Joe Allen's original review
http://socialistworker.org/2008/07/31/batmans-war-of-terror
It’s unfortunate that critics of The Dark Knight on the right and on the left have alleged the film props up George W. Bush’s “war on terror.” It seems unlikely in this political climate, in which the majority of the country has turned hostile to Bush’s imperial hubris, that any successful pop culture phenomenon would go against this current. Joe Allen’s review is fraught with petty ultra-left criticisms, unnecessarily pointing out Harvey Dent’s blond hair and his political characterization as a “white knight” (white emphasized). The significance of Dent’s character in the film must have been lost on Allen. Dent symbolized a movement within Gotham that represented the people’s hope for change in the city, that it could kick the criminal and the corrupt from power. So, like Allen, I’ll ask the readers: does that sound familiar? His review could have easily focused the film as an allegory for the current election.
We could have a discussion about Batman’s methods. Yes, we see intense interrogation, but nothing is ever resolved in these particular scenes. The plot plays out for the audience to see that these acts of torture by Dent and Batman didn’t stop the Joker’s killings. The film doesn’t take the problem raised by the cell-phone spying lightly either. Lucius Fox is a moral center for Bruce Wayne, and he explicitly warns Batman it is unethical and dangerous. Is Fox guilty because he went through with it anyway? Yes, but that doesn’t serve to promote Bush’s policies. Rather, it highlights the limitations a comic book crime fighter faces when forced to make unethical decisions to carry out the hero’s mission.
“Chaos” in the film isn’t meant to represent the same thing as the war on terror’s fear-mongering of “Islamic terrorism.” The fight between the Joker and Batman is over human nature, not a racist clash of civilizations. The Joker aims to prove the whole arrangement of human beings living in society is a fraud, that when the chips are down, they’ll commit unspeakable acts of depravation. The plot progresses to refute this nihilistic thesis of human nature by the conclusion of the ferries scene. The civilian boat initially argues that the convicts on the other ship deserve death because of their crimes. However, they didn’t allow themselves to have that blood on their hands. Are we going to call attention the point the film makes about the death penalty? Perhaps this is what Allen is referring to as one of the film’s “liberal pangs.”
This development actually happened independently of Batman’s direct actions; yet he is consistent in his own faith in human goodness, which is in fact progressive because without it, not only would the city’s salvation not be worth the effort, but a better society isn’t possible if human beings are by their nature corrupt.
The Dark Knight is ultimately about the limitations of the "hero." His/her existence is a reflection of a problem they can never truly solve. No matter how sacrificing, no matter how incorruptible, the inequality that allows Bruce Wayne to stay ahead of the criminal element is what guarantees that criminal element's survival. Though the Joker is presented as an unstoppable force, free from motivation and explanation, he still must make alliances with those whose criminality DO have social causes. Batman is forever locked into a fight that will never end for him. This is the tragedy of the Dark Knight, but also our opportunity to present an alternative to a system that can only go so far.
