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.

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.

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.

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.

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!