Pajamas Media

51 Comments

Rob:

Isn’t this from the Frank Miller comic? If you’ve seen any of the movies from his comics (300, Sin City), or read any of them, or listened to him speak, he’s a pretty conservative guy, so it’s not that surprising.

Jul 23, 2008 - 3:06 am dan:

Seriously - Batman is GWB/the USA. Isn’t that amazing?

Jul 23, 2008 - 4:56 am Tom:

This is NOT from the Frank Miller comic. At all.

FM’s work can claim more influence over the storyline of “Batman Begins” than over “The Dark Knight”; BB was practically “Batman Year One” with Ra’s Al Ghul and The Scarecrow clumsily crowbarred into the story. TDK’s only serious link to Miller’s Batman work is the overabundance of mobsters and corrupt cops in Gotham City.

Show me a Batman movie where the Joker appears on David Letterman with Dr. Ruth (is she still alive?), Robin’s a girl and Green Arrow’s got one arm (and maybe Gore/Lieberman bumper stickers on his bow) and THEN you can say that FM influenced it.

(And hey, Spider-Man 1 & 2 were great. It’s the 3rd movie where Sam Raimi just comPLETEly dropped the ball with awful miscasting and that wretched “I’m dancing” scene, among other things. Phooh.)

Jul 23, 2008 - 6:52 am J.J. Sefton:

Wow. A not-so-subliminal conservative message in a Hollywood movie that’s a hit. Well not a hit - a BLOCKBUSTER!!!!! Wonder what Penn/Sarandon/Robbins/DePalma think about that.

I will never forget a Hollywood-ism I learned well while serving my time in LA as a writer and story editor: “Hollywood would forgive Hitler if he were good box office. Well, maybe not forgive, but certainly forget.”

Jul 23, 2008 - 7:53 am ray:

best movie evah!

Jul 23, 2008 - 8:03 am CJ:

I think the Batman movie does give a Conservative message. Besides everything that Kyle Smith said why the movie is Conservative there are two other messages in the movie.

1) The importance of life. Batman can’t take a life, which is also part of the message of Batman Begins, “Have you finally learned to do what is necessary?”. This is big struggle for Batman in The Dark Knight. However, at the end, Batman realizes that he can clean Gotham City without killing. Of course this is a bit of a naive message, but the larger point is that Batman values ALL life.

The Joker’s culture is a culture of death and chaos. Batman’s culture is a culture of life and chaos. As we all know, it is this one thing, the value of life, that separates Batman and his arched enemy, The Joker.

2) The second message of the movie is the servant leader. Batman, who quickly becomes the leader of Gotham, is more than willing to fall on the sword for the good of the people, for the good of those that he knows he must protect. The Servant Leader. He is more than willing to sacrifice his good name, his reputation, his life so that others may live free of death and chaos.

These two are Conservative messages and in fact both are Christian messages, value life and be a servant leader-sacrifice yourself for the good of humanity.

Batman, The Dark Knight, is one of the best movies I have seen in a long, long, long, VERY long time. I will be seeing it a second time and you can bet it will become part of my movie collection as soon as it comes out on DVD.

Jul 23, 2008 - 8:04 am Bob:

The Dark Knight is a pro-War on Terror Movie. Similar to AQ/Islamists, the Joker only wants anarchy, destroy law and order. Not only that, he wants good, law abiding citizens to be like him (i.e. ferry scene).

Batman of course is the US of A. He uses torture, tramples on privacy rights, and comes close to becoming just like the Joker. That side plot about the accountant revealing the Batman’s true identify is just like the New York Times revealing our Top Secret programs in the war on terror.

In the end, the Batman is blamed for killing the cops and he is chased and hunted down by everyone. He does this because he can take it, just like the US of A.

The only big budet Pro-War on Terror movie that Hollywood releases turns out to be a Mega Hit.

Jul 23, 2008 - 8:11 am Tami:

Look at all of the anti-military movies that have come out in the last few years. Every single one of them have been a complete flop. I for one am sick and tired of these hollywood idiots and their big mouths slamming our military and our president through their silly rants on T.V. and though the movies they star in. It is tedious and old. There is a reason why all of those movies were only seen by what….10 people!!

There also another reason why the New York Times is down 82%.

When the rubber meets the road, most Americans love our country and are conservative in their hearts. We believe in the greater good and in WINNING the war on terrorism not cutting and running like the empty suit fraud who is running for president would have us do. This idiot will not even admit that the surge has worked. Unbelievable stupidity comes out of his mouth on a daily basis.

What a great analogy The Dark Knight movie is.

Cool!!!!!

Jul 23, 2008 - 9:32 am John the Libertarian:

Blech. Talk about boring. I’m weary of all this forced infusion of political insight into a blockbuster movie. Granted it’s a political blog, but ALL hero-driven blockbusters have a conservative thread of personal responsibility and self sacrifice, rather than the liberal strain of victimhood, entitlement and dependence. So this is a redundant and not too insightful piece on the obvious.

And whoever thinks Frank Miller had a hand in this is nuts. It’s the Nolan brothers who wrote the script from scratch.

Jul 23, 2008 - 9:43 am Richard:

Check this out! Mr. T navigating Batman, The Dark Knight. Funny stuff!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXGHwdJUjdI

Jul 23, 2008 - 11:07 am Bugs:

I think this movie reflects our current situation in the war on terror more fairly and accurately than either the liberal or conservative “narratives” have done up to now. It shows a much greater faith in the citizenry than either party tends to possess - a general belief that, despite weakness and disagreement, people with shared values can be trusted to do the right thing in the end. A key scene in this regard is the situation on the ferries - which I won’t spoil by describing it.

Jul 23, 2008 - 11:14 am rvastar:

“When the chips are down, these ‘civilized’ people…they’ll eat each other. You’ll see. I’ll show you!”

- The Joker

In my lifetime, there have been 3 movies that have left me feeling stunned for a day or two after leaving the theatre…oddly enough, all of them starred Morgan Freeman. The first two were Seven and Million Dollar Baby and the third is The Dark Knight.

With a movie this incredible, I could write a book about it…so I’ll just limit myself to a few points.

First, a warning to anyone with kids under 12. Anyone reading this who hasn’t seen the movie and is thinking of taking children to see it should really consider going to see this alone first, then making that decision. To tie into Mr. Smith’s point about how this is different from a Spider-Man or X-Men movie, The Dark Knight has much less in common with the “superhero” genre and is a lot more akin to the “crime/gangster” genre (think Heat) or the “psychological thriller” genre (again, think Seven). This movie is dark and disturbing…there’s nothing “campy” or “cartoonish” about it. When bullets start flying, they don’t miraculously miss everybody…people die. When bombs go off, people don’t come staggering out of the rubble…they stay buried. So be warned.

Basically, the Batman character understands civilization in the same way that non-Leftists do: namely, that civilization is a choice, it’s an act of will that’s brought into being by the blood and sacrifice of real human beings - it’s not some “magical” occurrence, brought about by “inherent goodness” or poetry or song lyrics. And for civilization to flourish and endure, one must understand that stern, strict punishment should await those - namely, criminals - who abuse the inherent openness of a civilized society in order to prey upon law-abiding members of society. Excuses are pointless…”root causes” don’t matter…maintenance of the social contract must come first. This was the theme that was so excellently examined in the first movie of the series, Batman Begins.

But The Dark Knight goes to a much deeper, darker place. Whereas Batman Begins deals with criminality, The Dark Knight examines the existential threats to civilization - the kind where, sensing weakness, a malevolent force seeks to tear down the existing order so as to rebuild a “proper” society. We’ve seen the results of these “rebuildings” in Russia with the Bolshevik Revolution and in Germany with the Nazis…and we’re steadily approaching a conflagration between the West and Islam. In the Batman universe, this force is represented by the Joker (”I’m an agent of chaos!”)

Prior to this movie, my opinion of Heath Ledger as an actor was complete indifference: he wasn’t great, he wasn’t terrible, he was…OK. His portrayal of the Joker took a sledgehammer to that.

Imagine living in a city where there’s a never-ending, invisible tornado ripping through the town - that’s the Joker. He can strike anywhere, anytime…and when he strikes, it’s rarely a simple case of “what you see is what you get”…there’s almost always more to it than you immediately grasp.

In one key scene, as the city begins to descend into chaos, the Joker calmly tells one of the characters something like, “You talk about your ‘civilization”, but look at what I’ve done to it with a couple of cans of gasoline and some bullets.” In the end, the Joker isn’t after money or power or revenge - he does what does because he loathes what he sees as false pretense on the part of so-called “civilized” human beings and is intent on bringing down the façade. The last bit of dialogue between him and Batman addresses this and the scene will send shivers up your spine.

There just too much to get your hands around regarding the Joker, so I’ll stop with that. I’ll just say that Ledger will win the Oscar next year. Guaranteed.

Finally, it’s almost a shame that Heath Ledger is as amazing as he is in this movie, because the blunt force of his performance - coupled with his untimely death - serves to completely overshadow two other truly magnificent performances: those of Aaron Eckhart and Gary Oldman.

Again, never gave much thought to Aaron Eckhart acting career, though he’s good in both In The Company of Men and Thank You For Smoking. But his portrayal of D.A. Harvey Dent is spot on. He never misses a beat as he moves through the character arc: beginning as a master of a world that’s familiar and plays by the rules…to seeing that mastery and certainty begin to crumble as he and his friends become increasingly desperate to stop the Joker’s onslaught…to finally ending as a twisted, mutilated man - physically, mentally, and spiritually. He’s the one who, in daring to fight overwhelming evil, loses everything, and it’s for him that you feel the most pity. Late in the film, there’s a great scene between him and his former Mafia nemesis (played by Eric Roberts) where the look on Robert’s face brilliantly conveys that sense of pity and sorrow for the cruel fate Dent suffers.

Gary Oldman is, of course, a great actor, but here he makes the long-standing character of Jim Gordon into a real presence. His character reminds of us of the fact that, in the course of human events, when great struggles arise, we will always need men like Washington and Lincoln and Churchill (and the fictional Batman) to inspire ordinary people to hold the line…but the majority of the fighters are ordinary men and women who have the courage to stand in the face of evil. Jim Gordon is an ordinary man, with a wife and family, who is willing to risk everything to ensure that they are allowed to live in a just, decent society.

The Dark Knight isn’t just one of the best comic book movies ever made, it’s one of the best movies ever made…period. From the opening scene to the rolling of the credits, it will grab you by the back of the neck and make you afraid to blink, lest you miss a precious second. This is film making. My congratulations and thanks to everyone involved in bringing it to us all.

Jul 23, 2008 - 12:02 pm cedarford:

Very good piece by Kyle Smith. What is in huge, blockbuster movies or TV series does shape public perception if the message is powerful (Jaws, Band of Brothers, Sopranos, The Wire) - it is not necessarily all to be scorned as silly, throwaway entertaining stuff cynically dumbed down and blaming the usual “evil corporations”.

“Batman” is not dumbed down.

CJ - The importance of life. Batman can’t take a life, which is also part of the message of Batman Begins, “Have you finally learned to do what is necessary?”. This is big struggle for Batman in The Dark Knight. However, at the end, Batman realizes that he can clean Gotham City without killing. Of course this is a bit of a naive message, but the larger point is that Batman values ALL life.

DC Comics was owned and largely staffed by liberal or even more Leftist Jews who saw
the death pemalty as immoral, even as many saw Communism & Stalin as OK. Part of their cant was that killing killers made one morally equivalent to killers. So all major DC characters, starting with Superman, were written and drawn with a “no-killing moral code”. Which made the characters ridiculous as they faced super villains that vaporized whole cities or inhabited planets with the foremost thought on their mind the precious life of the killer evildoer. And all the action sequences that blow up and destroy all sorts of things with various superpowers - but never kill any villains or bystanders.

The “Code” also was useful, to the creative staff after creating a fine evildoer and building their backstory, not to ever kill any off. And when Congress came knocking 50 years ago about comics rotting kids minds, DC escaped the censure and demise of other comics lines partially because because their heroes were such “protectors of all life”…following the ” DC Heroes Code of Conduct”.

40 years ago, Marvel began creaming DC because their heroes were flawed, no goody-two shoes, and rather enjoyed killing bad guys from time to time - and Nazis minions and civilian henchmen of evil superpowered bad guys even more regularly.

Which led to the complete recreation of the fluff-dominated “Caped Crusader for Goodness” -

-as the Dark Knight. No longer simply a benign do-gooder.

Created by Frank Miller, who was inspired by film Noir, violent but realistic & intelligent Japanese Manga the dark, struggling aspects of traditional heroes real or cast with warts and and all.

Miller also re-imaged Daredevil, made Elekra into a breakthrough for a female audience and spawned a legion of follow-up female hero shitkickers.
Then followed up Dark Knight with Sin City, 300, Ronin, and projects to recast old Japanese superheoes like Astro Boy and Gigantor.

Dark Knight has become a major influence on TV and Movie writers, fiction, the gaming industry. Asian anime` and martial arts movies.

Billions in revenue tie back to Frank Miller. The Dark Knight looks to be his most profitable and impactful creation. (all due credit to the even greater impact of the Nolan Brothers, and outstanding acting performances by several people playing key characters)

Jul 23, 2008 - 12:20 pm DavidN:

I’m not an afficianado of the comic book. Never read ‘em as a kid, haven’t picked up the habit afterward. As a result, I know little about the characters involved and frankly haven’t really tried, for the most part, to see underlying themes in the movies, other than the obvious ones. I’ve never seen an X-men movie, but one of the ads on TV made the multi-cultural theme rather obvious, speaking about those who are “different” in some fashion, and the persecution of them. Batman, though, has always been a bit different. The character is darker than most of the other superhero characters who have had movies made about them. The third Spiderman movie was an obvious attempt to make the character darker, and I disagree with Kyle Smith. While I didn’t think it was the best movie ever, sometimes when a movie does what you expect, you enjoy getting there anyway. The first two were very good also.

But Batman has always been different. Pretty much unique among superheroes, he has no real “powers”. He can’t see through walls, run 100 mph., or lift an automobile. He *can* fly, but only if he’s wearing his cape, which somehow turns into a small hang-glider when necessary. Most of the bullets that hit his suit are deflected by the Kevlar. He’s human, just a bit strange (Christian Bale in the first movie, playing alter ego Bruce Wayne, says that a guy who dresses up in a Bat outfit has “issues.” Indeed.) and he has a generally wonderful life as a billionaire playboy. Part of the interest here is the idea that you can have all of that, and still not be entirely happy. His parents, of course, were murdered in front of him when he was a child. This leads to a lot of brooding, interesting musing, in the movies, on the nature of crime, chaos, justice, and revenge. Superman never really did this…Spiderman sort of did but the darkness was much less dark, frankly, and most of the other superhero movies have been more about justice and saving people than they were about right and wrong.

It’s a good movie, isn’t it? I will say, though, I doubt that the movie moguls, or even the creative minds involved, would understand or ever acknowledge a conservative value, regardless of its presence or absence.

Jul 23, 2008 - 1:41 pm Maldain:

I’ve found the comments here enlightening and will see the movie in the very near future. However, it should be noted that the Batman comics derived from earlier Dark Knight novels from the early 1900’s. Basically Batman was a contemporary of Tarzan and there was even an early Saturday matinee serial based on the novels.

The novels are dark and twisted with Batman constantly struggling with his insanity and he most assuredly does kill the bad guys. And kills them with great glee though he does feel guilt about the glee not the killings. It sounds like Miller returned Batman to his origins rather than recreating him completely.

Jul 23, 2008 - 2:00 pm BRD:

Batman and politics? Does that make McCain Batman? Then what about Two-Face?

Jul 23, 2008 - 2:05 pm John Gardner:

rvastar, I think your review is very insightful and simply “spot on”. I can’t really add much other than to observe that Batman fits into a theme often seen in American cinema: the citizen who resorts to violence (outside of constituted authority) in the face of evil, though doing the right thing, is not allowed to fit into “normal” society. The western “Shane” comes to mind, as do the Dirty Harry movies; however, there are many more.

Thus, Batman is kept at arms length by his lady love, supposedly until he is willing to drop the vigilante role, and he accepts both this sacrifice and the need to remain anonymous (another form of sacrifice). His faithful butler reminds him that he has limitations, will someday encounter those limitations and even sees the need to wish him luck when he sets off to confront The Joker. The DA, in contrast, while representing the conservative realization that “you make your own luck”, evidently doesn’t realize that you don’t make all of it (life doesn’t really have “heads” on both sides of the coin) — with the result that his sacrifice (the life of his love and his good looks) drives him “right round the bend”.

In the end, Batman flees — the hero “we deserve”, but not “what we need” — like so many heroes before him.

A film well worth seeing again!

Jul 23, 2008 - 3:18 pm Charlie (Colorado):

I haven’t seen the movie yet, so I can’t really say much about Kyle piece except that I enjoyed it. But I will say that the influence of Miller’s Dark Knight Returns runs through most all the Batman movies starting with the Micheal Keaton/Tim Burton ones: his essential insight — that the Bat has real issues — is what revived the character and made the movies.

Jul 23, 2008 - 3:57 pm ddc:

Great article Kyle!

It is said of the Joker that “Some men aren’t looking for anything logical, like money. They can’t be bought, bullied, reasoned, or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn.”

What made it real, even with the funny costumes was that line or that sentiment. It explained the Joker perfectly and set the stage. And you believed it, there is madness like that in the world and Heath Ledger’s portrayal of it was left the viewer thinking, how can this be?

Chritian Bale’s brooding, second-guessing his part in the battle of good and evil, where his place even was in that battle was excellent. This Batman was one for thinking about and what more can a storyteller wish for than to have us leave the theater thinking.

Poor Heath, what an enormous talent lost.

My husband and I loved this film and will most likey see it again and definitely buy the DVD!

Jul 23, 2008 - 4:21 pm Brian:

“The Dark Knight isn’t just one of the best comic book movies ever made, it’s one of the best movies ever made…period.”

I was hearing a little of this before I went to see the Dark Knight. I rolled my eyes believing that had to be an exaggeration. After seeing the “Dark Knight” this afternoon, I agree with the opinion expressed above.

Jul 23, 2008 - 4:32 pm Javelin:

I don’t see any of those kneejerk political messages that the lesser minds here divined. Dirty Harry and Deathwish had more political messages than this one.

Jul 23, 2008 - 9:47 pm patrick:

kudos to the makers Dark Knight for their record breaking opening weekend… it’s no wonder there’s talk of another one coming out ASAP

Jul 23, 2008 - 9:50 pm Pierre Legrand:

Hmm…Guess I will have to go back to see it again. The first time it felt like a Russian novel with 3/4’s of the pages missing.

Though Joker was brilliant

Jul 24, 2008 - 8:17 am Artbyruth:

I did think a lot of the USA’s part in the War on Terror and GWB’s fight against terrorism as the enemy America hates more than Bin Laden while viewing “The Dark Knight”. I also thought about this after seeing “Spider-Man” when the Green Goblin says to him:

“After all you have done for them, eventually they will hate you.”

And it is true of “The Dark Knight” movie. He is willing to be hated by the very people he is willing to protect. Of course, I didn’t see this until the second viewing of the movie! The first time I saw “The Dark Knight” I was so fixated on how gorgeous Christian Bale is and how incredible Heath Ledger was! He will be missed.

Jul 24, 2008 - 9:41 am Artbyruth:

Oh, and now that you have written that this movie has a Conservative message….the next one will most certainly be Liberal minded once the producers hear about this.

That’s what happened to “24″.

So, don’t be surprised when it happens.

Jul 24, 2008 - 9:43 am rvastar:

I don’t see any of those kneejerk political messages that the lesser minds here divined.

You wouldn’t…ignoring reality is a badge of honor for you Leftists.

Why don’t stick to Michael Moore “films” and Obama speeches. No thinking required…just the requisite indoctrination.

Jul 24, 2008 - 10:29 am eric:

Commenter Bob:

Your analysis of the weaselly leaker guy being compared to the Jayson Blair Times is brilliant. I did a detailed analysis of the movie, but even I did not catch that.

I am going to copy your comments to my blog, and if you have a website I will link to it. I appreciate the excellent idea.

http://www.tygrrrrexpress.com/2008/07/batman-the-dark-knight-after-911/

Respectfully,

eric aka the Tygrrrr Express

Jul 24, 2008 - 11:19 am Bugs:

eric: Nice review of the movie. You brought up some excellent points. You mentioned the dispute between Lucius and Bruce regarding the use of surveillance technology. Obviously, we have the same debate going on today, i.e., conservatives tend to think the administration’s surveillance methods are necessary while liberals swear our constitutional rights are being systematically eliminated.

(SPOILER) Wayne and Fox resolve their version of this argument simply by trusting each other. Lucius trusts Bruce to use the technology to locate the Joker in this particular situation - and for nothing else. Bruce confirms that trust by giving Lucius the ability to destroy the technology as soon as that specific mission has been accomplished. He also trusts Lucius to help him with that specific mission even though Lucius objects to his methods. (I suppose he also trusts Lucius to actually destroy the surveillance system rather than using it for his own means.) In short, they have enough in common, and trust each other enough, to agree that Bruce’s new system is “too much” and should not be a permanent part of Batman’s arsenal, but that it can be used in this one instance to defeat an unusually powerful threat.

I guess we can dream of Americans trusting each other and their government enough to get us through rough times like these. Unfortunately, I think it will only ever be a dream.

Jul 24, 2008 - 12:50 pm Bill Bradley:

You should probably read my essay on the movie before you get too excited in this hyperpartisan way.

Reality is much messier than ideologues think.

Even in the movies.

And, no, Batman is not George W. Bush.

Jul 24, 2008 - 1:26 pm Bill Bradley:

As an aficionado of 24 from the beginning — it’s the official show of New West Notes — I can assure you it’s not a right-wing show.

It’s also not a left-wing show.

It’s a non-peacenik show.

And it’s a non-warhawk show.

If you understand the plots, you get it.

Like the plot in which the president is removed because he won’t pursue war in the Middle East.

That was an early season, folks …

>Artbyruth:

Oh, and now that you have written that this movie has a Conservative message….the next one will most certainly be Liberal minded once the producers hear about this.

That’s what happened to “24″.

So, don’t be surprised when it happens.
Jul 24, 2008 - 9:43 am

Jul 24, 2008 - 1:31 pm marcos leon:

Bin Laden. Kill him? Don’t kill him?

I say kill him.

Jul 24, 2008 - 2:03 pm eric:

Bugs,

Thank you so much for the kind words.

eric aka the Tygrrrr Express

Jul 24, 2008 - 10:38 pm Mike:

I saw the movie yesterday. I found it stupefying and wholly amoral. As for the messages, there were so many and so morally confused, the whole thing collapsed under their weight. Most hero action movies, the villian dithers on and on and never dispatches the hero when gets his 1001 chances. What justification was there not to drop the Joker on his head at movies end? Good bye. Good riddance. All in all, I’ll wonder what movie everyone else had seen.

Jul 26, 2008 - 11:29 am degahse:

As the king of an amoral universe, as a purveyor of unrestricted evil for fun, Ledger’s dastardly villain, attired as sort of a rotting Clarabell, has chosen his own damnation. He’s jumped into an abyss he has dug himself, and he wants to pull us along.
I m watched The Dark Knight Movies Here
http://www.80millionmoviesfree.com

Jul 26, 2008 - 12:26 pm blowfly:

I had the total opposite impression - the movie is full of liberal neurosis and self-loathing: Dent doesn’t blame the Joker, he blames Batman and Gordon. The con on the ship is really a good guy. It’s bad for Batman to use surveillance temporarily to catch the Joker - like Batman’s goal is to listen in on the random citizen’s boring phone calls. And don’t kill Joker when you catch him; his life is too valuable, but it’s okay that he kills a bunch of other people after he gets free. The worst was the idea Batman, a guy who risks his life to save other people, is not a hero. Personally, I found it a sickening mess and completely in line with neurotic liberal thinking that we should sacrifice ourselves and go down to terrorists rather than do what’s necessary. Twisted logic and ridiculous paradoxes, like they way they think it’s okay to kill babies but not bad guys. I came out feeling horrified at what Hollywood liberals have done to a superhero I’ve liked my whole life.

Jul 27, 2008 - 5:16 am Sue:

Thanks rvastar for what I “know” will turn out to be an excellent review. You have laid out a great deal of what I thought. You caught the “Joker” exactly as I saw him in the trailers. The Joker is precisely what decent, normal human beings have ascribed to overcome since Cro-Magnon came over the Neanderthal hill some sixty thousand years ago. That is what being “human” is all about…getting rid of that other dark side of us. The Joker represents the other “face” or side of us. We will need a great deal more than sixty thousand years to get rid of it, if ever. But, it is interesting to note that that that “other” side manages to choose career paths necessary to its level of “otherness”. Sadists and sociopaths seem to be guards or creatures in some sort of position of power: men of the cloth, educators, sportsmen, family members and even the quiet, normal seeming gent next door. And, those people who seek control and fully believe that their way or methods are better because of their beliefs, are the most prevalent. So, we end up with Bubba and Edwards’ betrayals showing us why they are “other”. It explains for me the politics of religion, even the right versus left debate which is a huge part of that. We need to understand that while the Jokers of this world know who they are and relish it, there are as many who harbor those needs, but so deep that not until something happens to upset their balance, do these needs surface. I have always enjoyed Heath but when I saw him as the “Joker”, I realized that he had captured so completely his character that perhaps that part of him that had always harbored something dark very deep, reared its ugly head and he took himself out…willingly or not.

Anyway, I will reread my comments after I have seen the movie. It will be an interesting experience, no?

Jul 27, 2008 - 9:17 am Tammy:

Really? I watched this movie twice. It hasn’t made me any less liberal than I already am. Jonathan Nolan already said when he made it three years ago he was not trying to put a political message in there, but he was just trying to follow source material.

http://media.libsyn.com/media/creativescreenwritingmag/TheDarkKnightQandA.mp3

Jul 28, 2008 - 5:12 pm Aakash:

I was going to see it tonight, but am no longer going to do so, as I think it is too big of risk, after reading the review from the excellent Christian Answers Network website, and especially the first user comment there.

http://christiananswers.net/spotlight/movies/2008/darkknight2008.html#negative

Even the person I spoke to earlier today, who is a big Batman fan, and who was upset about not being able to see The Dark Knight on its opening night (sold out) seemed like he was surprised, at how this film was, when he saw it this past weekend.

I will however, likely be seeing Batman Begins on DVD, which I had missed, when it first came out.

Jul 28, 2008 - 6:28 pm Jim:

First off, saying that liberals believe in “ands” and conservatives “or” is untrue and ultimately not useful. Examples to the contrary:

“10 Billion a month in Iraq” AND “More tax cuts!” We have run up a deficit of 500 billion dollars under GB (keep in mind that this is not counting any spending on the war effort) and yet the party of fiscal responsibility sees no problem in this, or that most of our debt is to China, the nation most likely to challenge our role as the worlds only super power.

“Safer streets” AND “less gun control!” Honestly now, a waiting period for guns are infringing on the right to OWN a gun? Its bad to have licenses and background checks? In our most violent-crime ridden cities we shouldn’t keep the weapons most responsible for violent deaths? I own guns (I love hunting) but the idea that “arms” is a limitless word is just silly.

“Lower teen pregnancy rates” AND “Abstinence only education!” There is no evidence that abstinence only works. NONE. For crying out loud our culture is saturated with sex (and I would love to something about as much as the next guy, but see few ways of doing so), kids need the right information! Take Row vs. Wade. Before that case, people in the states where abortions were illegal, they still happened. The difference is, the girls died. A lot. So how do you really reduce abortions? Fewer unwanted pregnancies. How do you achieve that? Better education!

“Better standardized test results” AND “No funding for no child left behind!” Enough said.

The only people who want “ands” are Ideologues, those who believe that if they keep to their philosophy, under ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, things will be better. There are those on both sides of the political spectrum are ideologues; Bush and Carter, De Lay and Kennedy, Rush Limbaugh and Michael Moore. Then there are pragmatists, who live in the world of reality and will compromise. These are fewer and farther apart in today’s political climate, but both McCain and Obama are closer than most. Other good examples are Bill Clinton, Dwight Eisenhower, Teddy Roosevelt, and, believe it or not, Nixon.

What the reviewer seems to miss completely is the theme of the movie. As Jim Gordon states in BB and Nolan has said many times, the issue is not criminality/law enforcement but escalation. Batman begins and has initial success by breaking the rules of the game, and someone rises to meet him. This is a man worse and more truly evil than Wayne’s former rivals. Batman’s blitz on crime did not save Gotham from the rise of the Joker: he enabled it. He does not back down from the Joker, nor should he, but he does recognize that for Gotham to be safe again, Batman has to give way to a legitimate successor. Harvey Dent could have saved the city by giving the people a reason to believe in the democracy and themselves again. Batman could never accomplish this. The Joker, however, also recognized this threat, and changes his priority from the Dark Knight to the White Knight.

The one other theme the reviewer holds is that Batman is INCORRUPTIBLE. Thats why this film is, ultimately, a superhero movie. The Bat is spotless. Liberals recognize that real men are not, and that they need to be put in positions where they are limited, and there is oversight. Ultimately, I do not think the Dark Knight has a message at all. It strikes me simply as a thorough investigation of the four leads, Wayne, Gordon, Dent, and the Joker. And I think it is better that way.

Jul 28, 2008 - 10:35 pm soundsofsilver:

Conservatives on blogs scare me, no personal offense. The way you all talk about “liberals” in such an insulting way all the time, as if they completely run society and are horrible, idiotic creatures… is a bit much.

Also, it’s a little funny to me how a lot of conservatives find this movie to have such a conservative message, and how its success shows that deep down, we all think the War on Terror is great.

While there are similarities between some of the issues presented, I will remind you all that Islamic terrorists have much different motives than the Joker, and Batman is a vigilante who had his love killed because of the Joker, not an elected official representing a nation and trying to pry information for terrorists.

The politics in the Dark Knight are a little bit more pro-establishment than I would like them to be, and there are some parallels to current events, I don’t think the glove quite fits completely right to say that the Dark Knight is a conservative film. It has some of those elements in it, but I think it’s much more complex than that (and it also takes place in a world where Batman is the good guy by default, which is not the view we should always assume of our elected officials).

I certainly don’t want to get into any debates with any of you, especially of the political type since you all seem like very principled conservatives, but I will say that this film’s success compared to “liberal” movies failures has nothing to do with the politics, and everything to do with the quality of movie.

Jul 30, 2008 - 12:07 am Mike:

I just saw the movie today (theater in my town is an IMAX and still has every showing sold out) and I have to agree with your assessment.

What I have to wonder is, was this intentional on Nolan’s part and somehow went unnoticed by the cast? Most of the actors in the film are probably quite liberal, other than Gary Oldman who has been on record as hating Hollywood liberalism for years now. From skirting jurisdiction issues to using necessary force to gather information, there was plenty in this movie that would horrify a liberal.

Lucious Fox seemed to be the lone bearer of Liberal sentiment, and he was involved in the scheme in Hong Kong.

It’s an interesting message - Batman is trying his best to give up on the vigilantism and let due process take over by empowering someone like Harvey Dent, but he encounters an adversary that will recognize no rules, no boundaries, no limits, and operates from a standpoint lacking any sanity or rational logic. It’s like bringing a gloved fist to a knife fight.

This is either the most ironic result of liberal artistic efforts yet (the actress that bagged 9/11 victims gets blown up in a movie with a conservative bent) or we gave liberal Hollywood too much credit in their ability to stick to misguided ideals in the face of the almighty dollar.

If a conservative view on conflict didn’t prevail, than at least capitalism did.

Aug 3, 2008 - 11:05 pm soundsofsilver:

Yeah… or it’s possible that conservatives just tend to take things out of context, and that Christopher Nolan’s BATMAN movie might not be intended to have a message regarding George Bush.

Where does the phrase “Hollywood Liberal” come from? I’d probably be considered as far left as you can get, and I hate Hollywood.

Aug 4, 2008 - 11:40 am miriam:

Those of you who haven’t seen it. Try to see it on imax, spectacular.

Aug 7, 2008 - 6:07 pm Clint Grommett:

Conservatives = Fascists. Look it up, compare definitions. Liberals = Freedom. Are you conservatives so desperate that you have to latch onto a movie, a meaningless piece of entertainment, to hold your beliefs up? You sound like a bunch of bible-thumpers. Oh yes, not much difference. Let’s make a few parallels here: christians in the crusades, the nazis, and conservatives all have the “you’re either with us or against us” mentality. You all lack the inner strength to live your own lives so you allow yourselves to be brainwashed just to be part of the group, so you feel you belong. Your politics are based on ideals you know nothing about because you’re only told what the politicians want you to know, so you follow blindly. Don’t believe it? Research Bush impeachment, as well as disaster capitolism. Your religion is based on a book that’s been debunked as being full of falsehoods, contradictions, and misinterpretations. Don’t believe it? Goto http://www.cygnus-study.com. The government is NOT more important than the people. They are supposed to be there for us. Without people, government is obsolete. Remember that. Follow the trends and you’ll see that in a few decades, we’ll have half the liberties we have now, that our every move will be monitored, that everything we do will be taxed and privatized. I hope I pissed a lot of people off, because I won’t even remember I made this post, so when you area all flipping out with your hate mail, I’ll be relaxing at home, or at the beach, or playing a game, while your heads are exploding. Enjoy your rage.

Aug 8, 2008 - 10:04 am Trevor:

Umm, you actually just described liberalism, methinks. Conservatism IS “people over government”, “fewer taxes”, ect. And “everything we had will be privatized!!!” is one of the funniest things I have ever read. Privatized means it belongs to someone, not the government. I think you have things backwards. (PS. I am a non-religious conservative. Though you’ve probably never heard of such a concept, but that’s to be expected from someone who bashes a viewpoint (most likely) because it’s trendy to do so.)

Aug 10, 2008 - 1:36 pm Space Monkey:

what a bunch of morons on a blog! You ladys are lucky you can put a sentence together! I am Space Monkey and i challenge you fools at Superherohype.com where real men are not pu–ys like in here!

Aug 13, 2008 - 10:43 am

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed) remember personal info?
Comments: