The Dark Knight

rise

Jedi
I just got back from watching this movie with some friends, it was to say the least, a bit depressing, osit. From a standpoint of even just 'having fun' it was just so intense and over the top with no slow down points and how crazy heath ledgers played the joker makes it just somewhat scary. I don't really know how to describe the jokers role except complete anarchy and absolutely crazy. I'm pretty sure thats how it is supposed to be, but it was just so well done - can it really be said like that? - that it actually WAS scary because of how intense it was. I think overall it kind of reminds me of 'there will be blood' because it was great acting, but the plot was just such a downer, along with just being plain crazy, that it leaves a very sour taste, osit. I guess if you like watching people kill each other in maniacal crazed ways 'for fun' with the plot really going absolutely nowhere then it would be quite entertaining...
 
"I am an agent of chaos." I may be partial because I loved Batman as a kid, but I thought this was the best Batman movie. I thought there were plenty of moments where the humanity seeped in. So there was a moral center to the film. Joker exploited people's own selfishness and turned it against them. He was the ponerizing influence, the agent of entropy and chaos. And yet those who could choose chose to be human. And Bruce Wayne is a master of Ketman.
 
I haven't seen the film yet but wanted to let you know there is a documentary about it on the History Channel Monday night that looks interesting. It's called Batman Unmasked: The Psychology of the Dark Knight. It seems to explore the inner workings of Batman, the roles that make up Bruce Wayne (The Playboy, Philanthropist, Child, and the Avenger) and the villains he fights. Here's a trailer to it: _http://youtube.com/watch?v=FsZlGBjl6eQ
 
hkoehli said:
"I am an agent of chaos." I may be partial because I loved Batman as a kid, but I thought this was the best Batman movie. I thought there were plenty of moments where the humanity seeped in. So there was a moral center to the film. Joker exploited people's own selfishness and turned it against them. He was the ponerizing influence, the agent of entropy and chaos. And yet those who could choose chose to be human. And Bruce Wayne is a master of Ketman.
Yea, I sort of wrote that right after I saw the movie and it didn't leave me with the best of impressions but after thinking about it a little there were definitely some moments within the movie with some humanity. I would also agree the movie was incredibly well done, I think it just scared me at how crazy the joker was which is why I came out with a bad feeling. I guess I like happier movies, but maybe thats just a program of mine.

spoilers below:

Things I now notice in the movie after a little more time to think about it:
there was martial law declared because of the jokers 'terrorist' threats, with the army / national guard coming into to protect Gotham city
I think the most glaring part where humanity seeped through was with the two boats, each rigged with explosives. the only person with any kind of conscious was the prisoner who acted like he was going to blow up the other boat but then threw the detonator out the window, I have to admit I didn't even think of that possibility...
What was with the pencil magic trick? That was just disgusting . . . sadly I think i laughed at it. A good magic trick you have to make the pencil reappear :)

edit: I guess in retrospect maybe I should have waited a while before posting, sorry.
 
Saw it last night, it was incredible. Acting, cinematography, the choreography, plot, script, character development and twists... it was really grade A.

Heather Ledger's performance was absolutely astounding, sheer madness, chaos, definitely the antithesis to batman. I loved the quote about an Unstoppable force meeting an Immovable object, they did seem to have that opposite but equal quality. Very Neo/Agent smith esque.

I also enjoyed how batman was capable of being what the city needed, it's a big point at the end of the film, and gives explanation as to why he's referred to as 'the dark knight'. Really reeks of external consideration in a superficial way. He does what's needed, even if that includes pretending to be something he's not.

The pencil trick was really disturbing. I laughed mostly because of the way in which it was pulled off, totally didn't see it coming, and it was an excellent introduction to the joker.

For two and a half hours long the movie really didn't slow down. It maintained excellent pace, and kept the viewer interested the whole way through.

Highly recommended.
 
Wow! Just saw it tonight with my son (who can impersonate anyone and totally freaked me out all the way home with his Joker impression). What a well-crafted film and Heath Ledger was incredible. Licking and chewing his sloppy, smeared lips, his tongue darting in and out of his mouth just totally creepy. And all the little philosophical asides, it was quite a ride. Did you notice the spray-painted joke on the side of the semi the Joker was in during the police convoy scene? It said, "Have you ever noticed how one measly letter separates "laughter" from "slaughter?" You just never knew whether it was going to plunge into hilarity or insanity. Like Joker said, "Madness, as you know, is like gravity. All it takes is a little push."



.
 
There is an interesting article carried on SotT today about the movie -

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/163009-Batman-Hollywood-s-Terror-Dream

It takes a decidedly different tack than the reviewers here. I've not yet seen the movie, so curious on ya'lls take on this article...

My sense is that the response might be, 'oh, lighten up, it's just a movie', or 'it's Batman, for god's sake, that's what he does' or even, 'what else is new - all movies do this to one extent or another, that's why the big studios get paid to put them out' - but how much of what is written in the article do you think is applicable?
 
Well, I'd say that review is over the top, though it was interesting. Muhammed Idrees, the author of the article and John Pistelli, the author Idrees substantially quoted in his review, have some pretty heavy political ideology and it seems they are seeing "social realism" or a morality play where it just doesn't exist. I viewed this film as a burlesque, a genre that achieves its effects through caricature, ridicule, and distortion. Of course, there is some social relevance in the film, from small details like the banks are in bed with the mafia or that it is the big, murderous-looking Black criminal in the orange prison suit who acts decisively out of human solidarity to not blow up one of the two ferrys while the white everyman in the suit coat and tie comes within a hair’s breadth or murdering everyone aboard the other ferry, to the overall outcome of the movie, which is that the Joker wins IN REALITY and it is only through the lie of presenting a psychopathic killer as a hero, pinning his murder spree on Batman, and covering up the corruption in the police department that made it possible for the Joker to turn the Gotham’s fair-haired wonderboy into a monster so that the illusion of civilization can be maintained. But it is a parody, after all, and I don't think these reviewers are seeing it in that light.

I read a few responses to this review and there are quite a few differing opinions as to the political analysis. Here are what a few folks said:

"However, one criticism I would offer regards your equation of Nietzsche with an “adolescent repertoire of might-is-right conservative anarchism.” This political outlook (qua it’s components or as a whole) is one that Nietzsche repeatedly rejected. It’s a sad irony that Nietzsche is so often mistaken for those he condemned. Check out the first few sections of Kaufmann’s “Nietzsche: Philosopher, Psychologist, Antichrist” for more on this."


'But The Dark Knight is best understood not in the company of other blockbuster fare; rather, it should be placed alongside two recent popular and populist left-liberal books that can illuminate its themes. In The Shock Doctrine, Naomi Klein explains that, over the last three decades, capitalists have gone on the offensive to defend and expand their holdings by exploiting, and in some cases, engineering catastrophes which so stun and demoralize populations that they find themselves unable to prevent their commons and their public treasuries from being transferred to private hands.'

"The author is very much mistaken about the intent of Naomi Klein’s book The Shock Doctrine. The true purpose of the book is to misdirect readers away from and to obscure Zionism’s influence on the War on Iraq and to substitute some other “plausible” and more “comfortable” explanation. Ms. Klein fails to recognize that many of the authors of the Project For A New American Century (PNAC) planned for the events of 9-11 in order to introduce and advance their Zionist agenda and were well placed within the Bush Administration. Another important fact is that Milton Friedman, who she attributes with neo-liberal ideology, was against the war."

'Susan Faludi provides a cultural companion to Klein’s materialist economic history in The Terror Dream; Faludi shows how the American political class, including many self-proclaimed liberals, seized the September 11 attacks as an opportunity to reanimate the genocidal American frontier myth in which the lone, virile, violent male is called upon by a barbarian horde attack from outside to protect his dependent, virginal and powerless women. Thus the conquest of the material commons by capitalist elites requires ideologies of control that can best be summed up by the eternal right-wing cultural program: family, faith and fatherland.'

"Susan Fuludi on the other hand believes that white women is the most oppressed group in the United States and she recently wrote a book that tend to ignores the plight of Native Americans both men and women regarding the oppressive history of the U.S. Her perspective narrowly frames oppression solely to the interest of white women who clearly is not the most oppressed group.

The author has a right to see whatever he choose to see about The Dark Knight. I see it as a yet another Batman movie and nothing more. However the author really needs to do a deeper analysis of the dubious agendas being promoted by these the two “Anglo-Leftists” authors he cites to justify and form the basis of his critique.

The agendas that promoted by Ms. Klein and Ms. Fuludi are narrow and rather dishonest and do not fully adhere to principles that should define the “left” — trust and justice. Only when the left embraces such principles will it yield the solidarity needed to change society."



John Weathers said on July 26th, 2008 at 1:21 pm #

What follows contains spoilers and is intended for readers who have seen the film.
========

For starters the bit about the death of Rachel being “a sexist literary trope identified by feminist comic-book readers in which male authors kill, maim or de-power strong female characters as a woman-devaluing plot device” is the kind of BS that have given me an aversion to certain flavors of literary criticism and some forms of feminism. Rachel’s death has nothing to do with her gender and much to do with her role as a supporting character whose death will function dramatically to shock the audience and to propel the actions of the main characters. If this had been a film about Wonder Woman, we may have seen something similar happen to a supporting male character to fuel the development of Wonder Woman’s story arc.

There are too many real instances of sexism in real life and in popular culture and reading imagined slights into stuff like this only serves to waste time and energy and to give the fight for gender equality a bad name.

Second, while I do confess that as an anarchist, I cringed every time someone in the film associated the word “anarchy” with the Joker and his vision of chaos overcoming order, I recognize that like it or not this is how the public sees “anarchy” thanks to centuries of conditioning to see order as synonymous with the State. Thus, I don’t count it as a strike against the film or its makers. Nor do I expect the film to offer up themes embracing: “left-wing anarchism, participatory democracy, decentralized communism, democratic socialism”. (At the same time, I beg to differ about the film only offering a choice between “wild, murderous wasteland or a lawless, authoritarian police state”) Hello! This is a mainstream film made by people who may not even be familiar with these radical left-wing ideas. Instead, I look more at the fundamental ideas and values that the artists bring to the work. Most people aren’t familiar with radical left ideas (or are misinformed/afraid of them because of propaganda), but many people share the values that ultimately form a basis for left-wing philosophies.

So what does this film present us with? Lots of questions and some suggestions. As a work of art the filmmakers want to make the audience think rather supply easy answers.

The author tries to equate various characters with US political figures in a gross simplification of the film that in the final analysis is plain wrong. Certainly, Batman’s device that allows him to eavesdrop on the citizens of Gotham as he hunts for the Joker as well as his harsh interrogation techniques are meant to call to mind the Bush administration, but that doesn’t mean that the two are to be equated. Rather the filmmakers take a question raised by the actions of the Bush administration (”Do the ends justify the means?”) and explore it in a manner that resonates with current headlines while perfectly fitting into the Batman mythos. While there is room for discussion, I submit that the film ultimately suggests a negative answer to the question. Morgan Freeman’s character’s condemnation of the eavesdropping device along with the film’s repeated suggestion that Batman’s extreme methods have lead to an escalation in violence and tragedy (the interrogation for instance plays right into the Joker’s hands) dispel the author’s notion that the film somehow rejects the idealism of Rachel and Dent to leave us “in the cold embrace of Batman if we want to be secure”. Rather, Batman is shown as a man who started with good intentions but took escalating questionable actions that ultimately result in his own tragic downfall into a hunted scapegoat.

Furthermore, I argue that the film actually suggests that we cannot put our faith in the State (the police, the DA Harvey Dent, or the Mayor) or even in good intentioned leaders outside the system (Batman) as they can all ultimately succumb to corruption. In fact, the film hints at ultimately trusting in the people themselves despite the patronizing decision by Batman and Gordon to hide the truth about Dent out of fear that the people cannot handle it (a decision that I suspect will come to haunt them in a third installment). Specifically, I am thinking about the decisions on the two boats where both the “good” citizens of Gotham and the criminals on the other boat decide to do the right thing and not murder the people on the other boat to survive the Joker’s sick game. Indeed, this part of the film plays beautifully on society’s prejudices against criminals and shows a criminal coming out morally cleaner than many of the “good” citizens on the other boat when he completely rejects the Joker’s game while the good citizens try to justify killing the criminals, but ultimately lack the courage to act.

In closing, I think the author’s take on the film is a simplistic exercise in looking for ideological demons. This film is worthy of a better examination of its ideas than simply projecting our own fears and dislikes onto its characters and the filmmakers.

Tom Walters said on July 26th, 2008 at 1:55 pm #

I agree whole-heartedly with John Weathers and can only add that –one woman getting killed = column claiming sexism; all the men who got offed in this movie = simply entertainment. In short, this column is hypocritical gender feminism…

John Hatch said on July 26th, 2008 at 5:01 pm #

I agree with Jake’s comment on Nietzsche. People also forget that he died in 1900 and was neither a Nazi nor ‘proto-Nazi’ and loathed that sort of militarist philosophy. His ‘overman’ or ’superman’ was an ethical construct, the very antithesis of the Nazi. Prof. Walter Kaufmann is THE authority on Nietzsche, and a fine writer in his own right.

.
 
While pretentious, and with a very naive understanding of evil, I think this article has some good points, in contrast to the article on sott:

_http://www.alternet.org/story/92385/?page=entire

Batman's Take on 9/11 Era Politics? Drop the Fearmongering

By Michael Dudley, City States. Posted July 25, 2008.

"The Dark Knight" warns against what happens when a society abandons its principles out of fear.

Editor's note: Contains spoilers.

One of the "biggest" ideas of the year, according to James Fallows writing in the Atlantic Magazine, is the End of 9/11 as a metanarrative for American politics. For a growing domestic and international constituency, it is no longer tolerable for the very invocation of those events to warrant overriding every principle of American democracy. That moment of thoughtless panic has passed, and appears now to have been a dream of madness. Casting aside principles in the name of the "war on terror" -- to "work ... the dark side, if you will", as Dick Cheney put it -- is now being recognized as the path to becoming the very evil we feared.

One of the most potent confirmations of this maturing zeitgeist is the overwhelmingly positive critical and public reception of Christopher Nolan's stunning new Batman film The Dark Knight, which, in its careful use of 9/11 visual tropes takes the viewer on a sometimes traumatic but ultimately redemptive and humanistic journey towards a truly post-9/11 ethic.

Many reviewers have already noted that the film is commenting on the "war on terror," and audiences were surely meant to revisit their own painful memories of 9/11 by the chilling advance posters for the film, which feature Batman standing before a skyscraper in which a gigantic flaming gash in the shape of a bat has been blasted. Cues evoking 9/11 build from the opening frames, which propel the viewer into a dark swirling cloud of smoke and then to an aerial shot flying us towards a glass building, through to a series of escalating depictions of urban chaos and destruction. Buildings implode, thousands of people flee Gotham city on foot, and at one point Batman broods in the foreground while firefighters struggle to contain fires amid twisted steel columns. Unlike any other superhero film ever made, The Dark Knight is set in a world of realism we -- sadly -- know only too well.

This realism is significantly owed to the actual urban locations of the film. Previous incarnations of Gotham City were either fascistic sets improbably dominated by statues or fanciful computer-generated creations that never succeeded in convincing us; here, the on-location shooting in downtown Chicago and Hong Kong goes a long way to grounding viewers and thereby preparing them for the moral arguments to come.

The morality play of The Dark Knight is driven by Heath Ledger's astonishing performance as the Joker, who is not so much a character as he is a force of unknowable, abstract evil. By positioning the villain this way, screenwriters Jonathan and Christopher Nolan have made the Joker the very incarnation of a Manichean view of morality: he is not an evil set apart from oneself that can be destroyed, but rather as a potentiality within oneself that must be resisted by our predisposition for good.

What makes The Dark Knight so remarkable is that it frames this resistance to evil with nuanced debates about the natures of human moral agency and decision-making.

In an early scene, when Batman's alter-ego Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) and District Attorney Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart), discuss the merits of having one strong man take responsibility for defending society against evil, Rachel Dawes (Maggie Gyllenhaal) reminds them that when Rome made that choice, it resulted in a dictatorship. For all his wistful temptation for Roman absolutism, however, Dent is a morally principled man who doggedly works within the legal system to put criminals behind bars. So certain is he of his own moral compass that he makes a show of flipping a coin to make crucial decisions -- a coin which is later revealed to have two faces. Wayne admires Dent for his principled, public and fully legal stand and is himself tempted to forsake the lawless vigilantism of Batman and make Dent alone the public face of justice in Gotham.

Between the unaccountability of the Batman and the deontological morality of Dent lies the consequentialism of Commissioner James Gordon (Gary Oldman), a veteran cop whose situational judgments and actions in a corrupt, complex and dangerous environment are criticized by Dent, who once ran an Internal Affairs investigation against Gordon's precinct.

With this moral triad at its core, the film then proceeds to metaphorically -- and not so metaphorically -- demolish the methods, moral vacuity and false ontology of the "war on terror."

First, Batman practices some "enhanced interrogation techniques" on the Joker, only to learn that he was being manipulated by the Joker all along, with fatal results. Then when Bruce uses an advanced and secret project at Wayne Industries to turn every cell phone in Gotham into sonar-based surveillance devices, his partner in Bat-tech, Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman), is appalled, swearing to resign if the machine isn't destroyed. While they agree to use the mass "unwarranted wiretap" just once, successfully pinpointing the Joker and what appear to be his henchmen in a skyscraper on the waterfront, when Batman arrives in advance of the S.W.A.T. team he is horrified to discover that despite its sophistication his technology was incapable of distinguishing hostages from terrorists, something of which only human presence and judgment is capable.

Next, we see the abandonment of Dent's "constitution." The Joker destroys Harvey Dent by disfiguring him and killing Rachel. Traumatized, grieving and seeking revenge, the formerly principled Dent kills five people, including two corrupt cops, but not before flipping his lucky coin -- which by now is as burnt on one side as he is, thus surrendering all his moral choices to an external force: sheer chance.

But it is in the film's gut-wrenching climax that reveals the supposed existential crisis of the "war on terror" for the cruel and dehumanizing proposition it is.

Fleeing the chaos of Gotham city, two crowded ferries break down in the harbor: one filled with ordinary citizens, the other with convicts clad in Guantanomo-esque orange suits. Each ship's crew discovers the boats are filled with explosives, as well as provided with a gift-wrapped detonator. Over the intercom, the Joker reveals the nature of his "social experiment": the detonators are for the other ship's bombs. If the passengers don't blow up the other ship, he'll blow up both of them at midnight.

For 15 agonizing minutes, the passengers argue amongst themselves and the ship's authorities, who are themselves paralyzed but increasingly tempted to destroy their sister ships. The prison ship is held in particular contempt by some of the passengers, who argue that the men on that boat "made their choice" of lawlessness and may therefore be sacrificed -- in other words, it is best to kill them over there before they kill us over here. Unable to make the final fatal decision, the authorities on both boats abdicate responsibility and turn the detonators over to their passengers -- who ultimately refuse to kill out of fear. In the end, the simple recognition of shared humanity and the insistence on retaining one's own moral agency are shown to be the most heroic acts of all.

At the same time, however, Gotham City's moral leaders are undone. Dent is killed by Batman, who then convinces Gordon that, to preserve Gotham's "constitution" -- the public image of Dent and all he stood for -- Batman and all he stands for must instead accept culpability for Dent's crimes. Unilateral, lawless and unaccountable vigilantism are now publicly discredited. The final scenes of the film show Fox turning his back on and walking away from the machinery of surveillance while Batman flees into the night, chased by police and dogs. Gordon, surrounded by press and members of the public then grimly takes an ax to the bat-beacon, cutting off the state's recourse to vigilantism.

Without either Dent or Batman to intervene on their behalf, Gordon and all of Gotham -- and by extension, the audience -- are left to face a complex, dangerous and interconnected world as a community of individual moral agents, guided by Dent's principles of law, fairness and justice -- as well as their own reclaimed humanism. Even in the face of incomprehensible, implacable evil, The Dark Knight reminds us that these are our only anchors, for without them we betray both them and ourselves.

America may still have that chance. At the moment, however, its Constitution has been mauled, and politicians of both parties long ago surrendered their capacities to stop an illegal war and the looting of the nation's wealth. Now, however, The Dark Knight warns against both abandoning our principles out of fear, grief and hatred, as well as abdicating our moral agency to external authorities -- both of which comprised the hallmark moral syndrome of the years following 9/11.

That audiences and critics have embraced this film gives one hope that the days of uncritically turning to leaders promising to save us from our fears are at an end. As James Fallows says, the 9/11 era is over.

We are all Gothamites now.
I think the greatest aspect of the movie is the Joker. The entire plot centers around Joker's psychopathic manipulations. He exploits our best and worst traits: survival, vengeance, altruism, pity, fearfulness, greed, vanity. And Nolan is very aware of the themes with which he is dealing: martial law, noble lies, etc. It's not that he is saying "martial law, torture, mass surveillance is a good thing", it's that he is asking a question: is it worth it? Or does it simply lead to more of the same? Batman comes to stomp out crime, and the response is even worse forms of crime.

One example (spoiler alert) is Fox's use of the mass surveillance. He takes a moral position that he will not work for Wayne Enterprises if the machine exists in the building, and that it is "too much power for one person". That's why Wayne gives HIM the power, and assures the machine's destruction of the machine after it has served its purpose, because Fox is the only guy responsible enough to use it for an unselfish goal.

I think that, in a world without an adequate understanding of pathocracy, things like martial law are sometimes inevitable. But the deciding factor is WHO is using that power, and their motivations for using it.
 
The Dark Knight struck me as an excellent ode to duality, and the cognitive dissonance experienced when trying to derive meaning from the "shades of gray" that fall between extremes.

Both the Joker and the Batman embody what seem to be recurring polar forces of this reality; Tyranny and Anarchy; Order and Chaos; Solve et Coagula. Their eternal struggle is a feedback loop created by their mutual choice to operate through fear-tactics.
 
I have now seen the Dark Knight for 1 and ½ times, and I must agree with "Batman: Hollywood's Terror Dream" article. There are so many overt and covert little manipulations going on it's sickening to watch it. The first time I left the theater I felt very drained.

Two little interesting and most relevant points (IMO) that stuck in my mind after watching:

In the scene where Harvey Dent threatens one of the Joker's men with a gun after an attempt at the Gotham's mayor's life, Batman appears and tells Harvey to cool off because the Joker's soldier is "a paranoid schizophrenic, the kind that Joker attracts". Now that is a bit interesting because as we all know, "conspiracy theorists" have been associated "paranoid schizophrenics", thanks to obvious propaganda. So here we see a subtle nod that social critics fall easily to psychopathic manipulations, which is of course the exact opposite of the truth (in most cases at the least). All the while the movie serves the point that Joker is a psychopath on a silver plate (Joker is called a psychopath by Bruce Wayne atleast once, and the description fits). It is an obvious false alignment of psychopathy and fallibility with anarchy a-kin to South Park-series 9/11 episode. Or am I just being a "paranoid schizophrenic"?

In another scene we see the standard blame-the-shift psychopathic routine perpetrated by Joker on Harvey Dent (now Twoface). Joker basicly accuses the society of being schemers trying to control their own little world, while he himself has no scheme at all (it later turns out that everything Joker did he did according to a plan), thus manipulating Harvey Dent (a liberal character) into his own cause. There isn't much more to be said about this scene in particular but it can be used to illustrate the meme of the movie that seems to be the complete reversal of the actual role of psychopathy in the modern society. Yes, in the movie it is still a destructive force, but obviously dedicated to bringing down the system, not upholding it to it's own rotten purpose, as IRL. That could be a subtle reassurance to the unconscious masses that indeed, where supervillains miraculously get into highly guarded places without any problems (running throughout the movie), a pack of religious fanatics can operate the most intricate terrorist strikes that slip by all intelligence agencies of the western world(9/11) out of a dogdamned cave. You know, because "those damn terrorists just have too much time in their hands and are schemers". Whether or not people will even notice is uncertain, but the implication is there.

Having greatly enjoyed Nolan's previous films, including Batman Begins, I had very much cognitive dissonance when reading some of the negative stuff about The Dark Knight. But with some overt straussian vibes like "silent guardian", I can't see how there can be any ambiquity to the films message. I haven't read the comic book by the same name on which TDK is based, so if all fascistic tones are actually carried over from there, I can forgive Nolan for that.

With the whole South Park thing (another quite interesting pop culture subject for me), I have to wonder if PTB with their propaganda and COINTELPRO resources are laying tracks for the possible widespread (and who knows, maybe even controlled) outbreak of psychopathy/pathocracy information. Of course the other obvious purpose would be to get any dissenting moviebuffs debating the movie ;). After all, I realize that I'm reading quite deeply into this. However, personally I see TDK especially rife with hidden messages and a movie that has resonated with North American public so well it makes an interesting case for study at propaganda (I'm not suggesting that the cause for it is anything other than flashflashbangbang).

FWIW though, it does have some good thrills. I liked the dark tone of the movie and soundtrack that underlined the action perfectly. At times brought into my mind a perfect crime thriller from 1995 called 'Heat'. But other than that, I could hardly enjoy the movie.
 
Smallwood said:
I have now seen the Dark Knight for 1 and ½ times, and I must agree with "Batman: Hollywood's Terror Dream" article. There are so many overt and covert little manipulations going on it's sickening to watch it. The first time I left the theater I felt very drained.

Two little interesting and most relevant points (IMO) that stuck in my mind after watching:

In the scene where Harvey Dent threatens one of the Joker's men with a gun after an attempt at the Gotham's mayor's life, Batman appears and tells Harvey to cool off because the Joker's soldier is "a paranoid schizophrenic, the kind that Joker attracts". Now that is a bit interesting because as we all know, "conspiracy theorists" have been associated "paranoid schizophrenics", thanks to obvious propaganda. So here we see a subtle nod that social critics fall easily to psychopathic manipulations, which is of course the exact opposite of the truth (in most cases at the least). All the while the movie serves the point that Joker is a psychopath on a silver plate (Joker is called a psychopath by Bruce Wayne atleast once, and the description fits). It is an obvious false alignment of psychopathy and fallibility with anarchy a-kin to South Park-series 9/11 episode. Or am I just being a "paranoid schizophrenic"?

I had a different take on that scene. I thought it was a lucid observation about how psychopaths attract people who are susceptible to ponerization. In fact their were a number of times that the writers alluded to having knowledge of how psychopaths manage their pyramid of control. I don't think it was a dig at conspiracy theorists at all, but maybe I'm just not paranoid enough.

Smallwood said:
In another scene we see the standard blame-the-shift psychopathic routine perpetrated by Joker on Harvey Dent (now Twoface). Joker basicly accuses the society of being schemers trying to control their own little world, while he himself has no scheme at all (it later turns out that everything Joker did he did according to a plan), thus manipulating Harvey Dent (a liberal character) into his own cause. There isn't much more to be said about this scene in particular but it can be used to illustrate the meme of the movie that seems to be the complete reversal of the actual role of psychopathy in the modern society. Yes, in the movie it is still a destructive force, but obviously dedicated to bringing down the system, not upholding it to it's own rotten purpose, as IRL. That could be a subtle reassurance to the unconscious masses that indeed, where supervillains miraculously get into highly guarded places without any problems (running throughout the movie), a pack of religious fanatics can operate the most intricate terrorist strikes that slip by all intelligence agencies of the western world(9/11) out of a dogdamned cave. You know, because "those damn terrorists just have too much time in their hands and are schemers". Whether or not people will even notice is uncertain, but the implication is there.

Hmm, again I saw it differently. Joker is right, society, or normal people in general, operate under a certain set of rules. He, on the other hand, was not bound by those rules. He is the 'Agent of Chaos', operating under a completely different mindset. This allowed him to do things which most people did not, or could not, understand. This is again an excellent example of how psychopaths operate in our world today. I think your implication about how this will affect people's opinions on terrorism is unfounded. Perhaps I am wrong though.

Smallwood said:
Having greatly enjoyed Nolan's previous films, including Batman Begins, I had very much cognitive dissonance when reading some of the negative stuff about The Dark Knight.

Well, I think their is some warranted criticism. Aside from Heath Ledger's awesome job creating Joker, I thought most of the rest of the cast was average at best. Christian Bale was much better in Batman Begins, and Aaron Eckhart didn't really add much IMO. His "turn" to the dark side seemed too easy, like it was there merely to further the story. And the rest was there to fill in the time when Joker wasn't showing us how psychopaths have turned the world into what it is today. For that alone, it is worth the watch.
 
Pinkerton said:
I had a different take on that scene. I thought it was a lucid observation about how psychopaths attract people who are susceptible to ponerization. In fact their were a number of times that the writers alluded to having knowledge of how psychopaths manage their pyramid of control. I don't think it was a dig at conspiracy theorists at all, but maybe I'm just not paranoid enough.

To me that seemed rather obvious from the get go. It was among the reasons I actually went to see the movie for another time just to see whether I had heard that correctly. But I may have some sensitivities on that issue.

Pinkerton said:
Hmm, again I saw it differently. Joker is right, society, or normal people in general, operate under a certain set of rules. He, on the other hand, was not bound by those rules. He is the 'Agent of Chaos', operating under a completely different mindset. This allowed him to do things which most people did not, or could not, understand. This is again an excellent example of how psychopaths operate in our world today. I think your implication about how this will affect people's opinions on terrorism is unfounded. Perhaps I am wrong though.

In the shadow of updating the image of the war on terror (Al-qaeda recruiting whites etc.) that seemed to me distressing. The psychopathy of Joker is very well portrayed, but in the end, I think that portrayal adds to the fear and uncertainty that most people already have on this issue. Moreover, now that I think about it, there is another interesting nuance to the movie in that it asks must we become psychopaths in order to defeat them? In other words, is it trying to make (the real) manipulations of Bush, Cheney et al. seem justified in fight against (the imaginary) psychopathy of (imaginary) terrorism? That is my impression anyway, unless I totally missed something really essential.

Pinkerton said:
Aside from Heath Ledger's awesome job creating Joker, I thought most of the rest of the cast was average at best.

Have to agree. If Ledger was removed from the scenes, there would be essentially nothing left, he steals the whole show. Even if Bale (whose acting I've always adored) has more screentime overall I can barely remember any of his acting. Which in a way must be a mark of true genius on part of Ledger. Sadly, I can't enjoy the rest of the show with having to be on guard. Maybe it has as much to do with all the action and chaos as it has with all the things I didn't like.
 
Smallwood said:
I have to wonder if PTB with their propaganda and COINTELPRO resources are laying tracks for the possible widespread (and who knows, maybe even controlled) outbreak of psychopathy/pathocracy information.

Could you please elaborate on this?
 
Back
Top Bottom