Review: The Dark Knight (2008) ****
Uneasy lies the head that wears the cowl
With The Dark Knight, director co-writer Christopher Nolan doesn’t get on his knees to grovel for audience acceptance. Instead, he grabs the superhero genre by its cape, slaps it across the face and says it’s time to get serious. Regular comic book readers won’t be surprised by the dark depths Nolan plumbs with the latest Bat-sequel, but those only familiar with movie and TV incarnations of the genre have another thing coming. Finally, here is a superhero movie that challenges its audience instead of pandering to it.
Christian Bale returns as Bruce Wayne, billionaire by day and costumed, crime-fighting vigilante by night. With his origin story already established in Batman Begins, The Dark Knight hits the ground running. After an opening bank heist that introduces a greasy, make-up smeared Heath Ledger as the Joker (also arriving fully formed and sans clumsy back story), the saga moves quickly to Batman’s attempt to clean up the Gotham City underworld.
With the help of Gary Oldman’s Lieutenant Gordon (seemingly the one good cop in a bad city) and good-guy/DA Harvey Dent, played with cleft-chinned charm by Aaron Eckhart, Batman squeezes the mob’s financial underpinnings and begins rounding up the scum by the truckload as it comes oozing out.
Like a cornered animal, the mob (led by a nicely sleazy Eric Roberts) strikes back hard. Meanwhile, bored with knocking off banks, the Joker offers up his services. Knowing that Batman’s strength lies in his secret identity, he threatens to start killing people off for every day Batman refuses to reveal himself.
“Some men just want to watch the world burn.”
While the mob is guided by greed and the law follows a sense of justice, the Joker is rudderless and unpredictable, interested only in the love of a challenge. He revels in forcing people to turn to their dark side and he’s happy to kill to get what he wants. Both the mob and the law have pressure points and weak spots, but there is no chink in the Joker’s armor. He’s an agent of chaos with nothing to lose; a literal wild card and, unleashed upon Gotham City, he simply wants to see it burn.
How do you fight a villain bent on destruction with nothing to lose? Those are the rules of the Joker’s game and the Dark Knight finds it increasingly difficult to continue to do good without also doing very bad. In a moment of doubt he says, “I see now what I’d have to become to stop men like him.” Ultimately however, Batman accepts that in a cruel irrational world sometimes a hero has to get his hands dirty so that the rest of us can keep ours clean.
It sounds like heavy stuff and it is. The Dark Knight has something on its mind and it’s not content to dish out simple uplift. Full to bursting with dark themes of heroes and hero worship; of villains and revenge; of institutionalized corruption and senseless violence; the film is a puzzle of dualities and dichotomies. There is good versus evil; greed versus good will; order versus chaos; and chance versus choice. In this film, there are two sides to every action, two sides to every character, and for every character a counterpoint.
In such a confusing world, one character decides that the only morality is 50/50 chance; heads or tails; live or die. It’s a convenient ethic, but time and again in The Dark Knight, for one to live another must die and in the end it’s no ethic at all. It’s a cop out.
There is always an uneasy fascist whiff to acts of vigilantism and The Dark Knight pushes the boundaries to the extreme, offering some queasy parallels to our own current political climate in the process. From a villain who can’t be reasoned with or threatened, to the literal rendition and interrogation of a citizen from another country, to the wiretapping of an entire city, it’s a disturbing story of our times. At a certain point, Batman seems willing to commit any wrong short of murder to achieve a right and the public is willing to turn the other way as long as it can keep its hands clean. Indeed the real audience cheers him on at every turn.
Is Nolan supporting this notion of “anything in the name of justice” or has he pulled off a Watchmen-like subversion of the very notion of a superhero just to see how an audience will respond? Like the Joker playing his game with the explosives rigged ferries, is he waiting to see if the audience will push the button to satisfy itself no matter the price?
Nolan seems at first to take a dim view of the public, yet in the film when the decision between right and wrong is literally placed in public hands (where it can’t hide behind a cape and a cowl), the public ultimately does the right thing. On the other hand, Batman is allowed to exist, letting the public project its misdeeds onto him, like some kind of shaman, absorbing evil spirits while living as an outcast so the tribe can live in peace. Perhaps that’s why we need the fictional character of Batman as much as the people in the movie need the real thing.
Befitting the dark edge of the film, Nolan and his production designers have striven for a sense of realism. This is not a primary colored, gravity defying wish-fulfillment fantasy, it’s a gritty slice of heightened reality. Batman’s outfit is meant for protection as much as disguise and intimidation. His toys and gadgets are combat vehicles. When he’s hit, he bruises.
Here however is where the film finally stumbles: unlike Batman, we don’t live in a PG-13 world. It’s a refrain I seem to sing more and more often, but The Dark Knight really could have and should have been rated R. In the film, the Joker says “I use a knife because guns are too quick. Otherwise, you can’t savor all the emotions. You know who people are in their last moments.” Yet at every turn, the film flinches just before things get genuinely brutal.
It’s not just that bloodless, consequence-free violence is more offensive than the gratuitousness of showing the violence in the first place (it is), it’s that here we have a realistic film brimming with adult themes that would’ve been strengthened by the real impact of the chaos portrayed on the screen. The Dark Knight is sitting at the big boy table now, but in its emasculated form, it’s not as powerful or resonant as it could have been.
Of course, none of this is Nolan’s fault. He did the best he could within the boundaries he was given by the studio, but it’s a shame Warner Bros. was more interested in the profit potential of a 4-quadrant audience than they were in creating art.
In the end, this need for cleanliness permeates the entire film and not for the better. For a movie that seems to promise such grit, The Dark Knight’s hands are oddly spotless. The Bruce Wayne character himself could’ve used some more flaws; a little more John Wayne in The Searchers and a little less square-jawed hero would’ve given the film another layer of interest.
Christian Bale does his best giving nuance to a thankless role, though the raspy growl he affects here as Batman is a little too much at times. In a reversal of many of the previous Batman characterizations, Bale is actually more interesting when he’s out of costume.
More fun all around is Heath Ledger as the Joker. This is why you buy a ticket and you will not be disappointed. In what will be his second to last role, Ledger reached down and dredged up the most disturbing screen incarnation of Batman’s arch-nemesis to date. On the other hand, it’s not a particularly deep characterization. This is not the late actor’s fault, but the character simply doesn’t have a soul. Under the circumstances, the best Ledger can do is a surface treatment. It’s a great one and it’s Ledger’s energy that drives much of the film, but this just isn’t a deeply human character. He is chaos personified, a kind of upside down agent provocateur, but not a feeling human being. Underneath the makeup, he’s mainly tics and mannerisms, grabbing all of the film’s attention while delivering none of its heart.
Morgan Freeman and Michael Caine meanwhile are both fine playing variations on the same characters they’ve been playing for years. As the head of Wayne Enterprises and Bruce Wayne’s tireless butler respectively, they lend the proceedings a dignity and some humor. As dual father figures, they also provide a sort of moral compass and act as one of the film’s many counterpoints.
Aaron Eckhart is good also as Harvey Dent. Full of ambition and eager, nervous energy, his character arc is the film’s most interesting. Less successful is Batman’s ex and Harvey Dent’s current squeeze Rachel Dawes. Maggie Gyllenhaal does her best and is a major improvement in the role over Katie Holmes, but again she isn’t given much to do. She’s an embodiment of purity (to Joker’s embodiment of chaos) rather than a flesh and blood character.
One of the more interesting aspects of the film is the score by James Newton Howard and Hans Zimmer. In creating the music for The Dark Knight, they threw out the manual on how to compose a superhero theme. This is not John Williams or Danny Elfman. This is a stripped down, eerie, percussive score that punches you in the gut instead of leaving you humming a catchy tune. Particularly excellent is the theme used for the Joker. Most of his appearances are preceded by a disturbing electronic howl bringing to mind Daniel Plainview flailing away in a mineshaft. It’s ominous, effective work and it greases the layers of darkness and dread shot through the entire film.
Equally unconventional is Nolan’s treatment of the film’s action sequences. He was criticized in Batman Begins for their choppy, chaotic handling and he delivers more of the same here. Some aren’t going to like the lack of clarity and geography, but if Nolan had been interested in such a thing, there are dozens of second unit guys he could’ve brought in just to handle the chases and fights.
I don’t think he was aiming for fluid, exciting action sequences. I think he was more interested in the chaotic feeling of being inside the danger rather than observing from a safe vantage point. The Wachowski Brothers took a similar approach to Speed Racer earlier this summer with much weaker critical and box office results.
Overall, it’s clear The Dark Knight is not content with ordinary superhero thrills and some may be left wondering where the fun is. However, I suspect it has hit a sweet spot where it is serious enough to be elevated above child’s play, but not so serious as to have all the fun taken out of it.
Those who complain it’s just a comic book movie will be shown its darkness and serious of purpose while those who complain it isn’t hard-edged enough will be reminded it’s just a comic book movie. Batman has it both ways. Yet, for a film that went so far in transforming our expectations of the genre, it’s a shame it couldn’t go all the way. Call The Dark Knight a terrific movie, but a near miss when it comes to greatness.
The Dark Knight. USA 2008. Directed by Christopher Nolan. Co-written by Christopher Nolan and Jonah Nolan from a story by Christopher Nolan and David S. Goyer. Cinematography by Wally Pfister. Production design by Nathan Crowley. Costume design by Lindy Hemming. Edited by Lee Smith. Starring Christian Bale, Heath Ledger, Aaron Eckhart, Michael Caine, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Gary Oldman and Morgan Freeman. 2 hours 32 minutes. MPAA Rated PG-13 for intense sequences of violence and some menace. 4 stars (out of 5)
Filed under: Reviews
Related Posts: - ‘Knight’ tops ‘Express’ at the box office…or does it?
- Heath Ledger, Actor: 1979 - 2008
- Joker Robs Banks, ‘Dark Knight’ Takes it Back
- When I’m wrong, I’m wrong…And I’m wrong.
- Dark January Knights
Wow, what a truly magnificent piece of writing! You have really outdone yourself, sir, with this ‘leave no stone unturned’ treatment. I salute you.
I agree on Batman’s one-dimensionality, and that all things considered, Bale was more interesting out of costume. Love your bringing up of the “eerie, percussive score” that Zimmer and Howard wrote for the film, and its evocative use. Similarly, you spoke for a generation in your treatment of Ledger’s already iconic performance.
Interestingly, you stayed clear of a full consideration of another reason why this film, as excellent as it is may not warrant a five-star rating, and that is the genre it is part of. Perfect execution may not be enough–the film doesn’t have the intellectual weight that many foreign-language films and independents do, but neither is the film aiming for that. But you correctly use that knife line that Ledger issues in saying that “guns are too quick” and the screw up with the PG and R ratings. And in one of the review’s early paragraphs you make a great point about the Warner Brothers “profit potential” as a stumbling block to making a definitive work of art.
But you issued a strong review here, one that is deserved for the greatest superhero movie of them all and at least a “contender” for a year-end top ten list. It may miss, and isn’t in my perceptions a greater film than WALL-E, but it is an arresting, full-bodied film, that isn’t easy to shake. You obviously worked very hard on this review, and it really shows.
Thanks Sam. I didn’t sweat over it too much. Mostly procrastinated it.
I’ve tried to judge the film on its own terms and as such I think it goes beyond the limitations of the genre you talk about, I just wish that it could’ve gone farther.
Still, it’s the best superhero movie in a long long time.
Fabulous review, Craig.
My own take on the PG-13 rated violence ties in with your point about Nolan not necessarily wanting to shoot “fluid action sequences” (though I honestly think The Dark Knight is a big step up from Batman Begins in this regard): Nolan is primarily interested in ideas, and in this sense, the idea of violence is enough. Notice too how clean these films are with regards to language and other matters. The Dark Knight works fully in my view largely because of the more intellectual “probing” of the themes of the story… Contrast this with Wanted, which had R-rated violence but didn’t have a brain in its body. Lots of blood is realistic and all, but if it’s just dumb, gratuitous and wasteful as I thought that film’s violence was (which was admittedly like a videogame or something) it doesn’t have the impact The Dark Knight’s “tamer” violence actually does, for one comparison.
Love the many points regarding the film’s technical merits, and the score is certainly a winner. Ledger really is as captivating as he was made out to be.
As I just posted at CCC, I really need to see this again before I tap out a review myself. For right now I’m enjoying soaking up other people’s thoughts, and most especially this review, Craig, which as I said is just fabulous.
Also, was it just me, or was the Wayne/Dawes/Dent situation the most realistic love triangle since The Unbearable Lightness of Being?
Alexander: why am I having trouble posting at your site? I have been successful at other sites like Getafilm with sign ins, and I get on. But on yours, everytime I enter my password it says “wrong password.” I want to post but I keep failing…….Sam
What a wonderfully crafted and thoughtful review Craig. One of your best, and that’s saying something. I look forward to revisiting your thoughts after seeing the film myself.
Don’t know what’s wrong, Sam. I’m very sorry for the inconvenience. Sartre has had trouble with it in the past as well.
I’ll try to get to the bottom of it…
Thank you Alexander, I will keep trying in the interim.
I didn’t realize Craig, that Ledger still has at least part of another film that is upcoming.
Craig, your review here, like so many others you write is a thing of exquisite critical beauty. You don’t need me to tell you how brilliant and comprehensive and perceptive it is (though I will later anyway). We’re close enough buddies that we can disagree and maintain the highest level of personal respect, so what I’ll do is defend a movie that I liked a little better than you did (I’d give it 4.5 stars), and I’ll do my defending the same way I do when I’m up against any other rock-solid monument of writing — by trying to find a tiny chink in the surface where I can stick a probe and chip away a small piece that doesn’t entirely convince me. I’ll have more than one point of contention, but don’t want to unload them all once, so here’s where I’ll begin:
For me, it isn’t. What’s happens to Rachel is not consequence-free. What happens to Harvey Dent is not consequence-free. They are life-altering, plot-altering, mind-altering incidents. Instead of an R-rated movie that shows the back of a somebody’s head getting blown off in splattering bloom of pretty pink mist, before quickly moving on to show another dozen gory acts of brief and emotionless mutilations (yeah, like most of the murders in No Country for Old Men), we stay with Harvey Dent and are forced to look at the consequences of the violence up close for 45 minutes. Nolan rubs our noses in it. The Coens — much as I love ‘em — treat every brutal killing in No Country like a sick joke (except for Carla Jean’s death — from which they politely cut away to protect us in a demur moment of PC PG-13ness).
And I only chose No Country as an example because it stands at the pinnacle of R-rated studies of violence. There are 30 other (lesser) R-rated movies a year showing us mindless acts of violence in such a way that they actually numb audiences to the messy effect of the violence they pornographically portray.
Name me an instance in any movie of the past 12 months that comes close to the the tangible visceral threat that hung over the head of Commissioner Jordan and his child in the climactic Two-Face face-off. Name one. I haven’t felt my heart knot up over a mentally-disturbed fiend like that in years.
An R-rating is not the only path to enlightened maturity. If it were, then how can 40 of the best films noir from the ’40’s still hit us with such impact?
And this is why the PG-13 is in fact a very valuable limitation. It doesn’t restrict the lessons The Dark Knight has to impart to an exclusive audience of grown-ups. It finds a way to express itself within the ridiculous boundaries of the MPAA so it can teach these tough-minded lessons to kids who would normally be stuck going to see Space Chimps this weekend. Instead of being a cop-out, that makes it the most boldly subversive movie in many many months.
uh craig…that’s a very *interesting* photo you’ve chosen… ;)
and and don’t foget my ‘troubles’ too alexander… ;)
I tried to make the same point you bring up about the PG-13 issue, Alexander, but the spam filter ate my comment. (while you & I typed simultaneously — like a lost scene from The Prestige.)
ok, fess up. How much protection money are you paying the LiC monkeys to fuck with me?
Having missed Wall*E (and many other low-profile potential candidates), I can’t say this categorically, but… I think The Dark Knight is the first and, possibly, only film to get at the core of what America is in 2008.
On its broad canvas, it covers all of the anxieties we’re facing right now. We’ve already compromised our ideals and given into vigilantism. Can we return from that precipice? Can things ever be the same? Will our “white knight” (Obama) succeed or be consumed by the demands on his goodness? Will the Jokers of the world bring down this whole house of cards? Can we type in “Lucius Fox” and make that network of illegal wire tapping (and rendition and executive privilege and the list goes on) go away?
I’m overextending the reach of those metaphors, but the parallels are there. If there’s fault to be found in The Dark Knight, it’s that the Nolan brothers have packed away too many themes in its 2.5 hour runtime. At times, it’s overwhelming, and they’re forced to simplify so much. Make no mistake, Lau died atop that pire of burning money, but we don’t see it. Rachel Dawes is sacrificed to the forces of terror and chaos, but her character has been painted in broad strokes to that point and I imagine some of the potential energy was sapped from the sacrifice because of it. In the real world, you can’t create a universal wiretapping system and just destroy with a few key strokes. If only we could. Likewise, corporations don’t care how shady their Chinese partners are. It goes without saying that Wayne Enterprises would have fallen by the wayside due to its high ideals.
But I was absolutely enthralled by this film. There’s so much to take in, I have to see it again. If Batman Begins was the prologue, The Dark Knight is one epic of a thesis.
Finally, I was never a fan of Heath Ledger. I wasn’t blown away by Brokeback Mountain or his shambling, mumbling performance in it. But, his performance as The Joker is transformative. For so much of it, the fact that I was watching Ledger in caked-on makeup and that this would be Ledger’s final completed performance escaped me. That is so rare that it has to be indicative of brilliance.
The performance isn’t mainly tics and mannerisms. His delivery of multiple stories about how he received his scars felt genuine. It’s the kind of thing people, not just comic-book villains, do. And, while it adds to the swaggering, enigmatic nature of the character, it reveals something deeper. There’s real pain there and The Joker’s coping mechanism is very different from Wayne’s when it comes to dealing with psychological pain.
That’s the end of my rambling, for now. Fantastic film.
I hear you, glimmer (and again, Sam). Unfortunately I haven’t figured out what’s wrong yet. Perhaps Sartre (*cough*) has some advice for you guys since he seems to have overcome the commenting issues there (*cough*). When it comes to this, I’m pretty much a dullard.
Ryan, ya got me. I’ve been bribing the LiC monkeys right under Craig’s nose for a while with peanuts and bananas.
W.J., that’s a marvelous analysis of The Dark Knight’s Medusa hydra head’s worth of themes.
Dark Knight spoilers below, so Sartre and others, avert your eyes…
To me, and I plan on writing this in my review, The Dark Knight is first and foremost a thematic continuation of Batman Begins. In Begins, Nolan examined fear–outward fear, and how it’s used and why–and as Dr. Crane says in that film what “Jungian archetypes” manifest themselves (obviously most iconically for Wayne, bats). In The Dark Knight, the essay goes inward rather than outward. In the face of senseless, raging iniquity, the fear is of ourselves. What are we capable of? What can we do, and can we live with ourselves as a result? As Craig points out in his review very well, Batman shoulders disproportionate responsibility in Gotham: finally, he’s Guantanamo Bay; he’s the rule-breaking cop who beats crucial suspects. He’s the guy who gets his hands dirty (and dirtier and dirtier) so others don’t have to.
Another important theme is that of the truth, and whether or not it’s as important as “the legend.” In the end, Batman and Gordon decide to print the legend regarding Dent, and Alfred chooses to let Bruce Wayne remain deluded with regards to Rachel’s personal objective. Alfred decides that Rachel can be whatever Bruce needs her to be, from now on, now that she’s gone, and as Gordon tells his son, Batman is the one who fights for Gotham and will take the burden for it (a messianic bit of sin-cleansing that more than anything else puts the film in the broadest possible interpretation of the “superhero genre”).
In this way, not only is The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance echoed, but so too Shane, with Gordon playing Van Heflin’s virtuous farmer, Batman as Alan Ladd’s shadowy gunslinger, with Gordon’s son calling out, “Batman!” as the titular, outside-the-law Dark Knight runs off, wounded by an adversary in the effort to save the child.
“Perhaps Sartre (*cough*) has some advice for you guys since he seems to have overcome the commenting issues there (*cough*). ”
Abandon all hope.
Sadly, that’s my only advice. My name eventually started coming up automatically in the site’s post a comment section, and I can’t recall how I got google to finally start co-operating to this extent.
Yeah, I’m with Alex on the film conveying “the idea of violence”. Above all, the film is about theme, and in this aspect Nolan’s work is a complete success. It has a few minor shortcomings. What happens at the party after Batman saves Rachel? It just….ends. The Joker and his gang just left, I guess? And I agree, Batman’s voice is too deep, too gravelly, too much.
It’s an excellent film, though. Maybe not my favorite of the year, but certainly an ambitious, provocative, singular effort. And I think it’s Echhart’s movie.
Just got home from Roman Polanski. Ryan’s comment is restored in all it’s proper glory at #8, check it out. I’ll have comments in a moment.
Yeah! An argument.
I think Ryan and Alexander and it looks like Ari as well, we’re just going to end up on opposite sides of the violence issue, but let’s air it out and have some fun with it.
I think you’re apologizing it for Nolan a bit because the rest of the movie was such a raging success. If Nolan could’ve gotten away with an R, I really believe he would’ve gotten one and to not have one was a total capitulation and it marred the film for me.
What happened to Dent and Dawes was not “plot altering,” it was plot mandated. Two-Face walked around with half a face, because that’s the character. Sure it was more gruesome than the awful Schumacher version, but that’s because they could get away with it within the rating.
And yes, I do find clean and easy violence to be more offensive than gratuitous violence. I hated Rambo, not because of the depiction of the violence, but because of the nature of it. Nolan’s violence was completely justified and integral to the themes of the film, but it was a funride simulacrum of violence and not the real thing.
Regardless of what you think of the Coen treatment of same, that violence hurt me. It was unpleasant and brutal and it made the violence against Carla Jean all the more horrifying even though we didn’t see it.
As for WJ’s point about Joker, I didn’t believe either of his stories for a minute. I felt he was telling them because they amused him and horrified his victims. There was no real feeling behind them.
Regarding both points, I really would’ve liked to have seen this movie again before finishing my review. There is too much going on with the movie to really be fair to it on one pass, but things get old on the internet really quick and I wanted to get my thoughts out there.
Fire back and make new points. Was I the only liberal who was troubled by the messages of the film?
Also, I agree with Ari about it being Eckhart’s movie.
Spoilers follow:
Eckhart plays the character with the biggest arc and in that sense, it’s his movie. I think Maggie was harmed mostly by the fact that she was taking over a role that was poorly developed by Katie Holmes. I’ve seen a couple complaints that she was weak, but her character was given little room to get our attention before she was killed off. But it was an important death, something Superman or Spiderman or Wolverine could never do and in that respect, say what you will about the emotional impact, but it was a hugely important moment in the film.
Batman chooses to make a true sacrifice for his ideal of Gotham City, not for his ideal of himself. In a sense, it’s Batman in a nutshell but it’s powerful because the ramifications of it are so unpredictably huge.
I’d disagree that the R-rating matters. This was one of the most brutal, most realistic films I’ve seen in quite some time. People die. And in some cases, their deaths are fairly ugly, especially when played off-screen. The terror and horror are both visceral in Dark Knight but they also have depth. For me, when people died in Dark Knight, it felt very real. By the mid-way point of the movie, I no longer assumed any of the main characters might survive the ending. I was completely convinced that the Joker had tossed out the genre rulebook and was playing for keeps and everyone in that city was wearing a target on their soul.
Alexander’s comment about Wanted is dead-on: Wanted is an R-rated cartoon where death happens in all it’s bloody glory over and over and over again, yet it has all the weight and gravity of an Atari 2600-era video game. Dark Knight on the other hand has a human face to the violence. Death in Gotham has ramifications, has weight, and it costs a little bit of each character’s soul.
As for the liberal in me, yes, I was a bit bothered by politics of the film but I think Nolan is making a commentary on us as a culture, and when I say “us” I mean all of Western culture. We’re all culpible in this nightmare world we all live in now. We allow our leaders to break the rules but when it offends us, we do little to stop it or change it. Like the press conference where Dent reveals Batman’s identity, we want to point fingers and find fault but we don’t want to accept responsibility for making the really difficult decisions and sacrifices required to right the wrongs and fix the problems that got us here.
Great review Craig, but I slightly disagree with you.
And just to follow up on the previous comment from earlier this weekend, the masses have spoken.
IMDb Top 250 movies as voted by our users
1. The Dark Knight (2008)
http://www.imdb.com/chart/top
Yes, I see I’m going to be on the other side of the fence on the violence issue. I suppose there’s no accounting for a person’s reaction to different situations.
I can’t speak about Wanted because I didn’t see it, but it seems like a bogus argument to me. Dark Knight is a superior film (I assume) and it only would’ve been enhanced by the realism. With Wanted it sounds like it was using it gratuitously as a distraction. That would not have been the case with TDK.
All I can say is that I’m not haunted by any of the violence in The Dark Knight as I was by, say, No Country or There Will Be Blood.
When I think about the message of the film (and on this score I really need to see it again), I’m reminded of how people misunderstood the message of A Clockwork Orange.
I forgot this: I do agree that the movie’s narrative is a bit sloppy, a comment I’ve seen echoed elsewhere. Characters do tend to come and go when it’s convenient for the narrative the Nolans need to reach by the end credits, but the key for me is that I didn’t even notice until other folks pointed it out. One of my rules about movies is that if mistakes are made or convoluted devices are employed and I’m too involved to notice, then they’re doing something right and it’s all OK with me.
I also think the final action scene is a bit too chaotic at points, but it’s still worlds more understandable than the convulsive camera work and editing of the last two Bourne movies.
All in all, I liked what I got.
“One of my rules about movies is that if mistakes are made or convoluted devices are employed and I’m too involved to notice, then they’re doing something right and it’s all OK with me.” I agree 100%. There was one moment of confusion for me…what exactly went down with the Russian guy and the fake Batmen?…but then I forgot all about it and just sat back and enjoyed myself.
Also, to be clear, I do think Maggie did the best she could with very little. I wasn’t intending to crap on her performance.
Well, I agree that Wanted was a convenient comparison since it’s the last released R-rated film I could think of, and I hated it, so I liked the idea of kicking it in the gut a couple more times while defending The Dark Knight.
For a vastly more appropriate comparison then, I’d say that the violence in the film Nolan said he at least partly modeled The Dark Knight on, was almost the equal of the R-rated Heat. I say that because having seen Heat again a few months back, the only major difference I can think of is the scene where DeNiro finds one of his cohorts grievously wounded at his pad. Otherwise, there are gunshot wounds and bits of blood but there too Mann cuts away quite a bit from what would have been, arguably, more than needed to get the point across (like the black prostitute getting killed, for instance). There are probably some other differences in the violence but I don’t remember them whereas I think I’ll remember the Joker’s pencil trick, like Roman Polanski slicing Nicholson’s nose in Chinatown, forever, despite its Pyscho shower scene-esque “it’s not really happening, you just think it is” editing.
I think the violence in No Country for Old Men primarily leaves an impression on me because it’s so pointed and morally eviscerating, as well as thrillingly well-executed besides. The graphic nature of the violence works for that story, and as we’ve discussed in the past the way it’s handled narratively (like the way the pickup truck driver gets it as soon as Moss jumps in) drives it.
But, at the same time, I think the violence of James Cagney’s character in White Heat, like shooting guys who overhear his name or are stuck in the trunk of a car, works perfectly fine and always hits me hard.
The Dark Knight’s violence works for me because the filmmaking, from the screenwriting/plotting (and conception) of it to the actual on-set production of those scenes, are, for me anyway, entirely convincing in their own world, on their own terms, in a way that is pretty visceral seriatim throughout the course of the film.
Oh, the Russian guy and his thugs were conducting some kind of business deal with Scarecrow pertaining to the latter’s drugs. The fake Batmen made their presence known and actually seemed to scare some of the Russian’s goons, but the Scarecrow knew that they were just guys dressed up in “hockey pads,” then the real thing showed up shortly thereafter. But it will be good to see it again, as I plan to tomorrow (partly because it’s looking like I’m going to have to serve jury duty beginning on Tuesday).
Fantastic review Craig, I have no idea what else to add here, so I won’t even try.
Yeesh, there’s a lot to talk about here (I just saw the movie Sunday night). The one thing I want to get at right now comes off something Alexander said near the top: “Nolan is primarily interested in ideas”. What we know now, after six Nolan movies, is that he’s a primarily cerebral director - almost to a fault. And I would argue, after my single viewing, that the Nolans are prioritizing ‘theme’ in The Dark Knight at the expense of other factors. Usually I wouldn’t complain about a movie being ‘too smart’ or ‘too ambitious’ but in this case I feel like they really skirt the edge, so that the political/social themes on occasion crowd out the basic life of the film, the emotions and moods of the story and the characters. Which is probably why my single favorite moment in the movie is the one involving the Joker and the not-quite-working-right remote control device, it’s one of the only moments in the movie where we’re allowed to take a pause and enjoy the absurdity of it all instead of being pushed along to the next plot twist. (Along the same lines, I liked the small part played by Nicky Katt as the cop in the truck in the big chase sequence).
Quite a lot to digest here, but I have to side with Alexander and others here regarding the violence. Granted, I’m not usually one who enjoys the graphic stuff (though Alexander again hits on the head about NCFOM), but as has been said here, I think it was just as effective to imply much of the nasty work by the Joker. Did we actually need to see the blade go in and make all of those smiles, a la Pan’s Labyrinth (for which I turned away)?
I think I understand what you’re saying, Craig, and I don’t think you’re encouraging senseless violence. I just happen to disagree about the degree to which it was necessary here.
Great review, by the way - definitely deserving of the full treatment!
Yeah, I’m with Nick. I’m playing around with a review (by the way, I give the film an A), so we’ll see. I will say that our takes on the violence in the film will be quite different, Craig (though I’m 100% with you regarding the growl…oh the growl) :)
I would tend to agree that is frustrating how easily the general public (and simple-minded male twenty-somethings in general) tend to miss the point of films like Clockwork Orange. Or Fight Club. Or Taxi Driver.
They will likely miss many of the points in The Dark Knight too, which implies that the film either needs to be less thrilling in its genre elements or more over-the-top nasty in its harsher ones. In this respect, Craig, I see your point and I concede that because Nolan is only able to go to a certain point and then must pull back from the edge, the movie’s message is blunted slightly. But I think The Dark Knight is so pitch black DARK that it still holds up, if we’re contemplative enough to actually see the film for what it is rather than liking the icing more than the cake.
As to Jeff’s comment, I’d agree that the movie rarely lets up to really let us enjoy the absurdity of it. My favorite moment in the movie is when the Joker has his head out the window of the police car: purely sublime in a cinematic sense, yet the moment itself is crowded with terrifying symbolism. The villain has subverted our authority and protectors: no one can protect you from him.
I also really liked the Joker’s final scene, which in purely cinematic terms (again with that phrase) really speaks volumes to me visually.
I’d agree, Jeff, that the Nolans are cramming so much in that film is fit to bursting, but I think it works well here and gives us much to chew on with repeated viewings. It’s rare that I see a genre film and have so much to get at.
Oh, and thanks for the rendition comment in your review, Craig. Spot on. Completely missed that one.
It’s funny, as I was writing the review I took the violence angle for granted and I assumed the controversy would be over my take on Ledger’s performance…incidentally the one opinion I’m willing to back off on upon further review.
I will admit the whole PG-13 thing is a bee in my particular bonnet and I’m possibly putting too much emphasis on it. Having said that, I do believe Nolan would’ve made an R film if he could’ve gotten away with it.
Next March I’ll be making the exact same complaints about The Watchmen. Fair warning.
Joel, are you talking about when he’s upside down? I think that might’ve been my favorite part of the movie.
And Jeff, I think you’re right that the film treads a fine line between theme and entertainment. It may wobble at times, but for the most part I think it delivers. More of the former than the latter, which is kind of why I expected ‘the masses’ to lose interest.
Yeah, without giving too much away, the upside down shot that is inverted on-screen. I think that shot works really well in context and I was surprised by it, but then I recalled all the visual tomfoolery Nolan employed in Memento.
I also liked the shot with Dent on the floor that is turned 90 degrees, but that one fairly obvious to me.
This is the first film I’ve been truly overwhelmed by in a good long time, as so much happened in it, and Jeff’s right that there are so many plot twists, that it’s very difficult to remember the complete chronology of it all. The Dark Knight takes its breaths, but after a short recess it goes right back to the track and starts running at full speed again. It should help greatly to see it again today.
Heh heh, after ruffling a few feathers with a 4 out of 5 star review, I pitty the poor fools who panned the movie.
I may have mentioned already, but for me it was a case where I loved it in the moment, but when I started thinking about it afterwards, issues started cropping up.
As I said with Nick’s review, I admire your restraint in keeping it at 4, Craig. Not to take anything away from those who consider it perfect through and through, but if we’re going to argue 5/5 star reviews, I’d rather be on the side of a NCFOM or Jesse James than The Dark Knight. I gave it a 94 A, for the record.
Since favorite Joker moments were mentioned, mine are the driving of the squad car with the head out the window and the prancing outside in the nurse’s outfit.
Daniel, this is a case I think were subsequent viewings could change my opinion up or down. Such is the hazard of reviews without the benefit of hindsight.
I know this opens the can of worms called Oscar, but if William Hurt’s screaming, hammy, ticks-and-mannerisms performance in A History of Violence could get nominated, I think Ledger’s far more versatile and actually more grounded performance could be as well.
I loved how when Batman is bouncing Joker around like a rubber ball, the Joker gleefully laughs–largely because he’s enjoying the sensation(s) of it all. When he starts to fall, he cackles and I think he doesn’t even think about the fact that he’s about to die; he just loves the sensation, the feeling of falling in the air. It’s as insane as anything you’ll ever see but Ledger makes it disturbingly authentic and very believable.
Pity them you should, Craig, as the weight of a million fanboys has been thrust upon their shoulders. Those that posted negative reviews to Rottentomatoes are being treated as though they committed a heinous crime in the comments sections.
It’s actually very unnerving and scary that you apparently aren’t allowed to disagree that Dark Knight isn’t a crowning success. Those that do disagree are told to shut up because it’s just a comic book movie. Just a comic book movie? Can’t a comic book movie aspire to be more than just a live-action cartoon and if it fails in doing so, can’t we discuss that like adults rather than acting like children?
Alas, apparently not. I liked the movie a lot but I agree there’s room for criticism, although I admit some of the criticism itself has been fairly juvenile (cough, Edelstein, Armond White, cough cough).
Ahhh…the O-word. I was thinking this morning on the way into the office that I could apply many of my issues with Joker to Anton Chigurh…a character I was undeniably moved by.
Partly I think I’m giving in to the backlash urge and a feeling deep down that Ledger is getting an extra benefit of a doubt because he died.
Having said that, while I was watching the film I kept forgetting it was him. It was only at the end after it was over and I was thinking about how good he was and how we won’t get to see him do it again and I was sad.
Joel’s second paragraph illustrates precisely why the rabid fanboys are their own worst enemy.
I have yet to wade into the critical trenches. I’m about Batted out, but I’ll probably start with the negs.
Craig, I agree with you about the Anton Chigurh comparison. I defended Bardem’s performance wholly, and I thought just a few scenes were so beautifully rendered they demonstratively illuminated the depths of the character (on the phone with Moss and confronting Carla Jean will always be the two standouts in this regard for me). The Joker has some scenes that do that for me, too. The most unnerving in some ways is the scene in the hospital with Dent. That scene felt like it was a translucent look inside the guy’s mind while also serving more of Nolan’s examination of the battling philosophies at the heart of the film.
I guess my take on Ledger’s performance was that weren’t any scenes of his that DIDN’T stand out for me. Some of his dialogue was a bit perfunctory, but I thought the performance as a whole was very strong. But the Joker is also a very showy role, one that any number of actors could do a lot with, so I’m feeling more and more strongly that Eckhart did the most heavy-lifting in this film. He has far more emotional ground to cover than Ledger does.
Of course, I say that with the idea in mind that the Joker probably falls into Craig’s rule of crazy people performances or mentally/developmentally-disabled people performances being sure-fire Oscar winners. And it’s going to be hard to not put Ledger at the top of my list at the end of the year right now.
See I want to be clear I think Ledger did a terrific job. I prefer this characterization to Nicholson’s and everyone knows how I feel about Nicholson.
It’s just the character didn’t resonate with me in some way. It’s not like I identified with or empathized with Chigurh either, but there was something else to that character. Maybe because his face wasn’t hidden by makeup?
I don’t know, like I said, it’s the one bone of contention I’m most likely to change my mind on. I’m sticking with the violence issue though :)
I don’t doubt you think Ledger did a terrific job, Craig, although I get the lack of resonating from your review. Hmmm.
“the prancing outside in the nurse’s outfit.”
Ha! Brando would have loved that! Definitely one of the best moments. My own personal favorite Joker moment (and the one that got the loudest laugh at the theater I saw it in) came a little before that, when you just get a simple close up of The Joker wearing that hideous wig and calmly says “Hi” (or “Hello,” I can’t remember) to Harvey.
Showy performance generally trumps understated on the awards front.
I can’t comment on Ledger’s creation or anything else about the film without seeing it. But bravo to everyone who has contributed to this thread. It makes for such erudite and engaging reading. I’ve not seen its like sense the discussions stimulated by NCfOM, Jesse James, TWbB, and the Coens canon.
And it’s all been pulled off without threats and name calling.
This is a truly fantastic piece of writing. A great review that goes deep, but keeps it relevant and concise. I thoroughly enjoyed reading it. And I couldn’t possibly have anything to add except, I agree!
OK, so I’ve been without internet access most of the day and am late to the discussion, but here’s my take, particularly on the violence angle, for which, I too am on the opposite side of Craig’s fence.
Craig, I always appreciate and am a bit dazzled by your fine writing, especially here and we basically agree TDK was a fantastic film, but I disagree with your argument that the film’s PG-13 rating somehow diminishes the film it could have been. I bought your similar argument with Hellboy II because you were basically arguing that had he been able to circumvent the studios’ single-minded fascination with turning a buck, del Toro could have and would have made it a smarter movie that went beyond a token acknowledgement of its several complex themes. But your argument here—as I read it—is that Nolan had to sanitize the violence for the kiddies, so he takes us to the brink and then pulls back.
The film doesn’t need to be grislier to be more effective. What is this fascination so many people have with seeing violence on screen? I don’t buy that we’re all so desensitized to violence that in order to have any dramatic heft the acts must be shown in gruesome detail. And though The Dark Knight did not actually show The Joker slicing through entrails or gouging out eyeballs, the film was far from bloodless, and like Ryan, Alexander and some of you other fine folks put it, was steeped in consequences.
I think you hit it right on the head when you said the film manages to find that rare sweet spot between comic book entertainment and a dark, adult-themed crime and morality drama. And that’s not a bad thing, a compromise of ideals, but a rare achievement in itself. After reading your review, I tried to imagine a less-sanitized TDK, one that “goes there”, and I don’t like it. I think Christopher Nolan made the film he wanted to make, both pushing and respecting boundaries, and I think that was the most artistically sound decision. I am not at all sure he would have gone after the R rating if he’d had the choice. Maybe, but I’m awfully glad he didn’t.
I know a lot of people are hungering for an R-rated superhero movie that does for the genre what HBO’s non-network standards did for TV crime series with The Sopranos. We’ll at least get that rating with Watchmen, though I’m skeptical of the end result—but I wouldn’t penalize TDK for not being that film.
Several people in my life think of any ratings other than R (or for some, NC-17) as being a compromise, not really honest filmmaking. I guess they feel it’s like watching your mouth when you are over at the preacher’s house—you do it, but you’re conscious you’re on your best behavior, not exactly reflective of how you’d be at home in front of the TV, yelling obscenities at Chris Matthews, scratching your balls, whatever.
But cinema verite and superheroes have an inherent tension, to say the least. Employing sufficient on-screen violence, sex, or obscenities to merit an R rating for a superhero flick—however honest—wouldn’t necessarily be a groundbreaking achievement, even in a film as otherwise adult as this one. In fact, it very well could be a creative cop-out. In my opinion, it takes more skill and tonal balance to do what Nolan did here: evoking the same gut responses of horror and revulsion to The Joker’s amoral antics and malicious glee as a few cheap shots of flesh wounds or prolonged torture scenes would do, but with only a PG-13 toolbox to use.
And here, probably at the heart of the matter, it’s really subjective: I certainly didn’t think the violence was consequence-free, and I found it plenty disturbing. Then again, I’m only a little less empathetic than your average Betazoid (oops, my geek is showing), so I’m probably a little more sensitive to movie deaths, even in action flicks where you expect these things, than some folks
Maybe I’m just being an old codger(ess) like the person who says civil unions are plenty progress enough, don’t push me too fast into this gay marriage legislation thing, but while I like my superhero movies edgy and adult-themed like TDK, I don’t want them leaving all childish things behind. It’s important to me that kids can still watch Batman and not only enjoy the many ka-pow! and zap! moments in it without having nightmares afterwards, but also take away some greater understanding of the complexities of the adult world. They may not get it right away, but give them a movie they can still watch and love, and they’ll grow into it. TDK did that, and Nolan’s already reinvented and revolutionized the genre enough for the time being.
Also, I see where you were coming from, but I didn’t see Ledger’s character as soulless. He may feel no remorse for the havoc he creates, but that doesn’t mean there’s no humanity, however malignant, behind his eyes. There is nothing benevolent left in him, but he displays so many of the traits we humans value, just all twisted and subverted against us. He’s the smartest character I’ve ever seen in a superhero movie, is bold, fearless, and against our will, charms us with his humor and charisma. He’s a liar and a cheat whenever it serves him, but also brutally honest, speaking truth—as he sees it—to power. He’d have gotten into any MBA program in the country.
Throughout the movie, we see people trying to marginalize Ledger’s Joker as a despicable freak, a made-up face on a thug with only those tics and mannerisms you cited at his disposal, but he refuses to be so categorically defined or dismissed. There is a liveliness to him that rivets us, a malevolent playfulness we can’t help but admire, at least partly because he’s abandoned all the inhibitions that hold us back in our relatively boring lives. We might be loathe to be anything like him, but ya gotta respect his moxie.
Like The Departed and No Country for Old Men, this movie is full of all the parallels, dualities, mirror images, foils and opposites you mentioned, and I ate that stuff up. There’s a lot going on, yes. Some of you say Nolan tried to cram too much in, be it themes, political allusions or sub-plots, but to me, that’s like complaining “You made too much tasty food!” It’s not going bad. Get a doggy bag. The leftovers taste better the next day, anyway.
That’s just my take on it, from this side of the sandbox. I could be wrong.
..or you could be right. It’s getting awfully lonely on this side of the fence.:)
Thank you for that detailed counterpoint to my arguments.
It’s funny you mention Hellboy because I’d forgotten I’d taken the same tack on that one. Hancock I remembered, and I know it’s been a point of contention for me lately.
It’s not like I was looking for a gore fest. entrails and body parts flying willy nilly, but a little bit of blood. I don’t remember any.
As for Ledger, maybe you can see my resolve melting, but I like your take on the character. I’m warming up to it and to Ledger’s performance. Sometimes I’m slow to get there, but I arrive eventually.
It’s funny though I’ve never had such disagreement with a film we all liked!
One of the things I love about this site, though, is exactly that–we can all disagree on a film we all more or less like, even love, without everyone getting personally bent out of shape.
And I wasn’t really trying to put you in with the “entrails flying willy-nilly” Eli Roth crowd. It’s funny, though. In Sweeney Todd there was such talk, shock, and debate over how bloody and gruesome it was, and it wasn’t a quarter as bloody as I was expecting. That’s a film that really was stylistically served by the occasional arterial spray and I didn’t mind a bit. Kill Bill, Pulp Fiction, etc. also. I don’t mind it when I feel like it fits, but I was glad the camera pulled away in TDK. It was dark enough, blood would have been overkill, I think.
By the way, when we got home from the theater, Burton’s Batman was on. It looked so cheesy and dated. At the time, I remember how impressive the art direction, costumes, etc seemed to me. But it’s been almost 20 years. I guess that makes a difference.
See you have this clever knack…”You write great reviews, but you’re also totally eating shit on this one!”
All I see is the first part. :)
I’ve been criticized before for not being more confrontational and combative. I’m sure being more of an AM talk radio host would make for a livelier and heavier trafficked blog, but that just isn’t my style. I prefer polite disagreements.
You make a great point about overkill too. There’s a real chance that if I’d gotten my R rating, I would’ve been repulsed. Mind you, I’m the guy who didn’t care for all the violence in Pan’s Labyrinth. My justification is that Pan’s was a different movie. I loved the fairytale element, which was dark and sinister and scary, but it wasn’t outright unpleasant. The real world violence of that film simply put me off and ruined the magic of the other part I was so into.
I’ve been meaning to revisit the first two Batmans and even in retrospect they seem like child’s play compared to the two most recent films. I remember at the time people were a little surprised at how dark and creepy they were. Nolan has upped the ante.
Jennybee said I was trying to get at yesterday. Glad she took the time to articulate all that.
LIC is better for not being combative. If I want combative, snide, or argumentative, I’ve got a slew of sites I can go get banned at. At least here, we can have a discussion and Craig doesn’t diss us for disagreeing or send out the flying monkeys to get us for posting something contrary to the published review.
Beautifully written analysis, Jennybee.
Summing up my own thoughts after seeing The Dark Knight for a second time today, I’ll say that, again, I don’t want to just come out and say, “It’s a masterpiece,” because it goes against my typical nature, but I will say that seeing it again pushed me closer towards that camp.
I also felt like I could write a coherent review, which I plan to start writing… now.
Wow jennybee, you’re maintaining the extremely high standard of this debate.
Hang fast inside your one-man keep, Craig. Nevermind that smart counter arguments with the combined force of the hordes of Mordor, Chigurh, the Zulu nation, shells from the guns of Navarone, a giant Mister Stay Puft, a tsunami, Daniel Plainview, and a meteorite have shaken its very foundation.
Hold the line.
sartre, it’s amazing how “you’re entitled to your opinion and I’ll respect you for it” works like adamantium and teflon put together. If only the rest of the internets were capable of such simple common decency.
“If only the rest of the internets were capable of such simple common decency.”
Who needs the schmucks?
Sartre, I’m going down with the ship stubbornly and without ever admitting error, just like HAL and George W. Bush.
Daisy, Daisy, give me your answer do. I’m…half…crazy all f o r t h e l o v e…o f y o u.
Wait Craig! Don’t let go. You’ve never made a mistake or distorted information before. By any practical definition of the words, you’re foolproof and incapable of error!
Yeah, just wait until Brad Pitt signs on for Inglorious Bastards
Great review, Craig.
Saw it, and just read your review. Hats off, Mr. Kennedy. I haven’t read the comments yet, but it’s half past three (we went for beers after) so I’ll leave that till tomorrow. That, and a blog post.
Now if only I can think of something to say you haven’t yet…
You’re a flatterer Hedwig. Please don’t ever stop.
Missed your comments on Pan’s, Craig, and I completely agree about being taken out by the head shots and face mutilations. Somehow I never put enough thought into my reaction to that movie and couldn’t figure out why it didn’t stick with aside from the visuals. Thank ya.
Glad to have someone agree. We’re in the minority as you know.
Indeed I do know, and it’s comfortable and spacious over on our side of the room.
More dip for us.
I regularly had a smile of delight on my face during TDK. I drank up the craft, intelligence, ambition, and visceral thrills. As it unfolded my mind was already formulating notions and observations about what made it work so well. And the IMAX experience and enthusiastic audience not only amplified the many delights on offer but created an even stronger sense of participating in an event.
What took me by surprise given all of this was the lack of resonance I felt afterward. And with that came a concentration on what for me didn’t work as well. When I dwell on those considerations the film makes 4/5 stars, and then when I bring my mind back to its considerable achievements it jumps to 4 1/2 or even 5. And I think this reaction comes down to the fundamental tension between its remarkable ability to evoke real emotions and deeper thought, connected not only to the Bush administration wrought zeitgeist but to existential preoccupations in general, and the commercial imperatives of a big budget genre film. The latter for me revealed itself during the 3rd act.
The wonder is that such a tension exists at all. It’s a balancing act of the highest order to inventively retain the staple visceral and other genre pleasures and also engender adult nuance to the material. The 3rd act disappointed because it felt rushed, a little too conventional, less real (Harvey’s psychological transformation would have been more bluntly fanciful under any circumstances, let alone those in which virtually no time is given to helping the audience empathize with it), and more heavy-handed in its expression of political and personal (particularly duality as opposite and the same) themes.
I didn’t have Craig’s problem with it not going far enough re the emotional reality of violence. Until the 3rd act the despair producing Se7en template certainly was working on me. Like John Doe, the Joker was a performance artist for mayhem, anarchy, soul-crushing amorality, and psychologically corrupting nihilism. I thought Batman’s smoky growl of a voice was apt too. It helped with the illusion that one can disguise themselves from those they know by simply wearing a bat suit. And it was a metaphor for Bruce going deeper into his Batman self. I had no problem with following most of the action sequences and when I couldn’t it seemed appropriate to the real world confusion and perceptual chaos of fast moving and adrenaline fueled action.
Regardless of my 3rd act reservations I found the Nolans writing stunningly good. All filmmaking departments excelled, I particularly found the score memorable with its TWbB-like sinister drone as accompaniment to something darker approaching, and unfolding. And wasn’t the ensemble acting almost note-perfect? Lastly, I want to give special praise to Bale and Ledger.
The former has a wonderful talent, as seen here and in 3:10 to Yuma, for playing conflicted and ultimately self-sacrificing men of integrity who are true to their core values despite their understated yet palpable doubt and suffering. And Ledger was more than I hoped he’d be. Together with the Nolans he gave us an iconic creation. His scenes were the ones I’ll take with me as everything else fades – the walk away from the hospital as it explodes behind him, the paean to his worldview as he hangs upside down before Batman, etc. What a talent, what a loss.
This was one terrific and thoughtful treatment, sartre, and a wonderful final paragraphy testimonial to Mr. Ledger. I particularly loved that Bush-Zeitgeist-existential posing, and the multi-leveled interpreattion that would cause justifyable vacillation between a final star rating of 4/5 (which I myself settled on) and the 4/5 to 5/5 you are divided with.
If your profession had been as a film critic (just not finantially viable these days) you would rank among the best of em.
Excellent summation, Sartre.
For myself, the third act (along with the entire film, honestly) worked better the second time around, less rushed in terms of Harvey Dent (that may be partly because I intuited his “transformation,” of sorts, as already occurring way before his disfigurement, beginning when he abducts one of the Joker’s henchmen–an unusual reading of the film, I’m fairly sure) and just as emotionally hard-hitting.
Ledger’s tragic death, though, makes an already mournful film all the more so, despite the exhilarating nature of his performance.
Thanks Sam, I’ve found others thoughts on the film far more telling and interesting than my own. But I’m happy you enjoyed them.
Alexander, I noted the foreshadowing of Harvey’s transformation. Not just the scene you described, but more indirectly through the delight he took from punching the would-be-assassin on the stand. In fact, I found the abducting scene so pointed a message about Dent’s own complexity that I wondered at how Batman could continue to invest so much hope without reservation into him as a White Knight. For me, even this foreshadowing didn’t add up to the drastic flipping in nature.
It was in keeping with the unreal character arcs of the heroes and villains of such genre stories, but it lacked the emotional reality I had enjoyed in the first 2 acts that helped TDK stand apart from more conventional fare.
That said, maybe it’ll seem less out of kilter after a second viewing.
I can certainly see what you’re saying; I think the foreshadowing helped me enormously (which I write a good deal about in my review–the dinner scene is also undeniably key in my opinion), and it was so effective, that I didn’t see him “flip” so much as just become wholly unleashed. The Joker’s little mind-screw in the hospital room was just the almost perfunctory (but wonderful) push. Considering how volatile he seemed to be under the surface, it made sense that he just about altogether lost his bearings, which I think Nolan partially justified by his refusal to accept anything to curb the pain (which itself seems to contribute to his largely crazed rampage).
It’s terrific that you saw it in IMAX in San Francisco. I sat in the back row, just to the left of that gap for a wheelchair. How about you? :)
You make a fine case for how Nolan built to the transformation Alexander, but I just don’t think real life people turn so fully like that. And even if they do in a fictional universe, I personally needed more of a journey to that point than was on offer.
Almost forgot. We were in the back row, a little further to the left than your near ideal seats.
I agree that people don’t turn; I just think Dent’s turn wasn’t as dramatic as it might have seemed to be, to begin with, so to speak.
Nevertheless, I can see this being seen as a problem, as it’s been pointed out by a number of people.
Excellent, Sartre, that coveted back row is ideal for that auditorium. Otherwise, I would feel too close!
I suspect which way one lands on this issue Alexander is a flip of a coin. Not that anything is ever left to chance :-)
Glad you liked the Knight Sartre, even if you join others in their wrongness about the violence :) Dent’s flip (no pun intended) bothered me because it felt pre-ordained, but it may only have felt that way because I already knew the character’s arc.
I think that probably makes no sense. I’ll shut up now.
That makes perfect sense Craig.
But seriously, the violence thing. Just a little bit of blood when Joker kills the bank manager and a little more when he slices the mob guy’s face. A little honesty all I’m asking and the rest could’ve remained implied.
As it stands, Joker is a likeable character and that’s just wrong.
Tis true he’s full of laughs. But for me the Joker was as powerful an agent of psychopathic amorality as the humorless Chigurh.
Yes, I know, but being in the minority I can’t shut up about it. If you cant be right, be loud I always say.
What was that Craig? I couldn’t quite catch it.