And you and your cohort are hand-waving Alfred’s speech and the bit at the end where Batman/Bush nobly accepts public acrimony for the greater good.
Nope, you completely missed the point of the movie:
.
[/QUOTE]
In fairness, the second point makes absolutely no sense. Batman doesn’t become a fugitive because of the things he did, he volunteers to take the blame for crimes in which he had absolutely no involvement. He’s not going underground because people are outraged about his sonar phone, or because he tortured the Joker, or any of the things in the movie you claim are conservative apologia. He willingly takes the rap for an unambiguous crime in order to protect the reputation of someone he sees as a better person than himself. There’s no part of that that fits anything about the Bush presidency, or the public reaction to the Bush presidency.
Alfred’s quote is at least slightly in the ballpark, except for one problem: Alfred’s story is a perfect encapsulation of the Joker’s characterization for the last thirty years. It’s not an element to the property that was introduced by Nolan, it’s an essential part of the comic canon for that particular character. While it’s certainly possible that Nolan played it up because of his personal political opinions, an equally strong (if not more so) argument can be made that it’s simply fidelity to the source material.
The other problem with this argument is that the analogy doesn’t match the real world. Real world terrorists do not act out of a simple desire to “see the world burn,” they do it because they have a set of very specific demands that they want to see met in furtherance of a coherent ideology. Now, certainly there were conservative elements in the US who reduced the conflict with Al Qaeda into a brutally over-simplified, “They hate our freedoms,” and it’s certainly possible that Nolan was trying to communicate that message with Alfred’s speech about fighting in Burma. The problem with that is that earlier, when Marley rightly pointed out that your analysis of the surveillance issue doesn’t match the reality of the political spin on that issue, you argued that the film is making a more nuanced argument for more thoughtful conservatives. So, when the right wing political spin of the day supports your interpretation, the film embraces it. But when the right wing political spin runs counter to your interpretation, all of a sudden Nolan’s playing a deeper game?
So, the only argument you’re left with here is that Batman’s extraordinary rendition of Lau went off without a hitch. Except, as pointed out, it didn’t really. By grabbing Lau and seizing the mob’s assets, the mob was panicked into bringing in the Joker. Certainly, the Joker was still around, and with or without Lau, he was going to strike sooner or later. But the sequence does work as a parable on unintended consequences. Yes, the skyhook worked perfectly. But as a direct result of the power vacuum it created, things in Gotham went to hell. If you want to make a political parallel here, look to Iraq: the invasion went perfectly. But as a direct result of the power vacuum it created, things in Baghdad went to hell.
That, coupled with the fact that Batman torturing the Joker failed spectacularly, the film’s explicit admission of surveillance of innocent citizens as a moral wrong, and the fact that the Joker shares almost no points of similarity with Al Qaeda other than a penchant for high explosives, and your argument is looking pretty threadbare.
Bush didn’t willingly accept that acrimony. Politicians almost never do that. What Bush did was say “history will vindicate me” only after he could not tamp down the acrimony.
I think I can guess ahead of time what you’re going to see. 
I think your interpretation requires overlooking the main theme of the movies.
Yeah, and I think he could have as his primary villain a black politician named Varook Umbana and most left-leaning Batman fans would do the required mental gymnastics to avoid the obvious implications. 
I assume you will at least concede that the film is making points about terrorism. You can’t take Alfred’s speech out of that context. (Well, you can if you are determined to avoid its implications.)
GIGObuster, your Nolan quote says nothing about whether Nolan is approaching the problem of terrorism from a left-wing or right-wing viewpoint. He says the use of force is problematic, which it obviously is. You can think force is perfectly justified and even noble while still being problematic. Ultimately, Batman’s use of force does prevail.
As I keep saying, that extraordinary rendition was used is irrelevant. The same thing would have happened had the guy been arrested in Gotham before he could get on a plane. So the parable is about the unintended consequences of… arresting someone? It’s as if I have the choice between shooting and stabbing an enemy and I choose to stab him and then his family comes after me and now I’m saying that the entire thing is a message about the evil of knives. No, the same thing would have happened had I shot him. The method is irrelevant.
Almost everything that Nolan has used was pulled directly from old comic books. It’s obvious that Nolan isn’t glamourizing George Bush, but that George Bush read Batman graphic novels in the 80’s and 90’s and modeled himself after Batman.
OR… Nolan has become Batman by taking the blame for Bush’s crimes so that the people still have something to believe in. I think that’s it.
It’s a comic book movie, it’s best to view it in its own stand alone universe.
The implication I see here is called grasping at straws. Nice post Miller!
As for Batman’s use of force prevailing: I does end badly, you are still hand waiving what the result of that torture was in the movie, and that the Joker was manipulating Batman; as anyone that is aware of the Batman cannon would tell you regarding the Joker, is that force never does prevail over him. (Force also does not work for the Joker, as Nolan could tell you).
I think it’s interesting that the most purely heroic, self-sacrificing act in the* Dark Knight* was performed by a felon.
In fact, the entire ferry scene - the thematic and moral climax of the movie - directly contradicts any claims that the film is conservative in any simplistic. Is what that prisoner did conservative? Was the ultimate decision by the civilian passengers on the other ferry a conservative decision? The fact that hundreds of people refused to commit an act of violence in order to save their own lives is, IMHO, definitive proof of Nolan’s fundamental beliefs.
Reaganomics did play a factor when the Joker became a UN embassador for Iran though, so maybe we’re on to something. 
I think this would be a different discussion if you could find one “obvious implication,” but you haven’t. None of this stuff is obvious and much of it is simply wrong. You’re overlooking some major points about the movie, making mistakes about political rhetoric, and claiming the movie is doing a bunch of contradictory things at the same time. Like I said, it’s an incoherent interpretation.
The Bush administration never agreed that the use of force was obviously problematic, and they never ever would have said such a thing. They were strongly in favor of using force against terrorism and insisted that other means (like the legal system) were inadequate. The Dark Knight also says unambiguously that Batman’s tactics cause enormous problems, and the Bush administration never would have said that, either. And I think you’re being reductionist in saying Nolan has to approach this stuff from a left- or right-wing viewpoint. He intended for the film to explore those issues in the context of a Batman story, but he didn’t make a Batman series to make some points about liberalism or conservatism.
So you think the film wasn’t saying anything at all about the War on Terror?
You think a belief in the fundamental decency of the American people as a saving grace is anti-conservative?
Next up: a deconstruction of Red Dawn, in which we learn that it was actually an ironical condemnation of Reagan-era foreign policy.
There days? Sure.
That’s probably taking it too far, but conservatives don’t usually argue that criminals are decent people underneath it all. (Of course, not all liberals would make that argument either.) Usually conservatives argue that hardened criminals are selfish and dangerous people who shouldn’t be coddled, and in a right-leaning film I wouldn’t expect to see criminals behaving just as decently as everyone else by putting their own interests behind those of other people.
This whole thread reminds me of Wathcmen
Watchmen really is an exploration of the Superhero, such as Batman or Superman, as a conservative tool of the government, treading a fine line between justice and retribution, doing things that the government themselves could not do.
You mean that torture scene with Batman beating up the Joker to get information out of him that came straight out of The Killing Joke by Alan Moore in 1988?
I mean any of it FordTaurusSHO94. Do you mean to say the film wasn’t saying anything at all about the War on Terror? Is that your position?