David S. Goyer wrote a treatment for two followup films to Batman Begins, the first involving the Joker—as teased at the very end of the prior film—and the second involving Two-Face. Christopher Nolan and his brother Jonathan wound up condensing the two into one movie, which they called The Dark Knight. This was the first Batman movie not to have “Batman” in its title, though that particular phrase had eclipsed “the Caped Crusader” as the most common nickname associated with Bruce Wayne’s alter ego ever since Frank Miller & Klaus Janson’s landmark 1985 miniseries The Dark Knight Returns.
The movie was unfortunately marred by tragedy, as Heath Ledger died shortly after completing filming his role as the Joker.
Ledger’s death meant that all eyes were on this movie even more so than they would have been—and the scrutiny was already pretty intense. Batman Begins was a huge hit both financially and critically. Lots of people were looking to the sequel to match it, but were also gun-shy, given the diminishing returns of each of the sequels to the 1989 film, culminating in the mind-numbing horror of Batman & Robin.
Buy the Book
Vengeful
Adding a celebrity death to the mix just made the scrutiny sharper. So did the fact that the actor in question was playing a role that three great actors had already put their stamps on. Ledger not only had to live up to the expectations of the previous movie, but also the spectres of Cesar Romero in the Adam West TV series of the 1960s, Jack Nicholson in the 1989 film, and Mark Hamill’s voice in the 1990s animated series. (In your humble rewatcher’s opinion, Hamill’s voice remains the best interpretation of the Joker for the screen, with all due respect to Ledger’s performance and memory.)
Nolan dug deep into older Bat-comics for inspiration. One of the primary sources for the movie was Joker’s first appearances in Batman #1 from 1940, and Two-Face’s earliest appearances in Detective Comics #66, 68, and 80 from 1941 and 1943. Having said that, there’s a whole lot of the 1990s miniseries The Long Halloween here too.
Much of the cast from the first film returned: Christian Bale in the title role, Michael Caine as Alfred, Morgan Freeman as Fox, Cillian Murphy as Crane, and Gary Oldman as Gordon. Katie Holmes turned down reprising the role of Dawes, replaced by Maggie Gyllenhaal, and besides Ledger, the other primary antagonist is Aaron Eckhart, who starts out as a protagonist, new district attorney Harvey Dent. He is transformed into Two-Face part-way through the film.
“You wanna know how I got my scars?”
The Dark Knight
Written by David S. Goyer & Christopher Nolan and Jonathan Nolan
Directed by Christopher Nolan
Produced by Charles Roven and Emma Thomas and Christopher Nolan
Original release date: July 14, 2008
Five people in clown masks rob a bank. Two things are unusual about this heist: the guy in charge of intercepting the silent alarm is surprised to see that the alarm doesn’t call 911, but rather a private number; and the bank manager attacks the robbers with a shotgun. Turns out that this is a mob bank. In addition, each member of the gang has been instructed by the leader to shoot one of the other people when their job is done. In the end, there’s only one person left: the Joker.
It’s been the better part of a year since Batman Begins, and the few mobsters that are left have entrusted their cash to a Hong Kong businessman named Lau. Wayne Enterprises is also talking about a contract with Lau’s company, which Wayne has initiated solely so he can get a look at Lau’s (cooked) books. In addition, as Batman, Wayne has coordinated with Gordon—now in charge of the Major Crimes Unit, which has the least corrupt cops Gordon can find in it—to irradiate the money being used by the mobsters. They can now trace it to Lau. Realizing that the police are after him, Lau retreats to Hong Kong, where he is safe from extradition.
Lau has also hidden the rest of the criminals’ money—which, at this point, are the Italians (run by Sal Maroni with Falcone in Arkham), the Russians (run by Chechen, who enforces his will with nasty dogs), and the African-Americans (run by Gambol)—in a place he is keeping secret so nobody can give the location up. In the midst of the meeting where Lau explains this via videochat from his private plane, the Joker shows up. He kills one of Gambol’s thugs and stops anyone else from trying anything by showing them his jacket full of grenades.
Joker says that he has a better offer than “the TV set.” He will kill Batman, since he’s responsible for everything that’s gone wrong. He gives them time to think about it.
There’s a new District Attorney in Gotham, Harvey Dent. He’s charismatic, a former GPD cop in Internal Affairs, and dating Rachel Dawes. He’s also incorruptible, and he quickly carves out a reputation as a strong prosecutor. He also wants in on whatever Gordon and Batman have cooked up. Initially, Gordon doesn’t trust Dent—giving him the party line that the GPD abhors vigilantism (and the bat-signal is just a weird glitch in the floodlight on MCU’s roof)—but eventually, Gordon and Batman agree to let him into the treehouse, as it were.
Unfortunately, when they try to raid the remaining mob banks where Lau is keeping the money, they find only the irradiated bills. The rest of the cash has been removed. Gordon is convinced that there’s a mole in Dent’s office, since it didn’t leak until he found out about it.
Gambol puts out a bounty on the Joker, and some dudes bring Joker to him in a body bag. Joker climbs out of the bag and kills Gambol—after telling him a story of how he got his smile-like scars—and appropriates his gang.
Batman, Fox, and Alfred figure out a way to basically kidnap Lau out of his Hong Kong office and bring him to Gotham to be arrested. Fox leaves a cell phone in Lau’s office, which has been rigged to act almost like a sonar. Wayne—who has absconded with a ballet company and taken them on his yacht as cover for Wayne’s disappearance from the city, then gone from there to a black-market South Korean plane that flies under radar—uses that to track Lau and take him back to the States, leaving him on Gordon’s doorstep with a note.
Dent and Dawes figure they can bring a RICO case against Lau, which means they can nail all the gangs—they wind up arresting dozens of people and indicting them all at once. It’s a show, and most of the higher-ups will be able to make bail and maybe even have the charges dropped, but the lower-level guys will plea bargain. Plus it sends a message that Dent is serious.
The Joker leaves three DNA traces on a Joker card that was found in the indictment of all the mobsters: Commissioner Loeb, Judge Surrillo (who’s presiding over the mob case), and Dent. Loeb is poisoned by his own Scotch, Surrillo’s car is blown up, and Joker himself tries to kill Dent at a fundraiser Wayne is holding for him to show his public support. (He also shows his private support to Dawes, letting her know that both Wayne and Batman support him, as it were.) Wayne puts Dent in a headlock and then in a closet to keep him safe, then changes to Batman to stop Joker from threatening the party guests. (While he’s changing clothes, Joker terrorizes the guests, including Dawes, whom he tells a different story about how he got his scars.)
Joker throws Dawes out a window, and Batman dives after her, saving her life, but allowing the Joker to get away. Still, Dent is saved. However, Joker’s next threat is to Mayor Garcia, and it almost works, as Joker comes very close to killing him while he’s delivering Loeb’s eulogy, but Gordon dives in front of the bullet.
After Joker announces that the killing will continue until Batman unmasks, Wayne decides to go ahead and admit who he is, after Alfred eliminates anything that will trace either Fox or Dawes to him. (Unbeknownst to Wayne, someone in the finance department named Reese has figured out that the Batmobile is Wayne tech. He goes to Fox demanding $10 million a year for the rest of his life. Fox reminds him that he’s blackmailing one of the wealthiest people in the world whom he believes to be a guy who beats the shit out of criminals every night, and is that really a good idea? Reese backs off.)
However, Dent cuts off Wayne’s sacrifice at the knees by saying that he is Batman. The GPD takes Dent into custody and he’s driven to prison in a huge convoy that is attacked by the Joker—and defended by the real Batman, and also Gordon, who faked his death to protect his family from Joker. In the end, after a lot of explosions and dead and maimed cops and civilians, Gordon and Batman manage to take Joker into custody.
Dent goes off with one of Gordon’s detectives, and never arrives at his destination. Gordon and Batman question the Joker, and only from him do they discover that Dawes is also missing. He’s put them in two different locations; Batman immediately goes to where he said Dawes is (Joker figured out that he’s sweet on her based on how quickly he leapt to her rescue) while Gordon takes a task force to where he said Dent is.
But, of course, the Joker lied. Dawes is where the cops go, and Batman goes to Dent. Both are tied up in a room filled with oil barrels. In his attempts to escape, Dent falls on the floor on his side and spills one of the barrels, covering the left side of his face in oil. Batman manages to get Dent out before Joker detonates the oil, but the left side of his face catches fire.
Gordon does not get to Dawes in time, and she’s killed.
Both Dent and Wayne are devastated. Dent refuses plastic surgery or even painkillers to deal with the scarred side of his face. His two-headed coin—which he’s used several times to pretend to flip a coin without revealing that it was two-headed—is now scarred on one side also.
Dawes left a note with Alfred to give to Wayne when the time was right. Even though she had promised that she’d wait for him to stop being Batman before she could love him properly, her heart now belongs to Dent, and she says in her note that she’s going to marry the DA. In fact, her last word to Dent was, “Yes.”
While large numbers of cops and Batman are busy rescuing Dent and Dawes, Joker manages to break out, killing several cops and also taking Lau with him.
In light of all this stuff happening, Reese decides to go public with his belief that Wayne is Batman. Before he can go on TV to do so, Joker announces that he doesn’t want the world to know who Batman is, so he threatens to destroy a hospital unless Reese is killed in an hour. Gordon and Wayne are able to stop two attempts on Reese’s life, and Joker does destroy a hospital, though not until after it’s evacuated. Joker confronts Dent in the latter’s hospital room before he blows the place up, and actually gives Dent a gun and puts it at his own head. Joker goes on about how he’s an agent of chaos because chaos is completely fair. Dent feels the only fairness is the flip of a coin, and it’s on that basis that he decides whether or not to take up Joker on his offer to shoot him.
It comes up the unscarred side, so Joker lives, and Dent escapes before the hospital blows up. Joker takes one of the buses with the evacuated patients and absconds with it. Dent goes to the cop who took him to the warehouse and kills him (the coin came scarred-side-up), but he doesn’t reveal who the other dirty cop is. So Dent goes to Maroni, who tells him it’s Ramirez. The coin comes up unscarred for Maroni, so he lives—but the driver isn’t so lucky…
Dent gets Ramirez to convince Barbara Gordon and her kids to leave her house, saying the cops guarding her aren’t trustworthy. Dent then takes Gordon’s wife and children to the same spot where Dawes died.
Wayne has created a device that can do on a larger scale what Fox did in Hong Kong, using everyone‘s cell phone as a microphone to create a sonar field. Fox is appalled, as this is unethical and a huge violation of privacy—which is why Batman has encoded it so that only Fox can use it. He’s only using it to track the Joker, and when that’s done, Batman tells him to enter his name.
Joker has made threats to the “bridge and tunnel” crowd, and scared the populace into a panic. Two ferries are taking people out of the city, one with regular citizens, one with prisoners being moved out of harm’s way. Both ferries go dark, and the crews discover that they both have explosives in the engine room. Each ship has a detonator that will blow up the other ferry. If one chooses to blow up the other boat, it’ll be spared, but if nobody chooses by midnight, both boats will be destroyed.
The civilian ferry argue over it and eventually decide to put it to a vote. It’s overwhelmingly in favor of detonating the other boat. But when it comes time to do it, nobody can press the button—not even the biggest agitator, who gets all macho until he actually has the detonator in hand.
One of the prisoners goes to the head of the guards in charge and tells him that he needs to take the detonator and “do what you shoulda did ten minutes ago.” The prisoner takes the detonator and throws it out the window.
Fox has traced Joker to an under-construction building. The hostages are there, along with his thugs—but the people in clown outfits holding guns are the hostages, the guns duct-taped to their hands and their faces hidden. Joker’s thugs are all wearing scrubs with their weapons hidden. Batman figures this out, and has to actually fight the SWAT units before they kill innocent civilians (whom they will think are bad guys who won’t drop their guns).
Batman and Joker then confront each other, and Batman stops him from detonating the ferries. When it’s over, Fox enters his name, and the entire sonar setup self-destructs.
But Joker is only half the problem. Dent has taken Gordon’s family hostage. Gordon tries to get Dent to set them free, as does Batman when he arrives, but he insists on using the coin to determine their fate. Batman tackles him before the coin can fall to determine Gordon’s son’s fate, and Batman manages to save the boy. Dent falls to his death, and Batman is pretty badly hurt.
In order to save Dent’s reputation, Batman tells Gordon to blame him for everything Dent did, including the deaths of Maroni, his driver, and two cops. They need Dent’s reputation to remain untarnished, otherwise Joker wins. Batman can take the hit—Gotham can’t.
“I’m an agent of chaos”
Up front let me say that The Dark Knight is, in my opinion, one of the best adaptations of a comic book ever done. There are a number of reasons for this.
For starters, this movie isn’t about Batman, it isn’t about the Joker, it isn’t about Harvey Dent or Jim Gordon—it’s about Gotham City. It reminds me a lot of The Wire—one of the three or four finest TV shows in the history of the medium—which isn’t really about any single person, but is instead about Baltimore. This is about Gotham, and how it is trying to crawl out of the depths of the previous movie, which was so bad that Ra’s al-Ghul wanted to blow it up rather than try to save it. Between Gordon and his less corruptible MCU (though not as incorruptible as Gordon himself might have hoped), Batman and his war on the criminal element, and prosecutors like Dent and Dawes, there’s actual hope in Gotham.
Into this comes the Joker, who is a self-stated agent of chaos. He does everything he can to stir the pot, from messing with the money made from criminality to threatening, and sometimes taking, the lives of prominent citizens to generally making people paranoid and scared. He’s a nihilist, with no desire to actually kill Batman, nor to accumulate wealth (he burns most of the money he gets from Lau), just to bring on the crazy.
Ledger’s Joker is a fascinating characterization—less completely batshit than the Nicholson or Hamill versions, not as goofy as Romero, and in many ways closer to the 1940s version of the character, albeit a 21st-century interpretation of that version. But he’s less a character than he is a force of nature, which is why I ultimately think he’s not the most interesting person in the movie. He’s a living catalyst, but he’s not actually a character.
No, the antagonist that makes my skin crawl, the one that I find frightening and effective isn’t the agent of chaos, it’s the hero who is destroyed and broken down and turned into a villain. Two-Face has always been one of Batman’s most fascinating villains, and he’s generally done right by here, though the story keeps the villain from attaining his true potential as a foe for Batman. Having said that, the story does do the most important part, which is the tragedy of Dent’s existence, which has been the heart of the character for seven decades. Eckhart gives the performance of a lifetime here, giving us Dent’s heroism, his passion, his anger—we see his dark side long before the explosion that destroys half his face. And we see how he’s utterly broken, not just by the explosion, but by losing Dawes. Gotham’s white knight has been corrupted utterly, turned into a murderer, the perfect embodiment of Joker’s corrupting influence.
But it’s not universal. There’s a lot of talk of heroism in this movie, with Batman insisting that he’s not a hero, and Gordon agreeing with him, saying that instead he’s a guardian—and maybe he is, maybe he isn’t. These three movies in general and this movie in particular tries to look at Batman-as-hero from many different angles. However, he’s not the biggest hero in the movie. That distinction goes jointly to the prisoner and the civilian passenger who choose not to blow up their fellows. And yes, the asshole who changes his mind is a hero because he thought it through. He recognized what responsibility he had taken on, to kill a boatful of people. Yes, most of them were criminals (though there were also guards and cops on board, not to mention the boat’s crew). But he would not kill them. And the prisoner who unhesitatingly tossed the detonator in one of the great misdirect scenes of all time was an even bigger hero because he knew the score. Both boats agreed that the prisoners “deserved” to die more, but the truth is that nobody deserves to die, and death is something that should be put off as long as possible, because you can’t take it back. That’s why Batman won’t kill—a rule that Nolan mercifully keeps intact, to the point that Batman is thrice tempted to kill Joker but refuses.
There are a lot of great performances here, but the ones that left me flattest are the two leads. Christian Bale’s performance is still all surface, though he has some excellent moments, particularly with Michael Caine’s Alfred. (“I suppose they’ll lock me up as well, as your accomplice.” “Accomplice? I’m going to tell them it was all your idea…”) Ledger is much the same—but then that’s actually fitting for their places in this film, because they’re both extreme symbols, Batman of order, the Joker of chaos. They’re not characters, they’re living archetypes. It’s left to Gordon and Dent and Dawes and the cops and the criminals and the rest to be the actual people affected by the conflict between Batman’s attempt to bring order to the cesspool of Gotham and Joker’s attempt to tear it all back down again.
Gary Oldman mumbles a bit too much, but his performance is earnest and heartfelt as he tries to hold together a corrupt police force with both hands. Maggie Gyllenhaal purses her lips a lot as Dawes, but she’s actually less interesting than Katie Holmes was in the previous film—though that’s more the fault of the script, as Dawes’s purpose in this film is to be The Dual Love Interest, and it’s spectacularly uninteresting. She’s also the only female speaking part of consequence aside from Detective Ramirez, presented as one of Gordon’s good cops, but who turns out to be one of the dirty ones. And then Dawes gets fridged so that Dent can become Two-Face. Sigh. Morgan Freeman is Morgan bloody Freeman, while Aaron Eckhart just knocks it out of the park.
What’s best about this movie, though, and why I admire it above almost all others I have done or will do in this rewatch, is that it’s the perfect adaptation of a standard superhero comic. Far too often, movie adaptations will either change the source material so much that it’s unrecognizable, or they’ll do an origin story or they’ll do something that utterly shatters the status quo. It’s very rare to find a superhero movie that just tells the latest in the ongoing adventures of the hero(es), even though that’s what makes up 99.9% of all superhero comics, and rarer still to find such a story that is actually any good. (I mean, to give two examples, Thor: Dark World and Superman III were like that, but they were not great. Ditto Joel Schumacher’s two Bat-films in the 1990s.) But when it works, it works spectacularly well (e.g., Spider-Man: Homecoming), and it’s what these movies should be more often than not. The Dark Knight is the only one of Nolan’s trilogy that is like that, because it’s telling the middle of Batman’s career, with Begins covering the beginning of it (obviously) and The Dark Knight Rises (which we’ll cover next week) covering the end of it.
It’s also by far the best of Nolan’s trilogy at least in part because of that. This is a pure Batman adventure, and it’s also a really really really good Batman adventure.
Nolan got to finish the trilogy four years later. Next week, we’ll take a gander at The Dark Knight Rises.
Keith R.A. DeCandido will be a guest at Shore Leave 40 in Cockeysville, Maryland, just north of Baltimore, this weekend. Other guests include actors William Shatner, Ming-Na Wen, Alison Scagliotti, Shawn Ashmore, Peter Williams, Peter Kelamis, Aron Eisenberg, and Chase Masterson; fellow authors Christopher L. Bennett, Greg Cox, Peter David, Mary Fan, Michael Jan Friedman, David Mack, Mike & Denise Okuda, Hildy Silverman, Dayton Ward, Howard Weinstein, and tons more; plus science, performing, and arts guests. Keith will be there both as an author and a musician, as his band Boogie Knights will be performing Saturday morning and as the masquerade halftime. Get his full schedule here.
What I remember about this film is that I waited several weeks to see it, initially because I was busy, but then it was attracting so much critical praise that I feared it was a “broccoli movie” — the opposite of a “popcorn movie” — the kind of movie that has an important message that you’re supposed to ruminate on, and feel uncomfortable while you’re watching. You go to a broccoli movie because you’re supposed to, not because you want to have fun. I didn’t know how you could make a superhero movie into a broccoli movie, but I wasn’t sure I wanted to find out.
After, I confessed that it wasn’t as serious and un-fun as I’d feared, but it was a darned good movie while still being very dark. And my fear was that WB would learn the wrong lesson, just as the comics world learned the wrong lesson from Dark Knight Returns, and decide that the “dark and gritty” aspect was the most important thing. Fortunately, Marvel was already committed to their long-term plan by then, and as for the DCCU…well, we know how that turned out.
While I really like this movie, in retrospect I am bugged by the fact that the plot doesn’t really make much sense because Joker just kind of magically gets away with so much. Like the universe is conspiring to keep him safe. The opening bank robbery is a great scene but how the hell could he have timed and positioned everything so the guy would get hit by a bus? How did he know that the guy with a bomb would be in the right place, and that he would be able to get a cellphone? Or that no cop would just shoot him while he was getting apprehended since that tends to happen to cop-killers.
Also what happened after Batman jumped out of the party to save Rachel. Did the Joker just walk away?
My wife and I love comic book movies. We’ve seen dozens in theaters. This was the first movie that she walked out on in the middle. The tone, the pacing, the chaos of it was not to her taste and she spent the second half of the film in our car in the parking lot knitting. She refused to see the third one at all.
I enjoyed the film personally, but it was exhausting cinema and I’m not entirely sure I understand why it gets the love that it gets. It is a good film, certainly, but very far from the ones that we enjoyed the most.
This is the movie that, more than any other movie ever made, if I had one wish it would be to erase from existence. It so empowered the grimdark and nasty fan boys,it rammed nihilism into the movies in a way we’ve never managed to clean off, and it utterly destroyed DC’s superhero slate to the point that we still can’t get a decent DCCU movie because everyone keeps on wanting to come back, like a dog to its vomit, to this stinking mess of garbage.
Actually, no. I’m wrong. I’d erase the Incredibles because of that damn “no capes meme”, but this is still the closest second. God, I hate it.
And I still maintain that the only reason it gets half the positive reviews that it does is because Ledger died so soon after making it. Critics always go easy on movies like that, and praise the deceased actor. I don’t think they even know they are doing it half the time, but take Ledger’s death away from it and you’ve just got a nasty movie about nasty people doing nasty things and everybody accepting nasty justifications. At least Batman had a cape though.
I don’t get why you call the movie nihilistic, it seems the opposite. Joker thinks that people are intrinsically selfish and murderous, but the boat scene says that he is wrong. The point of view of the movie is that people are, for the most part, basically good and helpful even in bad circumstances.
@@.-@ random22 I won’t debate the quality of TDK as a movie, but isn’t the grim and gritty portrayal of Batman pretty much baked into the character? Leaving aside the Sprang years (which I’ve admittedly never really read from), generally the most successful comic book portrayals of Batman have been grim and gritty. My personal favourite is when Batman is something close to Elliot Ness in a mask.
I think Batman needs to be something of an anti-hero. Someone who, whatever his personal failings, is the only one willing to even try holding back the tide of crime and corruption. That calls for a noir-ish and potentially nihilistic story. What kind of story would you prefer to see in a movie about Batman?
If there are too many other brave and honest citizens of Gotham, then to me that negates the need for a Batman. Wayne could just as well work through official channels to clean up the city.
@2 neaden I have trouble with this in Joker stories sometimes too. First, how can the Joker even recruit any henchmen in the first place? Greed doesn’t seem to be enough of a motive, as we know how mercurial his temperament is. Do you really want to bet that the Joker doesn’t turn on you or just kill you as a random act?
Second, the Joker is sometimes shown to execute meticulous plans. I feel this goes against his character as an agent of chaos. Isn’t he more likely to simply have objectives and then improvise or let the chips fall where they may in pursuit of his goals? I would like to see a movie where the Joker is often thwarted, but he treats it as no big thing and just keeps almost effortlessly moving forward in different ways. Then again, this works better for smaller, more personal stories. I guess if you want big, city-wide threats then you need a Joker who is capable of being the general of his own criminal army.
4 — Nasty people doing nasty things? I think you’re confusing this movie with the later works of Zack Snyder. Now those are nasty movies. TDK makes a good case against the Joker’s nihilism.
For me, this is essentially the 21st century “Empire Strikes Back:” a sequel that improves in nearly every way on the original by twisting familiar tropes in new directions. It’s also a movie in which the only real victory our heroes scrape out is survival. At the end, corruption has won the day. Harvey Dent is dead and gone. Gordon must hunt his friend. The “savior” of the city is now considered a murderer at large. Sure, the citizens don’t do what the Joker wants, but it still feels like his goals are mostly achieved.
Unfortunately, as happened with “Empire,” the concluding chapter is a bit of a letdown …
The irony of someone who freely throws around words like ‘vomit’ and ‘stinking mess of garbage’ and wishing for the erasure of something so many others genuinely enjoy (not to mention the vitriol towards some other widely enjoyed piece of fiction just because it talks against capes), accusing something of being grim and gritty and nasty, that is just rich.
Like, darn, that’s grim, gritty and nasty posting behavior down to a tee, son. Sorry, just saying.
Can someone explain the ending of the movie to me? I’ve never understood why Batman felt it was necessary to take on the crimes of Two-Face.
So his rationale is that Dent’s reputation needs to be untarnished so that Gotham can have a shining symbol of hope. I think maybe showing that the Joker couldn’t corrupt his integrity even under strong duress?
But even if Dent didn’t turn, he failed to stop the Joker and he failed to keep his fiancee or even himself alive. Maybe I’m a little too practical, but I don’t see this as being something to emulate.
Really the only thing that I get out of the ending is that Batman is willing to shoulder any sacrifice to help Gotham.
“I feel this goes against his character as an agent of chaos. Isn’t he more likely to simply have objectives and then improvise or let the chips fall where they may in pursuit of his goals?”
One of the many vices of the Joker is he’s a hypocrite, though. One of the reasons why he’s so often called out on his philosophies and actions across the media is because he’ll basically just accuse others of something or another while he’s just as bad or worse (like whenever he mocks Luthor about being obsessed with Superman, or calling him out of all things on NOT killing Batman when he has him trapped in the Justice League animated show).
In this movie, his hipocrisy lies in his claiming to be chaos while, in a way, carefully sticking to an order of its own. Maybe it should have been pointed out to him by someone else at some point, but to be honest everyone had far worse things to hold against him by the time the movie is over, so it’s understandable that’d be the last thing they’d care about.
I’d call this in my personal opinion the best live action supehero movie tied with the first Avengers film. The problem is, Warner didn’t notice its tone was right for a very specific kind of superhero movie, the dark urban vigilante type. They later tried to apply the same tone (but worse and exaggerated) to Superman, who should have had the Avengers/MCU tone instead.
Good review, Keith. Not sure how you didn’t like Ledger’s performance, though…
I’d erase the Incredibles because of that damn “no capes meme”
@@.-@ – That bit in The Incredibles was a direct homage/reference to Alan Moore’s Watchmen, which along with the Fantastic Four was pretty much the source material for the film.
And let’s face it, capes are pretty stupid. Who outside of Superman and Batman wears one? Jon J’onnz sometimes, the Phantom Stranger, and that’s about it. I can’t think of a single Marvel character who wears one.
@14 – Supergirl, Mon’El, Thor, Doctor Strange, Robin, Storm…
Just a few comic book and/or TV show heroes that all wear capes…
@11: I figured it had something to do with what the mayor was talking about earlier in the movie, when he and Dent are talking about all the arrests he made. The big reason for why it works is because the public likes Dent, so anything that makes him look bad could end up ruining what they’d just achieved.
Storm and Thor wear capes. So does the Vision.
—Keith R.A. DeCandido
@11 & @16 – Also, if Dent turns out to be a criminal, all the cases that allowed him to successfully put criminals in jail would then need to be reviewed and risk being dropped and those criminals let loose. If he remains a good person, there’s no reason to review all his cases.
Of course in taking the fall for Dent, Gordon and Batman are essentially covering up crimes and being corrupt themselves.
Doesn’t Dent shoot Wuertz in a bar in front of a whole bunch of people? And the Lau sub-plot feels completely superfluous.
I enjoyed this movie the first time I saw it, but I enjoy it less and less every time I think about it. I understand what Keith is saying about setting up the opposing archetypes of Order and Chaos, but the events of the movie don’t seem to follow any sort of logical progression.
(Edited to correct the name)
Sigh. Here we go. I am one of those who severely…DISLIKES this movie. Mainly, as a few have pointed out, the Joker. Not his portrayal. That was quite good. But how everything he did just fell into place. This is admittedly a pet-peeve of mine. Convoluted plans that only work of everyone does actually what they were expected to do. I known terrorist is captured and wont stop insisting on a phone. He plan stops if no one gives in. The first scene has him drive into a line of buses with kids, precisely into a gap And nobody notices!
I could go on and on, but after a while I got tired of everything falling into place no matter what. For a self-professed master of chaos, the timing of the world to his plans is staggering. By the time the dressed up hostage scene was on is was just tired of it. My brother (who loves the film) points out that instead of plans, it’s just hundred of plans in motion that he adapts to as needed. That doesn’t work either since that means all the resolutions are meaningless. With Gotham detonating with millions dead as the credits roll.
But I fully admit that is my issue. I also did not like how this style of villein started to crop up in other works. Skyfall fell apart in the second half because Javier Bardem’s character was way to much like Ledger’s take on the antagonist. (He knew EXACTLY when to get shot at in order to drop a subway car on Bond). But I would never begrudge someone else from enjoying something that bugs me.
Oh, as for the ending. Why couldn’t Batman and Gorden just pick up one of the random henchpeople and blame them. No reason it HAS to be the Dark Knight.
All that being said, I absolutely loved the twin boat dilemma and how it was resolved. That was a master class of tension and I adore “Tini” Lister just throwing the bomb overboard.
I think the boat dilemma is what keeps this movie from being grimdark, but I think a lot of people have attempted to over emphasize/emulate the wrong parts of this movie.
Anyway, – I have a lot of strong memories around this movie, especially as it came out just as I had left graduate school and started a new job. In fact, I remember being a bit overwhelmed with said new job and in a pretty low place the weekend we went to see this movie. But, now here I am, still there :)
I don’t have all that much to say – I agree with you on pretty much all points here.
The thing about Rachel Dawes is that she’s much more interesting in the previous movie in part because she’s not really relegated to love interest at all. There’s maybe a few hinted moments, and then the kiss at the end, but for the most part she does her own thing, outside of her relationship to Wayne. In this movie she has a little less to do on that front.
I think capes would have a better reputation among the practical minded if we saw our heroes take them off before going into battle. Because there’s a good reason you see boxers and wrestlers and other brawlers remove their robes and elaborate costumes before a fight. You don’t want to give your opponent any loose fabric to grab, especially one that’s conveniently wrapped around your neck!
@20: Wuertz, not Ramirez.
” Why couldn’t Batman and Gorden just pick up one of the random henchpeople and blame them. No reason it HAS to be the Dark Knight.”
As @19 already said, just by covering Dent’s ass up, Gordon and Batman are already compromising themselves morally. This isn’t this much of an issue for Batman, since vigilantism already is technically a moral compromise for a greater good, including the brutalizing of perps and suspects, but taking another’s blame for oneself is one thing; shifting that legal blame on someone else goes far beyond that, and taking into account Dent’s crimes might be even death penalty worthy for someone without an insanity excuse (something most random henchmen wouldn’t have) it’s basically damning a person, even a criminal, to likely execution over something they didn’t.
Wuertz was alone in the bar with Dent.
—Keith R.A. DeCandido
I know everybody loves The Dark Knight and I do really like it but Batman is probably one of my least favourite things in the film. In my head Batman occupies this exaggerated towering city with a group of other outlandish characters good, bad and in between but to me this film seems to be about some lunatic that dresses up in a Halloween costume and beats up criminals in Chicago. I think making the world seem pretty much our world (and not trying at all to disguise Chicago, from an admittedly clueless British perspective!) just made the character seem as daft and hard to take seriously as he would be if he was real.
Everything other than Batman I thought was great:)
This is the best super hero movie. Personally I love the dark knight trilogy and hate the MCU. Or really I am indifferent to it.
the people in the comments that are bashing it are bashing it because it’s chic to bash things that are popular or good. Not because they deserve bashing.
I don’t think anybody’s bashing it because it was “popular or good.” I think some people didn’t like it, many of them (myself included) because it was too dark for them. That’s a legitimate preference. Some people like Hieronymus Bosch, others prefer Monet.
@14, 15, 17 Captain Marvel (of the Shazam! variety) and his Family, as well as the Alan Scott Green Lantern spotted capes, as did the Lynda Carter Wonder Woman on a couple of occasions, though mostly for non Crime Fighting purposes…BTW it actually took a couple of viewings but I really enjoyed Dark Knight, IMO the best film based on Batman…
Not hardly. I grew up on the large-format reprints of Batman stories of the 40s, and my favorite epithet is not ‘The Dark Knight’ or ‘The Caped Crusader’ – but ‘The World’s Greatest Detective’. Batman’s world then was dark and dangerous, but not cynical – a difference that makes all the difference to me.
I’m not a fan of the 60s camp Batman, but I’m emphatically not a fan of grimdark Batman either. The best Batman for me always strikes a balance – serious and having to deal with serious matters in a serious world, but honorable and a true hero. Not an anti-hero.
Anybody else bothered by the this particular design of Harvey Dent’s face? With that massive a burn, shouldn’t he contract gangrene and whole-body sepsis in short order? He’s more “hamburger face” than “two-face”.
(This design, with exposed bone, seems to be the basis for the Billy Dee Williams-voiced minifig version in “The LEGO Batman Movie” — https://brickset.com/minifigs/sh395/two-face-(70915))
I prefer the version from “Batman: The Animated Series” (1989). True, I don’t know what kind of injury would turn half your face blue, but this is a world where the wrong kind of cosmetic can turn you into a mass of shape-shifting clay or ink.
I guess I can see what folks mean with their criticisms of the Joker, here, but my negative feelings mostly had to do with all the Joker fanboys who thought being “chaotic” (ie. uncaring, “random” and with inappropriate sense of humor) was badass. That gets REAL OLD. I’m surprised my brother even saw this, he actually has a half-Joker smile (dog big him in the face as a kid) and was asked “why so serious” almost constantly leading up to the movie. But he did up some make up and hair dye, got a Hawaiian shirt and went full Killing Joke at the theatre so apparently not.
I’m sure there are other plot holes, but HOW does one convince a prestigious ballet company to just…hang out on a yacht rather than perform at an extremely prestigious theatre. It doesn’t matter how much money you have, dancers are super dedicated and kiting off like that last minute would seriously impact their careers. I disliked their being written as airhead model substitutes.
@32 — No, it bothered me as well — mostly because I had trouble believing his one eye would be intact given all of the surrounding damage, and that he’d be able to enunciate clearly with no lips on one side of his face. Richard Harrow in Boardwalk Empire seems like a more … realistic version of that kind of injury.
(Although, to be fair, Dent wasn’t actually around all that long after he got injured, so there might just not have been time for the sepsis, gangrene, etc., after he left the hospital.)
@32. I agree with your regarding Harvey’s burns. That level of facial burn would have cooked his eye and also have made it impossible for him to breathe unaided. He ought to have been intubated and placed in a medically induced coma, and been kept in a dedicated burns unit for round the clock constant care for quite some considerable period of time. Even then it would be touch and go if he would survive at all. In a film filled with unrealistic stuff; that Harvey was capable of even sitting upright on his own, much less talking and walking around shooting people, is the most unrealistic of all.
I also mean no disrespect to Heath Ledger but…I have to say I preferred Jack Nicholson’s take on the Joker (and Mark Hamill’s as well, of course). Keith notes that the latter two were “batsh!t insane” and for me, especially in the case of Nicholson’s Joker, that made the character legitimately frightening. Nicholson’s Joker IS a joke, a bad cartoon character – until he’s suddenly not. Maybe it’s just because I saw the 1989 “Batman” at a young age so it was especially formative, but to me Nicholson’s Joker is the perfect evil, insane, completely out-of-control clown, which made him terrifying to me as a wee Jaime and which still scares me now.
(If I put my mind to it, I could *probably* trace out the similarities between that version of the Joker and Pennywise…)
@vinsentient: I thought the 1989 film dealt with the issue of WHY anyone would voluntarily be one of the Joker’s henchmen quite well. The Joker hadn’t *been* the Joker for very long, so presumably his henchmen weren’t fully aware of what he was capable. I too have trouble believing that anyone like the Joker would have reliable, non-insane followers in the long run.
@1102292928: I’m not “bashing” “The Dark Knight” in a hipster-y way, nor do I think anyone else here is either, as Paul MacDonald pointed out. It is a perfectly solid film and I enjoyed it when I first saw it and have since re-watched it. I just think it doesn’t necessarily live up to the hype that has grown up around it. To be honest, that is kind of how I feel about Frank Miller’s “The Dark Knight Returns” (which, at least to me, feels aesthetically similar to the film “The Dark Knight”). Liked the graphic novel, liked the film. However, both have inspired a depth of adoration to the extent that they are held up as the pinnacle of Batman narratives, which I don’t think they are.
I also kind of feel that way about Alan Moore’s “Watchmen” *ducking and covering.*
i think honestly it’s disrespectful to Ledger to say “well because he died the movie was praised” the implication this criticism makes is that the performance is only praised because the performer died and the praisers are afraid to speak ill of the dead praisee. Not because of the quality of the performance itself.
Honestly that’s just disgusting and inappropriate. Heath Ledger’s joker was of course one interpretation of a character that has been around for over 70 years but it was most definitely a good interpretation and artistic portrayal therof.
As for Dent’s facial injuries-I don’t think their realistic but that’s a minor quibble in my opinion. The Nolan Trilogy aimed for realism or at least the appearance therof most of the time-if it didn’t always meet that I don’t reason to hold that against it.
This is a batman movie I will periodically rewatch, and I’m not much of a superhero fan(that’s my brother’s forte) but I do reserve an enduring love and appreciation for the Nolan Trilogy.
@37: I don’t think they’re saying that the movie, or Ledger’s Joker didn’t deserve praise. It’s that it got more attention because of it, and a lot of people who were praising it probably wouldn’t have given it a second look otherwise. That’s why I think it got “more praise than it deserved” (a common complaint about it), because it had more eyes on it than it normally would have.
I think Ledger did a good Joker. Different, yet perfectly valid, especially for the tone of the Nolanverse. However, I can’t honestly say that I think it deserved an Oscar. Now, I don’t really remember who the other nominees were that year, but I probably didn’t see any of those movies. Would he have still won if he had still been alive? Would he even have been nominated if his death hadn’t brought all that extra attention? Maybe, or maybe not.
Thinking about it now, all these years later, the fact that he did win brought a legitimacy to Superhero movies, and to the SFF world in general, and should be considered a “win” for all of us, even though the root of it all was the tragic loss of a magnificent actor.
How does the Joker hire henchmen? Well, the economy in 2008 wasn’t so hot, and Joker pays in advance and has pizza night Fridays.
What I don’t understand is, if Bruce Wayne and Batman are two different people, why can’t Harvey Dent and Two-Face be two different dudes? One can take the blame and the other remains sterling. We went years thinking Anakin and Darth Vader were two dudes…
Ah, what to say about this one? I agree about the characterisation of the Joker as an agent of chaos. It’s traditional for superhero films to stop at some point and explain the villain’s original and back story, so that the audience nod and go “Ah, that’s why he’s the way he is.” Here, the Joker gives several explanations, all of which contradict each other and all of which are probably untrue. There’s no explanation for the Joker, he simply is. I’m reminded of the assessment of Kronos from the Highlander series: “He didn’t set fire to those villages for a few horses. He did it to watch them burn.” The Joker just wants to watch Gotham burn, while Batman has become a symbol of hope, that one man can stand up to the corruption and inspire others to do so.
I seem to remember that the Joker had actually switched the bombs on the boats, so the one that pressed the detonator would be the one that gets blown up. I guess that adds to the symbolism: The one that presses the button and chooses to commit mass murder is the one that “deserves” to die. Instead, both buttons remain unpressed.
I also seem to recall Ramirez’s fate was rather ambiguous and Two-Face is simply seen to knock her out?
@40.
It isn’t that this joker has switched the bombs on the boats, it is that it doesn’t matter who presses the button they both blow up. When he sees they haven’t exploded as planned, he pulls out his own detonator and tries to blow them up with that. It only has one switch, one frequency, one transmission. It means that it didn’t matter who pressed the button both boats would have gone up. It was a sadistic trick all along, in-universe I mean.
@1102292928 – I don’t think the author or anyone in the comments is disrespecting Heath Ledger. As LazerWulf said, his interpretation of the Joker was different, but also valid. Just because I prefer the Jack Nicholson or Mark Hamill Joker and am not incredibly fond of “The Dark Knight” doesn’t equal disrespecting a very talented actor who died too soon.
I personally (and all this is IMHO), think that it is kind of a disservice to Ledger’s acting talent that he will probably be mostly remembered for his role as the Joker. For my money, his best acting was in “Brokeback Mountain.” I know it’s super problematic when straight actors portray Queer characters (I am Queer myself so this is an issue about which I feel strongly), but Ledger’s performance was just…heart-wrenching. The film is actually the reason why one of my friends broke off her engagement. This friend and I were in the same class in graduate school, and the professor told us all to watch and read “Brokeback Mountain” for homework. My friend watched it with her then-fiance, who was a straight man. She said he was deeply disgusted by it and got angry that she asked him to watch it, which made her realize that she couldn’t marry somone so homophobic. The happy ending here is that she eventually married someone else (who was once my officemate), and who is an incredibly nice and tolerant man.
(I’d also like to note that I have watched “Brokeback Mountain” with my mostly-straight male partner. It made him cry. A LOT. My partner said that he saw it as a tragic love story and that he *completely* believed both Gyllenhaal’s and *especially*Ledger’s performaces as people who loved each other deeply but were kept apart because of homophobia and social “conventions.”)
@41
Ah, okay. I obviously remembered that a bit wrong. So I guess in the Joker’s mind, both boats were doomed either way, he just wanted to make one of them press the button. (I remember the bit where Batman says “Shouldn’t those boats have blown up by now?” and the Joker realises they both ignored his deadline.
@39 SahraB
It is a Schrodinger Cat situation. Once you have the body what you might be able to deny due to lack of proof can become valid.If said person whom is really responsible is still out there you post pone the “reveal”. One person claiming credit for it, leaves much less room for those outside to scrutinize.
My one major complaint is that Batman here is one who endures. Is willing to take all this punishment, yet when the next movie comes out we learn this is his last sighting till those events. There is a disconnect between TDK and TDKR that needs to be discussed that wasn’t present between BBB and TDK. I know part is due to ledger dying ( he died after filming, but before the release of the film. the window was wider than people remember, but his final movie was so forgotten that this is what he is remembered for). Nolan had said he planned on using Joker again, but fate had other ideas.
I was amazed to learn that the ferry scene had been a relatively late addition to the script, because I am in ironclad agreement with krad that it’s the spiritual center of the movie. Having already presented us with one of the absolute best superhero stories ever put to film, the Nolan brothers and Goyer then pull out the rug and reveal that the hero of the picture is not Batman, nor Gordon, nor Dent — it’s instead all of the nameless ferry passengers, who keep their world livable by refusing to kill out of fear. Just like real life, the true heroes of which we will never know because their greatest feat is showing restraint.
However, I couldn’t disagree more with the idea that the Joker as written and performed is a surface-level agent of chaos. That’s what he claims to be, but as Batman eventually figures out, it’s just a mask for the very personal torment that really drives him. The Ledger Joker is a guy who’s just healthy enough to know he’s sick; deep down, he knows his amorality makes him an anomaly, and he’s desperate to avoid that fact by convincing himself and everyone around him that he’s just a slightly more extreme version of what everybody is. Look at his reaction of swift denial when the other gangsters dare to call him a freak. Look at his expression of complete despair and loneliness when he realizes the ferry passengers have chosen not to kill. As Batman says, “What were you trying to prove? That deep down, everyone is as ugly as you?” Exactly.
@2/Neaden: The one deleted scene from the film shows the Joker and his men leaving Wayne’s penthouse after their failed attempt to get Dent.
@33/Ophid: How does a billionaire convince a ballet company to blow off an important performance to go sailing? I guess the same way some criminal plant is able to get a false obituary of the town’s mayor into one of its major newspapers without anybody up the editorial chain balking. Talk about a plot point that needed some elaboration. ;)
@43/cap-mjb: I’ve seen the movie a whole bunch of times, and I don’t recall any implication that the detonators on the ferrys would actually blow up both boats. As far as I’ve ever understood it, the Joker was telling the truth: Each ferry detonator would blow up the other boat, and his personal detonator would blow up both of them.
Thank you, Keith, for this awesome review. Agree with some of your ideas, disagree with others; but it´s one of the best reviews I´ve ever read on TDK.
It´s quite interesting that, even after a decade (!!!!!!!!) of its release, this movie is still able to generate this level of discussion.
KAsiki: this was not Ledger’s last film. His last film was The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus, which had to come up with a very creative method of working around his death, since he was only about half done with filming when he died.
—Keith R.A. DeCandido
put me down in the dislike group. How is it BATMAN (who is motivaved by anger) cant understand not all crime is motivated by greed?
@48. It’s been several years since I last watched the movie. Wasn’t Joker taking money from the mob? But then he burns it all, right? I think it was the taking money part is what confused Batman. If not greed, then what? Not many criminals are out there trying to make a point about human nature.
@50/tachyon,
“Not many criminals are out there trying to make a point about human nature.”
Not consciously, perhaps. But given that the legal use of their talents is likely to lead to better outcomes, one wonders if they are in some strange sense sacrificing themselves to make a point – namely, that people are no damned good, and can’t be trusted.
@45/Stephen Schneider: Okay, well now I’m very confused. I’m fairly certain there was a twist that the detonators didn’t do what the Joker claimed they did. But maybe I invented that.
I don’t think the Joker was a surface-level agent of chaos, as has been pointed out his plans were too elaborate for that. But he doesn’t get anything out of it on a material level: No wealth, no power. It’s simply what he does to pass the time.
@52 I don’t think the movie explicitly stated that there was a twist with the detonators, but your reading of the scene does make sense to me. The detonator the Joker pulls out is visually identical to the ones on the ferries, and he only has one of them, like you pointed out. That deception would be very much in-character for him.
On the complaints that the Joker’s plans always run perfectly but rely too much on coincidence, I think that’s mitigated somewhat by the movie pointing out he operates on a combination of detailed contingency planning and improvisation. “I just do things!” When the clown pulls a gun on him in the bank, the Joker checks his watch, then moves to position the clown to be run over. He didn’t plan to take that clown out with the bus, but the opportunity presented itself because he knew exactly what time the bus would come through the wall. To us, the viewers, it looks like his plans all run perfectly because we don’t know when he switches to plan B because plan A didn’t work, or when he modifies a plan halfway through to take advantage of new opportunities.
I don’t think there are nearly as many plot holes as people claim. The Joker built in contingencies, back up plans. He builds in a certain amount of flexibility then once he sees the results stops and plans the next phase. For example yes the Joker leaves the party after Batman saves Rachel. He came there for Dent but at that point he believes Batman just showed himself to be Dent. Rather than try to fight Batman on the fly he retreats to rethink and plan.
It doesn’t matter that his transmitter/detonator has only one button because its stated purpose was to blow two bombs at once. He does not need one for each, just two receivers/detonators on each bomb. One receiver to the trigger on the other boat and a pair that match to the joker. He would not need separate triggers for each because he does not have a need to only blow one.
That’s not to say that he is not lying about each boat having the trigger to the other boat, it could just as easily be that both triggers will blow both boats or that both boat’s triggers will blow only the boat they are on. It’s just that the Joker’s trigger only having one setting is not any kind of proof for what his actual plan was.
Of course if his plan was to blow both boats by a certain time (if they have not already) then it would be much simpler to just set a timer than to even have his own detonator to begin with.
Wow, so many who disliked it? I’m speechless. I think myself as mostly too critic, but I can’t say anything bad about this flick it’s near perfect. PERFECT (well yeah except Gyllenhall’s part as KRAD said and Bale is not the best bat out there, but his dialogues with Alfred are best of all other adaptations.) .
KRAD – so what if he’s an agent of chaos, he’s been portrayed and played great. just look at his eyes twitching as he cooly talks with the cop who wants to beat him up in interogation. I mean guys, Ledger dived deep to give as a true mad Joker, not just the usual Nicholson’s “I’m mad look at me, wheeee” … (and with all respect to Hamill, how can you compare voice acting to actual acting, if Hamill would really play the part he would not deliver)
Ledger tried so much to become a sick person , that it maybe effected his early passing. I mean it’s an action flick, but he took his part serious as he did his research for his part just as serious as with a drama movie reaching for the oscar. That’s a true actor to the core. Most actors don’t try too much, they act much the same in most of their movies, even though the characters differ. Ledger showed us all how a true actor is foremost his character and then maybe he thinks how do I look? Am I cool enough? Will I again be in the top ten hottest actors of this year? let’s show them my perfect smile again…
it’s one of the few, very few movies that by the end, I started seing it again from the beginning as I couldn’t leave it. I can’t begin to describe how near perfect it was. (yes I too think that Lau’s kidnapping was a bit bad with the pacing, but it was neccessary to establish the sonic technobabble)
just one more thing about Bale, even though I prefered Kilmer’s and Affleck’s Bruce Wayne it’s just because of their strong presence. Bale is more… well… a usual guy. But that’s the thing with Nolan’s vision, to give as a close to reality version of the bat. And as said before, besides his conversations with Neeson in which Bale didn’t shine, his conversations with all others are great moments.
I’ve only seen each of these once. I wan’t a huge fan of them. I liked the first Burton Batman, but none of the others. These were better, but the plots were so convoluted and circuitous that I needed much better performances than I got to want to rewatch them.
My personal tastes run to action films being funny. And that’s what these are–they are action films. They aren’t dramas with an action set piece or two. And they don’t really work as dramas (especially this one), because the lead character doesn’t change much. That’s probably why I liked the first film and third film better than this one. They work better as dramas, because Bruce Wayne goes on an arc in each. Here, he just doesn’t, and “Why so serious?” – ironically enough – pretty sums up the film for me.
Re Harvey being the real bad guy. The Writing excuses Podcast did an amazing take on the “Hollywood Formula” of three major characters (Protagonist, Antagonist and Relationship Character) where they point out like you did – that Harvey is the true antagonist as he prevents Bruce from getting what he wants (to retire) while the Joker is actually the relationship character as he is the only one who gets Bruce (Your a freak, like me).
Great film, disturbing but fascinating themes. The Joker remains a fascinating character in part because of his meaninglessness, the fact he tells a different story about his scars to different people – which indicate something more disturbing than the stories (he just enjoys messing with people). The line “Some men can’t be bought, bullied or bargained with, some men just want to watch the world burn ” is probably the most frightening line in recent years of cinema. Literally, thank God not many of these people exist.
Quoth Schwartz: “(and with all respect to Hamill, how can you compare voice acting to actual acting, if Hamill would really play the part he would not deliver)”
Easily. And Hamill did more with his voice than anyone — Romero, Nicholson, Ledger, Leto — has managed with their entire bodies. It’s a testament to how perfect Hamill was in the role.
I feel the same about Kevin Conroy’s Batman: nobody in live-action, not Lowery, Wilson, West, Keaton, Kilmer, Clooney, Bale, or Affleck has been as good as Conroy’s voice in capturing the character.
—Keith R.A. DeCandido
Even though KRAD, some guys have a huge talent with their voice. It is to be commended, but to say that as a whole he did the part better than Jack/Heath ? Sorry I don’t get how it is comparable, try to imagine him actually playing the part and tell me with a straight face that hands down he would deliver just as he did with the voice acting. Some guys are better with voice, some have a wider body or face language. You can’t just take one aspect in acting (with all due respect voice acting is not the most important of the others in a close up movie unlike theater) , and saying that’s the best. It’s like saying that if a movie scored high with the script that it automatically says that the actors and director etc where top notch.
So yeah, he’s the best with his voice, great, but it is uncomparable to others as a full package performance. I’m not defending this movie here, just stating the logic of such a comparison. Though you could say that the cartoon joker played out by Hamill nails it more than the others, but that’s beside Hamill’s acting because were talking about comparing a cartoon version to real life acting, in which point I would dimly understand the comparison. Or I would rather say the comic adaptation nailed the character more than all actors did. That’s ok as long as you don’t talk about the acting for both sides, rather then acting vs sketched comics (with voice acting, yes) .
@38:
Heath Ledger’s competitors for Best Supporting Actor were Josh Brolin in Milk, Robert Downey in Tropic Thunder, Philip Seymour Hoffman in Doubt and Michael Shannon in Revolutionary Road. (So, up against Iron Man and Thanos.)
@60/James:
And General Zod.
I think Mark Hammill would have made a fine live action Joker, actually. Basically his Trickster but with a much more intense edge to him, something Hammill would have understood since he’s a major comics fan after all.
Regarding the detonators, while I think Joker was saying the truth that time, if I were a Gothamite I wouldn’t be taking anything of what he says at face value, especially since he’d already backpedalled on things like wanting to have Batman’s secret identity revealed. Were I in one of those boats I’d be shouting something like “What if we blow ourselves up by pressing that button?!” There’s never a safe way to say, from an in-universe perspective, when Joker is whimsically ‘playing fair’ and when he feels like ignoring the rules and lying out his teeth.
Schwartz: we’ve seen Hamill do the equivalent of a live action Joker in two episodes of the 1990 Flash TV series. I stand by my assertion.
—Keith R.A. DeCandido
Hamill has also done versions of Trickster on the CW Flash show. He remains Joker-like.
If you ever see him at conventions, he will sometimes do short bits in character as Joker. It’s not just the voice. He falls into this leering Jokerish facial expression as well. Now, he’s too old to be cast in the part now, but back in the day he totally could have nailed it.
Speaking of voice acting, what about what Ledger did with his voice? It sounds completely different from his real voice. And what about his, “LOOK AT ME!” Chills.
@62: Yeah, considering that this is the guy who deliberately tricked Batman and the GCPD into going after the wrong people, I wouldn’t put it past him to do something like that.
As for the whole “agent of chaos” thing, you could easily argue that it’s like what Batman told Harley in “Mad Love” – he’ll use whatever might get past someone’s defenses, and has no problem lying his ass off in the process. (See the bit about Rachel – he claimed to not know her name, but somehow her name ended up on that one fake guard’s name tag at the attempted assassination.)
The Spectre also wears a cape, although I suppose he’s less likely to trip over it being a ghost and all. :)
Of course, Zorro is the probably the one that kicked off capes as a superhero accessory.
I do not think there was any twist with the triggers mentioned in the film. While such a cruel deception would be consistent with the Joker’s perversity, storywise it would undermine the moral choice made by the people on the boats if, ultimately, they saved their own lives by not pressing the button.
And Krad, I hope you’ll someday share with me(us if it’s here) your views concerning the Matrix.
Nonetheless thanks for this and other really great reviews. I’m waiting for every new one.
p.s. I also loved Eckharts performance, he is perfectly fitted for his role (just like Heath in my opinion. After so many decades of the joker, it stands to reason that there are character traits that differ as some are more humorous while others more off a menace, so I don’t expect Ledger or anyone to reach for them all, as it is not possible. If you tend to like the comical more than the dangerous type, that’s fine (maybe what I would prefer as well), but Nolan going for a more real world like menace(as everything he tried to achieve with his take on) he chose the less funny one, and that type of Joker Ledger delivered perfectly.)
oh, another thing, in wikipedia “reception” of the movie I’m not alone there, and if you checked it, he was by them critics praised for the oscar before his tragic end. So I think yours is not the popular view not only by the genaral public, but by fellow reviewers. Of course you have the right for your opinion no matter what others say. Just thought to balance a bit several posts here, reagarding this movie (being rated in IMDB as, if I remember correctly, somewhere in the top ten OF ALL TIMES!!)
I do not think there was any twist with the triggers mentioned in the film.
No. And yet it does sound very familiar… am I confusing it with the earlier twist, where he gives Batman the wrong locations for Rachel Dawes and Harvey Dent? Am I thinking of a different film?
The only thing I can think of that’s vaguely similar is in The Fourth Protocol; the Russian villain’s been told “now, once you have the bomb in place, press the yellow button and you’ll have two hours to get clear. But if, god forbid, you have to sacrifice yourself for the mission, press the red button, and it’ll go off right away.” In reality, we discover, both buttons set the bomb off immediately; the GRU has no intention of leaving inconvenient officers alive.
Anyone? This seems like the sort of thing that should have come up in other action films.
I think the Joker was absolutely certain that the people in both boats would choose to kill the others, proving to himself that the non-criminals were just like the criminals. And ultimately, both boats were doomed, because as he proved, he was willing to blow them both up to prove his point. He couldn’t leave either population alive to refute that they triggered the bomb. With no survivors, he could spin the result to prove his point. He also didn’t seem that perturbed that they didn’t do what he expected; he didn’t seem angered or confused, more just put-out.
There’s also some confusion going on regarding chaos. The fact that he makes intricate plans and follows meticulous steps to pull them off doesn’t mean he isn’t an agent of chaos. Out of chaos comes order, and order breaks down into chaos. His end result is chaos, so following plans to get there is not out of character. He does get away with a lot in this movie, there’s a fair amount of handwavium in use for sure, but then, so does Batman, so in the end, it is balanced.
I truly loved Ledger’s depiction. He fit the world so perfectly. Hamill has done amazing things as well, and fits the animated world perfectly. They are the two best depictions of the two main aspects of the character. Ledger nailed the destructive agent of chaos, while Hamill became the perfect Clown Prince of Crime.
Schwartz: I’d be happy to e-mail you my review of The Matrix, which is still archived at my blog at:
https://decandido.wordpress.com/2018/01/13/from-the-archives-the-matrix-is-some-overrated-nonsense/
Give me an e-mail address to send it to.
—Keith R.A. DeCandido
Has it been 10 years already? I still recall seeing this in theatres. Eight years since I bought the Blu-Ray.
I do have to give due credit to Nolan and Wally Pfister’s willingness to use IMAX cameras for some of the film’s action. Those overhead building shots of Gotham look breathtaking. If I ever switch to a 4K screen, this film would be a prime reason for doing so, given the richness of detail that comes with IMAX shots. Cinematography-wise, this is a step-up from Begins.
Adaptation-wise, this is as perfect as it gets. Despite the occasional tendency to verbalize Batman’s journey with the occasional trite speech about not being a hero, Nolan usually gets out of the way and lets the adaptation speak for itself. I can’t imagine a more perfect visual dramatization of Gotham City’s struggles against crime.
In terms of crime-fighting themes, this movie visually reminds me of Michael Mann’s Heat. 23 years in, and I’ve yet to see a sequence that grabs my attention the way that bank robbery sequence did.
There’s a scene halfway through the film that encapsulates this for me. It’s the scene where Gordon’s wife blames Batman out loud for dragging him and his family to that craziness. I could picture a comic-book panel where Batman sits in the dark, taking the heat for destroying innocent lives in his unstoppable quest.
‘Killing’ Gordon in the middle act was a masterstroke. Not only because it dared to kill major players this early on, but because it was a clever bit of misdirection that left me unprepared for the possibility of losing Rachel. I was not expecting that at all.
I figured we’d get Dent becoming Two-Face. What I didn’t expect was the reasoning behind his fall into darkness. I thought we’d get the whole brain-damage angle, plus blaming Batman for disfiguring his face. It took me a second viewing to realize he’d already flirted with becoming Two-Face long before the explosion, namely during the scene where he physically threatens the schizophrenic shooter. Eckhart nails the role.
Ledger makes for a compelling Joker, but I agree he’s more of a force of nature anarchist standing for a villain rather than a true character. It’s probably the reason as to why he was so successful. Given the era where we live in – where mistrust in the institutions is the order of the day – that kind of nihilistic attitude can speak volumes to a lot of viewers.
I used to think the boat sequence was rather clichéd and on-the-nose. In retrospect, I do admire what they set out to do. Having two characters – who have every reason to push that button – choose not to do so, reinforces an important aspect of superhero storytelling, which is choosing not to kill.
There is one part of the film that still bugs me to this day. Specifically those two police drivers, charged with getting Dent to safety when Joker ambushes them under the freeway. Why exactly do we get those cheesy one-liners during the chase? They feel completely out of place during that second act, a grim part of the film that just dealt with Gordon being ‘killed’ and Dent taking the heat for the escalating violence.
I didn’t sign up for this indeed.
Otherwise, I have no complaints. I rewatch this every year. Haven’t done that with any other Batman film, not even the other Nolan-directed entries.
Having said that, I also feel this film is indirectly responsible for jumpstarting the stupidest fan wars I’ve ever seen across all media, DC vs. Marvel v. 2.0 (such rivalry obviously existed for ages during the comic books, but it grew to obnoxious proportions after this film came out). Not that I think Nolan has any responsibility in doing so. He was just trying to do the best job possible in pleasing viewers, which he succeeded.
The point is 2008 was the year Marvel launched its cinematic universe with the first Iron Man. Needless to say, the fact that the best DC adaptation came out the same year that Marvel launched an ambitious cinematic undertaking that lasts to this day had to have rubbed some people the wrong way. Not surprisingly, DC and Warner chose to respond in kind, by playing copycat in a hurry. The end result? We’ve had the mixed results over these past five years (aside from Wonder Woman, which was stellar). A mixmash of disparate tones and a lack of vision. All because some execs chose to listen to the more rabid elements of fandom while in development. I’ll never understand this rivalry.
I never quite got the ‘I didn’t sign up for this’ line becuase, dude, you are a policeman in Gotham City. What did you think you signed up for?
@71/BonHed:
“He also didn’t seem that perturbed that they didn’t do what he expected; he didn’t seem angered or confused, more just put-out.”
Watch it again. Look at the initial expression on his face. He’s positively shattered. It’s just that he quickly hides it behind a veil of annoyance.
@74 99 times out of 100 when a movie character says “I didn’t sign up for this”, or similar, it is exactly what they signed up for. It is a writer’s cliche that I dearly wish they’d all retire.
First, I don’t think this is GrimDark. Ras Al Ghul and the League of Shadows had spent years turning Gotham into a cesspool – one that would splatter noxious attitudes all over the country as the surviving Gothamites flee its destruction, infecting the country and bringing about the fall of America. (With a bit more encouragement from the League of Shadows). It’s what they claim to do, when they judge it’s time for a civilisation to die. Batman foiled the plan, but at the end of the movie Gotham is still the cesspool of urban decay they created.
Compare that to sweeping panoramas from this movie. This is city that is undergoing a rebirth. Urban decay is giving way to regeneration. Wayne Industries might be leading the way, but it’s clearly not them alone. This is place romanticising its recent past (what with all the dark shades in the architecture), but its one growing beyond it into a hopeful future. Those responsible are our heroes. Batman. Fox. Gordon. Dent. Dawes. None of these are acting out of self-interest.
Clearly, at least for me, this is a NobleBright film.
The background is one of hope. The heroes make a difference. This is the core of the film for me. The Joker is a GrimDark Captain Jack. He wants an audience, and he wants them to gape at how awesome he is. He sets things up, maybe even subconsciously, manipulating the surroundings so like Captain Jack, when the time comes he can pull off some ridiculous things for his audience. He wants to watch the world burn, and his audience know that he’s responsible. More than anything else, though, he wants the world to understand they’re living in a GrimDark world, where everything is random, people are only out for themselves and ultimately things are going to go bad, no matter what you do.
The Joker’s problem is that Nolan’s world isn’t like that at all. Take the criminals attitude to Batman: they’ve worked out he doesn’t kill. They have enough faith in the Batman that they’re confident he’ll never cross the line. That’s a lot of trust to put in a belief as you’re being dangled off the side of a building. That’s one of the reasons he accepts the blame for Dent’s crimes later; it puts the fear of Batman back into the criminals. All the dead, after all, were criminals and corrupt cops.
All through the movie The Joker plays mind games to show how meaningless life is, and all through it his plans are foiled. The heroes make a difference. The world is slightly better place at the end of the movie than the beginning.
At the last his grand audience-participation guesture fails, then Batman realises Joker’s need for an audience and denies it, cutting off the “Do you know…” with “I know how you got these!”.
My only negative really is Dawes. I’d wish for a bigger part for her – what if she’d given up her legal career to run for Mayor or Senator? Tackling the political corruption while her male hareem tackles the crime and the detoxification of the legal system? Instead of … whatever forgettable thing she does in the movie, supporting Harvey before she got fridged <sigh>.
@75/ Stephen Schneider – yeah, the nuances of the performance in that scene are worth the Oscar alone.
Although I liked the ad-libbed bit with shaking the detonator just before the hospital blows up, staying in-character when things went slightly off-script entertaining as well. :)
I really like this one a lot, though the one problem I have with it is that it does kind of run a little long. The Joker-gets-fake-captured-then-escapes-then-needs-to-get-captured-again stretches the running time a little, or at the very least, maybe not resolving the Two-Face plot this film. Have him becoming Two-Face, but then being at large by the end. It does feel a little heavy too, almost to the point where watching the first one seems preferrable sometimes as a nice, easy sit down film. But it’s mostly good. I do really like a lot of the little details though, like where the one criminal is scared of the Bat Signal even though the other tries to point out the chances of running into Batman are small.
Agreed with KRAD that Oldman is more mumbly in this one in places. Although in general, I still think his performance is very good. The blocking in this movie is pretty good in general–with Gordon specifically, there’s the scene where he comes to sit in Dent’s office, and rather than just sitting in a chair, there’s not one at the desk, so he has to look around the room and grab one. Also with Gordon, when he sits down to interrogate the Joker, he does this little move of brushing dust off the table. It’s these kind of little, almost unnoticed nuances that make films really stand out for me.
I thought Ledger’s performance was excellent. It is not the interpretation that I most associate with what I think of as the Joker. That would be Hammill. But, it’s not Ledger’s acting skill that is at fault there–just the direction they chose to go and how it meshes with my opinions. Given that they did choose that interpretation, Ledger was fantastic. I think he absolutely delivers the character that was written in this script.
I’m glad for the comments about Comic Relief Officer’s lines…I also think they don’t fit to such a degrer that I find them really irritating–and I’m someone who doesn’t mind Jar Jar Binks. When he gets to the “NOT good!” line, I’ve had it…I get it, your police helicopter getting taken down and blown up is not good.
@39: Regarding Two Face being different people: Indeed, the first comic of Two Face had him flipping a coin not merely to see if he’d kill, but whether he’d be good or bad that day. One day it would come up scarred and he’d rob a bank. The next day it would come up clean and he’d give it all to charity (much to the confusion of his henchmen). There is a panel with people giving their public opinions of him, with half saying he’s a criminal monster, and the other half saying he’s good. He truly is Two Face.
This is also one of the few Hollywood films that was truly worth paying a premium to see in IMAX. Nolan shot several chunks of the movie in that format, and they’re breathtaking: in particular, the tractor trailer flip, which was a real, physical stunt, and when seen in format in the theater looks like it’s going to fall right on top of the audience. I’m not sure, but I may have gasped out loud in spite of myself.
Among its other qualities, it’s just a damned good-looking movie.
I missed this thread last week due to Shore Leave, so here are my week-late comments:
This was a very impressive movie, certainly a great improvement over the uneven Batman Begins. I hesitate to say it’s the best superhero movie ever made, because it’s a very different flavor of movie from something like Spider-Man 2 or The Incredibles, so it’s sort of a question of what kind of superhero movie you’re in the mood for. But it’s probably tied for first place. Excellent script, performances, production values, etc. I love how it extended BB’s theme of the power of symbols. Bruce used the symbol of Batman to give Gotham hope when it had none. But Bruce recognizes that he can’t be Gotham’s hero forever; he’d been necessary when things were at their worst, but Gotham needs to embrace a more civilized kind of hero like a crusading DA as the next step in its process of redemption. So basically what Batman does by taking the fall is to wean Gotham of its psychological dependence on an obsessed vigilante in favor of a renewed commitment to law and order. Although the ferry “experiment” proves that the people of Gotham have already taken responsibility for their own morality and order, that the Joker’s attempt to drag them back down into chaos has failed, and so Batman is no longer needed. It’s really fascinating.
It can be fairly argued that Two-Face was ill-served by making him a secondary (heh) villain in the Joker’s movie, but I think it worked. Having the Joker terrorize Gotham and try to turn the people to chaos and anarchy was all well and good, but it wouldn’t have been personal enough on its own. Harvey becomes the microcosm we can really feel for, the one whom the Joker does succeed in corrupting. It’s a fascinating convergence — Two-Face’s use of random chance to decide the fate of his victims, a trademark of the character from the beginning, here becomes a symbol of how he’s been overcome by the Joker’s anarchism, which is somewhat an innate aspect of the character but never more so than here. So the stories of the two villains mesh symbolically and philosophically in a way that the villain pairings in previous superhero movies never did.
Heath Ledger was impressive as the Joker, but I hadn’t really seen him in anything since Roar when he was 19, so I couldn’t really perceive the amazing transformation that others remarked on. The film’s take on the Joker was effective and intriguing, but I wouldn’t say it was my favorite Joker of all time. The ideal Joker is one who cracks you up even as he horrifies you, the way Paul Dini’s Joker in B:TAS often did. This movie was so solemn that even the Joker’s comedy was more chuckle-inducing than howl-inducing. It worked very well in context, but it hasn’t displaced Mark Hamill’s Joker from the top slot in my mind.
Aaron Eckhart was a perfect Harvey Dent, the handsome, charismatic, crusading DA. They even worked in the coin quite nicely, without it seeming contrived. (I loved the reveal that the coin had two heads — revealing to us, retroactively, that Harvey never had any intention of shooting that henchman.)
And the Two-Face, err, effect — I can’t call it makeup, since it had to be mostly digital — was extraordinary. It was absolutely authentic to the comics’ design, but disquietingly realistic — this is showing us in vivid, clinical detail what the comics and TAS have always implied in cartoon form. My only complaint is that his speech should’ve been slurred — no way he could’ve made M, B, and P sounds normally in that condition.
I disagree with Keith about Maggie Gyllenhaal, who I think was an improvement on Katie Holmes. I thought Holmes was fine in BB; she was just not quite in the same league as all the talent around her. But Gyllenhaal is a better, weightier actress — she really impressed me in Rachel’s final moments, how calm and reassuring she was. And she looks enough like Holmes that the substitution was credible, although she’s not nearly as beautiful.
I did have a couple of quibbles. The music was just as unimpressive as last time, although it was an interesting musical choice to give the Joker a “theme” that was nothing more than a single note, a buzzsaw-like drone building slowly to a crescendo. It fit the character’s anarchy and nihilism — no structure, just noise. Also, the Gotham here looked too much unlike the Gotham of BB. It was so much brighter and more ordinary-looking. I guess maybe that symbolized that the darkness was rising from the city, but still, the architecture was so different that it was hard to believe this was happening in the same city as the previous film.
Additionally, it occurs to me that the ferry situation seems more like the sort of thing that Two-Face would mastermind rather than the Joker — two ferries, one with regular citizens, one with criminals. But that wouldn’t have fit the way Harvey was characterized here, driven more by personal vengeance. I guess it can be seen more as a thematic tie.
Also: It is worth noting that in the big Tumbler/truck/bazooka sequence, the Batmobile lost two wheels — but the Joker did not get away.
@6/vinsentient: “isn’t the grim and gritty portrayal of Batman pretty much baked into the character?”
Not really. He started out that way in 1939, but as soon as Robin was introduced less than a year later, he started to evolve into a more wholesome, avuncular father figure exchanging witty banter with his boy sidekick. Batman in the early ’40s was actually a friendly authority figure while Superman was still a vigilante outlaw, because having Robin domesticated Batman and opened him up while Superman/Clark was still a loner. By 1943 at the latest, the Batman and Robin of the comics were all but indistinguishable from the versions Adam West and Burt Ward played more than two decades later, except that the comics’ Dynamic Duo didn’t take themselves so seriously.
It wasn’t until the early 1970s that Batman comics started to get darker and grittier as a reaction against the Adam West era, but there was still a fair amount of Silver/Bronze Age lightness in them. The real grittiness didn’t set in until Frank Miller did The Dark Knight Returns and Batman: Year One in the mid-’80s. Nearly every incarnation of Batman since then has tried to emulate that tone, but it’s really only characterized the past 30-odd years of Batman’s 80-year history.
@14/olethros6: “And let’s face it, capes are pretty stupid.”
No, they’re just an older fashion. For centuries, capes and cloaks were a standard part of gentlemen’s and ladies’ formal wear, or just practical cold-weather wear. They didn’t really fall out of favor until the age of modern heating and travel by automobile instead of carriage. Zorro, one of the first masked heroes, wore a cape/cloak because that was a normal thing for a horseman in his era and culture to wear (although he often took it off before getting into a swordfight). For what it’s worth, Superman’s and Batman’s draped garments were generally described in the early comics and radio as cloaks rather than capes, suggesting something more practical and functional. A cloak could be pretty handy for a vigilante prowling rooftops on cold nights, and it’s a good way to conceal your hands or vital areas from an opponent. As for Superman, the main reason he had a cape/cloak was so that his direction of motion in midair would be recognizable in still art, but it was sometimes established that he used it to hide the civilian clothes bundled behind his back.
@55/Schwartz: “how can you compare voice acting to actual acting”
All acting is actual acting, regardless of what limitations you work under. Working with just your voice is actual acting, and working without your voice at all, e.g. playing a mute character, is actual acting. They’re just different challenges for an actor to take on, and it takes skill to work within their limitations. Voice acting is arguably harder than regular acting, because you don’t have the usual visual tools available and have to convey everything with your voice. A lot of “actual” on-camera actors who do voice work for the first time are terrible at it, because it’s a skill they’ve never had to learn (e.g. William Shatner in Star Trek: The Animated Series).
Also, to anyone who’s actually heard Mark Hamill’s voice performances, it’s obvious that his acting there is far better than it ever was in Star Wars prior to The Last Jedi. I’ve seen other actors whose on-camera performances notably improved after they took up voice acting, including Michael Dorn and Morena Baccarin. Learning how to use their voices better made them better actors all around. Remember: for thousands of years, up until the invention of film and TV cameras, the voice would’ve been the most important part of any stage actor’s performance, since most people in the audience probably couldn’t have seen the nuances of their facial expressions. Good voice acting is good acting.
Regarding Mark Hamill’s ability to portray the joker and acting abilities in general, I’d point to at least two moments:
1)His (voiceless!) scene in The Force Awakens which honestly evoked more emotion than any other character in the whole movie (and I think the other actors were great), except maybe Adam Driver.
2)That deranged grin he gives while trolling Rey by drinking green milk is honestly one of my favorite moments. I’m sure he could pull off a crazy Joker :)
To quote @79 – “I thought Ledger’s performance was excellent. It is not the interpretation that I most associate with what I think of as the Joker. That would be Hammill. But, it’s not Ledger’s acting skill that is at fault there–just the direction they chose to go and how it meshes with my opinions. Given that they did choose that interpretation, Ledger was fantastic. I think he absolutely delivers the character that was written in this script.” – That’s what I meant. as a darker interpretation of the Joker he nailed it. If someone wanted the clownier version I understand the letdown. But I’m talking about the actual acting here. Watch Ledger’s other movies, and tell me if he’s anything less than versatile at it’s best. I never really noticed the actor before, so don’t think I’m a hardcore fan of his, really not as I only saw several movies of his.
CLB – you can compare voice acting to voice acting, you can also say that a specific part played out was so good that even though his overall acting was mediocre, that his voice acting made it all worthwile… BUT you can’t compare voice acting to other parts of acting, I mean isn’t it simple? compare voice to voice and face to face, but taking one feat without the others and saying so blunt that he acted the Joker better? He didn’t act like Heath, he acted with his voice, and I do agree that voice acting CAN sometimes be a lot harder than body acting, but that’s also vice versa.
I take it back saying that Hamill wouldn’t deliver like Heath, the darker adaptation of the Joker as intended in this script would call for Heath’s acting more than for Hamill’s one, but if he had his way of showing us a different Joker? maybe, he would be superior. But that’s beside my point. My point was that Heath deserves a lot of praise, he’s no overstated De Niro/Pacino/Nicholson who mostly play the same type of guys. He’s no big star like them, but as an actual actor, he showed us different kinds of acting, that those 3 for example never did. Not by a long shot. So Hamill here or Hamill there, Heath’s performance was too criticised in this thread in my opinion and that’s all I meant.
@84/Schwartz: A real actor wouldn’t see any specific form of acting as inferior to another. It’s just another challenge to tackle. If you read interviews with on-camera actors who’ve transitioned to voice acting, they often talk about the difficulty of learning to convey as much emotion without being able to rely on their usual tricks of expression and body language. Working within limits is a challenge, and challenging yourself is good. Learning to overcome those challenges helps you learn new skills and makes you better at whatever it is you do.
CLB, what’s your point? I didn’t simplify voice acting, I just said it is ridiculous really ridiculous to compare a cartoon version to real live acting and bluntly saying Hamill acted better as a cartoon version. I made myself more clear as I said what you CAN compare, and what you can’t. I also agreed that it sometimes is more difficult, I also said and you can’t differ that for others body language might be more difficult like pantomime. Challenging yourself is great. That is besides my point. or nearly all my points, as you don’t take up on them. I didn’t say Hamill doesn’t challenge himself, I didn’t even say if he’s a great actor or not. I just said this comparison is wrong, and that Heath is a great actor. And back to your point, just because you’re great with your voice doesn’t make you overall a great actor (meaning on screen actor, ON SCREEN, I never meant no great voice actor, or stage actor, where I also pointed out that voice is more important but is not the lone factor of good acting in close up movies.) I explained most of it already, and I would ask you to actually read my comments before commenting on them. Though I still changed my mind (as I also stated above) that he might pull of a better Joker as a different, more clowny addaptation, so I still don’t get what’s wrong with that.
I was a bit uneasy about saying Hamill’s Joker is the best, as well. Not that I disagree, but I now I can articulate why.
Writing, like acting, has many different disciplines. For instance: Script-writing is different to comic-book writing. Prose works are different to both. Then there’s sub-disciplines. Scripts for theatre are different to television or film. Different lengths (novel, novella, short story, etc) require different skills, as does writing serials verses stand-alone. Comedy writing verses drama. All is writing, but being good in one doesn’t necessarily mean your good in another, and experiencing one may improve your technique in another. Some are more collaborative when producing the final work than others. That’s not to say less, just different. Which means it’s a bit unfair to compare them. For instance, I feel you can’t really compare Anthony Horowitz’sBond to Michael France’s Bond, despite being the same character.
It’s the same with acting. It’s inherently more collaborative than writing; Single Actor Shows are few and far between. Yet it has its own range of disciplines and sub-disciplines, some of which are more collaborative than others. With Ledger’s Joker, the actor could use physical mannerisms to help establish the character. Hamill had to invest his interpretation solely through verbal cues – any and all visuals are created by an animation artist (frequently while listening to how the voice actors’ have delivered their lines, but I’m not sure if that’s the case here). Different disciplines makes it difficult to do a fair comparison – and one discipline isn’t inherently better.
To do a fair comparison, we’d need a live-action version of Hamill’s Joker. It’s a credit to Hamill that I can visualise that. Take the “Want to know how I got these scars?” Scenes. Ledger delivered them as if confiding a secret, leaning in and making it personal and intimate. I can see Hamill’s Joker growling the question, then leaning back and switching into a David Niven-like raconteur mode, with an expansive delivery, then suddenly switching gears and leaning back in to growl each stories’ “punchline”.
So, yes, I can see Hamill making an “as good”, if not “better”, Live-Action Joker than Ledger’s. But until we see that, for me, Hamill will be the best animated Joker and Ledger the best Live Action. I have a soft spot for Cesar Romero, but he never made a pencil disappear with such horrifying and amusing aplomb.
@86/the.Schwartz.be.with.you – kudos for being open-minded enough to change your mind, and then making that clear in your comments. :)
@88 – :)
I took it upon myself to quickly reread the review, just to check if I I was overenthusiastic and exaggerated, because I don’t want to belittle anyone here or their views. If I did I apologize. I was just so dumbfounded I maybe was somewhat aggressive in my articulations. I guess this thread’s title fits- Why so serious? :)
So, as I clearly have little background concerning Hamill’s resume, as I only know him as Luke (and a bit as the Joker), if someone wants to make me blush with his achievements as an actor I would appreciate it.
@89/The.Schwartz.be.with.you – unfortunately his movie roles have been pretty limited, so he’s not had much of an opportunity to show his range. He had a really bad car accident which changed how he looked. Interestingly, this caused Lucas to rewrite the beginning of ESB to include frostbite followed by the Bacta tank scene, to explain Luke’s sudden change from fresh-faced farm boy.
The car accident caused a problem with his casting in other movies, because he was wasn’t considered for roles because he’d been typecast as a fresh-faced farm boy. Unfortunately he no longer looked like a fresh-faced farm boy, so he wasn’t offered those roles either.
He did a bit of voice-acting before Star Wars, and so went back to that, both for animation and for video games (he’s also done motion-capture and cut scenes for video games as well). I think his earliest game was Wing Commander 3 back in the 80’s.
Mother than that he’s done a lot of theatre work in America. Unfortunately I live in the UK, so I’ve never seen one of his plays, but he’s supposed to be pretty good. He’s done Broadway, including Mozart in Amadeus, and Merrick in Elephant Man He’s even done musicals…
If you look at his fan Q&A’s on YouTube, you can see his theatre training coming through, I think. He owns the stage, and both manages to hold your attention and be pretty entertaining. YMMV. <shrugs> doesn’t really tell us anything about his acting range, though.
@91/Will: It’s probably a myth that Empire was rewritten to accommodate Hamill’s accident:
http://legendsrevealed.com/entertainment/2013/12/18/was-the-wampa-attack-in-empire-strikes-back-written-to-explain-away-mark-hamills-facial-injuries-he-suffered-from-a-car-accident/
Hamill’s problem getting live-action roles wasn’t the result of his accident, it was the result of being typecast as Luke. A hit role like that can overshadow everything else — look how William Shatner’s career suffered for over a decade after Star Trek or Adam West’s career suffered for several decades after Batman. Voice acting is a great way for someone with a famous face to get roles that are free of the baggage that comes with that face.
This just got posted on Variety’s website. Nice article on The Dark Knight’s impact at the Oscars.
https://variety.com/2018/film/in-contention/dark-knight-changed-movies-christopher-nolan-1202874041/
@72 – Krad – thanks for the matrix review. It was… tough but rather true, so, just swallowed those insights instead of (again) trying to much to defend a movie I like. (See I’ve learned not to take it to personal if someone trashes one of my favorites.) :)
@92/ChristopherLBennett – the problem with that analysis is that, like any good urban myth, there’s enough doubt to say “… maaaayybbbeee.” I’ll concede it’s unlikely though, especially as Lucas denies it. At best it sounds like the writer might have been inspired by the accident to include the scene, though again that’s stretching credulity. <shrugs>. Have you got an alternate explanation for inspiration for that scene?
:)
anyhow, I did point point out it was typecasting that meant he fell back to doing the voice work. (Which he’d done before Star Wars).
@95/Will: “Have you got an alternate explanation for inspiration for that scene?”
The reasons for the Wampa attack on Luke seem obvious enough. It provided an action sequence for Luke early in the film, and gave him an opportunity to demonstrate his Force abilities in order to re-establish the concept of the Force for the audience. It provided an opportunity for Luke to receive the vision of Obi-Wan and the imperative to find Yoda, setting up the rest of his story arc — a vision that had more drama and impact and mythic resonance if it came to Luke in his time of most extreme need, rather than just while he was having breakfast or something. And it gave an opportunity to establish Han as a heroic figure and show the friendship between him and Luke, which was important because they were separated for the rest of the film.
And come on, if a human being is lost in an icy wasteland overnight, of course he’s going to get frostbite and need medical treatment for it. It would be absurd if he didn’t. So it’s not something that needs a special explanation outside of the story logic itself.
@96/ChristopherLBennett – when you put it like that, it makes perfect sense.
And the sequence serving so many different needs of the story shows why this is a classic. I mean, a worse film could have had the vision of Obi-wan occur why he was practicing blind-fighting. Do you think it was “just” Leigh Brackett’s skill as a writer, or was there something specific that inspired it?
@97/Will: Like I said, it’s just the logic of how to put a story together. A lot of things that seem like strokes of genius to laypeople are just a matter of knowing the job, having the experience to know what a story’s basic needs are and what generally works to fulfill them. Or, more often, to spend a lot of time struggling to figure out a way to fulfill them and discarding what doesn’t work until you finally hit on something that does. Most professions seem like magic to outsiders but are just a matter of knowing the rules and doing the hard work for the people who actually do them. Sure, sometimes there are flashes of insight that are very satisfying to get, but more often the inspiration is simply a matter of knowing what problem you need to solve and slogging through it until you find something that works.
As for how and when the vision happened, that’s just tapping into thousands of years of cultural precedent. Countless people have had religious visions or life-changing epiphanies while starving in the desert or in otherwise extreme straits — probably just because they were delirious or had exerted themselves heavily enough to enter an altered neurological state that made them feel one with the universe, but it’s been a common enough human experience that it’s ingrained in our mythology and literature. So if you want to give your character a spiritual vision, it’s natural enough to have it happen in extreme conditions or on the brink of death.
About the zero chemistry thing. I was thinking, it really never disturbed me here. And then I thought that there are movies where such critic was on point, and movies, where, though true enough, didn’t come up as something important.
I mean the matrix for example woked out fine enough for me. It’s not a movie where my tention and interests are on the romance. But with the Matrix it is still a strong point, as their love was a center point which pushed them on and even defined them in some way. So the lack of chemistry was strongly felt.
But in this movie, though having a triangle of a relationship, I never really focused on how I want them to end up together, or wasn’t devastated that his love life was taken from him. There are movies where those feelings for the character are crucial. This one wasn’t in my opinion.
Now the question is, if Nolan would/could (as I don’t remember him capable of the romantic feats) deliver us that aspect fleshed out well enough in this movie, if it would be a good addition or a distraction which would confuse our focus.
Thor 2 is my favorite Marvel Studios movie (and maybe my 2nd favorite Marvel flick after Rise of the Silver Surfer). This movie here, though… ugh. I agree that Eckhart was amazing. I wanted Harvey to have his own movie. This one, or the next (becoming 2face at the end, then dealing with that in the next flick would have been much better than the rushed sendoff he got). I can’t stand this version of the Joker, and he just ruins most of the flick for me (there are also weird asides, trips abroad, surveillance tech, etc. that extend the movie and add nothing). THis is one of the few super hero flicks I’ve only seen once, and I feel no desire to see it again.
I agree with the majority that TDK was the best of a great trilogy (though TDKR drops the ball). I am actually surprised at the vehemence against it in this thread, but also disappointed that Rich Steeves did not deliver a rant about this “god-awful middle film which will not be named.”
@73 Eduardo: I went to see TDK in an IMAX and it turned me off to the format for feature films ever since. The sequence where Bruce is racing to save Reese flipped between the full square IMAX and letterbox each time Bruce was shown inside the Lamborgini. It took me completely out of the story. IMAX is amazing for hour-long nature documentaries, but a feature-length Hollywood film is too much to sit through.
Just recently discovered this superhero rewatch (love the historically-detailed reviews and thoughtful critiques!), but better late than never!
I think this film, regardless of being a genre/superhero flick, is so iconic that I (and perhaps for many others), remember vividly where I was when I first saw it. I count myself very fortunate to live in the great city of Chicago (not counting the long brutal winters when I escape town). TDK was filmed in Chicago to take advantage of tax break for films shooting there and made use of many locations within the city. I caught TDK on its very first sold-out screening at midnight at the IMAX on Navy Pier in downtown Chicago. I remember thinking it was so cool watching the ferry scene as depicted because it literally takes place in the waters off the pier. In reality there are no city ferries since the city just exists on one side of the lake. I also drive on Lower Wacker Drive often and so just as often get a thrill doing so as that is where Joker attacks the police convoy. And I made a purposeful trip to a “bad” part of the city to check out the location for the exploded Gotham Memorial Hospital which was actually the long abandoned Brach’s Candy Factory. The non-exploded buildings were still there at the time and I dared not explore the insides of them as I had seen them depicted on a website with photos and they were as creepy as you’d expect a derelict factory with no power and graffitied-over and who knows what with criminal activity. Anyway, those buildings have since been completely demolished.
I wanted so bad to be an extra on the film but nothing came of my application submission. A fellow co-worker of mine at the time in 2007 was much luckier and was used as an extra in the scene where Joker crashes the party that Dawes and Dent were at. I was so jealous! My co-worker even got to call into the Howard Stern radio show and recount his experience to Stern and his crew.
I remember the naysayers regarding Heath Ledger being all-wrong for the part of Joker and how he’d ruin the film. I loved how he proved them all wrong – winning an Oscar for the role no less. I never bought into all of the negativity because I know that actors are often versatile and can surprise audiences from one role to the next and so just give them a chance already! Besides, he had already me and countless others over with his incredible, award-winning role in Brokeback Mountain and I don’t believe Nolan would have cast him without evidence that he could truly embody the part. It is quite possibly the definitive version of the Joker (cinematic or otherwise, but I admit I haven’t seen or recall the animated depictions), although of course that is subjective. Ledger’s version is very grimdark and real. But I still enjoy Nicholson’s scenery-chewing depiction for the sheer fun of it, which also fits its particular film. Leto didn’t do anything for me with his punk-version. But I am excited to see what Juaquin Phoenix does with the character in his stand-alone non-DCEU flick later this year. It also looks to be ground in realism.
Aaron Eckhart was sensational as Two-Face/Harvey Dent and it’s a shame that he often gets neglected in people’s critiques or their memories because of the Joker/Heath Ledger’s showier role. But I completely bought the tragedy of this good guy who is so broken down from the loss of someone he loved that he becomes “evil”. And I disagree with Krad regarding Maggie Gyllenhaal – I feel she is an improvement over Katie Holmes’ depiction. Maggie just seems more real and the stronger actress. Holmes is definitely more traditional Hollywood beauty, but like many others felt, she was the weak link in Batman Begins although she certainly wasn’t terrible. I wonder if all of the negative criticism had an influence on declining to come back?
On a film-related tangent, I believe this was my personal introduction to seeing the city of Hong Kong depicted on-screen and aside from seeing it in film, I don’t think I knew much about it either. That has since changed and it all started with seeing the magnificent skyline portrayed in all its glory on the great IMAX screen. Cut to over 10 years later – about 2 weeks ago – and I spent a week there exploring the city and celebrating my 40th birthday. It truly is a wonderful place and I recommend it to everyone.
So TDK, aside from being a classic and masterful piece of cinema, has a fond place in my heart for personal reasons too.
GHiller: Glad you found the rewatch, and I look forward to more comments in future — though I suspect others won’t be as personal as this movie obviously is. :) Thanks so much for sharing!
—Keith R.A. DeCandido
Krad: My pleasure and thank you for all of your reviews in general over the years! It’s taught me about “fridging” among many other things. :o)
Oh boy, can’t wait till you get to the Deadpool 2 post ;)
@105:
Its up, @Lisamarie: https://www.tor.com/2019/03/08/christ-thats-disturbing-deadpool-2/
Edit: Of course, you’ve already commented over there, so you’re just being funny ;)
@105: Actually, I had learned about “fridging” from the Deadpool 2 post. Lol
Ha – The message was specifically to GHiller – it didn’t appear he’d commented on it, so I wasn’t sure if he had read it yet or not.
I see the TDK as a Kantian morality play. Gordon and Dawes are normally evil (not performing their duties or performing their duties for the wrong reasons). Batman and Dent are radically evil (obsessed with achieving their own ends, whether the means used are good or bad). And, the Joker is diabolically evil (doing evil for the sake of evil).
For those who doubt Mark Hamill as the best Joker just because it’s voice acting: here’s a behind the scenes of him doing some voice acting for one of the Arkham video games. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6zqFsYuhX4
As far as the ballet company running off with a billionaire – any company that’s doing traveling shows is not full of A list performers. Those are kept in their home city and paid well. These are the ones who weren’t quite good enough and instead face a grueling road schedule that doesn’t pay well. Any of them would jump at the chance to abscond with a playboy on his yacht as long as he paid enough. Sure, they’re dedicated and doing it for the art, but everyone wants to get paid for what they do and these traveling companies do not pay well. What my wife, who’s a ballerina herself, found most unbelievable was that none of them actually looked like ballerinas – they’re all models. That aforementioned grueling road schedule makes them have a completely different body type to what was shown in the film.
@109 Paladin Burke
Wow, you’ve just assigned me a couple of semesters of reading!
So I’ll say that while I think this is a great piece of filmmaking, as a superhero fan I wasn’t all that impressed with this one. It felt to me like Nolan and company were trying too hard to make this as realistic and serious as possible. They do an impressive job, but it doesn’t really work for my tastes. Superheroes, and that includes Batman, are an inherently silly concept. There’s just no way around that fact. But this movie seems almost embarrassed by its comic book roots, and that’s a shame. It doesn’t help that while Heath Ledger is giving one of the greatest villain performances in cinema, his character never really felt like the Joker to me. Whenever he walked in a room, I knew he was going to kill somebody. There wasn’t a whole lot of surprise to me in his actions. To contrast this with my favorite Joker, when Mark Hammil’s walked in a room you never knew what he would do. He was certainly capable of murder, but he might choose not to. There was a suspense to that version that Ledger’s lacked. That’s due more to the writing than Ledger’s performance of course, but it is something that takes me out of the movie whenever I watch it. I also think this is the point when Gotham City became too much like Chicago. Gotham City works best when it feels uncanny, like there’s something in the air that’s just wrong about the place. Begins had that in my opinion, but this one does not. It feels like a real city, which minimizes the need for an absurd character like Batman. What this Gotham needs is a systematic overhaul of the police and DA’s office. If anything, Batman feels out of place in this world. This movie is a great crime drama, but not a great Batman movie.