THE DARK KNIGHT Post Release - Page 67

The one bit I wish I could excise from the film is Bruce's "now I see what I have to become to stop men like him" speech. I'd rather Batman just sort of silently pick up on shit and then put it into action, like the whole sonar device thing. Whatever you think about that particular plot device, I like that when Fox chastises him about it, Batman doesn't argue with him or say, "hey, man, your name is the self-destruct code", he just allows Fox to say his peace and moves on with what he has to do. Nolan's last film could use more of that (also, Alfred burning the letter is still a wonderfully ambiguous bit of business).

Keaton was a terrible Bruce Wayne. He was a fine Michael Keaton, but that ain't Bruce Wayne.

Ya I agree, I'd label that Alfred scene as one of the worst in the movie. I felt like Michael Caine, in general, had a lot more to do and was a lot more memorable in Batman Begins. Which would kind of make sense - being an origin story and all.

There is something to this, thought I'm not sure I agree with superhero comics not being right for film (is that what you were getting at)? A large chunk of what we consider classics after all are translations from other mediums. But I think there might be intrinsic limits to the potential for superhero comics on film.

After all, superhero comics are generally considered to be the comic genre with the least thematic "meat" if you will, or better put, much more hidebound in subject matter and invention. There are of course exceptions, but coupled with a focus on making these things blockbuster tent-pole creations, it's a wonder that an artist (also dealing with the demand to stay true to the material) can find enough breathing room to make an interesting movie. At least for me, it explains why my favorite comic-book movies tend to be ones not from the superhero or blockbuster mode, like AMERICAN SPLENDOUR, or from the more off-beat and neglected areas of action comicdom, The Shadow or DARKMAN (though it's a superhero movie without springing from a comic book).

I don't think so - I just think Wayne was written pretty poorly in the Burton films. At the risk of being a broken record: Burton simply did not understand the character. Keaton understood the rage in the character, but that's pretty antithetical to Burton's sensibilities.

Alfred burning the letter struck well on all levels, especially in that it mirrored Bruce's decision to let Gordon lay the blame on himself, never telling the public that the murders were all Dent's doing. The people needed their reward for their good deeds. Alfred thought Bruce deserved to be rewarded his last memory of Rachel. Because it kept him going.

This is so true. I mean, they showed him sleeping UPSIDE DOWN for fuck's sake.

I get the love for the Burton films, I even share some of it. But at the end of the day I have no choice but to prefer the Nolan movies. Clunky speech-making aside, they have much better screenplays. They are cohesive films rather then a bunch of fun scenes strung together. The Burton screenplays just seem so much lazier.

As personal anecdotes are always so convincing in intertron arguments, I can only say that I saw Mask of the Phantasm in the theatres before I ever saw a single episode of the cartoon show (some friends dragged me to see it), was utterly blown away, and ended up trying to catch up on the animated show after that event. I didn't feel like I was missing anything while watching the movie (though this was a long time ago). I think the last episodes of Batman:TAS that I saw were generally from the first season, which ironically IMHO is the best of the seasons ... though there are incredible episodes sprinkled throughout.

Mask of the Phantasm isn't just the most underrated cartoon movie, nor the most underrated comic book movie, it actually should be considered one of the most underrated movies of all time, period.

Then again ... maybe at this point it isn't that underrated anymore?

It's true, but I like that about them. They're like weird dreams, or, more accurately, nightmares. They make perfect sense at the time, but after the movie's over, you think, "Wait a second, the Penguin getting blueprints to the Batmobile was really retarded". The Burton movies have a different focus. I definitely don't need to see a 10 minute Penguin blueprint heist scene. I almost think a coherent plot would hamstring the two Burton movies.

Paul McCartney: "I like the Burton Batmans better because the scripts are worse and make less sense"

Que?

The Burton movies seem worse every time I watch them. For all the talk of Ledger's Joker stealing TDK from Bale, the only part of the Burton Batmanverse that I still really appreciate is Jack Nicholson's scenery chewing.

Also, a random question that someone might know the answer to: Did the studio not watch Batman Forever? How the fuck after that shitty, shitty film did Schumacher have the creative control necessary to foist Batman and Robin upon us?

It made a shitload of money and didn't piss off any parents.

Edit: Also, to hear it from Schumacher, his "creative control" was tenuous at best.

They make less logical sense, but they're not worse. Not even close.

What? The Batman ...

You know what ... I have no energy for this.

I've yet to be convinced of how this movie features any political subtext. And there isn't much subtext I can read otherwise. There are usual elements (in superhero movies) about vigilantism and whether it can be justified, but I don't think Nolan engaged these ideas much. Which was my problem with the film - I was hoping it would do something interesting about the Joker's and Batman's differing worldviews. As it is, great crime or superhero movie, I'm not sure which. But it's not there thematically to be a masterpiece. But I think it's really good!

It doesn't necessarily address any SPECIFIC issue in politics, it paints in much broader strokes then that.

The conflict between the order of a civilized world and the freedom of a chaotic one is a battle that has raged since the beginning of man. "Batman" and "Joker" are personifications of the two sides of this conflict, their battle is an ideological one.

By setting it in the modern world, and using modern devices like the word "terrorist" and having The Joker execute people on television....this is supossed to make the audience connect the ideology of Batman and The Joker to many of the world's conflicts today. And a parallel can be drawn. That's all Nolan wants us to do....draw a parallel.

This allows modern audiences to connect with and understand what drives the characters on a much deeper level.

I won't lie, this film is my weakness. I love it like crack.

One more thing about the animated series then I'll shut up:

Their two part Two-Face origin, which is the first genuinely shit-your-pants-great episode of the series, could really be recreated with actors, and padded with 30 minutes of whatever random stuff, then released as a film, and work. It's much more emotionally satisfying than the stuff in Dark Knight.

I LOVE the animated series. It's one of my favorite things ever. But if they had Aaron Eckhart talking to himself and calling himself "Big Bad Harv".....I just don't think that would work in a live action film.

It really helps that they put the best animation team on that episode. It is great and looks great. I also find myself growling, "You're talkin' to the wrong Haaaarv..." to myself just for the heck of it.

But wasn't TDK pretty much that two-parter with 30 minutes of Joker padding it? Bruce/Batman was really a side character in that episode.

"Harvey... Noooooooo..."

I think it would be ok. Even in the animated series, they explained that the name was from back when Harvey was a kid. Oooh, and a line I always loved from that two-parter.

"The brighter the picture, the darker the negative..."

I think it was the key elements they DIDN'T use that make TDK the weaker story. I'd prefer that Bruce and Harvey were real friends, and I'd prefer he had split personality problems before the accident (in TDK he's really just holding back his anger). Most of all I wish he hadn't died, and that his love interest had survived for him to reject. The ending of that episode is so much more tragic than a good man killing some cops and falling off a building.

The themes and ideas in the movie are more text than subtext (what with the characters often standing around talking directly about the themes and everything), but it basically hangs together. It may not have that much under the surface, but it has a more complex and heady surface than your average blockbuster.

It isn't new for a movie like this to explore the issue of vigilantism, but they normally only deal with it on the level of individual morality. This movie establishes a fictional society, and the real stakes of the movie aren't about the characters' personal gain but in who holds the most influence over that society and to what effect. It's also about the importance of how ideals and ideologies are presented to the world: Batman proves more morally solid than Dent on a personal level, but what the 'Batman' image represents is more harmful on a societal level than Dent, and so to win the ideological war he opts to deface his own image to preserve the preserve Dent as a martyr for good.

Again this is text rather than subtext and I'm basically just restating the plot there. But the point is that the characters differing worldviews are absolutely fundamental to what this movie is about, and unlike Begins it doesn't just pay lipservice to the ideas it brings up but engages with them and makes arguments with them. Maybe I'm just a common/garden numpty but I found it a pretty interesting movie.

Returns is more of a larf, tho.

I don't know, I always thought of this film as a thematically rich one, especially because it's set against a very realistic backdrop. Vigilantism is clearly a a major theme, as we see how various characters and the society react to Batman. But as other people pointed out this is all in the text as well.

On a subtextual basis I think one of the driving themes is rage. We see three major players including the protagonist deal with it, and they all deal with rage in their own ways. The Joker thrives on it, Dent brakes under it, and Bruce Wayne is driven by it but at the end he overcomes it, and becomes what he's destined to be. The Dark Knight.

I really enjoy it and downright love individual elements, I just wish it made a little more sense when you pull it apart.

No no no, that's not just Alfred talking about himself! He's trying to tell Bruce what he's up against, and implying that Bruce has to "descend" to or below The Joker's level to defeat him. And he's implcitly asking Bruce to consider what that will do to him.

That scene really stands out because it's so (relatively) subtle, especially compared to "I KNOW WHAT I MUST BECOME!"

"I know what I must become." is something Batman would say in the comics. Doesn't make it a good line, but superhero movies have to go there sometimes. They're opera.

After 10+ years (or whatever it is) Maca makes a good point!

Not a fan of Returns, but you can certainly see both Burton Batfilms as dreams. The German Expressionist set design, the Noirish costumes and dialogue, the fact that this Batman has no issues with killing.

And no Keaton was not playing himself. He had an intelligent take on what would drive a Millionaire to go out at night dressed as a Bat to beat up goons. The Sleeping upside down scene is over the top, but no more so than, say, Batman driving a Super Humvee over and through about 12 dozen other vehicles including police cars. Oh and a freeway embankment.

Macca makes plenty of good points, he just has an irrational hatred of Nolan. That's OK, we love him anyway.

Yeah but shouldn't the creators of movies try to , I don't know, translate the important elements of the comics into a moving picture?

Find a way to convey that same sentiment via action, for example, which is not available to the comic format.

Yes, but sometimes you need a cheesy, on-the-nose line to remind people that we're dealing with big emotions and men in capes. You could level the same criticism at "With great power comes great responsibility." Nobody talks like that. But you've gotta have it for Spider-Man, so there you go.

The line doesn't work for you personally and I can see why. It didn't bother me. And apparently it didn't bother Nolan, and it was his movie, so there it is.

I agree with you guys, but TDK is already such a busy film that in order to put "I know what I must become" in to a visual interpretation would extend the already cumbersome running time.

A line of dialogue like that is acceptable if you ask me, especially when it's reflected in all the Batman vs. Joker scenes. Like the interrogation scene, which in my opinion is the central scene of the film, and at the end of the chase sequence when the Joker is captured.

The Joker pushes Batman to his very limits whenever they meet, and a line like that, although very redundant, just underlines this conflict. And it is a fair point to make as well, because what that line of dialogue implies is pretty much the only thing that separates Batman from what Harvey Dent becomes.

I agree completely. Which is why the tone Burton got in his movies is dead on, and even the creaky Broadway-looking theatrical sets enhance that mood. Those movies got the bizarro 18th-centruy-opera-via-Looney Tunes atmosphere right.

Doesn't a guy running around in a cape already do that?

This question has already been answered, but I wanted to elaborate a little bit. We got Batman & Robin because of "Give The People What They Want" syndrome... Batman Returns made a lot of money but it was perceived as a disappointment anyway. So they decided to try for a family-friendly flick that skewed for a younger audience. They brought in a younger, sexier cast, brought in Robin, and cast big stars in the roles. Watching the behind the scenes docs, it's really silly how Schumacher and Co go on about "It was this little movie... These people were still up and comers!" "These were not the big stars that they later became, in part because of this movie." Fuck you. TLJ had just won an Oscar and was the go to character actor for everything; Jim Carrey was the hottest comedy star in the world.

The intention was to make a big, commercial movie and have a huge hit. Then that happened. "See? This is what the public wants! Let's give them more!" The result is Batman & Robin... "Hmmm... I guess they just got bored of Batman. Oh well." The money people in the industry really don't know jack shit.

But again the film medium allows one to express all of that purely through visuals and action.

Also I picked that line as one example; BB and TDK are full of stuff like that. And the line delivery is so damn portentous. That's one thing I think Heath Ledger really nailed; he rad that dialogue in a very natural way, while Bale belted it out like he was in a (bad) stage play.

"With great power comes great responsibility" is repeated ad nausea in the Spiderman comics so I can see why it's in the movie. The only comparable line in the Batman comics is "Criminals are a cowardly and superstitious lot" which i thing is spoken or paraphrased in BB

I'm a total fucking hypocrite because I realize what I enjoyed most about the Nolan films is what I tut-tut the Burton films for: the weird "I never thought of that" way they both fuck around with the source material. (e.g., I love that Nolan burned up the second biggest villain in Batman's canon as fodder for the last third of a supporting player's arc.) I like the way the Nolan films are beholden to nothing. In Burton's films I find the disregard for the source more often annoying.

There's a difference though. Nolan disregards the source material to tell a good story, Burton does it because it doesn't fall in line with his personal fetishes.

I think that's because whereas Nolan is expanding things and trying totally new stuff, Burton just Burtonizes Batman. One is something we've never seen before, whereas the other is A NIGHTMARE BEFORE CHRISTMAS in a cowl. And I say that as a Burton fan.

And Two-Face is Bats' second-biggest villain? Really?

If we're going by source material, probably. At least in the last thirty years. I admire the audacity of just using him up when the comic fans have been clamoring for a good film version since forever. (see what I did there)

Two Face is every writer's favorite villain outside of the Joker. He's got so much to play with. Unlike say, The Riddler or the Penguin.

Oh, I know. From a geek perspective he's gold. I just didn't think he had the cultural status as the big four (Joker, Catwoman, Riddler, Penguin).

The Hell of it is, Nolan's take is an absolutely cracking way of utilising Dent/Two-Face. I'm not sure where else the character would need to go to justify him living.

On top of that, he birthed him and killed him off all quick-like with seemingly no regard for the fact that Batman has a tiny amount of villains that will work in Nolan's world*, so I found it a ballsy move.

EDIT: And yes, I think his take was a pretty good one. He reinvented the character to tie him thematically to his story.

*Please don't tell me the Riddler Zodiac bullshit again. PLEEEEEEASE. If Nolan's got a take on some other villains, I'm more or less excited to check them out. But no more pages of how "Mr. Freeze really could work in the Nolan-verse."

I agree. The most interesting Two Face story is the origin. After that he just becomes a coin flipping gangster and his depth is usually lost.

I'd love to see a film with Two Face really grappling between the good and evil sides of his nature........but I'd rather see Dent go out the way Nolan did then see him becoming a gangster with a gimmick that robs the 2nd National Bank of Gotham on February 2nd or something awful and Batman Forever-esque like that.

As a huge fan of the character I was completely satisfied with the way he was used, despite the small amount of screentime. Quality over quantity.

I'm one of those weirdos who kinda wants Nolan to bring Superman into his Gotham, sent by the authorities to hunt down the supposed cop-killer that Batman has become. Cast right and it would work like a charm, I think.

I'm just praying they don't go "all-in" on Catwoman. Ugh. Ultimately I trust Nolan, but I'm least interested in that route.

What do you mean by "all-in"? I think she'd work pretty easily in Nolan's world, but given that he's looking for some closure with the third film, I doubt we'll see her. Soon after TDK exploded, Devin wrote an article speculating on what Nolan could do next with the character, landing on Batman needing to build a "family" of his own for support and allies. Catwoman could figure into that scheme really well; an uneasy ally or frenemy, someone who is more Batman's equal than Robin (and less cheesy).

I do hope Nolan returns the focus more on Wayne/Batman, ala Begins, with this third film. By force of characterization and the plot, TDK had more going on with Dent and the Joker. Batman/Wayne didn't disappear for huge chunks of time like he did in the Burton films, but he definitely wasn't as front and center.

Having her be the primary/sole "villain."

Did I miss something? Has Catwoman even been mentioned anywhere as being in the next film, other than fanboy speculation?

I got that, trust me. That's why I labeled that scene: "on the nose".