by It has to be acknowledged that Christopher Nolan restarted the Batman craze Tim Burton began with his iconic BATMAN in 1989 and that came to a rather abrupt and, at the same time, gradual halt with the 90s installments. While they’re respectable in their own regard, they were also far from good. Far from what could’ve been expected subsequent to the Joker’s fall from Gotham’s spire down to the Gotham City sidewalk. BATMAN BEGINS (2005) was nothing short of a masterpiece, raising the bar and the stakes some more. Especially when an enlarged crowd of fans was looking forward to the showdown between Batman and the Joker. And while THE DARK KNIGHT performed, both artistically and at the box office, it still left room for improvement. Any criticism could be easily dismissed by pointing out that the hype was bigger than any film could ever be. Which is not quite accurate.
The title already suggests that this film was never meant to mess around but swing for the fences right off the bat. The Dark Knight is fighting a crusade against the evil forces of Gotham, caught in a never-ending cycle. And in a dilemma as well. Many criminals view him as the ultimate challenge. In a way, you could argue that Batman is responsible for what he vowed to fight. Not that it would stop him from doing it. At the same time, there’s a new player in town. A white prince of Gotham, so to say. Aaron Eckhart is District Attorney Harvey Dent, who is not only challenging Batman as new, legitimate protector of Gotham. Dent is also Rachel Dawes’ love interest, interfering with any affection Bruce Wayne would still have left inside of himself for his childhood love and that is blocked by his overpowering alter-ego. Maggie Gyllenhaal assumed the part on behalf of Katie Holmes, doing a good job. Apart from the obvious visual change she manages to recreate the character we got to know in BATMAN BEGINS, if with less room for herself.
The crew making THE DARK KNIGHT is virtually the same as in BATMAN BEGINS with the exception of Gyllenhaal. There’ s another vital change as well. Director Christopher Nolan apparently disagreed over the script with writer David S. Goyer, who did a tremendous job on the first installment. Whatever the reasons for this, Nolan and his brother Jonathan wrote the script based on Goyer’s story. Even if you didn’t know that, the attentive viewer notices a different tone and pace in this film. This is difficult to explain, yet crucial. While the protagonist is caught in a confusing period of his life, so are the other characters. With one taking the crown, of course. The Joker is introduced as the archenemy of Batman, longing for chaos and public unrest. It seems this is supposed to reflect in the film. But the reality is, THE DARK KNIGHT and the Joker come across as much too controlled for what it pretends to be.
I believe that whatever doesn’t kill you, simply makes you… stranger.
The Joker
Heath Ledger’s reinvention of the Joker was met with a lot of approval, a hype even. From his perspective, he created the Joker by breaking with traditions, especially that established by Jack Nicholson in BATMAN. And it has to be acknowledged he is doing a great job, if just not in any way expected by genuine Batman fans. Those familiar with classic Batman content such as BATMAN: THE ANIMATED SERIES (1992-95) and the many comic books definitely struggle with recognizing the character. While they’re trying to incorporate it, this Joker has no irony, he’s much too controlled, has his plans set out a bit too accurately. He’s not what he’s supposed to be, and far from what he claims to be. We never see how this Joker materialized but it’s hard to imagine any satisfying events, regardless of plausibility. Is he created by Gotham? By Batman? The only thing he’s got in common with a comic book Joker is his goal to break the bat by forcing him to abandon his ideals, thus proving his insanity. In his smudgy appearance, this Joker clearly references the original material from which the character was derived, Conrad Veidt’s Gwynplaine in the 1928 film in particular. In Victor Hugo’s 1869 novel THE MAN WHO LAUGHS, the protagonist Gwynplaine lives as an outcast with a disfigured face. The Joker is disfigured also by a so-called Glasgow smile. There’s also this odd, inexplicable attraction to the disfigurement. The difference is, there’s no conceivable tragedy in Ledger’s Joker. Whatever led to his creation, whatever or whoever he lost, if any of his vague accounts that sound like hogwash altogether has a grain of truth in it, just can’t be grasped. Gwynplaine’s tragedy leads to compassion, sympathy for a fictional person we’ve never met. The Joker’s lack of tragedy, character and, first and foremost, creditability, leads to THE DARK KNIGHT being an action movie with added “drama” and “character development” that might as well have been discarded in favor of some more of the good and entertaining action scenes.
This hunt for the Dark Knight supposed to be the discovery of Gotham’s White Knight, Harvey Dent and his legacy instead of what becomes of him, would’ve been better if Gotham City had been as elaborate as it was in BATMAN BEGINS and Burton’s BATMAN. With a focus on action and “character development,” Nolan apparently lost interest in Gotham City, which proved time and again to be one of Batman’s biggest assets. Even when a story’s taking a short break from action to drive its plot, Gotham was almost always extravagant and a pleasure to look at. In THE DARK KNIGHT, Gotham is Chicago. That’s about all that can be said about it. The clever blend of real landmarks, cities and imaginative additions from BATMAN BEGINS gave way to a gray set serving only one purpose: giving room to Batman, the Joker and Dent/Two Face. As odd as it may sound, if Gotham doesn’t feel right, real and worth saving, why should we care if good or bad wins the battle over it? In the end, Nolan seems to lose control of his own creation over his fixation on the Joker. In a way, the Joker didn’t break the Batman but this film. By reinventing the character from a non-fan standpoint and cutting too many corners with the product as a whole, THE DARK KNIGHT doesn’t miss by much. Just by enough to keep it from being real good. Nolan already proved he could make a great, maybe even the greatest Batman film. Ledger created a Joker that is outstanding. In the end, the two didn’t thoroughly go together.
Great things could and should’ve been expected when the crew that made BATMAN BEGINS reassembled to make a follow up movie starring the Joker. The result is good, a film that is worth watching for its characters and action but never lives up to its full potential. Die-hard fans may even find too much to complain about in this film. All personal taste aside, BATMAN BEGINS feels much more complete than THE DARK KNIGHT even though, or probably because it featured a comprehensive back story to Bruce Wayne/Batman. Maybe if Goyer had written the script and Nolan directed, the plot would’ve been more satisfying. It’s sad we’ll never know.
