The Dark Knight
Rated: PG-13
"Epic." "Flawless." "Masterpiece." These were just some of the words used to describe The Dark Knight from those fortunate souls who saw the film several weeks ago. Despite the enthusiasm, I have tried to keep my approach to the film tempered; excited but still allowing for fault. Now having finally seen the film, I can say that it is certainly great and an improvement on Batman Begins in almost every way. But there are a few scrapes in the bat-armor and they shouldn't be ignored. I'm going to keep this review as spoiler-free as possible. Basically, I'll reveal no plot points that you couldn't already gather from the trailers. Of course, after seeing the film, I understand why they couldn't really explain the plot in the 150 second-span of a full theatrical trailer. The best way to describe the film is as a game of chess between Batman (Christian Bale), Lt. Jim Gordon (Gary Oldman), and idealistic District Attorney Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart) against The Joker (Heath Ledger). Part of what gives the film such great suspense is that you feel that one side has one-upped the other but you're not sure how until it's revealed. But Christopher Nolan doesn't want to tell a story as much as he wants a story to exist so he can further explore his "real" Gotham City. Realism is what sets Nolan's Batman films apart from his predecessors and confident that he established Gotham City as a real place in Batman Begins, he turns his focus to the reality of human nature. Nolan makes a thoughtful and sharp contrast between the larger-than-life main characters and the average citizens of Gotham. To what men can we aspire to? Will we stand against fear and chaos or embrace it in our darkest hour? No one can lead you towards chaos quite like The Joker and Nolan's more focused on the character's chaotic nature than his penchant for the humorous (although I found myself laughing frequently at his dark comedy). Let me address the question of Heath Ledger's Oscar-worthiness. It was a question that was bound to come up: the last film of an actor who died too young playing an iconic role—is it worthy of an Oscar? No. Is it worthy of an Oscar nomination? Of course, there's another tragedy than this being Ledger's last full performance. The tragedy is that the performance gets all the attention and I'm afraid that means a lot of folks will overlook Aaron Eckhart as Harvey Dent. Dubbed "Gotham's White Knight" by the media, Dent is also real in his goodness. He's an idealist yet practical. He's fearless against the mob but is shy and out of place at a fancy fundraiser. He's human virtue at its best but still human. He's just as real as The Joker but set at the opposite side of the spectrum. But what about the title character? Is the Batman, as is all too common with the character, overshadowed by his rogues gallery? I can say that Batman is still a lead character, but just barely. There's a sequence involving a trip to Hong Kong and it's not really necessary. However, excising it would mean that in the final cut, the Joker would have more screen time than Batman. But it's not the presence of Batman that makes him a lead but what the character represents. And focusing on that representation is the smart move because as a character, Batman is kind of dull. He has a bunch of neat gadgets and cool fighting moves, but since none of the Batman films ever focus on his detective skills, he tends to pale next to colorful characters like The Joker. But as for what Batman represents: a martyr, a fascist, a lunatic, order, justice, power; these are interesting ideas and Nolan full embraces them and matches them against the ethos of The Joker. The result is a film that's got some great action but is more rewarding intellectually than it is as a popcorn movie. 
Not to say that the action won't wow you. Leading off with a very clever heist which helps sets the tone of the entire film, Nolan's action is far less sloppy this time around. I didn't care for the car chase in Batman Begins and the fights were a little hard to follow. This time around, the fights are as carefully captured as the plotting and you can forget the Bat-mobile—wait till you see the Bat-pod. From all the trailers and posters, it just looked like something the Mattel people wanted in there to help sell some toys. I don't care who suggested it. After seeing this film, I want that toy. But The Dark Knight is not perfect. Bale's Batman voice got worse. I told him (through the Internet where I'm sure he is an avid fan of my writing and anxious to hear my advice on all matters) that he needs to take some lessons from Kevin Conroy, the man who did the voice acting for Batman in Batman: The Animated Series. Eventually you just learn to accept Bale's voice but it sounds like he's desperately in need of bat-lozenges. Maggie Gyllenhaal seems kind of bored for most of the film and I didn't feel the passion that either Bruce or Harvey feel towards her. However, she's a vast improvement from the first film simply by virtue of being Not Katie Holmes. These are minor faults in a film that's taken a bigger risk than any other superhero film. And people shouldn't run away from that sub-genre and try to prop it up as something akin to The Godfather: Part II or even The Empire Strikes Back. Nolan is exploring the character in the same way that Frank Miller did back in 1986 with The Dark Knight Returns. It's an exploration which yields thoughtful discourse beyond the sub-genre and into the nature of humanity and leadership. It's a chance that easily could have turned out pretentious when your main character dresses like a giant rodent and fights crime but thanks to the talented cast and crew of this movie, they've come up with the best superhero film made thus far. Words by
|
