The Dark Knight: unqualified masterpiece

Cafe Society
101

[QUOTE=lawoot]
He didn’t. He went to where Joker told him Rachel was. Joker lied to him (probably to know she’d die, and to try to tear Bats down - he DID figure out that Bats loved her, after all.
[/QUOTE]

Cool, I didn’t catch that, and it didn’t even occur to me. How did you know? Did you actually pay close attention to the specific addresses the Joker recited and compare to the address Batman went to? Was it some dialogue indicating Batman was surprised to see Harvey instead of Rachel? Or was it just what you thought was the most logical explanation?

[QUOTE=lawoot]
Rachel’s letter was meant to be read by Bruce after her engagement was announced. Alfred realized it would destroy Bruce to read it after she was killed, and he still thought that she was going to wait for him.

Lucius isn’t quitting, as the Bat-Sonar surveillance machine destroyed itself after he typed in his name.
[/QUOTE]

Rachel’s promise to be with him seem somewhat predicated on him turning himself in. When he reneged on turning himself in, I kind of figured he did it with full expectation that he’d lose Rachel in the process. Although I guess finding out that even if he did turn himself she still would have chosen Harvey might have been devastating.

As for Lucius, he had specifically said that he would use the system once at the price of him quitting. He already knew that he could disable it when he was done.

[QUOTE=FriarTed]
I’m pretty sure that the Scarecrow we saw at first ISN’T The Scarescrow- either some common criminal in Scarecrow disguise or just maybe The Joker himself.
[/QUOTE]

It didn’t look like Cillian Murphy to me. At the time, since Batman giftwrapped both Scarecrow and the faux-Batman together, I had assumed that a fake Scarecrow and a fake Batman were working together to draw out criminals and bust them. But then I saw the credits and it really was Cillian Murphy. I can’t recall what his final status was at the end of Batman Begins. Can anyone remind me? It did seem like a kind of waste to use if they were going to do it for such a minor plot point.

[QUOTE=Love Rhombus]
The way they made Two-Face, he was a limited villain. He didn’t have a motivation to keep going, I felt. After he had killed Gordon’s kids, he would have shot himself.

I got the feeling from the Gotham Tonight “news” bits that the reporter guy might be Riddler. Maybe not.
[/QUOTE]

I agree that Harvey’s initial motivations as Two-Face seemed limited to revenge against “the bad guys” and the “flawed heroes”. How did he transition to full on criminal bad guy in the comics?

I missed the Riddler references. But I could see AMH as the Riddler.

[QUOTE=Chimera]
I recall reading something a few weeks back that claimed that Christian Bale said that he would leave the franchise if they attempted to introduce the infamous R character.
[/QUOTE]

I agree that it’s really hard to imagine a Robin character in this universe. But if I hadn’t already seen it, I probably would have thought the same thing about Scarecrow, Two Face, and the Joker. Assuming it could be done with Robin equally well, I’d be really curious as to what that would look like. I actually a bigger obstacle than the Robin character itself is that DK was much more a Batman movie than a Bruce Wayne movie. I think if Robin were introduced, we’d really need to spend more time developing the Bruce Wayne aspect.

[QUOTE=well he’s back]
I’m one of the people who thought it was too long.
[/QUOTE]

I thought it was probably too long too, but I don’t think that was the weakest part of the film or even a major detraction.

102

[QUOTE=jackdavinci]
Cool, I didn’t catch that, and it didn’t even occur to me. How did you know? Did you actually pay close attention to the specific addresses the Joker recited and compare to the address Batman went to? Was it some dialogue indicating Batman was surprised to see Harvey instead of Rachel? Or was it just what you thought was the most logical explanation?
[/quote]

It wasn’t the address that tipped me off, it’s the fact that Gordon ended up where Rachel really was and Batman where Dent was. The only explanation is that the Joker lied to them.

103

[QUOTE=drm]
It wasn’t the address that tipped me off, it’s the fact that Gordon ended up where Rachel really was and Batman where Dent was. The only explanation is that the Joker lied to them.
[/QUOTE]

I saw it twice, and made sure to pay close attention the second time, because I wasn’t sure - Joker says that addresses incorrectly, and Bats SAYS he’s going after Rachel as he’s running out the door..

104

[QUOTE=drm]
It wasn’t the address that tipped me off, it’s the fact that Gordon ended up where Rachel really was and Batman where Dent was. The only explanation is that the Joker lied to them.
[/QUOTE]
I had the feeling that he told a similar lie about the detonators on the ferry. Of course, there’s no way to actually know, but it would have made a certain sort of sense if they each had their own. The Joker would have expected both ferries go up by their own hand.

105

[QUOTE=Larry Mudd]
I had the feeling that he told a similar lie about the detonators on the ferry. Of course, there’s no way to actually know, but it would have made a certain sort of sense if they each had their own. The Joker would have expected both ferries go up by their own hand.
[/QUOTE]

Yeah, after the lie about the addresses of the “project mayhem” warehouses, I assumed that when Tiny Lister took the detonator, we would see an exploding ferry, and discover it was the boat with the prisoners on it. I was surprised when he threw it out the window.

106

[QUOTE=Blaster Master]

As for the backstory, I think a character like that really works best if you just don’t understand. Very much how the Alien was scarier before you saw it in the movie Alien, if you have some appreciation for how he became what he is, his psychotic nature loses its edge.
[/QUOTE]

 I just want to add that I thought the back story did make the Joker much creepier- because if you recall, he changes his explanation for his scars. This says to me that he didn't come from a horrible childhood; instead he just makes these stories up to frighten he people. For all we know, he could have been raised by loving parents.

EDIT: I just noticed that Blaster Master was responding to somebody saying the Joker was too shallow. But I still think that was one of the creepier parts of the movie.

107

I loved it. It was really disturbing in a good way. As everyone says, Ledger was awesome. This Joker really is played the way you could imagine a psychopath (OK, a bit much, but still). The scenes of video that the Joker sent in of hostages reading his script and then grainy footage of the Joker’s cackling face just about had me crapping my pants.

I will say that in comparison to Harvey Dent and the Joker, Batman himself seemed, well, dull. After some reflection on the matter, I think this might have been intentional, because it let everyone in Gotham have their own impression of Batman.

And I don’t give a damn about Katie Holmes. The more Maggie I see, the happier I am.

Great movie.

108

[QUOTE=jackdavinci]
As for Lucius, he had specifically said that he would use the system once at the price of him quitting. He already knew that he could disable it when he was done.
[/QUOTE]

No, he didn’t know, although he may have suspected (“Sometimes people deserve to have their faith rewarded.”). What he said was: “As long as that thing is at Wayne Enterprises, I won’t be.”

I don’t know how you read that line, but to me it implies that he’ll return when/if it goes. So no, I don’t think he’s quitting. Of course, Morgan Freeman may have said, “No, I won’t do another Batman movie as the ‘Q’ equivalent,” but I think that’s fairly unlikely. He gets (almost) all the best lines. :wink:

Also, I was wrong about one thing in my speculation on the first page: It’s Dent and not Batman who’s after the man who let the Joker slip his leash. But that doesn’t really change my theory.

109

Saw the movie today. Absolutely brilliant. I loved the Jokers ever changing backstory. It fits the character perfectly. Pure chaos with no hint of motivation.

I’m also not convinced that Harvey Dent is dead. There were a couple of long shots there showing him clearly breathing. I find it hard to believe a director like Nolan would slip up like that. It also makes sense that, if he did survive, they would lie about it and toss him in Arkham to keep their hero.

110

[QUOTE=Harborwolf]
Saw the movie today. Absolutely brilliant. I loved the Jokers ever changing backstory. It fits the character perfectly. Pure chaos with no hint of motivation.

I’m also not convinced that Harvey Dent is dead. There were a couple of long shots there showing him clearly breathing. I find it hard to believe a director like Nolan would slip up like that. It also makes sense that, if he did survive, they would lie about it and toss him in Arkham to keep their hero.
[/QUOTE]

Yeah, but the word would get out, somehow. The White Knight is in Arkham, totally batshit? That would be big tabloid money.

111

[QUOTE=Love Rhombus]
Yeah, but the word would get out, somehow. The White Knight is in Arkham, totally batshit? That would be big tabloid money.
[/QUOTE]

People get “lost” in Arkham - that’s sort of it’s point.

And also why it’s so easy to escape from, but…

112

[QUOTE=spoke-]
Wow. That was the most Republican movie since Red Dawn.

Helluva film, though.
[/QUOTE]

Could you explain this? I don’t get it.

113

[QUOTE=Love Rhombus]
Could you explain this? I don’t get it.
[/QUOTE]

Some people think the way Batman used everyone’s cellphones to find The Joker is an endorsement of Bush’s use of wiretapping. I disagree personally.

114

[QUOTE=Love Rhombus]
Could you explain this? I don’t get it.
[/QUOTE]

The whole film seems to me to be an apologia for the War on Terror as waged by the Bush administration.

The Joker is “the Terrorists,” or perhaps specifically represents bin Laden.

Recall that Alfred tells Bruce maybe he’s wasting his time worrying about what motivates the Joker: some men just want to watch the world burn. (I.e., them terrorists is just plain evil. No point in trying to figure out their motivations.)

Batman takes the part of the Bush administration. He goes beyond the bounds of the law to protect the people of Gotham. Seizes one of the criminals on foreign soil and brings him back. His ally Gordon puts this criminal (and later the Joker) in a holding cell separate from the rest of the criminal population. Batman resorts to extreme measures (torture) to get the truth out of the Joker. Batman conducts a secret surveillance through the cell phones of the city’s residents, again crossing ethical lines in the name of protecting the citizenry.

Batman is warned that the people will turn on him. (Sure enough, his popularity plunges as he is blamed for aggravating or even inspiring the crime problem. Note the reporter yapping at Dent about it during the press conference. Damned liberal media.) Batman nobly accepts the people turning on him as part of the cost of protecting the city. When he’s about to turn himself in, a British-accented Alfred (Tony Blair?) jokingly worries that he will be seen as an accomplice.

Maybe I’m reaching, but watch it again with this angle in mind.

115

The unanswered question remains:

Why does the mayor of Gotham wear eyeliner?

116

But it can’t be viewed as a Republican-positive movie because the audience is never supposed to think the Batman is right. The movie even tells us that he’s not right to make some of the decisions he made, which resulted in losing Rachel and Fox (and other bad consequences. Nothing good came from kidnapping Lao). Hell, Bruce knew he was going down a dark road, and that was why he was so caught up in elevating Harvey Dent to “knighthood”. We were supposed to take a hard look at the lengths Batman was going to in order to catch the Joker and realize he was walking a very, very fine line between being a superhero and “becoming the villain” (Which is the awesome thing about Batman anyway).

In fact, all of the examples you cite have negative results. For example, Batman may have beat the Joker up, but The Joker was just fucking with him until it was too late to do anything about the information he had. Yes, Batman crossed lines, but somebody was going to die, because that’s how the Joker worked it. I would see how the movie was pro-torture if it wasn’t so apparent that the Joker wouldn’t say a word until he was damned good and ready, which I think makes it decidedly anti-torture.

117

[QUOTE=pepperlandgirl]
In fact, all of the examples you cite have negative results.
[/QUOTE]

The cell phone surveillance worked to perfection.

118

[QUOTE=spoke-]
The cell phone surveillance worked to perfection.
[/QUOTE]

But it cost him a trusted friend.

119

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
But it cost him a trusted friend.
[/QUOTE]

And arguably his most important ally. Alfred is great, but he’s not going to hook Bruce up with the most technologically advanced Batsuit…

If it was some sort of apology for Bush Administration politics, none of Batman’s decisions would have (profound and long term) negative effects.

120

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
But it cost him a trusted friend.
[/QUOTE]

No it didn’t. The system self-detructed when Lucius typed in his name at the end. Lucius smiled at the sight. He’s not going anywhere.

(Recall that he said if this device is still around when this is all over, I won’t be. The device self-destructed, so… problem magically solved.)