Underneath this glossy and spartan surface lurks the darkness of Gotham’s moral decay and it is truly a place where crime and corruption hold sway. Like many doomed empires in need of saving, Gotham is corrupt at its core. This is where the comic book motif comes back in — because it is a comic book, we don’t have to watch real life play out on the screen; instead, we get fiction and something to think about in that pretty little package of our armed ninja deus ex machina.

Of course there is the superficial irony that Gotham’s “Dark Knight” is its savior — and one of the few incorruptible good guys (along with Rachel, Gordon and Fox), and its “White Knight” is corruptible through the promise of position if only he can get things to go his way. The desire for reputation and position outweigh moral sense, even though the ultimate goals the White Knight desires are worthy (the elimination of the criminal core of Gotham). There is a constant “feeling” in the movie that Dent would be willing to cut corners to get the bad guys; unlike Batman, though, Dent has to do so while maintaining appearances. Ultimately, Dent’s true character as two-face is revealed when a tragedy in his own life topples him and he joins the ranks of Gotham’s villains, blindly seeking revenge.

Batman, by contrast, does not break like Dent does. Batman is flexible and can accommodate difficult truths, such as the arbitrary influence of chance in people’s lives. Dent looks to chance as he flips his coin but breaks when it doesn’t go his way.

In giving Gotham its White Knight, Batman gives it hope. In fact, what I primarily took from the movie was a sense of hope — I thought the medium really worked to get that across. It is a glum hope, a melancholy hope, but in this feeling the movie sheds its comic book nature in favor of a dose of realism after all. In real life, there usually isn’t a deus ex machina (although some have been fortunate enough to benefit from one), just a constant, melancholy hope.

I think movies such as TDK offer less insight because they illustrate the use of “power” without the deep personal transformation that must accompany it. There is only superficial emotionality, “good”, and “evil”. Has Batman cultivated the required judgment, selflessness, compassion, humility, emotional control, respect for others’ values, and respect for community values?

To me, Batman offers lessons that must be unlearned.

That some view the President of the United States the same as a non-law abiding vigilante . . .

I don’t know if you’re imputing this view to me or to the filmmakers, but either way you’re wrong to do so. Batman is a stand-in for GWB in that he faces similar ethical questions in the face of terrorism and makes similar decisions. Drawing that parallel doesn’t mean that I (or the filmmakers) believe that the POTUS is justified in acting outside of the law.

As I said, I think the film is ambivalent about Batman’s decisions, and even about Batman’s existence and crusade. I don’t think it celebrates or unambiguously condones Batman’s actions. At best, Batman is a necessary evil. But it is also sympathetic to the plight of those who must fight terrorists. It’s a difficult problem with a lot of ethical gray area. A lot of us moral cretins feel that way. We can’t all have the moral certitude and righteousness of Dan the Good Democrat.

Now I have to go back and try again. With this post as my Cliff Notes.

violent dark film

That speaks to many of this generation who cannot view the world except through this lens.

When was Batman ever not an armored ninja? Are you pining for Adam West?

And as a side note: Batman was no longer Batman when they reduced him to an armored ninja. Ridiculous.