[...]The Dark Knight | MovieZeal[...]…

That said, I’m with Luke. The film tries so hard to be about 20 different things with so much angst that the only living person in the film has to be THE JOKER. And I do agree that Ledger is monumental. I think this is almost an actor-proof role (even Cesar Romero was a creepy effective Joker) but Heath is just fascinating to watch. I wish Bale were given as much to compete with. Eckhart is great as is that amazing make-up, but once he too rapidly becomes Two-Face, all he can do is shout as did Tommy Lee Jones.

Sadly, the action scenes are uninspired except for the truck chase perhaps, and I’m really itching to see a truly great Batman fight on film. Just copy Frank Miller’s panels. I found the Honk Kong scene silly and superfluous, like a Roger Moore Bond. It’s clear Nolan is more entranced by the vehicles.

I did enjoy it overall, but I’m anxious to see a stripped down Batman with more Gotham than Chicago. It was sad to watch the film and think, Can’t wait to see the Joker again, then realize…

“The only sensible way to live in this world is without rules!”. Give Heath Ledger the Oscar.

And likely still making fun of it.

EVER.

Julia and I should start a column entitled “Redheaded Wives of Movie Zealots Metaphorically Bring It, Yo.”

I just hate to see wasted potential. That’s all.

If you and Kristena are writing an article together, then that’s definitely something for us (as readers) to anticipate eagerly…

I didn’t care for TDK AT ALL and your review was far more enjoyable to read than the motion picture was to sit through.

For me at least.

BTW…

I’m EXTREMELY impressed by Kristena’s contributions in this thread. She is extraordinarily articulate and possesses a very fine mind.

(I’m certain that you would be aware of these monumental facts. But…we didn’t know.)

Why is it that Kristena and Julia aren’t contributors here at MZ?

(Unless, of course, they don’t wish to be. In that case, completely understandable. But unfortunate.)

This is, of course, not my site.

But if you boys are having difficulty keeping up with everything coming down the pike, it’s always good to be open to various possibilities…

I also get the vibe the “comic book movie” is a phrase coined by snobs seeking to denigrate the genre…

(And yes, I’m aware of the irony in my referring to it as a “genre.”)

The term graphic novel is pretty 1995. It was an attempt to dress up comics in a way that sounded acceptable to the reading public. As such, it once did have the pretensions that Luke and Kristena seem to be pointing to.

The term now, however, has taken on a few more meanings. First, any collection of “comics” is now referred to (generally) as a graphic novel. Publishers use the term “Original Graphic Novel” (OGN) to denote material that was not published in pamphlet format first, but I’ve never heard that term ever used except in press releases.

The general sense I get in the comics world is that graphic novel is a pretty dumb term – it holds no meaning, and was used only to distinguish things like Maus from things like Superman – even though there are Superman OGNs, and Maus was originally published as a comic, not as a trade paperback. It is still used, merely because we don’t have any other word that works to separate books that have spines from the “floppies” that come out monthly.

The term “trade paperback” is problematic too, because often “comics” are first collected as hardcovers. I’ve seen people refer to hardbacks as trade paperbacks, trying to make “trade” the general term for any comics collection with a spine, which makes my head spin.

Outside the comics world, the term graphic novel is still largely in play, because your ordinary person would rather read about graphic novels than comics, and your average professor would rather teach ENGL 204: Graphic Fiction than ENGL 204: Comics. But when used in this manner, graphic novels is generally interchangeable with the term “comics.”

There, I’m done. Any questions, concerns, or revisions?

Oh yeah, and Luke, I’m with you: the term “comic book movie” is the stupidest term ever and should be retired. And for the reasons I’ve just outlined, “graphic novel movie” wouldn’t help much either. After all, Maus was a comic, and even Persepolis was published in 4 issues originally, not the two “graphic novels” that we have over here.

There are graphic novels I greatly admire. The work of Art Spiegelman, for instance.

However, there are graphic novels that are initially published this way. Maus and all of Daniel Clowes work falls into that category. They are, typically, much more literary and abstract in execution (or ‘pretentious’ as Luke called them ).

Hope that clears things up a bit.

Batman may be in a graphic novel, but he found his origins in comic books. Graphic novels take on all manner of themes and purposes, just like regular fiction. But from what I’ve observed, comic books (or what most people think of when they hear the term) are serial in nature and involve superheroes v. super-villains. Even if Batman decides to make an appearance in an unillustrated novel, he’ll still be a comic book character. All that said, I don’t see why “comic book movies” wouldn’t be considered a genre since they derive from a fairly consistent source. Perhaps you’re right though, and we should change our terminology to “superhero movies.” It seems like semantics to me.

As I understand it, a “graphic novel” is a comic book that’s pretentious.

“An ounce of pretension is worth a pound of manure.” -Steel Magnolias

I do think TDK was a good film. In terms of the modest things it attempts to do, it succeeds pretty well (I just wish it would wave the “THIS IS IMPORTANT!!!” flag a little less desperately). Odds are, if it had flopped, I’d be defending it at the moment…but you can’t blame me for taking a stand against the crazy fan boys. Any way you look at it, though, it’s still just a rehash of a rehash of a rehash, albeit with a few good performances. Certainly well-done, but nothing to write home about.

The problem with your “noir” analogy is that “pulp novels of the 20’s and 30’s” is a genre, whereas “comic books” is a medium. If you want to talk about “superhero movies” as a genre, fine — but I’m not ready to say that Batman = Spider-Man = Sin City = Persepolis = American Splendor, just because they’re all based on comic books, anymore than I’m ready to say Gone with the Wind = The Maltese Falcon = Bridget Jones’s Diary = The Bourne Identity simply because they’re all based on novels. Maybe I’m slpitting hairs here, but I think it’s an important distinction.

Aside from that…I think we’ll have to agree to disagree (which is what these things always come down to).

I don’t intend to disqualify your powers of prediction, but I knew Limp Bizkit and their ilk were ripping off Faith No More the second they appeared on MTV. It was depressing that Fred Durst got any credit for the ground Mike Patton broke years before.

I don’t agree that TDK is simply treading water previous Batman films have addressed. None of the previous Batman films have bothered to address the issues (in any depth certainly) of Batman Begins or The Dark Knight nor have they placed the Batman in the political context of Nolan’s films.

Dismissing it for attempting to deal with issues that have been generally acknowledged in the comic books seems equally silly. I suppose the Coen Brothers shouldn’t have bothered with No Country for Old Men…since, you know, Cormac McCarthy wrote that book and all.

I think there’s far more to the film than you’re giving it credit for, even if it gets at some of those points too blatantly in some respects and has some narrative weaknesses. Neither Batman Begins or The Dark Knight are perfect films, but narrative weaknesses aside I believe they are reinterpreting existing characters while remaining true to the bigger mythos of those characters. It’s been fun to watch, for me at least.

I’m not willing to stamp TDK as some sort of masterpiece (as you stated previously, time will have to judge that). But I believe it has far more depth and weight than you’re giving it credit for. I only wish I had time to get into all those points, but I’ll let Evan’s review speak for itself.

However, it is possible that such post-9/11 imagery (there I go again with that phrase ) is exactly what is drawing audiences into this in record numbers. It may be tapping into an unseen malaise running through America, referencing people’s anxieties in a way that is comforting and thrilling. At this juncture, however, that is all pure conjecture. Only time and history can make those kinds of determinations.

Looking back at Star Wars, it’s obvious that one of the reasons it was so successful is that it boldly went against the nihilism and cynicism that had pervaded much of 70’s cinema. Yes, people had been angry and disillusioned over Vietnam, but I think they were getting tired of their movies beating them over the head with such fatalism. Enter Star Wars, a film about pure good and pure evil, filled with the simplest of archetypes, and all of a sudden – WHAM! – you have something that ties directly into the pipeline of the American psyche. People wanted something to hope in again, and Star Wars gave it to them.

We can only see that sociological effect now with 30 years separating us from the film. In 20-30 years we will be able to make the same examination of The Dark Knight, and at that point it might be seen as a film that represented a snapshot of America’s anxieties and fears in 2008.

But, like I said, all conjecture. Interesting, but difficult to substantiate or argue for with any kind of significant weight.

My problem with TDK was neither that it was a “comic book film,” nor was it that it was “too serious” for a “comic book film”…it was that it was consciously so. It had something to prove — something that it failed to prove. In other words, it was pretentious.

Adam put it very well a couple of posts up: these are the same themes we’ve been getting from Batman, over and over, since the 1930’s (or, at the very least, since Frank Miller comandeered the series in the 1980’s). Stating them over again — even if you state them well — is still just stating them over again. Additionally, TDK was far too willing to fall back on superhero conventions — such as having its villain set up mildly interesting dilemmas for the hero and/or the civillians — when it ran out of ideas.

You can transplant all of this convention into a more “realistic”/”gritty”/whatever sort of setting, but doing so is essentially rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, so to speak. The Batman franchise has been yelling “The notion of a hero who puts on a mask and acts as a vigillante raises significant questions about the nature of justice, identity, and sanity!!!!” at us for 70 years now. I get it, already. Do we need yet another movie to tell us this? (And, if so, what does that say about or collective intelligence?)

As for my Titanic comparison…well, I only said it when Phillip backed me into it. My track record is pretty good, though. I was one of the first people to point out that Limp Bizkit is a bunch of talentless hacks. (I know it sounds obvious now, but I was a freshman in high school and Significant Other was at the top of the charts.)

To be clear Luke, I can easily accept if you didn’t like it period. Your opinion is just as valid as mine and I don’t expect to change your mind. I’m just trying to get at what your expectations of a comic book movie actually are, since you keep bringing that distinction up.

Sorry, I was in a hurry with my last post, trying to get out the door for work. Should have taken a second to edit myself.

I just disagree that The Dark Knight didn’t a do a good job of trying to get at its themes, but I could accept if you didn’t agree with how those were handled. Simply saying it was trying too hard and it was too serious still seems to be saying you’d have preferred one of the Schumacher Batman’s with everything drawn in broad strokes, white hats versus black hats.

Guess I’m missing your point. What do you expect a comic book movie to be? I think it can be more than just simple popcorn entertainment.

I’m convinced that the film could have benefitted from a, dare I say, even more epic treatment and elongation into two films, roughly split at the major cliffhanger involving Rachel and Dent. Also, much of the lines are portentous, on-the-nose, “comic book” dialogue, especially those of the Old Men for Whom There is No Country, Caine and Freeman (get well, Morgan!). Finally, action sequences are clearly not Chris Nolan’s forte, which, despite a few iconic shots, is detrimental to an action picture.

Despite your retince in the House Next Door’s comments section, Evan, I would like to hear a few thoughts about the contemporary politics angle.

I found it interesting that Joker was chaotic in his appearance (not the slick make-up job of Nicholas in the earlier version) and often in his rambling. But he was precise in his execution of the acts that created that chaos. So does that mean insanity and genius are just two sides of the same coin?

I will say that I appreciated the film much more after reading your review, Evan. I think I might have picked up on some things after a second viewing, but your insight is remarkable and well put.

I find I experience that a couple times a year, and those films are burnt into my memory.

The more I think about TDK the more I compare it to an episode of CSI or Law and Order. I enjoy it, then forget about it… In till I see it on reruns and watch it again.

I spent the majority of my review arguing for why the script, and film, are works of symmetrical and thematic brilliance, rather than just pouring hyperbole all over it like salsa on a tasty burrito (although, to be fair, there is some hyperbole in there). I hope my arguments were somewhat convincing, and it may behoove you to watch it a second time with eyes not glazed over by the hype machine. A second viewing might unexpectedly reward you.

I’m with you on this one. I didn’t dislike the film, but was it really that great? I’m willing to give credit where credit is due — the marketing behemoth behind this picture was brilliant, and it managed to blind everyone to the fact that as a film it was merely slightly-above-average. At this point I’m just waiting a decade or two for VH1’s I Love the 2000’s, where undoubtedly, some third-rate celebrities will reminisce about how silly it was that everyone got all worked up about The Dark Knight.

Of course, if this movie becomes curriculum at film schools in as many years…I’ll eat my words.

You are only 15 years old? I am stunned, floored!!! You possess this level of brilliance, analytical acumen, vocabulary and knowledge at that age. That is really something.

And you make a good point with that ‘patronizing’ strain. I used it to a degree, even though I went 4/5 with the film, but one should rather say it “ain’t my taste” rather than grasping for a disclaimer, that artistically “judges” the genre.

I just don’t get the unconditional love people are pouring all over the film.

When I think back on the film, the one scene that keeps poping into my mind was the BatGarage conversation between Alfred and Bruce. The editing of the facial shots jumping back and forth was brutal.

I so wish I got the same experience that everyone else got… but I didn’t. So Sad.

PS. I will also praise Evan for a very good review.

My beef with The Dark Knight was that it was afraid to be a comic book film (or at least afraid to be perceived as one). Nolan had apparently taken a page from “How to Make a Serious Film 101″ here — the whole thing felt like him jumping up and down and yelling “These are my themes!!!” over and over. Not only did the end result completely lack subtlety, but it was so busy obsessing over its possession of themes that it failed to examine them in any compelling way.

Most critics seem to have fallen for Warner Bros.’s hype machine hook, line, and sinker, and given the film a pass simply because it has themes (and never mind if it does anything interesting with them), but I felt surprisingly empty after viewing it. I just couldn’t figure out what everyone was so excited about. Meh.

Keep in mind that I’m completely wrong here. The Interblag said so.