'The Dark Knight' - Two Years On...

‘The Dark Knight’ - two years on

It was midway through 2008, and the movie-going world was waiting for the year’s breakout blockbuster. It was coming. There was buzz. There was hype. There was mass marketing. There were toys and other tie-ins. There was the fact that one of the film’s stars had recently passed away (at that time, speculation about the true cause death was persisting). There had been a preview of the first 10 minutes at Comicon which has been rapturously well received by the fans in attendance. It was coming. ‘The Dark Knight’ was coming.

Usually, such buzz, such hype, such marketing is par for the course for a summer blockbuster and says little about the quality of the film – only that the film has the backing of a major studio able to fork out the dough to publicise it and get it into as many screens as possible. To be honest, I was sceptical. ‘Batman Begins’ had been good, but not exceptional. It had been a comic-book movie in the true sense of the term: Batman battled his way through a stylised, pretty unrealistic CGI Gotham, fighting a couple of villains who were pretty underwhelming. It had been an ‘origins story’, nothing more. And a return to that same visual style, and to that world, in a sequel would be equally underwhelming – but no doubt very profitable.

It is fair to say that it is rare for a film to live up to its hype. Usually, it doesn’t happen. Usually, the hype is there to conceal the weaknesses in a film, a form of distraction, an unsubtle sleight-of-hand, an act of subliminal suggestion: we’re spending all this money on this film because it deserves it and therefore must be good. Very rarely is this truly the case. Because very rarely is a film actually that good.

And then there’s ‘The Dark Knight’. The film for which no such subliminal suggestion was necessary – but they did it anyway. They had to, I suppose.

But what made ‘The Dark Knight’ so superlative, so superior to its predecessor film, and to its competitors? It was a combination of many elements coming together. Perhaps it started with the story, by Christopher Nolan and David S Goyer, which was then turned into a screenplay by Christopher Nolan and his brother Jonathan. It was a story that dared to push the boat out in terms of what an action-movie , a superhero movie at that, could do. It was ambitious because it wanted to go beyond the confines of its genre, and risk alienating its audience in so doing, to make a film with intelligence, where there were clear themes, themes that went beyond those typical of the superhero movie: superhero, who has a double identity, must choose, in the final reel, between saving the world or saving the woman who has fallen in love with the alter-ego. Such a choice was presented at the end of ‘Batman Forever’ and the end of the first ‘Spiderman’ movie. In that respect, the thematic stakes in a superhero movie are not high. But ‘The Dark Knight’ lifted them clear out of sight, aided by the fact that, as is made clear several times by the characters in the film, Batman is not a hero. And he’s certainly no superhero.

Thus freed from the confines of the superhero genre, the scriptwriters were free to take the film and its characters in a different direction. Certainly, the question of heroics, and what it takes to be a hero, is explored in ‘The Dark Knight’, and is made explicit in the White Knight/Dark Knight dichotomy between Harvey Dent and Bruce Wayne/Batman. But for these filmmakers, that’s not enough, and they throw in a further layer of complication, neatly summed up by Aaron Eckhart’s Harvey Dent early on in the movie: “You either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain”.

In terms of a villain, ‘The Dark Knight’ gave us one of the best villains in movie history. Further, it gave us one of the most interesting and freakishly terrifying characters in movie history in Heath Ledger’s portrayal of Batman’s nemesis, the Joker. It’s a towering performance from Ledger, and performance that made his untimely death all the more tragic. He created a truly terrifying character: one that literally walks in off the street, and is believable – albeit sociopathic and psychotic. Just as the Joker steals the city of Gotham from underneath Batman, so Ledger steals the film from everybody else. But that’s just as it should be, and without exception the rest of the cast were gracious enough go along with it.

Part of the effectiveness of the film, particularly in respect of the physical violence against other characters, is that it happens off-screen. There’s very little blood seen in this film. The effectiveness of the violence, like in ‘Jaws’, is enhanced by the music of Hans Zimmer and James Newton-Howard.

And unlike its predecessor, where Gotham was largely a CGI construction, ‘The Dark Knight’ is grounded in reality – a verisimilitude – underscored by the extensive use of location shooting. Gone are the sweeping CGI vistas of ‘Batman Begins’. These have been replaced by more realistic cityscapes against which Batman’s battle of wits with the Joker is played out.

It is this battle of wits which forms the backbone of the film. Beneath the action is a morality play: Batman represents Order. The Joker, Chaos. Harvey Two-Face, Chance. And each one believes his respect creed is fair. “You know the thing about chaos?” says the Joker to Harvey, “It’s fair”. Later, Harvey Two-Face echoes that sentiment in respect of his own creed, that of chance, “Pure, unbiased chance” he says, as he flips his lucky coin to see if Commissioner Gordon’s son will live or die.

The conflict between these creeds is what drives the film. Or, as the Joker puts it to Batman at the end of the film, in respect of the conflict between the two of them: “It’s what happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object…You can’t kill me out of some misguided principle, and I won’t kill you…because you’re just too much fun. I think you and I are destined to do this forever.”

Mention must be made of the supporting players: Rachel Dawes – as played by Maggie Gyllenhaal, is smart, plausible – and tragic. Gary Oldman is growing ever more comfortable with his role of Jim Gordon. And Michael Caine once again turns in a nice performance as Alfred Pennyworth.

And yet, this film is not flawless. There are plot holes: the Joker is able to rig explosives in numerous buildings seemingly at a moment’s notice, without anyone else in Gotham noticing; and he’s always one step ahead, seemingly able to predict unforeseeable events long before they happen. And, every twenty minutes the Nolan brothers like to blow something up – with each explosion getting gradually more spectacular than the last. This last element is not exactly subtle – but it at least keeps the audience paying attention.

With ‘The Dark Knight’, it is clearly established that Batman is not the hero – he is what Gotham needs him to be. This lends the film a particular political reading – one that can be seen as a vindication of right-wing Republicanism: Batman is America, the unpopular guardian, ridding the world of terrorists when no-one else will – and if that has to be done by violence, then so be it. If this reading is correct, then it’s a sentiment that does not chime with the liberal sensibilities of those in Hollywood who hand out awards. Maybe today USA is more Batman than Superman, but this reading is probably going too far. But it may partially explain why the film was overlooked in Best Film category at the Oscars. Except Leger, who was honoured posthumously, and justifiably, for his portrayal of the Joker. I believe that he should have got the award in any event, such was the quality of his performance.

Two years on, this remains a great movie. Raises the bar for not only superhero movies, but for blockbusters in general. Proof that you can mix deep ideas in a popular format. You just have to know how. The Nolan brothers knew how with this movie. The question is, with Batman 3, will they be able to recapture the magic? Michael Caine has said that he doesn’t think there should be a third instalment, as he’s not sure they can surpass ‘The Dark Knight’. With the greatest respect to Sir Michael, noble though his sentiments are, I expect to see him in the third instalment (as I am sure he contractually obliged to do it). As a good friend of mine put it: they have to do a third instalment – this is like the end of ‘The Empire Strikes Back’, this is Han Solo in carbonite, they have to resolve this story. While this is true, recent third instalments have not been brilliant (witness ‘Spiderman 3’), and lest we not forget that the original Star Wars saga went out with what Harrison Ford called ‘the teddy bears’ picnic’ at the end of ‘Return of the Jedi’. A third instalment? It’s inevitable. I just hope the Nolan brothers continue in the vein of ‘The Dark Knight’ – keep the film grounded in reality. If the Riddler or Catwoman are going to appear (as current rumour has it they will), make them as grounded in reality and as believable as Heath Ledger made the Joker.

“The night is darkest just before the dawn…but I promise you, the dawn is coming” says Harvey Dent. We now wait to see what that dawn will bring in terms of the third instalment in this franchise.

- June 2010