Why so serious?
At different points in the new the Joker tells the story of how he got his wide scar of a smile, each time including this phrase, "Why so serious?". It's mocking, it's cruel, it's ambiguous, and wholly representative of this brilliant film. This is a daring blockbuster - not because of the dark content matter or the level of violence (eye-poppingly high for a 12A certificate) but because of the way that the film refuses to satisfy the audience's desire for a simple answer. This knight is stumbling around in the dark rather than dressed in shining armour and the story arc is not the usual one of strife followed by resolution. Although he is dedicated to doing good, Batman finds things constantly slipping out of his control and his triumphs appear temporary and flimsy. Unlike , director first Batman film, there are successes but no moment of exhilarating pay-off - which suits me fine, because that was the least memorable part of the previous film. What stayed with me from Batman Begins was restrained, but clearly tormented, Bruce Wayne and the ethereally handsome as Dr Jonathan Crane / the Sandman Scarecrow. His use of a sack and hallucinogenic drugs to send people mad was a DIY retort to Batman's extensive bag of tricks. Murphy reappears briefly in The Dark Knight and it's clear that Nolan is reminding us of his character - storing him up for a future instalment.
This time an even more memorable adversary has been conjured up for Batman in the form of Joker. The Joker is a nightmare clown, all smeared make-up, smoothing back his greasy hair and licking around the corners of his lips. It's the eyes that make the most impact, however, calculating and unpitying. The Joker's only super power is his ability to operate so close to the edge that in trying to get to him you go toppling over yourself. Characterisation is rather beside the point in this sort of film, but what is impressive is the sharpness of the script. It avoids cliché, even when setting up ideas like Batman's inner darkness, which we have seen depicted over and over again. Quite how perilous the terrain can be is obvious from adaptations of other comics like and (heavens preserve us) , which both had me squirming. The performances are also very good - this is a comic book film, but it's not cartoonish.
The Dark Knight has been filmed for Imax as well as conventional cinema, as was the case with Batman Begins, but this time around this seems to have translated into a picture so sharp that you could cut yourself on it. Seeing this film at the Imax would probably leave me so overwhelmed as to need a sojourn in , the sense of spectacle is so intense; and I'm not usually impressed by buildings exploding and lorries overturning. Mark Kermode will be reviewing The Dark Knight on tonight's programme - will he share my enthusiasm?
Just one thing, I would have loved to see what Christopher Nolan could have done with , graphic novel. After years in development hell (having had directors including Terry Gilliam attached to the project) has been filmed by the director of... 300. Perhaps he'll do a great job, but 300 felt like a two-hour advert for something, goodness knows what - perhaps gym membership. I console myself with thoughts of the next Batman, I'm very curious to see what Nolan does next. Might his powers extend to integrating Catwoman and Robin into the film without tipping the whole thing into a camp nightmare? At the moment anything seems possible.
Comments