The Dark Knight is brilliant!
Christopher Nolan's sequel to Batman Begins (which is also very worthy of the label 'brilliant') is told fantastically. There's a wealth of characters and an ever-rolling web of motivation amongst them, and yet, even bearing in mind how large some of the roles are, the story is so well and so patiently edited that there really is a sense of everyone getting their piece of the action. Not only this, but 'their piece of the action' only serves the film to better it.
The opening sequence is reminiscent of the more adreneline fuelled parts of Heat (ie just because it's adreneline fuelled doesn't mean its brainless) and it doesn't really let up from there.
The Joker scared the crap out of me; Christopher Nolan and the late Heath Ledger have perfectly captured and presented his gleefully nihilistic mania. He's much, much more affecting than Nicholson's Joker who, though great, did put the ham in to Gotham.
It comes in at about 2hrs 30min long, but this isn't too long, i was virtually egging it on to go on longer the whole way through.
I guaranteed no spoilers, but want to offer more than just a review since the film potentially has a place in theological discourse re. atonement and discipleship. In order to do this these are your instructions:
A) Go see the film
B) follow these two links to Kez's blog
C) Come back here to let me know what you think about the relationship between the two.
Amen.
4 comments:
Yes, it was an outstanding film. Everything about it was better than Batman Begins (Stephen disagrees with me, but he'll agree when he goes and sees it again). And the length only served to make the film more unpredictable, increasing the excitement.
I can't answer your question without spoilers, so if there's anyone out there who hasn't been to see it for the first time yet, DO NOT READ!:
I think Batman's decision at the end was motivated partly by a persecution complex and a psychological need to think of himself as an outsider, and partly from his own grief at losing his great love. After all, he could've pinned the deaths on one of the Joker's followers if he had simply wanted to protect Dent's memory. So actually I think it was an egotistic decision.
Comments are not intended to be a spoiler free zone, this is where we can discuss the film freely.
I like your comment, you're probably right (regards that specific final choice), i'd not read it that way.
Two things in response though; first, it's still a brilliant thing (even if if you're right about the egotism)that a 'blockbuster' should deal with and present a self sacrificial hero in this way, particularly one who didn't kill the bad guy.
Secondly it remains a theme throughout the film - Dent's selfless claim to be Batman; the cop's acknowledgment of the futility in resorting to giving the Joker a hiding; the prisoner on the ship tossing out the detonator; the whole idea of having to remain righteous in order to defeat evil rather than, as is traditionally presented, beating evil by being better at violence.
I'm not sure about the first point - is it self-sacrificial not to kill the bad guys or is it just an odd point of principle that Batman has?
But the second point is definitely true. (Personally, I wish the civilian ship had pressed the detonator, and it'd blown their own ship up whilst the prisoner ship didn't press theirs and stayed safe, contrasting the sense of superiority the civilian ship felt.)
However it's notable that Dent can't maintain selflessness without love to sustain him.
And Batman doesn't defeat evil by remaining righteous, because the very existence of Batman is predicated on a lie (or at best a denial of truth) maintained by the mask. Another theme in the film is the idea of created myth providing inspiration. At first the film seems to suggest that it would be better for a non-Batman figure to provide that inspiration - someone who can inspire people to be righteous in their ordinary lives rather than inspire people to copycat vigilanteism. But in the film that approach proves impossible, and the film suggests the only way of providing that inspiration without being defeated and corrupted is to be detatched and hidden, like Batman.
Sorry to be so cynical about the film's message - it was still a great film!
Yeah but that's fascinating, don't you think? Because, as much as the counter to this is '...well yes, but the incarnation...' and '...aha, but God is right here with us' that is something that Batman shares with God, a hidden and detatchedness. I was struck by this when The Joker was going to go on killing people until Batman came out from behind his mask, but Batman didn't. Just as you can't terrorise God into proving Herself.
(It's good that the quality of the film is not up for question here, just its morality, message and theological connection.)
Also, i may have, in a muddied way, referred to it being self sacrificial not to have killed the bad guy, but what i meant was simply that it's refreshing to have a film which doesn't perpetuate the myth that killing that 'bad guy' is a good thing.
Sorry for the confusion.
Post a Comment