![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
The Dark Knight
When I read Frank Miller’s “The Dark Knight Returns” in the late ‘80s, I was struck by the vivid and unrealistic dystopia it portrayed: here was a society wherein every idiot had an equal chance of getting airtime for his ill-considered worldview and wherein the media chose to expound not the most true or even most relevant of these, but the most shocking.
20 years later, we live in that society.
One of the many pitch-perfect choices that the new movie “The Dark Knight” makes is to NOT focus undue attention on that aspect of its environment, but instead use an understated portrayal of Gotham as any American city in 2008. The result is wholly effective and subtly horrifying.
The casting is very good indeed. Now that I’ve seen Gary Oldman as Lt. Gordon I don’t think I could believe anyone else in that role. He strikes the perfect balance of instigator and acted-upon, of world-weariness and idealism.
Heath Ledger (may he rest in peace) embodies the madness of the Joker and makes the character more believable than I ever found him to be in the books (I don’t think I’ve ever said this about a movie before). Props also to the makeup artists who created his look - the makeup didn’t seem to get in the way of his facial expressions at all.
Aaron Eckhart initially completely captured me, but lost me when the events transpired that changed Dent’s character; I found the change too sudden and violent.
Christian Bale makes a wholly creditable Batman, and I won’t hold it against him that he seems a little too young as Bruce Wayne.
The only one of the leads that I have trouble with was Maggie Glyllenhaal, and I think my issue is with how the character is written rather than with Glyllenhaal’s portrayal: Rachel Dawes seems to come from a world somehow different from that of the characters around her, one less steeped in despair. Through most of the film her biggest conundrum is choosing a suitor.
The two elements of a movie that I usually have the most trouble with are the script and the score; here each was a pleasure. The writers showed a rare restraint (particularly for an action movie) in allowing what wasn’t said to speak almost as loudly as what was. As for the score, I didn’t even consciously notice it until the final credits. Maybe that’s not everyone’s ideal, but I’ve gotten so used to being wrenched out of a story by music that doesn’t quite fit that to me it’s a downright relief. Also, I’m almost certain it’s too faint of praise. I’m looking forward to seeing the movie again and letting my conscious mind go to work on the music.
Unlike most of the “comic book” films that I’ve enjoyed lately, the cinematography isn’t over-the-top. Colors aren’t garish, images are mostly realistic, and even the action sequences are only moderately larger-than life.
Of course I always have quibbles with every film I see. In this case most of them are so minor as to be ignorable: I was put off by the comic book image of a lowball glass smoking to indicate that it had recently contained poison in an otherwise understated scene. A couple were a little worse: the traitorous “inside men” were obvious almost from the first moment they were on screen, and even if you somehow managed to walk into the theater unaware of Harvey Dent’s fate, the telegraph arrived long before events unfolded.
That said, this was truly the best movie I’ve seen in a long time. I highly recommend it to anyone who isn’t afraid of the Dark.
20 years later, we live in that society.
One of the many pitch-perfect choices that the new movie “The Dark Knight” makes is to NOT focus undue attention on that aspect of its environment, but instead use an understated portrayal of Gotham as any American city in 2008. The result is wholly effective and subtly horrifying.
The casting is very good indeed. Now that I’ve seen Gary Oldman as Lt. Gordon I don’t think I could believe anyone else in that role. He strikes the perfect balance of instigator and acted-upon, of world-weariness and idealism.
Heath Ledger (may he rest in peace) embodies the madness of the Joker and makes the character more believable than I ever found him to be in the books (I don’t think I’ve ever said this about a movie before). Props also to the makeup artists who created his look - the makeup didn’t seem to get in the way of his facial expressions at all.
Aaron Eckhart initially completely captured me, but lost me when the events transpired that changed Dent’s character; I found the change too sudden and violent.
Christian Bale makes a wholly creditable Batman, and I won’t hold it against him that he seems a little too young as Bruce Wayne.
The only one of the leads that I have trouble with was Maggie Glyllenhaal, and I think my issue is with how the character is written rather than with Glyllenhaal’s portrayal: Rachel Dawes seems to come from a world somehow different from that of the characters around her, one less steeped in despair. Through most of the film her biggest conundrum is choosing a suitor.
The two elements of a movie that I usually have the most trouble with are the script and the score; here each was a pleasure. The writers showed a rare restraint (particularly for an action movie) in allowing what wasn’t said to speak almost as loudly as what was. As for the score, I didn’t even consciously notice it until the final credits. Maybe that’s not everyone’s ideal, but I’ve gotten so used to being wrenched out of a story by music that doesn’t quite fit that to me it’s a downright relief. Also, I’m almost certain it’s too faint of praise. I’m looking forward to seeing the movie again and letting my conscious mind go to work on the music.
Unlike most of the “comic book” films that I’ve enjoyed lately, the cinematography isn’t over-the-top. Colors aren’t garish, images are mostly realistic, and even the action sequences are only moderately larger-than life.
Of course I always have quibbles with every film I see. In this case most of them are so minor as to be ignorable: I was put off by the comic book image of a lowball glass smoking to indicate that it had recently contained poison in an otherwise understated scene. A couple were a little worse: the traitorous “inside men” were obvious almost from the first moment they were on screen, and even if you somehow managed to walk into the theater unaware of Harvey Dent’s fate, the telegraph arrived long before events unfolded.
That said, this was truly the best movie I’ve seen in a long time. I highly recommend it to anyone who isn’t afraid of the Dark.
no subject
Not really spoilers?
Nate
Re: Not really spoilers?
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
One cool thing about the score was a recurring sound that appears a couple times during the movie -- a grating, rumbling, almost subsonic sound that is incredibly effective at creating an atmosphere of dread and edginess.
no subject