"You Think Batman's Who?"

So, this is a few days old, but I can't let it pass without comment.

Batman in "The Dark Knight" is like George W. Bush. Uh-huh. Did Klavan and I watch the same movie? Was there something in the IMAX version that wasn't in the regular version? The onetime use of an intrusive survailence system doesn't seem to be quite enough to make the parallel.

For one thing, in all his incarnations (with the possible exception of the '60's TV show), Batman has always been depicted as being supremely competent. Now, I don't subscribe to the W=stupid school of thought, but his administration has made enough blunders that I think I can safely say the Bush is no Batman.

More to the point of Klavan's opinion piece, in talking of what heroes have to do to confront evil, he says:

And when our artistic community is ready to show that sometimes men must kill in order to preserve life; that sometimes they must violate their values in order to maintain those values; and that while movie stars may strut in the bright light of our adulation for pretending to be heroes, true heroes often must slink in the shadows, slump-shouldered and despised -- then and only then will we be able to pay President Bush his due and make good and true films about the war on terror.

He completely misses the point. Batman, ultimately, is heroic because he won't compromise the values he champions. He could kill the Joker at the end, but he does not. Batman could ensure that the Joker never takes another life, but to do that he'd have to cross the line that he has sworn never to cross. How is this comparable to a President who has shown a willingness to compromise on many of the values central to this country?

I suppose there are one or two items in the piece that I'd agree with, but even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Overall I'd say Klavan provides a fairly shallow reading of the moral tone of "The Dark Knight."