The Dark Knight
Is The Dark Knight a great film? I don’t know. It’s certainly an unusually good one, but I suspect it is not the masterpiece everyone claims. As I write this I know I could well end up eating my words, because I felt the same way about Batman Begins when that was initially released. However, after repeated viewings I now consider that film to be the best Batman film, despite at the time preferring Tim Burton’s twisted fairytale take on the franchise.
The plot begins in suitably explosive fashion as the Joker (Heath Ledger) stages an audacious, Heat-esque bank heist. Following this, Batman (Christian Bale) captures the Scarecrow (Cillian Murphy), presumably for no other reason than to tie up a loose end from the previous film. We are then reintroduced to honest cop and soon to be Commissioner, James Gordon (Gary Oldman), and DA Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart), who with Rachel Dawes (Maggie Gyllenhaal) is working hard to put the mob behind bars. With Dent’s crusade in full swing, Bruce Wayne thinks it might be time to hang up the Bat cape and move on. However, when the Joker begins to target public officials, events escalate and take a much darker turn.
With The Dark Knight, there are a number of bubbles I feel the need to, if not exactly burst, then deflate slightly. Firstly and most obviously, there is the issue of Heath Ledger’s performance. Since his tragic death earlier in the year, critics have been excitedly waxing lyrical about a potential posthumous Oscar. Whilst it is true that Ledger is superb in the role and manages to surpass Jack Nicholson’s take on the character (no mean feat), he is no more impressive than Christian Bale, again excellent as both Batman and playboy Bruce Wayne. Equally impressive are Gary Oldman, again brilliantly cast against type, and particularly Aaron Eckhart, who contribute a performance of infinitely greater subtlety than Ledger. Yet unlike the Joker, because they are not the showy roles the Academy loves it is unlikely any of them will be nominated. Elsewhere in the cast, there are solid supporting turns from Morgan Freeman, Michael Caine and Maggie Gyllenhaal (who replaced Katie Holmes).
My next complaint may seem like nit-picking to most viewers, but I was once again disappointed with James Newton Howard and Hans Zimmer’s music score. Admittedly the music works effectively enough, but they have deliberately eschewed the big epic themes that prove so memorable in great superhero movies of old, such as Superman and Tim Burton’s version of Batman. The current trend towards more percussive underscores irritates me greatly, especially where it is appropriate to write big bold themes. The argument for doing this goes something like “big themes lack subtlety”, but with a great composer this is actually completely untrue. Take for example John Williams’ epic orchestrations of the Darth Vader march. There are many superb and infinitely subtle variations of it played throughout the Star Wars films from epic to fast, exciting, scary, sinister, melancholy and tragic. And everyone knows the theme. Ever since Erich von Korngold’s magnificent music score for The Adventures of Robin Hood in 1938, classic adventure films have benefited greatly from recognisable themes. My four year old son instantly recognises the unforgettable music for that, Superman and many other classic adventure movies. But no-one will be humming the themes from Iron Man or The Dark Knight in twenty or thirty years.
Director Christopher Nolan abandons his trademark non-linear narratives here for the first time, and directs with considerable flair, especially in the stunning, gadget driven action sequences and some very tense moments (one in particular involving hostages on ferries). The tough, gritty feel of Batman Begins is maintained here, and ultimately the screenplay feels more like an epic crime drama than a comic book. Needless to say, the visual and sound effects are first rate, but as a whole, I feel the story is less satisfying than its predecessor, despite the presence of a proper villain this time.
Speaking of which, Ledger plays the Joker not so much as a person but as an evil force. He has no character arc, no background and no name. He doesn’t fear death or pain, and seems to take a masochistic delight when on the receiving end of violence. If anything, it seems to make him stronger. Even when incarcerated, he is absolutely unstoppable, utterly psychotic and apparently without motivation. At one point he says he’s like a dog chasing a car. He wouldn’t know what to do with one if he caught it. The Joker could be symbolic of something like international terrorism. Indeed, much of the film can be taken as an allegory of post 9/11 America and its responses to that tragedy, including how good men can turn evil in their responses to such atrocity. Is Harvey Dent ultimately a symbol of the Bush Administration’s more controversial reactions, such as the invasion of Iraq and Guantanamo bay? If so, then The Dark Knight is also a pseudo-Biblical tale, with the Joker obviously representing Satan and Batman representing if not exactly God then some kind of force for good in the battle for Harvey Dent’s soul.
SPOILER WARNING: My feelings about the ending were somewhat ambivalent. On the one hand, the idea of Batman taking on Harvey Dent’s sins and destroying his own reputation in the process brings a Christ-like dimension to his character. On the other hand, he is lying, and I’m always uneasy where lying for the greater good is seen as a positive moral quality. That said, overall, The Dark Knight is a very good, but flawed, comic book adventure. Perhaps I will look more favourably on it with repeated viewings, so with that in mind I do recommend seeing it.
Simon Dillon, July 2008.
Simon, I’m curious - Heidi has some reservations about seeing the movie due to Heath Ledger and the indication that his commitment to the role might have been part of his mental undoing last year. Without giving away major plot details (as I am determined to see it anyway), how dark / intense / disturbing is his performance bearing his death in mind?
Comment by Sparky — 27 July, 2008 @ 5:52 am
Well, first a little perspective - everyone has gone totally over the top about this film (especially the comic nerd/fanboy crowd, some of whom are apparently sending ludicrous - and insane - threats to critics who mildly suggest it has some flaws). As I said in my review, it’s certainly good, but the more I think about it, the more I think Batman Begins was easily superior. I’m not sure this will make my ten best films of the year list, let alone my greatest of all time.
As to whether Heath Ledger took his acting too seriously, who knows? It’s certainly a remarkable performance, but countless actors have played psychopaths without going bonkers themselves, so I wouldn’t personally read too much into that. It certainly wasn’t going through my mind as I watched the film, because his performance was so gripping (which is the whole point - if I’d been thinking about Ledger’s mental state whilst viewing it could hardly be considered a great performance).
As to how disturbing it is, I wouldn’t say it is any more disturbing than other comic book villains Heidi will have no doubt already seen. I’d say her concerns are unfounded. Virtually all the blood/gore occurs offscreen (all the more effectively) for one thing.
At any rate, it doesn’t topple Martin Sheen’s Apocalypse Now non-acting mental breakdown - now that’s disturbing.
Comment by Simon — 27 July, 2008 @ 10:27 pm
Also, I’m delighted that you have come round to the correct opinion on Batman Begins, namely that it is the best Batman movie.
Comment by Sparky — 28 July, 2008 @ 8:58 am
OK, now I’ve seen it I can comment more fully and say that on the whole I agree with you Simon. It is a very good film but possibly not the masterpiece that was being anticipated, though its faults are minor, and as you say, the acting is excellent.
I love the way this movie and Batman Begins are anchored much more in reality through their treatment of the life of Gotham than previous versions, where it was clearly a fantasy location. Last time it was the inclusion of the regular mob as well as the ‘freak’ criminals that I noticed doing this, and with The Dark Knight it’s the geography of the place that struck me - there are tunnels, bridges, ferries mentioned and used - it couldn’t be clearer that this is New York gone really bad.
I felt it was a shame we didn’t see more of Bale as Bruce Wayne, as he is lots of fun to watch in that half of the role; Ledger is great and very compelling to watch, but as you say, Oldman and Eckhart are just as good. Oldman has been the revelation for me in these two films, as a gentle, quietly-spoken Gordon changing and adapting as his responsibilities grow and things start to affect his family.
Re: the ending - whatever you feel about it, it sets up the next film rather nicely I think, as Batman will be totally out of grace with the Gotham population and have a tough job ever being accepted again.
Comment by Sparky — 31 July, 2008 @ 6:44 am
Yes, I agree that the ending does set up a third film well, so Batman can be restored to Gotham’s good graces. I also agree that it would be nice to see more of Bruce Wayne - there were one or two excellent bits, such as where he crashes into another vehicle to save someone (can’t remember who) and tells the cop he was going for the lights. But there was nothing that matched the brilliant bit in Batman Begins where he tells his guests they are all freeloaders, etc.
Comment by Simon — 31 July, 2008 @ 9:49 am
Ok problems with this review - do you like subtlety or not, one minute you harangue Heath Ledger for not showing enough and then you harangue the music score for being too subtle.
You say
Ledger plays the Joker not so much as a person but as an evil force. - Surely that would have been the direction he was given being it alluded to in the script by them not being able to find a reference for or an address from his DNA.
I personally thought Christian Bale was bland and very much cliched as was maggie so not even in the same league as Ledger.
I did however think it was an excellent film, my favourite of the year so far.
Final note on spelling and grammar you say in the closing paragraph
“One the one hand” this should be “On the one hand”
Comment by Adam Sibley — 4 August, 2008 @ 10:46 am