Batman: The Dark Knight
by Chuck Donovan
July 21, 2008
At one level it’s a bit embarrassing to admit that I regularly watch movies based on comic books. I’m 56 and my youngest is 14, so it’s at least a semi-voluntary endeavor. Nonetheless, I grew up with subscriptions to DC Comics, the “Justice League of America,” “Classics Illustrated,” and an obscure favorite called “Metal Men.” These readings did not replace literature for my siblings and me; they supplemented it, and, with “Classics” especially, helped to pique interest in the real (and even unabridged) thing. It’s hard even now to describe the imaginative windows opened by just a handful of N.C. Wyeth illustrations in the editions we craved as children.
Thus, an invitation to watch a full-fledged Batman movie with today’s technological accomplishment is no bow to my teenage son, it’s irresistible. The new feature, The Dark Knight, is engrossing and visually spectacular. Unlike the comic books, however, it also has psychological depth and is almost unremittingly dark. It is good v. evil, certainly, but it is a troubled good confronting, in the character of the calculating Joker played by the late Heath Ledger, an almost-explicable evil.
The intense scenes of the Joker wielding knives in the face of his victims are stomach-churning to watch (at least one hopes that audiences have not become used to scenes like this that, in Roman Polanski’s 1970’s film noir Chinatown, became an iconic image of sadistic criminality), but it is during these scenes that the character explicates his personal history. He is the tormented product, he seems to imply, of his father’s wanton cruelty to his mother, just as much as Batman, played by Christian Bale, is the product of his father’s heroic effort to save his mother. Role reversals abound in the movie, and the public’s need for heroes it can both treasure and revile supplies the broad dramatic tension, but good fathers clearly matter.
Among the twisted ethical dilemmas the Joker poses to Gotham City involves two ferry boats full of passengers who are challenged to a potentially mutually fatal decision. One boat is full of criminals, the other ordinary citizens, so it is not a “Sophie’s Choice” that is presented. The scene is played out to an extraordinary conclusion. In the murky moral swamp into which Gotham City has sunk, this depiction of “lifeboat ethics” leaves plenty of room for thought. The Dark Knight is overlong and the violence exceeds its prequel, Batman Begins, and there are instances of implied sexuality and some language.
Finally, the film redefines the Batcycle just as Batman Begins redefined the Batmobile. At least a few things in Gotham City have gotten definite upgrades. Now if only my mother hadn’t thrown out a half million dollars’ worth of comics . . .
Family Research Council is a 501c(3) non-profit organization. If this post has been helpful to you, please consider a gift to help us continue to advance Faith, Family, and Freedom.
Comments
I am shocked by the extremes of violence and cruelty appearing in THE DARK KNIGHT, which too many kids will end up seeing, not realizing how intense and extreme this new Batman movie is.
I am 44 years old, and I also grew up on Batman and other superhero comic books, so saw THE DARK KNIGHT to satisfy my own curiosity.
Even though I really enjoyed the adult level of intensity and plot twists, I cannot enjoy the film so much because it is too extreme for small children to watch without being traumatized, in my opinion. There are too many elements that belong more in an adult-oriented crime movie, not a film that the average parent will think is safe for little kids who will be asking to see this film specifically.
I felt like the Joker villain played a real life, mean-spirited joke on the parents unsuspectingly bringing their little kids into the theater to see THE DARK KNIGHT. After all, Batman is a world famous franchise which is traditionally aimed at kids. I first followed Batman on the 1960s TV show and comics, before I was old enough to go to kindergarten, and I know that I would have been haunted by visuals and dialog in THE DARK KNIGHT, because I have been negatively influenced by seeing films that were to extreme while I was too young to handle them, from other films, not Batman movies. Batman movies should be safe for kids, or they should not advertise them as if it is the usual kid-friendly Batman presentation.
Spread the word that THE DARK KNIGHT is NOT a film for little kids, it is NOT kid-friendly at all!
Good synopsis. The movie was very complex and had a lot of layers to it. As to the Joker’s explanation of his scars … it changed when he was threatening Rachel. That was a quick snapshot into the evil imagination he had was absolutely horrific.
I think I am going to have to go see it again to really get a good hold on the whole thing.
Bryan: I agree with you completely. This is not a film for small children or even immature teenagers. The endangerment of the women and children in the film is not just the “mortal risk” seen in “The Perils of Pauline” or even the 1970s SuperHero films, it is sadism terrifyingly rendered. Families should be forewarned.
Randy: You make an excellent point. My brief review (spoiler warning) did not give a full account of the Joker’s shifting, suit-the-occasion excuses for his villainy. Like the Father of Lies, he has many progeny.
kudos to Batman makers for their record breaking opening weekend… it’s no wonder there’s talk of another one coming out ASAP
After seeing it I kind of feel like Heath stole the show from the guy who plays Batman.
As a comic book fan myself, I agree that the Dark Knight is not a movie for small children or the faint at heart. However, based on the history of where the comic book industry has evolved over the past decades, I wasn’t surprised at the direction of the film or the characters.
Being 40 years old myself and having grown up an avid comic book fan (thank goodness I didn’t throw away my collection), the Batman I recall during my early childhood was often depicted as a campy do-gooder in comic books, animation and live-action. But as times changed, so did the vision of the comic book industry to re-brand and their heroes–even today. DC comics (creator of Batman and Superman) unlike their rival Marvel (X-Men, Hulk, and Spiderman) had heroes that the average adolescent/teenager could not relate too. They were too “godlike” and mythological. Batman was the exception to that rule in the DC universe. Why? Because his alter-ego at the end of the day was still just human with or without the cape and tights. Marvel, on the other hand, from inception delved deeper into human frailties, the psyche, and societal ills that existed in the world of their heroes–much like our real world. From discrimination, to post-adolescent inadequacies to that demon in a bottle, Marvel reached out to let us know what existed in our real world.
With old and new competitors like Marvel and Image comics (Spawn) offering gritty depictions of a “what if” real world, DC needed to revamp itself. Enter Batman. Bringing one of its flagship characters full circle to his origins was ideal. So, back in the late 80s graphic novel “The Dark Night Returns” by Frank Miller (creator of 300 and Sin City) came into being. Miller’s vision (with the blessings of DC comics) was to “modernize” Batman and the villainy of Gotham to fit into the good and evil that exists today’s “real world”. When Batman first came on the scene in the 1930’s, Bob Kane’s Batman was ultra-violent. The current movie adaptation of the Batman legend is tame in comparison to the first stage of evolution of the caped-crusader. DC’s attempted to do was bring Batman back to his dark roots succeeded in being the biggest seller in the modern Batman era. Hollywood in turn just capitalized on it. This reintroduction depicting him as this psychologically dark character of his original 1930s conception became the catalyst to the modern era of “real-life” superheroes from the mid-1980s to today.
I recall during many my pane logy research days at libraries, comic book shops, and conventions seeing pulp images of Batman acting as judge and jury. He would hang criminals by nooses from helicopters or shoot them dead with a handgun. And yet, this was the same Batman that existed during the golden age of comic books when our grandparents (who were kids at that time) used to call “the good ol’ days”. How we so soon forget. Not until the comic’s code was imposed in the 50s did many writers and artists in the industry begin to tone down their works. But as media started to push the envelope once again (as they have in the past few decades), the comic book industry has also to stay afloat.
Much like our society changes, adapts, and evolves, so have our comic book icons. “The Dark Knight” movie was just a continuation and adaptation of the Miller graphic novel in character study. Gone are the days where superheroes would yell a battle-cry, save the damsel in distress while the villain exclaims, “Drat! Foiled again!” Today’s superhero, deals with problems with girlfriends (Spider-man), being lushes (Iron Man), siring children out of wedlock (Superman), and parental neglect (X-men). And still, after all of that they have to save the day. The is the what kids can relate to–heroes with issues just like them. Granted, it’s okay to go into our land of superhero escapism, but know that there is still just a touch of reality to bring us back to that thin line.
I would venture to say in the age of information overload today’s youth are more “plugged-in” to the world we live in than when I was growing up. Today’s kids live in a world of terrorist who have no compulsion in “seeing the world burn” no matter how hard we try to shield them from that reality. Heath Ledger’s Joker was nothing less than an amalgamation of those evils we face today who we pray will never come to our shores again. Gone are the days of Ceasar Romero and Jack Nicolson where I at least got a chuckle or a smile. Batman on the flip-side of that coin (yes, the pun was intended) is that soldier, policeman, firefighter and public servant we lean on to vanguard our fair cities– even when there are tough choices to be made. The psychological profiles of the Batman and the Joker in the movie is not too far removed from current comic book depictions of them. The Joker is still a sociopathic megalomaniac and Batman is still one fuse (or comic code) away from crossing the line. Maybe it’s just easier to swallow the graphic imagery of pen and ink over live action.
Just as the enforcement of the comics code seems to have waned over the years regarding what our kids read, so have the movie ratings in what they see. The Dark Knight pushed the envelope close enough to “earn” a PG-13 rating by at least attempted to show acts of violence while leaving a lot to the imagination without all the blood, guts and gore (sans Two-face). But I would venture to say it was just one or two profane words and blood spurts from being rated “R”. I would not be surprised if the next sequel comes full circle to depict Batman much like his 1939 character. If Warner Bros.(owner of DC comics) has anything to do with it, the history of violence will continue. Ask Bugs Bunny.
Stay tuned folks..same bat time…same bat channel.
Chuck, your review, though a generally positive one, was enough to convince me to save my money and forego Batman: The Dark Knight.
Indeed, even from your muted description, it seems evident that the word “gross” is applicable to the film in more ways than one. And really, who needs more grossness in their life? Aren’t the “fighting’s within and without” that Christians experience in this decadent, death-mesmerized culture more than enough? Do we need to let grossness serve as the locus of our entertainment too?
Apparently I’ve got a much lower “gross tolerance” for there’s no way I could find pleasurably entertaining a film that is “almost unremittingly dark.” Indeed, you describe Gotham City as a “murky moral swamp” and admit the film is needlessly violent with “instances of implied sexuality and some language.” (Being a “talkie,” I assume you mean by that last bit, profane and/or coarse language.)
David Bass, like yourself, Chuck, seemed to have personally liked the film. Yet writing in the American Spectator, he summarized a bit of the action this way. “A gangster gets a pencil jammed in his skull. A main character’s face catches on fire, leaving a charred hunk of flesh. Multiple cops get dispatched via shotgun and handgun, and a few courtesy of the sadistic Joker and his collection of cutlery. Nary a scene goes by where somebody doesn’t have a gun to his head or knife to his jugular.”
Hmm. You gave an equally ominous warning in even less words with this sentence: “The Joker wielding knives in the face of his victims are stomach-churning to watch.”
Now, that would be called a “spoiler” for some moviegoers, but personally I’m quite grateful to you for it. For that line alone will keep me from “spoiling” an evening (and perhaps even a subsequent dinner) by going to see the flick.
Am I too squeamish? Too much of a prude? Not adult enough? Is that why my entertainment choices run more to the films of, say, Fred Astaire, Ronald Colman or Groucho Marx than to “almost unremittingly dark” stomach-churners which feature neurotic anti-heroes?
Hardly. Here then, in short and basic form, are the three basic reasons for that lower “gross tolerance” I mentioned earlier.
1) Being daily engaged in (and I highly respect and appreciate you for doing the same) fighting such evils as abortion, euthanasia, genetic engineering, the persecution of believers, drunk drivers (not to mention the efforts to persuade people to receive the gospel of Christ and therefore escape the unremitting horrors of hell), I just cannot find solace (or even a pleasurable recess) in films, plays or novels which are set in “murky moral swamps.”
And no, this isn’t mere escapism for, again, I haven’t shied away from actively opposing (and for more than 30 years now) “real life” wickedness. But how, for instance, could a sidewalk counselor like myself who tries to deter men and women away from the violence perpetrated by abortionists find entertainment value in a film where greedy, heartless villains every bit as sinister as the Joker threaten (and with shiny blades, no less) innocent victims? No can do.
2) There are alternatives to schlock. For crying out loud, we are not beholden to Hollywood to watch whatever they produce. Indeed, we Christians have been given very strict commands about drinking from unhealthy waters. I won’t even bother right now to get into matters of literature, sport, conversation, hobbies and other alternatives to movie going; I’ll stay on topic and emphasize that there are plenty of movies which uplift, ennoble, and are fun. And through technological innovations, we have more opportunities to watch those than ever before. For example, the internet and subscriber film services have now made hundreds of fine films easily and inexpensively available to our families — films that entertain without requiring a compromise of our values. Why on earth don’t we take advantage of these opportunities?
Squeamish? No, just selective. I want the best. (That’s why I have been in a literary club for nearly 18 years, a co-founder of my city’s Chesterton Society, a season-ticket holder of the symphony, and yes, even a film buff of sorts. But not of films that I have to struggle against losing my mind, my morals or my lunch.)
Prudish? No, just principled. I don’t want to surrender my conscience (or my sensitivity, my standards and my reputation) for a couple of hours of unsatisfactory entertainment.
And finally, 3) Though I became a Christian at a young age (19), the years immediately preceding my conversion were a headlong pursuit of pride and hedonistic pleasure. A detailed description of the “murky moral swamps” in which I slogged isn’t necessary but let it suffice to say that I’ve already experienced my nauseating fill of the “dark nights” that the world has to offer. Therefore, novels and films which use them as their milieu are anything but entertaining to me. They are reminders of the agonizing emptiness and oppressive frustration that once dominated my life…and which I know is still the lot of millions of people.
So no, the world’s system (sought always by moderns to be portrayed, using their words, in “gritty realism”) remains my enemy. It is something to expose, not be entertained by…something to actively resist, not inattentively receive.
My specific suggestion then? I’m not chasing people down to criticize them for seeing Batman: The Dark Knight even with its “twisted ethical dilemmas.” What I am doing is mentioning healthier entertainment choices including the alternative Claire and I went with; namely, watching Batman: The Movie, a camp classic from 1966. Christians can have a lot of fun watching the Dynamic Duo win out against no less than 4 super-villains and smile at a lot of tongue-in-cheek humor.
And, not at all insignificant, they’ll not have a single scene that churns their stomach, twists their ethics, or causes them embarrassment in front of their kids.
Chuck, I haven’t yet seen the film, but I enjoyed your review. Always great to hear from you. 
Denny, I thank you for your comments. I’m not sure my review was meant to be positive (my recent review of W#all E was indeed positive and meant to be a recommendation to see the film). I will say I did prefer Batman Begins and do see director Christopher Nolan as a talented filmmaker who has produced films (Memento/The Prestige) that exemplify a dark ingenuity but not a moral message in the way that the best of Hitchcock does. As a mystery fan, I see a world of difference between the typical works by Agatha Christie and P.D. James. Both focus on the struggle between good and evil, but James’s is a far bleaker depiction of humanity.
Since I mentioned Roman Polanski in my review, it might be good to cite his film version of Macbeth, which I was obliged to see for a college course. It was abysmal. The play is dark, bloody and tragic, but told with the straightforward power of its language it is a tale that persuades powerfully of the wickedness and corrupting power of vengeance. In Polanski’s unprincipled hands, the violence (as in A Clockwork Orange in Stanley Kubrick’s handling) becomes almost celebratory, certainly an object of fascination in its own right, not a metaphor for the destruction of the soul enthralled in it.
While I do not see the new Batman film as meant to make darkness alluring (the title character is deeply troubled by the rule-breaking he commits in his efforts to counter crime and this is vocalized and explained), the film includes far more menacing gestures and actions than it needs to illustrate that dilemma, which is, that good must fight within the code in order to defeat an opponent who obeys no laws. I do see parallels on that score with today’s battles over abortion and man-woman marriage. We fight folks who bite and gouge. We must not. But the desire to do so is an antagonist in the heart.
Good comments, Chuck. And like your original review, insightful and relevant. Thanks.
By: Jeanette Exner | July 21, 2008 at 11:28 am
I plan on seeing this film, but I have an off-topic question: WHY do you include a “comments” section here? Not a single comment has been printed for ANY of the last 26 items on the FRC Blog. Is no one commenting?