Except they actually call the Joker a terrorist at one point in the movie. Y’know…in case the viewers were missing the parallels. (That’s what I meant earlier about the movie hitting viewers over the head.)
More than “republican” - I thought the movie played with a few Straussian/Neocon ideas. Noble lies, brutal/noble nihilism, etc.
I’m with spoke, although I might be more inclined to read ambivalence into the themes.
He ran it for petty thugs with last known addresses with apartments whose windows would look down on the parade route. Alfred found one, and shouted the name and address at him as he left the building.
Now, how they managed to reconstruct a fingerprint in that fashion must be comic book physics.
Karl, Barbara Gordon (usually Jim Gordon’s daughter) becomes Batgirl at some point. If, in this universe, she is his daughter, then she’s got a good few years of growing before she’ll show up in that role. However, in this universe Gordon’s wife’s name is Barbara, so I don’t know what if anything that means or if it will mean anything. Either way, Batgirl had no part in the first movie, though we did see Barbara Gordon the Elder through the Gordon’s screen door at one point.
Scarecrow is the guy with the burlap sack over his face at the beginning, played by Cillian Murphy. He’s a long-time member of the Batman parade of Villains, and in the first movie he was either manufacturing or smuggling in the
madness drug for the League of Shadows’ plot to destroy Gotham.
The rest of youse: Yeah, I know, but I’m spoilering it because I think Karl should see Batman Begins.
Random other note: I’m so annoyed with myself for getting rid of Dark Knight Returns, Batman Year 1, and The Killing Joke in my last move. What the hell was I thinking? :smack:
Mm. Harvey calls him a terrorist because he’s trying to convince the people of Gotham that they shouldn’t be calling for Batman’s head, in what I recall as the Reagan “We don’t negotiate with terrorists” sort of way. I also note that it didn’t work; Dent’s audience seemed to take the tack that Batman was either a terrorist himself, or worse than.
Another Scene Analysis Request!
The scene early in the movie in the garage: Scarecrow, (Russian?) Mobsters, Copybat Vigilantes.
[ul]
[li]Prior to Batman’s arrival they were engaged in a drug deal?[/li][li]Scarecrow was chief supplier, the (Russian?) Mobsters were to distribute through lower level street drug dealers?[/li][li]Either Scarecrow or the Mobsters were calling the deal off because of security concerns or a screw-up on the part of the other?[/li][li]Gun wielding Copybat Vigilantes show up to kick ass on both sides of the deal (Scarecrow and Mobsters)?[/li][li]Batman shows up to take everyone down, Copybats included?[/li][/ul]
That’s as much as I could gather.
Here’s what kept me from understanding the scene:
[ul]
[li]The initial dialog was pretty much all done characters shouting over each other.[/li][li]With the shouting and the Mobster’s thick (Russian?) accent I couldn’t understand a word that was said.[/li][li]Dogs ceaselessly barking their heads off- didn’t help me to follow the already difficult to follow dialog.[/li][li]Seemed the Mobsters were all scared at first by the Copybats, thinking they were facing Batman himself? (Scarecrow knew not to be scared of the Copys, and knew right away when the real deal showed up.)[/li][li]The (Russian?) Mobster with the dogs apparently got away- since he is later shown meeting with the other crime families, but during this scene it seemed like Scarecrow, in his van, made the only near-successful try at an escape?[/li][li]Scarecrow and the Copybats are detained together, Scarecrow says to Batman “We were trying to help you”. Was Scarecrow in cahoots with the Copybats, working a sting operation against the Mobsters? Seems unlikely, but maybe he had his own self-serving motives? The whole deal seemed very low-level for a guy like Scarecrow.[/li][/ul]
Anyway, the whole scene was very confusing to me and the quick editing made it even harder to follow. Any help deciphering it would be appreciated.
I thought it was one of the copybats who said “we we were trying to help you.”
(By the way, I like the word “copybats.”)
The Russian had apparently called a “meet” with Scarecrow because his drugs were having unpleasant side effects on his “customers” which was cutting in to the Russian’s repeat business and thus his profits. Scarecrow was in the process of telling him if he really wanted to find another supplier, he could, when the copybats showed up. Since the Scarecrow was the supplier and the Russians were buying the drugs, I assume the copybats were indeed going after both sides, though Scarecrow recognized them as phonies.
Bats himself was more interested in keeping the copybats out of the way (and from shooting anyone), but since they were breaking the law (and, more to the point I suspect, shooting at people) they too were wrapped up as presents for Gotham’s Finest. And Bats was probably pissed about the Russian getting away.
Diogenes is correct about the copybat (this is just so much fun to say and type, thank you for coming up with it) saying “We just wanted to help.” They also complained about being tied up (and beaten) because they were just doing “what he did.”
spoke, I’d turn it around on you. The Joker is constantly wanting to get Batman to play outside his established rules. Remember when Batman is riding straight at him on the batbike, and the Joker is saying, “Yeah! C’mon! C’mon! Do it!” He’s wanting to get Batman to break his prohibition against killing, because if he does, he’ll have won: he’ll have forced the civilized people to destroy the very thing that makes them civilized.
That’s not a pro-Administration idea. The parallels here are to arguments that by breaking our own rules (i.e., the constitution), the terrorists are winning: they’re forcing us to ruin ourselves.
I certainly thought the (excellent) movie was informed by the past eight years, but I don’t think it set itself clearly in one camp or the other. It showed Wayne struggling, showed Harvey Dent taking one path, Twoface taking the other path, and Batman trying to thread the needle, with ambiguous success.
Daniel
Hell, I was thinking you could read it as either a very “liberal” movie, or a sarcastic Republican one. Maybe it’s just a generational thing—it seems like a common theme in fiction, these days—but the characters (the heroes, anyway) seemed so concerned with the purity of their personal morals to the extent of overriding simple self-preservation…or saving the lives of others.
If anything, you could argue that Batman’s biggest failing wasn’t that he can’t be the “white knight” like Dent, but that he won’t go far enough to the dark side to be truly effective against villainous maniacs. The good, noble, “by the book” people just get themselves killed for a cause. Batman has fallen too far to be that kind of “hero,” but by trying to cling on to some shred of morality, he becomes ineffectual…and other people pay the price for it.
And this is partly why I love V for Vendetta so much =)
Loved it. Heath was awesome. Such a damn loss of talent there.
I highly doubt that Nestor Carbonell wears eyeliner. He’s got some dark and thick lashes though, as has been noticed by many Lost viewers.
Thanks for the replies, although I don’t mind being spoiled to Batman Begins. I actually like reading spoilers, it doesn’t (to me) affect my viewing experience. This movie, though, I saw without reading (too many) spoilers, and thus I read made no sense whatsoever until I saw the movie.
Another thing that I wanted to mention about Harvey not being so clean cut… When he is in the court when he gets threatened by the witness with a gun… I thought that was all an act between the Italian mobster and him to make him look bigger and more important than in real life (hence the gun malfunctioned and didn’t work). He just wanted to show that he was tough on crime, without really being that…
Just wait until I get my multi-million dollar deal to write a new Avengers lineup. 
Other random thoughts…
About the BatSonar…does anyone else remember that episode of Justice League Unlimited, where the local authorities got all irritated by the revelation that the JLU had an orbital laser cannon, after the League revealed it’s existence by using it to wipe out a horrible alien menace that could only be defeated by an orbital laser cannon? That’s like calling for help when your neighborhood is attacked by a rampaging elephant, and then getting horrified and angry because the authorities brought out an elephant rifle they had in storage to stop it.
P.S…I’d just like to say, after seeing the movie last night, that I really wished Katie Holmes had resumed her role. She would have been a blast, just dynamite. Truly…binary. (Okay, okay, I’ll stop…not exploding)
I forgot to say that this made me want to see another movie that could be made from this franchise: “Alfred: The Pre-Butlering Years.” 
Seconded!
Difference between Bush and Batman: Batman shows a willingness to dismantle his intrusive intelligence apparatus.
Thirded.
I note the thinly veiled wish to see Katie Holmes get blowed up, I would actually like to express a similar sentiment with a little more sincerity.
Overall, I would certainly rate Maggie Gyllenhaal a better actress than Katie Holmes, but Holmes was perfectly adequate in the first movie and could have delivered just as well in this one.
I have no general problem with recasting between sequels, and I had no problem with this instance of recasting until . . .
. . . Rachel gets blowed up.
Yes, in the fictional universe they are the same person, but I only had a fraction of one movie to get to know Gyllenhaal’s Rachel whereas I’ve known Holmes’ Rachel for three years with repeat viewings.
If I had watched Holmes’ Rachel for another 3/4s of a movie only to then see her get blowed up, it would have had more emotional impact for me. Killing a completely new actress put it almost at the same level as having a character introduced for the sole reason of killing that character off to play on the audience’s emotions. If it had been the same actress, it would have been more like, “Hey! What!? THEY KILLED RACHEL!!!”
I loved it. I liked Ledgers interpretation of the Joker. I will never say that is the definitive Joker, because in the comics the guy is so damned looney he changes too much to be nailed down, but it is a damned scary version.
I never caught that the Joker gave the wrong address. I seriously thought that Batman made a concious choice based on what he thought was right for Gotham and not for himself. If it was a misdirection then A) Joker is more methodical and well planned than he leads one to believe and B) Batman is not as self sacrificing as he says he is.
As for the two detonators on the Ferry. During the scene I suspected that each detonator was actually for theferry it was on.
After the movie I thought about it again and decided against that because if it were true, The Ferry that survived would have been rewarded for not choosing to kill the others. That would go against the whle Joker chaos theory. I think he was not lying about the detonators and hoped that the civilized folk would kill the prisoners.
Thought killing two face was a bad idea and correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t Batman kill him? I may have missed something but it appears that he threw Harvey off the building. Someone please correct me if I’m wrong because the idea that he would spare Joker for his code and then Kill Harvey a few minutes later strikes me as terrible.