Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Movie Mix

Batman's Take on 9/11 Era Politics? Drop the Fearmongering

By Michael Dudley, City States. Posted July 25, 2008.


"The Dark Knight" warns against what happens when a society abandons its principles out of fear.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Editor's note: Contains spoilers.

One of the "biggest" ideas of the year, according to James Fallows writing in the Atlantic Magazine, is the End of 9/11 as a metanarrative for American politics. For a growing domestic and international constituency, it is no longer tolerable for the very invocation of those events to warrant overriding every principle of American democracy. That moment of thoughtless panic has passed, and appears now to have been a dream of madness. Casting aside principles in the name of the "war on terror" -- to "work ... the dark side, if you will", as Dick Cheney put it -- is now being recognized as the path to becoming the very evil we feared.

One of the most potent confirmations of this maturing zeitgeist is the overwhelmingly positive critical and public reception of Christopher Nolan's stunning new Batman film The Dark Knight, which, in its careful use of 9/11 visual tropes takes the viewer on a sometimes traumatic but ultimately redemptive and humanistic journey towards a truly post-9/11 ethic.

Many reviewers have already noted that the film is commenting on the "war on terror," and audiences were surely meant to revisit their own painful memories of 9/11 by the chilling advance posters for the film, which feature Batman standing before a skyscraper in which a gigantic flaming gash in the shape of a bat has been blasted. Cues evoking 9/11 build from the opening frames, which propel the viewer into a dark swirling cloud of smoke and then to an aerial shot flying us towards a glass building, through to a series of escalating depictions of urban chaos and destruction. Buildings implode, thousands of people flee Gotham city on foot, and at one point Batman broods in the foreground while firefighters struggle to contain fires amid twisted steel columns. Unlike any other superhero film ever made, The Dark Knight is set in a world of realism we -- sadly -- know only too well.

This realism is significantly owed to the actual urban locations of the film. Previous incarnations of Gotham City were either fascistic sets improbably dominated by statues or fanciful computer-generated creations that never succeeded in convincing us; here, the on-location shooting in downtown Chicago and Hong Kong goes a long way to grounding viewers and thereby preparing them for the moral arguments to come.

The morality play of The Dark Knight is driven by Heath Ledger's astonishing performance as the Joker, who is not so much a character as he is a force of unknowable, abstract evil. By positioning the villain this way, screenwriters Jonathan and Christopher Nolan have made the Joker the very incarnation of a Manichean view of morality: he is not an evil set apart from oneself that can be destroyed, but rather as a potentiality within oneself that must be resisted by our predisposition for good.

What makes The Dark Knight so remarkable is that it frames this resistance to evil with nuanced debates about the natures of human moral agency and decision-making.

In an early scene, when Batman's alter-ego Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) and District Attorney Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart), discuss the merits of having one strong man take responsibility for defending society against evil, Rachel Dawes (Maggie Gyllenhaal) reminds them that when Rome made that choice, it resulted in a dictatorship. For all his wistful temptation for Roman absolutism, however, Dent is a morally principled man who doggedly works within the legal system to put criminals behind bars. So certain is he of his own moral compass that he makes a show of flipping a coin to make crucial decisions -- a coin which is later revealed to have two faces. Wayne admires Dent for his principled, public and fully legal stand and is himself tempted to forsake the lawless vigilantism of Batman and make Dent alone the public face of justice in Gotham.

Between the unaccountability of the Batman and the deontological morality of Dent lies the consequentialism of Commissioner James Gordon (Gary Oldman), a veteran cop whose situational judgments and actions in a corrupt, complex and dangerous environment are criticized by Dent, who once ran an Internal Affairs investigation against Gordon's precinct.

With this moral triad at its core, the film then proceeds to metaphorically -- and not so metaphorically -- demolish the methods, moral vacuity and false ontology of the "war on terror."

First, Batman practices some "enhanced interrogation techniques" on the Joker, only to learn that he was being manipulated by the Joker all along, with fatal results. Then when Bruce uses an advanced and secret project at Wayne Industries to turn every cell phone in Gotham into sonar-based surveillance devices, his partner in Bat-tech, Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman), is appalled, swearing to resign if the machine isn't destroyed. While they agree to use the mass "unwarranted wiretap" just once, successfully pinpointing the Joker and what appear to be his henchmen in a skyscraper on the waterfront, when Batman arrives in advance of the S.W.A.T. team he is horrified to discover that despite its sophistication his technology was incapable of distinguishing hostages from terrorists, something of which only human presence and judgment is capable.

Next, we see the abandonment of Dent's "constitution." The Joker destroys Harvey Dent by disfiguring him and killing Rachel. Traumatized, grieving and seeking revenge, the formerly principled Dent kills five people, including two corrupt cops, but not before flipping his lucky coin -- which by now is as burnt on one side as he is, thus surrendering all his moral choices to an external force: sheer chance.

But it is in the film's gut-wrenching climax that reveals the supposed existential crisis of the "war on terror" for the cruel and dehumanizing proposition it is.

Fleeing the chaos of Gotham city, two crowded ferries break down in the harbor: one filled with ordinary citizens, the other with convicts clad in Guantanomo-esque orange suits. Each ship's crew discovers the boats are filled with explosives, as well as provided with a gift-wrapped detonator. Over the intercom, the Joker reveals the nature of his "social experiment": the detonators are for the other ship's bombs. If the passengers don't blow up the other ship, he'll blow up both of them at midnight.

For 15 agonizing minutes, the passengers argue amongst themselves and the ship's authorities, who are themselves paralyzed but increasingly tempted to destroy their sister ships. The prison ship is held in particular contempt by some of the passengers, who argue that the men on that boat "made their choice" of lawlessness and may therefore be sacrificed -- in other words, it is best to kill them over there before they kill us over here. Unable to make the final fatal decision, the authorities on both boats abdicate responsibility and turn the detonators over to their passengers -- who ultimately refuse to kill out of fear. In the end, the simple recognition of shared humanity and the insistence on retaining one's own moral agency are shown to be the most heroic acts of all.

At the same time, however, Gotham City's moral leaders are undone. Dent is killed by Batman, who then convinces Gordon that, to preserve Gotham's "constitution" -- the public image of Dent and all he stood for -- Batman and all he stands for must instead accept culpability for Dent's crimes. Unilateral, lawless and unaccountable vigilantism are now publicly discredited. The final scenes of the film show Fox turning his back on and walking away from the machinery of surveillance while Batman flees into the night, chased by police and dogs. Gordon, surrounded by press and members of the public then grimly takes an ax to the bat-beacon, cutting off the state's recourse to vigilantism.

Without either Dent or Batman to intervene on their behalf, Gordon and all of Gotham -- and by extension, the audience -- are left to face a complex, dangerous and interconnected world as a community of individual moral agents, guided by Dent's principles of law, fairness and justice -- as well as their own reclaimed humanism. Even in the face of incomprehensible, implacable evil, The Dark Knight reminds us that these are our only anchors, for without them we betray both them and ourselves.

America may still have that chance. At the moment, however, its Constitution has been mauled, and politicians of both parties long ago surrendered their capacities to stop an illegal war and the looting of the nation's wealth. Now, however, The Dark Knight warns against both abandoning our principles out of fear, grief and hatred, as well as abdicating our moral agency to external authorities -- both of which comprised the hallmark moral syndrome of the years following 9/11.

That audiences and critics have embraced this film gives one hope that the days of uncritically turning to leaders promising to save us from our fears are at an end. As James Fallows says, the 9/11 era is over.

We are all Gothamites now.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: 9/11, the dark knight, war or terror

Michael Dudley is a Research Associate for the Institute of Urban Studies. His blog, City States, may be found here.


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Batman?
Posted by: ranchero42 on Jul 25, 2008 12:44 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Did I hear you the fuck say BATMAN? Does Kevin Smith run this website now?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Batman? Posted by: Lauren
» RE: Batman? Posted by: Prairie Waif
» RE: Batman? Posted by: ranchero42
» RE: Batman? Posted by: improperly_sedated
» Oh, the Prisoner! Posted by: ranchero42
» Actually... Posted by: improperly_sedated
» RE: Batman? Posted by: 6399
Grand scope of the movie
Posted by: jnelson4765 on Jul 25, 2008 3:46 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
re: the previous poster - comic books, especially Batman, have dealt with tough ethical issues for a long time. Stop being a crank.

This has to be one of the best "movies of the times" I've seen in a while. Absolutely relevant. The compromises the characters have to make to effect change in the real world are not something most Hollywood movies touch on - using flawed people because those are the only ones there.

I highly recommend this movie for anyone who cares about politics - if you can deal with anything that isn't sweetness and light. It's as grim as Babel, in its own way.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Grand scope of the movie Posted by: ranchero42
Batman and Paul Kersey sure know how to be VIGILANTES.
Posted by: maxpayne on Jul 25, 2008 3:49 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We're all gonna have to be vigilantes just as well especially since our current gubbmint is full of law breakers themselves.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I sooooo have to see this film.
Posted by: Livemike on Jul 25, 2008 3:45 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A major motion picture that actually makes you think! What's gone wrong, don't they know we can only handle tits and explosions?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The 9-11 years will continue under Herr McCain.
Posted by: HughScott on Jul 25, 2008 4:44 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
According to Michael Dudley, the hallmark moral syndrome of the years following 9/11 will disappear and our fears are at an end. Not unless Obama becomes our 44th U.S. president. If you think Bush is bad, just wait for Herr McCain -- America's Number One Neocon.

McCain, we should never forget, is a member (signatory) of the Project for a New American Century (PNAC), a rightwing extremist (fascist) organization formed in 1997 with the intent of overthrowing Saddam Hussein and dominating the world with U.S. military power.

Prior to joining the PNAC conspiracy, McCain was president of the New Citizenship Project (NCP). Founded in 1994 by PNAC organizer William Kristol, NCP was parent to PNAC and served as its chief fundraising arm.

In 1998, McCain co-sponsored the Iraq Liberation Act. Drafted by PNAC, it decreed "regime change" in Iraq to be U.S. policy. To that end, the act appropriated $97 million in U.S. military aid for the Iraqi National Congress (INC).

INC was a group of anti-Hussein Iraqi militants whose purpose was to instigate a national uprising in Iraq. INC was led by Ahmed Chalabi, the Iraqi informant nicknamed “Curve Ball” whose faulty intelligence claimed that Saddam had WMDs and ties to al-Qaida. Chalabi's "intel" was used by Bush to sell the Iraq invasion to Congress.

Finally, McCain was co-chair with Sen. Joe Lieberman of the White House-based Committee for the Liberation of Iraq (CLI). Established by PNAC in 2002, CLI continued to finance Chalabi's INC with millions of taxpayer dollars until shortly after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, when CLI was disbanded.

Given McCain's rightwing ideology, it should come as no surprise that many of the old PNAC guard have shown up as foreign policy advisers on the senator's 2008 presidential campaign team, such as the following prominent neocons:

Richard L. Armitage: PNAC signatory, former Bush Deputy Secretary of State. By his own admission, Armitage was responsible for leaking CIA agent Valerie Plame's CIA identity to the press.

John R. Bolton: PNAC signatory, former U.S. ambassador to U.N. Name floated for possible Secretary of State for McCain. Advocates attacking Iran.

Max Boot: PNAC signatory, McCain speech writer. Advocated attacking other Middle East countries in addition to Iraq and Iran, including Syria. Said McCain's "bellicose aura" could "scare the snot out of our enemies," who "would be more afraid to mess with him" than with other then-potential presidential candidates.

Steve Forbes: PNAC founder, flat-tax fanatic

Robert Kagan: PNAC founder.

William Kristol: PNAC founder and editor of the rightwing magazine, Weekly Standard. Has consistently been wrong in his foreign policy analyses regarding Iraq. For example, on March 5, 2003, Kristol said, "I think we'll be vindicated when we discover WMDs in Iraq."

Daniel McKivergan: PNAC deputy director

Randy Scheunemann: PNAC signatory, co-director and executive director of Committee for Liberation of Iraq.

Gary Schmitt: PNAC signatory, Research Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. Defended warrantless eavesdropping on Americans by claiming that Constitution "created a unitary chief executive who could, in times of war or emergency, act with the decisiveness, dispatch and, yes, secrecy, needed to protect the country and its citizens."

James Woolsey: PNAC signatory, Director of the CIA, 1993-1995.

Robert B. Zollick: PNAC signatory, President, World Bank.

For a list of all 225 PNAC signatories, visit the nonprofit investigative website, www.FreedomCentralUSA.com.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Are you for real? Posted by: justAnEgg
» Are You? Posted by: Persephone8
» Israel's gifts to America Posted by: weathered
Excellent article about a movie with the trauma of 9/11 at its center
Posted by: Sagan on Jul 25, 2008 8:51 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
....one more thing that wasn't mentioned, that I think is central.

At one point during the interrogation, Batman asks the Joker "Why do you want to kill me?", and the Joker laughs.... His stated goal ISN'T to kill Batman, or even necessarily the people of Gotham...

The Joker's goal is to CORRUPT Batman and the people of Gotham through fear.

The Joker wants to turn Batman into a murderer. During the interrogation he goads Batman into "breaking his one rule" to know the truth... He transforms Harvey Dent into an ugly killer, a monster seeking his own version of "justice"... and of course, at the end, he tries to turn the people of Gotham into killers on the two boats.

It's important that at the end of the movie, Batman saves the Joker at the last second. The Joker is angry that Batman saved him, saying "You truly are incorruptible". By doing so, Batman has beaten the Joker at his own game; despite the murder of his love interest Rachel Dawes, despite the Joker's acts of terror, in the end Batman refuses to become a murderer, instead taking responsibility for Harvey Dent's actions.

It's also note-worthy that Dent is the "white knight" and Batman is the "dark knight"; Dent represents what Batman *could've* become if he allowed his desire for revenge to override his sense of justice.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Be Your Own Batman
Posted by: trout on Jul 25, 2008 11:49 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is the first superhero movie that actually satisfied this fanboy, as it's the first one that performs to the standards set by the comic books themselves. The literate complexity, the vivid characters, the constant use of symbolism for socio-political-cultural commentary, it's all there.
The best scene is where the Joker's experiment fails; it completely repudiates the entire Straussian dogma by which the NeoCons rule.
The terrifying buffoon at the center of the action is at least vaguely reminiscent of the murderous clown we've all come to know so well these last eight years; the scene where he implodes a public building by remote control will resound with anyone who has spent any part of those years reading up on controlled demolition.
And of course, Batman's comment when he destoys his ultimate wire-tapping device after one use, "when people have faith in you , you need to reward it."
We are all trapped in the Joker's experiment.
We all need to become Batman.
I'll be seeing it again tonight.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Be Your Own Batman Posted by: EncinoM
Can you say Warning! Spoiler Alert!
Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com on Jul 25, 2008 11:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Jeez I thought this would be a little more abstract and less movie details.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Nevermind missed the italics Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com
a batman fan who has seen the movie four times/ opinion
Posted by: thealltheone on Jul 25, 2008 12:43 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Good article with a pretty valid point. I don't feel that it is meant to be viewed just through the scope of life after 9/11 though. While the movie can very easily fit into that, as the writer showed, if 9/11 had not happened, I feel the message would be just as powerful. The ideas presented of morality and humanity have long been present and debated, and to be honest, part of why that is in the movie, I feel, is simply because that has always been a part of the Batman story in the comics. The story of justice over vengeance has always been in the comics, and is often times what is used to separate Batman from those he fights. Without his "one rule" he would have long ago become what fights against. The only problem I have the article is the things that it gets wrong, in reference to the plot of the movie. But those points don't detract from the articles message as a whole, so they are minor. Like I said, the movie does fit into the scope of life after 9/11, but I don't feel that was the intent when writing. To me, the writer's intent was more to stay true to the comics and to show, more than any of the other movies, the true character of the Batman, which they do. (This is just a fans opinion that works in our shop I wanted to share. I will see the movie tonight on Imax.)can't wait! loved every one's opinions here.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Great movie
Posted by: blogbooks on Jul 25, 2008 2:25 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Basically perfect.

They threw in the prisoner's dilemma with the boats and really explored the philosophical relationship between Batman and the Joker.

I love when the Joker describes himself as an uncaring force of chaos, "I just...do.........stuff."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You can read anything into anything
Posted by: daniel1982 on Jul 25, 2008 3:01 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Limbaugh along with a caller decided that "Dark Knight", in fact, carries conservative values.

link

Who is right? =)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Commissioner Gordon should be focus of next film
Posted by: DrFitz on Jul 25, 2008 11:56 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree with almost all of the points in this review. I saw many parallels to the mindset of those in charge of the war on terror.

The one moral dilemma touched on that you didn't discuss is the paternalistic decision as to what truth the citizens of Gotham can handle. That their spirits would be broken and all would fall apart without the myth of the white knight remaining intact. I think that should be the focus of the next film. What happens to Commissioner Gordon as he takes power in that new role with the knowledge of the "big lie" about Batman and Harvey Dent. How that might complicate his morality and snowball into more and more things that he decides the public isn't equipped to know.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

But the role of the Dark Knight...
Posted by: newtype_alpha on Jul 26, 2008 12:20 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Total agreement with this article, except it overlooks the final imagery of what Batman--once lawless vigilantism has been discredited--comes to represent. The Dark Knight becomes the kind of lethal protector for Gotham, no longer an attack dog for the justice system or even a hero of the public itself. The Dark Knight becomes, instead, a brutally effective and terrifying force that even Gotham cannot control. Those within the system know that Batman is an ally of justice, and they will continue to depend on him against extraordinary threats like the Joker or Twoface or whoever else may (and will) emerge. But even they realize that they can never embrace what Batman represents, that they can never condone what he does, that they can never publicly claim to support him. Even if Gordon meets with the Dark Knight in his office every night to get a report on whatever it is Clayface and Riddler are up to, he can never give Batman credit if the villains end up behind bars.

The beginning of the film actually depicts a number of Batman copycats almost getting their asses kicked in a parking garage. One of them (who later winds up getting killed by the Joker) says "What makes you different? What gives you the exclusive right?" In other words "Why are you above the law but no one else is?" In this case, the Dark Knight is allegory for those times in our history when it is not always possible to do the right thing in order to create the right outcome. Rome embraced the vigilante protector because they desperately needed him, but afterwards that embrace turned him into a dictator. Gotham desperately needs Batman, but embracing him will turn him into an overlord and hand him more power than he could responsibly wield. In simpler terms: Batman, as a vigilante, is above the law, but in order for society to function in this situation, it needs to be established that he is only above the law because he is in violation of it in the first place and can only continue to benefit society so long as he continues to evade justice for doing so. And this provides another important service, since Batman's wrath can just as easily come down on a serial killer as it can on a corrupt cop in the pocket of gangsters.

What does this tell us about the War on Terror? It tells me that the President should work within his constitutional limits and stop trying to be a dictator/savior/decider megalomaniac. It tells me that when our nation's moral compass is restored, we'll have a President with an intelligence brief confirming "Osama bin Laden is in Islamabad" saying to someone on the phone, "Do this for me. I don't want to know how you do it, I don't want to know what's involved, I don't want to know when. Just get me the bad guy, alive if possible."

Black ops are a classic of American foreign policy: "If you get caught, we will disavow any knowledge of involvement" etc. But for our own sake, to avoid abuse of power, such bodies would need to be unaccountable to anyone, even to America. After all, you never know when we might become one of the villains that might earn the wrath of the Dark Knight.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Exceptionally clever script...
Posted by: NDK on Jul 27, 2008 1:44 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I for one am glad to see scriptwriters delving into the darker issues of present day morality, framing them with such cleverness and using situations to enlighten and remind us of the importance of principle, and what it means to have them.

Principles often require great sacrifice, something not usually appreciated by people until well after the fact.

Good movie.

Not so sure that most readers will read as much into it as those here. Most will just see an action flick, and that's an audience awareness thing.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Joker is Bush's alter ego
Posted by: john2007 on Jul 27, 2008 5:20 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I haven't seen it yet but a lot of thoughtful people are seeing this film as a metaphor for America's post 9-11 moral degeneration.

If there was ever a time when we needed an adult story to explain our slide into darkness this is it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Author Responds
Posted by: mdudley609 on Jul 28, 2008 7:46 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Very interesting discussion -- thanks for commenting!

I think the thing that is most interesting about the political debate surrounding the film is that those on the political right who claim that The Dark Knight is a conservative film are correct to a point, if we understand conservatism in its strictest sense: as an effort to preserve traditional values and a way of life in the face of moral decay. I should have identified as such the film's deeply conservative ethos arguing for the preservation of our society’s principles and values.

Those things "conservatives" like about the movie (e.g., Batman beating up the Joker in interrogation and wiretapping Gotham) are not in any real sense "conservative" at all. Indeed, they are deviations from traditional American values.

The key error that most people and the media make is to identify the Bush Administration with Conservatism. Bush & co. are not conservatives, they are radicals bent on removing just about every brick from the foundation of the United States, from its Constitution to its social structures.

And of course, all of these extrajudicial moves have been pushed through with the use of fearmongering.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Okay, maybe you know the answer.. Posted by: ranchero42
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement