Long Journey Into the Knight

Some of the reasons why Dark Knight, the latest installment of the Batman movie franchise which opened last Friday, took in US$155.34 million its opening weekend may have little to do with the movie itself. Surely a bereft American public looking to mourn its own James Dean -- though in truth Heath Ledger was an Australian citizen -- could find no more apt tribute than to flock to theatres. Rumors that Ledger's role as the Joker pushed him into the abysmal funk than ended in his premature death of a prescription drug overdose drew the viewer in. After all, who doesn't want to see the role that killed the best actor of our time? The movie had and has a lot to live up to. Critics have been shouting its praises from their rooftops since Thursday. On Friday, when I saw the movie at 10 pm, the line stretching down Court Street in Brooklyn was writhing in anticipation. Twentysomethings with cardboard Batman masks, black kids in long white shirts, hairy white Jews with trail mix and WNYC tote bags. We were waiting in the heat for the Dark Knight to begin.

I think we can all agree the movie is a good movie. It is, perhaps, a great movie. Christopher Nolan, the director, has teased from his cast -- not just from Heath Ledger but from Christian Bale, Gary Oldman, Aaron Eckhart and Maggie Gyllenhaal -- performances that surpass in intensity and resonance any of the previous Batman heroes and villains. The movie is more stylized, less goofy and frankly more beautiful than any Batman before it. It's more Seven than Fantastic Four. Because the pervading palette is so dark, the colors blaze intensely when they do appear but generally Nolan has decreased the contrast not only visually but morally as well. Batman is no longer good. He's just less bad than the Joker.

Dark Knight isn't only better and badder than previous Batmans, it is more terrifying too. It's not yikes! scary so much as it is deeply terrifying. The fear doesn't come from the hand popping out of the void. The fear comes from contemplating the void itself. The Joker, fully embodied by a Cagney-tinged Ledger, is the worst kind of villain. He's a non-rational actor. Though there may be a method to his madness, there's nothing beyond it. He destroys to destroy and chaos is the only end. Batman and the other forces hedging on this side of good can't comprehend and therefore can't fight effectively an enemy for whom nothing has value. And though the Joker illogically craves chaos -- or rather because he does -- he delights in showing the limitations of human logic. Perhaps the movies most climactic scene -- certainly in terms of potential body counts -- is a variation on the old prisoner's dilemma. I won't spoil it by revealing who blows up whom.

But the most morally problematic conflict of the film isn't the Joker. Can mad men even be moral? It's in Batman's reaction to it. In his struggle against pure madness -- translated in this case as evil -- Batman tramples on Gotham's civil liberties. In his super cool superhero way, he wiretaps the whole city. Morgan Freeman -- who seems like he just dropped in to the movie from the Wanted set -- plays Bruce Wayne's technology whiz. He puts up a mild fight but -- due to the severity of the threat -- quickly acquiesces. Sound familiar? It is!

Only the first swath cut by the scythe is difficult. Truth follows civil liberties to its grave. Throughout the movie, the truth proves friable, disposable and elastic. It's just another thing to push around. The line that instilled the most terror in me -- in part because it was applauded by the late night crowd--comes at the end of the movie. Batman says, in substance, "The people of Gotham deserve a better truth." He promptly invents one. When the going gets tough in Gotham, truth falls victim to expediency. It will make the public feel better, says Batman in his trademark growl. They need heroes, he says. So he promptly invents one. That sounds familiar too.

Comments

[OtayPanky]

Joshua David Stein: Batman is no longer good. He's just less bad than the Joker.

===

That's why I'm an independent rather than a democrat.

[getoffthecross]

Everything can be corrupted. Every ideal is only as strong as the societal foundation willing to support it. The fact that the film, or rather the Joker's tactics, brings Batman to the brink of breaking his only rule, demonstrates the care put into its production. THAT, by itself, proves the power of the movie. The fact that this conversation is even taking place.

Bush is one man who has come to represent many reprehensible things (to the majority...and it's about time). But had he never been president, no one would ever think to give him credit for planning to deceive an entire nation, dismantle the economy, destroy our reputation abroad, and bloat government to the point of complete incompetency. He's just not that smart. No, it took a lot of co-conspirators to pave the road on which the idiot Prince-King stumbles. That's the inherent difference with Batman (or, at least, this particular interpretation). He's one man who surrounded himself with people who can not only help, but who can provide much-needed checks and balances to ensure he DOESN'T become a fascist vigilante. Show me the crony who told Bush to know his limits, and to whom W would actually listen.

The Dark Knight is a work of fiction. Is it darker than our world now, with all the lies and corruption? The best art reflects society to the point of discomfort. That makes The Dark Knight the film of the year

[DennyCrane]

The fact that the filmmakers embraced the reality of Batman and what someone like that might do in the real world is one of the great things about the movie. They didn't try to make the hero perfect or a role model. Instead, they let him go down the path that so many real-life heros go. And it's very timely how far Batman is willing to bend in order to keep his city safe.

[3rdCitizen]

I didn't see the same shades of gray. I think the movie shows that the most heroic acts are those of genuine self-sacrifice. Characters abandon pernicious power rather than give in to the temptation of using it. A character sacrifices the image & reputation of a hero to actually serve a heroic purpose. And these are the only acts that the Joker never expects -- evil can't comprehend noble self-sacrifice.
In this movie, Batman is a pragmatist who crosses lines when idealism proves impotent, but, unlike the Bush administration, he puts himself at risk, pays the price for the choices that he makes, & makes sure that others can put limits on his use of power. While the Joker tempts him relentlessly, he struggles to stay true to his ideals rather than simply give in to the desire to take revenge. By contrast, another character in the movie succumbs & is totally corrupted.
So, while I share your aversion to "the noble lie" (Plato's worst idea ever), there is a much greater distinction between Batman & the Joker than you suggest . The latter is a misanthropic, homicidal nihilist. The former is a good man trying to do the right thing in a world where that's often a really hard thing to figure out. While a lot of this movie is impossible & illogical, that aspect of it makes Batman seem like a hero straight out of the real world.

[CroatianCritter]

I actually am glad that you discuss the "fear" element that gives the Joker so much potency in this movie and the fact that Batman had to 'Cross a line' to defeat him. The fact that the Joker makes public threats and scares people which causes the citizens to react in ways helpful to his goal was an absolutely brilliant idea. My biggest problem with super hero movies in general is the idea that we need someone to save us. I think this is lazy and lackadaisical thinking. If we truly NEED someone to save us instead of creating the systems ourselves to move our society forward, what does this say about Americans in general? It seems we allow ourselves to create an authoritarian type of society with the hope that the person who rules us has everyone's best intentions in mind. Overall, I think the title "The Dark Knight" has a double meaning and I am glad Nolan decided to take this "hero" in a morally reprehensible place. I think that is why this movie will be remembered as the greatest comic book movie of all time. Thanks for your creative insight!

[axt113]

Well actually the interesting thing is batman intends to inspire people to take up the action of saving the city themselves, he intends to be only a symbol. In fact that is why he takes on the sacrifice in the movie of being labeled a murderer, because he wanted to preserve what Harvey Dent had been, a man who had cleaned up the streets, one who worked within the system and did it, not someone who ran around in Bat Armor. That was also why he had the Sonar system self destruct at the end, he knew that the line was wrong for him to cross, he did it because he was left with no other option, but he didn't do it out of a desire for more power over the city.

[hilts]

Dark Knight is a putrid, steaming pile of excrement. I wish I could get back the 2 hours this movie stole from my life. I want more movies like No Country for Old Men, There Will Be Blood, Being John Malkovich, Adaptation, Election, Breaking the Waves, Dogville, Chinatown, Nashville, Mean Streets, Goodfellas, Atonement, The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, The Kite Runner, The Hours, Sophie's Choice, Serpico, The French Connection, MASH, Midnight Cowboy, The Graduate, A Man for All Seasons, Patton, Easy Rider, Reds, Gandhi, The Squid and the Whale, About a Boy, and Network.

[spiderbucket]

I was hoping for more but I didn't HATE the movie. I liked that it used real city scapes instead of sets, etc. I liked Heath. The acting was good. The script was lacking. It will never fit in with the classics you mentioned - which is too bad - but I doubt a super hero movie ever will sadly.

[getoffthecross]

Watchmen (March 6, 09) is based on the Alan Moore/Dave Gibbons graphic novel heralded as one of the top 100 pieces of literary fiction of the 20th Century. Sadly, it's highly doubtful that the film will encompass everything comprised in the book, but it's nice to see the amount of attention to detail so obviously dedicated to the project demonstrated in the trailer.

I'm not sure where you found the script to Dark Knight lacking. I found it a more compelling cop drama than Heat or The Untouchables, and far and away better than such recent tripe as Miami Vice. From the first scene to the end credits, the story is driven forward by sheer tension. The effects would stand out by themselves in a lessor movie, as would the stunts, the makeup, the cinematography and the acting. All together, it's not only the best superhero movie to date, but a fantastic film experience. Yes, that's just my opinion, but it's the opinion of someone who has been an equal fan of the comic and films in general for 40 years. I'd bet real money that "hilts" hasn't seen or read half the material he claims to be classic (no Shawshank Redemption, no Saving Private Ryan, no Godfather or Malcolm X?). Just a litany of titles he got off Netflix. Poser.

[Moarku]

Just out of curiosity, why did you bother going to the movie to begin with? Given your general attitude and the list of movies you just put down , I could have told you that you'd hate Dark Knight even before I had seen it myself.

Assuming what you say is true (though it wouldn't surprise me if getoffthecross is correct when he suggests you just pulled that list off of Neflix), it's pretty clear you robbed YOURSELF of that two hours. Perhaps if your list included even ONE action film from the past 30 years or so, maybe I could buy it (but to be fair, I haven't seen There Will Be Blood yet, so I'm not sure if that qualifies as "action"). But regardless of whether you're being genuine about that part or not, I call shenanigans.

[axt113]

Big problem with labeling Batman in the mode of the Republicans, Batman doesn't give the power to himself, he gives it to Lucius, thereby creating a wall between him misusing it, then he build in a self-destruct system into it, once he's captured the Joker he throws away his added power, Bush and the GOP would never do that, they would merely push out their definitions of victory.

Yes Batman tramples on civil liberties, but he knows when to step back from the precipice and walk away from becoming a monster, he only used his added powers to protect, preventing more deaths, and then gave them up.

[lovethebomb]

Wow, this is the first truly insightful political commentary on this film. Looking at Batman as Bush is startling, but revealing. But that requires that you use the republican narrative for interpretation. In fact, the goal of the Iraq invasion was to destabalize the middle east and suppress/control the oil- provide a military footprint in the region and give Boosh the label of "war president" to thereby upturn the consititution.. It was not to introduce freedom and democracy, and in seeking to defeat the tararists, violate civil liberties here at home. That is a mythical narrative dependent upon thinking Iraq was responsible for 9-11 and that it represented a nuclear threat, however ludicrous that scenario. No, if anything, Bush was the Joker, the seeker of chaos. However, there was a goal, same one as always. Corporate profit via military power. The ol military industrial state thingie. Holy imperial facism, batman!