Why
So Violent?
A Review of The Dark Knight
by
Bob Murphy
by Bob Murphy
DIGG THIS
Last night
I got on the bandwagon and watched the new Batman movie. I thought
it was so good that at times, my mouth was literally open in awe
of what they had done with it. I was worried that the hype about
Heath Ledger’s Joker had been somewhat based on sympathy, but no:
While Jack Nicholson was a predictable nutjob, Ledger really made
you think, "Yeah, if someone acted like that, his crew
would be ruthless but utterly loyal, and he would soon be the undisputed
crime boss in the city." When Ledger is in a scene, you can’t
even consider anyone else. Even Batman’s heroics are interesting
only insofar as you look to see, "How is the Joker going to
react to this? Amusement? Respect?"
Now I have
bent over backwards to praise the movie, because in what follows
it may seem as if I’m being a stick in the mud. So I hope Batman
fans will appreciate that I am not criticizing the character or
the movie. But now onto my main purpose: I wish to critique a popular
line of argument (epitomized in a Wall Street Journal op
ed by Andrew Klavan) that "Batman is George W. Bush."
We’ll see that this comparison is misguided for two reasons. First,
Batman is infinitely cooler than George Bush (and that’s not really
a criticism of Bush). Second, Batman really isn’t the assumed hero
that these foreign policy hawks believe; Bruce Wayne is making a
tragic mistake with his life.
One more disclaimer
before we begin: There are unavoidable spoilers in this piece. I
implore you, please do NOT continue reading if you haven’t yet seen
the movie; I would feel awful.
"What
Bush and Batman Have in Common"
To make sure
we understand the context of my article, let’s reproduce some excerpts
from Klavan’s op ed:
There seems
to me no question that the Batman film "The Dark Knight," currently
breaking every box office record in history, is at some level
a paean of praise to the fortitude and moral courage that has
been shown by George W. Bush in this time of terror and war. Like
W, Batman is vilified and despised for confronting terrorists
in the only terms they understand. Like W, Batman sometimes has
to push the boundaries of civil rights to deal with an emergency,
certain that he will re-establish those boundaries when the emergency
is past.
And like
W, Batman understands that there is no moral equivalence between
a free society – in which people sometimes make the wrong choices
– and a criminal sect bent on destruction. The former must be
cherished even in its moments of folly; the latter must be hounded
to the gates of Hell.
What Bush
and Batman Don’t Have in Common
I don’t know
much about Batman co-writer/director Christopher Nolan, but
(unlike some who have been horrified by the WSJ op ed) I
think it’s entirely possible that he wanted to take a stand on the
current debates concerning "enhanced" interrogations,
civil liberties violations in the name of fighting terrorism, etc.
This doesn’t necessarily even mean that Nolan is a fan of George
W. Bush; perhaps he is just tired of simplistic leftist criticisms.
In any event, the plot device of Batman tapping everyone’s cell
phone seemed rather blatant to me; unless avid fans can show me
that this happened in the comics, then I think the war hawks are
right to draw parallels in this regard.
But having
conceded a smidgeon to Klavan, let’s step back and consider all
the ways Batman is different from modern American presidents. (Note
that I am following Woods and Gutzman, who argue in their new
book that George Bush’s claims to executive prerogative are
really nothing new.)
- Batman
uses his own money. All of the wonderful gadgets that Batman
uses are purchased with Bruce Wayne’s personal money. Suppose
that when Bruce Wayne explains his desire for a plane to help
him "rendition" the foreign businessman back to Gotham,
that Morgan Freeman’s character said, "You’re rich, my boy,
but not that rich. That kind of technology is so expensive
it would bankrupt even this company." Wayne thinks about
it and says, "You know, we can’t let something like financing
stand in the way of my mission to bring safety to the streets
of Gotham. I’m going to go around and ask for donations from every
employed person in the city, in order to raise an extra billion
dollars per year. And hey, if some freeloaders don’t want to contribute,
even though I’m doing this all for them, then I’ll kidnap them
and bring them here to the Batcave as a lesson to everybody else."
The crowd in the movie theater might think this was a bit odd,
and rather uncharacteristic behavior for the caped crusader.
- Batman
fights his own battles. A rather important difference between
Batman and American presidents is that Batman personally throws
down with the killers and thieves. This is a large part of why
he is so cool. Suppose Wayne told Alfred, "You know, you’re
right! One of these days I am going to reach my limits.
I am more useful plotting strategy here in the safety of my mansion.
I’ll hire those Batman vigilantes to carry out my work."
Again, the audience would be very puzzled by this. There could
even be audible groans once the viewers realized Bruce Wayne was
going to be safely ensconced in his fortress the entire movie.
- Batman
is very reticent in the use of violence. Batman bends over
backwards to minimize the physical damage he inflicts on others,
even the criminals themselves. As a rule he doesn’t use firearms
(and his reason for this is much different from the Joker’s!),
and the Joker himself remarks that Batman won’t ever (intentionally)
kill him, because of Batman’s quaint morality. Needless to say,
if Batman slaughtered all of the thugs he crossed during the movie
– and especially if he accidentally killed all of the hostages
wearing the masks near the movie’s end – the audience would be
horrified. And if the Gotham newspapers declared, "Batman
blows up elementary school, killing 340 kids, in effort to stop
Joker!" many in the audience would agree with the
vigilante’s critics, rather than shaking their heads at the ungrateful
rabble.
Now let me
acknowledge one area where Batman and American war presidents are
similar, that Klavan neglected to mention:
- Batman
lies to the people he is serving. I personally was very disappointed
in Batman’s instruction to Commissioner Gordon, that the public
must never know the truth about Harvey Dent. Bruce Wayne thought
he was thwarting the Joker through this deception – the Joker
had been trying to show that even self-righteous crusaders were
capable of crime. And yet, in publicly praising a demented cop
killer – and someone who would threaten a young boy with a gun
in front of his mother – Batman and Gordon fulfilled the Joker’s
worldview. Great film villains such as Ledger’s Joker, or Anthony
Hopkins’ Hannibal Lecter, are not simply mindless psychopaths.
They see the hypocrisy of the power elite, and are amused at true
heroes (such as Batman or Clarice Starling) who compromise their
principles by working for such frauds.
Bruce Wayne
Should Retire The Batman
Implicit in
the argument over whether Batman is like George Bush, is the assumption
that it’s good to be like Batman. Let me be the square who
declares: Bruce Wayne is wrong to continue in his vigilantism. Of
course it makes for a fantastic movie, and I certainly didn’t want
him announcing his identity at Dent’s press conference.
Even so, if
I found out my (billionaire and brilliant) son were The Batman,
I’d have to have a serious talk with the boy. There is so much more
he could do with his life, rather than spending millions inventing
gadgets for combat, and devoting all of his free time to battling
criminal gangs. To give a quick example, a savvy and bold billionaire
could eliminate far more crime by getting Gotham to stop
enforcing its drug and gambling laws. All of those mobsters
who corrupted the police would fall away without black market revenues
propping them up.
This is an
important point. Batman is really a one-man "surge" in
the War Against Crime in Gotham City. No matter how many criminals
he puts away, the corrupt system will either release them, or even
more unsavory criminals will replace them. This isn’t a tangential
observation on my part; several of the criminals themselves remark
during the movie that Batman has changed the dynamics of the black
market landscape, and actually delivered a virtual monopoly in certain
areas to the most ruthless criminals in their respective niches.
 Conclusion
Although there
are some undeniable parallels between Batman and American presidents,
there are other obvious differences, and these are "deal breakers"
in the sense that Batman would not be revered if he behaved
in similar fashion.
More important,
we must not let our enthusiasm for a fabulous movie obscure the
fact that violence doesn’t solve problems, especially violence employed
in conjunction with government officials. Other Christians would
agree with me that there is really only one Man whom we should treat
as a true hero, and He was anything but a rule-bending law enforcer.
July 31, 2008
Bob
Murphy [send him mail]
has a Ph.D. in economics from New York University, and is the author
of The
Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism.
He has a personal website at ConsultingByRPM.com
Bob
Murphy Archives
Copyright
© 2008 LewRockwell.com
|
