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.