The Dark Knight: What is it That Really Overcomes Evil?
Posted July 20th, 2008 by Steve Parker
image:
We have waited a long time to have Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Knight hit out movie screens. And finally, it’s here! And dark it is -- more violence, dark humour, and much darker moral complexity. The story opens with a bank robbery in progress and as it proceeds we realise that these bank robbers are ruthless and motivated by an intense greed. The moral darkness of the whole film is set as we see the bank robbers turning on each other. Even the "honour among thieves" code is broken. Finally, the perpetrator of the bank robbery is revealed. The Joker is the new criminal mastermind up against whom Batman is set to fight.
The moral fibre of Gotham City is stretched and torn and it would seem there is no good left. The moral protectors of society, the police force, seem completely impotent in their fight against crime. The good seems to be losing the battle over evil. Batman is their only hope. But how far will he go in his fight with The Joker? This is the central motif running through The Dark Knight -- nothing good seems to work against The Joker. Batman needs to decide how far towards evil he is willing to travel in trying to overcome his enemy.
There is no doubt that The Dark Knight can be evaluated purely on a entertainment level. It has all the trappings of the modern Hollywood film -- special effects, amazing stunts, romantic interests. But the narrative asks us to journey into deep ethical and moral territory as it confronts the problem of evil which seems so intractable against good action. For Batman to overcome The Joker, it seems he must descend into moral darkness himself. But the question is, can he remain pure, while using evil methods to overcome the evil.
Anyone even remotely aware of the current global ethical debates around the use of torture to fight the alleged "war on terror" can’t possibly miss the allusions to the argument of some that using unethical means, such as torture, is the only way to deal with the evil as terrorism.
In our contemporary world, where a moral tsunami seems to bear down on us, maybe -- just maybe -- it is necessary to use what we are fighting against in order to overcome the enemy. This moral conundrum is what lifts The Dark Knight above mere entertainment. Do we need heroes who are prepared to lose their own good reputation -- their own moral character -- in order to rescue our society from that very evil? Batman is not like Christ, who became human and took upon himself humanity’s sin without becoming corrupted himself. Batman is a human hero. And perhaps The Dark Knight brings home to us the necessity for a saviour who is beyond the human. The Dark Knight is compelling entertainment. But those who think about their movies will be provoked to consider more deeply about contemporary morality and whether it is possible or not to overcome such intractable evil in the world using only good means.
Heath Ledger’s performance is everything we were expecting and more! It is an intense evocation of profound evil without a conscience. The Joker’s physical scars reflect a deep emotional scarring. Throughout the story, he has multiple explanations for the way his face has been turned into a perpetual smile. And there will undoubtedly be people in every audience whose life experience will resonate with the dark horror of each of these explanations. The narrative twists and turns with the motivations on the side of good and evil unclear and messy. If we want it to, The Dark Knight can become a powerful meditation on good and evil, ethics and morality, and the uselessness of black-and-white thinking when it comes to resolving the problems of our society.
This is one Batman film where evil takes over the stage and shifts our attention away from the hero. The audience clearly identifies with the Joker as they laugh and cheer at the perpetrator of evil. He has our sympathies and those on the side of good seem so weak. The Joker presents a powerful irony. The audience begins to laugh at the evil perpetrated by the joker. He seems to be the powerful one and somehow his actions against the weak take on a dark humour. There is something in us that resonates with this combination of violent evil and humour. Is it because so many of us suffer in ways similar to The Joker and can identify with his desperation to let the pain express itself. To survive his suffering, he has moved beyond suffering to a disinterested evil.
Ultimately, The Dark Knight presents us a message of power in weakness. Jesus Christ was one of many teachers who have modeled an approach to evil which is more about weakness than strength. What is it that really overcomes evil? Is it Batman’s superior physical prowess? His superior science fiction technology? Is it about the self-sacrifice of one’s reputation and everything that one holds dear -- even the very loss of one’s life?
Watching The Dark Knight as mere entertainment will lead to the loss of the power and depth of this contemporary fable -- one which confronts us with the reality of evil in our world, the apparent inability to overcome it, and the possible options in dealing with it. If you see this movie, make sure you leave thinking about the deeper issues that Christians need to confront. We need to face the reality that simplistic responses to evil may never work. But how far are we prepared to go in overcoming it?
Steve Parker reviews movies and books and comments on things of interest to Christians who are thoughtful about their faith on his blog, Thinking Christian, where this review was first published. He writes from Adelaide, Australia.
Search
- T Joe Willey on Desmond Ford on the Atonement
- Alexander Carpenter on What's So Funny About Community Organizing?
- orthodoxymoron on A Review of "For the Sake of the Gospel" by Des Ford
- BH on Desmond Ford on the Atonement
- Elaine Nelson on The Unchurched
- Julius on What's So Funny About Community Organizing?
- bevin on The Unchurched
- blakelaing on The Unchurched
- Nic Samojluk on A Review of "For the Sake of the Gospel" by Des Ford
- Harlen Miller on A Review of "For the Sake of the Gospel" by Des Ford
User login
© Copyright 2008 Adventist Forums 
Comments
Steve,
I just saw this movie last night. I went in anticipating a typical summer blockbuster set apart by some good acting, and was pleasantly surprised by the sophisticated plot and characters.
Thank you for a wonderful review of the film for connecting it to spiritual themes.
On a side note, I am haunted by Heath Ledger's performance. He embodies and articulates nihlism/anarchy/evil masterfully. My friend and I couldn't help but wonder, after the film, if someone could do this as an actor and not have it affect their personal live in the real world.
Steve Parker: "The audience clearly identifies with the Joker as they laugh and cheer at the perpetrator of evil. He has our sympathies and those on the side of good seem so weak."
Thank God that at no time during the movie did the Joker or his henchman have my sympathies. I guess I was the only one, or one of them anyway, who did not identify with the Joker. If anyone, I identified with the actor behind the mask (Heath Ledger) who was facing a sad and meaningless death some time after he finished shooting this movie.
I, for one, was glad when the end credits finally arrived. Films like these dull my spiritual sensitivities. Yes, there were complex moral decisions, but one could get these kinds of situaton ethics scenarios from philosophy 101 college textbooks.
I thought it immoral for the film makers to give home grown terrorits--or international ones for that matter--the visual impetus to start blowing up hospitals just for the cruel joy of it. I wander how long before someone copy cats this celluloid travesty.
Perhaps modern action films, no matter how sophisticated, have finally left me behind, or perhaps I have abandoned them for quiet afternoons spent reading Herman Hesse's The Glass Bead Game, delving into the multi-layered joys of Cecil Taylor's free jazz explorations, or watching classic films from a more genteel time, i.e., last year.
I enjoyed the review Steve and I am looking forward to seeing the movie; although, I may have to wait a bit as my wife is going to sit this one out.
Your final question is challenging. Pacifists call us follow in the footsteps of Christ and fight the evil around us with nonviolence even to the point of giving up our lives. But faced with senseless violence and a complete loss of conscience, isn't it necessary to use whatever force is sufficient to stop the carnage? (e.g. Darfur) It would seem pacifism is preferable but has its limits when confronted with absolute evil.
Peter Rollins also has an interesting take on the Batman story. He sees Bruce Wayne's night time alter ego as a valve that allows him to continue the objective violence resulting from Wayne industries and the socioeconomic disparity which indirectly increases the violence in the city. He writes, "What better way to feel good about yourself than volunteering at a local charity in the evenings (like his Father) or beating up on street criminals in the evenings (like Wayne). Such acts (like a prayer meeting, worship service or bible study) can recharge the batteries and make us feel like our true identity is pure and good when in reality it simply takes away the guilt that would otherwise make it difficult for us to embrace our true (social) self who is expressed in the activities we engage in for the rest of the week. The philosophy here is exposed as “do something so that nothing really changes”."
This provides another way for us to connect this film with spiritual themes. Namely, do our Christian ministries for the poor and downtrodden provide valves that allow us to ignore the larger issues of unjust laws and business practices? Is our concept of just war another valve providing us with the illusion that we are doing something about injustice and evil without really changing anything in a substantial way and perhaps only exacerbating the situation?
What then is the answer? How do we make a substantial difference rather than applying superficial bandages to cover society's deep wounds for the aesthetic benefit of our own psyche?
I suspect part of the answer is found in Shane Claiborne's book, The Irresistible Revolution, where he advocates for finding ways to bring the rich and poor together. We are so isolated from one another due to fear and condemnation. Shane believes that coming together in community will lead to a natural redistribution of resources. I like this take on the redistribution that occurred in the early church. Communal property wasn't forced to form a flat community as in Marxism and giving to the poor wasn't a ministry of a homogeneous, wealthy community as in philanthropic capitalism. Rather, redistribution was a natural outgrowth within a diverse community in which some had more and they naturally provided for those 'siblings' who had less.
Thanks Steve--I'm now looking forward to seeing this film and discussing the questions you bring up here.
I just came from a late viewing on a large screen. I was somewhat perplexed with Batman's angst. He was willing to kill the District Attorney who's face was half obliterated, and his girl friend killed, yet he left the Joker suspended alive outside a highrise.
Maybe, it is a little like the Great Controversey, where God can't finish the destruction of evil until the "fulness of time". However, Batman's violence was justified in all cases. We have tried to suggest a non-violent world is what the goal should be before Christ's second coming. Sorry, I am convinced Pacificism will not work until we ascend on high. There will always have to be those that are brave and strong enought to repel evil until it is destroyed permanently by God/Jesus.
Thanks for everyone's comments on my review so far. Thought I would respond to a couple of the thoughts:
Zane: 'I am haunted by Heath Ledger's performance. He embodies and articulates nihlism/anarchy/evil masterfully. My friend and I couldn't help but wonder, after the film, if someone could do this as an actor and not have it affect their personal live in the real world.'
Interesting observation. I understand that Ledger, in preparing for his role, locked himself away in an apartment for a few weeks while he reflected on the character of the Joker, wrote in a journal, and immersed himself in thinking. Clearly, he took this role very seriously. It does make one wonder about the effect that something like this might have.
Raul: 'Films like these dull my spiritual sensitivities. Yes, there were complex moral decisions, but one could get these kinds of situaton ethics scenarios from philosophy 101 college textbooks.'
Hi Raul. Your comment highlights the fact that different people respond differently to various media in terms of what stimulates them spiritually. And I guess it is true that Philosophy 101 does cover similar issues. What is good about secular culture at the moment is that philosophy is being brought into the places where people-at-large actually live and is presented in forms that resonate with them. I, for one, was stimulated rather than dulled my spiritual sensitivities. I have been thinking about this film ever since I saw it (twice!) - and it has been a discussion point with many people at home and work. The Dark Knight may cover Philosophy 101 textbooks -- but it is a darn sight more interesting! BTW, a quick survey at your local good bookstore will uncover all sorts of philosophy books that explore modern culture - The Matrix, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, The Simpsons, etc. Even professional philosophers acknowledge that, if we are to engage the wider culture in philosophical and ethical thinking, we have bring it to them in their language.
Brenton: Thoroughly enjoyed the perspective you presented from Peter Rollins. I have long thought that many spiritual "exercises" actually provide an opportunity to avoid action in the real world without feeling too guilty about it.
Post new comment