I liked both part 1 & 2 of this. I know you're not as much into newer movies compared to the ones from the 70s & 80s, but analyzing/dissecting newer movies might help your channel gain more subscribers/viewers. I purchased both your Inception and No Country for Old Men analysis, and I enjoyed them very much. They might get a lot of views on RUclips (I've noticed you've started to upload some videoes on RUclips, that previously were only available through purchase on your site) Keep up the good work Rob, I always enjoy your uploads.
Batman swerves because Batman's rule is "Do not Kill." The Joker's objective is to force Batman to break this rule, and destroy what Batman has come to represent.
I don't think it's about his rule at that point. As F4LCON said, he had no problem killing a low level goon when the circumstances were completely dire. But when it comes to Joker, he needs to prove Joker wrong. It is not about his rule. It's about being right.
@@Palendrome Batman's rule is not that he simply doesnt kill, If Batman needs to kill a criminal to directly save an innocent life he will without hesitation. Batmans real rule is that he will not kill out of vengeance because he is afraid he will never stop killing. He doesn't run down Joker because no ones life is directly on the line, he would be killing purely out of vengeance not to directly save someone. He wants the least amount of people to die as possible. The irony with his rule and what makes his hypocritical is that killing these criminals would save plenty of innocents, but Batman isn't a perfect hero, he is still a man and his aversion to kill could be seen as his biggest flaw.
@@jacksnhawker5165 When was it fundamental? Batman has had many incarnations, and many of them have no qualms killing. In fact, when the character started he had no problems killing, that was added later! It's not bad writing, it was intentional on the NOlan teams part
Came here to point this out. Two-Face was in the comics in the forties deciding with a coin flip to let people live, or kill them. I don't think Ager has read much of comic books, or at least of Batman comic books.
One huge thing Rob missed is that before he is burned Dent uses the coin to make his own luck because it always lands heads. After he is burned he puts everything to chance.
@@yoyohop Exactly. Films have become like religion to people the last decade or so. You'll get chastised if you dare speak 'blasphemy' and say you don't like one movie and like another. Fans even use the word 'canon' as if they too are referring to religious texts. I think the video is all the better for that fresh take. The same things get said over and over on other channels anyway. I'll take fresh over salty anyday, you follow me?! ;)
Sorry, but I can’t understand how you can just take the second ‘scarring backstory’ at face value (he did it to himself) when we already had a different ‘scarring backstory’ earlier in the movie. When first viewing the movie I was absolutely fascinated with the Joker character. It was the enigmatic, ‘ungraspability’ of the character that makes him so fascinating. I was deeply disappointed when I saw the scene of the first backstory to his scars, because it gave a trite, trope-like explanation of something that should never have been explained. I felt so let down... ...only to be absolutely blown away by that second reveal. That second backstory that serves to HAMMER the point home nothing the Joker tells us can be trusted or taken at face value. This includes the second mistake you make of taking his _explanation_ at face value in the hospital scene where he says he’s an agent of chaos and claims not to believe in plans, or rather, schemes. This from a guy who just pulled off a hugely intricate plan of getting caught and seemingly defeated only for it to be a part of his plan to reach his actual goal. What a layered ungraspable character! And none of it outright narrated, but shown! In fact, making a mockery of narrated character ‘development’.
That's a fair point about the back stories. I had questions on it too, and must have forgotten the earlier scene. However, Joker is shown as being ambivalent to pain several times in the film and his back story about the scars (even if he is lying in that moment) still gives a menacing edge suggesting he could do the same to the girl with impunity.
You really should watch the movie again because you missed some key character elements that (I think) are the most interesting. Batman won't run down the joker because that's his one rule. He'll beat you to a pulp, but he draws the line at killing. That's EXACTLY the reason why the joker _wants_ Batman to run him down. Here's trying to make him break his rule. That's explored at several points in the film, like when Batman had Maroni on a ledge. Sal Maroni: "From one professional to another, if you're gonna scare someone, you should learn to pick a better spot. You know, from this height, the fall won't kill me " Batman: "I'm counting on it" [drops him]
Collative Learning Yes, I definitely agree with you on that point. I would stretch it a bit further and say that its not just physical pain that doesn’t move him, but it’s hard to name a single thing that really does. He has plans, but seems to be fine with having those stopped, even to die, if it means a ‘win’. And the win isn’t some objective he’s after, but rather to make the other lose something (their objective or their principles). It’s one of the few things about the Joker that get narrated, when Alfred talks of his experience in (I think it was) Birma and says how some men can’t be bargained with, can’t be reasoned with or threatened - how some men just want to watch the world burn
Collative Learning By the way, one of the reasons why I love this movie is because to me the Joker is the ‘protagonist’ of the movie. They say the hero of a movie is defined by its antagonist, but here it seems to me the reverse often happens: it’s the actions of the heroes or rather the other characters that drive what the Joker does. Whether it’s taunting and misdirecting the mob, the way he gets to Batman and Dent through their morals and highest priority (Rachel) and how he terrorizes the city (based on what he sees as people’s double-faced principles). Note how the movie opens with a Bond-like action sequence, but centered around the Joker, not Batman It’s this novelty that makes me excuse or have little trouble with weaker points, such as the caricature Italian mob guy, the not fully convincing transformation of Dent into two-face etc
Two Face had been doing the coin flip thing in the comics and various screen adaptations long before No Country for Old Men had ever existed. I actually think it’s possible the Coen brothers got the idea for Anton Chugura coin toss predilection from Two Face.
clearly the reviewer hasn't even watched the previous batman flicks, even Tommy Lee Jones(who happens to be in No Country for old Men ) Two Face did the coin toss thing, internewscast.com/people-who-make-major-life-decisions-on-the-toss-of-a-coin-end-up-happier-study-says/
No country for Old Men is actually based on the novel of the same name by Cormac McCarthy and pretty much horror every plot point from the book. Granted the movie didn’t come out very long after the book but if I know Cormac McCarthy like I think I do he doesn’t give a fuck about Batman comics hahaha
I'm not the only one to have noticed that the opening shot of the movie could be viewed as a POV shot of a plane crashing into the side of a sky-scraper. They absolutely knew what they were sugesting with the movie's poster. Edit: It's just occured to me that the whole movie could be viewed as an exploration of the chaos that ensued subsequent to 9/11 event. 9/11 sets in motion a whole series of moral compramises that the 'Heroes' make with 9/11 as justification, such as the 'extrodinary rendition' of the Chinese banker guy, the elegal mass servailance etc. When the world is on fire you don't get a goodly knight in shining armour to the rescue... a Dark Knight rises. When facing an irational enemy that is not motivated by mundain things such as money but really just want's to see the world burn then all the usuall rules can be thrown out the window in order to deal with said enemy. I think there might be a little bit of propagandising going on in this movie similar to 'Three Kings'.
Nolan used 'The Dark Knight Trilogy' to get more control over his work. It's worked in some 'Inception' and 'Dunkirk', but I found 'Interstellar'(As beautifully as it is shot, it never fully comes together and is too sentimental for me) But I am a fan. 'The Prestige' and especially the overlooked 'Insomnia' are both solid films and worth watching. You're right with this though, Ledger as The Joker carries the film. Edit: Many see the trilogy as a take on the Bush Administration and the Patriot Act.
Let's not rule out the reactions to the essay, especially salty reactions to statements like the one about Alfred, are going to somehow play a part in the themes covered in the next video. Robbo has done this before don't forget.
The villain-hero stuff you mentioned is interesting. There is a whole subplot about "the necessary lie". Batman and Gordon about Harvey, Batman and Lucius about the spy tech, and Alfred about Rachel's letter all choose to lie at the end of the film as a part of the resolution. Batman and Joker are two battling devils that always end up with the same end goal: keeping the game going. It's Hegelian dialectic, Batman's thesis against Joker's antithesis. We think we choose, but really, there is no choice. The choice is a lie. There's only one answer in the middle, the synthesis: Two Face, who is both a hero and a villain in the film. There is no choice, it's a double sided coin before we flip. The choice is a lie. Hegelian Dialectic is similar to the Twin Pillars between the Temple of Solomon. You think you're choosing between the two Pillars, but you're not. They lead to the same place, the synthesis, the path to the temple. And during Harvey's funeral, where is his picture? Right in the middle of two large pillars.
Very astute! It really does make Batman a more nuanced and interesting character when the "hero" has to perpetuate a falsehood in order to save the day. Truth is usually associated with goodness, but in Nolan's films, the truth, as Batman himself says, "Isn't good enough." Really complicates matters in a moral sense.
@@TH3F4LC0Nx Thank you for your comment. Like I said, it's in nearly every film of his. Memento, the main character lies to himself. Inception, the main lies to his wife is the emotional linchpin of the story, Prestige's end movie twist is about the clever lie throughout, Interstellar has the main characters discover a terrible lie that changes their journey, Insomnia has the main character coming to terms with the lie he told which he thought was necessary, the other two Batman films expand on these themes. I have not yet seen Dunkirk. But in every other instance the "necessary lie" creeps its head.
@@Palendrome The lie in Dunkirk comes when Cillian Murphy (Nolan must really like him, I guess, lol) accidentally kills the kid on the yacht, then at the end of the movie he asks the kid's friend if he's alright, and the kid lies and says he is. There's really not a lot of dialogue in Dunkirk; it's more visual storytelling. It's a great war movie, but it lacks the philosophical depth that makes me usually love Nolan's films.
@@Palendrome I saw this somewhere but I can't remember where i saw it. Someone echo'd exactly what you were saying and break down all of his movies and the necessary lies in each
Oh Rob, Rob, Rob... you forgot that Michael Caine plays Alfred? :D That was a very dismissive attitude of his role, I have to say. I don't know how much of an interest you take in comics and comic characters, but some of your observations seem under-informed, such as the coin-toss habit of Harvey Dent. You compare it to Chiger from 'No Country', but Dent was known for doing it constantly in his comic incarnation, even before his transformation. Batman also swerves at the last second to avoid killing Joker because he is more valuable alive, knowing the locations of the hostages as he does. Killing him would put paid to all that. Batman, as a rule, also doesn't seek to kill criminals, only to stop them.
You could also put the comparison to an even earlier story. Dr Jeckyl and Mr. Hyde has been around since 1886. A character that changes from a mild mannered scientist to a deranged lunatic. The coin from Dent is like the serum for Jeckyl. The darkness inside of him had always been there, there just needed to be a catalyst to bring that dark side out.
This "Hit me" scene was beforre Batman knew he even had hostages, Harvey hadn't been taken yet. That's not why he missed Joker. It was because he wanted Joker to be wrong
Alfred's yacht scene with the Russian ballerinas is probably an allusion but it isn't very pointed or underscored if it is one. Is it... subtlety? "In the perspective of élites of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the world upside down of Carnival was neither a subject of amusement, nor a salutary correction for élite pride, nor an “air-hole” (safety valve), nor a recognition of the depth and many-sidedness of human life. It was simply an image of, and an invitation to sin. Starting with Brant’s Ship of Fools, a stream of writing, painting (Bosch, Breughel), illustrations begin to moralize this theme of reversal. It is in the end no laughing matter..." - Charles Taylor
Joker is absolutely meant to be a side of Batman, or a ghost of him as you put it. Take the fundraiser scene. Bruce and Joker are mirrors of each other in everything they do in that scene. They both make big, loud entrances. They both loudly ask where Harvey Dent is. They both fake drinking the champagne. They both kind of pine for Rachel. This mirroring is part of why I think so many people are drawn to this Joker portrayal. He's correctly diagnosed the problem with Gotham, just like Batman has, the mob and the corrupt political system that allows the mob to exist. The Joker spends a lot of time screwing with the mob in this movie because they're part of the controlling faction of the city. But obviously his means and ends of dealing with them and the system are different than Batman's, thus making him the more the villain than the hero. But we identity with him because we have moments where we want to create chaos as a reaction to the overbearing control systems exert on us.
I didn't like the Joker in this film. He isn't meant to wear make-up. He fell into chemicals that made him look like a clown and then he went insane at the same time. It shouldn't be makeup. That's not as impactful. Furthermore, he wants to murder Batman in the comics, but not in this film apparently.
Two remarks by chess masters about other chess masters (I paraphrase): "When reviewing the games in print, some of [Marshall's] moves at first look like typographical errors." - Napier "Sometimes when [Aronian] makes a move I have to check to make sure it's legal." - Anand The best players know the rules backwards and forwards, then break them when necessary. And of course, we don't mean LITERALLY break the rules; it means defying convention, and going beyond the well-worn and predictable.
@@MAandS Thanks. And to me, this sort of paradox is what makes chess special, but this is why a lot of people can't appreciate it. When a square is guarded four times but a player puts a piece on it anyway, it's just amazing.
Batman Begins is probably the best film of the three Nolan made, at least in terms of story structure. The Dark Knight is too much at times, too much story and plot to cover. The Dark Knight opening scene is very significant in setting up the film's thematic premise and visual motifs. The camera is hurtling towards a skyscraper window -- the first 9/11 imagery. I like how they reveal The Joker's character by showing that he can't be trusted at all, everything he says and does has a plan, a plan that only he benefits from and then destroys. He is the chief architect of the very thing he says he isn't. A schemer. A terrorist with a plan.
D C Very true. Has a good balance it it’s tone too. Begins is closer to who the character is, but still not a perfect adaption. None of the live action Batman films are.
I completely agree! Batman Begins is the better film. It is far more streamlined in its story. It also balances Nolan's realistic approach and Batman's gothic, comic book world better than the Dark Knight.
I was very excited to see Batman Begins when it was announced and loved it: a dark, gritty, more ‘realistic’ take on Batman. Then I saw The Dark Knight and was blown away. Batman Begins has seemed like a flawed movie, more in the style of the Burton movies ever since. So I have the complete opposite view to yours.
"Michael Caine or whatever the hell his name is in the movie, I can't remember" Alfred... Batman's butler has been a staple character of EVERY version of Batman ever. I mean... that's like not knowing that the Lone Ranger's horse is called Silver.... it's not even a comic book thing, it's commonly known trivia. Actually quite like the video, but this was just a WTF moment hearing that comment.
...It's like not knowing that Alex's name is Trebek... There's some common lore flaws in this video... And it's distracting... I'm just guessing the source material isn't well known. And unfortunately, That hurts this whole thing, because you almost need that, to get to the reasons behind the story of the movie.
It's quite funny to me that an analyst didn't check a simple detail such as "a characters name", but is very good at extrapolating complex meanings and symbolisms in films lol! He doesn't like Batman, which really interests me on what his criticisms are on the whole story and characters of Batman. Rob could of retrospectively corrected the error of saying "idk his name/whatever his name is", the fact that he doesn't indicates to me he doesn't care lol, because he didn't care enough to check. I don't learn things that (i believe) are not worth learning about either :)
You know what really grinds my gears? People who try to figure out who the Joker was before becoming the Joker. He used to be this. He used to be that. This is where Marvel screwed up with Wolverine. Wolverine used to be a mystery and the origin story did not pay off. Let's keep the Joker a mystery. We don't want to know.
Batman does not kill Joker as in Nolan’s Trilogy, Batman’s one rule is not to kill anyone. And Two Face’s coin gimmick can’t be seen as “already done” in No Country For Old Men as the gimmick predates No Country, appearing first in the Batman comics.
Batman's rule is to "win at any cost," not "not to kill." If he has no other solution he will resort to killing. In one comic book story involving KGBeast Batman trapped him in a room, that was part of a subway system, leaving him to die. Also watch the Comics Tropes video on how many people Batman has killed.
In th Nolan films he explicitly states "No Killing" is his "one rule". The Btman of the Nolan films is not the Batman of the comics, or even if the Burton films (where he kills indiscriminantly)
I find it funny that you analyze the characters, motives, and identities in this movie as standalone original parts, as if the characters/story/comics, etc have not existed for decades
The scene where Joker just stands in the street and Batman ALMOST hits him is probably a tribute to the 1989 Tim Burton movie, where Batman ALMOST hits Joker with his Batwing. (another scene in The Dark Knight that mirrors the 1989 Batman is the one where Joker falls at the end. The difference being that Batman catches/saves him in TDK) If anyone knows more similarities between the 1989 movie and the 2008 movie, then please let me know!
Sure, US is destroying itself because they let themselves be swing around like little kids by a bunch of thugs using the death of a criminal to destroy everything we know.
@@d3l3tes00n If it was all cops, you wouldn't be figuring this out today, you would have been figuring this out centuries ago. It's not cops, that's just your delusion freewill telling yourself what you want to hear.
1:45 Andrew Robinson is one of the most under rated, under used actors of all time. I weep we never saw him in more meatier parts. One of my major reasons for wanting DS9 in HD.
There will never be another Elim Garak, and I don't know that modern Star Trek even has the ability to ever do a scene like the climax to "in the pale moonlight"
Always love your analysis Rob. It's interesting to see how you are unaware of some of batman lore in a couple of places. The reason that Batman swerves and doesnt hit the Joker is because Batman cannot bring himself to kill- it is part of his character. In that scene as Batman is racing towards him, the Joker even says things that show that he is aware of Batman's inability to kill. It's interesting that Tim Burton's Batman had ditched that concept that Batman won't kill, but Christopher Nolan brought it back. As a kid I grew up not knowing about this fact, because most of what I knew about Batman, I had learned from the Tim Burton movie
Its a film though not a comic tie in or "read this before watching". Films do and should stand on their own so actually having the perspective of a non comic fan is not only the majority of people but needed and necessary. its ho we can learn so much more from the outside since we are inside as comic fans.
Oh, your dismissal of "Michael Caine or whatever the hell the name of his character is" ruined the video for me. It shows a complete lack of respect for the film and the Batman universe.
Yep, It seems to be done deliberately in order to make little of the movie and its source material. Ruined the video for me too, not "professional", even for a guy that make videos on youtube.
Batman feels like nothing more than Mr. One Rule, going out of his way not to eliminate the threat at the cost of innocent lives. "I don't want to kill you! What would I do without you?" Joker laughs in Batman's face and sees him as a mere nuisance who can be used to his own advantage.
Finale is a Disney's fairy tale. In reality, those civilized (normies) people would slaughter each other over who get's to detonate the convicts boat first.
I am not biggest fan nowadays but I was back in highschool. I think that most people whatch it around this age to as this movie his constantly being played on tv. So I don't think the movie is overrated I believe it has to do with you become a more mature person and knowlegble in cinema, as the only people who praise this movie are either imbd, whatch mojos, early teens or the nostalgia effect everything else nevers rates this movie that high to begin with it and trust this. I believe this movie will be the number one on imbd in the future.
I disagree on one point. I don't think Joker is suicidal, he's not trying to trigger some kind of suicide by cop death for himself. He's trying to corrupt people. I see him more as a demonic character rather than a ghost like character. In the scene where Batman swerves to avoid him, Joker wants Batman to hit and kill him. Not because Joker wants to die, but because he knows Batman does not want to kill anyone, including Joker. It's the worst thing he can think of getting Batman to do, so that's what he wants him to do.
I think it is important to remember that this film is beloved by Batman fans for many reasons but mainly for Heath Ledgers performance. And his performance Is so beloved by Batman fans because it comes from his heart. His performance is not an external set of quirks and affectations seen in prior films. He spent a long time alone with the material to develop the dimensions of the Joker, a depth of preparation that we deeply appreciate.
@ He's writing about the movie. The Batman in the movie can be judged by how the movie portrays him, not by external comic book stuff as aditional context.
Rob, I find you very intelligent and perceptive in your analysis at all times, and for the most part that still comes through here despite your best efforts. You clearly have no regard for this genre, and perhaps believe stating that upfront excuses superciliousness and a lack of rigour. Naked disdain is not a good tone, but I'll take what I can get.
About the scene when the Joker gave Dent the revolver in the hospital: The Joker holds the hammer of the gun in place. He would have prevented Dent from shooting him.
You really think that's all it takes to stop someone from shooting you? What if he had tried to shoot him? You think he would've just yanked it out of his hands? Do you also think he had spring shoes on when Batman was going to run him over? "If he doesn't bail at the last second, I will jump over his head hehehehe"
When Dent punched the woman despite her result in the coin flip being a lucky one, I think he did it for a practical reason, because he needed to knock her out in order to proceed on doing his stuff, but when he fliped the coin in Salvatore Maroni's car, Salvatore was lucky, but he fliped again and shot the driver, possibly killing both Maroni and the driver (the film didn't made it clear if Maroni died or not) Also, in another moment when the Joker burned the pile of cash, the Chinese guy was sitting on the pile of money and it's implied that he was burned with the money too, but the film doesn't make it clear, it would be more clear if died or not if we could hear him screaming or something like that, but I think it would cause an issue related to the age certificate of the film that is PG-13, I think The Dark Knight is already edgy for being a PG-13 film.
Considering how long Two-Face has been around it is far more likely the writers of "No Country for Old Men" stole it rather than the other way around. I gotta say you don't seem to know alot about Batman.....
Yeah, I thought it was weird that he thought Harvey Dent iconic coin flip was lifted from No Country when that’s been part of his character since his inception. He should’ve maybe prefaced saying he doesn’t know or care about the Batman mythos. He even didn’t care that Michael Caines character’s name is Alfred.
It's a strange part of the video. I don't think you have to be a Batman fan to know Two-Face flips a coin. You get the feeling that Rob doesn't like superhero stuff that much.
@@pleaserewind295 yeah I get the feeling he believes comics to be a lower art form, which imo is a real shame as he is likely to miss some really incredible stories such as Kingdom Come, or Arkham Asylum: A Serious House on Serious Earth.....
I am one of the people who have asked Rob about Nolan films in the past (years ago now). Thanks for making this Rob, always enjoy hearing your opinion. Great analysis as usual.
I'll always love The Dark Knight for being a film that actually pursues its own ideas to the fullest. It presents a thesis statement early in the film, and by the end, that statement has been proven. It would be cliche at this point to say that the movie is "deep" or "thoughtful" but at the end of the day I truly believe it is. It has quite a few layers to it, and I can always come back to it over and over again, unlike almost every Marvel movie. A lot of people might say it's overrated, but I think it actually deserves the praise it gets. Imo, anyway.
Its arguably one of the only good superhero movies. A big reason being the big climax isn't some doomsday chemical agent/nuke. Just 2 boats full of no name extra's all at risk of being blown sky high by each other or the antagonist. We all know Gotham or the world isn't going to be destroyed. But a boat full of people with no plot armor? thems be at risk. Its about the character interactions and the choices presented to each of them. The only superhero movie I actually saw in theaters twice.
@@pokeman5000 I've said it before and I'll say it again, when making a superhero movie, the rule is this: The lower the stakes, the higher the emotional impact. You're 100% right. I mean, we all knew that Superman was gonna beat Zod in Man of Steel, because otherwise the entire planet was doomed and there would be no sequel(s). But I imagine quite a few people were genuinely caught off guard by Rachel's death in The Dark Knight. By making the stakes lower, you can toy with the audience's expectations more. That's partly why Nolan's last Batman film failed so hard for me.
The theme of the whole Nolan Batman trilogy was The War of Terror against the West. All the antagonists in the Nolan trilogy were essentially terrorists.
There is an apparent lack of understanding of the source material that would clarify and sometimes refute some of your critiques. Not that this is a perfect movie or that this additional material excuses the confusion you have from a lack of explanation in the movie, but I feel it would improve your analysis if you took a closer look at this material. It's just that the confusion you have in the video isn't particularly productive and your criticisms would be more effective if you acknowledged some of the answers provided by the comic books that inspired this movie.
You can't credit things that aren't in the movie if they.... wait for it... AREN'T IN THE MOVIE. You can't just half-ass a term paper and expect an A because the works you cited explained it better, so read those....
@@TheGreenTaco999 In most cases, sure. But when a character has over 70 years worth of content known to millions, there is an expectation that people are going to see the movie because of all the stories that came before. We aren't dealing with an original IP here.
A lot of people have commented here about you seeming to think Two-Face is a pale copy of Anton Chigurh and how if anything it's the other way around, but this, much like your video, is actually missing the point of both characters. Harvey had his life ruined by forces so unjust and chaotic that it makes him lose his faith in any choice being right or wrong. So he divides every dilemma into two options then flips a coin to decide which one, putting justice up to blind chance. Anton however doesn't believe in chance. For him every action is determined by fate, which means he views the side the coin lands on as what was doomed to happen. The coin is like a god, telling him what to do in situations he's unsure about, but from his perspective he was always gonna do what he did.
I think Rob is a fantastic film analytic and has both an extraordinary eye for detail and the creativity to formulate theories of underlying themes and innovative ways to interprete story lines. I love The Dark Knight (and I’m not a particular fan of comic book movies) and having heard Rob mention several times that he doesn’t particularly like this movie made me really want to hear more of his take on it. Looking forward to part two of this.
The punch in the face of the police officer by twoface seems to me to rather be to knock her unconscious so he can get out of there and move to his next revenge target. More importantly, you could interpret twoface’s transformation (one of the weak points of the movie if you ask me: it doesn’t come across as convincing to me and feels rushed) as a transformation from a man who believes in a ‘maleable’ / ‘construct-able’ / socially engineered society [I’m not quite sure how to translate this concept/term to English] to someone who sees everything as random and probability driven
On my first watch of the movie, I was blown away by Joker. He feels like some elemental force of nature, not a person. Like a manifestation of all the negative psychological energy in Gotham, especially after Scarecrow's fear toxin incident in the previous film.
Joker actually switches up his story about his scars. He tells one person he gave them to himself, and he tells another that he got them from his father, ultimately leaving their true origin ambiguous. I don't think the scars contribute to his masochism (although I think you're right that his masochism comes through in other ways), but rather they reinforce your point of him "having more chess moves," since they only really come up as a feature that Joker twists to manipulate / intimidate others.
I'm surprised you didn't know 1. Alfred 2. Batman doesn't kill 3. Joker's face paint is white because he's a clown 4. 2 Face's coin Maybe batman didn't make it to Australia
You forgot Gordon's narration at the end; "...a watchful protector, a Dark Knight" with the cape on the bike, music swells, give me chills man that's how you end a movie.
Love your analysis, Rob. Character history will show you that two faces coins and batman not killing etc are all things deep in the history of the stories. Great to hear you’re opinions on it though, looking forward to seeing the rest #whysoserious
I love the idea that Joker is Batmans shadow self manifested as a ghost in this iteration, I don't think it's as clear cut as that but their duel natures have always been there in Batman as a theme; and it's done well in this movie I think. Just a side note - the reason Batman swerves so as not to hit him on the bike is that Batman doesn't kill (I know he certainly is recklessly violent enough to kill all the time) but it's a thing with Bats, he doesn't intentionally kill.
The late Heath Ledger and his character, was the only good thing about this film. As Abraham Lincoln said: if I had 2 faces, d'ya think I'd wear this 1?
The observations of the villains in this film are of character elements that have already been touched on in other media. Two-Face is clearly a character who's in touch with his darker side. The doctors at Arkham Asylum would say he is bipolar and has paranoid schizophrenia but often, when we look at Two-Face, we just look at the face and the coin and think that's it. There's nothing more to him. I haven't read the comics much but they do touch on Dent's internal struggles in the 90s animated series, which was excellent. In the film, they try to depict Dent as Gotham's white knight, but clearly he was very flawed and was corrupted by Joker's influence. Joker is often depicted as a villain who brings into question whether Batman is a hero who brings the more colorful and difficult villains to justice or just a harbinger of these colorful villains. This is touched on a little bit in Tim Burton's Batman when Batman and Joker exchange these lines: "I'm gonna kill you." "You idiot! You made me, remember? You dropped me into that vat of chemicals." Then... "You killed my parents." "What? What are you talking about?" "I made you. You made me first." Remember, Tim Burton's Batman had no problem with killing, unlike Nolan's Batman. This makes Batman's reason for missing the chance to kill Joker in Nolan's Batman very different when compared to Burton's Batman. When Joker says "Hit me" in Nolan's Batman and Batman purposely misses, this is Batman trying to hold on to his principles and not be corrupted by Joker. When Joker says "Hit me" in Burton's Batman and Batman misses, that was just... Batman being a bad shot? I don't know what was going on there. Granted, I haven't seen Burton's Batman in years. Anyway, regarding the 9/11 imagery on the poster, I figure that sort of foreshadows Batman's fate at the end of the film, to be depicted as an enemy who must be chased down by the authorities. So the hidden story of the poster, as I see it, is that the burning bat symbol on the building wasn't actually caused by Batman himself. In the movie, he allows himself to be framed in this way in order to maintain Dent's white knight symbol. People who believe that propaganda would think that of course Batman would burn his symbol onto some buildings in a very 9/11 fashion.
On the idea of Joker being a ghost or an imagination actually holds up well. There is a spinoff comic where Robin goes to the future and he asks raz agul who the Joker is, Raz tells Robin the Joker only exists in Batmans head. And I have had this belief myself for a long time.
Lol "his coin-tossing was already done in No Counter for Old Men." If you hadn't prefaced this analysis with the caveat that you don't usually release commentary on works that you dislike, this video would throw all your other videos into question as to how often you spoke on things using an objectively incorrect context through which your thoughts and opinions were formulated. In fact, reason would dictate that this still has been done at least once or twice elsewhere. This video has done irreparable damage to your credibility (only in that you're no longer "perfect" as I once preferred to view you) yet I'd still place you well above your peers. Just much lower than before.
I think there is another layer to the money burning. Money works as an exchange medium only because we collectively agree on its value. In the same manner societal rules only work because we collectively agree to abide by them (in turn using them ourselves to achieve our own goals). Him burning all that money is telling that he doesn't rely on it and is able to discard it at will, just as he is able to do that with ordered society and its values.
Batman doesn't run over the Joker with the Bat Bike because Batman's one rule is that he won't kill. The joker then devises a plan in which Batman is forced to decide who lives and who dies by forcing Batman to decide between saving Rachel or saving Harvey Dent. When Batman chooses to send both the police for Harvey Dent and himself after Harvey Dent he has chosen to let Rachel Die. It is at that point in the movie he breaks his only rule. It is at that point that Batman becomes the Dark Knight.
Batman is almost every Imperialist's favorite comic hero, if not Ironman. Both are rich, and live lavish lifestyles, propping the economy, while ignoring poverty. The Joker was the real 'hero' of the movie. Robin Hood...and Sheriff John's secret weapon took care of him.
i don't understand, most of your videos you do endless research. And this one you don't even know Alfred? or that Batman has a rule where he doesn't kill?
Michael Caine pretty much always plays himself, you missed the joke. As for Batman's "doesn't kill" rule, I did say in the video "maybe I missed a plot point". If it was a better film i'd probably do more research on it. Part 2 will explain.
@@collativelearning yeah, I figured lack of interest in the film to be part of it. Of course batman says he doesn't kill, but ends up incidentally killing alot of people. Then they had the Affleck version, and all that goes out the window anyway. Caine is pretty typecast , in Nolan movies anyhow.
Batman didn't run Joker down because the central fact of Batman's existence is his desire to save lives and bring justice. Killing the bad guys--no matter how evil they may be--is anathema to him, the line he will never cross. That's traditional canon, anyway. As we've seen with the Star Wars franchise, canon can be a malleable thing.
Joker is quite well aware of Batman's stance; doesn't think him a delusional type. That reality is what makes him 'so much fun :D' If he deluded & merely swinging around in a bat costume, not using it as a fearful visage of the dark, if he wasn't what he is, Joker'd be playing with just another costumed-criminal, not the vaunted caped-crusader. But Joker, who thinks everything that's even slightly nefarious is funny, is out to have the ultimate fun with the ultimate dipole. In the film, if he can get Batman to break his one rule (something Batman didn't have when he was first conceived; look up images of Batman killing, and with a gun), then Joker wins. Totally get why the movie isn't quite so well enjoyed even upon a second viewing - cuz someone's not a Batman fan. Kind of odd really to hear the statements being made, but shows the clean review of the film from that stand point.
I think it hurts the review more than it helps he often calls Bruce an asshole but it has been established in previous adaptations and the previous film that it’s just a disguise so I can’t tell if he’s just forgetting the previous movie or just hasn’t watched it
The first time I saw this, I sat in the theater at the end, watching credits roll, asking myself, 'What the hell did I just watch?' (It was more vulgar than that) It was so good, I pushed it to number 2 on my all-time superhero movies. Superman: The Movie is still number one, but Dark Knight is basically 1b.
The Joker shows that everyone is compromised and exploits them. The mob is afraid of Batman and wants money. The Joker uses that to his advantage. There is so much corruption in Gotham PD that Gordon has to work with them. The Joker uses that to his advantage. Batman refuses to kill. The Joker complicates this by threatening to kill someone every day that Batman doesn't reveal his identity. Are those deaths on Batman's hands? By making Batman chose between Rachel/Harvey, he was also making him choose for one of them to die. Is that murder? And eventually, Batman saves Gordon's son and accidentally kills Harvey Dent.
Remember that the joker was the hero that Gotham needed and did everything that Batman could not or would not accomplish. From the story that Alfred tells Bruce about the jewel thief to the joker defunding the mob and pretty much single handedly saving Gotham from Batman AND itself. The joker never hurts anyone in the movie that didn’t “deserve” it. He could have killed all the rich people at the party. Could have done so much worse. But he doesn’t. Just flushes Batman out and then makes him give up at the end. Turning him into a villain. Making the Harvey dent act a reality and cleaning Gotham up once and for all.
Thank you for this. An interesting take, as always, Rob. I particularly like your insight into the psychology of the characters. I can see why you choose to approach films like this 'clean' - without knowing too much about them beforehand, so you can evaluate the text in and of itself - as in traditional Formalist analysis. After all, Nolan made his films to be separate from the 70-odd year Batman continuity that preceded them. They stand apart from other superhero films, so evaluating them as outside the shackles of that genre is entirely valid and valuable. That said, I would have been interested in your take if, for example, you could compare Caine's performance as Alfred to previous Alfreds, or you could give some thought to which existing Batman tropes Nolan had chosen to use (Dent's coin-toss), which he'd ignored (any of the Joker's many origins), and which he'd altered (Joker's self-harm) - and thoughts on why he'd made those choices. That, I feel, would have offered some additional insight, some extra fuel for your analysis! Just a thought. Keep up the good work.
You took 32 pages of notes but didn't look at any of the source material. Why didn't Batman kill Joker? Batman doesn't kill. A simple Google search could have told you that. That's like doing a paper in WW2 without doing ANY research.
"The supposed use of explosives was part of that theory" .... Give me a break .... It's not a theory. Anyone with any sense who's looked into it knows the mainline narrative is completely ridiculous. It wasn't just a 'FAD' that people were talking about this stuff around 2008. I can't stand this sort of dismissive attitude some people have.
I prefer Batman Returns. The Dark Knight is good but overrated except the Joker scenes, it should have been called The Killing Joke. The opening is strange, he's standing in broad daylight, holding his mask and yet his men couldn't recognize him or question with all the makeup...weird. And yeah, the Hitcher is underrated and fantastic.
I think when Batman swerves to avoid the Joker, he's realising something important to the duality of the two characters: If he deliberately murders Joker, _he has become him_ . The film repeatedly stresses throughout that the characters are practically the same except for their approach to morality. It also goes against his moral code of intentionally killing people - as he states in Batman Begins: "I won't kill you. But I don't have to save you." Batman is also the kind of guy who beats people up, intimidates and even terrorises people, plus he approaches dangerous situations with ruthless pragmatism and intelligence. This is _exactly_ what the Joker does, the difference being that the Joker is indiscriminate and causes chaos. Whereas Batman targets criminals and attempts to restore order. This brings up another interesting thing about the Joker not being fazed by pain - this is another trait he shares with Batman, who shows similar indifference to injury and physical hardship
doesnt the coin toss idea go way back to the comics waay before no country for old men was even thought of.. i thinks its the other way round on who stole who's idea
I love that you have no real background in comics, so your take on the film is purely based on your knowledge of text and subtext of filmmaking. It's refreshing to see an outsider point of view on the film, and leads to an understanding of how non comic readers view these films (without being acerbic about it like Scorsese).
I usually love your work. This was junk. Most of the comments illustrate why. You forgot the most important part about Jokers multiple stories, and the No Country for Old Men reference was atrocious. Bad form. 👎
Agreed. I love his Eyes Wide Shut and The Shining analysis but this was terrible. If you’re going to say a movie is overrated, at least know what you’re talking about.
Nolan is really influenced by Kubrick. I remember Kubrick seeing this one commercial from the 80s during the superbowl and talking about it. He said how perfect it was, like how in the most finite of time the medium of art of film in context of a commercial encompassing other formats of art within it had in the most concise way articulated something very essential, deep, and archetypical even. He saw the commercial not just as a tasteless add or mere marketing but something that somehow transcended that very function as a advertisement into art. I believe Film at its peak encompasses the most extreme expression of art, jusy like Kubrick did. I believe Kubricks films are great showings of this but also Nolan's. I cannot deny that The Dark Knight is High Art. Nolan is very much aware of the potential critiques of the film right off the bat. The film is even meta about it kinda. To make the greatest art, that will have the greatest impact and be most transcendent, there is a sacrifice, a trade off. It being able to have the most impact in terms of the themes of the film being digestable near universally while being consice simultaneously that meant sometimes concepts were expressed as 4 instead of 2 plus 2 and they spelled out the philosophy of the film rather on the nose. In other instances they gave us 2 plus 2 so we as the audience could put together 4 for ourselves. Nolan made decisions. Risked the critique of being on the nose. When you make a commercial film thats a grand Batman movie that's gonna have a message while being commercial its gonna have the trade off of seeming on the nose to the snobs of the art of film. But in risking that he showed the capacity of film that only the snobs knew to the rest of the world. The film was near universally praised though. And rightfully so. Bale's Real Bruce Persona and his character arc is similar to Al Pacino's Michael in The Godfather Part 2, while the batman persona is very dirty harry and the projected persona of Bruce to Gotham is very JFK Jr vibey. Heath killed it. Gary Oldman killed it. Michael Caine killed it. Morgan Freeman killed it. The Love Triangle of Bruce/Rachel/Harvey, Harvey/Two Face Arc, Batman becoming The Dark Knight, The Writing, Direction, Cinematography, Score, is simply fantastic. I think anybody who doesn't understand why this film is a instant classic and film critics who criticize and say themes are preachy or the build up of the first act dont understand commercial element of high art thats basic and digestable like Kubrick deduced of the superbowl commercial. Honestly the basic things that people nitpick about the dark knight, real fans who watch the film countless times understand those decisions were made for deeper reasons...the more I watch the "slower" or "boring" first act I noticed the more parallels symbolically to the crescendo of themes that harsher critics would say are preachy. But people who go with their gut reaction to films and dont watch it repeatedly aren't gonna understand it as well as someone who has studied it up and down. Sometimes a seeming weakness of a art isn't actually a weakness, but a sacrifice play intentional to be ultimately more greater than it would be if it were perfect by a film students standards who favors independent and less commercialized art.
In my opinion rob is just a boomer who can't just stomach Batman. He let's his hate of Batman gush all over nolans film. Like he calls memento's structure a gimmick, while not specifying why. He just hates famous stuff so he can draw attention to himself and his shallow analysis.
If Nolan is so good to the point of making a somewhat generic hollywood superhero movie but with a "cult classic" disguise, knowing exactly its flaws but purposefuly making the movie like that, how come he's never made a single really good movie to this day?
I seem to remember you refusing to review this because you didn't believe in citizenry being stirred to anarchistic violence by rhetoric. Apparently it was prophetic.
my problem with the movie is that it was clearly SHOT as a R film and edited to be PG. so theres so many scenes that visually make 0 sense as its skipping and cropping the violence.
I don’t need to see blood to enjoy a movie besides isn’t I think the point was to shock the audience by citing away from it like when one of the jokers goons shoots the other as he’s opening the fault it got to me to or when the joker shot that did that stopped the truck he was driving telling him he needed to wait in line i didn’t need to SEE his corpse
@@DougWIngate Rises was a waste of time making it you can tell it wasn't like the first 2 they broke Batman and made him look weak which is really B.S.Even in the graphic novels when Bruce/Batman he still kicks ass.
Great analysis on The Joker. I'm a long time Batman fan and love just about any discussion (study) on the character and his rogues gallery. Speaking of chaotic characters, have you ever seen the 2014 film Nightcrawler, starring Jake Gyllenhaal as the main character Lou Bloom? I would love to hear your thoughts on that film and the character he portrays. Great channel. Keep up the good work.👍
Gene Nightingale It might be because it’s a very poor adaption of Batman. I am a huge Batman fan and I can’t stand this film. Doesn’t get Batman, Joker or Two-Face right. Batman especially.
I can understand that you are not a Batman fan - but how do you miss the reason Batman does not run over Joker? It comes up 2-3 times. 1. Joker in jail: Batman says “I have only one rule” and joker says “your going to have to break it tonight... making a choice is killing, and I am giving you a choice between her and Dent.” 2. After Gordon “does”: Batman has a mob boss on the 2nd/3rd floor holding him over it. Mob boss says a man won’t die from that height and Batman says “I’m counting on it.” And drops the guy shattering his legs. Batman then demands to know where joker is and the mob boss says he ain’t going to say anything because Batman has “rules” and joker doesn’t - joker will kill him for snitching. -End once Gordon and Batman meet on ground floor: Batman says that he will be the patsy for the deaths done by Harvey Dent. Gordon says “you can’t! You are not that!” And Batman says “I will be whatever Gotham needs me to be.” So yeah, you missed a pretty prevalent point- Batman simply has a code of “I can put you in a full body cast, or cripple you for life, but I will not kill you.” That is why he did not ram Joker at 50 mph with a heavy duty motorcycle.
"The things this guys could have achieved if he applied himself in a more humane direction." It's his denouncement of THAT direction that gives him the freedom to do the things he does. You even said so. But yeah, this was a fine analysis.
@pyropulse Have you read the theory? What makes you state this as fact? It's a pretty solid backstory - being military explains his scars, his skills, his knowledge of military parade formation that allowed him to snipe Gordon, and the "truckfull of soldiers" comment to Harvey Dent stands out as the possible origin.
this video is almost like you did not even seen the film or try to wish the first film. you cell this a analysis and you cant remember or know the basic things. ok.
The coin toss used by Harvey two face has been around as long as the Batman comics. It was even used in the Joel Schumacher version of Batman Returns (BTW, Joel Schumacher just passed away, RIP). So in actuality, No Country for Old men borrowed that from the Batman comics
part two ruclips.net/video/pKF5m0XGAs0/видео.html
FINALLY! THANK YOU! I'M SINKING MY TEETH INTO THIS VIDEO!
@@paulchristie6229 He can't remember who Michael Caine plays in his movie.??????????
@@reddoorpaintedblack She didn't get the joke that Caine pretty much plays himself given the absence of any depth to the character.
@@collativelearning Hilarious
I liked both part 1 & 2 of this. I know you're not as much into newer movies compared to the ones from the 70s & 80s, but analyzing/dissecting newer movies might help your channel gain more subscribers/viewers. I purchased both your Inception and No Country for Old Men analysis, and I enjoyed them very much. They might get a lot of views on RUclips (I've noticed you've started to upload some videoes on RUclips, that previously were only available through purchase on your site) Keep up the good work Rob, I always enjoy your uploads.
I don’t read comics, but two face has been flipping that coin for decades.
Yup since the 40s
Batman swerves because Batman's rule is "Do not Kill."
The Joker's objective is to force Batman to break this rule, and destroy what Batman has come to represent.
He didn't swerve for the garbage truck driver! XD
I don't think it's about his rule at that point. As F4LCON said, he had no problem killing a low level goon when the circumstances were completely dire. But when it comes to Joker, he needs to prove Joker wrong. It is not about his rule. It's about being right.
@@TH3F4LC0Nx - Chalk it up to bad writing... One movie team does not get to rewrite a fundimental character trait.
@@Palendrome Batman's rule is not that he simply doesnt kill, If Batman needs to kill a criminal to directly save an innocent life he will without hesitation. Batmans real rule is that he will not kill out of vengeance because he is afraid he will never stop killing. He doesn't run down Joker because no ones life is directly on the line, he would be killing purely out of vengeance not to directly save someone. He wants the least amount of people to die as possible.
The irony with his rule and what makes his hypocritical is that killing these criminals would save plenty of innocents, but Batman isn't a perfect hero, he is still a man and his aversion to kill could be seen as his biggest flaw.
@@jacksnhawker5165 When was it fundamental? Batman has had many incarnations, and many of them have no qualms killing. In fact, when the character started he had no problems killing, that was added later! It's not bad writing, it was intentional on the NOlan teams part
The coin tossing has been in the comic source material for 50+years.
Came here to point this out. Two-Face was in the comics in the forties deciding with a coin flip to let people live, or kill them. I don't think Ager has read much of comic books, or at least of Batman comic books.
Jeff Anderson hell, he forgot Alfred’s name lmao
One huge thing Rob missed is that before he is burned Dent uses the coin to make his own luck because it always lands heads. After he is burned he puts everything to chance.
This is why I like Rob's commentary on the subject. His naivete of the source material allows him to see it with fresh eyes.
@@yoyohop Exactly. Films have become like religion to people the last decade or so. You'll get chastised if you dare speak 'blasphemy' and say you don't like one movie and like another. Fans even use the word 'canon' as if they too are referring to religious texts. I think the video is all the better for that fresh take. The same things get said over and over on other channels anyway.
I'll take fresh over salty anyday, you follow me?! ;)
Sorry, but I can’t understand how you can just take the second ‘scarring backstory’ at face value (he did it to himself) when we already had a different ‘scarring backstory’ earlier in the movie.
When first viewing the movie I was absolutely fascinated with the Joker character. It was the enigmatic, ‘ungraspability’ of the character that makes him so fascinating. I was deeply disappointed when I saw the scene of the first backstory to his scars, because it gave a trite, trope-like explanation of something that should never have been explained. I felt so let down...
...only to be absolutely blown away by that second reveal. That second backstory that serves to HAMMER the point home nothing the Joker tells us can be trusted or taken at face value. This includes the second mistake you make of taking his _explanation_ at face value in the hospital scene where he says he’s an agent of chaos and claims not to believe in plans, or rather, schemes. This from a guy who just pulled off a hugely intricate plan of getting caught and seemingly defeated only for it to be a part of his plan to reach his actual goal.
What a layered ungraspable character! And none of it outright narrated, but shown! In fact, making a mockery of narrated character ‘development’.
That's a fair point about the back stories. I had questions on it too, and must have forgotten the earlier scene. However, Joker is shown as being ambivalent to pain several times in the film and his back story about the scars (even if he is lying in that moment) still gives a menacing edge suggesting he could do the same to the girl with impunity.
You really should watch the movie again because you missed some key character elements that (I think) are the most interesting. Batman won't run down the joker because that's his one rule. He'll beat you to a pulp, but he draws the line at killing. That's EXACTLY the reason why the joker _wants_ Batman to run him down. Here's trying to make him break his rule. That's explored at several points in the film, like when Batman had Maroni on a ledge.
Sal Maroni: "From one professional to another, if you're gonna scare someone, you should learn to pick a better spot. You know, from this height, the fall won't kill me "
Batman: "I'm counting on it" [drops him]
Collative Learning Yes, I definitely agree with you on that point. I would stretch it a bit further and say that its not just physical pain that doesn’t move him, but it’s hard to name a single thing that really does. He has plans, but seems to be fine with having those stopped, even to die, if it means a ‘win’. And the win isn’t some objective he’s after, but rather to make the other lose something (their objective or their principles).
It’s one of the few things about the Joker that get narrated, when Alfred talks of his experience in (I think it was) Birma and says how some men can’t be bargained with, can’t be reasoned with or threatened - how some men just want to watch the world burn
Collative Learning By the way, one of the reasons why I love this movie is because to me the Joker is the ‘protagonist’ of the movie. They say the hero of a movie is defined by its antagonist, but here it seems to me the reverse often happens: it’s the actions of the heroes or rather the other characters that drive what the Joker does. Whether it’s taunting and misdirecting the mob, the way he gets to Batman and Dent through their morals and highest priority (Rachel) and how he terrorizes the city (based on what he sees as people’s double-faced principles).
Note how the movie opens with a Bond-like action sequence, but centered around the Joker, not Batman
It’s this novelty that makes me excuse or have little trouble with weaker points, such as the caricature Italian mob guy, the not fully convincing transformation of Dent into two-face etc
"Face value"
Very poor choice of words
""Psychopaths seem to be more intelligent in movies...they simply have more options"
Wonderful remark, bravo.
Lmao
More options? They just willing and capable to do things a normal person cannot
@@terrythompson6386 that’s… what he means.
I feel like i gained a whole new perspective from that quote.
Two Face had been doing the coin flip thing in the comics and various screen adaptations long before No Country for Old Men had ever existed. I actually think it’s possible the Coen brothers got the idea for Anton Chugura coin toss predilection from Two Face.
clearly the reviewer hasn't even watched the previous batman flicks, even Tommy Lee Jones(who happens to be in No Country for old Men ) Two Face did the coin toss thing, internewscast.com/people-who-make-major-life-decisions-on-the-toss-of-a-coin-end-up-happier-study-says/
No country for Old Men is actually based on the novel of the same name by Cormac McCarthy and pretty much horror every plot point from the book. Granted the movie didn’t come out very long after the book but if I know Cormac McCarthy like I think I do he doesn’t give a fuck about Batman comics hahaha
@@LO-zs3dbI always try to get commentary from people who don't gaf about the subject matter. That's what makes them cool. 🙄
I could be wrong about this but I think people flipped coins before Two-Face.
Christian Bale, or whatever his character’s name is in the movie. I can’t remember.
I think his name is Spider-Man, or something.
@@cruesome1971 no, he's Tony Stark
Bruce Wayne/Batman
Sherriff John
Yes,the name of the butler is Alfred,as any Batman fan knows.
I'll prob have Part 2 up in a week or two. Working on some other stuff in the interim.
I'm not the only one to have noticed that the opening shot of the movie could be viewed as a POV shot of a plane crashing into the side of a sky-scraper. They absolutely knew what they were sugesting with the movie's poster.
Edit: It's just occured to me that the whole movie could be viewed as an exploration of the chaos that ensued subsequent to 9/11 event. 9/11 sets in motion a whole series of moral compramises that the 'Heroes' make with 9/11 as justification, such as the 'extrodinary rendition' of the Chinese banker guy, the elegal mass servailance etc. When the world is on fire you don't get a goodly knight in shining armour to the rescue... a Dark Knight rises. When facing an irational enemy that is not motivated by mundain things such as money but really just want's to see the world burn then all the usuall rules can be thrown out the window in order to deal with said enemy. I think there might be a little bit of propagandising going on in this movie similar to 'Three Kings'.
Nolan used 'The Dark Knight Trilogy' to get more control over his work. It's worked in some 'Inception' and 'Dunkirk', but I found 'Interstellar'(As beautifully as it is shot, it never fully comes together and is too sentimental for me) But I am a fan. 'The Prestige' and especially the overlooked 'Insomnia' are both solid films and worth watching. You're right with this though, Ledger as The Joker carries the film.
Edit: Many see the trilogy as a take on the Bush Administration and the Patriot Act.
Great to hear that Rob... Your work is Excellent!
Can't wait!
That book en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_of_Mind was a
source of inspiration for many movie's metaphors.
First saw this, nearly panicked, then I remembered, it's " all part of the plan"
Idk why that made me laugh, but it did lmao
So what's the next step of your master plan?
@@1schwererziehbar1 crashing this comments section
I'm not gonna lie, i was confused too Lol
Let's not rule out the reactions to the essay, especially salty reactions to statements like the one about Alfred, are going to somehow play a part in the themes covered in the next video. Robbo has done this before don't forget.
The villain-hero stuff you mentioned is interesting. There is a whole subplot about "the necessary lie". Batman and Gordon about Harvey, Batman and Lucius about the spy tech, and Alfred about Rachel's letter all choose to lie at the end of the film as a part of the resolution.
Batman and Joker are two battling devils that always end up with the same end goal: keeping the game going. It's Hegelian dialectic, Batman's thesis against Joker's antithesis. We think we choose, but really, there is no choice. The choice is a lie. There's only one answer in the middle, the synthesis: Two Face, who is both a hero and a villain in the film. There is no choice, it's a double sided coin before we flip. The choice is a lie.
Hegelian Dialectic is similar to the Twin Pillars between the Temple of Solomon. You think you're choosing between the two Pillars, but you're not. They lead to the same place, the synthesis, the path to the temple. And during Harvey's funeral, where is his picture? Right in the middle of two large pillars.
And let me add, if you look for this theme through Nolan's films, of the necessary lie, you'll find it in almost every single one of them.
Very astute! It really does make Batman a more nuanced and interesting character when the "hero" has to perpetuate a falsehood in order to save the day. Truth is usually associated with goodness, but in Nolan's films, the truth, as Batman himself says, "Isn't good enough." Really complicates matters in a moral sense.
@@TH3F4LC0Nx Thank you for your comment. Like I said, it's in nearly every film of his. Memento, the main character lies to himself. Inception, the main lies to his wife is the emotional linchpin of the story, Prestige's end movie twist is about the clever lie throughout, Interstellar has the main characters discover a terrible lie that changes their journey, Insomnia has the main character coming to terms with the lie he told which he thought was necessary, the other two Batman films expand on these themes. I have not yet seen Dunkirk. But in every other instance the "necessary lie" creeps its head.
@@Palendrome The lie in Dunkirk comes when Cillian Murphy (Nolan must really like him, I guess, lol) accidentally kills the kid on the yacht, then at the end of the movie he asks the kid's friend if he's alright, and the kid lies and says he is. There's really not a lot of dialogue in Dunkirk; it's more visual storytelling. It's a great war movie, but it lacks the philosophical depth that makes me usually love Nolan's films.
@@Palendrome I saw this somewhere but I can't remember where i saw it. Someone echo'd exactly what you were saying and break down all of his movies and the necessary lies in each
Oh Rob, Rob, Rob... you forgot that Michael Caine plays Alfred? :D
That was a very dismissive attitude of his role, I have to say.
I don't know how much of an interest you take in comics and comic characters, but some of your observations seem under-informed, such as the coin-toss habit of Harvey Dent. You compare it to Chiger from 'No Country', but Dent was known for doing it constantly in his comic incarnation, even before his transformation. Batman also swerves at the last second to avoid killing Joker because he is more valuable alive, knowing the locations of the hostages as he does. Killing him would put paid to all that. Batman, as a rule, also doesn't seek to kill criminals, only to stop them.
You could also put the comparison to an even earlier story. Dr Jeckyl and Mr. Hyde has been around since 1886. A character that changes from a mild mannered scientist to a deranged lunatic. The coin from Dent is like the serum for Jeckyl. The darkness inside of him had always been there, there just needed to be a catalyst to bring that dark side out.
This "Hit me" scene was beforre Batman knew he even had hostages, Harvey hadn't been taken yet. That's not why he missed Joker. It was because he wanted Joker to be wrong
Ager has said for years, apart from Ledger's joker he really doesnt like Christopher Nolan or Dark Knight
Alfred's yacht scene with the Russian ballerinas is probably an allusion but it isn't very pointed or underscored if it is one. Is it... subtlety?
"In the perspective of élites of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the world upside down of Carnival was neither a subject of amusement, nor a salutary correction for élite pride, nor an “air-hole” (safety valve), nor a recognition of the depth and many-sidedness of human life. It was simply an image of, and an invitation to sin. Starting with Brant’s Ship of Fools, a stream of writing, painting (Bosch, Breughel), illustrations begin to moralize this theme of reversal. It is in the end no laughing matter..." - Charles Taylor
Batman is the best example of a hypocrite villain ever.
Joker is absolutely meant to be a side of Batman, or a ghost of him as you put it. Take the fundraiser scene. Bruce and Joker are mirrors of each other in everything they do in that scene. They both make big, loud entrances. They both loudly ask where Harvey Dent is. They both fake drinking the champagne. They both kind of pine for Rachel. This mirroring is part of why I think so many people are drawn to this Joker portrayal.
He's correctly diagnosed the problem with Gotham, just like Batman has, the mob and the corrupt political system that allows the mob to exist. The Joker spends a lot of time screwing with the mob in this movie because they're part of the controlling faction of the city. But obviously his means and ends of dealing with them and the system are different than Batman's, thus making him the more the villain than the hero. But we identity with him because we have moments where we want to create chaos as a reaction to the overbearing control systems exert on us.
I didn't like the Joker in this film. He isn't meant to wear make-up. He fell into chemicals that made him look like a clown and then he went insane at the same time. It shouldn't be makeup. That's not as impactful. Furthermore, he wants to murder Batman in the comics, but not in this film apparently.
Joker is what Batman will become IF Batman doesn't want to be a villain.
Having more chess moves by not following the rules
Seeming more intelligent because you have more options
This is the type of writing I subbed for.
Then it's not Chess. It's anarchy.
Two remarks by chess masters about other chess masters (I paraphrase):
"When reviewing the games in print, some of [Marshall's] moves at first look like typographical errors." - Napier
"Sometimes when [Aronian] makes a move I have to check to make sure it's legal." - Anand
The best players know the rules backwards and forwards, then break them when necessary. And of course, we don't mean LITERALLY break the rules; it means defying convention, and going beyond the well-worn and predictable.
@@dash_r_media I'm familiar with those quotes. You made excellent references here.
@@MAandS Thanks. And to me, this sort of paradox is what makes chess special, but this is why a lot of people can't appreciate it. When a square is guarded four times but a player puts a piece on it anyway, it's just amazing.
@@dash_r_media hahaa yes! I always say "wow. I'm clearly not looking deep enough"
Batman Begins is probably the best film of the three Nolan made, at least in terms of story structure. The Dark Knight is too much at times, too much story and plot to cover.
The Dark Knight opening scene is very significant in setting up the film's thematic premise and visual motifs. The camera is hurtling towards a skyscraper window -- the first 9/11 imagery.
I like how they reveal The Joker's character by showing that he can't be trusted at all, everything he says and does has a plan, a plan that only he benefits from and then destroys. He is the chief architect of the very thing he says he isn't. A schemer. A terrorist with a plan.
D C Very true. Has a good balance it it’s tone too. Begins is closer to who the character is, but still not a perfect adaption. None of the live action Batman films are.
Batman Begins is the perfect batman movie
I completely agree! Batman Begins is the better film. It is far more streamlined in its story. It also balances Nolan's realistic approach and Batman's gothic, comic book world better than the Dark Knight.
I was very excited to see Batman Begins when it was announced and loved it: a dark, gritty, more ‘realistic’ take on Batman.
Then I saw The Dark Knight and was blown away. Batman Begins has seemed like a flawed movie, more in the style of the Burton movies ever since. So I have the complete opposite view to yours.
"Michael Caine or whatever the hell his name is in the movie, I can't remember"
Alfred... Batman's butler has been a staple character of EVERY version of Batman ever. I mean... that's like not knowing that the Lone Ranger's horse is called Silver.... it's not even a comic book thing, it's commonly known trivia.
Actually quite like the video, but this was just a WTF moment hearing that comment.
really unprofessional and takes away from the analysis
...It's like not knowing that Alex's name is Trebek...
There's some common lore flaws in this video... And it's distracting...
I'm just guessing the source material isn't well known. And unfortunately, That hurts this whole thing, because you almost need that, to get to the reasons behind the story of the movie.
It's quite funny to me that an analyst didn't check a simple detail such as "a characters name", but is very good at extrapolating complex meanings and symbolisms in films lol!
He doesn't like Batman, which really interests me on what his criticisms are on the whole story and characters of Batman.
Rob could of retrospectively corrected the error of saying "idk his name/whatever his name is", the fact that he doesn't indicates to me he doesn't care lol, because he didn't care enough to check. I don't learn things that (i believe) are not worth learning about either :)
You know what really grinds my gears? People who try to figure out who the Joker was before becoming the Joker. He used to be this. He used to be that. This is where Marvel screwed up with Wolverine. Wolverine used to be a mystery and the origin story did not pay off. Let's keep the Joker a mystery. We don't want to know.
Batman does not kill Joker as in Nolan’s Trilogy, Batman’s one rule is not to kill anyone. And Two Face’s coin gimmick can’t be seen as “already done” in No Country For Old Men as the gimmick predates No Country, appearing first in the Batman comics.
Batman's rule is to "win at any cost," not "not to kill." If he has no other solution he will resort to killing.
In one comic book story involving KGBeast Batman trapped him in a room, that was part of a subway system, leaving him to die.
Also watch the Comics Tropes video on how many people Batman has killed.
In th Nolan films he explicitly states "No Killing" is his "one rule". The Btman of the Nolan films is not the Batman of the comics, or even if the Burton films (where he kills indiscriminantly)
@@vonVile The guy said IN NOLAN'S TRILOGY dude.
vonVile It’s just in Nolan’s trilogy
Harvey Dent was flipping coins decades before the bad guy in No Country for Old Men
Very true.
I find it funny that you analyze the characters, motives, and identities in this movie as standalone original parts, as if the characters/story/comics, etc have not existed for decades
The scene where Joker just stands in the street and Batman ALMOST hits him is probably a tribute to the 1989 Tim Burton movie, where Batman ALMOST hits Joker with his Batwing.
(another scene in The Dark Knight that mirrors the 1989 Batman is the one where Joker falls at the end. The difference being that Batman catches/saves him in TDK) If anyone knows more similarities between the 1989 movie and the 2008 movie, then please let me know!
"Deluded criminals who think they are heroes" does this resonate with anyone out there given what we are seeing on the streets these days?
Yeah cops.
Sure, US is destroying itself because they let themselves be swing around like little kids by a bunch of thugs using the death of a criminal to destroy everything we know.
@@d3l3tes00n Both Police and Anti Police terrorist are to blame. Its like the Dark Knight with Joker and Batman...
@@d3l3tes00n If it was all cops, you wouldn't be figuring this out today, you would have been figuring this out centuries ago.
It's not cops, that's just your delusion freewill telling yourself what you want to hear.
@@metoo7557 Nah, it's cops. Fascists all of them.
1:45 Andrew Robinson is one of the most under rated, under used actors of all time. I weep we never saw him in more meatier parts. One of my major reasons for wanting DS9 in HD.
DS9 ABSOLUTELY deserves the HD treatment. Blasphemous to think otherwise. Arguably the best Trek series.
There will never be another Elim Garak, and I don't know that modern Star Trek even has the ability to ever do a scene like the climax to "in the pale moonlight"
After The Dark Knight I think you should try to do an analysis on The Lighthouse
My blu ray copy has arrived today. :)
Always love your analysis Rob. It's interesting to see how you are unaware of some of batman lore in a couple of places. The reason that Batman swerves and doesnt hit the Joker is because Batman cannot bring himself to kill- it is part of his character. In that scene as Batman is racing towards him, the Joker even says things that show that he is aware of Batman's inability to kill. It's interesting that Tim Burton's Batman had ditched that concept that Batman won't kill, but Christopher Nolan brought it back. As a kid I grew up not knowing about this fact, because most of what I knew about Batman, I had learned from the Tim Burton movie
Its a film though not a comic tie in or "read this before watching". Films do and should stand on their own so actually having the perspective of a non comic fan is not only the majority of people but needed and necessary. its ho we can learn so much more from the outside since we are inside as comic fans.
Oh, your dismissal of "Michael Caine or whatever the hell the name of his character is" ruined the video for me. It shows a complete lack of respect for the film and the Batman universe.
Yep, It seems to be done deliberately in order to make little of the movie and its source material. Ruined the video for me too, not "professional", even for a guy that make videos on youtube.
Harvey Dent's two face, I think i was trying to say something about the Jungian thing sir, the duality of man
Son you need to get on board for the big win
Bingo. At Dent's funeral, he's in the middle of the twin pillars. The duality of man
@@Palendrome isn't Bane also in between two pillars, when he's ripping Harvey's photo up ?
@@starwarsroo2448 Yeah, but he's holding a photo of Harvey, so its still Harvey
It is Heath Ledger's performance that makes the film memorable. Batman is just a placeholder here.
I remember watching the film and realizing I was really just always waiting for the next Joker scene
Batman feels like nothing more than Mr. One Rule, going out of his way not to eliminate the threat at the cost of innocent lives. "I don't want to kill you! What would I do without you?" Joker laughs in Batman's face and sees him as a mere nuisance who can be used to his own advantage.
Finale is a Disney's fairy tale. In reality, those civilized (normies) people would slaughter each other over who get's to detonate the convicts boat first.
@@palaceofwisdom9448 What innocent lives? Joker only killed one person that could conceivably be innocent.
I believe that people tend to love this movie because Heath Ledger died prior to release. People insist waaaaayy to much on this movie.
I am not biggest fan nowadays but I was back in highschool. I think that most people whatch it around this age to as this movie his constantly being played on tv. So I don't think the movie is overrated I believe it has to do with you become a more mature person and knowlegble in cinema, as the only people who praise this movie are either imbd, whatch mojos, early teens or the nostalgia effect everything else nevers rates this movie that high to begin with it and trust this. I believe this movie will be the number one on imbd in the future.
"The things this guy could achive if he approached it more humanely". Best thing said in this video.✌❤😁
I disagree on one point. I don't think Joker is suicidal, he's not trying to trigger some kind of suicide by cop death for himself. He's trying to corrupt people. I see him more as a demonic character rather than a ghost like character. In the scene where Batman swerves to avoid him, Joker wants Batman to hit and kill him. Not because Joker wants to die, but because he knows Batman does not want to kill anyone, including Joker. It's the worst thing he can think of getting Batman to do, so that's what he wants him to do.
I think it is important to remember that this film is beloved by Batman fans for many reasons but mainly for Heath Ledgers performance. And his performance Is so beloved by Batman fans because it comes from his heart. His performance is not an external set of quirks and affectations seen in prior films. He spent a long time alone with the material to develop the dimensions of the Joker, a depth of preparation that we deeply appreciate.
Batman does not run over Joker because he has a rule of no killing, and Joker tries a few times to get Batman to break this rule.
Like, how does he not know the fundamentals of who Batman is?
@ He's writing about the movie. The Batman in the movie can be judged by how the movie portrays him, not by external comic book stuff as aditional context.
Rob, I find you very intelligent and perceptive in your analysis at all times, and for the most part that still comes through here despite your best efforts. You clearly have no regard for this genre, and perhaps believe stating that upfront excuses superciliousness and a lack of rigour. Naked disdain is not a good tone, but I'll take what I can get.
About the scene when the Joker gave Dent the revolver in the hospital:
The Joker holds the hammer of the gun in place. He would have prevented Dent from shooting him.
You really think that's all it takes to stop someone from shooting you? What if he had tried to shoot him? You think he would've just yanked it out of his hands? Do you also think he had spring shoes on when Batman was going to run him over?
"If he doesn't bail at the last second, I will jump over his head hehehehe"
When Dent punched the woman despite her result in the coin flip being a lucky one, I think he did it for a practical reason, because he needed to knock her out in order to proceed on doing his stuff, but when he fliped the coin in Salvatore Maroni's car, Salvatore was lucky, but he fliped again and shot the driver, possibly killing both Maroni and the driver (the film didn't made it clear if Maroni died or not)
Also, in another moment when the Joker burned the pile of cash, the Chinese guy was sitting on the pile of money and it's implied that he was burned with the money too, but the film doesn't make it clear, it would be more clear if died or not if we could hear him screaming or something like that, but I think it would cause an issue related to the age certificate of the film that is PG-13, I think The Dark Knight is already edgy for being a PG-13 film.
Rob my friend you never dissapoint. Your analysis is deep not seen anywhere else.
Considering how long Two-Face has been around it is far more likely the writers of "No Country for Old Men" stole it rather than the other way around. I gotta say you don't seem to know alot about Batman.....
Yeah, I thought it was weird that he thought Harvey Dent iconic coin flip was lifted from No Country when that’s been part of his character since his inception. He should’ve maybe prefaced saying he doesn’t know or care about the Batman mythos. He even didn’t care that Michael Caines character’s name is Alfred.
@@moonshot159 precisely...
It's a strange part of the video. I don't think you have to be a Batman fan to know Two-Face flips a coin. You get the feeling that Rob doesn't like superhero stuff that much.
@@pleaserewind295 yeah I get the feeling he believes comics to be a lower art form, which imo is a real shame as he is likely to miss some really incredible stories such as Kingdom Come, or Arkham Asylum: A Serious House on Serious Earth.....
the twoface coin tossing was done in the batman animated series first ,that was released in 1992 i think
I am one of the people who have asked Rob about Nolan films in the past (years ago now). Thanks for making this Rob, always enjoy hearing your opinion. Great analysis as usual.
I'll always love The Dark Knight for being a film that actually pursues its own ideas to the fullest. It presents a thesis statement early in the film, and by the end, that statement has been proven. It would be cliche at this point to say that the movie is "deep" or "thoughtful" but at the end of the day I truly believe it is. It has quite a few layers to it, and I can always come back to it over and over again, unlike almost every Marvel movie. A lot of people might say it's overrated, but I think it actually deserves the praise it gets. Imo, anyway.
Its arguably one of the only good superhero movies. A big reason being the big climax isn't some doomsday chemical agent/nuke. Just 2 boats full of no name extra's all at risk of being blown sky high by each other or the antagonist. We all know Gotham or the world isn't going to be destroyed. But a boat full of people with no plot armor? thems be at risk. Its about the character interactions and the choices presented to each of them.
The only superhero movie I actually saw in theaters twice.
@@pokeman5000 I've said it before and I'll say it again, when making a superhero movie, the rule is this: The lower the stakes, the higher the emotional impact. You're 100% right. I mean, we all knew that Superman was gonna beat Zod in Man of Steel, because otherwise the entire planet was doomed and there would be no sequel(s). But I imagine quite a few people were genuinely caught off guard by Rachel's death in The Dark Knight. By making the stakes lower, you can toy with the audience's expectations more. That's partly why Nolan's last Batman film failed so hard for me.
@@pokeman5000 Wasn't the climax of the film the interrogation scene and the buildup to Rachel's death
"He didn't flip the coin to see if she should be punched" That made me laugh.
The theme of the whole Nolan Batman trilogy was The War of Terror against the West. All the antagonists in the Nolan trilogy were essentially terrorists.
There is an apparent lack of understanding of the source material that would clarify and sometimes refute some of your critiques. Not that this is a perfect movie or that this additional material excuses the confusion you have from a lack of explanation in the movie, but I feel it would improve your analysis if you took a closer look at this material. It's just that the confusion you have in the video isn't particularly productive and your criticisms would be more effective if you acknowledged some of the answers provided by the comic books that inspired this movie.
x media should not be required in order to consume y media
How?
You can't credit things that aren't in the movie if they.... wait for it... AREN'T IN THE MOVIE.
You can't just half-ass a term paper and expect an A because the works you cited explained it better, so read those....
@@TheGreenTaco999 In most cases, sure. But when a character has over 70 years worth of content known to millions, there is an expectation that people are going to see the movie because of all the stories that came before. We aren't dealing with an original IP here.
A lot of people have commented here about you seeming to think Two-Face is a pale copy of Anton Chigurh and how if anything it's the other way around, but this, much like your video, is actually missing the point of both characters.
Harvey had his life ruined by forces so unjust and chaotic that it makes him lose his faith in any choice being right or wrong. So he divides every dilemma into two options then flips a coin to decide which one, putting justice up to blind chance.
Anton however doesn't believe in chance. For him every action is determined by fate, which means he views the side the coin lands on as what was doomed to happen. The coin is like a god, telling him what to do in situations he's unsure about, but from his perspective he was always gonna do what he did.
I think Rob is a fantastic film analytic and has both an extraordinary eye for detail and the creativity to formulate theories of underlying themes and innovative ways to interprete story lines.
I love The Dark Knight (and I’m not a particular fan of comic book movies) and having heard Rob mention several times that he doesn’t particularly like this movie made me really want to hear more of his take on it.
Looking forward to part two of this.
The punch in the face of the police officer by twoface seems to me to rather be to knock her unconscious so he can get out of there and move to his next revenge target.
More importantly, you could interpret twoface’s transformation (one of the weak points of the movie if you ask me: it doesn’t come across as convincing to me and feels rushed) as a transformation from a man who believes in a ‘maleable’ / ‘construct-able’ / socially engineered society [I’m not quite sure how to translate this concept/term to English] to someone who sees everything as random and probability driven
2 face has always flipped a coin even in the old Batman anime .
On my first watch of the movie, I was blown away by Joker. He feels like some elemental force of nature, not a person. Like a manifestation of all the negative psychological energy in Gotham, especially after Scarecrow's fear toxin incident in the previous film.
Joker actually switches up his story about his scars. He tells one person he gave them to himself, and he tells another that he got them from his father, ultimately leaving their true origin ambiguous. I don't think the scars contribute to his masochism (although I think you're right that his masochism comes through in other ways), but rather they reinforce your point of him "having more chess moves," since they only really come up as a feature that Joker twists to manipulate / intimidate others.
I'm surprised you didn't know
1. Alfred
2. Batman doesn't kill
3. Joker's face paint is white because he's a clown
4. 2 Face's coin
Maybe batman didn't make it to Australia
This is the problem when you are discussing adapted characters and intentionally know nothing about the source material...
lol well Robs not this biggest comic book fan....
Trying to sound highly intelligent..but come off rather dumb and dismissive
@@danahousley-preaster2865 bruh
You forgot Gordon's narration at the end; "...a watchful protector, a Dark Knight" with the cape on the bike, music swells, give me chills man that's how you end a movie.
I know what you mean. That ending makes my gennies tingle every time!
Doesn't do it for me.
It's martyrdom on a motorcycle man, you're killing me.
Love your analysis, Rob. Character history will show you that two faces coins and batman not killing etc are all things deep in the history of the stories. Great to hear you’re opinions on it though, looking forward to seeing the rest #whysoserious
i think it important to mention that in Alfred's story is not the criminal who burns the everything down but the people trying to catch the criminal.
Still waiting on you to do a 2 hr or 2 part analysis on what is in my opinion Nolan's greatest film, The Prestige. Love from Toronto Rob ✊🏿
You say you wrote 32 pages and went very in depth, but can’t even remember on of the main characters names, it’s Alfred BTW
I love the idea that Joker is Batmans shadow self manifested as a ghost in this iteration, I don't think it's as clear cut as that but their duel natures have always been there in Batman as a theme; and it's done well in this movie I think. Just a side note - the reason Batman swerves so as not to hit him on the bike is that Batman doesn't kill (I know he certainly is recklessly violent enough to kill all the time) but it's a thing with Bats, he doesn't intentionally kill.
The late Heath Ledger and his character, was the only good thing about this film. As Abraham Lincoln said: if I had 2 faces, d'ya think I'd wear this 1?
The observations of the villains in this film are of character elements that have already been touched on in other media. Two-Face is clearly a character who's in touch with his darker side. The doctors at Arkham Asylum would say he is bipolar and has paranoid schizophrenia but often, when we look at Two-Face, we just look at the face and the coin and think that's it. There's nothing more to him. I haven't read the comics much but they do touch on Dent's internal struggles in the 90s animated series, which was excellent. In the film, they try to depict Dent as Gotham's white knight, but clearly he was very flawed and was corrupted by Joker's influence.
Joker is often depicted as a villain who brings into question whether Batman is a hero who brings the more colorful and difficult villains to justice or just a harbinger of these colorful villains. This is touched on a little bit in Tim Burton's Batman when Batman and Joker exchange these lines: "I'm gonna kill you." "You idiot! You made me, remember? You dropped me into that vat of chemicals." Then... "You killed my parents." "What? What are you talking about?" "I made you. You made me first." Remember, Tim Burton's Batman had no problem with killing, unlike Nolan's Batman. This makes Batman's reason for missing the chance to kill Joker in Nolan's Batman very different when compared to Burton's Batman. When Joker says "Hit me" in Nolan's Batman and Batman purposely misses, this is Batman trying to hold on to his principles and not be corrupted by Joker. When Joker says "Hit me" in Burton's Batman and Batman misses, that was just... Batman being a bad shot? I don't know what was going on there. Granted, I haven't seen Burton's Batman in years.
Anyway, regarding the 9/11 imagery on the poster, I figure that sort of foreshadows Batman's fate at the end of the film, to be depicted as an enemy who must be chased down by the authorities. So the hidden story of the poster, as I see it, is that the burning bat symbol on the building wasn't actually caused by Batman himself. In the movie, he allows himself to be framed in this way in order to maintain Dent's white knight symbol. People who believe that propaganda would think that of course Batman would burn his symbol onto some buildings in a very 9/11 fashion.
On the idea of Joker being a ghost or an imagination actually holds up well. There is a spinoff comic where Robin goes to the future and he asks raz agul who the Joker is, Raz tells Robin the Joker only exists in Batmans head. And I have had this belief myself for a long time.
I would like further context please ?
Lol "his coin-tossing was already done in No Counter for Old Men." If you hadn't prefaced this analysis with the caveat that you don't usually release commentary on works that you dislike, this video would throw all your other videos into question as to how often you spoke on things using an objectively incorrect context through which your thoughts and opinions were formulated. In fact, reason would dictate that this still has been done at least once or twice elsewhere. This video has done irreparable damage to your credibility (only in that you're no longer "perfect" as I once preferred to view you) yet I'd still place you well above your peers. Just much lower than before.
I think there is another layer to the money burning. Money works as an exchange medium only because we collectively agree on its value. In the same manner societal rules only work because we collectively agree to abide by them (in turn using them ourselves to achieve our own goals). Him burning all that money is telling that he doesn't rely on it and is able to discard it at will, just as he is able to do that with ordered society and its values.
It's happened. I never thought I'd see the day. The planets have aligned. Rob Ager has finally done the Dark Knight
The Joker character singlehandedly turn an average at best film to a good one. The first film was much better as a whole.
Batman doesn't run over the Joker with the Bat Bike because Batman's one rule is that he won't kill. The joker then devises a plan in which Batman is forced to decide who lives and who dies by forcing Batman to decide between saving Rachel or saving Harvey Dent. When Batman chooses to send both the police for Harvey Dent and himself after Harvey Dent he has chosen to let Rachel Die. It is at that point in the movie he breaks his only rule. It is at that point that Batman becomes the Dark Knight.
Batman is almost every Imperialist's favorite comic hero, if not Ironman.
Both are rich, and live lavish lifestyles, propping the economy, while ignoring poverty. The Joker was the real 'hero' of the movie. Robin Hood...and Sheriff John's secret weapon took care of him.
i don't understand, most of your videos you do endless research. And this one you don't even know Alfred? or that Batman has a rule where he doesn't kill?
Michael Caine pretty much always plays himself, you missed the joke. As for Batman's "doesn't kill" rule, I did say in the video "maybe I missed a plot point". If it was a better film i'd probably do more research on it. Part 2 will explain.
@@collativelearning yeah, I figured lack of interest in the film to be part of it. Of course batman says he doesn't kill, but ends up incidentally killing alot of people. Then they had the Affleck version, and all that goes out the window anyway. Caine is pretty typecast , in Nolan movies anyhow.
Thanks for uploading the video. You always have such great episodes...
Batman didn't run Joker down because the central fact of Batman's existence is his desire to save lives and bring justice. Killing the bad guys--no matter how evil they may be--is anathema to him, the line he will never cross. That's traditional canon, anyway. As we've seen with the Star Wars franchise, canon can be a malleable thing.
Woah I never thought I'd see this. Rob, I've been a fan of your work for a while now, thank you so much for all of the great film-analysis you do.
Joker is quite well aware of Batman's stance; doesn't think him a delusional type. That reality is what makes him 'so much fun :D'
If he deluded & merely swinging around in a bat costume, not using it as a fearful visage of the dark, if he wasn't what he is, Joker'd be playing with just another costumed-criminal, not the vaunted caped-crusader. But Joker, who thinks everything that's even slightly nefarious is funny, is out to have the ultimate fun with the ultimate dipole. In the film, if he can get Batman to break his one rule (something Batman didn't have when he was first conceived; look up images of Batman killing, and with a gun), then Joker wins.
Totally get why the movie isn't quite so well enjoyed even upon a second viewing - cuz someone's not a Batman fan. Kind of odd really to hear the statements being made, but shows the clean review of the film from that stand point.
I think it hurts the review more than it helps he often calls Bruce an asshole but it has been established in previous adaptations and the previous film that it’s just a disguise so I can’t tell if he’s just forgetting the previous movie or just hasn’t watched it
You missed that the Bush-analogue Batman literally does some extraordinary rendition in the first twenty minutes.
The first time I saw this, I sat in the theater at the end, watching credits roll, asking myself, 'What the hell did I just watch?' (It was more vulgar than that) It was so good, I pushed it to number 2 on my all-time superhero movies. Superman: The Movie is still number one, but Dark Knight is basically 1b.
The Joker shows that everyone is compromised and exploits them.
The mob is afraid of Batman and wants money. The Joker uses that to his advantage.
There is so much corruption in Gotham PD that Gordon has to work with them. The Joker uses that to his advantage.
Batman refuses to kill. The Joker complicates this by threatening to kill someone every day that Batman doesn't reveal his identity. Are those deaths on Batman's hands? By making Batman chose between Rachel/Harvey, he was also making him choose for one of them to die. Is that murder? And eventually, Batman saves Gordon's son and accidentally kills Harvey Dent.
Remember that the joker was the hero that Gotham needed and did everything that Batman could not or would not accomplish. From the story that Alfred tells Bruce about the jewel thief to the joker defunding the mob and pretty much single handedly saving Gotham from Batman AND itself. The joker never hurts anyone in the movie that didn’t “deserve” it. He could have killed all the rich people at the party. Could have done so much worse. But he doesn’t. Just flushes Batman out and then makes him give up at the end. Turning him into a villain. Making the Harvey dent act a reality and cleaning Gotham up once and for all.
Thank you for this.
An interesting take, as always, Rob. I particularly like your insight into the psychology of the characters.
I can see why you choose to approach films like this 'clean' - without knowing too much about them beforehand, so you can evaluate the text in and of itself - as in traditional Formalist analysis.
After all, Nolan made his films to be separate from the 70-odd year Batman continuity that preceded them. They stand apart from other superhero films, so evaluating them as outside the shackles of that genre is entirely valid and valuable.
That said, I would have been interested in your take if, for example, you could compare Caine's performance as Alfred to previous Alfreds, or you could give some thought to which existing Batman tropes Nolan had chosen to use (Dent's coin-toss), which he'd ignored (any of the Joker's many origins), and which he'd altered (Joker's self-harm) - and thoughts on why he'd made those choices. That, I feel, would have offered some additional insight, some extra fuel for your analysis!
Just a thought. Keep up the good work.
You took 32 pages of notes but didn't look at any of the source material. Why didn't Batman kill Joker? Batman doesn't kill. A simple Google search could have told you that. That's like doing a paper in WW2 without doing ANY research.
"The supposed use of explosives was part of that theory" .... Give me a break .... It's not a theory. Anyone with any sense who's looked into it knows the mainline narrative is completely ridiculous. It wasn't just a 'FAD' that people were talking about this stuff around 2008. I can't stand this sort of dismissive attitude some people have.
I prefer Batman Returns. The Dark Knight is good but overrated except the Joker scenes, it should have been called The Killing Joke. The opening is strange, he's standing in broad daylight, holding his mask and yet his men couldn't recognize him or question with all the makeup...weird. And yeah, the Hitcher is underrated and fantastic.
I think when Batman swerves to avoid the Joker, he's realising something important to the duality of the two characters: If he deliberately murders Joker, _he has become him_ .
The film repeatedly stresses throughout that the characters are practically the same except for their approach to morality. It also goes against his moral code of intentionally killing people - as he states in Batman Begins: "I won't kill you. But I don't have to save you."
Batman is also the kind of guy who beats people up, intimidates and even terrorises people, plus he approaches dangerous situations with ruthless pragmatism and intelligence. This is _exactly_ what the Joker does, the difference being that the Joker is indiscriminate and causes chaos. Whereas Batman targets criminals and attempts to restore order.
This brings up another interesting thing about the Joker not being fazed by pain - this is another trait he shares with Batman, who shows similar indifference to injury and physical hardship
doesnt the coin toss idea go way back to the comics waay before no country for old men was even thought of.. i thinks its the other way round on who stole who's idea
I never thought youd make this video based on your previous opinions on the film. Glad to see I was wrong!
I still hold those opinions ... part 2 will explain ;)
I love that you have no real background in comics, so your take on the film is purely based on your knowledge of text and subtext of filmmaking. It's refreshing to see an outsider point of view on the film, and leads to an understanding of how non comic readers view these films (without being acerbic about it like Scorsese).
I usually love your work. This was junk. Most of the comments illustrate why. You forgot the most important part about Jokers multiple stories, and the No Country for Old Men reference was atrocious. Bad form. 👎
Agreed. I love his Eyes Wide Shut and The Shining analysis but this was terrible. If you’re going to say a movie is overrated, at least know what you’re talking about.
Completely agreed such lazy content creation, if you don’t like the Dark Knight fair enough to each his own but this is just dreadful 😂
Nolan is really influenced by Kubrick. I remember Kubrick seeing this one commercial from the 80s during the superbowl and talking about it. He said how perfect it was, like how in the most finite of time the medium of art of film in context of a commercial encompassing other formats of art within it had in the most concise way articulated something very essential, deep, and archetypical even. He saw the commercial not just as a tasteless add or mere marketing but something that somehow transcended that very function as a advertisement into art. I believe Film at its peak encompasses the most extreme expression of art, jusy like Kubrick did. I believe Kubricks films are great showings of this but also Nolan's. I cannot deny that The Dark Knight is High Art. Nolan is very much aware of the potential critiques of the film right off the bat. The film is even meta about it kinda. To make the greatest art, that will have the greatest impact and be most transcendent, there is a sacrifice, a trade off. It being able to have the most impact in terms of the themes of the film being digestable near universally while being consice simultaneously that meant sometimes concepts were expressed as 4 instead of 2 plus 2 and they spelled out the philosophy of the film rather on the nose. In other instances they gave us 2 plus 2 so we as the audience could put together 4 for ourselves. Nolan made decisions. Risked the critique of being on the nose. When you make a commercial film thats a grand Batman movie that's gonna have a message while being commercial its gonna have the trade off of seeming on the nose to the snobs of the art of film. But in risking that he showed the capacity of film that only the snobs knew to the rest of the world. The film was near universally praised though. And rightfully so. Bale's Real Bruce Persona and his character arc is similar to Al Pacino's Michael in The Godfather Part 2, while the batman persona is very dirty harry and the projected persona of Bruce to Gotham is very JFK Jr vibey. Heath killed it. Gary Oldman killed it. Michael Caine killed it. Morgan Freeman killed it. The Love Triangle of Bruce/Rachel/Harvey, Harvey/Two Face Arc, Batman becoming The Dark Knight, The Writing, Direction, Cinematography, Score, is simply fantastic. I think anybody who doesn't understand why this film is a instant classic and film critics who criticize and say themes are preachy or the build up of the first act dont understand commercial element of high art thats basic and digestable like Kubrick deduced of the superbowl commercial. Honestly the basic things that people nitpick about the dark knight, real fans who watch the film countless times understand those decisions were made for deeper reasons...the more I watch the "slower" or "boring" first act I noticed the more parallels symbolically to the crescendo of themes that harsher critics would say are preachy. But people who go with their gut reaction to films and dont watch it repeatedly aren't gonna understand it as well as someone who has studied it up and down. Sometimes a seeming weakness of a art isn't actually a weakness, but a sacrifice play intentional to be ultimately more greater than it would be if it were perfect by a film students standards who favors independent and less commercialized art.
In my opinion rob is just a boomer who can't just stomach Batman. He let's his hate of Batman gush all over nolans film. Like he calls memento's structure a gimmick, while not specifying why. He just hates famous stuff so he can draw attention to himself and his shallow analysis.
If Nolan is so good to the point of making a somewhat generic hollywood superhero movie but with a "cult classic" disguise, knowing exactly its flaws but purposefuly making the movie like that, how come he's never made a single really good movie to this day?
I seem to remember you refusing to review this because you didn't believe in citizenry being stirred to anarchistic violence by rhetoric.
Apparently it was prophetic.
my problem with the movie is that it was clearly SHOT as a R film and edited to be PG. so theres so many scenes that visually make 0 sense as its skipping and cropping the violence.
I don’t need to see blood to enjoy a movie besides isn’t I think the point was to shock the audience by citing away from it like when one of the jokers goons shoots the other as he’s opening the fault it got to me to or when the joker shot that did that stopped the truck he was driving telling him he needed to wait in line i didn’t need to SEE his corpse
The Dark Knight Rises is one film that gets worse every time I watch it or even think about it.
@Contraband Research
ruclips.net/video/7OtKbmi4gjY/видео.html
You're welcome
It really does, doesn't it? It's like everything great that Nolan built up in the first two films, he tore down in the third. Pity.
Yeah. It’s horribly paced as well
Dark Knight Rises was an awful film. Yeah, the Bane character was well designed but that's the only good quality
@@DougWIngate Rises was a waste of time making it you can tell it wasn't like the first 2 they broke Batman and made him look weak which is really B.S.Even in the graphic novels when Bruce/Batman he still kicks ass.
The Dark Knight is fucking beautiful and is cinema. But it is overrated, but that doesn’t mean it isnt a fucking great film.
Billionaire gimp? The disrespect! Gimp lives matter!1
All Gimps Matter !!!
His nearest supporter, The Black Panther... if he's brave to wear that mask on a marketing poster. ;)
@@collativelearning what a transparent, racist dogwhistle. black lives matter, Rob
@@dougiejones5719 Only racists don’t believe black lives are included in “all lives.”
Well, the coin-tossing is from the comics, and Two-Face first appeared in the 1940s, specifically in 1942
Great analysis on The Joker. I'm a long time Batman fan and love just about any discussion (study) on the character and his rogues gallery. Speaking of chaotic characters, have you ever seen the 2014 film Nightcrawler, starring Jake Gyllenhaal as the main character Lou Bloom? I would love to hear your thoughts on that film and the character he portrays. Great channel. Keep up the good work.👍
I've yet to watch TDK all the way through in one sitting, it just doesn't connect to me at all. Like the first film though, seen it many times.
This irrationally offends me. What about the third?
@@5easy lol sorry. I don't even remember watching the third one, I know I've seen it but nothing stuck with me.
Peephole Circus That’s because Begins is the better film.
Then part 2 of this vid will be right up your street.
Gene Nightingale It might be because it’s a very poor adaption of Batman. I am a huge Batman fan and I can’t stand this film. Doesn’t get Batman, Joker or Two-Face right. Batman especially.
I can understand that you are not a Batman fan - but how do you miss the reason Batman does not run over Joker? It comes up 2-3 times.
1. Joker in jail: Batman says “I have only one rule” and joker says “your going to have to break it tonight... making a choice is killing, and I am giving you a choice between her and Dent.”
2. After Gordon “does”: Batman has a mob boss on the 2nd/3rd floor holding him over it. Mob boss says a man won’t die from that height and Batman says “I’m counting on it.” And drops the guy shattering his legs. Batman then demands to know where joker is and the mob boss says he ain’t going to say anything because Batman has “rules” and joker doesn’t - joker will kill him for snitching.
-End once Gordon and Batman meet on ground floor: Batman says that he will be the patsy for the deaths done by Harvey Dent. Gordon says “you can’t! You are not that!” And Batman says “I will be whatever Gotham needs me to be.”
So yeah, you missed a pretty prevalent point- Batman simply has a code of “I can put you in a full body cast, or cripple you for life, but I will not kill you.”
That is why he did not ram Joker at 50 mph with a heavy duty motorcycle.
"The things this guys could have achieved if he applied himself in a more humane direction." It's his denouncement of THAT direction that gives him the freedom to do the things he does. You even said so. But yeah, this was a fine analysis.
Are you familiar with the "Joker as a PTSD Military Man" theory? It explains a lot about the character, but also suggests 'how he got those scars'.
@pyropulse Have you read the theory? What makes you state this as fact? It's a pretty solid backstory - being military explains his scars, his skills, his knowledge of military parade formation that allowed him to snipe Gordon, and the "truckfull of soldiers" comment to Harvey Dent stands out as the possible origin.
this video is almost like you did not even seen the film or try to wish the first film. you cell this a analysis and you cant remember or know the basic things. ok.
Keep up the good work Rob, hope you’re doing well.
The coin toss used by Harvey two face has been around as long as the Batman comics. It was even used in the Joel Schumacher version of Batman Returns (BTW, Joel Schumacher just passed away, RIP). So in actuality, No Country for Old men borrowed that from the Batman comics