Sunday, July 20, 2008

Movie Review: "The Dark Knight"

Well, it definitely gets my coveted "See In the Theater" rating.

As for the rest, I'm still trying to wrap my head around The Dark Knight, especially the final fifteen minutes. I'm not giving away any spoilers here, but the plot goes off in a direction I never really imagined (those who have seen the film know what I'm talking about). Part of the reason why this review is going to be somewhat disjointed is because I still don't quite know what to make of the ending - it makes sense from a certain point of view, but I don't know what to think about it.

Of course, for a film as rife with moral ambiguity as this one, that may be the point. The movie has been called an allegory for 9/11, an allegory for terrorism and the War on Terror, and an allegory for crime-fighting - and it is all of these things. Analyzing the line between hero and villain isn't exactly new territory (The Departed, Unforgiven, Episodes II and III of the Star Wars prequel trilogy, High Noon, and countless others have all explored similar territory - in fact, come to think of it, most of my favorite movies explore the line between good and evil, like The Godfather, Citizen Kane, Reservoir Dogs, Munich, The Fugitive, Casino Royale, The Manchurian Candidate, etc., albeit not in the specific is-the-hero-really-the-villain-and-vice-versa style as this film), but The Dark Knight presents these questions in a more explicit format than I have seen in any other film. I don't think you are supposed to draw any conclusions from it - like life itself, the line between good and evil in the film is never clear.

Part of the appeal of the movie is using the comic-book film genre to explore these questions. I mean, let's be brutally honest here - comic-book movies in general and superhero movies in particular are inherently silly. It is hard to explore serious questions of morality, good and evil, right and wrong, etc. while dealing with protagonists who wear silly costumes and can fly and antagonists who are launching various plans for world domination. Where The Dark Knight stands out is the manner in which it takes the basic comic-book format - masked costume-wearing vigilante battles masked costume-wearing villain with a plan - and stands it on its head.

Batman, of course, is hardly your traditional superhero - he has no superpowers and relies on technology, training and superior martial arts skills to save the day. The Joker, too, is equally anti-traditional - he has no real plan, and seems to exist solely to cause chaos. The film explores the distinction between the motivations of the two men - Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) seeks to do some good in Gotham, while The Joker (Heath Ledger) exists solely, as Alfred notes, "to watch the world burn". The monkey wrench in all this is the actions of Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart), the new Gotham district attorney, who wants to same things as Bruce Wayne and is eventually destroyed by those desires.*

The film's exploration of these issues doesn't necessarily pave any new ground - it more presents modern moral ambiguity in a different light than I've seen it presented before. You all know how this is going to turn out - it's a narrative version of Robert McNamara's wonderful line from The Fog of War: "How much evil must we do in order to do good?" Batman and Harvey Dent must commit evils and become something of villains themselves in order to do good. Good becomes bad, bad becomes good, dark becomes light, white becomes black, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria!** Unfortunately for me, the movie doesn't seem to draw and real conclusions, beyond the fact that nothing in Gotham is as simple as it may seem.

Okay, on to some more specific analysis.

Acting

Generally, the acting in the film was superb. Christian Bale does as excellent a job in this film as he does in Batman Begins, demonstrating the moral dilemmas Batman and Bruce Wayne face with aplomb. Morgan Freeman (Lucius Fox) and Michael Caine (Alfred) are awesome, as always (I think I would watch the two of them if they decided to do a remake of Plan 9 From Outer Space or Manos: The Hands of Fate, two films widely regarded as being the worst ever made). Maggie Gyllenhaal is much better as Rachel Dawes than Katie Holmes could ever hope to be, and even bit players like Eric Roberts are excellent in their small roles. I also couldn't help but giggle at the scene where The Joker places a knife to the throat of a wealthy party guest, mostly because said wealthy party guest is played by U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy.***

Special notes on two actors: First, Heath Ledger is nothing short of spectacular as The Joker. He takes the character in an entirely new direction, making him just about the creepiest and scariest villain I have ever seen. His villain is more animal than man, lashing out at anything and everything. There seems to be a rising movement to get him at least a posthumous Oscar nomination for this role, and I think the honor of a nomination is at least somewhat in order. If nothing else, a twisted villain like this is a fitting end to a career that was snuffed out far too soon.

I find Aaron Eckhart to be one of the most frustrating actors in Hollywood. He is capable of creating marvelous and entertaining characters in some films (like Nick Naylor in Thank You For Smoking), but he is also capable of some of the worst acting performances ever committed to celluloid (The Black Dahlia, anyone?). Fortunately, this performance seems to go more in the former category than in the latter. I would never call him an incredibly talented actor or suggest that he has much range - indeed, he seems to be more like a less clueless version of Keanu Reeves more than anything else. Like Keanu, occasionally the right role will come along that will suit his talents or lack thereof - kind like how Keanu's role as Neo in the first Matrix film was the perfect merger of actor and role. Eckhart can't play much in way of characters beyond Nick Naylor, but his view of Dent is merely a slightly more twisted and less funny version of Naylor. Regardless of the source, it seems to work here.

Screenplay

Director Christopher Nolan and his brother Jonathan co-wrote the screenplay for The Dark Knight, and the generally did a decent job. With the exception of some incredibly hacky lines - like Dent's admonition that "You die a hero, or live long enough to see yourself become the villain" - the dialogue fits the film well. The Joker, especially, is given some wonderfully quotable lines (heck, my buddy Chris and I have been quoting the lines "Good evening, Commissioner!", "You made plans. Look where that got you." and "Here is my card." to each other ever since the first trailer came out). As I say, it's a little dodgy at times, especially when given some of Dent's lines, but it usually works well.

(Brief digression - none of these hacky lines are nearly as bad as Natalie Portman's line "Kiss me again, like you did on Naboo" from Revenge of the Sith - a line that stands out as the corniest of all possible lines in one of the hackiest scripts ever written. Damn it, George Lucas, let other people write your scripts.)

Cinematography

Gorgeous. Absolutely gorgeous. I don't know who Nolan hired to shoot the movie, but interplay of light, action, and the Chicago setting are marvelous.

A word about the setting: Chicago has never, ever looked quite as wonderful as it does in this film. Part of the joy of watching it for me personally was to get to see all of the buildings in my adopted semi-hometown up on the big screen. It looks as if Nolan took all the best parts of the city of Chicago, all the wonderful architecture and cavernous city streets, Upper and Lower Wacker, the Chicago River and the like and made it look like an entirely different city while retaining the essential nature of the place. Like Chicago, Nolan's version of Gotham is dark and forbidding (especially the scene set outside the Chicago Board of Trade) yet somehow also relentlessly urbane with a real sense of the community that lies underneath. By the end of the movie, you get a real sense of the darkness that lies in the soul of any major metropolitan city, but also a sense of the hope and desire for good that is constantly fighting to rise to the top.

(Incidentally, for those who have seen the movie, look closely in the chase scene where the helicopter crashes and explodes. You'll see my office building in the background. The burned-out wreckage of the helicopter was in the street outside my office for about a week last summer when they were shooting the film.)

On the whole, I give The Dark Knight my highly coveted "Drop What You're Doing and Go See This Movie Now" rating. It's a little choppy and confusing at times, and the themes aren't anything new, but it is still one of the best films I've seen in recent years. Plus, as we all know, I'm something of a sucker for good action movies, and this one takes the cake.

Special thanks to The Long Road Around and her husband for organizing last night's movie outing.

Previous Movie Reviews:
21

*I don't think I'm giving anything away by saying that Harvey Dent eventually becomes Two-Face, one of the traditional Batman villains. Come on, you knew it was coming.
**As per usual, you get bonus points if you recognize which movie that sentence is a reference to.
***Or Governor Nehi, has Dustin Hoffman's character in Wag the Dog refers to him.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

i still wish Katie Holmes had stayed on board as Rachel Dawes for the Dark Knight; it was like the time spent getting familiar with her character in Batman Begins was wasted...

The Rush Blog said...

"Maggie Gyllenhaal is much better as Rachel Dawes than Katie Holmes could ever hope to be . . ."

I disagree. Both Gyllenhaal and Holmes were excellent, but Holmes should thank her lucky stars that she didn't co-star in THE DARK KNIGHT. The Rachel Dawes character, which started out as a legal and moral dynamo in BATMAN BEGINS, became nothing more that an object of desire for Wayne and Dent . . . and a means to get at both men for the Joker.

I feel sorry fo Gyllenhaal.