Batman carries on beginning in ... The Dark Knight

Complexity is not necessarily a component of ambiguity, as this film demonstrates. Complexity is, however, often a component of intersting, and it's tempting to imagine that there's something intellectually compelling hiding behind The Dark Knight's mumble-mumble nonsense.

What HI DERE said. This film's been claimed by EVERYBODY now.

-- Ned Raggett

I'm most satisfied when my entertainment doesn't hector me with a moral.

Is to seriosly engage with moral questions necessarily to "hector"?

but the MORTGAGES dan, it's all so CLEAR

lol

Contenderizer, what you wanted out of the movie is hectoring. You wanted the movie to take a strong moral stance on the actions that occurred within it, unambiguously saying, "This is right, and this is wrong." Instead, the movie said, "This is what happened," and, for whatever reason, you are dissatisfied by that.

http://www.solarnavigator.net/images/troy_achilles_brad_pitt.jpg

"HECTORRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!"

Contenderizer, what you wanted out of the movie is hectoring. You wanted the movie to take a strong moral stance on the actions that occurred within it, unambiguously saying, "This is right, and this is wrong." Instead, the movie said, "This is what happened," and, for whatever reason, you are dissatisfied by that.

the screenplay cynically tears certain elements from contemporary headlines without quite thinking them through

Every new episode of Law and Order must give you a freakin' conniption fit, then.

Dick Wolf's Batman

DUN DUN DUN

I don't think the movie tries to have a point of view at all!

I'm with contenderizer here, but I'm busy now with a ham and salami sandwich.

"In the criminal justice system, the people are represented by two separate yet equally important groups: the police, who investigate crime; and the district attorneys, who prosecute the offenders. Also, Batman."

(multi-xpost)

i think you're conflating 'thinking through' with 'having a definite answer'

http://img221.imageshack.us/img221/7475/1200343179086vc1.jpg

loling at Batman working the courtroom as lawyer in full getup. defense attorney would be Unfrozen Caveman, obv.

no wait he's wearing a suit but still has mask and cape on

I want to see this happen.

And Dan, where did you find that!

I was gonna ask the same thing. The internet giveth...

It's been posted on ILX before! I just googled it.

ned you spend way too much time on the internet to never have seen that before

Too late, guys.

http://blog.capcom.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/harvey.jpg

bah was going to make the same comment

hahahahaha!
xpost

max, I might well have done but I just don't remember it. (Trust me, my L&O ref had nothing to do with suddenly recalling that image!)

not looking forward to the inevitable SVU spin-off, though

Paul Sorvino as Alfred

Seriously bored of the "pretending to raise moral issues" schtick now.

A.O. Scott: Instead the disappointment comes from the way the picture spells out lofty, serious themes and then ... spells them out again. What kind of hero do we need? Where is the line between justice and vengeance? How much autonomy should we sacrifice in the name of security? Is the taking of innocent life ever justified? These are all fascinating, even urgent questions, but stating them, as nearly every character in “The Dark Knight” does, sooner of later, is not the same as exploring them.

Scott's point is a good one, that the conventions of the superhero movie prevent TDK from really engaging these questions because the questions are raised in a structure designed to say SOMETHING ELSE.

Well, it would be a good point if he didn't forget about the Dostoevskyian ending...I don't think the movie ends ambiguously (we know exactly what happens and why) and i dont think it is incoherent because it's quite obviously forcing the themes of the movie, and the superhero movie in general, to the point of an aporia. it's an ending very similar in tone (to me) to The Prestige, which is actually the much more provocative movie, intellectually speaking.

The bottom line is that if a Bergman movie ended in aporia or moral ambiguity -- or lacked a clear cut POV on the morality and issue on display in the movie, rather than an "artistic distance" -- then I doubt we'd have much of a problem with it. So I think, on the one hand, it's fair to criticize TDK as being compromised to the point of incoherence or shallowness by its genre. But I think you miss what it's doing to its genre, which is is actually pretty interesting without being original.

And Dan, where did you find that!

It's been posted on ILX before! I just googled it.

the funny thing is it can be found IN THIS THREAD

I think tuomas did it like 8000 posts ago

Hahaha, beautiful.

we should really break this thread up into distinct eras - paleozoic, mesozoic, contenderizer first appears on two legs

More shoehorning! Collect your 'so-and-so...Dark Knight' stories here:

'Jason Baron, Dark Knight'

'Tricky: trip-hop's Dark Knight'

Etc. etc.

“I feel like I’m dumb because I feel like I don’t get how many things that are so smart. It’s like a Ferrari engine of storytelling and script writing and I’m like, ‘That’s not my idea of what I want to see in a movie.’ I loved The Prestige but didn’t understand The Dark Knight. Didn’t get it, still can’t tell you what happened in the movie, what happened to the character and in the end they need him to be a bad guy. I’m like, ‘I get it. This is so high brow and so f–king smart, I clearly need a college education to understand this movie.’ You know what? F-ck DC comics. That’s all I have to say and that’s where I’m really coming from.” -- Robert Downey Jr.

I love that quote.

Also occurs to me that one of the biggest flaws with the movie is that it is chock full of false dilemmas. That is, moral problems that are only problems in the hypothetical sense.

For instance, lucius balking at the sonar device strikes me as insincere because I doubt anyone on earth, in those particular circumstances, would really even hesitate to use it. Does lucius make the "right" choice? Unquestionably, in my mind. Is he compromised by that choice? In terms of theoretical ethics, almost certainly. Would any of us hold him accountable? No. Would the law? Yes, because the law isn't a person. And on and on.

The instant (albeit via traumatic means) transformation of Harvey Dent was really the only plot element that didn't work for me.

(the film's conclusion is) quite obviously forcing the themes of the movie, and the superhero movie in general, to the point of an aporia. it's an ending very similar in tone (to me) to The Prestige, which is actually the much more provocative movie, intellectually speaking.

The bottom line is that if a Bergman movie ended in aporia or moral ambiguity -- or lacked a clear cut POV on the morality and issue on display in the movie, rather than an "artistic distance" -- then I doubt we'd have much of a problem with it. So I think, on the one hand, it's fair to criticize TDK as being compromised to the point of incoherence or shallowness by its genre. But I think you miss what it's doing to its genre, which is is actually pretty interesting without being original.

-- ryan

While the film clearly implicates the existence and ambition of the Batman in the generation of the threat that eventually imperils the entire city, it does not cast as much doubt on his methods and/or motives as some posters here suggest. The plot’s most tragic outcomes have less to do with the Batman’s failures than with the Joker’s successes. Nor do I accept that the fundamental conventions and functions of the genre necessarily “compromise” the film. The Dark Knight could have intelligently engaged with its themes and situations while still respecting the superhero genre, had it cared to.

Again, it’s by no means a bad movie and really is an interesting entry in its genre, but I don’t believe that the filmmakers took sufficient care to thoroughly work out the ideas involved. As a result, The Dark Knight suggests a lot without offering much, and seems to make some rather dubious moral arguments along the way.

Downey quote is hilarious & endearing. He's Jeff Spicoli.

I didn't really treat any of the characters as a reliable narrator so I didn't take away the same level of import from Gordon's voiceover as you did, particularly since Dent's injury and Rachel's death were a direct result of Gordon's misjudgment.

Alfred's analogy as to the hopelessness of the situation Bruce and co. have created for themselves (if you want to get rid of The Joker, you're going to have to raze Gotham) resonated more with me than anything else; Batman doesn't want to do that, but he doesn't want to disengage and leave the city to the wolves either, so what can he do? The answer ends up being some sketchy shit (turning all the cell phones into spy transmitters, smacking around prisoners while they're in captivity, beating up riot cops) that, more or less, seems reasonable at the time but is rather clearly leading down the path of razing Gotham. The closure at the end of the film doesn't really resolve anything; the city is still fucked up, other criminals are moving into the power vacuum left by Harvey's rampage and the populace thinks their chosen vigilante hero has turned on them. I don't see that as an endorsement of Batman's ideas and methods, particularly when combined with Rachel's letter about how Bruce's idea of passing the reins over to someone legitimate are a fantasy because he's cuckoo.

Right. Which is why I feel the film's tone is tragic in the classical sense. What else are these characters to do when faced with such nihilistic evil? Dent crumbles in the face of it and becomes nihilistic too. Batman and co. are forced to compromise their moral integrity, but the logic of the situation literally allows them no other choice. The ending is merely batman's attempt to acknowledge this tragedy and own up to it. He's no hero for doing so as Gordon says, except maybe a tragic hero. Maybe that's the film's innovation then: superhero to tragic hero.

The film presents this narrative many times over. "die the hero or live long enough to be the villian"

What's remarkable to me is that a film with such pessimism is really reapnating with a large audience. Maybe they are seeing something else.

Dent crumbles in the face

Why would we see Gordon as a less than reliable narrator? It's an interesting idea, but I don't see how the film at any time undermines the validity of Gordon's POV. His failure to see through the Joker's dastardly plot hardly makes a moron of him. The film doesn't ever suggest that a reliable man would have known better, in fact, I think Gordon is presented as an avatar of moral reliability.

The point you make about Alfred's parable is a good one, though. That's the one idea the film does attempt to seriously wrestle with: how do you wage war without destroying what you're trying to protect? I'm not faulting The Dark Knight for its handling of this theme. It's a difficult question, and while I'm not sure that Gordon and the Batman ever really get the balance right, I still think the film is, in general, very much in their corner.

Gordon hires crooked cops, refuses to share secrets with the white-knight D.A., lies to his wife and kids... he's a sympathetic character but not someone whose point of view I entirely trust w/r/t issues of law, morality and justice.

Yes exactly; near the beginning of the movie, Dent and Gordon argue about the crooked cops in Gordon's department and Gordon has a "they're good cops who deserve a second chance!" shitfit. Later, two of those "good cops", who are still working for the mob and, by extension, the Joker, kidnap Dent and Rachel out from underneath the police department's nose, in fact WITH THE DEPARTMENT'S BLESSING (I've only seen the movie once but I vaguely remember some "we're putting our best people on the case" rhetoric right before the shitstorm).

Gordon knows he has crooked cops with mob ties in his department but blocks Dent from getting to them, which later not only bites him on the ass but eats both cheeks and a good portion of thigh to boot. The moral compasses in the movie are Rachel (who blows the fuck up) and Alfred (who throughout both movies is constantly telling Bruce that Batman isn't the right answer because uh crazypants).

I feel like you got irritated with the direction the movie was going and stopped paying attention to it.

Gordon hires crooked cops, refuses to share secrets with the white-knight D.A., lies to his wife and kids... he's a sympathetic character but not someone whose point of view I entirely trust w/r/t issues of law, morality and justice.

-- max

I'm not saying that he's perfect. Nothing and no one in the film is 100% perfect (which is to its credit), but I didn't get the impression that the film repudiates his moral stance. Instead, it seems to sees him as a fundamentally good man who is nevertheless capable of errors and lapses. And it's a wiser, chastened version of that good Gordon who deliver's the film's moral.

It's not that I wasn't paying attention, but rather that I don't see the film the way you do.

That last bit goes out to HI DERE.

You saw wiser and chastened; I saw shell-shocked and upset.

This movie basically lets you put whatever reading you want to on it pretty comfortably.