Which moves it up the totem pole one notch to "crime movie genre"! *snicker*

This is why I get weary when people over-use genre labels.

I think at least two of the four negative reviews cited by Wells have complained that the new film deviates from Tim Burton's vision in some way (e.g., it's not a campy comedy, or it takes place in a real city and not on a soundstage like the one designed by Anton Furst). Sheesh, guys, is this sort of criticism really supposed to make me like the new movie LESS than the old movies? It wouldn't surprise me at all to find out that those critics know nothing of the comics except what got filtered through the lens of Tim Burton and Joel Schumacher. I imagine there were lots of people complaining about Burton's film who knew nothing but the 1960s TV show, too.

It will be VERY interesting to see what sort of political hay is made of this film.

As some of us noted at the time, Batman Begins is kind of a post-9/11 parable. The villains are self-appointed moral crusaders who set out to destroy Gotham City for its wickedness. Bruce Wayne, who flirts with joining their ranks, first refuses to participate in some of their more extreme tactics -- specifically, he refuses to behead a criminal -- and then he goes on to argue that Gotham City, despite all its flaws, is still worth saving. Likewise, America is guilty of many of the moral evils that Islamists have accused it of, yet America does not merit the wholesale destruction that the Islamists would wish upon it, AND it is crucial that America not stoop to the Islamists' tactics as it fights back against both the terrorists from outside and the corruption from within.

The Dark Knight takes the analogy even further, if one is inclined to follow these sorts of lines of interpretation. In THIS film, there is debate about Batman's legitimacy and his methods; there is debate about the merits of relying upon a vigilante, yet there is also acknowledgement that the vigilante has made things better. And now many people, including Bruce Wayne, are ready to hand things over to a bright, shiny "white knight" named Harvey Dent, whose campaign motto is "Change We Can Believe In" ... er, I mean, "I Believe In Harvey Dent." But then, uh-oh, the Joker comes along and makes things worse, rather than better. And he is explicitly described as a "terrorist". And the question becomes: No matter how valid the arrival of Batman may or may not be -- no matter what role the outside-the-law vigilante may have played in ATTRACTING this "terrorist" to Gotham City in the first place -- should the city necessarily give in to the "terrorist's" demands and turn the vigilante over? Should Batman himself surrender? Or should he, as Alfred puts it, "stay the course" ... er, I mean, "endure"?

There's a lot more that one could say, but I'll leave it at that for now.

I'm looking forward to Armond White's inevitable pan. If there's a political angle, you can count on White finding (and exploiting) it.

Props to Nate! You called it.

And wow, wow, could he possibly BE any more wrong.

(And yet, half a prop taken away from somebody, Nate or White, for White's puzzling failure to exploit the political angle per se, as opposed to the general zeitgeist.)

For White, this constitutes a political angle! He's been waging war against the dark heart of pop culture for years now. Doesn't that count?

SDG wrote:
: And wow, wow, could he possibly BE any more wrong.

No kidding.

I mean, when he writes ...

Ever since Frank Miller’s 1986 graphic-novel reinvention, The Dark Knight Returns, pop consumers have rejected traditional moral verities as corny.

... all I can think is that there is something a little, well, old-fashioned, maybe even "corny", about the way so many characters in this film are willing to sacrifice themselves and their reputations, not just for each other but for the higher cause of making Gotham City a better place. (I can't quite say "of protecting Gotham City", because in a very real way, Gotham City needs to be protected from ITSELF, on some levels. The Joker might not be local, but those mob bosses certainly are.)

: (And yet, half a prop taken away from somebody, Nate or White, for White's puzzling failure to exploit the political angle per se, as opposed to the general zeitgeist.)

Yeah, he's stuck in Burton mode, addressing the Batman franchise on a basically PSYCHOLOGICAL level instead of dealing with the SOCIOLOGICAL themes that are more the point of Nolan's films.

This is completely inarticulate, but here's the e-mail I just sent to a few Batman-crazed friends:

The wife and I just got back from The Dark Knight. It's over 2 and a half hours long, and neither of us were read for it to end.

You've probably read the reviews, which have been ridiculous. Your expectations might even be somewhere in the stratosphere. Don't worry-- you won't be disappointed. To say that it's the best comic book ever is true, but hardly does it justice. The Dark Knight is singular in its achievement: Yes, the action scenes are breathtaking, and yes, there are some funny parts, and yes, and yes, Heath Ledger will probably get an Oscar nomination, which will be well-deserved; his performance here is iconic, every bit as good as Daniel Day-Lewis' seminal performance in There Will Be Blood last year. But even ignoring that for a minute: This is a powerful powerful film, an affecting work of art that gives us what might be the most harrowing portrayal of evil we've ever seen on the big screen. (Well, at least in a summer blockbuster!) It's a movie about corruption and decay, and its pregnant with spiritual and political implications. And at times, it's disturbing.

It's a landmark film. The audience I saw it with held their breath from the first frame to the last, and when it was over erupted in rapturous applause.

Holyfreakingcrapitsamazing.

Roger Ebert: "'Batman' isn’t a comic book anymore. Christopher Nolan’s 'The Dark Knight' is a haunted film that leaps beyond its origins and becomes an engrossing tragedy."

That's funny, one of the reasons Nolan's films have worked so well for me is precisely because they DO reflect the depths of their comic-book origins. When I watch these films, I think, "Yeah, that's exactly how it was in the Batman comics that I read in the late '80s and early '90s."

Methinks Ebert has a somewhat "lower" view of what a "comic book" is, or should be.

Gosh, this movie is long. Really long.

Huh. I guess I saw a different Batman Begins than Armond White...I thought it was optimistic. Gritty, sure. Dark, sure. But hopeful.

From the "Double O Section" 'blog:

His Name is Wayne, Bruce Wayne



Last time I watched Batman Begins, I commented to the person with me that Batman--in Nolan's film, anyway--is essentially the "James Bond" of the major superheroes--no "powers," just gadgets, and now with a gadget-master. Begins even has a demonstrate-the-car chase scene like in Goldfinger, The Living Daylights or Tomorrow Never Dies. I'm interested to see in what ways the parallel is expanded upon when I see The Dark Knight on Friday.

Which I think contributes to the fact that, as so many critics are pointing out (Ebert, Travers, etc.), it really feels more like an epic than a comic book movie. It's more Godfather than Spider-man, I'm tempted to say (although I remember the third Spider-man being slightly long-ish as well-- but maybe just because it was really boring.)

I was exhausted by it, Josh. It's very good in many ways, but it's exhausting. By the 90-minute mark, I was basically done with it. And it still had more than 30 minutes left.

I noted some shifting/restlessness in the seats around me -- a woman two seats down kept leaning forward, resting her chin on her hand, while she perched her elbow on one of her thighs.

Still, I expect the film's deficiencies to be overwhelmed by an emphasis on its better aspects, at least in the short term. It's definitely got a lot going on -- a lot of good stuff, but not all good stuff.

BTW, reviews of the film are running today -- the Washington Post ran Stephen Hunter's review in this morning's paper -- so it's OK to talk about it.

I'm curious if anyone else had issues with the sound mix of this movie. I doubt this a problem inherent to the film -- it's probably a theater-by-theater thing -- but the Uptown theater in D.C. had the sound up pretty loud. That wouldn't bother me so much, but the mix during the loud stretches was terrible! Dialogue was drowned out by the sound of vehicles, explosions and other craziness. It doesn't help that Bale's Batman speaks in a lower voice, although it's amplified somehow. Nevertheless, certain dialogue by other characters was difficult to make out during intense stretches of the film. I'm not sure how crucial that dialogue might have been.

I don't disagree that it's exhausting, but I don't think that means it can't be compelling. There's a lot of darkness, a lot of suspense, and a lot of intensity, which takes its toll both emotionally and physically, but I found it to be moving, affecting, even cathartic rather than simply wearisome. I still cared about it even as it moved past the two hour mark, and I left the theater feeling haunted by it, not tired of it. As for the people around me, I really didn't notice much, except that several scenes garnered applause, the end credits were met with a standing ovation, and, as we left the theater and the publicist asked for any responses, the crowd's consensus seemed to be that they weren't ready for it to end.

Josh, I just realized that the earlier e-mail you quoted was one you sent, rather than, as I'd thought earlier, one you'd received. I didn't realize I was sharing my thoughts with such an enthusiast.

It's an impressive film in many ways, and I'm glad you enjoyed it. I was bracing myself for an ultra-violent spectacle -- I've grown very wary of those in recent years. But although it pushes the PG-13 envelope (for some reason I thought going into the film that it was rated R), it does pull its punches on the violence in a way that I found admirable. (It's very, very sad, however, that a movie that features a villain pointing a loaded gun at a child's head and threatening to shoot him can get a PG-13, whereas if the Joker had lit up a cigarette during that scene, the film would've required an R rating!) My gripe isn't with the violence, but the feeling that the film just went on and on. Too long.

I'm forgiving of the "too long" charge when it comes to dramas. There are far worse cinematic sins, in my book. But with action films, I just get overwhelmed and start to shut down if the film continues past a certain point. That said, I'm not sure my reaction is based mainly on my own limitations, or reflects a limitation in the film itself. Hunter's review, for instance, while positive, says that film works best only when the Joker is on screen, and suffers greatly from the Harvey Dent storyline.

I liked that storyline as I was watching the film, but in reflection, Hunter may be on to something. Maybe there was one too many characters in this story. No offense to Aaron Eckhart, who I thought was good (Hunter didn't care for his performance), but when I think about why the film felt long, it may not be that the film has too many big action sequences, or feels like it has two or three finales. It may be that it just has too many dang characters.

Actually, I thought the film juggled its characters better than it did in the last film-- partially because, here, many of the minor characters are utilized not merely as plot devices, but as reflections of the film's central themes of corruption and decay. Morgan Freeman's character is a good example, and, to a lesser extent, Alfred. Jim Gordan plays a slightly larger role, and his relationship with Batman is fleshed out in some powerful ways. And as for Dent... well, I think his character is crucial for the contrast it creates not just with Batman, but with Joker as well, and, again, it adds depth to the film's themes.

But the most pleasant surprise of all-- for me-- was Rachel Dawes, who was the weakest part of the first film but has a lot more personality and, y'know, CHARACTER here-- which I think is partially because of the new actress who plays her, but largely due to better writing.

I guess what I'm really trying to say is that the film's long running length is precisely the reason why its large cast of characters works so well-- it fleshes them out in broad, thematic ways that makes the movie feel like a mythology, something grand and dramatic, rather than the comparatively small-scale Spider-man or Iron Man.

Best serious superhero movie for grownups ever.

Oldman: He's the heart of the series. Man I love this guy. He's the most human, and the most appealing, admirable presence. He's Nolan's secret weapon.
Eckhart: Gives Harvey Dent more gravitas and heart than anyone had a right to expect.
Bale: For me, the weak link in the film. His journey is the least interesting, and the other actors leave stronger impressions.
Freeman: Has a priceless, priceless moment of condescending glee.
Caine: Making this Alfred so much more vital and interesting. "How did you catch the thief in Birnam forest?" Great moment.
Gyllenhaal: Makes you wish they could digitally insert her in Batman Begins.

And Ledger. Sweet honey in the rock... he's as good as the hype promised. He's not just better than Nicholson's Joker: his best scenes are better than any villain-scenes Nicholson's ever done. And there's a moment with a faulty detonator that I can't wait to watch again. (I can't go so far as Josh to say it's "every bit as good as Daniel Day-Lewis' seminal performance in There Will Be Blood" simply because Day-Lewis was in every scene of that movie, and Ledger wasn't on-camera nearly as much. Still, the impression he makes is so strong that he haunts every scene.) I too won't begrudge him an Oscar, although it would be a shame to have psycho killers win Best Supporting Actor two years in a row.

And speaking of Javier Bardem... isn't it odd that another film exploring such similar questions as No Country would make such a big deal about death-by-coin-toss?

One obvious allusion to Apocalypse Now was well-deserved. And the comparisons to Heat are more than appropriate. The last 20 minutes that have earned so many complaints are absolutely necessary: Any other conclusion would have felt like a cheap set-up for a sequel, or would have cut short the story arcs of a two or three vital characters.

The subtle ways in which Batman and the Joker are compared/contrasted are fascinating, from the way both characters take champagne glasses and empty them before pretending to drink, to the way

And the film contains the spectacular ruination of a line made famous in an earlier film by Tom Cruise. The line made me laugh out loud in surprise. (It was such a shock, I wondered if it was included as a cheap shot at Cruise. Did Cruise have anything to do with Katie Holmes not being in this film? If so, I wonder if this was a punishment. If not, it's a very strange choice. Anybody else here know what I'm talking about?)

The film contains at least three exhilarating action scenes that had the crowd cheering. Batman's motorcycle is wicked cool. And the term "Sky Hook" will no longer be associated with Kareem Abdul-Jabbar.

I couldn't disagree more with Christian. Surely a comic book movie can handle three main characters and two supporting characters, and two of Batman's helpers. And this takes Bruce, Harvey, Joker, Gordon, Rachel, Alfred, and Freeman and develops ALL of them impressively. I was exhausted by the action, but not by the story. It's an incredibly ambitious, thoughtful, complex exploration of the question "How do we responsibly deal with the problem of evil without becoming monsters ourselves?" It wrestles with the question every bit as thoughtfully as No Country for Old Men (although I'm not sure it offers any more hope). And while the allusions to how America has responded to national and international threats post-9/11 are painfully obvious, they are important parts of the story and never too preachy. They are timely and relevant, and pushed just hard enough.

Jeffrey, I think I might have missed the Tom Cruise line you're mentioning-- can you remind me of it?

As for Ledger and Day-Lewis... I'm not sure how fruitful it really is to compare the two, but, for what its worth, I think the fact that Ledger has so much less screen time and still creates a character that's every bit as memorable, leaves just as strong an impression, speaks to how good he really is. And I think his Joker is more mutli-dimensional and real than Daniel Plainview, who was intentionally one-dimensional in some regards, as he was essentially a horror movie monster. But this is a quality of the writing, not the performances, so please don't take that as a dig at Day-Lewis.

It's interesting also that a few critics have compared Joker with Bardem's character in No Country. The comparison occurred to me, too, but, in many ways, they're polar opposites; the coldness and cruelty of Anton lies in the fact that he is so rigidly principled and plays by a strict set of self-made rules, while Joker is terrifying because of his complete LACK of rules.

By the way, this film is full of little touches here and there that I just loved, but my favorite was the fact that when Joker appears to Harvey wearing the nurse's uniform, he is also wearing a Dent political sticker. Priceless!

This line:

Oh. Right. I guess I think of that line as being sort of a sappy-romantic cliche, not specifically associated with that film. But yeah, I guess I can see what you're saying.

Interesting comments. About the last 20 mintes being absolutely necessary -- that wasn't the point of my concern. The film is too long -- whether it needed material from those last 20 minutes lopped off, or material form the preceding 122 minutes, is something I'm not really in a position to judge. I didn't much care about the ending by the time the film finally got around to its actual ending. Had the film been tightened here and there, it would've played even better than it does, I think.

You're not suggesting that there's nothing in those first two hours that couldn't go, I hope.

The Tom Cruise line -- I must've read about it beforehand, because it didn't surprise me. I did chuckle at it. Don't remember the Apocalypse Now reference.

As stated numerous times on this board, superhero films ain't really my bag, but I did watch Batman Begins a couple of nights ago, and was impressed by that film in a way that I wasn't the first time I watched it. It's quite good, although it, too, could've been a little shorter. I prefer it to The Dark Knight, but I'm not sure Knight is any less accomplished or effective.

As for this comment -- "couldn't disagree more with Christian. Surely a comic book movie can handle three main characters and two supporting characters, and two of Batman's helpers." -- that's a hunch, nothing more at this point, based on another reviewer's comments that I read this morning. I liked Harvey Dent's character evolution (Hunter did not). I'm trying to figure out why the film felt too long, and I think the film may have too much going on in it to be much shorter. But if it had to be as long as it is -- and I'm not sure it did -- then why did it wear me down so?

What can I say? A man goes to the movies. The critic must be honest enough to admit that he is that man.

That's what I was expecting to hear, although it's too bad. The sound mix on Batman Begins was one of the worst in a big blockbuster that I have ever heard, and really contributed to my dislike of the movie as a whole, more than I think I realized at the time. It's a little unfortunate, how isolated elements of craft like that can detract from a movie's appeal as a whole. I haven't seen The Dark Knight yet, but suffice it to say that I'm keeping my hopes low.

What would you cut? I was either grinning with glee or on the edge of my seat with dread... or some strange combination of both... for 2 1/2 hours.

Then there's no discussing this movie with you.

I'm not sure what I'd cut, but there must be something. There's always something. Probably many somethings.

Christian wrote:
: Gosh, this movie is long. Really long.

Heh. The funny thing is, after all those reviews that said the last half-hour was almost a separate movie, I went into the film looking for the seam, looking for some sort of evidence that the film was now going on too long ... and I didn't find it. The film seemed the perfect length, to me.

There are some awkward plot holes, etc.

E.g., it doesn't really sell you on the death of Jim Gordon, and since I had forgotten about the upcoming scenes that had already been revealed in the trailer, I spent that chunk of the movie thinking, "They didn't REALLY just kill him so offhandedly like that, did they? did they?"

And after Batman dives out the window to rescue someone who has been tossed out of a crowded party by the Joker, the film NEVER goes back to the crowded party to show what became of the partygoers or the Joker. (Did the Joker just walk out of the room? Did he give just give up on looking for the person he was looking for? Did he rough anyone else up? Etc.) I kind of wish the film would have included at least one line of dialogue -- ANYthing -- to explain what happened here.

And for all his chaos, some of the Joker's plans are a little TOO elaborate, or hinge a little TOO much on things going according to plan -- starting with that opening bank heist, and the way the Joker apparently knows how to get a guy to stand in a certain place before another guy comes crashing through the wall ...

But hey. Minor quibbles.

A more serious quibble might be that Two-Face, a major villain in the comics, barely gets any screen time here. Yeah, Harvey Dent gets ample time pre-villainization, and what the film does with Two-Face certainly fits Harvey's character arc in a big way. But anyone coming to this film hoping to see a Two-Face movie will be disappointed.

: I'm curious if anyone else had issues with the sound mix of this movie. I doubt this a problem inherent to the film -- it's probably a theater-by-theater thing -- but the Uptown theater in D.C. had the sound up pretty loud.

It sounds like you saw this in a regular theatre. I thought most critics' screenings were being held in IMAX theatres? The IMAX company, as I understand it, tends to be a little more hands-on with the exhibition of their films and making sure the theatres are up-to-spec.

NBooth wrote:
: Last time I watched Batman Begins, I commented to the person with me that Batman--in Nolan's film, anyway--is essentially the "James Bond" of the major superheroes--no "powers," just gadgets, and now with a gadget-master.

True, as far as that goes -- though one key difference is that Bond works for the taxpayer and does all his killing and stuff with the government's approval, whereas Batman is completely outside the law (even if he is friendly with certain law enforcers).

Overstreet:
: Best serious superhero movie for grownups ever.

So glad you liked it!

: And there's a moment with a faulty detonator that I can't wait to watch again.

Oh my, yes. And I burst out laughing, while letting my jaw drop in astonishment, when I read this account of the filming of that scene:


: And the film contains the spectacular ruination of a line made famous in an earlier film by Tom Cruise. The line made me laugh out loud in surprise.

Wow, that line was given away by more than a few items that I had read before seeing the film. Didn't spoil it for me, though, since it's still such a good line!

: (It was such a shock, I wondered if it was included as a cheap shot at Cruise. Did Cruise have anything to do with Katie Holmes not being in this film? If so, I wonder if this was a punishment. If not, it's a very strange choice. Anybody else here know what I'm talking about?)

Personally, I have always wondered if the death of Rachel Dawes was originally intended as a nod to all those people who couldn't stand Holmes.

Peter wrote:


Agreed.



Agreed. I didn't fall for that either.



I totally agree. That, to me, is the film's biggest stumble. I felt like we'd skipped a reel, or something.



Yeah, but that's pretty conventional for comic book villains, methinks.



Yeah, but the level of realism that Nolan demands might have made a long-term story arc for Two-Face seem glaringly implausible.



I saw it in IMAX, and I was blown away.



Hmmm. Perhaps. I didn't realize that she was so disliked. I didn't mind her so much. I've always liked Holmes, and it's been sad to see her offscreen life eclipse her acting.

BTW, one other thing I really loved about this movie was the way it concluded, and the way it did so by underscoring the meaning of the title, The Dark Knight. All along I had assumed the filmmakers were trying to come up with a non-Batman title that would sound kind of hip, or whatever. But it wasn't until I saw the film that I saw how this title actually reflects, and plays into, the THEMES of the movie.

Overstreet wrote:
: Yeah, but that's pretty conventional for comic book villains, methinks.

[ nod ]

: Yeah, but the level of realism that Nolan demands might have made a long-term story arc for Two-Face seem glaringly implausible.

Hmmm. In what way? Do you mean something like, Harvey has snapped so badly that he doesn't have the strength or cunning or whatever to become a long-term villain like the Joker? That there's only so much you can do, realistically, with a villain who goes around shooting people after flipping a coin?

BTW, speaking of "realism", I kept wondering how Harvey's eye stayed moist without an eyelid to blink, and why his voice stayed the same even though the shape of his mouth was, uh, noticeably different.

: I didn't realize that she was so disliked. I didn't mind her so much. I've always liked Holmes, and it's been sad to see her offscreen life eclipse her acting.

Yeah, I didn't mind her in the first film either. I think she could have done very well in this film, if they'd been able to keep her. (I wouldn't have minded if Gyllenhaal were in the first film, either. I just think it would have been better if the same actress had played the character in both films.)

All of the above... plus the fact that I find it difficult to believe he wouldn't just, well... DIE, having so much of his cranial innards exposed for so long.



Yeah, that bugged me too. Not much, but a little.



Of course. I suspect that Nolan would agree. I've always hated that Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me has a different Donna.

Duh. Eye Drops from the Super Villain Superstore in Gotham.

I'm a little surprised that the political angle Peter noted earlier hasn't taken more precedence in the reviews of this movie -- the ones I've been reading, which may not be representative. This is, to my mind, what makes the film much, much better than average. We've seen these "dark superhero" movies many times now -- will the superhero give in to his darker nature, etc.? This movie does that, but in the context of the broader post-9/11 context. Surveillance, "suspension of democracy" talk -- this is pretty strong stuff, all the more so because the film feeds you a strong line via Alfred that might be perceived, for lack of a better term, as "pro-Administration," or pro-Bush. I found myself wondering if the filmmakers had kept up with changing public perceptions. Sure enough, the film pivots toward an examination of the fruits of pursuing a hard line against remorseless men. It's quite deft, actually, in that it plays both sides of this debate so well.

So far, the best review I've read along these lines is Sonny Bunch in the Washington Times, titled "Gotham City's war on terror." The title is actually much more on point than the review itself, which fails to mention some of the many allusions to war-on-terror tactics depicted in this film. Cell-phone detonators, car bombs, attacks on public facilities, videotaped torture. The movie is really quite something when seen through that prism.

Why do I get the sense that reviewers, many of whom are politically liberal and presumably anti-war (although I've done no survey!), are uncomfortable tackling this angle, even if the film does support certain anti-war suppositions? It's this aspect of the film, more than any superhero mythology or adherence to the spirit of the comics, that will give this movie its staying power, I think. Or maybe I should just reduce this to the purely subjective and admit that its this aspect of the film that will make it stick for me. I doubt I'll be alone in that assessment, but reading the reviews, you'd think that critics are immune to that aspect of the film's potency.

Can someone who has seen it on IMAX explain how that works? If only some scenes were filmed in IMAX, does this mean that certain scenes fill the entire screen and others (those filmed in standard ratio) have "black bars" at the top and bottom? I would think this would be distracting in the extreme, especially since it would periodically switch back and forth.

Surprisingly, there are still tickets available for the IMAX showings here in Colorado Springs tomorrow, and I'm trying to decide whether to go IMAX or standard. I have actually read some reviews that advise just seeing it on a regular screen.

My review.


DO see it in IMAX.

It is not distracting. You notice the IMAX when it's there and don't think about it when it's not. Even the standard stuff really fills up the screen.

What Steven said. You don't notice it when the IMAX isn't there, but it is breathtaking when the IMAX screen is filled. Very immersive.

My thoughts.

Steven, that is a terrific review. I'm directing everyone I know that wants to see the film to your site to read it. Wonderfully done!

Peter, what exactly do you mean here:



Do you simply mean that they wanted a title that didn't contain the word Batman in it? Or something else?

Steven, in your review you wrote: "Yet even when all seems lost, people may still do the right thing, taking their last recourse in prayer rather than in Nietzschean ruthlessness."

Are you referring to a particular character? I saw one particular person in this film make a bowing gesture, and I thought he was praying. But the film cut away quickly from him, so I wasn't sure.

BTW, Can anyone more familiar with the character of Alfred comment on this? I'm not sure there's much to it, but in light of some of the things the character says in The Dark Knight, I find this detail interesting.

Christian wrote:
: I'm a little surprised that the political angle Peter noted earlier hasn't taken more precedence in the reviews of this movie . . . It's quite deft, actually, in that it plays both sides of this debate so well.

Absolutely.

It's all there in that scene where Harvey talks about how the ancient Romans used to suspend democracy when they faced a threat, but only temporarily -- and then Rachel reminds him that one of Rome's non-democratic defenders turned out to be Julius Caesar, who ushered in a more permanent form of non-democracy. So the film dances with the possibility that unusual executive powers, as it were, might be needed, but they have to be abandoned as soon as they have served their immediate purpose (note the subplot involving Batman's ability to spy on the entire city, and how he enabled Lucius to shut the whole thing down once the Joker is defeated -- and how Lucius is allowed to lodge a moral protest against what Batman is doing).

I am also intrigued by the sequence with the ferries. The Joker sets the whole thing up to prove that people are just animals underneath -- that they are only as good as the world ALLOWS them to be, as he puts it. (Compare this to the earlier scene where the Joker says he needs a new henchman, and he gets two or three men to fight to the death for the job.) And the very interesting question here is whether the Joker is proved right in the end:


So the message here appears to be something like Ratatouille's: it is folly to say that everyone can be great, BUT it is true to say that greatness can come from anywhere. The human race itself remains an inconclusive mix of good and bad, but leadership -- and by that I mean a single person's initiative, rather than anyone who happens to be decorated in the trappings of authority -- can make the difference, one way or the other.

: I doubt I'll be alone in that assessment, but reading the reviews, you'd think that critics are immune to that aspect of the film's potency.

One funny response was Jeffrey Wells's comment earlier this morning that the ferry sequence is something of an "Obama moment". Given that Wells is a zealous Obama supporter, I don't think he has thought through the implications of that sequence anywhere near as deeply as he should.

Phill Lytle wrote:
: Do you simply mean that they wanted a title that didn't contain the word Batman in it?

I THOUGHT that that was what they might have wanted, yeah: a Batman movie without the word Batman in the title, a way of presenting themselves as cool and serious and removing themselves from the air of camp that still hangs around the word "Batman". But now that I have seen the film, I realize that the meaning of the new title runs quite a bit deeper than that.

I'm pretty sure we have the same moment in mind -- but it's not just one character. My memory is corroborated by this spoilerific account from "Moriarty"'s Dark Knight/Hellboy II essay:

Show hidden text

One detail in particular really took me aback. On the prison barge, Tiny Lister shows up playing one of the prisoners. Now, you know Tiny Lister whether you realize it or not. He was the President of Earth in Luc Besson’s FIFTH ELEMENT. You may have seen him in FRIDAY. He’s pretty hard to forget, a towering broad-shouldered black guy with one eye permanently crossed and a menacing glower permanently etched on his face.

When he steps forward and demands the detonator, I did exactly what Nolan wanted me to do: I judged Lister on his appearance. I looked at him, and I knew full well what he was going to do with the detonator. Nolan really milks the suspense, too, as Lister talks about the difference between someone strong enough to make the awful moral choice and someone who is too weak to do it. He takes the responsibility and the detonator out of the hands of the warden...

... and then throws the detonator out the window and returns to his friends so they can pray.

The funny thing is, I made exactly the opposite prediction from Moriarty. I predicted that the businessman in the other ferry would blow up the prisoners. And we were both gloriously wrong.


FWIW, the character's history in the film differs notably from the comics. This seems to be predicated significantly on Caine's decision to play the character with a Cockney accent.

Peter: w/r/t your hidden musings about whether the actions on one of the ferries prove the Joker right or wrong: His thesis was: "When the chips are down, these people will eat each other." He was wrong, straight up.

Yeah, that's the scene I was thinking of. There's a group of people around him, so it looks like he might be leading the prayer. I'm glad to have this confirmed. I didn't mention it because I wasn't certain about it. Makes the movie even better, and it makes me like that boat sequence more than I did previously.

Thanks! FWIW, my editor seemed especially happy with it -- called it one of my best. I dunno -- to me it's one of those all-nighters written on two hours of sleep that I never know whether it'll be coherent at all or not.

Huh, I don't remember the praying bit. I'll have to look for that next time. (Though again, I cannot help but note that, if these reports are true, this film's use of prayer would seem to conform to the standard Hollywood approach, where it's one of those things that black people do, but white people don't. So while there might be some playing with stereotypical expectations here, it only goes so far. Which is fine; you can't subvert EVERYthing.)

SDG wrote:
: Peter: w/r/t your hidden musings about whether the actions on one of the ferries prove the Joker right or wrong: His thesis was: "When the chips are down, these people will eat each other." He was wrong, straight up.

Perhaps. Then again, it could be that, just as people are only as good as society allows them to be, perhaps they are only as bad as society allows them to be, too. Even when the majority votes -- anonymously! -- in favour of a murderous deed, there is still a strong taboo against going ahead and doing the deed, and anyone who would step up and actually do the deed must be aware that they would be incurring the disfavour of a sizeable chunk of the people on that boat, i.e. the ones who voted AGAINST blowing up the other boat.

Your welcome Steven. By the way, your editor is right.

And FWIW, I too noticed the group of prisoners on the ferry praying. I loved that section!

The Salon writers have me thinking I may have gone too easy on this movie.

While I really, really enjoyed the movie overall, I have to side with those who felt a bit of last-30-minute-fatigue. In a few comments, you and Peter mention the lack of a "seam" that you were expecting. For me, this came somewhere right around the time that the Joker was caught and imprisoned. It's not a hard seam, per se, but it feels like a climax of sorts, and while you know it wasn't "big" enough to really be the end, it certainly felt to me like we were close to the end. Nuh uh. I empathize with the "last 30 minutes as a sequel" comments, specifically because of this. They started an entirely new storyline (two-face)AFTER what felt in many ways like the movie's climax, or "pre-climax."

As to exactly what I would cut... probably not a surprise given my comments so far, but basically most (all?) of the two-face stuff. Certainly that would've required other changes to get to the desired (good) ending, but that certainly doesn't mean it couldn't have been done. Either that, or they potentially could have kept all of the storylines that are there, but paced them a little better, perhaps by not letting the arrest/jailing feel like a climax at all, or introducing two-face earlier in relation to that scene somehow so it doesn't start a completely new storyline so late.

Just my $.02. And the other dime I have like it very much. :-)

popechild wrote:
: While I really, really enjoyed the movie overall, I have to side with those who felt a bit of last-30-minute-fatigue. In a few comments, you and Peter mention the lack of a "seam" that you were expecting. For me, this came somewhere right around the time that the Joker was caught and imprisoned. It's not a hard seam, per se, but it feels like a climax of sorts, and while you know it wasn't "big" enough to really be the end, it certainly felt to me like we were close to the end. Nuh uh. I empathize with the "last 30 minutes as a sequel" comments, specifically because of this. They started an entirely new storyline (two-face)AFTER what felt in many ways like the movie's climax, or "pre-climax."

I can sort of see what you mean ... but if THAT is the seam that everyone is referring to, does it really come 30 minutes before the end?

I finally finished writing an 800-ish word piece on this film, which was so frustrating, because I had a very hard time figuring out how to focus my thoughts -- how to pick and choose what to focus on, since you obviously can't cover ALL of this movie's riches within such a tight word-count -- and yet at the same time I had to avoid spoilers etc. Sigh.

This is one of those films I don't want to "review" -- I want to discuss it at length with other people who have SEEN it.

And I just realized that I never mentioned Jim Gordon in my review. How odd, since his presence in both films -- and specifically in the final scenes of both films -- has given me a lump in my throat every time I've seen them.

'Dark Knight' sets midnight record
Warner Bros.' "The Dark Knight" grossed the most ever for midnight shows, racking up an estimated $18.5 million.
The follow-up to 2005's "Batman Begins" outstripped the previous midnight record set by Fox's "Star Wars, Episode III: The Revenge of the Sith" which grossed $16.9 million from 3,663 venues. "Sith" went on to make $50 million in its first day, which was a Thursday. The highest single day opening record is currently held by Sony's "Spider-man 3" which made $59.8 million.
"Dark Knight" unspooled in a record number of sites - 4,366 - outstripping the wide bow of Disney's "Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End" which touted a theater count of 4,362.
Warner Bros. reported that the $18.5 million did not include 3:00 A.M. and 6:00 A.M. . . .
Variety, July 18

SDG, still thinking about the ferry sequence. Does it matter, I wonder, that while the Joker is wrong, he does not know WHY he is wrong?


I am reminded of how the film ends with people Not Knowing various other things, and acting on beliefs that we, in the audience, know to be false. Think of how Bruce believes Rachel would have married him, or of how Harvey is given a hero's burial, so that Gotham never has to know what he became. The film derives part of its strength from the fact that there are all these little ironies built into the story -- could not the Joker's knowledge, or lack thereof, with regard to the ferry incident be one of them?