Transcends the Superhero Genre

Rating: 8/10 (30 September 2008)

So why doesn't Batman just kill someone like the Joker? Consider all the lives it would salvage. Batman has declined unswervingly to ever kill at all, substantiating that if he kills, he would be no better than the criminals he is avowed to stop. But doesn't an intractable vow not to ever kill seem almost selfish? Or is it? Generally we think a person is compelled to do what would do good for the most lives, but what if that is taking a life? Which is of greater consequence, doing good or avoiding wrong? One of the layers that I am grateful that this film is given is its consideration of the principles of killing to put a stop to imminent killings, which is the predicament Batman confronts when he weighs his personal beliefs against the numerous lives that he could save from the polar opposite carefree killing spree of the Joker.
The best superhero movies are ones wherein impossible moral tests are presented philosophically between the troubled hero and the villain who is unentangled by such dilemmas, with the exception of one like RoboCop, which depicts a future in which there's no morality but law. But in spite of fulfilling this rewarding criteria, The Dark Knight is not just a superhero movie, and that is what I like about it. It takes on the tone and plot structure of Heat, The Departed or Serpico. It's a film that rises above its beginnings, surprising us as a gripping crime drama about moral dilemma. It does not, however, bring us to care more about the characters than we would in another superhero movie just because of its extensive backstories and reminiscing monologues. The performances are not quite deserving of the objective exaltation they are expected to merit. But what makes it so much better than any other superhero movie is its rethinking of the prospects of the "comic-book movie."
Not only a tremendous improvement over not only Batman Begins and the preceding Batman films but the only Batman film, it's not a simple tale of good and evil, and by that I mean that it is a tale of good vs. evil, but it is not by any means a simple one. Batman is the zealous crusader for good, no matter what. The Joker is evil, and the most interesting aspect of his character is that he is never definitely explained. Batman is under the greatest pressure he has ever experienced as Gotham is riotously angry, blaming him for the deaths of policemen and others, having taken the law into his own hands. The Joker is an impetuous, eccentric psychopath whose deeds have exploded epiphanically into his head to cruelly pose moral catch-22s for Batman, the police, civilians, even the remaining Gotham crime element.
What anyone could've perceived months before the release of The Dark Knight as the biggest box office boost a movie could ever be incidentally given by a mere twist of fate is also the most talked-about element, the late Heath Ledger as the Joker. Will he win the first posthumous Oscar since Finch? Well, I wouldn't be surprised, and it wouldn't be such a ridiculous thing, but I really want to look beyond the hype and stroke of tragedy of his performance. His clown makeup slapdash and shoddy, his cackle indicative of unfathomable wounds, he creates clever circumstances that force Batman, Commissioner Gordon and DA Harvey Dent to reach insufferable resolutions. By the end, the entire honorable groundwork of Batman is in jeopardy. The Joker is a fascinating villain in The Dark Knight, and surpasses even Jack Nicholson's portrayal. Ledger did deeply understand the impulse and anarchy of this new rendering of the Joker. There's a little of everything in him. One cannot rely on his character being coherent, so there are endless surprises to him. In addition to Ledger's movie-stealing oddball charisma, the brilliance of this version of the Joker keeping his intentions obscure, knowingly forcing people to jump to conclusions which he'll then fine- tune to his best advantage, is the benefit of one of the most interesting things about the original character: With how much vehemence should we malign him? Is he joking?
The cast, loaded with greats, Caine, Oldman, Freeman and of course Bale, does not quite give Oscar-worthy performances. Bale, having developed a determined understanding of the Batman/Bruce Wayne character, still takes some awkward steps, such as a petty one but a misstep nonetheless, a moment where he uses his severely raspy Batman voice when he is alone with Morgan Freeman, who knows his identity so there's no reason for him to disguise his voice. But Christopher Nolan does not allow the special effects to upstage them, and nearly any viewer must be taken aback by how intensely the drama involves us. It is habitual for a comic book movie to preserve a detachment from the story, and thus their recurring audiences care little about the coherence or effect of it. The Dark Knight is made by filmmakers who believe in the classic blockbuster that engages us.
The effects are remarkable. They concentrate on the anticipated explosions and disaster, and have some first-class, highly structured chase scenes. To boot, there is a handful of momentary shots of the Joker so well composed and hauntingly portrayed by Ledger that they stuck with me more than anything else, strangely. This movie may hit same notes as a film noir or a cops-and-robbers picture, but it still doesn't play with the full deck that those sorts of movies tend to have. The collective conscious of Gotham seems to be occupied with nothing but crime. Aaron Eckhart's character, Harvey Dent, the blonde, blue-eyed lion of a city hero, has such an iron-clad moral compass that it is a little shocking the extent to which he goes. Nevertheless, who cares? What a ride.