The Dark Knight

[Johann]

I've spent almost 60 bucks on tix for this masterpiece (all on IMAX Baby!) and I still can't get enough.

The scenes that really stand out:

-The opening bank heist.
Everything about it: the masks, the score, the editing, the final pin-pull: "What doesn't kill you just makes you Stranger..."
(And with no opening credits it's that much more intense)

-Joker's introduction.
His laugh is maniacal and perfect. His hunched shoulders, his disturbing makeup, the "magic trick" with the pencil, his presence...
Man, this is what riveting cinema is all about.
You can't take scenes like this for granted. When he talks about taking things a little more seriously while at the ready with pulling pins for his tasty grenades, forget about it. The Joker is here, and he means fucking business.
What happened? Did your balls fall off?

- Gordon's "death"- what a scene! What a way to show viewers and comics fans what Gordon is all about! He's willing to go all the way to catch the Joker and is given a nice promotion for his efforts. But nothing is so simple with the Joker...

-that sweet interrogation sequence.
Just Bats and the Clown. A psychological war like you've never seen. In keeping with my notices of scene differences, Joker says "You've changed things...Forever" differently than in the trailer. His voice is slightly different, the take is slightly different.
"Look at you Go!"
Just brilliant. Sheer brilliance in staging and the most perfect scene for comics fans- who's read The Killing Joke? Who sees a similarity with one of the panels? Fanboys wet their pants over scenes like this.
"I want my phone call..."

- Crashing the party.
Whoa Mama what genius is on display with this scene.
Heath is Commanding, with one purpose, finding Harvey Dent.
The camera swirls around him, lyrically, slightly frantically.
"You look nervous...is it the scars?"
Wow. When he grabs Maggie's face and starts explaining how he got his scars....Fuck me.
Listen to how he says "Why so serious!"- it's amplified 20-fold. His voice gets deeper and angrier, then he says it again- even more terrifying. The music and the tone are straight out of The Shining: She couldn't stand the sight of me!
Awesome shit Man..

-the big bad truck flip.

Whatever critic says that Christopher Nolan can't do action must've been at another movie or daydreaming about the Care Bears. This scene has one of the best car/truck/batpod chases in film history, with the Joker firing rocket launchers from a moving truck. We haven't seen that shit since Arnold got on top of the rig cab and started pumping rounds into the driver's seat one handed.
What a thrilling and exciting action sequence, with an amazing finish...


I could go on and on.
This movie has Nietzsche in it, homages to Kubrick and punks and the greatest scene in the whole thing is that brief angelic slo-motion of The Joker hanging out of the window of the police cruiser. The music accompanying it...
Fuck was that haunting and surreally powerful.
Just like that shot in Batman Begins where Batman's looking down on Gotham- the helicopter shot- the music...that violin or whatever it was.
Hans Zimmer? Goddamm.

[Chris Knipp]

Sorry I haven't seen it in IMAX, haven't seen anything in IMAX. That would make a difference. Grandeur is the aim here. And what's more, though I didn't realize that before, you're being patriotic! Wikipedia says

"IMAX (short for Image MAXimum) is a film format created by Canada's IMAX Corporation." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMAX

Your observations are interesting, your enthusiasm impressive. Will you go see the context of other summer superhero flicks, the three H's for instance, Hulk, Hancock, Hellboy? Plus Iron Man? Wanted? Or is that irrelevant? I am hoping going to see them all will yield (me) some understanding of what is going on and why everybody goes to see this stuff instead of Chop Shop or . . .gee, I don't know. Paranoid Park. I've seen a lot of interesting documentaries this summer. Lot's of good summer entertainment ans spectacle and some great professional work and acting, but not much else that deeply matters. Are you saving up for Toronto?

Don't forget The Fall. You will like it. It's on DVD now I think.*

WALL·E ; and the documentaries. The documentaries have been what's made it worthwhile to go out to the movies:

Bigger, Stronger, Faster
To the Limit
Operation Filmmaker
Chris and Don: A Love Story
The Battle for Haditha (semi-doc)
Gonzo: The Life and Work of Dr. Hunter S. Thompson
Constantine's Sword
Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired
Bustin' Down the Door
Surfwise
American Teen
Man on Wire (coming; awesome; just saw a preview)

Maybe Oscar can add to this list. Or maybe one of them will be nominated for another kind of Oscar. But this is what's been in theaters where I've been since the end of May hat has provided me with most food for thought.


*Wrong. The Fall's DVD release is to be on September 9.

[Johann]

33rd TIFF is very close...

I've already seen Iron Man and Hulk.
Hancock looks stupid beyond belief and Wanted can wait till DVD.

As for Wall-E, I might check that one out and Hellboy II is next on my list.

I can't believe The Fall is on DVD already.
What's going on? Tarsem is a living breathing genius- what happened to the theatrical release?!

IMAX is indeed a Canadian invention.
We like our movies up here. Yessir.
Dark Knight is just incredible on that screen. (But it's mainly action sequences that are blown up)


Man on Wire does indeed look great.
I read an article about it. It's simply astounding what that guy did.
Should be an amazing film.

[Chris Knipp]

WALL·E. I think you should definitely see it. I don't even like animations but this one struck me as remarkable.

The Fall.
Actually it's done very respectably and been well promoted for an outre' item. According to Box Office Mojo as of Aug. 3, 2008 it has reaped a total of $2,184,396 domestically and another $267,282 outside the US, distributed in 111 theaters by Roadside Attractions. It has been showing for 87 days and must be still showing somewhere, and the DVD release is not till next month. That said, I don't think it has been so widely available. A lot of people probably haven't heard of it. It deserves more. It's special.

Man on Wire.
To me it is and remains incredibly moving, more than I'd anticipated--I came with no prior expectations or knowledge of Philippe Petit's exploit and was completely exhilarated and out of my skin by the magic moment it leads up to. It looks like Magnolia is giving it the gradual unfolding release treatment with a hoped-for word-of-mouth growth of interest. Two big prizes at Sundance. In only 4 theaters for 10 days so far, possibly diminishing interest in theaters since opening weekend--but I'm no expert on these things. It will have great champions. I may be one. But though so far it seems to have gotten a very good reception with both audience and critics, some don't like the way it's made and aren't moved by the event either.

[tabuno]

While I won't say that The Dark Knight was a bad movie and it had a great performance by Heath Ledger, overall the movie was a disappointment to me. I did not care for Batman's performance or for Bruce Wayne's performance for that matter; and I felt that most of the action sequences came across as lazy and most of the time difficult to follow, see, or even really experience fully.

It's going to be difficult for me to discuss this movie very much because I don't want to spend the money or time to see the movie again until it comes out on DVD (how convenient one might say - but if you're patient - I'll commit to buying the DVD and I can continue this discussion or at least respond to any reaction from people who have seen this movie multiple number of times on the basis of having had an opportunity to actually know what I'm talking about).

However, the one scene that I feel I can talk about comfortably is probably one of the most important scenes in the movie - the Rachel/Dent held hostage scene - that really didn't rise to the importance of the occasion. I feel that the director really missed the potential of this scene by rushing it and focusing on action instead of the quiet, tension-filled, emotional build up (of course that requires a lot more work and direction).

[Chris Knipp]

I want to link to the discussion of the film in the Dave Kehr blog, which has comments by Kent Jones and others and a lot of stuff about morality and the possible political allegory.

It's here:

http://www.davekehr.com/?p=59

Another issue they take up is the concrete one of whether or not Nolan can handle action scenes. I think there are good action scenes in The Dark Knight, such as the chase. But I agree with Ben when he says that in Batman Begins the fight editing cuts away from every action so that you can't follow the fight properly. Julian says that this is true in The Dark Knight too. If so that is bad. I think I mentioned that David Edelstein in New York Magazine says this about The Dark Knight.

One person argues that cutting away from violence during a (violent) fight is a product of trying to avoid at all costs an R rating. Interesting theory. I wish I lived in Hollywood and knew people who knew about that.

One comment I like a lot in thie discussion: http://www.davekehr.com/?p=59#comment-5170

Johann, I don't feel you are engaging with the ideas in the film or considering the politics. I wish I could quote this whole entry by dmohr but it's too long. I'm not saying I agree, it's just typical of the direction of a lot of the comments and an interpretation I'd want to come to terms with if I were really going into depth on the film. Here's part:

The Dark Knight is a movie for people who are exhausted by the difficulties of maintaining democracy, and would be okay with fascism taking its place and “setting things straight.” In that sense, it does indeed reflect our post-9/11 Dubya golden era. The constant foisting of fear and oppression, going hand in hand with vigilante justice (and even the indirect justification of the Patriot Act, via Wayne’s telephone-spying system) made me wonder if Dick Cheney had co-written the screenplay. What if Nolan’s next chapter of the Batman saga will have Bale and Caine and Freeman waterboarding the villains to extract some info, or making them pile into a naked pyramid of prisoners smeared with feces, with Freeman shaking his head and sighing, “okay, I really disagree with this approach - but we’ll just do it this one time”? And with any luck, the PG-13 rating will hold intact. Now that’s entertainment.

I like that in the discussion they bring in Pauline Kael's condemnation of Dirty Harry.

[Johann]

I considered the politics of The Dark Knight.
But I finally rest on the cinema and the honoring of the Batman mythos.

The politics ultimately doesn't matter because nothing is solved.
(Just like our current horrorshow).
"post-9/11 Dubya Golden-Era?"
It's golden alright...24-carat shitstorm.

Morality and ethics are big ones in this film, and I think Chris Nolan
might be saying that there are no absolutes but we've gotta keep fighting the good fight.

At one point Bruce says to Alfred:
What would you have me do? People are DYING.
Alfred replies: ENDURE. You can be the outcast that can make the choice. The RIGHT choice. Gotham needs you.

That sums it all up for me. I don't like the fact that Batman/Bruce Wayne thinks Harvey Dent is a better man than he is. That to me is a totally left field misguided idea. He wants out of the Batsuit, and it bothers me. He took up that job for a fucking reason, and to have him balk just because he wants a little me-time is asinine. But it's good gristle for discussion. He wants out of the limelight just when the going gets tough. Just when the greatest menace to his city has arrived and is fucking shit up Large.

His unstable mental state comes at the worst possible time, and, arguably, people are dying because of him. (Another Bush reference?) You have a man that people look up to, look for some leadership and help, and you get waffling and insecurities. Batman doesn't waffle. He's not insecure. He's insulated, but that's where the Bush similarities end.

As for the action scenes, I understand the argument about the too-quick edits for fights but does it really matter?
Are you telling me that you absolutely HAVE TO see the fisticuffs?
This ain't UFC. It's a fucking movie. There is a lot of invention and ingenuity that goes into telling a story, and in the case of this new Batman franchise I think we should all just give a standing-O to Nolan and all who worked on it for giving us so much to appreciate. Especially when the film industry of today has fleeting films of real genius.

[Chris Knipp]

The very idea of a masked superhero coming in to right wrongs and cleanse the city of evil is adolescent and fascist. Isn't it? A vigilante=Dirty Harry, Eastwood's right-wing McCain tactics. McCain recommends cleansing neighborhoods of the US following the systems the US has used in Iraq.

As for the fisticuffs, yes, you do need to see them all, and cutting so you can't is a contemporary abomination that takes the real pleasure out of watching an on-screen fight.

You are saying you've decided The Dark Knight is a masterpiece so you won't consider criticisms in any depth, you just dismiss them. But that isn't fair to the film.

[oscar jubis]

It would be my loss to stay out of this exchange of opinions concerning such a conspicuous film. Cinemabon stated that "this Batman is rife with moral plays and dilemmas" and there partly resides some of the film's lasting power. The Dark Knight meets all the qualifications of a summer blockbuster yet is also worthy of thoughtful analysis and debate.

Kudos to Chris for provoking discussion by providing a link to the one on Dave Kehr's site, expressing a minority and ambivalently qualified opinion: "I'm under the impression that I actually enjoyed Hankcock and Wanted and Iron Man just as much", suggesting that superhero culture in general is "adolescent and fascist" and finally, apparently siding with David Denby and David Edelstein regarding what I'll call the "continuity issue" in some of the action scenes directed by Mr. Nolan. I'd like to point out that critic Kent Jones is participating in the discussion on Kehr's site and that he has some interesting things to say.

Like Jones, I have no problem in general with any of the action scenes and especially admire the scene in which a sniper attempts to kill the mayor as he delivers a speech, and the "battle between a truck and the police wagon". I personally remain open to the idea that a good action scene can be discontinuous and impressionistic thus creating abstractions and brief time-space dislocations. I think this happens at times in The Dark Knight, seemingly more a function of the faster-than-normal speed of the action than the mise-en-scene. It's interesting to note that filmmakers can also stylize an action scene by doing the opposite, by slowing it down and extending its duration, like scenes in Wong Kar-Wai's Ashes of Time and most of Lee Myung-se's Nothing to Hide.

I think that the ideological and ethical subtext of The Dark Knight is ambiguous and ambivalent. That in itself increases its importance beyond its ability to engage, thrill and entertain for well over two hours. I didn't intend for this post to consume so much of my time and yours so I'll briefly point out salient areas of discussion:

1) Is it possible to be on the side of "good" and not to be contaminated by "evil" when adopting any means necessary to fight your enemy? How much collateral damage can a force of good cause when fighting "evil" without becoming just that? The tableside dialogue between Dent, Rachel, and Wayne/Batman succintly prepares the ground for what's to transpire.

2) If an attribute of a good/just society is that citizens enjoy a degree of privacy and freedom, can the society remain "good" when those rights/attributes are suspended or abrogated in the pursuit of evil? The key scenes in this specific instance concern exchanges between Wayne/Batman and Lucius Fox (Get well Morgan Freeman). The latter tending his resignation and Batman's eventual destruction of the massive surveillance/eavesdropping apparatus cannot be ignored when pondering this aspect of the film.

3) Are human beings by nature trusting/altruistic or suspicious/greedy? I can see how you'd think offhand that this issue is out of place in a discussion of the film. Please consider the setup imposed by the Joker towards the conclusion. The one in which a group of average citizens and a criminal group occupying different boats are given the impression they need to blow "the other" to smithereens in order to survive. It's vaguely an allegory of the Cold War but, more directly, a variation on the "Fuck You, Buddy" and "So Long, Sucker" games designed by John Nash at the Rand Corporation which have had so much influence on geopolitics, government and culture. In the film, the groups don't blow each other up yet a discussion of the issue cannot ignore the fact that at least one of the groups voted for pushing the button.

[Chris Knipp]

I mentioned right at the outset that Kent Jones was a participant as he often is on the Dave Kehr blog debate, but you're welcome to repeat it. I paid extra attention to his entries since he's on Film Comment and involved with the FSLC. However note that he likes Dirty Harry--whichI don't dislike it for cinematic reasons but for its celebration of vigilantism, which is highly objectionable, and very analagous to what superheros do, especially Batman.

It's true that personally I don't like Dark Knight better than Wanted or Hancock or Iron Man or Hellboy II, though they all have various flaws also. They may have the virtue that people don't take them quite so seriously. Plus Hancock is partly a critique of the superhero idea. Wanted is really not focused on the world order the story claims the assassination team maintains, just on the training of a new boy. Hellboy II is rather sweet and like a fairy tale or myth. Iron Man is a clash with an evil titan, but I find its picture of an Afghanistan-like skirmish crude and offensive to all parties--and after all it's just a celebration of superior technology. Let the best-armed man win. What a fake idea, that the evil guy has outmoded equipment. Isn't it nice to think so. In fact I don't like any of this stuff. I don't think the fact that Dark Knight is more calculated to induce nightmares or dark thoughts makes it more valid or important--if anything, just a worse influence on the public mind.

I definitely side with the Kehr blog participants who didn't like the fights in Batman Begins. There is a lot of martial arts stuff in that film and it such a fight, when one fighter uses a hold or lands a blow you want to see the effect and the opponent's response, but over and over the fight footage is edited so you don't. I'm not sure if that's true of The Dark Knight or not, but I don't agree with Edelstein that Nolan or the tech team of Dark Knight can't edit an action sequence of the kind involving lots of people. Those seemed okay to me. You can't tell what's going on in Wong Kar Wai slo-mo/Chris Doyle action but i don't care because it's so goddamn beautiful. No comparison in my book.

I think that the ideological and ethical subtext of The Dark Knight is ambiguous and ambivalent.

Agreed; and Johann seems to agree too, but not care.

Your issues:

(1) A good argument for avoiding war at all costs, trhying to use peaceful, positive methods of resolving conflict and reducing crime. Not a concept you encounter in The Dark Knight.

(2) This is the big human rights issue which of course arises in vigilantism or a police state or a US under Bush II. And it is a big issue of the Dave Kehr debate. I didn't really notice it in all the noise of the movie, but the Kehr debate brought it out and I found it's mentioned elsewhere too.

(3)

Are human beings by nature trusting/altruistic or suspicious/greedy? I can see how you'd think offhand that this issue is out of place in a discussion of the film.

No, this is highly relevant. A low opinion of human nature is an essential element in a totalitarian or fascist ideology. People gotta be controlled because they can't behave right by themselves.

[oscar jubis]

*I enjoyed Johann's posts very much and don't see that anything is gained by saying he doesn't seem to care about the subtext.

*You did mention Kent Jones first.

*If you find the WKW/Chris Doyle films beautiful don't miss the re-tooled Ashes of Time when it comes to theaters. I think it's their most beautiful.

*Check out Dave Kehr's review of Dirty Harry:
"Don Siegel's cop movie was received as a right-wing fantasy on its release in 1971, and it probably made a lot of money on that basis. But now that the political context has faded, it's easier to see the ambiguities in Clint Eastwood's renegade detective--who, in the usual Siegel fashion, is equated visually and morally with the psychotic killer he's trampling the Constitution to catch. A crisp, beautifully paced film, full of Siegel's wonderful coups of cutting and framing."
I would like to watch it again myself, after all these years.

[cinemabon]

Don Siegel was a hellva nice man and brilliantly perceptive for a director. He stood up to pompus actors when other directors let them walk over them. The most famous case occurred with a western starring Richard Widmark, who fired the director and hired Siegel with only one week's worth of shooting left. Siegel refused to take credit and hence the DGA's first use of "Alan Smithee" to signify when a star or studio has "butchered" a film against the director's wishes.

I met the Cambridge scholar once. He was very down to earth and would be fascinated by those insightful words spoken about his work. Clint Eastwood once said about his close friend that he learned everything he knew about filmmaking from Don Siegel.

Siegel once spoke with envy to Jean Luc Godard: "You have all the freedom" to which Godard replied, "Yes, but you have all the money!"

[Chris Knipp]

Note that Johann began his last post thus:

I considered the politics of The Dark Knight.
But I finally rest on the cinema and the honoring of the Batman mythos.

A crisp, beautifully paced film that celebrates the trampling of the Constitution. I am not impugning the character of Don Siegal or Johann. Just noting the common espousal of vigilantism in the Dirty Harry stories and Batman.

I recognize that The Dark Knight awakens much enthusiasm and debate--always good to get people talking. That's why I brought in the Dave Kehr blog.

My view is this: In my review I noted that The Dark Knight succeeds and will continue to succeed admirably in doing what it sets out to do--make a lot of noise and dazzle people and rake in a ton of money. The Dark Knight is a very glossy, very expensive, very successful superhero franchise entry that goes beyond its predecessors in the series to which it belongs, and it happens to contain some creditable performances crowned by the dazzling one by Heath Leger. Still it's not qualitatively much different from the other blockbusters of the summer and in my view less entertaining than several of them. Denby of the New Yorker says it right when his short take ends:

"The Dark Knight" has been made in a time of terror, but it’s not fighting terror, it’s embracing and unleashing it—while making sure, with proper calculation, to set up the next installment of the corporate franchise.

Denby's opening sentence also coincides with my impressions:

The last Batman movie was grim and methodical; this one, also directed by Christopher Nolan, is grim and incoherent, with a thudding soundtrack, fights shot from too close a distance to see anything, multiple events clanging together like discordant bells, and freaky sadism and menace.

I differ in that I'm not sure if the fights are impossible to see properly this time; they were in Batman Begins. But the overall incoherence, the rambling clumsiness of the overlong structure, weaken the whole.

[Johann]

I highly disagree with the idea that The Dark Knight celebrates trampling the Constitution. celebrates? Give me a break.

Denby's dead wrong that it's incoherent.
What's incoherent about it? Where is this incoherence?
I fail to see it at all.
The editing may be schizo, but it's all calculated.
Calculated down to the letter.
Rambling clumsiness?
Sorry but that is all in the eye of the beholder.
Seems like total fiction to me, something I totally dismiss.
Every scene is a piece that adds depth and complexity to the canvas that Nolan is working on. Can nobody see this?
Somebody's not coming to the film on it's own terms, a frequent problem with film critics. When you start to accept the film as a whole, then the pieces start to show their worth.
And there ain't nothing incoherent, rambling or clumsy about it.
Watch the film a few more times and this will become very clear.
Nolan knows what he's doing more than we do.
He knows that this film was gonna be scrutinized like scripture.
He's got immunity from his attackers. Trust me. No stone was left unturned.

Dark Knight does not set out to "make a lot of noise", either.
Only in the context of honoring the Batman mythos and being a significant film in the history of movies (see it's box office numbers).

Nietzsche said outcomes are determined by Chance, Contingency, and the Will of the Individual.
Nolan deals with this idea in a very great way.

There is Insurgent Art in this movie.

Have you read Ferlinghetti's book on Poetry as Insurgent Art?

-Wake up, the world's on fire!

-Resist much, Obey less

-Challenge capitalism masquerading as democracy

-Glory in the pessimism of the intellect and the optimism of the will

-Generate collective joy in the face of collective gloom

[Johann]

- Poetry: It is the Light at the end of the tunnel and the Darkness within

-It is the street talk of Angels and Devils
-It is White (K)nights and mouths of Desire
-It is the Anarchy of the senses making sense
-Poetry the camera-eye of the mind, without a shutter

and my favorite:

Question everything and everyone, including Socrates, who questioned everything.