How To Highjack A Superhero

Rating: 4/10 (23 May 2009)

In Hollywood, most of our movies have plots, in independent movies and those from overseas, more often than not movies have stories. A story is far superior to a plot. Plots fill in gaps with special effects and gimmicks and have awkward moments where the elements or story don't fit. It's like the difference between events related by a man who is telling the truth vs. a man making up a lie. The one man is focused like a beam of light, while the other is pulling rabbits out of his backside. Stories flow with smooth logic from event to event and have layers of meaning to be explored with additional viewings whereas a plot tends to be two dimensional. "Batman Begins" has a story and in my opinion is a masterpiece. "The Dark Knight" has a disjointed plot(with incredibly cool effects and gimmicks). All three Spiderman movies and The Fantastic Four movies have plots. "V For Vendetta" has a story to tell. "Ironman" has an improved plot.
Batman is a twist on perhaps the oldest religious theme in human history, the battle between the light and darkness. The twist is that he is of darkness, but battles for the light. He is an alter ego that conforms neither to a constitution nor the laws of any land, but instead walks a very fine line which he must often step over into the realm of lawbreaker. This comic book character is a hijack waiting to happen for a pro-torture political argument.
However, applying "The Dark Knight" movie as a metaphor to the real world is really problematic and is in fact a horribly flawed argument. In the context of the times, George W. Bush would be Bruce Wayne (ok when you're done laughing or throwing up) with a heroic but dark alter ego (Dick Cheney) that allows him to skirt the law and do what must be done for the good of the people.
But seriously, the common theme of all Batman shows is that the ordinary police, courts, and judges are hopelessly incompetent, corrupt, and incapable of administering order and justice on behalf of the people. Therein lays the rationale for the existence of the Batman. The problem in the real world argument is that in this country, the justice system is none of these things, but does on occasion display such failings as they are after all human institutions. Our justice system with some fine tuning, such as removing the two tier system where the rich are favored over the poor (ie. O.J. murder trial), may in fact be the best justice system anyone's ever going to develop. To my knowledge, no one has topped it yet. So first and foremost, no such vigilante is required (particularly not a power drunk redneck who couldn't karate chop a ham sandwich). But I will say, Dick Cheney was ordained by God to play the character Penguin.
Second, laws and particularly a constitution as a framework for government and to govern our ordinary lives, CANNOT be compromised without grave harm that inevitably destroys the foundation of the system in which they comprise. Commissioner Gordon "looks the other way" and "abets" Batman by supplying him with information, so that he may then do whatever he deems necessary to achieve the end result that they both wish for. In the case of "The Dark Knight", Batman drops a man from a building subsequently breaking one of his legs to get information that will save the lives of innocent people. This is a new turn in the chronicles of the comic book character. Previously he would do what was necessary to capture criminals, which sometimes resulted in inadvertent harm, but never intentionally inflicted harm upon the criminal beyond what was necessary to subdue them (Batman Begins he drops a guy but catches him). Batman would have pulled some "truth serum" off his belt and injected the bad guy with it, not throw him off a building. In the real world, if authorities look the other way or abet criminality, the system is not enhanced or enforced but instead crumbles on a slippery slope. Only in the fantasy world of comics does breaking the law make the system of law healthier and stronger.
So why at this juncture in time does Batman begin to torture a bad man in a perfectly arranged scenario where torture seems justified and correct? The bomb is ticking and the innocent people will die if only Batman will put some serious hurt on a scummy guy who probably deserves it anyway. If he does this he can save two people (one of whom he loves). The director/writer Christopher Nolan is a Republican (donation records online). On "The Dark Knights" behalf perhaps it's not as far fetched at all to see Bruce Wayne as a Republican (rich and entitled). If Nolan does the next Batman, will the superhero do something to an abortion clinic doctor or deregulate a financial institution? Perhaps Batman will beat the excrement out of and torture the director/writer who hijacked this iconic superhero of my youth and turned him into a politically expedient whore with smeared lipstick.
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin, 1775