Heath Ledger’s Joker, disappearing pencils, Harvey’s lucky coin, love triangles, Batpods and a Caped Crusader having to cross the line. Cinema’s greatest comic book adaptation was released 10 years ago.
It’s a decade since the majestic centre point of Chris Nolan’s Dark Knight trilogy simultaneously elevated the perception of what comic book films could be on film and set a tone, whether resisted or followed, for a genre making its way to the top of the box office.
Perhaps it’s no coincidence that the year of The Dark Knight’s release also saw the launch of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, imperceptibly starting on its own journey to redefine Hollywood blockbusters. That behemoth began rather inauspiciously with the double-bill of an unstoppable force of chaos and a super crime fighting multi-millionaire playboy. Although there was little appreciation that the billion dollar box office barrier The Dark Knight smashed through would soon become de rigueur for the flagship films of DC’s great rivals.
Nolan’s vision soon proved to be definitive to the point of irony in the fast-growing comic book genre.
A decade on, The Dark Knight stands tall as Batman’s finest celluloid hour. That’s saying something for a film that’s part of a rigid, isolationist trilogy and for a character whose live action pedigree stretches across multiple iterations and 70 years. Nolan’s vision soon proved to be definitive to the point of irony in the fast-growing comic book genre. The trilogy was an impossible springboard for an expanded film universe, but it set the tone under the light guiding hand of Chris Nolan for the difficult DC Extended Universe that followed in the past decade.
The Dark Knight wasn’t the first comic book film that strove for a level of realism or ‘darkness’, but it’s effect was immediate. Given the successful but unfashionable steps to colour that DC’s big hitters Superman and Batman had taken in the 1960s and 1970s, in the 21st century their incarnations would be set by The Dark Knight. The DCEU that duly emerged half a decade later was dark, gloomy, robust, powerful and hard-hitting. This was the universe of gods, eager to set a strong and lofty tone that comic pages could translate to screen. It now seems odd now that this sprang from the grounded and gritty Dark Knight trilogy as much as Nolan’s film’s became a watchword for darkness (read ‘not kids films’) without being mired in it, unlike Batman versus Superman or Man of Steel.
There have been few disasters in the DC films that followed. 2011’s Green Lantern may be the true exception, although that came mid-Dark Knight trilogy. But there have been plenty of disappointments, a far cry from the heights of The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises. The impact of Nolan’s trilogy on the DCEU is still difficult to call. On the anniversary of The Dark Knight’s release this weekend, Warner Brothers premiered trailers at San Diego Comic Con for two new DC films that broke their so-called dark curse: Shazam and Aquaman. Alongside those was an early glimpse at the New Romantic-set sequel to one of last year’s great comic film successes, Wonder Woman.
Wonder Woman may have felt like a fresh slice of quality amid other major DC output from the last few years, but it’s storytelling style, reach and multiple levels owed much to Nolan’s trilogy, proving that Batman’s greatest celluloid moment, has a legacy as complex as its narrative.
To celebrate the modern comic classic, Jokerside presents 10 ways The Dark Knight broke the mold and unexpectedly gave us one of the most influential films of all time.
1. It’s extraordinarily faithful
“I think you and I are destined to do this forever”
A struggle with origins have long dragged down the comic book medium, and the rot set into Batman’s modern film existence as soon as Tim Burton’s 1989 classic let a rather homicidal Dark Knight avenge his parents’ death. 2005’s Batman Begins made its more mature intent clear: there were no easy answers, and the crux lay in the battered tussle between Bruce Wayne and Batman.
It was a broad canvas ready to be explored in the sequel, but what was extraordinary was Nolan’s faithfulness to the source material. Joker was no stranger to public consciousness, but his film credentials were tied up in Jack Nicholson’s definitive 1980s take. The rather obvious idea of directly translating many great and classic storylines from the pages of comic books has only settled in over the past decade. After Begins Nolan had his sights set on the very beginning of Batman’s much explored and interpreted nemesis, and adapting an origin lost over decades of character development.
In the run-up to the film, eyebrows raised at Nolan’s assertion that his Joker would follow the character’s original 1940 comic book appearance. But there it is. The chillingly cool opening bank robbery, albeit to a different end, shows the same effective big dollar robber. Working alone for the most part, this Joker is quite at home with physical altercation, even if he doesn’t quite match his early comic book counterpart who could best Batman in a scrap. He comes from nowhere, with no identity but an intelligence to match the otherworldly comic horror of his appearance. And just as in Batman #1 the Joker issues warnings before commiting crimes. Now in a different medium, and not so clearly because he’s obsessed with his own brilliance, he still remains a man of his word.Continue reading “The Dark Knight at 10: 10 ways it Introduced a Little Anarchy”
If you enjoyed reading this, please share with the world!?
The man who laughs, the man without an origin, the man with hundreds of origins. The final part of the Batman at 75 articles can’t look at anyone else but the Clown Prince of Crime and try to touch on his roots…
THIS FINAL BIRTHDAY POST FOR BATS MAY BE A LITTLE LATE…. BUT THAT DOESN’T MEAN IT ISN’T PERFECT. WHILE LAST YEAR WAS BATMAN’S ANNIVERSARY, THIS YEAR IS THE JOKER’S 75TH BIRTHDAY.
Yes, the Joker. The Harlequin of Hate. The Clown Prince of Crime. The villain with a hundred nicknames. And quite possibly the greatest fictional nemesis ever devised. He’s a villain, though not one restricted by his matching hero. He’s famous in his own right, a symbol and a sign, a definite statement of something… So, it’s a welcome luxury that the Joker has surpassed mere origins for his 75 years of existence. When it comes to his nocturnal and ultimate foe, retcons may alter facets of his origin story – the role his butler took or perhaps the ‘rediscovery’ childhood friends – but up to the bat and the window he’s very much defined by the strict facts of his origin. The Joker isn’t. The Harlequin of Hate is Batman’s opposite after all, despite classic stories that have drawn out the similarities as much as those polar difference.
And of those stories, some of the greatest stored in the Bat Computer have given, or at least hinted at origins for the laughing rogue. But one was never afraid to contradict another, or pick and embellish them as they wanted. It’s absolute freedom (within editorial reason); it’s continuity chaos.
Off page it’s a similar story. Various influences have been cited as an influence by a number of comic legends, including the father of the Dark Knight Bob Kane. Add to that the vast number who have filled in to expand and explore it since. Of course, as this is the Joker we’re talking about nothing’s straightforward. And just like his villain’s own autobiography, neither any writer’s attempt nor Jokerside’s dip into the acid can be exhaustive.
So dotting through the life, times and media of the Clown, here are some select glances at Joker’s many zero years. Of course, the joke’s on everyone. For a character all about obscurity he sure has a lot of people trying to redefine him. And for every fact you think you learn, by the end you find that he hasn’t given a quarter. No matter how many times he seems to come last.
THE NEWS SPRUNG OUT OF THE SHADOWS LATE ON THURSDAY – AGAIN I WISH THAT WARNER WOULD GIVE SOME WARNING FOR THEIR SURPRISE ANNOUNCEMENTS. BEN AFFLECK IS THE DARK KNIGHT.
More than usual, the genre press led with ‘What do you think?’ headlines – and that’s saying something. There are few actors who’d create more of a stir. Recent weeks have been consumed with rumours that Warner Bros were casting around for an older Batman to match their 33 year old on screen Superman – even pursuing Christian Bale’s return to the tune of $50 million. Recently retired Caped Crusader Bale is just two years younger than Affleck, but it turns out that offer was either flatly rejected, a neat distraction or both. The sudden and definitive announcement surprised many, more than guaranteeing an argument.
Indifferent commentators have been increasingly quiet during a Summer where superhero films have dodged blockbuster box office meltdown. But this news stirred them. They stress that for them it’s not an Affleck issue. It’s more a lament – usually an ill-considered one – that it’s time to seal the comic book film genre away in UV protecting plastic sleeves. In an attic. For once, fans with vision the size of the bat cave entrance may be more clued up, but not necessarily for the right reason. The problem is that Ben Affleck has form.
2003’s Daredevil hangs over Affleck like Kingpin over Hell’s Kitchen. And that’s a little unfair. Far from being the victim of misfortune, it’s been mainly Affleck who’s distanced himself from it – with an emphasis on never playing a superhero again. 2003 was an odd time for the genre, falling in an odd hinterland half a decade before Marvel Studios kicked off their ambitions. At the time Fox’s X Men franchise was successfully burgeoning but remained quite low key. That Summer also saw Ang Lee’s tortured Hulk suffer (mind you, in a difficult season even Harry Potter underperformed).
Daredevil is an established and well regarded Marvel superhero, with one of the most eminent fathers in Stan Lee. But he’s always been one that fits a little awkwardly into the Marvel film roster. Now Fox have rejected Joe Carnahan’s intriguing 70s reboot and the rights have reverted to Marvel Studios it’s hard to see the Man without Fear slipping neatly into the Avengers universe anytime soon. While tragedy and classic monster horror runs through the Hulk’s veins and comedy and coming of age angst drip from Spiderman’s web, Daredevil marries one of the hokiest origin stories with themes of religion, law and city-grit. The horned one is perhaps the darkest fantasy creation to ever wear scarlet in comics and over time creators such as Frank Miller have honed him into a fascinating character – so much more than disability and toxic ooze. Those B-Movie roots that even the Turtles couldn’t totally steal remain, but his position as the real Batman of the Marvel Universe is clear. Pipe down Iron Man.
Director Mark Steven Johnson, a director who often finds it very difficult to please, got a lot right. Daredevil’s power was startlingly realised if a little too stylised. The curse of heightened senses and the Devil’s Catholic guilt were implemented well while the cast was well filled out. The late Michael Clarke Duncan was a superb Kingpin in particular. Fox certainly didn’t fear the worst before it opened, ordering an extra post-credit scene that showed rising star of the moment Colin Farrell’s or rather his character Bullseye had survived for a sequel. Still, despite those apparent strengths in a second string costumed hero film, it didn’t even touch $180million in receipts. It scored under half the amount that the sublime X Men 2 clawed in for the studio just two months later.
A lot of the supposed faults of the mini-Devil franchise were cemented by the unwise Electra spin-off film. Despite the presence of small screen directing legend Rob Bowman, things didn’t go well. Just a cursory look at one of Electra’s comics shows that it would have been hard to conceive the film more poorly. Affleck wasn’t slow to remove himself from the disappointment, but an even more uncomfortable year was to follow. Having already bounced back from Pearl Harbour in 2001, 2003/4 saw him endure the release of Gigli, Paycheck and Jersey Girl following Daredevil. Each proved a nail of various sizes, and it wasn’t long until the former Hollywood golden child found a better stable behind the camera. However, not before, interestingly, he found time to portray doomed Superman actor George Reeves in Hollywoodland.
And so 10 years later, after a chequered decade, Affleck returns to superheroes, this time as that other famous vigilante of the night, the one with the black cowl.
2013 has cemented Affleck’s remarkable repositioning. Taking the directing reins and major roles in a series of serious, gritty and political films has quickly established him up as a talent to watch. His choices and oh so serious bearded persona could be seen as mildly cynical were it not for the critical acclaim and awards… He’s making money as well. Argo raked in $232 million and he’s well on the same path as Clint Eastwood took, but in a far shorter timeframe. His best film win at the Oscars this year may have surprised, but in hindsight it was the one film that allowed the Academy to acknowledge politics at arm’s length. George Clooney had Affleck’s back. Their beards were strong.
So really, it’s the timing of the casting that’s most surprising. Affleck’s name’s been linked to Bruce Wayne’s before, most recently in the flurry of activity surrounding the presumed Justice League movie. Affleck was linked with that directing gig before Snyder was locked in… But there must be some truth to ever rumour, especially in Gotham.
Warner ultimately decided on a cleverer route to realising their big screen ambitions than leaping into their own Avengers. While they can introduce a rebooted Batman in the next Superman film, building and boosting Man of Steel 2’s box office, it’ increasingly likely that they will be growing other characters from the small screen. Series two of DC Superhero series Arrow is set to feature the origin of Scarlet Speedster Flash (which bears some similarity to Daredevil’s hokum) starting a run that may well continue straight onto the big screen. It’s a far cry from previous years where television appearances were overruled in favour of screen development. That change in thinking, while brilliantly opposite to Marvel’s, uncoincidentally collides with the box set generation’s rapidly changing habits. On Wednesday one-time Lex Luthor Kevin Spacey, a praised the golden age of television that is outshining a lot of cinema’s offerings. Warner’s plan increasingly looks multi-format, benefitting from a cohesion that the empire has fecklessly mishandled in recent years.
However, there’s a more telling indication in Affleck’s casting. He’s not the man without fear, the arrogant Hollywood star unaffected by critics…
Affleck is director of the Best film at the 2013 Academy Awards, with a strong recent working relationship with Warner Bros. Further details have surfaced over the last day that Nolan’s serious stab at Gotham-lore was enough to pique Affleck’s interest and he may even have been in the frame for Man of Steel. Certainly it seems reasonable that Affleck’s also eyeing up the contribution he can make to the character behind the camera, either in a solo tale or as part of the larger DC universe.
Casting wise, the past week has seen speculation grow around Lex Luthor with many names connected to the role signalling a similarly serious intent. Among some heavy-hitting fan-baiting names, imagine Bryan Cranston’s Luthor flexing stocks and shares and Kryptonite opposite Affleck’s Bruce Wayne. It looks like, having settled on the serious direction inspired by the Dark Knight trilogy – one which at least limits the possibility of a critical failure – Warner and DC are building a family for the future. It’s a strong one if David Goyer, Nolan, Snyder and Affleck continue to orbit it.
If Affleck had sought the advice of his friend George Clooney, the response may have been as brutal as some of the internet’s reaction. Some have observed that Warner may just as well have put Clooney back in the cowl but that’s another unfair reminder how one misplaced appearance can disrupt a career. Clooney was an excellent Bruce Wayne and hardly responsible for 1997’s Batman and Robin debacle. Put him in the cowl now and it wouldn’t be a terrible choice by any means, but unfortunately it represents far more of a nadir than Daredevil. In many ways, their respective superheroes have made the modern Affleck and Clooney.
Affleck’s chin, sans beard, will return to fantasy once again, but this time to a fantasy one steeped in allegory and metaphor and not a slavish origin. DC has built a universe of consequence and repercussion – not terrible things to have in a blockbuster. While the Dark Knight is a closed and dusty shop, this Batman isn’t likely to be a total reinvention. While undoubtedly dark and vigilante, this Batman will be as crucial to the plot’s capitalist and political scrutiny as inevitable Snyder-size devastation. Affleck will join an ensemble. He won’t take on the mantle of a new and repurposed Batman that some fans are calling for, but he certainly won’t be a Daredevil.
If you enjoyed reading this, please share with the world!?
As the final part of the Dark Knight Trilogy rises into homes, the first of two posts on the most successful superhero trilogy of all time. First, a look at how much of Batman was in the Dark Knight.
LIKE MOST OF A TIME-CONSTRAINED POPULATION who didn’t see The Dark Knight Rises nine times on the big screen, I’m still a little conflicted about whether Return of the Dark Knight is quite as good as The Joker Strikes Back.
In a year of many faint praise reviews, most critics tussled with rewarding The Dark Knight Rises (DKR) as a film in its own right or as the end of a rather impressive trilogy. Most went with the latter. The same happened with the final part of The Lord of the Rings trilogy of course, but I doubt DKR will challenge that on the Oscar front. However, as with The Return of the King, if DKR does come up a little short in its own right, then it doesn’t by much. Because an impressive trilogy it is.
The Dark Knight trilogy differed from other Batman films in one crucial respect
Seldom has such a fully formed universe been realised consistently on celluloid, regardless of genre – especially 15 short years since the franchise was creatively bankrupted. In fact, what Chris Nolan has achieved is incredible. Until The Avengers, his Dark Knight saga was the superhero franchise to emulate. In the last few years, many new films have sought to describe where they sit on the Dark Knight scale as part of their publicity splurge. Only Marvel’s Avengers were collectively strong enough to swim against those ‘darker’ waters. But while The Dark Knight made billions, Batman had already been making millions in his other iterations in the preceding decades. Upon it’s release, Tim Burton’s 1989 Batman had a similar influence, albeit in a less superhero saturated market, on many films such as Russell Mulcahy’s Shadow five years later.
Now the Nolan trilogy has concluded, Batman will again be rebooted and repackaged by another creative team for further assaults on the box office. In 20 years, a complete Batman box set may well include UV copies of the Dark Knight trilogy with four other films either side of it. Even if the imminent reboot proves disappointing, it will still be unclear how significant the seven year reign of this Dark Knight will prove to be. There is however, one real problem which was not so much acknowledged in the DKR, but integral to it. As successful, deep and even epic as the films are, they differed from other Batman films in one crucial respect. They weren’t really about Batman.
The Bat Begins
To be clear, the Dark Knight trilogy is a great achievement and a fitting chapter for a deservedly cultural icon. Countless comparisons that can be made to other trilogies, both better and far worse, illustrate that. However, while many may struggle to decide which their favourite part is, one thing is clear: I still remember how I felt when I walked out of Batman Begins (BB) in 2005. That feeling marks me apart from many who’re tussling with the question of favourites: I didn’t think it was all that.
Seven years and one concluded trilogy later, that feeling has abated slightly. A few of my apprehensions dwindled and actually a lot of them were blown completely out of the Bat cave. But still, a few niggles remained. Something wasn’t quite right.
I was partly to blame and some of my reasoning was clearly restrictive: I perhaps didn’t want to like BB because there were already good Batman films in existence, particularly the Burton duo, and there will undoubtedly be more good versions in the future. This was reinforced by the fact that it didn’t really feel like a Chris Nolan film. I was already quite a fan of Nolan’s work. Memento and Following were wonderful and his Insomnia remake even better. In BB Nolan’s touch seemed very light. There was a typical Nolan totem true, here in the form of Wayne senior’s stethoscope, but nothing so personal as those that appeared in the director’s previous films or would be subsequently developed in the sublime Prestige and perhaps reach their ultimate form in the incredible Inception (both of which fed considerably into The Dark Knight (TDK) and DKR respectively). But it wasn’t so much that Nolan’s hand was lessened as much as perhaps both his hands were tied. It was a massive studio IP… And it was an origin film to begin with.
No Batman fan should have any problem with another retelling of the Caped Crusader’s origin. I probably read the Bob Kane original twice a year or so – it’s only two pages, so I can generally stretch to it – but in BB, as integral as it was, it fell a little flat. BB was the third celluloid retelling of Batman’s origin in 16 years, and while repetition may contribute to a malaise, it rather its mishandling by multiple previous creative teams that cast a long shadow.
The otherwise sublime 1989 Batman was ruined by one thing: once the Burton/Keaton Batman had killed the man who killed his parents, the character’s motivation was gone. There my still be crime in Gotham, but on a personal level the Waynes’ murder had been avenged: Bruce may well have just moved to the Med with Catwoman. The Bat franchise, no matter how loosely connected, struggled on with this pretty significant problem for the best part of a decade. It prompted a virtual remake in Batman Returns (1991), a laboured origin flashback in Batman Forever(1995) and then, well… Maybe it would have helped with Batman and Robin (1997). It was hardly a problem that dogged the 1940s or 1960s films which concentrated on crime rather than the psychology of the character but of course, that treatment was no longer acceptable in the 21st century (outside cartoons). The Nolan-machine duly made sure that the same problem wouldn’t surface in BB and in fact this facet and its open ended-complications fed into the film and its sequels at every level. Indeed, Nolan’s recent comments confirm that it was linked to the overall and concluding theme of the trilogy.
In the Dark Knight Trilogy Batman never stopped beginning
But for all the acceptance of the Batman origin being paramount, and requiring constant reinforcement, there are times where it has to develop. The comics have battled with this for years and necessarily come up with all sort of answers. Among them have been the introduction of Robin (several times), faceted villains (the al Ghul’s) and an extended Bat family (all the way to the Justice League). In the Dark Knight Trilogy however, Batman never stopped beginning.
War of Attrition
The Tumbler was never going to streamline into the Tim-Burton-mobile… Hits you like a grappling hook
There were aggravating factors in BB’s version of Batman’s origin that were easier to dismiss. If so inclined, you could buy into the Tumbler as the first of a long lineage of Batmobiles which would eventually become the Tim-Burton-Mobile when Batman grew up. But that Batman never came. The Tumbler was never going to streamline into the Tim-Burton-mobile. A fact that can hit you like a grappling hook.
Personally, I always found far more interest in the mature Batman locked in his role as guardian of Gotham City, rather than the many accounts of his origins. The guardian Batman is one built into the fabric of his city, locked into an unending fight against crime not by just one tragedy, but many and constant tragedies which continue to curse him to endlessly paper over an abyss he could fall into at any time. It’s a war of attrition and there is always the possibility that he might not win. Melodramatic and gothic it may be, buy many of those ideas surface in every iteration of Batman. While the Nolan films did tap into those elements, the attrition and the multiple tragedies, in the course of the trilogy they served to stop him beginning.
Time should be as inconsequential as plot holes when it comes to works of fiction, but in the Dark Knight Trilogy, it’s an integral part of the story. BB covers the longest stretch of time, even disregarding the flashbacks to young Bruce, as the 20s Wayne develops his Kevlar persona. Then, despite a great sequel hint, TDK certainly doesn’t take place immediately after BB. The world’s greatest detective clearly thought a playing card call sign bank robber quite inconsequential. Gotham Knight, the canonical animated film that led into TDK bridged the gap by showing a still fresh faced Batman tackling comic mainstay Killer Croc in the sewers. It was a minor miracle to fit that villain into the Nolanverse, but it’s only real contribution to the ongoing story was to establish Arkham as an island. It surely can’t have been too long following that before Batman faced the Joker, and Two-Face’s cameo (but really, what else can you do with that character on film) and then immediately take an eight year hiatus, or as he saw it, retirement. Instead of operating as a vigilante, DKR reveals that Batman just disappeared, the main cause being the second great tragedy of his life rather than the GCPD. In DKR, we catch up with Wayne in his 30s, but after eight years out of the game, he isn’t the iconic and controlling force the comics show at that stage of his life. The fact he’s still beginning is something DKR’s plot reinforces. The cop chase resembles those against a young vigilante, he’s still meeting and greeting villains and crucially, one consequence of a Batman stuck as a rookie is inescapable. He has a great need for father figures, something Nolan provides in plenty.
Each father figure in the Dark Knight trilogy carryies a virtue of Batman
Those father figures are hardly new in Batman, in fact they’ve been rather integral over the last 70 years. But here they are extended to the maximum, with each father figure carrying a virtue of Batman: Alfred is Bruce’s wisdom and conscience. Ra’s provides drive and revelation that lasts the trilogy. Gordon is the inspiration, clarity and motivation. Then of course there’s Lucius Fox. The gadgets and toys that once invoked jealousy in the Joker take on a different role in the Nolanverse. They are a visceral definition of Batman, Bruce Wayne and Wayne Enterprises. In fact, they so define Batman that he can’t function without Fox, even when he’s lost Alfred and Gordon. The Wayne legacy of money can be easily disposed of on the stock market, but Thomas Wayne bestrides the trilogy in forms far beyond that incident int hat alley. It’s not an ineffective take on Batman by any means, and it certainly creates a nuanced and layered hero for Nolan to work with. In fact, it’s also neat get out of the Robin issue. You can’t have a Robin mentored by a Batman, when the Dark Knight himself is still Robin.
But of course, when you share Batman out among a load of different characters, there is little left of Bruce Wayne. And perhaps that’s the point. Nolan has recently stated that the intended conclusion was to develop the concept that anyone can be a Batman (also neatly quashing the rumours of Gordon-Levitt taking on the mantle in the future). It’s effectively realised in the trilogy, but again ensures the Batman of prolonged attrition would never appear. It could be argued that in film’s natural narrative shortening, Bane’s impressive isolation of Gotham condenses decades of that attritional war from the comics – it certainly references several story lines. But it was crucially Nolan’s decision to remove Batman from the frame for eight years and allow Gotham to naturally thrive that ensured he could never become a guardian with longevity.
It was also a deliberate step to draw villains into Batman’s origin. This is not unprecedented in the comics, and BB drew on some characters from the printed stories, but is certainly enhanced in the trilogy. In fact, each of the villains really draw out the impact of the Bat’s extended origin.
A Serious Punch line
The Joker is the greatest villain ever created
While it may not be the deciding factor in itself, it was immediately evident that the villains of BB were untouched by the previous four Batman films. Not so coincidentally, they were also villains who, though not household names, could neatly lay out the new realistic take of the Dark Knight trilogy. They were in effect, untarnished but also disposable. If BB had failed, then there would have been another relaunch a few years down the line which would have been even better placed to reboot the 1992 Penguin. Conversely, if BB was a success, the path was laid down for villains to return by one simple playing card. And that is a trump card that many sequels would die for.
The Joker, frankly, is the greatest villain ever created. Not only conceptually brilliant, he draws on cultural references and fears from the dawn of civilisation, politics and phobia. He’s as versatile, empty, complex, dark and comic as you want him to be – and many different writers have provided many different takes. Surfacing from very little, six decades have sculpted him into a brilliantly realised yet constantly enigmatic foe. Not only is he a character perfect for reinvention, but also a palette that can lift and elevate a story or deliver the savages twist. In the comics he’s killed a Robin, paralysed a Batgirl, and had the greatest number of different origin stories and yet, none (as TDK referenced). Some proof comes from Grant Morrison’s late 2000s piece The Clown at Midnight. Not many comic book villains can sustain a completely prose newsstand comic book. And then, as inevitably as that clown on your doorstep at midnight means the worst… And at the end of BB, Batman gets handed that playing card. It was enough to dispel any other trifling concerns. It was serious: How could any variant on the Joker fit into that realistic universe?
Of course, TDK dispelled those concerns. Heath Ledger’s Joker was brilliantly realised. True to the producers’ words, he sprung from the first comic stories and from then the script gleefully and haphazardly straddled every compelling character point. He was a bank robber who was an anarchist who was a nothing… Without the Batman. The eternal joke, the unstoppable force. Further proof of the verity of this Harlequin of Hate was Azarrello and Bermejo’s Joker graphic novel. That developed a very similar version of the character at the same time as the film, but had the misfortune to come out afterwards.
The Joker booted Bruce Wayne back out of the cowl
But while I was pleasantly, horrifically surprised by how pencil-blindingly great TDK was, it brought the concerns of BB to fruition. Like a good Joker, he’d banished the silly problems and highlighted some large ones. Nolan’s focus on origin in BB continued to overcome his hand. In TDK, the Joker is introduced with an adaptation of his first appearance in the comic, but soon becomes the film’s anarchic metaphor made flesh. He didn’t develop Bruce Wayne into Batman, his actions booted him back out of the cowl.
A film later, Nolan would again draw heavily from early villain origins, particularly the 1970s Batman wonder stories, where Denny O’Neill’s script and Neal Adam’s art rebooted, reframed and elevated Batman above the recent and mercifully short-lived 60s period. It was O’Neill who created Ra’s al Ghul, aiming for a villain who posed a modern and intellectual challenge to a Knight in desperate need of darkening. O’Neill also brought globetrotting to Batman, something Nolan has drawn heavily into each film. In the Nolanverse, the al Ghul and Bane stories wrap around Bruce Wayne like (Poison) Ivy.
In Batman, Nolan not only drew on the 1930s origins, but the constant ongoing explorations of Batman’s early years: Frank Miller’s Batman: Year One, Jeph Loeb and Tim Sale’s wonderfully recent additions to the myth The Long Halloween and Dark Victory. These comics were less reboots than gentle massagings of retconning; eking out character traits and sticking manure in the shoes of background characters. That’s necessary in a medium where so many characters – Catwoman, Batman and the best rogue’s gallery int he business – exist in the cultural consciousness and so deserve and require constant re-exploration. This is generally why you can’t begrudge a retelling of any comic origin.
But so strong were the trilogy’s leanings toward Batman’s beginning that when Catwoman was confirmed for DKR, speculation focussed on tales of Batman’s origin to find her role. The irony of this entangled origin was the intangibility of each villain that appears in the trilogy (bar Dent, although ‘villain’ is probably a little strong. Most of the villains in the Nolanverse have little approaching an origin in the classical sense. DKR comes the closest, but arguably only for the sake of a twist. The difference to the Caped Crusader’s extended origin, to which many of them relate, is stark. Throughout the decades, the arrival of new villains constantly provided new challenges for the Dark knight, alongside the chance to explore different facets of his character: a quest for The Grail every time. But it was crucial to the Dark Knight trilogy that these built on each other. The attritional war was actually one of the villains versus Wayne psyche. And this struggle was set against the real, constant, major player in the Batman myth as the franchise crept further towards reality: Gotham City.
Two Tales of One City
The last of the trilogy enabled the emperor’s cloak to fall
In the first decade of the 21st century, Nolan had created the superhero film of to which all others aspired. And it’s a big field. In the days following DKR I recklessly bought a ticket to see The Amazing Spiderman. It was a nice solid film, well made and engagingly acted. That said, in the end I wasn’t surprised at the lesser box office this iteration generated in comparison to Same Raimi’s Spiderman trilogy; after all it followed hot on the heels of that successful trilogy and for all its faults, Spiderman 3 was no Batman and Robin. But following a couple of hours of light plot and re-origins, my overall impression was that it had terribly bad luck to be the worst New York-set superhero film in Summer 2012.
Gotham from the Anglo-Saxon for Goat’s Town
Long before DKR, Gotham was a rather blunt metaphor. But after three films, Nolan had abandoned any pretence that Gotham wasn’t New York itself. In the comics the dark industrial East Coast port town of Gotham has been constantly abandoned by America, its name piercing the ear alongside other DC Comics fictional cities such as Star and Central City. However, removed from those other fictional metropolises, Gotham has always carried a grain of truth. It’s not just an important character in the Batman universe in its own right, but a fine Dickensian caricature. The name Gotham was in fact coined as a nickname for New York in ever disparaging terms by Washington Irving in 1807; from the Anglo-Saxon for Goat’s Town.
And when the last of the trilogy enabled the emperor’s cloak to fall, Nolan’s vision of Manhattan were stunning. Few films have shown off the city better, and New York is filmed often. That is also in acknowledgement that the film was directed by Chris Nolan, not the most visually pioneering of directors it’s fair to say. His shots are often stunning in their clinical precision, functionality and mechanics and that’s not at all faint praise. His love of IMAX is natural – tailored to the scope of the action and all its contributing elements rather that simply the 25 or so paintings that appear on screen per second. Nolan’s films are never simply big fake robot smash big fake robot. You get what few blockbuster director’s can deliver: all parts of the film working in unison. In DKR this worked brilliantly from the outset; though more than reminiscent of the opening to License to Kill, the plane hijack combines menace, character introduction and stunt on the IMAX screen like few other films could.
The reality of the trilogy is a huge contributing factor to its overall success. It doesn’t matter that Gotham has a bridge that is Manhattan Bridge or that Gotham’s financial district is in fact Wall Street. The city metaphor had shortened since BB’s Gotham of monorails and Kowloon, just as the villain metaphor, interestingly, had stretched it. Bane’s motivation may seem the most far-fetched, but it feeds directly into contemporary concerns of the western world in a way that Ra’s or the Joker couldn’t. In comparison, The Amazing Spiderman’s main problem was that despite a confident reboot with excellent casting and superb chemistry, it focussed on a bland, completely CGI villain. Quite a mistake considering Spiderman hardly had less time in development than DKR and, as with other Marvel properties, it has a far longer run of direct comics continuity to draw from (albeit dragged down by the unnecessary decision to include an origin). While Spiderman had some narrative and plot faults which it carried right next to its web slingers, so did DKR (just a little less sticky). The real difference is that The Amazing Spiderman is incredibly light froth compared to the shaded complexity and sheer scope of DKR. Some may highlight this as a fundamental difference between Marvel and DC Comic, but I’d never be so downright incendiary…
The Wrong Cape
The themes and focus of the Dark Knight trilogy are one franchise out
To reveal Batman’s city to be bona fide New York but under it’s 19th century nickname was a necessary one. While at various points it was patrolled by the Batmobile, Batpod and then The Bat it was always a novice behind the wheel.
Despite all the little things that have ebbed and flowed over the last seven years, adding and building on a familiar character, this Batman never lost his Begins. And the true effect of this concentration on origin was really drawn out by DKR. While not a fundamental problem to the films themselves, their themes or function, it is a fundamental problem for Batman. It’s not that the Batman Begins title lasted the series, but that the last two films’ titles are mischievous. In making the characters origins so crucial, yet showing the ‘rise’ of a legend that could fall to anyone meant the Dark Knight never appeared. In fact, while it hits close, the themes and focus of the Dark Knight trilogy are one franchise out. Nolan actually made a damn near perfect Superman film.
Next: The Dark Knight Rises: How Christopher Nolan made the perfect Superman film…
If you enjoyed reading this, please share with the world!?