Movie news on your iPhone today!
Advertisement
Sign in
Username   Password         Forgot password?
Wanna join? Sign up
Find movies you'll love

Reel Thoughts

  • The Philosophy of The Dark Knight

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    The Dark Knight  (2008)

    Phew!  This is, like, the third time I've been to the movie theater in as many months, but I'm behind the times a bit.  I am not one of the die-hards that even had time to stand in line for an early showing of The Dark Knight at my local cineplex or IMAX, but it was next on the must-see list, so I went as soon as I could find spare moments.  I don't know if I'll be so lucky with another film I've wanted to see, but might not get the chance before it bombs out, The X-Files: I Want to Believe.  This review is not about Mulder and Scully's latest adventure, however, but about the latest sequelized incarnation of Batman.

    I loved Batman more when I was younger.  He's sort of the anti-hero, isn't he?  This theme gets explored to various depths in The Dark Knight, but, more to the point, he's a very rich guy with very cool toys and very big traumas.  That's why I have trouble calling him a "superhero."  He's not really a fantastical, powerful sort of person who hails from another planet, mutations, or random spider bites.  Of all the guys in the comic book universe, with the exception of a couple other esteemed peers (like the Green Hornet), Batman is the real person's comic book hero.  He could actually be real, so long as there's a guy with a lot of money and access to mind-blowing technology.  Because this line of escapism has been dulled for me since childhood, with fantasy taking on shades of reality, I've lost some interest in Batman, but not as a general rule.  I still love the franchise and the themes it explores, and I love Christopher Nolan as a director.  He's taken the could-be-real quality of Batman to new levels, and with a rousing and bone-chillingly disturbing portrayal of The Joker by the late yet wonderful Heath Ledger, The Dark Knight has reached heights to which no comic book movie, with the possible exception of the very first Superman movie, has soared.

    The Dark Knight focuses intently on the consequences of vigilante-ism, and the idea that an action produces an equal and opposite reaction.  Christian Bale reprises his role as Bruce Wayne/Batman.  This time, the caped crusader has successfully aided Lt. Gordon (Gary Oldman) and District Attorney Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart) in cracking down on mob rule in Gotham City.  Except, Batman has inspired many to take up the mantle of being a costume vigilante and other, more disturbing, consequences.  A new player, hellbent on chaos and, as if in answer to the costumed crimefighter's own extreme measures, enters the scene.  Little is known about The Joker (Ledger), other than he has a penchant for fire, violence, and those signature cards from a playing deck.  He aligns himself with the angry mob bosses, so long as it suits him, and swears vengeance against Batman and the rest of Gotham City through several increasingly sickening schemes (to the extent that they're pre-planned, upon which he waxes philosophical later in the movie).  He targets Gotham's finest, including Mr. Dent and Lt. Gordon.  Given the appearance of the greatest sycophant in the comic's history, Bruce struggles with the relevance and benefit of being Batman, discussing this topic with his longtime friend and butler Alfred (Michael Caine), business associate and technological genius Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman), and clandestine love, Rachel Dawes (the graciously recast Maggie Gyllenhaal).  The movie resolves this question in an interesting way, that is both satisfying and puzzling at the same time.

    To say that the Dark Knight surpasses Batman Begins in terms of movie making brilliance is an understatement.  It's to Heath Ledger's credit that this is even possible.  For me, the Joker and Mr. Ledger stole every single scene.  Unfortunately, I was plagued by random thoughts, such as "It's too bad that this is his last movie," and "What's going to happen if the Joker doesn't die...how could they ever bring him back?"  Because Batman needs the Joker.  Sure, there are other arch-villains tucked away in the annals of the comic's and franchise's history, but none of them are as intriguing and as yang to Batman's yin as the Joker.  Most of the major comics have primary villains - the ones that truly matter to the lexicon of the comic's mythology.  I mean, Superman has villains like Doomsday and Bizarro, but they're just icing on the cake.  The substantial stuff underneath that icing belongs to Lex Luthor. 

    But I digress.  The Joker, and Heath's portrayal of him, is what really amps up this movie.  Mr. Nolan and Mr. Ledger took the most banal, elementary essences of that character and brought those to the fore while underplaying some of the more cartoonish aspects of previous incarnations of the Joker's (including Jack Nicholson's in Tim Burton's Batman).  What resulted is a truly frightening, disturbing, and sociopathic villain - the worst nightmare of a terrorist, played to gruesome effect.  Without this performance, The Dark Knight would have been just another sequel.  With it, the sequel surpasses the original film in both entertainment quality and artistic sensibility.

    Aaron Eckhart, however, I think will be probably be overshadowed and underrated as time passes.  His earnest take on Harvey Dent breathed life into a character that was mishandled badly in previous movies.  His struggles with good and evil are the heart of the picture and the fulcrum around which Bruce struggles with his own decisions to put on a cape and jump from rooftops.  I really felt for Harvey and his passions, good and bad, throughout the movie.  He's very Anakin Skywalker, in a way, if you think about it.

    Maggie Gyllenhaal was the next best thing about this sequel.  Replacing Katie Holmes, whether Katie volunteered or not, was a very good decision.  The character arc got some closure (not saying how), and it was done in a graceful and believable way by Ms. Gyllenhaal.  I never missed Katie once.  And, normally, I detest recasts.  But I also detest Katie Holmes.  There, I said it.

    The cinematography was great - great, subdued lighting gave the movie a surreal quality but kept it from getting too dark, even in daylight, when it could have done and has done in the past.  I had problems, though, with the editing.  I knew the film was shot in Chicago.  And it looked like Chicago.  I mean, I couldn't get past that.  I even think I caught a glimpse of the Sears Tower, or at least key buildings visible from the Michigan Mile shopping district, so the editors have some splainin to do.

    The other problems were in pacing and plot devices.  This movie was long, to the point where I started to feel it, and it had several false endings.  The payoff was worth it, but when a movie is as intense as The Dark Knight, the tension relief is best suited through some attempt at comedy (which there was precious little of and only reserved for the Fox and Alfred characters and, darkly, through The Joker), not through a complete drop in the action pacing.  I don't want to get too detailed because I don't want to give away any spoilers, but the pacing was very choppy, and most so in the last third of the flick.

    What it lacked in comedy and expert pacing, however, The Dark Knight made up in sheer philosophical and intellectual prowess and bravado.  This comic book movie was not content merely to entertain with big toys and explosions but to pose some questions and get the viewer to think in the end - the thinking person's comic book?  The concept is original, yes?  To Mr. Nolan's credit, since he shared the screenwriting honors, this is the most appealing aspect of the movie for me and makes me want to buy it and watch it from the beginning, to watch the arguments and questions unfold again.  Thus, The Dark Knight easily passes my test (and it's a sequel and, therefore, part of a set).  I also rate it an 8 for having minor flaws but being very good.  It was very very good and is doing much for making me a Batman fan(girl) once again.

    What I think is interesting, especially after watching Chinatown earlier in the day, is how this film really presents the notion that the bad guys might just win after all, and that the lines between good and evil are more gray than black and white.  I can't get too far into that topic without spoiling the film, so watch the movie for now, and later, I might write something heady and philosophical myself about The Dark Knight as it compares to other movies of the same ilk.  Also, check out the Fantasy group for further discussion on this film.


  • Viewing Chinatown for the AFI Project

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Chinatown  (1974)

    What's the AFI Project, you ask?  For more information, or if you just enjoy my bemused ramblings, read here: http://www.spout.com/blogs/pippin06/archive/2008/3/1/25756.aspx

    Chinatown is on the following AFI lists:

    The Original Top 100 (#19)
    100 Most Heart-Pounding Movies (#16)
    100 Years...100 Heroes and Villans (Noah Cross is the #16 villain)
    100 Movie Quotes (#74 - Lawrence Walsh: "Forget it, Jake, it's Chinatown.")
    25 Film Scores (#9)
    The Revised Top 100 (#21)
    10 Top 10's (#2 Mystery)

    I borrowed Chinatown, again from my parents, who have an impressive movie collection.  My mother, in particular, has a great love for 70's film, and why shouldn't she?  It was something of a Renaissance in film history, and Chinatown is an exemplar of that Renaissance.

    I had never seen this film before, aside from clips, usually played during award show flashbacks ("she's my sister, my daughter, my sister, my daughter" or "I think you're hiding something" or the bit about his nose).  I was excited to get my hands on it.  It's one of those movies that struck me as unique - nothing's been made like it, before or since.  Plus, it had good ole Jack in it.  Jack is always entertaining, no matter what film he's in, good or bad.  Also, everyone seems to love this movie, so I thought I would probably love it too - you know, in one of those mob mentality type plays on logic.  I liked Chinatown, to be sure, but I can't say I loved it.  I'll say why in a minute.

    Jack (Nicholson, that is) plays Jake Gittes, an ex-cop turned PI who specializes in tailing adulterous halves of married couples for the vengeful, paying halves.  One auspicious day, Evelyn Mulwray (eventually played by Faye Dunaway) hires Jake to tail her husband, Water Department Head Hollis, whom she suspects of having an affair.  The trouble?  Hollis shows suspicious behavior but rarely of the extramarital kind, and the woman who hired Jake is not the real Mrs. Mulwray.  When Jake's investigation is spilled to the press, complete with photos of Hollis with what looks to be another woman, Evelyn reveals that she was not the woman who hired Jake and slaps him with a lawsuit, but Jake doesn't go away quietly.  Not wishing his dubious reputation to be further dragged through the mud, he starts poking around further and finds Hollis dead via what looks to be suicide.  Now fully on the case, Jake investigates Hollis' dealings only to uncover a tangled web revolving around Los Angeles' water supply, a shocking secret of Evelyn's, and the possible involvement of her concerned yet morally ambiguous father, Noah Cross (John Huston).  All the while, the cops and investigators, Jake included, make mention of Jake's past in Chinatown - a place that is more a state of mind than a location of note, at least until the end, where people go to forget and be forgotten, because apparently anything can happen there.

    Roman Polanski directed this film, and what's instantly likable about it is how tight of a film, in terms of its craft, it truly is.  The pacing is flawless, percolating slowly, like a coffee pot, until the water reaches a boil.  What starts as a somewhat tedious and cerebral mystery involving the diversion of water from city resevoirs becomes a fully engaging tale of intrigue and deceit complete with twists and turns.  The technical elements of the film are remarkable and priceless, from the muted lighting, to the perfect art direction recreating the look of the 40s with astounding and eye-pleasing detail for this homage to and revision of film noir, to the astounding cinematography.  Instant coolness points, 1974 though the year in which this film was made, for using reflective surfaces like rearview mirrors, camera lenses, and bifocal lenses to offer clues and bring the viewer into Jake's perspective and his PI-type investigatory world.

    And that score!  Jerry Goldsmith's theme is equal parts touching and suspenseful, creating the perfect atmosphere for this unusual drama and underscoring Jake's confusion and triumphs and heartbreaks with skilled nuance.  Mr. Goldsmith created several recognizable thematic film scores in his lifetime (including the original theme for Star Trek: The Next Generation), and I think is generally underrated.  This score creates the feeling that maybe you've heard it before and maybe you haven't, which gives it a truly timeless quality.

    The performances are also unparalleled, between the one and only Jack, with his wisecracking nods to Humphrey Bogart's Sam Spade and others of his ilk to the seemingly pristine iciness of Faye Dunaway's femme fatale Evelyn.  Also, John Huston plays an unusual villain - giving him more than the usual shades of gray.  When you first meet Noah Cross, you suspect him of something, but you don't want to believe it.  He's no-nonsense and seemingly forthright, donning a chilling sort of sanity, qualities that don't come often in a villain.  His deeds, the viewer learns, are so heinous and his attitude so cavalier that, in the end, it's quite a shock to the system.  It was a bold and balanced performance by Mr. Huston (and what a prolific guy he was in life).

    With all of this praise, then, why didn't I love the movie more?  It comes down to story and character development, though, ironically, this film won its only Oscar for original screenplay.  Much has been discussed about the film's healthy dose of cynicism, informed by the malaise of failure in Vietnam, the rise and fall of the counterculture, and the then-contemporary Watergate scandal.  The film is dark and cynical to be sure, leaving the viewer with the sense that certain forces in life mean bad guys might just always win - and giving me an unusual and probably not much thought-of parallel to discuss when I review The Dark Knight shortly.  My problem, ironically, was only the vague mentions of Jake's past in Chinatown, little information into why Chinatown was significant, lack of information on what happened to Evelyn's mother, little information into why Evelyn married Hollis (even if it was confirmation that it was rebellion against her father and because Hollis took care of her and her circumstances when she returned from running away).  I guess I have little patience for mentions of background that go nowhere.  I'd rather have no hints than unsatisfying ones.  They create too many questions and detract from an otherwise perfect film that seemed to have no intention of answering them.  Mysteries that create other mysteries are one thing, and I know there's a sequel to this film ("The Two Jakes"), but I don't need pepper for a pot that would've done well without the vague allusions.  I think I'm most frustrated by the fact that the fact of Chinatown is the biggest mystery of all.  Maybe I'm supposed to be.  Maybe the sequel delves into that mystery.  Who can say?

    Plus, this movie is rather dark and cynical.  It's hard to love it, really, because of it's hard attitude toward certain social circumstances.  I don't fancy myself a Pollyanna, but I prefer to be a little less gloomy about certain things.

    That's not to say, however, that Chinatown is not an excellent movie, deserving of its many places on AFI's various lists.  It's just not one I'd pull out for kicks and giggles.  Thusly, no test passing.  As for ratings, I see this one as being an 8.5, between minor flaws and perfect entertainment.  The flaws I see are more minor than the minorest (ahem), but I was not perfectly entertained, so there you are.  Chinatown is a recommendable flick, though, worth its weight in filmmaking gold.  And it's got some great quotes.  My favorite: "You're dumber than you think I think you are."  Oh, and, "...my nose.  I like it.  I like breathing through it."  I think it's fair to say that few can deliver a line like good ole Jack.