A Few Words on the Villain Plots in The Dark Knight Trilogy

It was pretty interesting to rewatch The Dark Knight films recently – I hadn’t seen any of them in quite a while, and I enjoyed going back to them now that I’m more comic-book-film-literate than I was back when I first saw them.  Viewing them again, I find the cracks more noticeable, but they’re still awfully good and have an important place in the current generation of comic book movies.  (Climax spoilers for each movie in the trilogy.)

Watching all three films in fairly close succession, I was struck by a major thematic thread that works through each of the movies’ main plots.  Quick recap before we start.  In Batman Begins, Ra’s al Ghul and the League of Shadows lace Gotham’s water supply with an extremely-potent hallucinogen that will make the people wild with terror.  In The Dark Knight, the Joker does a ton of different, crazy things without much real purpose, mainly seeking to cause chaos.  However, the big climactic set-piece is his “prisoner’s dilemma on a boat” scenario in which the passengers on two ferries (including one loaded with actual prisoners) hold detonators for explosives wired up to the other ship, the idea being that the Joker will blow up both boats if one doesn’t detonate the other before an appointed time.  And in The Dark Knight Rises, Bane is quite the work horse:  he destabilizes Gotham’s economy, traps its police underground, cuts it off from the rest of the world, hides a Gotham-destroying bomb somewhere in it, and hands the city over to the have-nots, essentially telling them to party like it’s the Reign of Terror. 

So, what do these plans have in common?  Well, they all involve fear and chaos, but more than that, they all involve the villains merely setting the wheels in motion.  Ra’s al Ghul frontloads his plot by contaminating the water, Bane knocks over many dominoes in quick succession, and the Joker orchestrates an elaborate game of mental torture.  I mean, sure, all three will kill people directly if the mood strikes – the Joker is particularly fond of the old ultraviolence – and both Bane and the Joker’s plots include the threat of blowing people up with bombs.  The intriguing part, though, is how much they accomplish without setting off those bombs, much like Ra’s al Ghul deploys his weaponized hallucinogen and then kicks back to watch it all play out.

That’s because, for each of them, their main plan isn’t to destroy Gotham – it’s to maneuver Gotham into a position in which it destroys itself.  Ra’s al Ghul waits for the drugged population, crazed with fear, to tear each other apart.  The Joker’s prisoner’s dilemma is more of a microcosm, since it focuses on the passengers of the two boats rather than the city at large, but the intention is the same; he doesn’t have to trigger the bombs on either ship because the situation pits both groups of passengers against one another, and it’s all about waiting to see which one will break first.  Bane sets up an impending doomsday, knocks out the infrastructure, and demolishes the escape routes, and then it’s just a matter of letting mob rule take over.

I like this theme, because I feel like it’s a cooler, subtler way to discuss the corruption and waywardness of Gotham (as opposed to the literal discussion of said subject in the films, which gets heavy-handed.)  Here’s a town so lost that the bad guys don’t even need to bring it down; they just nudge it into place, and it’ll do the rest of the work for them.  In light of all this self-destruction, 1) it’s even better when ordinary Gothamites stand up and refuse to be what the world thinks of them, and 2) it speaks more highly of Bruce that he recognizes that this “damned” city is still worth saving.

The Dark Knight Rises (2012, PG-13)

The Dark Knight Rises really hammers home how much the trilogy is, in fact, a trilogy.  It’s not a series that just happens to have three films in it.  Viewed together, the story they tell of Batman is a self-contained one, and the final installment is most definitely an ending.  (Some basic premise spoilers.)

We open on a Gotham that, in recent years, has been policed by the actual police force rather than the caped crusader.  The events of the last film have served a twofold purpose:  1) they’ve enabled stronger legislation to give Gordon and other cops a fighting chance at cleaning up the streets, and 2) they’ve shaken Bruce to the point that he’s hung up the cowl.  But as the saying goes, just when he thinks he’s out, he’s pulled back by the arrival of Bane, a mysterious figure with immense power, warped ideals, and tangential connections with Bruce’s old friends/adversaries the League of Shadows.  As he breaks out the old Batmobile again and starts tentatively getting back in the game, he tests the waters of a few potential allies – namely, a passionate young cop, a determined philanthropist, and a clever cat burglar who may have a greater propensity for good than she realizes.

As always, the cast is to die for.  Christian Bale does a marvelous job as a rustier, more guarded, banged-up Batman.  As for the newcomers, Tom Hardy is a great Bane, a sort of hulking comic-book Robespierre (and all but unrecognizable – I know he’s got the mask and everything, but still.)  Anne Hathaway brings a neat mix of self-interest, calculating misdirection, and cat-and-mouse playfulness to Catwoman.  Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Marion Cotillard both do well as Blake and Miranda, respectively.

The plot, while more than a little on-the-nose, is enjoyable.  Bane’s vision is greatly influenced by the French Revolution (the DVD should probably come with a spoiler warning for A Tale of Two Cities,) and it’s really neat to see how that dynamic is realized in a place like Gotham.  Meanwhile, it’s cool to see Bruce rejoining the fight after being out for so long.  He sort of has to rebuild himself from the ground up in order to take Bane on, and the side of good is a real team effort here, more so than any other film in the franchise.  I like watching Batman working with others, as well as watching how the rest of the good guys get by on their own when he’s not around.  In a way, his temporary retirement/refusal of the call forces those like Gordon, Blake, etc. to step up their own capabilities, which is good, because in this fight, Batman needs all the help he can get.

Like all the films in the trilogy, it’s definitely too long.  This one is a whopping 2 hours and 45 minutes, and especially on rewatch, it can feel like a beast of a movie.  It could’ve easily stood to lose half an hour.  However, it’s an undeniably fine film that brings the series to an excellent close.  It reminds me a tiny bit of the Breaking Bad finale in that, before I saw it, I couldn’t have told you what I was hoping for, but afterwards, I was decidedly satisfied.

Warnings

Heavy comic-book violence, a little sexual content, drinking, swearing, and thematic elements.

The Dark Knight (2008, PG-13)

The second film in The Dark Knight trilogy builds on the good will earned by the first installment and delivers on pretty much every level.  It’s cool, it’s engrossing, it has impressive action, and the characters positively crackle.  On rewatch, you really feel the two-and-a-half-hour run time, but overall, this film improves on an already-strong debut outing.

Now that his origin story is out of the way, Batman is fully in the public eye, and that means a lot of cons thrown in with the pros.  Bruce is serving up numerous lowlifes to be put away by Gotham’s one honest cop, but at the same time, copycat vigilantes are getting in his way, endangering themselves and muddying the waters of what he’s trying to do in the process.  Public opinion as to whether the caped crusader is a hero or a menace is divided, with some thinking Batman needs to be locked up alongside the criminals he’s caught.  And most significantly, his S.O.P., with its high theatrics and flashy technology, has led to escalation among Gotham’s seedy underbelly.  The presence of a superhero begs a super villain, and the Joker is eager to fill that post.  As his volatile new foe begins to wreak sadistic havoc on the city, Bruce’s limits – physical, mental, and moral – are tested to the utmost.

When this film came out, the big news was the late Heath Ledger’s performance as the Joker, and, since it’s every bit as good today, I’ll start there.  Ledger is chameleonic in the role – twisted, flippant, manic, dangerous, and mercurial.  Truly, one for the ages.  And generally, I like that the Joker is portrayed as an intelligent wildcard, a force of chaos without a lot of discernible goals or desires.  That seems like a weird thing to praise in a character, but for the Joker, it really works.  He’s not a criminal mastermind, and even though he’s obviously a bad guy, he’s not really with the bad guys.  He’ll do some dirty work for them, but he doesn’t strictly ally with them – the man is an object lesson in the phrase “no honor among thieves.”

This unstable element makes for some fine storytelling, audacious stuff that keeps you on your toes.  I like seeing Bruce try to cope with being so thoroughly messed with.  In a way, as an adversary, the Joker reminds of the Master at his/her best:  someone who yanks the hero around and makes him question himself.  Bale does a fine job playing off of Ledger and the tumult the Joker creates.  New cast members Aaron Eckhart (as Harvey Dent, prospective white knight of Gotham) and Maggie Gyllenhaal (replacing Katie Holmes as Rachel) are also effective.  With Rachel, it’s hard for me to tell how much of it is writing vs. acting, but I definitely like her better here than in Batman Begins.  I think a lot of it is down to Gyllenhaal, who seems to spark in a way that Holmes didn’t for me.

The action is good, although it’s different from the first movie.  It’s a bit more standard comic-book fare, more fighting and less reliance on fear and misdirection.  Overall, I think the cloak-and-dagger stuff from Batman Begins feels a little more original, but some of the stunts (and gadgets!) here are cooler, so it’s a tossup. 

Warnings

Heavy comic book violence (including some grisly images,) thematic elements, and drinking.

Batman Begins (2005, PG-13)

While, in the ten(!) years since it was released, I’ve encountered plenty of superhero films that I think are better made and more entertaining, The Dark Knight trilogy is still pretty great.  It has a vibe that’s very much its own, and the to-die-for cast anchors the films beautifully.  This movie gets the franchise off to a fine start

This being Batman’s origin film, it is, of course, the classic story.  Billionaire Bruce Wayne, whose parents were murdered in a street crime when he was very young, creates an iconic symbol to serve as a force of justice in corrupt Gotham.  As he develops the skills, image, and technology needed to become Batman, he encounters a ruthless group of arbiters called the League of Shadows and turns his attention to a plot going down at Arkham Asylum.

I’ll start with the cast, ‘cause come on!  There’s Liam Neeson as Bruce’s mentor, whose ideology doesn’t always align with his protégé’s.  There’s Morgan Freeman as a wry tech expert with all the best toys.  There’s Cillian Murphy (in the role that made me take notice of him) as a psychologist with unsavory “treatment” practices, playing the part with almost gentle menace.  There’s Michael Caine as the devoted Alfred, at times Bruce’s only tether to anything outside vigilante crime-fighting.  There’s Gary Oldman as the last honest cop in Gotham.  Just for the heck of it, there’s Tom Wilkinson and Ken Watanabe, and at the center of it all is of course Christian Bale’s Bruce.  His over-the-top gravelly Batman voice earns him some ridicule, but Bale brings the man, the hero, and the persona he adopts to life with precision and care.

For the most part, I like the gritty, grounded feel of the film.  Since Batman doesn’t have actual superpowers (and his tech, while impressive, isn’t out-of-this-world impressive like Iron Man,) it makes sense that his movies are less straight-up comic-booky, and the inglorious Gotham setting lends itself to less outlandish goings-on.  Having now seen/loved so many films that embrace the genre, The Dark Knight trilogy feels a little self-conscious at times, like it’s trying too hard to say, “See?  It’s a comic book movie, but cool!”  However, I appreciate that its more accessible approach was probably instrumental in allowing comic book movies to become more mainstream and get a little wilder.  I also like how purposeful Bruce is in the development of Batman’s signature style.  He’s not dressing up as a bat just cuz; he intentionally uses theatricality to confuse and distract his enemies, and he wisely keeps to the shadows, relying on short bursts of lightning-fast attacks that, in addition to taking out the bad guys, make them fear him.

I will say, though – this time around, I got tired of the anvils about how corrupt Gotham is.  So many lines begin, “In a town this bad…” or “In a town like this…”  Again, it seems self-conscious, like it doesn’t trust that it’s getting the point across.  Plus, while rubber-stamped potential-love-interest Rachel has some rootable qualities – like Bruce, she’s driven by a desire for justice, and she demonstrates both courage and practicality – she doesn’t quite come together for me.  I’m not sure how much of it is Katie Holmes’s muted performance and how much is the character; I’ll report further when I rewatch her in Maggie Gyllenhaal’s hands in the next film.

Warnings

Heavy comic book violence, thematic elements, some disturbing images, drinking, and smoking.