Home » Articles » Film » Films Reviews »  Knight to Remember
Wednesday, July 23,2008

Knight to Remember

Christopher Nolan panders to hip, nihilistic tendencies, forgetting that superheroes are also meant to inspire hope

By Armond White
. . . . . . .
The Dark Knight
Directed by Christopher Nolan


Every generation has a right to its own Batman. Every generation also has the right—no, obligation—to question a pop-entertainment that diminishes universal ideas of good, evil, social purpose and pleasure. And Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Knight, is a highly questionable pop enterprise. Forty-two-year-old movie lovers can’t tell 21-year-old movie lovers why; 21 can only know by getting to be 42. But I’ll try.

After announcing his new comics interpretation with 2005’s oppressively grim Batman Begins, Nolan continues the intellectual squalor popularized in his pseudo-existential hit Memento. Appealing to adolescent jadedness and boredom, Nolan revamps millionaire Bruce Wayne’s transformation into the crime-fighter Batman (played by indie-zombie Christian Bale), by making him a twisted icon, what the kids call “sick.” The Dark Knight is not an adventure movie with a driven protagonist; it’s a goddamn psychodrama in which Batman/Bruce Wayne’s neuroses compete with two alter-egos: Gotham City’s law-and-order District Attorney, Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart), and master criminal The Joker (Heath Ledger)—all three personifying the contemporary distrust of virtue.

We’re way beyond film noir here. The Dark Knight has no black-and-white moral shading. Everything is dark, the tone glibly nihilistic (hip) due to The Joker’s rampage that brings Gotham City to its knees—exhausting the D.A. and nearly wearing-out Batman’s arsenal of expensive gizmos. Nolan isn’t interested in providing James Bond–style gadgetry for its own ingenious wonder; rather, these crime battle accoutrements evoke Zodiac-style “process” (part of the futility and dread exemplified by the constantly outwitted police). This pessimism links Batman to our post-9/11 anxiety by escalating the violence quotient, evoking terrorist threat and urban helplessness. And though the film’s violence is hard, loud and constant, it is never realistic—it fabricates disaster simply to tease millennial death wish and psychosis.

Watching psychic volleys between Batman, Dent and The Joker (there’s even a love quadrangle that includes Maggie Gyllenhaal’s slouchy Assistant D.A., Rachel Dawes) is as fraught and unpleasurable as There Will Be Blood with bat wings. This sociological bloodsport shouldn’t be acceptable to any thinking generation.

There hasn’t been so much pressure to like a Batman movie since street vendors were selling bootleg Batman T-shirts in 1989. If blurbs like “The Dark Knight creates a place where good and evil—expected to do battle—decide instead to get it on and dance” sound desperate, it’s due to the awful tendency to convert criticism into ad copy—constantly pandering to Hollywood’s teen demographic. This not only revamps ideas of escapist entertainment; like Nolan, it corrupts them.

Remember how Tim Burton’s 1989 interpretation of the comics superhero wasn’t quite good enough? Yet Burton attempted something dazzling: a balance of scary/satirical mood (which he nearly perfected in the 1992 Batman Returns) that gave substance to a pop-culture totem, enhancing it without sacrificing its delight. Burton didn’t need to repeat the tongue-in-cheek 1960s TV series; being romantically in touch with Catwoman, Bruce Wayne and The Penguin’s loneliness was richer. Burton’s pop-geek specialty is to humorously explicate childhood nightmare. But Nolan’s The Dark Knight has one note: gloom. For Nolan, making Batman somber is the same as making it serious. This is not a triumph of comics culture commanding the mainstream: It’s giving in to bleakness. Ever since Frank Miller’s 1986 graphic-novel reinvention, The Dark Knight Returns, pop consumers have rejected traditional moral verities as corny. That might be the ultimate capitalist deception.

A bleak Batman entraps us in a commercial mechanism, not art. There’s none of Burton’s satirical detachment from the crime-and-punishment theme. In Nolan’s view, crime is never punished or expunged. (“I am an agent of chaos!” boasts The Joker.) The generation of consumers who swallow this pessimistic sentiment can’t see past the product to its debased morality. Instead, their excitement about The Dark Knight’s dread (that teenage thrall with subversion) inspires their fealty to product.

Ironically, Nolan’s aggressive style won’t be slagged “manipulative” because it doesn’t require viewers to feel those discredited virtues, “hope” and “faith.” Like Hellboy II, this kind of sci-fi or horror or comics-whatever obviates morality. It trashes belief systems and encourages childish fantasies of absurd macho potency and fabulous grotesqueries. That’s how Nolan could take the fun out of Batman and still be acclaimed hip. As in Memento, Nolan shows rudimentary craft; his zeitgeist filmmaking—morose, obsessive, fussily executed yet emotionally unsatisfying—will only impress anyone who hasn’t seen De Palma’s genuinely, politically serious crime-fighter movie, The Black Dahlia.

Aaron Eckhart’s cop role in The Black Dahlia humanized the complexity of crime and morality. But as Harvey Dent, sorrow transforms him into the vengeful Two-Face, another Armageddon freak in Nolan’s sideshow. The idea is that Dent proves heroism is improbable or unlikely in this life. Dent says, “You either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become a villain.” What kind of crap is that to teach our children, or swallow ourselves? Such illogic sums up hipster nihilism, just like Herzog’s Encounters at the End of the World. Putting that crap in a Batman movie panders to the naiveté of those who have not outgrown the moral simplifications of old comics but relish cynicism as smartness. That’s the point of The Joker telling Batman, “You complete me.” Tim Burton might have ridiculed that Jerry Maguire canard, but Nolan means it—his hero is as sick as his villain. 

Man’s struggle to be good isn’t news. The difficulty only scares children—which was the original, sophisticated point of Jack Nicholson’s ’89 Joker. Nicholson’s disfigurement abstracted psychosis, being sufficiently hideous without confusing our sympathy. Ledger’s Joker (sweaty clown’s make-up to cover his Black Dahlia–style facial scar) descends from the serial killer clichés of Hannibal Lecter and Anton Chigurh—fashionable icons of modern irrational fear. The Joker’s escalation of urban chaos and destruction is accompanied by booming sound effects and sirens—to spook excitable kids. Ledger’s already-overrated performance consists of a Ratso Rizzo voice and lots of lip-licking. But how great of an actor was Ledger to accept this trite material in the first place?

Unlike Nicholson’s multileveled characterization, Ledger reduces The Joker to one-note ham-acting and trite symbolism. If you fell for the evil-versus-evil antagonism of There Will Be Blood, then The Dark Knight should be the movie of your wretched dreams. Nolan’s unvaried direction drives home the depressing similarities between Batman and his nemeses. Nolan’s single trick is to torment viewers with relentless action montages; distracting ellipses that create narrative frustration and paranoia. Delayed resolution. Fake tension. Such effects used to be called cheap. Cheap like The Joker’s psychobabble: “Madness, as you know, is like gravity—all it takes is a little push.” The Dark Knight is the sentinel of our cultural abyss. All it takes is a push.
  • Currently 3.5/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Posted at 01/10/2010 
 
0.) You are a terrible writer and a terrible philosopher: "What kind of crap is that to teach our children, or swallow ourselves?" you write. Or swallow ourselves? Are you serious? I think you're the only one caught swallowing yourself in this review, my friend. 1.) You seem like the kind of person who likes Marxism and who is very well read, speaking about "capitalist deception" and all...so you should know that money is everything, right? Those capitalist swine, pandering to the masses, as you say, will laugh all the way to the bank, ignoring mundane reviews such as your own. See here: The Black Dahlia (which you loved, I guess): Production: $50 million, Gross revenue: $49,332,692. Memento: Production: $4,500,000, Gross revenue: US$65,210,816. The Dark Knight: Production: $185 million, Gross revenue ~$1 billion (All numbers from wikipedia; they're probably wrong). If you want to talk about formulaic movies without a soul, lets talk about De Palma's other schlock masterpieces, Mission to Mars and Femme Fatale. Whoa boy, what a director. I am disappointed you didn't talk about The Untouchables, if you wanted to talk about De Palma crime movies; are you aware that he directed that film as well? 2.) Francis Bacon once wrote an article called "On Goodness" in which he refers to 'St. Paul's perfection;' this is an idea that someone could become an anathema to Christ for the sake of the happiness and well-being of all other people. If you believe that Batman has lost his moral compass by the end of the film, then you are mistaken. "Nolan’s aggressive style won’t be slagged “manipulative” because it doesn’t require viewers to feel those discredited virtues, “hope” and “faith." you wrote--I completely disagree. I don't think that you have any idea what faith even means. Batman has to do the right thing, even if it means breaking the law--we have to chase him because we believe in the law applying to all people, but Batman is the only hero that can take the law into his own hands--he has become that anathema to Christ for the general good for the sake of all other people. He is acting in faith: he is an outlaw, but he stands for justice, even when justice cannot be served under law. If he didn't have faith that he was doing the right thing, how could he justify his actions to himself? You write "Dent says, 'You either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become a villain.' What kind of crap is that to teach our children, or swallow ourselves?" The idea here is that Harvey is a weak man--you are right, it is crap. But Harvey must also rely on chance to justify his actions to himself--let the fates decide, he says. He does not have the conviction of spirit that Batman does--he believes that no man could sustain the life of being the hero, the man who rises above the law and does the right thing in all instances. Dent cannot do this, but Bruce Wayne can. 3.) What the hell does "pseudo-existential" mean? I mean, how are you using it here? You just sound like you don't know what existential even means. Memento is certainly about existence, and it certainly deals with the life of an individual man--it even deals with how he perceives the world; how could it not be an existential film? At this point, I thought that you might just be wasting our time with this review, and I was correct. 4.) Have you seen Batman (1989) lately? You're making it into something that it's not. Do you remember the scene at the end, in the clocktower? You talk about cliched material: "have you ever danced with the devil in the pale moonlight?" His satire even falls into slapstick at many times in the script: "You wouldn't punch a guy with glasses, would you?" (right after he puts silly glasses on). Wow, you sure are right--scary/satirical, as you called it, sure did get the moral message across better than this tripe. 5.) Heath Ledger comes off as certifiably insane--he is a man, who, like Batman, also has the strength to follow his own will apart from the masses. The dialogue should reinforce the fact that they have both taken matters into their own hands, above the matters of sheer ethical behavior and into the realm of faith. However, he is not guided by a notion of virtue, or the desire to protect the innocent, or prevent suffering: he is guided by anarchy and nihilism, a faith that there is nothing to have faith in at all. "Some people just want to watch the world burn" Michael Caine says, in one of the best lines of the film. That's that. He also got a nomination for Best Supporting Actor; you have used the Academy to justify your criticism in the past, I would assume--don't pick and choose your 'objective' sources. 6.) Just because morality doesn't follow your dogma doesn't make it hipster trash; your review just shows you don't understand morality at all. Go watch Lars Van Trier's Antichrist, hold yourself, and try to make sense out of it at all. I dare you. You might just break down and cry, wondering how you got to be 41 years old without questioning anything around you. I almost feel bad writing this here, just because I know that it is true.

 

Posted at 01/07/2010 
 
As everyone is entitled to their own opinion so are you. You have to be logical about what you say though. It's not that the film is nihilistic at all, the Joker is meant to be insane, he represents everything that should NOT be and Dent's line is merely used to represent his transformation and Batman's sacrifice. It's a fancy way of saying it and making references, I thought a movie critic would know about bringing back ideas in films. As for your really strange moral rantings, one must remember the ship dilemma where the passengers were forced to choose to detonate the opposite ship. If there were some kind of corrupt morality as you say in the film, then the civilian ship would have been blown up. It's as clear as day that the message that people are good is being sent when Batman talks to the Joker. Instead of rambling on senseless garbage by misinterpreting quotations and ignoring important scenes, write a review based on the movie and it's actual contents. Your bashing of Nolan was not only very unnecessary but it was also very ungrounded. His work was not nihilistic or immoral, there were many themes of hope and progress both in this film and the previous. Perhaps writing a review that has merit would make your opinion more respectable. Using something other than Nolan did this , Nolan did that would also help. If you found real, valid reasons to dislike this film, it would be respectable even though I do have a dissenting opinion. Please next time you write a review, make sure you go over what you wrote and over the movie.

 

Posted at 10/19/2009 
 
Interested in the NEW book by Armond White? It's called, "KEEP MOVING: The Michael Jackson Chronicles" and it's a collection of essays on the subject of King Of Pop, MICHAEL JACKSON. Written over the course of 25 years, the essays focus on the songs and music videos AFTER the Thriller album. If you are interested in more information, google the title OR visit the blog www.resistanceworks.blogspot.com

 

Posted at 03/02/2009 
 
Another example of a reviewer too caught up in his own notions of modern morality as it relates to the young generation. The entire premise of this review -- that the film represents a rejection of hope and decency in favor of nihilism signals the extent to which the reviewer missed the underlying narratives of the film, and even chose to conveniently ignore major plot and character aspects of the film that would have undermined his false conclusions. He is more concerned with expressing simplistic thoughts like "what kind of crap is that to teach our children" when in fact that message is undermined by the film's conclusion and strongest narrative -- that in the face of horror and even seemingly unavoidable loss, people ultimately chose hope and morality despite their belief that it would not save them (but it did, another aspect of the film's central premise). Dent signified the WRONG reaction to loss and evil, the city itself however became the legacy of hope that Dent once represented -- meaning that the message and hope itself were bigger and stronger than any one man, and that we must not confuse the people we think represent hope with the actual act of hope and morality. The Joker mistakenly believed that terrorizing people and destroying their symbols of hope were enough to destroy hope itself, whereas Batman entered the ferry situation insisting that he knew the people would not give in -- he refused to lack faith, and he was right. The Joker was surprised, even Gordon lacked faith, but Batman was certain of it. The message was that when the representatives of hope and of law and order lacked faith, the people must never give up hope even when things seem hopeless. The end of the film trumpets the rewarding of faith and hope, and specifically in the context of not giving in to the notion that it is too difficult or that suffering makes hope and morality not worth the fight. That the reviewer, and others who commented here, missed this point or refused to see it, is why their assessment of the film is so misguided. It says more about your own inability to recognize the message of hope and morality, and the inability to see the very theme you yourselves pretend to espouse -- that the difficulties and darkness do NOT override the need for hope, faith, and morality. You saw the darkness, and were blinded by it, exactly as you falsely claim the film itself and its fans have been blinded.

 

Posted at 01/05/2009 
 
BV
Thank you -- one of the few reviewers who's not mesmerized by this overblown videogame imagery masquerading as story. The only character that had any resemblance to a complex human was Alfred, but the continual shifts & multiple-climaxes gave the movie an illusion of depth. Armond White is one of the few reviewers who applied some consciousness & sensitivity to the onslaught of effects. I'll be checking out White's reviews.

 

 
 


  • Tue
    9
  • Wed
    10
  • Thu
    11
  • Fri
    12
  • Sat
    13
  • Sun
    14
  • Mon
    15

Search in Events

Sign up for the NYPress
e-newsletter for weekly updates
and exciting event info:





Join us on Facebook Follow Us
on Twitter







 User Profile (click to open)



New_York_300_60.gif

 
 
Close
Close