

http://www.myspace.com/wickedlakes

I wanted to like DK too, but it didn't satisfy. The Joker should have been removed from his misery by Batman, accompanied by some offhand, glib line from BM: "Sheesh, wrong utility belt. This wire's only good for holding up kittens." But yes, why so serious? Joker was star, and the good guys didn't sort him. Shame for a film that had so much clarity.

"I am a fan of this sort of violence."

Me too. And I don't need Batman.

There is precious little of him, but my man is Ragnar Danneskjöld.

I was literally flipping through The Dark Knight Returns earlier today. I agree, Scott, it's Miller's finest Batman work and it has held up incredibly well over the years. Gotham was begging for Batman's return, and even at 55 years old, he didn't waste a second making up for lost time. Great, great stuff.

http://fawstin.blogspot.com/

was hands down Frank Miller's best Batman work. Because, the IDEAS were correct. Liberal postmodern world turned on its head, he was the only one with any sense and willing to roll up his sleeves and take out the trash. The finest comic I have ever read. Miller Batman: Year One was a pale shadow in comparison, though he really fleshed out Detective Gordon.

We all agree on non-initiation of force. But too many Objectivists forget that in the fact of blind savagery and illogic, the capacity for violence is what keeps each of us safe, and the mastery of violence keeps hostile nations and religions at bay.

Intelligently used violence made the US free, held the union together, threw back an invasion from Mexico, and restored liberty (such as it is) to Kuwait.

I am a fan of this sort of violence. Too many rational people cede violence to valueless morons--and thereby make themselves the perfect target. These are the sort of Miller-esque near-future Batman concepts which I love. I cannot take the self sacrifice, and while I will accept him as a bit cracked, the psycho Batman does not do it for me, either.

Scott DeSalvo

www.desalvolaw.com
FREE Injury Report and CD Reveal the Secrets You Need to Know to Protect Your RIGHTS!

But in the mean time I'm just going to warn you that you probably won't like the Long Halloween.

---Landon

Never mistake contempt for compassion, or power lust for ambition.

http://www.myspace.com/wickedlakes

 Hi, Landon. I was interested to hear your response, as one of the "hypers." I woudn't mind seeing a review for another take (as I am usually on the opposite side of these discussions, as in the WAR OF THE WORLDS and PAN'S LABRYINTH debates.) I am disappointed that this is not the case this time out, as I liked the first Nolan movie.

"That being said I don't see Batman's act at the end as a sacrifice. I see him as paying for sins, HIS OWN."

 To me, this is one of those "Reardon" situations, how Reardon was forced to go against the law because of the directives and such. In a similar way, when people like Batman and Gordon are trying to fight crime but held back by corrupt cops and politicians, they have no choice but to fight fire with fire. It's the human shield argument (literally, in some of the scenes.) Potentially, anyway; in a story like this, the "mixed premise" premise rules...

And you may be able to appreciate this, but remember in the KILLING JOKE, when the Joker paralyzes Barbara Gordon, and forces Jim Gordon to watch footage of her violation, trying to break him. Gordon doesn't break, and tells Batman he wants the Joker brought in "by the book." To me, this is what the movie represents: slavish devotion to the letter of the law, not the spirit. Yet, in a real life situation, a cop would have the right to shoot to kill such a maniac (and the moral duty.) You say the lawlessness was met by more lawlessness...In a way, Gordon is more "Javert" than Mr. A....

Even though you have a different assessment I share a lot of your points. The whole concept of the movie was to me, the idea of the initial rush of taking an unexpected (and unlawful action) to rid the city of crime and corruption wearing off and in the cold light of day Bruce Wayne realizing that he's embezzling from his company in order to go out and pick fights with criminals and commissioner Gordon realizing that the only thing he's done to help the city is to let a masked vigilante run wild (a masked vigilante that he'd be helpless without).

The reality of the situation has set in for everyone. It's somewhat like the old campy Joel Schumacher films or Adam West Batman show, which pointed out the "Absurdity" of the situation, Nolan points out the "flawed nature" of the situation.

The city's answer to lawlessness was simply more lawlessness. And in a city where this is true, The Joker is the hero, he is the person following the laws set by the town's nature better than anyone.

That being said I don't see Batman's act at the end as a sacrifice. I see him as paying for sins, HIS OWN. Oddly enough it kind of reminds me of the Veitch thread, in situations like this you need to know when a person is being ripped apart for his virtues or his vices. Many people still see Batman as a net good at the end of the film, but Batman himself realizes that he's taken things in a direction which they never should've been taken.

In the end Bruce Wayne knows that the city needed and still needs honorable men of the law, not simply another criminal.

---Landon

Never mistake contempt for compassion, or power lust for ambition.

http://www.myspace.com/wickedlakes

"Let me guess...Batman realizes he has to do it 'for the people,' even if he doesn't want to, right?"

 It's a little trickier than that, given that Batman has had no singular writer. Like most comics, it's a franchise. It's more an idea than the vision of any one person. There is an overarching theme with most characters, but Batman has had the duality of the camp/Dark Knight depiction. And Frank Miller certainly writes him differently than Alan Moore, Miller being more Objectivist-sympathetic. But whatever his motives, the common theme is usually that he's batty, nuts, neurotic, psycho, similar to the Punisher. But in some depictions, he does it not for the greater good, but for his own need to avenge his parent's death.

Nothing about the Batman mythos works for an Objectivist.

You have to shut off your brain, enjoy the spectacle, and laugh at the amateurish and wrongheaded philosophizing being done by the writers and directors. Let me guess, Batman realizes he has to do it "for the people" even if he doesn't want to, right?

Every movie from Hollywood ends up ethically allied with Christianity (rare) or Socialism/nihilism (much more common).

In our sewer, valueless, post-modernist society, we give a nod of the head to the good guy, but the bad guy is portrayed as the more interesting, the more charismatic, the guy with the "answer" despite the fact that the "answer" is usually utter nonsense. The bad guy gets to act with impunity and the good guy just cleans up the mess. We rarely see the CONSEQUENCES of bad guy conduct, the weeping widows and mothers, etc. So, The guy who does the most explosions is the cool one. The guy who seems not to care about anything is the cool one. The evil one is the cool one.

Little does the average moviegoer realize that being "cool" in those ways is not compatible with life, values, justice, accomplishment, satisfaction, or happiness. it is a self-paved road to hell (i.e., nowhere and nothing).

Scott DeSalvo

www.desalvolaw.com
FREE Injury Report and CD Reveal the Secrets You Need to Know to Protect Your RIGHTS!

Thanks, Greg, Olivia, and Bosch.

Olivia, anger was my primary emotion throughout. I wanted to scream out "just kill the bastard already!" It would have been a much shorter movie...I have to wonder if others felt the same. At the end, there was some light applause, but it seemed polite, even timid, nothing like what I would have imagined the applause to be after, say, SUPERMAN 1... 

My computer is down, so I only have public access at moment, but real quick:

"Heroes don't kill? What do our soldiers do?"

Exactly, and I'd add police to the list, especially since Batman works closely with them, even if it's as a vigilante. The point is made that Gordon will not kill, either, which is odd when you consider that cops are SUPPOSED to kill if necessary. But this is rarely, if ever, mentioned in the comics.

This storyline is reminiscent of a Spiderman story called "Maximum Carnage," where an evil psychopath with powers goes on a killing spree in New York with his "family" and Spiderman, against the advice of other heroes, refuses to kill, despite the deaths. Again, the point was that to do so makes the hero as bad as the killer, with Spiderman almost "snapping" but avoids the temptation.

Another parallel is with the movie NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN, where the heroes are impotent in the face of evil out of fear of losing their souls.

"But this is Batman...I've learned to take characters as they are intended to be...Otherwise I wouldn't be able to enjoy anything that wasn't thoroughly Objectivist."

I tried...I really did. I wanted to enjoy this movie. I liked Iron Man and Hulk and Spiderman  (not 3), despite their philosophical shortcomings. I treat those the way Rand treated Hugo, not enjoyable for his stated philosophy but for his sense of life. But I left this one feeling morally sick. I don't think I'd feel differently if I werent' an Objectivist. Again, it goes back to the MAXIMUM CARNAGE story and character, Carnage, who spouts similar ideas to the Joker, that all life is a joke, that freedom is chaos, and morality is a joke, and the only answer is Carnage. I read that as a teen, before Rand, and remembered the seduction of such a nihilistic view as an answer to my waning Christianity. (Incidentally, it was a "Linz" moment; the original Carnage story involved a metal concert where the villain was thought part of the show, when he espoused his ideology, some fans said the trappings of death metal weren't real, but some took it seriously and started killing. One needn't be Objectivist to see the issue! Though it is a good example of the DIM hypothesis.)

I think your review may have outdone the movie. Good stuff, I may see it now.

I find it impossible to sit through any movie without some noble component in the story for me to hold onto, in fact it makes me angry... I guess those kinds of fictitious worlds revolt me in the same way that dog-shit does.

Interesting breakdown. I enjoyed the film myself, thought it was very well made on all levels and there were a few incredible scenes in it, particularly where Batman's forced to make a fateful decision and is tricked by the Joker. It was emotionally charged and perfectly dramatized. The acting was great and Ledger really did take the Joker somewhere very original and as far as he could. I do have a few criticisms but they're not worth mentioning, at least while there are people who haven't yet seen it. In the film, I think Batman was written true to his character, at least true to how he's been dominantly portrayed over the years. Now, in the first year of his comic, 1939, he did carry a gun and he did throw criminals off of rooftops, but this 'One Rule' thing has been his thing for years since then, for whatever reason, and it's the thing that defines him now, as if all life has equal value, even the life of mass murderers. I'd argue against that rule and I do so in my own stories, as there are numerous cases where killing the bad guy is the only moral thing to do, especially if given no choice in the matter. Heroes don't kill? What do our soldiers do? But this is Batman and I've learned to take characters as they are intended to be, and try, though sometimes it's hard, to leave it at that and see if they remain true to themselves. Otherwise I wouldn't be able to enjoy anything that wasn't thoroughly Objectivist.

http://fawstin.blogspot.com/