By Alex Breeze
With a great deal of excitement, and trepidation, I entered screen 14 of the Odeon to watch The Dark Knight. The film has generated a huge amount of buzz with a groundbreaking online marketing campaign, and massive media frenzy. Could it live up to the hype?
The Dark Knight is one of the best films I’ve seen for some years. Intelligent, challenging, complex. It’s rightly earned high plaudits from most critics for its maturity and basis in reality. But what struck me most was that a popcorn superhero movie engaged with political debates with a surprising degree of aptitude and sophistication.
Take the Joker, a million miles from the camp, yet fun, character from the 1960’s. Instead he’s a terrifying modern urban terrorist in a city of gleaming skyscrapers, economic power and crippling social decay. The opening aerial shot that introduces us to the Joker evokes memories of 9/11. We’re being told from the beginning what this film’s main concern is.
Heath Ledger’s performance is blackly comic in places, but also terrifying – it’s as if The Joker has spent a weekend with Osama Bin Laden. He sends video messages of hostages to news networks; he ransoms and gleefully destroys hospitals; he takes a whole roomful of Gotham’s great and good hostage. His namelessness is much like the 7/7 bombers, men who were unremarkable before that infamous day. The police are unable to trace him or stop him. The director, Christopher Nolan, has given a startling interpretation of the Joker, turning him into a terrorist. He causes mayhem because, as Bruce Wayne’s butler Alfred (Michael Caine) says ‘Some men just want to watch the world burn’. It seems that terrorists – clown or otherwise - get some sort of delight from the mayhem they wreak. The anarchy in which the Joker thrives is the same that real-world terrorists have flourished.
So we have the Joker spreading Al-Qaeda themed mayhem, and the combined forces of Batman (Christian Bale) and the Gotham City Police Department, led by the commendable Jim Gordon (Gary Oldman). As the Joker becomes more ingenious and fearsome Batman and the police become more desperate. Batman finds that his ‘rule’, never kill, is challenged by the Joker and the gangsters. They’ve wised up to his boundaries, and the audience is left wondering in the final confrontation with his nemesis, will Batman take that last step?
In a tense scene, the Joker goads Batman into running him over, saying ‘Come on, I want you to do it.’ We realise that victory for the Joker would death at the hands of Batman, bringing our hero down to his level. Destroying Batman by forcing him to break his one rule…
You can probably see where I’m going with this…Batman’s fundamental morality is challenged by the unstoppable force and ingenuity of the Joker. Could he turn into that which he despises to stop the bloodshed? If he steps over that mark, he becomes like the Joker, living his life without rules. What we see is the debate surrounding civil liberties enacted before us.
I can see that some may think I’m forcing this political reading onto the film. I’m always wary of stating that films are analogies for certain issues. But Nolan is an intelligent and philosophical director, and a man who is engaged with the world around him. So it doesn’t seem impossible to think that, even on an unconscious level, The Dark Knight is dealing with fundamental issues that face the world today, all within a blockbuster, populist movie.
Which brings me round to why I think this film is so significant. Think about the audience who would go to see a Batman film, and then think about how many of those people would willingly sit through a speech by Gordon Brown or David Cameron on national security. Whilst it may sound condescending, I don’t suspect that much of the audience for this film would think of themselves as politically active. Politicians certainly don’t ingratiate themselves with my generation, which leads to disillusionment with politics, and ultimately a total lack of interest in it.
This is why it is crucial that Hollywood continues to make films like The Dark Knight – films which tackle fundamental issues of the day, without being preachy. Certainly not all films need to tackle ‘ishoos’. There is an appetite, and a need, for escapist entertainment like Mamma Mia! in the multiplex, it is also crucial that pop culture addresses the time in which we live. Otherwise, what’s the point?
32 comments:
Well, Ian, you certainly intellectualised that to death. Very French.
Its just a Batman movie !
The troube is that I suspect the majority of the audince couldn't actually give a toss about its "political overtones" - although having seen the film I agree it was unsettling in parts and am surprised it managed to scrape through with a 12A rating.
holy baloney batman ...
I'm just waiting for someone to explain to me the political soco/economic ramifications of magic roundabout .....
....and did Florence bat for the other side ?
My son says he has seen Ledger
in a minor part in the Australian Soap 'Home and Away' and is surprised that he became such a consummate performer within a few years.
My question is at a time when the terrorists are becoming more brutal and invest more ingenuity in their plans, are our police and security forces are geared to meet the challenge? Or are they simply equivalents of Gotham City Police Department?
Unconvincing analysis to my mind. The Joker/Al-Qaeda comparison doesn't hold up. The Joker causes havoc because he likes seeing destruction, there is no higher purpose. Genuine "modern terrorists", e.g. Al-Qaeda and the like, _do_ have a set purpose with identifiable goals. They have made these very clear, the defeat of infidels and the establishment of an Islamic Caliphate. Their activities fit in with these goals.
He's right though. If you actually bother to see it, you'll find it really does examine a range of moral and ethical issues connected to curent geo-political issues, even offering up a speech defending the US' action over the past few years.
Agree that the Joker is out of John Robb's 'Brave New War'. Quite educational.
I don't know screen 14 at your Odeon. If you get a chance to see the film in Imax, take it. First major movie to be shot in Imax.
The audience who go to see a Batman film go to see him drop a gangster to the pavement from 3 floors up. They enjoy him hurting criminals. They enjoy him kicking ten bells out of the Joker in a locked interrogation room. I don't think it's an ideal audience to teach Civil Liberties 101 to.
We're supposed to be encouraged in the film by "the two ferries" sequence, neither boat choosing to blow up the other. In fact, the only conclusions you can draw from that is that the prisoners wanted to die (they felt unreformable), and the "citizens ferry" voted to murder 500 people, but didn't have the cojones to do it. So, you know, it's ok to vote for murder, so long as you don't have to do the killing.
Alex
Excellent review. I saw the film last night, and thought as you did. I found it made me consider my own life in many ways, and it caused me to wonder at what point one really becomes part of the evil machine. At what point does one stop pursuing the end because the means can no longer justify it?
It was a great film for that reason, but also, (and it is a shame you leave the most significant bit of the film out of your review) because of the two boats of people which give us hope.
Ordinary people, who you seem to denigrate in your review are the one bit of hope in the film: the criminals, and the mothers with children. We should not look to Cameron or to Brown for salvation, but to them.
Well now, there's a good example of the "low-grade pop therapy analysis that passes for thinking nowadays in educated circles" as Jim Kunstler describes it.
Try his review of the movie - as an antidote to the 'wide-eyed in thrall to the phoney war on terror' on display here - a set of assumptions that provide the leitmotif to much of Hollywood's output these days.
Snip
By the way, forget about God here or anything that even remotely smacks of an oppositional notion to evil. All that's back on the cutting room floor somewhere (if it even got that far). And I say this as a non-religious person. But the absence of any possible idea of redemption for the human spirit is impressive. In the world of "the Batman," humanity at its very best is capable only of being confused about itself. This is perhaps an interesting new form of dramaturgy -- instead of good-versus-evil you only get befuddlement-versus-evil. Goodness has lost its way in the dark night of the American psyche, as might be understandable considering the nation of louts, liars, grifters, bullies, meth freaks, harpies, and tattooed creeps we have become.
Endsnip
And john coles and trevorsden neatly demonstrate there why, through lack of ability for reasoned and challenging thought by the majority of its citizens, personal freedoms in this country descending to the level desired by the terrorists.
I guess if you sought their opinion on '42 days' or 'habeas corpus' their response would likely be "Whatever ...".
Mr. Coles was unable to determine that this was not written by Iain, although the words 'Guest blog' appeared in the header.
You guys just give the blogosphere a bad name - get brains and use them, please.
You omit any reference to the horrific and gratuitous pornography of violence in the film
Don't be a dope Velvet.
I am against 42 days.
"found it made me consider my own life in many ways" -- then sir you are really in a desperate position. If you had said it after watching "Eyes Wide Shut" I could have understood it.
But Batman?? its just a film based on a Comic Book. Dressed up as art. It may be a good film but any claims to intellectuality are bogus. Correct 'sabretache'.
"and then think about how many of those people would willingly sit through a speech by Gordon Brown or David Cameron on national security"
Perhaps because such a speech would almost certainly not face any serious issues but merely assert how the party policy (of whichever party) was going to produce goodness, niceness & peace with no downside.
I similarly thought the more recent Star Wars films were a quite politically sophisticed parable of how easily free government can be subverted from within, all in the name of peace & security, and also the moral quicksand anybody trying to prevent it gets into.
In my opinion, Iain's piece is relevant, contemporary and well resonates. Batman may be originally a comic strip but 'The Dark Knight' has come a long way from it.
The nihilistic villain is a very old concept in fiction. The conflicted hero who must chose not to fall to the level of his adversary is equally a standard trope - the cliché of the final scene where the hero decides not to shoot/strangle/throw the villain off a cliff etc...
Can't see very much new here.
What this review lacks , for me , is any filmic semiotic or literary perspective . It is possible , no doubt to extract a political sub text from almost anything but from all I hear it is singularly inappropriate . If the joker is a force of motiveless malignancy then he owes more to the medieval demon we will be most familiar with as Iago , than Osama Bib Laden . If , the intention was to examine the terrorist then ascribing no motive but devilry would be a pretty banale approach
Batman , as he appears in the franchise, is far less social commentary and far more Gothic symbolism . The Gothic genre often uses archetypes than seem to lurk in the collective id and if you were going try to read it Freud would be abetter starting place than politics .
Hollywood when it has dealt explicitly or implicitly with Political subjects makes the villain part of society , gives him humanity and intelligence .The psychotic villain , first appears in ‘White heat ‘ , places the villain outside any comprehension , this is typical of Conservative efforts like Dirty Harry. I seriously doubt Daek Knight has much to say about contemporary politics and the review probably describes the preoccupations of the reviewer. It is a political obsessive who happens to go the pictures.
Nothing wrong with that of course but if you read Empire you will see that people are astonishingly knowing and articulate about Films and its easy to pitch the level simply to low .At least an awareness of comparable films and where this differs is a useful start.
oh dear
ditto, sabretache, but it's not the style of the analysis, it's the object. 'the dark knight' is obviously, self-consciously at the same - not the opposite - end of the spectrum as mamma mia.
and writing about it is no more cultured than writing about coco pops, or, indeed, home and awaw.
It's a pity, Velvet, that you need to resort to abuse. Your observations epitomise the unpleasant side of the Blogosphere.
Talking of the joker, has anyone seen Verity recently? She seems to be rather quiet these days......perhaps she's on holiday?
I've seen a lot of reviews claiming that because the Joker broadcasts videos of his threats, he's based on al-Qaeda. Which is all well and good, but the film-makers actually nicked that idea from the very first comic featuring the Joker, way back in... 1940.
Whether you or disagree with the analysis this was another well written article from this young man. I shall certainly make a point of reading anything carrying his byline in the future!
Strange that it has taken all this time for me to realise that I am not welcome here.
People ate noisy sweets all the way through and it was full of shrieking kids... they should have made it 15 certificate to keep the rugrats out...
Iain,
A piece of advice.
Don't give away your article at the beginning of the second paragraph.
Instead, you should build it up.
Otherwise people will do what I did, and think to themselves 'oh, so it's one of the best films he's seen in years. I don't need to read the rest of the review, then".
Wonderful Jones. As you can clearly read, this is a guest blog by Alex Breeze. Not my work!
the wonderful jones: re your comment - are you THICK or what????!!!!!!!!!!!
After watching this film, in particular the performance of Heath Ledger as the Joker, I felt a certain anxiety about his role. To portray such total evil in a character role is not an easy thing to do convincingly unless one "lives" the part. Sitting down later and reviewing the role in my own thoughts, I couldn't help wondering how much of this evil character play contributed to his own death.
You had me right up until "unconscious level".
Dark Knight - an hour too long, someone should have taken an hour out of the script.
Heath Ledger - more ham than a butcher's window
Directed by Chris Nolan - frankly it would have been better directed by the Nolan sisters.
I came out thinking. "Well that's three hours of my life I will never get back!"
If Batman is GW Bush/American neo-cons and the Joker is Osama/ Al-Qaeda. Then the ending is trite beyond belief. Batman saves the day without killing anyone but loses the popular respect. How terrible for the current American administration; you'll forgive me if I don't shed many tears. Even if the first part is an analogy it's a terrible bit of hack writing to just bail out of anything meaningful during the final act.
Not to mentioned that there is nothing new about Heath Ledger's 'Joker' it's just a back to basics take on the force-of-chaos psychopath from the 1920's originals. If anything, the character has been toned done a little for our modern sensibilities.
The only similarity between Bruce Wayne and current politicians is their ability to make large quantities of money disappear...
Post a Comment