It's A Dark Knight

My latest in the American News discusses the political questions posed by the new Batman film, Dark Knight.

It is not often that summer blockbusters live up to the hype. The new Batman film, “Dark Knight” is a thought-provoking film that justifies its enormous box office take. The film poses a question as old as political thought itself: How do we achieve justice in a world full of injustice?

Aristotle argued in his “Politics” that politics is defined by the question of how we ought to justly live together. But humans are imperfect and reason differently about life's ends and the means to achieve them. One of the key political virtues, then, is prudence, the ability to choose the right means to achieve just ends.

The ancients tended to have an idealistic view of politics. This does not mean that they were na•ve, indeed the concept of prudence suggests an awareness of the difficulty in rightly navigating the political waters. But the notion of justice was never far from the ancient mind.

Enter Machiavelli in the 16th century. One of the many lessons Machiavelli tries to teach in his work “The Prince” is that political leadership inevitably leads to the problem of “dirty hands.” A political leader must be willing to work evil in order to establish and defend his principality. He must be willing to be a doer of injustice.

These are just some of the political puzzles that undergird “Dark Knight.” In its prequel, “Batman Begins,” we already see Batman struggling with the contradiction in his attempt to establish law and order in the fictional Gotham City while he himself operates outside the law.

Gotham, in a thinly veiled critique of contemporary America, is a cesspool of decadence, greed and corruption. If the first film introduces us to the idea that Batman will defend civilization without dirtying his hands, Dark Knight shows us the difficulty that entails.

Dark Knight reintroduces us to the Joker, the twisted clown who is Batman's nemesis. As depicted in the film, the Joker represents a direct challenge to the very possibility of political life. He is a nihilist, having abandoned any moral code other than the spreading mayhem. His goal is to undermine Gotham's faith in civilization by showing how their heroes, including Batman, can be corrupted. There is no right and wrong, the Joker suggests, only power.

Batman and Gotham District Attorney, Harvey Dent, are tempted by the Joker's offer. In their anger at his increasingly brutal attacks on Gotham they feel the urge to resort to unbridled violence themselves. The audience is similarly tempted. Given the horrors the Joker has caused, what movie fan would not be satisfied by a particularly poetic violent death for the man the film describes as a terrorist?

Sure, “Dark Knight” is just a movie, and a flawed one at that. For example the film is simply too long with too many plot twists for its own good. But it poses questions sure to stimulate the grey matter of the politically minded viewer.

What makes Batman a hero instead of a mere vigilante? Does fighting injustice require one to do injustice, necessitating “dirty hands”? Does creating public order oblige a strong, even dictatorial, executive hand? Do people need noble lies to retain faith that justice in public life is possible?

Why is the Joker wrong? In this era of relativism where, for example, some say one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, why isn't justice simply the stronger imposing his will on the weaker? Who has the right to use violence to protect the public?

The film answers these questions, but you'll have to see the movie to find them out. But let me suggest that one lesson is: Undisciplined individual will, ungoverned by a moral code that exists outside the self, is a recipe for civilization's collapse. Even doing good must be done in the right way by the right people or it becomes evil.

Oh, and the movie's special effects are awesome.