The Dark Knight
Here’s my take over at the Washington Times. The movie is, in a word, brilliant. It was almost difficult to review–this was the first masterpiece I’ve seen whilst on the job. If I could add one thing to my review, it would be to praise Heath Ledger’s amazing, AMAZING performance as the Joker. Terry Gilliam has denounced the studio’s campaign to get him a posthumous Oscar as empty marketing, but he’s just jealous Ledger didn’t turn in a performance like this for him in the abominable Brothers Grimm.
I will add one more thing to the discussion: This is a profoundly neoconservative film. I don’t like assigning political ideologies to films; if you remember, when I reviewed Iron Man, I said that it was neither conservative nor liberal; there was something for everyone (terrorists and corporations are equally villainous!). But The Dark Knight is different. Consider the character of Batman himself–his father was a do-gooder liberal who was shot by the very scum of the Earth he was trying to save. This event scars Bruce Wayne, sending him over the edge and turning him into a reactionary who prowls the streets dispensing vigilante justice. A better example of a “liberal mugged by reality” I can’t think of.
Though Batman typically works unilaterally, he needs to find allies. He can’t trust the Gotham City Police Department as a whole, as it is full of corruption (think: the UN). But he does turn to the heavily armed riot squad (the Major Crimes Unit) headed up by Jim Gordon–though not always the best allies, they can usually be counted on in a pinch (think: NATO). Gordon himself comes off as a Tony Blair like figure, providing cover for Batman while he does what is necessary to make the streets safe.
Enter the Joker, a force of pure malevolence. When Christopher Hitchens described Islamic terrorists as not fanatics by nihilists, this is the man he had in mind: the Joker is, as I say in my review, “a pure distillation of sociopathic id.” There is no appeasing him, and if you DO try to appease him all he sees is weakness. His campaign will escalate until society itself is ripped apart. The Joker must be stopped, and treating him with kid gloves won’t get the job done.
I could go on, but I’ll hold off for now. I’m surprised Peter Travers gave this film such a glowing review; I’d expect him to be more in line with Edelstein and Denby’s middling takes. I have a feeling that the liberal reaction against this film will be harsh, once they realize how profoundly antagonistic it is to their world view.
6 Comments - add your own
Christian Toto — July 18, 2008 at 11:08 am
I was stunned by how conservative the film was in the ways you describe. But the left will clearly want to call this one their own … so let the spinning begin. I’ll be curious to read it.
But most of all the political commentary is so expertly woven into the story it’s hard to complain no matter where you stand.
Will — July 18, 2008 at 3:02 pm
RE: “The Spinning”
I think there are elements of the film (and the larger “Batman” mythos) that could be plausibly interpreted as criticism of an overly aggressive approach to terrorism.
Two things spring to mind:
1.) In the first film, the Joker’s emergence is EXPLICITLY described as a reaction to Batman’s heavy-handed tactics.
2.) I haven’t seen the second film yet, but from what I’ve gleaned from the reviews, the story arc implies the forces of good (Batman and Dent) are to some extent morally compromised by their responses to the Joker. Could Dent’s transformation be interpreted as an allegory for the way the War on Terror has compromised civil liberties, moral clarity etc.? Like I said, I haven’t seem the film yet, but that sounds like a fairly plausible interpretation to me.
In general, however, I think attempts to politicize movies that aren’t overtly political generally fail. We’re too prone to read our own biases into the script.
Sonny Bunch — July 18, 2008 at 3:47 pm
Christian: I’d be interested to see if the left tries to spin this in their favor. I’m guessing there will be more of an outright rejection of it as “fascist.”
Will: I would argue that the sequel postulates that that the Joker might be a reaction to Batman, but that this fact simply doesn’t matter. Regardless of his origin (or lack thereof), he needs to be dealt with, and sometimes the methods of dealing with such a man are distasteful. And, as I mention in my review, there’s a very real examination of whether it’s “possible for the two [Batman and Dent] to work in tandem without the dark corrupting the light?”
And I agree that it’s politicizing movies is, generally, a lose-lose proposition. But this is an EXPLICITLY political film.
Joe — July 21, 2008 at 8:33 am
My question, Sonny, is how many conservatives will denounce it for the terrible violence in the picture?
Seriously, saw it both at midnight and on the IMAX screen and I am amazed, both at the explicit politicization of the picture and at the abject nihilism of the Joker.
The trick of telling Batman that one is here and the other there and it being so, but not quite was chilling. I was reminded over and over watching Ledger’s stunningly magnetic performance that this is what a bad guy is supposed to be and mercy he did a fantastic job. I wrote in my long-winded diatribe that I never felt the Joker was telling the truth in the film. Exit question from me. The detonators on the ferries, they blew up the boat they were one, didn’t they?
Sonny Bunch — July 21, 2008 at 2:28 pm
Joe: I’m a little surprised there hasn’t been more of a reaction against the PG-13 rating. It’s kind of a head-scratcher. And I think you’re right…if one of the ferries had used the detonator their own ship would have been destroyed.
Joe — July 21, 2008 at 5:59 pm
I don’t recall where I read it, having read reams of Bat-commentary on the day, but the word of a three-hour long director’s cut is interesting, as I think we would be surprised at how much Nolan cut. The disappearing pencil trick was so swiftly executed that it drew raucous shouts from each crowd I shared the Dark knight experience with. Unlike the disappearing icicle which gave me nightmares after first seeing Die Hard 2, there was only the reactions of others to sell the gruesomeness of what happened. It is remarkably stage blood free for all that was spilled.