Camila Batmanghelidjh: Not in my name: these Batman ethics are repellent
The indifference to human suffering in the caped crusader's latest foray is more shocking than the graphic violence that has excited its early critics. For young people used to images of cruelty, the film's lack of moral context is more dangerous by far
Sunday, 10 August 2008
The knife is shoved inside the victim's mouth and pulled from one side of the face to the other, the blade ripping a smile across the cheeks. The victim is petrified, frozen in terror, paralysed into powerlessness, and then the blood flows. This is a scene from The Dark Knight, which I saw last week and which is a much darker and more serious portrayal of caped crusading than I remember. The classification of it as a "12" has come in for some criticism, so I went to see it last week to make up my own mind.
First of all, let us take the film on its own terms and peer into the minds of some of the characters. The Joker has a similar slash across his face, a permanent sadistic smile which, he explains, he acquired because his drunken father carved it into his face when he was a child.
The mindlessness of the Joker's violence is easily understood. His world view has been altered by an overpowering, traumatic violation at home. When you know this about him, the shooting of his friends and accomplices in the bank robbery makes some sense.
If your own father betrays you, your trust is eroded. You eliminate others before they have a chance to violate you. The Joker is demonically powerful because the other potential heroes in the film are following the rules of order and decency. In the face of his nihilistic inverting of all boundaries, the preservers of world order are rendered impotent.
Batman, as we know, tries to overcome evil. Sometimes he punches and fights, but his violence lacks the sadism of the Joker. The Joker takes delight in the torture of others. He violates because he has nothing to preserve; he's prepared to lose, and delights in the corruption of civil society. He's sarcastic about humanity. The tension lies in whether pain will eventually force otherwise good people, such as Batman, whose violence is in the service of good, to abandon decency and kindness.
Is it a game of chance? Or is it individual moral choice? Will the heroic eventually be broken by personal pain, and driven to revenge? Hanging in the air, close to a mutual fall, Batman and the Joker discuss the matter. Batman can't kill the Joker because of his moral prohibition against causing harm. The Joker, fighting against this good, is entertained by the polarity and by his attempt to corrupt it. Batman and some of the public seek to hold on to good, but so much of what they love is destroyed. Because of this, evil is always more powerful. Is sacrifice just as painful as perversion? Can any war have a happy ending?
It's a metaphor of our time. The day that I saw the film last week, another teenager was shot dead in south London. I have seen the Joker's sadistic, victimising smile – and his nihilism – in some of the young children I work with. It's always born of catastrophic familial abuse. The abused child watching this film will recognise the elation of the Joker at making the shift from victim to violator. The power to cause harm is always far preferable to the humiliation of being at the receiving end of it.
These are serious issues, and one would hope that the more profound messages of this film would register with its young viewers; that the polarities of evil and good, and the shades in between, would feature prominently in what they take away from it. My worry is that the extent of the violence may obscure the subtleties. It may have a 12 certificate, but the underground film economy and its eventual release into shops will make it available even to the youngest viewers.
I saw the film with a number of young people who happen to have had abusive home backgrounds, and I fear my concerns are well grounded, but not because they were carried away by the violence. Quite the opposite. They, like many critics, thought it was too violent. They also thought it shallow in its characterisation and lack of sophistication. Once you've seen a few people get blown up or shot, the rest becomes a boring variation. Lack of depth and emotion makes this film lazy and forgettable. Even the technical artistry is diminished in the service of violence. Young people yearn for more than the showing off of weapons of destruction. The mind using the weapon is infinitely more interesting than the weapon itself.
Batman is a brand recognised across generations. It acquired a cult following because, like all good narratives, it grappled with complex archetypes through artistic symbolisation. I fear this soulless film may have done brand Batman an injustice. Not because, necessarily, it is too graphically violent for a 12 certificate. Children today are exposed to frequent manifestations of human cruelty through our daily news – shootings, bombings and rapes. The news carries no 12 certificate.
What worries me even more than the violence was the lack of human compassion surrounding it. Human life is presented as worthless. For me, the apathetic bystanders who facilitate violence are more disturbing than the Joker himself. His perversion, at least, has a sad logic to it. The indifference of the onlookers, though, is shocking.
To be fair, in the end, Batman sacrifices his own ego in the service of good, but I can't help feeling that the director missed an opportunity to provide a more morally visionary film. What they have done is make something so filled with violence that their message – which should be an uplifting one – has been lost.
In our age we have under-invested in our emotional and moral economy. We are rich in possessions, but impoverished in the spiritual dimension. Children and young people are in touch. They know there is a disease which manifests itself in violence. They know what violence feels like and looks like. What they're seeking in their heroes is someone who can offer a way out of this perversion.
This film does not do that. Too keen on violence and special effects, it failed to capture the meaningful. Such thoughtlessness is more damaging to children than mere manifestations of human-generated horror. Let's hope Batman returns one day with a more genuine, heroic task. So many are waiting.
Camila Batmanghelidjh is the founder and director of Kids Company
-
Print Article
-
Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2008 Independent News and Media Limited

Comments
153 Comments
I don't feel compelled to launch into a diatribe explaining the machinations of various characters within the film nor the motivation behind their actions. What i will raise is ther age old point that this film, is but a reflection of the society it has been contextualised within, a violent and unfortunate one, but remains precisely that, a film a work of fiction. Purely because the character at its' centre is a "superhero" it must therefore fulfill camilla's criteria of a gaudy hero achieving heroic feats. The modern context of the film is providing a realistic counterpoint to the genre. Perhaps turn on the news and observe footage from the horros occuring in Georgia or the crime we face in our own cities, before crticising a film which servs to explore these concerns at the same time as working as a piece of entertainment.
Narrow minded and blinkered.
Posted by Fraser | 14.08.08, 00:59 GMT
You've never seen the movie you are reviewing. I find journalistic indifference grounds for a firing, I only hope your boss thinks the same.
I am shocked that someone who sees such violence and damage in kids' lives could miss the positive messages of such a great film. Camilla, you are obviously a very jaded individual and if this is the attitude you carry with you in your mission to help young people turn thier lives around...
Frankly..I fear for those kids.
Posted by Sum1Smart3r | 13.08.08, 02:13 GMT
lol, why so serious?
Posted by ispilledsomemilk | 12.08.08, 07:46 GMT
WOW. You took out of the film the same predispositions you took in. I guess I shouldn't be too surprised.
As has been pointed out over and over, you conveniently missed the multiple "explanations" the Joker gave for his scars, and instead picked on one that suited your prejudices. The simple explanation escaped you. The Joker was simply a force of chaos. His motivation, if that's what we can call it, wasn't money (he burned it), wasn't revenge, wasn't political, so what was it? It was to drag everyone to his level, and corrupt. It was even in the speech Batman gave!.
The Criminals in the boat were the *first* to throw away the detonator, proving the Joker was working on a different level than even their violent level.
I could go on, but most of the posts have already called you on your ignorance.
Posted by wanglese | 11.08.08, 22:56 GMT
I would like to lock all fans of this stupid Batman movies in a room for 48 hours and make them watch it over and over again - lets see how much you like it then. Grow up silly little boys.
Posted by lola | 11.08.08, 22:16 GMT
Wow. You completely missed the point of the Joker's scars being explained - it's a LIE. Later in the film he blames them on his wife (disfiguring himself the share in her pain then being cast aside by her as she cannot stand to look at him). He's making up stories. The point of it all is that it doesn't matter how he got them - he just is what he is. An agent of chaos. He actually starts to give a third explanation towards the end of the film, but Batman cuts him off before he can spin another yarn.
"For me, the apathetic bystanders who facilitate violence are more disturbing than the Joker himself."
That's exactly the point. The ony one who actually does something is the prisoner who throws away the detonator to the ship full of ordinary citizens.
Next time, pay closer attention to the material you're going to review.
Posted by J Green | 11.08.08, 20:20 GMT
Oh, I forgot one thing...
Did you even see the movie or did you just write this based on bits and pieces your read about?
Posted by Darthblond | 11.08.08, 20:18 GMT
Holy misinformed Batman!
What version of Batman are you referring to? Must be the old Adam West TV show or the Super Friends cartoon because it certainly isn't the Frank Miller interpretation, or some of the original comics.
Also, when you reference a scene in the movie don't twist it to fit your article. You make reference to the Joker telling the story about his father as the reason for his scars. Did you forget he tells a totally different story later on in the movie about him doing it to himself to make is wife feel better after an attack that left her face slashed? Also, he beings to tell Batman another story but is cut off during their final fight of the movie. While any of the reasons could be true, the whole point is that we have no idea why the Joker became what he is. He just is which is true for many criminals in society. There isn't always a clear cut answer.
I'd go on but many of the comments below cover the rest.
Posted by Darthblond | 11.08.08, 20:13 GMT
I would like to mention the fact that you seemed to have forotten in this movie that later on when the Joker talks of his scars he claims its due to his wife having been treated as such and he did it in order to "defend her honor" and she then threw him away for it.
The joker is not a normal abuse victim as you seem to think he is a insane character who has lost his mind and will tell any story that he thinks will get a reaction from the person he's telling it to. He likes to torture the people around him and make them change their own beliefs and test the social boundries.
Don't use your work with abused children to defend your own personality I have worked hand in hand with these same children and its apparent that you just didn't enjoy the film.
Posted by Kristina | 11.08.08, 19:58 GMT
Genetic oddity linked to Dark Knight possibly aversion discovered?
Check out;
BBCNEWS / Health / Experts find 'scaredy-cat' gene
This could be why Camila is at odds with most of the comments?
Posted by kevin | 11.08.08, 18:56 GMT
153 Comments