The Dark Knight
The problem of evil is a big theme for a movie, and certainly for a movie based on a comic book, but Batman: The Dark Knight deals with it expertly, and with a message that offers profound support to the idea of human liberty.
It does so in two ways: it supports the view that human beings are capable of cooperating toward the social good, and it shows the unpredictable level of evil that state intervention unleashes. Yes, I know it sounds implausible, but please hear me out.
Consider the Joker, who embodies undiluted, unconscionable evil. The evil that drives him is not limited to a particular sin. It is not greed, for example. At one point in the film, he stacks up all the money he has taken control of from the mob he comes to monopolize. He sets it all on fire in front of the mobsters who stare in shocked amazement. He had previously demanded half their money in exchange for killing Batman, but it turns out that he cares nothing for money. He only wanted to give them pain by persuading them to fork it over. This makes him ungodly scary.
In fact, one is hard pressed to pin any of the seven deadly sins on this guy. He is not really lustful, gluttonous, slothful, wrathful, envious, or prideful — or rather he is all of these things but none of them quite capture what drives him. What he wants is to observe social chaos — and if that means death and destruction, all the better. In order to bring this about, however, he needs one thing more than anything else: he needs power. He will do anything for it and, then, with it.
Additionally, the Joker has a trait that we tend to see in evil people. He carries around with him a peculiar assumption, never really questioned. He assumes that everyone else is secretly as bad as he is. Anything that appears otherwise, he believes to be a façade. It is a mask that must be ripped off. In seeking confirmation for this assumption, he entertains himself by putting people in impossible situations that will reveal their core corruption. He revels in pushing people who think they are good into embracing their inner evil. Hence his obsession with ripping off Batman's mask. He must show the world that Batman is as bad as he is.
In pursuit of this confirmation, he is as clever as the devil. He has pressed the city government into evacuating people by means of two boats, one with prisoners and another with regular citizens. He gives a detonator device to the drivers of each ship. He says that he is performing a social experiment. The idea is that each detonator blows up the other ship. If you press the button to blow up the other ship, your ship will be saved. If you do not press quickly, your ship will likely be blown up because surely the people on the other ship will press first. So we have here the classic case of the prisoner's dilemma without the mathematics. It is a raw test of the capacity of others to commit unspeakable crimes in their own self-interest.
At first, the social dynamic takes a predictable direction. Neither the citizens on their boat nor the prisoners on the other boat favor murder. But then they think again. What will the people on the other boat do? Surely the criminals on the prisoner boat will think nothing of pushing their button, so should the citizens act first? Meanwhile, the prisoners figure that the people on the other boat will not place much value on the lives of criminals, so they will probably be killed. Shouldn't they kill first?
The debate becomes furious on each boat. On the citizen boat, for example, they decide to take a vote. The option of pushing the button wins (failure of democracy) but no one can find the will to do the deed. On the criminal boat, they just decide to explode the other boat, but the leader can't quite do it. Finally, the clock moves toward the hour that the Joker said the experiment would end. Both sides have finally declined to do the dirty deed. In prisoner's-dilemma terms, they have chosen cooperation over defection. This is not what the Joker expected. And why not? Because he doesn't believe in the capacity of human beings for social cooperation. He assumes that everyone is like himself. And here he is wrong.
I've already mentioned that the mob figures into the plot here. In fact, it is the source of all crime, and the central driving force behind the entire plot. Every time a new person gains public office or position within the police department, he swears to clean up the streets of the mobster-driven crime problem. But each time, the person is either killed or corrupted, leaving it to Batman to do the dirty work.
But can Gotham ever really be cleaned up? At some point, a new district attorney has hundreds of people locked up and the assets of many local banks frozen. Even in this case, the mob money finds safe harbor outside the country. The more that the police try to enforce the law, the worse the crime problem grows and the more powerful the mob becomes. The film offers not the slightest hope that this issue can ever be resolved.
And yet there is a point that is never addressed in the film. Where does organized crime get its money? Bribes, no doubt. Probably business too. Is it gambling, prostitution, drugs, liquor, or something else? Whatever the case may be, the mob is the mob because it deals with black markets in something. The only reason that black markets exist is due to government prohibitions. A free market in gambling would reduce the level of corruption in this industry to the same level that it exists in the market for, for example, hamburgers. That is to say, it would not be a notable feature of the sector. The same is true with all traditional mafia activities. The best way — really the only way — to end its power is to end the prohibitions on peaceful trading of all goods and services.
But that is not what the state does. Instead, it fights these untenable and unwinnable wars against gambling, prostitution, drugs, and the like, and thereby drives them underground, guaranteeing high profits to those willing to take the risk to be part of the market. The riches are then used to bribe public officials and gain a certain amount of protection from the public sector. The cycle continues until the corruption becomes a deeply embedded part of public life. In this case, the prohibitions have unleashed wicked mobsters, but as bad as they are, they seem manageable.
The Joker, however, is not manageable. He is the killer virus unwittingly unleashed by the cure. People like him will always be with us, but they can usually be contained — unless the state is involved to make such people more powerful than they would otherwise be. The implied lesson becomes clear. The Joker is the product of mistaken public policy, the end result of the prohibition of peaceful trade.
The contrast between the peaceful cooperation that people are capable of when they are on their own, even under extreme circumstances, and the evil unleashed by misguided state management of society could not be more palpable.
This is the real message of Batman: The Dark Knight, which, I must say, is one of the most spectacular and profound cinematic explorations of the problem of evil I've ever seen. It is not suitable for young children, but I recommend it very highly, not only for its libertarian theoretical structure but also for its moral power.
Comments (69)
Hmmm, I'll have to think about this one, Jeffery. I didn't find any libertarian message in the movie the first time through.
Published: July 22, 2008 2:39 PM
I thought the scene involving the passengers on the boats was a nice counter-example to rational choice theory.
Published: July 22, 2008 2:52 PM
I suspect that you're reading too much into the movie, but any movie that makes you think about such ideas has still got to be good.
Published: July 22, 2008 3:08 PM
I did think the movie attempted to show that inherent good in humanity by the failure of the Joker's experiment, but it later showed its true colors when Batman and Commissioner Gordon decided it was in the best interest of the citizens to conceal the truth in order to preserve their hope in a strong central leader- as if that is their only option to defend themselves from the evil that controls the city. Nope, clearly, the two believe in a security services monopoly run by themselves. Honestly, the movie left me with a horrible taste in my mouth because of the disrespect they show to the individual citizens when they take a paternal stance at the end. The movie was entertaining. The last 10 lines screwed it all up for me.
Published: July 22, 2008 3:24 PM
"In the citizen boat, for example, they decide to take a vote. The option of pushing the button loses."
This is incorrect. The vote was 300+ to 100+ for pushing the button, killing the prisoners. No one wanted to actually push the button, however, except some white-collar "tough guy" who went up to do the deed, but could not carry it through. This does show how easy it is to vote for something, since it costs the voter nothing. When it comes to back up that vote with action, no one can do it, since then the vote will cost something.
Published: July 22, 2008 3:28 PM
wow, really? I must have misunderstood. Strengthens my thesis.
Published: July 22, 2008 3:42 PM
I agree with Jon Robinson. I thought the movie was amazing, but the reverence for Harvey Dent as the ideal DA was irritating.
I secretly hope that someday we will see popular movie franchises with statist themes (e.g. James Bond, Batman) attempt a libertarian interpretation of their material. The protagonists are intelligent; when will they wake up and see that the State is the source of all their problems?
Published: July 22, 2008 3:43 PM
Jeffrey,
Thanks for the review. I look forward to the movie.
By the way I found 'Ironman' to be a propaganda film pinning warmongering on the private market.
We know that this is wholly untrue unless the ego-driven interventionists have created a fascist society but even then the motivating force behind the warmongering is the ego-driven interventionists (government politicians).
Published: July 22, 2008 3:43 PM
Yeah, better cover up the fact that "good guy" politicians like Harvey Dent can be turned to the dark side.
The real theme of the movie, according to the writer and director, is that of escalation. Rather than stop the mob the laissez-faire way, the government fights fire with fire... Suddenly there is an inferno.
Think of the drug war, the war on terror, and other instances in which the state fights the fires it started with more flames. As the Joker puts it, these people have plans, and he exists to show them that their efforts to control their little worlds will fail, miserably. The harder they try, the worse it will get. =]
Published: July 22, 2008 3:44 PM
I agree with Jon Robinson. I thought the movie was amazing, but the reverence for Harvey Dent as the ideal DA was irritating.
I secretly hope that someday we will see popular movie franchises with statist themes (e.g. James Bond, Batman) attempt a libertarian interpretation of their material. The protagonists are intelligent; when will they wake up and see that the State is the source of all their problems?
Published: July 22, 2008 3:45 PM
It seems that the Joker in this movie actually believes in the Hobbesian version of anarchy, which breaks down all order into a war of all against all, and he wants things to be that way. He made his creed clear at the hospital talking to Two face when he tells him that he has no plan, but to turn the plans of others against themselves, and seems to convince two-face when he gives two face a gun and puts it on his own forehead.
From then on two face is really confused, convinced that order is unworkable in an "indecent time" and the real morality is all left to chance, to the "chaos" of anarchy. The half-truths that the Joker planted in his head drove him crazy. The two face in this movie seems to represent the chaos/ order dichotomy
Maybe if two face read some books by Rothbard and Hoppe on the natural order of private property anarchy, he might be willing to get that skin graft surgery he desperately needs.
Published: July 22, 2008 3:55 PM
Also, the Joker gave them a deadline (several minutes) to push the button, otherwise he would blow both the boats up. The "cooperation" option of the prisoner's dilemma was therefore unavailable.
In real life someone would have pressed the button.
Published: July 22, 2008 4:19 PM
Also, the Joker gave them a deadline (several minutes) to push the button, otherwise he would blow both the boats up. The "cooperation" option of the prisoner's dilemma was therefore unavailable.
In real life someone would have pressed the button.
Published: July 22, 2008 4:21 PM
Also, the Joker gave them a deadline (several minutes) to push the button, otherwise he would blow both the boats up. The "cooperation" option of the prisoner's dilemma was therefore unavailable.
In real life someone would have pressed the button.
Published: July 22, 2008 4:23 PM
This movie CAN be libertarian. In the boat problem, I wish that they could have had the Joker explode the boat that pushes button. Then he could laugh about how we put our trust in a criminal maniac instead of in our fellow man. The Joker would not blow up either boat( even though he said he would ) as long as the people decided to trust each other.
In fact, I would say that the Joker was the libertarian anti-hero, because he used the same reasoning, just in a malevolent way. When everybody goes nuts when their plan fails; pure argument against planning. And by pursuing to have order, to save the district attorney Harvey based on his ability to give people hope, instead of his girlfriend, the State ruins the life of an individual and turns him evil.
I too agree that it left a bad taste in my mouth. We were shown in the movie, by the boat test, that humanity can trust in itself. But Batman and Gordon decide that humanity can't, by lying about Harvey at the end of the movie. But as a movie itself, I like when the endings are hopeless and negative.
Published: July 22, 2008 5:10 PM
Mr. Tucker,
I frequently agree with your take on things, but not in this case. While the film's portrayal of a certain (extremely rare) form of evil is very well done, when it comes to the State and the general subject of policing, this film gets it wrong.
For starters, civilians who attempt to follow Batman's lead by taking action against criminals are portrayed as dangerous; such things are to be left to the "specialists". Only super-people ("Selfless Public Servants" or vigilantes with implicit permission) may "fight crime". Not that attacking drug dealers (I assume) with weapons is "good", but you get the idea.
As has already been mentioned, the film repeats the falsehood that we live in a society of Uber-men and Unter-men, further subdivided into "Good" Ubermen
(Batman, Dent, Gordon) and Bad "Ubermen" (The Joker, Raas Al Ghul in "Batman Begins"). Most of us are Untermen, and we need the Goodies to save us from the Baddies. However, I submit that if Batman leaves himself free to ignore anti-vigilante codes in order to pursue the higher good (which of course, he should) yet denies others the ability to voluntarily take up the same mantle (presumably on the grounds that they are too ordinary to do it correctly), then he is an egotist and a tyrant.
As a Batman lover, I was very disappointed with this aspect of the film. However, what you said about evil people always assuming others are just like them was spot on. And the film did a good job of showing that people are at least decent enough to be worth saving, even if a certain sizable number of the population is pretty awful.
Published: July 22, 2008 5:12 PM
Maybe it occurred to those balking at doing the pressing that the Joker was a madman not to be trusted and, by pressing the button, they would blow themselves up. Could anyone trust the words of a nutjob like that to begin with?
Published: July 22, 2008 5:16 PM
Maybe it occurred to those balking at doing the pressing that the Joker was a madman not to be trusted and, by pressing the button, they would blow themselves up. Could anyone trust the words of a nutjob like that to begin with?
Published: July 22, 2008 5:17 PM
Maybe it occurred to those balking at doing the pressing that the Joker was a madman not to be trusted and, by pressing the button, they would blow themselves up. Could anyone trust the words of a nutjob like that to begin with?
Published: July 22, 2008 5:17 PM
Eric,
I would really expected them to have a scene near the end where it was revealed that the shipped were really wired to blow themselves up. I can't believe it didn't occur to the writers!
Published: July 22, 2008 5:26 PM
*ships
Published: July 22, 2008 5:28 PM
I would not say that Batman is an egotist, but rather he cares about the people he is protecting. He is merely just trying to protect people, and he is willing to put his own life at risk to do so. If he let other people try and mimic him then he would feel responsible when they were hurt or killed, he wants to suffer himself in order to prevent their suffering. For example, in Christian mythology, when Jesus suffered on the cross he was supposedly suffering for us so we did not have to. This theme is popular among cultures, people like to imagine someone who will sacrifice their own life for others. Batman knows how bad the life of an outcast hero is, he lost Rachel because of it and he will lose much more, and he does not want anyone else to suffer the way he does. Batman is meant to be more of an altruistic icon, doing good for no reason but the sake of others.
Published: July 22, 2008 5:43 PM
Ashton,
I do not disagree with your general point about the character of Batman and his desire to spare others the suffering that results from his choice, however, in this film it seemed Batman's actions toward the copy-cats were motivated by a sense that law enforcement and public defense should be left to the experts.
And while it is true that heroic figures (like Christ), wish to spare others their heroic pain, they also serve as examples to others to, in Christs words: "Take up your cross and follow..." I would have loved a scene where a group of ordinary citizens, inspired by Batman's example, comes to his aid or each others'. Instead, everyone in this movie who is not one of the Ubermen is just an extra. That was a serious disappointment to me.
Published: July 22, 2008 6:02 PM
Ah, well. This is why I'm a marvel guy. Even the "dark" DC characters are a little too much like your "respectable" Protestant neighbor.
Published: July 22, 2008 7:20 PM
100% good read here
Published: July 22, 2008 10:01 PM
It seems that the movie could be interpreted as libertarian and also as somewhat less. However, that does not seem to be the intention of the surface message or the deeper one.
Really, you people need to stop looking at the world through political-policy-making glasses and learn that sometimes, philosophy for the sake of philosophy is intriguing - especially in this movie.
Published: July 22, 2008 11:52 PM
nice read...I do believe you are projecting your ideas on the movie rather than interpreting them; that is fine though.
Published: July 23, 2008 12:24 AM
Here is a libertarian conundrum for you, based on a real news story here in Australia-
A divorced woman from Africa wants our Federal Government to prohibit Khat, which is not prohibited in our country. Now the libertarian-capitalist's dilemma is this- should I cater to my libertarian half by starting a campaign for Khats, or should I have it prohibited so I can start an underground network of Khat-sellers, and capitalise (khatpitalise?) on the demand?
Published: July 23, 2008 1:44 AM
I am surprised that no one has mentioned that Batman has taken it upon himself to spy on the people through their cell phones. So short after Bush has signed indemnity for telecommunications companies in compliance with the government, I would expect us all to be on the look out for subtle justifications of state intrusions into the private realm. I do agree, however, that the movie is all around very well done. Acting, writing, and directing were all enjoyable, and I look forward to a third installment.
Published: July 23, 2008 1:52 AM
They agreed to use the machine only once, due to the CEO thinking it was a monster.
Published: July 23, 2008 3:02 AM
I am sofa king sick of stumbling over these sites stroking Batman's nuts; this movie was made at the expense of a person's life, no doubt they provided all the drugs he overdosed on without considering how they may react with each other. Boycott this movie.
Published: July 23, 2008 3:05 AM
Two peoples' lives, actually, which both voluntarily consented to. No one forced them on to the project, and every action one takes is a risk.
You really think the Hollywood bosses conspired to have Heath Ledger killed to bring in a few more bucks? Haha... Possible, but probable? You answer.
Published: July 23, 2008 5:21 AM
Great movie, i loved it. And this discussion is another piece of entertainment in itself.
I agree with who ever said it (i can't remember) that you should ignore the political side of it and just admire it for a deep and very philosophical movie. It's not often that you see such a huge Hollywood blockbuster supermovie with such strong undercurrents.
Heath Ledger plays the Joker brilliantly displaying such pure undistorted evil as discussed here. What is so interesting about this character is that you rarely have such a pure psychopath as the baddy in superhero or bond type movies. This is what makes him such a amazing character, smart but mad, he doesn't care for any thing except complete anarchy. You look at other baddies, they would be scared by the joker, and very few people want a world without any rules. They may believe in anarchy but they wouldn't survive in it. I think it was an interesting point made that batman needs the joker; the joker will always be as mad and as deadly whereas the police will attack Batman as soon as the criminals have been put away.
Another interesting point is the Jokers feeling that there is a spark of evil in everyone. And i believe this; just some guard it better than others. I think there is always a part of that just wants to go mad, trash the shop and live the life of complete freedom from everything. The joker has that life. But most people guard that spark of evil well; we keep it hidden away and go about living ordinary lives. But also, to the complete opposite, there is good in everyone, Ying and yang. You can't have one without the other.
Another thing that brings up this theory that there’s a bit of darkness in everyone is Terry Pratchett's wonderful book “Thud!”. Vimes (the main character) uses his shield as protection from the darkness, his badge of duty is what keeps him sane.
Read it, its a great read. Also Pratchett is always funny and a good read.
Leon
Published: July 23, 2008 6:22 AM
Great movie, i loved it. And this discussion is another piece of entertainment in itself.
I agree with who ever said it (i can't remember) that you should ignore the political side of it and just admire it for a deep and very philosophical movie. It's not often that you see such a huge Hollywood blockbuster supermovie with such strong undercurrents.
Heath Ledger plays the Joker brilliantly displaying such pure undistorted evil as discussed here. What is so interesting about this character is that you rarely have such a pure psychopath as the baddy in superhero or bond type movies. This is what makes him such a amazing character, smart but mad, he doesn't care for any thing except complete anarchy. You look at other baddies, they would be scared by the joker, and very few people want a world without any rules. They may believe in anarchy but they wouldn't survive in it. I think it was an interesting point made that batman needs the joker; the joker will always be as mad and as deadly whereas the police will attack Batman as soon as the criminals have been put away.
Another interesting point is the Jokers feeling that there is a spark of evil in everyone. And i believe this; just some guard it better than others. I think there is always a part of that just wants to go mad, trash the shop and live the life of complete freedom from everything. The joker has that life. But most people guard that spark of evil well; we keep it hidden away and go about living ordinary lives. But also, to the complete opposite, there is good in everyone, Ying and yang. You can't have one without the other.
Another thing that brings up this theory that there’s a bit of darkness in everyone is Terry Pratchett's wonderful book “Thud!”. Vimes (the main character) uses his shield as protection from the darkness, his badge of duty is what keeps him sane.
Read it, its a great read. Also Pratchett is always funny and a good read.
Leon
Published: July 23, 2008 6:24 AM
Over analysing.... boring
Published: July 23, 2008 6:53 AM
You might want to put some spoiler alerts in here for people who haven't seen the movie.
Overall good read.
Published: July 23, 2008 6:53 AM
I wasn't very impressed with Batman's reverence for the state's authority in fighting crime. The message I got was that all we need is a super good guy to take the reigns of the state and all will be well. It was a very entertaining movie, but that's the extent I am willing to go. V for Vendetta had a much better message.
Published: July 23, 2008 8:57 AM
brilliant post!
Id like to add a little more to your eviluation.
I agree that i think that Jokers mistake was that every man no matter how good or how bad can become evil. Its all public opinion.
Harvey Dent is the Jokers justification.
No matter what else happened in that movie the Joker won because of the creation of Harvey Two face.
" He wanted to prove that he could turn even the most good person evil and Harvey was the best of us."
The Problem then becomes the view of what society finds right and wrong.
Dent never kills an innocent person in his turmoil. He only kills people involved with the death of rachel ( and maybe their drivers) lol
There is alot to take in but i think that the real message that this film gets across is that.
The Joker, Harvey Dent are all right.Perception is everything
Harvey " You only stay good enough long enough to watch yourself become evil"
Batman: I will be what Gotham needs
Published: July 23, 2008 9:05 AM
The Joker was proven right to an extent with his little social experiment (though unbeknownst to himself). The prison guard (i.e. someone who is a protector of the public, willfully hands a prisoner, who he thinks is going to kill innocent civilians) the detonator. So therefore the so-called "good guy" is actually the bad, bad man. And you're left kind of wondering why the prisoner threw the detonator out of the window. I'm sure the Joker would reason that the stakes just weren't set high enough for him.
I agree that the film was an excellent reflection on the problem of evil in our society. It is very much present today. The bad guys win, and they feel good (the Joker's just a happy dog chasing after cars,) while the good guys struggle and are hardened by the fight. It gets so that it almost seems like virtue is a cruel joke. "Why so serious?"
Published: July 23, 2008 9:14 AM
Enjoyed the discussion.
The ships may very well have been wired to blow themselves up. No one pushed the button so we'll never know for sure.
I also think that the Batman's main objection to his copycats was not disdain for competition but that he didn't want to be responsible for their deaths. Granted, they made their own choices but, they were following his lead. He was telling them to find their own path, not to follow him.
As far as I recall, only Fox refused to use the cell phone wiretap a second time. Batman never said he wouldn't continue to use it.
Ledger was well finished with filming the Dark Knight at the time of his death. He was already filming a movie with Terry Gilliam. There is no evidence, beyond the insanely good performance, to support that the Dark Knight had anything to do with his drug use. Heck, when I look at the Olsen twins today, I think that whichever one he was friends with probably had more to do with his drug situation than anything related to the production of a major blockbuster.
I loved the movie's ambiguity. That, in one situation, good wins out, and in the next, evil triumphs. It mirrors the complicated world we live in.
I also enjoyed the attention given to very minor characters. Some with only one line, yet a line that made you think. The female crooked cop was compromised due to the insurmountable hospital bills of a loved one. The meanest looking criminal on the boat was the one with moral clarity. One thing I've always enjoyed about the classic films of the silver screen era was that minor characters were always more than just filler. They were characters, with stories of their own, that were written on their faces.
The film is a wonderful accomplishment. If I were to describe it as a deep, thoughtful, dramatic, ambiguous, detailed, (dare I say it) nuanced, big budget, all star, summer blockbuster, super hero movie. I would be accurate and yet, prior to it's being made, few would have believed on movie could be all of those things.
Published: July 23, 2008 9:31 AM
Enjoyed the discussion.
The ships may very well have been wired to blow themselves up. No one pushed the button so we'll never know for sure.
I also think that the Batman's main objection to his copycats was not disdain for competition but that he didn't want to be responsible for their deaths. Granted, they made their own choices but, they were following his lead. He was telling them to find their own path, not to follow him.
As far as I recall, only Fox refused to use the cell phone wiretap a second time. Batman never said he wouldn't continue to use it.
Ledger was well finished with filming the Dark Knight at the time of his death. He was already filming a movie with Terry Gilliam. There is no evidence, beyond the insanely good performance, to support that the Dark Knight had anything to do with his drug use. Heck, when I look at the Olsen twins today, I think that whichever one he was friends with probably had more to do with his drug situation than anything related to the production of a major blockbuster.
I loved the movie's ambiguity. That, in one situation, good wins out, and in the next, evil triumphs. It mirrors the complicated world we live in.
I also enjoyed the attention given to very minor characters. Some with only one line, yet a line that made you think. The female crooked cop was compromised due to the insurmountable hospital bills of a loved one. The meanest looking criminal on the boat was the one with moral clarity. One thing I've always enjoyed about the classic films of the silver screen era was that minor characters were always more than just filler. They were characters, with stories of their own, that were written on their faces.
The film is a wonderful accomplishment. If I were to describe it as a deep, thoughtful, dramatic, ambiguous, detailed, (dare I say it) nuanced, big budget, all star, summer blockbuster, super hero movie. I would be accurate and yet, prior to it's being made, few would have believed on movie could be all of those things.
Published: July 23, 2008 9:33 AM
Enjoyed the discussion.
The ships may very well have been wired to blow themselves up. No one pushed the button so we'll never know for sure.
I also think that the Batman's main objection to his copycats was not disdain for competition but that he didn't want to be responsible for their deaths. Granted, they made their own choices but, they were following his lead. He was telling them to find their own path, not to follow him.
As far as I recall, only Fox refused to use the cell phone wiretap a second time. Batman never said he wouldn't continue to use it.
Ledger was well finished with filming the Dark Knight at the time of his death. He was already filming a movie with Terry Gilliam. There is no evidence, beyond the insanely good performance, to support that the Dark Knight had anything to do with his drug use. Heck, when I look at the Olsen twins today, I think that whichever one he was friends with probably had more to do with his drug situation than anything related to the production of a major blockbuster.
I loved the movie's ambiguity. That, in one situation, good wins out, and in the next, evil triumphs. It mirrors the complicated world we live in.
I also enjoyed the attention given to very minor characters. Some with only one line, yet a line that made you think. The female crooked cop was compromised due to the insurmountable hospital bills of a loved one. The meanest looking criminal on the boat was the one with moral clarity. One thing I've always enjoyed about the classic films of the silver screen era was that minor characters were always more than just filler. They were characters, with stories of their own, that were written on their faces.
The film is a wonderful accomplishment. If I were to describe it as a deep, thoughtful, dramatic, ambiguous, detailed, (dare I say it) nuanced, big budget, all star, summer blockbuster, super hero movie. I would be accurate and yet, prior to it's being made, few would have believed on movie could be all of those things.
Published: July 23, 2008 9:33 AM
Please, folks, be more careful about confusing anarchy with chaos.
The Joker's actions are deliberately to mess people up. To thwart plans, to create chaos.
There is no lack of government, of rulers, so there is no "anarchy". Just bags-full of chaos.
Published: July 23, 2008 10:05 AM
By the way, to avoid multiple posts, hit the submit button ONCE and just wait. In my recent experience, it's slow to make the submission (even with a high-speed connection), but it does eventually go through. So try not to be impatient!
After reading this, I guess I better go see the movie while it's still on the big screen.
Published: July 23, 2008 10:10 AM
Jeff,
Begging your pardon, but on the prisoner boat, something even more remarkable happened. The biggest, baddest convict of them all walks up and demands the switch from the guard. He then proceeded to do something "you should have done ten minutes ago" and threw the switch in the harbor, thus removing themselves from the Joker's game, come what may. He then went over to a circle of his friends and, from what I could tell, joined them in prayer.
Published: July 23, 2008 10:54 AM
The Joker was using the boat "game" simply to prove a point that "good" and "law abiding" citizens were as "uncivilized" as the "criminals" when pushed. Nothing more, nothing less. In actuality, someone would've pulled the trigger considering the Joker had made good on all his other promises. (This is where the story went wrong IMO) When neither boat did, he was upset and was going to blow them both up until batman intervened. Keep in mind he has to keep his word in order have the peoples trust. Without it, his experiments will be rendered useless.
The Joker simply wanted to show people how fake/planned their lives were. As mentioned before, he wanted to unveil the "mask" civilized people wore and that they were no different than the "freak" he was. Of course the irony in this is that the Joker is the only one wearing a mask.
When people start to realize this, mass chaos sets in. This is because it is such a big shock to civilization. Society is built on cooperation and trust. When you feel you can no longer trust anyone, society shuts down.
Published: July 23, 2008 1:25 PM
In the end someone on the boat had to stand up in front of his peers and push the button. Did the guy who stood up not push the button because he was inherently good, or because he felt shame in front of others? The social pressure was still in effect. The Joker failed to remove the façade. A better test would be if the Joker gave them all a secret button so no one would ever know who did the deed.
Published: July 23, 2008 2:33 PM
Note that in the ferry scene, the two ferries were named "Spirit" and "Liberty." Evil (the joker) wants us to compromise one or the other, trying to make us feel that the two cannot co-exist. For example, we sacrifice "liberty" in the Patriot Act to support "spirit" for the war on terror. However, the scene goes to show that the two can exist, and only then can we really takes steps to ousting evil.
Published: July 23, 2008 4:19 PM
Note that in the ferry scene, the two ferries were named "Spirit" and "Liberty." Evil (the joker) wants us to compromise one or the other, trying to make us feel that the two cannot co-exist. For example, we sacrifice "liberty" in the Patriot Act to support "spirit" for the war on terror. However, the scene goes to show that the two can exist, and only then can we really takes steps to ousting evil.
Published: July 23, 2008 4:21 PM
I think it has been a big mistake to use the word "anarchy" to describe the ideal situation. Anarchy is literally translated as Without Rule... And If I recall there is rule in the "anarcho-capitalist" society, is it not the rule of law?
Published: July 23, 2008 4:37 PM
Referring back to when someone said that Batman never said that he wouldn't use the surveillance system again. He did say that in the movie, he told Morgan Freeman to type his name in when he was through. When he was through using it Freeman typed in his name, and we saw what happened. As soon as he typed his name in the device self destructed, thus ending the possibility for Batman to use it again.
Also, like was said earlier, you cannot separate this movie from politics and just look at the philosophy behind it. Politics is such a strong influence on this movie, and to separate them from the philosophical discussion would be like discussing George Orwell's Animal Farm without looking at the Russian government in his time. All you need to do is look at the the boat's names to see this. And the political point its' making is do you have to give up human rights and liberty in order to save yourself. To the people on the boat it seemed that the only way to save themselves was to take away anothers liberty, but in the end they decided not to and it all worked out for them. In America it seems that the only way to save ourselves is to take away other's rights, but is that really the only way, that's what the agent of chaos (The Joker) would want us to do. The Joker would want America to break its rules in order to save itself, because then all of a sudden no one needs to follow rules, and we could do anything we wanted in order to save ourselves. Batman struggled with the thought of breaking his own rule, but in the end he decided not to because otherwise he would be just like the Joker. This is implying that if America breaks its rules then America will become no better than the Joker, or than the terrorists who don't seem to have rules.
Published: July 23, 2008 4:55 PM
While I do generally agree with you general point that a reduction of control on the exchange of goods and services would reduce these criminal monopolies, it would not totally stop them. For instance, one of the biggest ways MS-13 makes money in LA right now is charging "rent" if you work on the street (venders et al not prostitutes). So the idea that a free market would stop organized crime is ridiculous. However, I would say that it would reduce there influence.
Published: July 23, 2008 10:38 PM
kudos to the makers Dark Knight for their record breaking opening weekend... it's no wonder there's talk of another one coming out ASAP
Published: July 23, 2008 11:48 PM
At one point in the film, he stacks up all the money he has taken control of from the mob he comes to monopolize. He sets it all on fire in front of the mobsters who stare in shocked amazement.
I see deflationary undertones here...
Published: July 24, 2008 1:50 AM
The joker is a hayekian gone crazy.
"The mob has plans. The cops have plans. Gordon has plans. They're schemers, all trying to control their little parts of the world. ... I try to show the schemers how pathetic their attempts to control things really are."
Published: July 24, 2008 3:13 AM
I thought it was a statist message, Fear the free minded indivudial because he is evil, only the state in collusion with big business can provide and protect you.
Particulary after hearing some T.V. story tonight about future pre- paid fuel stations with spiked wheel clamps to hold you vehicle if you don't pay (Australia).
Published: July 24, 2008 6:16 AM
Hey, i think you are reading too much into the movie. It was a great watch though.
Published: July 25, 2008 10:42 AM
I did not like this movie from the start. Early on there are scenes with the robbers talking about how some members of the team are being killed off ... gee I would think that would put some of these robbers on guard but no, that would be asking too much. One of them after opening the safe and with his back still to one of the others mentions how members are being picked off one by one and then off course he is eliminated, as if he had an IQ of say ...60. Then there is the scene where another member can predict to the second when a bus will come thru a wall and kill another member of the team just a he mentions that robbers are being offed so the remaining members get bigger shares. Then the bus goes back out onto the street and with split second timing reenters a line of buses. This kind of crap where all logic can be dropped to give some kicks to a dumbed down population has become increasingly popular in recent years. It has zero to do with art.
I understand this is batman and it is not going to be realistic all the time, but the makers of this film don't have to treat us all like morons, but then again seeing how almost everyone loves this movie, maybe they've been a around the block a few times and realize that most people are idiots.
So they start off the movie in a totally unrealistic and improbable way. IMHO, in the vast majority of cases that is a mistake for an action movie, you want to suck people into it, and having it play out as realistically as possible seems to me the much superior way to go.
I have heard numerous critics over the years say that if you can't even care about one character in a film it is simply not a good movie, and in this movie with many characters that is true.
Much of the focus is on the Joker, so we have to stay knee deep in depravity for two hours watching this glorified nut case. Murray Rothbard once said the state is nothing but a band of thieves writ large. There is a tendency in our society to glorify bad people, believing that evil is a "dark" and interesting subject. My feeling is that evil or callousness is not interesting at all. The vast majority of the bad people in the world are just criminals when you boil it down, and even people like the Joker are just sick twisted individuals, and there is nothing more to it than that.
A few years ago, before I became a libertarian and found out about all the evil in the world I would not have liked this movie either and would have had a very uneasy feeling about, but would not been able to CLEARLY state why.
This is a very statist film, but it's problems go even deeper than that. It's almost like it is a conscious effort to indoctrinate us, and make us semi comfortable with a world where everyone is a moron, almost every thought and action is the wrong one, where morality and thoughtfulness are not to be seen, and where everything is hopeless, so ..... we might as well give into it.
So there we have it, the # rated movie of all time on IMDB, and not one person that an intelligent person could care about in the entire movie. Dark Knight indeed.
Published: July 25, 2008 4:22 PM
I guess I should begin by saying that I am not a libertarian. I just came across this site after doing a search for the dark knight and thought the discussion was interesting.
That being said, the mythology of Batman is inherently non-libertarian. This is most clearly emphasized by the fact that he does not kill. He instead leaves criminals for the police. he serves more as a vigilante detective than an omniscient pillar of justice. The mythology is rooted in the belief that men are, and should be, ruled by law. Furthermore it suggests that the best (although still flawed) method of determining justice and punishment is through a jury of ones peers.
Also, I noticed the repeated reference to the films investigation into the problem of evil. In what way? and in what way does the problem of evil weigh into the question of a libertarian political view? I understand the problem as it relates to the question of the existence of God, but it seems unrelated to the thesis presented. Clearly evil exists, both as a result of nature and man, and therefore any political philosophy will have to recognize and deal with it. How is libertarianism any different, or, how does this help to enforce the concept of libertarianism as necessary or desirable?
Also, Jake, you should look into the suspension of disbelief. you will enjoy going to the movies more and also realize that the general populous is not made up solely of idiots. your reasoning to reach that conclusion is both extreme and flawed. try this for size:
If guy goes to see a batman movie expecting to see an entirely realistic portrayal of the world.
And
Guys is SURPRISED to find unrealistic elements in the film.
And
guys feeling of surprise, coupled with his overwhelming sense of self-righteousness, causes him to assume the majority of the population is idiotic
THEN guy is an idiot himself
Published: July 25, 2008 7:14 PM
Jmanley
"If guy goes to see a batman movie expecting to see an entirely realistic portrayal of the world."
I never said that I expected it to be an entirely realistic, but then I said that in my comment, "I understand this is batman and it is not going to be realistic all the time" so you misrepresented what I was saying.
"Guys is SURPRISED to find unrealistic elements in the film."
You just repeated your first statement without realizing it.
"guys feeling of surprise, coupled with his overwhelming sense of self-righteousness, causes him to assume the majority of the population is idiotic"
I WAS surprised at just how ludicrous parts of the movie were, considering this is the highest rated movie ever on IMDB. Overwhelming sense of self-righteousness? Well yeah, I am a little upset that more people don't see what an idiotic movie this is, but I would not call it overwhelming self-righteousness, you seem to have a habit of misrepresenting what I said and meant.
I would say someone who misrepresented what I said in his first sentence, said the same thing in his second sentence without realizing it, and then calls ME an idiot is probably an idiot himself.
Published: July 25, 2008 7:42 PM
You have an absolute profound analysis of the movie. not only my 2 thumbs up but my both hands! Bravo.
Published: July 26, 2008 4:19 AM
"I secretly hope that someday we will see popular movie franchises with statist themes (e.g. James Bond, Batman) attempt a libertarian interpretation of their material. The protagonists are intelligent; when will they wake up and see that the State is the source of all their problems?"
We thankfully are closer with the Batman, thanks to the great Frank Miller's anarcho-capitalistic interpretation of Batman found in Batman: Year One, All-Star Batman and Robin vol. 1, The Dark Knight Returns, and The Dark Knight Strikes Again.
Published: July 26, 2008 12:11 PM
Good job analysing the Joker. "An agent of chaos" very well described. On the other hand I must disagree on there being a profound libertarian message in this movie. The problem with this post is the same problem that plagues libertarians everywhere...they tend to think that ALL human problems, especially problems of crime and human suffering, will magically disappear if only we would wake up and apply the principles of libertarianism to them. This is fundamentally wrong.
For example, in the analysis above the author upholds the popular libertarian view that criminals and criminal power will fade away if only the state would legalize trades such as drugs trade, gambling and prostitution. This assumes that all problems related to drugs-, gambling- and vice crimes are created by the fact that those activities are illegal, hence a black market is created in which the mobsters rule.
Here, moviegoing libertarians the world around should remind themselves of a slightly older quote from a slightly less famous movie: "Assumption is the mother of all fuckups."
So why is this popular libertarian assumption wrong? because it treats the symptoms and not the disease. To explain, let us consider the heroin junkie. The heroin junkie does not care where he gets his fix, he only must get it. If it is expensive, he will get less. If it is leagalized and cheaper, as goes the libertarian view, he will get more. The junkie will not cease to be a junkie or cease to behave and think as a junkie only because he gets his fix from a pharmacist instead of from the guy on the corner. The only difference is that he can afford more drugs, thus deepening his problems rather than the other way around.
What libertarians usually (like here) fail to take into account is that legalization of drugs (gambling, prostitution etc.) increases the publics access to drugs and at the same time decreases the social stigma associated with drug use. So what we get under the libertarian system is a reduction in big mafia crimes, sure, but an increase in drug addicts and thus an increase in small crime. An increase in drug addicts also increases the cost of health care the society must pay to counter this. And the libertarian view that health care should not be in the hands of the state but in private hands really does not help here ;-)
So, legalized drugs = more drug addicts, not less. And more drug addicts = more social problems such as crime, health costs and legas system costs.
The problems do not go away, they only become different and arguably more damaging for society on the whole.
I'm sure you libertarians have heard it all before and have ready a plethora of neatly coined solutions to all this. But all that does not change the truth. Libertarianism is a nice theory, just as communism is a nice theory. But in the Real World, Libertarianism is just as unrealistic a system for government and social building as Communism is. If there is anything the 20th century and the first decade of the 21st have taught us then it is that we must let go of the extremes and look at the real world inhabited by real people.
Published: August 4, 2008 4:40 PM
they tend to think that ALL human problems, especially problems of crime and human suffering, will magically disappear if only we would wake up and apply the principles of libertarianism to them.
As opposed to believing in the magical power of systematic institutionalized violence to solve the world's problems? Anarchists aren't the utopians.
libertarians the world around should remind themselves of a slightly older quote from a slightly less famous movie: "Assumption is the mother of all fuckups."
You'd do well to take your own advice.
let us consider the heroin junkie. The heroin junkie does not care where he gets his fix, he only must get it. If it is expensive, he will get less. If it is leagalized and cheaper, as goes the libertarian view, he will get more. The junkie will not cease to be a junkie or cease to behave and think as a junkie only because he gets his fix from a pharmacist instead of from the guy on the corner. The only difference is that he can afford more drugs, thus deepening his problems rather than the other way around.
You're assuming quite a lot here. One is that heroine "junkies" are all useless people with destroyed lives; that none can live happy and productive lives so long as they use heroine. There are heroine users who live happy and productive lives, so in that you're wrong. Another assumption of yours is that heroine users all prefer heroine to other, less addictive and potentially harmful, drugs. This too is wrong. To understand why, reconsider your statement that they do not "care where [they get their] fix"; you're right in that, but you're wrong in assuming that heroine would remain the ideal way for them to get their "fix". Heroine is cheaper and easier to produce in the black market than alternatives, just as "bathroom gin" once was. Do all present consumers of alcohol drink "bathroom gin"? No. Are all present consumers of alcohol addicted to alcohol? No. Is the alcohol that's produced now just as dangerous to consume as the alcohol typically produced during prohibition? No.
an increase in drug addicts and thus an increase in small crime
Another flawed assumption. Do alcoholics routinely commit crimes to get their "fix"? No. Most work for a living in honest professions, they don't engage in criminal activity to fund their addiction.
An increase in drug addicts also increases the cost of health care the society must pay to counter this. And the libertarian view that health care should not be in the hands of the state but in private hands really does not help here
Actually, it does. If addicts pay for their own medical care, that they are addicts is entirely their own business, not yours. It's also wrong to assume that an increase in addiction means an automatic increase in health care costs; when not driven underground, safer production methods become profitable, and reduce the health risks of use.
So, legalized drugs = more drug addicts, not less. And more drug addicts = more social problems such as crime, health costs and legas system costs.
The problems do not go away, they only become different and arguably more damaging for society on the whole.
Funny how none of what you claim would happen, did happen, back before drug prohibition began. The historical record is not on your side here.
I'm sure you libertarians have heard it all before and have ready a plethora of neatly coined solutions to all this. But all that does not change the truth.
Neither does your blathering.
Libertarianism is a nice theory
Libertarianism isn't a theory, it's an ethical philosophy.
just as communism is a nice theory.
There's nothing nice about universal slavery.
But in the Real World, Libertarianism is just as unrealistic
What exactly is unrealistic about not initiating violence against others? That I'm debating you rather than bashing your skull in with a rock is, I think, a sufficient counter-example. So, moving on...
a system for government and social building as Communism is.
Libertarianism is a rejection of "government", so trying to base a government on it is unrealistic; it makes absolutely no sense given what libertarianism is. Libertarianism is also a rejection of attempts at "social building", in any centralized sense. Society arises quite naturally on its own, and if it didn't then it would never have come into being in the first place, and so we wouldn't even be here debating the matter. As for communism, it's a perfectly realistic way to organize a government, and to engage in centralized "social building", as evidenced by the fact that it has already been used to do precisely that. That the moral and economic costs of doing so were great only serves to reinforce libertarian opposition to central planning.
If there is anything the 20th century and the first decade of the 21st have taught us then it is that we must let go of the extremes
Absolute nonsense. Recent history teaches us no such thing; what it does reveal, however, is that the continued survival of the state, and the continued survival of our species, are at odds with each other. Also, anything only moderately good must be also partly evil. Moderation in doing what's right is no virtue.
and look at the real world inhabited by real people.
Who you think should be beaten and murdered when they don't conform to your desires, apparently.
Published: August 8, 2008 9:50 AM
Telpeurion wrote:
I think it has been a big mistake to use the word "anarchy" to describe the ideal situation. Anarchy is literally translated as Without Rule... And If I recall there is rule in the "anarcho-capitalist" society, is it not the rule of law?
Anarchy literally means "without rulers", not "without rules". Anomy means "without rules". Anarchy is, by definition, mutually exclusive with anomy, as the condition that there be no rulers directly contradicts the condition that there be no rules. Anomy is in fact self-contradictory for the same reason. As for the "rule of law" and "anarcho-capitalist society", it depends on what you mean by those phrases. If by "anarcho-capitalist" you mean that vulgar libertarianism that serves merely to apologize for corporatism, and by "rule of law" you mean the rule of violent gangs imposing their arbitrary whims on others, yes, those two go together. If, on the other hand, by "anarcho-capitalist" you mean consistent libertarian/market anarchism, and by "rule of law" you mean a general respect for individual rights, protected by customs and institutions arising naturally from the voluntary interactions taking place within society, then yes, those two also go together.
Published: August 8, 2008 10:08 AM
I saw “The Dark Night“, the latest Batman movie, over this past weekend. Although I was coerced into it, in the final analysis those were my feet that walked into the theater and my wallet that supplied the currency with which to pay for the viewing.
It’s the Antichrist of movies. Although I’m not a Christian, here’s my broad brush explanation:
As best as I understand it, the Antichrist will rise through the ranks to be seen as a great leader and unifier in his homeland. His influence will then spread, until all people, worldwide, become disciples, at which point he’ll undergo a subtle but all too real transition from savior to demonic despot, making victims of us all.
“The Dark Knight” suckers one in under the premise that, however dark it may be stylistically, its roots and soul still reside in the world of comic book make believe. It’s not like “The Texas Chain Saw Massacre”, where you get what you pay for: the agenda’s vile, but it isn’t hidden. “The Dark Knight” however, is expertly crafted, walking the tightrope between entertainment and dark indoctrination until, voila, hundreds of millions of people have been drenched in subliminal evil for 2 hours plus, and have worshiped at its alter without being aware of having done so.
My soul needed a shower after the movie, as it felt like it had spent that time in a vat filled with the devil’s spit. It’s a poor reflection on us, myself included, that we’re susceptible to the lure that was cast.
It also speaks softly but strongly about the hypocrisy and the blind spot of the Hollywood elite, who wonder why a nation they’ve indoctrinated with their profitable but mind twisting fare continues to elect and re-elect corrupt knuckleheads.
www.loosekannon.com
Published: August 11, 2008 9:29 PM
I saw “The Dark Night“, the latest Batman movie, over this past weekend. Although I was coerced into it, in the final analysis those were my feet that walked into the theater and my wallet that supplied the currency with which to pay for the viewing.
It’s the Antichrist of movies. Although I’m not a Christian, here’s my broad brush explanation:
As best as I understand it, the Antichrist will rise through the ranks to be seen as a great leader and unifier in his homeland. His influence will then spread, until all people, worldwide, become disciples, at which point he’ll undergo a subtle but all too real transition from savior to demonic despot, making victims of us all.
“The Dark Knight” suckers one in under the premise that, however dark it may be stylistically, its roots and soul still reside in the world of comic book make believe. It’s not like “The Texas Chain Saw Massacre”, where you get what you pay for: the agenda’s vile, but it isn’t hidden. “The Dark Knight” however, is expertly crafted, walking the tightrope between entertainment and dark indoctrination until, voila, hundreds of millions of people have been drenched in subliminal evil for 2 hours plus, and have worshiped at its alter without being aware of having done so.
My soul needed a shower after the movie, as it felt like it had spent that time in a vat filled with the devil’s spit. It’s a poor reflection on us, myself included, that we’re susceptible to the lure that was cast.
It also speaks softly but strongly about the hypocrisy and the blind spot of the Hollywood elite, who wonder why a nation they’ve indoctrinated with their profitable but mind twisting fare continues to elect and re-elect corrupt knuckleheads.
www.loosekannon.com
Published: August 11, 2008 9:30 PM
Goddamn, some of you MAAAAY be taking this film a little too seriously. I mean, if you use the term "fascist" in your everyday speech in an un-ironic way, then you perhaps could do everyone a favor and head to the top of a tall building and jump.
Seriously, stop attributing meaning to every goddamn thing about this movie.
Published: August 14, 2008 3:32 PM
For us, those tuned to popular land in America, we all witness a brilliant film. THE DARK KNIGHT. Enough said! This was truly a well-written screenplay, well directed, well acted, outstanding visual effects, and had a plot that kept you connected to the entire story, on and so on and so on... What is left to say but "OSCAR"!
Personally, I believe that this was the best comic book movie ever. For those who did not grow up with comic books, this was their revelation and initiation to that world in a very seductive and irresistible manner.
WoW! Heath Ledger! He simply made you want to be a bad guy. OSCAR, OSCAR, OSCAR! His death was certainly and truly a sad experience for many of us, but his performance was uncanny! Maybe the psychology behind this sad clown drove him to madness but was certain was that the character he created for us was a diabolical genius with so many mental issues that would drive any average individual to madness.
Many of us would agree that even the first sequence of the movie was a plan with a superior mastermind individual behind the whole thing. You haven’t seen the movie yet, once you do, you’ll see that you get hooked right away from the very moment the story starts. Once you are submerged into the storyline, you wake up to reality not even noticing that you were watching a movie the whole time.
All I have to say is congratulations to the entire cast. Every single actor played a marvelous job. Shout out to Christopher Nolan for writing and directing this brilliant movie. Christian Bale, Heath Ledger
Aaron Eckhart, Morgan Freeman, Michael Caine, and Gary Oldman. Basically, Batman himself was what you need to add to your ketchup and make it taste like an Italian grandmother’s pasta sauce that she has been cooking for over a day. Can't have a Batman movie without Batman doing batman stuff.
At the end of the day, whether you are starting to learn about all these comic book heroes for the first time just like me, or you are a big fan, GO TO THE THEATHER AND SEE BATMAN!!! Please go watch this phenomenal movie and help THE DARK KNIGHT beat Titanic to become the largest grossing movie of all time. GO NOW!!!
Published: August 24, 2008 10:22 PM