B. Pike - youngest of the pike brothers, movie buff, and the one and only reader of this blog has a guest post with his review of the The Dark Knight, and it's awesome - my response to come at the end. [Spoilers like woah, but if you haven't seen this movie yet, stop reading and go buy a ticket.]
Movie Review: The Dark Knight
Christians regained faith in god after watching The Passion; I regained faith in god after watching The Dark Knight. To describe the experience I had on July 18, at 12:05 AM, is nearly impossible, but I will make a feeble attempt at doing it justice. Roughly 1 year ago, I began reading the buzz on a sequel to what was the greatest Batman movie of all time, Batman Begins. Christian Bale was returning to don the cape and cowl, Michael Cane the cummerbund, Gary Oldman the badge, and Morgan Freeman the bowtie. We then learn that the role of Harvey Dent will be played by Aaron Eckhart, to which the “internet” responds rather kindly, but now the question jaunting movie-buffs’ and fanboys’ minds is who will be staggering into the purple suit of the clown prince of crime. Throughout the web, you could read the suggestions of those who believe they know so much more than the professional casting directors, Crispin Glover, Paul Bettany, and you could even read “If Jack Nicholson doesn’t reprise his role, I’m boycotting the film.” Everyone was so set on who they wanted as the Joker and despite all the blabber; Christopher Nolan made the decision that slapped all those jackasses right in their pimply faces, Heath Ledger.
The moment his name was mentioned, the internet was in flames: “Brokeback Batman, 10 Things I Hate About Gotham" and many more unoriginal fooling statements. I read the decision and mulled it over in my mind for some time, before finally IMing (remember when AIM was cool?) my eldest brother “R. Pike” and we were in agreement that Heath's portrayal had the potential to be awesome, but also the chance to be disastrous. How wrong we were, we should be lashed for having even a shadow of a doubt, but there is some light within my shame, that all those naysayers castrated themselves after downloading the pirated version (I both love and despise the internet).
Ledger’s performance was something I had never seen before on screen, the 'mis en scene' that was created was remarkable, because every time he walked into a room there was an uncomfortable feeling in your stomach, whether it was a new tale about his scars or the eerie and unsettling score by Hans Zimmer. Unfortunately for his fellow thespians his astounding presence left them in shadows of greatness so vast no one could shine. I've even heard ludicrous accounts that Bale was overrated, and that he was nothing compared to Ledger.
You simply cannot compare Ledger and Bale, because he's playing Bruce Wayne with everything the character has to offer, while The Joker has innumerable layers and facets of his psychosis to delve into; which is something no popular cinematic character has ever had. If Bale was playing The Joker it would have been fantastic as well, he's a phenomenal actor, and he simply had exhausted all of the resources of his character. Aaron Eckhart was great at playing the political idealist, and when he is presented to us, you can't help but believe in him, he's a political Batman, and he's not hiding in shadows. He's also very aware of the risks of his job, yet still performs his duties to the fullest, he is truly The White Knight, but white is easily stained.
Dent's catalyst SPOILER ALERT is the death of his one true love, Rachel Dawes. After this moment everything Dent had was lost, she was the thread that held his life together, and when it was plucked he fell into madness, which proves he was weaker than Bruce Wayne, who managed to keep himself together after the death of his parents. The Joker explains to Dent that his plan to defeat crime and injustice was impossible, because chaos is a basic and necessary part of nature. The question now left buzzing around my head is did the Joker win, ultimately Dent's reputation was saved due to the sacrifice of Batman's, yet Batman still broke his one rule he, intentionally or unintenionally, caused the death of Harvey Dent, who had to die to remain pure, but nevertheless Dent’s blood is on his hands.
Needless to say there were some errors in the means of telling the story, the main one being the confusion between Batman going to save Rachel and winding up saving Dent, which I have surmised to be The Joker playing with his mind and switching up the addresses. There are also some mistakes with how they convey how many people Dent killed, Gordon claims it was five, I count four maybe three, Detective Wuertz, one of Maroni's bodyguard, which you can quickly see Dent dispatching of before Maroni gets in the car, Maroni's driver, and I'm assuming Maroni. Like most movies - and always with comic book movies you have to suspend disbelief to enjoy it. This comic book movie just happens to have the most real fantastical premises we have ever seen. Simply because a movie has flaws, does not mean it can't be the best of all time. Perfection in art is impossible. But its progress, (the pursuit of perfection) can be marked and measured easily. Clearly, The Dark Knight has gotten us one step closer to that unreachable goal. Hopefully all of the flash will be trimmed when this bitch gets released on DVD, I can't wait, seeing as I've already seen it 5 times and counting.
3 comments:
I am not kidding when I say that was one of the best reviews I have ever read, that was extremely good. But also by the tone of the review I can make an educated guess that the writer is a flaming homosexual.
Alright, agree with most except your last paragraph. There's no question that the Joker intentionally told Batman the wrong addressed. He likes to confuse and cause even more chaos just for shits, as you've pointed out.
As for the Joker winning, he really didn't. Yeah, he caused Dent to flip out, and that proves his philosophy that a person's morality is conditional, but he doesn't win in that regard with Batman. Batman DID NOT BREAK HIS ONE RULE! He does not have Dent's blood on his hands, remember Batman Begins with the "I don't have to kill you, but I dont have to save you either..." that's kind of the Dent situation. It's a triage situation - he can save only one of the two, Gordon's kid or Dent. Dent's white knight status is gone, and if left alive, he'll arguably kill more people, and his reputation will no longer serve as the pure symbol Gotham needs. As we know Batman is a economist (http://pike-bros.blogspot.com/2008/07/batman-greatest-superhero-of-all-time_16.html)
and he makes a resourceful decision, choosing Gordon's kid's life over Dent's. I'll double-check with my law school friends but I think all you could say is involuntary manslaughter at the most. No mens rea or intent to kill Dent.
Good stuff though, homeslice.
The lawyers have officially been sent.
From the New York Penal Code:
§ 125.25 Murder in the second degree.
A person is guilty of murder in the second degree when:
2. Under circumstances evincing a depraved indifference to human life,
he recklessly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to another person, and thereby causes the death of another person
Not quite willing to get into a discussion of whether Batman acted "recklessly" in an economic sense, R, but one could certainly make a legal argument. In a few jurisdictions, a defendant can be found guilty of murder even lacking mens rea. The decision to prosecute would rest with the District Attorney, although I hear Gotham is currently lacking one of those.
B, your writing beats out both of your brothers. Hope this isn't the last one from you.
Post a Comment