A little breakfor score keeping. When I checked Metacritic this morning this film had 17 scores of 100! I was looking because at the Boy A screening yesterday I overheard Joe Morganstern saying he was going to be in the minority on this one -- and he is, with a score of 60.

I expect the Joker would take what "vindication" he can get, and of course the moral failures of the voters on the boat and the warden do matter.

But it also definitely matters that a strong man stood up and took the choice out of the hands of a weak one -- and did the right thing, and also that individuals willing to accept a tiny share of diffuse social responsibility for the destruction of the other ship were not willing to actually push the button.

This is the perilous thing about many forms of reductionist worldviews, including nihilism: They really do account for a lot of the data, and fail only in the exceptional cases. In a sense, they are nearly true, you might even almost say true most of the time, at least in terms of explanatory power. The view that all human behavior is essentially self-interest probably "works" more often than it doesn't.

But the Joker has reduced the whole thing to cause and effect, human behavior to an elaborate Rube Goldberg device (e.g., "I kill the bus driver"). The fact that the kind of behavior he anticipated was not wholly absent on the ferry doesn't really vindicate him, in my view: It is the behavior he didn't anticipate that is decisive, both philosophically and consequentially.

This response just came in from a reader to my few words of praise on my blog, Anyone who wishes is welcome to respond to it. It was sent to the Body of Lies comment thread:

I just got out of the showing...I didn't realize how long it was when it was over. I also never found myself thinking about Ledgers death at any point. Instead I was in awe. This is the Joker. The think I found fascinating is how unsettling he was. I sat rigid...and when I did laugh at his lines, it was uncomfortable laughter-the whole audience would laugh in a shaky laugh. This was the kind of Joker you get with Grant Morrison or Alan Moore...which happens to be my favorite take on the character. And you know what just wracked my nerves (in a good way)?? The music that would play behind the Joker...it was often just a loooooong buildup of notice...you did not even notice it at first...did I just miss comments about that part of the score? Yeah....I will be watching the Blu-Ray...more thoughts later...

SDG wrote:
: But it also definitely matters that a strong man stood up and took the choice out of the hands of a weak one -- and did the right thing, and also that individuals willing to accept a tiny share of diffuse social responsibility for the destruction of the other ship were not willing to actually push the button.

I agree it matters, I just can't help seeing those plot elements in light of Ra's al Ghul's remark that "Training is nothing! Will is everything! The will to act!" I am not sure that humanity is vindicated, or the Joker proven wrong, simply because the majority are weak and there are a handful of people who are willing to act -- for good.

Incidentally, I found myself thinking of the ferry sequence today in light of the crowd scenes in the first two Spider-Man films.


Overstreet's reader wrote:
: Nolan has also lost the humor of comic book films.

Has this guy read the Batman comics? Does he KNOW what sort of humour he ought to be expecting here?

: Burton's films were flawed too, but they did retain a nice degree of humor; they were imaginative and inventive, vivacious and playful.

Blecch. Just what we need. A "playful" Batman.

Biggest opening day ever?

I went to a 3:30 showing and had to wait in a long line...and the auditorium was full (the audience clapped at the end of the show to). I also noticed it was a hugely diverse audience. When I walked out the line for the next show was even longer than the one I had to stand in. I was surprised that the 3:30 show was so full, as when I saw Iron Man opening day, there were plenty of people, but no wait in line and plenty of open spaces. I am not used to seeing such a busy afternoon matinée on a day other than Saturday or Sunday.

Although I didn't have a very good time at this movie, I'll admit I'm torn between criticizing the film's blatant unpleasantness and appreciating it as part of Nolan's overall strategy. ("It's supposed to be unpleasant! It's the perfect film for our troubled times!") We could argue this point endlessly.

If I were an appetitive reviewer, like the excellent Stephanie Zacharek, I would probably pan it as she did. If I were more analytic, like many of the excellent folks here, I might be inclined to praise its ambition. I think it fails as art in the purest sense (it doesn't use film technique particularly expressively), and in its pursuit of deeper meaning, it doesn't offer much in the way of good, old-fashioned entertainment. If it's not art and it's not fun, then what is it good for?

There were a couple of parts during the film's tortuous 152 minutes where I felt a rush of genuine movie pleasure. First, there's the "Ten Little Indians" bank robbery that opens the movie, which has a terrible logic and proficiency to it. Second, there's the long, galvanizing scene of Harvey Dent being transported to prison while being relentlessly pursued by Joker, who is himself being pursued by Batman. This scene offers some exhilarating shifts in momentum. The rest of the movie is exceedingly violent (viscerally if not demonstrably), morbid, and talky. But mostly talky.

I'm a believer in Heath Ledger's performance as Joker. It's sick.

In answer to Peter's question, one can pinpoint the exact moment the film seems to end, only to pick up again and continue for another 40 minutes. It's the hospital scene in which the extent of Dent's injury is revealed.

I'm looking forward to seeing what kind of responses accumulate over the weekend.

(from the comment Jeffrey Overstreet quoted).

The funny thing is, that's exactly how I would describe the Burton films--they're interesting, but they're soul-sick. And no comparison to The Dark Knight. The darkness in Burton's movie is the darkness of a twisted evil that delights in itself; the darkness of The Dark Knight is the darkness of a world gone wrong, a world where everything is broken, but a world which can and will change. The cliche most of the main characters quote, "it's always darkest before the dawn," is certainly true here, and the emergence of the Joker is proof of it. And the Joker himself--Nicolson's Joker is magnetic, but Ledger is mesmerizing, confounding expectations, turning over audience preconceptions of the character with as much glee as the Joker turns Gotham on its head.

I didn't feel that the film's ending was too long, but the first thirty or so minutes I was nervously shuffling in my seat, wondering if I had pushed my expectations too high, wondering if I was missing something--thinking too hard or not hard enough. But that dissipated once all the pieces were in place and moving.

(As an aside, I mentioned the possible political angle to the person I was with, and they didn't see it at all, even when I pointed out the Joker's habit of videotaping prisoners . It seemed pretty clear to me, and a reasonably complex response to evils that I and all too many others have begun to forget over the last couple of years).

I agree with some of the criticism of Burton's films, although I liked them very much at the time of their release. But earlier this week I watched Sweeney Todd again, and that's a great movie -- morbid, but with a point, and (arguably) a strong moral worldview. (Did I just write "strong moral worldview"? Gosh, I'm not even sure what I mean by that. I sound like Ted B.) I had thought of comparing The Dark Knight to that Burton film (unfavorably, BTW), but the Burton Batman films are the more obvious point of comparison. Still, I might argue that Todd shows a certain degree of moral development in Burton's work that, had he kept up with the Batman franchise, might have resulted in a better film than even The Dark Knight.

This line of argument completely avoids the question of faithfulness to the comics, etc. My concern is with the quality of the film as film, not so much as adaptation. (Although Todd was an adaptation -- so should Burton get the credit? Hmmm. Gotta think about that.)

Dave Kehr gets it!

Comes down completely on one side of the argument, but hey, I'll take that. Short and sweet -- and to the point. First review I've seen that discusses the movie in these terms, and these terms only. (Which accounts for its length.)

EDIT: Note the one commenter who corrects Kehr on clearly missing the "You complete me" reference.

Yes, I'm sure Ra's would judge the businessman very harshly, along with the warden and most of the others on both boats, for lacking the will to act. And the prisoner too, in spite of the fact that he had the will to act, because from Ra's perspective he chose foolishly.

Just like Ra's judged Thomas Wayne harshly for not acting, and Batman for acting foolishly.

Ra's is a psychopath. Are you bothered by the suspicion that Thomas Wayne was weak for failing to attempt to disarm Chill, or that Batman is a fool for trying to save a fallen society rather than destroy it?




Okay. Look.

Thoughts on Keith Uhlich's pan of the film. I'm wondering what to make of his, and other critics' charge, that the movie is "incoherent":

The human drama in Batman Begins held my attentions, so I wasn’t so much bothered by the fact that its action scenes were murky, bordering on incoherent (this seemed intentional to some degree, even though I think it was, ultimately, a failed artistic choice).

In The Dark Knight, Nolan and cinematographer Wally Pfister extend the incoherence to the movie entire. Despite being filmed on location in Chicago (along with a brief sojourn to Hong Kong), there’s little feel for the city’s dynamics, just random car-commercial shots of speeding vehicles, with inserts occasionally cluing us in as to who’s supposed to be where. More problematic is the tendency for characters to randomly show up as narrative twists-‘n’-turns dictate, such as when mob boss Salvatore Maroni (Eric Roberts) just happens to be waiting outside Harvey Dent’s hospital room so he can act as Jim Gordon’s on-the-spot snitch (the way Roberts plays the scene, he’s like a stone-faced, humanoid information kiosk waiting to be prompted with directional queries).

OK, there are some holes in the story, but the charge of "incoherence" means, to me, that the movie can't be understood, or makes no sense. I don't think The Dark Knight qualifies. I doubt anyone here is going to agree with the critics, but I thought I'd throw this out for some discussion. When you hear "incoherent" in reference to a movie, what does that mean to you? What's the bar a movie must clear to be labeled "coherent"?

This flip-flop sensibility grows inexorably out of the film’s shallow artistry. For a movie purported to be so, well, “dark,” The Dark Knight spends a more-than-noticeable amount of time turning its gaze from the horrors it perpetrates. There’s an early scene where The Joker holds a mob boss at knifepoint, telling a made-up backstory as to how he got his facial scars. The buildup is suitably intense, but Nolan whiffs the follow-through by having The Joker’s mouth-slitting finale occur offscreen. It’s the pencil gag all over again, only rendered ineffectual, monotonous, the “now you see it, now you don’t” philosophy injected ruinously into the film’s aesthetic fabric.

This is one of the things I was grateful for -- that we don't see the bullets impacting flesh, or other deadly blows, thereby preserving a PG-13 rating when the film easily could've been an R. Uhlich's charge that the camera "turns its gaze" from certain grisly details is not a problem in my book.

Finally, Uhlich references Kehr: Dave Kehr gives an astute reading of the film’s politics, calling it “Dirty Harry stripped of Don Siegel’s ambivalence and ambiguity.” He goes on to posit Nolan and the film as something of a George Bush apologia, but I think this is granting The Dark Knight more of a concrete ideological interpretation than it deserves. The very fact that Kehr ends his critique with a question (“Is he suggesting…?”) implies that Nolan’s themes—his beliefs—are too muddled to be read with any sort of certainty.

Again, one man's "muddled" is another person's "complex." These are not easy issues, and the film's balance in dealing with the consequences of fighting terrorism is admirable. I thought critics liked "ambiguity," but I guess the only possible way to deal with something that echoes current administration policies is to condemn it outright.

Sonny's just blogged a reaction to Dana Stevens' take on the film over at Slate, who writes, "In short, Chris Nolan does more nuanced thinking about the war on terror than we’ve seen from the Bush administration in seven years. And despite a falsely heroic closing speech from Gary Oldman’s character, police Lt. Jim Gordon, the movie seems to arrive at much the same conclusion about Batman as Americans have about Bush: Thanks to this guy, we’re well and thoroughly screwed."

To which Bunch replies:

Leaving aside the asinine, obligatory Bush-bashing (he’s a dunce! I’m so morally superior!), the last sentence is, simply, wrong. That’s not at all the conclusion reached by Jim Gordon or the movie. I don’t want to spoil the ending, but that’s not at all how the movie wraps up. It ends with a moment of monumental self-sacrifice, a moment that defines Batman as both the hero Gotham City wants and needs.

This is what happens when you let politics trump your critical faculties. It’s why I hate it when conservatives get self-righteous about the little things in movies (demonizing pollution in Wall*E, excessive cursing in Hancock, etc.)…because then we start sounding like Dana Stevens. And nobody wants that.

But Bunch, in the comments to that post, acknowledges that he wrote a political take on the film earlier in the week, at the very same blog!

This is a profoundly neoconservative film. I don’t like assigning political ideologies to films; if you remember, when I reviewed Iron Man, I said that it was neither conservative nor liberal; there was something for everyone (terrorists and corporations are equally villainous!). But The Dark Knight is different. Consider the character of Batman himself–his father was a do-gooder liberal who was shot by the very scum of the Earth he was trying to save. This event scars Bruce Wayne, sending him over the edge and turning him into a reactionary who prowls the streets dispensing vigilante justice. A better example of a “liberal mugged by reality” I can’t think of.

Though Batman typically works unilaterally, he needs to find allies. He can’t trust the Gotham City Police Department as a whole, as it is full of corruption (think: the UN). But he does turn to the heavily armed riot squad (the Major Crimes Unit) headed up by Jim Gordon–though not always the best allies, they can usually be counted on in a pinch (think: NATO). Gordon himself comes off as a Tony Blair like figure, providing cover for Batman while he does what is necessary to make the streets safe. ...

I have a feeling that the liberal reaction against this film will be harsh, once they realize how profoundly antagonistic it is to their world view.

As a neocon, I don't see this as the whole story and don't know how one could overlook the film's portrayal of the downside of doing "what is necessary." It strikes me as a very cautionary tale, but a good one along those lines.

In the comments, another Washington Times film critic, Christian Toto, comments:

I was stunned by how conservative the film was in the ways you describe. But the left will clearly want to call this one their own … so let the spinning begin. I’ll be curious to read it.

But most of all the political commentary is so expertly woven into the story it’s hard to complain no matter where you stand.

I'm glad Sonny, in his most recent post, notes the dangers of becoming Stevens-like, although he counts his take on this film as an exception to his usual rule, whereas he seems to be saying that, for Stevens, political interpretations are the rule.

Due to finances, I haven't seen this film yet. I was greatly looking forward to seeing it, in large part because of the very positive reviews, on here and elsewhere. I say "was," because a few minutes ago, I read this passionately negative appraisal of the film, which has given me a bit of cause for concern. The author is a Christian, but he doesn't seem to be coming from a knee-jerk "it's dark (or simply not explicitly Christian); therefore, it's bad" perspective. I'd love to hear what others think of his take on the film. The comments after the post are interesting too. Here's the link:

http://branthansen.typepad.com/letters_fro...f-the-soul.html

Don't let this negative review from this hyper-fundie sort dissuade you from enjoying an awesome flick, TT. His comments were picayune; his appraisals naive and simple-minded IMNSHO.

Wow, Roland, I'm really surprised that you read this guy as a "hyper-fundie!" I've been reading his blog, on and off, for some time now, and if anything, he seems more sympathetic to the emerging/emergent church movement, broadly speaking. "Bibliolater" is one his favourite terms for theologically conservative Protestants who try to carefully apply God's word to questions of ecclesiology ("regulative principle" subscribers, for example, such as myself). Having said that, I still like to read him, because at times, his thoughts are provocatively Biblical. I'm just not sure if this is one of those times... but I am thinking about it. Thanks for your thoughts, Roland!

In case anyone misses it, Brant's post is split up into three or four short "sections," I believe.

Truetruth, speaking for myself, I'm turned off by the fact that he barely talks about the movie at all. He talks about our culture, and how much he dislikes it...but if I don't already agree with him, he can't really convince me, because he doesn't offer an argument, just a screed.

Well said, David.

I pretty much generalized with that guy's critique. While he may be Emergent in his theology, he comes off sounding like a hyper-fundie while ripping on the Bat. He sounds much like Dobson's Focus on the Family peeps sound on their critique of TDK.

Ok. I have just spent the last two hours catching up on all the comments posted here. I've been avoiding this thread for the last week, terrified of accidentally having anything spoiled. The first trailer in January/February was perfect but I just knew the marketing people could not hold out. I've been driving my wife nuts skipping over the more recent trailers. "But I thought you wanted to see that." and then I have to explain my spoiler issues. Then we finally get to the theater and have to sit through some horrible Verizon Wireless commercials promoting the very film I'VE ALREADY PAID TO SEE! TWICE!

I'm a huge crime film geek so the Heat comparison's had me really excited. (Michael Mann can do no wrong in my book.) I have no doubt now that Nolan watched the bank robbery scene from Heat when creating the opening scene. And unlike Michael Bay in The Island, he's not just ripping off Heat, he's actually honoring it and acknowledging it by casting William Fichner (Heat's Van Zant) as the bank manager with a surprise for the thieves. This heist is what would have happened in Waingro had been in charge.



I had the same reaction to Gordon/ Oldman. In Batman Begins I was really touched by his compassion for young Bruce after his parents are killed. You know he doesn't quite know what to say. He gives Bruce his coat and just tells him "It's ok.", and that's enough. In Dark Knight I was completely caught off guard when Gordon's son, half awake, asks him "Daddy, did Batman save you?" and Gordon says "I saved him.". I fully expected to be exhilarated and disturbed by this film (ok, not that disturbed) but I was not expecting to find myself fighting back tears.

As for Ledger there's not much to say that hasn't already been said. The Oscar talk is well deserved. I mostly was not thinking of his death. I was too caught up in the performance. Where Nicholson's Joker was mostly camp with occasional menace, Ledger's Joker is mostly menace with the occasional one liner. The performance is so effective because you can't really pin it down. I loved Daniel Day Lewis in There Will Be Blood. It's a great performance but everyone is aware by now that the voice is basically John Huston. Ledger's performance, including the voice, is appropriately all over the place. One minute ("Byat -Myan") he sounds like real life crazy person Andy Dick (who shows up on the BB DVD in the MTV "Tankman Begins" skit) and another minute ("I'm a man of my werd.") his voice drops and he sounds like Beetle Juice played by ...Well, you know.

Nathaniel wrote:
: In answer to Peter's question, one can pinpoint the exact moment the film seems to end, only to pick up again and continue for another 40 minutes. It's the hospital scene in which the extent of Dent's injury is revealed.

Really? I seem to recall that the Joker storyline was still badly in need of resolution, there. Anyway, if I see this film a second time, I'll be sure to remember to check the time; I left my cell phone in the car when I saw the film the first time.

(I don't have a watch, I use my cell phone for telling the time, but don't worry, I always make a point of hiding it under my outer shirt or my jacket so as not to distract my fellow moviegoers. I HATE it when people light their cell phones up in the open during a movie.)

SDG wrote:
: Ra's is a psychopath. Are you bothered by the suspicion that Thomas Wayne was weak for failing to attempt to disarm Chill, or that Batman is a fool for trying to save a fallen society rather than destroy it?

I don't see the point of the question. Batman is who he is because of Ra's. Everything Batman knows, he learned from Ra's ... with the exception of his conscience. These are simply the facts, as laid out in the earlier film. Whether I am bothered by Ra's's opinions regarding other characters' actions is neither here nor there.

: As far as "vindication" goes, I'm not looking to canonize the passengers on the boats as martyr-saints. I'm saying the Joker's nihilism is wrong, that muck and darkness is neither all there is to humanity, nor the bit that necessarily gets the last word "when the chips are down."

I dunno.


: Given that circumstance, many people would argue that it would be moral for one boat or the other to blow up the other and save themselves -- in fact, that it would be immoral to allow both boatloads of people to die rather than to save one. A proportionalist or consequentialist philosopher would certainly argue that.

Yes, this is an extension of the same dilemma we find when the Joker threatens to blow up a hospital unless one man is killed, etc. Why not kill the one man and save all the hospital's staff and patients? Etc., etc. Of course, eventually the philosophers would have to come back down to the real world, and address practical questions such as, How can we trust a person like the Joker to keep his word? Or, What example are we setting by giving in to a terrorist, and how much more violence would we be encouraging down the road if we DID give in to the terrorist and save a few lives in the short term? Etc., etc.

: By "Lifeboat"/"values clarification" relativist standards, I suppose the "innocent" citizens ought to blow up the convicts. Perhaps the convicts themselves recognize this; perhaps that's why they don't even take a vote.

I don't think we're supposed to believe that the convicts have any mixed feelings on this matter; it is only the warden and his staff who are supposed to wrestle with the issue, and they certainly don't seem to be in the mood to take a vote because they presumably know what the result would be.

: The prisoner's act is almost astonishingly heroic . . .

Absolutely. He has the will to act, and he acts.

: On the other boat, despite the vote, no one will actually turn the key -- literally not to save their lives. Even a man who thinks he could and would do it finds that he can't. Ra's al Ghul would have his interpretation of this. Not being a psychopath, I reject his interpretation. The will to act is not the single meaningful criterion. There is a line this man will not cross for anything, and that says something.

I think where I disagree with you is on the question of whether there is a "single meaningful criterion". I think there is more than one. Whereas you seem to agree with Ra's that there is only one, but you find it in a different place than he does.

Nothing much to add; for me. I found it mesmerizing and mostly very satisfying. Among the best superhero movies, ever.

It felt a bit chopped up--like the LOTR movies. There's a four-plus-hour movie in there somewhere. I was a little disappointed that...

Not at all. I'm simply zeroing in on the criterion that happens to confound the Joker's calculations. That doesn't mean other criteria aren't relevant for an overall evaluation of human beings. I don't at all discount the rest of the picture -- quite the opposite, as I think my review indicates. I take that for granted as the baseline. And precisely because that is the baseline, what I'm interested in is the blips that rise above the baseline, the indications that the baseline is not the entire picture.


Condescension isn't quite right. I'm just beginning to feel like the Gotham ferry is the new Axiom, as it were, and I'm unhappy that it seems somewhere we must find a sore tooth, or even a tooth that could be sore, to be worried and probed unremittingly.


Really? Perhaps you could say more about that, since until now you've seemed to me bent on playing the Joker's advocate, as it were.


As noted, I think my review, as well as my subsequent comments, makes this point pretty clear.


Dunno about "absolutely has to be." In principle, at least, one psychotic misanthropic philosophy per film is enough for me, but if you want to rack 'em up as you go that's certainly your privilege. I don't deny that it could be a helpful interpretive matrix. I don't see the need for it in this particular case.



I remember resisting the idea that the original The Matrix film presents Morpheus and his comrades as "terrorists" (though I agreed that they were in fact morally equivalent to terrorists). I don't remember the thesis that "the machines had won and humanity needed to accommodate them somehow" as such being raised or debated.


And, again, I agree with all of this.

Perhaps the difference in our approaches here (and I would not say this of the earlier Matrix debate) is that I'm starting here in some ways in the so-called "desert of the real," and looking for windows back into the real world of meaning and humanity. I'm starting with the assumption that reductionism and nihilism are by and large realistic philosophies in terms of explanatory power, that it takes a leap of faith to see reality in a higher register of meaning, and then I look for signs -- though not excuses or pretexts -- warranting such a leap. My paradigm isn't disturbed or particularly engaged by venality, self-interest and corruption, and I don't spend my critical time there, not because I don't take it seriously but precisely because I take it for granted as an inexorable norm of human experience, a baseline.

In a word, my question is not "Are human beings rotten?" We are. My question is, "Is the rottenness of humanity the final and decisive truth about it, or is there something more to humanity?" The Joker is convinced that there isn't. I'm interested in signs that there is.

SDG wrote:


Hear hear!



Beautifully said.

FWIW, Peter, I just read your Canadian Christianity review, and it's very good. Great thesis statement:

The Dark Knight is about order and chaos, and how the gap between those two things is often filled by people who sacrifice themselves and their reputations for the greater good.

I also appreciate how you acknowledge the politically tinged themes but go beyond them to engage the more interesting and important moral and philosophical issues.

In particular, I see you focus on some of the same points under discussion here, and viewed as a whole your take clearly does highlight the inspiring and heroic element. Thus, my impression of you "playing Joker's advocate" would seem to be more an artifact of the back-and-forth of the thread than of the general shape of your response to the film. Taken together with the recent observations of agreement in my last post, this suggests that we have strongly convergent responses to the film.

I'm sure you'll put a more accurate time on it than what I can remember, but I know I glanced at my watch somewhere in the midst of this section of the film (due to a feeling that the film was drawing to a close) and saw that it had been about 2 hours from the start time, so probably a little under 2 hours of actual movie time, given trailers, etc. But that's certainly not exact.
I guess one man's "weak" is another man's "strong." I'm not sure I would agree that a failure to act on the desire exhibited by the vote is a weakness. I'd like to think that I could want to do something that I know deep down inside is wrong, and then not do it because I found the strength not to, not because I was too weak to. Though I suppose either is possible.

Brett McCracken asks: Is Batman becoming a villain at the end of this film?

So The Dark Knight has set a new record for opening weekend. I can remember how, back in 1989, people marvelled at the fact that Tim Burton's film grossed $100 million in only ten days -- a feat unprecedented at the time. Now The Dark Knight has become the third film to do it in two.

popechild wrote:
: I guess one man's "weak" is another man's "strong." I'm not sure I would agree that a failure to act on the desire exhibited by the vote is a weakness. I'd like to think that I could want to do something that I know deep down inside is wrong, and then not do it because I found the strength not to, not because I was too weak to. Though I suppose either is possible.

Well, a part of me finds myself wanting to argue that these people were "weaker" than their consciences, or some such thing -- but that just begs the question of whether the conscience is an active part of a person or something else entirely, something slightly more removed. Some would argue that the conscience is just social programming, others would argue that it reflects the fact that we all bear the image of God in some way, and then there are people like me who would say it's a bit of both. But to venture any further down THIS road -- to speculate as to what actions were motivated by social programming and what actions were motivated by image-bearing -- would definitely be nit-picking, so I'll just drop that.

For now, I simply note that the vast majority expressed a preference for the evil course of action, even if none of them could bring themselves to actually commit the evil themselves -- for whatever reason.

SDG wrote:
: Not at all. I'm simply zeroing in on the criterion that happens to confound the Joker's calculations. That doesn't mean other criteria aren't relevant for an overall evaluation of human beings. I don't at all discount the rest of the picture -- quite the opposite, as I think my review indicates. I take that for granted as the baseline. And precisely because that is the baseline, what I'm interested in is the blips that rise above the baseline, the indications that the baseline is not the entire picture.

I like those blips, definitely. But I can't read too much into them.


: Condescension isn't quite right. I'm just beginning to feel like the Gotham ferry is the new Axiom, as it were, and I'm unhappy that it seems somewhere we must find a sore tooth, or even a tooth that could be sore, to be worried and probed unremittingly.

Well, I'm sorry if my musings seem like a sore tooth to you. I enjoy these movies for their many complexities, so when I think I've spotted one, it's kind of exciting. Nothing sore about it at all.

: Really? Perhaps you could say more about that, since until now you've seemed to me bent on playing the Joker's advocate, as it were.

I can't imagine why. I don't think I had the Joker in mind at all when I first started going down this road. I was re-reading my review of Batman Begins from three years ago when I came across the Ra's al Ghul quote, and it immediately brought to mind Harvey Dent's line about people "appointing" Batman through their inaction, and this in turn got me thinking about the ferry sequence, and away I went from there. There is a larger theme here that merits exploring, I think.

I was not entirely surprised when you responded as you did to my exploration of that theme, but I was a bit surprised by the forcefulness, if that's the word, of your response.

: Dunno about "absolutely has to be." In principle, at least, one psychotic misanthropic philosophy per film is enough for me, but if you want to rack 'em up as you go that's certainly your privilege. I don't deny that it could be a helpful interpretive matrix. I don't see the need for it in this particular case.

You don't think that a recurring theme offers a helpful interpretive matrix into what the filmmakers are getting at? And do you really think that Harvey Dent is speaking as a "psychotic misanthrope" when he and Rachel and Bruce and Ballerina Girl sit down for dinner and discuss who "appointed" Batman and how?

: SOME of them voted in favor. Remember, there was a non-negligible number of votes on the other side too.

The numbers were heavily skewed to one side, though.

: I remember resisting the idea that the original The Matrix film presents Morpheus and his comrades as "terrorists" (though I agreed that they were in fact morally equivalent to terrorists). I don't remember the thesis that "the machines had won and humanity needed to accommodate them somehow" as such being raised or debated.

Hmmm, if I can't find that discussion in my archives after 10 minutes or so of scanning, I guess I might as well just drop it, eh?

: FWIW, Peter, I just read your Canadian Christianity review, and it's very good.

Thanks.

: In particular, I see you focus on some of the same points under discussion here, and viewed as a whole your take clearly does highlight the inspiring and heroic element.

Yeah, and I would be lying if I said our exchange hadn't influenced me somewhat there -- though perhaps more in terms of emphasis than analysis. Given how people keep talking about the "darkness" of this film, it is really striking to see how often characters make decisions that speak to their sense of principle -- going all the way back to Bruce Wayne's refusal to behead that guy in Asia, and continuing right up to the final moments of the newest film.

It is especially interesting to see how Bruce Wayne recognizes that he is an imperfect solution to a major, major problem, and how he wants to be a TEMPORARY solution as well.

Shifting topics slightly, I am also struck by the contrast between Harvey Dent and Batman, in that Harvey keeps saying "I make my own luck", and he basically snaps when his luck runs out on him and he realizes he isn't in control any more ... whereas Bruce Wayne, having witnessed the murder of his parents when he was a child, has NEVER been under the illusion that he can "make his own luck", instead he has been looking for ways to consciously make a positive difference in a seemingly cruel and uncaring world. So when tragedy hits in THIS film, Bruce has a precedent to fall back on; he has no illusions to shatter. Whereas Harvey ... well, that's another matter.

I am also struck by how Harvey's injuries come to him precisely BECAUSE he tried to actively save himself -- to "make his own luck".


Maybe I'm reading too much into that detail -- maybe the filmmakers weren't thinking that deeply about it -- but, y'know, even if they were just working with their instincts, instincts themselves can be somewhat revealing sometimes.

This movie didn't seem long. It covered a ton of ground, but it never really got stale. If we based our estimations of movies on length, I'd be fully justified in my hatred of the LotR trilogy.

Agree about the "death" of Jim Gordon. It wasn't sold well and the trailer ruined it anyway.

Agree about the penthouse party after Batman's "exit". It was a sad thing to leave unresolved.

Bruce Wayne's pretentious brooding is annoying, and I seem to recall the same thing from the first film. I'm glad that Christian Bale can deal with intense internal struggle while remaining monotonous and expressionless, but that I'd rather see him doing something cool like jumping off buildings or playing with gadgets. Even dinner with Russian ballerinas is more interesting. I think this is more a failing of the direction than of Christian Bale. And perhaps it's less a failing than just a choice that doesn't appeal to me.

Ledger's Joker was amazing, as I knew it would be from seeing the very first trailer. I'm sad he didn't have more screen time, and I expect this film will some day choke me up as much as Limelight does because of the focus the two films put on the deaths of great artists.

I disagree with one of the primary voices of the film world on editing fight scenes*, but the people behind The Dark Knight don't. This makes the fight scenes a bit disappointing, but again more of the same from Batman Begins.

Aaron Eckhart seemed a little out of place. I don't think he'll ever live down Thank you for Smoking, which was a brilliant character brilliantly portrayed. The decision to kill off Two-Face was necessary for the movie's conclusion (and title), but seems like a bit of a waste. By the way, Peter, did you realize that The Dark Knight has been a pseudonym for Batman long before this movie was around? It sounded like you didn't from one of your earlier posts.

And for a minor character that didn't require any particularly amazing acting, I'd rather look at Katie Holmes. Which raises another question... did Rachel Dawes know Batman's identity at the end of the first movie? Because I don't remember that at all, but it's pretty much just assumed here.

All those quibbles out of the way... I really liked it. I'm not sure there's any value in trying to name 'the best comic book movie', but this was in the top two of the ones I've seen, I think.

What else... oh yeah, the trailer for The Watchmen looked amazing, even though I didn't understand a single thing that happened on the screen. Oh, and I just noticed that Damiel could be Batman from the way he's standing in my avatar.


* Walter Murch in In the Blink of an Eye argues that fight scenes should use a series of quick cuts to leave the viewer with some of the same disorientation as the fight participants.

Yes. Batman repeats a line to Rachel in the first film that she had earlier said to Bruce Wayne. "It's not who you are underneath, it's what you do that defines you." - That is from memory so I'm not sure if that is exact. After Batman says that line, he jumps of the building and she calls out to him, "Bruce?".

I am pretty sure Peter is aware of that. He's quite familiar with the comics as I recall.

Plus the whole final dialogue scene in Batman Begins between Rachel and Bruce (at the burned out ruins of Wayne manor) has them talking about how even without his Batman costume, Bruce is "still wearing a mask," etc.

A short LA Times article on the overwhelming response to David Edelstein's negative review, which sent Batman fans into a rage. Beware the rabid nerd hordes!

I just had a reader ask if this film is appropriate for a 14-year-old. How would you respond, or how have you already responded to similar questions? We all know what the rating is, and what that means, technically, in terms of parental guidance. But as parents, what's your take on age-appropriateness?

Should this movie have been rated "R"?

theoddone33 wrote:
: By the way, Peter, did you realize that The Dark Knight has been a pseudonym for Batman long before this movie was around?

Oh, yeah, of course. I've got Frank Miller's Batman: The Dark Knight Returns and the first few dozen issues of the Batman: Legends of the Dark Knight series. I just found it unusual that the movie studio, pitching their film to a "mass" audience and not just to comic-book fans, would have removed the easily recognizable word "Batman" from the title. (Kind of like how, if I'm not mistaken, the TV shows Star Trek: Enterprise and Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles were at one point going to forego the words before the colons, but they included those words anyway for brand-recognition reasons.)

: What else... oh yeah, the trailer for The Watchmen looked amazing, even though I didn't understand a single thing that happened on the screen.

Heh, have you read the comic?

It's kind of funny, BTW, that they'd be running that trailer before the newest Batman movie, given that it uses a Smashing Pumpkins song which was originally written/recorded in some form for Batman & Robin (1997), and given that Watchmen is based on a graphic novel by Alan Moore while the Batman comic which The Dark Knight seems to have been most inspired by is The Killing Joke, also written by Alan Moore.

Christian wrote:
: I just had a reader ask if this film is appropriate for a 14-year-old. How would you respond, or how have you already responded to similar questions? We all know what the rating is, and what that means, technically, in terms of parental guidance. But as parents, what's your take on age-appropriateness?

FWIW, the movie is rated 14A in B.C. and Ontario, and that rating is enforced, unlike the American PG-13, so if you're under 14, you need to see it with an adult. (We also have an 18A rating, which is analogous to the American R.)

I also just read an article about the film getting a 16+ designation in the Netherlands, which is apparently the highest rating possible over there.

I'm not questioning the credibility of Edelstein or anyone else who has given this film a negative review--it's certainly possible to find fault with The Dark Knight (although I loved it). However, I think when a movie reaches this level of popular and critical acclaim (and I can think of very few in the past few years that have), the detractors will raise their voices higher just to be heard above the din. There was a negative review earlier in this thread... I think from Salon... that I found to be downright hilarious. The reviewer elevated minor imperfections in the movie to major flaws and applied lofty aesthetic and artistic standards to The Dark Knight that he would not require of any other film. As I read the review all I could think was, "Every party needs a pooper, that's why we invited YOU!"

PG-13 is a strange rating over here, Peter. It's not supposed to be restrictive, but many parents have always perceived it to mean "no children under 13 allowed," and some movie theaters were permitted to enforce it as such in the early days of the rating (and maybe that's still an option). I remember holding my breath every time I bought a ticket to a PG-13 movie at Roth's Tyson's Corner 8 Theaters, because that was a popular theater for kids under 17 to buy tickets to R-rated films. Parents discovered that, and the theater began cracking down on underage ticket purchases. When PG-13 came along, I think the theater didn't want any parental wrath, so it simply refused to sell tickets to anyone under the age of 13.

This struck me as a grave injustice, although I don't think I ever personally was a victim of this practice. Must've looked like I was at least 13 years old. However, angry 12-year-olds were, for once in their lives, on the right side of the argument.

More painful was being rejected by the upstairs theater at Tysons Corner -- that'd be Tysons 1-4, where I eventually worked during college summers and holiday breaks -- when, as a 16-year-old out with friends, I tried to buy a ticket to "Black Widow" and got carded. I was denied, so I turned to a friend who looked younger than me, but who was actually older, and asked him to buy me a ticket. Did it right in front of the teller, daring her to refuse the ticket purchase. He bought my ticket, but he laughed at me as he did it.

Twenty-one years later, you'd think I'd be over it, but ... painful.

And the movie wasn't all that good.

Edelstein is way off base on this one. The action scenes in particular are easily the best ever for a Batman film. I loved actually seeing Batman throw and land punches without cutting away. When he goes to Hong Kong there is one unbroken shot of Batman crashing through the window, rolling, standing up, punching a bad guy, pushing him through another window, and then taking on more bad guys.

I see Edelstein also noticed Ledger's changing voice but he obviously felt it was inconsistent where I feel it was appropriately all over the place.



I guess I can hear the Al Franken/ Stuart Smalley when he says "This town deserves a better class of criminal. (then higher pitched) And I'm gonna give it to 'em.". I still think there's something to the Andy Dick voice. I Googled "the dark knight andy dick" and found this. Take a look at the mugshot.

Andy Dick arrested

Currently, it's ranked #1 at IMDb.

And at this point78% of the raters give it a 10.

Did anybody else notice that the Mayor of Gotham is played by ... Batmanuel, from The Tick?

Hmmm. Can someone who has seen the film more than once clarify something with me?

Also, why would they not use Catwoman in a future film? She's pretty grounded in reality, what with her being merely a gifted ex-prostitute/cat-burglar (At least, this is how she is portrayed in Batman: Year One and The Long Halloween - which Nolan's films take many of their cues from - as opposed to someone's "cat-powered" secretary as she unfortunately is in Batman Returns (regardless of how mesmerizing Michelle Pfieffer is).

I definitely saw a body.

A body on the ground when Gordon and Batman are talking? Or a body at the end in a casket at the funeral? All I remember is the big posters and people talking about Harvey as a hero.

I'm pretty sure that, given the circumstances, it would have been a closed casket--plus they would have left SOME kind of teaser if that weren't the case. (Not to mention that Nolan & co. have been very clear that they haven't made plans for another film at this point.)

I don't think we can rule out the possibility that Dent is still alive but ...



And fwiw, I'd love to see Paul Giamatti as the penguin.

I think you're right Alan, as I think the film sets up Joker to return, not Two-Face. But we know that's not possible now, so what I'm saying isn't that the filmmakers have planned this or that the film explicitly supports this possibility, but that the film leaves it open just enough that if they chose to do so, they could. It's kind of an Obi-Wan moment - "When he became Two-Face, the good man who was Harvey Dent died. So what I told you was true, from a certain point of view. That's all. I'm just thinking that even though no sequel is now planned, after the box office this film has done there is going to be pressure to do another one. Let's hope they don't screw it up. Let's leave the more silly villain's alone. I for one would love to see Catwoman done right.

You just hate to read things like this. Batman nabbed by British Police...



Story here.

Two-Face seems good and dead, and a return seems highly unlikely. However, if they wanted to do it, it is not impossible.

It would involve a complete reinterpretation of the last scenes of the film, comparable to what The Bourne Supremacy did to the last scene of The Bourne Identity. It would have to turn out that there was a lot of subterfuge that we weren't in on.

Given the apparent death of Jim Gordon in this film, that might not be entirely out of the question.

As regards the Joker: It would be very dangerous to try to recast him... for a third Batman film. However, with a third, successful Batman film under the filmmakers' belts, I think it would be thinkable to consider recasting the Joker for a fourth film.

P.S. Re. the Bale thing... good grief.

Craig Detweiler: "Movie of the decade?"

Come on now... let's not get carried away. I don't even think it's the movie of the year.

You can respond to Detweiler on Facebook here, regarding whether this is the best movie of the last eight years. (My head hurts.)

Now I have visions of George Clooney getting a casting call from his agent, and Clooney screaming, "FINALLY! A chance to redeem myself!!!"

I mean, it won't happen. But imagine if it did?