Batman's War on Terror
Unable to bear the tension of following Spurs' Carling Cup match against Newcastle on teletext last night, I finally got round to going and seeing The Dark Knight. Now, I was vaguely aware that there had been at least one newspaper article (followed by lots of chatter on the net), that the film could be taken as a commentary on the 'War on Terror', as being supportive of Bush and Blair and effectively endorsing the use of illegal measures in extraordinary circumstances. Having seen the film, I find such arguments pretty much untenable. Sure, you can read Batman's battle against the Joker as an analogy for the 'War on Terror', and any film about superheroes implicitly endorses the use of illegal means to serve the 'greater good'. Where I have a problem is in seeing the film as an endorsement of Bush. Such conclusions can only be derived from a very superficial reading of the movie. As far as I could see, everything which happens - the Joker's reign of terror, the murders of judges and police offers, the destruction of property - is a direct result of Batman's disregard for the law in his vigilante campaign against crime, and the authorities '(most specifically Jim Gordon and Harvey Dent), complicity with him. The Joker is clearly Batman's polar opposite - mad and chaotic where Batman is rational and organised - a 'superhero' vigilante for the criminals of Gotham City. The criminals turn to him in the same way that the police and citizens of Gotham turned to the Batman when they felt powerless.
Moreover, if Batman had taken the threat posed by the Joker earlier, most of the later problems could have been avoided. Early in the film he is dismissive of the Joker (like Bush and al Qaieda, perhaps), preferring to see the Gotham mob - already weakened by his crackdown - as the main threat (Bush and Iraq, perhaps). By the time he realises his mistake, it's too late and things have escalated out of control. Consequently, he is forced into ever more extreme actions himself - including extraordinary rendition - which just serve to make things worse. Now, I don't know about you, but to me this seems like a critique of the US and UK response to 9/11, not an endorsement of it. The key to the film's attitude to the 'War on Terror', it seems to me, comes toward the end when a group of ordinary citizens choose to set aside their knee-jerk reactions to the Joker's latest threat and not blow up a ship full of convicts in order to save themselves. Unknown to them, the reviled convicts have simultaneously made the same decision. The message here seems clear, that the correct response to terrorists is not to descend to their level and play their game. That's what they want, for us to abandon our values and instead fight them on their level. It is also making the point that we shouldn't be so quick to judge and condemn others because they are different - like the convicts, people with beards and turbans might actually have some decency and not be evil terrorists.
What the film also seems to be saying is that when we do descend to the same level of the terrorists, we become conflicted against our own natures - an idea embodied by Harvey 'Two-Face' Dent. An essentially good man who resorts to consorting with a vigilante in order to maintain law and order, ends up unable to distinguish a desire for for personal revenge from a quest for justice. His reward is death. If only Bruce Wayne had heeded Alfred's wise advice, that sometimes we simply have to endure this terrible atrocities, then, as Batman, he wouldn't have engaged in a course of action that results in death, disfigurement, mass destruction and his own vilification. Where the film is weakest in its critique is on the subject of surveillance, where it is OK, just so long as it carried out by someone trustworthy - and who's more trustworthy than Morgan Freeman? A cop out, I know, but the plot required it, and it is at least recognising that such extreme measures can only ever be temporary and must be carefully regulated. So, there you have it - my liberal take on The Dark Knight. But hell, maybe we're all wrong, and it's just a movie about a guy who dresses up as a bat and fights crime.
Moreover, if Batman had taken the threat posed by the Joker earlier, most of the later problems could have been avoided. Early in the film he is dismissive of the Joker (like Bush and al Qaieda, perhaps), preferring to see the Gotham mob - already weakened by his crackdown - as the main threat (Bush and Iraq, perhaps). By the time he realises his mistake, it's too late and things have escalated out of control. Consequently, he is forced into ever more extreme actions himself - including extraordinary rendition - which just serve to make things worse. Now, I don't know about you, but to me this seems like a critique of the US and UK response to 9/11, not an endorsement of it. The key to the film's attitude to the 'War on Terror', it seems to me, comes toward the end when a group of ordinary citizens choose to set aside their knee-jerk reactions to the Joker's latest threat and not blow up a ship full of convicts in order to save themselves. Unknown to them, the reviled convicts have simultaneously made the same decision. The message here seems clear, that the correct response to terrorists is not to descend to their level and play their game. That's what they want, for us to abandon our values and instead fight them on their level. It is also making the point that we shouldn't be so quick to judge and condemn others because they are different - like the convicts, people with beards and turbans might actually have some decency and not be evil terrorists.
What the film also seems to be saying is that when we do descend to the same level of the terrorists, we become conflicted against our own natures - an idea embodied by Harvey 'Two-Face' Dent. An essentially good man who resorts to consorting with a vigilante in order to maintain law and order, ends up unable to distinguish a desire for for personal revenge from a quest for justice. His reward is death. If only Bruce Wayne had heeded Alfred's wise advice, that sometimes we simply have to endure this terrible atrocities, then, as Batman, he wouldn't have engaged in a course of action that results in death, disfigurement, mass destruction and his own vilification. Where the film is weakest in its critique is on the subject of surveillance, where it is OK, just so long as it carried out by someone trustworthy - and who's more trustworthy than Morgan Freeman? A cop out, I know, but the plot required it, and it is at least recognising that such extreme measures can only ever be temporary and must be carefully regulated. So, there you have it - my liberal take on The Dark Knight. But hell, maybe we're all wrong, and it's just a movie about a guy who dresses up as a bat and fights crime.
posted by Doc Sleaze at
7:43 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home