I got the chance to see The Dark Knight again yesterday (my father- and brother-in-law hadn’t yet seen it, so we went). Having already enjoyed the film once, I had the chance on this viewing to appreciate and ponder some of its finer details, the foreshadowing, the glimpses at the thematic elements, and the symbolism that permeate the movie. There are a few things I noticed that I wanted to bring up, but for those who haven’t seen it, turn back now!
**MAJOR SPOILERS AHEAD**
…
…
…
Still here? Okay. Bold statement: I think that The Dark Knight, while by no means the deepest or most thought-provoking movie ever made, is definitely deeper and more thought-provoking that much of what passes for summer fare at the multiplex. If you’ve seen it, you know it tackles some pretty complicated issues including what makes us who we are, why (and how) we do what we do, sacrifice, etc. While there are those who focus only on the violence and choose to downplay some of the thematic exploration, others, like writer Orson Scott Card, have had (in my opinion) much more insightful and balanced reviews.
While this isn’t going to be a dissertation on all the interesting stuff in The Dark Knight, there was one item in particular that struck me this time around. At the resolution of the film, Batman chooses to take the blame for the evil that Harvey Dent committed following Harvey’s destruction at the hands of the Joker and his descent into becoming Two-Face. Batman chose to do this so that the citizens of Gotham City could continue to have hope in who Harvey was and the good that he was doing for the city. In doing so, he allows Harvey and his memory to become the symbol, the beacon of good, the inspiration that he himself had sought to be in Batman Begins during his initial development into a vigilante.
In other words, Batman takes upon himself all of Harvey’s guilt so that, in a sense, Harvey could be redeemed. Batman suffers the consequences of Harvey’s actions, leaving Harvey to be, in memory, the spotless “white knight” that Gotham needs, whose actions in life can continue to inspire people to greater deeds and improving their city. Batman, meanwhile, becomes an outlaw, someone to be hunted down and stopped. Despite the fact that he will continue to do good for Gotham, officially he is someone to be reviled and despised.
In the midst of processing everything the movie threw at me the first time around, I somehow failed to grasp the full impact of all of this, but upon this second viewing it hit me just how Christlike it was. In fact, it may be one of the most directly symbolic examples of Christlike sacrifice I’ve seen on film (“directly symbolic” in that it mirrors very closely what Jesus did for us and how it worked rather than just referring to it obliquely). Just as Jesus took upon himself our guilt and faced the consequences of that guilt, so Batman did for Harvey.
There’s a great shot near the end of the movie that I hadn’t noticed the first time. Harvey is lying on the ground after his fatal fall from the building, with the disfigured half of his face most prominently visible. As Batman makes the decision to take upon himself Harvey’s guilt, he bends down and turns Harvey’s head so that the ugly half is no longer visible and we instead only see Harvey as he was before — pure and unblemished. As Gordon places a call to the rest of the police force that Batman is now a wanted man, he takes off running and the film soon ends.
Isaiah’s prophecy about Jesus in chapter 53 draws a great parallel. “He was despised and forsaken of men, a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief; and like one from whom men hide their face He was despised, and we did not esteem Him. Surely our griefs He Himself bore, and our sorrows He carried…the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him.”
There are many essays, I’m sure, that could be written from this movie. (I already have one in my head that could be written about the Joker as Satan — the tempter and deceiver who obeys no rules, seeks to devour and bring about ruin, and can only steal, kill and destroy, though that parallel is certainly a bit more blatant.) This one, though, was so exciting to me that I had to spend some time on it. I believe it’s a mark of geekery to enjoy digging up stuff like this…
Anyway, with everything else about the movie to talk about, I would still love to hear any other observations that you may have pulled from the movie, so please share!
Great analysis. I think this movie was definitely worthy of all of the great things people have said about it so far. I guess I really don’t have anything more to add, except I don’t know how they’ll come up with a villain any better than the Joker.
Like you said, it was interesting how they made Batman an even more Christ-like figure with the whole sequence at the end.
Wow, that was some great stuff. I’ve only seen Dark Knight once and I caught the sacrifice at the end (didn’t work through it as well as you did though) but I totally missed the turning of the face, that is sweet and powerful. It plays directly into our conversation earlier today about what it means that God did not reject His people (Romans 11:1), but rather he accepts His people, and places on them a quality they do not deserve.
Very good stuff, quite thought provoking.
You’re “spot on” as they say in the Ole’ English country.
I have only seen the film once but it was recently so much is still fresh in my mind. I usually criticize films that try to do too much or convey too many themes into one motion picture, but The Dark Knight could very well be the only movie to successfully pull something off like this so fluidly.
Batman easily represnts all that is in the human spirit to strive for what is just and right (even though we may not always choose to do so). He is absolutely “uncorruptable”. I read a review that compared The Joker to the modern terrorist. But I think it does deeper than that. When Joker said taht he beleived he and Batman were “destined to do this forever” it very clearly conveys the neverending conflict of good versus evil or God versus Satan.
My favorite line (I can remember) is right after Dent cross-examines the mobster. Rachel tells him “If you’re not getting shot at, you’re not doing your job.” It’s an idea that should be understood (especially in America) that when you stand up for what is right, you’ll be attacked more than when giving in to what is not.
So, you’re saying Batman is a Christ-figure? But Jesus never had a really cool motor cycle. Well, maybe in the Gospel of Thomas.
Kim – Thanks for the comments. I’ve had the same thought — they didn’t kill the Joker, so how can they ever bring him back as well as that? And how can they follow it up?
Andy – Appreciate your comments as well. You’re right; I love the tie-ins to Romans. I honestly hadn’t thought of that angle.
Drew – You’re right. So many films attempt to do a lot, but fail when they try to do too much; Dark Knight did it well. Thanks for the extra analysis from a soldier’s perspective as well as that of a believer.
That ties together well the ongoing struggle of good versus evil that has gone on since before the fall of man and continues now, in part, with the efforts of terrorism and those that stand against it. I remember smiling at Rachel’s line, recognizing its truth, but not applying it further than the film itself. It stands for both America and us as Christians. If the enemy hasn’t made you a target, he doesn’t see you as a threat, and if you’re not a threat, you’re not doing your job.
Thank you, all! Keep ‘em coming, people!
Okay, here’s my actual response:
One of the consistent elements of a Nolan film is the absence of a Christ-figure. While he defines a clear protagonist, it is not without expounding upon the darker nature of the character. While Batman may have saved the day, we are left with a clear sense that tomorrow may not be secure. Ultimately his victory his momentary; and while this may be commercially viable for sequels and such, it only serves to emphasize that ultimately, Batman is still human.
It is essential to analyze Batman with Bruce Wayne, and likewise Bruce Wayne with Batman; after all, they are one and the same. Ultimately, Batman’s motivation does not come from a pure sense of moral justice, but rather a personal grudge. Just as Joker’s scars are the defining characteristic of the character, Wayne’s psychological scars clearly motivate him.
This questionable foundation leads very quickly into questionable methods. This is clearly illustrated by his “Big Brother” tactic in the end. Without question, his actions were in violation of the 4th Amendment (and the last time I checked, Gotham was still in the USA), but for Batman, the end justified the means. No one had a right to privacy in his quest for vengeance. Wayne’s dark side is never so clearly shown as during his interrogation of the Joker. We saw Batman as not just angry, but clearly unable to control rage. Acts of physical abuse were deemed acceptable for the sake of saving one, possibly two people. Yet, it is clear that it was Joker’s masterful manipulation that brought the end that he sought; forcing a choice between Harvey and Rachel. And the death of Rachel clearly illustrates that Batman is subject to the powers of Joker.
In relation of Harvey, I have a hard time seeing Batman as “tak[ing] upon himself all of Harvey’s guilt.” It was clearly an act of desperation, not vindication. A key aspect of sanctification is “transformation;” instead this is a better example of denial. Throughout the movie, Dent is portrayed as a man with pure intentions (in antithesis to Wayne/Batman), but a clear inclination to resort to evil acts of desperation (wonderful foreshadowing on Nolan’s part). When Batman turns the head of now-Two Face, he is which side he wants to see; the scars still remain.
While Joker clearly displays the sins of commission, it is Batman that clearly chooses the sins of omission. Why didn’t he simply kill the Joker in order to stop a psychopath from harming more people? Is there really a difference between simply “letting” someone die and committing the act yourself? Was he justified in subjecting the people of Gotham city to the leadership of a man who so clearly displays evil intent? This is the hardest, and probably the greatest, part of Nolan’s Dark Knight; it is not a tale of good vs. evil, but rather good despite of evil. Even though evil claims so much power, the good simply cannot be defeated.
Aaron – Masterful analysis, sir, of the entire film. As I said, many essays could be written about it because there’s certainly plenty of material there for many points of view.
It is certainly a difficult film because, you’re right, the moral choices presented are not cut and dried. It’s a case of extreme needs where extreme actions are taken and the question certainly lingers throughout — do the ends justify the means? We see in this movie that while sometimes Batman’s ends validate his means, the means themselves are sometimes almost as wrong as the evil he seeks to stop.
I agree with your statement of Harvey in that he is a very flawed character, and Nolan does indeed foreshadow that quite well early on. His willingness to utilize “chance” (what is really trickery and deception on his part) and his ability to give in to rage show that he’s not perfect.
I do stand by my own analysis, though. Desperate or not, Batman chooses to allow Harvey to be portrayed as pure. The scars on his body still remain, but as seen at his memorial service, the scars on his image do not. To return to my metaphors, when we receive Christ’s forgiveness, we are declared righteous, but we still mess up, and the effects of our sin still linger in our lives. The ripples of wrongs we’ve done still carry through. But it’s that element of being declared righteous that I think works symbolically in this aspect of the film. Was Harvey righteous, even before his transformation into Two-Face? No, of course not. But through Batman’s choices, Harvey can be declared righteous and be remembered as such for the greater good.
Batman as a Christ symbol is certainly a limited metaphor. I would never go so far as to make it absolute in this film because, as you bring up, throughout we see Batman himself making questionable moral decisions and giving in to rage. His very existence is a matter of vengeance-based justice. However — and while you may feel that it’s poor analysis to not consider all elements of the whole — for this particular aspect of the film, whether by Nolan’s intentions or not, I think the parallels are there.
Great post! I saw the Christ-analogy at the end of the film, too. As with all analogies, it isn’t a perfect comparison and there are points where it falls. But at the end, Batman certainly did take on a Christlike role to “redeem” Harvey and “save” Gotham (at least according to his perception.)
I can actually relate a bit to his thinking regarding Gotham needing Dent to be “real.” There have been several times when someone I truly respected and believed in ended up being a hypocrite and, perhaps, even a con artist. It’s tough to get past those times and not become bitter & cynical about people in general. So with that in mind, I can see why hiding the truth about Harvey Dent might have been viewed as necessary. I don’t agree with it though, because Dent wasn’t actually a hypocrite or a liar. He was simply destroyed by events that would destroy many people.
Look a little closer and i think you’ll see that beneath the seemingly messianic layer there is a much deeper message. First note the fact that batman chose to invade everyone in Gotham city privacy through illegal surveillance. This seems to me to be further endorsing the governments use of illegal surveillance in the war on terror… Regular Hollywood mind-control programing here. But then they put the other spin on it where batman then chooses to lie about his own innocence in order to appease the popular delusion of innate human decency. The people cant handle the truth about natural human corruption and how sometimes even the most ideal people of all can be brought down to the level of perdition. Instead batman dawns the mask of villain and secretly works in tandem with the powers that be behind the scenes to “protect” the citizens of Gotham from terrorists like the Joker. So batman is the hero of all anti-heroes, A symbol/guise for Lucifer, the true power of “Ordo Ab Chao”(The Freemasonic axiom – order out of chaos) which works in the darkness and in secret under the “guise” of evil. The lie that batman/Lucifer tells us is only for our protection from the otherwise unacceptable truth. This i reality is classic doublethink… It initially seems like a christian reference but is in fact not so subtle Luciferian homage. But then again in the deepest form of certain christian doctrines the line between chist and lucifer is thin indeed. Never the less very interesting stuff eh?
Hmm…very interesting, but I rather disagree. Other than a few minor errors (like, when has Hollywood ever AGREED with our current political system?) this analysis could work.
There’s just one big problem: the analysis only works if you are able to define Lucifer as an ultimate force for good, as someone who works under a mere “guise” of evil rather than working true evil himself. Classically (and Biblically), though, Lucifer is the father of lies who comes only to steal, kill, and destroy — certainly not things that operate for good. Here we see how the Joker, not Batman, is truly the Lucifer symbol. Rather than trying to bring order from chaos, he is instead a bringer of chaos. Not only does he pit himself against Batman’s uncompromising goodness, but he also sows discord among the other villains in the film, just as he does among the other heroes of the film.
Batman, however, spends the entire film countering these actions, seeking to stop robberies and free people from situations that could destroy them. Chaos is not a pre-existing state out of which he is working to bring order; there is a direct and opposing force seeking to bring about the chaos, and Batman fights to stop it and prevent its further intrusion. He does so, not by working from within the chaos or by giving in to it, but by remaining above it, refusing to be corrupted by its machinations. Even at the end, Batman fights the Joker and refuses to stoop to the Joker’s level; he chooses not to kill him for his crimes.
However, because someone must pay for the crimes, Batman chooses to sacrifice himself — his reputation, his freedom — all so that the people of Gotham city can rise more quickly above the Joker’s evil. He shoulders a burden that the rest of Gotham’s citizens would be unable to bear; he endures the brunt of their scorn and hatred so that Harvey can symbolically remain a beacon of hope and goodness. By allowing Harvey to remain unblemished and untarnished, the pain and the scars left by the Joker’s crimes (scars typified by Harvey’s literal scars) can be symbolically wiped away. It’s not that the people couldn’t handle Harvey’s corruption; they could, but it was deepen the existing pain and wounds. Instead, Batman’s redemption of Harvey is a gift — both to Harvey and to Gotham — that offers a faster road to healing.
This is not order out of chaos, but a depiction of uncompromising goodness taking a stand against a chaos brought about by a destroyer. However fuzzy you may think the line is between Christ and Lucifer, Christ leaves no room for equivocation, and neither does this movie. There is good, and there is evil, and they stand diametrically opposed to each other, but no matter how terrible the evil, the good is always greater because the good has absorbed and diverted the true impact of the evil, offering a route to freedom, peace, and hope.
As an interesting sidenote, this individual left a very similar critique on a different Batman-related post shortly after he commented here. Here’s the link.