Joss Whedon's Comments on TDK

[dafox]

I like how you didn't include the second half of that quote

"Though there was plenty of talk (even by Nolan) that Harvey Dent is the backbone of the film, I'm not sure that's even entirely true -- or successful."


Dent feels like more of a main character than Batman, but it would be equally misguided to say Dent is the main character. When it comes down to it, I don't think The Dark Knight really has a singular strong lead.

Yeah but the fact Nolan said it is all that matters to my claim. Vader said I did not understand the movie because I said something Nolan said.

Also George do not let Vader see what you just said because he will say you did not understand the movie. I agree with most of what you said btw.

You didn't mention the second half of the quote at all so you don't have the right to crow over anyone...

[George]

I like how you didn't include the second half of that quote

"Though there was plenty of talk (even by Nolan) that Harvey Dent is the backbone of the film, I'm not sure that's even entirely true -- or successful."


Dent feels like more of a main character than Batman, but it would be equally misguided to say Dent is the main character. When it comes down to it, I don't think The Dark Knight really has a singular strong lead.

Yeah but the fact Nolan said it is all that matters to my claim. Vader said I did not understand the movie because I said something Nolan said.

Also George do not let Vader see what you just said because he will say you did not understand the movie. I agree with most of what you said btw.

I haven't seen The Dark Knight in quite a while, so I welcome Vader pointing out anything I may be overlooking. If I'm sure of anything though, I definitely remember having the feeling I posted above ("When it comes down to it, I don't think The Dark Knight really has a singular strong lead") after seeing the film. That and the main cast get very little to do in the third act.

[ArmandFancypants]

First off, I don't take Whedon's comment as a singular idea. He says both "Batman gets short shrift" and "It’s not about Batman." I only agree with the first statement. Batman gets the "short shrift" because the major decisions in the film are split between multiple characters, and at times completely divorced from Batman. Batman is present in so many scenes, but too many of the film's critical decisions aren't made by Batman.

Which ones? Batman is active from the start - the issue is that his scope is limited and still dictated by his past experiences, and he arrogantly dismissed the "escalated" result of his own emergence in the Joker. As a result Batman is forced to be reactive for the rest of the film, save for the decision to turn Harvey Dent into Gotham's true hero, since the Joker is as active an antagonist as you're going to get. There aren't any significant decisions that are made by anyone else in isolation - it's either the Joker, or the Batman who ultimately pushes the boundaries of what he has defined himself as, and comes up trumps.

I'm a proponent that the "main character" status is more sided with Harvey Dent and the citizens of Gotham than it is with Batman. Their decisions ultimately have a large thematic and narrative impact on Batman, but he's too often the spectator for much of the action (though that becomes more of a problem as the film goes on).

You have it arse-about. Dent's decisions and actions are prompted by the Batman and Bruce Wayne to begin with - scorn for Wayne, and inspiration from the courage of Batman, which steer him in the direction of being the White Knight. The Joker identifies this as Batman's true objective and instead corrupts and warps Dent into Two Face. Dent's decisions are all informed chiefly by those two major forces - he is essentially a chess piece (a White Knight indeed) in a broader game. Batman is THE key player in all of the film's action.

The citizens of Gotham function in the same way. Their actions stem from opposing "arguments" if you like from the Joker and Batman. Their decisions and actions do not spring organically from who they are, because that is irrelevant. It comes from their collective mindset, which is informed by these two key figures.

So if there's any place where The Dark Knight begins to falter, it's the second half. The film drifts away from any notion of a strong, main character to anchor the story. Though there was plenty of talk (even by Nolan) that Harvey Dent is the backbone of the film, I'm not sure that's even entirely true -- or successful. Harvey Dent has what seems like a fuller arc, but it's slightly ruined by the way he's presented in the third act. His "transformation" into Two Face feels a little false, making it difficult to really put much weight behind him.

Dent IS the backbone, he's the Macguffin if you want to use that overused term, but that doesn't make him the central figure. The protagonist is the central figure by default and that is Batman. Batman is the one with the set objective, Batman is the one with the agenda and the ideas, and Batman is the key part of the triumvirate with Dent and Gordon against the Joker. The whole film is about Batman having entered a melancholic state after Batman Begins, finding himself in a tit-for-tat war with the mob and devoting himself entirely to smashing them. The problem is that the "symbol" that he wants to be is being wildly misinterpreted by the people, who think that they too can be costumed vigilantes, and so he chooses to repurpose someone else's life to meet his own ends. That's fascinating. It's the greater good, but it sets Bruce up as a manipulator and a controlling force in much the same way that his master was. Batman Begins was all about how Bruce Wayne is influenced by his dual father figures into becoming a mix of the two (he destroys Ra's with Thomas's train, and that's just on a base level).

Instead The Dark Knight is all about how Bruce/Batman is an influence, and also how he wants to be an influence. That's one of the most compelling and rich arcs you'll come across. He wants someone else to be the ideal while he can still be the physical force, but what he actually needs is to pull the ambiguity of Batman, and turn him into a scapegoat. He needs the idea of Batman to be as risible as he finds it, he needs it to not be something to aspire to, and so he obliterates the very thing that defines him. Wow. By comparison, Dent being physically scarred and having his violent tendencies brought to the fore by a madman is pretty rote stuff.

More importantly, his plot of killing those responsible for Rachel's death is almost entirely separate from the main narrative of the ferry boats and hostages...he somewhat loses status as the main character at this point when the film puts so much focus on the ferry boat conflit. And that conflict, unfortunately, has little to do with our main characters. Neither Batman nor any of the main characters have decisive power in those scenes. Focus shifts to random Gotham citizens. For the third act, they essentially become the main characters. Though their ultimate decision has a large impact on Bruce's arc in the film, Bruce has no part in their decision making.

Two Face's rampage is him slipping into the same desperate carnage that the Joker has forced everyone else into. It's the same thing as the ferry boats and the hostages - it's about the Joker turning people into the same warped, violent entities that both he and Batman are, "bringing them down to their level". Dent has been the Joker's focus and his "wild card", since it's what strikes at the core of Batman's efforts. The people on the ferries is an argument between the two. It's the separate philosophies going to a head. The Joker tests it to its extremeties, but Batman's belief that the people of Gotham are inherently good wins out. The Joker's true defeat is not when Batman flings the blades into his face, it's when he comes to the realisation that he is wrong (cued perfectly by Zimmer). Again, it's all about how Batman can influence people - they would rather risk their own lives for others than take lives (and this is the final point at which the influence of Batman as a symbol for good has value - it is exhaused at this point because Batman has been proved right, hence why he can destroy Batman in the next scene).

The focus is not on these people as individually, but how they act, which is a direct result of the central characters. Their ultimate decision does not influence how Batman acts at all. It's pure vindication.

If anyone has seen Little Miss Sunshine, there may be a great way to tie this together. Olive more immediately feels like the main character in the film. It's ostensibly about her strong desire to win this pageant. But the main character in the film is actually Richard. Richard has to make the decisions that ultimately affect whether Olive can even be present at the pageant. Decisions that will decide whether or not the family will be held together. The Dark Knight ends with Batman taking the blame for Dent's murders in what could have been a strong attempt to round out the film as being "about" Bruce. But since I still haven't heard a compelling reason why Batman had to take the blame, it just doesn't work for me.

Batman taking the blame is the only natural conclusion. He can't blame murders on another, totally despicable man because on a moral level he might as well just have let Joker fall. He has been looking for a way out of being Batman since the start, since him as a "symbol" has gone too far and people have gotten themselves killed trying to be that symbol. He removes the flawed role model entirely, and creates a martyr instead that people can actually aspire to be. And finally, Bruce makes a true sacrifice - throughout his life others have made sacrifices for him, but for Bruce to surrender what has defined himself and what he has created (his true self) is his greatest, and most effective achievement.

[Allstar]

You didn't mention the second half of the quote at all so you don't have the right to crow over anyone...

The part where Nolan said that is all that matters. The other part was George's opinion which I respect highly.

[Vader182]

I'd like to commend Armand for saying what I planned to with perhaps greater grace than I would have. I would like to add one thing to the reasons Batman takes the fall for Harvey Dent's killings-

Gordon called it in, the entire building was surrounded, the police officers waiting aware of a hostage situation. What are they going to say, the man who kidnapped Gordon's family and killed Harvey Dent ...vanished? Batman, the master of becoming shadow and transparent, was detected quickly and narrowly got away. The decision for Bruce to pin the crimes on him was a practical decision as much as a moral one.

-Vader

[Allstar]

"Harvey Dent is a tragic figure, and his story is the backbone of this film," says Christopher Nolan

[prince0gotham]

First off, I don't take Whedon's comment as a singular idea. He says both "Batman gets short shrift" and "It’s not about Batman." I only agree with the first statement. Batman gets the "short shrift" because the major decisions in the film are split between multiple characters, and at times completely divorced from Batman. Batman is present in so many scenes, but too many of the film's critical decisions aren't made by Batman.

Which ones? Batman is active from the start - the issue is that his scope is limited and still dictated by his past experiences, and he arrogantly dismissed the "escalated" result of his own emergence in the Joker. As a result Batman is forced to be reactive for the rest of the film, save for the decision to turn Harvey Dent into Gotham's true hero, since the Joker is as active an antagonist as you're going to get. There aren't any significant decisions that are made by anyone else in isolation - it's either the Joker, or the Batman who ultimately pushes the boundaries of what he has defined himself as, and comes up trumps.

I'm a proponent that the "main character" status is more sided with Harvey Dent and the citizens of Gotham than it is with Batman. Their decisions ultimately have a large thematic and narrative impact on Batman, but he's too often the spectator for much of the action (though that becomes more of a problem as the film goes on).

You have it arse-about. Dent's decisions and actions are prompted by the Batman and Bruce Wayne to begin with - scorn for Wayne, and inspiration from the courage of Batman, which steer him in the direction of being the White Knight. The Joker identifies this as Batman's true objective and instead corrupts and warps Dent into Two Face. Dent's decisions are all informed chiefly by those two major forces - he is essentially a chess piece (a White Knight indeed) in a broader game. Batman is THE key player in all of the film's action.

The citizens of Gotham function in the same way. Their actions stem from opposing "arguments" if you like from the Joker and Batman. Their decisions and actions do not spring organically from who they are, because that is irrelevant. It comes from their collective mindset, which is informed by these two key figures.

So if there's any place where The Dark Knight begins to falter, it's the second half. The film drifts away from any notion of a strong, main character to anchor the story. Though there was plenty of talk (even by Nolan) that Harvey Dent is the backbone of the film, I'm not sure that's even entirely true -- or successful. Harvey Dent has what seems like a fuller arc, but it's slightly ruined by the way he's presented in the third act. His "transformation" into Two Face feels a little false, making it difficult to really put much weight behind him.

Dent IS the backbone, he's the Macguffin if you want to use that overused term, but that doesn't make him the central figure. The protagonist is the central figure by default and that is Batman. Batman is the one with the set objective, Batman is the one with the agenda and the ideas, and Batman is the key part of the triumvirate with Dent and Gordon against the Joker. The whole film is about Batman having entered a melancholic state after Batman Begins, finding himself in a tit-for-tat war with the mob and devoting himself entirely to smashing them. The problem is that the "symbol" that he wants to be is being wildly misinterpreted by the people, who think that they too can be costumed vigilantes, and so he chooses to repurpose someone else's life to meet his own ends. That's fascinating. It's the greater good, but it sets Bruce up as a manipulator and a controlling force in much the same way that his master was. Batman Begins was all about how Bruce Wayne is influenced by his dual father figures into becoming a mix of the two (he destroys Ra's with Thomas's train, and that's just on a base level).

Instead The Dark Knight is all about how Bruce/Batman is an influence, and also how he wants to be an influence. That's one of the most compelling and rich arcs you'll come across. He wants someone else to be the ideal while he can still be the physical force, but what he actually needs is to pull the ambiguity of Batman, and turn him into a scapegoat. He needs the idea of Batman to be as risible as he finds it, he needs it to not be something to aspire to, and so he obliterates the very thing that defines him. Wow. By comparison, Dent being physically scarred and having his violent tendencies brought to the fore by a madman is pretty rote stuff.

More importantly, his plot of killing those responsible for Rachel's death is almost entirely separate from the main narrative of the ferry boats and hostages...he somewhat loses status as the main character at this point when the film puts so much focus on the ferry boat conflit. And that conflict, unfortunately, has little to do with our main characters. Neither Batman nor any of the main characters have decisive power in those scenes. Focus shifts to random Gotham citizens. For the third act, they essentially become the main characters. Though their ultimate decision has a large impact on Bruce's arc in the film, Bruce has no part in their decision making.

Two Face's rampage is him slipping into the same desperate carnage that the Joker has forced everyone else into. It's the same thing as the ferry boats and the hostages - it's about the Joker turning people into the same warped, violent entities that both he and Batman are, "bringing them down to their level". Dent has been the Joker's focus and his "wild card", since it's what strikes at the core of Batman's efforts. The people on the ferries is an argument between the two. It's the separate philosophies going to a head. The Joker tests it to its extremeties, but Batman's belief that the people of Gotham are inherently good wins out. The Joker's true defeat is not when Batman flings the blades into his face, it's when he comes to the realisation that he is wrong (cued perfectly by Zimmer). Again, it's all about how Batman can influence people - they would rather risk their own lives for others than take lives (and this is the final point at which the influence of Batman as a symbol for good has value - it is exhaused at this point because Batman has been proved right, hence why he can destroy Batman in the next scene).

The focus is not on these people as individually, but how they act, which is a direct result of the central characters. Their ultimate decision does not influence how Batman acts at all. It's pure vindication.

If anyone has seen Little Miss Sunshine, there may be a great way to tie this together. Olive more immediately feels like the main character in the film. It's ostensibly about her strong desire to win this pageant. But the main character in the film is actually Richard. Richard has to make the decisions that ultimately affect whether Olive can even be present at the pageant. Decisions that will decide whether or not the family will be held together. The Dark Knight ends with Batman taking the blame for Dent's murders in what could have been a strong attempt to round out the film as being "about" Bruce. But since I still haven't heard a compelling reason why Batman had to take the blame, it just doesn't work for me.

Batman taking the blame is the only natural conclusion. He can't blame murders on another, totally despicable man because on a moral level he might as well just have let Joker fall. He has been looking for a way out of being Batman since the start, since him as a "symbol" has gone too far and people have gotten themselves killed trying to be that symbol. He removes the flawed role model entirely, and creates a martyr instead that people can actually aspire to be. And finally, Bruce makes a true sacrifice - throughout his life others have made sacrifices for him, but for Bruce to surrender what has defined himself and what he has created (his true self) is his greatest, and most effective achievement.

Holy shit.

Anyway I never had the idea George has been so off on so much about TDK this whole time.

[anonymity]

It doesn't bother me that Joss thinks TDK is not about Batman. It bothers me that he seems to have a problem with that. And I think the thing people are really arguing is more of the "Batman gets short shrift." I for one certainly feel the movie is all about Batman. But one can argue he gets short shrift. What's the problem with that? You can tell someone's story without having them in the spotlight every second of the film.

Harvey can be the backbone and the Joker can even steal the spotlight. Doesn't change the fact that the story is about a silent guardian, a watchful protector, a dark knight.

Joss and people who share his opinion want to watch Batman brooding in a cave for two hours. I loved Begins. But if you are going to continue Batman's story you have to branch out into how the decisions he makes affect Gotham City and those around him. I don't understand how people can't see that sometimes to tell a characters story you have to tell the story of what goes on around them as well. Everything we saw in TDK always came back to Batman.

And to be fair the story is not just about Batman it's about Gotham City and its citizens. Ironically though, Bane says in his debut appearance when he first meets Batman in Vengeance, "Batman is Gotham City." And vice versa. When Bane breaks Batman he means to break Gotham as well. To get to one you only have to attack the other but you must defeat both. The two are one.

To tell Batman's story is to tell the story of Gotham. It's something that separates Batman from almost all other heroes. He has a loyalty to Gotham like Bond has to the Queen.

[Joeyjojo72]

Agree with much of this. But many superheroes have deep abiding attachments to their hometowns, whether they 're made up or real. supes-metropolis, flash-keystone city, spidey-nyc, etc.. Hell, daredevil is even more specific, choosing Hell's Kitchen in Manhattan as his home base. Gotham may be unique (though not really. Both in its inception and today, its an amalgam of NYC and Chicago. It has evolved into something unique.) but Batman's attachment to his crib is boilerplate superhero stuff, especially DC characters.

[George]

Thank you for giving me a lot to think about, ArmandFancypants. I'll be rewatching The Dark Knight in a few days and offering some responses. I've admittedly not watched it in probably close to two years, so I want to make sure my references are all accurate and detailed. Most of my points on this are centered on what it shown on the screen rather than how the story works in isolation of that. So, for instance, there's a huge difference between spending several minutes of the runtime showing the citizens of Gotham making the decision to blow up the other boat versus having that be something the main characters and audience understand is happening, but not actually being shown any of it. I'll also be operating in the realm of "is this the best we can do" when it comes to characters being active (or other things) in sequences of the film. So, for instance, Bruce Wayne is technically active when he's driving around and feeding names of police officers to Alfred, but is that really the best use of our main character?

Batman taking the blame is the only natural conclusion. He can't blame murders on another, totally despicable man because on a moral level he might as well just have let Joker fall. He has been looking for a way out of being Batman since the start, since him as a "symbol" has gone too far and people have gotten themselves killed trying to be that symbol. He removes the flawed role model entirely, and creates a martyr instead that people can actually aspire to be. And finally, Bruce makes a true sacrifice - throughout his life others have made sacrifices for him, but for Bruce to surrender what has defined himself and what he has created (his true self) is his greatest, and most effective achievement.

Gordon called it in, the entire building was surrounded, the police officers waiting aware of a hostage situation. What are they going to say, the man who kidnapped Gordon's family and killed Harvey Dent ...vanished? Batman, the master of becoming shadow and transparent, was detected quickly and narrowly got away. The decision for Bruce to pin the crimes on him was a practical decision as much as a moral one.

Alright, I told myself I wouldn't make responses before rewatching the film, but since this plot point is so important to me I'll just be quick and hope whatever either of you respond with will only further inform my next viewing.

I guess this really comes down to two points. Why does Batman take responsibility for Dent's death and why does Batman take responsibility for Dent's killings. I think Vader has offered the right answer for him taking responsibility for Dent's death. Logistically it just makes sense that, particularly in order to keep the idea of Dent as Gotham's hope intact, the truth of that hostage situation and death needed to be pinned on someone other than Dent that's present at the scene.

But wholly separate (at least to me) are Dent's killings. I still think they should have been left ambiguous or blamed on the Joker, if need be. Now, ArmandFancypants points out that Batman is this highly moral figure and can't simply put the blame on someone else (Joker), no matter how despicable that someone else may be. But whether though a fault of the film's characterization, a fault of your interpretation of Batman, or just my own confusion, I'm not convinced Batman is the absolutely moral figure you paint him to be. If we want to talk Batman's lack of pure morality, look no further than the Harvey Dent cover-up or using the sonar device to find Joker. I think Batman saves Joker because he has a rule that he won't kill, not because he's a man of moral totality. Which brings me back to this: If Batman is willing to play dirty (by covering up Dent's true nature in order to secure hope for Gotham's future), why not also just blame Dent's murders on the Joker (or someone else, or leave it ambiguous)?

Anyway I never had the idea George has been so off on so much about TDK this whole time. :wtf

Hopefully I'll have more articulate and convincing points on my next go-around. But even if everything seems to "work" in The Dark Knight, my greatest complaint would still just come down to that it often just doesn't cinematically measure up as well as it should. And that's particularly important when there's a film like Heat that largely encompasses similar character dynamics and moments (and no, I'm not referring to superficial things like both films having a bank heist).