Xn3cTs

January 15th, 2009

Good thing I posted the whole thing in a forum… powtah. Eto, re-posting…

—

The Prom(ethean) Knight: Thoughts on the “Dark Knight”
By Michael Ian Lomongo

—-

In Greek Mythology, Prometheus is the Titan who stole fire from the Gods and was then punished by being chained to the mountains of Caucasus, where a vulture came every knight to feed on his liver. He is cast by different authors either as the benefactor of mankind or as the one responsible for the evils besetting mankind.

Yes, since childhood, we have known Batman as a comic superhero. Perhaps the most plausible among the superheroes, since he has no known superpowers. He’s just an extremely wealthy guy with superb fighting skills. Plus the machinery and gadgets to supplement those skills.

But he is, in fact, a masked vigilante. A “freak.” Even if his intentions are noble, in essence, he operates outside, or at least within the fringes, of society’s laws.

Bruce Wayne himself recognizes this. He too dreams of a Gotham City without Batman. A time when superheroes and masked vigilantes would be unnecessary. A world wherein justice truly works. Where he would simply be Bruce Wayne.

—-

Like the Matrix Trilogy and the first two Spiderman films, the “Dark Knight” could be used as a film to showcase philosophical issues such as ethics and responsibility. But unlike the Spiderman films which tended to belabor the point with that cliché (“With great power comes great responsibility.”), the “Dark Knight” provokes by silently posing the question, “What do you with power/responsibility once it’s laid upon your hands?”

Thus, throughout the film, through the agency of Joker, we are presented with choices and dilemmas: either Batman gives himself up or people die, either Harvey Dent or Rachel Dawes lives (And surprise, surprise! For once, the hero doesn’t save the girl, unlike in Superman I, The Matrix Reloaded, and Spiderman 1.), either the would-be-snitch dies or a hospital blows up, either the citizens flee the city or join the Joker’s cause (chaos), either the passengers blow up the other ferry or die, etc.

The truth is that power is indeed a responsibility. Anyone who would desire power without the concomitant responsibility turns into a Joker, an agent of Chaos. It is because of this responsibility that power becomes a burden. Many would rather shirk away from it. As for those who do take the burden (especially when it’s a matter of, as they say, “great power”), those who would be “gods” or “supermen,” the question is “What do you do with it?”

Once you attain some degree of real power (and responsibility) over others, the question always comes up: “What do you do with it?” For the possibility of abuse is ever-present. (“What are we in power for?”)

In a dark (perhaps, “the real”) world, the strong would naturally eat up the weak. And that is why you have criminals (oh and wily politicians, religious leaders, and the media) preying on us civilians, innocent and not-so-innocent alike. But why have we so far not ended up in total chaos?

It is because the one with power ultimately faces the all-important decision to either become a predator or a guardian/protector. A predator is responsible only for herself/himself. A guardian/protector answers for and to those s/he takes under her/his wings.

Either way, power anoints her/him in a weird way. It turns her/him into a “freak.” An outlaw/criminal is of course a “freak” of society. A leader (the one with “great power”) who decides to become a guardian is as much a “freak” as an outlaw/criminal is. By her/his position of power, s/he becomes, so to say, set apart from the “herd.” The very possession of power grants her/him immunity from the common indignities that we have to endure as part of the herd (like getting in line, etc.). It is this being set apart that eventually either tempts her/him to the abuse of power, or leads her/him to better self-awareness and mastery of self.

Batman in this film is presented as the model of one who has gained mastery over oneself. Unlike his mentor (played by Liam Neeson in “Batman Begins”) and the Goblin in Spiderman 1, Bruce Wayne ultimately eschews the logic of Raskolnikov in Dostoyevski’s “Crime and Punishment.” The great power that set him apart from the herd will not be used as a license to kill, to altogether dismiss the value of the morality of common men. Instead, he would set up for himself a higher morality. Outside the pale of law, he would serve the law. Even if, in the service of that very law, he be wrongly, unjustly marked as an outlaw.

But who will protect us from the possible abuse of guardians? Well, the law, if and when it proves to be effective. And their conscience, if and when it is operative.

Was Alfred justified in burning Rachel’s letter to Bruce, however hurting and damaging it might be? Was Batman (substitute your government here) justified in encroaching into the private communications of the public to locate the Joker (substitute your “most wanted” here)? Were Batman and Commissioner Gordon justified in foisting a lie towards the public to protect Harvey Dent’s name and his campaign against criminality in Gotham city?

In the end, whenever one decides and takes responsibility, s/he is, like Joker and Batman, “truly alone.”

—-

The tragedy of Harvey Dent is that he was “the man of power” who, consumed by his anger and resentment over his personal loss and tragedy, willfully absconds from his responsibility. He chooses not to be responsible, and relegates it to a coin.

—-

These familiar themes (power, responsibility, freedom) have all been previously tackled by previous superhero films (especially the Matrix trilogy). What, to my mind, distinguishes the “Dark Knight” from these other films (in keeping with the rather ambiguous persona of the Batman) is the affirmation that the reality of living in an imperfect world allows for, no, demands, an unwanted but necessary compromise with less-than-ideal situations and solutions. In a perfect world where justice truly works, Harvey Dent (before his tragic change of heart) would have been the ideal hero for Gotham City. Instead, they got the hero that they needed. Batman.

Batman is not the hero representing Law and Order, as opposed to Joker’s being “the agent of Chaos.” He himself breaks the law (not to mention bones and properties) when the situation calls for it (e.g., spying on public telecommunications to locate Joker, etc.). But whereas Joker believed that everyone simply acted for one’s self-interest, Batman believed in the mastery of oneself (to the point of sacrifice) in the interest of his imperfect city. He has set for himself a higher morality (one wherein he lives marked as a villain for the sake of his beloved city) not because he is “self-righteous,” but because he simply can. After all, he’s got the power. He is Batman.

Ironically, this “higher morality” is simultaneously a lower one if one considers the serious glossing over of the truth here. Had the people of Gotham City known the tragic fall of Harvey “Two-Face” Dent, his campaign for justice would have crumbled as it depended on his credibility and integrity. Joker would have laughed.

In a dark imperfect world where the harsh blinding light of the truth can wreak irrevocable havoc to those who are not ready or mature enough for it, half-truths and lies may sometimes be the bitter pills that need to be prescribed.

But who decides? Who takes responsibility?

The harsh truth: those who have the power. Those who can.

—-

best regards,

ian

—-

To read more on ethics and metaphysics in the Matrix Trilogy:

The Matrix, Overloaded

Within the Matrix of Love

Tags: Batman, Ethics, Freedom, Movies, Philosophy, Power, Responsibility, The Dark Knight, truth
Posted in Life, Movies, Philosophy, Psychology | 2 Comments »