The Dark Knight - award winner?

OK, well, one thing I wanted to discuss when Sleezy mentioned it, were the relationships between Rachel Dawes, Harvey/Two Face and Bruce Wayne/Batman. I realize that we don't have spoilers listed in THIS thread's title, but we seem to have gone into some depth about what happens during the movie here, so it didn't make that much sense to put this in the Spoilers OK Thread. Somebody fix this up if I'm wrong.


WARNING : Possible Spoilers Below (in response to this):

I don't disagree with your analysis, and I may need to rewatch the film a second time to verify I didn't imagine something, but I have a possible different interpretation of all of these concerns. Harvey Dent is not the only person who lost Rachel. Bruce Wayne fully believes that Rachel is waiting for him since he never saw her farewill note which Alfred burns. So, even if Bruce Wayne isn't part of that big ending of the relationships scene on the telephone between Harvey and Rachel, he doesn't know anything about it. This is where I believe the Joker delivers his "killer" blow to both Batman and Harvey Dent. Even if I remember this incorrectly, I can argue my points, but if I'm right, I have much more circumstantial evidence on my side.

When the Joker gives the addresses where Rachel and Harvey are, I would have sworn he switches them. If he doesn't, are they later passed on incorrectly and are switched by somebody else? (Someone tell me if I'm wrong about this.) Therefore, when Batman and Gordon go to save their respective victims, they go to the wrong locations. Batman tries to save Rachel, but instead saves Harvey even though he's not saved without a price. True, Harvey is traumatized by the experience of hearing Rachel on the phone, but I don't think he TRULY became Two-Face until after his off-screen encounter with the Joker in the hospital. I can only imagine how the scene would have played out, and I honestly wonder if that's one of the scenes missing in the movie because Heath died. The Joker would be able to tell Harvey who was responsible for the death of his loved one, and he could say anything he wants. You see, Harvey mainly goes psycho because he actually hears Rachel tell him that she will be his and then he hears her "blown to bits". But the Joker could turn everything on its ear, deflecting his own responsibility toward Gordon and Batman. Then, the Joker could hammer away at the idea of games, chance and 50-50. Harvey Two-Face, knowing that he could never be a White Knight with his love and his looks gone, could easily fall prey to the Joker's wiles. Remember, Harvey believes in justice.

Before I go on with more gibberish, maybe someone can comment on or correct my ideas. Please.

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

Yep, remembering all those who have died since the last Oscars is a tradition at the show.

doesn't make it any less sad...sigh*

__________________
Check out my DVDs
"Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity" -George Carlin (RIP good sir)

You're right...

He died well after he finished filming the movie, so no it wouldnt have made a diference, the scene played out exactly like it was suppose to. He died while he was filming The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus

That may well be true, but sometimes actors film more than one film concurrently, especially if they need to "fix" something in the earlier film.

Very true, but he was finished with The Dark Knight...just sayin...as a matter of fact I'm pretty sure there is a link to a interview of Nolan saying that very thing....I'll pm the link to you when i find it...its a good interview but mostly talks about the lack of CG in the film and how the truck flip was groundbreaking because its the first time it happend without the use of CG.

You know, that scene bothered me. I'm referring to the scene with Batman slumped in a chair in his apartment, sans mask, looking like somebody just kicked his dog. If ever there was a time to validate his relationship with Rachel Dawes in The Dark Knight (and mend some of its suggestion from Batman Begins), it was that scene. If ever there was a chance to humanize Batman, it was that scene. And it was ignored. We're asked to believe that, for this girl, he really will call it quits. And he doesn't even shed a tear. His mourning scene is here and gone, and when his grieving is brought up later, we've already seen through it. That scene was utterly crucial, but retains very little emotional weight in the final cut.

This was a subject of discussion among my friends after the film. I believe it's clear in the writing that we're supposed to understand the Joker lied about the locations. For whatever reason (stupid fun?), we don't know. Maybe it was intentional. Maybe it was a hiccup in writing. Likewise, at the end of the film, I also believe the Joker lied and gave each boat their own detonator, not each others'. But that's neither here nor there.

Trying to discern what the Joker may or may not have said to Harvey is a slippery slope, especially in the context of the film where it's explicitly stated that the Joker's motivations are completely irrational and almost impossible to understand or guess. Either way, I think you're probably right, if you consider that the Joker is the extra push that sends him over the edge. Not that we really believe he wouldn't have become Two-Face anyway, but the Joker is the impish trickster who spurs things into action.

Maybe, but that's a pretty selfish turn for Harvey's character. In the film, he's portrayed as uncompromisingly selfless, whether it be to maintain justice or to serve others. I rather think his transformation into Two-Face has less to do with a feeling of inadequacy in himself, and more with a feeling that his constant drive to uphold justice has failed him. He comes to believe that the world is brutal and uncivilized, and as such, the pursuit of justice is a doomed course. The only alternative, then, is unbridled chance... to let Fate decide what humans are too faulty and incapable of controlling on their own.

In response to my initial comments about Harvey and Rachel's relationship, however, I believe I should clarify. I was speaking strictly from a filmmaking perspective. Your story has to have logic, and you have to pay attention to what you are feeding your audience. You can't just say Harvey is a White Knight over and over, and expect one scene of him punching a crooked witness on the stand to make your "White Knight" suggestion hold water. That's just shallow writing. I think the Nolans felt they could get away with it (and reserve more chunks of writing for the Joker, hee hee) based on fan knowledge. Anybody who knows anything about Batman already knows Harvey is a genuine good guy, and fierce District Attorney. We don't need The Dark Knight to prove it to us. (But actually, we do.)

And speaking of fan knowledge of Harvey Dent, that's why I said Harvey's transformation is so generic. If we're not given enough emotional connection to actually grieve alongside Harvey, then we don't really care so much about his transformation. We don't see it as tragic. It's the equivalent of hearing about a tragedy on the news. Sure, it's a shame, but we don't know the victims. We're not close enough to the tragedy to feel it, so why should we cry? Perhaps his transformation would have held a little more weight had no one in the world ever glimpsed Two-Face before The Dark Knight... but alas, he's no surprise. To make him one, you've got to put us right there with him, show us the good times with Rachel down to the very core, and then blow her to smithereens.

Yeah, but is that including re-shoots? Or was Nolan screwed on that? Does anybody know?

So, The Dark Knight should be a three-and-one-half-hour movie, or the Joker and Harvey Dent should have had their own individual films? I see Two-Face connected to Batman through the Joker, but maybe I'm painting with too broad a brush.

Not at all. I wrote in an earlier post that the film is supposed to be about Batman, not Harvey and Rachel. I don't fault the emotional impact surrounding these characters. The Nolans did what they could to substantiate it, given that the movie -- at its core -- isn't really about them, and shouldn't hover. I'm just commenting on it as an inherent pitfall. The beauty of comics is that you can illustrate all this for as long as you want (or for as long as the publisher will allow). Films are briefer. But then again, films can show us real people, not static drawings. So it's a give-and-take.

I wouldn't say it's too broad, and you might be right. Myself, I see the connection through Rachel. The Joker is on the outside pressuring in. That's why I wanted the love triangle to be a little more fleshed out. It was important in not only uniting those three characters, but also characterizing them. But it's only ever a means to an end -- injecting tragedy into the film, transforming Harvey into Two-Face, insuring that Batman will continue -- rather than any sort of illustration of real life.

Again, I don't want to sound like I'm bashing The Dark Knight. It's awesome, and I rated it as such. I don't expect every film I see to be profound in every facet. That's impossible. But it seems pretty clear to me that The Dark Knight elected to be an awesome summer blockbuster with a little more substance than a serious Oscar contender.

[Tyler Durden]But that's me, and I could be wrong.[/Tyler Durden]

Harvey knows there are crooked cops, he spoke to Gordon about it earlier. And when Gordon later finds out that Ramirez took Rachel, I assumed that Harvey had been taken by a bad cop, too and would blame Gordon for letting corrupt cops stay on the force. Harvey says (as two-face) 'The Joker's just a mad-dog. I want whoever let him off the leash.'

Something else... a question really, if Two-Face believes 'that the only morality in a cruel world is chance' and the 'only justice in an unfair world is chance', why the two-headed coin? There's no chance in that. Is that the point?

__________________
If God had wanted me otherwise, He would have created me otherwise.

Johann von Goethe

After the coin is burned on one side, just like T-F's face, the "dark side" is used as "tails". The "normal" side is "heads".

Thats how I saw it as well.

I just have a question, what happens if a brilliant movie comes out the day after, or weeks after the Academy Awards? it seems to me (and correct me if im wrong) the winners of academy awards seem to go to movies that are released a couple of months before the Oscars. which is totally unfair to brilliant movies that get relased weeks and months after the Oscars of that year. does anyone know of any movies that have won an Oscar when it was released after that year's Oscars and won it the following year? eg. movie gets released after Oscars in 2006 and wins it at Oscars 2007.

the reason i ask these questions is for Dark Knight to win any Oscars it has to wait until next year's Oscars which by the time next year comes around most people would have forgotton about Dark Knight and will be looking at movies recently released.

The Oscars are based on films released in the U.S. during a calendar year, so you are correct; a film released in early February 2009 isn't eligible for the Oscar broadcast in 2009 because all those films were released in 2008. That "imagianary film" would have to vie with other films released in 2009, and those Awards would be given in 2010. However, just so you realize, The Silence of the Lambs was released in February, 1991, and won the FIVE TOP Oscars for 1991 in March, 1992. So, sometimes people can remember, or, at least, we know you can perhaps buy them off.

Glad you mentioned it Mark. I was gonna do this just now. People ask could Heath Ledger win an oscar for Dark Knight? Well technically, no he can't. TDK was released at the wrong time, too far away from nomination time. Plus TDK, if ever nominated, will only be for possibly cinematography, lighting etc. As for Ledger, I'm sure he might get a special award at the Oscars, but not an Oscar for TDK for best actor.

Not sure why the word "technically" is there. Technically, he absolutely can.

You're talking as if all this is fact, even though it's based on nothing more than likelihood. As Mark has pointed out, films very, very far before "nomination time" have won major Oscars before. It's just not common, is all. Obviously, The Dark Knight is not a common film. Maybe it'll be nominated for some major awards, and maybe not, but I'd say Ledger for Supporting Actor has a very, very good chance of happening. And I think it's really silly to suggest that it can't, simply because it usually doesn't. We're not even working with a terribly large sample size, if you think about it.

Good luck on securing that bet, Mark. I got next.

This is too early for a film to be even considered to be oscar nominated. Too early. No film has ever been nominated as a MAJOR award in the summer, of any year. Maybe for small awards like cinematography, lighting, effects, costume , blah, blah blah.......If he does get nominated , which he does deserve it, I'd be smiling

Jaws, Star Wars and Raiders of the Lost Ark were all nominated Best Picture, and they were released during the "summer season". As I mentioned above, The Silence of the Lambs was released on Valentine's Day!

I still don't understand what you're getting at. As Mark has pointed out more than once, truly exceptional films are quite capable of being nominated, even if handicapped by being released earlier in the year.

If you are merely saying that it is unusual for films released before a certain point to be nominated, that's fine, but intentionally or not your language is conveying a much starker position. And of course, the statement that Ledger cannot "technically" win an Oscar for his performance is simply untrue. It indicates either a) a misunderstanding as to when the film was released or b) a misunderstanding as to the meaning of the word "technically." I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it's the latter.