The Dark Knight obviously has a "hero" and a villain. But it has its own style that sets it apart from other super hero movies (and other movies for that matter.) I haven't read the comic, but I assume its nature and Mr. Nolan's direction is the reason why. The Dark Knight manages a moral battlefield and a darker atmosphere among the normal super hero dilemmas.
Heath Ledger's performance as the Joker is easily the biggest reason to see this next Batman installment. The Joker consumes every shot he's in, and really creates a brilliantly insane character. That being said, other aspects of the film felt more like after thoughts than anything else, both for their mediocrity individually and relatively.
I appreciated the ride on themes rather than consecutive cheap thrills. The stunts were great, thankfully making rather dull fist fights into something interesting. And the cinematography compounded the good scenes into better ones, and left the mediocre ones as is. Overall, the mood, the themes, and the film as a whole surpassed Batman Begins, but didn't earn itself a place among the "Elite."
The final verdict: watch. The Joker was spectacular. Most of the accompaniment was good. It was very well done, but didn't tap into my style.
Posts
2 comments:
Your review hits the technical points, but I tired of the movie trying so hard to convince us that sometimes evil can lead to good and good can lead to evil. It wasn't about one person's push for anarchy--since he spent so much time trying to explain that point --that's too much order for a rel anarchist. It was a lot more about consequentialism --wrapped in a very nice Hollywood package (which could be good or bad...) The applause after the movie reminded me of a statement by a wise person: The laughter [applause] of the world is just a lonely crowd trying to reassure itself. Great little movie review site by the way.
When I was writing the review I tried to be a minimalist, of sorts. I tried to mention the interesting points, as a kind of rhetorical gesture. Maybe I should have delved deeper into the themes of TDK (rather than just mentioning them.) I wonder where the line is between discussing performance and product when it comes to a good review.
As far as themes and messages go:
***VERY MINOR SPOILERS (nothing plot specific)***
I think the theme of Good and Bad being smashed together is one of the core concepts of Batman (maybe to combat the common "good" hero?) And the Joker emphasizes this theme. It certainly does catch peoples attention, I heard earlier today: "That's what's so cool about Batman, he's kinda the hero AND the villain." That's not to say things should cater to popular demand.
I think this theme is more the result of a plot mechanism, rather than a message to hand out when the credits start rolling. Of course, the message is there, and things can be taken whichever way the eye sees them.
And consequentialism is parallel with any morally ambiguous struggle. So I think it's only natural that actions would be diagnosed and seen as fit, or unfit by the characters and events in a film. Which consequences out weigh the others? Which rules should be broken? Or is there an 'absolute' where no rules are broken and no consequences compromised?
TDK takes the first stance, with compromising actions the way the characters best see fit.
Of course, if you've seen the film you would know that. But if you haven't and was wondering...
***END VERY MINOR SPOILERS***
Post a Comment