Nolanverse Batman Reflections- The Ill Made Knight

Some ramblings in anticipation of The Dark Knight Rises:
In Batman Begins, Bruce Wayne refuses to execute a murderer on behalf of the League of Shadows. His reason? He believes compassion is what separates the just from the unjust. A noble and true claim. However, when we reach the climax of the first film we see Batman refusing to save Ra's al Ghul from fiery death. Now we have a problem. Bruce fails to live up to his ideals of justice and compassion. He refuses to save Ra’s, the man to whom he once professed the importance of compassion. Bruce once thought killing was unjust because it lacked compassion but now he rejects the spirit of compassion in order to observe his “no killing” code in a way which ultimately makes him feel better. He has become a very theatrical and very well dressed vigilante.  Beyond that he is demonstrating the same lack of compassion which he once chided Ra’s and the League of Shadows for. What's going on here?

Nolan is continuing the tradition of the imperfect hero. Like T.H. White's Lancelot, Batman proves to be an Ill-Made-Knight. Though by his superhero profession a man striving after goodness, Bruce Wayne’s choices reflect those of a flawed human-being and a citizen of the same broken city that took his parents. He is fundamentally a child of Gotham. Forged in grief and pain in Crime Ally, Bruce Wayne spent most of his life striving after vengeance. After having the opportunity for revenge stripped away by Carmine Falcone, and his understanding of vengeance shaken by Rachel Dawes, Bruce Wayne attempts to become a just hero—to no success.

For whatever reason, Nolan wanted his audience to have an imperfect hero. Someone who is very much a part of the same city he hates. Who commits the same fundamental mistakes which he judges and criticizes his opponents for making. This version of Batman seems designed to support, at least for now, Harvey Dent's pessimistic idea that, "you either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain." He may not be a villain yet but Batman keeps failing to be the hero Gotham really needs.

And given the circumstances of Dark Knight we are tempted to agree with Harvey to an extent. Harvey fell into Two-Face. And Bruce...well Bruce actually saw himself become the villain in the eyes of Gotham; maybe Harvey was wrong! Maybe there is--in Bruce's noble lie--salvation for a city and the means of preserving the purity of his soul through sacrifice! Or not.

Nolan is clever. We almost fall for his bait and accept that in spite of what the public may believe that Batman has overcome his brokenness. But once again the director has given us too much coincidence for this to be the case. As it was with Ra's al Ghul so it has been with the Joker. Batman reprimands Joker for wrongly believing that the people of Gotham city will make the easy, selfish choice when faced with an unpleasant reality. The Gothamites refused to play the Joker's game. Batman, on the other hand, was more compliant. After Harvey's corruption, Batman and Gordon agree that the people of Gotham would be unable to handle the truth of Harvey's betrayal. Batman takes it upon himself to become the living lie, a story and scapegoat meant to save Gotham from the unpleasant truth that their great White Knight was undone by the harshness of reality. Batman and Gordon so believe that the people of Gotham would, like Harvey, be unable to cope with the harsh truth of reality. Like Harvey, Bruce and Gordon choose to follow the Joker all in the name of defeating the Joker.  They choose to compromise rather than to embrace chaos completely as Harvey did. But they do compromise. In an attempt to keep the Joker’s success and Harvey’s failure under wraps the heroes also buckle under the strain and become little Two-Faces. We have a hero selflessly sacrificing his own reputation...but for an unworthy cause. He deceives Gotham, protecting them from truth and adds a failure to live up to the ideal of truth to his previous failure to live up to that of Justice. If Batman goes on to renounce the American way he will essentially become an anti-Superman—but that would just be bizarre.

I constantly get flagged as being a fiction conspiracy theorist by my friends and family. Sometimes they are joking and other times they mean every word. In all honesty I deserve it, in retrospect some of my ideas have been rather... shall we say far fetched? I get asked--isn't it all a little too coincidental? Isn't that out of character for the author or director? This is one of those happy times when I can easily support my theories with hard evidence. How do I know this was Nolan's intention? Honestly I don't. It’s a bit of a gamble. But if you're asking why I think someone like Nolan would have his hero broken and conflicted and why he might choose to pile on misdirection after misdirection to make you lose track of whether or not Batman is a hero or a failure; all I can say is look at the man's track record. Inception. The Prestige. Insomnia. Memento. Nolan shows a penchant for messing with our perspective and shaking us up, for writing characters and events which aren't quite what they seem, and for resting the truth of entire movies on a single scene. He truly believes in the power of theatricality and deception. The man is a cinematic magician.

So what's next? Will Batman fail to meet some ideal in this new film or will he "rise" as the title suggests? Is our Dark Knight destined to commit an error similar to Bane's or will he somehow manage to pick himself up from this fall which has continued since that night in Park Row behind the opera house? All trailers and promotional signs point to our hero's redemption but looking at Nolan's track record I wouldn't be surprised if a tragic flaw is slipped in his final victory. Perhaps Bruce won't be redeemed. Perhaps he can't really save Athens. I mean Camelot! I mean Russia! I mean Gotham! Maybe Nolan doesn't see Batman as a true hero. Maybe Bruce is just the prophet and Noland would prefer a character who, like Nightwing, can better balance light and dark to save the city. Or maybe humans aren't good enough! Perhaps only a Superman could truly and completely save the day. We will see. It’s been a long run and I’m looking forward to the finish.

Post-Holy Week(s) Reflection 2

In continuation of my Post-Holy Week(s) Reflection series I want to go back to the evening of the Lord's Supper. A night when religion was forever changed. Progressed and perfected from potentials and soon-to-comes to an active realization of communion with God

As I write this post I'm listening to John Williams' scores from Raiders of the Lost Ark and The Last Crusade… one part thematic choice, one part casual nerdiness. As I listen I’m struck even more by the connection and separation between the Old Testament with its Law and animal sacrifices and the grace upon grace which is the new covenant in Christ Jesus—the Absolute Sacrifice. For Christianity to be what it claims it must be perfectly bound to the history of the Old Testament while being perfectly separate and new in its religious significance. In all of Holy Week perhaps no event is more significant in illustrating this point as the Lord’s Supper.

Passover is remembrance of the night of the tenth plague where the firstborns the Egyptians were slain and the Jews were spared. The conditions were that a lamb was to be sacrificed and its blood placed in the entryway of the house according to certain specifications (for more see Exodus 12). Along with the practice of lamb offerings in Jewish Law, lamb was a symbol of forgiveness and covenant with God and part of traditional Passover dinner’s Seder plate. It was food Jesus and the Twelve likely ate or could have eaten which had long served as a powerful symbol of God’s faithfulness to Israel. Perhaps the meat was non-existent but this is unlikely as they were guests of a man wealthy enough to shelter and feed them at a table for thirteen. More likely the lamb, like the rest of the dinner, was insignificant in that context. The Lord chose a lesser food, humble unleavened traveler’s bread, and some wine with which He worked a wonder. Doing something new with an old thing, God’s Lamb passed on lamb.

That night and ever after bread and wine would serve as the noblest of meals. This mundane meal, chosen by God, became the deepest and most noble feast ever served. It’s clear this decision was made not for dietary reasons or because Jesus didn't understand the significance of lamb in Jewish tradition but because it was to serve a unique purpose. But why exactly? Why pick the mundane elements of bread and wine to symbolize the death rather than a previously established symbol of sacrifice? Again, clearly something new was being done. Several things actually.

1.     On a purely practical level Jesus was again ministering to even the least of these. Lamb is pricey. It’s a privilege food. And while there indeed are those who do not even get bread and wine they are among the most common of foods. Almost every culture uses some form bread as a staple food. Likewise wine was the most readily available drink in that room and, saving water, it was perhaps the most consumed beverage of the ancient Near East and certainly the chief beverage of the Roman Empire. It was readily available for the early church and could follow Christians into new lands to serve as the sacrament.

a.      *As a side note the use of wine rather than water keeps the chief sacraments of Baptism and the Eucharist wholly distinct from one another. Though all persons of the Trinity are involved in the sacraments because of their perfect union with one another, Baptism is more directly the gift of the Holy Spirit while the Eucharist is primarily concerned with the sacrifice of the Son. As the difference in sacramental elements helps distinguish sacraments from each other the recognition of the different roles of the Trinity is essential in Christian theology.*

2.     The similar appearance in color between unleavened bread with the Jewish Jesus’s Galilean skin and red wine with blood helps appeal to the senses in a way which aids the imagination to help one on the essence of Christ.

3.     The use of bread and wine as a two part sacrament allows for specificity in the work of Christ and the details of His death.

Apart from these practical concerns there remains one reason which currently stands out to me. There is no lamb because no lamb is needed. While this may sound a bit circular consider the theology. For the Jews animal offerings were necessary for to cover sin as they waited in hope for the coming Messiah. For the Christian the Messiah is come already and His sacrifice covers all sins. They need kill no beasts to observe there religious ceremonies because a sacrifice has already occurred. The religions practice of communion is tethered to the specific death of Christ. While the Jew had to repeatedly kill subhuman creatures in recognition of their guilt while they hoped for the Messiah, Christians know that sin is forgiven because Jesus Messiah came and died. Religious practice no longer requires death no because religion is no longer about what we have done and what God will do, but about what God did in spite of us and what He continues to do. There is no lamb in Communion because the Lamb of God was sufficient.

Hopefully this examination of a question which nobody seems to ask will help illuminate my future investigations on the role of the Old Testament, the nature of grace, the role of the sacraments, and the person of Jesus.

God loves you.

Post-Holy Week(s) Reflection

So now that both the Western and Eastern Church have finished the celebration of Holy Week I think I'll ease my way (back) into blogging with a series of short reflections.

It is the unique position of Christians that we can say that humanity already went through its darkest day with the 2nd Adam's crucifixion. More splendid is our ability to look at that the suffering and injustice and still call the day good. We are the one philosophy that seems to have truly reconciled absolute comedy and true tragedy which intersect at the cross.