"I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you"

Christopher's 2005 reboot of the Batman franchise that tells the origins of how Bruce Wayne became Batman.
Posts: 5
Joined: March 2012
Hi everybody. Long time lurker, but I finally decided to step out of the shadows to comment. I have pondered long enough about this apparent contradiction in Bruce's character. From my point of view, not acting to prevent a death can be considered murder, it's a deliberate action to not save a life. However, I believe this is a very gray area for the character and a very difficult choice to make, and to make an accurate judgement of his actions, one has to take into account the circumstances.

For starters, Batman was just beginning. He may thought at that moment that was the right thing to do, and he had his reasons. Ra's was decided to destroy Gotham City, he had a chance to redeem himself (given that Bruce saved him earlier), and there is the aforementioned reason that he destroyed the controllers of the train. I'm not willing to believe that Ra's couldn't saved himself from the predicament he was, just like Bruce, he could find a way out. I don't believe Bruce didn't think that too. Given that, Ra's just resigned to his the fate he drove into himself.

Also, Bruce knew that he could not save someone who does not desire to be saved, because he had done it with Ra's before, and he "didn't listen". Ra's choose to believe that Bruce just "burned his house and left him for dead". He choose not to be saved. So "I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you" gets a whole new meaning in the sense that Ra's didn't want to be saved. He was beaten, if Bruce had saved him, it would further his humiliation and choice. Both knew that Ra's could had saved himself, he just choose not to.

On the other hand, as the character of Bruce developed on The Dark Knight, we see Bruce at first very confident, and a little conceited. One could say that the events The Joker put into motion made him reevaluate his methods. The Joker thrived on violence and aggression, and was driven to make a point, everyone was the same as him. Life was meaningless, so Bruce had to prove his foe wrong, even in the impossible moral dilemmas he was put into by him, and even Two-Face. Like in his case, I don't think Bruce's intention was to kill Harvey. He was tired to the extreme and had to make a choice in order to save one life, not because one was precious than the other one, he just did what he could. If he had the power to save them both, he would had done it.

So by the end of the Dark Knight we see a Batman fully formed, battered but not beaten. Taking the blame for Harvey's crimes made his victory. In a way, it was a penance for the consequences of his actions. It was bittersweet, (contrary to all the opinions of the film being "dark and hopeless"). The Batman at the end of the Dark Knight may had a made a different choice, if he was in the case of the first film ending.

So bottom line, Bruce's character grows up in the films, after all, it is his story. He made mistakes, he had to make impossible choices and had to discern what is best for Gotham. In a very human way, Bruce remind us of our fallible condition, but is and example of how we can learn from our mistakes, of how we can rise again if we fall, and how even in the darkness we can have a little hope.

Just my two cents.

User avatar
Posts: 15993
Joined: June 2011
Location: North Carolina
Sexy first post.
Sigs???

Posts: 175
Joined: February 2012
BlueLightning wrote:Hi everybody. Long time lurker, but I finally decided to step out of the shadows to comment. I have pondered long enough about this apparent contradiction in Bruce's character. From my point of view, not acting to prevent a death can be considered murder, it's a deliberate action to not save a life. However, I believe this is a very gray area for the character and a very difficult choice to make, and to make an accurate judgement of his actions, one has to take into account the circumstances.

For starters, Batman was just beginning. He may thought at that moment that was the right thing to do, and he had his reasons. Ra's was decided to destroy Gotham City, he had a chance to redeem himself (given that Bruce saved him earlier), and there is the aforementioned reason that he destroyed the controllers of the train. I'm not willing to believe that Ra's couldn't saved himself from the predicament he was, just like Bruce, he could find a way out. I don't believe Bruce didn't think that too. Given that, Ra's just resigned to his the fate he drove into himself.

Also, Bruce knew that he could not save someone who does not desire to be saved, because he had done it with Ra's before, and he "didn't listen". Ra's choose to believe that Bruce just "burned his house and left him for dead". He choose not to be saved. So "I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you" gets a whole new meaning in the sense that Ra's didn't want to be saved. He was beaten, if Bruce had saved him, it would further his humiliation and choice. Both knew that Ra's could had saved himself, he just choose not to.

On the other hand, as the character of Bruce developed on The Dark Knight, we see Bruce at first very confident, and a little conceited. One could say that the events The Joker put into motion made him reevaluate his methods. The Joker thrived on violence and aggression, and was driven to make a point, everyone was the same as him. Life was meaningless, so Bruce had to prove his foe wrong, even in the impossible moral dilemmas he was put into by him, and even Two-Face. Like in his case, I don't think Bruce's intention was to kill Harvey. He was tired to the extreme and had to make a choice in order to save one life, not because one was precious than the other one, he just did what he could. If he had the power to save them both, he would had done it.

So by the end of the Dark Knight we see a Batman fully formed, battered but not beaten. Taking the blame for Harvey's crimes made his victory. In a way, it was a penance for the consequences of his actions. It was bittersweet, (contrary to all the opinions of the film being "dark and hopeless"). The Batman at the end of the Dark Knight may had a made a different choice, if he was in the case of the first film ending.

So bottom line, Bruce's character grows up in the films, after all, it is his story. He made mistakes, he had to make impossible choices and had to discern what is best for Gotham. In a very human way, Bruce remind us of our fallible condition, but is and example of how we can learn from our mistakes, of how we can rise again if we fall, and how even in the darkness we can have a little hope.

Just my two cents.
You deserve five messed up Batman face's out of five. :batface: :batface: :batface: :batface: :batface:


Also, here's another thing to mention in detail. When Ra's al Ghul first confronts Bruce Wayne, he is under the identity known to Bruce as ''Ducard.'' In the comics, Ra's al Ghul used a chemical-enduring bath known as the ''Lazuras Pit,'' which could restore life and could expand the timeline of a regular human, in this case, Ra's. In the movies, this would probably (prove me wrong) be too implausable to be featured as an aspect of Ra's al Ghul's role in the film, but in terms of living up to his comic-book counterpart, did he really die atall?

As you know, Ra's al Ghul had an imposter at the beginning of the film in Bruce's training, and was killed after Bruce's disagreement to become a member of the League of Shadows, thus tearing down the building, and defeating the fake Ra's after a short-term sword battle (he was killed by a segment of the house which collapsed onto him).

As I mentioned, the real Ra's al Ghul was under the identity of Ducard; at Bruce's 30th Birthday, a woman greets Bruce to a fake Ra's al Ghul, only to be greeted by the real Ra's al Ghul himself. This is the key moment of Ra's comic-book counterpark aspect; he used Lazarus Pits to ressurect from the grave, but Ra's al Ghul used fake identities to ressurect psychologically. But, who's to say Liam Neeson actually played the real Ra's al Ghul?

After Batman's final confrontation with Ra's, Batman declines to save Ra's as he could've saved himself within a matter of skill, which he was already trained in by probability. After Batman escapes the train wreck, ready to crash, Ra's embraces himself, closing his eyes, knowing he's going to die; however, we only seen the train crashing and Ra's is presumed dead, not actually dead as a fact. This raises a few questions;

-Did Ra's actually use some sort of spirtual-ability to connect to a different place in order to save himself from death?

-Is Liam Neeson actually Ra's al Ghul?

-Did Ra's manually escape using some sort of skill before the crash (even though it didn't show it)?

These are just theories and I don't know if they're correct, but it's good to hear a voice based on the first installment of Christopher Nolan's Batman series, a truly remarkable and analysable film because of it's interpretable content. If there's anything else within the film you know based on Ra's, I would (and many other silent readers) would be glad to hear it! Thanks for this, Blue Lightning.

-MovieExoddus

Posts: 175
Joined: February 2012
TehBatGetsBraked wrote:Sexy first post.
Also, please post something more useful and relevant to this thread next time. Would be much more appreciated.

:JGLface:

Posts: 9038
Joined: July 2010
MovieExoddus wrote:
TehBatGetsBraked wrote:Sexy first post.
Also, please post something more useful and relevant to this thread next time. Would be much more appreciated.

:JGLface:
I didn't realize that you were a mod.

User avatar
Posts: 15993
Joined: June 2011
Location: North Carolina
MovieExoddus wrote:
TehBatGetsBraked wrote:Sexy first post.
Also, please post something more useful and relevant to this thread next time. Would be much more appreciated.

:JGLface:
I was complimenting Mr. Lightnings first post :JGLface: :JGLface:
Sigs???

User avatar
Posts: 3014
Joined: November 2011
Location: North Carolina
Not sure if this has been mentioned in this thread, but I've found a bit of a inconsistency. Bruce refuses to save Ras from his own death yet in The Dark Knight, he chooses to save the Joker from his. Why would Bruce save the Joker yet not save Ras? Definitely an inconsistency.

User avatar
Posts: 19793
Joined: June 2011
Location: The Ashes of Gotham
Skyab23 wrote:Not sure if this has been mentioned in this thread, but I've found a bit of a inconsistency. Bruce refuses to save Ras from his own death yet in The Dark Knight, he chooses to save the Joker from his. Why would Bruce save the Joker yet not save Ras? Definitely an inconsistency.
Ra's death was not necessarily caused by Batman. It was Gordon who knocked out the bridge. Whereas with the Joker if Batman just let him die he would have been responsible for it. The Joker only could've died when Batman threw him off, so saving him was the only option sans breaking his rule.

User avatar
Posts: 3014
Joined: November 2011
Location: North Carolina
BlairCo wrote:
Skyab23 wrote:Not sure if this has been mentioned in this thread, but I've found a bit of a inconsistency. Bruce refuses to save Ras from his own death yet in The Dark Knight, he chooses to save the Joker from his. Why would Bruce save the Joker yet not save Ras? Definitely an inconsistency.
Ra's death was not necessarily caused by Batman. It was Gordon who knocked out the bridge. Whereas with the Joker if Batman just let him die he would have been responsible for it. The Joker only could've died when Batman threw him off, so saving him was the only option sans breaking his rule.
I guess if you want to get technical about it, that's true. However, Batman had the choice to save both, and he only chose to save the Joker. Certainly, Ras was no more innocent than the Joker.

Posts: 175
Joined: February 2012
Skyab23 wrote:Not sure if this has been mentioned in this thread, but I've found a bit of a inconsistency. Bruce refuses to save Ras from his own death yet in The Dark Knight, he chooses to save the Joker from his. Why would Bruce save the Joker yet not save Ras? Definitely an inconsistency.
You didn't read Lightning's post correctly. Ra's could have saved himself as he mentioned in his theory.

Post Reply