After seeing The Dark Knight, I told a friend that having recently wrote 13 paragraphs on the disappointing The Incredible Hulk, I would need to give the latest Batman entry its just deserves. I aim to write a no holds-barred review of The Dark Knight, and in order to delve fully into its themes and plot points, the spoiler warning must be turned up to full. Before you read any other further, I'm warning you now that I will go right up to the end of the film, therefore spoilers are here, there and everywhere. Honestly though, you should have seen The Dark Knight by now. If not, what is wrong with you? March down to your nearest cinema and correct this immediately.
The logical place to start with The Dark Knight would be the gargantuan levels of hype leading up to its release. The aggressive advertising campaign started this time last year, with internet updates that seemed almost weekly, filled with cryptic hints and fun activities to rile up the fanboys and enlighten those desperate for tidbits on what to expect from the new film. In December, the opening bank heist sequence was shown in US cinemas before the IMAX version of I Am Legend (there's no way anyone would put me in an IMAX room with that hunk of shit - I Am Legend, not the bank scene); in January, the death of Heath Ledger sent a shockwave through the film industry. The intrigue and anticipation snowballed into unbearable excitement, and when The Dark Knight arrived in cinemas on 18th July 2008, it made over $65m in its first night. After 10 days, it had made almost $350m worldwide.
No Batman incarnation before Nolan, bar the Animated Series and its respective movies, had fully satisfied me as lifelong Batfan. I'm one of those rare types that can't sit through the '89 version; I find it fairly dull, and Jack Nicholson is merely playing himself yet again, albeit wearing clown makeup. Mark Hamill was always my favourite Joker up till now.
Batman Returns I preferred, because Burton utilised two interesting villains in Catwoman and The Penguin, as well as turning up the darkness that the first one had shunned in favour of Prince parades. Not only did we see a lot more of Keaton's Batman, but we felt a little more thematic worth in the proceedings, with talk of freaks and outcasts outlining the general gist of the film. It was much more entertaining than the film that preceeded it, but it also felt very cartoonish. From a comparison of the two, I knew that I wanted my Batman dark and gritty, but firmly rooted in reality.
The less said about the Schumacher incarnations, the better. All I need do is mention the Bat-credit card and the Bat-nipples to highlight how repulsive these films were. Two-Face is rightfully shown in The Dark Knight as a tragic character, but in Batman Forever he floats around cackling like any other generic headcase. Batman and Robin was even worse, the only points it gains coming from the colourful set design. With all these near-misses and failures of Batman mythology coming and going, I stood by Mask of the Phantasm as my favourite Caped Crusader film. Animated it may have been, but it knew its source material.
What to say of Batman Begins? It has a very special place in my heart, the first film that I attended a midnight premiere of, and the first live-action Batman to get it right. On its first viewing I emerged elated, but on a recent rewatch I found that it wasn't quite as awesome as I remembered. It was still a great origin story, perhaps the best superhero origin story so far, but it had its undeniable flaws. The first half moved at such a frenzied fast pace. The fight scenes weren't shot particularly well. Katie Holmes can not act. At all.
For the most part, The Dark Knight corrects each of these flaws. Even taking place in the same universe as Batman Begins, it manages to feel like a new type of movie, one higher in prestige. To say it is not just a superhero movie would be unfairly attacking an entertaining genre. Instead, it transcends the genre; for it is not just a superhero film, but a crime drama, an ensemble piece, a character study. It is about superheroes in more ways than one. In its complexity and political musings, The Dark Knight shows up Batman Begins as a vastly inferior film. Thus, it is better to view Begins as a prequel to the main event, for it set up Batman's crusade against crime. The Dark Knight examines the ramifications of this decision, it looks closely at the existence of Batman in a fictional, but very real city. It is about Batman.
The Dark Knight's plot could easily have been summed up a year ago as the ultimate showdown between Batman and his longtime nemesis, The Joker. It is still very much a film about the two opposites coming to blows, but at its heart, it follows the tragic arc of Harvey Dent, aka Two Face. Batman, Harvey Dent and James Gordon form a trifecta to stand against the unstoppable force of The Joker, who is hellbent on the destruction of Gotham. He is not concerned with money, only wishing to 'watch the world burn'. At this stage, Bruce Wayne has found in Harvey Dent a force for good in Gotham City; a man who plays by the rules and could suitable take up the mantle of enforcer in Batman's place. As the film progresses, we see The Joker test Batman, Dent, Gordon and even the citizens of Gotham, pushing them to their moral limits.
In terms of the fast pace of Batman Begins, The Dark Knight doesn't change this, rather opting to use the swiftness to its own advantage. With Begins, there was a lot to fit in, and so little time, resulting in events that should have been fleshed out feeling rushed instead. In The Dark Knight, there is a sense of impending terror that comes packaged with the presence of The Joker. Leger's performance presses the protagonists to their limit, forcing everyone to be constantly alert. With this urgency comes a requirement for such a fast pace; there is no origin to brush aside here, once the film begins we are thrown into a saga that never lets up.
The action has improved. No, I'm not talking about the vehicular carnage we are treated around the halfway mark. That set-piece is superbly staged and without use of CGI, is all the more impressive. I refer to the incoherent fight scenes of Batman Begins, improved upon in The Dark Knight with less cuts and a little more room to breathe. They're still not perfect, but they will do nicely.
Last but not least, Katie Holmes. While switching actresses between films does seem like an unfortunate distraction, it was entirely necessary in this case. Katie Holmes showed no skill or charisma in Batman Begins, delivering lines with little zest or conviction. She is replaced in the new instalment by Maggie Gylenhaal, who is a damn sight better and making us believe. She isn't the most attractive actress around, but she fits the established look of Rachel Dawes and is proficient enough to infuse the character with some much needed acting ability.
The Dark Knight does well to work upon the flaws of its prequel, but what of its own flaws? I'm not talking about the runtime, which I thought was just right, and will refer to later. I'm talking about the camerawork. Sure, Chicago looks pretty at night. The visual style of the film is excellent, full of blues and blacks to underline the gritty realism. The problem is that Nolan doesn't move the camera in any creative, interesting fashion. His camerawork is so average, which is a pity because his storytelling is top notch and could do with some innovative movement of the lens to compliment the narrative.
Cameras aside, let's talk performances, and evidently the most talked about performance of the entire film. Heath Ledger's Joker is the best incarnation of the character to date, a force so evil yet so attractive that we aren't sure whether to love or hate him. His presence is so powerful that even when he's not onscreen, we know that he could be anywhere, could jump out any time. Such is the magnetism of his portrayal that even when he isn't there, he is most definitely there.
He refers to himself as a dog chasing a car, not sure what to do with it once he gets his paws on it. The dog metaphors are continued throughout the film...The Joker sticks his head out of the window of a speeding cop car to feel the breeze. He's even guarded by a pack of dogs in the climactic fight scene, and when Batman finally has him in his grasp, its no surprise that he literally ends up on a leash. How else do you stop a wild dog?
Ledger is not just playing The Joker. He is The Joker. The character is given a tic of smacking his lips that is so effective, a constantly-changing origin story that refuses to ground the character with a human explanation, instead allowing him to exist as an unstoppable ball of anarchic energy. Every line of dialogue is psychologically pressing, delivered with the utmost menace. It is the type of role that the actor disappears into, becomes the character. It is why Ledger does indeed deserve the hype, praise, and a Best Supporting Actor Oscar nomination.
Yet with all the talk of Heath Ledger, it is unfair that others are so easily overlooked. One such individual is Gary Oldman, who really comes into his own in this instalment with a meatier role than the introductory phase he assumed in Batman Begins. However, one big surprise was Aarron Eckhart as Harvey Dent/Two-Face. Having seen Eckhart in Thank You For Smoking, and advertisements for Meet Bill and No Reservations, I had only been given glimpses of the actor in comedy roles, and I feared that was how I'd picture him in The Dark Knight. I had no need to worry, because Eckhart gives an incredibly strong, believable performance as both sides of the Dent persona. He and the filmmakers handled the character and look of Two-Face in such a satisfying fashion, that I'd be welcome for a return in the third film.
Being an ensemble piece, it is easy to lose the Batman in his own universe. True, Ledger's Joker does effectively outshine Bale at his own game, and the presence of so many key players does bring our main protagonist down to an equal playing field to the rest of his co-stars. However, that is not say this film is not about Batman. At its core, it both supports and questions Batman's very existence. Much like The Joker, even when Batman is offscreen, his presence is still felt in the narrative construct of the film. We are seeing a development in the character, far removed by the end of the film from the hero we saw saving Gotham in Batman Begins.
The development of Bruce Wayne/Batman started out as revenge against the criminal underworld. When Carmine Falcone told Wayne that he didn't understand anything, the billionaire made it his aim to travel far east in an effort to delve into the criminal mind. Here, he winessed a brand of justice he refused to acknowledge, and this spilled over into Gotham City whereby Ra's Al Ghul was dealt an ass-whooping of a lifetime onboard a Monorail train. In Batman Begins we saw poverty lead to criminality through the catalyst of Carmine Falcone and his crime empire. By the end of the film, Batman has made himself known amongst those criminals, and the Joker card revealed at the end indicates further escalation. It is this escalation that is examined in The Dark Knight, the ramifications of Batman's war on crime.
This is evident in one of the early scenes in which Batman takes down Scarecrow and his thugs. The whole thing says 'routine', as if these two have been going around in the same circle for months following the events of the first film. Then the 'Friends of Batman' show up in their poorly constructed Batsuits, ultimately asking the Caped Crusader 'what makes you so different?', to which he replies, 'I don't wear hockey pads'. But what does make him so differennt, what justifies the existence of Batman that he can operate as a vigilante?
The escalation occurs on both sides of the law. The 'Friends of Batman' exist as an imitation of the Batman, putting themselves in danger through their vigilantism. Was this what Batman intended when he said he wanted to shake people out of their apathy? Likewise, the underworld has now turned to 'a new class of criminal' in the Joker, because like Batman, he is a freak that crosses the conventional boundaries of cops v. robbers. Gone are the Scarecrows of yesterday, in come the clowns.
Are we therefore to assume that Batman, as a symbol, is inherently dangerous to the city he protects? Has he brought more harm than good? It is possible that Batman is a representation of George W. Bush, one that operates outside of the acceptable rules. In The Dark Knight we see Batman:
- Extract a criminal from another country and bring him back to the USA for detainment.
- Perform a metaphor for extraordinary rendition on The Joker inside a prison cell.
- Construct a lie to the citizens of Gotham, positing the false public image that Harvey Dent was a saint up to his death.
- Use a BatSonar to track down The Joker, a wrong practice that infringes on the civil rights of Gotham City.
Consider this: the war in Iraq has created more terrorists since it began. This no doubt equates to the effect Batman has had in creating the Joker, and the actions it drives each man towards as a result. The poster says 'welcome to a world without rules'; in this new world that Batman has created, manifested in the microcosm of Gotham City, do the ends justify the means? Is technology such as the BatSonar acceptable to use until The Joker is destroyed, just as if the same device could only be put to rest when the terrorists of our real world are gone completely?
Because Batman could be seen as a metaphor for Bush, or right-wing ethics in general (superheroes are generally perceived as right-wing creations anyway), does this make the film anti-Batman, or Pro-NeoCon? Let's examine the ending. Harvey Dent, driven to revenge as the villainous Two-Face (yet still existing under his own rules, note the coin), is 'killed' in a fall. For 'the greater good', Batman and Gordon lie to the people, telling them that it was Batman who murdered the five cops, not Dent. As Batman is chased, Dent's memory lives on as The White Knight, because it is safer for the people to believe in him as the image the media presented him, rather than the darkness that was surfacing underneath. Batman is not safe to belive in, everything he represents and inspires leads the film's conclusion to affirm the title: The Dark Knight.
Yet because Batman is running away as the credits appear, does this make the film anti-Batman? It does suggest the negative effect of his symbol, and the justification for his existence, but is this stemming from the narrative? Gordon tell us that he will forever be 'the silent guardian', implying that he is a force for good, albeit one that Gotham can not comprehend. Essentially, it is the people of Gotham that are anti-Batman, not the film itself. So is the film pro-Bush? In thinking this, I stumbled across a right-wing US news article last night championing Batman as their new Jack Bauer in a rather sensationalist article. I'd prefer to think that the film is asking questions of its audience, to invite them in speculation as to whether the ends do justify the means; whether Batman is right to run at the conclusion, or if he is truly the hero Gotham needs. To determine which way Nolan leans, we will have to see the direction he takes in the third instalment.
If Nolan is to make a third one (which isn't confirmed), one can safely assume that it will concern the redemption of Batman. Thematically, 'the night is darkest before the dawn', and this film was The Dark Knight. Maybe the third and final film in Nolan's series will examine the re-emergence of Batman as a widely accepted force for good in Gotham City.
If I was in Nolan's shoes, I'd have cast Jeremy Davies as The Riddler (pictured above) in the third instalment. In The Dark Knight, the criminals turned towards someone they couldn't trust. In Batman 3, the cops, and the people, should turn towards someone they can't trust. The Riddler should occupy the vacuum left by Harvey Dent, and be given the unenviable task in tracking down Batman, all the while having a villainous undercurrent. This would play with the issue of media image and public perception, and would be thematically boosted by the return of Harvey Dent, proving that all is not what it seems on the surface. With Batman too, all is not what it seems on the surface, and perhaps the public have wrongly judged their 'silent guardian'.
(As an aside, I don't belive Harvey Dent is dead. The ending was very ambiguous, and Eckhart has since stated that he'd love to work with Bale and Nolan again. I'd gladly welcome the return of Two Face)
Already I have typed more than I did for The Incredible Hulk, this time with praise. That is because The Dark Knight invites discussion, provides more questions than answers like every good film should. As I said in my review of The Incredible Hulk, all that you see in Leterrier's trailer is what you get. The trailer for The Dark Knight is really only half the film, and I found that even with all the articles and clips I'd viewed of the film prior to seeing it in IMAX, I was still hit on the head with so many great suprises. On the surface, The Dark Knight is a perfect Batman film, a perfect representation of Batman and his two best villains, The Joker and Two-Face. It is the best superhero film ever made, as well as an excellent ensemble crime piece. Underneath, it is rich with themes of modern society, terror and the people who lead us in the battles against evil.
In transcending the genre of the superhero movie, Nolan has provided the definitive statement. Forget the paper-thin issues of 'power and responsibility' from Spider-Man, or 'mutant equality' from X-Men. With The Dark Knight, we finally have a realistic examination of what it means to have a superhero in our society, and the ramifications of their actions. This is a series that delivers on developing its character throughout their journey. Nolan has achieved a truthful realism over comic-film helmers only hope to achieve; he has raised the bar, provided the definitive statement and rendered all future superhero films redundant.
The Dark Knight is 2hrs 32mins in length, but not once did I feel bored, because it is such an intense thrillride full of colourful characters and thoughtful premises. Not one scene did I think could have been chopped, because they all serve their purpose in reinforcing the issues that the film deals with. I urge all of you to contribute to the box office for this film, to help it overtake Titanic at least in the US domestic gross revenue (this is seeming very likely now), and if at all possible, go see it in IMAX. It is a glorious sight; 20 minutes are shot in IMAX format, but you also benefit from hearing the excellent film score at its loudest volume.
My expectations were superseded, my doubts crushed. The Dark Knight was for me, the best Batman film and the best superhero film. Hey, it even overtook A History of Violence as my favourite comic book film. It made Batman Begins seem like the prequel, because it actually dealt with Batman's presence in Gotham, how his war against crime would actually work, if it did at all. For a piece of Hollywood, it should be praised for being so daring, where other action films settle too easily for brawn over brain.
This franchise just recieved its very own The Empire Strikes Back.
****
1 comment:
I actually do think that the Dark Knight was good but it is overrated. The posthumous performance from Ledger is one of the reasons for this I feel. Also it's being compared to all the drivel (apart from wall-e) that's been released this year.
Anyway, review Hellboy damnit.
Post a Comment