The following is an in-depth story analysis. If you haven't seen this movie, you might want to before reading this review
In poker, the joker is used as a wild card, to make the game unpredictable. Knowing there are four suits, and therefore, four of each number of the face of different suits; it helps players in knowing what possible combinations of cards other players might have in their hands. However, with the joker, there could be five kings, or five aces. You're always confident when you know the rules, until the Joker comes up.
The Joker: Those mob fools want you gone so they can get back to the way things were. But I know the truth: there's no going back. You've changed things... forever.
The Dark Knight is considered the best superhero film ever made, by many, and there are a lot of reasons for that: Heath Ledger's Oscar-winning performance as Joker, the dark themes of anarchy and terrorism that we rarely see in a superhero film, and the fact that it plays as a sophisticated complex crime drama, and whilst it's based on a superhero comic, it's not based on the expectations of that genre, and appeals to a wider demographic, than just a comic book action movie. A lot of why it's so well received by so many people, is because it doesn't really feel like a superhero movie at all. Despite the record-breaking box office and the extraordinary impact the movie made in the film industry, there are some who say it is overrated. For some, the argument is the same as why people didn't care for Batman Begins: it wasn't their Batman. This time, there's an added complaint of: that's not my Joker. It goes without saying that Joker didn't need The Dark Knight to remain one of the popular American characters in history, and with his long and rich history, a lot of his fans know what they want him to be, and what he wants his jokes to be. The Joker isn't to the tee from Mark Hamill's portrayal in Batman: The Animated Series; he's not the same character. For these fans, they don't want a reinvention, they want what they feel they didn't get from Jack Nicholson's Joker in 1989: the demented, unpredictable, yet hilarious Joker; a Joker who was, in the core, twisted, but still a lot of fun to watch. I'm sure a lot of fans were disappointed to watch a Joker relegated to a terrorist. The most resounding complaint, as far as I heard of, is that the political allegory, and the social commentary is too heavy-handed, to enjoy The Dark Knight as a Batman movie. Sure, you'd want something more than just the two-dimensional good guy and bad guy hitting each other, until the good guy inevitably wins, but the gripe against The Dark Knight, is that it spends so much time talking about things, that the characters get lost in a thick cloud of philosophical debate. In other words, some people didn't like it, because, it isn't enough of a superhero movie.
Someone once said that The Dark Knight is like eating a really big, amazing steak, and wanting more, even though you're full. Of course, this was someone who really really likes The Dark Knight. I think The Dark Knight is like a restaurant where the really really big amazing steak was served. If a new restaurant opens, and people tell you weeks on end, you gotta go there, and you gotta try this incredible steak, by the time you finally give in to the hype and try it out, chances are, your perceptions would have been tainted, and the steak won't be as nearly as good as it may have, had you eaten it the day the restaurant opened. You couldn't have possibly felt the same way your friends did the first time they tried it, because, just like The Dark Knight, you're expecting it; now that it's been talked up so much, you're going to demand more from it than it could possibly deliver. You want perfection.
I liked it more the second time I saw it, than the first, because it's so dense with material, that I was overwhelmed in the first viewing. I lost myself in the performances so much, that I completely missed a lot of what the story was doing. No matter how hyped it is, this is my view of the film. My perspective. Feel free to have your own. People may say this is the best movie ever made, or it could be the most overrated. I will do neither. I will speak my mind; I will give you my honest and best take on The Dark Knight.
I liked it more the second time I saw it, than the first, because it's so dense with material, that I was overwhelmed in the first viewing. I lost myself in the performances so much, that I completely missed a lot of what the story was doing. No matter how hyped it is, this is my view of the film. My perspective. Feel free to have your own. People may say this is the best movie ever made, or it could be the most overrated. I will do neither. I will speak my mind; I will give you my honest and best take on The Dark Knight.
Like I said in Batman Begins, a well-made movie is still a well-made movie, even if it's not what you liked. If it's not your bag, I completely understand, and luckily this trilogy is wrapped up and you'll experience a new kind of Batman - bag.
For me, The Dark Knight is an enjoyable, thought-provoking, but intense and tragic film; a delicate balancing act between exploring an idea, and making an entertaining commercial movie.
For me, The Dark Knight is an enjoyable, thought-provoking, but intense and tragic film; a delicate balancing act between exploring an idea, and making an entertaining commercial movie.
Alfred Pennyworth: Endure, Master Wayne. Take it. They'll hate you for it, but that's the point of Batman, he can be the outcast. He can make the choice that no one else can make, the right choice.
I've said the best superhero films were the ones that are something else first, and superhero movie second. The Dark Knight, in its core, is an intricate crime-drama; the city versus the mob, the police trying to run all of the organized crime to the ground, the mob limping around on its last leg after Batman has done so much to clean up the city streets. I don't think there's a more involved plot in a superhero movie, than The Dark Knight. It's an extremely dense film, with various factions of the mob trying to stay afloat, and the crooked tycoon in Hong Kong helping the Gotham mob's cash flow going; Harvey Dent and Jim Gordon's plan on tracking the mob's money with marked bills and cut off that cash flow; the politics of jurisdiction. They can't go after Lau whilst he's back in Hong Kong, but Batman can, and once Batman turns him over to the Gotham police, there's a law-lingo about a RICO case, where if you could charge one offender for a crime, you could charge all of them, and that's how Harvey puts several hundred gangsters behind bars in one day, and that leads to the dangers of Gordon and the Mayor "putting all their eggs in one basket", trusting Dent to hold the city together, whilst every criminal that's left will be coming after him. When the movie was over, I felt like I was having a crash course in criminal justice and big city politics. I've never thought I would go in a Batman movie and learn things, like what a RICO case is. Jonathon and Christopher Nolan really did their homework to make a legitimate modern crime thriller, and not just leave the details in the background to focus on the action. I don't think those details shatter the humanity of the story. I think it's important that we see, specifically, how hard this triad, Batman, Dent, and Gordon, all work to bring down the criminal underworld; how much it means to each of them when plans succeed, because going through all this with them, we could better experience the pain each of them go through, when Joker steps in, and they fail to fully stand up to that corruption. The Dark Knight thrilled a lot of us because it felt fresh; it was unpredictable. It doesn't neatly fit in the superhero formula we're used to. In fact, it doesn't nearly fit in the three act formula, and yet, it's surprisingly cohesive and confident about what it wants to be.
Three times in the film, we're told Batman is not a hero, when Bruce allows Harvey to turn himself in as Batman after Joker has killed so many people trying to force Batman into revealing his true identity. Alfred tells Rachel that Bruce is making a sacrifice: he's not being the hero. He's being something more. After Rachel was killed, and Harvey loses half his face in an explosion, Bruce implies that he's not really a hero when he says Gotham needs its true hero, and I let that murdering psychopath blow him half to hell. Finally, at the end of the movie, after Batman decides to take the fall for everyone Harvey killed to preserve Harvey's reputation, Gordon explains to his son, Jimmy, why the police have to chase him: he's not a hero, he's a silent guardian, a watchful protector, the dark knight. Personally, I thought that was a little too spelled out, but his point is, Batman's whole character arc is about learning what Batman's limits are, that morally, there are lines he can't cross, but as a symbol, he has to allow himself to be what Gotham needs him to be, so it can survive, whether that's symbolically, a hero, or a villain. Also, he faces the consequences of trying to be a hero, he's inspired a lot of good, but the worst evil he had to contend with, a man he doesn't even understand because he doesn't play by the same rules as the other villains he fought, was also inspired by him. If Batman didn't exist, none of the horrible things that happened in this movie, the people that Joker killed, Harvey Dent's tragic fall, Rachel's death; it wouldn't have happened. Most importantly, Batman doesn't technically win in the end. The Joker goes to jail, and Harvey is stopped before he could kill anybody else, but again, in order to preserve the progress Dent made in giving the people of Gotham hope, he has to become the villain, to make everyone think he's a murderer. Joker doesn't ultimately win, but Batman doesn't either. So the superhero movie that changed all the rules, is telling us that the hero, isn't really the hero. Is Batman being noble by not being the hero, as Alfred says, or is all of this his fault, for getting involved in a situation he didn't fully understand back in Batman Begins? It was his fault for inspiring evil, as well as good, even if it was unintentional. Was he never a hero in the first place, and he's just cleaning up his own mess?
I am not saying The Dark Knight is not a superhero film, I just think that it's realistically questioning the idea of being a superhero, and the broader implications of that. Batman Begins was about the superhero coming of age story about a man facing his fears, using his fears, and developing into an ideal that he would use to inspire others into changing the state of the city. The Dark Knight is about how society is affected by that idea. It's about how complicated real life is. You can't just put on a costume, be a good guy, punch out the bad guy, and call it a day. For every action, there are consequences, and for every good thing that comes out of your well-intended actions, there may be unintended consequences. The question you have to ask yourself is, and the question The Dark Knight asked numerous times, is whether or not it's worth it.
Without Batman, the city would be as crime-ridden as it was in Batman Begins, still run by Carmine Falcone, and Harvey Dent may have never run for DA. He certainly wouldn't have been able to get much done. Nevertheless, Batman, also, as Alfred reminded Bruce, pushed the criminal underworld to the point of desperation, so they turn to Joker, a man they didn't fully understand. In addition, none of that would have happened in the first place. Is he a hero, or is he just making things worse?
Harvey Dent: You either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain.
At the beginning of the movie, Dent has a famous line, you either die a hero, or live long enough to see yourself become the villain. He doesn't offer up a third alternative. He never even gives a thought to the idea of sitting back and letting the city stay corrupt. He believes in Batman for trying, even if he ultimately fails. Furthermore, that's what Batman realizes at the end, that despite the horrors that he, perhaps, is indirectly responsible for, as Alfred says, it was always going to get worse before it gets better. In addition, he also says that's the point of Batman, he can be the outcast. He can make the choice no one else can make. The right choice.
Even though Dent was corrupted by Joker, Batman learned a lot from him before that. Dent was willing to be what he needed to be to get the job done. Earlier, he allowed himself to be ousted as Batman so Joker would come out and Batman could catch him. So, Batman echoes his line at the end: you either die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain, and he does the same thing for his friend, that he did earlier for him. He takes the fall; he lies, for the greater good. If you agree with Alfred, Batman can't be held responsible for the bad that comes out of the good things that he does. That's the idea of escalation Jim Gordon was talking about in Batman Begins. If you fight evil, it's going to fight back, and harder. So, all Batman can do, is to be what he needs to be, when he needs to be it.
Even though Dent was corrupted by Joker, Batman learned a lot from him before that. Dent was willing to be what he needed to be to get the job done. Earlier, he allowed himself to be ousted as Batman so Joker would come out and Batman could catch him. So, Batman echoes his line at the end: you either die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain, and he does the same thing for his friend, that he did earlier for him. He takes the fall; he lies, for the greater good. If you agree with Alfred, Batman can't be held responsible for the bad that comes out of the good things that he does. That's the idea of escalation Jim Gordon was talking about in Batman Begins. If you fight evil, it's going to fight back, and harder. So, all Batman can do, is to be what he needs to be, when he needs to be it.
The Joker: The only sensible way to live in this world is without rules.
The Joker steals the show in the sense that Heath Ledger's performance is so visceral and layered, he had so much energy in every frame of film he was in, and he's the most memorable part of the movie, despite being, only one of many elements. However, he doesn't have more screen time than Batman, like Jack Nicholson did, in Batman, and he's out of the movie completely for the last fifteen minutes of the movie. If you want a great superhero movie that will hold up, you want a villain that people love to watch, and love to hate, but you do not want that villain to overshadow the hero and lessen the impact of his story. Some people criticize this film by doing that one thing, but I don't see it. Batman has a very clear character arc, and it's masterfully crafted to center around what Joker is doing. Joker, himself, is not the central character. In fact, he's not even a fully developed character. He's designed to challenge Batman's philosophy; to try and force him to break his one rule.
Though extremely fascinated in his philosophy, Joker isn't really a character, much so is he a force of nature. Like an unstoppable brushfire, you can't predict what he's going to do. You don't know where he's going to go, and what he's going to do next. He's certainly not a sympathetic villain, in the classic sense, because we can't relate to him. We know what he wants, because he tells us. He says the only sensible way to live in this world, is without rules. He believes civilization is a façade, and that everyone in society is living a lie or, a bad joke. We're only in denial because we are too comfortable. As long as we have security, it's easy to act like we understand human nature. The Joker tells Harvey in the hospital room, nobody panics as long as everything goes according to plan, and so he messes up those plans to show people what they really are at the core, that they're just animals pretending they're something more. Nevertheless, we don't know why Joker thinks this way. We don't know his background, though he tells us two conflicting stories about how he got his scars, and I can only assume that none of them are true. In addition, we can never be sure if he's telling the truth about anything. We can at least be sure that he believes what he's telling about trying to show humanity what he thinks its true colours are, because he's very consistent about that.
Though extremely fascinated in his philosophy, Joker isn't really a character, much so is he a force of nature. Like an unstoppable brushfire, you can't predict what he's going to do. You don't know where he's going to go, and what he's going to do next. He's certainly not a sympathetic villain, in the classic sense, because we can't relate to him. We know what he wants, because he tells us. He says the only sensible way to live in this world, is without rules. He believes civilization is a façade, and that everyone in society is living a lie or, a bad joke. We're only in denial because we are too comfortable. As long as we have security, it's easy to act like we understand human nature. The Joker tells Harvey in the hospital room, nobody panics as long as everything goes according to plan, and so he messes up those plans to show people what they really are at the core, that they're just animals pretending they're something more. Nevertheless, we don't know why Joker thinks this way. We don't know his background, though he tells us two conflicting stories about how he got his scars, and I can only assume that none of them are true. In addition, we can never be sure if he's telling the truth about anything. We can at least be sure that he believes what he's telling about trying to show humanity what he thinks its true colours are, because he's very consistent about that.
He doesn't care about money. Proving that when he burns his half of the giant money pile toward the end. Also, he gets pretty frustrated when neither boat decides to blow up the other in his social experiment, where he's trying to prove that when the chips are down, people will always commit terrible atrocities to save themselves, and that compassion is an illusion. That's when Batman says that Joker is just trying to show that deep down, everyone is just like him.
So how did he get like this? It's not really a problem that we don't know, because he's such an effective device; we get to use our imaginations and watch this bizarre terrifying human being, and wonder where he came from. Fans often said that Joker should never have an origin, because that's one part that makes him so interesting. You can never be completely sure if he's insane or not. Sure we could say something is wrong with someone if they just go around killing people, but that's putting things in our civilized terms, arguing with a guy who thinks all of that is made up to preserve order. The really scary thing to me, is the possibility that one of the times that Joker is telling the truth, could be when Gamble calls him crazy, and he very pointedly says: I'm not. No, I'm not.
We want to believe that deep down, people are good, and it's only after something terrible happens to them, they're corrupted, like we see with Harvey Dent. Batman believes criminals are uncomplicated, and that you can beat them as soon as you figure out what they're after. What if nothing happened to Joker in his past? What if he just woke up one day, looked at the world, and said that this doesn't make any sense; all I see is hypocrisy, and misplaced ideology. What if he was just a really smart guy who over thought everything; really analyzing things trying to get to the truth. What if Joker was me?! Naahh I'm just kidding, but that's a scary thought, isn't it, that Joker might be perfectly sane and is capable of anything he does, anyway? |
I'm a sucker for the villain that's a mirror to the hero, and this movie nails that. If Batman Begins is about finding a way to use fear to inspire people, The Dark Knight shows a monster that uses fear for the opposite. To show that there is only the negative, and everything else is an illusion. Joker is a perversion of Batman. He was inspired by Batman to put on a costume and spread his message, too. Like Batman, he goes completely outside of society and tries to change things. Though their philosophies are different, Joker seems to have respect for Batman because he thinks outside the box. He's a nonconformist, like Joker. Nevertheless, the problem of Joker is that Batman is changing things, and having inspired Harvey Dent, he's leading Gotham to a more orderly place, and Joker hates order, so he tries to corrupt Batman showing him he's no different from anyone else, and he too can be pushed to break his moral code; to go against his own rules. At the end, when he doesn't manage to make Batman kill him or anyone else, he says, this is what happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object, and he says they're destined to do this forever. I love that scene, and not just because the giddy Batman fan inside me that says yay that's how it's supposed to be, but also, because these two are truly opposites. They almost literally repel each other. One can't kill the other. It's obvious that Batman can't kill Joker, because, he can't kill anyone if he's to prove Joker wrong. And Joker says he won't kill Batman because, he's just too much fun, and I think it's because he's too fascinated with Batman. In the comics, Joker likes the challenge Batman brings, but the challenge there, is to try to make Batman insane; to make him like Joker. The same is true here, except it's less to do with making Batman insane, though that's what he did to Harvey, and more about trying to fit him into his philosophy. If he could corrupt Batman, the incorruptible, then he knows he's right. Remember that Joker winning this argument is more important to him than anything else. After all, he tried to get Batman to hit him on the street with his batpod. He just wants Batman to kill someone, even if it was him.
A lot of the terror of this re-imagination of Joker comes out of what we can't see. Parents complain that there were too much gratuitous violence, but I completely disagree with that. I don't think the movie is overly violent, especially to most other PG 13 films. Rather what violence there is that intensifies by the themes surrounding it, and how it's shot. There's no blood in The Dark Knight. When Joker does his magic pencil trick, all we see is him slam his hand down, and the thug go out of frame. That's it. Joker talks a lot about what it's like to kill somebody with a knife, how he uses knives instead of guns so that he could saviour all the little emotions. We never sit down with him when he actually does that. This movie is absolutely not suitable with all ages, I'm not saying it is. I would've been horrified with some of the ideas presented in this movie if I was five or six by the implied violence, but not necessarily what we were shown. Every time something really horrible happens, the camera cuts. We don't actually see Joker kill Gamble, nor did we see the tryouts, when Joker makes Gamble's men fight to the death to have the right to work for him. When I first saw the trailers, I expected Joker to be overly violent; a gruesome, humorless Joker. And for being a terrorist, for all the mutilation we know he does, but we never see, he's presented as tastefully as possible, and he's surprisingly entertaining, in that somewhat, uncomfortable, I shouldn't be laughing at this, kind of way. We know he impaled a man's head with a pencil, but the way Ledger delivered that scene, I can't help it, it's really funny, and yet, fully in character. Ledger found a way to make this manipulative anarchist, with the most depressing message ever, extremely entertaining. For my money, though, he's definitely a reinvention to the character, and an absolutely valid one. After decades of Batman stories, I'm glad we're not just constantly retreading what was already done with these characters, and finding ways to update them for modern audiences.
By the way, I think my favourite bit with Joker was when he keeps hitting the button on the detonator, trying to get the rest of the hospital to blow up. That's good filmmaking. Somehow, this movie got me to laugh, at a man trying to blow up a hospital.
The Joker: Do I really look like a guy with a plan?
Joker says he's not a planner or a schemer, and of course he clearly is. He had a pretty elaborate trap set up to get Harvey and Rachel, and put Batman in a situation where he could only save one; the sadistic choice. You also have to wonder how he could be sure anyone would be where he needs them to be, when he sets these plans up. How did he know Batman would be in the police station to interrogate him for instance? And yet, he doesn't seem like he's got everything planned out in the end. There were numbers of places where he seemed perfectly fine to die to prove his point, like, when Two Face flips a coin to decide if he should kill Joker. Joker says, now we're talking. He wants chaos, and he says that's fair. Random chance should decide his faith. He let Harvey hold that gun to his head. He couldn't have possibly known if he would've went out of that room alive, so who knows if he was already planning the scenario with the two boats. Though I had a hard time buying that he would make sure his plan with Rachel and Harvey hooked up to the oil drums would go off without a hitch, I'm okay with this one because of what Joker tells Batman at the end. Did you really think I would risk losing a battle for Gotham's soul, in a fistfight with you? You need an ace in the hole, and mine's Harvey. It wouldn't have mattered if he died in the hospital room or not. Getting Harvey to try and get him at all gave Harvey the little push. I don't think Joker had any idea of course, that Dent's face would get scarred, or even half of the other things that happened due to his plans. I'm not even sure if he knew he would survive the bank heist in the beginning. One of his men could easily have shot him, and he put himself in the exact situation they were in, just to see if they would do what he thought they would.
I see Joker as a host of a really demented reality TV show where he socially experiments on people, and tries to push them to their limits to see how they'd react and what kind of drama unfolds. And instead of making them go with little sleep and lots of alcohol around, he gives them twisted impossible choices and murders them instead of voting them off the show. Obviously, I don't think the movie is a commentary on reality TV, I just think it's a fun way to look at it. I do think it's interesting that he gets a lot of his schemes on television.
There is some truth about him saying he's not a planner. What he's saying is, he's not interested in control, like the other planners. A lot of his schemes, he just does, like a dog chasing cars, from the heat of the moment; there were multiple of examples to prove his philosophy rather than one giant scheme. For example, he never knew Reese would come on television and would try to tell the world who Batman was. He never knew who Reese was at that point. Very quickly, Joker devises a plot to blow up a hospital if Reese isn't killed in an hour, and that give him just enough time to give Harvey that little push. Is this all too convenient, or is Joker simply smart enough to see opportunities others might miss? Is it too coincidental that Reese happens to be on TV, when Joker really wants to break into a hospital to see Harvey Dent?
Rachel Dawes: Let's not do that again.
This is the one time I sat in the theatre watching a superhero movie and didn't say, "oh great, the villain is stealing the girl again". It's unusual the love interest isn't used to lure the hero. Joker was actually with Batman when he revealed this to him. She's also not used because she's Batman's love interest, either. Joker finds this interesting, and makes the personal steaks- err, stakes, a lot higher for Batman, but Rachel, of course, is Harvey Dent's girlfriend. Then again, there are a lot of unusual things from the love interest in this movie. First of all, she's the love interest he had in the first movie. Batman had a different girlfriend in every movie. Secondly, she's not just there for the ladies in the audience or to give Bruce the added headache of having to keep his identity a secret, since she already knows his identity. She's not just here to be kidnapped.
Ok she is kind of here to be kidnapped. Her death plays as a huge role with the theme of the movie which is that heroes can never be truly happy. She told Bruce at the end of Batman Begins when the world no longer needed Batman, they could be together. I resisted using that idea as a major thrust for this movie because I didn't want a love triangle trying to get in the way of larger issues, with Batman's attempt in making Gotham a place that doesn't need Batman, instead, it plays perfectly in that idea, by creating a character of Harvey Dent, who can actually take over for Batman. You get the idea in the comics, sometimes, that Batman knows from the beginning that his cause can not truly be finished. He sometimes seem as crazy as the psychotic villains he fights, because he is obsessed with trying to obtain something he can never have: a world without crime. However, Nolan has devised a believable scenario where Dent may be creating a world where Batman isn't needed any more. That's why this world seems, visually, brighter, compared to the world of Batman Begins. And so, it makes sense that this come up. Bruce has every right to ask Rachel this. The time is coming when the world no longer needs Batman, but she doesn't know if she could wait for Bruce, because she's fallen in love with the hero that is making Gotham a place that doesn't need Batman. The man Bruce later tells Alfred, after Rachel died, is Gotham's true hero. Bruce calls him, a hero with a face.
So, this is actually a very extraordinary, well-crafted love-triangle. It isn't just Bruce fighting with a random guy, and it isn't just there for a force drama; it has everything to do with the main themes of the movie, and makes it personal for everyone involved. I actually think the love triangle helps a lot, keeping the big, heavy, social, political, and philosophical ideas from keeping these characters seem unreal; this is coming from a guy who usually hates love triangles. So unbenounced to Bruce, Rachel chooses to marry Harvey Dent, and I can't blame her. Though he's jealous with Harvey's relationship with Rachel, when he first meets Harvey and sees how committed he is to true justice, according to his campaign slogan "I believe in Harvey Dent", he throws him a fundraiser, and decides he soon will quit becoming Batman because he believes so completely in Harvey Dent.
When Rachel died and Bruce still thinks she was going to wait for him, he tells Alfred, Dent can never know. He wants to protect his friend, who's in terrible conditions in the hospital, and doesn't need any more pain. Very rarely do you get a love triangle like this where the two people fighting for the same girl, or guy, care so much about each other's feelings, having such respect for how the other person feels, even though they hope to get what they want. Alfred, having read Rachel's note revealing to Bruce that she wants to marry Harvey, decides not to show the letter to Bruce, to protect him from all the pain he's going through, just as he thinks he's protecting Harvey. Yes, this movie has a lot of really heavy themes, but I think these characters are very real.
When Rachel died and Bruce still thinks she was going to wait for him, he tells Alfred, Dent can never know. He wants to protect his friend, who's in terrible conditions in the hospital, and doesn't need any more pain. Very rarely do you get a love triangle like this where the two people fighting for the same girl, or guy, care so much about each other's feelings, having such respect for how the other person feels, even though they hope to get what they want. Alfred, having read Rachel's note revealing to Bruce that she wants to marry Harvey, decides not to show the letter to Bruce, to protect him from all the pain he's going through, just as he thinks he's protecting Harvey. Yes, this movie has a lot of really heavy themes, but I think these characters are very real.
Briefly on Rachel herself, I believe Maggie Gyllenhaal plays her very well, and I probably would've liked her in the role, had she gotten it in the first place. However, she looks a few years older than Katie Holmes, and that distracted me when I first saw the film. I had to remind myself she was supposed to be the same character. She does seem a little more sarcastic, but I think she's overall likable. I'm just in the minority and really liked Katie Holmes, and really missed her here.
The Joker: You know the thing about chaos? It's fair!
This being a tragedy, it's a little more complicated than simply calling this a triad of three protagonists. Batman and Gordon have their own arcs, and so does Dent, but by the end, obviously, he's no longer a protagonist, and switched to a second antagonist. He is one of my favourite movie villains because he's so much more layered than simply being the bad guy. We watched him go from the best hope of Gotham city, to being completely corrupted. Not that he compromises his principles, but that he gives up on them, resorting to murder to get revenge to those responsible for killing Rachel, rather than trusting the judicial system he's fought so hard for. This transformation goes against our expectations. You wouldn't expect a movie to be long enough to link the story and create another villain effectively, but I think it works quite well. Yes, it's a half an hour longer than your traditional superhero movies, and some people called the Batman catching Joker a false ending, but the kidnapping of Gordon's family is set up before that, and whilst I might've expected the movie to end a few minutes earlier, Joker was still very present in those last fifteen minutes he's not there.
Like Joker, Two-Face is recreated as well. Rather than having a second personality that manifests itself, the two signs represents the the goodness Harvey used to believe in, and the evil that Joker has brought out. Since I wanted it to stretch, I would say that he represent Batman and Joker. Now that Rachel has died, and half his face is blown off, his two sided coin has been scratched(the coin he used to use to remind himself that the choice was always his), he's had a psychotic break, and decided that he was wrong. No matter what you do, you can't force the world to be fair, so he goes to the best next thing, what Joker calls, chaos. A random chance. Everyone has the same chance, no matter who they are. Now, when he flips his coin, he really is letting his coin make the decision. He's turned into a horrible parody of himself. The way Joker sees it, his true self, with all the social constructions, nobility, honour, fairness, and honesty, burned away, literally.
For the sake of the story, the whole story of Harvey Dent is, tragedy. Tearing a good man down and seeing how other protagonists deal with that. Two-Face isn't the real Harvey Dent. In a way, he is a different personality, but not in the way he is in the comics. There's not a Harvey and a Two-Face personality. It's really, a new, oversimplified version of Harvey.
For the sake of the story, the whole story of Harvey Dent is, tragedy. Tearing a good man down and seeing how other protagonists deal with that. Two-Face isn't the real Harvey Dent. In a way, he is a different personality, but not in the way he is in the comics. There's not a Harvey and a Two-Face personality. It's really, a new, oversimplified version of Harvey.
Two-Face: You thought we could be decent men in an indecent time. But you were wrong. The world is cruel, and the only morality in a cruel world is chance.
I think it's really interesting how Two-Face orders the triad at the end. Pointing his gun at Gordon's son, Gordon, who he holds responsible for Rachel's death because it was his corrupt cops who worked for Joker, Batman tells him to point at the gun to those truly responsible. Harvey says, fair enough, and flips his coin on Batman. It lands on tails, and shoots Batman. He then points the gun at himself, and the coin goes down as heads. Convenient, sure, but the suspense of Harvey maybe shooting Gordon's son would've been lost if he was to shoot himself. He then points the gun back at Jimmy, instead of Gordon, because he thinks Gordon deserves not to die, but to lose a family member that is the most important to him, as he feels he did. Then Batman leaps at him, takes him down several feet, and kills him(Batman killing someone? Wow. I guess Harvey did get the push Joker wanted).
So, why this order? He tells Batman, you thought we could be decent men, in an indecent time. He blames Batman for inspiring him. He now believes Joker was right, and that Batman was just fighting against the inevitable, and that led to Rachel's death. Harvey's next, because he allowed himself to be an idealist and to be, as he sees it, corrupted by Batman. He finally blames Gordon for not standing up to corruption. Now, he doesn't believe you can stand up to corruption so this might seem like a contradiction, but logically, if Gordon refused to use those men, Rachel would never have died. If Dent was in his right mind, he would have pointed the gun at Gordon first. He is the one out of all of them, that actually did the most wrong, because he worked with men he knew weren't on the same level. He aims his gun at Gordon's son, so he will feel how Harvey felt when Rachel died.
I really feel bad for Gordon, who makes compromises he has to make in working with bad cops; puts all his faith in Dent; is really partially the blame for what happens to Dent, and finds himself forced to tell his son that it will be ok, when the man he thought would save Gotham, is about to shoot him. Gordon goes a long way in trying to stop the mob and take out Joker, especially faking his own death to get the drop on Joker, and we really understand why he's the best man for the job of commissioner. Also, how impossible his job is. Joker puts Batman in an impossible situation, but Gordon is already having to make impossible decisions at the beginning of the movie. As he says to Harvey early on, he wouldn't have any help, if he didn't work with any cops that Dent hadn't investigated. The message here, is that there is no black and white. To really get any good done, Gordon has to get his hands dirty. Fundamentally, it's wrong, and yet, what would you have him do? It makes him extremely relatable, I guess.
There is one story point that that I wrack my brain about and just don't simply understand. Having seen the movie a hundred times, and having talked to friends who haven't gotten these scenes either, I think it's definitely a problem that what they're getting at, isn't straightforward. If YOU figured out what I missed, please leave a comment.
Joker tells Batman that killing is making a choice, when he sets him up to the sadistic choice between Rachel and Harvey. If he's trying to force Batman to make a choice, then why does he trick him by telling him that they are at the opposite places from where they really are? Is he just being sadistic? Or is there more to it than that? The only thing that I could figure is that Joker is pretty sure that Batman would get Rachel because of the way he, threw himself after her, earlier in the movie, and somehow, he knows Batman would get there before the police do. However, I am really not sure and that scene is really convoluted. I don't think you should chalk it off to Joker just being random, because, regardless of how far ahead he plans, everything he does, does seem to be with a purpose.
Joker tells Batman that killing is making a choice, when he sets him up to the sadistic choice between Rachel and Harvey. If he's trying to force Batman to make a choice, then why does he trick him by telling him that they are at the opposite places from where they really are? Is he just being sadistic? Or is there more to it than that? The only thing that I could figure is that Joker is pretty sure that Batman would get Rachel because of the way he, threw himself after her, earlier in the movie, and somehow, he knows Batman would get there before the police do. However, I am really not sure and that scene is really convoluted. I don't think you should chalk it off to Joker just being random, because, regardless of how far ahead he plans, everything he does, does seem to be with a purpose.
This is a ridiculously long review, but how much philosophical and social ground there is to cover is a testament, I think, to how great this movie is. I completely understand the complaint that it is too heavy-handed, and perhaps, it is. I think it's a fine line to walk between being cerebral, and being a marketable, thrilling entertainment. It's incredible to me that in the same movie that asks all these philosophical questions, there's also an 18 wheeler that's turned end over end at the end of a chase sequence. I've never seen that before, and even better, it was done practically. They actually dropped that trailer at the streets of downtown Chicago. It juggles the political elements and the human elements extremely well, keeping our protagonist real and likable, whilst exploring real world issues; it's by no means a humourless film. There are plenty of moments of levity in a movie that could've easily been completely solid. Heath Ledger's Oscar-winning performance was absolutely deserved, and I'm in the feeling where I believe the movie was robbed of a best picture nod.
Ledger's death was tragic, but an accident. According to his family, it had nothing to do with playing such a disturbing role. I wish we could've seen him play that part again; we lost one of our finest young actors. This was an incredibly difficult movie to make, and a stuntman was sadly killed whilst filming one of the chase sequences, but despite the real life tragedy, some incredible people came together, to make a truly memorable modern tragedy. It showed us things we didn't know this genre as capable of, and it made this reviewer think a little differently of how he views the world. The scariest thing about The Dark Knight, is that Joker has a point. People can get too comfortable and complacent. They're not ready to make the tough calls, and they don't think they'll ever have to. The most powerful thing about this movie is that it makes us think what we would do if we were in these situations. How far would you have to be pushed to kill a man? What do you believe in? When faced with your own mortality, and with the fate of others on your hands, would you still believe in it?