And now, let's talk about Harvey...

[thehefner]

... and in doing so, let's discuss the major glaring flaws of THE DARK KNIGHT.

But first, let me say something right off the bat. They got Harvey. The Nolans, Goyer, Zimmer, Howard, and of course Eckhart... they fucking got him. Oh, there was more that could have been done, but that's irrelevant to this point. For what they had here, for what they could have done in a film already so huge and bloated (where Harvey was the major--but not sole--focus), I have no complaints.

Devin from CHUD.com put it damn well when he wrote: The film's title isn't really about Batman's nickname, it's about Batman's relationship with Dent - over and over again Dent is called Gotham's White Knight. He's the city's Obama, newly elected as DA and cleaning things up from the inside in a way that Bruce Wayne could only dream about. Eckhart, all jaw and blonde good looks, plays Dent as the kind of good guy we haven't seen in movies in decades. Honest and ethical yet funny and sexual, he's a hero with almost no darkness, no repression, no hesitation. He's straight but not square; Dent accepts that the city needs Batman. He understands that some rules have to be bent for the greater good. This is a superhero movie, but the superhero seems to be the DA.

First, okay, I do take issue with one big point: if anyone knows anything about repression, it's Harvey Dent (or at least it should be). And while they didn't touch at all upon Harvey's own madness before the scarring, those of us in the know could fill in the blanks (his father's lucky coin!), while others could hopefully figure it out for themselves.

That's one thing I will say, and get to in more depth soon enough... we didn't see enough of Harvey's dark side. Of the demons lurking just under the surface, bubbling up more and more as time went on, exacerbated by the stress and frustration of the system, his own bad decisions and things painfully out of his control. Oh sure, we saw some of his anger, but Harvey's problems run much deeper than anger management issues (which is one major factor many writers, including Jeph Loeb in THE LONG HALLOWEEN, have gotten wrong about the character). He needs to be more than a guy with anger management issues for the transformation to make sense.

We mainly saw the good side, the heroic man who will ultimately be either lost forever or trapped in a stalemate struggle with a horrible monster with half his face. I don't know which is more tragic, but either way, it's the heart of his tragedy, and I can at least say with deep pleasure that, yes, they got that side. They got Harvey Dent.

But god help me, they fucked up Two-Face.

And *that's* the part that will forever keep me from fully embracing this movie as a masterpiece. That's the part that ultimately undoes the film for me.

Now, wait, hear me out.

Perhaps you're thinking, "Well, Heffie's obsessed with the character, he takes him so personally, of course he would think that," and yes, I cannot deny that no matter how much I'm gonna try to be objective, it's going to be impossible to separate my own passion for the character, as well as what I know/think/believe to be what's right and wrong about any given take on Harvey Dent and Two-Face.

But let's go back to Devin for a second, who immediately followed the above with saying: It's not Eckhart's fault, but I found Dent's turn to evil in the third act to be unconvincing. Forgiving the impossibility of Dent getting those wounds and running around being a bad guy, his change into that bad guy feels rushed. And what's worse, the very nature of Two Face is once again misused; in Schumacher's take on the character he was just a lunatic all the time, and here he's just using his scarred coin to decide whether or not to kill people. There's no feeling that he's torn about it, and at one point when the coin doesn't allow him to kill someone, he flips again to get a chance to kill another character in an attempt to kill that first person after all. I wanted to see this Two Face be torn, to be a slave to that coin. Instead he feels like a villain with a gimmick.

While I sometimes strongly disagree with Devin, I was gratified to say that I concur with every last word. Now let the Harvey Dent fanboy expand upon these thoughts, while adding a few of his own; step by step, starting with the minor quibbles and working my way up, just as the film did.

This is long (and getting longer) but if you're up for it, I'd love your thoughts.










Once again, you did catch that I said

***SPOILERS***

... right?







And here.

We.

Go.







Okay, first, the scarring (and this is just fan nitpicking, so feel free to plow ahead).

While I would have preferred the classic Moroni-throws-acid-in-his-face-during-court origin, this one was more of a powerhouse scene for the many story purposes it served, so whatever. As for the look of Two-Face, the leaked promo art didn't do it justice. I loved it. I mean, I would have liked it to be a wee bit gooey/meatier, ala my original gold standard for Two-Face scarring--Liam Neeson's DARKMAN--but I was totally pleased and enthralled to watch him every second. Especially his eyes; I loved just watching the normal eye and the exposed bloodshot rolling ball moving in perfect unison. And thank god we got the exposed teeth.

Exposed bone, on the other hand... yeah, you're seriously pushing credulity. If they'd just added a bit more Darkman-style meat, it'd have actually been more realistic, even plausible. After all, I've spent a whole consulting my mother, the rehab nurse, as to what a real-life Two-Face could look like. Give me 75% Eckhart with 25% Darkman and I'm good to go.

Some have complained about the CGI, that he looked a bit too PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN, and while I could see that, I thoroughly liked it nonetheless. Which, I'm sure, most will think about some of my following criticisms.

That said, ever since the image of the Two-Face action figure leaked, I was rather excited to see some uneven scarring, and slightly disappointed to see a traditional down-the-middle Two-Face. Furthermore, while he was face-down in the gasoline, he was spitting and spurting drops on his soon-to-remain-unscarred face. Once he'd caught fire, those should have ignited as well.

But this is an mildly annoying continuity thing, hardly the stuff of real film nor character criticism.

So the Joker manipulates him. This, I can buy, because the Joker is a master manipulator, and god bless Harvey, ever the alcoholic's child, he is so easily manipulated. And okay, the coin came up clean, so yeah, he wouldn't kill the Joker. But to let him go off scot-free? The guy who is most directly responsible for his current state? And why, because "the Joker is a mad dog, but I want the one who took him off his chain"?

Well, okay, so he goes after the gangsters and corrupt cops instead. While the Joker thing is odd, at least this is perfect. This is exactly what crazed Harvey would and should do! I remember Nolan and company promised that Harvey would be the dark mirror to Batman, and this is exactly the kind of thing I had in mind: the dark vigilante, crossing the lines that Batman doesn't dare cross! And yet, something's bugging me, something about his motivation seems off... but whatever, I'm seeing Two-Face come to life, I don't want to think about that!

And then he... goes after Gordon's family?

Wait, what?

Okay, here's the thing: Two-Face is a monster, and yes, he is capable of doing something as horrible as that. But does anybody truly buy that the Harvey Dent of this film could go that evil that quickly, that having his face burned off and losing his love would be enough to turn the White Knight, the genuinely good and heroic character, into the sort of monster that would try to kill an innocent family and put a gun to a child's head?

Again, Two-Face *would* do that, but not without a whole other movie's worth of build-up to get to that point.

Now, I recently talked with someone on scans_daily who said, "I figured the combination of grief, excruciating pain and stress is what drove Dent to go all insane vigilante. In his mind, Gordon failed to save Rachel, so he wanted to show him just what he lost by threatening his son. Of course it isn't a rational thing to do, Harvey Dent wasn't in a rational state."

To which I replied, "But from a storytelling perspective, that's kinda bullcrap. It's a sort of "anything goes" excuse. From that logic, he could just as well have started wearing bananas on his feet and calling himself the Queeeeeeen of Fraaaance, because hey, he's irrational!"

So no, I don't buy it. It's a total bullshit excuse from a creative standpoint, and for an audience member, it's downright insulting. Especially when the nature of his lifelong mental illnesses went completely unacknowledged.

Really, if people didn't *expect* Harvey to snap, because that's of course what he was destined to do, would they so readily just accept this happening with the character as established before? I'd like to think not, anyway.

And really, what was his motivation? What was it that pushed this Harvey Dent over the edge?

Rachel's death. The scarring too, but you could see he didn't care about that. It was solely Rachel's death that drove Harvey.

And that's bullshit.

Here's the thing. THE DARK KNIGHT is a decidedly un-Hollywood superhero film in many ways, most especially how it's largely a film about ideas. Yes, these ideas might be, as tompurdue put it, essentially the sort of questions put before freshman philosophy students, relatively simplistic compared to the sort of moral conundrums that happen in real life on a daily basis, but that's more challenging and thought-provoking that what we usually get. The ideas in question here are about ideals, society, law, order, justice, revenge, all themes which even the movie knows that Harvey Dent personifies. His personification is the point. We all agreed?

And yet, what do they do? They abandon this essential theme that they've logically built up, and for what? All for the most uber-Hollywood cliched motivation of, "RRARGH, MY GIRLFRIEND IS DEAD, I AM NOW VENGEFUL! MENDOZAAAAAAAAA!!!" But, y'know, with some random bugfuck crazy thrown in for no good reason other than it serves the already-crammed and plot.

What. The fuck.

Now this too won't bother most people, because they'd accept that sort of worn-out story trope anyway even in a decent film. But for me, it's an utter waste both for the character and the movie in general! That's where the film jumped the shark. For the third and final time, allow me to reference angrylemur's rant about Rachel Dawes, and how she existed purely to be a foil for Bruce and Harvey.

But let's play Devil's Advocate. In the comics (and therefore my novel), Harvey's love and only major human connection is his wife Gilda. If she had been killed by the mob, wouldn't the situation essentially be the same? Wouldn't that be enough to push him over the edge?

Maybe, almost certainly, but not to the extent that he'd become what he does, no more than simply getting a face full of acid (or fire) would truly turn him into Two-Face. There is no one action that turns Harvey into a monster, that's the thing. It's all little factors, things from childhood-onward. One of the things that fascinates me so much about Harvey is the question of "When was he too far gone? When could he have been saved? Could he ever have been saved, or was he lost from the start, his fate sealed from birth?" I honestly have no answer, and that's what so heartbreaking about the character.

Gilda's death would have sped things up, sure... but it would have only fueled the demons already hard at work under the skin.

So therefore, not only is Rachel's whole character exiting pretty well purely to be a Woman in Refrigerator, but at the same time, it completely reduces Harvey's whole character--the character that's supposed to be the representative of the ideals that the Joker is tearing down--into nothing more than avenging Rachel.

And I considered that Nolan and company did this as their way of trying to depict Harvey as Bruce Wayne's dark mirror. Rather than explore the dark vigilante aspect, they opted instead to try and show how Harvey would react to loss as opposed to Batman.

But Bloo put it best: "If the intention was to make a comparison between a terrible tragedy that happens to Bruce, and a terrible tragedy that happens to Harvey, and to compare their separate reactions and consequences, it was a poor match-up. If it was just the harbinger of Two-Face, it failed miserably."

And this is the motivation that Harvey has to try and kill an innocent family to punish Jim Gordon, rather than actually try and at least THWART the actual person most responsible?! The coin came up clean, so he wouldn't kill the Joker, but to completely let him off? Two-Face does not work that way! The coin does not work that way! Fuck, the scene in Moroni's car with his driver is proof enough of that! He didn't let Moroni off, do why the hell would he just let the Joker go in favor of Gordon?

Oh wait, he's irrational. Pull the other one.

And since we're talking about the coin, Devin's absolutely right: we don't at all get the sense that he's torn when he flips the coin. Where's the tortured stalemate between the personalities that leads him to use the coin as the tie-breaker? Where's the struggle? Where's... fuck, where's the duality?

You know, back in March, CHUD ran this exciting article specifically on how Harvey's duality was going to be specially filmed and depicted in the film, almost as a Smeagol/Gollum thing, which struck me as goddamn perfect. So what happened? Where was the duality? Where was the conflict?

In the scene with Gordon's family, Harvey tells Batman essentially that he doesn't want to do this, but the way it was depicted, that line rang false. There should have been tears in his good eye as he said it, and we should have seen the character actually tortured even as he's seriously planning on doing these horrible things. I'm sure many would say was was plenty tortured for their tastes, but I want you to consider what could have been, what should have been, if they'd given him his own movie to truly transform and develop into the monster, the kind of monster who would kill a child*.


Which brings up another factor: Harvey's death.

Assuming he even is dead.

This has been the subject of some debate. The general immediate assumption is that he died, as I initially thought, but it's rather ambiguous. He didn't look like he suffered any visible means of death, and Batman looked pretty good even after suffering the same fall *and* hitting a couple beams on his way down (even armor aside). Besides, as the scene with Moroni already established, a fall from that kind of height wouldn't kill somebody.

Furthermore, his good eye was closed like he was passed out, not open in a death stare like we'd usually see.** Also, he was visibly breathing, and his eye twitched when Batman moved his head, but let's cut the bullshit, even I know that was more "Aaron Eckhart trying to play dead" than anything else.

Now, I know what you might say: "Yeah, except that Harvey's survival would completely invalidate the ending and Batman's new status as a hunted vigilante."

First of all, it wouldn't have to. Gordon clearly already has experience with faked deaths, and there wasn't a body at the Harvey Dent memorial, nor--if you'll notice--did Gordon nor Batman actually say that Harvey died. I could easily imagine Gordon and Batman participating in a cover-up, shipping Harvey off to a padded cell in Arkham to keep him hidden like a Kennedy sibling, but while trying to help cure him. It's not much of a stretch, nor the stuff of fanboy fantasy.

That said, I did check out the novelization of THE DARK KNIGHT by classic bat-scribe Denny O'Neill and he wrote, quite literally, "His good eye was open lifelessly. He was obviously dead." But who cares about novelizations anyway, and besides, as depicted in the film, it was far from obvious.

Furthermore, Harvey's death invalidates something far more important than the ending. Because if Harvey's dead, that means Batman killed him. After the whole movie making such a huge point about Batman refusing to break his one rule, refusing to kill the Joker even after everything, to have him kill his own friend would betray the film in a stupid fucking way.

Even still, you could argue that it doesn't invalidate the rule because it was an accident. If you think that, you still miss the point entirely.

Batman doesn't kill. Not purposefully, not accidentally.

Any bending of that is an utter violation of both the rule and the character. And yes, for the record, I hate the "I don't have to save you" moment from BATMAN BEGINS. I only justify it as thinking that Batman knew Ra's well enough that the bastard would be fully able to save his own ass.

But Batman does not kill. Period.

So if Harvey's dead, I call bullshit. Even to the point that it just might totally unravel the film (presuming the rushed madness of Harvey didn't already do that).

Honestly, back in the day, they said that he would be the focus of the third movie, and that's seriously what needs to happen. Not just because I love him, and not just because he needs a whole film to really develop, especially outside of the Joker's shadow, Entertainment Weekly said that the Two-Face transformation feels "all at once too much and not enough"), but because bringing Two-Face in full-force is the only way I can imagine them truly carrying over the power of this film, of having even a candle in the wind's chance of following THE DARK KNIGHT.

Because, let me stress yet again, I loved the vast majority of THE DARK KNIGHT. But the above factors will never allow me to fully embrace it, and from an objective standpoint, put a serious cramp on the film as a film, not just what I'd want it to be.

All that said, if I had to choose between them getting Harvey Dent right or getting Two-Face right, I'd say Harvey without a moment's hesitation. And for that, I am deeply pleased.




*Someone remarked that they "Anakin Skywalkered Harvey." God help us all.

**That said, I still tell myself that Doctor Octopus' arms reactivated, pulled him out of the water, and gave him Robo-CPR, lalalala, not listening.

Comments

*clap clap clap*

[tamburlaine.livejournal.com]

But god help me, they fucked up Two-Face.

And *that's* the part that will forever keep me from fully embracing this movie as a masterpiece. That's the part that ultimately undoes the film for me.

This. So much this. Of course Heathus Christ stole the show, but Harvey Dent was a major focal point and it even seemed that he got more screen time than either Wayne or Batman. (But is this true? It seemed like that way to me.) I liked watching him the most. As I remarked in my own spontaneous ejaculation of a pseudo-review post, this movie was about moral relativism, and the second Dent was referred to as "The White Knight", the "two faces of heroism" theme became immediately clear and I got so excited in that typical way most philosophy and sociology dorks do.

The continuity of the medical angle is something for which I have to suspend judgment. I mean, ligaments busting out -- an eye with no lid -- out of the hospital in what, a few days? Can you say SEPSIS? Cause I can: SEPSIS. He hadn't even healed yet and he's walking around dingy streets like he just walked off of rotten.com. Do what you gotta do, dude. I did like the make-up/CGI work, though. When I saw him I said, "Holy shit he actually looks like Two-Face!"

"Of course it isn't a rational thing to do, Harvey Dent wasn't in a rational state."

This excuse always pisses me off as well. I had a rather massive argument about this concerning this season of "Doctor Who"'s amazing wacktasticality, but... some people will always insist that screenwriting for an action or sci-fi movie can always take massive liberties with character development and continuity. I'd rather they explain Harvey's madness with, "THEY GAVE HIM SOME PCP WHILE HE WAS IN THE HOSPITAL! HE'S ON DRUUUUUUUUGSSS!" That would make more sense. PCP always makes sense.

And I don't think Harvey's dead because I heard a rumor that Eckhart has signed on for another film.



Aaaand that's what I think. I'm no pro on DC comics; I prefer Marvel, but I've always had a fascination with Harvey Dent because consummate-professionals-gone-horribly-bad are running characters in my own life. ;D

Re: *clap clap clap*

[thehefner.livejournal.com]

Perfect icon, by the way. Hopefully someone'll make one of Aaron Eckhart.

I'm so glad you agree, and I appreciate you checking out my huge-ass post (really, who am I to complain about bloat?). I was worried that no one would read it, or if they did, they would start hitting me up with all the reasons I'm wrong or reading too much into things. They still might, of course; thus is the risk I run when I have my flist comprised almost entirely of smart and opinionated people.

As for the medical angle, yyyyyeah... in my novel, I actually give him a couple weeks of recovery before he breaks out, but even then, suspension of disbelief is probably always gonna be a must.

And yeah, I'm totally with you on the irrationality thing. Like, magic! Some people just see magic as the ultimate in bullshit "anything goes" storytelling. tompurdue can rant about that one more eloquently than I.

I'd heard about the two-film contract as well, but I can't remember where! Is there any proof? I must have proof!

Heh, yeah, based on what very little I've been able to follow about your life, I'm not surprised! :)

[princessebee.livejournal.com]

""I don't have to save you"

I really hate that moment, it is NOT Batman.

Yeah, I agree with all of this. You've said it all fabulously. Nothing to add!

[thehefner.livejournal.com]

Again, I tell myself that Batman knows Ra's can get himself out of that. He's a master ninja, hundreds of years old! He can handle a fucking runaway train! And we didn't see a body or anything, nor did we see him inside the train when it went, so... so... lalalala, I'm not listening to the faulty Batman non-logic!

Thankya! Means a lot, coming from you!

[princessebee.livejournal.com]

I thought Ra's wasn't supposed to be hundreds of years old in that film though?

Aw thanks. I found it really insightful. If my Joker journal was about more than Joker, I might've taken time to write something similar. The fridging in particular is beginning to irk me. As it is, I may link to it.

[thehefner.livejournal.com]

It was written in such a way that it could be read that way, for those in the know. Particularly the way he says, "We were there for the burning of Rome, we put the plague-infested rats on ships," and so on. For those who know the character, it's not even a stretch to imagine that he means he was there personally.

Grand, feel free, please!

[princessebee.livejournal.com]

Well, that's what I figured, but what about all this 'realism' stuff Nolan's so hung up on?

[thehefner.livejournal.com]

I suppose ambiguity is the best way to have it both ways.

That said, "realism" is a whole sticky wicket unto itself...

[princessebee.livejournal.com]

something I forgot to mention - I was deeply annoyed there was nothing special about the cinematography in those scenes... after all that build up, it was straight out filming. And there was no battle. grrr.

[mirthical.livejournal.com]

Some things from our conversation, that seem worth repeating here:

Firstly, I can't imagine, from a purely economical point of view, that they would really kill Harvey off in this movie, novelization be damned. It would be the height of stupidity.

Because of this, and because Ledger is dead, Harvey/Two-Face is the natural choice for the villain in the next movie, assuming that The Powers That Be don't fall prey to the classic multiple villain pitfall. The Joker is going to be in absentia in the next movie - I hope there's a decent story to make this believable - and given that the end of the movie showed Batman and Gordon in cahoots in a massive cover-up for Harvey's benefit, I can't help but think that we're going to see Harvey in Arkham (or a reasonable facsimile) in the next installment. If it's true that Eckhart has in fact signed for two movies (har har!), I can't think that there's any other way to play this and still be true to the tone of this to-be-trilogy.

(While the multiple actor for single role idea is an appealing one, especially for a character as chaotic and mysterious as the Joker, I think it would be a colossal mistake to do so here. Similarly, I think it would be an even more colossal mistake to cast a new face into the same role, which Ledger did so brilliantly. So, much as I hate saying goodbye to Mistah J, I don't want to see him in the next movie.)

Secondly, I totally agree with your dark mirror expectations, and wished that it was done more carefully. As soon as "White Knight" was mentioned, as tamburlaine notes, the contrast between the D.A. and Batman was brought sharply into relief. Well and good - both are figures that go all out to seek justice for Gotham City, albeit in different channels. And while I can (grudgingly) accept that Batman takes the rap for Two-Face's killing spree in return for Harvey telling people he's Batman, it lacks meaning. It's a poorly paid IOU. Why couldn't Batman have been cast as the "Dark Knight" for not killing villains like the Joker when he had the chance, since he's already outside the law? I wanted more of the public clamor regarding Batman's vigilantism to justify the cover-up for Harvey and being chased off by the cops. Besides, Batman is ALREADY a hunted vigilante. Sure, he's not being hunted too hard, but that doesn't change the official stance of the GCPD. It's pointless, unless there's repercussions in Gordon and Batman's working relationship. Seems to be that way, and I hope to see that in the next film.

And yes, since you've mentioned it, and angrylemur, and I've done more thinking about it, the whole Rachel situation just sticks in my craw. While realistically I understand that if any character was going to get killed off, it was going to be her, it seems stupidly pointless, and a completely empty gesture toward "explaining" why Harvey loses it. As much as I like the clean metaphor of the dark mirror, this is where the mirror analogy looks dumb.

Bruce suffers personal tragedy - the gunning down of his parents in front of his child's eyes, haunting him with guilt for the REST OF HIS FUCKING LIFE - Bruce, after angsting about it for what, twelve years, goes on a finding-himself quest, becomes Batman and fights crime. Harvey suffers personal tragedy - his fiancee dies at the hands of the Joker, who worked within the corrupt network of cops - Harvey becomes Two-Face in about twelve seconds and starts killing people, even attempting to kill the completely innocent child of the one cop he knows is incorruptible. Buh buh buh wuh?

[mirthical.livejournal.com]

Here's a question: Did Rachel actually achieve more in Batman Begins? Arguably, she channeled Bruce his new life - she was the one who berated Bruce after Joe Chill's trial and death, and while it didn't exactly keep him from revenge (seeing as how Chill was already dead), it shook him up. (I would argue that Alfred had more to do with the whole thing, and Bruce's essential character and personality, but still.) She was also the one idealist, the incorruptible inside the law. I know you said this back when Batman Begins first came out, but it's still true - if the figure of Rachel had actually been Harvey in Batman Begins, The Dark Knight could have been completely successful, with the backstory necessary to establish Harvey as the idealist with the cracks in his facade, leading to his inevitable downfall.

Of course, if Rachel had been eliminated entirely from TDK, we would have been left with only two ladies, neither of which were especially impressive.

Let me add this: Sure, Maggie Gyllenhaal's performance was head and shoulders above Katie Holmes', but the character fell prey to the same old bland I-used-to-be-spunky-but-now-I-love-someone-and-so-am-totally-lame that so many female supporting characters seem to suffer.

And a totally minor point - I quite liked the unreal, nightmarish quality of the Two-Face CGI. The rolling eyeball and the exposed teeth did it for me, absolutely. And I didn't mind the extra suspension of disbelief - the CGI was horrifying enough that being unrealistic was a good thing.

Everything else, I totally agree.

(my comment was too long, apparently!)

[thehefner.livejournal.com]

As Rachel were there to be the conscience (which is Alfred's role, as you pointed out; one could argue they spread out Alfred's roles to both Rachel and Lucius), exactly, I completely agree: if Rachel's role had been Harvey from the start, THE DARK KNIGHT would have been... if not completely successful, then far more so.

I mean, as long as they dedicated a few more scenes of cracking and downfall to Harvey throughout, not to mention perhaps some mention of his actual mental state from a certifiable standpoint.

I agree with your long-winded two-part response and have nothing else to add at this point :)

[mirthical.livejournal.com]

for a second there, I was shocked at your having nothing more to say, but then I realized you left yourself an opening with "... at this point"

:)

[swimpenguin.livejournal.com]

Hmm, I definitely get what you're saying. For one of the movie's themes (every person has their breaking point, Joker's philosophy), the linkage of Joker talking Harvey into his own state of mind I thought worked quite well, even though it was very different from the comics origin (the great Eye of the Beholder story you've posted up before). And yea, I agree, I wanted to see a deeper duality, more of a struggle, not just 'my gf's dead, I'm pissed.' The idea though, that (as much as was depicted in the movie), that there was no mental duality in Harvey, no 'Two Face, Big Bad Harv/Harvey Dent separate identities dueling against each other-it was all Harvey Dent himself doing what he did. Harvey Dent with a scarred face, but it was solely Harvey Dent's mind doing that. To me, that's a bit of an intruiging scary idea. No evil alternate personality to fall back on, in keeping with the idea of seeing how far everyone can fall within the dark depths of themselves.
And I agree Two Face going after Gordon's family not built up enough, thus not justified enough. Except that I think that scene was meant to highlight Gordon himself. Bruce and Gordon put unfortunately misplaced faith in Harvey as the great savior, hope of the city, and it backfired on them terribly, he wasn't the hero they thought he was in the end. And even as Gordon gives the 'dark knight hero' speech on Batman to his son at the end, he's missing the real hero, the real hope-himself. The one last, incorruptible cop, the man who didn't have a position of power (DA) or gazillions of dollars and high tech gear (Batman) but he does the right thing day after day, and lastly, he has a heart. He hasn't had to wall it off like Batman at that point, he doesn't react with insanity like Harvey does, when his son's life his threatened, he begs for Two Face to kill him, only let his son go.
As for Rachel's death being the trigger for Harvey's transformation, yeah that kind of sucked, even though I assumed it would play some part when I saw she would be dating him in the trailers. This quote by Aaron Eckhart himself says it all:
"When Harvey "Two-Face" makes his transformation all bets are off, because there's nothing greater, and, I think, more profound than love. This intense love was taken, ripped away from you unjustly. I think the whole game is changed. It's interesting, the difference between Joker and Two Face, is that Joker seemingly, nihilistically, is a puppet of anarchy. He is without rhyme and reason doing this. Two Face is killing for a reason. He still has a sense of justice of, a very wide streak of justice inside of him and he has taken things into his own hands. So, I think it's a little different, but it's still bad."
As much as we rage against, in American cinema it's an unchanging conception that love is the great transformer, for good or evil. Even the actors think so :P
I wasn't sure at first whether Dent was alive or not, and as you said, they could just have him secreted in Arkham, trying to rehabilitate him. This little nutshell I read on IMDB the other day too had me puzzled:
Aaron Eckhart would reprise his role from The Dark Knight - because working with Christian Bale is "phenomenal". Eckhart, who plays District Attorney Harvey Dent in the sequel, confesses he "absolutely" would star in a third Batman film. He tells WENN, "To work with Christian (Bale) all over again, and the cast, would be phenomenal. I think this movie is a movie of a lifetime."
Either it's complete crap, or Eckhart knows something we don't?
This is me being wacky, but one thing in the movie puzzled me-we never see a funeral for anyone that dies-there's no funeral for Gordon's "fake death", none for Rachel, and none for Harvey-even as we assume the scene at the end is a public memorial. So who knows maybe Harvey could be in Arkham-and me being wacky, what if Rachel wasn't dead either...but kidnapped by Joker and brainwashed into being Harley Quinn??? Like I said, me being wacky :P

[thehefner.livejournal.com]

To me, that's a bit of an intruiging scary idea. No evil alternate personality to fall back on, in keeping with the idea of seeing how far everyone can fall within the dark depths of themselves.

I can see that, but I think it's much scarier to see Two-Face as not so much the other personality but rather the flip side of the coin, the same person but twisted, a response to all the years of build-up and neurosis and abuse. But this is getting into the territory of my novel, and ideas that take a whole book to really explain, sorry about that.

While the Joker's philosophy is that everyone has a breaking point, the whole point of THE KILLING JOKE (one of the film's major self-admitted inspirations, and almost certainly the driving philosophy behind the Joker's "All madness needs is a little push" philosophy) is that it doesn't just take "one bad day" nor "a little push" to drive someone crazy. Nor did his actions entirely succeed in giving "that little push" to Gotham!

And really, for all the reasons I've mentioned above and more, it would take much more than "a little push," even scarring and killing off the love of one's life, to turn Harvey into Two-Face that completely, that quickly. So no, I think it's a failed philosophy (as Alan Moore himself admits, I think! I know he's since disowned the story's ideas), executed in a rushed and unbelievable way for a character who has (or should have had) a whole lot more going on to really go crazy.

because there's nothing greater, and, I think, more profound than love

Yes, but it's also an overexplored and somewhat trite subject, not to mention out of place with the rest of the film's ideas and subject matter. Really, we've had enough movies that have talked about love, but that's far from the heart of THE DARK KNIGHT. It's a film about philosophical and sociological issues above all others, which Harvey embodied. That's what his downfall should have focused around, not a shoehorned-in romantic subplot.

[demonfafa.livejournal.com]

Your first mistake was believing anything you read on the internet, especially on CHUD.

[thehefner.livejournal.com]

A minor point, in the grand scheme. Have you nothing else to add, old boy?

[demonfafa.livejournal.com]

That would require actually processing what you've said into some kind of basic idea. Not to offend, but that was a lot to read after a long day and a SUCKY Fringe show I just saw tonight (I'll post about it tomorrow). So Brain not function beyond the ability to tell you, "LULZ, U BEELEEVE TEH INTARWEBS!"

[thehefner.livejournal.com]

No worries, I totally sympathize, I'm wiped out from Fringing myself. But oh dear, I dread to learn which show particularly blew.

So yeah, I get it, but in my own exhausted, gross, grumpy, cold, damp state, I'm just like, "Guh, guh, I wrote up all this, and all you can do is tell me what my mistake was?!"

Maybe bed now is a good idea.

[demonfafa.livejournal.com]

The show in question was Slash Coleman Has Big Matzah Balls. Utterly awful & unfunny.

[thehefner.livejournal.com]

Damn, sorry to hear you didn't like it (to say the least, apparently!). Slash is a friend of mine, and I'll be seeing it myself come Friday.

[demonfafa.livejournal.com]

I wanted to like it. I used to live in Richmond while I was in High School, so I figured I could relate to his play. It was so off the wall and I wasn't sure exactly what the whole point was supposed to be. I'll have a more detailed explanation tomorrow.

[vvalkyri.livejournal.com]

Noticed the fliers today when I saw Diamond Death (which was amusing but not hugely, and with horrid sound mixing). Am tempted by 7.5 habits of highly effective mistresses.

[demonfafa.livejournal.com]

hey there! fancy seeing you here.

7 1/2 Habits was pretty decent. I would've enjoyed it more if the Warehouse Theatre had air conditioning.

[vvalkyri.livejournal.com]

I was wearing a cap sleeve shirt and short shorts, and sitting directly in front of a fan. Had to hold my hat between me and it in order to not freeze...

[thehefner.livejournal.com]

Furthermore, I've been reading CHUD for three years, and they're 99% accurate, and when they're not, they usually own up to it.

[demonfafa.livejournal.com]

DUDE, it's the internet! CHUD might have the goods on a few choice items, but I don't trust anything online, especially when it's movie gossip. The new Star Trek movie? Sure, I read about it incessantly, but I don't trust a damn thing, even when it's straight out of the director's mouth. Why? Because they change shit all the time. You can film all sorts of stuff, but editing changes how that comes across so who knows what they intended for Two-face in the beginning, but it certainly wasn't the end result.

[thehefner.livejournal.com]

True, but I immerse myself in this shit on an almost hourly basis, so I'm usually able to sift through the truth and the bullshit, and the track record speaks in my favor. So forgive me for thinking that a major article on a reputable pop culture site four months before the film's release might actually be true!

[tompurdue.livejournal.com]

I finally saw it last night, and I gotta tell you, your posts are vastly, vastly insightful.

(I was going to post some stuff here, but instead I'll post it in my own journal.)

[thehefner.livejournal.com]

Josh, that means a hell of a lot coming from you. Seriously, you have no idea.

I greatly look forward to your own thoughts!

[dryponder.livejournal.com]

i disagree about harv, but it'd take forever to talk about! D:

also, despite disagreeing, you are one of the few people whose opinion on this i respect. ;)

[thehefner.livejournal.com]

Oh noes! You're the first! At least, the first to actually say so. We talking big overall disagree or disagree in parts or whaaa, without going too much into details that will result in a heated disagreement that will result in hurt feelings and anger mainly because it was done on-line rather than in person? Or should we agree to disagree, and I suck up the fact that I'm not gonna win this one? I hate that, man. Especially on this topic, for obvious reasons.

Ah well, it does mean a lot to me that you respect my opinion on this, so thankya.

Hey, also, I've been meaning to tell you, awesome work on that Tori Amos book. Had no idea you were doing something for it! If you mentioned it, I totally missed that news. Also, I dunno if you're in contact with Ming Doyle, but if so, pass on my kudos to her too, that girl is amazing and is going places.

Also also, if you haven't seen them yet, I've been meaning to pass my Joker/Harley photo shoot along to you, since they're borne out of Project: Rooftop FF&T 1.

[dryponder.livejournal.com]

ah, okay, let's do this. haha. no, no hurt feelings or major disagreements, i don't think. i think we're both folks that care DEEPLY about this stuff, and can appreciate that intelligent superhero experts such as ourselves can disagree from time to time.

i just appreciated the revised two-face origin stuff. it felt so much more believable to me, even as someone who's always loved two-face stories.

first, this isn't the already dual-natured, barely held together harvey dent we've seen before. nolan's dent is confident, a bit naive, but bold and surprisingly well adapted to battling crime via the system even in gotham. he's got a violent streak, a temper, but even when he displays it (like in the interrogation of that joker henchman) he sets up a clear line to protect himself from giving into it.

the coolest thing to me about this dent was how he so readily accepted the batman, both intellectually in coversation and in person, showing no surprise or fear. he shouldn't fear batman. he's not superstitious OR cowardly.

the set up for the coin is perfect, and since most of the film's audience REALLY DOESN'T KNOW who harvey dent is, they're totally in for a ride. by having the event which scarred dent be a fifty/fifty situation in which his bride-to-be is killed, scarring the coin (which was in her possession) in the same explosion, dent is left with survivor's guilt, a disfigured face that mocks his old nickname, and his previously most prized possession, now a constant reminder of rachel's death. no painkillers, no surgery, just guilt and rage. couple that with his admiration for batman's outside-the-law justice, harvey is so damned vulnerable when joker shows up to kick him over the edge.

now, harvey has no idea that batman loved rachel, or that the joker tricked batman into rescuing whoever he didn't want to (probably knowing this would mean harvey). batman doesn't know that rachel was going to marry harvey, so his returning of the coin is ignorantly callous as hell. two-face is now ready to kill those responsible for rachel's death, starting with the corrupt and then even his allies who failed him, but only with the same chance that he believes he had, 50/50.

the joker's pep talk is a flipping magic trick in itself, pushing, pulling, deceiving, misdirecting, and leaving harvey absolutely enslaved to his coin as a decision-making device, while previously it was merely a feint harvey used to trick people into thinking he let chance make decisions for him. in the absence of a rational world to cling to (harvey's earlier willingness to sacrifice his own safety for justice naively neglected to consider his loved ones, as batman has) harvey is left hopelessly grasping at any sense of order available.

anyway, for me, the synchronicity of the events that hit harvey all at the same moment just made his conversion so much more believable to me than the previous acid in the face, oh i'm evil now explanation. he's more a vigilante than a criminal, and while his attack on gordon's family is extreme, his actions do balance what happened to him.

-------------------
thanks! looking forward to seeing CBT tomorrow at SDCC.

hang on to the pics until ff&t 3, but yeah i want 'em. ;)

[thehefner.livejournal.com]

Okay, I see what you mean. I mean, I'm gratified that that several critics who don't give a toss about the character agree with me, but nonetheless, I could easily imagine tons of folks with no background in the character feeling the same way.

I still disagree (both from a character standpoint and how it affects the film in general), but it makes sense. Particularly if compared to the traditional pre-crisis "I had acid in the face oh I'm evil now" origin. But have you read, say, "Eye of the Beholder," the story that introduced his father and the origins of the coin? That totally changed my perception of the character, introducing elements that... like I say there, whole the abusive alcoholic father is the ultimate bad guy origin cliche, with Harvey, it's one of the only examples where it works, to the point that it's essential to the character. Introduce that, and then take your time to show the slow breakdown before the acid even hits, and you've turned a gimmicky Bat-villain into one of the most powerfully tragic and compelling, at least in my book. Literally.

And it's from that story on out that spurred me onto this novel I'm working on. Since you do have these criticisms for Harvey Dent origins, with believability and whatnot, would you be up for checking out my novel in a year or so when I'm finally nearing the final draft? I'm fairly confident I have the movie Harvey beat (and let's face it, it's easier to do that by making him the actual focus, and of a novel too, where one can more realistically take one's time), and especially if you've had these issues, your input would mean a lot to me.

Yeah, I can kill a man with a copy of CBT. I love my comics that can double as a bludgeon.

And huzzah! :)

[dryponder.livejournal.com]

i'll try to check out eye of the beholder sometime. i believe you when you say it works here, but yeah that abusive father stuff just always rings hollow for me since it's so overused, and like a lot of childhood traumas, can lead to the opposite conclusion, as in batman's case (and mine).

yeah dude, i'll check out your book when it's ready. :)

[thehefner.livejournal.com]

Admittedly, I've rarely seen it actually used at all since this story, much less directly, much less effectively. Which, among other similar reasons, is what pushed me to do this book in the first place.

I have it on several accounts that I actually manage to explore that veritable literary mine-field and pull it off, but that's all the more reason I'd want to run it by you. Especially if you've had childhood trauma of your own; I wasn't aware of that. In that case, I especially understand your trepidation, because lord knows it's an overused and misused trope.

I'll say this, though: I don't ride on the abuse as the sole cause. Other writers have, and it cheapens the character to that cliche. It's much more complex than that.

[senordildo.livejournal.com]

Your essay pinpoints the problem with acuity. In order for Harvey's transformation to be credibly rapid, the character has to have had a more convincing dark side, more than what the film gave us. BTAS did a better job with this--I still remember those moments when Harvey's face crumpled with ugly rage and the background went livid red. This was a good man with a bomb ticking in him, waiting to explode. (TDK also had one of these, but in a literal sense!) The movie wouldn't have needed to go as far as BTAS in accentuating Harvey's neuroses. All we need to know is that Harvey is at war with himself, and with the breakdown of Gotham, Rachel and Batman at the Joker's hands, then Harvey must follow suit in a way none of the other characters could have expected.

But instead we get the Rachel-vengeance motivation, spurred on by the Joker's most spurious speech. You're a prosecutor Harvey--why don't you call bullshit on the Joker's nonsense about schemers, since the Joker is the biggest, most successful schemer in the entire damn movie? Going after Gordon's kids is just a way to hustle Two Face into major villain status.

On other issues...
I was okay with Moroni not being the scarrer. He's always been too unimportant a character for such a pivotal role. It worked when Thorne took a similar role in BTAS because Thorne was one of the first season's chief villains, and epitomized corruptness in a suit. The animated series perhaps didn't take advantage of Two Face's biggest tragedy--that he became another Thorne.

I'd personally assumed Harvey was dead. I suppose it could have been a faked memorial ceremony, but within the realistic parameters Nolan has established, faking two Face's death would been a conspiracy requiring more than Gordon and Batman's help, just as Gordon presumably told at least some of his men about his plan. (One of the few times Gordon was a step ahead of Batman!)
Having him survive would perhaps invalidate the mood of the ending--the feeling that Joker, though captured, won where it counted. The sense of Pyhrric victory would have been greatly reduced. I'd need to rewatch the film to be sure, but my impression was that Batman, due to his injuries, leapt for Two Face at the last second and in the heat of moment didn't know where he'd land. (The staging was confusing, and Nolan isn't the world's best director of action.) I don't see why Batman can't kill by accident--he's not a God. Collateral damage happens, especially in Nolan's more realistic world.

I personally don't think the no-killing rule is really that essential to the character. It only came into being because of the squeamishness of 40s editors and it survives because it's the only of keeping the Joker around. Having Batman agonize about when he'd have to play executioner would introduce more moral ambiguity, not less. And had the Joker come back for another film than the the movie would have begun having the problems of the comics, where Joker is guaranteed to kill so often that Batman's refusal to snuff him means others must die to preserve Batman's moral pride. And since Nolan's Joker is perhaps the most efficiently murderous and controlling version of character ever devised, Batman's refusal to kill him would have meant another Joker plan coming to fruition and more deaths.
But the Joker isn't coming back, and neither, I think is Nolan. What happened to Two Face is ambiguous enough to suggest that Nolan had left the conclusion open enough to be close off his involvement in the series. Another director can worry about what the hell happened to Two face, how Batman will get his reputation back, and what to do about the Joker.

TDK is largely a film about ideas but it's also a very Hollywood film in how those ideas are schematically handled, with each character designed to embody a philosophical position. And maybe the film simply isn't as realistic about character as we think. We argue that Two Face's origin is not psychologically developed enough in a movie where the main villain not only isn't given an origin couldn't have one in the first place, because he's so damn abstract. They should have just called him the anarchist instead of the Joker--his plots aren't black jokes.

[vvalkyri.livejournal.com]

BTAS?

[thehefner.livejournal.com]

BATMAN: THE ANIMATED SERIES, the TV show from the mid-90's which (for many, including myself) is pretty much the gold standard when it comes to Batman.

[vvalkyri.livejournal.com]

:half smile: I'd been wondering if it was the cartoon (and I did watch the series when it was on) but I wasn't finding sufficient context to be sure it was that and not a comic somewhere.

[thehefner.livejournal.com]

Sorry it's taken me so long to respond to this, it's been a weekend.

Right on with BATMAN: THE ANIMATED SERIES. They credibly established the emergent dark side in a way that also showed us how good a man he is (with the time bomb inside him, yes, a good way to describe it). I read somewhere that producers wouldn't let them do the abusive father angle in the series. That's a serious shame, because man, it would have worked much better than the whole "bully" explanation.

But instead we get the Rachel-vengeance motivation, spurred on by the Joker's most spurious speech. You're a prosecutor Harvey--why don't you call bullshit on the Joker's nonsense about schemers, since the Joker is the biggest, most successful schemer in the entire damn movie? Going after Gordon's kids is just a way to hustle Two Face into major villain status.

VERY good point! I hadn't even considered that. Man, and as much as I love that scene expressly because of everything Joker in there, I'm never gonna be able to look at it the same way.

Because really, you're right, he's a prosecutor! Crazy or not, I would have loved to have seen him call bullshit there! The Joker is brilliant enough that he could still manipulate his way around it, but don't just leave Harvey there fuming quietly.

As for Moroni, I was cool with them not going with it in the film, but generally speaking, I think the things you observe about Thorne is exactly why I ideally prefer Moroni. In theory, anyway. He's a symbol of the faceless enemy of the mob that Harvey is dedicated to eradicating, only to become another one (a twisted version, anyway, ushering in the new era of "freaks" running Gotham). Maybe it's because the B:TAS version was such an impact on me from early on, but it's how I've seen Moroni ever since, even if it hasn't been as explicitly stated as such.

Actually, Harvey surviving would only add to the Joker's "win." After all, having Batman take the fall for Harvey is their way of defeating the Joker in the eyes of the public, rather than in fact. But this is a whole other can of worms.

As for the no-killing stuff, I'm just fond of these characters having certain hardline (to the point of unreasonable) rules and ethics. I think that results in more interesting stories when you face these ideals against realistic situations. For a character as utterly dark as Batman, that rule is striking, and speaks to one of the things that makes him so compelling rather than becoming closer to a Wolverine/Punisher style anti-hero (and therefore blander).

But okay, Nolan-verse, he can kill accidentally. But Harvey? To steadfastly refuse to kill the Joker, but then to kill Harvey, of all people, however accidentally? If they're gonna make such a huge thing like that, they should at least have acknowledged that: "And the Joker's won another way: even if in accident, he finally did make me break my one rule."

But they don't say anything of the sort, which indicates either further ambiguity leaning towards Harvey being alive, or a shitty and major missed opportunity for a story standpoint. Know what I mean?

And yeah, I increasingly feel that TDK is not as "art-film" as some people have credited. I've heard several people hailing it as a rare major film to have serious artistic merit, which strikes me as... well, a lot of things. Hard to put into words at present. Sometimes I'd wonder how they'd feel about films like this if they weren't based on superheroes. Like, if it were just a movie, they might think it'd be great, but because it's based on superheroes, the bar of expectations had been lowered, so what's "great" becomes, "OH MY FUCKING GOD!" But I'm just thinking aloud, this isn't even a theory or anything.

[senordildo.livejournal.com]

In turn, I must give my apologies for responding late--computer trouble and travel.

On whether Joker wins: if we get a sequel with Two Face as the villain, then he definitely will win, since Gotham will put two and two together. And it's also the most convenient way for Batman's name to be cleared. I never really understood how they'd sell to the public the idea of Batman being behind Two Face's crimes anyway. But Nolan was in hurry to emulate Shane and The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance to worry about plausibility.

On no-killing: the idea of the characters having certain hardline (to the point of unreasonable) rules and ethics placed "against realistic situations" is compelling, but the Joker is not a particularly realistic villain, and doesn't quite create realistic situations. Frankly, he's almost a God in The Dark Knight, and Batman's apprehending him in the end almost seems tood good to be true. I kept thinking Mr. J had yet another plan up his sleeve to escape and cause more havoc, and had Ledger lived we might have seen it. A superhero who kills wouldn't neccesarily have to be on the Wolverine/Punisher model, which I agree is blander (it's worth noting that the antihero with the license to kill, James Bond, is far more tortured about killing in the books than in the movies, and eventually reaches the point where he can't kill in cold blood). Anyway, I'll just say that taking the powers of life and death in his hands would complicate Batman's ethics even more fruitfully, as long as he doesn't go trigger-happy and continues torturing himself about whether he did the right thing.

I agree that Nolan should have better acknowledged the irony of Batman inadvertently killing Harvey. As noted above, I think he was in too much of a hurry to introduce the Bat-fall guy theme. It's one Nolan's weaknesses--he lets the ideas drive his films, and this makes them schematic. And, since he wants to leave things open with regards to the next film, if he decides to make it, he deliberately leaves Harvey's status ambiguous. That expedience harms the movie.

I think it's indicative of the wretched state of American popular movies that people have so eagerly elevated TDK to extremes it cannot support. Nolan has tried to make the superhero film ultra-relevant to the way he live and think. He's succeeded, but in doing so he's also come close to smashing up against the limitations of the genre. I wouldn't be surprised if, rather than opening the door for the genre, he's reached its endgame. TDK might signal the finale of the superhero genre, not the apex.

[thehefner.livejournal.com]

On Nolan's plausibility, I think parts like that and the rushed nature of Harvey's transformation point to Nolan and company pushing elements to serve the plot rather than the story, if you know what I mean. It's understandable, in a movie this packed/bloated (depending on the viewer), that certain elements would suffer: for the film, it's more important that Harvey go all the way crazy evil from 0 to 60 than taking the time to believably sell it, because that's what needed to happen for the bigger plot. The ends justify the means, or in this case, the lack of means.

Oh wait, you pretty much say that yourself later on, don't you? "he lets the ideas drive his films, and this makes them schematic." And honestly, what I love best about Batman's world are the characters. That's one thing I particularly dislike about stories like THE LONG HALLOWEEN (which seemed to be the model for Harvey's downfall here, without laying down much anything by way of psychological groundwork in favor of just, "He's an angry guy pushed too far," but with Rachel's death on top of it): the characters are just set pieces to push along the plot, and will act accordingly rather than naturally. Again, if I'm making any sense. I am bleary right now.

Yeah, I too was waiting for something else with the Joker. The way it was handled, it was somewhat anticlimactic (not to mention the first time it really sunk in that Heath was dead and they would not, in fact, be able to do their dance forever)

Anyway, I'll just say that taking the powers of life and death in his hands would complicate Batman's ethics even more fruitfully, as long as he doesn't go trigger-happy and continues torturing himself about whether he did the right thing.

Good point. Agreed, but--needless to say, but I'm sayin' it anyway because I'm like that--only if it's handled well. Like, say, Batman acknowledging the irony of (accidentally) killing Harvey. If in fact Harvey is dead, and Aaron Eckhart saying recently that he's totally up for doing BATMAN 3 without a hint of "if they could figure out a way with flashbacks" or some such indicates favorably in my theory's... uh... favor.

Finally, the questions about the future on superhero films really depend on two particular projects in my mind:

The first is IRON MAN 2, and by extension, Marvel's whole universe of films. Creating a single continuity in film, actually doing the Marvel/DC thing for mainstream audiences, would be a step up that's not only logical, but essential to really properly do superheroics. I mean, short of, say, giving them their own TV channel where all the shows cross over to each other. And to have this all kicked off by IRON MAN, which I consider to be one of the top two or three greatest superhero films of all time (I'm still tempted to include TDK, for all my qualms, and yet I'm not really sure at all), that's a major thing.

The other, and perhaps more crucial to superhero films as "art," is WATCHMEN. Depending on things go, and following TDK, WATCHMEN will either be coming out at the worst possible time (if your fears are true) or at the absolutely perfect time, when audiences will actually be more receptive to the challenges the story will present, which I think will be present no matter how successfully or unsuccessfully Snyder pulls it off.

[leiacat.livejournal.com]

See, what I don't get is how after all this wrongness you still manage to like the movie as much as you do. To me it kinda, well, ruins it, but my hat is off to you for managing it, however you might.

[ortugatay.livejournal.com]

See, I didn't think he was dead at the end of the movie either, and Boothe and I battled this out for a while (he thinks Two Face is dead, I don't). It just didn't feel like death to me, but I could be wrong. The movie was such a dizzying wonderful blur that I was rattled by the end, so perhaps I missed something.

I truly, truly loved him as Harvey, though.

What did you think of the Joker, btw?

[thehefner.livejournal.com]

Tell Boothe that word is Aaron Eckhart is signed to a two-film deal in his contract, and that he recently said in an interview that he'd more-than-happily return to BATMAN 3 if asked, with not a shred of "I mean, if they can figure out a way..."

As for Joker, I think the lovely lovedatjoker summed up my thoughts rather better than I could: http://lovedatjoker.livejournal.com/14607.html

[spacechild.livejournal.com]

"Furthermore, Harvey's death invalidates something far more important than the ending."

Yes.. it invalidates the third film. Because then we're going to have to turn to the Ten-Eyed Man as the villian for it.