Why Can't We Do Better Than "The Dark Knight?"

Batman wasn't joking around anymore in 2008. You don't need to be a movie critic to know that "The Dark Knight" is probably the best superhero film ever created. Not even "Across The Spiderverse," as good as it was, was able to match the magic "The Dark Knight" brought to the silver screen. As of right now, "The Dark Knight" is the third-highest-rated film on IMDb with a user review score of 9.0/10, and I'd argue that this is a well-earned score. "The Dark Knight" was an immaculate film. Mind you, before I watched it, I was thinking, "There's no way. There is simply no way this film is as good as everyone made it out to be." But lo and behold, by the time the credits had rolled, the film had not only met my expectations but had far exceeded them. I was now a firm believer. And I very much doubt, given the current state of superhero films, that "The Dark Knight" will ever be outdone by anyone else in a cape. But why can't we do better? Couldn't we just sit down and take a couple of years to write a script for a superhero film superior to "The Dark Knight?" Well, given the genre conventions of superhero films, I'm 99% sure we can't and won't ever write a superhero film better than "The Dark Knight." Here's why.

"The Dark Knight" is an immense accomplishment in terms of plotting. I can count on one hand the number of narrative flaws in this movie (the most notable being a "side quest" to Hong Kong that didn't add enough to the film), and frankly, these flaws don't really matter in the larger scheme of things. The pacing in this film is just masterful. For the first hour of the movie, we're being introduced to these characters, where they are in life, and why we should care about and/or fear them. So, by the time everything hits the fan and things go sideways, we already know what's at stake. The plot of this film is relentless, and gives you almost no room to breathe. And normally, I'd complain about this - if it weren't for the fact that "Batman Begins" had already established the Batman that Nolan wanted to create. "The Dark Knight" knows it's a sequel, and so it gives itself wiggle room to accomplish something new, push the trilogy in another direction, and make everything more important and better instead of purely and monotonously ruminating on what came before without introducing anything fresh. This film juggles several different plot threads seamlessly, giving each narrative arc just as much time as it needs to come to fruition: no more, no less. And by the end of the film, these seperate arcs collide and mesh beautifully à-la-The-Empire-Stikes-Back with each other, giving everything that had come before just that much more meaning when you're seeing it with the context of the larger picture revealed.

"The Dark Knight" is chaotic, yet very focused at the same time. Joker is, in his own words, an "agent of chaos," and we see this chaos play out several different times in several different ways as the Joker tests the morality, philosophy, and complacency of Gotham City, it's inhabitants, and even Batman himself. And in theory, this approach shouldn't have worked. Letting a chaotic character motivate a plot that's supposed to be precise and organized should logically derail the narrative direction and send the film spiraling off to who knows where. And yet, the plot never loses it's focus, even with Joker behind the wheel of many of it's twists and turns. But why is this? "The Dark Knight" is a perfect example of focused linear storytelling with an emphasis on character development. By the time the credits have rolled, every single character has either died or had their worldview fundamentally changed by the trials Gotham has endured (sometimes both). By centering the story around the characters and the questions these characters are asking rather than on mere spectacle, Nolan grounded his chaos around a sense of order, because while outward turmoil can derail a plot, inward turmoil can inform it. In short, focusing on the humanity and philosophy behind the chaos made the chaos make sense.

"The Dark Knight" is different from other superhero films. In fact, if Batman and Joker weren't in it, I very much doubt it would even be classified a superhero film. It has more in common with crime films like "Heat" or "Black Sunday" and psychological thrillers like "A Clockwork Orange" than it does with other Marvel or DC films. So, even if the film wasn't peak cinema, it would still be distinguishable from other superhero flicks. These immediately recognizable differences give the film yet another advantage over it's competitors by offering an alternative, which inevitably attracts attention regardless of the quality of the film.

Christopher Nolan is a director known for many different things (mostly good things), and one of his trademarks is a technique known as "non-linear storytelling." In normal human words, this term means intentionally writing a story to show scenes out of order in the hopes of evoking a specific range of emotions from the audience consuming it. This technique is best showcased at the end of the film, when Batman takes the blame for Harvey Dent's crimes so that Gotham can believe Harvey was a good and righteous white knight. As Batman tells Gordon about all the things that will happen because of this, we're shown several different scenes from several different timeframes showing that Batman is absolutely correct. Gordon gives a eulogy for the man who threatened to murder his own family. Alfred burns Rachel's letter to Bruce, because sometimes truth isn't good enough. And Lucius shuts down Bruce's surveillance sonar system, because sometimes people deserve to have the faith they've placed in those above them rewarded. This ending is just so perfect. It ties up the plot threads of the film so effortlessly, and portrays some truly remarkable and profound ideas.

The next thing that places "The Dark Knight" a step above it's competitors is the profound philisophical questions it asks. For instace: is chance fair? How about chaos? And instead of asking the audience to tell him why these ideas are fair, Nolan lays out the (surprisingly sound) logical evidence supporting the notion that these ideas are in fact fair, a seemingly backwards line of thought, and dares the audience to try and say otherwise. It's a remarkably solid and weighty challenge to everything we thought we knew about morality, and I've hardly ever seen it copied, replicated, or challenged in any other film, especially not in popcorn flicks.

On a more obvious level, the one thing everyone notices when they watch "The Dark Knight" is the magic of Heath Ledger's performance as The Joker. It's arguably the greatest performance in a film ever, and it's one that has stuck with audiences for 15 years after the movie came out. Everything about Ledger's performance, down to the tiniest details, was immaculate. The way he swings his arms when he walks, as if he hasn't a care in the world. The way he never really looks at who he's talking to, like he's living in his head. The way he laughs as Batman beats him, never caring about the scars. The way he burns billions of dollars to prove a point, never caring about the fallout, and even relishing the thought of the chaos it may cause. The way his makeup enhances all of his facial expressions. Even the odd way he talks, like he's inhaled just a tad too much helium. He's completely disconnected from the rest of society, and this makes him mesmerising to watch, simply because he stands out from everything we deem to be "normal." Heath Ledger's take on Joker is undeniably the best performance in any superhero film by a country mile and, like I said, arguably the greatest performance in any film ever. The rest of the cast is strong, given that actors the likes of Morgan Freeman and Aaron Eckhart were attached, but no one touches Ledger when it comes to performances in this film.

Directorially, Christopher Nolan enjoyed a lot of creative freedom when making this trilogy. The thematic and narrative weight the films, and especially "The Dark Knight," hold can ultimately be traced back to the fact that a competent director was given freedom to do what he wanted with his film. I believe that the benefits of singular vision far outweigh the potential risks, and that singular vision triumphs over studio vision every time. Why? It's simple. Studios exist to make money. They are often very, very good at making money. However, what studios are not good at is writing movies. So, when studios get involved in a director's project, more often than not, the director's vision is altered, and usually not in a good way. However, Jonathan Nolan's scripting for "The Dark Knight" was largely left alone, and so the Nolan brothers were able to transfer what was in their heads directly on the screen with very little interference on the part of Warner Bros, who would have most definitely lowered the quality of the film, but fortunately decided to trust the Nolan brothers to deliver a quality product.

Just about every superhero film ever made has lent itself to a quicker, more frenetic tone (except for "The Batman," which has more in common with a serial killer investigation movie, because, well, it is one). Even "Logan," which is slower than most superhero films, still only clocks in at a little over two hours. "The Dark Knight" was no exception to this rule. In fact, it set the benchmark for it. And because the pacing in this film was so good, a theoretically better superhero film would need to beat "The Dark Knight" at it's own game. Which, given the film's well-known reputation, is no easy feat. In essence, if a superhero film were to top "The Dark Knight," it would have to essentially be a better version of "The Dark Knight," at least tone and pacing-wise.

The last reason superhero movies can't do better than "The Dark Knight" is simply because "The Dark Knight" is in a league of it's own. It is most realistically challenged when compared to films the like of the first two "Godfathers" as well as "The Shawshank Redemption." Whenever Marvel comes out with a movie that is above-average (the same thing happened with "The Batman"), we always have this conversation. People always say "The Dark Knight was overrated" and that "Infinity War was better" or something along those lines, and I always say the same thing: "Infinity War" is one of the greatest superhero films ever created, but "The Dark Knight" is one of the the greatest films ever created. Very few movies of any genre can touch it, to say nothing of superhero movies. And people who like the MCU are free to disagree with these points. That's fine. But I do have to pose a question to them:

Why so serious?

The Dark Knight - 10/10

Leviticus 19:15