Social Commentary in The Dark Knight

This is a myspace blog I posted on July 22nd after seeing "The Dark Knight" for the second time.  I was thrilled during that movie and wondered to myself if this is what all those kids felt like when seeing 'Star Wars' for the first time way back in the summer of 1977. . .

I always want to go back and revise things like this, but then that would taint the ebb and flow of my brainwaves as I interpreted them into spoken word. . .

Social Commentary in The Dark Knight  Category: Movies, TV, Celebrities Having watched The Dark Knight I couldn't help but notice some commentary on some things that have happened in the last few years in our world, and specifically in America and it's war on terror. Now the thing about art is a question of whether or not art reflects society or is society a reflection of art?  If you see something in art (ie life) is it there because you want it to be there or is it there just because. . .it is?  Was it deliberately put in place by the artist (God, karma, Allah, etc) or is it a subconcious, uncontrollable element (fate)?   Whatever you might think it is I don't think I'm imagining things when I say that The Dark Knight has a lot to say about this state of war on terror the world finds itself in.  If you haven't seen the movie and don't want to know about it then stop reading. . .here.  In the film we open with Gotham City in a state of hope.  Batman has effectively beaten down the criminal element of the mob bosses and there is hope that the city can turn itself around.  Unfortunately this removal of power (the mobsters) leaves a vacuum in which something or someone will seek to fill and exploit.  Enter the Joker. This scenario parallels the Iraq War, which generally was promoted as a part of the war on terror.  What happened in Iraq was the United States went in and eliminated Saddam Hussein's regime.  This left a power vacuum in Iraq, and something or someone sought to fill that vacuum and exploit that situation.  Enter Al Qaeda, the Sunnis, the Shiites, and who knows who else.  Iran probably too.  My facts might not be squeaky clean here but you get the idea - someone stepped in tried to fill the power vacuum in Iraq.  What ensued?  Terrorism.  And that's exactly what the Joker does in The Dark Knight.  He fills the power vacuum and terrorizes the city of Gotham.  Lots of explosions.  Videos sent for the public to see (remind you of anyone?).  The disregard for money or wealth.  At one point in the movie the Joker says 'it's not about the money - it's about sending a message'.  The terrorists we know in the real world don't seem to be about money - they're about an ideology they're willing to die for and the destruction of the western world.  In a sense they really do want to watch the western world 'burn'.  As Alfred succintly states 'some men just wanna watch the world burn'.  This puts Batman in a predicament - how far can he go before he becomes the very thing he's trying to defeat. At what lengths will the Joker go to push Batman over the edge?   How far can the United States take this war before they become no better than the terrorists?  At what length will the terrorists go to achieve their goals?  At what cost?  The cost of human lives is inevitable, in both the movie and the real world.   What will the public have to sacrifice in order to save themselves?  Near the middle of the movie the Joker is imprisoned and Batman is allowed to ask him questions.  Along with a healthy beating and some major physical abuse.  Torture?  Not necessarily, but it certainly violates a lot of human rights and civil liberties allowed in this country.  My question is, how many of you laughed when Batman slammed the Joker's head against the table, and did you have any major problems with Batman beating the crap out this lunatic who had been terrorizing everyone in Gotham?  Does this scene even pertain to the issue of torture, or unlawful interrogation? Near the end of the movie things are getting desperate for Batman.  He has to find the Joker and to this end he employs what is essentially a giant eavesdropping device which allows him to listen in on the cell phones of every citizen in Gotham City.  Can anyone say Patriot Act???  It is pointed out in the film that this is unethical, wrong, and against the law.  But we question whether or not it's necessary.  I think in the context of the film it was very necessary.  It was used responsibly and in a manner that best enabled Batman to save the city.  Can the same be said for the Patriot Act?  That we might never know, I'll agree it's wrong to be eavesdropping on phone calls and internet usage, but ultimately I think it has probably helped thwart the efforts of the terrorists.  To all those vehemently against the Patriot Act and the dissolution of our constitutional rights, think long and hard about if the terrorists were in your city, blowing shit up at random and not stopping for anything or anyone?  This is exactly what happens in The Dark Knight.     This also raises the questions of whose right is it to make these decisions?  Obviously Batman made the decision alone, and it can be argued either way that it was right or wrong.  President Bush is not well liked around the world, but I don't envy the decisions that man has had to make - and I think he knew that the decisions he made would villify him.  But he made them anyway.  In a sense, he deserves our respect for that.  Batman finally realizes at the end of the film that the decisions he made could also villify him - but he takes responsibility and literally invites the police to hunt him.  He knows his actions brought the terror and mayhem to Gotham City.  And he'll take the heat for it, because ultimately he knows that what he has done, what he is doing, are the right things.  Time will tell for President Bush if what he's done were the right things.  Right now everyone would like to think that he's wrong wrong wrong.  I hope that he was right. Finally there's an iconic image in the film - that of Batman, surrounded by chaos, destruction, fire, the ruins of a smoking building, and firefighters scrambling all around.  This reminded of a picture of the ruins of the World Trade Center.  In the film, Batman is hanging his head in shame and contemplation.  He knows he's partly responsible for bringing this to Gotham City, and he's saddened by it, but he also knows that he cannot give up the fight, that the only way to attone is to defeat evil.  And that's exactly what the United States is trying to do - actions have consequences, all we can do is hope that we live long enough to see ourselves not become the villain.  I'm too tired to continue and I'm sure there's holes so anyone that read this I invite your criticism, your own thoughts and your own interpretations.  I love a good movie debate!

Atheism and the Audacity of Hope

In light of all the holiday/Christmas/Kwanza/festivus news this season, I've been thinking a lot about what it is atheists believe? There was a poster displayed within a Nativity scene yesterday or recently that shed some light, but certainly doesn't sum up atheism entirely. The story caused me to wonder this this morning. . .


I once heard of hell described as being the utter and absolute lack of hope - the overwhelming feeling that you are alone. No God, no salvation, no love - it's just nothingness that in a spiritual manner you're somehow aware.  In and of itself, nothingness becomes despair and suffering of the self. 

I wonder how many atheists, when faced with the immediacy of their own death, suddenly have a change of heart in their 'beliefs' (or lack of). If there is no God or salvation or life after death, then atheism offers only this when you die - nothing. Nothing at all. Is that hell? Maybe. Why would you want to subscribe to that?