Have no time to read the thread--but I will say I found it to be a brilliant work. Really, when the film decided to sacrifice Dawes it transcended the superhero genre for me. Brave piece of commercial art. Hats off to the filmmakers. BTW, about half the audience applauded at the conclusion.

Have I mentioned that I like Stephen Hunter? From his chat today:

Washington, D.C.: I might be in the minority but I found the new "Batman" dreary, dull, and pointless. From the first scene to the last, I was unimpressed. The movie didn't have much of a dramatic arc...it flatlined. The much hyped performance of Ledger was sunk by the inertia of the storyline. Yes, the Joker was a psychotic killer with flair but so what...the character wasn't developed enough to keep me interested. Ledger's maniacal shtick grew tiresome.

Stephen Hunter: Why, sir, what is wrong with you? I may have to dispatch the Washington Post goons to your house (we know who you are) and gently massage you until you achieve compliance with our policy statement of last Thursday. My advice: send a groveling, sniveling apology before this session is over or enjoy the consequences!

Seriously: imho, it got worse as it progressed and my goodwill for the first half just barely carried the day over my badwill for the second.

That last sentence reflected my own experience leaving the theater. My review came out much too positive, which makes me uncomfortable. No do-overs, however.

Christian great link ty ty -

Well working in the trade as photojournalist for some years that "Seem to me" might very well be the influence of a left brain dominant Managing Editor... noting the fact that he is talking about a piece of commercial art special after the context of the Bat=W rorshach analogy. This line the "Leftists frequently complain that right-wing morality is simplistic. Morality is relative, they say; nuanced, complex. They're wrong, of course, even on their own terms." Is a doozy. Again great catcherino, Mr. Christian.

Cant wait to see what he writes about come time The Watchman debuts. Interesting to note that Iron Man is absent from his analogies... not surprised though as i that film seems in comparison to DK like the diet-lite version of the genre.

addendum : The WatchmEn with apologies to Mr Moore

theoddone is correct, as far as I know, the only blonde Catwoman was in Batman Returns, and then in the animated series, which was inspired by the movies and had its designs more or less mandated by the first two films. When they redesigned the characters for The New Batman Adventures, Catwoman was back to a brunette.

I like Connelly a lot, especially if they go for her "Golden Age" personification. Originally, she was called "The Cat" and was just a woman in a dress who turned out to be a master thief. Of course, some of her costumes are actually quite practical for a master cat burglar anyway. Part of me wants Catwoman just because I'm think Bruce "needs some love" in the next film.  He had it pretty rough in the last one.



That's actually kind of interesting because women characters dying is something of an unfortunate comic book cliche, at least in the modern, "gritty" era. Comic writer Gail Simone called it the "women in refridgerators" effect, from when the Green Lantern's girlfriend was stuffed into a refridgerator. In hindsight, given that Dawes didn't have any comic counterpart, you might have seen it coming. Really, if you wanted to complain, you might point out that there are really no particularly strong women characters, except Dawes, who's sacrificed. Those thoughts didn't strike me until well after the film, though.

Perhaps this has been addressed, but I haven't read through the 350+ posts to this thread to find out.

The sound quality in tonights screening was appalling. Truly, I've never sat through anything like it. Something like a quarter of the dialogue simply couldn't be understood: very muffled. Not just during sections with loud explosions and such, but definitely at those points. I also felt that the loud sound effects sections were way beyond the volume levels of other such films. In fact, when we left the theatre, I couldn't hear clearly. Even now, I get twinges in my right ear. I really believe something is out of sync in the soundtrack to these prints of the film. Perhaps the way the sound is being assigned to the various tracks in the surround sound?

I went to the customer service desk and asked for a refund, and when the till boy said "no," I asked to speak to a manager. And when the manager said "no," because I hadn't complained within thirty minutes of the start of the film, I kept him talking until he offered me a pair of comps for a future show, which I readily accepted.

in the course of talking, he told me that every theatre in Vancouver area has been having this problem. At one theatre, they actually blew out their effects speakers.

This just ain't right.

Haven't had a lot of time to search the internet to find out more, but this link to Time Out Chicago suggests that the problem isn't just in my head, or in Vancouver theatres. Maybe they sent the Chicago prints up to the dumb Canucks?

Added a few minutes later, from Perth: "poor sound quality, such that you can't hear the speech over the background music and noise (although to be fair this may be down to the cinema not the movie itself)..."

Cincinnati: "The sound quality is spotty. In some places the booming soundtrack overwhelms dialogue, including Commissioner Gordon's ending tribute as Batman disappears into the night."

Another discussion group: "It has some very mixed reviews this end of the world, apparently the sound quality is poor and this effects some of the dialogue. I have also read that the sound track is bass fuelled trash at best." ... "My most heartfelt complaint would have to be the noise. The film has the worst sound balance that I've heard. Poor diction, and a bombastic score (even when nothing interesting is happening) that make most of the dialogue inaudiable."

Worth mentioning that we were very close to the screen, about the third row, and about five seats in from the right hand end. Perhaps your position in the theatre is a factor: that somehow the dialogue track (which is centred) is, I don't know, out of phase or something when you're seated way off centre?

Enough obsessing. But folks, it was really bad.

Huh. There was no trouble in the IMAX theater where I saw it, but then, that's a powerful system.

The manager said they'd been having the same complaints at the IMAX theatres as they were in the regular theatres.

Really beginning to wonder if it's a matter of where you're sitting in the theatre.

FWIW, no trouble at the IMAX theatre I attended, either (in Richmond, Ron!).

- - -

George Bush, The Dark Knight? Be Careful What You Wish For.
Is George W. Bush the Dark Knight?
That’s what mystery writer Andrew Klavan argues in a Wall Street Journal op-ed. He opines that The Dark Knight filmmakers are secret conservatives who must mask their real opinions by putting them in a comicbook movie.
But let’s unpack this a bit. One of the surreal aspects of the post-9/11 world is how much Osama bin Laden resembles a comicbook villain, complete with exotic costume and a fondness for monologues. In a Batman comic, he might have been The Sheik — and in the self-righteous pose he strikes as he plots the destruction of the United States, he is a cousin to R’as al Ghul, the villain Liam Neeson portrays in Batman Begins.
Al Ghul isn’t just a villain, though. He’s also Bruce Wayne’s mentor, the man who teaches him the courage and skills he uses to become the Batman. In fact, al Ghul calls him “my greatest student” and serves as a dark father figure for Bruce Wayne, who seems to be working out all kinds of father-son issues throughout the film.
In Batman Begins, Gotham is plagued with crime and corruption; Batman attacks the mob and saves the city from the Scarecrow and al Ghul’s WMD attack. Yet once Batman shows up, the Joker’s nihilistic terrorism is unleashed. The film ends with Lt. Jim Gordon warning Batman about escalation — that he’s inspiring not only the good people of Gotham, but also the criminals. This suggests Batman called the Joker into existence.
If Batman is George W., should we then conclude that the Batman Begins filmmakers think Bush’s methods inspired the Al-Qaeda and bin Laden? That’s more in line with anti-Bush arguments, including many made by Democrats over the years. . . .
David S. Cohen, Thompson on Hollywood, July 25

I didn't have a problem in the theatre where I saw the film, but I have previously harped a lot about the terrible sound mixing on the Batman Begins DVD.

Ron: A few pages ago, I posted the following:



So, yes -- terrible sound problems, mainly during the action sequences. Dialogue that should've been loud enough to hear over the various mayhem was instead drowned out. The posts after mine above suggested that this problem might be relegated to 35 mm presentations (which is what I'd seen). I guess not.

Peter: Thanks for that link. I agree more with that balanced view of the film's politics, but I find the varioius angles presented fascinating. I'm especially intrigued by the idea that audiences might be responding to this film because they subtly perceive it as taking a very strong line against terrorism. I disliked 300, which is said to tap into the same sensibilities.

Christian wrote:
: I disliked 300, which is said to tap into the same sensibilities.

Well, I find it impossible to take 300 all that seriously as a "conservative" film. Yeah, you can read it as "Western Greeks standing up to Middle Eastern Persians", but you can also read it as "a tiny group of insurgents stops a mighty imperial army in its tracks". You can cast either side of the Battle of Thermopylae as America or the Islamists, according to taste. So those who insist on reading it as a "conservative" film are saying more about their tastes, I think, than about the film, per se.

The Dark Knight, on the other hand, is profoundly concerned with the relationships between society, the people who protect it, and the people who attack it -- and it explicitly grapples with questions of civil liberties and the transgressing thereof that we have been dealing with in the real world for quite some time. That makes it a bit easier to say who "represents" who in this film -- but even then, I would not go quite so far as to read this film as a jingoistic defense of one side in that conflict.

I do think, though, that pundits like this one who respond to the "Batman is Bush! And it's a hit! America is conservative!" cheerleading by saying "Oh yeah? What about that OTHER very popular superhero movie, Hancock?" are just showing how out of touch with the cultural conversation they have become. Conservatives were claiming even Hancock as one of their own at least several days before that film had even come out. If you're going to argue that it's some sort of ANTI-Bush movie, you're going to have to actually explain WHY that is the case. (And I'm not saying that that case cannot be made.) Merely dropping the title into a conversation that got there before you did just makes you look clueless.

Is this true to the comic book series?

Saw it, loved it, seems to me that the confustion at play and the full truth not getting out remind me more of Why we Fight and the term "blowback" than anything else. So they're covering up the truth to deceive people into buying into a greater good -- and this is supposed to be a new idea?

*snicker*

Actually, the great thing about Batman is that the Joker doesn't have to be in the next film. There are entire stretches of comic without even so much as a mention of him. Definitely a central villain, but by no means someone they NEED to recreate if there's another film.

Also, as far as Catwoman goes...I don't care who plays her quite as much as how they portray the character. And to be honest, she's never going to make it as a major villain. A side-character, at the most, to thrill some people that would recognize her. But her "real self" is high society, she's mostly concerned about animals and crimes of theft, or animal protection. A love interest, yes. An ambigious, conflicted love interest who can't make up her mind, but not a major villain or even character, I don't think.

I do think that this means that another movie would need a different kind of handling, a different approach. I think it would need heavy leaning towards detective work, instead of something quite as chaotic. Not that The Dark Knight didn't involve some, but something more in the line of good police drama might be in order. I'd like to see a film that doesn't try to top The Dark Knight as much as it does match the story-telling, acting and direction level on a slightly changed playing-field. This showed Batman/Bruce Wayne's life at a crucial turning point-- the decision to remain Batman. I'd like the next film to show more of what he's dealing with on a daily basis when the world isn't exploding, and how that plays out for him. Maybe even a young Dick Grayson would be nice. (Not Robin yet, I don't think...) This is why the Penguin might work really well; far more business and quiet, behind-the-scenes treachery than outright in-the-streets fighting.

But anyway! The Dark Knight. I think it was true to the comic book series, in the sense that the story had depth and complexity. Anyone who has tried to read Batman comics recently will know how many series each story stretches over, and the sorts of stories they handle. "Bruce Wayne: Murderer?" springs to mind, even though that's a few years old. Not to mention Bane's origins, in the late 1980's "Knightfall" series. (It was 1980s, right?)

Yeah. I still loved it. I want to see it again, but I'm waiting so I can see it in IMAX.

Oh! And although they were brief, did anyone else enjoy the Michael Caine/Maggie Gyllenhaal scenes as much as I did?

I'm not that familiar with the comic book (any comic books for that matter). So, in terms of evaluating the film as faithful or not faithful to the source material, I'm unqualified and I suppose I don't really care. As a film, its one I've not been able to shake even after a couple of days--I'd like to go see it again, but its such a sacrifice of time and sleep that I don't think I'm going to make it--even to catch it in IMAX form.

What's "Why We Fight"? I've now had a chance to skim through the heart of the thread--seems to be a couple of key themes running through the discussion: the political angle and whether this is an apologia or, at the very least, metaphor for the GWOT; the vindication or denouncement of the Joker's nihilism; and the handling of Harvey "Two Face" Dent.

Christian has made some compelling argument for the film being too long--I'm sympathetic, but I don't know if its because I've got a sick 8 month old who's prevented me and my wife from getting a good night's sleep since we saw the film, or if there's something that I think could be trimmed and serve the overall heart of the film. I guess if push came to shove I would have challenged the filmmakers to take that 10 minute excursion to Hong Kong and find a 2 minute solution. I'm reminded of the scene restored to Terminator 2 wherein the CPU chip is cut out of Arnold's head and all the work that went into the shot, but in the end, Cameron decided it dragged the theatrical cut so much he chucked it and made the decision to handle the Terminator's ability to "learn" with a single exchange of dialogue. I'm sure that Nolan could have finessed the capture of the Chinese guy more easily--but if it was at the expense of the Joker's "magic trick" then I'm not sure I would have wanted it to disappear on the cutting room floor.

I'm inclined to believe that Nolan et al don't have a specific POV on the GWOT that informed a didactic point to TDK. I can very much see several character's handling the differing approaches to terror in sensitive and compelling ways--from Dent's frontal assault, to Wayne's realization that he may be acerbating the issues, not least with the appearance of copycats, and Alfred's thoughts on Burma. I suppose I can't pick the "liberal" character--the one that wants to cut and run, or negotiate and conduct diplomacy. But maybe Nolan's smart enough to recognize that's mainly propaganda since 9/11.

I loved the ferry sequence--I loved the characters on the boats. The film seems clear to be making the point that the Joker's nihilism is not a view embraced, even at people's worst moments. Two Face is the representative a bit of that at the very end, isn't he--an individual (well, maybe split personality now) who's conscience is not so seared that he cannot actually bring himself to the horrific deed of punishing Gordon. (I did notice that he shot Batman--so he's no innocent who looked in the face of the abyss and blinked).

At the last, what is TDK saying? We allow others to make compromises on our behalf to protect us from what we cannot handle facing? Interesting to see this film after recently seeing Syriana--which took a similar, if decidedly more liberal, approach to the GWOT, and the first hour of the Charles Bronson schlock-fest "Death Wish", which handled not indecently the topic of vigilantism--but couldn't get past its desire to rub liberals' noses in the filth of crime. The TDK is at the end about a reluctant vigilante, who's operation outside of the law is not motivated any more (even if its genesis was) in vengeance. It forces its audience to face the horror of that choice of necessity--that the good people who can no longer remain standing on the sideline when the power to act is in their capacity lose not only their privacy, livelihood, etc, but also some of what made them good.

How did you get the bandit? Wayne asked Alfred.

We burned the forest, he replied.

Personally, I find it's easier to talk about what it's asking.

The "burned the forest" line was, for me, one of the film's most sobering and troubling moments.

stef wrote:
: Is this true to the comic book series?

I don't believe the character in question even EXISTS in the comic series. But in the comic series, major characters have, indeed, suffered big-time. In the late '80s -- around the time I began collecting comics -- the Joker permanently crippled and apparently sexually molested Barbara Gordon, thus bringing her career as Batgirl to an end; and he also killed Robin, i.e. the second Robin, i.e. Jason Todd (and not the first Robin, i.e. Dick Grayson, who had since grown up and become the New Titan named Nightwing). So on some levels, the stuff that the Joker tries in this movie is actually LESS extreme than what he has done in the comics.

livingeleven wrote:
: Also, as far as Catwoman goes...I don't care who plays her quite as much as how they portray the character. And to be honest, she's never going to make it as a major villain. A side-character, at the most, to thrill some people that would recognize her. But her "real self" is high society . . .

Well, unless they follow the ex-hooker template created by Frank Miller for Batman: Year One.

: Not to mention Bane's origins, in the late 1980's "Knightfall" series. (It was 1980s, right?)

Wikipedia says the character first appeared in Batman: Vengeance of Bane in 1993, and the 'Knightfall' story arc ran until 1994. I was collecting comics at the time, including Batman comics, so I might have those issues in my boxes somewhere.

Buckeye Jones wrote:
: I suppose I can't pick the "liberal" character--the one that wants to cut and run, or negotiate and conduct diplomacy. But maybe Nolan's smart enough to recognize that's mainly propaganda since 9/11.

Well, "liberals" like Barack I-still-would-have-opposed-the-surge-even-if-I-had-known-what-a-success-it-would-be Obama certainly exist. But yeah, the closest the film gets to anything like that is, say, the cops who say that Batman needs to turn himself in because too many of their fellow troops -- er, cops -- have died. Certainly there don't seem to be any characters with significant screen time who take the cut-and-run approach.

Overstreet wrote:
: The "burned the forest" line was, for me, one of the film's most sobering and troubling moments.

It's been weird to see conservatives like Dirty Harry celebrate that line. I think the line was MEANT to be troubling, though perhaps in a "necessary evil" sort of way. But it certainly didn't come across as something to be happy about.

Remember how Bruce and Alfred talk about how the Joker might be one of those criminals who simply wants to "see the world burn"? It is sobering, definitely, if the only way to stop those criminals is to "burn" that part of the world in which they reside. But what else can one do?

I am reminded of how Batman tells Ra's al Ghul, in the earlier film, "I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you." Ra's al Ghul is ultimately destroyed by HIS OWN acts of destruction. Batman simply LETS him die by his own handiwork. In the new film, however, Batman seems to need a different tactic. Batman cannot simply let the Joker die by his own handiwork; he may have to actively destroy things himself in order to prevent the Joker from destroying even more. He may have to, as it were, fight fire with fire. (And I've always thought that was a rather interesting phrase.)

The ScreenGrab: 'Top Ten Reasons The Dark Knight Isn't As Good As You Think It Is'.

I must admit, Reason #6 is another one of those plot points that had occurred to me.

Number six was the only one that I really had to think about.

But really, one man racing on a motorcycle beating a big team of cops who then have to set about a plan to enter, locate and save Dawes-versus Batman who gets to burst through a door by himself and drag Dent out? And the timer for Rachel Dawes may have been set to go off earlier(it appeared to me that Harvey's had a timer-but we never really see Dawes's bomb, do we? Is it possible her timer was set to go off earlier? The Joker's goal was that Dawes die. Is it really shocking or unreasonable that Batman could save Dent, but Gordon's team of cops could not get organized fast enough to save Dawes?

I assumed inequal distances to the two locations.

No, no. That's to obvious for me.

Oh, thank you, Andrew Osborne. I thought it was just me, but unfortunately, I wasn't taking notes so I couldn't sum it all up so articulately, except maybe #1. By #8 and #9, I was well into the #1 "feeling-every-second" phase (what? another explosion?), so not paying attention so well...

It's official: The Dark Knight has made $300 million in 10 days, beating the previous record of 16 days set by Pirates of the Caribbean 2.

So now people are asking whether, with momentum like this, this film can beat Titanic's all-time record of $600.8 million. (SDG, I vaguely recall that you once said in one of our other threads that success on the scale of Titanic would never happen again, thanks to the rise of DVD etc. What say you?)

Personally, I'll be weirded out simply if The Dark Knight edges Star Wars -- which earned $461 million over the course of 20 years -- out of the #2 spot.

I mean, think about it. In 1975, Steven Spielberg's Jaws became the #1 movie of all time. In 1977, George Lucas's Star Wars beat it. Then in 1982, Spielberg's E.T. beat it. Then in 1997, Star Wars was re-issued and rose to the top again. And then, later that year, James Cameron's Titanic came out and beat them all.

But for the past 33 years, going back to Jaws, there has always been at least ONE film made by Lucas or Spielberg in the Top 2, and for more than half of that time there were TWO such films. I don't know if I'm ready for a world in which neither Lucas nor Spielberg can rise any higher than #3. (Actually, Spielberg's E.T. is already down at #4, thanks to Shrek 2. Jaws, meanwhile, is now down at #42.)

Saw it again yesterday, and it holds up very nicely. I don't think much of The ScreenGrab's list; some valid points, but most of them seem to be picking very small nits. And this:



is really questionable, especially since (as Overstreet points out), answers seem to be less the point than questions.

As far as political stuff goes--I came away from the second viewing convinced that Batman himself can easily be interpreted in terms of the War-on-terror narrative as the "conservative" (in quotes because--yeah, it's too broad a brush)--but the film seems to question much of what he does, to suggest--no, to explicitly state--that, even if the Joker can only be stopped by tapping cell 'phones and such, he could never have gotten started if not for Batman's appearance. Which in turn brings to mind, for example, a certain very anti-Bush person's comments about "chickens coming home to roost." It becomes less a matter of absolute good versus absolute evil than a flawed good's flawed attempts to clean up a mess which is, in some respects, his fault. (I don't think most of the above is a spoiler, but if I need to, let me know and I can hide its entirety).

Here's a minor question: How in the world did Batman flip that semi ? I've seen it twice now, and it still doesn't make sense.

NBooth wrote:
: Which in turn brings to mind, for example, a certain very anti-Bush person's comments about "chickens coming home to roost." It becomes less a matter of absolute good versus absolute evil than a flawed good's flawed attempts to clean up a mess which is, in some respects, his fault.

Well, maybe. But if it weren't for Batman, Gotham City wouldn't even EXIST right now, and the Joker would have to go play somewhere else. The events of Batman Begins make that pretty clear.

What's more, Batman defeated Ra's al Ghul and his minions using techniques that Ra's had taught him. So, chickens and roosts go the other way, too.

The question is, when it turns out that defeating crime is more complicated than defeating the enemies you KNEW you had -- when it turns out that you have become, in a sense, the "flypaper" that attracts enemies you DIDN'T know you had -- should you cut and run, or should you, ahem, stay the course? (Sorry, I mean "endure".)

Quoting the "reasons it's not as good as you think" article:

6. And, okay, I know the Joker is an evil genius and all...but considering he tells Batman exactly where to find Rachel and Harvey Dent and the Caped Crusader and Gordon leave on their rescue missions at exactly the same time...how exactly does the Jokester arrange it for Gordon to arrive at Rachel’s location just a few seconds too late? (Pay attention...this question will be on your SAT.)

My response.

Unless I *completely* misunderstood the scene... it seems like not many people noticed but the Joker gave the *wrong* addresses. When Batman leaves, he says he's going to find Rachel... but when he gets there he finds Dent. Which is why his cry of "No, why are you saving me? Save Rachel! is so poignant... that's exactly what he was trying to do.

Also Dent was told that only one would make it out alive so I assume there was some sort of stipulation in the rigging to guarantee this. The movie has plot holes, but this one seems minor.

As regards to the politics of the movie... it's a rorschach test (appropriate considering the Watchmen trailer preceding it). It reflects whatever political viewpoint you hold. I don't think it's an especially meaningful commentary on the current world situation, really. And conservatives claiming "Bush was right all along, see? Batman did the same thing!" is just so ridiculous that it's hard to express how poorly such claims affect the debate. Maybe this isn't what they're claiming, but I don't really understand any other reason for lauding it as a conservative movie.

(And there may not have been a character that wanted to "cut and run" in the movie, but this conflates the invasion on Iraq with the War on Terror.)

With respect to whether the next film needs a Joker, I think it does. Bale's Batman, for better or worse, isn't interesting enough to carry a movie like this alone (Batman Begins notwithstanding, though I'd argue that it wasn't that interesting). Perhaps a well-cast version of the Riddler could work for a 3rd film, but I really wish they'd try to recast Joker. Unfortunately it'd be hard to find someone willing to try to fill Ledger's shoes.

P.S.

Also from that article:
7. The whole "bombs on the ferries sequence" (with the cameo appearance by everyone’s favorite, The Magical Negro, i.e., the token appearance by the wise black character who shows whitey how to be a better whitey)? Lame. Oh, so lame. (Oh, wait a minute...I forgot Morgan Freeman also has a major role in the film as, uh...a wise black character who shows whitey how to be a better whitey.)

How is this not a ridiculously racist statement? This guy's opinion = worthless to me.
Edit: The wikipedia article edumacated me a bit more on the term... perhaps he's trying to identify racism, but by misidentifying it exposes his own racism. Unless he's a black author! Such a touchy subject...

theoddone33 wrote:
: (And there may not have been a character that wanted to "cut and run" in the movie, but this conflates the invasion on Iraq with the War on Terror.)

Well, the two have always been linked -- indeed, some have insisted that Iraq is simply one front in a larger conflict, whatever you want to call it (personally, I dislike the term "war on terror" because it sounds too much like "war on drugs") -- so there's no "conflation" needed, really.

And where I come from, i.e. Canada, there is indeed talk of whether we should "cut and run" or "stay the course" in Afghanistan, which is the only front in this conflict that we have ever been all that actively involved in.

: How is this not a ridiculously racist statement?

Are you familiar with the term "Magical Negro"? It's a genuine phenomenon in various works of fiction. Whether this guy is correct in applying it here is a separate question, but the statement, per se, is not "racist", let alone "ridiculously" so.


FWIW, I would not apply the term to Morgan Freeman's character in this film (though he has certainly been tagged with it in other films, notably the Almighty movies), since Lucius Fox has been around in the comics for decades and is pretty much just another character, to me. But the other guy? Yeah... maybe... I dunno, I wouldn't want to read too much into a couple minutes of screentime.

Even so. I think this cycle of linkage (we have Joker because of Batman, and Batman because of both Ra's al Ghul and the general lawlessness of the city, both of which are due to other factors--in a certain sense, the attacks in the first film are due to the failure of the "good" people to clean up the city) is precisely why trying to fit the movie into a definite political "perspective" is a bit self defeating. I think the material for discussion is there, but I'm not certain the film's perspective is as clear-cut as some articles seem to be suggesting.

(As far as villains for the sequel--I'm in the pro-Riddler camp; I think his obsessive riddling could be a mirror for Batman's larger existential questions. I would rather not see another Joker for a while.)

Peter an extremely thought provoking and well made point, a factoid i was unaware of and here by the enlightnement smackdown now unleashed an added dimension to some great favorites in film and fiction as well. Thank you for the research!

And because of that or perhaps partly due to the heat here in Phoenix , i humbly borrow by way of Mr Lean and Lawrence of Arabia a visual reference of raising one glass of iced lemonade to you .. Cheers and again Nicely done

Linked... by the Bush administration, who need them to be seen as part of the same conflict because of the sketchy justification for the more recent conflict. Iraq didn't have anything to do with "terror" or 9/11, and I agree the term "war on terror" is poor.



Alright this is a fair point. The term may be totally separate from the Iraq conflict in reference to which it is often applied.

I read up on magical negros, probably while you were typing up your post. I'd heard the term before but didn't remember it until after I'd typed my post and then looked it up on wikipedia. I'm pretty sure it's one of those things where it's too complex to figure out what's racist and what isn't. I read an article that was all about how Stephen King uses more magical negros than anyone, yet then the article said that he wasn't a racist. Misapplying the term to good characters who are coincidentally black seems dangerous. I'm not smart enough to figure it out, but the guy's comment in the article in question seemed inappropriate.

Also... Peter, you asked me a question earlier in the thread that I never answered: No I haven't read the Watchmen comic, but I have it on order as the trailer and a discussion on another forum sparked my interest in it.

NBooth wrote:
: Even so. I think this cycle of linkage . . . is precisely why trying to fit the movie into a definite political "perspective" is a bit self defeating. I think the material for discussion is there, but I'm not certain the film's perspective is as clear-cut as some articles seem to be suggesting.

Oh, I definitely don't think the movie is "clear-cut". I wouldn't like it all that much if it were. But real life isn't "clear-cut" either. The problem is, far too many of the "liberal" films that tackle 9/11 themes more explicitly seem to think that these issues ARE pretty "clear-cut". So to see a mainstream film tackle these themes in a more mixed sort of way is a boon to conservatives just for THAT reason. And that's quite apart from the fact that the "conservative" elements are essentially identified with, y'know, the superhero (even if the film does go out of its way, and rightly so, to question what the superhero is doing).

: As far as villains for the sequel--I'm in the pro-Riddler camp; I think his obsessive riddling could be a mirror for Batman's larger existential questions. I would rather not see another Joker for a while.

Personally, I would rather not see ANY villain dominate two films in a row. (Though the Scarecrow cameo at the beginning of this film was nice, partly because it tied up a loose thread from the first film while also doing so in a way that emphasized that he is now small potatoes to a guy like Batman, who is about to be hit by a much, much bigger challenge.) And as for the Riddler himself ... I dunno, on a certain level he just seems too similar to the Joker, to me. I would want something a little more different. But I really don't know who, or what, exactly. It's been a while since I followed the comics all that closely.

theoddone33 wrote:
: Iraq didn't have anything to do with "terror" or 9/11 . . .

9/11, maybe not, but terrorism, yes, it did. I think trying to draw a sharp division between Iraq and the rest of the conflict -- especially at this late stage, when al-Qaeda has declared Iraq to be the front line of the conflict, regardless of how the conflict got there in the first place -- is about as futile as drawing a sharp distinction between the German and Japanese fronts in World War II. Possibly even more so, since al-Qaeda has been fighting on multiple fronts, whereas I'm not sure how many kamikaze pilots were flying Messerschmitts or how many Nazis were defending Tokyo. To the people who lived through World War II, it was all one big conflict, even if we can now debate whether it began in 1937 (when Japan invaded Manchuria), 1939 (when Germany invaded Poland), 1941 (when Japan invaded the United States), or whatever.

: Misapplying the term to good characters who are coincidentally black seems dangerous.

I agree -- that's partly why I disagree with applying the term to Lucius Fox. But the other guy? Well, there's so little CHARACTER there, he might as well be little more than an archetype, and this one seems to fit ...

Of course, then we have to ask how the scene might have played if the races had been reversed, or if the characters had been all white or all black. Each of those scenarios presents problems of its own. I think the filmmakers went with the "safest" option, all things considered. Though now a part of me wonders if the scene might have been even better, even LESS susceptible to accusations of this sort, if the prayer element had been removed. The prayer element does lend itself to the stereotype under discussion, even if it is beneficial on other levels.

: No I haven't read the Watchmen comic, but I have it on order as the trailer and a discussion on another forum sparked my interest in it.

Cool. I should really re-read my copy of that book at some point in the near future.

I think what the filmmakers are asking is, "can we beat Titanic?".

I haven't seen this here yet, so I thought I'd share it:

Aaron Eckhart says he would love to star in a third Batman movie.


So, I guess he has his own thoughts on his character's fate.

Saw that a bit ago. I don't know--it seems that if a villain is to carry over, at this point it would pretty much have to be Two-Face, given Ledger's death. But the ending's too perfect as it is--why spoil it with a quasi-retcon?

...

Has anyone seen this? The Dark Knight and his coming savior:



The 'blogger touches on some ways in which the Batman/Superman mythos intersect, connect, and contrast. There's not much there, but it's a bit thought-provoking--it's certainly got me wishing someone would do a really excellent Superman film.

The Dark Knight's ever-expanding box office and critical acclaim probably have the folks over at Marvel Studios wringing their hands. Up until Batman opened, Iron Man was THE super hero movie of the summer, and now it has been eclipsed by what some are calling THE super hero movie of all time. Marvel has every reason to be proud of Iron Man and what it achieved, but I wouldn't be surprised if they're also a bit jealous. This is sure to re-ignite many a Marvel vs. DC debate!

Well, Marvel at least has quantity, and they are embarking on a plan to cross-pollinate their various movie franchises. Whereas The Dark Knight is essentially a standalone. Yeah, it might generate another sequel, but there's no way DC can launch any OTHER franchises in connection with this one.

Re: Gotham "needing a saviour". Does it? Does not the film question the very messianism that lies behind such statements? Does not the film suggest that the rise of Batman is at least partly responsible for the villainy of the Joker etc.? And does not the film suggest that Rachel Dawes etc. were all very, very wrong when they thought that Harvey Dent could be the "white knight" who would save the city? (Oh, the bitter, bitter irony, that the earnestly moral Rachel should choose Harvey over Bruce, when it is Harvey who, through his arrogance, sets himself up for a much bigger moral collapse than Bruce has ever, ever experienced. And Rachel will never, ever know how wrong her choice was.) And does not the film suggest that "the people" are capable, once in a while, of doing the right thing on their own?

Greg Boyd has some interesting thoughts on the movie here.

Spoilers throughout (I suppose) so I'm not blacking out a bunch of stuff.

Do you think that Nolan et al leave a non-moral "out" for Harvey's turn? Whilst the Joker sees Dent's new persona (bitter, angry, random-ish revenge) as evidence of the true quality of human nature, I'm not so sure that's the case.

True, Mayor Alpert warns Dent that everyone will come gunning for him now that he's set himself up as the "white knight" (even if its his peers that do that) and Wayne and Gordon discuss their concerns that any failing on Dent's part will harm the effectiveness of their collective efforts to reform Gotham. But when Dent does turn into a vengeance-fueled killer, how much of this is explained by his injury and refusal to medicate?

In Gordon's visit to Dent, we learn that the victim has refused any pain medicine and the skin grafting necessary to help heal his face (and subsequently limit the screen time of the SFX's guys' work). Dent's explanation--he doesn't want to hide who he truly is--Harvey Two-Face. But I'm not sure the film earns this epithet for Dent's character. We're told he got it from working at IA in the police force (and as anyone knows from watching movies, IA guys are universally disliked by the rest of the police force--see Copland, Backdraft, Infernal Affairs, etc). But how does an investigator going after internal corruption become known as "two-faced", which implies some level of hypocrisy, especially in terms of saying what people want to hear to further one's career advancement.

So without any real substance to the charge of hypocrisy, Dent's transformation into Two-Face does not require a moral lapse explanation. It can be explained by a psychological reaction to physiological stressors. I don't get a lot of sleep with this punk of a 8 month old waking up two or three times a night--it makes me grumpy and irritable (see my post on Blade Runner). How much more so would a refusal of healing for a burn victim affect his capacity for self-control and judgment?

Of course, the filmmakers have Batman and Gordon coverup Dent's final actions because they believe that it was a moral lapse on Dent's part that would jeopardize the initial foundation of reform in Gotham. I'm not so sure that that's justified by the facts on the ground.

I have a hard time seeing Dent's descent into Two-Face as a moral collapse--maybe the film does. A collapse, yes, but one in which his moral agency is compromised by physiological and psychological catastrohpe. And I think Nolan gives him an out with hints in Gordon's visit.

Nolan turns the camera upside down when the Joker says this, the same way the Joker turned his video camera upside down he a hostage reads the Joker's statements. Up is down. Down is up.

BBBCanada wrote:
: Greg Boyd has some interesting thoughts on the movie here.

Argh, I hate it whenever a single person claims to be two people (i.e. whenever a single person proclaims "two thumbs up" -- you need TWO critics to make that sort of recommendation, unless, I suppose, you're the sort of person who would give a movie a thumb up AND a thumb down).

That said, I do like this bit:

The line between good and evil is made even more ambiguous when, at the end of the movie, the masses turn on Batman as they come to believe he is evil. The Joker turns out to be right again. As soon as it’s in the self-interest of the masses to turn on this law-breaker, they do. Yet, the Joker is proven wrong in that Batman is the one who orchestrates this turning, and he does so for the good of the whole. The masses needed a new hero and a new villain — so Batman volunteers for the latter role. Good ultimately overcomes evil — but only in a rather ambiguous manner.

If I recall correctly, the races were somewhat reversed on the non-criminal ferry, with a black Army Captain and a white businessman, as well as a white ship captain.

It's workable to keep Two Face in the Picture. It would allow the theme of suppressing the truth for "the good of the people" and the negative impact that could arrive when it all unravels because Two Face is alive and dispensing a twisted vengeance version of Justice. The possible themes that would be open for the film to explore when the public discovers they were had are numerous.

Wait--how can Two-Face be alive? One of the last scenes in the Gordon speech montage is Dent's funeral.

Nezpop wrote:
: It's workable to keep Two Face in the Picture. It would allow the theme of suppressing the truth for "the good of the people" and the negative impact that could arrive when it all unravels because Two Face is alive and dispensing a twisted vengeance version of Justice. The possible themes that would be open for the film to explore when the public discovers they were had are numerous.

Oh, I like the way you think.

Buckeye Jones wrote:
: Wait--how can Two-Face be alive? One of the last scenes in the Gordon speech montage is Dent's funeral.

Yeah, and Obi-Wan Kenobi was telling the truth about Luke's father, too.

(Actually, he WAS, in the original Star Wars. It was only when George Lucas decided to do a little retconning while writing The Empire Strikes Back that Obi-Wan became a liar.)

Well, when you put it that way, it certainly sounds intriguing, even if stuff like the theme of suppressing the truth could still be played out as well without Two Face . Such a move would certainly be a boon to those who felt Two Face was too small a part of the picture ....

And I suppose precedent was already made in TDK with Gordon but I'm not sure I like it.

It was most likely a closed casket. No body was seen by the public. Gotham stashed him away in Arkham Asylum, he manages to get out and slip into the shadows. He hates Gordon and Gotham with a real passion, and starts to plot his revenge for their deceptions and hiding him away.

I don't take these rumours seriously at all, but just to keep us all abreast of what's being floated out there: Angelina Jolie as Catwoman and Johnny Depp as the Riddler.

BTW, I see that we had Philip-Seymour-Hoffman-as-Penguin rumours in this thread at least as far back as two years ago. Turned out the Penguin wasn't in this film at ALL. So, yet another reason to take these new rumours with MASSIVE heapings of salt.

Saw the film last night, and have a few related thoughts on the ideas in it. I'm afraid I haven't read all of this thread, as it's a bit long, so forgive me if I'm repeating things.

Although the most obvious issues are related to the legitimacy of violent response to violence, the possibility that order is merely a suppression of chaos, etc, I think the more interesting thing to think about it might be to do with money (couldn't find anything about money in the previous posts, forgive me if I missed it).

Because in a sense, Batman's super-power is basically the power of money, and the thing that elevates The Joker beyond other criminals is the disregard of money. Alfred's comment about "some men just want to watch the world burn" is meant to be about a kind pure will to unleash anarchy for its own sake, but before he says this he says something like "some men don't want money...", and it's as if this is the really unnerving thing - the unpredictability of someone who isn't after money. There is a shabbiness about everything The Joker does - as he says, explosives are cheap. The detonation devices on the boats look homemade. Rachel and Harvey are tied up in a warehouse with rusty oil drums, old phones, and devices with wires exposed. All the key Joker scenes emphasise the cheapness of his methods - the pen on the table, the broken pool cue, the knives (including a potato peeler), old-fashioned hand-grenades, etc. Not to mention the fact that he slides down a mound of money, disregarding its sacredness. But everything Batman uses is slick, black, and part of a limitless supply, stored in a sexy, minimalist underground bunker. Batman as a crime fighting force is superior to the police mainly because his equipment is better. He has a weird tank thing that can smash through walls, but never harm any passers-by, apparently, a bank of strange screens that pick up cell-phone signals, and various pieces of manual equipment that allow him to excercise violence without killing anyone (although the only reason any action film works is because we're prepared to believe, for some reason, that a hero has the innate ability to knock someone unconscious without any risking of killing them in the process).

I think that wealth is a key part of the way in which the film can portray both Batman and The Joker as simulataneously attractive and repulsive, which seems to be what the film does. I found something about the scenes of Batman bulldozing his way through the city in his tank-thing disgusting to watch in the same way I found the media's preoccupation with military prowess in the lead up to the 'shock and awe' campaign in Iraq disgusting - it's the sense that here is someone whose power and wealth means that the world outside no longer offers them any resistance. And conversely there is something strangely attractive about the shabby figure of The Joker shuffling into the mob-bosses den, or wondering into Bruce's fund-raiser, in both scenes - he looks like a tramp at a board meeting, and this draws on a whole well of images deep in our collective consciousness - idea of tables being turned, of the first becoming last, poor guests invited to posh banquets, etc.

Anyway, just a few thoughts.