Ack! No you are not fully understanding my point and the reason for this thread! Not to say that your post isn't correct, it is but from only one point of veiw.
...
as expected.
My point is that there are two ideas battling it out in this film, possibly more and their battle is never really resolved. Allow me to make my self more clear. What you said that I marked in bold is very true. I'm not disagreeing with you. But you only have half of my point. Because the film is very convoluted, that doesn't mean that anything goes. Many people are going to come out of this film with very different opinions on the different characters actions.
That's true, some people will walk out thinking they saw their conservative beliefs reflected in the story, others will see an anti-war-on-terror anti-torture message. The point is that every one sees the obvious conflict of contradicting messages and usually puts forth the one where he tends to agree the most.
You said "
the film shows that it is never okay to lie"and I was just pointing at the obvious... the film it's quite convoluted and even then the ending's main theme seems to be: "
sometimes lying it's the best option", which it's quite opposed to what you saw.
So do I believe that the film shows that it isn't worth it to lie? Sure. But I'm not here to get in an argument on ethics and morals. I am just saying to the people who thought that it act was a hollow heroic act. Those people are supposed to think that the act is not heroic, they aren't alone there are characters in the film that state that it isn't a heroic act.
Obviously the film challenges many stereotypical notions and "heroism" is one of those. What does it take to be heroic? Do the right thing, regardless of what is necessary and effective? To sacrifice oneself for the sake of others? Clearly, Batman took the second one and dismissed the first for a pragmatic point of view. His actions are arguably not the right thing to do, but he still sacrificed himself (his image and safety) for the sake of a better future for the City. Do you think it was necessary or even morally acceptable? That's another story. But what he did was still heroic.
To me, it's a wordplay. Do a heroic thing and then say it's not heroic. People will say: What, isnt' he sacrificing himself for the people? Yes he is. And the movie is making us consider and evaluate what the concept of true heroism should be.
As a side note, and I know it's a different subject, but why do you believe that movie showed it's
never okay to lie? If that is so, I don't think we saw the same film.
(on a side note I would like to say that one of the posts in this thread stated that the Joker is not exactly entirely for free will, and in a sense I agree. He is for freedom, so he ends up being more of a Metistopholes than a Christ figure which makes much more sense, or Fyodor Karamazov who would believe in just mans baseness. Rachel it seems, the lover of truth stands on the Chirst figure Archtype and argues for freedom)
To say that the Joker is for freedom is to stand by a very faulty concepto, IMHO. Many people have noticed the Freudian undertones of the Batman/Joker symbolism: The Jker represents the Id and The Batman represents the Superego. Joker is all impulse and expression of the most basic impulses regardless of any moral constraintg. Batman (functioning as the Superego) is there to repress the
id and to bind its actions by moral rules. In the most simple and superficial point of view, the id is freedom and the the superego is the suppression of freedom.
But I don't share that point of view. Freedom, at its very core, is the ability to make choices. Trascendental choices, at last. And to ahve that kind of ability you must have the power to make such choices. A person can be as much of a slave to moral repression as to
basic impulses. Basic impulses are natural in the individual and moral norms are artificial constructions, of course. But basic impulses also block rationality, and rationality it's the most powerful weapon to make choices with. The Superego is an empowering force of the psyche, because it establishes a balancing act with the already natural and basic
id.
To put it in another words... if the people followed the Joker's philosophy, they would be slaves to their own impulses. They would be slaves to their most basic driving forces. And the Superego (Batman), with all it's retrains, it's about empowering the individual by suppressing most impulses (good and bad). In his youth, Bruce wanted revenge, for example, but once he managed to tap into those emotion and control them, he managed to become an instrument of will.
A true expression of will would be the middle-ground between the Joker and Batman (the id and the superego). A true expressionf freedom would be one that made true decisions without the interruption of fear... either basic fears or fear of social punishment (in any form).
That said I will tell you what I think is wrong with your post. It seems to me that you want to believe in Batman. This is okay I love Batman too but he does many unethical things in this film, its important to be able to play devils advocate for a little.
Let's play devil's advocate then. Does he do many unethcial things? Ethics, in any form, are as disputable as the wackiest of religions. He did what he thought it was best for ridding Gotham of crime and corruption. Were his methods flawless? Of course not, they spawned a war of escalation between Law and Crime. But... was there a better way?
Well, it seems that he managed to perfect it a little bit at the end of the movie. He didn't trust the copycat vigilantes to do his work and he knew he was setting the wrong kind of example... then he understood that he couldn't be the right kind of example while he stood outside the Law.
He couldn't fight for Gotham in an effective way without breaking the law.
But he couldn't stand there as a symbol for people to admire either. The common citizen was starting to take the 'wrong' kind of example and the mobsters were upping their game as they got desperate. He didn't foresee such consequences. And by the end of TDK he chooses not to be an example anymore. He chooses to set himself apart from the City and the people, to be just a driving force of pragmatism... of 'what needs to be done and can be done'... and spare the people the conflincting morals and the targeting by the mob. He chooses to be alone... to put Gotham out of danger.
Yes, I do believe he did the right thing... until the next unforeseeable consequence hits the city and provokes a crisis. It's a way that is far from perfect... but, is there a better one? I can't think of any.
Your post argues for security over freedom. Simple as that. It has the same reasoning of Batman, the Grand Inquisitor, Ivan and many political figures. Like the wiretapping that bruce does. It is meant to make the people safe but then it takes away their right to privacy.
There you're wrong. I argue for freedom. I argue for the ability to make a choice that encompasses my moral views. I choose to choose. I believe in that freedom. Even when security is compromised and one's likfe is in mortal danger. That's why I admired so much that people in the ferries were willing to risk their lives instead of sacrificing the life of others. That's a true example of election... one that is made against the most basic drive of all: self-preservation.
But freedom, to be exercised, needs something else... power. You need to have the ABILITY to make a choice. You need to be
able to make a choice. If you're scared, looking for food or shelter to survive... if you're desperate... then you will most likely be deprived of your rationality and your ability to make the choices you want. If you bring down or reject the very structures of society, then you're rejecting the cooperation of a group to achieve things. And those are the things that can empower the human being and make him able to make choices.
Aren't there lots of bad things attached to most societies? Sure. But if I want to be able to choose between, let's say, a science career or law school, I wouldn't be able to choose if I had no opportunity to go to college.
To bring down the structure of society is also to bring down tools that empower us in many ways. And loosing those privileges makes us uncapable of making choices.
Oh, and I value my privacy a great deal. But between my privacy and my life or the lives of others... I choose life. Bruce did the right thing nonetheless: destroy the sonar. And I think it's safe to say that leaders need critics like Fox all the time.
The heroic act at the end is analogous too another lie in the film. When Dent lies to the people in order keep Batman's secret and possibly save peoples lives.
But not everyone is so feeble.
Rachel says, "you're right letting Harvey take the fall for batman isn't heroic at all".
Well, I think Rachel was wrong. It's a though call to make but just because Dent was turning in didn't mean Batman had to come forth and confess his indentity. How can that be the right thing to do if it puts more people into harms way? Not even Dent was able to do his job without Batman colaboration. And the only person that could eventually bring the Joker down was Batman. He accomplished that only because he was around to do so. To deprive Gotham of Batman was exactly what the mob wanted. Was that right?
Maybe in another time. But Gotham still depended heavily on Batman to stand against criminals. Like Harvey said, Batman should answer for the laws he had broken, but not under those conditions.
If Rachel were around for the final act then I am sure she would have disapproved in the same way. Both Rachel and Batman are making Valid points. Rachel just hasn't lost hop in freedom. She believes in the power of every individual to rise above suffering because that is their choice to make.
And yet experience told her the contrary. As a D.A. assitant she couldn't bring down the criminals she prosecuted and almost lost her life... another useless sacrifice. Batman made her work effective once he arrived to twon.
Maybe it didn't have to be that way, but that's the way it happened and it proves her wrong. Falcone made far more valid points: People don't have power when they're afraid. Well, Batman was there to give courage to the innocent and instill fear among the criminals. He was there to take power away from the mob and put it in the hands of the innocent citizens.
I do think Rachel was wrong about that.
The final act, however, batman makes the choice for the people. He doesn't believe they can handle the truth and so in the interest of their safety makes the choice for them.
Then, maybe you think taht everybody can handle the truth. And it is a very valid point. But it's contrary to what Bruce, Alfred, Harvey and Gordon did. They all lied at some point.
Even Rachel lied by omission... she knew who Batman was a never told anybody. Was that wrong?
This shows that all though he believes that there is good in humanity, he doesn't believe in the individual good of humanity the way Rachel did.
"If you lose faith in me, bruce I hope that you still keep your faith in people".
He is beginning to lose his faith in the people, for instance He believes that the people will overcome the ferry incident but then lies to them about Dent. Why?
He believes in the people, just not as much. He believed in the people when the conditions are met... when they're inspired by good examples and not pessimistic and driven by their fears. But he does believe. He just happens to remember the pre-Batman Gotham.
Rachel knows that if the people want to take back their city enough they will. But it can't be done just by one man. The whole city must make the choice. This is why his inspiration was so good in taking away that fear in order to give them the freedom to make that choice.
Agreed. Don't you think that people finding about Dent would take away much of that inspiration?
It's like an argument against religion... I'm an atheist, and I don't believe in, say, christian faith. But I'm aware of the positive impacts that a well conducter christianity can bring upon society and individual. To many, religion can be the floating board that prevents them from sinking.
Well, it's a very direct analogy.
But then he goes overboard and when people like Brian are inspired to be vigilantes like Batman he stops them. why? Doesn't believe in them, even if he doesn't its their choice.
Well, it's the choice of the criminals to murder and rob and sell drugs too. Shouldn't they be stopped just because it's their choice? That's preposterous.
Batman is not different from the vigilantes because he doesn't wear hockey pads... it's because he's more prepared and he's NOT willing to kill. They are. And they should be stopped.
That's an obvious part of the movie so I don't know who's playing devil's advocate here.
In this film Batman comes dangerously close to totalitarianism. One might argue that you cannot avenge evil without becoming it.
You might need to read my review where I go indepth on Batman as a totalitarian.
'Dangerously close' is a term as relative as they come. It you deem criminal acts as 'an act of will and freedom' (and they are, indeed, true examples of the
id at work) then every law out there is totalitarian. And if that was the case, in my eyes,
totalitarianism is still prefered to
anarchy. And I'm not making any exxagerations. That is what the Joker proposes.
The mobsters are known for acting like a feudal lords. Batman still lets the criminals be prosecuted by the elected officials. Who is more totalitarian?
Sorry, but I think you're being disingenous here.
Anyways Batman, Dent, and Gordon, I think are all the Grand Inquisitor. That doesn't make them wrong, but we aren't sure if that makes them right either.
You're right, but you failed to acknowledge something: they may be wrong, but we can't think of better ways either.
And showing the truth doesn't always matter. People still reelected Bush, didn't they?
t:
