Batman's Journey

In this second part of the film, Batman is going through a series of "trials" along with Commissioner Gordon and district attorney Harvey Dent. This is a section of the Hero's Journey as postulated by Joseph Campbell. Another scene in this part of the film is Bruce Wayne "receiving" new gadgets and a briefing from his company associate Mr. Fox who also designs Batman's equipment, which is a part of the hero's journey where the hero receives some "magical" equipment to help him in his task. With the new equipment, he flies to Hong Kong and orchestrates a dangerous plan that ultimately kidnapped Lau, the accountant, and brought him back to Gotham City. Another trial is when the Joker announces that innocent people will die each day unless the Batman revealed himself. The Joker gives various clues to indicate which people will be targeted and so Batman tries to stop them from dying with the help of Commissioner Gordon. However, while two of the three targets die, the last one, Harvey Dent, manages to escape due to some quick thinking on Bruce Wayne's part and the Batman emerges to confront the Joker and the assassins after Dent. The confrontation ends after Batman saves Rachel from falling to her death. Another trial occurs when after a series of events where one of the mob bosses, Sal Maroni makes Batman realise that people are dying because Batman refuses to reveal his identity. Coming to terms with this was another trial for the dark knight albeit in an emotional sense. Another part of the Hero's Journey found in this part of The Dark Knight is while Dent is not actually Batman or the major hero, when Dent claims he is Batman and is put into custody, it represents the "fall" of the hero or something along the lines of the "Apostasis" stage in Campbell's mono myth. Another stage of the mono myth shown in this part of the film is "Atonement", without the father. Batman basically realises, or atones for, his sins by planning to reveal himself. However, that is thwarted when Dent reveals himself to be the Batman.

Like what Snyder said in his interview with The Japan Times, Superman doesn't get a lot from humanity by saving the world, and this is more so for Bruce Wayne and Batman. Even though Bruce Wayne is extremely wealthy, Batman is an outcast, as Alfred says, but only the Batman can "make the choice that no one else can make. The right choice." But besides making the right choice, Batman doesn't gain the gratitude of the masses by saving Gotham becoming overrun by criminals. Like the way Harvey Dent is "the hero with a face", Batman is, perhaps, the true hero working behind the scenes. This particular part of this movie is really interesting because Dent is the "white knight" who is the public hero and In addition, the way there are Judeao-Christian themes that are prevalent in The Man of Steel, there are a lot of archetypes in The Dark Knight. For example, Alfred is the teacher and advisor, Mr. Fox is the "divine entity" that supplies the hero with equipment do his task, and the Joker is the monster that the hero must slay to achieve his goals and ultimately, transformation of consciousness.

The Not-So-Funny Joker

Right off the bat in the movie The Dark Knight directed by Christopher Nolan, The Joker shows his true colours as someone who is destructive, self-serving and ultimately, cunning. Throughout the entire bank robbery, The Joker had a smaller plan going in action at the same time, which was to reduce the number of accomplices one by one as they completed each stage in the robbery. So as the robbery went on, there was one less person to receive a share of the cash, until there was only one survivor: The Joker himself. This really showed his cunning and ingenuity in planning. This was further emphasised by the fact that he used a school bus as an escape vehicle, using the innocence of children as a cover up for his heinous crime. The Joker's elaborate planning reminded me of a movie called Now You See Me directed by Louis Leterrier. In it, there were four talented magicians that followed an elaborate plan to perform magical performances and ultimately bring ruin to specific companies and firms. In the movie, it was obvious that everything was planned to the last detail and the four magicians were always three steps ahead of the authorities. 

In my discussion with Daniel and Riley about the types of monsters, we considered people like The Joker and we called their category "societal monsters". They were immoral, had a murderous nature, but they were human, like the rest of us. Another criteria we considered was "Nature vs. Nurture", meaning whether the people were born evil and immoral or if it was nurtured within them by factors like the environment they grew up in. In the case of the Joker, he is definitely a societal monster because, while he is human, he is immoral and has a murderous nature. As shown in the first few scenes of the film, he disregards the lives of his teammates as passing thoughts and does not hesitate to kill them all. This behaviour was nurtured because the backstory of the Joker is that his father was a gambler and a drunkard and he cut open the Joker's cheeks because he was "too serious". The father's behaviour obviously brought about some kind of change in the Joker, which in turn resulted into the mindset that the Joker has today. However the one thing that I admire about the Joker is that he always comes prepared with some kind of plan. While the plan may include blowing himself up, he doesn't care, as long as he takes others down with him, another example of his murderous nature. In the scene when they mob bosses are having a wireless conversation with Lau, the Asian accountant, the Joker walks in and makes an outrageous proposition. The mob bosses are, understandably, outraged and attempts to stop him. The Joker puts a pencil through the eye of one of the goons and intimidates the rest of them, showing that he means business. However, when things got really ugly, he whipped open the front of his coat and revealed grenades tied to a thread on his thumb. The Joker was someone who always came with some sort of plan, no matter how deranged it might be.

In conclusion, from the first couple scenes, the audience sees the Joker as a so-called "societal monster", someone who is immoral, has a murderous nature and a behaviour that was nurtured from the environment he grew up in. The Joker was cunning, selfish and prepared at all times, which makes him a fitting match for the Batman and one of the most terrible societal monsters in fiction.

Socratic Musings on Monsters

When the teacher asks you to answer a question with a question, you realise the "class discussion" was going to turn into one big chain of questions, and almost inevitably, confusion. However, coming away from today's Socratic Seminar, I discover that I learned some new things that were posed by my classmates through questions, but at the same time added more questions to the ones that were answered.

One of the things that came up in our discussion was, perhaps, a solution to the overarching question of how to define and why we define things as monsters or monstrous. The main idea that the class seemed to agree upon was that it all came down to what kind of perspective you looked at it from, or what kind of "monster lens" as the instructor put it. The monster itself/himself/herself may actually think that what they're doing is the right thing. One of the examples to the "monster lens" idea that came up was the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II. The Americans thought they were doing the right thing because, one, it would hopefully end the war quicker, and two, it was a sort of act of revenge for the Pearl Harbour bombings. In comparison, the Japanese thought they were doing the right thing by bombing Pearl Harbour because they wanted the oil embargo placed by the US to be lifted. They probably also thought that they were fighting for the correct ideologies. So this poses the question: who is the monster? Is the US the monster for killing thousands by dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki but ending the war? Or is it the Japanese who thought they were fighting for the right ideologies and a lifting of the oil embargo? Who is right and who is wrong? What is the criteria for this "monster lens"? Who is the monster? 

Another thing that came up in our seminar was the misunderstood monster. Are monsters actually "good", but misunderstood so that they appear evil? Take the monster from the book Frankenstein by Mary Shelley. In the beginning, his intentions were good and didn't mean to hurt anyone, albeit for a short moment. However, since Victor Frankenstein, his own creator, shunned him, as well as the rest of society, the monster grew angry and decided to seek revenge against his creator, leading to the deaths of Frankenstein's family. This is a classic case of the misunderstood monster because the monster from Frankenstein only wanted to be loved by his creator and the rest of society, but that didn't work out. Thus, while the monster didn't want to become "evil" at first, society shaped him to become the monster that we know today. This is based on the perspective or lens that society views Frankenstein's monster. We return to the World War II America and Japan comparison. Who is the monster in this situation? Again, it depends on how you look through the lens. Is the monster from Frankenstein really a monster? Like Stephen T. Asma said in his book On Monsters, the monster may just be an "accidental monster", or one that is dangerous but not intentionally so. It all depends on context and perspective. Speaking of perspective, as I was looking through some blogs on perspectives, I came upon an interesting blog post from the blog Zsolt Fabók called "Context and Perspective". The author explains how context and perspective do matter and he poses some situations in which, while not exactly the same as being a monster, still makes me think about how a monster is labeled.

One final thing that we discussed in our seminar was how do people who label monsters benefit from it or justify their label? From Stephen T. Asma's book On Monsters, Asma says that his brother holds the view that those who label people as monsters stand to benefit from that kind of labelling. For example, political campaigns, especially modern ones, have some kind of mudslinging aspect to it, where candidates subtly comment on how their opposition is bad by listing some examples, and perhaps even exaggerating them, to attract an audience. While this is not the same thing as labelling someone as a monster, the candidates are still benefitting from this negative mudslinging in political campaigns.

So to put everything in perspective (haha see what I did there), I learned from our seminar that some monsters are misunderstood as evil, through the treatment that society gives them. Another thing is that there is a "monster lens" that we must look through to determine who is the monster and who is not. However, even that is subject to which perspectives you are looking through. Finally, the big theme of perspective. Context and perspective matter, as the Zsolt Fabók author says, and unless we can understand the context and perspective, we will never understand the full scale of the issue. 

The Tale of Theseus versus The Tale of Perseus Archetypes

There are many archetypal connections between the story of Theseus and Perseus and one of them is the hero out to prove his worth. While this also encompasses the hero archetype, I think this is also a specific kind of archetype. You have your ordinary hero who saves the planet, but then there's another type of hero who embarks on a quest in order to prove their worth and their heroism.

In the case of Perseus, he unintentionally embarks on what is supposed to be an impossible quest to kill Medusa the Gorgon in order to give the king Polydectes "the perfect gift". With the divine guidance and aid of Athena, the goddess of battle strategy, and Hermes, the messenger god, Perseus manages to kill Medusa and returns with her head as a gift to Polydectes. However, Perseus, accidentally or no, holds the Gorgon's head eyes forward and turns everyone in the banquet hall to stone. So Polydectes and his courtiers never really got to acclaim Perseus with the honour he had set out to achieve, but at the end of the day, he acquitted himself with enough honour by ending Polydectes' cruel reign.

In the story of Theseus, he has to travel to Athens and show his king father a particular sword that was kept for him, and right off the bat, instead of traveling the safe route of the sea, he decides to trek overland to Athens where there are bandits at every corner. He kills almost all of them and becomes popular and well known throughout Greece as the protector of the weak and travellers along the road. This is not the only time Theseus tries to acquit himself with honour. Because he is a danger-loving individual, he decides to become a tribute to enter the Labyrinth to kill the Minotaur. With his bare hands. He succeeds and wins the hand of Ariadne, who gives him the way out of the Labyrinth in the first place, due to her unconditional love for him. This is a bit of a spoiler alert, but this reminds me of a section in the book series A Song of Ice and Fire by George R.R. Martin. In the second book, A Clash of Kings,   Theon Greyjoy has to prove to his men from the iron islands that he was not "softened" by living with the Starks for ten years, and that he is a trueborn man of the iron islands and will pay the "iron price". Thus, he sets out to kill the last two remaining male members of the Stark family to prove himself to his men.

In conclusion, the archetype that the tale of Perseus and Theseus have in common would be the hero trying to acquit himself with honour or by proving himself as a better man. In the case of Perseus, it was killing Medusa and bringing her head back, turning a tyrant and his court to stone in the process. In the case of Theseus, it was ever-present in the many adventures he had, from his journey to Athens to his encounter with the Minotaur.

The Tale of Perseus and Medusa Archetypes

The tale of Perseus is a archetypal adventure with a little bit of romance and tragedy to spice up the story. Perseus must embark on a long quest to prove his worth to his fellow men, receiving gifts and aid along the way, slaying monsters, and ultimately achieving his goals. It is a long journey and Perseus has many tasks to complete and fulfil before he can even find the monsters, let alone slay them. This rather reminds me of the Alex Rider series by Anthony Horowitz. The series is about a teenage spy who receives gadgets and gizmos to perform missions for London's MI6 spy agency, much like how Perseus received his sword, shield, wallet and winged sandals from Hermes and Athena. Similarly, Alex Rider had to do his own research and reconnaissance in the field for a while before he managed to uncover the sinister plot that is about to befall the entirety of England, while Perseus had to go to different places, find different people, and gather the resources and information in order to find and slay Medusa. Another archetype prevalent in the story is the archetypal monster. The Gorgons are described as scaly, winged and snaky hair, and it is similar to most evil monsters that are described in books. For example, this reminds me of the basilisk or Voldemort's snake from the Harry Potter series by JK Rowling. The monsters in question are described using adjectives that mean monstrous, ugly, and horrifying. Finally, there is the archetypal happy ending that comes after the long quest and the hero lives in relative comfort with family, the damsel in distress that he saves, or both. In this case, Perseus ends up living happily ever after with his new wife Andromeda and his mother Danae. Most fairytales have this sort of ending, and there is no end to the list of stories that I could put up here, but one prime example would be the all time classic: Cinderella. In the tale of Perseus, he ends up marrying Andromeda, a maid he rescues from the clutches of a monstrous sea serpent, and lives happily ever after in Greece. In Cinderella, after running away from the banquet and leaving her glass slipper, the prince she dances with vows to marry the woman who's foot fit the glass slipper. There are many different versions of this tale, and I know of one which tells a gruesome account of how Cinderella's two step sisters cut off a big toe and a part of their heel to fit their feet in, but nevertheless, they all end with the same ending: Cinderella marrying the prince and living happily ever after.

Medusa from Clash of the Titans (1981)

In the first couple seconds of the clip from Clash Of the Titans (1981), the scene already gives the audience a hint at the evil nature of Medusa, which in turn infers her identity as a monster.

The first thing that comes to mind is that Perseus is slowly creeping down into the lair with a sword and shield, which immediately screams “DANGER” at the audience. The second thing that comes to mind is that the surroundings are dark, and lit by torches flickering in their sconces. This gives the audience a feeling that you cannot exactly see everything within the lair, and most of it is covered in darkness, adding to the mysterious and suspenseful feeling. The third thing that appears are the stone statues of the men that Medusa has frozen before. They emit a sense of foreboding, and almost a sense of absolute terror as the audience looks at the terrified faces of men as they froze over. This reminds of a book series that I've read called Percy Jackson and the Olympians by Rick Riordan, which tells a modern version of the slaying of Medusa among other adventures by the same hero. Another thing that appears are the sinister silhouettes of Medusa, and the snakes in her hair were particularly striking. The final thing that shows that Medusa is a monster is the suspenseful music with the loud and soft contrasts in it that scare and frighten the audience.

Later on in the clip, the audience gets their first glimpse of the horror herself. The first thing that comes to mind is that Medusa is most definitely not something human, and it really adds to the definition of being a monster. In addition to that, the writhing snake hair also adds to Medusa’s frightening appearance, contributing to her monstrous identity. The rest of Medusa’s body is also scaly and it adds to the monster definition because snakes are often associated with evil, and it also serves to complement Medusa’s hair. The ugly grimace that is frozen on her face also serves to terrify the audience and contribute to the definition monster because most things that we consider as monstrous are often ugly as well. Finally, throughout the clip, Medusa is almost always cast in some kind of shadow or darkness, whereas Perseus, no matter how dark it gets, almost always has light shining on him. This shows the contrast between light and darkness, and also between good and evil. Since monsters are always associated with evil, the audience infers that Medusa is the monster.

In conclusion, the surroundings within the scene, like the shadows, writhing silhouettes, eerie music, stone statues and the flickering light give evidence to Medusa’s identity as the monster. In addition, her own appearance contributes to her identity as a monster, like the writhing hair, the scales, the ugly facial expression and the shadows surrounding her.