Thanks to Christopher Nolan’s The
Dark Knight, I now believe that cinematic perfection may one
day be attained. I had previously long ruled out this notion;
after all, for a movie to be “perfect,” then wouldn’t it need to
tackle every genre, every tone, and every theme imaginable?
Wouldn’t it have to defy all the common rules of filmmaking and
of genre-standards to even begin to approach an entity of such
simultaneous broadness of content and conciseness of form? Based
on the great films I had previously watched, I didn’t foresee my
definition of perfection ever being realized by a filmmaker, no
matter what innovations the art of cinema was to be provided in
the future. But then I settled in to watch the Caped Crusader
battle the Make-Up Man on Friday morning and it all clicked.
The Dark
Knight is certainly not a perfect movie itself, but it
understands the form that one would embody. Never before has a
motion picture covered so much territory in just over
two-and-a-half hours; the fact that it is based off of a
comic-book makes the accomplishment even more remarkable. The
Dark Knight is full of fantasy and of realism, of
ethical-dilemmas and of moral-absolutes, of comic-book roots and
of terrifying realism, of brilliant character-acting and of
fearless transformations – the list goes on and on. In one fell
swoop, co-writer/director Christopher Nolan and his talented
cast and crew have fashioned the most versatile motion picture
that audiences have ever experienced.
And yet the
movie nonetheless has its problems, many of them stemming from
the aforementioned balancing of themes and tones. There’s a
central paradox that prevents Nolan and company from ever
reaching the realm of perfection: the fact that comic-book
storytelling and cinematic realism are naturally
counterintuitive. The Herculean story that Nolan chooses to tell
is characterized by both of these styles—the filmmaker adheres
to convention in order to achieve the sense of triumph expected
of his material but at the same time undoubtedly imbues in it a
grittily actualized sense of place and time—and it is impossible
for these to fully coexist. Yes, Nolan does his darndest to make
sure their coexistence is maximized—he does a far better job
than I could’ve ever imagined, a masterful one that few (if any)
other filmmakers would ever be able to achieve—but the ensuing
paradigm still isn’t entirely sound.
Then again,
perhaps the aforementioned flaw exists only in my imagination as
a gut reaction to the fact that I have never seen a movie quite
like The Dark Knight, certainly not one in the form of a
big-budget summer-blockbuster. Perhaps the film is supposed to
be as strangely maddening as it actually is and my still
somewhat uneasy response after two viewings is entirely
appropriate. (Regardless, do not let this characterization of my
opinion distract you from the fact that I do think the movie is
a masterpiece.) It is very likely that I will need to see The
Dark Knight another two times before I fully understand it.
One thing is for sure, however: never before have I contemplated
such ideas in my review of a comic-book-adapted picture, which
clearly signals that the movie is the best representation of its
genre. (On the other hand, does The Dark Knight even
qualify as a comic-book adaptation? Outside of its source
material and classic showcase of good-versus-evil, there’s
nothing to suggest it does in terms of content.)
I have
dreaded composing this review for two days now. Just dreaded it.
This is because I realize that, in most ways, reviewing the
movie represents a fruitful task. I’ve already written a page
and haven’t even talked about the specifics of the story yet.
Should I even try? If I were to dissect the plot bit by bit,
then I would spend thousands of words reaching a dozen
half-assed conclusions. If I were to continue to limit myself to
the above generalizations, then I wouldn’t do my affection for
the film justice. All I know is that both times I watched The
Dark Knight over the past weekend, I felt something
intrinsic awaken within me. It was new, it was fresh, it was
scary, and it was exciting. And the only way I can even begin to
make sense of why I liked the picture so much is to digress to
bullet-points signaling out the three concrete aspects of the
picture that I was most riveted by. These of course represent
generalizations in and of themselves, but they offer the most
accurate representation of my impressions that I know how to
express.
-
The acting – In any other
comic-book adaptation, it would seem strange that the most
commendable component of the equation is the cast. Much as
the late Heath Ledger has been given the media-spotlight for
his work as the Joker, there is truly not a weak-link to be
found in The Dark Knight’s ensemble. Ledger is, of
course, phenomenal, truly exploring his character’s chaos
and yet leaving so much of his existence up to the viewer’s
dark imagination. Nearly as good is Aaron Eckhart, whose
third-act transformation (you all know who to by now) is
genuinely incredible, and he plays both sides of the coin
with stellar versatility. On the clearer-cut side of things:
Christian Bale’s Bruce Wayne is rife with
moral-complexities, much thanks to the actor’s continued
nuanced approach; Maggie Gyllenhaal’s Rachel Dawes is far
more intriguing and ultimately heartbreaking than Katie
Holmes’ take on the character ever was; and Michael Caine’s
Alfred and Morgan Freeman’s Lucius continue to impress as
they provoke thought while lurking in the background.
-
The rich
definition of setting and its socio-political parallels
– Yes, Gotham City has been committed to celluloid many
times before—even by Nolan in Batman Begins—but we’ve
never quite seen it like this. Nolan provides the realm his
movie inhabits the distinct feel of today’s America. Instead
of literally depicting fears of Islamist terrorism or
economic woes, however, he subliminally expresses these
through the reactions of Gotham’s citizens and
representatives to the Joker’s unstoppable wrath. The movie
references the Bush Administration, the Patriot Act
(especially in one eerie surveillance scene during the final
act), and the current international climate more times than
can be counted on two hands. And its understanding of
history is equally striking; a reference made to Julius
Caesar that Bruce, Bruce’s date, Eckhart’s Harvey Dent, and
Rachel discuss over dinner is only the tip of the iceberg.
Nolan himself refuses to make objective judgments about such
issues, and rightfully so. He merely wants to provide The
Dark Knight a terrifying sense of authenticity; the fact
that Gotham feels so real only makes the work of the Joker
more harrowing and the counter-efforts of Batman more
palpable.
-
The movie’s
technical mastery – As obligatory as this feature may
seem in a contemporary mega-blockbuster, The Dark Knight
wouldn’t be the same without its nimble assembly or its
striking sense of visual aesthetics. Despite the movie’s
150+-minute running length, it flies by like a rocket. This
is much in part due to its wealth of material, but without
such skillful direction on the part of Nolan or mathematical
editing on the part of Lee Smith, the movie would not be as
consistently engrossing nor as thought-provoking in its
presentation. And, man, are the visuals great. Rarely does a
film as dark looking as this one prove so
aesthetically immersive. When coupled with the fantastic
acting maintained throughout the action sequences, the
CGI-work done to bring said action sequences alive ranks
among the best I’ve ever seen.
Much as I
have tried to keep my praise of The Dark Knight at
reasonable levels—too many glib comments concerning how
revolutionary the picture is ultimately undermines the sublime
nature of the experience itself—I have had a tough time
containing myself. And as much as I have tried to express my
overall opinion of the film, I feel as though I have barely
scratched the surface. This is that kind of movie. Sure, I have
seen many more accomplished pieces of cinema in my life, but I
can’t remember ever experiencing (or at least attempting to
review) one as vast and as broad and as
immediately-indecipherable as this one. In the end, however,
only one conclusion is important for me to reach (and, rather
ironically, it doesn’t really need my help in order to be
pounded into your brain): see this movie. If you thought Nolan’s
Batman Begins was a marvelous work of cinema, then
prepare to be blown out of the water with The Dark Knight.
-Danny Baldwin, Bucket Reviews
Review Published on: 7.21.2008
Screened on: 7.18.2008 at the Regal
Escondido 16 in Escondido, CA and on 7.19.2008 at the Regal
Oceanside 16 in Oceanside, CA.
