Success is no longer its own reward. At least not according to some partisans of "The Dark Knight." Fame, critical approbation, unimaginable riches, pop-cultural impact -- they are inadequate achievements. The picture must be showered with year-end awards consistent with the all-consuming Batmania of last July, no matter what else was released in 2008. Dammit.
Alarmed by what he deems insufficient obeisance to director Christopher Nolan's movie in annual honors announced so far (LA & NY crix, Golden Globules), Josh Tyler at CinemaBlend has been moved to issue movie critics an ultimatum: "Ignore 'The Dark Knight' at your peril." Actually, he issues several ultimata, in various forms, including this one, vague but menacing:
In any year, but especially in this, a particularly weak year, there's nothing out there which compares to "The Dark Knight." It must transcend your petty big box office biases since it has already changed the way we think about movies forever. It's more than the best movie of the year, it's one of the best movies ever made. Snub it and there will be consequences.
Yikes. So much for the integrity and diversity of critical discussion -- but what might those consequences be? Perhaps... death?!?!
The logic behind the threats, as near as I can tell, goes something like this: Most critics liked "The Dark Knight" (an 82 score, considered "Universal acclaim," at Metacritic, which tracks mostly mainstream print reviews). It was phenomenally popular (almost $1 billion in ticket sales worldwide). Therefore, critics who didn't like it are out of touch. But most media-consumers don't want to read reviews anyway (from in-touch or out-of-touch critics), so they are turning away from criticism to what Roger Ebert called "CelebCult" outlets, like CinemaBlend. (In a previous piece, "You Don't Care About Movie Reviews, Tyler wrote: "It's easy to call the media greedy and unprincipled, but to exist newspapers and websites must have an audience, and to have an audience you must give them something they want to read.") So, film criticism is dead because critics are losing their jobs, or possibly the other way around, because the audience that once made critics so popular does not want to read them anymore.
But back to "The Dark Knight": "Shortly before its debut in theaters, critics were hailing as one of the best movies ever made, a life changing experience," Tyler recalls. "It is, for a fact, one of the very best reviewed movies of the year." So, to conclude, dead critics who are not now hailing "The Dark Knight" as the greatest cinematic achievement of the year (or all years) are being inconsistent with what they may or may not have said earlier, and are thus sealing their own coffins. From the inside. Or they would be if they weren't already dead and buried and irrelevant and forgotten anyway.
And there's this:
It's more than just the year's best movie, it's also almost unquestionably going to be the year's most influential. Like "Star Wars" before it, "The Dark Knight" is fast becoming the new mold from which all future movies will be poured. Its impact, its influence on cinema will be felt for decades to come.
I'm afraid I must question both the hindsight and the foresight on display in this posting (headlined "Note to Award Givers: Ignore The Dark Knight At Your Own Peril"). True, I did find a quote from somebody at an Australian web site called Tsunami Magazine that said, "The Dark Knight is the best Batman film ever made, the best superhero movie ever made, and the best movie of the year to date" -- but I don't recall a mainstream critical consensus promising that it would wind up being everybody's Best Movie of the Year (when and if the End of the Year arrived), or that it ranked Among the Best Movies Ever Made. If that were indeed the case then we are living in a world where memory is what Guy Pearce's character experiences in Nolan's earlier "Memento." (I'm sorry: Does the term "earlier" have meaning in this context?)
As for the predictions, I can only wonder how "The Dark Knight" is "fast becoming the new mold from which all future movies will be poured," and what all movies will look like once they have been poured into it. For that matter, when after 1977 did all movies begin to resemble "Star Wars," which derived its cinematic sensibility from old Republic and Monogram serials?
Tyler concludes:
For print critics, a vote against "The Dark Knight" is a vote for your own irrelevancy. It's a vote for the unemployment line. It's a conscious choice to ignore a cultural phenomenon in favor of pushing some undeserved indie-film agenda over a movie which people have already seen.
This reasoning strikes me as bizarre -- almost as bizarre as Patrick Goldstein's bewildering LA Times blog post about how "specialty film" publicists are afraid to have the New York Times' Manohla Dargis review their pictures. ("What causes so much fear and loathing in the filmmaking community about Manohla's work as a critic isn't her blunt appraisals but her seeming lack of empathy for the challenge of tackling difficult material," Goldstein writes -- as if a critic's job were to review challenges and intentions rather than the movie on the screen. Meanwhile, Goldstein casts himself as indie Hollywood's trusted inside media consultant at the paper: "The production chief of one indie studio once was so infuriated by a string of negative Dargis reviews that he vowed to keep Manohla away from all of his future screenings, even if that meant stopping all our critics from seeing his movies. I told him it was a bad idea, since it would simply make Manohla a hero to critics everywhere, further increasing her clout.")
Tyler implies that the function of a critic is to choose between cultural phenomena and "some undeserved indie-film agenda." Were those really the two (and only two) options weighed by the Los Angeles Film Critics' Association when its members narrowly chose "WALL-E" over "The Dark Knight" for best picture? (Nolan was runner-up to Danny "Slumdog Millionaire" Boyle in the director category, and Heath Ledger won for supporting actor.)
On the other hand, Goldstein suggests that critics ought to promote an "indie-film agenda" based on a guestimation of the makers' ambitions: "No one blinks an eye when a critic eviscerates a dumb summer comedy -- that's a fair target. It's the filmmakers who've aimed high and been brought to their knees by a Dargis pan who feel as if they've been gored for sport." Even if it were harder to make a film that "aims high" than it is to make a "dumb summer comedy" (it's not), why should critics or audiences care? Is a serious opportunity bungled any more worthwhile or entertaining than a frivolous one? Might a misconceived attempt at self-importance be more egregiously offensive and/or painful to watch than a routine genre picture? (Especially when the former makes pretentious and repetitious Thematic Statements without developing them?)
I don't think film criticism is dead. What makes me sad is that so few people even know what it is. But that's something that hasn't changed in 30 years.
* * * *
P.S. In case you've forgotten, one of the best-written, most persuasive appreciations of "The Dark Knight" was written by Manohla Dargis herself:
A self-described agent of chaos, the Joker arrives in Gotham abruptly, as if he'd been hiding up someone's sleeve. He quickly seizes control of the city's crime syndicate and Batman's attention with no rhyme and less reason. Mr. Ledger, his body tightly wound but limbs jangling, all but disappears under the character's white mask and red leer. Licking and chewing his sloppy, smeared lips, his tongue darting in and out of his mouth like a jittery animal, he turns the Joker into a tease who taunts criminals (Eric Roberts's bad guy, among them) and the police (Gary Oldman's good cop), giggling while he-he-he (ha-ha-ha) tries to burn the world down. He isn't fighting for anything or anyone. He isn't a terrorist, just terrifying.Mr. Nolan is playing with fire here, but partly because he's a showman. Even before the Joker goes wild, the director lets loose with some comic horror that owes something to Michael Mann's "Heat," something to Cirque de Soleil, and quickly sets a tense, coiled mood that he sustains for two fast-moving hours of freakish mischief, vigilante justice, philosophical asides and the usual trinkets and toys, before a final half-hour pileup of gunfire and explosions. This big-bang finish -- which includes a topsy-turvy image that poignantly suggests the world has been turned on its axis for good -- is sloppy, at times visually incoherent, yet touching. Mr. Nolan, you learn, likes to linger in the dark, but he doesn't want to live there. [...]
In its grim intensity, "The Dark Knight" can feel closer to David Fincher's "Zodiac" than Tim Burton's playfully gothic "Batman," which means it's also closer to Bob Kane's original comic and Frank Miller's 1986 reinterpretation. That makes it heavy, at times almost pop-Wagnerian, but Mr. Ledger's performance and the film's visual beauty are transporting. (In Imax, it's even more operatic.) No matter how cynical you feel about Hollywood, it is hard not to fall for a film that makes room for a shot of the Joker leaning out the window of a stolen police car and laughing into the wind, the city's colored lights gleaming behind him like jewels. He's just a clown in black velvet, but he's also some kind of masterpiece.
1) How do I start an "Ignore 'Wendy and Lucy' At Your Peril" campaign?
2) I fear the consequence may involve being forced to watch the movie again.
3) I Heart Manohla Dargis
4) Iron Man kicked Dark Knight's ass.
Ah, thank you, Mr. Tyler, for your heady commentary...
The film critic population has been experiencing background extinction for a while now. Only the truest scholars will survive in the long run - the Bordwells and Eberts and the rest of the folks who are truly contributing something with their words. These gentlemen are teachers as much as they are critics.
Josh Tyler doesn't fall into this category. He is the critical equivalent to the male nipple...completely worthless.
Happy Holidays, Mr. Emerson. Will you be attending Ebertfest again in 2009? Best wishes.
JB
Let me be clear. I was astounded by intelligence and depth of THE DARK KNIGHT. It definitely is one of the best of the year. But the fanboys who have been ballot stuffing IMDB's ratings in claiming that the film is so great to warrant G0AT (Greatest of All Time) status is maddening.
Why can't fanboys just leave good enough alone? They have to shoot down other worthy films (voting down THE GODFATHER) just so that their views can be justfified by the majority. I don't think it's even the best film of the year (though it's up there).
I have never felt more confused over a film's "supposed greatness" than I have with The Dark Knight. David Bordwell described it as "portentously hollow", and I could not agree more.
As for the issue of critics heeding Mr. Tyler's decree, I am simply disgusted.
Rage like that usually suggests some sort of insecurity over one's sensibilities and tastes. Someone needs to ask Mr. Tyler "Why So Serious?"
And as for the whole Manohla Dargis situation, where do I even begin? What good is film criticism, or criticism in general, if it is forced to conform to the taste of it's readership? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of criticism? This is beyond maddening!
This Tyler dude seems a bit nutty to me. I don't know what it is about die-hard fandom...I think it stops being about the movie at some point. Maybe people just like belonging to groups. It's almost like a religion...join this club, or don't - and perish. What do year-end awards - or even critical consensus - really matter, anyway? You liked the movie, great, you didn't, great.
And being someone who liked The Dark Knight very much, I think I should add my interpretation: the "thematic statements" you're talking about, by which I assume you mean "you either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain," and so on, I think are supposed to be a little simplistic. Superhero movies always have statements like that ("With great power comes great responsibility," etc). What The Dark Knight does is undercuts them with a lack of a real theme, and simply presents an arbitrary series of wins and losses for each side of the war. The mistakes the characters make (particularly Dent) is assuming everything will work out because they're "the heroes."
Life's a Darwinian struggle, as The Joker points out, but perhaps some of us can rise above it. Perhaps.
PS. listenin' to Built for Comfort by Howlin' Wolf. Good stuff.
"Snub it and there will be consequences"? Wow, talk about revenge of the nerds!
"Fame, critical approbation, unimaginable riches, pop-cultural impact -- they are inadequate achievements. The picture must be showered with year-end awards..."
Jim, you just gave the four main reasons why The Dark Knight should be nominated for Best Picture! It's a shame that this film is fighting an uphill battle to the Oscars simply because it's a superhero film, and because of crazies like Christopher Long (kidding!).
Alright, first off, JIM, GREAT BLOG! TERRIFIC. "Perhaps... death?!?!" had me laughing out loud. That really is the mentality isn't it?
But, before I go on, let's get this straightened out.
"Annie Hall" was the best film of 1977!
It was one of the year's they actually got right!
And if they hadn't have picked it, the next best film would NOT be "Star Wars"!
It would be "Killer of Sheep"...
followed by "Close Encounters of the Third Kind".
With that out of the way, we move on the main discussion...
I think "TDK" is terrific, one of the year's best, an instant classic.
But what a stupid article from Josh Tyler advocating for its supremacy over ALL other films.
And he calls "Milk" an indie film?
And he says it was a weak year?
And what's with the animosity towards indie flicks?
Jim, you really didn't have to bother with this fool. But then again, you did because people are dumb enough to agree with him.
His argument comes down to this: "TDK" is popular and... if you want people to listen to you... you'll say it's good.
He's asking us to all be like Hofgen, the actor who sells his soul to the Nazis in "Mephisto", sacrificing all his integrity as a human being for fans.
You cannot sell out your credibility as a critic for readers. If people haven't figured that out by now... that's just sad and perhaps shows our culture is actually regressing as "CelebCult" takes over and Ben Lyons replaces Roger Ebert.
What a joke.
Hi Jim,
Not meaning to disparage The Dark Knight here or to be wry, but I have wondered if the death of Heath Ledger, and the subsequent attention paid to it by the media, had not "inadvertently" contributed to the film's current heft. Is it not one of the Laws of Celebcult that we should pay our respects to a departed celebrity as if he/she were one of the family (or at least show that we care)?
Had Heath Ledger not met an early demise, I wonder what the true public consensus of "The Dark Knight" would be? I found the film very well-made and intelligent, but nothing that breaks the bounds of cineastic sensation. To me, it was profoundly engaging to a point, even indirectly addressing the current issue of domestic spying, until the reality of the violence set in.
Or maybe it's just the romantic me. I would still rate Spiderman 2 as the best superhero movie. Now there's a movie that did not seem to depend on darkening its palette (which seems to the current major trend of movies, btw), or appear profound, but used a love story, something that is simple, universal and timeless, to achieve stature.
Tyler? Tyler Durden?
Is Josh Tyler mental? Or just stupid?
The Dark Knight was incomprehensibly filmed and edited, comprised of a ludicrous story, even for cartoon movies like the Batman films and barely registered as entertainment for anyone past the age of ten, maybe twelve.
Unless the concept of the villain being the flip side of the hero is a new one to you, The Dark Knight adds nothing, NOTHING to the canon of cartoon films.
In fact, in one of The Dark Knights most famous action scenes, the kidnapping of the Asian guy, it's managed it the exact same way that the James Bond film Thunderball ends! The Dark Knight steals from a forty+ year old film and tries to call it new.
Absolutely pathetic!
Great article!
It sums up what have become two of my most favorite subjects in the past few weeks: the sad disappearance of real film criticism overcome by ridiculous tabloid fodder and the scary fanboy-ism of "The Dark Knight" followers.
You make some very interesting observations and the content of the piece itself makes me sadder that people don't always take the time to read articles like this.
Congratulations!
Here, here. I agree.
Not long after The Dark Knight was released, I heard that critic Joe Morgenstern had been receiving threats – actual threats – because he’d deigned to give Batman a negative review. That people could get so angry over a review that they would threaten a critic for just doing his job strikes me as slightly insane.
A confession: I liked The Dark Knight. I liked it so much that I quickly went home and wrote up a blog entry reviewing the film. Now, however, I vaguely regret writing said blog entry less than a day after leaving the theater. Upon recently viewing The Dark Knight again, I realize that I was perhaps a little too gushing. While I still think that the film is an engaging piece of work, its narrative structure is a bit messy. Certain plot elements (like the entire Two-Face thread) feel rushed. Certain scenes (see Harvey Dent’s initial appearance in court) border on the silly. The 9/11 metaphors aren’t wholly convincing. And that climactic action scene, staged at night, is very confusing.
So – good as I think the film is, it has some very real flaws.
Reading Josh Tyler’s column, however, gives me a headache. While I will not be so petty as to criticize the man’s grammar, I will say that I heartily disagree with his thesis. He seems to feel that a critic’s job is to follow the masses. If a large number of mainstream critics like a movie, then darn it, every critic should give it a good review. If 99% of moviegoers love a movie, that movie must be great, right?
Oy vey…
That Tyler feels it necessary to verbally berate critics for having an opinion that differs from his is childish. Tyler’s column also demonstrates that he doesn’t really understand the role of a professional critic. It is a critic’s job to express an informed personal opinion. It is not a critic’s job to simply follow the crowd.
I also fully agree with you about Goldstein’s article. It isn’t a critic’s job to give a film a pass simply because that film has great ambition. Goldstein mentions The Reader. Now, I have neither seen the film nor read the book upon which it is based, but the plot and its themes (the Holocaust, the nature of guilt, memory…) are very ambitious. The Reader might be great, though I’ve heard mixed reviews.
Goldstein, however, seems to think that a film’s lofty ambitions are enough to make it a masterpiece. They aren’t. Not every film on an important subject works.
For example: Life is Beautiful is awful. Offensive. Obnoxious.
Okay, maybe using a Benigni film as an example is a little unfair. Let’s take another one. Director Francesco Rosi’s The Truce (1997) also explores issues pertaining to the Holocaust. It is based on a brilliant book by Primo Levi. It stars John Turturro. So far, so good. But while Turturro is excellent, the film doesn’t really work. Many of the supporting characters aren’t fully developed, and the film’s structure is too episodic.
Goldstein’s arguments remind me of that Kate Winslet cameo in an episode of HBO’s Extras. Dressed as a nun and swearing up a storm, Winslet explains that she’s starring in a film about the Holocaust precisely because it will make her an awards contender. Given her current presence in The Reader, this cameo seems an irony now – but a remarkably prescient one.
Noble intentions do not necessarily make a great film. They might get a mediocre film noticed, however.
I simply must ask all these vicious DARK KNIGHT proponents... Hey, guys: Why so serious?
I thought THE DARK KNIGHT was a pretty middling summer movie that pretended to deal with BIG THEMES AND ISSUES, but really didn't. It just sort've brought them up and left them out to dry. Batman and the Joker are opposite sides of the same coin! Warrantless wiretapping/surveillance is bad! Sometimes. I think. Except when Batman destroys the machine afterward, which makes it okay. Also, what was with the Joker rambling on about not having any sort of plan ever, and then immediately devising the incredibly complex scheme with the two boats? And, for that matter, I think Nolan should be taken to task for playing the old "GOTCHA!" racism trick, in which the biggest, meanest, blackest convict on board the boat seems like he's gonna blow up the other boat, but then shows nobility by getting rid of the remote.
It seems to me that the comic geek set sees this movie as its ticket to being taken seriously, and so they've decided to overlook the film's numerous flaws (the Psych 101 posturing, the inconsistencies in the Joker's character, the wooden performance by Bale, the "GOTCHA!" gag, etc.) and rabidly attack anyone who points them out. And at the end of the day, the flick can always fall back on being a Batman movie. It gets on its knees and begs to be taken seriously, but when one does take it seriously and points out its problems, that person is chastised for attacking a harmless pop object. It's the worst kind of filmmaking, the cowardly, "critic-proof" kind.
But hey, Heath Ledger was pretty good.
I'm a little disturbed by all of this. I've always been a little disgusted how Warner Bros have shamelessly exploited Ledger's unfortunate passing into financial success and critic favour, and now we are being told that we must accept Dark Knight as best movie of the year (and possibly of all time) based on that tainted success. I have accepted, for better or worse, that Ledger's accolades are a given, but please, isn't it time to be honest and admit there were better films this year. And no, I'm not a contrarian. Yet.
My own personal movie of the year was RAMBO. It's not intellectual, because it doesn't have to be. It's primal and visceral and uncomplicated and absolutely perfect for what it is. I'd never make it as critic.
What interests me is this: "...it has already changed the way we think about movies forever."
How? What was our thinking before, and what is it now that we've seen this masterpiece for all time? "The Dark Knight" is a decent movie, but I've never understood it when we read or hear people talk as if it's some radical shift in the history of cinema. "The Dark Knight" ain't no "Breathless". It didn't do anything to advance or transform the grammar of cinematic laguage that the Bourne series hasn't already done. Did it do anything to deepen the Batman mythology? No. If people are going to speak in such supurlatives, then I'd like to see them backed up.
I also have a hard time understanding why people need to see the films of their preference lauded with awards. If a movie is good, then it really dosen't matter if it gets an award. And if it's not good, then who cares? Has anyone bothered to take a look at the Academy's choices for best picture over the years? How many did they get right? Or how many were even close? If a movie deserves recognition, then no lack of awards will keep history from vindicating it.
Jim, thank you for calling out the ridiculous claims by so-called-critics like Josh Tyler. Bullying film critics to love a movie is not the purpose of film criticism. There are plenty of movies that the masses love and make a ton of money. Does that make them the best films ever? According to some. But that's the beauty of film, there is something for everyone. Here's to freedom of speech and film taste!
Christopher-Especially #4. The Dark Knight, the best superhero movie ever made? It's not even the best superhero movie of the year.
Careful, Jim -- thinly veiled digs like that might incur wrathful "consequences."
I tried reading Tyler's source piece before commenting, but gave up when I got to the "almost unquestionably going to be the year’s most influential [film]" line. Almost unquestionably, huh? So in other words, it's not quite unquestionably the most influential film of the year. Which means... absolutely nothing, as far as I can tell.
I very much enjoyed The Dark Knight, but not as much as I expected to. A few too many logical gaps, and some of its Thematic Statements in the ending struck me as... well, wrong. (SPOILER WARNING, kind of: So by TDK's logic, was Pat Tillman the "hero we needed"? Is there a problem with a superhero movie when I agree with the villain's chaotic philosophy more than the hero's -- ahem, not the hero, but the silent guardian's -- choice to conceal the truth?).
Anyway. As for anyone who does think it's the Best Movie of Evermore but still feels it needs to win gaggles of awards to prove it... well that's one of those peculiar traits of human nature that are inexplicable. It's as if critics and and those who decide on these awards are these monolithic entities that fanboys revile, and yet at the same time they yearn for their approval, as if to prove to their parents or friends, "See! My interests are not a waste of time!" Even if, as it probably does when it comes to The Dark Knight, their parents and friends already agree with them. (Also see: video gamers who hate Roger Ebert but still try to convince him games are art.)
And for the record, Spider-Man 2 is still the best superhero movie ever made, dammit. It has a 93% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, for cripes sake! And where were its accolades when it came to awards season in 2004, I ask you? Where was the recognition for Sam Raimi's sterling masterpiece? One measly Oscar for visual effects, Academy? That's the best you could offer? You realize this unforgivable snub is probably what lead Sam Raimi to make Spider-Man 3 out of retaliation? It's all your fault.
I find the gloating on both sides to be equally noxious. IMO, TDK was an excellent movie with a striking performance by Heath Ledger -- and you know what? I could care less if it wins a single Oscar or not. The Oscars have long since lost any relevance of being gauges of anything (quality, acting chops, "relevance") except maybe the industry's capacity to dislocate its shoulder patting itself on the back.
The "Dark Knight" could *be* the greatest movie ever made and it still would not validate, in the slightest, the ridiculous manifesto Tyler is propounding. Then again, many ridiculous manifestoes of the past have somehow gained footholds in the arena of public opinion, and often it does come down to a certain large segment ignoring the actual manifesto and saying to themselves, and their fellow sheep, "Hey, I liked that Batman movie. This guy must be on to something."
As to being part of a group: Yeah, it can be pretty cool, but I much prefer assembling with those who hate what I love, or vice versa, but have ideas similar to mine about how they come to said hate or love or ambivalence. This is all becoming so Gullivery or Sneetchy. We have stars on our wide ends.
If The Dark Knight is the best film of this or any year, then I'm Gina Lollobrigida.
I was a late-coming DVD-viewer of The Dark Night. I loved 'Batman Begins' and I like the series as a whole.
But, The Dark Night is nothing short of a convoluted mess, much less a masterful new mold. From beginning to end there are story holes you can drive a truck through.
Can I enumerate just the most memorable?
1)Why does Batman go to China and kidnap the national? This guy absconds with all the crime loot from Gotham. So what?
2)What happens at Bruce Wayne's penthouse AFTER The Batman jumps out the window to save Ms. Dawes? - Does the Joker just leave? Does Henry not regain consciousness?
3)Why doesn't the Joker kill Henry at the parade? just because he's SAID he's now going to kill the mayor? He was going to kill Henry before? Then he tries to kill him later - when he says he's Batman- but why not in broad daylight with a loaded gun?
4)When he's chasing Henry in the truck, and he sees Batman coming at him on his bike - doesn't he then realize that Henry is not Batman?
and, nice placement of the minions to raise the cable to fell the helicopter - they knew how high it would fly? and where? and what time? in a chase involving three SWAT trucks and a hundred turns?
Having just been able to see The Dark Knight this week, I liked the movie, but I felt it was too long and too muddled at times. Going in, I thought that all the praise for Heath Ledger might have been a combination of sentiment and grief but now that I've seen his performance, I concur that the praise for his work is very much deserved. For the movie? Not so much.
For both for my own insanely perfectionist purposes as well as those catering to social graces, I ended up seeing The Dark Knight in theaters five times. It may be the most flawed, almost-great film I can recall seeing in theaters: more to love than hate, but what does bother me throughout the film is nothing short of infuriating.
Nevertheless, this with-us-or-against-us banter is pure, unfiltered bullshit. I don't even care to address it, to give it the ego-inflating attention it wants. Anyone with that attitude (the assholes who posted feverishly at The House Next Door and Rotten Tomatoes: I'm talking to you) is not worth it.
The Dark Knight will possibly end up on my Honorable Mentions list (pending the 20+ movies I still want to see before the year is out, and with more screeners likely on the way as we speak), but if any fanboy has a problem with the fact that it will be coming in behind Rachel Getting Married, W. (yes Jim, I loved it), My Blueberry Nights, Speed Racer (ditto), Paranoid Park, Reprise, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, Wall-E, and a few others, then they can address the problem to the nearest brick wall.
Re: Keith
To some, I'm sure you are. =)
There is a ridiculously high percentage of intelligent postings on this website ... is this still the internet... ? Maybe I got lost somewhere ....
Wesley Dumont:
First of all, it's Harvey and not Henry. Here are the answers to your questions.
1.) Batman needed to get Lau so the mob can stop using him to launder their money. He was the last person the mob could turn down. He was a free man in Hong Kong and still handling the mob's account. Also, he hid the money somewhere in Gotham and didn't bring it with him. They were going after the mob's life savings.
2.) I think it's obvious the Joker left. Do you need to see this scene? Plus, Batman disarmed the Joker's men so the Joker is now outnumbered. It's a safe assumption that he hightailed it out of there.
3.) The Joker didn't know that Harvey was going to be on the stage with everyone else. Plus, he didn't have enough time to shoot the mayor AND Harvey. Did you see how quickly the police went after his henchman right after one shot at the mayor? At this point in the movie, the Joker begins to suspect that Harvey is Batman like he said in the interrogation scene. "For a second there, I really thought you were Dent...the way you threw yourself after her." The Joker doesn't want to kill Batman. "I don't want to kill you. What would I do without you?"
4.) It's obvious the Joker realizes Harvey is not Batman. He even says "Hmm" right after he sees the tumbler. If you re-watch this scene, the Joker doesn't immediately aim the RPG at the armored vehicle. He fires two shots at the police cruiser first and then right after he sees Batman's car and realizing that Harvey is not Batman he takes aim at the armored vehicle.
Are you serious about the helicopter thing? Now, that's just nitpicking (as were some of your points above). Why does a lot of things happen in movies? You said you loved Batman Begins and there were flaws in there as well. How did Alfred know where to pick up Bruce with the plane? How did Batman find the apartment with the drugs so quickly?
For as many people that blindly gush about The Dark Knight with hyperbole, there are as many people that blindly try to discredit it. There are complaints that fanboys have to feel the need to put down other movies like the Godfather to talk up The Dark Knight but there are as many people that have to put down The Dark Knight while talking up their favorite movies this year like Wall-E, Iron Man, Milk, Slumdog, etc. Why can't we all like what we like and leave it at that?
BTW, no less an authority than Wizard Magazine, the industry bible of comic geekdom, has declared the greatest super-hero movie ever to be... Iron Man. With Dark Knight second. Sic 'em, Mr. Tyler!
I don't think there's any reason to get upset w/Mr. Tyler. He's obviously not a serious film critic, and he's just using his venue to gush about a movie he likes and provoking those who disagree with him. I am sure I said similarly disparaging things in the past about critics who somehow came to the conclusion that either American Beauty or Crash was the single greatest achievement in cinema during an entire calendar year.
And Serdar is right, who the heck cares about the Oscars? As a general rule, if the film I thought was the best of the year won an Oscar, I'd think there was something wrong with me. No offense intended to Jim re: No Country for Old Men. :)
And I think Mr. Tyler will be sorely disappointed if the Dark Knight actually wins the Oscar because there will be nothing left to feel indignant about.
For whatever reason, there seems to be a trend that has been growing for some time (perhaps since and due to the anonymity provided by the Internet) that if one loves a film, then they must subsequently hate and bash other films. Some observers may remember the heated "Lord of the Rings trilogy vs. original Star Wars trilogy: Which is better?" argument that frequently dissolved into name-calling.
It seems that the issue of whether "The Dark Knight" is the best film of the year is just another in a long line of perplexing battles that take place over the Internet. It is not enough to simply prefer one film over another. Instead, any and all naysayers must be put to death for daring to express an opposing view or preference. The problem with this, of course, is that filmmaking is an art. We don't all appreciate and like the same things. One used to be able to say, 'well, we'll have to agree to disagree', but now this is replaced by name-calling, petitions, spamming, you name it.
Frankly, I liked "The Dark Knight" but thought that "Slumdog Millionaire" was the more affecting film, and for me, the better film. It's my opinion and preference, just as choosing "Milk" as best film was the preference of the New York critics. I'm not saying anything new or that is outside the realm of common sense, but it would be nice to visit Internet sites (Aint-it-cool, are you listening?) where the partisan bickering was kept to a minimum and where the site moderators (who exacerbate the problems in many cases) tried to foster a more open love for and discussion of movies.
I'd like it if this could happen, but I fear that this 'all or nothing' approach to film will only continue in the future.
This Tyler guy sounds like a real idiot. I don't want to defend the Dark Knight, although I enjoy it just as much as the general public. More than anything, it struck a personal cord with the movie going public. In my college class, 3 people had gone to see it FIVE TIMES.
I only saw Titanic once when it came out (and that was enough for me.) I do want to see Dark knight a couple more times, but that's because of its labyrinth plot (which I love) excellent acting (Ledger gets all the credit, but Eckhardt I thought was the next best.) and great production values.
I DO want to remark on Bale's acting. I don't think he's wooden. I think, having known what happened in Batman Begins, it adds to this experience. But that's all up to personal taste.
Oscars? Who cares. Those don't mean anything anymore.
Debate rages on about every possible value judgment that can be made about any cultural cash cow that comes along. It certainly prolongs the buzz. Am I obliged to feel bamboozled by this? I'd like to think not. Provided the opinion/asshole ratio, is it worth it for me to dwell pensively on the Dark Knight social cesspool?
Mr. Tyler's ultimatum affects me like AIDS does a flagpole.
As I sit here typing away with The Dark Knight on my mind, and its dramatic struggles and superb imagery floating through my brain, I realize what concerns me. It ain't TDK's possible budding relationship with our great, oh-so-giving friend Oscar, or the critico-meters, or it's notch on the IMDB top 250, or the number of dollars exchanged in its name.
In other words, there is plenty to "ignore" about The Dark Knight film itself, which I, a day-trader/filmgoer (an apparent nobody in this particular debate) will freely do. But since I am just talking about myself again, and since I am no "critic," I guess I won't be faced with this dilemma.
I say this not to negate the topic or anything. Do discuss if you don't object, which I do not. It's good to do. I myself had just finished watching the damn movie again earlier today, with retained fondness (whatever that's worth). If there are fires still raging outside of my personal pod of perception, so be it. Nothing has changed where I sleep or how I do so. Thank goodness for such peace as that.
People are stupid.
People have opinions.
People have stupid opinions.
If you don't come to the same conclusion as everyone else, you are completely useless, at providing your opinion unfettered by others.
C'mon, guys (referring to Tyler, and various fanboys). There are critics who have legitimate points to raise against Citizen Kane, Casablanca, Tokyo Story, 2001. I'll add one: that ballet in Singin' in the Rain (still the best Hollywood musical) sure is tacked on, with a winking "I dunno, I'll have to picture it" joke after the whole thing. Does the delightfulness of the ballet or the joke at the end actually justify breaking the film's already flimsy narrative to do it? (The answer is yes, by the way, but it's a legitimate question, I think.) There are several different metrics by which to measure film quality. A person who argues that Armageddon is the best, most perfect film of all time would defy almost every conventional film metric, but may in fact be correct according to his/her own. (What that might be, I don't know, but I'm sure there is one.) Even if TDK is the best film ever made, it will still have detractors because it cannot possibly be all things to all people.
I liked it a lot, but it lacks the grace of Spider-Man 2 or Iron Man, or the coherent moral universe of the good crime films. It wasn't supposed to be graceful or coherent, I suppose--The Joker is an anarchist, insane, deliberately hideous and incoherent, and the movie follows him, but that doesn't necessarily mean that what it accomplished was better.
I think Andrew raised an excellent point, btw, about TDK being a refutation of the simplistic comic book lines it spouts. The contradictions between the various lines throughout the film, the psychological inconsistencies, and so on, aren't necessarily a sign of UNINTENTIONAL thematic incoherence, but of an intentional one. The Joker will f&*# you up.
(I do think that almost in any case the whole "prisoner's paradox" boat scene was a big mistake--it doesn't really follow from anything in the first two-thirds of the movie, except perhaps as the ultimate version of the abstraction of society the movie had been toying with for two hours.)
Well, having seen most of critically-acclaimed films getting awards coverage this year, The Dark Knight remains my favourite. For me, it simply comes down to how strongly one responds to something emotionally, and how much inclination one has to watch it again. I've seen TDK multiple times, and fully intend to watch it many more times in the future. I guess that would certainly make it one of my favourite "mainstream entertainments" of the decade. Right now, my Top 10 of 2008 looks like this:
1) The Dark Knight
2) WALL*E
3) Milk
4) Synecdoche, New York
5) Tell No One
6) Frost/Nixon
7) Slumdog Millionaire
8) 4 Months, 3 Weeks, and 2 Days
9) Rachel Getting Married
10) Let The Right One In
Now, I realize a number of quality documentaries were released this year, but generally-speaking, even the best documentaries, for me, tend not to stand up well to repeat viewings...that's down to personal preference.
Moving on, it goes without saying that Tyler is going overboard. But, then again, I always find it excessive to declare any one thing "The Best of the Year/Decade/All-Time". You'll find that people respond much less harshly when you simply state that you think something is "one" of the best. Then they don't feel as compelled to tear your favourite down in order to build up their own...they're more evenhanded and generous about it.
In many ways, it's silly to compare a crime drama with superhero motifs to a film about a gay politician to a film about a game show contestant from the slums of India, etc., etc. Each has its strengths and weaknesses, like any film out there , but they're not really comparable in terms of content: they're far too different. Now, I suppose it's easier to compare, for instance, two comic-book-based superhero films, but as we've seen, content can vary wildly in those as well. Iron Man and Hellboy II, based on discussions I've had with comic book fans, are reasonably close to their source material, whereas Nolan chose to think a bit more outside the box with his Batman series, particularly the second film, which feels more like an dark, large-scale crime flick than what we've come to expect from most "superhero" films. Viewers who want a (relative) carbon copy of what they get in the comics may very well prefer the approach of Favreau and/or Del Toro, and those who are perhaps a bit weary of the familiar archetypes of comic book films found TDK to be a refreshing, more thoughtful reconfiguration/re-stylization of its themes. For the majority (of critics and moviegoers), Nolan's approach proved to be the more satisfying way to go, at this point in time. Of course, many filmmakers will likely follow in his footsteps with the tone and style but leave behind the narrative intent, and we might see a return to bright, spandex-clad movies sooner than you'd think...if you're into that kind of thing. Everything works in cycles.
Personally, I'd like to see The Dark Knight garner Oscar nominations for Best Picture, Director, Adapted Screenplay, Supporting Actor, Cinematography, Sound Design, etc. It's an ambitious, thoughtful film that, for me, achieves the vast majority of what it sets out to do, in impressively cinematic, and emotionally resonant, style. I'm also rather tired of "pulpy" (and I mean that in the best way possible) material getting overlooked most years in favour of films seemingly designed, first and foremost, to win awards, simply by virtual of "substantial" subject matter. As though a film about, say, The Holocaust, is automatically "great", regardless of the relative quality of its writing, acting, and direction. It's actually refreshing to see so many critics not fall for some of the Oscar bait this year, separating the good (Milk, Frost/Nixon, etc.) from the not-so-good (The Reader, Changeling, Blindness, etc.). Hopefully the Oscars follow suit, though they tend to play it safe most years, so I'm not placing any bets. All that said, films like Milk, Frost/Nixon, Rachel Getting Married, etc., are compelling and well-executed, and absolutely worthy of recognition in any calendar year. I certainly wouldn't take any major issue with them winning awards, as they all have their own unique qualities.
As for whether The Oscars, or any other awards show, really matter? Well, most people like to see things they enjoy get recognition, and be validated by others, and that's never going to change. Part of it, I believe, stems from the desire to be part of an extended community. But, honestly, if you're going to set down your opinion as law that all others must adhere to, you're only going to set off a series of knee-jerk reactions and (possible) name-calling sessions which will have the exact opposite effect. And going into any of these films with an adversarial attitude is only doing yourself a disservice as a viewer. They each have their pleasures and shortcomings, as with any film from this year, decade, or all-time. I don't know about you, but I've always preferred a conversational atmosphere that is gracious and well-rounded to one of a glib, dismissive nature.
Movies may have to be added to religion and politics as things you don't discuss in polite company.
I can't say I'm surprised anymore by what the fanboys say or write to people who don't agree with them. They called David Edelstein a "faggot" and said he should "die" due to his opinions on "The Dark Knight"
I also think that there is a "The Dark Knight" backlash much like the "Juno" backlash that Jim had previously posted on here. When something cool gets too popular it becomes fashionable to take potshots at it (not accusing all people who like the movie or have big problems with it of this). So certain people feel the need to praise "Iron Man" at the expense of the Dark Knight.
And if we're going to get into plotholes how about the fact that they never explain how in Iron Man, tony is able fly all the way to the middle east in that suit and back again (I know there is a deleted scene on the dvd but seeing it in theaters the question remained). Also the fact that as Jeff Bridges puts it in the movie when talking about the arc reactor, "Tony stark was able to build this thing in a cave using scraps!" That does indeed seem farfetched. Also everyone complains about batman's voice, but think of how ridiculous jeff bridges voice sounds when he puts on the iron monger suit.
But again I really like and enjoy Iron Man. My best friend thinks its better than The Dark Knight and that is his right.
As for Mahnola Dargis I think the question to ask is this: what is the responsiblity of a film critic? Is it to simply rate movies up or down,good or bad, zero stars or four stars? If so then Ms. Dargis clearly has every right to continue reviewing movies the way she does. But film criticism doesnt't happen in a vacuum. If she gives a bad review to an independent film and it does poorly at the box office does that make it more or less likely that more independent films will get made? Is a poorly made movie that defies easy categorization or formulas better than a well shot, ably directed farce starring Larry the Cable Guy and Carlos Mencia?
Jim says that intentions aren't what are being reviewed but the movie is. And someone who wants to make a message or statement movie does not necessarily have intentions anymore pure than someone who just makes a traditional genre picture (and yes I know what the road to hell is paved with. Though, given how hard it is to get message or statement movies made (they generally do poorly at the box office), isn't usually safe to conclude this was something someone really believed in and stuck with? That they chose to do the hard thing and make this rather than a bank heist movie with Bruce Willis (who is a very good actor I might add)
When Spiderman 3 came out and got bad-to-mixed reviews, there were howls from legions of participants on Rotten Tomatoes' discussion boards. Critics, they said, are irrelevant, stuck-up elitists, and who cares what they think, anyway? And when precisely the same slate of critics gave a resounding "thumbs up" to the Dark Knight, the same legion of participants praised them for their wisdom. Huh? I thought they were irrelevant, stuck up snobs who should be ignored. You can't have it both ways, fanboys.
I liked "the Dark Knight" a lot. But it was not "a life changing experience", as Josh Tyler described it. Meeting my wife, life-changing. Having a kid, life changing. Death of a parent, life changing. "Dark Knight": two-and-a-half hours of solid entertainment with about a thousand calories of movie popcorn to go with it. But anybody who says that the film is a deeply profound exposition on the eternal struggle between good and evil — and you'd think that it was "Paradise Lost" to listen to some of these people — is, well, probably someone who thinks that "Kung-Fu Panda" is one of the year's best films. Someone like Josh Tyler. Someone who needs to start reading books.
Here's the really disappointing part...
I logged in a left a politely worded comment (with only one instance of mild sarcasm) asking, for example, that the author cite some examples of critics who hailed TDK as "as one of the best movies ever made, a life changing experience." I also asked that he explain in which ways TDK revolutionized movies, enough to be so influential. I pointed out that the "cultural phenomenon" aspect was due to its marketing budget and beloved brand as much as the actual quality of the movie. I pointed out that had the film been released in December it might not have been called the best film of 2008 so far. And I asked why he was so certain that critics who raved about TDK were being truthful then and false later when they liked any movie other than TDK as the best picture of 2008. Couldn't it be the other way around? Couldn't it be that the "big box office bias" that he thinks doomed TDK in year-end awards also contributed to that film being graded on a "big box office" curve?
This comment wasn't published. Pathetic.
JE: Jason, I just went through my spam filter after I read this and I couldn't find another comment from you, so I don't know what happened to it. I RARELY disapprove a comment -- only if it's crudely insulting (usually to another commenter) and adds nothing to the discussion.
I loved the Dark Knight. Yet I think that a lot of the more insightful and articulate reviews and articles about the movie have come from those who don't share my opinion on the movie. Yours included Mr. Emerson. I would rather read those than the strident rantings of a dork like Mr. Tyler.
And while everyone is sharing their opinions on the best comic book movie and the best movie of 2008, I submit my $0.02 respectively: Hellboy 2 and Man on Wire.
I can only wonder how "The Dark Knight" is "fast becoming the new mold from which all future movies will be poured," and what all movies will look like once they have been poured into it.
Umm... IMAX action scenes, maybe? Beyond that, the only memorable innovation in TDK was its 8 or 10 action/suspense sequences versus the mere 3 in Iron Man or Incredible Hulk. That's a pattern worth emulating.
I can't wait for The Dark Knight to succumb to "Hype Fatigue." Give it a year and a few repeated viewings and I think it will be knocked down a notch. I believe that the groundbreaking or cultural phenomenon of this film is its demonstration of mass cultural amnesia. Those declaring it the best film of all time give the sense that a hundred years of movies are wiped clean from collective memory and we can start fresh with this "new vision." Of what? Operatic comic book action films? When The Watchmen comes out, will this happen all over again?
I've seen many films in my lifetime - thousands - and quite a few have made it to my ever-changing top-ten lists. The more films I've seen, the less likely I would place a film as the all-time best. How irresponsible for a film critic to do so. Makes him seem young and naive, like a film student who's heard of Fellini's 8 1/2 and caught some Bergman film on late-night TV, but fell asleep.
And JC - excellent post, and great arguments. I agree with your Top 10 list, but would put Iron Man in place of The Dark Knight. As much as The Dark Knight was an ambitious and powerful film, I walked out a lot less satisfied that I expected to. This may sound cheesy but I smiled all the way through Iron Man, feeling the sense of fun the filmmakers and crew were having while making it. It was a confident and well-oiled machine.
The Dark Knight felt overwrought and a bit lost in places, epic in all the wrong moments. It seemed as though they created this amazing villain and could not have the hero nor the rest of the cast or script live up to him. It should have been called The Joker. I've heard the argument over and over how the villain should be more interesting than the hero, but not at the expense of the hero. I frame my disappointment around the loss of Batman as a credible superhero foil to a supervillain. Nice car though.
Film criticism isn't dead. It is simply being taken over by an important new school of film criticism called derrièrism:
http://jonswift.blogspot.com/2008/12/triumph-of-derrirism.html
No Country for Old Men and The Departed are nothing if not "pulpy".
Jack Frost, there's still a high percentage of narrow-minded, condescending "my subjective opinion is the only objective truth"-postings here as well, so yes, this is definitely still the internet. Albeit a very eloquent internet.
I'll give Tyler this -- Ledger's Joker might very well be one of the best performances of all time.
I say that because the Joker was the only reason I did not walk out. The movie more or less felt like a parade of 10 minute episodes with superficial differences. Good guys try to catch the Joker, and the Joker is one step ahead. At the hour mark, I felt like I'd seen the same damn thing six times in a row and it was revving up for another episode.
Ledger was mesmerizing, though. Whimsical, intense, curiously precise at times, and completely reckless at others. An iconic psychopath if there ever was one on film.
And I'll even say The Dark Knight hit the whole spectrum of quality -- it had awesome elements, it had horrible elements, and everything in between.
Iron Man might not have had anything to match Ledger's Joker, but it was a lot more consistent in its quality. But this is one man's opinion, and you're free to disagree ... or else (or something.)
A wonderful post as usual Mr. Emerson. I loved The Dark Knight. However, it frightens me when fanboys become extremely obsessed over a film, comic book, graphic novel, etc. Most of the fanboys I know can have meaningful conversations about their favorite film or graphic novel. However, there are those that seem to embody the stereotype of the angry nerd (i.e. Comic Book Guy from the Simpsons) who still live with their parents and sit in the basement typing angry diatribes.
"The Dark Knight" is a terrific movie, and easily the best of the "Batman" movies.
Movie of the year?
Nah.
"Wall*E" was better constructed.
I enjoyed "Synecdoche, New York" much more.
I thought "Let The Right One In" was superb, and more haunting.
But to suggest that Film Critics who don't bow and scrape before TDK in the year-end polls will lose their jobs (and Holy Horrors! Their relevance) is wearing their bat-cowl backwards.
Film Critics are losing their jobs because A & E writers are worth less than the paste-up guy for the Want Ads Section in tough economic times. Not (HAH!) because they don't like a Batman movie.
But that's the trouble with Internet "critics" who play at knowing what they're doing (or writing well). They don't have to prove it, day in and day out. They can write any jibberish off the top of their heads and expect somebody (uh...Jim) to pay attention to it, or worse, treat it seriously. When what should be done is have a nice warming condescending laugh...and hit "Delete."
And I'm not a big fan of Manohla Dargis. A fine writer, yes, but gets facts wrong. C'mon, Manny! Watch a movie again before jumping to wrong conclusions!
I debated with myself whether I should devote a post to either the TDK "snub" rant (by a relatively inexperienced blogger) or the "review the ambitions" post (by a seasoned showbiz reporter in Los Angeles). Why call attention to them? But they both displayed such ignorance about the practice of film criticism (even plain, old-fashioned newspaper film reviewing) that I didn't want to let them passed unchallenged. Both gave me an opportunity to re-approach one of my favorite subjects, which is that a critic's verdict (positive or negative) is meaningless unless it is supported by a detailed reading of what's actually on the screen. "Best of the year" means absolutely nothing all by itself -- and the year-end awards (as opposed to individual critics' best lists) are committee decisions, the result of balloting and compromises and second-guessing. If you want substance, go back and read the critics' individual reviews and essays.
Likewise, the suggestion that a critic/writer as sharp and engaged as Manohla Dargis would employ her considerable skills to simply take down a movie "for sport" is insulting -- not just to her, but to readers, audiences and filmmakers. As if the public is too stupid and bovine to think for themselves, and professional moviemakers are too delicate to survive seeing their work held up to serious critical scrutiny.
I enjoyed The Dark Knight, though I found it flawed. Best Picture? I don't think so. Ledger deserves a win, but I honestly thought the best movie of the year was Wall-E. I've read a number of blogs praising TDK for how much depth it has. Well, I thought Wall-E had a lot more depth, was more entertaining and had better writing. Plus, it was a lot more pleasant to actually look at, which matters a lot with a primarily visual medium. For all of TDK's blood and thunder, there isn't one moment which captivated me on the same level as the scene where Wall-E and Eve played among the stars.
I guess I'd better go sit in a theater and quietly wait to be stoned to death by a rabid pack of TDK fanatics now that I've insulted their religion.
"No Country for Old Men and The Departed are nothing if not "pulpy"."
Oh, absolutely. And NCFOM was one of the few times in recent years that I've agreed with the Academy's selection for Best Picture. But, in general, they do tend to more often nominate films that contain what is considered to be "substantial" subject matter (historical epic, bio-pic, etc.), irregardless of the actual quality of the thing. And as Roger Ebert has been known to say, the quality of a film is determined not by WHAT it's about, but rather HOW it's about it.
In the interest of full disclosure, these are the other 12 (that I can recall) films I've seen in theaters (or on DVD) from 2008, and how I ranked them:
11) In Bruges (B)
12) Iron Man
13) Happy-Go-Lucky
14) Burn After Reading
15) Miss Pettigrew Lives For A Day
16) Quantum of Solace (B-)
17) Hellboy II: The Golden Army
18) Wanted
19) Tropic Thunder
20) The Incredible Hulk
21) Cloverfield (C+)
22) Indiana Jones And The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
Yes, a number of them are mainstream popcorn entertainments, but seeing as I live in a suburb of Vancouver, BC, I really have to go out of my way to see the best arthouse releases, most of which don't arrive until late in the year. And if you're going to indulge the action flicks, it might as well be on the big screen, if never again. Of the films on THIS list, I'd probably only revisit In Bruges and Iron Man.
Speaking of Iron Man:
"I agree with your Top 10 list, but would put Iron Man in place of The Dark Knight."
As you can see, I did enjoy the film, but, in general, I didn't find it to be anything more than a conventional comic book movie with more wisecracks and a slightly more spontaneous hero. As the film reached its third act, I found myself becoming less and less interested, to the point where I didn't care about the outcome whatsoever. Naturally, it was dictated by some vague technological device activated by a peripheral character. And before we get into a discussion about the "sonar" used in TDK, it was merely a tool used by the hero to help him survey his surroundings, and keep track of the individuals in play. Any actual outcomes were determined by a series of CHOICES by the characters, which is something I respond to much more strongly than a rather one-note battle between giant robots. Which is a shame, given that I felt Jeff Bridges etched out a halfway believable villain, before turning into a one-dimensional Snidely Whiplash in the final section of the film. I could list countless plot holes in the film as people seem so intent to do with TDK (most of which I don't even consider plot holes), but to be honest, plot never concerns me as much as character drama in anything given to flights of fancy, regardless of whether it's set in a comic book universe or one more closely resembling our own. Either way, it's still a heightened reality.
As for Hellboy II, I look forward to the day that Del Toro the screenwriter is operating in the same league as Del Toro the visual artist, on a consistent basis (yes, Pan's Labyrinth was very good). While I'm not one to obsess over alleged "plot holes", there are so many gaps of basic character logic in that film, that if any of the main (heroic) characters stopped to think, for a moment, about what they were doing, the film would've been over at the halfway point, if not earlier. There was absolutely nothing at stake in the third act (from a dramatic standpoint), and the resolution was in plain sight ten minutes into the film.
Personally, I feel that TDK is extremely consistent in its quality. I don't consider any of it less than good, and most of it would fall into the category of very good, or better. It's very well acted from top-to-bottom (even in the smallest roles); smartly, densely scripted, both in terms of dialogue and plotting, and, for someone with a dark sense of humour such as myself, funnier than Iron Man, Hellboy II, and Tropic Thunder combined. I tend to laugh more at humour that arrives unexpectedly (often in darker, more suspenseful moments), as opposed to a series of deliberate laugh lines. I consider Ledger's performance to be a first among equals in the film; the showiest naturally gets the most attention (not that it's undeserved), but I responded just as strongly to Eckhart's Dent character, and Oldman's Gordon, for completely different reasons. The Joker is a villain of the "let the chips fall where they may" variety. He certainly considers the possible results of his actions, and adjusts (or plans ahead) accordingly, but is more interested in the ride than the destination. Yeah, he might try to kill Dent one moment, but when presented with the opportunity to toy with his severely damaged psyche, and undermine, if not obliterate, any "good" work Dent's done in the community the past so many months, well that's just a little more enticing, isn't it? The rest of the film doesn't have to "live up to him", because he informs everything and everyone in it...it's an all-encompassing shadow he casts over this very dark (k)night. While Batman Begins showcased Bruce Wayne/Batman as a man, to the populace (of Gotham) at large he's a symbol, and the second film's all about how easily public symbols can be manipulated and/or undermined by external forces that they have little or no control over. But Batman's final act in the film, as morally ambivalent as it is, is the very definition of heroism, to me, anyways: a selfless act intended to preserve the hopefulness of the public at large.
Meanwhile, Tony Stark can stop producing world-annihilating weaponry...or, you know, perhaps not, seeing as he might need to upgrade his suit in the sequel. ;)
Moving on...
""Wall*E" was better constructed."
My second-favourite film of the year (thus far...perhaps "The Wrestler" has what it takes to knock it into third place?), though I must concede that I was significantly more enchanted by its opening 35 minutes (pure cinema, indeed) than most of what followed. I wouldn't go as far as to call it a ninety-minute Enviromercial, but I'm not going to go out of my way to debate it if someone makes that claim.
"I enjoyed "Synecdoche, New York" much more."
Another of my faves (for its originality and inventiveness), but if we're going to label The Dark Knight "incoherent" (not saying you did), Synecdoche doesn't have a prayer. It started to lose me a bit, emotionally, towards the end, with the over-extended, oblique voice-over montage, but I fully intend to revisit it. Perhaps it will rise in my estimation on second, or third, viewing.
"I thought "Let The Right One In" was superb, and more haunting."
Quiet, atmospheric, and hanging in there on my Top 10. More taken by Eli than Oskar, though, who strikes me as a bit of a blank canvas (which is not to say he was badly acted). And outside of Eli's caretaker, we're only really given one-dimensional archetypes to hold our interest. But indeed haunting, when the emphasis remains on the central two.
Anyways, hopefully the above comments aren't considered glib dismissals of the above films, most of which I was taken with, on one level or another.
LOL, I love this! Now that The Dark Knight is popular, you little weasels now feel the need to jump on the backlash bandwagon to look "cool" or edgy.
News Flash: You're not. You're actually doing something very predictable; pick apart any movie that is loved by many and blow out of proportion any flaws that you find. You sheeple did the same thing to Juno, No Country for Old Men, The Departed, Brokeback Mountain, the list goes on. Hilarious!
Jim: Sorry, confusion with my earlier post (12/14, 5:43 am). I meant that I left a comment at CinemaBlend that wasn't approved, despite being politely worded, etc.
No question, Scanners welcomes all opinions. CinemaBlend? Not so much.
Sheeple? Seriously?
The second a person uses the word "Sheeple", they throw away any credibility their argument might have had. You think it sounds hip and clever. News flash: it doesn't. It makes you sound like you have no imagination and cannot come up with your own ideas.
Not to mention that nobody ever uses the word when it comes to accusing someone of conformity, which is where you'd think it'd be a little more astute. Jim Emerson was one of the first blogs I read to point out the logic holes in Dark Knight (Which are evident and undeniable, whether noticing them makes you a "sherson" or not), so he's hardly jumping on the bandwagon. Maybe if you used it on the millions of people who love Dark Knight in spite of its flaws it'd be a little more accurate, but calling someone a conformist because they disagree with you regarding a movie is like calling someone a fascist because they are bad at playing guitar.
I'm not actually going to get into Robert Hamer's argument, I'm just pointing out that "sheeple" is the dumbest word to come out of the internet era, and it's used only by unimaginative sh- I mean PEOPLE. It takes absolutely no thinking or imagination to call those who disagree with you "sheeple".
Please put this word to rest. One day, you will look back on your use of the word and it will be like remembering when you used to think the Dancing Baby was funny.
JC, thanks for those insightful and well articulated comments. I do want to address my opinion in regards to this statement, though:
"Any actual outcomes were determined by a series of CHOICES by the characters..."
I have to respectfully disagree. TDK's outcome felt a lot more like a plot contrivance than any other action or crime drama movie I've seen in the last few years.
And the reason is because of the episodal nature of the plot. The Dark Knight doesn't feel like one movie. It feels like a dozen mini-movies, each one containing the same number of absurdities as your average blockbuster action flick. And, heck, I enjoy the occassional Michael Bay romp through expensive set pieces, so I'll swallow some laughable exposition and development if things get "blowed up real good like." (heck, I'm also a hardcore horror fan, and that genre is just filled with wonderful plots.)
I can swallow one Michael Bay "plot" at a time, but The Dark Knight was a dozen Bay plots compacted down and shown back to back. Too much for me in too small a timeframe.
But let me be clear that I'm only addressing the writing. I stayed with the film to the very end mostly because, as I stated about previously, Ledger was brilliant. All of the other elements of the film worked, and most of them worked well (if they didn't, the film would be a complete disaster which it is not.) I like the vision of this new Batman, and I clearly see the potential for all the points you hit on in your well-stated and thought out praise for TDK to come true ... but the writing was daring me to disbelieve every five minutes.
And after so many dares, I started disbelieving. And at that point, it's not about character choices, it's about where the plot needs the Joker and his goons to be to remain one step ahead. Since it dared me to disbelieve one too many times, I started asking dangerous questions like, "how did the Joker's phone bomb magically make all those officers disappear and allow him to just stand there looking menacing at the police station?"
That little episode by itself? Sure, I'll take it. No questions asked. But scenes don't exist in a vacuum -- they're not independant from the movie around them.
But, trust me, I wanted to believe, and I hope well articulated comments such as yours will maybe help me see TDK in a different light. I mean, who goes to the movies to be disappointed?
I personally love THE DARK KNIGHT, but I'm also a life-long fan of Batman, so I know I'm biased. Hell, I think the movie's great, and Dargis's "pop-Wagnerian" line is how I thought of the film to begin with. Hell, that's when comics are their absolute best, when they can combine the tragic/comic elements with the archetypes that are their foundation and lifeblood.
But I digress. My point is not to praise The Dark Knight here, but to stick up for the true fan-boy, that seems to have so much hate. If anyone thinks that the outcry of TDK is coming from nothing but Batman fans, you're way out of your mind. Go check out a comic shop and you'll know what I'm talking about. Batman may be one of the best-selling comics published, but how many people do you know that read the book on a monthly basis? Issue-to-issue?
In fact, October 2007's issue of BATMAN sold just over 100,000 issues. The next highest-selling Batman book was DETECTIVE COMICS with just over 65,000. So I seriously doubt that "fanboys" caused THE DARK KNIGHT to climb to the top of IMDB's list, or are even the source of the critical consternation. There aren't enough of us.
Instead, what you have is an immensely successful film that has created a legion of fans beyond its traditional swath of the population, and that is fueling the fire. It's not fanboys. It's the same idiots that watch crap like NORBIT or BEVERLY HILLS CHIHUAHUA, only they're all combined now. They've glombed onto a phenomenon, which by all popular consensus is "great", and they need to feel validated since they have crappy taste to begin with and they've actually just liked something that even snobs liked (for the most part.)
Personally, I'm still in love with BURN AFTER READING and SNOW ANGELS, which I'm hoping will get some much-needed love now that it's been out almost a year...
One wonders when we can get out of the cycle of extreme positive and negative reviews lacking in any nuance, as well as the backlashes and counter-backlashes to those reviews that occur for months and years afterwards that reduce film discussion to high school clique nonsense.
We may have to start seriously questioning if the internet has done serious damage to the notion of critical debate. Tyler feels print critics will become irrelevant if they don't bow down to the greatness of "The Dark Knight". But anyone like Tyler, who apparently needs these increasingly irrelevant awards shows to reaffirm his opinions, represents a dogmatic mindset. What is Tyler so insecure about that he needs a consensus to justify the film's greatness?
"The Dark Knight" fanatics remind me of those who wanted to go to war in Iraq and called anyone who disagreed with them unpatriotic. And we all know how well that went.
That said, between the positive and negative reviews of "The Dark Knight" (which actually is one of my favorite movies this year), I can count the intelligent and thoughtful reviews of it on one hand. Maybe, people like Tyler should write more insightful pieces on movies before declaring any other critics irrelevant?
I almost was going to write a post dividing fanboys from the more serious film lover based on the releases on December 9th of The Dark Knight on DVD versus the Murnau-Borzage Fox Box set as a major cinematic event. I've seen all of Christopher Nolan's features, including Following, but the hype has almost killed my interest in seeing The Dark Knight.
By the way, it's too bad not even half the people who flocked to see The Dark Knight bothered to see Bale and Ledger in I'm not There.
Early predictions, even though they're useless, I know:
Even if The Dark Knight isn't on many top ten lists, it WILL be nominated. It won't win, that award will go to Milk, because the academy is going to wipe its homophobia record clean, ESPECIALLY due to the recent passing of PROP 8. It's like 1993 with Schindler's List--- it's just not a movie that can be beaten right now, the quality of it is irrelevant.
Last years oscars, with all of the indie sensations being nominated, was by far the lowest rated in oscar telecast history. They won't be making that mistake again. TDK will be nominated, and not win, and Ledger is easily a shoe in (effectively cancelling the fact that he didn't win in 05 for BBM).
Reading all this sturm und drang about TDK, i thought back a few years to when a sizable chunk of the film audience believed that Brokeback Mountain had been ordained by God to win all available awards - except somebody didn't get the memo and most of the awards went to some piece of mindless Hollywood fluff called Crash.Please correct me if I'm wrong, but all these various awards are determined by a vote among the membership of the awarding body, and whichever film gets the most votes wins. In the case of the major awards (those with televised ceremonies), there's a primary, in which all films and actors are 'under consideration', with the top five vote-getters making it into the runoff, to see who wins the trophy. In the minds of the devotees, if their film fixation doesn't make it into the runoff, it's a 'snub' or a 'shutout' or a 'conspriracy' or whatever. When Mayor Daley I would have a press conference on the day after an election, and Mike Neigoff would ask why the Machine candidate didn't win the Umpty-third Ward, Da Mare's answer was always the same: "He didn't get enough votes." I think this is the principle that applies here. Maybe William Goldman has the right idea: when awards are given out, the awarding body should announce the vote totals. Of course, that will just send the hard-line devotees off on another tangent...
LOL! I love how the instant someone dares to say something negative about a widely-admired film, some clever fellow comes along to accuse him or her of "jumping on the bandwagon" to prove how "cool" they are. It's as predictable as the day is long. Even Ebert does it sometimes. It also means that it's awards season.
Guess what, I hated Slumdog Millionaire too. How many bandwagons can I jump on at once?
Hey, it's just entertainment, it’s a movie made to be enjoyed by people that are in need of entertainment. I don’t think the filmmakers were trying to do anything other than to make TDK a film experience enjoyable to the biggest audience. That’ obvious, so why does this film even need an Oscar? It doesn’t, but what it does have is people discussing film and critics. That’s important because there are a lot of films being made without passion. In my opinion TDK is a very good film, but who can say if it will be great? That is for a future time to tell us when this film ages into it’s own memory.
I'm a big ol' comic book fan, but even I find this ridiculous.
I do think The Dark Knight is a good movie. It's not a great one. I keep remembering that absurd courtroom scene where a mobster pulls a gun on Harvey Dent. In a movie that aims at realism (by the way, is it just me, or does Nolan seem like he's trying to Michael-Mannize TDK? Specially in the bank robbery scene, and in the stylings of the sound editing), here is a scene where a District Attorney has a gun pulled on him in court, it jams, he snatches the gun, punches the guy, dismantles the gun, tells the mob guy that next time he "should buy American", and then tells the Judge not to remove the witness: "But your honor, I'm not done!" The people in the courtroom applaud. They ought to, I suppose.
I remember a previous post where you observed that 'The Dark Knight' is presented to us as if it explores relevant current issues, when it really just touches upon them in a non-committal way.
TDK as a movie about the manipulation of symbols? How about this manipulation of symbols: make the characters and the story bring up symbolic representations of issues such as: just how much of our values should we compromise in a battle against a foe with no principles or limits he won’t cross? or, is it justified to invade, indeed nullify, peoples’ privacy in the name of security?; then commit to no position and make no particular observation, and go instead for a “have my cake and eat it too” finale. Sell the final product as a deep, observant movie. Deep and observant about what? Good question.
But you know what, I also understand - though I don't agree with it - the over-heated militant behaviour of the fanboys. There's no denying that there is, indeed, an enormous resistance to take comic books 'seriously,' and their cinematic adaptations are not free of that bias. No matter how much quality there is to be found in the medium. Yes, most comic-book-based movies are bad, but in all fairness, that is largely the responsibility of movie studios that do not accept the notion that a comic book adaptation might be anything more than silly entertainment. The truth is, good as TDK is, neither it nor 'Batman Begins' reach the quality of 'Batman: Year One,' one of the few Frank Miller works that isn't overestimated. Fun fact: Year One is a more down-to-earth, believable, gritty, less pyrotechnic, more elegant, less overcrowded take on Batman's origin than Batman Begins.
THE DARK KNIGHT's not even the best Batman movie. BATMAN RETURNS was better constructed and far more imaginative, and it dealt with the concept of a Batman struggling with his place in Gotham City with subtlety and nuance.
As far as "jump[ing] on the backlash bandwagon" to appear "cool" and "edgy," Robert Hamer, there's much less of that going on here than thoughtful people simply voicing their concern that vicious fanboys have taken to attacking anyone who proclaims the movie less than a masterpiece (and let's be honest, the movie certainly isn't a masterpiece).
Hi Jim,
Any chance of a moratorium on any Oscar talk? I just can't handle these months coming up talking about film in competition (or any other artisitc endeavour). Just find it pointless and that it dominates the average film conversation for months.
Still not the most ridiculous awards ceremony though, the ESPY's and such sport awards take the cake on that one. People care about who wins awards in an area where they have consistent competitions to find the best team/player/country.
Tyler says, "'The Dark Knight' is fast becoming the new mold from which all future movies will be poured." Maybe my metallurgy is a bit off, but it strikes me that one pours things into a mold, not from them.
Daniel: I'm with you. I think last year I made it until the nominations before talking about Oscars. This year, apart from an aside from a comment about election-delayed year-end releases and an aside in the same post about the omission of "Milk," "The Wrestler" and "The Dark Knight" from the Golden Globule best pic nominations (all movies I considered "Globuley, Oscary"-type fillums), I've again tried to avoid going there. I think the year-end critics' awards are interesting because, at their best, they might spur people to see, think about, and discuss movies that otherwise might have passed them by. But by the time Oscars roll around, it all seems like such old news. Already does.
Jay,
"I have to respectfully disagree. TDK's outcome felt a lot more like a plot contrivance than any other action or crime drama movie I've seen in the last few years."
I'm speaking more to the moral dilemmas faced by the characters, and how they deal with them. The Joker sets up a series of scenarios where the heroes often have no "good" choices to make. I tend to respond to these type of films as larger-than-life morality plays. Films like Iron Man give me little, if anything, to chew on, dramatically-speaking. The climax? Villain: "You threaten my business, puny Iron Man, and I will crush you!" Hero: "Well, clearly I must defend myself, and you may die in the process." Me: Yawn. Of course, they pay lip service to whether Stark should continue to produced nuclear missiles and whatnot, but it gets cast aside once the GIANT ROBOTS take the stage.
And the reason is because of the episodal nature of the plot."
Actually, the episodic nature of the plot is one of the reasons (aside from the great ensemble of characters) I enjoyed the film so much. I've grown rather weary of the typical "big set piece/mindless plot exposition/big set piece/mindless plot exposition/final set piece" format of action filmmaking. TDK's structure keeps you on your toes. Most of the dialogue scenes in the film featured characters emotionally sizing up one another, rather than standing around discussing plot details. Now, I'm not saying they got into "everyday discussions" about foot massages and/or what Quarter Pounders are called in France, but the story was moved forward by emphasizing the nature of the characters rather than the mechanics of the plot. For as complicated as the plot was, the characters, and the difficult choices they were forced to make, invariably took (dramatic) center stage.
Cheers.
Josh, honey, Batman is not a real person. This is not a story about Gandhi, Buddha, Mohammed or Jesus. It is based on a comic book. The movie might be insightful, brillant, exciting etc...but it's reason for being was to make a profit, Josh, not love. . Period. Please chill out.
Peter Nellhaus, who might like to know that I am drinking coffee as I type this (I have three hands), said:
By the way, it's too bad not even half the people who flocked to see The Dark Knight bothered to see Bale and Ledger in I'm not There.
Too true. And the same goes for Brokeback Mountain. It's interesting to me that Heath Ledger, the butt of juvenile fanboy jokes but two years ago, has now turned into that group's Laurence Olivier, who, incidentally, is better known to them for his admittedly powerful performance in Clash of the Titans than, say, Henry V.
JC,
Well, I certainly understand where you're coming from and why you react the way you do to TDK even if I don't share the same sentiment. I can see the potential for what you describe, but like I said, it just never clicks together right.
I just hope my comments have maybe helped you understand why some of us can't respond quite so enthusiastically. Such is the point of these discussions, isn't it? Not really to convince one another whether TDK is the greatest/worst/whatever, but just to communicate a point of view.
It's funny how if people take the time to read through both negative and positive criticism, often times they'll read the same points.
Oh, and BTW, I don't think the episodal nature of TDK is a bad thing, but it didn't hit the mark for me. Anyway, thanks for responding.
Christopher Long made a good point in one scanners post by saying that The Dark Knight is an adolescent's idea of a deep movie.I think an emotionally complex super-hero movie in general may very well be like being "The World's Tallest Midget" as Andrew Tracy (who seems to dislike popcorn movies based on what he has said in other posts)
I admired The Dark Knight somewhat but I think it has been overpraised by critics too much.I found it to be both impressive and depressive.A mixure of good writing and heavy nihilism.It was easy to admire but difficult to enjoy.It's what would happen if you put Saw II and Spider-Man 2 in a blender.
Is it not even close to to being one of the best films of this year.Nor is it the best super-hero movie of all time(for me that would be Superman II)or even the best super-hero film of the year(for me that would be Iron Man).For that matter is it great popcorn entertainment?.
I think it is important that I know the difference between hype and genuine achievement.I think The Dark Knight was hyped (due to critical reception and box office)but doesn't amount to much as a great movie.
If there is one aspect about film critics that does annoy me is that they judge by relative standards.I wish they would judge by the best films that they know and not by the best of the year.I doubt that critics will remember some of the titles they had on previous lists.
Year end award season are like birthdays and holidays.There is hype and excitement but once it is over it we move on and focus on other things.
P.S.:I hope Armond White comes out with a "Better-Than list" this year.It should provide us with plenty of unintentional laughs and howlers just like the other one did last year.
Maven: Do you have a problem with animation? Anyone who doesn't knows that the best Batman movie is BATMAN: MASK OF THE PHANTASM!
:)
(I am serious about that statement, though. I was only not serious in berating you.)
Also, as an aside, isn't the source material for any movie based on a religious figure like Jesus or Buddha or Mohammed just as much, if not more, comic-booky (and BORING, in the case of Ben Kingsley's award-winning snooze-fest) than THE DARK KNIGHT? C'mon: virgins awaiting you in heaven, wine into water, spiritual planes of existence...sounds like a snake-oil sale.
"The Dark Knight" (aka. "The One With the Dead Junkie in Runny Make-Up") is CRAP!!!!!!
That LAFCA came "this close" to awarding it over "WALL-E" is lamentable. But then so is "WALL-E."
Fanboys are not critics. They are retards.
I'm always opposed to such statements like Tyler's which imply that anyone who feels a certain way about a certain film is an idiot (and I love The Dark Knight), but before you cast too many stones, Jim, I seem to remember your gushing praise of No Country For Old Men to include something along the lines of "If people don't like this, they don't understand film."
Jay...nice talkin' with you. :)
"I admired The Dark Knight somewhat but I think it has been overpraised by critics too much.I found it to be both impressive and depressive.A mixure of good writing and heavy nihilism."
I see that word nihilism bandied about, and I just laugh. The presence of nihilism in a film (coming from the VILLAIN, no less) does not, in and of itself, make a film "nihilistic". I think there's plenty of hopefulness and optimism to be found amidst the rather intense darkness of the film. "Sometimes people deserve to have their faith rewarded" is a very touching statement, to me, anyways. The villain seems to have won the battle, but the hero will do everything in his power to ensure he doesn't win the war. And the citizens of the city choose NOT to sacrifice others in order to ensure their own safety.
That said, who's to say that a genuinely "nihilistic" film cannot be considered good, or even "great"? Moving beyond TDK itself for a moment, why do viewers need to be spoonfed hopeful messages, in most cases, in order to have a "positive" response to a film? Can a film not convey an underlying feeling in our culture without it being considered a completely damning statement of everything and everyone? THAT's worth discussing...
Anyways, I've no interest in discussing Iron Man any more, as I've made my feelings about the film abundantly clear. To each their own on that.
As for Superman II (and its predecessor), though I enjoyed it well enough when I was a kid, any subsequent viewings in the past few years have me pretty much feeling that it's a giant cheese-fest. Not because of dated visual effects per se, but rather due to the thin characterizations and storytelling. The taking-away-his-powers angle is wildly underdeveloped, and what does it amount to? A stalling action before he gets back in the fight with a bunch of one-dimensional villains, and a cheap gag involving the supposedly noble Superman physically assaulting a goon at a diner. The turning-back-time bit in the first film (and originally intended for the second film, but in the Donner cut of #2) is the worst kind of deus-ex-machina, which negates everything that went before it, rendering all of his, and everyone else's, actions pointless, given that he could just pull that gag whenever he likes. Don't even get me started on the "magic kiss" (what, did he suck part of Lois's brain out?) of the Lester version. Now THAT'S depressing. So, yeah, to each their own on that as well.
And lastly...Oh, look! It's David Ehrenstein with yet another of his glib dismissals! Dude, shouldn't you be polishing your ongoing essay about why Brokeback Mountain is terrible because it doesn't represent your segment of the gay population?
I must say that I have to laugh at some of these comments. The Dark Knight is a brilliant film. I happen to think it deserves to be nominated. If a critic thinks it shouldn't, fine. However, if critics decide to snub it just because of a backlash, I think it shows a complete lack of character in the critic.
The Best Picture award is not for the "best obscure flick no one saw but if I put it on my list, it makes me seems smarter than you." If it is the best flick, yes.
Thankfully, they have a PEOPLE's CHOICE AWARDS! I think it's helpful to see what "the people" nominated in the past:
http://www.pcavote.com/pca/history.jsp
"The Dark Knight has changed the way movies are made/the way we look at movies forever!"
Actually while I really love The Dark Knight I would have to say that in both the short and long run Polar Express 3-D has had/will have had a bigger impact on the way movies are made/how we look at movies.
The Dark Knight asks this question:
To what lengths can a "civilized" society go to fight the most destructive threats and still look itself in the mirror?
If a critic or a viewer doesn't appreciate that this is one of the central questions of our time, I can't help.
It is also a film of unusual scale and ambition, as well as the best film in its genre by a significant margin, a genre of which I am not a particular fan and certainly not a fanboy. In fact, I didn't think much of Batman Begins.
It clandestinely touches on generational issues, which makes it and its predecessor a favorite of those who follow generational theory. It's also a neat diagnosis of the Bush administration, which led to some of the most interesting film conversations I've had this year.
In my little Top Ten list, nine out of ten will be indies and docs. And the tenth will be The Dark Knight.
I think some critics have difficulty appreciating that public taste has as much say in determining classics as critical support. There's a reason for this - often the public has its finger on the pulse of what's going on in society. For that reason, I think a critic ignores popularity at his or her own peril. You're an excellent critic, Jim, but I think it would behoove you to appreciate this, if you do not. Unless you sit around on holidays watching My Dinner With Andre rather than The Terminator. :)
As to Josh, I know him a little bit, from screenings and his work. Maybe he doesn't currently write for The New York Times, but he's hardly the death of film criticism. I find him a conscientious viewer and writer, and a guy who likes good films for the right reasons.
In fact, the real threat to film criticism comes not from its democratization but from the reactive desire on the part of the best critics to retreat into a monk-like scholarship and existence. The fact that common people love the medium enough to regularly sit in the dark for two hours and intelligently write about their experiences is a sign of health, not sickness. If there isn't a space for the Josh Tylers at the film writing table, then film criticism deserves to die.
The Dark Knight is not a great film. It gets tedious and slow, especially when Heath Ledger is off screen. The plot is confusing at times and the script has many holes. Christian Bale is uninteresting as Batman. As Bruce Wayne he's one-dimensional. Bale has the personality of a block of wood. Batman and Bruce Wayne were far more interesting in Batman Begins, which I think is a superior film. The Dark Knight is also too long. The Dark Knight is a flawed film that does not deserve all the praise it has gotten.
There are three reasons for why The Dark Knight as been praised by critics and audiences.
1. When a mediocre or bad film gets lots of hype, people are blinded by its flaws, even if those flaws are big and as clear as daylight. Iron Man has also gotten a lot of hype, but it is simply dull. Popular culture has become a drug that everyone is addicted to. If a film has become part of popular culture, it will get praised no matter how bad it is.
2. The death of Heath Ledger.
3. There have been many mediocre and bad films in the action, fantasy, and comedy genres in recent years that have received much praise from critics and audiences. Examples of such films are the obnoxious 40 Year Old Virgin, the incredibly silly third chapter in the Lord of the Rings trilogy, the bland Casino Royale, the boring Iron Man, and of course the confusing Dark Knight. The late Gene Siskel feared that audiences were being dumbed down. If he came back to life, I would hate to be the one to tell him that audiences and critics have indeed become stupid. Maybe we need to tie everyone to chairs, prop their eyes open like in A Clockwork Orange, and force them to watch great films like Citizen Kane, La Dolce Vita, or Raging Bull. That should help them grow a few brain cells.
I've already published that essay.
Ah, Mr. Zeidel,
Operating under the assumption that people who enjoyed The Dark Knight, and other well-regarded (by the public and critics) action-oriented films either haven't seen and/or wouldn't like films like Citizen Kane, La Dolce Vita, and Raging Bull. Well, I can only speak for myself, in stating that I really like Citizen Kane, love La Dolce Vita, and find Raging Bull to be well-photographed and acted, but less-than-the-sum of its parts on account of its emphasis on banal, repetitive behaviour. An accurate portrayal of Jack LaMotta, perhaps, but not very dramatically interesting, in many cases. I still own it, mind you, but if I'm inclined to watch some Scorsese, I'm more liable to grab Goodfellas or Mean Streets off my DVD shelf.
Moving on, why limit yourself to those (rather obvious) choices? Why not some Ozu, such as Late Spring, or Tokyo Story? How about Pickpocket, by Robert Bresson? Personally, I'm rather fond of Kieslowski's The Double Life of Veronique, though I know some people find it too slow and/or vague ("metaphysical" films tend to be that way). How about Dreyer's The Passion of Joan of Arc...viewers certainly couldn't keep their eyes off that film, with all of its intense close-ups. Better yet, why not tie everyone to a chair for a day and let them watch Fassbinder's magnum opus, Berlin Alexanderplatz? Heck, Bunuel's Phantom of Liberty is always good for a laugh.
Interesting that you also assume that if Gene Siskel were alive today, he wouldn't give high marks to something like The Dark Knight.
It's fun, making assumptions about people, isn't it?
K. Bowen-
"The Dark Knight asks this question:
To what lengths can a "civilized" society go to fight the most destructive threats and still look itself in the mirror?"
Did we really need "The Dark Knight" to ask us this question? Yes, I realize that Nolan was preaching to us about *something*, and I think every critic will acknowledge this. But, was it a message that was expressed thoughtfully? Or, rather, bluntly and simplistically, without much afterthought to plot dynamics, character development, and overall tension? This was my take.
Every movie says something about our time, whether we want it to or not. Just because a movie attempts to be a "message" movie within the scope of a genre not often looked to for that doesn't make it a masterpiece.
golluh, Teh dark kNight makuh me soooo stoopids!
i think I needs me sum brain cells.... quick, me searches for copy of Kane, Citizen.... mus' watch now, 'fore mah brain die. eeee!
ah, i founds one, with the commentaries spoke by the Roger Eberts! buh wait... Eberts gave the Darka Knight 4 stars.... and yet he do the voice comments for Kane DvD... Eberts like the smart moovies and also the dumb brain cell killun ones like TdK? i no unnerstan'.... how can these be? Eberts got the smarts and dumb same time?
mah brain gunna splode.... Kane save me nows!
oh gerdammit i put in the Darks Knight by mistaken.... i jus' get dummer more again! ahs well. Teh Jocker always makes me feel better.
Jeff -
Good questions. I'll start off by saying the film's narrative consistency has its weak points. Someone earlier mentioned one of my pet peeve moments - what happens at the cocktail party after Batman jumps out the window to save Rachel? Does The Joker just leave? My guess would be there was a scene afterward that didn't work. Yet all films are mixtures of strengths and weaknesses, and the narrative hiccups were greatly outweighed by the overall quality of the rest of the film.
As to the question of subtlety: I would say it's a moot point to this genre, as making a subtle comic book movie would be like making an opera without high notes. Although I think it's rarely been achieved, advocates of comic book films would describe these tales as modern fables. If so, the point of a fable is to be able to explicitly visualize ideas. Lamenting missing subtlety would be like asking why the fox needs to talk while passing on the grapes, or why Icarus and Daedelus needed to build wings to escape.
That said, I do find that I can extract a good number of subtle, intelligent observations out of the film, particularly as it applies to the modern political era. If that's not yoiur opinion or experience, that's fine. If the film is asking arguably central questions of our time and doing so successfully in a popular medium, I'm more than pleased.
We shouldn't lose track of the real problem here. It isn't an issue of whether "The Dark Knight" is the greatest film in history or simply overrated crap. In the way Tyler frames the topic discussions of its quality become irrelevant. We must either follow him into the future or become relics. That's how he sees it, anyway.
When I first heard about this article, I was irked enough to post an insult at Cinemablend. Now I'm wondering if it's best to ignore Tyler. Otherwise you're feeding his sense of 'relevancy.' Then, AGAIN, I've heard this kind of pseudo-populism often enough in other places that I wonder if it's best to be confronted. Stop it before it spreads.
Let me just say this. (And it'll be my final word.) I think it's dandy that people want to use their own time and money for the purpose of adding their voices to the wealth of film criticism. But if you do so, you will be judged by the same standards as everyone else. Talk nonsense, and it will be called nonsense. In other words -- more Self-Styled Siren, less Cinemablend.
Some of us miss the boat I guess. I find all of Chris Nolen's work to be over hyped and just barely above the average film. There is no joy in his execution, not a soul of wit beyond cleverness. That being said, I was completely entertained by The Dark Knight for at least an hour and a half or so. Ledger is the definition of electric and his presence does not so much elevate the movie as expose the lack energy it has when he is not on screen. At least it did not feature a scene where trained ninjas fail to escape a burning house with paper walls, as the previous Batman film did.
Let me just say this to everyone on the comment cue here.FANBOYS ARE THE ONES MOST CRITICAL OF MOVIES ABOUT THEIR PASSION!! that is the one inarguable fact of modern times, if they see a flaw in a movie that is based off of a famous property, they're usually correct. The very fact that TDK was praised by them, proves that is great on its own merits. Critics too, are generally right in their own way, but are looking for different things.If you add the two camps together you usually get both pitted against each other, but the fact that BOTH praised it, proves beyond a doubt that is great, in every sense of the word.
Now i've seen Iron Man, The Dark Knight, and Wall-E. All three are magical movies, taking you on journeys, which is what film has always meant to do, and all three deserve oscar nods.
My general opinion of movies is that they should serve their purpose, if they are built to entertain, and if they do it extremely well, than they are great, and deserve oscar nods, enough of this "Affecting me" crap that so many of you fall back on. Sure Milk could be more effective with affecting you, but TDK is the superior film in more ways that sidestep around the "affecting" sort. Visually it's a masterpiece. The acting is superb, Bale does almost as good a job as Ledger, you know it, you just aren't paying enough attention to the film if you're calling it a wooden performance (He has a facade to maintain in both personas, watch the film again and pay more attention). The themes were excruciatingly difficult to watch, but powerful once understood, more powerful than Milk could ever deliver.
Who cares about the prisoners on the boat scene, if you'd rather be watching some action scenes far away than dealing with moral issues, than you're hiding from those exact same issues the film is attempting to deal with.
Sure Heath died, but that doesn't affect my opinion of his performance. I heard a stupid, contradicting statement about it the other day.
"Well he should win for his acting, I just don't agree with the reason he's gonna be nominated for" If you found yourself making that statement, ha.
To finalize my argument. That tyler guy really did go overboard, but TDK does not deserve to be shouldered aside just because some "purpose built" Indie film decides to come out and shove it aside.
Almost 100 million people agree with me (the amount of people who saw the movie in theatres), The Dark Knight for best picture!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I have not seen The Dark Knight. I was considering seeing it when it is re-released in theaters. Now I am not so sure, and Ill tell you why: Iron Man.
Everyone went on about how good it was. So I went. I read comics as a kid and an adolescent, I have always liked Robert Downey Jr. and Gwyneth Paltrow, so I felt predisposed to like this movie.
It sucked. There, I said it. Sucked! Jeff Bridges, in particular, was ridiculous, but the whole piece of garbage stank. Telegraphed plot, less-than-cartoon characters, dumb situations that defy physics as well as common sense... what, exactly, did people enjoy?
And there are people arguing Iron Man was better than The Dark Knight. Yikes.
K. Bowen-
Yes, I would expect a comic book movie to be blunt. But, usually within the framework of the story it's trying to tell. Not in it's subtext. Nolan goes overboard in focusing on the subtext that he leaves the basic premise of the movie behind. It's not only narrative inconsistencies, but editing, action scenes, and just overall direction that I found sorely lacking.
With the abundance of recent political documentaries out there, do we really need another movie harping about the Bush administration? Much less within a genre that would have a hard time being nuanced and thoughtful (as you point out) anyway?
And what exactly is it saying, in the end? That essentially we are all good people and we need both a hero and a villain? And we need to stop spying with our technology? Or is it saying the opposite? Or just asking the question? Either way, it strikes me as simplistic and redundant.
mostofusaredaves, I also was disappointed in Iron Man and found it mostly overrated (though I liked it okay). The Dark Knight is far superior though.
TDK has its flaws, but in the end its still an action/superhero/spectacle movie and a damn good one at that. I actually liked it better the 2nd time (recently seen on DVD), as I wasn't effected by the hype and high expectations and was able to look past most of the flaws that were more distracting on first viewing (I also found the action sequences less confusing and easier to follow on the small screen). I think both TDK's rabid fanboys and its detractors are taking the movie too seriously (as perhaps the movie itself does). In its ambitions perhaps it overreaches or fails to be as coherent as it could have been, but personally I find TDK to be a great entertainment and look forward to another installment by Nolan.
The Dark Knight is fantastic but will it be influential? hard to say. The filmmakers behind the upcoming TERMINATOR: SALVATION (also starring Christian Bale) are trying to revamp Terminator with the seriousness of Chris Nolan. Other than being so serious and with an emphasis on dialogue and characters, it still doesn't mean Dark Knight will be influential and there is no way to know that until we wait a few years (same thing with Star Wars). I think Joker has become more iconic than ever thanks to Heath Ledger's scary performance...which is why, as great as Dark Knight is, it should've been retitled The Joker.
I loved TDK, and think it should get nominated for "Best Picture" at the Oscars, but the article you so thoroughly destroyed was terribly extreme in its support for the movie.
In fact, while I found your dissection of Mr. Josh Tyler's highly entertaining -- I laughed out at the incredulity of his words and your response to them --, I also ended up thinking you were a just a little too mean. It was like you were shooting fish in a barrel.
In all seriousness, Mr. Josh Tyler typifies the amateurish standards of the current new breed of writers, making waves on the internet.
In the good ole' days, when print was King, writers like Mr. Tyler were restricted to their high school newspapers.
On the internet, with feedback and gratification so instant, it seems like sensationalism is taking a front seat.
Tyler's claims are absurdist, from the viewpoint of the well read cinephile and is clearly biased. There is some validity to his claim though, if in an accidental sort of way.
He was nitpicking at critics saying that they're reviews would seem null and void if they ignored the Dark Knight. I don't agree with him in the sense that all critics will lose their integrity. But he has a point about something. People like Tyler are the people who feed into the award frenzy and the people who turn away when the more well known fare is ignored come awards time.
No one watched the Oscars last year, when the brilliant No Country For Old Men nabbed the best pic oscar. The general public doesn't care about these films, even if they are great. Some have suggested the oscars might favor Dark Knight, just to seem relevant to viewers. If so, and ratings soar, then Tyler proves his point about the general public.
But he's highly wrong about a critic losing their integrity. Movie critics, to me, don't serve the general public. They serve the more discerning film goer who, based on a review, might give a movie a look they didn't think about viewing in the first place. Critics also stand their ground, even if their opinion isn't a popular one. So if anything, overpraising the Dark Knight would cause a loss in integrity if they were doing it just to jump on the bandwagon.
The loser in this little fight though, based on some posts, is, ironically, the Dark Knight. When you're a mega blockbuster, it's easy to seem overpraised or overated in some way. Yet, it was a good film and has artistic merits to stand up against some of the art house fare that usually wins over critics. Because some people wish to NOT seem trendy, it may be quick to dismiss the Dark Knight as nothing more than a summer popcorn movie that happened to be pretty good. I hope it gets just treatment during the awards season and its artistry takes precedence over its popularity.
Misconcieved attempt at self importance, egregiously offensive, painful? Correct me if I'm wrong- but doesn't that sound like a pretty accurate description of the critic's profession?
JE: Yes. Especially when trying to endure an incoherent movie like "The Dark Knight," which I am 59 minutes into doing (for the third time) right now. Its gaping flaws (most of which are right there in the mishmash screenplay) become more apparent each time.... This is a movie that deserves a Best Picture Oscar nomination for its pop-cultural impact. But direction or screenplay? Hah. Hah. Hah-hah. Hah. The incompetence is mind-boggling.
JEFF-
first off i would like to answer the final question you asked which was what exactly was the movie trying to say? for the most part i think that the movie was trying to show us the viewer, that even the most moral and dubbed hero of the story needs to make harsh decisions when dealing with a threat on the level that the joker presents in the film. I mean the guy blew up a hospital for crying out loud. Batman at this point was desperate, resorting to spying on all of gotham even if it was ethical or not. So i guess what it was trying to say was that even the best of us, when confronted with a situation that is so overwhelming and so life threating can make harsh decisions. So in my eyes it shows off batman/bruce waynes humanity much more than having him take the straight arrow path. beceause as we see at the end of the film the sonar machine is destoryed, meaning that batman himself knew what he was doing was wrong, but did it out of desperation.
Now does that answer the question "is it ok to spy on people just because our lives are at stake?" no i'm pretty sure the film as you mentioned didnt answer this, and rather just showed us both sides of the coin. What i got out of it was, that it was up to me, the viewer to come up with my own response to that key question in that movie, it raised many discussions with friends and relatives, so rather than telling us the audenice what was right or wrong in spying, it gave us both, and we can then come out of the movie reflecting on what we just saw. "would i be ok with the govt spaying on me if it meant to save thousands of lives?" i think a good film makes you leave the theatre allowing you to reflect on it's questions as well as its answers. i think it was deliberatly left open ended like that for that very reason, in order for us to think about it ourselves and come up with our own conclusions.
with that said i respect your opinion and you make some valid points.
i'm suprised by the amount of smart posts this site has, very cool.
p.s it doesnt matter if the dark knight gets nominated or not, what does it matter? in the end are all our favorite movies nominated? would we like them more if they were? in the sense of our personal lives i think it shouldnt matter at all.