Christopher
Nolan has often been praised for his adherence to ‘gritty reality’ in the Dark
Knight trilogy. Indeed, in the recent deluge of hero flicks it stands out as
particularly thrilling and dark. Like all superhero movies it has its fair
share of explosions, fancy toys, and dramatic exits. So what sets it apart from
others of its genre? True, it possess a darker color palate and lighting then
traditional comic book adaptations (especially when compared to earlier version
of the Batman universe), but I suggest that what differentiates these films is
a more complex combination of the methodology and philosophy of Batman’s adversaries.
Nolan’s Gotham is intrinsically
different from others due to its basis in our observed reality. There are no
alien invasions or genetically modified humans. There are just men committing
acts of terrorism in an environment we recognize as similar to our own. Although
exceptionally dramatized and hyperbolized, the crises presented are much more
plausible in the world we live in. This alone creates a connection between the
audience and the conflict. Additionally, the villains are men attacking men and
have been given distinct philosophies to fuel their actions. Philosophies that
if not agreed with, are arguably understood by a base part of our natural
condition as men. All three films of the
trilogy posses these qualities but for the sake of being concise I will explore
only the second and arguably most complex, The Dark Knight.
The credit for creating the enduring
character of the Joker cannot wholly be given to Nolan, but his film’s
interpretation definitely exemplifies the characteristics that act as a foil to
Batman’s creed of justice. The Joker is both the embodiment of terrorism and
the extreme representation of a philosophy introduced by the philosopher Thomas
Hobbes in his novel Leviathan. Sharing the belief that, if forced to
function without the constraint of rules or government, men would dissolve into
civil war, both held that society is part of the equation and not just a
victim. When discussing this lawless world Hobbes wrote, “In such a condition
there is no… society, and, which is worst of all, continual fear and danger of
violent death, and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”
This same ideal is reiterated by the Joker in his statement to Batman, “You
see, their morals, their code, it’s a bad joke. Dropped at the first sign of
trouble. They’re only as good as the world allows them to be. I’ll show you.
When the chips are down, these… civilized people, they’ll eat each other.” This
is the philosophy of the human condition, that men possessing illusionary
superiority will continue to put their needs above their neighbors, or as
Hobbes put it, “every man looketh that his companion should value him at the
same rate he sets upon himself, and, upon all signs of contempt or
undervaluing, naturally endeavors as far as he dare (which amongst them that
have no common power to keep them quiet, is far enough to make them destroy
each other) to extort a greater value from his contemners by damage, and from
other by the example.”
This is the persistent debate of is
man by nature good or evil? A question that has long been examined by men of
religion and philosophy. Hobbes has taken the position that man will indeed
revert to selfish acts if they are perceived necessary to survive. He calls
this the Natural Condition of Mankind, asserting that we all must recognize
this part of ourselves. It is this recognition that gives the character of the
Joker his powerful impact. His ideals are unequivocally morally wrong, but yet
we are selfish enough to understand his point. We see his persuasion and reject
it. This glimpse into our psyche can be unsettling and this greatly
characterizes the striking dark nature of this film. We are further confronted when the Joker purposefully puts two groups of people on ferries and asks them to choose who better
deserves life. A plan dependent on men selfishly putting their own worth above another’s.
Although we are relieved to see this “social experiment” fail, would we be
surprised if it hadn’t? Nolan is asking us to examine ourselves to discover
what we would have done in a similar situation and, if honestly participating,
this is not a comfortable consideration. Furthermore, what of Harvey Dent? The
Joker succeeds in using Dent as an agent of this philosophy when he pushes him
to face his ‘natural condition’ by forcing the choice between pushing back
within the rules, or abandoning them to play by the Jokers non-standards. Dent becomes
an example of this fallen man when he chooses to lash out in the way he deems
as fair regardless of society’s rules. Through the character of the Joker Nolan
presents us with two possible outcomes, man choosing “good” (the ferry riders)
and man choosing “evil” (Dent).
This differentiation between man
choosing between “good” and “evil” is what sets the Joker apart from Hobbes.
The Joker unabashedly believes man will choose chaos, or “evil” and that it is
best for the world, being fair and natural. His character is over imbued with
this philosophy, emphasizing its negative qualities and suppressing others for a
very pointed effect. Hobbes may subscribe to the theory that man is capable,
even prone, to this outcome but he also believed that man was capable of recognizing
structure as a way to obtain safety and the commodities affording stability. He
argues that through this process of reasoning man chooses government, or in
terms of the Joker’s social experiment, not to sacrifice the other ferry. This
ending realization that humanity is “full of people ready to believe in good”
is a concession in the film's discussion of whether man is good or evil. It is
the optimism that Hobbes believed in and the positivity that we must believe in
to win the argument.
No comments:
Post a Comment