Joss Whedon's Comments on TDK

Christopher Nolan's 2008 mega success about Batman's attempts to defeat a criminal mastermind known only as the Joker.
Posts: 394
Joined: August 2010
Location: Kerala, India
George wrote: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)?
I can imagine Batman playing dirty is such situation or even killing someone for good things .. but blaming someone else[even joker] for Dent's crime.. i can't imagine that ... Batman never will do that.... think, what joker will think about that...

The only remaining choice is to left it ambiguous... but it will result in investigations... who knows whether Dent will get caught or not in investigation ??? maybe we, as viewer, can say that Dent didn't leave any clues... But how Batman possibly know that..??

User avatar
Posts: 9849
Joined: October 2011
Location: Foot of Mt. Belzoni
George wrote: 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?
Good films are never just merely what is on screen or what is literally happening. It's about metaphors and consequences and the broader context. The citizens of Gotham, or Harvey, or whoever don't exist in a vacuum, and to actualy humanise the consequences of the other characters actions is what sets TDK far apart (and far better) than the pack. Normally when you see innocent bystanders imperiled, it doesn't mean anything. But by dwelling on them, Nolan gives us the full weight of just what is happening, and gives us a reference point that we could all find ourselves in. It's just good storytelling.

That's coupled with the fact that Batman is at his best when he is withheld - Burton understood this too. It's the same principle of lightsabers being used sparingly in the original Star Wars films - when you have something special you keep it from the audience without battering them over the head.

George wrote: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)?
There's a line, and there are "rules" that are commonly refered too. Framing another man for murders he is innocent of is the line that is beyond the pale for Batman. People are not simply moral or immoral. There are shades of gray. When I say that Batman's morality isn't pure, that doesn't mean that he is a monster. He pushes the boundaries of what is ethical, but it all stems from what he originally set out to do. The sonar is an extension of his existing listening devices. The beating of an unarmed prisoner is an extension of the already present physical threat that he poses to goons.

Pinning murders on another man though has no precedent, and would make him truly despicable. The film is all about perception and what people believe to be true. "The lie is good" in The Dark Knight's case, which is a natural follow up to The Prestige's "The lie is necessary" and is followed by Inception's "The lie is dangerous" (and I suspect, The Dark Knight Rises will show us that "the lie will be found out and is bad.") As I've said, Batman starts the film concerned about his own dramatic example, and we see that people get killed trying to follow him into battle as Batman, as they are ill-equipped. "I'm not wearing hockey pads" is a gag, but it's also significant. There is absolutely no way that Bruce can convey to the people that they are not allowed to be Batman because they are not as financially endowed as he is. It would be hypocritical at best to say that he can be a law unto himself and can risk his lives to save others, but no one else is allowed to do exactly the same thing. As a result, under the banner of Batman, people are getting needlessly killed (and furthermore, people are going around dressed up like Batman wielding shotguns - look no further than Batman's introduction in the film).

That spurns on the quest to turn Harvey into the White Knight, but when that gambit has failed desperately thanks to the Joker, Batman sees the natural solution to both problems. He removes Batman as a role model and an inspiration to others, and hence no one is ever going to try and be him - he's killed cops, and he's killed a horribly damaged man who had risked his own life for the safety of Gotham by claiming to be the Batman. He creates the perfect example that people should aspire to be and removes the dangerous one entirely. It is the only true solution to the conundrum faced at the start of the film, and allows him to triumph over the Joker.
George wrote: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).
Heat is about professionalism and isolation, but The Dark Knight is about influence and heroism and whatnot. It's the aesthetic and sometimes thematic boilerplate for the film, but saying they're the same film is like saying that Batman Begins is just Blade Runner with a crustier Rutger Hauer.
Ah, böwakawa! Poussé, poussé...
Ah, böwakawa! Poussé, poussé...
Ah, böwakawa! Poussé, poussé...

Posts: 3669
Joined: June 2009
ArmandFancypants wrote:Good films are never just merely what is on screen or what is literally happening. It's about metaphors and consequences and the broader context.
Well yes, absolutely. But...
ArmandFancypants wrote:The citizens of Gotham, or Harvey, or whoever don't exist in a vacuum, and to actualy humanise the consequences of the other characters actions is what sets TDK far apart (and far better) than the pack. Normally when you see innocent bystanders imperiled, it doesn't mean anything. But by dwelling on them, Nolan gives us the full weight of just what is happening, and gives us a reference point that we could all find ourselves in. It's just good storytelling.

That's coupled with the fact that Batman is at his best when he is withheld - Burton understood this too. It's the same principle of lightsabers being used sparingly in the original Star Wars films - when you have something special you keep it from the audience without battering them over the head.
That bolded line is something I wholeheartedly take issue with. Honestly, seeing innocent bystanders imperiled in The Dark Knight means nothing to me. Throughout The Dark Knight we continually get glimpses of bystanders, police officers, car drivers, and others just moments before they're killed. Do you care about the police men we see for a split second before their car gets blown up? Those cutaways just become distractions. If the goal is to create more depth to these imperiled characters, the solution isn't to just dwell on them -- then (particularly on the ferry boat) we're just dwelling on thin, two-dimensional cardboard cutouts. The solution is to give them story-related depth. If we're going to spend so much time on the ferry boats, for instance, put characters on the boats we care about. Perhaps, even, we could have seen Tommy Lister's character earlier in the film (or even earlier in the scene) so his decision could feel like some sort of payoff. In Heat, for instance, Dennis Haysbert's character could, in some lesser version, have just been a random getaway driver we see for less than a minute before he gets killed (or even just a generic, "extra" level getaway driver we see a few seconds of). But because he has been given time to develop, showing him in that scene makes it more worthwhile. Extras should be in the background. If characters are going to be in the foreground, make them something worthwhile.
ArmandFancypants wrote:Heat is about professionalism and isolation, but The Dark Knight is about influence and heroism and whatnot. It's the aesthetic and sometimes thematic boilerplate for the film, but saying they're the same film is like saying that Batman Begins is just Blade Runner with a crustier Rutger Hauer.
I by no means said Heat and The Dark Knight are the same film. I said Heat "largely encompasses similar character dynamics and moments." If you think Heat is just an aesthetic and thematic touchpoint The Dark Knight, I encourage you to give it another viewing. The dynamics between Al Pacino's Hanna and De Niro's McCauley are incredibly similar to Bale's Batman and Ledger's Joker. Think about the line "an unstoppable force meets an immovable object" and then think about Hanna and McCauley. Like Joker and Batman, McCauley and Hanna are also two sides of the same coin. There are even scenes that are different in tone, but similar in content. Joker's interrogation and the dinner between Hanna and McCauley, for instance.

Going off your thematic labels of the films (which I'd say are a bit limited and unnecessarily distinct), heroism and its personal costs are by all means present in both film. In both we see how the love and family suffer as a result of deep commitments to stopping crime. You're limiting isolation to Heat, but Bruce Wayne is an incredibly isolated character. There are literally only two people he can truly be Bruce around (Alfred and Rachel... and perhaps almost Fox). They're both about what you're willing to sacrifice to see your commitments and goals to their ends. Related specifically to law enforcement and criminals.

User avatar
Posts: 9849
Joined: October 2011
Location: Foot of Mt. Belzoni
George wrote:That bolded line is something I wholeheartedly take issue with. Honestly, seeing innocent bystanders imperiled in The Dark Knight means nothing to me. Throughout The Dark Knight we continually get glimpses of bystanders, police officers, car drivers, and others just moments before they're killed. Do you care about the police men we see for a split second before their car gets blown up? Those cutaways just become distractions. If the goal is to create more depth to these imperiled characters, the solution isn't to just dwell on them -- then (particularly on the ferry boat) we're just dwelling on thin, two-dimensional cardboard cutouts. The solution is to give them story-related depth. If we're going to spend so much time on the ferry boats, for instance, put characters on the boats we care about. Perhaps, even, we could have seen Tommy Lister's character earlier in the film (or even earlier in the scene) so his decision could feel like some sort of payoff. In Heat, for instance, Dennis Haysbert's character could, in some lesser version, have just been a random getaway driver we see for less than a minute before he gets killed (or even just a generic, "extra" level getaway driver we see a few seconds of). But because he has been given time to develop, showing him in that scene makes it more worthwhile. Extras should be in the background. If characters are going to be in the foreground, make them something worthwhile.
The characters, though, are merely representative, and that is by design. They are, by definition, innocent bystanders in a larger feud - to have met them earlier would be to defy the point. The characters are entirely new at that point in the film specifically because they have not been involved in the narrative in any way, shape, or form. That's a different way of telling a story, but I think it's a perfectly legitimate one if you're trying to show how the tendrils of the battle reach out and find everyone. Average joes and criminals are presented with a moral dilemma and make the right choice because of the actions of the main characters. We're not meant to explore or understand or necessarily "care" about the individual, but the implication.
George wrote:I by no means said Heat and The Dark Knight are the same film. I said Heat "largely encompasses similar character dynamics and moments." If you think Heat is just an aesthetic and thematic touchpoint The Dark Knight, I encourage you to give it another viewing. The dynamics between Al Pacino's Hanna and De Niro's McCauley are incredibly similar to Bale's Batman and Ledger's Joker. Think about the line "an unstoppable force meets an immovable object" and then think about Hanna and McCauley. Like Joker and Batman, McCauley and Hanna are also two sides of the same coin. There are even scenes that are different in tone, but similar in content. Joker's interrogation and the dinner between Hanna and McCauley, for instance.

Going off your thematic labels of the films (which I'd say are a bit limited and unnecessarily distinct), heroism and its personal costs are by all means present in both film. In both we see how the love and family suffer as a result of deep commitments to stopping crime. You're limiting isolation to Heat, but Bruce Wayne is an incredibly isolated character. There are literally only two people he can truly be Bruce around (Alfred and Rachel... and perhaps almost Fox). They're both about what you're willing to sacrifice to see your commitments and goals to their ends. Related specifically to law enforcement and criminals.
Which is why I say that they sometimes share the same thematic boilerplate. I would say that the two films would form more of a Venn diagram (might be worth doing at some point) rather than strong parallels. Personally I think that Mann's focus is starkly different to Nolan's, insofar as Nolan likes to look at lofty, John Ford-style ideas about lies and truth and whatnot, whereas Mann has always been about the professional situation of an individual, and the minutae of that. There's a strong overlap but I think you get starkly different experiences from watching both films.
Ah, böwakawa! Poussé, poussé...
Ah, böwakawa! Poussé, poussé...
Ah, böwakawa! Poussé, poussé...

Posts: 163
Joined: July 2010
Location: Italy
I'm really sick of people thinking The Dark Knight "is not quite a movie about Batman".....

User avatar
Posts: 5434
Joined: June 2012
Location: Free
Slask wrote:I'm really sick of people thinking The Dark Knight "is not quite a movie about Batman".....
Of course it's a movie about Batman, but I understand that some people felt that it focused more on the Joker, because I myself think so. It's not a negative point, however, just the style that the movie needed (you can't have a villain like the Joker, specially one played so masterfully, being overshadowed by other characters).
Un lladre es un artista. Fa servir la imaginació per lluirse cuan roba el seu trofeu. Els detectius només analitzen el delicte i ens denuncien. Els detectius son uns simples critics.

User avatar
Posts: 26395
Joined: February 2010
Location: Houston, Texas
George wrote:That bolded line is something I wholeheartedly take issue with. Honestly, seeing innocent bystanders imperiled in The Dark Knight means nothing to me. Throughout The Dark Knight we continually get glimpses of bystanders, police officers, car drivers, and others just moments before they're killed. Do you care about the police men we see for a split second before their car gets blown up? Those cutaways just become distractions. If the goal is to create more depth to these imperiled characters, the solution isn't to just dwell on them -- then (particularly on the ferry boat) we're just dwelling on thin, two-dimensional cardboard cutouts. The solution is to give them story-related depth. If we're going to spend so much time on the ferry boats, for instance, put characters on the boats we care about. Perhaps, even, we could have seen Tommy Lister's character earlier in the film (or even earlier in the scene) so his decision could feel like some sort of payoff. In Heat, for instance, Dennis Haysbert's character could, in some lesser version, have just been a random getaway driver we see for less than a minute before he gets killed (or even just a generic, "extra" level getaway driver we see a few seconds of). But because he has been given time to develop, showing him in that scene makes it more worthwhile. Extras should be in the background. If characters are going to be in the foreground, make them something worthwhile.
I feel you sort of missed the point of the ferry scene if you're saying it's just dwelling on two-dimensional cutouts. That scene might not be the most compelling in the film, but it is very important. If that never happened, it never would have emphasized the Joker's failed point. He wanted to show that everyone, at the end, is just like him or that they are willing to "eat each other".

One overriding theme in the trilogy has been the city's reaction, the people's reaction, to events unfolding around Gotham. Not only does that make the films seem bigger on a filmmaking scale, but also makes the themes so much more important and compelling. The people on the ferry, the bystanders, the people on the street are altogether a character in the film. The ferry scene showed just how wrong the Joker was. So look at it this way: people of Gotham city are one massive, living, breathing character that influenced the story.

Haysbert's character needed some development because Heat was more about the dynamic between cops and robbers, and the humanization of criminals. The film had very little to do with the people of L.A. whereas TDK had a lot more to do with the people of Gotham, thus the point of the movie. Batman proved how heroic he really was because he was willing to have the people of Gotham hate him for there own benefit.

At the end of the day, this is the point that Whedon misses too. People mistakenly think the film is about the Joker simply because Ledger had the most interesting and compelling performance in the film. The film is actually about the dynamic of Batman, Dent and Gordon. Since TDK was a sequel, it needed to be less about Batman as an individual and more about larger themes that involve Batman. The ending of the film makes Batman and his actions the most important and influential thing in Gotham.
If she plays cranium she gives good brainium.

Posts: 163
Joined: July 2010
Location: Italy
didich wrote:Of course it's a movie about Batman, but I understand that some people felt that it focused more on the Joker, because I myself think so. It's not a negative point, however, just the style that the movie needed (you can't have a villain like the Joker, specially one played so masterfully, being overshadowed by other characters).
Beyond that, some argue that it doesn't seem like a "batman movie", because it's too dark, too much like a drama-thriller-crime movie...
...I mean, that happens because most of these people actually never read a single comic book, because if they did they would know they're just like the movie! Batman Year One is a crime comic book, just with a guy in a batsuit as the protagonist.
And by the way, the fact that TDK is not a traditional superhero-movie is its strenght indeed.

Posts: 211
Joined: May 2012
Slask wrote:
didich wrote:Of course it's a movie about Batman, but I understand that some people felt that it focused more on the Joker, because I myself think so. It's not a negative point, however, just the style that the movie needed (you can't have a villain like the Joker, specially one played so masterfully, being overshadowed by other characters).
Beyond that, some argue that it doesn't seem like a "batman movie", because it's too dark, too much like a drama-thriller-crime movie...
...I mean, that happens because most of these people actually never read a single comic book, because if they did they would know they're just like the movie! Batman Year One is a crime comic book, just with a guy in a batsuit as the protagonist.
And by the way, the fact that TDK is not a traditional superhero-movie is its strenght indeed.
^agree.

Posts: 33
Joined: December 2011
Cilogy wrote:One overriding theme in the trilogy has been the city's reaction, the people's reaction, to events unfolding around Gotham. Not only does that make the films seem bigger on a filmmaking scale, but also makes the themes so much more important and compelling. The people on the ferry, the bystanders, the people on the street are altogether a character in the film. The ferry scene showed just how wrong the Joker was. So look at it this way: people of Gotham city are one massive, living, breathing character that influenced the story.
...
Batman proved how heroic he really was because he was willing to have the people of Gotham hate him for there own benefit.
Yeah, the ferry boat scene shows why Batman takes the blame at the end of the movie. Batman learns that he is a symbol of hope for the people of Gotham.

Post Reply