The Dark Knight
Over the last few weeks, I have been asked the same question by many a friend.
“Soooo,” they start out expectantly. “What did you think of The Dark Knight?” They begin to nod, fully expecting me to respond with “IT WAS AWESOME!” or at least a sentence beginning with a hyperbolic “DUDE!”
To both their chagrin and mine, I sigh heavily and report that, on a fundamental level, it was a bad story.
Please believe me when I say this: it pains me that I didn’t like “The Dark Knight”, for I had such high hopes and expectations for it. When the credits were rolling the first (of many) time I saw “Batman Begins”, I leaned over to my wife and whispered with equal parts awe and disbelieve, “was that one of the best movies ever made?” When the credits stopped rolling, I immediately wanted to see the sequel.
“The Dark Knight” is such a dizzying collection of technical perfection, that it’s almost hard to see its underlying flaw. It took me a couple of days to formulate my opinion. There is so much to like. So let’s start there.
First and foremost, because I am an enormous gear-head, the cinematography has turned Director of Photography Wally Pfister into one of my heroes. What he was able to accomplish using natural locations - Chicago is Gotham, and according to the cover article about the film in “American Cinematographer”, much of the film was shot on-location (the first 66 days of production) - is astounding. One scene in particular comes to mind: when Batman, Dent and Gordon are talking on the roof of police headquarters. That is an actual roof on an actual skyscraper in an actual city - the rigging took a week-and-a-half, followed by a 10-hour day of prelighting. And then, of course, the actual filming. The lights for the scene were not localized to the immediate set; but rather, were spread out over several city blocks, across about a dozen other buildings.
There are so many examples similar to this, I would literally just be reprinting the article here (do yourself a favor and try to get your hands on the issue: July 2008, American Cinematographer, ISSN 0002-7928), but I do want to mention one other thing: Imax. As I’m sure most of you are aware, 20% of the film was actually shot on 65mm Imax negative. A feature-length narrative combining both Imax and traditional 35mm had never before been attempted. Of course, several Big Event movies have been shown in Imax, but those films have merely been blown up from 35mm to 70mm, which negates much of the power of Imax to begin with.
Secondly, the supporting actors and story-lines are superb. I loved the Harvey Dent story, and I thought Aaron Eckhart was the perfect choice to play the role. And the makeup/fx after his transformation were truly remarkable.
Heath Ledger…well, what can anyone say, really? It is impossible to impartially judge his performance, just as it is impossible, watching the film, to not think about his tragic and untimely death. I will say this, though: his portrayal of The Joker was completely unexpected. I had many preconceived notions of how The Joker could be played, but Ledger went in a completely different direction. The combination of childlike naivete, maniacal sadism and schizophrenic turns produced a volatile, perfect character. The way he would brush back his oily hair, stumble and pause on certain words, and then launch into that truly frightening and guttural call (”why so serious?”) while tilting his head like an innocent puppy…pure genius.
The writing for both of these subplots was also fantastic. The action and characters took center stage, but the ideological and philosophical arguments percolated just beneath the cinematic veneer. For an example of how not to do this, see The Matrix Revolutions.
There are so many other features of the film that are laudable, but let’s get to the chase.
The Batman story (you know, the main character) was awful. Non-existant, really. And that made me sad.
In “Batman Begins”, Christian Bale played three characters: Bruce, Bruce Wayne and Batman. Bruce, the young man struggling to find a balance between justice and vengeance is the only real character. Bruce Wayne and Batman are both just alter egos that he creates to mask his true identity. And fortunately, in “Batman Begins” we get to spend a lot of time with the Bruce character. He is the story. He is who we care about. He is the guy we want to see overcome obstacles. He is everything. Without him, there is no movie.
And how much time do we get to spend with Bruce in “The Dark Knight”? Almost none. Bruce, it seems, has been completely swallowed up by the alter-egos.
And with him, went the film.
Case in point (SPOILER ALERT, but really, if you haven’t seen the film yet, you are behind the cultural curve): there are three people on the planet who know the real identity of Batman (well four, but Morgan Freeman masterfully shuts the last one up). One of those is Bruce’s lifelong love, Rachel Dawes. The Joker kidnaps both Rachel and Rachel’s new beau, Harvey Dent. He puts them both in warehouses filled with explosives and gives Batman the addresses to both - but he can only go to one, as they are across town from each other. Batman - guided by his inner moral compass of Bruce - chooses to save Rachel. Now, right there - that is a lot of conflict (conflict being the source of all drama). Here is the new White Knight of the city, the new DA, Harvey Dent, who just happens to be taking Rachel away from Bruce. BATMAN should really go after him, as they are working towards the same Big Picture Goal of saving the city. But BRUCE must save Rachel. But is that conflict explored in the film AT ALL? NO. What a waste.
Now, Batman races to save Rachel. He bursts into the warehouse Joker told him Rachel was in, only to find…HARVEY?! At this moment, it is inevitable that Rachel is going to die because Batman is in the “wrong” place. Because The Joker lied to him. Do we see the moment of crushing realization for BRUCE? NO! Again, this is such a monumental blunder, I nearly through my bag of Swedish Fish at the screen.
And then, further down the line, there is a scene where Batman has caught The Joker, who is hanging upside down from a building. This is where The Joker says the famous (and great) line, “This is what happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object”. The Joker says that the two of them are to be entwined in this dance forever, and explains why the chaos he creates is a necessary staple to human civilization. This is prime story-time real-estate to bring Bruce back into the picture. Throughout the entire film, The Joker wants to know Batman’s true identity. Well…WHY THE HELL NOT GIVE IT TO HIM?! Batman is in control of his life - he has him dangling 20 stories off the ground - it would have fit the story (well, really, created a story) to have Batman rip off his mask so that The Joker and BRUCE could have a little face-time. And then, for the climax of the film, Bruce, torn up because The Joker killed the love of his life, kills The Joker - which is in complete contradiction with his own morality. Now THAT is some great conflict (remember: conflict being the source of all drama) and makes for an interesting, compelling, flawed, watchable CHARACTER.
Instead, all we’re left with is Batman…who is nothing more than a raspy shell of a man. Boring.
And so, there you have it. A film with such talent and skill behind it, with so much to praise, destroyed by a weak main character.
Will I buy the DVD? Absolutely. Will I see a third installment, should one be made? You bet. Do I regret seeing “The Dark Knight”? Not one bit. But do I wish it were better? Sadly, yes.
