Going to buy my ticket tonight for Friday night... should be awesome.

I would like to see this movie, too, but knowing that Ledger (or a part of him) may, in fact, not have been "acting" (as MaryAnn eludes to) is so sad, so heart-breaking, so horrific that I don't know if I can watch it. As a psychotherapist, I don't know that it's possible for me.
I can imagine what MaryAnn writes of in terms of our entire cultural sickness will be so depressing that I will want to vomit.
I haven't seen the movie, yet, I already say, what MaryAnn begins this review with...

Cannot wait! Going in a large group, and I loved your Batman Begins review too! Gave me insight I never saw into it at first.

Well, it isn't really any more comforting, but the Medical Examiner ruled Heath Ledger's death was accidental, not a suicide -- so I'm not sure how accurate it is that he had an "urge to self-destruct" ... seems like an unwarranted assumption. Dunno; the whole thing is a shame, regardless.

Yes, but Ledger was clearly aggitated, asking for meds, having high anxiety, couldn't sleep, all the signs that we know point directly to the need for psychiatric intervention, not just prescriptions from various physicians. Ledger told others that this role was doing a number on him (or him in this role--what it was bringing him in touch with.) What seems saddest to me is that no one gave him any help or insisted on it even--simply thought perhaps (as many will do--he'll be OK) and hey, whatever, the angst, it's really driving an amazing performance. I've had patients that if they'd been filmed in a movie would win Oscars. Not to compare them to Ledgers true acting talent at all. It's that when one has gone over the edge, put that with acting talent and... Ugh. I don't think I can see this.
Actually, I wonder about the ethics of it even being released. It will surely make tons of money and money seems to be valued above all. My guess is that MaryAnn is totally on target in this review. And in a way that many people just won't "get." Which is even more painful.

Saying Heath's Joker had a hand in his death devalues Heath's talent and abilities as an actor. His friends and cast members all said he was fully capable of distinguishing between reality and fantasy. It's a dramatic story that plays well in newspapers and tv reports but it ignores all testimonies of those closest to him.

Anyway, i can't wait to see this film 3 times on Friday.

I just know i'm gonna love it 'cuz Nolan can do no wrong.

MaryAnn says you should see it. So you should go if you want to. Re: friends and cast members comments now (as the movie is coming out) are very different than what they said at his death...and what Ledger himself had said...even on video. My opinion...someone should have intervened and they didn't. Then when Ledger was clearly deperate, it seems he didn't get the right kind of help. Only prescription drugs.
The whole thing is very sad but yes it will be a phenomenal performance...I certainly don't take one thing away from his acting talent. That's not even the point. Nor is it MaryAnn's.

The angle that this role aided to the demise of Ledger, in any manner, is simply false in all respects. Ledger's work here was completed four months before his passing, and he had already moved onto another project. The wet, rainy shoots in London on Dr. Parnassus made him come down with illness, and while back in New York, he accidentally mixed too many prescriptions drugs together. He was actually heard snoring an hour before his time of death.

Every actor on the set of Parnassus said he looked fine on the outside, but knew he was coming down with an illness due to the rainy shoot. That was the only glimmer of warning. On The Dark Knight, Ledger wasn't jumping around in character once the cameras stopped, but instead would sit down and talk with cast and crew of his daughter and the filming techniques on the shoot.

This is not some grisly case of the man dying on screen due to a mistake. This was entirely outside of the film itself.

Jeremy,
You sound like a personal friend of Ledger's. Wish your take was the whole deal. Somehow I don't think it is since he himself said what the role of the Joker did to him...and yeah, it can be three months prior...that's not long...and then come down with pneumonia (which I think would make things horrible) especially if you're already possibly depressed. All I know is what I heard Ledger say himself on a video. And it was about the Joker role. The other that you describe heaped on top of Batman would be the icing on the cake.
Anyway, knowing this tragedy, I'm not going to this movie. We do know that it did a number on Ledger and knowing that and with the questions that linger I'm not going to see it. If you can compartmentalize so well, then the issues re: Ledger (even as MaryAnn describes) won't bother you because you'll set them aside. I can't do that.

Agree completely, MaryAnn. I've sat beside many a patient in intensive care on consultations, hoping they'd pull through. Some made it, others didn't. They just wanted to get some sleep, get rid of pain, whatever. They wouldn't have said, I am intentionally trying to kill myself. Something(s) in life became too overwhelming and symptoms became too difficult..."accidental overdoses" happen more often than people seem to realize.

Accidental perscription drug overdoses do indeed happen, and unfortunately are on the rise. Not to say there wasn't abuse involved here, which is why a DEA investigation is still underway into who was prescribing. However, Ledger had actually only taken two prescriptions before heading to bed. Unfortunately, this was still too soon to the previous medications he had taken hours before, and his body toxicity became overwhelming. The best we can take away from this incident is the awareness of the growing problem, and learn form it.

Anywho, I leave you now with a recent story about Ledger and his time in Chicago:

http://tinyurl.com/59xz7b

Jeremy,
I agree with much you say. Also, though, the interview in the UK (during The Dark Knight)Ledger says he can't sleep, is exhausted, and has gone for nights and nights with only two hours of sleep, his mind wouldn't stop, couldn't stop thinking. Not a good picture. And one that could lead a person (when this stuff just continued and continued) to try to quiet the thoughts, get some sleep, relax, just sleep--anyway possible. The Joker was a role that would freak any actor out if they played it to the hilt in the way Ledger did on two hours of sleep, mind racing, always in character, anxious, observably jittery, etc. The warnings were there in the UK interview. There were other issues--his family life (Michelle and his child), the pneumonia (which can exacerbate any obsessive thoughts and depression.) I also think Ledger was the kind of guy (well, it's pretty obvious) that hid his feelings well. He would try to act upbeat even if he wasn't, that kind of thing. But jittery, couldn't sit still, couldn't sleep, mind racing, exhausted... Sad, sad, sad. And preventable with correct intervention. That's what bothers me so much. As MaryAnn said, a story for our times...so much preventable with proper attention and intervention. But if the problems aren't seen, or are ignored, or are brushed off, crashes inevitably occur.

You should stop with all the assumptions and what ifs. What use does it have? You simply don't know if it was suicide and any thinking about it will do you no good (which is apparent when I read your comments). I know that some of you won't be able to switch those thoughts off at will but perhaps you should try to focus on the positive things instead. For one: He gave a wonderful performance and will be loved for it by Batman-Fans and Non-Fans alike for a long time to come.

It was NOT suicide (as you argue above--I didn't say it was.) That's not the point. If you can't see the events (not event) that led up to his demise, then there's nothing to say. His death could have been prevented. Knowing that...and knowing what he himself said, I won't see the film. But you will. Fine for you. My experiences and what I know and see are different than yours. I've talked to many Batman fans (and Joker fans for that matter) that said they weren't going. So, hey, it isn't just me.)There are those who recognize a psychological train wreck (even if highly talented) in action over a period of time--and one that is alone in the midst of it--alone and miserable and can't even sleep. KNOWING that in advance, I won't go. I'd thought I might, but I won't.

I'm not Jeremy.
Of course there were events that led to his death. Otherwise he wouldn't be dead. Would you say that there would be a 100% guarantee that he would live now if he hadn't played the Joker? Of course, you wouldn't say that. 50% perhaps? Who knows? He said that he never slept well if he invested as much thought in a character (it was the same with previous films). Perhaps he shouldn't have made films at all.
You claim to be one of those who recognizes a psychological train wreck? And you can recognize him as such after some video interviews without actually seeing im in person? Or did you know him?

I'd say yeah, from watching the UK interview, I could see things fraying apart for Ledger. I know the signs...seen them for years. But that's not really the point. MaryAnn addressed the issues of our entire culture in her review and that seems to go completely unaddressed with no concern of what she is pointing to. What this movie symbolizes. It's not for those that are simply going for an action picture as MaryAnn makes clear. And, I think, many will miss what she is saying in this excellent review. It's strange to me and I could be very wrong about this, but it seems that I am overwhemingly outnumbered by males on these posts. Not sure what that says. And byt, I hated Sex and the City movie. Loved In Bruges.
This movie has more dynamics that I think I'd clearly get and would make me feel as MaryAnn (horribly depressed myself) and then add the loss of Ledger to it. But everyone must make up his/her mind whether to go or not.

Can we focus on the movie and not on the conspiracy theories?

I do believe there's a sort of thing as an accidental overdose.

Look, when you suicidally overdose, it's generally the same pill. Heath died from a bad combination of pills.

Changing the subject a little, do you think he hgas a chance of getting an oscar nomination for best supporting actor (and if he does, do you think that would be apropriate, like, should some family member go get it)?

If it so happens that way, I'd love to see Daniel Day Lewis accept the award on Ledger's behalf to give to his family. Lewis' tribute to Ledger at the award ceremonies was quite moving, even though he had never known the man.

Daniel Day Lewis is one to throw himself completely into a role and says it's a very dark place (if the character is)...can be very disconcerting or worse. Combined with all the things Heath had going on, Lewis was concerned evidently--or either afterward could see why events spiraled downward. Lewis would be a good one to accept any award if the family didn't want to. Why not Michele Williams (if she wanted to)?

http://fataculture.wordpress.com/2008/07/16/review-the-dark-knight/

Just reviewed it myself, and I concur with you indeed.

We've been over this before. As I said then, I'm not sure I believe there's such a thing as an "accidental" overdose.

Regardless, I agree with the above poster who said this speculation might "devalue" his performance. Then again, I haven't seen the film yet. Maybe I'll hate it. Maybe I'll think Jack's Joker was better. Either way, I'm going to have a hard time separating the performance from the life, but it seems important to try.

Nick,
What in particular do you concur with MaryAnn about? How did the Ledger issues (whatever they may be, however you might feel or not about them) affect you? Did you feel horribly saddened as MA discusses. Did you see the movie as a mirror held up to our culture? I had planned to see this movie, but the Ledger piece of it (in all it's confusion and ambiguity) makes me turn away. I don't want to remember Ledger this way. Even if he is dynamic--I suppose I'd prefer to remember him as the confused and profoundly sad, but very dear cowboy in Brokeback Mountain, than the manaically pathological, lonely, sick Joker. Sure, I'd like to see Bale et al, but I don't think that Ledger's performance will do anything but depress and as I said, make me feel really ill. Such a waste, as MA begins her review (or gets to that point--the sadness, the loss.)
For those who can comparmentalize, push aside such things, view the film as film only, forgetting the real lives of the characters, I say go, but otherwise, I think it would haunt in a awful way.

Newbs,
If you think of Ledger every time you can't sleep...seems that this movie will haunt. I can't separate the actor from what happened to him not long after the making of this film, and knowing what he said about his mental state during the making of the film. And for those who would jump on me for saying this, I am clearly aware of the pneumonia he had and that would play a key (bacterial/viral illnesses can make one even more depressed, anxious, etc., if the problem is there to begin with.) Why should we separate the characters from the real people when something is involved like this (Ledgers' death)? Why should we not think of it? And in thinking of it, how can it not get in the way? Unless as I said, one has the capacity (and I don't think of this as a positive characteristic) of being able to compartmentalize feelings. Instead of integrating them. Bomber pilots compartmentalize all the time. Lots of people do in situations where if there was integration there would be a different outcome.
There is also the saying in psychiatry that's used all the time..."accidentally on purpose"...sometimes we aren't so aware of our unconscious issues as we'd like to think we are.

Yes, precisely MaryAnn...you wrote: Ledger's performance will, inevitably, be "devalued" because of his death but I don't see that there's any way around it.
I don't see any way around it either. And, yes, how, in this case, do you separate the actor from the role he played in this film, knowing what we know? I suppose, many will (the compartmentalization thing) but that's a huge part of what I do see as being wrong with "us" or "our culture." If we have that ability and use it blithely then what does that say about our humanity? And we can't just say, "it's only a movie." That's trite and insensitive, and not in touch with our own feelings (really scary) besides.

I'm certainly looking forward to seeing Ledger's last performance, although it may be a couple of weeks, since word is, all of the theatres that are playing is are sold out! This may end up being the hit of the summer.

I remember when they were filming here in Chicago last summer. I still have pictures that I took of the police cars and paddy wagons with the "Gothom City" Logos and license plates. I'm sure that Ledger probably gave a great performance. He certainly gave the performance of the ages in "Brokeback Mountain" and that showed just how special, and gifted an actor he is, as that was a tricky role and Ledger's take on it should have been a shoo-in for the Best Actor Oscar. Only the subject matter scared most of the voters away. What a loss.....

Heath Ledger was a great actor. However, let's be honest, people would not have realized that had it not been for his towering, immortal performance in Brokeback Mountain. As the NY Times said, it was as good as anything ever even by Brando (and Sean Penn). Thanks to his Ennis del Mar, people started looking back at his ultra-fine work in films like Candy and Lords of Dogtown and heck, everything he did. It was his performance in Brokeback that made his tragic, untimely death the stuff of front page news, otherwise I fear his awful loss would have gone the way of say, Brad Renfro, another fine actor whose untimely death barely made the papers. So, when Heath wins that overdue Oscar for Dark Knight, it will be just as much for Brokeback Mountain. Alas I will not be watching, as the Academy Awards are (and always have been) a meaningless popularity contest. It became obscene (as Dustin Hoffman accused them of being back in 1974 before he sold out in 1979) when they denied Brokeback Mountain and Heath Best Picture and Actor of 2005. Brokeback was the most honored pre-Oscars film EVER, nothing with a fraction of its awards had ever lost, yet older Academy members were vocally, publically, proudly saying they wouldn't even watch the "gay movie", they weren't interested. Right-wingers protested, got behind Crash as a politically correct alternative, and they denied Brokeback its due (and, for the record, no film with as few pre-Oscars honors had ever won, it wasn't even nominated for the Golden Globe!). Whichever film you prefer, for 80 years the Oscars have been determined by precedent, except that year, with Academy members admitting they would not go gay. If they said they wouldn't go black or hispanic or Jewish or whatever, just imagine the outcry. No excuse. So may Heath win the prize he deserves, for The Dark Knight, and especially for the beautiful Brokeback Mountain.

I don't know if Ledger should have gotten best actor for Brokeback, but I definitely think the movie should have won best film. Way over Crash--at least to me.
I think if Ledger wins an Oscar is will be for The Dark Knight (and that alone) and as MA says, the questions will loom as to whether he deserved it for the role or whether it will be given to him out of sadness that he is gone.

Wish you'd talked about Ledger too. You'd have heard, I think, different things than you're hearing from Bale et al now, as the movie opens.
Michelle Williams will not attend. The one Ledger was closest to and had a child with won't be seeing this movie.

I will see this movie and it WILL haunt me in some way no doubt, but that is LIFE.

Sara, I understand why you don't want to go, as there seems to be a professional conflict occurring in your mind, but re-infocing the idea to others is possibly stopping them from having a learning experience.

There is a lot to take away from the movie and everything that has happened with Heath.

I can understand Michelle Williams and co not going, because the pain is too close.

Peter,
I certainly ddon't mean to stop anyone from seeing the movie, nor is that something I could even do nor want to do. People will flock to this movie in droves. I've said MA in the review above said, "See it" and I think she's right on about most reviews. What else she says (and I'm glad) helps me personally know I won't go. Her review is the best and most insightful one I've read. My husband (who likes Batman movies and action movies) said under the circumstances that he won't go. I have friends who aren't going. That's just life too. We all make our own decisions. MaryAnn does a fabulous job of making connections re: this movie and our culture that I do fear others won't make and that bothers me--but nothing I can do about it.
The sadness for me is too close but not just for me, or because of my profession, it's because as MA says we know much about the Ledger who played the character, much of what was going on with him and I really don't want to see him in this character as his last performance. That's my opinion/feeling/decision. I know this sounds dumb but my mom's favorite character (comic) is Batman and she says she can't see this movie and my father said he won't either. My son who is in his 20s is conflicted about it but he will get what MA says and has read her review. If he wants to see it, that's his decision. As it is anyone's. The movie will haunt him and I don't want to hear his angst over it for he will have it. This movie is unique in the ways we've all discussed. I had planned to go but decided against it. I never said for any one else to not go. In fact, I said that MA gave it her highest rating, but with warning both re: the whole situation with Ledger (being astute to your own feelings) and how this movie is dark in terms of our culture right now. That's all. Sorry if I gave another impression; I didn't mean to. I'm very tired of people in this country (and the world) compartmentalizing (which makes chaos easy) and I fear this move will only feed in to that. But lots of movies do. They just aren't as well done and seductive. At least you read the top review before you see the movie.

maybe i'm missing something here, but how will *not* seeing this movie in any way honor or respect heath ledger and his career? if he gave a great performance, does it really matter what his personal demons were? it's what he chose to do as his profession and seeing the movie -- if one claims to be a "fan" -- would be respecting his performance and choices that he made in life.

Bonxbee,
MaryAnn expresses answers to your questions in an incredibly insightful way in this review. To me, it does matter, knowing what we know of this situation and this person and what he said about this character (again, UK interview)...he was tormented. And then he died. Many factors played into this, I realize but I don't want to see a movie that will make me cry in sadness (because of the Ledger situation) and because of how it mirrors our culture (and I doubt many of the teeming moviegoers will get that which is depressing to me.) MaryAnn addresses this in the review and also again on a post of hers on July 16.
I think Heath would say, as was pretty much his philosophy, do what you feel/think is right for you. And that's what I'm doing. I know enough about the movie to know that I don't want to see it under the circumstances that have been discussed in this column. If I were a reviewer, yes, I'd force myself to go, but I'm not a reviewer. It would not be entertainment or "learning" for me. I fear it will be entertainment for many people and very little "learning." But, c'est la vie.

Understood. And, I agree, it does matter--the "demons" (as you put it) that fueled this performance. For me, yes, personally too upsetting and horrible. I've talked with others (who I know personally) who feel similarly. Many don't, obviously. I certainly have utmost respect for Ledger's work--tremendous, in fact-- but do not want to see this film at all. I have no desire to cry the whole way through and possibly throw up on the floor and both are highly likely. MA's review was insightful and important, I think--extremely so and I think she has hit upon profound issues that many will miss about this movie. So, those who have read her review and do see the film, I'd say you are lucky indeed to have her review in your head as you watch the film. It can only make the film richer for you, plus you are fully prepared for what you will see. Hopefully, this will bring about discussions among those you see it with who didn't have the opportunity to read MAs review. I sure as heck made sure my son had her review (he plans to go to the movie tomorrow night.) His response to her review (and he's 22) was: Wow...she points to the main message and isn't afraid to deal with the issue of Ledger either. He made copies of my email to him (with her review) to share with his friends prior to going to the movie.

i guess i just am not as distraught about HL's death as some are. i thought he did great work and some not-so-great work, but while i can regret whatever led to his death at such a young age (carelessness, suicide or accident, whatever), i cannot think of myself as throwing up at viewing his performance. all actors of whatever level -- if they are true to their craft -- bring out something of themselves in every performance. whatever HL brought out in this performance, i don't understand why it would be more upsetting than watching him in Brokeback Mtn and thinking it must have brought out some side of him that was homosexual, or watching him in Ned Kelly and thinking some part of him must be a criminal.

certainly, if you're the kind of person who will be upset by thinking the last performance he gave was this kind of wild, raw, emotional one, then by all means stay away -- i guess i'm having trouble understanding why people are finding that watching this performance would be thought to expose more of his inner workings than any of his others.

There is a difference here. There is a difference in watching Ledger in this movie as opposed to Brokeback Mt. (Help me here maybe MA as I'm obviously not getting my thought/feelings/point across)--Ledger was at a very very different place emotionally when he made Brokeback and when he played the Joker. And the outcomes are vastly different in terms of what it did to him, what he said it did to him. If you can't see the sadness and the horror (not in the movie, that's not what I'm talking about)...in the real person who is playing the character (or maybe not so playing the character) then what can I say? I've said all I can. I certainly can deal with difficult movies but this one falls into it's own category that is not like other "wild, raw, emotional" movies. If that isn't understood...

I've read many reviews saying that you don't really think about Heath in this movie because he's almost not there. He disappears entirely into the Joker and doesn't remind you of, in any way, the actor.

"we were witness, in a small way, to how this role affected him, in a way that we're usually not...."

No were not. We have no idea if this role had anything to do with his death at all. It's sad that we're speculating about Heath's personal demons and death. I said it before and i'll say it again. It devaules Heath's talent as a actor. And i'm not gonna do that based on gossip.

Your review reminds me why I love Batman. He's not some self-indulgent psychopath like the Punisher, or a would-be god-emperor like Superman always seems a hair away from becoming. He's insane, certainly, but he's still sane enough to know it. He knows that in order to avoid hypocrisy in his vigilantism, he must do everything he can to avoid being judge, jury, or executioner. Since he doesn't even have the legal footing of the police, he can't allow himself to kill even in self-defense. He manages to walk that a razor-wire tightrope--physically, mentally, emotionally, and morally.

Hats off to whoever designed the sound of this movie. There are some absolutely striking silences peppered with only the faintest environmental noise that bring serious intensity to already gripping scenes. Even most of the action sequences manage to maintain the same starkness and it works perfectly throughout. Also, regardless of how high your expectations are for Ledger's Joker, he will not disappoint. He is very simply hair-raising.

Sara, I too have sat with patients who have 'overdosed' and have had deep discussions with them about whether or not it was accidental (I'm a psychiatrist). It is frequently a very hazy area, as you know, with many conscious and unconscious motivations driving such behavior. That said, avoiding TDK is a mistake. HL was an actor, and a damn good one, and we don't know if it was the craziness of the Joker or simply the intensity he poured into the performance (independent of the role) that may have fed into his anxiety and depression. He was obviously a very intense artist, but it is possible that playing such a loose cannon was liberating or cathartic for him, it isn't as if he got off the set on his final day as the Joker and overdosed.

Since he was so good at portraying himself as different from how he really felt (i.e. he was an incredible *actor*), it makes it very difficult to make a judgment here without actually sitting down with him and talking with him--obviously impossible.

That said, the movie is awesome, and draws into sharp relief the deepest moral questions, and spotlights the darkest pits of human nature. It is not, as MJ said "a nightmare of modern neurosis"--this is ancient mythology as it was originally intended: an in depth look at ourselves as humans. Batman is a modern Osirus--lord of the underworld, a kind of god-man in the ancient mystery tradition, and the Joker a modern Mephistopholes, who shakes our conscious "sensibilities" to the core with unconflicted destructive force. HL nails this perfectly, as if he knows the Joker lives deep within everyone, just as Batman (and even Bruce Wayne) does. I don't think HL would want anyone to miss this performance on account of his death--he poured too much of his soul into it.

Erik,
Thanks for your comments. Your description of the ancient themes (same as MaryAnn goes into) is the only reason I would see the movie (perhaps on DVD at some point.) It does bother me (as MaryAnn has pointed out) that we DO know that Heath was disturbed and did not get the help he needed. He was advised during the filming of The Dark Knight to get psychiatric help but did not and no one insisted on it. For me, this brings up questions such as: why would the studio not insist on it? Was his performance so good that perhaps it was in the best interest of the money-making machine to use Ledger (even though this might have been bad for him? Dangerous for him?) Ledger's drug use is well-known and started before The Dark Knight. How does that fit in? I realize this is speculation but it is what concerns me...was he on strong uppers (cocaine, etc.) during his performances, then afterward would have trouble sleeping at night and a terrible cycle began of addiction that, yes, could lead to a "great" performance of a good actor (similar to steroid use in athletes but worse) but could explain why a person was sleeping for only two hours a night for a lengthy time, perhaps was taking something during the day for shoots. Then add in the exhaustion, aggitation, inability to sleep, anxiety, depression, etc. I don't really want to watch Heath self-destructing in this movie (even if it makes for a "great performance") and he WAS on a downward spiral at that time and it continued. I realize we don't know but bits and pieces--someone does the whole story, though, something was very wrong and his acting may have been mixed in with strong drug use. Does that take away from the "acting"? Well, yeah, it would to me. Was he a good actor? Yes. Was hs good in Brokeback? Yes, but I thought Gyllenhaal was actually better. So, the known drug use (and other problems) and the downward spiral that began before The Dark Knight but then worsened makes it seem (whatever was going on with Heath) that he was almost taken advantage of--as if you were filming someone who was manic but not yet overty psychotic (but getting there fast)...it would be abusive (my opinion). With all those questions floating around...and they are and will always be...I really don't want to see him like this in his last role. I don't know that it IS attributable to only great acting or something else combined. That bothers me. I also think if it's clear (for whatever reason) that if an actor needs to seek psychiatric help (and is told this) during a shoot and the studio knows this, that it should be insisted on no matter how "great" the performance they are getting out of an actor. Otherwise, it bumps up against abuse of the actor to me and I don't want to be party to that myself. The whole thing is sullied for me. But I realize that others feel very different. May they deal with it as they wish.

This review is different from others.It's very personal and appears to be a memoirs for Ledger. I didn't like him as an actor,but upon seeing him in The Dark Knight this afternoon, I felt sadness. He was brilliant all throughout the movie. In fact, I couldn;t see Heath Ledger until the last scene whereas, he was hanging,smiling ans stating his philosophy.

ProudPinoy,
You are right on that MA's reviews are "different from others." They're better, they see what others can't see or don't want to see or feel. Yet she remains analytical at the same time.
Why did you feel sadness when you say Ledger in The Dark Knight? Because he is now dead or because of something else (or both)? I'd be interested in knowing.
Another disturbing comment that Mathias made: "you don't really think about Heath that much because he's almost not there. He disappears into the Joker..." This says a lot on many levels. What we do know is that something was very wrong and that Heath did end up "disappearing" and for good.

MA,
I realize that's it's speculation (extent of drug issues)--I said that-- but it's known that there were drug issues before, during and after--that part's not speculation. What kind, what type, how much, how often...I have no idea, but it is something I think about. And it's something that can cause a person to crash and burn, even a young person. And again, when during a film an actor is advised to seek psychiatric help...and they don't...and they play an insane role, well, it bothers me. That's all.

MJ--point taken, though the twisted choices the Joker makes the populace go through are guided by the principle that humans tend to throw out all the rules when it comes to self preservation. The Joker then says--"ahh, so the rules are just bs, aren't they?" He has a point! Terrorism is just mankind's most recent paranoia that summons forth this otherwise ancient ugliness.

As for HL's drug use and the studio's treatment of him, you pose an ethical problem, how forceful should we be in our insistence? Should someone have pink-slipped him and forced him to go to a hospital? Hindsight leaves us with an outraged 'yes!', but that's too easy. In my job, I can only force hospitalization if there is good evidence at the time that a person is a danger to themselves or others, otherwise I am unethically abusing my power to curtail someone's autonomy. It's always a tough call, and suicide is very difficult to predict anyway. Sure we have 'risk factors', but they're not that predictive. Fact is, though, HL refused treatment--was that unwise? Clearly! Trajic? Certainly, the world will miss him. But at what point to we force people to make 'wise' choices against their will? I don't have all the answers, and I do this for a living!

Also, in the movie, the Joker is not a psychotic character in that he doesn't hear voices, ramble, bounce off the walls or have delusional thoughts; he is clear thinking, articulate, calculating and very menacing. He is quite controlled--they weren't filming a manic man on the verge of insanity, but a fiercely measured and well-concieved characterization. In other words, a well acted role. But that's just my opinion, you'd have to see it to judge yourself :)

Erik,
I completely understand the points re: "making a person" get treatment or the inability to predict suicide. People, even mental health professionals of the highest caliber, can't read minds. If though (sorry, speculation but from one mental health professional to another) if someone is working for you and you are aware that something is very amiss (and perhaps you even know what it is), know enough that you recommend psychiatric treatment at least, then you most certainly do (as an employer) have the ability to fire the person if they don't get help. That happens a lot. Forcing them to treatment. No. Firing them. Yes. But who would fire such a person when such a performance was being gotten from him and money to be made? Even if it is on the brink of some sort of significant problem? It would be all too easy to brush it off.

The people here trying to do posthumous psychoanalysis of Heath Ledger need to stop.

IMHO, you're honouring his death far less by refusing to see this movie than you would be if you did go and see it. His portrayal talks about important things; the importance of self-responsibility; why society going too far in the direction of anarchy *or* fascism are both bad.

The single most important thing his role here will force you to look at, though, is the truth that there is evil within every single person, as well as good. Batman explained to him, and he should have seen, that good is there as well, but in the story he proves with Harvey that even within the supposedly best person, evil still exists. Harvey was referred to as Two Face while he was training, before Rachel's death or him ever experiencing the truth of that.

If you do not go and see this film because you're worried that maybe his performance is a little too real for you, then you are a coward, and you have no place to claim to be lamenting his death. You claim to mourn him, and then refuse to view what may well have been his greatest accomplishment, simply because it might make you uncomfortable?

Understand this, MaryAnne; modern psychotherapy is a big part of the whole damn problem. They try and create a picture of what is defined as baseline "normal," and then pathologise anything that is outside of that definition. It makes me sick.

I'm sick of you damned normals; I'm sick of your fear. I'm sick of you trying to claim that you have any idea what the words pain or fear mean. You label anyone who doesn't fit into the eight hour a day mould, that is killing this entire planet, as autistic or God only knows what else, and then you make it even worse by calling us "rainbow/Indigo children," and go on about how being different is such a wonderful thing.

It's garbage from beginning to end, and we know it even if you don't.

We know about your fear of us.

We know we are considered freaks.

We know that when either the current or a future government re-enacts Auschwitz in America, those of us living in that country will be among the first to be killed, as we were during the time of Hitler.

We know that living alone day after day, and that having people recoil from us in horror when we're just trying to do something such as food shopping, and lying in bed at night in an empty house at 4 in the morning, rigid with fear ourselves of things that empirical Science has no room for, and so denies the existence of, isn't glamorous, or sexy, or fun, or special. It is a state of biting cold, terror, and relentless, gnawing agony on a level that you, in your sheltered, mundane, utterly pointless lives cannot even begin to remotely comprehend.

Mary Anne is right about one thing. The Joker is out there. Oh, I promise you he is. Maybe his spirit was present within Heath before he died; maybe it wasn't. If you refuse to see this film purely out of fear of that possibility however, then you have nothing but my contempt.

You do not know what fear really means.

Have fun when fascism truly comes to your country, as it is all but there now. You'll get to learn all about fear then, I promise you. Maybe if you actually watched more things like Heath's performance, and didn't spend quite so much time hiding under your bed, you'd actually be able to avoid what's coming.

If Heath died as a result of making this movie, then that is what he died for. He died in order to give us an opportunity, even if only in allegory, to look at some things which some of us are very uncomfortable about facing, but which the cost of ignoring for too much longer might very well be our lives. Yes, it's getting that serious.

If you really care about his death, honour it. Go and see this film, and be willing to learn the lessons it teaches.

(yawn)

Of course there is good and evil and in-between in every person. Fear of that isn't what would keep me from going to this film. The self-righteous leader and the terrorist surely are brothers and feed on each other for various reason. They would not exist without the other. I get that. I get that we should ask questions like...why do they (whoever they are) hate us? Some of the question/answers that are denied, I certainly see. I'm not skipping over it. It's not the message of the film that scares me--the message of the film is important, clearly. It's the process of what happened to Ledger. And wondering what exactly that was because we really don't know. It's hidden. Clues, yeah. But it's been hidden.
I understand much of what you're saying, I think, regarding the movie. As does MaryAnn in her review. Her review is one that does touch on the issues you bring up. She didn't say she hid under her bed. Nor does it mean I'm hiding under mine if I choose not to see this movie (not because of it's message--I get the ideas of what the message are about.)
As far as analyzing, speculating, thinking about what happened to Ledger, feeling sad about it--that's going to happen and I don't see it as a negative thing. Haven't movies been made about JFK, etc., etc.? There's analysis and speculation. And usually there is cover-up somewhere too. So those of us who analyze might think more deeply than you realize and have seen things you don't realize. Are there worse things to see/experience? Always. I understand that.

MA,
You can't "force" someone into treatment and I don't think that's been said. Well, you can force it if an individual that is under your care is of immediate harm to themselves or to others. And a whole other argument could be held, but mental health clinicians work with individuals, families and small groups, not corporations or governments. There is such a thing as "intervention" that can be effective with individuals. It might have the feel of forcing but it's more confrontation in a caring way. That's what it appears that Ledger missed out on. Enabling occurs a heck of a lot and for many reasons.

So, Erik...I'm just a ranting nut case, eh?

The sky is blue, the birds are singing, the children are safely playing in the park...everything's just fine, right?

For Erik, too...
Did you see V for Vendetta? To me, that film was one that I'd say everyone should see and I get the sense that The Dark Knight has similar themes. Wondering if "the people" fit in as the ones who must do what needs to be done as opposed to the Batman/Two Face/Joker in The Dark Knight (as it was the people who made the difference in V.) In V, neither V nor the cops (et al) were anything to emulate (complex characters for sure, but you'd not pick one over the other compared to the people.) It was the people that made the difference. Somehow I'm not hearing much about the people in The Dark Knight. Seems like all is saved by a hair by Batman (and barely at that.) If that's the case, V would seem to have the deeper message.

On a completely different direction of thought, and one particularly appropriate to this site, if there should be a sequel, David Tennant has expressed interest in playing the Riddler. I realize the link itself is a little old, but it's new to me. Just ran across it looking up Dark Knight stuff.

Anyone who thinks the United States is closer to fascism than France or any number of other European countries may be in the middle of an accidental overdose of something.

I saw this last night. Unlike some I didn't see it as Ledger playing as his demons, but rather as him channeling all of societies demons. That it what I found so very disturbing and sad here. It was a very real depiction of the sickness it our society, the world's society, and having that move through you could produce extreme amounts of anxiety and stress.

People overlook the importance of sleep all the time, but every little bit you miss you are pulling yourself apart at the seams; it's extremely damaging to every part of you, especially mentally. Added pressures and stress from a negative work environment (even though working on a movie might not be negative, playing a role such as this, however, would be) can make sleep impossible and the need for sleep is essential. I can understand the need for escape from all of that, I've been there myself.

Also, the problem with reliance on Rx drugs is very dangerous to all of us. Anyone taking any meds is walking a razors edge. The industry is very frightening and the FDA is paid by the companies (more or less) who make the drugs. It's meant to make money, not help people, not really (though meds do help save lives, I'm not saying they don't. but they are very powerful and people overlook that and treat them on the level with candy). Our society is one of treat the symptom, ignore the cause and that is what brings tragedy about.

This is rambling now, but I wanted to throw my hat into the ring as I don't see this the exact same way. It made me sad for our society and doubly so for a man who had to see, and be, the worst of it. How sick we have all become.

Soroso,
I haven't seen the movie, but have relatives who saw it last night and I've heard a lot about it. It sounds like a many scenes were edited out (and kind of choppily and perhaps,confusingly in places); perhaps, also much of Ledger's acting--that took energy on his part--was edited out. In that case, he would have spent much more energy on the film than we see.

Re: the drugs, alcohol, etc., especially with teens and twenties is not in a good place right now. Our college campuses are awful in terms of dominant campus culture (social life). When we're read books like "Drinking to Die" and ambulances are going back and forth from freshman dorms to ERs on a routine basis, there's a problem. I don't know how many people are really aware of how it is now and I don't think the college admins are telling parents and students this either. It's way over the top. Dangerous.
Among the young men (20's) who saw the movie last night that I talked with...they see the cultural implications, etc. but are saavy enough to know that even if we might wish for a hero to save us, it ain't gonna happen. It takes everyone doing their part.

That's why I think V for Vendetta would take my vote over this movie. If you haven't seen V, then rent it. It didn't have near the publicity, etc., but goes (to me) beyond where The Dark Knight went and empowers the people to action as opposed to creating a dependence on a hero. (I know that we're supposed to take from The Dark Knight the idea that we ALL are to struggle with our own inner demons and then,act for the betterment of our world.)-- but that's not how it often comes across. People, more often than not, want a hero that will do it "for them." Critical thinking is lacking all the way around and is badly needed.

I read quickly, so excuse me if I misterpreted anyone.

I think people read too much into people's acting and what's going on in their real lives. During Brokeback Mountain, HL was playing a quiet man struggling with his sexuality; in real life, he was having an affair with Michelle Williams and having a daughter with her. In real life, it was a relatively happy time for him. On screen, one didn't get that impression.

Acting.

I liked but did not love HL's performance as the Joker. The person who blew me away was Aaron Eckhart as Harvey Dent. And I've seen him in a number of movies before (notably the wonderfully twisted satire Thank You for Smoking). He brought a certain subtly and soul to a very tricky role. Late in the movie, when his character lost it, he was outrageous but in a completely different way from HL. While the Joker was all about anarchy, Two-Face was all about vengence.

I hope Eckhart comes back (hell, comic characters always rise from the dead), and I do love the notion of David Tennant as the Riddler.

You probably ought to watch a movie before evaluating it.

Laurie, I think that Eckhart had perhaps the trickiest role of the film -- certainly the biggest dramatic arc.

But I can't agree that it was the best performance. Eckhart exhuds affability and a sense of fair play. I didn't quite buy his decent in to homicidal madness. He looked at any moment as if the right word would get him to rethink his whole vengeance thing.

Heath on the other hand. It wasn't a performance. It was the perfect animation of archetype.

Whew, MaryAnn, glum review ... how about the resounding decency of the people of Gotham - isn't that cause for optimism? The Dark Knight Transcends

I don't agree that this movie is an indictment of the current state of world affairs (if that's not what you meant, then forgive me for misinterpreting you). The movie takes no sides; it merely presents the moral conundrum of how to stay honorable when fighting a pure force of chaos, and when to stop playing by the rules. That is what made the movie truly fascinating.

PS: Darn, I should have began that post with, "Why so serious, MaryAnn?"

Qner, but even before Dent's...um...transformation, there's a scene that shows that for all his surface affability, he was dangerous underneath. However, he showed that, aside from his obsession with the silver dollar, he was ultimately extremely reasonable. Until he went beyond reason.

I think one of the points the screenwriter/director was making was to say that, while the Joker was the most extreme case of someone losing it, that anyone can become a villain given the right circumstances.

Yes, its too bad he is dead. But the pseudo-philosophical viewpoint that the guy that he played(the Joker) is collectively every person in the country is retarded.

It was a decent movie, but seemed alot like an eye-seizure inducing nonstop blur of explosions and bullets that got old after awhile. Personally, Batman Begins was way more enjoyable.

Anyone who doesn't come away from this film absolutely loving it and it tying it philosophically to Bush, global warming, and how evil the Iraq war is..is going to be crucified by your rage obviously. Sorry to dissapoint

MaryAnn,
I wrote:
It sounds like many scenes were edited out (and kind of choppily and perhaps,confusingly in places); perhaps, also much of Ledger's acting--that took energy on his part--was edited out.
And you responded:

Sara, if you have any basis whatsoever for offering such wild speculation, let's here it. Because I see absolutely nothing to justify such a claim.

I said my basis was that close family members and friends that have seen the movie reported this as THEIR reaction. That this was a weakness of the film to them--it appeared to them to be choppy in places, and somewhat as Phil says above (eye-seizure inducing eye candy of explosions and bulletsand so on that was overdone.)

My comment was simply that if lots of editing is done (or over-editing, even) in a movie, then, for instance, the Joker's roles may have been more difficult than it even appeared because of extra scenes that were deleted. But, no, I have no idea how many scenes from the Joker's part was deleted. We'll see some of that when the DVD comes out. As I've thought about it, look at all the movies that people have made that placed them in "disturbing" roles. Re: Ledger, IMHO, other issues were in the pot along with the role. But if it's suggested that the person get care during a role and they don't and they end up dying, then, yeah, for me, that's awful.
I WILL see the movie, but will wait for the DVD. There was tremendous discussion on this post prior to the release of the movie and you didn't HAVE to see the movie to make a comment. It's all over the internet, in the news, etc.

MaryAnn,
Also on your site, you mention the massive billboards looming all over NYC of Ledger's Joker and how they are haunting.
Under the circumstances (with his death) that to me, PERSONALLY, seems like a tacky marketing tool. Which has obviously worked.

Finally saw the movie last night.

*major plot spoilers*

I just wanna say up front: Tiny Lister is my hero.

There is so much to discuss about it, part of which I barely even discussed with my friend Tony, that I might even start up a new blog dissecting superhero movies starting with this one.

I've heard comparisons of this movie from Tony and a few other friends to oddly enough Godfather Part II (and not Empire Strikes Back), suggesting we might finally be seeing superhero movies as Oscar-caliber epics rather than big blockbusters. And I can see it. This is a movie that's more than just about blowing things up (although they do), or beating up criminals, or big exciting chase scenes through narrow city streets. This is a movie about ethics, about right and wrong, and not on a pop psychology level but reaching the deeper Jungian/Campbellian stuff. This is a post-9/11 film about terror, about chaos, about how far do we go when villains themselves go too far. Which is why the movie is more than just what happens to Bruce or Harvey or Gordon or Rachel or Lucius, it's about the consequences of their actions, about the decisions made that go wrong or break the law. Which is why for me the best things about the movie were how Lucius Fox reacts to finding out how far Batman went to hunt down the Joker using illegal/unethical surveillance (paying attention, Yoo and Addington?). It was about the meager little accountant in Wayne Enterprises who figures out where all the R&D stuff is going and tries to commit a little blackmail, only to have the whole thing threaten his life and where he witnesses Wayne himself risking his life for him. It's about the final confrontation between Batman and Joker, with thousands of lives on the line, and the Joker waiting for the people he's threatening to prove himself right, waiting for two more bombs to go off, waiting for two men (a tattooed career criminal and a middle-aged office manager) to make the final decision. It's about Harvey's coin flips, about how absolutely right AND wrong he is about how chance and fate work. It's about the last decision made at the end of the film, a willing step into darkness, because it's the only way to win.

It's a pity Heath died. At the end, still talking with and taunting Batman, giggling that he sees them 'playing this game forever', I believed him saying it. And then I realized that in the real world he's gone now.

This could not only be the first year we FINALLY get one superhero movie up for Best Picture, we might actually get two (Iron Man and Dark Knight).

PaulW,
For your blog, you'll be able to add the one below. Might be more complex than all others put together, especially with Crudup. Of course, apocalyptic and heavily male-dominated. As these movies tend to be, as most of the world is (not all) but most, certainly our country.

http://watchmen--trailer.blogspot.com/

second great movie of the year..the antithesis of wall-e, but its equal.

do the two movies "complete" eachother? i think so.

only chaos can give birth to a dancing star. f.n.

I thoroughly enjoyed the movie. I see it as maybe an exaggerated warning of sorts that if we allow morality to crumble this is what will happen. If we as a civilization allow ourselves to disregard the common good and welfare of our world, then surely we will crumble. We must tame our violent tendencies and prejudices.

Except that Heath wasn't talking about The Dark Knight during the itnerview when he said the role really knocked him around and he was having trouble sleeping, he was talking about I'm Not There. Heck he'd only just started working on the Dark Knight when that interview was done.

Just like Jack Nicholson quote about `I did warn him' Jack wasnt talking about playing the Joker, he was talking about taking Xanax.

Don't listen to sound bytes. Read full articles, the media like to grab little teasers and use them to sell papers.

To Sara,

Thanks for your comments. I disagree that there are choppy scenes. If there were I missed them (and that I find unlikely as that sort of thing bothers me). Perhaps they did not like the film's style of shooting scenes and took it as bad editing. I would say see it for yourself before believing such things, but you've stated already that you have no interest in doing so, and that's fine. But, again, I strongly disagree.

As per drugs, I'm not really sure what you're getting at. I wasn't trying to tackle the whole drugs and alcohol insanity, I was just meaning to highlight an oft forgotten problem; the perceived safety of prescription drugs that are anything but. Some are dangerous but the benefit outweighs the danger. Others are dangerous because companies are.. lazy? liars? unethical? I'm not sure which to pick. And the public is unawares.

But both what I was talking about an what you were talking about goes in with what I said about society treating the symptom (half heartedly at best) and ignoring the cause. You can substitute anything, drugs, drinking, violent video games, cell phones, whatever and get the same result. People should be looking at why such things are needed and desired in the first place. What in our society is demanding this self destruction? The ill of society is a byproduct of whatever that is.

As for V, I like it very much, but it is asking different questions than this film. As such I wouldn't call it a replacement for this film as both offer interesting looks into society. But given what you say about drugs... the original source material for V is quite different from the movie as there is more about creating anarchy and there is much drug use. The movie took that out and made it less about the complete anarchy. I still enjoy it though.

And I enjoyed The Dark Night as well.

To MaryAnn,

I didn't type this before, but thank you for an interesting review as it is inspired some interesting comments here. I like that very much bout your reviews.

soroso,
I'll watch TDK when it comes out on DVD. I've talked to quite a few people who have seen it (in my family) and also friends, one who is chair of a university political science dept. All around suggested (interestly) wait until the DVD but I didn't see V until DVD either. Saw Batman Begins on DVD and all the crashes, crashes, crashes, really put me off. V was violent, yes, but the story, quite compelling and I was not put off by that movie. Interesting, too, that it didn't have near the marketing (at least I don't think it did) that the Batman movies have. The upcoming Watchmen movie (same writers who wrote V) caught my attention mostly because of Crudup (great actor, I think and usually chooses good roles--or rather unusual ones.) I put the link to the trailer above. The turnoff is, again, all the explosions, glass shattering everywhere, hyperviolence. Very male-dominated stories; or rather completely so. For an aware female, it can become tiresome, discouraging, even if relevant. Actually, it starts to make one angry. It seems that the androcentric viewpoint is enjoyed by our culture, celebrated, and not much is learned by simply repeating the violence/power games, over and over and over. In the real world and in the movies,repetition compulsion. I do see our world as being psychologically in the Iron Age with high tech weaponry. Better wake up and it doesn't take a movie that I we're to "enjoy" for me to get that. I see it all too well. I'd rather spend my money on a movie like The Visitor which I'd highly recommend. It's not action-packed but it's great acting, story, message. MaryAnn has given it a "go see it" sign but hasn't reviewed it yet.

I would say that Dark Knight is above and beyond Batman Begins. I saw that on video and I liked it, but I think this is really much better. Still many explosions, but it's being billed as a blockbuster action flick regardless of what it actually is.

Don't know what you're meaning with the "aware female", but, for the record, I'm not a dude. And I'm not oblivious to my surroundings either.

" It sounds like a many scenes were edited out (and kind of choppily and perhaps,confusingly in places); perhaps, also much of Ledger's acting--that took energy on his part--was edited out.

Sara, if you have any basis whatsoever for offering such wild speculation, let's here it. Because I see absolutely nothing to justify such a claim."

I thought of one scene where the camera cut away from and action part a bit too quickly I felt, but it as just the one time and it was obviously done to make sure the movie didn't show any gore on screen so it wouldn't be rated R (though it should have been. My saying so ensured my nephew won't be seeing it. He's probably upset about that, but he's still to young to see it I think even if he is 14.. he's a bit sheltered).

Again though, not choppy. And sorry for the multiple posts today.

By "aware female" I that I don't have to see androcentric movies that get the message across that I already know painfully of...the hyperviolence is a turnoff to me at this point. I think many females don't see the androcentric part or think it's just the way things are "supposed" to be. Obviously that's not you. Good. I've just become very disgusted (it's not too strong a word, really) by the hypermasculine violent stuff in my face, whether in reality or in the movies. And with women having little part in the story (or a side story connected to some male.) That doesn't appeal to me; in fact, it leaves me out of the story, really. Unless I want to contort myself into an androcentric mindset which I'm working myself out of. Doesn't mean I think movies like SATC are an alternative. No, not at all. Couldn't stand that movie. It was, in effect, androcentric too, yet, parading as not being. For me, I wouldn't have given Batman Begins a thumbs up. I went to sleep in it...all the violence actually became boring to me. But, hey, that's me. I'm not the average person in this country. I should probably find another one to live in.

Wow, this response thread has sure gone in a different direction, huh?
I just wanted to say how freakin' awesome this movie was.
Definitely better than Batman begins, which I thought was just "good".
The Joker was amazing. You just didn't know what he was going to do. Kept me on the edge the whole time.
As MA has already explained, there is SO much more to this move than the explosions and chases.
I sincerely hope that all the people that powered this movie to such lofty box office #'s understand this.
My only minor quibble:
*SPOILERS*
.
.
.
.
is the transformation of Harvey Dent. I just didn't buy that this one time herald of justice could turn so quickly to the dark side. I understand the need for vengeance on his part, but to start killing people not involved in that(the driver? the kid-almost?) seems a stretch.
.
.
.
.

Regardless, it was a great movie. I can't stop thinking about it. Go see it.

Sara: yes I did see V, which is sort of like the inverse of this movie. Both show the necessity of what we call 'Evil'. The Joker is an archetypal evil character, but notice the way in which he forces people to examine their so-called beloved convictions. Characters like the Joker are necessary to force us to make those tough decisions and make us ask 'what exactly is the right thing to do?'. V is in the Joker role in that movie--he is a terrorist, and forces everyone in the established "order" which has everything figured out and leaves no questioning the authority of "society". He makes them re-evaluate themselves in an act of destruction, which always leads to rebirth and creation in mythology. The message (and it is an old one) is that good cannot exist without evil, because evil forces us to make a conscious decision--in TDK it is the decision of the people in the ferry boat not to blow each other up and save themselves, on the sheer basis that it is *wrong*.

Batman, who is a composite of the light and dark aspects of morality, always knows where the line must be drawn between following the established order and obeying your darker instincts. And he learns in this movie that its not pleasant, nor politically correct, nor fun to walk that line, but he is inspiring because he does it anyway. But it is the uncompromising, utterly evil Joker that is the one who raises him to a new level--ironic isn't it? So, when the Joker tells Batman, "you complete me!", he isn't kidding. He's right, and Batman is the one who has to learn from him. Dent is destroyed by it, Batman is transformed into something greater. *That* is the point of the story.

Erik...
I understand all the mythology/psychology you write of.
Check out MaryAnn's review of V. No, V is "not" comparable to the Joker. V is like Batman AND the Joker in the same person. Perhaps why I heard some people say, "I didn't get that movie."

Absolutely amazing movie.

As someone wrote earlier, the movie strikes me as a lot more hopeful than depressing. I thought the prisoner's dilemma scene was great. Boats filled with people who all do the right thing( or maybe they lack whatever someone must possess to do the wrong thing).

Then there is Batman who is such the true hero that he is willing to sacrifice and bear the burdens for the greater good. And he himself is a criminal, doing alot of illegal things, but we trust that he does the right thing and doesn't cross that line. The scene where Batman saves the little accounting guy with his lamborghini, this guy is who going to expose him. It reminded me of people who are protected everyday by various measures that our government takes yet they are doing their best to put a stop to certain "illegal" acts.

Then there is the very scary Joker. As someone said, very much a sociopath. A pure terrorist who cares nothing of money or ideals or anything. Pure evil. And I strongly disagree that he is us, even our awful sides. Because we would not burn our pile of money. We would not set up an exercise in game theory for no purpose other than to see people get blown up.

Harvey Dent's evil is alot more like us. Batman is able to endure Rachel's death, course he has had practice, as opposed to Harvey Dent. As Mary Ann said, losing someone you love can be a powerfully transformative experience. Which is why I buy Harvey Dent's transformation alot more than I could ever buy into Anakin's in ROTS.

And of course the acting, effects, score are all amazing. The disappearing pencil trick was so funny and scary at the same time.

With respect to V and George Washington (and the Joker), the moral differentiation is the ends for which the means are used. But the ultimate question TDK raises is when do the ends justify the means? The answer the movie gives is "sometimes, but you better be damn sure you know what you're doing". It's the best, and most honest answer, I think, and the Joker proves to be necessary because his twisted scenarios force us to look at this question. No easy answers here.

The Joker does live in everyone, but it is usually kept well in check. He is pure calculated rage. He's talking when we get that fleeting thought in the back of our head when we are at our wits end that says "Fuck this, I'm sick of caring!", then we immediately say to ourselves, "no wait, I still care, lets work on this". But he also shakes us out of indifference and complacency.

The Joker simply doesn't care, like he says, he's just a dog chasing cars. It really is not personal, and he doesn't care about individual gain. He doesn't plan, he just does--pure aggression. As the director stated, they wanted the Joker to be "an absolute", and they succeeded.

True, that does happen, but that is a false application of the term 'terrorist'. That's just political rhetoric, I was talking about the deeper moral question. Just because the established order calls someone terrorist or "genocidal" (another abused term) doesn't make it so, and you of course know that. But that is why being precise in the terminology is so important isn't it?

So, then, are radical muslims who blow up towers terrorists in your sense of merely wanting to watch the world burn? Or are they trying to change the world? In their own warped view, they are trying to change the world--bin Laden's followers have convinced themselves that thier ends have justified their horrible means. We as Americans have made similar calculations, say the Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombing, for example. Was that justified? I don't have an easy answer, nor do I suggest that they are the 'same thing' (whatever that means), just similar. I'm glad I don't have the final decision on these matters except indirectly through my vote, though that is more than enought to take my vote seriously.

morality has nothing to do with whats right or just..the greeks knew that chance and chaos are what drives creation-- not order. i think that was clearly spoken in this movie.
morality is the end of creation. it wishes things to be the same forever, and this is what goes against the only law there is in the universe..change.

we are creating the worste changes immaginable by our desire to keep things the same.

the joker didnt want to watch the world burn, he was born into a world where his only choice was to do what he is doing. we are creating the greatest chaos ever with attempting to rule over things in our "just" ways. the joker was our creation and he was just being what he had to be and he embraced it.

the idealist: he/she who believes that because the rose smells better, it will make better soup than cabbage.

So a dozen cabbages would go over better on Valentine's Day than a dozen roses? Never occurred to me to try that...

well, frizzy..

one can either understand, or mock.

the point being..the idealist thinks peace or morality is the answer in every situation. the rose has its place, the cabbage has its place. everything has its place. that which claims one thing is good for all because that one thing appeals to one of their senses, is an idiot.

"one can either understand, or mock."

False dichotomy. >:}

Your definitions of "morality" and "idealism" are seriously out of whack.

MJ: but the question is not who will justify it in the future, but is it right or wrong? I realize in the future the winner, whoever it is, will justify and rationalize everything he or she has done, but that don't make it right! Are you a post-modernist or something, and believe there is no right or wrong? Or are you just being cynical? All due respect, your snarkiness.

As for the other question, the problem of evil and chaos is not whether or not we should eradicate it, which is impossible, but what do we do with it. Joseph Campbell said "follow your bliss in chasing wild gander", but the rest of the quote is that you can only find it in the heart of your deepest wound (I love that quote). Chaos (the Joker) destroys, as it must, but what we consciously do with it determines the end result--will we let it destroy us (Two-face) or transform us into something greater (Batman)? A change one way or another is inevitable.

I think it's a sad commentary on our culture that this is the highest grossing box office movie in history (my opinion.) Also sad to me, that we live in a world where hyperviolence (as Carl Sagan said) isn't an option anymore. And this movie does glorify it regardless of the themes. Note I wrote hyperviolence and I'd add hypermasculinity along with it (with an absense of females--or if the females are present they are fairly ignored, or irrelevant, or there mostly to be rescued.) Our culture keeps pegging women into these roles (in blockbuster movies, anyway and it's not a helpful mirror for us or the world.) There are other ways that women can be of tremendous help to the world... it's certainly not as rescuees in hypermasculine, violent movies.) I'm glad this movie didn't get my money and it won't either. I know many of you liked this movie, "enjoyed" this movie, saw depth in this movie. I understand that, but it comes at a cost and I don't think it's worth the cost, in any way(again, my opinion.)

Also interesting to me that in this mega blockbuster money making movie, the "hero" is named (in real life) "Christian" and that the villian is dead before the movie was even shown, as we all well know. The whole superhero as disconnected from women (superheroes gotta run, you know--revenge, protection, whatever--not time for real relationships with females; very avoidant; as in fear or hostility toward, probably, mothers.) Again, my thoughts, opinion.

so if i were to mock your foolishness, it would be the same as understanding it?

Sara, you haven't seen this movie and you're lamenting the fact that it made money? How do you know that this movie glorifies violence if you haven't seen it? Because your head of the Pol Sci dept friend says so? If anything films like this are needed even more given how messed up the world is. It's an adult, complex movie about anarchy and chaos and just how hopeless the world is getting and that people need to stand up and do something about it (as opposed to sit around on websites all day talking about how everything in the world is misogynist/chauvinist). I am truly glad that for once a good movie is making money. Hell, a great movie. Usually its crap ruling the box office and I am happy that TDK is rolling it in since it may mean that the studios will grow some courage and let intelligent filmmakers like Nolan go out there and make good art. You're moralizing (in a rather puerile and generalized fashion) about a movie you haven't even SEEN for god's sake!

And you know, I'm a feminist too (and I know I'm going to be the target of a lot of reflexive abuse from some people here being a man calling myself a feminist) and I think it only gives feminism a bad name when people go around inserting the phrase 'male dominated' into almost literally every sentence they speak/write.

In its own dark way, this movie is fighting the good fight and empty, naive moralizing doesn't help things very much. You seem to have pretty much made up your mind in advance that EVerything is male dominated and chauvinist etc etc and just keep repeating that tagline over and over. Like that little caveat you slipped in when you pointed Watchmen out to a previous poster. "Male dominated and apocalyptic"??? Have you even read Watchmen? Did you really pay attention to it if you did. Believe me, if there was ever a comics writer on this planet who believes in equality for the sexes, it's Alan Moore. One of the themes of the graphic novel is the way in which women are given short shrift in comics.

I'm aware my comments are a bit confrontational but I hope MaryAnn will leave them on. You're certainly entitled to your opinion (frustratingly uninformed as they are in case of TDK) but I hope I'm entitled to mine. I just could not respond to some of the frankly rather stupendous claims you make without being a little bit tee'd off. God forbid us unenlightened, amoral, male dominated individuals like this unfairly high grossing piece of trash, huh? It's condescension of the highest order which, IMO, is as insulting as open confrontation. You know, I love movies like The Visitor too and I loathe the anti-intellectual types that moan endlessly about how boring 'art films' are but a movie with a lot of violence in it is not automatically condoning that violence. A very large proportion of the greatest films ever made are 'hyperviolent'.

I didn't say it was a piece of trash. I think the Batman movies do glorify violence. I saw Batman Begins and also I've heard about this movie is minute detail (from my son, his friends, and others.) I get the pictures. I've seen the trailers and read reviews. I saw the promos on HBO that included a lot of the material. I'm aware of the mess the U.S. is in--I know that, I'm not unaware of it. I think it's healthy that a person can make an informed decision whether to see a movie or not--but still knowing the plotline and events (even lines that are said by the characters, and so on)...I don't think it needs to be held against me that I don't care to see this movie. I don't. But I understand why others would--for a number of reasons.
Ask MaryAnn about her guess about the Watchmen (if it stays true to the original story)...it will be hyperviolent and male-dominated. What is wrong with saying that if that's the case? If it is, it is.

MaryAnn,
You did say to me in writing that if the Watchmen stays true to the original story that it will be hyperviolent and male-dominated. And I don't think there's anything wrong with you saying that. But don't (please) hammer me for doing the same thing that you did in writing to me. Please clarify because I don't think that's really fair...to say that to me in writing but when I say the same thing to put me down about it.
Thanks,
Sara

I'm not condemning the movie. I'm saying I think (my opinion--and yes, one can form an opinon on reviews and movie clips, etc., etc. as to whether one choses to go to a movie or not and sit through it.) I said it is SAD to me that this movie has made more money than any movie in our history...that is not condemning it. It can be sad to me, can it not? I've seen Batman movies, I saw Batman Begins, the one prior to this, I've seen V for Vendetta, etc...and yes, to me, they do have a message (some better than others for sure) but they also do glorify violence on some level (I think)--especially for teenagers and younger (who do go to see these movies.)

Perhaps, too, the money issue (box office weekend) is about how many screens TDK opened on at one time in so many cities, and how much extensive the marketing was that went into this film. Also, I think the fact that it's Ledger's last film drew many. I think of MaryAnn saying on this site (and she had a picture) that Ledger's face (as the Joker)is on man billboards in NYC.

1) If there is no absolute right or wrong, then there is no point in discussing morality. I, however, like Dawkins, think that we are hard wired with a sense of right and wrong (like any trait, some get more of it than others). Its built into our genes to worry and agonize over the right thing to do. Guilt is a universal human emotion that starts around age 15 months--that ain't cultural. Understanding this deep feeling is an important human endeavor and aligns us all on the same moral compass.

2) Violence (and "hyperviolence") is also part of human nature. Rage is an ancient emotion with a long evolutionary success whether we like it or not. Does a movie "glorify violence" if it depicts it as it is, with consequences, then analyzes them and asks us to make a moral choice about them? Do you think that if all movies were devoid of violence we would somehow magically eradicate it from the earth? Interesting theory--wrong species.

3) Women are treated poorly in comics, but that is because we don't value femininity. Most comics dress women up in titillating costumes and have them behave like men (and ill-behaved men at that); i.e. beating up bad guys and acting like competitive bad-asses. Or they are milquetoasts who call "save me!" and look pretty doing it. This is a general problem in our society, in that masculine values such as courage, endurance, strength, competition, etc are valued as "better" than traditionally feminine values such as generativity, emotional connection, intuition, care-giving, etc. Why, for example, are men who dress like women "transvestites", but women who dress like men we don't even have a word for? Is there even a such thing as a "female transvestite"? Its because a man who takes a feminine guise is seen as "aberrant".

The ancients had goddesses with great power and wisdom--we have "Kill Bill"; i.e. slinky bimbos with katanas slicing everybody (and each other) into mincemeat. Feminism should not mean pressuring women into behaving like men toward the end of "equality"; it should be about valuing femininity, while providing equal opportunity. Batman is male focused, but Rachel is his moral compass--he needs her, which is why (spoiler alert) her death makes his sacrifice that much more tragic and meaningful.

Erik,
I agree with you re: an internal "moral sense"--there an excellent book on this but can't think of the name of it right now (has moral sense in the title.) So, I'm on the same page with you re: that.

Re: glorifying violence. Yes, I think we do that. We do that via war (sending 19 year olds to fight wars that don't necessarily need to be fought for "defense" purposes) but these males' deaths are raised up, glorified as somehow redemptive (I see no redemption in this lunacy. Also, the number of kids I've seen in therapy and that I know in general who go to violent movies, etc., is high and no, it doesn't MAKE them act-out, but for those with less ego-strength, it is not good for them at all. And can send the wrong messages to them. This is frustrating to me. Especially when their parents can't see it, leave them alone in their rooms with tv's and plenty of violent DVDs.

Re: #3 above, I don't think you could have said it better. I'm with you. Excellent examples, I think. Men are valued over females in our culture.

I will add, (in comment to your example of any woman having to be any male's moral compass)...no--at least I speak for myself and others I know--we are tired of that. We don't like living in a male-dominant society and having to be moral compasses for said culture or for our husbands, "love interests", etc. Men can grow up--if they are dominant then they need to have their own strong moral compasses and this is lacking. They aren't so "dominant" in a mature way and it's wrecking too many things in the world. A balance of male and female leadership and worldview is so badly needed. A true balance. Makes all the difference in countries that do have this and there are some. The differences are staggering.
Thanks.

Erik,
I add this: I don't think Batman needs (or thinks he needs, or for that matter, wants, truly wants) any female. That idea has been rejected...for Batman to be Batman there is to be no female in terms of commitment. Batman has no intention of not being Batman. He is tied to Gotham city which his parents basically built (and were killed in connection with/to.)

So, any particular female is dispensible really. Above you described Rachel as his moral compass and that doesn't make sense to me as no one female is a moral compass to Batman--in the Batman ethos in general; he's unavailable because he has other things he deems much more important.) Re: his decision between Harvey/Gotham or Rachel, I don't see that as a decision of any import...I see it as a plot device to lead to Harvey's disfigurement and the development of Two-Face. Rachel was a plot device in that scene. It happens to females all the time in movies and in real life.

Any particular female...any one female...is going to be dispensible to Batman when put next to his true love--Gotham City, himself and his memory of his parents. He can't get over that. He needs therapy, Erik. Intensive. No, he needs analysis. But he wouldn't sit still for it. I don't think he has the ego-strength for that (and that's a major weakness that isn't brought up about Batman and superheroes in general.) I don't think any of them have the ego-strength required for something like analysis. That much grandiosity is not conducive to analysis.
P.S. To others: I'm writing this to a psychiatrist and both he and I work in the mental health field so I'm speaking to him.

MaryAnn,
I understood (and might have misunderstood) you to say that my saying a movie (in particular Batman ethos movies, the Watchmen) are hyperviolent and male-dominated is a sweeping generalization. How is that a sweeping generalization when you wrote to me that if the Watchmen is true to its original text that it will be hyperviolent and male-dominated. You said the same thing I'm saying. It's just what it is. Why can we not just see it for what it is and say it outright? That's not condemning the movie.

MJ: we *do* all know, but we just have a hard time defining it--that's what all the debate is about. We all clearly know that love exists, but I can't describe it or define it very well. Electrons exist, but physicists still don't entirely understand what they are.

If, however, there is no point of reference, and we can just make it whatever we want, what is there to debate about? My point is that "right" and "wrong" are not arbitrarily defined by culture, which is what I think you are saying. It is something deeper to which we all refer. Is violently raping a 4 year old wrong? Or is calling it wrong just a cultural more that has no referent, and it should be acceptable to construct a society in which it is deemed "good"? Good luck with that. Obviously it's wrong, and everyone knows it. The gray areas are where the debates rage, but I contend that there is an answer and (someday) we may find it.

Sara: I was referring to Batman Begins. Rachel is a key element in his transformation from angry vengeful youth to a more principled Batman and finding a way to channel and sublimate his rage. As for him needing therapy, thinking in this way about such a symbolic character might be too concretistic. He represents an integration of the light and dark parts of the personality, personified in a colorful fantasy, but with human frailties. Can we, or should we try to "therapize" that away? Tough call.

Erik,
I agree with you re: sort of a list of good things/bad things. Some of these are clear. Do they happen? Of course. One would be, for example, divorce. Would we put "divorce" on a list of "good things?"
As in, "Gee, I certainly hope when I grown up and get married that I get a divorce." Does that mean divorce is "wrong?" No. It's difficult and creates many problems but the absence of it might create worse problems. Still, you wouldn't put it in your list of things I want to "experience in the 'good life.' "
Re: Superheroes...most of the classic ones are people who lost their parents at an eary age and often in violent ways. Come on, we know what this does to people. It's the worst thing that can happen to a child, really--have your parents die on you. It (of all things) has the power to totally mess up a human life. So, we have these "saviors" who are horribly horribly damaged. Yes, in real life, those are precisely the type of people who need treatment desperately. And should get it after the event occurs, actually. ASAP. That was my point re: superheroes and therapy. I think you'll probably get my point. They become narcissistic in their own ways, they become islands unto themselves, etc., etc.
When kids are little they often where the superheroes capes...around the age of 4 or 5.
Not saying adults shouldn't watch superhero movies, but it's helpful to understand the dynamics, I think. And why those dynamics would/or would not connect with us as adults.

Erik,
Re: Rachel...your take is that she taught Batman how to be principled and moral (as you mention in Batman Begins when she was Katie Holmes) then it didn't take too well as his choice was to have Rachel blown up (or that's what one is led to believe happens) in TDK. It's her or Harvey (and Harvey, at least at that time for Batman is symbolic of Gotham.) Of course, he picks Harvey, (Gotham and himself--his true loves) over Rachel as I expressed above. She is dispensible. Batman has no need of any woman really. Choice was so good? Look what happens to Harvey. And Rachel is dead. Hmm...
The book I recommended above is The Moral Sense by James Q. Wilson and it's excellent. The psychiatrist I was in private practice with recommended it to me about 8 years ago when we discussed had a similar discussion.

@sara:

See, this is why you shouldn't go around making lofty pronouncements about films without seeing them.

SPOILERS:

Batman DID go to save Rachel and not Harvey. The Joker lied and swapped the addresses so Batman ended up where Harvey was even though his intention was to get Rachel. But when he's leaving the interrogation room after talking to The Joker, Gordon asks him which one he's going for and he says something along the lines of "Rachel. You get Harvey".

MA,
I did send the Watchmen trailer link to you to your "email-me" site on this site and said I really like Crudup a lot, had seen him in The Pillowman on Broadway, etc., and that his being in the Watchmen was interesting (and to me) a good thing, and I added it looked hyperviolent and male-dominated. (If it is, it is)...and you responded back to my private email that yes, indeed, the Watchmen looked of interest (you'd seen the preview prior to Batman), that Crudup was a plus and that, yes, if it stuck to the text it would be hyperviolent and male-dominated. YOu wrote that to me MaryAnn and I don't understand why you'd say you didn't and that someone else wrote it. They didn't.
I see what you're saying, MaryAnn, about the cultural differences above, but have to agree with Erik re: an innate "moral sense"...can it be overridden or not acknowledged, or skewed, etc. Sure. But, I do think that psychological, biologically that there is an innate moral sense among human beings.

The gist of what I've said is that I think the Batman ethos (and many superheroes stories) is hyperviolent and male-dominated. How is that condemning it when I've said even in this post that I'd recommend V for Vendetta for adults to see?
The other gist is that there is a huge imbalance in our culture and much of the world between male and female leadership positions (esp. places like gov't) and you yourself have two posts on here re: How Hollywood treats women (and that's not meant to be in a positive way particularly, I don't think) and you also have a post re: why aren't there more female film critics. Good. I agree. These questions need to be asked.

I do think our culture is too violent (ex: the whole Iraq situation, Vietnam, many of our inner cities, etc.) and it's on a patriarchal model. Who would disagree with that? I don't understand. Is there a problem with arguing for balance between male and female in the hopes that this would lead to more fairness and focus on other issues (like healthcare, childcare, less warring, etc.)? In countries where this does exist, no they aren't violent as the U.S. by far, and they aren't nearly as patriarchal as we are. We could maybe learn from these others--that's what I've said. There are things that are very positive about this country, things very negative and things in-between. You yourself, in the Batman review termed our culture as "Dim Hope"...are you then condemning it? I can't have my opinion which I then also explain?

MA,
I did not mean to refer above that your review of The Dark Knight meant you were viewing our culture as "Dim Hope" (although that is alluded to in your concerns.)...I wanted to carify that...that Dim Hope was about the movie. Does it connect to our culture, yes, but I understand you meant it in reference to the movie.
Thanks.

MaryAnn, thanks for the above post re: The Watchmen (which might turn out to be a better movie than TDK--I have no idea.) But, same ole, same ole on many levels that have been in discussion on much of this site...Watchmen will be (and I recall now, we didn't say hyperviolent, we said apocalyptic, which to me, takes the violence, the storyline, up a notch)...but, yes, it was apocalyptic and male-dominated (is what we'd both said to each other re: the Watchmen if the movie stays true to the comic.)
And I simply have been suggesting why this might possibly be the case re: the norm for so many Hollywood movies (as discussed on this site.)

Ashok is correct. Joker told Batman that Rachel was at address A and Harvey was at address B. Batman told Gordon he was going after Rachel at address A, and Gordon set out to rescue Harvey at address B. But Joker lied (and it was foolish of Batman not to realize this), and so Batman ended up rescuing Harvey instead, at address A. (Side note: I realize it would take the air somewhat out of the story, but isn't it possible they could have gotten on the radio and ordered a nearby police unit to rush to each scene and try to rescue Rachel and Harvey? The way it played out was like a Star Trek movie, where the Enterprise is the only ship around when the crisis occurs. For all they knew, there might have been a patrol car driving past one or both of the locations when they got the two addresses.)

At this point, we're far enough down in the thread that I feel safe posting a spoiler question: Did anyone else think that the detonators on the two ferries were not wired to blow up the other ferry, as Joker said, but to blow themselves up? It certainly would be a Jokeresque lesson if, in the process of trying to save themselves by condemning the others, one ship blew themselves up.

Yes, ashok is correct about Joker giving location A and B--my error previously--sorry-- (btw, the complete summary, storyline is on the internet now in various sites as well as video after video of scenes, some up to 10 minutes and longer. No, not the same as viewing the movie, I understand that)

I do question why Batman would have taken the Joker at his word and gone to said sites (he to Rachel's; Gordon to Harvey) as they did. As Clayj writes: it was foolish of Batman not to realize this. It seems that it would be assumed that the Joker would lie, wouldn't it?

Maybe shows that torture doesn't produce what is wanted. And when you do get the answers after beating someone up, is it worth incorrect information? And yeah, why not more police back-up? (This is why I wrote earlier that it appeared that Rachel is used by the plot as dispensible--to me--for the development of Two-Face.

Here's where I flip things around on you, Sara.

Although it's true that Batman should have realized that Joker might be the sort of person who would lie about Harvey and Rachel's locations, you then run into this classic conundrum: If Joker knew that Batman would assume that he was lying, he might tell him the correct locations of Harvey and Rachel:

Joker: "Rachel is at A, and Harvey is at B."
Batman: "Ah, but I know you are a sneaky SOB, so I am going to assume that you are lying to me and that Rachel is at B, while Harvey is at A."
Joker: "Ah, but I know that you think I am a sneaky SOB, so I have actually told you the truth in the hopes that you will go to the wrong place based on your assumption that I am lying to you."

So while it was foolish of Batman to take Joker at his word, there's still a fifty-fifty chance that Joker was telling the truth... a flip of the coin. And of course, he had to make the decision quickly. And let's not forget that Joker is just the sort of person who might also leave the decision of who to take where (Harvey to one place, Rachel to the other) up to the people who actually did it, in order to prevent Batman from beating the correct location out of him: I can't tell you where Rachel is because I honestly don't know. But I can tell you it's here, or it's here. You figure out which. And hurry!

Basically, what Two-Face says later on about the only morality in a cruel world being chance applies, even before Harvey becomes Two-Face. Since Batman could not know for sure in advance whether Joker was lying to him, the prudent thing to do was just to "flip a coin" and choose one address to go to and leave the other address to Gordon. What damned Harvey and Rachel was pure bad luck: Harvey, because he got covered in gasoline and then caught on fire, and Rachel, because Batman went to the wrong place.

Clayj,
I agree with you completely. I don't think Batman should have automatically assumed that anything the Joker said (under duress or otherwise) was correct, or incorrect for that matter. One wouldn't know--that's what I was getting at. I think your point about back-up (which usually occurs in cities with coordinated police departments would have been called in immediately.)
But if they had (as I think you said), then Rachel wouldn't have been killed, the Two-Face scenario won't have developed.
Re: flipping a coin...I don't think Batman should have flipped a coin for any decision. Should have done what he did, but not assumed the Joker was telling the truth under torturous circumstances, and should have called in back-up first thing (he had the capacity to do that as did Gordon)...feels contrived to me re: plot alone leading how the process played out, and, of course, the damsel in distress (you know the line) either gets rescued or she dies. (To me, that kind of goes right over to MaryAnn's blog..."What Hollywood Does to Women."
Rachel's there not so much for her own character but (at that point) as a plot device, it seems (to me.)
Compare to Evey in V...Evey wasn't a plot device in the way Rachel was. Yes, she was V's "pupil" whether she wanted to be or not, but in the end she leads, he doesn't. She chooses. V dies because he realizes that what Evey says is true (ie, "You're a monster"...even though as MaryAnn writes so well, V is the hero/antihero. V is not a movie about good and bad in the sense of supposed good struggling with pure "no conscience Joker character" beside him.
When MaryAnn writes the Joker is like Ted Bundy...well, Bundy had no conscience--he was mean, twisted in his meanness. And there was no changing that either.

I'm not saying that Batman should have flipped a coin under any circumstance. But the choice he made (to go to A, and not B, because of what he believed to be true) is just as arbitrary as if he had flipped a coin: Either take the Joker at his word, even knowing that he is deceitful, or assume that he is lying and go to the other address.

Rachel as a character had to go. Bruce Wayne is by his very nature a tortured soul, and it's really not realistic for there to be even a glimmer of a chance of a truly "happy" ending for him. As long as Rachel lived, there was always a small chance he'd give up on being Batman and run away with her. With Rachel dead and Harvey dead and no one else to take his place in the fight to clean up Gotham, he now has nothing to fight for but Gotham itself.

If you've ever read The Dark Knight Returns, the classic graphic novel, you'll know how Bruce Wayne ends up: Alone, in a big empty manor, with the death of Robin hanging over his head. It's really the only way his story can end.

ClayJ
I agree with you. They couldn't NOT check out the sites--that would have been stupid. But as you said, you'd not assume the Joker was telling the truth just because you beat the crap out of him. I still think your point is well-taken a few posts back--why wasn't back-up called? That's just logical. As you said, there could have been patrol cars closer to either place (or closer than the others were.) Were there only two possible vehicles in Gotham on the way to try to save these folks? There's a whole police force. Call them maybe?
I realize that in most superhero stories the males can't be "with" their love interests because then the men can't achieve their supposed destiny. I do see a lot of psychological issues, though (sorry, but that's how I think)--when you have as damaged a childhood (losing both parents, usually) then you are going to have a harder time (typically) in relationships. So the superheroes tend to go it alone with a loneliness deep inside them. I think, too, they are driven strongly by revenge, hurt, anger, and sadness, loss. If you check it out, with the superheroes most of them had parents who died (or were murdered, often in front of them) right after the time that a child develops (or has the makings of) a conscience.
With the villians, I don't know how much we know of them. You might know more re: comics. I think the superheroes are really pretty tragic figures but they don't tend to be viewed that way.
In the book, War Is A Force That Gives Us Meaning (good book)...the author (war journalist) writes that the only way out of this mindset (that he's aware of) is via genuinely loving relationships between people who are together.

This whole thread demonstrates the problem with taking film too seriously. Heath Ledger's tragedy was real life; "The Dark Knight" is just a movie. Posters mentioned that any police department since 1950 would have patrol cars in most areas to save Rachel and Harvey. Also, the Joker is able to move literally tons of high-explosives aboard several public vessels - and nobody notices! Oh - and if that's not bad enough - he's able to spread around enough explosives to thoroughly demolish an *occupied* hospital - and they don't know which hospital he's loaded!
The film is clearly inspired by today's attitudes towards terrorism, and it's adult enough that it doesn't answer the questions it poses simplistically. Nevertheless, it takes huge liberties with believability.
If Heath Ledger was still alive, would we be taking this all quite so hard?

Yeah, I know what you mean. It does take some suspension of belief. If the audience buys it, then it works, if not, then it doesn't. Seems clear that the audience bought TDK so it was successful in how the film was made and hooking the audience.

Still, I can't help but think of MaryAnn's comments (it was in her V for Vendetta review) She wrote:

"Movies are where we -- the big cultural we -- bare our fears and desires, and that’s not always pretty but it is always true. And superheroes are our mythology, the Stuff That Matters that we ourselves made today, not the hand-me-downs (though some of the hand-me-downs still fit pretty good), and it’s too damn bad if the geeks are the only ones who realize that. Movies are religion and superheroes are our pantheon of bickering demigods who toy with us or champion us, and Vendetta is important not for its powerful political statements but because it can be powerful in its politics, because what is powerful and what is political about it is primal: it strikes us in a way that feels deep-down right."

That's pretty heavy and I have to agree with her. Whether movies, books, art in general...the potential there to hold enormous power over and in our imaginations is tremendous (or not.) There are movies that I will never ever forget (even if they crossed the "believability limit"--such as The Princess Bride--but that movie struck such a cord in terms of the psyche that it is an important movie of our time and to be taken seriously...and not. For even though it is not "true", it is.) The key is if it connects to the audience in a meaningful way somehow--if so, the movie won't be forgotten.

What would Heath think? I don't know. I think,though, his death adds to the fervor over the film.

:

I just saw the movie last night at the IMAX theater. Liked it, but thought there were a few too many plot holes and sloppy bits of direction (e.g., *how* does the Joker overcome the cop in his holding cell? For that matter, how and when are Harvey Dent and Rachel kidnapped?) to make it "great." On the other side of the coin, so to speak, it's also overlong and could've used some more rigorous editing.

But I liked it overall, great performances all around....

"Did anyone else think that the detonators on the two ferries were not wired to blow up the other ferry, as Joker said, but to blow themselves up? It certainly would be a Jokeresque lesson if, in the process of trying to save themselves by condemning the others, one ship blew themselves up."

I also thought this would be the Joker's punchline - it's the perfect ending for the "gag" he set up!

Then I realized, that's what the comic book Joker would have done. A lot of *that* character's motivation is that he does things he thinks are funny (trouble is, he's VERY insane and has an extremely twisted sense of humor.) But *this* Joker is different - he really isn't about the jokes, he's much more of a nihilist and a conscious "corruptor."

David C, I'm guessing you weren't paying close attention regarding your "loopholes." Look again. ;)

Hmm, quite possibly... IMAX does make for a bit of sensory overload, so maybe I missed some stuff. :)

I thought for sure the wires were connected to its own boat so who ever pulled the trigger pretty much killed themselfs. But we never got to find out =( damn it Batman

I kinda agree with Sara. There's too much Ares and not enough Athena in our culture. That said, I loved the movie. I was sure that Heath Ledger would blew me away, but Aaron Eckhart was a real surprise for me (can a movie get 2 best supporting actor nominations?) As soon as the Joker started talking, I totally forgot I was watching Heath. It's funny, he reminded me Kevin Spacey in Se7en("hit me" reminded me of "submitt to wrath", which is what he acomplished with Harvey) while Aaron reminded me Javier Bardem(all about the imparciality and implications of chance and randomness). Simplesmente brilhante. But I understand what pissed Sara off about Rachel, just like the girl in Dr Horrible(which I also loved and find worthy of debate), Dean's mother and wife in the "Supernatural" pilot and a whole lot of cases in our popular culture where a woman is sacrificed to promote a male character's development. Nothing particulary wrong with this stories, but the cultural background and lack of variety in which they are set in. It didn't upset me in this particular case, at least, as opposed to (BUFFY SPOILLER!!!) Renne in Buffy season 8(you're a one trick poney, Joss...) , but I understand the people(mostly women) who are( just to clarify, I believe men can be as upset as women in sittuations like this). And please, do tell me a dominant culture where violence and power isn't or hasn't always been gloryfied ever since the primordial Matriachal societies. Ps: Sorry about my occasionaly incorrect english.

I'm going for my third viewing tonight at the IMAX theatre. I keep taking different things away from the film but the dominating sense of it is that we all get what we deserve in terms of Batman, The Joker, Gotham, Gordon, Dent, and on and on. So true in our real lives as well that even when we see people getting what we don't think they deserve, they do, if not for different reasons than our own.

I agree with MaryAnn here too. It does come down to balance in terms of kinds of stories and plenty of good roles for the talent that is in Hollywood, NYC, etc. My complaint is if films becomes overwhelmingly violent and male-dominated and there's not much else to see. This type of movie (and I'd say In Bruges would fit the bill, can be a good movie, good writing, good acting, etc.) is not the problem in and of itself. That said, for me, personally (and this is not the case re: In Bruges) I am more interested (usually) in character driven movies (and books) than plot-driven. I'd say In Bruges was very character driven.
The other options it seems that offer more variety and stories, characters are indie films and there is one little theatre in our city (good-sized city) that shows indie films(and those films are here and gone in a heartbeat, it seems--you have to race to get to them.)

Some of you might be interested (or not) in this book: (just came out in 2008), titled, The Psychology of Superheroes: An Unauthorized Exploration, edited by Robin S. Rosenberg, PhD. It's pretty fascinating. Some of the essays are: Is There A Superhero in All of Us?, Mind-Reading Superheroes, Superman's Personality,The Incredible Hulk, Gender Typicality and Extremity in Popular Culture, Coming to Terms with Bizarro, and there's one on Batman: An Appetite for Destruction: Aggression and the Batman.

I didn't realize that in the comics in general that there was lack of trust between Superman and Batman. Or that Batman trusts none of the Justice League members. Knows the weakness of every member and "stocks his utility belt accordingly." Always has a piece of Kryptonite, for example, in case he needs to "weaken the Man of Steel."

"I'd prefer not to condemn every individual instance of storytelling that is male-dominated and violent -- because some of them *are* good stories, and are not automatically *bad* stories because they don't feature lots of women or are very violent." I agree with you, MaryAnn. That's I was just saying when I commented the lack of variety, that the solution is not to show disdain for this stories, like Sara(no intentional ofense directed at you at all, Sara), but to offer good alternatives, like, mainstream "chick flicks" or superheroine movies (Neil Gaiman's Black Orchid would be perfect, specially for it's anti-violence message). But more than anything, we need real women at the movies, not fantasies, not plot devices, but real women in all their complexity, where they are the driving element of the story and we get to see their different layers, instead of the usual bitch, damsel in distress or love(or sex) interest. But to stay on the topic of the film, do you think that it coulfd also win best chareterization(if Norbit was nominated, why can't this be?)

But more than anything, we need real women at the movies, not
fantasies, not plot devices, but real women in all their complexity, where they
are the driving element of the story and we get to see their different layers,
instead of the usual bitch, damsel in distress or love(or sex) interest.

D, The above part that you wrote is what I've referred to all along. It gets very frustrating (to me) and depressing to go to movies and see time and time and time again females used as plot devices as damsels in distress, etc. I've gotten so (since I'm not a film critic) that I go to very few movies. Carefully chosen ones. As I would choose what food I eat, etc.

http://womenincomics.blogspot.com/ I don't know if you read comics (I don't; mainstream ones, anyway), but I think you should find this site interesting. Everything you said here, I heard it several times on some of its posts. It's made by several marvel and dc fangirls who comment on the prejudice and discrimination that women in comics (and our culture) are subjected to. I'm sure you'll find people who agree with you on the dark knight, and other subjects. Personaly, I don't share their vies sometimes, but I find it refreshing to hear the female point of view once in a while, and they make several good points.

D,
Will check it out. I don't care for it either, thought if the approach becomes chauvinist toward males. Either way isn't helpful. Unless, of course, a movie, etc., has a chauvinist character (of either sex) in it. Which many do.
The book I described above about Superheroes is good...it's on Amazon and is an good read...short essays. The one on Wonder Woman is a different take and interesting and the one on the Batman is, also (and discusses Batman Begins and dynamics there) as well as the comics of "The Dark Knight." Knowing this information it comes as no surprise that the Batman and Joker are struggling with each other...not so much that they "need" each other--it's more (I think) the Joker (could be saying) you "see" yourself in me. For that is true from the comic texts. Both Batman and Joker are draw to destruction for its own sake (instrumental aggression vs hostile aggresion) Yeah, for Batman, people get helped in the process, but does he really care? In Batman Begins, not so much (note the beginning when he's in jail, just beating the hell out of the criminals there. For what? They're picking on him?) The Joker, obviously sociopathic.

I'd never realized that in the Justice League ventures that Batman is kind of odd man out and for understandable reasons that I see now. Reasons that are apparent in the beginning of Batman Begins, for example, but that could be developed more so (that would demonstrate why perhaps the other superheroes are wary of Batman, ie, they realize he's closer to the villians--but not there, I'm not saying that-- but much closer than they are. If true to the text, Batman has more of a sense of revenge that goes on in him than say, Superman, WonderWoman, Spiderman and some others.

Also, in some empathy for the Batman, he does not have the superpowers that the others have. He is vulnerable (except for his gadgets, his strength--but it's not superhuman, his money) and he probably hates that. Vulnerability can get you killed. He saw that with his parents. Which would fuel his rage and give him problems in keeping it in check (yet not wanting to become like those who did kill his parents.)

Amazon is usualy a bit more expensive for me, since I'm portugese and I have to pay for the overseas delivery, but I'll give it a try.
Oh, Batman? He's a total psycho with serious issues(duh, I guess...). In the Frank Miller comics, he laughs like a madman as he sadistically scares and tortures his enemies. It's all part of the fear atmosphere he intends to create, using his own fear to fuel it. A hero is defined by it's villans(The x-men fight other mutants, Spider-man fights other people with animal names, like Rhino or Octupus).But unlike Spider-man or Superman, whose enemies usualy go to jail, all his nemesis go to an asylum. Like him, they usually don't have super-powers, but only a high level of intellegence and a partucular psychosis which makes them very dangerous not just for innocent people but for society itself. The "line that cannot be crossed" is the one thing that keeps batman on this side of the edge. Which makes the "I will not become an executioner" line in Begins even more important. Also, it is very common in comic books the villains being attracted or created in some way by the hero's mere existence. I would like to point out that the movie drew some elements from "The killing joke", "The long Halloween" and "Arkham Asylum".

D,
Oh, the overseas delivery. Ugh. Maybe try to find a copy at a store there. It's not a long book; the essays are written by about 10 or so different psychologists who also happen to know/like the superhero stories. I'll finish this book tonight.
Tell me if you think this is far-out or not. From what we know of Batman's early trauma, from what he experienced in terms of training that we saw in Batman Begins, we still know (as you state above) that he can be (even in the cause for "justice" and protection of Gotham)--he can take it over-the-top. In a sadistic way. Tremendous amount of rage that can come across as self-indulgent aggression.
OK, so he sees Joe Chill murder his parents when he's 6 (which would do a child in) then travels the world to learn escape-arts, martial arts, etc., with the plan to return to Gotham and avenge his parents' deaths by killing Chill. He returns and Chill is already dead, but the rage in the Batman is tremendous. So he tranfers it to any and all criminals within Gotham City, but maintains control (probably with the help of Alfred's balance.)
It seems that if his dear childhood friend and really, his love-interest, Rachel, is killed (which she is in TDK and killed and Batman and Gordon were rushing to the sites) that THAT event would put Batman over the edge more than it would Harvey (although yes, Harvey becomes burned/damaged and becomes Two-Face)--still seems that the effect of Rachel's death (knowing Batman's history built from past movies, including Batman Begins) would do it for Batman. That his character would go more in the direction of "The Punisher"...that he would lose it. That he would outright kill the Joker out of complete revenge/rage over what happened to Rachel. It's too close to the same thing that happened with his parents only he didn't get to kill Joe Chill, but he can kill the Joker. Seems that he would. Yes, I realize that would change a lot re: the plotline, but in terms of characterization, it seems like Batman's rage would not be able to be contained after Rachel is killed. (Because Batman is at the other end of the continuum of aggression, from say, Superman.)
Wonder what your thoughts are on this.

I suppose this is a late review, but felt it necessary since I obviously have one of the only opposing viewpoints to the movie.

The sound track was great and I appreciated a few of the well placed laughs, but this is definitely not in keeping with William "Bill" Finger's original Bat-Man of 1939. Bill never pointed guns to the heads of ten year olds in his comic strip, and for the life of me I can't see how it added anything to a fictional character that many of us grew up reading.

Some have said it added to the realism, but anyone thinking that a man flying around in a cape is realism to begin with is just plain silly, so why add such personal evil to women and children to the plot? I thought Keith Ledger definitely had the best performance, but it took me a while before I could erase the image of him playing with that cowboy’s hiney in the movie Humpback Mountain.

As for Batman, played by Christian Bale, certainly they could have come up with a more muscular man, and that silly voice of his under his face mask sounded like he had cotton stuffed in his nose.

I like a good shoot-em up movie just like the next guy, but violence toward women and children just doesn't do it for me. If you haven’t seen it, don’t take the kids.

Actually, I thought Bale was the right balance between muscular and agile. A guy built like a body builder is spending too much time lifting weights and not enough time learning the mydriad skills needed to be Batman.

I thought it was the most psychologically challenging superhero movie I've ever seen. What Spiderman II and III touched on or played for laughs (Peter Parker doesn't have time to do his homework and lets popularity go to his head) "The Dark Knight" takes to a very dark place indeed.

I also think the movie is about Chaos and Order, but even more so. Before Batman, there was a system of Order that was really the chaos of criminal desires organized. Batman shattered the fragile "order" and Chaos ensued (the Joker). The Joker challenged both forces of "Order": the mob and the government. Corruption was so widespread that the kind of Order that is beneficial to humanity existed only in the hearts of idealists among the ranks of lawyers and cops (but the potential for a better world was illustrated by the boat situation).

The greatest irony of the movie is that the trust fund babies of Gotham probably donated money to Bush so they wouldn't have to pay taxes.

Sara: In Begins, when she found out young Bruce's gun, Rachel slapped him. He has evolved a lot since then(ex: he hates guns). I think he knows she wouldn't have liked him crossing the line for her. Also, through Dent, he saw how revenge can turn the best of us into a monster. Batman never, ever kills, not even on Frank Miller's watch, although there are times(like the "hit me" part) where he comes this close to loosing control of himself. But how to control his fear and fury is the best thing he learned during his training. "Justice, not revenge" is deep within his psyche. Should he and the punisher meet, we would have a very interesting conflict.
Jim Green:"certainly they could have come up with a more muscular man" Are you kiding me? He had to lose muscles during Begins shooting because he couldn't fit in the batsuit."why add such personal evil to women and children to the plot?" Maybe it doesn't make it more realistic, but it certainly makes it more powerfull and ressonant, besides ading more suspense. The escapism of the superhero genre makes it easier to deal with.

Oh, and Mary Ann: You rock. Just wanted to state that.

D,
Yes, I remember what you describe from Batman Begins. There are many other ways, though, as we know to kill other than guns--especially with the superheroes.
Re: Batman and The Punisher, why would it be interesting to see them in conflict? I think it would be interesting to see Batman verbally defend his actions against what The Punisher challenge him with (verbal debate).

I really do think that from a psychological point of view (and psychology plays into the superheroes a plenty and those who read their stories)--from that point of view, knowing more in general about the Batman now (I always knew a fair amount, but knowing much more of his barely staying on the ethical side of the line, etc.), I think the blowing up of Rachel Dawes in TDK would have pushed him over that line and into becoming like The Punisher. I don't think his training would have held up to that. UNLESS, he really cared less for her than one would think. UNLESS clearly in his mind he had written her off in a way because she didn't accept the Batman part of him very well. Perhaps he really didn't care so much for her at that point, as a friend, etc. Perhaps he was that cut off from himself at that point. You're not led to believe that, though, and the writers can't have it both ways, really. A bothersome thing is to have (really any character) but a higher proportion of females killed (and in violent ways) and some have been superheroes themselves--either because the writer isn't sure what to do with them (I'm seeing that now) or even more so as simply a plot device. Seems the case with Rachel Dawes...a way for Two-Face to develop. Otherwise, as I said, I think it would have taken the Batman over the top (where he normally doesn't go.)

Also, you might know of this site but it is of interest (and some of the comic book writers' responses are of interest too; some avoid the questions and some directly do answer them. The list of female superheroes, etc. and their ends is of interest, too. And how they meet their ends.
http://www.unheardtaunts.com/wir/index.html

Jim Greene,
I grew up with admiration for the superheroes just as the next kid did, even being a female. With all brothers, too. The one I liked best (and not in the Justice League, etc.) but the one I was drawn to most was Zorro. I probably watched Batman on TV though as much as I did Zorro, so Batman was held in high esteem--both dark knights (but very different characters, actually.) The more I've learned about the comics themselves, and some of the plotlines that we're seeing in the movies of the superheroes now is a put-off to me. Check out the site above that I sent to D. It's worthy of a look and a thought.

Sara: Ah, the woman in the refrigerator.Sister of the damsel in distress. Also quite common in mithology(see: Orpheus and Hercules) and our entertainment in general(even "The godfather" has an example of this, in Al Pacino's character first wife, whose sole purpose was to foward Michael in the way of becoming the godfather). Yeah, I had come across that website before. Like I said before, it didn't upset me in "The dark knight",or "The Godfather" for that matter, because those were well written stories who were meant from the very beginning to focus on the male characters(Batman and the villains, the Corleone family), but the lack of originality in our culture can make this films look flawed and put off people when seen in this context. And one of the reasons I haven't touched mainstream superhero comics in ages is because of their lack of innovation when it comes to their female characters roles(the borderline hentai depication of their bodies was also a factor).
About Heath Ledger in Brockeback Mountain: Aw, come on, Mary Ann. You can't deny that two human beings showing genuine love, atraction and heartbreak for each other in a world full of people who would beat them up to death for it is a little icky. Right?

D,
Yep, the women as plot devices--at least to me, gets very old. I really don't tolerate it well at all anymore. It can ruin a good story when one becomes aware of it. Of what the writers are doing. At least it can for me.
Brokeback Mountain will be a classic. Heck yeah it's awful to realize the prejudice out there--prejudice enough to cause harm, but that doesn't mean one should put the movie down in a prejudiced manner. (At least as MaryAnn said, not on her site) I can understand why the movie was disturbing to some people, but that was one good movie. Did you read Annie Proulx's story, Brokeback Mountain? It's absolutely fabulous. The movie followed pretty well. The story is really a tragedy. So very sad. (As is what happened to Ledger himself.)

Well, I saw this movie, one of the reasons being that I have said much on this post and hadn't seen the movie itself and had caught grief for it. However, I had heard so much about it, seen clips and so on. So I saw it.

I think it is a travesty that this movie was rated PG-13. For all you folks who don't have kids, nor care about them, that might be fine. For those of us who do, the rating was absurd.

And, yes, I think the violence was WAY over the top in terms of the excessive explosions, wrecks, explosions, wrecks, explosions, people shot, people shot, people shot. I do think that the violence was sensationalistic and ridiculous much of the time. It certainly wasn't what I'd call a kids' movie, but it's not what I'd call an adults' movie either.

MaryAnn, perhaps you can start a new thread...What Hollywood Does to Men...because it's doing really sick things. And not remotely "manly." (my opinion)

By the way, my husband and I saw the movie together. He said the movie was "OK." Agreed, too many gratuitous explosions, too too long, didn't follow a lot of the time, voices started sounding the same...Batman's, Two-Face's, Gordon's (especially toward the end.) Also said...PG13--ridiculous.

Their voices sounded the same? I'll have to listen for that if I watch the movie again. I'll bet they did that on purpose.

Men do take a beating in a lot of these movies. Villains die in so many grusome ways, heroes get the tar beat out of them, both keep losing the women they love (in some movies the bad guy does, and in some movies the good guy does).

And Hollywood "teaches" us to get arrested for stalking because it always gets the girl in the movies, to beat up people in our way, that lone heroism is more important than community effort (there are exceptions of course). That last is mostly just a side effect of drama's requirement to focus on one person. Drama also pushes for giving the hero as many barriers as possible, which leads to movies like Lethal Weapon where policemen violate the law and risk arrest themselves to catch the bad guy.

Of course, what is Manly is defined by the culture and varies as narrowly as what is Womanly. I say narrowly because the general definitions of Manly and Womanly are remarkably cross cultural, with exceptions noteable because they are so rare.

Well, all this "catching the bad guy" is a sort of (to me) "ruse"...an excuse for poor plotlines and for male violence (against themselves and against females too.) Must just be a damn lot of fun.

There was no reason (IMHO) after, yes, seeing the movie for Rachel to be blown up. In fact, had she NOT been the set-up for the next movie would have been more interesting and THIS movie might have been more interesting.

Why is it that every time (in this and other movies, I know) that when someone hits someone else in the face, it sounds like a large piece of furniture being dropped onto a hardwood floor? Remember the old Westerns...the fistfights? That was the real sound. If they want to amplify the real sound, then fine, but this other sound is nuts to me. It IS glorifying violence, I think, no doubt about it. This whole movie (to me...and to my husband)was definitely about glorifying violence on some level. How could anyone think differently if honest? There were people in the theatre laughing at parts that weren't funny parts at all...they were sadistic parts. But that's become comedy of sorts, I guess.

Also, I thought Ledger was good, but both my husband and I said the "unsayable"...that we even got tired of his character in this movie.

Again, PG13 for this movie is crazy as the Joker. Just what America needs. Lots of little kids seeing this (and they will.) They would if it were R but now many many more will see it.

And the "blow-ups" in this movie and others like it are very similar in looks to "Shock and Awe" (yeah, the real one) and has the effect of desensitizing people to the "real thing." And yes, it does, with no doubt in my mind...and my husband's...demonstrates the glorification of violence in America. Confirms it to us...for we did not find the movie to be that good. I think it's Ledger's death in part that is responsible for the numbers seeing TDK.

At times I felt as if I were watching Keystone Cops with explosions every other second. And guns pointed at people and shot (and no, it didn't show the people shot in the face) but you got the picture.

And, no, Rachel didn't need to get blown up. It was a way to get her out of the picture. That's it. My opinion. My husband was even surprised by that.

And most definitely this movie was hyperactive, explosive and male-dominated to the hilt. And I got slammed above for saying that. I needed to see this movie to say that? No.

oh man.

ohmanohmanohman.

heath. ledger. is. AWESOME.

nobody would have said it from his early films (10 things i hate about you and knight's tale) but he was an actor that, later on, would have surpassed de niro and hoffmann and, heck, even brando and pacino.

his joker, while much darker than the explicitly cartoony comic-book character, is also much more joker-ish, in phisique and mannerisms, than nicholson's over-the-top caricature. and boy, that monologue sitting in the interview room with batman...it made the hairs in my body tingle. it's just powerful, powerful acting, and it's a shame ledger cannot live to see (and profit from) his career-defining performance.

that having been said, kudos to christian bale, which is the best bruce wayne (in relation to the comic-book) so far. he looks and acts bruce wayne, which is more than we can say for val kilmer or even michael keaton. and morgan freeman is just "wow" every time.

this is also the batman that hits closer to home. it's not cartoony like batman and robin, there are no distracting villains like riddler, it's just dark and gritty and violent...just like the Batman comic books always were.

there are also some cool revelations. for instance, we KNEW harvey dent had been deformed in an explosion which also killed his girlfriend...but we never knew that girlfriend was connected to bruce wayne, to the point of KNOWING HIS FRIGGIN' SECRET!! that also shines a light on exactly what two-face's beef with batman is - i bet harvey knows wayne is the dark knight. i also bet we'll see two-face (the aaron eckhart version) in the third movie of this trilogy.

i also like the fact that people add up two and two, like that attorney for wayne enterprises does, forcing morgan freeman to defuse the situation quickly. and i like how batman uses a vocoder to hide his voice so nobody links him to himself - it's a real-life touch none of the other movies had, and IT MAKES SENSE! any real-life vigilante (if there were any) would have done precisely that to hide his identity.

however, not everything is perfect. the story has some small, yet irksome, inconsistencies and deux exes, and it's not as cohesive a narrative as batman begins. but that's just me nit-picking. plus, ledger will make it all better.

RIP Heath Ledger. you will be missed.

and Mr. Nolan, we want part III!

My rating: 92/100

Comparing Ledger in this role to De Niro, Hoffman, Brando and Pacino is a major stretch to me...
I wonder if Ledger had not died if there would be as much fervor over his role in this film and also this film in general. It's almost as if (because Ledger is dead) that this film is untouchable in terms of criticism. Which is a shame, actually.

True, exactly true. What's on the screen would be the same. The desire to pay tribute to an actor who has died, to see him in his last film, the interest there certainly has some effect as even you acknowledged in your review.
It's my opinion that it does add to the interest, the fervor over the film, over many people going to the film in the first place. I'd say it for myself and I've heard others say the same thing and while all the critics have given the film dazzling reviews (and the one who hasn't got slammed) it isn't that way in "ordinary world" where people are saying what they think of the film itself. Many are raving over it; some are saying it was merely OK, and some are saying they were disappointed in it.
So, yes, what's on the screen would be there regardless, but when an actor dies as Ledger did, that can't help but figure into his last performance and attention surrounding it. And there is always (if an actor is loved, as Ledger was) the hope that the last performance be the very best of all. Whether it was or not.
The film was so long (to me) that I found it tedious and the lack of character development (to me) was a major drawback. I found even Ledger's performance tiresome by the end. As some others did, too. As many others did not. And I thought Bale was wooden as I find him in many of his films (didn't find him that way in 3:10 to Yuma)...
I didn't care for TDK and wished I hadn't gone. Everyone is surely entitled to his/her own thoughts/feelings/opinions.
It's also odd that if anything negative is said "publicly" about this film, there is basically hell to pay. That says something.
This thread seems clearly one that's meant to say only positive things about the movie, unlike other threads re: other movies on this site (again, my opinion.)

MaryAnn,
Another thing I thought of...especially re: your review and the cultural collapse that you see (that seems to me to be particularly American on many levels) but I know you see otherwise. I do think that TDK shows the hysteria of America, the whole movie took a veer toward hysteria to me--and I found that bothersome and strange. That embracing and excitement over hysteria. The whole city was a screaming chaotic mess. And "for our entertainment."
What I was reminded of was of being in France in 1995 during the beginning of the Algerian terrorism hold on the city of Paris. My brother and sister lived there then.
It began with the blowing up of part of the metro system (while the subway was at a station in the city--nearest subway to my brother's apartment) and they heard/felt the impact.
People were killed and it was horrible, especially as so many rely on public transportation entirely. Then bombs were set in public trashcans (and exploded) to the point the authorities in Paris sealed all public trashcans immediately and what did one do with one's trash? Well, you kept it stored until it was safe to thrown out. Schools were quietly barricaded as were embassies, etc. All with efficiency and excellent communication. The gov't did not declare war on anyone, on anything.
There were bombs that went off at the Eiffel Tower, the Arc de Triomph, Notre Dame, at many of the neighborhood markets. This went on for months. Yet, interestingly the French people (and French police, etc.) were not in for panic or hysteria. At all. They pulled in re: their daily activities, stayed close to their own neighborhoods as much as possible, stayed away from tourist sites, the media did not play this up, yes, reported it but never sensationalized it.
The people truly did "endure" as did the gov't. After over six months or so, the French intelligence (they are superb and were in part the ones who warned us of bin Laden which was ignored by the US)...they did their intelligence well, knew who the men were responsible for the carnage, found their hideout, and went in and took them out. I know this is very different from our system but I was struck by the lack of hysteria of the people and the competence of the authorities in this situation. Contrast it to say, Katrina, which was a natural disaster, not a terrorist attack and you see vast differences.
So, yes, perhaps TDK is particularly American in a very unflattering way in terms of the total hysteria portrayed throughout the movie. And sadly, it seems that the public likes this...likes this hysteria and in a real setting gives into the hysteria and fear (and a lack of competence which was certainly a major issue with the authorities in TDK.)

Pardon me. I've noticed many long responses on your site as long or longer than mine. I hijack nothing.
I thought the example re: the terrorism in Paris in 1995 (and the response to that threat) was appropriate. I am sorry that it was not.

I thought Sara's posting was interesting. It shows an alternative reaction to terrorism. In Batman, you have the American reaction. Batman beats up the Joker to get information (only to be deceived), Batman snoops on everyone's cell phones to find the badguy, and Batman kidnaps a criminal from another country. And Bruce knows what Batman is and is afraid of it.

An example of artistic differences would be Well's book "War of the Worlds" vs. Spielberg's movie version. In the book, it seemed like the characters were all keeping a stiff upper lip against the idea of alien invasion. In Spielberg's, there was fear, panic, people turning on each other to try and survive . . . I thought it was more realistic.

'I thought the example re: the terrorism in Paris in 1995 (and the response to that threat) was appropriate. I am sorry that it was not.'

you were using a true life situation to compare to a fictional one. and it didn't work. comparing Gotham City's "reaction" to a real life situation in a real life city isn't exactly on point.

Thanks, Paul. I felt the difference, not only saw it as I watched the movie and remembered back to the terrorism in France. Of course, I've thought of it during the reaction to terrorism in this country (both twin towers and other events).
The politics of "fear" ruled, coupled with incompetence, and have for seven years now. (Which did not happen in Paris that time--not that people were not afraid but the authorities had things under control, were so competent, even though it took a while to find the terrorists (they were there, in the city, thinking they wouldn't be found.)
The people understood this wasn't a "solve it overnight thing." But they didn't panic either. For example, during that time, they would never have had an official "anything" out in the midst of the city as occurred in Batman (which led to only more chaos--seemed to spur it on even.) TDK seemed to be a definite brand of action and reaction--American style.
The French do use their oil, I know but still not like we do and they are much more economical on a daily basis--much less waste. (Things Mary Ann was concerned about in her TDK review--cultural issues, environmental, etc., as we go over the cliff of extinction.) I don't think the French would say that right now. The Euro is super strong and it's not France (and some other countries) that are fraying. And have declared wars that (my opinion) are not in the best interest of anyone.

But, Bronxbee, in MAJ's review she took the movie very much as symbolic of what is happening culturally (in the "real world.") She wrote that very clearly. Fiction speaks to the real world often more clearly than any other type of writing. Go back and look at MAJ's review for the connections she draws about the movie to our cultural mess. It's all there. (byw, I agree with her.)

I meant to say above...that the French (using that example) did not declare war on anyone or anything even though their city was under seige. This is very unlike our country's reaction. I meant, "They have NOT declared wars (m opinion) that are not in the best interest of anyone." (save a few who are making a lot of money right now.)

So why the fuck does everybody like this piece of shit movie? It's just not very good!

Would you care to elaborate Mr. mankey? If you seriously expect people to defend their opinions, you'll have to give them a little more to chew on than a piece of shit.

What in particular rubbed you the wrong way? If you were to remake the movie, how would you improve it? It may sometimes be painful to think about a movie you dislike, but it's a sacrifice you must make for the good of the poor misguided souls who enjoyed the movie.

Tell us why it's not very good. If you want our gravy, pepper our ragout.

Chris M,
I think the movie is awful. Toxic stuff. PG13...who the hell is thinking of anything except money? Almost every boy in America over the age of 6 will see this movie. And think the sick stuff is "awesome" and "cool." America needs that. Yeah, this Batman movie...PG13. Absurd and irresponsible.
Batman meets Hannibal Lecter. Great stuff for kids. Then for adults, none of it makes sense anyway (ie, the Joker is killing everyone he gets to help him and somehow zillions of drumfuls of oil or gasoline get delivered to warehouses and the the hospital and no one can see or stop this? OK. Don't buy it.
Some slick visuals of Batman swooping down from the heights of the city buildings, etc. that make this (to me) empty film look like it might be something. Re: characterization. I didn't care for one character in this film nor would I want to know any of them. Yet America's elementary and middle school boys are flocking to this movie. Where is the outrage from the public? Pitiful.

Yes, but if what little kids see desensitizes them to illegal war, torture, orgies of explosions remniscient of "shock and awe" (via movies and tv news, run ad nauseum in a "movie-format," then the movies (and the tv news) aren't helping and in my opinion, professional and personal, those movies (TDK being one)are toxic and don't help the situation. It's easy for kids to see "blow-ups on tv" and "blow-ups" in movies and process them as the same. Kids aren't mini-adults, nor should they be, and ratings should reflect that we know this and that we care. Batman Begins was rated PG13. Fine. Big difference between that movie and TDK. The ratings should reflect that. But PG13 ratings mean more people get in, means more money made at the box office. The public is basically lied to as a result. In this case, I think deception did occur.
Chris M., what are your issues with TDK? Would be interested to know.

Also, I think much of America has been outraged over all you describe, MaryAnn. Have you been unaware of the marches, the demonstrations, etc. (in all areas of this country--certainly including DC as well as all over the world?!)
Batman is still Batman regardless of what is happening in the world. When Batman Begins is PG13 and is marketed to kids as well as adults, then the same will be done re: its sequel, TDK. Only TDK is not remotely close to the rating or tone or anything of Batman Begins. And the studio, the ratings board etc., should have been honest about this and the rating should have been R. It's fair for people to have a clear idea of what they and their children are seeing before going to a movie. PG13 signifies one thing; R signifies another. My opinion is that TDK had many other flaws but deception is untenable. And, yes, there are people who are upset over this.

Mary Ann is right. As a parent, it is MY responsibility to make sure my son sees appropriate movies. Frankly, I really don't care what Jimmy's mom lets him see. I wouldn't let a little kid see TDK.
As far as effects on kids, I think the environment in which they are raised is far more important. If you have an environment of general neglect where the parents really don't give a shit what they eat or watch or who they hang out with, that is when kids start to go astray. It's a family culture, not what the kid sees, that impacts the end result of who he grows up to be. I saw all kinds of movies as a child that today's parents would be aghast at: Aliens, Terminator, etc. Even ET had "penis-breath" and the Goonies had violence and sexual innuendo. My parents cared about me, though, so whatever disturbing images I saw were always couterbalanced by sane parenting.
I actually think entertainment for kids today is so scrubbed and sanitized that it lacks any emotional resonance and it doesn't ever make a kid think (ideas are spoon-fed: thinking is dangerous!) I feel bad for today's kids, although gems like Wall-E and the Incredibles make me feel better.

It seems my points were missed for whatever reasons.
1) Batman Begins was fine for most kids and TDK veers very very far from Batman Begins, yet is rated the same. My question to the industry would be...why set up a situation that is unfair to families to begin with?

2) I don't know if either MaryAnn or ANinja have kids or not, but when you do, it makes a difference. You realize that you, as a parent, only have so much control. It is not difficult for a kid to get into a PG13 movie without the parents knowing about it. Plus, Batman Begins was marketed to everyone, basically, setting it up for everyone to want to see the sequels.

3) I (as an adult) think TDK was poor (I'd rate it as "sick") except in a few slick spots (and a few scenes.) For the most part, to ME, I didn't care about the characters, I didn't feel connected to them, nor would I want to know even one of them. This is not related to issues of "dumbing-down" the movie.
I DID care about the characters in Ironman, for example, in a way that just didn't happen for me (and others I know) in TDK.

4) There are movies for kids. But Hollywood is marketing movies to adolescent boys (at least the Blockbusters) and then in the case of TDK, rating them incorrectly. I understand, MaryAnn, that you think this movie should have been R. Yes, it should have. Perhaps the next one should be NR-17, or more--who knows? This seems strange to me for a trilogy. If it begins at PG13, then follow through with a trilogy of truly PG13 movies. Does PG13 mean a movie is "dumb-downed"? Batman Begins was dumb-downed? Ironman was "dumb-downed"? (Seems to me both were truly PG13.)

5) There has been outrage in this country over the present leadership. Ex: ratings for the president. Very many in the GOP are disgusted with this administration and have spoken publicly in strong terms. Not sure why information like the following is being bypassed: (We've SEEN it, HEARD it, READ it)...
JAN. 18 PROTEST TELLS BUSH: NO WAR, NO WAY
D.C.: Largest U.S. protest yet against Iraq war
By Leslie Feinberg

The power of the people. You could see it, filling the broad avenues in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 18, stretching for miles. You could hear its thunder: "No war on Iraq!" And as marchers reached the crest of Capitol Hill, looked back and roared in reaction to their own sheer strength, a mass of half a million, you could even taste it.

What a spectrum: all ages and nationalities, ethnicities, religious beliefs or lack of them, sexes, abilities, genders, sexualities, political viewpoints, occupations and walks of life. They came from diverse regions--from inner city neighborhoods to dairy farms; towns, campuses and reservations. Etc., etc., etc.

Bottom line for me (and surely it's ok for me to have my opinion)... I think that TDK for ANYONE is a toxic. I think it's a toxic movie I don't care what age the viewer.
Just as Sex and the City movie was insipid, vapid (my opinion also, which surely I'm allowed to have, even if in the minority.) Sometimes the minority voice has things of importance for consideration.

"None" of the film makes sense Sara? That's a pretty ridiculous, not to mention overly exaggerated statement, in my humble opinion. I'd be more inclined to agree with your point here if you had suggested that some of the plotlines don't quite add up (at least during a first viewing anyway).

For the record, Joker didn't kill "everyone he gets to help him" carry out his sadistic plans. The clown mask wearing robbers murdered in the opening scene were actually goons - hired on the spot - manipulated by The Joker into thinking they would eventually get their individual cut of the loot.
More useful allies, such as Maroni, were not so easily discarded.

With that stated, the drumfuls of gasoline were delivered by Maroni's crew, some of which were rogue cops. It was Martinez and the chubby old guy (whose name I fail to recall at the moment) who literally drove Rachel and Dent to meet their fates at the abandoned warehouses. Dent initially warns Gordon about rotten apples in his force early on in the film, but the Commissioner fails to heed those warnings, all the more tragic for them both.

And I could be wrong on this, but I'd be surprised if a poster as.. umm eloquent as Chris M actually offered something worthy of discussion/debate. If you're looking to find common ground with some guy who blurts out obscenities on a blog and takes off like a spoiled brat, good luck to you! "Pitiful" is right.

John C,
Some of the plotlines don't add up and to me, I think the movie itself is toxic and the very fact that it doesn't have an R rating ( for at least warning and for information's sake and not "censorship") should (I think) have most everyone on this site up in arms, not just calming saying, "it should be R".

Otherwise, it seems that those who aren't upset by this do not understand the whole Batman phenomenon for America's kids and families.

Also MaryAnn keeps alluding to what is going on culturally/politically in this country and connecting that to why people can't keep their kids from the movie (saying that if people don't care about what's happening culturally/politically then they will "let" their kids go, etc., etc.)

My brother is a psychiatrist and well-respected. He and his son saw the first movie (Batman Begins) together. They were looking forward to the 2nd movie. Of course, it's rated PG13. My brother has has a thriving practice of very mentally ill patients. The only negatives he has heard about the movie (other than from me, my husband and son) is from his patients. The patients see it as very sick. I won't go into specifics re: the sickest parts but you can probably figure it out. The patients are puzzled as to the American fervor (which would include the fervor on this post) over this "fantastic" movie. My brother was appalled and further checked this out and said none of his kids will see the movie but wondered what the heck the writers/directors were thinking and are doing. BTW, his patients weren't upset for themselves but for reasons I've stated too.

So, those are the negative reviews that alerted my brother to not go walking into the PG13 movie with his son. I have talked to other friends who HAVE walked in with their sons or daughters and then walked out.
People will either get what I'm saying or not. Seems not. I was very very disappointed in the movie, the industry and the support that America (anyone in America) is giving this movie. Where is the outcry over the rating and the turning of Batman into something that it hasn't been before...it need not be "sick" to be "adult." A Batman movie needs not be "R" to be "adult." How many movies on this site have gotten an adult "see it" stamp and are rated PG13? (many) When I go to Batman, I'm not interested in seeing Hannibal Lecter stuff.
That's it for me.
I outlined my major concerns above right before your post. Perhaps most everyone on this post is looking forward to the next Batman (and perhaps the ante will be upped and the PG13 will remain.) Personally, I think it's wrong and I will not see the next movie no matter how "good" it is.

Much much much more difficult to get into an R rated movie than a PG13 one. Anyone can get into a PG13 one. Not so for R, not even remotely. They ask for IDs.

I think, re: a Batman trilogy, when the first one is PG13 and then promises sequels, yes, I think it is fair that the viewers of the first movie should be able to safely see the sequels. Otherwise, something else is going on. And note that the industry made sure that (with the PG13 rating) that their market from the first movie "could" see the TDK.

I don't (my opinion) call TDK, "dark"...I call it "sick" with lots of gratuitous violence and Hannibal-Lecter type scenes.

Sara - Gratuitous violence? There was plenty of violence, but it all seemed to move the story or tell us more about a character. Could there have been less? Sure. I think the deliberate nature of much of the violence added to the "sickness" and made for a more disturbing flick, but I don't see it as gratuitous. Adult, but necessary, I think.

I think Sara is the kind of person that sat trough the opening of "Raiders of the Lost Ark" and thought:"Why would someone build a trap that can only be used once? Nothing about this movie makes sense". Also, I get the feeling she didn't like "Silence of the Lambs". But how she liked Iron Man (which I did too, actually), where Tony actually kills people, is beyond me...

Jesus, when did CAPAlert take over the FF comment boards? Sheesh.

You didn't like the movie? That's fine by me,neither did my dad, and I'm okay with that. But seriously, this movie is only sick in the sense that "Silence of the Lambs" and "Se7en"(which I thought were some of the best films of the last decade) are sick, and that's only a bad for minors, people who don't like movies with violence in it or people going trhough a depression(why would someone allow psychologicaly troubled people to watch something like this, where all the heroes' nemesis are asylum inmates is beyond me). Your brother should know how sequels work: bigger, darker bloodier. Take a look at Harry Potter.1(Philosophers Stone), all ages. 7(Deathly Hallows), should be R rated. This movies are not meant to be pleasant. They are meant to grab our interest by showing us the darker side of humanity and the people who try to hold on to the light. Sometimes, good guys loose and bad guys win. In real life, that is often more true than the contrary. If you think of movies as only something to lighten you up from the worries of your daily life, I guess you could hate The dark knight. If "suspension of disbelief" has also no meaning to you, the film could turn you off. And again, that's okay. But don't look so shocked when people like a batman film where there's actualy shooting and killing. I mean, look at his, Two-face's and the Joker's origin(in The killing Joke). What where you expecting, bat-shark-repelent? Didn't the trailers explosions and heath ledger disturbing face and voice tip you off? And just for the record, I hope both the advertising companies and the parents who let their young ones see movies like this get put in a miserable retirement home and kicked in the crotch by their children when they get older.

Also, from an humble european's point of view, all those manifestations haven't helped a lot the cause, have they? Manifestations are usualy a form of public theraphy, never producing actual changes in the government's, or companies policies. At least half of your country is convinced that Bush did his job efficiently as Leader of the free world. And Mccain looks like a great replacement...
"Jesus, when did CAPAlert take over the FF comment boards? Sheesh." Again, from an outsider's point of view, didn't get that reference. Sorry ): . Will you please break it down for me?

Um, I think I made it clear that I DO have (a) kid.

But, I am, however, not a kid and have a mind of my own. I don't care about advertising. I don't care about "society". I don't even care if kids sneak into it, or if my own son does that in years to come. (I mean, I think it's wrong of course, and he'd get in trouble for lying and sneaking around.) But I am not going to go hysterical that he has seen something I deem inappropriate. I can only control what goes on in my house. Whenever possible, I'd like to do damage control of course, like if a scary movie gives him nightmares. But I won't always get to do that.

Sara, you sound like someone who is always worrying about "other people". "Well, sure!" you may say "that's all fine for your family but what about all those OTHER people who don't follow the rules or who aren't good parents?!"

*shrugs* What can I do? Nothing. Worrying about it is pointless. All I can do is stay involved in my son's life and stick by the rules I set. Bad parents will reap what they sow.

Yep, if the movie is R, the teenagers are asked for their drivers' licenses. Happened to my son all through high school...and his friends. Sometimes if there WAS an R movie that he wanted to see (and it was OK with us if he did) we'd go with him. Live in a large city in the South.

No, I'm not always "worrying" about other people. I'm stating my views on this particular movie. This particular one.

I loved Raiders of the Lost Ark.

I am a child and adolescent therapist--so that would figure in. My experience, knowledge, and the realization of how difficult it is for parents to parent well in general is clearly known by me. For instance, right now my brother and his son are into it over TDK. Batman Begins...fine...they waited for the sequel...sequel rated PG13. Brother plans to take son. Then hears concerns from his psychiatric patients who are appalled at public positive reaction to this movie that kids will see (no, doesn't tell them he plans to take son.) Brother and wife go to movie (just the two of them) and are disgusted (they almost walk out) and they aren't prudish people at all. They thought the movie wasn't good and was over-the-top with gratuitous violence and sick images, etc. (which I agree with)...now son (as many sons across America) will harass my brother to be allowed to see this movie. My brother said, absolutely not. So arguments will ensue that need not if the industry was more responsible and made a Batman that all could see safely.

I didn't notice that the Indiana JOnes movies got increasing horrible. I didn't see any IJ movie that I thought should be R. Spiderman, fine. No R needed there. Ironman, no R needed there. (Plus it was a good story to me--as I said, I cared about the characters. Could have cared less about the characters in TDK--didn't connect with any of them...lack of character development. I HAVE heard this from guys in their 20's...my son and friends, but they are saavy when it comes to these movies; they want a good story. Aren't impressed with one explosion after another.)

Star Wars...R? No. Need for R? No.
My opinion...TDK wanted to gross a lot of money and they did with their PG13 rating. That's how they did it. They cut out some of the stuff to get their rating right below "R"...but what I don't think people get, is that kids (and even adolescents) don't have to "see" something...they can get the inferred violence easily (easily enough to really screw with their minds.)

I'd appreciate it if everyone would get off my case. I am only voicing my opinions. It seems that I can't do without sarcasm tossed my way.

I didn't think the movie was a good one. I didn't like it. I didn't think it had good character development. I thought it was choppy and had entirely too many scenes in it. I thought it had way too much gratuitous violence for the movie it was, I didn't care for Ledger in this (and I like Ledger); I thought Bale was "flat"...(I liked him in The Prestige and in 3:10 to Yuma.)

You all can love the movie, think the story is great, the acting great, the violence fine and not be concerned at all. That's your right. I'm voicing my opinions which keep getting slammed. I'll write no more on this. I've said it all... you get what I'm saying or you don't. You don't have to agree...but you either get it or you don't...and it would be nice to show respect.
Thanks.

Lack of respect comes from sarcasm, not disagreement--that's what I referred to.

I don't think people are getting what I'm saying or they'd say...I see what you're saying but I don't agree. There's been none of that. I'm not interested in "sympathy"...I was voicing my opinion and clarifying.

Hi Sara,

Allow me to address a few of your concerns and also tell you partially why I found this film appealing.

When you suggest that the Nolan camp have turned "Batman into something that it wasn't before", you are gravely mistaken. From the character's 1930s conception, Batman was always a psychologically dark character. Furthermore, much of Nolan's The Dark Knight is heavily influenced by some of the more notable Batman comics and graphic novels (e.g., Batman #1, The Long Halloween, Arkham Asylum, The Killing Joke). It's shocking JUST HOW MUCH of this film was actually derived straight from the source material.

What Ledger's Joker does in TDK is frankly quite tame in comparison to the horrific acts readers have come to associate with the fictitious clown in the pages of DC comics for years, if not decades. So repulsive is the character (in The Killing Joke) that he shoots Barbara Gordon in the spine (crippling her for life), while taking snapshots of her nude body as she writhes in pain, only to reveal enlarged photos to her caged father (Jim Gordon) in a freak show of an abandoned amusement park. Surprised? You don't know the half of it! Joker was created for the sole purpose of epitomizing great evil to Batman's great good and he does that in spades. Incidentally, Jerry Robinson (who created The Joker in 1940) went so far as to say that Nolan and Ledger's vision was "closer to the way the character was conceived nearly 70 years ago".

Now, I won't disagree with you entirely on the level of toxicity in the film. Thing is, that's the whole idea. In Batman Begins, Bruce Wayne waged war on all of Gotham's criminals and it's in TDK that he must deal with the consequences of those actions. Before things get better in Gotham, they have to get worse. "It's always darkest before the dawn" remember? Still, in the midst of all this tragedy and chaos, we see a flawed hero struggling to save his city, and at the same time desperately trying to hold on to the part of himself that was untimely ripped away in childhood horror. What makes Batman such a compelling figure is his willingness to sacrifice any semblance of a normal life for the sake of Gotham. As much as he loses at the hands of The Joker in the film, Bruce Wayne proves that a truly incorruptible spirit (unlike Dent's) cannot be broken. The whole notion it's not what you say, but what you do or how you endure that makes a difference.

As far as the rating goes, I think PG-13 is appropriate, considering there is no on-screen bloodshed, overly sexual content or foul language in The Dark Knight. Don't get me wrong. Some of the more violent scenes (e.g., Gamble's murder, the "magic trick", Batman's "bad cop routine") really pushed the limit. With that stated, much of what happens here is left to the imagination. I understand that small children will find a way to see this film just because it's Batman and agree that is a problem, but the responsibility falls on parents to take a more active role in the lives of their kids. It's a changing world and you can't just assume what the little ones watch is safe based on packaging alone; you have to invest much of your precious time into researching any and all media content prior to letting them get a go at it.

"Now, lonely hearts and Sunday School teachers like to say that rain is the tears of God. But God doesn't bother to cry on Gotham. This rain? If it comes from Him...it's not his tears."

Brian Azzarello (author) - Broken City/Batman

Hi John,
For any others on this site, it is hard to ignore a post that begins "Hi Sara" (and I think if it were you that you would want to respond also.) As MaryAnn has said earlier, anyone would want to defend their views, whether they are majority ones or minority ones.
I understand your points, John, and I appreciate you taking the time to go through them. As a mom who took her son to the comics store when he was younger, I would actually flip through the comics to see if, in fact, I would allow him to buy them or if I would pay for them. Many I would not. So, I am familiar with the genre itself (something I don't think others on this post realize.)
My son grew up with X-men figures, and Masters of the Universe, Spiderman, Batman, Superman, Bizzaro Superman, Wonder Woman, Venom, etc.
I bought him an antique (or very old but in great condition for its age) batmobile that is really cool, with the original Batman and Robin, sitting in it. He still has this in his closet.
That said, I would have a problem with the Green Goblin episode where the hero's girlfriend is stuffed into a refrigerator appearing in a PG13 movie (especially if it is one that is hyped and highly anticipated.) It doesn't matter how "graphic" the sight is really (and this is very important.) For children and young adolescents, the imagination is powerful. They can figure out what is behind what might not be literally "shown." They see the enormous sadism that goes into the act, though, and that's the point--especially when it goes on and on. MaryAnn gets angry at me when I reiterate my points. When I feel that my points are entirely missed, I should say nothing?
I do think this dialogue (although I wish some others...and some have) would step up to the plate and at least see what I'm seeing (if they can, in fact) and comment on it. It doesn't have to mean the didn't like the movie. It's critiquing it. It's not an unhealthy dialogue and it's an important one, I think.
I think many are giving too much responsibility to parents (who are not gods) and can only do so much. I would not have wanted my son to see TDK at age 11 (and let's say he had seen Batman Begins) and here comes TKD at PG13 which really doesn't help parents--the parents are to do what? The industry puts them in a no-win situation and there seems to be no empathy on that end. So yes, the kids are one concern to me (and I don't know why they wouldn't be for anyone...just in general)...Did people on this post truly find the depth of characterization in TDK as great as that of Ironman? The same level of sadism? Both verbal and acted-out? I didn't. Or even of V (which was rated R and no, kids are not so familiar with V and there won't be the clamor to see it.) It seems that so many on this thread pummeled me with saying any comment I made was way-out. I'm not saying you should not like the movie, or judging you, I'm saying what my thoughts are.
I just bought my son the graphic noviel, The Watchemen. We talked about it. But he's out of college, for gosh sakes. He's a balanced young man and he highly critiqued TDK too...saying he was disappointed in the movie. He didn't like the lack of storyline (his comment) and the lack of depth of characterization.
It is a very odd thing (and worth exploring) why, say, on a blog this open and "thinking" that it seems one view gets looked at and that's it. As MaryAnn said "we" (whoever "we" is) "get" what you're saying (I'm not convinced this is the case, but whatever) but "we" (again whoever that is) don't agree. That feels very odd to me. Anyone understand that? John, who wrote specifically to me, do you understand my points in a clearer way at all now?

John,
An option: If the studios truly want the darkness of the comic books and that's where they want to go (and no, this hasn't been brought up on this thread at all)...then from the get-go...with Batman Begins, put some things in that movie (not hard to do) that MAKES it R. Makes it clearly "adult." This is an adult Batman...ie NOT FOR KIDS. There are still issues with this, but this would be more upfront and honest. Then the next one, R, too, or NR-17 and maybe the next one NR-17. Not as much money would be hauled in, but the integrity of the studio, etc., would be there. But, don't make something PG13 and then up the ante (and make it PG13) just because it doesn't have "fuck" in it or sex (for gosh sakes!) in it. Put a bunch of "fuck this" and "fuck that" in Batman Begins. You got an R movie. You have an adult movie. Nothing dumb-downed at all. This would be a fair option. No confusion from the get-go. Adult Batman...clear to everyone.

It amazes me when a movie like TDK comes out and people rave about as if it is something path-breaking (comment about it being "a masterpiece" or "the best movie ever" are as overwrought as comments about it's "toxicity"). Does the average movie goer have absolutely no familiarity with movie history? It's pretty easy to trace the influences of TDK, which go back at least as far as the seventies vigilante flicks. Dirty Harry is an obvious choice, and although Nolan and company turn Batman into a less interesting variant of Raimi's Peter Parker (right down to the thwarted love interest), rather than a costumed Harry Calhoun, the parallels between Ledger's Joker and the Scorpio Killer are unmistable. However, both Miller's Dark Knight Returns and Moore's The Watchmen appropriate freely from earlier Hollywood work (Rorschach's use of gasoline and a hacksaw is straight out of "The Road Warrior"), so it's hardly surprising that such influences should resurface. Couple this with liberal borrowing from Mission: Impossible (the Hong Kong sequence, which served no obvious purpose but to eat a portion of the budget on flashy cinematography), and one is left with a movie that is anything but fresh. Entertaining? Yes. But does it live up to the hype? Hardly. A story with poorly developed characters and nothing original to anyone with a familarity of more than five years of American culture. I can understand a teenager being swept away, but when the Eberts of the world are raving, I can only feel a little sad.

Jolly, I think the reason some people are swept away is that in their minds, a "comic book movie" has finally reached the level of a slightly above average regular movie. Sort of a "Wow, this movie takes itself very seriously even though it's based on a comic book!"

It's a patronizing view, because many comics and fantasy based movies have already explored interesting themes to great depths. But most of them are a little too eccentric and off the beaten path to connect with the average moviegoer (yes, I'm being a little elitist).

If you look at popular movie lists, you'll see that crime dramas and vigilante action movies are disproportionately represented. As you and many others have noted, this movie borrows a lot of conventions from those films. Maybe part of the reason the movie is being praised and watched so much is because it is so familiar and comfortable.

In other words, the very things that make the movie derivative and run of the mill to you, are the things that make moviegoers rave. "Finally," they think, "a comic book movie has appropriated enough material from respectable genres to stand on its own feet alongside real movies."

I don't personally feel this way, but it's a possible explanation. I use a similar explanation to rationalize to myself why the Harry Potter books are so popular.

As for the Eberts of the world, they seem to always have a strong bias for anything geek related that's halfway decent. Their raving isn't based on a patronizing view of comics, rather just the opposite.

That is, they've always idolized comics and geek-related merchandise and have treated it as very serious business. They're overjoyed with a movie that seems to treat their geek-fiction with the same reverance that they always have. "Finally," they sigh, "someone has done justice to DC's literary masterpiece."

Both groups are probably overrating the movie. Some people want to fill the world with silly macho geek gangster movies. Well what's wrong with that? I'd like to know.... (just kidding) Seriously, no one can stop it, so we might as well let people enjoy themselves until the hype train moves along. On the plus side, it does help give comics the air of respectability that it sorta sometimes deserves in a few of its better incarnations.

"Does the average movie goer have absolutely no familiarity with movie history?" No. Duh.

This was an amazing insight, although a very dark review. Which, fits the darkness of the movie. I appreciate your thoughts and insights into my favorite movie of all time!

"A story with poorly developed characters and nothing original to anyone with a familiarity of more than five years of American culture."

How could you possibly think the characters of Dark Knight are poorly developed? The way that Nolan reveals secrets and pasts about his characters is pretty obvious, and lets the audience know little by little about each. The audience begins to understand, even if they don't accept, each of the main characters. The Joker is a HUGE contradiction to your comment, whoever you are. If you have even any thought that this character is poorly developed, you should probably either see the movie again or have your brain checked. And as for originality, it doesn't matter one bit that previous Batmans were created in movie history. Someone can do a movie over and over and over, and each time, there will be originality to it. It's seeing it through a whole new perspective, through an entirely new set of eyes and ideas. The Dark Knight, though created from a foundation of the Batman comics, is one of the most original movies I've ever experienced. Nolan brought a whole new meaning, a whole new darkness and being to what Batman is. This one is nothing like Batmans of the past. Open your closed mind and see what you're missing in between the lines.

Reagan,
Re: character development--what do we know about the Joker? What information does TDK give us about Brucy Wayne/Batman that we didn't know before? Those would be the main two. How do these two characters develop and change through the movie? I know Batman struggles with his limits. That's what Batman always does. He's on the opposite continuum from Superman. What's the character development that you see in TDK that seems to have impressed you?

Well, for starters, we get a lot more hints as to what the Joker's past was like. I know I never saw the Joker as anything more than a silly spectacle who loved to wreak havoc in the older movies. In this version, the audience gets an insight as to why he is the way he is through his "story-telling" about his scars. His past has made him so messed up, that his sole purpose is to make others suffer, even if it means losing his life. He has no motive, except for ruining the control and plans of others simply to "send a message." But there are parts in the movie, such as when he is standing in the road, telling Batman to hit him, that we see walls go down in him. It's just a flicker here or there, but it's enough to see that he's so angry and torn up inside. He is an agent of chaos, but there's still that hurt, emotion-filled person in there somewhere. He is not completely immune to human emotion. At least, this is what I saw.

As for Bruce Wayne/Batman, we get the same story as in the previous Batmans, but with more detail and emotion. The story changes a little as far as Bruce's fear of bats and his attendance at the trial of his parents' murderer. The entire story of how he meets Raz Algul and defies the League of Shadows is original! Older Batmans may have portrayed the same idea, but nothing like the way Nolan did. This was all new to me, even though I've seen the old Batmans. Was I missing something when I watched them? Because I don't remember any of that being in there the way Nolan put it in. It's all about originality, which is what I'm saying Nolan's Batman has. And, Batman doesn't always struggle with his limits. In "Batman Begins," he becomes the vigilante, figuring out what his limits are. He changes in TDK, becoming more conflicted about who he really is. Batman becomes more like him, and Bruce Wayne changes into more of a mask and facade. This does happen near the end of the first movie, as well. But there is change there, such as when Batman makes the decision to let his best friend and love die for the greater cause of Gotham, when he would do absolutely anything selfish to save her in the first movie. He changes at the end, when he decides to be the hunted, villian Gotham thinks he is; to give up his heroism for the sake of their hope. He wouldn't have done that in the first movie. Frankly, he changes a lot of his perspective and becomes more realistic and dark in TDK. I guess I don't understand how people can't possibly see this. Hope that makes sense, because I don't know how else to put it.

"How could you possibly think the characters of Dark Knight are poorly developed?"

I don't think it's possible to make an action flick with as many characters as TDK has in it and engage in any meaningful character development. The Joker is an elemental force rather than a human being with some compelling back story. The rest of the characters are essentially stock characters, though in many cases well-played by established actors. The title character doesn't get enough screen time for further development. This is fine, as far the genre goes, but for some reason people want to claim that the movie transcends the genre.

For the record, I'm thirty seven years old, which has given me thirty-some odd years to read comics (mostly in my teens) and watch movies. TDK may well be different from other Batman movies, but that hardly makes it original. I'm not just benchmarking it against other Batman movies, but a whole range of influences. I respect your right to love the movie. Implying that I'm somehow deficient because I didn't find it "great" is hardly a trait of an open-minded individual.

I'm sorry, Sara, but I think perhaps you're not very good at reading movies. This is not an attempt to personally flame you or something like that. Some people can do it, some people can't. It is very overwhelmingly clear that one of the biggest Strengths of TDK is the character development. I don't know how you could possibly think that getting any information about the Joker could have been good for the narrative. The whole point is that he is a nameless 'agent of chaos'. We don't NEEd information - the fact that we know very little about him makes him all that more terrifying. Are you one of those people that think every character should have spelled out origin stories? And if you meant what do we know about the Joker psychologically then you werent watching the same movie I was. Everything you need to know is right up there on the screen.

I understand that you feel attacked but maybe this is not because you didnt like the movie but because your reasons for not liking them seem to stem from a) EXTREME preconceptions/bias b) blind spots a mile wide stemming from said biases and c) often completely baseless. Not to mention the constant air of moral superiority that creeps over this thread every time you talk about the evils of cinema violence or how the movie should be R or how its male dominated.

How can you possibly a judge a film for what the MPAA rated it anyway? Why is the rating somehow connected to how good or bad the movie is. You should be lamenting the evils of the MPAA (and I'd join you there) and not the filmmakers. You sound like you're somehow suggesting the filmmakers were irresponsible for making a film this dark and violent when it's supposed to be a PG13. It's the film that comes first and not the rating. To be suggesting that Nolan dumb down a magnificent film to pander to the little children that the MPAA sees fit to let into the theater is ludicrous. Parents can damn well do their research and figure out whether the kids should go to see the movie. Everyone knows the MPAA system is a joke and anyone that buys into that nonsense is not doing their groundwork. Any parents thinking about taking their kids to the movie should just listen to the buzz or read the million reviews that say this movie isnt for kids. You're saying that Nolan should compromise his work because kids will be let into the theater??? Thinking like that is part of why art these days is going down the tubes. By that logic, Gerard David should never have painted The Judgment of Cambyses the way he did because 'oh, the poor children that might go to the museum in Bruges where it resides!'. Maybe Sisamnes in the painting should have just been tickled lightly with tulips. Or maybe Shakespeare should have thought about how many children might watch the possibly PG 13 cinema adaptations of his films and refrained from having Gloucester's eyes plucked out in King Lear. Your criticism of the filmmakers for making it a dark movie simply because an independent (and famously stupid) authority would rate it PG13 is a deeply flawed and wrongheaded one. What you're suggesting is that filmmakers should be enslaved by the MPAA ratings system and it's an argument that undermines the art form.

And news flash, NOT all portrayal of violence onscreen condones the acts or become automatically gratuitous.

MaryAnn, I apologize if this comment is a little too inflammatory but some of Sara's views so go against the grain as to merit some response. And Sara this is not a personal attack on you stemming from your dislike of a film I loved. It is an attack on your views - something which you profess to welcome.

Amanohyo, given the camp treatment that the material has received in past movies, I think you're probably right about Ebert and others. It's just not that important to me that Batman get his silverscreen dues to pretend that this movie is much more than a high-budget, derivative action flick.

FTR, Potter never made much of an impression on me either. But then I was comparing it to the work of Tolkien, Moorcock, Eddings and other that I read when I was at a more receptive age.

Hmmm...I read over your comment a few times, and I suppose I do agree with the fact that there are so many characters and not enough movie time to develop each one of them. I don't believe, however, that NONE of the characters go through a visible development.

As far as Dark Knight being original, it's probably MORE original when benchmarked against other a whole other range of influences. 'Different' and 'original' mean two different things, and The Dark Knight is both. Origins of how the characters came to be and how they end up are original. The Batman technology overall is original. The way the characters are portrayed is original.Bruce Wayne/Batman's conflict with himself is more serious, real and original. Maybe the film as a whole, in its entirety, is not an original idea, but many, many parts within it are. Thank you for respecting my right to love it, which I do. I suppose I am pretty biased when it concerns this movie, but it makes me roll my eyes when people say they won't see it because of certain things, and won't at least give it a chance. They don't know what they're missing. Me getting defensive because you didn't think it was great, Jolly, is not because I don't have an open mind; it's because I saw this movie with an open mind, unsure of how it would turn out, and now there's no going back on how I feel about it. It was amazing.

Was the "sarcastic remark" comment directed at me? Guilty as charged, I suppose. I don't take myself too seriously. I find that doing so only makes one miserable. So, yeah, sarcasm is a part of who I am.

Now, I really, REALLY have to go see TDK, now that I've got everyone's perspectives. I'm sure it ain't no Tim Burton.

So, now that I've stated all my points, I move on. No point beating this fly-covered horse carcass.

I don't know who directed the "sarcastic remark," but you are in for a real treat and eye-opener when you go see TDK! Enjoy it, savor it. I almost wish I could rewind time and see it for the first time again, just for the rush of emotion and amazement.

Reagan,

Nowhere am I saying that TDK was a bad movie. In my opinion it is the best of the Batman movies, and one of the better comic book movies (though I think I enjoyed X-Men 2 more). All I am saying is that to me, the reaction, particular of many critics, seems to be unmerited by the product. At the same time, I'm more than happy to admit that there is probably a generational gap at work here too...the only Batman comic I've read in the last 6-7 years is Miller's DK2.

"I almost wish I could rewind time and see it for the first time again..."

As a jaded old-timer, this pretty much sums it my position. I feel like I've seen the various parts that make up TDK elsewhere, so it simply doesn't give me that same rush. Not that I'm incapable of feeling such rushes...I saw Serenity twice in the theatre, something I hadn't done since Empire Strikes Back first came out. But as much as I loved Serenity, I would never describe it "original" or "a masterpiece."

I really should get back to my day job, but...

With Serenity, there was nothing original about the plot elements, and even some irritating deux ex machina. But somehow the combination of an ensemble of charimatic actors and some snappy (albeit at times corny) dialogue gave it a certain freshness. For me, TDK just didn't have that same kind of freshness. While I agree with the "consensus" position that Ledger was very, very good (even "great") as the Joker, the Batman simply didn't measure up...

As a jaded old-timer, this pretty much sums it my position. I feel like I've seen the various parts that make up TDK elsewhere, so it simply doesn't give me that same rush.
--Jolly

I'm a bit of a jaded old-timer too--not quite that old but definitely older than MaryAnn--and I actually found myself admiring Dark Knight far more than I did Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. (And this from someone who hated Batman Begins and was at best lukewarm about Tim Burton's Batman.)

Yes, it deserved a R rating. And yes, I would NOT advise my niece and nephew--or any person under 18--to go see it.

And time will tell if it is the masterpiece so many people claim it to be.

Personally, I thought it was the best movie Nolan's done since Memento. But some might say that that's not exactly saying a lot.

Well, for starters, we get a lot more hints as to what the Joker's past was like. I know I never saw the Joker as anything more than a silly spectacle who loved to wreak havoc in the older movies. In this version, the audience gets an insight as to why he is the way he is through his "story-telling" about his scars. His past has made him so messed up, that his sole purpose is to make others suffer, even if it means losing his life.
--Reagan

I think it was pretty obvious from the multiple explanations he gave for his scars that the Joker didn't really have a motive for his deeds. (At least, not one he was willing to share with the public.) And for all we audience members know, there could have been many, many reasons why he turned out the way he did--reasons he himself might not know.

Of course, even today it's difficult to say what makes one real-life person choose to do an evil deed and another person from the same background and circumstances choose differently. I don't believe that we're all robots or wind-up dolls programmed to produce said actions depending on much input of element X we get from our environment.
I've seen too many instances of people from impoverished circumstances who nevertheless managed to legally rise above said circumstances to believe this.

But, alas, free will is a tricky thing.

I agree with Jolly re: characterization and number of characters. Thanks Reagan, for your thoughts, though. I think TDK was more plotline based than character based. I'm not saying there was no character development; yes, there was some that I saw. But, say, in comparison to V for Vendetta (a lot of character development there with V--even with a mask on; we never even see his real face, yet the moods and feeling that were portrayed, the change of heart, etc, was great. And the movie slowed. It was nuanced, I thought, and gave time for characterization. Same with Evey, as well. I'd say the same in Ironman to, but not as much as V, but more than I saw in TDK.
The main problem re: Batman (to me) is that both Batman and Superman (in particular) have become such staples for kids in our culture or decades... both characters are on their lunch boxes to shirts, to capes, to posters and even from four or five years old.
It seems like most on this post would like a Batman true to the comics text and in that case, yes, very dark and the trilogy would make sense to clearly be made for adults (don't try to get the cuts of the kids' money)...it's a Batman for grown-ups and that alone. All three. That would have been better, I think. I don't think Nolan can have it both ways...true to the Batman/Dark Knight comic texts and then PG13. I understand that Nolan didn't put the rating on it, but Nolan cut scenes certain way as to get a certain rating. Just make a movie for adults that kids wouldn't even be interested in. Advance it that much. Most kids weren't that interested in V (or haven't even heard of it.)
Why not just go for the adult viewers, go for being true to the texts and rate it accordingly. Hold back nothing. Go strongly for the adult viewers and adult viewers alone (if sticking to the text.) The cultural aspects of Batman and Superman in America make it all tricky but I really don't think you can straddle the fence. I was looking for a copy of V for Vendetta the other day at Blockbuster (a young teenage boy was helping me find it)...he said, "you know, I really didn't get that movie." Yeah, it's adult. It didn't try to have it both ways.

All this talk about worrying about how it will impact kids and making R seems to forget one big flaw in the "Make it R-rated" argument: That would just make the movie even MORE appealing to kids. R-rated comic book movies are a rare breed(V for Vendetta is the last one I can think of) so there are going to be a lot of kids who will be curious to see why The Dark Knight got an R rating.

It's the hand in the cookie jar deal: Tell the kid they can't have the cookie and often all that does is make the kid want the cookie even more.

So while if Warner Bros were to slap an R rating on this movie and target it to adults, well as Mary Ann pointed out, kids will end up buying tickets to PG, PG-13 rated movies and sneak into the R-rated one. A practice that I can vouch for because my friends and I did that a lot when we were still under 17. And that will just show how Warner Bros. can only do so much and ultimately the job of determining whether something's appropriate for kids is up to their parents.

Sara: "Lack of respect comes from sarcasm"
Well, this is the internet. And the 21st century. And a geek comunnity. We just take it as a natural part of an argument, not a sign of disrespect. Like Dr Horrible would say: "Wow, sarcasm. That's soooooo original..."
I would also like to point out "The killing joke" influence on the film. Joker:"All it takes is one bad day to reduce the sanest man alive to lunacy. That's how far the world is from where I am. Just one bad day. You had a bad day once. Am I right? You had a bad day and everything changed. Why else would you dress as a flying rat?(...) it drove tou as crazy as everyone else. Only you won't admit it. You have to keep pretending that life makes sense, that there's some point to all this strugling. God, you make me wanna puke. I mean, what drove you? What made you what you are? Girlfiend killed by the mob? Brother carved by a mugger? Something like that, I bet... Something like that happened to me, you know... I'm... I'm not exactly sure what it was... Sometimes I remember it one way, sometimes another... If I'm going to have a past, I prefer it to be multiple choice, ha,ha,ha. But point is, I went crazy. When I saw what an awfull, black joke the world was, I went crazy as a coot. I admit it. Why can't you?(...)It's all a joke. Everything anyone ever valued or strugled for... it's all a monstruous, demented gag. So why can't you see the funny side? Why aren't you laughing?"

From interview with Nolan:

Nolan knew that was the rating the studio was targeting throughout production and kept that in mind when crafting the film. "…Part of my creative process is knowing the tone of the film that I'm going to wind up with. So always knowing that this was going to be a PG-13 movie and that we want kids and families to go see this..."

Nolan believes that although it does push the PG-13 boundary, The Dark Knight never really crosses the line into 'R' territory.

(Fine. Nolan made a kid and family friendly movie. That's what he thinks, that's what he says.) MaryAnn has disagreed. Take it up with her if you take it up with me. She's said the same thing I've said. Before I said it.)

MaryAnn,
PG13 means (in our culture) that it's suitable for children. You've seen enough PG13 movies to know what they look like. All the arguments that parents much parent their own kids well (yes, they must do their best) and all is beside the point.
Nolan (in an interview) said he wanted this movie to be one that families and children can go to. He thinks it is. I'm saying, what does that say?
I understand that very few on this post have an issue with this.
Then when I say, I don't think that Nolan can have this movie both ways if true to the text--I think Nolan straddles this. Can't have it both ways. Choose one, you know. Got completely in the direction of R (fine by me.) Only Nolan didn't. That's a valid point for discussion. (Why didn't he? It's as important a cultural question and goes right along with concerns in your review.) If no one wants to discuss that, then they don't. I understand that. It seems as if you would, other than just saying, this movie isn't suitable for children.
And even if it's screamed from rooftops "no one suggested that this is a movie suitable for children" well, no, that's not the case: Nolan himself said he kept in mind the whole time that this was a movie he wanted families and kids to see.
Thanks.

D, Sara should be horrified by the Killing Joke. As a comic book, children can/could easily acquire it (one blogger has an account of buying it as an 11-year old at: http://blog.kobek.com/2007/08/15/alan-moores-the-killing-joke/) I read it 10 years after reading Watchmen and thought it was absolute dreck. Watchmen pretty much heralded the end of superhero comics for me. With it's combination of complex themes, multi-layered storytelling, and perhaps most importantly of all, violence with consequences, I was never ever able to find another superhero title that satisfied me. Serial comics seemed silly to me after that, and it was only with Gaiman's Sandman series years later that I was able to pick up comics again on a regular basis.

As Jarrett Kobek (link above) says about the KJ:

"But secondly, who cares if Batman is or isn’t crazy? This is the book’s payoff? That a genre character in an admittedly unrealistic medium is just as nuts as his arch-nemesis? Dude dresses up like a bat and is fighting an evil clown. How profound can it get?"

I think all this hoopla about the movie's rating, in a way, speaks to the director's effectiveness in creating, whitout resorting to bloody gore, a pervasive sense of dread and menace. I mean, how do you quantify that? I was scared out of my wits several times during the movie, peering at the screen through my fingers. Yet, in terms of actual graphic violence, the movie was relatively light. I'm on an X-Files binge right now (prompted by your review of the X-Files Revelations DVD, MaryAnn... I'm very grateful to you, but my wallet isn't! ;]), and many episodes are far gorier than anything in TDK.

Jolly,
Thanks for seeing my point at least. I've been through my share of tons of comics with my son as he was growing up (and his friends, too)...there were times when we'd go to the comic book store and the guy selling the comics would look at the boys and say, "nope, not this one. Or, this one might be OK. I was there with them." I read the stuff. My son has a huge collection of characters from Spiderman (various ones) to Batman (various ones) to Masters of the Universe, X-Men, etc. It's not as if I'm stupid about this stuff. As if I'm ignorant about it. I probably know more than the average person my age.
But, yeah, when Nolan himself (in an interview) says he had in mind all along (during the filming) that he wanted families and kids to see this movie together, something doesn't add up to me. He makes the guy at the local comics store look like the picture of sanity. Especially in our culture as it is today. And what's with D's rant at me? Odd.
Truly, I like this site; I like MaryAnn's work and I've bought a shitload of her books and given to family and friends. But, this site is appearing to only hold one opinion (at least on this thread) and that if one is not in "that opinion" (and even when directly addressed) that I should just get off the site. That I would not respond when directly addressed? What is this? It's not allowing for discussion in the midst of disagreement (and that CAN occur.)
My husband (avid reader of comics when he was in his teens and early twenties) saw TDK and gave it a 4 out of 10. I guess he'd get chewed up on this site and that's strange to me.
Nolan's interview where he says he kept in mind (during the filming) that he wanted this movie to be fine for families and kids is on the web. I don't have the address right now, but can get it. It's easy enough to access.
And yes, I'm fully aware (again, not stupid) that kids can get into about any movie they want. They can see about any DVD they want. I don't need to be preached to about that (and then told that I'm preaching anything)--I am an aware adult and parent. Geez.
What adults in our culture say, what adults model (if healthy) is taken into account by kids/ by teenagers whether the parents (or even kids) realize it or not. It's powerful...from even an unconscious point of view. But that seems to be getting missed here.
Thanks.

The internet has created an easy means for readers to respond to critics. You see it elsewhere on this site. Mary Ann gives an Apatow movie an unfavorable review and is subjected to personal abuse for it. (BTW, Mary Ann, I totally agreed with your review of "Knocked Up." It's how a found this site in the first place.) I can't help but thinking that this behaviour is mostly from younger people, who seem incapable of seperating their identities from their tastes, and take any expression of dislike of something they like as a personal attack. At least I certainly hope that's the case.

Again, I think Jolly is on target. I agree, too, with MaryAnn's review of the Apatow movie above. Although, I do have some sympathy (seriously) for younger people as I think they have a more difficult time than perhaps earlier generations have had (in terms of the identity issues that Jolly points to)--I think perhaps (perhaps) the issue I've raised, "Where are the adults?" has impacted them more than we realize, for the adults in their lives have often been absent or not engaged with the kids.

See below for Nolan's stated view--he made TDK with the thought in mind that families would enjoy the movie together--families and "kids." MaryAnn, please do take note of that as you've said that no one on this post thinks kids should see this. When Nolan states what he states below, I think it deserves real discussion and not brushing it off. Your review of TDK was good, I thought. You mentioned cultural/political issues (and have in this thread)...what hasn't been dealt with is Nolan's own agenda and intentions which are clear when you read his interviews. I included part of one below and the link. I think "culturally" that yes, that attitude is bothersome (just as much as our political climate) and no, not fair to families, but the opposite. Thanks (and please check out below)

From interview with Nolan--I start at the point that is applicable... (link included below):

Nolan knew that was the rating the studio was targeting throughout production and kept that in mind when crafting the film. "…Part of my creative process is knowing the tone of the film that I'm going to wind up with. So always knowing that this was going to be a PG-13 movie and that we want kids and families to go see this, you think along those lines and you don't really tend to come up with stuff that's completely beyond the pale."
Nolan believes that although it does push the PG-13 boundary, The Dark Knight never really crosses the line into 'R' territory. "If you assess the film carefully and analyze it with other films, it's not a particularly violent film actually. There is no blood. Very few people get shot and killed, compared with other action films," said Nolan...
(Nolan further states:) "I think the MPAA were very responsible in their assessment of the movie. I made it very clear to them that I'd gone into this knowing that it had to be a PG-13 and every day on set when we were dealing with violent issues I would be careful to tone things down..."

http://movies.about.com/od/thedarkknight/a/darkknight70408.htm

(I add...not sure why is HAD to be PG13--from Nolan's point of view.)

MaryAnn,
But what about Nolan's own admission that he had in mind (as he made TDK) that he wanted it to be a movie for families and "kids." Do you not find that odd, in and of itself? Having seen the movie? It's not a movie for family and kids...as you've said, with all the disagreement and agreements on this thread, no one has said suggested that TDK is for "families and kids." I find that really odd and maybe pointing to other agendas. Would you please address his comments (in interviews--nothing he tried to hide.) And also, that the studio wanted PG13...that they were saying that...not the MPAA.
Thanks.
Sara

Mary Ann, this is what Moore himself had to say about the Killing Joke:

"But at the end of the day, Watchmen was something to do with power, V for Vendetta was about fascism and anarchy, The Killing Joke was just about Batman and the Joker - and Batman and the Joker are not really symbols of anything that are real, in the real world, they're just two comic book characters. "

http://www.blather.net/articles/amoore/brought-to-light1.html

I'm not arguing about the profundity of the message. However, I don't feel that either the KJ or TDK are exceptional in their power to convey that message.

"Batman is all about how insane our world has gotten, that even the good guys seem insane. How is this not profound?"

The whole Batman story, from Dectective Comics on, is about the world being so crazy that the good guys seem crazy? I don't think so. Even with TDK, you basically have to be a disciple of the Joker before you come away with that message...

MaryAnn,
Well, I apologize for any attitude I have on this post that you see as inappropriate. It was not intentional. I don't see that I haven't "played nice." When there is disagreement, it seems that discussion over the disagreement is healthy. I apologize though for any impropriety that you've been bothered by.
I was on this thread before the movie came out and wasn't sure I wanted to see the movie at all. I got a lot of grief from everyone really about even writing on the post (although others have) without seeing the movie...this was at the beginning. I was most concerned with seeing Ledger and I wasn't sure I wanted to go through that (in light of his death as I admired him as an actor.)
So, as a result of this thread and discussions, I went to the movie. Interestingly, seeing Ledger didn't bother me as I thought it would (his character actually became woefully tiresome to me); it was other things that I found disturbing or problematic. As other posters have commented here, too.
I have certainly not tried to have an "attitude"...I have tried to voice my opinions and when I have been put down rudely, I would, of course, defend my reasoning. As anyone would.
I only found the Nolan interview last night and I do think it is important--it points (to me) perhaps about economics over artistry. That money is more important than the health of this country which goes hand in glove with political concerns at this point (re: power and money.) I have been told that the studio doesn't make the rules (by other posters)--that it's all the MPAA's rules and then here Nolan says he knew all along that the studio was holding him to PG13 and he worked with that because he wanted families and kids to see this movie. Perhaps a clue to all the jerkiness from scene to scene (that bothered me and some others too.)
Again, I apologize for any impropriety.
Sara

Jolly,
I agree...I don't think the that Batman is about how insane the world has gotten...that even the good guys seem insane.
Batman seems more about how an individual handles his/her own aggression in the face of trauma (which has always existed)...Batman aquires skills to come back and fight Joe Chill only Joe Chill has been killed. So Batman goes after the criminal element (I see this as his own hostile aggression but used in the service of good--usually)...I don't know that Batman particularly cares about who he helps (I'm thinking comics now which TDK drew heavily from)--if in getting the bad guys he helps people, fine by him. I see Batman (and always have...years and years ago...decades ago) as a superhero on the opposite continuum as say, Superman. So much so that Batman carries Kryptonite in his utility belt. He knows all the character's weaknesses (and I understand his paranoia based on the fact that he has no "real" superpowers as most all the others do)...still, the hostile aggression is pronounced in his character and always has been. Not just in TDK. In the stories/texts he comes from.

I don't know if Mary Ann was referring to the comics in general, or TDK in particular (or even KJ for that matter), but I don't personally see it. The Joker may have a particular world view, but that doesn't mean that it's the theme of the movie, and despite all the movie's contrivances and Ledger's performance, it doesn't make it a compelling one either. From my perspective, the Killing Joke was a gratituous portrayal of sadism. To claim there is a powerful and profound message in such a work is equivalent to saying the Death Wish movies were important social commentary.

Sara,

Batman has over sixty years of history, with dozens of authors producing over a thousand stories. I don't think I'd make any definitive claim about what the character represents...cleary that varies both by author, and, as Mary Ann has indicated, by reader. Frank Miller, in DK2, has Batman say something that is almost verbatim what Mary Ann indicated was what she preceived as the theme of Batman. I don't have a copy at hand, or I would quote it.

Come to think of it, Batman says something about having to be a criminal, not having to be crazy...

"Of course we're criminals -- we've always been criminals. We have to be criminals." -Batman from DK2

Which seems a lot closer to any theme that I saw in TDK.

Jolly,
I was referring to two sources about the Batman. The beginning jail scene from Batman Begins:
DUCARD: Are you so
desperate to fight criminals that you lock yourself in to take them on one at a time?

B.W.: Actually, there were seven of them.

Ducard: I counted six, Mr. Wayne.

B.W.: How do you know my name?

Ducard: The world is too small for someone
like Bruce Wayne to disappear no matter how deep
he chooses to sink.

Also I was referring to a book by Rosenberg, The Psychology of Superheroes (a really interesting book, in-depth, with citations from various sources in the comics themselves. Not a long book. I'd recommend it; it's on Amazon.) But, whatever, if in DK2 Batman says "Of course, we're criminals, we've always been criminals. We have to be criminals," I'd stick to what I wrote earlier about Batman on the aggression continuum away from Superman (just in general.) In that sense, Batman is closer to the Joker, actually, in a psychological way--Batman just doesn't have the motivation to hurt or punish innocent people as the Joker does. Batman's motivation seems based on hurting or punishing criminals because of what happened to his parents and that origin story (as far as I know) stays true in almost all the adaptations. So, yeah, Batman pushes the limits to get the criminals. I don't see him as driven psychologically by altruistic motives (as say, Superman is or Wonder Woman.) I think, really (this is strictly my opinion) that the killing of Rachel (childhood friend) would have driven him to kill the Joker (making him much more like The Punisher...)
I think what MaryAnn meant (and MaryAnn please correct me if I am incorrect) referred to re: political climate now is the rule by fear, the chaos, the incompetence, the ignoring the law (torture, detention centers, etc.), "shredding the Constitution," (as she said.) I can see how she makes that comparison to this particular film at this particular time in our history. The same could certainly be said for V for Vendetta which refers to the Iraq War, detention centers, etc., consequences.

Clarification: V for Vendetta (in the above post) is referencing the movie, not the book (in terms of timeframe.)

Sara,

I agree that the origins story has remained intact. The Batman of my childhood (1970s) was essentially a morality play with the simple message that crime was punished. I wonder if there is any implication of institutional failure in the original comics. The 1970s vigilante flicks were largely built around the conceit that the "liberal" courts were incapable of dealing with crime, which meant that private citizens had to take matters into their own hands. Batman Begins flips this around, instead implying that the system is so corrupt that justice can only be administered by vigilantes. TDK contiues in this vein, but by focusing on the spectacle of the Joker, it never explores why Gotham City has been reduced to this state. The Joker's monologues don't provide any deep insights either. For me, the movie, allegory or not, has no meaningful insights. It doesn't really explain how we got here, or how we might get away. And Mary Ann's lament doesn't strike me as being in anyway profound. Nolan makes a pretty action picture. Writers like Graham Greene, Joseph Conrad, and George Orwell actually have something to say about the human condition.

Sara,

I'm not a fan of V, in either form. Moore wrote V as a reaction to Thatcherite England before he was mature enough as a writer to do good political allegory, and the Wachowski brothers didn't improve. I lump V and TDK in with movies like Crash, which basically states that Racism is Bad, and that We're All Racists, but doesn't provide any kind of analysis into the pathology of racism. A good social commentary is more than just a public service announcement with the slogan of the day.

Mary Ann,

I think what you're describing is a mood rather than a theme or message. And when I left the theatre to a warm summer night, that wasn't the mood I was feeling.

Though I suppose a theme can be a message...?

Sorry...a theme can be a mood...?

TDK contiues in this vein, but
by focusing on the spectacle of the Joker, it never explores why Gotham City has
been reduced to this state. The Joker's monologues don't provide any deep
insights either.
-----------
Jolly,
I agree with this. What is going on in Gotham City? Why all the incompetence when it appears they are aware of the problem? Why can't they get it together? How are all those drums of oil/gasoline put into the hospital? Did no staff see them? Hospitals are open all hours. No one saw all those huge drums being brought in? Let us see how that happened maybe? Why would Gotham City authorities have all the people out in the streets when the Joker threat looms (so Gordon's death can be faked in front of everyone?)
I also agree about the Joker's monologues. I got tired of them. It got painful to me. As well as the punching of the Joker in the interrogation by Batman with not one bruise and the Joker kept talking. Some will say, it's just a movie, don't take it so seriously. But, the fact is, this movie (by the fans) is being taken very seriously, it seems.
I didn't see Batman as potent in this movie. Others did, I know. I don't know how true to DK2 the film is, but Batman seems to be at a loss, not really struggle all that much internally. It doesn't really seem to be his movie. He's lost control of his own movie (my thoughts) and that feeling drifts off his being, his acting.
Interesting that you brought up the movie, Crash. I felt like I was in that type of movie when I watched TDK (but not V.) Bam, bam, bam for however long.
I think what caught me about V had to do, not with the slogans (I agree with you on that and I think MaryAnn does too--check out her review on V from a while back) but with the story, with the way that a man in a fixed mask could convey such nuance. The characterization to me was far greater. Perhaps that's what I'm reacting to.
Re: possible institutional failure in the original comics. I don't know but I don't think it's to the degree you describe from the '70s (what you watched.) It seems more individualistic...stories about these people who are somehow different, have gifts or traumas (that they use somehow to mature--the stronger ones or less traumatized ones.) It's more the hero's tale to me (at least a version of it.) The individual, not societal. (I realize they overlap.)
I probably didn't care for TDK for several reasons--but the strongest perhaps being that it was straight action movie. I prefer a story with action (and V, for example, if you push aside the slogans) did at least take the time for that. TDK wore me out and gave me no story of interest. Interesting, too, that I was thinking about the books you describe above today. Just read some of Margaret Atwood's newest short stories. Excellent.

"Are you suggesting that Bruce Wayne is not half psychotic himself?"

No, I meant that Batman himself makes the comment about having to be criminal. I'm sure Batsy is a little crazy.

"Might as well say the same thing about the U.S.A. today."

Yes! Exactly! I'd like a movie that tries to explain why the U.S.A. is in the state it is! I just don't think TDK fills that bill.

Sara,

I agree...Batman wasn't potent. He ends up being portrayed as a reluctant hero, like Spider-man, rather than as the obsessive crusader I recall from the comics, driven by the trauma of witnessing his parents' murder.

I'll see if I can round up a copy of Rosenberg...it sounds interesting.

Jolly,
It's interesting the Batman seems to be seen by many as the obsessive, the struggling with himself conflicted crusader. I didn't see that very much either. He did say to Alfred, how do I stand this or something like that and Alfred said, you endure and then during the interrogation, Batman beats the hell out of the Joker.
I didn't see Batman exactly as the reluctant hero (althought I know what you're getting at--and yes, he was at a loss--more defeated-like) but not as you mention Spiderman (at least to me)--it's something else, though. But, yes, not potent, ineffectual (to me.)
The Robin Rosenberg book is not expensive, is on Amazon (plus you can get used copies there) and I think you'd find it intriquing. Make sure you get the one by the right editor because there are several with the same title. There are chapters on various superheroes and yes, the movies, the specific comic books, writers as they go through the years (and reconfigure the characters) are referenced. I'd be interested in what you think. If you read it, leave a note at this site for me re: your thoughts if you would.

As far as how Gotham became as messy as it was in the movie, I thought "Batman Begins" covered that in sufficient detail. I saw no reason to recap the corruption in the city.

Mary Ann,

I don't see why you think setting a Batman movie in a world with some superficial parallels to our own makes for a great movie. A show like The Wire is also about the mess the U.S.A. is in, but it actually attempts to analyze the interactions between people and institutions that created that mess, rather than just using it as a backdrop for non-stop action. TDK aludes to some issues, but it never manages to become anything other than a average big budget action movie. The movie may have inspired you...it never managed to do more than entertain me.

Hi, Mary Ann,

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree about the relative merits of the movie. I look forward to reading your reviews in the future.

Regards,

Jolly

Hi Sara,

FYI, I was not suggesting to have some of the more disturbing panels/storylines (taken from various Batman comics and graphic novels) appear in a PG-13 movie. It was simply my intent to give you a better understanding of the DC characters in question, as sparked by your views on how Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight supposedly "turned" them into something altogether different from what they were prior to his involvement; to reiterate, not true. Now, had the producers of this film depicted a scene loosely based on a fictional event so revolting as the circumstances which lead to Barbara Gordon's paralysis in the aforementioned graphic novel The Killing Joke, I am more than confident that TDK would have earned itself an R rating.

And I do not contest your point on the power of the imagination, particularly with regard to young children, however, it should be noted that much of the film's overly violent content is handled with at least a mild degree of caution. Likewise, when a gang leader is brutally assaulted during an early action sequence involving The Joker, there isn't a shriek of anguish heard or a even the slightest hint of blood shown on-screen. And that truly does make a difference on how the mind perceives what is going on. From my perspective, what greatly disturbs audiences is when they are invited to share in the suffering of an imperiled character. Not long ago, an elderly woman went to see a showing of Mel Gibson's Passion of The Christ at her local theatre and subsequently suffered a fatal heart attack in response to the all-important crucifixion scene. Obviously, there have been numerous depictions of the act on film, but it is only in Passion that viewers are able to witness in gruesome detail just a fraction of what Jesus' real life ordeal could have possibly been like.

It has been my experience that PG-13 (and even some PG) rated films often tend to tip toe around adult subject matter. The Dark Knight is no exception. As you pointed out though, kids will always find themselves a way to go see a Batman movie, as the character isn't suited just for adults. And therein lies the problem. It's not so much about the MPAA, but the fact that Batman is uniquely interpreted by varying age groups. Why is that? Although he is both a physical and mental prodigy of the highest possible level, Bruce Wayne does not have any superhuman abilities; he's only a man. Perhaps for this reason alone, his motives are unfairly, but understandably scrutinized. Think about it for a minute. Superman isn't a cop, he doesn't wear a badge, he isn't government sanctioned, but it is Batman who is commonly branded the outlaw. Then you have Spiderman who wears this ridiculous costume and [his appearance is] viewed acceptable by most, as it just so happens that he was bitten by a spider. Wayne puts on an equally questionable getup and folks call him nuts! I'm not going to go into every way the character has been altered and marketed in one direction or another (be it dark or campy) since 1939, but it's obvious that Batman means different things to different people. There really is no simple solution here. Were studios to release an R rated Batman film that is clearly for adults only, kids would flock to it even more. Remember, children are especially intrigued by that which is forbidden.

And believe me, as much as I love Nolan's The Dark Knight, I do get what you're trying to convey here to some extent. Still, I will admit when you posed the question, "Did people on this post truly find the depth of characterization in TDK as great as that of Ironman?".. I vomited in my mouth a little. =) Not that I dislike Iron Man, but to me, Favreau's offering had little heart or substance behind it.

Be well.

John,
I didn't think you were suggesting that Nolan took any of the characters and turned them into something different than the comic texts. I think the dynamics of the "true to the text stuff", alongside how Batman and Superman (in particular) have been portrayed in America on TV and in the movies, makes the enterprise of anything really dark very difficult. Kinda dark, OK. Really dark becomes somewhat problematic from the viewpoint of kids who our culture has really given Batman and Superman to. Or rather those two heroes have typically been clearly (except in the comics) for everyone.

I mentioned a book to Jolly (that I recently read)...The Psychology of Superheroes (by Robin Rosenberg) that I'd recommend. Great referencing and the book is not long. I'm trying to remember the title of the chapter on Batman (my son has the book right now and lives in another city)... well, just got it..."An Appetite for Destruction: Aggression and the Batman." References much from the original texts (various ones), etc., and the chapter is compelling.

Really, the superhero comics were written for adults anyway (as I understand it)....much as fairy tales were written for adults and religious stories, written for adults. When they get appropriated for "kids" (as has happened with Superman and Batman-- same has happened with Cinderella--really Ashputtle, The Little Mermaid, etc.) I think presenting them to only adults (or slanting the story strongly that way) becomes difficult. It can be done, though.

Re: kids being intriqued by what's forbidden, I think that' just how it often goes.Or even if it's not, for kids to know that adults have stepped up and put parameters on certain things (or that our society has, too)--that this holds a power that often goes unrealized for kids. I can look back at my middle, high school, college years, and be glad my parents set certain parameters...I usually respected them. Not always, but I sensed they had my best interests at heart. They were the adults and while I might have fought that at times, they had my attention and respect.
Thanks for your response.

"I didn't think you were suggesting that Nolan took any of the characters and turned them into something different than the comic texts."

Sara,

I never implied that you thought so. In fact, my initial post came about as a response to your comment suggesting Nolan had changed things, in asking, "Where is the outcry over the rating and the turning of Batman into something that it hasn't been before?" I basically have been trying to explain to you that such isn't the case, while addressing other points.

J,
Okay, gotcha. I see what you meant. Nolan did change things in terms of ramping up Batman toward the Batman comics/graphic novels (I think)...in terms of how Batman had been presented for years and years on TV and in movies. Seems that Batman on TV and in cinema has always been for families and kids--just how they marketed and made it; didn't get into all the dark material that's in the comics.

So, I think a lot of people (especially people with kids) were expecting similar stuff with TDK (or at least around the level of Batman Begins) when TDK appeared with a PG13 rating. I did, actually. As has been noted on this thread, most have said they thought TDK deserved an R rating(a movie can be highly disturbing psychologically without showing gore. Think Hitchcock, etc.) My point was that in this country, Superman and Batman have been given over to the kids for the most part (except for the comics which some dealers won't even sell to kids unless they are certain ages. They're actually really strict about the comics around here)

Just makes it tricky to do anything with Superman or Batman that is (as Nolan wrote) "beyond the pale." Nolan (in an interview) said during the making of TDK he wanted to make sure families and kids could see the movie. He knew going into it that the studio itself wanted a PG13 rating. I didn't see the movie as family or kid-friendly but I don't think too many others think so either.

"Seems that Batman on TV and in cinema has always been for families and kids--just how they marketed and made it; didn't get into all the dark material that's in the comics."

Not necessarily, Sara. Remember Tim Burton's Batman way back in 1989? You should know that much of Burton's film was inspired by Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns. Incidentally, it was this very graphic novel that helped restore Batman to his darker roots. And in Burton's hands, the troubled Bruce Wayne was certainly no boyscout, as I'm sure you might recall. Rule #1: Batman does not intentionally kill. Like his father, he believes all life is sacred and that noone has the right to judge who lives and who dies. Burton ignored this all too important fact, as he did the symbolism behind the totem, which is so much more than ridiculous fetish. Then came the morbid sequel Batman Returns that was marketed to children (in a way The Dark Knight never was) and parents were outraged. So WB hired a fellow by the name of Joel Schumacher in an effort to remodel the character into something more campy and accessible to children and families. The infamous director put nipples on the batsuit and the rest is history. The franchise was nearly destroyed. As far as the fans (both kids and adults) are concerned, Schumacher's Batman and Robin will always be remembered as one of the worst films ever released in modern cinema. Fortunately, a British director by the name of Christopher Nolan had a couple of fresh ideas on how to "bring a little dignity back to The Dark Knight."

And you're right. Nolan's sequel isn't suited for very young children, but the comics and darker graphic novels which inspired much of its content are often read by teens (13 & up), as much as they are by adults; trust me! And those are the same kids who have already seen this movie and will continue to watch it over and over again. The little ones don't really have a whole lot of interest in TDK. And yet, I can't tell you how many times I've seen irresponsible parents drag their six year olds and toddlers to films like this for reasons I personally can't fathom.

Like you stated above, it definitely is "tricky to do anything" with Batman that is "beyond the pale". Forget Superman though. That one's camp for life.

One more thing. For me, it's not just an absence of gore in TDK that takes away from the psychological impact associated with the more violent scenes, but the agonizing screams that usually go along with these types of sequences. The first time I saw Knight I didn't even know that Lau was on top of the pile of burning cash lit up by The Joker. You hardly even saw or HEARD A PEEP out of the guy and this a man who is being burned alive. Food for thought.

One more thing. For me, it's not just an absence of gore in TDK that takes away from the psychological impact associated with the more violent scenes, but the agonizing screams that usually go along with these types of sequences. The first time I saw Knight I didn't even know that Lau was on top of the pile of burning cash lit up by The Joker. You hardly even saw or HEARD A PEEP out of the guy and this a man who is being burned alive. Food for thought.

--John Cornell

As one who has known relatives and acquaintances who have died from violence, one would think that the tendency for filmmakers to sanitize the violence in their movies--and pretend it doesn't really hurt anybody--would be worrisome than the reverse.

But then I still find it interesting that Sara has no problem with V for Vendetta whose protagonist kills cops and blows up buildings yet has a problem with The Dark Knight, a movie in which the antagonist kills cops and blows up buildings.

Curiouser and curiouser...

I meant, more worrisome, of course.

Tonio,

I think Sara's point is that the Batman "brand" has become increasingly murky, given the multitude of products, some which are aimed at children, some which are not. If your only exposure to the characters had been the cartoons over the last 20 years, or perhaps even Batman Begins, I'm not sure you would necessarily be prepared for TDK. Or that the PG-13 rating would give you an adequate idea of how far the movie would deviate from the products I've mentioned.

Batman, in some form or another, is marketed to children. V for Vendetta was not.

Jolly,
100% my thoughts. Tonio, Jolly's got my point exactly. Batman has always been marketed to kids and young teenagers (not talking about the comics--as I've said the comics store guys will NOT sell certain issues. I've been there with my son and friends. They simply will not sell them and the boys would not want the forbidden fruit...they would realize that for some reason, those comics weren't appropriate and they'd chose something else.
Little kids (age 4 and 5 mostly) sleep in Batman PJs. They where the capes to nursery school. So when they're 10 years old, they're going to want to see Batman movies. They do not care about V. They don't know who V is and haven't had the exposure. V is R, V isn't in their universe. That was my point.
And, oddly, Nolan, himself, said he wanted TDK to be something that families and "kids" (and this doesn't have to mean 5 year olds--I don't think Nolan meant that)...I think he meant 9, 10, 11 and up could see TDK with their families. Family night. Which it has been.
Thanks.

As one who has known relatives and acquaintances who have died from violence, one would think that the tendency for filmmakers to sanitize the violence in their movies--and pretend it doesn't really hurt anybody--would be worrisome than the reverse.
-----------------
I'm in complete agreement with Tonio's comment above.

Also, I'd add, if I ask my 11 year old nephew "who is "V"...as in the movie "V for Vendetta"? he would say "what are you talking about? I don't know." (And he doesn't care.) But he and his dad are in the outs over TDK...they were looking forward to seeing it together (after seeing Batman Begins) and my brother (as a responsible father) is saying "no"...and my nephew is arguing with him...why not? "It's PG13 and I'd be with you--it's 'the same' as Batman Begins." And, hell, my brother is a psychiatrist. He knows more about child development, etc., than the average parent in America so there is no way that my brother will budge on this, as he shouldn't.

Tonio says, "As one who has known relatives and acquaintances who have died from violence, one would think that the tendency for filmmakers to sanitize the violence in their movies--and pretend it doesn't really hurt anybody--would be worrisome than the reverse."

The studios aren't pretending it doesn't hurt anyone. They're just keeping it clean for younger and possibly more sensitive viewers by not going too deep into every gruesome detail.

Persons of average and above average intelligence don't believe they are impervious to pain.
Furthermore, everyone doesn't live in movieland and it's the last place anyone should learn all their life lessons.

Sara,

I'm not sure what part of the country you're from, but to my knowledge, most kids (11 and up) are able to purchase just about any Batman comic their little hearts desire. With that stated, there definitely are certain restricted comics out there, but not so much Batman. You've got me to thinking though. I wonder if retailers would go so far as to sell Batman graphic novels that really push the limits of good taste to minors? Grant Morrison's Arkham Asylum: Serious House on Serious Earth is one GN that comes to mind. You don't get more disturbing than that tale.

John,
Large southern city. The restricted comics were always from comic book stores as I recall. I have no idea what Barnes and Noble, etc. carries now. I also think that at the particular two stores (comics, baseball cards,etc.) we went to, the guys who sold the comics were careful what they sold to the boys who came in. Just out of psychological respect for the boys.

Sara,

Yeah, but not the mainstream stuff (e.g., Batman, Superman, Spider-Man, etc.) right?

I believe Marvel comics actually has a separate line specifically geared toward adults called Max or something to that effect.

On a side note, I thought it was interesting that you previously brought up the Green Lantern issue where the central character's then girlfriend was decapitated and subsequently stuffed into a refrigerator. Did you know that author Gail Simone actually dubbed the term, "Women in Refrigerators", as a reference to any and all female comic book characters abused in one way or another, which is apparently fairly common in this medium? Don't want to go into the subject too much on here, but you might want to check out this link.

http://www.unheardtaunts.com/wir/

Nothing else we can do as a society, whether it's a better ratings system or V-chips or IDing people coming into a theater or anything else, can ever substitute for responsible and informed parenting. And that's even MORE important when we know how manipulative marketing can be. The way to push back against this crap -- the marketing, I mean, not the movies -- is to be informed consumers.

I agree with the general sentiment that you are expressing, but I'm not sure how far the "informed consumer" argument can be pushed. It implies a high degree of sophistication on the part of the consumer, and assumes that we have time in our busy lives to accumulate and process all kinds of information. There's a long running argument that brands are supposed to help us with that task by providing useful information. The problem with the Batman brand is that it's been differentiated and marketed to different demographic markets. It would be curious to see the public reaction were JK Rowling to launch an "adult" series of books using the Harry Potter characters.

Legislative interventions have been used to protect the interests of children (banning gum packaged as cigarettes comes to mind). For a long time, mass distribution of comic books required meeting the Comics Code Association requirements, and adult theme comics were limited to magazine format (Warren Publishing and Heavy Metal). Innovations (direct shipping/graphic novels) effectively undermined the existing regulatory environment, but it's not clear that some intervention isn't merited.

MaryAnn,

It's unlikely that we'll ever get a Batman film geared solely for adults. Here's why.

1) Greed. Film studios and big name comic book publishers will always want a piece of the kiddie market. They won't give that up for anything or anyone!

2) Interpretation. Like I keep trying to tell Sara, Batman isn't quite like other mainstream comic book heroes (e.g., Superman or Spider-Man). In truth, he isn't terribly unlike one of those words you aren't supposed to say at the workplace that can take on more than one meaning.
When it comes to Batman, some adults will always think of the classic Adam West series, which was ironically a parody of the character in many respects. And those same types will drag along their little tykes to see a PG-13 or even R rated film, defying the logic staring them right in the face.

3) Teens (ages 13 and up) still make up a large percentage of Batman's fanbase. They read the comics and graphic novels, just as much the adult "fanboys/fangirls" do. Excluding them is simply not an option.

Now, you do realize that integral parts of the character designed especially for kids remain a distinctive part of the more adult oriented storylines right? Batman wears a crazy costume not because he's a nut - he's a comic book character!! It's very interesting how people (myself included) humanize Bruce Wayne and bring him down to our level, simply because he doesn't have any supernatural abilities. After all, it's okay for Spidey to dress up like a freak and take the law into his own hands right? Noone questions the sanity of this character. Why is that? Because he was bitten by a spider? How does that make him less accountable for what he does? The answer is simple. We don't care because we can't relate to a guy that can cling to walls and shoot web fluid from his wrists. Sometimes people forget that Batman isn't real, oddly enough. That's what makes Batman so complicated. Many of the things adults love about him are the qualities which were initially meant to appeal to children (his outfit, his code of preserving all life, his silly adversaries and sidekicks), and the flipside to that is the attraction felt by teens to the darker side of the character. So it's hard to say who should and shouldn't be allowed to partake in all the "fun", ya know? Both kids and adults own a piece of The Batman in their own way.

With that stated, I honestly don't think you can push it further than Dark Knight. At least, not yet. An R rating will not keep away the uninformed parents or the irresponsible ones who let their babies roam the streets at 2 in the morning. It won't stop the technologically savvy, willful and defiant teens who just won't understand why they aren't allowed to see a film about frickin' Batman, while their little brother is watching a cartoon based on the same character in the next room! If an R rated Batman film eventually does get made, we're potentially looking at scenes of a very graphic nature including excessive bloodshed and sexual content (possibly rape). Even the people on this blog who think TDK deserves such a rating (even though it doesn't) have to admit that slapping an R rating on Batman would be taking him to an entirely different level and oh what controversy that would bring! And then it's Joel Schumacher all over again!

I just vomited in my mouth a little.. again.

Would be interested if suddenly an "adult" version of Rowlings Harry Potter came out. Yet it was marketed to kids also, yet not appropriate.

I agree with Jolly re: the high degree of sophistication that it takes for consumers to make decisions. Many parents in this country are both working (and often double shifts right now) and are having a difficult time making ends meet. If I were in that position, I'd have no problem letting my 12 or 13 year old (or younger) kid go see TDK because of the rating. Think Bud in the movie, Swing Vote. Many parents just like him (and daughters not like Molly.) Parents like Molly's parents aren't going to monitor their kids' habits.

John, don't recall the exact comics (or those who produced them--you asked above.) Yeah, I've been to the website you mentioned. Not surprising, of course. One day when my son was young, he had all his X-men and women at a local playground--was playing with them in a sandbox. Got home and realized he didn't have Storm. Got upset and we had to go retrieve her. I'm sure the clouds gathered and thunder roared as lightning spiked downward. He rushed out to the sandbox and got her. She was never lost again:)

It's interesting to note that Alan Moore was able to create an effective adult-oriented comic book in the Watchmen without using any existing comic characters (I realize that the Watchmen are based on Charlton Comics characters).

Both kids and adults own a piece of The Batman in their own way.

John,

True. However, as I was implying with my example of the Watchmen, I don't think there is any need to use existing characters if one feels the need to tell an adult-themed superhero story. Other than the obvious commercial ones that you refer to.

Good point about Alan Moore creating effective adult-oriented comic book characters (V, also, I think.) My son just bought the Watchmen but was not familiar with it. Is plenty old enough for it, but of interest is that he was not familiar with it.
So, in the case of my nephew (age 11) arguing relentlessly with his dad about going to TDK, the son has no idea who V is, nor would he know who The Watchmen were. No idea. Watchmen hasn't been rated yet, but I suspect R. Also, read that there is a glitch...something about rights to the material, etc.

Agree, Jolly, if you want an adult-themed superhero story, come up with new characters in the screenplay and don't rely on those characters that all of America owns a piece of.

John,
I get that Batman isn't like the other superheroes in the League. All the other have superpowers. He doesn't. He also has so much distrust of the others that he knows every weakness of every character and has the necessary stuff in his utility to do them in. He appears to be the most dangerous of all in the League. That's why when Superman can't keep an eye on the Batman, then Wonder Woman does and vice versa (at least in one version.)And yeah, who of a "certain age" didn't grow up watching Batman and Superman--who didn't grow up watching them? And Zorro (my favorite.)I think I liked the humor. Maybe that's why I liked Robert Downey, Jr. in Ironman (that so grossed you out--the movie, I mean.)

Frankly I don't really believe in making it illegal to make movies like the TDK. However, I do believe that TDK represents a cynical exploitation of an American icon by the studio. As John implies above, an R-rated Batman movie will never be greenlit by the studio. At least not one on the scale of TDK.

Part of the impact is *precisely* because *this character* has previously been seen as cartoonish.

I think you're confusing "cartoonish" with "campy." TDK is cartoonish. The 80s comics, despite their elevated levels of graphic violence, were cartoonish. "Sin City" is cartoonish. Which is fine. Adults are entitled to their pulp. And although I've encountered better scripted pulp, TDK was enjoyable enough as such.

Mary Ann,

I feel like I'm haranguing you, so I'll make one last comment and then let this particular theme drop. In anticipation of what I'm guessing your response might be, do I think that super-hero stories, despite their intrinsically cartoonish nature, are capable of telling important stories or otherwise transcending their genre? Yes. I just don't personally think that TDK succeeds in this regard.

The closest thing I've seen to a "realistic" superhero story in the movies is the enjoyable but flawed "Unbreakable."

I agree, Jolly--I saw TDK as very cartoonish. Over the top cartoonish and violent (only not *animated*.) Also, I don't understand this: where is the struggle with this Batman? Where does he struggle? I just didn't see it, at least not in a way that convinced me.
What scenes does he struggle in (in a way that is new)? He doesn't seem to struggle with slamming the Joker from here to kingdom come in the interrogation room. He seemed fine with that. And THAT scene in particular was cartoonish to me.

Sara,

Technically speaking, Batman/Bruce Wayne isn't the most dangerous character in the DC universe; he's just the smartest. Supernatural beings who can read minds and take human lives with something less than a thought are obviously far more dangerous. That's why Wayne keeps an eye on them. He can't afford to let creatures with unlimited power and capabilities go unchecked. What should happen if one or more of them goes rogue or suffers mind loss? That's why Batman does the voodoo that he doodoo so well. It's not that he doesn't trust his allies. He has to do what's best for everyone else. If there is an element of madness about the character, it's that in his delusion, he actually believes he can eliminate all crime.

And I actually liked Iron Man, but try not to use it in the same sentence as Dark Knight too often. To me, FF, Iron Man and Hulk are all the same. Spider-Man, on the other hand, brought something original to the plate.

John,
Try to maybe get a copy of the Robin Rosenberg book (Psychology of Superheroes)...it's excellent and I think you'd like it. The essays in this book argue that even though Superman has the powers he does that he uses them for good (ie, he's truly into altruism as opposed to punishing criminals)....whereas, Batman is less into altruism and more into punishing criminals. The writers give good arguments for this. Anyway, it makes the Batman a darker character with motivations that are slightly paranoid but understandable because he is in a league of those with superpowers and while he has none (other than well-developed human skills)--Superman's upbringing is vastly different from Batman's and the book goes into that (and how it affects the psychology of each.) I'd agree with you that Batman's delusion is that he actually believes he can eliminate all crime (ie, he's after the criminals to punish them, as opposed to Superman or Wonder Woman or Spiderman who have altruistic motives--their main motivation is to assist those in need; whereas, Batman's main motivation is to get the criminals (it just so happens that this helps victims or would-be victims in the process)--and this difference springs from Batman's psychological experiences (seeing his parents murdered before him and raised in an urban environment)...contrast with Superman (yes, orphaned but didn't witness his parents' deaths, was raised in a midwestern farm environment with doting "adoptive" parents. Check it out if you can or want to.

Sara,

Let's see if I can answer your questions though you're likely to disagree, but here goes anyway.

1) From this film, I got that Joker desperately wanted to prove that deep down everyone would sell their soul for the right price. Batman has one rule, which is the sanctity of all life and Joker would just love for him to break that rule, as it potentially makes a mockery of all that Wayne stands for.
Sure, Batman kicks the crap out of the Joker, but we all know what he really wants to do is take the psychotic clown out of the picture once and for all, but he can't; he doesn't. He chooses to "oppose darkness with darkness" and to "fight fire with fire", but will not become his enemy and will not be burned. There's one struggle for you.

2) Nolan and Bale depict the character as one who believes what he is doing is a finite task and Bruce desperately wants to be with Rachel, but he can't give up being Batman.. at least not until Gotham has its new "hero with a face" who can take up the fight for him. And it also seems like there's a part of him that won't let go of the dark persona. Rachel picks up on this and ends their relationship.

3) I also think he struggles with some of the more questionable choices he later makes in the film even though Nolan doesn't spell everything out for us. The scene with Batman and Fox comes to mind. Bruce knows that spying on millions of people is wrong even if it helps to stop the Joker's madness, so he configures his new toy at Wayne Enterprises with a self destruct sequence to be activated subsequent to victory.

4) In a way Bruce blames himself for Rachel's death in addition to the fact that criminals are taking things to new levels now and copycats are defiling what Batman stands for. He doesn't go on public television and cry about it (like a certain Iron Pimp does, but it's obvious that Bruce is questioning his own intentions.

"Did I bring this on her? I wanted to inspire good, not madness.."

5) Bats also fights with the choice of turning himself in. He obviously doesn't want to, but he psyches himself up for it and burns anything that can be traced back to Rachel or Lucious. He struggles with the notion, but with Alfred and Harvey's help, chooses to represent something "more than a hero" and doesn't give in to the Joker's demands.

Sara says, "Batman's main motivation is to get the criminals (it just so happens that this helps victims or would-be victims in the process)"

Sara, if that's what you choose to believe, so be it. To each, his or her own. I disagree with this assessment of the character 100% however and much prefer to draw my own conclusions, as opposed to getting them from a psychology book.

To me, there's a part of Batman that wants to punish the guilty, yes. But you sadly fail to acknowledge that in addition to this, he desperately wants to make sure that noone should ever suffer the same fate he did as a young child! Batman watches over his city vigilantly and risks his life protecting the people of Gotham every single night he dons the cape and cowl. He doesn't just spend all of his time going after criminals. That's a ridiculous and twisted view of the character. Does Rosenberg mention how often Batman takes bullets for the same criminals he targets because even their lives hold some value in his eyes? Probably not.

There's a name for the kind of character you believe Batman to be Sara, but "The Punisher" he is not.

Sara,

At the end of it, I realize that my frustration with TDK is not with the violence, or the cartoonish nature of it, or the questionable marketing. What annoys me is the critical praise this movie receives, when, by the standards of comic book writing, it is a run-of-the-mill story. The impact that Mary Ann refers to simply isn't there for someone who read Miller's DKR or Moore's Watchmen as a teen. I don't understand the fanboy's need to see these classics brought to the big screen, because I don't believe the big screen products will do justice to their source material. I'm guilty of elitism...based on experience, my belief is that movies are less likely to exhibit inventive and intelligent story-telling that either books *or* comics. I'm certain that the need for a mass audience plays a role in this. Mary Ann and Ebert have become my most read critics,and I genuinely enjoy their commentary. But at best I use their reviews as a guideline of what to avoid, rather than what to watch. I simply don't share their love of the movies.

Jolly,
Your comments make complete sense to me, especially for someone who has read the comics as you have (plus other books you've mentioned.) My son and his friends had a similar response as yours after seeing TDK, actually almost identical. I agree with using the reviews as what to avoid also. I think not just need (but the grasping) for a mass audience plays a huge role in the way a story/comic/book is portrayed--not always, but for the big studios going for the big blockbusters that seems the case...usually not for the better.

John,
I see the struggles you mention but I don't see them as so different (or as so much "more") than the ones in, say, Batman Begins (although you'll probably disagree)...In Batman Begins (near the beginning)--and I even quoted the script someplace above--Batman is asked if he wants to fight criminals so badly that he gets himself put in jail with them so that he can fight them. That was something brought up in the book I mentioned which is balanced more than you might think. It's not that Batman is "going to the dark side" (or that I see him there) but that he is closer to that side than Superman is, or Wonder Woman, or Spiderman. His motivations are different (I think) than theirs. But, I don't think that's anything new. Not anything new from Batman Begins, for instance (at least to me.)

The situation with Rachel didn't seem like a struggle to me. In V, his decision re: Evey didn't seem like a struggle either. Very few of the superheroes seem to really struggle all that much over "what they do" and "a relationship with a woman." We know "what they do" is their priority and will always win out.
My point...he didn't in TDK seem to struggle more than I see Batman struggling in general, knowing the character. I think it is significant that he trained initially to come back and hunt down and kill Joe Chill but Chill is already dead. So, (my opinion)-- he transfers his feelings from that situation to other criminals. That (to me) is part of the interesting dynamic of this character. That he is angry and he is going for the bad guys (as in the scene at the beginning of Batman Begins--fighting in the jail.) I think there is a part of him that enjoys this (unconsciously.) I don't think there is a part of Superman or Spiderman, or Wonder Woman that enjoys this kind of thing. I see different motivations with them. As you said, we all can draw our conclusions and have our own views.

Sara,

Several more things I'd like to share about the character.

A) Batman saves countless lives every day, including that of criminals he opposes. He seeks to preserve life at all costs. I recall a story taking place not long ago in which members of the league "mindwipe" Batman when he tries to stop them from erasing a criminal's mind. And how about the scene in Nolan's TDK where Wayne risks his life to save the lawyer who threatens to blackmail him and reveal his identity on live TV? You don't find that even the slightest bit selfless?

B) Batman isn't invincible, so when he jumps off a building to rescue a falling child (which he often does) he puts his life at risk every time, unlike Superman. When he uses his detective skills to track down a teenage girl who has gone missing for months, he isn't doing it out of vengeance. He's looking to find the girl and bring her home. You have it the other way around. Criminals take a beating from The Batman when they stand in his way.

C) Even though he's initially motivated by revenge, it's really justice that Batman is looking for. That's why he doesn't kill. With that stated, Batman certainly does take out his anger and resentment on criminals, but that's not what drives him.

D) Like I state above, individuals with dangerous abilities cannot go unchecked. In taking precautions with members of the league, Batman isn't being paranoid. Things can happen. Characters can go rogue or be manipulated and you can't take chances with the supernatural. Why doesn't that make any sense to you? Batman simply prepares for everything, because someone has to.

Why do I feel that I've said too much? Oh.. because I did. =)

"I think it is significant that he trained initially to come back and hunt down and kill Joe Chill but Chill is already dead"

Sara,

You got this totally wrong.

In BB, when Bruce returns from Princeton, he intends to murder Joe Chill, but Falcone (by way of an assassin) gets to Chill first. Bruce confronts Falcone and the mobster pretty much tells him that he a rich boy with the world at his feet can never understand the criminal world and will always fear it! So Bruce abandons his old life and worldly possessions to travel the world in the hope he will learn things a pampered rich boy never could. It is here that the training begins, not necessarily with Ducard mind you.

If there is something I don't like about the Nolan films, it's that we don't get to see Batman protecting the "little people" in his city, even though I know it is implied.

That's something I always loved about the character. The notion that when most people are turning in for the night or snuggling up with a loved one, some poor guy feels compelled (every damn night) to suit up and watch over his city in an effort to prevent muggings, slayings and rapes. He doesn't just focus on the larger than life threats and it's a side of Batman that has never been shown on the big screen.

"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."
George Orwell

That's Batman in a nutshell for me.

John,
Well, thank god we can sleep in our beds at night because rough men stand ready to do "violence" on our behalf. Makes me sleep real well.
I do understand why you like Batman. Some of the reasons you like Batman might be why I've always liked Zorro (whose parents--attacked in front of him, I think.) I also (and could be wrong) think in some versions it was the movie, The Mark of Zorro, that the Wayne family had seen that fateful night when Bruce's parents were killed. And Zorro goes with zest at those he considers corrupt--more at them, then at saving anyone, although, yes, he does save in the process (as Batman does.)
I like Batman better than Superman. Why do you think Bizzaro Superman had to be invented (as I understand it)? Because Superman was "too" good. So, not trying to take your Batman from you at all. I just think he is more motivated by revenge than you do. As I think Zorro is also and that's OK with me. Also there have been various makeovers for Batman and we can get tangled up in that (as Jolly commented on.)
The origin story is critical and stays pretty much the same. Batman witnesses the worst thing a kid can witness. Awful (as the original creators seemed to get clearly.) You are correct, I made an error...Batman did not go off and learn the skills to then kill Joe Chill (Batman Begins) but he did go away (school) with the intent to come back and kill Joe Chill. As I understand it, in connection with the origin story (way back--30's) Batman was out for the criminals and wasn't opposed to killing. That was then, though, and revisions occur.
I see him as a tragic character. Again--variations. I don't know nearly the amount that you and Jolly know. What I know comes from the movies (most all of them) and from the comics I read before my son would read some of the darker ones so I'd know (as a responsible parent) what he was reading. He saw TDK before I did (he's grown now) and initially told me to avoid it. That was his review. Not because he didn't think I couldn't deal with it, but because he didn't care for it himself, I think (similar to Jolly.)I saw it though.

I suspect that the exposure of children to adult-themed films has been an ongoing problem for some time now.

Why do I say this?

Memories.

I remember attending grade school back in the early 1970s and feeling embarrassed as hell because most of my classmates were bragging about having seen The Godfather--and I think we can all agree The Godfather is hardly an appropriate film for grade-school-age children--and Raquel Welch movies and the only movie I had ever seen at that point was >i>101 Dalmations.

Bear in mind that all this took place in a small town in a conservative state (Texas) back when the concept of R-movies was still a relatively new thing.

The thing I took away from that: when I did finally get a chance to see movies on my own, I'd make a deliberate effort to seek out the "grown-up" stuff. Yet when I had a chance to go see The Jungle Book--a movie I had desperately wanted to see when I was a little kid--I chose not because by then I was a teenager--and thus too "sophisticated" to settle for a mere Disney film.

I'm not sure how applicable this is to the main subject but looking back on all that, I can't help but wonder if Sara has a point about peer pressure encouraging children to see movies they really aren't ready for.

And yet, like MaryAnn, I don't necessarily want to live in a world in which the only thing available at the metroplex is the cinematic equivalent of Barney or Clifford the Big Red Dog just because all too many parents choose to exercise bad judgment in raising their children.

Tonio,
Well, good for you. 101 Dalmatians is scary enough for a grade school kid, but I understand your point about feeling out of the loop. That's how my nephew is feeling right now re: TDK, but too bad and that's all OK. Even if he sees it later on a DVD at a friend's he'll remember that his dad said it wasn't appropriate, etc., and that has it's positive effect.
Seems to me there are a lot of good kids' movies. One that comes to mind is The Water Horse. It's a "family movie." TDK isn't, as most on this thread have agreed, but that the studio and Nolan did NOT agree and marketed it for families/kids presents a problem. Obviously, we can't solve it for everyone, but as a society we do function "as a village" and we're all responsible to some degree for each other (I think.)
The bottom line to me is that the Batman series has been given over to families for decades (and kids)...if that is going to change, I think a shift should show the change and that would be to rate it R and not market it to families and kids--to make it clear that this is something different (not the other way around)...BEGINNING from the first movie in the trilogy. Still, Batman is tricky. It's like making a movie about Superman that kids really shouldn't see. Good luck with that. Doesn't mean we have to dumb down anything. Just means certain things have been already deemed for families and that's hard to change, I think. And if you do, I think it's fair that everyone is alerted to the point that's you can't miss it.
Too bad you turned down the Jungle Book. My son and friends who went to see TDK (and didn't think it deserved the high praise it got--thought it was hype and they didn't care for the movie)...watched (several nights later) on DVD...The Water Horse and loved it. (22 year olds.)They pretty much don't care what others think though. Or the peer pressure within their group leans more toward the positive (or independent) rather than the other way.

Sara,

Thanks for your post. Seems like I misconstrued some of what you were trying to convey in your critique on Batman, but it was mainly your statement, "Batman's main motivation is to get the criminals (it just so happens that this helps victims or would-be victims in the process)" that I take issue with it. On the contrary, I do agree that Batman isn't quite as good natured as is Superman, but he isn't just out there on the streets at night looking for a fight - he's trying to stop violent crimes before they happen. He couldn't prevent the murder of his own parents and is obsessed with taking every possible caution in safeguarding Gotham, if not the world entire.

Some time ago, comics' first Green Lantern reportedly snapped and went rogue subsequent to learning of his hometown's destruction at the hands of criminals. FYI, Lantern is a boyscout, much in in same vein as Superman, but his grief was so unbearable that he just lost his mind. As a result, he misused his special abilities becoming a mass murderer. Now, although Lantern was partially influenced by another entity, that doesn't erase what he did. The entity only tapped into feelings of agression within him that were already there. That's one of the reasons Batman has to keep an eye on his otherworldly allies from time to time. "With great power comes great responsibility."

And there's nothing wrong with you and I having different views of The Batman. That pretty much demonstrates what I briefly mentioned before about the various ways in which so many people interpret the character. He's arguably the most complex and enduring hero of them all.

On a side note, do you really think an R rated Batman film is a good idea, especially when it could expose children to graphic content far more intense than anything you saw in Dark Knight? Reference my post to MaryAnn for more info.

John,
I've said (along with Jolly) that I think it would be very difficult to make an R movie of Batman (or Superman or Spiderman) in our culture and not have kids fighting to see it. Simply because those three belong to "everyone." That was one reason I was appalled by TDK, the rating, and the audience I saw it with. I don't think it was a families and kids as Nolan says it is. He made it (and the studio made it) with families and kids in mind, they say (and I think this is a financial objective.) That repells me (in particular.) I felt like (with the movie) that Nolan tried to straddle the fence too much.

To me, the movie should have been R (all it lacked was an F word or something. Put a few in there and it's R)...that's all it would take. AT least that would alert many parents to the fact that it IS not the typical Batman fare. As I mentioned, my brother who is a very responsible father, but also a very busy man right now, watched Batman Begins with his son (elementary age) and they eagerly awaited the next movie. My brother started hearing stuff about the movie (while his son was at camp, otherwise, they would have walked into this movie and I can guarantee you, they would have walked out and it would have been a mess) and my brother and his wife went to see it, just the two of them. And they noted the number of kids (and families in the theatre. They were appalled (and my brother is a psychiatrist so he has that going for him; he is not a prude though.) He LOVES Batman but saw the movie as Jolly did (and as I did)--not worthy of the praise it's gotten--and dodging the R rating but deserving it for on-screen really vicious sadism alone. Kids were laughing at some of those parts (parts where you would not laugh.) Same thing happened when I saw the movie in a theatre in another city. Kids laughing at parts that you or I wouldn't laugh at.

A truly "R" Batman could be made but it would have to be marketed VERY differently and would have to deal with issues, language, scenes that would not interest children. It would go over their heads and this could be done. It was done with V for Vendetta. Most kids that saw that movie had trouble with it (I mean with getting into it, with following it, etc.) They didn't like it. The ones who saw it. Many had zero interest in seeing it.

As it stands, the movie (TDK) while, no it doesn't "show" blood but one need not to be horrible, mean and sadistic...sick---is, I don't think appropriate for "families and kids" yet that market was targeted and helped propel the movie to the place it stands. Unfair, I say. Unfair marketing, as has been discussed on this site. And can't help but be a comment on our culture in and of itself.
If Batman is truly written and filmed as Batman IS (even in the variety of materials) I think it would be R to start with. How he became "for kids" is unclear to me. On the otherhand, I can see why kids (because I was ) was drawn to Zorro (and he IS about getting at the corruption above helping people. I mean,yes, he wants to help people--he would say that if you could ask him, as would Batman--but I think if you could get to the deepest place inside them, they are more driven by controlled revenge (which is fine, it's just difficult psychologically) to route out the corruption. Zorro is less brooding than Batman and has fun with this on some level so he uses much more humor (a good defense mechanism.) He leaves Z's on things, people, clothing, etc. He galvanizes the people against corruption in a more effective way, I think.

Much is said in our culture by the fact that little kids routinely sleep in PJs of Superman, Batman and Spiderman. Not V, not IronMan, not any of the Watchmen, maybe some of the X-men but nothing compared to the three I mentioned. As a culture, I think we need to pay attention to that and to messages we send via movies about those three legendary "family figures" (in the popular culture.) ESPECIALLY if movies are marketed at those very kids. And it was. That's enough really (had I realized it more clearly) to keep me away from the movie. I know others feel differently, but I don't. We do live in a village and the lines can be more clearly drawn between adult films and others. As we well know. Doesn't mean that all films would then be "kids'" films. That's absurd. Nor does it mean that "all films" must be for adults only. There is plenty of talent and story to go around.

Sara,

As you've apparently chosen not to acknowledge some of the more notable points I've made regarding the violent scenes in this film, I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree on the score. And if I have been guilty of the same, know that it was not my intention to overlook anything you might have suggested in prior responses.

As far as the character goes, I feel that although vengeance initially drove Bruce Wayne into doing what he does, he has certainly moved beyond that. He represents something so much bigger than the common vigilante. Unlike The Punisher or Charles Bronson's Paul Kersey, Batman is innately good spirited and self-less. As much as his mission is terribly important to him, so too is the sanctity of all life (and I'm stressing on what Batman means today, not so much the 1940s). Here is a character having no superhuman abilities, who is willing to put his life and sacred mission on the line in traveling to another planet (a taxing endeavor for a norman man, mind you) for the sole purpose of tracking down and rescuing an ally (i.e., Superman), who has fallen into the hands of supernatural entities capable of breaking every bone in an average person's body with something less than the flick of a finger. My point is that in psychologically examining someone (in this case, a fictional someone), you have to really look at every aspect of what he/she does and I just think Batman is a bit complicated and not so easily defined or placed in a certain category. The demons are definitely there, but the overwhelming desire to help people is just as strong, in my humble opinion.

John,

For me, Batman is an unusual character (at least by Marvel comics standards), because he really *is* the Batman. He is so committed to his mission that his "secret identity" is nothing more than a calculated pose. His childhood loss completely consumed him. I agree that his motives transcend simple vengeance.

I don't recall Bruce expressing angst over the burden of being Batman in the comics. As you say, he is selfless in his actions. This is why I object to Nolan portraying Batman as a reluctant hero eager to hand the burden over to Harvey Dent. It's completely at odds with the character.

John,
I thought I did address the points you made re: the violence in the movie (I'm thinking you mean that the violence cuts away right where it would be a gory shot. Is this what you mean?) I've said (and others have too) that the implied violence can be as bad as showing the blood, etc. Sadistic violence need not show gore. It can imply it and especially young imaginations (young teenagers and a bit younger) will fill in that cut off scene in their own minds in often even more graphic ways. But perhaps that's not what you're referring to...not sure.
You might be referring to motivation. I do think with the Batman that the motivation is for getting the criminals first and foremost. Good things can follow from that and yes, he cares deeply for Gotham City but Gotham City (I think) stands for his parents to him and what happened to them. So I see it as altruism that is driven, though, by an egocentric desire to get the criminals. So, yes, that no one will suffer as HE did. It's about him on some level. I'd say the same for Zorro. Does not mean that there is not a concern for people. That's been played up bigtime with the movies/shows for kids--the altruistic theme and part of the quaqmire that I think has been created.

I just see the Batman as a darker figure than I guess you do. My point about the Punisher was that IF Rachel meant so much to Bruce Wayne/Batman and IF a person had been through what he'd been through with his parents, then I think (and I'm using my own imagination here) that if he truly cared for Rachel so very very much that her exploding death would be enough to do him in. Make him more like the Punisher, perhaps. But, perhaps his training and insight is that great, and he pulls back. Although the blows to the Joker in the interrogation scene would have killed the Joker, I think. The rage there and the blows, the slams into the wall, etc, etc. was just enormous. Would have killed a person.
One thing no one's said (at least not that I'm aware of) is that Batman in his choice of clothing (again, similar to Zorro) chooses the color black (the other superheroes don't typically)...he chooses to look very frightening--even dressing as what frightens HIM the most. All that is significant to me when looking at the character.
Wonder too about Jolly's point re: handing over the burden to Dent. I don't see that happening either.

John,
My son is visiting and he and I were just talking about this...he's looking for his comics now. His take that I'm passing on (and I agree with) is that origin stories always seem critical and Nolan's Batman Begins focuses a lot on Batman's origin story.Plus the origin story has stayed the same throughout most of the variations throughtout the years.
As was just said to me..."If Batman had not seen his parents murdered by Joe Chill, he would never have been Batman. There's no way it would have happened. That's his defining moment and look what that kind of violence does to a kid. Superman would have still been Superman--didn't see his parents murdered in front of him. Wonder Woman would have come to the League to fight injustice. Peter Parker wouldn't have been Spiderman if he hadn't been bitten by the spider...and the fact that his uncle gets killed is horrific to him because he blames himself. Batman doesn't blame himself, though, he blames Joe Chill--he blames criminals." Seems of interest and significance in trying to understand the character. Perhaps?

Jolly said, "I don't recall Bruce expressing angst over the burden of being Batman in the comics. As you say, he is selfless in his actions. This is why I object to Nolan portraying Batman as a reluctant hero eager to hand the burden over to Harvey Dent. It's completely at odds with the character."

Jolly,

I also had a problem with this, but feel that Nolan and Bale were trying to portray their version of Batman as being more susceptible to basic human needs. A lot of people (Nolan included) like to say that anyone can become Batman, but this is simply not true, in my opinion. Bruce Wayne (as depicted in the comics) is a prodigy of sorts and meant to be the epitome of human perfection in every possible way. Nolan's Batman is also gifted, but not quite the prodigy that comic readers have come to know throughout the years. As such, I don't really take issue with Wayne's struggle to relinquish the role of Gotham's "silent guardian" in TDK. Also, much of this comes from his desire to be with Rachel. Have you ever watched Mask of The Phantasm? Same deal here. In Phantasm, a young Wayne briefly flirts with the idea of giving up his mission, all for the sake of one Andrea Beaumont. Fate intervenes, however, just as it does in The Dark Knight, when Bruce lets Harvey "take the fall" for him in a plot to trap The Joker. That's why Rachel decides to leave him, because she knows in her heart that Batman is the true Bruce Wayne now and nothing will likely ever change this. With that stated, TDK is a comics to film adaptation and with movies and even toons, you're always going to find inconsistencies with the source material.

On a side note, I do believe that Batman (as seen in the comics) does not want to do what he does forever, although he never whines about it.

Towards the end of Brian Azzarello's Broken City, Batman thinks to himself, "Someday I won't have to do this anymore because someday I would win. Someday, there will be no more LOSS, no more PAIN, no more CRIME... because of me.. because I fight... FOR YOU... for your sakes, I PRAY THAT DAY IS TOMORROW." That's not a word for word quote, but I don't remember the rest of it.

Jolly,

Here is the full Batman quote as taken from Brian Azzarello's Broken City, Batman #625.

For all those who read it, enjoy. =)

"The rain seemed to be letting up, coming down in dribbles and shakes--meaning God was done with Gotham.

I appreciated that His timing couldn't have been worse for me, but I felt lucky to find a broken gutter, so I could hide the stream running down my face.

And as the Sun that had been too afraid to show it's face in this city, started to turn the black into grey, I smiled.

Not out of happiness, but because I knew..

THAT ONE DAY, I wouldn't have to do this anymore.

One day I could stop fighting, because one day..

I WOULD WIN, one day there will be no pain, no loss..

...NO CRIME

Because of me, because I fight. For you.

One day I will win.

I hope, for your sake, that day is tomorrow."

Sara,

I think children need something to grasp onto before their imagination takes flight. Like I state above, most of the TDK's violent scenes don't go heavily into the suffering Joker's victims experience. Likewise, if you actually HEARD Lau or Gamble scream during their ordeal, I think that would be a lot more disturbing. Remember the scene from Last of The Mohicans where the blond guy is burned alive? I'll never forget the way I felt hearing his cries of anguish. It was awful. Had they just alluded to what was going to happen to him, it wouldn't have bothered me nearly as much.

It should also be noted that suggestion is very strong in MOST PG-13 movies. They can't "show" overly sexual or violent content, but they usually come pretty darn close!! When I was a kid and first saw Who Framed Roger Robbit I was more than surprised at the level of sexual innuendo in this PG rated film, but there was no outrage over that! So why all the hostility over Dark Knight? Kids 13 and up are pretty mature and often read the darker comics and graphic novels. Food for thought.

And I never said that Batman's motivations were not INITIALLY inspired by revenge, but my point is that he moved beyond that. Wayne perfected his mind and body, counseled with some of the world's greatest teachers around the world, fusing all that he learned into something uniquely his own. He didn't just pick up a gun and start shooting down criminals in the street like Frank Castle AKA The Punisher. I personally believe that human beings (and I know this is a fictional character we're discussing here) have the ability to evolve and better themselves. Bruce Wayne may have started out the way you see him, but he's evolved into so much more. Do you realize how deeply you're analyzing this character's motives Sara? Maybe it's the psychology book talking and not you? I mean we could do the same with just about any character if we tried hard enough. Maybe Superman feels a need to help people because he felt like an outcast growing up, as a result of his alien origins. Perhaps he felt compelled to become a larger than life hero because deep down he views himself as a freak. Then you could say it's "about him on some level" right? So Batman doesn't want people to suffer in the same way HE did as a child and you view that as selfish?? I think if people were more like that in real life, the world would be a better place. Let me tell you something Sara. Everything is about US on some level. These other characters you believe to be more genuinely altruistic or closer to perfection are actually notthing of the kind! Noone is perfect. Everyone does something for a reason, but that doesn't make us less good at heart. It simply makes us human. You say that "Superman would still have been Superman" regardless of the events that shaped his life. Not true. What if he was raised by Lex Luthor's dad instead of the Kents and instilled with Luthor values? Sure, you could say that he might still grow up to be a good character, but you honestly don't know for sure.

I'll leave you with an Alan Grant quote, until next time. Be well.

"He (Batman) is perhaps the only genuine hero amongst them. People say Batman is this dark, vengeance-driven, obsessed character but that's not Batman to my eyes. That's just the fuel which drives Batman. The trauma of his parents' death is what motivates him and forces him to go on, but what makes him Batman is a decision. He took a decision to be a good guy, which is a decision in life not too many people make. He is a self made character. He didn't get superpowers, he's not a cyborg, he made a choice to be what he is. He is motivated by the terrible thing that happened to him when he was a kid, but that's not the thing that defines his character. What defines his character is the decision to do something."

Sara,

You'll likely be unhappy to learn what direction WB is planning to go with regarding other DC comic to film adaptations in the very near future. Read on for the latest news.

"By 2011, Mr. Robinov plans for DC Comics to supply the material for up to two of the six to eight tent-pole films he hopes Warner Bros. will have in the pipeline by then," it says. Those projects will likely be about single characters at first, and will be darker much like The Dark Knight:

With "Batman vs. Superman" and "Justice League" stalled, Warner Bros. has quietly adopted Marvel's model of releasing a single film for each character, and then using those movies and their sequels to build up to a multicharacter film. "Along those lines, we have been developing every DC character that we own," Mr. Robinov says.

Like the recent Batman sequel -- which has become the highest-grossing film of the year thus far -- Mr. Robinov wants his next pack of superhero movies to be bathed in the same brooding tone as "The Dark Knight." Creatively, he sees exploring the evil side to characters as the key to unlocking some of Warner Bros.' DC properties. "We're going to try to go dark to the extent that the characters allow it," he says. That goes for the company's Superman franchise as well.

The studio is set to announce its plans for future DC movies in the next month. For now, though, it is focused on releasing four comic-book films in the next three years, including a third Batman film, a new film reintroducing Superman, and two movies focusing on other DC Comics characters. Movies featuring Green Lantern, Flash, Green Arrow, and Wonder Woman are all in active development.

John,
It doesn't surprise me that the other characters are being developed for movies. Especially after the success of the Batman movies.
You mention the analyzation of the characters (and many have analyzed them over the years)...looking at origin stories, motivation, that sort of thing and why I'd do that in particular. Why would I do that? It's in the texts first of all, and secondly, for me, I'm trained in child/adolescent psychiatry, my son does psychological research and my brother is a psychiatrist. So, we do tend to think analytically--not all the time, but a lot of the time and it can make things all the more interesting. Sometimes on target, sometimes not. (BTW, my brother is the one who is NOT taking his 11 year old to TDK--but they watched Batman Begins together, in part, BECA
USE of his knowledge)...because he very well does understand the psychology involved for an 11 year old in that instance--wish that more parents would think along these lines.

You and I disagree re: how violence is displayed (what's shown and what isn't and the effects.) I don't think it has to be "seen" to be horrible. And, yes, I'm aware of other PG13 movies and how they can sometimes approach R. None have swept the box office though as TDK has.
But for me I'd say MaryAnn's review itself is smartly analytical (from the viewpoint of: our times and the movie). I'd say my look into the characters and what goes on with them is going to have an analytical cast to it, which can make it more interesting (at least to me). As long as it's in line with the texts, then what is the problem with that? It involves thinking and feeling for the character and situation--something that seems to be a good thing for the most part.
What my son meant in his comments to me was that Superman would have had his powers (and had to decide what to do with them) regardless of anything...since he ended up on Earth, etc. If he'd ended up anywhere else, he'd still have had his powers. If Batman's parents had never been killed (and in front of him too) then he wouldn't have been Batman...I think if his parents had never been attacked, had lived and lived well and Bruce had anywhere near a normal upbringing that he would have gone on to work at Wayne Enterprises. No Batman.

Superman, regardless of what he did, or who raised him (yes, the outcomes could, for sure be affected) would still have his superpowers and still have to decide what to do with them. So, yes, Batman IS different. You and I see his motivations as different. I see the main motivation as getting the criminals and that in effect, helps the citizens. It ends up being altruistic which is what you like so much in Batman, so we agree on that part (the altruism that is there.) I just think the Joker (in TDK) in the interrogation scene--would have not had a Joker who kept talking--it would have had a very dead Joker. Or at the very least a severely head-injured Joker.

Sara,

It seems like you're blatantly ignoring the fact that I focus (time and again) on the psychological effects of not just seeing, but HEARING what is going on during a violent scene that may or may not involve torture on some level. Do you remember the scene from TDK in which Lau is seated atop an enormous pile of cash the Joker sets ablaze? Do you recall hearing any cries of anguish or protest during Lau's ordeal? Nope. Hell, I'd wager that many kids don't even remember what happened to the guy.

"What my son meant in his comments to me was that Superman would have had his powers (and had to decide what to do with them) regardless of anything...since he ended up on Earth, etc. If he'd ended up anywhere else, he'd still have had his powers."

I agree with that statement to a point. You should know, however, that Superman derives his powers from Earth's yellow sun. On his own planet or "anywhere else" other than our solar system, Superman wouldn't be very "super" at all; just an average person.

"You and I see his motivations as different. I see the main motivation as getting the criminals and that in effect, helps the citizens. It ends up being altruistic which is what you like so much in Batman, so we agree on that part (the altruism that is there.)"

We actually disagree on that quite a bit to be frank. I believe that Batman wants to get at the criminals while helping Gotham's citizens SIMULTANEOUSLY, whereas, you feel that he just wants to eliminate corruption. In your view, anything good that comes as a result of that is unintentional. And in my opinion, that is not very altruistic at all. Bruce Wayne's father was one of the wealthiest men in Gotham and yet he worked many late nights in the hospital to save any life he could, even though he was obviously financially stable. His mother Martha contributed to many charitable causes and sought to help underprivileged children in some of Gotham's worst slums. These were good people at heart. Oh and incidentally, this stuff is from the comics, as opposed to what movies and toons "play up" to. Likewise, when Batman risks his life in taking a bullet for a thug who has been targeted by another criminal (as seen in the Fugitive storyline), he reflects on how these values come from his father, who deeply believed in the sanctity of all life.

Batman IS different in contrast to most of the other characters, but he isn't less altruistic even though his mission was initially motivated by revenge. It's not just about that anymore; he's evolved. If Bruce Wayne's parents weren't murdered before his eyes, he would not have ended up becoming Batman, but I'm sure he would still be out there trying to help people.

Batman doesn't want people to suffer in the way that he did and yes, that makes it "about him on some level", but does it make his intentions any less noble? Superman's home planet was destroyed and he'll be damned before he lets his adopted world suffer the same fate. So it's about him on some level, as well! Doesn't everyone have some kind of of ulterior motive or agenda to a degree Sara?

Sara,

To me, Bruce Wayne is a good natured character and this affects the way he goes about his crusade, regardless of the initial motivation. If we were to take a less altruistic type (e.g., Frank Castle, John Paul Valley) and put him in Bruce Wayne's eight year old shoes, it's a very different Batman that we would be seeing, in my opinion. A Batman much less concerned with human casualties, as long as he gets to the root of corruption. Fortunately, Bruce Wayne represents more than that.. at least in my eyes.

John,
I think you make great points, I do...and I haven't mean to imply that you haven't. Yes, Bruce Wayne's parents' own altruism would have an effect on him (I'd think) even if he didn't become Batman. We hope he'd be doing some great things for Gotham City if all had gone well in his life. My thoughts re: the origin story of Batman come from the realization that the very worst thing (my opinion) is for a kid to have a parent die before they are seven years old. Even worse would be to be murdered in front of your kid. That's where I'm coming from on that. The rage/fear/horror that that would engender that would stay with you pretty much forever would be set (not that it couldn't be dealt with in various ways, as Batman Begins shows, for example) but it doesn't go away. It's always there in the mind.

I see what you mean by the example of the Lau's ordeal. It was confusing to me at first who the heck was up there. That is one complaint I'd actually have about the movie. And, no, I didn't like to see Batman pummel the hell out of the Joker in the interrogation room and the Joker sheds no blood. Looks like that kind of violence "doesn't hurt." What does that teach kids? Just my thoughts on that, as you probably already know.

The book I mentioned (which was fascinating to me, but no I didn't read it as the "truth" on these characters--just very interesting thoughts backed up with references to various comics, etc.)...it is written by various psychologists, who like you, know way more than I do about the characters and who have read the comics through and through (that's why I mentioned it--it's intriquing but the views they present are not set in stone remotely.) I recall one argument in the book re: WHERE a person is raised (which is exactly what you're commenting on)...how Superman lands in this midwest farm close-knit community and how that affects him. What if he'd landed in a large urban area? (Questions asked in the book and the author of that particular essay said, in his opinion--you'd get a Superman who looked more like Batman only with superpowers. How that would play out...who knows? But it's an interesting thing to think about and you point that out. I agree with you.)(And yes, as you point out, Superman to be Superman needs to have a sun--would need that wherever it would be.)

And I did say that I truly do LIKE Batman better than Superman. I like Zorro better than either of them. Personal preference and sure, for my own reasons, as you point out--the stories that resonate with us, for whatever reason, do have to do with our own selves. I know clearly why Zorro resonates with me and why at age 6 I had a Zorro outfit and jumped around on the furniture in our house with my cape and mask and plastic sword, making Zs in the air, for the swashbuckling sound effect. I liked Zorro more than Wonder Woman, even though, I now see how the writers' (many of them) struggled with Wonder Woman and didn't really know what to do with her (and I understand that now, too--and why they had such difficulty.) I'm afraid for how she will next appear. But that's getting off-topic.

You can see Bruce Wayne/Batman as a good-natured character and I can see him as much darker than that (which is fine by me) and I think both views have their own merits and are OK. I think we're more in agreement than not. It's the degree here and there that is the issue I suppose. The only thing I see that we really disagree about is the violence in TDK and you're thinking that as long as it's not seen and heard then it's less violent and I don't necessarily think that at all. Otherwise, I think we're both pretty much on the same page.

Finally got around to seeing this. My initial complaints were fairly simple--way too long, way too loud. (Which are the main two reasons I'd keep a child away from this movie, rather than the violence--I mean, if a guy getting his heart ripped out of his chest back in the 80s invented the PG-13 rating in the first place, the rest might as well be silence.)

What bothered me more about the movie upon reflection is its conservative, even reactionary, point of view. I've read nearly all the novel-length posts on this thread, and NO ONE mentions THE PATRIOT ACT. Batman violates everyone's civil rights en masse to trace the Joker's calls. And it's the right thing to do because that's how you deal with the Joker (or, a terrorist). Like, wow, I thought, did nobody pick up on this? I had to google "The Dark Knight" and "the Patriot Act" to reassure myself that yes, some people, fans and non-fans of the movie, made that connection. And admittedly, one could argue, as some fans do, that Batman returns to his core ethics once he finds the Joker again (as shown by the self-destruction of the tracking device). But there's something deeper at the end that places the film firmly in the Bush-apologist camp, which is the film's ultimate message--the public MUST be lied to for its own good, in order for it to believe in goodness and to support what is really heroic. (Translation: of course we had to believe in weapons of mass destruction to get the war going, because the war was ultimately Good.) If McCain's smart, he'll spend the next few months wearing a bat-suit.

Hundreds upon hundreds of millions at the box-office, fueled by enthusiastic repeat viewings. As of now, we still have the freedom to choose our own heroes. And we've chosen Batman. I guess we deserve him.

snoop,

I was bothered by the ending as well, although I'm not sure that I share your interpretation. Batman lies, but in the process he is choosing the rule of law over "ends justify the means" vigilantism. He sacrifices public support and truly becomes an outlaw (and, by extension, his methods cease to be heroic as well).

...the problem with what I've just written is that Batman continues to be heroic to the audience. His fall from grace is only for the fictitious people of Gotham City.

Snoop,
As I recall, MJ addressed some of your points in her review and especially in places on this thread (re: use of torture, etc.) I think that has been mentioned and discussed on this thread.

I do agree with you that the movie was way too long and way too loud (and I'd add crammed full of one scene with another before the preceding one had been comprehended)...I, too, though, did see Batman violate everyone's civil rights to trace the Joker's calls. And I've said enough about the interrogation scene (that would have killed or grossly maimed the Joker) and that only led to disaster anyway...we don't know that about torture?

But, yes, you're right, I think and I haven't brought this up--that the public has to be kept in the dark at the end. Or perhaps I did bring it up (wasn't a popular view.) As an adult (and if I considered this movie an "adult" movie) that alone would turn me away.

Batman would (I think) fall under the benevolent dictator who is exiled for the people's own good in deception of what really happened. All of that I found bothersome--especially in the times we live in. But by that time, I was really ready to get out of the theatre--but I didn't miss that part. I stayed with the movie and it IS critical in terms of popular culture and the impact on this culture and also what it reflects of that culture.

Jolly, not sure what your comment means as I didn't see where you'd written lately. But I'd say that the fictitious people of Gotham City are people we are to identify with--and even more so because we see the whole picture. As snoop says, the sheltering of the people, somehow thinking that is for the common good is an issue that is hard to square unless one does hold the view that the people are unfit to govern themselves.

@Jolly and Sara,

Thanks for the response--although, please, guys, it's "shoop," not "snoop."
Jolly--
I understand your interpretation, but I think as you admit in your second post, Batman is the audience's hero, if not the hero of fictional Gotham. And, I think, years from now, IF we're still talking about "The Dark Knight" as a popcorn masterpiece, I believe the "rule of law" explanation for Batman's final actions could hold water. BUT, timing trumps artistic intentions. At the end of two presidential terms filled with lying to the general public (as, I guess, about 70% of us have figured out, according to polls), we have a colorful comic book hero who says that yes, you gotta lie to the public so they can believe that there is goodness and honor in their leadership--which is right in line with the philosophy of Bush, Cheney, Rove, et al. (Lying for the greater good also extends to Alfred's withholding some vital information from Bruce Wayne.) @Sara, yes, MA talks about "extralegal adventures," but that covers EVERYTHING about the Batman--as MA notes, he's extralegal by definition. What I'm referring to is a very specific invasion of human privacy on a mass scale--so specific and so out there that even the Morgan Freeman character will quit after helping Batman do it. The fact that the tracking device is destroyed immediately afterward, and Freeman's patented wise-old-man-everything's-ok grin, tell us that what Batman did was right. And in the context of the movie, IT WAS RIGHT. But what I'm missing from people who've seen the movie is that "hey, wait a minute" moment--the one that says, wait, that's a perfect example of the Patriot Act in action. Does that mean the moviemakers support such an act? And maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. But it's there, clearly, and again, at this particular time in history.

shoop,

Here's a review I came across that offers an inter