The Definitive Guide to the Definitive Summer Phenomenon.
The critically acclaimed sequel to the critically acclaimed new take on the critically acclaimed comic book character hit critically acclaimed theaters yesterday. Mere hours separate us from the numbers we’ll need to confirm the film’s box office superiority and as various awards shows in the coming months cut through the controversy surrounding the chief supporting actor’s demise to render merits in medallion hues, the phenomenon of Christopher Nolan’s “The Dark Knight” will be sweeping the world for a long time yet. In the interest of promoting the film for what it is rather than what it is imagined, rumored, and accused of being, I have taken the liberty of composing this basic dossier of some more obscure questions that, despite their rarity, are still pertinent to any viewer. You don’t have to be a high-brow movie connoisseur to appreciate The Dark Knight Dossier. Let's begin!
Does size matter?
"The Dark Knight" was shot in the IMAX format, a technology that has existed for some time, but has only seen widespread use in recent years. While seen as a gimmick before, the last five years of film-making have demonstrated the exact potential of the medium. The strength of the storytelling in "The Dark Knight" is carried with gripping and striking visuals, and the extreme clarity of IMAX is the difference between an unforgettable experience and an uplifting one. While the immense, city-spanning shots of "Batman Begins" were given a temporary reprieve in this film, the gorgeous attention to detail in every single frame can only be truly appreciated when viewed on a screen that could give a battleship a run for its money in magnitude. The only downside to watching "The Dark Knight" on an IMAX screen is that watching the film (or any other, for that matter) on a pathetic standard screen will just feel depressing by comparison. It's directly comparable to the difference between DVD and VHS, or the difference between CD and cassette.
Does length matter?
Weighing in at two hours and forty minutes, "The Dark Knight" seems excessive. While fans of the series who were drowning in hype for the release of this installment will agree that 'the more the merrier' applies, casual viewers could be easily intimidated by this running length, at first brush. The crux of the question being asked lies not in whether one hundred and sixty minutes is too many, as it's an arbitrary and immutable fact, but rather does the "The Dark Knight" use its time in such a way that feels drawn out or tedious to endure? The answer to this question is a resounding 'No,' but that's not to say the generous helping of running time runs by unnoticed. On the contrary, "The Dark Knight" accomplishes what many films have aspired to, but none have quite accomplished to this degree: It presents its content using precisely as much time as it needs, and (with a number of exceptions you could count on one hand) not a single minute is wasted on scenes that could stand to be cut or lengthened. Every character in a rogues gallery of strong personalities is given the exact amount of screen time and story significance that they deserve, such that even if a character is discarded quickly, it's because they deserved to be, not because they misplaced their usefulness to the plot somewhere along the line.
Is it better than the first?
"Batman Begins" was a masterpiece in its own right, and definitely a hard act to follow, but it was awkward and aloof in several areas that kept it from being a perfect film. For instance, the fight sequences were unforgivably difficult to follow due to slipshod camera work that made choreography and stunts largely irrelevant as you couldn't see what was going on half the time. As a successor, "The Dark Knight" not only demonstrates Nolan's growing prowess as a director, but also marks significant steps toward creating his own distinctive style. The fight sequences are much smoother this time around, and the IMAX format allows enough visual detail to be fit into each frame that the mastery Nolan is acquiring over the art of film-making is finally allowed to come to the surface for all to see. Even more important than the audio/visual experience of the film is the story that binds it all together and gives the action a reason to exist, and I'm pleased to say that this is where "The Dark Knight" makes its boldest stand. The story presents Batman with two extremes that his vigilante campaign could ultimately embrace: Absolute idealism, and commitment to the greater good as personified in Harvey Two-Face, and absolute independence from rules in the pursuit of personal ethics, as personified by the Joker. Putting these two characters in Batman's world, closing the lid, and watching the three forces battle it out is nothing short of brilliant. When Batman emerges triumphant, he does so with a new sense of identity and purpose, demonstrating that "Batman Begins" was a prologue, and "The Dark Knight" is where the real story begins. The legend of "The Dark Knight" is one of those stories you'll find yourself talking about years after the fact, and every time you watch it, you'll discover something new to cherish.
Did Heath Ledger die in vain?
This is a question with many facets that each deserve a fair hearing. The most obvious question is whether his performance as "The Dark Knight's" lead antagonist does justice to his decorated career. I've long held the theory that actors do their best work when they play villains, and "The Dark Knight" is absolutely no exception. The fact is that Heath Ledger has elevated the portrayal of the character to such an outstanding art form that he is utterly impossible to mistake for any of his other roles, and even without the make-up, the actor is unrecognizeable under the layers of the character's behavior, psychology, and motives. The Joker of Heath Ledger is an undeniable success on every level, which just serves to elevate the tragedy of his untimely death to a new height. There's a note of bitter irony to be heard when the Joker says to Batman that he foresees them chasing each other around the city forever. The fact that Ledger will no longer appear in the series reminds me of the words of the primary antagonist of the previous film who said to Batman, his student at the time, "I know the rage that drives you. That impossible anger strangling the grief, until the memory of your loved one is just... poison in your veins. And one day, you catch yourself wishing the person you loved had never existed so you'd be spared your pain." The brilliance of Ledger's performance in "The Dark Knight" may very well turn into unbearable pain with the promise that a repeat performance will never occur. Whether that happens lies on Christopher Nolan's shoulders, and we can only pray that he will tread lightly and act nobly as he pushes on.
Has DC finally won against Marvel?
Months before, toward the beginning of summer, "Iron Man" was a breakaway success that few people were prepared for. It pulled together spectacular special effects and solid storytelling that rested squarely on the shoulders of Robert Downey Jr.'s powerful portrayal of the main character, Tony Stark. Though the success of Marvel's film had run its course well enough by the time "The Dark Knight" was released, a comparison between the two incredibly successful superhero films is inevitable due to the proximity of their release and their content. That withstanding, a comparison is almost totally a waste of time because of how utterly different the movies are. Apart from obvious stylistic impasses, the real discrepancy lies in where the principle characters of each film are situated when the credits roll (or in the case of "Iron Man," a few minutes afterward). While Iron Man was only at the beginning of his career at the end of his movie, ready and rearing to enter the superhero pantheon and start doing some real good on a day-to-day basis, Batman has passed the point of establishing himself by the time "The Dark Knight" begins, and is at the point of refining his sense of identity as a hero as well as honing his crime-fighting campaign and image among the inhabitants of Gotham. Batman (as interpreted by Christopher Nolan) has the advantage of being one film ahead of Iron Man, thus rendering any comparison between the two as unfair and futile. It would instead be more pertinent to compare "The Dark Knight's" predecessor, "Batman Begins," to "Iron Man," and that's a topic for another day. In short, looking at "The Dark Knight" as "Iron Man's" competition and vice versa will do injustice to both films.
What about the children?
Among many other things, "The Dark Knight" has successfully lifted the superhero genre out of the realm of kids' fantasy and placed it squarely into the adult realm. Make no mistake, however: there isn't a single dirty word uttered by any character, nor are there any references to sex. On a superficial level, it is every inch a PG-13 movie not even remotely besmirched by fleeting references to drug use, endless waves of organized crime, and prevailing violence. Rather, the film is so utterly mature that it will make the vast droves of films who are light on psychological, ethical, and intellectual content (and instead monger a more mature rating with sensationalism and deliberate attempts at controversy) blush. "The Dark Knight" shows Hollywood what it truly means to make a mature and adult film, and demonstrates that movies who rely on intense sexual content or gore are really adolescent thrills at best. While children could appreciate the action and thrilling heroics of their beloved superhero (which are in no short supply), the real fulfillment of the movie comes from depth that will fly right over the heads of anyone younger than thirteen. What's more, a child's lack of understanding of the adult concepts at work may actually instill the precisely incorrect message intended by the film's creators. For instance, a child could not grasp the irony behind the Joker's goofy antics, instead seeing them as endearing, funny, and worthy of imitation. Of course the portrayal of the Joker won't turn children into psychopaths any more than violent video games will teach them to kill real people. Instead, the biggest risk is that children who see the film will simply be bored and confused. Ideally, the action will be enough to placate them and convince them to keep watching repeatedly until they're old enough to grasp the depth that makes "The Dark Knight" truly shine.
The critically acclaimed sequel to the critically acclaimed new take on the critically acclaimed comic book character hit critically acclaimed theaters yesterday. Mere hours separate us from the numbers we’ll need to confirm the film’s box office superiority and as various awards shows in the coming months cut through the controversy surrounding the chief supporting actor’s demise to render merits in medallion hues, the phenomenon of Christopher Nolan’s “The Dark Knight” will be sweeping the world for a long time yet. In the interest of promoting the film for what it is rather than what it is imagined, rumored, and accused of being, I have taken the liberty of composing this basic dossier of some more obscure questions that, despite their rarity, are still pertinent to any viewer. You don’t have to be a high-brow movie connoisseur to appreciate The Dark Knight Dossier. Let's begin!
Does size matter?
"The Dark Knight" was shot in the IMAX format, a technology that has existed for some time, but has only seen widespread use in recent years. While seen as a gimmick before, the last five years of film-making have demonstrated the exact potential of the medium. The strength of the storytelling in "The Dark Knight" is carried with gripping and striking visuals, and the extreme clarity of IMAX is the difference between an unforgettable experience and an uplifting one. While the immense, city-spanning shots of "Batman Begins" were given a temporary reprieve in this film, the gorgeous attention to detail in every single frame can only be truly appreciated when viewed on a screen that could give a battleship a run for its money in magnitude. The only downside to watching "The Dark Knight" on an IMAX screen is that watching the film (or any other, for that matter) on a pathetic standard screen will just feel depressing by comparison. It's directly comparable to the difference between DVD and VHS, or the difference between CD and cassette.
Does length matter?
Weighing in at two hours and forty minutes, "The Dark Knight" seems excessive. While fans of the series who were drowning in hype for the release of this installment will agree that 'the more the merrier' applies, casual viewers could be easily intimidated by this running length, at first brush. The crux of the question being asked lies not in whether one hundred and sixty minutes is too many, as it's an arbitrary and immutable fact, but rather does the "The Dark Knight" use its time in such a way that feels drawn out or tedious to endure? The answer to this question is a resounding 'No,' but that's not to say the generous helping of running time runs by unnoticed. On the contrary, "The Dark Knight" accomplishes what many films have aspired to, but none have quite accomplished to this degree: It presents its content using precisely as much time as it needs, and (with a number of exceptions you could count on one hand) not a single minute is wasted on scenes that could stand to be cut or lengthened. Every character in a rogues gallery of strong personalities is given the exact amount of screen time and story significance that they deserve, such that even if a character is discarded quickly, it's because they deserved to be, not because they misplaced their usefulness to the plot somewhere along the line.
Is it better than the first?
"Batman Begins" was a masterpiece in its own right, and definitely a hard act to follow, but it was awkward and aloof in several areas that kept it from being a perfect film. For instance, the fight sequences were unforgivably difficult to follow due to slipshod camera work that made choreography and stunts largely irrelevant as you couldn't see what was going on half the time. As a successor, "The Dark Knight" not only demonstrates Nolan's growing prowess as a director, but also marks significant steps toward creating his own distinctive style. The fight sequences are much smoother this time around, and the IMAX format allows enough visual detail to be fit into each frame that the mastery Nolan is acquiring over the art of film-making is finally allowed to come to the surface for all to see. Even more important than the audio/visual experience of the film is the story that binds it all together and gives the action a reason to exist, and I'm pleased to say that this is where "The Dark Knight" makes its boldest stand. The story presents Batman with two extremes that his vigilante campaign could ultimately embrace: Absolute idealism, and commitment to the greater good as personified in Harvey Two-Face, and absolute independence from rules in the pursuit of personal ethics, as personified by the Joker. Putting these two characters in Batman's world, closing the lid, and watching the three forces battle it out is nothing short of brilliant. When Batman emerges triumphant, he does so with a new sense of identity and purpose, demonstrating that "Batman Begins" was a prologue, and "The Dark Knight" is where the real story begins. The legend of "The Dark Knight" is one of those stories you'll find yourself talking about years after the fact, and every time you watch it, you'll discover something new to cherish.
Did Heath Ledger die in vain?
This is a question with many facets that each deserve a fair hearing. The most obvious question is whether his performance as "The Dark Knight's" lead antagonist does justice to his decorated career. I've long held the theory that actors do their best work when they play villains, and "The Dark Knight" is absolutely no exception. The fact is that Heath Ledger has elevated the portrayal of the character to such an outstanding art form that he is utterly impossible to mistake for any of his other roles, and even without the make-up, the actor is unrecognizeable under the layers of the character's behavior, psychology, and motives. The Joker of Heath Ledger is an undeniable success on every level, which just serves to elevate the tragedy of his untimely death to a new height. There's a note of bitter irony to be heard when the Joker says to Batman that he foresees them chasing each other around the city forever. The fact that Ledger will no longer appear in the series reminds me of the words of the primary antagonist of the previous film who said to Batman, his student at the time, "I know the rage that drives you. That impossible anger strangling the grief, until the memory of your loved one is just... poison in your veins. And one day, you catch yourself wishing the person you loved had never existed so you'd be spared your pain." The brilliance of Ledger's performance in "The Dark Knight" may very well turn into unbearable pain with the promise that a repeat performance will never occur. Whether that happens lies on Christopher Nolan's shoulders, and we can only pray that he will tread lightly and act nobly as he pushes on.
Has DC finally won against Marvel?
Months before, toward the beginning of summer, "Iron Man" was a breakaway success that few people were prepared for. It pulled together spectacular special effects and solid storytelling that rested squarely on the shoulders of Robert Downey Jr.'s powerful portrayal of the main character, Tony Stark. Though the success of Marvel's film had run its course well enough by the time "The Dark Knight" was released, a comparison between the two incredibly successful superhero films is inevitable due to the proximity of their release and their content. That withstanding, a comparison is almost totally a waste of time because of how utterly different the movies are. Apart from obvious stylistic impasses, the real discrepancy lies in where the principle characters of each film are situated when the credits roll (or in the case of "Iron Man," a few minutes afterward). While Iron Man was only at the beginning of his career at the end of his movie, ready and rearing to enter the superhero pantheon and start doing some real good on a day-to-day basis, Batman has passed the point of establishing himself by the time "The Dark Knight" begins, and is at the point of refining his sense of identity as a hero as well as honing his crime-fighting campaign and image among the inhabitants of Gotham. Batman (as interpreted by Christopher Nolan) has the advantage of being one film ahead of Iron Man, thus rendering any comparison between the two as unfair and futile. It would instead be more pertinent to compare "The Dark Knight's" predecessor, "Batman Begins," to "Iron Man," and that's a topic for another day. In short, looking at "The Dark Knight" as "Iron Man's" competition and vice versa will do injustice to both films.
What about the children?
Among many other things, "The Dark Knight" has successfully lifted the superhero genre out of the realm of kids' fantasy and placed it squarely into the adult realm. Make no mistake, however: there isn't a single dirty word uttered by any character, nor are there any references to sex. On a superficial level, it is every inch a PG-13 movie not even remotely besmirched by fleeting references to drug use, endless waves of organized crime, and prevailing violence. Rather, the film is so utterly mature that it will make the vast droves of films who are light on psychological, ethical, and intellectual content (and instead monger a more mature rating with sensationalism and deliberate attempts at controversy) blush. "The Dark Knight" shows Hollywood what it truly means to make a mature and adult film, and demonstrates that movies who rely on intense sexual content or gore are really adolescent thrills at best. While children could appreciate the action and thrilling heroics of their beloved superhero (which are in no short supply), the real fulfillment of the movie comes from depth that will fly right over the heads of anyone younger than thirteen. What's more, a child's lack of understanding of the adult concepts at work may actually instill the precisely incorrect message intended by the film's creators. For instance, a child could not grasp the irony behind the Joker's goofy antics, instead seeing them as endearing, funny, and worthy of imitation. Of course the portrayal of the Joker won't turn children into psychopaths any more than violent video games will teach them to kill real people. Instead, the biggest risk is that children who see the film will simply be bored and confused. Ideally, the action will be enough to placate them and convince them to keep watching repeatedly until they're old enough to grasp the depth that makes "The Dark Knight" truly shine.
