Thoughts on "The Dark Knight" -- and the Folly of Letting Young Audiences See It

There is little doubt that the summer's big movie -- indeed, possibly the biggest movie of 2008 -- has been "The Dark Knight," the hugely successful second chapter in Christopher Nolan's ambitious Batman reboot. Many have called it a masterpiece.

In any event, they clearly picked the right title for it. "Dark" is the operative word here. This makes the earlier Tim Burton films look mild by comparison.

Now, I enjoy this particular genre of movie a great deal. Truth be told, I saw the film three times, and I almost never go to the movies anymore because I prefer the quieter experience of watching a film unfold in my own home, where I can pause it at will. When "The Dark Knight" comes out on DVD, I'll certainly add it to my collection.

But each time I saw it in a theater, there was one constant: Children were in the audience.

Now, full disclosure: I have no children, though my wife and I do have several nieces and nephews. Clearly, it is for parents to decide what their kids do and do not see. But, this film -- though excellent -- is highly inappropriate for children, even with a PG-13 rating; frankly, my own mother, who is 60, had a tough time with parts of it. There may not be tons of blood-and-guts graphic violence, but the film is very intense and Heath Ledger delivers a performance guaranteed to give nightmares to the faint of heart. Lots of bad things happen to good people.

And the point is this: Because it is Batman, parents may not necessarily be aware of just how dark this film's content is. After all, Batman is a comic book character, and for a number of years has been viewed to an extent as a children's character. That's because of things like the old Adam West television series and the "SuperFriends" cartoons from the 1970s -- things I and others of my generation grew up with.

If you think about it, Batman is not a children's character, and there is no reason he should be aimed at children. The origin story alone should be argument enough of that. A small boy witnesses his parents gunned down by a mugger as they are walking through a dark alley in a big, scary city at night. If that is not a child's worst nightmare, I don't know what is.

Now, the movie's producers clearly know this. The title, "The Dark Knight," is the only one of the six films since 1989 to not have the word "Batman" in it. This apparently is in keeping with director Nolan's intentions to take the "comic book" out of it and go for a grittier and more plausible tone. However, these days, big movies always seem to come with marketing aspects to tie the film in with kids. In the case of this film, you can find action figures and toy cars in stores, even though this is not a kids' film and even the movie itself is not really aiming for kids as its audience.

But, because Batman is a comic book figure and children have read comic books for years, this film, even once it is released on DVD, could take some parents by surprise. And there is some precedent.

In 1992, "Batman Returns" -- the second of the Burton/Michael Keaton films -- drew a backlash from parents who were surprised by the movie's dark atmosphere and overt sexuality in the Catwoman character played by Michelle Pfeiffer. There had been fast-food meals with Batman characters on the boxes and little toys inside, so consequently some parents remembering the harmless Adam West TV series were blindsided by this movie's version of the Penguin. As played by Danny DeVito, he was an icky, grotesque sewer dweller whose rather Herod-like ambition was to wipe out all the firstborn sons of Gotham, ultimately by using penguins with bombs strapped to their backs.

The 1960s TV show conveniently never made mention (unless I missed this particular episode) of Bruce Wayne's childhood trauma. Even if it did, the show never dwelled on it. You always got the impression that being Batman was just some cool perk that Wayne had the privilege of doing on the side because he was a billionaire. It was not until the months leading up to the 1989 movie that I learned about the origin story. My impression of the character had been Adam West and those kiddie cartoons. How many other people my age, with kids, may be operating under the same illusion?

As dark as the Burton films were, they were very much based in fantasy. A baby thrown into a sewer who ends up being found and raised by penguins, or a woman who survives being pushed out of a skyscraper only to be licked back to life by cats -- these are not exactly realistic depictions of city life. So arguably some older children could make that distinction and not necessarily be scarred for life after seeing "Batman Returns," although I would not recommend that film for any child under the age of, say, 13.

But "The Dark Knight" -- with its graphic disfigurement of district attorney Harvey Dent, who subsequently ends up as the villainous Two-Face and at one point threatens a child with a gun -- clearly is a different ball game. For adults who enjoy this genre, it's a terrific film and an exciting story, well told. It works so well because it takes an adult approach to Batman, which is the way it should be. The more mature stories and graphic novels have always put the character to best use.

Yes, fear can be an enjoyable experience in childhood, when used appropriately -- who doesn't have fond memories of ghost stories around a campfire? But "The Dark Knight" is not for kids, and parents should know that what is inside the package, so to speak, may be very different from what they were expecting based on memories and past experience.