Since Heath Ledger won the Golden Globe award Sunday night, I finally rented a copy of the blockbuster film, 'Dark Knight.'
Ledger's performance was awesome of course, but what really wowed me about the film was that it is a relentlessly effective fascista apoligetica.
On a superficial level, this film is exciting and it is several hundred percent more interesting than director Chris Nolan's pretentious and dull 2005 Batman film. Unlike 'Batman Begins,' this film has a plot (however shoddily constructed it may be) and has at least 1 interesting character (the Joker, of course). Speaking of the plot, whereas 'Batman Begins' agonizingly and tediously tried to make the cape crusader seem like a scientifically possible concept, 'Dark Knight' throws out all pretensions of plausibility, with moon-sized plot holes too numerous to itemize here (and others have already done it) and cardboard characters mouthing pseudo-profound utterances as an excuse for mayhem and sadism. Besides, I am not going to criticize this film on the basis of it's 360 degree impossibility, but rather on its lack of imagination and moral reprehensibility.
Yes, this Batman is dark...dark, dark, dark, dark, dark, dark, dark and more dark. So what. Every comic book movie is 'dark' these days. Hell Boy, dark. Sin City, dark. The X-Men, dark. The Spirit, dark. Daredevil, dark. Spider-Man 3, dark. Ever since Tim Burton's 'dark' and commercially successful take on Batman in 1989, the 1st thing Hollywood does when it adapts a comic book is to make it 'dark.' Well, now we have all the mayhem, mutilation, and mass murder we want and are we any better off? Funny, I don't feel any better off.
The theory behind this movie is that the Joker is now a 'terrorist,' and unlike previous Jokers, he has no motivation other than destruction. He is a self-described 'wild dog.' Cannot be appeased, negotiated with, rehabilitated. Well, this is fine because that is how the certain factions within the U.S. view any party with whom they have a disagreement. Hmmm, the Joker has funny-colored skin. Maybe that is why he is bad?
This film's response to a threat is to appoint unlimited powers of violence, including torture, and unlimited powers of electronic surveillance, on the population. The hero's 'resolve' is tested when he is feared and reviled by the public. The conflict is resolved only after half the city is blown up and every good character, except the hero and his two elderly mentors, is killed off.
Let us consider the hero: he is born rich, and his bored, uncaring and self-absorbed exterior supposedly conceals profound depths of emotion and compassion. Much, if not all, of his power and strength are derived from the assistance of his two older mentors. Morgan Freeman, it turns out, makes all the bat gear, including the bulletproof bat-suit and Batmobile. All the things that make Batman invincible. And Michael Caine runs Batman's home and personal life, stopping just short of wiping the Batman's nose for him.
This set up reminds me of a certain nation, murderously lead and allegedly protected by a boy millionaire with a blunted affect, ably mentored by old men named Cheney and Rumsfeld.
Chris Nolan gives his hero a few chances to agonize and fret over the collateral damage, a bit of fake empathy, but in the end, it is only more violence, carried out by the self-appointed savior, that resolves the conflict.
So even though this film has many faults, not the least of which is fake Batman voice they have electronically grafted to poor Chris Bale, it is the filmmaker's total cowardice with which I take the greatest issue. You see, it is the duty of artists to challenge the status quo, but this film is merely the last 8 years of American foreign policy in superhero drag. The world is our Gotham City, and look how well that's turning out!