I have seen this film last Saturday, the morning after the day it opened. I grounded myself with some skepticism about Heath's Joker, but I tempered it with some giddy Batman-fan anticipation. After all, the last thing I want to do is eat my own words.
So, yeah, it's a fucking great movie. This is worth noting because we're all used to summer blockbusters being brain candy, and dramas and such are contenders for Oscars. In an effort to justify this claim, I'll relate the general formula of the blockbuster as I have been taught (yes, I took a film class once). The formula--or template, if you will--is basically a film with very well known movie stars (who sometimes differ from actual actors), tons of action, and simplistic dialogue. It has to be an action-packed movie because the story is told primarily through visuals, kind of like a music video where the visuals tell a story, but there's no dialogue or anything because, well, you're watching a music video and there's the song. Anyways, visuals move the story, and dialogue is simplistic so people don't have to think as they watch. This makes it marketable to the lowest common denominator, but also to people overseas who don't feel like reading subtitles. And the blockbuster can follow any drama as long as action and fantastic visuals are abundant. This is how "Jaws" differs from "Midnight Cowboy".
I think it was with Sam Raimi's Spider-Man when we started seeing blockbusters that were legitimately good movies with heart and soul. Well, maybe we were already used to it, but we're talking comic book adaptations. Previously, these were only moderately better than video game adaptations (which are better than....well, let's face it, they suck), but I think it was with Spider-Man when we finally started seeing how good comic book movies are made.
So, not only is The Dark Knight a good comic book movie, but it's also a great crime drama. And this kind of irks me because people are saying that if it's such a good crime drama, then it's not much of a comic book movie. This is bothersome because it suggests that the comic books themselves are too simplistic or immature to be regarded as crime drama fiction. I mean, there's a reason people talk about the great "Batman mythos" and "Batman pathos", because it really is that deep.
It's also one of the few movies I've seen when Batman has to deal with two of his nastier adversaries and you don't feel like the time with one is gypped with the time spent with the other. In Batman Begins, he begins facing against a mob boss, then Scarecrow, and it develops into a battle with Ra's Al Ghul and the League of Shadows. It works because the first two are basically stepping stones up to Ra's Al Ghul. In this one, the Joker is just as significant as Harvey Dent and the rise to "White Knight" to the transformation into Two-Face (I'm trying not to include spoilers, but it's not exactly a secret that this happens anyway).
I also have to praise Nolan for correcting his fight-scene flaws. In Begins, it was a jumble of black movement, and trying to follow the fight was a little like vertigo. Here, you can actually appreciate each punch, block, and kick. It's great.
Now, as far as this being a crime drama versus a comic book movie: it's both. The Batman comics are crime drama. When any of these comics are done well, they're just really rich stories of conflict of some sort. Movies like Goodfellas, Donnie Brasco, No Country for Old Men, and so on, are more or less just that. When something is really good, then it should transpose very nicely into just about any medium.
Back to The Dark Knight...I really do like Heath's Joker. He didn't have that grin. That spooky, creepy, skull-revealing grin. But he had the derangement, the apathy, and the insidious nature. I mean, some people are interested in the opinions of this person and that. And granted, I am interested in what Tim Burton, Jack Nicholson, Michael Keaton, Frank Miller, and Alan Moore have to say about it. I'm also interested in Michael Bay's opinion since I read a joke script supposedly written by him for The Dark Knight. Or Will Smith, since a trailer for the film was included in his "I Am Legend" movie and his "Hancock" superhero movie is now overshadowed by The Dark Knight. Or anyone involved in Mamma Mia!, for that matter.
But mostly, I want to know what Robert Deniro, Al Pacino, Martin Scorsese, and Joe Pesce have to say about it. These tough guys who play the typical New York mob villains. I wonder about this because The Joker is the greatest villain, ever. And Heath did the character justice. And it's one thing to hear Pesce and Deniro talk tough and give you a glare like they're about to beat the crap out of you. But they're just angry assholes. This villain is fucking evil and dangerous. It's nice to see a villain that doesn't care about mob rule, or money, or drugs, or ANYTHING! We're used to villains being dangerous because they'll do anything--even kill--to get what they want. Here's a villain that kills...just because!! He's made it clear that he doesn't care about all the things other criminals care about. And that makes him even more dangerous.
So, yeah. Good movie, go see it.
Friday, July 25, 2008
Friday, July 18, 2008
My thoughts on the hype of "The Dark Knight"
I should point out that this isn't a review of the movie as much as it's a review of the hype surrounding it. I hadn't seen it yet, so I thought it'd be interesting to relay my thoughts before seeing it. Maybe this will be my last bit of objectivity before I see it because seemingly everyone else who's seen it is anything but objective.
To start, I really don't like how Heath Ledger looks as The Joker. Granted, I understand Nolan is going for a real-world perspective with his take on Batman. And that's cool. It is neat to see what life would be like if there really was a Batman (kind of reminds me of Alan Moore's Watchmen, but I digress). So, realistically, I do understand it's a little hard to grasp a guy whose skin is bleached white, his hair permanently dyed green, and his facial tissue either rubberized or chemically eroded to reveal a massive, skull-revealing grin.
But, honestly, if you can't find a plausible way to explain the chemical changes, then it's hard to justify straight make-up. Calling it war paint doesn't hold any weight because, well, who would pain their face white, dye their hair green, and smear lipstick across his or her face to intimidate people? I'd go with a black and white theme and wear yellow contact lenses (which is probably as uncomfortable as scarring your face while failing to widen your mouth). Heck, Michael Jackson has a skin condition that makes him whiter than Jim Gaffigan. Is it so far-fetched to find a chemical that causes a similar effect on the skin?
Let's back-track a little, too. Nolan is going for a realistic approach to Batman and his allies and villains. So everything is at least somewhat feasible and believable (as far as movies go, anyway). Wouldn't a Joker that follows the more traditional origin be much creepier? When people grin, they don't normally show all their teeth and gums. They also don't normally have naturally green hair and white skin. Now, imagine you actually bump into someone that matches that description. You can scoff if you want, but it it actually happened, you'd be creeped out like never before.
Oddly enough, images and trailers featuring Ledger's Joker have invigorated my love for Jack Nicholson's Joker. I previously had my criticisms of Nicholson's portrayal because he was a little old, not skinny and lanky enough, and too short (but so was Michael Keaton, so I guess we should let that slide...). But they put effort in his transformation. He had the hair and skin. And it's an interesting idea that his grin was the result of an ill-equipped (and possibly incompetent) plastic surgeon. But, he grinned and you saw all his teeth. Also--and this is a point I believe isn't mentioned often enough--but he had the glare of a crazy person. Do you remember a year or so ago when there was that international news story about a runaway bride? Do you remember the images of her? She had a wide-eyed look on her face comparable to a doll's. That's craziness. And Nicholson more or less had that same crazy glare.
Now, I admit, he didn't seem as nasty in that role as he does in other roles. But I think that's more a fault of Tim Burton than Jack Nicholson. Take the scene in Batman when a news broadcast features the female anchor laughing for no reason and then keeling over with the same glare and grin, followed by The Joker's intentionally campy "commercial" for his Smilex-tainted products. Yeah, it seems campy, but there's something sinister about making light of poisoning many, many people and flaunting it. Towards the end of his "commercial", he says in true salesman form "I know what you're saying! 'Where can I find these products?' Well that's the gag....chances are, you bought 'em already!". Or, something close to it. I mean, think about it: that means potentially a few hundred people (at least) have keeled over after washing and rinsing with shampoo, applying make-up, brushing their teeth, rinsing with mouthwash, shaving with cream or foam, putting mustard on their hot dogs, peanut butter and jelly on their bread....you get the idea. And he poisoned a few people to death in the museum and at least a hundred or so people in that parade. I know, Batman cut the ropes and sent the balloons to the stratosphere, but not before the people started going nuts and getting poisoned in the streets.
Finally, you have to give Nicholson and Burton credit. Before the movie, most peoples' perceptions of Batman were campy and ridiculous. Unless you knew your comic books and followed them closely (and knew how to argue your case), admitting to liking Batman was akin to admitting to liking The Smurfs. Given the challenges of the relatively inexperienced Tim Burton (Jack Palance once insulted Burton on set, claiming he didn't have anywhere near the experience and clout that Palance had) and this perception of Batman, I'd say he, Nicholson, and Keaton did a pretty good job. Oh yeah, and Danny Elfman, too, because I'm of the firm belief that music helps the movie a ton.
So, The Dark Knight is now officially in theaters. Most people are claiming it's the greatest super-hero movie ever made and calling Nolan a genius and so on, so forth. If I were only going on Batman Begins, I'd say he was a flawed amateur. It's getting ridiculous because there's virtually no objectivity. So far, my favorite super-hero movie is Sam Raimi's Spider-Man (although the sequel is good enough to take its place in my hierarchy), but it's not a perfect movie and I can certainly see that not everyone would enjoy that movie, comic book geek or otherwise. I'm at least happy that some editor at Salon.com has given The Dark Knight a less than stellar review, and I at least appreciate that it seems possible to not like the movie. Even though they referred to Michael Caine's character as Arthur and compared Ledger's Joker to Conrad Veidt's Gwynplaine from the 1928 film The Man Who Laughs. That last point is idiotic in my opinion because the only thing about Veidt's Gwynplaine that holds any salt is his appearance. If Ledger looked more like Veidt in that movie, then I'd be as rabid and excited as the next fan boy.
I should probably justify my criticism further of Ledger's look. I understand that appearances shouldn't be judged so harshly. Now, in the case of super-hero movies like X-Men and...well, I'm not sure what else, there are visual specifics that I can forgive. Sure, Wolverine didn't have the yellow get-up from the comics, but I actually appreciate that. After all, the yellow get-up made him look like a Mexican wrestler. I'd rather see him with a more functional uniform, and that's what we got. I still didn't like that movie, but they at least did a mostly decent job of Wolverine/Logan.
On the other hand, the visual is pretty important. You're adapting a comic book, the only written medium where the visual appearance is as pronounced as that of a summer blockbuster movie. Often, they're gaudy, colorful, and exaggerated. Some of the visual details are malleable, such as the example I just discussed in the last paragraph. But some visuals are so canon that they shouldn't be altered at all. Even Cesar Romeo was pretty accurate to his comic counterpart. Except for his mustache, but I've seen the show as a kid and even I didn't notice it until editors on web sites and magazines pointed it out. He wasn't spooky, but the show ran during the camp age of Batman comics, so it was actually in line.
So, now I have to somehow convince myself to just accept Ledger's visual interpretation of The Joker when I see The Dark Knight, even though I don't find it the least bit creepy. I know the movie is only PG-13, but I've seen movies with that rating that gave me nightmares. Certainly, being a grown man, I'm more resistant to them, but I should still be spooked by a real-world, no-nonsense Joker. And I'm not. Come to think of it, I don't find Bale's Batman all that intimidating, but that's more a critique of his cape and cowl. I can forgive the body armor, so that's no issue. What does bother me is that he doesn't have square shoulders and the "ears" on his cowl look kind of dumb. My favorite comic book visual of Batman is from The Killing Joke, from maybe the third page. It's the moment he walks into The Joker's cell and he's standing in the doorway, forming a silhouette of himself. He's nothing but a shadow, but seeing him as a shadow and not a man is pretty intimidating. Not to mention the square shoulders and almost block-shaped head make him look like a monolith of doom or something. If you don't know what I'm talking about, see if you can find an impressive image of Maximilian from Disney's The Black Hole.
Maybe I think too much about it. And why not? I am a geek, and people like me aren't that different from sports fans who discuss and argue ad nauseum about whether their favorite baseball team needs a new pitcher, hitter, or short stop. I just wish other people gave things like this this much thought. I wouldn't feel so weird and discussions thereof would be (in my opinion) much less idiotic.
Anyways, I intend to see the new Batman movie, and I do hope I'll like it. I just have to point out I'm not going to convince myself to like it and be a rabid fan boy so I can agree with a bunch of people. The last one (Batman Begins) was a good effort, but not a flawless one. I don't think I've ever seen a flawless movie, and I don't think this one will be any different in that regard. All the same, I hope it's good. And I only trust myself on this matter. Sorry.
To start, I really don't like how Heath Ledger looks as The Joker. Granted, I understand Nolan is going for a real-world perspective with his take on Batman. And that's cool. It is neat to see what life would be like if there really was a Batman (kind of reminds me of Alan Moore's Watchmen, but I digress). So, realistically, I do understand it's a little hard to grasp a guy whose skin is bleached white, his hair permanently dyed green, and his facial tissue either rubberized or chemically eroded to reveal a massive, skull-revealing grin.
But, honestly, if you can't find a plausible way to explain the chemical changes, then it's hard to justify straight make-up. Calling it war paint doesn't hold any weight because, well, who would pain their face white, dye their hair green, and smear lipstick across his or her face to intimidate people? I'd go with a black and white theme and wear yellow contact lenses (which is probably as uncomfortable as scarring your face while failing to widen your mouth). Heck, Michael Jackson has a skin condition that makes him whiter than Jim Gaffigan. Is it so far-fetched to find a chemical that causes a similar effect on the skin?
Let's back-track a little, too. Nolan is going for a realistic approach to Batman and his allies and villains. So everything is at least somewhat feasible and believable (as far as movies go, anyway). Wouldn't a Joker that follows the more traditional origin be much creepier? When people grin, they don't normally show all their teeth and gums. They also don't normally have naturally green hair and white skin. Now, imagine you actually bump into someone that matches that description. You can scoff if you want, but it it actually happened, you'd be creeped out like never before.
Oddly enough, images and trailers featuring Ledger's Joker have invigorated my love for Jack Nicholson's Joker. I previously had my criticisms of Nicholson's portrayal because he was a little old, not skinny and lanky enough, and too short (but so was Michael Keaton, so I guess we should let that slide...). But they put effort in his transformation. He had the hair and skin. And it's an interesting idea that his grin was the result of an ill-equipped (and possibly incompetent) plastic surgeon. But, he grinned and you saw all his teeth. Also--and this is a point I believe isn't mentioned often enough--but he had the glare of a crazy person. Do you remember a year or so ago when there was that international news story about a runaway bride? Do you remember the images of her? She had a wide-eyed look on her face comparable to a doll's. That's craziness. And Nicholson more or less had that same crazy glare.
Now, I admit, he didn't seem as nasty in that role as he does in other roles. But I think that's more a fault of Tim Burton than Jack Nicholson. Take the scene in Batman when a news broadcast features the female anchor laughing for no reason and then keeling over with the same glare and grin, followed by The Joker's intentionally campy "commercial" for his Smilex-tainted products. Yeah, it seems campy, but there's something sinister about making light of poisoning many, many people and flaunting it. Towards the end of his "commercial", he says in true salesman form "I know what you're saying! 'Where can I find these products?' Well that's the gag....chances are, you bought 'em already!". Or, something close to it. I mean, think about it: that means potentially a few hundred people (at least) have keeled over after washing and rinsing with shampoo, applying make-up, brushing their teeth, rinsing with mouthwash, shaving with cream or foam, putting mustard on their hot dogs, peanut butter and jelly on their bread....you get the idea. And he poisoned a few people to death in the museum and at least a hundred or so people in that parade. I know, Batman cut the ropes and sent the balloons to the stratosphere, but not before the people started going nuts and getting poisoned in the streets.
Finally, you have to give Nicholson and Burton credit. Before the movie, most peoples' perceptions of Batman were campy and ridiculous. Unless you knew your comic books and followed them closely (and knew how to argue your case), admitting to liking Batman was akin to admitting to liking The Smurfs. Given the challenges of the relatively inexperienced Tim Burton (Jack Palance once insulted Burton on set, claiming he didn't have anywhere near the experience and clout that Palance had) and this perception of Batman, I'd say he, Nicholson, and Keaton did a pretty good job. Oh yeah, and Danny Elfman, too, because I'm of the firm belief that music helps the movie a ton.
So, The Dark Knight is now officially in theaters. Most people are claiming it's the greatest super-hero movie ever made and calling Nolan a genius and so on, so forth. If I were only going on Batman Begins, I'd say he was a flawed amateur. It's getting ridiculous because there's virtually no objectivity. So far, my favorite super-hero movie is Sam Raimi's Spider-Man (although the sequel is good enough to take its place in my hierarchy), but it's not a perfect movie and I can certainly see that not everyone would enjoy that movie, comic book geek or otherwise. I'm at least happy that some editor at Salon.com has given The Dark Knight a less than stellar review, and I at least appreciate that it seems possible to not like the movie. Even though they referred to Michael Caine's character as Arthur and compared Ledger's Joker to Conrad Veidt's Gwynplaine from the 1928 film The Man Who Laughs. That last point is idiotic in my opinion because the only thing about Veidt's Gwynplaine that holds any salt is his appearance. If Ledger looked more like Veidt in that movie, then I'd be as rabid and excited as the next fan boy.
I should probably justify my criticism further of Ledger's look. I understand that appearances shouldn't be judged so harshly. Now, in the case of super-hero movies like X-Men and...well, I'm not sure what else, there are visual specifics that I can forgive. Sure, Wolverine didn't have the yellow get-up from the comics, but I actually appreciate that. After all, the yellow get-up made him look like a Mexican wrestler. I'd rather see him with a more functional uniform, and that's what we got. I still didn't like that movie, but they at least did a mostly decent job of Wolverine/Logan.
On the other hand, the visual is pretty important. You're adapting a comic book, the only written medium where the visual appearance is as pronounced as that of a summer blockbuster movie. Often, they're gaudy, colorful, and exaggerated. Some of the visual details are malleable, such as the example I just discussed in the last paragraph. But some visuals are so canon that they shouldn't be altered at all. Even Cesar Romeo was pretty accurate to his comic counterpart. Except for his mustache, but I've seen the show as a kid and even I didn't notice it until editors on web sites and magazines pointed it out. He wasn't spooky, but the show ran during the camp age of Batman comics, so it was actually in line.
So, now I have to somehow convince myself to just accept Ledger's visual interpretation of The Joker when I see The Dark Knight, even though I don't find it the least bit creepy. I know the movie is only PG-13, but I've seen movies with that rating that gave me nightmares. Certainly, being a grown man, I'm more resistant to them, but I should still be spooked by a real-world, no-nonsense Joker. And I'm not. Come to think of it, I don't find Bale's Batman all that intimidating, but that's more a critique of his cape and cowl. I can forgive the body armor, so that's no issue. What does bother me is that he doesn't have square shoulders and the "ears" on his cowl look kind of dumb. My favorite comic book visual of Batman is from The Killing Joke, from maybe the third page. It's the moment he walks into The Joker's cell and he's standing in the doorway, forming a silhouette of himself. He's nothing but a shadow, but seeing him as a shadow and not a man is pretty intimidating. Not to mention the square shoulders and almost block-shaped head make him look like a monolith of doom or something. If you don't know what I'm talking about, see if you can find an impressive image of Maximilian from Disney's The Black Hole.
Maybe I think too much about it. And why not? I am a geek, and people like me aren't that different from sports fans who discuss and argue ad nauseum about whether their favorite baseball team needs a new pitcher, hitter, or short stop. I just wish other people gave things like this this much thought. I wouldn't feel so weird and discussions thereof would be (in my opinion) much less idiotic.
Anyways, I intend to see the new Batman movie, and I do hope I'll like it. I just have to point out I'm not going to convince myself to like it and be a rabid fan boy so I can agree with a bunch of people. The last one (Batman Begins) was a good effort, but not a flawless one. I don't think I've ever seen a flawless movie, and I don't think this one will be any different in that regard. All the same, I hope it's good. And I only trust myself on this matter. Sorry.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
