The more I read about it, the more I realize that The Dark Knight’s legacy is unsettlingly complicated. 18 years have given us plenty of time to stew in all its implications: what it is as a comic book movie, what it is as a political allegory, whether it actually helped improve the Academy Awards, and more. “Batman isn’t a comic book anymore,” says Roger Ebert in his review published in 2008. A disconcerting contrast is that Red of Overly Sarcastic Productions (my favorite YouTube channel) has criticized the trilogy as “embarrassed to be superhero movies.”
For better and (more often) for worse, the industry was changed in 2008 by the consecutive releases of The Dark Knight and Iron Man. There is little I can say about The Dark Knight that has not already been said, covering all the reasons why moviegoers were up in arms when it was not nominated for Best Picture. The backlash threw the Academy into a moment of existential terror and is credited with the expansion to 10 nominees the following year.
The Dark Knight also hit theaters just as the Bush era was coming to an end. The most forgiving, concise summary I can offer on this front is that The Dark Knight wasn’t an earnest exploration of the geopolitical or economic landscape, but an outlet for collective anxiety about terrorism that delves into what we hope are people’s core values in the face of straightforward fear. In this regard, The Dark Knight is actually one of the less grounded superhero entries, when its ethos lies in lofty ideological warfare rather than translating the nuances of our real circumstances into the world of Gotham.
The Dark Knight picks up one year after the events of Nolan’s Batman Begins. Bruce Wayne’s vigilante quest has partially had its intended effect: Gotham’s organized crime leaders are uneasy, while the new district attorney, Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart, giving a charming yet purposefully edgy performance), is spearheading the effort to reform the deeply corrupted judicial system. The Joker (the unspeakably legendary performance by Heath Ledger) comes onto the scene with no backstory, no real goals besides causing chaos, acting as the primordial embodiment of evil.
Thus, The Dark Knight is anchored in the duality of good vs. evil, order vs. chaos, or The Joker’s dogma of destruction weighed against Batman’s belief in the inherent goodness of people. This film is full of dualities: Everybody also vividly remembers the White Knight vs. Dark Knight, the former being the title cast upon Harvey. As DA, he can be Gotham’s golden boy and imprison criminals through lawful channels, in contrast to Batman’s ethically dubious vigilante methods. There is also the Batman vs. Bruce Wayne paradigm, the choice to save Harvey or his fiancée (and Bruce’s situationship) Rachel (Maggie Gyllenhaal), and basically everything about Two-Face.
But what’s even more fascinating about The Dark Knight’s philosophical conflicts is the several triumvirates that throw the duos just slightly off-balance, because nothing is ever simple. We have Batman, Harvey, and James Gordon (Gary Oldman) working in tandem, all representing a different arm of crime-fighting but ultimately all willing to break rules and go to dark places. Worth noting is the love triangle of Rachel, Harvey, and Bruce. But most crucially, there’s the triangle of Harvey, Batman, and The Joker. One is pure evil, and one is classically heroic, but Harvey’s idealism is why he can’t reconcile his worldview with a world where Rachel is killed, and it pushes him over the edge. Batman, existing between the two, can accept the harsh realities The Joker speaks of, but still fight for goodness.
Some random thoughts I had while rewatching:
(1) Gordon calls in the police to form a perimeter around the building when Harvey kidnaps his family, but doesn’t tell them exactly what was going on — they probably would have seen Batman entering and/or leaving, The Joker was on the other side of town, and Harvey was the only other potential culprit there. Is this partially the answer to the ever-mocked question of why Batman even had to take the fall for Harvey’s crimes?
(2) The two plot beats most relevant to the political moment are the interrogation and sonar surveillance, and neither really does justice to the issue. Namely, when Bruce hacks all the cellphones in Gotham, he explicitly only uses this to find and capture The Joker. Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman) then destroys the whole system after a hypocritical resignation threat (you know, when he’s been developing all this advanced weaponry for the Waynes for years).
(3) A moment to appreciate cinematographer Wally Pfister’s sweeping cityscape shots with clown-masked assailants ziplining or Batman standing against the skyline, instilling a perfect sense of awe. Shaky-cam work also comes in at really effective times, and the technique of circling characters in conversation excellently heightens tension (with Harvey, Batman, and Gordon) or fear (with The Joker and Rachel).
Other critics have accurately argued that The Dark Knight isn’t really a comic book movie. Rather, it is a dark crime epic that leverages established, iconic characters as personifications for dueling ideals. Does it actually have to be a Batman movie? I think so. There was a similar discussion surrounding Andor and whether it needed to be set in the Star Wars universe, but it can be very effective to use IP in this manner to force you to consider something crucial about the world-building.
The Odyssey is only the second time in Nolan’s career he is attempting anything remotely close to the Dark Knight trilogy in adapting widely-known characters (barring historical “characters” like Oppenheimer). At the time of writing, I am seeing The Odyssey this evening (on the day I am sending this article to my editor). Reviews are glowing, but I will be looking for whether Nolan is again only using names like “Odysseus” and “Athena” to tell a much more abstract story.
The Dark Knight
2008
dir. Christopher Nolan
152 min.
Screens Wednesday, 7/22, 7:00 @ Kendall Square Cinema
