I've been trying to imagine a conversation about a movie that would include the argument: "Well, you only point that out because you liked the movie." Or, "You wouldn't have noticed that if you didn't already like the movie." In response to all the stuff I wrote last year about the many moments of brilliance in "No Country for Old Men," I don't recall anybody saying, "Well, you wouldn't have liked that if you didn't like the movie."
But that's more or less what some are saying to me about "The Dark Knight": "You didn't like that because you didn't like the movie." I can understand where some of it is coming from: People feel defensive when they've enjoyed something and somebody else criticizes it; maybe they don't want to examine that experience closely -- although that has always been the purpose of this blog. The closer the better. I didn't expect to win friends and influence people by attempting to get specific about why I found "The Dark Knight" a lightweight entertainment, but also a letdown. It may seem like I'm just trying to justify my dislike; you might otherwise think I'm trying to discover the source(s) of my dissatisfaction. I don't think that's dishonest, or a waste of time, but if you do, please feel free to skip to a post in another category!
I also put people on the defensive by "going negative" prematurely, which added injury to insult. Maybe I let that silly "Love TDK -- or else!" threat get lodged in the back of my brain and it's been subconsciously gnawing away at me for the last month, I don't know.
So, in my little fantasy world, here's the kind of discussion I imagined being able to have about "The Dark Knight" -- starting with, and concentrating on, the last shot of the opening sequence in which the Joker's bus makes its getaway from the scene of the bank robbery:
I would ask readers to describe the shot, how it works, and what information it conveys. Then I would weigh it with my reading of it, and why I think it is less effective, less exciting, than it could -- and, in my view, should -- have been. Stupidly, I later went back and "updated" the original post with a negative quotation from somebody else's review (which I felt summarized criticisms I'd voiced myself months ago). And that pissed people off.
In my follow-up I mentioned some elements in the shot that I thought called attention to themselves, and not in a good way: the tight framing at the beginning that kept us from getting a good view of the damage the bus had caused when it smashed into the bank doors; all the dust that swept off the Joker's bus onto the busses behind his; the traffic signal in the foreground that turns red and may or may not have interrupted the flow of busses; the sound of schoolchildren added to the soundtrack... things like that.
I pointed out a few things I like about the shot, too: the way it takes us from the claustrophobia of the bank into the larger city (you feel the Joker disappearing into the streets); the yellow taxi cabs mirroring the busses in the other lane.
Some people wrote in with their own criticisms of the shot. Others said, in effect, "Yes, I see what you don't like about it but that didn't bother me." Quite a few said: "You are a nitpicker who hates this movie and just wants to spread his hatred!" Hardly anybody said: "Here's what I think is really great about this shot!"
It's the latter response that I would have most appreciated. I can tell you, specifically, what I don't like about "The Dark Knight." Where are the fans who want to articulate, specifically, what they find so enthralling about it? Describe a shot, a movement, a sequence, a dialog exchange, a facial expression, a gesture, a color -- something that gave you goosebumps or that put a lump in your throat. I know, it means making yourself vulnerable, but if we don't allow ourselves to be vulnerable to the movies we fall in love with, then why watch them?
Look at it this way: I recently wrote that, although I haven't seen very many superhero movies that I thought were satisfying as movies, I think they should be taken seriously. Just because they are fantasies, or based on comic books or graphic novels, or feature masked heroes with special powers (or, at least, special outfits), doesn't mean they should be dismissed as something less than, say, a Jane Austen adaptation or a gangster picture.
That means giving them the same critical consideration as other films, too. So, if I explain why I feel that "The Dark Knight" falls short as a movie -- not "just" a comic book movie, but as a movie -- consider it a form of tough love.
I've been told by a few commenters here that I don't know how to watch a comic book movie, that implausibilities are to be expected and ignored because that just goes with the territory. But every movie maps out its own territory, builds its own world, writes its own rules. The Batman we see in "The Dark Knight" is noticeably different from, say, the one Adam West played on the 1960s TV show. I didn't feel the Batman of "The Dark Knight" belonged in the same world as the movie's Joker. I'm talking about the portrayal of a flesh-and-blood crimefighter versus an "agent of chaos." It's explained, but I didn't believe it. On the other hand, I don't recall being bothered by implausibilities in 1978's "Superman" (yes, I love it when he turns back time by reversing the Earth's orbit -- it's a supremely romantic gesture) or Tim Burton's "Batman Returns." They were different worlds.
So, to encourage enthusiasm, here's a moment I really, really liked from "The Dark Knight": The Joker toddles out of the hospital in a nurse's outfit (I do wish he'd left on the wig) like a wind-up Devil Doll. Even in broad daylight (like the opening of the movie), he's as absurdly demented as ever. I kind of wish it was all done in one shot. The first piece has him coming out the door; there are three consecutive cutaways in the middle, perhaps to compress (but why do we care about the reporter in the gray suit getting on the District 22 bus?); and then the goofy detonator glitch and the climactic explosion are in the third and longest shot. Maybe it would have felt too long as a single piece (and it doesn't appear there were opportunities for retakes). I also like the openness, simplicity and spacial integrity of the image. You feel like you are standing right there with the Joker when the hospital goes up. It's an act-closer/payoff moment (like the bus getaway, or the long-ish take of the Joker escaping with his head out the cop-car window), and also a kind of palate-cleanser before the next movement....
Anybody got problems with that?
Why do you feel the need to explain criticism 101? If they don't cite what they liked, then it's obvious they didn't find much to like.
I didn't like this scene very much. Too shallow. Yes, I get it, Joker revels in chaos, so he raises his hands to imply that he revels in chaos. How cool.
JE: The answer is in the comments. Believe me, I'm not doing it for the regulars. But every once in a while I feel the need to do a Charles Foster Kane "Declaration of Principles."
Even though I was disappointed by TDK (I thought Batman Begins was absolutely brilliant), I would like to come to Jim's aid in shifting the dialog from negative commentary to "enthusiasm." I felt TDK's finest moment was the final five minutes. Commissioner Gordan's monologue about Batman being the hero "Gotham City needs" actually had the effect of reviving me from my cinematic ennui. And seeing Batman running for his life, and for the symbolic lives of Gotham, proved that the Batman saga might be positioning itself for bigger and better things. I guess next time around I'll have to temper my expectations.
Hi Jim,
The issue is a general one. But it is applicable to films.
I cover the difference between a like and a dislike (and there is a difference), and the reaction a criticism of one's liking/disliking can provoke, on my blog:
http://harmanjit.blogspot.com/2008/08/fervor-of-ones-likes.html
Speaking of defensive: this is your umpteenth post on how you didn't like The Dark Knight. Who is really being defensive here?
JE: I am. This is my umpteenth post (and I haven't even begun to scratch the surface) about what I don't like in "The Dark Knight," and what I do -- moment by moment, shot by shot, because it's that kind of movie. I think I'll have to bag it and just do the full shot-for-shot for my friends who might enjoy the absurdity of it all... We will soon be having "Dark Knight" parties where people throw smoke grenades, Joker cards, pool cues, gasoline and pieces of toast at the screen....
Take it on the road! Like David Schmader with "Showgirls."
Why does anyone like a movie? What makes a movie enjoyable? I loved "I [Heart] Huckabees" because Lily Tomlin rode a bike in what looked like Chanel. When I was a kid I loved "Silent Running" just for the robots. What did Howard Hawks say made a great movie? "Two or three great scenes."
I saw TDK pretty soon after it opened, before I knew folks would call it the greatest film ever. I pretty much checked out after Rachel died, and mostly found it exhausting and not that much fun. (Honestly, do you really even see Batman do anything? Most of the action was swirly blackness and quick cuts. It's like action movie performance art. You make up your own explanation of what the physical action is.)
Anyway I was surprised when a lot of my friends saw it three or four times. I really didn't get it, so I started asking people, "What things about it did you like?" which is a pretty tough question for a lot of people. What four of the five people said, eventually, was that they were huge Batman fans, and especially fans of the Frank Miller and Alan Moore Batman comics. So maybe the joys of TDK are mainly from moments of recognition. "Hey, Two-Face looks just like Two-Face!" I can see how that would be as much fun as Lily Tomlin on a bike following Jason Schwartzman.
I didn't read the comics, but I did read the Harry Potter books, and I'm pretty sure the HP movies make no sense at all if you haven't read the books. Especially as the series goes on, and the books get longer and more complicated. But the movies pack them in anyway.
Jim--
While I absolutely agree that people should back up their opinion of the movie with facts, I think a serious argument can be made regarding how one's opinion of a whole affects their opinion of its parts. Often times we have gut reactions to things--we just like them or dislike them without intellectually understanding why--and later we formulate the rationale's for these reactions. Which is fine if we come to a genuine understanding of our reaction, but not so good if we don't. I'm not saying that you don't actually understand why you disliked some things about The Dark Knight--you're a critic, I trust you to understand your reaction to a film--but I think we've all been in a situation where people seemed to make mountains out of molehills simply to justify a reaction that may have actually been irrational. It's hardly surprising some fans of the movie think that's what's happened here, especially as much of your criticism has been regarding technical elements of the film that many people don't notice, or care to notice. Again, this isn't a failing of yours, but I understand why people would come to that conclusion.
More importantly, in my mind, I think whether parts of a whole "work" for an individual has a lot to do with whether the whole works for the individual. Call it the halo effect, if you like. An example of this in The Dark Knight: Alfred's line "Some men just want to watch the world burn." Is this line powerful or laughable? If you didn't like the movie to this point, I think it's much more likely you'll find it laughable. For you, the movie hasn't earned that kind of melodrama. If the movie has worked for you thus far--if you're feeling the tension, on the edge of your seat--you're much more likely to find the same line ominous and compelling.
I think everyone who has ever criticized a movie has probably criticized it for things they wouldn't have noticed, or may even have enjoyed, in a movie they liked better. And I think that's why so many people are having this reaction--they're looking for an answer to the question "What things did you dislike enough that the movie work for you?" and they feel like you're giving them the answer "Because this movie didn't work for me, I disliked these things." They may well be wrong, and I absolutely agree they should back up their arguments with evidence from the film, but I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with that line of argument. When a Republican tells you they dislike Bill Clinton because of his sex life, do you immediately believe that the Lewinsky scandal is the reason they dislike Clinton, or do you suspect that them disliking Clinton is the reason they care so much about the Lewinsky scandal? It's the same argument, more or less.
Don't get me wrong, this works for both liking and disliking--there are plenty of times people will like an element of a film because they're still glowing from how much they enjoy it, not necessarily because it's all that impressive. That's fanboyism in a nutshell, isn't it?
The problem is, it's not always easy to determine the independent reality. There may not even be one. Maybe the best thing to do is give up even describing films and shots in terms of "good" and "bad" and just talk about what interests you in them, without passing judgment or assuming one's emotional reactions are shared by anyone outside oneself. Of course, the media would never allow the star-system to die...
Good one, Jim.
However, I have to disagree with you on this one:
"Where are the fans who want to articulate, specifically, what they find so enthralling about it?"
I find that your "crusade" on TDK has elicited several eloquent and thorough responses praising the movie. Exhaustive posts like the ones from Karlos (and some similarly exhaustive ones from other TBers on earlier articles) pretty much sums up a lot of my feelings towards the film, so I think I'll refrain from repeating it at length now (also, I spent pretty much an entire workday yesterday reading through every TB here, so today I really need to get some work done). But I can make myself a little vulnerable by sharing some of my favourite things with the movie:
- The shot of the Joker standing in broad daylight on a street corner prior to the bank robbery
- the soundtrack
- the Joker's explanations for how he got his scars
- the general unsettling feeling that pervades the movie. Like something is rotten in the city of Gotham.
- the visceral thrills of the action sequences
- the burning truck (something I understand you have a problem with, can't really understand why)
- the efficiency of character (which has been criticized as short cuts here. I disagree. With the risk of sounding pretentious, I feel this movie uses sort of a post modern cinematic shorthand (sort of like Luhrman's Moulin Rogue, if memory serves), which is maybe easier to read for younger viewers.)
- the movie's willingness to be "unironic" and wear its heart on its sleeve (thus making it that much easier to tear down)
- the way the movie dares to have the characters represent something more than themselves, to represent archetypes, ideas, aspects of the human psyche.
- the wonderful expository dialogue (many here and elsewhere refer to exposition as something uniformly bad. Exposition in movies is inevitable, but you can have elegant exposition and clumsy exposition. However, feel free to dislike the way exposition is handled in TDK, and I'll exercise my right to love it.)
- the way the movie doesn't give answers to the questions it poses. Any answer to these complex questions would be unsatisfying.
- the fact that this movie poses as a "realistic" superhero movie, but actually is a highly stylized morality play/fable/Greek tragedy (I can see why you and others dislike that, though).
This went on a bit longer than I had planned. I'll stop here for now. Got to get back to work. Feel free to prey on my vulnerability.
Thank you for these post. I disliked the film for being really, really disorienting and confusing, not just for narrative but for spatial reasons.
The bus scene was a great example: excellent idea, but questionable execution. What was really missing for me was what happens after that. Do all these buses arrive to a safe house? Do they go different directions to confuse the police? Just like the scene in the penthouse, when the Joker just leaves peacefully, while Batman saves Rachel, I wanted to SEE that. It is obvious that the Joker just walks away, but I need some visual evidence, instead of a sense of unnecessary ellipsis.
The same for the scene with the Joker dangling at the end, yes the world turns around and we see everything from his perspective, but in the words of George Oscar Bluth, come on! Couldn't it be more obvious? It was symbolism 101, and completely unnecessary, I don't want the Joker's POV, I want Batman's!
And the scene at the hospital...it is so over the top, that all I can think about while watching it is how pyrotechnicians were sweating off-screen not to screw it up. :)
David from Hungary
Jim:
I have an idea. You and Mr. Ebert should make a blog entry together. He liked the movie very much. The entry should be like a discussion, about style, execution and substance. About the role of the Joker. Stuff like that. You probably have too busy scheduals, but it could be one hell of a way to round up this discussion.
JE: I'd love to get Roger's take on some of these key sequences and what they mean. I'll ask him about them...
I suppose it's nice of you to throw a bone to the more livid responses you've received, and you picked a great moment to praise, but I suspect that the reason you didn't get many defenses of the bus moment was because...
...it's pretty unbelievable. Go figure.
I think the reason it got a pass from most viewers is because of the way the initial sequence is set up. It's designed to introduce us to the style and the pace of the film, which is very different from the more moody and reserved [u]Batman Begins[/u]. As a result, I think most viewers are being pulled along by the sheer force of Nolan's mini-narrative. I know that people in my theater were positively giddy after all the backstabbing reached its zenith with the line "What happened to the other guys?" and BLAM!
So, when the Joker gets in the bus, most are still grappling with what just happened. So that unlikely (if not impossible) escape gets a free pass.
Should it, though? I'm not sure, but I think people are reticent to offer a counter-argument because that opening scene provides such an emotional response, and you're arguing a very logical point.
Jim-
I have had a similar experience with criticisms of one of my favorite films of 2008. As a fan of Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, I often find myself in scenarios that are the flip side to your experiences with advocates of The Dark Knight.
To wit: If there is one phrase which became the bane of my existence in 2008, it's the declaration by myriad individuals that KotCS has indeed "raped their childhood."
I don't get that. When I watched the new Indiana Jones, what I saw was a film which-chapter and verse- followed the formula of the three preceding films: Indy is recruited to go after an ancient artifact. He and his cohorts travel to exotic locales , evade multiple near-death situations against all odds, get to the artifact and then have a final confrontation with the baddies also racing for the prize, during which the power of the item is revealed.
Yet all manner of random crticisms were hurled at this movie that defy logic.
Best example: People complained about the 'fridge scene. Primary complaint: It was implausible. Guess coming face to face with the Wrath of God, taking a five hundred foot dive from a crashing prop plane (then hurtling off of a cliff) in a life raft and coming face to face with a centuries old crusader guarding a cup which grants immortality are all moments grounded in the strictest rules of reality. My point here is that I've yet to read the critique or comment which really explains why the new Indy adventure put someone off when they claim to be a fan of the others, much less add some coherence to how exactly this film robbed them of some treasured childhood recollection.
So it goes with the TDK phenomenon and the lavish praise for a film that is deeply flawed. There are people out there claiming Nolan's sequel to be the best film ever made. Yet no legitimate argument has been made to justify such accolades.
Jim, why don't you save the profilic negative dissection for something that truly deserves it? Hint: Overrated, tensionless farce of poverty with stick figures, jarring musical cues, and smirking Bollywood self-congratulatory end credits. Not that is a turd than cannot be polished, no matter how many deluded figures lob awards its way. The most fantastical depiction of slums since a certain Anglican ragamuffin sang about the glories of food. And if one can not get a kick out of the absurd beat with the detonator featured in the picture above, I feel sorry for them.
Hi Jim,
I haven't commented here before, but I've been keeping up on the threads about TDK. I'm a moderate fan of the movie (Stephen's politics comparison is apt. The "Love it-- or Die!!" fanboys embarrass me as a TDK fan about as much as Keith Olbermann embarrasses me as a Democrat). I saw it three times in the theaters but I haven't watched it since then.
I think that the reasons the fans get defensive is because, while this is not a spontaneous medium, they do feel like they're being put on the spot. The reader sees a "challenge" like the one in your last post on the subject and thinks "oh god, he's baiting me." I'm not saying it's a good or appropriate thing for the readers to do, but it may be what's causing some of the trouble.
As for things I liked about the movie... would you believe that the Joker isn't at the top of the list? I thought he had a number of great scenes but I feel a little awkward about the way the dialogue about the movie, love it or hate it, seems to revolve around him. As far as I'm concerned, the movie isn't about the Joker; it's about Bruce and Harvey and Rachel, and how the Joker inspires them to do interesting things. I recognize that this opinion puts me in the minority, since most people seem to find these characters dull as dishwater, but...
Anyway, I won't make a laundry list of things that I liked, but to put my point of view into perspective: the moment that I remember most about the movie, even now, is the scene at the party where Bruce effortlessly disarms the Joker minion and dismantles his shotgun while he walks toward the camera. If you're interested I'll try to explain more about why I loved this moment, but keep in mind that it's gone sight unseen for the past six months.
I liked a lot of things about The Dark Knight, but what gets more than anything else is the pure joy of it. Yes, it's a very dark movie; but it's an incredibly tense, fast-moving, exciting one. Which is not only what carries me past the various odds and ends you've mentioned (from scenes ending abruptly to shots selected for brevity to little logic gaps), but the REASON for them as well. I feel you could take the movie and fill in every single one of those gaps, but you'd be sacrificing the pacing and changing the emotional tone from a sense of relentless onslaught to something longer and more contemplative. And I don't think a slower, contemplative movie would fit the subject matter. I think that by virtue of its pacing, TDK puts you in the position of somebody dealing with a wave of terrorism, and I find a lot of interest and value in that. (I think I mentioned something like this way back when TDK first came out, on this blog, but it bears repeating given the recent discussion.)
So one of the things I liked about it the most was that the first time I watched it, it pulled me right through. Each scene sets up the next, moment moves you forward through the film, nothing impedes that flow.
Another thing I like about TDK is that it's smarter than me. That's a rare thing in the genre (whether you care to peg that genre as superhero, crime, or action blockbuster), and a relatively rare thing in all movies. TDK never talked down to me, continually surprised me, engaged me, tricked me, sent me up down and around. The narrative is pleasingly twisty and satisfyingly complex, the themes are deep and sincere (and as somebody above mentioned, the movie is smart enough to pose questions without necessarily answering them), and I feel it is filmed with energy and creativity.
I think it succeeds swimmingly as pure entertainment. You have many interesting assets: many well-drawn minor characters filling a world, excellent cityscape photography, a thrilling psychopathic performance, wonderfully executed car chases, clever gadgets, clever one-liners, a great ensemble cast, interesting source material, and so on and so forth.
And I think it's a brave movie. It's willing to kill off characters and actually deal with the repercussions. It literally says to me (at the end with the Joker), "Yes, you can have a fistfight, and we'll allow you to enjoy it. But don't think that's it. The real climax of this movie is composed of emotions, not actions." When Joker says this (in the form of, "You didn't really think I risk losing the battle for Gotham's soul in a fistfight with you, did you?") I thought to myself, hell, I've SEEN that movie, the one Tim Burton made, and this is clearly a huge step ahead.
I haven't really touched on why I like it as a work of art, or specific moments I enjoyed (there are so many of them) (I may later), but I think this comprehensively explains why I find The Dark Knight to be incredibly entertaining. It does a lot of cool things; does them skillfully; does them intelligently; does them fast.
Thank you for this excellent article and for making a stand for your viewpoint on The Dark Knight. Some strange kind of mob mentality took force among the critics during the early hype about the movie, and Heath Ledger's death seems to have forced so many people into a mindset of "love this or else".
I can only guess that it has something with wanting him to win an Oscar and creating a great Hollywood moment. But it's insane how people see a criticism of the flaws in a movie, and treat it as if you were disrespecting the dead.
Thank you for remaining calm, logical, and focused on the facts. You specifically point out the scenes that don't work, and explain why (while also mentioning the ones that work well). The fact that the crazed Dark Knight fans are unable to use facts, reasons, and logic is a huge point. Their whole argument consists of "Heath Ledger was a great actor" and "screw you". It's easy to tell which side is being reasonable in this debate.
As an earlier poster said, this movie had a lot of good ideas, but had poor execution of many of them. And despite that, it was still a pretty good movie that I'd recommend to most people. But the tragic death of an actor doesn't magically mean that a good movie must now be declared as one of the greatest pieces of art ever created.
I was arguing against (Family Guy) Seth MacFarlane's series American Dad a while ago. I was going into detail about what made it a bad show, and someone asked, to paraphrase, "If you don't like the show, how do you know so much about it?" I told him about how I'd watched it for a while before deciding I didn't want to see any more of it. Then he asked, "If you haven't seen it in a while, how do you know it's still bad?" Then I let him have it. First I explained that my impressions of his latest work on Family Guy haven't led me to believe the man is improving any, so I have no incentive to see American Dad again. And then I told him that his argument broke down to "You're wrong and your opinion is invalid because you disagree with me," and so there was no point even arguing with him.
You've seen this often enough to know. How many different styles are there? "You disagree with me. Therefore:
* You are a hypocrite.
* You take things too seriously.
* You don't know what you're talking about.
* Your opinion doesn't matter.
* You have an ulterior motive.
* You're gay.
You can think of some other choice ones.
I'd like to know how Bale's Batman is any more realistic a character than The Joker, so much so that they apparently don't belong in the same movie together. Batman can fly, can appear and disappear in a crime scene without being noticed, can fall out of the top of a skyscraper, land on a car and be okay; can find one voice from the static of an entire city through that listening device, and so on. He'd probably seem a lot more supernatural to us if we were watching the movie from the bad guys' point of view - just as The Joker does to the good guys.
And anyway I think both Batman and The Joker are supposed to have something of a supernatural air to them. Since this is obviously not trying to be a realistic movie (treats its non-super characters and its city realistically, but that's where it stops), we can accept that. Both these characters have made themselves "more than a man" as they talked about in "Begins," and for both of them we can only guess at the man behind the symbol.
But they're not the point, Batman and The Joker. They clearly represent the opposing sides of the human conscience, and the movie is about all the regular people caught between them. Gordon is a great cop, but really just wants to be at home with his family (see the look on his face when he gets the Commissioner job). The mob are as ruthless as you'd expect, but then there's Eric Roberts. A boatload of people are able to vote to take hundreds of lives, but not a single one of them is able to pull the trigger himself, and so on.
Imposing a theme or message on this would be like trying to do so on life. Nolan simply shows Batman's way, the Joker's, and then, finally, the insanity of Dent - caught right in the middle. The last scene between Dent, Gordon and Batman is the most important one in the movie - emotionally. But if some people don't know, you just can't tell 'em.
Is it just me, or are the only people who seem to continually bring up Heath Ledger's death and the brilliance of his performance the people who claim everyone else only likes the movie because of Heath Ledger's death and the brilliance of his performance? I haven't yet seen a single defender of the movie say "The movie's great because Heath Ledger's great, period," yet some people seem to be taking great pleasure in taking the contrary position.
Hi Jim,
I think the reason people responded the way you suggest they do is that the way you were putting your argument, and the analysis of the shots thing, seemed to suggest that you were trying to explain why the movie is not as good as we think; like a media studies teacher going over the way that the latest big blockbuster condescends to the audience, or something. It seemed almost - and I know it was not intended as such - that you were trying to educate us on why you are right and we (people who enjoyed the movie) are wrong.
Re: the 'you didn't like it so it didn't work thing' - surely there is truth in this. Any movie with a story intended primarily as entertainment will be picked apart for its flaws primarily by the people for whom the entertainment did not work. As Ebert says in his review of 'The Village,' which he awarded one star, 'It's a flimsy excuse for a plot, with characters who move below the one-dimensional and enter Flatland. M. Night Shyamalan, the writer-director, has been successful in evoking horror from minimalist stories, as in "Signs," which if you think about it rationally is absurd -- but you get too involved to think rationally.' He gave 'Signs' four stars. People who did not like Signs picked it to pieces and pointed out supposed plot holes. Even something like 'No Country For Old Men' might cause those who dislike it to question the plausibility of elements in it. If an entertainment works, especially a blockbuster one, people are more forgiving. You see this in reviews all the time; a negative review is more likely to linger on logical inconsistencies because they are less caught up in the momentum of the piece. The momentum is what drives TDK for people who it works on, and momentum 'has often been the true - if not fully acknowledged - subject of movies' (Pauline Kael, not on Batman).
Jim, when someone tells you that "You wouldn't have noticed that if you didn't already like the movie." they mean that this particular point you make about the final shot in the opening sequence is inconsequential to the enjoyment of the rest of the movie. Yes, what you say about the opening sequence might be true in a technical sense but I never thought much about it because I was still recovering from the audacity of the bank heist sequence and all that this final shot conveys to me is that the Joker got away driving a school bus between a bunch of other school buses.
I do think though that you are right about people getting defensive when something they just viscerally like gets scrutinized. But that is simply because in order to enjoy a movie, it does not have to be perfect; there are bound to be flaws in any given movie (except No Country For Old Men) and depending on how much weight you tend to give to different aspects of your movie in your internal movie rating system, a lack of technical perfection might or might not keep you from enjoying a movie.
Look,
I get where you're coming from, Six Feet Under drove me nuts as did Sex in the City. I can't stand Family Guy or Lost, thought Rachel Getting Married was a steaming pile, and am constantly irritated that anyone would think that Zach Snyder could make a faithful Watchmen adaptation. when I worked at a video store I got into arguments about Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (god I hate that movie), Donnie Darko, the Squid and the Whale, and other movies I couldn't stand and defended movies no one else I have ever met liked (hello bad boys 2).
But I learned a couple of things about interacting with people. I never brought the things I didn't like up, I waited to be asked. When the ten thousandth person asked me for Harold and Maude, I didn't make a face at them or tell them how overrated I thought it was, I gave them their movie. If someone asked me what I thought of it, I would tell them I thought it was a romantic comedy for hipsters, no more dangerous or authentic than Sleepless in Seattle.
I think part of what bothers people about this exercise is that you keep bringing The Dark Knight up. This is your blog, and you can talk about what ever you want, but if you want people to read it and discuss, then you do have to live and die but what your readers choose to read and respond to, not what you wanted them to. If people are irritated that you spend your time repeatedly complaining about a movie you didn’t like instead of celebrating the ones that you do, that’s fair.
Another thing I learned at the store is you can say the same thing over and over again when people agree with you but you can only say something that upsets people a certain amount of times before they start to take it personally. I knew a guy who loved Wes Anderson, loved him. We could talk for hours about how good Rushmore or Bottle Rocket was, but he liked Life Aquatic and I was underwhelmed by it. We could only have that conversation so many times, if I kept going up to him and saying : “another thing I didn’t like about the movie was…” it would get on his nerves
Part of the reason that he loves Wes Anderson is that he identifies with the characters in the movie and their world view. He saw himself in there. I had to be very careful that when I attacked the movies to not attack him. If he started to fell that way, I had to back off, regardless of how good the point was. Same as when I talk to anyone about anything they care about.
All that doesn’t mean people can’t have a healthy disagreement, if I didn’t believe that I wouldn’t be writing this. It just means that it can be tricky to go after something people care about, after a while people will think you’re saying they’re stupid for liking it. Clearly many people have felt a connection with TDK, right or wrong, and it’s not uncharacteristic of people to get a little defensive when something they feel connected to is repeatedly attacked. Think of it this way, you can tell someone they look nice over and over, and they never get tired of hearing it. But if you tell someone they look ugly more than once, you’re kind of a scumbag.
This might also explain why no one got worked up when you spent all that time praising No Country. People agreed with you. It’s a good movie. No one objects to praise. It’s negativity that doesn’t have much of a shelf life.
As for some of the things I liked about The Dark Knight.
- I loved the Joker’s first scene with the mobsters.
- I loved the relationship between Bruce and Alfred. I thought it was handled beautifully.
- The movie was a lot funnier than people gave it credit for. Specifically Bale, “I’m not wearing hockey pads, it was a big dog, ect…”
- On that note I loved Bales portrayal of “Playboy Bruce,” him sleeping in the board meeting, interacting with Dent, his lazy sense of entitlement whenever he walked into a room. The body language was first rate.
- Loved the score.
- Loved the little cameo by the Scarecrow. In the comics there are no actors to negotiate with, so a character can show up in a single panel if it works for the story.
- Loved the sequence when Joker goes after the commissioner, the judge, and Dent. The pacing and tension was perfect.
- Loved the shot in that sequence of the cards fluttering down after the car bomb went off.
- I loved how open and innocent Aaron Ekhart was as Harvey Dent. He was so nice that when he lost it, you believed it because his understanding of the nature of the world had fundamentally shifted. Totally underrated performance.
- I was happy whenever Jim Gordon was on screen.
- I loved the back alley of his house where they told his wife he was dead. They used the same alley in Begins; it’s such a warm, lived in space.
- I loved how so many of the sets looked out over Gotham, the movie was always reminding you what was at stake.
- I loved, loved, loved, that the Joker said contradictory things to different people. He worships chaos and confusion. He’ll say or do anything to further those goals. I think what the Joker wanted, was panic. He wanted everyone to question themselves and their values, so he challenged each person accordingly. I found his inconsistency consistent and illustrated what the character was all about.
Jim -
I'd agree with what Stephen says upthread re: how we see the whole affecting how we see the parts.
I'm a fan of The Dark Knight, but I think it has its flaws. Like: I don't think Nolan does a very good job with the big action sequences - he's no James Cameron! This might be a killer critique, if there wasn't good and interesting non-big action sequence stuff in the movie. But for fans of the movie there is much more: for instance, I think all the "small" scenes with the Joker are really well done, edited to emphasize his dangerous unpredictability.
Even within those action scenes, though: for me, the bank robbery worked so well up to the point of the escape that I'm willing to forgive a flubbed final shot. To tie this to another bus-related action sequence: I'm also willing to forgive the lame/laughable "bus jumps through the air" shot in Speed because everything leading up to that shot works so well (and everything after it, too).
Jim,
Before I get into my defense of the bus escape shot, I just want to be clear that I've enjoyed your posts even though I'm a big fan of The Dark Knight. I'm sorry for the hate coming your way, too. The "It's just your opinion" argument is tiresome, and if folks don't like critics being, um, critical, then why would they read criticism? Here you are, taking a "comic book movie" seriously, and the folks who may have complained that the genre isn't taken seriously are attacking you for taking it, and movies in general, TOO seriously. I'm reminded of folks on the religious right saying there's a war on Christmas in consumer culture after complaining for years that the holiday was too commercialized. Anyway, back to the shot. I'm sorry I've held off on this discussion until now, so here ... we ... go.
First, it's very clear the bus is pulling out of the bank. How do we know this? The last place we see the bus is inside the bank before it pulls into the line of school buses. The first time I saw TDK was in a theater with regular projection. The image may have been cropped, but I still got it. Got it again when I saw it a second time in IMAX.
Second, I concur with you, Jim, the taxis on the opposite side are an excellent compositional counterpoint to the yellow of the buses going the opposite direction.
Third, I like the vantage point of this shot, as opposed to the alternative you have proposed, mostly because the pronounced vertical planes in the shot (the lines of traffic, the sides of the street itself) highlight the payoff: As the bus caravan travels upward, the police cars barrel toward the foreground and turn toward the curb of the bank, with the Joker disappearing into the city a step ahead of the cops. Also, it opens up the frame again, bringing the scene back to its beginning with the camera as a cold, omniscient eye in the sky, with violence that emerged from the mundane, blank city disappearing back into it in the most innocent way - a school bus, which the Joker will employ again later in the picture.
This entire sequence does what any great opener does: establishes the visual language and provides clues as to how the plot will unfold. In this case, we learn that the Joker sort of just emerges from nowhere, that he knows how to manipulate and bring out the worst in people, and that he's always one step ahead. It's an exhilarating, efficient opener.
You mentioned the vulnerability of expressing what we like in films. This is something I completely agree with. Here is something basic to the character of the Joker, yet complex at the same time, that I really like: his sadomasochism. The first thing in he film that really "surprised" or "got to me" (not counting the opening sequence; I also liked the very first shot) is the Joker's pencil trick. It's that kind of ultra-dark humur that I find brilliant, not only in its simplicity but in how it defies the viewer to even see it as funny. Ledger's posture and reactions in the whole scene are wonderful. His "tah-dah" moment where he remanes hunched and hovering over his "trick" while sitting down. How he almost seems pleased with himself in that moment. There's a little bit of dialogue that seems ad-libbed (it wasn't in the script that I found online): "It's-- bah, it's gone." Obviously, he was about to say 'It's magic' and I find it interesting just that he didn't. The line sounds like a moment of pleasure that he gets from his S&M qualities. Then, there's that little look his gives the group, seemingly conveying "You see what I can do?" This is where real acting can be seen. Ledger takes a moment in the script, which is very simply described, and 'brings it to life'.
In regards to the opening shot of the school bus exiting the bank, perhaps Christopher Nolan didn't show more of the bank because there wasn't much to be shown. A video i found on youtube of some of the scene being filmed, shows that the part of the bank in which the bus departs was a wall constructed on the sidewalk, it seems, only for that shot. to show more than he did may have been much more difficult because a set with actors didn't exist. Though, I agree that showing some more of the aftermath might have been more interesting and worth the effort. Here is the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxg_i6Kduo4.
Given the impending infinity of TDK-related blogs, I believe it safe to assume that your blog [or your time] has been effectively claimed--which is a shame, really; I enjoyed reading some of your musings.
"Look at it this way: I recently wrote that, although I haven't seen very many superhero movies that I thought were satisfying as movies, I think they should be taken seriously. Just because they are fantasies, or based on comic books or graphic novels, or feature masked heroes with special powers (or, at least, special outfits), doesn't mean they should be dismissed as something less than, say, a Jane Austen adaptation or a gangster picture."
Could you list a couple of examples of satisfying superhero movies? I understand and accept your criticism of TDK. It doesn’t bother me but it does allow me to view how others see the movie. I did like the movie since it placed me in an universe where Batman exists and allowed me to observe a character I have been following on and off for 45 years. I can suspend my disbelief when I’m watching a person who wears clown makeup, has the resources to stage elaborate crimes, commits numerous crimes, and (in the comic magazines) constantly gets out of prison so he can continue to torment Batman and Gotham City. With these preconceptions, I tend to ignore acts that could not be performed in reality. You need a super villain to fight against a superhero, otherwise Batman as a meter maid would not be interesting.
To D.S. :
I hate to get off-topic from the DK thread, but since you're curious about someone who was highly disappointed in Indy IV, I thought I'd take on your questions.
(First of all, I'm not one of those "it raped my childhood" fanboys, but I did think it was pretty mediocre, and walked out wishing it hadn't been filmed in the first place, since the end of Indy III capped off the series quite well.)
You mention that it followed the formula of the older films chapter and verse, and I totally agree. The problem is, if that's all it took to make a successful addition to the franchise, then I'd be equally entertained by all those Indy knockoffs that have been pumped out since the '80s. The enjoyment I get from the series is less about a plot that goes from A to B, and more about the intangible mix of humor, adrenaline, and "fun" that someone like Spielberg is (was?) so good at extracting from projects that may seem totally mundane on paper. It's an example of how you can give the exact same script to two different filmmakers and end up with totally different movies.
And for me, Indy IV completely failed in those "between the lines" moments. The banter between characters seemed artificial and forced (especially after the great chemistry between Ford & Connery). Setpieces seemed like pale imitations of past films. The overall experience made me feel like the people who complain about the Rolling Stones simply going through the motions and profiting from nostalgia.
I thought the refrigerator scene was actually a highlight of the film. I loved the audacity of it, and didn't mind the cartoon logic one bit. But for me, that ballsy spark of imagination was absent from most of the film.
Jim, Jim, Jim.
A couple of random thoughts:
-As always, I enjoy reading you, even when I'm a little annoyed by your self assurance. Or maybe I'm jealous of self-assurance. I'll never know. Ha.
-I'd love to see a cross-blog discussion/debate between you and Roger Ebert on the merits of this film. That would be must-read blogging, for sure!
-Regarding Nolan's choices in this film; are you a fan of some of his other works? How did you feel about Memento and Insomnia, for instance? The reason I ask is to get a grasp on how you feel about his compositional tendencies when in the service of different material? If you enjoyed those films, then perhaps you should assume that there was a specific reason for his disjointed and "just off" framing and set ups in "TDK"...a reason other than simple poor choice.
I debated several of my friends in a similar manner regarding Aronofsky's "The Fountain," which I loved, and defended vehemently. They hated his framing, citing the "rule of thirds," and Aronofsky's violation of it. My response to them was: You can like the choice or dislike the choice, I'll give you that; but you cannot flatly call it poor film making if it was an intentional choice. As with "2001", Aronofsky CHOSE cold, obsessively symmetrical framing in the Spain and Space sections, for a reason. It wasn't an accident.
Perhaps that is something to think about regarding the dark knight.
Jim,
When you posted all those things about No Country last year, I didn't think the exact words, "Well, you wouldn't have liked that if you didn't like the film," but I DID find myself thinking, "I don't think that's very interesting or special. Probably because I didn't really like the film that much." But I didn't post any of that in your comments. Instead, I skipped those posts and viewed other categories :)
Jim
Thank you for these articles. You may be discouraged by what you've been getting, but take heed in the fact that the arguments posted on your blog (or lack thereof) are far more eloquent and well-written than the majority of Dark Knight discussions on the net. Please don't reserve your observations and insight for a buddy night with friends, as there are some of us who definitely would like to hear more from you on the topic. Those of us, such as myself, who disagree with a lot of what you have to say (written without an ounce of swarm).
To me, the Dark Knight was just a notch or two below Batman Begins in terms of entertainment. I dunno - I guess the first one resonates with my heart a bit more. The music, Ras, the scenes between Alfred and Bruce - they just work. DK had a moment or two of this - a la Gordon talking to his son - but I wasn't moved watching DK. But that's okay. The sequel doesn't profess to tread the same territory, and as such, I didn't really feel bothered if the realities between the two films were slightly inconsistent. It was kind of like reading a favorite comic book when suddenly they switched artists or writers. It's all still there, the characters, the backstory, but the rules have changed, and you kind of have to go along for the ride and resist comparing it to what the last guy did.
I found Heath's Joker plausible and frightening. I was so enamored with Jack Nicholson's take, or Mark Hamill's, or even Caesar Romero's that I never considered what it might be like to be around the maniac. When I went into the theater, I carried that mentality with me, and by the time I left I was grinning ear to ear with disbelief. The choice to keep the audience in the dark about the Joker, what's real, what's not, how the hell he came up with these plans and got these goons, was what worked for me. We don't really get to know what the real deal is with the Joker, though there are glimpses of it (his clear annoyance at his being dismissed as a Freak at the mob table, for instance). The character left me wanting more, and more, and more. I felt the character worked and while there wasn't an arc for him to go through in the film (he starts at... X. And ends up at X), I felt the fact that he declared himself an "agent of chaos" more than justified this. After all, in a game of cards, the Joker card varies game to game in how it's played.
I loved the scene with him outside the hospital, but what I enjoyed more was the first few moments between he and Two-Face. The disgust on his face. "Hi." And the first thing he does after their talk? Sanitizer.
I realize I'd just be recapping the film if I let myself continue, but there's much more to appreciate than Heath. TDK is an ambitious film and dares to be different from its predecessor, which was ambitious in and of itself for reinventing the cinematic way of representing Batman. It isn't the best movie I've seen by a long shot, and it might not have the prettiest face, but damn it's got some interesting ways to talking to an audience.
I'll try to write more later, but one thing I'd like to point out is that, as you have somewhat mentioned, Jim, is that criticisms are easier to dole out than praise, for I think two reasons. One is that flaws--plot holes, bizarre acting choices, etc.--are generally easier to spot, if one is looking for them, then good choices. There's the adage that, generally speaking, when something is good, the audience is lost in the moment, and when it is bad, they are taken out; I think that means that negative points are usually (not always) more conspicuous than positive points.
The other is, as you said: people make themselves more vulnerable by talking about things they loved than things they didn't love, or hated. Loving something means, to some extent, being under its spell, being affected by it, whereas generally disliking something means that it did not "get to you"--with the exception of those absolutely morally indefensible films (like, perhaps, "Funny Games" for you, Jim, given your reviews thereof). I had a friend yesterday and we were talking about the British "Office" TV series; she said she didn't like it very much because she felt that it was repetative, and I, who loved it, tried to explain why that very aspect of it appeals to me. But I felt like in order to explain it sufficiently, I'd have to talk about myself--my hopes and fears, and how I feel that it is one of the most honest programs ever to be committed to screen about the disappointments of life. And so I hinted at it, but didn't want to leave myself too open.
I'm going to lunch now. Look forward to some TDK comments this evening! (SPOILER: I liked it a lot but didn't love it.)
Jim,
I find all of this terribly interesting. Your detailed approach to viewing pieces of the movie -- Which has produced a lot of surprisingly scathing comments; aimed not only at the movie, but at you -- has got me thinking about all things cinematic again. Not just TDK, but about everything that I've loved and hated. Sometimes, I suppose, it's important to "recalibrate."
I've only seen TDK once, a while ago, and I enjoyed it. But, I think I responded to the material in a more general level than in any specific way that I can pinpoint. For an expensive, large-scale production, I thought it took a lot of thematic risks (Is that fair to say?) that allowed the film's characters to truly examine who they are and how their actions reflect this moral image of themselves. Batman emerges from the wreckage of the film's events feeling different about who he was, what he does and what it means in a larger context. Of course, my memory of the film isn't strong enough to cite specific parts of the film that would explain this, but I now would like to revisit the film in hopes that I might determine WHY I feel this way.
Lastly, do you have any plans to collect all of your TDK posts into one section on your site?
Thanks for the great blog!
No question for me:
When the Joker is dangling from the skyrise off of Batman's grappling hook, the camera gradually rolls about its axis, such that the Joker is presented right-side-up and the background is upside down. Subtle, but potent: the Joker has turned the world on its head. With visual-storytelling acumen like that, it makes me wonder why Nolan relied so much on expository / explanatory dialog, but c'est la vie.
I really enjoyed the movie, although I appreciate your take on it. As you requested specifics, I found one scene in particular to be simply amazing. I refer to the meeting of the mob leaders early in the movie, when the Joker has his first real introduction. This scene was funny, creepy, expository without being boring, and above all, captivating. We learn everything we need to know about all of the characters in the room and are thoroughly entertained at the same time. Or I was, anyway:)
How dare you Jim!
That's not just ANY reporter in a gray suit...
that's Anthony Michael Hall!
And by the way, I know I'm way late to the party on this, but the biggest problem I had with the movie (even though I quite liked it) was the opening sequence you mentioned in your earlier posts. And it's not just in the staging of the sequence, but in the awful sounding (and horribly acted) ADR lines when the Joker's men are getting ready to rob/robbing the bank. Do you we really need all that extra, horribly read exposition? I mean they're wearing Joker-like masks, do we need them to say things like this:
Grumpy: Three of a kind, let's do this.
Chuckles: That's it, three guys?
Grumpy: Two guys on the roof. Every guy gets a share. Five shares is plenty.
Chuckles: Six shares, don't forget the guy who planned the job.
Grumpy: He thinks he can sit it out and still take a slice?
Chuckles: I know why they call him "The Joker."
Interesting....I didn't know they had names, but according to the screenplay these throwaway villains are named. It's not just in the staging of that opening sequence, but the editing and the dialogue to tell us what's going on is maddening. Why did Nolan, who seemingly wanted to me make as uncomic-booky a movie as he could, not trust that opening scene to play to just music? Allow the viewer to take in the scene as it happens? There's no need for the clunky extra expository....it really lessens the reveal of the Joker, too.
Anyway, sorry so late to the discussion on that one, but I thought I'd use the most current thread. Great discussions, keep it up!
Jim - I liked the above scene, too: besides the little "devil dance" he does (I particularly like the knobby knees in the uniform), I think it's one of the rare moments the Joker comes off as more than a composite of crazy actions. His frustrated look when the button doesn't work is the first time I was able to "hook" into the character as a person.
And thanks for doing something like this. It's definitely made me go back for additional looks to see what about this and other films I like. One quick question, though, concerning your statement about being accused of "not knowing how to watch a comic book movie" (or words to that effect): what did you think of Iron Man? One of the things I found lacking in TDK that Iron Man had in spades was an iconic hero moment - nothing in TDK equaled, for me at least, that moment when Tony Stark/Iron Man slowly rises up after landing in the embattled village. Overall I thought it was a more successful movie than TDK, both as a "comic book" and just as a plain film.
Thanks and, as always, looking forward to whatever you tackle next.
Jim wrote: We will soon be having "Dark Knight" parties where people throw smoke grenades, Joker cards, pool cues, gasoline and pieces of toast at the screen....
So I was right! The Dark Knight will be the next cult classic!
http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2009/01/dark_knight_quiz_15_look_at_me.html#comment-600207
Regarding your umpteen posts on a movie that you generally disliked, it's pretty obvious that you are very compelled by TDK, though not for the filmmaking. Are you able to say/identify what, in particular, is forcing you to stay on this topic? There are many movies that have questionable directorial decisions, so why this particular film?
Your decision to continually criticize TDK is as frustrating as Ebert's initial assessment of "Fight Club". I should infer from your previous comment (that you have a hundred other examples of how TDK misses the mark in terms of filmmaking) that this film is probably TOO EASY to dissect. Why not take on something a bit more difficult, like discussing the faults of films like Citizen Kane and Casablanca - perhaps these films are too easy to praise?
Jim, I always love your posts, but I've also been a little frustrated in your relentless plight to (seemingly) take this move down. While I'm a fan of the film, I do think it has many flaws in logic. But just like many other great action-based films, I didn't question any of them on the first viewing. Sure, over drinks later in the night we found holes. But upon seeing it a second time, we were so wrapped up once again that we didn't notice.
I feel like I could go on and on defending the film, but I don't really want to. To me, it comes down to this: While it's no THERE WILL BE BLOOD or CHILDREN OF MEN, it's a big-budget epic (hell, it's nothing short of operatic, or Greek tragedy) that uses modern American mythic characters that I know and love and takes them to very REAL scary places (terrorism, wire-tapping, privacy, police corruption, to name a few). While it doesn't really have anything solid to say about these ideas, it asks questions, and does it big, bold, and grand. And many people are seeing it. And hopefully they're having intellegent conversations about these topics. But concerning the film's vagueness, it sits on the fence much like Batman. Morally, he lives in a state of gray and is constantly questioning what "doing the right thing" really means.
That's my two cents, for what it's worth.
I haven't seen the film all the way through since July (I saw it twice back then, though), aside from a few scenes on Blu-Ray (mmm...pretty), but there are a few moments that stuck with me (and I'll stick with just the moments for now, not the broad things I really liked about the film).
-On the rooftop scene where Harvey's flipping his coin, threatening to let the schizophrenic fall to his death, Batman comes up and stops him. At the very end of that scene, Harvey yells something at Batman (I can't remember what), and something about Echkart's facial expression was just staggering. David Bordwell said this was a film of mouths, and this half-second of film says it all.
-It's been pointed out many, many times before, even by people who hate the film, but that scene where The Joker is leaning out of the cop car window absolutely sent chills down my spine.
-The rotating shot on the rooftop scene with Batman, Gordon, and Dent, though I'll admit that's largely because there's a three-panel sequence from THE LONG HALLOWEEN that does the same thing and it was a little fanboy giddiness to see that come to life.
-At the climax, when Gordon says, "I'm sorry, Harvey...for everything!" Right on "everything," Gary Oldman lets his voice crack ever so slightly. Whatever other aspects of the film that crumble when analyzed too closely (and I'll admit that there are many), this moment brought me nearly to tears and continues to just thinking about it.
Other than those, I said from the outset that the film was much more than the sum of its parts. People talk a lot about the "rush" they got from the film, and I know that a lot of what felt so great about it was the sheer relentlessness of it all, not just in pace but in narrative. And where the filmmaking was a little shabby - Nolan's yet to make a film of great compositions, though MEMENTO and THE PRESTIGE showed an incredible knack for editing that isn't at all on display in THE DARK KNIGHT - the story, I felt, carried it remarkably well.
Jim, I consider myself a "regular" reader, and I've been following your blog for a year now, if not longer. I don't comment much, because, well, who has time for the internet? But this conversation has enthralled me, to the point of reading every comment to every entry.
You say no one has explained why they like The Dark Knight. That's simply not true. There have been several well-reasoned, non-reactionary responses to your posts, explaining just that. (There have been a few idiots too...this is the internet.) I'd love to be one of those people, but frankly, the whole thing has exhausted me, and unfortunately I don't get paid to write on the internet. (We can only hope.) At this point, I feel it would take a novel of praise to respond to your criticisms.
So here's one more vote from someone who wants to see you and Ebert discuss this film. Then maybe we can go back to business as usual. As I said, I'm a longtime reader, as I suspect most of the commentators here are. I doubt most Batman fans lie awake at night, a dark alarm ringing in their brains - "Someone on the internet is wrong about The Dark Knight!" But you never know. This is, after all, the internet.
JE: You're right, and I greatly appreciate those who did concentrate on what excites them about the movie. More power to you all! On the other hand, let's say I'm "wrong." Can't I be wrong for my reasons, the ones I've articulated, and not for reasons somebody else has attributed to me? I think that would be OK.
NOTE: resending this post - neglected to spell check the previous version. My apologies.
Jim,
Thanks again for the posts. Love this back and forth. And I feel some of your pain. I'm feeling a slightly political bent to them - like watching the talking heads on cable news never give an inch to their ideological opponents. Everything Democrats stand for is right and everything Republicans stand for is wrong. Everything Republicans stand for is right and everything Democrats stand for is wrong. TDK Sucks. TDK is the best movie OF ALL TIME! The mythical land of compromise/middle ground doesn't exist - so healthy debate gives way to screaming and name calling and blame games.
In the interests of both vulnerability and bipartisanship please ses some of my (as a TDK fan) likes AND dislikes of the film in question.
LIKES:
The already mentioned scene of Bruce Wayne taking down the Joker goon at the party and dismantling the gun with what I can only describe as graceful contempt.
The pencil trick. Yes, it's been talked to death, but for me it created an environment of uncertainty that lasted throughout the whole movie. The Joker could do anything to anyone at any time. That creepy/dreadful/frightening uncertainty that gripped us all after 9/11 when none of us felt safe came back to me(of course on a small scale within the framework of the movie)and I felt what it must have felt like to be a citizen of Gotham during the events in the movie.
The score - rather highlighting and enhancing the melodrama, the music was like fingernails on a blackboard, creating tension and never allowing it to drop
Bale's take on Bruce Wayne/Batman - Bale brought to the character an aspect I've never considered (and I've been a Batman fan since childhood): Weariness. You see the tole being Batman takes on him. He's tired. He would give it up given the chance but he can't. There's a moment in the last scene where Batman is running from the cops, and it looks like he stumbles - near exhaustion - love that.
I love how every major character is grey and does questionable things even (especially) the good guys. Gordon is Gotham's "one honest cop" but even he lies to the press when Dent's body isn't found in the hospital. The dirtiness of Gotham compromises everyone, regardless of their best intentions. Arguably, the most noble act in the film is Tiny Lester throwing device out the window of the ferry. And he's a criminal.
DISLIKES
Gordon's "death". In the audience on opening weekend, it made for a great applause moment when Gordon shows up alive, but the whole thing doesn't make a lot of sense, even on repeated viewings. There's a throw away line about Gordon worrying about his family's safety but you'd think he'd let his wife know ahead of time. So in addition to not making a hell of a lot of sense it makes Gordon seem cruel
Harvey's arc
I like Nolan's notion that since the Joker and Batman are pretty much constants, the emotional weight of the story should be carried by Harvey's fall to the dark side. And I do think the movie earns Harvey's turn into a criminal but it doesn’t' t earn his tragedy. I buy Two-Face wanting to kill the people that helped kill Rachel, but him turning on Gordon and Batman feels a little off. There's not enough time to tell this whole story (it's basically shoved into the third act of the movie) so we get a lot of dialogue with Harvey telling us why he blames them without us, the audience, feeling it. I kind of wished they ended the movie with Harvey's fall, but saved this aspect for a whole other movie. It feels like the Cliff Notes version
The "sonar" fight
This is the one action scene in the movie where the action felt like generic "action". Through the rest of the film, the action sequences felt (to me) like they advanced the story or were tied into character. Here it feels like a lot of noise and quick cutting and I didn't care until Batman gets to the Joker at the top of the building.
My own nitpicks
I'm one to let a lot of thing slide if I'm emotionally invested in the film. So a lot of Jim's examples didn't "bump" me out of the picture. But a few things did.
-I don't know how Bruce Wayne could have built the sonar/tv/control set up without Lucious knowing about it (it looks to me like it's built at Wayne Industries). Also, it seemed to have been built pretty fast (surely within the timeline of the movie which is a week? two weeks?)
- Batman's "voice" - I've come to accept it as the way Batman talks in these movies and I don't have a problem with it when he's given short/small amounts of dialogue. But in the third act when he has to give longer speeches in the voice, it does start to sound silly to me
- Yes, I to wonder where the Joker went after Batman leaps out of the window from the party to save Rachel
OK - there you go. I could come up with a lot more likes/dislikes but that's enough to prove the point. Viva TDK bipartisanship!
I'm going to be really disappointed if you do end up abandoning this exercise before you get around to dismantling the scene involving the fundraiser for Harvey Dent. That sequence is pretty much the Zapruder film of why I can't take this movie seriously on any level. And when I get into these types of converations with people who really liked TDK, bringing up that scene always gets people off my back. It's comprehensively indefensible and pretty much everybody knows it.
Prior to that scene I was just annoyed and disoriented by the editing and depiction of physical space. But the fundraiser scene is when I pretty much checked out.
Anyway, I've been reading this blog for quite awhile now but this is the first time I've ever felt compelled to leave a message. Please, for the love of God, keep talking about TDK. Criticism of this movie is endlessly fascinating to me.
"Describe a shot, a movement, a sequence, a dialog exchange, a facial expression, a gesture, a color -- something that gave you goosebumps or that put a lump in your throat."
I'll describe several of these:
-The opening sequence. With the exception of William Fichtner's awkward lines about criminals having honor, Jim Thompson could've written this scene in one of his peak-period novels. (Imagine if he scripted the whole film...)
-The videotape of the Joker torturing one of the fake Batmans, specifically the moment where his voice drops to a low register he only uses one other time in the film and he screams, "LOOK AT ME!" I stopped laughing at the Joker there and started being very, very disturbed. Its a small moment, but it shows what's really boiling inside the character. As much as he loves to laugh and crack wise, he loves to kill a hell of a lot more. That vocal register is the truest reflection of the latter desire.
-The look on the Joker's face when he shoots at the Mayor. Far creepier than his made-up face.
-When Dent/Two-Face takes a shot of whiskey before killing the old dirty cop and you see it running down his throat. A tried-and-true (maybe cliche) way of showing a character's "toughness," but it works.
(Side tangent: Many people have commented on the supposed "visual incoherence" of the fight scenes and other action sequences, but I found them perfectly coherent- cause and effect/blow and impact. The editing is not always perfect in these scenes, but Wally Pfister's camerawork is always on point during them. Also, movies supply us with the lie that violence is a slick and choreographed thing. It isn't. It's ugly and stupid looking, as Scorsese puts it, and that's how it should be. The violence in the film is as brutal and awkward and ugly as Nolan could make it without receiving an R rating. Never do you get the feeling that you want to be involved.)
-The movie felt like "pure film" to me. I mean "pure film" the way Hitchcock does when he describes Psycho to Truffaut in that famous interview. (Not that I'm saying The Dark Knight is anywhere near that good- it's not. Nor will it ever be.) But it gave me the same feelings I got when I watched Psycho for the first time. It swept me along and refused to let me go. I admired its willingness to be big, operatic, and unironic in this age of Ironic and Post-Post-Modernist hogwash. It's melodramatic in the best way.
I have the film on DVD now, and watching it I've found plenty of things I could nitpick about if I chose to. (Most of them in the dialogue- there is too much expository dialogue at times and some lines come off as a bit too scripted and therefore don't sound quite right spoken.)
I'll try and wrap this up by saying that while I was a big fan of the movie, I am far from a fanboy. I have no illusions about this film being anything more than it is: an excellent film, not a truly great one. It fit Howard Hawks's definition of a good film: Three great scenes (I would say the opening robbery, the Batman/Joker interrogation, and the finale with Dent, Batman, and Gordon [people don't mention Oldman's performance enough]) and no bad scenes. There are some not-that-great scenes, like the ludicrousness of the attempted courtroom hit on Dent, but really there is nothing bad enough to say "THAT'S AWFUL and it takes me completely out of the movie."
I honestly had much more fun seeing Pineapple Express and In Bruges, which I have to give you (and Ebert) major props for championing while many other critics gave them short shrift. (Also props for talking up Generation Kill. I wish you'd do a full-length essay on that.)
P.S. To the guy who thoroughly hated Slumdog Millionaire- get over it. It's not trying to be a brutal expose of India's plight. It's a fable with some basis in reality. Not every movie about poverty can be "Killer Of Sheep". (In fact, NO movie about poverty will ever be that good, because very few movies in general are that good.)
Hey Jim, I'm with you 100 percent. "The Dark Knight" is a joyless movie. I used to feel somewhat guilty for disliking a movie that was supposedly a "masterpiece," but after this one I knew I couldn't allow myself to fall into peer pressure. Check out my review when you get a chance: http://ericyang.wordpress.com/2008/07/31/good-cop-bat-cop/
I don't if anybody's mentioned this, but everytime the Joker appears in a scene there's a thumping on the soundtrack, almost like an irregular heartbeat. I think that heightens the tension (and actually enhances the performance). I've seen the movie three times now and I think it's great. I enjoyed the spectacle of it all, the craziness of the Joker, the gnarly special effects for Two-Face's face. There's quite a few things I didn't like either, I thought Maggie Gylenhaal wasn't very good, the ending was a little unsatisfying (specifically the Two-Face scene with Gordon's family), actually, I wasn't really that fond of the Harvey Dent character, I thought his transformation felt a little forced.
But enough about that, I'll tell you some of the things that I absolutely loved about it: the opening scene was a tour-de-force, clockwork bank heist, the way they have all the goons off each other and talk about the Joker was brilliant. The little puff of smoke coming from the grenade... you're expecting a huge explosion and then Joker just slinks out of the bank into that line of schoolbuses. I remember seeing that and thinking "man, what a perfect little cherry-on-top, I can't wait to see what happens now."
I think it also serves to show how slippery the Joker character really is. A friend of mine was nitpicking about the same thing "well, it's kind of ridiculous that nobody would notice that he just busted out of a bank in a schoolbus." It was ridiculous, but it was also fun. Key word here is "fun." Say people on the street had noticed and started freaking out, and the cops started chasing the Joker in the bus... that would have been too much.
I have to give props to Christopher Nolan, I don't think this is sloppy filmmaking at all. He took control of this giant, lumbering $150 million dollar beast of a movie and delivered a movie that (I'm guessing here) probably 90% of the audience enjoyed. And that's a pretty rousing success in my book. It's not a dumb movie.
Also, to further discredit myself, I watched Speed Racer a couple of months ago on DVD and I loved it.
"The Dark Knight" is brilliant to me in fits and spurts. I'll do this with bullets as anything else would be too taxing at the moment. This summary isn't complete, but it probably represents everything I love the most about the film, as per your request (let's hope other so-called fans follow suit).
- For starters, I have to praise the soundtrack's "Joker theme", those nervous strings that accompany the otherwise silent opening image of the bat emerging from the wall of blue flame. Whenever that music comes around again, I find it absorbs the viewer into a most strange of headspaces, and usually marks the film at a high point.
- The opening heist is, in most ways, excellent, even if it's super obvious that Nolan must've watched "Heat" every night for about a month prior to shooting it. Love the in-the-moment extremity of it all, but what totally drives it home for me is the unveiling of Heath Ledger -- that low angle of his grimaced face as he unmasks, the soundtrack swelling as it (seemingly) drops an octave or two. It's like looking up at some evil overseer, and reminds me of the image of Satan hovering over the city in Murnau's "Faust". THAT'S insane. (And for the record, anyone, even a fan, who doesn't think the shot of the bus is a cheat is lying to themselves. I thought it when I saw it, every time.)
- 180*, wall-assisted batpod flip. 'Nuff said. The 18-wheeler turning over is unquestionably the shit as well.
- The joker hanging out the side of the police car as the sound drones off, like some rabid dog who's managed to temporarily ease his forever insatiable hunger.
- My favorite single shot comes near the end, when Batman has caught the Joker and has hung him upside down. Nolan's expository dialogue is a mixed bag throughout the film (Dent's whole "you either die a hero..." speech is pure garbage, ditto the stupid characterization of Wayne's girlfriend: "I'm talkeeng abowt the kind of citee that idolizes a masked veegulantee"... retch), but here I think he marries image and idea quite perfectly. As the Joker compares his and Batman's struggle as that between an unstoppable force and an immovable object, the camera turns upside-down, temporarily framing him as if in a coffin, and the image startes to jiggle in a way that seems to defy our accepted laws of physics.
- The ending, I can't say it enough. Nolan articulates mythic grandeur here in a way I don't think any prior film of the genre has come close to touching upon, and Oldman's heartfelt speech is just one more reason why his performance is among the most underrated in the movie. The final shot, of Batman ascending, alone, only for the ray of light to eclipse him just before he vanishes from sight, is pure poetry. If the entire film were THAT good, it'd be my #1 of the year, and I'd be in favor of every bit of support it's thus far received.
JE: Thank you, rob, and to all who have responded in a similar spirit of enthusiasm and close observation!
In response to Stephen's argument that " a serious argument can be made regarding how one's opinion of a whole affects their opinion of its parts."
Stephen, it's most definitely the other way around. I was once a script reader for a well-known film producer. I can assure you that a reader's opinion of a screenplay, as a whole, is based on how well its parts are working.
Alright Jim, since you've taken the step of describing a scene you liked, I'll do the reverse.
The Jim Gordon "faked-death" plot point was not well done. After Gordon is revealed to still be alive, the movie makes it seem like he almost arranged to be shot, but that's impossible. If he had, then he must have known the Joker's plans in advance. Not even Bruce knew what was going on. The movie doesn't explain how he survived a point blank rifle shot -- must have been a vest. Why is he shown to be unconscious?
I also find it highly questionable that he could have kept it so secret given that most of the force appears to be corrupt.
I don't want to know how that burning firetruck got there, because I can imagine that. I don't want to see Joker eating breakfast, going to the toilet, drawing up plans, bribing officials etc. because I can imagine all that too.
I would like to know the details of that faked death.
I waited to see the dark Knight until it came out in DVD. I am a HUGE fanatic of the Batman comic books, him being my favorite hero. He is NOT a SuperHero, for he does not have any super powers. There is a difference.
I thought that TDK was the first film in which the actual core of what Batman fanatics love about the Batman and his mythos was actually shown. The first film was good, but it was not GREAT. TDK was GREAT. It embroiled the audience in the core mioral dillema that is the crux of the batman. The batman dresses as a character to fight crime, which ends up affecting criminals, especially mentally unstable ones, and causing them to ratchet up their insanity and dress in costume. When a hero becomes a legend, a character outside of him/herself, he/she will also inspire those who seek to destroy him/her into becoming even more unbalanced. The Joker and his like are the direct result of Batman's assault on the standard organized crime syndicates, which i thougth was portrayed very well.
The moral choices the batman has to make and the overall truth that the Batman is more real and more true than Bruce Wayne is, goes against what people expect of "comic books." There is no other comic book hero like the Batman. he is just a man. He is as frail and vulnerable as any of the victims of the criminals he fights.
I thought TDK captured that briliantly.
Jim-
I did love the Dark Knight, and while I believe your points are very valid (espescially on the expository dialogue), this movie's overall impact on me was too great and I still have to love it for its flaws. That being said, I don't quite believe TDK was the huge "Godfather II" improvement over Batman Begins everyone said it was. Batman Begins had a better emotional center (Wayne's parents' death and the lasting moral impressions they left with their son). I thought it was a better driving force for the narrative and a more relatable one. In TDK, Batman/Bruce Wayne's character seems to not go wherever the first movie wants him to and he changes into a stoic action figure. He kind of takes a backseat to the joker and the movie's expanded scope. I find the film admirable and ambitious, but not as emotionally resonant. Batman Begins offers the human element of Batman, but The Dark Knight does not follow up on it. It doesn't work as well as a sequel as it does a seperate movie with more thrills.
Oh, and on a totally unrelated note, I just read your much older posts about The Descent and the surreal artworks that it echoed. I love that movie, one of my favorites, and I though it was cool to see someone else who really appreciated it for its wonderfully hellish mood and imagery. Probably the closest thing to an actual nightmare I have seen in cinema.
I was reminded by the picture of the Joker in drag (above) of something about TDK having seen it for the first time 3 weeks ago that really bothers me.
1. The first time we "see" the Joker he is not facing us. Learning later that he wears face paint nearly all the time, it seems strange that he could stand on a street corner just hanging out when we first see in in the opening shot (holding the clown mask).
2. Imagine you are walking down a hall in a hospital. Passed you walks a grown man wearing face paint and a nurses uniform. Do you think, since the Joker looks a little scary someone might call security? Clearly, the Joker walks out in broad daylight so odds are, since we see the hospital is terribly full of soon to be screaming people evacuating, someone would have seen something.
3. If you believe in #1 and #2 that the Joker can simply walk around without being noticed, then why is it in the Loeb's funeral scene he is not wearing the white face paint. If you think he must disguise himself, how is an entire police force doesn't reacognize the cop with ear to ear knife marks!?
Perhaps I am making a bit out of nothing, but since you (Jim) have made the point about presenting these movies as being more realistic, then why wouldn't this cause a lack of suspension of disbelief?
It would not surprise me if many of the people who did not like, or who feel neutral towards, The Dark Knight are people who viewed the film well after opening day or through other medium (DVD, On Demand, etc.). I saw it on opening night, in a packed theater, during an intense summer thunderstorm. Stadium seating and top-notch audio meant great views for everyone. Everyone was amped up to see it, and hardly anyone went to the bathroom for the entire 2.5 hours. Nobody spoke, except to cheer, gasp, or say "Awesome!" or something similar. There was an energy that the movie inspired, and then sustained even through all the plot holes and even after everyone spilled out into the lobby.
Cut to a month or so later, when I took my wife to see it at a random Saturday matinee in rural New England. The theater was practically empty (it was good beach weather). The screen was smaller and poorly lit. The audio was overbearing to the point that several spoken words were drowned out in the roar of the action sets. There was little energy. My wife was not very impressed.
I saw it again recently on On Demand, alone on a cold winter night. I enjoyed it once again, curled up with a six pack and a widescreen HD television with high quality audio.
JE: Absolutely right on. Ty Burr wrote something similar about the movie shortly after it was released, that I cited in a post from last summer:
http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2008/08/under_cover_of_the_dark_knight.html
I am surprised to hear no one mention the scene where the Joker blissfully sticks his head out of the police car window after his (planned or unplanned, no matter) escape. Ledger's character, the "dog who chases cars", really shines in this moment and fully embodies his (true or untrue, also no matter) metaphor. His hair blowing in the wind even reminds me of a dog's ears flapping in the breeze. I instantly identified the scene as iconic and grotesquely beautiful; something about the red and blue lights of the cars and the city complement his macabre makeup. Nolan drowns out the sound of the shot and presents us entirely with the image. For a film that has explosions, shattering glass, bazookas, buses going through banks in what may or may not be a poorly established shot, there is one moment of hideous beauty.
Jim, you mentioned that one of the faults of the film is that it never seemed to take the time to enjoy some of its shots. You wanted to see this specific shot, I believe, last more than a mere 10 seconds. I couldn't agree more. 10 more seconds would have really etched it into our brains. Being one of the fanboys of this film (I hope no one on here takes that as a completely negative detail), this scene sums up why I consider myself a fanboy. I came into the theater not looking to be moved by philosophical arguments between a man of rules and an agent of chaos. I went in as Roger Ebert and Werner Herzog have described as a filmgoer "starving for beautiful images". I think this film succeeded on that level alone quite well. I think the film presented people with images that they could not find in other blockbuster outings (except maybe for Angelina Jolie in "Wanted", but that's a whole other post).
I am glad you have led the discussion of TDK to this juncture; I would love to hear what else bothers you about the film and what pleases you. Can you explain some more about why the firetruck on (!) fire bothers you? I also found that to be one of the best images of the entire film simply because it was just funny in a demented way. The establishing shot before that was also quite beautiful. If you remember, the camera pulls away from the squad cars and watches the city descend into nightfall and the tension of the Joker's razorwire theme begins to whisper. As an image alone, I found it stunning, but it also reminded me strangely of Luis Bunuel's los olvidados. Bunuel did such a fantastic job in that film of conveying how quickly the city can become a concrete jungle. Needless to say, that's what Nolan was able to do with some scenes in TDK.
But once again, does anyone else find the Joker's elated look on his face as he escapes in the police car a beautiful moment in the film?
My favorite scene in the movie (and pardon me if I don't go into great detail, shot-for-shot, I haven't bought the DVD) was when Harvey Dent as Two-Face confronts Maroni in the car: A conversation between two men; a flip of the coin; another flip of the coin; and a gunshot.
I think the car crash after the shot was unnecessary (the director could have taken a cue from comic books and left the aftermath to each audience member's imagination), but I understand how it showed the death of Maroni.
Eric. Y--
In any situation, it's going to be both. Some aspects of the movie will bother you, causing you to dislike the whole, causing you to dislike aspects that wouldn't otherwise have bothered you. And then the trick is figuring out which bits caused the bother and which bits are victims of the bother.
The thing with The Dark Knight specifically is that it does take a lot of criticism for being so popular - and it's not like the fanboys are helping (voting down The Godfather on IMDB so TDK would be number one? Seriously?). From your posts I couldn't help shake-off that it was why you were, as I said, "nitpicking". It's a small mistake...it's not like it's a huge continuity error.
That having been said, I do apologise for being rude in the earlier posts. That was unwarranted.
But I always think of this thing Orson Welles once said: that to be revolutionary in films, you should never watch any. I always think that setting down rules lessens the work. I remember reading Reverse Shot's review of Zack and Miri Make a Porno, which had this: "Kevin Smith has not learned to line-up a shot."
Well, yeah, but that's not the point. As long as the movie's comprehensible and isn't an attempt at making the new Fargo, it doesn't have to line-up every shot perfectly. The only rule to follow is to know which rules to break. Think of The Murder of Roger Ackroyd: that novel broke every single rule of detective fiction that could have been broken, knew which ones to keep (e.g: no supernatural elements), got beaten-up in its day, and is now considered a masterpiece. I'm not saying that Kevin Smith is about to make Citizen Kane 2 here, but setting down rigid rules to follow never helped anybody.
I'll tell you of another guy who always broke the "traditional" rules: Shakespeare.
Hmm.
I think a good idea would be to start analyzing what's good in the film. I'm aware that The Dark Knight is better than its individual parts (watch a scene alone, it's boring, but as an entire film it's mesmerizing), so that might be hard, but you might get-off to a better start that way.
Just my thoughts.
Anyways, sorry again and much respect.
Kroms.
(PS: Jacob: I loved that shot too.)
Stephen:
Your reasoning may apply to other things, such our distorted view of people we dislike, but with films, books art, etc., we like them or don't like them and we have our reasons why. Sometimes our reasons can be articulated and cited specifically, sometimes it's difficult to explain. I disliked certain moments of "Gran Torino," yet I think it's one of the best films of 2008. And I disliked "House Bunny" but I can easily point out a few things I did like about it; and as for the moments I disliked, I can tell you with certainty that those are the very reasons why I didn't like the movie as a whole. It just doesn't work the other way around. If someone hates a movie and claims they hate everything about it, it doesn't necessarily mean their judgement is clouded, or that their reasons are "victims of the bother," unless they are really close-minded.
Rob-
"I thought that TDK was the first film in which the actual core of what Batman fanatics love about the Batman and his mythos was actually shown."
I've heard this argued before, and this makes sense to me that Batman comic lovers would get it. But, this film did not really make sense on that level to me. I don't read the comics. The movie did not necessarily draw such clear connections as you describe, for someone not initiated. It struck me as incoherent, thematically. Maybe that's a huge part of the disconnect between fans, who understand more of the context, and non-fans (like me) of the movie.
Eric Y.--
I'm sorry, I think it's patently ridiculous to say that your feelings on a movie as a whole don't affect your feelings on the parts of the movie. Again, sure, maybe you dislike a movie because of A, B, and C. But maybe because A, B, and C made you dislike the movie, X, Y, and Z now rub you the wrong way as well--perfectly good moments were ruined for you because A, B, and C bothered you so much. So now you dislike A, B, C, X, Y, and Z... and do you honestly think that you'll always be able to tell which you disliked because they were bad and which you disliked because the *other* parts were bad? I think that is flatly not the case.
One line that I'm surprised no one has mentioned has always stuck out to me as one of the reasons why I love this movie. After Batman tells the Joker "You're garbage who kills for money" the Joker says "Don't talk like one of *them*! You're not! Even if you'd like to be"
The way Ledger delivers the "even if you'd like to be" part is really incredible. Watch his body language and listen to how mannered his voice is. The Joker is telling Batman that he will always be a freak, and he'll never *really* be one of the people who "play by the rules". He says it so calmly, making it sound so matter of fact that the line always stuck with me.
JE: I like that, too, because there are so many things going on. He's flattering Batman and insulting him at the same time: You're not common like *them*... you're like me! Batman already puts himself above the crowd, obviously -- and the Joker knows he has good-sized ego, so he strokes it. Joker knows that Batman doesn't want to be like everybody else, or he wouldn't need to be Batman. Obviously, he already knows he's "special," even if he's just a man of flesh and blood underneath all the technology. But he doesn't want to think of himself as being a freak like the Joker (although we know that's one of his worst fears, and so does the Joker). Also, the Joker is taunting Batman in order to push him into breaking his "rules": See, you're a freak, but you're also exceptional, so don't pretend you can play by the rules because I know it's not your nature... because I'm that way, too! No wonder Batman gets so pissed off.
I'm your doppleganger Jim. I enjoyed TDK but found NCFOM to be a joyless, implausible, bore. It's not clear to me how so many critics could ignore so many plot holes and inconsistencies and continue to sing it's praises. I mean, come on, how long could you out run a truck load of Mexican drug runners through a desert, in cowboy boots none the less? a minute, 5 minutes? Llewelyn managed to do it from dark to daylight. Say an hour, maybe longer.
And what about the mysterious hotel room sequence? I read your explanation but to me it was just sloppy, misleading filmmaking. Forcing the audience into a "don't open the door moment" just like a teenage slasher flick and then not having the guts to go through with the inevitable outcome.
Sure there's a million implausible moments in TDK but I knew that going into it. I didn't expect reality, I didn't want reality. NCFOM pretended to be firmly (and gorily) rooted in everyday and then changed the rules, playing fast and loose with narrative and shamelessly manipulating the audience.
That said I've enjoyed reading both your praise of TCFOM and your disdain of TDK.
I originally wrote a comment on an earlier post that was sort of angry and sarcastic. I forgot to do something or other and it didn't get through. I'm glad it didn't. I appreciate that you have acknowledged that it is possible for someone to like the movie while earlier I felt like you were just trying to prove that everyone who likes TDK is crazy.
I loved just about everything about "The Dark Knight". I never thought it was visually incoherent. A few times I thought the editing was a little too fast, but I don't so much mind those parts after repeated viewings.
I thought that the performances were all around great. Obviously Heath Ledger is terrific (I've recited the "Why so serious?" speech countless times). Aaron Eckhart gave a really powerful performance. Even Christian Bale was good, portraying how a man would go about being a superhero, that your real life counterpart would have to be bland, that you would have to disguise your voice, things that no other superhero movie has ever done.
Other than Ledger, the best performance was by Gary Oldman. He was always believable and made the final confrontation with Two-Face, which could have been over-blown and expolitative, really tense. I loved the relationship with his son that we do not realize is important until the final scene. I loved the way the music subtly echoes the relationship between Bruce Wayne and his father in "Batman Begins". Though there are no flashbacks to "Begins" I was constantly thinking about it throughout TDK. This was especially clear in the relationship between Gordon and his son.
This was part of my favorite part of the film: the end. It still gives me chills watching it. The editing between all those different events, reminiscent of the Baptism scene in "The Godfather"; the dialogue between Gordon and his son; the way the music kicks in when Gordon says, "So we'll hunt him. Because he can take it. Because he's not a hero." That is my absolute favorite thing about the movie: that Batman is not a hero. He's an anti-hero. This film is not a superhero movie. It's a film noir.
This leads to my favorite image in the film. During the fight in the Prewitt building, Batman seems to be caught by the cops. Just before he kicks the police out of the building, he is caught in the spotlight of police helicopter. That image of the dark silhouette symbolizes everything I love about the Batman legend. This is not a policeman. He does not work for the government. He works outside of the law, protecting the people. They hate him for it and that's the way it should be. I really like the split-second decisions he makes at the end to attack the police. This is also why I don't think it's a right-wing movie. This is not the government or the police eavesdropping on people. This is one man who does bad things for to stop a madman. The movie never says this is the right thing. It simply asks what is necessary to stop an evil man. Every single character in this film does something bad. Everyone. This is not simply a political message movie like "Iron Man." It is a challenging film that is meant to inspire discussion and debate. I have already had several discussions about this movie. Debates about a Batman film. That is how extraordinary this film is.
I could go on and on about "The Dark Knight", but then nobody would read this. Of course, I acknowledge that you can disagree, but I hope you can understand why I love this film so much.
Oh, let me go ahead and add to the love-fest. I've talked in previous threads quite a bit about why I like the movie, but this is new, I think:
I really appreciate that, unlike virtually every other Batman movie, superhero movie, or crime movie, I got a tense, stressed feeling in my gut when the hero was forced to fight the police in order to do the right thing. Just before the crazy bat-vision scene, when the police as first entering, there's a moment where Batman is first forced to actually raise a hand against a decent cop, one acting on Gordon's orders, and you know this is a serious choice. His relationship with the police force simply cannot be the same after this--until now, they've tolerated him because when he breaks the rules he does it at the expense of the mob or the Joker. But now, for the first time we and they see that Batman's chaotic, do-the-right-thing-and-damn-the-rules tactics can be turned against the police as well. This is the moment where the ending of the film, with Batman fleeing from the cops as a fugitive, really became inevitable. And Batman doesn't even hesitate.
"When the Joker is dangling from the skyrise off of Batman's grappling hook, the camera gradually rolls about its axis, such that the Joker is presented right-side-up and the background is upside down. Subtle, but potent: the Joker has turned the world on its head. With visual-storytelling acumen like that, it makes me wonder why Nolan relied so much on expository / explanatory dialog, but c'est la vie."
This is my favorite shot in the film as well. Not only is this some of Ledger's best work in the film, but the way this simple move distorts the shot is quite remarkable. The way the Joker's hair dangles up while he sways, the ever-persistent glee of the defeated villain is all quite unsettling.
I already mentioned my least favorite part of the film (Gordon faking his death).
i tried reading through all the posts to see if this has been answered for you already Jim, but i gave up after about 10 minutes of reading :P so in case no one's mentioned this before, the shot of the news reporter being dragged onto the bus is to show how Joker captured him and used him for his next terrorism video. i didn't really catch it on the first couple viewings, but after a while you can see someone literally grab the reporter and drag him onto the bus (just like how it took me several viewings to see one of Maroni's goons being quickly dragged out of the frame before Maroni goes into the car with Two Face inside).
cheers
KZ
JE: Ah, I didn't get that either. Didn't recognize him on TV. I just figured that was some guy they nabbed off-screen sometime. After all, we didn't see the Joker's folks kidnap the Batman impostor or Rachel. But, yes, there's a quick, slightly stagey insert of the cameraman, I believe, grabbing him and pulling him onto the bus.
The Dark Knight is the best movie of this decade. That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it, no matter how much Jim Emerson discusses film theory BS (and that's what film theory is, nothing but BS -- but that's another discussion) on the schoolbus escape.
Jim, I understand your dislike. I loved this movie, though. I truly did. It could have been because I've loved Batman since I'm 3 - actually, the first time I got kicked out from a movie was at that age (1989), when I kept loudly asking my mom "Mom, where's Batman? I want to see Batman" during the first few minutes of movie - or it could have been because of how much depth I saw in the character of the Joker.
He's a mad man, the way Caligula is in Camus's play. Many people enjoy life, and don't mind the cruelty and absurdity of it all, or don't see it. Tomorrow I could be diagnosed with stomach cancer; today I could get shot during my regular walk. We feel deceptively safe. By one situation or another, some people are suddenly taken from that safety, and they realize the cruelty, the absurdity; the fact that we might be trying to give meaning to the meaningless. I see the Joker as this type of person; one, who like Caligula, out of complex feelings, decided to be the destiny for someone. Decided to be life itself - or a god, in Caligula's case; being as nonsensical and absurd as life can be.
The Joker is also a man tired of the politics we experience every day, the way we HAVE to live. I loved his conversation with Batman in the questioning room. "To them you're just a freak... they need you right now, but when they don't, they'll cast you out..." The world is full of causes that go nowhere not because they can't, but because they're just trends to the people who could do something about them. We're living in a time when actors and actresses talk passionately about Darfur one week - without knowing what they're talking about, of course - and about Tibet the next; again, with no knowledge whatsoever. We, individuals, are like those same causes: popular one week, not so hot the next. Possibly, it's human nature to go with what others consider cool instead of empathetically approaching causes or people. The awful thing is that we worry, we worry a lot about been the week's cause "... they need you right now..." We are necessary one second, not so useful the other, and we're left alone (just think of old people at homes). The Joker is played as an idea, just like Caligula, the idea that life is unjust, that a murderer could live his entire life enjoying himself in Monte Carlo. The idea that it doesn't matter how we live, we'll eventually be cast out, so why not do what you really want to do? The idea that we can do anything to anyone because after all, by doing it, we wouldn't make things more unfair or absurd than they already are.
I wish we could actually talk about this in person. I probably will continue developing this.
Katherine
Jim, this is a "super hero" movie.
If you were enjoying a graphic novel where a bus pulls out into parade of other buses, would that still bother you?
JE: No, not necessarily. I'm not talking about hypotheticals; I'm talking about this shot. Indeed, I think it's already been done -- though I can't remember in which movie. As I keep saying, it's all in the execution. I've pointed out several things about the way this shot/stunt is executed that bugged me, and that could have been done, in my view, "better." I've given examples of how I think it could have been improved. That's all. It's not the worst thing in the world, but I wanted more from this moment in the movie and I've tried to articulate why. Have you ever seen a graphic novel you thought had some awkward or misconceived drawings or frame sequences in it? That's all I'm sayin'.
Jack Frink--
I can't imagine why anyone would think theory was BS, unless of course they were frustrated trying to understand it. But I see even film criticism frustrates you, so why even bother reading it? For that matter, why even bother commenting? You don't appear to have much to contribute.
Don't take this the wrong way but I having been following your criticisms of The Dark Knight for a while now and have become increasingly annoyed with you. I have always considered some movies undeniably good. Even if they didn't like the movie it has always seemed strange to me that educated critics couldn't see that certain movies like Fight Club and There Will Be Blood were good movies. It almost seemed like those critics were more concerned with standing out and getting their voices heard than voicing an accurate opinion.
But it's fair to ask me why I consider The Dark Knight to be a good movie. And it's important to understand I agree with most of your criticisms of the Dark Knight. I just don't consider them to be all that important. When I watch a movie I become immersed in it. And if it's a good movie it's not hard for me to overlook imperfections. So why is The Dark Knight a good movie? I could point to individual elements such as the cinematography or dialogue (both Bruce Wayne and The Joker enter Bruce's penthouse with line "Where is Harvey Dent?" I love that.) But that doesn't encapsulate the experience for me. I can only tell you about the rush I felt as The Joker tumbled of the top of the building at the end or when he yelled "HIT ME!" on the streets of Gotham. I fully felt the weight of a city under siege by a demonic force that can't be killed or stopped. And I was fascinated by the parallels that were developed in the dialogue between the Joker and Batman. And that it all existed in such a universe? I'm sorry for not providing more specific examples but can you at least understand that that your criticisms didn't matter to me? If you get around to reading this I would be interested to know if you know what I'm talking about.
JE: This may sound weird, but I don't understand critics who write for the purpose of getting others to agree with their opinions. I write to explain what I see and how I felt about it. I don't expect anybody to "agree" with me, or just take my world for it. Perhaps they saw it differently. If all I wanted to do was force-feed my opinions down people's throats, I would write very differently. I would, as many reviewers do, stick to expressing "opinions" and shy away from trying to accurately quote/describe what is actually in the movie. For many years I wrote for print and it was very much a one-way street, except for the occasional postal-carrier-delivered letter to the editor. I'm not terribly interested in that form of doing things anymore. If all I wanted was to express the sound of my own voice I certainly wouldn't have opened comments here -- much less bothered to respond to them.
You've written fifty entries about The Dark Knight because it was both popular and critically acclaimed, and your schtick is that of the lover of all things obscure and hater of anything too popular or well-liked or familiar. This is not that complicated. How many more posts are you going to make about this goddam movie? Let it go. People loved it. Critics hailed it. It made a boatload of cash. Who gives a shit? Let it GO, Jim.
JE: Hater of anything too popular or well-liked or familiar? That's hilarious. A film that takes years to be made is not worth more than a few "entries" (less than 10, not 50). I'm a movie fan. I think even the worst movies can be worth more than 10 "entries," if people are willing to engage in various discussions. I said right away that I was underwhelmed by "TDK." But I find it very difficult to work up any enthusiasm for discussing, say, "Synechdoche, New York" (possibly the most precious, redundant, unimaginative movie I saw in 2008 -- but one I'd still be willing to get into if somebody expressed some passion for it) or "21" or "My Blueberry Nights." Heck, I devoted several postings to "Speed Racer," which I almost forgot before I reached the exit, but some found quite charming -- even exciting. I found it as incoherent, shot for shot, as "TDK" -- but not as demanding or ambitious. But, sometimes you can step in something gooey and, if you look close enough, find something of interest worth discussing. I've spent years as a professional film critic, and a professional dog sitter, so I know what I'm talking about.
am surprised to hear no one mention the scene where the Joker blissfully sticks his head out of the police car window after his (planned or unplanned, no matter) escape. Ledger's character, the "dog who chases cars", really shines in this moment and fully embodies his (true or untrue, also no matter) metaphor. His hair blowing in the wind even reminds me of a dog's ears flapping in the breeze. I instantly identified the scene as iconic and grotesquely beautiful; something about the red and blue lights of the cars and the city complement his macabre makeup. Nolan drowns out the sound of the shot and presents us entirely with the image. For a film that has explosions, shattering glass, bazookas, buses going through banks in what may or may not be a poorly established shot, there is one moment of hideous beauty.
Yes, it's a great shot but I find it non-congruent stylistically with the scene that preceded it. There's so much going on in TDK that after I left the theatre the first time I saw it I didn't know what to think of it. I must say that Nolan has done his research for the two films, i.e. Joe Chill is the original small time hood who shoots Wayne's parents, Detective Flass is from Year One, so is Carmine Falcone but I'm style ambivalent about the presentation because I don't think that it does as good a job as Frank Miller's Dark Knight Returns series in presenting so much content within the media that it is made in. Batman Begins suffers from the same problems in my mind, I mean does it make much sense that Bruce Wayne would suddenly decide to become a guy dressed up in Batsuit within a few moments of getting on a plane back to America? There are whole bunches of little things like this that come up in these two Batman films that just nag at you that I find really bothersome so what I'm left with is having to enjoy moments of each film as opposed to just liking each one as a whole. I also have to wonder if many of the filmmaking decisions were made due to box office considerations or some other kind of outside pressure.
I've been told by a few commenters here that I don't know how to watch a comic book movie, that implausibilities are to be expected and ignored because that just goes with the territory. But every movie maps out its own territory, builds its own world, writes its own rules. The Batman we see in "The Dark Knight" is noticeably different from, say, the one Adam West played on the 1960s TV show. I didn't feel the Batman of "The Dark Knight" belonged in the same world as the movie's Joker. I'm talking about the portrayal of flesh-and-blood versus an "agent of chaos." It's explained, but I didn't believe it.
Maybe you feel that way because the conflict between the Joker and Batman isn't really established very well in the film, it's all very abstract. There is no actual physical confrontation between the two characters before the action sequence when the Joker tries to kill Harvey Dent (I liked that entire sequence for the most part, I didn't think I'd like that Batpod but it is pretty damn cool). The film might have worked a bit better if it lingered more on Batman's relationship to the Joker as opposed to his relationships with Rachel Dawes and Harvey Dent and Comissioner Gordon and Gotham City. I know that you don't really see much of the John Doe character in Seven until near the end of the film but the way Fincher presents the film you always have this sense of "who committed these crimes" going on while you are watching the film.
rob humanick writes: "movie. The final shot, of Batman ascending, alone, only for the ray of light to eclipse him just before he vanishes from sight, is pure poetry. If the entire film were THAT good, it'd be my #1 of the year, and I'd be in favor of every bit of support it's thus far received."
Yes! There were so many moments in the film when I wanted to feel this way, when I wanted to think: "That's the best way (or one of the best ways) I've ever seen that done." Or, even better: "I've never seen THAT before!" Maybe the justly famous shot of the Joker sticking his head out the window and licking his lips. I found the central truck chase largely... chaotic, but not exciting or coherent (though I loved the way the sound dropped during the introductory helicopter shot). Can anybody think of other moments/sequences that felt like, I don't know, landmarks? I saw a lot of good-but-not-great moments and missed opportunities...
In terms of scenes that kind of get me, I've grown fond of the last scenes, where we see what 'has to be done,' to keep the Joker from winning.
Batman started as this symbol for trying to do good, and to try and prevent the further ruination of Gotham City.
However, by the end of the Dark Knight, he chooses to become the 'whipping boy' for the many misdeeds that have been committed. He isn't forced into this: he chooses to do so. He's willing to bear the brunt of being considered a cop-killer, if it will allow a small glimmer of hope that somewhere down the line, Gotham may one day be free of it's 'plague.'
Emotionally, I found it sad, and started to think how it seems that Bruce Wayne really is 'trapped' in the batsuit. Throughout the film, there are some musings about this. In an early scene, Harvey Dent mentions that 'Batman doesn't want to keep doing this forever.' And we see that Bruce thinks the same when he talks to Rachel. This was meant as a part-time thing, but it has turned out to be something that Bruce Wayne can't escape from.
At the end of 'The Dark Knight,' I found myself thinking of 'Episode III,' in which Anakin is now Darth Vader and he can't escape from the suit. That sequence, we are supposed to feel a sense of sadness, but it doesn't come off as that. Vader's lament over what has happened and how he can't escape is met more times by chuckling and head-holding than furrowed brows and tears.
With 'The Dark Knight,' Wayne being trapped in his batsuit makes you consider what has happened: His crusade has taken a turn for the worse, those he wants to help will turn on him, and he's lost his childhood friend, who was supposed to be a lifeline to the normal world outside. The scene with him running off among the shipping crates, you really feel that he is alone. But also hear some pain in Gordon's voice, as he tells his son why Batman has to run.
And that, is my little ramble (figured I could tell it here, as imdb is no place for introspection).
My favorite moments in the movie are some of the smaller ones. While I enjoyed the film greatly, the bigger set pieces did tend to have smaller, distracting flaws (the questionable logic of the bus' escape, the Joker's unexplained disappearance after Batman saves Rachel, the really disorienting visual geography of the fight in the incomplete skyscraper) that took away from their overall impact.
But there are small gems of moments throughout, ones that you hardly ever see in American action pictures and almost never in comic book movies (not to deminish the film as belonging to some bastard genre, but these quiet moments were perhaps more startling to me for coming in sequences of intense action).
I'm thinking of the Joker letting his hair blow in the breeze as he drives off in the cop car (Is the cop car behind him chasing him or part of an escape posse? Another one of those flubbed details, but the image itself is still sublime.) or better yet, the moment after Batman has been slammed into a concrete column in the parking lot after letting go of the side of the Scarecrow's van. I love that we actually get to see Batman haul up and lug himself over to that ledge. I lesser film would have cut directly to the interior of the Scarecrow's van and simply given us the moment of impact as Batman comes crashing down, with no explanation as to how he got there. There are plenty of those little cheats in the old Burton films. Instead, we're offered an insight into the physical effort it takes to be Batman, an insight into a central character that is efficiently and quietly delivered.
I remember prior to the film's release there were rumors of a three-hour director's cut. I'd be curious to see if such a director's cut ever surfaces because I'd be awfully surprised if some of the seemingly missing segues and narrative cues (such as actually seeing the Joker escape that fundraiser) weren't at least filmed. I wonder if it would solve some of those nagging little problems. But then, many of the problems you have with the movie, Jim, particularly issues of overly tight framing, are ones I had with The Prestige, a smaller movie over which I would think Nolan had more creative control.
JE: I'm so glad you mentioned the cop cars behind the Joker. It's a great image, one of my (and, it seems, everybody's) favorites in the movie. But, again, I had a moment of hesitation because I'm not sure why those other cars were included in the shot, either. Perhaps, as some say, to suggest that the Joker has powers/influence that reach deeper into the fabric of Gotham than we can imagine? But, to me, the feel of the shot is one of openness and escape. And those other cars tugged me slightly down to earth. I wish they weren't there. Again, not at all horrendous -- I still think it's a beautiful image -- but I felt the other cars gilded the lily a bit.
I'd really like to see more about the contrast between Batman's physicality and the Joker's omniscience and virtual immunity to pain. Such a point is made of the scars and bruises on Batman/Bruce Wayne's all-too-human flesh. But the Joker remains an abstraction. Is the movie meant to be about a human who encounters an "agent of chaos" (an abstract force in society at large)? If so, I'm not sure these two characters actually embodied those notions. To me they seemed to exist in two separate worlds. (Now that I think about it, I want to go back and look at how the two characters are shot when they actually share screen space.)
"Can anybody think of other moments/sequences that felt like, I don't know, landmarks? I saw a lot of good-but-not-great moments and missed opportunities..."
I watched the whole film - and took some notes- to prepare for this/ I'm working as fast as I can Jim! Bare with me!
I have more coming but I'll start with this because I'm too tired to proofread some of my other writing right now...
In this post
- The opening shots
- The score
- The Joker's face (and the reveal of it) and the shot that follows his escape from the bank heist (cut to nighttime)
- Some of the 'poetry' and power that I feel is in these opening
- How the opening already establishes this theme of... out of everyday, bright Gotham comes corruption... and we see who it's reached by the end of the film in the ferry scenes... including the audience...
The Opening Shot (flames around the darkness, creating the bat logo)
- Love the silence and the flames just coming at you. Never fails to stun me and can you tell that, in a packed theater on opening night, it's something amazing to hear the crowd suddenly go silent... not so much because the movie has started but more cause... it's... so... quiet. For a moment, there's an "Enigma of Kasper Hauser" opening feel to it.
- Then comes the great Zimmer/Howard score. The temperature-rising siren to let us know hell’s flames are getting hotter. It’s very raw and savage. There’s a demented ticking sound too… like a bomb that can’t make up its mind when it wants to explode. In other moments of the movie you hear a vicious guitar slam in and out of the score. Sometimes you hear different piano notes that give you the feeling of, how should I put this… standing on the top of a flagpole, leaning one way, then the other, losing balance. What a score. And that’s just The Joker’s.
The Bank Heist
- Jim, I agree with you, how the hell could people not notice shards of glass falling on them from above/ two people in clown masks going across a zip-line in broad daylight. I don't know! I don't have the answers for you there (other than what we've already discussed about letting a lack of realism go here and there) and here's why I might let it go... because I love the opening shot.
- Jim, you said the opening bang is the party-popper. Maybe. That's how most saw it, surely. I saw so-shiny-it-could-blind-you Gotham, "soulless, anonymous, a city of distorting and shattering mirrors" (as Manohla Dargis writes and for which I am eternally grateful) and then explodes a black hole. In a way, we see what's really within these mirrors... darkness. From it, the organized anarchy about to plague Gotham is unleashed. The virus begins spreading. (Clowns zipline out of the black hole.) There's been something rotten inside Gotham's soul, hidden beneath the surface, and it's starting to break out like hives.
- I think the next shot furthers this notion I have. A man who we assume... or basically know... is The Joker.... out in broad daylight, alone but casually amongst the every day city folk. On repeat viewing, there's a sense that this is some regular Joe whose had one-too-many bad days. And we wonder, what exactly is that darkness beneath the glimmer of Gotham that would create such a freak?
*So these opening shots aren't necessarily realistic, but I do see poetry, you trade a bit of one for the other sometimes*
- The energy and backstabbing of the robbery is terrific and many have commented on it and we've talked about the escape to death so I'll mention one more thing then half-move on... right after the bank manager is shot, Ledger-Joker looks at him like... "Hm. Interesting... how it bleeds... this... little, human specimen..."
Soonafter comes one of my absolute favorite moments...
THE JOKER REVEALING HIS FACE
This needs its own section because The Joker's face itself is such a landmark image, iconic not just because the film was popular but because the face is simply so memorable. Hell Jim, even you were posting it like mad before the film was released.
First, I must mention, I quite like William Fichtner's face (it's like a cousin of Klaud Kinski's) and it makes the bank manager identifiable immediately. And I like him returning fire because we see the mobsters aren't pushovers. And that's the sort of a town this is... the bank manager has a shotgun underneath his desk and isn't afraid to use it. This town is just corrupt and vicious all over. And I like Fichtner's schpeel about the old criminals and the new wave. "Honor. Respect. What do you believe in?" And he's defending this with conviction.
Now look at Ledger-Joker as Fichtner rants. He stops, turns around, glances up and down, walks towards him, looking about. It's like he's thinking "OK... here we go... yup... you're gonna talk aren't you? OK, what are you saying? Oh, I see. Yeah, I got something to say about that." Sticks a grenade in his mouth. "Whatever doesn't kill you..." Hear that voice? That nasally, wobbly voice that sounds like one of those creepily friendly kids show hosts with a slightly effeminate Chicago accent? The sound makes us curious what's underneath that mask...
And the score builds up...
And he lifts off his mask, as if peeling off one layer of deranged skin only to reveal a layer of deeper craziness...
And the score flips to those low-notes like somebody just banged their head on the other end of the piano.
And we see that face.
"Stranger."
The lipstick is pinkish in the glow of the sunlight. His lips have an effeminate look because of that, but that's not the weird thing, the weird thing is what's around those perky lips... a carved-in, Jack-O-Lantern grin, (a “sawed-off smile” as Dargis said), infected looking, cancerous. Ugh! Grotesque! Those eyes. Dead. Black holes with a brown pupil inside. You know what they say about people with brown eyes... they're full of... you know what. (No offense brown-eyed-people, I am one myself.) Where the dark circles around his eyes end and where his eyebrows begin, I cannot say exactly. He looks as if he has never slept a day in his life... or is incapable of such mandatory human activity. He must have been frowning a long time to get those bumps on his upper nose. And then there's the grungy hair. Like grass on a dead lawn. Like he crawled out of a sewer and stuck his finger in an electric socket for the fun of it and now it's fried off in every direction, each crazy, twisted dangle of it an extension of one of the zips and zaps running throughout his close-to-convulsing brain. The hair sits messily atop his skull like a jester’s cap. His hairline is receding slightly. And, back to the face…
This is the face of pretty boy Ledger. And they just f'd him right up!
And he's so damn happy about it. Goofyish.
His face almost seems to be rearranging itself before us...
but it's not that. It's that we're not sure, what's more wrong about it... the smile? the eyes? the hair? the wrinkled, make-up caked face? There’s something intangibly unsettling about it.
He has obviously not taken care of himself in a long time.
He gives us a quick grin, revealing his ugly plaque-teeth.
And then he spins away from screen and... is gone like that.
But I'm describing here in detail what we take in all at once within a few seconds. Watching it altogether... is like watching lightning laugh at you.
Except... The Joker never laughs in this scene. Thinking back on it, many will claim he did. He leaves that impression without even having to.
So, excuse me if I'm too fired up to notice, in the next shot, that the people on the left side of the screen seem to be taking a careless stroll through the park while a bank is robbed next to them and excuse me if I didn't quite see the lights change or didn't care much that his getaway was awfully improbable. I just saw a face I'll never forget and after that, everything was a daze for a moment.
I snap back to it as we cut from day-light to night... Batman's time. But it's scene 2 and already we see The Joker has the upperhand. He'll do the audacious in the sunshine. He's 24/7. Batman only comes out at a night, the only time his act can play. Batman can charge into the darkness and fight evil in its most comfortable habit, hit evil where it hurts most. And then try to enjoy his sleep the next day knowing that evil is also at work in the sunniest of places.
Which made me think, seeing the ferry scenes again, about the calm demeanor of the one boat that conducts a vote. Yes. Cool. Calm. Collected. Cold. Rationalizing killing. Dealing with it like numbers. Hiding the brutality of it behind a mask of sophistication and class. Woody Allen's "Crimes and Misdemeanors" comes to mind. The Martin Landau character would not be out of place on the civilian boat, conducting the vote to kill the others. Though, I do empathize with their situation, certainly. Who wouldn't? I'd like to believe I'd do the right thing in that scene... but you would weigh out your options. Anybody would.
The ferry scene is the moment in the movie where the audience suddenly becomes a very real part of The Joker’s “whatever doesn’t kill you makes you stranger” Yes, I know the audience isn't influencing the film...
but a question has been posed to them that will outlive the film.
It's one of those ultimate, haunting, Catch-22 situations.
Your worst nightmare.
Be killed or kill and live with the responsibility of the killing.
You're no longer just an audience member at that point in the film, you're now a participant.
You can't change the film's outcome but you can ask yourself some hard questions at this point.
That includes how one judges others. There's no doubt in my mind that when Tiny Lister Jr. takes that remote, there are people with their assumptions. And there are those who don't. Some cheer when he throws it out the window, others shrink in shame for what they'd assumed.
That Nolan and writing company are able to have these short but powerful moments throughout the battle of Batman and The Joker (for Gotham's soul) is much more than any other superhero film has taken on.
More to come... I especially want to zero in on the double-interrogation scene. Batman interrogates Maroni. Dent interrogates the paranoid schizophrenic. To me... that is the scene where the movie starts coming together (as the ideals of the characters fall apart).
"But the Joker remains an abstraction."
Doesn't that clash with the films insistence on realism? The Joker seemed to be made from the same fabric as Anton Chigurh or even Dominik's Jesse James, a sort of vacuum, that drains away all the vitality and energy of a frame and focuses it on itself. But somehow the Joker became a quasi-hero, almost the main character (I'm curious to see if someone measured the Joker's actual time on the screen). I mean, even if Anton and JJ existed in a real world (the latter being an actual historical figure) their presence was imposing and otherworldly. The Joker's clothes signal some sort of down-to-earth griminess, his coat dusty and dirty, but his actions are far, far removed from a traditional villain. He was evil and chaos personified in a film that does not have good and righteous personified in an abstract manner. So in a sense, it was Commissioner Gordon, who was the nemesis of the Joker, but Batman served as his agent of good. So then, who was the Joker serving?
As for great moments, I remember some from Batman Begins - when Batman is walking along the corridors of Arkham Asylum and all the inmates stare at him with recognition and fear in their eyes at the same time. That really short sequence instantly identified Batman for me, and carried the point Batman Begins was trying to make about fear.
I'm very sorry to hear that people are angry with you for dissecting The Dark Knight. Discussing such a widely seen and appreciated film is an opportunity to elevate people's appreciation and way of thinking about film in general, which I believe is what you are trying to do, and it is sad to see people rejecting the idea of looking more closely at a film that they love, or hate. Personally, I am interested in finding out why a film works on me or doesn't, and even as someone who loves this film, especially as someone who loves this film, I would be very interested in you breaking down the whole film. The first post in this thread claims that "If they don't cite what they liked, then it's obvious they didn't find much to like" which, in addition to being incredibly condescending, it is also wrong in a way. Someone else mentioned the idea that it is easy to spot things that went wrong in a film, but a little more difficult to explain things that went right - when a film works, people don't notice everything that went into it, they just enjoy it, and I think that that is what happened for a lot of people with The Dark Knight - it's big, it's ambitious, it's got a lot action and a story to back it up, iconic characters, etc.
In another topic on the blog, you mentioned or referenced somebody saying that Nolan's direction was lazy and relied on expository dialogue rather than images, citing the absence of Rachel and Harvey being abducted, but simply disappearing and reappearing, something like that. I disagree. I understand the idea that most people have that great direction is telling the story through images, that an audience should be able to watch a film without the sound and still understand what is going on, but I am more interested in the experience as a whole. Would it really have made the film better to include a shot of Rachel being taken by the Joker's henchmen? Or would it have screwed up the rhythm of the film and ruined the surprise when the Joker reveals his scheme to Batman in the interrogation room? I agree that it would be difficult to understand the film solely by its images, but I don't believe that you are meant to, in any film; no film, or very few films would be nearly as rich as they are without hearing the dialogue, or the score, or sound effects, etc. There is a sort of delayed pay-off system in the film, where we get vital information to a scene after the scene has ended. Take the scene in which Harvey tries to get information from the schizophrenic by pointing the gun at him and flipping the coin. Batman gets angry at him for it and points out that he'd "leave a man's life to chance," to which Harvey replies, "Not exactly." Though anyone who has ever heard of Batman probably knew that it was two-sided coin, we are only told that several scenes later. I think that his direction of the overall experience was great, even if that meant sacrificing images that would have made it a "well-directed film." Perhaps I am trying to tie everything together too nicely or am simply seeing something that isn't there, but I think his method of direction fits in with the whole idea of chaos and confusion that goes in within the film. Even if that is mistaken, I still think Nolan has a nice command over the experience of the film as a whole, especially considering that he is constantly doing two or three things at once; scenes rarely, if ever, exist for only one purpose.
As for mentioning things that I did like, here are a few:
I really appreciate the way Nolan would introduce everything that would be essential in a scene at its beginning, and then focus on the action as it happened and include more of those essentials as they became important. I believe you posted another critic a few months ago who attacked him for this, but I really liked it. Take the sequence after the Joker is captured - we see the man with the cell phone in his stomach groaning in pain, and is yelled at by a cop - this seems like simply an establishing shot for the jail, and is only a few seconds long, quickly cutting to something more urgent when Gordon walks in. Later we realize that the phone is a big part of the sequence and we rejoin the man, and later see that the cop that yelled him in the beginning ends up giving his own phone to the Joker so that he can make his phone call. No important plot points in the film ever seem too convenient for me, simply because Nolan is up-front about all of them and gives them to us disguised as something else - another example is the scene in which Reese confronts Lucius about Batman's identity... this seems like a little piece of light comic relief, but is actually setting up an important sequence later in the film. It is a simple technique, but somehow I don't see it in a lot of films that could really use it.
I also really love the meticulous structure of the story and Nolan's delicate system of set-ups and pay-offs. No scene in the film is unwarranted or unnecessary. I heard some people, even people that really liked the film, say that it was too long, but I think everything in it was needed. If you took out one scene it would screw up two others. Building on a few things I've stated earlier I'll point to one of the short scenes in the introductory sequence after the heist in which Ramirez joins Gordon on the rooftop and asks why he isn't home with the family, and he responds by implying she should be with her mother, and she tells him that she just checked her back into the hospital. This exchange seems so simple at the time, meant to establish that Gordon spends all of his time on Batman and Gotham, but it does so much more. In addition to avoiding a convenient moment later by disclosing that which will compromise her later on, it also adds to one of the film's questions: What is a hero? Here we have Ramirez, a cop, who is supposed to serve and protect the people, a position generally thought of as heroic, who in the end puts herself above those people to save a loved one. Batman, who is seen as an outlaw vigilante, a criminal, when faced with the same situation, makes a more selfless choice, one that he feels will benefit Gotham rather than himself.
I like the way the film blends Bruce Wayne and Batman. At one point I was thinking about the film and had the thought that Bruce Wayne should have been in the movie more, like he was in Batman Begins, but then I realized that Bruce Wayne's problems are forced onto Batman and he is forced to live the double-life at the same time, which makes the choice mentioned above so much more interesting and exciting and tragic. It's such a complex decision that he has to make, and I think the circumstances under which he is forced to make that decision, a tense, high-speed sequence, inter-cut with the grand scheme of the Joker being revealed, heighten the decision even more.
Related to that, I also appreciate that very few things ever go right in the film. Generally in a film like this, it is pretty much very predictable and is pretty much a sin to kill any of the important "good guys." This film kills one and at the same time turns another into a villain.
Smaller things that I appreciate - they way Harvey Dent pronounces the name "Falcone" differently than everyone else - the way the Joker hums as he fingers the pins of his grenades as he exits the mob meeting - the way Lau turns of his camera after being called a squealer by the Joker - the simple yet effective handling of Batman's ability to disappear quickly and unnoticed - Gordon's moment with his son, "This time, I saved him" - the way the Joker uses his gun as a sort of crutch to lift himself up with after crashing the truck -that the Joker carries a potato peeler - Bruce's slight nod to Reese after saving him - they way it seems that Nicky Katt has just a few too many lines (I love Nicky Katt) only to find out that the reason is that he is riding with a presumed dead Gordon.
Forgive me if this was wordy or redundant... I haven't visited the site for a few months and so haven't read all of the posts on The Dark Knight, and I stopped reading these comments after about number 50.
Jim, you're a man for another era. People don't WANT to laugh or cry or feel a lump in their throat at the movies anymore. It would embarrass them to feel those things. Today's audiences want sensation and dangerous moods. Heath Ledger's death made TDK a phenomenon, and you can chalk most of its praise up to the contagious bleating of excited sheep.
The movie's popularity is HELPED by the fact that it doesn't make sense, and that it's more ugly and obscured than it needs to be. The so-called "realism" of TDK is really just an indication of the degradation of America's imaginative faculties as we all sink into collective derangement.
The real star of TDK is the thudding soundtrack. It really is a movie for our times.
I would say I enjoyed the climax of the film and in many ways it encapsulated my overall reaction to the film.
When Gotham's triumvirate of justice meet in the building Rachel met her demise in it feels like the film suddenly shifts a bit, even releasing itself of some of the things I felt were holding it back. To me, it felt like Two Faces melodramatic condemnation of Batman and Commissioner Gordon was directed not so much at these characters but what these characters could have been if Nolan didn't have to deal with a superhero. He could have gotten at deeper territory with different characters instead of having to ply these themes clumsily onto the cape and cowl. If he wants to do King Lear then by all means (actually I hope he stays away from Lear at all costs) but there was something else in the texture of the shots, Batman seemed to melt into the structure of the frame and became something different than what he had seemed before. There was almost a quality of a silent film here, a two-process colorized silent film is the closest I can come to describing the sensation. And again the issue of Nolan's problems with spacial continuity come into play, Two Face dies, okay I was unsure of this until Commissioner Gordon in a flashforward explains as such, and Batman survives. If it had been a different film Nolan could have had the final scene he would have wanted, both Batman and Two-Face could have died, sacrificed themselves, opposite sides of obsession, one turning to self-destruction the other complete usurpation. But you can't kill off Batman because he's Batman but he still managed to get the shot of the white and dark night lying side by side. It would almost be a brilliant dissection of what the limitations are when doing such a film.
So many people said so much that's good so far. I'm just going to add something I love about TDK that I've haven't seen much discussed: the pacing. I feel like the narrative pacing of the entire film is on the cutting edge. Things happen fast, there's a sense of rolling exposition in which everything changes and a whole new story takes place every 10 minutes, without losing a sense of the whole. This would be a feat in itself, but to happen in a huge summer blockbuster makes it even more incredible. You'd have to go seek out art and action films from Asia like Infernal Affairs or the films of Park Chan Wook to find anything comparable in terms of both speed and surprise. To be in the middle of watching a film like this and to really feel "I don't know what's going to happen next." Btw, Jim, love the blog even when I disagree with it. Keep on keeping on.
Let me add some more things I loved:
1: I'll second the love for the pencil trick. It may come off like a gag, there just to entertain, but it was a really marvelous way to establish both the Joker's character and the tone of the movie. When that happens, it genuinely shocks you. It's both horrifyingly brutal and funny. At that moment, you know that when the Joker says he doesn't have any rules, it's true. When he's on screen, anything could happen.
2: It also helps establish the sense that this movie isn't going to play by standard action movie rules, and it doesn't. The hero doesn't save the damsel in distress. The hero doesn't defeat the bad guy by beating him up. Oh, sure, Batman beats up the Joker, but it's the people of Gotham who beat him, on the boats. And when Batman gets another opportunity, to thwart Joker's plans to disillusion Gotham's idolization of Dent, he thwarts him not with a fistfight, but by becoming a scapegoat. This is a movie that wants to do more with the character than just use it as a vehicle for people to vicariously experience thrills and triumph.
3: I also love how, when Lau is videoconferencing in, Joker refers to him as "the television." Tiny thing, but it makes me laugh every time.
4: I love this speech: You know what I've noticed? Nobody panics when things go "according to plan." Even if the plan is horrifying! If, tomorrow, I tell the press that, like, a gang banger will get shot, or a truckload of soldiers will be blown up, nobody panics, because it's all "part of the plan." But when I say that one little old mayor will die, well then everyone loses their minds!
That's a really interesting comment on how people react to danger, and why terrorism stirs so much feeling even though to date it's been vastly less dangerous than most of the other things that kill people.
I was inspired several months ago to write about the "resonating shot" after reading your blog on Apocalypse Now. I actually brought up my favorite shot from the Dark Knight with an explanation of why I loved it.
Here is the blog if you are interested:
http://pileofsand.blogspot.com/2008/10/i-recently-read-review-of-apocalypse.html
I warn you, I am shamelessly searching for funding for a film of my own, so every blog entry refers to my own project in passing.
Jack Fink: "The Dark Knight is the best movie of this decade. That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it, no matter how much Jim Emerson discusses film theory BS"
Yeah, that stupid Emerson, trying to get people to actually watch movies. Not look at them as taped plays or extensions of television, but to actually analyze the visual form. What a waste of time. As The Dark Knight taught us: why worry about expressing things visually (that's SO yesterday) when you can express every theme, every 'emotion', through hideously contrived dialog? It's the way of the future.
Obviously there is no such thing as form. There is so such thing as continuity, eye line matches, shot/reverse shot, establishing shots, wide shots. There clearly hasn't been a fairly scientific way of making movies for over a hundred years now. Shots aren't made to convey information necessary to understanding the story....they're just things meant to take up the running time of a movie! Obviously this is all made up by someone who writes textbooks, and doesn't understand movies in the slightest.
Every time Emerson tries something like this, I try to tell him what a bad idea it is--- that people, for the most part, don't watch movies, are unmoved by images, unaffected by emotion. This explains The Dark Knight's runaway success, as well as the fanboy reception of it (which I'm sure you would qualify as, seeing as how it's unequivocally the BEST MOVIE EVER!). People too lazy to look for genuine art, and instead prefer to have their movies neatly packaged, and tied with a nice little bow.
I swear to God, this is the last time I'm going to comment on this film, because it's becoming, to me, the "Stairway to Heaven" of summer blockbusters. Like the Led Zeppelin classic, it's long, a bit sloppy, but has moments that will be imitated for years, but you soon grow out of it and want to listen to a little jazz once in a while.
I liked the Dark Knight quite a bit, but would be completely enthralled by a shot by shot analysis. As a cinema student, I can't think of anything more educational.
I'm willing to be converted.
Ryan Kelly--
Alternately, your overblown criticism could be the result of people who dislike when something doesn't meet their preconceived notions about art and enjoy the righteous indignation of having their sensibilities offended by the ignorance of others.
On the other hand, we could stop psychoanalyzing one another in an attempt to explain away each others' reactions to the film, and actually talk about the film as Jim is attempting to do.
I've already mentioned quite a lot of things that I liked about the movie, as have many others. Why not respond to those if you're going to take the contrary view, rather than just picking on one of the silliest comments in the thread so you have an excuse to verbally abuse people who disagree with you?
This topic is getting sooo tiresome Jimbo.
Well, the reason why they cut to the reporter boarding the bus during th explosion sequence is to show you that the reporter boards the joker bus, and is later used as one of the hostages.
I think the reason why many people dislike The Dark Knight is because it is a take on bob Kane's original vision. Go read the original comics (1939 - 1949). That is the vision that bob Kane created.This is the vision we see on the screen.
The 60s T.V. show was a spoof on the character. And an embarrasment.
I respect that you disliked the movie, because a) you actually have valid reasons and b) your willing to admit the things you admire and enjoyed about the movie.The Dark Knight clearly is not the greatest movie ever but in my opinion is the greatest comic book movie ever(though it definitely transcends the comic book).Very well acted, Convincing powerful dialogue,very cool special effects( people seem to say that scenes seem to end just as they become "interesting" what do they mean by interesting? Gory? Is it our blood lust that inspires this question?)
i respect your opinion just respect everybody elses
I really enjoyed the entry that compared the Joker to Anton Chigurh. I am not completely sure how I feel about the "reality" of the Joker and whether he does embody a supernatural force. He seems, however, very aware that he is a walking grotesque of the human character. In other words, Anton may have just been plain crazy or death incarnate, but the Joker seems like he knows his origins as a human being and gleefully rejects them. Perhaps that's why he cut his face, so that he could make the makeup of his "character" permanent to some degree. He deliberately wants people to question his sanity so that he can laugh at their psychobabble and throw it back in their terrified faces.
Nolan's film was the first time I have ever heard of his makeup described as "war paint", and that really opened up my perception of how dangerous the Joker could be. It's the paint on his scarred face that really gets to me at times during the film. I've already mentioned how the police car shot mezmerized me in its macabre beauty, but just look at how all the colors of the shot distort and corrupt the makeup on the Joker's face. He even shakes his head vigorously at the very end, blending and meshing all the colors together to form some horrific blur of unadulterated joy. Certain moments like this really take away from the Joker's humanity; in these heightened moments of his expressed emotion (the "LOOK AT ME" video camera scene would be another), he loses any civility or restraint. We watch his makeup constantly run off and smear across his face, but at times it seems close to impossible to find the human facade behind it.
And I think all of this is what makes the Joker such a fascinating character. He seems aware of his own character's attractiveness towards people who want to analyze him. I know that the Joker in some of the comics had an awareness of the fourth wall and would indeed break this wall and talk to the reader or express his knowledge that he knew he was in a comic book. In a way, Ledger's Joker does some of the same things. He moves and operates as if he knows he is in a movie and must play the part of the villain. He disappears and reappears faster than Jaws and never seems to worry too much about it. At times, I think he says things simply because they sound so...cinematic (You complete me). Akin to critics, Batman also tries to dissect the persona of the Joker and the Joker always manages to shrug it off.
And if any of this seemed boring, I will conclude with a much better question. Who would win: Anton vs. The Joker?
I'm baaack.
Alright, so, one of the things I left off discussing is The Joker's face because, in a move heavy on dialogue (like "TDK"), you need a face that is interesting to look at, reflects what is being said and will complement the performance of the actor. The Joker's face does that. It is a face of organized chaos and I defy you to not be intrigued by it.
Now I want to mention Two-Face's face. Maybe I'm the only one but, to me, that icky, burned face was as simultaneously repulsive and hypnotic as The Joker's and unforgettable. You see through his jaw, the eye seems to pop out of its socket, the skin is mutilated, decomposing, the structure of it has a vicious skull-likeness... it's nightmarish and riveting to look at. And, while you can just barely tell you're seeing SFX, it's so close to looking real, and the design is so uncompromising, that it is much more persuasive than any other method they could have used. The shock of it calls attention to itself in the good way and the contrast between Eckhart's friendlier, square-jawed, clean, blue-eyed good looks is jarring.
So I want to give props to the makeup and CGI team... for creating two unforgettable faces for me. (And the Scarecrow's mask is a terrific design too but it's much more on display on "Batman Begins".)
I think both faces reflect the fragility of humans and the superficiality of appearances, something the film meditates on quite a bit.
But, first, the faces:
A pretty boy like Ledger can be made into a travesty like The Joker.
A friendly, righteous face like Dent's can be a symbol of hope and justice... but underneath it's just disgusting flesh and blood like everybody else.
And that is "TDK". All humans have the potential for ugliness, the film argues. Anybody can be or do anything given the right set of circumstances. Our sense of security and notions of identity are always susceptible to change. We often do not understand ourselves so truthfully as we might think. Our ideals must be sacrificed in certain extreme situations. Some ideals can never be sacrificed or all is lost. The truth is complex and can be too harsh for us to comprehend and continue having hope. And these are just some of the ideas the film ignites in my mind.
No, it's nothing all that new to avid moviegoers. They know most of this because they’ve experienced it, if not through life, through other films. But “TDK” is as powerful an illustration of these ideas as any film.
They are shown mostly through the interactions between The Joker, Harvey Dent and Batman/Bruce Wayne but also Gordon, the civilians and prisoners on the ferries and various other characters throughout the film have their moments too. I’ll focus on Dent and Batman.
Harvey Dent is the symbol of legitimate justice in Gotham and Bruce/Batman believes, naively, Dent will be the one to take up Batman’s mantle. Dent seems willing and capable… but perhaps too willing and capable. As succeeding in his crusade against crime begins to look unlikely, his desperation causes him to flirt with vigilantism. There is a moment in the movie when Batman interrogates Maroni, looking for The Joker, and Dent interrogates a Joker goon, who is a paranoid schizophrenic. Dent does not know the goon is a paranoid schizophrenic but it is obvious that he is not dealing with somebody who will cooperate. In frustration, he threatens his detainee with a life-or-death ultimatum; he’ll flip a coin, heads the detainee gets another chance to confess, tails, he dies.
We see how Dent uses the coin to distance himself from what he’s really doing. He rationalizes that, because the coin has heads on both sides, what he is doing is fair, but his detainee does not know he is safe; it almost seems like Dent would rather the detainee lie to him out of fear then tell the truth of knowing nothing. And we see here that Dent is willing to manipulate to get a desired outcome. He will hypocritically sacrifice fairness in the name of true justice.
Batman will not do this… or likes to think he wouldn’t. He has experience operating outside the law that Dent does not; he tortures Maroni – because he knows Maroni will respond to it and nothing else – but he does not kill anybody.
The contrast between Bats’ interrogation and Harvey’s argues that only those with the training, experience and means to break normally held rules can do so effectively. And this is why, earlier in the film, Batman tells off the fake Batmen. They are in way over their head and if everybody follows suit, Batman will have inspired the city to charge to its death.
The film is examining fascinating concepts of leadership here. What has Batman inspired? Hope? A sense of righteousness being achieved in Gotham? Or has he been the final push the citizens of Gotham needed to not care about the rules of a civilized society and not care either whether they live or die so long as they have a chance to survive? Has Batman inspired people to believe or to take reckless risks? These problems go beyond a comic book movie. It’s really a question of, when you take violent action in retaliation, what message does it send to the people who look up to you? And can your people be asked to act on this message rationally when they are in a stressful and violent environment? That even Harvey Dent - the best of the best - cannot keep his cool seems to advocate that you simply cannot expect people to keep their cool in such a scenario.
And this is when the film does begin to echo debacles like Abu Ghraib.
But, the thing about “The Dark Knight” is that it is a superhero film and superheroes inspire us by doing the right thing and knowing what it means to do the right thing which is not necessarily true of the leaders we have in reality. Superheroes are ideal leaders we aspire to be like. (Though the film makes clear, there can only be one Batman.) By the end of the film Batman realizes how fragile people are and forgives them their frailties. He takes the blame for Harvey’s crimes, seeing that Harvey was a man pushed past his limits in an impossible situation far beyond his ability to control it. And that to me is profoundly moving because of the empathy Batman shows and profoundly fascinating because the movie admits 1) everybody has their breaking point 2) the film isn’t so sure anyone is good or bad per se.
Some might not agree with my rather humanist interpretation of the film. Some might take more existentialist approach and I think there is room in the film for that. One question that I think the film puts forth is especially tricky to answer depending on your worldview. The Joker is most definitely aware of his actions but can he be held responsible? My gut feeling is that The Joker is not exactly joking about his hatred of his father or that his father was abusive and that this whole act of his is an unconscious attempt to make sense of bad luck and tragedies in his life. “Oh, it’s true for everybody, they just don’t see it! That’s why I’m so alone.” When the bombs don’t go off, look into his sad, puppy eyes. He seems reduced to a child for a moment. And, you have to ask yourself, if the bombs had gone off… and Gordon’s son had been killed… would Batman’s no-killing rule still stick? Would The Joker get a fair trial? (Should The Joker get a fair trial? I think one of the reasons Nolan leaves The Joker hanging is because he wants us to decide…)
In my defense of The Joker – my sympathy for the devil - my mind always comes back to the interrogation scene between him and Batman. Batman beats The Joker relentlessly and he is loving it. (Ledger’s performance here is nothing short of terrifyingly deranged.) The point isn’t whether The Joker is crazy or not, the point is… who is crazier, The Joker, manipulating Batman to prove a point or Batman doing exactly what his enemy wants him to do and expecting to get somewhere?
If the Joker’s ideology does have a flaw it’s that he does not understand that his own identity is a fraud; he and all people have as much potential to do good (like in the ferry scene) as they do bad. There just happens to be more bad in the world, pulling people down. Give The Joker Thomas Wayne for a father and I don’t think he would be carving up people’s faces.
Again, nothing new, but the film’s words and images capture these truths about the human condition so powerfully. In this respect, the most powerful for me is some of the interaction between Batman, Dent and Gordon.
Batman to Dent: “You’re the symbol of hope that I could never be.” It’s the first moment in this film or “Begins” that Batman admits his true feelings and fears about himself. It stunned me a bit to see him so open and vulnerable.
Gordon to Batman: “We have to save Dent. I have to save Dent!” And then Gordon points his gun at Batman as he jumps away… echoing the ending of “Batman Begins”… except they’ve now been forced to turn against each other.
Dent to Gordon: “Have you ever had to talk to the one you love most and tell them it’s going to be OK, when you know it’s not? Do you know what that feels like?” I think that is a huge component of the film… this idea that it’s not about what makes sense so much as the awful feelings life leaves you with. You can rationalize things to yourself all you want, but your gut will get to you.
Dent to Batman: “It’s not about what I want, it’s about what’s fair! You thought we could be decent men in an indecent time… You were wrong.” After everything these characters have been through, and the way Eckhart just lets loose, this line always gives me chills. It’s so frightening… and so sad. You feel all their dreams completely crumbled before them.
Gordon to Dent: “I was here trying to save her.” Dent: “But you didn’t.” Gordon: “I couldn’t.” The way Oldman says that line is heartbreaking. And then…
Gordon to Dent: “Harvey, I’m sorry! For everything!” Again, Oldman breaks my heart twice in a matter of a few seconds.
Dent: “You think I want to escape from this? There is no escape from this.” Sad but true. He’s lost just about everything… but he’s about to make it worse.
Dent to Batman: “Then why was it was me who was the only one who lost everything?”
Batman: “It wasn’t.” Perhaps the saddest moment for me in the film, again cause it comes from Batman who is always so internalized. He reveals just how disheartened he has become about his future. He still believes in Gotham… but I think he’s lost all hope for himself in that peaceful Gotham.
The anguished final scene between the trio of Batman, Gordon and Dent is a landmark scene for me… because I’m not sure what makes a landmark other than that I’ll never forget it, and it moved me as much as any scene I’ve seen.
*****
I’d like to go on discussing various things in the movie… Batman spying on the whole city must be commented on by someone, the triumphant car chase in the middle of the film is one of the best I’ve seen, there is a terrific scene between Dent and The Joker (I like what somebody said… Dent knows it’s b/s and The Joker knows it’s the b/s Dent needs to hear, although there is much truth to The Joker’s ramblings on how easily people will over-panic when routine is shattered) … and there are so many other moments but hopefully my long post will bring out a few other people’s interpretations. Though, it looks like this thread is dying down.
All and all, Jim, all the scenes I describe above gave me chills or bumps in my throat and there is so much more to discuss… the movie is so heavy with things to discuss! So many fascinating scenes. I was not let down by this film… if anything, on repeat viewings, I realize just how much more is there. (And there is more!)
I will say this. I’m not sure I would not have made the film this way.
In terms of unsettling films, I tend to prefer slower films that allow us to bathe in terror and really soak up the moment. But there is an exhaustive relentlessness to the pace of this film that is true to what these characters are experiencing. We see shots that we do not easily forget, even if they are quick. And after each gripping moment is another. And the cumulative effect on our emotions is that of a circus of nightmares.
And that shot of The Joker enjoying the fresh breeze. He has to have the cars behind him. He’s the ringleader. He inspires hopelessness, which inspires recklessness. Which inspires chaos.
And the longer Batman hangs around, the longer you’re gonna see more like The Joker. But Gotham needs Batman right now. But… but… but…
Has the complexity of these films not come a long, long way from when a highlight of the film was supposed to be a close-up of Batman’s butt?
I rest my case.
I'll add my appreciation to the first images and also try to continue the good discourse some have carried through the comments.
- To me, the first shot of the villain is an excellent introduction: Everything is smooth and quite, and everyone seems to be going on about their business on the different corners. It is a monster dressed with a suit in the middle of the city, but nobody notices. The focus starts to be on the mask, and then he goes into the car as a vague figure. The idea about a supposed peace, masks hiding an instability within society is flawlessly presented visually in the shots of the heist, such as this one. The shot's ambiguousness with the character was rather iconic.
- The opening shot of the building I'm a particular big fan of, too. It is so beautiful that I was giving thanks to whatever God exists that Christopher Nolan, of all people, let the shot for so long. You buy into the peace shown, that of the big American metropolis. And then, of course, the explosion from within happens. The building itself is a mask to something terrible, and it enpasulates what I loved about the film: the combiation of reality with an avarage-looking, but still beautiful, society, and the outrageousness behind it.
I often questioned after my first viewing what was the point of showing Gotham's (or Chicago's) buildings in pretty much every scene, even when they were inside of other buildings. But the more I visited these opening shots the more I understood what Nolan was doing with them: he always has them on-screen for us to buy into the city's beauty and order, the majesty of Chicago, and then present an infinate outlandishness (or criminality) by The Joker and Batman, breaking all of it.
- The last shot of the bank heist, for me, is equally interesting because of this imagery of normalcy in such a crazy city. Indeed, Nolan doesn't show the disorder behind the bus to the right-side of the screen. He instead wants to show us the peace in front of the bus, to the left-side of the screen as we're escaping back into avarageness of the people, underlining again the crazyness and evil behind the order, the appearent denial of turmoil inside society.
The bus gets in line with the other buses, the people keep walking, the eventual police officers arrive, day becomes night, and the routine goes along. A perfect catharsis to the entire scene.
That the last building we visit with The Joker is basically a naked one is quite fitting. He pretty much exposed the entire city by then; the order of the last shot that was seen in the heist is broken up in the climax with stopped traffic and hundred of people in the streets. As with Harvey Dent himself, who goes from normal to an outrageous monster, the city has been turned up-side-down.
But hey, that's what I see in the images...
Perhaps one of you Dark Knight watchers can clear up an ambiguity for me.
Watching today, I encountered two different scenes, and noticed something new.
The first scene is when Bruce is heading out to stop Joker from killing the Mayor. He tells Alfred there are 4 matches on the fingerprints he took off the bullet ("and there's the fingerprint he left when he pushed it into the clip"). (The bullet, if you recall, came from the scene of two dead cops, Harvey and Dent.) He tells Alfred to cross-reference the matches against addresses, looking for one which overlooks the parade. Alfred says "Got one. [address] Melvin White, aggravated assault, sent to Arkham twice."
I had usually considered this as the only information we ever get about the real person behind the Joker.
But!
Later in the film, after the Joker has been captured and Gordon come back from the dead, Gordon is talking to the Mayor, and tells him "no match on fingerprints."
I can consider two possibilities.
1. They are Joker's prints. Batman has access to some sort of database which the police don't have, which contains Joker's fingerprints.
2. They are the prints of a Joker minion, who was responsible for firing the bullet into the wall at the scene of the "Harvey" and "Dent" deaths.
1 doesn't quite make sense.
2 is problematic because why would Joker's minion necessarily be the person who owned the apartment Joker used to set up the parade attack?
Any ideas?
Jim: The scene you cited was for me the high point of The Dark Knight. I also liked the opening robbery as well, and the times Nolan allowed the film to be quiet.
One bit of illogic is when Batman rescues Rachel Dawes, the Joker is still in the penthouse with Bruce Wayne's party guests. That's all completely forgotten with a cut to the next scene. Maybe I missed something, but I can't imagine that everyone, including the Joker, just quietly went home after the host disappears and the guest of honor is locked in a closet.
I think you're a talented writer Jim, but I have to be honest and say that I kind of think you're missing the point. I mean, reading what you write here I have to agree that there are a lot of logical inconstincies in TDK. But, and this is what's important: While watching the film, these lapses in logic never occured to me. Maybe I'm just dumber than you, but the magic of cinema kind of washed over me and I was just sucked into the film. As you have pointed out, it is a movie that moves quickly, cutting rapidly and being very concerned with getting us to the next point. You didn't connect to it, so you weren't on the train that was rushing forward, as it would be. And a train ride is very boring from the train station.
But i digress. You seem to specifically want us to no longer attack you personally (although attack might be a little too strong of a word), but to say what evoked an emotional response in us.
I haven't seen the movie in a while, so this is all kind of from memory. So please forgive any inaccuracies. Also, this all just kind of off the top of my head:
- I really liked the way the first shot cuts from the inkly blackness of the logo with flames behind it, to a simple helicopter shot in bright daylight. It's jolting, and kind of uncomfortable to switch between darkness and daylight that way. It's thematically appropriate for what's to come.
- This doesn't really become clear until later viewings, but The Joker is the first character we see in the film, from behind waiting on a streetcorner to be picked up. The camera moves in on him ever so slightly as the car pulls up, so we are told he is an important character and he feels mysterious, but we don;t know why. Nolan is creating tension from the beginning.
- Jumping ahead (so that this isn't a novel length dissection of every shot), Harvey Dent's introduction is great. When the killer pulls a gun on him, and Harvey simply dismantles it, slams it on Maroni's table and keeps on going, it's heroic. It could be silly, but if one simply accepts the "comic-book" reality (a condescending term, but one that applies here in terms of achetypes standing in for more complex moral characters in the real world) then it's realy insprining. Aaron Eckhart is wonderfully cast and does great because he has that square jaw all american look (he went to BYU for god sakes), and he also never approaches the material ironically. Dent is truly a crusdaer.
- I like pretty much every scene with Michael Caine as Alfred. He hits every note perfectly. He does a lot of garbage for money, which causes himto not be taken as seriously as maybe he should be, but he has a quiet dignity in this film, and doe snot oversell anything. His big speech, about Burma and watching men burn, could have easily come off as over the top and just silly, but Caine sells it so well. He gets intense, but not too much so. I think "some men just want to watch the world burn" is straight up chilling. Sends a shiver down my spine every time I hear it.
- The scene in the interegation room between Batman and the Joker is wonderfuly written, probably the best character building scene I've seen in a movie this year. I love how quickly the Joker sums up the whole situation, and how right he is. Everyone is debating whether the joker is metahuman or just lucky, but I have always seen him as simply brilliant/insane. I actually always imagine the Joker as a spoiled rich kid who just happens to be the most brilliant criminal mind of all time who's doing this whole thing as an act of performance art (maybe a thesis for the art program at Gotham City University, GCU). Anyway, the Joker owns Batman in this secene, uses him like a puppet. I love when Batman hits him as hard as he can, and the Joker screams "You have NOTHING to threaten me with! Nothing to do with all your strength!" That line chokes me up.
- I for one, could follow all the action scenes. The car chase, with Dent and Gordon in the swat van and the Joker and his goons in the slaughter truck, that seemed to me to be one of the better directed action scenes in recent memory. Nolan follows the 180 degree rul religiously, or at least it feels like he does. He makes sure to give us plenty of angles so that we understand the physical geography, and MOST IMPORTANLY he has built up these characters so that we care about them.
- The end always chokes me up. Batman has never been about vengance. In Batman Begins, when he faces down Falcone in that restaurant, we see him realize one thing: Vengance would shame his father's legacy. His realy purpose is to clean up Gotham City, and carry on his father's work. At the end of TDK he chooses to be the outcast and the freak (which is exactly what the Joker predicts will happen in the interregation scene. Maybe understanding how people work is REALLY The Joker's genius), so that the people of Gotham can have an enemy and Dent can be their hero. Like Ebert always talks about how acts of goodness choke him up, Batman's amazing act of courage and selflessness inspire me. Not to actually, you know, do anything. Just to keep posting in message boards, with the occassional sandwich break.
Anyway, I think that's enough. It's certainly long.
The point is, I have to fall into the "you're just a contrarian" camp. But maybe I just don't have the ability to see it through your eyes. I responsded to TDK in a very visceral way.
It's not that I don't agree with your nitpickings about the film, I just find don't know anyone else personally who found those nitpicking distracting enough to disrupt the manipulations (and I mean that in the best way) the film was creating.
I too really liked this scene and expressed similar enthusiasm in your Shorter, Longer thread. Towards the end of this scene you can even see Joker through bus windows, unable to sit still like a giddy troublemaker. For me this better captured the anarchic spirit of Joker...as opposed to the self-aware, self-reflective monologues. And it was compensation for my disappointment over the decision to cut out the moment where Joker nearly falls back from the recoil after firing the RPG (it was in the trailers). It could have been up there with the heat-seeking missile blunder in Severance as one of my favorite movie moments involving a rocket launcher of recent years.
Some of my likes and dislikes. Favorite moments:
- The entire interrogation scene between Batman and the Joker. Specific moments I loved: Early when Gordon is first speaking to the Joker, and he (the Joker) is engulfed in shadow, with his face just creeping into enough light to make him out. "Me? But... I was right here!," he says, and suddenly lifts his shackled hands into view. Somehow, even though he's cuffed, he manages to make the sudden movement surprisingly threatening.
Also, when the Joker tells Batman that they'll "Cast you out. Like a leper!" There's just something about the way he says the "Like a leper" line -- the incongruous cheerfulness of it -- that makes it creepy as hell. The word leper itself has something to do with it, I think -- it's a harsh, strong word that comes unexpectedly at that moment.
- Yes, like everyone, I loved the shot of the Joker escaping in the cop car, shaking his face like a dog. The cop cars behind him didn't bother me: I immediately assumed they were his henchmen, following in their own stolen cars behind.
- The shot of Batman soaring through the sky in China, before breaking into the building to abduct Lau. It's a breathtaking view (with the wind flapping through his cape-wings adding a lot to the atmosphere of the shot), and it also demonstrates one of the problems I had with the movie: There just aren't enough scenes of Batman BEING Batman, and doing the kick-ass things Batman does. The entire sequence of Wayne planning the Lau abduction, and then enacting it, is one of my favorite parts of the movie because it lets us see what I wanted to see: An exciting, persuasive portrayal of what being Batman in real-life would actually be like. There was a lot more of that in Batman Begins, which is why I think I might prefer it over TDK.
- The Joker's first meeting with Harvey Two-Face in the hospital, awkwardly breaking the ice. "....Hi."
- When Batman throws the Joker off the roof in their final fight near the end of the film. Now THIS shot gave me a jolt. As far as the Joker knows, in the brief moment when he's free-falling before Batman catches him with his grappling hook, he's won -- Batman broke his one rule. And in this brief moment, he's SURE he's falling to his death. And what does he do? Laugh maniacally all the way down. It goes back to what he said to the idiot cop in the interrogation room. "Right before someone dies, they show you who they really are." And the Joker really is a goddamn psycho.
- Like someone mentioned above, the last shot of the movie: Batman on the Batpod, racing out of the depth of the lower streets. It cemented most of the themes the movie ended on -- how Batman is now more alone than ever, yet perseveres, and continues to patrol the city even if it despises him.
Some of my least favorite moments:
- Any time Nolan used a rotating, 360 shot. See: Batman, Gordon, and Harvey meeting for the first time on the roof, or the Joker telling one of his origin stories to Rachel at the party. Just felt like a lazy way to shoot these expository sequences.
- Most of the sequence at the end, when Batman is using his fancy radar vision to save the hostages and stop the SWAT team. When did this movie decide to become Metal Gear Solid? It was a disappointing action sequence to end the movie on, and on top of that, it was hard to follow -- just how much did that fancy radar vision allow Batman to see? How exactly did it benefit him? When we see those sweeping, radar-assisted shots moving up and down the building, is that what Batman is seeing? If so, how does he not bump into anything when he's walking around his immediate environment? None of that felt clear to me.
- Also in the ending, when Gordon is giving his eye-rolling speech about how "He has to run... because we have to chase him," there's one shot where we actually SEE Batman running away down a street. Now, at last, I understand why he's always disappearing when no one is looking -- because to actually see him running away is unintentionally hilarious.
hi,
i found one moment to be particularly disturbing: the joker enjoying the air in his hair, his head out the window of a police car. i wrote an essay about it and its "prehistory". unfortunately, the essay's in spanish. but if you or any of your readers want to check it out, it's here:
http://cinecdoque.wordpress.com/2008/07/20/the-dark-knight-la-parte-por-el-todo/
Hi Jim,
I thought I might add my two cents. I actually enjoyed the bank robbery scene at the beginning. Nolan's Batman franchise has a tendency to subvert (or at least undermine) the action scene/payoff prevalent and expected in all Hollywood action films. To me it underlies a reality to an otherwise over-the-top comic book movie. Its the reason why Nolan's Batman fight scenes seem all over the place and not choreographed like a latest Charlie Angel's movie. It is more of a "what would it be like if masked vigilantes existed within the rules of our own world?"
Although it took me a second viewing to appreciate this undermining-payoff technique. Initially watching it, I also kept expecting that kind of payoff, like the one "missing" from the conclusion of the Hong Kong subplot. I kept expecting Batman to leave a grandiose Batman-was-here symbol behind.
While I can't go through each shot as I don't have the film with me, I disagree that, say, a shot of the bus's damage was necessary. A bus crashes through a bank, what part of my imagination needs to see the debris? There is a lot of information in each scene and events go by quickly. If you're presuming a dirty bus would be easily spotted, I just assumed, given that we know that the Joker is meticulous in his planning, maybe a getaway car was hidden somewhere further down. I never found the style of filming to be "claustrophobic" just because the shots were tight. I thought it conveyed the messiness and grittiness of robbing a bank Joker-style from the point of view of us, the audience, who got the chance to follow this mysterious bank robber around. We are like eyewitnesses who would convey what happened to the local newspapers the next day. We see him offing his partners-in-crime, terrorising the bank manager and crashing a bus through the wall. It was the Joker's way of making an impression. Later on he would confess that he disliked being that small-time hood robbing banks and found playing with Batman much more interesting.
A lot of people complained about the party scene with the Joker. I just assumed he didn't find what he was looking for and left. If he killed anyone else, it was up to the audience to decide. We've been given information on the Joker's psychosis and behaviour throughout the film and whatever your impression of him will lead you to fill in the blanks.
Also, a possible reason for the cutaways with the explosion at the hospital may have more to do with the IMAX camera being used. Not only is it noisy but it only allows filming for a very few precious minutes.
And how could you not mention the incredible shot of Joker's head out the police car window?
JE: Thanks, Jake. I did learn that the IMAX magazines can only hold three minutes of film, and there was hardly any live sound used in the film. It was almost entirely done in post. As for the Joker head shot -- I've mentioned it, and how I think it works, several times. Even illustrated a post (or two?) with it a while back!
Sorry Jim!
I'm only a casual reader. Hopefully I'll find the time to read more!
Reading through some of the comments I thought I'd clarify the "party scene". It was established in previous scenes through a newspaper (?) article that the Joker was targeting certain people. His subsequent assassinations only targeted those people so I don't see why the Joker wouldn't have just left the party when he couldn't find Bruce Wayne. The couple that witnessed Bruce go into hiding could have gotten the ball rolling. Based on previous scenes establishing the Joker's behaviour, one could also assume that the Joker toyed with the party goers a bit more or even killed someone casually. But I don't think Nolan adding this scene would have moved the plot forward or added character development.
This reminds me of Takeshi Kitano films, especially "Hana Bi". A lot of exposition is removed and the audience fills in the blanks. The scenes that he does give you, help you shape the world and story the film is portraying. I never assumed the Joker was a well developed 3-dimensional character. As Nolan had put it, he was a "force of nature" that shaped the world and the story of the film.
But I can see it irritating someone who filled in the blank by assuming Batman went back up to the party to confront the Joker. And then were deprived of that scene.
The final episode of Heroes has an example that irritated me. A girl had the power to run really fast. Gaining a boost to her power she was able to run fast enough to travel back in time al la Superman. She stood in the balcony and watched events (and herself) until present time caught up. I'm sure physicists would be irritated and say traveling back in time like that would be impossible because of changes in mass etc. But Superman prepared me for it. THEN in the next few scenes she travels further back in time 14 (?) years ago to save a friend trapped in the past. But then runs fast enough to travel forward in time, back to the present ?? It was established just a few scenes ago that she had to wait!!
I've repeatedly criticized these posts because I don't really think you're accomplishing your intent with the content of them. You're at one point analyzing the film's shots (which I find instructive and entertaining for most any film) but then whirling back from that, asking others to criticize the shot (good or ill) and then defending yourself while opening up new dialogues, none of which seem to actually correlate to any actual direction or overall intent.
If I didn't know better, Jim, I'd say you're trying to play the role of the Joker to the Internet's Batman, an agent of chaos who wants to see these comment threads burn.
Well, dammit, I'll play along. Just off the top of my head, some of my favorite moments from The Dark Knight.
- By far the best moment in the entire film, the moment that sealed the deal for me on The Dark Knight, is the disturbing shot of the Joker escaping the jail in a police car, weaving in and out of traffic, hanging his head from the window like a dog enjoying a car ride. It's an incredibly inspired moment that says more about the Joker than much of the expository dialogue he'll deliver later. It's a short burst of cinematic brilliance.
The rest are off the top of my head, from memory alone, in narrative order (I think) from the film.
- That opening shot, combined with the sound design. Something about the angle, the sound, and the camera movement makes me tense as hell...and then a window, off-center, explodes! (I know you've already pointed how silly that is, but I like it)
- The Joker, waiting for his ride, mask in hand. Again, this is silly because he'd be hanging out on the corner in broad daylight...but I like the shot, the Joker with his head down waiting for a ride like any other commuter. There's some perverse irony in this idea too, I suppose.
- I love all Ledger's tics, as odd and contradictory as they may be to some. His shuffle, his odd gait, his strange line deliveries, his sudden flourishes. He's distracting people with his behavior, much the way a magician does with slight of hand. It's a nice touch.
- I love the reveal of the Joker and his line "What doesn't kill you makes you stranger" to William Fichtner. There's a swell of sound and score here that punctuates the moment perfectly.
- It never ceases to amaze me how little respect Batman has for private property, but then I also kinda enjoy the scene where the Batmo-tumbler "intimidates" the thugs.
- I'm one of the five people that doesn't mind Cillian Murphy's brief return cameo as the Scarecrow. It's important to remind the viewer that Batman's foes don't come one at a time and that they don't necessarily stay locked up, that he is in fact driving the criminal underworld crazy. Worked for me.
- The scene where Batman has a Batman-branded Geiger counter. It's the only moment of Nolan's two films where he even HINTS at all the cheesy versions of Batman that have come before. Thankfully, it's also the only moment that hints at the cheese of Batman gadgets past.
- Harvey Dent's entire opening scene in the courtroom, which climaxes with Dent taking an assailant's weapon and then taking it apart in two seconds, a move Bruce Wayne mirrors later. I love the short-hand that Dent may be a lawyer, but apparently he knows a thing or two about guns and violence.
- I love the moment where the Joker reveals his coat full of grenades to the crime bosses and then tugs the string suggestively a couple times.
- I love the moment where Ledger grabs a glass of champagne, tastes, and dismissively tosses it away. I also love the touch of a knife in his shoe, another old Joker trick from the comic books that the tv shows and movies have neglected to use.
- I like the Joker's modified semi-truck ("S-Laughter") and the one-liner that sets up the reveal of the grenade launcher. Silly, yeah, but fun.
- I love the shot where the SWAT van goes in the river, and I also love the shot where Batman uses the Tumbler to decapitate the garbage truck.
- I love the moment where Batman does that ridiculous turn on the bike. It's not even believable but it sure looks cool and the effect looks real enough to make you want to believe it might be possible. Typically movies like this fail miserably with these kinds of moments...this one works.
- I love the flipping of the semi-truck and the fact that they really did it, sans computers. I love the Joker's bursts of staccato anger with the machine gun as he stumbles out of the semi cab. I love the fact that he angrily shoots random cars, kind of letting off steam and to get back at Batman.
- I love the moment when the Joker faces off with Batman, telling batman he has nothing to use against him.
- I love the moment where Rachel realizes Batman has saved Harvey instead of her. It's fine piece of acting and writing.
- I love the Joker in drag, but I really like the moment where he gives Dent the gun and invites him to become a new variable in the equation and Dent flips the coin instead, sparing the Joker. The Joker's speech is also very good. Ledger's delivery in this scene is excellent.
- I love the destruction the hospital too and Ledger's goofy walk, the paused destruction, the frustrated pounding of the remote, and the hurried escape.
- I love the moment where the Joker is upside down, taunting the Batman. This scene doesn't really begin or end in any satisfying way, but I love Ledger's delivery and the (OK, obvious) camera movement. One of Bale's best moments in the entire film is the reaction shot, "What did you do?" His look of guarded surprise comes through that damn mask.
- I love the final five minutes too, as was pointed out elsewhere. This is probably the most dramatic "Batman" moment of the entire film (wasn't this supposed to be his movie?) and even though the editing is a bit shoddy, there's a number of great shots in it. Plus, it's impossible to ignore that the Batman has lost, giving the Joker his victory after all. Not only has Gotham lost Dent, they've now had their only remaining hero destroyed as well.
ANYWAY Jim, there's more for me to shine over (specific shots, lines, supporting performances) but I'm tired of typing and I'm sure you stopped reading ages ago. Suffice to say, I agree with you (again) that the movie isn't perfect but then again many movies aren't. I enjoy the film immensely in spite of its weaknesses.
You (and the readers) have pointed out a number of sore spots with The Dark Knight, but I'll still enjoy the movie.
NOW CAN WE PLEASE F$%KING MOVE ON?
JE: Thanks, Joel. You complete me. I would never see the point in trying to persuade somebody to not enjoy a movie. How or why could I make them UNenjoy it? Especially after they've already seen it for themselves? Anyway, I've already moved along -- to a post on "Pineapple Express"! I am a man of my word.
Things I liked about TDK. Hmmm.
Let's see. I liked the interchange between Freeman's Fox and the employee who has discovered Bruce Wayne's secret. I also viscerally enjoyed Bruce Wayne's rescue of the guy, even though that scene is probably one of the worst directed and most implausible of the entire poorly directed, implausible movie. I just really dug it as a story beat.
I liked the "Did I ever tell you how I got these scars?" moments, especially Batman's punchline ("No. But I know how you got these.") If anything, I think there needed to be a third.
I liked The Joker's final monologue, but I absolutely despised the framing. One poster has called the rotating camera "subtle." I don't think subtle means what you think it means. I'd've prefered the whole monologue been shot with The Joker hanging upside down. Would've been more unsettling and not so "Hey, look at me! I'm a clever movie over here!"
The hospital scene? Um, not so much. Though I dug the glitch. That made me smile. Wasn't I supposed to be horrified?
I was trying to think of some reasons for why people like The Dark Night so much. People (including critics) act as though it is the second coming of Citizen Kane. It is hardly Citizen Kane, and is filled with flaws. I already explained what I feel is wrong with the picture on another one of your blogs; it has too many stories that are unrelated which makes it confusing, Christian Bale is uninteresting, and it is tedious far too often. But it is fascinating to me that there is a push for the film to get Oscar recognition; not just to get Ledger an Oscar award, but to get the film nominated for best picture. The idea of a comic book film getting nominated for best picture sounds bizarre, especially if the film does not deserve to get nominated. So why are so many people worshipping this film, behaving as though it is the great masterpiece of our age, and claiming it should be a serious contender at this year's Oscars?
I was thinking about Roger Ebert's blog about the death of film criticism. Critics are all being fired from newspapers and the internet is making it impossible for film criticism to be controlled by an elite group of newspaper writers. Film criticism will no longer be a paid profession and in the hands of an intellectual snobbish elite. It will now be in the hands of the general public who can post their movie reviews on the IMDB and other sites without getting paid for it. We are certainly moving away from an age where film criticism belonged to intellectual snobbish elitists and into an age where the film critics are everyone else. Now the average Joe or the average Mary with three kids, a mortgage, and a teaching job can be the film critics. Or the average Timmy who is in high school and plays for his school's baseball team can be the film critic.
I think the overpraise the The Dark Knight has received and other pop films of recent years like The 40 Year Old Virgin, Lord of the Rings, and Iron Man reflects our current need to escape the intellectual snobbery of the past. Critics are changing. They are becoming less elitist and snobbish and are now thinking more like the general public. If The 40 Year Old Virgin was released in the 1980s, Gene and Roger would have pounced on it and put it on their list of the worst films of the year; they would have seen it as just another Porky's. Roger giving The 40 Year Old Virgin 3.5 stars shows that he has changed too. If The Dark Knight came out in the 1970s, I am sure Pauline Kael, Vincent Canby, and most other critics, would have burned it to the stake.
Basically, people including critics have turned The Dark Knight into a protest film against the intellectual snobbery of the past. Current critics are rebelling against the past generation of critics such as Kael, Canby, John Simon (who I think is still alive), and even Siskel. They now want to give popular film like comic book pictures more recognition.
It isn't that comic book movies, comedies, and other blockbusters today are better than those made in past decades. It is that critics are changing their thinking.
There is still snobbery within the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences, even though they gave Lord of the Rings much recognition and awarded the third film best picture of 2003. Will they become less snobbish as the years proceed? If The Dark Knight gets nominated for best picture, is it because of Ledger's death? Or will it be a sign that perhaps the Academy is changing too? Will the Academy start taking blockbusters like comic book movies seriously and nominate them for the most important Oscar categories like best actor, best actress, or best picture?
I don't think The Dark Knight is any better than blockbusters of past decades, so this overpraise it has received is just strange.
Christopher Zeidel,
You make such a strong case for snobbish elitism....I think you converted me! I hated Porky's and thought The Dark Knight was overrated and everything! Whoops! Just remembered I loved The 40-Year Old Virgin. Back to being an average Timmy.
Your quote: "Just because they are fantasies, or based on comic books or graphic novels, or feature masked heroes with special powers (or, at least, special outfits), doesn't mean they should be dismissed as something less than, say, a Jane Austen adaptation or a gangster picture."
I'm going to have to differ with you on this one, Jim. What you're talking about is the difference between genre fiction and literary fiction, the difference between plot-oriented stories and character-oriented stories, and, to a certain extent, the difference between prose and poetry. No, these things aren't the same -- although they all often intermingle -- and no they shouldn't be reviewed the same way.
The difference has to do with ambition: a thriller intends only to thrill, while a character study intends to probe a personality, possibly enlarging one's understanding of oneself, of human nature, maybe even of the world. A romance intends to make viewers swoon, but a serious drama intends to show viewers a portion of the universe they may have overlooked, again with the intent of enlarging our understanding of human nature and the world.
Of course, it is generally believed that artworks that achieve this expansion of one's understanding of the world are "good" and artworks that achieve more specific, simplistic goals are less so. This has to do with the difficulty of achieving those goals. But generally speaking, when a critic speaks of the "best films of the year," he is speaking of these expansive, "literary" types of films, not the genre films.
To conflate the differences between these two types is to misunderstand the filmmakers' goals and to sell short a film's ability to achieve those goals. It's long been my understanding that, for common viewers anyway, a film's success has to do specifically with expectation: if a viewer expects little of a film and gets a lot, that viewer will walk away with the impression that the film was good. And if a viewer expects a lot of a film and gets very little, the viewer will think that film is bad. (One of the reasons TDK is so revered, in my opinion, is that viewers expected a lot from it -- and actually got a lot from it. It's the rare film that seems to have lived up to its enormous expectations.)
My maxim, of course, doesn't usually apply to reviewers, who see every film (or nearly so) regardless of expectation. But by saying you're taking superhero films "seriously," you're applying expectation to that type of film. You're saying: for IRON MAN to be any good, it ought to be measured on the same yardstick as those poetic, literary films -- it ought to provide me with the same world-expanding impact as, say, CRIES AND WHISPERS. And that's just crazy.
The only useful meter of a film is: how well does it do what it sets out to do? (This idea doesn't originate with me, I know. Isn't this Ebert's rule?) If a film such as THE DARK KNIGHT or IRON MAN seeks only to thrill, to lift characters and scenarios from comic book pages and to bring them to some sort of convincing life, then it must be measured by its ability to do specifically those things.
Johnny Shiv--
I think you're misinterpreting what Jim is saying. He said that a film that is fantasy or based on a comic book doesn't mean they should be dismissed as less than other types of films--he said nothing about whether they are thrillers, or escapism, or romance, etc. Not every comic book has goals as limited as enthralling audiences with action (as the Dark Knight clearly did not, whether you think it accomplished its goals or not), and not every fantasy serves only as escapism. It may be true that a movie like, say, Donner's Superman serves primarily as a means to evoke awe and excitement, but that's no reason to assume that, say, the upcoming Watchmen movie will have no ambition beyond that.
I agree, however, with you and Mr. Ebert about how to measure a film's success. Of course, some goals are more worthy than others...
so why you don't like the dark knight? because of a few unreal or just not possible moments, cause the Godfather had some WTF moments doesn't stop it from being a great movie or you just don't get what the joker is about or who he is?
JE: You're right. As I've come to realize from this exercise, you can't "prove" a negative. No possible demonstration of "not greatness" will sway a true believer who knows how he/she feels already. It's like trying to disprove the existence of god. Can't be done. There will always be ways to believe. The burden is entirely on those who make claims of "greatness" to communicate what they see. Or not.
Look trying to prove God doesn't exist can be done but it just very difficult and history can prove that but that's for another time my point is that maybe I somehow can show you that the Dark Knight isn't as bad as you say it is, just like in this blog you're trying to tell people that dark knight it's o.k at best, it's the same thing i'm trying to do to you.
The Dark Knight (kind o'funny, that it's TDK in short) is the best, mostly pro (dinamic, self-critical and iconic at the same time) movie I've ever seen. I don't wan'na repeat the chearings of the american producers, but let's face it: Nolan's sequel to Batman is the finest workpiece in both 2008 and the category of the comic-book-movies. I can hardly wait for the third chapter!
I haven't read all the posts, but a moment from TDK that made the hair on the back of my neck stand up: When Batman is asking Gordon for 5 minutes alone in the building in the final set-piece, and walks right up to the edge of the building, ignoring Gordon. Gordon, "We have clear shots! Dent is in there with them! We have to save Dent! I have to save Dent!", right as Batman leaps.
I've watched that part specifically several times, and my hair still stands up. I think it's because it shows the desperation of Gordon, and the futility of what he realizes, or hopes is not the case, of what the "good guys" are trying to do, to save Dent. Even if they save him, even though Dent isn't actually in the building, it's already too late, since the Joker has gotten to him.
Sorry, got side-tracked here from Dark Knight discussion:
Somewhere in a response in here you said, "But I find it very difficult to work up any enthusiasm for discussing, say, "Synechdoche, New York" (possibly the most precious, redundant, unimaginative movie I saw in 2008 -- but one I'd still be willing to get into if somebody expressed some passion for it)"
I seem to remember a blog post by Mr. Ebert in which he talked great lengths about the creativity and meaning of that film - maybe you two could go at it? just kidding.
Though it brings to mind another film: Benjamin Button. I didn't get it, but others, like critic James Berardinelli said things like: "In the end, Benjamin's reverse-aging is just a filter that allows us to gain a slightly skewed perception about the process of living and, perhaps by looking through that glass darkly, a better understanding of human nature." - I thought it was a little forgettable, and didn't see it that way. Though it didn't help that I saw it on a 21 hour flight from Australia to San Francisco. Though I was greatly impressed by Raging Bull and Leaving Las Vegas after seeing them for the first time on the same flight...