The Dark Knight - award winner?

Tools    





You Talkin' To Me?
Just got back from seeing this movie, and was blown away. Being a little over 2.5 hours I thought it might be a bit long, but I was wrong. It didn't feel like it was long at all. Heath Ledger definately lived up to all the hype, and I believe he beats out Nicholson as the best Joker. He brings a whole new attitude to the Joker, a more evil attitude. Christian Bale was also very good as he was in Batman Returns. Morgan Freeman was superb as usual, and so were Eckhart and Oldman. And this was an exceptional sequal, since it started just where the last one ended.

Overall, awesome film, and will be hard to follow up for the rest of the films coming out this year.

RIP Heath Ledger.
__________________
The Dude Abides.



In the Beginning...
Sleezy, that's a well-thought-out post, but it only makes sense if you tell us what films you've found in the last ten or so years to be Award-worthy. Did they win any Awards?
Fair enough. I'm looking over the nominees and winners of the Academy Awards for the past ten years, and I see a lot of films I feel are deserving of that honor. No Country for Old Men, Crash, A Beautiful Mind, Erin Brockovich, Traffic, Lost in Translation, Sideways, Good Night, and Good Luck., Babel, Little Miss Sunshine... these are films I find to be quite resonant of something larger than themselves. They provide not just a well-crafted narrative with well-crafted, believable characters and a compelling plot; but also a profound insight into the nature of our humanity, our social customs, our political struggles, our preconceptions, our flaws, our desires, our regrets, and (most often) our hearts.

No Country serenades me with a slick, brutal plot that in little flakes culminates into a pretty haunting vision of the world turned on end, from the perspective of those dinosaurs whose time has passed. Crash not only tackles the ever-present racial issue as it exists today, but also tunnels deep into the very core of its characters: not as racists or non-racists, but as people with real problems and real pain. A Beautiful Mind puts me into a damaged mind, and lets me experience the struggle and ultimate triumph of having to be paranoid of even oneself. Good Night, and Good Luck. frames a moment in time when a certain group of people were unafraid to speak the truth, all the while criticizing the squandering of the power of television and its potential for nationwide public education.

I could go on and on, but the point I'm trying to make is that these films and many others nominated each year have given me something memorable. Something I can indulge with my heart and see in myself or apply to myself. I've been an art student practically all my life, and I think I've finally come to define "good art" as that experience when you look at another's work and find yourself. In film, it's the kind of experience you find when a certain combination of writing, performance, and situation reaches a completely different level of emotional or intellectual satisfaction. Watching Sideways, I can never stomach the scene in which Miles, after having to endure attending his ex-wife's new wedding, finally opens his prized bottle of wine and drinks it in a fast food burger joint. After all I see him go through, it just breaks my heart. Or in Little Miss Sunshine, when cantankerous Grandpa finally tells his disgruntled son that he's proud of him for trying to do something on his own...

It's at that moment in a film where you know you have ceased watching a film. Everything up to that point has been made up. A farce. But at that moment, everything changes, and you realize you are experiencing the heartache, the frustration, the fear, and all the little triumphs that make up real life. It's so easy to feel like we're alone, that what we feel is indigenous only to ourselves. But our hearts really do beat as one, and when you find a film that in some magical way captures the reality we feel around us (and not just what we see or know), it hits you like a cement truck.

Now, that's not to say I think films that don't grab me are devoid of intellectual or emotional weight. Filmmakers figured out long ago that the key to audience hearts is through character interaction and tension; putting one's characters "through hell," so to speak. And we see this with each new film, in some form or another. It's just that not all films do the work to make it truly memorable.

In the case of The Dark Knight, the emotional impact of Harvey and Rachel's situation could have been felt much more strongly had there been more time spent on their developing relationship, their internal problems... all the little specifics of a relationship (see Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind for a fantastic example of how this is done). But of course, it wasn't. I didn't expect it to be, because the film is about Batman, not Harvey and Rachel. Nevertheless, the film gives its viewers a generic "loving couple" model with no information specific to the characters, and expects the audience to care. We get the intention, and maybe we spend a moment or two rooting for them in their time of peril. But the whole experience won't resonate with us after we've left the theater.

I find this time and again in all types of film (even ones that win awards): they feign depth, complexity, and heart... but they're really just trying to appeal superficially to whatever the audience brings to the table. Give them something generic, and they'll cry. In the case of Gladiator (Best Picture winner, 2000), the length of Maximus' all-important vengeance is hinged completely on his murdered wife and son. As the audience, we're supposed to feel harrowed by that atrocity. But we only see them in flashes, without dialogue, no contact with Maximus whatsoever. The film assumes that knowing these characters are important to Maximus, and that they've been murdered, is enough to grab us. It isn't.

Anyway, back to The Dark Knight. I think a Batman film, by nature, is inherently difficult to find ourselves in. We're talking about decades of canon about a billionaire superhero trained in martial arts, gadgetry, and complex forensic science who spends his time thwarting characters whose names quite literally make them sound like cartoons. How does anyone relate to that? How do we discern from this anything relevant to our own political and social concerns and experiences of living? I think the Nolans have done an excellent job infusing as much reality as they could into such a glamorous fiction, but it's no use. Batman's demons never run parallel to our own.

But again, that's not why we like Batman. We like him because he's cool. And I think the Nolans have succeeded in making an immensely cool movie with just enough of a suggestion of real emotion and social concern to keep something as (let's face it) goofy as Batman from spiraling into camp. It's certainly a triumph for the superhero genre. I second everyone in wishing they garnered more attention from Academy voters. I just don't think we've seen one yet that feels to me like a true expression of anything other than thrillride, high tension fun. In fact, the closest we've gotten, I'd argue, is Unbreakable.

I probably have more to say on this, but I'm falling asleep at my computer.



Bright light. Bright light. Uh oh.
Another nice post. I notice that in your discusison above that you never once mention the Joker.

I also see that you somehow "auomatically" divide movies into those which are somehow realistic and therefore can somehow move you differently than movies which are apparently fantasy/sci-fi, etc. I grew up with movies which are larger than life. They certainly do teach me about my life, even if they're 75 years old and set in Casablanca, Oz or Sierra Madre. However, believe it or not, some old movies are actually very realistic. The thing is that I don't create any artificial lines which tell me somewhere along the way that "that is a film" and "this is only a movie". I'm not actually sure you do that, but based on the post, I could draw some kind of conclusion.

I could also break down all the specific comments you made about specific films and disagree wih you on most of them, but it would be pointless. I'm happy you responded with lots of input, and feel free to continue after you've rested. Nice to see somebody actively being serious in their rationale. I know I get lazy often enough and just let it slide.
__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page



In the Beginning...
Another nice post. I notice that in your dscusison above that you never once mention the Joker.
Like I wrote in my mini-review, I feel like the Joker is largely the driving force behind The Dark Knight, and as such the recipient of a good majority of the filmmakers' attention. Had a lesser actor portrayed him, I imagine the buzz about this film (and its quality) would be somewhat lessened. But that's a guess. I don't find anything in The Dark Knight substantially better than, say, Spider-Man 2, if we're going to compare recent sequels in the same genre. I wonder, if Heath Ledger had played a similar villian in that film with the same dedication, would that film have been praised more?

I don't want to make it seem like I think that without the Joker, The Dark Knight is trash. It isn't. It's an awesome movie. Every movie has flaws. This one has few. I just think it's a solid film at its base, with a shining light at the center, nearly exceptional but not quite.

Originally Posted by mark f
I also see that you somehow "auomatically" divide movies into those which are somehow realistic and therefore can somehow move you differently than movies which are apparently fantasy/sci-fi, etc.
Well, yeah, that's a fair observation. It's not that I'm a snob, I don't think. I just that I know what I enjoy, and I know what really strikes me. But I wouldn't say that fantasy/sci-fi, or anything of that sort, always fails to strike me. I love that stuff and always have. I'm an avid fan of the LOTR films: besides being substantially faithful to the beloved books, they're also aesthetically rich and emotionally powerful pieces of cinema. I think the Harry Potter films started as instant classics, and have gradually become full-fledged, emotionally charged films. Two of my favorite sci-fi films -- Sunshine and Solaris -- also happen to be two of my favorite films in general, because they're both psychologically and emotionally engaging (far more than most films you'd expect to be).

Originally Posted by mark f
I grew up with movies which are larger than life. They certainly do teach me about my life, even if they're 75 years old and set in Casablanca, Oz or Sierra Madre. However, believe it or not, some old movies are actually very realistic.
I did too. I've been a lifelong fan of Star Wars, The Wizard of Oz, the Indiana Jones trilogy; and I used to watch old epics like The Ten Commandments and Spartacus when I was a kid. I even watched Errol Flynn movies.

Recently, I've been fortunate to watch films like The Elephant Man, Citizen Kane, Casablanca, North by Northwest (well, that one's just fun), and others. I haven't seen as many older films as I ought to, admittedly, but these are classics, and I've enjoyed them all.

You'll have to forgive me, though, but I'm wondering why you chose to bring up old movies. I hope you don't think that I dismiss them as merely "movies." I wouldn't put a generational cap on what I consider exceptional, or presume to believe that old movies can't move me. I wasn't even really considering old films in the above discussion because I figured they, like any other film up for discussion, go without saying.

Originally Posted by mark f
The thing is that I don't create any artificial lines which tell me somewhere along the way that "that is a film" and "this is only a movie". I'm not actually sure you do that, but based on the post, I could draw some kind of conclusion.
I don't do that. I've watched enough movies to know pretty much where to go when I want just a fun watch, or when I want something a little more engaging. But you can't say that's me drawing artificial lines. That's just a built-in system of categorization that's inherently human. We all do it. I think you're also drawing an unfair conclusion that I label a film before I see it, not after. I have my own rubric (which is really just an even marriage of quality of filmmaking and resonance); and it happens that some of the films I feel are exceptional based on that rubric are also films that have been honored with nominations and awards. And I'm not always right. I'm always seeing a film that I thought would be great but wasn't (About Schmidt, Capote), or that I thought would be mediocre and wasn't (Runaway Jury, Bobby).

With regard to The Dark Knight, I hope you don't think I don't feel it measures up because it's a superhero film. That's not true. In fact, superhero films ought to measure up if studios are going to continue to spend $300 million and higher to make them. I might generally expect to find better films in other genres, but that doesn't mean I rule out a superhero film (or sci-fi film, or fantasy film, or disaster film, or slasher film, or whatever) and its ability to move mountains. I just don't think The Dark Knight, as good as it is, is still that calibur of film. I mean, seriously. People are talking about it winning all these awards, and it's July. This is arguably the biggest hyped film since The Phantom Menace, I would argue; and for once, it's actually pretty damn good. You don't think this might just be extreme wishful thinking about something that isn't even a week old yet?



\m/ Fade To Black \m/
I think for sure The Dark Knight will definatly be a multi award winner as it is supurb.
__________________
~In the event of a Zombie Uprising, remember to sever the head or destroy the brain!~



I've heard a lot of talk on the news about Heath Ledger possibly winning an oscar next year. what does everyone think. with the next Academy Awards so far away can his performance in Dark Knight stave off other performances in the next several months.

i cant give an opnion as i havent seen the movie. to those that have seen it how would u rate his performance? is it oscar worthy? also what did u think of the movie in general? could the movie as a whole including the performace of the ther actors influence whthere he gets i or not.

as an australian i would love to see Heath Ledger be nominated for an win next years oscar for best actor.

before i finish i just want to ask, does Dark Knight live up to all the hype and would u recommend people go see the movie?



I've heard a lot of talk on the news about Heath Ledger possibly winning an oscar next year. what does everyone think. with the next Academy Awards so far away can his performance in Dark Knight stave off other performances in the next several months.

i cant give an opnion as i havent seen the movie. to those that have seen it how would u rate his performance? is it oscar worthy? also what did u think of the movie in general? could the movie as a whole including the performace of the ther actors influence whthere he gets i or not.

as an australian i would love to see Heath Ledger be nominated for an win next years oscar for best actor.

before i finish i just want to ask, does Dark Knight live up to all the hype and would u recommend people go see the movie?
he is mos def in line for a nod and probably a win thus far, but there is still LOTS of time before the next Oscars. His performance was sooooo good it didn't even seem like him. Yes it helped that he was wearing makeup to even further his character acting but i believed he was The Joker, from the laughs and giggles to the twitches and licking of the lips, he was fantastic and the more i think about it the more i get mad/sad that he is dead. Such a future he had...i saw him in I'm Not There and thought he was terrific, i never saw Brokeback Mt. but after this I am going to go watch every movie he has been in. So YES his performance is Oscar Worthy.

as for the movie in general? its everything! a popcorn movie but so much more! an action packed thrill ride with twists and turns, ups and downs, laughs and thought provoking themes. just incredible. it's the best comic book movie to date and maybe even one of the best movies to date and maybe one of the best movies ever! it has come in at #5 on my top movies now. i've seen it 5 times. (my goal is 10, double digits) and after that many viewings its hard to find its faults!

i know theres a lot of hub bub around IMDB because its #1 of all time blah blah blah, just a website right? but could 104,906 people really be that dumb?

i say no! it is a 10/10 no doubt!

also why don't we make a Collective MoFo top 100 or 250 Films of All Time? i don't know how you'd go about doing that...but i think that would be a fun add on to this ever growing site!
__________________
Knowledge speaks, but wisdom listens. ~ Jimi Hendrix



but does dark knight have the same ending that most hollywood comic movies have? eg. good guy wins, bad guy loses and everything is neatly packaged at the end of the movie.

im thinking of seeing the movie just to see heath ledger's final performance.

by the way i think at next year's oscars they should do a special bit where they honour actor's including heath ledger that have recently passed away.



reservoir dogs circa 1881
I havent seen the movie yet so i cant comment on his performance but from what ive heard lets hope he gets some recognition if nothing else,it must be a great performance if he steals the film from bale.Just watched old interview on utube with heath commenting that the joker is the most fun character he has ever played and probabily ever will.How ironic is that!



There was some talk about James Dean getting a posthumus Oscar for Giant, but the general feeling in Hollywood at the time was why give an award to someone who you can never see perform again? And Dean was a lot better known and remembered and more of an influence on fellow actors and fans than Ledger. One thing to remember about Oscars is that everyone expects them to become a future payoff in the next role played, the next script written, the next film directed, the next produced by the award-winning person. At the time of the awards, it's a Hollywood investment in the future more than a memorial of the past.

Besides, Batman won an Oscar in 1989. Is it likely Hollywood will give another Oscar for the retelling of essentially the same story 19 years later? Has that ever happened before?



A system of cells interlinked
This is a very, very different Batman story, and, if I remember correctly, in '89 it won for art direction.
__________________
“It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance.” ― Thomas Sowell





The first and only actor to win a posthumous Oscar was Peter Finch for Network at the 1977 ceremony, and his was Best Actor not Supporting, beating out co-star William Holden and Robert DeNiro in Taxi Driver. I believe the only dead acting nominee since then was Italian actor Massimo Troisi for Il Postino, also nominated as Best Actor (Nic Cage won that year for Leaving Las Vegas). The last non-actor to win a posthumous Oscar was Conrad Hall for his cinematography on Road to Perdition at the 2003 ceremony.

It's hard to gauge which of the many performances yet to be seen on screens will be in serious contention come January 2009, but I'd say Heath's work as The Joker is definitely among the best hopefuls at this early point, sure. But it's a long way to go yet.
__________________
"Film is a disease. When it infects your bloodstream it takes over as the number one hormone. It bosses the enzymes, directs the pineal gland, plays Iago to your psyche. As with heroin, the antidote to Film is more Film." - Frank Capra



A system of cells interlinked
Right. You had listed a slew of flicks earlier in the thread that still have yet to be released. There are a significant number of films that might come along and trump The Dark Knight, from what I can see. Let's chat about it in December.

And, btw... GREAT posts, Sleezy, as usual...Very thought provoking.



Yeah, just because a picture looks like awards-bait on paper, it doesn't always work out that way. Before anybody had seen it and before its release was delayed a year, certainly All the King's Men a couple years back seemed a likely contender with an all-star cast that had about a dozen previous nominations and a couple wins already...but the movie stunk and tanked and didn't get a single nom.

On paper there are lots of movies due out by the end of the year that are full of previous nominees and are the "kinds" of movies that often garner major awards. But they definitely won't all be good, and quality doesn't always go hand-in-hand with a nomination anyway.



As for a villain in a genre film getting nominated and/or winning an Oscar, of course Anthony Hopkins as Best Actor for Silence of the Lambs and Javier Bardem just this year as Supporting Actor in No Country for Old Men are the most obvious examples, but also Gene Hackman in Unforgiven and nominees such as John Malkovich for In the Line of Fire, William Hurt in A History of Violence, Ben Kingsley in Sexy Beast, Joaquin Phoenix in Gladiator, Brad Pitt in 12 Monkeys, Al Pacino in Dick Tracy, Morgan Freeman in Street Smart....and that's just going back the last twenty years or so.


And remember, Batman Begins did get one Oscar nomination, for Wally Pfister's cinematography (he lensed The Dark Knight as well). Blockbuster superhero movies don't usually get any Academy Award nominations except on the technical side...but there's a first time for everything, and The Dark Knight is something different than Spider-Man 3 or Superman Returns.


But still a ways down the line.



You ready? You look ready.
Sleezy has hit every single nail on the head in respects to my thoughts on The Dark Knight. I can't say it any better than he did, so I won't even attempt it. I'll just give him a pat on the back and say, "good job!"
__________________
"This is that human freedom, which all boast that they possess, and which consists solely in the fact, that men are conscious of their own desire, but are ignorant of the causes whereby that desire has been determined." -Baruch Spinoza



Why's there a gun in your trousers?
... quality doesn't always go hand-in-hand with a nomination anyway.
Says something about the sad state of the oscars. The award that is suppose to reflect the best of the best, generaly goes to "could have been better" film or the "it was good, but not as good as ___"

Blockbuster superhero movies don't usually get any Academy Award nominations except on the technical side...but there's a first time for everything.
Lets hope so good sir...
---------------------------------------------------

Sleezy my good man. Kudos to you.
__________________
Check out my DVDs
"Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity" -George Carlin (RIP good sir)



Why's there a gun in your trousers?
...by the way i think at next year's oscars they should do a special bit where they honour actor's including heath ledger that have recently passed away.
They did...at last years Oscars.



Originally Posted by pfiction94
Says something about the sad state of the Oscars. The award that is suppose to reflect the best of the best, [generally] goes to "could have been better" film or the "it was good, but not as good as ___"
It has always been this way, and always will be. Not a recent phenomenon but simply the way it goes.