Educating Education

Hello Cyberspace. I'm back.

At present my primary area of interest at present is educational and parenting theory, mainly because I recently married and intend to have children in the medium term. As such I want to be clear in my mind, and my wife’s of course, how we ought to bring up and educate our children. I am also interested in the area due to its titanic effects on the minds of the nation whether for good or ill and I soon may be a cause of such effects in a formal capacity. Therefore I have a reading list of about eleven books ranging from Dewey’s Democracy and Education to Plato’s discussion of education in The Republic, for which I will endeavour to write chapter summaries, so you can make up your own mind about the concepts, and then a review at the end.

The CU is not a Meat Market, it's a Delicatessen Part 3- Find a Wife

Having decided that you ought to be married you need to consider whether or not you are ready for marriage. The question should not be can I fulfill the role as a husband or a wife but rather can I grow into the role. You can't play at being married so whatever preparation you do, and I'm certainly not against it, it won't fully brief you for married life- before anyone asks I'm using second hand info here. Further, marriage is the perfect structure for spiritual formation- you have two people who love each other who will tell each other if they're sinning and then will deal with it. I'm not saying marriage will sort out your problems but it should make you more holy. So to the men, do you think you can lead, teach and provide for your potential wife? If not work on your personal holiness and giftings to the point you are. To women, do you think you can love, submit to your husband and love your children? If not work on your character until you're able. If you are answering yes, keep reading.

The modern trend is for people to get married at a later and later age. The median age for first time marriages in 2005 was 30.7 for grooms and 28.5 for brides. (ONS data for the UK). Back in 1851 the figures were 25.9 for grooms and 24.7 for brides. The lowest ages were in the late 60s early 70s when brides were 22.5 and grooms 24.5. From a purely biological view the age rising for women is problematic when you consider that the peak fertility of a woman is between the ages of 19-25. Further levels of fertility fall quite drastically after the age of 30. This seems to indicate the nature thinks we get married too late. One of the reasons for the increase in the marriage ages can be put down to the modern education system which keeps a lot of people in full time education until they're 21 and even longer when doing postgraduate degrees which are becoming more popular by the year. This leads to people being put on the shelf only after their best before date. Culture also tells us that you need to wait till you're older and have a lot of different experiences to know what you really want before you are ready to commit to marrying. This underlies a commitmentless, self centred culture where you put off making a decision and justify it by arguing you just need that bit more information, which you'll keep doing in perpetuity. This is mainly the fault of the men who refuse to take on responsibility because they want all the perks of marriage without the sacrificing themselves to their women.

So you know you should be married what do you do next? Well, the ball is in your court lads:

"He who finds a wife finds a good thing And obtains favour from the LORD." Proverbs 18:22

NB. A good wife must be a Christian. How can you possibly marry a God hater? 2 Corinthians 6:14 states that you should not be unequally yoked- pulling in different directions ain't going to work. In keeping with male leadership it is the role of the man to go and find a wife. Remember English at school, find is a verb, a doing word, which means you'll have to put some effort into it and not wait for a wife to appear deus ex machina. Now lads, where would you find lots of Christian girls who would make potential wives? The Christian Union. This is not to say that you should go there solely for this reason- it's main purpose is to build up students to live and speak for Christ. However there is probably never going to be another time in your life in which they will be such a wide choice of girls to choose from. In the future you may well be in churches in which there are only a handful of potential wives. And if you should have a wife, why not start in the best place? During my time at university there were many godly girls who'd make good wives but weren't attached or seemingly had little interest- I have eyes everywhere! It is a genuinely good place to find a good wife- that is why the CU is not a Meat Market, it's a Delicatessen- bdum tschhh! So lads attune your radar and get going. If you think there is potential, man up and ask the girl out. This makes things a lot easier. If she doesn't like you it makes it easier for her to say no rather than trying to give not interested signals which you probably won't read. It also gives proper direction because you go out with a purpose of marriage rather than hanging around with them a lot, not sure where it's going. Finally lads, if you can't take the risk of being rejected by a girl you are the ultimate example of emasculation and I pity you.

But, all my adoring female readers cry, what can we do? Make cake. Seriously. Try and single your favoured man out for attention. Find out what he's interested in and find things out about it. If he's reading a book then get a copy yourself and read it so you have something to talk about with him. Ultimately however, if a guy is worth your interest he'll initiate things properly. If he can't even dare to ask you out how'll he do leading you and your children.

For more information about these issues look at www.boundless.org and listen to the mini-series' on Biblical Manhood, Biblical Womanhood and children in Mark Driscoll's Proverbs series.

My Films of 2008

Well what I mean is the ones I saw at the cinema last year. It's a bit late but here they are in reverse order:

8) Vantage Point- absolutely shocking. It allegedly looks at a terrorist bombing from different characters perspectives, though merely uses their stories to advance the plot than really engage with their point of view. For a film that does this properly watch Kurosawa's Rashomon.

7) Gomorrah- Unjustifiably praised. There really isn't a story per say and more like a docudrama. That said it is the most realistic film I've seen, for example the only incidental music is the music played by the characters in the scene, especially for the portrayal of a criminal family. Warning- the first five minutes is the most homoerotic I've ever seen.

6) Inkspleen (sorry, heart)- Like Gomorrah was Mark Kermode's Film of the week. A story about a book of the same title. The protagonist can read people in and out of actual stories. Due to this I expected jumping between the real world and lots of fictional worlds but they only read people from stories into the real world. Uninspiring and lame existential under current.

5) No Country For Old Men- possibly the most over rated film I've seen since Raging Bull. How it won the Best Film Oscar I'll never no. The main body of the plot revolves around one bloke trying to kill another for no particular reason. Flirts with ideas of free will and determinism but not in great depth. Javier Bardem is great though, as the personification of death.

4) The Dark Knight- not as good as Begins. I wrote a huge review of this- see here.

3) Iron Man- surprisingly good. Robert Downey Jr is great as the charismatic playboy billionaire. Good characterisation with an entertaining story. A nice little critique of American foreign policy to boot too.

2) Hellboy 2- better than Pan's Labyrinth. The story is generic and telegraphed a mile off. Yet the characters are brilliant, better than most films I've seen, and the visuals are so inventive; it also very funny too. What also marks it out is the strong thematic element of the film- through death comes life in a paganised Christianity way. Hence it actually meant something.

1) There Will Be Blood- absolutely fantastic. It went straight into my all time Top Ten films. A profound portrayal of an obsessed man dealing with themes of religion and greed. Daniel Day-Lewis rightly got the Best Actor Oscar but don't forget Paul Dano as the charasmatic Church leader. Some fantastic direction and cinemtography. The scene way the oil rig blows up is one of the beautiful I've seen.

The CU is not a Meat Market, it's a Delicatessen Part 2- What is Marriage?

Given the fact you're not called to celibacy you should pursue marriage. In the same way you pursue a call to the ministry or overseas mission. And this is where the CU comes in. Let us though first consider what is marriage. As mentioned above it is a pre-fall institution. The most important aspect of the marriage is becoming one flesh. Man and Woman are no longer two but now are one. (Genesis 2:24) This means that their lives are totally integrated for life- One house, one bed, one bank account (Divorce and Re-marriage are beyond the scope of this paper). A man is to leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife. Both parties are no longer under the authority of their father but have started a new family unit under the headship of the husband. The fact that the parties become one flesh after consummating marriage makes the complementary roles of husband and wife easier to understand. Getting two people drive a car at the same time ain't going to work, however one driving and one navigating makes perfect sense- that's why men should marry Sat Navs not women!!!!

God makes Eve to be a helper for Adam (Genesis 2:18). It is clear from the outset that Adam and Eve are to perform complementary functions otherwise why would the word helper be used? Eve is help Adam with his cultural mandate to fill the Earth and subdue it (Genesis 1:28); it would have been rather hard work to fill the Earth without any means of reproduction! Yet Eve's role is of equal worth as can be seen from the fact she is made from the rib of Adam- not from the head to be above him, nor his feet to be under him but from his rib to be his equal. If anyone thinks that being a helper is demeaning obviously doesn't know their Bible very well. The Hebrew word used for help in Genesis 2 is ezer. It is used 21 times in the Old Testament and 13 times it is in direct reference to God as a helper for his people.

This obvious pre-fall Biblical example has come under fire from "feminists" from outside and inside the church. It is an unfortunate name since it indicates that a feminist is one whom supports the feminine whereas feminists seem to support the idea in the Gospel of Thomas in which it says that the only way women can go to heaven is to become men; don't worry ladies, Jesus is gracious. This rank falsehood is not only blatantly wrong- Biology is obviously sexist since men can't bear children- but anti-Biblical.

The most clear passage delineating different roles is Ephesians 5. All believers are to submit to Christ (verse 21). Following from this comes:

" Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Saviour of the body. But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything". (v22-24)

It couldn't be more abundantly clear. Paul states that a marriage is analogous to the relationship between Christ and the Church. So as the church submits to Christ, wives submit to their husbands- note it is only their husbands not men in general. There is no way this statement can be taken as purely cultural unless you wish to argue that disobeying Christ is the way forward when it suits you! Even if you argue that head purely means source, not symbolising authority, then the husband is still head of the wife for the same reason Christ is head of the Church, thus they still have the same roles. Further submission does not mean agreement, that's agreement. Submission is where you believe a command is wrong but follow it in respect of the office the person holds. However wives aren't to submit to all decisions of their husbands: if they ask them to do unscriptural acts such as theft or murder then they should disobey. The hierarchy is simple: God followed by husbands, then wives, then children. If anyone in these offices acts ultra vires, beyond the powers, then do not submit to them. Even if you think this passage is unfair against women I'd actually argue that it's the men who get the raw deal: "Husbands, love your wives, JUST AS CHRIST LOVED THE CHURCH AND GAVE HIMSELF UP FOR HER" (v25, emphasis added). Husbands are to lead sacrificially as the suffering servant did for the church! They also have the responsibility to present their wives as "holy and blameless" (v27) by the "washing of water with the word" (v26). Husbands, you have the primary responsibility of teaching your wife the word and to make her pure. Not a particularly misogynistic job description! One of the reasons for the fall was that Adam failed in his teaching role. God said "From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die." (Genesis 2:17-18). Now when Eve was confronted with the serpent she said " From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat; but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, 'You shall not eat from it OR TOUCH IT, or you will die" (Genesis 3:2-3, emphasis added). Adam's failure to accurately communicate God's word to his wife allowed Satan an opening to deceive Eve and also Adam; he ate the fruit in Genesis 3:6 as well as Eve. Due to Adam's failure as head, God brings him to book before Eve and he even has the cheek to blame his wife even when he's stood next to her whilst Satan uses his silver tongue.

Our culture believes that submission to any authority is de facto bad. This is a result of the historical abuse of power of those in authority- husbands, the church and governments. This view started to gain ground from the 60s onwards with destruction of the deferential society of the 50s and before. This was partly due to the demonstration by the media that these "moral pillars of society" were no less moral than the general public. This led to a leveling of the social order which can be seen in the replacement of major cultural figures from politicians and clergy to rockstars and sportstars. Then in the 70s feminism came to the fore. Along with the help from the social security system has led to today's very egalitarian society (more properly anti-male society). Our society sounds just like Israel in Isaiah 3:12 "O My people! Their oppressors are children and women rule over them"

Consequently the idea that men and women had different roles is considered objectionable since difference denotes superiority or inferiority. This clear error can be seen in the light of the Trinity: all persons of God are equal in value but perform different functions. The Father orchestrates, the Son creates and sustains whereas the Holy Spirit is the comforter and convicts sin. From eternity to eternity the Son has submitted to the Father. The most profound example of this is when Jesus says, is in the Garden of Gethsemane before his betrayal and crucifixion, "Father, if You are willing, remove this cup from Me; YET NOT MY WILL, BUT YOURS BE DONE" (emphasis added) He was then comforted by an angel and being in agony his sweat became like drops of blood. (Luke 22:42-44) Even though the Father was going to pour his wrath out for all sin on Christ, Jesus said "if it be your will, so be it." Never has there been an act of submission so great, though never has there been so great a victory. Submission can be a beautiful thing through mutual love and submission- The Son to the Father and the Spirit to the Son, God is one. Interestingly the word used in for one in Genesis 2:24 when Adam and Eve become one flesh is the same word used of the oneness of God; it is the Hebrew word echad which means united.

The clear role of the husband is lead and teach his wife as Christ did for the church (he should also provide for her, see below). But what of the wife? Scripture has few verses directly relating to this, the most explicit being:

"...encourage the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be sensible, pure, workers at home, kind, being subject to their own husbands, so that the word of God will not be dishonoured." Titus 2:4-5

Wives are firstly to love their husbands, pretty obvious but fundamental. It is clear here that wives are to have a home orientation. People may argue that this is again purely cultural however given the fact that we've seen that husbands and wives are to complement each other such a differently orientated role is unsurprising. So a wife's main domain is the home although this does not mean that she cannot have a job outside the home just that it should be her main focus. This essentially means everything thing which makes the home run. The areas listed in Proverbs 31 are food and clothing provision, investment, household finances and teaching. The "excellent wife" in Proverbs 31 "considers a field and buys it; From her earnings she plants a vineyard." She knows the real estate market and invests wisely. Finding good investments be it stock markets, commodities or precious metals are well within the home domain. This is along with normal household budgeting. How many households have been crippled due to imprudent spending? Credit Crunch anyone?!! Further most of the lack of nutrition and increase in obesity in children can be put down to the fact that their mothers don't cook them good meals any more; they instead rely on microwavable meals or takeaways.

This brings me nicely onto the subject of children in general. Children are an integral part of marriage. It's part of the package along with life long commitment and sex. Today's culture doesn't value children particularly highly which can be seen in the slowing birth rate, rising abortion rates and the long march towards the abolition of childhood- or life long adolescence. In the Bible being childless was than liberating to put it mildly. This is unsurprising when the command in Genesis was to fill the Earth. So if you're married you should have or had children. If you don't have the intention of having any then that would concerning; if though your husband or wife is physically or mentally incapacitated then this would be a legitimate exception. If don't want kids, don't get married. If you can't have your own children biologically then you should adopt. There are many children needing a stable home and where better in a home where both parents love Jesus. As to how many kids you should have, do the maths on how mankind can "multiply".

Given the fact you will or have children the responsibility to bring up the children is the parents; the Bible has no conception of state responsibility in this area. The parents have the primary role in educating them- the book of Proverbs is written for children. This doesn't mean they have to formally educate the children themselves but to really think where and what type of school or otherwise is best for their child. Further they should teach them in their day to day lives when suitable situations arise- Education is far more than school. The parent to do most of this is the child's mother- "And do not forsake the teaching of your mother; Bind them continually on your heart; Tie them around your neck." Proverbs 6:20-21

This brings me back to the wife's homeward orientation and for her love her children as in Titus, above. Women are hard wired to be helpful and to be motherly. As Mark Driscoll says "If women don't mother children they'll end up mothering something else- Cat women anyone?!!!!!" Further raising children is the most important task anyone can undertake. If done righteously the next generation will be saints. On the other hand done badly they'll be demons, as they are today. It is difficult to overestimate the importance of a good upbringing- a stable home with mum and dad loving and nurturing the children. This is opposed cultures view which seems to say to get kids into child care as soon as and for as long as possible so I can do what I want. I love child care, a good day is when the kids aren't killing each other- not a great place to be educated. Due to this homeward orientation it follows that her husband should also be the main earner in the household. Yet people claim that they need child care because they can't afford to live on one income. But if you factor in all the additional expenditure for travel and clothes, child care, as well as tax you need to earn a serious amount of money to increase the real income of the house. Sources cited by Mark Driscoll reckoned it need to be $60,000 or £40,000 pa.

If the above has been a bit long and heavy there's one aspect of marriage I've left out- sex!!! The Bible says sex is a great thing within marriage. The indication in 1 Corinthians 7:5 is that husbands and wives should be having sex regularly since they should only stop if there is a particularly serious issue that needs prayer and fasting else Satan might come between them. The Bible says sex is fun:

"Let your fountain be blessed, And rejoice in the wife of your youth. As a loving hind and a graceful doe, Let her breasts satisfy you at all times; Be exhilarated always with her love." Proverbs 5:18-19

Shock horror. The Bible refers to breasts as bouncy little things that you want to pet. The fact you probably haven't realised things like this were in the Bible is that a lot of Christians are prudes. So much so, some theologians, such as Matthew Henry, allegoricalise the entirety of the Song of Solomon- the two breasts are the Old and the New Covenant and the incense in the middle is Christ, yeah right. To be fair though, I don't he was thinking of that when he.....

For a great sermon series on Song of Solomon listen to Mark Driscoll's Peasant Princess series.

The CU is not a Meat Market, it's a Delicatessen Part 1- Why You Should Marry

Many CUs are at pains to point out that they're not a meat market or have an atmosphere akin to that view. Whilst having good intentions this view is damaging.

The most of major Biblical characters were married: Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, Solomon; I could continue. Significant exceptions to this would obviously be Jesus and Paul. Even given these notable exceptions the Bible is laced with familial language- Israel as Mother, the Church as Christ's Bride (marriage is a picture of Christ's love for the Church), God the Father and God the Son. Further, before the fall God says "it is not good for the man to be alone" (Genesis 2:18) indicating for marriage to be the norm. If it wasn't the norm then this would contradict God's command to "be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it" (Genesis 1:28)

But what about 1 Corinthians 7? Doesn't Paul say that it is better to be single than married? Well, firstly we need to consider the context of the 1 Corinthians. The Corinthian church was in a pagan society similar to contemporary Britain. More importantly though the church was immature and fleshly- "And I brethren, could not speak to you as spiritual men, but as to men of the flesh, as infants in Christ" (1 Corinthians 1:3). There also seems to be a particular problem of sexual immorality with someone taking his father's wife (1 Corinthians 5:1). It's not clear whether he's married her or she's his concubine/girlfriend but it makes little difference. Later in 1 Corinthians 6 Paul states that the body is the temple of the Holy Spirit and to commit sexual immorality defiles it. (NB you can't use this verse as stick to beat smoking, drinking and any other pleasurable activity that may damage your health for to do so completely ignores the context)

Now to 1 Corinthians 7. Paul does say in verse 7 he wished "that all men even as I myself" i.e. celibate- we don't know whether he was married before he was converted though it matters little. He goes onto to say "But I want you to be free from concern. One who is unmarried is concerned about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord; but one who is married is concerned about the things of the world, how he may please his wife, and his interests are divided." (verses 32-34a)

The latter only demonstrates that one's spouse can become essentially an idol which doesn't happen to single people. The most important part however of this passage is the latter part of verse 7: "However, each man has his own gift from God, one in this manner, and in another that." What it comes down to is are you gifted for marriage or for celibacy? The criterion is laid out in verse 9: "But if they (the unmarried and widows) do not have self control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion." The way Paul puts it may seem pejorative but it is merely a true stark phrase- if you have the desire for sexual union and or the other aspects of married life then marry. The reason, I believe, for this stark language is "in view of the present distress" (verse 26) viz. the rank sexual immorality in the church and their consequent need for self control (edit- I recently heard that the "distress" was either financial or impending major persecution, a la Nero, and the point was how to make decisions given such circumstances. I'd have to do a lot more study to comment further).

Thus the overwhelming evidence from the Bible indicates that in this context most people do not have self control. Lads, have you ever had a persistent problem with porn? Or lust issues in general? Girls, have you the desire to raise a family? Or lust for romantic liaisons? The chances are you're not called to celibacy. This isn't to say however those called to celibacy would not be tempted in theses areas since it would make Hebrews 4:15 redundant: "For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathise with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin." Though I'd expect those called to celibacy to have a natural resistance in this area in the same way that some are naturally gifted to teach.

Abolish the BBFC

The British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) is an immoral and useless organisation. It is immoral since it is part of the machinery of censorship. It is true though that over recent years they have moved towards classification rather than censorship but as evidenced by their banning of Manhunt 2 they still will censor films or games if they so wish. This is not to say, though, that the current BBFC is trigger happy with cutting films. They have become ever more lax with their classifications, especially over the last ten years. Yet the principle behind the BBFC is wrong. If I create a film why I can't I just release it without the BBFC getting their hands over it? If people don't like what I make then don't watch it. Then there is the problem of the censorship machinery. It may presently manned by liberal types but it is at least conceivable that more authoritarian individuals may take over. Now given the persistent attacks on our liberties such 42 Day Detention without charge and the British version of the enabling act (The Civil Contingencies Bill) I can see political censorship returning in the medium term.

Not only is the BBFC is immoral its also rubbish at its job. I thought the idea regarding film classification was that it gave you a good idea of the content of the film. Yet the continuous change in what is suitable for a certain classification makes this redundant. For example up and till a few years ago the Godfather was given an 18 certificate however on the digitally remastered boxset it was re-rated 15. Even the controversially 12 rated Spiderman was nothing compared to the recent Dark Knight.

Not only are the ratings watered down but they are inconsistent. How There Will Be Blood (TWBB) got a 15 and the Dark Knight didn't I'll never know (But the fact is I do. TWBB wasn't a blockbuster and so didn't have the marketing men laying on the pressure). Both films hardly have a positive worldview. There is one scene of violence in TWBB in which Daniel Day-Lewis bludgeons to death Paul Dano with a bowling pin. Though it's relatively graphic and unpleasant, the scene where the Joker holds the knife to that guy's throat for ages is far more affecting. The reason for the this is the general tone of the film which the rating doesn't adequately take account of. To give the BBFC some credit they do provide more detailed reasons why they rate films than they used to.

What the is the root cause of the BBFC's uselessness? They're a monopoly: everyone has to take their films to the BBFC for rating. They can't go to Dobson's ratings or anywhere else. Consequently the universal result of monopoly kicks in- the quality of the product or service falls and its price rises. Therefore any attempt to reform the BBFC will fail. The only solution is abolish it and allow free competition in film and computer games ratings.

Free competition will allow different ratings agencies to arise. They could use the same criteria although they'd probably differ. And as with all market activities the one that satisfies the customers best will win. If the quality of the rating of one organisation falls people can simply move and use another agency. This is legally precluded at present. But what incentive does the film-maker have in presenting his film for rating? Advertising. In the USA it is possible to release films unrated but the takings of the films are a lot lower. Now that may well be due to the fact that the films only have a small target audience. Yet if you were a parent or conscientious adult would you be more or less likely to see a film not knowing what the content of the film would likely contain? Having a film rated by a respected agency will increase its marketability. Won't this mean that there will be loads of different ratings for films which would confuse the customer? Well, possibly though it would be highly unlikely. I'd expect for an area of similar moral views a dominant rating agency to emerge. Anyway a cinema may just advertise the rating of one agency so at the point of purchase there is still only one rating to view.

Wouldn't my proposal allow children to see anything since there is no legal restriction on anything? Yes. However this would be a good thing as parents would actually have to take more responsibility for their child instead of relying on a monopoly body endorsed by the state. Anyway cinemas are at liberty to refuse children entry on grounds of age so I can't seeing it being a huge problem. But suppose Dobson cinemas allow an eight year old to see the new Rambo film I don't think it beyond the realms of possibility that a lot of parents might boycott me and go else where.

To sum up. The BBFC is rubbish and the market better and more moral.

A Dark Knight Review Essay

Warning: Spoilers.

On Monday I saw the most hyped film of year: The Dark Knight. Unfortunately, as well as rather predictable, it didn't live up to the billing. That said it's a perfectly competent film, but nothing more. Everyone has been rightly raving about Heath Ledger. He puts in a fantastically disturbing performance as the nihilistic Joker. However, possibly the best performance comes from Gary Oldman as Lt James Gordon. He is just incredibly believable as the good cop stuck in an evil world.

The script is laced with black humour through out. The best line being delivered by Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman):

"Let me get this straight: You think that your client, one of the wealthiest, most powerful men in the world, is secretly a vigilante who beats criminals to a pulp with his bare hands. And your plan is to blackmail this person? Good luck."

Pure genius.

The cinematography coupled with some excellent direction creates a sinister atmosphere throughout the film. Consequently the violence is some of the most disturbing I've seen since Battle Royale. It’s not though explicit. Nolan eschews modern convention of always showing the gory details and cuts away allowing you imagination to do the work. Particularly notable is the scene where the Joker has the knife to that guy's neck for an inordinate length of time and cuts away when the inevitable happens. Tim Burton would have been wise to take heed of this style when making Sweeney Todd.

This brings me neatly on to the rating of 12A by the BBFC. Those guys are absolute jokers (pun intended). The relentless violence and hopeless undertone make it wholly unsuitable for even 12 year olds; note with the 12A rating a child of any age can view it with an adult. If my sister, who is 11, would have seen it she would have been traumatised for days afterwards. This demonstrates that the BBFC's main rating categories of sex, violence and swearing are insufficient to rate a film properly. To their credit, breaking down the ratings into these categories was a step forward.

Back to the film- The frequent action sequences are suitably spectacular though nothing out of the ordinary for a film with a huge budget. Hans Zimmer soundtrack lacks the sparkle of his best work, Gladiator and Pirates of the Caribbean for example, and just sounds as if he's going through the motions.

The main problem with the film is the crucial aspect of all narrative art: the writing. Contrary to most expectations it is not a Batman versus the Joker film. They merely provide the frame for the centrepiece- District Attorney (DA) Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart). The major themes throughout the film are summed up with Dent's own line:

‘You either die a hero, or live long enough to see yourself become the villain.”

And the Joker's:

"I took Gotham's white knight, and brought him down to our level. It wasn't hard. Y'see, madness, as you know, is like gravity. All it takes is a little...push."

Harvey Dent's character embodies these two lines. He is the clean cut DA determined to clean the filth from the streets by any means who then turns into an amoral two-faced individual after being pushed. Batman and the Joker provide the moral framework of the story. Batman is the principled (well, essentially) crime fighter. The Joker, the Devil. With these glasses we chart the demise of Dent.

There is nothing inherently wrong with this story structure but it doesn't pull it off. The main reason for this is that there are too many significant characters in the film. It is firstly cluttered by Lt Gordon and perversely, Batman himself. The only purpose Batman serves in the whole film is to prompt the escalation of violence from the Mafia. However, for whatever reason (probably to satisfy the producer), they give Batman a bit of a run around just to say- this is a BATMAN film and this is who you paid to see. Hence the entirely pointless escapade in Hong Kong. With the screen time divided up so much there is a lack of emotionally engagement with the characters; something which wasn't a problem in Batman Begins. If the Batman and Gordon would have been sufficiently sidelined to focus more on Dent the emotional impact of the death of Rachel Dawes, for example, would have been far greater. Apart from Dent, Dawes is just another in the long line of wet female characters who's sole purpose is window dressing.

This again demonstrates my contention that ensemble casts are in general a bad idea. The best example of them working is in Paul Thomas Anderson's excellent Magnolia. The reason this works is that you have characters with parallel experiences which compares and contrasts their reactions to them. It also helps that it is 3 hours long. This could have been possible with the Dark Knight but would have required the rewriting of the Joker. Instead of being an immutable pillar of evil, one would have had to flesh out his background, in particular his childhood, to chart his development into the man he is today. This would have provided a character foil for Dent. A similar change of writing could have done the same for Batman and Lt Gordon.

Now having said all that, Christopher Nolan should be credited for making a mainstream blockbuster film which is essence is an ideas film. And this is where the Joker becomes more than creepy. Ostensibly all he does is cause wanton destruction. The interesting part is his reason why. He says at one point,

"I believe that whatever doesn’t kill you, simply makes you…stranger."

which is a corruption of Friedrich Nietzsche's phrase "whatever doesn't kill you makes you stronger." Keeping Nietzsche in mind he also says this:

"It's a schemer who put you where you are. You were a schemer. You had plans. Look where it got you. I just did what I do best-I took your plan and turned it on itself. Look what I have done to this city with a few drums of gas and a couple bullets. Nobody panics when the expected people get killed. Nobody panics when things go according to plan, even if the plans are horrifying. If I tell the press that tomorrow a gangbanger will get shot, or a truckload of soldiers will get blown up, nobody panics. But when I say one little old mayor will die, everyone loses their minds! Introduce a little anarchy, you upset the established order, and everything becomes chaos. I am an agent of chaos. And you know the thing about chaos, Harvey? It's fair."

The whole point of the Joker is that he undermines people’s beliefs, especially those in people. This is the reason he sought to give Dent a little push- to show that all men are evil, given time, and thus cannot be believed in. Notice the irony with the campaign badge which states "I believe in Harvey Dent”. This provides interesting comment on the disciples of Barack Obama who herald banners declaring "Change we can Believe In ", which in fact means "We believe in Obama". The Joker also usurps the principles of Batman (the surveillance system at the end), thus demoting him of hero status, and indirectly Lt Gordon's by causing the employment of Maroni's (Eric Roberts) men inside his department.

Belief in law enforcement to keep society safe is certainly undermined. All Batman’s crusade results in is an escalation in the retaliation of the Mafia. However, unlike Batman Begins which gives hope that Batman can redeem the streets of Gotham The Dark Knight provides no such hope. The film merely raises problems and asks questions but never solves or answers any of them. Annoyingly the character of Batman himself has the seeds to the answer to crime. He is a response to the utter failure of the police and legal services. Batman succeeds where the police fail. Why? Because Batman is a form of private law enforcement contra the monopolistic provision of the government. Due to the enforced lack of competition the government’s price of justice rises and the quality of it falls. Higher price and lower quality are the universal results of the monopoly.

The reason for seemingly immovable Mafia the film has even less of a clue. The truth is that they can only thrive under prohibition of victimless crimes. It used to be alcohol. Now it’s drugs and prostitution. If these freely consented to acts were legal then most of their funds would dry up; thus removing their teeth and the problem. See my Economic and Social Costs of Drugs Prohibition.

One of Nietzsche's major critiques of society was its herd mentality. People don't think about what's right and wrong but follow what someone else believes. This belief system originated with the master-slave relationship which he repudiated. And since God is the ultimate master it is the case that "God is dead, we have killed him." For a replacement for God, the ultimate basis of all previous moral systems, Nietzsche substituted the ubermensch- the superman: any individual who created his own moral and ethical framework. This was to be each man’s goal. (NB Nowhere in Nietzsche's writings is the plural ubermenschen used. The Nazi interpretation of Nietzsche is not accurate and was done solely to serve political means).

A great critique of the herd mentality was the absurd voting scene. The Joker claimed that the two boats would be blown up at 12am but if one boat had the moral fortitude to blow the other up he’d spare the other; he provided detonators for both boats. On one boat the passengers voted on whether they should destroy the other which was almost comical. This is further reinforced by the lack of will power of any passenger to actually take the decisive step to push the detonation switch after the “people” had decided to. Perhaps this is also a comment on those things people vote for but would not do themselves.

Further reinforcing the herd point was the Joker’s perfectly accurate line that if he killed the Mayor Gotham would descend into chaos. People don’t take responsibility for themselves and palm it off on to those in political leadership. Therefore when a leader is removed people panic and chaos ensues until a new leader emerges.

The most cutting part of Nietzsche's philosophy is alluded to by Two-Face's line:

“Chance is the only reality in this cruel world. Unprejudiced. Unbiased. Fair.”

As Harvey Dent his coin had two heads on it demonstrating his belief that there was something out there he could hope in which he could in someway bring about. As Two-Face he sees the world as it really (sic) is: meaningless. Since there is no meaning the ubermensch is necessary to confer meaning. With meaning and morality dispensed with the film endorses forms of utilitarianism: Batman’s use of the surveillance system to catch the Joker and Gordon’s employment of Maroni’s men to bring him down. It is most clearly endorsed when Dent makes the statement that Caesar would have been a hero if he had died soon enough. The idea seems to be that authoritarian government is sometimes necessary but needs to be curtailed afterwards. Enabling Act anyone?!

This worldview explains why the film is so depressing. It believes there is no meaning. The last film I saw this depressing was Ingmar Bergman’s Cries and Whisper’s. If you’re ever slightly down don’t watch it or you’ll probably end up slitting your wrists. Yet there is a ray of hope thrown in the Dark Knight unlike Cries and Whispers. On one of the boats with the big mean looking black prisoner is the only one to have any courage and takes the detonator. But he throws it out of the window declaring no-one has a right to blow up the boat and sits with his fellow prisoners and seems to pray. This comes deus ex machina with absolutely no justification. My contention is that unlike Bergman, Nolan cannot make a film consistent with his belief system. He intuitively believes there is hope but cannot justify it. So just throws it in there.

This is the reason that Godless worldviews always come running back to Daddy. All atheistic creeds are ultimately unliveable. If you did hold them consistently you’d probably have committed suicide by now. Hope for a better future is engrained in the heart of man. The question is how do you justify this while dealing with the evil in the world which The Dark Knight profoundly demonstrates? The Light Knight. He suffered all the trials and tribulations of our lives. In the Joker’s words he was pushed, but never fell. Most gloriously he died taking the just wrathful punishment for man’s evil, allowing us to be reconciled to God. The Light Knight is a man to believe in. In him there is new life and hope. Yet for those outside him just retribution is suffered.

The Dark Knight’s dark world needs the Light Knight- Jesus Christ.