So this is the weekend that the Bat proved stronger than the Force. You’ve surely heard by now that “The Dark Knight” is officially the second-highest grosser of all time in the US, with only “Titanic” sitting above it. Thrilled as I am to see “Star Wars” knocked down a peg, I have to say I never saw this coming. I knew the film would be big – I’m not a moron, I like to think – but I’m still at a loss to explain just what about the film has connected with the public on such a monumental level.
So is The Sunday Times, it seems. In an interesting piece, journalist Christopher Goodwin poses a number of theories, but can’t really pin it down. (Can anyone?) He covers the obvious angles – the repeated fanboy viewings, the Heath Ledger angle bringing in an unusually broad audience for the genre – but ultimately thinks it comes down to something less tangible than that. Citing the film’s zeitgeisty qualities, he states:
The film has become a touchstone, beguiling audiences with what appears to be popular, comic-book entertainment, but explores some of the most critical social and ethical issues we face today — in particular, the issues being wrestled with by countries, notably America, fighting the “war on terror”. As those who have seen it will know, The Dark Knight explicitly examines how far it is permissible for individuals and society to go in the fight against “evil”.
Nothing new there, really. The political resonance of the film in today’s climate has been discussed ad nauseum, something Goodwin emphasises as he quotes extensively from critics such as Richard Corliss and Kyle Smith. For the sake of balance, he also pulls from Andrew Klavan’s perverse conservative reading of the film (covered by Kris here), wherein Klavan called the film “a paean of praise to the fortitude and moral courage that has been shown by George W Bush in this time of terror and war.”
I remain unconvinced that “The Dark Knight”‘s political subtext goes all that deep. So I was interested that Goodwin himself thinks the film’s social pertinence goes beyond mere politics and into more elemental psychological territory, driven by Christopher Nolan’s own personal insecurities. Here’s where his argument gets intriguing (and, to me, really rather credible):
Comments
18 responses to “Putting the Bat on the couch”
All of this makes me wonder if Nolan will even set himself up for the inevitable “failure” of Bat3. “Dark Knight” had so many things go RIGHT for it (financially). Bat3 could make $400m domestically and seen now as a failure.
If I was Nolan, I’d use the clout he has and do all the passion projects he’s developed and had to abandon. Make your Howard Hughes movie. “Aviator” be damned, they’ll throw the money at it. Make those sci-fi films. Make Jonah Nolan’s Chicago Fire epic. And then two or three films down the line, make the Batman movie to end all Batman movies.
I will be so depressed if Bat3 is his next movie.
Could it be that the movie is simply very very good? It’s the kind of phenomenon movie everyone has to see, even people who don’t normally go to the movies. People are recommending it highly. I have people at my office who still haven’t seen it because of the crowds but are definitely planning to along the line because it’s a movie you “HAVE” to see.
I don’t think Bat3 will be Nolan’s next.
WB has plenty of projects that would be Nolan’s cup of tea. On the top of my head I can think of two that stand out: The remake of Japanese movie The Chaser (a psychological serial-killer detective story) with DiCaprio attached and scripted by Bill Monahan. Or Monahan’s grand epic, Tripoli.
Tripoli is still set up with Scott, and now that he’s quit on Blood Meridian (leaving it to Todd Fields) and Nottingham is in a mess, I wonder if he might go to that next.
What are some of the projects Nolan has set up? “The Prisoner” is gone because of AMC, and Howard Hughes is probably unlikely. His brother has that huge Chicago Fire script he talked about around the time The Prestige came out.
Wow, I hadn’t heard Todd Field was taking over Blood Meridian. (I can be slow on the uptake with these things.)
Yay. A much better fit, in my opinion.
Brian, where did you read or hear that Field is taking over Blood Meridian? If true, this is not good news, in my opinion.
I’m not so sure Tripoli is still set up with Scott. If it is, I still don’t expect him to do it. Remember: He basically chose Kingdom of Heaven over Tripoli. Not sure why he did; Tripoli can be Lawrence of Arabia, no joke – script is excellent.
And if Field – if true – can take over Blood Meridian from Ridley, than certainly Nolan can take over Tripoli.
I’ve said it many times and I’ll say it again, had Heath Ledger not died the Dark Knight wouldn’t have crossed the $400M mark.
I just enjoy reading paragraph four out loud and saying “pee-on” and “George W. Bush” in the same sentence.
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/movies/la-ca-road17-2008aug17,0,4830329,full.story
Please note: The Road spoilers.
The L.A. Times new article about “The Road” let that detail slip, as well as Andrew Domink directing “Cities of the Plain,” which I haven’t read, but after “Jesse James,” you bet your sweet ass I’ll be picking up ASAP.
Thanks Brian. I saw the article earlier, but skipped it because a skim told me there were things I didn’t want to know. I posted the juicy bits about Blood Meridian and Cities of the Plain at Awards Daily, and name-dropped you.
Cities of the Plain will wipe you out.
The Dark Knigh is a tough cookie to crack. Because of the incredible opening week, one really can point to the initial success of Dark Knight as a combination of great marketing, Ledger interest, and goodwill after a good first film. Moving past the incredible first few weeks, one would have to argue that the word of mouth and the quality of the film really come into play.
Outside of that, I think I am going to go out on a limb here and suggest that The Dark Knight is not only a reasoned examination of real world issues (particularly those dealing with the Post 9/11 War on Terror), but that it tends to side with what I feel most people believe. I feel firmly that the film ultimately argues that certain people, certain types of evil, cannot simply be dealt with in the typical ways in which we deal with normal criminals. Use of force, surveillance, and deception by “black ops” are methods that have to be considered (cautiously considered, and not without consequences, the movie argues) in dealing with evil of the Jokers type (which mirrors much of what we find in the War on Terror).
Clearly the movie is not a DIRECT endorsement of Bush and his actions in the War on Terror, but I think that what the movie endorses, is ultimately what people feel in their gut about dealing with this type of evil. I think that resonates with most people, and can directly stir repeat viewings. Is it a conscious thing? Probably not, its probably something more on the gut level, but in attempting to explain the success of the Dark Knight, I think that is a very possible way to go.
Thanks for the link, Brian.
Interesting that the article didn’t mention Ridley Scott or William Monahan in regards to Blood Meridian and its “development process.”
I think Todd Field is a horrible choice. I’ll let Kris’ review of Little Children speak for me as well, but Todd Field taking over dampens my interest in the film. Nonetheless, good to hear that Dominick has a film in the works.
But back to the earlier question, will Nolan do a small film like The Prestige? Or go big? Does it matter?
I think that it’s very easy to overanalyze the film’s popularity, when in reality, the majority of people couldn’t care less.
Simply:
1. The film is a superhero movie – based on a popular one
2.The film is a sequel to a popular and decent movie- that guarantees it at least at least 600 to 700 mil worldwide.
3. There hadn’t been any decent summer movies up to that point other than iron man which was rather light entertainment – it was almost like the summer was leading up to the dark knight.
4. The marketing campaign started early and was rather clever and original- that initial trailer with no visuals and the Joker’s reveal.
6. I got the sense that it only segued from being a marketing campaign to an actual film about 2 or 3 weeks from release when all the critics waxed lyrical about it – brilliant, astounding, yada yada… That set the tone for what promised to be an enthralling experience.
7. The Joker – Batman’s primal nemesis, more weighty than the previous villain and instantly recognizable due to Jack Nicholson’s portrayal.
8. A reimagining of the Joker character, which featured prominently in advertising material – horrifying yet bearing a histrionic quality. He truly seems to cut to the core, while also tying into the film’s wider thematic concerns rather than being a ‘monster of the week’.
9. Anticipation was high due to Heath Ledger in the role.
10. This was amplified by his death – enormous media coverage and reverence paid to Ledger helped the film.
11. No real competition in the following weeks: The Mummy was a bad idea, Pineapple express is a 27 mil judd appatow comedy, ditto step brothers.
12. The film was excellent.
There is a certain zeitgeist/X factor that cannot be ignored and is needed to explain the film being a mammoth success.
Think you’re overlooking the best commentary on the movie to date, from James Howard Kunstler. Surely everyone agrees that this is a movie about the Joker. Here’s what Kunstler said:
“The Joker is not so much as person as a force of nature, a “black swan” in clown white. He has no fingerprints, no ID, no labels in his clothing. All he has is the memory of an evil father who performed a symbolic sadomasochistic oral rape on him, and so he is now programmed to go about similarly mutilating folks, blowing things up, and wrecking everyone’s hopes and dreams because he has nothing better to do. He represents himself simply as an agent of “chaos.” Taken at face value, he would seem to symbolize the deadly forces of entropy that now threatens to unravel real American life in the real world — a combination of our foolish over- investments in complexity and the frightening capriciousness of both nature and history, which do not reveal their motivations to us.
By the way, forget about God here or anything that even remotely smacks of an oppositional notion to evil. All that’s back on the cutting room floor somewhere (if it even got that far). And I say this as a non-religious person. But the absence of any possible idea of redemption for the human spirit is impressive.”
http://jameshowardkunstler.typepad.com/clusterfuck_nation/2008/08/dark-knight.html
This is a dark movie, obviously, and that’s why it appeals to us…in these dark times.
I thought that the bit about the father, then changing the story to be about his wife was meant to almost mock our need to mitigate the Joker’s behaviour or attempt to explain it – he is an agent of chaos that is beyond such characterization – no fingerprints, no name, no reason for his behaviour. That is what makes him terrifying – he is not really ‘human’, of another thread entirely.
There’s almost a solaris like quality to the Joker. The alien mind of Solaris is so inconceivably different from human consciousness that it cannot be understood.
I’m only partially digging the Zeitgeist story. It’s of some influence but the audience simply loves the film and word-of-mouth is supreme. I have several girlfriends that have already seen it and loved it. LOVED IT. OMFG!!! girls loving Batman!!! The movie blurs the line between fantasy and reality in a fascinating way and it is just a relentless piece of storytelling.
Is crazy when people said that the movie did more than 400mil is because of Heath dying (YES IS ONE OF THE MAIN REASONS) but is not the primary reason, the movie is GREAT, is not that heath acting is awesome is that the movie itself is the best of 2008 so far,it have tension, great acting, musical score, cinematography, story, action scenes and a lot more.
Oh and Ledger getting all the acting credits is understandable but a bit sad for the rest. Everyone really does an excellent job, and if there’s any justice they’ll get a SAG nod for Best Ensemble. (Okay, perhaps not, but one can always hope).