Friday, July 25, 2008

Batman: The Dark Knight (2008)

In my humble opinion (and I’m no comic-book scholar), the Joker might be the single greatest villain in the paneled world. I love Jack Nicholson’s take on the character, but sorry, it’s not the least bit frightening. Sure, he puts strychnine into make-up, shampoo, and cologne, and drops lethal nerve gas onto Gotham city, but the man himself? He’s little more than an overweight Pan-Caked doofus. He’s entertaining to watch, but the character was served very poorly. The Joker must create the same feeling that, say, Anthony Hopkins did, in The Silence of the Lambs: he’s all feral, ungovernable teeth and nails, and the pane of glass blocking him off from your fingers and toes is the most precious thing in the world to you when you’re standing before him. I can’t tell you how pleased I was when I saw the first trailer for Christopher Nolan’s sequel to his sober reimagining of the Batman frachise, Batman Begins (2005), “The only thing we found in his pockets were knives and lint.” Yes!! The Joker, himself, is a flailing knife, and a prodigiously sharpened one, waving back and forth in the air, aiming for no one in particular, but saving no one a slice through the jugular.

Tim Burton’s Batman (1989) didn’t take the comic book character seriously (whether you think that’s a good thing or a bad thing I don’t know) and his two films were silly, tongue-in-cheek affairs much closer to resembling the campy 1966 television series starring Adam West

...than to the hard-edged comics by Frank Miller (1986) (left) or Alan Moore (1988) (right).



Personally I found the Adam West television show to be insufferable. I think Tim Burton’s Batman Returns (1992) is irredeemably silly and his Batman (1989) is tolerable because I enjoy watching Nicholson, even though he’s only scary very briefly and the rest of the time prances like a peacock and looks like one of those clowns who show up to children’s birthday parties to fashion balloon animals.

As for Christopher Nolan’s offering of the character, much has been said about Heath Ledger’s Joker, but not all the credit must go to him: 35% of the success must go to the make-up and wardrobe department, for avoiding Nicholson’s flamboyant, camp getup and going with dark purple murderer chic.

The other masterstroke is smudging Ledger’s face paint so that it streaks, splotches, and runs, a deliberate mess which brilliantly radiates the warped sloppy dissonance reverberating in the Joker’s brain cavity.

And of course, there is Ledger himself, who displays a gift for a giggling array of facial tics and ghoulish idiosyncrasies that turn him into a walking magnet. When Ledger enters a room, the air bristles as if receiving an animal that escaped from the zoo; he skips around hostages like a demented jackal, as wild and capricious as a starving wolf. It’s the Joker as plausible mass murderer, which makes him arrestingly, urgently scary.

Even the harshest critics of this film will be hard-pressed to find a boring breath or gesture from Heath Ledger’s portrayal of the Joker, a portrayal that makes Jack Nicholson’s look as silly and unthreatening as a Cirque du Soleil mime on a bender.

However, like Batman Begins, the story is often tediously by the numbers, and Nolan persists in his underwhelming artistry, being merely functional as a director rather than the virtuoso showstopper that jubilant fans seem to be confusing with the performance of an actor that deserved a much greater film to surround it. The film is 2 hours and 35 minutes, and it feels like it. It took about an hour and a half for me to actually start to care. Part of this comes from the fact that the Joker only makes two or three all too brief appearances during the First Act, one of which has him threatening a powerful gangster with a forcible widening of the mouth via knife blade. The Joker tells a macabre little story to the man about his abusive upbringing all the while holding the knife to the corner of the man’s mouth. The anticipation builds for a bizarre face mutilation, a demonstration of the mysterious Joker’s sadistic glee, and, and, there’s a loud noise of some sort, and the man falls dead. What? Did he stab him? Did he slice his throat? Did one of the Joker’s thugs shoot the man dead? Nolan fumbles this moment so badly that it practically invalidates the entire scene. There are many inept choices made by the director throughout the film. He shoots one or two action scenes rather competently, but others are just close-ups of blurs. You’d think by now Nolan would have learned to be liberal with the establishing shots and concerned with delivering coherent fight sequences. He has improved since Batman Begins, though, as seen during a spectacular long-distance shot of an 18-wheeler exploding from the base and catapulting vertically through the air. The action scenes are moderately thrilling when they are done well, two especially. The first is an awesome chase of a police van through a tunnel by a truck housing the Joker’s henchmen. The awesomeness comes in when the speeding truck pulls up alongside the van, and a side compartment of the truck opens to reveal the Joker himself, who proceeds to fire at the van with a fully automatic machine pistol, a shotgun, and finally, a bazooka.

He does most of this while giggling.

The second occurs just after the 18-wheeler has landed upside down at the end of a Gotham City street which has been turned into an impromptu war zone by the Joker. He pulls himself out of the 18-wheeler, and walks into cars driving in his direction, firing a submachine gun at them to clear his path. At the opposite end of the street is Batman on his Batpod. The urban mayhem and the street duel are shot very well so as to accentuate the city buildings towering around the Joker and Batman, as if to underline the power these two men have over the city, reminding us that the one who wins the city is the one who doesn’t back down.


A game of chicken commences as Batman speeds his Batpod towards the Joker, who refuses to move, inviting the collision. Of course Batman must swerve out of the way of the madman, and the motorcycle skids and crashes. This is basically the showdown to end all showdowns. As Joker says later, “This is what happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object.”

The reason the film appears to reach such newfound heights is the way the Joker character has unleashed everyone’s inhibitions about what’s safe or not. Hearing negative reviews criticizing the film for being, among other things, “sadistic,” was reassuring. I wanted my Joker served up hideous, uncompromising, as twisted as possible.

Unfortunately, hyperbolic reports of uber-darkness inflated my conception of what was to come. The murder and mayhem Nolan serves up is considerably less transgressive than what I wanted: Joker blows some shit up, cold-bloodedly guns down some henchmen, threatens people with malevolent behavior, nothing unusually envelope-pushing. A major character is killed in an explosion, but my reaction was more akin to, “Didn’t expect that person to die. Huh.” than, “Truly Gotham city, nay, the world seems to now be shrouded in pitiless tragedy! This is R-rated levels of cynicism and brutality!” These cries of sadism are coming from some really soft film reviewers. The most freakish, subversive thing is an instance where Nolan has the Joker dress up in a nurse’s outfit.

The only thing the film does that could be considered really upsetting to anyone older than maybe 12 is to show the Joker videotaping himself with a duct-taped hostage and then cackling madly while we hear cries of distress or pain from the hostage and then the video feed cuts to static.

About the scene with the nurse’s outfit, Nolan did impress with his managing a wide shot of the Joker (in nurse’s outfit) ambling out of a hospital (evacuated to preserve the children’s tears) as it erupts into fireballs behind him. Within the same single take, the Joker turns to his handiwork and I held my breath that Ledger wouldn’t fuck anything up for fear that all those very expensive detonations and freshly exploded building would have been wasted, or that Nolan would have to abandon his desired edit-free shot. Thankfully, Ledger is a consummate pro and the already impressive sequence is made even more impressive by virtue of its being a virtuoso long take.

I’ll probably see it again simply to revel in Ledger’s maniacal performance, a performance which is too entertaining and too iconic to merit anything less than a posthumous Academy Award.



Grade: B+

7 comments:

Patrick said...

no, I kill the bus driver...

Pumpkin Kid said...

See, he's not a monster...

What we have here is three great essays spliced into one really good one: Your criticism on the place of the movie in the canon, your criticism of Nolan's execution, and your criticism of the story/characters. Normally these would belong together, but, you've changed things, here in your house in the middle of nowhere, and I need to know how to read this one. Because maybe all it needs are a couple more viewings and a ream of paper and you've got yourself a thesis, but there might be just a few too many different spheres here for just one entry.

I wouldn't presume to challenge you on your thoughts on the movie's technique, or "wow" you with thoughts from the canon of comic books that neither of us have read entirely. I will also not try to persuade you to *any* point. (We all know my favorite Wittgenstein quote re: doors and locks)

I want to say this: when you go to see the movie another time, watch it like the 'black and white' game of your choice: chess, backgammon, go - just watch it as a game of strategy between two brilliant players: One, quite good, gifted with the ability to see the proper next move in either fortification or capture; and the other, great, gifted with seeing the long game, and the infinite possible connections between pieces, how the other side must react.

This will change no great opinion about the movie, but, perhaps you could check your fundamental opinions of the Joker. Watch again, if you please, and remember that he only deems two other characters to be at his level. No entire speech can be used to gauge his motive or sanity - if the manipulator held the marionette with two hands, how would he hold the strings? The question of his sanity rides on the question of his intentions, and his intent, though his strategy changes after the first act, is not so simple as setting the world aflame and watching it burn. He claims he's not a schemer - how true is that, really?

Once again, one of your pieces has inspired me to comment at length - I hope you won't take a few composition style pointers as me trying to put you down or get a rise out of you. I'm also just ruminating on what I thought I saw in one of the characters, which I perceived you saying you wanted more of. I'm going to go see it again next week, after things have calmed down at the theaters a bit. Perhaps we could see it in concert?

scroggins said...

Well, I'd say that a house divided cannot stand, as my dissatisfaction with the film as a whole clashed with my admiration for what Ledger was doing as the Joker. Watching "Batman Begins" again it became apparent to me that, firstly, the genre bores me to tears, and secondly, Nolan has replaced Burton's intrusive Gothic campiness with just sort of a bland functionality. It was a relief to see Tom Wilkinson pop in briefly hamming it up as Carmine Falcone, but then back to the platitudes cloaked in run-of-the-mill action setpieces. Despite my fondness for Christian Bale, Michael Caine, and Morgan Freeman, I did not find Bruce Wayne, Alfred, and Lucius Fox all that compelling. Liam Neeson I rarely find compelling.

As a director, Nolan doesn't have any idiosyncrasies in the way he shoots or establishes atmosphere. He just sort of does it; he does his job, and moves on. He doesn't have much of an eye either. Sure, it's sufficient and not offensive, but nothing extraordinary or unusual is happening either with the angles or the lighting or the composition.

This struck me as the case with "The Dark Knight" as well. The opening bank robbery is interesting and so is the shot of the Joker standing on the street corner with his back to us, but all of the amplified strangeness and "this is like so dark!" hyperbole is the result of one man and one man alone, a man who might have worn out his welcome if he had been in more than 8 moderately-lengthed/ brief scenes, which I doubt. The movie is too damn long. It plays it safe with the Joker's sadism. I want the vile, sickening freak from Alan Moore's "The Killing Joke." Ledger might've gotten there if he had randomly killed an innocent partygoer at the gala he crashes. He kills henchmen and other badguys, but what's so vile about that? He blows up a judge, but killing someone with an explosion is impersonal and not all that disturbing.

He says he prefers to use the knife so that when he kills with it, he can "Savor all the little expressions." Yeah? Well I wanna see it. And not offscreen either (as with the black gangster).

By the way, which quote are you talking about?

This one:
"A man will be imprisoned in a room with a door that's unlocked and opens inwards; as long as it does not occur to him to pull rather than push."

or this one: "Philosophy is like trying to open a safe with a combination lock: each little adjustment of the dials seems to achieve nothing, only when everything is in place does the door open."

scroggins said...

"...gifted with seeing the long game, and the infinite possible connections between pieces, how the other side must react...if the manipulator held the marionette with two hands, how would he hold the strings? The question of his sanity rides on the question of his intentions, and his intent, though his strategy changes after the first act, is not so simple as setting the world aflame and watching it burn. He claims he's not a schemer - how true is that, really?"

If I catch your meaning, you are alluding to what the Joker does to Gotham City's hope for a better future, embodied in the "White Knight" of Harvey Dent. He knows that if Harvey Dent is corrupted, it will set the dominos falling, long after he has left the picture. But my question is: the Joker did not knock Dent over into the barrel of gasoline. The screenplay contrived for him to struggle and clumsily fall into it. The Joker did not scheme for half of Harvey's body to get horribly burned. "Well, he put him in a room filled with gasoline barrels, and in a state of panic, so naturally, Dent, being panicked, will clumsily fall over into the gasoline!" Sorry. That's too ludicrously contrived for even a film about a guy running around in spandex and a cape. Sure, making Batman choose between the hope for Gotham's future and the hope for Gotham's future's love is well-planned as it's a lose-lose, but Harvey goes insane with madness, I gathered, from the one-two punch of dead Rachel, half-of his body melts off.

Also, the long game is cut short once Two-Face dies. And if Nolan meant for the Joker to be seen as a genius at looking ahead to the big picture, don't you think he shot himself in the foot by not saving Two-Face for a whole nother film, where Two-Face's presence would always be an invisible reminder of the Joker's infinite foresight?

Pumpkin Kid said...

I can't argue with you on Nolan – He and his brother are the Anti-Scotts, aren’t they?

I also cannot disagree with the desire to see a little more... emphasis on the joker's hands during action scenes. And by emphasis I mean blood. I could presume escalation room was left for the further consequences in the series... alas, et cet.

Firstly to the rebuttal of my “schemer” point- and ignoring his boat show - the guy manages to get into MCU, blow it up, get his chinaman, and escape to his bales of cash. He says he’s a man of his word, but that there… was a scheme. I also don't agree with the capped potential of the gas can stunt. The way it turned out was the best possible scenario, but any of the options would have been a significant blow. Just Rachel dies, Harvey goes mad; Harvey dies, Rachel becomes despondent and further disenchanted (read: crazy) re: Bruce - and Mrs. Dent herself is most certainly not impotent - please see the Long Halloween. Say both of them die, battyman is sad and Gotham goes back to really screaming for his mask, [half a movie too soon.]

But maybe all my reasoning there is just poisoned by the joy I felt when I found out that Two-Face wasn't scarred by "acid" thrown at exactly half his face. [As a kid I liked Dick Tracy because of his slick yellow hat, not because I thought it was great that some sort of mutilation/mutation made you an insta-candidate for a career of crime. Honest. I never even read the comics as a kid. I probably just picked out the costume at the Halloween store because I thought it was the guy from Curious George.]

Okay, anyway, I most certainly can't argue the points character of the Joker's intentions with Nolan's intentions - because on more than one level, yes, any argument I make would shatter under the brute force of common sense.

I just posit that Film Technique, Screenplays, and Stories are three separate matters, and irreconcilable when forced to live together in theory. In practice, they just work. Or they don’t. A film just works. It works because you go in a big dark room with a strong presence of the lowest common denominator, and decide to believe what you're seeing is more than persistence of vision.

So if I were to make an argument against the Joker, I would refrain from bringing in Nolan's intentions for further movies, or what we’re permitted to see. Not because it wouldn't make sense - it does, it does - but because arguments are stronger when they play only on the level of that which they criticize or endorse.

I thought your arguments were well formed, and most I agreed with, I just thought some of them don’t belong next to each other. I still love the film, and even though you make both cogent and spliced arguments, I like it more for being able to see what you think would have made it better. I just wanted to ask if you had really considered the centerpiece of the film, [Ledger/Joker] and it looks like you sure have. Thanks for posting this huge essay.

The Wittgenstein quote is neither of the two presented, and I am delighted that Google would make it harder to find unless you know exactly which one it is. Not just because I like mysteries, but because it’s in the spirit of his text. It’s a good one though, you should keep looking.

It’s not Jackie Chan, It’s
Pumpkin Kid.

[If your pumpkin kid is shy, gently tap on the pumpkin cage, he’ll learn fast.]

scroggins said...

Oh, it works alright. Works like gangbusters, don't get me wrong (looking back over my two comments, it seems incongruous with the B+ [not peanuts] that I felt it deserved).

Basically, old boy, the math breaks down like this:

The film: B
Ledger: A-

I suppose I just get too swept up in the Joker, as an archetype. He is too big to be confined to or defined by or reduced to just one film or one medium or one vision. He is Hannibal Lecter, he is Robert Blake's Mystery Man, he is Jack Torrance, he is the essence of any character who is host to indulging happily in fiendish thoughts. The difference with him is that the parasite overwhelms the SuperEgo, the Ego, and utilizes the most rotten impulses of the Id while smothering the innocuous sensual ones, and runs amok. He is the devil, the Joker. He needs an R-rated film. He needs to bleed out of his eyes (as he does in "The Killing Joke.")

Ledger will do nicely for a while, and the man will always be Aces in my book, though I'm still pissed at him for removing his presence.

Pumpkin Kid said...

Agreed!