Saw the film this evening. Fantastic.
Don't worry. No spoilers here.
Performances. Let's start with the Joker. You know how they said playing the role of the Joker messed with Heath Ledger's mind? I thought that was just some Hollywood silliness. But seeing the movie, I can believe that playing the character he plays could actually fuck with your head. It is an intense, exceptionally dark, but funny and wildly charismatic performance.
Heath steals every scene. The Joker's dialogue is the strongest of any character. His crimes are exceptionally clever, anarchic gags that have layers of meaning and deliver sudden, violent punchlines that make you wince and laugh simultaneously. The Joker is a moving art exhibit -- like a terrorist Banksy. You hate him. And he truly earns your hate by being horrifyingly cruel. But you sit up and grin every time he comes on screen.
There is something essentially human in the Joker: a wicked, destructive, selfish, spontaneous, id-driven lust-for-life that balances Batman's sense of order and discipline. (There is a line by the Joker in the movie that sums up this mutually definitive relationship perfectly and hysterically) However, while the Joker professes to play by no rules, don't believe it: He has daunting creative standards that inform everything he does.
What is so stunning is how Heath somehow gets evil and funny into the Joker seamlessly and at the same time. Nicholson's goofier portrayal lacked the subtlety to pull this off. Heath simply defines the character of the Joker.
Christian Bale is solid. I actually prefer him as Bruce over Batman -- his performance, anyway. Nobody plays trust fund, Ivy Leaguer like Bale. There were a few scenes in the movie when Bale's portrayal of Wayne as a social scenester evoked a touch of Patrick Bateman. Hm, Batman -- Bateman. Neat.
Maggie Gyllenhall. Same downturned expression of Katie, minus the empty-headed perkiness. Richer performance. She fully understands and therefore believes, and therefore sells the dialogue, which Holmes in her Dawson Creekiness could never muster. But that is underselling Maggie. She brings a calm, centered selflessness to the character that is essential to the story. Nolan knew what was required here. And he made the right choice.
Caine and Freeman are Caine and Freeman. Understated and perfect, both.
I've always been a fan of Oldman's chameleon-like ability to sink into his roles. But somehow Gordon is my favorite. Why? I Think of Dracula, Drexyl, Sid Vicious, Jackie (State of Grace). All big characters, played big. But Gordon is the quiet man. Good, moral, brave, but ordinary and middle aged. Sagging and a little sad. He's the guy we could aspire to become, because what he exhibits is attainable.
After Ledger, Aaron Eckhart might have the most demanding role in the film. His character certainly has the biggest arc. I don't want to say too much about his performance lest I give something away. But it's a damn tricky role, and the naturally reasonable, affable Eckhart nearly pulls it off.
OK, no more. The plot is wide and reaching -- even silly, I suppose, if you stop to think about it. But real wars are started on sillier premises. Go see it. Like now. Surrender and be that annoying first wave of fanboys who simply must see it TODAY, and have their laptops all fired up and ready to go so they can blog their impressions to the world (as I have done here!).
And Ledger. Damn. His performance is so good that I promise you won't do what I feared I would do the whole movie -- think about how I'm watching someone who has since died. I never thought it once. (OK, maybe once.) This role was a revelation for me. I never knew how good he was.
And Nolan. After Memento, Batman Begins, The Prestige and The Dark Knight, I have to place him way up there among the best directors today.
PS, Iron Man is also great. Bye.
8 comments:
Thanks for the excellent -- and spoiler-free -- review. Armond White at NY Press trashed it (of course), and I've read a handful of other not-so-positive reviews that make me hesitant about trusting that a "superhero movie" to actually deliver a non-adolescent story. Goyer's OK as a writer, but man is he ever stuck in his perpetual teens.
But whuddev. We're going to try to catch it after the crowds die down a bit. Like in September...
yeah, i saw it yesterday too. i agree with every word you said. ledger is amazing, and i've never been a fan before. a haunting performance.
Great character/acting analysis. That's a different way of looking at a movie review, but I like it. It's rare to see that depth in a review that doesn't go into the plot.
I hope to catch the film this week.
Dave, I took a crack at Armond's review but it's really just a screed against youngsters.
NY Press is so douchey -- some coffee-fetcher posted a story on their site about the overwhelmingly negative reader reaction to Armond's "review," and had the nerve to say that White has an ability to "evoke" vitriol. How about, he exudes it? I haven't read anything this filled with irrational anger since I thumbed through TK's "Industrial Society and Its Future," or some of the less coherent passages of "Richard McBeef." Does someone have a Prozac for this old man?
Here's White trashing three Nolan movies in a single sentence. "After announcing his new comics interpretation with 2005’s oppressively grim Batman Begins, Nolan continues the intellectual squalor popularized in his pseudo-existential hit Memento."
(Pseudo-existential? You wanna unpack that one for us, Armond?)
According to White, Nolan's interpretation of Batman is too dark and serious. He calls it "glibly nihilistic (hip)," and laments Burton's "satirical detachment from the crime-and-punishment theme."
In other words, Nolan's version is not GenX enough for the 42-year old reviewer. Unfortunately, neither is the rest of the post-9/11 world. The themes here are different than they were in the early 90s, and so the tone is appropriately darker.
For example, Burton gave a Joker who could have been an 80's politician. He got the populace on his side by literally showering them with money and smearing Batman. He proposed to solve societies ills by offering pleasing soundbites and playing on people's greed. Sounds like a perfect encapsulation of the 80s.
Nolan's Joker has no such political (or otherwise) ambition. He is merely a force of chaos, with no consistent back story and no adherence to the material trappings of "normal" Western outlaws. He is very much a terrorist, there to horrify, create confusion and inspire insanity by forcing people to choose between equally repulsive outcomes.
I hear ya, and perhaps White's invective is misdirected here. (Still haven't seen DK yet). However, I often find that he's spot-on with criticism against the general mediocrity and sugar-high impact of what passes for film these days. So I pay attention to what he says. And he's not the first critic I've read who has skewered "Memento" (although I regard it as an example of outstanding cinema.)
But let's face it, most films are for an adolescent audience. Because that's the group who buys most of what Hollywood peddles. They're the ones who disregard what any critic has to say about whatever film has got them jazzed, and line up to buy tickets anyway. And studios know that even if they dislike the film they'll snatch up the video game version that comes out a few months later.
I really -- REALLY -- hope Dark Knight will be different. That it won't insult my intelligence with "but duh" exposition, overwrought f/x and 2-dimensional characters. Because I want to enjoy an excellent escapist adventure more than some Oscar-worthy family melodrama snoozer.
It just seems that these days, "adventure" (ie "spectacle") trumps a worthy story or strong performances.
Nice review, Brian! I'm still overwhelmed by the movie. I'll have to see it again in IMAX. And be overwhelmed again.
Couldn't agree more. It's the best Batman so far. Ledger was a true talent.
I finally saw it. This was hands-down the best, most faithful representation of a graphic novel story I've ever seen. The moral ambiguity, the deadly-serious themes.
There were no cheesy one-liners ("Now, that's what I call A BLAST" kind of tired shit), over-the-top caricatures. The movie simply told the story and didn't try to come off as über cool. Which of course makes it über cool...
My skept-o-meter was pinging in the beginning of the film, right after the bank heist, when Batman finishes up some old business left over from the first film. I was sitting there thinking, "yeah, here's another comic book movie." But almost imperceptibly, the film got darker, more series by degrees until I found myself made very uncomfortable by the moral dilemmas it raised. And that's what good drama is supposed to do.
Frankly, Heath's performance didn't impress. Maybe it's because of all the hype surrounding it (particularly amped after his tragic death); I found it to be inconsistent, and the over-emphasis on filming him in closeups just made it seem like so much acting. Aaron Eckhardt surprisingly gave the strongest performance, IMO.
There's a lot I missed, which is why I intend to see it again -- Nolan populates the screen with tons of visual cues that I didn't catch because I was intently focused on the wheels-within-wheels plotting (which managed to not have the film collapse under its own weight, but I could sense the strain) as well as the performances. I do appreciate the fact that Nolan isn't a CGI junkie. Or, like a good director, he knows when and how to best use the tools he has.
I look forward to my next trip to Gotham.
Post a Comment