MovieChat Forums > The Dark Knight (2008) Discussion > I'm sorry...

I'm sorry...

posted 8 years ago by michaeldinan
6 replies | jump to latest

I feel this film was best picture worthy. I know some of you won't agree with me but this is my opinion. The film proved that just because one of your main characters wears a cape doesn't mean it can't be dark, sophisticated, and like most of the greats, makes you think. That's how I feel.

[–] rockiebattles411 8 years ago



Ok, so...why are you sorry?

Anywhoo, I disagree with you, but I do like your points!



[–] FMT 8 years ago

The film proved that just because one of your main characters wears a cape doesn't mean it can't be dark, sophisticated

Not really dark or sophisticated in my opinion, but even if it was this would hardly be the first movie to prove that. But still, the main character does wear a cape, and movies like that never get a shot at such prestige...

makes you think

Really? How can it make you think when it tells you exactly what and how to think at every chance it gets?

[–] Harold_of_Whoa 8 years ago

Really? How can it make you think when it tells you exactly what and how to think at every chance it gets?

I would humbly suggest that part of the reason you see it that way is just that you are taking the simplest interpretation and not pushing any further.

[–] FMT 8 years ago

I would humbly suggest that part of the reason you see it that way is just that you are taking the simplest interpretation and not pushing any further.

Well, I respectfully disagree, there's always Occam's razor, but despite the ever present eloquence that creates the illusion of substance, complexity or depth, the movie deals with very mundane subjects in the first place, the type that always gets brushed on stories like this, so there's really not much to go on, this is not a substance driven genre to begin with, and Nolan's movies don't have any more than their counterparts, they just appear to have to the uninitiated. Even if that wasn't the case, it's not a matter of taking the simplest interpretation, the movie's just so obsessed with verbalizing the trivial that it leaves no room to interpret anything any further, every character acts as a narrator, always explaining the most simplistic plot points, always telling you what to think and how to think it. Take the Joker, for example, every single character analyzes him and his motivations to exhaustion, when he finally reveals his reasoning there's not a single thing he says that hasn't been said to death by that point. What else is left to deduce that the movie had not shoved down the audience's throat? Even if the movie had the substance many claim it has, this would never be a proper way to deliver it. Subtext, there's where it's at! When it comes to Batman movies, Batman Returns did it admirably, lots of stuff going on between the lines, lots of subtext delivered visually, lots of themes that you would never associate with the genre to begin with and that you would never find unless you were looking for it, so believe me, I'm all for pushing it further, Nolan's movies post-TDK just won't let you, they do all the work for you, it's substance for dummies. Now if only they made up for it in other ways...

[–] Harold_of_Whoa 8 years ago

Well, I respectfully disagree, there's always Occam's razor,

I'm not sure Occam's razor is really useful in examining works of art/literature, but okay.

but despite the ever present eloquence that creates the illusion of substance, complexity or depth, the movie deals with very mundane subjects in the first place, the type that always gets brushed on stories like this, so there's really not much to go on, this is not a substance driven genre to begin with, and Nolan's movies don't have any more than their counterparts, they just appear to have to the uninitiated.

So, let me get this straight...when I am uninitiated I will detect something there that really isn't there, but once I am properly initiated, that which was earlier perceived will be obscured from perception? Some initiation. I might be better off staying blind so I can still see.

Even if that wasn't the case, it's not a matter of taking the simplest interpretation, the movie's just so obsessed with verbalizing the trivial that it leaves no room to interpret anything any further, every character acts as a narrator, always explaining the most simplistic plot points, always telling you what to think and how to think it. Take the Joker, for example, every single character analyzes him and his motivations to exhaustion, when he finally reveals his reasoning there's not a single thing he says that hasn't been said to death by that point. What else is left to deduce that the movie had not shoved down the audience's throat?

By way of example, after hauling Joker back up on a cable, Batman rasps out "This city just showed you [gasp] that it's full of people [wheeze] ready to believe in good."

There ya go, everyone. Main character just blurted out what we should think.

Except we know differently. We saw the people on the Good Ferry  vote to blow the prisoners up; they just lacked the will to do it. We saw the warden let a prisoner take the detonator away from him on the Bad Ferry in the hopes that the rough man would do the dirty work so Mr. Warden could live at other's expense. Believing in good has nothing to do with the outcome.

Even if the movie had the substance many claim it has, this would never be a proper way to deliver it.

Right, because there are only certain correct ways to deliver thoughtful material - show, don't tell because...you know, initiated.

[–] FMT 8 years ago

I'm not sure Occam's razor is really useful in examining works of art/literature, but okay.

Hmm... maybe, maybe not, but it surely applies to your statement about my perception.

So, let me get this straight...when I am uninitiated I will detect something there that really isn't there, but once I am properly initiated, that which was earlier perceived will be obscured from perception?

Pretty much, yeah, in this particular case it's about being able to tell the difference between eloquent exposition and actual substance. Many can't, some of my high school teachers couldn't, they would give me good grades over several well articulated paragraphs of absolutely nothing, just eloquent and superficially complex statements of the obvious using the information that was already in the question, which is kind of what Christopher Nolan has been doing as a screenwriter since 2008. Most of them on the other hand could see right through my bullsh!t. Bottom line, when you are properly initiated you'll stop mistaking one for the other, it won't be obscured from perception, you'll simply realize how it was never there in the first place.

I might be better off staying blind so I can still see.

Sure, like Joe Pantoliano in The Matrix.

By way of example, after hauling Joker back up on a cable, Batman rasps out "This city just showed you [gasp] that it's full of people [wheeze] ready to believe in good."

There ya go, everyone. Main character just blurted out what we should think.

Except we know differently. We saw the people on the Good Ferry vote to blow the prisoners up; they just lacked the will to do it. We saw the warden let a prisoner take the detonator away from him on the Bad Ferry in the hopes that the rough man would do the dirty work so Mr. Warden could live at other's expense. Believing in good has nothing to do with the outcome.

Actually Batman's description completely fits what we saw. The civilians didn't blow the prisoners up because in the end they weren't capable of, due to empathy, and the prisoner that threw the detonator away clearly did it for the same reason, he wouldn't want to be in any way responsible for the deaths of so many, and no one stopped him, the same way no civilian decided to put the voting results into practice. Maybe we're talking semantics, but the whole concept was actually about believing in good, through empathy. Maybe not every single one of those people, but Batman never claimed that either, just that a huge number of people believed in it, and thanks to those people neither boat exploded, and the rest never even tried to go through with it, because they knew that deep down, as scared as they might have been, they would never be capable of such thing. Although as usual "believing in good" may have been a slightly romanticized way to put it, but the message itself still fits the events. Also, the scene doesn't end there. Remember what the Joker says next? Exactly...

Right, because there are only certain correct ways to deliver thoughtful material - show, don't tell because...you know, initiated.

I was joking about the initiated, it was obviously a reference to the movies, but... yeah, it's one of screenwriting's core rules, your characters' actions should dictate the plot, and all that's associated to it, not their words, that's just bad writing, even Christopher Nolan's biggest fans acknowledge that flaw. You know, a picture is worth a thousand words, and all that...?