The Dark Knight The Gotham Aesthetic... Or Lack Thereof.

[hatebox]

it takes far less imagination to dress a guy up like batman and sit him down in chicago than it does conceiving and building a unique and imaginative city around him.

I disagree. Batman's origin story and Joker's mere existence as a scarily believable terrorist felt very organic to me which took good imagination on the part of Nolan and that's much harder than just using the comics as blueprint for making Gotham.

 

[ultimatefan]

It has nothing to do with imagination, it has to do with the right look for the tone and feel of the story you´re telling. Some movies work better with a highly stylized, expressionist or surreal look, some better with a more grounded, down-to-earth look. Burton´s Gotham worked great for his particular take on Batman, for Nolan´s take that look wouldn´t work, his take is more grounded, and gritty realism is at least as much part of Batman´s aesthetic in comics as expressionism has been, it´s up to each different interpretation.

 

[Motown Marvel]

I disagree. Batman's origin story and Joker's mere existence as a scarily believable terrorist felt very organic to me which took good imagination on the part of Nolan and that's much harder than just using the comics as blueprint for making Gotham.

your talking about characterizations which were brought to life by the imagination of the writers, director, and actors, etc. im talking about the visual aethetic of gotham city, its characterization, and portrayal. and little imagination was put into that, because instead of creating this city with their imagination and making it unique to the world this story takes place in....they just filmed in chicago.

It has nothing to do with imagination, it has to do with the right look for the tone and feel of the story you´re telling. Some movies work better with a highly stylized, expressionist or surreal look, some better with a more grounded, down-to-earth look. Burton´s Gotham worked great for his particular take on Batman, for Nolan´s take that look wouldn´t work, his take is more grounded, and gritty realism is at least as much part of Batman´s aesthetic in comics as expressionism has been, it´s up to each different interpretation.

so what nolan did in BB didnt work? that had more imagination than TDK. and its easy to imagine gritty realism. using more imagination doesnt mean highly stylized surrealism seen in burtons films.

 

[ultimatefan]

your talking about characterizations which were brought to life by the imagination of the writers, director, and actors, etc. im talking about the visual aethetic of gotham city, its characterization, and portrayal. and little imagination was put into that, because instead of creating this city with their imagination and making it unique to the world this story takes place in....they just filmed in chicago.

Which was the right decision for that take, to make Gotham a more grounded, gritty city, which fits Nolan´s take on Batman, that´s how you decide the right look. Burton´s look worked for his take, not every kind of story works better with making up the city, I love to see an action movie in location, where the stunts take place in real places, it makes it much more visceral and organic and believable.

 

[ultimatefan]

your talking about characterizations which were brought to life by the imagination of the writers, director, and actors, etc. im talking about the visual aethetic of gotham city, its characterization, and portrayal. and little imagination was put into that, because instead of creating this city with their imagination and making it unique to the world this story takes place in....they just filmed in chicago.



so what nolan did in BB didnt work? that had more imagination than TDK. and its easy to imagine gritty realism. using more imagination doesnt mean highly stylized surrealism seen in burtons films.

I felt more gritty realism in TDK, because pretty much all of it was shot in locations and gave everything a more real and organic feel.

 

[Motown Marvel]

Which was the right decision for that take, to make Gotham a more grounded, gritty city, which fits Nolan´s take on Batman, that´s how you decide the right look. Burton´s look worked for his take, not every kind of story works better with making up the city, I love to see an action movie in location, where the stunts take place in real places, it makes it much more visceral and organic and believable.

I felt more gritty realism in TDK, because pretty much all of it was shot in locations and gave everything a more real and organic feel.

i dont know how familiar you are with lots of big cities, but chicago isnt all that gritty. and certainly not gotham gritty. and any built set that wouldnt give you the feeling of organic realism, isnt the failure of the idea of using sets, but the failure of the set designer to make it work.

batman movies certainly should have an organic, gritty, big city environment, obviously. but this is also its own city, a fictional city, and deserves a uniqueness to represent that. it should be realisitc, but also imaginative, and those two things aren't exclusive from each other. the combination of constructed sets and on location shooting worked rather well in BB. i would have preferred they continued with that in TDK.

 

[obiwan]

this poll is unfair, you know that many kids on here are gonna pick the nolan gotham because thats the newer one. but ive been around longer, and prefered the Returns gotham. dark, art deco, snow covered and the blue hue is more batman like then piss brown/yellow. just amazing looking, and that art direction got a oscar nod. should have won.

as for TDK, what happened? gotham had no presence, even in BB gotham had more of a thing goin on, mainly with the narrows. this time, gotham was just chicago, normal city, nothin special. sheesh, what a dissapointment. first batman movie with truly no visual aesthetic in the city.

 

[Octoberist]

i dont know how familiar you are with lots of big cities, but chicago isnt all that gritty. and certainly not gotham gritty. and any built set that wouldnt give you the feeling of organic realism, isnt the failure of the idea of using sets, but the failure of the set designer to make it work.

batman movies certainly should have an organic, gritty, big city environment, obviously. but this is also its own city, a fictional city, and deserves a uniqueness to represent that. it should be realisitc, but also imaginative, and those two things aren't exclusive from each other. the combination of constructed sets and on location shooting worked rather well in BB. i would have preferred they continued with that in TDK.

I've been to Chicago. And yes, for a big city, it's very clean. I live near LA, and what's missing were the little things. Maybe it depends on the area, but I've always liked the pileds of flyers and posters on wooden lightposts, graffiti, etc.

Chicago however, is a slick, modern city. It's not as congested as NYC either.

as much as I love Dark Knight, Gotham worked fine in the night scenes, but I DO think it did suffer during the day scenes. I think during the "Loeb Funeral" scene, and some of the parts of "Reese's assignation attempt" made Gotham 'too' clean. That's just me.

 

[Octoberist]

this poll is unfair, you know that many kids on here are gonna pick the nolan gotham because thats the newer one. but ive been around longer, and prefered the Returns gotham. dark, art deco, snow covered and the blue hue is more batman like then piss brown/yellow. just amazing looking, and that art direction got a oscar nod. should have won.

as for TDK, what happened? gotham had no presence, even in BB gotham had more of a thing goin on, mainly with the narrows. this time, gotham was just chicago, normal city, nothin special. sheesh, what a dissapointment. first batman movie with truly no visual aesthetic in the city.

To be fair, there were CGI enhancements, though only in the ariel shots (Wayne building shot, ferry shot). There were even an ariel shot that had a bridge over water, which was added, to make it more NYC like.

 

[T-Mac woot]

and little imagination was put into that, because instead of creating this city with their imagination and making it unique to the world this story takes place in....they just filmed in chicago.

Would you seriously want a crappy CGI made city? Eve in B89, as great as the atmosphere of Gotham was, it clearly looked fake. From the sets to the aerial views, it definately took away from part of the film. BB too, some of the aerial views of the narrows compared to the other [real] parts of town looked ridiculous because of how the CGI, while good, still looked so unrealistic. Now I understand your gripe, but the presentation looks 10x better when they film in a real city, and only enhance rather that create something totally new.

so what nolan did in BB didnt work? that had more imagination than TDK.

Only difference was the narrows, and where TDK took place in Gotham as opposed to BB. TDK took place in the downtown financial district, while BB took place in the run down, corrupt part of town.

 

[T-Mac woot]

Double post.

 

[Nirvana]

One of my favorite aspects of Batman Begins was the fact that Gotham became for the first time, a real city. I loved the Chicago look of the film and it was definitely more apparent in The Dark Knight. I want Gotham to be a real City, not a Studio Backlot.

 

[Anita18]

A little late to the party, but I just finished working on a short film shoot helping with production design and so I've gotten to thinking about TDK's production design as well, and how it affects the feel of the film in general.

But Gotham is supposed to be a grimy dirty city in peril... It's called pathetic fallacy, with the rain etc reflecting the mood. I didn't do film studies, but is it mise en scene?

Gotham is a city struggling to recover from dreadful things, and that recovery is just beginning... I think that Gotham should look like a city that needs a hero vigilante dressed as a bat to do something extreme to save it... In this film Gotham is TOO nice looking! I'd love to live there!

I believe it was either Nolan or production designer Nathan Crowley who mentioned they were purposely going for that contrast. A shiny, clean, beautiful city on the outside, but coming apart from the inside.

IMO, it makes it more unsettling if all that danger happens in a city that doesn't look like it should have such things occurring. In real life, we see that. Nobody blinks when someone gets shot and dies in the slums, that's typical. ("Because it's all "part of the plan." ) But when it happens in a nice, affluent suburb, people FREAK OUT.

When a grimy, dangerous, insane criminal like the Joker can infiltrate the commissioner's funeral down a well-kept part of the city, that's downright frightening. Before TDK, Batman had been trying to take down the mob, which work in presumably seedier areas. The Joker brings all of the mayhem to the core of the city itself.

Besides, it's only the financial district that's nice and clean. A good chunk of the film also happens in grimier areas, like parts of the Slaughter truck chase, the MCU, the two warehouses that Rachel and Harvey are taken to, and hence the third act confrontation scene. But what IS different is so startling, that it really sticks with you.

The point of TDK (and Begins)was to ask "Hey! what if these extraordinary characters and events took place in our world? How would that play out?"

I'd take that thought a bit further, since while I was watching the movie, I didn't think it felt "realistic," like it could take place in our world. It felt grander and more epic in scope. "Hyperreality," if you will, and I think people within BB/TDK's production have mentioned that word before.

For example, I highly doubt that every mayor or DA's office would have wall-to-wall, floor-to-ceiling windows in real life. (Not to mention Bruce's penthouse.) That was a deliberate visual choice.

Nolan and Co rarely pass up any opportunity to show us the city, even if it's from an interior shot. What it does for me, as a viewer, is to incorporate the city into every scene available, even when it takes place in a closed room. During the action scenes, the camera also moves in between buildings more deftly, adding to its more epic feel.

Like, when people think of an epic film, they think of something like LOTR, which featured extensive wide-angle location shots. Nothing is closed off, everything is open. They always remind you of the geography of where the characters are, which was Middle Earth. In TDK, it's Gotham, and from the way they designed the film, it's clear they were going for a similar feel.

 

[BigCityBoy]

Absolutely loved TDK but I too felt that Gotham looked too "clean". The movie in my opinion would've looked darker and grittier had they filmed it in Baltimore, Maryland or Detroit, Michigan. I've been to both of those cities and if someone were to ask me what city comes to mind when I think of "Gotham" it would be those two cities I just named. Those cities have nothing but trash on the streets, abandon buildings, graffiti, etc.

 

[batman11]

A little late to the party, but I just finished working on a short film shoot helping with production design and so I've gotten to thinking about TDK's production design as well, and how it affects the feel of the film in general.



I believe it was either Nolan or production designer Nathan Crowley who mentioned they were purposely going for that contrast. A shiny, clean, beautiful city on the outside, but coming apart from the inside.

IMO, it makes it more unsettling if all that danger happens in a city that doesn't look like it should have such things occurring. In real life, we see that. Nobody blinks when someone gets shot and dies in the slums, that's typical. ("Because it's all "part of the plan." ) But when it happens in a nice, affluent suburb, people FREAK OUT.

When a grimy, dangerous, insane criminal like the Joker can infiltrate the commissioner's funeral down a well-kept part of the city, that's downright frightening. Before TDK, Batman had been trying to take down the mob, which work in presumably seedier areas. The Joker brings all of the mayhem to the core of the city itself.

Besides, it's only the financial district that's nice and clean. A good chunk of the film also happens in grimier areas, like parts of the Slaughter truck chase, the MCU, the two warehouses that Rachel and Harvey are taken to, and hence the third act confrontation scene. But what IS different is so startling, that it really sticks with you.


I'd take that thought a bit further, since while I was watching the movie, I didn't think it felt "realistic," like it could take place in our world. It felt grander and more epic in scope. "Hyperreality," if you will, and I think people within BB/TDK's production have mentioned that word before.

For example, I highly doubt that every mayor or DA's office would have wall-to-wall, floor-to-ceiling windows in real life. (Not to mention Bruce's penthouse.) That was a deliberate visual choice.

Nolan and Co rarely pass up any opportunity to show us the city, even if it's from an interior shot. What it does for me, as a viewer, is to incorporate the city into every scene available, even when it takes place in a closed room. During the action scenes, the camera also moves in between buildings more deftly, adding to its more epic feel.

Like, when people think of an epic film, they think of something like LOTR, which featured extensive wide-angle location shots. Nothing is closed off, everything is open. They always remind you of the geography of where the characters are, which was Middle Earth. In TDK, it's Gotham, and from the way they designed the film, it's clear they were going for a similar feel.

Agree with everything you said Anita.

 

[itsthebatman]

I believe it was either Nolan or production designer Nathan Crowley who mentioned they were purposely going for that contrast. A shiny, clean, beautiful city on the outside, but coming apart from the inside.

IMO, it makes it more unsettling if all that danger happens in a city that doesn't look like it should have such things occurring. In real life, we see that. Nobody blinks when someone gets shot and dies in the slums, that's typical. ("Because it's all "part of the plan." ) But when it happens in a nice, affluent suburb, people FREAK OUT.

When a grimy, dangerous, insane criminal like the Joker can infiltrate the commissioner's funeral down a well-kept part of the city, that's downright frightening. Before TDK, Batman had been trying to take down the mob, which work in presumably seedier areas. The Joker brings all of the mayhem to the core of the city itself.

Besides, it's only the financial district that's nice and clean. A good chunk of the film also happens in grimier areas, like parts of the Slaughter truck chase, the MCU, the two warehouses that Rachel and Harvey are taken to, and hence the third act confrontation scene. But what IS different is so startling, that it really sticks with you.


I'd take that thought a bit further, since while I was watching the movie, I didn't think it felt "realistic," like it could take place in our world. It felt grander and more epic in scope. "Hyperreality," if you will, and I think people within BB/TDK's production have mentioned that word before.

For example, I highly doubt that every mayor or DA's office would have wall-to-wall, floor-to-ceiling windows in real life. (Not to mention Bruce's penthouse.) That was a deliberate visual choice.

Nolan and Co rarely pass up any opportunity to show us the city, even if it's from an interior shot. What it does for me, as a viewer, is to incorporate the city into every scene available, even when it takes place in a closed room. During the action scenes, the camera also moves in between buildings more deftly, adding to its more epic feel.

Like, when people think of an epic film, they think of something like LOTR, which featured extensive wide-angle location shots. Nothing is closed off, everything is open. They always remind you of the geography of where the characters are, which was Middle Earth. In TDK, it's Gotham, and from the way they designed the film, it's clear they were going for a similar feel.

Great post. I love the idea of that contrast between a shiny surface and a dirty interior.

 

[Dark Victory]

But that wasn't a real city! I mean, chicago is one of my favourite american cities... But even chicago doesn't look that well in real life! It's film magic!

As I said already... Think of the film Seven... When they call to his appartment and chase John Doe in the rain, or when they're doing the bust on the Sloth victim... Or when they're heading down into the brothel... That's real. The city is never given a name, it's a generic american city. Dirty, grimy and depressing (not that american cities are like that, but it was a look for the film). I think Nolan is wonderful, but I'd have loved a Dave Fincher look to Gotham... It's very real, very gritty, and very much the look of a city that needs saving.

Hey you ******* I live in Chicago and you are judging the whole city from basically a few neighborhoods on the south side. Anyway...seeing Chicago as Gotham was awesome for me.

 

[Fenrir]

And if I might add, all of the filming done in a real city really added to the scope and scale of TDK that would have been impossible to achieve in artificial sets. It really does feel epic in every sense of the word. I mean, the aerial shots of the SWAT team escorting Harvey Dent and the National Guard trying to control the pandemonium created by The Joker? Yeah, good luck trying to make that look believable on a soundstage. Burton's Gotham appeared to be pretty cool, but it's absolutely nothing like a real-life city. And I suspect making Gotham seem realistic was an incredibly important goal for Nolan, what with his script dealing heavily with post 9/11 themes. You can't accomplish that to the same effect with a fake-looking city. Gotham needed to truly look like a city from our world, not another, to preserve that sense of threat and danger.

 

[Crook]

AI mean, the aerial shots of the SWAT team escorting Harvey Dent and the National Guard trying to control the pandemonium created by The Joker? Yeah, good luck trying to make that look believable on a soundstage.

CGI landscapes, actually. The technology is quite good at the moment to mimicking full citywide shots. I'm sure if they wanted, they could have altered the city's design and still make it look real.

 

[Octoberist]

CGI landscapes, actually. The technology is quite good at the moment to mimicking full citywide shots. I'm sure if they wanted, they could have altered the city's design and still make it look real.

there was CGI enhancements (look at the vfx thread) made to Chicago's skyline and extensions, but not enough to make Gotham look like a different city than Chicago.

 

[Micah12345]

The Dark Knight is by far my favorite batman movie.

However, I agree that I wasn't captivated by the scenery. Just felt like metropolis, as many have said before.

If you take the characters and story out of consideration and you had to pick one of the imaginary cities in the movie to walk around in, I would have to go with the batman returns gotham. It's definitely the most atmospheric.

 

[Closerframe]

I preferred Batman Begin's Gotham City, it felt more like a combination of fantasy and reality. It seemed to be continuously shrouded in darkness in corruption, but this doesn't take away from The Dark Knight's Gotham. Sure it seems more real and much brighter but it makes sense, due to the fact Batman and Harvey Dent have made their mark for criminals to fear. Thus Gotham becoming less dark and more alive.

 

[Sevb30]

I don't like how this poll is phrased, it should not describe the look of these places (Some of which I think are too simplistic in their description in the poll, especially TDK.) I should just list the versions by name.

 

[bulletbillx]

Personally my favorite gotham is in Batman TAS. I wish nolan's gotham was more like that. Especially the version shown in mask of the phantasm.

 

[Octoberist]

I preferred Batman Begin's Gotham City, it felt more like a combination of fantasy and reality. It seemed to be continuously shrouded in darkness in corruption, but this doesn't take away from The Dark Knight's Gotham. Sure it seems more real and much brighter but it makes sense, due to the fact Batman and Harvey Dent have made their mark for criminals to fear. Thus Gotham becoming less dark and more alive.

I think it's mostly because a.) TDK took place mostly during the day time and b.) no narrows. Still, besides that, it's almost the same Gotham.

With the monorail, Nolan didn't completely abbandon those 'golden arches' because you can see them in the 'Wayne Tower' Ariel shot in the lower left hand side.

Now if the Narrows, Arkham, and the monorail systems were more involved with TDK, along with the original Wayne Tower, it would be pretty much the same Gotham..