The Dark Knight About Batman's decision...

[The Joker]

I don't have much more to say since I don't want to fuel this BB Vs. TDK debate

This isn't a BB vs TDK debate.

 

[GothamAlleys]

Well, this sure is an interesting thread and debate, but I feel like most arguments have been said already on both sides and are already getting repeated. Neither side is budging

 

[The Joker]

Yeah, I do enjoy a good debate, but you're right it is reaching a stale mate.

I'll bow out on this link, which accesses the themes and morals of the movie very nicely:

The final monologue that Commissioner Gordon brings the themes from Batman Begins to their logical conclusion: Namely, that as a man, Bruce Wayne’s powers to evil crime are rather limited. As a man, he can be corrupted, he can be killed, and ultimately, he can be defeated. As a symbol he can become far more, and at the end of The Dark Knight, he becomes, to society, an uncontainable force in very much the same way the Joker was. He becomes hunted, making people believe that he cannot be controlled, that he has lost all respect for societal norms and the rule of law. As Gordon realizes he needs to blame the murders on Batman, he acknowledges not only the need for society to push their fears onto something, but their hopes as well (which he allows them to do by preserving Dent’s good name).

In order to keep from tearing itself to shreds, society needs to believe in the incorruptibility of good and the relative remoteness of evil. The Dark Knight points us to ways in which we cope with this need.

Simultaneously, it’s also made clear that, in fact, Batman never succumbs to his own dark, inner urges. In the movie, Bruce Wayne says the line, “I’ve seen what I have to become to fight men like him,” and he rejects the path he has to take to stop Joker, a man who has no rules whatsoever. In one of the more memorable scenes from the film, the two have a showdown in Gotham’s city streets, the Joker manically screaming “Hit me!” as Batman is propelled towards him in the bat pod. As much as Batman wants to annihilate the Joker, he knows he can’t violate his own moral code, and almost sacrifices himself to prevent this from happening (albeit as part of a broader ruse to capture him). Still, Batman doesn’t seek to kill evildoers, but to bring them to justice. The dichotomy that the film sets up between Joker and Batman is one of chaos vs. order. The dichotomy between Joker and Dent is one of good vs. evil…

http://www.slashfilm.com/assessing-the-themes-of-the-dark-knight/

Trav, I don't know if you're going to reply to my post or not, or if I'll reply to yours if you do. I'll see if there's anything new to say if you do.

If not, it's been a pleasure as always.

 

[Travesty]

Then gotham city loses its hope, and Harveys prosecutions are undone. Genius.

How are Harvey's prosecution undone if he was just found dead? How would Gotham lose hope, if he was just found dead?

That a serious question? He's Batman. He can fly on glider wings. He uses grappling hooks. He runs over rooftops. Thats how he got through the perimeter.

I was telling you how Batman could get out un-noticed, because you made a claim that he couldn't get out of the perimeter without cops noticing. If he left un-noticed, then they didn't have to blame Batman. They could have come up with many different situations/excuses.

Nah youre just makin weak arguments.

Thanks, I guess I don't need to respond to you anymore.


Joker(SHH member): I don't feel like quoting and repeating myself, but thanks for responding. Like most debates, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[Godzilla2014]

My only real problem with the ending is the part of the justification for the cover-up being, "Sometimes the truth isn't good enough. Sometimes people deserve to have their faith rewarded." Like science, the truth is not democratic. Wanting people to believe Harvey Dent did not kill those people does not mean that he did not. By that logic, we should hide all government waste and corruption.
I don't mind the idea of Batman taking the blame for the killings, it's just this particular part of the justification that I have trouble with.

 

[Blitzkrieg Bop]

From a cinematic standpoint, it's a perfect ending. The movie spells it out for you earlier.

"Letting Harvey take the fall for this is not heroic at all."

"No, but I trusted him to do the right thing. Saving my ass."

Harvey took the blame for being Batman and his crimes, so it's only poetic Batman do the same for Harvey.

 

[Anita18]

My friend sent this link to me (hah, she knows me too well) and it touches on the subject of this thread:

In fact, the whole film acts as a condemnation of vigilante justice. Batman is particularly bad at fighting the idea of crime. Sure, a transforming car and mad ninja skills are useful in a fight, but using these powers in the dark, without the rule of law or open conduct as a masked dictator (Batman is explicitly compared to Caesar) does nothing to support society and only feeds into the Joker’s plans. The Joker has an unlimited number of minions (including within the police department), Batman limits himself to a handful of allies. Batman inspires no one but idiots in hockey pads and the Joker himself, while the Joker brings out the worst in criminals, the general populace, and most obviously, in Gotham’s best defender, Harvey Dent. That Batman can’t save Harvey, in the end, is his ultimate failure: he can’t inspire good in even the best man he knows.

Batman’s decision to take the fall for Harvey’s crimes, to be hunted and hated in Gotham, serves two purposes: first, it elevates Harvey’s tactics of open government over Batman’s own more direct methods as the right way to fight crime, even when it fails, AND it serves as a punishment for Batman for letting the Joker do as much damage as he did. The Dark Knight is one of the most interesting and fascinating science fiction movies of the last ten years specifically because it takes two hours to prove, beyond a doubt, that the hero is wrong, that Batman is the wrong way to fight crime. I honestly can’t wait for next year’s The Dark Knight Rises. After such a thorough deconstruction of the idea of Batman in the face of the idea of crime, I wonder how Nolan will put him back together again.

http://www.tor.com/blogs/2011/05/the-idea-of-crime

 

[Godzilla2014]

My friend sent this link to me (hah, she knows me too well) and it touches on the subject of this thread:



http://www.tor.com/blogs/2011/05/the-idea-of-crime

Very interesting. This is why I love THE DARK KNIGHT. It maybe the first cerebral superhero film ever. I love films based on ideas and give you a lot to think about even after the credits finish rolling.

 

[The Joker]

Awesome link there, Anita

 

[El Payaso]

My friend sent this link to me (hah, she knows me too well) and it touches on the subject of this thread:



http://www.tor.com/blogs/2011/05/the-idea-of-crime

Fantastic analysis!

 

[Mach2Infinity]

An interesting blog there. I too felt that the film was essentially an observation/commentary on why vigilantism is bad for society. Yet, the 'vigilante' is the protagonist of the piece. I liked the justification in "BB" for Batman's existence and why he wasn't a vigilante: "a vigilante is simply a man lost in the scramble for his own gratification....if you make yourself more than just a man, if you devote yourself to an ideal, and they can't stop you. You become something else entirely.....a legend". Though technically Batman is a vigilante within the eyes of the law and cannot be used as an instrument to punish and apprehend criminals. That's part of the problem...we're shown how Batman is bad for Gotham society yet we're suppose to root for him? It's a little awkward to handle. The only fix for this is for Batman to somehow be legalised by the Gotham authorities in the next film. Now of course, in our society, there is no mechanism which would allow a vigilante to be legalised and thus accepted into the social and legal fabric of a community. So how will Nolan manage this? He'll either destroy Batman --or somehow -- a new bill will be passed (which will seem believable) that ratifies Batman's presence as a legitimate force within society.

Forget about whether he wants to be admired/loved by the populace, that's completely irrelevant. Ask this: if he cannot command the will of the people to act in their name and for them; then what justification does he have to exist? This question has to be answered in the next film. I honestly won't feel satisfied until I've seen the third film. I liked the second film but to me it's just one unresolved cliffhanger. It's a stepping stone, that hasn't yet lead to anything.