The Ferry Scene in The Dark Knight (SPOILERS)

I hate to start another Dark Knight thread, but I find myself particularly haunted by this scene. I saw this movie in a packed theater, and you could have heard a pin drop during this entire encounter. It was extremely tense, well-written and well-played, and I found the outcome quite profound.

I'm interested to hear other people's thoughts on this scene. Do you think, in real life, it would have played out the way it did? What would you have done if you had been on either boat? Do you think Batman knew that things would work out the way they did? (From his dialog, he seemed to, but maybe he was just playing with the Joker's mind the way the Joker played with everyone else's.) Do you think Nolan was sending a larger message about how people SHOULD act in the face of terrorism?

To me, the sign of a great film is that you can't stop thinking about it. There was a lot of meaty food for thought in this movie, which is why, in my opinion, so many people are talking about it. But this scene really resonated with me.

Note the position of the one prisoner who throws away the detonator. Sometimes history turns on the action of a single individual (consider the case of Gavrilo Princip) if there was a person with sufficient courage, who did not fear either death or scorn, this might have played out. However, the Joker has justification for his expectations as well, few people have ever been disappointed underestimating the depths to which masses of scared people will sink when placed in a situation in which there is only one way out.

Just look at any thread on here about people accused of a crime, and supposedly this is a place where the more moral and compassionate people hang out.

Heh - I think one reason the movie fascinates me so much is that the Joker is like my shadow. In fact, I wonder if he started out like me - idealistic with a highly developed independent moral system. And then he saw how humans fell short of that and sucked and were basically evil, and maybe he just gave in to it.

Obviously I am totally against the ideas of manipulating and killing people like he did, but I do like to use words to point out the same absurdities and hypocrisy.

If I had been on either boat, I like to think that I would have done what the prisoner did - get the detonator and throw it off the boat. It's the only moral thing to do in that situation. And it should be done immediately. I don't even know why you'd have to think about it and take a vote and sit there with the thing in your hand for ten minutes before slowly putting it back down, still within easy reach, like the civilian asshole did.

If Nolan was sending a message about terrorism, then it upholds my opinion of what would happen in real life - how many Iraqis and Afghans have we killed? How many people are we holding in camps and torturing?

I don't know what Batman thought - honestly I wasn't too impressed with the character. Heath Ledger and Aaron Eckhart made the movie. Bale was just kind of there and going through the motions.

Oh, and my background wallpaper is now a white bust of the Joker on a black background, with the picture off to the side where my icons aren't in the way. It rocks! :)

In real life it wouldn't even have come to a vote.

And notice that the prisoner did what the others should have done but didn't, whereas the businessman couldn't do what the others wanted to do.

We are not in control. Yes, the boats did not blow each other up, but that overlooks the fact that the Joker was going to blow them up at midnight anyway. Remember, when Batman confronts him, the Joker has only one detonator device. And that likely means that had just one boat armed their detonator, BOTH boats were going to be blown up no matter what. Both boats were rigged to the same signal to fire, hence the Joker's one detonator for the midnight deadline.

The outcome was pre-determined according to the Joker's plan. He knew that the more urbane citizenry (who represent order and morality) would be reluctant at first to fire the device and would habitually turn to the public order they know, and that the prisoners (who represent chaos and evil) would panic but would be restrained by the armed jail officers. What the Joker counted on was some having enough moral qualms to not go through with setting off the bomb until the absolute last minute, thereby allowing him to either have them blow each other up by one of them hitting the button or getting the chance to show their moral qualms were irrelevant because he controlled their fates all along.

And Batman figured that out. That's why he went directly to the Joker, to make sure he was disabled from enacting his scheme. Trying to save either individual boat would have been a waste of time and effort.

Of course that said, it was an interesting juxtaposition between chaos reigning on the citizen's boat (multi-voiced cries to blow 'em up then deciding on a "mob rule" vote that was ruled by fear) and the prisoner's boat being relatively calm and restrained despite their fear. And still, it would come down to two individual voices, a prisoner who does the right thing which should have been done all along and a regular guy whose fear leads him to want to blow up the prison boat and yet in the end, he cannot let himself kill because doing so would have killed his soul (and himself literally, though he didn't know that)...

up both boats?

1) As I mentioned above, when the Joker pulls out his detonator device during his fight with Batman, there appears to be one device with only one lighted switch for him to use. I could be wrong on that as it went by kind of quickly on screen but that's what I seem to recall from viewing the movie late Sunday night. I'll be seeing it on IMAX this weekend so I'll pay closer attention then! ;-)

2) But mostly, it just seems like that would be what this psychopathic incarnation of the Joker would do. Put people in an impossible scenario where they think they have some control and power to help themselves but have the whole situation rigged so that their sense of power and control actually become their downfall. The Joker had already done this with Rachel and Harvey Dent when he lies to Batman about which of them is at which address.

Joker knows the heroic Batman will rush after the vulnerable "damsel in distress" and send the police after Dent since Batman can make it there faster. Also, I think the Joker had figured out who Batman was (i.e. the taunting comments about the girl during the police interrogation room scene) and he knew this would tear apart both Bruce's/Batman's loyalties to Dent, as well as leave Dent's loyalties to Batman and "law and order" shattered completely... Arranging Rachel's death and manipulating the fallout did just the trick for meeting the Joker's goal to utterly corrupt the upstanding moral figure of Dent.

that would do both. They're pretty easy to program. :shrug:

The Joker consistently double crossed everyone - I assumed that both detonators on the boats may either blow up both boats, or their own.

yes.

But the Nolan brothers were illustrating the breadth of the impact that the crusades of the White and Dark Knights left on the citizenry. The heroes really were shaking people out of their moral apathy, which is why it was so vital that Batman played the role of sin-eater at film's conclusion.

No need to apologize for another DK thread. People are going to be discussing this masterpiece for decades.

"Let me do what you shoulda done ten minutes ago."

That was just fantastic. I'd like to think that I would be that strong in a situation like that.

I don't know if I would. But I'd like to think that. :)

Ooh, look, actually *we* are the bad guys, and the bad guys are more human than "we" are.

In my opinion, in real life, the Joker would have switched it; the detonator on my ferry would blow up my ferry, not the other one.

I would have had a search team looking for the damn bomb so it could be thrown overboard.

The Joker probably did have it rigged up that each detonator blows up its own boat. He lies about everything else in the movie.

I agree about the search party. But remember, they didn't have a lot of time to go searching.

A search conducted by whom, by the way? Looking for what? There were 200(?) drums of diesel fuel below deck, and each one likely had some kind of local detonator set to go off when the master was triggered. At least, that's how I think the Joker would do it.

There'd be no point in searching for A bomb when there are 200(?) bombs sitting down there. And who knows what kind of failsafes were in place?

In keeping with the logic of the film's universe, anything less than a full bomb squad would have found nothing worth throwing overboard.


My $0.02.

not things yet to happen.

The only times his promises don't happen are when his plans get foiled.

1. The bad guy thought that the detonator was linked to the ferry he was on, so he got rid of it.

2. This one bad guy had sufficient conscience to throw the detonator away; ergo, not all criminals are the same mindless thug

3. Rehabilitation works

4. Two different civilians on the ferry refer to the "choices" that the convicts had made. That means that "choice" is significant to the scene, beyond the obvious "should we/shouldn't we" question. The bad guy, faced with one final choice, made the right one. It's not a question of the civilians being "better" or "worse" than the convicts--if it were that simple, it would indeed be heavy handed.

However, each participant can only assess better/worse if they're aware of the other participant's choice, which in this case they are not. They can rationalize that the other participant might do this or that, but it's all speculative. The only issue at play is "what does the participant do" when given the choice. Even the bitter civilian, faced ultimately with that choice, decides correctly.

In fact, his choice is more profound than the bad guy's, because we don't know that the bad guy ever intended to do anything else. The civilian made up his mind, grabbed the detonator, and then changed his mind.

The participants must also weigh at least four outcomes, when faced with this game:

1. Will the other participant trigger my bomb before I trigger his/hers?
2. Will my detonator really trigger his/her bomb, or will it trigger mine?
3. Will either detonator actually trigger either bomb?
4. Will the Joker really detonate both ships at midnight?

It's simple Game Theory, of course, but none of these four has anything to do with are "they" better than "we" are.

bot boats would have pulled the trigger. Not knowing your opponents decision while knowing their motives will cause you to act in your own self interest. I was surprised, and a little disappointed that neither boat pulled the trigger. But alas, I have a little joker in me.

I think that's true only if we disallow the reasonable possibility that the Joker actually rigged each boat's trigger to itself. Then, I think, we'd get to about 11:59:52 and say "oh, fuck it," and pull the trigger. Up until that point, we'd be torturing ourselves wondering if we'd be blowing up our ship or the other one.

i'll give you that. but a person on the citizen boat would fear the criminals over-running the prison boat, and the prison boat person would fear the law abiders not caring about convicts. If it were me, I would have voted to pull the trigger.. and I would have likely followed through.

and knowing the Joker if anyone had pressed the button it would have probably blown up their own boat.

Like I had to watch the movie a second time to make sure - he tells Batman that Rachel and Harvey are in the opposite places of where they actually are and Batman thinks he's saving Rachel.

I thought the Joker misled the ferry passengers, and if they pushed their respective buttons they in effect, would've killed themselves.

Doing so would have killed the passengers, sure, but that wasn't his purpose. IMO he meant to shatter these people's concept of themselves and traumatize them with the knowledge that they'd participated in the murders of so many others. If he kills them outright (by linking each ship's detonator to itself) then who would be left to traumatize?

Given how profoundly Moore's The Killing Joke has inspired this incarnation of the Joker, I'd guess that he's more interested in traumatizing than in simply killing. That's why he tried to drive Gordon mad in The Killing Joke; that's why he attempted to make each ferry blow up the other.

believe he(as in the Joker) would've found it funny that there was a big chance, of having two subsets of social groups, kill themselves off in a huge fireball, hence the set up of the ferry situation, all he had to do is tell a lie, and add a little twist. Just think, half an hour of agonizing over your decision, thinking of killing off a bunch of people whom you don't know...and when you finally push that button...your toast, you killed your damn self.

I believe in the ferry situation, the prisoners had the biggest hurdle to overcome, cause why would the "average joe" citizen give a damn about them, and in effect the urge would be greater for them to push the button....I think it was a lot harder for the prisoners to "not" push the button, than the citizens.

The Joker has many twists...nothing is, at it appears to be...everything that the Joker does in this movie is a huge, contrived Shell Game...he is always moving the goal posts, nothing is, as it seems...thats why the Batman/Mafia/Cops/everyone has a hard time pinning down, profiling what the Jokers "real" intent is.

Thats my take, :D

By then Nolan had whipped people's emotions around and messed with their sense of realism that everyone was entirely caught in the film. You could hear people figuring out what was going to happen when the first detonator was found. There were some "oh my god"s floating around, and then it was revealed.

I can't remember an audience ever responding like that in a film. They were as horrified as if they were watching a news story. When the prisoner tossed the detonator out the window, people gasped, and I heard someone sob. Hell, it might have been me, for all I know.

As for whether that was realistic--explain to me what realism is in a film about a rich dude dressed as a bat battling a clown-faced sociopath for the soul of a city? Like any film, any work of fiction--any work of art, for that matter--it was a contrived scenario meant to illustrate a possibility and a much deeper truth. The possibility is that people can rise to that level of humanity, that level of triumph. They have, they do. We know that in all of us there is something that would react exactly that way. That's why the scene works. We also know that it probably wouldn't work that way, that someone, maybe even us, might be less noble. The truth that scene reveals isn't the outcome of the scene, but the possibility for both outcomes in each of us. True art, to raise a question as an answer.

I've got a question for you. Is Nolan a liberal or a conservative? Was the Joker Bin Laden or Bush? Who is who in this exchange? Or is it a commentary on a cycle with no beginning?

Bruce Wayne: I knew the mob wouldn't go down without a fight. But this is different. They crossed the line.
Alfred Pennyworth: You crossed the line first, sir. You squeezed them, you hammered them. And in their desperation they turned to a man they didn't fully understand.

i.e. the good german mentality. as for applying the movie to modern politics, don't try. that was likely never nolan's intention.

Not to take specific sides, but certainly to make points. The spying system at the end, the question of terrorism and crime, the scenes of torture and how far one could go, everything was a commentary on today's events, as well as on timeless issues.

Go back to Batman Begins. R'as al Ghul wanted to destroy the entire city to stop the criminal element within the city. Iraq, Afghanistan--those were the questions we were facing then. Now, The Dark Knight, and a terrorist bent on causing chaos to destroy a city from within as the authorities around him have to decide how many laws and rights they should ignore trying to stop him. Torture, vigilantism, murder, spying on civilians... Notice that none of the torture sequences resulted in good information. Dent threatened to kill a suspect, and Batman pummeled the Joker, and neither gave them what they wanted.

Nolan had other intentions, too, but he was aware of the current context.

But it seems like there was a lot of food for thought regarding the war on terror in this movie.

I've read a lot of reviews citing Batman's "abuse of power" regarding his super-spy setup. But I thought Batman exercised that power responsibly. Can you imagine Dick Cheney having access to such a system (which I'm sure he probably does) and handing Dennis Kucinich the sole means to use and destroy it?