The Dark Knight and Theological Anthropology

One of the reasons I like comic books is that they are not afraid to deal with some very difficult and touchy issues.  People might say that comics are "for children" but on the other hand, comics and fantasy novels are a place where authors truly wrestle with the nature of good and evil.

Because of that, comics and comic book movies can at times be remarkably theological.  Superman Returns certainly was.  Dark Knight Rises is also.  The difference though is this.  SR was playing around with issues of the nature of God, where Superman becomes a Christ analogue (Human/Kryptonian nature, as opposed to Human/Divine).  It also questions the nature of salvation, and if we need salvation (Lois' editorial asking if the world needs Superman).

DKR though?  It's firmly rooted in anthropology.  Now, normally, when people say anthropology, they think of the formal academic discipline, and maybe think of Lucy or the Leakey's.  In terms of theology though, it is the theology of the nature of mankind.  Who is man? What is he? What does it mean to be created "in the image of God"?

DKR (and indeed all the Dark Knight Trilogy) dives into the deep end of the pool in regards to "what is the nature of mankind"  Consider the situation in the beginning.  The city is hopelessy corrupt.  The police are venal and generally worthless, the streets are dangerous.  There is a sense that Ras al'Ghul is right in wanting to purge the city from the face of the earth.

That basic corruption, the foulness of the city of Gotham continues into the second movie.  The boat scene is maybe the best example of it, where so many of the fine "upstanding" members of the city are willing to sell others down the river, for the simple chance to survive.

Yet, in the third movie, something begins to happen.  There is a change, subtle at first, but it grows.  Yes, the city is as venal as ever.  It has embraced the glorious lie of the legacy of Harvey Dent.  Deputy Commissioner Foley is a prime example of this.  He abandons the chase of a very nasty bunch of robbers in order to chase after the glory of capturing the Batman.  He's manuevering, scheming, waiting for the day that he can become the commissioner.

Yet, something has begun to change.  The change was begun in the first movie, when Batman sets himself up as everyman.  As a symbol of one who stands against the chaos, the corruption, the fallenness of the city.  That symbol begins to grow.  We see more hints of a level of "decency" in the people of Gotham.  The prisoners on the boat in DK.  Then the rise of the Police, and the redemption of Commissioner Foley.  The burning symbol on the bridge marks the turn.  We  had seen hints of it already (Officer Blake especially), but the city rises and shows courage in place of venal cowardice. It shows resilance instead of surrender.  It fights on, and it wins.  The victory was not that of Batman alone.  Without Selina, without Jim Gordon, without Blake, indeed, without Foley? There is no victory.

That is the view of human nature in the movie.

That is a very common view in our world today for that matter.  There is more good than evil, that in the end, good men will win out.  It is comforting, it is in some ways true, but in other ways false though.

Theological anthropology begins with the question "what is man?"  The answer is complex and more than I care to get into in a simple blog post, but a key part of that answer begins in a phrase we use in Church.  At the time we confess our sins, we use the phrase "I am by nature sinful and unclean."  That is what we speak of as Original Sin.  Original Sin is one of those things that people don't fully understand, because it offends them.  Yet, any look at the world reaffirms it in no uncertain terms.  Every person is corrupt, every person is sinful.  It goes far beyond "pobody's nerfect" or some such.  It is the fact that within all of us, there lives evil and corruption.  There lives ego and anger and self-centeredness.  It is truly a part of the human condition.

This truth is why Gotham is what it is.  Is the city venal and corrupt? Of course it is.  If you build a house of rotted bricks, the house will be rotten.  Whatever your base materials are will determine what you build.   This is as true in movies as it is in the "real world".  All cultures are broken, venal, corrupt.  Why? Because they are all made by broken, venal and corrupt humanity.  The exact expressions of that corruption may vary from society to society, but it is always there. (For instance, US society is violent, hyper-individualistic to the point of under-valueing other people, materialistic...)

Yet, there remains a certain decency in people.  In theology, it's what we call civil righteousness.  People can care for one another, want to work for the larger good.  It's the thing that leads firemen to dive into burning buildings, what leads a soldier to dive on a grenade, what leads a parent to work twelve hour days to help a child go to college.    Batman, Jim Gordon, Selina Kyle and the others are all expressions of this. 

Now, if you want to dig into the theology of salvation, you see that there is a distinct and profound difference between righteousness and civil righteousness.  For even the best deeds of civil righteousness are tainted by the corruption within us.  To do the acts of civil righteousness does not save.  Yet, they are indeed important, vital for society.  But now we are heading back to Superman Returns, for we are once again approaching the question of "Does the world really need a superman?" Or, to get away from the analogy, does the world need a savior?  I think my answer to that question is obvious.  For even seeing the good that civil righteousness can do, that road remains a dead end, a hopeless end.  Mankind cannot rise to good.  Good must come to mankind.

Dark Knight Rises

I just got home from Dark Knight Rises, and my first impressions are going to be more or less off the cuff here.  (Spoilers abound. If you don't want, stop reading) In short, "wow".  I was on the edge of my seat pretty much the entire movie.  It is to my mind, by a fair margin, the best of the three Nolan movies.

Now, part of that is that I feel that Ledger's Joker is badly overrated (a discussion for another time).  That said, even though the movie was closing in on three hours, it didn't feel it at all to me.  It had a powerful focus and held to it.

Is it a better movie than the Avengers?  No, but they are very different.  In fact, comparing the movies really does show that those differences.  Avengers is much more "old school" and just plain fun.  A good ol beat em up.  Yeah, the characters have their moments of introspection, but mostly, it's just a fun adventure.  DKR?  It is intense, just like the other 2 Nolan movies.  It's much more likely to leave you emotionally exhausted than Avengers ever will be.

The continuing cast (Bale, Oldman, Freeman and Caine) were their usual strong self.  I think that Hathaway did extremely well in her role as well.  I don't think she brought the sheer sultry to the role that Pfeiffer did, but she was very good, and truly did bring out Selina's conflicted antihero nature.  Gordon-Levitt was outstanding as Officer Blake.  A fantastic job by someone I mostly remember from a sitcom I never really liked.

This movie will never be able to be separated from what happened in Aurora, and it shouldn't be either.  In a deep and profound way, what we are seeing is the conflict that is deep within the movies playing itself out in very real and tragic form.

Why did the monster do what he did?  I'm not about to play internet shrink here, but the fact that he did it where he did, the way he did does lead one down certain trains of thought. 

The three movies do work with certain continuing themes.  One of them is the corruption and hypocrisy of society.  The darkness of Gotham, and what it has unleashed on the world is what Ras wanted to avenge back in the first movie, and this final movie returns to that theme.  In reading Gordon's speech to the world, Bane highlighted that hypocrisy, even as he gave a false and lying freedom.   Those movies of course are sandwiched around chaos unleashed, that is to say, the Joker.  The Joker who tried to show the utter dog eat dog nature of this world, yet was foiled by a bunch of convicts (of all things).

Yet, that's the flip side of the movie.  Even in the darkness of society, the utter corruption, the greed and avarice, the anger and hatred, there remains a glimmer of hope.  A hope born of people who stand against that tide.

That hope begins of course, with Batman himself.  In the first movie though, he has very few real allies.  His inner circle (Alfred, Lucius, Rachel) and then the one honest cop (Jim Gordon).  That circle doesn't really grow much in the second movie, but in the third?  It grows profoundly.

The movie isn't the story of one man who stood against the darkness, but men and women who risked everything to do so.  Batman may have been the pointman for it, and the inspiration, but he was not alone.  Selina, Officer Blake, Deputy Commisioner Foley, the assembled police department.

The same police department that was hopelessly venal and corrupt in the first movie.  When the hour came, they stood, they fought.  They charged into the first outgunned, and they fought. 

The inspiration that came from the symbol of the Batman has clearly grown through the movies, to the point that the forces of Order in Gotham are ready to give and sacrifice all.

The monster in Aurora?  He patterned himself after chaos.  He did his best to create chaos, and in a time and place, he succeeded.  Yet, he stands out because what he did was so monstrous.  He brought horror into the world, but in doing so, his evil is highlighted against the compassion and care of so many others.  Instead of bringing down society, he will in the end show how strong it truly can be.

There is more that I can say, and given some time and awakeness, I may get into the theology of the movie.  If Superman Returns played with the theology of grace, salvation and the nature of God, DKR is firmly rooted in anthropology (the theological version, though I'm sure the more familiar one would also have a great deal to say).