catholiclefty (![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} catholiclefty) wrote,@ 2008-07-25 16:48:00 |
|
The Dark Knight
I didn't have especially high hopes for The Dark Knight, not least because I seemed to be swimming against the general tide of admiration for Batman Begins. So it is fair to say I was genuinely surprised that I mostly thought this was a very good film indeed. Flawed, definitely. Perfect, certainly not. One of the best films ever, no. But still a film well worth seeing.
This is a long film - but it uses the running time quite well, and rarely feels like it is dragging. The set-pieces mostly aren't too long, avoiding 'set-piece boredom'. It's quite darkly shot, but not oppressively so. There seem to be a few editing problems early on in the film, but this doesn't seem to be an issue after a while. Some shots are overused - the camera circling around two characters shot turns up a few too many times - but this is still for the most part a visual treat. The geography is well-used - though Batman not having a real 'home' ( or 'cave'!) seems quite a loss.
Ethically this is all over the place, and the attempts at psychological and ethical discussion mostly fall flat. There's quite an unpleasant neo-con undertone to much of what happens, whether the 'extraordinary rendition' of a bad guy, the abrogation of the rule of law 'because we can't get the bad guys otherwise', the (incorrect) designation of the Joker as a 'terrorist', the advanced and unannounced surveillance techniques, or the 'noble lie' at the end. The raw consequentialism on display leaves quite a nasty taste in the mouth when viewed from a Catholic perspective. It's to the detriment of the film that we're presented with discussion, in a perfunctory way, on these issues, without reaching satisfactory answers. However, it is to the credit of the film that this doesn't excessively detract from being able to appreciate the film for what it is, that is a very dark superhero story. The menace is sustained and holds up well without being continually excessive. I'm not at all sure how this got a '12A' certificate though - much as I'm opposed to any form of censorship, I don't see anyone under 12 ought to be watching this at all, with parents or otherwise.
Plotwise this is rather all over the place too, and you could spend many a merry hour picking holes - but I'm mostly willing to let this go, on the basis that it's a comic book movie, it's full of mostly nice set-pieces and it pulls you along anyway, glossing over the holes quite nicely. Yes, it irritates a bit that the Joker's plans only work out due to complete luck on more than one occasion, and a number of things are more convoluted than necessary, but this is a reasonably complex plot and yet doesn't befuddle or confuse, at least not in the main. The narrative structure isn't exactly traditional, there's mostly a distinct lack of character development or motivation, and the complete lack of a light contrast batters you down a little - and results in the alarming way that the Joker almost comes through as the light relief on occasion - but, again, this isn't really a criticism, just a statement of fact.
All eyes are, of course, on Heath Ledger's Joker, and he truly pulls off the part with aplomb. Simultaneously fascinating and horrifying, intriguing and repulsive, every mannerism refines the part in a memorable way. This is a great performance. Oscar-worthy, I'm not sure - much of the strength is in the writing, not least the various differing stories about how he got his scars - but certainly great. Christian Bale is fine as Batman, though perhaps lacking in nuance at times. Gary Oldman is very good - for me he was one of the definite strengths of Batman Begins, so it was good to see him have a much bigger part here. Aaron Eckhart is ok, though his character suffers from having almost all the character development which seems insufficiently motivated and shovelled-in towards the end. His makeup as Two-Face didn't work for me either, it was too distracting, especially when the Joker was making his otherwise memorable speech about plans and chaos. Maggie Gyllenhaal is given very little to do, but does it reasonably well. Morgan Freeman is, as ever, Morgan Freeman (not a bad thing, mind). As is Michael Caine.
Much, much better than I expected, much better than Batman Begins, though not quite as good as the hype. 8 out of 10.
I didn't have especially high hopes for The Dark Knight, not least because I seemed to be swimming against the general tide of admiration for Batman Begins. So it is fair to say I was genuinely surprised that I mostly thought this was a very good film indeed. Flawed, definitely. Perfect, certainly not. One of the best films ever, no. But still a film well worth seeing.
This is a long film - but it uses the running time quite well, and rarely feels like it is dragging. The set-pieces mostly aren't too long, avoiding 'set-piece boredom'. It's quite darkly shot, but not oppressively so. There seem to be a few editing problems early on in the film, but this doesn't seem to be an issue after a while. Some shots are overused - the camera circling around two characters shot turns up a few too many times - but this is still for the most part a visual treat. The geography is well-used - though Batman not having a real 'home' ( or 'cave'!) seems quite a loss.
Ethically this is all over the place, and the attempts at psychological and ethical discussion mostly fall flat. There's quite an unpleasant neo-con undertone to much of what happens, whether the 'extraordinary rendition' of a bad guy, the abrogation of the rule of law 'because we can't get the bad guys otherwise', the (incorrect) designation of the Joker as a 'terrorist', the advanced and unannounced surveillance techniques, or the 'noble lie' at the end. The raw consequentialism on display leaves quite a nasty taste in the mouth when viewed from a Catholic perspective. It's to the detriment of the film that we're presented with discussion, in a perfunctory way, on these issues, without reaching satisfactory answers. However, it is to the credit of the film that this doesn't excessively detract from being able to appreciate the film for what it is, that is a very dark superhero story. The menace is sustained and holds up well without being continually excessive. I'm not at all sure how this got a '12A' certificate though - much as I'm opposed to any form of censorship, I don't see anyone under 12 ought to be watching this at all, with parents or otherwise.
Plotwise this is rather all over the place too, and you could spend many a merry hour picking holes - but I'm mostly willing to let this go, on the basis that it's a comic book movie, it's full of mostly nice set-pieces and it pulls you along anyway, glossing over the holes quite nicely. Yes, it irritates a bit that the Joker's plans only work out due to complete luck on more than one occasion, and a number of things are more convoluted than necessary, but this is a reasonably complex plot and yet doesn't befuddle or confuse, at least not in the main. The narrative structure isn't exactly traditional, there's mostly a distinct lack of character development or motivation, and the complete lack of a light contrast batters you down a little - and results in the alarming way that the Joker almost comes through as the light relief on occasion - but, again, this isn't really a criticism, just a statement of fact.
All eyes are, of course, on Heath Ledger's Joker, and he truly pulls off the part with aplomb. Simultaneously fascinating and horrifying, intriguing and repulsive, every mannerism refines the part in a memorable way. This is a great performance. Oscar-worthy, I'm not sure - much of the strength is in the writing, not least the various differing stories about how he got his scars - but certainly great. Christian Bale is fine as Batman, though perhaps lacking in nuance at times. Gary Oldman is very good - for me he was one of the definite strengths of Batman Begins, so it was good to see him have a much bigger part here. Aaron Eckhart is ok, though his character suffers from having almost all the character development which seems insufficiently motivated and shovelled-in towards the end. His makeup as Two-Face didn't work for me either, it was too distracting, especially when the Joker was making his otherwise memorable speech about plans and chaos. Maggie Gyllenhaal is given very little to do, but does it reasonably well. Morgan Freeman is, as ever, Morgan Freeman (not a bad thing, mind). As is Michael Caine.
Much, much better than I expected, much better than Batman Begins, though not quite as good as the hype. 8 out of 10.
