The new Batman film, Dark Knight, is a superior film skillfully using all the weapons of the superhero genre to create a moral tapestry at once complex and satisfying. The action is hot, the acting is top notch, and the film makes one think while offering the eye candy one wants from a summer superhero
blockbuster. Can you tell I recommend the film?
Dark Knight starts with Batman having to deal with Batman impostors as much as the criminal element. This itself indicates one of the film's themes: who has the right to use violence for the public good? What makes Batman a hero while others who wear his uniform are just vigilantes? The film is clever is showing good and evil in its complexity while not hedging that good is superior to evil. But doing good in a messy world is not as easy as it sometimes seems. Batman himself suffers from the trouble of all film noir heroes (or anti-heroes, if you prefer): he represents a challenge to public order while attempting to maintain public order.
Enter the Joker. In addition to the more human reasons for mourning the death of Heath Ledger, his portrayal of the Joker should make us miss him as an actor. I suspect an Oscar nomination is coming his way, and not just out of sentiment. This film's Joker, similar to that of the original Michael Keaton Batman featuring Jack Nicholson as the Joker, is a slightly mad yet deviously clever criminal who takes a perverse joy in causing mayhem. But Ledger's Joker goes beyond this. Not content to rule Gotham's organized crime and have more money than he could ever spend (he has other peculiar plans for the money), he wants to prove to Gotham the absurdity of doing "good" in a world where good is simply a word to describe what we prefer. The Joker is a deranged Nietzschean (or do I repeat myself) who throughout the film takes delicious joy in doing the worst evil. Ledger's Joker is not the comedian of Nicholson's interpretation. Although his keen sense of the absurd does make him amusing at times, he does not make evil fun; he makes evil look evil.
The error of much modern film is that it makes evil more interesting than good (that is a failing of that first Batman film). This film does not fall into that trap. By forcing Bruce Wayne and District Attorney Harvey Dent (played well by Aaron Eckhart) to question their own motives and the right course in their pursuit of good, Dark Knight makes the struggle to do good as interesting as the semi-comedic evil they fight. They want good, but they must be prudent, meaning they must find the right means to achieve good. They do not want to become what they fight, namely a nihilist who asserts his will rather than good men who obey a notion of justice outside of their own desires. One of the few disappointments I have with the film going experience is the laughter some viewers had with the Joker, a character so obviously devoted to cruelty as a way of life. As I noted above, the Joker is amusing at times, but as the film develops his sadism is so clear that he is no longer an object worthy of laughter. I think this error is on the part of some in the audience, not the film. In a compelling scene towards the film's end, good is reaffirmed dramatically by the choices of certain pawns in the Joker's game to destroy all belief in good.
The early part of the film suffers from some muddy plot development, but once it gets going it is an exciting morality tale. The Joker essentially makes war on Gotham, and all civilization, forcing those with responsibility to face a myriad of difficult choices regarding how to fight him. Does fighting evil require one to do evil? Do the people need a heroes to retain their commitment to good and, ultimately, civilization? Does the maintenance of order require a strong executive hand? The question of the necessity of dictatorship is explicitly discussed in the film.
The film makes some conscious allusions to the war on terror. Indeed, the Joker is called a terrorist. This is not an inaccurate description of him (with caveats not worth discussing here). So the questions above are not just questions for the film characters, but for those who wish to maintain civilization. What must be done to retain civilization? The film even includes a surveillance system that allows Batman to listen in on all calls in Gotham. Is this ethical? It is certainly useful, even necessary, but does that make it right? In a discussion that might make us think of George Bush, does justice require some who are willing to do the good that is unpopular, thus becoming unpopular themselves, in order for civilization to endure its trials? Note that by unpopular I do not mean unjust.
I must point out that the film is too long. It was in serious need of another edit. The film appears to come to a conclusion with an explosion and a change in the life of Harvey Dent. But it then moves on to a third (or fourth) act that introduces new plot twists and cliffhangers that simply are too much at this point. This is my one substantive complaint about the film (ok, and a couple times it seems as if Gary Oldman, as Lt. Gordon, slips into his English accent). I warn viewers that the film is violent and not for young children.
Dark Knight is rumored to be heading for a record setting weekend. It deserves all the money its makes. Go see Dark Knight.
Recent Comments