Reaction to “The Dark Knight Rises” Trailer

I went to catch a movie with my family recently, and the trailer for Christopher Nolan’s final Batman film preceded our picture. If you haven’t seen it yet, you can watch it at the end of this post, which I encourage you to do so, for it looks phenomenal. A portion of the trailer involving a game at a football stadium brought to surface thoughts that have been dormant in my mind but never vocalized. I realize, therefore, that I’m probably extremely late and unoriginal in writing down the fleshing out of these thoughts, but I write them nevertheless—the realization and appreciation for how our concept of villainy or what constitutes a “crooked criminal” has been drastically altered by technology.

Let me first start by admitting that I am, in no way, an avid comic book reader. I think I’ve owned only one comic book in my life (which I will reference later), so I realize I could be “treading” on terrain that isn’t mine. But I don’t believe this does anything to negate or hamper what I’m writing since possessing comic book lore is not contingent upon my being able to connect these two dots: technology and the redefining of what signifies an evil villain.

With greater technological advances comes a concurrent change in the nefarious nature of the quality or availability of maleficent acts. We can take small and large representations to support this statement. In a narrower example, take pornography. As soon as there’s a new digital device out there with internet capability, porn studios are finding ways to make their content compatible with those devices, and, consequently, companies who create content filters scramble to keep up. On the broader spectrum, take bloodshed. Technology advances to the point that we can kill more people with a bigger bang in a quicker amount of time. Add to that how science continues to advance. Today, we are smarter and, perhaps, cleverer than ever (not more intelligent, though, since intelligence is subjective to each discipline, time period, and culture), which means there are more and more layers behind which you can hide your malevolent intentions. I mean, think about it: When was the last time you saw an action flick that didn’t have the “tech guy,” the “cyber guru,” the brainy, nerdy “you-wouldn’t-last-a-second-without-my-ability-to-hack-into-the-system” character. Simply put, technology has affected everything: how we kill each other, how we construct our evil plots, and how we go about counteracting such societal detriments. There’s no way that won’t affect the comic book villain.

Now let’s rewind to the only comic book I ever owned when I was a youngster. It wasn’t even really a legitimate comic book because it came with a model car. The only reason I got the model car was because I wanted the comic book—a Batman comic book, no less. It was shorter than your average comic book, but was not any less entertaining. The villain of choice in the abridged tale was the Riddler.

Here’s the seethingly vile deed the Riddler committed. He stole a rare artifact—small enough to fit in the palm of his hand—from a museum. What was his sneaky, maniacal method? He hid in a nearby sarcophagus!

Let’s come back to present day.

This plot would be child’s play now. There’s really no point arguing whether our reaction is “wrong” or “right” or a sign of our culture’s lack of morality and how we’re all going to hell. It just simply is child’s play. More than that: It needs to change from that former child’s play. Art (and comic books are a legitimate art form) has to stay relevant to the culture it is in. It must comment on the culture it describes to have any worth, any timelessness, any poignancy. Somebody trying to steal an artifact from a museum? Please. Who cares about that anymore besides Indiana Jones?

But seriously, if Bane and Catwoman attempt to steal rare diamonds from a museum in The Dark Night Rises, Nolan is going to have a heaping amount of criticism to respond to. Why? Because we expect more form our villains now. How come?

Because villains have always been “tops” in terms of exceeding evil in our culture. Or, at least, this is the way they’ve been presented to us. In the good ol’ days when Batman was played by Adam West and wore blue instead of black, there was no question that the Penguin, Joker, Riddler, or Catwoman had to be stopped at all costs, regardless of how petty their crimes may have seemed if we were to just stop and really think about it for a moment. For villains, though, to continue to have that “at all costs” idea associated with them, they’ll have to up their malicious ante.

The concept of Batman (and any superhero, for that matter) is that he is our last resort. The evil and depravity of this world is so overwhelming that, if Batman doesn’t intervene, we’re probably not going to make it. But if the Riddler continues to steal archaeological specimens while governments start wars, terrorists blow up buildings, or extremists pull off suicide bombings, then the predicament for the world of hero-versus-villain storytelling is the following: Batman no longer worries about the Riddler. So, that means Batman will be fighting . . . terrorists? That can’t happen. Why? Because we all know how the Batman script is supposed to go. He has to fight the Riddler, the Penguin, the Joker, Catwoman. Therefore, they have to be evil enough to merit Batman’s attention. Thus, we make the villain (nay, the very comic book culture itself) bow to culture and evolve along with the technology.

This is why Heath Ledger’s Joker had to be more disturbing than ever before. Compare Jack Nicholson’s portrayal to Ledger’s. Obviously different. Granted, there are a host of reasons as to why the differences are there (different actors, different stories, different directors), but you can’t help but begin to believe that one major catalyst is how the world changed quite a bit between 1989 and 2008. If Ledger were to come out on the screen and ham it up like Nicholson did with the face paint and red lips, we’d all look at each other and think, “This is ridiculous.” This is why Ledger needed to shove pencils through peoples’ skulls, exhibit a mental instability that viewed his own masochism as comical, and put peoples’ lives in the balance of an ethical and naturalistic conundrum on ferry boats in Gotham’s harbor. If he were to squirt water from a fake flower in his lapel, we’d be dissatisfied as viewers because obviously Batman would have better things to be doing than responding to a Joker who only dabbles in practical jokes.

And so I segue into the trailer below. Nolan and company have done a superb job in constructing, yet again, a situation that looks impossible, overwhelming, and full of shades of grey. The situation Batman faces needs to look that way because then, if he does succeed, he truly did do something superhuman and is, thus, a superhero. Reclaiming a stolen artifact? A mall cop could do that. Though characters like Batman exist in a mythical sort of world, there has to be enough contemporary contact with our circumstances in his adventures and trials. And so now Batman must face villains who place their finger on the trigger of the detonator. Cold blood is in. Kleptomaniac behavior is not.

Much love.

  1. Nelson, as an official “avid comic book reader” I am proud of you for the understanding you’ve shown in this post. I could kiss you just for mentioning that comics are in fact a legitimate art form. Good on you.

    I do have some bones to pick with your analyses here, but for the most part, you’re definitely hitting it on the head. Nolan has definitely been crafting a Batman story that is very intentionally reflective of the post-9/11 world, and deals very much with themes of escalation. The final scene in “Batman Begins” – Batman and Gordon talking on the rooftop – underscores this theme. Honestly, all we’ve seen from “Begins” and “The Dark Knight” so far is about escalation. How far can – or must – the good guys go to stop the bad guys? How far can they go and still be good guys? The fall of Harvey Dent in “The Dark Knight” is a look at what happens when a good man falls, crossing the line into darkness. But the choice of Batman to take the blame, allowing his reputation to be tarnished for the sake of the greater good, is the mark of a greater man, willing to sacrifice himself for the good of all.

    I think we’re going to see more of that in “The Dark Knight Rises” – Bane is coming specifically to break Batman. The Joker wants to be Batman’s perfect dance partner. There is a give and take between the two – but only in the Joker’s eyes. The Joker saw Batman as the escalation on the side of light, so he had to step it up on the dark side. Remember his line about a “better class of criminal.” But I’m guessing that what we’re going to see out of Bane is not so much of that as a nihilistic approach to just destroying everything, almost exclusively for the sake of destruction.

    I agree that Batman is the last resort. But that is not the case with all superheroes, especially not with Batman’s polar opposite, Superman. Superman is the first line of defense – he handles all the big stuff that nobody else can just because he can get to it first, punch it harder, throw it further, or fly around the earth fast enough to reverse time. Whatever. Batman is different. He’s the guy that deals with the messes nobody else can touch. He’s not restrained by law, he’s not controlled by budget, he’s not restricted by anything other than his own physical capabilities, and he’s done a whole dang lot to make sure that as many of those can be overcome as possible.

    You’re touching on a lot of good truths here, and I do want to talk to you more about this if you’ve got any comments or questions about anything I’ve just said.

    I also highly recommend you read “Batman: Year One” and “Batman: The Dark Knight Returns”.

    Much love indeed, man.

    • I just realized I need to adjust my claim that I wasn’t a comic book reader: My brothers and I read all of Herge’s Tintin graphic novels when we were little. (Yes, I eagerly awaited Spielberg and Jackson’s film adaptation like a kid waits for Santa.) But other than that, comics weren’t much of a part of my life.

      Aaron, I’m glad you brought in the Joker’s quote—the “better class of criminal.” I had forgotten that quote until you mentioned it, and it’s quite the blatant announcement of what Nolan (and many other filmmakers and comic writers) are trying to do. And you’re quite right: I was in error to say that all superheroes are “last resorts.” Thank you for bringing that to my attention.

      Here’s my question for you: Do you think we’re seeing the death of humanism? The idea of “no one is righteous” and humanity’s overarching depravity has been around for much longer than the past ten or fifteen years, but even so, it hasn’t necessarily had the lion’s share of the volume in society. (Though the Church can be too fire and brimstone at times, hers has appropriately been this message of humanity’s unrighteousness ever since Augustine. As far as in art, this idea isn’t new to this generation since I can instantly think of Flannery O’Connor’s application of “radical grace” to a world in desperate need of it—especially the religious.)

      But back to my original question. More than ever, it seems, we’re seeing shades of grey being applied to such concepts as good and evil. Maybe this is why George Lucas seems like such a joke now. In addition to being a hammy writer, his older ideas of one side being wholly good and one side being wholly evil simply doesn’t smack of reality. I’m honestly surprised this presentation of what I’ll call “grey area protagonists” hasn’t been the modus operandi in wide release films sooner. None of us has to look any farther or further than himself to know that both good and evil do coexist in one human being. The apostle James, in his own way by talking about the power of the tongue, hits on this and is right when he says, “This should not be!” True, it absolutely shouldn’t be . . . but it is, and we all know it.

      And yet, with the rise of Modernism and its rejection of religion, man and his abilities still became the center. Even if Hemingway and Company were the “lost generation” as Gertrude Stein labeled them to be, there was still an optimism about humanity’s capability for greatness. It may not pop up in Hemingway so much, but you do see it in the modern poets from time to time. (I believe it was Wallace Stevens who went so far as to say that poetry was now God.)

      So what’s different from 100 years ago? (Hard to believe it’s almost a century since World War I.) Maybe with the rise of globalization we became more and more privy to the universalism of depravity. I can get minute-by-minute updates on the revolutions in the Middle East if I want to. The degrees of separation from the hurt, suffering, and pain around the world are now only physical. Perhaps it’s only natural that disillusionment about humanity’s goodness will follow to an extent the moderns never expressed.

      Why should the superhero be immune to this? You noted how the end of The Dark Knight calls into question Batman’s goodness for the rest of society to debate. Does this mean Batman, though, is actually good? His goodness and sacrifice simply won’t be on display for all to see (no huge Death Star explosion and no medal ceremony). Can Batman and any superhero, for that matter, be strong enough to save humanism? Doubtful. And it looks doubtful that Nolan and his crew want to give Batman the ability to pull off such a miracle. I don’t know what Nolan’s religious/spiritual leanings are, but I’ve always been surprised by the amount of religious (dare I even go so far as to say Christian?) themes exist in his films—especially the Batman productions.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: