There are so many layers and messages that different people with different perspectives can take from this film. To say that The Dark Knight has this one "true message" that you speak of is a falsehood. Films are pieces of art and yes, they definitely contain messages. But the messages that the viewers get out of them are based on the viewers experiences and perspectives. I can think of a lot of different messages one could get out of the ending. I think The Dark Knight's greatest triumph is it's portrayal of a very gray world. We live in a very gray world, where choices between right and wrong are usually not black and white. The right choice is going to be different to every person that you ask, just like in this film, the public, Harvey Dent, Bruce Wayne, Alfred, Rachel, Gordon, the police, the mob bosses, they all have different opinions on what the right thing to do is.

The effing movie isn't about Osama Bin Laden. It's about Batman and The Joker. Why you insist on turning out criticism rooted in direct analogy, is beyond me.

We are a self-centered group, eh? Take a look at the 1987 "Dark Knight Returns" from Frank Miller and you will find the bones of the current movie well-defined. I am sure some reviewer thought at the time it was a metaphor for Iran-Contra. The story is, well, a story. Batman's revenge motive (even if there is secondary social benefit) is as old as literature.

Batman is, in the end, just a cigar.

Predictable but shallow observation. First, the indictment of TDK is largely on the us, the people, when Harvey Dent says, "we created the Batman when the people of Gotham sat back and did nothing..." What's amazing to me is how a message can be explicitly stated and the human mind can just simply filter out the words to hear what it wants to hear. Batman is NOT a hero. Nolan's characters explictly state that Batman is not a hero. He is not an ideal, he is the worst case scenario. Basically when other part of society has failed (largely due to our apathy) Batman is the twisted, demented "last gasp" of society. Someone like the Batman will only emerge when society's on its last legs, tottering on the abyss. And his very existence is extremely destructive. According to Nolan's movie, in EVERY instance someone like Harvey Dent, who works within the law is superior in EVERY WAY to Batman. Even Rachel picks Harvey/ Your statements almost seem to come from watching about half of the movie... or you're purposefully ignoring Nolan's counterbalances in the movie concerning Batman's fascist methods.

Furthermore, you make the mistake of thinking that very movie has to advocate your own point of view, and failure to do that necessarily drops it into a sort of "enemy faction" advocacy of philosophical thought. Nolan is merely making an observation. Tracking this all back to the war on terror... Nolan's message isn't really about absolving Bush, Cheney or Wolfwitz's methods but is a larger picture observation of WHY things come to pass. Who elected Bush? We did. Who sat by while the US helped Israel displace andstrangle the Palestinians? We did. Who did nothing while the US propped up brutal dictators like Saddamn Hussein and Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi and contributed to establishment of modern Iran and Iraq?

Overall the movie is a very nuanced observation of the post 9/11 world, advocating aspects for both liberals and conservatives. Rewatch the flick.

Between this and the whole Wall-E I might have to punch the next political reporter who becomes a movie critic for the day, regardless of whether or not I agree with him.

Compliments on a thoughtful & well-written post. I think you just talked me out of going to see the movie.

Right Brian, Nolan takes tortured steps NOT to glamorize Batman as a hero. Batman does what he does because he has to, because no one else is stepping up to the plate.

I found TDK to observation not advocacy. Nolan shows his British sensibilities here in not feeling obligated to make moral judgments like Hollywood typically does where everything has to be laid out in black and white, Person A does this: it's bad. Person B does this: it's good. People walk into a Hollywood movie expecting hackneyed and superficial judgments like that about every action a protagonist takes... but it certainly doesn't make the movies any better

Wiretapping? Beatings? Conspiracy to withhold information? In a Batman movie? There's a good deal of irony in havin a problem with even the impartial portrayal of such things in a fantasy movie when people go about their lives making no stink about in the real world. Argue or not, these things HAPPEN. It's a bit odd to believe such things shouldn't be portrayed in a movie because it's somehow bad... yet it happening in our own world goes on without pause.

Again, because someone seems to have missed the point, the main thrust of this movie is how WE (the people) SUCK. Dont go blaming Cheney for trying to expand Executive Priviledge it's something he's advocated since the 1970s when he was in the Nixon White House. Dont blame Wolfowitz for wanting to expand Israel's influence, wealth and security because he's a Zionist Neo Con. Blame us. Blame the people who stand by and do nothing. If there's any advocacy in the movie it's that one message. The message is not about Batman violating civil liberties, that's merely part of the condition of the larger message of apathy on the part of we the people who should be doing something

Before you argue this issue either way, I highly recommend the documentary "The American Nightmare" as the perfect examination of the role between zeitgeist and filmmaker, especially films that are dark, violent or cruel. Go further back and read your McLuhan. There is no such thing as "just a movie," but it's also unwise to give a director more credit than they deserve. Everyone sees what they think about in everything.

Thanks for the comments. To those who argue the film was an indictment of society, and explicitly states Batman is not a hero, I disagree. Having characters state that Batman isn't a hero is not the same as the film itself not treating Batman as a hero. Whether it's the nature of mainstream blockbuster filmmaking or an intentional political statement, the message is that Batman has given of himself to save us, and that his extreme measures were justified by the enemy. Just as a commenter says: "no-one else has stepped up to the plate." You can't imagine Dick Cheney grumbling out the same words?

Just because Batman lost the girl doesn't mean he's not meant to be the film's hero; all the more so, since he's sacrificed love in order to protect us.

Yes, the film very clearly indicts the public, as in the press conference scene when the angry, fearful populace shouts out demands: "No more dead cops!" But their emotions are shown to be due to a lack of understanding of the true struggle at play--if they did, they'd realize just how great Batman/Cheney's sacrifice was. In fact, The Dark Knight seems to want the public to be even stupider than we really are. And you know a movie is pissing me off when I'm arguing in favor of the public's intelligence...

And to the commenter who found this movie portrayed right and wrong as shades of gray, I disagree completely. Every choice is portrayed as having an obvious right and and obvious wrong (even though the wrong choice is often made very attractive: both ferries want to blow each other up, but we all know it's wrong). That's precisely the problem, since you're right, real life isn't like that.

i am in agreement with the author of this post and party ben. i went to the movie to escape some of the political bs but was only confronted with more. batman uses the torture and wiretapping as a means to catch the joker and in the end, we are told that sometimes it's necessary to break the rules like that. it tries to endorse and justify the bush administrations unlawful practices by slipping these themes into the movie. i can't believe so many people praise the film when it is just a crappy pile of propraganda.

As someone who actually reads the comics I must state that Batman in this movie is the same batman that has been in the comics for many years (in fact in a story from the 90's Batman has devised specific methods to incapacitate all of his fellow hero's "just in case" which of course is used against them in a way that almost kills them all, and in another recent one he creates a giant surveillance and defense system, Brother EYE, to watch and counter his fellow hero's in case any of them went to the dark side, this too of course leads to much death and suffering). Batman has always been shown as skirting the law (as arguably all comic book heroes are, who wants to read a 30+ page book on an intelligent debate on the social contract and the root causes/treatments of crime when there can be a fist fight ?) and thus have an inherent “might is right” thus more conservative slant. Now in this movie the so-called "pro-Bush" message is countered in my opinion by a couple of facts.

1) The hero is dealing with the repercussions or blowback from the first movie; this is stated many times that innocent people are dying because of Batman’s actions against the mob. His approach and willingness to do whatever it takes to stop crime has left the criminals little choice then to turn to a man who will do whatever it takes to stop the Bat. The movie clearly states that the Joker and all his actions are due to the Batman roughshod approach to crime fighting (see the last lines in BATMAN BEGINS where Gordon talks about escalation). This is the opposite of the neo-cons "they hate us for our freedom" argument, it is an argument that our actions have consequences and if we cross the line our enemies will do so as well, and then it is innocents who will pay the cost.

**SPOILERS AHEAD**

2) The greatest save in the movie, that of the two ferries, is done not by Batman, well not completely, but by the people of Gotham rejecting the idea of a first strike against the other boat. This is a clear message denouncing the rational of the pre-emptive self defense because all the passengers (criminal and civilian alike) realize that by blowing up the other boat they are choosing to murder those onboard. They see it not as self defense, but as actively choosing to take a life and that would be morally wrong. This is the opposite of the neo-cons justification their actions abroad.

3) Batman is not left as a hero by his actions, he is left crippled both emotionally (the loss of his true love), tactically (the loss of his weapon smith and good friend Lucius Fox , a potential partner in Harvey Dent and a real partner in James Gordon) and is now vilified and hunted. And even then his actions have not made the city markedly safer. The Joker hints that this is just the beginning for him("we'll be doing this forever"), the mob bosses get a reprieve now that Dent is gone (do you think the next D.A. is going to be so bold after what happened to Harvey?), escalation will continue (the batman rogues gallery is full of other villains who will soon take up residence and begin terrorizing Gotham, all to match wits against the Dark Knight) and to top it all off he is a wanted murderer. He now has no allies save Alfred, fewer resources and is reviled by the public, all the while his quest becomes more difficult by the day as villains he helped create come out of the woodwork to further harm the people he's trying to protect.

This is hardly an endorsement of the neo-con philosophy as it says "yes you may win a battle but you'll lose the war and all that you love to do it".

Batman is a character that has a 60+ year history behind it, and as such some of the decisions and actions made in this movie were most likely not done as a commentary on American foreign policy as much as trying to get that character as close to his comic book self as possible. Batman is neither liberal nor conservative by nature, but a reflection of the views of the writers who use him. He has been a defender of social justice, a invader of personal privacy, a crusaders for the poor and forgotten, a violent man driven by revenge and many more things mixing all sides of the political spectrum, and in trying to bring all that to the big screen (while making a visual pleasing and exciting film) the Nolan brothers have included some parts that us liberals may not like. Batman is grey because so many people have had a hand in his story; to expect anything less would be our mistake not his.

***SPOILER ALERT***

To Rahonavis, I appreciate your comments on The Dark Knight and I think it's really great that we can have a reasoned dialogue about the film. I too have read several Batman graphic novels such as Year One, Dark Knight Returns, Kingdom Come and various comics from the Batman mythos. I remember that in Kingdom Come, Batman was criticized for his martial law state of mind. Though I agree that Batman, Spider-Man and others have all bent the rules when they fight crime, in this film the more conservative aspects of Batman's character were highlighted and, I believe, the topical abuses of power such as wiretapping, torture, and lying to the public were portrayed as necessary evils to win the war on crime. The filmmakers also drew parallels between Joker and the conservative perception of Islamic fundamentalism. The Joker videotapes his hostages right before he kills them. He also blows up a hospital that is eerily reminiscent of 9/11. There are numerous other analogies that can be made with no stretch of the imagination, but I would like to comment on some of the specifics of your previous post.

1) In the movie, mobsters use the Joker to stop Batman's war on crime. However, the Joker's motivation is never fully explained other than through lines like "some men just want to see the world burn". The Joker is an anarchist whose sole motivation in the film is his hatred of Batman and society in general. In my view, this actually supports the conservative "they hate our freedoms" arguement.

2) I hadn't thought of the ferry scene as being about a pre-emptive strike, but now that you mention it, I do see the parallel there. However, I think this scene also tries to support Bush's war in Iraq. In the film, the businessman (America) is ready to blow up the other boat because he, and other passengers, think the criminals (Iraq) will blow them up first. The businessman has his finger on the trigger, an action that justifies a conservative point of view that anybody in Bush's position could have decided to push the trigger and invade Iraq. We assume that the one who pushes the trigger will be acting out of concern for the people on their boat. The problem with the movie's portrayal is that it paints a false picture. Bush lied to Congress, the Senate and the American people about the Iraqi threat to make it look like a two ferries scenario when in fact it wasn't. The movie just reinforces this false perception.

3) The Batman is portrayed as a hero through his actions, or rather an anti-hero, a dark knight if you will. One of the last lines of the movie is a small boy saying "but he didn't do anything wrong". Batman's actions are held up to be a sacrifice in the name of a greater good. Assuming that Batman is an analogy for the Bush administration, the film promotes the idea that Batman's actions were a necessary evil. The Bush administration also use this arguement in an attempt to justify their unlawful policies, but it is a distortion of reality. We now know that Bush lied about the threat of Iraq in order to invade, and he uses the necessary evil concept as a way of hiding the truth.

Once again, I'd like to say that I enjoy your intelligent ideas on the film and I welcome any further talk on this subject. In your last paragraph you say something that I whole-heartedly agree with: "Batman is neither liberal nor conservative by nature, but a reflection of the views of the writers who use him." I believe that the writers of "The Dark Knight" had a strong conservative message that they promoted through the themes within the film and I would urge others to take a look at the real-world parallels in the film such as wiretapping, torture, videotaping hostages, destruction of buildings and other acts of terrorism. Draw your own conclusions about what they signify and engage in a dialogue about these themes because it helps create a more informed and intelligent society.

the peaple of gotham city were closer to blowing up the criminals ferrie than the crimanals.
the destruction and chaos of the city has put fear in the peaple and thus has compromised their morals.
the desruction of the twin towers of 09/11 put fear in the peaple and thus the war on terror.

i opoligise for spelling and grammer I'm only 13.
I was just interested in the comments.

I am noticing a lot of propaganda in movies and television lately. If anyone has seen "Don't Mess With Zohan" or "24", you will know exactly what I mean. The ramifications of this are huge and I wonder why so many people seem to accept this as just regular entertainment. It is plainly obvious to me that a lot of our media tries to influence our thinking about important current events by using subtle themes within our entertainment as a type of propaganda campaign. This occurs within both liberal and conservative media, but it's especially troubling in movies like "The Dark Knight" which suggests that Bush's unlawful policies and lies are a necessary evil to fight the war on terror. Bush should be brought to trial for the mess he has got this country into, and movies like this just make it easier for him to get off scott-free. I would welcome any more thoughts on this, and please post your thoughts here, because America needs to start making some noise about this.

Your article seems to reflect two things:

1. You are deeply concerned.

2. Many people aren't.

I applaud your concern.

Unfortunately, so much of what passes for "entertainment" these days is rooted is serious dysfunction. I, for one, take it very seriously. We are indeed a sick nation of sick people with sick leaders. People should be in the streets demanding Bush and Cheney's heads, but instead we shrug our shoulders, chew pop-corn and are secrertly happy that someone is willing to the nasty work we may not like to admit to or admit maybe we think is best...

YES!!! GO BATMAN, GO, GO!!!

Ever think about WHY conservative films like 300 and The Dark Knight do so well? Pure unadulterated common sense. People around the world instinctively understand the truth behind the allegory.

It's refreshing to see that at least some creative people survived University based re-education with the ability to think independently . It's tough not to become one of the "Bush-is-bad-America-is-a-terminally-flawed-has-been" bleating sheep in Hollywood.

Yes, yes, I know I'm a terribly unsophisticated right-wing nut who'll be among the first to be lined up against the wall come the revolution. But looking at the records being broken by this film finally gives me some hope.

Let's see.... "Redacted" pulled in $25,628.00 it's opening weekend, while TDK garnered $158,000,000.00. Hmmm...... Sure, Redacted opened on only 15 screens for an average of $1708.33 each, but I get the distinct feeling that popcorn sales per TDK screen probably trebled that. I'll need to see if I can verify...

And before you get your elitist "progressive" hackles up I'll say it for you... "Oh, the unwashed masses, OH, THE UNWASHED MASSES!!"

to BenM - I appreciate your concern and your acknowledgement that people should be out in the streets demanding change, but I differ with your assertion that people "are secretly happy that someone is willing to do the nasty work we may not like to admit to or admit maybe we think is best..." I think it's more a case of people not being informed and people being flooded with disinformation to the point of stagnation.

To Absolutus Truthius - I think films like 300 and The Dark Knight do well because they have a built in audience of comic book fans. They are also filled with special effects that capitalize on IMAX technology. This has nothing to do with your assertion that pro-Bush values are the reason for its success. A solid non-fiction dramatic movie doesn't attract the same amount of attention because it doesn't have a built in audience and tons of SFX to keep your eyes occupied. People just wait for the dvd release (unless the movie gets a lot of hype like No Country For Old Men). By the way, I don't think you are a "terribly unsophisticated right-wing nut". In fact, I think you have a valid point of view and it's great we can discuss it in a forum like this.

It's not a conservative movie at all. That's a very reductive reading of an unusually complex film (particularly complex for a movie making as much money as it is). It is definitely a movie that comes directly from the post-9/11 zeitgeist, but to make direct correlations between the two warring symbols of order and entropy in the movie with Bush and al Qaeda doesn't completely work, since al Qaeda's goal, and the goal of typical terrorist organizations, is not to create chaos, but to use fear as a means to begin to impose their own form of order on the rest of the world. The Joker creates chaos to make all attempts at imposing order on a fundamentally chaotic universe look ridiculous and I think, perversely, the movie agrees with him, at least to a certain extent. And Batman's actions strike me as fraught with enough ambiguity that I think only someone (wrongly) condescending to it as a mere superhero movie could see the filmmakers as completely endorsing everything Batman does.

And equating The Dark Knight with 300, the real Dick Cheney fantasy, is a sin. 300 is awful because it's politically charged material realized by juvenile-minded people who couldn't see out of their geek blinders to realize that on top of making a movie about Spartans kicking Persian ass in slow motion and they were also making a movie about muscular Caucasians butchering gay mutant Iranians before dying as martyrs for Freedom. The director of 300 seemed legitimately surprised that anybody read anything into his loud, stupid movie. Christopher Nolan meanwhile has stated that he intended to create something that grew out of this political landscape, and I think he did so in a way that's intelligent and willing to acknowledge the complexity of the issues he's grappling with. He knows his characters sometimes do the wrong thing for the right reasons. A purely conservative movie wouldn't have had Freeman's character voice any objection to using the eavesdropping system. A purely conservative movie wouldn't have made the beating/torture of the Joker so harsh and yet make it have so little effect on him.

It's a provocative movie, but it's provocative in that it asks questions to both left and right without providing pat answers that would have satisfied only one side.

IS ‘THE DARK KNIGHT’ the most extreme far-right movie since D.W. Griffith’s ‘The Birth of a Nation’ (1915) made heroes of the Klue Klax Klan?

ALL FILMS ARE ART but seriously I doubt if ‘The Dark Knight’ is ‘great’ art. It had the smell of ‘The Godfather 3′ with troops of moviegoers going in and hoping against the odds that it would be good. I certainly went in with an open mind….

Katie Holmes, who was so good in the original has been replaced by a pasty looking Roz lookalike from Frasir. She lacks screen preseance and lethally - any sexual, romantic or even intellectual chemistry between her and her two beaus.

I found the whole film dispiriting, tiresome and boringly long. It lacked the concise structure of ‘Batman Begins’, and for a film that so full of ‘intelligent’ ideas - it doesn’t trust it’s audience whatsoever. Everything is stated, speechified, talked about - rather than expressed through narrative. Talk can be magnificent and make the visuals even more profound, if you're Billy Wilder. And it goes on and on and on, rather like other big blockbusters (Spiderman 3, anyone).

As to it’s political propaganda, I get your point but I think there is something else to consider too. He may have got the wrong infomation, but he did get it. He could have saved Harvey Dent with a bit of luck. What’s more important is that it dramatizes the ‘Ticking Bomb’ theory that the Neo-Con’s use to justify torture. If you want to get a certain answer - FRAME the question. The bomb is ticking away and thousands if not millions will die if you don’t get the information out of the suspect. So, would you torture?
The problem, as civil rights activists have pointed out, is that no such scenario has ever occurred or is ever likely to. And the problem is not that sometimes, as the film portrays, the information may be wrong - but that in the major, crux, pivitol scene - he does get the address. It’s the FRAME thats set up to answer the question that’s so dishonest.

Nor do you cover the other abuses of power.
1/ EXTRAORDINARY RENDITION: The Bat Man is after a Hong Kong citizen who holds all of the mob’s ill-earned cash and has fled to the security of his home territory. So the Bat goes after him, infiltrates the sky-scraper complex HQ and using all his technology, whisks him away in a blaze of glory to US justice. No rights, no trial – just a little bit of ol’ psychological pressure, as he is promised a trip to ‘county’ jail where he would more than likely not last the night.

And about PHONE TAPPING - the New York Times recently revealed that Bush and his cohorts had US citizens under illegal survalliance 6 months BEFORE 9/11. But as we have seen - with the Bush Regime we have seen President Nixon’s claim that “it’s not illegal if the President does it”
Interesting how phone tapping always seems to lead to political foes being tapped up.

3/ The denial of Habeas Corpus, you are innocent unless proven guilty, unless your Bush - then the citizen is guilty unless proven innocent.
for those with open minds, I suggest you watch the brilliant 3 part Documentary ‘The Power of Nightmares’ and ‘9/11 Demolitions’ on goggle video. Vastly superior to any anything you'll see in your Corporately controlled tv screens. Then have a read of ex-Replician Dr. Paul Craig Roberts (’the father of Reaganomics’ http://www.vdare.com/roberts/all_columns.htm

And finally, though the Joker is chaos and madness and death
personified - representing the savagery of terrorism, the so called good guy - Batman is no more than the distilled embodiment of Dick Cheney and the other Neo-Cons…..the closest the America has got to the Nazis or (as described by the words of Senator Barry Goldwater the father of modern conservatism) “bunch of kooks”….

Good Night and Good Luck,. bobby

Most of the people in the screening that I went to see were cheering and rooting for the Joker. This was in San Francisco however. Maybe some 'reader response' criticism might reveal more complex undercurrents in the film and its popularity.

I tend to agree that a reading of Batman as W/Cheney, which seems popular with the rightwing, is mainly a fantasy these people are having about how the present administration's lawlessness will one day be viewed. I came away from the film believing that it was meant as a serious critique, via allegory, of W & Co -- and so I agree with the readers above who think that the reading offered in this post is reductive. The Joker is actually destroyed not so much by Batman, but rather by the good nature of the people trapped on the ferries. And THIS fact is actually what makes the film disappointing, because it reaches too hard for a redemptive narrative. I thought the images of the hordes screaming for revenge were more apt and more allegorically appropriate in relation to the US public this film is addressing.