In October 2001, I had the great good fortune to hear
Dallas Willard speak. He was supposed to be speaking on Christianity and art, or something of that nature. But no one wanted to hear about that. Look at the date of the talk again.
Instead, Dallas found himself answering question after question about the nature of evil. People, in some anguish, were trying to understand 9/11, were trying to answer the question as to
why the terrorists did what they did.
But Dallas, instead, urged us in a different direction. Evil, he told us, doesn't need a cause. It doesn't need a reason. Evil, he said, is a
choice.
That talk flooded back to me as I watched
The Dark Knight. Not since Hannibal Lecter in the original film version (and especially in the book) of
The Silence of the Lambs have we seen evil so unflinchingly and purely (if that's the right word) portrayed as in Heath Ledger's performance as The Joker.
The Joker doesn't need a reason for anything he does. He compares himself to a dog chasing a car -- he wouldn't know what to do with it if he caught it. But that doesn't stop him from chasing it. The Joker is chaos -- and he shows us that "chaos" is not some benign force resembling an intersection where everyone wants to turn left at the same time. Chaos is destructive.
Evil, in the movies at least, is usually sexy. It's attractive, seductive. But Ledger's Joker is anything but. He is evil with the facade peeled away. He is the devil without the "angel of light" disguise.
As such, Ledger's performance is astonishing. The easy way out would be the Jack Nicholson route -- make The Joker a little funny, a little wacky, maybe even a little relatable. Ledger did not take the easy way out. In a very brave performance, he allowed himself to inhabit one of the most inhuman roles in cinema, to show us what evil unmasked truly looks like. As such his performance is one of the most haunting I can remember seeing. (And I use the word "haunting" in its older sense. Nowadays we use it to refer to something merely memorable. But originally "haunting" was a word applied only to ghosts and other not-so-nice-or-good supernatural entities... and being haunted was emphatically
not a good or pleasurable experience.)
What about the rest of the movie? you ask. What about Batman? Well, I've been holding off writing this post because I want to see it again so as to answer that question. But seeing it again isn't going to happen for a week or so, and this post is already so very late.
What
about Batman?
I felt he was a bit weak, perhaps a bit washed off the screen by The Joker (or at least pushed to the very edge of the screen). Yes, Batman is dark. Yes, he is psychologically disturbed. Yes, he is morally conflicted. Batman is, in his nature, all these things, and he is supposed to be all these things.
But ultimately, he is also supposed to be a hero. He is supposed to make ultimate sacrifices for the greater good. He may not always conquer evil, but at least he holds it at bay.
Here, however, in
The Dark Knight, the best Batmanesque moments are given to other characters. The person fighting the hardest on the side of good, and with perhaps the greatest possible self-sacrifice is actually Lieutenant-then-Commissioner Gordon. (A brilliant, anchoring performance by Gary Oldham, who manages to make good as interesting as evil here.)
And the most powerful moment in which we come face to face with the importance of moral choice is, of course, the moment on the ferry boats, where the "good" people have an opportunity to kill the "bad" people and thereby save themselves, and vice versa. It's a wrenching dilemma, great storytelling... and a moment of ultimate power handed off to a bit player instead of one of our heroes. The greatest statement about the possibility of redemption in the movie, and it's handled by a nameless character who doesn't exist outside that scene. Shouldn't it have been Batman who had to make that decision? Shouldn't it have been Batman who chose that moment of redemption? (Or, perhaps, who refused it?)
Nevertheless,
The Dark Knight is a powerful, disturbing, and yes, dark movie. It deserves its big box office, and deserves the Oscar nominations it will undoubtedly get (offhand, I'd expect Supporting Actor, Make-Up, Art Direction, Special Effects, Score, Sound Editing). It is as unflinching a look at evil as we ever get to see in the movies, especially impressive because it has to bend the rules of its superhero genre to get there.
Where do they go from here? Good question. I think the filmmakers made a huge mistake in killing off Harvey Dent/Two-Face. Yes, Two-Face is one of the minor villains of the Batman canon... but his relationship to Bruce (as Harvey) as well as Batman (as Two-Face) is a valuable for telling Batman's story, and they've just cavalierly tossed that all away. (Not to mention the fact that so many of the comic book Batman villains are preposterous and really wouldn't meld into the Christopher Nolan movies that well.) And if they planned a rematch with The Joker... well, that's not going to happen now. So I'm not sure what they can do, what villains they can tap, that will not be a disappointment after this very fine piece of work.
...I realize my musings are a bit all over the place here. So to wrap up, here are a few more interesting commentaries out there at the moment for you to check out.
First, Terry Mattingly on
morality in The Dark Knight.
Also, interesting thoughts from Ken Brown on
the theme of sacrifice in the movie.
And last but not least, some fascinating musinbs by Sean Gaffney
triangulating Batman, The Joker and Harvey Dent.
If you're not already tired of posting TDK-related comments, I'd love to hear what you think. And I'll be musing some more as I go back to the movie again next week...
