1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/8317/the-dark-knight/

The Dark Knight

July 22, 2008 by

The problem of evil is a big theme for a movie, and certainly for a movie based on a comic book, but Batman: The Dark Knight deals with it expertly, and with a message that offers profound support to the idea of human liberty.

It does so in two ways: it supports the view that human beings are capable of cooperating toward the social good, and it shows the unpredictable level of evil that state intervention unleashes. Yes, I know it sounds implausible, but please hear me out.

Consider the Joker, who embodies undiluted, unconscionable evil. The evil that drives him is not limited to a particular sin. It is not greed, for example. At one point in the film, he stacks up all the money he has taken control of from the mob he comes to monopolize. He sets it all on fire in front of the mobsters who stare in shocked amazement. He had previously demanded half their money in exchange for killing Batman, but it turns out that he cares nothing for money. He only wanted to give them pain by persuading them to fork it over. This makes him ungodly scary.

In fact, one is hard pressed to pin any of the seven deadly sins on this guy. He is not really lustful, gluttonous, slothful, wrathful, envious, or prideful — or rather he is all of these things but none of them quite capture what drives him. What he wants is to observe social chaos — and if that means death and destruction, all the better. In order to bring this about, however, he needs one thing more than anything else: he needs power. He will do anything for it and, then, with it.

Additionally, the Joker has a trait that we tend to see in evil people. He carries around with him a peculiar assumption, never really questioned. He assumes that everyone else is secretly as bad as he is. Anything that appears otherwise, he believes to be a façade. It is a mask that must be ripped off. In seeking confirmation for this assumption, he entertains himself by putting people in impossible situations that will reveal their core corruption. He revels in pushing people who think they are good into embracing their inner evil. Hence his obsession with ripping off Batman’s mask. He must show the world that Batman is as bad as he is.

In pursuit of this confirmation, he is as clever as the devil. He has pressed the city government into evacuating people by means of two boats, one with prisoners and another with regular citizens. He gives a detonator device to the drivers of each ship. He says that he is performing a social experiment. The idea is that each detonator blows up the other ship. If you press the button to blow up the other ship, your ship will be saved. If you do not press quickly, your ship will likely be blown up because surely the people on the other ship will press first. So we have here the classic case of the prisoner’s dilemma without the mathematics. It is a raw test of the capacity of others to commit unspeakable crimes in their own self-interest.

At first, the social dynamic takes a predictable direction. Neither the citizens on their boat nor the prisoners on the other boat favor murder. But then they think again. What will the people on the other boat do? Surely the criminals on the prisoner boat will think nothing of pushing their button, so should the citizens act first? Meanwhile, the prisoners figure that the people on the other boat will not place much value on the lives of criminals, so they will probably be killed. Shouldn’t they kill first?

The debate becomes furious on each boat. On the citizen boat, for example, they decide to take a vote. The option of pushing the button wins (failure of democracy) but no one can find the will to do the deed. On the criminal boat, they just decide to explode the other boat, but the leader can’t quite do it. Finally, the clock moves toward the hour that the Joker said the experiment would end. Both sides have finally declined to do the dirty deed. In prisoner’s-dilemma terms, they have chosen cooperation over defection. This is not what the Joker expected. And why not? Because he doesn’t believe in the capacity of human beings for social cooperation. He assumes that everyone is like himself. And here he is wrong.

I’ve already mentioned that the mob figures into the plot here. In fact, it is the source of all crime, and the central driving force behind the entire plot. Every time a new person gains public office or position within the police department, he swears to clean up the streets of the mobster-driven crime problem. But each time, the person is either killed or corrupted, leaving it to Batman to do the dirty work.

But can Gotham ever really be cleaned up? At some point, a new district attorney has hundreds of people locked up and the assets of many local banks frozen. Even in this case, the mob money finds safe harbor outside the country. The more that the police try to enforce the law, the worse the crime problem grows and the more powerful the mob becomes. The film offers not the slightest hope that this issue can ever be resolved.

And yet there is a point that is never addressed in the film. Where does organized crime get its money? Bribes, no doubt. Probably business too. Is it gambling, prostitution, drugs, liquor, or something else? Whatever the case may be, the mob is the mob because it deals with black markets in something. The only reason that black markets exist is due to government prohibitions. A free market in gambling would reduce the level of corruption in this industry to the same level that it exists in the market for, for example, hamburgers. That is to say, it would not be a notable feature of the sector. The same is true with all traditional mafia activities. The best way — really the only way — to end its power is to end the prohibitions on peaceful trading of all goods and services.

But that is not what the state does. Instead, it fights these untenable and unwinnable wars against gambling, prostitution, drugs, and the like, and thereby drives them underground, guaranteeing high profits to those willing to take the risk to be part of the market. The riches are then used to bribe public officials and gain a certain amount of protection from the public sector. The cycle continues until the corruption becomes a deeply embedded part of public life. In this case, the prohibitions have unleashed wicked mobsters, but as bad as they are, they seem manageable.

The Joker, however, is not manageable. He is the killer virus unwittingly unleashed by the cure. People like him will always be with us, but they can usually be contained — unless the state is involved to make such people more powerful than they would otherwise be. The implied lesson becomes clear. The Joker is the product of mistaken public policy, the end result of the prohibition of peaceful trade.

The contrast between the peaceful cooperation that people are capable of when they are on their own, even under extreme circumstances, and the evil unleashed by misguided state management of society could not be more palpable.

This is the real message of Batman: The Dark Knight, which, I must say, is one of the most spectacular and profound cinematic explorations of the problem of evil I’ve ever seen. It is not suitable for young children, but I recommend it very highly, not only for its libertarian theoretical structure but also for its moral power.

{ 71 comments }

Ashton Alexander July 23, 2008 at 4:55 pm

Referring back to when someone said that Batman never said that he wouldn’t use the surveillance system again. He did say that in the movie, he told Morgan Freeman to type his name in when he was through. When he was through using it Freeman typed in his name, and we saw what happened. As soon as he typed his name in the device self destructed, thus ending the possibility for Batman to use it again.

Also, like was said earlier, you cannot separate this movie from politics and just look at the philosophy behind it. Politics is such a strong influence on this movie, and to separate them from the philosophical discussion would be like discussing George Orwell’s Animal Farm without looking at the Russian government in his time. All you need to do is look at the the boat’s names to see this. And the political point its’ making is do you have to give up human rights and liberty in order to save yourself. To the people on the boat it seemed that the only way to save themselves was to take away anothers liberty, but in the end they decided not to and it all worked out for them. In America it seems that the only way to save ourselves is to take away other’s rights, but is that really the only way, that’s what the agent of chaos (The Joker) would want us to do. The Joker would want America to break its rules in order to save itself, because then all of a sudden no one needs to follow rules, and we could do anything we wanted in order to save ourselves. Batman struggled with the thought of breaking his own rule, but in the end he decided not to because otherwise he would be just like the Joker. This is implying that if America breaks its rules then America will become no better than the Joker, or than the terrorists who don’t seem to have rules.

Grant A. Brady July 23, 2008 at 10:38 pm

While I do generally agree with you general point that a reduction of control on the exchange of goods and services would reduce these criminal monopolies, it would not totally stop them. For instance, one of the biggest ways MS-13 makes money in LA right now is charging “rent” if you work on the street (venders et al not prostitutes). So the idea that a free market would stop organized crime is ridiculous. However, I would say that it would reduce there influence.

patrick July 23, 2008 at 11:48 pm

kudos to the makers Dark Knight for their record breaking opening weekend… it’s no wonder there’s talk of another one coming out ASAP

hayesy July 24, 2008 at 1:50 am

At one point in the film, he stacks up all the money he has taken control of from the mob he comes to monopolize. He sets it all on fire in front of the mobsters who stare in shocked amazement.

I see deflationary undertones here…

theblob July 24, 2008 at 3:13 am

The joker is a hayekian gone crazy.

“The mob has plans. The cops have plans. Gordon has plans. They’re schemers, all trying to control their little parts of the world. … I try to show the schemers how pathetic their attempts to control things really are.”

Michael Dubhthaigh July 24, 2008 at 6:16 am

I thought it was a statist message, Fear the free minded indivudial because he is evil, only the state in collusion with big business can provide and protect you.
Particulary after hearing some T.V. story tonight about future pre- paid fuel stations with spiked wheel clamps to hold you vehicle if you don’t pay (Australia).

pravin July 25, 2008 at 10:42 am

Hey, i think you are reading too much into the movie. It was a great watch though.

jake July 25, 2008 at 4:22 pm

I did not like this movie from the start. Early on there are scenes with the robbers talking about how some members of the team are being killed off … gee I would think that would put some of these robbers on guard but no, that would be asking too much. One of them after opening the safe and with his back still to one of the others mentions how members are being picked off one by one and then off course he is eliminated, as if he had an IQ of say …60. Then there is the scene where another member can predict to the second when a bus will come thru a wall and kill another member of the team just a he mentions that robbers are being offed so the remaining members get bigger shares. Then the bus goes back out onto the street and with split second timing reenters a line of buses. This kind of crap where all logic can be dropped to give some kicks to a dumbed down population has become increasingly popular in recent years. It has zero to do with art.

I understand this is batman and it is not going to be realistic all the time, but the makers of this film don’t have to treat us all like morons, but then again seeing how almost everyone loves this movie, maybe they’ve been a around the block a few times and realize that most people are idiots.

So they start off the movie in a totally unrealistic and improbable way. IMHO, in the vast majority of cases that is a mistake for an action movie, you want to suck people into it, and having it play out as realistically as possible seems to me the much superior way to go.

I have heard numerous critics over the years say that if you can’t even care about one character in a film it is simply not a good movie, and in this movie with many characters that is true.

Much of the focus is on the Joker, so we have to stay knee deep in depravity for two hours watching this glorified nut case. Murray Rothbard once said the state is nothing but a band of thieves writ large. There is a tendency in our society to glorify bad people, believing that evil is a “dark” and interesting subject. My feeling is that evil or callousness is not interesting at all. The vast majority of the bad people in the world are just criminals when you boil it down, and even people like the Joker are just sick twisted individuals, and there is nothing more to it than that.

A few years ago, before I became a libertarian and found out about all the evil in the world I would not have liked this movie either and would have had a very uneasy feeling about, but would not been able to CLEARLY state why.

This is a very statist film, but it’s problems go even deeper than that. It’s almost like it is a conscious effort to indoctrinate us, and make us semi comfortable with a world where everyone is a moron, almost every thought and action is the wrong one, where morality and thoughtfulness are not to be seen, and where everything is hopeless, so ….. we might as well give into it.

So there we have it, the # rated movie of all time on IMDB, and not one person that an intelligent person could care about in the entire movie. Dark Knight indeed.

Jmanley July 25, 2008 at 7:14 pm

I guess I should begin by saying that I am not a libertarian. I just came across this site after doing a search for the dark knight and thought the discussion was interesting.

That being said, the mythology of Batman is inherently non-libertarian. This is most clearly emphasized by the fact that he does not kill. He instead leaves criminals for the police. he serves more as a vigilante detective than an omniscient pillar of justice. The mythology is rooted in the belief that men are, and should be, ruled by law. Furthermore it suggests that the best (although still flawed) method of determining justice and punishment is through a jury of ones peers.

Also, I noticed the repeated reference to the films investigation into the problem of evil. In what way? and in what way does the problem of evil weigh into the question of a libertarian political view? I understand the problem as it relates to the question of the existence of God, but it seems unrelated to the thesis presented. Clearly evil exists, both as a result of nature and man, and therefore any political philosophy will have to recognize and deal with it. How is libertarianism any different, or, how does this help to enforce the concept of libertarianism as necessary or desirable?

Also, Jake, you should look into the suspension of disbelief. you will enjoy going to the movies more and also realize that the general populous is not made up solely of idiots. your reasoning to reach that conclusion is both extreme and flawed. try this for size:

If guy goes to see a batman movie expecting to see an entirely realistic portrayal of the world.

And

Guys is SURPRISED to find unrealistic elements in the film.

And

guys feeling of surprise, coupled with his overwhelming sense of self-righteousness, causes him to assume the majority of the population is idiotic

THEN guy is an idiot himself

Jake July 25, 2008 at 7:42 pm

Jmanley

“If guy goes to see a batman movie expecting to see an entirely realistic portrayal of the world.”

I never said that I expected it to be an entirely realistic, but then I said that in my comment, “I understand this is batman and it is not going to be realistic all the time” so you misrepresented what I was saying.

“Guys is SURPRISED to find unrealistic elements in the film.”

You just repeated your first statement without realizing it.

“guys feeling of surprise, coupled with his overwhelming sense of self-righteousness, causes him to assume the majority of the population is idiotic”

I WAS surprised at just how ludicrous parts of the movie were, considering this is the highest rated movie ever on IMDB. Overwhelming sense of self-righteousness? Well yeah, I am a little upset that more people don’t see what an idiotic movie this is, but I would not call it overwhelming self-righteousness, you seem to have a habit of misrepresenting what I said and meant.

I would say someone who misrepresented what I said in his first sentence, said the same thing in his second sentence without realizing it, and then calls ME an idiot is probably an idiot himself.

Woody July 26, 2008 at 4:19 am

You have an absolute profound analysis of the movie. not only my 2 thumbs up but my both hands! Bravo.

Chris T. July 26, 2008 at 12:11 pm

“I secretly hope that someday we will see popular movie franchises with statist themes (e.g. James Bond, Batman) attempt a libertarian interpretation of their material. The protagonists are intelligent; when will they wake up and see that the State is the source of all their problems?”

We thankfully are closer with the Batman, thanks to the great Frank Miller’s anarcho-capitalistic interpretation of Batman found in Batman: Year One, All-Star Batman and Robin vol. 1, The Dark Knight Returns, and The Dark Knight Strikes Again.

besserwisser August 4, 2008 at 4:40 pm

Good job analysing the Joker. “An agent of chaos” very well described. On the other hand I must disagree on there being a profound libertarian message in this movie. The problem with this post is the same problem that plagues libertarians everywhere…they tend to think that ALL human problems, especially problems of crime and human suffering, will magically disappear if only we would wake up and apply the principles of libertarianism to them. This is fundamentally wrong.

For example, in the analysis above the author upholds the popular libertarian view that criminals and criminal power will fade away if only the state would legalize trades such as drugs trade, gambling and prostitution. This assumes that all problems related to drugs-, gambling- and vice crimes are created by the fact that those activities are illegal, hence a black market is created in which the mobsters rule.

Here, moviegoing libertarians the world around should remind themselves of a slightly older quote from a slightly less famous movie: “Assumption is the mother of all fuckups.”

So why is this popular libertarian assumption wrong? because it treats the symptoms and not the disease. To explain, let us consider the heroin junkie. The heroin junkie does not care where he gets his fix, he only must get it. If it is expensive, he will get less. If it is leagalized and cheaper, as goes the libertarian view, he will get more. The junkie will not cease to be a junkie or cease to behave and think as a junkie only because he gets his fix from a pharmacist instead of from the guy on the corner. The only difference is that he can afford more drugs, thus deepening his problems rather than the other way around.

What libertarians usually (like here) fail to take into account is that legalization of drugs (gambling, prostitution etc.) increases the publics access to drugs and at the same time decreases the social stigma associated with drug use. So what we get under the libertarian system is a reduction in big mafia crimes, sure, but an increase in drug addicts and thus an increase in small crime. An increase in drug addicts also increases the cost of health care the society must pay to counter this. And the libertarian view that health care should not be in the hands of the state but in private hands really does not help here ;-)

So, legalized drugs = more drug addicts, not less. And more drug addicts = more social problems such as crime, health costs and legas system costs.

The problems do not go away, they only become different and arguably more damaging for society on the whole.

I’m sure you libertarians have heard it all before and have ready a plethora of neatly coined solutions to all this. But all that does not change the truth. Libertarianism is a nice theory, just as communism is a nice theory. But in the Real World, Libertarianism is just as unrealistic a system for government and social building as Communism is. If there is anything the 20th century and the first decade of the 21st have taught us then it is that we must let go of the extremes and look at the real world inhabited by real people.

Rich August 8, 2008 at 9:50 am

they tend to think that ALL human problems, especially problems of crime and human suffering, will magically disappear if only we would wake up and apply the principles of libertarianism to them.

As opposed to believing in the magical power of systematic institutionalized violence to solve the world’s problems? Anarchists aren’t the utopians.

libertarians the world around should remind themselves of a slightly older quote from a slightly less famous movie: “Assumption is the mother of all fuckups.”

You’d do well to take your own advice.

let us consider the heroin junkie. The heroin junkie does not care where he gets his fix, he only must get it. If it is expensive, he will get less. If it is leagalized and cheaper, as goes the libertarian view, he will get more. The junkie will not cease to be a junkie or cease to behave and think as a junkie only because he gets his fix from a pharmacist instead of from the guy on the corner. The only difference is that he can afford more drugs, thus deepening his problems rather than the other way around.

You’re assuming quite a lot here. One is that heroine “junkies” are all useless people with destroyed lives; that none can live happy and productive lives so long as they use heroine. There are heroine users who live happy and productive lives, so in that you’re wrong. Another assumption of yours is that heroine users all prefer heroine to other, less addictive and potentially harmful, drugs. This too is wrong. To understand why, reconsider your statement that they do not “care where [they get their] fix”; you’re right in that, but you’re wrong in assuming that heroine would remain the ideal way for them to get their “fix”. Heroine is cheaper and easier to produce in the black market than alternatives, just as “bathroom gin” once was. Do all present consumers of alcohol drink “bathroom gin”? No. Are all present consumers of alcohol addicted to alcohol? No. Is the alcohol that’s produced now just as dangerous to consume as the alcohol typically produced during prohibition? No.

an increase in drug addicts and thus an increase in small crime

Another flawed assumption. Do alcoholics routinely commit crimes to get their “fix”? No. Most work for a living in honest professions, they don’t engage in criminal activity to fund their addiction.

An increase in drug addicts also increases the cost of health care the society must pay to counter this. And the libertarian view that health care should not be in the hands of the state but in private hands really does not help here

Actually, it does. If addicts pay for their own medical care, that they are addicts is entirely their own business, not yours. It’s also wrong to assume that an increase in addiction means an automatic increase in health care costs; when not driven underground, safer production methods become profitable, and reduce the health risks of use.

So, legalized drugs = more drug addicts, not less. And more drug addicts = more social problems such as crime, health costs and legas system costs.

The problems do not go away, they only become different and arguably more damaging for society on the whole.

Funny how none of what you claim would happen, did happen, back before drug prohibition began. The historical record is not on your side here.

I’m sure you libertarians have heard it all before and have ready a plethora of neatly coined solutions to all this. But all that does not change the truth.

Neither does your blathering.

Libertarianism is a nice theory

Libertarianism isn’t a theory, it’s an ethical philosophy.

just as communism is a nice theory.

There’s nothing nice about universal slavery.

But in the Real World, Libertarianism is just as unrealistic

What exactly is unrealistic about not initiating violence against others? That I’m debating you rather than bashing your skull in with a rock is, I think, a sufficient counter-example. So, moving on…

a system for government and social building as Communism is.

Libertarianism is a rejection of “government”, so trying to base a government on it is unrealistic; it makes absolutely no sense given what libertarianism is. Libertarianism is also a rejection of attempts at “social building”, in any centralized sense. Society arises quite naturally on its own, and if it didn’t then it would never have come into being in the first place, and so we wouldn’t even be here debating the matter. As for communism, it’s a perfectly realistic way to organize a government, and to engage in centralized “social building”, as evidenced by the fact that it has already been used to do precisely that. That the moral and economic costs of doing so were great only serves to reinforce libertarian opposition to central planning.

If there is anything the 20th century and the first decade of the 21st have taught us then it is that we must let go of the extremes

Absolute nonsense. Recent history teaches us no such thing; what it does reveal, however, is that the continued survival of the state, and the continued survival of our species, are at odds with each other. Also, anything only moderately good must be also partly evil. Moderation in doing what’s right is no virtue.

and look at the real world inhabited by real people.

Who you think should be beaten and murdered when they don’t conform to your desires, apparently.

Rich August 8, 2008 at 10:08 am

Telpeurion wrote:
I think it has been a big mistake to use the word “anarchy” to describe the ideal situation. Anarchy is literally translated as Without Rule… And If I recall there is rule in the “anarcho-capitalist” society, is it not the rule of law?

Anarchy literally means “without rulers”, not “without rules”. Anomy means “without rules”. Anarchy is, by definition, mutually exclusive with anomy, as the condition that there be no rulers directly contradicts the condition that there be no rules. Anomy is in fact self-contradictory for the same reason. As for the “rule of law” and “anarcho-capitalist society”, it depends on what you mean by those phrases. If by “anarcho-capitalist” you mean that vulgar libertarianism that serves merely to apologize for corporatism, and by “rule of law” you mean the rule of violent gangs imposing their arbitrary whims on others, yes, those two go together. If, on the other hand, by “anarcho-capitalist” you mean consistent libertarian/market anarchism, and by “rule of law” you mean a general respect for individual rights, protected by customs and institutions arising naturally from the voluntary interactions taking place within society, then yes, those two also go together.

LooseKannon August 11, 2008 at 9:29 pm

I saw “The Dark Night”, the latest Batman movie, over this past weekend. Although I was coerced into it, in the final analysis those were my feet that walked into the theater and my wallet that supplied the currency with which to pay for the viewing.

It’s the Antichrist of movies. Although I’m not a Christian, here’s my broad brush explanation:

As best as I understand it, the Antichrist will rise through the ranks to be seen as a great leader and unifier in his homeland. His influence will then spread, until all people, worldwide, become disciples, at which point he’ll undergo a subtle but all too real transition from savior to demonic despot, making victims of us all.

“The Dark Knight” suckers one in under the premise that, however dark it may be stylistically, its roots and soul still reside in the world of comic book make believe. It’s not like “The Texas Chain Saw Massacre”, where you get what you pay for: the agenda’s vile, but it isn’t hidden. “The Dark Knight” however, is expertly crafted, walking the tightrope between entertainment and dark indoctrination until, voila, hundreds of millions of people have been drenched in subliminal evil for 2 hours plus, and have worshiped at its alter without being aware of having done so.

My soul needed a shower after the movie, as it felt like it had spent that time in a vat filled with the devil’s spit. It’s a poor reflection on us, myself included, that we’re susceptible to the lure that was cast.

It also speaks softly but strongly about the hypocrisy and the blind spot of the Hollywood elite, who wonder why a nation they’ve indoctrinated with their profitable but mind twisting fare continues to elect and re-elect corrupt knuckleheads.

http://www.loosekannon.com

LooseKannon August 11, 2008 at 9:30 pm

I saw “The Dark Night”, the latest Batman movie, over this past weekend. Although I was coerced into it, in the final analysis those were my feet that walked into the theater and my wallet that supplied the currency with which to pay for the viewing.

It’s the Antichrist of movies. Although I’m not a Christian, here’s my broad brush explanation:

As best as I understand it, the Antichrist will rise through the ranks to be seen as a great leader and unifier in his homeland. His influence will then spread, until all people, worldwide, become disciples, at which point he’ll undergo a subtle but all too real transition from savior to demonic despot, making victims of us all.

“The Dark Knight” suckers one in under the premise that, however dark it may be stylistically, its roots and soul still reside in the world of comic book make believe. It’s not like “The Texas Chain Saw Massacre”, where you get what you pay for: the agenda’s vile, but it isn’t hidden. “The Dark Knight” however, is expertly crafted, walking the tightrope between entertainment and dark indoctrination until, voila, hundreds of millions of people have been drenched in subliminal evil for 2 hours plus, and have worshiped at its alter without being aware of having done so.

My soul needed a shower after the movie, as it felt like it had spent that time in a vat filled with the devil’s spit. It’s a poor reflection on us, myself included, that we’re susceptible to the lure that was cast.

It also speaks softly but strongly about the hypocrisy and the blind spot of the Hollywood elite, who wonder why a nation they’ve indoctrinated with their profitable but mind twisting fare continues to elect and re-elect corrupt knuckleheads.

http://www.loosekannon.com

Tironius August 14, 2008 at 3:32 pm

Goddamn, some of you MAAAAY be taking this film a little too seriously. I mean, if you use the term “fascist” in your everyday speech in an un-ironic way, then you perhaps could do everyone a favor and head to the top of a tall building and jump.

Seriously, stop attributing meaning to every goddamn thing about this movie.

Malik Islama August 24, 2008 at 10:22 pm

For us, those tuned to popular land in America, we all witness a brilliant film. THE DARK KNIGHT. Enough said! This was truly a well-written screenplay, well directed, well acted, outstanding visual effects, and had a plot that kept you connected to the entire story, on and so on and so on… What is left to say but “OSCAR”!

Personally, I believe that this was the best comic book movie ever. For those who did not grow up with comic books, this was their revelation and initiation to that world in a very seductive and irresistible manner.

WoW! Heath Ledger! He simply made you want to be a bad guy. OSCAR, OSCAR, OSCAR! His death was certainly and truly a sad experience for many of us, but his performance was uncanny! Maybe the psychology behind this sad clown drove him to madness but was certain was that the character he created for us was a diabolical genius with so many mental issues that would drive any average individual to madness.

Many of us would agree that even the first sequence of the movie was a plan with a superior mastermind individual behind the whole thing. You haven’t seen the movie yet, once you do, you’ll see that you get hooked right away from the very moment the story starts. Once you are submerged into the storyline, you wake up to reality not even noticing that you were watching a movie the whole time.

All I have to say is congratulations to the entire cast. Every single actor played a marvelous job. Shout out to Christopher Nolan for writing and directing this brilliant movie. Christian Bale, Heath Ledger
Aaron Eckhart, Morgan Freeman, Michael Caine, and Gary Oldman. Basically, Batman himself was what you need to add to your ketchup and make it taste like an Italian grandmother’s pasta sauce that she has been cooking for over a day. Can’t have a Batman movie without Batman doing batman stuff.

At the end of the day, whether you are starting to learn about all these comic book heroes for the first time just like me, or you are a big fan, GO TO THE THEATHER AND SEE BATMAN!!! Please go watch this phenomenal movie and help THE DARK KNIGHT beat Titanic to become the largest grossing movie of all time. GO NOW!!!

Jai April 18, 2009 at 11:30 am

An excellent composition. I feel this is one of many messages espoused by the movie. However, you magnificently, succinctly and clearly explained this message!

Briggs April 24, 2009 at 1:39 pm

Last night Auburn played The Dark Knight on the GIANT HD stadium screen. It was the second time I have seen the film. It truly is quite a remarkable screen play and the acting was of course brilliant. The interesting thing is that I actually picked up on a few points that I missed the first time around. The psychological aspects are a welcomed relief from the one dimensional characters in most modern action type movies.

This remains my favorite quote:

Look what I did to this city with a few drums of gas and a couple of bullets.
You know what I noticed? Nobody panics when things go according to plan. Even if the plan
is horrifying. If tomorrow I tell the press that like a gang banger will get shot, or a truckload of
soldiers will be blown up, nobody panics, because it’s all, part of the plan. But when I say
that one little old mayor will die, well then everyone loses their minds!
< \blockquote>

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: