The Dark Knight- WHY SO SERIOUS (and dull)?

­­

'Plot-holes, bad acting, over-hype, etc aside, my problem with TDK is that it is NO fun. And unlike Batman Begins, TDK isn’t exciting or thrilling or a joy to watch. It's plain dull and takes itself way too seriously. The film’s most famous lines is perfectly suited for the film itself ‘WHY SO SERIOUS?’

I was really looking forward to The Dark Knight and no one was more upset and disappointed when the credits rolled than me. I loved Batman Begins and I am a big fan of director Christopher Nolan. There are many problems with Dark Knight: it is too long and the film’s structure is messy, its too self-righteous and preachy, there are too many plot holes, poor acting and it would seem that it relies too heavily on Heath Ledger’s performance as the Joker (and his subsequent death). Oh, and Bale’s bat-voice is so bad is laughable! On a more positive note, the film certainly looked great. Nolan directs with confidence and brings a lot attention to detail. The music, like Batman Begins is superb and the action (what little there is) is fast and slick and with that blink-and-you'll-miss-it style of editing packs a real punch.

I recall whilst watching the film just before the final scene I, and it would seem most people in the cinema watching it with me, thought the film was about to end. And it didn’t. And the amount of sighs I heard from people was amazing. I’ve never heard anything like it before. Will this film end? We all thought. Dark Knight is 2.5 hours long and it feels about 3.5 hours long. There are way too many things being dealt with and the film for me felt like quantity rather than quality.

I write this for the people who have actually seen the film.

The character of Harvey Dent and his transition into Two-Face is the prime example. His character would have benefitted from just being introduced here rather than introduced and concluded. His character is never fully fleshed satisfyingly or plausibly and it all feels squeezed in and rushed. He is a strong enough character that he could have been the main villain in a future Batman film. I was happy with Aaron Eckhart playing Dent and thought he did bring a lot to the role. He especially gave the character more humanity because as much as I enjoyed Tommy Lee Jones’ performance is was rather camp and OTT. Dent/Two-Face is my favourite villain from the Batman cartoons so to see him portrayed Nolan’s way was disappointing.

I have similar issues with the Joker. There are so many things going on and he has so many ‘schemes’ and ‘dastardly plots’ going on that it’ll make your head spin and hurt. The film is too ‘fat’. It needs trimming down; less is more. Plus, the fact that the Joker, baring in mind his only help is a schizophrenic can plan and achieve and succeed and get away so much stretches believability way beyond its limits. With Tim Burton’s and Joel Schumacher’s Batman’s you could forgive one or two things here and there as they operate is this fantasy/comic book world but with Nolan’s Batman he has brought the franchise into the real world and into the present. And, tried to make it all plausible. And doesn’t succeed.

SPOILERS:

Let’s focus on one or two of Joker’s ‘schemes’. This may make more sense for people who have actually seen the film. The Joker has threatened to assassinate the mayor. To stop this and catch the Joker Batman has a piece of wall with a bullet-hole that he has taken from the apartment of a previous victim of the Joker. Batman uses extremely high-tech specialist equipment to analyse and recreate the bullet being shot into the wall, etc. I cannot remember exactly what Batman does but I recall the end result is that he gets a fingerprint. He finds out the location of the fingerprint’s owner and it turns out to be yet another trap the Joker has set where Batman (as Bruce Wayne) nearly gets shot by snipers when he stand too close to a window. So to sum-up, Joker counted on Batman finding the bullet hole in the wall and having all of this specialist equipment to get this fingerprint and then for Batman to turn up at an exact location at an exact time where the blinds on the window open-up… you understand how far-fetched?

Another plot is where Joker blows up the police department. The Joker planned to do this and we know this because the explosives are inside one of his gang who is arrested and put inside the prison cell. That would mean that the Joker had planned to get caught and imprisoned. He is caught prior to this scene at the where he tries to blow-up Harvey Dent as he is being taken away in a police van. If Joker succeeded in blowing-up Harvey Dent in the police van then he would have also blown up Gordon (who we all think is dead at this point) who is sat in the passenger seat next to the driver. It is Gordon who surprises and arrests Joker. So, if the van was blown up Joker wouldn’t have been caught and arrested and the police station would never have been blown up. Yet, the film makes out that this was Joker’s plan all along. And that makes no sense.

Also, the Joker isn’t aware that Gordon isn’t dead. As far as we are concerned Joker thinks Dent is Batman. Yet Batman comes along and stops Joker from blowing up the van and yet plays the integral part in the Joker’s plan. Because at the same time as the station being blown up, Dent and Rachel are being blown up. But wouldn’t Dent be already blown up with Joker had succeeded with his bazooka? Are we really to believe that as soon as Joker is captured it is his schizo gang members that formulate the plan to kidnap Dent and Rachel? And do it all so efficiently the timing is perfect with the Joker at the police station?

I’m not one to nit-pick. I don’t mind suspension of disbelief, etc. But I did expect more from a film like the Dark Knight and I probably would have been more forgiving if the film was entertaining and basically ‘fun’ rather than long, drawn-out, clunky, way too serious (‘Why so serious?’) and dark and preachy. I like dark films but I think that a balance is needed.

Throughout the film the Gotham PD are so useless and inept that you wonder what the hell would happen if Batman weren’t around. As soon as Joker strikes there is a mass panic and everything is completely out of control and nothing can be done and everyone just screams and shouts waiting for Batman. I thought the scenes were completely unnecessary where Joker takes the boats hostage and tries to make the passengers decide whether or not they should blow the other boat up to save themselves. We have one boat that is full of prisoners and the other civilians. You can just guess the moral debating, etc that goes on here. And it is so contrived that it is a big, mean, savage-looking man (and he’s black) on the prisoner boat that takes matters into his own hands and throws the detonator out of the window and the prisoners are left at the mercy of the civilians. Wow! How out-of-character! How ‘fresh and different’ and ‘never saw that one coming’. Yawn! For a film of this calibre where we expect more it is insulting.

The end of The Dark Knight is just as annoying and unsatisfying. Gordon and Batman stand before a fallen Harvey Dent. And from their conversation they basically say that we must lie in order to protect the people of Gotham. We must cover up the truth as people wouldn’t understand and society would crumble. Or maybe they mean do all this until the people of Gotham are ready? Yeah right! So Batman must take the blame and become the villain? Give me a break! Why must he? Don’t we as a society believe in truth above all else? What gives Batman and Gordon the right to decide what to so and what not to show? Aren’t they ‘covering’ up? Sounds a bit hypocritical to me. And this is reiterated when Alfred decides not to tell Bruce Wayne, who is mourning the loss of his darling Rachel Dawes, that she had written a letter and had chosen Harvey Dent over him and so Alfred proceeds to burn the letter and ‘burn the truth’. Maybe Bruce should forever believe that Rachel, if she had survived, would have been his forever. And now that she is dead is makes no difference either way. Bruce, the truth hurts, surely you know that.

Then we have the little niggles in the film: Maggie Gyllenhaal’s acting was awful! I’m sure she is and I’ve seen much better acting from her in other films. I used to fancy Maggie and thought she was gorgeous but here she looked all drained and tired. Bring back Katie Holmes any day! 2008 was Christian Bale overkill: Terminator, Public Enemies, Dark Knight, etc. From watching all of these I now see the limits of his acting here in Dark Knight and his Bat-voice is so bad its funny! He needs some Strepcils in his Bat-belt next time!

I liked Ledger as the Joker. He was certainly brought something fresh to the role. But, I don’t like his performance as much as everyone it seems. Whenever I ask about this movie or it is being talked about usually the first thing mentioned is Heath Ledger’s Joker. I always follow this with ‘what about the rest of the film?’ The usual response is ‘yeh yeh it was good’ but it would appear that many people judge this film based on Heath’s Joker. Not everyone, but a good few. My friend really loved the Joker in TDK but he hated the movie and had a very similar opinion as I did. I do not think Heath Ledger’s Joker is enough to carry this film TDK is so overloaded and heavy that if he tried he would probably break his back.

From Batman Begins I really loved the father/son back-story of Bruce and his his father. It was heartfelt and touching adding humanity to the hero who we usually always see as a dark loner, hell belt on revenge and justice. TDK lacks this human element and gives us nothing at all to replace it.

TDK thinks being over-complex and brooding gives it some higher level of intelligence. For me it doesn't. It lacks that human element, it was dull, too long and it takes itself way too seriously.