The Dark Knight is the most ambitious and satisfying comic book movie ever, an instant classic. It thrills and chills, combining massive spectacle with timeless questions regarding our humanity. In exploring our disturbing depths, director Christopher Nolan attains unparalleled cinematic heights. It is a feast for the eyes and a challenge to the brain. While Batman battles the Joker for the soul of Gotham City, Nolan pulls audiences into the rarest of responses to a Hollywood blockbuster: genuine introspection. It is a soulful adventure. The Dark Knight explores the cost of combating evil. How many rules are we willing to break to maintain order? How many freedoms will we sacrifice to reign in chaos? The Dark Knight calls us to give an account.
(Beware: Spoilers ahead) The bank robberies, skyscrapers assaults and high-speed chases in are all top notch. Nolan employed IMAX cameras that offer even greater detail in these breath taking action sequences. Yet, these comic book characters occupy a real world beyond digital effects. We feel each punch, scrape, and crash. The particulars of Chicago are also retained, right down to the Illinois license plates. For a film about organized crime syndicates, Nolan has wisely highlighted the reality of his locations and stunts. We’re exhilarated by the Batpod because its wheels and its path take place among us, in a city we recognize. While the action pops, the acting gives The Dark Knight such punch. As Bruce Wayne, Christian Bale seems suitably disturbed by his own behavior. The scars on his body begin to take a toll. Batman’s surprise attacks are made possible by his haunting stillness. What is going on behind Bruce Wayne’s playboy mask? Has Batman descended to his enemies’ level? His relationship with Rachel Dawes hints at buried hopes. Is peace possible for Batman? We understand why Rachel seems unwilling to wait. Maggie Gyllenhaal makes us feel every chamber in Rachel’s divided heart. As the Joker, Heath Ledger goes to a dark, haunted place. The Joker describes himself as an engine of chaos. He tortures and maims his victims for sport rather than profit. His twisted motto decorates a tractor trailor: “Slaughter is the best medicine.” Like other terrorists we’ve known, The Joker preys upon society’s outcasts, offering them a co-starring role in his anarchic play. But they turn out to be pawns in his fun and games. What makes Heath Ledger’s performance so heartbreaking is the compassion he extends toward the Joker. This scarred scourge arrives on the scene already damaged, devoid of a name or a backstory. He changes his biography depending upon his victim. Whether he was tortured by his father or spurned by his wife, The Joker stands in for everyone who has come unglued via abuse. Ledger’s poignant performance comes on the heels of Oscar winning portraits of evil by Javier Bardem in No Country for Old Men and Daniel Day-Lewis in There Will be Blood. The Joker unsettles like Anton Chigurh or Daniel Plainview, but is even more compelling. Some may link Heath Ledger’s tragic demise to his over-identification with The Joker. Maybe he injected too much empathy into his portrait of evil. He felt too deeply. The most haunting shot of The Dark Knight is nearly silent, as the Joker leans out the window of a stolen police car, his greasy hair blowing in the wind. Law and anarchy converge in one exhilarating and chilling moment. Rest in peace, Heath. The Dark Knight’s moral dilemma plays out in the choices of district attorney, Harvey Dent. He stands as the symbol of hope in Gotham. The people’s faith is embodied in his campaign slogan, “I believe in Harvey Dent.” He asks an all too familiar question, “Should we give in to terrorist demands?” Harvey stands firm, inviting us to believe that “The dawn is coming.” His campaign to clean up Gotham has echoes of the faith extended to Barack Obama. Does he represent genuine hope or the beginning of disappointment for the next generation of voters? We need heroes, but what if they don’t deliver? How quickly will we turn and become two-faced? As Harvey Dent, Aaron Eckhardt avoids his tendency to overplay his hand. His character may unravel as randomly as a coin toss, but the steps are built carefully. Perhaps the confidence and depth of the supporting cast resulted in Eckhardt’s understated performance. Gary Oldman owns his scenes as Lieutenant Gordon. Such quiet dignity commands our attention. Same for the twin pillars in Bruce Wayne’s life, Alfred the Butler (Michael Caine) and tech advisor Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman). When they speak, we all listen carefully. These mentors challenge Bruce Wayne to consider the cost of his war. Alfred reminds the Batman that evil will rise when it is attacked. Reason is often the first casualty of such wars. Bruce must consider whether the Joker “is a man you don’t understand.” To illustrate, Alfred reflects upon his life during combat in Burma. How do you disarm those who “just want to watch the world burn?” Alfred’s experience has echoes of the Vietnam War when we burned villages in order to save them. Late in the film, the ethics of wiretapping arise. Lucius Fox bristles at the thought of spying on 30 million people. But Batman holds up the importance of this particular case. Just as pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer was willing to assassinate Hitler, so the Batman challenges Lucius to sacrifice freedoms to eliminate a larger threat. Christopher Nolan resists the temptation to underline the parallels to our war on terror. We’re left to apply the post 9/11 connections at our own discretion. May Nolan’s faith in the audience be rewarded.
|

EMAIL THIS PAGE
PRINT
RSS








Comments
Craig,
Interesting that you thought Dent paralleled a "campaign to clean up Gotham has echoes of the faith extended to Barack Obama".
Here's another take on his character and the plot line.
What if Dent is more like "Bush and the Selling of the Iraq War". With Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rove (Mayor, Commissioner and Wayne) as the defends of all that is "true" creating an illusion of what the public "should" know or could "handle"?
My question for you Craig is - do you think the Joker won or lost? Did Gotham fall right into his plans as Wayne and the others decide to lie and deceive?
Which brings us to the larger contextual question of your commentary - If the Joker is terrorism/Iran Leadership/Al Qaeda and we are Gotham, who has won the last round?
I wonder what the world would have looked like if Bonhoeffer would not have fallen to the temptation of turning his back on his decision for non-violence? Perhaps like Fox we will all cast our vote to keep the "machine" alive or shut it down - sooner or later - and at what cost...
Just Trying to present the other side of the coin in a world that wants all "heads".
Here's to Nolan and the continuing conversation...
Spencer
Spencer,
You're provocative thoughts are worth a more complete response.
So let me redouble my efforts a few days after seeing
The Dark Knight and see what another reading might suggest.
I'll post part two soon.
Thanks for pushing us all to go deeper....
Detweiler
Great reflection, Craig.
I was most struck by the interrogation scene between Joker & Batman. The Joker taunts Batman, reminding him that the public will discard Batman when they have no more need of him. There was a sense of resolution here, that for me shifted the narrative. This shift was realized in the final set piece, when Batman becomes the hero we hunt.
Among the superheroes, Batman has always struck me as the most human, the most representative of comic books being a genre of outsiders - written by outsiders, to be read by outsiders. His is not the story of subversion or of being a trickster - instead it is a story of dark-ness carrying hope, of a city that can rise up because someone is on their side.
I am so pleased to see your comment about The Dark Knight as "an antidote to the cynical and soulless fourth Indiana Jones film that started this summer of sequels". I look at DK & WALL-E and I count myself lucky to be in stories told like these are.
Absolutely, Bob.
Wall-E is a keeper!
Craig - I have to echo some of Spencer's questions about your interpretation. I agree with you that this film is not only beautifully crafted but it opens up an important conversation for us. I can't help but read it in connection with The Prestige, which not only stars Christian Bale and Michael Caine but works some of the same themes - that is, how far will you go, what will you sacrifice in order to create the illusion that the audience/the public wants to see. And . . . big question . . . is it worth it? The key image from the Prestige is the bird in the cage who has to be crushed, sacrificed, again and again in order for the magician to create the magic. Of course, the child sees through it and is haunted by the magician's callous destruction of life, but the adults seem happy not to ask the question. We, the audience/the public, remain faintly aware that something dark has to happen behind the scenes to produce the illusion that sustains our enjoyment/our way of life, and Nolan's point is not just that the invisible suffering is hidden from us but that we want it to be hidden. We would rather not see what it takes. But the question remains, shall we do evil that good may come? (me genoito!, says Paul) Johann Baptist Metz challenged Christians to make visible the invisible suffering of the world. Aren't we also then to challenge the prevailing idea that such suffering is "necessary" for our safety, security, way of life, etc? (I pursue some of those questions in my book Following Jesus in a Culture of Fear). Even though Nolan gives the last word to Gordan, who suggests that Batman is our "silent protector" - we still have to ask if, as Christians, we can support that kind of protection - or if, rather, we are called to a vulnerable love that precisely relinquishes that kind of protection. The people on the boats, criminal and innocent alike, image for us the possibility that such vulnerable refusal to protect ourselves at the expense of the other may just be the only way to sustain life.