I'm from Norway, but lived in the US for 7 years.
As to everything else you said: Well, it's all just a bit ridiculous. So what if he brought up the whole American NSA spying whatever-the-fuck-you'd-call-it? So what if he agrees with it given extreme circumstances? Wouldn't you? If some fucking lunatic had a nuclear bomb planted somewhere under your ass, wouldn't you allow for something of the sort to be used?
You and I clearly have differering political opinions. I'm well aware of how sophisticated and extensive propaganda is in democratic societies, especially western countries like the USA. But I find it remarkable that even in the topic of surveillance that they manage to persuade people that it was a good think. I remember how we were taught about the disgusting acts of surveillance done by Stasi in East-Germany in the Cold War, when I was a student at school. 10 years later, when facts about Western governments spying on a scale that puts even Stasi to shame is revealed, it somehow is portrayed as "ok". Here in Norway, the chapters about this surveillance, that as pretty prominently taught to students from middle school, has suddenly disappeared in teaching lessons...
The justifications that our government give, of which you repeat them ("to protect us", basically), are excactly the same justification made by any surveillance regime -- including Stasi.
No, he's fucking talking about dealing with criminals, kidnappers, etc. He's differentiating the Joker from the rest of the bunch.And terrorists are mostly like that; they're insane ....What's the problem?
No, he is making a propaganda piece of the War on Terror, of which he clearly paints the picture from the doctrines of the American government. It's subervise and disgusting.
And you would do well to look up the definition of terrorism. The worst terrorist campaigns in the world are by far are the ones that’s being orchestrated by states like the France, Great Britain, Israel, US, Russia and China -- not organizations. But that's a topic for another discussion.
So what if Batman doesn't allow some piece of shit scumbag to escape him by flying to China? What are you crying about here?
Because he is being apologetic, and even hailing, violation of international law?
The real point of the movie is what I've outlined. It's about being human.
This is is a dumbed down and simple analysis of the film. It is as if I describing Forrest Gump as "a film about life". The criteria "about being human" is so broad that i can be applied to 10-20% of all films out there. Film criticism, at least the academic one, explores cinema beyond journalistic film review. It's an attempt to examine why film works, how it works, what it means, and what effects it has on people. That's after all what art is: a sociological/politcal statement In the case of The Dark Knight, the themes are so blatant, that even mainstream journalistic reviews have pointed them out. I'm not alone in my analysis, as I've already mentioned.
sensible/not ridiculously anti-authoritarianism? I suppose the Batman movies shouldn't be about fighting crime at all, but state corruption, eh? The Batman should be trying to usher in communism!
If you're gonna be this childish and incompetent, as to flat out attack my personality by claiming i'm a communist as a an attempt at rejecting my opinion so early in the discuss, I'm not intersted in discussing this further with you.
The problem with The Dark Knight is not that it's not anti-authoritarian. The problem is that i blatantly promotes disgusting fascist ideas. Ideas like that fact that lying to the public and keeping them out of the truth is good, as it helps keeping the society stable. I