The Smart Knight
Is “The Dark Knight” the smartest superhero movie ever made?
You know the feeling. You’ve seen the trailer, heard the buzz, read an article or two. You think: “They’re not going to do that, are they?” Then you see the film and they do just that. They kill Professor X, let the Burglar off the hook for murdering Uncle Ben, cast Jessica Alba as the Invisible Girl. You leave the theater shaking your head. “How could they be so dumb?”
I had the opposite experience with “The Dark Knight.”
During the past month, writing an article about the history of Batman on the big screen, I’d been struck by the fact that, if you divide his two serials and six feature films into their three natural groupings—the ’40s serials along with the ’66 film, which was a hipster comment on those serials; the Tim Burton/Joel Schumacher movies of the ’80s and ’90s; and the current Christopher Nolan films—the same pattern develops. Batman starts out as a vigilante, becomes a crime-fighting institution, then descends into camp. I warned that, as dark as the Nolan series was, this process seemed inevitable.
There’s an inherent problem with the Batman myth. Batman becomes Batman to strike terror into the hearts of criminals. That’s why he wears the suit. He’s supposed to terrify. In 1943’s Batman, he takes a crook into his “bat’s cave” and scares him into confessing. In 1989’s Batman, he’s an urban myth, “The Bat,” who may or may not drink the blood of his victims. In 2005’s Batman Begins, he can ultrasonically call thousands of bats to cover his getaway. This incarnation of Batman is effective even after everyone realizes he’s just a man. Because if a man is nutty enough to do what he does, what won’t he do?
Once he becomes legit, however, once he’s aligned with Commissioner Gordon, once you bring him out of the shadows and into the daylight, what’s there to be afraid of? He’s actually kind of absurd. Put him in a room with Gordon and you basically have two cops. One dressed like a bat.
The bat signal, as cool as it is, encourages the hero’s passivity. Look at the two Tim Burton movies. In 1989’s Batman, we first see Batman prowling the rooftops in search of crime. In 1992’s Batman Returns, we first see him as Bruce Wayne doing...what exactly? Sitting at Wayne Manor. Brooding. He doesn’t stand and act until the bat signal appears.
Worst of all, the question that terrified criminals—what won’t he do?—has now been answered. He’s a lawman, so he abides by the law, so he won’t kill anyone. So what’s there to be afraid of? The whole raison d’etre of Batman—striking terror into the hearts of criminals—has been expunged.
To distract us from this inherent problem—that Batman only works as a vigilante, not as a lawman—filmmakers generally add more stuff: Bat-this and bat-that. Robin, the Boy Wonder. Batgirl. Zillions of villains. Eventually the whole enterprise can’t help but descend into camp. Nolan’s series, I assumed, would simply follow this path.
Yet early in “The Dark Knight,” despite the presence of the bat-signal, Commissioner Gordon tells the press, “Official policy is to arrest the vigilante the Batman on sight.” I thought: “Good for them. They’re holding onto Batman-as-vigilante as long as possible.” I knew it wouldn’t last.
Midway through the movie, things get more interesting. The Joker taunts Batman about his moral code. There are things Batman won’t do, he says, but there’s nothing the Joker won’t do, which is why he’ll win. It’s a familiar dilemma for any hero—you have to work within the lines and they don’t—but it echoed the problem in “Batman as institution.” Which is where they were heading. It was inevitable.
Then I watched the last five minutes.
To say I was surprised is an understatement. Here’s how I ended my original article:
But the easiest way for to save Christopher Nolan’s Batman is to yet again follow Frank Miller’s lead. In “The Dark Knight Returns,” Miller simply introduced a new, tight-assed commissioner to Gotham, one who didn’t like Batman, and thus returned the caped crusader to his primitive vigilante state. Consider it like Mao’s perpetual revolution. Except with a happier ending.
“The Dark Knight” didn’t bring in a new, tight-assed commissioner, but they were still able to take care of every single problem inherent in the Batman myth. They destroyed the bat signal (with an axe), returned Batman to his vigilante status (wanted for mulitple murders), and returned this thought into the heads of criminals everywhere: What won’t Batman do? I was floored.
I still think there are problems with “The Dark Knight.” Nolan’s direction is so relentless that his climaxes never feel climactic. At the same time, I know that relentlessness has been the formula for blockbusters since “Star Wars,” or at least “Raiders of the Lost Ark,” and these blockbusters keep speeding up. They’ve probably just sped past me. In other words, relentlessness won’t be a problem for 99.9% of the people seeing the film. It is, in fact, what they came for.
I also think there are better superhero movies out there. “Spider-Man 2,” certainly. But the reason why “Spider-Man 2” is better—it satisfies us by giving the hero (Peter Parker) what he’s always wanted (Mary Jane)—is one reason why “Spider-Man 3” was so awful. What do you do after you’ve given the hero what he’s always wanted? I guess you take it away again. Only to give it to him again. Fun.
But “The Dark Knight,” directed by Nolan, and written by Nolan and his brother, Jonathan, with a story credit to David S. Goyer, is the smartest superhero movie ever made for all of the above reasons. It actually solves the contradiction of Batman. Nice work, gentlemen.
It also raises this intriguing question: Does the ending of “The Dark Knight” give its hero what he’s always wanted? Food-for-thought, anyway, for the sequel.
—Erik Lundegaard has never danced with the devil in the pale moonlight.