Christopher Nolan Blogothon Day 6: The Dark Knight

This review was delayed by unavoidable, Inception based detours. I hope you'll forgive me.


Lets get this out of the way. The Dark Knight is a pretty terrific film that has inspired some pretty dreadful film criticism. I hardly need to reiterate the “Shut up! No You Shut Up!” tenor that the debate around The Dark Knight took. I will only note that, the old maxim that “History repeats itself, first as tragedy, then as farce.” Has proven true. And if the arguments or lack there of around The Dark Knight where vaguely disheartening, the storm in a teacup brewing around Inception has been down right depressing. Showcasing film criticism at its most solipsistic and least helpful. Less like watching a snake eat its own tail. More like watching a snake chomp down on another snakes tail only victim bite down on the attackers tail. A brutal ugly neverending loop that you just wish some sensible person would come in and stop.

Its one thing to have a considered oppositon to a movie, and I certainly begrudge no one for it. But when you build a review on posturing, and then a review of the review that was based on posturing. Well that way lies madness.

Still a movie like The Dark Knight should invoke passion, as all great works of art should. And yes I just said it. Call it fanboy hyperbole if you want but I will maintain that The Dark Knight is a legitimately great film. A superlative case of big budget filmmaking, with a grace and economy of storytelling, something real on its mind, and style to spare. Like all great movies it burns with something to prove.

There’s a lot to talk about. While Batman Begins was firmly a comic book movie, I’m certainly not the first to point out that The Dark Knight plays a lot more like Heat or The Departed then it does say Sam Raimi’s Spiderman or Bryan Singer’s X-Men. Those films for all the “realism” of their leather suits and “genetically altered” rather then radioactive spiders, take place in at the very least a heightened reality. Raimi really embraced the comic bookiness of it, and if you take a shot each time there’s a shot of a concerned citizen framed in a dutch angle, pointing off screen shouting “Look there’s Spiderman!” you will get very drunk, very quickly.

Nolan’s Gotham is a place which despite its flourishes, we can readily accept as real. Which puts us in a very different head space indeed. And so setting aside for a moment, the fantastic set pieces, The Mephistophelian dilema’s, and great character work by Gary Oldman, Aaron Eckhart, Michael Caine, and er Eric Roberts (?) and Tiny Lister (?!?!??). Lets take a look at the what Nolan does with this realism.

Over the course of my revisitation of Nolan’s career I’ve noted that all of his films revolve around two personalities who though magnetically opposed end up defining each other. The other thing that I had less formed in my mind at the beginning of the rewatch, is Nolan’s love of symbols. He loves to drop things in casual conversation, signifiers that seem small but turn out crucial. His characters carry totems, revisit places and things in almost fetishtic ways. And The Dark Knight is his grand statement on that.

In a much less long winded way, If Batman Begins was a film that featured Iconography, The Dark Knight is about Iconography. I touched on this in my Batman Begins review, but if Batman is a symbol, what does he symbolize. There are those who read The Dark Knight as an apologists case for the Bush Administration. But he’s hardly a straight up symbol of the right. Witness him beating the ever living tar out of Reagan’s America (as symbolized by Superman) in The Dark Knight Returns. Something tells me that Grant Morrison, giving that he’s a Chaos Magick practioner who advocates recreational drug use would have very little to say to Karl Rove at a cocktail party. And lets not forget that Glycon’s number one adherent himself Alan Moore penned what many consider THE definitive issue about the two.

My point is everyone from Sean Hannity to a man who worships a snake see something in Batman. He’s a big enough symbol to encompass multitudes of interpretation.


And if Batman is a big enough symbol to encompass everything. Well then that makes The Joker a big enough symbol to negate everything.

The thing that makes the Ledger’s Joker so amazing is the way he manages to encompass just about every aspect of a character who has been interpreted so many different ways its almost impossible to keep count. Is he Grant Morrison’s persona shifting chameleon (Note the way he mocks Nolan’s obsession with trauma, providing multiple choices)? Yes. Is he Jack Nicolson’s sadistic clown? Yes. Is he Alan Moore’s tragic figure, striving and failing to prove he’s not alone in his desperation? Yes. Is he Frank Miller’s great other, the unstoppable force to Batman’s immovable object? Emphatically Yes (I think if you read Dark Knight Returns, you’ll see this as the most direct antecedent). Anything that anybody has ever had to say about the character is somehow embodied in Ledger’s performance. And he does so with a hypnotic swagger.

But Its not the swagger that makes The Joker great. If Nihlisitc verve, was all there was to the film, then The Dark Knight would be as shallow as its harshest critics make it out to be. What makes Ledgers performance incredible are those two or three lone moments when that mask slips just a little, and true madness, and true desperation slip through. The way he stops mid monologue at the mafia meeting and says “I’m not crazy.” That “Look AT ME!!!” during his newscast, and most of all that look of desperation bordering on sorrow, when the citizens of Gotham make the most out of their only turn to prove him wrong. The pain that comes when he realizes that a bit of good and morality can hold sway. Well its frankly Miltonesque.

And yes, I said that about a comic book movie.

Christopher Nolan Blogothon Day 4: Batman Begins

In many ways Batman Begins is a victim of its own success. I clearly remember being absolutely enthralled by it on my first viewing and one needs only to look back on the enthusiastic reviews to see just what a chord the film struck.

And yet, the film is doomed to be over shadowed by its younger brother. The Dark Knight is a film in which genre cinema itself is pushed to its very breaking point. Incorporating real moral and ethical dilemmas, as well a thorough deconstruction of its characters in the quickest two and a half hour film ever made. Batman Begins, on the other hand, is a film in which Batman fights a bunch of ninjas.

With Batman Begins the mission was clear, restore dignity to The Dark Knight, after Joel Schumaker and company made him look a little less classy then a fifty year old floorshow dancer from Reno. All glitter turned rancid.

And at this task Batman Begins succeeds with flying colors. I think part of the reason is that Begins shows a Batman who American filmgoers had genuinely never seen before. While the West Batman drew clearly on the goofy ass silver age comics, and the Burton films drew partially off of the Frank Miller/Denny O Neil era (Though to be fair I think you can basically draw a direct line from Miller’s Batman to Ledger’sBut more on that later…_). Nolan’s Batman draws heavily on Grant Morrison’s interpretation of the character.



For those not currently reading monthly comics (and lets face it you’re not missing a lot) Morrison is in the middle of doing what he has openly admitted he hopes will be the definitive Batman story. And to give credit where its due, despite the problems I’ve had with just about everything else Morrison has written, he’s doing a pretty damn good job of it.

To the question of who is Batman? A question that has had plenty of answers from the grim avenger of his early days, to the psychedelic adventurer of the fifties and sixties, to the globe trotting swashbuckler of the O Neil era, to the Nietzchien strong man of Miller. Morrison provides a simple answer.

Batman is the man who thinks of everything.

Like I said, I’m summing up in a sentence what Morrison has been exploring the implications of for hundreds, if not thousands, of pages. But damned if its not convincing. To a certain extent it has always been at the root of the character, think even to the West days with The Bat Shark Repellent. But Morrison takes it to a new level. Painting Batman as a kind of zen warrior, so dedicated to his ideal, that he has turned his own personality into a living weapon.

And while Nolan’s Batman is still green enough to get caught unaware. It seems clear that he’s well on his way to achieving such status, experiencing things that take him far beyond the level of human endurance both physically and mentally.

The difference between the two takes is that Nolan sees where this might be a bad thing.

Because if Nolan’s heroes are defined by their inability to move on in their life. Always shaped by a single event in the past well then brother, Batman is basically the definitive version of that.

Also surviving the transistion is the villain versus society motif, this time with the villain literally wanting to destroy said society on a literal rather then metaphorical level. As well as the dependant relationship between the two. Bruce finds in Ras a true father figure, and its clear that Ras sees in him a true successor. When Bruce refuses at the last moment, the hurt that Neeson displays has a realness, to it that sticks to the film, one that is unfortunately not as well capatilized upon as it should.

Because even without looking at its younger brother Batman Begins is a flawed film. There is of course the weak central performance by Katie Holmes. The action is far too influenced by the Greengrass shaky cam style, and Nolan is clearly uncomfortable employing it, as it lacks all the clarity and genuine propulsion of his style. And while the need to scale back is understandable after the gaudy nightmare wrought by Schumaker, and for the most part Nolan does a commendable job of it, there are a few cases where the film backs down just a bit too much, as in its depiction of the Scarecrow. Which based on some of the Akiraesque production design that leaked out, was originally conceived as a whole lot more ambitious. Though it should be noted that Cillian Murphy does a more or less perfect job as Dr. Crane. Cold enough to do terrible things, but smug enough to get a real sense of enjoyment out of doing so.

Still despite its flaws and occasional missteps Batman Begins remains one hell of a watch. And a firm reclaiming of a potent myth, with a real understanding of what makes it work. Of course, on his next time out Nolan would push things much further.

Odds and Sods

Believe it or not I digested other media then horror films this October. Some of which I even wanted to write about, and did, then didn't have the inclination to turn into proper posts once the month ended. But still wanted to get my two cents in. Well here they are!



Whip It – Whip It is the kind of funny, intelligent movie that hardly ever gets made for young adults, and it’s failure to connect with said group has caused no end of wailing and gnashing of teeth on my end.

Maybe it’s my own odd affection for films set in Texas. Maybe it’s the fact that Barrymore has a sense of place, people, and community that’s nearly Linklaterian. Maybe it’s the fact that even Juliet Freaking Lewis who normally makes me want to tear out my eyes and jab knitting needles in my ears does a good job in this movie, but I kind of sorta loved Whip It.

While I doubt Barrymore is going to prove herself to be the next Altman, she aquits herself admirably with this film, showing a sharp eye for talent, with the ensemble cast, creating a real feeling of intimacy. This is the kind of movie I hope to be able to share with my own children someday.



Batman And Robin:

A lot of people have been bitching about the second arc in Batman and Robin, I for one have been enjoying it as much as the first. Maybe it’s because I haven’t really been reading the series lately, and thus haven’t read the last dozen, “Jason Todd is an asshole” stories, but I like the way Morrison handles the character. While I agree that it was a mistake to bring him back, Todd’s purpose in the comics was to serve as a monument to Bruce’s failure. The one time he wasn’t up to the task. Well now he’s the same thing, except this time he’s a walking talking example of it who is murdering people. I think Morrison's take on Jason That he's basically the runt of the litter, (I love Damien's contempt that he let the fucking Joker kill him) is interesting. He's not a badass he's a bitter, weak and losing his hair. It takes all of two seconds for The Flamingo (who I'm also loving) to take him down. Paring him with Sasha who is proving to be a living example of Damian’s first failure, gives it a nice feeling of synchrony and dare I say tragedy.

I like how Morrison is taking the language of the old Batman TV show, flamboyant villains, identical henchmen, outlandish plots, and visual sound effects, and is turning it on its head. When you talk about something like subverting Iconography, its normally just empty buzzwords. Morrison knows how to do it.

And we’re not even on The Flamingo yet, the second memorable freak that Morrison’s created this run. Most modern day comic books feel like they’re written by people just happy to get a chance to play with the toys. Afraid even to take them out of their packaging. The genre feels positively inbred now, is it any wonder that it’s so unwelcoming to new readers?

I have to give credit to Morrison, I may not always like him. In fact I may very often hate him, but he’s never interested in just playing with someone else’s toys, he wants to use his own.

Ultimate Spiderman:

So one good things come out of Ultimatum, Bendis is energized on this book like he hasn’t in years. While Ultimate Spiderman has long served as the one comic that was guaranteed to be at least pretty good, Bendis has really kicked it up a notch. Moving things on a faster clip, weaving an intriguing plot with the same deft ear for character that’s always set him apart.

A lot of people are getting hung up on the artwork but, You know it's grown on me. I hated it when I read the annual, and there's stuff that still bothers me; mostly the way the characters only seem to have noses half the time and the way he can't seem to figure out that there are old people (his Aunt May is freaky).

What I like is the fact that he seems to have his own twist on manga style. It's not like he’s a Huberto Ramos (for whom I would not brake my car if I saw him crossing the street). He takes the warmth and dynamism of Manga and marries it with some good American detail.

I love his Mysterio, and MJ but I really like the way he's gotten Bendis to step up his game plotting wise. For those who complain his books are nothing but talking heads, these are event packed.




Sky Crawlers –

Sky Crawlers is the latest from Ghost In The Shell director Mamoru Oshi. Which means you’ve either already seen it or you never will.

It tells the story of a young group of pilots fighting a war in a vaguely European setting against an ill defined enemy. There is of course something totally up, but it’s not really a secret to the characters only to us.

In a lot of ways Oshi is like The Monte Helleman of anime. Many are put off by his deliberate pace (slow) existential (slow) musings, and meditative (slow) style. But the rhythm and world he creates are so unlike any other, that I can’t help but be drawn to them. Still for those who don’t respond to long indistinctly animated scenes of a basset hound frolicking, or characters reading the morning paper might be turned off.

It plays like a version of Never Let Me Go in which the characters occasionally get into planes and blow each other up. The problem with the movie, which I think keeps it decidedly second tier Oshi, is the fact that while the film’s central conceit works as metaphor, it works as nothing else.

Sky Crawlers isn’t Oshi at his best, and at his best I think he genuinely is one of the greatest filmmakers in anime or any other medium, but it’s an intriguing odd movie, that’s more then worth your time.



Where Men Win Glory

John Krakauer remains one of my favorite authors, and Where Men Win Glory, might be his masterpiece. Krakeur’s muse has always been those who push themselves to the very edge of experience. In Tillman he seems to find his ideal, and then watches with dismay as he’s tossed away. Its the story of a good man so poorly used by the country he sacrificed everything to serve. This book will piss you off royally no matter what your political leanings are. Still the book isn’t just another tract of Bush era crimes. Aside from side trips into the philosophy and anthropology of War, and a damning look at the whole “Saving Private Lynch” fiasco; It also contains one of the most concise, damning and terrifying portraits of the last fifty years of Afghan history. If you consider yourself at all involved in politics, or indeed are a sentient being living on the planet you owe it to yourself to read Where Men Win Glory. It’s the best book of the year.

Bright Star:

Jane Campion is an incredible director. The depth, beauty and sensuality of her frames are more or less unmatched among the formalists. So it’s been a real bitch that I haven’t liked any of her films.

The Piano was one of the damndest experiences I’ve had with a movie. A case of it simply not working for me despite both my and the movie’s noblest of intentions. I just sat looking at the screen bemused. Clearly something was happening though I had no idea what.

Holy Smoke was an agreeably strange movie, with it’s Freaky to the nines performance by Kate Winslet, and Harvey Keitel’s wang. But it’s not exactly something I’ve been dying to see again. And the less said about In The Cut, that ghoulish anti-vanity immolation the better.

But with Bright Star, Campion has really hit upon something. There might not be much on the surface to separate it from the dozens of other “tasteful” costume drama’s out there. But Campion’s artistic ferocity really hits home. She strikes at something primal, bringing out the emotion of the story full flower. Capturing the beauty and sensuality of Keat’s poetry, in away that usually isn’t touched in the dubious genre that is “films about writing”

The lush beauty of her frames, the doomed romanticism of the performances, all combine to make Bright Star something truly memorable.

Batman And Robin: Or How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Tolerate Grant Morrison

So me and Grant Morrison are not the best of friends. I’ll be the first to admit that it could be me, and not him. I just don’t get it. While others see the best comics storyteller working today. Someone who understands and utilizes the form in a way that’s almost preternatural. I on the other hand do not.

I get no charge from Morrison's work. To be frank he’s kind of a bore, someone coasting on an overrated reputation, chaos magicks, and an ego that makes Alan Moore’s seem healthy. It’s not that I haven’t tried. I read Final Crisis with an ever growing sense of despair it. I didn’t understand that. And I mean that on a very basic narrative level. I couldn’t follow what was happening. It was like a chemistry book with superheroes doodled in it. Stuff like Animal Man and The Filth, where disappointingly (and in The Filth’s case depressingly) shallow, based upon their reputation. And as for his “classics” like All Star Superman, and Arkham Asylum. Well these too where problematic. For something that supposedly “got the essence of Superman perfectly” I can’t help but think he had remarkably few qualms about genetically engineering peoples fates. Arkham Asylum was also problematic. Though McKean’s art was beautiful (and also utterly inept narratively) and Morrison did script some arresting moments, the whole thing was too clever by half, and came out as the work of someone who didn’t really like Batman.

Which was kind of what I thought about Batman RIP the first time I read it. Though in interest of truth in criticism that particular piece works one hell of a lot better as a whole then in parts and featured a few truly stellar sequences. Still I can’t help but feel that it’s a flawed work at the very least.

I mention all of this only to underline how odd I found it when Morrison became responsible for one of the best Goddamn Batman stories I’ve ever read. A story centered around not one but two gimmicks that I was deeply skeptical about at first. It’s sort of amazing a true classic of the genre (And can we take a moment to savor the irony that it shares the name with the other Batman And Robin? OK Irony savored. Moving On).

So many comic writers seem like kids at a toybox dragging out two action figures to bang together for the thousandth time. And one thing I’ll say about Morrison, he’s never afraid to bring new elements into play. At the climax of this issue there are now two characters who feel like they’re destined to be lasting parts of The Batman universe, it feels like things matter, and frankly it’s a rush.

But we’re getting ahead of ourselves. Batman And Robin is based on two Morrison elements that I found, at the very least, quite questionable. Morrison giving Wayne a son in the form of the petulant, vicious Damien, and Morrison sending Wayne back to the caveman era to go write shit on the wall (I think? I’m not going to lie I have little to no idea what happened at the end of Final Crisis). Taking these two unstable elements, Morrison has somehow spun gold. Telling the story of Dick Grayson, attempting to fill Batman’s big shoes, while at the same time turning his sociopathic son into a somewhat acceptable Robin, while battling a new villain Professor Pig, and his creepy creepy Doll people, made for a compelling story. And while Morrison’s first two issues in the arc worked fine, in the third one he brings it all together.

It’s like this issue allowed me to briefly see the Grant Morrison everyone is always talking about. The one who knows how to write a scene like Professor Pyg’s monologue, which could ONLY work in comics. It works because the best version of it is happening in your head as it happens on the page. As a result it’s hilarious, disturbing, terrifying, and even a little sad, with a great punch line to boot (A punch line that incidentally happened to capture my exact reaction after reading The Filth).

Morrison it seems has also finally figured out how to write for Damien, by giving him just a smidgen of a moral center (though so much as to spoil the fun Morrison has writing him) he makes him infinitely more relatable. And by giving Damien his first failure, he sets up what appears to be one hell of a thread for the next arc in the series. All while still finding the time to work in one of the best moments from Batman RIP.

Batman And Robin seems vital in a way very few Comics appear these days. In a medium where every story is just a retcon away from obsolescence, Morrison’s story seems to matter. He’s setting up something great here, and when he brings Quitely back to end the run, I think it’ll be very clear that this is one of the true, few classics of superhero genre.