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.
No comments:
Post a Comment