lemonbella | Question

Current Mood: confused

Entry tags:

Question

I was reading a couple of other reviews of The Dark Knight, and some of them seemed to suggest a very different take on a pivotal scene than the one I have. I'm quite confident in my Batman canon and have a very strong version of Batman in my head, However, I'm slightly curious as to whether there are people who really view Batman in a different way to me.

So, in the scene when Batman and Gordon are racing to save Dent and Rachel, my interpretation is that Batman deliberately goes to save Dent. To me this is obvious because that's who Batman is. He saves who Gotham needs him to save, rather than who Bruce would like to save. This also fits with the previous discussion about Dent being the guy who Gotham needs. It also feels disingenuous to me if that discussion between Dent and Rachel is only there to set up the surprise, rather than to illustrate that Batman is the Dark Knight not the Knight in Shining Armour.

However, these other reviews appear to suggest that Batman ends up in the wrong place because the Joker tricked him: so he thought he was going to save Rachel but ended up saving Dent.

I'm not sure how I'm going to feel if other people suggest the second interpretation is correct. It might ruin the film!

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

the second interpretation never at any point occurred to me. how was it even a trick? nothing to suggest it was. the reviewers are the ones reading outside the text, not you.

See, it hadn't even occured to me either. I have no idea why they think it's a trick - it's a poorly written one if it is.

i should add that i asked my other half, who has actual batman comics and has read all the 'dark knight' stuff, and he agreed with me that there was nothing to suggest it was a trick.

also, please apologise to your friend for my intrusion on her journal, but the odi is rather over now.

See, I own Batman comics but had doubted myself. Now I can rest assured that others agree with me.

*goes to see which friend you have harrassed*

at least ~~two~~ three (i note another below) people agree with you - if that's not reassuring, i don't know what is.

...and i see you have found me. wasn't too much of a stretch.

Well, I only have one friend....

who i have now totally spammed. *shamed*

that might be 'whom'. hmm.

It is whom. Tut

She won't mind, or if she does, she'll blame me.

it's been a long day.

that's as it should be.

I always assumed that the Joker tried Batman.

But then again, I am a Weird Film Student. ;)

Was there any evidence for it? Or is it just an assumtion?

From a Film perspective, it's very poorly written because it contradicts everything else they've tried to say throughout the film.

From a Batman perspective, it's just wrong. Batman doesn't save the girl, he often uses the girl as bait.

An assumption, I guess.

Though thinking about it more - perhaps it's something along the lines of Joker didn't but did but didn't trick Batman. Or something.

'Didn't but did but didn't' Is that a technical film term?

Highly technical term. Bit like when a group of me and my friends start talking about Tim Burton, it essentially gets down to: "omgz genius ♥".

Yeah, see, yours was my first interpretation. But then I read many, many reviews (because that's what I like to do with movies I adore, go with it), and I was all "huh. Must have missed something in that scene." But then I saw it a second time and I couldn't see anything different. Hrmm. Possibly they were extrapolating from Bruce's grief over her death and the scene at the party, and were assuming that of course he'd save his girl?

My conclusion is that most reviewers just don't understand Batman very well. If you're not a Batman fan (and obviously not paying attention to the theme of the film) then I guess the obvious route to go down is to assume that it was doing what all other films do (good guy saves the girl) and then just killed the girl to make it dark.

It misses the entire point of The Dark Knight if you think he was going to save Rachel. it's completely and utterly out of character for Batman to save the girl and Bruce's reaction isn't grief, it's guilt. Bruce's reactions are *always* founded in guilt.

I'm going to have to go and watch it again.

Well Harvey certainly thinks Batman is going to save Rachel and I admit I agreed with him.

However you're right saving Harvey is much more in character from the little I know of the comics. You've given me something to think about when I go and see the film again tomorrow.

What Harvey thinks is immaterial to what actually happens. He has no way of knowing what is actually happening, he just thinks that Batman will save Rachel - because that's what he himself would do.

I'm not arguing about whether people *think* Batman would save Rachel: people think of Batman as the hero, and heroes save the girl. The whole point of The Dark Knight journey is that Gotham doesn't need a hero, it needs someone who is going to make the hard decisions.

My contention is that Batman deliberately saves Dent rather than having intended to save Rachel. If Batman intended to save Rachel, then the film is *appalling* because that is a travesty of an interpretation of the Batman myth.

That's what I meant in my own rambling way. If Batman's intention all along was to save Harvey then I agree that it fits with the rest of the film and my small knowledge of the comic books.

Well, as long as you agree with me eventually: that's the important thing.

Doesn't everyone.

I was going to watch it tomorrow anyway. I'll let you know what I think afterwards.

I like to think I can wear most people down. I'm off to see it again tomorrow too!

seeing it written out like that makes me feel that our interpretation has to be right, because it has a far more serious consequence - it shows that dent isn't the man to make those hard decisions, because his first thought is that the girl will be saved. big turning point in the film, that.

Exactly!

When they're running out of the station after The Joker tells them where Harvey and Rachel are, doesn't Jim Gordon say, "who are you going after?" and Batman replies, "Rachel", or did I mishear that?

A couple of other people have said that. I thought Batman instructed Gordon to go after Rachel. I do remember it's one of the bits where it's almost impossible to hear the voice. I'm going to see it again tomorrow to check.

If it's supposed to be that Batman was tricked and intended to rescue Rachel, then I have to revise my opinion of the film and say I now detest it. It's a complete and utter misreading of Batman.

If it's supposed to be that Batman was tricked and intended to rescue Rachel, then I have to revise my opinion of the film and say I now detest it. It's a complete and utter misreading of Batman.

While I'm certainly not going to argue a point about someone's right to love or despise a film, I'm wondering if it helps to look at the film as a bit of an anomaly from the comics. They created Rachel as a love interest - she doesn't exist in canon - and that right away has changed this character in some way. I'm not saying he wouldn't choose to do the right thing over the girl - I think he would, and maybe the writers made a mistake here - but I think they're also working within a canon they've partially created, one where he's met someone he can love and the part of him that wants a normal life simply reacts when she's in danger. He does it in the first film too with taking her back to the cave and giving her the antidote, even though perhaps he should let her die and deal with the more important task of stopping the villains.

Just something to think about.

Hm, my understanding of it - that he's going to rescue Rachel - is based on the fact that he says it, and tells Gordon to go to Dent. The address Gordon gives to the men is the one the Joker gave to Batman as where Dent is ... so because I've been given no additional information to lead me to believe that Batman has changed his decision before he arrives - I mean, he could, but the film doesn't tell me that anywhere - I assume that he arrives to find Dent as a surprise, but follows through because that's who he is, and has to trust that Gordon might reach Rachel in time.

Interesting, though, how the interpretations are varying. I think we're both basing our interpretation in what's onscreen, but in slightly different ways. Your interpretation is that his action isn't consistent with the character they've portrayed, and therefore he takes the course of action consistent with his character, while mine rests in the actual information shown to us/heard on screen. I think. Does that help clarify?

What surprises me is that, before I asked the question, I had seen (and heard) something very different in that scene. So what I originally thought was other people's interpretation turns out to be my interpretation.

I'm going to see it again (fourth time) to watch that bit again, to see whether it really is just me spinning it for my Batman or whether its written or edited ambiguously. (I don't have any recollection of addresses being given by the Joker - it just cut from him about to tell to them racing to rescue - which is what led me to believe that people with the other interpretation were making assumptions. However, I may have to face the fact that my brain edited that out so I didn't hate the film the first time I saw it!)

I'm really not sure how I'm going to feel if I find out that the writers intended Batman to rescue Rachel. It completely betrays everything I know to be Batman (and what I loved about this franchise is that it had been the first cinematic portrayal of Batman which fitted with the comics).

I take the point you've said above: they have created the love interest. However, she had a purpose in Batman Begins, and I was quite impressed with how well they stayed away from the usual Hollywood Guy-gets-Girl and used her to illustrate how messed up Bruce actually is and the sacrfices Batman makes. If they haven't used her the same way in this film but instead used it to denigrate Batman from Dark Knight to the Same Old Hero then it's deeply disappointing.

I suppose it could be argued that the death of Rachel is what finally forces Batman to become the Dark Knight, and the film is about that process rather than the finished article. However, that makes me feel a little like I'm trying to find a reason to still like a film rather than having to remove it from my favourite films list.

Mad enough to Mail a Badger, eh? Great icon.

I totally get where you're coming from and how disappointed you are that they've been inconsistent with the character. And it's easy to miss stuff in a show that packed with details - I've only seen the show once, so even I'm not totally sure if that's accurate at this point, but it's what I remember.

Yeah, I don't like things always coming down to how a guy reacts to a girl as the motivation for what he does ... I wish hollywood would find another way to look at things.

The appearance of Krypto and Ace the Batdog has cheered me up immensely.

*beams* I love the Krypto cartoon with an unholy passion.

It's just superb. Because Krypto is *exactly* like Superman.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Question

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

a thought on batman

Dark Knight interpretation

Re: Dark Knight interpretation

Re: Dark Knight interpretation

Re: Dark Knight interpretation

Re: Dark Knight interpretation

Re: Dark Knight interpretation