I know too much about the Batman canon to really be surprised by the twists of characters' fates, so I don't know how much that affects my view of what happens to Harvey. And I'm too cynical about public officials to accept the incorruptable label. They may not take bribes or anything overt like that, but they're only human. That's why I like so Batman so much, it's his own highly tuned brains and body that let him do what he does. Harvey is useful as the third leg of the triumvirat of Bad Guy Scarer, Bad Guy Capturer, and Bad Guy Convicter. I don't buy Harvey as the guy who will let Batman give up the cowl. Harvey on his own can't cope with the uniquely twisted weirdness that is Gotham.

To me, Two-Face is just his own human weakness made manifest. And making Harvey's corruption the Joker's ultimate goal again makes the Joker too powerful. Joker is brilliant and cunning, but I don't see him as that level of mastermind. Ras al Ghul is that kind of mastermind. Joker's unique terror is that his brilliance is bound with his madness and obsession.

I don't buy Harvey as the guy who will let Batman give up the cowl. Harvey on his own can't cope with the uniquely twisted weirdness that is Gotham.

Well, yeah. That was the heartbreaking thing about the movie -- Harvey was doomed to fail, and he took Bruce, Rachel, and Jim down with him. t edit By "took Bruce down with him," I mean that *Bruce* -- if not the viewers -- actually believed, for a dangerous moment, that he could give up the Batman gig and let Harvey do it.

And making Harvey's corruption the Joker's ultimate goal again makes the Joker too powerful. Joker is brilliant and cunning

Joker had no ultimate goal beyond utter chaos. Whatever happened along his path to serve those ends is what he used. Including Harvey.

Yeah, I definitely need to see the film again. While what you described, Tep, is pretty much what I remember from the comics and the way they did the animated series back in the early 90s-- but I remember being struck during the film about them playing up the "uncorruptable" aspects of Harvey's character.

I kind of wish Lewis was home tonight so I could watch it while a) all this stuff is swirling around in my brain and b) because I'm in the mood for it. Anyone want a twelve year-old boy? Moody, self-absorbed, and a bit of a git-- tried to sell him to the Gypsies but even they didn't want him.

I remember being struck during the film about them playing up the "uncorruptable" aspects of Harvey's character.

Probably because every time he was onscreen, the phrase "white knight" would be uttered three or four times, with meaningful pauses so the audience could remember that the movie was called the dark knight and solemnly appreciate the comparison being drawn.

(I wanted to like this movie so much more than I did, but the script let me down. The writers just didn't trust the core emotional story enough to let it stand on its own.)

the white knight thing did kind of bug me but not enough to ruin the movie for me.

Maybe it would have worked better for me if someone said Harvey "Gave a fuck when it wasn't his turn." because in its overall bleakness and rejection of institutional authority, it did send me to a "Wire" place. It took itself more seriously, though. (I really need the rest of those Gotham Central TPBs.)

If various bloggers are getting them, I have this hope that Jilli would get one for Gothic Charm School.

I have been nurturing that hope, too. I don't think it's very likely, but I really really want one.

Just watched Slumdog Millionaire on DVD. Really not sure what all the fuss with this movie is about...I didn't like it at all.

I just saw an ad for Underworld: Rise of the Lycans. Except I was looking at my computer when the ad came on, so what I heard was Underworld: Rise of the Lichens.

Why yes, I am picturing greenish-gray things that grow on rocks. Except now, in my mind, they're waving wee swords.

We aren't told that the Joker is behind the heist until he reveals himself.

Yeah, that bugged me, too. People did correct him in comments -- and I think some of it is that he certainly saw the movie but a lot of his structural observations are based on going back to the script. Anyway, there are definitely points like that, small and large, that I disagree with, but overall it makes me understand why I liked the stuff I liked, and it reconciles me to stuff I didn't like. Which makes me happy because I wanted to like the movie an awful lot, and came away going, "I liked that, but I didn't LOVE it." And now I can't wait to see it again and I really really hope it's one of the presents I get tomorrow.

Plus it's really interesting to see a writer's take -- a lot of his appreciation is prefaced with "It's a big action-adventure event comic-based summer blockbuster that's also thoughtful about the mythology and character-driven. I've tried to write these, do you know how hard it is to pull this off?"

On Todd Alcott: he's a writer and regularly does long analysis of movies in his lj -- he's been going through Spielberg for ages which irritates me because I fucking hate Spielberg and grumble grouse whine. But then he did the same for the Coens and I ate it like candy, so.... I suppose it could be a matter of subjective taste and not that he's crazy. Maybe? Oh, and I stumbled upon his journal via James Urbaniak of Venture Brothers fame, so, y'know, he gets points for that.