Elaine Scarry, I think it is, had a piece somewhere a few years ago about the transformation of our relationship to our government. The government was origianlly meant to be transparent while the citizenry was to opaque, and now the reverse is true. They can see us (soon to be naked at O'Hare) but we can't see them. The whole nature of citizenship seems to have been changed during this administration, along with the nature of the government.

To be frank, I don't think it advocates it. It confronts this myth of the omnipotent savior beyond the law, and shows that very often, the willingness to go all the way to win such fights only plays into the enemy's hands.

http://bostonreview.net/BR29.1/scarry.html

Here's a link to the Scarry piece.

I found the comments to that article more intelligent than the article itself. The moral ambiguity of The Dark Knight and the questions they pose run much deeper than the simple assignment of roles shown in the article, as do the questions asked by the movie. The assumption the movie supports the negative things Batman did is particularly convincing, either.

The ignored portions of the movie include:

1) The Joker was a response to Batman and largely Batman's fault.

2) The Joker basically won. The only loss was the inability to get the passengers in those boats to blow themselves up. The Joker's capture at the end is largely irrelevant; even the Joker considers himself disposable.

3) Batman's problem early on is the unwillingness to kill Joker, not his willingness to behave immorally. This, of course, lies in contradiction to #1 above.

Ultimately, the movie gave no answers and none should be read in. What the movie did is raise many questions.

Mark,

I agree with your comments. I dislike this tendency to read too many political analogies into The Dark Knight. While it certainly does bring up some very real threats we face in today's world, it does not have any simple or easy answers. Who is really bad or evil and who can lay claim to being a force of good? What happens when the cops have to break the law to try to get the criminal? What does it mean for society to rely on a masked vigilante who often operates within his own amoral set of rules?

In no way does the movie attempt to justify or support the illegal means used by the Batman. I think it's dangerous to read things into this movie that the director never intended. I believe that he wanted to make us think about issues involving good versus evil, morality, terrorism and the rules the govern society. What he did NOT do is make any judgments on any of these difficult issues. He wisely leaves that up to the audience. It is for us to find the answers.

So let's not jump on the Batman as a symbol of Cheney and his evil doings. We should just sit back and enjoy the thrilling ride, Heath Ledger's mesmerizing, wickedly funny portrayal of the Joker and ultimately ponder the tough questions and the meaning of it all.

What does it mean for society to rely on a masked vigilante who often operates within his own amoral set of rules?