watching the world burn: The Dark Knight
Written: Jul 18 '08
|
Product Rating:
|
|
|
Pros: Vivid and brilliant, perfectly performed, and true to form.
Cons: Harvey Dent character arc underdeveloped; too short (really!)
The Bottom Line: Everyone needs to see this. At the very least, it's the best film of the year.
|
|
|
| Stairway2Drew's Full Review: The Dark Knight |
First, dear readers, a note: it is not within my nature to champion a film's place in the grander pantheon of cinema the year of it's release, much less the day of it. I've done it before, and it's ended in tragedy: sadly, history has not been as kind to "A Perfect Murder" and "Hannibal" as I'd initially hoped, and "Signs" still isn't regarded as the masterpiece I once (and still, actually, but shh) championed it to be.
So I temporarily reserve my judgement for big, widescreen, frothy claims about the historical importance of the latest Batman flick, "The Dark Knight". Is it the best Batman movie ever? Yes, by a long shot, but you'll notice that it's stiffest competition is "Batman" '89 (a perfectly enjoyable actioner that nevertheless contains amounts of Prince a bit too abundant for a movie with such Gothic aspirations), and Joel Schumacher's legendary cinematic abortion "Batman & Robin" is also in the fray---but only as a technicality, since no Batman (or film, for that matter) purist would even try to justify Schumacher's garish carnival of leather and homoeroticism as a true Batman movie.
Director Christopher Nolan's reboot of the franchise in 2005's "Batman Begins" was certainly refreshing, a comic-book movie more in the mold of Sam Raimi's "Spider-Man" franchise in that it plays out more as a humane drama tempered by action than the other way around, and less like its predecessors, which displaced one of the most intriguing pulp characters ever in a universe increasingly filled with camp and sideshow grotesquerie. Before yesterday, it stood just behind 2006's incredible (and woefully undervalued) Superman reboot as the pinnacle of comic-based achievement. And yet, I fear I'll never be able to watch "Batman Begins" again, so thoroughly has "Memento" director Nolan outdone himself with "Dark Knight". There's no hyperbole here: "Knight" forcefully, vehemently, and blatantly blows "Begins" out of the water.
For the benefit of everyone reading, I went ahead and saw "Dark Knight" twice, so sure was I that any review I'd scribe after my initial viewing would flagrantly overrate the film---much the same way that, last night, I got some late jitters before entering the theater at midnight, worried that my dearly-anticipated new Batman movie would end up being a byproduct of too much hype, an above-average movie bowed to by the critical community simply for being better than expected. It couldn't really be as good as everyone says... right?
As it turns out, it is. Damn, is it ever.
**
The film---and it's hero---is called "the Dark Knight" for a reason. Batman is at his core a dark character, has been ever since appearing on the pulpy pages of Detective Comics in 1939, and a fascinating one---he's a hero, but possesses no supernatural abilities outside of a keen willpower that makes him an agile, supremely controlled, intimidating foe. This automatically makes him more interesting than, say, Superman, who lacks so little physically that he's inevitably much less suspenseful---and lacks the psychological trauma to fully explore what'd happen if he went apeshit. Batman's seen his parents die at the hands of small-time criminals, and inevitably grows wearier and wearier balancing his dual lives. He's complex.
But rarely have the films delved into that complexity. "Batman" '89 wrapped it all up in a nice little package, casting the Joker as the killer of Batman's parents, creating a nicely complex little chicken-and-egg scenario but ultimately feeling way too tidy as a Batman treatment; "Batman Returns" in 1992 barely featured Batman at damn old all, so focused was it on the garishness of it's rogues gallery. Ditto "Batman Forever" and the less said of "Batman & Robin" (seriously, dude, what a turd) the better. Only Nolan has chosen the route of true realism---his Batman films feature no supernatural play, don't exist in the same world as the Supermen and Wonder Women of the world. And "Dark Knight" features something so few comic movies have explored: ripples. Lots and lots of ripples.
To explain the plot of "Dark Knight" would be futile. It's not secondary by any means---on the contrary, it's one of the most densely plotted films in recent memory, more an especially actiony police procedural than anything---it's just so layered that it deserves to be mentioned in the same breath as "L.A. Confidential" and, dare I say it?, "The Godfather" than with "Fantastic Four" and "The Incredible Hulk". But the ripple effect is extraordinary---actions have consequences, and when seeing the grander picture, it's amazing the way Nolan (and his co-writer bro Jonathan) has pieced together this living, breathing, Shakespearean tragedy. The way it rises and falls, the way consequences befall everyone and sinister, pessimistic prophecies and philosophies get fulfilled---well, it's damn near Greek in structure and utter scope.
Suffice to say it's about the titular Dark Knight's attempts to clean up Gotham City---attempts thwarted by the increased proliferance of the Joker, a terrifying sociopath bent not on killing Batman, but on pitting the citizens of Gotham against one another like Rock 'Em Sock 'Em Robots, eager to prove his own sinister, pessimistic theories of the human condition. Along the way, Batman forms an uneasy, triangular alliance with Lieutenant Jim Gordon and new city DA Harvey Dent---three men with wholly different manners and tactics (Batman acts in the shadows, Dent bravely and purely acts in the light, Gordon occupies the tenuous space between), three different means to the same end. But the less said about the plot, the better: there are things here that will awe the most seasoned filmgoer, things that have jack shit to do with CGI or editing. The plot unfolds, exploring avenues and crevasses you wouldn't have expected. It justifies it's unwieldly length (152 minutes), even rushing some late plot developments, thus creating a strange sensation in my ADD-ravaged brain: I didn't want this thing to end. I could have watched it for five hours.
But what of the sheer filmmaking of it all? The drama, the spectacle? Well, I'm here to tell you that it's all there, in spades. "The Dark Knight" doesn't let up---in rising action or in emotional impact. The action setpieces are used sparingly, but phenomenally---there's a showdown between Batman and the Joker in an empty city street that stands as the best of the action that this picture has to offer, simply because it's as exciting as it is creepy, almost eerie, two incredibly dark and twisted sides of the same screwed-up coin going shoulder to shoulder as the city, yawning, rises around them. And that's to say nothing of the car chase that precedes it, a brilliantly-shot rush of pure adrenaline, mid-movie.
And then, of course, there's the one aspect that no comic-book movie has ever come close to touching: the raw human drama. "The Dark Knight" is a tour de force of ensemble acting, and Batman himself is merely the tip of the iceberg: Christian Bale is great, even in the subtle ways that he hides his identity by being frivolous and dismissive as alter ego Bruce Wayne, but doesn't accomplish much more than he did in "Batman Begins", and he's not the point anyway. Michael Caine returns as Alfred, the purring, smooth voice of reason, sane and comforting in an insane and uncomfortable film; Morgan Freeman reminds us that the only adjective that truly describes his screen presence is "wise"; and Gary Oldman, so dignified and reigned-in in "Begins", is still subtle, if a little more frazzled. His performance is a stately, beautiful one---it has to be, as he's the closest thing "Dark Knight" has to a moral epicenter.
And then there's Aaron Eckhart as Harvey Dent, a name that any comic-book fan will recognize as the crusading District Attorney transformed into the villainous Janus, Two-Face. Tommy Lee Jones hammed this role up in "Batman Forever"; Eckhart, meanwhile, taps into both his leading-man abilities (he's certainly got the square jaw, gleaming smile, and silky hair of a rousing, do-gooder politician) and his sinister side (anyone remember Eckhart as Chad, the most purely evil human being in the history of cinema, in 1997's "In the Company of Men"?) to create a character of great drama and tragedy. In fact, if I have one complaint with "Dark Knight", it's that it rushes Harvey's fascinating arc, introduces it fairly late in the movie, and cuts us off just as we're at the peak of being drawn into the character. Harvey is the physicalization of some of the themes of the film---in an early scene, he even says something to the effect of "you either die a hero, or live long enough to see yourself become the villain", a sentence someone could imagine the Joker just as easily saying---and my lone issue with the sterling "Dark Knight" is that it gives Dent comparitively short shrift. Again why this could have been an even longer film, and retained my rapt attention.
But, of course, we all know that Heath Ledger steals the show. And, sorry to be predictable, but GOOD GOD, this guy. Echoes of Hannibal Lecter and Alex DeLarge loom in this posthumous tour de force, but this depraved creation is something all Ledger's own. Previous clowns like Cesar Romero and Jack Nicholson are simply forgotten in the wake of this larger-than-life performance. The places the script allows this frightening Joker to go are simply stunning in their depravity---the Joker himself places this film squarely in the "how did a film this uncompromising get a PG-13?" category. Scarred, bleached, and armed with a hellacious cackle and an ominous, loping gait, Ledger creates a character so incredibly and horrifyingly alive that we forget that Ledger himself is gone. Indeed, the Joker is so scary because Ledger makes us believe that he truly has nothing to lose---he simply goes on his basest, most depraved instincts. He believes in the order of chaos and chance, and views the world through "Lord of the Flies" goggles. "When the chips are down," he rasps during a particularly intense interrogation scene, "these civilized people will eat each other. You'll see." Heady stuff for a summer blockbuster.
Ledger's Joker is also a man with a plan bigger than himself. There are echoes of "Seven"---dear God, echoes of "Seven"!---in this movie, especially near the end, where a dangling, cackling Joker tells Batman of his true nefarious intentions, none of which necessitate his survival. There's a lesser-of-two-evils choice to be made, just like Mills pointing the gun at Doe in that final, horrific reveal in the other film, and neither one is gonna feel good.
Ultimately, this is great filmmaking. I could discuss for days the philosophical and psychological implications of this picture, so fleshed out are its characters and performances. But really, when you get right down to it, the movie peddling all of this headiness is incredibly entertaining---leaves you rapt, really. And the plot boasts scene after classic scene: there's the opening bank heist, as stunningly filmed as Michael Mann's "Heat" standoff; there's that wonderful sweeping shot of Batman surveying the dusky Gotham skyline; there's the aforementioned city-street square-off; there's a terrific, perfectly-scripted interrogation scene rife with both physical and emotional brutality; and finally, there's a scene so devastating, so heartbreaking, that I struggled to watch it. It involves two lovers saying a knowing last good-bye, and that's all I'll say---but the depths of emotional resonance in this scene is wrenching. And the consequences it holds for other parties involved are staggering.
Maybe I can afford "The Dark Knight" a little hyperbole. Might it be the best major-studio theatrical release of the millenium thus far? I'm inclined to say yeah; it's enthralling, it goes everywhere you hope it'll go (and some places that you queasily hope it won't), and a sucker-punch to the gut when it hits its hardest. As accessible as it is deeply disturbing, "The Dark Knight" is a mess of contradictions, and the perfect marriage of popcorn to high art. Be warned, though: this film will shake you to your core. Don't bring the kids.
Recommended:
Yes
|
|
|
|
Epinions.com ID:
Stairway2Drew
|
 - Top 500 |
|
Member: Andrew Ratliff
Location: Nowhere, NJ
Reviews written: 378
Trusted by: 235 members
About Me:
Smelt just like baloney for some reason.
|
|
|
- Add to My Yahoo!: 
- Add to Google Homepage: 
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.