Ok. I suppose I ought to say something about “The Dark Knight”, since a lot of people are expecting me to, and well, I’d like to. Of the many (too many) big films of the genre that have come out this Summer, it is the one I’ve actually been waiting for, with high expectations, based on the excellent work they (Christopher Nolan, Christian Bale, Gary Oldman, etc) did on Batman Begins. So, following is my verdict, after going to see it on opening night at a regrettably substandard theatre due to not being in Los Angeles.
I thought it was wonderful to see a big Summer blockbuster that is so successful that is entirely about ideas. Whether you think you have any interest in the genre (and see below), you should consider supporting it and going to see it on that fact alone, since it might encourage the big studios to green light to more projects that engage your brain. It is about ideas – the consequences of our actions, the use of power, the fabric of a society and what motivates us to behave well or badly toward our fellow citizens. In pretty much every scene. And it is not done in an unfortunately preachy and naively over-simplistic way that I think was the case for the highly flawed film version of “V For Vendetta” of a few years back.
Finally, the (big headline) movies of the graphic novels and comics have caught up with what the actual graphic novels and comics did ever so long ago – transcend the genre. It is not a superhero movie. It’s a movie about highly conflicted moral questions and actions that afflict our society, with lots in there to remind you of things under discussion out in the real world. It is dark. Wonderfully dark. Very carefully and thoughtfully scripted, acted and photographed. The one or two places where there are what might be interpreted as unfinished threads I’m willing to bet were simply edits for time that will be more smooth in the DVD release. None of them were close to essential. The performances were just excellent. It was excellent (and surprising) to see a Joker portrayal (Heath Ledger’s) that can sit alongside Jack Nicholson’s from Burton’s 1986 Batman.
This film does not run out of steam some of the way through like so many of these projects have this Summer (although, remember that I was pleasantly surprised by the work on Iron Man, which is much lighter popcorn stuff, but very good – that was a Movie, this is Film). It does not go the lame route of relying on graphics, fight scenes, or the Marvel adversary-with-similar powers mashup at the end, at the expense of the key story telling elements.
It’s not a fanboy movie. Whether you have any interest in the genre at all, this is worth seeing. In fact, here is where you’ll learn about one of the strands (it is not the only one) that made comics become a mature genre (re-christened graphic novels) that many people began to take seriously some years ago. You get to see what it’s all about here. I’m so pleased the films have caught up. I hope that this is not an anomaly.
Oh. There’s plenty for the fanboy crowd too.
Enjoy.
-cvj
P.S. If in the next weeks or so you want to comment on the film and feel the need to discuss plot details, please place a warning at the top of your comment that there are spoilers to follow. Not everyone will have seen it on opening night, or even a week later (the time of writing this post).
P.P.S. Spoiler!! (Sort of): Oh my… the trailer for Watchmen was an unexpected treat.I’d heard they were making it but had no idea how far along they were. It looks wonderful, but I’m a bit scared. That’s such a wonderful graphic novel, and they could so easily make a mess of it.
Pingback: But is it Real? (Part Two) at Asymptotia
I have retain this posting in my head for sometime and now find some relevance here to your statement of,”
Clifford:but the fact that they *had* choices, and are depicted as struggling with them, is the excellent aspect… to see it all up there on screen in shades of grey for a change.
Best,
I saw the film. Many directors, like whoever for TDK, haven’t got a clue how to properly make a good car chase scene. In TDK they just drove into a tunnel, started to randomly swerve and crash and shoot and explode, 4 cuts/s, in an never ending tunnel-maze. Is it a requirement to suffer from ADD to enjoy an action film today? A properly made chase maps out the route from the beginning, so the audience know the quirks and barriers ahead. It gives the cars a proper feeling of inertia. It makes the crashes bordering to physically painful. There is not necessity for freight truck back-flips.
Anyway, Ledger made the whole movie worth seeing. And the idea base, as you write.
Well, I do agree that the Iron Man film was (surprisingly) good. I thought the script was very good. See my post about that, referenced above. Yes, Little Miss Sunshine was a gem, although I think that there were several other films with really very enjoyable scripts in the intervening time since it was made.
Best,
-cvj
Well, since you asked, let me give you my two cents:
The characters (in spite of the apparent choices), choose the obvious ones. I was hoping for more based on all the hoopla and the “oscar-worthy joker performance”, which I don’t think it is. It is a good performance, but I think it is not *that* good. Also, it would have been nice if G. Oldman was given more to do. -I thought better of inserting a spoiler here.-
In the end, I think that $180 M budget for a movie that is black painted on black is also disappointing. I liked the look and feel of Hellboy II a lot better. However, the plot was not really up to snuff either.
In the end, for recent superhero movies, I think Iron Man got the blend right, and it was the one I enjoyed the most.
Maybe “Spirit” will be better, but I’m not going to keep my hopes up.
For the most part, I think the computer generated special effects have destroyed in large part what really made movies: a good script.
The last time I really enjoyed with gusto a script was with “Little Miss Sunshine”: it has been a long-long time.
Hi Albion,
Thanks for checking in, and thanks for the comments. Actually, some of the things you wondered about I think I answer in my comment above replying to Anne. Take a look. And yes, I carry much of those comic books and graphic novels from the old days in my head, so look for some responses to your specifics there I think.
Your friend’s comment that you quote is a good one… and yes, “300” is another Frank Miller thingy. As is “Sin City”. He does beautiful work. I don’t always like all of the actions of his characters, and not always how he executes things, but his body of work (most of which I love) constitutes a huge force for bringing “superhero” comics into the realm of serious, mature, thoughtful writing, and wonderful art. It’s a combined literary and art form in its own right now, warts and all.
Anyway… that’s it from me… (With you on the Terry Gilliam idea..!)
Cheers,
-cvj
Hi Anne,
Sorry for delay in response. Hiking and recovery…
Thanks for your subsequent thoughts. Things make more sense to me now. Your central thesis in the first response, including the all-encompassing expletive, seemed to oddly suggest that I ought not to like War and Peace at all, simply because central characters in it did actions that I did not agree with. Your clarification makes it clear that you agree that it is a film of substance, something to chew over, and reasonably well-delivered. You know, that’s good to see in what is classified as simply an action (comic-book)flick. I consider that progress. That’s my central point.
As for the material, and the use of the word “fashionable”. What I was simply trying to get across is that so much of the material and themes that were explored were explored *as well* and as thoroughly long before 9/11 and the Bush regime. To make it all about being some reflection of the current political climate is to over-simplify and be too reductive and to simply miss some elegant and thoughtful work by several writers and artists going back 20 years, turning comic books of the “here I go to save the day” variety into very poignant reflections on the human condition and the barometric state of society. That’s all I was saying. On the other hand, it is clear that the Nolan brothers did also look around them and make some commentary on the current state of play and I think that you read their work as a celebration of it in parts while I saw pointed examination and critique.
For example:
**possible spoilers follow**
There is torture and mistreatment of a prisoner, but the scene explicitly points out that it is ineffective. The mistreated character points this out during the mistreatment. He also give misinformation as a result, which has disastrous consequences! What more stark condemnation of torture could you ask for in the film?
The entire thesis of the modern Joker character (going back to before Frank Miller, if I recall) is that he and several other oddballs going in and out of Arkham Asylum are products of Batman’s actions – his very existence. Batman is not an altogether positive character, and this is made clear. In the film, Bruce Wayne himself wants to be rid of it, in favour of using the usual channels. Of course, it does not work, Batman continues, and then cycle of madness continues.
None of this is new. See any number of fine graphic novels from 15 or 20 years ago. It is a real pleasure to see it make it to a movie.
As for your comment on the Joker makeup. Huh? Please see the work of several artists on the Joker’s look. This is entirely consistent and rather beautifully done. (Same for Two-Face).
As for the takes on madness, and on anarchy. Again, much of this is wholly lifted from the novels. It’s not always as well-formed as it could be,m but there are gems in many places. See The Dark Knight Returns, See Killing Joke… See Batman Year One…. I could go on. It’s a fantastic literature deserving of a wider readership.
Ok. Enough said I think.
Thanks,
-cvj
Oh, two other things. First, a question: is it that the movie is meant as commentary on current events or are the blatant references meant to *help the movie*?
Secondly, about that Joker makeup: I was wondering if it wasn’t kind of a reference to the way some of the artists around Frank Miller and co back in the 80s were changing from the usual very clean simple lines & colors to something much messier and — impressionist? Expressionist? (Damnit, Jim, I mean Clifford, I’m a string theorist, not an art historian!) Anyhow, somebody with a better comics collection can set me straight.
As for current events, wake me when Terry Gilliam decides to do “Transmetropolitan”, which is, after all, “Brazil” meets the life of Hunter S Thompson (hey, an Aspen reference, even) during an election season. OK, I’ve geeked out enough for the day.
Clifford asked if I’d seen the movie and asked comments so I’ll throw in. I rather enjoyed it, it was the fantasy action movie I was looking for on a hot summer night, and it was nice to see a movie that didn’t just embarrass me in the second half like “Hancock” or “Hellboy 2”, the last 2 movies I saw (not a lot to do in Aspen if you don’t like bars full of rich people). (And I’ll say that it’s hard to beat “Hellboy 2” for good looks.) Ledger and Sorkin were both great, and replacing Katie “scientologist freakazoid” Holmes with Maggie Gyllenhaal was a good move. I also kind of liked the way that various key events (eg the kidnapping of Sorkin and Gyllenhaal) happened off screen and even far away, something the (never very reliable) salon.com reviewer complained about.
On the politics, internet addicts like myself probably saw this absolutely hilarious WSJ editorial:
http://online.wsj.com/article_print/SB121694247343482821.html
Also, I haven’t read the Frank Miller graphic novel for years (this and batman returns copies some of the world, eg calling the local insane asylum “Arkham”, I don’t remember if it copies any of the story), but while it was great and very influential I remember it was also pretty right-wing, in a Reagan-era way. I think you can over-analyze the details of the movie or the book, and of course there were a *lot* of current-event references “dropped in”, overtly and covertly, I think just because it was so easy. More than that, though, the *assumption* which is used to make any of it relevant or interesting is that the world is an incredibly scary place (street crime in the 80s, terrorism now) full of insane and brilliant madmen who like to blow up your grandmothers and rape your goldfish just for fun. Without that assumption, we wouldn’t have the kind of choices described in the movie (or the comic book). On the other hand, if I just take it as part of the movie’s world, it makes for good drama. I wasted time in my youth reading the likes Frederic Jameson, who discussed very compellingly how politically horrible movies can also be highly entertaining.
I’ll leave you with my friend Mike’s quote and comment on the WSJ editorial (nb wasn’t “300” another Frank Miller thingie?):
—–
“Why is it, indeed, that the conservative values that power our defense — values like morality, faith, self-sacrifice and the nobility of fighting for the right — only appear in fantasy or comic-inspired films like “300,” “Lord of the Rings,” “Narnia,” “Spiderman 3” and now “The Dark Knight”?”
Eh…why indeed?
Thanks for the responses. I do have to say that I found a lot of the film *very* engaging. I am a sucker for chase scenes in general, and for textured set design, both of which were very satisfying.
Apart from enjoyment, and with respect to contexts the film might sit in, that are worth chewing on, I do think there are historical shifts both in film production, and the way it appeals to audiences, and to the political allegories one might read/read into the film. I’m not sure how mass audiences were imagined in the ’50s–probably with less homogeneity than is often assumed. But this v. of Batman was a real subculture product–meaning different sub-movies and sub-audiences traverse it, and thus probably make for different kinds of viewing and appreciation, meaning different and perhaps orthagonal kinds of interpretation. Most viewers’ experience is probably partial, in some way, as people have different access and ways of accessing industrial histories, genres, media forms (e.g. comics, fan press, insider stories), all of which contribute to how one sees the film, and which are more distributed (meaning differentiated and spread out) than, I think, they were in the 1950s. One of the reasons for which, for me, I am not always *absolutely* sure what I think until I have hashed it out w/other viewers.
In the audience I was with, there were a surprising number of kids (for a late show) and parents, local hipsters, high school boys, single older male viewers. I was with the only all-female clique I spotted. But I think that given the nature of the narrative, which does embed sub-stories, people are going to come away with different reads, maybe more than in most movies, given the comix base. So one can find backing for a lot of different positions.
But, given the recent flood of post-Reagan-era historiography of CA and the US that has been published in the past couple years (e.g. to cite 2 of a very long list “The Imperial Presidency,” “Sleepwalking through History”), I think it is safe to say that there has been a shift in the way that the executive branch in the US approaches its powers and rights. I think there has been a shift, in my experience anyway, in how people regard leaders, and the self-authorised powers leaders have (a shift different than, say, Watergate). And I think some of these qualities appear in Batman. One example is how surveillance technology was heroised and enables the resolution to the crime and story. I don’t think this is a particularly fashionable or even conspiracy-friendly thing to say. Nor a cry for social realism or contempt for mass culture. I think “fashionable” is perhaps not what you meant to say, which was more in the lines of perhaps “knee-jerk” or “facile”? There are many reasons it is not merely fashionable to look at the nature of self-authorised power, the specific ways that specific decisions were authorised. (I see your point about the Joker being an effect of Batman…but didn’t the unreliable Joker tell us that? Can’t quite remember.) For one, it is not v. trendy bc empirically, people are laying out this shift in big, long books, which are not only not read as much as books just are not, but have no spin of their own, as the book reviews that once introduced them drop like flies (e.g. the LAT, which downsized and now dropped its book review this summer, in the mass layoffs/buyouts that BTW have also killed foreign reporting…all the more reason to look at mass culture for reps of foreign-ness, since the former fourth estate is going under). I think this is a film that, for whatever reason, encourages us to think of Bruce Wayne as an almost exclusively public figure–we see him as philanthropist, man about town, inventor, badass driver screaming down city streets, and many other roles, but never see a single shot (I don’t think…though I remember a shot of him getting dressed) of a kitchen, bedroom, bathroom, or any sort of conventionally “private” space. For that reason, as well as others, I think the choice of “loft living” was quite fascinating.
I do think it is important to pay attention to the historical things that are cited and not quoted–the events, shifts in character, specific and concrete examples of villainy, contradiction, location setting, etc. Where the ambiguity, exactly, lies and lies between. Sometimes these elements may find rhyme in historical precedents, whether in comics or in realpolitik. But I think they are meaningful because of some algorithm of relations between past *and* present. I agree that the comic subtexts are important, but in a movie, you have to give viewers something new–and new elements cause a realignment of the relation to referents from the past. It probably took a minimum of 5 years to make Batman, so a film like that is never going to be super-topical, as a lot may change in the world between the script acquisition and the premiere. So, precision historiography is probably out of the question. That temporal quirk means that “topical” references work at different levels than they do in more immediately processed media–TV, for instance.
The slightly-distant-from-the-present historical frame is the reason that the topic of “anarchism” and the precise formulation of it as a “ruleless” form of action in Batman is so interesting to me. I wondered why that formulation–invoking a rather obsolete and Cold War popular/academic understanding of anarchism as Soviet, anachronistic and oppressive–happened at this historical moment. I wondered what made it the handy, resonant choice. The film seemed to have a glancing interest in various forms of irrationality (mental illness, in particular), but I’m not sure what organised that recurrent element. But as the prevailing form of irrationality, the take on anarchism was weird/interesting. As a philosophy of political organizing, anarchism is very loose and less Romantic/dogmatic these days than in Kropotkins, and appears in such contexts as creative commons publication, open source software, other digital communities and mutual aid organisations (a lot of urban gardening initiatives come to mind, from high culture @ the Whitney in Edible Estates, to public projects in big US cities), as well as more overtly “political” contexts such as consumer movements and other pragmatic types of mutual aid, DIY efforts and direct action. Philosophically, anarchism is anti-state, anti-private property and pro-utopian, but it was obviously more than that in this film. That specific term was interesting to me, because it is so counter to the new and current uses of the term to describe social organising. But close to the prevailing take on axis-of-evil type leaders.
Anyway, those are a few thoughts about concrete places the film stood out to me. It is hard for me to think about ambiguity and contradiction and evaluate it w/o specific examples. I am not getting where you were seeing the results of ambiguity as political/social/whatever critique or meditation. Given that blogging has different logistics than a conversation, I can throw a few things out there based on my own viewing & the frames I bring to it, as well as ask your thoughts on what your own sense of where those hot-spots might be. [BTW, I think you may have reacted in a way I did not intend to my expletive–I meant it as “you know, like, uh, stuff, and more stuff” in the manner one says “etc.” Probably too quick a swerve into orality of a different register for a written screed; my mistake there. That comment was WELL on its way being waaaaaay too long for a comment, moreover, and esp. at the end I was trying to cut it short! 🙂 ] Thanks for the challenge to clarify, tho I wish I could have done it in fewer words!
anne says: “The message of Batman is, “OK, justice will save us for now”: now what? ”
Also, I have to say that you missed a lot of what the film was saying since it was actually saying that the position of Batman is untenable. It is explicitly saying “Justice will save us for now” **cannot work**. It is not a long-term strategy. The film is quite explicit about that actually, and several of the characters struggle with it, and speak against it. The Joker is identified as a product of Batman’s behaviour (another classic aspect of the plot from decades ago). Drape it with your contemporary analogues and I think that these aspects of the film point up some rather good self-examination of the rather surface position that you’re reacting strongly to. There’s more there than you seem to have seen. For this and other reasons I think it’s a bit strong to declare it all to be just “shit”.
Cheers,
-cvj
Hi anne,
An excellent analysis, and I’m inclined to agree with much of what you say. The point is that I don’t necessarily *agree* with the choices that were made by the characters in the movie…. but the fact that they *had* choices, and are depicted as struggling with them, is the excellent aspect… to see it all up there on screen in shades of grey for a change. That’s my point. How often do filmmakers in this genre get to do this? I think that’s progress.
Also, I don’t have any interest in whether Ledger was a live or dead… it was a good performance.
Finally, it is tempting and fashionable to say things about Bush and Cheney and so forth in this context. All very good. Nice to frame things in terms of something current and accessible to you. But don’t be tempted to think that this is somehow entirely influenced or reflective of some post 2001 regime. I’d like to urge people to go and read the Batman comics (and Daredevil and a few other characters) from **decades** before and see that all of these issues were all laid out there already in full detail. The Nolan brothers could have made exactly the same film 20 years ago since the material about the moral ambiguity of the role of Batman was fully explored then.
Liking the film is not an endorsement of the moral choices the characters have made. It’s about liking that the characters were allowed to be properly portrayed and explored, so that we can have this discussion at all, instead of just marveling at the special effects, or who will next save the day. So, ok…. if you insist on it being a superhero movie, then the Dynamic Duo are the Nolan brothers, for putting the work of all those comic book thinkers up on screen in full, for a change going well beyond the whole “dressing up in tights to save the day” stuff.
-cvj
Dude, I have to say: I think it *was* a superhero movie. And that superhero was George W. Bush, or perhaps the more madcap, rule-flailing Dick Cheney. True enough, a Heath Ledger pathos has been saturating the pages, of late. So one leans, naturally enuf, toward the Joker, in a humanist sympathy sort of way. But when push comes to shove, and like (the movie) comes to love, it was all about authorising the move towards exceptional justice.
OK, “JUUUUST this once, ’cause it’s a good one, we’ll break all the rules,” says Morgan Freeman, as voice of God yet again, as he batters down his personal ethics and subordinates his own gut feeling of personal ethics to the bat-imperative to quash the irrational crazy guy at all costs. It says, it’s OK, to mount constant states of exception, and change the rule, if you’re a good/elegant’techno-savvy-rich guy. What’s up with that?
Lest we forget, the “anarachist” ethic espoused by the Joker–“the only rule is that there are no rules–corresponds ever so elegantly to the phantasm of irrationality that has characterised the depiction of “terrorist”/Arab/Muslim people of any sort since 9/11. The message is: we have no plan, but we must sacrifice massively to staunch this unspeakable irrationality (in crap tranny make-up) that is plaguing us.
It is the actual $$$ of the war that is upon us, its human costs, and its financial costs, and disappearing resources, with all the futurities that a shit market like foreclosures at an untold rate and a massive indentured class of young people gives us. And yes, that is a rhetorical “we,” because frankly, I don’t think one can sit aloof in a movie theatre and just enjoy this shit.
The message of Batman is, “OK, justice will save us for now”: now what? Uh, OK, but I sense another crisis, or emergency, or “now, about 5 sec down the horizon.
Personally, I think we, as teachers, and a rhetorical “we”, really, can groove on a bit more than that, no?
My two cents–worth 50% less than in 2001, for sure.
amck
I said negative things about the film on another blog and was attacked, which was an interesting experience. People take their Heath Ledger seriously (not that I attacked him). In general, though I loved Batman Begins and thus saw The Dark Knight on opening day, I was disappointed by it in many ways. Maybe I’ll like it better when I see it again in a few months on the small screen.