__marcelo (__marcelo) wrote,

  • Mood:

A conundrum

Bruce said in the first movie that a man can be destroyed, but a symbol can endure and inspire the city to fight against the darkness destroying it from inside. The second movie was about the tantalizing possibility that he could be wrong, that a person could *be* what Gotham needed, and how that hope was destroyed (arguably, it could have worked if not for the Joker; but the Joker is the very process of Gotham's destruction given a body). And at the end of the second movie, even the symbol he built, the Batman, is no longer the inspiration that he wanted him to be. He traded the Batman as hero for the dead name of Dent, and neither of them, I think, is enough to raise Gotham from where it stands, to keep it from where it's going.

So the second movie undoes the achievements of the first (keep in mind that Bruce doesn't fight crime per se; he fights for Gotham, which is a different endeavor), and leaves in its place the shaky foundations of a disgraced vigilante, a dead DA, and a cover up. And now, besides Gotham's corruption itself, he has to fight the Joker, an active force of chaos.

Thinking in terms of a trilogy, the third movie is when Bruce wins. But he can't use Batman to win; at best, Batman can keep Gotham physically (and relatively) safe, but he can't change the tide of decay. The criminals he takes down are replaced by others, often nastier. What would work for me (but let's face it, because it's my favorite fan-fictional kink), is for Bruce to become what Gotham needs. Assuming he can, which is arguable. If he can't, then he already has lost, and he and Gotham are doomed.
Tags: batman, movies
  • Post a new comment


    default userpic
    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.