The Dark Knight Trilogy - Renegade Cut
Вставка
- Опубліковано 27 вер 2024
- What is justice? An analysis of the philosophies of the various characters in Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight Trilogy. Support Renegade Cut Media through Patreon. / renegadecut
~-~~-~~~-~~-~
Please watch: "Thor Ragnarok - Colonialism in Asgard | Renegade Cut"
• Thor Ragnarok - Coloni...
~-~~-~~~-~~-~
![[UA] Eternal Fire проти NAVI | EPL Season 20 Malta](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/chvlsDygrZM/mqdefault.jpg)
One of the interesting things about criticizing vigilantism is that it always works under the assumption that the law is perfect. Sadly its seems like most vigilantes are lynch mobs instead of the Underground Railroad.
Also: I always dig the "criminals are a cowardly lot".... said by Batman, who is a criminal.
endplanets exactly. the Black Panthers were "vigilantes" as well.. against state sponsored terrorists called police.
The comparison of real world and comic book vigilantes made me think of Watchman. It finally clicked and I understand it better.
There is a huge conflation between what is legal and what is moral in this analysis. Govt is a monopoly on force, and given that power, people don't just abandon their self interest. More often then not, the "agents of the law" produce more bad than what they address. This is portrayed in the corruption of Gotham and what makes Batman neccessary in the first place.
Yes, but that monopoly on force, in a democracy, in theory, is in fact instated by a majority consensus, whereas Batman is just a guy with money who decided he should get to decide what to do about the criminal elements in Gotham.
Criticizing the actions of a particular government as morally unjust is a critique of the quality of the implementation of democracy in that particular case.
This does not change the fact that it is generally not morally acceptable if we allow individual actors to impose their personal ethics on the rest of society.
The sayings " It is easier to ask for fogiveness than for permission" and "might makes right" come to mind, which are of course inacceptable in a larger society.
@@horrorhotel1999 yeah... But when every State fails the test, maybe the State itself is the problem.
@@horrorhotel1999a lot of people think that the government is some ambiguous body of individuals when in reality it is supposed to be a representation of the will of the people. This same people also think unions are "in it for their benefit." Which is funny cuz that's kinda the whole point. The union IS the members. That's why they're in the union
"What kind of hero do we deserve?"
Man, your channel is amazing. I discovered it not too long ago and I've been binge-watching your stuff. Keep it real and a big hug from Venezuela. x
This is easily one of your most fascinating, in-depth episodes and also perfectly captures why I did not care for TDKR.
Why is that exactly? I didn't pick up on any specific hatred for TDKR.
While Leon didn't exactly say he hated it, 5:54-6:16 is a pretty good indication of my biggest problem with the film: every time a concept comes up that threatens to be thematically interesting/have depth, Chris Nolan squanders it by taking the cheapest, easiest way out. Another good example is when Bruce is severely hurt (and down in prison which is hyped up to be "HELL ON EARTH" but instead turns out to be relatively comfy, complete with a TV and helpful cellmate), which gives Nolan the option of giving Bruce limits and making him be more invested in defeating Bane. Instead, Nolan half-asses it once again and has some guy punch his spinal chord back in for him (which is just fucking silly- there is no way anyone can like this film AND take that scene seriously).
I hope I don't come off as douchey to anyone, it's just that I find TDKR to be incredibly flawed and I feel vindication whenever I hear somone criticize it.
Thank you for responding.
@@miraclemanoutoftime I agree with you too. I still enjoy watching it, especially now, with a different lense and perspective, I can still see the cracks in the movie. My biggest problem was the philosophy of Bane, and to some extent, Catwoman. He is presented as this extremist and radical antagonist, who believes he is morally just in upsetting the "established order" of Gotham and bring power to the poor, but just ends up being a pawn to Talia Al Ghul's plan. I don't understand why Nolan decided to take such a cheap route for this character, especially when people found some satisfaction when him and his mercenaries took over the Gotham Stock Exchange, reminiscent of the Occupy Walt Street march. Nolan should have just let just the idea to take over Gotham be Bane's plan all along, and not go with a generic plot of a nuclear ticking time bomb. I would have appreciated it if he could have just let Bane and Batman battle for the soul of Gorham, along the people who side with either ideology. My idea sounds like s**t, but I like it when directors stick with an idea and fully commit to it till the end, even if it may scare audiences, not half-a** it toward the end. It leads to a weak conclusion.
The only thing that keeps me invested in enjoying the film are the stunts, production design, sets, sound design, cinematography and score. Hans Zimmer's score, especially Bane's theme is so epic!
Excellent analysis of one of my favorite film trilogies.
Appreciate it even more in the wake of the DCEU.
Ah, The Dark Knight Trilogy before the dark times of the DCEU
not like marvel is any better
The OP didn't mention marvel. Obsessed much?
fusiontoa18 You are completely clueless, aren't you?
De Nitpichers
yes i know nothing.. enlighten me
I always thought Joker was an Absurdist, escaping from nihilism. Thus the "Stranger" reference. Minor point tho.
I always kinda like how TDKR is pretty much how Gordon and Bruce suffering from their most questionable act, such as covering up Harvey Dent death and leaving Raz al ghul to die (except maybe the electronic surveillance)
That's the exact point of the third film. Along with Wayne ignoring Alfred's good advice on how becoming Batman again is about attitude and principles, rather than just pulling out the gadgets once more and hoping things work themselves out. Wayne pays for making that mistake dearly, almost to the point of his destruction as a human being. People harped on the subplot about the prison, but he needed to be mentally reborn to rethink his actions and realise what he really needs to do to help the city one last time before retiring. That Batman is more freely seen among the public and has also far less screentime is deliberate: He can save Gotham from megalomaniacs and doomsday bombs, but the real saviours of Gotham were always its citizens - and it's up to them what they decide to do with their city, for better or worse. The line to Gordon about ordinary people being true heroes, whenever they prefer compassion and proactiveness to apathy or cynicism, felt to me like a summary of the series' main themes. And also an explanation by Batman himself why he doesn't think he's needed anymore.
I think Bruce still felt that Batman was needed but he understood that someone else could take the mantle. Pretty much every scene involving Robin suggested that.
Considering how the League of Shadows encourages students to kill their masters, I think they would be more upset that Bruce didn't kill Ra's directly rather than with Bruce leaving Ra's to die on the train. And we're still not sure Ra's is dead, since his body wasn't found. It's more likely the League would want to punish Bruce, not for indirectly supposedly killing Ra's, and not for betraying them and destroying their temple, but for refusing to rejoin them and do what they want him to do.
I like how he says "allegedly deserves" but leaves out "allegedly" when describing needs.
Because needs are objective, and the concept of "deserving" is subjective. People Can allege that they are hungry, but they will undoubtebly be hungry at some point. No one can ever deserve something in the same sense. It's like wooing someone not attracted to you - you certainly Can have a real need for companionship and sex, but at no point do you deserve it, it is only the subjective decision of the other person if you do or don't.
Superb analysis.
I like many of the ideas of this trilogy, but so many times the solution in these type of films is force and violence through one "hero" because supposedly the citizens do not have any power.
The original Magnificent Seven film is a good example of heroes who recognize their limits.
I think heroes are worshiped because many do feel powerless.
I'd like to see a film for once where the hero handed power back to people.
No one can save us but ourselves.
The Seven Samurai was the first film that came out and then the Magnificent Seven came later as an American remake with the same story more or less.
based
For the majority of the reasons you've listed, along with his overall mental instability, I kind of considered Batman an antihero. Not quite morally bankrupt like Alexander DeLarge from A Clockwork Orange or Tony Montanya from Scarface, but still within the antihero spectrum. Especially in some of the stories that highlight the similarities between Batman and the joker.
That kind of reminds me of one of my favourite Batman quotes from the comics. “Deep down Clark’s essentially a good guy and deep down I am not.”
I respect your opinion on the surveillance subplot, but feel you're being too harsh on this plot point. There are times in life where you have to make gambles, and they're unavoidable unless you're going to live like a hermit. In those situations, you have to argue the potential consequences vs the potential rewards. In the scenario in question, it's established that Batman can't defeat The Joker without this technology, and hundreds of lives are at stake. The potential reward is that Batman captures The Joker and hundreds, if not thousands, of lives are saved. The potential consequence is that he imposes on the freedoms of the city's citizens.
The difference between this scenario and real world examples of surveillance is that the technology is being overseen by only two people, not a large government; therefore, there are less agendas available that could potentially corrupt the use of such technology (this is not to suggest that any citizen should be in charge of this technology, of course). Batman trusts that morally he and Lucious will only use the tech for it's intended purpose, and he allows Lucious to unintentionally destroy the device once it has served it's purpose. The movie does not advocate surveillance on a large scale based on Lucious' "this is wrong" line (he's the audience surrogate in the scene), and as evidenced by the fact that the tech is destroyed at the end of the film so that it can not be abused. I thought it was an excellent way of writing and presenting a complex and controversial moral dilemma.
You could say that no one has appointed Batman to make these decisions, and that is true. But that is the price of vigilantism. He's doing what law enforcement does not have the resources to do, and while it is true that the people did not appoint him, it is also true that these same people largely benefit from his actions, especially the scene in question.
There is a Big real-world flaw with the destruction of surveilance in Dark Knight - if Bruce could do it once, without anyone knowing, he could easily do it again, and just exclude Lucius the next time. So, him enabling Lucius to do it once is, in reality, a meaningless gesture - that is still way too much power for one man to have, he could not be trusted with that. But, I mean, the very character of Batman is kind of a distraction for the Real source of "evil" in the world - the system that allows for the ultra-rich in the first place. Even if Batman glave up his entire wealth (which he doesn't do ever, weird), he would not solve the main source of crime in the world, which is - poverty, borne out of unfair distribution. Instead of doing even that, he goes around punching people in a silly costume - and we are sold on the idea that it only takes a single "good billionaire" to make things right, when in truth the path to becoming a billionaire specifically excludes anyone remotely good or moral from getting there in the first place...and also even capital punishment doesn't deter crime, so punching would be even less.
Dark Knight Rises was barely even mentioned tho. I was hoping someone would mention how fucked up it is that those in poverty are framed as the villains in that movie while the wealthy aristocracy are held to some higher regard, even though the impoverished are only used as pawns and are viewed through the same bullshit lens Ra'S Al Ghul originally viewed them just by Bane and Talia, as something to be exterminated like rats on a plague ship. And in the end does anyone learn a lesson; maybe more welfare programs or upward mobility to the masses? Nope. Status Quo resumes like nothing happened, just with out Batman.
Speaking of the scene where he "refuses to become an assassin", it bothers me with Batman's supposed "no kill" thing that he literally blows up and kills all the assassins except for Ducard, including the guy he was supposedly saving, right after rejecting becoming a killer. It's been a while since I watched it all the way through, so did the movies ever give an explanation behind the logic to that whole thing or?
I'm not sure if you can say that there are objective flaws with Nihilism the way you stated in the video. By living, one does not inherently oppose the Nihilist view that nothing has objective value. Living is simple one of the inconsequential choices. If you were to not live, you would by default be holding not living to a higher 'value' standard than living. The Joker is not wrong philosophically, it's just that society is based on principles that fundamentally oppose Nihilism and their interaction in Hollywood is often portrayed as being in constant conflict. Yes, maybe his actions are 'wrong' from other philosophical viewpoints, but that's not objective.
I'm really loving this channel... Very interesting perspectives.
Is Adam West's Batman the only Batman to have real accountability? He's deputized by the police and only called upon (literally, with a phone, there's no "bat signal") to help them with baffling, costumed-villain-related cases. He's not a vigilante, he doesn't go on "patrols" or hunt down criminals or such. And he spends most of his downtime raising Dick Grayson. It's all very wholesome. But people wanted "gritty batman" who is tough on crime and what resulted were some violent batmen with dubious moral choices? And now Joker's the real good guy? What happened, man?
Very interesting analysis. Also good that you didn't just praise everything in the films like some others who analyze TDK Trilogy do.
On the 60's Batman TV series,Batman told the villian Shane that he and Robin were deputized citizens of the law
I thought Blake was going to become Nightwing or something.
Rodrigo Ugarte
The point of the mask wasn't just to protect Bruce's identity, the mask also meant something. "Anybody could be Batman". That's what Bruce told Blake. So it wouldn't make sense for Blake to then just suddenly become Nightwing.
Plus, it's called "The Dark Knight Rises". And what do we see at the end? John Blake rising ;)
Elmin Legend Doesn't he descend?
Rodrigo Ugarte
Not sure if you're trying to be sarcastic or not, but no he does not
I think Leon just meant that Blake would SYMBOLICALLY become Batman, picking up the mantle of Gotham's nocturnal vigilante under whatever nickname he chose.
Elmin Legend I'm like eighty percent certain the Batcave is below ground level.
Great vid, Leon, but I'd have to disagree on something
The "Why doesn't Batman murder the Joker?" question is a bit deeper than what you presented. At least, with the comics to back this up.
The premise is that the legal system of Gotham is so corrupt and inept that even after multiple captures - the Joker always escapes and kills more and more people. The Justice system fails.
The same failure of justice is what got Bruce Wayne to become Batman in the first place, so shouldn't he break the law once more in order to save the lives?
Also, something that is never brought up or discussed:
1. Why doesn't Batman find a way to isolate the Joker for good? He doesn't have to "kill the Joker" as the compalint usually goes. He could very well just ask for the Justice League to put him into a Phantom zone prison. Or just make a specific prison for him, instead of simply dropping him off at Arkham for the 1000th time.
2. Why doesn't Bruce Wayne/Batman/Gordon/The city of Gotham legally execute the Joker? The "he's insane" clause is there, but I'd argue that they could bypass that as him being too dangerous to society. With a solution of passing a legal death sentence or putting him on sedatives so hard he turns into a vegetable.
The readers don't neccessarily call out for Batman to kill. They just see the futility of the cat and mouse game and how Batman's "no-kill" philosophy just leads to more death.
It is unbelievable how deep this video is.
I came here through Oliver Harper. you were mentioned. All brilliant!
Fantastic job, I define agree on your stance between the fact that Nolan made these films based in philosophy and that it is a comic book trilogy and the problems which this creates. There is another video on UA-cam which was released in the last month where a man dissects the role of fascist authority in the context of German film. In the end of the video he makes the exact point but in a montage to the themes of metropolis (1927). It's a good watch but your take went beyond by dissecting and inserting evidence for the claims made to back up the argument. Good work and I can't wait for the next video!
You rock, Leon
Considering nihilism and the flaw of it, that we at least assign value to things: well yeah, we can assign value to things but isn't the point that thing inherently don't have value? If we assign value to it, does not really matter. I didn't read nihilist books or anything, but I personally feel that nothing has of it's self any value, but that is no reason for hopelessness because you can create that value yourself, for yourself but also for other people. Life is meaningless until you give it meaning basically.
If I may ask, I remember seeing another Renegade Cut about the Dark Night Trilogy, probably a very early one, that I can't find anymore. May I ask if I'm hallucinating or did you delete it
This trilogy is much more fun while listening to your essay 👏
great analysis though I just cant wait for Tarkovsky and Lynch month any idea when those are going to happen ? I love these things and I genuinely cant wait
Love this channel, it's smart and poignant.
Fruit of the poison tree only applies when the authorities illegally obtain evidence- that any evidence that further comes from that evidence is disallowed.
It does not apply when a private citizen breaks the law to obtain evidence. The prosecutors can use evidence illegally obtained by Batman as long as they weren’t involved in any of the illegalities themselves.
Legal Eagle has a video on The Dark Knight that goes through this, and all the other laws broken during the movie.
And yeah, this version of the Joker is an amazing character, and played by a truly amazing actor. Still missed, and crazy to think it’s been over a decade since he died. I do think he deserved the posthumous Oscar, but I also think him dying is the only reason an Oscar was given- the Academy doesn’t tend to rate superhero movies.
I do find it sad to see the new Joker in light of Heath’s. Jared Leto is no Heath Ledger (quite apart from the fact that Leto is an arsehole of the highest order). Leto wanted to make his Joker as well regarded as Heath’s, but he failed, and also I think, revealed his own desperation to be as well respected.
Great job, loving all the video so far
watching the video, i remembered that in the old Batman tv series, batmas was deputized, and also in the comics, for a while both batman and superman where diputized by the police in order to give them autorithy when they stopped a criminal.
Excellent essay - thanks !
In regards other morals/politics of the film, here is my take on it in the form of an abstract of my analysis of "The Dark Knight" in my blog:
Oh boy, this aspect of the film is a tough on for me to talk about for a couple of reasons. The first one being that in regards to politics in superhero films, I have a somewhat limited knowledge in regards to the American politics. The other reason why I think this is a tough aspect of the film for me to tackle is that despite myself being a native of the United Kingdom, talking about politics even if it has American contexts could possibly open a can of worms to those reading this review because of how aggressive people can be when talking about political subjects, hence the phase “the best way to remain friends is to not talk about politics”. While I will give my take on the political allegory on this film and how it sort of works more of a structure device for the films main themes of escalation and duality rather than just a straight up allegory like say how the “V for Vendetta” movie was for George W. Bush (whereas the book was more of an allegory for Margret Thatcher for when it was written).
Let me open with people’s diverse reactions to the film’s political allegory. Many people (including the author of the book “Billion Dollar Batman”, Bruce Scivally) I have seen on the internet have made claims that “The Dark Knight” seems to be nothing more than just a defence for the choices George W. Bush has made during the War on Terror. While I do think there are some political ideas, many would say that Batman on multiple occasions in the film, but all within reasonable grounds due to his main intentions of wanting to stop the terrorist threat of the Joker (who is said to be a representation of Osama Bin Laden) by using methods such as torture interrogation tactics and wiretapping.
Personally considering one of the main themes is duality, I don’t think this is the film is really encouraging conservative methods. I do think some of the political events might enlighten the film to a degree or at least on a subconscious level as Nolan has stated that he didn’t make the film with that intention in mind, but rather he wanted to tell a story that was born out of character’s personal decisions reacting to a terrible situation. His ultimate intention was to have people converse about the film and think about the themes and ideas and what it means to them personally.
Joker being like Osama bin Laden has always been a perception that I have always thought was kind of odd. I think this because well despite the two being terrorists, their viewpoints and motivations are pretty different. Bin Laden was a more religious terrorist who had an utter distaste towards the ideas of the United States as he viewed them as “amoral”. While the Joker in this film is seen more as an anarchist, which is generally seen as a person who believes in a lack of government. Although I would argue that I see the Joker as more of a nihilist than I do as an anarchy, especially when viewing this film from the perspective of morality because of how The Joker displays the lack of belief in one or more reputedly meaningful aspects of life, while also showing extreme pessimism that condemns existence. But the Joker in this film is a true nihilist because he comes off as a character truly believes in nothing, he lacks in loyalties, as well as any true purpose other than, perhaps, an impulse to destroy; something the whole “dog chasing cars” lines would really support.
Although I cannot see this film exactly being the same in regards to presenting its politics in a pre-9/11 world, because inspiration is all over the place when it comes to storytelling mediums and for creators, and it would likely have influenced their villainous characters from real world bad guys that come off as real life supervillains, whether it was intentional or not. Similar to how Nazis were the main source of bad guys during World War II, or how the Soviets were used as main sources for bad guys during the Cold War, and in a post-9/11 world we now usually have terrorists as our main sources of evil. Some do it well, like the Daniel Craig James Bond films (at least “Casino Royale” and “Skyfall”) and “Captain America: The Winter Soldier”, while others not so much, like “Star Trek Into Darkness” or any Michael Bay film post 2001, as the latter two films have little to say on the topic. All of this is pretty typical for any influential film like “The Dark Knight” due to the capitalistic nature of Hollywood.
If you are going to fight a terrorist whose rules are different from yours or at least with The Joker a guy with no rules at all, then a leader would have to describe on how far they would go in order to stop them. Although I do find aspects of this interpretation to be somewhat undercooked to a degree because people never really elaborate on who the likes of Harvey Dent or Commissioner Gordon represent as people only go as far to say stuff like “Batman is Bush and the Joker is Bin Laden”. Although if we are really going to judge it strictly through Batman being a representation of Bush, then it is interesting how audiences reaction to it comes off. On the other hand, many people who claim this film is pro-Bush have interpreted the ending of this film where Batman takes the fall must see it as similar to how Bush and the American government has gotten for all the policies during the War on Terror and his must take the punishment because it is the honourable thing to do. Maybe this allegory could work to a degree because how nowadays people mostly solely blame George W. Bush and tend to forget that there other collaborators that are just as responsible for this choice whether it is the American people or other members of the Republican party. It is usually the figure head that gets all the blame for the wrong doings of an entire event because they are the ones that make the final choices in the end and many members of the public would think there are several ways that the government could have solved the problem, which is kind of reflects audiences reaction to the film ending to an extent. However, there are actually people who think the opposite of the ending as many think this film is anti-Bush because many think Batman truly deserves the punishment and hate for breaking the line of the typical super heroics from most superhero films. I say this interpretation does have some weight to it because you see the films sequel “The Dark Knight Rises”, but that is another topic for a possible future review.
Honestly, I don’t think the film completely supports and condemns the War on Terror, as I do believe it is a film that is more examining the dual nature of how the US views its leaders or politicians with most of the more left wing or right wing conclusion from other people being strictly interpretive. I honestly think the political tones work more of a framing device for the main ideas of “escalation” and “duality” rather than a direct commentary on the war on terror. The film might have in regards to its politics say being that Batman is the sort of figure head that has to make the tough choices our world leaders have to make for the safety of other people and like how the film explores the ideas of order vs. chaos and the thin line between good and evil with how the heroes make morally questionable choices, while the villains raising some interesting or good points in regards to humanity. I suppose a lot of the film is supposed to open a dialogue between people with different interpretations. A part of me advocates that the film does not have a political agenda from either the Nolan brothers or even David Goyer because I think this film is a believer of the whole philosophy of life having two sides to every story, as the methods can be beneficial when it comes to handling a certain type of people. It is stuff like this is why I don’t agree with people who consider this film to be preachy with its morals and concepts (unlike every film by Neill Blomkamp or jokes by Seth MacFarance) because it is not like the film is forcing you to agree with its message or its moral centre because of how the film views the concept of good and evil not quite having the solid line as you would like to believe. Even the best of us have a dark moments and even the worst of humanity could persuade you into thinking they have a point because as the old saying goes “evil can be seductive” when it comes to villains that you love to hate, which makes the casting of Heath Ledger as the surprisingly charming version of the Joker work so well.
From what I learned in both my lectures of “Profiling and Investigating Serious Crime” and “Explaining and Responding to Crime” at my BSc Criminology course at the University of Huddersfield using extreme methods like that may work with some people like Maroni because cowardly people are easier to understand. However extreme methods are not always the case with some people (as with this films case, the Joker) because some people are just beyond understanding because are way too committed to their cause as the core thing that makes the more conservative methods is the concept of empathy and emotions.
Great analysis. You make a great point about the politics acting as a framing device for the main themes and concepts the trilogy explores rather then being direct commentary and it's something I can see rather noticeable throughout other film of the superhero genre.
ZeeCobra Thanks because a lot of the time if a film is trying to be a straight up allegory, they tend to be a little dated pretty quickly. I mean I notice a lot of people talk about Batman Begins being an allegory to a post 9/11 world, an idea that I didn't really pick up until I saw "The Dark Knight Rises".
iamsuperbatman1993 Perhaps with The Dark Knight Trilogy the allegory makes a lot more sense as it's a lot more politically charged then most films of the genre, but I can definitely agree that it's easy for the allegory to become dated quite easily. An example of a film which kind of destroys that narrative, while not necessarily allegory, is easily Sidney Lumet's "Network" which to me is pretty timeless satirical commentary on the media and the like. While it's still not necessarily allegory as I said, I would consider it so.
This was great read. Thank You.
Forgot to mention the most famous quote of Harvey dent
Great episode, one of your best.
Evidence found by batman can MOST DEFINITELY be used against people in court. "Evidence unlawfully obtained from the defendant by a private person is admissible." A major limitation on the exclusionary rule that feels overlooked in this video when it is a large part of the analysis.
absolutely great analysis of theme. thank you.
You could still argue, that the Joker is torn between his phylosophy(nihilism) and his instincts(survival).
Really keeps up with current events 🕭
excellent work as always leon.
You bring up many interesting points.
the trump batman connection for the reasons presented was brilliant
Renegade Cut "he has the best car, like the best"... "what kind of hero do we deserve?" I read it as pretty unsubtle dig
Mill explicitly stated slavery could not be justified within his belief system in On Liberty Chapter 5... not sure why you used this as an example to dismiss his philosophy.
I always thought that Talia's motivation for divine retribution to be pretty flimsy. Considering that Talia in other incarnations of Batman tended to want and encourage Batman to kill her father, and considering that the League of Shadows and R'as himself expect their students to kill anyone to get what they want, it doesn't make sense that Talia in DKR would cite vengeance as her motivation for all that she's done. Considering that Batman saved Ra's' life once, and only left him to fend for himself on a colliding train, he was more restrained than Talia gave him credit for. Her motivations make even less sense than her father's. That poses another question: should people enact forms of justice in order to satisfy motivations which are, in essence, petty and based on fickle rage? That question would also apply to the extreme vengeful behavior of Two-Face at the end of DK.
Your analysis is amazingly in depth, Renegade Cut Man. I especially like your references to Mills and Kant. However, I feel like the Dark Knight films after Batman Begins kind of lose their focus on what they're trying to say, especially when the points are not always cleverly conveyed, or when the heroes and villains equally display stupidity and poor judgment in order to fit the confines of the plot. I love the alternate takes on the Joker, Two-Face, Bane, and Catwoman, but I feel like the plots of DK and DKR needed revision and polish in order to feel more complete. But that would involve an analysis of different kind.
In the fiction of Batman, yes, I do wonder why a police officer hasn't killed the Joker. Looking at the sum total of everything the Joker has done over the last 90 years of DC Comics, I think it's a valid question.
The question isn't whether someone should kill the Joker, the question is why hasn't it happened?
amazing video Leon!
The thing about the DK trilogy that always gets to me is that it really drops the ball on its chances to do something really great with Batman. I hold the first two films on their own actually work in a great way that builds on the question of how far is too far and what should we be expecting from Batman. But the series chickens out at the end. I enjoyed the first two movies on the assumption that it had an understanding of how Batman does cross the line, that his actions are morally gray at best and sometimes are clearly morally black, and that he does make mistakes that have bad consequences. I was looking forward to the third one the whole time on the assumption that it would actually bring that all home. But it drops the ball completely.
It makes token references the Gotham Police misusing Harvey Dent's name to pass borderline totalitarian laws, and there's the hint of those laws being the basis for how Bane convinced the citizens of Gotham to go along with him, but all it does is hint at it. It never goes anywhere and its failure to examine those issues with any kind of depth makes the overall film's philosophy seem to say that those things correct; it was correct to lock up all those people on trumped up charges and under unreasonably harsh laws because they immediately join Bane when he breaks them out. I'd never thought much about the final scene much, but mostly because I'd tuned out long before it got there. It's obvious the film isn't going to go into the issues with any depth, so I stop really paying it any attention because in the end the film just doesn't have that much to say about the issues. And that retroactively ruins the first two films because it takes all the stuff that is morally ambiguous, all the stuff that seemed, at least to me, to be saying Batman was going to far, and says he was totally right.
It's such a shame.
So how would you have made the third film in TDK trilogy? How should that film have "brought it all home"?
Spencer Malley He's not the guy that made it. It wasn't his job. You don't have to make the movie to notice flaws.
But I can make a few suggestions, natsfan.
For starters, the film needed to actually *show* what the Dent laws were. You could have showed how the Dent laws cracked down on crime, but didn't actually address the problems behind it (like poverty, starvation, etc). You could show Gotham cleaning out the mob, but the end result being that instead of the mob being what ruins people's lives, it's the police locking people up for minor crimes now. You could show that the drop in crime makes life better for some people (like the very wealthy), but for the poor, nothing's changed.
That way, it would be more understandable that people would side with Bane and his promises. You couldn't agree with Bane letting people form mobs to lynch the rich, but you at least see where they're coming from and it would make the situation more complicated than just seeming like the police are always good and anyone who disagrees with them is always wrong.
You could also show Bruce Wayne feeling some remorse about all of this because he was the one who helped it come about, showing Batman himself questioning whether he did a good thing; not just because of the usual "Batman made the Joker" nonsense, but because Batman also emboldened the cops to be harsher against ordinary citizens as well as criminals. You could have that be the reason why Batman stopped his crime fighting instead of him just pining over Rachel (obviously, he's going to grieve, but having him go 8 years over it with that as the only reason doesn't seem believable to me).
And on the whole, there's a number of other problems that would need fixing with a second pass on the general outline. The structure of DKR is really awkward and it makes all of the other problems of the film stand out that much more. But I'm not going to do a point by point rewrite of the film in youtube comments. This is just the starting point of fixing it.
cheezemonkeyeater Batman stopping had nothing to do with Rachel.
Now, that's not precisely true. You can tell when something's wrong without knowing immediately how to fix it, even if you can pinpoint its exact problems. Fiction writing is a complicated process and it's a lot easier to see when something's wrong than it is to know how to fix it. That's why a proper story/script can take a year or more to write.
But if you'll look above, you'll note I did, in fact, put down a few suggestions. But they're pretty generic suggestions. DKR needs a second pass - even Nolan himself said he wasn't given enough time to work out the kinks.
GREAT! MOAR!
Hey, will you make a video on your favorite 2016 movies? I would definitely wanna see that!
Fantastic analysis as always but I am confused if you liked the trilogy or not.
True.
TDK trilogy is more about the psychological journey of Bruce Wayne to the point where he no longer needs Batman or to suffer, as well as the same journey for Gotham. I don't think the movies are trying to make a statement on the nature of justice, outside of perhaps that justice has limits. The justice of the league, Bane, and Two Face go too far and become injustice. Batman, though he breaks the law in an attempt to fix a broken system, places limits on himself, and the farther he pushes the limits the more his allies push back, and the more his conscious gets to him. You bring up his crippling the crime boss, but that's the point where he decides to turn himself in, because he 'sees what he would have to become to stop men like' the Joker. There are no good answers, only less bad ones. What separates Batman from the hockey pad fakes? He has limits. They don't. And if the movies are really trying to raise these issues, then I don't think they are trying to answer them. I think it's up to each viewer to decide if he thinks Batman is justified (at least in the first 2 movies - stopping a nuke is the sort of thing everyone agrees is a very good thing).
Great review for dark knight trilogy. I enjoy it.
Leon, have you heard of comic writer Grant Morrison? He had a Batman run where Dick Grayson becomes Batman and Bruce Wayne realizes how he operates as Batman no longer works. Morrison has characters who have a long history re-evaluate themselves and removes what no longer works. Society sees Batman as Bruce Wayne. But, the Nolan Trilogy and Morrison's Batman views Batman as an idea. That idea can be altered and improved upon. Morrison's Batman decides that he give the idea of Batman to other people. He wants other people to be their own Batman. Morrison shows the reader Batman if he had a budget with an Native American Batman. So, maybe the film is questioning Bruce Wayne's Batman, but still believes in the idea of Batman. Food for thought.
please do an episode on trainspotting
Some very thought-provoking stuff here. Thanks.
I'd like to think that The Dark Knight was meant to trigger this kind of excellent discourse, as many will agree that Bruce Wayne's Batman is supposed to be interpreted as a *flawed* human being, even though he's much, much less flawed than the likes of Harvey Dent and of course the Joker.
We can argue that the trilogy's presentation amounts to tacit endorsement and approval of Batman's methods, and I understand why that could be assumed, given Blake's discovery of the Batcave. But death of the author is a popular approach, and I see no reason not to use it here. The Dark Knight trilogy does seem to lend support to many of your arguments. Whether or not it was intentional is difficult to know for certain, but in many ways that doesn't matter.
Anyway, thanks for your video. It sparks some even more valuable discussion material with regards to these movies. :)
The fact that you're doing this video at all speaks to Nolan's amazing work. These "superhero" movies are so grounded in reality that you almost can't classify them as a superhero movies. They're crime epics, and as such, warrant deeper analysis. This kind of critique would be horribly out of place, silly in fact, with an Avengers or even DCEU movie.
Great job, Leon! Just one thing: Kant, as far as I know, was Prussian -- though I could be wrong.
Oh, my bad. But wasn't Konigsberg a part of Prussia at the time of Kant's birth? Only later becoming a part of the German Empire?
Oh, I see, I didn't know that. Thanks! Keep on with one of the best shows on UA-cam, Leon!
There was no country called Germany when Kant was born. The German national movement didn't start until after the French revolution. Before that it was a patchwork of small states that were gathered in an empire called the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation. Still, Leon is correct. Here in Germany we usually refer to someone as being German when they were born and lived within the borders of what is today's Germany.
batman let raz al goul stating he wont kill him but he also doesnt have to save him but yet he didnt say this in the dark knight when he saved joker...
I want to counter what you said about Nietzsche: first off, he isnt a nihilist, but widely acknowledged as a forefather of existantialism. secondly, Nietzsche dispised nihilism for negating what makes life worthwhile. Your philosophy is so often on point, this particular error surprises me
Thanks for answering. And please excuse my ignorance
21:55 because he isn't a nihilist, he's an absurdist. He ascribes to Albert Camus's third option.
Unhappy the land that has no heroes.
No. Unhappy the land that needs heroes.
Brecht need the score peeps.
I think Cat Woman seems to be the morally just out of everyone in the films. I know that the point here is to leave the question "who is a real hero" ambigous, but if we go with the Idea that meritocracys are unjust, then a needs based justice system is sensible to providing justice to those who need it.
Any chance you could make a similar video about a Marvel/Netflix series?
BRAVO!
This trilogy is still the best version of these characters.
good form, good form
"What is Justice"
It's what keeps Batman alive
Would Batman's actions be legal in the context of a citizen's arrest? I don't know much about it, but one would assume that the criminal would not simply surrender, the criminal would need to be somehow subdued.
The Joe chill killing reminds me of JFK
I'd love to see what Linkara thinks of this video.
I remember a section from the JLA/Avengers 4 part crossover, when the titular teams find themselves in each others' universes; The Avengers are shocked to see that places like Metropolis have developed into a fascist state that venerates heroes like Superman as the final arbiter while the JLA is disgusted to see a world where a supervillain is a the ruler of a sovereign nation and beings like the Hulk are heroes openly hunted by their own government.
i though this was an analysis of the TRILOGY. i'm a little bummed there was no significant mention of the themes addressed in 'Rises.'
The fact that everyone is expected to wear a mask like Bane is something to look at now.
nice and thorough analysis. but i dont realy think everyone in this world could be treated equally. many people are poor because of bad decisions and dont work hard etc. but also many people are poor because they just cant change their situation no matter how hard they work. plus not every billionaire came into existance stealing other people’s wealth. in that case, when a hardworking poor man becomes a billionaire, does that make him wrong as he doesn’t have the same net worth as all the others? is it wrong to exceed other people’s wealths just because it’s not fair? plus, is everyone in this world exactly the same or are there inherent differences between each one of us, intelligence, health, family background etc
I love these movies. I understand the criticisms, but to me they are flawless. Great video by the way and I love your philosophical and political takes on some of my favorite films.
We Live in a Society
Could have talked about Bane, otherwise great video!
He pretty much lumped Bane and Talia with Ras Al Ghul since there after more or less the same thing
How many times did he say "justice"?
I guess I believe in moral relativism. I don't believe in inherent value. I do think the value we create is useful in society, but it's essentially arbitrary. My life is meaningless, but it doesn't bother me because there are things, many things, I enjoy. like my cats, my boyfriend, my job, and this show to name a few. Scratch all that. I'm a hedonist. My life is meaningless, but I seek pleasure, and I'll keep seeking it for the time I'm here.
that how i think about it too. its not only your life that is meaningless, my life is meaningless everyone's life is meaningless. why were we born? what is our purpose? we are all just meaningless pions in the stream of time.
we will all be reduced to ash and bones. so whats the point? why were we born? i guess we were born to find out.
to find out what we love, what we think is important. what we dedicate our lives too.
so the meaning of life is to have fun, so dont take life too seriously you wont survive it anyway.
fusiontoa18 I feel ya. I kinda don't even bother with the what's the point? question though. I'm not sure I can make my own meaning, or if that's a self delusion, or if it matters if it's delusional as long as it brings me joy. I almost feel like pions is too generous a word. We're chemical reactions, and byproducts of the universe, parasites on a rock in space. All of which is perfectly alright. We have the capacity to seek, discover and create, and we don't owe the universe anything. I kind of like that we don't matter, cause it means whatever we endeavor to do is worthwhile for the simple fact that we want it.
The problem I have with that moral system is that someone could just as easily use it to justify murder or anything else they wanted to do.
TheCyberwoman laughable emo adolescent rebellion
ForbiddenFruit73 Sure, but if you look into ethical hedonism, or moral hedonism, you come away with the idea that you should seek pleasure but not at the expense of others. And because society's continued function generally has a net positive value to an individual following its laws is perfectly hedonistic thing to do. Furthermore, since we all effect each other, helping, or at least not harming others with our actions is appropriately hedonistic as well. Hedonism probably won't create any Mother Theresa's, but when you reason your way through pursuing the maximum pleasure in your life, getting locked up for capital murder doesn't really fit in either.
rachel is right cause bruce never kills and if he got revenge he could be corruptible he would be going against his parents wishes and who he is and stands for
You don't think the prison system is barbaric?
Yeah, looking back at these films now, the criteria utilized in the trilogy does come off as hypocritical and even mediocre; I would say I think we all now know where the pretentious sentimentalism in the DCEU derives from, but that would be redundant.
The "pretentious sentimentalism" is a result of the DCEU trying to replicate what made TDK trilogy work without really knowing what made those movies great in the first place.
TroyTroodon Snyder isn't that smart. he's not insightful.
I love Nolan's Batman but I have to agree, at the second watch I started noticing room for improvement. (at the first one I was dazzled)
That’s why I really liked the dark knight returns. It grapples with this very ideas you discuss. The conflict between him and Superman in particular, where Superman is the lawfully sanctioned Superman acting on the behalf of a corrupt government and Batman is the “outlaw”
wow
just 51 seconds after
Hey, thanks for the Discount! And Great video, too!
I don't burden real people with the expectation of 'hero.' Not even Superman needs or deserves that.
Wow just 16 minutes after
Just gotta say it: Do John Carpenters "The Thing"!
as good as the episode is on a technical level, and as thorough as the philosophical homework was, this is the second video you've done on this series without acknowledging the thematic backbone of The Dark Knight. THE JOKER WINS. if we're going to go with the 9/11 analogy for the plot, then much like real life where Osama Bin Laden accomplished every stated goal he wanted out of that atack, namely goading the US into bankrupting itself fighting wars it had no way of winning, the effects of which we're still feeling to this day, Joker succeeds in corrupting the white knights of Gotham to their core, the after-effects are still felt in the third film. to completely ignore this vital aspect of the films is ignorant at best, and intellectually disingenuous at worst.
i just want to say that your kant quote is wrong not meant to be mean love your work
The original quote would translate to: Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time WILL that it should become a universal law.
Remove the will, and you become a moral imperative. Its more about moral thought about your actions than about moral superiority.
That being said, no matter how “cool” Batman is, i sincerely hope that our communities will never sink so low as to lose all faith in those who are supposed to protect us against crime to the point where we start to accept that vigilantes can dish out their own form of justice without accountability.
Isn't the US with it's "stand your ground" laws and "private contractor" armies basically there already? I mean, "defund the police" is a popular thing, the supreme court justices are openly corrupt, libertarians are basically a US endemic variant of idiot, people shoot people for crimes (mostly burglary and theft, though), and get celebrated by the conservative media there, and they do the same overseas by shooting civilians and getting pardoned by the president, so how's that any different from Gotham and vigilantes?
We dont deserve a hero
So do you like these movies overall or not? I can't really tell.
*****
Fair enough, I was just curious. Thanks for answering.
I seem to recall the Dark Knight Rises catching flack for having anti-populist themes.
Vigilante = a self-appointed doer of justice.
Excellent use of the trilogy to illustrate various ideas of justice, would have appreciated a more critical view of the state's monopoly of violence and the state's claim to authority though. Also, I feel the third film has strong ideas about 'revolutionary justice' (is that an actual thing?), although it has to be read against the grain because Nolan obviously hates the proles.
Using Utilititarianism to "justify" slavery is a misuse and misunderstanding of the concept, or at the very least a deliberate shifting of its intention.
I do enjoy the Nolan movies for what they are, but even at the time I noticed how the morals and philosophies were a bit muddled.