SPOILER ALERT-Dark Knight

Although I wrote it in the title of this post, I want to state again that if you have not seen the film Dark Knight yet, you will not want to read the following paragraphs. I saw it almost two weeks ago amidst throngs of excited moviegoers. I have a few comments to make.

First of all, I want to say that I was extremely impressed by the film. It was truly a fun, adrenaline pumping way to spend a few hours. The characters were interesting and at times mesmerizing. I do, however, have one major complaint that I will discuss in the content of this post.

Heath Ledger deeply impressed me with his skill in picking up the Joker where Jack Nicholson left off. He took an iconic character to a whole new level. I say this because I was confused with how the movie chose to employ the character. I want to clarify that nothing Ledger did or could have done confused me. I think I was confused by the writing.

The Joker clearly did not kill or do anything because he was motivated by money. Lighting a huge stack of bills on fire illustrated that quite well. He was motivated by his psycho-pathic, evil desire to demonstrate that human beings are corruptible and inherently self-centered (for instance, the ferry scene). The movie seemed to want to emphasize that the Joker was wrong. A boatload of convicted murderers and rapists managed to be selfless in risking their own lives to preserve the lives of others.

Now we come to Two-Face. Harvey Dent was supposed to represent the best of the best in strong, brave, good human beings. Yet he was corrupted by the Joker in a moment of vulnerability. The Joker seemed to have scored a victory, for he turned the man who Batman referred to as "the best of all of us" into a relentless murderer who seemed to relish terror.

Interestingly enough, my complaint with the writing does not lie in the movie's decision to transform Harvey Dent into Two-Face. I was extremely disappointed that Batman took the blame for Two-Face's murders.

It's not that I was frustrated at Batman being seen as a villain. It's not that the ending wrapped up as neatly as it did. (These are two complaints I've heard from others about the ending.) What frustrated me was that Batman and the police chief did not have enough faith in the people of Gotham to believe that they could still believe in the inherent goodness of others unless they had an exemplary figurehead in Harvey Dent. The ferry scene demonstrated that people will not necessarily destroy eachother to save their own skins, right? Hence the Joker was wrong in believing that people are always corruptible. Yet the heroes of the story did not seem to take that as an indicator that people can be trusted with the truth and maintain their hope in the future. They believed that it was only through an innocent man taking unjust blame for another's actions that they could maintain a sense of hope in the people of Gotham.

I believe that faith in others is a good thing. I was told more than once by my classmates in college that I have "too much faith in people." I frankly don't think I have enough. I am painfully aware of my own limitations and how I have disappointed others in the past. I am also jaded from times I have been disappointed. Yet I believe that people tend to live up to the expectations set before them. If we expect little from others, others will deliver little in return. Yet if we have true, GENUINE faith in those around us, we will find that others can be trusted with more than we ever imagined, even peoples' very lives. Most difficult of all, we will find that people can be trusted with the truth.

I will always believe that we need to have faith in others. And those who do are true superheroes.