***This article contains spoilers.***
There is no doubt Heath Ledger delivers a fantastic performance as the Joker and The Dark Knight is a very entertaining film, but its politics are very unsettling. The action opens in the midst of a crackdown on the gangs of Gotham. There are no hoodlums tripped up with batarangs left dangling from the rafters for police–at least in the beginning. Bruce Wayne/Batman (Christian Bale) and his police department insider, Lt. Gordon (Gary Oldman), have been cooperating to freeze the assets of organized crime. As the two tighten the noose, the desperate criminals turn to a mysterious madman, the Joker, to intimidate the police and kill Batman. Up till now, there have been no significant casualties in the “war on crime,” but no one is prepared for the terror the Joker plans to unleash (and make no mistake about it, this Joker is very much a terrorist). As the action unfolds, both Batman and the Joker prove themselves willing to go to any length to uphold (in Batman’s case) or destroy (in Joker’s case) law and order. One discussion between Bruce and Alfred illustrates this point:
Bruce Wayne: I knew the mob wouldn’t go down without a fight. But this is different. They crossed the line.
Alfred Pennyworth: You crossed the line first, sir. You hammered them. And in their desperation they turned to a man they didn’t fully understand. Some men aren’t looking for anything logical. They can’t be bought, bullied, reasoned or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn.
It is important to understand what underlies both men’s “line crossing.” For the moment, let us assume the Joker’s personal account of himself is truthful and accurate. For a violent sociopath, the Joker’s pathology is surprisingly comprehensible and his motives consistent. As a young child, he witnessed his abusive father murder his mother. Later, his wife is disfigured when she cannot pay her gambling debts. With no money for corrective surgery, the Joker disfigures himself in a deranged act of empathy only to have her leave him because of his scars. Because of these experiences, the Joker is willing to do anything to prove the base nature of humanity including driving those society sees as its paragons of virtue towards inhuman acts. Certainly, his desire to rob those same people of happiness as his has been stolen also motivates the Joker’s sadism. However, the Joker perpetrates what Walter Benjamin might call a “pure violence”–that is, a revolutionary violence in opposition to the forces (both legal and criminal) that impose a particular social order.
By comparison, Bruce Wayne’s “line crossing” is completely inconsistent with his purpose. His personal tragedy drives him to assert law and order, but his brand of ‘crime fighting’ often flies in the face of it. When Batman tracks down Lau, the Chinese national who manages the crime syndicate’s money, he uses “1960s CIA technology” to abduct him from a sovereign nation in spite of international law for what is essentially a local law enforcement matter. (Does the phrase “extraordinary rendition” ring any bells, Christopher Nolan?) None of this alarms Lucious Fox (Morgan Freeman) who later agonizes over Bruce Wayne’s involvement in a sophisticated government surveillance project. Despite the film’s overt handwringing over FISA, Wayne Enterprise’s “unethical” technology is permissible in this one instance to capture a lone terrorist leader, the Joker. Nolan would assuage our liberal guilt with the duex ex machina that Fox will destroy the technology once the mission has been accomplished, but this disingenuous turn does not undermine the prevailing message that one person has the right to wiretap US citizens without warrant or legal justification. What offends me most is Nolan’s propensity to talk out of both sides of his mouth. The filmmaker permits Batman to use this surveillance (as well as the aforementioned “CIA technology”) but at the same time passes judgment on the government’s legally sanctioned activity. Debate the ethics of “domestic spying” all you want, but Bruce Wayne has no right whatsoever to wiretap. More importantly, Nolan sends a mixed message on the issue, inadvertantly suggesting that wiretapping may be okay in some instances. Pure and simple, he masquerades sanctimony as social criticism.
None of this, of course, is out of character for Batman or the Batman franchise. Throughout the comics (as well as film and television adaptations), Bruce Wayne has taken a snide attitude towards civilians’ right to protect themselves while committing his own unsanctioned violence, which undeniably is a personal response to his parents’ murder. After all, what gives Batman the right to do any of this? He is not an elected official, sworn law enforcement officer, or other agent of the state. He is an ordinary citizen. One of the film’s Batman “copycats” says it best when he tells him, “We’re no different than you are.” Batman quips, “I am not the one wearing hockey pads.” Translation: being a rich, white guy gives him the right–and nothing else. He may have specialized training (training mythologized as to be inaccessible to the everyday person), but the emphasis has been placed on his weapons and tools to differentiate himself from ordinary citizens. In fact, the same classist undercurrent is evident in regions of the United States where gun control is strictest and weapons permits are, by and large, reserved for elected officials, celebrities, and the rich. Some may have no problem with this decidedly undemocratic fact citing “safer” streets, but those people should remember that Wayne Enterprises is itself a defense contractor and his equipment has been reserved for military usage. His privilege alone gives him access to this arsenal (and attendant agency) that the Batman franchise implies ordinary citizens should not have.
One possible defense of Batman can be found in the work of Carl Schmitt, a prominent German legal scholar whose theories helped legitimize the Nazi regime. Schmitt believed that for government to be effective the head of state had the right to declare “the state of exception” in which the normal rule of law could be suspended in times of crisis that required immediate, decisive, and ultimately undemocratic action. Giorgio Agamben has critiqued this concept throughout history including the United States’ “War on Terror.” While Batman is not an actor within the state, he sets himself as a masked executive and his own ‘war on terror’ follows Schmitt’s theorization. The elected officials and law enforcement of Gotham have become party to the crime he sees everywhere, so Bruce Wayne feels justified in bypassing democratic process or legal channels. Harvey Dent promotes this position when he suggests that it is the “inaction of people like us” that authorizes his violence. [Edit: As reader "M" points out, Dent compares Batman to the Roman dictator who rose to power in times of crisis--an even more explicit link to Schmitt.] Yet again, we are met with a contradiction, because the Batman universe does not allow for the agency of the ordinary person. (The fact “people like us” consists of two lawyers, a member of the idle rich, and a ballerina–all white, of course–is a hilarious albeit accidental reflection of the American political system.) It is not simply that he acts in moments of crisis but also usurps democratic process. At the same dinner where Dent makes his declaration, Bruce Wayne establishes Harvey Dent as the ‘hero’ of Gotham through a cabal of plutocrats who agree to fund his campaigns “for life.” The persistent undemocratic theme fits perfectly with Schmitt’s politics–and, sadly, those on both the right and left who suspend civil rights in moments of crisis, both real and imaginary.
Nolan would whitewash all these facts with the fantasy that Batman is this “uncorruptable” agent outside the state who wants to restore order, but he abandons the needs of the community when it suits him. For example, he disregards the greater good to save Rachel Dawes (Maggie Gyllenhaal) not once but twice and requires Lucious Fox to restrain (inconsistently, mind you) his own illegal activities. The only thing separating himself from any masked paramilitary is that he will not kill, which serves no other purpose than to create the illusion of restraint when there is none and fuel Bruce Wayne’s own self-satisfied moralism. The fact is that had he killed the Joker, a criminal proven dangerous in and out of police custody, in an act of legally justifiable self-defense the whole of Gotham would have been safer.
This is what makes Batman such a great foil for the other “masked” paramilitary of the film, the Joker. One represents a dictorial Schmittian politics, and the other represents Benjamin’s “pure violence” in opposition to any social order. While the Joker has the advantage of being consistent at the very least, the same cannot be said for Batman. In this sense, Nolan shares at least one of Batman’s flaws in his faux critique of “The War on Terrorism”: the most damnable crime of hypocrisy.
I was hoping someone would blog about this – too lazy for it to be me. Great post.
I wonder what you think, though, about the ending. [SPOILER ALERT.] Batman submits to being a hunted criminal in Gotham City – not for his warrantless surveillance or beatdowns of various criminals without due process, mind you, but as the fall-guy for Two-Face’s crimes – so that the ideals of democracy – the rule of law, due process, equal protection – will live on. Isn’t this sacrifice by Batman the repudiation of Carl Schmitt’s arguments (also referred to Harvey Dent and Rachel when they talk about the Roman dictator)? Isn’t the ultimate premise that while Batman is heroic enough to sacrifice himself to repudiate Schmitt, that a political actor in real life is not a comic book hero?
Excellent catch on Dent’s discussion of the Roman dictator! I had forgotten about that exchange. As for Batman’s “sacrifice,” it is not much of a departure from his former state. In the beginning, he had been cooperating with Gordon’s unit alone (the only one he could “trust” ) and the official GPD policy was to arrest Batman on sight. All the while, he had enjoyed a shadowy albeit limited state sponsorship “unofficially.” A parallel can be drawn between Batman and supranational terrorist groups who enjoy sponsorship from a part or whole of the government while outwardly they are an enemy of the state.
Even after he is “sacrificed,” Batman continues to be a figure of the state of exception. The only thing that has changed is the nature of Batman’s violence in the public’s imagination akin to the cultural-technological shift in Ireland from the “hardman” to the “gunman.” In this case, the transformation is only in people’s minds. He had always operated outside the state, but now the friendly agents within it are fewer in number. In fact, Agamben, who writes about this topic in _State of Exception_, might argue that Batman’s “sacrifice” is necessary to maintain a perpetual state of exception. After all, Rachel–the person who knows him best besides Alfred–is convinced that Bruce Wayne will continue needing Batman even after the city does not. If this is true, Dent–not Batman–is the one who is sacrificed to maintain the status quo while Batman becomes the manifestation of the social order that the Joker seeks to destroy. This confirms, rather than repudiates, state of exception.
I appreciate the response very much.
More from me soon, I think – but in the meantime, I wonder if you saw this essay comparing the Dark Knight’s themes and Bush administration security policy. Not that I think superhero movies are meant to educate voters on counter-terrorism policy.
I held off reading this post until I watched the Dark Knight. Great analysis Erich! I’m relieved to know that there are people who can look deeper into our media, understanding the real underlying issues being presented and how our society is being portrayed.
Great post.
There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding in this analysis. The joker actually lies about his disfigurement, at least once, and likely both times. He is a violent psychopath, not a terrorist, not even an anarchist. He is a personalized demon, just as batman. Nolan is in fact saying batman began an arms race of a kind, whatever his intentions.
“Translation: being a rich, white guy gives him the right–and nothing else. ”
Actually, no. He’s saying he’s serious, and he’s right. He has devoted himself in all ways to this, and the others have not. They are copycats. He isn’t talking about class or privilege at all. To miss this is to display a remarkable misapprehension of the character, which calls into question just about everything else in the analysis.
And you can’t get all upset that Nolan is being “two-faced” about rights when the premise of the entire character is an unlawful vigilante. And rendition is the practice of taking people FROM US controlled territory to torture states to do our dirty work. Batman does torture, but he does it himself. Not pretty, but consistent.
And since when is the most damnable sin hypocrisy? I find that amazingly unbalanced. I can think of a few that are far worse.
Nolan actually makes The Dark Knight a fairly repulsive character in many ways. To not see this is to oversimplify and try to pigeon hole the film.
Thanks for reading and for your comments! However, the misunderstanding is yours.
First, I did not characterize the Joker as a terrorist–Nolan does. It is explicitly stated numerous times, and there are other visual cues that strengthen this link (for example, RPGs have become a racially and politically charged symbol connected with terrorists in the public imagination). You may disagree what Nolan’s “terrorist” Joker means, but there is no denying that he is a terrorist.
Secondly, numerous people have mentioned to me that Joker may be lying one or both times and, as I have already stated, he is a violent sociopath. However, neither of these points preclude the fact that he is a terrorist seeking the violent overthrow of the established social order of “schemers.” Do you think lying and being a sociopath prevents someone from becoming a terrorist?
Lastly, Batman is a vigilante, and so are the “copy cats.” What is the difference? Batman has the money to pay for an expensive, high-tech arsenal while the others do not. It is not sufficient to say, “he’s serious, and he’s right.” What does being “serious” have to do with the law? How is he “right” exactly? Neither of these claims are at all clear.
As for extraordinary rendition, you are wrong. According Michael John Garcia’s article “Renditions: Constraints Imposed by Laws on Torture,” the term describes the “extrajudicial transfer of a person from one State to another,” which is exactly what Batman does. More importantly, extraordinary rendition, Batman’s “special interrogation techniques,” or illegal wiretapping are either acceptable or they are not. My problem with Nolan’s artistic choices is that he attempts to have it both ways.
At this point, your argument becomes nigh incomprehensible. From what I can discern, I will refute one thing. Nolan does not make Batman “repulsive.” He is the hero of film. My argument is that Nolan’s hero is as much a masked paramilitary as Joker is, which is problematic given the film’s inconsistencies.
Re agency of “normal people:” contrast Dark Knight with a scene from the second Spiderman movie. Spiderman saves an El train from crashing after a fight with Dr. Octopus. He is exhausted and loses his mask. If I remember right, the passengers (an ostentatious cross-section of New Yorkers) promise to keep his secret. When Dr. Octopus returns, they close ranks to protect the unconscious Spiderman.
Of course Dr. Octopus just pushes them out of the way (played for a small laugh). But it’s a sober moment, as the passengers, standing in for the audience, at least try to give Doc Oc a run for his money.
Spiderman has powers (Batman does not) and New York needs him to protect the city from super-powered villains, so his ethical situation seems a little different from Batman’s.
Timothy, you make an interesting link with Spiderman. Thanks for posting.