The Dark Knight Analyzing The Screenplay

[The_Joker7895]

I think my main problem with Goyer is the same problem I have with George Lucas. I don't think either of them is by any stretch a bad filmmaker, but they are both better at ideas and concepts than actual writing. It's interesting to see people bringing up the tonal differences between the two films, as that was one of the things that one or two of the few critics that did not care for TDK referenced as being their main gripe with it. A lot of people liked the slow, methodical approach to Batman Begins, as opposed to the very dialogue and plot centric nature of The Dark Knight. I personally like both, but overall the SCRIPT to The Dark Knight was much better written IMO.

I personally am perplexed as to how people find Batman's descicion to take the fall for Harvey at the end illogical. The whole film has been set up as focusing on the relationship of these two heroes, and how Batman believes Dent to be the true hero of Gotham, and the shining symbol of hope it needs, and that Batman can never be. Batman's complete sense of altruism is what lead him to decide to preserve Harvey's image. He cares so much about enstilling hope and good within the city that he is willing to sacrifice his own image as a hero in order to keep that symbol of hope alive. As we found out even in the beginning of The Dark Knight, though people have become more accostumed to Batman's presence, they are not yet ready to accept him as their hero and savior. This is because while Batman does good, he operates in the shadows, and is barely visible to the public eye, and, of course, operates outside of the law. Dent is the perfect symbol of hope and good for Gotham because as Batman points out, he is a hero with a face. Batman's altruism is what lead him to take the fall for Harvey because as he points out, if people found out that the Joker had taken this ultimate symbol of good and made him do evil things, all hope would be lost. If someone as good as Harvey can be driven to madness and murder, what does that say about the rest of Gotham? In that sense, the descision to take the fall for Harvey is keeping completely in line with the tone established in both films. Batman is meant to inspire good and hope within people, and he himself had hoped that despite having to do a lot of the work on his own initially, his actions would eventually lead the good people of Gotham to take their city back and restore it to its former place in the world. With Dent, Batman saw the perfect person to lead Gotham in the war against crime that he had begun. In that sense, the ending makes perfect sense because Batman made the decision to keep the hope that Dent represented alive, even at the cost of his own image in the eyes of the city. What this means is that not only is Batman redefining the nature of heroism, but is also acting as the true hero behind it all. He may not be a shining ray of light, but he's a silent gaurdian, a watchful protector; a dark knight.

 

[Anita18]

"You either die a hero..."
"Endure master wayne...take it. Don't be a hero..."
"He's letting harvey take the fall for this. He's not being a hero...."
"I'm not a hero. Not like dent....
"He's not our hero, he's a watchful protector..."

Oh yes, there were no reptetitive speeches in TDK at all.

- Jow

At least they don't say "not a hero" more than once per speech. "Fear" was definitely mentioned multiple times per speech, which is why I tired of it quickly.

I hate that Dent has the arc. I really am. It should be Batman's arc that's focused on. I remember watching the end the first time and being like "wtf?" Sure, Dent's turn to 2face was well done because of this, but IMHO, they neglected too much time with Wayne/Batman to see what he was going through to get him to that point in the end.

Wayne does have an arc, but it's largely internal and fairly subtle, especially compared to Dent.

He doesn't realize what he'd have to sacrifice in keeping up his mission. He sees what sort of negative impact Batman has had on the public ("People are dying...what would you have me do?"), experiences personal tragedy, and finally accepts his fate.

It's even arguable that Wayne's arc is given more emphasis and screentime than Dent's arc. Dent just wants to do the right thing...then Rachel dies and he's disfigured due to a betrayal, and he snaps. You don't see him doubt himself until Joker starts manipulating him.

 

[Anita18]

Since I am still awake, I will continue blabbering even though there is currently no one to blabber to.

Although the visuals added most of the epic feeling that the film had, you can easily sense in the script that TDK had a very operatic story. I'm sometimes frustrated, reading opinions about how characters in the film wouldn't talk like that in real life. Of course they wouldn't.

TDK is not "realistic" in the literal sense - it roots itself in reality, but it certainly doesn't stay there. It is an operatic Shakespearean tragedy of the highest order. (It's certainly the only way to buy "You either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain" in a casual chat over dinner.) Baddies are incredibly bad, goodies are incredibly good...except when they become bad. Bwahaha.

 

[Mr. Earle]

I don't dispute that. Begins was "fear fear fear."
TDK was "not a hero, not a hero, not a hero."

Nolan has a tendency to be quite literal in his dialogue. It is, after all his film. He writes the final draft. They're his words, weather or not he decides to change the words from the previous drafts written by Goyer or Jonah.

"Things are always going to get worse before they get better"

I remember him saying that in several interviews before TDK, and then low and behold - Alfred says the same line in the movie. I think Goyer is responsible for exactly with what he's credited with = the stories. The entire Begins story is credited to him. The screenplay is him and nolan. Screenplay is actions and dialogue. Begins was written by Goyer and Chris. TDK was by Jonah and Chris.

Anyone see the common element? My argument is that I think Goyer had .0001% input on dialogue this go around, and there's very similar inklings of the same kinds of dialogue, thus he's most likley not responsable for the "harping speeches" or the "cheesey dialogue" ( I gotta get me one of those ------ I hope you got some moves pal. I didn't sign up for this!")

- Jow

May i just say, that the swat guy riding shotgun to Gordon might have been a bit cheesy, but he helped make the scene more intense and scary. He is the normal Joe in deep waters. I would have panicked even more than him if the joker was pointing a bazooka at my face. Normal people serve a very important role in superhero movies and i wouldnt have them removed. They show how extraordinary things are, how the hero is above the normal person in courage and skill and generally populate the film universe and make it 3 dimensional. You cant have a movie where the dialogue is shared only between 5 people. These people flesh out the movie universe.

After all, if the tumbler passed in front of me one day, i would go "WTF" myself.

Since I am still awake, I will continue blabbering even though there is currently no one to blabber to.

Although the visuals added most of the epic feeling that the film had, you can easily sense in the script that TDK had a very operatic story. I'm sometimes frustrated, reading opinions about how characters in the film wouldn't talk like that in real life. Of course they wouldn't.

TDK is not "realistic" in the literal sense - it roots itself in reality, but it certainly doesn't stay there. It is an operatic Shakespearean tragedy of the highest order. (It's certainly the only way to buy "You either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain" in a casual chat over dinner.) Baddies are incredibly bad, goodies are incredibly good...except when they become bad. Bwahaha.

Good points Anita!

 

[Octoberist]

The Swat Guy in the truck worked..for some odd reason. He's cheesey not but not that annoying to me.

 

[Doctor Jones]

Since I am still awake, I will continue blabbering even though there is currently no one to blabber to.

Although the visuals added most of the epic feeling that the film had, you can easily sense in the script that TDK had a very operatic story. I'm sometimes frustrated, reading opinions about how characters in the film wouldn't talk like that in real life. Of course they wouldn't.

TDK is not "realistic" in the literal sense - it roots itself in reality, but it certainly doesn't stay there. It is an operatic Shakespearean tragedy of the highest order. (It's certainly the only way to buy "You either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain" in a casual chat over dinner.) Baddies are incredibly bad, goodies are incredibly good...except when they become bad. Bwahaha.

I don't think "realistic" is a word to describe Nolan's world. More like plausible.

 

[Mitul89]

On the page, this film is absolutely incredible. If you haven't, red the screenplay. It is amazing writing. Which I hope will get a WGA win, as well as an Academy Award win. This is just amazing stuff. The way the joker is written is so spot on. There is nothing there in the joker dialogue that suggests anything human about this character. He is pure evil. The whole script is fantastic. Some fanboys will dissect TDk, and mention the flaws in the film, but there is no denying the perfection of the TDK screenplay. If this is Nolan's vision of Batman, i don't want anyone else to take over the reigns from him. Nolan please come back already!

 

[Mitul89]

I don't think "realistic" is a word to describe Nolan's world. More like plausible.

I think there is a confusion here with the term 'realism'. Nolan mentions realism in the context of texture. Hw wants the textures to be real. Meaning that he wants the world to be real, the surroundings to seem like the real world, and what goes on in that world is fantastical.

 

[Mitul89]

The Swat Guy in the truck worked..for some odd reason. He's cheesey not but not that annoying to me.

The SWAT guy was great IMO. The SWAT guy is young and probably damn scared and nervous. He's driving next to a clown who's aiming a RPG at him. Of course he's gonna be nervous. That is why you feel his uneasiness. When people are scared they tend to constantly talk - just ramble. I thought he was great. And if you guys didn't know, the actor playing the SWAT is Nicky Katz, he was in Nolan's 'Insomnia'. Another cameo by a previous Nolan actor. In Begins it was Jeremy Theobold and the girl who was in the same movie with Jeremy. Forgot her name.

 

[Octoberist]

I think there is a confusion here with the term 'realism'. Nolan mentions realism in the context of texture. Hw wants the textures to be real. Meaning that he wants the world to be real, the surroundings to seem like the real world, and what goes on in that world is fantastical.

I just annoys me when people (fanboys) confuse the word 'realism' with 'reality'. The Joker is somewhat grounded in The Dark Knight, but he's still an over-the-top, larger-than-life entity. Like what you said, it's fantastical.

 

[Mitul89]

I just annoys me when people (fanboys) confuse the word 'realism' with 'reality'. The Joker is somewhat grounded in The Dark Knight, but he's still an over-the-top, larger-than-life entity. Like what you said, it's fantastical.

Completely agree. I think a lot of people hear Nolan throw that word out:'Realism.' And now they think he means making everything real. If you listen to Nolan he means realistic textures. Making the world seem real so you can take the audience on the fantastical journey. The Joker, as real as you want to depict him, is a fantastical character. He is pretty much to me like a mythical demon. He comes in, does his destruction and leaves. And it's anybody's guess where he is in between the destruction. Yes, Joker, is very much still a fantastical entity.

 

[Doctor Jones]

Realism is the easiest term to throw around in interviews and such. It gets the point across and when he says it, we instantly know what it means.

 

[Doc Samson]

Realism is the easiest term to throw around in interviews and such. It gets the point across and when he says it, we instantly know what it means.

Agreed Doc. I remember when the direction for the Joker was first announced, alot of us, me included, figured he'd be walking around in black trenchcoats, with black hair, shooting everybody with nary a grin. But much to my surprise, and delight, Nolan's Joker is still absolutely the Joker, garish outfits and all. He's still very much a fantastical character, it's the look of the city and the way in which the normal members of the cast go about their acting that grounds the film in a sense of "heightened reality."

Oldman, Freeman, Caine and the rest play it very straight, which makes it seem that these extraordinary figures are waging war in a very real place, rather than Burton's Gothic netherworld or Shumacher's neon-lit fantasy circus

 

[Rasputin911]

Getting back to Harvey Dent being the film's main arc, i think the reason for this was to hold him up as the "balace" of Gotham...

One one side we have Batman (and to a lesser degree Gordon) and on the other side we have the Joker. And then there's Harvey stuck in the middle. Torn between extremes. This position fits the character's duality very well. At the beginning he's courageously pursuing mobsters and falling in love with Rachel, but at the end he's a murdering sonofa*****.

I was glad they gave his character such serious attention and didn't make him "gimmicky." He needed to be the grounded "center" of the story.

 

[Jack O Lantern]

Dent doesn't have an arc, he has a change and there is a difference. An arc is a change brought about by multiple events, Dent is the good guy, his girl is murdered, then he is a bad guy. That is not an arc.

The screenplay is not subtle and that is it;s biggest problem. There is rarely subtext and the characters simply say what they feel. Things are spelt out to the audience. When Dent says "You either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villian" you think he is talking about himself but it turns out to be Batman, which would be fine except that Batman repeats the line. That should not happen.

Also the movie ends with a voice over with Gordon explaining everything. This tells us two things, 1) Nolan did not think we could work it out for ourselves 2) there were serious structual probelms, because that is usually time that a voice over is used.

 

[Anita18]

The screenplay is not subtle and that is it;s biggest problem.

What did I just mention about the film being operatic? It's grand and dramatic, and it certainly has no shame in being the way it is.

There is rarely subtext and the characters simply say what they feel. Things are spelt out to the audience. When Dent says "You either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villian" you think he is talking about himself but it turns out to be Batman, which would be fine except that Batman repeats the line. That should not happen.

Actually, even though Batman adopts Dent's line for himself at the end (and states so to the audience), Dent IS talking about himself and his fate. It's important that Batman takes that saying away from Dent, because he's symbolically doing that as well.

I did like the dog motif was clearly shown to the audience, but they absolutely refrained from using the phrase "dog-eat-dog world." That'd be too much, wouldn't it?

Also the movie ends with a voice over with Gordon explaining everything. This tells us two things, 1) Nolan did not think we could work it out for ourselves 2) there were serious structual probelms, because that is usually time that a voice over is used.

Gordon doesn't tell the audience anything we didn't already know. The film winds down VERY quickly after Batman decides to take the fall. It's less than a minute. The way I see it, Gordon's voiceover was simply for emotional closure.

The first time I saw the film, I thought it was pretty wordy, especially since Gordon doesn't say all that much at one time in the rest of the movie. But for an operatic film, I LOVED the concluding emotional beat and the wordiness didn't bug me as much on subsequent viewings.

Batman's little speech to Dent after the Thomas Schiff incident still strikes me as overly wordy.

 

[Doc Samson]

Dent doesn't have an arc, he has a change and there is a difference. An arc is a change brought about by multiple events, Dent is the good guy, his girl is murdered, then he is a bad guy. That is not an arc.

The screenplay is not subtle and that is it;s biggest problem. There is rarely subtext and the characters simply say what they feel. Things are spelt out to the audience. When Dent says "You either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villian" you think he is talking about himself but it turns out to be Batman, which would be fine except that Batman repeats the line. That should not happen.

Also the movie ends with a voice over with Gordon explaining everything. This tells us two things, 1) Nolan did not think we could work it out for ourselves 2) there were serious structual probelms, because that is usually time that a voice over is used.

I agree with you on that, but considering it is a summer blockbuster, and the fact that a good majority of people who saw this weren't familiar with BB and weren't expecting anything remotely deep, I think he did what was necessary. You can't give people too much credit sometimes...

 

[Anjow1060]

I agree with you on that, but considering it is a summer blockbuster, and the fact that a good majority of people who saw this weren't familiar with BB and weren't expecting anything remotely deep, I think he did what was necessary. You can't give people too much credit sometimes...

Especially around these parts.



- Jow

 

[Assassin32]

Superior yes, but people put too much blame on Goyer. BB had a poetic screenplay and I thought it was great. All of Ducard's lines are gold. People need to stop kneeling at Nolan's alter and give David Goyer alot of credit for being one of the reasons BB was so good and successful.

I'm not of the opinion that Batman Begins was "so good." And I still maintain that Goyer was simply a hired gun given a pen by the WB because he had success with superhero action films in the past, and they didn't think the art-house auteur Nolan could bring the explosions like they wanted.

 

[Doctor Jones]

I'm not of the opinion that Batman Begins was "so good." And I still maintain that Goyer was simply a hired gun given a pen by the WB because he had success with superhero action films in the past, and they didn't think the art-house auteur Nolan could bring the explosions like they wanted.

But he wrote an excellant screenplay? Does that really matter now?

 

[Assassin32]

But he wrote an excellant screenplay? Does that really matter now?

We're discussing screenplays, so yes, absolutely it matters. And, in my specific opinion, he co-wrote a good screenplay.

 

[Doctor Jones]

We're discussing screenplays, so yes, absolutely it matters. And, in my specific opinion, he co-wrote a good screenplay.

But we don't know what Nolan or Goyer wrote. What parts they came up with? I hope your not gonna blame all the "lousy" parts on Goyer? Because you know, Nolan wrote it too.

 

[Jack O Lantern]

What did I just mention about the film being operatic? It's grand and dramatic, and it certainly has no shame in being the way it is.

It's a film. Film is a visual art, you tell the story through the visuals. The less dialouge the better. You can call poor film making operatic if you want, just like i call dog poo roses, it doesn't make it so.

Actually, even though Batman adopts Dent's line for himself at the end (and states so to the audience), Dent IS talking about himself and his fate. It's important that Batman takes that saying away from Dent, because he's symbolically doing that as well.

It's not important to do that, the symbollism is what is important, not the words. Words do not matter, actions do.

I did like the dog motif was clearly shown to the audience, but they absolutely refrained from using the phrase "dog-eat-dog world." That'd be too much, wouldn't it?

Thank God for small favours.

Gordon doesn't tell the audience anything we didn't already know. The film winds down VERY quickly after Batman decides to take the fall. It's less than a minute. The way I see it, Gordon's voiceover was simply for emotional closure.

The first time I saw the film, I thought it was pretty wordy, especially since Gordon doesn't say all that much at one time in the rest of the movie. But for an operatic film, I LOVED the concluding emotional beat and the wordiness didn't bug me as much on subsequent viewings.

Batman's little speech to Dent after the Thomas Schiff incident still strikes me as overly wordy.

Pretty much the whole problem. It's condencending. I get the point, I don't agree with it but I get it and I don't need it shoved down my throat.

The reason they did is actually pretty simple. The ending didn't make sense. Batman didn't need to take the fall, they could have pinned the murders on the Joker if they wanted, or left them unsolved. Or just told the truth so that the message that came just a few minutes before when the people didn't blow up the other boat could have mattered. So because it didn't make sense they tacked on Gordon's little speech to distract from that.

I agree with you on that, but considering it is a summer blockbuster, and the fact that a good majority of people who saw this weren't familiar with BB and weren't expecting anything remotely deep, I think he did what was necessary. You can't give people too much credit sometimes...

Well people are calling for an Oscar nom. If it is to be nominated then it has to hold up against other scripts.

 

[Assassin32]

But we don't know what Nolan or Goyer wrote. What parts they came up with? I hope your not gonna blame all the "lousy" parts on Goyer? Because you know, Nolan wrote it too.

Look at their histories. Look at the work they've done throughout their careers. In my opinion, Nolan's screenplays are of a much higher quality than Goyer's. Therefore it's reasonable to assume that Nolan's a better writer. Now, The Dark Knight comes out and it blows Batman Begins out of the water, and Goyer is no longer credited with co-writing but Nolan still is. Do you see what I'm getting at?

 

[Doctor Jones]

Look at their histories. Look at the work they've done throughout their careers. In my opinion, Nolan's screenplays are of a much higher quality than Goyer's. Therefore it's reasonable to assume that Nolan's a better writer. Now, The Dark Knight comes out and it blows Batman Begins out of the water, and Goyer is no longer credited with co-writing but Nolan still is. Do you see what I'm getting at?

I understand. I do agree the screenplay in TDK was better, but I do love BB's screenplay. Yeah, Nolan is a better writer, but let's face it, we don't know for sure who wrote what. But Goyer was a reason why BB was so good in the first place. Him and Nolan were a reason. I'm just defending Goyer here because he doesn't get alot of credit for that.