THE DARK KNIGHT DEBATE
While The Dark Knight takes Batman and the Joker ever further into the annals of movie history with its huge opening run, there have been some conflicting voices in reviews of the film. While most have been blown away by the formidable spectacle of a gritty vision of DC’s most famous characters waging war against each other onscreen, not everyone has been so thrilled. Rich and Andy have both posted reviews of the movie. Rich’s positive review is here, and Andy’s negative review is here. We though it would be interesting to get these two geek titans together for a good old fashioned head-to-head debate on the biggest film of the year. Both are fans if the films, the comics and the characters, and each has a very different opinion of the sequel…
So then Rich, summarize your review and let’s get underway!
RICH: Rarely has a film lived up to the hype as completely as The Dark Knight has. I was a little worried, with the track record of Bat films diminishing into comedic squalor (but that was in a different, darker time). Chris Nolan grounds his film in the dark realism of his original, offering us a healthy screen time packed with awe inspiring characters and memorable action set pieces.
And you, Andy?
ANDY: Is Rich done kissing Nolan’s backside? Okay, basically I really didn’t enjoy it much at all, and by the time the third act eventually came around I was seriously considering walking out of it. I found the film to be hugely overlong, repetitive, badly scripted, shoddily directed and a huge letdown after Batman Begins was so good. I also have an issue with the rating- 12A- which is really unacceptable or a film in which there is so much graphic violence- inferred or otherwise.
RICH: Hey, that backside deserves to be kissed, alright. The man is a cinematic genius, even before and during his time as Batman director; his films pretty much speak for themselves. Prestige anyone? Memento?
ANDY: He’s great director, but this one’s a case of too many cooks spoil the broth. Surely there was some way of cutting the script a bit, or any of the endless scenes of exposition later in the film that are almost direct rehashes of earlier scenes? A film shouldn’t be judged on the merits of the other films the people involved have worked on.
RICH: Absolutely not, I agree on that one. But the film itself is a triumph. I agree it could have been shaved down a little here and there, no doubt. But it doesn’t suffer for having not done so. All we get instead is more time to enjoy the venerable acting chops on screen. Direct rehashes of earlier scenes? You’re gonna have to elaborate on that one…
ANDY: Hi, I’m the Joker- I’m a bit kooky and anti-establishment. Hi, I’m Batman- I have a daft voice and I like to vanish every five seconds while people go ‘He does that’. Hi, I’m Harvey Dent- I’m a good guy with a dark side. Ad nauseam. As for the acting, I have to disagree. What we have onscreen there is a hugely talented cast who have been given a script full of hackneyed clichés and pseudo-philosophizing. Hell, half of Alfred’s lines were pretty much exactly the same as his ‘Why do we fall own’ lines in the last film. As for ‘it could have been shaved a bit here and there’… you’d have to get through the three feet of metaphorical perm and lacquer before you could even start shaving. There’s Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman and Gary Oldman et al onscreen, and they were all underused.
RICH: Yeah, the bat-voice definitely needs a tone down- but vanishing is what he does. Would you rather the camera pan to show him trying to vault over a picket fence?
ANDY: What, like Nick Frost in Shaun of the Dead? That’d be cool, Heh.
RICH: Guffaw, etc. The Joker was a revelation, and each scene left you awaiting the next with baited breath. If by rehashing scenes you mean character building, then I’m all for it. I respect a film that could so easily spurn the characterisation for the big buck effects and action, and probably get away with it too. Instead we have a film that unashamedly takes time to both introduce new characters and build on existing ones.
As for under-using some supporting characters, I’m glad they did. I’m not a massive fan of the Alfred character, to me he’s a relic of the past, a character that is continuously brought back just because he’s a famous part of bat-lore, whilst Freeman’s Lucius Fox is beginning to feel a little too much like a ‘Q’ to Bruce Waynes ‘James Bond’.
ANDY: But that’s just it- it doesn’t introduce characters, it bashes you over the head with them until you get it. As for building on existing characters, were you watching the same film I was? I didn’t catch anything resembling character progression in any of them. Most characters were played as one dimensional as it is possible to get, and I know this is a DC property so we should expect that sort of thing, but still. I’m with you on Lucius Fox. Much as I love Morgan Freeman (and am glad he’s doing better after his car crash) the character isn’t that original. Ho-boy this next bit is going to get people hunting me with rolled up copies of the Killing Joke… Heath Ledger was good as the Joker, but not great. He did have a certain charisma, but nowhere near as much as everyone is saying, and I can’t help but feel the sole reason he is being lauded as oscar-worthy in this film is down to the fact that he sadly died. There were some inspired moments in there from him, but not the earth-shattering clusterbomb of awesomeness we were led to expect. He is a great foil for Batman, but as a character it didn’t really do it for me. That said, he was better than Nicholson in the Burton version. Hmm, and the Joker leads me to my next train of thought which I’ll leap onto when you’ve spat your next answer at me. Stop looking at me like that.
RICH: Maybe I’ll just say nothing and let the screaming masses into the shop to end you. Heh. No, the character of the Joker is difficult to evaluate because you’ve been led to expect an ‘earth-shattering clusterbomb of awesomeness’, which may leave you cold, or due to the tragic nature of the role you just want it to be amazing, in spite of the actual performance. Cutting both these element s out, I still believe the performance is exceptional.
ANDY: We’ll have to disagree there old mate. What I wanted to cover before we wrap this up (I think there’s grounds for a round 2 soon, whaddaya say?), is the rating. This new Batman film was given a 12A, which in my view is grossly inappropriate, especially in the current climate of knife crime in the UK. That rating enables small children to be exposed to the film, taken in by parents expecting a standard superhero yarn, and instead they get some very harrowing violence. What do you think about the rating? I think it is incredibly irresponsible of the BBFC to give it less than a 15.
RICH: Indeed, I was surprised to see the movie had been allowed a 12A, especially given the nature of the Joker’s preferred methods and, like you said, the current state of our streets. I guess it was a short-sighted mistake. That being said, parents should be aware that 12A cannot be taken as a lenient certificate in the way of the old PGs (which were mostly harmless), and should definitely check out such a film before they allow their children to.
ANDY: At least we agree about that.
The Dark Knight Debate will continue soon…