I don't really know what to do with the article "The Exceptional Darkness of The Dark Knight" by Todd McGowan. I have trouble agreeing with everything being said, not necessarily because I’m against it in principle, but the article just doesn’t make total sense to me. It just makes me question and really think about the concept of evil. I understand that in order for Batman to handle the crime problem in Gotham and ultimately the Joker, he needs to become an exception, because the only way to deal with the deviants who break the rules is to become a deviant oneself. But I don’t understand why we would call that evil. The way the “law” is discussed in the article seems to hold it as our standard of morality, that if it’s broken then the offender has become immoral. If that’s all it takes to be evil, then I don’t see why the system doesn’t just change the rules as to allow a figure like Batman to exist. What makes a policeman NOT an exception? He is allowed privileges considered illegal for regular citizens, for the sake of public safety. I think this article doesn’t make sense because its understanding of the law and morality is flawed. The law doesn’t define morality, it just attempts to reflect it. He deems Batman evil by technicality according to his system of defining evil, which is silly. Batman is a hero, period.
No comments:
Post a Comment