The Flip Side of Justice: The Two-Faced Spirit of The Dark Knight

Time Magazine's Richard Corliss, reviewing The Dark Knight, wrote that "[director Christopher] Nolan has a more subversive agenda. He wants viewers to stick their hands down the rat hole of evil and see if they get bitten." Corliss's focus on evil makes sense given both the variety of villains populating the movie and the depth of Heath Ledger's Academy Award winning depiction of The Joker. I contend, however, that buried within the varied villains of the movie is a rare and precious vision of the good. It is in moving past the battle between Batman and Joker to focus on Harvey Dent that one finds a more complex vision of the good than what the two dominant figures embody. Focusing on Two-Face, the villain who provides hope, allows viewers to escape the pain of the "rat hole of evil."Arguing how Harvey Dent emerges as the central figure of the film, and how both Batman and The Joker promote ultimately untenable visions of the good requires an in-depth analysis of evil and villains. I begin by building on Umberto Eco's 1972 essay 'The Myth of Superman," which I update by articulating why the figure of Batman has become increasingly important in the twenty-first century, replacing Superman as a focal point in our culture. I then analyze how Nolan depicts evil in the movie, focused on three kinds of villains: mobsters, The Joker and Two-Face. In order to make sense of the variety of villains, I turn to Immanuel Kant's conception of evil as a way of understanding the importance of The Joker, and then review Paul Ricoeur's conception of fallibility in order to make a case for Harvey Dent as the heart of the film. It is by emphasizing Dent's character that the movie makes its grandest moral statement, undermining the heterodirected nature of superhero logic that permeates other films and graphic novels in order to present the human capacity for autonomy and freedom.Heterodirection and the Myth of SupermanScholars throughout the humanities find that our worldviews are both undergirded and reinforced by the cultural artifacts that we unthinkingly consume: although we seek out meaningless diversions as a way to relax after a tiring week, the products provided for us are not offered with neutral intentions. What the Frankfurt School critics understood in terms of culture industry still holds true: at root, we as consumers remain a means to an end and not ends in ourselves. Cultural products always leave a residue that continues to frame and influence consumers long after the product itself has disappeared.Umberto Eco's essay "The Myth of Superman" acknowledges the power that something as seemingly trivial as comic books has over its readers. This essay is particularly important as, thirty years after it was written, superheroes have transitioned from a niche market to become a dominant part of the entertainment industry. The seemingly inexhaustible stream of superhero movies, sequels and remakes, combined with the marketing tie-ins including action figures, clothing, costumes and posters represent a substantial portion of Hollywood's income. This was true in the 1980s, when Warner Brothers capitalized on the merchandizing success of Tim Burton's Batman,1 and is still true in the twenty-first century as The Avengers and The Dark Knight Rises break records for ticket sales.Although Eco elucidates the ethical implications of superheroes based on the example of Superman as a primarily print-based phenomenon, his conclusions are applicable to filmed representations of Batman. Throughout his essay, Eco argues that the Superman comics helped to perpetuate a binary system of good and evil that hinged on property, such that "good" emerges from the protection of middle class property rights and "evil" is reduced to elements of theft (22). Instead of using his superpowers to end world hunger, eliminate dictators, stop wars or end poverty, Superman battles human and alien villains who attempt to seize property. These stories are offered in an iterative structure, which gives the illusion of a timeless world by preventing Superman from making decisions with serious implications (which would cause him to age) (16). …