Saturday, July 19, 2008

“The Dark Knight” exceeds its hype

Wow. I totally blew off my work day Friday to go see the matinee, and it was completely worth putting myself behind the 8-ball work-wise, which I will be all weekend as a result.

The director’s first “Batman” flick, a couple years ago, was an excellent superhero origin story. This movie is more like a German Opera – dense, dark, thoughtful and depressing. Grand. Spectacular. Larger-than-life in ambition but still tragically all too human in emotional scope.

Even despite all the pre-opening hooplah, most of it centered around star Heath Ledger’s for-the-ages portrayal of Batman’s nemesis The Joker, I didn’t go to this film expecting to be moved. Impressed, wowed, maybe even knocked out, but not sucker-punched when I wasn’t looking, which is what happened.

Somewhere around the mid-point, just when I started thinking “Geez, maybe this thing is a little long; I shoulda stayed home and got my work done,” something turned resonant. It began to matter more than a summer popcorn movie ought to. “Iron Man” was more pure fun, “Wanted” was more of a pin-wheeling carnival ride, but this felt like a film that should have been released around Thanksgiving, with all the high-minded, award-seeking ‘meaningful’ films that are designed to leave you thinking about them, and/or bummed or days. (“There Will Be Blood” and “No Country For Old Men” come immediately to mind.)

This isn’t a superhero flick with a message, this is a snapshot of the crumbling moral infrastructure of American society as it teeters on the slippery edge of Nietzsche’s abyss that happens to star a man dressed up like a bat. A morality play on steroids and mind-altering drugs.

I never noticed Ledger in any of his other flicks, but in this one, he astounds. His performance is every bit as powerful as you’ve read; it almost makes me want to go back and re-watch “Brokeback Mountain” to see if maybe I missed something while I was squirming in my seat at the subject matter. As movie villains go, his performance in “Dark Knight” will go down in film history alongside Hannibal Lector in “Silence of the Lambs” and Leatherface from the original “Texas Chainsaw Massacre.” After awhile, you fall into his performance and his horrific outlook on human nature begins to make perfect sense.

Director Chris Nolan’s Gotham City is as dyspeptic a vision of a decaying American metropolis as Ridley Scott’s “Bladerunner” was a prescient one. Dark, ugly and feral, inhabited by well-dressed, well-heeled swine on both sides of the law, it would take a hero as damaged as Christian Bale’s Batman to summon up the give-a-shit to want to save it. Any reasonable Super, hero or villain, would just burn it down and start over from scratch, advice that actually is given in the film at one point by a very unlikely source.

Everyone impresses, but no one more so than co-writer (with his brother) and director Christopher Nolan. This is his vision, true to (comic book wunderkind) Frank Miller’s gritty take on Batman from 1986’s graphic novel “The Dark Knight Returns” but without the laughs. Even Miller’s Joker pales in comparison to what Nolan and Ledger have wrought.

I never give plot details in my reviews. They inevitably ruin something for someone – usually me – and this movie has enough plot for two films without feeling like it should have broken up into two discrete features to do all its business justice. It is a relentless, emotionally pummeling experience with enough eye-candy to justify its high-summer release, but the kind of after-the-show resonance that you’ll be sorting out the pieces of this flick in your mind for weeks to come.

Toward the end of the film, there is a grace note where the filmmakers hold out a sliver of hope for the decency of the Average Joe that stops just short of feeling false, but cities aren’t run and big decisions aren’t made by Average Joes. They’re made by corporate cocksuckers and well-connected heels who don’t give a shit about Average Joes; who eat Average Joes for breakfast and pick their teeth clean with the skeletal remains.

Ledger’s Joker – hell, this whole film — is an all too apt metaphor for a decade that has given us both Osama bin Laden and George W. Bush. This movie feels at once like a hellish extrapolation of where society is headed, and a backroom peek at the powers-that-be that are driving us to the edge of that terminal abyss.

Best movie of the year so far, hands-down.

5 Comments:

Blogger Carrie Lofty said...

Was fantastic. My mind was blown. Will review later today.

8:04 AM

 
Blogger Fang Bastardson said...

Can’t wait to read it! It'll be better-written than mine, but you will probably lose points for not swearing.

~f

8:14 AM

 
Blogger Mark Dowdy said...

Saw it today. The whole time I kept thinking, "Where's Katie Holmes?"

Okay, not really. I watched the DVD of Batman Begins earlier this year, and I was quite impressed with how much better it was than the earlier Batman movies, which had gotten increasingly bad.

I'm still processing it. Maybe I'm just dark, but I found myself agreeing with Ledger's Joker most of the time. This was definitely closer to Miller's dystopic vision of the character than Nicholson's cartoonish version.

I saw Hellboy II on the same day, by the way. It's a bit light-weight in comparison, but it was also good fun.

6:55 PM

 
Blogger Heather Clisby said...

Great review. I agree with you that both films come dressed as blockbusters but they feel like arthouse. I can't stop thinking about Dark Knight and pondering the Joker's outlook.

Also, currently reading "The Watchmen" and its got me wondering the same thing - our doom.

12:23 PM

 
Blogger Fang Bastardson said...

Re: our doom

I read an interview in Rolling Stone with Bono (no, really) where they asked him about the future. Here's the first paragraph of his reply. It's really depressing reading, and I'd wager the "Dark Knight" filmmakers were drinking from the same brackish trough:

"I don't know if you've read Einstein's Monsters. [The author's] writing about the post-splitting-the-atom universe. In an essay at the start, he writes about feeling sick in his stomach because he can't escape the mathematical implications of there being all these nuclear weapons around the world and the odds of them going wrong. ... He wrote that in the late Eighties or early Nineties, when there were vaguely organized control systems to hold back Einstein's monsters. What are the odds now?"

12:40 PM

 

Post a Comment

<< Home