Review: The Dark Knight
Let me begin by saying that while I have some limited understanding in writing book reviews, I don't really know how to write movie reviews. (Also: SPOILER ALERT.)
The Dark Knight (TDK), director Christopher Nolan's second movie from Frank Miller's graphic novels, is not your typical summer movie. If that's what you're looking for, go see Hancock. TDK, which tells the story of Harvey Dent and James Gordon's heroic prosecution of organized crime, the Joker's manic and demented self-hatred, and Batman's determined solitude and misunderstood efforts, breaks company with other super-hero movies, leaving the viewer with less resolution than when they entered.
With fear growing more and more intense in Gotham, villains and heroes alike begin to shine. Heroes like District Attorney Harvey Dent, Lieutenant James Gordon, Lucius Fox, and Batman emerge as true souls, brave enough to face the growing darkness. The darkness, a better class of criminal, goes beyond the petty greed of mobsters and crime lords to the psychotic and demented Joker. Rather than simply trying to bully and beat his way to riches, the Joker is more concerned with making others feel the emotional pain he lives with. What better way to do this than by constantly forcing anyone with whom he comes in contact to become like him? The Joker pits petty thugs against one another, convicted criminals against average citizens and vice versa, turns trusted police officers into kidnappers, sets Harvey Dent up for demented revenge, and, ultimately, challenges Batman to become the breaker of rules any right minded individual would become to fight evil. TDK weaves its plot, which is basically the capture of the Joker, through these themes.
TDK excells in almost every category. It never bores. It looks fantastic. Its actors play their roles effortlessly. (I especially enjoyed Gary Oldman and Morgan Freeman.) The story is compelling and not overly complex. Where it most excels is in its character development. This, however, is what makes the movie difficult to watch, at points, and keeps it from being an 'enjoyable' movie experience. The Joker is terrible. Literally, a terrible person. The more his mania grows, his insanity deepens, and his chops get licked, the edgier the viewer becomes. This edge never softens until the end, and then only slightly. The edginess of the movie stays with the viewer. As a result, this is not a kids movie. I could not recommend this movie to anyone below 15 and then I would still caution it.
TDK is a threshold movie for all superhero films. No longer will serious super-hero movies have goofy, gratuitous violence and flashy costumes. TDK shows a distinct difference between whipped cream superhero movies and compelling stories told around superheroes.
The Dark Knight (TDK), director Christopher Nolan's second movie from Frank Miller's graphic novels, is not your typical summer movie. If that's what you're looking for, go see Hancock. TDK, which tells the story of Harvey Dent and James Gordon's heroic prosecution of organized crime, the Joker's manic and demented self-hatred, and Batman's determined solitude and misunderstood efforts, breaks company with other super-hero movies, leaving the viewer with less resolution than when they entered.
With fear growing more and more intense in Gotham, villains and heroes alike begin to shine. Heroes like District Attorney Harvey Dent, Lieutenant James Gordon, Lucius Fox, and Batman emerge as true souls, brave enough to face the growing darkness. The darkness, a better class of criminal, goes beyond the petty greed of mobsters and crime lords to the psychotic and demented Joker. Rather than simply trying to bully and beat his way to riches, the Joker is more concerned with making others feel the emotional pain he lives with. What better way to do this than by constantly forcing anyone with whom he comes in contact to become like him? The Joker pits petty thugs against one another, convicted criminals against average citizens and vice versa, turns trusted police officers into kidnappers, sets Harvey Dent up for demented revenge, and, ultimately, challenges Batman to become the breaker of rules any right minded individual would become to fight evil. TDK weaves its plot, which is basically the capture of the Joker, through these themes.
TDK excells in almost every category. It never bores. It looks fantastic. Its actors play their roles effortlessly. (I especially enjoyed Gary Oldman and Morgan Freeman.) The story is compelling and not overly complex. Where it most excels is in its character development. This, however, is what makes the movie difficult to watch, at points, and keeps it from being an 'enjoyable' movie experience. The Joker is terrible. Literally, a terrible person. The more his mania grows, his insanity deepens, and his chops get licked, the edgier the viewer becomes. This edge never softens until the end, and then only slightly. The edginess of the movie stays with the viewer. As a result, this is not a kids movie. I could not recommend this movie to anyone below 15 and then I would still caution it.
TDK is a threshold movie for all superhero films. No longer will serious super-hero movies have goofy, gratuitous violence and flashy costumes. TDK shows a distinct difference between whipped cream superhero movies and compelling stories told around superheroes.
posted by Aaron Perry at
1:29 PM
14 Comments:
Hi AP--
I just got back from seeing this movie, and must admit I "enjoyed" it but thought it ultmately wasted its opportunity to say something truly profound. I was talking with a friend afterwards and he rightly noted that the Joker is far too unhuman for the movie to have a true impact. I also thought the ending was disappointing, because it relied so much on deception and therefore the type of hero the movie sought to complicate.
Blessings,
Tim
Hi Tim,
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Regarding the Joker, I think the point was to make him unhuman--even demonic--but increasingly so. The story about his abusive father early on makes him somewhat human until we find out that that story is (likely) a fabrication.
Could you say a little more about why you were disappointed with the ending?
Regarding the joker, I just don't think people are that debased to the core, even serial killers have a story of brokeness. Afterall, even the criminals didn't blow up the ship. That seems more human to me. Thus, joker really can't represent any real enemy in the world, like he's obviously supposed to.
On the ending, hope for peace and justice are maintained by keeping Dent's legacy pure despite the truth. Thus, hope and truth are torn apart in such a way as to make it idealistic and almost gnostic. The movie seems to communicate that, despite what we all to be true (there are not true and perfect heroes--the movie surely shows this well), we still need the idealized pure hero without any real human crap in order for justice and peace to reign.
Does that help?
Blessings,
Tim
Aaron check this out I think that you might dig it.
http://www.gregboyd.org/blog/
it is a philosophical look at the movie.
~Dwayne
Thanks, Dwayne. I liked Boyd's thoughts.
Tim, that helps. I suppose I look at the Joker not being a real enemy in the world--in the non-superhero world, anyway--but the voice of temptation we all hear in our own individual ways. The Joker put people in specific temptations to twist them to evil over and again. This is why I think the character approaches being demonic.
The joker is the personification of chaos. He has no reason for being. He is not rational. Trying to explain him misses the point. He can only be described--for alas, he is all to real--and the notion of the demonic is right on the mark.
I can see how you at the Joker as not representing a villian in the real world, especially with the temptations you mention. However, the pervasive terrorist language regarding him and the intentional differentiation between him and the mob (i.e. run of the mill criminals which we should fear less than the crazy terrorists) makes me think otherwise.
As to Tim's point,
there is no such thing as "real" chaos ultimately in my view. It is simply privation and always parasitic on the order set up by God. Of course, I see the world and notice chaos, but I'm speaking on the ontological level here.
Exactly. Barth's phrase is "impossible possibility," or, more evocatively, "Das Nichtige."
There is a wonderful prayer in the 1662 BCP that begins, "O God without whom nothing is strong. . . ." C.S. Lewis, in THe Screwtape Letters, ch. 12, has Screwtape quote it thusly: "O God, without whom Nothing is strong. . . ."
In a world w/o God (which is Batman's Nietzschean world)there is only chaos and the attempts to control it. "Nothing" is the Joker (hence, no origins), the attempt to control chaos through law (ultimately capricious and doomed) is Harvey Dent/Two Face. And the attempt to destroy chaos via chaos is Batman (hence, "you complete me" or whatever JOker's line is).
This is a very dark tale, indeed. And true to the spirit of the comic books. It gets sin right.
Tim,
Thanks for clarification. I think you maybe right about this. I will continue to reflect on your comments while recalling the movie.
Tim F.
I knew the way to change Tim F.'s mind was the the BCP! If only I knew the BCP. :)
Where Batman ultimately leaves Nietzsche, thankfully, is precisely the deception ending. Batman chooses not to rise to the level of the ubermensch, not to grab all the power he can get.
IN a wonderful and providential turn, the collect for the 11th Sunday after Pentecost, today, was the collect I mentioned above. And I got to lead the congregation in it today at Church! God is cool.
Hi, AP,
I see your point about the ending, but I still don't like that the only options were Nietzsche and lying. This is what ultimately makes the movie a tragedy, and therefore, ultimately problematic on Christian terms. In other words, the relationship between sin and good in the movie is portrayed as reciprocal, which is a false Hegelian move. Good always determines evil, it should never be the other way around, which is how the movie ends, I think.
To be sure, I liked the movie and will probably own it someday. I don't intend to be a complete Augustinian about culture. :-)
Blessings,
Tim
Hey AP -- I'm responding really late on this post b/c I just saw the movie last night. It just opened this past weekend here. Some thoughts...
1. As the resident geek of your readership, I have to point out that this Dark Knight is not based on Frank Miller's Dark Knight books. Rather it draws on 60-odd years of comics to come up with its own story.
2. There are too many Tims commenting here. It frightens and confuses me.
3. I liked the way the Joker was portrayed. I don't think it was Oscar-good like some people are saying, but it was a fresh perspective. In the past the Joker has been actually seemed likable and fun, whereas a guy like him in real life would be anything but.
4. I think Batman's choice at the end, while deceptive and therefor not ideal from a Christian perspective, is still heroic, because he's "taking the fall" for the greater good, rather than wanting to be seen as the hero. Which I think is what they were going for.
5. I think the contrast between Dent and Batman is really interesting, because in a lot of ways they're the same guy. Batman's not too far from the crazy house himself, and but for a couple of decisions along the way he could just as easily have become the villain.
6. Commissioner Gordan's the real hero -- in both Batman Begins and the Dark Knight. To top it off, he actually saved Batman from the Joker in that one scene. Did you notice that.
Okay, this is long enough it should have went on my own blog. Sorry.
AP -- Got your comment. Thanks for stopping by. And I stand corrected. I assumed you meant the "Dark Knight" graphic novels and had forgotten about Year One; actually I'm not sure I've ever read Year One.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home