Freedomain Radio

Hey Guys
Havn't posted in a while but after watching the new batman film 'The Dark Knight' a really wanted to post a review.
I really recommend seeing the film before reading this review.

FIrst of all it was a very enjoyable movie.The plot of interesting and doesn't get predictable. Ledgers performance as the joker was amazing, he really freaked the shit out of me and was believable.

But the most interesting thing about the film is that it addressed some points concerning anarchy, and I found it hard to tell which side the film was on.
For starters, they establish the joker as one really f%^&ed up guy and then he goes on to say stuff like;"the only sensible way to live is without rules", "these people are only as civillized as they have to be", "introduce a little anarchy into the equation"

From that I wasn't entirely optimistic, but the final actions scene sort of changed my mine.
****SPOILER ALERT*****
In the final scene there are two ferries which have been shut down in the middle of the harbour, each rigged with explosives. Each boat is given the detonator to the other boat, and the joker tells them that if both boats are still there at midnight (15 minutes time) then he'll blow them both up. There is some suspenseful scenes but none of the people end up blowing up either boat.

Then there is a scene where batman tells the captured joker "did you just want to show that people were as ugly as you"

I think that it is a positive thing for people to see and consider, people arn't actually as evil as they could be. The thing that makes the joker scary is that he doesn't have the empathy and simple human compassion that we do. We can't just kill people.

I know that noone is going to really consider anarchy based on this movie alone, but its interesting to have out there.

Anyone else got any oppinions?

Mid-review he states "[The Joker] simply appears, fully formed and motive-free—a merry terrorist with no agenda save for inspiring terror. Set against this agent of anarchy, of course, is Batman..." And he closes the review with "Films that convincingly depict the harrowing cost of true heroism and the corrosive effect of anarchy...are perpetually in very short supply."

I haven't seen the film yet, but this one scene is amazing: http://youtube.com/watch?v=iSZkAIi7U-o

The Joker: "You know, you remind me of my father. I hated my father!"

-----------------------------SPOILERS BELOW-----------------------------

I can agree that Ledger's performance as the Joker (as well the writing behind it) was amazing. A modern-day James Dean. I just saw the film and rushed home to see if anyone else on FDR had yet. Stef has talked about how the perfect example of anarchic or libertarian society was the lives of everyday people. I think that the scene with the two ferries was quite telling of this. When the tension of that scene is being set up (when you see everyone on the civilian boat trying to rationalize their demands for the murder of everyone on the boat full of convicts), and a man stands up and nervously demands "well then let's put it to a vote!" as if he is trying to be the voice of reason in the situation, all I could think of was "Democracy is to freedom as gang-rape is to lovemaking." But ultimately when thrust in to this "anarchy" as the Joker calls it, the boat full of convicts and the boat full of civilians both choose nonviolence--even though their own lives are at stake for that decision. They choose not to let their responses to corruption perpetuate corruption. Perhaps I am being too hopeful in thinking that this was intended, but this part of the film seems to be instructive of the fact that people are ready to choose for themselves... that people are ready for anarchy.

I thought that the lesson of the ferry scene was more just that people are not like the Joker in that they do have a conscience that prevents them from blowing up the other boat.  You could use it to argue for anarchy but I don't think that was the intention.  But the feeling you get from this movie is really FEAR.  You come out of it thinking, wow, I don't want to be killed by a sociopath, let's give the police and government more power so we can be safe from these people.  The Joker is a terrorist in this movie, not just a villain, so you can see how it ties in with a post-9/11 world.  In the realm of the movie, anarchy= chaos, mass murder, pencils shoved in your eye, etc.  Honestly I think a readiness for anarchy is the last thing on people's minds after seeing The Dark Knight.

 As I see it, any fictional depiction of anarchy as chaos just creates more opportunities to make fun of people for bringing up fictional stories to back up their views.  If anyone says "Anarchy doesn't work, go see Batman" or something similar (I've actually heard someone say "Anarchy doesn't work, look at Grand Theft Auto") I can totally laugh at their ass and call them out for being morons.  (And people do tend to reveal just how moronic they are when arguing against anarchism.)

At the end of the day, it's the Joker vs. Hitler.  Everyone knows who's real and who's made up.

I thought at least one of the messages is that state power is a nessisary evil.

But the most interesting and I think most straight forward concept of the movie is that it splits mankind into three levels

The Joker (evil)

Society (the status quo)

Batman (good, morality, justice ect...)

Society was not capable of dealing with the joker.  The joker was beyond society (in a negative way) it was only batman who is also beyond society (in a possitive way) that could defeat the joker.  Both of them the freaks of society.

Perhaps this was not the intended message, but I think it was inherent with the story and conflict, and I believe that it was that it is only the radicals that can truly deal with evil.  It is only a man that sets him self apart from society and culture that can overcome the "bad guys".

I loved this movie because I can't think of anything more epic then the conflict between batman and the joker. I can't think of anything that represents such polar opposites. The joker really is the oldest villen known to mankind... the monster that is inherently evil, kills for the sake of killing.  What truly makes him interesting is his relationship with batman. On one side there is the totally serious and over dramatic batman who represents good, order, and justice, and on the other the manic and insane joker who represents evil and choas. But perhaps the most interesting thing of all is that they are both freaks. Both out side of culture and society.

Perhaps the movies only real value is the pure drama of it. But it think it is fair to say there are some interesting insights...

Something else that is interesting, is that how Two Face seems to represent cynicism.  And it seemed to indicated that evil uses cynicism to break down mankind.

I think everyone here has forgotten that the TITLE role of the movie, Batman, is fighting crime outside the law. He is essentially a one-man DRO (while still trying to work with the state police) and he is a million times more effective than the police force, which is corrupt and useless. If anything, the film juxtaposes two people fighting outside the confines of the law, one who wants to destroy and the other who wants to protect.

Wonderbread166:

Honestly I think a readiness for anarchy is the last thing on people's minds after seeing The Dark Knight.

So you don't think people walked way thinking: "my god, we are ruled by the Joker"

danrod43:

He is essentially a one-man DRO (while still trying to work with the state police) and he is a million times more effective than the police force, which is corrupt and useless.

And yet, he's really just doing the police's job for them, not really fighting for "justice".  He's basically turned Wayne Enterprises into a wing of the Gotham PD, using the money and technology to wage his own "war on crime."  And he still delivers all of the criminals to the police, meaning their eventual exile to the rape rooms or, even worse, to the horrifically named specter of Arkham Asylum.  Oh, and he doesn't have any voluntary contracts with anyone, which kind of exempts him from being a DRO, doesn't it?  Not to mention the super-surveillance thing that comes up, not exactly a lover of personal freedoms here, more like a one-man corporate-backed George W. for crime.

It hurt to write that.  I've always been a huge Batman fan, and the movie was excellent, but like Iron Man the contradictions came out in full force this time,  a sign that this is probably the truest and best Batman movie to date.  Still highly recommended.

KevinP

My positive take on the film:

Batman mistakenly puts his trust in a politician and comes up disappointed.

Question: If you are forced into a situation of (a) blowing up X number of people through action or (b) blowing up X + Y number of people through inaction, why is it immoral to select (a)?

MengerFan:

My positive take on the film:

Batman mistakenly puts his trust in a politician and comes up disappointed.

Question: If you are forced into a situation of (a) blowing up X number of people through action or (b) blowing up X + Y number of people through inaction, why is it immoral to select (a)?

I was thinking about this.  Really, if you knew for sure that both ships would be blown up, and there was no other choice, the ethical choice would be to blow up the other ship.

Not quite sure why, but I've got absolutely no desire to see this movie, whatsoever. Even the new Indy movie was more alluring than this - and that was pretty thin, itself...

This movie gave me chills. It was brilliant.