Friday, July 25, 2008

The Dark Knight

"The Dark Knight"
Christopher Nolan, 2008

While watching the ten-or-so previews before the latest installment of the Batman franchise, I was struck by their similarity to one another. They each shared a dark tone, a widespread defeatism concerning our ability to control our lives. "The Dark Knight," Christopher Nolan's second take on the superhero, shares this dark tone, too, though I doubt that any of those upcoming films will be able to match this film's profusion of fascinating themes and compelling characters.

In the new film, the combination of Batman, who is played by a decent Christian Bale, and a new, charismatic District Attorney named Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart), have sent Gotham City's criminal organizations reeling. A group of mob leaders decide to turn to a psychopath, called the Joker (Heath Ledger), to take care of these threats to their business. But in their desperation, they unwittingly unleash a monster that is set on destroying the entire city. The Joker is a fascinating figure, a person who is so detached from society and so rotten at the core that the only way he can interact with others is by murdering them. For his part, Heath Ledger, who rips into the Jokers' twisted, amoral qualities with relish, delivers one of his finest performances.

Earlier today, I watched the Disney movie, "Lilo and Stitch," and I recall a scene where Stitch, the laboratory-manufactured alien that is programmed to destroy everything in its path, levels a model city, and afterward sits in the midst of the mess, realizing that there's nothing left to do when everything has been destroyed. A similar moment occurs in "The Dark Knight," when the Joker walks away from a hospital he has blown up, pauses, and turns around to look at the destruction he has wreaked. We wonder, in that brief moment, if the character has had an epiphany about the futility of his horrific actions. But then, he pulls out his detonator and sets off a series of even bigger explosions that further damage what has already been destroyed. It's a beautifully constructed moment that tells us so much about the character; here is a psychopath without boundaries, who simply kills because he can.

Panic ensues, and despite many efforts by the police and an increasingly-frustrated Batman, the Joker's mayhem - considered by officers as "acts of terrorism," in one of a number of references to Sept. 11 - continues unabated. Nolan maintains a consistently dark tone, a decision that has its benefits and weaknesses. His incessantly bleak atmosphere makes the hopelessness of these characters all the more palpable, but there is little variety in his storytelling, which gives the film a surprisingly monotonous touch - we can only witness so many instances of hostages being threatened and explosions going off before it all grows repetitive.

One area of this film's predecessor, "Batman Begins," that needed improvement was its action scenes. These were terribly edited, visually claustrophobic sequences, whose attempt to depict Batman's element of surprise failed because it was simply impossible to see him. "The Dark Knight" shows improvement in this regard, especially in an exciting car chase that takes place on the streets of Gotham City at nighttime. But the final, major action sequence, which takes place in a skyscraper undergoing construction, reverts back to the incomprehensible technique of the first film - it is nearly impossible to tell who is a hostage, a SWAT team member, or Batman in this messy sequence.

In spite of its weaknesses, this sequence is still an interesting reflection of the film's dark tone, where desperate people, pushed to their emotional limits, no longer know who to trust; after all, we can't really tell who is struggling against who. Amidst all this confusion, Ledger's Joker floats in and out of the film, an impervious threat that can show up at any moment. At one point, Batman asks his servant, Alfred (Michael Caine), who was a soldier, how he defeated a seemingly invincible rogue soldier. Alfred merely answers, "We burned the forest." Our protagonists are forced to make some unsavory decisions to deal with the psychopath, none of which are all that effective. Towards the end of the film, we watch, out of apprehension for our characters' moral well-being and with the ever-diminishing hope that the villain will eventually be killed, and see to what lengths Batman and the authorities go before they, out of desperation, simply give up and raze the entire city.

Rating: 8.5

First Viewed: 7/25/08, in 35 mm projection
IMDB Page

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

I was just reading through this(even though its old) and just had to make a comment. That scene with the Joker blowing up the hospital, from my layman's point of view, it looked as if it was a humorous scene where the detonator didn't fully work and, as I recall, the joker was very satisified once the whole detonation did take place.

I think the character of The Joker was so WELL played. Real criminals have no depth, they have no story(as can be seen by the face-scar story - it changes because there is no real story), and they are just inconsiderate psychopathic killers. There is no point in the movie where you ever sympathize with the criminal which is an element that can be seen in a lot of movies where there are "bad guys". You sympathize with a character like Iceman who kills and robs to save his wife. With the joker it is plain and simple - he is a psychopath who needs to be stopped, there is no reason to be sympathetic. The sympathy element is, I believe, overplayed in society. Instead of calling killers simply degenerate scum we continually pull excuses and reasons why they murder and kill.

Anonymous said...

By the way, its Ian Coolidge