The Movies of the Decade: The Dark Knight (2008)

This is a new series I'm starting up where I'll talk about some of the most fascinating films of the last decade.

It's hard to underestimate what a pop culture phenomonon Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight was back when it premiered in the summer of 2008. In an era where a film can make tons of money at the box office but leave no lasting impression on the audience, I think The Dark Knight really got under people's skins and in to their souls, and brought them back for multiple viewings. Nolan had already helped relaunch the Batman franchise with Batman Begins in 2005. it brought Batman back to his darker roots after the campy Batman & Robin. It's a very fine film but when this sequel came along, it seemed had done more than just make a good sequel, he tapped in to themes both relevant to our times and also to Batman's long history. It was the right super hero film at the right time.

We were nearing the end of a decade which saw the rise of the super hero film as a genre in of itself but by the time 2008 came by, both the Spider-Man and X-Men franchises had disappointed with their third installments and Bryan Singer's Superman Returns, as well as Ang Lee's Hulk failed to both restart and start their title characters' respective franchises. The summer of 2008 had already brought us the promising franchise start up Iron Man and the return of the Hulk in The Incredible Hulk, and Nolan's film completed the resurgence of excitement in superhero films. But more than that, The Dark Knight, for me, represents one the most, if not the most ambitious and intriguing superhero film of the last several years.

It's a little hard to talk about what The Dark Knight is about because it's about so many things. It's probably Christopher Nolan's most thematically dense film to date. In writing this retrospective I'm going to focus on some of the film's themes and issues one at a time

The City

The city has always been important to the superhero. Superman has Metropolis, Spider-Man has New York- and of course Batman has Gotham City. The city is important to these characters because of the way in which its citizens react to these super-hero figures. The role of the city helps us relate as readers and/or viewers to these fictional worlds. How would I react if some one like Batman or Spider-Man started to fight crime in my city. Nolan has said he wanted The Dark Knight to be a "city movie" in the vein of Michael Mann's Heat, from which The Dark Knight draws inspiration- and The Dark Knight is one of the best representation of  a city's relationship to a superhero- maybe the best.

One of the essential ideas in The Dark Knight is how Batman (Christian Bale) becomes such an integral a part of Gotham that he not only helps it but also brings upon it someone like the Joker. Batman, in many ways he helps shape the fate of the city. I'm largely thinking of the end of the film where he takes the fall for Harvey Dent's (Aaron Eckhart) crimes. It's Batman who sacrifices his reputation in order to save Harvey's. Batman feels Gotham deserves to have its faith rewarded rather than crushed.

You Either Die a Hero or You Live Long Enough to See Yourself Become the Villain

One of the central questions in The Dark Knight is what it means to be a hero. It also asks if heroism isn't enough, if you have to become something more than a hero to really change things. Batman's sacrifice at the end of the film is the culmination of what's been hinted at earlier in the film by Alfred (Michael Caine), who had told Rachel that Bruce Wayne, by not revealing himself as Batman to the Joker, was being more than a hero.

Batman becomes more than a hero by preserving Harvey's image as a hero. To be a true hero you s have to allow someone else to that iamge, even if you don't. Harvey, despite becoming a vengeful murderer, deserves to have his reputation intact.

The ending of the film makes me ask this: Even though people believe in Harvey Dent, what about the people who believe in Batman, who viewed him as their hero? I think that's one of ending's dilemmas. Batman and Commissioner Gordon (Gary Oldman) make a decision on the spot to go through with this plan, there's not much time to think.

The Dark Knight also acknowledges that even Bruce Wayne wants to hang up the cape and cowl, even though deep down, and emphasized later by Rachel's (Maggie Gyllenhall) letter, he'll always need to be Batman. When Harvey dies so does Bruce's chance at a normal life. Rachel's death also leaves a hole in his soul. Rachel was the one Bruce wanted to settle down with- though even if she had lived, she had chosen to be with Harvey. I think Bruce has to accept his place as Batman even if his orginal intentions are compromised by taking the blame for Harvey's murders.

Even before Batman has to take the fall for these murders, the film says that the line between Batman and his nemesis the Joker is very thin. The film implies that Joker (Heath Ledger), like Batman, has a troubled past, though due to Joker's conflicting backstories, we're not quite sure what from his past led this man to become the Joker. This is very much in line with the comics' representation of the Joker. The Joker's conflicting backstories in this film are in direct opposition to Batman's definitive, unchanging backstory, the murder of his parents- but essentially, Bruce Wayne' dawning of the bat suit and Batman persona is not exactly a sane choice and Bruce could have easily gone down a different path after his parents were killed- and still could if pushed too far. As the Joker says near the end of the film, "Madness is like gravity. All you need is a little push." Bruce could have easily become the Joker. This is what I think attracts the Joker to Batman, why he tells him "You complete me." The Joker needs a foil like him, someone who stands outside of society and outside of traditonal psychology.

 Introduce a Little Anarchy

Coming back to Gotham City, The Dark Knight, at it's broadest, is about a city on the verge of destroying itself from within. Ultimately, it's not Batman who saves the city but the ability for humans, even at their most afraid, to do the right thing. I wouldn't call the man who wanted to blow up the ferry with the convicts on it noble but at the same time there's some decency in him because he can't go through with it. In an interesting twist, it's the convict who throws the detonator out the window on the other ship who comes across as the most noble.

The theme of anarchy extends from the Joker, who calls himself an agent of chaos. The Joker isn't looking for money or anything else material but I believe he does have motivation He wants to show how easily a city can descend in to madness and anarchy,  how people aren't that different from him.  The Joker is a mirror reflection of Gotham City and, like Batman, becomes a defining part of the city, another connection they share.

The Joker tells Harvey he doesn't have plans and it's interesting to ponder whether the Joker actually believes that or if he's trying to distance himself from Rachel's death. Either way, he's manipulating Harvey to, like him and Batman, stand outside of society. The Joker cannot corrupt Batman, maybe become Batman has become too scarred to be manipulated by the Joker but Harvey, the shining white knight of the city, who thought he, Batman and Gordon could be "decent men in an indecent time," was vulnerable to the Joker's manipulation.

Anarchy starts from within in The Dark Knight. All it takes is one bad day to send us over the edge. One man's fall can lead to an entire city's soul being crushed. The Joker knows this which is why Harvey is his "ace in the hole." And even at the end of the film, the city's soul may be saved and Harvey's image preserved but Harvey's soul is destroyed. The Dark Knight becomes the tragedy of Harvey Dent. It's one of the most interesting twists the film takes when a film we thought was going to be mainly about Batman and the Joker, becomes a Harvey Dent story. It's a lot fresher take than  most superhero sequels which always seem to focus on the same character.

By Any Means Nescessary

The characterization of Batman throughout the years has asked the question about how far should we go to stop injustice in society. Batman's answer has always seemed to be that one has to sometimes stand outside of traditional justice in order to fight crime, particularly when their is so much corruption in the city, as we saw in Batman Begins. The Dark Knight takes things a step further and also closer to our own time by bringing up the issue of wire tapping. Bruce has created a sonar device in Wayne Enterprises that can pick up every phone in the city. For him this is the only way to catch the Joker at the end of the film. As Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman) says, it is unethical. But the film asks, in the face someone as distanced from our normal view of sanity, is it possible to go to far?

When Batman uses this sonar device, it's reminesent of the sequence where he went to Hong Kong to bring back Lau. That sequence showed that Batman had no jurisdiction, being outside of the law. When Batman uses this sonar device, it's not the government or the police spying on people's phones- Batman hasn't had these kind of ethical rules enforced on him. He makes his own rules The film seems to want to have it both ways, having Batman use the machine but allow Lucius to destroy it after the job is done.

Batman does have one rule, which is that he doesn't kill. At the end of the film he saves Joker after pushing him to what would have been his death. While this scene is the last we'll see of Heath Ledger's Joker in the Nolan series, it''s a haunting thought that the Joker is alive at the end of The Dark Knight and still kill and terrorize if and when he gets out of Arkham. And from what we've seen in The Dark Knight, the Joker can arrange any kind of situation to get him out of Arkham.

Some Last Thoughts

I admire and like The Dark Knight very much. As I said at the beginning of this essay, I think it's one of the most ambitious superhero films in the last few years. Zach Synder's adaptat Watchmen would also be up there in terms of ambition. I like the film is an ensemble piece, not merely being about Batman and Joker but about Harvey Dent, Commissioner Gordan, Alfred, Lucius Fox and Rachel Dawes.

Heath Ledger's performance as the Joker is really stunning, the kind of performance where the line between actor and character disappears, with the actor fully embodying his or her character. Christian Bale does a fine job of playing three characters: Batman, the real Bruce Wayne, serious, focused, and the shallow playboy act Bruce puts on to make people think he could never be Batman. Gary Oldman makes earnestness compelling and he may be the only actor to make Gordon's final speech work. Aaron Eckhart makes Harvey's transformation in to Two Face believable and powerful. It's not a realistic transformation but in Eckhart's hands its a powerful one. Michael Caine lends Alfred a world weary wisdom and a devotion to Bruce and his cause. Morgan Freeman gives Lucius a professionalism and integrity, making us believe Bruce would trust him with his secret. I think Maggie Gyllenhall was a better fit for a hardened lawyer in Gotham City than Katie Holmes. She also has a sweetness and vulnerabiltity to her. He final scene was the most powerful sequence in the film for me the first few times I saw the film.

I don't know what long term effects The Dark Knight will have on the superhero genre and none of the superhero films since have seemed to be inspired by it- but I for a brief moment, this film, in many ways, became THE supehero film. I look forward to the last entry in this series, The Dark Knight Rises but I'm not sure if it'll be able to top this film. It can be more focused, have a tighter script, but will it have the impact of The Dark Knight? I don't know...but it doesn't have to. The Dark Knight made an impact, and that's what counts. For fans of the superhero genre, it completed us.

Auteurship and the Super-Hero Film

Over Christmas I discovered an interview with David Fincher where he talked about how he would have approached the Spider-Man reboot. Fincher's name was thrown around as a possibility for this film as well as the 2002 film. In the interview, Fincher says:

My impression what Spider-Man could be is very different from what Sam [Raimi] did or what Sam wanted to do. I think the reason he directed that movie was because he wanted to do the Marvel comic superhero. I was never interested in the genesis story. I couldn't get past a guy getting bit by a red and blue spider. It was just a problem… It was not something that I felt I could do straight-faced. I wanted to start with Gwen Stacy and the Green Goblin, and I wanted to kill Gwen Stacy.

The title sequence of the movie that I was going to do was going to be a ten minute -- basically a music video, an opera, which was going to be the one shot that took you through the entire Peter Parker [backstory]. Bit by a radioactive spider, the death of Uncle Ben, the loss of Mary Jane, and [then the movie] was going to begin with Peter meeting Gwen Stacy. It was a very different thing, it wasn't the teenager story. It was much more of the guy who's settled into being a freak.

Fincher's vision for a Spider-Man film sounds incredibly intriguing, particularly since it zips through the origin story in an economic and unique way. After reading this interview I started to think about the role the director plays in regards to the Super-hero genre. While Batman and Spider-Man are certainly the stars of their own films, I feel that audiences and critics do focus on the director behind the film. Moreover, praise or blame of the film is sometimes laid at the feet of these directors.

When we think of 1989's Batman, we probably think of Jack Nicholson as the Joker or Michael Keaton as Bruce Wayne/Batman but we also think of the film's director, Tim Burton. While this film isn't as Burtonesque as Batman Returns, Batman, with it's expressionistic visual style and gothic tone, fits in to Burton's rather nicely. From my knowledge, it was Burton's decision to have the Joker, back when he was just Jack Napier, to be the killer of Bruce Wayne's parents. This is one the biggest departures a superhero film has taken from its source material, one that doesn't please many fans of Batman. Personally, I think it's a interesting decision but one that's not that well thought out. Batman tells the Joker that he killed his parents near the end of the film but it never becomes an essential part of the film's climax.   

Before returning to direct Batman Returns, Burton reportedly was uninterested in returning to the character of Batman. bu Warner Bros. supposely convnced him to direct when they told him that instead of directing a Batman film, he could direct a Tim Burton film. Batman Returns is very much a Tim Burton film playing up the german expressionism influence from the first, and havng bizarre characters making up the supporting cast.


Burton's films have often dealt with what it means to be an outsider, something that Burton relates to:

If you've ever had that feeling of loneliness, of being an outsider, it never quite leaves you. You can be happy or successful or whatever, but that thing still stays within you.

The Penguin (Danny DeVito) is the quintiessential Burton outsider like Edward Scissorhands- Burton's Penguin is deformed and left in a sewer by his parents. He's a very freakish looking character. This is definitely not the more distinguished Penguin we know from the comics.

But while Burton imposes a personal visual style and mood on the film, as well as creating a Penguin more in line with his feeling a being an  outsiders, is Batman Returns a really personal film for Burton? Or is the personal aspect of the film or to do with Burton's visual style and sense of mood. Does it penetrate beyond the surface to make a personal statement about outsiders in society and in comic books? I'm not quite sure.

I think the same kind of questions can be asked of other directors' visions in regards to super-hero films. Sam Raimi directed the Spider-Man trilogy and is known for being a Spider-Man fan. While his love of the character definitely shows in the spirit of the films and they're also very humane films, beyond this, what is personal to Raimi in these films? What issues in the film are truly important to him?

Now, I'm not out to bash Burton or Raimi. I like the Spider-Man trilogy, particularly the first two, and I like Burton's Batman films, yes even the bizarro Batman Returns. I just feel that in the directors' visions somehow aren't complete.

I think this incompleteness of vision, among super-hero films can best be applied to Ang Lee's 2003 film Hulk. Hulk is a film that I like but I think it has the problem of being stuck between 2 worlds in regards to its style. On one hand, it's trying to ground the Hulk character in a psychological drama, exploring Bruce Banner's Jekyll/Hyde personality and his twisted relationship with his father. On the other hand, it embraces certain comic book elements- it has Hulk dogs, Nick Nolte as Bruce Banner's father turns in to an electroid monster- and Lee's use of split screens, which suggest comic book panels. I think Lee couldn't quite blend them in way where everything clicked. The film should have completely committed to it's psychological elements. Lee was probably attracted to what the script was doing with exploring the psychological aspects of Bruce Banner/the Hulk. If Lee was able to have more creative control, I think he could have had more influence on the script and made it less of blockbuster-style film. Unfortunately, a film like Hulk still has to have those blockbuster element to it. While these elements are compatiable with deeper themes and issues, in this case, it lead to a compromised vision. 

An example of a director being noted as directing the best of films of a series is Bryan Singer, who directed the first two X-Men films.  Singer is an openly gay man and the X-Men films can be read as allegories for homophobia in modern society, as well as other forms of discrimination. The X-Men are essentially outsiders and I think Singer, being a gay man, knew what it was like to be an outsider and brought that personal knowledge to the films.

On a side note, Matt Vaughn, who directed the latest X-Men film, X-Men: First Class, brought his love of the Bond series to the film, making Michael Fassbender's Erik Lensherr/Magneto in to mutant version of James Bond.

Coming back to Batman, let's look at the Christopher Nolan Batman saga. Nolan has received much praise from critics and Batman fans for his two Batman films, Batman Begins and The Dark Knight. Nolan is arguably seen as the auteur of this series. Nolan (and his creative team) have done a fine job of balancing this comtemporary and stripped down and stylistically realistic take on Batman while still crafting something which feels quintiessentially Batman . Nolan's vision for the series, as I said, is a stylistic rather than literal realism. Nolan and his cinematographer Wally Pfister go for a photorealistic look for Gotham rather than Burton' expressionistic look or Joel Schumacher's neon Gotham.

The Dark Knight dealt with issues of heroism, terrorism, morality, sacrifice, all that junk. These themes certainly fascinate Nolan but they don't give me the sense of Nolan as a person, which could also be said of his other films. The Dark Knight  almost seems too large to be truly personal. That may be the difficulty in having a personal vision in a super-hero film. The large scale can overshadow a director's personal vision.

Coming back to the new Spider-Man, I hope Marc Webb, who helped give (500) Days of Summer  it's aching poignancy, will bring a human touch to The Amazing Spider-Man.  What I really want is this film to take the Spider-Man character in a bold new direction. I think Webb has it in him to go there. If not...there's always David Fincher.