But why would he hold the button like that? I can't see his face...
The Dark Knight
Directed by Christopher Nolan
Warner Bros. 2008
By Doug Nayler
And here it is. After three years of sweaty, mouth-breathing anticipation, it’s here. The Dark Knight arrived in theaters this Friday weighed down with enough baggage to nearly crush it to death on site.
It’s hard to be a highly anticipated movie; to be a highly anticipated comic book movie must be almost insufferable. Each and every nerd the world over is turning his/her dewy eyes towards the screen this weekend expecting nothing less than the Batman film; the film that finally gets it right.
And imagine how crushed, how disappointed the entire Internet is going to be come Monday morning if The Dark Knight isn’t absolutely everything they’ve ever wanted to see from Batman ever? An unimaginable tide of people with too much free time (like myself) would start writing their precocious little reviews (like myself) explaining how hurt, misled, and sexually assaulted they feel at having been so disappointed. Christopher Nolan would become a Joel Schumacher pariah times ten, because unlike Schumacher, people actually believed that Nolan could make it happen.
Luckily for Chris Nolan, Warner Brothers, DC Comics, and Heath Ledger’s restless ghost’s publicist, The Dark Knight is very good. And while it may not be the Batman movie to end all movies, it is no slouch. There is lots here for the casual fan, the diehard virgin-for-life fan, and even the pretentious holier-than-thou art-film nerd. In fact, the only group I feel that won’t be satisfied with this film would be children, because they would just be traumatized.
But making The Dark Knight too disturbing for children to handle is just one of a large list of good decisions made here. The most obvious one is to continue doing what made Batman Begins so much more interesting than the standard superhero fare. So, Gotham continues to be a city with a plausable, familiar problem with corruption and organized crime in which a completely insane man in a bat suit follows his compulsion to clean up the streets. The Dark Knight really just builds upon the last film by creating the Joker as a distorted mirror image of Nolan’s Batman. What sort of man would have the same compulsion towards chaos that Batman has towards order? How would a man have to be to actually get up every morning and be the Joker? It is these questions that effectively drive The Dark Knight. And, as everyone already knows, Ledger’s performance does quite a lot to make this fascinating.
Heath Ledger’s absurdist vaudeville take on the Joker is menacing, at turns darkly hilarious, but never too campy. This is because every time the Joker is in the room, he brings with him an impending sense that things are going to turn very bad very quickly. If I had somehow avoided the massive media clusterfuck memorial Ledger love-in that preceded this film’s release (By the way, did you know he was dead?), and gone into this film not knowing he played the Joker, I never would’ve guessed. Nothing in how the character spoke, looked, or carried himself resembled the Ledger I’ve seen in any other of his films. There is only the Joker, laughing and dancing as he hopes to see the city tear itself apart at his feet.
Ledger’s performance is not the only one of note, however. Aaron Eckhart’s transition takes him from beloved Great White Hope D.A. Harvey Dent to Two-Face, a damaged shell of a man with nothing left but hate in his heart. Gary Oldman also shines as Lt. Gordon, beginning to realize what he stands to lose in Gotham’s escalating war. Unlike the psychopathic, nothing-else-matters drive of Batman and the Joker, these two men want to be normal people with families and homes. In a film filled with duality, Dent and Gordon keep their relationship just as involving as one hopes it would be.
And this brings me to my greatest criticism of the film, and one that will be equally difficult to overcome in any sequels that follow: the problem lies right with the character of Batman. Once Bruce Wayne becomes Batman (a journey given all its due attention in Batman Begins), then it’s really only a question of sticking it out, and finding nifty gadgets that help him do the job better.
While we watch Dent and Gordon torn to shreds in front of our eyes, Batman has almost no personal journey outside of the mechanics of the plot. And even when something (withheld for spoiler purposes) large happens that you think would greatly effect Batman, the emotional fallout is given very short shrift. With a villain so energetic and fascinating that he lights up the screen whenever he appears upon it, and two excellent supporting characters tackling such huge emotional weight, Batman’s daring-do and sleuthery strangely starts to pale in comparison. At no time does Batman (and though I do love Bale, his ‘Batman’ voice sounds even more like Disney’s The Beast here than in Begins) seem to truly have to reconsider who he is as a person. Batman’s existence is only ever threatened by outside forces, not his own internal conflict. And because of this, the audience often finds itself in the strange situation where the man in the giant batsuit with the grappling gun and matchless martial arts skill is the least interesting person in the scene. A problem I’m sure Tim Burton would understand.
So, though I was extremely impressed with The Dark Knight, it is for this reason primarily that I can’t go so far as to call it the Batman movie we’ve all been waiting for. It is, however, the Joker movie. Which is good enough for me.
Batman is always the straight man to whatever villain he’s facing, especially when it’s the Joker. The outlaw that starts trouble is going to be more interesting than the guy that has to put it all in order afterwards. The bat-voice did kind of bug me, but I don’t think it’s Bale’s fault… can he breath in that thing? I think part of the problem is it’s a little tight around the nose- I say that because his growly voice almost sounds like he’s gasping for air in between statements.
You really can’t hold it against them that there’s a lack of personal journey for Batman- its all part of being a serialized adventurer of some odd 75 years or so, while there have been some “phases” in all that time he really hasn’t changed that much.
That said, there was some personal development for Batman in the movie, such that he becomes entrenched deeper in the role, and yes it is overshadowed by the other characters arcs, but I really don’t want much development from my Batman in whatever I’m watching him in. While previous Bat-films have tried to force character arcs on Batman (growing to accept his role as Batman… because he chooses to be from Batman Forever being the most obvious one) what this movie felt like was, not a movie, but a series of Batman vs. Joker tv show episodes, a paradigm allowing for unapologetic action and good times for the crowd.
Spoiler Alert. (Go see it already!)
They did have a real, serious conflict for Bruce Wayne to wrestle with – whether to continue being the Batman when it’s bringing about a more vicious war with more innocents dying. He had to decide whether it was worthwhile to hold onto this idealism. There are a few scenes with Alfred where he wrestles with this. It’s a little expositional, but it’s in there.
As for the fallout from Rachel’s death, I agree that scene was too small – Wayne drinking tea in the penthouse. It’s interesting how he reacts here – it’s more his pride that’s hurt than anything else that she wasn’t his. But I agree this should’ve been bigger for him.
Isaac, I can’t agree that this was a series of action sequences and face-offs, not a film. First of all, one of the best things that can be said about this movie is that it could have still been a great movie with a smaller budget and smaller action sequences if they’d still made the core choices Doug has highlighted. Secondly, the Joker’s “no plan” plan is sufficiently unified and escalating in its viciousness, that it laid the framework for a very interesting continuous story.
I didn’t intend to go so far as to give the impression that there is actually no character conflict in the film. The question of escalation hangs very heavy over the film and how far Batman’s willing to take things. When do you cross over from doing the right thing to essentially being an extremist.
But I guess my biggest complaint is that I saw these dangling hints of personal conflict for Batman that just weren’t pursued with the depth given to some of the other characters. Anytime that Batman was ‘conflicted’ or ‘challenged’ felt just like lip service drama, because the leg work wasn’t put in to really make it believable. And this becomes all the more obvious when compared to Dent especially.
I was still extremely satisfied with the film and recommend it highly, but at the beginning of the film I saw the potential to see the Joker really, truly get under Batman’s skin and twist his world inside out the way I was hoping, thanks to the strength of the character’s writing and Ledger’s performance. And the fact that I never saw that satisfactorily was a bit of a letdown. But that’s certainly not going to keep me from going to catch it again in the theatre.
I agree that its a continuous story, but my argument is that the Dark Knight could easily be divided into smaller episodes broadcast on tv, and there wouldn’t be any lesser/boring episodes. It keeps your attention that well all throughout, which just seems really unique from most movies that can only stand as a whole.
*Spoilers*
I really, really loved this movie. That said, I have a few problems with it. I agree with the idea that Batman is the least interesting character in the movie, and I think I figured out why. This (as well as Begins) doesn’t feel like a movie made by a fan. And as a result, it’s lacking a certain affection for the title character. So, as a substitute, Nolan and Bale add psychology and portray him as a more realistic character, because that’s how they’re able to understand and relate to him. Which partly gets rid of Batman’s mystique, which is integral to the character. Also, he feels dumb. A lot dumber than almost anywhere else I’ve seen the character. It was worse in Begins, but it’s still present here, and it makes Batman feel a lot less like Batman.
Also, they shouldn’t have killed Two-Face. One of my favorite pats of the flick was Scarecrow’s cameo right at the beginning. That one scene showed us where Gotham was going, with the freaks starting to dominate the regular criminals, and killing off Two-Face robs the sequels of a lot of potential. It’s a mistake that nearly every superhero movie makes, and I was disappointed to see one as good as this make such a common error. This summer finally introduced the idea of increased continuity between pictures (Hulk and Iron Man). I was hoping The Dark Knight would at least offer a bit of world building.
Regardless, this is probably going to be my pick for movie of the year. I’ve never found a comic book flick this disturbing and affecting. Thank God Nolan wrote the screenplay with his brother instead of David S. Goyer this time around. Goyer is now officially to blame for almost everything I didn’t like about Batman Begins.
SPOILERS.
I also found the notion that Bruce Wayne had finally found a reason (i.e. Harvey Dent) to potentially hang up his cowl surprisingly good in terms of at least doing something with the character. It was a nice emotional development. With the somewhat limited Batman comic background I have, I’m not sure I’ve really ever read a story where they really dealt with the fact that of course Batman doesn’t want to be doing this forever. That one scene Bruce has with Rachel where he tells her this is his chance to pass the mantel of city hero to someone else really resonated I felt, all the more so because we knew it was never going to happen.
That being said, I totally see where you are coming from regarding Doug, and I’m even inclined to agree with you, but I didn’t think it was as much of a problem as you did, nor did it detract at all from my film experience. I more than understand though how you feel. Especially regarding mourning Rachel’s death. Considering this was supposedly the love of his life, staring out the window didn’t quite seem to cover it dramatically.
SPOILERS….
James – Are you really sure Harvey Dent is dead? My friends and I had this debate, and given that we’re dealing with something comic based I say that as long as there is no body in a coffin, he ain’t dead.
Add to that the fact that neither Gordon or Batman ever check his pulse, let alone utter the word “dead.” You can argue they talk about him as if he were, but they could just as well be talking about it in a way that they simply intended to cover up Harvey Dent’s condition and action.
*Spoilers*
REELaddict, I completely agree, and I hope you’re right. But, considering the realistic tone of the film, and the scene in which Gordon seems to give a eulogy for him, I’m assuming the worst. Nothing would make me happier than if Two-Face were present in the next film, but until I see Eckhart’s name connected to the next film, I’m not getting my hopes up.
I think this isn’t just the best Batman film of all time, but one of the best FILMS of all time. The Dark Knight is basically like Heat or The Departed except one guy wears a cape through some of it. It was a masterful crime drama/action movie. It was incredible.
My complaints:
1. Nolan isn’t really a good action director (but the movie was so deep and psychological and steeped in weighty themes that the action didn’t end up being all that important to me).
2. The Joker was way too well prepared. He had a plan for everything. EVVVVVERY-thing. Some of his plans would realistically take somewhere between 2 and 8 years to complete. It was just a little much.
3. Unclear at the end as to whether or not Two-Face was deceased.
4. Bale’s Batman-voice was so gravelly it was almost silly (but it does what it’s intended: no one would think that was Bruce Wayne talking).
That’s pretty much it. And that’s nit-picking.
I want to see Dick Grayson show up in the next movie.