Jump to content

The Dark Knight (2008)


Recommended Posts

It's certainly tied with WALL*E for best flick I saw in a theater this year so far...but then all I have seen is those two, Incredible Hulk, Iron Man and Hellboy 2.

"You know...not EVERY story has to be interesting." -Gibby

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 487
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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

Hmmm... Or Phillip Seymour Hoffman...

"It's a dangerous business going out your front door." -- J.R.R. Tolkien
"I want to believe in art-induced epiphanies." -- Josie
"I would never be dismissive of pop entertainment; it's much too serious a matter for that." -- NBooth

"If apologetics could prove God, I would lose all faith in Him." -- Josie

"What if--just what if--the very act of storytelling is itself redemptive? What if gathering up the scraps and fragments of a disordered life and binding them between the pages of a book in all of their fragmentary disorder is itself a gambit against that disorder?" -- NBooth

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hoffman! YES!!

On another note:

This series desperately needs a female presence who can be taken seriously. Nolan runs a risk of becoming the Michael Mann of superhero films.

Edited by Overstreet

P.S.  I COULD BE WRONG.

 

Takin' 'er easy for all you sinners at lookingcloser.org. Also abiding at Facebook and Twitter.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

SDG wrote:

: Given the

apparent death of Jim Gordon

in this film, that might not be entirely out of the question.

Yes -- and that earlier plot element was somewhat rushed, and lacked a "teaser", similar to what this new plot element would lack. However, I do think pulling that trick TWICE in the same film would be a bit of a problem.

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

Given that we know nothing of the incident, it is impossible to say who would be at greater fault here: the one Bale for allegedly doing whatever he is alleged to have done, or the other Bales for calling in the cops on a family member. (I have seen family members call the cops on other family members, and I do not for one second assume that the person who makes the call is always in the right, or the saner person involved.) I do find Jeffrey Wells's points intriguing, though, that it didn't appear to be a matter of great urgency to anyone involved (the cops let Christian go to the London premiere, the other Bales eventually filed a report in some other part of the country, etc.).

Overstreet wrote:

: Hoffman! YES!!

Too American. All the villains so far have been Irish (Cillian Murphy, Liam Neeson), Japanese (Ken Watanabe), English (Tom Wilkinson) or Australian (Heath Ledger). Well, I guess Aaron Eckhart is American, but he's a hero for most of this film, so ... :)

: This series desperately needs a female presence who can be taken seriously. Nolan runs a risk of becoming the Michael Mann of superhero films.

Or the Francis Ford Coppola. The women in the Godfather films weren't particularly strong or serious, Diane Keaton and Talia Shire notwithstanding (actually, Shire does get kind of serious in The Godfather Part III, but Keaton is little more than a stern and/or earnest moralizer similar to Rachel Dawes).

I think they pretty much HAVE to bring Catwoman into the picture next time, if only because she's a "plausible", "realistic" villain (unlike, say, Poison Ivy, who wouldn't fit very well into the Nolanverse), and because they need a strong female character as you indicated. Plus, it could be an interesting way to explore Batman's flirtation with the dark side, having him flirt with an actual villain (instead of being mentored by a villain in the first film and taunted by a "you complete me" villain in the second).

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh my word, do we have a hit on our hands.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, The Dark Knight isn't the first film to clear $150 million in a single weekend. Spider-Man 3 did that just last year.

But Spider-Man 3 -- which had a bigger first Saturday than The Dark Knight did -- made only $10.3 million on its first Monday. Whereas The Dark Knight made $24.5 million yesterday. More details here.

Granted, that's only the fourth-best Monday of all time. But the top three Mondays -- held by Spider-Man 2, Indiana Jones 4 and Pirates of the Caribbean 3 -- were all holidays (the day after July 4 in the first film's case, Memorial Day in the other two films' cases). Whereas yesterday was ... what, exactly?

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh my word, do we have a hit on our hands.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, The Dark Knight isn't the first film to clear $150 million in a single weekend. Spider-Man 3 did that just last year.

But Spider-Man 3 -- which had a bigger first Saturday than The Dark Knight did -- made only $10.3 million on its first Monday. Whereas The Dark Knight made $24.5 million yesterday. More details here.

Granted, that's only the fourth-best Monday of all time. But the top three Mondays -- held by Spider-Man 2, Indiana Jones 4 and Pirates of the Caribbean 3 -- were all holidays (the day after July 4 in the first film's case, Memorial Day in the other two films' cases). Whereas yesterday was ... what, exactly?

Wow... That puts it, according to that chart, at $182 million. According to IMDB, Batman Begins ended with a $205 million domestic gross. The Dark Knight is going to easily surpass that... Quite possibly within it's first 7 days of release.

"It's a dangerous business going out your front door." -- J.R.R. Tolkien
"I want to believe in art-induced epiphanies." -- Josie
"I would never be dismissive of pop entertainment; it's much too serious a matter for that." -- NBooth

"If apologetics could prove God, I would lose all faith in Him." -- Josie

"What if--just what if--the very act of storytelling is itself redemptive? What if gathering up the scraps and fragments of a disordered life and binding them between the pages of a book in all of their fragmentary disorder is itself a gambit against that disorder?" -- NBooth

Link to post
Share on other sites
Personally, I have always wondered if

the death of Rachel Dawes

was originally intended as a nod to all those people who couldn't stand Holmes.

I'm not sure at what point they decided

to kill her character off

, but apparently Katie Holmes was offered the role, with a $1 Million pay raise over the first film.

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

If you want to see some ill-concieved Batman humor that actually fits very nicely into where the character is headed at the end of this film, you should read Frank Miller and Jim Lee's All Star Batman & Robin, The Boy Wonder. Basically, it is set within Miller's own Batman universe(which begins with Year One, and continues through The Dark Knight Returns and The Dark Knight Strikes Again) and Miller's premise is that Batman's relentless war on crime, coupled with his complete isolation from society, has turned him into a deranged maniac who cripples criminals and wages war with the police. Robin is the balancing force that eventually brings him back to a stable sanity. The characterization of Batman in this book is so over-the-top that I still can't tell if it is an intentional parody of Miller's own work(and the awful work that derived from it), or an unintentional parody by an out of touch writer.

SDG wrote:

: Given the

apparent death of Jim Gordon

in this film, that might not be entirely out of the question.

Yes -- and that earlier plot element was somewhat rushed, and lacked a "teaser", similar to what this new plot element would lack. However, I do think pulling that trick TWICE in the same film would be a bit of a problem.

I think they pretty much HAVE to bring Catwoman into the picture next time, if only because she's a "plausible", "realistic" villain (unlike, say, Poison Ivy, who wouldn't fit very well into the Nolanverse), and because they need a strong female character as you indicated. Plus, it could be an interesting way to explore Batman's flirtation with the dark side, having him flirt with an actual villain (instead of being mentored by a villain in the first film and taunted by a "you complete me" villain in the second).

As they used to say, in comics, "only Bucky stays dead." Nevermind the fact that Bucky is not only alive and well(as of now), but is also one of the most exciting characters in current Marvel comics. Just remember that anything is possible.

Maybe they spirited Dent away to Arkham in secret. Remember Eric Roberts earlier joked that a two story fall wasn't enough to kill someone. I wouldn't count out a return of Two-Face.

Personally, I would prefer that they keep the Joker out of this franchise, at least as a direct presence. Maybe bring him back as a spectral figure, as in Grant Morrision's Arkham Asylum, or have him as an unseen infulence, as in the Joker Gangs that populated the Gotham City of Batman Beyond, even thought the Joker himself was assumed dead.

And I think that Poison Ivy could be made into a serious character quite easily. Imagine a bio-terrorist, perhaps with an ecological motivation not dissimilar to Uma Thruman's version from Batman & Robin. Only, you know, serious.

EDIT-Hid a spoiler. Sorry, I missed one.

Edited by Bobbin Threadbare

owlgod.blogspot.com - My thoughts on all kinds of media

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Catwoman could fit into Nolan's Bat-universe quite well, as long as he looks to Tourneur's Cat People for inspiration instead of a black leather catsuit. Not that there's anything wrong with a black leather catsuit, in and of itself. ;)

As far as The Dark Knight goes, I thought it was a very solid and satisfying film. The film raised some big questions about complex moral issues, and the impact of them won't be fully seen until future films in the series. There's nothing else I can add about Heath Ledger's performance, it was incredible. Just enough off-kilter to keep the audience unsettled.

I thought the storylines for both the Joker and Two-Face were done well, and an appropriate amount of time was given to each of them to fit into the overall storyline of the film.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm.

:spoilers:

(Spoilers not just for The Dark Knight, but for The Bourne Supremacy.)

In how many other franchises does the main love interest die in the second film?

Bourne, of course.

Sounds like a question for Captain Chattaway.

P.S.  I COULD BE WRONG.

 

Takin' 'er easy for all you sinners at lookingcloser.org. Also abiding at Facebook and Twitter.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, I saw this film Saturday night (late...late Saturday night) and plan to rewatch it in IMAX sometime soon.

I'm still frantically gathering thoughts, the first of which is generally, HOLY CRAP!.

I'll try to piece together some of what follows that so this makes sense.

I'm a huge, huge Batman fan. Always have been. And that being said, the four '80s-'90s Batman films disgusted me. Even Nicholson. I venture to say I hated him in that role. He just...wasn't the Joker. Not for anybody who grew up with my strain of the comics. So when they initially announced Ledger for the role of the Joker, I was relieved to think that finally, someone was going to portray this side of Batman's story properly.

The movie blew me away. I braced myself for something merely dark, for something I'd tolerate because it was Batman-related and not completely horrible. I avoided reviews (thought not spoilers, oddly enough-- I just didn't want to know what other people thought of the movie before I got to think about it; I'm sorry to everyone that reviews for a living or as a hobby). But I wasn't expecting the depth of story, the reality and richness of the characters. I forgot that I was watching Ledger, or Eckhart, or Bale, or even Caine. I still forget that it was Gary Oldman. I believed that they were their characters. Which brings me to note that

I was not bothered, as I've heard some were, by Ledger's constant licking of his lips. The constant attention to the scars on his mouth seemed realistic-- like someone who still traces a scar from surgery, or toys with a piercing

.

One of the big things I got out of the movie, though, was something sanshiro_sugata noted when we were leaving the theater: Batman's role as a Christ-figure. I even realized at church the following morning that

Batman's moment of doubt, in which he asks for Alfred's advice and is simply told to "Endure," is rather like his own Gethsemane scene

. In a way, it was rather encouraging and inspiring to begin making a lot of connections, even if they weren't intentional.

From Gotham's rejection of the very one who was really doing the most to protect them, to Batman's own dedication to what he believes is right-- even when that is most challenged, even when he's reached the point where few would blame him if he gave up on that belief and killed just one person intentionally.

There was a lot I've already gotten out of this film, a lot that I'm still thinking about, and it's something I need to see again. But it's something I'm going to ask people to see, I'm going to keep talking about, not just because it's a good film-- but because there is so much potential here for conversation that goes beyond just petty details and superficial humor or action sequences.

Wow. I almost feel like I should thank someone. Everyone involved. Man.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually, with

Rachel dead

that does kind of leave Batman open to

new romantic entanglements

-- just the right thing for

Catwoman

. But I still just can't imagine it. The Joker, Scarecrow, RAG, and Two Face all have a certain earthiness that seems appropriate for Nolan's Gotham. Goyer has said that he might very will pick a more obscure villain. In Batman's case it's really The Joker and every one else.

Of course, they might use the third film already contracted to do JLA...

Really? I don't see how Catwoman lacks the "earthiness" that you see in the other Nolan-verse villains. If anything, she's probably more realistic and grounded than either Scarecrow or Two Face. I say, that's the way to go. Penguin (as a simple gangster, owning the Iceberg Lounge, etc.) I guess is realistic, but just too goofy for these films. Catwoman has a tragic anti-hero arc to her, but then again, I'm talking comic book Catwoman, not Burton Catwoman.

"A director must live with the fact that his work will be called to judgment by someone who has never seen a film of Murnau's." - François Truffaut

Twitter.
Letterboxd.

Reviews and essays at Three Brothers Film.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Overstreet wrote:

: (Spoilers not just for The Dark Knight, but for The Bourne Supremacy.)

:

In how many other franchises does the main love interest die in the second film?

Bourne, of course.

Oh. Hmmm.

Show hidden text
It's rare in general that ANY sequel kills off a character from an earlier movie, much less a love interest, except of course when it's the third part of a trilogy and everything can be wrapped up and given a sense of finality etc. But a second film? The Godfather Part II

had Michael kill his brother Fredo and get a divorce from Kate, after she aborted their third child

. U.S. Marshalls

killed one of Tommy Lee Jones's sidekicks from

The Fugitive

. Scream 2

killed one guy who had a crush on Neve Campbell, I think -- but I don't think she ever reciprocated

. Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan

killed Spock after he and Kirk made a deep, sincere profession of love for one another... uh, sort of. Okay, that doesn't count

. Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me

begins by "revealing" that Elizabeth Hurley, who had a happily-ever-after with Mike Myers at the end of the first film, is actually a robot who is destroyed immediately at the beginning of the second film

. (Is that getting closer?)

Those are the first examples that come to mind, and none of them are really any good. But I'll probably be pondering this question for a while.

: And who dares to step into Pfeiffer's paws?

Keep in mind that Pfeiffer was stepping into Annette Bening's paws. Bening had the role -- Billy Crystal even made a joke of it when he introduced Bening at the Oscars in '90 or '91 -- but then Warren Beatty went and knocked her up, so someone else had to take the role. And that someone else turned out to be Pfeiffer. Rowrrr.

: Who would you cast?

I honestly don't know how we can answer those questions right now, given how singular Nolan's vision for the Batman franchise has been, and given the unique spin he has put on these characters. There have been a few different Catwomen over the years, depending on the writer and the medium, and since we don't know what Nolan would do with this particular character (would she be an ex-hooker, like the Catwoman envisioned by Frank Miller in Batman: Year One, the comic that inspired Batman Begins?), I don't think we'd really have a clue who would be "right" for the part.

livingeleven wrote:

: I avoided reviews (thought not spoilers, oddly enough-- I just didn't want to know what other people thought of the movie before I got to think about it; I'm sorry to everyone that reviews for a living or as a hobby).

Hey, as long as you read the reviews AFTER you saw the film, that's okay! Reviews that are only good BEFORE you see the film are really no good at all. :)

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to post
Share on other sites
And who dares to step into Pfeiffer's paws?

Who would you cast?

Halle Barry? :P

There isn't much in the way of talented blonde film actresses in the 24-32 age range out there, is there? Chloe Sevigny comes to mind but she doesn't seem right for the role at all. I really can't think of anyone I've been impressed with that meets those criteria offhand.

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.

These paragraphs are a great example of how everyone goes to ridiculous lengths to try to interpret things through their own political viewpoint. I sense a kind of patheticness in this quest. It was the same in college... I noticed that whenever someone was really picky about music, everyone tried to get that person to approve of their own favorite bands... as if favorite bands and viewpoints need validation from some completely external and unrelated place before they're worth liking.

I can think of two things that stood out to me as being explicitly political in this film, and neither of them necessitates a neo-conservative view. The first was a dinner guest at the party uttering the phrase "We're not intimidated by thugs", if I remember it correctly. This stood out to me because it seemed to be an intentional echo of a Bush speech (immediately following 9/11 I believe*) where he stated: "We will hold our principles of human rights and human dignity and freedom of worship. We're not going to let anybody frighten us from our great love of freedom. The citizens will not be intimidated by thugs and assassins." (... to which I always mentally add "That's the government's job.") Add the revelation earlier in this thread that the line was spoken by a real-life senator and we have an explicitly politicized moment in the film, but how does it require a neoconservative interpretation?

The second thing that stood out was the strong (or was it?)

anti-spying

stance. Is Bruce Wayne at all like Bush here? He sees it as a necessary and temporary evil. My understanding is that Bush and neo-conservatives see it as necessary, but neither temporary nor evil.

There are references to terrorism, sure. Can't anyone make a film about terrorism without people thinking it's a treatise on politics these days? It's to the point where I almost expect people to tell me that Air Force One was about 9/11, despite coming out 4 years prior.

* (Edit: I looked up the speech and it was given in 2005 in response to some bombings in London.)

Edited by theoddone33
Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh, let's jump waay off the deep end: Tilda Swinton or maybe Jennifer Connelly.

One of the things I've enjoyed about these films has been the unconventional casting, except for Bale. Most of the other principals have been wonderful surprises, against type, too. IF Catwoman were the villain, I'm guessing they'd pick someone no one would hav guessed, and that it would turn out to be a wonderful choice.

Why does she have to be blonde? Two Face certainly isn't blonde, but Eckhart carried the role. (I would have cast someone like Eric Roberts, actually...)

Agreed. We tried to cast a Catwoman for these films last week with my brothers, and it was tough. I'm sure they will go with a completely unconventional casting choice.

Agreed again that she need not be blonde (Miller's Catwoman in Year One certainly isn't, in fact she looks almost Hispanic or Mediterranean to me).

And I also agree that they wouldn't go with her as a straight villain per se.

Anyway, good stuff. I've got a plane to Asia to catch. Hopefully I'll be able to chime in again by Friday.

"A director must live with the fact that his work will be called to judgment by someone who has never seen a film of Murnau's." - François Truffaut

Twitter.
Letterboxd.

Reviews and essays at Three Brothers Film.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh, let's jump waay off the deep end: Tilda Swinton or maybe Jennifer Connelly.

One of the things I've enjoyed about these films has been the unconventional casting, except for Bale. Most of the other principals have been wonderful surprises, against type, too. IF Catwoman were the villain, I'm guessing they'd pick someone no one would hav guessed, and that it would turn out to be a wonderful choice.

Why does she have to be blonde? Two Face certainly isn't blonde, but Eckhart carried the role. (I would have cast someone like Eric Roberts, actually...)

I hadn't thought of Jennifer Connelly. Considering what she pulled off in Requiem For a Dream, she'd be great. She's beautiful and she has the acting chops. I was thinking of Selma Blair for the same reasons. It would have to be an actress who could pull off being seductive and at the same time show that she was traumatized by her past in keeping with what Peter called "the Nolanverse".

Link to post
Share on other sites
Brett McCracken asks: Is Batman becoming a villain at the end of this film?

In a sort-of-similar vein...

- - -

The Dark Knight: A Better Class Of Criminal?

"This town deserves a better class of criminal," Heath Ledger announces as the Joker in the new Batman film, Dark Knight. The caped crusader, police captain Jim Gordon and district attorney Harvey Dent set out to stop the Joker. Much of the film is dedicated to exploring what kind of criminal and what kind of hero Gotham City deserves.

Everyone now knows that Batman is a kind of antihero, a "dark knight" who is allegedly a better hero than Gotham deserves but exactly the one it needs. But what about the Batman's alter-ero, billionaire playboy Bruce Wayne? Careful attention to the Dark Knight and its predecessor film, Batman Begins, seems to show that Wayne might be exactly the "better class of criminal" that the Joker describes. . . .

Wayne's criminality is exactly the sort readers of DealBreaker are all too familiar with. He seems to be a white-collar criminal, engaging in the kind of corporate crimes that attract our real-life two-faced prosecutors. He takes corporate resources to pursue his own interests, uses underhanded means to acquire a majority stake in Wayne Enterprises after encouraging an initial public offering, and intimidates a potential whistle-blower. . . .

John Carney, Dealbreaker, July 21

- - -

Also, check out this essay from the man who literally wrote the book on nihilism in popular culture:

- - -

http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=1130' target="_blank">Christopher Nolan

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Peter, you beat me to posting the Hibbs piece at First Things. Great essay.

Slight tangent, but since we're discussing Hibbs, here's the latest from media critic Brent Bozell:

A Guide To The Movie Galaxy

In the groves of academe, studying popular culture is often the preserve of nutty left-wing professors performing exotic Marxist autopsies on the imperialist dynamics of Donald Duck comic books. Academic conservatives are teaching and writing about Homer the Greek poet, not the cartoon, which is important but oftentimes leaves their audience without a learned guide to analyze the themes of our modern culture.

Fortunately, there is Thomas Hibbs, a professor of ethics and culture at Baylor University

"What matters are movies, not awards; experiences, not celebrations; the subjective power of individual critical points of view, not the declamatory compromises of consensus." - Richard Brody, "Godard's Surprise Win Is a Victory for Independent Cinema," The New Yorker

Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread doesn't seem to be generating much discussion, so here's Andrew Sarris: :)

Ledger

"What matters are movies, not awards; experiences, not celebrations; the subjective power of individual critical points of view, not the declamatory compromises of consensus." - Richard Brody, "Godard's Surprise Win Is a Victory for Independent Cinema," The New Yorker

Link to post
Share on other sites
One of the big things I got out of the movie, though, was something sanshiro_sugata noted when we were leaving the theater: Batman's role as a Christ-figure. I even realized at church the following morning that

Batman's moment of doubt, in which he asks for Alfred's advice and is simply told to "Endure," is rather like his own Gethsemane scene

. In a way, it was rather encouraging and inspiring to begin making a lot of connections, even if they weren't intentional.

From Gotham's rejection of the very one who was really doing the most to protect them, to Batman's own dedication to what he believes is right-- even when that is most challenged, even when he's reached the point where few would blame him if he gave up on that belief and killed just one person intentionally.

I was thinking something along similar lines. I felt that Batman explicitly becomes a Christ-figure in this film

. He, literally, takes Harvey Dent's sins upon himself, and sacrifices himself as an act of redemption.

I've been thinking about this a lot, and I think that there is even more to the parallel.

Consider this, and let me know if I'm reading too much into it, or if I'm reading it incorrectly. The police are like the Old Testament law. They come into play after the "sins" have already been committed, arresting those responsible for the crimes. Harvey Dent, as an idealistic DA, represents something like New Testament salvation, in which the problem of sin is addressed at its roots instead of merely being a punishment that takes place after the fact. The Joker, who I guess is the Devil, shows up to tempt

Dent & Batman

by asking them how far into the darkness they are willing to go in order to put a stop to his depravity. Every time they resist, he keeps upping the stakes, asking them to betray themselves in order to stop him. In the end,

Dent is the weaker man, and he crosses far over to the other side, going beyond mere vigilantism to outright madness.

The Joker seems to have won.

Except,

Show hidden text
Batman steps in, taking Dent's place. He knows that he has the power to do what no other man can do. He can take the condemnation in Dent's place. It works, at least partly, because Batman's identity, so he can avoid capture if he just puts away the mask. But Batman won't abandon his fight against crime, so he takes the additional risk in the event of his capture. Batman separates himself from the police, and by extension the city, through this act, in the same way that Christ was separated from the Father when He took upon Himself the sins of the world. The metaphor isn't exact, since Batman also acts like a John the Baptist who is paving the way for the true savior(Dent) who is yet to come. But I guess you could say that Gordon is Batman's one true disciple, who knows the truth. How he will treat the police pursuit of Batman is something I'm curious about. I also wonder if the next film will feature a "resurrection" of Batman's reputation, when everyone sees him in his full glory. In this way, Batman has fulfilled the the law, which says that someone must be punished for Dent's crimes. But, like Christ, Batman's special nature allows him to transcend the usual punishment.

What do you think? Too much?

And does any of this play into some of the Batman comcis (like The Dark Knight Returns) that present him as someone who has bought into his own cult of personality.

owlgod.blogspot.com - My thoughts on all kinds of media

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...