EOGHAN:
Other sources have complained about the rabid and weird responses The Dark Knight generated around the time of its release. We Watch for You’s ZACH has now become embroiled in such a kerfuffle, thanks to a post he wrote arguing that, while the film is pretty good, it’s not a masterpiece. Somebody at a blog called “Comic Impulse” took exception to Zach’s argument.
What follows is an edited and annotated transcript of the first main point Zach made, the Comic Impulse’s response, and Zach’s response to the response:
Zach:
“In a two and half hour film, it is impossible and ridiculous to try to show his [Dent/Two-Face’s] transition into this evil figure and follow it all the way to death. This is one of the reasons why the third act dragged and lost me. We don’t have to see Two Face go on a killing spree, kidnap kids, and die…save that for the next film, give us his struggle between these two sides, develop the comic book character that was so interesting and full of lovable evil. Rather, he hijacks the story and muddles the entire film, with Nolan having too many packages and not enough time to put bows on each one.”
Comic Impulse (CI):
“IF YOU WANNA TALK ABOUT A MOVIE WHERE TOO MANY VILLAINS TOO LITTLE TIME TRY SPIDERMAN YOU STUPID IDIOT. . .OR IF YOU MUST PICK A BATMAN MOVIE. HOW ABOUT BAT MAN AND ROBIN. DON’T PICK THE DARK KNIGHT. THIS WAS A PERFECT AND DELICATE BLEND OF USING A CONCEPT OF LIGHT AND DARK BEING BLENDED TOGETHER THROUGH CHAOS (TO QUOTE MY BOY NATE). ALSO ZACH STATES THAT YOU DON’T GET TO SEE HARVEY DENT FALL OR STRUGGLE WITH DARK SIDE. AGAIN I ASK : ARE YOU SERIOUS? LIKE MAYBE WE WEREN’T WATCHING THE SAME MOVIE BUT BY IT’S SELF DID IT SHOW THAT HARVEY WASN’T ALL THERE AND IN FACT WAS TEETERING ON THE EDGE OF JUSTICE AND INJUSTICE. ALSO ANY READER OF A BATMAN COMIC WOULD KNOW THAT DENT HAD ISSUES, ALWAYS HAS HAD ISSUES. THERE IS NO REASON TO DIVE DEEPER INTO HIS STORY ABOUT HIS OTHER SIDE ANY MORE THAN THE MOVIE ALREADY DID. IT DID A GOOD JOB OF LETTING SOMEONE WHO MIGHT HAVE NEVER READ THE COMICS KNOW. . .HEY, HE MIGHT NOT BE ALL THAT GOOD ON THE INSIDE. SO TRY AGAIN ASS WIPE!”
Zach’s retort:
“IF YOU'RE GOING TO RIP ME APART, AT LEAST BE FAIR AND REPEAT MY POINTS AS THEY WERE WRITTEN FOR YOUR READERS. MY COMPLAINT WITH DENT IS THE FACT THAT HIS STORY SHOULD HAVE STOPPED AFTER HE WAS HOSPITALIZED AND HAD THAT EPIC SCENE WITH THE JOKER. THERE IS NO POINT RUSHING THROUGH DENT INTO TWO FACE AND SEEING IT ALL THE WAY TO DEATH IN LESS THAN 45 MINS. I THINK MOST OF YOUR COMIC BOOK READERS WOULD AGREE THAT HIS STORY COULD HAVE CONTINUED INTO THE THIRD FILM AND THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN JUST AS HAPPY. IF YOU'RE MAKING THE ARGUMENT THAT DENT IS NOT REALLY DEAD AND HE IS COMING BACK FOR THE THIRD THEN THAT'S AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT ARGUMENT...IF THIS IS TRUE, THE END OF TDK MAKES NO SENSE THEMATICALLY.”
My take:
I did not completely agree with Zach’s take on Two-Face; i.e., that the additional, fleshed out villain cluttered a movie that should have focused more on the struggle between the amoral Joker and Batman. In my opinion, the film is about the conflict between the two of them, and the rest of the movie, including Two-Face, falls under this. The Joker creates Two-Face: Dent has been a battleground between good and evil, between Batman and the Joker, even if Batman doesn’t realize this is something he must try to fight for until the end, and the Joker wins, until the very last moments. Dent is hope; the Joker works to destroy that, Batman to maintain it.
This said, Zach’s is very legitimate point. That Spiderman 3 was a bigger mess does not change the fact that The Dark Knight was trying to juggle several narrative lines and may have become muddled. No one is arguing that Spiderman 3 is the best film of all time.
In the end, CI’s main point seems to be that Zach is not a comic book expert. The assertion that the mythology of the comic books somehow excuses omissions or slips in the film is inadequate. Sure, the greater structure of the Batman universe ought to be taken into account, but the quality of an individual work within the network of Batman-related narratives can be judged on its own merits. The Godfather II, to use an example being tossed around, transcends Mario Puzo’s source material as well as the greater sphere of Mafia lore from which it originated. The Godfather, like the Dark Knight, can be analyzed through the lens of dramatic and narrative convention and technique, an artistic ancestry that’s been around for a few thousand years and out of which the comic book form is a recent and contingent branch.
Content aside, though, this exchange is interesting chiefly because it is a great example of the ways in which the Internet and fandom can create a perfect storm of pseudo-anonymous animosity. In what other sphere is it okay to call someone a “stupid idiot,” an “ass-wipe,” a “dick-weed,” etc. because that person thinks a movie would be 7/10 rather than a 9.5? To imply a connection between homosexuality and… being in disagreement with the author / not reading comic books?
Straight from the annals of Comic Impulse:
“. .PLEASE I CHALLENGE YOU TO RETORT. . .YOU PROBABLY DON’T HAVE THE BALLS SINCE THEIR ALWAYS IN YOUR BOYFRIENDS MOUTH"
“REASON # 5 YOUR A FUCKING RETARD. . .GO READ A GOOSEBUMPS BOOK AND WATCH CASABLANCA YA QUEER”
At least there were no death threats, like there were on the Rotten Tomatoes comment board. What say we up the level of discourse a bit?
