Words in Action

by Paolo Braga

  The theme of the film can also be found in the meaning of its title. The death of a person can never be liquidated in the same way as ‘collateral damage’”.

  Towards the end of the first act of the film, the theme is expressed in words through open conflict, even it is reinforced by the use of metaphors. This dialogue takes place right after Max discovers his passenger is a killer. It’s a traumatic discovery. With a bullet through his chest, El Gordo, the first of the killings that Vince’s boss commissioned, has accidentally plummeted down from the balcony and landed… on top of the cab where Max, unknowingly, was waiting for Vince to come back from his “errand”.

  With El Gordo’s body in the trunk, Max is forced to get back behind the wheel.

  Max objects, complaining that if the night is going to continue like he thinks it is, he can’t do it.

  Vince cynically responds to his objections:

  ← 201 | 202 → VINCE

  Okay, look, here’s the deal. Man,

  you were gonna drive me around

  tonight and never be the wiser,

  but El Gordo got in front of a

  window, did his high dive. We’re

  into plan b. You still breathing?

  Now, we gotta make the best of

  it. Improvise. Adapt to the

  environment. Darwin. Shit happens.

  I Ching. Whatever, man. We gotta

  roll with it.

  The theme, the moral message of the film, is introduced through the counter theme – the opposite assumption that creates a dramatic antithesis.

  The metaphors (Vince’s collection of philosophical references said with disdain) give the idea that there is no meaning, only chaos.

  Thus, the only thing that matters in life is survival. Given the premise, given that nothing has meaning and everything depends on survival, in Vince’s point of view the only life worth saving is one’s own:

  MAX

  “I Ching”? What are you talking

  about? You threw a man out of a

  window.

  VINCE

  I didn’t throw him. He fell.

  MAX

  Well, what did he do to you?

  VINCE

  What?

  MAX

  What did he do to you?

  ← 202 | 203 → VINCE

  Nothing. I only met him tonight.

  MAX

  You just met him once, and you kill

  him like that?

  VINCE

  What, I should only kill people after

  I get to know them?

  MAX

  No, man.

  VINCE

  Max, six billion people on the

  planet, you’re getting bent out of

  shape because of one fat guy.

  MAX

  Well, who was he?

  VINCE

  What do you care? Have you ever

  heard of Rwanda?

  MAX

  Yes, I know Rwanda.

  VINCE

  Tens of thousands killed before

  sundown. Nobody’s killed people

  that fast since Nagasaki and

  Hiroshima. Did you bat an eye, Max?

  MAX

  What?

  ← 203 | 204 → VINCE

  Did you join Amnesty International,

  Oxfam, “Save the Whale,” Greenpeace

  or something? No. I off one fat angeleno,

  and you throw a hissy fit.

  MAX

  Man, I don’t know any Rwandans.

  VINCE

  You don’t know the guy in the trunk

  either.

  MAX

  Man.

  VINCE

  Okay, if it makes you feel any better,

  he was a criminal involved in

  a continuing criminal enterprise.

  MAX

  What are you doing? You just taking

  out the garbage?

  VINCE

  Yeah. Something like that.

  Even if exposition leaves room for metaphors (terms like “neighbor”, “others” and “moral” are replaced by the sad fate of El Gordo and the case of Rwanda), the theme is outlined very clearly. The moral message is dealt with and brought to the attention of the audience as a resolving question to have an effect on the characters. In effect, Max, who has only just begun his maturing process, is still incapable of speaking to Vince his own point of view. His idea of “love thy neighbor” is still weak, limited only to those who know him.

  ← 204 | 205 →

  The revealing metaphor

  The moral theme of Collateral, presented in the differing points of view on the death of El Gordo, is developed and communicated by the film mainly through a revealing metaphor. The screenwriter sets it up through an early scene, with the payoff (based on both words and imagery) arriving in the last scene of the film.

  The metaphor is made early on, in the first conversation between Max and Vince.

  The killer has just gotten into the cab. He looks like any other manager who has come to Los Angeles on business. He gives the cab driver the address of where he wants to go and makes fun at how precise Max is in telling him exactly how many minutes it will take them to reach the destination. Max makes a remark and Vince deduces that Max was able to get the phone number of the previous client. Vince asks him if he will call her.

  Max quickly changes the subject:

  MAX

  First time in L.A.?

  VINCE

  No. Tell you the truth, whenever

  I’m here I can’t wait to leave.

  Too sprawled out, disconnected. You

  know. That’s me. You like it?

  MAX

  It’s my home.

  VINCE

  Seventeen million people. This

  was a country, it’d be the fifth

  biggest economy in the world, and

  nobody knows each other. I read

  about this guy, gets on the MTA

  here, dies. Six hours he’s riding

  the subway before anybody notices

  ← 205 | 206 → his corpse doing laps around L.A.,

  people on and off sitting next to

  him. Nobody notices.

  A key symbol has been “sowed” and buried. The audience does not recognize any particular metaphorical value. The only meaning seemingly captured from the dialogue is that they are in a large city populated by individualists. An immediate example follows to render the idea63.

  At most, Vince’s words about the city being disconnected and the story about the cadaver on the subway are given greater value a few scenes later, a posteriori, in connection with the philosophical exchange (examined above) that took place after the homicide of El Gordo. The dialogue about Rwanda seems to be a development of Vince’s impressions about Los Angeles. His use of moral terms, however, will come second in comparison to the memory of the people on the subway, indifferent to the fact a cadaver is riding around the city.

  Thus, when this metaphor is taken up again, in the last scene, when the example of human disconnection is returned to with a powerful increase in meaning (bringing about a reversed value perspective), the audience is intensely surprised.

  Max is not the same person he was at the beginning of the film. Not being able to tolerate any longer the violence of his passenger, he finally beats his own tendency to avoid confrontation. He tries to stop Vince. He has moved from words to action, risking his own death at the hands of the killer and, at the risk of losing everything, he even tried to kill the killer by deliberately crashing the cab.

  The accident however is useless. Vince survives and follows Max into the subway, where he has fled with the female passenger he fell in ← 206 | 207 → love with at the beginning of the film and who he later discovered was the last target on the killer’s list. Max had gone to save her.

  He has now become a man of action. He has a gun. On the train, the protagonist and antagonist shoot at one another. />
  Vince is fatally wounded and the end is near. He sits down on one of the seats. Max sits down in front of him. He tries to calm him, but Vince’s response leaves him speechless:

  MAX

  We’re almost at the next stop.

  VINCE

  Hey, Max. A guy gets on the MTA

  here in L.A. And dies. Think

  anybody will notice?

  Max has no time to respond. Vince closes his eyes and his head falls forward.

  Max gets off the subway with the woman whose life he has saved. The director gives one last close-up on Vince’s lifeless body left alone on the subway. Then the train moves away from the station, bringing the cadaver of the killer with it. The film ends.

  Vince’s last words are the same as the anecdote he used at the beginning of the film to comment on how disconnected the subway is. Now, however, the story of “a” man has surprisingly become his own and his words take on a metaphysical meaning.

  Vince’s words give the impression of an annoying and extreme claim that he was right, suggesting that he himself, through his death, is brilliant proof of the individualism that reigns. That he is a collateral victim of the war of survival, the only way possible in a disconnected universe, in a life without meaning and without values.

  Instead, Vince’s words acknowledge he has been proved wrong. With his death, one can say “the punishment fits the crime”. His ironic destiny wanted him to die in the most symbolic and negative way, fitting to his character. It was as if destiny wanted to tell him he was wrong. Everything is connected.

  ← 207 | 208 → The story of the man on the subway ends up being a metaphor of association, of proof that justice exists. Vince pays for his sins and Max survives because he deserved to, having actively defended the principle that every life is worth something.

  The Dark Knight. “Because he can take it…”

  Similar to Collateral, The Dark Knight also explores the fundamental theme of morality. The key theme of the film confirmed by the protagonist, Batman, can be summarized as, “morality is possible only when people have faith that good is more powerful than evil”. This notion is complemented with, “when their leaders are led astray, the people are deprived of hope in principles and the doors to anarchy are opened”. This is what the antagonist, the Joker (Heath Ledger), does through the countertheme that animates him. “Morality is impossible because chaos pulsates under the fragile appearance of good”.

  The entire plot reflects this theme. Joker kills Rachel (Maggie Gyllenhaal) and transforms Dent, the courageous district attorney, Gotham’s keeper of justice and the man who loved Rachel, into a monster by manipulating his traumatized mind. The escalation of events leads Batman astray from his concept of justice. The superhero violently goes beyond all limits, creating a computer system that spies on the entire city to track down his adversary.

  The theme of the story also inspired many of the narrative passages. The Joker plays with Batman’s mind, making him contradict himself. He places dilemmas before Batman that force him to choose the lesser of two evils instead of the good. For example, he blackmails Batman, inviting him to choose between revealing his own identity and handing the city over to Joker or have Joker kill one person a day until he gives up. Or, when the Joker kidnaps both Rachel and Dent, Batman is forced to choose whose life he will save, Rachel’s or Dent’s, the defender of justice and his rival in love. Even the citizens of Gotham are put to the test. Joker takes two ferries in the bay, one full of normal citizens and the other full of jailed prisoners. He gives the passengers of both boats the possibility to save their own lives ← 208 | 209 → by blowing up the other boat. In this case, surprisingly, both boats choose to do the right thing. The Joker is taken aback and Batman is impressed. No one on either boat used the detonator. Both the prisoners and the normal citizens bet on the good, moral principles of the other.

  Similar to Batman Begins, also in the sequel many scenes deal with the theme directly through exchanges full of effective lines.

  For example, Batman stops Dent, preventing him from carrying out an action that would go against his principles. In order to get a confession from one of Joker’s henchmen, the district attorney threatens to shoot the man, leaving the decision to chance (he tosses a coin). Batman intervenes and says, “You’d leave a man’s life to chance? […] You’re the symbol of hope I could never be. Your stand against organized crime is the first legitimate ray of light in Gotham in decades. If anyone saw this, everything would be undone.”

  Especially the Joker frequently confronts the matter directly.

  For example, when he is momentarily arrested and being interrogated by Batman, he attacks the city’s institutions and people (“You see, their morals, their code, it’s a bad joke. Dropped at the first sign of trouble. They’re only as good as the world allows them to be. I’ll show you. When the chips are down, these… these civilized people, they’ll eat each other. See, I’m not a monster. I’m just ahead of the curve. […] The only sensible way to live is without rules”).

  Even the manipulating speech the Joker uses to corrupt Dent is very clear (“You know? I just do things. The Mob has plans. The cops have plans. Gordon’s got plans. You know, they’re schemers. Schemers trying to control their little worlds. I’m not a schemer. I try to show the schemers how pathetic their attempts to control things really are. […] Introduce a little anarchy, upset the established order, and everything becomes chaos. I’m an agent of chaos. Oh, and you know the thing about chaos? It’s fair”).

  The counter theme is dealt with openly when the Joker, head hung low, explains to Batman what he did to Dent (“See, madness, as you know, is like gravity. All it takes is a little push”).

  ← 209 | 210 →

  The revealing metaphor

  The theme stands out the most at the end of the film. The moral choice the protagonist makes decides the end of the story.

  The Joker has been defeated, but Dent, unbeknownst to public opinion, has died a criminal. If the citizens were to find out, the law would have lost its greatest symbol. Batman thus decides to take the blame for the crimes committed by the now “evil” district attorney and to assume the bad reputation that comes with it. He flees like a criminal, even though he is not, with the cops hunting him down. No one will ever know that Dent died crazed with wickedness. His reputation will continue to fuel hope and principles among the people.

  Batman made a choice that he explains to his friend and police commissioner Gordon as they stand next to Dent’s lifeless body with his half-disfigured face64. The thematic exposition is compelling because his decision is action and because it is the beginning of a test, of a breaking point between the hero and his fellow citizens. Information is conflict.

  GORDON

  The Joker took the best of us and

  tore him down. People will lose

  hope.

  BATMAN

  They won’t. They must never know

  what he did.

  GORDON

  Five dead. Two of them cops. You

  can’t sweep that – –

  ← 210 | 211 → BATMAN

  No. But the Joker cannot win.

  Gotham needs its true hero.

  GORDON

  (beginning to understand)

  No.

  Batman becomes direct. He repeats the line used by Dent earlier in the film when the two of them were talking about the risks of totalitarianism. The new meaning this sentence takes on here is the first reversal in meaning that sets the audience up for the end:

  BATMAN

  You either die a hero or you live

  long enough to see yourself become

  the villain. I can do those things,

  because I’m not a hero, not like

  Dent. I killed those people. That’s

  what I can be.

  GORDON

  No, no, you can’t. You’re not!

  BATMAN

  I’m whatever Gotham needs me to be.
<
br />   Call it in.

  Batman’s explanation is interrupted for a few seconds by a brief flashforward to Gordon’s speech at Dent’s funeral (“A hero. Not the hero we deserved, but the hero we needed”, those present are unaware that Gordon is really referring to Batman and not Dent).

  The film is immediately brought back to the present where Gordon tries to discuss Batman’s decision with him:

  GORDON

  They’ll hunt you.

  ← 211 | 212 → BATMAN

  You’ll hunt me. You’ll condemn me.

  Set the dogs on me. Because that’s

  what needs to happen. Because

  sometimes the truth isn’t good

  enough. Sometimes people deserve

  more. Sometimes people deserve to

  have their faith rewarded.

  The words momentarily become a voice over so that the images can fill them with subtext. While the superhero explains, two suggestive scenes with regards to the theme, or rather, trust and moral contradiction, are shown.

  In the first scene, Alfred burns the letter Rachel had given him for Bruce, the letter explaining how she will marry Dent. Unaware of this information, Bruce continues to rely on Rachel’s love and, thus, continues to hold strong.

  In the second scene, Fox burns the illegal spy system Batman had created. There is no more compromising moral codes.

  Thus, again, the theme (hope in the good upholds morality) asserts itself, and the countertheme (desperation makes immorality win) draws back. This is a turning point on values that gives the audience clear awareness about a fundamental human dimension, making the story fulfilling.

  The dialogue can now end.

  The police dogs run after Batman, who flees, first on foot then by motorcycle, into the Gotham night.

  Police commissioner Gordon and his son watch the scene. The child knows Batman is innocent and does not understand. His father explains the situation as we watch Batman flee.

  Gordon’s words increase with meaning. And here Batman’s choice is explained in order to create a revealing metaphor and to attribute significance to the image contained in the title of the film.