The Dark Knight: Tomatometer 94%

[Cail]

If a movie has political themes (which TDK does), then it's fair game to discuss them in here.

If it gets too heated, or if we find ourselves off on a tangent, the thread can (and will) be moved into the Tank.

[Cagliostro]

I am finally going tonight to see this, I think. If fate doesn't crap on me again. Then I can finally read this thread.

[Lord Mhoram]

Let me just first say that The Dark Knight is one of the best movies I've seen in my life. It's quite simply a beautiful film and there's nothing good I can say about it that hasn't already been said.

That said, there's a political message in it that I found rather offensive that I haven't seen discussed too often. Batman and Jim Gordon made the authoritarian choice that the public of Gotham does not deserve to know that Harvey Dent is (yes, is: he's not dead) a murderer. So they decided unilaterally that they will feed the public the propaganda message that Harvey Dent was a saint, for the common good. This does not strike me as the sort of message which we should accept readily; it isn't a reason for which we should admire Batman and Gordon. Which very well may be one of the reasons for the decision by the filmmakers: Batman is not someone in whom we should see all positive qualities.

[Zarathustra]

LM, that's a massive spoiler! Then end of the movie! I suppose it has been out for a while now. Is there a statute of limitations on spoilers?

Anyway, that's what I was talking about when I said that perhaps this movie isn't presenting a strictly liberal interpretation on the fighting-terrorism meme. Like I said, they decide that Batman's deception, lawlessness, and "executive authority" are necessary. They decide that the people need a pleasing false facade rather than the unattractive truth. Personally, I agree with this. That's been my position on Iraq, that even if Bush lied to get us to go to war, it had to be done. After all, look how readily the people turn on Batman. When it comes to the government, I don't need to know everything. All I care about are the results.

[Lord Mhoram]

Malik,

Anyway, I suppose it has been out for a while now. Is there a statute of limitations on spoilers?

That's what I figured. I could edit it though.

Like I said, they decide that Batman's deception, lawlessness, and "executive authority" are necessary. They decide that the people need a pleasing false facade rather than the unattractive truth. Personally, I agree with this. That's been my position on Iraq, that even if Bush lied to get us to go to war, it had to be done. After all, look how readily the people turn on Batman. When it comes to the government, I don't need to know everything. All I care about are the results.

Yes. What I think is grayer is the presentation of the ethics of Batman's decision. Clearly the Joker challenged Batman's unilateral approach (sound familiar?). That's the central theme of the film. He showed Batman that his crusade is not without consequences. Ultimately Batman decided it was worth it, given the situation on the ground (:lol:). But it's certainly not presented (in my mind at least) as a clear, simple, clear-cut moral choice.

[Zarathustra]

Not clear cut for whom? I thought for Batman it was clear cut. He was being a pragmatist. Good men can become corrupted, the system can become corrupted. Powerful men like Batman can accept this and move on; he won't give up hope simply because other people are weak. He is strong--a leader, not a follower. But the public need to believe that the system works, and that good men remain good, that the system can't be corrupted. They need this because they are followers. They aren't strong enough to take care of themselves. They are dependent upon the system. Therefore, he made a pragmatic choice, an executive decision, to lie to the people. And he did this to support their own inability to accept the truth. If the people he was protecting were stronger--if they could protect themselves and not need a superhero--then they would also be strong enough (like Batman) to accept the messiness of the world without it overwhelming them. Their own weakness to accept the truth necessitates the lie.

[Rigel]

Harvey Dent is (yes, is: he's not dead)

That's odd, because they show Gordon speaking at his funeral.

Anyway, we saw it a second time last night, and we liked it much better than the first time. I think a lot of that had to do with where we were sitting - the first time, we were too close to the screen, and ended up with headaches from craning our necks the whole movie.

Also, I just checked Box Office Mojo, and Batman has already scored $470M worldwide. Woot!

[lucimay]

Not clear cut for whom? I thought for Batman it was clear cut. He was being a pragmatist. Good men can become corrupted, the system can become corrupted. Powerful men like Batman can accept this and move on; he won't give up hope simply because other people are weak. He is strong--a leader, not a follower. But the public need to believe that the system works, and that good men remain good, that the system can't be corrupted. They need this because they are followers. They aren't strong enough to take care of themselves. They are dependent upon the system. Therefore, he made a pragmatic choice, an executive decision, to lie to the people. And he did this to support their own inability to accept the truth. If the people he was protecting were stronger--if they could protect themselves and not need a superhero--then they would also be strong enough (like Batman) to accept the messiness of the world without it overwhelming them. Their own weakness to accept the truth necessitates the lie.

MHORAM!!!! YAY!!! good to see you!!! we'd been missing you!!

[Lord Mhoram]

Malik,

I was referring to Batman's perception of his own moral choices, yes. And no, I don't think it was clear-cut for him. This seems self-evident to me. Hence the necessity of Alfred's "You can be the outcast" speech when Bruce decides to hang up the cowl. Hence Bruce blaming himself for Rachel's fate (penthouse scene). Hence Bruce's guilt at the Joker's flamboyant style as a reaction to his own. Hence the derision he receives from the public, the police, and even Gordon himself through insinuation. He made the choice that you're describing. But the whole conflict of the movie was that it was not easy for him.

As for the "necessity" of the lie about Harvey, I disagree with your interpretation. The system of Gotham failed the people, nothing else. Harvey was a beacon of hope. The people would despair at hearing that their "White Knight" (or "Apollo," as they called him in the comics) became a horrifically scarred murderer. You say that the people are "dependent" upon the system. If they are, it's because the "system" has drawn them in with what propagandists call "necessary illusions" like the outright lie that Dent died a saint so that people would continue to have faith in the governance of Gotham. If you really want to glean people off the government, stop lying to them to increase their dependency.

Rigel,

That's odd, because they show Gordon speaking at his funeral.

Yeah. A memorial service (no body, remember?) held by the same guy who's telling the city that Dent died a hero and that Batman killed five people. Are you going to trust that source? Besides, Batman had been shot before falling right alongside Harvey, and Batman survived. Also remember that Sal Maroni fell off a presumably higher ledge when Bats dropped him, and he ended up just needing a cane.

Luci,

Hey! I've missed everyone. I've been incredibly busy.

[Rigel]

Spoiler

Malik,
Rigel,

That's odd, because they show Gordon speaking at his funeral.

Yeah. A memorial service (no body, remember?) held by the same guy who's telling the city that Dent died a hero and that Batman killed five people. Are you going to trust that source?

Well, I did, but now you've got me wondering...

Besides, Batman had been shot before falling right alongside Harvey, and Batman survived.

OK, now he is wearing body armour. In fact, I was surprised he even fell over - when he lunged at Dent, I figured he had been faking.

Remember that Sal Maroni fell off a presumably higher ledge when Bats dropped him, and he ended up just needing a cane.

It's hard to judge heights like that in movies, especially in the Batman ones, and the effect that falling will have on people. In fact, it seems to be an arbitrary decision by the writers whether someone will die from a fall or not.

[CovenantJr]

This post will contain spoilers, and I can't be bothered to tag it.

I've finally seen it. Okay, some simple comments:

I agree about some of the flaws people have mentioned: the bending of the gun, the sloppy editing (specifially the Joker getting out of his cell, and the mob boss bloke getting killed by a knife to the cheek), and Two Face's CG injuries.

My main complaint, though, is the ferry bomb thing. Not the set-up itself, but the fact that the passengers choosing not to blow each other up completely foiled the Joker's plan. He's been so devious and underhand so far, and he's thrown by this little - and not entirely unpredictable - outcome? It doesn't make sense to me.

I also want to comment in defence of Two Face. A couple of people have remarked that his transition from good to evil was too quick (though not quite Anakin quick, I'd say). I can see that, but it didn't jar with me so much because he was always kind of leaning that way. Much as he was touted as the unimpeachable 'white knight' of Gotham, his actions were always a little reckless, a little too close to the edge. I don't think it's a massive jump - or a lengthy one - to move from 'I'll fight evil by whatever means necessary, within reason' to 'I'll fight evil by whatever means necessary'.

As for the controversial Ledger issue, yes, I think his greatness has been exaggerated by his death, but it was still the best performance in the film. It was made by his mannerisms. Whether over-hyped or not, Mr Ledger could have had an impressive career, given time.

Oh, and I found the atmosphere lacking. I missed the gloomy, shadow-filled Gotham of Batman Begins.

But these are only my criticisms. They don't overwhelm the overall quality of this film, which I enjoyed considerably. On balance, I think it is better than Batman Begins, but it could have been substantially improved.

[Cail]

Good summation.

The real question now is, "where is it going to end up"?

Currently:
1 Titanic Par. $600,788,188 1997
2 Star Wars Fox $460,998,007 1977^
3 Shrek 2 DW $441,226,247 2004
4 E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial Uni. $435,110,554 1982^
5 Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace Fox $431,088,301 1999
6 Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest BV $423,315,812 2006
7 The Dark Knight WB $405,699,734 2008

Kind of a no-brainer that it's going to move up to at least #3 or #4. I doubt it has the legs to reach Titanic.

More interesting is the all-time adjusted list, which puts the film at #61.

[Cagliostro]

My main complaint, though, is the ferry bomb thing. Not the set-up itself, but the fact that the passengers chose not to blow each other up completely foiled the Joker's plan. He's been so devious and underhand so far, and he's thrown by this little - and not entirely unpredictable - outcome? It doesn't make sense to me.

Does it make me a cynic to say that this was the scene I found most unbelievable? There might have been

Spoiler

a couple guys willing to toss the detonator's out the window, but they would have been lynched by the rest of the mob.

For me, that was the scene that took me out of the film the most as it was unrealistic in my view of humanity.

Do I need a hug?

[Harbinger]

I hate going in to a movie expecting escapist entertainment and finding myself in a preachy political film. Where to begin. The Joker is extremely white while Batman is the “Dark Knight” obviously an allegory for McCain and Obama. Batman refuses to resort to the Joker’s methods even when innocents are hurt–a comment on terrorism. Then when Batman has a way to spy on everybody to look for evil he leaves it to the black Morgan Freeman to shut it down–obviously a way of commenting on Obama and the Patriot Act. The movie was sickening. People who went there looking for harmless escapism found instead liberal preachiness. I miss Batman like they did when George Clooney played him. That was Batman for the whole family.

The guy who wrote this must think the producers of the movie had ESP, since it was conceived during 2006 and production began early spring 2007.

[ItisWritten]

More interesting is the all-time adjusted list, which puts the film at #61.

Very interesting. Still, it's no more accurate than box office grosses. How many times did GWTW get re-released into theatres? I mean, how else was anyone to see a movie after its run back then? How many people would go see Star Wars today in the theatre if it wasn't available for home viewing?

Today's biggest grossing movies hardly get 3 months in theatres. Is Iron Man still showing anywhere in the US? I remember seeing theatre ads for Raiders a year later, but now its the rush to the DVD (whoops! Blue Ray) cash cow.

[CovenantJr]

My main complaint, though, is the ferry bomb thing. Not the set-up itself, but the fact that the passengers chose not to blow each other up completely foiled the Joker's plan. He's been so devious and underhand so far, and he's thrown by this little - and not entirely unpredictable - outcome? It doesn't make sense to me.

Does it make me a cynic to say that this was the scene I found most unbelievable? There might have been

Spoiler

a couple guys willing to toss the detonator's out the window, but they would have been lynched by the rest of the mob.

For me, that was the scene that took me out of the film the most as it was unrealistic in my view of humanity.

Do I need a hug?

It's a fair point, and I actually fully expected one or both parties to pull the trigger, only for the detonations to be prevented. I found it interesting, though, that what stopped the civilians (rather than the prisoners) wasn't unwillingness to let the other lot die, but uneasiness about physically killing people themselves. Or that's how it came across to me, anyway.

When I said the outcome wasn't entirely unpredictable, what I meant was surely someone who has been as cunning and manipulative as the Joker should have at least considered the possibility that this might happen. Basing the whole plan on a huge assumption doesn't fit.

[Loredoctor]

When I said the outcome wasn't entirely unpredictable, what I meant was surely someone who has been as cunning and manipulative as the Joker should have at least considered the possibility that this might happen. Basing the whole plan on a huge assumption doesn't fit.

I disagree; it reveals the insanity of the Joker's mindset. He could never account for the event you mention simply because he believes people are like him. Which is thematically appropriate for the movie.

That's my opinion.

[CovenantJr]

Hmm. I still don't buy it. If that were the case, how could he have set up the Harvey/Rachel rescue thing?

[Loredoctor]

Hmm. I still don't buy it. If that were the case, how could he have set up the Harvey/Rachel rescue thing?

Because that was an elaborate joke, and scheme to destroy people's faith. His second scheme, to reveal people's darker natures failed because they aren't like him.

[[Syl]]

Word.