40in40 – The Dark Knight

07Jun09

My Netflix rating: 4/5 stars

TOM AN

Hey P.Shin, thanks for your time.  We talk about movies all the time in passing, but I have a feeling that your opinions will sound very different in writing.  Especially on the topic of your favorite movie (as you so proclaimed before even watching it), The Dark Knight, possibly one of the greatest comic movies ever made.  You had mentioned before that this series has the potential to redefine movies like The Matrix and Terminator 2 did.  Those other movies had groundbreaking special effects, what do you think the Batman movies have to offer that’s so special?

Personally, I thought this movie was great, but mostly because of the acting.  Excluding Christian Bale (who talks like he’s trying to suck on his words), we’ve got Academy Award winner Michael Caine, Academy Award winner Morgan Freeman, an award winning performance from Heath Ledger, and a supreme actor in Aaron Eckhart who was extremely convincing as both Harvey Dent and Two-Face. None of the other comic book movies come close to an All-Star cast like that and that’s why I was impressed.  But to call The Dark Knight “redefining”?  I don’t know, I don’t see anything else that’s so special.

PAUL SHIN

Thanks for soliciting my opinion on this film. I haven’t seen this movie for awhile, but my three theatre viewings should suffice for now to respond to some of your initial thoughts and questions.

Before we begin, however, I must tell you that I’ve been severely misquoted. TDK is not my favorite movie of all time. My all-time favorite movie is Working Title for Third Batman Installment in Christopher Nolan’s Franchise Reboot (by the way, a “reboot” is virtually the same thing as a new relationship, isn’t it? One doesn’t work out, so you just hit the reset button and start over. Easy! Like the last one never happened! The next time you are dating someone, I’m going to tell her that she is a reboot).

I believe I referred to TDK as a “game changer”. It obviously isn’t the visual marvels that The Matrix and Terminator 2 are; I was speaking more to how the film transforms the graphic novel genre. I think most comic book movies fail because the writers and directors can’t decide whether or not to keep beloved stories in a fan boy fantasy or to push them onto a plane of reality. TDK advances the Batman franchise from Tim Burton’s acid-induced hallucination to Nolan’s bleak reality. Remove Batman’s cowl and Joker’s face paint and you still have a heady film with an interesting protagonist/antagonist. You can’t do this with other comic book movies. TDK transcends the genre and begs for other adaptations to emulate its deconstruction of the comic book movie.

While the actors are solid, they are interchangeable in my opinion. I think the real success stems from Nolan’s clear vision of how a Batman interacts in our modern world. It’s reverse engineered from its counterparts and achieves a better result than something like, “How cheesy do we need to make New York City in order for Spider-Man to exist there?” or “Wouldn’t it be novel to shoot Sin City just like the still frames in the comic book so folks don’t think about how crappy the story and writing are?”

There are definitely issues with the film as well. The most glaring for me is Jake Gyllenhaal in a skirt suit as Rachel Dawes. I would have been fine if Rachel didn’t make it out of the first film. But if you really need this character for continuity’s sake, why not have Shannyn Sossamon or Kate Beckinsale (Nolan seems to prefer Brits for the key parts) play the role? We, as the audience, would have cared so much more about her survival. Why would Bale and Eckhart ever fight for Jake Gyllenhaal. Ugh.

AN

Wait, wait, wait.  How can you say that the actors are interchangeable and then make a case for a better looking actress in the same breath?  Christian Bale and Heath Ledger are disposable, but a hot chick would have made the movie better?  I mean, I do love Kate Beckinsale, but I don’t think she would have added anything more than Jak – err, Maggie Gyllenhaal.  Actually, I think she would have taken too much away from the movie with her beautiful beauty.  You said Nolan’s greatest achievement was his creation of a bleak reality and I wholeheartedly agree.  What’s more real and bleak than a less-than-attractive love interest?  If anything, we know she’s going to die at the end of the movie and we keep watching for that.  Btw, thanks for mentioning Shannyn Sossamon, aka the better looking Angelina Jolie, and thanks for not mentioning Tomkat, who never should be allowed to do movies anymore.

It’s a little unfair to compare TDK with Spiderman and Sin City.  Those movies didn’t have any other agenda than to provide entertainment.  That should have been obvious when they cast people like Jessica Alba and Mr. Snooze, James Franco.  I would compare this reboot to more ambitious films like Superman Returns (which I know you hate) and the new Bond films (which I know you haven’t seen).  When you look at these examples, you realize that humanizing superheroes isn’t really a new idea.  Granted, Nolan did this spectacularly well, but he was no visionary.  His new rendition was simply the best of its kind.  So, I tip my hat to him for that.  If the next Batman is able to keep this human touch, then I’ll give him props for another reason.  I really think this franchise can go on for 4 or 5 total movies, so long as it continues to follow the development (or rather, the eventual disintegration) of the identity of Bruce Wayne.  Kind of like how Harry Potter is going.  You’re right in saying that this is much truer to the idea of a graphic novel in that sense, where a quality storyline can continue for 5 or 6 volumes.

On the note of sequels, I really hope they find a bad guy in the next one that adds some depth to the character of Batman.  I loved how they contrasted Harvey Dent’s White Prince persona to the Dark Knight.  Yea, the Joker was cool, but the protagonist/antagonist storyline was really between Dent and Wayne, don’t you think?  How can they keep that up in film 3?  Or, like so many franchises, is it all downhill from here?

SHIN

Before I move on, I need to make a suggestion. For anyone who happens to be reading this epic exchange of minds, please cease until you insert the film’s soundtrack or find a suitable YouTube clip of the score to complement your read. It’ll be worth it. Trust me.

The characters are interchangeable; Jake doesn’t count. I am only referring to those that actually exist in the Batman comic book universe. Sure, Heath Ledger was great, but I don’t think it couldn’t be duplicated by another with comparable acting chops. I think he actually receives a bit more credit than he deserves because of his “situation” (you know, how he was supposedly dating one of the Olsen twins. Gross). A better looking actor always makes for a better film. If they rebooted Jake and made TDK again, it would be a better movie. Same with Batman Begins. Replace Natalie Portman with Kirsten Dunce in Star Wars and you probably have the worst trilogy ever made. Insert Portman as Dunce’s Mary Jane in the Spider-Man series and you have three films that are much more palatable. Speaking of female casting, Vicki Vale has to be in the next movie, right? Can you cast anybody other than Scarlett Johannson? Is this even open to debate?

Moving on, did you just make my argument for me? You want to compare TDK to James Bond. You want to compare a comic book film to a non-comic book one. No other graphic novel film demands comparisons outside of the genre. Nolan’s flawless execution of an existing concept is his genius (and deserves accolades for succeeding where his contemporaries failed). Just watch in the next couple of years as studios try to play catch up and emulate the dark tones, complexity, and real world weight of TDK. This is why it’s a game-changer; every newly-released comic book movie will be compared to it.

There’s something else that’s unique to the current Batman franchise that Nolan should be lauded for. The sequel is nothing like Batman Begins. Can you say that about other franchises? Nolan and his brood dared to linger down a path that didn’t guarantee success. It worked. Your title character has evolved from the first film; shouldn’t the franchise and themes organically follow that progression? It seems obvious.

I will admit though that the Batman franchise has a huge advantage that some other graphic novels lack. Everyone knows the character and has some concept of Bruce Wayne’s back story. With such a long tradition, even graphic novelists have had the opportunity to re-write the story. Thus, the fan base doesn’t demand a linear adaptation from comic book to screen (e.g., the shit sandwich Watchmen). When novelists decided Batman learned under the tutelage of ninjas, no one objected. When Nolan decided to give Batman a new suit, Joker to appear terrifying, no one objected. Interpretation is intrinsically built into Batman lore. Nevertheless, established characters can lead to some missteps. Superman is older than Batman, and has had some alternate treatments of his story. But the reboot sucks. It sucks hard. It’s nothing more than Bryan Singer masturbating to his childhood love of Christopher Reeve’s Superman. Singer’s direction clearly lacks the ability to create something fresh. If nothing else, wouldn’t you consider TDK a special film for being able to avoid tripping over the land mines inherent to the genre?

It’s difficult to imagine a third installment of the franchise that will cast a shadow over its predecessors, maybe impossible. However, Nolan and co. have certainly created an interesting conflict for the protagonist. If done so correctly, this has the chance to be the best third movie in any franchise. I wouldn’t put it past him. Hey, I’m easy to please, as long as there are no Ewoks, I’ll enjoy it.

(For the record, I am laying the smackdown in this heated Lincoln-Douglas debate. I’d have to say it’s like 12 – 1 with the British judge giving you a nod for the Bond reference. The mercy rule should be considered.)

AN

I’d like to switch gears for a moment.  I think we both agree that the direction was superb and the acting offered some real depth.  To argue about degree and magnitude is too subjective.  I can go on about this, but I don’t want to take off my gloves quite yet.  But, to your point, I’m excited to watch the upcoming years of comic book movies and see where they go with it.  Sadly, I fear there will be more X-Mens and Spidermans before there are more TDKs.  I even enjoyed Iron Man and Hulk, but for reasons that don’t have staying power like the reasons I enjoyed these Batman films.

Which brings me to a topic you genially touched on: the idea of interpretation and lore.  What do you think happens when a story moves from paper to the silver screen?  Comic book movies have a different genetic structure than adaptations of normal books, I think.  Comics have what you called “tradition” and tradition creates characters that transcend space and time. Stories can change and people can have their own opinions, but the basic moral usually stays intact.  I’m gonna go out on a limb and say you liked Nolan’s interpretation.  I don’t know, I just got that feeling somewhere in your last 681-word blowjob.  But, again, you contradicted yourself a bit when you say that interpretation in intrinsically built in the comic book movies, but then you knock Bryan Singer for his play on Superman.  (Well, you said interpretation is built into Batman lore, but I’m going to assume that the same standards exist for all comic books, for my afore mentioned reason.)  In my opinion, Superman Returns was just another interpretation of a very unique (and difficult-to-put-into-words) comic book tradition.  I personally liked it because I like Superman more than Batman. If you liked TDK for avoiding the typical pitfalls of comic book movies (which is to focus too much on the superficial qualities and not enough on the lore, see Iron Man and Hulk and X-Men and Spiderman and…) then you’ve got to like Superman Returns for that same reason.  Albeit, Singer’s personal interpretation was overly romantic and uh, masturbatory, but it remained true to Superman’s tradition.

Ok, best third movie in any franchise.  Sadly, that’s not hard to imagine.  There have been far too many Thirds that added little value beyond the promise of finishing off the series – X-Men, Back to the Future, Stars Wars III (maybe not XI because it had Princess Leia in a gold bikini), Matrix, etc.  So, you see it’s going to be really really difficult to fall short of expectations.  Plus, this is not the typical Third.  These movies will go on beyond just this next one.  It really is paving an interesting path for itself.

If you had the chance to reboot any fallen franchise, which one and how?

btw, The Bourne Ultimatum might be the best Third ever made.

SHIN

Young padawan,

I knock Bryan Singer’s Superman because there is NO interpretation from what’s already been created. He attempted to keep everything exactly the same as the previous Superman films. We wouldn’t be having a discussion about Nolan’s successful reboot had he written characters that were identical to Burton’s original films. It’s the reason why Clark Kent is already getting a makeover in the mold of the current Batman films. But hey, we’re here to talk about TDK, no? I think you want to discuss peripheral things, but I vote “nay”. Let’s cease with all else, including my desire for Lucas Films to reboot the original Star Wars trilogy. It is undoubtedly sacrilege, but could be so amazing with the right people involved (or not involved, ahem, George Lucas).

Conclusion: The Dark Knight is the best comic book movie ever made. It has some flaws and pacing issues, but it succeeds in extracting and showcasing the meatiness of comic book characters. Like-movies by comparison fail horrendously and preserve the genre’s perception as silly and trivial. It’s the (spoiler alert!) Commissioner Gordons of the movie that keep the franchise grounded in reality and allows for the more fantastical characters to be accepted by the audience (e.g., Harvey Dent’s quick turn into a murderer). I’m confident the third movie will also offer a healthy dose of strong supporting characters for maximum density (in a good way).

However, I’m not fully convinced of Christian Bale as a leading man (I have not seen The Machinist so this observation may seem a bit unfair) which should add an additional challenge to the third movie’s success. The resolution to this three-part story has to come in the form of Bruce Wayne’s disintegration (like you mentioned) and his redemption. Wayne/Batman was not the centerpiece in TDK; he has to be in the third installment for it to provide satisfactory resolution. Bale has to carry this movie, and I’m not convinced he can.

That is all. I’d like to thank the moderator, camera crew, and audience for lasting this long. Special thanks to my opponent, WonQ, for so dutifully accepting this beat down and allowing this discourse to take place.

AN

Well, there you have it.  A full debate that actually stayed on the topic of The Dark Knight, aka “the best comic book movie ever made,” despite my best efforts to stray to other things.  Thank you, Paul.  Your passion for this discussion was unparalleled.

Filed under: 40in40   |  4 Comments
Tags: batman, christian bale, christopher nolan, comic, the dark knight