Dark Knight--Second Essay-- A Review

There are many more conversations/lines that are worth mentioning. I, for one, loved the Joker's line when locked in mortal combat with Batman at the end of the movie--that it wouldn't be right for either of them to die because, in fact, they "need" each other. No Joker, no need for Batman. Ahura Mazda needs Ahriman. The Zoroastrian or Manichean system of equal and opposite forces in the world is then true, according to the Joker. Is he right?

What is also interesting in the movie is that the embodiment of chaos and evil is a much more compelling character than the representative of good. Batman is flat, his voice is gutteral, he is emotionless, he simply "kicks butt" and brings people to justice. He believes that he will fade away when a human "hero" is found to embody the virtues and values for which he fights. But, fundamentally, he is a boring character. We are not excited when we see him; we are not allured by his goodness; we develop no "warm fuzzies" for him. Perhaps that is why the special effects are "ramped up" when he appears. Nothing else makes his presence very compelling.

The Joker, however, draws us in. Perhaps a little of this is because we all now know some of the tragic details of the death of Heath Ledger. We wonder, "did this role drive him to his death?" More likely it is the pressure put on themselves by young actors who want to make it to the top of the profession that leads to unhealthy and destructive behaviors. But the Joker draws us in even more each time we see him. We wonder what is "up" in his fertile and terrifying mind. We wonder if there is a glint of warmth, or at least tepidity, in his ice-cold character. But we don't see it. We see what may be called his artistic cruelty. It is especially evident in his conversation while imprisoned in Gotham, before (predictably) breaking out. He says to his captor:

"Do you want to know why I use a knife? You see, guns are too quick. You can’t savor all of the little…emotions. In their last moments, people show you who they really are. So in a way…I knew your friends better than you ever did. Would you like to know which of them were cowards?”

What is especially intriguing about this line is that the Joker, in his knotted way, says that he is interested in "character." Just as some might say that the true character of a person, or the nature of his/her need structure, come out during love-making, so the Joker believes that the true nature of a person's character is evident in our last moments. That is when the "true person" comes out. And, there is some truth to that. The notion of a "deathbed confession" or revelation of a secret long held-back is not just a literary confession. As a pastor, and a son, I have spent time at the sides of people just before they died, and what they said in those moments is often nothing less than sacred.

Telling the Lie

In the final analysis, for me, the evil of the Joker is not in his anarchic quality but in his unexpectedly fascinating character. We just have to listen to him. We see how he is right--how human society is built up on a thin tissue of trust relationships that can irretrievably be torn when personal interests (a relative in a hospital that is going to be blown up turns a faithful police officer into a killer) intervene. The picture is not irretrievably bleak, however, as the two boatloads of people don't end up blowing each other up. Maybe there is hope for humanity, after all, for a humanity which can sit down and either think through what is happening to us or, more likely, draw deeply upon the vestiges of decency, kindness and impulses to protect the life that is around us.

But the film ends with a note of ambiguity. Even though the humans on the ferry each showed thier 'humanity' at the last moment, and decided not to blow up the other, the film portrays goodness as so elusive and rare that a lie must ultimately be told in order to inspire people to live well. That is, District Attorney Dent, the "white knight," the one whose crusade against crime seems to obviate the need for Batman, is brought over to the dark side by the Joker in the Gotham City Hospital. But people only know the DA as a fearless fighter against evil, as one who is determined to rid the world of the malefic effects of the Joker. He even turns to killing and revenge at the end, becoming the Janus-faced character that fits his visage. Even though the viewer knows that Harvey has changed, the people of Gotham will not be so told after Harvey dies. They will be told a double lie--that Harvey remained steadfast to the end, and that Batman, who can kill no one, has killed the ones that Harvey, in fact, killed. Goodness can only be maintained if it is lied about.

Does goodness need this kind of "cover"? One of the lines in the film is something to the effect that you can die young as a hero or older as an exposed (and compromised) person. So Harvey dies young, and the mythology quickly comes to his rescue by saying to the world that he was steadfast in his fight against evil to the dying day. But it is a lie. Do people need to be told a lie in order to motivate them to proper conduct? Do we need to tell children half-truths in order to motivate them to do well in life? Let's take a wild hypothetical. Let's say that Billy Graham, the great evangelist who led more people to Christ in the course of his life than any other person in history, secretly, at the end of his life, curses God. He himself has said in an interview, 'I was always ready to die for Christ, but no one told me what it is like to get old for Christ.' Not only has he had crippling Parkinson's and an array of age-related infirmities, but his beloved wife of almost 60 years, who was severely injured in fall 20 years before her death, died last year. If, in fact, Billy Graham "doubts" God, would that be something that should told to others? Or, should he and his family "protect" the world from the possibly unfaitful musings or even decisions of his mind?

Do we need lies to live by in order to inspire us in our lives? Ah, let's put it in other words. We probably need myths to live by, stories that shape our vision, stimulate us, tell us why it is worthwhile to get out of bed in the morning. There may be substantial levels of "untruth" in the myths that we entertain. Many public figures feel, for example, that so many people 'are depending' on them. In fact, if that public figure was taken away, people will show a remarkable resiliency in glomming on to someone else to give their life meaning. No one is going to throw himself off a bridge because John Edwards just admitted to an affair.

I think the challenge to future filmmakers, whether they portray a "Batman/Joker" theme or another "good/evil" idea, is how to present good in a way that affirms goodness while, at the same time, celebrate its ambiguity or even "badness." We are imperfect timber; we are twisted and gnarled people, all of us. Perhaps our savior should be not a perfect lamb of God, but a weak, unimpressive, vulnerable, and very flawed person. That, indeed, would be a character worth embracing.

3692