GDNet at the Movies: The Dark Knight

Oluseyi Sonaiya · 2008-07-30T00:26:14

Batman, created in 1939, has been with us for so long that we feel we know not only the character, but the gallery of villains that surround him. Ardent comic book fans have seen diverse interpretations of iconic rogues like the Joker, the Riddler, the Penguin, Catwoman and Two-Face. The larger public has come to know them through the Adam West tv series and movie, the Tim Burton films (including an amazing performance by Jack Nicholson), and the disastrously campy Joel Schumacher excretions. Spider-man is an enduring pop icon, but the casual fan can't name an opponent that didn't appear in the Sam Raimi movies - nobody knows the Sinister Seven, and most people had never heard of the Green Goblin or Venom before they were played by Willem Dafoe and Topher Grace, respectively. Superman is virtually synonymous, in some perspectives, with pro-Americanism, yet your average American can't name a foe besides Lex Luthor. Everyone can name at least four Batman villains. We feel we know them, know what they're about, understand their origins and pathos and motivations. We don't know the Joker. Not this Joker. The single most exciting thing about the Chris Nolan-helmed Batman series is its reverence without slavishness, its staying true to the essence of the characters and the story while reexamining and reinterpreting them for a contemporary audience, trimming the fat and strengthening the frail. Despite the epic resonance of the Bat-man, his story has collected its ridiculous tchotckes over the years - the implausibility of a jet-setting playboy acting as guardian to a young boy and raising no eyebrows (satirized in the SNL short series, The Ambiguously Gay Duo) being the most notable, but the clearly "comicbook-y" origins of some of his foes is another. Nolan and writer David S. Goyer discard them, creating a lean narrative firmly within the limits of plausibility. (Barely within, but still within.) Let's dispense with the "review" portion of this essay, expeditiously: The Dark Knight is awesome. I had sky-high expectations and was still blown away. There is absolutely no question that you should go see it, even if you're not at all a fan of comic books or superheroes. This is my best film of the summer (all genres) so far, the best superhero movie ever (duh) and an instant classic. See it. Everything that follows presumes that you have seen the film and discusses plot elements quite liberally. If you're a "no spoilers" person, stop reading now. Who is the Joker? Contrary to what you may think, there is no definitive comic book history, and often no given name, with the only constant being that he was disfigured by falling into a vat of chemicals. In fact, the comic book Joker has been portrayed as lying about his own history so much that he is confused as to what actually happens. The Dark Knight strips away the superflous chemical vat and disfigurement, instead leaving a man - batshit insane - with scars on his cheeks, face paint and dyed hair. The matted, disheveled appearance of the Joker, especially as the paint runs and smears, is far more frightening than any pale white ghostly apparition with ruby red lips. Who the Joker was is irrelevant. How he came to be the Joker is irrelevant. He is, an enigma and force of nature, a polarizing entity, an unpredictable and violent storm. And Heath Ledger plays him to perfection. Of the live action Jokers, Ceasar Romero's is a caricature while Jack Nicholson's is a parody. Heath Ledger's, however, is a menace. No gimmicks, no lapel flowers squirting water or acid, no laughing gas or "Joker Serum" - his pockets contain only "knives and lint." Stripped of all applique characterization, Heath Ledger produces a fascinating, unnerving portrait of lucid insanity. Every little tick, every facial twitch, every pause and line repetition suggests a warped mind processing the world around him in the most bizarre yet brilliant fashion possible. This Joker is not so much insane as he is completely amoral and devoid of fear, which makes him impossible to threaten and bold enough to attempt anything. The film - nay, the franchise - revolves around this Joker. His actions reshape the entire world of both films, radically altering Gotham's trajectory and creating uncertainty heading into the future. Unlike the end of Batman Begins, or almost every other superhero movie, you leave the theater not with the excitement and elation of victory, but with a curious mix of tremendous excitement... and doubt. This is brilliant, brilliant writing, and truly taking a chance veering on arthouse with what is ostensibly a big-budget piece of popcorn entertainment. And it works. Every character is shaped, reshaped and sharpened in response to the Joker. Batman's celebrity and unofficial police cooperation are questioned, made suspect, then completely destroyed. Jim Gordon is not only promoted from Lieutenant to Commissioner, but developed from honest, smart cop into a dynamic presence forced to make hard choices and live with the consequences, from faking his own death to catch the Joker to dismantling Batman's nobility to save Harvey Dent's. Harvey Dent. Two-Face. I've spoken before on how films adapted from comic books have the advantage of creating singular, compact and consistent narratives from decades of source material. That advantage is turned into art in this case, discarding the notion of Two-Face as villain per se and instead represent him as a hero, a White Knight not so much fallen as pushed. More importantly, his legend is abbreviated in service of a greater furtherance of the story. Gotham needs the ideal of Harvey Dent perhaps more than it needs the ideal of Batman, though it needs the reality of Batman more than it needs the reality of Harvey Dent's tragic conclusion. Batman's willingness to sacrifice his reputation, to attach his image to acts he considers reprehensible in order to preserve the memory of a pure Harvey Dent and inspire hope in the people of Gotham concludes a fascinating dissertation on the essence and nature of heroism. What is a hero? Is is a big boy scout, an incorruptible individual who always does what is right and saves people not only from the consequences of the actions of others, but from themselves as well? Can a hero have flaws, make mistakes? And if a hero appears to do what's wrong in the short term, in service of a long-term good, is he still a hero? Especially if nobody knows about the long-term good? It's a fascinating discussion because we like the idea of heroes, and we lift people up - often only to be disappointed. I can't help but bring up Rudy Giuliani, who, as District Attorney (!) is credited for helping to clean up New York by prosecuting the heads of New York's Five Families, then improving the city's quality of life as Mayor. However, despite his iconic "performance" during the September 11 tragedy and Time "Person of the Year" award, he is criticized for brutal police tactics, racial insensitivity, errors of judgment on 9-11 (blocking EPA orders for WTC workers to wear respirators - and we know how that turned out) and revelations about his personal life during his presidential campaign. Is he still a hero? Even with allegations that his prosecutions were motivated by political ambition? Rachel Dawes dies, and in symmetry with Batman's cover-up for Harvey Two-Face's murder spree, Alfred burns her letter telling Bruce she would never be with him. The combination of Bruce's certainty that Harvey Dent's success would free him from needing to be the Batman and her death at the Joker's hands (having switched addresses) made him fragile; knowing that Rachel believed he would never be free of the Batman might have had a similar effect on him that her death had on Dent. After all, this is a billionaire who spends his nights scrambling over the city's rooftops and beating the criminal element to a pulp... Which brings us back to Harvey, though. Gotham's White Knight turned so dark (and so easily) because a terrorist, who was holding the city ransom and who had killed several people already, killed his girlfriend? He's that insubstantial? Blaming Gordon is a stretch - the cops behind his and Dawes' abductions may have come from MCU, but this is Gotham; recall that in Batman Begins Gordon despondently asks, "In a city this crooked, who is there to rat to?" Blaming Batman, though? Dent is the one who decided to declare himself to be Batman at the press conference, and he was elated when Gotham PD successfully used his transport to flush out and capture the Joker. This suggests a deeper psychological flaw in Dent, perhaps related to his dual-head coin and notion that he "makes his own luck." In his anguish, he seemed only too ready to let the Joker off the hook and reassign the blame to the unwitting, sometimes coerced pawns. Hmm. This is all the more fascinating because some pawns resisted Joker's push. The two ferries full of Gothamites trying to exit the city center, furnished with detonators wired to blow each other up (supposedly; the Joker could have actually wired the detonators to blow their own ships up), never pushed the button. Even the criminals experienced a humbling humanity that must have infuriated the Joker as his "social experiment" failed, yet the crusader for justice caved so easily? (Admittedly, he'd been disfigured and was in immense pain, but, still.) Ultimately, this was a film preoccupied with the edge, and whether characters chose to step over it and how far. Batman's application of Lucius Fox's cell phone sonar technology to locate the Joker is a gross violation of privacy, an inordinate amount of power to be wielded by one man - and Fox calls him on it in a scene that is also the first time Fox sees Wayne as Batman. The system is destroyed once the Joker is found - echoing the "Field Test" episode from Batman: Gotham Knight, where a bullet deflection system works too well and endangers others - and confirming Fox's faith in Wayne's character and judgment, with Batman stepping over the line but then stepping right back. Joker exists far beyond the edge. Gordon never even flirts with the edge, but never has to. Dent lives on the right side of the edge, but is pushed over and never comes back. Where does the series go next? This is no simple sequel business, where we expect more villains and perhaps a superhero team-up or a classic storyline. What Nolan and Goyer have accomplished here is to take a property with seventy years of history and create a story that is now headed in a fairly unpredictable direction. We know Batman doesn't kill, but all of Gotham views him as a killer and criminal. Will he find redemption? Will he go away for 10 years as in the Frank Miller mini-series Batman: The Dark Knight Returns? Will substitutes emerge, refining on the Batman imitators we see at the beginning - perhaps a Nightwing, skipping Robin because it's a ludicrous concept, or a Batgirl? (Implausible. Improbable, too.) Whatever direction they decide on, one thing is now absolutely certain: It's going to be a helluva ride.

GDNet Lounge Community

Started by Oluseyi July 20, 2008 12:23 AM

116 comments, last by Hodgman 15 years, 9 months ago

blueEbola

464

July 22, 2008 02:25 PM

Quote:Original post by capn_midnight
Quote:Original post by Oluseyi
Quote:Original post by capn_midnight
That's pretty upsetting to me. If it were an average joe, they would have beat down his door, wrestled him to the ground to cuff him, probably hit him with a tazer, and given him the march of shame to the police car in full view of all his neighbors. But because he's a celebrity, he gets an "appointment" to turn himself in.

First, consider the scale of the alleged crime. Secondly, consider the social contract we establish with these people, such as depriving them of privacy. If this were an average joe, it wouldn't be in the news yet; not, at least, until the defendant is arrested or arraigned.

Celebrity is an odd thing, and it brings diverse complications with it - are we certain the allegations have merit? I prefer a wait-and-see approach before I have a reaction of any sort. Innocent until proven guilty, and whatnot.

Oh, I certainly hope for the sake of Bale that this is an innocuous situation that is blown out of proportion as part of an ongoing argument with his family. I can imagine a situation in which, during the heat of an argument in a public place, he grabbed his mother's arm to escort her to a more private area, and she saw an opportunity to hit him with bad PR. My criticisms are aimed directly at the double-standards that police departments apply, and more as complaining about how average citizens are treated with an almost total disregard for respect for the person.

I agree, there is a double standard at work and it is indeed BS.

I certainly hope that for Bale it was just a little situation that got taken a bit too far. He's one of my favorite actors (among the best in his generation, IMO) and I'd hate to see him lose out on all of the movies he's got lined up because of something like this.

They're already filming Terminator Salvation, I wonder how this will effect the movie?

askweaves.com

boolean

1,830

July 22, 2008 02:47 PM

^^

I hold very little hope for that movie. The trailer looked pretty corny, and after the abomination that was T3 I don't expect much from T4. Add on that it's being directed by McG, resonsible for such classics as the Charlies Angels movies, and I suspect it will be a giant load of wank.

Way Walker

745

July 22, 2008 05:07 PM

Original post by Extrarius
Reading about "Hush", I think he would be perfect. There is even room for him without the Riddler (which would be a good idea, IMO) with the way "The Dark Knight" set up a way for him to find out the bruce/batman duality.[\quote]

I haven't seen The Dark Knight, but, from the spoilers, Hush sounds good for the reasons you mention. I could also see Charlatan (who also has a Scarecrow connection) and Nightwing (skip the Robin bit) appearing to fill the void left by the disappearances of the White and Dark Knights, respectively.

Then again, all I really know about any of them is from the movies, the animated series, and a few minutes of Wikipedia.

Quote:Original post by boolean
Although I would shit my pants with excitement if they choose to do this story arc, with the little joke about cats when looking at the new armor, it seems that might be the direction they take. If they do, I just hope they don't turn Batman into Superman in an attempt to justify 400 million dollars of 3D animation and stunts.

Again, I haven't seen it, but could it be possible the cat line was just an in-joke with the audience? Not foreshadowing, just a reference to make people smile?

Mr Explody

320

July 22, 2008 07:53 PM

Saw The Dark Knight last night, I think I know have a new favourite film.

Thoughts for the next film:

- Enter the Villian - While the police force have outcast Batman and are now performing under their own devices, a new serial killer/terrorist enters the scene, leaving puzzles that the Gotham City Police can't solve, but must to stop this unscrupulous villian. With the police force focused on the ellusive terrorist, crime runs rampant in Gotham.

- Enter the Hero - In the fall of Batman, a lone figure emmerges, acrobatic and quick, in every essence what Batman once was to Gotham. This character begins to clean up the streets. But clumsy and ruthless, this 'NightWing' lacks the good judgement and resources available to our outcast Dark Knight, NightWing is in danger of not only harming himself, but the city proper.

- Enter the Detective - The vilian has to be stopped, where no other force in Gotham can solve these crimes, one man has the resources and the will to make the sacrifices necessary to solve these puzzles... these Riddles. Batman; the ultimate detective must return to the public eye, and save Gotham from the terrorist, and itself.

But why the riddles? What is driving this crazed man to string the Police force along knowing that the only person who is able to solve them is an outcast. Or rather, who is driving him to bring back the Batman.

[Exploding Studios] | [Twitter]

Washu

7,836

July 22, 2008 10:43 PM

Best movie I've seen in the last...ummm, 2 years I think.

Just fucking awesome.

In time the project grows, the ignorance of its devs it shows, with many a convoluted function, it plunges into deep compunction, the price of failure is high, Washu's mirth is nigh.

Benjamin Heath

925

July 22, 2008 11:32 PM

Quote:Original post by boolean
^^

I hold very little hope for that movie. The trailer looked pretty corny, and after the abomination that was T3 I don't expect much from T4. Add on that it's being directed by McG, resonsible for such classics as the Charlies Angels movies, and I suspect it will be a giant load of wank.

I don't think that series could've gone anywhere but that. They freaking gave away the ending to the entire series nearly at the start, that John Connor grows up and leads mankind to war against the machines. If you look at it in hindsight, it would've been cooler if they'd told the story backwards, starting just shortly before the climax, not unlike Homer's Odyssey (and possibly as one or two movies instead of 4). But instead, it just drags on even though we all know how it ends. So then they make it a little more family-friendly (no more R-rating, and now a network TV show) and at this point, it's just one big romp through lots of scenes with humans fighting/defending themselves against robots with a predictable outcome (but lots and lots of resistance). And if that's the case, why don't they just make Megaman instead?

(No, seriously, why don't they?)

Alpha_ProgDes

6,963

July 22, 2008 11:41 PM

Well they don't give the ending away but they made the lead up far too drawn out. They could have had 2 or 3 movies after Skynet took over that could have been very good (plenty of room for character development, emotional development, stress under war conditions, etc). Instead we get Batman fighting the Machines. ....huh?

Beginner in Game Development? Read here. And read here.

LessBread

1,415

July 24, 2008 02:38 PM

Wow! What a movie. Heath Ledger owns this one entirely.

"I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes." - the Laughing Man

Wavarian

850

July 25, 2008 06:35 AM

Yep, great movie. At one point I thought the movie was about to end, but it kept going - I love long movies!

Calabi

124

July 26, 2008 07:41 AM

That was a good movie, made great by the Joker. I'm wondering is the Joker one of the worst badguys to appear in a movie, at least in a superhero one? He was fearless, clever, had no weaknesses, he was threatening and unpredictable. He succeeded in the majority of his plans. In the end there was little gratification in his defeat, as he showed no remorse, fear or regret.

GDNet at the Movies: The Dark Knight

This topic is closed to new replies.

Popular Topics

Recommended Tutorials

GDNet at the Movies: The Dark Knight

This topic is closed to new replies.

Popular Topics

Recommended Tutorials

Reticulating splines