Batman's 'Dark Knight' Reflects Cheney Policy

Washington Independent:

The thought of Vice President Dick Cheney in a form-fitting bat costume might be too much for most people to bear. But the concepts of security and danger presented in Christopher Nolan's new Batman epic, "The Dark Knight," align so perfectly with those of the Office of the Vice President that David Addington, Cheney's chief of staff and former legal counsel, might be an uncredited script doctor.

Insofar as it's possible to view an action movie that had the biggest three-day-opening in cinematic history as a comment on the current national-security debate, "The Dark Knight" weighs in strongly on the side of the Bush administration. Confronting the Joker, a nihilistic enemy whose motives are both unexplained and beside the point, the Batman faces his biggest dilemma yet: whether to abuse his power in order to save Gotham City. Again and again in the movie, the Batman's moral hand-wringing results in the deaths of innocents. Only by becoming like the monster he must vanquish can Batman secure a victory that even he understands is Pyrrhic.

Read the whole story: Washington Independent

Comments

[aristippe]

I haven't seen the film yet, but it's interesting that AntonBurch, MArkc, and Mathme all feel that the reviewer got the film "Backwards" I wish they could better explain their position, because what the reviewer has said seems at least cogent.

[mathme]

Part of the problem is that you haven't seen the movie, so it's pretty funny that you wander into the middle of a dialog with no notion of what is even being discussed and suggest that people who don't agree with the review are somehow not making "cogent" comments. Well, okay, here goes-- The Joker (he's the villain) kidnaps Rachel, Bruce Wayne's (I don't know if you know who that is since you haven't seen the movie, but I'll assume that you do) romantic interest whom we met in Batman Begins (again, I don't know if you've seen that or just like to jump into threads and start spouting off without actually knowing anything about the topic being discussed), and Harvey Dent, Rachel's current squeeze and the very good District Attorney of Gotham City (this is the fictional city where the movie is set, I know you haven't seen it). The Joker allowed himself to be captured by the police (but that's another matter), and the police essentially turn Batman loose on him. While being severely beaten, the Joker makes a comment to the effect of, "I don't have anything that you can take from me," and laughs while he's beaten. The information that Batman tortures out of him is information that The Joker was going to give him anyway-- it's part of the reason that he let himself get captured-- because it's a piece of a larger game.

[mathme]

The moral, which I'll add here because of space constraints :) , is that with or without the torture they would have ended up in the exact same position that they were in at the end of the plot point.

As for the spying issue-- Batman/Bruce turns the controls over to a competent and responsible person who will not abuse the power. That's where the analogy breaks down-- the system only works and is only just when it's placed in the hands of competent people who respect others' privacy rights. Freeman knows whom they're looking for and doesn't just listen in on a million people because he can, and when he's done, he surrenders his power. If anything, it was a model for how it should have been done in the first place, it's not an analog of what's happening now.

[aristippe]

You might assume that I understand the basic plot points/ back story and dispense with the snarkiness; after all I thought the review made sense. Again, what exactly did the review get "backwards?"

[aristippe]

"Only by becoming like the monster he must vanquish can Batman secure a victory that even he understands is Pyrrhic."

Now that's a cogent statement, you said

"The information that he gets is info that The Joker would have gotten from him anyway, and it was part of the Joker's game to force Batman to make a choice to compromise his integrity.

Compromising his morals would have gotten Batman nothing."

I think you missed his point

[mergina]

The only victory for Cheney is feeding his addiction to greed at any cost. He is far worse than any character in any Batman movie.

[aristippe]

clever film criticism, i actually have an excuse to see the movie now.

[mathme]

I think that you missed the point-- The Joker made the point that Batman couldn't do anything to him, he had no power over him because there was nothing that Batman could take away. The information that he gets is info that The Joker would have gotten from him anyway, and it was part of the Joker's game to force Batman to make a choice to compromise his integrity.

At first, I was seeing things the same way that you were, but in the end, it was the Joker who had the power over the rich, apparently more powerful, "Good" guy. Compromising his morals would have gotten Batman nothing.

[AntonBursch]

you got the whole movie backwards. sigh. the good guys do start doing bad things to try to stop the bad guys but it all backfires and plays into what the Joker wanted in the first place... which was to corrupt the good guys... when they finally stop the insanity and re-embrace their humanity, they finally win... mostly.

next time... ask your kid what the movie means... they know... plain as day.

[kingcityguru]

Ah, actually, no.
Batman uses his "unconstitutional" and "illegal" surveillance system with cell phones to not only find the Joker, but to save the lives of the all the hostages in the building. Without it, Gordon and the snipers kill all the innocent hostages who are dressed up like clowns and the Joker blows up both boats.
Last I looked, there has not been another 9/11 since 9/11.
Remember, after Batman caught the Joker he had that system destroyed. Win the war against the islamofascists that would see us all converted or dead and then we can talk ...

[thundermummy]

Er, yeah. The Batman argument. Repubs are kicking it just like Batman. Nice plan. Let me know when the adults are in charge.

[AntonBursch]

You got the point backwards. The good guys are baited by the Joker to become like him to stop him... and step by step they do so but it only feeds into Joker's plan which was to corrupt them... in the end it is when they choose to sacrifice themselves to do the right thing that the Joker fails and the good guys win.

Duh.

Not really sure how one could not see that plain as day. Ask your kid what the movie means next time, smart guy.

[Davwbaird]

the good guys are us waking up to people who claimed to be good who were so easily corrupted and taken in by power that they distroyed for all time their party.

[rhx056]

Let's see...

Bush & Cheney attacked those who did NOT attack us, while Batman goes after the actual perpetrator; yep, I can sure see the similarity there.

*

[AdLib]

In fiction, we can explore the complications of defeating those bent on the destruction of the lives of others and preventing it without destroying our own freedoms.

In reality, BOOsh and Cheney_ do not struggle with their conscience over taking away freedoms and rights from Americans, they are righteously convinced that anything they decide, no matter how it damages The Constitution, is justifiable.

Batman, a fictional character, is conflicted over violating the rights of citizens in order to protect them. He vows to limit such intrusions to the specific emergency at hand and keeps his word.

Too bad Republicans display less humanity and conscience than fictional characters.

[axt113]

Batman never kills in fact he does everything in his power to avoid death, and he destroys his added power at the end, the sonar system self-destructs at the end, in fact it was never his power, he gave control to Lucius, he had clear oversight to prevent its misuse, he has clear lines of victory, capturing the Joker and stopping Harvey Dent, and is even willing to accept the crimes of others upon himself, by being labeled a murderer for Harvey's crimes.

Sorry but trying to associate Batman with Cheney is false

[MarkC]

This is completely backwards. The Batman refuses to break his moral code and kill the Joker. He suffers setbacks because of this, but in the end it is his refusal to "become like they are" (in the words of Marcus Aurelius) that allows him to win. That's why he's a "knight" albeit a dark one. This review has it backwards.

[AntonBursch]

I agree. This guy missed the entire point of the movie.

You'd think the part when after torturing Joker, the terrorist, Batman fails to save who he's trying to save because, tada!, Joker lied.

Sigh.

[MarkC]

I read this carefully, and it is basically, fundamentally wrong.

The Batman is consistently unwilling to stoop to the level of the Joker, and the critical measure of this is whether he is willing to try and kill the Joker. Again and again, Batman puts himself at a disadvantage by refusing to do so, and the Joker utilizes that knowledge to gain strategic advantage. Whenever one of the "good guys," such as a policeman guarding the joker in a holding cell, breaks the law, they are quickly disposed of. The Joker counts on the "good guys" being willing to give in to the temptation to suspend the law, and it is when that expectation fails that he is caught.

There is one exception to this and this is surveillance. Morgan Freeman stars as the FISA court, and the Batman entrusts the power to snoop on all Gotham's citizens in an emergency. But this is not Cheneyesque attempt to get rid of any oversight. Once the emergency is over, Freeman destroys the surveillance machine.

So this article is not just off the mark, but 180 degrees off the mark.

[leftLibertarian]

What a dumbarse review - al Quaeda is not nihilistic - it attached the US for very specific reasons - most importantly over the fact that the US has military bases in the Middle East.

[Darsan54]

The problem is our present administration sees them as nihilistic. Bush and cronies actually feel guilt over the 9/11 attacks. They are willing to do anything to relieve that guilt. They are willing to destroy the world to destroy those enemies (their guilt). Yes, bin Laden has actual grievances against the US and his anger is rooted in reality. This administration doesn't get that.