The Dark Night and International Politics

We comic nerds are suffering an embarassment of riches this year: Iron Man was excellent, Hancock was meh but passable, The Incredible Hulk was a fun two hours, and The Dark Knight is better than all of them. (Not as good as Wall-E, but that's apples and oranges.)

All the good stuff you've heard about The Dark Knight is true. Heath Ledger is (deservedly) getting much praise, but it's astonishing how good everyone in this movie is. Aaron Eckhart is excellent. Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman are given small roles that they both fill with incredible skill and subtlety. Maggie Gyllenhaal is great. Even Christian Bale, who I'm not really a fan of, didn't disappoint.

There's been a bit of criticism that in fact the non-Ledger actors don't pull their weight in this movie, but I think that misses the design: The Joker is such an outsized character, and played so perfectly by Ledger, that everyone else can only pale in comparison. This also, to me, added a layer of realism to the otherwise fantastical -- our protagonists are supposed to feel constantly at the Joker's mercy, totally unable to understand or cope with the senseless violence he deals out. In that sense, the Joker, not Batman or the other characters, really is the centre of the narrative.

I'm not surprised that the usual suspects are saying that this movie proves that America/Bush/the Pentagon needs to act outside the law because Bin Laden/Ahmedinejad/The Joker is insane and beyond reason. What surprises me a great deal is that I haven't seen progressives read what was an obvious message in the film: Batman has, in many ways, been a disaster for Gotham, and what Gotham needs isn't a hero in tights but better law enforcement.

To start off, I think this movie is one of the most inherently politics-free films I've seen. Not that it's not possible to view the film politically, but that it doesn't particularly lend itself to one political interpretation or another. Viewed in one context, you might (as Spencer Ackerman does) believe that Batman = Dick Cheney. But I think it's just as reasonable to see Dick Cheney as Harvey Dent, a lesson in what happens when our leaders betray our faith in them.

But once you view this movie in the context of it's predecessor (Batman Begins) things become a bit more clear: Before Wayne dons the Hood and Cowl, Gotham is essentially a proxy for the international system: basically one step removed from anarchy, with no effective monopoly on the use of violence. Wayne/Batman believes that if he can give people a symbol, that Gotham can restore itself. (A decent proxy for the American belief that Washington can be a guiding light to the world without actually cooperating with it on things like landmines, global warming, or child soldiers.) But of course, signs and the signified are read differently by different people. While Batman can give the people of Gotham a sign of hope, or at least justice, he gives the criminals a sign that the rules of the game have changed. This isn't me reading in to the text anything that isn't there:

GORDON: But there's a lot of weirdness out there right now... the Narrows is lost... we still haven't picked up Crane or half the inmates of Arkham that he freed...

BATMAN:  We will.   Gotham will return to normal.

GORDON:  Will it?   What about escalation?

BATMAN:  Escalation?

GORDON:  We start carrying semiautomatics, they buy automatics... we start wearing kevlar, they buy armor-piercing rounds...

BATMAN:  And?

GORDON:  And... you're wearing a mask and jumping off rooftops... Take this guy... armed robbery, double homicide...

Inside the clear plastic bag is a PLAYING CARD.

GORDON: Got a taste for theatrics, like you...

Gordon hands Batman the bag.

GORDON:  Leaves a calling card.

Batman turns the card over.

It is a JOKER.

A great way to set up the sequel, sure, but the wider point is that in a sense, the Batman could only ever invoke the Joker, or someone like him. At one point in the Dark Knight, Wayne asks Alfred "Did I bring this upon [Gotham]?" Of course he did, though we're not supposed to say that.

If you're the kind of person who's incapable of enjoying a film without filtering it through your own personal politics, rather than make you cheer the Dick Cheney's of the world, the two Nolan-directed Batman films ought to have you rioting in the streets. The outlaw use of violence, Nolan is saying, can only beget more outlaw violence. One agent outside the law can only invoke more agents of chaos. This is why I think Matthew Yglesias is getting something very wrong here:

I would say that one important reason Cheney is wrong, is that we're not actually faced with a Joker-style supervillain.

No, Cheney and his supporters are wrong because if you watch the film, it becomes clear that even if we were faced with a Joker-style supervillain, he's fundamentally not the problem -- Dent correctly diagnoses him as a wild dog set loose by others. The Gotham system is the problem, where mobsters and police pick sides based on the day of the week and their mutual enemies, when a psychopathic avenger like Two-Face finds himself executing police or mobsters based on the flip of a coin, and when the nominal forces of order are fundamentally impotent because that's how everyone wants it, all we can say is that Gotham feels awfully Westphalian.  The solution is not more disorder (more extreme vigilanteism) but better law and order.

(I'm surprised this seems to have eluded Yglesias, because it's kind of exactly what his book is about.)

If you really wanted to read these films as a reflection of international politics (Is America Batman?) I think you have a dismal road ahead of you. Batman begins to realize that what Gotham needs is not a caped crusader, but a functioning law enforcement system. He begins seriously considering retiring the rubber PJs as Gotham's police and prosecutors become more effective. The lesson here is not exactly kind to the idea that breaking the laws of war and ignoring the expressed opinion of the UN Security Council is going to lead to greater peace and stability.

Moreover, if you read Gordon's "escalation" dialogue from the first film in the context of international politics, I think it's clear you have to say that 9/11 was only possible because of preceding American actions across the globe. That is, if you actually think America is Batman, than you have to concede that Bin Laden/Joker is at least partially the creation of the US government.

Which is why, once again, we really shouldn't be arguing about politics through film. The simple arguments are rooted in bad films, and good films give you arguments whose conclusions might surprise you.

Comments

[Corvus9]

This is the best critique of the "politics" of the film that I have yet seen on the web. Kudos to you, John, Kudos to you. What's particularly impressive is that you manage to delineate the films currents of commentary despite how hard it is to read a concrete political message into the film.

Also, I think it is quite obvious that Batman is aware of these issues. He sees that he can't really change the city doing what he's doing, and that's why he wants to support Dent (the White Knight). When the copycat eats him out for his double standard, he kind of knows the guy has a point.

Also, I think, if you want, you can kind of see how the movie is also deflating the hope of the restoration of law and order. The only way the system will work is if someone, like Dent, a powerful, large personality, coems along and makes the system of law and order work. But in reality, Dent is just a person who can be broken, and law and order, justice, can be reduced in his mind to little more than a coin toss. So basically, it's not possible to restore the rule of law through the elevation of individuals, because individuals will fail in confronted with the challenge. In a sense, the movie is arguing that there is no way out of the downward spiral into chaos. (I really can't think of a more depressing, pessimistic big summer movie.) In the end, the only smigeon of victory is Batman's willingness to keep fighting on anyways, even if what he is doing is wrong, or just holding back complete chaos. All he can do is try, because there is nothing else holding it back. Or something.

Also, why is it that people always equate Batman with vigiliantes and fascist, but this stuff never comes up with Spiderman? I think you could possibly argue that both function as fantasies of Good Samaritans, and really, how is what Batman does much different from what Spiderman does? Is it the more information based nature of his activities?

[Corvus9]

Oh, and can I just say that I think Gary Oldman get way too little credit for playing Jim Gordon? I almost can't beleive that I am watching Gray Oldman. This guy played Dracula, Sid Vicious, Beethoven, and Sirius Black. I imagine him kicking back on a day off by putting on his cape, and playing the organ beneath the full moon in the garden of his castle. Maybe engaging in some sado-masochism. How the hell does he play anyone this normal? This takes skill.

[litbrit]

Corvus9, I think Gary Oldman is one of the best actors on the planet. He's truly sui generis. Beethoven. The cop in Romeo Is Bleeding. Always someone deeply twisted, one way or another.

[Corvus9]

But see, that's the thing. I think Oldman I think deeply twisted. But in this movie, he is playing the grounded one. Batman, Harvey Dent, The Joker. These characters are all deeply twisted. In this movie he plays the normal guy. And it is weird.

[Sir Charles]

I believe the movie "True Romance" which featured the trio of Gary Oldman, Christopher Walken, and Dennis Hopper, may set the standard for the twisted actor trinity.

[Corvus9]

You are forgetting that the movie starred Christian Slater. That's extra twisted.

[Sir Charles]

I was trying to forget.

Pump up the Volume dude!

[Crissa]

Hulk sucked, but did, I suppose, fulfill some need. Hancock blew it away, but that's faint praise. And don't forget Hellboy, he's also a comic book hero (and the Hellboy movie was way more awesome than the others).

[Kurzbein]

"The solution is not more disorder (more extreme vigilanteism) but better law and order."

Or better law enforcement institutions that are properly funded.

[Kurzbein]

You could even argue that the disorder that Gotham is enduring is a product of allowing law enforcement to break a few rules to get the bad guys.

[Ropty]

I have not seen the movie...but I have read a few comics, and seen the 1st movie. The idea that in many ways Batman created the Joker is in a few comics--and in Arkham Asylum (the graphic novel of the name, not the fictional asylum) I seem to recall that the Joker says something like that to Batman, and that moreover, Batman is just as insane as everyone else in the Asylum. After seeing Batman Begins recently, I was stuck by that last scene, and thought that it would be an important theme in the sequel.

[The Other Steve]

When I think of Gary Oldman, I think of Fifth Element, or The Professional(Leon). Especially The Professional as the crooked cop. You're right, it's hard to picture him as the normal good guy.

Anyway, this is an excellent analysis. A point that needs to be made is that what we are seeing in Batman Begins and Dark Knight is not Batman, but rather the Birth of Batman. These are the early lessons which will guide the man in later years.

Taking a simplistic understanding of this movie, failing to notice the lessons, the things that puzzle Batman and make him sit and stew... you're right that the next movie is likely to surprise.

Part of what I thought made this film so great was the surprising twists, but also the points where the character obviously has to think deeply about what is happening. It's not so simple. It's not just a question of defusing the bomb and saving the day. He's really trying to understand. It's kind of refreshing compared to some of the simplistic crap you get from Hollywood. It spawns these discussions.

In that sense, I think the director and writers are being true to the source material.

[The Other Steve]

"You could even argue that the disorder that Gotham is enduring is a product of allowing law enforcement to break a few rules to get the bad guys."

Isn't this also the moral of Training Days? The Denzel Washington film he won an Oscar for. The bad cop is promoting crime, rather than stopping it.

[crack]

Hancock is a non-tm superhero, but not a comic book character.

The movie Batman is different than the comic book Batman in the sense that there aren't super powered heroes and villains walking around. Yglesias pointed out that in the DC universe with Superman, Batman is seen as less of a menace.

As for Spidey v. Bats, the NYC that movie and Marvel Spider-man inhabits is a reasonably well functioning city that is occasionally attacked by super powered villains. Spidey deals with these villains and the whole event takes place with a complete disregard for the non-super powered judicial system. Spidey isn't really looking to investigate criminal organizations outside of foiling some specific plot in which he is entangled.
Batman's Gotham, in contrast, is shown as a barely functioning cleptocracy. Batman is trying to clean up the whole city and most of his targets are high level traditional gangsters. He tries as best he can to facilitate the use of the institutions of government to deal with these criminals. Using his status as a non-government actor, he does things that governments are prevented from doing. Since he works closely work with the government he becomes almost a de facto government agent. This blurring of the lines is why there are questions of whether or not Batman is fascist.

[Glaivester]

But how did Batman create the Joker? Didn't the League of Shadows create the joker by releasing the "fear toxin?" It's not as if Batman not getting involved in the first movie would have made for a better outcome.

[Corvus9]

Did the league of shadows really create the Joker? I don't really see how Joker could be created by fear, unless it made him cut his cheeks open for some reason. (Perhaps they he meant by whatever didn't kill him?) And we know he can't be a former Arkham inmate, since he has no fingerprints on record. Or have ever been arrested, ever. Although good point, Glaivester: without Batman, everyone in Gotham would be either crazy or dead.

crack, I think you are missing some of the implications from the Spidey movies. Yeah, he fights supervillians, true, but there is no suggestion that he has fought supers besides the ones on screen. Most of the time he flies around stopping muggings, bank robberies (surprisingly common for such a sunny version of New York City), and the occasional freak accident. Besides the freak accidents, that basically makes him a vigilante, although a substantially sunnier one than Batman. I figured that the main difference is that Batman has to physically beat his opponents in order to set them up for the police, while Spiderman usually just has to stop them and cover them in webbing. But the fact that Batman often operates in collusion with police does complicate this, though Spiderman does occasionally work with some individual police officers (not in the movies) its not the whole "almost a member of the force" that Batman often appears as.

But yeah, the authorization of Batman does get you close to a kind of covert fascism.

[Mark N.]

"The solution is not more disorder (more extreme vigilanteism) but better law and order."

Slight correction: "The solution is not more disorder (more extreme vigilanteism) but better law and order imposed from within and not from without."

Cops don't solve anything. People being taught correct principles and then acting in accordance with those principles solves everything.

The question is: is it really possible?

[Tim]

I see The Dark Knight as probably the most intelligent movie response to 9/11 yet. The bombs on two boats scenario is based on `the prisoners` dilemma` derived from game theory. The idea being that two players in a game can choose between two moves; either `cooperate` or `defect`. The idea is that each player gains when both cooperate, but if only one of them cooperates, the other one, who defects, will gain more - but they can`t confer. (U can Google 4 more.) Joker wants to demonstrate that ultimately everyone is as murderous and ruthless as he is. The passengers could attempt to save their own lives by destroying the other boat, providing they act first. Joker expects one boat to do so. But there is also a moral dimension, by destroying a boat the survivors will also be mass murderers and both boats choose not to become so. It`s telling this particular scenario was chosen for the film.
On 9/11, if those in one tower could have saved themselves by choosing to destroy the other tower would they have done so? (But then becoming terrorists themselves.) Nolan is saying that no they wouldn`t have; they`d decide to take their own chances and someone else would have to take the moral responsibility as to whether they lived or died. (There`s also a rough parallel with nuclear deterrence here.) This demonstration of basic humanity is the real defeat of Joker and what he stands for.
Harvey Dent suffers greatly in the film and arrives at a mental state that believes everything is arbitrary, that there is no morality, good, bad, justice or fairness in the world. Everything is morally equivalent. Two Face crucially abandons being led by moral choices, letting the coin flip do the work. He`s thrown into a nihilistic moral wasteland between Joker and Batman. And that is where US foreign policy is now with Guantanamo Bay and Iraq whilst pretending to itself that it is the world`s White Knight; preferring to believe the legend of Harvey Dent rather than the reality of what he became. (The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance is referenced in TDK.) Another key plot point is about the use of surveillance technology (ends and means), immensely topical given the Patriot Act and UK`s anti terror laws. There’s more, it’s a very dense, complex film.

What I love about these superhero characters is that they’ve becoming a pantheon of modern-day mythical figures – similar to those of Greek, Norse or Arthurian legends – whose stories can be endlessly retold and refashioned.

[cptnapalm]

Dent loses it when he sees the "Rachel Dawes" badge on the Arkham escapee. The implicit threat against the woman he loves is what sets him off; it is Dent the man, not Dent the D.A. that puts the gun in the guys mouth.

Batman loses it for the same reason in the interrogation room, which is not to say that he's wearing kid's gloves before that.

The two above things seem to be totally and utterly lost on many of the ideologues viewing the film.

Gotham is a thoroughly corrupt place. Gordon (played with real humanity by Oldman) is pretty much the only cop actually interested in the good of the city. You can't have "better law and order" when the enforcers of the law are owned by the criminals. Batman in such a context is outside the law, but so are the enforcers of the law.

One rather important point which the author of the article does not take into account is the good which the Batman's appearance is acknowledged to have had. It is implied that his coming along is what showed what Gotham really is to its citizens. That then lead to Dent's election, which then leads to Bruce Wayne considering retirement. I *think* that what was to happen, had no Joker shown up, is that, after the mob was taken down, Batman would have hung up his cape and cowl, gotten married to Ms. Dawes and lived happily everafter.

"That is, if you actually think America is Batman, than you have to concede that Bin Laden/Joker is at least partially the creation of the US government."

This is nonsense. To create is an act of one party. You can't create someone elses creation. If Bruce Wayne creates Batman and some unnamed person sees this and creates the Joker, that does not mean that Bruce Wayne created the Joker.

To those people who consistently babble about shades of gray (though they see themselves as pure white to the black souls of Cheney and Bush) can you not see that in this movie, the Joker is just evil? He is the terrorist for whom terrorism is an end in itself, not just a method. One big question in the film is how far towards that evil can one move in order to combat it before becoming evil oneself?

The "superheroes are fascists" mantra of some is absurd. It would be fascist to stop a guy from raping some woman? It would be fascist to stop someone from committing mass murder? A "progressive" would do what? Hold her down to show how open he is to other points of view? Gun down a few people to show solidarity with the plight of the oppressed?

[Minnesota]

I generally agree with your insightful interpretation. I feel, however, that you're starting your narrative at step #2 instead of step #1. Step #1 is the dysfunctional status-quo at the beginning of the scenario which in turn causes the vigilante to arise who then prompts the emergence of the super villain. To wit, it is the incompetent police force, or the bumbling inconsequential and self contradicting international organizations that are at fault for the rise of the anarchy which makes the Batman/Dick Cheney/Bushism vigilante go-it aloneism possible out of disgust for the inability of the system to fix or address the problems. The batman and his negative fallout occur because we won't take actions to fix the problems ourselves.

So in summary, it is our entire fault for both the Joker and Bin Laden.

[Fargus]

We have to remember, I think, that we don't know the exact circumstances of Harvey Dent's election as District Attorney, or if it was specifically because of Batman. The death of the old DA in Batman Begins wasn't directly linked to Batman, and we can safely assume (I think) that it would have happened without Batman's intervention in the city. It seems plausible to me that just as the deaths of the Thomas and Martha Wayne spurred a renaissance in Gotham, the disappearance of the DA could have spurred the citizens of Gotham into voting for a crusader like Harvey Dent.

[jerry]

The message in the movie is that none of the individual actors can save gotham.

The Ferry's contain Gotham's salvation. When the chips are down, when all these regular people thought they were going to die unless they became killers themselves, they chose not to give in, they chose death.

They chose to rise above. And that's where Gotham's salvation lies. Not in Batman or a cop or a DA.

Batman, despite his failures, knew that all along. He wanted to create a symbol so that the people would take their city back. So that the people would reject chaos and collapse. In the first movie, he wanted to be that symbol, but in the second movie he saw Harvey as that symbol.

So, he was willing to sacrifice Harvey. He wanted to save Rachelle. He knew Gordon wouldn't get to Harvey in time. But, the Joker tricked them, and Batman saved Harvey.

In the end, Harvey dies, and Batman and Gordon protect his legacy.

Just like they say at the beginning. You either die a hero or live long enough to become the villain.

They chose to make Harvey die a hero, providing reinforcement for the true story of the day. That the ferry passengers, regular "law-abiding" folk and hardened criminals alike, chose to rise above.

Gordon, Batman, Joker, Dent, Lucius Fox, the Mob. They all failed.

The people (and Rachelle Dawes, who, I think, was the true representation of the people of Gotham) are the winners.

I think that's the message that keeps getting missed. Rachelle Dawes and the regular people of Gotham won the day.