This is what happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object.
If the Joker’s philosophies coincide with the forces of reality that the Inquisitor seeks to arrest, then there is no doubt Batman represents the Inquisitor. To what lengths must they go to reestablish order?
Before we get in to this, a brief historical detour is in order (don’t worry, it will be brief). Dostoevsky was a notorious anti-Catholic Chauvinist. In fact, he often used his characters as mouth pieces to express his frustration with the Church (most obviously in The Idiot). Dostoevsky strongly believed that the Catholic Church succumbed to the third temptation of Christ by creating an empire and proclaiming themselves rulers of the earth.
Now consider the setting of Ivan Karamazov’s poem- the Inquisition. It would be the understatement of the century for me to label the Inquisition as morally heinous, but let’s leave it at that- no further elaboration necessary.
Like the Inquisitor, Batman must also commit an abhorrent act to ensure the re-establishment of order in Gotham.
Wayne: “I’ve seen now what I would have to become to stop a man like him”
Thus, Batman erects a machine that effectively monitors everyone in the city, stripping them of their privacy, and, potentially, their freedom. Just as the Inquisition places the beliefs of the masses at the judgment of the Inquisitor, the sonar machine has the capability to place the privacy of Gotham’s entire population at the mercy of one man. Even Morgan Freeman condemns the existence of the machine- and who doesn’t agree with Morgan Freeman? He’s always such a nice guy.
Fox: “This is wrong… no one should have that kind of power”
However, both Batman and the Inquisitor justify their actions on a grander scale. By becoming a “Caesar,” the Inquisitor can uphold an objective Ideal to save mankind from the deleterious force of free reason. Likewise, Batman must resort to seizing a tyrannical amount of power in order to stop the Joker’s reign of chaos.
Simply stopping the Joker is not enough to promote order. Order can only be attained through mass devotion to an unwavering idea. In the case of the Grand Inquisitor, he spreads happiness by “[enticing] them with a heavenly and eternal reward” (Dostoevsky 259). By upholding the image of an all-forgiving, all loving, divine father figure, the masses will gladly lay their free will at the feet of the Inquisitor. Likewise, Harvey Dent represents an unwavering, rigid adherence to justice and virtue. As Gotham’s White Knight, Harvey inspires the masses. He is a symbol that good can prevail, even in a city as bleak as Gotham.
But it is more than just an Ideal that binds these two stories. Both the Inquisitor and Batman are keepers of a dismal secret.
At the close of Ivan’s poem, his brother, Alyosha, quickly unearths the secret:
“They have no such great cleverness and no mysteries and secrets…. Perhaps nothing but Atheism, that’s all their secret. Your Inquisitor does not believe in God, that’s his secret!” (Dostoevsky 261)
And there it is- the great secret of existence according to Ivan. There is no God, but it is necessary to uphold a false ideal in order to subdue the bare anarchy of existence. I’m considering starting my own line of T-shirts with that message on it. It’s just so uplifting….
Thus, in the same vein that the Inquisitor must uphold a fabricated deity for the sake of order, Batman must preserve the false image of Gotham’s White Knight to re-establish a means of defining good and evil. Just as the freedom of existence forces the Inquisitor to artificially construct a means for inhibiting choice, the Joker’s image of a reality with no rules coerces Batman to deny the fallen image of Harvey Dent and preserve a fallacious Ideal. If the people of Gotham were to know that the Joker could tear down their Ideal, all would lose hope. Therefore Batman takes it upon himself to claim responsibility for Two-Face’s murders.
But the transcendent knowledge of reality comes at a cost, for knowledge of the truth excludes one from the existential reassurances that unwavering faith can offer. Bum Deal.
“For only we, we who guard the mystery, shall be unhappy. There will be thousands of millions of happy babes, and a hundred thousand sufferers who have taken upon themselves the curse of the knowledge of good and evil. Peacefully they will die, peacefully they will expire in Thy name, and beyond the grave they will find nothing but death. But we shall keep the secret, and for their happiness we shall allure them with the reward of heaven and eternity.” (Dostoevsky 259)
Similarly, Batman will surrender his image and safety as he embraces the condemnation of the entire city in order to preserve hope. They will “hunt [him], set the dogs on [him], because it’s what needs to happen.”
Both the Inquisitor and the Dark Knight inhibit truth and embrace suffering in order to preserve order, hope, and ultimately, happiness.
Batman: “Sometimes, truth isn’t good enough. Sometimes people deserve more. Sometimes people deserve to have their faith rewarded.”
“There won’t be any fireworks!”
As much of a grumpy, coffee sipping, atheist as I am making Dostoevsky seem to be, there is, in fact, another side of the coin. Immediately following “The Grand Inquisitor” chapter of The Brothers Karamazov, Dostoevsky counters his own argument in the subsequent chapter entitled: The Homilies of Father Zosima.
Whereas Ivan Karamazov’s poem leaves no residual of hope for the possibility of mankind holding an objective moral system without the oppressive structure of religion, The Dark Knight suggests otherwise. I mean, after all, it is a Hollywood movie. This is where the Ferry incident comes in to play. In the face of anarchy, humanity may not always default to anthropophagy. Rather, the film gives a glimmer of hope that coincides Dostoevsky’s counter argument that proposes that some may “have faith to the end, even if it should happen that all on earth are corrupted and [one] alone remains faithful” (Dostoevsky 321).
[Liked it? Disagreed with it? Tell us in the comments!]
small typo , Ayn Rand should be a she not a he in your Grand Inquisitor paragraph
The antecedent of “he” Karamazov.
But good eye; I think you’d enjoy our short-lived (but perhaps someday to be revived) Thursday Grammar Series.
I am genuinely impressed, good work.
Top notch.
Very impressive.
There’s been plenty of discussion on the ferry game, but I don’t think that the outcome redeems the people of Gotham. When the “citizen” tries to push the button and fails, it’s out of weakness, not faith. He, and the women and children in the next shot, are scared and disappointed when he can’t push the button. The “citizens” show the degree to which they need Batman. They are paralyzed by their fear of consequences, so they cannot do what they desire, even if their inaction puts them in peril. If Bruce Wayne were on the boat, instead of hunting the Joker, wouldn’t he have detonated the prisoners’ boat? Maybe, maybe not, but that’s what the “citizens” wanted. They wanted someone else to make the decision, someone with the willpower to judge human life.
Weakness, cowardice, ruthlessness: these are the components of the good citizens of Gotham.
Thanks for the comments.
I agree, it’s not out of faith that Batman will save them or belief in an ideal that stops the citizen from pressing the button, but the fact that neither boat pressed the button redeems them to a degree. Perhaps they didn’t do it out of fear of the consequences, but I think that Nolan was trying to display a man who was afraid to take the lives of other human beings.
Of course all the people on the boat are going to say they want to press the button, who wouldn’t? The Joker had made good on all of his promises up until that point, so why should they think they would have a chance of survival without pressing the button? But there is a vast difference in saying it and doing it. Of course they all want to blow up the boat and save themselves. They’re only human. But the fact that both boats were able to silence their innate cannibalistic instincts and decide not to press the button certainly suggests a hopeful and elevated sense of morality.
As for if Bruce Wayne was on the boat, that’s a tough call. As we saw in the movie, Batman’s one rule is that he will never take a life. Even during the standoff in the street between him and the Joker, Batman chose not to kill the Joker even though he would be saving many lives by doing so.
Question: could the group setting of the ferry test have had an influence on how the people on both boats acted/didn’t act?
Spectacular piece, by the way.
Going back to the boats… We talk about the man who picks up the detonater and then cannot do it because he would be taking life… What about the prisoners?
The prisoners do not have a debate about this, they all look interested but no one subsquently decides to take charge (in a way that the other boat had a vote) then one prisoner takes the detonater and without really over thinking it (sorry lol), throws it out the window..
No one tried to stop him or asked him why, or even gave him a dirty look… they all accepted it…
What do we make of these guys? In comparison to the joker and indeed the other boat?
@Laurence: call me a cynic, but I think it says worse of the civilians than it does of the prisoners. I believe the “We should put it to a vote!” comment is an illustration of the conceit among Western democracies that anything voted on or elected acquires a patina of legitimacy. As if murdering a ferry full of car thieves, non-violent drug users and cigarette smugglers becomes okay because we counted ballots.
It’s the big prisoner*, on the other hand, who stands up and does the right thing without waiting to be asked. In this, he is the person on the boats most like Batman – operating outside social norms, not seeking approval or even permission, being the thankless conscience of a corrupt world.
* I’m paraphrasing Christopher Bird here, but isn’t it amazing that in a film starring Christian Bale, Gary Oldman, Morgan Freeman, Heath Ledger and Aaron Eckhart, the most critical moral pivot in the entire movie is given to Tiny Lister? And he pulls it off?
Lister was also the President in “The Fifth Element.” Just throwing that one out there… ;)
I’m sure everything you’re getting at was purely intentional, Perich. The question of blind faith in democracy comes up all the time in subtle ways, but it’s pretty explicit during the scene in the restaurant where the ballerina says flat out, “But this is a democracy.”
@Perich: Yes I would agree that it does make the civilians on the boat look much worse, all of this is fine. What I don’t understand is why the Joker could not forsee the eventual outcome of the 2 ferries…
The Joker was pretty much a step ahead the whole film, even when we thought he was caught, he planned it, he even counted on Batman stopping him and still had the 2-face card left to play.
Given all of this when it’s past 12 and neither boat has blown the other one up, surely this must shake the joker’s foundations? Does anyone think the Joker would have planned for this (other than blowing the two boats up himself)
I thought his telling Batman about Harvey as he was hanging upside-down *was* the Joker’s contingency plan for not being able to blow up the ferries. Not immediately or independently, but something he knew he could fall back on.
No I think he was going to do that regardless of the outcome of the ferries. The ferries work in a way as a diversion for Batman, he’s more occupied by the joker rather than looking for Dent.
Also if you check the jokers face when it’s past 12 and neither of them have blown up, he is slightly taken aback by it.
@Lawrence: We’re in 100% agreement, so why the “No”? Perhaps I didn’t word it right, so allow me to attempt again. I felt the Joker would have told Batman about Dent no matter what, but his wording, how he pitched it, would depend on what happened with the ferries. So it was something he knew he could fall back on *if necessary* as a shining example of proof of the depravity of humanity; otherwise, it would be a reinforcement of the explosion on the river. Yeah, he probably did expect the boats to blow, but he still knew he had Dent’s fall up his sleeve, jic.
I always believed that the most important part of the grand inquisitor poem was the aspect following the Inquisitors speech, where The lord kisses him, and then leaves without uttering a word. This is, to me, what the ferry gambit was about.
See, the inquisitor may have lost his faith, or perhaps never had it to begin with. He spoke his sad truth to Jesus who by his belief should not even exist, of how he overestimated man and our fragile and weak natures, and Jesus, instead of reacting or fighting, acts with love and then leaves once again into the night.
I always believed that the Inquisitor begun to believe after this, but continued his crusade because he believed it his duty. He was the joker, just for an instance in his estimations of human nature, and of the nature of god, and In one instant of love his beliefs were countered by a single act. In short, despite the years of thought he had given he had forgotten the meaning of faith, which he ony gained afer that night.
My slightly more positive spin on the verse, which I see mirrored in the way that the jokers so far upheld as true beliefs come crashing down when the humans, the simple humans on the barges all live. I do not believe this detracts from the significance of the religious argument, but it could be overlooked as a very important aspect of the Poem.