I think OSC is wrong in thinking Batman made a moral choice to save Dent over Rachel. He clearly tells Gordon on his way out that he's going after Rachel. He has no reason to lie, because this would simply prevent Gordon's having any chance at saving the other person. I think we're supposed to understand that the Joker, having already seen Batman choose Rachel by jumping out the window after her while he was threatening Dent, knows he will choose her again. He thus gives Batman the two addresses in reverse. Because the whole point of this exercise to the Joker is not to kill Dent, but to try to drive him crazy. For that Dent needs to survive.
So does Batman's choice render him any less of a hero?
[Included spoiler warning. --PJ]
[ August 01, 2008, 08:28 PM: Message edited by: Papa Janitor ]
Posted by orlox (Member # 2392) on :
Welcome.
Generally if a thread contains spoilers we indicate that fact in the thread title. Perhaps with a (Spoilers). You can still edit the title.
I can't really comment on the content of your post because I haven't seen it yet. Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I can't help thinking that's sort of warped morality though.
"Sorry, love of my life, woman I grew up with, BUT it would be better for Gotham if I saved Harvey instead of you."
fact is, don't they both do the same job? Harvey just gets more props though, but Rachel wants justice too.
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
There was already a thread on this on the other side. And he went to save Rachel.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
orlox: It's a comment on a review that has spoilers. There will be spoilers in the comment, that's pretty clear. Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
WHOA ARGH WHOA
oh god I just got the crap spoiled outta me
Posted by anti_maven (Member # 9789) on :
It's not a given that posters read the OSC articles on the front page...
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
Well, reading a thread criticizing an article you haven't read is a bit weird, don't you think?
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
Nah, I do it all the time. Then I sometimes go read the original article if the fuss is interesting. I read Hatrack threads all the time because the forum is bookmarked, but I don't normally think to check other parts of the site.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I don't think choosing Dent is a warped morality. It's a straightforward morality that is nonetheless not one that is easily followed by people with close personal relationships. I continue to believe Batman meant to save Dent; it's the only thing that fits with the point of the movie. (I'm impervious to evidence, I think it was just planted there to mollify audience members of test screenings who were outraged that Batman wouldn't try to save the girl like they've been trained to expect by decades of romanticized entertainment. )
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:Well, reading a thread criticizing an article you haven't read is a bit weird, don't you think?
Heck, I'm reading a review of a review of a movie I've not seen.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
See, that to me is something else. I'll read a movie review for something I'll see, sometimes even if it has spoilers. Reading the review takes comparatively little time and it lets me decide whether I'd like to see it or not. Reading a critique of a review, of comparable size, without reading the review first, seems useless; if I see a thread like this before reading the review, I'll go read the review first.
Not that it matters if you read this thread first. But I wouldn't be mad to see the same spoilers in here as in the original review, even without warning. I doubt that a thread like this could be written without using spoilers anyway; how can you talk about misunderstanding something without mentioning that something?
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:I don't think choosing Dent is a warped morality. It's a straightforward morality that is nonetheless not one that is easily followed by people with close personal relationships.
I think it make the story great if he did, but then why not have a shot of Wayne attending Dawes funeral, grimacing condolences. I thought the Joker switched the addresses.
From the Review:
quote:And this is the morally right choice. It is exactly the choice that parents make when they send their children off to war, or into the police force or the fire department. If anything, the love of parents for children is greater than the love mates have for each other. Yet, when the needs of the overall society -- the city, the nation -- require it, parents make the choice to permit it, even to honor and embrace letting their children go into harm's way.
This is spot on.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:He clearly tells Gordon on his way out that he's going after Rachel.
It is not so clear. It's hard to hear exactly what he says, but when I watched it, I thought he told Gordon to get Rachel.
"Where are you going?" "Get Rachel."
I suspect that it was purposely confusing so that we wouldn't know what was happening.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I thought he was going to get Rachel.
I also thought - for separate reasons that I can't quote from memory - that there was a clear statement that the Joker switched the addresses.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong:
quote: From the Review:
[QUOTE]And this is the morally right choice. It is exactly the choice that parents make when they send their children off to war, or into the police force or the fire department. If anything, the love of parents for children is greater than the love mates have for each other. Yet, when the needs of the overall society -- the city, the nation -- require it, parents make the choice to permit it, even to honor and embrace letting their children go into harm's way.
This is spot on.
I still think that's a bit warped... I'd rather go to war myself then let any future child of mine do that... Them being on the police force or being a fire fighter, slightly different thing, somewhat simular. But it's not just the risk of dying in the war, it can really take a toll on a person's mind and soul. I think it's MORE moral to make the sacrifice yourself then to ask them to do that. Kamikaze soldiers come to mind.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
I've seen it twice, and if I'm remembering correctly, when Gordon and Batman ran out the door, Gordon said, "Who are you going after?" And the immediate response was, "Rachel." Remember, in the interrogation scene, it comes out that Joker knows that Batman at least has a thing for Rachel. It would be like him (the Joker) to switch who's at which address--agent of chaos and all that.
Posted by cmn (Member # 11706) on :
My apologies to anyone I spoiled. I guess I assumed you wouldn't read this if you hadn't already seen the movie and read OSC's article to which I was responding. I'll be more careful in future.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I think it's MORE moral to make the sacrifice yourself then to ask them to do that.
It's a nice thought, but sometimes the world doesn't permit you that option.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
That doesn't mean the alternative is better, just because you're unable to follow the better choice.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:It is exactly the choice that parents make when they send their children off to war, or into the police force or the fire department.
This is not entirely up to the parents, and it isn't an equivalent analogy. Rachel wasn't asked if she was willing to be sacrificed.
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
)