The Dark Knight (spoilers)
 

I finally saw it.

One thought I had in that film is that there are a few people here on this board whom I am pretty sure would have pushed that button.

I do believe that this was the best comic movie of any in memory, in terms of being particularly suited to its time. I liked the article in the Slate.com review which said something like "Christopher Nolan and his brother have done more astute thinking about terrorism than the entire Bush administration in seven years."

A film that addresses the moral cost of defeating a terrorist by becoming like that terrorist is close to my heart. See Munich. This movie was a case of Hollywood Liberals really putting forward a compelling argument that if we go too far, we lose what we stand for. Even if the enemy is vanquished, we have become the same as the enemy. That is, if Batman vanquishes the Joker, but becomes the Joker in the process, then the Joker achieved what he wanted.

Pelagius has said that he feels the movie is relatively irrelevant as social commentary, but does not explain why.

Like Rashomon, The Dark Night teaches that all are corruptible, but that some try harder than others to do the right thing. And that what appears to be good may be evil (Dent), and what appears to be evil may be good (prisoner on ship). That it is more important to be moral, than to be alive (those on ships).

This is why I would expect the usual suspects to be disturbed by this film, something nags at them, and they can't explain exactly how this film is subversive. I hope my post had enlightened the some of you who were disturbed. It's because it embraces a wholly different vision of morality than you believe.

I'm with you brother. You and I have the same vision.

In keeping with MikeWaters tradition, you had to start your own thread on it, didn't ya.

It was a good movie, but War and Peace adapted to film it was not.

At the end, it tried to blend too many concepts too quickly. It either needed to omit some of the concepts or to make the movie longer, because Two Faced was given too short of shrift.

I'm not a Bush fan, but you two are engaging in cartoonish thinking if you believe the Hollywood film producer has given more thought to terrorism. Maybe we don't agree with Bush's thought, a clear possibility, but more thought?

Thank you, Yoda.

Bin Laden hates our freedom. That's why he's attacking us. Per GWB.

Tex, I know you get that this thread is not about the film per se. We all know you would have pushed that button.

Bush articulates poorly but I imagine he understands better than he articulates.

A politician never speaks his mind, and you know that. He finds a thread which he or she believes sells to his constituents and sells us until it runs out. Bush simply miscalculated but is too proud to rethink what brand he should sell.

Nobody believes the shit peddled by Bush, Obama or McCain. Now if the handlers would figure out that the populace is more sophisticated, we'd see politicians peddling better, more refined products.

We had an FHE lesson on whether or not you'd push the button and why.

Why is it that no one addressed any related points to what I have talked about in this thread, previously?

It just shows that I am interested in different things than most people here. I am less concerned with whether Two-Face got enough air-time, whether a kid was held hostage, whether Heath Ledger was awesome. I'm interested in the questions that the movie brings up.

What is the punishment for bringing up the larger issues? Small minds lash out.

Santos, I think that was a great issue to discuss with your kids.

Possible answers include: 1) utilitarian--not everyone should die. 2) Justice--those that are prisoners have less worth and should die. 3) Survival of the fittest--the will to act. That is, whichever group is bold enough to kill the others and live with those consequences, should live. 4) moralistic. we should not do evil, no matter the consequences. Most adults, much less children, cannot morally reason and consider these and other choices.