Is The Dark Knight... George Bush?

[The Germanator]

I did think about the "war on terror" aspect of the film and wondered if that was an intended commentary. I never thought that it was pro-Conservative or pro W though. If anything, I feel like the Dark Knight explains that a war on terror doesn't work.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by The Germanator

I did think about the "war on terror" aspect of the film and wondered if that was an intended commentary. I never thought that it was pro-Conservative or pro W though. If anything, I feel like the Dark Knight explains that a war on terror doesn't work.

While I agree that this article is a bit of an overstatement, I can't agree with your analysis on The Dark Knight's commentary on the war on terror. The only thing that saved Gotham was Batman breaking the law and violating moral codes by invading people's privacy to locate the man who threatened them. Batman invaded another sovereign nation to bring a foreign criminal to justice. He tortured criminals to get information, almost killing one of them.

The only things that worked were what the Dark Knight used to bring down crime, while the White Knight of Harvey Dent was simply a moral reflection to make people more comfortable with what "had to be done". Whether or not these actions were "right" or "wrong" is another matter than is left open to discussion, and believe intentionally so.

Agree or disagree with the message, but it was the brutality and illegality of Batman's tactics that saved Gotham in that movie.

[KillerGremlin]

Of course, the big difference is that when Batman invaded another nation he didn't do it under false pretenses or made up information.

Also, the movie made it pretty clear that spying on people is morally objectionable, as Morgan Freeman happily demonstrated when he destroyed the device and resigned.

But more so, I think this movie just took the theme that was already used in Spiderman 2 - the weight of being a hero and not being accepted by the people you are trying to help - and applied it to a more realistic scenario. And, it fits much better in the Batman universe, which is much much darker than Marvel's Spiderman.

I felt that the Dark Knight was more of a morality play than a political propaganda piece. It was nice to see, for once, a villain who did not want to take over the world. No, the Joker just wanted to watch the world burn. His interest was not in money or power, just in destruction and chaos. How do you combat a force like that?

[KillerGremlin]

...and before someone draws parallels to terrorists or suicide bombers...
Many of them are performing their act of terror under the pretense that there is some reward...just in the afterlife. Ledger's Joker was almost monster-like, an unstoppable force of evil that is almost impossible to combat.

The type of villain that makes you go, "hey...that guy is scary."

Had they not fucked up Spiderman with the awful Spiderman 3, I would have liked to have seen the appearance of Carnage. Carnage is a brutal serial killer, he could have easily rivaled the destruction of the Joker.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by KillerGremlin

Of course, the big difference is that when Batman invaded another nation he didn't do it under false pretenses or made up information.

I don't believe the film reference was about the Iraq war, but instead the act of special forces entering another nation and plucking out a protected citizen. I believe the act is called "extraordinary rendition" or something like that.

Also, the movie made it pretty clear that spying on people is morally objectionable, as Morgan Freeman happily demonstrated when he destroyed the device and resigned.

But that didn't stop them from doing it, and also didn't make it any less effective. Once again, my points have nothing to do with morality, just effectiveness. It raises the question: "Is morally objectionable activity justified if it facilitates a greater moral good?" I don't pretend to have that answer.

I felt that the Dark Knight was more of a morality play than a political propaganda piece. It was nice to see, for once, a villain who did not want to take over the world. No, the Joker just wanted to watch the world burn. His interest was not in money or power, just in destruction and chaos. How do you combat a force like that?

According to the movie, by using brutal and morally questionable tactics.

And while I agree that the motivation of the "suicide bombers" in the film wasn't the same as those of terrorists in the real world, the movie wasn;t about them... it was partially about a man who takes advantage of those people to meet his ends... just like the rich and educated terrorists are never the ones who strap bombs to themselves, they instead prey on the poor and uneducated. There is a correlation to be made.

OVerral, I think the message is that when faced with terrible, unreasoning evil, understanding is irrelevant. Action is necessary to stop it before the world is reduced to chaos, but also, does that action leave us with a world that is better or just a different kind of bad?

Thats why I think the film has a message, but it doesn't preach. It just poses difficult questions and says there are no clear answers, just choices we must make in a half-blind attempt to find the best result.

[KillerGremlin]

The bottom line is that the movie kicked ass. I think I need to watch the film 17 more times before I get into any serious nitpicking about semantics, because what really made me enjoy the film was Ledger's performance, the awesome cinema, the movie's fast pace, and the overall feel of it.

You are absolutely correct about the movie dealing with facing an unstoppable evil. I just wonder, is such an evil realistic in our society today, and if so who would be the hero to combat such evil?

[The Germanator]

Originally Posted by KillerGremlin

as Morgan Freeman happily demonstrated when he destroyed the device and resigned.

Speaking of Morgan Freeman...

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h...5yzQwD92BOAC00