Dark Knight
Feb. 5th, 2009 12:40 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
redfiona99In keeping with Christopher Nolan being a tricksy director, and that I don't think you can talk about Dark Knight in a chronological manner, I certainly can't, this shall be a thematic review.
No matter what people, and the advertising says, Harvey Dent is the central character of Dark Knight, and, were circumstances different, if I were Aaron Eckhart I'd be pissed off that I didn't get an Oscar nom. He and the writers had a really difficult task, because, before three quarters of the way through the film, they had to sell us on an ex-internal affairs lawyer type, who is not only a politician, but also stole our previous main character's girl. I like how they do it, because they have it bein Harvey seducing Bruce, I imagine more for Rachel's sake than anything else. The scene over dinner is a marvellous bit of business. And the line about buying an American gun next time is awesome, even to someone like me who doesn't like guns and isn't American.
So we're sold. Possibly because they don't hide his flaws - he does break his rules, and he doesn't play fair and he is ambitious - but still, what a fall! (So pleased to see them get a make-up Oscar nom, because they deserve it for Twoface's look post-burning.) Because you do feel sorry for him, until he starts to attack Gordon, whose fault it really isn't, and even more specifically, Gordon's wife and children.
It was when he proposed to Rachel that I realised who she was, or rather, what was going to happen to her, and yeah, trying not to gasp in the cinema was difficult. While I agree that Rachel's character isn't given much to do, I don't think she's quite as pointless as people make her out to be. I mean, she's a woman with a well paid job, that she both enjoys and is good at, that she appears to have no plans to give up just because she's going to get married, and it's made clear that she'll always have an opinion on what's going on. I really don't get why people think she's a useless character.
Oh Jim Gordon, how are you so awesome?
Despite being a Batman fan of old, I really thought they'd killed him off. Well played, everybody.
Jim Gordon is a huge hero, because he's doing a tough job as well as he can, for little enough money that 9/10ths of cops around him are crooked, and he isn't. It says a lot about him that his major flaw is 'thinking too well of people'.
One of the really interesting things about Dark Knight is how passive Batman is as a character. Obviously the hero always has to react to what the bad guys are up to but normally they at least try to stop the bad guy from doing whatever it is they've planned, but Batman can't. I don't know if it's because the Joker's plans are quite so unexpected or if there's just so many of them but he seems to be on mop-up duty all the time, with no chance to go on the attack. Bruce also doesn't have much of a journey, except yet more self-doubt.
This is going seperately, although it's really about Batman Part b.
The interesting thing is that the greatest moment of heroism is not superhero related, it was the two boats not blowing each other up (or themselves, if I'm guessing right, because if the convicts blew up their own boat, everyone would assume the other boat had done it, and the Joker cheats) of their own choice.
I don't understand why people say this is a pessimistic film; it's not happy, no, but I don't think it could have come down more heavily on the side of 'people are awesome' if it had tried. Because while people fall (Harvey), people can rise too.
Which is why I think that Gordon and Batman are underestimating people and there doesn't need to be a cover-up, but I see why they did it. I also have to imagine the cover-up hurts Gordon more than it hurts Batman, because it wasn't like Batman was ever anything other than extra-legal, while Gordon loses easy access to a valuable resource, manpower than could be used to chase criminals chasing Batman instead, etc. I agree the end voice over is melodramatic and cheesy, but it is gloriously comic book. I do wonder if that's why it does jar so much, because the tone of the rest of the film is so un-comic booky, even Harvey's transformation, especially the way the use of Twoface as a name is used to shock rather than as an actual nominative.
Alfred is also awesome. And probably did the right thing in burning that letter and, unless Harvey is actually dead, his is about the only probably right thing that anyone did in the film that isn't going to bite them in the bum later.
None of the following is a diss on either the Joker or Heath Ledger's performance therein, but why's he got an Oscar nom? The Joker is a no-fail part. There's no way any half-decent actor wouldn't have been good at it, because he doesn't have a character, he's a series of cool lines and outrageous acts. That's not to say that I didn't enjoy it, especially the bit in Harvey's hospital room, but ... yeah. There were other things I loved about it, but in particular, I liked how his backstory never got properly revealed and how he tailored it to each listener.
i.e. everything else.
The film was stuffed with lots of 'you know, that guy's, but, with the exception of the odd moment, it really didn't detract. Crane was a really good call back to the first film.
I loved Lucius Fox, his principles and his smackdown to Reese, the lawyer. I do wonder if he's walking away from just the machinery or from Bruce totally. If the latter, Bruce and Batman are both going to be so screwed.
I'm so pleased to see the editor getting an Oscar nomination, and more than anything else, I hope he wins, because the editing in the film is exceptional. Several of the people I saw it with wondered how it got away with a 12 rating, but, as I pointed out, with the exception of Harvey's injuries, you don't see anything, it cuts away soon enough to avoid a higher rating, and late enough for you to imagine every gruesome detail. Some of this is down to the directing too, but I was right not to hold out any hope for Christopher Nolan to get any recognition.
That's why I liked the score too. It was stark, harsh and atonal, and fit so well.
Another interesting thing that was done was, the action scenes being awesome and everything, this is basically a theatre piece, because the major scenes are people talking about the themes that he's trying to expound. Nolan hides it well, doesn't he?
No matter what people, and the advertising says, Harvey Dent is the central character of Dark Knight, and, were circumstances different, if I were Aaron Eckhart I'd be pissed off that I didn't get an Oscar nom. He and the writers had a really difficult task, because, before three quarters of the way through the film, they had to sell us on an ex-internal affairs lawyer type, who is not only a politician, but also stole our previous main character's girl. I like how they do it, because they have it bein Harvey seducing Bruce, I imagine more for Rachel's sake than anything else. The scene over dinner is a marvellous bit of business. And the line about buying an American gun next time is awesome, even to someone like me who doesn't like guns and isn't American.
So we're sold. Possibly because they don't hide his flaws - he does break his rules, and he doesn't play fair and he is ambitious - but still, what a fall! (So pleased to see them get a make-up Oscar nom, because they deserve it for Twoface's look post-burning.) Because you do feel sorry for him, until he starts to attack Gordon, whose fault it really isn't, and even more specifically, Gordon's wife and children.
It was when he proposed to Rachel that I realised who she was, or rather, what was going to happen to her, and yeah, trying not to gasp in the cinema was difficult. While I agree that Rachel's character isn't given much to do, I don't think she's quite as pointless as people make her out to be. I mean, she's a woman with a well paid job, that she both enjoys and is good at, that she appears to have no plans to give up just because she's going to get married, and it's made clear that she'll always have an opinion on what's going on. I really don't get why people think she's a useless character.
Oh Jim Gordon, how are you so awesome?
Despite being a Batman fan of old, I really thought they'd killed him off. Well played, everybody.
Jim Gordon is a huge hero, because he's doing a tough job as well as he can, for little enough money that 9/10ths of cops around him are crooked, and he isn't. It says a lot about him that his major flaw is 'thinking too well of people'.
One of the really interesting things about Dark Knight is how passive Batman is as a character. Obviously the hero always has to react to what the bad guys are up to but normally they at least try to stop the bad guy from doing whatever it is they've planned, but Batman can't. I don't know if it's because the Joker's plans are quite so unexpected or if there's just so many of them but he seems to be on mop-up duty all the time, with no chance to go on the attack. Bruce also doesn't have much of a journey, except yet more self-doubt.
This is going seperately, although it's really about Batman Part b.
The interesting thing is that the greatest moment of heroism is not superhero related, it was the two boats not blowing each other up (or themselves, if I'm guessing right, because if the convicts blew up their own boat, everyone would assume the other boat had done it, and the Joker cheats) of their own choice.
I don't understand why people say this is a pessimistic film; it's not happy, no, but I don't think it could have come down more heavily on the side of 'people are awesome' if it had tried. Because while people fall (Harvey), people can rise too.
Which is why I think that Gordon and Batman are underestimating people and there doesn't need to be a cover-up, but I see why they did it. I also have to imagine the cover-up hurts Gordon more than it hurts Batman, because it wasn't like Batman was ever anything other than extra-legal, while Gordon loses easy access to a valuable resource, manpower than could be used to chase criminals chasing Batman instead, etc. I agree the end voice over is melodramatic and cheesy, but it is gloriously comic book. I do wonder if that's why it does jar so much, because the tone of the rest of the film is so un-comic booky, even Harvey's transformation, especially the way the use of Twoface as a name is used to shock rather than as an actual nominative.
Alfred is also awesome. And probably did the right thing in burning that letter and, unless Harvey is actually dead, his is about the only probably right thing that anyone did in the film that isn't going to bite them in the bum later.
None of the following is a diss on either the Joker or Heath Ledger's performance therein, but why's he got an Oscar nom? The Joker is a no-fail part. There's no way any half-decent actor wouldn't have been good at it, because he doesn't have a character, he's a series of cool lines and outrageous acts. That's not to say that I didn't enjoy it, especially the bit in Harvey's hospital room, but ... yeah. There were other things I loved about it, but in particular, I liked how his backstory never got properly revealed and how he tailored it to each listener.
i.e. everything else.
The film was stuffed with lots of 'you know, that guy's, but, with the exception of the odd moment, it really didn't detract. Crane was a really good call back to the first film.
I loved Lucius Fox, his principles and his smackdown to Reese, the lawyer. I do wonder if he's walking away from just the machinery or from Bruce totally. If the latter, Bruce and Batman are both going to be so screwed.
I'm so pleased to see the editor getting an Oscar nomination, and more than anything else, I hope he wins, because the editing in the film is exceptional. Several of the people I saw it with wondered how it got away with a 12 rating, but, as I pointed out, with the exception of Harvey's injuries, you don't see anything, it cuts away soon enough to avoid a higher rating, and late enough for you to imagine every gruesome detail. Some of this is down to the directing too, but I was right not to hold out any hope for Christopher Nolan to get any recognition.
That's why I liked the score too. It was stark, harsh and atonal, and fit so well.
Another interesting thing that was done was, the action scenes being awesome and everything, this is basically a theatre piece, because the major scenes are people talking about the themes that he's trying to expound. Nolan hides it well, doesn't he?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-02-05 01:03 am (UTC)Yep.
The Joker is a no-fail part.
Double yep.
Ledger was fantastic as the Joker. But there are plenty other actors who would have been just as good because the writing and the character was perfect. The only pitfall would have been making the part campy, a la Batman & Robin, but Nolan would never have allowed it to happen. As soon as the Joker did the pencil trick you knew it was a great performance and an amazing part.
Eckhart stole the movie for me. Harvey's development throughout the movie was difficult for the writers and even more so for Eckhart but he pulled it off. There's far more mileage in Twoface as a villain so I do hope they didn't kill him off.
Bale was solid - exactly the Batman needed for the movie(and gah, can he work those Bruce Wayne suits) but damn, his Batman voice irritated me.
no subject
Date: 2009-02-05 11:16 am (UTC)I'd love for Twoface not to be dead, because think of the public reaction to the cover-up.
no subject
Date: 2009-02-05 01:31 am (UTC)I had a HUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGE rant that I'd written back when I first saw the movie regarding this topic. And the hilarious thing is that it's so-called feminists who really really denigrated her role in the film. And I'm no fan of Rachel. I'm certainly no fan of Gyllenhaal or Holmes. I'll C&P what I'd written in my post that never saw the light of day:
I know you can't divorce what happens in the movie from the context of this abundance of history, but at the same time, I find it just as aggravating to deny her the richness of interpretation that you CAN squeeze out of her.
Harvey is the White Knight? Well, Rachel is the White Queen. She can't be bought or intimidated into silence. She wants justice to prevail, she wants Gotham to be free from crime and corruption. Bruce wanted to take justice into his own hands in Batman Begins. Rachel smacked the taste out of his mouth. She confronted Crane. Ill-advised? Probably. Won't take his shit? Fuck yes. She's more than a competent ADA. "I know these briefs backwards." She's the one who questions Lao. NONE of these things hinges on any man. This is her, Rachel Dawes.
Damsel in distress? Let's not forget that SHE stood up to the Joker when he was harassing some guy, when everybody else cowered. Her posture screamed fear, but that's courage, isn't it? To stand up despite your fear. She made her own choices. "Don't make me your last hope for a normal life, Bruce." She loves Bruce, but she comes to understand what Bruce has become. At no point -- and I find this REALLY important -- is Rachel enamored by Batman. Before she dies, she chooses Harvey, the sane and healthy and better choice.
Bah. Sorry to get all into a snit. But it bugged me SO MUCH.
I disagree about Ledger. Oscar nom is probably a little much, and I do agree that I would've far preferred Eckhart getting the praise and acknowledgement, since the movie is in a lot of ways built on his back, but I don't think just about anybody halfway decent could've done what Ledger did. So much of the character was in the delivery, in the body language, the mannerism and expressions. Ledger OWNED that role. I don't think it was a no-fail part.
no subject
Date: 2009-02-05 11:20 am (UTC)Re: the Joker, see this is what I like about having intelligent people on my flist, because we can disagree, and be civil and follow the rules of debate, because your points are very strong and valid.
no subject
Date: 2009-02-05 06:15 pm (UTC)