The Dark Knight: the Tenth Anniversary
The Blind Eternities forum
Posted on Aug. 26, 2018, 10:26 p.m. by DemonDragonJ
This year marks the tenth anniversary of The Dark Knight, the second film of Christopher Nolan's Batman trilogy, and certainly one of the greatest superhero films ever made. Take a moment to process that information: it has now been an entire decade since the viewers were treated to this amazing movie, with intense action sequences and amazing performances, most notably from Heath Ledger as the Joker and Aaron Eckhart as Harvey Dent. I must admit that the fact that this movie is now ten years old makes me feel old, as I can still recall when I saw it in theaters for the first time, and I do believe that this milestone should be celebrated, or at least mentioned, to honor this great film and its legacy.
What does everyone else say about this? How do you feel about this year being the tenth anniversary of The Dark Knight? I eagerly await your responses.
At the risk of voicing an unpopular opinion, I thought the Dark Knight was a fine movie, but nothing spectacular.
Ledger's performance was good, but his writing and direction was bad. Compare to Mark Hamill's performance in the Animated Series and Arkham games. Hamill delivers a creepy and psychotic Joker, while retaining the humour one would expect of the "Clown Prince of Crime." Nolan, in his quest for "dark" and "gritty" made a generic "Chaotic Evil" character, without any real depth.
Harvey Dent's character went from Lawful Good to Chaotic Evil in the span of a single conversation with the Joker, with very little actual character development. It felt like they needed him to become Two Face, so that's what happened--I never found it to be an organic, believable transition.
The movie's message was conflicted--oh, put people in a stressful position and they might act evil (everyone trying to kill the accountant), but wait! No, that's a sad message, let's have people do the right thing (the boats deciding not to blow one another up). It did not say anything new on either topic, and could not even commit to its own conclusion.
Compare to Batman Begins, where the villains made sense: Crane had clearly fried his own mind with experimentation, making him malleable to outside influence; and Liam Neeson really sold "you have to prune away the bad for the good to grow" view which formed his character's motivation. There was a clear thesis--you have to embrace and learn from your darkness to become stronger, which applied both to the hero's journey and the greater villain's plot (contrary to the League of Shadows belief, Gotham can prosper by rising out of its darkness). As such, I would argue Batman Begins was a better movie.
Overall, I found it a fun watch, but unworthy of the praise it received and continues to receive.
August 26, 2018 11:15 p.m.
DemonDragonJ says... #4
cdkime, actually, Mark Hamill's portrayal of the Joker is, by far, my favorite version of that character, because he was the very first Joker whom I ever saw, and no other actor, not even Ledger, can capture his psychotic nature in the way that Hamill did. By extension, Kevin Conroy's portrayal of Batman, Clancy Brown's portrayal of Lex Luthor, and Tim Daly's portrayal of Superman are also my favorite versions of those character, because of how masterfully well-done they are; it saddens me that the portrayals of those characters in DC's recent live-action movies pale in comparison to how they were portrayed in the DC animated universe.
Also, regarding Ledger's Joker, Alfred summarized his motivation very nicely during the film: "some men are not looking for anything logical; some men just want to watch the world burn."
August 27, 2018 6:12 p.m.
And therein lies my problem with the character - when asked to explain why he is Chaotic Evil, the only explanation one can give is “because he is Chaotic Evil.” It is circular and lacking in depth. The only thing that saved the film from the Joker’s poor writing was Ledger’s performance. It is a shame we shall never see the man play a complex version of the character.
August 27, 2018 6:36 p.m.
VampiricTooter says... #6
Ok you should go back and watch the scene where the Koker and his goons show up at the party trying to find Dent. Bruce ends up jumping out a window to save Maggie Gylenhall. So ignoring the fact that the plumet to the ground would have killed them both, can you explain to me what happened next? In the film it just cuts to another scene and never bothers to resolve the issue of the joker and his armed thugs still being up in the building with a party full of wealthy Gothamites and I think even Harvey Himself? Did Batman and Rachel go for tea while the joker slaughters everyone? Do the joker and his crew suddenly decide that they are being rude and excuse themselves to ride thirty stories in the elevator? Frankly I thought the movie succeeded at capturing the gritty terse world that Batman lives in while basically having zero substance or logic. The Ledger performance was captivating and dynamic but the film was so full of plot holes that it destroyed my enjoyment of the thing. Stylistic but very superficial. Nolan tends to be a very gimmicky film maker though so it is pretty par for the course. The line at the end has to be one of the lowest points in the incredible career of Mr. Gary oldman. Still he delivers it with such gravitas that it almost doesn’t sound like a moronic way to react to Bruce choosing to appear the bad guy, which really doesn’t make a damn bit of sense. It was such a let down after how awesome Batman begins was. And then the third one made all the mistakes of part two look like nothing in comparison to the shlock that was spewed onto the screen.
greyninja says... #2
Just watched this on netflix the other day and didn't even know that! HBD dark knight lol
August 26, 2018 10:36 p.m.