I thought the theme of the movie was about moral choices. In the movie the Joker was constantly trying to prove that people always act in their own self-interest, and that there is no such thing as virtue. This was his one goal and his obsession. It also represents the Darwinist’s attempt to discount true altruism, the origin of which is impossible to explain by the theory of evolution. This is the one thing that the Joker believed in and is what motivated his actions. Of course his extreme cynicism leaves no rational room for a religion based on a substitutionary atonement.

Batman stands in direct contrast to the Joker’s world view. He is the anti-Joker. Batman’s belief in a moral code was well-known to the Joker through his legendary crime-fighting exploits. The Joker also knew that Batman was his most worthy opponent in all of Gotham. So if he could defeat Batman, or better yet, turn him, it would be the signal triumph of the Joker’s life. If he could induce Batman even to kill him, he would achieve his goal, because Batman would have compromised his moral code. The Joker sets up circumstances that either involve mindless destruction or place people in ethical dilemmas. These dilemmas are like thought experiments, but dramatized in movie action. In the end the popularity of the move may be attributed to the kind of philosophical questions it raises that affect our everyday lives in the world we live. Heath Leger’s portrayal of the Joker was so believable that I cannot help but think that his experience in becoming this role brought on such a state of despair that left him vulnerable to the events that led to his death.

Faith in America’s ‘greatness’ has diminished,

along with belief in its moral values. This is no bad thing

America’s might has been weakened. We can look forward

to a long period of increasing decadence

Imagine how that will disturb…

Just a short note on the connection between nihilism and postmodernity. To my mind, nihilism is actually the climax of modernity, not postmodernity. More specifically, it is the climax of modern liberalism and the corollary notion of a secular public realm. It is important to remember that Nietzsche and his forbears were products of modernity, not postmodernity. I know what you’re saying, because often what is referred to as ‘postmodern’ includes empty nihilist ways of thinking, but those are not really postmodern, they are ‘hypermodern’ – modernity working to its natural (and extreme) ends.

Anything that exhibits a more nihilistic bent is likely to have roots in the latent individualism, naturalism and humanism of modernity. This would include things like pluralism, radical liberalism, and shallow notions of truth. While these are often perceived as postmodern, they are not, as they make no break with modernity, they are simply extensions of it – they are hypermodern (or ‘late-modern’, to some). Anything that IS truly ‘post’-modern, and does make a clean break with modernity (likely exhibiting many characteristics of pre-modernity), should not lead to nihilism. Jamie Smith’s book ‘Who’s Afraid of Postmodernism?’ (Baker) is helpful in this regard, as is Conor Cunningham’s ‘Genealogy of Nihilism’ (Routledge).

I’ll leave it there, just because you may see this as pointless philosophical meandering. It is semantics, but ‘postmodernism’ is often made the whipping boy for many problems which are essentially modern.

Batman’s power was checked as in a check and balance system with his smart butler and gadget maker. Without a terrorist dressed as a terrorist, we still got the idea that there are absolutes, there are good guys and bad guys, and sometimes good guys have to smash the bad guys.

As Christians, it is rare to find a detailed explanation of the OT battles. King David’s valiant men would have understood Batman. But, how many of us understand the times, and know how to use our weapons, real and spiritual?

In previous movies, Batman never seemed to have a depth to which he wouldn’t sink to right wrong. Previously, He never seemed to struggle with the issue of being a vigilante righting wrong, under some kind of internal standards to which he adhered. The other movies I felt portrayed him as ruthless in getting his man and gave the impression he was a glorified bounty hunter.

Although the Joker was compelling, I felt both charachters were equally well portrayed. While the Joker may have been nihilistic, Batmans morality gave purposeful reason and hope to the movie.

My mind gravitated to the parallel of an attitude that we as a country are wrestling with when dealing with terrorism. Terrorism does seem to be pointless and purely random when it happens, although we know it is not. Furthermore, it is hard to combat because there seems to be no standards or rules that terrorists have when attacking. Death seems not to phase them. What would terrrorists do if they won? How are we to respond? Are there somethings that we won’t do to combat it?

I think this is the real subconscience draw to the movie.

I came across both this post and the Sets ‘n’ Service post while looking for something unrelated, but your good questions came to mind as I was reading these.