The Dark Knight

[cinemabon]

Johann will be pleased to know that "The Dark Knight" is closing in on Star Wars as the biggest money maker (this side of Titanic) of all time, surpassing the $442 million dollar mark after this weekend.

Oi Vay!

[Chris Knipp]

I don't think you can win a point by impugning the quality of a reviewer. Denby has his good and bad days like most of us. I am far from accepting his point of view in general, and he frankly seems like an old sourpuss of late years, and he waxes enthusiastic at dubious times--such as in the current issue, where he praises Woody Allen's Vicky Cristina Barcelona and Elegy, neither of which seems to me worthy of such effusions. Denby however writes extremely well (as we've noted Rosenbaum has acknowledged that) and part of that is that he presents a good clear argument. I quoted him because I read The New Yorker regularly and because he is respected and widely read, as is his bi-weekly alternate, Anthony Lane.

If you grant that the fights in The Dark Knight are blurry but say you don't care as you're doing in your latest post, that's another story. Some people do care though.

The Dark Knight is obviously an important movie because of the work lavished upon it and its good cast and it is the signal superhero blockbuster of the summer and gets the most money and the most attention. But it is overrated.

We differ on this. It's nothing personal. I know you are a profound film lover with passion and knowledge and your writing always engages my interest and everybody's on the site.

The association of the word "incoherent" with "The Dark Knight" is a fairly frequent one, if you do a search.

I am still talking in that vein more about the overall structure than about the individual fights, though to repeat, the fights in Batman Begins annoyed and frustrated me because the cut-aways made it impossible to appreciate their martial arts content.

[Johann]

"Incoherent" and "The Dark Knight" associations may be fairly frequent, but it holds no water.
Where is the incoherence? Give me examples.
What's incoherent about it? What isn't clear?
The politics?
Batman's not about politics.
It's good vs. evil.
If the filmmakers make the politics ambiguous, then doesn't that tell you something?
If it's not the politics that's incoherent, then what is?
The story is quite plainly laid-out, against a modern-day backdrop.

Is it overrated because it's not a movie that solves the world's problems? I think just being conscious of the problems is huge.
It's not a movies' job to solve world problems.
But it does have a job of conveying an idea, a story with some relevance and meaning and in this case they suceeded in spades.
I can't overrate a movie that gives me so much.

Yourself and others just aren't that interested in the film.
I'm OK with that.
There are thousands of movies that don't turn my crank either...

[Johann]

In an answer to Oscar Jubis' 3 salient areas of discussion:



1) In adopting any means necessary to fight your enemy, you indeed have to be very careful of not becoming the evil you are purporting to fight. Bush has shown us for all of history how adopting any means can backfire worse than your worst nightmare. He's such a well-loved man nowadays...
If you're Batman, you might be able to use wiretaps and nothing untoward will happen in your quest to defeat the evildoer(s).
Then you can perhaps eliminate the evidence you used it at all, and no one will be the wiser. Evil is conquered (for the time being. -the Riddler will be giving you grief soon enough).
But if you're George Bush, you just come off as a paranoid power-mad idiot, looking for ways to exploit the citizens. And the bad guy still gets away!
So it all depends on who we're trusting with this shady wiretapping or whatever underhanded thing is needed to catch the baddie.
You would hope for zero collateral damage.
And you would be at ready with full disclosure as soon as the war was over in order to let the public/world know that you acted with their (and your own) best interests at heart.

2) It all depends on the situation. Depends on the case.
Whose freedoms are you infringing on and what impact will that have on their lives? Are you just doing it willy-nilly, or do you have some serious reasons for invading their privacy or stomping on their rights? And what are you prepared to compensate them with if your actions cause unforeseen grief or trauma?
It should be a case by case situation.
It all depends on the threat. If the threat is that great, then you take *correct, well-thought out* action, with the knowledge that you aren't hiding anything from anybody. You are doing what is absolutely neccesary in order to supercede the situation.
Is society "good" after this?
It should be. It shouldn't be too out of synch, unless your fellow citizens are reactionaries with hearts full of fear...
Good leaders would be able to communicate to the people and allay their fears. (In a perfect world, no?)

3) That was a great scene with the two boats.
"You choose" the Joker says..
Again, it's the situation. Do situations like that show the true nature of man? Or do they just bring chaos?
In a situation like that I think you'd have a lot of people trying to save their own skins, whether they're the good ones or the bad, survival becoming a real priority for all.

[Johann]

The Dark Knight has surpassed the $1 billion dollar mark in revenue.

Not too many movies can say they've made a BILLION!

[tabuno]

The Dark Knight

Since my August 5, 2008 post, I had an opportunity quite by accident to have an opportunity to experience once again The Dark Knight (2008) earlier today by myself in a home theater environment setting with a full wall screen and a quality sound system upstairs at a commercial establishment while I waited for a family member downstairs to finish a food class. Having had this opportunity to see this movie for a second time, I feel somewhat competent to make some reflective and meaningful comments. Unquestionably Johann's (July 19, 2008, July 26, 2008) and Chris Knipp's (July 21, 2008), Cinemabon's (July 27, 2007) glowing comments of Heath Ledger's performance ring pure and true to me also. Christian Bale as Batman, however, is something more dark and convoluted just as his performance in the movie is. Chris Knipp (July 19, 2008) found him more "aggressive" and "narcissistic" like Stallone in Rocky. Chris Knipp's sees this movie as The Joker, who really dominates the movie. He complains of the movie's fixation of gadgetry, inaudible dialogue at times, the chaos of too many characters and story angles. I am sympathetic to these observations.

One significant difference this time was my having no problem with the Dent/Rachel kidnap scene and subsequent moderate build up to the respective explosions involving them. Second, I was much more taken this time by the multitude of moral dilemmas included and portrayed in this movie and felt a stronger resonance with the substantive content of this movie. Nevertheless unlike some, this movie is no Masterpiece. It is a quality movie that had a great singular performance by Heath Ledger and also included some menacing emotional, intellectual issues to experience allowing for subsequent meaningful discussion. This is a very good, perhaps excellent movie with visible flaws.

Johann (August 5, 2007) was enamored by the chase scenes in this movie and while I did find them intense and mesmerizing, at least two or three of them were flawed. Unbelievably, the director Christopher Nolan allowed one of the most lazy (though safe) chase scene technigues to be used in his movie. He included the glaringly artificial car placements in a number of chase scenes where the cars are positioned with equal spacing with alternating empty spots leaving equi-distanced areas for Batman's batmobile and batcycle to easily maneuver around. Any allowance for the suspension of reality and believability of these gripping chase experiences were destroyed when these scenes lost their integrity as the scenes began to reveal the obviously set up and meticulously measured and designed street scape of planted cars all lined up prefectly for Batman's passage (no challenge there). Johann goes to some extent to compare The Dark Knight to Stanley Kubrick, but it was Mr. Kubricks rigid adherence to authenticity in 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY (1968) that allowed this sci fi classic to hold up to scrutiny that Johann won't allow with Masterpieces. But unfortunately, sometimes a small drop of dark oil into water can darken the purity of an entire glass. Masterpieces are not supposed to have any flaws, like an imperfect flaw in a great diamond, its value is visibly diminished. Christopher Nolan by allowing an obviously staged design chase scene, would be like having engine noise roaring in outer space in 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY. It is the integrity and consistent respect for authenticity that makes for a Masterpiece, not sleight of hand techniques as with chase scenes and overly darken fight, almost invisible, impossible to see fighting sequences that cover up the remarkable adeptness of our hero, unlike those that are highlighted by Jason Bourne play by Matt Damon in The BOURNE IDENTITY (2002). Chris Knipp (August 6, 2008) appears to support this weakness with the fighting scenes. When I compared the fight scene during the better lit gala party and other places, some of the riveting action and stunt work can be appreciated, even though this scene wasn't as clean and exciting as any of the Bourne fighting scenes (or even most James Bond movies for that matter). I would even go so far to say that the fight scenes with Jennifer Garner in ELEKTRA (2005) and Uma Thurman in the KILL BILL movies (2003, 2004) are far superior to those shot in the DARK KNIGHT. Christian Bale as super physical fighter he is not, more like a good street brawler for all one can tell on screen. Chris Knipp (August 6, 2008) may agree with me on this that, yes fight scenes are important, every scene and second counts in a masterpiece, because by definition i'ts perfect, this is what excellent directing, performing, stunt work, special effects and especially editing is all about, the entire product, not just a prolonged sequences of excellent performances by one character who can hold a movie together.

Unlike Cinemabon (July 27, 2007) who found no leaks, no weak areas, and finally, just the right amount of score to bring this incredible film to its strange and haunting finish, I found several other weaknesses and flaws in this movie:

1. The bank heist at the beginning of the movie had two over-the-top scenes that destroyed the illusion of action-adventure fantasy for me. The bank heist while intense and shocking, once the bank manager came out with a shotgun, it just became so ludicrous and so unbelievable that it lost some of its visceral connection with me and secondly to top it off with the implausible escaping school bus that is able to rush right back out of the bank in sync with a caravan of busses started me off on the wrong footing the first time I saw the movie. The bank heist seem too far fetched even for a super-hero movie. It became fake and pretentiously designed and directed not performed for authenticity within the context of a comic book storyline.

2. I disagree with the directorial, script decision to provide a narrative plot explanation of how Harvey Dent and Rachel Hawes were kidnapped and indirectly explained by the Joker later in the movie and Harvey Dent's later investigation to explain what happened. The quick abrupt insinuation by the Joker left me hanging as to how the "hell" did that happen and in fact what did happen. The belated explanation becomes more problematic when without any explanation or revelation about how the Joker was able to escape from his jail cell it just compounds the number of questions about what and how things happen in this movie. One could argue that in HANNIBAL (2001) Lector's escape from his mobile jail cell was allowable, but it was briefly revealed how the escape began and knowing Hannibal's past atrocities, it wasn't too much of a stretch to believe what might have occurred out of picture unlike with this new character the Joker.

3. Some of the sound effects were garbled and muffled, especially and importantly in a number of places that appeared to require loud, earth shaking explosions and crashing demolishing debris.

4. I also couldn't logically and reasonably believe that the armored car holding Harvey Dent would detour into the tunnel when there was more reasonable alternative to just going around to the left portion of the roadway when the right portion was blocked and allowing a continual aerial helicopter surveillance to continue. This manipulative diversion required to be able to include the exciting tunnel chase scene was an unnecessary distraction, even as one of the drivers complained they needed aerial support.

5. Cinemabon (July 27, 2007) points out that The Joker comes out of no-where. And from his comments, while The Joker supplies some morbid explanation about his motivation, one of the questions I don't recall having explained in the movies is why the name, The Joker. Why not something else? What is the Joke in all this? Where are the jokes outside his penchant for cynical dark humor, I don't really seem to remember any jokes really (and if there are any, if they are so difficult to comprehend, how can a movie be a classic or masterpiece when there is so much hidden that some of the real entertainment is beyond the audience). Perhaps somebody could enlighten me. Is this something like having to make up a new name for a James Bond movie when one runs out of the original novel names written by Ian Flemming? Or was there some rationale behind the name? Two-face was quite literally two face in this movie, quite obviously raw and starkly emotionally portrayed.

Several good impressions I have now about this movie include:

1. I liked this movie better after a second viewing and felt a lot more of the emotional conflicts and better appreciated the substantive depth that this movie undertook.

2. I was held in a state of intense emotional turmoil as bad and evil held sway, the fairness and righteousness was continually ripped to shreds and in reflecting back on re-experiencing The Dark Knight twice now, just as with or even more so in Angels and Demons (2009), the culmination of right and wrong at the climax of this movie is like having achieved or at least experienced the reaching of some magnificent summit or peak of success or redemption or acceptable peaceful state by how the movie ends. Cinemabon (July 27, 2007) provided an excellent summary of these conflicts. "Like previous films where the Dark Knight must chose between friends, his choice results in terrible consequences, forcing more dramatic tension, as the screen is rife this time with suspense. Alfred is torn between his loyalty to Wayne to that of decency. Wayne's ex-girl is torn between her current man (Dent) and one she knows is righteous yet unbalanced (Bruce). The commissioner is torn between upholding the law and supporting a vigilante. The police are torn between upholding the law and having the rug pulled from under them when the mob threatens their families. Lastly, the ultimate test comes when a ship of prisoners is pitted against a ship of privileged persons, where moral choices come down to a simple act of survival."

3. I found the running time no problem, it felt normal and appropriate, actually the running time was never a problem for me.

4. Harvey Dent's transformation was credible and richly moving. However, Johann (July 26, 2008) made special note of this excellent character development captured in the movie and one that he "cared" about. I personally found was hard to sustain the same level of caring all the way through the movie, pitying him perhaps was possible by the end. It was hard to care for a person who murdered people.

Final comments. Cinemabon (July 27, 2007) describes The Dark Knight as one of the "best hero flicks" ever, though from the comments on Heath Ledger's role, one might be tempted to describe this movie as one of the "best criminal flicks" ever. Johann (July, 26, 2008) has labeled this movie a "masterpiece" and as such one that shouldn't be picked apart unless you're "studying," unless you love the Holy Hell out of it. At some point with Johann (July 26, 2008) going on to gush about this film, especially his almost exclusive focus on Heath Ledger's performance, can easily make one blind to any of the flaws it might contain, willing to overlook the warts (like a person in love is prone to). Johann's memorable scenes post (August 5,2008) reflects an almost exclusive focus on Heath Ledger who interestingly enough was only nominated and won for" best supporting actor" as opposed to leading actor categories. From my standpoint, it says more about the deficits of this movie when the supporting character is actually the primary basis for this movie's success, especially if the stand out scenes are devoted primarily on the supporting character. What about the rest of the movie? Such would be the implied imbalance of this movie with good and bad components. Finally, Johann (August 6, 2008) begins to comment on what appears to be some important thoughts about Bruce Wayne and Batman though it's hard to tell if he's dismissing such thoughts or embracing them as his own. Hopefully this will be cleared up by him in a future post.

[Johann]

Long post tabuno!
Great that you got to see it again and opened up this thread again.

First, I admit fully that my main reason for calling this movie a masterpiece is Heath Ledger.
His performance is so powerful and so astonishing that basically (all by himself) he sustains this film.
I'm aware of flaws with the chases as you mention (cars flip on cue it seems) but I'm coming from a much more of a tram view, a view of the whole picture, from a Batman mythos perspective, and that is why this film is still a masterpiece to me, whatever flaws anyone finds. A masterpiece to me can have a litany of flaws or none at all. It depends on the art at hand.
Some say Jackson Pollock's paintings are all completely flawed pieces of crap, that a child could do the same thing. I differ completely. I see the ART, the INTENT, and that allows me to go straight to masterpiece, without guilt.

I'll continue this post tomorrow as I don't have much time tonite, but I just wanted to post that I will try to be more clear in my defence of this film, which is excellent, as you said.
There are other flaws which you haven't mentioned, like the Joker's makeup and hair, which changes at inexplicable times.
But again, I don't dwell on that stuff.
I dwell on the story, the cinema (which is stunning- some of those shots of Hong Kong with an IMAX camera- it's nothing but sheer cinematic glory).

There's also the issue of anarchy, it's a central theme in the film, a main motivator for the Joker. And his character appears "öut of nowhere"because that was Nolan and Ledger's intent, to have him appear whole, complete, with no backstory. It's what adds so much to his persona or his presence. We are wondering who this clown is and where did he come from. Keeping us in the dark about that guy kept us interested in watching the movie.
It's a great filmmaking trick and as far as i'm concerned, that's how it should have been done. We're given little hints at the Joker's background (he hated his father, "Why so serious?"and all that) but we don't have much more to go on than the Gotham Police, and that's why he's a menace to them and a riveting character for us.

So I'll end there for now and continue this dialogue tomorrow.
Not going according to plan?
(Everyone loses their minds!!!)

[Chris Knipp]

I appreciate having my and others' earlier Filmleaf comments reconsidered by tabuno. And of course I have to admire anybody who'd be able to sit through this movie again and write a detailed comment on it However, I think over two thousand words is too much reconsidering and i wish you'd tried to be more brief.

All I can finally agree on is that we all had to watch The Dark Knight to see Heath Ledger. I also took part in the thread not because I found the film significant but because the fact that people got so involved made it interesting to participate. This was especially shown in the Dave Kehr website discussion.

I certainly stand by my objection to movies wehre the fight sequences are fudged. I found a number of reviewers found the same thing I did: that the plot got sort of garbled in the second half, or at least out of hand and the movie is too long, not just for its running time but because of the way it loses its way.

Oscar is perferctly right in saying that " good action scene can be discontinuous and impressionistic." A filmmaker can't show every fight in a battle, or every punch that's landed in a single fight. But there's been too much fudging in fight footage lately, and some of us are getting tired ot it. When a punch is delivered and there's no reaction shot, that violates the fundamentals of filmmaking. Somebody has gotten too antsy with his computer editing tools.

I also want to say in response to Oscar that when I wrote ""I'm under the impression that I actually enjoyed Hancock and Wanted and Iron Man just as much. .." that was not an "ambivalently qualified opinion;" it was just being polite to the so highly touted Dark Knight, and also giving a nod to the fact that really, as others in the thread correctly noted, I don't really like this whole genre very much, so I wasn't exactly ecstatic watching Hancock or Wanted or Iron Man either. My best memories are of Iron Man, for some cool gadgetry, good casting, and entertaining line delivery by Downey Jr. Films of this kind that take themselves too seriously lose me pretty quickly.

I just saw Il Divo, and will put together some comments on that and other newly locally released films that I'm trying to catch up on in local theaters. Afger squandering many hours on the (enjoyable and compelling) TV series "Jericho" recently, I'm not about to go back and re-watch The Dark Knight. And that's not an ambivalently qualified statement.

[tabuno]

As a Virgo, I'm condemned by the stars to attempt to be imperfectly perfect, thus the need to attempt to capture every critical thought about a movie I can, especially if I saw it twice and it was as massively popular as it was and had such a great following, I was hoping to be persuasive simply by weighing everybody down with massive amount of words.

Johann's perspective of "masterpiece" is one can can work with and as such willing to grant him his use of the term with THE DARK KNIGHT, partly because I would probably have to use the same "masterpiece" perspective on a number of my all-time favorite films - MANHUNTER (1986), NOMADS (1986), THE READER (2008), and THE ASSASSINATION OF JESSE JAMES BY THE COWARD ROBERT FORD (2007), and NORTH COUNTRY (2005).
Each of the these films in their own way, I felt, had "an art" or "intent" that was fully captured in a way that was completely engrossing and directly compelling as a work of art.

MANHUNTER - Captured a stylish, colorful, crime thriller steeped with both characters that had depth and incorporated high tech-high energy sophisticating.

NOMADS - Captured a richly occult-mystical/artsy/photographic allure of a dark underground surrealism, a dreamlike fantasy of haunting proportions.

THE READER - Captured the innocence and complex relationship trappings of both humanity within a criminal, the complicated structure of right and wrong, of good and evil, and of atonement.

THE ASSASSINATION OF JESSE JAMES BY THE COWARD ROBERT FORD - Captured an naturalism authenticity, a raw dramatic, and personally intimate biographic portrait of a famous human being and a different perspective of famous events in a period film.

NORTH COUNTRY - Captured the social morality matyr complex of a pertinent social issue.

[tabuno]

The name THe Joker, as used by Heath Ledger's character was in some ways seems just a convenient marketing tool, it seems, if Johann is correct in its formulation. The Joker apparently is just a label taken up by the director and screenwriter to use without any backstory or context or explanation. If so, any fascinating name could have been used - "The Clown" even. It's like I referenced earlier, with later James Bond movies, names became more of just a convenient recognizable title without the original meaning or historical content. It was once a richly vibrant name with a history that is simply wiped clean, emptied so that a new character can be brought to life, like a stem cell.

[Johann]

tabuno

Am I reading you wrong or do you not know that The Joker has been a character/villain in popular comics for over 65 years?
His name comes from Bob Kane's inspiration of Conrad Veidt in "the Man Who Laughs" a film from 1928.

He was a tricky, jokey foe of Batman and Robin's, and those early comics with Jerry Robinson's artwork are just as amazing as any "pop art" piece Andy Warhol ever did.
The Joker has always been a clown, a "clown prince of crime", who incorporates practical jokes (gun with flags that pop out of the barrel that say "Bang!", that sort of thing) and creates wacky, disturbing scenarios for committing crimes. From the late 60's on he got much darker and sinister in the comics, committing more brutal and psychopathic deeds, and he was beautifully and artfully re-interpreted for the big screen for this movie.

Here you're right, there are no "jokes" except on the human race, who he accuses of being absorbed in their little worlds, accomplishing nothing but ignorance, making plans that they don't realize can be arbitrarily and suddenly disrupted or killed.
His point was kind of like "God has no expectations for outcomes so why should you?", now, granted, he's a psychopathic killer with zero remorse and takes joy in perversely upsetting the apple cart for anyone he feels like doing it to, including gangsters, who can't believe he would set a pile of money on fucking fire and not give a shit about it.
That's a whole other kind of disturbed individual, a very very dangerous and fearsome person.
And when you add tommy guns, rocket launchers, demolition of hospitals, killing whenever it suits his whims...purple wardrobe...white makeup caked all over his face with a sick scar, unwashed green hair...you get my point, man?
The Joker IS this movie.

[Johann]

And The Dark Knight is more of an homage to Kubrick than a direct attempt to make a "Kubrickian" movie.

Proof?

The bank heist.
The Killing (1956).
Masks.

There is a real similarity...am I the only one who noticed that glaringly obvious tribute?

[tabuno]

I was taking The Joker name too literally. Johann's description of "practical jokes" as opposed to making literal jokes that have a punch line really helps. Thanks. If I watch this movie again, I will be able to appreciate the pranks much more adeptly thanks to Johann. On reflection, I experienced some of The Joker's antics but didn't really embrace them as the essential nature of the movie's primary character and was still waiting for the jokes and the ultimate punchline which never came in the form of a literal joke.

[tabuno]

Whether or not THE DARK KNIGHT is a "Kubrickian" movie, my premise about a "Kubrickian" movie and its masterpiece classic status does not rely on the need for THE DARK KNIGHT to be based on Kubrick. Instead, Kubrick movies are only examples of the more basic, fundamental nature of masterpiece movies - that of consistency and the constant attention to perfection in every scene and every second of film. For a number of us, the physical fighting scenes are flaws that detract from this movie and as such take away from the greatness of this movie, possibly to the extent that it prohibits this movie from being a masterpiece. More appropriately, THE DARK KNIGHT might better be described as a quality movie with masterpiece elements, flourishes of brilliance and originality, and a prolonged segments of greatness throughout.

[cinemabon]

Part of the problem with this film is post-production. As with any big budget special effects-laden monstrosity as this project was, Nolan had his opportunity to fix things taken away when Mr. Ledger suffered his unfortunate demise so early in his life. I'm not certain what he may have fixed or tried to without Keith.

In previous releases, we understand the origins of characters because filmmakers have taken the time to explain them - Superman from Krypton, Batman's parents are shot in front of him, Spiderman is bitten by a spider and so on. The Tim Burton version of "Batman" explained the origin of Joker. He loved to play cards. An accident left his face stuck in a permanent grin and his skin dyed chalk white. In his sick twisted way, he adapted the moniker. However, "The Dark Knight" does not attempt to explain the origins of anyone. In fact, they eliminate Two Face before he can start a life of crime. How strange.

I'm not certain what kind of film Chris Nolan would have made if Ledger survived. I only know that one we have is brilliant in execution for the limitations placed on it. Ledgers performance deserved the Oscar, a first for this genre.