« DREGULATOR VOL. VII # 19: RECRUDESCENCE OF CRUDS PAST | Main | SARAH PALIN: WHITE HOUSE BUNNY »

Tuesday, September 9, 2008

posted by Muire Dougherty at 4:10 PM
Permalink

Hoping for a diversion from existential angst, a friend and I went to see The Dark Knight. What ensued was not a diversion from the angst, but a pummeling further into its depths.
The following commentary is in no way to be construed as currently topical, The Dark Knight having been out for a couple of months. It's just taken me this long to disentangle myself from the malevolence portrayed therein.

Becoming inured to insupportable violence has become de rigueur for film viewing audiences. The Dark Knight encapsulates this trend in filmmaking that I've been hoping would evolve into something else, a film whose primary objective is to beat the audience into submission through a combination of graphic superviolence, fast cutting, a deafening soundtrack, and a disregard for human suffering. This has gone beyond a niche to permeate nearly every film released, The Dark Knight being the present apotheosis of this style.

I mainly enjoyed the first half of The Dark Knight. The shot compositions and camera work showed the talent and skill of the director, Christopher Nolan. The script, by Christopher Nolan and Jonathan Nolan, was tight and adept. The performance by Heath Ledger was virtuosic in its business of psychopathology, a killer clown run rampant. Christian Bale, an actor I do not always favor due to his often smug and self-conscious portrayals, was subdued and almost touching in the role of a rasping, morally conflicted Batman. Batman has always been an interesting superhero because of his self-enforced duty to fight crime, and the moral conflicts that arise through this imprimatur. But there's the rub: who wants a superhero so morally conflicted that people die and institutions burn because of his mistakes? As the second half of the film sunk into utter darkness without a tad of redemption, I wondered why this is the modus operandi of every superhero now? We have Hancock, why must Batman to be like this too?

The reason seems apparent: that many people feel that we are living in a time in which we can depend on nothing, and the fabric of our governments, economies, and social structures are rending beneath us. The Dark Knight does not just suggest this state of being, but revels in it. Like many great films that concretize the reality in which they exist, it proves that this view is no longer an abstraction. No caped crusader is going to fly in and save us. The wealth, power, and scientific innovation in Batman's capable hands can do little against moral corruption and unmitigated violence. He tries again and again to successfully aid the cynical police department and the vulnerable citizenry, as do his allies on the ground, ably played by Aaron Eckhart, Maggie Gyllenhaal, and Gary Oldman. Neither they nor Batman can do anything against the terror and violence wrought by the bloodthirsty Joker.

Didn't the Joker used to be that, a kind of funny, wacky, if dangerous criminal? The Joker in The Dark Knight embodies the kind of violence only seen in the worst possible human situations, like war or prison; or in the insidious everyday desperation of the wicked patriarch who has absolute control of his family through pathological violence and manipulation, like that guy in Austria who kept his family locked away in the basement. This is some evil-ass stuff. This Joker is not motivated by money, like most villains. When he has a huge pile of it, he burns it. He is only interested in the power of unimpeded destruction and control. That it is brought about by a juggernaut of self-loathing seems to be the only conceivable explanation of this extraordinary flaw. That life seemed to imitate art in the death of Heath Ledger upon completion of The Dark Knight makes the bleakness of the film more chilling.

The Great Depression of the 1930s saw a surge in divertingly sugary tales and splashy musicals in the cinema. Will this be how cinema evolves going forward? Or as more people feel alienated from the promise of social humanity, will the filmmaking trend of irredeemable darkness and violence displayed in The Dark Knight continue unabated? Whatever you do, don't go to see The Dark Knight if you're looking for light, comic book diversion. Better to stick with goofy Spider-Man.

Did you enjoy this post? Use the wonders of social bookmarking to share it with friends and the Internet hive-mind!

• del.icio.us
• Digg it
• reddit
• Google
• StumbleUpon

• Hide Comments for The Dark Knight: It Hurts So Bad (3)