Also, the following is not blind praise for the movie we all know needs no more of it. The following is more of an opinionated essay justifying the existence of The Dark Knight to those who are not sure why it’s so important. Given its many psychological, philosophical, and sociological themes, it’s a given that one person is going to leave the theatre with a different impression of what it all means than the person sitting beside them. There are also a number of people who will call this a boring film, or just overall unsuccessful Batman movie, having gotten not what they expected. Expectations, however, are often poorly founded, and I will argue as to why certain qualities should not be expected out of this particular take on the Batman mythos. I’m going to justify the film, its characters, its themes and mood for those who believe that the Batman they know and love – that giggly-camp version from the 60s and the last two films from the original series of films – needs to make a comeback.
So, if you already believe that The Dark Knight is a masterpiece, then you’ve heard all of this before, but for those who need justifying – for those not sure if they should enjoy or should have enjoyed the film – then this week’s Not a Review of is tailored written just for you! Oh, and I also rebut two specific reviews from Newsweek and Salon.com.
Here’s the thing about The Dark Knight: It isn’t so much a comic book or superhero film as much as it is a crime noir set in the Batman universe. As such, the film explores what it means to be a hero, a symbol, what chaos is, the threads holds society together, the human spirit and its limitations, all illustrated by the characters familiar to millions of devoted fans and newcomers alike. For this reason The Dark Knight couldn’t have been camp – Batman and its villains deserve more. Here, Nolan doesn’t waste the potential of the villains in the film – not Harvey Dent (Two-Face), whose journey from fearless politician to villain with dual intentions is most tragic; and not Joker, who isn’t here just to provide the new Batman film with a villain, but because he is the antithesis of the society that Batman tries to protect. In other words, he absolutely needs to be part of the film. Two-Face and Joker are not two separate villains in the film, not like Venom and Sandman in Spider-Man 3. In the film, Two-Face is the product of both the Joker and the people who were trying to protect Gotham’s white knight. Thus he is, beyond a character, a symbol of the grey-area that exists between absolute evil and absolute benevolence. The writers did not simply toss in a villain or a number of villains for fan-candy; they are tools used to present the film’s philosophies. In Nolan’s interpretation of Batman and his universe, there are no Deus Ex Machinas or clear winners. The absence of the aforementioned is probably what ticked some viewers off, forcing its themes to fly right over their heads.
Newsweek critic David Ansen says the following about the film: “Nolan wants to prove that a superhero movie needn’t be disposable, effects-ridden junk food, and you have to admire his ambition. But this is Batman, not ‘Hamlet.’ Call me shallow, but I wish it were a little more fun.” Okay, then – you are shallow. Realizing that you are shallow does not make you any less the fact, so I’m wondering how you’re green-lighted to review a film that is specifically designed for people unlike yourself. Batman has been camp entertainment before, again with the Batman television series and the film that came out afterwards. Then a few writers decided to take Batman back to its roots to make him the dark knight that he is – a superhero who dwells in the night, not some asshole with Bat-shark repellent. Despite my dislike for the latter take on Batman, I have to admit that for its time the film was not entirely bad, because they kept close to what a comic book was supposed to be: Entertaining, fun, and witty. It had the bang-kapow that comic book films should have. Then Tim Burton took the character more seriously, which is understandable for its time, with the Modern Age of comic books having replaced the Silver and Bronze ages. The movie did well, and so did its sequel. Then, directors thought that making Batman more fun – essentially, camp again – would be a good idea; they thought it would be more profitable, and so they created the atrocities that where Batman Forever and Batman & Robin. Nolan said fuck it and decided that a serious superhero film was long overdue, and if there was one legendary character who needed a make-up most it was Batman. I realize, as he probably realized as well, that if the comic book and graphic novel medium was taken a lot more seriously than when it first debuted, then why couldn’t the superhero films based on them?
So Batman Begins and The Dark Knight are both very serious, very realistic and disturbing takes on the character and its mythology, but they aren’t completely devoid of comic book eccentricities, funny dialogue and cool moments. Exchanges between Bruce, Alfred, and Harvey are chuckle-worthy, and the Joker delivers more than a handful of genuine and clever laughs. My point is that though the movie is super-serious, there are plenty of moments of relief, moments that should devalue arguments against the film supposedly being too into-deep in darkness and nihilism.
Someone once said that The Dark Knight is the birth of the Superhero Film 2.0. In other words, these are no longer films made because the fans want them, but because the medium needs them. Though it is true that there are some acts in the film that are overlong, with multiple climaxes riddled all-throughout the film, it is a film which aims to cover all of its bases resulting in these plot splinters: elements in a plot that do not necessarily deserve arcs, or a beginning, middle, and end, but which are there regardless to serve a point. I want to also rebut Salon’s (www.salon.com) review of the film, and all the reviewers that take a similar stand alongside it. They argue that Nolan mimics Hitchcock without fully understanding what Hitchcock did with his films, and so The Dark Knight misses the point of what a film of its kind is supposed to be. Fortunately for them, their arguments are well founded; unfortunately for them, that’s not the point. As a general film The Dark Knight does fumble, relying on what some consider cliché’s in the crime noir genre and inconsistent edits. In this aspect they are right. Where they miss the point is in how The Dark Knight takes what a superhero film is meant to be and applies it to these supposed clichés and pseudo-philosophies. Technical performances aside – and I put them aside because they are nit-pickings, like pointing out a loose thread in a ball of yarn and making a big deal out of it – the film is brimming with ideas. It is a melting pot in which, hopefully, all succeeding comic-book and graphic-novel related ideas end up, stirred and with the resulting ingredients create future films that build on this evolution in the superhero genre.
The film aims high enough to explore meta-theories about its universe, and some may argue that it doesn’t always grab at what it reaches, but the fact is that it tries and ambition is enough to make The Dark Knight a fantastic artistic achievement within a field riddled with these films, and for pushing a genre further, a masterpiece of our times.
