The Dark Knight

[brockly]

iron-man mentions plenty of politcal issues but nobody felt the need to critique it on that basis. i don't get why this gets that treatment because it conveys a more realistic approach to the superhero genre. it's still a superhero movie. every political gesture pushes the plot forward. like i said i may be embarrassed i took this stance after seeing the movie again or until someone offers a more elaborate explanation on why this movie is trying to be political and important. i think jb has a point about he surveillance part but that's it.

I'm sorry, but I still don't see it. By definition, he was still that Batman, because he didn't let the Joker fall. So I'll ask again. What's so dark about the dark knight? (Please read what I wrote above before you answer.)

i don't recall him being labeled 'the dark knight' until the title card (the end) so i assumed you were referring to the title. if im wrong, i see your confusion. if not, i don't understand the question.

[matt35mm]

SPOILERS

The significance of Batman as The Dark Knight is basically revealed through the ending (although it's also revealed by the always-insightful Alfred in the middle of the movie when he said that Batman could take being hated).  Basically, because Batman will be seen by the public as a bastard who was responsible for several deaths in Gotham, he will be held as the opposite of Harvey Dent--a White Knight in the public's eyes.  Y'know, it's symbolic and shit.

So The Dark Knight is to Batman what Billionaire Playboy Jerk is to Bruce Wayne--neither is true to the core of Batman or Mr. Wayne, but rather is what each can afford to be perceived as.

So, JB, I think that you're right when you say that Batman is not a dark person.  He's a straight-up hero who is so heroic that he is willing to get a bad rep as long as he knows that he is doing the right thing and saving as many lives as he can.  But to Joe Gotham-Dweller, he's dark as hell.

Hopefully that makes it less problematic for you.

[Jeremy Blackman]

That makes sense, matt. Thank you.

I think what confused me was people in this thread saying that the Batman character was actually dark or had become darker during the course of the film, which I think is absolutely wrong. He's so not dark, in fact, that he's willing to be wrongfully perceived as dark for the greater good.

[Gold Trumpet]

listen, people are going to justify this movie for years by saying that it works on TWO levels blah blah.. its the same with matrix and fight club and every other movie that hangs on the wall of the bro down the hall. say what you will about the dark knight but its not great because of its ideas, its great because its so cool! its about a group of equally enthusiastic people applauding as batman does a really neat trick on his bike, its about the joker leaning out the window of the cop car his face against the city lights and everyone going quiet for just a second. if theres poetry and meaning in this movie its moments like that. how can you deny such a rare and awesome sense of solidarity?

I think that's pretty accurate. Dark Knight has many drool worthy moments that you really don't see in other mainstream movies. People think I was immune to enjoying any part of this film. Not so. Each moment JG just mentioned was a lot of fun, but I didn't find them to be intoxicating enough to recommend the whole movie. See, when I talk to people who really do like the movie, everyone talks about the Joker, but when I ask them if they felt the first half was way too long, they also agree with me there. Then when I ask them if disliking the first half affected their opinion, they say no and remind me how much they liked the Joker. I'm over fifteen people in asking those questions to and its a pretty consistent answer.

I didn't like the movie, but I don't think you have to have interest in criticism to resist the temptation to give yourself over to the effects. Movies are one of the easiest things to enjoy and sometimes you can see through the praise and realize maybe the reason why people like something is very simple. 

[Alexandro]

After reading the 30 pages of this thread, I'm surprised very few people have mentioned the one thing that bothered me about this movie: too much explaining of the themes. During the first hour different characters kept saying who is batman, who is the joker and why he's a menace. "He has no rules" and all that...I don't understand why they had to repeat this shit over and over as if it was impossible for the audience to get what this film is about and why it's villain it's such a menace...And I think it diminished the impact of the awesome, magnificent scene of the interrogation with the Joker. I would have been rocked out of my head if that was the first time we hear some explanation for his behaviour.

The editing also bothered me a bit, and all the incomplete scenes / situations, but I get that it was done so the pace of the film could be as fucking exhilarating, and the pace is, at the same time, one of the reasons it is so great.

Batman's voice....Interesting what you guys are saying about him still finding his voice, but it still looks silly and takes you out of the movie.

Aside from those three things the film is pretty incredible, and if you don't see it in IMAX you're not really seeing it.

I gotta give Eckhart some due because I thought he was fantastic.

[Redlum]

if you're going to mention them [political issues] at all, you really need to say something insightful.

And this really has nothing to do with run time. We could make a long list of films that have said something politically insightful with only a sliver of screen time, and without breaking the fourth wall. Even a super-hero comic book movie? Sure. HULK, for example.

It is to do with run-time because HULK failed to deliver on some of it's other obligations as an action/comic-book movie.  It's not necessarily about a matter of time in terms of runtime either, it's also about devoting development time to what is most important.

I just read the 2 star SundayTimes review of the Dark Knight, it's kind of ridiculous.

Nolan explicitly signals the connection in the opening shot - a camera, like a silent plane, flies towards the window of a skyscraper. And, for its chief villain, we have the Joker (Heath Ledger), who collects hostages and sets off bombs. There's also Batman's unlawful rendition of the mob's accountant from Hong Kong. This heavy-handed, wearisome 9/11 connection is the artistic equivalent of a fake tan: it provides the film with instant, spray-on seriousness. For art-house chaps such as Nolan and his screenwriter brother Jonathan, it's a way of showing that they haven't just made a big, dumb summer blockbuster: oh, no, they have made a big, thinking blockbuster that engages the masses in important issues.

The 9/11 analogy just doesn't make sense, though. The idea that the Joker is some kind of urban terrorist figure, as he is referred to at one point, is absurd. "Some men just want to watch the world burn," says Lt James Gordon (Gary Oldman), and that's true, but they're called pyromaniacs, not terrorists. Bin Laden and co don't do it for the kicks that come from chaos, as the Joker does.

It's just incredibly pompous. He makes his own presumptions about the directors intentions for political parallels and then shoots them down. There is no way that any discernable parallels in the film are explicit enough to  make the assumption that they are deliberately constructed predominantly for the purpose of being insightful political commentary. Why don't we just play Dark Side of the Moon alongside the film and see if it sticks? What it amounts to is that this film has ideas above its station and therefore exposes itself to this kind of 'back in your place' bashing.

if you're going to mention them [political issues] at all, you really need to say something insightful.

Firstly, I don't really think it does mention them (at least not explicitally). The only concocted parallel I've seen anyone bring up is Batman's sonar. That was a slightly il-conceived way to do do some high-technology, make an action sequence more efficient and then have some pointless musings on the patriot act and erosion of privacy from Morgan Freeman. Probably the weakest part of the film.

After reading the 30 pages of this thread, I'm surprised very few people have mentioned the one thing that bothered me about this movie: too much explaining of the themes.

A potential reason is that this movie needs to speak to it's key demographic (10-20 years) and they aren't necessarily going to be as politically aware as someone like JB. I'm not saying that they require being repeatedly bludgeoned with the films ideas and themes in order to recognise them but they aren't going to be actively looking for them admidst the stuff that they come to see the film for.

[citizn]

Addressing the voice issue, I think this was explained in Batman Begins. It's been awhile since I've seen it, but I think the suit that Lucius made for Batman actually alters Bruce's voice when he speaks. Sure, the filmmakers have control over what that voice sounds like, but I'm able to get past it due to the thought that it is actually the suit making him sound that way.

[pete]

I don't think they're explaining the scenes as much as they are getting to the core of the story.  bruce/ batman's being haunted by something, and at every plot point, he and the audience get to know what it is until the very end when he realizes what is bothering him.  but this thread is getting ridiculous!

[Jeremy Blackman]

HULK failed to deliver on some of it's other obligations as an action/comic-book movie.

Which ones?

[MacGuffin]

"Dark Knight" director surprised at film success

Christopher Nolan, director of the new Batman sequel "The Dark Knight," said on Tuesday even he was surprised at the film's box office success which has shattered records in North American theatres.

Batman buried his rivals at the North American box office for a second weekend on Sunday, racing past $300 million in a record 10 days, distributor Warner Bros. Pictures said.

"When you do a film of this scale, you are certainly hoping to reach a large number of people. But I think we all have been completely taken by surprise by the scale of the film's success in America particularly," Nolan told reporters in Tokyo.

"I would not be able to point to exactly what it is ... If I knew that all my films would have been successful," he added at the event to promote the film, which opens in theatres across Japan on August 9.

A week after it scored a record breaking $158 million opening, "The Dark Knight" added a new title to its list of superlatives: the best second weekend, passing the holiday-boosted $72 million haul of 2004's "Shrek 2."

Just six days after its release in North America, the film had grossed more domestically than its predecessor, "Batman Begins," did in its entire run, according to studio Warner Bros, which is owned by Time Warner Inc.

English filmmaker Nolan had also directed 2005's "Batman Begins."

The $180 million "The Dark Knight," which stars Christian Bale as Batman and late actor Heath Ledger as the Joker, is reportedly drawing strong repeat business.

[w/o horse]

While I think most of the criticism over The Dark Knight's politics excessively magnifies the importance of the parallels between Nolan's fantasy and our reality I also think that politics should never be manipulated, influenced, or even mentioned in fantasy.  I've said this before.  Even with the best intentions all the artist can do is complicate further the actual, tangible force of the political message.  For example:  the chore of decoding what, if any, message is to be found in The Dark Knight.  I'd say the danger is in confusing morality and politics, and/or in simplifying what is complex.  The real world, and its politics, will always be infinitely more subtle than what is required from fantasy.

So I think Nolan should have avoided drawing out any similarities between the basically moronic Batman legacy and contemporary politics.  I mean moronic historically, as in the idea of a costumed superhero has taken a long while to earn its now semi-esteemed reputation, and if the genre wishes to move forward, as it appears to be doing this year, it should remember of course that its films are inhabited by literal mask wearers, exaggerated and identifiable villains, and its cities are much more curious, fantastic, and imaginative than real cities.  Or least until as a people we can pay as much attention to politics as we do fantasy.  I'm sure at least a few others here wish there were as many people paying as close attention to this years' elections as this fucking Dark Knight film.   I'm saying that when my kid wants to learn about politics, he better not learn those politics from films like this.

That said, I repeat that I think the criticisms amplify what is there.  Nolan, in my opinion, should have separated his story from civics, but clearly the film's themes overlap into the present political climate.  The politics are hardwired into this story.  Difficult to avoid.  Because some of the themes are further reaching than what we're used to from superhero movies it's natural to react defensive against the idea.  What I don't see a lot of people saying is that Nolan didn't have to distend the story out into politics.  That's where his characters were headed.  Harvey Dent is a politician, the film is very much about the politics of Gotham city, politics are naturally contradicting, the film is about the dark doubles of its characters, and in realistic terms actually exploring all this Nolan drew upon a very real, very immediate example of conflicting intentions within a political organization.  So politics influence The Dark Knight, but in no way do I think Nolan is meaning The Dark Knight to influence politics.

Politics, politics.  Just hint at them, just allude to them in a blockbuster and everyone goes berserk.  Very big deal.  I thought there was an hour of great filmmaking in The Dark Knight, and an extra hour or so of the film open for terrific debate.  Scenes like the SWAT/Semi truck chase and the boats rigged to blow were pulse quickening.  The first hour was sluggish and lame.  Ledger is amazing.  The Nolan brothers' writing of the Joker character is amazing.  He's a force that pushes the whole film forward, and when you're wondering why the fuck you have to see another superhero costume designed, when you're so sick of superhero costume designs being an integral part of the structure of these films, there's always the Joker lurking in the scenes.  Someone was saying that it's jarring and kind of lousy filmmaking the way The Dark Knight is edited together and scenes seem unlinked and unmotivated.  I agree with that person.  The unintentional effect this had on me was that I begin to wonder when the Joker was going to appear next.  I began to anticipate nervously his next arrival, just like the city in the film.  Because I don't know when the hell he's going to pop up next.

I thought the movie was pretty good overall.  This year's We Own the Night.

[Pozer]

i'm sick of this movie/thread.

[cinemanarchist]

#1 at the B.O. again. Suck on that Encino Man.

[MacGuffin]

Monday Movie Buzz: Bale's Batman voice too much?

Though "The Dark Knight" has been a bona fide cultural event, boasting rave reviews and boffo box office, it hasn't been immune to criticism. Some have quibbled with its political undercurrents, and others have criticized a muddled theme.

But here's the critique most widely held: Why does Batman talk like the offspring of Clint Eastwood and a grizzly bear?

Donning the costume for the second time, Christian Bale has delved deeper into the lower registers. As Bruce Wayne, his voice is as smooth as his finely pressed suits. But once he puts the cape on, the transformation of his vocal chords is just as dramatic as his costume change.

Particularly when his rage boils over, Bale's Batman growls in an almost beastly fashion, reflecting how close he teeters between do-gooder and vengeance-crazed crusader.

"The Dark Knight" hauled in $43.8 million to rank as Hollywood's top movie for the third straight weekend, fending off "The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor," which opened a close second with $42.5 million. It has earned $394.9 million in just 17 days, according to studio estimates Sunday.

Though much of the voice effect is Bale's own doing, under the guidance of director Christopher Nolan and supervising sound editor Richard King, the frequency of his Batman voice was modulated to exaggerate the effect.

Critics and fans have noticed.

"His Batman rasps his lines in a voice that's deeper and hammier than ever," said NPR's David Edelstein.

The New Yorker's David Denby praised the urgency of Bale's Batman, but lamented that he "delivers his lines in a hoarse voice with an unvarying inflection."

Reviewing the film for MSNBC, Alonso Duralde wrote that Bale's Batman in "Batman Begins" "sounded absurdly deep, like a 10-year-old putting on an `adult' voice to make prank phone calls. This time, Bale affects an eerie rasp, somewhat akin to Brenda Vaccaro doing a Miles Davis impression."

Before the similes run too far afield, it's worth considering where the concept of a throaty Batman comes from.

In his portrayal on the `60s "Batman" TV series, Adam West didn't alter his voice between Bruce Wayne and Batman. Decades later when Tim Burton brought "Batman" to the big screen in a much darker incarnation, Michael Keaton's inflection was notably but not considerably different from one to the other.

But it was a lesser-known actor who, a few years after Burton's film, made perhaps the most distinct imprint on Batman's voice. Kevin Conroy, as the voice of the animated Batman in various projects from 1992's "Batman: The Animated Series" right up until this year's "Batman: Gotham Knight," brought a darker, raspier vocalization to Batman.

Conroy has inhabit the role longer than anyone else and though animated voice-over work doesn't have the same cachet as feature film acting, there are quarters where Conroy is viewed as the best Batman of them all certainly superior to Val Kilmer or George Clooney.

The animated series are notable because they drew on the DC Comics of Batman as envisioned by Frank Miller, whose work heavily informs "Batman Begins" and "The Dark Knight." (Bale and Nolan were unavailable to comment for this story.)

As Batman has gotten darker, his voice has gotten deeper. As some critics suggest, Bale and "The Dark Knight" may have reached a threshold, at least audibly.

[Reinhold]

walrus and i were discussing bale's batman voice the other day, and i liked his rationale: aside from needing to sound tough to criminals and other people he saves, the voice is used by Wayne to discourage people from making a link between Wayne and Batman.

That much should be generally obvious and i suppose whether it's overdone is more of the issue than why it is the way it is... but note as the article above did that prior actors have not made much if any vocal distinction between wayne/batman.