Thursday, July 24, 2008

A few thoughts on The Dark Knight

I'm in Pasadena at the moment visiting a friend. Earlier in the day after we visited Silver Lake's hipsters at Intelligentsia (yes, it's spread from Chicago), we went to the Hollywood Walk of Fame. It was incredibly sketchy to say the least. Among the myriad of jugglers, rappers hawking their CDs, and performers dressed like movie characters, I saw the Joker. Well, a poorer, taller imitation of him. But no mistake, he was Heath Ledger's Joker, not the iconic Jack Nicholson joker of the first Batman movie. My first thought: "Well that's awfully quick—the movie came out last week." The other characters—Gene Simmons, (a drunken) Spiderman, Captain Jack Sparrow, the Tinman—somehow seemed more appropriate, not only because the movies have been out longer, but because Ledger's joker, a sociopath, seems too dark, too psychotic to be juxtaposed with French tourists and vendors selling Maps of the Stars.

I saw the movie for the second time tonight (at double the price of my Illinois matinĂ©e), and I was as taken with it the second time as the first (especially the chase scene on lower Wacker Drive.) I won't review it for you here—there's a litany of reviews online. (I'm fond of Thomas Hibbs's piece in First Things). But in spite of Christopher Nolan's brilliance, I think he could have taken notes from the Coen Brother's film, No Country for Old Men.

As one reviewer aptly noted:

Imagine No Country for Old Men, change the plot some and throw in people dressed up as bats and clowns and that's the sort of sandbox of ideas and areas of darkness that The Dark Knight plays in. Without a doubt, if you combined the film's interpretation of Two-Face and The Joker you would have Anton Chigurh.
And while No Country for Old Men revolves around the same themes of chaos and destruction (though it should be said that the crushing blow it delivers to determinism manages to destroy any potential hope; The Dark Knight manages to keep hope alive, as Hibbs notes in the aforementioned review), it does so in a more subtle manner than The Dark Knight. Here I am referring to the scene between the Joker and Two-Face in which the Joker.....dare I use this line....seduces Harvey Dent to the dark side. The Joker says something to the effect of "Unlease a little anarchy," and "Chance is fair." In this scene, with both villains present, we have a glimpse of Anton Chigurh from No Country. But Chigurh's character is all the more disturbing because he never mentions the word anarchy, never goes into a detailed discussion of his morality of chance save to say that the coin he uses got there the same way he did.


My second qualm with the movie is that the score can be a bit too much. I can only handle the dramatic music for, I don't know, 2 hours, not 2 and a half hours. There are moments, especially in the latter hour of the film, where the intensity or horror of the moment are detracted by the music, which depending on your theater's sound system may overpower the dialogue. Recall No Country, which had no soundtrack whatsoever, making the film somewhat less human. I do not think that Nolan should have jettisoned the entire soundtrack of The Dark Knight. On the contrary, I think the music is quite helpful at times. I do think that it could have been regulated more.


Of course, one could argue that subtlety is not the mark of a movie in which the main character is wearing tights. But Nolan's movie is too clever to be lumped with other comic book movies. His treatment of Two-Face, for example, He eschewed the heavy handedness of the George Clooney Batman films in which both villains seem to play an equal role, which led to the dismal failure of the characters. Allowing Dent to metamorphose into Two-Face in the last 1/4 of the film does not distract from the Joker, and more importantly, from Batman's internal struggle between good and evil and the sorrow and loneliness that accompany it. It would be foolish to say that the director was incapable of being subtle. I would perhaps be willing to buy the argument that the heavy-handedness was needed for the general audience of the film, though.

3 comments:

J.M. Harper said...

I have been waiting to read this post for a month now, and since "The Dark Night" just premiered in Germany last week and I was finally able to see it last night, I was very happy to tramp over to Under Which Lyre (UWL?) and read your thoughts, Dave.

I'm definitely going to have to go your route and see it a second time, along with the rest of the United States and most of Europe, apparently. I'll write something about it after that, but I will say, in short, that it had some powerful moments aesthetically and philosophically and some moments that completely depleted this potential. Did you hear a few daring giggles as well when Bale would retort the joker with one of those canned lines about "good" or "hope" in humanity? Where the joker was brutally elegant with his "insanity," Batman couldn't muster much more in the line of dialogue than rhetoric, which is uncharacteristic of Nolan, who seems to be trying desperately to distance himself from the lameness of the earlier Batman series.

No one in their right mind will argue that that film wasn't entirely Heath Ledger's. The way he licks, laughs, and saunters through this film is absolutely captivating and bizarrely seductive. The only fault line in his psychosis seemed to be when both ships chose not to blow each other up and he revealed that he had to "do it himself." At this point we saw the triumph of "truth" over the Joker's "reality." That was the only moment, for me, when he didn't feel like a leader.

One last note --

Did anyone else find Gyllenhaal to be in Dark Knight the same way Sofia Coppola was in Godfather III? She was definitely mis-cast in my opinion. Where was her life? I'm not asking for more buttons undone, but she reminded me of a pioneer woman whenever she was on screen. Her demeanor is so simple...in a "house on the prairie" type of way. It felt like she was condescending to be in the movie, and it was good that Nolan had the courage to "off" her character. Any more of that nonchalance with a character like the Joker in the film and it'd be like taking a bucket of water to a witch-burning.

JMH

David said...

Jason—

I hadn't thought too much about Maggie Gyllenhaal, but I do have to agree.

As for the movie being the Joker's, I agree, though a friend of mine pointed out this weekend that the best performance in the film may be that of Gary Oldman as Commissioner Gordon.

J.M. Harper said...

I don't think Oldman trumps Ledger, but he certainly blends in to the movie with incredibly naturally. I guess the highest compliment would be that he is largely unnoticed - not because he does a bad job, which would result in the reverse. On the contrary, he belongs in that world.

Just one last thing that I found wanting in the film and I'm done ranting for now. The auto scenes were fantastic, and the sound editing as well, but whenever Batman had to punch someone, besides being almost fully concealed by his cloak, did anyone else find him really lethargic? I've never seen someone get punched so slow and go down so hard. Compared to the stunt work in say, the Bourne series, the film was definitely wanting.

I guess violence was also the Joker's. Blowing up the hospital in the nurse dress? Clever. The broken detonator? Even better.