Assuming that the bulk of this blog’s readers are at least peripherally familiar with the Batman franchise, I’ll skip the obvious summaries and overviews. You know what it’s about. There’s a guy who dresses up like a bat and fights crime. It’s a story that’s been told, retold, rebooted, re-filmed, and re-imagined countless times in film, graphic media, and print; but the devil is in the details, of course. And the details in Christopher Nolan’s interpretation of this story are very fine indeed.
I’m not going to gush or ramble indefinitely about this one, because plenty of other folks have done a damn good job already and I don’t feel compelled to merely echo them. But I do have a few thoughts on the movie, and all of them are going beneath a cut. [Or in other words, if you’re getting this page from an RSS feed, you should stop reading right about now.]
So here goes.
Spoilers beneath the cut.
It has often been said that an object (or a person, or a property) is only worth what someone is willing to actually pay for it. And in TDK, that thing up for grabs is Gotham City itself. Say what you will about Bruce Wayne, but he’s got the biggest bank account in town, and he’s willing to write a very big check if it all comes down to it. And it’s gonna.
So this movie, from a couple of different angles, strikes me as a story about what precisely Gotham City is worth, if anything. In the previous story you get the idea that it’s a bleak, violent, deranged, irredeemable place populated by crooked cops and a cowed citizenry; and frankly, the question to me has always been, “Why is this place worth fighting for?”
Yeah yeah, dead parents and borderline personality disorder or whatever. But seriously. Gotham? Aren’t there nicer places that could use a little superhero assistance? At the end of the day, that’s the very definition of a patriot/reformer. Batman hates the home team enough to try and change it; but he loves the home team enough that he won’t abandon it to its own ruin. He believes in this city, and he’s willing to get his hands dirty in order to clean it up.
In TDK, Batman and Gordon are granted a powerful kindred spirit — the D.A., Harvey Dent. And ladies and gentlemen, Harvey Dent is not fucking around. He’s an honest-to-God badass of public service, and he’s dubious about the bat-dude, but he’s open to being convinced.
Between this trifecta of Gordon, Batman, and Dent, the underworld is feeling the squeeze to the point that its representatives get desperate. How desperate? Desperate enough to negotiate with the Joker. As if that little deal with the devil isn’t going to backfire hideously.
Because here’s the core problem with that arrangement: the Underworld Representatives are, in their way, on the same page as Batman. They too hate their city enough to want to change it (back to one riddled with their personal, profitable crimes), and they too love it enough to stick around and take a stab at that change. But the Joker doesn’t share their value system, and he isn’t interested in playing tug-of-war for street territory. He is, simply and without any reliable context, completely insane.
The thugs act surprised when the Joker successfully screws them all over, primarily because they think he’s an idiot — and they don’t understand that “batshit crazy” and “stupid” do not go hand-in-hand. The only thing the Joker appears to actually want is a worthy playmate, and he picks Batman. He figures out early on that he can’t very well attack the Batman personally, so instead he goes after Batman’s confederates.
Obviously, it works. Rachel dies horribly, Dent goes mad with grief and assumes the role of Harvey Two-Face, and the Underworld gets turned upside down as well — no one knows who’s in charge, and everyone’s too afraid of Joker to decline his authority.
So how much does Bruce Wayne value Gotham City? More than he values Rachel, as is demonstrated when he saves the White Knight instead of his childhood friend and love.* And then he learns the hard way that Harvey Dent might have had other priorities after all — and now things are about to get much, much worse. Whoops. The only upshot to Dent’s defection to the other team is that he has altogether lost interest in Gotham City (either saving it, or destroying it), and is consumed with avenging the death of his fiance.
At least he’s not out oh, say, blowing up hospitals or pitting two packed refugee ferries against each other with mind games and “social experiments.”
And that segment — those scenes on those two ferries — finally provided a piece of the Batman mythos puzzle that has traditionally been missing for me. It gave me my very first glimpse of Gotham City’s occupants as population that’s absolutely worth saving.
When the large black convict with the scars on his neck takes the detonator, and does “What you should’ve done, ten minutes ago,” it took my breath away. I was afraid that this would turn into one of those inversion scenarios wherein the convicted criminals showed stronger moral fiber than the “innocent people” on the other ferry, but I was happily incorrect. Those two ferries, those two groups of very different people with each others’ lives in their hands, convinced me that yes — this is a city worth saving after all.
So when Batman takes the fall for Harvey’s assault on Gordon’s family and a handful of police officers, he’s writing a very big check — and he’s probably the only guy in the city limits with the available funds to back it up. When he accepts the role of outcast and criminal, he’s taking that load because he’s the only guy who can carry it — and simultaneously give the city an honest chance at staying in one piece. Thus, where the White Knight fails, the Dark Knight succeeds because this particular Dark Knight is capable of an outstanding degree of subterfuge, and because the Dark Knight doesn’t need to be publicly recognized as legitimate.
And this is something I argued with my husband last night: As a final thought in the matter, I’m not convinced that Batman will be a permanent outlaw/outcast anyway. The first movie ends with Bruce Wayne acting like an ass and “sacrificing” his social standing to save his guests, but he sure as hell seems to have recovered from that faux pas by TDK. My guess is that all it took was a round of philanthropy and a few good parties. “Batman” as a Gotham City construct was never strictly one of the “good guys” anyway as far as the public was concerned; so what if the public now believes for certain that he’s committed some outright crimes?
He’ll save a few old ladies, round up another batch of supervillains, and before long he’ll be back in the public eye without being on the receiving end of the stink eye. Sure, law enforcement personnel will be less inclined to let his shenanigans slide, but they were never very supportive of Batman’s efforts in the first place (Gordon aside).
So. Yeah. I’m just saying — it was a massive check Batman wrote for the sake of the city’s stability, and it could hypothetically cost him the whole of his reputation … but then again, public sentiment has a notoriously short-term memory. There’s an excellent chance that, with good behavior, he’ll be seeing the Bat-Signal against the clouds in no time flat.
* Edited to add — I know Batman says he’s off to rescue Rachel, but I also think he was aware that the Joker was lying about who was where. He didn’t show a lick of surprise when he found Harvey instead; I think he knew what was going on — and for God’s sake, by that point in the narrative, SURELY he’s figured out the extent to which he can trust the Joker. But I confess, that one’s up for grabs.
Recently:
- Walmart Shits on Your History and Shrugs
- Round-Up of Run-Downs
- Stupid internets PSA
- Three cheers! No — make it four!
- I’m a lead farmer, muthafucka!
- August 12, 2008
- Word metrics: Fail
- Back in the saddle
- Caught in a celluloid jam
- Side trips and shortcuts
Comments
This entry was posted on 4 weeks, 1 day ago, in the late evening at 4 weeks, 1 day ago, in the late evening and is filed under misc. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
I agree with you 98 percent. Just one slight moment: “More than he values Rachel, as is demonstrated when he chooses to save the White Knight instead of his childhood friend and love.”
The Joker switched the addresses. It’s easy to miss in all the shouting. He told Batman that Rachel was at location A and Dent at location B, but he lied. Batman was heading to where he thought Rachel was, and ended up saving Dent in spite of himself. Apparently the Gotham City PD doesn’t drive as fast as the BatSUV.
It alleviates him from ultimate responsibility for Dent’s actions, but he still hasn’t faced the ultimate choice, to sacrifice love for the greater good. The choice was taken from him.
Ultimately, the only superhero who has made the truly heroic decision in that spot was Spider-Man, and the @#$! movie robbed him of that dignity, changing that seminal moment into something meaningless.
While TDK’s version made the Joker that much more devious (and added a plot twist I didn’t expect), putting Batman in Spidey’s uncomfortable spot is the only trial our Hercules did not face.
I didn’t miss it, I just didn’t think Batman believed him. I amended the entry with a footnote; I know my interpretation is up for grabs, but I didn’t detect even a hint of surprise when he found Harvey — and I think it would’ve been inconsistent for him to pick Rachel regardless. He’s too much the deliberate martyr.
Interesting. I hadn’t thought of it that way. I guess I’ll just have to watch the movie again and reevaluate the scene, gee darnit. :)
Smart analysis, but you got one piece wrong: Batman doesn’t choose to save Dent. He chose to go after Rachel (as he hastily told Gordon), and was completely shocked to find Harvey when he reached his destination. The Joker swapped the locations, just to make sure that Batman doesn’t win.
It’s an important detail because it shows that Bruce really didn’t value Gotham as much as he valued, well, being Batman. This was part of Rachel’s reason for marrying Dent over him — she understood that, despite what Bruce claimed about wanting Dent to take his place, he could never abandon the ol’ the cape and cowl. He needs Batman as much as Gotham does.
Dude.
Read the footnote.
Whoops, just saw your response. But I am pretty sure that Batman tells Gordon that he’s going to save Rachel, for what it’s worth.
I thought he wasn’t surprised because it made so much sense surprise would have been beside the point. When the Joker threw out the bait, Batman dove after Rachel in a mad flailing of intent, but he’d probably sorted out who he would really find well before he arrived at the scene — or at least had run all the possible scenarios.
When he arrives, the focus is consumed by Harvey’s shock and fury, burying whatever muted reaction Batman has allowed himself — but he wastes nothing with acting out, instead doing what he can for Rachel in that horrible moment by trying to save Harvey.
I would just add that one of the things I really loved, and really made the movie work for me, is that the Joker won. He destroyed the White Knight, proved that even the incorruptably good Harvey Dent could be bent and twisted until he was worse than the very menaces he had been trying to rid the city of. Even Batman’s sacrifice at the end (however changeable the public opinion will be) could not give the story a happy ending. It was so much more viscerally satisfying to me to not have all the lose ends tied up in a neat and tidy knot at the end.
re: the wrong address
I actually expected something similar with the ferries, i.e., that the detonators would be for the boat they were on (I’m not rewriting that sentence again, it’s awkward, but it makes sense).
I like the actual version better.
I read your footnote, but I still think Batman went to save Rachel and got Harvey instead. Why? Because The Joker knew Batman would run to her (not that I assume he knew who Batman’s alter ego is, but rather the way that Batman defended Rachel at the party, he had to know she was special), and he switched the addresses so that Rachel would ultimately die. This was partly to get to Batman, sure, but also partly to destroy Harvey - as Gordon says at the end, if The Joker can destroy (twist/cripple/render insane) Harvey Dent, what chance do the rest of them have?
If it weren’t for The Joker’s mission to destroy Harvey Dent, I’d've agreed and thought that Batman would’ve known that The Joker would’ve switched the addresses and had gone to save Harvey instead, sacrificing Rachel for the good of Gotham City. And whilst I’m open to being totally wrong, I think his determination to corrupt the White Knight (as you so eloquently put it) tips the scales slightly in that direction. Only slightly.
(Besides, Batman doesn’t seem surprised when he gets Harvey because, really, when does he ever seem surprised? He’s not given to showing much emotion as Batman (I blame the mask). I think he gets the wrong person and realises that nothing can be done now, that all he can do is save Harvey (because he is worthy of saving, after all) and hope that Gordon makes it to Rachel in time.)
Man that was a long comment, sorry. I get carried away sometimes.
*blushes*
at times the Joker seemed almost too smart, borderline clairvoyant, but i guess that what makes him a good foe for the Batman…
My personal opinion is that Bats fell for the Dent/Rachel misdirect - but I’d need to see it again, and look *specifically* for the surprise or lack thereof when finding DENT where the Joker said Rachel was.
I find it..bleaker…to agree with your interpretation.
And this was a damn bleak movie.
Thanks for your review; it reminded me of things I forgot in my Joker-horrified-glee (the ferries!), and now I have to go see it again. Which is a lot like looking at a glass filled with acid, knowing you need to drink it.
That Joker - so horrible. “I’m going to make this pencil disappear.”
Good analysis, I agree completely. I can’t confirm if it was done intentionally but Batman’s decision over Rachel and Harvey Dent was very ambiguous. Anyone who tries to simplify this by dismissing it as a trick by the Joker is an idiot. Not a hint of surprise by the batman upon finding Dent, nor does he regard the Joker with any bitterness over tricking him. When Dent terrorizes Gordon’s family at 250 (where Rachel died), he is mad with anger; he says Rachel’s life/death was left to chance. Batman refutes this, saying it was a decision made by them 3 (Batman, Gordon and Dent). Obviously Batman knew Joker was lying but made a conscious decision to save the White Knight of Gotham. This is so much more meaningful and makes so much more sense. It is also consistent with the fact that Rachel picked Dent over Batman /Bruce Wayne.