Movie review, July 2008
RATING: *****
It’s all been said. The movie can stand proudly as one of those greats that the current generation of youngsters will look back at with the same fondness I have for GHOSTBUSTERS, DICK TRACY, INDIANA JONES, Burton’s BATMAN, JURASSIC PARK, etc etc ecetera. THE DARK KNIGHT is just of that quality in every way, exceeding many of the above films too.
However, whereas several of those films are more kitsch than quality, DARK KNIGHT achieves their level of entertainment, but also with a very focused intention. If Nolan’s first Batman was appropriately titled BATMAN BEGINS, this one could have easily been called BATMAN: CONSEQUENCES. Storywise, everything in the film is a result of Bruce Wayne’s decision to become Batman in Gotham. Harvey Dent has stepped up as hero-D.A. because of Batman’s example; The Joker has come to the city (or broken out of Arkham?) because he saw Batman’s successful vigilantism as a threat, and it trickles down from there. Batman has opened the door for people like the Joker to step forward, creating a new tier of Ayn Rand-like supermen among the plebeian masses of Gotham (for lack of a better term – but oddly appropriate considering the references to the Roman empire in the film), capable of asserting their wills against the wills of the people, regardless of public opinion. It is a concept masterfully realized with the Batman copycats that crop up in Gotham to help but end up merely complicating matters. The Gotham plebeians are physically the same as both Batman and the Joker, but it is their lack of will that proves to be the deciding factor. “Those who do not care will always serve those who do”, as a character from HBO’s recent GENERATION KILL states, and that claim is just as true in DARK KNIGHT as it is that fantastic miniseries. This is not say they without hope – and thus enter the Joker.
“Dent is just the beginning”. If Batman is an Ayn Rand superman, the only individual capable of stepping forward to catalyze some change in the city, the Joker is more so his nemesis than in any other BATMAN incarnation. It is one of the most interesting choices Jonah and Christopher Nolan imbue in the film’s script: DARK KNIGHT’s Batman is a superhero in the philosophical sense, not any literal/comic book way. His power comes from his unwavering commitment to justice (as opposed to “goodness”, a mistake the Joker – and the film – makes as the Joker taunts Batman after the film’s climax). Batman’s abilities and training are fueled by his beliefs. He trained because of his value system, and uses his training not because he can, but because he feels compelled to at a deeply internal level. Joker sees the capability that has Batman in inspiring an uprising among the masses and wants to squash that before its too late – making sure the masses stay a mob. As such, they are never up to the challenges set before them. They bungle their attempts to combat the Joker; innocent people die as the authorities scramble to protect them; even Gordon is unable to stop the death of the Police Commissioner, thus moving him into that seat (another example of these characters’ fates being tied to Bruce’s decision to become Batman).
However, the presence of supermen in Gotham is not determined by a fancy costume. The copycat Batmans fail because they are unprepared and underfunded. They are not Bruce Wayne, and any attempts to copy his lead prove to be in vain. The only time these plebs are able to match the supermen, and even beat them, is when they put forth their own ideals, not someone else’s (as is the case in the films climax on the cruise boats). Unfortunately, they are not infallible or invincible, and in the anarchic fog into which the Joker throws Gotham, even the strongest can fall. Such is the case with Gotham’s White Knight, Harvey Dent. Unfortunately, Dent’s journey from saviour to vigilante is one of the weaker realized concepts in the film. It works well from a thematic standpoint, showing the fallibility of the everyman in Nolan’s Gotham, but why Harvey would eschew his rock-solid beliefs for the flipping of a coin is unfortunately taken as writ in most of the film, never fully explained beyond the idea that its just something that this guy always does. Is the flipping of a coin an attempt to mask his inner anger as mere dispassion? The idea of a fall-from-grace story in Nolan’s Gotham arguably fits thematically, but Dent’s descent into cynicism is not on par with the rest of the film, both in losing Rachel and in becoming Harvey Two-Face, even if Aaron Eckhart does an admirable job selling it for us.
This does bring me to another of the films great triumphs: the characterizations. Unlike nearly every comic book film in recent memory, the actions of any character in THE DARK KNIGHT justify their appearances, not vice versa. Heath Ledger’s inspired performance as the Joker is certainly the clearest example of this. A truly fucked-up individual and the ultimate walking contradiction, he is never what he says or seems. His make-up is as much a reflection of himself as it is “war paint” (an interesting if flat idea). Ledger’s Joker is both completely in control and the “dog chasing cars” that he admits to Harvey Dent in Gotham General. There is always so much more going on behind Ledger’s eyes than his appearance justifies, and that is the key strength to Ledger’s performance. Whereas previous actors merely indicated the Joker character to the audience, reveling in his anarchistic personality, Ledger created an anarchist and applied it to the Joker.
Suffice to say, the movie is probably the best of the year, but we’ll see what December brings. As for IMAX, if you get a chance – see it. Even the six scenes are worth the price of admission. The sheer scale of the film is even more awesome on the towering IMAX screens – and the crystal clear production doesn’t hurt either.
DARK KNIGHT RISES
Movie Review, 2012
Rating: ***
Those looking for a “Batman movie”, prepare for a heavy one. Those looking for the third and concluding chapter to Nolan’s Batman movies, set right up! DKR succeeds on so many levels as a concluding chapter to his Batman trilogy that the problems I have with specifically this entry seem insignificant when objectively looking at what these guys were able to achieve as whole – not to mention doing so within the studio system. The character journeys are all remarkably fresh and unexpected, despite staying more-or-less faithful to the source material, even if the heart of the Batman mythos is thrown out the window a bit to serve trilogy’s more lofty goals. But does it all gel in the end? Let’s discuss!
Dark Knight Rises enriches the previous two films (at times at the expense of itself) by turning Wayne’s quest to become Gotham’s saviour into a self-fulfilling prophecy – Gotham needs Batman to save it, yet in turn Gotham requires saving because of Batman’s presence. Further, by acknowledging (wonderfully!) how FUBAR’d the events of the last film were inside Nolan’s “real-world” style, elements of the film’s first hour, like Bane’s curious actions, which don’t get properly contextualized until later in the film, along with an ultimately unsatisfying yet nice-college-try! portrayal of Selina Kyle by Anne Hathaway, can be overlooked.
Speaking of Bane. Sigh. Very conflicted about this one as it seems they really wanted to do something different here, which I really love in theory. While many elements are super-cool, the mixture of them all as a whole is just confusing. I love Tom Hardy’s work in pretty much anything he does, but why the 1920s radio-announcer voice? Cool voice! By why? Why that mask? Cool mask! By why? For a movie that covers so much ground, to be teased with answers to these questions is just plain cruel. Furthermore, why turn Bane into essentially a lap dog in this film to Marion Cotillard’s Talia al Ghul? And if that’s the choice, can we not dig a bit deeper into HOW Bane planned his staggeringly successful assault on Gotham? I needed a bit more there given the complexity of his plan.
Now, I’m going to dig a bit deeper, since Nolan is clearly digging quite deep in terms of what he wanted to achieve with these movies. Let’s see if things hold up.
One of the largest themes Nolan’s movies have raised is how Batman is meant to empower normal citizens into acts of goodness. Yet, if empowering the police instigates corruption (like in the first film), and empowering vigilantes instigates anarchists (like in the second), then this film makes little use of its normal citizens by suggesting the only way to solve the ensuing chaos seems to be allowing gang-on-gang violence to wipe out both sides (in this case, the League of Shadows). It is only then that society can build itself anew. And while this is an interesting place to go with this story, the attempt ultimately stumbles when it uses the exceptional Bruce Wayne as its center-point. I mean, could anyone ever follow in Bruce’s footsteps? He’s just too damn unique. His ability, intelligence, and wealth notwithstanding (those being merely tools, not fuel), in Nolan’s world it is Bruce’s quest for inner peace that fuels his crimefighting. His anger. Even the unstoppable Bane remarks how surprising Batman’s return is for the film’s finale, as it should be. He’s Batman! But to imagine Blake (Joseph Gordon Levitt) taking up the mantle is almost laughable given what Bruce has endured to get to that same place. The poor kid’s in for a whole lotta pain…
Thankfully, what reduces this criticism is the tight and engaging trilogy narrative the brothers Nolan, along with David S Goyer, have constructed with these three films. Even if the film thematically falters at this crucial juncture, narratively, this films are just so damn entertaining!
These films have become a fascinating dramatization of Bruce Wayne’s relationship to his city and himself, and not merely another adaptation of the Caped Crusader. Kudos to the writers again for given A-list performers A-list material in smallish supporting roles – Caine, Oldman, and Gordon-Levitt all knock their scenes out of the park, and are reason enough to check out the film. As for Bale, Nolan gives him his very own Batman, complete and resonant, and the two create what may be the most sympathetic and complex retelling of Bruce Wayne’s story to date, end-stop.
Yet, it is my contention that this trilogy is really about Gotham. How a city can create its saviours and then destroy them. At times, I found myself hoping for a few more inspired character moments with the faces I cared about. Those are what make me return to one movie over another years later, but sadly they got sacrificed for more and more story threads. It’s unfortunate, but whatcha gonna do?
Overall, DKR is an ingenious web of various city narratives, each enriching the whole, and for me that’s enough. Will I watch it again? You bet. Will I watch it outside of a full trilogy rewatch? That remains to be seen.
RATING: *** Def see in Imax.
(p.s. note to new Batmans: if youre fighting a bad guy who has a mask on, first things first: get that mask off him. The fight will usually become much easier thereafter).
Phil Borg 