The corporate logos are deep blue and black: Warner Bros., Legendary Pictures, DC Comics. Then, out of a silent explosion of blue flames and black smoke, the familiar Batman shadow appears. Cut to bright afternoon daylight. The camera glides with surreal smoothness above a recognizably real American cityscape, over the rooftop of a large, squat building toward a cluster of shiny glass skyscrapers. This is not the forbidding, neo-Gothic Gotham City we expect to encounter at the beginning of a Batman movie, a densely stylized urban forest of inky comic-book noir. It's almost like Phoenix at the start of Alfred Hitchcock's "Psycho": Anywhere, USA.
And that may well be the idea: The camera closes in on a colossal mirror, a wall of tinted windows in the side of a building. What are we looking for? How much closer can we get before something has to happen? (Where's the helicopter? You'll catch a glimpse of it at the far left, just at the moment your eye is distracted by an exploding window near center frame.) For a fraction of a second we may wonder about the fate of the people inside the room, and the pedestrians on the street below who are about to be showered with bits of glass. But before that can quite register we're on the other side of the blown out window with a pair of clown-masked gunmen. This is part of some diabolical plan... which turns out to be a bank robbery in progress. (See other notes on this shot, and the rest of this sequence, here.)
Turns out, the building we've just passed over is the most important element in the shot; the glass wall is just a means to an end. Smoke and mirrors...
I had no idea where "The Dark Knight" was going to take me from here, but I had a smile on my face by the end of the first shot, just because of the way it had overturned my expectations of how a Batman movie should begin. (I'd forgotten a similar special-effects shot of Chicago-as-Gotham, following the L along the river to the Wayne Building in the previous movie, 2005's "Batman Begins.")
The movie will play with windows throughout, and with the idea of the city as a perilous stack of window frames -- each one a perch from which you can view some aspect of Gotham, or from which a body might plummet: a Batman lookalike slamming into the mayor's face, with only a pane of glass between them; the Joker shattering a penthouse window and pushing Rachel through it; a line-up of fake Jokers-behind-glass in an unfinished tower...
The camera chopper.
View of Gotham in "Batman Begins" (2005).
Damn you chopper, damn youu!!
Batman Begins was more my style. Matter of fact, that film has pretty much tainted my movie going experience. Each scene in Batman Begins was reduced to its essence--it delivered the whole point of the scene now now now. So it's difficult for me to enjoy slow moving scenes(or anything) like this, unless the movie plans on using that, which TDK didn't. So the zinging music slowly building, the silent explosion slowly growing, and the camera slowly approaching the building all just annoyed me. I kept thinking: Hurry hurry hurry; what's the point, what's the point!
You can thank Batman Begins for that.
Thanks for that Jim, had similar feelings about the opening shot, as I've posted on one of the various TDK-related blogs here at Scanners.
Wish we didn't see the helicopter. (Not that I noticed until now but... there it is.) You've convinced me Nolan is a little sloppy at times. He can't quite perfect each shot. I think that does merit a mention at least in discussions of the film.
The silence of this opening shot is one of the great things about it. Just silence and those blue flames. Enter darkness. Hello city. Soulless city. Boom. Something diabolical has been growing from inside it.
Your notes on the movie playing around with the idea of mirrors, windows, looking through a glass darkly et cetera reflect things the audience is unconsciously sensing throughout I think. Something is happening. They can feel it. It's only us guys who sit around trying to pinpoint. (I don't mean that facetiously.)
During the parade scene - the one scene I cannot explain for the life of me but enjoy anyway, perhaps on a psychological level (and, yes, The Joker really does have superpowers there, the ability to somehow be undetected by fellow policeman despite the massive scars on his face) - there is a brief shot of all the windows the sniper could possibly be looking out, summing up the paranoia of a city where anything could be lurking anywhere. I described Nolan's Gotham as a fun-house.
And so it is. A person could be lost in there forever. What I love is the effect that the opening shot has in leading up to the first shot of The Joker simply standing there in broad daylight. To me it suggests, if I was to put words to the feeling, that there's something factory-like about the city. In goes a human, digested and forgotten amidst the abyss of buildings, until one day, a day like any other amidst the bright sunshine, the city streets cough something back up... the ghost in the machine. The byproduct. The disease gene.
I'd like to compare it to walking through a shopping mall and you see somebody's eyes roll into the back of their head as they become a zombie... but that's not quite it. It's more like looking through the pictures in "Blow-Up" and then...*ominously* there's something else there. And it was always there. We're just discovering it now.
Your description, "stack of window frames -- each one a perch from which you can view some aspect of Gotham", and the image of the mirrored windows links to the wall of monitors Batman used to spy on the city.
I am so glad that you've resumed the Opening Shots Project, Jim. Your observation about the way the film begins is dead-on: bright daylight, pastel colours reminiscent of Michael Mann's palette, downtown buildings - are we really watching a Batman film? But, yes, of course we are - a crime is happening, and we will only find out where soon enough.
And this is just great:
Turns out, the building we've just passed over is the most important element in the shot; the glass wall is just a means to an end. Smoke and mirrors...
I was filled with giddy excitement in those first few minutes. That feeling soon gave way to disappointment, then dread, and, finally, despair.
I absolutely love the image of the blue explosion in silence. It is so surreal due to the sound and colour choices. Something unnatural and devastating has been released.
I think Nolan understands the wonder of the opening shot in creating the mood and even theme of the film. Compare this to Memento with the bullet moving in reverse, or The Prestige with the perplexing number of top hats. They are very strong images.
I really cannot buy into the idea that Nolan is a sloppy in any way. He is a director that puts so much care and thought into his films and one of the best working today. The Dark Knight was a mammoth undertaking, and I think he did a sterling job.
That chopter shot is tame. I think the most visible, yet overglanced, one is in The Shining. Perhaps its because people love Kubrick, and even if they don't like the movie, they give it a pass?
I'll admit, the copter took me out of the film a bit in the beginning. You could see its shadow and it caused an otherwise fantastic shot, to be a strong reminder that you are watching a movie.
You will find flaws like this in almost every movie. Sometimes I have fun finding them in bad movies, but they occur even when the best of the best are at the helm.
And why is everything on Nolan? Do people forget that he has a team working for him? Editors, special effects people (including those who go in and try to edit out mistakes), cinematographers, photographers, etc?
Blaming Nolan is a narrowsighted and a strong sign that one knows very little about movies. Its, an easy thing to do, but its not always accurate. A movie is made by a team. Blaming the perceived captain (often the Director) is as fruitless as blaming a superbowl loss on one player. Pauline Kael talked about how you can't really judge the intent, because movies are made by many people's influence and thus intents. In this same way, stop putting everything on Nolan.
See, what you don't seem to get about The Joker is that he's an Agent of Chaos. He can do whatever he wants. The rules do not apply to him. At the same time, he can't just do anything he wants. He has to follow some rules.
JE: Eureka! That's it!
I for one love these little cinematic "glitches," that reveal the process. Like the oft mentioned tracking shot in "Kane" where a hat can be seen jiggling on a table...the table having just been slid in front of the camera. These moments, I think, add texture and remind us of the craftsmanship behind the slick veneer. It reminds me of the Persian rug makers who would purposely weave in a flaw...because, they believed, perfection was something that belonged only to the almighty.
Best,
BR
JE: Yeah, I think it's silly to waste time looking for routine continuity errors in movies, so I didn't want to make a big deal of it (added as an afterthought at the bottom of the post). I hadn't ever noticed it until a commenter here said it was visible. It's always tricky when you have a mirror in a shot -- and today it's no big deal to take it out with CGI. In this case, the original footage was in IMAX, so maybe they decided not to bother. Your eye goes to the blown-out window at that moment, anyway...
The illusions of stage magic always involve misdirection. Look too closely and the trick unravels. Cinema is another form of magic, and inevitably some mistakes, some telltale signs of the filmmaking process, will end up being hidden in plain sight. Could the helicopter in this shot have been digitally removed? Of course, but it would've moot, since the filmmakers knew that the attention would be on that window at the center of the frame. Misdirection. It's actually a recurring theme and motif throughout the rest of the movie, in the narrative and formal aspects.
"The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist." The greatest trick the Joker ever pulled...
One element of this opening shot you didn't mention that enhanced its effectiveness for me is the Joker's noise (it doesn't really seem to count as a theme), the low, grinding metallic tone on the soundtrack that emerges during his moments of special menace.
In the beginning of the film it works especially well. As we move toward the building, that tone creeps up and we assume it's some sound effect that will be explained momentarily, perhaps from the helicopter or some other machine. It succeeds in immediately getting our interest. We start looking for the source of the noise through the frame, wondering how it will enter the scene. Instead, the window shatters and it slowly fades out again, temporarily forgotten.
As the sound returns in the background of other scenes (such as the Joker's face-off with Rachel) we realize it's just the Joker's signature noise and as such, its use in the opening shot almost seems to symbolize his coiled up energy and ludicrously intricate plans ominously screeching in anticpation for their big reveal. And as that window is broken and his plan goes into effect, the sound vanishes, the anticipation over.
So are you saying you enjoyed the opening shot? I have to agree with you that the sun shining in between skyscrapers wasn't what I expected from a Batman movie, but there is a distinct difference in that opening shot of "Gotham" as oppose to the look of any other city. I don't know exactly what it is, but when I first saw that shot and still see it again, there was something that was so distinctly Gotham-esque about it.
By the way, did you see the film in IMAX? I remember when I saw that shot for the first time on that giant IMAX screen my heart started beating faster and my breath just got away from me.
JE: I think it's a terrific opening shot -- and I wish I'd seen it in IMAX, where it is surely even more spectacular.
My home city doesn't have an IMAX screen, so I never saw it in the larger format until two weeks ago, when I happened to go to another city for a few days and noticed they were showing it.
Oh my gosh. I'd seen it in cinemas on 35mm, I'd own the Blu-Ray with the expanded image, but nothing prepared me for just how incredible that opening shot (and indeed all of the IMAX-shot scenes) really were in their original format. Just incredible.
During the parade scene - the one scene I cannot explain for the life of me but enjoy anyway, perhaps on a psychological level (and, yes, The Joker really does have superpowers there, the ability to somehow be undetected by fellow policeman despite the massive scars on his face)
Off the topic of the opening shot here, but I disagree with you. Isn't everyone in the immediate vicinity of the Joker part of his scheme - the real cops were kidnapped and held in the room with the timer on the blind. So the only people that were close enough to the Joker to notice his scars were the people who knew who he was anyway.
Forgive me, Mr. Emerson, but I can't help that I'm a little curious now: what did you think of "Batman Begins," which has become the unremarkable older brother to Nolan's prodigal son, "The Dark Knight"? Watching both of them back-to-back recently, I was struck by the differences in style and tone between the two of them, and if you can answer this question for me, I may be able to get a better handle on how you view movies in general.
Jim, I had the exact similar reaction to this first shot. It defied all expectations. You're waiting for a night skyline, but you're met with the middle of the afternoon. Very first second you're being told this isn't the Batman movie you're used to. Brilliant opening shot. One of my favorites from last year.
I'm glad you picked up on that motif of glass and mirrors. It's something I feel a lot of critics have overlooked. I like the comment also about how that first building's mirrored windows foreshadows the wall of sonar monitors that later will come into play.
In my own top 10 list over on Wonders in the Dark, I started my Dark Knight review thus:
#2. The Dark Knight
It is no accident that the first image in The Dark Knight is of glass, violently breaking. This motif will be repeated time after time in the course of the film’s 152-minute exploration of order versus chaos. Each of the frequent, subsequent images of breaking glass reiterates how easily the fragile, transparent divide between morality and anarchy can shatter. All you need, The Joker reminds us, is a little push.
Full review here:
http://wondersinthedark.wordpress.com/2009/02/18/jennifer-bouldens-jennybees-top-10-movies-of-2008/
I love your opening shots, Jim. Give me a filmmaker who can move the camera with surety, intention and focus and I'm owned.
Here is a nine minute scene from Bela Tarr's Man From London that is just astonishing. As you're watching, remember: a table separates the two characters during the scene- just go with the camera.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2sq6hTvyndg
These posts are starting to become a highlight, for me. If there is one - or two, rather - films that deserve note on here, however, it's George Miller's "Happy Feet" and "The Road Warrior." Still, only suggestions.
Back to you.
Why is it this once again feels like a veiled Nolan bashing exercise. Time to move on Jim. What's your favourite film? Bet anyone can find a flaw that will annoy you with it. :/
JE: Good question. Why does it feel that way to you? Perhaps, you're being a little over-sensitive. Please give me the benefit of the doubt: I honestly thought I was choosing a natural for the Opening Shots Project, which predates "TDK" by a couple years...
Perhaps Jim. I do enjoy TDK like many but it seems like any comments you make about TDK have essentially been very critical. This one time you had to analyse the excellent opening of TDK you couldn't help dropping in several "minor" gripes:
The helicopter that nobody noticed.
The fact that it is easy enough to remove with CGI which is another dig at Nolan as if he is sloppy.
The glass that could have injured people below (c'mon even for you that's a big nitpick Jim!)
I appreciate your critiques and analyses Jim. I only recently found this site and quickly bookmarked it because it was clear there is some consistently excellent work.
But it is also plainly clear you think TDK was highly overrated and essentially a very flawed film. Your direct attacks on TDK have resulted in a lot of criticism. This more recent attempt is much more subtle but your intent seems pretty clear. It's a shame because it comes across as a bit petty and a little bit unnecessary. We get you don't like the film. You have dedicated many critiques to TDK (more than any film here?).
But I guess I am being oversensitive. I could move on and stop reading this. :)
Loved your review and the movie, but...
I've been looking for someone to mention the biggest flaw of all:
When the 'clown' shoots the bolt-gun, what does it catch on to? Does it wrap around something? There was no one on the roof to grab and secure it to something.
Would you trust your life, sliding across the street 20-stories above on a contraption like that?
Just wondering if this has been addressed.