Director and co-writer Christopher Nolan’s 2005 reboot of the Batman franchise, Batman Begins, came to us as an epiphany of what Batman and superhero films could be. At once it both redefined Batman by placing him in a gritty realism as well as portraying him and the Gotham universe in perhaps the most faithful way to the comic books that we’ve seen on screen — in terms of the thematic and psychological directions the comic books have taken in the past twenty-five years or so. I absolutely love Batman Begins and have looked forward to its sequel The Dark Knight since leaving the theater. Nolan made a wonderful choice of establishing Bruce Wayne/Batman (Christian Bale) by having him face off against a few of the comic’s more minor villains: Carmine Falcone, Scarecrow, and Ra’s Al Ghul. This choice allowed us to know Batman at a depth that had not been previously achieved because the famous villains often edged out Batman in the earlier films. We saw Batman seek to turn the terror criminals use to incapacitate the general population back on themselves and we were left wondering whether that psychological warfare might belie deeper psychoses in our hero.
The Dark Knight explores the question of Batman’s mental health and moral limits and is just as psychologically and philosophically rich as it is exhilarating. The film delves into discussions regarding order and chaos, whether society is actually all that civilized, and who we are at our cores. It asks questions that are at once immediate and timeless. How do we maintain hope and order in the midst of terror? What limits do we have or should we place on ourselves when protecting society? And in standing against monsters, how do we ensure that we do not become monsters ourselves? Nolan and his actors clearly love these characters and the endless hours spent on honing them comes across. Oh, and there are fantastic action sequences, so don’t think you’re going to an ethics symposium.
When we come to The Dark Knight, things appear different in Gotham. The city is not as dingy as in the first film, and we see that when the Bat-signal lights up, criminals flee the streets immediately. The police and city officials now directly confront the crime bosses of the city, especially the new charismatic and showy district attorney, Harvey Dent (Aaron Ekhart). James Gordon (Gary Oldman), who now expertly heads up the police department’s Major Crimes Unit, wondered aloud in the previous film about escalation — certainly the criminals would not go down without a fight and what would they unleash in response to Batman turning up the heat? The Dark Knight’s events shows that Gordon understands the criminal mind all too well.
These Batman films by Nolan remind us that at their cores, comic book stories, and especially the Batman tales, are cops and robbers stories. The Dark Knight seems more akin to Heat, The Untouchables, or The Departed than it does the Superman or Spiderman series. Nolan has crafted a spectacular crime story so multi-layered that it will reward several viewings and will provide fodder for several essays. In many ways, The Dark Knight achieves the best of popular cinema: it offers thrills along with intelligence, spectacle along with introspection. It asks big questions without giving trite responses.
Nolan now introduces the Joker (Heath Ledger) to Gotham as we have never seen him. He remains a criminal genius, but he is an anarchist, or rather, he is anarchy personified. Ledger’s portrayal of the Joker immediately takes a seat alongside the great monsters of film: the shark in Jaws, Hannibal Lecter, Anton Chigurh, Alex DeLarge, etc. Nolan does not humanize the Joker at all. We know nothing of his origin — he toys with the audience on this point — or of what he does when he is not masterminding mayhem. Where does he sleep? Does he sleep? We do not know. An amazing thing happens in that the Joker is a one-dimensional character, but he is not a cardboard cutout. He is an absolute. He is at once in control and a force of nature. The more we see of him, the more afraid we become. It is not his relentless violence that terrifies us so much as his menace, his deep understanding that we rely upon rules and order in our society, but those rules are themselves social constructs dependent upon the fallible people to uphold them. Create scenarios that push the rules to their limits, and the people will follow over the edge. The Joker strikes a deal with the crime lords from whom he has been stealing a fortune to take out Batman. The people and authorities have been inspired by Batman’s willingness to stand up against evil. Remove that symbol of order, the Joker reasons, and people will once again fall into chaos and allow a power vacuum to exist. Initially he sets his sights on unmasking Batman, but he finds out that he enjoys the challenge Batman poses. In the literature, the Joker most directly shows the audience that Batman is actually not all that different from his enemies. In this film, the Joker understands this fact before Batman does or more than Batman will allow himself to admit. The Joker sees in the vigilante a counterpart and decides to keep him around. Instead of killing or revealing Batman’s identity and thus removing Batman’s power, the Joker pushes Gotham to a place where anyone could become a vigilante.
Harvey Dent meanwhile also seeks to put an end to the Joker’s terror from within the established judicial system. Dent understands the importance of sending the public a message as much as Batman or the Joker does. His message is similar to Batman’s that good people can stand up against injustice, but Dent wants to communicate it and uphold it through the legal system. Together, Batman, Dent, and Gordon form a triumvirate against organized crime. Each piece of the triumvirate is capable, but they do not always work in concert with each other — a flaw the Joker exacerbates. After the Joker decides that Batman is too much fun to dispense with, he sets his sights on ruining Dent. Ekhart’s performance believably shows a man of high ideals and morals being pushed to a breaking point.
Added to this mix is the fact that assistant district attorney, Rachel Dawes (Maggie Gyllenhaal), has fallen for Dent. She had previously promised Bruce Wayne that she would wait for him, when he would put down the cape and cowl. This relationship adds spice and complexity to the story without taking it over. Nolan uses it just enough to fill out his characters more. Gyllenhaal takes the character over from Katie Holmes and it must be said that her performance here is an upgrade. This film is rich and I have not even mentioned the roles of Alfred Pennyworth (Michael Caine) and Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman). In order to keep this review from becoming too long, I will simply say that like the other characters in the film, Nolan develops these men and of course both these excellent actors fill the screen with gravitas.
The earlier Batman series was always off in one significant way: they did not honor Batman’s one rule that he keeps in order to separate himself from his nemeses. Nolan on the other hand, embraces that rule and the tension it creates for Batman. For those who do not know that rule, I won’t give it away. The Dark Knight makes more explicit what Batman Begins hinted at during that film’s climax. So while these films are the least comic-booky, they are the most faithful to the comics themselves.
While I thought the film is brilliant, I did sit in the theater wondering what does it take to get an R rating? The Dark Knight is extremely violent — though not all that bloody. And while its relentless violence makes great sense in the story, the ferocity of the terror both the Joker and Batman employ take the film to a much darker level than one sees in nearly any other comic book or action movie. Nolan has given us a superhero story unlike any other. Despite the darker, more mature turns comics have taken in the last few decades, they are still largely seen as kids’ tales — I assume all the toys and product tie-ins aimed at children do not help correct this view. If you take a child younger than twelve or thirteen to this movie, someone should come over and slap you. And be sure that you attend the film with the youth, do not just drop them off. The Dark Knight requires discussion.
(If you want to explore the sources of some of the ideas behind the film, I recommend reading Batman Year One, The Dark Knight Returns, The Killing Joke, and especially The Long Halloween.)





7 comments
Comments feed for this article
July 29, 2008 at 12:44 pm
Oliver
Wonderful commentary man. Yes, there is much to discuss. The fact of the dark and very psychologically twisted aspects of the film keeps heads scratching, yet wanting more. =) Wanna see it again?!?!
July 29, 2008 at 12:51 pm
Tyler
Already have. Are you in town?
July 29, 2008 at 2:14 pm
Tom
Nice review. Took my 15 year old son Andrew and one of his buddies Alex to see it, and we had a great discussion afterwards. They got a lot of the depth there, which I think speaks to how well Nolan told the story and didn’t allow the non-stop action and violence to overwhelm it.
Only one thing to add to your take. I thought the story tried to connect with current events in a way that other Batman movies didn’t. Interesting that the Joker is a terrorist, or even more accurately, as you say, ‘terror itself.’ And isn’t that the fight that the current administration has taken us into, a war against ‘terror’ as much as against ‘terrorists.’ I’ve never understood exactly what a ‘war on terror’ means (how is that different from a ‘war on chaos?’) or how it could ever end, and I like that Nolan tries to deal with that on a mythical level. And Batman’s egregious spying on everybody in Gotham–which spurs Lucius Fox to resign–was an obvious allusion to one of the practical outworkings of Dick Cheney’s comment that America would ‘have to work the dark side.’ Too bad nobody in the Bush administration who knew what they were doing was wrong resigned like Fox; they just wrote books about how it was wrong later and made a bundle of money. In that way, at least, the allusions in the movie departed from current events :^)
July 29, 2008 at 4:09 pm
Tyler
Warning! Lots of spoilers.
Nolan was asked about the spying in an interview and he said that he wasn’t trying to make a direct statement about the war on terror with the film, though, as mentioned, there are clear overlaps. I don’t think either side of the debate in America would be happy with how The Dark Knight handles the matter. Take the spying for example: you’re correct that Lucius Fox resigns, and sends a clear statement that what Batman is doing is wrong. But in the end, he does go through with it once. I think Harvey Dent plants this seed in Batman early on when he discusses how Roman cities would suspend democracy and appoint a dictator to face an outside threat until the threat had ended. Batman likewise destroys the spy equipment at the end and thus reinstalls privacy, but we’re left with serious questions about whether Batman ever had the authority to do what he did. One or two people cannot start and stop democracy as Fox and Batman do. I would argue the same goes for the executive branch of the US government, but at least they’re elected and have some Constitutional authority.
We’re also left with the question of whether the ends justify the means, and to a great extent, this film does say the ends do justify the means. Batman is a vigilante and unlike earlier renditions (e.g., the 1960’s TV show), he isn’t deputized. All his policing actions are technically outside the law — can anyone say that his extradition of Lau should hold up in court as part of a legitimate arrest? But Batman’s illegal activities bring safety to the streets and as an audience, we’re supposed to think that given the corruption of the powers, Batman’s activities are in the end, good. Similarly, Gordon and Batman will lie about Dent to keep Gotham’s hope alive. Fox and Batman will spy without any right. It’s not a message consistent with the claims made by many against Bush’s execution of the war on terror (I agree it’s a term rife with strange implications).
That this film could spur on these conversations only speaks to its intelligence, power, and worth. Even though Nolan may not have wanted to make a statement about the war on terror, I do hope that this film gives the culture some common language and imagery to discuss the war, the morals surrounding it, and what it’s doing to us as a society.
And for what it’s worth, I said that the Joker was anarchy, not terror. Given his actions, one could substitute terror just as well, but terrorists as the US currently sees them is different. The Joker is not interested in using terror to establish a new government or rule as Al Qaeda does. He wants chaos, plain and simple.
July 29, 2008 at 6:30 pm
Bill Ekhardt
I would love to watch this with you again and then sit around drinking beer and spinning thoughts into the night. Thanks for your review. This movie makes me want to read the comics.
July 29, 2008 at 7:20 pm
Tom
Hope more people will eventually read your cultural reviews.
And yes, Batman represents an ‘ends justify the means’ ethic. A contrast with what I’d call Jesus’ preference for a ‘means justify the ends’ approach.
I’m not a big comic book fan but I thought Nolan got the adolescent male ethic and world view–which I think is the heart of superhero comics–right and expanded it into something potentially wiser and deeper.
That’s all you can ask of an artist doing a flick on material originally meant to sell comics to people my son Andrew’s age. Cool.
I think after 9/11 Bush imagined himself as a kind of evangelical and conservative superhero. Fortunately, adults in the real world eventually weigh in :^)
August 14, 2008 at 9:48 pm
capnwatsisname
Glad you linked to this. I’d read it earlier, but not commented. I went back and watched the 1989 Batman, and, talk about an upgrade. Kim Bassinger, as former adventurous war-photojournalist Vicky Vale, screams in peril at every turn. Gyllenhall was great.