  The Dark Knight has plenty to love, and a little to loath. Fortunately, the love outweighs the loath, but there's still some to wince at.Written by the brother duo of Christopher Nolan and Johnathan Nolan (and directed by Christopher Nolan), Batman: The Dark Knight is fought with symbolism, metaphors, and sometimes over-the-top philosophy -- but that's not such a bad thing for this type of movie. Consider for a moment a film about a guy in a bat suit, chasing a guy in clown makeup, in a fictional city called Gotham, that's run by the mobsters and low-lifes. It's not meant to be reality, it's meant to be a microcosm or reflection of society as a whole. It's not meant to be a "real" goodguy/badguy story, it's an exercise in commentary. And in this case, the commentary is about different forms of justice: vigilante (Batman -- Christian Bale) vs law (D.A. Harvey Dent -- Aaron Eckhart). Which works best? Is there a thin line between to two? Do "good" guys have to do "bad" things to achieve justice? If so, have they become bad themselves? I think this is a worthy topic for a comic book film. While the Nolans sometimes bludgeon us with exposition on plot and philosophy, it must be taken with the original theme intended. Take the main villain for instance: The Joker. For this particular story, he's the perfect foe. He's not after money, he's not after vengeance, he merely exists to test the main characters. He exists to test the fabric of order that Batman and Dent are fighting for. He is pure chaos and anarchy. That's all he wants: to upset the false safety of "order." Could there be a better villain for this story? The answer to that isn't so easy. Both Batman and Dent are forced to examine their intentions and methods they each use to reclaim order in their corrupt city (not so elegantly via the script, imho). We already know that Batman struggles with the question of violence vs law, but what does this new "White Knight" D.A. Harvey Dent think about it? And that's one of the interesting aspects about this film -- it's not so much about Batman as it is about Dent. This creates seemingly unworkable three-pointed protagonist/antagonist triangle that shouldn't necessarily work for film: but it does. While the Joker is certainly the villain, he's not necessarily a direct "counterpart" of either Batman or Dent. He's more like a deadly conscious of them both. The Joker acts as their dark halves, creating sparks of discontent in their pristine concepts of right and wrong (and this split theme of two sides has further implications down the line). As for the writing and filmmaking, the first half leaves much to be desired. As I mentioned before, the script is laced with uncomfortable exposition, and we're shoveled these right vs wrong, vigilante vs law, luck vs fate concepts from the start. Believe it or not, there are even a few slow parts that delve into mob-connections and money laundering that bog down the flow of the story. HOWEVER, the second half really saves the film. It not only saves it, but reassembles and finally explores these themes that have been fragmented and laid out for us. The film finally takes on a life of action and drama both on the streets of Gotham, and within the characters themselves. I can't reveal too much about the second half, but let's just say there are some truly unexpected twists. It's not that the plot thickens in anyway, but the situations this triangle of morality finds itself in becomes increasingly stimulating to watch. Unlike other summer blockbusters, you really need to pay close attention to the details to follow the logic (and I fear there may be a few logic lines that simply didn't make sense -- but I can over look those for now). You see a welcome addition to the line-up of villains, but I can't reveal too much here. You'll also see some top-notch stunts and actions blended seamlessly together. If there was any CG here, it was well hidden.....Except for the one major blunder the Nolans made that I can't forgive: I don't want to ruin it, but Batman uses a piece of technology that is completely absurd, looks stupid, and could've easily been re-written to work better. It became obvious at this point that the writers/director simply got lazy, didn't know how to get Batman out of a simple fix, and made up this piece of ridiculous gadgetry to solve the problem (Deus ex Machina for all you film geeks out there). Lazy and stupid. That's all I can say. Yes, Heath Ledger was great, and not just because of his untimely death, but he really created an entirely new Joker, and an entirely new villain unseen before. He gives us a little backstory, but his backstory keeps changing -- on purpose. I suspect the purpose is to make him more of a phantom, more of a concept of chaos and anarchy rather than a flesh and blood human. And he uses simple things like fire, average guns, and a small crew of thugs to fight against Batman's wealth of gadgets, and Dent/Gordan's force of law (unfortunately, the writers literally tell us this in case we missed it -- we're not that stupid you know). The Joker truly embodies this "I don't give a fuck" mentality about society and morality. He is the alter ego, the dark corner of Batman and Dent's minds. One other thing that will make you wince is Batman's...how shall I say it...growl? Whenever Bruce Wayne dons the suit, his voice suddenly becomes that of a chain-smoking sasquatch. At first I couldn't help but chuckle. Who does he think he's kidding with this gruff voice -- but then it all made perfect sense. Of course Batman has to sound different. He interacts with people he knows in his Bruce Wayne world, therefore, he needs to disguise his voice to protect his identity. Otherwise, it would be the old Superman problem: nobody seems to be smart enough to figure out that Superman is simply Clark Kent without glasses. So, in hind-sight, I actually appreciate Bale, or Nolan, or whomever came up with the concept to "gruff" Batman's voice. It doesn't insult my intelligence the way it would if he just sounded like Bruce Wayne in the suit and nobody could recognize it was Bruce Wayne's voice. Michael Caine, Gary Oldman, and Morgan Freeman all make their appearances and do a good job at it. Caine and Freeman's characters are a little hard to buy at times (that they have all these connections and know-how, etc), but they make it work. Oldman is a great Commissioner Gordon (or not-Commissioner yet Gordon). He gets a chance to play an average goodguy who happens to be the only moral compass in the film...aside from Maggie Gyllenhaal who is naturally the damsel in distress. Let's just say she's a far superior Rachel Dawes than Katie Holmes could ever be. Yes, the plot is confusing (still trying to figure out a few things), the exposition is heavy, and they symbolism is blunt. But the overall "concept" of this film is worth investigating. It's not necessarily a new concept, but done well in a metaphoric setting: comic book Gotham. Normally I would never say this, but don't get bogged down in the plot details, it's the dark vs light, chaos vs order, good vs bad of humanity that makes this film intriguing. Go see it. Hate some of it. Love the rest. It'll stick with you long after. |
posted by Josh C at
3:42 PM
0 Comments
