Morality, Reason, Heroism, Sacrifice:The Dark Knight revisited
The Dark Knight sits on a short list of the greatest superhero films ever made and endures as an integral piece of the American cinematic canon. Themes of morality, reason, heroism, and sacrifice pervade the film and really force us to think critically about what is being conveyed. This analysis unpacks three of Nolan’s expertly portrayed messages.
1.) The Joker’s Greatest Game: Corrupting Batman and Harvey Dent
Batman’s moral code consists of two elements: no-killing and remaining anonymous. We begin with the former, which is evident in his forgoing multiple opportunities to kill the Joker. Consider the scene in which the Joker attacks the convoy transporting Harvey Dent. Batman intervenes, saving Harvey, which results in a stand-off wherein Batman rides his motorcycle at full-speed towards the Joker, who gleefully cries out “Hit me. Come on. Hit me.” Killing the Joker would put an end to the terrorism and mayhem that he has wreaked on Gotham. And yet, out of adherence to his rule, Batman refuses to kill the Joker, who goes on to blow up a hospital, a police station, and arranges a depraved prisoner’s dilemma experiment that would force Gotham’s citizens to kill or be killed. Not even at the end of the movie, after the Joker has blown up a hospital, a police station, and (almost) two ferries full of citizens does Batman relent and kill him to put an end to further mayhem. When the Joker is falling off the building, Batman catches him with his grappe-gun and pulls him back up. Killing the Joker would be the rational thing to do by a strictly utilitarian calculation—kill one (the Joker) to save many (his future victims). Out of a Kantian devotion to his rule, however, Batman refuses to break it.
Of course, there are those who would argue that Batman’s refusing to unmask is irrational by a utilitarian calculation. The Joker, after all, states early on in the film that he will kill people until Batman unmasks. And he does. Some of his victims include Bryan (a Batman copycat), Judge Surillo, Police Commissioner Gillian B. Loeb, Richard Harvey, and Patrick Dent. The argument one might be tempted to level against Batman is that by refusing to reveal his identity, the actions of one result in the death of five. This argument, however, is flawed.
Let us pretend, for the sake of argument, that the Joker would, in fact, stop killing civilians if Batman were to unmask. The first issue with this argument is that everything Batman represents necessitates anonymity because he is more than just a vigilante. He is a symbol of law and order in a crime-ridden and intensely corrupt city where mayors, district attorneys, and police commissioners don’t even trust each other. In such a city, Batman is a sign of hope for its people.
As Harvey Dent puts it, “Gotham’s proud of an ordinary man standing up for what’s right,” calling Batman a “public service.” Batman could be anybody and that’s the point. Kowtowing to the demands of a murderous terrorist shows weakness, not strength. And it sends a message to Batman’s constituency—the people of Gotham—that they should acquiesce to and appease criminals and terrorists rather than take a stand against them. Appeasing criminals, however, is never a good strategy. Consider simply British and American foreign policy towards Germany in the inter-war period. They appeased Hitler, who gradually gained exponentially greater power, and by the time the US and Britain did intervene, it was already too late.
So no, refusing to unmask is not irrational, even if it may seem to be so at face value. And besides, recall that we’ve only been pretending. It’s extremely likely that the Joker would actually keep his word and stop the terrorism as a result of Batman’s unmasking.
A second counterargument that merits response is that The Dark Knight is really just a series of elaborate Trolley Problems: Batman can kill one (The Joker) to save many (his future victims), the civilians on Ferry A can blow up the prisoners on Ferry B or vice versa in order to save their own lives, Batman can save either Harvey or Rachael but not both. Neither Kantian nor utilitarian frameworks offer particularly fruitful insight into these issues. The unavoidable issue is that it may seem impossible to ascribe relative value to human life, especially when compared to another human life. In the Joker’s case, however, it is clear that his life does not deserve to be protected. Hundreds, if not thousands, die because he uses his existence to kill others, infringing upon their right to life. Many states in the US punish murder capitally. In many American courts, he would be sentenced to death.
Thus far, we have talked about Batman and Batman’s motivations. The Joker, however, proves equally interesting. Throughout the film, he attempts to highlight that morality and reason are sometimes mutually exclusive. It is simply irrational for Batman to not kill him, and yet Batman refuses. The Joker explains this to Batman in the final fight scene, stating in a conversation with Batman that “You won’t kill me out of some misplaced sense of self-righteousness.” Recall that after Batman forgoes the opportunity to hit and kill the Joker with his motorcycle, the Joker blows up a hospital, a police station, and (almost) two ferries. Indeed, by “misplaced sense of self-righteousness” the Joker means Batman’s no-killing rule. It is only then, at the end of the film, that Batman recognizes the Joker is right. It makes no sense for a murderer to live while innocent people die because of his survival. For this reason, Batman kills Harvey Dent (a murderer who will murder again) in order to save the lives of Commissioner Gordon, his wife Barbara, and his son James, who Harvey was going to kill. By film’s end, Batman finally breaks his rule and privileges reason over an irrational moral conviction. And, in that way, the Joker wins by successfully demonstrating that moral convictions which fly in the face of reason ought to be abandoned.
He doesn’t just do this with Batman, however. He also does it with Dent. The Joker takes the most noble, moral, and incorruptible public servant in Gotham—the man who Batman believes will replace him—and corrupts him, turning him into a murderer who kills Officer Wuertz, Maroni, Maroni’s driver, and (almost) the Gordons. Dent and Batman are both steadfast, obstinate men whose rules govern the entirety of their existence. Then the Joker comes along, turning Gotham’s White Knight into a deranged murderer and goading Gotham’s Dark Knight into accepting that homicide is sometimes an appropriate and justified moral act.
2.) Heroism Must be Self-Effacing
Another key, controversial message in the film is that heroism must be self-effacing. This comes up twice during the film. First, when Batman refuses to unmask and the Joker kills five people, turning parts of the public against him. Alfred’s advice to Batman is to “Endure, Master Wayne. Take it. They'll hate you for it, but that's the point of Batman... he can be the outcast. He can make the choice no one else can face. The right choice.” That, indeed, is the crucial point. True heroism is not about getting the credit, the reward, or the distinction. True heroism might even necessitate sacrificing one’s own reputation, as is the case with Batman. It is for this reason that the final scenes of the film see Batman assuming blame for the murders of Harvey Dent. “Sometimes the truth isn’t good enough,” he states. “Sometimes people deserve to have their faith rewarded.” Lamenting the false assumption of blame, an incredulous Gordon protests, chanting “No, you can’t! You’re not!” Batman’s response to this is simply: “I’m whatever Gotham needs me to be.” In this case, what he believes Gotham needs him to be is a scapegoat. To protect Harvey Dent’s reputation and uphold the integrity of his many previous convictions, Batman acts in a truly heroic manner: he does the right thing privately, publicly assuming the blame of a villain. As University of Vermont English Professor Todd McGowan so eloquently stated in an incisive 2009 article, “In the eyes of the public, true heroes must identify themselves with the evil that we fight.”
The idea that reputational sacrifice comes along with heroism is not novel. In the 1770s’, Ben Franklin specifically asked Thomas Hutchinson and Andrew Oliver to bite the bullet and let their own reputations be ruined in order to serve the interests of the colonial cause in their battle against the Crown. In the 1860’s, Lincoln suspended Habeus Corpus as well as other civil liberties at a massive cost to his own reputation in order to win the Civil war. In the early 2000’s, the Bush administration passed the Patriot Act, at a great cost to their own reputation, to keep Americans safe. Whatever one thinks of these particular acts, they are merely examples. The point here is simply that heroism can sometimes be self-effacing. It would be a stretch to state, as McGowan does, that it “must” be self-effacing, as certainly, there are some heroic acts which are rewarded and rightfully so. Perhaps the greatest heroic act is to do the right thing in a situation not only where you won’t get credit, but in which you will be penalized for your actions.
3.) Suspension of Disbelief
In addition to everything written thus far and the many themes that the film encompasses, perhaps the reason why The Dark Knight endures is simply because it is realistic and real. Batman has no superpowers and a billionaire at the helm of a multinational corporation could, ostensibly, become a crime-fighting vigilante. Unlike other superhero films, The Dark Knight does not require one to suspend their disbelief, willingly or unwillingly.
