The Dark Knight Trilogy - Renegade Cut 

Watching this movie on year 2020 has very different impact...

I always kinda like how TDKR is pretty much how Gordon and Bruce suffering from their most questionable act, such as covering up Harvey Dent death and leaving Raz al ghul to die (except maybe the electronic surveillance)

One of the interesting things about criticizing vigilantism is that it always works under the assumption that the law is perfect. Sadly its seems like most vigilantes are lynch mobs instead of the Underground Railroad. Also: I always dig the "criminals are a cowardly lot".... said by Batman, who is a criminal.

The comparison of real world and comic book vigilantes made me think of Watchman. It finally clicked and I understand it better.

There is a huge conflation between what is legal and what is moral in this analysis. Govt is a monopoly on force, and given that power, people don't just abandon their self interest. More often then not, the "agents of the law" produce more bad than what they address. This is portrayed in the corruption of Gotham and what makes Batman neccessary in the first place.

"What kind of hero do we deserve?" Man, your channel is amazing. I discovered it not too long ago and I've been binge-watching your stuff. Keep it real and a big hug from Venezuela. x

Excellent analysis of one of my favorite film trilogies. Appreciate it even more in the wake of the DCEU.

I'M NOT WEARING HOCKEY PADS.

This is easily one of your most fascinating, in-depth episodes and also perfectly captures why I did not care for TDKR.

I always thought Joker was an Absurdist, escaping from nihilism. Thus the "Stranger" reference. Minor point tho.

I like how he says "allegedly deserves" but leaves out "allegedly" when describing needs.

Superb analysis. I like many of the ideas of this trilogy, but so many times the solution in these type of films is force and violence through one "hero" because supposedly the citizens do not have any power. The original Magnificent Seven film is a good example of heroes who recognize their limits. I think heroes are worshiped because many do feel powerless. I'd like to see a film for once where the hero handed power back to people. No one can save us but ourselves.

For the majority of the reasons you've listed, along with his overall mental instability, I kind of considered Batman an antihero. Not quite morally bankrupt like Alexander DeLarge from A Clockwork Orange or Tony Montanya from Scarface, but still within the antihero spectrum. Especially in some of the stories that highlight the similarities between Batman and the joker.

Hey Y'all should really read SEAN MURPHY's current run called BATMAN WHITE KNIGHT, it goes over a lot of these topics, and demonizes the vigilanteism of the Batman.

The question isn't what hero we deserve, it's do we even deserve a hero?

I'm really loving this channel... Very interesting perspectives.

Really like the music you chose for this one. Very well done!

Great job, loving all the video so far

Great episode, one of your best.

Dark Knight Rises was barely even mentioned tho. I was hoping someone would mention how fucked up it is that those in poverty are framed as the villains in that movie while the wealthy aristocracy are held to some higher regard, even though the impoverished are only used as pawns and are viewed through the same bullshit lens Ra'S Al Ghul originally viewed them just by Bane and Talia, as something to be exterminated like rats on a plague ship. And in the end does anyone learn a lesson; maybe more welfare programs or upward mobility to the masses? Nope. Status Quo resumes like nothing happened, just with out Batman.

I respect your opinion on the surveillance subplot, but feel you're being too harsh on this plot point. There are times in life where you have to make gambles, and they're unavoidable unless you're going to live like a hermit. In those situations, you have to argue the potential consequences vs the potential rewards. In the scenario in question, it's established that Batman can't defeat The Joker without this technology, and hundreds of lives are at stake. The potential reward is that Batman captures The Joker and hundreds, if not thousands, of lives are saved. The potential consequence is that he imposes on the freedoms of the city's citizens. The difference between this scenario and real world examples of surveillance is that the technology is being overseen by only two people, not a large government; therefore, there are less agendas available that could potentially corrupt the use of such technology (this is not to suggest that any citizen should be in charge of this technology, of course). Batman trusts that morally he and Lucious will only use the tech for it's intended purpose, and he allows Lucious to unintentionally destroy the device once it has served it's purpose. The movie does not advocate surveillance on a large scale based on Lucious' "this is wrong" line (he's the audience surrogate in the scene), and as evidenced by the fact that the tech is destroyed at the end of the film so that it can not be abused. I thought it was an excellent way of writing and presenting a complex and controversial moral dilemma. You could say that no one has appointed Batman to make these decisions, and that is true. But that is the price of vigilantism. He's doing what law enforcement does not have the resources to do, and while it is true that the people did not appoint him, it is also true that these same people largely benefit from his actions, especially the scene in question.

absolutely great analysis of theme. thank you.

Excellent essay - thanks !

excellent work as always leon.

amazing video Leon!

You bring up many interesting points.

Speaking of the scene where he "refuses to become an assassin", it bothers me with Batman's supposed "no kill" thing that he literally blows up and kills all the assassins except for Ducard, including the guy he was supposedly saving, right after rejecting becoming a killer. It's been a while since I watched it all the way through, so did the movies ever give an explanation behind the logic to that whole thing or?

Another great video!

I'm not sure if you can say that there are objective flaws with Nihilism the way you stated in the video. By living, one does not inherently oppose the Nihilist view that nothing has objective value. Living is simple one of the inconsequential choices. If you were to not live, you would by default be holding not living to a higher 'value' standard than living. The Joker is not wrong philosophically, it's just that society is based on principles that fundamentally oppose Nihilism and their interaction in Hollywood is often portrayed as being in constant conflict. Yes, maybe his actions are 'wrong' from other philosophical viewpoints, but that's not objective.

It is unbelievable how deep this video is.

Love this channel, it's smart and poignant.

I came here through Oliver Harper. you were mentioned. All brilliant!

Very interesting analysis. Also good that you didn't just praise everything in the films like some others who analyze TDK Trilogy do.

On the 60's Batman TV series,Batman told the villian Shane that he and Robin were deputized citizens of the law

This trilogy is much more fun while listening to your essay 👏

Great review for dark knight trilogy. I enjoy it.

great analysis though I just cant wait for Tarkovsky and Lynch month any idea when those are going to happen ? I love these things and I genuinely cant wait

I thought Blake was going to become Nightwing or something.

You rock, Leon

Really keeps up with current events 🕭

Great vid, Leon, but I'd have to disagree on something The "Why doesn't Batman murder the Joker?" question is a bit deeper than what you presented. At least, with the comics to back this up. The premise is that the legal system of Gotham is so corrupt and inept that even after multiple captures - the Joker always escapes and kills more and more people. The Justice system fails. The same failure of justice is what got Bruce Wayne to become Batman in the first place, so shouldn't he break the law once more in order to save the lives? Also, something that is never brought up or discussed: 1. Why doesn't Batman find a way to isolate the Joker for good? He doesn't have to "kill the Joker" as the compalint usually goes. He could very well just ask for the Justice League to put him into a Phantom zone prison. Or just make a specific prison for him, instead of simply dropping him off at Arkham for the 1000th time. 2. Why doesn't Bruce Wayne/Batman/Gordon/The city of Gotham legally execute the Joker? The "he's insane" clause is there, but I'd argue that they could bypass that as him being too dangerous to society. With a solution of passing a legal death sentence or putting him on sedatives so hard he turns into a vegetable. The readers don't neccessarily call out for Batman to kill. They just see the futility of the cat and mouse game and how Batman's "no-kill" philosophy just leads to more death.

Is Adam West's Batman the only Batman to have real accountability? He's deputized by the police and only called upon (literally, with a phone, there's no "bat signal") to help them with baffling, costumed-villain-related cases. He's not a vigilante, he doesn't go on "patrols" or hunt down criminals or such. And he spends most of his downtime raising Dick Grayson. It's all very wholesome. But people wanted "gritty batman" who is tough on crime and what resulted were some violent batmen with dubious moral choices? And now Joker's the real good guy? What happened, man?

"I'm not wearing hockey pads!" -Batman

Fantastic job, I define agree on your stance between the fact that Nolan made these films based in philosophy and that it is a comic book trilogy and the problems which this creates. There is another video on RU-vid which was released in the last month where a man dissects the role of fascist authority in the context of German film. In the end of the video he makes the exact point but in a montage to the themes of metropolis (1927). It's a good watch but your take went beyond by dissecting and inserting evidence for the claims made to back up the argument. Good work and I can't wait for the next video!

GREAT! MOAR!

it's a very nice philosophical view of justice throw the dark knight

Hey, will you make a video on your favorite 2016 movies? I would definitely wanna see that!

Love the Regular Cars reference!

If I may ask, I remember seeing another Renegade Cut about the Dark Night Trilogy, probably a very early one, that I can't find anymore. May I ask if I'm hallucinating or did you delete it

Considering nihilism and the flaw of it, that we at least assign value to things: well yeah, we can assign value to things but isn't the point that thing inherently don't have value? If we assign value to it, does not really matter. I didn't read nihilist books or anything, but I personally feel that nothing has of it's self any value, but that is no reason for hopelessness because you can create that value yourself, for yourself but also for other people. Life is meaningless until you give it meaning basically.

Hmm. This made me think a bit about Adam West Batman and how he worked more directly with the law, and pretty much was a police deputee. He also never dealt out unprovoked violence. I think I'd like some more of that in the next Batman movie.

Fruit of the poison tree only applies when the authorities illegally obtain evidence- that any evidence that further comes from that evidence is disallowed. It does not apply when a private citizen breaks the law to obtain evidence. The prosecutors can use evidence illegally obtained by Batman as long as they weren’t involved in any of the illegalities themselves. Legal Eagle has a video on The Dark Knight that goes through this, and all the other laws broken during the movie.

BRAVO!

nice stuff

watching the video, i remembered that in the old Batman tv series, batmas was deputized, and also in the comics, for a while both batman and superman where diputized by the police in order to give them autorithy when they stopped a criminal.

Have you done a video about Kick-Ass already? Because I think that what you said about the Dark Knght Trilogy is applicable to that movie too.

please do an episode on trainspotting

Forgot to mention the most famous quote of Harvey dent

Any chance you could make a similar video about a Marvel/Netflix series?

In regards other morals/politics of the film, here is my take on it in the form of an abstract of my analysis of "The Dark Knight" in my blog: Oh boy, this aspect of the film is a tough on for me to talk about for a couple of reasons. The first one being that in regards to politics in superhero films, I have a somewhat limited knowledge in regards to the American politics. The other reason why I think this is a tough aspect of the film for me to tackle is that despite myself being a native of the United Kingdom, talking about politics even if it has American contexts could possibly open a can of worms to those reading this review because of how aggressive people can be when talking about political subjects, hence the phase “the best way to remain friends is to not talk about politics”. While I will give my take on the political allegory on this film and how it sort of works more of a structure device for the films main themes of escalation and duality rather than just a straight up allegory like say how the “V for Vendetta” movie was for George W. Bush (whereas the book was more of an allegory for Margret Thatcher for when it was written). Let me open with people’s diverse reactions to the film’s political allegory. Many people (including the author of the book “Billion Dollar Batman”, Bruce Scivally) I have seen on the internet have made claims that “The Dark Knight” seems to be nothing more than just a defence for the choices George W. Bush has made during the War on Terror. While I do think there are some political ideas, many would say that Batman on multiple occasions in the film, but all within reasonable grounds due to his main intentions of wanting to stop the terrorist threat of the Joker (who is said to be a representation of Osama Bin Laden) by using methods such as torture interrogation tactics and wiretapping. Personally considering one of the main themes is duality, I don’t think this is the film is really encouraging conservative methods. I do think some of the political events might enlighten the film to a degree or at least on a subconscious level as Nolan has stated that he didn’t make the film with that intention in mind, but rather he wanted to tell a story that was born out of character’s personal decisions reacting to a terrible situation. His ultimate intention was to have people converse about the film and think about the themes and ideas and what it means to them personally. Joker being like Osama bin Laden has always been a perception that I have always thought was kind of odd. I think this because well despite the two being terrorists, their viewpoints and motivations are pretty different. Bin Laden was a more religious terrorist who had an utter distaste towards the ideas of the United States as he viewed them as “amoral”. While the Joker in this film is seen more as an anarchist, which is generally seen as a person who believes in a lack of government. Although I would argue that I see the Joker as more of a nihilist than I do as an anarchy, especially when viewing this film from the perspective of morality because of how The Joker displays the lack of belief in one or more reputedly meaningful aspects of life, while also showing extreme pessimism that condemns existence. But the Joker in this film is a true nihilist because he comes off as a character truly believes in nothing, he lacks in loyalties, as well as any true purpose other than, perhaps, an impulse to destroy; something the whole “dog chasing cars” lines would really support. Although I cannot see this film exactly being the same in regards to presenting its politics in a pre-9/11 world, because inspiration is all over the place when it comes to storytelling mediums and for creators, and it would likely have influenced their villainous characters from real world bad guys that come off as real life supervillains, whether it was intentional or not. Similar to how Nazis were the main source of bad guys during World War II, or how the Soviets were used as main sources for bad guys during the Cold War, and in a post-9/11 world we now usually have terrorists as our main sources of evil. Some do it well, like the Daniel Craig James Bond films (at least “Casino Royale” and “Skyfall”) and “Captain America: The Winter Soldier”, while others not so much, like “Star Trek Into Darkness” or any Michael Bay film post 2001, as the latter two films have little to say on the topic. All of this is pretty typical for any influential film like “The Dark Knight” due to the capitalistic nature of Hollywood. If you are going to fight a terrorist whose rules are different from yours or at least with The Joker a guy with no rules at all, then a leader would have to describe on how far they would go in order to stop them. Although I do find aspects of this interpretation to be somewhat undercooked to a degree because people never really elaborate on who the likes of Harvey Dent or Commissioner Gordon represent as people only go as far to say stuff like “Batman is Bush and the Joker is Bin Laden”. Although if we are really going to judge it strictly through Batman being a representation of Bush, then it is interesting how audiences reaction to it comes off. On the other hand, many people who claim this film is pro-Bush have interpreted the ending of this film where Batman takes the fall must see it as similar to how Bush and the American government has gotten for all the policies during the War on Terror and his must take the punishment because it is the honourable thing to do. Maybe this allegory could work to a degree because how nowadays people mostly solely blame George W. Bush and tend to forget that there other collaborators that are just as responsible for this choice whether it is the American people or other members of the Republican party. It is usually the figure head that gets all the blame for the wrong doings of an entire event because they are the ones that make the final choices in the end and many members of the public would think there are several ways that the government could have solved the problem, which is kind of reflects audiences reaction to the film ending to an extent. However, there are actually people who think the opposite of the ending as many think this film is anti-Bush because many think Batman truly deserves the punishment and hate for breaking the line of the typical super heroics from most superhero films. I say this interpretation does have some weight to it because you see the films sequel “The Dark Knight Rises”, but that is another topic for a possible future review. Honestly, I don’t think the film completely supports and condemns the War on Terror, as I do believe it is a film that is more examining the dual nature of how the US views its leaders or politicians with most of the more left wing or right wing conclusion from other people being strictly interpretive. I honestly think the political tones work more of a framing device for the main ideas of “escalation” and “duality” rather than a direct commentary on the war on terror. The film might have in regards to its politics say being that Batman is the sort of figure head that has to make the tough choices our world leaders have to make for the safety of other people and like how the film explores the ideas of order vs. chaos and the thin line between good and evil with how the heroes make morally questionable choices, while the villains raising some interesting or good points in regards to humanity. I suppose a lot of the film is supposed to open a dialogue between people with different interpretations. A part of me advocates that the film does not have a political agenda from either the Nolan brothers or even David Goyer because I think this film is a believer of the whole philosophy of life having two sides to every story, as the methods can be beneficial when it comes to handling a certain type of people. It is stuff like this is why I don’t agree with people who consider this film to be preachy with its morals and concepts (unlike every film by Neill Blomkamp or jokes by Seth MacFarance) because it is not like the film is forcing you to agree with its message or its moral centre because of how the film views the concept of good and evil not quite having the solid line as you would like to believe. Even the best of us have a dark moments and even the worst of humanity could persuade you into thinking they have a point because as the old saying goes “evil can be seductive” when it comes to villains that you love to hate, which makes the casting of Heath Ledger as the surprisingly charming version of the Joker work so well. From what I learned in both my lectures of “Profiling and Investigating Serious Crime” and “Explaining and Responding to Crime” at my BSc Criminology course at the University of Huddersfield using extreme methods like that may work with some people like Maroni because cowardly people are easier to understand. However extreme methods are not always the case with some people (as with this films case, the Joker) because some people are just beyond understanding because are way too committed to their cause as the core thing that makes the more conservative methods is the concept of empathy and emotions.

I may be wrong, but you seem to leave out of the equation the fact that the system of justice and law enforcement in the fictional city of Gotham is more corrupted by organized crime than in any real city of our world. At least, that is the information that is given to us all throughout the three movies. Batman cannot legally justify his actions, no matter if the consequences are beneficial to the community or not. But he can morally justify his actions by pointing to the fact that the legal system in Gotham designed to deal with crime is broken, or at least corrupted to the point where it no longer protects the community as a whole, but only the rights of the rich and/or powerful. In this context, it’s understandable that Batman is very popular with a lot of citizens, especially those who were the victims of crime and denied that justice by said legal system. If the law seems to benefit mostly people who do not deserve it, than the law itself loses authority and meaning. And by extension, calling Batman a criminal or outlaw also loses meaning, at least to the downtrodden of society.

Some very thought-provoking stuff here. Thanks. I'd like to think that The Dark Knight was meant to trigger this kind of excellent discourse, as many will agree that Bruce Wayne's Batman is supposed to be interpreted as a *flawed* human being, even though he's much, much less flawed than the likes of Harvey Dent and of course the Joker. We can argue that the trilogy's presentation amounts to tacit endorsement and approval of Batman's methods, and I understand why that could be assumed, given Blake's discovery of the Batcave. But death of the author is a popular approach, and I see no reason not to use it here. The Dark Knight trilogy does seem to lend support to many of your arguments. Whether or not it was intentional is difficult to know for certain, but in many ways that doesn't matter. Anyway, thanks for your video. It sparks some even more valuable discussion material with regards to these movies. :)

Evidence found by batman can MOST DEFINITELY be used against people in court. "Evidence unlawfully obtained from the defendant by a private person is admissible." A major limitation on the exclusionary rule that feels overlooked in this video when it is a large part of the analysis.

Really great review, Leon. I really liked how the Dark Knight trilogy often questioned what is wrong and what is right, and what really is justice. It's just unfortunate that the films do suffer a bit with the whole invasion of privacy, and almost all of the third film. I don't know what I was expecting with the third film but after Dark Knight I felt like these Batman movies were pushing for a stronger question of what it really means to be a vigilante. And to bring in the nihilism of the Joker to warp our own morality...it was huge. But I always thought it was interesting to have Christopher Nolan make his own Batman trilogy because it seemed he struggled a lot with bringing up interesting questions of what it means to have law and order yet having that fall short and whether vigilantism does more bad than good all the while getting studio notes to make his films action packed to sell tickets and toys.

21:55 because he isn't a nihilist, he's an absurdist. He ascribes to Albert Camus's third option.

You could still argue, that the Joker is torn between his phylosophy(nihilism) and his instincts(survival).

Hey, thanks for the Discount! And Great video, too!

I enjoyed this more than your previous analysis of the trilogy, and you have made me recognize some pretty glaring flaws in the statements (implicit or explicit) within them, but I have to disagree with your comments towards the end and on the matter of "why doesn't Batman just kill the Joker?" It is one thing when an individual (with or without state granted authority) kills or just attacks another person without any given cause or any reasonable cause, but it's another thing when it comes to people who are, in your words, monsters. Within this film, The Joker has not only committed multiple acts of murder and has fled police custody within the GCPD, but in the moment he sent him flying off that tower he was about to blow up two ferries worth of people; consisting of every day citizens, maximum security level criminals, police officers, and boat workers. If Batman had let the Joker fall to his death, it would have been right. And as for Maroni, while we don't ever see him physically commit a crime, we do know that he was on trial for criminal conspiracy, was at the same meeting of gangsters featuring a man we know for fact is a drug lord and another man who explicit says he's putting out a contract for hired guns to either murder the Joker themselves or bring them to him so he can "teach him some manners first!" Your description of "probably guilty" while sarcastic, is pretty darn accurate to be quite honest.

the trump batman connection for the reasons presented was brilliant

My review of the Dark Knight trilogy will go through the individual films since to me there are stark differences between them. ** Batman Begins; asks, how can a society progress? - One idea is that it can only happen through violent destruction and revolution. Only then can the grip of corruption be broken. This is promoted by Ducard who leads the League of Shadows. - Bruce Wayne by contrast is a reformer. Bruce believes (like his father) that a society can gradually move forward by fighting corruption through the proper use of wealth and good government. Bruce adds the help of a vigilante called Batman. - Batman Begins is clearly a Batman movie (a very good one imo) while playing out this conflict of ideas. There is a Batcave. A military style Batmobile (where industry can fight evil). The setting is Gotham which like graphic novels can tip either way; from decay / corruption to ethical reform. The behavior of the characters and action situations are plausible given the franchise. ** The Dark Knight; While the League of Shadows had some claim to making society better through destruction, the Joker has no desire to make society better. The Joker is a complete sociopath on a rampage who wishes to create anarchy for its own sake and his narcissistic pleasure. Part of the Joker's 'fun' is to force people to make choices to kill (or allow others to die) in order to survive or to save someone. - This extreme villain leads Nolan to drag the story into fantasy. A. Nolan makes Gotham for average people a city of saints. He has hardened criminals wiling to sacrifice themselves by refusing to kill others. This is Nolan pandering to the audience. Gotham's regular people criminals aren't bad. All the average folks (who represent the film's viewers) are good. B. Next are the abilities of the Joker. He has randomly killed many of his associates. Yet the Joker and his gang work so well together that they have almost godlike control of how people are kidnapped and setup for destruction. The influence of the movie The Crow is very obvious The makeup for the Crow and the Joker are very similar. And they both have the power of supernatural beings. - Finally, is this a Batman movie? Kind of with costumes and hardware. Still there is no Batcave and instead there is a just a Bat Garage in open view. That gives this Batman a more generic action hero feel to it. ** The Dark Knight Rises; Nolan was able to get away with quite a lot in terms of logic in The Dark Knight. With Rises it almost seems he had a dare to make the most illogical story possible and still get the audience to buy into it because of his brilliance as a film maker. - Batman has a broken back? No problem. A punch will fix it. - A group of strong men can't get out of a pit. But a young girl did. - In Rises the supernatural powers from The Crow are now applied to Batman. Batman returns to Gotham and there is a giant flaming Bat symbol on a bridge. Nonsensical but he's supernatural. He's on the spire of skyscrapers. He's everywhere! - As I watched Rises my mind was telling me that this was ridiculous even for Batman but I was getting emotionally excited. This is the brilliance of Nolan. He can take a junk script and get an audience to love it. Nolan is a master manipulator. I just have a negative gut reaction to blatant propaganda techniques in film. Imo at least. ;-)

TDK trilogy is more about the psychological journey of Bruce Wayne to the point where he no longer needs Batman or to suffer, as well as the same journey for Gotham. I don't think the movies are trying to make a statement on the nature of justice, outside of perhaps that justice has limits. The justice of the league, Bane, and Two Face go too far and become injustice. Batman, though he breaks the law in an attempt to fix a broken system, places limits on himself, and the farther he pushes the limits the more his allies push back, and the more his conscious gets to him. You bring up his crippling the crime boss, but that's the point where he decides to turn himself in, because he 'sees what he would have to become to stop men like' the Joker. There are no good answers, only less bad ones. What separates Batman from the hockey pad fakes? He has limits. They don't. And if the movies are really trying to raise these issues, then I don't think they are trying to answer them. I think it's up to each viewer to decide if he thinks Batman is justified (at least in the first 2 movies - stopping a nuke is the sort of thing everyone agrees is a very good thing).

Fantastic analysis as always but I am confused if you liked the trilogy or not.

batman let raz al goul stating he wont kill him but he also doesnt have to save him but yet he didnt say this in the dark knight when he saved joker...

In the fiction of Batman, yes, I do wonder why a police officer hasn't killed the Joker. Looking at the sum total of everything the Joker has done over the last 90 years of DC Comics, I think it's a valid question. The question isn't whether someone should kill the Joker, the question is why hasn't it happened?

good form, good form

Great job, Leon! Just one thing: Kant, as far as I know, was Prussian -- though I could be wrong.

The philosophy of this review reminds me of the Dirty Harry franchise

I'd love to see what Linkara thinks of this video.

Mill explicitly stated slavery could not be justified within his belief system in On Liberty Chapter 5... not sure why you used this as an example to dismiss his philosophy.

The Joe chill killing reminds me of JFK

I' m really curious though, IF (huge if) the somebody really was like the Joker and was truly irredeemable, what would we do with him?

I always thought that Talia's motivation for divine retribution to be pretty flimsy. Considering that Talia in other incarnations of Batman tended to want and encourage Batman to kill her father, and considering that the League of Shadows and R'as himself expect their students to kill anyone to get what they want, it doesn't make sense that Talia in DKR would cite vengeance as her motivation for all that she's done. Considering that Batman saved Ra's' life once, and only left him to fend for himself on a colliding train, he was more restrained than Talia gave him credit for. Her motivations make even less sense than her father's. That poses another question: should people enact forms of justice in order to satisfy motivations which are, in essence, petty and based on fickle rage? That question would also apply to the extreme vengeful behavior of Two-Face at the end of DK. Your analysis is amazingly in depth, Renegade Cut Man. I especially like your references to Mills and Kant. However, I feel like the Dark Knight films after Batman Begins kind of lose their focus on what they're trying to say, especially when the points are not always cleverly conveyed, or when the heroes and villains equally display stupidity and poor judgment in order to fit the confines of the plot. I love the alternate takes on the Joker, Two-Face, Bane, and Catwoman, but I feel like the plots of DK and DKR needed revision and polish in order to feel more complete. But that would involve an analysis of different kind.

Leon, have you heard of comic writer Grant Morrison? He had a Batman run where Dick Grayson becomes Batman and Bruce Wayne realizes how he operates as Batman no longer works. Morrison has characters who have a long history re-evaluate themselves and removes what no longer works. Society sees Batman as Bruce Wayne. But, the Nolan Trilogy and Morrison's Batman views Batman as an idea. That idea can be altered and improved upon. Morrison's Batman decides that he give the idea of Batman to other people. He wants other people to be their own Batman. Morrison shows the reader Batman if he had a budget with an Native American Batman. So, maybe the film is questioning Bruce Wayne's Batman, but still believes in the idea of Batman. Food for thought.

How many times did he say "justice"?

Between this (excellent, btw) analysis and the CACW one, considering how closely the DCEU and MCU orbit in basic subject matter, I'm interested in seeing a direct compare-and-contrast of its respective universes' (or I suppose more to the point, their filmmakers' depictions) of vigilantism and systems of accountability.

The thing about the DK trilogy that always gets to me is that it really drops the ball on its chances to do something really great with Batman. I hold the first two films on their own actually work in a great way that builds on the question of how far is too far and what should we be expecting from Batman. But the series chickens out at the end. I enjoyed the first two movies on the assumption that it had an understanding of how Batman does cross the line, that his actions are morally gray at best and sometimes are clearly morally black, and that he does make mistakes that have bad consequences. I was looking forward to the third one the whole time on the assumption that it would actually bring that all home. But it drops the ball completely. It makes token references the Gotham Police misusing Harvey Dent's name to pass borderline totalitarian laws, and there's the hint of those laws being the basis for how Bane convinced the citizens of Gotham to go along with him, but all it does is hint at it. It never goes anywhere and its failure to examine those issues with any kind of depth makes the overall film's philosophy seem to say that those things correct; it was correct to lock up all those people on trumped up charges and under unreasonably harsh laws because they immediately join Bane when he breaks them out. I'd never thought much about the final scene much, but mostly because I'd tuned out long before it got there. It's obvious the film isn't going to go into the issues with any depth, so I stop really paying it any attention because in the end the film just doesn't have that much to say about the issues. And that retroactively ruins the first two films because it takes all the stuff that is morally ambiguous, all the stuff that seemed, at least to me, to be saying Batman was going to far, and says he was totally right. It's such a shame.

Great video. Two nitpicks: 1) like others have said, you may have missed some nuance on some of the philosophy of nihilism (re: life/death and meaning), but I appreciate that there are probably as many opinions of this as there are nihilists, and 2) my own take on the conclusion with Blake was that he was perhaps implied to be become a "better" Batman, with respect to his commentary about his issues with how the police handle matters. Doesn't necessarily mean it'll be any more legal, as you make that point superbly, but I don't think it was necessarily going the way of trying to equate Wayne's Batman with Blake's... but, yes, the triumphant dirge following what seemed to be a critique of how Batman operated was... odd. Thanks, as always, for a thoughtful analysis. Happy New Year!

Could have talked about Bane, otherwise great video!

Unhappy the land that has no heroes. No. Unhappy the land that needs heroes. Brecht need the score peeps.

I want to counter what you said about Nietzsche: first off, he isnt a nihilist, but widely acknowledged as a forefather of existantialism. secondly, Nietzsche dispised nihilism for negating what makes life worthwhile. Your philosophy is so often on point, this particular error surprises me

I love these movies. I understand the criticisms, but to me they are flawless. Great video by the way and I love your philosophical and political takes on some of my favorite films.

"What is Justice" It's what keeps Batman alive

I love Nolan's Batman but I have to agree, at the second watch I started noticing room for improvement. (at the first one I was dazzled)

Would Batman's actions be legal in the context of a citizen's arrest? I don't know much about it, but one would assume that the criminal would not simply surrender, the criminal would need to be somehow subdued.

wow just 51 seconds after

rachel is right cause bruce never kills and if he got revenge he could be corruptible he would be going against his parents wishes and who he is and stands for

brilliant episode! do you think that this has something in common with the way that we are seeing services and social provisions made in the west? it seems that increasingly 'Foundations' created by wealthy capitalists selectively fund charitable and political causes in an opaque way. Even if their money is made from exploited workers, environmental wreckage, price gauging or dubious donors, we are meant to think that this is a great thing. At the same time many of the 1% refuse to pay tax and the legitimate, democratic and participatory ways of ensuring that core social services are provided become increasingly difficult and disappear from the political agenda. It gives a lot of power over many people's lives and the development of the world into very few hands with little oversight. I suppose this is usually a less violent case than Batman's vigilante justice but it might be damaging in other ways...

The fact that you're doing this video at all speaks to Nolan's amazing work. These "superhero" movies are so grounded in reality that you almost can't classify them as a superhero movies. They're crime epics, and as such, warrant deeper analysis. This kind of critique would be horribly out of place, silly in fact, with an Avengers or even DCEU movie.

We Live in a Society

Wow just 16 minutes after