"Wanna see a magic trick?"
Jul. 27th, 2008 12:53 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
eumeliaThose of you who have seen the movie, know exactly what the title of this review alludes too, no more needs to be said.
Those of you who haven't seen the movie... what, exactly, are you waiting for?*
I'm still not sure what it is that I can say on this film that hasn't been said. It has been out in the States for over a week and the European opening weekend has come and gone. I think I manged to convey if a few words in my previous entry the feel of the movie, as it related to me.
It is, without a doubt, one of the most intense, tense, thrilling, terrifying and exhilarating films I have ever seen, if not the most. I'm having trouble thinking of another movie that left me so shaken and speechless. The Dark Knight is a work of cinematic art.
I came into this movie with a huge amount of baggage; not only have I been lapping up the hype for the past two years, since the announcement that a sequel to Batman Begins was in production, but also as a Bat-Fan. I've been a Bat-Fan since I was a child, before I began reading comics regularly.
I was, obviously, not disappointed.
It is a movie anchored in realism. You can imagine a psychopath running amok and ruining the foundations of a civilization, which is teetering on the brink in any event. It is also anchored on the fact that good intentions don't necessarily bring about good results, or that good intentions are in fact "Good".
It is a story about the old question, is what matters the bottom line? Or is the way towards that line more important?
It is also a story of a world out of balance - not just the physical world of Gotham City, but the inner world of the Heroes, which in this movie there are three: Batman/Bruce, Harvey/Two-Face and the Joker - each one represents ways towards that old moral question:
Does the End justify the Means?
Batman represents the way things need to be at the moment. Batman does what needs to be done in order to ensure Gotham doesn't take another child's parents away. He works outside the law, and is thus an outlaw, despite being on the side of "Good". The world is constructed in a way which doesn't enable Batman to work openly along side the police, though he would very much like that.
Batman is incorruptible, because his methods can withstand whatever side throws as him, he works towards order (though not necessarily that of of Law), by whatever means necessary - with one rule that he makes sure he never breaks.
He will not (intentionally) take a life.
Though one has to ask if that is the most moral course of action that Batman can take.
Harvey Dent represents the path of how things should be. He is a man of the Law (he is, after all, the district attorney). He sees the patterns and plans of the people he sets out to capture. Not only does he do things the right way, he is pragmatic enough to know that his path is imperfect, but it creates a respite in which he can improve things - and it allows room in which Batman can operate without total censure. Harvey himself doesn't toe the line, he allows room in which others can do it for him and he takes no chances, he is not a gambling man. To Harvey the Means are the Way and he trusts that in the end, his way will bring Law and Order to Gotham.
Until the Joker, that is.
The Joker represents... well.
Both Harvey and Batman are Order of a certain kind. The Joker is the stark negative of that order. He is an agent of Chaos and Anarchy. He has no other motivation beyond the fact that he wants everyone to know this. His views Ways and Means as completely useless human constructs. He has no plan, he is utterly unpredictable and it makes him truly terrifying.
We don't know where the Joker comes from - it is alluded that he is a petty criminal that tipped over the edge and is enjoying the fall into the abyss - unlike in Batman in which the Joker (played by Jack Nicholson) has a plan and there is a clear method to his madness, The Dark Knight gives us a villain that is in the midst of a permanent psychotic episode and he is taking us all along for the ride. He is also steeped in humour, though you don't hear anybody laughing when he makes ones of his jokes.
It is a deeply horrific film. It is a far scarier movie than any slasher movie out there. Human nature is displayed flayed and gutted for us all to see.
Not every movie goer is a conciseness viewer, but unless one ignores the guts and glory, there is no way you miss the moral and ethical tragedy that is played out before you.
Though I didn't and still don't, feel any kind of catharsis, it is a very satisfying movie and you can't help but bask in its affects and effects.
*Real life obligations that prevent one from having free time not counting. We all have jobs, or school, or lack of funds, life's just like that at times.
Those of you who haven't seen the movie... what, exactly, are you waiting for?*
I'm still not sure what it is that I can say on this film that hasn't been said. It has been out in the States for over a week and the European opening weekend has come and gone. I think I manged to convey if a few words in my previous entry the feel of the movie, as it related to me.
It is, without a doubt, one of the most intense, tense, thrilling, terrifying and exhilarating films I have ever seen, if not the most. I'm having trouble thinking of another movie that left me so shaken and speechless. The Dark Knight is a work of cinematic art.
I came into this movie with a huge amount of baggage; not only have I been lapping up the hype for the past two years, since the announcement that a sequel to Batman Begins was in production, but also as a Bat-Fan. I've been a Bat-Fan since I was a child, before I began reading comics regularly.
I was, obviously, not disappointed.
It is a movie anchored in realism. You can imagine a psychopath running amok and ruining the foundations of a civilization, which is teetering on the brink in any event. It is also anchored on the fact that good intentions don't necessarily bring about good results, or that good intentions are in fact "Good".
It is a story about the old question, is what matters the bottom line? Or is the way towards that line more important?
It is also a story of a world out of balance - not just the physical world of Gotham City, but the inner world of the Heroes, which in this movie there are three: Batman/Bruce, Harvey/Two-Face and the Joker - each one represents ways towards that old moral question:
Does the End justify the Means?
Batman represents the way things need to be at the moment. Batman does what needs to be done in order to ensure Gotham doesn't take another child's parents away. He works outside the law, and is thus an outlaw, despite being on the side of "Good". The world is constructed in a way which doesn't enable Batman to work openly along side the police, though he would very much like that.
Batman is incorruptible, because his methods can withstand whatever side throws as him, he works towards order (though not necessarily that of of Law), by whatever means necessary - with one rule that he makes sure he never breaks.
He will not (intentionally) take a life.
Though one has to ask if that is the most moral course of action that Batman can take.
Harvey Dent represents the path of how things should be. He is a man of the Law (he is, after all, the district attorney). He sees the patterns and plans of the people he sets out to capture. Not only does he do things the right way, he is pragmatic enough to know that his path is imperfect, but it creates a respite in which he can improve things - and it allows room in which Batman can operate without total censure. Harvey himself doesn't toe the line, he allows room in which others can do it for him and he takes no chances, he is not a gambling man. To Harvey the Means are the Way and he trusts that in the end, his way will bring Law and Order to Gotham.
Until the Joker, that is.
The Joker represents... well.
Both Harvey and Batman are Order of a certain kind. The Joker is the stark negative of that order. He is an agent of Chaos and Anarchy. He has no other motivation beyond the fact that he wants everyone to know this. His views Ways and Means as completely useless human constructs. He has no plan, he is utterly unpredictable and it makes him truly terrifying.
We don't know where the Joker comes from - it is alluded that he is a petty criminal that tipped over the edge and is enjoying the fall into the abyss - unlike in Batman in which the Joker (played by Jack Nicholson) has a plan and there is a clear method to his madness, The Dark Knight gives us a villain that is in the midst of a permanent psychotic episode and he is taking us all along for the ride. He is also steeped in humour, though you don't hear anybody laughing when he makes ones of his jokes.
It is a deeply horrific film. It is a far scarier movie than any slasher movie out there. Human nature is displayed flayed and gutted for us all to see.
Not every movie goer is a conciseness viewer, but unless one ignores the guts and glory, there is no way you miss the moral and ethical tragedy that is played out before you.
Though I didn't and still don't, feel any kind of catharsis, it is a very satisfying movie and you can't help but bask in its affects and effects.
*Real life obligations that prevent one from having free time not counting. We all have jobs, or school, or lack of funds, life's just like that at times.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-07-27 10:17 am (UTC)(I've not seen it yet, but you're not the first person to say how deeply horrific and disturbing it is.)
no subject
Date: 2008-07-27 10:20 am (UTC)I was sitting next to some kids and trying to figure out how old they were, but damn. PG-12/13 is not the correct rating! What, because they didn't say the f-word or show any full frontal nudity it means it more appropriate for impressionable kids? Fuck man, the rating system is messed up.
no subject
Date: 2008-07-27 10:28 am (UTC)Nightmares for life, right there.
no subject
Date: 2008-07-27 10:33 am (UTC)They can't tell it's not real violence and scary things! I could barely tell the difference (which is why it's so horrifying BTW).
no subject
Date: 2008-07-27 10:34 am (UTC)And what did this 7 year olds father say? 'Don't make a fuss, it's just a movie.'
Feh.
no subject
Date: 2008-07-27 10:35 am (UTC)When a child says they want to leave, you bloody well LEAVE!
no subject
Date: 2008-07-27 10:40 am (UTC)I heard Gary Oldman was absolutely fantastic in this new one?
no subject
Date: 2008-07-27 10:46 am (UTC)Everyone was brilliant, though Bale didn't show a whole lot of range and Maggie Gylenhaal[sp?] didn't have much of a role, other than be The Girl (of the feminist critiquw in this is HUGE, but I'll refrain), she was great with what they gave her... so much netter than what's her face in the first movie.
One did not feel shot changed what-so-ever in the acting.
As I said, you have here a cinematic masterpiece. It wouldn't be so if the conveyors were crappy.
no subject
Date: 2008-07-27 10:53 am (UTC)Brilliant decision recasting Katie Holmes though, she was by far and away the weakest thing about the last film.
no subject
Date: 2008-07-27 03:35 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-07-27 06:45 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-07-27 11:53 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-07-28 07:14 am (UTC)The kid that played Joker was really into it :)
*tries hard not to use spoilers* TA-DA!
Date: 2008-07-28 09:49 pm (UTC)Most easily seen in the scene where the convict "does what you shoulda done fifteen minutes ago."
I, too, was sitting beside a 10-year-old and trying hard to understand why her parents thought this would be a good family movie to watch. Jesus. Not to mention, she wouldn't stop asking questions ("Are those scars on his face?" "How'd he get the scars?" "Who's he?"). Here in the States we have a massive problem with parents taking their kids to the wrong movies. I saw Silent Hill in theaters and there were kids in there, too. The worst one was the group of kids with their mom at a late showing of Underworld: Evolution. And that has not only sex in it, but graphic violence. Rated R, people. Sometimes that means even you people above the age of 17 can't handle it.
It's a safe bet that the 10-year-old girl had nightmares after seeing some of that stuff.
Re: *tries hard not to use spoilers* TA-DA!
Date: 2008-07-28 09:59 pm (UTC)I had a very tense night after the movie, despite eating chocolate and everything.
And I'm 23!!!
Re: *tries hard not to use spoilers* TA-DA!
Date: 2008-07-29 03:43 am (UTC)But that's because I've forced myself to watch horror films to get used to the terror. And now I like it. And, because I had worn myself out emotionally and ended up napping the rest of the afternoon away until about nine at night (it's Shark Week!).
I did, however, wake up this morning with Heath Ledger's voice menacingly whispering: "Why so serious?" stuck on a loop in my brain.
Re: *tries hard not to use spoilers* TA-DA!
Date: 2008-07-29 12:58 am (UTC)Re: *tries hard not to use spoilers* TA-DA!
Date: 2008-07-29 03:39 am (UTC)AMEN!
Shouldn't parents read movie reviews before taking their kids to see them? When I was little, my parents would actually screen PG movies before taking me and my sister to see them. I mean, look at Temple of Doom. It's PG. But only because the PG13 rating had not been established yet. Actually, I think that film in particular was a major catalyst in creating PG13.
I mean, a man gets his heart torn out of his chest, for God's sake... But there wasn't any nudity or pervasive language so it didn't earn an R rating.
Seriously, parents. Take some responsibility. Do some research. Don't force your kid into watching a movie you want to see when it's too graphic or the subject matter is disturbing.