Despite the recent shooting of innocent moviegoes at the Dark Knight premiere in Aurora, Colorado, I was still willing to see the film when invited by a friend. Yes, I found the incident random and horrifying, but at the time little was known about the killer's motives. I was thinking, a crowded confined space is what it is. The nature of the film is just coincidence. It was only in sitting through the movie's first few minutes that I began to recognize the creepy violence of this series and coincidence began to seem more like causation.

The Dark Knight series does not follow the typical superhero narrative-- hero gains power, hero meets villain, villain beats up hero, hero obtains some moral edge and finds reinvigorated strength, hero pummels villain. DKR is a long movie (2 hrs. 45 min. to be exact) and for about 2 hrs. 15 min., the evil characters are in power. It is the villains around which the movie really revolves, as the bad characters are the most engaging and seductive. DKR struck a strong comparison with The Amazing Spider-Man in which the villain was a rather sad middle-aged man who turns into a big lizard-- not that much appeal. Nolan immerses his audience in the story of Bane, born in prison and never finding love-- and everyone knows the real reason to see Batman is Catwoman, the leather-clad femme fatale, the double agent with a scarlet smile.

For me, watching this film opened up the larger question of why in general we are so drawn to violence? If we take an optimistic view of the situation and say that most people who enjoy violence onscreen do not actually want to committ violent acts, we still must question where the appeal lies. Is it the pure adrenaline rush you experience by vicariously entering the situation? Is violence something inherently human to which we all relate? 

Then at what point does someone begin to translate what they see on a screen into their own lives? We all emulate movie characters, whether it be the glamorous Audrey Hepburn or the eccentric comic Jim Carrey. As we take on their characteristics and mimic their behaviors, the line between fiction and reality begins to blend. So the little boy who is told that he's handsome and kind is bound to identify, especially at a young age, with on-screen protagonists. But what about the boy who is told that he's bad and a threat, is there any reason why he wouldn't identify with the villain?

Though the roots of human fascination with onscreen violence may remain unclear, it seems obvious that it must be toned down, made less alluring and enticing. Then, another huge point is to show the crimes as having distinct, negative results. As a reference point, one can think back to the the classic, original horror story, Frankenstein. Frankenstein's monster was never really evil, rather he was misunderstood. After committing his crimes, he does not relish in them, but recognizes that they have furthered his misery and alienation. In Batman neither Bane nor Talia show any remorse, and their deaths are incidental and incredibly late. They are even somewhat morally condoned by Nolan, being  obviously equated with the "99%" of the current Occupy Movement. I am most certainly in support of gray area and showing both the bad and good in characters; what I had a problem with was that these characters demonstrated incredible, inhuman violence, but were simultaneously humanized through their backstories. If Nolan is going to continue to use such extreme violence in his films, it must cease be a spectacle and must be considered with real human morals and retribution in mind.