Is it worth my time to dig up my awesome comparison between Vern & Ben Franklin?

You guys really know how to pick nits. This movie isn’t a serious crime drama no matter how much both the lovers and haters try to compare it to one. Christopher Nolan definitely took stylistic queues from such movies (Heat especially) but it’s a super hero movie through and through. Hopefully some of you guys have actually watched the movie more than once by now and maybe worked through some of your (false) initial impressions, but if not, some notes from someone who cares.

-First, the big “subplot that goes nowhere”, the Hong Kong sequence. How the fuck could nobody notice that the entire movie revolves around that scene?! Again, what fucking movie were you watching?! Batman captures Lau who is immune to extradition and forcefully deports him back to Gotham where he agrees to testify against the mobsters he was laundering money for in exchange for his freedom. As a result of this promise, Dent and Gordon are able to arrest all of Gotham’s major Crimelords, which forces said crime bosses to hire the Joker to take care of their problem. Joker gets himself locked in the same jail as Lau, breaks out of confinement and kidnaps Lau before he can testify, and then accepts payment from the mob; a gigantic pile of cash that he sets on fire with Lau sitting on top of it (earlier in the scene he throws a wad of cash at his head) before murdering the mobster that delivered it to him. None of this is crucial to the plot for you guys?!!

-CJ mentioned Heath Ledger’s “annoying over-acting”. This seems like an unbelievable slap in the face to one of the great villain performances of all time (seriously) but one that only comes from trying to view the movie as a “serious crime drama”, which it’s not and doesn’t purport to be. CJ, the Joker’s not a real guy, even in this movie. He’s not a criminal, he doesn’t have human motivation or a true goal. He’s not a person, he’s the personification of chaos. He can’t be viewed as a worldly character, the way you would view the villain in a “serious crime drama”.

Two times, the Joker offers a false backstory for his mutilated face. The reason for this is simply that he doesn’t have a backstory. Imagine whatever origin you will but as far as the movie’s concerned, he just formed out of the ether as a means to tear apart the order that Batman brought to a city that can’t exist in harmony. He’s a demon or an evil demigod and his performance reflects this. Viewing this as a Batman story (which it’s meant to be viewed as, no matter what pretensions you or even any of the movie’s supporters attribute to it) how can you overact this?

During the hospital scene with Harvey Dent, the Joker tells Dent that he’s “not a schemer” which is both completely false but patently true. It’s false because the Joker’s obviously a master chess-player; no matter what move Batman or any other authority (the police or the mob) makes, he’s always thinking two steps ahead. After he kidnaps Lau and breaks out of jail, Commissioner Gordan says in defeat, “He wanted to be caught,” but that’s not necessarily true. More accurately, the Joker didn’t give a fuck whether he was caught or not. He was prepared either way. He legitimately wanted to kill Harvey Dent during his transport to county but if not, he had a goon with a bomb sewn into his intestines on his way to the lockup just in case. That’s quite a scheme.

However, the Joker’s not a schemer because he has no agenda, in fact he’s the opposite of agenda. He doesn’t enter a lottery to hit the jackpot, he just likes to watch the balls bounce around. As I said before, his grand scheme that allowed him to bust Lau out of jail netted him nothing. He burned the money along with the prisoner and then slaughtered the man who paid him (cut him into pieces and fed him to his pooches). What did he accomplish by any of this? Only chaos. Twice in the movie, he dares someone to kill him (Batman after the truck crash and Harvey Dent in the hospital). He didn’t do this because he wants to die, he simply didn’t care. In a society that craves order and sensibility, the Joker is not Neil McCauley in Heat. He’s not Marsellus Wallace in Pulp Fiction or Frank Costello in The Departed. He’s Hurricane Katrina. He’s 9-11. He has more in common with the bomb strapped to a suicidal bomber than the bomber himself. He’s an unstoppable force of nature that exists only to create anarchy. I’m sorry if the performance was too over the top for you.

-About Batman being blamed for the death of Harvey Dent (and all the others Dent murdered in cold blood). CJ, not to pick on you but again it doesn’t seem like you were even paying attention. Early in the movie, Bruce Wayne realizes that Harvey Dent, and not Batman, can be the one true savior of Gotham City. Batman’s crusade might make people sleep a little better at night but in the end inspires only more vigilanteism (hence, the multiple gun-toting batmen). Harvey Dent is a real person who inspires the city to believe in justice, not just vengeance, and is the white knight to Batman’s dark knight. As an agent of chaos, the Joker must prevent this by bringing Dent “down to our level” and turning Dent into a vengeance hungry, murderous psychopath, at which he succeeds. If Gotham were to find out of his actions, the city’s last true hope would be squandered and the city would fall apart, so Batman, in his role as The Dark Knight takes on the responsibility of Dent’s crimes in order to preserve Dent’s image and preserve Gotham. It’s not as simple as saying the Joker did it, because Dent truly did commit those crimes and if Gotham found out, all hope would be lost. To paraphrase a foreshadowing line from the movie’s truly great script (which some people can’t help but bash for inane reasons) Harvy Dent died a hero, Batman lived long enough to see himself become the villain.

I could get more into it but there’s no reason. If you haven’t figured this stuff out already, obviously the movie didn’t engage you and that’s fine. For whatever reason some movies, even great ones, rub people the wrong way. I’m no different. There’s a good explanation for most of the things you guys are focusing on here, but they really don’t matter. Sometimes people don’t see the forest for the trees, but sometimes people focus too hard on the trees to see the gigantic fucking beautiful forest. Los siento.

The thing is, for me, The Dark Knight doesn’t basically work. It’s got a lot of good elements, but they’re not working in sync. All I hear are the gears grinding. It’s not a nitpicky thing. I find it unsatisfying at an elemental level. There’s just something wrong with it that prevents me from enjoying it for more than fits and starts.

As for the Two Face stuff, I really think cutting it would improve The Dark Knight. I’m not just saying that because I wanted the sequel to be about Two Face. I don’t even really want a sequel. I’d like to see a different approach to the series every five years or so, like the Bond films. I think you can do this character a lot of different ways. I just don’t like the way this team does him.