Article by Cameron Spink

 

On the night of The Dark Knight Rises premiere James Holmes walked through the emergency exit of the cinemas at Aurora, Colorado and fired into the packed theatre killing 12 people and injuring more than 50 others. It was senseless, diabolical and should be the object of our condemnation.

 

The question on everyone's mind is "what made him do it?". Some killers show their violent tendency before they murder, others leave a manifesto behind. Holmes is one of those who appeared, by all accounts, to be socially normal and non-destructive. And yet he wasn't, obviously. He was systematic in his planning and cold in his execution.

 

David Schonfeld M.D., director of the National Center for School Crisis and Bereavement, suggests that we must "[r]esist the temptation to come up with simple answers to complex situations" (http://www.ivillage.com.au/age-by-age-guide-talking-kids-about-tragedy-and-the-batman-movie-theatre-shooting/150050). For many intimately involved in this situation, not understanding why Holmes would act the way he has may deprive them of closure, of a sort. For us, however, we can better glimpse the true form of humanity.

 

Many liberals will tenaciously argue for stronger gun laws citing this shooting as an example of what guns can achieve. In some ways, it is fair to say the tools that Holmes used to implement his plan was particularly devastating because a room full of unarmed people cannot hope to counter a man armed with a Remington 870 Marine Magnum, a Colt AR-15 Tactical Carbine and a .40 caliber glock handgun.

 

Some will argue that it is the film industry that is to blame for this travesty. Again, there is truth in such an assertion. There was a particular scene that was intended (and, in some cases, actually shown) before The Dark Knight Rises from a to-be-released film Gangster Squad which depicts a movie theatre being systematically destroyed by four men with automatic weapons. It is safe to say that if reality and our cinematic intuitions are meeting then some portion of the blame can be thrust before Hollywood and their glamorising of violence.

 

Still others, like Jenny McCartney, would accuse the Christopher Nolan triology explicitly. Four years ago she wrote this about The Dark Knight:

"After the murderous clown heist, things slip downhill. A man's face is filleted by a knife, and another's is burned half off. A man's eye is slammed into a pencil. A bomb can be seen crudely stitched inside another man's stomach, which subsequently explodes. A trussed-up man is bound to a chair and set alight atop a pile of banknotes.

A plainly terrorised child is threatened at gunpoint by a man with a melted face. It is all intensely realistic. Oh but don't worry, folks: there isn't any nudity.

What's the problem? I can already hear some people asking. It's all a comic-book fantasy, and comic books are well known for their surreal, cartoonish bursts of violence. But the director, Christopher Nolan, hasn't sought to ramp up the cartoonish aspects of his superhero story, as other directors before him have. He has tried instead to make the violence and fear as believable as possible, and in this he has succeeded."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/2461820/Our-attitude-to-violence-is-beyond-a-joke-as-new-Batman-film-The-Dark-Knight-shows.html

 

Now I have a confession, though if you are Facebook friends with me, it is unlikely to be surprising. I am a Nolan fanboy. I am of the opinion that he is the best director in Hollywood at the moment. Two of my favourite movies are directed and written by him, one being the aforementioned The Dark Knight. So, suffice to say, I felt affronted when seeing Bill Muehlenberg's take on this. However, I have the foresight to realise that though Christopher Nolan is a movie director of the highest order, he is not portraying a Christian worldview. Very likely his is a worldview akin to secularity. So though I greatly appreciate his work I also recognise that many of the themes permeating through-out the new Batman series are, at their core, dangerous.

 

Perhaps most worrying is the new series transcending from comic-book adaption to situations we'd actually buy as reality. In The Dark Knight Rises (released last week) there exists the character of Bane (played by Tom Hardy) who is seeking to destroy Gotham (a carbon-copy of New York). He is not a supernatural being with unnatural powers. He is callous and calculating. He will destroy anything in his way and kill anyone without thinking. Similarly the Joker (played by the late Heath Ledger) of the previous movie was a malicious killer (though not to the extent of Bane). His intentions were muddy but the way he executed his plan was very entertaining. Indeed, he was the chief character in The Dark Knight and was given a large amount of comedic comments and amusing anecdotes to make the audience laugh. While the bridge between Holmes and the Joker may exist, it is not as wide as many people think. Nolan intended for this series to be grounded in reality, so why are we so surprised when people actually buy into what he is selling? Of course, it was not Christopher Nolan's intention that some actual person would take the step to become a villain. Speaking after the event he said:

 

"Speaking on behalf of the cast and crew of The Dark Knight Rises, I would like to express our profound sorrow at the senseless tragedy that has befallen the entire Aurora community. I would not presume to know anything about the victims of the shooting but that they were there last night to watch a movie.

"I believe movies are one of the great American art forms and the shared experience of watching a story unfold on screen is an important and joyful pastime. The movie theatre is my home, and the idea that someone would violate that innocent and hopeful place in such an unbearably savage way is devastating to me.

"Nothing any of us can say could ever adequately express our feelings for the innocent victims of this appalling crime, but our thoughts are with them and their families."

http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/movies/batman-director-devastated-by-mass-shooting-20120721-22goa.html#ixzz21QTAZiAc

 

While we should not doubt his sincerity it is hard to equate his description of "innocent victims" with his portrayal of the public in The Dark Knight Rises. Indeed, this is the darkest of the three films, bordering on nihilism to some degree. In the lengthy movie we are given a portrayal of a city that is destitute of hope. The psychotic criminal, Scarecrow, runs a mock court where he sentences without a trial. His two forms of punishment are "death or exile", where both inevitably lead to death. Bane rules the town as the community are threatened with being obliterated from a nuclear blast. His mercenary army initiate havoc on those who they perceive to be the "social elites" while the remaining cowers in any sanctuary they can find. You may ask why I know so much of the film's plot. Well, I've already seen it twice.

 

This movie is beautifully and professionally made but it still exemplifies the violent natural instincts of humanity, which may have been Nolan's intentions all along. Perhaps, though, the blame cannot lie at the foot of the filmmaker. While James Holmes identified himself as the Joker and followed some of his mannerisms (including an elaborate booby-trapped explosive device at his home) the blame for this catastrophe must be pointed squarely at him. It is true that western society is flirting with a dangerous mindset that says "watch, but do not mimic". It is also true that indoctrination by entertainment is much more likely the blame than blaming the weapons Holmes used. Yet, despite Hollywood's moral ambiguity and despite the capability for gun purchasing in America James Holmes is the real villain here.

 

Holmes is a real, human villain. One that is not entertaining or comedic. One that is sadistic and one that best encapsulates the brokenness of humanity. Many readers would like to think that what he did they would not be capable of. If you are talking about access to guns and explosives then, yes, our capability may be lacking. But if we are discussing the inner nature of man then, no, the differences between what we desire and what Holmes achieved are not so dissimilar.

 

It is hard to make sense of Holmes' actions from an atheistic worldview. His actions are condemnable only because they are seemingly detrimental to society, not because they are intrinsically wrong. Beyond this it is perceivable that man can participate in great atrocities because he is a fallen being.

 

"Did that which is good, then, bring death to me? By no means! It was sin, producing death in me through what is good, in order that sin might be shown to be sin, and through the commandment might become sinful beyond measure. For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh, sold under sin. For I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. Now if I do what I do not want, I agree with the law, that it is good. So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing. Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me.

So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being, but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members. Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin."

Romans 7:13-25 (ESV)