The Dark Knight: Lots of Hype. Worth it?

July 19 2008 21:07 Filed in: Movies
An opening day box office record. A young star that passed away. A phemonemal amount of pre-release, positive buzz. We’ve seen a Batman movie franchise take a tumble before over time. What’s different this time?

About 20 minutes into The Dark Knight I began to realize that I was not in the presence of standard super hero or comic book cinema. I firmly believe that this film completely wipes the slate clean of what this genre has been--even at its best--and completely redefines what it can be.

I was giddy in anticipation of the 1989 release of Batman. Back then the thought of seeing a seriously dark and professional treatment of a childhood legend was outrageously exciting for a 17-year old. That’s an entirely different story, of course, but that was one of the great opening night movie experiences of my life. I would call myself an apologist for that film these days, but it needs no apologies or justification. It was a great movie. All the criticism that has been mounted on it—more over time than initially—about the threadbare plot, etc is really overblown. It was a fun ride, and 19 years ago it proved you could get a big screen superhero to work without being camp. None of the sequels to that version really worked as well. Batman Returns didn’t do much for me on any level. Batman Forever, while enjoyable and full of some great performances aimed more at bringing the series more back over the top and cartoony. Batman and Robin destroyed the franchise by not only being a bad Batman or comic book film, but being an utterly despicable, inept and insulting piece of work.

I was skeptical when they decided to try to reboot this thing again so soon with Christian Bale in 2005, but Batman Begins was a real surprise for me. It was gritty, dark and grounded in many ways, though not perfect by any means. At this time in my life, my flirtation with the comic book world is even farther behind me and when the genre puts out more on the big screen, I have a general curiosity, but little excitement anymore. However, Batman Begins wasn’t just a good comic book or Batman film, it was pretty good movie overall. I consider it one of the best of the modern films of the genre, ranking it closely with the first two Spiderman films and 1977’s Superman: The Movie.

Even so, I had no real anticipation for The Dark Knight. Even with my general good will towards Batman Begins, a sequel is a sequel and franchises such as this ultimately are about long term rights and merchandising. Nothing in Hollywood in the last 30 years has ever left well enough alone, it seems.

I think my first real rational reaction to Dark Knight is that I’m amazed it got made. I’m surprised that Jonathon Nolan had the balls to submit this screenplay and I’m surprised that it got the green light. This is not a Batman movie in any real sense and it’s not really a comic book movie. It is a tense, intricate, schizophrenic crime drama that happens to feature two extremely psychologically messed up lead characters. Nothing of this scope has ever been tried before with a super-hero adaptation. Earlier this summer, Iron Man was another huge surprise for the genre and it was one helluva fun movie, but really pales in comparison to the piece of pure cinema that The Dark Knight is.

First, this is firmly rooted in realism. Gotham City is a real place. It’s shot in Chicago and it looks like any modern city on screen. None of the Tim Burton artistic vision of the world in which Batman resides is present here. With the setting grounded, we have a plot dynamic that really doesn’t require a Batman or a Joker to succeed. The details are not important, but we have movie that’s about organized crime and how it responds in desperation in the face of a pretty successful crusade against it. And it does get so, so ugly. The simplest description of the plot itself is how a few calculated nasty events take Gotham City over the edge and into total chaos.

Next, I think this is absolutely the darkest and most sadistic super hero/comic book adaptation that’s ever been made. Don’t let the PG-13 fool you, while not directly graphic in nature, the violence here is shocking and powerful. The late Heath Ledger’s Joker is not a thief or crime boss. He has been over-hauled into a completely unscrupulous domestic terrorist. This may cause Batman purists some unease since in some ways it departs from the established character but I do think it updates the story in a way. Also, it’s going to be a very difficult argument walking out of this film not believing that Ledger had delivered far and above the definitive on screen performance of this character.

Ledger isn’t just “good” or “quite good” in this role. His performance leaves you feeling sick and dirty. I’d say he completely steals the film, but that would be unfair to the rest of the cast and the film itself, which is too damned outstanding to be stolen by any one element or actor. It’s worth noting though that what is not a part of the The Dark Knight is any type of origin story for the Joker. He is just there, an amalgamation of all that is sick about society and people. We know nothing more about the character at the end of the film than we did at the beginning. We don’t have a name, a place, or even a reason for his psychosis or disfigurement, though maybe some hint into his motivations. This helps make the character even more shocking and intimidating.

Peel away the script itself and you really have an outstanding ensemble and this started with Batman Begins. Michael Caine was almost “dream” casting for many fans as Alfred. Gary Oldman, in my eyes now is my internalized vision of Commissioner Gordon. Personally, I’ve been a fan of Christian Bale’s work since 1987’s Empire of the Sun, one of Stephen Speilberg’s most underrated films starring a 13-year old Bale as a child separated from his family and living in internment camps during World War 2.

Usually, I hate re-casting parts in high profile films. Rather than just re-casting the unavailable Katie Holmes, who played love interest Rachel Dawes in Batman Begins, why not just eliminate the character or make it a different character altogether? In this case, it would have been impossible. Rachel Dawes is a huge piece of this movie and it doesn’t work without the same character. Fortunately, Maggie Gyllenhaal steps into this role and delivers what I consider a superior performance to Holmes’ in the first film.

While we don’t get a Joker origin story here, the movie itself serves as the origin story for Two-Face, long time Batman villain from the comics. As DA Harvey Dent, Aaron Eckhart helps weaves this tale. We not only get a significant build up to the fall of Harvey Dent into Two-Face, he is an integral part of the plot and an extremely sympathetic character. So, unlike how you may feel in a run-of-the-mill superhero flick where you are simply waiting for the character to turn into his eventual persona as a supervillain, in this casewe invest so much into the character for so long that we don’t want to see the downfall that is inevitable.

And it is through Harvey Dent’s story that we learn more about Bruce Wayne and Batman, and The Dark Knight inextricably links the fate of the two characters from early on. In many ways, Harvey Dent is the true hero of the film.

There are many themes explored here. Probably the most prominent is moral ambiguity. For the first time, we are even asked as fans to call into question the true ethics and morals Bruce Wayne/Batman himself. We are forced to ask questions we’re not used to when evaluating comic book heroes, like when, if ever, does the end justify the means and how far exactly would or should our protagonist go to accomplish his goals? By the end of the movie, we’re still not sure. However, it’s not only about Batman, we get to see how these questions are addressed almost universally all the way down to how the citizens caught in the crossfire respond to these moral dilemmas.

So far, lots and lots of good, but does The Dark Knight have problems? Well, yes, there are some issues. Mainly, the running time is 2 hours and 32 minutes. It’s long and it does begin to “feel” long by the end. Though at no point does it fail engross the audience, it does begin to lose a little of it’s steam in the third act as the focus shifts from the more broad plot to the characters, but this is fairly minor for a couple of reasons. First, virtually everything that happens on screen is vital to moving the story and the characters forward. I’m not sure that I could identify any cuts that could have been made that wouldn’t have hurt it. Second, by this point, the chaos ensuing as a part of this breakdown of the city is interesting as hell. There isn’t a moment in the film where I felt a need to check my watch. It could have been tightened up a little I suppose, I just don’t see immediately how.

The last thing I’d think is very noteworthy about this film is what an outstanding score it had. What incredible restraint to keep this low key and subdued. There are no grand sweeping orchestral or frenetic pieces or riffs underscoring anything here. It’s all dark and brooding. Even during the handful of major action set pieces in the film, the music is amazingly under-played and maintaining brilliantly an overall theme of darkness and dread. This could have been an entirely different and lesser experience had this route not been chosen with the score.

There’s not much more to say about this film except go see it if you’ve considered it at all. It’s very difficult to unequivocally recommend that you go to a theater and spend the money on a film these days, especially knowing you’ll have to opportunity to watch it in your home a few months down the road. The Dark Knight, however, is a piece of cinematic art that should not be missed.

Tags: