WHY SO SERIOUS?
*
There is already buzz about Heath Ledger getting an Oscar nomination for The Dark Knight, which will almost certainly happen. But I genuinely believe that it would have, even if he had not tragically died. It's a phenomenal performance.
The movie is far better than the good (but not astounding) Batman Begins, which was mostly notable for taking a darker and more serious approach to a comic book superhero than for actually being that great of a movie.
I have a beef, though, with the critics and their ilk who seem so blown away that Batman can be so dark and serious. Has Joel Schumacher completely erased everyone's memory of the Tim Burton movies? Any critic reviewing The Dark Knight in this light should be required to rewatch Batman and Batman Returns again. Bruce Wayne as dark, disturbed, and brooding? Check. Morally complex situations involving good and evil? Check. Yeah, okay, the soundtrack by Prince doesn't score any gloom points, but nothing the Joker does in The Dark Knight qquite approaches the fearsomeness of his Smilex gas attack on Gotham City while throwing money around. Nicholson's Joker was scary in his nutty, over-the-top way. He did things just as gruesome as The Dark Knight's Joker, perhaps even moreso. Christopher Nolan's films are no darker than Tim Burton's. They are just missing a certain lightness and focus that Burton's also possess that makes Burton's films ultimately more entertaining and successful.
But that's only if the films are to be compared, which really, they shouldn't be. There's no point. They're very different approaches to the material, and since both are very good, why quibble? The Dark Knight fixes most of what wasn't quite right with Batman Begins. It has a much better story and, of course, a superb villain (which Nolan's first film didn't). It furthers what Batman Begins started by grounding it all a little more in reality; The Dark Knight has a tone similar to something like Goodfellas, whereas Burton's films had the tone of, well, a Tim Burton film.
The greatest drawback to both of Nolan's films, though, is a certain lack of specificity about the villains. We never quite feel like we know them. Nicholson's Joker, Danny DeVito's Penguin, and especially Michelle Pfeiffer's Catwoman were psychologically complex characters, particularly in a comic book movie (compare them to anyone from Spider-Man, for example). We get a full sense of who they are, what they want, where they came from. Nolan's films leave the details a little fuzzy - and so, as great as Heath Ledger's performance is, I can't help wanting a little more from the character. (Which might have happened - or might still, if a different actor assumes the role - in the third film, had Ledger not died.) It's clear that Nolan wants his Joker's origins to be mysterious, and his motives murkier, and that's fine...but still, I felt a little something missing from the script.
Nolan's Batman films (and perhaps his other films as well) are dark, brooding, morally complex, and psychologically interesting - but they're more cerebral than they are moving. You understand what's happening more than you feel it. As committed as he is to these stories taking place in as close a facsimile to the real world as possible, I don't think he ever quite lets his characters feel real or complete. They always seem to be functioning according to the plot than on their own terms. Ledger comes much closer than anyone in transcending that here in a performance that truly is one of the best villains in recent memory. The Dark Knight is a strong film, a very good film, especially for a major studio's summer blockbuster. I can't help but wish it was only a little bit better, good enough to be truly excellent, without my one caveat about the film's characters. If only the script had given him just a little more to do, just a few more moments to let us enjoy his wonderful interpretation of the character. Though much has been improved since Batman Begins and The Dark Knight truly is an exceptional summer film, there is still a small something missing from the screenplays that stops them from making a heavier impact.
But why quibble? The Dark Knight is pretty awesome. Heath Ledger even moreso, and fully worthy of the kudos he's getting. It's easy to forget that he's gone while watching the movie, because he's riveting. But even when he's not on screen in The Dark Knight, he's missed. It's shocking and sad all over again to realize that we will not experience any more of Ledger's talent. I feel the same about Ledger's performance as I do about the film itself....as good as it is, I am left wanting more.
There is already buzz about Heath Ledger getting an Oscar nomination for The Dark Knight, which will almost certainly happen. But I genuinely believe that it would have, even if he had not tragically died. It's a phenomenal performance.
The movie is far better than the good (but not astounding) Batman Begins, which was mostly notable for taking a darker and more serious approach to a comic book superhero than for actually being that great of a movie.
I have a beef, though, with the critics and their ilk who seem so blown away that Batman can be so dark and serious. Has Joel Schumacher completely erased everyone's memory of the Tim Burton movies? Any critic reviewing The Dark Knight in this light should be required to rewatch Batman and Batman Returns again. Bruce Wayne as dark, disturbed, and brooding? Check. Morally complex situations involving good and evil? Check. Yeah, okay, the soundtrack by Prince doesn't score any gloom points, but nothing the Joker does in The Dark Knight qquite approaches the fearsomeness of his Smilex gas attack on Gotham City while throwing money around. Nicholson's Joker was scary in his nutty, over-the-top way. He did things just as gruesome as The Dark Knight's Joker, perhaps even moreso. Christopher Nolan's films are no darker than Tim Burton's. They are just missing a certain lightness and focus that Burton's also possess that makes Burton's films ultimately more entertaining and successful.
But that's only if the films are to be compared, which really, they shouldn't be. There's no point. They're very different approaches to the material, and since both are very good, why quibble? The Dark Knight fixes most of what wasn't quite right with Batman Begins. It has a much better story and, of course, a superb villain (which Nolan's first film didn't). It furthers what Batman Begins started by grounding it all a little more in reality; The Dark Knight has a tone similar to something like Goodfellas, whereas Burton's films had the tone of, well, a Tim Burton film.
The greatest drawback to both of Nolan's films, though, is a certain lack of specificity about the villains. We never quite feel like we know them. Nicholson's Joker, Danny DeVito's Penguin, and especially Michelle Pfeiffer's Catwoman were psychologically complex characters, particularly in a comic book movie (compare them to anyone from Spider-Man, for example). We get a full sense of who they are, what they want, where they came from. Nolan's films leave the details a little fuzzy - and so, as great as Heath Ledger's performance is, I can't help wanting a little more from the character. (Which might have happened - or might still, if a different actor assumes the role - in the third film, had Ledger not died.) It's clear that Nolan wants his Joker's origins to be mysterious, and his motives murkier, and that's fine...but still, I felt a little something missing from the script.
Nolan's Batman films (and perhaps his other films as well) are dark, brooding, morally complex, and psychologically interesting - but they're more cerebral than they are moving. You understand what's happening more than you feel it. As committed as he is to these stories taking place in as close a facsimile to the real world as possible, I don't think he ever quite lets his characters feel real or complete. They always seem to be functioning according to the plot than on their own terms. Ledger comes much closer than anyone in transcending that here in a performance that truly is one of the best villains in recent memory. The Dark Knight is a strong film, a very good film, especially for a major studio's summer blockbuster. I can't help but wish it was only a little bit better, good enough to be truly excellent, without my one caveat about the film's characters. If only the script had given him just a little more to do, just a few more moments to let us enjoy his wonderful interpretation of the character. Though much has been improved since Batman Begins and The Dark Knight truly is an exceptional summer film, there is still a small something missing from the screenplays that stops them from making a heavier impact.
But why quibble? The Dark Knight is pretty awesome. Heath Ledger even moreso, and fully worthy of the kudos he's getting. It's easy to forget that he's gone while watching the movie, because he's riveting. But even when he's not on screen in The Dark Knight, he's missed. It's shocking and sad all over again to realize that we will not experience any more of Ledger's talent. I feel the same about Ledger's performance as I do about the film itself....as good as it is, I am left wanting more.