As “The Dark Knight” made more than $160 million over the weekend, one can wonder what created the buzz for the film. Was it carried over from expectant fans who loved Heath Ledger’s star turns in “Candy” and “I’m Not There,” or could it be the result of Christian Bale’s roles in “3:10 to Yuma” or maybe Nolan’s “The Prestige”? If the hype for “The Dark Knight” came not from any of the cast’s or director’s films, but from the death of Ledger, it speaks volumes about how society relates to film culture and celebrity deaths.
“The Dark Knight” returns to a Gotham City run by the Falcone family. Batman is still working the night shift, though the city has turned on him for his perceived vigilantism and inspiration of the bat cubs – neighborhood watchmen with higher aspirations. However, in District Attorney Harvey Dent and Assistant District Attorney Rachel Dawes, Batman has found fearless allies in his fight against crime.
Gotham’s uneasy peace is shatted with the arrival of an entity known as the Joker. Sporting a white make-up plastered face with a permanent grin accentuated by thick rouge lipstick, he is a cocksure Raskolnikov, blended with the pseudo-intellectualism of Hannibal Lecter and the swagger of Peter Lorre’s “M.”
The Joker is employed by the Mob to flush out Batman, and he obliges, holding the city hostage by spectacularly assassinating several high-profile officials. Only the caped crusader can save Gotham, but the time to act is running out.
“The Dark Knight” boasts superb location shots of Chicago. The aerial view of the high-rise buildings mirrors the remote impersonality of Gotham. When Batman glides to tackle the street vermin below, the forbidding architecture throws shadows covering the city, revealing it to be mired in odious murk. The action scenes and special effects are also splendidly done.
All praise to Ledger, but the deluge of encomiums has resulted in the scenarists getting short shrift. Yes, Ledger is eerily sinister, but the real terror of the Joker comes form the Nolan’s characterization – Larry the Cable Guy would be sufficiently creepy in the role. Playing foil to Ledger’s Joker, Bale’s Bruce Wayne is inadequately intense, allowing Gary Oldman and Aaron Eckhart to display their acting chops.
Despite this, “The Dark Knight” is not a great film; it is merely a good one loaded with an amalgam of interesting ideas.
For full disclosure I have never read the Batman comics; I have only seen Tim Burton’s “Batman” Joel Schumacher’s “Batman Forever” and Christopher Nolan’s “Batman Begins.”
There is definitely something gained from engaging with a film’s source material; however, if the filmmaker cannot produce a work that stands independent of its origins, he has failed. It is not necessary to read Anthony Burgess’s “A Clockwork Orange” to appreciate Stanley Kubrick’s film adaptation, just as it is unlikely the merits of Akira Kurosawa’s “Throne of Blood” will be diminished if it is not known to be derived from Shakespeare’s “Macbeth.”
Moreover, it would be impossible to intelligently discuss any film because of the obscure and multivaried nature of the sources for scripts. Hence, in writing about Nolan’s recently released “The Dark Knight,” I can only offer opinion drawn from my experiences.
The screenplay succeeds in showing a primal force unhinged. The Joker is a Nietzschean free spirit, a criminal uninterested in the seemingly drab distinctions of right and wrong; one motivated to instigate chaos by testing the corruptability of established ideals and exposing the perversions of a society in anarchy.
Unfortunately, part of the Joker’s mystique is lost through his contorted appearance. A knife-wielding, cake-layered freak would be deemed slightly unstable by most standards. While the performance is strong, the viewer already has it at the back of his mind that the Joker is a sick man. A suitable comparison in the rendering of a villain would be Michael Pitt in Michael Haneke’s “Funny Games.” Smartly attired, deferential with a sunny disposition, his was a chilling enigma – how could someone look so normal, yet be so revolting?
Batman, on the other hand, strikes a contrast as a crime fighter who hides in the shadows to establish order. However, by striving beyond set laws, Batman is also complicit in the destruction of Gotham’s stability. He recognizes his predicament, which is the reason he selflessly assists Dent in his prosecutorial pursuits.
The biggest problem with “The Dark Knight” lies with a climactic social experiment à la “Saw” that adds nothing to the overall theme, instead serving as a club the director uses to bludgeon his audience into submission to the bleakness that has been the dominant mood. It attempts to be a metaphor for the battle of Gotham’s hearts and minds by both protagonists; it fails because the test was rigged to be either unfalsifiable or redundant. If the subjects rejected the Joker’s dilemma, it would unleash his lunacy – we had seen this before; if not, it only showed what a group of people scared to death could do. Moreover, Bruce Wayne, the man behind the mask, had already passed the test by losing much, yet transforming a little.
There was no rationale to the extended scene, besides the sacrifice of a nameless bunch on the altar of suspense.
By slobbering on trifles like how many Oscars the film will win, whether Ledger was strung out while filming or if the intense preparation may have contributed to his death, we are eliding the substance of its smartly drawn choices. For example, in our ongoing conflict with Al-Qaeda should means matter as much as ends? Should citizens prefer privacy rights to state security?
Nolan might have intended that “The Dark Knight” be a spectrum of Manichaean morality; ironically, he has created a one- note track sustained long enough to make an album titled “Black.” Like its main character Batman, “The Dark Knight” is a flawed film with redeeming qualities, one which will be remembered more for what it attempts than what it finally achieves.
—-Contact Freke Ette at [email protected]