The Dark Knight Analyzing The Screenplay

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

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.

Film is all about the marriage of visuals with words. If you get the balance right, they can only compliment each other.

Gordan was not describing Batman's every actions on screen. That is when it would be unnecessary. It was simply reinforcing a theme with some significant imagery to go along with it.
 
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.

That's because a lot of people, myself included, believe that Nolan carried him through the process and therefore doesn't deserve the same credit.
 
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.

I'd say Goyer was a reason why BB was NOT actually great (as TDK was for example). With him gone it's obvious who was after the cheesey one-liners and some of the horrible dialogues. Christopher Nolan was after both movies' scripts nevertheless TDK was much better. Let's just do the maths.

I only give Goyer the structure of BB's story which mixed Batman's origin, the villiains and the Batman's "first mission" in a much better way than the average superhero movie.
 
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.

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.
"Operatic" also includes the dialogue, you know. :cwink: People talk now in movies - it's why silent films don't really exist anymore. Might as well use everything you've got. But the balance of dialogue vs. plot imagery is up to personal taste, of course. And calling dog poo roses will always be wrong because dog poo and roses are categorically NOT the same. Saying that you think dog poo smells like roses...well, I can't really help you there, but it'd be a better analogy. :cwink:

No, Batman didn't "need" to take the fall if this were real life, but we've already determined that the film is not realistic. He needed to take the fall thematically and for his character to complete his arc.

I'm just defending Goyer here because he doesn't get alot of credit for that.
I remember some article which quoted Goyer as saying, regarding TDK, "I can't believe my name is on a movie this good." :lmao:

Good man.

Gordan was not describing Batman's every actions on screen. That is when it would be unnecessary. It was simply reinforcing a theme with some significant imagery to go along with it.
Oh, watching Transformers was SO hilarious since the robots' dialogue during the action scenes just described what they were doing on screen. It was truly :lmao:
 
Last edited:
I have come to believe that in TDK, when it comes to the evolution of Dent, Bruce and the Joker, their characters arcs are nothing but variations of the archetypes of the Cardinal, the Fixed and the Mutable.

Let’s take DA Harvey Dent, for example. He’s the example of the Cardinal, of the Leader. He has the initiative, the drive to achieve something, he’s fundamentally a doer. The Joker perverts that by changing his direction, but during most of his arc Dent is the one who takes action, who does things… these are the main points of his character development…

Dent:

- He’s fighting the mob by the book: police work and court prosecutions that are often hindered and unsuccessful, so he turns to Gordon to use his “friend” as an unconventional way of getting to the mob… but he still distrusts other people who have broken the rules, like the supposedly corrupt cops at the MCU. (Maroni’s trial scene, D.A.’s office scene, MCU’s rooftop scene, Lau interrogation scene).
- While Dent stayed true to his rules even after the Joker’s first killings (he wanted to resume Lau’s prosecution), Gordon’s ‘assassination’ and the threat on Rachel make him break the rules for the first time, out of despair and fear, kidnapping a Joker wounded goon and faking a Russian roulette on him to make him speak. (Alley coin-tossing scene).
- Convinced on how necessary Batman is, Dent tries to buy him some time by declaring he is the Batman, in order to lure the Joker out. (Press conference).
- After the death of Rachel and his own disfiguration, Dent is filled with rage and self-destructive behavior (Conversation with Gordon in hospital room).
- Dent changes his perception of the world, believing that Chaos is the only reliable justice system, and persecuting those plotted in Rachel’s death, judging them with a coin-toss, starting with the Joker and following with Wuertz, Maroni, Maroni’s driver, Ramírez… (Joker talking with Two-Face– Two-Face taking Gordon’s family as hostages).
- Two-Face decides that Gordon, Batman and himself are also responsible for the Joker’s killing spree, so he ‘prosecutes’ the three of them by tossing his coin, dying in the process.

Bruce, on the other hand, is the Fixer… a more passive character, whose evolution comes through the realization and comprehension of the events that unfold before his eyes. He learns many things during this movie, and most of his reactions are actually inactivity (he doesn’t actually turn himself in) or actions meant to counter the Joker’s doings (turning himself in; fighting the mob or trying to prevent the Joker plans from happening). After the arrival of the Joker, Batman is there to act as the balancing force, he acts to resist the strikes of the Joker, and even his one major decision at the end of the film is designed to preserve status quo.
That is why, compared to Dent, he acts quite passively, and his way of completing his character arc comes through realization and comprehension. He’s there to watch things happen, and get what they mean, so he can act accordingly to try to contain them.

Bruce:

- He has been Batman over a year, and while he’s making progress in his fight against criminals, he’s realizing he’s not inspiring people the way he intended. He has become cautious about who he should trust, and keeps an eye on his potential enemies or associates. (Parking lot scene, First bat-bunker scene).
- Bruce realizes that Dent is the right man to inspire Gotham, the right man to take up his mantle. He sees the end of his crusade near. (Restaurant scene, Conversation with Rachel at the party scene).
- After the Joker’s first killings, Bruce comprehends he has provoked a criminal who is worse and more complex than the mob, a criminal who doesn’t fear him (“Some men just want to watch the world burn” scene, Maroni’s interrogation scene).
- Bruce decides he can’t allow more people to die and that it’s his time to turn himself in and reveal his identity, partially with the hope of being able to be with Rachel for the first time. (Conversation with Dent in the alley, Conversation with Rachel in the penthouse).
- Bruce loses all control when he hears that Rachel is in danger, like when Dent lost control in the alley. (Joker interrogation scene).
- Bruce feels devastated after Rachel’s death, decides to not tell Dent about Rachel’s ‘supposed’ rejection, and hears Alfred counsel about ‘burning the forest down’. He doesn’t give up on his fight, stopping the Joker from getting Reese killed.
- Batman reveals his plan of the sonar, which is an extension of ‘keeping an eye on everyone around him’ from the beginning of the film. He is bound to breaking more rules, even if it’s temporary, to bring the Joker down. He’s ready to “burn the forest down” (Bat-sonar scene with Lucius).
- Bruce understands that in order to preserve Gotham’s faith in good and their inspiration, he needs to cast himself out of society and preserve Harvey’s image and work, taking the blame for Two-Face’s crimes.

Basically, his only real two actions and choices come where he almost turns himself to authorities and when he lays the blame of Dent’s murders on himself. He doesn’t do much other than that, except realizing how things are developing around him.


The Joker, on the other hand, is the Mutable, the constant adapter, the shape-shifter. He’s not mutable or changing per se because we all know he doesn’t really have any character arc. In fact, the Joker has only one major realization on the entire movie, near the end. His arc is rather portrayed as his character and his plans are constantly revealed to us. The Joker apparently has one BIG plan forged since the beginning, and almost every time we see him a new stage of that plan is revealed. Our way of perceiving him changes every time we see him, and although he doesn’t really have any change as a character, our perception of him continues to grow and evolve… he keeps changing sides, he keeps changing his goals, he seems to keep changing his objective. He adapts to every situation better than Bruce or Dent, like when Gambol became a problem for him, and he had to take him out (in a very creative way). Thus, he is the Mutable. He doesn’t really change, but our way of seen him through the movie will not be the same from scene to scene.

Just see…

Joker:

- The Joker reveals to be disguised as one of his goons to kill them and keep all the money. (Bank heist scene).
- The Joker reveals to the mob bosses his plan of killing Batman to solve their problem (Kitchen meeting scene).
- The Joker is ‘hired’ by the mob and he reveals his plan of forcing Batman to reveal his identity, by committing pre-announced random murders.
- The Joker reveals his plan of killing the top people in Gotham’s justice system: Judge Surillo, Commissioner Loeb, Mayor García and District Attorney Harvey Dent, all in order to force Batman reveal his identity (Joker crashing the party scene, Mayor’s assassination attempt at the parade scene).
- The Joker reveals his plan of getting to Dent after he said he was Batman. (Lower Fifth car chase).
- The Joker reveals his plan of making Batman decide which one to save, Harvey or Rachel (Joker interrogation scene).
- It is revealed to us that he switched their respective locations, and that part of his plan was to blow the MCU up and get Lau out to locate the mob’s money.
- The Joker reveals not to be interested in the mob’s money, only in taking the city over the mob, and puts his new power in practice by coercing the citizenship to kill Reese, an innocent man, just on a whim. (Burning pile of money scene).
- The Joker reveals he created that panic in order to get to Dent and corrupt him and his worldviews. (Joker talking with Two-Face scene).
- The Joker reveals his plan of making the innocent citizens of one ferry and the prisoners in the other killing each other or dying, while he waits in a building with hostages disguised as clown goons and goons passing as hostages.
- The Joker REALIZES that his plan failed, that there are some good people still in Gotham, and that Batman is truly incorruptible.
- He foresees they’re destined to keep on fighting forever and, before getting caught by the police, he reveals his final ‘ace on the hole’: the total corruption of Harvey Dent.


That’s a (hopefully) good but not too precise analysis of the archetypes they represent. They are after all the three main characters in the film, although Bruce is the only protagonist. People often wonder is Bruce/Batman had enough screen time and development in The Dark Knight… and if these analysis are spot on, Dent had 6 major turning points in the movie, Bruce had 8 turning points, and the Joker (being the most changeable of them) had 12 turning points.

So Bruce has actually more development as a character than Harvey, but is inferior compared to the evolution of our perception of the Joker.
 
Film is all about the marriage of visuals with words. If you get the balance right, they can only compliment each other.

Gordan was not describing Batman's every actions on screen. That is when it would be unnecessary. It was simply reinforcing a theme with some significant imagery to go along with it.


"Operatic" also includes the dialogue, you know. :cwink: People talk now in movies - it's why silent films don't really exist anymore. Might as well use everything you've got. But the balance of dialogue vs. plot imagery is up to personal taste, of course. And calling dog poo roses will always be wrong because dog poo and roses are categorically NOT the same. Saying that you think dog poo smells like roses...well, I can't really help you there, but it'd be a better analogy. :cwink:

It's the perfect analogy because you have christianed bad film-making as operatic, which are categorically not the same thing.

Film is about visuals, that is what sets it apart. When you go to a play or the opera you have one angle so dialouge is needed to tell a story, in film a good director will use visual tools to tell his story.

Orson Wells said that in a good film you should be able to watch it without the sound and still know what is going on, you might not no specfics but you know what matters. This is not true in The Dark Knight, dialouge is needed to move the story forward and to explain to the audience what is important. There is actually enough imaginery to tell us what is going on but Nolan doesn't give us the credit. Constantly having the camera soar into sky scrapers should be enough to tell us that the film is about terrorism but he actually uses the word so that the idiot in the back can understand as well

No, Batman didn't "need" to take the fall if this were real life, but we've already determined that the film is not realistic. He needed to take the fall thematically and for his character to complete his arc.[/quote]
 
I have come to believe that in TDK, when it comes to the evolution of Dent, Bruce and the Joker, their characters arcs are nothing but variations of the archetypes of the Cardinal, the Fixed and the Mutable.

That’s a (hopefully) good but not too precise analysis of the archetypes they represent. They are after all the three main characters in the film, although Bruce is the only protagonist. People often wonder is Bruce/Batman had enough screen time and development in The Dark Knight… and if these analysis are spot on, Dent had 6 major turning points in the movie, Bruce had 8 turning points, and the Joker (being the most changeable of them) had 12 turning points.

So Bruce has actually more development as a character than Harvey, but is inferior compared to the evolution of our perception of the Joker.
Very cool comparisons! Especially since I'm not familiar at all with archetypes. :oldrazz: Definitely fun reading about this stuff.

I don't consider Joker a very deep character at all, but our perception of him is definitely the most fascinating because he's unpredictable by nature.

It's the perfect analogy because you have christianed bad film-making as operatic, which are categorically not the same thing.
No, it's NOT a good analogy at all because you cannot claim that a film is bad as a fact. :whatever: If someone wants to say that Transformers is their masterpiece, that's certainly their right to do so. Art is like that. It's all about perception.
 
That's because a lot of people, myself included, believe that Nolan carried him through the process and therefore doesn't deserve the same credit.

Because they don't want to accept that Nolan WITH Goyer wrote a great screenplay. Maybe Batman was where he hit the mark for the first time?
 
I'd say Goyer was a reason why BB was NOT actually great (as TDK was for example). With him gone it's obvious who was after the cheesey one-liners and some of the horrible dialogues. Christopher Nolan was after both movies' scripts nevertheless TDK was much better. Let's just do the maths.

I only give Goyer the structure of BB's story which mixed Batman's origin, the villiains and the Batman's "first mission" in a much better way than the average superhero movie.

But if it had cheesy one liners, why do you just blame Goyer? Nolan collaboratated and directed the film. He could say, "okay this won't work," and not do it or cut it out. Blame Nolan for leaving them in.
 
Because they don't want to accept that Nolan WITH Goyer wrote a great screenplay. Maybe Batman was where he hit the mark for the first time?

Carrying Goyer on his back, Nolan managed to write a good screenplay. Without the burden of Goyer, he was given the chance to work with his writing partner and they put together a GREAT screenplay: The Dark Knight.
 
Carrying Goyer on his back, Nolan managed to write a good screenplay. Without the burden of Goyer, he was given the chance to work with his writing partner and they put together a GREAT screenplay: The Dark Knight.

Yeah, I agree that without Goyer he did write a great screenplay for TDK with his brother. But people still don't aknowledge Goyer's part of the script. You know, the good aspects of it? You think all Goyer wrote was the cheesy one liners and the bad parts? GOYER and Nolan together wrote a great screenplay.
 
its amazing how people dont realize that goyer worked on the story for TDK, and the fact that jonah said he had great material to work with from the beginning.
 
i think goyer is good when it comes to story ideas. he came up with basic story structure and concepts for BB and TDK. The Nolans were able to refine, add to them, and execute them really well.

blade 3 sucked though.
 
its amazing how people dont realize that goyer worked on the story for TDK, and the fact that jonah said he had great material to work with from the beginning.
Exactly. People just remember and hate on the one-liners. :funny:

And new writeup on AICN confirms that I am psychic:

-[Nolan] really studied how to approach a sequel - what works versus what doesn't. His goal was to "provide a new experience, stretch in all directions" He wanted to delve deeper into the characters, both old & new and stage the action and story on a "grander scale", using an "operatic sensibility"

:hehe:

More interesting bits:

-There is no 3 hour cut anywhere - no deleted scenes. He, John Nolan & David Goyer would cut scenes before they ever made it to the screen in what Nolan calls an "aggressive editorial approach." Their criteria was that every scene needs three reasons to be in the film or it's out. This made for a difficult time in the editing suite as every single scene was essential and could not be removed.

-When translating a story to a screenplay, the first question he asks himself is "What is the point of view?" For Memento, the protagonist couldn't remember what had happened right before, therefore telling the story backwards seemed a natural device. In TDK, there are many characters and a gradual rise in tension, so linear works best.

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/39348
 
i think goyer is good when it comes to story ideas. he came up with basic story structure and concepts for BB and TDK. The Nolans were able to refine, add to them, and execute them really well.

blade 3 sucked though.

It was a team effort, yes. All three men should have equal credit, but apparently it isn't so.
 
Very cool comparisons! Especially since I'm not familiar at all with archetypes. :oldrazz: Definitely fun reading about this stuff.

It is fun, because it is not the kind of discussion that is abundant in these forums. And it’s a shame, because these kinds of pseudo-academic analysis are actually pretty interesting. I still remember with great enthusiasm Dankalel’s post about a comparison between The Dark Knight’s ending and a passage from The Brothers Karamazov. It was an excellent piece.

Besides, when it comes to archetypes, Nolan is the most archetypal film director out there. The most. All his films deal with characters that are not intended to emulate real people, but to represent an archetype, to embody a certain concept that is designed to be pitched against ANOTHER archetype, embodied by another character. Every single Nolan film has that pattern.

Take Memento, for example. In the film, Leonard Shelby represents Extreme Moral Ideology, and he is set in a background filled with cynic characters with low morality, although the main one is the cop played by Joe Pantoliano. Shelby tries to find out the murderer of his wife and make justice, no matter the cost, even overcoming at great pains the limitations of his own conditions. But he doesn’t do it because he really wants to avenge his wife, but because he needs to believe in the order of the world, in a world where justice can happen, and Right triumphs over Wrong. What he’s trying to preserve is his Ideal way of seeing the world…. (“I need to believe that, when I close my eyes, the world is still there”)… while his cop friend is just trying to use the wrong things in the world for his own advantage, showing his low morals standards in comparison to Shelby’s. That’s why Shelby ends up destroying the memories of him killing his own wife. He needs to believe in a world where morality exists, where order exists… a place where his wife didn’t die because an horrific and unfortunate accident, but because someone did it and that someone will be found and punished by him, her loving husband.

He prefers to hide the truth to prefer his own moral ideology, to preserve his view of the world. He ends up killing Amoral Opportunism in the process. And that’s not a person at work, that’s an Idea. That’s an archetype.

Other examples have it too. In Insomnia, Al Pacino’s character represents Guilt, a man who committed mistakes and accidents and feels so guilty about that it’s consuming himself… while Robin’s Williams character is the Complete Lack of Guilt, a despicable man who did commit a murder without any justification, and still feels no remorse about it.

And in The Prestige, we have no better representation of the struggle that happens in art between Form (Robert Angier) and Content (Alfred Borden), while Nolan discusses many themes, ranging from the very nature of Fiction to the archetypal Rivalry Between Siblings.

Of course, most of these archetypes I’m proposing here do not match the ones that Carl Jung, one of the fathers of psychoanalysis, originally listed. But, like the original ones, they are general notions that are repeated from one culture to another. Archetypes reside in all our minds, especially writers. When a writer writes using and exploiting these common concepts, subconsciously we react and enjoy vicariously what we are watching. That is why we say, “I don’t know, I just liked it”. A great many academics have theorized on these concepts, tracing their way back into social consciousness and world cultures. Joseph Campbell may be the most famous of them.

For those not familiar, Campbell was a mythologist, an expert in almost any myth from any civilization at any time. Through his studies he noticed a common language and formula that was utilized in the most telling tales. Eerily enough, if applied, one can find these elements in all types of good stories and lacking in those that are bad. Campbell used a complex mix of sociology, psychology, and literature to purport that common, subconscious themes and archetypes.

He’s remembered for writing about the archetypal Hero’s Journey, a common pattern that can be found in many myths from around the world. Campbell’s most famous work on the subject, “The Hero Of A Thousand Faces”, was one of George Lucas’ main inspirations in the making of Star Wars.

And Nolan… well, Nolan didn’t stay behind. Batman Begins is, after all, an exercise on the Hero’s Journey. The foundations of the whole story are deeply rooted in the archetype that Campbell conceived. And Nolan, being the filmmaker that he is, couldn’t resist the temptation of employing that structure on the story of BB. If you want to read more about it, I’ll put the comparisons in a post below.

I don't consider Joker a very deep character at all, but our perception of him is definitely the most fascinating because he's unpredictable by nature.

The Joker is just an Idea of course, not a man, but he also has a certain complexity in his motive that can be seen in his last moments. It is apparent to me that all he does stem from a deep self-loathing feeling. That can be slightly seen every time he’s called a freak… in those moment, the make-up and the quirks cannot hide the man behind them. But the most precious moment is when the smile vanishes as he understands that his plan with the ferries failed… and that talks the psychology of many terrorists, after all. It talks of a profound feeling of being alienated from the world, of being different to the entire world, and those men in history, knowing their own weirdness, have turned to violence in order to shape the world in a way that reflects their own nature. That’s what the Joker tried to do. He tried to make Gotham just like him… so he could feel better about himself, knowing that he was not a monster, but just a man “ahead in the curb” ;) And that is a very human trait, complex or not. Of course, the Joker is more on the side of archetypes than in the side of real psychology, but still, that’s another layer added to the terrific interpretation made by Ledger and Nolan.
 
Batman Begins/Joseph Campbell’s Hero’s Journey

The pillar of any story Campbell argued was the Hero, in this case, Bruce Wayne. A story, in the end, is about his journey from his World of the Common Day through his Special World back to the World of the Common Day. In this process, the Hero, Wayne, encounters numerous allies, test, enemies, and trails.

The World of the Common Day is the Hero’s ordinary world. In it, we are usually introduced to the themes of his journey. We see the Hero disgruntled, annoyed, or not “fitting in” with this world. Something just doesn’t seem right. Now, the key to the hero’s journey is that he must ACT. He must make a decision and follow it through. The World of the Common Day is where we find the forces that are nagging at the Hero to make a decision towards something and it is the place where we see the hero deciding to decide whatever it is he decides. In screenplay terms, it is called Act I.

In Begins, we have Bruce literally lost within the World of the Common Day. Do not think of it as a place physically, but a place spiritually this World of Common Day. Bruce is restless, angry, bitter, and host of confused, conflicting, embittered emotions. He is attempting to channel them, trying to decide what to do with the power, money, and emotions that life has dealt him. It is a struggle that leads him into the arms of Ducard, who fulfills the archetype of the Mentor. The Mentor is usually a formally lost soul who has had his own journey and come out on the other end fully formed in his own image.

The role of the Mentor is to teach and arm the hero with the necessary knowledge to embark up on his journey out of the World of the Common Day (the requisite for anyone to become a hero is to leave his restless, ordinary Common Day World and journey into the dangerous Special World). Ducard does this, showing Wayne how to channel his anger and will. Yet, there is also another Mentor within Begins, Thomas Wayne. Wayne is the Young Bruce’s mentor, teaching him about reciprocation, responsibility, and legacy. And in a way, Alfred is a continuation of this same mentor, Thomas Wayne. Throughout the entire movie, Thomas Wayne’s ghost serves as a mentor to Wayne. However, sometimes archetypes wear two masks, as does Ducard. Ducard is what one can call a Shapeshifter, or a False Mentor. One who turns out not to be what was promised to Wayne. In the end, Wayne flees Ducard and returns to Gotham, having already made his decision in order to escape the internal restlessness of his Common Day World – he is going to clean up Gotham.

When Bruce makes this decision, the decision to BLOW UP the monastery, he is crossing the Threshold. It is the element of the Hero’s Journey where he will first experience some sort of internal/external conflict. In this case, he has the fight with Ra’s, Ducard, and the slide down the slope. This all prepares the hero now that he has left the World of the Common Day and teeters on the brink of the Special World, or in screenplay terms, Act II.



After contacting Alfred, Wayne leaves the World of the Common Day – basically his own and his family’s past which is what most of Act I represents thematically. It shows the beginning of his rage, his anger; it shows his drift from his father’s teachings and of his family legacy. Now, back in Gotham, our hero is in a new world, one which has new rules and new laws and new allies and foes to meet.

A key feature of the Hero’s journey into the Special World is the learning of new rules. This is a new world to our hero, and upon Wayne’s return, he sees that Gotham has changed considerably. Earle is in control of Wayne Industries, Falcone rules more powerful then ever before, and the Wayne Legacy, formerly so potent and altruistic in Gotham, is dying if not dead. Wayne spends the first half of Act II getting use to these rules, playing the game as he does with Earle and the board room, the rooftop Gotham. It is here as well that the Hero meets his first ally and obtains more rules, important rules, for this new rule. In this case, it is Jim Gordon. The scene in Gordon’s office is a true archetypal scene. Bruce comes asking knowledge concerning Falcone and who can take them down. From these rules the hero usually gleans a clearer vision of his mission.

Another ally is Lucius Fox, and also, in a way, a Mentor. The role of the mentor is usually to arm the hero with his various weapons and armor. No suitable a role can be found for that other than Lucius. An interesting thing of the Mentor figure is sometimes it is fragmented, like a Shaman (which in dreams is fragmented). Alfred represents Thomas Wayne’s and the Wayne legacy’s eternal soul while Lucius Fox represents Thomas’ intellect. Another ally, Rachel Dawson, represents both Bruces’ and Thomas’ anima, and the female instinct. Rachel represents the intuitive keen sense of justice that so many who fight evil have. She consistently lectures Bruce on justice, corruption, and his own father. She is the most emotional of all three allies, crying and telling Bruce that his father “would have been ashamed of him”. Not only must Bruce reconcile with his father, but he must reconcile with his female intuition, a natural instinct on justice and morality as represented by Rachel, and also through her, his father, Thomas Wayne. This one establishes the role of the True Mentor, branched out through three allies in the form of heart (Rachel), mind (Lucius), and soul (Alfred, the enduring relic of the Wayne Legacy). Put these three together and you compose Thomas Wayne again, who in reality, through these allies, is accompanying Bruce the entire way along his journey.

Now, Act II is also the Approach to the Inmost Cave, which is the enemy’s territory. In this case, the first enemy, who is really just an extension of the False Mentor Villain archetype, is Falcone. He represents the anti-thesis of Wayne’s father and the Wayne legacy. He does not inspire, he scares those into following him. This is Bruce’s first trail, to take out the corruptive antithesis force of Falcone.

As Batman, the hero confronts Falcone and fights him, winning the battle. As usual, on the way to the Inmost Cave, the hero gains his allies in a firmer sense. Some of which were once his foe – in this case, Gordon. Gordon at first chases after Bruce with a gun, now he has become his ally after he straps Falcone up. It is at this point that Gordon becomes part of Batman’s mission. This is also the approach that leads to a FINAL CRISIS, or the SUPREME ORDEAL.

The Supreme Ordeal is when the Hero comes face to face with the ultimate Villain, his foe or Nemesis (which literally means the opposite of the hero). This is Ra’s. We also have Crane/the Scarecrow, but Crane is, in a sense, the opposite in particular of Thomas Wayne; the doctor that makes you sick. Crane stands for the fear and power of madness, in other words of the mind over the body and the unconscious over the conscious… the fear that Thomas Wayne sought to deny: “Don’t be afraid, Bruce”.
Ra’s is really the opposite of Bruce because while both are fed up with the world’s corruption, both have pursued it in totally different ways towards totally different ends. The first meeting with Crane is still Bruce approaching the Inmost Cave, and with each ordeal, the approach becomes deadlier. One can also argue that Bruce has a symbolic death here, a quasi one at least. But it is not a full one. That comes later. Even the scene in Arkham is somewhat of the approach to the inmost cave. It is building towards a Delayed Crisis, which occurs at the edge of Act II and Act III. With each confrontation with these secondary VILLAINS which represent aspects of Ra’s (Falcone his ruthless and merciless will to control and Crane his intention of using fear to do so), Bruce continues to approach the Inmost Cave – the darkest moment of the hero.

Bruce returns from Arkham and it is here that, ironically, he enters the Inmost Cave when he sees Ra’s – the inmost cave is also called the Belly of the Whale (think Jonah and the Whale) or the Supreme Ordeal, or the Great Crisis. This is the most crucial part of the entire journey. Where Act I deals with the hero making his decision, and Act II deals with the hero following through on his/her decision, Act III deals with the consequences of that decision, and the Supreme Ordeal ushers that in. At this point, the Hero and his Allies are typically at their most weak and vulnerable. Also, the hero experiences a symbolic death from which he is reborn, revitalized, and has an Atonement with the Father.

In Begins, Bruce returns to Wayne Manor only to realize Ra’s is alive. Ra’s challenges Bruce and they fight. Simultaneously, Gordon and Rachel prepare to fight for their lives when things at Arkham go terribly wrong. Bruce is crushed by debris and Ra’s leaves. Bruce, at this point, has confronted the consequences of his decision (Ra’s returning and using hi father’s monorail and Wayne Industries machine as a weapon), his allies are pushed to their brink by both fear gas and riot, and lastly, he dies symbolically when he is crushed and defeated by Ra’s.

Now, typically, this is when roles are reversed and the Allies assist the hero. It is the one time where the hero must rely on OTHERS, an element of humility, to survive. To his aid comes Alfred, who saves him and later, in the dumb waiter stairwell, gives him the encouragement he needs in his greatest moment of doubt and fear. Alfred, as stated before, represents the soul of Thomas Wayne. And it is no more fitting that Wayne himself should come to his son’s aid and encourage him to continue his quest, invoking both the ancient legacy of the Waynes and their should to get him to do so. It is at this point, that Wayne sees the higher purpose of his vengeful quest, he no longer is just a pained victim wanting revenge, but an avenger who is now ensuring that a great tragedy befalls no one else. He is cleaning up Gotham. And realizes, at this moment of his break down, as he cries, that it wasn’t about revenge, it was, like his father, about Gotham. The entire mansion scene, from Bruce’s “you underestimate Gotham” with Ra’s, the fight, death, and saving from Alfred (Thomas’ soul), is the Atonement with the Father. The most important part of the journey, it is where the hero has A MOMENT WITH THE FATHER and thus, becomes him. Bruce becomes the mentor, through the secondary mentor Alfred, in order to face the False Mentor. Bruce is resurrected with new knowledge and confidence, as the hero always is. The symmetry in this case, is wondrous.

After this, we have the Flee back to the Normal World – Bruce’s past. Bruce must face Gotham, must face Ra’s (the false mentor of his past and the epitome of Act I) and he must face him with the knowledge and clarity he has gained from his resurrection. In Begins, this is handled quite quickly and oddly, as it is in most modern movies. It usually involves some chase (i.e. the train) and the hero bringing some great knowledge to the community. This BOON, the ultimate prize, is the knowledge of his mission and the renewed vigor of his will as he faces Ra’s and goes to save Gotham, a true BOON for the entire community. Also notice that Bruce again integrates with his father. As he speaks with Rachel, he recites her words, showing yet another Atonement with the Father, a secondary one as he integrates his intuitive side into his being. He does this as he instinctually decides to take a deadly jump to a train and risk his life, sacrifice (or literally “make holy”), his life and his quest.

In the end, Bruce is complete. He returns to Wayne Manor and rebuilds it, and is going to. In fact, the end of this movie is the beginning of the next as Bruce has truly accomplished very little except RETROGRADE CLEANUP, the movie is more about his choices of the past. Next up, we will have the next journey. Which is always more difficult to make.


If you wish to see different takes with the use of archetypes in Batman Begins, I strongly recommend the blog “Taking Carl to the Pictures”:

http://takingcarltothepictures.blogspot.com/2006/10/batman-begins.html

http://takingcarltothepictures.blogspot.com/2006/10/batman-begins-2.html
 
It's like you guys think you know exactly how the collaboration between the Nolan's and Goyer worked. It's hilarious.
Also real life is cheesy too, and not always subtle. :p
 
It is fun, because it is not the kind of discussion that is abundant in these forums. And it’s a shame, because these kinds of pseudo-academic analysis are actually pretty interesting. I still remember with great enthusiasm Dankalel’s post about a comparison between The Dark Knight’s ending and a passage from The Brothers Karamazov. It was an excellent piece.

Besides, when it comes to archetypes, Nolan is the most archetypal film director out there. The most. All his films deal with characters that are not intended to emulate real people, but to represent an archetype, to embody a certain concept that is designed to be pitched against ANOTHER archetype, embodied by another character. Every single Nolan film has that pattern.
I do agree that Nolan's characters don't come off very realistic, but they also don't come off cheesy. There are definitely realistic textures to them.

And I would chime in, but I'm not familiar with archetypes at all. :funny: What kind of field would that all be under? Philosophy? Anthropology? Literature?

I guess it doesn't matter, it's all stuff I'm not very familiar with. :lmao:
 
It's like you guys think you know exactly how the collaboration between the Nolan's and Goyer worked. It's hilarious.
We actually do have a good idea. In BB, Chris wanted story ideas from David Goyer, than he asked Goyer to work on the script. I definitely think Goyer had lots of input in shaping BB, because Nolan was aware he didn't have the comics know-how. This was all the BB special features.

There was an interview with Jonah Nolan where he explained that Chris and David worked on the story, gave him an outline and Jonah wrote the script from that. He noted it was the fastest script he had ever written, because he already had the backbone for it.

So it's impossible to tell which bits were exactly Chris or Jonah or David, but we do have a general idea of how the collaboration worked.
 
I do agree that Nolan's characters don't come off very realistic, but they also don't come off cheesy. There are definitely realistic textures to them.

And I would chime in, but I'm not familiar with archetypes at all. :funny: What kind of field would that all be under? Philosophy? Anthropology? Literature?

I guess it doesn't matter, it's all stuff I'm not very familiar with. :lmao:

Well, archetypes are born within the field of Psychology, but they are in essence, a Theory. A theory that is part of biggest division of thought in psychoanalysis. But it can be applied to studies on many other fields. Sociology is one of them, of course. Anthropology too. All human culture can be a camp to study to presence of Archetypes, especially in Religion and Art, which includes literature, of course. In other words, the term itself comes from Psychology, but its presence can be felt in everything in life. Like many things nowadays, it doesn't belong to any specific field, but to a wide array of subjects. And they're most useful when it comes to the study of Semiotics.

Take a look at this: http://takingcarltothepictures.blogspot.com/2006/07/what-did-jung-mean-by-archetypes-and.html
 
You know. while it's fun analyzing the screenplay and it's layers, you can't help but think all these things were intentional when the Nolan and Goyer were writing the script. All these things we've been describing, I mean, yeah, all of the stuff we've been talking about could of been what they had in mind, but we don't know. But it's fun in the meantime.
 
You know. while it's fun analyzing the screenplay and it's layers, you can't help but think all these things were intentional when the Nolan and Goyer were writing the script. All these things we've been describing, I mean, yeah, all of the stuff we've been talking about could of been what they had in mind, but we don't know. But it's fun in the meantime.

Exactly. Someone should rename the thread "Over Analyzing The Screenplay". It's great writing and all, but man, this stuff is crazy deep.
 
its amazing how people dont realize that goyer worked on the story for TDK, and the fact that jonah said he had great material to work with from the beginning.

The difference between coming up with a story and carrying out an actual screenplay is night and day.
 
The difference between coming up with a story and carrying out an actual screenplay is night and day.

But he still came up with the story with the Nolan's. :huh:

My God, you really go out of the way to put Goyer down don't you?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"