The Dark Knight: A "Nuanced" Review (9/10)

I agree with the critics, this is one of the best superhero movies ever made. But I would still say (with only one viewing of it mind you) that it is just below its predecessor Batman Begins. Maybe because it is an origins story, which I am a sucker for, but there are other reasons (see Problems below). That being said, this movie is amazing and there is one major reason, which everyone has already heard and is talking about, but for good reason: The Joker.

When the movie is over and you are chewing on it (there is a lot to chew on later), you think back to his scenes and there is only one response: utter amazement. They are the best scenes in the movie, flawlessly performed, and haunting. He is nothing short of brilliant in every shot he is in. Every line, facial expression and movement is thought-through. In those respects it reminded me of such roles as Forrest Gump, and Hannibal Lecter. Not to just sound like everyone else but one cannot escape it: Ledger is brilliant and makes this movie.

The plot is what makes this movie great as well: Harvey Dent, Batman and Jim Gordon trying to take on Gotham's underworld.

In a very real sense The Joker is the product of Batman because of escalation. Batman Begins ends with precisely this projection:

Gordon: You really started something. Bent cops running scare. Hope on the streets... [But] What about escalation?
Batman: Escalation?
Gordon: We start carrying semiautomatics, they buy automatics. We start wearing Kevlar, they buy armor-piercing rounds... And you're wearing a mask and jumping off rooftops. Now, take this guy. Armed robbery, double homicide. Got a taste for the theatrical, like you. Leaves a calling card [shows The Joker's card].

This theme, so deeply impeded in the Batman story, is the great strength of the paradox that is Batman. I actually heard rumors (who knows if they are true) that they were thinking about Batman: Escalation as a working title for the movie). Batman is good for Gotham, yet he is bad for Gotham. How will the criminals respond to a man who dresses up like a bat and takes justice into his own hands? They will dress up, raise the stakes, create chaos in order to break him and the hope that he represents.

The Joker only can (and wants to) exist as the parody of Batman. He says multiple times that Batman's existence legitimates his own. That they are both "freaks", and that he needs Batman to play along with him as he goes about making chaos. When one man threatens to reveal the identity of Bruce Wayne as Batman, The Joker counters saying that he will kill people if someone does not kill this man within 60 minutes. The Joker does not want Batman's identity to be know. Nor, it seems, does he care to know his identity. Its more important for his own existence that Batman exist as he is.

There is also here the question of the best way to bring about justice. Batman sees that long-term it is through normal and democratic means, hence why he "believes in Harvey Dent". Batman wants to retire, to do what is best for Gotham, to let Dent, Gotham's White Knight, take control and be the symbol of hope. Together they try to defeat chaos personified: The Joker, but they can't, precisely because there is no logic, no rhyme or reason to his madness.

The film has been being compared to Michael Mann's Heat in regards to its crime-drama genre and scope. I think the comparison is accurate. It really is a story about the mob, bank robbers, and murders needing to be found and brought to justice in a big city. The sweeping shots of the city are awesome and ground it in reality. Just like Heat the city itself is part of the story (in this case Gotham not L.A., of course).

We need more good filmmakers like Christopher Nolan (who to this point has not made a bad movie), who are first and foremost story tellers. But though he is that, he stills blows you away with amazing action sequences, including stuff we have never seen including a great sequence when an 18 wheeler turns over and the Batpod reverses up a wall in a split second -- you have to see it to understand.

The film really is so good in so many way. It is almost perfect. But not quite.

Problems
The problems I have with the film likely come because I put this movie on such a high pedestal. It pretty much would have had to be perfect in every respect to get a 10 and live up to me expectations, and well, it was not perfect.

1. The first and by far, the biggest problem with The Dark Knight is Two-Face. This character alone brings the film down into view for legitimate criticism. I cannot begin to describe how out of place and horrifically bad this CGI/Make-up debacle is. In a movie/franchise built on realism, subtly and grittiness this is such a huge misstep. His face does not look real at all and it is way over the top. Two-Face could not get off the screen quick enough in my opinion. When I first saw him I almost burst out laughing at how bad it all looked. Ridiculous. Right when he appeared I started thinking "Please die quickly please die quickly."

He also turned evil far too quickly and easily. He goes from so good (and such a great character that we all root for and believe in) to a total criminal too quickly. He Loses a loved one and has one conversation with The Joker and he is done for good. No set-up, no progression. There should have maybe been an earlier scene when he angered quickly or something so we see that he has a temper, or is at least fallible. But here he is just totally white and then totally dark. Total polarity.

2. There was little continuity with Batman Begins in regards to Gotham. This movie feels like it is set in a totally different city than the first movie. There is no good establishing shots of Wayne Tower or the Train System that made up such a central part of Batman Begins. It is as if the Gotham of the first film has been left for another place altogether.

Most people might not care and might not see this as a legitimate criticism but I think it is. Gotham is its own character in the Batman story. Described as a city in decline, run by criminals and totally corrupt. How would a city like that look? Many might say like Tim Burton's vision. I think that that is one thing Burton had right, but that is not to say Nolan should go a different direction which he did, making the beautiful city of Chicago (where he grew up), with its bridges, rivers, Gotham. With no sign of dirt, grim, or corruption. It was beautiful looking for sure, and I loved the towering shots, and the scope of chaos which was city-wide no doubt, but the lack of continuity was just maybe an oversight I found bizarre.

3. The social commentary and philosophy is a little explicit. Themes such as terrorist-negotiation, wire tapping/spying on people for their ultimate good, are spoken of multiple times. The commentary (arguments?) of the film have been seen, by many, as an apologia (a defense of) present US administration policy in relation to both issues (see here). Whether you agree with the politics of the film or not is not, for me, whats important -- my point is simply that the commentary is a little too obvious.

This is not helped by the fact that often there is the subtle, yet not so subtle, philosophical discourse between characters catching the audience up on the deep questions the film is raising. i.e: After the ferry experiment does not play out the way The Joker wants Batman says "You were trying to prove that the world is just like you but it is not it is filled with good people, you are alone!" (or something along these lines)... This is surely not the worst part of the film, just something upon reflection that stuck out in my mind as a little odd.

4. I thought the Sonar thing (if you haven't seen it you will get it) with the Bat-eyes was a little over the top. I know I know it is a movie, and it is based on a comic book, but maybe that is where the blend does not work for me: When your watching Heat you know you are watching an amazing crime drama unfold and Pacino is not going to walk into a room where all of a sudden he has the ability to track the conversations of thirty million people at once, through a throw away explanation about sonar and cell phones.

Conclusion
This is still the best movie of the year, (in spite of its problems), just edging out Iron Man. Both somewhat realistic movies, which I love more than anything. Which is why I am such a fan of the new James Bond as well, re-thought, fresh, subtle, gritty and above all else, realistic.

Be ready though to be exhausted by the end of the Dark Knight, and it does live up to its name of being dark indeed.

And, like its predecessor, it has a great ending, where we find out why Batman is called the Dark Knight, not only one of the deepest philosophical (and I may say theological) themes of the film -- the idea of a representative figure vicariously taking on himself the hatred and judgment of Gotham for Gotham's own good -- but also provides a set up for the final film of the story arc -- a Dark Knight chased by Gotham's finest and its people.

I am looking forward to the final installment and with The Dark Knight setting Box Office records (18 million Thursday night and 66 million by Friday night, and 158 million its opening weekend) I am sure Warner Bros. will be planning one. The question is: Can Christopher Nolan top the Dark Knight? He put everything into this. He said in an interview recently: "I can only think of a couple movies whose sequels are better than the original: The Godfather Part II and The Empire Strikes Back." As for a film series in which the third film was the best? Unheard of. Christian Bale in a recent interview hinted that this reason alone may be enough of a challenge to bring Nolan back for a third film. I sure hope so.

I have heard rumors of all kinds of things, including Philip Seymour Hoffman as a mobster named The Penguin.

That sounds like a good start.