July 23, 2008
Why The Dark Knight Doesn't Work
With all of the hype, marketing and fanboy glee going around, one would think that The Dark Knight is the greatest film of all time. As it turns out, the fanboys honored the film with that exact title over at IMdB.com. Going against this, I've given the film a relatively bad review. Its not a horrible movie, but it is a missed opportunity and a disappointment. It is long winded and has a drifting plot that stumbles to a close.
I thought that I would crack this film open and explain why it doesn't work.
In order to be focused, a story should contain exactly one hero and one villain. This singular hero should have an identifiable and solitary goal which directly conflicts with the goal of our lone villain. Two forces (read two ways of thought), on a collision course - that is the root of a story.
When you have two heroes and/or two villains, or in the case of this film 1½ heroes and 1½ villains, you take what should be the only thread that runs through a story and slice it into at least two branches. This means the story has to go into two different places, meaning it is exactly like trying to drive to two places at once. Since this isn't possible, the storyteller is forced to rush back and forth from the paths to both locations and doesn't get anywhere.
This is the core problem with The Dark Knight - it wants to go too many places.
To clarify, it is possible to have subplots with secondary heroic characters, Jack Sparrow in Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl is a great example of this. The problem of a split narrative comes when a secondary character is promoted into the hero or villain role while the other character is still active. In this film, the hero should be Batman. He's the titular character and he is the guy wearing the black rubber suit. The villain of the film is The Joker. The film should be clear, Batman (representing civilization and order) and The Joker (representing anarchy and disruption) duke it out over Gotham. Where writer/director Christopher Nolan botches the works is the promotion of Harry Dent, Gotham's stalwart district attorney. Dent is dating Rachel, Batman's love interest. He is also rounding up all of the criminals in Gotham. In the film Batman himself sees him as the hero, his replacement. In the narrative he performs this role as well. Nolan focuses a great deal of energy propping up Dent as an heroic figure to the exclusion of Batman. As Dent's fortunes rise Batman is essentially ushered into the background. To alleviate this, Nolan needs to have Batman do something - anything, to appear useful. Otherwise Batman has completely evaporated in his own movie. Nolan fabricates completely unneeded side projects for Batman such as his trip to Hong Kong to kidnap a villainous accountant. This sequence is there simply to show Batman doing his stuff. It doesn't push the story forward, it doesn't add anything to the film's themes. The whole sequence could have occurred at the airport in Gotham and had the same effect in half the time. There is a similar scene at the opening where Batman dispatches Scarecrow and some Russian mob bosses. Again, the scene is completely unnecessary other than showing Batman can kick some butt. In other words, almost every frame showing Batman in the first act is of him doing something that doesn't really impact the plot in a meaningful way. There's the introduction of some key facts, but these could have been made in simpler fashion.
As the story progresses Nolan uses Dent and Lt. James Gordon to fill in the heroic gaps in the story. Since neither the capturing of The Joker, the arrest of the mob bosses, nor the attaining of Rachel's love really falls to Batman to resolve (they're all Dent's problems) Batman is a secondary player. The story needs a hero but Dent isn't big enough to fill this role. Gordon is brought on to co-hero. Between the two, they battle the mob and plot against The Joker and attempt to win public support in the face of terrorism. Batman is left scurrying in the background doing little to help progress any of these plots. When time is spent with either Bruce Wayne or Batman, the scenes are focused on the theme of terrorism and the question if a hero can fight a villain without rules and not become evil in the process. This theme is interesting and works in light of The Joker but The Joker's deeds haven't been dramatic enough to warrant this special attention. Since Nolan spends all his time with Dent, Rachel and Gordon, he's forced to divorce himself from the Batman versus The Joker plot that should be the driving force behind the film.
The proof that Nolan's film is spliced is the duel resolution in the film. The Joker has to confront both heroes separately. He goes to the injured Dent in the hospital. There The Joker mocks Dent's burned face, and explains the chaotic nature of the world. This supposedly lures Dent to evil. Dent then takes revenge on people directly involved in the circumstances that ruined his life, and transforms into the cruel Harvey Two-Face. This makes Dent a tragic hero who loses the fight. The Joker then moves on to Hero #2, Batman. Since there hasn't been a set plot running through the film up to this climax, Nolan is cornered and has to set up an scenario where two boats filled with people are at risk. The theme being played at this point, anarchy versus civilization, hasn't been the direct focus of the film. There have been competing questions such as "what does it take to be a hero", "will the boy get the girl", "can a hero act villainous and remain heroic". Since Nolan has played too many themes and asked too many questions, the main thread running through his climax is suffocated. The anarchy versus civilization theme is shoehorned in and without the support of the rest of the film, this robs Nolan of a tense dramatic arc. When Batman dispatches The Joker there's nothing proven, nothing learned.
This lack of a moral means that The Joker's not really the villain - what? No, its true. The final conflict between the hero and the villain results in a moral being learned. In the case of this film, the lesson being taught comes when Batman overcomes Harvey Two-Face. When Two-Face is killed, Gordon and Batman come to the realization that society needs its heroes even if those heroes are fake. This structural work means that Harry Dent is both the replacement hero and the real villain of the film. Batman and The Joker are mere players in Harvey Dent's tale.
The film would have succeed in its goals if it followed the same path seen in Tim Burton's Batman. That film kept the distractions to a minimum and showcased the conflict between the hero and his nemesis. The Joker is the real star of the show, as the ultimate trickster character, the audience wants to enjoy his deviousness, his clever cruelty. As a trickster, The Joker is the perfect representation of chaos. Against this stands the lawful protector Batman, and as The Joker states in The Dark Knight, this makes them the unstoppable force and the immovable object. They should have kept the story honed in on this conflict. They could have gotten to the same place with far less extra narrative weight. Remember, one hero - one villain - one central question with a single moral to the story. These are they keys to good stories, stories worth telling and worth watching.
I thought that I would crack this film open and explain why it doesn't work.
***Spoiler Warning - you've been warned***
To open, I have a simple message for all of you in Hollywood:
STOP SPLITTING YOUR NARRATIVES.
In order to be focused, a story should contain exactly one hero and one villain. This singular hero should have an identifiable and solitary goal which directly conflicts with the goal of our lone villain. Two forces (read two ways of thought), on a collision course - that is the root of a story.
When you have two heroes and/or two villains, or in the case of this film 1½ heroes and 1½ villains, you take what should be the only thread that runs through a story and slice it into at least two branches. This means the story has to go into two different places, meaning it is exactly like trying to drive to two places at once. Since this isn't possible, the storyteller is forced to rush back and forth from the paths to both locations and doesn't get anywhere.
This is the core problem with The Dark Knight - it wants to go too many places.
To clarify, it is possible to have subplots with secondary heroic characters, Jack Sparrow in Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl is a great example of this. The problem of a split narrative comes when a secondary character is promoted into the hero or villain role while the other character is still active. In this film, the hero should be Batman. He's the titular character and he is the guy wearing the black rubber suit. The villain of the film is The Joker. The film should be clear, Batman (representing civilization and order) and The Joker (representing anarchy and disruption) duke it out over Gotham. Where writer/director Christopher Nolan botches the works is the promotion of Harry Dent, Gotham's stalwart district attorney. Dent is dating Rachel, Batman's love interest. He is also rounding up all of the criminals in Gotham. In the film Batman himself sees him as the hero, his replacement. In the narrative he performs this role as well. Nolan focuses a great deal of energy propping up Dent as an heroic figure to the exclusion of Batman. As Dent's fortunes rise Batman is essentially ushered into the background. To alleviate this, Nolan needs to have Batman do something - anything, to appear useful. Otherwise Batman has completely evaporated in his own movie. Nolan fabricates completely unneeded side projects for Batman such as his trip to Hong Kong to kidnap a villainous accountant. This sequence is there simply to show Batman doing his stuff. It doesn't push the story forward, it doesn't add anything to the film's themes. The whole sequence could have occurred at the airport in Gotham and had the same effect in half the time. There is a similar scene at the opening where Batman dispatches Scarecrow and some Russian mob bosses. Again, the scene is completely unnecessary other than showing Batman can kick some butt. In other words, almost every frame showing Batman in the first act is of him doing something that doesn't really impact the plot in a meaningful way. There's the introduction of some key facts, but these could have been made in simpler fashion.As the story progresses Nolan uses Dent and Lt. James Gordon to fill in the heroic gaps in the story. Since neither the capturing of The Joker, the arrest of the mob bosses, nor the attaining of Rachel's love really falls to Batman to resolve (they're all Dent's problems) Batman is a secondary player. The story needs a hero but Dent isn't big enough to fill this role. Gordon is brought on to co-hero. Between the two, they battle the mob and plot against The Joker and attempt to win public support in the face of terrorism. Batman is left scurrying in the background doing little to help progress any of these plots. When time is spent with either Bruce Wayne or Batman, the scenes are focused on the theme of terrorism and the question if a hero can fight a villain without rules and not become evil in the process. This theme is interesting and works in light of The Joker but The Joker's deeds haven't been dramatic enough to warrant this special attention. Since Nolan spends all his time with Dent, Rachel and Gordon, he's forced to divorce himself from the Batman versus The Joker plot that should be the driving force behind the film.
The proof that Nolan's film is spliced is the duel resolution in the film. The Joker has to confront both heroes separately. He goes to the injured Dent in the hospital. There The Joker mocks Dent's burned face, and explains the chaotic nature of the world. This supposedly lures Dent to evil. Dent then takes revenge on people directly involved in the circumstances that ruined his life, and transforms into the cruel Harvey Two-Face. This makes Dent a tragic hero who loses the fight. The Joker then moves on to Hero #2, Batman. Since there hasn't been a set plot running through the film up to this climax, Nolan is cornered and has to set up an scenario where two boats filled with people are at risk. The theme being played at this point, anarchy versus civilization, hasn't been the direct focus of the film. There have been competing questions such as "what does it take to be a hero", "will the boy get the girl", "can a hero act villainous and remain heroic". Since Nolan has played too many themes and asked too many questions, the main thread running through his climax is suffocated. The anarchy versus civilization theme is shoehorned in and without the support of the rest of the film, this robs Nolan of a tense dramatic arc. When Batman dispatches The Joker there's nothing proven, nothing learned.
This lack of a moral means that The Joker's not really the villain - what? No, its true. The final conflict between the hero and the villain results in a moral being learned. In the case of this film, the lesson being taught comes when Batman overcomes Harvey Two-Face. When Two-Face is killed, Gordon and Batman come to the realization that society needs its heroes even if those heroes are fake. This structural work means that Harry Dent is both the replacement hero and the real villain of the film. Batman and The Joker are mere players in Harvey Dent's tale.The film would have succeed in its goals if it followed the same path seen in Tim Burton's Batman. That film kept the distractions to a minimum and showcased the conflict between the hero and his nemesis. The Joker is the real star of the show, as the ultimate trickster character, the audience wants to enjoy his deviousness, his clever cruelty. As a trickster, The Joker is the perfect representation of chaos. Against this stands the lawful protector Batman, and as The Joker states in The Dark Knight, this makes them the unstoppable force and the immovable object. They should have kept the story honed in on this conflict. They could have gotten to the same place with far less extra narrative weight. Remember, one hero - one villain - one central question with a single moral to the story. These are they keys to good stories, stories worth telling and worth watching.
Labels: Batman, miscellaneous, movie watching tip
posted by Michelle Obama's Left Nut at 6:00 PM
Share
Previous Posts
Friends & Reads
Christian & Culture
Film Resources
Christian Sites
Faithcom
Featured On
Good News Film Reviews LLC 2004-2010 - used with permission
Images, video and titles are the property of their respective copyright holders. Good News Film Reviews LLC claims no ownership or connection to them.
The views expressed on this site are not the opinion of any advertiser or external entity.
While we take care to only link to responsible entities, Good News Film Reviews LLC takes no responsibility for the content linked from this site. There are sharks in the waters. Surf at your own risk.
The Template is generated via PsycHo and is Licensed.
17 Comments:
I think your insistence on this point is ruining your enjoyment of many possible plot structures, and demoting this from a flawed film to a trashed one.
"The film should be clear, Batman (representing civilization and order) and The Joker (representing anarchy and disruption) duke it out over Gotham."
It's not clear to me that the characters have to have such simplified and "symbolic" roles. Are you sure you haven't drunk a bit too deeply of the archetypal critic's brew?
I swim in it.
Stories are a singular function in society - to act as example. They follow a tight structure that humans have an instinctual reaction to when they hear it.
Every story opens with a question and it ends with an answer. The hero and the villain are representations of the values surrounding the central question. When these roles are sullied the whole piece falls apart because the story no longer has a purpose.
The point with this post, in my small mind, is to look at the film like a mechanic looks at a smoking engine.
In this case, yes, Batman and The Joker do indeed have these simplistic roles - the problem with this film is that Nolan hung all sorts of narrative ornaments on them instead of keeping to their roots.
It is a flawed film. I'm not talking about the numerous illogical elements - taking it on its own terms, its flawed and no where near being a great work of art. Is it horrible? No, its watchable. My frustration comes in knowing that this was a huge opportunity missed.
Archetypal crit has underlying psychological claims that I find give it a truth deficit. Basically, for archetypal crit to work, you must either (a) believe all artistic making/enjoying is fundamentally and significantly like dreaming, and that Freudian dream-theory as modified by Jung is basically sound; or (b) suggest that the making and enjoyment of art takes place through a conscious grammar of symbols (that it is basically all allegory), despite the lack of awareness or memory of having undertaken any such effort in the majority of artists and audiences. Archetypal crit interesects meaningfully with certain key aesthetic principles, but as a narratology it is severely flawed. NO SWIMMING! :-)
I am enjoying this, but can't possibly refine on the "huge opportunity missed" point until I've actually seen the movie (I find it easy to concede "flawed film" as I agree with your objection, in general terms, to multiple story arcs in the same movie. It's a convention for issues of comics that doesn't play well in film).
I enjoy geeking out as well.
Archetypal criticism has its place although I don't think its necessarily either a or b. You can feel free to throw Jung and Freud under the bus if you'd like. There are other ways to skin the archetypal cat.
Freytag’s Pyramid, the ever present monomyth, is undeniable. Its there, its tangible. This structure is a form of communication we instinctively know and use. This structure demands certain players in order to work (hero and villain).
I don't think acknowledging this means we have to go off on some Jungian dream journey. But, we also have to understand that this is something that is in our guts, something in our wiring that we use without thinking about it. Its simply there.
The hero and the villain are vessels we use to deliver points of view - opinions. We use them as examples to teach lessons. That's their function.
Where am I heading off into the wrong direction?
Come on in, the water is fine.
Great post, Scott. This was really helpful, as well as the interaction.
Thanks!
AAAGH! Scott, you're killin' me, here!
Actually, you made your points well, and I should probably concede that going into the film with the attitude of a slobbering fanboy makes it a much more enjoyable experience. (I enjoyed it because I wanted to enjoy it and I enjoyed enjoying it. Or words to that effect.)
Still, reading this post was like finding out that there's no Santa all over again. I think I'm gonna have to pout for a few hours now. ;)
Sorry to give you a kick while you're in your condition.
I really wanted to like this movie. I was looking forward to it since I heard Ledger was cast as The Joker. I honestly haven't been this let down by a film in years.
I would have preferred to have loved it.
heh. Freytag, eh? Had forgotten the name attached to that one. Certainly works for drama, but like most structures it fits the data only under prior constraint: When we describe drama written in the Aristotelian mode, it is admirably useful, and therefore also useful to the vast majority of stage drama, and some prose fiction and narrative verse, and by extension from those a considerable number of movies....
But ask yourself, really, whether it works for what may be the finest novel ever written: A Tale of Two Cities. Sure, you can try to abstract it in under the London/Paris structure, and that would be a fascinating reading of the piece, but....you cannot do it in terms of the protagonists, characters, etc. You will end up chucking hundreds of pages of plot from the novel in favor of a few scenes.
Milton's Paradise Lost is likely based on a tragedy never completed, but you search in vain for the clearly advanced hero: reading a la Freytag is the kind that creates the Satanic hero reading, as his fortune and agency is the low/rising/falling one; yet no one reading clearly past Book 2 could agree to this....
Again, the Greeks themselves need not necessarily fit this: the chorus, for example, continually problematizes your confrontations, and their fatalism meant we have difficulty discerning who is "bad" in their works, many times: who is the evil one in Jason & Medea? How would you apply the Pyramid to Clouds?
It's not that the tool is of no use: It is of considerable use. And you may well be correct that it is the recommended structure for a heroic narrative in a linear format, perhaps especially so in a visual format, like film.
But the danger of archetypal crit, like any psychology-based crit, is that it cannot be wrong: the story, no matter how great, that does not fit the pattern is "really not that good"; or else, regardless how the story begs to be read, it is good because it "really fits."
We do this in all criticism, to some extent; in archetypal crit, the danger is that rather than seeing common themes that OFTEN run through cultural artefacts, we claim to see building-blocks of human nature which MUST run through ALL cultural artefacts. And few things can be supported at that level, and for my money all of them are theologically oriented and Biblically derived....
My focus is on structure. Underlying all narrative is a structure that appears over and over. There are milestones a narrative hits in order to maintain a logical flow and balance. Much like a frame to a house.
I won't breakdown every work you list above for the sake of my personal time but let's take a look at your first example Tale of Two Cities. Forgive me if I fail to recount every detail of the plot, I've only read the novel once about 20 years ago and I'll be honest, I was young and very distracted. I'll do the best i can. I know you'll correct me if I get something wrong. :)
When you take Freytag’s Pyramid, which I see as a four act structure: Act One: Instigation (Question), Act Two: Rise of the Hero, Act Three: Fall of the Hero and Act Four: Confrontation (Answer) - there's a plot reversal in between acts 2 &3 and a death/resurrection near the closing of Act 3. For those reading who need a visual, there's a picture of Freytag's Pyramid here: http://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/freytag.html
This will may drive you nuts, but I consider the first book of Tale of Two Cities as a prologue. Recalled to Life is backstory to the main event happening in Books 2 & 3 and lays the ground work for the conflicts, and themes in the remaining two books. The hero, I consider Carton to be the hero - not Darney, doesn't become a player until Book 2.
Taking Books 2 & 3 as the story with Book 1 set aside as prologue (this doesn't diminish Book 1 as irrelevant, it simply puts it into its rightful place), we can easily find the structure:
Act One: The trial of Darney. Carton's eventual replacement and sacrifice is hinted in the resolution of the trail. This acts as a bookend to the final scenes. The remainder of the first act establishes the French class war, supports the theme of resurrection and sacrifice/humanity over revenge/cruelty. The act comes to a close with the murder of the Marque and Carton claiming his love for Lucie. Offering to sacrifice himself for her.
Act Two: Carton really fades into the background here and Darnay steps into the protagonist shoes. This is essential to drive the story forward. The revolution is brewing, Darnay and Lucie join up, and the act ends with the activities at the Bastille. The reversal to the plot comes with the discovery of the letter which spells Darnay's doom.
Act Three: France is in ruins, Darnay is again on trial and the letter from the reversal comes into play. The whole historical knot is untied. At the end of act three we get our traditional death scene with the condemning of Darnay to the guillotine.
Act Four: Carton returns to the front and center and replaces Darnay and is sacrificed ala Christ. Carton's choice results in the resurrection of not only Lucie and Darnay but also himself as the couple names their child after him.
Obviously, this is a watered down version of the plot and yes, one has to shed a good deal of material to hang it on this structure, but the structure is there. The replacement of the hero in the 2nd and 3rd acts is actually a common thing to see when the hero himself is not vibrant enough to carry the piece on his own. An accessible example of this is Pirates of the Caribbean, Will Turner is the hero of the story - not Jack Sparrow. But Will doesn't have enough depth to bring the whole thing through so Sparrow's narrative acts as a bridge for him through the middle acts.
Okay, there you go - let me have it (please be gentle, again, I haven't read this thing in a very long time).
...it's just not possible to use Freytag's structure to *evaluate* narrative in general. If conformance to that structure is the sign of a "good" narrative, then A Tale of Two Cities--which you kinda-sorta "fit" to the structure by dropping half of it, elevating a secondary character, who does NOTHING through half of what remains, and bending "falling action" beyond all recognition--is a terrible novel. That a prominent example of the novel doesn't fit your structure (and we could multiply examples on the point--novels are good for me because they FLOUT dramatic structure for good historical reasons) suggests that something less than a universal narrative structure is at work, here.
Besides, if you allow Carton/Darnay to function as one character (and "doubling" is a key feature of the Victorian novel--see Frankenstein), then you begin to see what I'm suggesting with Batman/Two-Face/Joker as a twofold doubling: Batman/Harvey and Two-Face/Joker; the confrontation between Batman and Joker is narrated in proxy.
...and back to Batman
I get the attempt to split the hero role but it is too forced and unsuccessful. It reduces Batman's narrative and soils the whole works.
Dent doesn't belong stepping into those shoes - on either side. When you have Batman on one side and The Joker on the other you don't need a stand in to help prop them up.
I don't believe this film is about Batman vs Joker, nor that it should be.
I agree that the film is not perfect, but it is still superior to any film presented by the "Pirates of the Caribbean" franchise. I have to applaud the Nolan brothers as writers. Their use of duality, parallelism, and multi-layered plot structure gives depth to the story and its characters. I give the brothers credit for breathing more life into the comic books.
Maybe one would think that the characters Dent and Gordon should not share as much screen space as Batman/Bruce Wayne or Joker. I disagree. The importance given to these "side" characters does not muddy up the plot, it supports it.
Perhaps the true fan of the comic books would find the Nolan Batman films annoying. Well, it's a different medium, aren't we comparing apple to orange?
Anon,
You're right, a film is completely different from its source material and should be judged differently. I assure you I am not offering any of my attention to the comic books. Actually, I thought Batman Begins was fantastic and did breathe new life into the superhero genre. I didn't hate this film, I simply feel it was mismanaged and should have been a great deal better. While it is superior to the second two Pirates films it doesn't compare to the first which was very strong on all fronts. The scripts for Black Pearl is one of strongest, most sound scripts I've ever read.
I think the analysis is wrong on a couple of points:
First off, it is wrong on a technical standpoint on the theme of civilization versus barabrism: this is not thrown in at the end, but is clearly the centerpiece of the interrogation scene that is towards the end of the second act. The interrogation scene has two purposes: one is to move the plot further in it's latter half (or, really, third). The meatier first portion is where all this theme is laid out, as well as the Joker's motivations (which are extended in a latter sequence with Dent in the hospital).
However, your main mistake, I see it is that it views the movie through the prism of story "rules" -- which as Harlan Ellison could, per se, tell you, can be broken: as long as you specifically set out to break them.
As was stated, the theme -- overall -- of this film was escalation. Things like civilization versus anarchy, will Batman get the girl, etc, etc, are all sub-point of this overarching theme of escalation. And this is KEY.
Why, you may ask. What should I care about "escalation"? It's just a word. Well, that's because it hasn't been properly translated in story terms.
The first rule of ANY story: your protagonist MUST protag.
But here's the REAL theme of a movie about escalation: it's a movie precisely ABOUT the protagonist being UNABLE to protag!
That's what all this is about. That our hero literally isn't good enough. He cannot do certain things. Batman's failures or inadequcies are littered all over this movie, whether they're shown with Dent (professionally), or with the Joker (morally / methodology), or with Rachel (romantically).
Yet he is still the central character. It's a story about a character in a world that he can only effect with a given sphere. The things he is given to do, you're right, move the plot's main themes very little. But again, this is the point: Batamn striving very hard for things which really push the matter no further. Things are escalating, and he's reached a limit.
Yeah Nehring, you're a moron, imbecile, and an idiot
Well, I'm pleased to have all the bases covered. Thanks for stopping in, Mom.
I could almost support all of the inadequacies of the film as it pertains to theme and character conflicts if only the dialogue made sense.
At one point Harvey Dent is talking about how democracy is suspended in Rome when there's a threat and they appoint one man to be in charge and that's an honor. Rachel comes in with the fact that the last time they did that was with Caesar. Then Harvey replies with the line "you either die a hero or live long enough to become the villain."
WHAT? How does that have anything to do with your previous conversation? Sure, Caesar became a villain, but that was of his own accord. But outside of this narrow example, is Harvey telling me that I have only two choices in life? Many people are never heroes, and many people never become villains. Why o why, Nolan brothers, does this make sense?
I have more issues, especially with the Hospital scene conversation with Joker and Harvey, but I digress.
Post a Comment
<< Home