DARK KNIGHT: My Lovingly Harsh Criticisms (***SPOILERS***)

[thehefner]

Okay. I've seen it a second time, not on IMAX as planned but rather on a small (smaller than the Uptown, anyway) screen. It's better that way, where I wouldn't be totally overwhelmed by the effects and experience and actually focus on the details with clear eyes and mind. Now I'm ready.

First off, since I'm hoping to *foster discussion* and not just wank to hear myself speak, I think it would be best to post a SPOILER WARNING.

We good? Okay.










You know I said SPOILERS, right?






Okay.







First of all, why does Batman sound like Nathan Explosion? Get the goddamn Batman a goddamn lozenge, please!



Secondly, I keep going back and forth about the whole Jim Gordon faked-death stuff. Was it *really* necessary to lie to his family like that? Gee, that's not gonna totally scar his kids for life, thanks, Dad! Dick move, Jimbo! Also, it's Jim goddamn Gordon; are they insulting our intelligence in making us think that they'd really kill him off? Please.



And speaking of his wife, let's come to my third point (and while I've mentioned it before, it's worth mentioning twice more): the female characters, and Rachel in particular. angrylemur says it a lot better than I could, but I'll say it myself, there were only three major female characters in this film, the first of which did nothing but cry and be ineffectual, the second which cried and was traitorous, and the third which cried, did nothing, and died. Let me rephrase that last part: who existed solely to die, and why? So the male characters could have something to which they could react.

This doesn't piss me off nearly as much as it does certain ladyfriends of mine, but it doesn't sit well with me either, especially for... other reasons. More on this later.



Fourth, as a few critics were complaining about bloat, how the film could have truly achieved "masterpiece" status if it had just lost a half hour of footage, I've wondered what (if anything!) could or should be cut. After all, I'm sympathetic to long-winded bastards if they truly have something to say. And the first time I watched the film, there was not a single moment where I thought to myself, "This is going on too long, this should have been cut."

It was (pretty much) *all* compelling the first time around. Which is probably why the majority of people seem to be blind to the film's flaws, so overwhelmed as they are by everything else. And if they did/do see the flaws, so many folks are all-too-willing to excuse or ignore them, because the good outweighed the bad, right? No, the bad didn't even matter compared to how good the rest was. For these people, it seems like the good fucking *obliterated* the bad.

The rampant sweeping of this kind of thinking (everywhere from the critics to drowning out my own LJ friends list) is all the more reason why I'm going to be particularly harsh against a film I generally deeply adored.

And you know what? As much as I liked the whole sequence with the Scarecrow and the Bat-Imposters... it didn't do anything. Really, what did it add to the film? A cool action sequence, an excuse for Batman to want to upgrade his armor and weapons, an arbitrary running theme of dogs (or something; what was up with the dogs, anyway?), and a neat but pointless "Hey, I remember you!" cameo from the Scarecrow. Most importantly, I suppose, it touches upon how Batman is influencing the city, but not in the way he intended (which lends itself to comparisons to how Harvey is doing it better, and therefore, the big finale in general). But really, couldn't that have been established in a ten-second newsreel clip of the Bat-imposters and then just moved on?

Honestly, I think they should have cut that scene out entirely and put it online or someplace as part of the viral marketing, let it stands as its own mini-movie/maxi-preview (ala the way they played the entire bank robbery scene before IMAX screenings of I AM LEGEND some months back).

Then there's the Hong Kong sequence. The first time I saw it, I thought it was awesome, but afterward, I wondered how important it really was. As I was watching it again tonight, there was a point where I said to myself, "Ah, okay, that's why it's here, that's what it adds to the film in general, right." But now I'm sitting here typing this entry, and you know what? I can't for the fucking life of me remember what it was. Kinda says something, doesn't it?

So yeah, the Hong Kong sequence should have been cut in half. At least.

Because as good as these scenes were, they were kind of empty, at least compared to the rest of the film. This touches upon one of the problems with how uneven BATMAN BEGINS was, in that Nolan's strength there was on character, not action. Ask people what the biggest flaws in BATMAN BEGINS were (Katie Holmes aside), and more often than not, people will cite A.) the Batmobile vs. Police car chase, and/or B.) the whole third act.

But some of the very best scenes in THE DARK KNIGHT did what the absolute finest superhero comics do: they combined action with character. Compare the Joker vs. Harvey Dent's police caravan sequence to either of the scenes above. Notice anything different? Those scenes were cool but comparatively hollow, and maybe they were important so we could *build up* to those later, more (why so) serious action sequences...

... but I can't shake the feeling that they did indeed add to the bloat of the film and dragged it down, pushing the experience from "exhilarating" to "exhausting." But many people don't notice or care about this, and that's because Nolan and company just did it early on so you don't even notice as the film gets better and better... at least, until they jumped the shark entirely.

And here, we come to the big one. The one you knew was coming.

... fuck it, this entry is long enough. Let me give my Harvey Dent thoughts their own entry.

But yeah, I feel I should stress yet again how much I still loved this movie. Honestly, I don't think I could even add to all the accolades the film's already received. Anything I say would be redundant.

That said, and without even touching upon the big stuff yet, I'm seriously considering that the title for "Best Superhero Movie" belongs more to IRON MAN or THE INCREDIBLES.

Comments

[pondering-duck.livejournal.com]

While I agree with a lot of what you said, my personal opinion about the Hong Kong sequence is that it proved that Batman is necessary to Harvey and co. because he can do things those completely working within the law cannot.

My initial reaction was that the sequence could have been shorter. When trying to picture that sequence shorter, though, I think it would have felt much too random. Batman would be in US, Hong Kong, and US again too quickly. I've seen movies that have characters go from here to there and almost immediately back here again and it almost always has a comedic or disjointing effect.

That being said I personally wish they had just kept the whole movie in Batman's home territory and just had him do something else to prove that he is needed.

As for Rachel, at least we don't need to worry about her in #3.

[pondering-duck.livejournal.com]

OK that last comment was harsh. I strike it from the record.

[thehefner.livejournal.com]

But couldn't we have accomplished that same message (Batman doing things that others working within the law cannot) in another, shorter way that would have actually stayed in the very city where Harvey and co. are actually operating? Wouldn't that have been even more effective and have further impact on the rest of the cast at large?

[pondering-duck.livejournal.com]

yeah, that's what I said at the end of my post

[princessebee.livejournal.com]

Yes, I agree - the first time I was so blown away by everything that was glorious and wonderful about it, that everything seemed absolutely critical and I certainly didn't notice the flaws.
It's why I feel the film will become another The Killing Joke - what is wonderful and complex and amazing about it (or rather, the HYPE around what is great about it) obscuring all its flaws.
By the third viewing, the film was showing its flaws. I was more restless and more critical of the monologues. I still love it and will happily watch it over and over again - lol - and I would be loathe to cut any of Joker's or Harvey/Two-Face's scenes, so yeah some of those little things - while cool - could probably afford to go.

I have to disagree though on your final point though. The Incredibles has its own huge span of flaws in its reaffirming of 'special' people being 'greater' than 'ordinary' people (not to mention its underscoring of the traditional gender roles - the Mom doesn't have a job, despite having been a superhero, the daughter's only interests is the cute boys at school and her powers are very passive). I still enjoy it, but eh. Iron Man was wonderful, but it just didn't have the emotional scope or ambition of TDK.

The fridging and the treatment of female characters in general was abominable in TDK though.

[princessebee.livejournal.com]

oh yeah - and I totally agree with Batman's voice. That was just too much.

I'm also tired of people saying it's THE greatest film EVER made, which is patently ridiculous. I don't think you can say that about ANY film, when you consider the scope of genre and theme that belongs to the cinematic world.

[thehefner.livejournal.com]

Aye, I wasn't sure about THE INCREDIBLES when I threw it in there. I mainly wanted to hedge my bets a bit while still suggesting/suspecting that IRON MAN might be superior to THE DARK KNIGHT. I need to rewatch THE INCREDIBLES. That said, the gender roles aside, I don't see the film as fascist as others do, especially in light of RATATOULLIE, which took similar concepts and looked at them in another light. They make an excellent ideological double-feature, those films.

I wondered about the question of IRON MAN's comparative lack of scope against THE DARK KNIGHT's, and angrylemur made a strong argument that IRON MAN absolutely had it. I'll leave it to her to explain further, if she feels like doing so upon her return from Comic Con.

[princessebee.livejournal.com]

But you're forgetting something very important... Iron Man didn't have The Joker in it!

[jellied.livejournal.com]

I've got a feeling the dog thing might be some foreshadowing for a third installment, and for Catwoman to be the big bad in that. Call it a hunch.

And yes! I've seen it now so I can contribute, finally.

[thehefner.livejournal.com]

Especially with Lucius Fox's line about cats, yeah. I remember thinking that at the time, and now I wonder why no one else has picked up upon that one too.

[jellied.livejournal.com]

I'm glad you noticed that as well.

The Scarecrow cameo was for me. I need additional material for my spank bank. ("That's not my diagnosis" Hee).

[princessebee.livejournal.com]

lol. I did.

[b8g8.livejournal.com]

Scraps of thought in reply:
• My thought about Batman's voice is simply that otherwise, they'd know who he was. Sort of similar to the fact that Clark's glasses wouldn't work in this 'verse.
• Oh. I thought Gordon's kid knew. I mean, he didn't seem particularly traumatized when Gordon was like HAI I'M HOME. I agree this was a weak point, however.
• Scarecrow scene: to connect somehow with the first one, even if it's three years later. I think that scene did two (relatively) important things: 1) OH HAI I KNOW YOU CILLIAN, WE'VE SEEN EACH OTHER BEFORE?! 2) Introduced the idea of the Bat-clone, since he gets killed later.

[thehefner.livejournal.com]

That, and maybe his regular voice wouldn't be as "intimidating." Still, I think it works better when he just has to say one or three words, max. Otherwise, once he starts monologuing, it sounds like Nathan Explosion's spoken word reading of Hamlet.

Yeah, I got the impression that James Jr. knew, but... um, how? Magical movie child telepathy?

And you know, even besides the bloat it adds, I'm of two minds on that Scarecrow scene. For one, I agree with you on the OH HAI factor, and furthermore, I like how it establishes a Gotham like the comics where these characters still exist, live, and interact, and can still pop up. On the other hand, he almost clashes with the stark change in tone between the first and second films. Like he's out of place, or out of his league.

That said, if they can give him more to do in part three, I'd love to see him again.

And I still think the Bat-clone stuff could have been established in a ten-second (one minute at bloody most!) news clip. After all, the only way it really pays off in a major way is when the Joker kills one, and even that is something that just moves on and is forgotten about, save for Joker's "And there's the real Batman" line later.

[tompurdue.livejournal.com]

Tell me something. Heath Ledger's performance... hmmm.

Still haven't seen the film, and I'm going to. But I've heard from one too many critics that "Heath Ledger disappeared, and there was only The Joker." It sounds more like critics repeating each other so I can't tell if any of them actually watched the fucking movie. You, I know, watched the movie.

I'm always leery of over-the-top characters. Critics are often unable to distinguish between creating a deep character and mugging with charisma.

Ledger, at least, seemed to have some range. Compared to Jack Nicholson in the role, who as far as I can tell was photoshopped in from home movie footage, with the makeup added digitally. Even the lines sounded like something Nicholson would have said himself.

So, is Ledger really all that, from an acting perspective?

[thehefner.livejournal.com]

Let me put it to you this way. You know how, when watching a great performance of an actor who died young and/or tragically, usually the greatest moments are undercut with you getting a sense of "Man, what a waste to have someone this talented taken before his/her time"?

Yeah. You don't think that at all throughout this film. Maybe at the very last Joker scene, with one line in particular ("I think we're destined to do this forever,") but otherwise... you're not seeing Heath. At the risk of totally browncoating it more than it already has been for both of us, that was the Joker. Not the perfect Joker of the comics, but the spirit is captured perfectly, and there's barely a trace of Heath to be seen.

Jack Nicholson isn't even a blip here. Trust me.

[thehefner.livejournal.com]

Furthermore, he's not over the top. He's theatrical, yes, and some of the things he gets away with pushes him into almost "he has to be some kind of trickster god to pull all this off" levels, but performance-wise, he's not over-the-top at all.

I compare it to Daniel Day-Lewis in THERE WILL BE BLOOD. Many people decried that performance as hammy and overacting, way too over-the-top to be taken seriously, and I majorly disagree. He was so huge... because his character--the way he created him--was so huge. He just inhabited every last crevice of the gigantic character, without ever going over or outside, if that makes sense.

Ledger's the same here.

[gnort.livejournal.com]

I read there's actually a half hour of cut footage that made up a 3 hour director's cut so ironically enough, the version we saw was the streamlined version of the movie.

[thehefner.livejournal.com]

Yeah, three hours, two hours and forty-five minutes, something like that. I look forward to seeing what they cut.

They still could (and maybe should) have streamlined it further. This isn't WATCHMEN, for god's sake, where virtually every scene plays an integral part. That's the film that needs to be seen at its current three (I've also heard four) hour length.

[kosher-jenny.livejournal.com]

I was blown away by TDK, like a lot of people, but yeah, the movie certainly was not without its flaws. 100% agreement concerning the movie's female characters. Shoot, I don't think I've seen such a clear-cut case of fridging so recently. Rachel was pretty much a straightforward example of a female character as little more than a plot and angst object. That this happened in a film that had such great characterization for the characters not in possession of a vagina was especially frustrating. It's funny to think that Rachel in TDK was a character that I just could not get on board with, in spite of how much I like Maggie G as an actress, whereas with Iron Man it was pretty much the exact opposite.

But I don't think I can compare the two just yet, because as of now I've only seen each film once. I'd say for now they're tied in my mind as my favorites. I'll also add that I've recently found that The Incredibles doesn't hold up to repeat viewing as much as I thought it would.

Also, I thought it was weird that the cell phone sequence drew so much (in film) commentary on the ethics of the situation (never mind that I thought it was pretty clear that Batman knew what he was doing was wrong, what with the building in a self destruct sequence and all) but the Hong Kong bit? Nuthin'. I mean, he only broke international law, no biggie. Hell, if the technology existed today, I'm sure that cell phone companies would implement it lickity split, with the government's approval! In fact, I'm sure the scene was meant as a commentary on the recent privacy erosions, but that just makes it seem even more ham-handed.

Since, like I said, I've only seen the film once so far, I can't speak too specifically about any bloat issues, but I did feel like there were parts that could go. I sometimes have a hard time sitting through long movies in the theater due to some anxiety problems, and I felt that with this one. That said, I'll still be interested in the cut footage that pops up in the director's cut when it comes out on DVD.

[thehefner.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I chickened out by putting THE INCREDIBLES up there rather than just IRON MAN alone, for fear that I'd be met with a torrent of "IRON MAN?! My god, man, are you mad?!?!" I've seen both films twice, and IM holds up better, but there's the question of whether TDK has more epic scope, or if it only feels that way because it's not as "fun."

Yeah, I know there was meant to be a lot of 9/11 imagery and whatnot, but the cell phone sequence and the moral questions it raised were a non-issue from the start. Maybe it was there to give Morgan Freeman more to do than play Q (while still essentially doing his usual "wise black man" routine). He has to disapprove of wiretapping and whatnot, being as he is both wise and black.

Yeah, the breaking international law thing is also kind of a glaring factor that should have been explored or not done at all.

[tonks07.livejournal.com]

Get the goddamn Batman a goddamn lozenge, please!
Yes please! My mother hates the weird gravle Batman voice.I understand that yea,he's trying to be intiminating and sure people could guess who he was,but it's kind of funny after awhile.Maybe not so much if someone did that in my face in real life but hey,this is the movies.Also,you would think talking like that would screw up his throat and so as Bruce his voice might be hoarse.

Now that people have pointed it out,the lack of female characters bugs me.That's why I'm hoping if there is a 3rd movie Nolan will pick a female villian.I think Taila might work because they could tie her in with Ra's in the first movie.I'd love to see Poisin Ivy but I'm not sure how well she could work in Nolan's universe.They would have to rework her character a bit,maybe bring her back to some kind of eco-terrorist.No green skin,even tho I love that in the comics.

I actually liked the Scarecrow and Bat-inmposters cameo. It was fun to see Scarecrow was still running around nuts and trying to cause mischief.I kind of wish they would have shown him (and maybe even the Joker at the end) in a new fixed up Arkham. The Bat-imposters were only there for the later scene with the Joker getting that Brian guy.
I think more could have been done with them if the movie wanted to have them included.There were only a few on the roof-after Batman got them what did they do? Say "nevermind,Batman's a dick let's not help him anymore?" They were just kind of..there.

I agree about the Hong Kong scene being cut in half. Even before I saw the movie I wondered what the point of Lau was.He didn't seem very important. That wierd fight scene in the rave club could have been cut too.Batman kicking ass with flashing lights started making my brain hurt.

Now I haven't seen Iron Man,but I still think this movie may have my vote for best comic book movie so far.Maybe.I did think Spiderman 1 was awesome and the X-men movies had some great characterization going on.I'll have to have a superhero movie marathon some time and decide.

And did you find it hard to understand Gary Oldman's Gordon sometimes? I felt like he was mumbling some of his lines. His death? Eeh.It freaked me out at first.The guy next to me were going back and forth "Naw.Naw,man he can't be dead.We'd have heard the screams of angry comic book fans all over the net by now if he was." I have to admit his entrance back to get the Joker was pretty neat.

(I think this is one of my longest comments ever. :P )

[lairdofdarkness.livejournal.com]

Saw it yesterday and am still processing it all.
Fantastic film.

One point I was talking over with my friends afterwards was
Lau, will he become the Calculator? He kept saying (okay twice) he was good at calculations and since its not obvious if he lives or dies in the film, has Nolan left the possibility of someone coming onboard and directing the various criminal elements from the shadows? Maybe while wearing numbers on his chest!!
Probably not but it seemed to stand out.

I really hope they dont use Mister Reese again, certainly not as the Riddler (god no).

Having read your points about Harvey and your problems with Two Face, I have to say I agree with most of them. Will reply over at that post later.

And The Joker
Well for me thats EXACTLY how I want to see that character.

Finally saw the movie!

[american-arcane.livejournal.com]

I thoroughly enjoyed it... and definitely agree with your criticisms. Nolan and co. did a fantastic job of sweeping people up and carrying them along--to the point where, when it was all over even I was all "WOOHOO! FANTASTIC! PERFECT!"

At least until I cam to my senses halfway through the credits. Even then I couldn't quite put my finger on what was bothering me about the story. You've nailed it with the too-quick Two-Face is evil transformation and the lack of worthwhile female characters. I consider the "extra" scenes to be a secondary distraction, but definitely felt the Hong Kong stuff was a bit out of line.

Anyway, I should crank out a full review sometime... eventually.

One thing that I haven't seen anyone mention (so I have to check to see if it's just me hallucinating or something): Did it look to you like the Joker is incapable of feeling pain? When Batman was tossing him around in the interrogation room--most notably when Bats smashed his fist down on Joker's fingers--there was no pain reaction whatsoever. It would go a long way in explaining why he's quite as loony as his is (a la Darkman, of course... hey, that could be two Darkman connections! One from this and one from the Two-Face makeup.) :)

Re: Finally saw the movie!

[thehefner.livejournal.com]

Grand, glad you agree! I'm assuming from bits you mention here that you also read my whole separate Harvey post of criticisms? I look forward to your full review, whensoever it comes.