seriously, I am the worst at meta. Ever.
Firstly, OMG YOU GUYS I TOLD YOU SO.
Remember? Back in 2006 when you all had no faith and I was like, "No worries, he will be brilliant!" Or is revisionist history going to kick my ass in this respect? In any case, HEATH OMG. It didn't even make me sad at all, he was THAT good.
I'm horrible at meta but Batman tends to just bring it out of me.
I think it's sort of beautiful that the entire movie sort of revolves around the idea of responsibility and agency. Brief as Harvey Dent's stay in the Nolan-verse was (and I sincerely hope they don't invalidate the symbolism of his death by bringing him back) it was really well-used in terms of these ideas: Batman being all agency, no responsibility, and Dent all responsibility but without the means to take real action himself.
Those people on the boats are perfect examples of what's going on in the greater story - voting 2:1 for pushing the button but unable to find a single person willing to step up and become the agent of those collective dark intentions. Someone has to do it, but no one wants to be that someone. That's why Gotham needs Batman, he does the dirty work for them. That's why they exonerate Dent, as well - because he steps up and takes it all upon himself, when even Bruce Wayne hesitates. In doing this, he does what even Batman can't, marrying responsibility and agency (despite the fact it's a sham). That's what Gotham needs - someone who can take responsibility for their actions without hiding behind anonymity. And while that doesn't quite happen, they're at least able to give off the illusion that such a person existed with their revision of Dent's downfall.
My question is, how is Dent such a shining white knight, while Gordon (equally exposed and well-intentioned) slips under the "hope" radar?
Remember? Back in 2006 when you all had no faith and I was like, "No worries, he will be brilliant!" Or is revisionist history going to kick my ass in this respect? In any case, HEATH OMG. It didn't even make me sad at all, he was THAT good.
I'm horrible at meta but Batman tends to just bring it out of me.
I think it's sort of beautiful that the entire movie sort of revolves around the idea of responsibility and agency. Brief as Harvey Dent's stay in the Nolan-verse was (and I sincerely hope they don't invalidate the symbolism of his death by bringing him back) it was really well-used in terms of these ideas: Batman being all agency, no responsibility, and Dent all responsibility but without the means to take real action himself.
Those people on the boats are perfect examples of what's going on in the greater story - voting 2:1 for pushing the button but unable to find a single person willing to step up and become the agent of those collective dark intentions. Someone has to do it, but no one wants to be that someone. That's why Gotham needs Batman, he does the dirty work for them. That's why they exonerate Dent, as well - because he steps up and takes it all upon himself, when even Bruce Wayne hesitates. In doing this, he does what even Batman can't, marrying responsibility and agency (despite the fact it's a sham). That's what Gotham needs - someone who can take responsibility for their actions without hiding behind anonymity. And while that doesn't quite happen, they're at least able to give off the illusion that such a person existed with their revision of Dent's downfall.
My question is, how is Dent such a shining white knight, while Gordon (equally exposed and well-intentioned) slips under the "hope" radar?