The Joker’s sneering mantra in Christopher Nolan’s latest addition to the batman mythology, The Dark Knight, could be aptly applied to his own film. Why did he take what fun was in 2005’s Batman Begins and replace it with a dark, gritty, exploration into the heart of evil? Why indeed. it’s a question worth exploring and I don’t think it was simply to craft a film with a style of gritty realism – a phrase far too mindlessly flung about these days.
For anyone that thinks Christopher Nolan is making popcorn films with his reinvention of the batman series, think again. His entire body of work contains deep explorations into the question of evil and the possibility for hope in nihilism. Nearly all of his films, from Following and Memento to The Prestige blend the lines between the hero and the villian, pushing the audience to ask hard questions about the nature of evil. The Dark Knight and indeed the title itself begs the question.
Ironically, The Dark Knight may be his darkest work and also his most hopeful to date. Let me explain. His constant explorations into nihilism have finally been plumbed in the character of the Joker. The logical end of nihilism is chaos and in the Joker’s world, chaos is king. The film begs the question, how can this character exist? The Joker himself gives contradictory explanations for his own twistedness as if he were admitting that a character so evil must become mythical, realistic explanations would only subvert him to a pathetic creation of pop psychology. Nolan understood this and allowed his character of the Joker to poke fun at this.
The fact is, we aren’t driven to evil by the actions of the world around us and the Joker understood this. He believed that evil was a part of our nature, in all of us to varying degrees. He believed that, at the moments of our death, our true nature would be revealed. He is partly true, but only partly. The Joker tries to prove his theory throughout the film with his attempts to corrupt society through his experiment with the boats and his attack against Harvey Dent. As the film shows us, he fails with one and succeeds with the other.
This proves a very vital point. Evil may be within us, but we have the power to choose to act against it.
Batman also shows us in the film that we have the power to choose how we portray our heroes to the rest of the world. A man’s sins may be covered up if it means revealing them would send us into despair.
Batman also shows us that the strongest heroes must sometimes let themselves be seen as the villain if it is for the better of society. In this sense, the Dark Knight is more akin to an old testament Judge then to a classic vigilante defender of justice.
Finally, the film proves to us that a true savior, a true beacon of hope, most have their message backed by their character. In this sense, Batman is the most reliable and most necessary savior for Gotham. Our politicians cannot be two faced if the wish to redeem us. Morality as the center of our character is the only way to successfully lead a society.
As a film, The Dark Knight is flawless in it’s characters. It runs a little long, but not to the extent of boredom. It’s script is smart and it’s performances are absolutely solid. Christian Bale, as usual, is a force to be reckoned with. Heath Ledger’s performance, on the other hand, is truly Oscar worthy, and I was a skeptic of this fact walking into the theater. The film, as I have said, is certainly dark. But it is Nolan’s most hopeful film to date. It offers an answer to the darkness that none of his other films have offered so far.
The answer is that we do have the capacity to choose. We are not lost to the evil within us.
[...] content of the Dark Knight as I would have liked. Brian Walton, who I found in the comments does a great job on discussing Christopher Nolan’s (director/cowriter) examinations of nihilism. Ed Brenegar [...]
Good observations. I do think that more attention should be drawn to the director and his thoughts on these matters. I’d like to know what he’s thinking, but he’s too modest and prefers to steer away from the public scene.
May I ask: do you think that the evil within all of us is a viable option, or is the right thing to choose to do good? The film posed the idea in the Joker/Batman saga of the ying-yang—you can’t have one without the other. The Joker went so far as to say this is the way it was meant to be and right for the world. What are your thoughts?
Hey, its like East of Eden! Timshel.
Alexa, I love that you know that reference! It’s probably my favorite novel.
Joseph, just because a dualism of good and evil as equal possibilities may exist doesn’t necessitate moral relativism. You must consider Nietzsche’s famous question. Why not do evil? You must seriously consider that question before you can one can answer yours.
On the other hand, if you believe in evil definitionally, that it is morally wrong, then the answer should be easy. So again, the question is what is your moral bearing?
The emphasis on the sacrificial savior was particularly intriguing to me: in a way, Batman must die in order to be the true savior of Gotham. (At least in the sense that he must take on the sins of others). This almost Christological notion of what it means to truly be a hero was absolutely shocking given the largely nihilistic futility that pervades much of the first half. Its why, I think, the movie works in the end: there is something intrinsically human in ennobling the idea of sacrifice as the true means of saving others– something that is so timeless and immovable that even the Joker’s utterly horrific attempts to be an unstoppable force against it prove useless and impotent. Its honesty, really: in a world where Americans have seen thousands slaughtered in our streets in attacks that even Nolan’s Joker could never hope to match, there is something deeply, deeply moving when a film both recognizes the depths of human depravity– the terrifying extent of true, unfiltered evil– and at once recognizes how futile it stands against true sacrificial goodness.
Your blog is interesting!
Keep up the good work!