I'm currently having a massive argument on the devart forums about The Dark Knight check it out:
Me: I'm sorry I don't understand your reasoning. Do you have any past the obvious "this movie is popular therefore it must suck"?
Tungska-Butterfly: Do you have aside from "Heath Ledger was great and now he's dead"?
Me: I refer you to my review of The Dark Knight [link]
Take that bitch.
Tungska-Butterfly: Stick smacks of fanboyism personally. You put it up there with The Godfather. Just ... no. The film was enjoyable, but deeply flawed.
However, I only asked you that to point out that you just wrote off his opinion because it wasn't long enough. Instead of going into a massive debate about it, he just stated his didn't like it and it was overhyped.
What's your first reaction? "You're only saying that because you're pedantic". You know, maybe he just didn't like the film? It had some fairly massive flaws.
Me: I'm allowed to offer my opinion as well you know.
Tungska-Butterfly: But you didn't. You just attacked him by saying he was only going against the grain to be cool. Rather than conceeding that he may just not like the film.
Me:I provide a counter-argument.
Tungska-Butterfly: And a poor one at that.
Me: Fuck you. My argument has all the points which have been generally agreed in consensus, I provide a fairly detailed argument as to why I believe each of my points and I spent a lot of time working on that review. Why're you being so offensive?
Tungska-Butterfly: "Although the film becomes incredibly complex"
Nope, pretty simple stuff. Joker arrives. Joker is crazy. Bad things ensue. Pretty simple.
"often shock the audience to it's core"
OH NO! HE BLOWS UP A HOSPITAL! Die Hard did it 10 years ago, WITH A SCHOOL! OH NO! THEY DRESS THE PRISONERS UP AS CAPTORS! V For Vendetta has also done it.
"not a single line ever feels out of place or obscure; unless of course it's meant to be."
So the opening line of the film "So, who's this Joker guy?" Is SUPPOSED to sound like a really shit and easy set up to the film?
"The plot itself is an adrenaline fuelled masterpiece"
Masterpiece? So the whole massive "yup, we've just totally swapped every bodies phones with sonar devices, as well as find a random Black guy who can monitor 2 million phone calls at once to find the Joker in a huge abandoned warehouse with no mobile contact" plot hole actually IMPROVES the film?
"Aaron Eckhart ... gives a truly deep, and dark portrayal of Harvey Dent, again never breaking character or becoming unbelievable."
Yes, because "I am a very nice and incorruptible guy. Therefore when my girlfriend dies I will murder the only other good person in this town" is a TOTALLY logical path for him to take.
"Gary Oldman ... a character who was side-lined in Batman Begins and has now been fully and brilliantly realised"
He's brilliantly realised by disappearing for 1/2 of the film. And whenever he does show up he's mostly to look wistfully off and fantasize about Batman.
"Michael Caine ... and Morgan Freeman ... both give exceptional performances as supporting cast members."
* as stereotypical Old English Guy and Mystical Negro respectively.
"Ultimately this film is a Masterpiece"
No, it's a very good piece of stupidly good cinema that put my bum on a seat and kept me entertained for 2 hours.
"it isn't perfect, but nothing is or ever will be"
Yeah, coz who cares about a film having no plot holes, a believable actor for a main actor, a not annoying love interest or a ridiculously over acted ending involving over the top string music, a SPELLING OUT OUT TO VERY VERY LETTER ending, with an amazing actor wasted staring wistfully off into the middle distance. Coz, y'know, this was a BATMAN movie god damnit!
" I go for the message; and this film's message is both true and necessary."
The Joker is a dick may be true, but it is not necessary.
"The Dark Knight has earned it's score, and shall go down with Francis Ford Coppola's The Godfather as one of the greatest films of all time"
I don't even LIKE the Godfather, and I know that that's a retarded sentiment. Just ... no. Yes, it's the best Batman film ever made, and Heath Ledger blew everyone else off the screen. But that's like saying Airplane! is the best parody film ever because it's so much better than The Crowded Sky and Leslie Neilson blew everyone else off the screen.
Look, I have 4 years of nerding out over films on you. I also have NO connection to Batman. The closest I've ever come to reading a Batman comic is idly flicking through a copy of Return To Arkam in a comic book shop because my friend recommended it to me. So I judged it by it's filmic qualities. Everything I didn't contradict is true, I'll admit. But seriously? Best film ever? It doesn't even follow it's own logic.
Me:Dear god I hate you.
First off you've quoted me out of context rather alot, entirely missed the point of the review, but most importantly you've missed the entire point of the film.
1. The film is about messages, most of which you seem to have entirely missed. To help you I've provided this helpful guide.
Subtext in The Dark Knight for professional morons:
Duality: This is shown quite a lot through the film, obviously with the Dent/Two-face character, but more importantly with Joker and Batman's relationship (the two characters seem to offer the two sides of madness, Joker being a free-flowing psychopath and Batman retaining all of his emotion).
Insanity: I'm pretty sure even you got this one, right?
Politics: Batman is the ultimate capiltalist superhero, carrying with him all of the worries of the world. Joker is an anarchist. Whilst watching the film it should become clear that Joker is a more complex person, this shows anarchy is at the very least more interesting than capitalism.
9/11 and terrorism: Joker = Terrorist. Batman = Soldier. Get it yet?
Anyway my point with this subtext is that:
a) You are dumb for thinking that the plot can be reduced to "Nope, pretty simple stuff. Joker arrives. Joker is crazy. Bad things ensue. Pretty simple."
b)The film is incredibly complex.
c)As the film is about messages, fairly important messages at that, can't you forgive it for it's plot holes? Or are you in too deep now?
2. The Dark Knight is still a superhero movie and as such it can't be expected to make it's entire plot entirely do-able. I don't know about you, but I didn't go to see The Dark Knight expecting everything done in the film to be completely realistic.
3. So what if you have four years over me? That doesn't make my opion wrong by default. In fact, if you think that then you obviously don't subscribe to this little thing called freedom of speech, and as such, are an arsehole.
4. You didn't like The Godfather? How valid can you possibly think your opinion is?
5. I didn't call The Dark Knight the best film ever I called it one of the best. Big difference.
All right I'm done.
Tungska-Butterfly: Why do you hate me? For giving an, admittedly pedantic, argument as to why The Dark Knight WASN'T one of the best films ever made. Especially after you lambasted the OP for not giving any reasons why he didn't like it? I enjoy debating. I also enjoy analysing films.
I don't believe I quoted you out of context. I tried to ensure that your original sentiment remained intact at all times. Also I'm not entirely sure what the point of your review was, aside from the very obvious "this film is great, much better than the first one, go see it".
1 & 2) You're confusing Themes with Messages. Duality and Insanity are Themes. If one were to treat them as messages we would simply learn "sometimes good people do bad things" and "crazy people just want to blow shit up". Seriously, those are the messages it gives off.
3) Surely Captain America or Superman would be the ultimate Capitalist super heroes? Batman was the first major mainstream effort at an Anti-Hero (as opposed to Spider-man, who was an unwilling hero), rather than the cut and dried world of The Boy Scout.
3a) The Joker describes himself as an agent of Chaos, not Anarchy. Big difference. The Jokers message would appear to be that life is dull, and you have to make your own fun. Albeit in a rather twisted way.
4) You REALLY want to use this as a metaphor for The War On Terrorism? SERIOUSLY? Alright ... I'll play ball. Right, so Batman is the soldier. And The Joker is Al Quieda. This means the American government is represented by The Mafia. The soldier didn't CHOOSE to join the military (Batman didn't CHOOSE to become an ass kicking, name taking super hero), but due to his poor social and economic background, he was left with no other choice by the government (the Mafia killed Bruce Waynes parents, forcing his hand). Then Al Quieda arrive on 9/11 and fuck everything up, completely out of left field (The Joker starts picking on the Mafia for no reason), forcing the soldier to fight a war with no rules (forcing Batman to kick even more asses and take even more names). As a result, the soldier becomes dehumanised (as a result, Batman becomes darker) and at the end of the day is the whipping boy for a turning public opinion. But it's alright, because we all known that the poor soldier shitting himself in a foxhole in Iraq will be TOTALLY vindicated when they return to the limelight. I mean, look at Vietnam!
Seriously, you REALLY want to reduce it to that?
Alright now onto the second bit.
Yes, it's very simple to reduce the plot to those 4 statements. Because that's what the plot entails. Sure, I could go into a HUGE in depth plot summary, but those 4 sentences give you the entire gist and point of the film. That is what a plot is, the action of narratively getting from A to B.
The film ISN'T very complex. It's fairly cut and dried. There is an entirely linear progression in the plot, the character developments. The only twist that comes out of left-field is the fact that Gordon isn't dead. Which isn't so much a twist as a Deus Ex Machina plot device to get Batman out of his motorcycless hole. The rest of it is simply Psychology light mixed with a pessimistic world view. Name me one deep and complex portion of that film.
I can forgive The Dark Knight it's plot holes for being a stupid action film. However, as a Great Work Of Serious Literature I cannot forgive it anything. Nobody would argue that Die Hard 3 is up there with The Godfather in terms of cinematic greatness, but at least it all makes logical sense. You don't seem to get the difference between suspension of disbelief and breaking the logic of the films own reality. Is Do The Right Thing flawed by some slightly hammy acting and a moderately simplistic plot line? Yes. Does it make an important statement on Black Culture In America? Yes. Batman, however, is both flawed and fails to make an important statement on ANYTHING.
Having 4 years over you isn't a matter of maturity, it's a matter of seeing 4 years more films than you. Especially since those 4 years are the ones I spent in college, where I experimented far further afield in my filmic tastes. It's got to do with the fact that I don't believe you can claim it to be one of the All Time Great Films based on say, Harvey Dents crisis of faith after his moral rug is pulled out beneath him after you've seen The French Connection II. Or credit the score with building suspense having seen The Battleship Potemkin. Or talk about The Jokers little speech on Chaos to Harvey Dent having seen The Third Man. Or discuss it's underlying metaphor with even a vague knowledge of Fear & Loathing In Las Vegas.
You're hiding behind Freedom Of Speech? I guess it must be a matter of maturity then. For a start my friend, I'm Irish, so I have no constitutional guarantee of that. I have the right to not be discriminated against for my religious or political beliefs, but not to say anything. And nor do you actually. You have Freedom Of The Press, but The United Kingdom also has the most restrictive Libel laws of the Western world.
Me:All right: I'm all better and ready to DECIMATE your argument! I'm going to do this in a fairly orderly fashion (I like my arguments to be tidy), in that I'm going to be answering any questions you provided me in your argument before attacking your core reasoning outright.
Question One: "Why do you hate me?"
Answer One: I don't really hate you, don't worry. If you really think that I hate you and it has ruined your day to day life completely then I think you should seek counselling. Simply because you care what someone you met on the internet thinks of you.
Question Two: Especially after you lambasted the OP for not giving any reasons why he didn't like it?
Answer Two: That... isn't a question that makes any semblance of sense. Good job! ^^
Question Three: Surely Captain America or Superman would be the ultimate Capitalist super heroes?
Answer Three: You're going to have to follow my reasoning with this one. If we take Batman to be anything other than the ultimate capitalist superhero then the entire plot of any Batman story ever (except Frank Miller's wonderful BATMAN: THE DARK KNIGHT STRIKES AGAIN) doesn't make any sense whatsoever. To put it in easy to understand terms, Batman cannot achieve anything he does without capitalism. The only reason that Batman is able to do the things he does is because he is extremely rich. He posses no super-powers, he isn't privy to bionic enhancements and he certainly isn't from Krypton. So to answer your question: it's open to interpretation but I think Batman is the ultimate capitalist superhero because of the manner in which he accomplishes things.
Question Four: You REALLY want to use this as a metaphor for The War On Terrorism?
[Note - War on Terror, not Terrorism. I know it seems stupid to wage war on an emotional state but I guess that's just how the American government do things.]
Answer Four: Yes, albeit a fuzzy one. I would prefer to have expressed myself better on this earlier, but as you should hopefully know, I have other things to do. Basically the chaos caused by Joker, and the method in which he causes it, is a reflection upon 9/11 and the hysteria which grew out of it. If we take Joker to be a terrorist, which is not a stretch of anyone's imagination, then most people come to the association with 9/11 immediately, without trying. You also said that the film doesn't make any points but I'll come back to that later.
Question Five: SERIOUSLY?
Answer Five: Yes. If I was an annoying arsehole this would be the perfect time to make a "Why so serious?" joke wouldn't it? I'll leave that to DevArts community, more than enough annoying pricks here...
Question Six: Seriously, you REALLY want to reduce it to that?
Answer Six: Not in the way that you interpreted it, no. In this case you may have missed what either I've been trying to say, or what the film is trying to say. Basically I meant to say that The Dark Knight serves as an examination of the hysteria caused by 9/11, with Joker symbolising everything that America is afraid of, and Batman symbolising the established order. At least at the end of the film, they are symbols, not people. They fight for beliefs, nothing else. Make any more sense now?
Question Seven: (I'm not answering questions you answer yourself so we'll come back to the Godfather thing) You're hiding behind freedom of speech?
Answer Seven: Not really. It's just my go-to excuse for everything.
Okay now I've answered your questions, let's deal with a few things you said.
“Also I'm not entirely sure what the point of your review was, aside from the very obvious "this film is great, much better than the first one, go see it". “
My reviews serve as consumer guides, that should become evident with my inclusion of a scoring system (any serious critique of a film shouldn't really include a scoring system, not enough flexibility). So I ask you this, does my review, a consumer guide for people who don't necessarily understand films, need to have a point beyond “this film is great”?
“1 & 2) You're confusing Themes with Messages. Duality and Insanity are Themes. If one were to treat them as messages we would simply learn "sometimes good people do bad things" and "crazy people just want to blow shit up". Seriously, those are the messages it gives off. “
A message doesn't have to be complex to be profound. I think film-elitists like yourself (we'll get back to that) often forget that. I honestly don't think you gave The Dark Knight a decent look in terms of subtext, how many times have you seen it?
Finally we come back to this four years thing. To which I have only this to say, stop being such a snob. We differ quite considerably in terms of films, I review and watch films that are intended for the general public, and you enjoy art cinema. The two aren't comparable in any fair manner.
(Oh I almost forgot. You don't think the Godfather has plot holes? Try this one for example:
- Don Corleone is shot at at least 12 times, in the back, at point blank range and two very stupid things happen. 1) Only 5 of the bullets hit. 2) He doesn't die.)
I'll keep you guys posted on this one, it makes me laugh.
No comments:
Post a Comment