The Harvey Dent Act/Following up TDK's Dent Ending (SPOILERS)

[The Laughing Fish]

I think it's safe to say they never used the Act again once Harvey was exposed as a murderer. The Batman Wikia page says the Act was abolished too. Now I know that anyone could write a Wikia page, but still...

EDIT: Sorry colors, I saw your follow-up to your post just now.

[The Dark Knight]

Good point there TLF. If policy works, keep it. Sure, if it fails, get rid of it. But if murderers are locked up indefinitely and the streets are safe, I'm okay with that. These people are not angels, they are killers, and they lived up to their reputation as soon as Bane let them loose again. I honestly don't see what really changes once it's revealed Dent killed a bunch of people eight years ago. It's disappointing, but that's about it. It's about achieving real results, and especially in the here and now. It's like standing up for terrorist rights and saying waterboarding isn't acceptable even though we get the vital information quickly, so we stop doing it. It's dumb. Batman shouldn't have lied about Dent in the first place, but as it evolved, the Act put him out of business. And that should have been the whole point of the trilogy's arc. Especially given he retires with Selina. Handing over to Blake is a regression and blows up the balloon again.

[The Laughing Fish]

I can't understand how anyone could say Batman was a short term goal for society to rebuild itself. If that was the goal that Nolan wanted to convey in his narrative then I'm afraid to say he failed badly.

If the message is supposed to be that it's wrong to enact a law that's predicated on a lie (which makes Batman and Gordon's decision to cover-up for Two-Face even more despicable), it offers no solution to Gotham's social problems. At the same time, if the Dent Act was still active by the end of the film, and it continued to keep scumbags off the streets, then why would Blake take the mantle as Batman?

As a matter of fact, you can easily interpret the movie's message as if it's saying law and order won't ever work. After all, Alfred confesses to Bruce that he never wanted him to come back to Gotham because it was a place that brought him nothing but pain and tragedy, and Bruce leaves the city in the end. This gives me the impression that Bruce realises Gotham is irredeemable, and would rather give the keys to Batcave to Blake. As if he's saying "I quit. Good luck taking care of that sh*thole, it's your problem now". And let's not forget: the reason why Blake turns to vigilantism is because he lost all faith in law enforcement. 

Seriously, this ending is far more cynical than people care to admit. But hey, let's not think about it too much because we're just glad that Bruce got a happy ending. No thanks.  As far as modern cinematic interpretations go, give me an ending where Batman rises above his powerlessness and blind rage with newly found gratitude, and continues to search
for redemption as he forms the Justice League.

Of course, Nolan tries to hide this lapse in logic by coming up with this "anyone can be Batman" bullcrap, but as it's discussed many times before, it doesn't make sense because inspiring copycats wasn't what Batman wanted in TDK.

I'd feel strange to ask for a superhero movie to promote against vigilantism and favour law and order instead, but it was Nolan who wanted to explore this theme. Not the audience. It's Nolan's fault if his approach and exectution is a muddled mess.

[thecolorsblend]

But hey, let's not think about it too much because we're just glad that Bruce got a happy ending.

I well recognize that this doesn't work for you but that single fact you mention cuts through a lot of crap for me. It's not that you're wrong. You're not. But the problems you mention don't bug me all that much because TDKRises showed a way to send Bruce riding off somewhat happily into the sunset. I can overlook a lot of stuff because of that.

Again, you're not wrong. It's just that the good elements outweigh the nonsense for me. Frankly, I see no rational argument for repealing the Dent Act simply because it was premised upon a lie. That fact notwithstanding doesn't invalidate the fair, just and lawful arrests that were made.

In the real world, it truly wouldn't bother me if something like the Dent Act was passed under the same or similar circumstances as long as it got violent gangs and criminals off the streets. Then again, I'm not exactly a libertarian when it comes to law enforcement issues. Get out of the police's way and they can get it done.

[The Laughing Fish]

I well recognize that this doesn't work for you but that single fact you mention cuts through a lot of crap for me. It's not that you're wrong. You're not. But the problems you mention don't bug me all that much because TDKRises showed a way to send Bruce riding off somewhat happily into the sunset. I can overlook a lot of stuff because of that.

Yeah, we'll definitely have to agree to disagree there. I was so put off by this Batman's negligence throughout the trilogy that I was even more disgusted by the ending of TDKR than ever before. It was a "happy" ending that wasn't earned. And considering how much I hated TDK, that's saying a lot.

[thecolorsblend]

Yeah, we'll definitely have to agree to disagree there. I was so put off by this Batman's negligence throughout the trilogy that I was even more disgusted by the ending of TDKR than ever before. It was a "happy" ending that wasn't earned. And considering how much I hated TDK, that's saying a lot.

I get that. But one powerful element of the story for me was the theme of the ghosts from Bruce's past coming back to haunt him. He thought he'd put the League of Shadows down. Nope. He thought he'd buried Harvey's secrets. Nope. Alfred thought he was helping by burning Rachel's note. Nope. Miranda as a deep cover saboteur. The list goes on.

I think there's an argument that Batman is ultimately not helpful to society. Even if he's effectual against crime and villainy, his actions still damage his own environment. So there's something to be said for Bruce cutting his losses and letting the city's judiciary and law enforcement officials handle things from here on in. It's a recognition that perhaps his crusade is ultimately self-defeating.

Yes, Blake replacing Bruce as Batman undermines that. I realize that. I'm just saying it's a powerful realization for Bruce to make and you can extrapolate that realization as TDKRises unfolds.

Plus, this is arguably Zimmer's best Batman score. It has the widest cross-section of new and old themes. Really, all it's lacking are the Joker theme and the Harvey theme from TDK.

The Nolan trilogy isn't perfect and it's certainly not my Batman but there are some positive aspects to it and the things that work usually work REALLY WELL.

[The Laughing Fish]

I think BatmAngelus came up with a much better ending: Bruce "picked himself up again" by regaining what's left of his wealth to help rebuild Gotham and followed his parents' footsteps by becoming a philanthropist. The city finally moves on without Batman for good. If TDKR had that ending, I could have salvaged something in Nolan's Batman.

But as the current ending stands? No. I can't accept that. And that's all I have to say.

[Dagenspear]

As a matter of fact, you can easily interpret the movie's message as if it's saying law and order won't ever work. After all, Alfred confesses to Bruce that he never wanted him to come back to Gotham because it was a place that brought him nothing but pain and tragedy, and Bruce leaves the city in the end. This gives me the impression that Bruce realises Gotham is irredeemable, and would rather give the keys to Batcave to Blake. As if he's saying "I quit. Good luck taking care of that sh*thole, it's your problem now". And let's not forget: the reason why Blake turns to vigilantism is because he lost all faith in law enforcement.

Bruce leaves because he understands that he can't be Batman anymore, not only is it bad for him emotionally, physically and mentally, he's not capable of being it. Alfred says it himself.

Seriously, this ending is far more cynical than people care to admit. But hey, let's not think about it too much because we're just glad that Bruce got a happy ending. No thanks.  As far as modern cinematic interpretations go, give me an ending where Batman rises above his powerlessness and blind rage with newly found gratitude, and continues to search for redemption as he forms the Justice League.

If you don't care about Bruce's character, then I don't know why you'd watch a story about him. Gotham's inability to move forward doesn't inhibit Bruce's ability, if he simply can't continue to be Batman physically. Bruce's character is the focus. His journey is what we're following, not Gotham's. More than anything, it's your interpretation that's cynical, not the ending. Moving on with your life and not destroying yourself with something you're not capable of anymore isn't cynical. What you want isn't what you've gotten. You've gotten Batman stopping being a killer, apparently, because Superman died. His actions not motivated by decency, friendship, honor or empathy. But just because.

Of course, Nolan tries to hide this lapse in logic by coming up with this "anyone can be Batman" bullcrap, but as it's discussed many times before, it doesn't make sense because inspiring copycats wasn't what Batman wanted in TDK.

Blake is someone Bruce picked, not a copycat. This ignores the fact that Bruce realized that a hero with a face isn't necessarily going to work. And that statement referred to anyone being Batman symbolically.

I'd feel strange to ask for a superhero movie to promote against vigilantism and favour law and order instead, but it was Nolan who wanted to explore this theme. Not the audience. It's Nolan's fault if his approach and exectution is a muddled mess.

You haven't said why it's a muddled mess to you, factually. Have a very great day!

God bless you all!

[Andrew]

if the Dent Act was still active by the end of the film, and it continued to keep scumbags off the streets, then why would Blake take the mantle as Batman?

Possibly Blake would only fight, rarely, against supervillains rather than ordinary criminals or (a) Batman continuing to fight against crime would continue to be a positive symbol, making the police and civilians better. The endings to both BB and TDK have the idea that like it or not Batman probably will have to do what he does forever and yet Bruce himself doesn't.

Seriously, this ending is far more cynical than people care to admit. But hey, let's not think about it too much because we're just glad that Bruce got a happy ending.

It does seem pretty cynical and should-be-more-controversial for the hero to fake his death and retire from his task. But maybe the films argue that it's not possible for someone to do Batman's tasks for long, especially given what he gives up and loses.

[The Laughing Fish]

Possibly Blake would only fight, rarely, against supervillains rather than ordinary criminals or (a) Batman continuing to fight against crime would continue to be a positive symbol, making the police and civilians better. The endings to both BB and TDK have the idea that like it or not Batman probably will have to do what he does forever and yet Bruce himself doesn't.

Not sure how TDK's ending supports this rationale since his decision to lie about Two-Face taints his symbol. That, and the rationale itself makes the whole cover-up and the idea that Gotham needed Harvey Dent to be the alternative symbol to Batman pointless. Remember, Bruce was starting to have second thoughts about his crusade when he saw how it brought negative consequences like inspiring copycats and psychopaths, and was convinced Dent was the man Gotham needed to be inspired by. That's a popular excuse people like to argue when trying to justify why the ending couldn't have finished differently. If this plot point didn't exist, I could've bought the idea that Batman was a mantle that needed to pass on. But as it is, it just doesn't make any sense.