Thursday, July 24, 2008

The Dark Knight (2008)



I usually never write or say such things… (well.. maybe I do..) but so far in my life only two actors have been able to deliver what can only be described as a punch to the stomach. The first, Marlon Brando’s first shot on screen in A Streetcar Named Desire, and second Ledger as the Joker. Christian Bale is not an easy actor to shake off. Does anyone remember American Psycho and The Prestige and Batman Begins? So it takes a special kind of actor to out shadow someone like Mr. Bale. And for all intents and purposes no one ever thought of Heath Ledger as a Robert Redford, Jack Nicholson, or even a Brad Pitt. He delivered a steady performance in Brokeback Mountain, but for the most part he has been relegated to playing a hero in Grecian thongs wielding a sword.


The Dark Knight is the sequel to Batman Begins. Directed by Christopher Nolan who is known for experimental film making, The Dark Knight follows a long tradition of dingy, gloomy movie making fancily called ‘noir’. To be more precise noir films emphasize the moral ambiguity that plagues humanity or highlight characters falling prey to their appetites – mostly sexual. Classic films in this genre include The Maltese Falcon, The Postman Always Rings Twice. More recently some neo-noir films have included Raging Bull, Collateral, Sin City, Training Day, Insomnia, Memento, A History of Violence, etc. Noir films are very pessimistic, seldom offering a glimmer of hope at the end. Someone once described noir films as black holes ‘from where light never escaped’.

Now, there have been various reiterations of the Batman found in various media – comic books, television and movies. Bruce Wayne’s impulse to be Batman has been explained by various variables – too much money, he is Batman because he can be, intelligence, strength, etc. But Christopher Nolan gives Batman a new spin. He tells us that it is Bruce Wayne’s ponderous, brooding and traumatized mind out of which stems this hero. Nolan is careful to never let us believe that Batman is a superhero. He is just a hero – like a fireman rescuing a cat from a tree. Nothing more! There are limits to Batman’s energy, strength. He is permeable. His suit can be ripped open by Rottweilers.

The Joker has been a recurring villain in the Batman comic books. He is hard to kill and in return has found it really hard to kill the Batman. The Joker has some evil traits. He is sadistic, really really evil, vile, scheming, and takes pleasure in hurting other people. Jack Nicholson was a good Joker by these standards.

Ledger takes this character and whacks (wacks) it out of the ballpark. Ledger’s Joker is a psychopath who is true to all the above characteristics with one tiny difference – you don’t laugh with or at this Joker. More importantly, I think Ledger understood that the defining thing about the Joker is not what he does, but how he thinks, if he does think at all. Ledger’s Joker offers us alternative explanations for why he became the way he is – traumatic childhood, jilted lover. But we are not convinced. There is something else. He is a child of chaos. His mind is full of roiling pools of thought competing with each other for ascendance. So when Ledger speaks, he is slow and deliberate. Like he is picking out strands from the volcanic, bubbling pool, which is his mind, and putting them out there for the world to see. Ledger’s emphasis on speech is excellent. You get to know more about the character from the way he slurs over some words, to the words he chooses and the way he flicks his tongue out repeatedly; very snake-like or serpentine. This one action of his likens him unconsciously to Lucifer himself since snakes are traditionally associated in Western literature as being or representing the devil.

And in a very devilish and diabolical manner the Joker places impossible moral choices before his victims and his pursuers. He gives two boats full of people the option of blowing each other up. He asks Batman to choose between two victims. He plays Twoface (Aaron Eckhart) into becoming a cop-killer.

Ledger’s Joker is more than a simple prankster. He is a revolutionary of sorts. One who finds the current system based on falsity with fake people living by rules that don’t matter because they are invented traditions. The Joker laughs at the world because he thinks it is ridiculous. But somewhere is so sick and tired of it, he also wants to see it burn. In many ways the Joker has declared war on reason and rationality. He wants to expose how reason breaks down in every individual when confronted with extenuating circumstances. Batman calls him a monster, but fails to see how the Joker is in fact the ONLY one standing outside of the system and challenging it without being coopted by it. Even Batman is not a true revolutionary because he lives by some rules. He is at best a vigilante. But the Joker, on the other hand, is loopy enough (or so we think) to burn stacks of money instead of claiming it and going on a shopping spree (I dare say he needs to make a trip to Sephora).

But here’s the interesting part. Even the Joker’s makeup is asymmetrical. It is almost as if he painted his face and then stood under a shower. His straggly hair, his self-conscious but menacing gait and his exaggerated lip lines are meant to tell us this is no run-of-the-mill funny man, but something deeper. He only wears the make-up to hide his scars, but is aware of his own ugliness and scoffs in the face of vanity by making his disfigurement even more hideous by exaggerating it with lipstick applied in the dark without a mirror. There is method to the Joker’s madness. There is deliberate thought and action. There is one small part where the Joker appears without makeup to make an assassination attempt. He blends right in. His scars forgivable since they are not quite as prominent as he thinks they are. But then he puts his game face back on.

‘You complete me’, says Ledger’s Joker to Bale’s Batman. Yet it is not very clear how these two characters are meant to interact with each other. Batman can never kill the Joker and the Joker tells Batman he will never kill him. Batman is the only person who can match up to the Joker. This is where we get a glimpse of the Joker’s megalomania. He actually believes no one can match up to him. Everyone is a marionette on a string, waiting to be jiggled. Even Batman! But Batman is a harder marionette to jiggle.

The third character in the film, Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart) holds his own against Bale and Ledger. He is the only one who sees the world in black and white, and we find him drawn into the same moral ambiguity that haunts both Batman and the Joker in the end. But what is crucial to all three is that they get to the existential position that are at through some immense trauma.

Comic books have one tiny drawback. They are essentially all about black and white stories. The Batman trounces the bad guys – biff, sock, pow! The bad guys go to jail. There is some heartbreak along the way due to the hero’s commitment issues, but other women come along often enough like cabs waiting to be hailed. But when presented on screen with real people playing comic book heroes, stories are bound to change and be tampered with. Often we think that a good comic book hero movie is one that sticks as closely as it can to the original. But this is seldom the case and often movies are poor copies of the originals.

The Dark Knight unmoors Batman from his two-dimensional avatar. Batman is more real that he has ever been. He thinks, he walks, acts, punches, yes – but he also contemplates. He is surrounded by an impossible world. His task is enormous. He knows this. His shoulders droop sometimes and his smile is wan. Bright sparks like Harvey Dent end up with rust and patina on them. There are small victories. The Joker can be caught; he can be dangled like a wriggly fish at the end of a line. But does that really solve Gotham’s problems?

Not really, because the fundamental dysfunction of the system rests not on how much chaos the Joker is capable of engineering, but on how easily very normal people are equally responsible for things being as gloomy as they are. They are quick to persecute, quick to believe anything, quick to judge, and quick to respond to any incentive, equally quick to compassion. When faced with judgment they mutter weak excuses for their actions. In many ways, the movie presents dystopia as a product not of the elite or the ruling classes but as a condition sustained by even the most ordinary folk. The Joker sees this better than anyone else.. and tries to expose it. Batman’s perception of Gotham includes some innocent people, some helpless ones, some who need championing. The Joker’s perception is darker – he sees stupidity and greed, cowardice and selfishness. There is one moment in the film when this perception is challenged when the people on board two boats don’t blow each other up. The Joker is unsure for one brief moment. His smile falters. His eyes show concern. But then the madness takes over…

The Dark Knight makes the Hulk look like a spoiled dog whose favorite bone has been snatched away. The other comic books heroes – Ironman, the Hulk, even Spidey are essentially just comic book heroes. Spidey does have an existential dilemma (I would too if a spider bit me and I was suddenly able to cling to the ceiling), the Hulk wouldn’t comprehend his existential dilemma even though he has one (he can only roar, very alpha male), Ironman flies around in a metallic super-suit without a cape and is simply too arrogant to admit he HAS an existential dilemma.

Batman on the other hand does not have to mutate to be powerful (like the Hulk), does not have any superpowers (like Spidey or our man from Krypton), and unlike Ironman has issues with killing indiscriminately. He never kills or uses a gun. Ironman has no moral issues, he is rich, arrogant, spoilt, and brilliant and he uses it to his advantage. He exacts revenge for the trauma inflicted on him almost immediately. That’s the kind of hero he is – the type who won’t think twice before killing a baddie. Nevertheless Ironman also moves beyond the traditional comic book genre, as something deeper.

Refreshingly the special effects of the film did not take us away from the characters or the story. Also, the various political themes drawn out – universal surveillance, effective government, media manipulation, democratic decision - making (voting on the ship) are all contemporary and interesting. But at the end of the movie there is still no light – everything is gloomy and in fact a tad gloomier as the Dark Knight is now a fugitive from the very system he protects.

Final verdict: Watch with bat-ed breath!!
Noddies: 4

2 Comments:

Blogger Jyotsna said...

Hi Vasundhara.... Glad I read your blog ... convinced me even more to watch the movie tomorrow :)

8:36 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hello Vasundhara,

Reached your blog from your orkut profile. I’ve left a request for friendship yesterday, the 9th of August ('08) and I’m looking forwarding to having it approved from you :-)
My profile is here;
http://www.orkut.com/Main#Profile.aspx?uid=10841615263443277311

I am impressed by the intellectual reach of your blog posts here. Especially your analysis of “Fire”, a film I like, albeit not for the oversimplified portrayal of lesbian bonding, a flaw which you’ve correctly discussed at length in a previous post.

I sometimes feel I should I create a poster with the message: “Homesexuality is not a result of choice. It is a state of being as defined by biology. Lose your prejudice [A plea from a straight woman to straight people]” and put it up in public places.

I accessed your profile on orkut while searching for posts on Tyler Walker Williams. What I liked instantly about you was:
a) your stating that you have had friends who were not necessarily from your political ideology. Tolerance is always a virtue :-) and
b) points we have in common as regards outlook on life.

I am an admirer of Tyler and sent him a congratulatory card last year in acknowledgment of his win.
The reason I’ve been seeking information about him is that I have something very important to send him.

I found out only recetly by calling up JNU authorities (including Awais Ahmed) that Tyler vacated Sutlej last year itself and returned to San Andreas.

V, as I have to send him something which is necessary to be send and I read that you are a very close friend of his, I was wondering if you could provide me a contact address of his so that I could send what I have to. It could be his home postal address or his email ID.

I would be very grateful if you can help me in this matter. I have tried very hard to speak to people in JNU (including the JNUSU) so as to obtain a forwarding address of Tyler’s, but have failed this far.

Warm regards,
Indrani.

2:08 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home