Read the New York Times article HERE.
-cjfer-
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Saturday, July 26, 2008
The Dark Knight: A Review
So, I finally saw "The Dark Knight" last night, about a week after most of my friends saw the movie.
What I've heard from most people is that it's very very good, but just shy of perfect. Or that it met very high expectations, but didn't necessarily surpass them. Having not seen it at that point, I'm sure people didn't want to ruin the movie by going in to too much detail. I'll do my best to share my thoughts.
What was effective -
1. The story. Often times we're told as students, that the most important thing is the story. I agree, though, understanding the visual language of cinema is important too. The story of this film is superlative, and reminded me much of many Shakespearian tragedies. Our hero is put in situations where he is forced to make choices. This is what we want from movies because when the character we're asked to identify with is put it situations where he must make choices, we ourselves ask "What we do in that situation." Therefore, we are more personally invested in the story on screen. It's us in that situation. What would I do?
Batman, unlike other comic movies, and indeed unlike other movies, posits a notion of good and evil that is not black and white. Yes, we want our hero to do the right thing, but we come to realize that there are consequences with acting righteously, and that doing good isn't simple, or easy. There are always complications in life. The joker is an effective villain because he only believes in chaos and destruction, yet, he is grounded in a sense of reality - as is the whole film. Make no mistake though, this is not the real world. Ultimately, it's a wonder we don't kill ourselves more than we do, but we all have choices we make every day on how we should act. Doing the right thing is not easy, or simple, but it is necessary and must be endured.
2. The acting. Everyone is going to talk about the masterful performance of Heath Ledger and they'd be right to do. I believe it to be Oscar worthy. Because I have nothing new to offer, I might offer some thoughts on the other actors. I think Christian Bale's Batman, is made very interesting here because we have deal with his choices (yes, i use that word a lot). His very character becomes more interesting because we're watching him wondering what he'll do. He leads the film in a very steady, sturdy direction. His Bruce Wayne is sarcastic and a little dickish, which proves a wonderful foil to his Batman who will sacrifice to save the people and city he really loves, but will be a jerk to protect. Aaron Eckhart turns in a solid turn as Harvey Dent. He had much more screen time than I anticipated, and Bale less, but he carries it with action, decisiveness and a complicated aggressiveness that I haven't seen in other incarnations of Two-Face. He is not simply a do-gooder, he wants to do good, but will take the law into his own hands if necessary. The idea of "Two-Face" or doppleganger is an important one to the film. Batman has two sides as well. In truth, the human condition often has more than one side (and sometimes more than 2). The film asks us, are we willing to do evil in order to do what we think is right? Is acting right more important than living?
Also, Maggie Gellenthal is a much stronger actress than Katie Holmes. And he is faced with complicated choices that are nearly impossible to make. Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman are thoughtful mentors and are certainly not sleepwalking through this movie, though they could easily have done so. They are not featured players, but they give the film weight and plant it firmly in the ground.
3. The screenplay/direction of theater. The heists, the complicated situations, the fact that everything comes back into play when you didn't necessarily see it coming is really cool. These are some of the most complex, thoughtful crimes that I've ever seen on film. There are some very good moments. I give Christopher Nolan and his brother Jonathan all the credit in the world for being master storytellers. These guys are playing on a different level. Some of the joy in this movie is that these guys are smarter than we are, and we're trying to out think them, but it's hard to. This is the storytelling in a superhero movie that I've ever seen.
What could be improved
1. The pacing. This is good and bad. The movie is 2.5 hours but feels way short of that. This movie went by incredibly fast. I want to see the three hour + version where there's more time to go into characters (which are great), and where the movie has more time to breathe. It is unlike Hellboy2 that rushes through the movie, this movie doesn't do that. But still there are scenes that could have been played more slowly and developed more. Instead we feel like we're always on edge, which diminishes the effectiveness of playing with it, because we're constantly saturated with fast-paceness. Sometimes we're struggling to figure out what happened a scene before when we should be in the moment of the current scene.
2. The dialog. The dialog is not helped by the pace of the film, or technical aspects of the film making. It often goes by too fast and it's hard to really understand what's being said.
3. The direction of the camera/problems with cinematography. There are a few scenes that stood out to me as cinematic issues that could have been improved. Note: These may be issues that I have, that are not shared by others.
A. Problems with exposure. There were two scenes in particular where characters are sitting in front of a bright object in the background. One is Harvey Dent in front of a window in his office, the other is a 50-50 between Morgan Freeman and the Chinese accountant. In both scenes, the exposure is set to the background object. The object in the background is exposed normally, while the characters in the foreground are underexposed. I have no problem with want wanting to light the show darkly, and make our characters in shadow. Yet, when the object in the background is so massive, it takes our focus off the characters and places it on the thing. Our eye is directed out the window or through the characters in a 50-50. Ultimately, I feel that this effect should be done with lighting and not with exposure. Use a tighter shot, don't stage it in that location, or expose for the characters, not the background, and then light them the way you want them. (With my limited knowledge I realize that I may be wrong about the cinematic process, though I stand behind my feelings of the way the it looks.)
B. The scene when the Joker crashes the fund raiser. Much of the steadi cam work here seemed out of focus to me, where it shouldn't have been. Either the focus puller messed up, I saw it wrong, or it was shot at such a low stop that it was impossible from the jump. Either way, because this is the only time it happens, and because it happened so quickly, I saw it as a mistake.
C. A scene where Batman meets Harvey Dent and Gordin on the roof of the police station near the Bat signal. The camera moves wildly around in a circle, but seems to be motivated on Gordin's movement and not Batman's. This needs to be Batman's movie, no Gordins. We should be involved with Batman, and not seem him as just a participant in the scene. We don't get his point of view strongly enough.
D. The scene where Batman interrogates the Joker. The camera jumps the 180 degree line. I don't really know why, other than to be jarring. Yes, having the Joker on the right side of the screen makes him feel more uncomfortable, but start with him there. Don't just jump it, because it takes us out of the movie. Heath Ledger's performance is so strong that we don't need the Camera jumping around in order to heighten it. Still is scarier than movement. Let him work. The camera moves so much in this movie that it's hard to focus on what they're saying or what's going on. There are some moments where we could slow down a little here. These scenes would be emotionally powerful, and then highlight the scenes where the camera is moving more. Trust what you're doing is good.
E. Rachel's death. This moment is never really drawn out, she never gets a real close up before she dies. Therefore, it is not as emotional as it could have been. This and the fact that we have a new actress mean that we're not as emotionally attached to her. We don't want her to die, but her death happens off screen in a way that is less powerful than if she happened on screen. In general there were a few moments that could have been stronger - ie. the scene where the people on the boat decide not to kill each other. I think there could have been more of a moment there - and indeed some other places. This all gets back to the fact that the movie feels like it's rushing.
I think that's it for now. I would give the movie the highest rating I had, if I had a rating. It's the best of it's kind, and even better than most "oscar" type movies. It's a movie that should be recognized for how brilliant it is, and it's odd to think that there were a few things that could have could have made it even better.
-cjfer-
What I've heard from most people is that it's very very good, but just shy of perfect. Or that it met very high expectations, but didn't necessarily surpass them. Having not seen it at that point, I'm sure people didn't want to ruin the movie by going in to too much detail. I'll do my best to share my thoughts.
What was effective -
1. The story. Often times we're told as students, that the most important thing is the story. I agree, though, understanding the visual language of cinema is important too. The story of this film is superlative, and reminded me much of many Shakespearian tragedies. Our hero is put in situations where he is forced to make choices. This is what we want from movies because when the character we're asked to identify with is put it situations where he must make choices, we ourselves ask "What we do in that situation." Therefore, we are more personally invested in the story on screen. It's us in that situation. What would I do?
Batman, unlike other comic movies, and indeed unlike other movies, posits a notion of good and evil that is not black and white. Yes, we want our hero to do the right thing, but we come to realize that there are consequences with acting righteously, and that doing good isn't simple, or easy. There are always complications in life. The joker is an effective villain because he only believes in chaos and destruction, yet, he is grounded in a sense of reality - as is the whole film. Make no mistake though, this is not the real world. Ultimately, it's a wonder we don't kill ourselves more than we do, but we all have choices we make every day on how we should act. Doing the right thing is not easy, or simple, but it is necessary and must be endured.
2. The acting. Everyone is going to talk about the masterful performance of Heath Ledger and they'd be right to do. I believe it to be Oscar worthy. Because I have nothing new to offer, I might offer some thoughts on the other actors. I think Christian Bale's Batman, is made very interesting here because we have deal with his choices (yes, i use that word a lot). His very character becomes more interesting because we're watching him wondering what he'll do. He leads the film in a very steady, sturdy direction. His Bruce Wayne is sarcastic and a little dickish, which proves a wonderful foil to his Batman who will sacrifice to save the people and city he really loves, but will be a jerk to protect. Aaron Eckhart turns in a solid turn as Harvey Dent. He had much more screen time than I anticipated, and Bale less, but he carries it with action, decisiveness and a complicated aggressiveness that I haven't seen in other incarnations of Two-Face. He is not simply a do-gooder, he wants to do good, but will take the law into his own hands if necessary. The idea of "Two-Face" or doppleganger is an important one to the film. Batman has two sides as well. In truth, the human condition often has more than one side (and sometimes more than 2). The film asks us, are we willing to do evil in order to do what we think is right? Is acting right more important than living?
Also, Maggie Gellenthal is a much stronger actress than Katie Holmes. And he is faced with complicated choices that are nearly impossible to make. Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman are thoughtful mentors and are certainly not sleepwalking through this movie, though they could easily have done so. They are not featured players, but they give the film weight and plant it firmly in the ground.
3. The screenplay/direction of theater. The heists, the complicated situations, the fact that everything comes back into play when you didn't necessarily see it coming is really cool. These are some of the most complex, thoughtful crimes that I've ever seen on film. There are some very good moments. I give Christopher Nolan and his brother Jonathan all the credit in the world for being master storytellers. These guys are playing on a different level. Some of the joy in this movie is that these guys are smarter than we are, and we're trying to out think them, but it's hard to. This is the storytelling in a superhero movie that I've ever seen.
What could be improved
1. The pacing. This is good and bad. The movie is 2.5 hours but feels way short of that. This movie went by incredibly fast. I want to see the three hour + version where there's more time to go into characters (which are great), and where the movie has more time to breathe. It is unlike Hellboy2 that rushes through the movie, this movie doesn't do that. But still there are scenes that could have been played more slowly and developed more. Instead we feel like we're always on edge, which diminishes the effectiveness of playing with it, because we're constantly saturated with fast-paceness. Sometimes we're struggling to figure out what happened a scene before when we should be in the moment of the current scene.
2. The dialog. The dialog is not helped by the pace of the film, or technical aspects of the film making. It often goes by too fast and it's hard to really understand what's being said.
3. The direction of the camera/problems with cinematography. There are a few scenes that stood out to me as cinematic issues that could have been improved. Note: These may be issues that I have, that are not shared by others.
A. Problems with exposure. There were two scenes in particular where characters are sitting in front of a bright object in the background. One is Harvey Dent in front of a window in his office, the other is a 50-50 between Morgan Freeman and the Chinese accountant. In both scenes, the exposure is set to the background object. The object in the background is exposed normally, while the characters in the foreground are underexposed. I have no problem with want wanting to light the show darkly, and make our characters in shadow. Yet, when the object in the background is so massive, it takes our focus off the characters and places it on the thing. Our eye is directed out the window or through the characters in a 50-50. Ultimately, I feel that this effect should be done with lighting and not with exposure. Use a tighter shot, don't stage it in that location, or expose for the characters, not the background, and then light them the way you want them. (With my limited knowledge I realize that I may be wrong about the cinematic process, though I stand behind my feelings of the way the it looks.)
B. The scene when the Joker crashes the fund raiser. Much of the steadi cam work here seemed out of focus to me, where it shouldn't have been. Either the focus puller messed up, I saw it wrong, or it was shot at such a low stop that it was impossible from the jump. Either way, because this is the only time it happens, and because it happened so quickly, I saw it as a mistake.
C. A scene where Batman meets Harvey Dent and Gordin on the roof of the police station near the Bat signal. The camera moves wildly around in a circle, but seems to be motivated on Gordin's movement and not Batman's. This needs to be Batman's movie, no Gordins. We should be involved with Batman, and not seem him as just a participant in the scene. We don't get his point of view strongly enough.
D. The scene where Batman interrogates the Joker. The camera jumps the 180 degree line. I don't really know why, other than to be jarring. Yes, having the Joker on the right side of the screen makes him feel more uncomfortable, but start with him there. Don't just jump it, because it takes us out of the movie. Heath Ledger's performance is so strong that we don't need the Camera jumping around in order to heighten it. Still is scarier than movement. Let him work. The camera moves so much in this movie that it's hard to focus on what they're saying or what's going on. There are some moments where we could slow down a little here. These scenes would be emotionally powerful, and then highlight the scenes where the camera is moving more. Trust what you're doing is good.
E. Rachel's death. This moment is never really drawn out, she never gets a real close up before she dies. Therefore, it is not as emotional as it could have been. This and the fact that we have a new actress mean that we're not as emotionally attached to her. We don't want her to die, but her death happens off screen in a way that is less powerful than if she happened on screen. In general there were a few moments that could have been stronger - ie. the scene where the people on the boat decide not to kill each other. I think there could have been more of a moment there - and indeed some other places. This all gets back to the fact that the movie feels like it's rushing.
I think that's it for now. I would give the movie the highest rating I had, if I had a rating. It's the best of it's kind, and even better than most "oscar" type movies. It's a movie that should be recognized for how brilliant it is, and it's odd to think that there were a few things that could have could have made it even better.
-cjfer-
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)