A few more revealing angles on the schoolbus getaway

Jim -

I love your column, man, but I'm begging you. PLEASE let it go! One more Dark Knight post and I'm going to start calling you "Bruce Whine." It's like telling your buddy that his long-time girlfriend is ugly. Maybe you're right but is that going to convince him to break up with her? Probably not.

Furthermore, you're bigger than this. I get that receiving massive amounts of hate mail simply for your position on a movie can be frustrating but that comes with the territory. And really, who are these people and why should their small-minded insults matter to you?

Let it go. You'll feel better and, more importantly, those of us who read you regularly AND like The Dark Knight don't have to roll our eyes anymore.

"Then again, it's also a failure of imagination."

Hey Jim,

I've been reading all your TDK entries with great enthusiasm. But harping on this schoolbus getaway shot is really starting to bug. As an editor, I have been struck again and again by how your example seems totally removed from the context of the whole sequence.

After reading how you liked (sort of) Joker's exit from the hospital but thought it would've been better as one shot, I am beginning to believe that you are simply not a fan of editing.

But back to the getaway shot.
I thought this shot was actually a very good manifestation of the director's imagination.
First, as with all editing, our experience of time is manipulated. cutting to the low CU of the bus backing out of the bank felt in keeping with the pace of the heist and the tone necessary to set-up the Joker as an efficient and unpredictable villain. Like a shark, the Joker and his schemes are always moving forward, never stopping (which later on, I agree, becomes a bit of a convenient distraction from the Joker's problematic omniscience). The entire heist (Heat worship aside) is cut in this same always-moving, faster-than-can-be-followed way. And so by concluding with this fluid, sweeping shot that rises over the city, I felt like the director was showing me the context in which this kind of villainy exists. That context (also bookended up front with the opening shot of city buildings) is that the Joker's chaos is totally at odds with a city that is trying to remain civil... all the school buses neatly in a row. We don't see the hole in the bank wall because the city doesn't want to see it and is for the most part in denial (Batmen in hockey pads notwithstanding).

Second, by having the shot start so low to the ground then sweep upwards to a wide of the city, I felt like the director was punctuating one of the visual themes that informs the whole film. The Joker is almost always shot from a low angle. Batman is almost always shot from a high angle. It felt in keeping with one of the themes of the script which seems to examine the limits of heroism. A low angle shot gives the subject authority. A high angle shot will often diminish a character's standing.
I agree with those who say TDK is confusing... but, for me, that is one of it's assets.

The heist is something we've all seen before. And for a heist sequence to succeed, the filming of it has to communicate exactly how the plan succeeds and fails. That way, our suspense is rewarded by having the details of the plan demonstrated to us. In TDK, Nolan basically reveals the details of the heist to us through the Joker's plan to eliminate all his henchmen as it unfolds (the climax being the bus backing into his penultimate henchman, which also helps set-up Joker's ability to improvise). The confusing part of all this is supplied by the opening shot and schoolbus getaway... all this is happening in the daytime! Why are we seeing crime in the daytime during a Batman movie? As the rest of the film unfolds, I felt like Nolan did a great job of keeping this confusion in play. Heroes we want (Batman) vs. Heroes we need (Harvey).

Consider Gordon's ending monologue. The entire thing is accompanied by shots of the police and Batman. Shots that are constantly sweeping from low angle to high and back down again. Who is our hero now? And while the Joker's capture seemed a bit too tidy, I thought it was interesting that the last time we see him, he is upside down, floating in air, with the camera neither above or below him.

CGI work, at least of that magnitude, might be prohibitively expensive at IMAX resolutions...

Nolan also stated that he was explicitly minimizing the amount of digital effects for a more 'old school' approach.

Jim, again, I love ya, but c'mon. If this is "scratching the surface," then the Black Knight (coincidence?) in "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" is truly suffering from a mere flesh wound.

Directing is also being economical, choosing which shots to enhance and which to keep simple. In a movie with gorgeous IMAX shots of Chicago and Hong Kong, with Batman soaring off a building, with a tractor-trailer doing a 180, I can live with one of the failures of imagination being not using CGI to show a hole in the wall.

Visually, I thought "Dark Knight" was pretty spot on. It's the occasional lapses in logic that bothered me. For instance, Eric Roberts' gangster tells Gordon where the Joker will be, and the police head out after him. But then the Joker calls in his threat to the news show, and the police head for the hospitals instead. Can't some of the police safeguard the hospitals while others go secure the Joker? Gordon needs to learn to multitask.

JE: Yes, directorial choices almost always involve practical and budgetary considerations -- even on a mega-budget project like this one.

Here's another Maroni moment that perplexed me: When Batman's got ahold of him on a fire escape about two stories up, threatening to drop him onto the pavement, Maroni says "At this height, the fall wouldn't kill me." Well, that's not Batman's intention, but what makes Maroni so sure? Batman could drop Maroni on his head and do some pretty serious, possibly fatal, damage. Instead, Maroni delivers a big speech -- after his legs are broken. Must not've hurt too bad.

I'm afraid I still have trouble with this bus conversation, because I still don't see why the resulting shot is somehow wanting. It seems like people are calling it a "cheat" because you don't see the bus actually exit the bank, but I don't get why there's any benefit to the shot being that explicit. Is all this really just about concern that we got a side-view with a closeup on the wheels rather than a direct shot of the bus emerging from a hole in the wall? I have no idea why anyone would find the latter significantly more satisfying. It's not like you're in the theater saying, "boy I hope that bus can get out of that hole," y'know?

If you haven't done shot for shot run through Zodiac on this blog, you should.

JE: I did do an Opening Shot (or opening few shots) piece here:

http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2007/09/opening_shots_zodiac.html

Hi Jim, keep it up!

I had many of the same problems you did with this film; a film, by the way, i saw in NYC on opening night and COULD NOT WAIT TO LOVE. The type of dissection you are doing, no matter how repetitive, is the type of film criticism i love.

In fact, last year, i did not expect to love No Country but it was by far my favorite film of 2007. it was your depth and wealth of analysis of that film that kept me coming back to your site over and over and makes me a daily reader. i even remember being sad when you packed it up and moved on to 2008.

keep it going, buddy! you really should do the shot for shot breakdown of TDK (and No Country) somewhere online for us all to see. the film was a worldwide phenomenon. positive or negative, it deserves the attention.

thank you.

So when, exactly, did you become a complete nerd?

These sort of ticky-tack problems exist in every single movie, from Casablanca, to Citizen Kane, to Godfather, to (even) Zodiac.

I mean, grow up. Write about film criticism instead of your perceived technical problems with a film. You're squandering your credibility here.

JE: First of all, I am a complete nerd. Second, you're reading WAY too much into this. I never dreamed, when I chose this one shot to discuss (and to speculate on why it was shot the way it was), that all this information would come to light about it. This is the process of filmmaking at work -- how and why a certain shot looks the way it does in the movie. You're not interested? OK. I think it's fascinating. And I'd gladly pick a shot from any of those other movies and do the same thing. In fact, I've been doing it for years, and not just on this blog where I've devoted a whole section to analyzing one shot at a time. The category is called The Opening Shots Project.

Jim,

Thanks for all of these TDK posts; your passion on the subject is evident, and that makes good reading. Keep it up!

Here's the thing, though: the more of your posts I read, the more I appreciate TDK. I absolutely agree with your analysis that many of Nolan's decisions throughout the movie add uncertainty. I just don't agree with your conclusion that this is bad or unimaginative.

Over and over again, this directorial controlled chaos reinforces for me just how believable the Joker is as a human character. Unlike Batman, whose only requirement of the city is that it allow him to save it, the Joker's strength is derived from the active participation of the city in his mischief.

Then again, all of the directorial chaos in the film didn't really confuse me regarding what was going on in the story (only during the multiple-Batmans scene early on, which was clearly on purpose; and during the which-warehouse decision, which for some reason I hadn't thought would be an easy choice, so I didn't really get that it was a trick). I can totally understand not liking the film if the film-making chaos caused confusion about what was going on...

This conversation reminds me of the recent trip to find my fiancee her diamond engagement ring. All the rings look beautiful but if you zoom in and focus on the flaws, you learn that the ring isn't as perfect as you once thought.

But the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Step back, take it all in, warts and all, and you can love even the most flawed films. And, really, that's all that is important.

Take a film like the original Star Wars. I could write a dissertation on all the flaws in that film. Problems with costumes, editing, tone, character inconsistencies etc. But ultimately, the overall experience of a film like that is all that matters. Because those small issues don't mean anything when you take in the film holistically.

But for someone who doesn't enjoy the film, the only thing you can do to justify your position is to look for these detail because it is impossible to convince someone that their "experience" is wrong. It can't be wrong. The whole point of this exercise is to convince people that they are missing the flaws, like with a diamond ring. You aren't "informed" and so your opinion is somehow not valid. But sometimes those flaws form part of the experience. Like Bale's weird Batman voice. That's a quirk the film has. That's something I notice as a flaw but wouldn't be The Dark Knight I love without it.

Keep it up, Jim! The more meta, the better.

In the immortal words of Iowa Bob from John Irving's The Hotel New Hampshire: "You've got to get obsessed and stay obsessed."

Damn, Jim, since TDK discussion I've been reading through and through most of your blog and I have to tell you that it's one hell of a ride.

You share something quite rare in film criticism with the man you do the editing for, Roger Ebert: you make me want to watch the movie you write about, no matter whether I've seen or not, and especially in the first case.

Many times you critics have to endure moviegoers rage, so why not praise your work when you deserve it?

Congratulations from a spaniard, man.

Although I haven't been able to get into these discussions (being busy ALL THE TIME can really cut down on blog commentary opportunities, alas), I just wanted to say I've found these TDK posts utterly fascinating. I did enjoy the movie, quite a lot actually, when I first saw it, but not as much as I was expecting -- and I couldn't quite put my finger on why that was. I had problems with the ending, but there was just something about the entire flow of the movie that made it feel... I dunno, sporadic might be the right word. These posts have really helped illuminate why that is.

As for the video of the effects in Zodiac: This is the first time I've seen it, and holy damn. That's mind-blowing. It almost seemed kind of unnecessary in some cases -- did they really need such extensive blue-screen and CG work for an up-angle shot of a couple of guys pointing at an indistinct house?

But hey, I had no idea so much CG was in the movie at all, and I've seen it like five times... so whatever works.

Oh, and sorry for the double post, but one more thing I forgot to add: I have no clue why some people see these posts as some sort of personal vendetta or whatever that you have against the movie. It's a fascinating, close examination of one shot in one movie that just happens to be ridiculously popular, in the interest of discussing why the shot is the way it is, why it's not any other way, what it could have been, etc. Why should that threaten/bug/anger any TDK fans?

Oh, right. This is the Internet. Carry on.

Jim, you are all over the place on this one. Now it is apparently a budgetary reason and you say it shouldn't be. Then you compare this to Zodiac? The Dark Knight indeed had a large budget, however it also had a huge amount of things to budget for. I certainly think Hong Kong trumps a hole in the wall.

I would also think it is actually more of what happens in the shot, rather than the shot itself. In other words, it is about the way The Joker has inexplicably perfect timing with an audacious scheme, rather than the way the shot is angled.

However you are trying to link this to your opening shots pet project and becoming too involved with the angle of the shot. I personally think that the final shot sets up the reality of the film well. It creates a mood for the world where much more seems possible.

JE: No, I wouldn't presume to say I had any evidence it had to come down to a choice between this shot or Hong Kong! I wasn't thinking of it in that way. In terms of thrills, as I've said elsewhere, I would have liked to have seen a reverse angle, so that as the bus pulls out of the interior shot, we get a glimpse back inside the back from the exterior. Could have been done (if the bank interior were built/shown through the smashed glass doors), but they chose a different approach to end the IMAX Prologue. I suggested it because I thought it would have made this crowning shot more exciting, but it's only one of many, many things (as we've seen) that are going on in the shot itself.

If you watch that Digital Domain reel from "Zodiac," you'll see how many location-shooting problems of this type were solved with CGI or simple opticals in order to get the best shot on a difficult real-world location. That's the only reason I brought it up. I thought there were about three or four effects shots in "Zodiac" -- until I saw the "making of" stuff on the DVD and saw that huge chunks of the film are visual effects, but you'd never know it. They wound up saving the filmmakers money and time when shooting on San Francisco locations that aren't quite the same now as they were when the events of the film took place.

Yes, I agree -- I ENJOY the choreographed movement of the busses on a sheerly kinetic level. I have minor complaints about other elements of the shot, including the angle and the camera movement (and I think somebody should have looked at that take and said: "Whoa! Less dust, please!"). While I think they're symptomatic of problems with the movie as a whole, I'm just offering specific criticisms about one shot because I didn't want to limit my observations to generalizations.

Actually, I treasure these little moments in cinema, these elements of trickery. They don't detract for me, and instead reveal the ingenuity and craft of REAL cinema, as opposed to the "everything done in post" style of George Lucas. Take, for example, the famous shot at Ma Kane's boarding house in "Citizen Kane," in which a hat can be seen wobbling on a table, revealing that it had just been slid in as the camera tracked "through" it. It is hardly noticeable, and doesn't ruin the effect, yet for those looking, it is a wonderful insight into what Welles and Toland were doing.

I applaud Chris Nolan for doing some good ole creative framing, rather than taking the easy way out and shooting more money into expensive CGI (which he could have easily done, considering how much Warners had already invested in the project). It shows there are still people thinking with ingenuity, compared to those lazy types who toss every problem into the "We'll fix it in post" bin.

As the old saying goes, "Creativity is problem solving."

Best,
BR

JE: I agree with you there. Fincher, as it turns out, used CGI and other optical effects just for that reason: creative problem solving -- mostly involving problems of shooting on the actual San Francisco locations where events occurred. Most of the scenes in which it is used don't appear to have any effects in them at all. In fact, effects were used judiciously to save money, because in some cases, for example, it was more effective and efficient to combine shots (using blue screen) than to attempt to build practical sets and "fix" problems with CGI.

Nolan made the decision to shoot the prologue/bank robbery and several action sequences in IMAX -- reasoning that he wanted to open up the movie, make it bigger and more real-looking, in contrast with all the soundstages used in "Batman Begins." Decisions like that have consequences and tradeoffs all down the line. In some places they payed off spectacularly; in others they created limitations on what could be done.

i think i may have something to offer in terms of how the shot of the bus leaving the bank was constructed.
we first see the shot of the bank teller having the pin pulled out from the smoke grenade, right? well, i'm pretty sure that it's pulled out by the bus beginning to move (i think we hear the sound of the bus leaving, but i can't really remember), so if the bus has already started to drive out back into the street during this close-up shot of the bank teller, then it wouldn't make any sense to then have the next shot from outside the bank showing the entire drive out of the wall again, because we already heard half of it's exit in the previous shot; it just wasn't explicitly shown.
so yeah, i dunno - i think when this shot is seen in accordance with the one right before, of the bank teller, it makes more sense. what'd you think?
cheers
KZ

JE: I see what you're saying. The bus crashed through two sets of glass doors (constructed for the purpose), so a good section of it was inside the bank (in one of the disc extras about "The Prologue" they show how they build these doors and punched the tail-end of a schoolbus through it for the interior shot). Think of how cool it might have been though, just for example, if the shot had started looking down the length of the bus, and we caught a glimpse into the bank, with the manager (William Fichtner) collapsed on the floor, and the smoke grenade still puffing in his mouth! Just an idea...

I think Riley has hit the nail on the head here. The Joker is already driving out of the building as the camera is fixed on Fictner's reaction. Thus, making it unnecessary to watch the bus emerge from the building once again.

Nevertheless, this conversation is quite interesting and I commend Jim for actually offerring suggestions on how to improve a shot rather than just criticising it and moving on. I think in this case, though, the way the shot works makes sense so I don't see why we would need to change it.

I also concur with Brian Rose. I love the way directors "cheat" the audience with these edits and clever tricks. That's what directors have always done. One of my favourite examples is in Aliens. When the facehugger is attacking Ripley, the tail is supposed to grab her by the neck which proved impossible to shoot back in the early 80s. Cameron quickly solved the problem. They wrapped the tail around Weaver's neck and then snapped it away. Later, they simply reversed the footage which made it look like the facehugger had indeed grabbed her by the neck. Simple and effective.

The only issue was that a sprinkler was supposed to be running in the scene. Everyone second guessed Cameron saying that the water will also be moving upwards! But Cameron was right. You don't notice it at all.

Now, if Aliens were made today, I have no doubt all the money, CGI, and "improved" shots in the world wouldn't have made it a better film. It works as it is now.

Jim! My God, I disappear from the blogverse for 6 or 7 months and I come back to see you've pissed off the world! Like John McClaine and terrorists, only one man can get under someone's skin like that.

There was some dicey filmmaking going on in "The Dark Knight" - I felt that too the first time I saw it. Not just dicey, but at times cheesy! Though it was the thematic resonance and the fact that it dealt with these archetypes in a fairly real world setting that really won me over. What if Greek Gods/myths were walking the earth? That's what Batman is; a myth walking among "us". Imagine the Joker as the Greek God of Chaos; relegated to human form; most of his powers stripped from him. To us he has no story, to us he comes from nowhere, he's just there...and all the more frightening for just appearing.

This is where it becomes an allegory. Where the hell do terrorists come from? After all that's what Joker is, that's what he's referred to as. Can you explain to me what makes a man like Bin Laden choose to reign carnage upon NYC, at what point did his psyche break and make him think, "Hey, this will make a point worth making!" It's frightening, and with the Joker, I thought they captured this wonderfully.

It's easy to pick the film apart piece by piece to see what works and what doesn't. But let's look at what the end result was supposed to be, and if they attained that, then deconstruct from there. This film is about Batman becoming the vigilante he needs to be to protect the city (I have a whole write up on it at my blog so I won't go into too much detail here... http://philzine.wordpress.com/2008/07/26/the-cognitive-dissonance-of-batmans-dilemma-major-spoilers-included/). Bruce Banner has to, over the course of the film, become the anti hero so he can deal with people like Joker in an effective way. He has to look like a bad guy. The moment he teams with the police force, he has a set of standards he has to follow, he would make the Harvey Dents of the world look bad for working with him. "TDK" is about what a person has to be to be an effective hero in this day and age of vigilante terrorists that blow things up just for the hell of it - or so it seems to us.

Joker is that force that drives him to making this decision. Joker isn't just a person. He. Is. A. Force. Like Anton Chigurh, (who also comes from nowhere and goes nowhere and seems to have rules that he breaks) Joker is an abstraction that sends all of these characters reeling about, grasping in the dark. How are terrorists allowed to walk among us, take flight lessons at our schools, only to use those skills to attack us. How do they just disappear among the crowd without anyone taking notice? There's something insanely unreal about it. I think the final shot of the Joker leaving the bank conveys this feeling, this illogical feeling, perfectly. You can complain about the framing or lack of a more exciting shot, or, yes, the confusing kids laughing. I think perhaps using a more exciting shot would have taken away from the sudden real world setting Joker was entering, which makes it all the more unnerving. The kids laughing makes it that much more disturbing, that we see Joker entering the world with kids around! That nobody on the streets notice, that the cops don't see an obviously debris riddled bus...all this may not work on a realistic level, but on a satirical level it's sharp. It's insanely unreal that no one seems to notice this terrorist with clown makeup entering our world. Now if you look at this shot without a thematic presence, then perhaps it makes no sense.

There are certainly other moments throughout the film that were guffawably silly and took me out of the moment. That were so heavy handed, it became unbearable. The uncertain victims on the ferry. It seems Nolan has a difficult time dealing with the "realness" of city dwellers in his Batman films. They always feel hokey and deliberate...comic booky.

The going to save Rachel sequence I found confusing. "Who are you going after?" "Rachel." Then there's Dent and Batman hardly seems fazed. I think this sequence I had the biggest problem following - and I'm pretty smart. Maybe because I believed the Joker when he gave out the addresses...my mistake. Hey, he said he was telling the truth! He even got me.

It's funny. I had no problem believing the sequence with the cell phone in the guy's stomach, etc. That Joker is 6 steps ahead of even the writers was amusing to me. That part of his plan is to get captured, I think is clever, clever enough for a Greek God come to town to pull off. And there is something mythical about Joker's presence, you can't deny it. As the Coens dealt with mythical people in an abstracted real world setting with "NCFOM", so here is Nolan. Does it make sense that Bell and Chigurh are standing on opposite sides of the door, but not? So you have to ask yourself, when something seems illogical in "TDK" is Nolan approaching it this way for thematic reasons. Does Nolan do it as well as the Coens? At times. He likes to over plot a bit, and doesn't shy away from some tonal cheese, of course he's not the same filmmaker as the Coen Brothers. And that part is what keeps it exciting.

In summation. While yes, there are parts of this film that Nolan can't quite keep the tone consistent, working backwards from the thematic revelation of what Batman has to become (which is a part of the whole film and mirrored in Harvey Dent) then there's a reason for a lot of things to happen as they do, and a lot of Nolan's decisions "can" make sense, whether they are effective for you or not. Does that make the scene in which Joker "cuts" Spawn's (yes the thug played by Michael Jai White was Spawn in the movie) mouth wide open effective...no...it's another one of those kinda cheesy moments. I'd love to see a director's cut of this some day. Like Bladerunner (one of my favorites) it took three major revisions for them to finally---FINALLY reach that point of utter perfection.

JE: Welcome back, Phil! I left some responses under your follow-up post. But thank you for making the distinction I apparently have failed to get across -- between something that "can" make sense and something that is convincing in the moment. I keep repeating: The problem is not that something isn't plausible -- MOST movies have implausible aspects -- it's in how the movie handles them, shot for shot, line by line, moment by moment.

One further thought...now that my mind is rolling over the film again.

The moment we, as an audience, realize how Joker does what he does, is the moment he becomes ineffective as an entity to be dealt with, an entity that can shake Batman's foundations. The moment we know more than Batman does is the moment the film falls apart. Like the pedestrians of Gotham when they see Batman, the moment we see the strings that Joker pulls to fit a bus neatly amongst other buses (:p) is the moment we as an audience stop fearing his uncanny abilities to manipulate the world around him. If Joe Blo thief knows that Batman uses wires and armor to fly through the air and block bullets, Batman becomes less of a threat to them.

JE: I think these points, and the ones you made in your previous post, are really worth considering, Phil. A few others have brought up the connections to the gods of classical drama. Of course, if you think about it on any mortal level, every one of the Joker's stunts is so convoluted as to be unbelievable -- but that moment of "What the..!?!" seems to be a deliberate strategy (of the film's and the Joker's) to keep us disoriented, off-balance. We see set-ups for some things (like the mini-Jokers arriving at the scene of the prologue's bank robbery, which is carried out in a way that teaches us the thinking behind the plan as it is carried out) but not for others (a flaming fire truck that appears, blocking a street, out of nowhere). I think some of these strategies work better than others, but I think they do need to be acknowledged as part of the filmmakers' plan. As I've said, one of my problems with the conception of the film (like the visual "reality" of the IMAXed actual locations vs. the fantasy premise) is the emphasis on Batman's physical limitations (really driven home in the image of his scarred and battered torso, and the technical glitches with his hardware) while the Joker exists in a world where he is virtually immune to pain (maybe he's just so crazy he's beyond it) and his ability to plan umpteen moves ahead are virtually limitless. That's intentional, and I like it in some ways, but I agree with you that (despite all the expository dialog) the film doesn't always succeed in putting it across. Stating it, and showing it to us in ways that make us willing to believe it, are two different things. The movie grossed half a billion dollars (and is going into nation-wide re-release Friday, the day after the Oscar nominations), so clearly many, many people had no problem believing it. As somebody else said here, it only worked for me in spurts.

P.S. Regarding your comparison to Chigurh in your previous post: He is indeed a Force of some kind, but he's also flesh and blood, and the Coens linger on his wounds and his pain. He's a reaper, but he's of the human world. Nolan is up to something different with the Joker, who seems to be less human and more of a moral, social or philosophical Force.

Jim, the Joker clearly thrives on physical pain, and he has the (self-inflicted) scars to prove it. (ha ha) His only moment of doubt and pain seems to be when the boats don't blow up, i.e. when things don't go according to plan. This sets him apart from Chigurh, who doesn't seem able to admit when his plans go awry and is actually hurt by physical pain despite his best efforts to be a superhuman "force."

JE: Well said. I'm thinking of his ability to make jokes of getting slammed around the interrogation room by Batman. Basically, he doesn't care!

Michael, you beat me to my point. Joker does feel pain, he just likes it.

But it also brings me back to the point that this movie is seen through Batman's eyes, not Joker's. The only time we see Joker pained is when Batman sees it. If we saw Joker licking his wounds, then the mystery would *poof* go away and we'd know exactly what Batman is up against, thereby destroying all tension for the rest of the film.

It's like Drago in Rocky IV, we don't see him bleed until Rocky lays into him.

And again, to the rest of Gotham, Batman doesn't bruise or wound. He is almost that of a God to them, and when Bale has the mask on and growls like he does, I want to believe it too. And seeing his wounds also makes his struggle that much more palpable. We don't want a super human deciding how human he should be, because he already isn't.

JE: Yes, the Joker does seem to thrive on S&M. In those last two sentences you pinpoint what I always thought set Batman apart from other superheroes, who are generally defined by their possession of supernatural powers.

Jim, have you considered doing a shot-by-shot presentation of The Dark Knight somewhere, perhaps the Conference on World Affairs? I know you're not a fan, but as you've shown here, there's certainly a wealth of interesting stuff. I imagine the discussion would be lively, to say the least.

Personally, I think the near superhuman nature of the Joker is important to the conflict here. The story in Batman Begins, continued here, is about a man sculpting himself into a symbol in order to accomplish something a normal human never could. This is the completion of the transformation, in a way--Bruce Wayne loses the woman he loves, he loses his hope that one day he'll be able to give up his mask, he loses any pretension he may have had that he would be rewarded for his good deeds. The Joker--another human who's given up his identity and his hope of personal reward and exchanged it for a face that turns him into a symbol--is the perfect trigger to complete that metamorphosis.

Stephen you summed up the post at my own blog using like an eighth of the space I took. Damn you.

JE: You guys are good. You make me want to start another post on this subject. Can you think of some examples of how the movie does, or does not, work through these ideas -- of Batman/Joker transmogrifying from human into myth -- visually?

Phillip Kelly--Thanks. I think.

Jim--Well, one aspect of it that I love is the very first reveal of the Joker. Joker finally pulls off his clown mask, only to reveal that he's turned his face into much the same thing. It tells you immediately that this isn't a man hiding behind a symbol, this is a man who's become that symbol.

As to Batman, there's an obvious contrast between this film and the last one, at least, in that Batman Begins ends with Bruce Wayne rebuilding his mansion and talking to his estranged love. He's at rest, he can, on some level, revert to his natural state. At the end of this film, there's no real end to his conflict. Sure, the Joker and Dent have been stopped and the city isn't on the verge of chaos anymore, but he's still in costume, still Batman, and you're left strongly with the impression that that is his life from now on. We see him running, but we never see him stop, and so in the mind of the audience, he never does.

Jim,

Sounds like an assignment. I just got the screener in the mail the other day. I've been meaning to watch it again. I'll try and do that tomorrow! ... though not Blu-Ray...bummer...

"'TDK' is about what a person has to be to be an effective hero in this day and age of vigilante terrorists that blow things up just for the hell of it - or so it seems to us."

True, and I think this captures where The Dark Knight ultimately fails (for me, anyway). Yes, it is fundamentally about how far Batman/Bruce Wayne is willing to go to stop maniacs/terrorists/Forces of Supernatural Chaos like The Joker, but the movie bungled the theme in the ending.

The central question is set up early on, when one of the Batman impersonators asks him "What gives you the right? What makes you different than me?" Batman's answer ("I'm not wearing hockey pads") is a good punchline, but it's an important question -- what does give one man the right to assume the mantle of Silent Guardian of an entire city, and decide what information it can or cannot handle knowing? That was my problem with the ending -- Batman and Gordon decide to hide the truth of Harvey Dent, with Batman taking the blame for the cop-killings. There's nothing wrong with that choice within the themes of the story, but the way it's presented is as if the movie is making a big philosophical point that it never actually earned.

The way the ending plays out, it's presented as if Batman unquestionably makes the right choice -- there's Gordan's stirring (and cheesy) speech about how he's "the hero we deserve", and there's the re-introduction of the heroic music, and that last shot of Batman on the Batpod racing up out of the depth of the city into the light on the horizon... it's all set up to make the audience feel good and comforted about Batman's seemingly self-sacrificing choice, but the entire time I was thinking, "No, this isn't right." This isn't Batman being more than a hero, this is Batman potentially abusing his power to do what he thinks is the right choice.

I still think if the movie had presented the choices made in the ending in a way that made it feel, I dunno, more ominous and less heroic -- in a way that made the audience feel the movie was on the same page as them about questioning whether this was the right choice -- it would have been a more honest, and more effective way to wrap up the themes of ambivalence the movie was playing with.

As for visual exampls of Batman as a mythical legend, I think there's actually a lot more of that in Batman Begins (with his first real appearance as Batman staged almost like a horror movie, and the more obvious instances of people hopped up on the goofy fear toxin seeing him as a literal bat out of hell). In fact, I think the more consistent visual motif in TDK goes the other way -- of hammering home how human Batman is, even if he tries as hard as he can not to be (which goes along with the theme of whether Batman has any limits, and if so, where they are).

There is, as Jim mentioned, the focus on his bruises and scars; the focus on his new suit (with particular emphasis on what benefits it affords and what new weaknesses it brings); the shot early on when he's trying to use that weird glove-saw to tear through the Scarecrow's van (a device he made to give himself the appearing of superhuman strength), and it malfunctions; the shot of him after Rachel's death, sitting in ruined solitude with his mask in his hands; and (my favorite) the unintentionally hilarious shot of him running away at the end of the movie like a perfectly ordinary man who just happens to be dressed as a bat.

One of my favorite moments in Batman Begins is the introduction of the Bat Signal, using a strung-up Falcone to create the bat silhouette in the middle. It was an awesome example of how Wayne was using these symbols ("theatricality") to become "more than just a man." Comparatively, there seemed to be a lot less focus on how he was creating himself as a legend in the TDK, and I think perhaps deliberately so.

JE: Really well put, as always, Kris. I don't believe for a moment that Batman really wants to retire (and neither does Rachel), even when he thinks retiring will get him Rachel. I think he wants to be a hero, and he wants to be acknowledged as a hero, but feels maybe too guilty or self-conscious about his ambitions to step right up and claim the title (as Robert Downey Jr. does at the end of "Iron Man"). The secrecy, the role playing, is what makes the sex -- er, crimefighting -- good for him. I'm going to have to go back and look at "Batman Begins" (a more conventional film, and one I found easier to like as pulp-mythological entertainment, because of Cillian Murphy and despite Katie Holmes) to see how this series sets up the requirements of becoming a larger-than-life Gotham hero (or villain)... There. It's top of NetFlix now...

Kris Pigna--

I think TDK does a pretty good job of telling you why it's Batman that gets to make these decisions, though--because he's incorruptible, as the Joker says. Batman gets to make these decisions because he only wants one thing--and that's to protect Gotham. He's whatever Gotham needs him to be. And he proves it. He proves it by saving the Joker, even though the Joker killed the woman he loved. He proves it by willingly giving up his surveillance powers when he no longer needs them. He proves it by choosing to take Harvey's blame and live hunted by the police and feared by the citizenry. He's not driven by revenge, he's not corrupted by power, and he's not afraid for his own well-being. As Alfred says, he can make the choice that no one else can, the right choice.

Now, maybe you disagree with what's the right choice or the wrong choice--maybe you don't think the ends justify the means here. But if you don't think on some level that the ends justify the means, you're never gonna buy a vigilante as a hero anyway, right? ::shrugs::

JE: Stephen, don't you think that's part of the movie's moral conundrum (and/or confusion)? How can a vigilante be a legitimate hero? How can he uphold the law and violate it, be an agent of the law and stand outside it, at the same time? Batman helps the cops, but he's also seen as a lawbreaker by law enforcement. I think Alfred is delusional when he gives that speech about "the right choice" -- as if it's that simple and clear-cut. "TDK," no matter how muddled the morality of its world, suggests things are more complicated than Alfred describes. (His other speech about the jewels illustrates as much.) To invoke the old parallel: There are those who argue that Hitler's motives were pure, that he was absolutely convinced that he was saving his race by exterminating those he deemed inferior, that he was not crazy but blinded by what he considered to be his own moral convictions about right and wrong. Does that make him any less criminal? In the corrupt world of "TDK"'s Gotham, I don't believe an untainted hero can exist. Does the movie?

Jim--
I think the movie presents a conflict between doing the right thing and being a part of society. Society is a system, and any system has rules. The legitimate people set up to defend society--the Harvey Dents--are limited by those rules. They can't just fly to China and abduct fleeing criminals, and they can't (hopefully) eavesdrop on an entire city to find an insane bomber. Those are rules, and they're correct, necessary, and legitimate--but sometimes they're wrong. No rule can be right 100% of the time, but if you fail to obey them 100% of the time you can't exist in the society that made them.

So, yes, Batman is a tainted, criminal character. But being a criminal gives him freedom to do the right thing that other people don't have.

JE: I see what you're saying, but it gets at something about Dent's character, too. It's significant, I take it, that he used to be known as "Two-Face," before he literally became one; the movie doesn't go into that, except to have Gordon say it at the hospital. But Dent is a two-face in other ways: He doesn't play by the rules. He rounds up 549 suspects and brings 'em all before a judge en masse (I know, it's Guantanamo, but within the criminal court system), knowing the bulk of the charges won't stick. And Rachel has to remind him that the last man the Romans "asked to protect the republic was named Caesar. He never gave up that power." Dent's response is: "Well, I guess you either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain." A more pertinent conclusion would be: "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." I see Dent as already corrupt at this point, and wonder why others see him as a potentially heroic figure. Seems to me he's already well down the road to villainy...

Jim--

That's interesting, because what I see with Harvey isn't actual corruption but the potential for it. I think, being a guy from Internal Affairs and now charged with cleaning up the city, he's chaffing against the constraints of his position. He clearly admires Batman, but does he break the rules? Not really, not until the Joker threatens Rachel. I think the two-faced nickname, judging by the level of corruption in Gotham, is more a comment on the fact that Dent is in IA--investigating cops, breaking that unspoken code of loyalty. For me, that actually emphasized his commitment to the rules, even at the expense of others. But when the Joker appears and renders the rules impotent, he's not equipped (as Batman is) to deal with the chaos.

Steven: Call me old-fashioned, naive, and stupidly optimistic, but whatever happened to Truth, Justice and the American Way? :P

Well, I actually hate Superman as a character (that's a whole other discussion), but that's kind of what I see wrong about how The Dark Knight handled the decision Batman made at the end. Yes, what fascinates me about Batman is the line he treads between hero and vigilante (and it's worth remembering Batman Begins goes to great lengths to distinguish the two). Like I said before, I don't have a problem with him making that decision at the end, but where I thought the movie went wrong is in how it considered it. In my opinion, the choice Batman makes is an example of how he's been corrupted, but the movie portrays it (somewhat inexplicably, I thought) as a heroic public service. I dunno about you, but I know I'd be pissed off if one man decided -- despite his best intentions -- that he had the right to tell me what I can and can't handle knowing. I've used this example before, but by this logic, would you say Pat Tillman was "the hero we needed" at the time?

I mean, in a way, didn't the Joker actually win? Dent became the villain the Joker was pushing him to be, and Batman showed he didn't believe in the city he had so much confidence in just moments before, deciding they couldn't handle the truth about Dent's murders. And on top of that, in doing so, everyone in the city now believes Batman is a murderer anyway, so double-score! I imagine him dangling upside down, licking his chops, once again saying with glee, "You didn't disappoint."

Oh, and apropos to nothing, but I was watching Scorsese's remake of Cape Fear earlier, and came to a conclusion: The Joker is Max Cady in disguise! Both are demented psychos, both seem to have a supernatural ability to be anywhere and plan anything they have to despite how unrealistic it may be, both seem to be impervious to (or just really enjoy) pain, both enjoy dressing in women's clothing to commit murders, and both become obsessed with showing a man that there's no difference between the two of them.

FreeEEEeeaaAAAkkkky, amirite?

Kris--

Well, like I was saying to Jim, in a way Batman certainly has been corrupted--corrupted in the sense that he is more and more comfortable breaking society's rules to pursue his own agenda. But he is incorruptible in the sense that he won't betray his own rules. And he seems to have only two rules: 1, he won't kill someone, and 2, he's whatever Gotham needs him to be

The movie goes out of its way to say that he's not a hero, after all--hero implies people admire him. But he's not out for admiration anymore, he's given up any hope of accolades for his good works, and he's not acting out of revenge. He's not a hero anymore, he's Gotham's protector--whatever being protector of Gotham means.

My lord, would you guys slow down. I'm still working on my assignment and everyone keeps talking. It will be done soon Jim! Very soon! I haven't deconstructed a movie in such a way since film school...

What a fantastic discussion has evolved out of Jim's exercise. My thoughts:

The Joker's plan was to turn Dent into a monster for the purpose of destroying any faith the people of Gotham had in their elected officials. Batman and Gordon subverted this plan; therefore, the Joker lost.

As for how any vigilante can be a hero - don't we have to accept this premise as the basis of ANY superhero movie? All superheroes operate outside the law, because it's the only way to catch/stop/kill criminals who do the same.

Alfred's speech about making "the right choice" simply underlines what he (and Dent) believe Wayne should do. Wayne disagrees, and is about to turn himself in and Dent stops him.

Which brings me to another point. Collaborating with the Batman is itself a crime, which makes Gordon, Dawes, Dent, Fox and Alfred all criminals. So to answer your question, Jim, the movie doesn't seem to believe that an untainted hero can exist, since every major character is either a criminal, or aiding and abetting one.

In episode 2F09, when Itchy plays Scratchy's skeleton like a xylophone, he strikes the same rib twice in succession, yet he produces two clearly different tones. I mean, what are we to believe, that this is some sort of a magic xylophone or something? Boy, I really hope somebody got fired for that blunder.

JE: Good analogy. You mean "The Dark Knight" was meant to be seen as a big-screen equivalent of "The Itchy & Scratchy Show"?

This really does seem like much ado about nothing. As you said, it doesn't really affect what's in the film, by itself. It's chafe. It's a bit like if we were to stop the camera on the set of The Road Warrior, and notice that Mr. Vernon can actually speak in tones that aren't gutteral, really.