Review: The Dark Knight (2008)

What a difficult review to write.

Way back before the trailers for The Dark Knight showed that it looked nothing at all well okay maybe a little bit like Batman Begins (and both display the trailer editor's odd fixation on in-jokes/ironic statements centered around a fancy dinner), I'll admit there was only a slim chance of The Dark Knight ever interesting me. At least this time they gave the impression that Nolan was actually qualified to direct a Batman film, rather than in principle. After enough time passed and I managed to secure a place at table 2 in Nerd Hell, I was off to the midnight screening.

The Dark Knight is a product that I can mostly be happy with. It is an exciting story, long but well-paced, with interesting psychological interaction between the characters, a genuinely frightening and brilliantly portrayed villain, and some well-directed action scenes (finally, Nolan, sheesh). Bale's Bat-voice has improved (but still isn't good), and his face no longer pokes out from the mask like an inflated balloon. Rachel Dawes has morphed into a better actress, who can lend some amount of credibility to an unbelievable amount of one-dimensional bitchiness. Still present is the justification of an ever-compromising base of morals. I put it down to Nolan's British sensibilities; Altruism Over All is engrained into his DNA. The Dark Knight does better to hide it behind scenes of a man in clown makeup blowing things up. And the film is really, really good when you watch it after Batman Begins.

As if the Academy's practice of giving awards to dead people weren't enough, I'll address it once again -- yes, Ledger's performance is one to behold, but to the point where there is a feeling of guilt that comes from the enjoyment of his scenes. The HERO should be this likable, not the villain. Joker gets all the great lines, the oppotunity to cut faces, etc, while Batman scowls and bitches about not getting pussy from his unworthy lady friend. Scenes showcasing a character possessing wit, strength, intelligence, and a clear set of goals give way to scenes showcasing a character possessing reluctance, weakness, and with no clear goal other than "do what's best for Gotham, at any cost, unless you agree to love me, Rachel."

What I was hoping for was the final stage in Batman's development, from the line "I know what I have to become to stop men like him," a hero who gets in close to what he views as wrong and fights it head-on, devoid of all doubt. He does breach that wall, but in such a way that does not upset the values built by Batman Begins; he is not the one doing the judging, but an unseen, objective, metaphysical concept of right and wrong is what fells these villains. Batman needs only prevent the volitional, single-minded men from acting. Good in the common man (and apparently incarcerated criminal alike) will spontaneously manifest at just the right moment and IT WILL ALL WORK OUT SOMEHOW. Batman will set up The Patriot Act and reap its benefits, but will claim no responsibility in using it himself.

I never wanted Batman portrayed as a pulsating, freshly-fucked cunt, legs spread wide to allow entry, thrust, and release so you can go home and pretend you don't hate your wife and kids. I never saw him as a whore willing to do whatever I needed, nor would I wish that presented as something to admire (but not emulate, because if I emulated it he would tie me up next to Scarecrow and leave me for the police). Overloading him with weakness is not proof or biproduct of a three-dimensional character.

What I'm left with is a film that I enjoy begrudgingly, only if I can ignore the film's theme and Batman himself. Quantifying that is a goddamn ordeal.

Now that the Two Batman Films Only rule has been reached, I hope Nolan will continue working with his brother on adaptations, remakes of mediocre foreign films, and entirely original scripts centered around a narrative device. Because FUCK is he good at those.

7.0/10