by Paolo Braga
RA’S AL GHUL
When a forest grows too wild, a
purging fire is inevitable and
natural.
Revenge is equivalent to drastic intervention that allows one to start over with a clean slate. Even though, Ra’s al Ghul implicitly admits, the past continues to repeat itself (thus, revenge forsakes progress).
As drama increases throughout the story, this affirmation of the countertheme resonates with the broad philosophical scope of the story. All of this is revealed through conflict. The antagonist who has invaded the protagonist’s home will, moments later, set the estate ablaze.
In addition to coherent dialogue, the theme is also kept alive through individual lines scattered throughout the film. These lines comment on the characters’ actions and link them to the theme of the story. This happens, for example, when both the protagonist and antagonist come to blows and yet avoid killing each other, even when they could easily do so. Ra’s al Ghul, in fact, was Batman’s mentor and there is a relationship that binds them.
At the end of their fight in the burning mansion, for example, Ra’s al Ghul abandons Bruce, who is unconscious, in a similar situation to the one Bruce left him earlier. Before leaving him he says, “Justice is balance. You burned my house and left me for dead. Consider us even.” Likewise, at the climax of the film, Batman is on a train heading towards destruction. He has physically beaten and gotten the better of his adversary, and yet he doesn’t kill him. Before jumping off the train, ← 192 | 193 → leaving his adversary to his own destiny, he explains, “I won’t kill you, but I don’t have to save you”62.
Metaphorical texture
The theme revealed in dialogue is given visual consistency through the metaphorical counterpoint of two recurring elements – home and city, two different variations having the same symbolic value. The values of justice and civilization are rendered through the idea of construction, a human activity that produces complex and harmonic structures that endure time. As the film renders this idea, accompanied by dialogue, the image incorporates the sense of the words.
The city is obviously Gotham City.
In one of the initial scenes of the film, the skyscrapers give a bright and futuristic outlook to young Bruce who, as a child, rides through the metropolis with his parents on the elevated metro donated to the city by his father. While they travel on the metro, Bruce’s father explains how important it is to contribute to the common good (“Gotham’s been good to our family, but the city’s been suffering. People less fortunate than us have been enduring very hard times. So we built a new, cheap, public transportation system to unite the city”).
In this scene, Gotham is a symbol of the civil progress Wayne senior wanted to contribute to. The opposite is true in the rest of the film, where the city takes on a gloomy and gothic atmosphere, symbolizing the debauchery that Ra’s al Ghul promises to defeat with vengeful rage.
The home is Wayne Manor, the antique home in the country where Bruce was raised is a metaphor for the values Bruce inherited from his father. The Manor thus represents his father and his mandate to combat misery, a condition that promotes the dissemination of evil.
What’s more, Bruce accidentally became afraid of bats at the Manor when he was a child. Later on, he creates his superhero based on the ← 193 | 194 → image of a bat. Subsequently, the sub-theme of the film is also linked to the Manor. This sub-theme is fear, Bruce’s fear of his own aggressiveness and that of others (the criminals’ fear of Batman, which has become a deterrence). Batman himself is a metaphor for the sub-theme, with his bat mask.
In the first act, the Manor is a visual and verbal metaphor for justice in a dialogue between Bruce and his faithful butler Alfred (Michael Caine).
As explained above, young Bruce rebelliously abandons the university and comes back home with the idea of murdering his father’s killer.
Alfred welcomes Bruce back to the Manor. Bruce is irritable and refuses when Alfred encourages him to re-organize his parents’ room (“This place is a mausoleum. If I have my way, I’ll pull the damn thing down brick by brick”). As they climb the staircase of the Manor, we see the marble objects and sculptures covered in white sheets. It is obvious no one has lived at the Manor for quite some time. The heir of Wayne Manor had distanced himself from the home just as he had distanced himself from his father’s values.
This is what Alfred makes clear to Bruce in the dialogue.
First, he plays on a metaphor of the house (“This house, Master Wayne, has sheltered six generations of your family”; and again, “I give a damn because a good man once made me responsible for what was most precious to him in the whole world”).
He then warns Bruce that he risks remaining prisoner of his past, alluding to his feelings of resentment and revenge (Bruce alludes to his parents’ homicide: “Should I just bury the past out there with my parents, Alfred”. Alfred responds, “I wouldn’t presume to tell you what to do with your past, sir. Just know that there are those of us who care about what you do with your future”).
Further on in the film, when the protagonist faces his worst moment of crisis, the Manor (destroyed by Ra’s al Ghul) becomes a metaphor once again, for the values and hardships these values face.
Taking shelter in the Batcave, underneath the collapsed home, Alfred makes the meaning of this metaphor clear. Given that Bruce, since the Manor has been destroyed, is convinced he has failed, the ← 194 | 195 → butler encourages him by directly associating the Manor to the idea of finding good even in something bad (“The Wayne legacy is more than bricks and mortar, sir.”…[…] “Why do we fall, sir? So that we can learn to pick ourselves up” – the tagline considered earlier on in this chapter).
This same idea is portrayed once again in the last scene of the film when the remains of the Wayne Manor return in the image and words of the characters to confirm the theme. While walking through the debris, Wayne reveals to Rachel his intention of re-building the Manor: “Just the way it was, brick for brick”. Or even, as Alfred suggests ironically referring to the Batcave: “improving the foundations”. That is to say, similar to the project of justice that the Manor represents, the family home uses a negative past event to better itself in the future.
Munich. “Break bread with me”
The film Munich also speaks about justice and revenge, but the values it focuses on are different. Hence, the theme is also different, which, in this case, is one’s homeland.
The theme is revealed through the experiences of the protagonist (Avner) and can be summarized as “one is at home only in a fair and just country, or rather, only a fair and just country can really be one’s birthplace, homeland or place to establish relationships in”. Avner, in fact, is anguished by the fact he cannot reconcile his vocation of fatherhood with the violent acts of retaliation he is involved in as a patriot.
This joint theme of “home/family/homeland” is the heart of the plot.
The bloodthirsty mission that Avner has been assigned to takes him far from his family and makes him suffer. At one point, Avner decides to abandon the operation against the Palestinians, but his family begins receiving threats, probably by Mossad itself. Avner finally becomes an exile living in America, the bitter result of the impossibility to accept that Israel abandoned the notion of justice based on law. For this reason, Avner’s family will never return “home”.
← 195 | 196 → This key idea of “home” is directly linked to the film’s sub-theme. What does it really mean to be Jewish? What is at the heart of Israel? What is the country’s identity founded on and how does justice fit into this equation? The film responds, through the sub-theme: “Jewish means acting out a vocation for justice by virtue of the Jewish people’s thousand-year old civilization”. Thus, it is wrong to seek retaliation for what happened in Munich.
Throughout the film, the theme and sub-theme run parallel and are often joined.
The theme, however, is mainly emphasized through both visible and non-visible
metaphors while the sub-theme is clearly expressed through considerations made by the characters, through direct and indirect metaphors (especially verbal).
The theme and sub-theme come together in a dialogue in the very last scene that links them to a joint, symbolic theme.
Theme through visual metaphors
The theme is visibly expressed by Avner’s meticulousness in the kitchen (in Avner’s efforts to take revenge for the massacre in Munich, he aches more and more for his home and family).
The head of the commando prepares his men’s meals and does so with great talent, expertise and perfectionism. The more his conscious is stained with blood, the more Avner finds refuge for his mind in cooking. Despite the decreasing number of men (due to their loss) at the meals, he lays a sumptuous table with a plethora of dishes that contrast to the gloomy atmosphere in which they are eaten. On the streets of Paris, his appointments with the informer who knows where their targets are hidden always take place in front of a store that sells kitchens. While Avner waits for the informer to arrive, he contemplates the metaphor for his loved ones on the other side of the shop window, which is quite at odds with his present mission to serve his homeland.
Subtheme in dialogue
The sub-theme – justice as Israel’s deep vocation – is expressed mostly through words.
← 196 | 197 → This subject is specifically set up in the first part of the film, in a scene reproducing the tense meeting in which Golda Meir (Lynn Cohen) reveals to her closest assistants her decision to take revenge on those responsible for the massacre in Munich.
GOLDA MEIR
Forget peace for now. We have to
show them we’re strong. We have
laws, we represent civilization.
Some people say we can’t afford
to be civilized. I’ve always resisted
such people. But I don’t
know who these maniacs are, and
where they come from. Palestinians?
They’re not recognizable. You tell
me what law protects people like
these. Today I’m hearing with new
ears. Every civilization finds it
necessary to negotiate compromises
with its own values.
From here on, the matter is directly dealt with again by some of the characters who each express a different point of view.
For example, for Steve (Daniel Craig), the more impetuous agent, Israel is an ancestry. The man affirms this during a fight with Carl, who struggles to accept his own actions (Carl: “It’s not distasteful to you?” Steve: “No. ’Cause the only blood that matters to me is Jewish blood.”).
Robert (Mathieu Kassovitz), the bomb expert who becomes traumatized and abandons the group, is just as clear. Robert is committed to persuading himself that his actions are rational and reminds Avner how their people are bound by justice (Robert: “We’re Jews, Avner. Jews don’t do wrong because our enemies do wrong.” Avner: “We can’t afford to be that decent anymore.” Robert: “I don’t know that we ever were that decent. Suffering thousands of years of hatred doesn’t make you decent. But we’re supposed to be righteous. That’s a beautiful thing. That’s Jewish. That’s what I knew, that’s what I was taught. And now I’m losing it, and I lose that, that’s… That’s… That’s everything! That’s my soul!”).
← 197 | 198 → Finally, for Avner’s mother (Gila Almagor), Israel’s identity resides in its land, in having its own land. The woman says this to her son to relieve the guilt the protagonist feels when the mission is over and he is travelling through his homeland (“What you did, you did for us. You did for your daughter, but also for us. Every one of the ones who died, died wanting this. We had to take it, because no one will ever give it to us: a place to be a Jew among Jews, subject to no one”).
Subtheme through verbal metaphors
The scenes considered above use verbal metaphors to address the subtheme, making reference to Israeli civilization, ancient history and culture. Each time the film speaks of Israel’s thousand-year old civilization, religion and language, it also alludes, through metaphors, to the distinctive idea of justice found in its roots. The emphasis put on traditions accentuates the spirit of a people raised around ideas based on the Law.
This happens for the first time during a meal between the members of the commando. Both the theme and the sub-theme are present in the scene. The men have just met each other and reflect on the fact that they are all beginners in reprisals (“It’s strange, isn’t it, to think of oneself as an assassin?”). Avner, who has cooked the meal, announces that he is going to be a father. The other men congratulate him, “mazeltov!”. The Hebrew word, analyzed in chapter one, will be repeated with an entirely different meaning to emphasize the contrast between Avner’s loved ones and the violent duties forced on him by his country despite its traditions of justice.
Another scene earlier on in the film uses Israeli culture as a metaphor to link the theme to the sub-theme of “justice and Jewish identity”. This scene comes after the success of the team’s first killing of a Palestinian in Rome.
Avner, not yet in conflict with his own conscience, sits with his men at a small table at a coffee shop. He would like to celebrate. Carl, however, provokes him with words from the Bible and engages him in a competition of quotes (Carl: “That old Pesach story. The angels are rejoicing because the Egyptians have just drowned in the Red Sea.” Avner: “I didn’t say we’re rejoicing. I said, “We’re celebrating.”” Carl: “And God said to the angels “Why are you celebrating? I’ve just killed a multitude ← 198 | 199 → of my children””. Avner: “The angels respond to God. They say, “God, we’re celebrating because when the people hear what happened to the Egyptians they’ll understand your point””). Their conversation ends on a sarcastic note when Steve, the less sensitive of the agents, intervenes encouraging everyone not to take things so seriously (Carl wants to know what point that was and Steve responds: “Don’t fuck with the Jews”).
Metaphorical texture
Theme and sub-theme (one’s homeland as the home to one’s loved ones and the identity of Israel founded on the concept of justice) merge in the dialogue that ends the film. Avner has fled to New York with his family and encounters Ephraim (Geoffrey Rush), his reference point in the Mossad and the man he was responsible to during their mission.
The two of them speak on the bank of a river. The Manhattan skyline stands out in the distance. Ephraim wants his man – a sabra, a native born Israeli Jew – to come back and fight for him.
In their words, a single symbol joins the metaphor of food (loved ones, attachment) to tradition (identity). The result of the confrontation, however, is that Avner’s ideals of his homeland are shattered:
EPHRAIM
You’re a sabra. Your wife and
daughter are sabras. What I came to
say is this: come home.
AVNER
Come to my house for dinner
tonight.
(a short beat)
Come on. You’re a Jew, you’re a
stranger. It’s written someplace or
other that I’m meant to ask you to
come and break bread with me. So
break bread with me, Ephraim.
EPHRAIM
No.
← 199 | 200 → Ephraim turns his back on Avner and leaves, leaving the protagonist all alone. The film ends on this image.
Avner will have the benefit of being with his loved ones in America, but he will never return to his own country because he refuses to fight a war outside the law. And Israel, having put aside its vocation for justice (the position of the film), through Ephraim’s words, excludes Avner from its history.
Dialogue and revealing metaphors
When a film only reveals the deepest meaning of its key metaphor in the final climax of the film and when that coincides with the outlook on values being completely reversed, the theme is communicated with the greatest amount
of expressiveness. The surprise of a new meaning and the persuasive power of a moral truth that is confirmed reinforces the opposite position, creating the most complete emotion a film can offer.
In these cases, a key image is essential in order to make a moral revelation definite. In effect, more often than not, metaphors are objects, actions, visual situations that, when brought up again at the end, communicate a definite, final meaning or a meaning that is richer than the one it was associated to earlier on (for example, the feather in Forrest Gump or the wheat field in Gladiator).
Sometimes, however, the set-up and payback of a metaphorical element (the revelation of its true, hidden meaning) can be done through the characters’ words.
These last two examples also have similar themes.
Collateral. “Guy. Gets on a subway. Dies”
In Collateral, the protagonist, Max (Jamie Foxx), is a cab driver who speaks of great things, but doesn’t act on them. The antagonist, Vince ← 200 | 201 → (Tom Cruise), is just the opposite. Vince is a killer who speaks about foolish acts that he quite effectively carries out, making all the protagonist’s certainties crumble around him. Through this conflict, the film explores the foundations of moral principles. The theme of the film is that good gives meaning to life only when it inspires coherent behavior with others. Without coherent behavior, moral principles are worthless and life has no meaning.
For Vince, there are no moral principles because there are no absolute values. Not everything has meaning, unless it dictates what is needed to survive. The lives of other people have no value, this is why a killer kills with no inhibition.
According to Max, however, life is of value. This is why he must decide to stop the assassin in his cab who is making him drive around while he commits a series of homicides.
The following, thus, expresses the meaning of the theme: “Everyone is a ‘neighbor’ for those who speak of kindness”. To be more precise, “Whoever upholds that there is meaning to life, that there are values, that there is good and evil, everyone is thus ‘thy neighbor’. Everyone matters”.