A Class Analysis of Joker and The Dark Knight
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 25 ก.ย. 2024
- My Patreon: / cuck
My Twitter: / philosophycuck
Erich Fromm interview: • Erich Fromm on Product...
Boy Boy video used: • I Snuck Into A Secret ...
Books quoted:
Alain Badiou - The Rebirth of History: Times of Riots and Uprisings
Interview with Alain Badiou by Jason E. Smith - Are We Really in an Age of Riots?
Asef Bayat - Life as Politics
Asef Bayat - Revolution Without Revolutionaries
Erich Fromm - The Sane Society
Erich Fromm - The Art of Being
Erich Fromm - On Being Human
I wish you had gone more into Alfred “some men just want to watch the world burn speech.“ Because, it’s not just the movie telling us that some people don’t have a past, or just agents of chaos, etc., it’s literally Alfred‘s response to Bruce attempting to puzzle out the Joker’s motivations. But in my personal opinion, the gem thief in Alfred’s story has a pretty understandable motivation, once you remember that Alfred is doing war crimes in the guy’s country.
Alfred literally burns down a forest to catch a guy who is trying to stop him from doing crimes.
that whole scene is peak comedy lmao. nolan really thought he ate with that scene 🤣🤣
Alfred’s story is the most infuriating thing to me. It’s straight-up a story about local people resisting colonial aggression in extremely benign ways, and the moral is somehow that those people are inherently evil, and that is then used to justify doing fascism at home. It’s wild.
Based Alfred
@@nirekin2760 damn bro you're so edgy
The Joker (as a returning stock character, not a specific appearance) was in real need of a qualified philosophical analysis to nuance the pop-cultural stereotype of him possibly being *the* nihilist stock character
I don’t think it’s very fair to call the Joker a nihilist stock character. At the very least, it’s ignoring everything about him save a handful of movies and comics. The Joker isn’t a nihilist. He absolutely believes there’s purpose in life, and his is deliberately fucking with one guy as much as he possibly can. And this whole idea of the Joker being a reddit brained philosophy bro really only dates to The Killing Joke, and didn’t become popular conception until The Dark Knight. The vast majority of the time (that being since 1941) he’s just a shallow, selfish asshole who thinks hurting people is funny. If there is a Joker stock character, it’s just an incredible jerk.
And he got it in 2019
In film form for sure. Was always fascinated by the joker. Alan Moore’s The Killing Joke did it in comic book form 1988 and it stayed with me when since i first read it as a child. He had always been an obliquely sympathetic character to me. Though Moore later lamented that his comic, which was supposed to be an unflinching portrayal of systemic abuse and misfortune, and how without proper support a mind can be thoroughly broken by grief, was later misinterpreted by many as ‘oh cool you can do ultra-violence in comics now and be lauded for it’ which cleared the way for nihilistic and sadistic characters like The Punisher. The Dialect cuts both ways, it seems!
@@xxerox808 the dialect do cut bothways for sure
@@tdjhue it be do
The BoyBoy clip at 34:15 is so chilling. It's like finding a trade secret. Probably the same mentality of cops worldwide.
boyboy is great
Does anyone know what video it’s from? I don’t miss much from Alex and Alexa, but I don’t remember that interaction.
@@wafflepoet5437 It's called "I Snuck Into A Secret Arms-Dealer Conference".
The interview is to be taken with a grain of salt, though -- He does put a lot of words into the soldier's mouth. The gist of it was probably still his real opinion, but I wouldn't quote it verbatim.
@@hannibalb8276 Except for Bobby's utterly dogshit video about Ukraine.
@@wafflepoet5437"I Snuck Into A Secret Arms-Dealer Conference" at around the 4 minute mark.
"For a person to be pushed into committing a mass shooting by a Hollywood movie they saw, there must have already been such a collossal failure on the part of numerous social institutions that to focus on a particular movie they saw seems absurd."
It seems that way, yes...but I can't help but wonder, "at what point do we stop pretending and just accept that the failure really is collossal?" Acknowledging a problem, and especially the extent of a problem, is the first step towards addressing it. If we don't acknowledge the extent of the problem we'll quite likely only address some of the symptoms rather than the problem itself. Or rather, "our politicians," because we also have to acknowledge that we have no control over them, and their actions primarily serve the interests of the elite, and prolonging the problems is more profitable than addressing them.
Interestingly, movies coming out that humanize the villains, particularly the Marvel movies, make their causes good but their actions bad. It's the equivalent of capitalists saying "okay, we acknowledge that carbon emissions are bad, but the only solutions anyone has are ones that will destroy the economy, so let's fight to maintain the status quo." In reality solutions abound that woiuldn't destroy the economy for the masses, but would mean changing priorities that would be massively unprofitable for capitalists "right now," but they can't say the quiet part out loud without giving the game away. The same applies to the movies with villains trying to do good things; they have to be mass murderers to support the narrative requiring the status quo to be maintained.
Great video.
Well, a guy DID see a movie about a dude that wants to cap a politician and befriends Jodie Foster, and then thought, "If I shoot Ronald Reagan, then Jodie Foster will be my friend!"
Interestingly enough, earlier this year I saw a video essay breaking down how a lot of times in comics and the MCU the super heroes (outside of certain X-Men) work to maintain the status quo. A lot of times the most egregious thing a villain can do is demand change. Look at how passive Falcon's speech is to politicians when he becomes Captain America.
Also, I think part of the problem is that the broken capitalist system creates so many problems for people in and around poverty that it seems almost impossible to affect real change. People know the politicians are the problem, but unless it's Dems vs Reps (which we know is a farce) it's hard to see where salvation will come from. These people still have to avoid going hungry or being homeless on a day to day. I think most people are waiting for a Batman or MLK or Che Guevara to show them they have the support and standing up to the system is worth it. Not saying it's the right mindset, but I understand how immobilizing it can feel sometimes because I experience it too.
@@DepressedAIAnd that is, of course, by design. By training people to think that they need to be led, that they need to be ruled, you rob them of the initiative to do anything for themselves. You rob them of the potential to even believe democracy (where "the people" means everyone and the elite can't manipulate things to their whims. What people today refer to as "our democracy" is really "democracy for the rich, elective authoritarianism, feudalism with elections instead of bloodlines, for the masses") is a possibility. It certainly is immobilizing by design, but there's a way to change it. Short version, rebuild and reorganize communities to be democratic and de-atomized so that a system of dual power can be created to make the role of politicians obsolete. Long version is a work in progress general guide I've been putting together for a sort of therapy, which is all about what average individual people can reasonably do to start moving the ball (spaces added to prevent a link):
https: //samuellrosander. wixsite. com/buildingsocialism/blog
You don't have to be a socialist or want socialism for the blog to be useful. You just need to want to undo the damage of authoritarianism and to want a better future. Hope it's at least somewhat useful.
Couldn't agree more @@DepressedAI
@@JebeckyGranjolamovie name?
Great video as always. I think Nolan's moralism can also be seen in the last act of Oppenheimer - Oppie isn't destroyed because he was actively campaigning against a military industrial complex that wanted nothing more than an arms race with the Soviet Union (a class-based, materialist analysis) but because he offended some venal politician decades ago. The vast, unfathomable power of a system he was very helpful in creating is not really addressed, and really is kind of obfuscated by making that one guy the villain. He did have the cajones to imply Jean was murdered by the FBI, though, so that's a point in his favor.
'Oppenheimer' also missed the chance to explore how he stopped engaging in science (his creativity, per the video) to instead focus on his celebrity and the political work, ultimately realising too late the fulfilment he had lost as a result.
Jean wasn’t murdered by the FBI tho? And Strauss really was the one pulling the strings. Besides Truman who didn’t like oppie on his own, Strauss would persuade Eisenhower, the president at the time, to not trust oppie, and Hoover, director of fbi, to keep tabs on oppie. The guy was right wing to the bone. The reason Strauss wanted his security clearance gone was to not talk to the military generals in the gov.
@@danlo5102 Individuals are representatives of great systems and classes
I also in the end did like the way the movie portrayed anti-communism and anti-soviet sentiment. It's rare we see the US as the paranoid state it really was.
Your reading of the movie misses quite a bit then, Oppie was destroyed because one petty individual exploited the red scare induced by institutions, using his leverage and connection within the political system without oversight to bring him down. Or did you miss the part where everybody cheered while he and possible a single digit number of his staff showed guilt? How a number of his former staff kept latching onto the power that be to realise their dream despite his conscience (H-bomb). Or how hypocritical the award ceremony was? Or how the end of the movie had him seeing nuclear icbms? Or when Einstein himself told him to turn his back on his country when it betrayed him?
While Arthur Fleck, the character, was really well done, my first thought when I walked out of the theater was that the movie was a rich person's understanding of poor people as a whole - not concerning the Joker, but the rest of Gotham. People will yell at someone for making their child laugh, randomly beat up anyone who falls down, start a massive fight with the smallest incentive, and are ready to riot in support of a murder at the drop of a hat
'The masses' will always be a tricky thing to portray in superhero movies. I agree with your points, but you could chalk some of it up to reactionaries and people without class conciousness.
I mean, those are all things that would happen. The only one that doesn't, really, is the last one (the riots caused by televised murder), but i think it adds to the dreamlike feel of the movie, where reality seems to dissolve into a strange illusory world where the joker's violence finally frees him.
I mean Gotham is a crime ridden shithole. I'd probably be on edge if some stranger was playing around with my child too. And the kids were robbing Arthur and merely saw him as an easy victim.
@@vwem1237 the George Floyd riots were due to televised murder.
I think alot of that portrayal comes from the "was it real?" feeling the whole movie has. It feels like everyone is irrationally cruel to Arthur because the movie is told from his perspective. It doesn't matter to him why the masses would riot. We don't spend time with other people in similar circumstances, he has no real connection to anyone. He is an empty revolutionary figure, with no real proposal for change. The people could be rioting for no good reason at the drop of a hat, for all he cares. Or idk
I thought it was interesting that there was no celebration of Bruce Wayne's wealth in The Batman (2022). In The Batman, Bruce Wayne had to address the discomfort that late stage capitalism in Gotham City's had with itself: IIRC, there's a line where he states he doesn't care what happens to his wealth, which felt like a change from any other Batman film where his billions were celebrated or at least not questioned.
iirc there was that scene where bruce was with alfred in the hospital, and talked about being worried that his father was part of the corrupt system he was uncovering.
alfred then goes "no no, your father was such a good philanthropist humble angel billionaire, the Bad men had to kill him" so, again, the ills are pointed at bad individuals rather than the way society is structured to empower them in the first place. so idunno if i agree
Plus the Bad Riddler Henchmen in the end looked like a cross between TheMachine in 8mm and shooter high scoop kid stereotypes. IOW FAKE.
NEXTTTTT
But I did still reallllllly like the Batman for the Sevenenesque Moodiness and Depravity
Bruce Wayne's failure to keep up financial support for an orphanage _is_ pointed out by a certain character in The Dark Knight Rises, but this is portrayed as less detachment of the upper class from the rest of society and more Wayne's detachment from reality itself after giving up on Batman.
@@void_pepsi6405 I think it's much more complicated than that. The system in power is questioned no doubt. The Thomas Wayne bit is interesting. I was initially really disappointed that they didn't go all in on him being part of the problem but now I see why. I think showing every corrupt billionaire to be an identical clone of one another is a bit childish. It's a system. It's a class structure. A hierarchy. Everyone has a role to play in hierarchy. Thomas had his so he was still part of the problem because he *was* friends with Falcone. He went to Falcone to do something about the journalist. Obviously, he didn't think it would get the journalist killed but he still went to Falcone. It was still his fault and I don't think the movie sugar coats any of that. Even Alfred says that explicitly. As for why they couldn't go all in on Thomas being a huge part of the problem is probably because at the end of the day, this Bruce needed hope. Pattinson's Batman is a figure who views the world from a very black and white lens (which is also visually demonstrated through his appearance). You're either all good or all bad. "You see the worst in people." Shades of grey or any nuance causes him to go full on temper tantrum mode because it forces him to reconcile with the pledge he took as a kid and manipulated himself into believing for all those years. He never wants to feel helpless again as he confesses during his scene with Alfred in the hospital. But seeing Selina's nuanced perspective and Thomas' nuanced perspective both of whom are on the opposite sides of the class spectrum forces him to grapple with the reality he's actually living in. Through them, he's able to fill his class blindspot that distances him from the poor. Hence, he learns to hold back. Endurance is his superpower after all.
*Humble billionaire@@void_pepsi6405
Timestamps:
Introduction: 0:00
Alienation: 11:40
Class and Revolution: 21:37
Riots: 27:30
An excellent analysis. I always felt something was off about the Nolan Batman films in particular, despite their cinematic/surface level beauty, but never thought it through like this.
I'm a sociologist who teaches media at UG and MA levels. I've even published stuff on Dark Knight. I feel so inadequate watching this masterful vid analysis 👏👏👏
Bc sociology lacks materialist (dialectical not consumerism)analysis
@@shushunk00, that's not true. All classical sociological theorists (Marx, Weber, Durkheim and Simmel) advocate grounding interpretation in an environmental, historical and social context to several varying degrees. Through the examination of history and various societies, one may be able to identify transhistorical social forms, such as class struggle, authority, solidarity, etc.
@@marcostejeda5910 yes, let's please not mix up contemporary identify politics (important though it is) with the full scope of sociology!
@@marcostejeda5910 That is a fair criticism. Sociology has traditionally focused on the social and cultural aspects of human behavior, and has often neglected the material conditions that shape our lives. This is in part due to the fact that sociology emerged as a discipline during the Industrial Revolution, when the focus was on understanding the social and cultural changes that were brought about by industrialization.
However, there are a number of sociologists who have argued for a more materialist approach to the discipline. They argue that we cannot understand human behavior without understanding the material conditions in which it takes place. For example, they argue that we cannot understand poverty without understanding the economic system that produces it.
One of the most influential proponents of a materialist approach to sociology was Karl Marx. Marx argued that the material conditions of our lives, such as our economic relations, shape our consciousness and our behavior. He believed that the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles, and that the only way to achieve a truly just society is through revolution.
Marx's ideas have been highly influential in sociology, but they have also been criticized. Some critics argue that Marx's focus on economic relations is too narrow, and that it ignores other important factors, such as culture and ideology. Others argue that Marx's view of history is too deterministic, and that it does not allow for human agency.
Despite these criticisms, Marx's ideas continue to be debated and discussed by sociologists. They offer a valuable perspective on the relationship between the material world and human behavior, and they can help us to understand the challenges that we face as a society.
why do you feel inadequate?
"The Dark Knight's Joker is 9/11" is an observation that feels really obvious but somehow never crossed my mind
I will add to your point, it's not a coincidence. Chris Nolan used 9/11 Metaphor in Dark Knight, it is stated.
My dream analysis from Čeika would be comparing the V for vendetta comic with the film. I think there are a lot of defining social forces that influenced the production and release of both works that could be discussed in length.
I’d love to see that one. My vote so far!
I think the podcast Movies Vs. Capitalism did an okay job of discussing some of those differences and some of the nuanced meanings behind each, but I agree that CCK's analysis would be quite welcome!
Same here
@@erick_lascovik2677 I wanna upvote this but the thumb's up are currently on the perfect score of 69
damn that would be a really interesting watch...
I’ve been following you since the first 2-3 vids and saw your book displayed prominently in a massive Portland bookstore yesterday, was very cool to see
Its always a good day when Jonas drops a new video
Directors claim their films are not political because they need to get funding for their next movie. They know what they are doing.
everything is political. even making something intentionally "non-political" is political. we all have politics, it's a matter of to what degree we are aware of them and capable of expressing them
@@Flameb0No. Try living alone in a secluded island with no human. Lets see how political you can be.
@@faithhopecharity2843 that choice would be considered what Libertarians want to do....😂
@@faithhopecharity2843And no to your example! Don't you inevitably set up rules and regulations for yourself under those extreme circumstances? What you can and cannot do on the island in order to survive. That's self governing at its most basic level. You can't escape politics no matter where you're situated. We're only equal in death...😂❤
@@JoseMorales-lw5nt And NO to your explanation. Politics is a human made concept. Flamb0 assertion that "Everything is political" is absurd. By everything you mean all things in this universe (even the non living being like a rock or stone) practice politics? Absurd.
You used a term from social sciences domain and willy nilly applied it to everything. That is LAZINESS. That is like saying a chemical bonds or chemical reactions is political because they keep regulating themselves from time to time. Is chemical reaction in photosyntesis political? Is the earth magnetic field political (because they are self regulating/governing from time to time)? NO. Please dont equate a social science concept as a universal explanation for everything. That is just Lazy.
In The Batman, most of the badguys showed on screen where politicians and cops, even though Batman was fighting low level criminals, he was exposed to the corruption in Gotham and i hope The Batman explores it more in the sequel and even fights against it using his Bruce Wayne persona.
@@Constantin_91 I'm talking about the Reeves movie. Not the canon lore
true. Reeves understands that batman IS part of the problem and that real change can only be done by bruce wayne
when progressives let crime run free someone has to take justice in their own hands. Which is based
@@Constantin_91 nooooo not my hecking criminarinoooos , just let gangbangers rape , kill and plundeeeerr reeeeee
I was just about to comment this! The Batman and The Joker really have paved the way for DC to do something really interesting with their material. I just hope the follow ups can live up to it.
Really appreciate you for making this kind of content. Thank you for explaining this movie, it was harder to understand as someone from Finland, because it alludes to domestic US problems. Although I did see some criticism of society in both when I saw them, it felt hollow and incoherent. Now it makes sense.
*the rich:* creates a society so bad people go mad from exhaustion/sadness/rage.
*normal people:* go mad from exhaustion/sadness/rage.
*the rich:* how dare you!!! (suprised Pikachu face)
People go mad with exhaustion/sadness/rage regardless of the society around them. The human condition is the result of millions of years of struggle and strife, it's instinctual, there's only so much that can be abated.
@@yuothineyesasian
idk
I think there were better times in the past
And so there is a better future possible
@yuothineyesasian persons may but when it's people it is dire
@@yuothineyesasian people who have their survival needs met and don't have half of their money stolen by landed gentry tend to be content and nonviolent.
@@kaiserruhsamI know this might just be some random specific take, but in Finland in 1800's there was a phenomenon where sons of the farmers who couldn't inherit their parents estate (house and farmland around it) formed some sort of gangs, and these gangs were led by few farmers who did own their house. The gangs didn't work for them in their farms and farmers did most of the work themselves, and their survival needs were met and could keep all the wheat they wanted, but they still turned to life of crime, pickpocketing, stealing wheat (they already had well enough), ringing church bells and causing fights. They were called as Häjyt, and their reign lasted for about 20 years, until it just faded away, the gang leaders were put in prison and either got killed in some brawl or retreated from the life of crime. What I'm trying to say here is that people have a need for excitement, having their adrenaline raised, and they don't get that in their normal life, so they literally turn into life of crime, even if their material conditions don't force them to do so.
One point about Nolan's Joker: it is sort of alluded to that he has a military background, so he is sort of a lost soldier symbolically speaking
I missed that, but it scarcely matters. If true, it would just be another thing taken from Taxi Driver.
@@wet-readHe's talking about Heath Ledger's Joker in the Dark Knight, not Joaquin Phoenix's Joker
@@nagger8216
Oh my goodness... I totally screwed that up 😬. Yikes. My apologies to both of you
@@nagger8216 I mean, Travis was in the army too.
@@adityanarain9428 lol That's grasping at straws though. You can't make that comparison to a completely different movie that has a completely different take on the character. Heath Ledger's and Joaquin Phoenix's Jokers are so different it's impossible to imagine them being the same person
I've been saying the exact same thing for years and years, and I'm so glad to find others that feel the same. This is great stuff dude. Thank you.
I've been called dumb and pretentious for criticizing Batman for supporting the power imbalance and portraying beating up poor and mentally ill as positive.
@@spacenomad4477 well, people are entitled to their own opinions, especially when they're wrong. You, however, are spot on. And its been like that for a LONG time. I mean really, if you boil it down, Batman in and of itself is pretentious and dumb, and it'd be in it's entirety were it not for things like The Joker. This take on him at least. I wish they played more to the fact that Batman's very existence is a self-perpetuating social nightmare. At least the joker bears the broken and rotted teeth of the comic book character for what he is. It should be subversive, it should undermine, speak to the dark societal undertones, instead of glorifying the actions taken against them. Its like whoever is writing Batman just didn't really GET IT, and whoever wrote the Joker saw it for exactly what it is.
@@spacenomad4477 I like the batman movie, but i`m rooting for the Joker(too me he is an embodiment of political nihilism, too me chaos is just his way of achieving his goals in the movie.)
the joker doesn`t care in what state gotham is left in, and or how the political landscape will be after him.
he is merely a symptom of a decaying society, who`s future is dependent upon it`s morale and social destruction.
as a political nihilism myself, i think the joker is the hero.
as he is merely a reaction to the hypocrisy and decay of the society he finds himself in.
Batman is of course a symbol of that hypocrisy aswell, as Batman is a criminal himself(he gets called out for stealing from investors in the dark knight rises.)
so Joker is only a villain if someone buys the moralising that Nolan puts into the movie.
@@thetruth4654 He embodies loser leftwing radicals.
@@mbe102 : "I wish they played more to the fact that Batman's very existence is a self-perpetuating social nightmare."
It's possible that the movie you're looking for is Pan's Labyrinth. Consider particularly the scene where Batm... er, the fascist character self-mutilates.
In Nolan's Batman, the public was lied to not because of the fear that the public is not "mature" enough to know the truth, but that the establishment does not want the public to think in any other way than the way they have prescribed. It's about preserving the system using a facade while letting the underlying problems continue to rot the foundations. You see it in all superhero movies. It's is all about using the glitz of "human rights", "democracy" to hide the contradictions of capitalism.
"It's is all about using the glitz of "human rights", "democracy" to hide the contradictions of capitalism."
You certainly haven't seen Sam Raimi's Spider-Man 2 or James Mangold's Logan then. Neither one of those films fit the description you are describing. Peter Parker is a working-class superhero who can barley afford to pay his rent while the X-Men in general have always been a metaphor for marginalized communities in general.
@@SuperBat63a couple of exceptions that I’d say prove the rule.
@@SuperBat63
Are you trying to hide the flaws of capitalism?
@@SuperBat63 class analysis of X-Men shows they are effectively class traitors to the rest of their species, I've done a set of videos on this called politics in X-Men parts 1 to 3 on TH-cam.
@@SuperBat63 I absolutely love Spidey 2 but the blown chip that disrupts Doc Ock's thoughts turns him into a plot device, and he ends up getting the tritium he needs to rebuild the fusion generator from Harry, who is perfectly happy for the city to succumb to Doc Ock's madness if he can have Spidey trussed up like a spring lamb in front of him. So there is a commentary on the problem of capitalism in that the things denied to Harry, the full measure of love and respect and peace from his father than was always unfulfilled, drives his resentment, and furthermore, MJ is stolen from Harry by Peter, he is stewing in the few things he can't have when he has everything else money can afford. All the money in the world cannot buy Harry peace of mind, and self-acceptance. In the end, Peter says this is all bigger than he and Harry now, so the film does kind of use the glitz of human rights - the lives of the people in New York - to cover up how Norman Osborne (in the first film) and then Harry Osborne's greed sacrifices regular people, the working class, for the sake of material and, I guess, emotional wealth. I mean that's a pretty loose interpretation I guess but I felt like there is class point to be made. With great power comes great responsibility - Harry and Norman became reckless as they always had power, or for a very long time. Peter 'earned' his power with being downtrodden for much of his life. He has a respect for life wealth does not afford the others.
Isn't that crazy. The Joker's character basically breaks every rule on "how to make an engaging character":
1. State a clear motivation - nope.
2. Go into his/her/they's past - nope.
3. Show their connections/allies/friendships to express some personal characteristics. - Friends. What friends?
4. Give him a memorable name. - Joker I guess lol.
Yet he's one of the most memorable characters ever created. Crazy.
whoosh
Rules are meant to be broken.
But in the movie Joker there is a past shown?
@@siddhartacrowley8759 I mean I meant for Joker as canon. Like usually he's not given anything but the name Joker. It's sort of an old character trick. Where characters aren't suppose to represent this unique individual but rather an idea or collective. It wasn't really until the rise of individualism that we got these super introspective characters.
*look it up yourself. I read this somewhere a while ago and it made sense to me lol.
he is memorable solely because of Batman. case in point: even the stand alone Joker movie cannot escape forcing ties with the Wayne family.
Crazy? I was crazy once...
I think arthur is alienated from the product of his work because, as a clown, the product of his work is entertaining others. Since he has no relationship to the others being entertained, he cannot enjoy the well being of social connection and acceptance that comes from that. You could say that youtubers are similarly alienated from the product of their labour. The goal of a video essay like this is educate, and for most of human history, you were educating people around you who appreciated you for the work and gave you a place in society. A youtuber can only perceive that distantly through fame, if they ever become famous enough to feel the rewards.
When your work is making other people, not having a relationship with the people you make is alienation.
4:29 It's very interesting that this is the consequence of Joker having an ill-defined backstory in terms of veracity/canonicity, because the writer who solidified the necessity of such an idea in public consciousness (Alan Moore in The Killing Joke) is infamous for his anarchist views and in fact portrays the Joker as _himself_ wanting to be in such a state, specifically speaking with his own words: "if I'm going to have a past, I prefer it to be multiple choice"
Also to shitpost:
"He's a liberal but he's scared of too much commotion, too violent-"
-Slavoj Žižek on the premise of Christopher Nolan writing Joker into The Dark Knight (VICE interview)
I would love to see a follow up on Robert Pattinson's version.
The recent rendition of Batman seems to put Mental Ilness at forefront of it thematic themes and not justice social inequality.
The Batman Arkham video game series toys with the idea that Batman is not all too dissimilar from his rogues gallery, and I hope Part 2 makes it a larger focus with Hush at the centre.
This is one of the better analyses I've seen online lately. Well done.
Dang it, another media analysis from my favorite philosophy TH-cam. Got to stop everything.
My version of the Joker is a guy whose wife is dying of cancer but he can't afford the chemo costs, their insurance will break them so she commits suicide so that she doesn't drag him down with her. While she's in the hospital, he dresses like a clown for the kids in the pediatric ward. He becomes a drug dealer because he's essentially trying to help people who can't afford big pharma. When he goes out to deliver drugs his friend tells him to be careful because there's a crazy guy in black who is likely the local billionaire beating hell out of drug dealers. He laughs and says 'sure there is'. He meets batman who chases him and beats on him, but he gets away. He gets home and looks in the mirror and has a broken enlarged red nose, and two black eyes so he looks like a clown. He says "of course there is, we live in a country with 26 federal governments who can arrest you, a police force, the largest military in the world, and of course there's also a psychotic billionaire who is above the law who will beat the hell out of you for trying to help people self medicate.".
you should honestly write this down and draw a comic on it - this bangs
create and transcend sibling 💪
This is cringe
@@dgmetalhead That sounds like a lot of work:) But two out of three isn't bad in a focus group.
sounds awful
Awesome video as usual. Absolutely incredible.
I wouldn't feel self-conscious about this video coming out years after the various cinematic releases. People may have seen loose comment here and there about how The Dark Knight and Joker form thematic mirrors or opposites here and there, but I doubt they've ever seen such a considered analaysis, which is always valuable and enjoyable on it's own merits. Thank you for making this, I really enjoyed it.
Okay, I'm 45 seconds in, but I will say something I've noticed in teenage boys currently: I've taught 16 year olds that saw Joker, called it a 'masterpiece', and then see The Dark Knight as a kind of O.G. precursor film to it. It's interesting because they existed in rather different socio-political contexts.
I'll copy and paste a great comment I saw here that explains some other aspects that were in the movie that weren't mentioned in the video, not because he didn't want to but because the movie provides distinct readings that glorify the Joker that are usually appropriated by incels, and this video isn't concerned on talking about this. "My main gripe with Joker is its framing of gender and identity. It doesn't state this literally, but there a number of recurring scenes and symbols which all center around Arthur being inadequate as a man, from his girlfriend hallucinations, to his need to feel validated by a father figure, to his anger at his mother for lying to him, who is also presented as a domineering and unstable figure. There's a distinct Freudian category to these themes, culminating in Arthur acting out a form of symbolic (and literal, by the talkshow host) castration in becoming a new hyperviolent figure as the Joker, who is simultaneously hypermasculine in his displays of spontaneous anger, and yet inflects in this high-pitched voice, which came across to me as subtly homophobic. Simply because of that, I find the class character of the movie muddied, especially the way that his mental health services are meant to be a panacea for what have been shown to be a mix of external and internal factors, which repeats bourgeois liberal talking points that the primary issue is a lack of mental health treatment available to those who need it. Rather there is a fundamental contradiction of solving a mixture of social and individual factors through individualised interviews and prescriptions, which is not touched. As a result, I feel that the movie eschews a class analysis in favour of a more populist message, that there exist these downtrodden members of society, who enact perverse fantasies and become distorted yet we secretely yearn for their individualised acts of violence. Arthur's experience is sympathetic and tragic, but his victimhood is individualised and focused, showing social relations as invasive, and could just be as easily a class collaborationist message."
@@F3XT I think thats just a general fact of interpretation. In the same way Starship Troopers is simultaneously a movie parodying facism AND accidentally one of its best advertisements. The same symbols of alienation being interpreted as "castration" and "lacking connection" at the same time, ultimately incels are the same victims of alienation with the difference being they were taught to believe that their problems are based in scientific woo of "the alpha male" and "hypergamy" rather than the fact that being taught how to feel things, have empathy, and talk to people outside a business dialogue arent very productive when it comes to having a financially stable life in the current world.
... then again i should actually WATCH the movie before i make a judgement.
But now im on a tangent: I think my argument still has some merit on why incels even are that way in the first place, and honestly we need to find a better name for them than "lol cannot have sex", as every time i see it used it feels like it just legitamizes the entire reason they exist. This group of people believe that sex inherently gives someone value, and therefore is a commodity to be traded rather than an act between two people. Therefore, not having it makes them worthless. Its one of those wierd issues where calling them what they call themselves ends up legitimizing their stance rather than devaluing it, its literally the muscle man "my mom" joke, and leaning into it proves the point rather than some actual own against them, while making anyone who doesnt identify by it, but are still in the same unfortunate circumstance, start to consider if it actually has merit.
@@Captain.Mystic you have a great point, it is indeed a consequence of interpretation but also of the way the movie was made, tbh I also didn't watch the movie so I reasonably assume being used by incels wasn't the peoples intention when they made the movie so this is more or less just consequences that happened culturally because of the movie, some good consequences and some terrible ones, particularly on the internet it's very hard not to connect the Joker with incels.
so about your tangent, I do agree with the things you point out but at the same time I think it's a somewhat unproductive thing to try to strive for because it's already a consolidated term that everyone knows so it's very hard to get rid of, not only that but if we were able to, new terms would still sprout and we would keep having to do this, I for example was less online for a while and all of a sudden the Manosphere was a thing, I don't think those semantic "battles" are very productive, like even if you call them mysoginistic they will just say "yes, we are" reversing the meaning in a similar manner
@@F3XT I would agree with the fact that they would just make a new term, at the same time im not opting for censorship of the term incel,in fact i agree that doing so doesnt really make much sense. My problem with it is that the term itself is unique compared to just calling them "mysoginistic" or the "manosphere".
Ive been on 4chan long enough to know that conservatives will gladly just admit that they hate women or minorities(even if its framed as a joke for obvious reasons). the difference is that incel is unique because its a term used in self-hatred as well as an insult by external parties, which is why i call it the muscle man "my mom" joke, theres no real way to call them an incel(even as a descriptor of the group itself, and especially as an insult), associating it with a lot of negative stereotypes in the process, without also implicitly agreeing with them on the belief that's the source of the issue. whereas manosphere is selling an "image" of the perfect masculine ideal, instead of a term of hatred describing an unfortunate situation. it would be like calling andrew tate a "manlet", some of his followers may self identify as a manlet, they may even have the qualities of what actually qualifies as one, and it implies the belief that not being 6 foot tall or greater and 200 pounds of pure muscle makes them feel like less than a man(and yes this is even an actual term on 4chan). But its better to call the situation the manosphere because its describing the belief rather than the unfortunate situation.
Ultimately changing the term from "incel" to something less moralizing of the situation (note, on our end, and encourage others to use the new term while waiting until its at least mostly agreed upon to make using incel an actual stigma) would do 2 things. 1) it stops people from playing an unwinnable game against this crowd. incel as a pejorative is the point rather than a side effect, and meeting them at that level reinforces the belief that someone who has sex has a higher standard of either morality or attractiveness.and 2) the term incel becomes a way to identify someone who might hold the belief that lack of sex actually is the core problem of why they are such an asshole (making it an individualistic belief), rather than, if not a symptom of a culture that heavily values destructive masculine ideals, then a symptom of alienation and systemic issues leading to a growing crowd of people who feel more lonely and isolated than ever and feeling unable to control how others percieve them(making it a systemic belief).
Brilliant essay. I guess the ending question could also be posed as: "Can riots, mass protests and the transcendence from our current condition that they promise take on also a creative form rather than simply a destructive one?" With reference to Fromm's distinction between destruction and creation
some people say that burning man exists out of that question. the absurdists and the cacophony society could be say to have that premise. a burning man philosopher, caveat magister, writes books about it. turn your life into art is his practical guide.
of course they can! and they did. The French Revolution changed the world for the better, finally replacing feudalism with capitalism for good. The Russian Revolution, albeit it decayed due to various reasons, still managed to transform the lives of the workers for the better compared to what was going on before during the Russian Empire. As Karl Marx put it, “Philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways; the point, however, is to change it.” Unfortunately, no social change will come without violence while there is the ruling class with its massive police and military forces, they will resist the best intentions of the masses with the cruelest and the most modern weapons and tactics. But what these Fromm’s quotes don’t highlight is that the transcended act of creation can contain in itself the destruction, but the difference is a clear intent, the creative force of subjects. If the masses destruct not for the sake of destruction, i.e. as what Fromm described as a form transcendence from being passive objects in an absence of the means of creation, but instead have a clear objective of building a new society, then it’s a form of creation.
TLDR: workers uniting and seizing the means of production from the hands of the billionaires and building a socialist society is an act of creation, even if there is some inevitable destruction in the process. Workers aimlessly raiding and marauding shops without any political objective is an act of destruction.
I very much appreciate this analyst video. This is exactly what i was seeing in the film. What really bothered me was reviewer giving attention too it or parady and giving their own take that didnt look accurate to what i had seen. very conflicting with social media contextualising the film based on ideology. People were aware of it all over the world, not just US, UK, France, Japan, China, that the ccp thought it was a anti-west problem argument, realised it was also about them aswell as the people directed it on, which they had banned the film afterwards. A really do appreciate this review you made. Thank you on this. And for people to understand what the film was coming across about.
Part of why I love The Batman (2022) movie is that they do address some of the criticisms of the character. There are some flaws, but I liked that they pointed out how Bruce Wayne actually grew up pretty sheltered. He is a victim, alongside Catwoman and the Riddler, of the corruption and violence of Gotham, but not of the poverty it causes. He never had to worry about having a roof over his head or food or heat. Even though he loses his parents he still had a supportive parental figure in Alfred. Selina Kyle and the Riddler never had those things and had to struggle to get by, something Bruce Wayne never considered. He grew up believing some people are just bad and they deserve vengeance without realized many people turn to crime because of their upbringing. A lot of the villains in the movie turned out to be corrupt politicians and Batman realizes that he needs to change the way he fights crime.
Maybe this is because I'm a brown woman, but being reduced to a defeated object in the capitalist death machine doesn't make me suddenly grab a gun and unleash homeric violence on the streets in revenge for my failed utterly individualistic aspirations. I don't think the movie does enough to portray Joker's actions as ultimately unsympathetic and pointless against a destructive socioeconomic system. It definitely does much more to show the system as destructive and needs to be commended for that, but part of the reason why it was so widely celebrated in not exactly progressive circles of men online was that it didn't do anything to challenge their individualistic worldview. In other words, a bunch of people putting on clown makeup and breaking shit on the streets is not the actualization of a revolutionary mass. It can be just as individualistic, just as directionless. The movie stopped at the jaded individual, the clown makeup, the empty riot.
I knew something didn't quite click for me in the movie. You just put in words
a movie as a piece of media can only go that far. i agree with your point - but i also think it's important that movies like this exist. they are the reason i got to read your pov about this piece of media and i'm pretty sure no piece of media published in the culture industry will "fill" the "empty riot". the revolution will not be televised. it takes materialistic form of action and solidarity between communites, real politics. a piece of media will always stop at a certain point. the last steps will have to be done by each of us individually and organized.
I'm actually sorry that the movie didn't inspire more people in general. I've never seen Arthur as the white-man epitomy because of his mental illness. I guess American politics have reached a point of atomisation of the working class where it becomes impossible to have any form of solidarity, even with an ill man. Meanwhile poor whites will still vote republican and may even elect Trump again.
And on a side note, all revolutions look like chaos from the outside. Thats precisely whats been done to the French or the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution.
Yes...an origin story tends not to go into detail about the consequences that follow after that story, that's correct. Regardless, there will always be some level of individualism. A mass full of people with no individualism at all is little more than the weaponry we aim at each other already. Akin to a cult. Humans have always straddled the line between surviving alone or thriving together.
Great comment thread guys captivating reads from all contributors.
Video reminds me of why I used to watch video essays so much. Can't wait for your next one!
I find myself elated endlessly every time i watch your videos ! Your content creation is pure gold ! Thank you !
I have a "Liberal" uncle that absolutely drooled over the Batman movies in the early 10's and then shit all over the Joker when it released. He's very well off, an artist. In the years in between the Batman movies and Joker, the way he spoke about the political left in this country genuinely made me question whether he even understood why he votes left in the first place. For all intents and purposes, he could've easily voted right. When I come at him from the left of his own political opinions, he looks at me like I'm crazy. He votes left but doesn't see the need for unions anymore. Votes left but still believes (despite once being a 'starving artist' himself) that the 'bootstrap' principle applies today. This video did a great job of putting into words what I take issue with regarding his politics. I'd love to send him this video, but that guy doesn't know the first thing about YT; he'd just ask "who's this guy? Why would I listen to him?" Great analysis! You've got a new sub.
There is a fundamental difference between Socialism and Liberalism as political ideologies. Sure, a rich liberal looking on society's downtrodden with disdain might not be (openly) racist for example, but there is not that much else differentiating him from the usual "right wingers". I'd say it does not make much sense to call these people "leftist" in the first place.
@@mr.t7846reminds me of how biden gave more money to cops(just like how trump wanted to) but just used different rhetoric to seem like he was on our side
anyone who is not a woketard is fascist , literallly fascist literally reeeeeeee
Some ppl vote not for ideology but what they find as a lesser of 2 evils
I'm one of them
Just can't stand hate against race, sexual orientation and imigrants
I gain nothing from voting
I'm well off
And live a quite life with a small circle
I don't need nor want anything from the government so my votes are mainly for the less fortunate for me which is why I vote left
@@mr.t7846very true
Too
Babe wake up, Cvck just shared another masterpiece on class consciousness
We're subtly taught to identify with supremely bourgeois values in The Dark Knight. In trying to explain the Joker's actions, Alfred describes the bandit who threw away stolen rubies as a man who 'just wanted to watch the world burn', even though it was Alfred and his comrades who actually burned down a whole forest just to get to one bandit who was preventing them from bribing local national leaders into submission. Then we see the Joker's only main symbolic act of arson in the movie: destroying a huge pile of cash. So when Joker violates the higher powers of money we're taught to see this as a violation of the world itself, but when Batman goes above the law to mass-surveillance the public and use torture against arrestees, he's protecting the world. There may have been valid utilitarian logic behind Batman's behaviour, but the film's underlying message is unmistakenly oriented in favour of the ruling class.
Except Batman destroys that device after joker would’ve continued on
I feel like this video and the audience here legit just want to defend a psychotic murderer
@@chandlerburse You're thinking is too binary. No one here supports Joker-style terrorism. It's just we're questioning what kind of 'hero' Batman really is. It implies a reconsideration of our civilisation's values and priorities. We're defending revolutionary values against being identified with a psychotic murderer.
@@chandlerburse Has the US government destroyed its own version of that device?
The discussion on the symbolic reversal of projecting law and order as extensions of the will of the people is extremely relevant given the police response to university protests recently. The nypd has even gone as far as to claim that outside agitators are behind the nationwide protests.
i wish knowledgeable people did class analyses of real contemporary societies
Please
I don’t mean this in a rude way, but try it out for yourself. It’s can be fun and rewarding.
Which Society you want first?
The klendathu?
Predators?
Weyland Yutani?
Arrakis?
I mean *gestures vaguely at academia, social sciences especially*
Though I do guess you mean in an accessible format which academic literature is not necessarily.
There is a small phenomenon happening in a small circle in academia concerning Riley and Brenner's "Seven Theses on American Politics", a very interesting class-analysis of post-C0VID America. There has been response articles, side articles, rebuke articles. It is a dense read but most of the stuff is for free in New Left Review.
When it comes to the Dark Knight Trilogy, I cannot remember a single thing about the first film, for it was so empty and forgetable. And the only things I remember from the Dark Knight Rises were the ridiculous things, like the aforementioned revolution perpetuated by some guys from another country, who want to nuke the city but don't do it immediately because reasons.
It was really only the second Dark Knight film which was good and memorable. Even the pro-state right-wing underlying message can be interpreted as a critique of these things. For example, I personally never saw the interrogation scene as gloryfying the act, but the opposite. And we shouldn't forget the conclusion of the two boats scene, where the two groups forgo their class difference ( lower-class criminals and middle-class ) and decide to cooperate by not blowing eachother up. That seems like pro solidarity and empathy sentiment.
that's the baffling part tho, batman sees them not blow each other up yet comes to the conclusion that they're not mature enough to understand the situation about harvey and feels the need to reward people's hope and growth with a lie? while he storms into the night with loud inspiring music playing in the background? sounds like condoning than critiquing
@@nalday2534 Maybe Batman is supposed to look like an idiot? He is part of the upper class, and maybe from his perspective, the lower and middle classes are all sheep who cannot be trusted, even when they prove themselves capable to solve a difficult coordination problem before his eyes. Actually, I clearly remember that even the Joker is surprised by the outcome, and he intends to blow up the boats using his own remote. So, the people on the boats, through their own effort, defeat both the forces of Chaos, represented by the Joker who wants to destroy them, and the forces of Order, represented by Batman who wants to shepherd them.
10:44 those graphs dont show what you say they show & you left them on screen so short that people cant notice. Not the most honest presenting. The steady increase in prison system growth until 86 on the first graph starts in 74, not during RR's term, & continues thru the Carter yrs. The steady increase of law and order funding in the 2nd graph until 1988 starts in 1970, not 80, & the 1st spike in law in order _coincides_ with a speak in welfare funding.
The extreme increases due begin in the 80’s on both charts. It’s not some trick to dupe the viewer, the vast majority of these increases and the decrease in social welfare happened under Reagan’s neoliberal policies.
Incredible commentary. Extremely insightful and nuanced. Great work.
Thank you for this video essay, you talk in it about all the points I thought myself when the movie came out and which seemed so obvious to me but what noone around me seemed to notice.
That was easily one of the best analyses of the Batman/Joker movies. Especially in describing the ideology in Nolan's Dark Knight series
just evangelical marxism schizoposting. Critical analysis is cult brainrot.
I honestly have been waiting for an analysis in this vein since Joker (2019) came out.
I honestly believe the Harley Quinn TV show is the only class-conscious superhero show. For one, it actually challenges Batman and Gordon's characters, their social positions and the violence they commit - and that's just the tip of it.
Ohh and it’s SO GOOD at it too!
Absolutely adore that show
21:00 this hits hard. All my life thinking things just feel wrong and any sort of psychiatric help just feels like trying to hammer a square peg in a triangle shaped hole
5:16 the previous line Alfred said was I was doing a colonialism in Burma. Just saying the context
Some people just want to see our colonies burn. 😢
@@Sidharthavicious I Assume you are South Asian or Indian
Holy shit that interview with the guy (cop?) in the armor at toward the end is surreal, I legit thought it was a video of someone dressed as a stormtrooper at a cosplaying event for a few seconds
It's from the channel BoyBoy, when they go to the arms dealer convention.
Masterful analysis of popular culture's iconography. I would be interested in Jonas' assessment of Herbert Marcuse's critique of Fromm and in particular his reworking of Freud's theory of the 'Death Instinct' into his theory of transcendence/transference. Marcuse claimed that Fromm was more of a reformist than revolutionary.
Well constructed analysis that I appreciate. Since 2019 Joker it deepened my feelings on classism Great vid!
commies are naturally the most obsessed over consooming product and base their entire worldview on corporate brands and movies
Batman beating up the Joker, using surveillance, being compared to vigilantes wasnt a clear cut promotion of the guys tactics, the entire film was doing a very classic Batman story trope of him treading a fine line of becoming as bad as the people he fights. The Joker highlights and exasperates this in an effort to finally break Batman entirely, but of course he fails... at least with Batman.
Dont get me wrong, The Dark Knight is hardly revolutionary in its analysis, it does see that there are good and bad billionaires, etc, and there are lots of good points and comparisons in this video, but to gloss over the fact that many of those scenes were often a condemnation of, or at the very least raising questions about, what Batman was doing seems a bit silly to me. It was a clearly stated major theme of the film. (Similarly, while I loved Joker and came away with a pretty positive interpretation of its message, I dont think you can just ignore the more... troubling angles on what it was doing.)
I agree with you and am surprised that there aren't more people pointing this out. Portraying something is not the same as promoting or defending it. I never got the impression that The Dark Knight was an attempt to justify police violence and state repression, and I still don't after watching the video. I agree more with what he said about TDKR though.
@lbzera But Batman is a Fascist, he beats up the poor! I'm 14 and I just discovered media analysis.
since the joker fails, at least with batman but batman ultimately emerges as the winner in the battle of ideologies as he storms into the night looking cool while loud and inspiring music plays at the background? feel like the film's condoning him than critiquing him
To see what plays out in the movies as condemnation of Batman's choices is completely missing the point, from a media analysis standpoint. That's always the issue when the focus is on Batman in a vacuum. It's much easier to see that Nolan is explicitly taking a technocratic turn in the movie when you consider just how cartoonishly evil Joker is presented as. There is no context or nuance to who the Joker is.
This is an exact parallel to the hysteria after 9/11, and many of the people who condemn the Patriot Act now, especially liberals, had an extreme bloodlust to see this irrational enemy of America knocked off its perch (most liberals still think this way, despite lip service). In fact, this is always presented as the trope in media - that OBL brought America down to the 'terrorists' level. Batman is supposed to be the moral evolution of this, a way to 'save the world', so to speak, without completely turning himself inside out. Except OBL is whoever the Americans wanted him to be, just like Joker.
All the grappling of morality is a complete void when the enemy isn't so defined. It's also why the 3rd movie was such a disappointment. Bane is more fleshed out than Joker could ever be, and with him Nolan had a real chance to explore some real class analysis. However, you end up with the same 'irrational' evil that could never be defined as being in the 'right' because of how extreme it is. The "extremist" trope is what carries Nolan in all 3 movies, and what allows him an escape route for the completely shitty politics of all of his movies. Batman can be extreme, but he can always elude his enemies in this aspect. That's also the same logic behind liberal technocratic ideology.
I wasn't a fan of Joker, but this was one of the most moving videos I've seen in a long time. I recently rewatched the Dark Knight Rises and rolled my eyes at most of the politics that I definitely didn't the first time around. Explicating alienation by comparing the two films is incredible so I just wanted to say thank you.
Yeah, the Dark Knight is one of those films that just gets worse the more you think about it.
it boggles my mind that the most digestible politics in the whole trilogy are in batman begins, a movie partly written by david s goyer 💀
Joker was indeed terrible.
@@wet-readit's mid. Very very mid.
And that makes me not like it at all. I'm curious as to why you think so. For me, the main character was an audience insert or a misery machine. A character with no personality or motive.
@@leafyishereisdumbnameakath4259
I am so glad you ask!!! 😀😊
As it happens, I posted a mammoth comment elsewhere on YT about exactly what you are curious to hear from me. I can drop it here if you wish...
Amazing anlaysis - loved it. Thank you so much!!! Your work is so needed here on yt.
great analysis! I personally think there is a lot of Jungian concepts layered through out the Batman properties but none more so than the Joker film. To me it read as step by step explanation of how some ones real life archetypes fail to meet their subconcious understanding of those archetypes leading to a complete imbalance and loss of self and reemergence in the form of their most trusted archetype.
The best channel on this platform imo - thank you for another great video!
If you're seeing the joker as the same character in these pictures you're doing it wrong.
They are completely different characters. The Joker from Dark Knight was highly likely to have been from the same wealth class as Batman and Dent.
@chandllerburse737 have you ever seen the movie Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves?
Thank you so much for this analysis, Jonas. I enjoyed every second of it, and will recommend it to as many people as I can.
The Aurora shooter did not identify with the Joker, the psychiatrist interviewing him confirmed this.
This video is beyond brilliant. I'm always watching in depth film analysis but this is so engaging. I never realized the differences in each jokers movie.
Vid was excellent man!!
This video should be shown in schools
Really feel you're selling The Dark Knight short here. The Joker is not merely an agent of chaos: that's just what he tells Harvey Dent to redirect his rage at the established order, and should be taken as credibly as Joker's made-up stories about his scar. Alfred Pennyworth's "some men just want to watch the world burn" is similarly superficial. Batman's analysis is closer; he asks the Joker after their fight in the Prewitt building: "What were you hoping to prove? That deep down we're all as ugly as you?" Not exactly. The Joker seeks to expose moral hypocrisy. In each of his acts of criminality and terror, he exploits people's own willingness to put their own self-interest above their purported moral values, in order to show that our society's perception of itself as civilized is false. A Nietzschean move, in essence. But what Batman doesn't know, that the film-goer does, is it's a criminal who ultimately acts selflessly and saves both the civilians and the prisoners on the two ferries. So the critique of Batman's exclusion of criminals from the political order, as "garbage who kill for money", is internal to the movie itself. As is Fox's critique of mass surveillance. Although the ending is cynical, there is a Leninist interpretation there as well, since Batman represents the hopefully-temporary dictatorship of a revolutionary vanguard which hopes to free democracy from corruption, represented by the wealthy gangsters in pinstriped suits. That's much more complicated than some right-wing heroization of Dirty Harry vigilantism.
I've seen The Dark Night a few times, and while overall I thought it was a very interesting and well-made movie, Batman brutalizing the Joker in captivity always made me uncomfortable, regardless of the context, the justifications, and everything else that's done in an attempt to make the viewer feel no sympathy for him. Even as I watch the movie, suspend disbelief, and enter into that world for the movie's runtime, I am still me: I still believe that a person in confinement, who poses no present threat through any actions they can take, should never be assaulted, and indeed should be protected from any assault that might arise specifically due to their confinement. Even if the violence were to lead to a more "positive" outcome, I still can't agree to it under such circumstances.
I kinda view the Dark Knight trilogy like Watchmen in a way, though I think it was never the movie's intention: it's a condemnation of the entire concept of superheroes. Everything Batman and the cops do makes the city worse.
stop the cap you know what happens later
@@TheGamer-sb3ry yeah, every loe they tell blows up in their face and they spend more time fixing problems they caused than actually facing the root of the inequalities that ail Gotham
@@rawalshadab3812 root can't be fixed sorry but that the reality I was referring to joker escaping prison
@chandllerburse737 I don't think he does. If you mean pre-events of the movie, it leads to Bane and they explicitly talk bout how there;s unaddressed inequality. If you mean after the events of the movie, the existence of the Joseph Gordon Levitt character makes clear that batman is going to be permanently necessary ( and the nuclear fallout of any radiation from that bomb is going to cause unimaginable problems).
finally, a much needed class analysis of comic book characters, which Marvel and DC are completely devoid of, because most superhero comic books are not left-leaning.
@@kidfantastic it's a complete myth that billionaires are good guys, characters like Bruce Wayne and Tony Stark are created to reinforce this false consciousness. Also it's weird that some idiotic dc fans would consider Lex Luthor is somehow not that bad. They think he is just trying to protect humanity, which is completely absurd. Sometimes comic book fans are not naive but outright stupid.
@@kidfantasticolder movies in general. When I watch some stuff from the 60s I'm surprised how much Scooby-Doo "we can do this together as a team!" kinda stuff there is. It was cultural at the time, that you and you friends working together is what makes all of you strong. Thinking of "The Computer Wears Tennis Shoes" and "Kelly's Heros". It almost feels foreign because now a days you get one powerful person who kicks the ass of 50 baddies at once. What about your friends? They are probably weak and incapable, and in need of you saving them. It becomes obvious how movies are edited by the financial interests funding them.
Superman was literally a Socialist. In the comics he beat up Capitalists and defended labor organizers, and in real life he beat the KKK.
@@kidfantasticAt that time a good amount of Marvel artists and writers saw themselves as a bit of a counter-culture... Certainly not as conformists to any particular ideology or worldview. How refreshing.
well, they should be
Well, at least in the Nolan trilogy we get to see how uncertain Bruce Wayne is of his success as a superhero. Heath Ledger's Joker also led me to question whether the problem wasn't more fundamental than bad people ruining society for everyone. So I wouldn't just say it's about good capitalist vs bad capitalist, in many ways the Dark Knight's Joker proves that the society they live in is fundamentally flawed, but the character of Batman nonetheless remains profoundly anti-revolutionary
This was a brilliant analysis of the two movies. The Dark knight really bothered me when I first watched it, but I wasn't able to really figure out why. The class analysis, like the kind you make happen, really put things into perspective for me.
Fantastic breakdown and comparison! Thanks so much!
This video really made me solidify some thoughts I had about Nolan's most recent film.
Care to explain which thoughts? I've also had some issues with Oppenheimer
This was a beautiful piece, thank you for sharing your great work 🌺
On the matter of violece: in modern societies only the state has an authority on dishing violence. Hence the conflicting looks on violence in these two films. Even tho the Batman is a "vigilante", he is still colluding with typically right-wing parts of the state's system (police).
My favourite Philosophy channel author is back! Yay
Batman don't defend the law, because what he does is illegal. In many comics the police comes behind him to put in jail, for breaking the law.
Folks point to The Hangover movies and say Todd Phillips couldn't tell a Joker story...but I point to his first movie Hated: GG Allen and the Murder Junkies, to prove he can.
He should stick to comedies, or, if he makes serious movies, have them be written better.
But what about the prison ship? Are they not framed as sympathetic?
Amazing analysis on Joker and The Dark Knight! Your insights added a new layer of depth to these films for me. For future content, I'd be really interested in a philosophical comparison of the "Watchmen" film vs. the comics, or an exploration of the "V for Vendetta" comics. The philosophy of AI would also be a captivating topic. Keep up the great work!
And he asked me: "Why are we SO BACK? 🤡"
oh the boy boy clip of guy in riot armor. It still tingles me when i see it.
Those comedians really got the power to lift the mask, for a joke, almost by accident.
9:38 he is also single-handedly responsible for the widespread degradation of funding for the arts and arts education in the United States
Thank you for featuring Erich Fromm. When i was 14-16 I read all of his books and they helped me to break from my orthodox Catholicism and move toward a commitment to socialist solidarity.
It would be interesting to look into Taxi Driver and King Of Comedy for these themes and what the script writers intensions were as Joker 2019 plot is almost a carbon copy of King Of Comedy plot and has scenes and themes explored in Taxi Driver.
It isn't a carbon copy, but it takes enough from that and Taxi Driver. And it doesn't even do it well. I hated Joker.
Tell me you haven't seen those movies without telling me you haven't seen those movies
@@wet-readJesus you're everywhere in these Joker videos, we get it you hated Joker, now let enjoy people a good movie, not everyone have your bad taste 😂
A perfect time for this essay. Thank you for sharing this perspective, I hope people talk to each other about it offline.
My big problem with the Joker was in how it justifies and excuses white aggrieved entitlement. Fleck reaches his breaking point when it becomes clear that he'll never be part of the ruling class, and his response is semi-random violence directed at people with whom he has personal grievances, and the movie seems to frame this as righteous in some way. I think Falling Down is a better version of this story, since it knows to identify the protagonist as reactionary himself.
The difference is that Michael Douglas character was unsympathetic, I really couldn't connect with the movie because of that.
Loved the video. I hesitated watching it since I rolled my eyes through Joker and ended up hating it.
Got me thinking about how I find it really hard to conceive of these comic book Superheroes as revolutionary figures. Maybe it has something to do with the context and use of these figures in culture.
I also found the comments section illuminating in many ways.
2008 politics and sensitivities were very different than 2019.
Even if you're "late" to the discussion that's a perk: Hegel and the owl of Minerva spreads its wings only with the falling of the dusk and so on... Your lack of immediateness it a feature that make you more thoughfull than a thousand video essayist! God praise! And keep it with your own flow!
My only thing would be Nolan's intentions behind the film, is it a critique of Batman rather than praise. As we've seen from Oppenheimer Nolan most likely isn't right wing or centrist.
This was incredibly insightful and thorough. Great analysis!
I don’t think the Nolan trilogy intended to be politically driven.
Little disturbed by the fact that in the middle of this video, I got an ad for buying guns to “be prepared for what’s to come”. Feels both like the advertising algorithm completely fucked up on what video to show this on, but also feels very fitting.
Amazing video, with an excellent use/mention of class and political economy theories.
If I may request anything, I'd like to have your analysis of Harley Quinn's DC cartoon series, especially the 3rd season.
The noble lie is a nice way of explaining the foot on your neck.
Wake up babe, new Jonas Čeika video just dropped
Really terrific video. Nuanced, insightful, tuned in to the world. Appreciate you, you have a new loyal fan of the channel
In your analysis, you still forgot the fact that the joker is commissioned by rich criminals who don't want to give up their advantages and that in the dark knight rises, bane is a liar who pretends to be for the people so that in fact he is more echoing populism than a true revolutionary.
Especially to say that Batman in this trilogy is a status quo pro while his arc in batman begins is to understand that the problem of the city is not limited to individuals (scene with rachel in the narrows) but rather to the system (Falcone and those around him).
The climax of the film is still that Batman tries to stop ghul from destroying the poor neighborhood of Gotham (ghul who is portrayed as a fanatic believing that the inhabitants of Gotham are all corrupt because they live in a city with high crime which is more reminiscent of a right-wing ideology).
I saw your book in a Barnes and Noble, I read through it and I am impressed! Well done.
I might be the biggest fucking nerd in the world for pointing this out, but when you say Bruce Wayne ,the guy Arthur thinks is his dad, I think you are referring to Thomas Wayne (Batman's father, not Batman). Great analysis btw!
so glad to hear you say Tendies123 once again
Can’t believe you referenced Fromm in this book who I’ve actually read. Pretty cool.
Yeah, when he said: _many thinkers sought to modify marx's account of alienation..._
I immediately thought of Erich Fromm and there he was, on the screen 2 seconds later.