Jump to content

The Dark Knight (2008)


Recommended Posts

theoddone33 wrote:

: (And there may not have been a character that wanted to "cut and run" in the movie, but this conflates the invasion on Iraq with the War on Terror.)

Well, the two have always been linked -- indeed, some have insisted that Iraq is simply one front in a larger conflict, whatever you want to call it (personally, I dislike the term "war on terror" because it sounds too much like "war on drugs") -- so there's no "conflation" needed, really.

Linked... by the Bush administration, who need them to be seen as part of the same conflict because of the sketchy justification for the more recent conflict. Iraq didn't have anything to do with "terror" or 9/11, and I agree the term "war on terror" is poor.

And where I come from, i.e. Canada, there is indeed talk of whether we should "cut and run" or "stay the course" in Afghanistan, which is the only front in this conflict that we have ever been all that actively involved in.

Alright this is a fair point. The term may be totally separate from the Iraq conflict in reference to which it is often applied.

I read up on magical negros, probably while you were typing up your post. I'd heard the term before but didn't remember it until after I'd typed my post and then looked it up on wikipedia. I'm pretty sure it's one of those things where it's too complex to figure out what's racist and what isn't. I read an article that was all about how Stephen King uses more magical negros than anyone, yet then the article said that he wasn't a racist. Misapplying the term to good characters who are coincidentally black seems dangerous. I'm not smart enough to figure it out, but the guy's comment in the article in question seemed inappropriate.

Also... Peter, you asked me a question earlier in the thread that I never answered: No I haven't read the Watchmen comic, but I have it on order as the trailer and a discussion on another forum sparked my interest in it.

Edited by theoddone33
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 487
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

NBooth wrote:

: Even so. I think this cycle of linkage . . . is precisely why trying to fit the movie into a definite political "perspective" is a bit self defeating. I think the material for discussion is there, but I'm not certain the film's perspective is as clear-cut as some articles seem to be suggesting.

Oh, I definitely don't think the movie is "clear-cut". I wouldn't like it all that much if it were. But real life isn't "clear-cut" either. The problem is, far too many of the "liberal" films that tackle 9/11 themes more explicitly seem to think that these issues ARE pretty "clear-cut". So to see a mainstream film tackle these themes in a more mixed sort of way is a boon to conservatives just for THAT reason. And that's quite apart from the fact that the "conservative" elements are essentially identified with, y'know, the superhero (even if the film does go out of its way, and rightly so, to question what the superhero is doing).

: As far as villains for the sequel--I'm in the pro-Riddler camp; I think his obsessive riddling could be a mirror for Batman's larger existential questions. I would rather not see another Joker for a while.

Personally, I would rather not see ANY villain dominate two films in a row. (Though the Scarecrow cameo at the beginning of this film was nice, partly because it tied up a loose thread from the first film while also doing so in a way that emphasized that he is now small potatoes to a guy like Batman, who is about to be hit by a much, much bigger challenge.) And as for the Riddler himself ... I dunno, on a certain level he just seems too similar to the Joker, to me. I would want something a little more different. But I really don't know who, or what, exactly. It's been a while since I followed the comics all that closely.

theoddone33 wrote:

: Iraq didn't have anything to do with "terror" or 9/11 . . .

9/11, maybe not, but terrorism, yes, it did. I think trying to draw a sharp division between Iraq and the rest of the conflict -- especially at this late stage, when al-Qaeda has declared Iraq to be the front line of the conflict, regardless of how the conflict got there in the first place -- is about as futile as drawing a sharp distinction between the German and Japanese fronts in World War II. Possibly even more so, since al-Qaeda has been fighting on multiple fronts, whereas I'm not sure how many kamikaze pilots were flying Messerschmitts or how many Nazis were defending Tokyo. To the people who lived through World War II, it was all one big conflict, even if we can now debate whether it began in 1937 (when Japan invaded Manchuria), 1939 (when Germany invaded Poland), 1941 (when Japan invaded the United States), or whatever.

: Misapplying the term to good characters who are coincidentally black seems dangerous.

I agree -- that's partly why I disagree with applying the term to Lucius Fox. But the other guy? Well, there's so little CHARACTER there, he might as well be little more than an archetype, and this one seems to fit ...

Of course, then we have to ask how the scene might have played if the races had been reversed, or if the characters had been all white or all black. Each of those scenarios presents problems of its own. I think the filmmakers went with the "safest" option, all things considered. Though now a part of me wonders if the scene might have been even better, even LESS susceptible to accusations of this sort, if the prayer element had been removed. The prayer element does lend itself to the stereotype under discussion, even if it is beneficial on other levels.

: No I haven't read the Watchmen comic, but I have it on order as the trailer and a discussion on another forum sparked my interest in it.

Cool. I should really re-read my copy of that book at some point in the near future.

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Saw that a bit ago. I don't know--it seems that if a villain is to carry over, at this point it would pretty much have to be

Two-Face, given Ledger's death. But the ending's too perfect as it is--why spoil it with a quasi-retcon?

...

Has anyone seen this? The Dark Knight and his coming savior:

Gotham is a fallen world. The people who live there---here, everywhere is Gotham City---are the children of a fall, the fall. The crime that engulfs them is their own fallen, evil nature unleashed and turned against themselves. [snip] They need a savior. The savior will only come when the time is right, which is when the people are ready, which is to say when they don't really need to be saved anymore.

Until then, all we have is Batman.

The 'blogger touches on some ways in which the Batman/Superman mythos intersect, connect, and contrast. There's not much there, but it's a bit thought-provoking--it's certainly got me wishing someone would do a really excellent Superman film.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Dark Knight's ever-expanding box office and critical acclaim probably have the folks over at Marvel Studios wringing their hands. Up until Batman opened, Iron Man was THE super hero movie of the summer, and now it has been eclipsed by what some are calling THE super hero movie of all time. Marvel has every reason to be proud of Iron Man and what it achieved, but I wouldn't be surprised if they're also a bit jealous. This is sure to re-ignite many a Marvel vs. DC debate!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, Marvel at least has quantity, and they are embarking on a plan to cross-pollinate their various movie franchises. Whereas The Dark Knight is essentially a standalone. Yeah, it might generate another sequel, but there's no way DC can launch any OTHER franchises in connection with this one.

Re: Gotham "needing a saviour". Does it? Does not the film question the very messianism that lies behind such statements? Does not the film suggest that the rise of Batman is at least partly responsible for the villainy of the Joker etc.? And does not the film suggest that Rachel Dawes etc. were all very, very wrong when they thought that Harvey Dent could be the "white knight" who would save the city? (Oh, the bitter, bitter irony, that

the earnestly moral Rachel should choose Harvey over Bruce, when it is Harvey who, through his arrogance, sets himself up for a much bigger moral collapse than Bruce has ever, ever experienced. And Rachel will never, ever know how wrong her choice was

.) And does not the film suggest that "the people" are capable, once in a while, of doing the right thing on their own?

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Greg Boyd has some interesting thoughts on the movie here.

Brandon

"God is so great and merciful that he does not require that we name him precisely. God is even willing to be anonymous for a time. Remember how God led the Three Wise Men from the East to Christ? The Wise Men did not know the God of Israel or Jesus. They worshipped the stars. So God used a star to lure them."--The Twelve Steps for Christians

myspace-animation-codes121.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites
(Oh, the bitter, bitter irony, that

the earnestly moral Rachel should choose Harvey over Bruce, when it is Harvey who, through his arrogance, sets himself up for a much bigger moral collapse than Bruce has ever, ever experienced. And Rachel will never, ever know how wrong her choice was

.)

Spoilers throughout (I suppose) so I'm not blacking out a bunch of stuff.

Do you think that Nolan et al leave a non-moral "out" for Harvey's turn? Whilst the Joker sees Dent's new persona (bitter, angry, random-ish revenge) as evidence of the true quality of human nature, I'm not so sure that's the case.

True, Mayor Alpert warns Dent that everyone will come gunning for him now that he's set himself up as the "white knight" (even if its his peers that do that) and Wayne and Gordon discuss their concerns that any failing on Dent's part will harm the effectiveness of their collective efforts to reform Gotham. But when Dent does turn into a vengeance-fueled killer, how much of this is explained by his injury and refusal to medicate?

In Gordon's visit to Dent, we learn that the victim has refused any pain medicine and the skin grafting necessary to help heal his face (and subsequently limit the screen time of the SFX's guys' work). Dent's explanation--he doesn't want to hide who he truly is--Harvey Two-Face. But I'm not sure the film earns this epithet for Dent's character. We're told he got it from working at IA in the police force (and as anyone knows from watching movies, IA guys are universally disliked by the rest of the police force--see Copland, Backdraft, Infernal Affairs, etc). But how does an investigator going after internal corruption become known as "two-faced", which implies some level of hypocrisy, especially in terms of saying what people want to hear to further one's career advancement.

So without any real substance to the charge of hypocrisy, Dent's transformation into Two-Face does not require a moral lapse explanation. It can be explained by a psychological reaction to physiological stressors. I don't get a lot of sleep with this punk of a 8 month old waking up two or three times a night--it makes me grumpy and irritable (see my post on Blade Runner). How much more so would a refusal of healing for a burn victim affect his capacity for self-control and judgment?

Of course, the filmmakers have Batman and Gordon coverup Dent's final actions because they believe that it was a moral lapse on Dent's part that would jeopardize the initial foundation of reform in Gotham. I'm not so sure that that's justified by the facts on the ground.

I have a hard time seeing Dent's descent into Two-Face as a moral collapse--maybe the film does. A collapse, yes, but one in which his moral agency is compromised by physiological and psychological catastrohpe. And I think Nolan gives him an out with hints in Gordon's visit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

BBBCanada wrote:

: Greg Boyd has some interesting thoughts on the movie here.

Argh, I hate it whenever a single person claims to be two people (i.e. whenever a single person proclaims "two thumbs up" -- you need TWO critics to make that sort of recommendation, unless, I suppose, you're the sort of person who would give a movie a thumb up AND a thumb down).

That said, I do like this bit:

The line between good and evil is made even more ambiguous when, at the end of the movie, the masses

turn on Batman as they come to believe he is evil

. The Joker turns out to be right again. As soon as it

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Of course, then we have to ask how the scene might have played if the races had been reversed, or if the characters had been all white or all black. Each of those scenarios presents problems of its own. I think the filmmakers went with the "safest" option, all things considered. Though now a part of me wonders if the scene might have been even better, even LESS susceptible to accusations of this sort, if the prayer element had been removed. The prayer element does lend itself to the stereotype under discussion, even if it is beneficial on other levels.

If I recall correctly, the races were somewhat reversed on the non-criminal ferry, with a black Army Captain and a white businessman, as well as a white ship captain.

owlgod.blogspot.com - My thoughts on all kinds of media

Link to post
Share on other sites
Saw that a bit ago. I don't know--it seems that if a villain is to carry over, at this point it would pretty much have to be

Two-Face, given Ledger's death. But the ending's too perfect as it is--why spoil it with a quasi-retcon?

film.

It's workable to keep

Two Face in the Picture.

It would allow the theme of suppressing the truth for "the good of the people" and the negative impact that could arrive when it all unravels because

Two Face is alive and dispensing a twisted vengeance version of Justice

. The possible themes that would be open for the film to explore when the public discovers they were had are numerous.

"You know...not EVERY story has to be interesting." -Gibby

Link to post
Share on other sites
Saw that a bit ago. I don't know--it seems that if a villain is to carry over, at this point it would pretty much have to be

Two-Face, given Ledger's death. But the ending's too perfect as it is--why spoil it with a quasi-retcon?

film.

It's workable to keep

Two Face in the Picture.

It would allow the theme of suppressing the truth for "the good of the people" and the negative impact that could arrive when it all unravels because

Two Face is alive and dispensing a twisted vengeance version of Justice

. The possible themes that would be open for the film to explore when the public discovers they were had are numerous.

Wait--how can

Two-Face be alive? One of the last scenes in the Gordon speech montage is Dent's funeral

.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nezpop wrote:

: It's workable to keep

Two Face in the Picture.

It would allow the theme of suppressing the truth for "the good of the people" and the negative impact that could arrive when it all unravels because

Two Face is alive and dispensing a twisted vengeance version of Justice

. The possible themes that would be open for the film to explore when the public discovers they were had are numerous.

Oh, I like the way you think.

Buckeye Jones wrote:

: Wait--how can

Two-Face be alive? One of the last scenes in the Gordon speech montage is Dent's funeral

.

Yeah, and Obi-Wan Kenobi was telling the truth about Luke's father, too. ;)

(Actually, he WAS, in the original Star Wars. It was only when George Lucas decided to do a little retconning while writing The Empire Strikes Back that Obi-Wan became a liar.)

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It's workable to keep

Two Face in the Picture.

It would allow the theme of suppressing the truth for "the good of the people" and the negative impact that could arrive when it all unravels because

Two Face is alive and dispensing a twisted vengeance version of Justice

. The possible themes that would be open for the film to explore when the public discovers they were had are numerous.

Well, when you put it that way, it certainly sounds intriguing, even if stuff like the theme of suppressing the truth could still be played out as well without

Two Face

. Such a move would certainly be a boon to

those who felt Two Face was too small a part of the picture

.... B)

Edited by NBooth
Link to post
Share on other sites
Nezpop wrote:

: It's workable to keep

Two Face in the Picture.

It would allow the theme of suppressing the truth for "the good of the people" and the negative impact that could arrive when it all unravels because

Two Face is alive and dispensing a twisted vengeance version of Justice

. The possible themes that would be open for the film to explore when the public discovers they were had are numerous.

Oh, I like the way you think.

Buckeye Jones wrote:

: Wait--how can

Two-Face be alive? One of the last scenes in the Gordon speech montage is Dent's funeral

.

Yeah, and Obi-Wan Kenobi was telling the truth about Luke's father, too. ;)

(Actually, he WAS, in the original Star Wars. It was only when George Lucas decided to do a little retconning while writing The Empire Strikes Back that Obi-Wan became a liar.)

And I suppose precedent was already made in TDK with

Gordon

but I'm not sure I like it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Wait--how can

Two-Face be alive? One of the last scenes in the Gordon speech montage is Dent's funeral

.

It was most likely a closed casket. No body was seen by the public. Gotham stashed him away in Arkham Asylum, he manages to get out and slip into the shadows. He hates Gordon and Gotham with a real passion, and starts to plot his revenge for their deceptions and hiding him away

.

"You know...not EVERY story has to be interesting." -Gibby

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't take these rumours seriously at all, but just to keep us all abreast of what's being floated out there: Angelina Jolie as Catwoman and Johnny Depp as the Riddler.

BTW, I see that we had Philip-Seymour-Hoffman-as-Penguin rumours in this thread at least as far back as two years ago. Turned out the Penguin wasn't in this film at ALL. So, yet another reason to take these new rumours with MASSIVE heapings of salt.

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Saw the film last night, and have a few related thoughts on the ideas in it. I'm afraid I haven't read all of this thread, as it's a bit long, so forgive me if I'm repeating things.

Although the most obvious issues are related to the legitimacy of violent response to violence, the possibility that order is merely a suppression of chaos, etc, I think the more interesting thing to think about it might be to do with money (couldn't find anything about money in the previous posts, forgive me if I missed it).

Because in a sense, Batman's super-power is basically the power of money, and the thing that elevates The Joker beyond other criminals is the disregard of money. Alfred's comment about "some men just want to watch the world burn" is meant to be about a kind pure will to unleash anarchy for its own sake, but before he says this he says something like "some men don't want money...", and it's as if this is the really unnerving thing - the unpredictability of someone who isn't after money. There is a shabbiness about everything The Joker does - as he says, explosives are cheap. The detonation devices on the boats look homemade. Rachel and Harvey are tied up in a warehouse with rusty oil drums, old phones, and devices with wires exposed. All the key Joker scenes emphasise the cheapness of his methods - the pen on the table, the broken pool cue, the knives (including a potato peeler), old-fashioned hand-grenades, etc. Not to mention the fact that he slides down a mound of money, disregarding its sacredness. But everything Batman uses is slick, black, and part of a limitless supply, stored in a sexy, minimalist underground bunker. Batman as a crime fighting force is superior to the police mainly because his equipment is better. He has a weird tank thing that can smash through walls, but never harm any passers-by, apparently, a bank of strange screens that pick up cell-phone signals, and various pieces of manual equipment that allow him to excercise violence without killing anyone (although the only reason any action film works is because we're prepared to believe, for some reason, that a hero has the innate ability to knock someone unconscious without any risking of killing them in the process).

I think that wealth is a key part of the way in which the film can portray both Batman and The Joker as simulataneously attractive and repulsive, which seems to be what the film does. I found something about the scenes of Batman bulldozing his way through the city in his tank-thing disgusting to watch in the same way I found the media's preoccupation with military prowess in the lead up to the 'shock and awe' campaign in Iraq disgusting - it's the sense that here is someone whose power and wealth means that the world outside no longer offers them any resistance. And conversely there is something strangely attractive about the shabby figure of The Joker shuffling into the mob-bosses den, or wondering into Bruce's fund-raiser, in both scenes - he looks like a tramp at a board meeting, and this draws on a whole well of images deep in our collective consciousness - idea of tables being turned, of the first becoming last, poor guests invited to posh banquets, etc.

Anyway, just a few thoughts.

Edited by stu
Link to post
Share on other sites

I was discussing the film with a friend, and we got to talking about our perception of how this film's Joker was different from previous cinematic Jokers. In my opinion, Jack Nicholson's Joker was essentially a mobster in makeup, nothing particularly special. I thought that he had potential when he began giving away money in order to gain popularity, but he so quickly released his toxic gas that the entire exercise seemed to have little point. Mark Hamil's animated Joker was always preferable to me, since he seemed much closer to the comic book versions that I've read. Hamil's Joker reveled in his chaos and violence, and he truly seemed to be playing some sort of joke on Batman and the city.

SPOILERS FOLLOW, SPECIFICALLY ON ALL THINGS JOKER RELATED IN THE DARK KNIGHT

However, Ledger's Joker significantly differs from both previous versions. What interests me are the cryptic statements that the Joker makes about the origin of his facial scars. Both stories are contradictory, but they both share a basis in family violence. It is also interesting that both stories present the Joker as either a child-victim or self-mutilating husband, neither of which is a story that a criminal might use to establish some kind of tough-guy credibility. I felt that these monologues offered a kind of glimpse into the Joker's psyche, and what I saw was pain. Ledger's Joker doesn't have any material goals to his crime, even though he says that "if you're good at something never do it for free." His self-stated ambition is to spread chaos.

But I question his methods. If the Joker merely wanted to kick over a few anthills and see what happened, he could simply start blowing things up at random. He has already proved his ability to infilitrate the most secure locations with his explosives, and, as he says, he has a taste for dynamite. However, the Joker chooses his targets very carefully. His choices are designed not only to spread chaos and panic, but to force people to betray their own morality. The ferry scene is a good example of this. If the Joker really wanted chaos, could simply have destroyed both ferries, or, to change things up,

arrange it to appear that one ferry crew destroyed the other.

Or whatever. The point is, in this plan, as with his plans for Dent and for Batman, the Joker doesn't just want to destroy things in order to watch the wreckage. He wants things to destroy themselves. He starts with the goal of "killing the Bat-Man," but his plans quickly escalate to discrediting Batman & Dent, and generally trying to not only kill them, but to destroy everything good that they've accomplished.

This leads me to two scenes in particular, that I would love to hear some other people's thoughts upon. The first is the scene where Batman is "interrogating" the Joker in the police station.

Show hidden text
Batman tosses the Joker around, and instead of fighting back the Joker simply sneers at Batman: "There is nothing you can take from me." When I first saw the film I intrepreted this as simply the Joker saying that his life has no meaning to him, and that Batman can't threaten him with violence in order to get information. This ties in with the Joker's earlier and later attempts to get Batman to kill him, so I thought it just meant that the Joker didn't care if he died. But my friend found a deeper meaning. In Batman Begins, the head mobster sneers at a pre-Batman Burce Wayne, (paraphrase) "You think you've lost everything. You still have a lot left to lose. Your girlfriend, that butler of yours." Wayne still has a lot left to lose, including his friends, his fortune, his good name. Wayne wants to be able to walk away from Batman at some point, or at least he says so. The Joker can't walk away. He has nothing to go back to. It is the same reason that he has no compunctions about showing his face, as Gordon points out on the video tape early in the film. The Joker's desire to die is more than a lack of concern for his own life, I think it is an active death wish, so that his pain might end. The only reason that he doesn't kill himself is that he is so angry that he has to spread as much misery as possible before he dies. Anyone who is happy is an affront to his own pain.

Which leads me to the second scene, a scene which provoked a heated debate between myself and my friend.

Show hidden text
The scene where Rachel and Harvey are strapped to the bombs, and there is a phone for them to communicate. I see this as some sort of perverse mercy on the part of the Joker. There is really no point to the two of them communicating at that point. It is unclear if the Joker really intended for both of them to die and Dent's survival was a happenstance, or if he was counting on Batman making it there in time. It does make a difference, but I don't think it makes that much. My point was that there was a kind of mercy in the Joker giving Rachel and Harvey a chance to say goodbye. My friend said that it was awful, having to listen to your loved one die. But my counter-point is that at least they had a chance to say goodbye, to express their love. Would it be better if you knew that your loved one died alone? You could say that Rachel made more of her chance, telling Harvey what she had neglected to earlier. I did say that it was a "perverse" mercy, but I think it could be seen as a kind of mercy nonetheless, particularly if you believe that the Joker truly intended to kill both of them.

Thoughts?

owlgod.blogspot.com - My thoughts on all kinds of media

Link to post
Share on other sites
This leads me to two scenes in particular, that I would love to hear some other people's thoughts upon. The first is the scene where Batman is "interrogating" the Joker in the police station.
Show hidden text
Batman tosses the Joker around, and instead of fighting back the Joker simply sneers at Batman: "There is nothing you can take from me." When I first saw the film I intrepreted this as simply the Joker saying that his life has no meaning to him, and that Batman can't threaten him with violence in order to get information. This ties in with the Joker's earlier and later attempts to get Batman to kill him, so I thought it just meant that the Joker didn't care if he died. But my friend found a deeper meaning. In Batman Begins, the head mobster sneers at a pre-Batman Burce Wayne, (paraphrase) "You think you've lost everything. You still have a lot left to lose. Your girlfriend, that butler of yours." Wayne still has a lot left to lose, including his friends, his fortune, his good name. Wayne wants to be able to walk away from Batman at some point, or at least he says so. The Joker can't walk away. He has nothing to go back to. It is the same reason that he has no compunctions about showing his face, as Gordon points out on the video tape early in the film. The Joker's desire to die is more than a lack of concern for his own life, I think it is an active death wish, so that his pain might end. The only reason that he doesn't kill himself is that he is so angry that he has to spread as much misery as possible before he dies. Anyone who is happy is an affront to his own pain.

Thoughts?

My recollection of the Joker's line in the interrogation room was something like "Even with all your strength, you have nothing to threaten me with.". I thought the Joker's response to Batman in that scene as well as the hospital and ferry plots were right up there with John Doe in Seven. A consistent, purely evil villain who forces others to make horrifying choices.

I think you were right

Show hidden text
that the Joker does want to die. When Batman is speeding towards him on the Batpod the Joker says "Come, on. I want you to do it. I want you to do it." and then "Hit me!", even though no one else is around to hear him. At least in that moment, he obviously wants to die. We have to assume that the Joker already knows about Batman's rule about killing. So not only does he want to die, but like John Doe he knows that he will win if he can get the hero to kill him.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Greg Boyd chimes in! Edited by stef

In an interstellar burst, I am back to save the Universe.

Filmsweep by Persona. 2013 Film Journal. IlPersona.

Link to post
Share on other sites

stu wrote:

: Because in a sense, Batman's super-power is basically the power of money, and the thing that elevates The Joker beyond other criminals is the disregard of money.

Wow. What an interesting connection. Thank you. I'll have to think about this. I'll certainly keep this in mind if I see the film a second time.

Bobbin Threadbare wrote:

: The Joker's desire to die is more than a lack of concern for his own life, I think it is an active death wish, so that his pain might end. The only reason that he doesn't kill himself is that he is so angry that he has to spread as much misery as possible before he dies. Anyone who is happy is an affront to his own pain.

Very interesting. I'll have to keep this in mind, too.

stef wrote:

: Greg Boyd chimes in!

Ahem. ;)

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...