Monday, December 8, 2008

Was The Dark Knight Really That Good?

The Dark Knight comes out tomorrow on DVD, and I figured now was a good time to look back and consider just how good the film actually is. It has been several months since we were in the throes of box-office madness of Titanic-like proportions, so perhaps we can approach this film with some distance before appraising it.

I was going to issue a SPOILER WARNING, but if you haven't seen the film by now, that can only mean you died before it was released and you're somehow able to read blogs from beyond the grave but not watch movies.

TDK is not without its share of problems. To name a few:

-A scene early on involving the Scarecrow that provides a quick, and really unnecessary, resolution to a plot thread from Batman Begins.

-Nolan's direction of fight scenes leaves something to be desired. He repeatedly violates John McTiernan's principle of geography of scene, the concept that the audience should know where the actors are, what they are doing, and why, at all times. Some argue that Nolan's approach gets you to feel what it's like to be in a melee, but I don't buy that. I've never been in a huge brawl, but I've played my share of teams sports where there were always many things happening at once. No matter what, you still have an idea of what's going on around you.

-Harvey Dent's transformation into Two-Face occurs with comic-book speed. I'm willing to see him go vigilante on the mobsters and crooked cops after his fiancee dies and he loses half his face. But I didn't buy for a minute his ready willingness to turn a gun on Gordon, Gordon's family, and Batman.

-Related to the above point, the last 45 minutes of the film are rushed, as if Nolan and co. were trying to cram too much plot into a story that was already plot-heavy. I can't take credit for this idea, but others have said that TDK would have been better film if Nolan had ended it right after the Joker escapes from the police station, either with the image of him sticking his head out of the cruiser or Batman standing over the rubble of the recently-destroyed warehouse where Rachel met her Maker. It would have been a true Empire Strikes Back kick in the bread basket that would have set up a sequel perfectly. I'm inclined to agree.

-We lose sight of Batman. It was bound to happen when they decided to introduce two other main/supporting characters (Joker and Dent) and elevate Gordon's role from minor to major. Even Morgan Freeman's character gets his own arch. Nolan did what no one else had ever done with the caped crusader in Batman Begins: Batman was the most interesting character on screen at all times. In TDK, though, his psychological journey isn't as compelling, and Batman doesn't dominate the screen the way he did in the previous film. This story is as much everybody else's as it is his. I'm reminded of Eastwood's lament to Sergio Leone during their making of For A Few Dollars More and even more so during The Good, The Bad, & The Ugly. Apparently, Clint kept saying that he was getting smaller and smaller each time out.

But with all that being said, TDK is a masterpiece. A flawed masterpiece, yes, but a masterpiece nonetheless. It is one of those rare instances where a piece of art, while not perfect, appears to be perfect. Or, it's perfect despite its faults.

The classical allusions are everywhere. Batman, Gordon, and Dent are Gotham's First Triumvirate. Dent's White Knight could have been pulled out of a Shakespearean tragedy, his only character flaw being that he was too good for this world.

At nearly three hours long, the film moves really well (until, arguably, the end when it moves too well). There are some great dramatic reversals, most notably Gordon's reappearance, Batman just a shadow standing over the Joker, Rachel's demise, Joker orchestrating and carrying out his escape from the police station.

Nolan hits all the right notes throughout. When he wants us to laugh, we laugh. When he wants us to cringe, we cringe. When he wants us to jump, we jump (the dummy banging against the Mayor's window).

While Batman may have been downplayed in this one, the performances are all top-notch. Ledger's Joker is a force of nature. IMHO, Eckhart's Dent is just as good as Ledger's Joker; unfortunately, his Two-Face is problematic. I don't think that's Eckhart's fault though. The script is the issue here.

Most importantly, TDK is damned entertaining. The film is big, the story is epic, the stakes are constantly enormous. It's heavy, but it's fun. TDK gives you your money's worth, and then some.

16 comments:

adrian mckinty said...

Brian

Here's a wee dissent (if you dont mind).

Why I hated this movie:

1. Batman's Voice
2. The 11th grade civics class scene with the boats.
3. The magic feathers which helped The Joker escape again and again and again.
4. As you say, where was Batman?
5. The length: 1 hour too long.
6. The yawn fest chase scenes.
7. The laughable hospital scenes.
8. The laughable Hong Kong scene.

The good bits:

Michael Caine.

Gary Oldman.

Er...


All in all, a pretty bad movie. Wake me up when they're gonna make Frank Millar's Batman The Dark Knight otherwise let this franchise die.

Brian O'Rourke said...

Adrian-

Nope, don't mind at all.

Why does everybody hate Batman's voice? It's a bit theatrical and over-the-top, but isn't it supposed to be that way to a) help conceal Wayne's identity and b) conjure up some fear in his opponents?

I take your point about the boat scene. This was part of the last hour that really felt rushed. However, I will say this. The boat scene was continuing a thread from Begins, about how Gotham was worth saving. That's why I didn't mind it.

What did you think of Begins?

Peter Rozovsky said...

I skimmed just the top of this post because I haven't seen the movie, but I will weigh in in general terms on recent Batman incarnations.

I've read a recent Batman graphic novel (I forget which one) during my current flirtation with comic books. I don't care how deep the shadows are, I can't get past the pointy ears, the Batman costume, and the characters acting as if there is nothing unusual about having a guy with a cape and pointy ears in their midst.

I grew up on costumed super-heros, which may be why I find them distracting in a serious fictional universe, with no acknowledgment of how weird and unrealistic the phenomenon is. Watchmen, not just acknowledging that weirdness but confronting it head on, is a great exception, of course.
===================
Detectives Beyond Borders
"Because Murder Is More Fun Away From Home"
http://detectivesbeyondborders.blogspot.com/

Brian O'Rourke said...

Peter-

Good point re: believability.

I checked out Watchmen a couple of months ago and enjoyed it, but it wasn't quite the earth-shattering piece of fiction everyone had primed me for. Perhaps it was a case of raised expectations. It's the first and only GN I've ever read.

What other comics/graphic novels have you read in your current flirtation with the medium?

PS--Sounds like Noir at the Bar was a good time.

Peter Rozovsky said...

Some of the more philosophical musing of Watchmen were not top-grade stuff, but the take on superheroes was brilliant.

I've also read The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, Vols. I and II; 100 Bullets, an issue of the Punisher, and an online comic called "Tuna carpaccio."
===================
Detectives Beyond Borders
"Because Murder Is More Fun Away From Home"
http://detectivesbeyondborders.blogspot.com/

adrian mckinty said...

Brian

I liked the first one much better. The story was tight, the movie stylish and intelligent. The chase scenes and action very well directed.

Brian O'Rourke said...

Adrian-
Don't know why I just thought of it, but your comment about Gary Oldman got me thinking. He was solid in TDK. But that's par for the course for him. For anyone who hasn't seen it, I'd recommend State of Grace. Probably my personal favorite of his roles.

Brian O'Rourke said...

Peter,

Some of the more philosophical musing of Watchmen were not top-grade stuff, but the take on superheroes was brilliant.

I did like the deconstruction of the superhero in Watchmen for sure, but I think Moore stacked the deck a bit too much one way.

Also, it probably didn't have quite the impact on me had I read it, and been able to understand it, when it was originally released. I was only seven or eight years old when it came out.

I think before I got to Watchmen I'd already seen and read too many other stories that had done the same thing. So it lessened the impact of it all.

Also, it was tough going the first few chapters because it was my first GN. I wasn't used to experiencing a story in that format, so it took some getting used to. After I got into the swing of things, I enjoyed it a lot more. I'll be interested to see how the movie turns out.

Peter Rozovsky said...

I thought he handled the deconstruction brilliantly, deadpan enoough that one could take the story seriously even while recognizing that he was taking the piss out of the superhero genre.

I can well imagine that the desconstruction aspect might be lost on a seven- or eight-year-old. Are there any straightforward, non-desconstructed, non-dark superhero stories today, the kind of stuff I read as a lad?
===================
Detectives Beyond Borders
"Because Murder Is More Fun Away From Home"
http://detectivesbeyondborders.blogspot.com/

Brian O'Rourke said...

Peter-
Good question. I wonder if anyone's still producing stories like that. I doubt it, because I don't think too many people would take them seriously anymore.

Peter Rozovsky said...

Well, that's the thing: No one would have to take them seriously except kids. I wasn't looking for dark sides when I was eight years old. If one accepts that today's superhero comics are meta-comics commenting on the superhero tradition, what is the un-meta counterpart? What do today's eight- to 11-year-olds read in place of the comics I did? Read, that is, when they're not playing computer games or "texting."
===================
Detectives Beyond Borders
"Because Murder Is More Fun Away From Home"
http://detectivesbeyondborders.blogspot.com/

Brian O'Rourke said...

It's almost like the meta has become the un-meta in the superhero/comic book world.

The only example I can think of is Superman Returns. Shame it wasn't a very good movie.

Rita Vetere said...

Although I didn't spend much time analyzing the worthiness of this movie, I did find it very entertaining, and I especially enjoyed Heath Ledger's performance.

"Tonight you're all gonna be part of a social experiment."

What can I say? I loved it...

Brian O'Rourke said...

Rita-
The entertainment value for me more than compensated for the flaws, even if I noticed the flaws during the movie.

Are you going to check The Day the Earth Stood Still? The wife and I watched the original last night on AMC.

Rita Vetere said...

Hi, Brian,

The Day the Earth Stood Still is next on my watch list, although I must say that so many remakes disappoint. I didn't enjoy War of the Worlds all that much. However, there's Keanu to consider... :-)

Brian O'Rourke said...

I hear you about remakes. I felt the same way about TWOTW.

Just looked at Rotten Tomatoes and see that TDTESS only has a 25% fresh rating. Uh oh.