The Dark Knight is dazzling but it’s not for kids — and that’s no joke

LAST weekend, we joined friends and their children, 13 and 11, who are holidaying on the Cornish coast.

The weather being only marginally less inclement than it has been in Ireland, on Saturday afternoon we suggested that old cop-out, a trip to the cinema.

What would the kids like to see?

“Batman,” they chorused. “Are you sure? Isn’t there something else?” we asked nervously, reading out the names of the children’s movies from the local paper. We had heard rumours that the latest incarnation of the 70-year-old character was a bit on the violent side. But probably for the same reasons we had reservations, they were adamant: “We want to see the Batman film. Pleeeeeaaase!” We caved in — Batman it was.

And, in fairness, it is a work of sheer brilliance. Brooding, haunting, The Dark Knight might be a touch on the long side but it is a weighty film that more than lives up to the hype. From beginning to end, the conflict between Christian Bale’s

Batman and Heath Ledger's Joker is engrossing. No wonder it is expected to top Titanic as the highest-grossing film ever. I absolutely loved it.

In essence, The Dark Knight is a study of corruption: corruption of the spirit; of the soul; corruption in business; police corruption; and moral corruption. So corrupt is Gotham City that the only perfectly honest person there is the Joker. He takes it upon himself to test everyone's patience, sanity, and willingness to act for the common good. As portrayed by the late, great young Australian actor Heath Ledger, he is one of the most terrifying and memorable villains the cinema has ever seen.

Ledger’s Joker is far from the parody of aristocracy of Jack Nicholson’s in the 1989 film Batman. Ledger’s is a nameless, motiveless tramp, the embodiment of all that is malevolent, his face the threat of terror itself. “I am an agent of chaos,” he declares, and you can quite believe it.

If you haven’t seen the film yet, you will by now have gathered that it bears no resemblance whatsoever to the camp escapades of the 1960s Batman TV show with its quasi-loveable criminal rivals and the hilarious sound effects.

In The Dark Knight, all the poetry, the fantasy, and the comedy have been sucked out. What’s left is a serious action extravaganza which still manages to handle grown-up subjects such as domestic surveillance with frankness and honesty.

So far, so good but note that word — “grown-up” — because although Batman’s refusal to kill has remained (more or less) intact over the years, his rivals have become dramatically more blood-thirsty and, in cinematic terms, a line has been crossed. Previous Jokers were a bit mean but they didn’t blow up entire buildings with numerous innocent people dying in the process. The Dark Knight might be based on a comic book but it is utterly compelling for adults — and frighteningly realistic for children. Warner Brothers must be rubbing their hands with glee. They have turned out a film that genuinely appeals to the overlapping tastes of children and adults alike.

Established characters such as Batman and The Joker appeal to our nostalgia, reminding us of childhoods past. At the same time, the toy shops are full of Dark Knight action figures designed to pull in the youngsters. No wonder ticket sales are so healthy: parents are happy to splash out on tickets for themselves and they get three hours of respite from the kids into the bargain. That was our calculation anyway.

But what was the true cost? The Dark Knight might appeal to adults and children on different levels but that is not the same at all as a family viewing.

Without ruining the plot, expect plenty of gore. Jails and hospitals are blown up; bombs are stuffed in people’s mouths and sewn into their stomachs before exploding. And that’s only the half of it. One gangster gets a pencil jammed in his eye. Another character's face catches on fire, leaving a charred hunk of flesh.

A plainly terrorised child is threatened at gunpoint by a man with a melted face. Any number of policemen are shot; other are knifed. Hardly a scene goes by without someone’s life being threatened or extinguished. And all presented, as I mentioned, with frightening realism.

What’s the problem? I can already hear some people asking. It’s all a comic book fantasy, and comic books are well known for their surreal, cartoonish bursts of violence. Don’t terrible things happen in Tom and Jerry?

The difference is that the director, Christopher Nolan, hasn’t sought to ramp up the cartoonish aspects of the Batman story, as other directors have before him. He has tried instead to make the violence and fear as believable as possible — and he has succeeded. That’s why I was surprised to see so many kids in the cinema — many much younger than 11 year-old Tim. By the end of the film’s first hour, I wondered whether we shouldn’t be making for the exit. But on what pretext? Wasn’t it our fault for taking the kids in the first place?

Of course it was but were we wholly to blame? Is The Dark Knight advertised as an adult movie? Or as a children’s movie that adults can enjoy as well? Families walk right into the marketing trap, buying the toys and the tickets without doing their homework and checking the content of the film.

And, hands up, we were guilty as charged. Tim, in particular, was noticeably quiet and withdrawn after the film and in need of plenty of reassurance that it was all meant to be make-believe.

IN ENGLAND, The Dark Knight is classified as a 12A, meaning the material is sufficiently shocking that no child under the age of 12 should be admitted without an accompanying adult.

The flip side of that is that, as long as an adult is present, children much, much younger than 12 can see the film with unknown consequences. The film’s producers must be grinning like the Joker at what they’ve got away with.

In Ireland, the Film Classification Office – the recently renamed Film Censor’s Office — has slapped a 15A certificate on The Dark Knight. Previously, they have been criticised for taking a more restrictive stance than their British counterparts.

And it’s certainly the case that film censorship has a long and sorry history in Ireland but, in this case, the IFCO was absolutely right to err on the side of caution. Even at that, the IFCO’s comments on The Dark Knight — “Strong air of menace throughout. Some references to physical

violence/cruelty may disturb some younger viewers” — scarcely reflect the shocking, casual brutality contained in the film.

If I were between 8 and 12 years old, would I be pestering for someone to take me to see the film?

Of course I would. Will you regret taking them? Yes you will. It’s not child abuse to tell your kids they can’t see films about a psychopathic clown who enjoys knifing people.

Trust me, I know.