My Photo
Name:
Location: Argentina Neuquén Mission, Argentina

Sunday, July 27, 2008

The Dark Knight

I finally saw The Dark Knight, and I have to say that I liked it a whole lot more than Mrs. Cornell did. Her mantra was that it should have been rated R, and she was probably right, although the violence alone wasn’t the problem. Heath Ledger’s Joker was just so dang creepy that it was hard to justify seeing that kind of a performance in a PG-13 film. This was Hannibal Lecter-style stuff, and just like The Silence of the Lambs, the gore and the violence isn’t nearly as disturbing as the character moments. “Do you want to know how I got these scars” ranks right up there with “I ate his liver with some fava beans and a nice Chianti.” I love both moments, because the anticipation is always more dreadful than the payoff. This is a remarkable film, certainly, but none of my kids will be allowed to see it – hopefully until they reach adulthood.

In any case, it’s a comic book movie that respects its source material, so of course I loved it. Reviewing the film blow by blow is kind of pointless now, as all of you probably have or will see it, if the box office grosses are any indication. Ledger really is that good, although playing a villain is probably the easiest thing for a decadent, self-indulgent actor-type to do. Much harder is bringing the kind of dignity and gravitas to lesser roles like Alfred and Lucius Fox, something that Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman do brilliantly. So does Gary Oldman, for that matter. And Christian Bale has the thankless task of holding all of it together, and he does an admirable job on that score.

The best performance in this film, though, came from BYU grad Aaron Eckhart. Harvey Dent’s fall from grace is pure tragedy, mainly because Eckhart succeeds in creating a character that you like enough to dread what you know is coming.

Of course, focusing on performances ignores the fact that they had such magnificent material to play with. Although I didn’t buy the stand-off on the ferry – I doubt anyone would have put the matter to a vote, and nobody would even consider pulling the trigger - and I found it eye-rollingly silly that Lucius would have no problem with letting his boss break people’s legs and destroy cars and property according to his whims, but the moment he engages in – gasp! – illegal wiretapping, that crosses the line. I guess director Christopher Nolan had to toss in a token anti-Bush bon mot into his subversively conservative movie. 

And make no mistake – this is a fundamentally conservative film. The critics are amazed at how it supposedly blurs the line between good and evil, but I thought it did exactly the opposite. The price Batman pays to preserve decency only matters because decency survives as an inherent value. The Joker preaches moral relativism and is ultimately proved wrong. Anyway, a guy in the Wall Street Journal makes this argument better than I can – read his piece if you don’t believe me.

I’m going to wander into spoiler territory here, so skip to the next two paragraphs if you don’t want to know who lives and who dies and how the thing ends. Still here? Don’t blame me. I’m not convinced that Two-Face is dead. You see him unconscious, but you never see them haul off the body. What if he’s been quietly locked up in Arkham, only to escape, and in a murderous rampage, inadvertently end up clearing Batman’s name? The Joker’s survival indicates that the filmmakers were probably not done with him, although recasting the role would be like making Rebel Without a Cause II. So the question is, who is the villain for the next film going to be? Batman’s rogue’s gallery is massive, but none of the villains in it can hold a candle to the Joker, especially after Ledger’s tragic star turn.

So who will it be? Nolan has already pooh-poohed the idea of Catwoman or the Penguin, and I say good for him. If it were up to me, I’d go with Bane, the guy who break’s Batman’s back in the comics. (Although a wretchedly dumbed-down, monosyllabic version of Bane appeared in Batman and Robin, which can’t be good for his chances.) Bane – at least the comic book Bane –is a wrongfully convicted Brazilian genius who systematically sets out to destroy Batman, and ends up leaving him paralyzed and broken, both body and spirit. He’s also a drug addict and a muscleman, and he could fit quite well into this version of Batman’s real world milieu. Just my two cents.

Bottom line: good, violent flick. Don’t take the kids.

10 Comments:

Blogger jjrakman said...

I think it's probably o.k. for high school kids. Much younger than that though, not so much.

I'm not really sure how I feel about the whole Sonar Batman thing, seems like a gimick to seel more action figures, but I guess it's o.k.

One question: In the scene where Batman goes to China and gets picked up by Project Skyhook, who's flying that plane? Does the pilot know he's pikcing up Batman, and if he does, does he know Batman's identity? Is he oging to land that plane in the bat cave, or at the airport? If at the airport, how will Batman leave the plane without being seen, if he can't be Bruce Wayne if the pilot doesn't know his identity?

Anyways, as far as villains for the third installment:

I just don't think using Ras' daughter is a good idea. It just sounds to soap opera-ish.

For me, I really want to see the Nolan interpretation of the biggies in the rogue's gallery. I'm not really interested in some of the more obscure villains being primarily a film fan far mor than a comic fan.

Of which we have left:

The Riddler
The Penguin
Catwoman
Mr. Freeze

All of these have to be viewed in terms of what they could offer in the Nolan-esque hyper reality Batman universe.

I can't really see Mr. Freeze being a part of this series. Maybe as a cryogenics scientist, but that's about it.

The Penguin to me is just a boring villain. He's one step away from the monopoly guy. I suppose he could make an appearance, but only as a minor character, if you had Penguin be a kind of unethical Trump-like tycoon, he could be more of a villain to Bruce Wayne than to Batman. You could show them as business rivals of sorts, which could open up a bit more characterization for the Bruce side of the Batman character. You could also show the strains that Batman puts on Bruce's business life.

The Riddler is interesting. And some have speculated that the guy in Dark Knight Mr. Reese (Mys.ter.ries) is going to be the Riddler. I think alot could be done with him, in more of a serial killer kind of villain.

But Catwoman is probably the best option IMO. She's got an easy mode to translate into the hyper reality world Nolan has created, a cat burglar. And with Rachel dead, that kind of leaves a romantic hole in Bruce Wayne's life for catwoman to fill.


As far as some of the more obscure villains, they could really be thrown in anywhere as minor characters.

Bane seems like he's a villain you could throw in just about anywhere, to me he seems little more than a generic henchment. Just make one of the main villain's henchmen some really ripped guy with a gangland tattoo accross his chest that says BANE, and wholla!

Deadshot seems like just a sharpshooter assasin/sniper so I'd think there would definitely be a place in a Nolan film film for him,but I don't know that he could carry the weight as a main villain. Though he did make an appearance in the animated Gotham Knight feature.

Clayface sounds like a master of disguise. Not sure how that could manifest in a Nolan film. Maybe some guy with a genetic disease in his face?

July 27, 2008 at 8:40 PM  
Blogger Ikarus said...

"In any case, it’s a comic book movie that respects its source material, so of course I loved it."

Actually, no.

First off, there's really no comic book version of the Joker like this one...to be "respect the source material" it would have to have shown the Joker as "The Red Hood" and swimming through chemical sewage to escape Batman.

Second, Lucius Fox never invented the stuff Batman uses nor did he know Bruce Wayne was Batman.

Not to mention that Ras Al Ghul never actually trained Bruce Wayne before he became Batman (going back to Batman Begins).

This takes liberties with the source material a lot.

Yes, it's a good film...good for adults, not kids. No, it's not a film which adheres to the "source material".

As for villains in a sequel, I would say that the Riddler and/or Deadshot probably would fit in well with the style of these films.

July 28, 2008 at 6:40 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I thought it was nothing but a big pile of bat turd, but everyone is entitled to their opinion.

I'll keep my comments brief, which is where i think this film belongs.


SM

July 28, 2008 at 7:21 AM  
Blogger Elder Samuel Bennett said...

I didn't say "adheres to its source material," I said it "respects its source material." There's a difference. Film and comics are different media with different demands. Thematically and tonally, this felt like the Batman from the comics, regardless of the specific plot discrepancies between the two.

I wondered about the Skyhook thing, too. Also, what happened back up in the Penthouse after Batman and Rachel fell out of the building? Did the Joker just stick around and have some pie?

I agree that Ra's daughter would suck, as would Penguin. I've never been a Riddler fan, and Mr. Freeze is just a joke.

July 28, 2008 at 8:22 AM  
Blogger Ikarus said...

"respects its source material." There's a difference. Film and comics are different media with different demands. Thematically and tonally, this felt like the Batman from the comics, regardless of the specific plot discrepancies between the two."

How did it feel like Batman from the comics?
I ask this mainly because as good as this film series is, it really isn't Batman from the comics.
He wasn't involved with any district attorney in the comics; wasn't trail by Ras, Two Face wasn't created by the Joker; Batman never took the rap for 5 murders Two Face committed in order to protect the reputation of Harvey Dent; Two Face wasn't killed; the Joker didn't use makeup;

I could go on but frankly, I don't believe that these Batman films are really respecting the source material at all; they freely change what they like.

If you want to praise them for not taking the Adam West Batman series approach, yes, it's closer to the Batman of the comic books.

They they do freely move away from the comic books when they feel like it.

July 28, 2008 at 10:25 AM  
Blogger Heather O. said...

Wow. Y'all know your Batman. I'm just going to see it because Christain Bale is hot.

July 28, 2008 at 3:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

That's an honest opinion heather.o, god knows your set is ponying up the moola for it.


SM

July 28, 2008 at 5:18 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Stallion needs to stop beating on his wife, in fact she deserves a raise in the home budget!

Mow that lawn blog boy.


SM

July 28, 2008 at 5:21 PM  
Blogger foodleking said...

For Mrs. Cornell...completely agree with you that the movie could have received an "R" rating. This is the case with many violent or morally questionable PG-13 movies. I felt nearly physically ill after watching Spielberg's "War of the Worlds" because of the extreme bloodiness. The LOTR trilogy was also very violent, with full sword decapitations, etc. Like SC, I also enjoyed Dark Knight, but your point is well taken. We've taken to using websites like kids-in-mind.com to know exactly what is in a movie before we shell out $$ to see it in a theater or get it from Netflix.

July 28, 2008 at 9:05 PM  
Blogger Wally M Ritchie said...

You've got to admit, the cameo of Kim Basinger was a nice touch, though.

July 29, 2008 at 1:02 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home