jimmyhkim21 (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
jimmyhkim21) wrote2008-07-21 10:23 pm
jimmyhkim21) wrote2008-07-21 10:23 pm
Entry tags:
film meta
Went to see The Dark Knight today because my hubby and I wanted to avoid the eager crowds that descended over the weekend. And our babysitter wasn't available until today.
So, here's a review, which is more like a meta in disguise.
A lot of people have sung praises over the various actors so I won't go too much into it. I will say Heath Ledger's final performance as the Joker is worthy of an Oscar nod. However, barring catastrophic fall/winter film releases I don't think he'll win. The performance that got me the most was Gary Oldman's. They've laid it on thick about how Harvey Dent is the 'White Knight' Gotham desperately needed but the truth is Lieutenant/Commissioner Gordon is already that crusader, and with better hair I might add. His everyday man is the perfect foil against the emotionally-turbulent characters that dance and cavort across the screen, and the final scene featuring Gordon's confrontation with Two-Face is heartbreaking. I know Oldman won't get an Oscar nod but his performance definitely deserves one.
Now, the meta part: this movie is in no friggin' way PG-13. It got under the radar because it didn't use the f-bomb and didn't show the graphic results of physical violence. Die Hard was Rated-R but its latest incarnation Live Free or Die Hard was only PG-13. In those instances, both movies were correctly rated. Yes, Live Free or Die Hard has swearing (couple of shit bombs) and mucho fighting/explosions but it is what I call 'candy fist fights' and the expletives were nowhere as creative as the first Die Hard installment.
Cinematic violence has two-prong effect on its audience: first is psychological and the other visual. Visual violence, though effective, is like fast food. By the time a scene is done, our eyes are more than ready to move on to the next one because of our constant need for visual gratification. However, with the psychological side of the equation, things are a great deal more complicated.
We, the audience, automatically dismiss most of the violence we see on the screen because our minds tell us they’re not real. Heroes or villains don’t get up after getting shot on the chest or even an arm. We know, in reality, that they’d be flopping on the floor like a fish out of water or screaming for their mothers. That people don’t just walk away (slo-mo if it’s Michael Bay flick) while there’s a burning building/car/alien spacecraft behind them. They’d be running for their lives since the heat from the flames would crisp their skin and set their hair on fire, not to mention toast their lungs into hardened little wafers.
With all this ‘real’ knowledge, we see the violence, process it, dismiss it, maybe go ooohhh and aaaahhh if the stunts are spectacular and then merrily move on ‘cause let’s face it – it’s all junk food.
This has become so engrained in the cinematic audience that it's become a habit. Unless, of course, the violence is subsidized by something else: the film’s ability to make the audience invest themselves to their detriment. The best film I could come up with to demonstrate this phenomenon is Silence of the Lambs - probably one of the most terrifying works of cinema to date.
If you actually sit down and count the number of violent scenes in Silence of the Lambs you’ll realize there are very few, especially when compared to Live Free or Die Hard. However, because of great writing and acting, the audience’s ability to automatically dismiss the violence on the screen have been tampered with. Quite simply, Dr. Lecter got into our heads, disabled the off-switch and made us incapable of coasting through the movie. This is why we are still in love with what is probably one of the most evil creations in modern cinema: his ability to mentally fuck with not only Clarice but also with us.
Director Jonathan Demme had the balls to realize what he had and agreed to the R-rating. And even with that warning there were huge outcries from the press and watchdog groups about the violence. Back then all this amused me because when confronted, the naysayers had a very hard time pinpointing certain scenes in a R film that went beyond R. However, if they had been little less rabid and bit more coherent they would’ve had a good argument when criticizing the film as a whole. But they didn’t, people paid good money to scare themselves witless, and it went on to devour the Oscars. BTW, Billy Crystal’s entrance for that particular award show was the best in its history.
The Dark Knight fits into this category, but this sucker came with a PG-13 and man, that is just wrong. It’s a great film, dark like Seven and just as gruelingly relentless. The actors have invested themselves admirably into their characters, and though they are portraying creations from a comic book, they and Nolan made Gotham and its citizens real. The Joker is a deadly threat and from the get-go you realize this. In the first three minutes his entire team of bank robbers are gunned down because he planned it that way. Unlike Cillian Murphy’s Scarecrow from Batman Begins, Ledger’s Joker is a villain who could very well populate the real world. Even Batman with his many gadgets isn’t located so far off the left field that we couldn’t imagine a vigilante/hero like him in the near future. Also, when Dawes bites the dust, the audience isn’t allowed to dismiss her death as a mere catalyst for Batman to go berserk; it really hurts to realize she’s gone and will stay gone for Part III. And that makes the trauma Harvey Dent goes through just that much more painful.
I’m not complaining here, not at all. The Dark Knight is a great movie, and it most certainly deserves a better title than ‘Summer Blockbuster’. But Nolan and WB should’ve grown a goddamn pair, maybe gotten a little less greedy, and say, ‘Hey, this is adult stuff we’re talking here. We’re doing more than just putting on pretty pyrotechnics and boobage on the screen; we’re making the audience care, and we’re certainly making them bleed. So, maybe we shouldn’t fucking traumatize kids who’ll probably wonder why their brains are thumbing against their skulls after the lights come on.”
As with Hollywood, of course the dollar brigade won, but it won't be without cost. I suspect the backlash against this movie will be harsh, just like it was with Silence of the Lambs, but unlike those levied against Demme this round of criticisms will be justified. Add to that the power of the internet, the fact that the movie audiences have become a lot more savvy, and Nolan and WB won't be able to contain the anger against the PG-13 rating. But that might not be a bad thing: maybe WB and PTB who own the franchise will actually be more judicious with either the rating or the level of violence in Part III.
So, here's a review, which is more like a meta in disguise.
A lot of people have sung praises over the various actors so I won't go too much into it. I will say Heath Ledger's final performance as the Joker is worthy of an Oscar nod. However, barring catastrophic fall/winter film releases I don't think he'll win. The performance that got me the most was Gary Oldman's. They've laid it on thick about how Harvey Dent is the 'White Knight' Gotham desperately needed but the truth is Lieutenant/Commissioner Gordon is already that crusader, and with better hair I might add. His everyday man is the perfect foil against the emotionally-turbulent characters that dance and cavort across the screen, and the final scene featuring Gordon's confrontation with Two-Face is heartbreaking. I know Oldman won't get an Oscar nod but his performance definitely deserves one.
Now, the meta part: this movie is in no friggin' way PG-13. It got under the radar because it didn't use the f-bomb and didn't show the graphic results of physical violence. Die Hard was Rated-R but its latest incarnation Live Free or Die Hard was only PG-13. In those instances, both movies were correctly rated. Yes, Live Free or Die Hard has swearing (couple of shit bombs) and mucho fighting/explosions but it is what I call 'candy fist fights' and the expletives were nowhere as creative as the first Die Hard installment.
Cinematic violence has two-prong effect on its audience: first is psychological and the other visual. Visual violence, though effective, is like fast food. By the time a scene is done, our eyes are more than ready to move on to the next one because of our constant need for visual gratification. However, with the psychological side of the equation, things are a great deal more complicated.
We, the audience, automatically dismiss most of the violence we see on the screen because our minds tell us they’re not real. Heroes or villains don’t get up after getting shot on the chest or even an arm. We know, in reality, that they’d be flopping on the floor like a fish out of water or screaming for their mothers. That people don’t just walk away (slo-mo if it’s Michael Bay flick) while there’s a burning building/car/alien spacecraft behind them. They’d be running for their lives since the heat from the flames would crisp their skin and set their hair on fire, not to mention toast their lungs into hardened little wafers.
With all this ‘real’ knowledge, we see the violence, process it, dismiss it, maybe go ooohhh and aaaahhh if the stunts are spectacular and then merrily move on ‘cause let’s face it – it’s all junk food.
This has become so engrained in the cinematic audience that it's become a habit. Unless, of course, the violence is subsidized by something else: the film’s ability to make the audience invest themselves to their detriment. The best film I could come up with to demonstrate this phenomenon is Silence of the Lambs - probably one of the most terrifying works of cinema to date.
If you actually sit down and count the number of violent scenes in Silence of the Lambs you’ll realize there are very few, especially when compared to Live Free or Die Hard. However, because of great writing and acting, the audience’s ability to automatically dismiss the violence on the screen have been tampered with. Quite simply, Dr. Lecter got into our heads, disabled the off-switch and made us incapable of coasting through the movie. This is why we are still in love with what is probably one of the most evil creations in modern cinema: his ability to mentally fuck with not only Clarice but also with us.
Director Jonathan Demme had the balls to realize what he had and agreed to the R-rating. And even with that warning there were huge outcries from the press and watchdog groups about the violence. Back then all this amused me because when confronted, the naysayers had a very hard time pinpointing certain scenes in a R film that went beyond R. However, if they had been little less rabid and bit more coherent they would’ve had a good argument when criticizing the film as a whole. But they didn’t, people paid good money to scare themselves witless, and it went on to devour the Oscars. BTW, Billy Crystal’s entrance for that particular award show was the best in its history.
The Dark Knight fits into this category, but this sucker came with a PG-13 and man, that is just wrong. It’s a great film, dark like Seven and just as gruelingly relentless. The actors have invested themselves admirably into their characters, and though they are portraying creations from a comic book, they and Nolan made Gotham and its citizens real. The Joker is a deadly threat and from the get-go you realize this. In the first three minutes his entire team of bank robbers are gunned down because he planned it that way. Unlike Cillian Murphy’s Scarecrow from Batman Begins, Ledger’s Joker is a villain who could very well populate the real world. Even Batman with his many gadgets isn’t located so far off the left field that we couldn’t imagine a vigilante/hero like him in the near future. Also, when Dawes bites the dust, the audience isn’t allowed to dismiss her death as a mere catalyst for Batman to go berserk; it really hurts to realize she’s gone and will stay gone for Part III. And that makes the trauma Harvey Dent goes through just that much more painful.
I’m not complaining here, not at all. The Dark Knight is a great movie, and it most certainly deserves a better title than ‘Summer Blockbuster’. But Nolan and WB should’ve grown a goddamn pair, maybe gotten a little less greedy, and say, ‘Hey, this is adult stuff we’re talking here. We’re doing more than just putting on pretty pyrotechnics and boobage on the screen; we’re making the audience care, and we’re certainly making them bleed. So, maybe we shouldn’t fucking traumatize kids who’ll probably wonder why their brains are thumbing against their skulls after the lights come on.”
As with Hollywood, of course the dollar brigade won, but it won't be without cost. I suspect the backlash against this movie will be harsh, just like it was with Silence of the Lambs, but unlike those levied against Demme this round of criticisms will be justified. Add to that the power of the internet, the fact that the movie audiences have become a lot more savvy, and Nolan and WB won't be able to contain the anger against the PG-13 rating. But that might not be a bad thing: maybe WB and PTB who own the franchise will actually be more judicious with either the rating or the level of violence in Part III.