The Dark Knight ~~~~

30th July 2008

The ‘Dark Knight’ is a good film, but it’s not a great film and it’s not ‘Batman Begins’. First things first. It’s too long and it’s too indulgent in the sense that someone gave someone else too much money to spend. It’s just not necessary. Secondly, I am still enamoured with Christian Bale. Certainly the best Batman ever (after Michael Keaton???, discuss.) But what’s with the frigging voice? It’s so deep you can hardly hear it. Is this an appeal to frogs or other such animals who may indeed be able to fathom his delivery. I certainly couldn’t – stop messing with computers and leave the Batman’s voice alone! Poor Bruce Wayne, he must have one hell of a sore throat after a night on the tiles (literally, roof tiles… ha, ha!) Thirdly, in line with the opinion of the unnecessarily large budget, who was in charge of editing? It needn’t have been that long a film. Reality check please but it does follow that having spent all that cash, someone wanted to prove to the studio that their money had been well spent. I didn’t need to sit in that seat for at least 30 minutes of the film.

Bitching over, I think. This was the Batman film real fans were waiting for. A darker Batman, the Joker, Two Face and even more chaos. And they got it all. But did they have to pack it all into just one film?

Poor Maggie Gyllenhaal, sidelined as Rachel after taking on the mantle left by Katie Holmes. Note to producers, please maintain some sense of continuity. I can understand that some actors and actresses may not necessarily want to sign up to each and every film in a series but please, for my sake alone, get their little butts signed up or not at all. It bugs me. Muchly. That said, I liked Maggie’s Rachel but aside from being an emotional devise which was hardly utilised to its full potential, her character was really pretty duff. As was the Batman’s. With the introduction of not one but two magnificent screen baddies, the Batman, as I imagine was the plan, faded into the background. Roll on the third film for swift revenge and the resurgence of the Bat fiend!

Congratulations must go to, in no preferential order at all, Gary Oldman, Heath Ledger, Aaron Eckhart and Michael Caine. Oldman’s cop Gordon could carry his own series. By far the most nuanced performance of the whole picture, he delivers the most subtle but emotionally in-gear character torn between family and upholding the law. Ledger is magical and more about that later. Eckhart gives a sterling performance as the cross-over good guy/bad guy. As Harvey Dent he’s the city’s knight in shining moral armour, a character where you look for the flaws but find none until dramatically, although predictably, he is pushed over the edge into ‘Two Face’ territory. Caine presents the human face of the film, Bruce’s real love, as opposed to the shadowy Rachel, and as such gives the film a much needed grounding in the emotional stakes.

The Joker. Much loved anti-hero of the Batman comics and arguably personified best on screen by ‘Big’ Jack Nicholson in the Burton classic, until now. Ledger really does give his performance of a lifetime. So much energy, so quick and intelligent, so very, very bad but so very, very good! Looking like a cross between Bette Davies’ ‘Baby Jane’ character on acid and the worst nightmare of a clown gone wrong, Ledger lets himself go full throttle aiming at the jugular. He makes one hell of a mess wherever he goes. If there was ever a villain to take seriously, it’s Ledger’s joker. Given that he’s so attracted to the vilest sorts of violence it’s difficult to appreciate where he’s coming from but that said, his pitch perfectly delivered soliloquies make one wonder whether his doctrine is honest one albeit delivered in such a violent way. His perception of people, their desires and their needs is actually spot on. He might be mad but he understands people and that’s why he’s so successful at beating those with good intentions but no real beliefs. Only the Batman can really see his flaws and only he can ultimately beat him. Which is a real shame because he’s a great character and a possible philosophical genius! Ledger, had he been alive today to receive the applause he very much deserved, should have been proud of his performance. It is a real shame he didn’t get to see how the audience received his best performance to date and an even greater shame we shall never be treated to such a performance by him again in this series let alone in other films.

The film runs along at quite a pace with enjoyable scenes between the main characters both in action sequences and in tight little set pieces. Bruce’s longing for bigger and better gadgets is fed by Morgan Freeman’s Lucius Fox’s genius inventions. One point though, and rather a big grip, what was with all the scenes of the Bat flying about in Hong Kong? Visually stunning but totally extraneous to the plot. Money issues, again? And another gripe - the boat scene. I appreciate what Nolan was trying to achieve. In a world where a Joker, rather than a bat, could be king, who could truly predict what human beings would do to each other to survive? A set piece if ever there was one in cinematic terms, hundreds of people become potential floating bombs when the Joker plants explosives onto the local ferry services. In one boat are the most terrible criminals of the city and in the other, the regular citizens. But under orders who will blow the other boat sky high and how can they justify it? I get the point. I understand the predicament. I see the moral dilemma. I appreciate the nature of human beings. But in the middle of this film, the scenario just doesn’t sit comfortably. Dramatic licence underpinning the overall morality of the plot or surplus cash begging to be spent? Perhaps I labour under a misapprehension? Even if I do, I stand by my gut feeling in that it was just unnecessary. I’d have preferred to see the Bat in action or at least a bit more emoting from Mr Wayne on screen.

I don’t think I need to even attempt to convey the plot of the film needless to say that it flies about all over the place just about taking the audience with it. The script wasn’t quite as fleshed out as the previous film and in some parts the soundtrack dominated excessively. There were far too many characters and side-line stories (the gangster of Eric Roberts, the Mayor character and the other various bad guys). It’s visually stunning and the gadgets and vehicles are totally ace. I particularly loved Batman’s new motorbike thing. Wicked stuff! The special effects are magnificent - this is how action films should look. The scenes of carnage the Joker creates are creative, extreme and vile but at the same time visually awe inspiring. Bale continues to portray both Bruce and the Batman with just the right amount of humour and darkness. I do think he needs a hug, though. All alone yet with so much responsibility on his broad, but perfectly formed, shoulders.

Don’t get me wrong. I may seem to have picked on the film somewhat but even so I found it to be a more enjoyable film than most released this year. With its stellar cast and steady direction by Nolan, I’m desperate to see the film again and no doubt it will, in the long run, go down as one of my top 100 films. But please, Mr Nolan, get tough with your flicks. Cut them down. Be ruthless. I’m sure it won’t hurt them at all. I look forward to the next instalment. (One last request, please make room for at least one strong female character. It’s only fair as at least half the audience were female.)