ZACH THAT:
I know this is a music site, but The Dark Knight has dominated the talk of late and I thought I should chime in with my thoughts. This is not going to make me the most popular person but here we go...
WHY THE DARK KNIGHT IS NOT A GREAT FILM
A rant by Zach Hart
I would like to start by saying that I enjoyed The Dark Knight and it’s better than most of the crap that hits screens here in America. The passion and turnout for the film has been exciting and a great step toward re-energizing the theater going experience. With all this said, I’m baffled by the “perfect film” comments by friends/critics, comparisons to The Godfather II, and sadden that voters have deemed it the greatest film of all time on IMDB. I have compiled a list of reasons why this film just didn’t take me to the Mecca it did for most of you. I encourage you to read what follows with an open mind and try to think back on the film as a whole, not just the parts that blew you away (a mistake most filmgoers make when judging a high budget blockbuster).
SPOLIERS INCLUDED:
TWO FACE
I think Aaron Eckhart is a great actor and the role of Dent/Two face was an interesting one for about an hour worth of film time. In a two and half hour film, it is impossible and ridiculous to try to show his transition into this evil figure and follow it all the way to death. This is one of the reasons why the third act dragged and lost me. We don’t have to see Two Face go on a killing spree, kidnap kids, and die…save that for the next film, give us his struggle between these two sides, develop the comic book character that was so interesting and full of lovable evil. Rather, he hijacks the story and muddles the entire film with Nolan having two many packages and not enough time to put bows on each one. Well, he puts bows (continuing with the metaphor) on each box, but without the time to care how they look. The makeup was great, Dent had the classic fall from grace that films count on, but the rushing of his character at the end and his eventual death added up to a big zero, everything that was built was wasted.
BATMAN
When talking to my brother and some others who felt that something was missing, I simply pointed out that they were right: Batman. Although people would like to think of him as the main character, he is not. Maybe by screen time, but the story belongs to Dent and the Joker. One of the big rules in screenwriting is make sure your main character/hero acts and doesn’t always react. Well, Dent and the Joker do all the acting while Batman goes through the usual steps and reacts to whatever new spin the villains throw at him. I greatly prefer Batman Begins to this film because the separation of Wayne/Batman was so greatly sketched out and the dichotomy of these two people was fascinating. There are maybe two to three scenes where he deals with this struggle, one of which is his want to be with Rachel (a story line that took the back-back-back seat to the action and things blowing up). Never once did I feel like Batman was, himself, in danger. I was only worried if other people would be saved or not, Batman never really had a threat for his own life…and if I remember correctly, that was the goal of the Joker…to kill “the Batman”. For a Batman film, the title character was overall weak and could have basically been any other superhero thrown in against these situations and nothing would have been lost. (Side note…Hated the Daredevil eyes/sensor scene…for a film that boasts originality, come on…thanks for the heads up Steve Getz).
CUT, CUT CUT
My biggest problem is the pacing of this epic story. It could have been hurt in the editing room or the script is just that sloppy, but whatever the case, this film bit off way more than it could chew and the pacing suffered. Take a look at the film and count how many big set piece scenes there are. I could name ten to twenty off hand. When you have so many huge, blockbuster scenes, the structure of the film in return hurts. How can the film build if every scene is bigger than the next? Take the parade scene where the Joker is about to assassinate the Mayor for example. This is probably the poorest executed scene in the film. Nolan sets up all these little devices and red herrings but is rushing through the sequence so fast, the suspense is completely sucked from the scene. Instead of a great Hitchcockian moment (that was what he was going for) we get a series of close up reaction shots, Bruce Wayne taking of tape, and a clock that snaps up a blind causing a distraction. In a film without twenty huge scenes and under the brilliant Nolan’s supervision, this scene could have been incredible. Let the suspense build, show us the Joker in the crowd, show Wayne trying to figure out his ploy. Instead, quick cuts stand in for real, jaw dropping suspense. Here’s another one for you. The Wayne party for Dent. Where the hell did the Joker and his cronies go after Batman saved Rachel? The film just cuts…and we’re off to the next scene? Are we to believe that they just left without taking the time to look for Dent for five more minutes? Maybe, if they took that time, they would have seen the huge fucking iron bar blocking a door and thought, hey, maybe something is behind this. There are so many times in this film where a potentially great scene is lowered to a good or below average scene due to how quick the film is and how much has to be done.
SAW
The writer’s from Saw must be pretty pissed that Nolan and his co-writer brother borrowed from their film. I see a lot of you out there looking at this page confused, “The Dark Knight stole from Saw?????” Give me a second to explain. Almost every scare tactic The Joker uses is lifted directly from the Saw series (I hate them by the way, so this is not me telling you that Saw is better). He, like the bad guy from Saw, likes to pit people against death as social experiments and to ultimately see the true side of humans. TDK did it with Dent in one room and Rachel in the other, one will die, and guess what they can talk to each other in their final moments…..SAW. Oh, the Joker delivers himself as a corpse in one scene…believe that was the final twist in the first…Saw! Two boats, criminal’s vs rich white people and their cute kids…SAW! For a film boasted to be so wildly imaginative with its writing, why did it slowly become a one-note gag borrowed from a mediocre film?
DID THEY NEED THAT?
My biggest complaint seems to be the same as my roommate Ryan…they bit off way more then they could chew. It’s a simple as that. If they would have steped back, shortened the third act, developed half of their story lines and dropped their other half…it could have been a great film. Did they need they need Lau??? Shit, he took Batman over to Asia and back for this one character…and to the life of me, I don’t know why he was important at all. Couldn’t the Joker just have convinced the mob group in the room and then we roll along…shit, that was 30-45 mins of the movie where we could have delved into the surface level themes and added some real depth to the film. Did we need the WTF moment where the guy has a bomb inside him. That moment is a real test to see who you are as a film watcher in my opinion. If you watched that and thought, fucking cool, then I feel sorry for you. If you were like me and asked…why the hell did he let the Joker put a bomb in him, how did he not know, and most importantly how convenient it is that he got put in that exact jail cell…then you came to the important question…”Did they need that.” As stated before, would you have thought any less of the film if they didn’t wrap up Two Face and spent more time on Batman vs Joker. Did they need Oldman faking his death. If you think they did, how necessary was it to tell the family and break their hearts for no reason…they could have said, he disappeared…would have accomplished the same thing. Did we really need the nod to Big Brother Government and wiretapping with Batman’s cell phone spy cameras? Did we need Michael Cane or Freedman at all? I love them both in Begins…but what did they really do all film? Did we need Scarecrow at the start…that was kind of random. We didn’t. That’s the problem. Nolan infused so many story lines, misleads, twists, and guess what…for the average moviegoer…those thrills got them off. I encourage you to go back and watch The Godfather II, hell, Empire Strikes Back…and tell me if the film doesn’t breath…build…and really get close to the psychological issues they propose through the script. I think the Dark Knight wanted too…but unfortunately failed.
Now to agree with the conformist followers of this hype nugget:
Heath Ledger was amazing. Could have watched him for a week.
IMAX…wow. I gasped at the first image.
Loved the pencil scene.
Thought keeping true to Chicago and not using that much CGI was noble.
Had fun. For me though, movies are not just about having fun…they are art. I can’t and will never argue with someone who simply likes a film for having fun…but I will however go after throats when the following films are ranked below the Dark Knight on IMDB.
Godfather I & II
8 1/2
Citizen Kane
Pulp Fiction
Casablanca
All of Hitchcock’s films
We should be ashamed of ourselves.
20 comments:
First, I just thought you should know that this is one of the few blog posts--even on your brother's blog--that I read all the way through. Good post. I felt it important to comment because, for once, you and I agree about a movie. Everyone else was blown away. I left going..."eehh....well, the pencil scene was cool." Definately an entertaining movie, but it missed the mark for me.
She was also upset that Sara Bareilles wasn't on the soundtrack.
Great Post, all that edumacation shows.
Ebert is quitting the Tribune. I think you would be a great critic (minus the fuck-bombs). Did I tell you about my movie idea...
Most of your points are valid, but you don't remember correctly when you say the goal of the Joker was to kill “the Batman”. The Joker commented over and over again how he needed Batman. He only told the mob guys he wanted to kill the batman to get in with them. Now, in the end I'm not altogether sure what great need there was for him to get in with them. This is the same reason for the saw-like scenes. The Joker needs Batman, but he doesn't want Batman to be the symbol of hope as Joker wants to crush all hope. He can't demonize him just by shooting people and blowing stuff up...he needs to put some of the blame on Batman. Now, the boat scene was entirely different from the Rachel/Harvey choice. That was like Saw, but that was the only thing remotely close, so I don't think one scene justifies a rant, particularly considering that Nolan didn't try getting inside of the minds of the persons the way Saw did, and particulary considering Saw merely used a device that's been used for ages to show the inner nature of people.
As for the fake death of Oldman, you must have been eating popcorn at the time when he explained that he needed to do it to protect his family. He knew there were several corrupt cops in his unit, so if they knew, it'd have done no good, at least in the character's mind.
I couldn't agree more with leaving Two-Face open-ended....no reason to develop that to the end
Seems clear that you miss a lot of detail in movies.
A lot of what you mention as flaw in TDK is explained in very fine details or is part of a larger story your probably oblivous to.
You made it clear you miss a lot of details regarding Citizen Kane as one of the great movies though, clearly forgetting that this entire movie is based on a giant plot hole.
English lesson for Brian...
"part of a larger story your probably oblivous to."
1. When you want to conjugate "you are," you use "YOU'RE" not "YOUR." (i.e. "You're an idiot" vs. "Your post makes no sense").
2. Try not to end a sentence with a preposition ("to").
Putting it all together, your sentence should have read "...part of a larger story to which you're probably oblivious."
Assessing your post as a whole, I can only assume English is your second (or third) language. If this is the case, then I am sorry for giving you a hard time.
I think it's great that people are commenting on this, thank you. First, I want to remind everyone that this rant is not saying the film is bad, all I'm out to do is bring it down about two pegs from excellent. Sorry, but the hype needs to be cut. Cory, telling the wife is unnecessary because simply disappearing does the same thing...as long as the wife doesn't know where he is, then it doesn't matter to the mob.
Brian, I really disagree with your point that I miss the small details, in fact I just wrote an entire essay, that you read, examining the small details. If you are going to argue that TDK is better than Citizen Kane then I should probably not even grant your post a response. However, I'm sorry your english was insulted by the next poster, I want everyone to feel free to debate and post comments without attacks. I enjoy each and everyone of them.
Your take is interesting at worst, and enlightening at best.
I saw the movie itself as a frame for a character study: fluff, visually entertaining-- but not timeless or compelling. Shameless mainstream entertainment, but damn it was fun.
I desperately wanted to be underwhelmed by Heath Ledger, as I hate hype, but I couldn't be. His performance was worth my ticket. The rest? It played well on the big screen, but I agree-- apart from the Joker, I don't think it was a fantastic movie, or even a great one.
Interesting points, but I have to agree with someone else who posted that you may have missed some points and a little of the nuance. I'll try and point out some of the things that I disagree with you about. First of all, I don't see why people automatically assume Dent is dead. All they did was show him unconcious at the end, and then a public display with no body. I don't see any reason why he can't have been placed in Arkham in order to protect the image he cultivated of being the "white knight" and therefore his story arc would not have been run through entirely in an hour. To me this seems obvious, and I also saw Eckhart give an interview about returning for a 3rd batman movie.
As someone else said, Batmans true threat was never that he would die. That would not have been the most devastating thing that could happen to him. He makes it clear that he's willing to die for his cause, so the thing that would cause him the most anguish would be if he were allowed to be corrupted to committ the atrocities that he has fought so hard against. Thats the true goal of the joker; he wants to show that Batman can be turned into that which he hates most. Dying is the most obvious way to destroy a character, but to take away the things that matter most to him and to turn him into something he swore he could never be is a much more terrifying story technique. That development was a lot more complicated then the mere "is he going to survive this scene?" moments. You can see Batman devolving into that personality at various points throughout the movie (the Joker interogation, the scene at the construction site) and also his realization of it and return to sanity. Again, nuanced, but much more interesting.
I agree with you that the bruce wayne party scene and assassination scene could have been better done. The assassination scene seemed particularly sloppy to me.
The Saw comparison seems a little weak to me. If anything than Saw is a rip-off of the Joker, because Nolan based his character on the comic books, particularly depictions of the Joker from the 80's and early 90's. His pitting of one against another and making people choose between two terrible options is exactly how he has always been written. His character was never about simple destruction to terrify, but rather morbid tests of peoples morality and thought processes. So to not have him act that way in this movie would not have been true to a character that is decades old. So maybe you don't know much about the backstory of the Joker, but those scenes were certainly not rip-offs of Saw.
The Liu story was necessary to show that Dent was willing to put his life on the line to put away the mob. Maybe they could have done it with a character that wouldn't require Batman going all the way to Gotham, but I believe those scenes were meant to show the lengths that the Dark and White Knights would go to clean up Gotham. It requires some interpretation and thinking about motives, so maybe I'm reading to much into it, but I don't think that was tacked on just so that they could have some cool Hong Kong shots. So they did need something along the lines of Liu to put all the mob away and force them to "turn to a man they didn't fully understand" (as quoted by Alfred in the movie to explain the Jokers rise). So the lengths that batman and dent go to get Liu are then contrasted with the mobs realization that they may have to go to the same lengths and take the same risks to stop both of them. And your complaints about Caine and Freeman are particularly perplexing. If those roles were played by unknown actors then I can't see how anyone could complain that they didn't get enough screen time. They are very minor and supporting characters in the movie, so they shouldn't be on the screen for very long at all. However, as is the case with supporting characters, they're very necessary to fully flesh out the story.
Sorry about the long post, but I just wanted to address each point. Your article was very well written, and I respect your opinion on the movie. I just disagree is all.
Kevin, you nailed it. My thoughts exactly as I was reading this admitted "rant" of an article.
No disrespect to Zach, but I believe he missed several details that were literally spelled out if you watched the entire movie.
I do respect your opinion of The Dark Knight, Zach. I'm glad the world is big enough for more than one opinion. You are certainly entitled to not like the film. That does not give you an excuse to obscure key plot devices simply because you can't stand to see this new movie ranked above one of your personal favorites.
I will not step on your toes about the Godfather films. Simply put, and I know for film-snobs everywhere this will discredit me, I found the Godfather (first movie) terribly boring. I did not bother with the sequels because I did not personally enjoy the first one. Now as I understand it those movies are held as milestones of cinematic history.
You'll never hear me argue about their quality, because for me it was not personally enjoyable.
Was The Dark Knight a perfect film? No it was not. Considering what it was doing, especially as a comic-to-film adaptation, it was absolutely my favorite. The marketing bandwagon did not affect me, otherwise I'd have gone to (and loved) Hancock, The Love Guru, Ghost Rider, 300, etc.
And we all know how bad 300 sucks.
Zach, again I think you miss my point. The wife was informed because the other cops (apart from whomever who assisted him) didn't know that he wasn't dead. To reitterate, if the cops knew, and the cops were crooked, as he knew some of them were, faking death wouldn't serve the intended purpose of protecting his family. I spoke with other people about this, but to me, this was a pretty easy read between the lines.
Also, I'm also with you Kevin...it had never even ocurred to me that Dent might actually be dead. In my view, this could largely have been prequel to the original Batman.
First, i have to say, "I loved the movie". What i saw that a lot of people seem to disagree with. Is that the movie keeps going and doesn't stop at the usual ending. Unlike normal movies, where they catch the bad guy, with some ingenius plan, and he goes to jail and everyone is happy. They kept the movie going even after it looked like it was over.
Also, the scene where the joker tries t kill the commissioner, i don't beleive was done horrible at all. I think the purpose of the scene was to confuse the watcher, to make him wonder where the joker was, and what was going to happen. If the scene had any close ups of the joker, that would have been lost, and if the scene was any more detailed or longer, the confusion effect could have been lost as well. It would have given the watcher time to evaluate the situation.
I loved Keven's comments about movie, and agree with most of them.
Well I agree about Two-face they should have left him to the next movie (If they even plan another) but this movie was Heaths no doubt he gave the best performance
I have to agree with what's been said. I thought the movie was great. It was very complex and interesting. And although it did bite off quite a bit to chew, I think that's part of it's allure; I really enjoyed it on a lot of levels. At first the obvious great acting of Ledger and the "pencil scenes" and other cool stuff like that. Yet after my first watching (under the being blown away part) was a little nagging about the complexity of the movie. So, about two weeks later, I watched it again. And I found that I unraveled some of the more complicated aspects of the movie.
That's why I think this movie has received such critical acclaim. It is so multifaceted that it can be either a "just for fun" movie to blow you away, or it can make you think and be a truly artistic piece of cinematic wonder. It might even be both.
I have some mild criticisms, however. There was a lot of Dent and the Joker. Comparatively little of Batman. It didn't bother me (as I don't really like batman; villains are cooler), but it is a criticism to be made. I also agree that Dent's transformation into Two-Face could have been developed more, but maybe that will be alighted upon in the third movie. And I'm also pretty sure Dent isn't dead because of that. They wouldn't just introduce someone in one movie and kill him off in the same unless they were a minor character. Dent clearly is not. Plus, they did so little character development (compared to what was needed), I don't think they'll leave it like that.
But thank you Zack, for your "rant" against TDN. I was horrified when I first saw it, but after reading it found that some of my true thoughts were suffocating under blind adoration. For a rant it was very well thought out and reasoned.
Thanks again, sorry for the long post!
Love you all! Great opinions!!!
The Dark Knight is entertaining; I saw it twice however,
I prefer a more fantasy based Batman film. Making TDK a plausible character for grown ups and at the same time marketing a line of toys for children in my opinion doesn’t seem right.
Batman is one of my favorite comic book characters; with
a storyline that most of us are familiar with. This darker more realistic version of Batman looked like every big budget action flick I’ve seen to date.
Looking at this character in a real light illustrates why
a guy who drives a tank while wearing cape, gliding from rooftop to rooftop is meant to be fantasy. In a film that featured plenty of real world firepower on both sides, the bad guys, Gotham PD, SWAT, and even the National Guard was alerted in the film, makes me wonder would an unarmed vigilante really make a difference.
Thanks for reading!
http://web.me.com/mrjokerprime/comicimpulse/Updates,_News,_%26_Miscellaneous_Info/Updates,_News,_%26_Miscellaneous_Info.html
A LITTLE SOMETHING FOR YOU ZACH...HOPE YOU LIKE!
http://web.me.com/mrjokerprime/
comicimpulse/
Updates,_News,_%26_Miscellaneous_Info
/Updates,_News,_%26_Miscellaneous_Info.html
THAT'S ALL ONE WORD, BUT INCASE THAT DOESN'T WORK GO TO:
WWW.WEB.ME.COM/MRJOKERPRIME
GO TO UPDATES, READ DARK KNIGHT, YOU'LL LOVE IT!
Zach,
Here's my take on the extreme response to your post:
http://wewatchforu.blogspot.com/2008/08/dark-knight-and-his-minions.html
Make that:
http://wewatchforu.blogspot.com/2008/08/
dark-knight-and-his-minions.html
Thanks for bringing the film down a notch, it is appreciated. Yes, the film is well done and well acted, but, it's just way too long. It tries too hard. Granted, I have a short attention span, but I've been a lover of great movies since I was little and there are quite a few of them that I have watched dozens of times. I will be sure to watch this again when it comes out and study further, but I'm sure I'll still thin it was good, not great.
probably my biggest problem was the guy who had the cell phone bomb in him. Don't they use the hand held metal detectors on criminals before throwing them in a cell??
I also would have cut out the Lau/Hong Kong story line. That would have shaved a half hour off the film. i know, i know, it all comes together in a giant arc. Well guess what? that arc is way too big to fit in one movie. Something has to go, whether it's Lau or something else.
Ledger excellent, always liked him, but he'll only get the oscar as a gift, not because it's the strongest performance of the year.
It's the movie that never ends ...it just goes on and on my friends...
Mostly agreed.
Post a Comment