Friday 15 August 2014

Busting Perceptions - The Dark Knight


As far as perception busting goes, there is no Hollywood filmmaker that needs it more than our beloved Christopher Nolan, and no film that needs it more than his so-called magnum opus, The Dark Knight.

This film is widely regarded by critics to be the best superhero film ever made, and one of the best films of the 2000s, but most importantly, its fandom could give religious fanatics a run for their money. While it is impossible to pinpoint genesis of this fervour, what I will do, in my humble way, is expose this cult classic for what it really is.
 
Nolan's greatest strength is not his directorial prowess, nor is it his skill as a writer. It is his ability to make the audience believe that he is a lot smarter than he actually is, so that when something doesn't make sense, the viewers, instead of seeing what is right in front of them and saying that it doesn't work, rack their brains trying to look for answers that even Nolan's genius mind cannot provide. Now this is much, much tougher than it sounds, and he deserves a lot more credit than Keyser Soze.

How Nolan accomplishes this is very simple - he packs every single moment in his films with action that moves slightly faster than sound, until it is bursting at the seams. The effect is that the audience knows what is happening, but does not have even a second to really think about why it is happening.

This particular feature of his films, while present even in his best work, Memento, is more and more pronounced in his later films, until the point where this shock, awe, and quickly-shift-focus-to-the-next-scene-before-you-can-think-about-the-last-one approach fails miserably in the abomination that is The Dark Knight Rises.

Since it would really suck if I bored the pants off of everyone with only my second post, I'm not going to delve into every single thing that is wrong with the film like a bitter spouse going through his/her partner's flaws with a fine-toothed comb. What I will do is talk about several scenes and/or points in the story which are either so badly done that they stick out like sore thumbs, or simply do not work at all.

To begin with, there is the poorly written courtroom scene where Harvey Dent is introduced for the first time, which serves no purpose except to let the audience know that Harvey Dent is just as witty and clever as every other major character in every Nolan film. Before you assume that I'm being petty and anal, there is a reason I started with this seemingly minor scene.

This scene, along with every other bad scene in the film, is symptomatic of a writer's biggest struggle, which is to make the story flow organically from the characters and situations without the writer's hand being visible behind the steering wheel. The mobster's gun, for some bizarre reason, doesn't fire, giving Harvey Dent a chance to say something cool and clever, thereby establishing a character trait that could've been done in a hundred other ways.

While the scene mentioned above is just character exposition and does not have a bearing on the plot of the film, making the same mistake in key scenes that move the story forward is fatal, which Nolan has done around seven times too many in this film.

From Lau's interrogation scene (where he claims that the money is the only reason he's still alive, but promises to testify against the entire mob simply because if he hands them the money, the mob would not have any to hire the Joker, and Nolan would be in a pickle), to the preposterously outlandish fingerprinting technique (a plot device that has absolutely no significance or requirement in the plot), Nolan is screaming from the rooftops to all intelligent viewers that this film is not for them!


But alas, intelligent viewers are a rare species in today's world, so Nolan decides to crank the stupidity up a notch by actually asking his audience to believe that Gordon managed to fake his death at a public event that was crawling with cops, seemingly without any help whatsoever from anyone, for a reason as lame as "I couldn't risk by family's safety", which he is still doing by the way, as the entire mob, not to mention the Joker's henchmen, are still free!

The real reason? You guessed it! Nolan needs to move the story forward, and what better way to do it than his shock, awe, and screw all logic approach? After all, why bother to come up with smarter scenes when you can have the "twenty-year cop" be stupid enough (which he's allowed to be, since he's not a main character) to get sucked into a fistfight with a psychotic genius of a villain who is clearly unaffected by physical injury, and sweep it under the rug with the amazing technique called intercutting.

Anyway, moving on to the coup de grĂ¢ce, the Joker's supposedly brilliant 'social experiment', which is set up by Gordon's (read: Nolan's) inexplicable decision to transfer the prisoners in the ferry. While logical errors are often commonplace, even acceptable in big budget Hollywood films as long as there's a trade-off, this entire sequence fails on a much deeper level.

Despite all the thematic nuances of The Dark Knight trilogy that show us how dark its world, which is supposed to be a reflection of our world (the USP of the series), really is, I don't think Nolan truly understands how dark today's world actually is. A boat full of innocent civilians, or a boat full of violent criminals of what is supposed to be the most crime infested city in the world?

Are you kidding me? Is that actually supposed to be a choice, worthy of the climax of one of the most acclaimed and zealously loved films of the century? For those of you who live in denial, like Nolan expects you to, let me break this down for you. You're on your way home from work when you get kidnapped by a psycho who tells you that the only way you will live is if you shoot a known rapist in the head.

If this is like Sophie's Choice for you, then I really, really want to meet you, so that I can sell you to a museum for a boatload (pun intended) of money. Ten contrivances can be forgiven, but when a film's climax lacks emotional logic, it is simply unacceptable that the film goes on to garner as much praise as this one.

One hardly needs Freud to understand why everyone is blind to the countless grave flaws in this film. The reason is simple - as I mentioned above, the fast-paced nature of the film doesn't allow time to really absorb why something has happened on the first, second, or even third viewing, and let's face it, no one wants to admit that amidst a group of people because no one wants to look stupid. Instead, one convinces oneself that even the dumbest things in the film, such as its ending, make perfect sense.

Yes, blunders are a dime a dozen in this film. From the hitherto unseen big, scary prisoner that randomly comes in from nowhere during the crucial boat scene, to the Joker's ridiculous assumption that mobsters are criminals not for money or power, but because they like to do bad things, Nolan has taken too many liberties.

But hidden amidst all this chaos, there is one thing in the film that works. This is its central situation - will Batman be able to prevent the Joker from winning the 'battle for Gotham's soul'? Or will the Joker succeed in proving his point, which is that no one is incorruptible?

These questions have the potential to strike dramatic gold, but unfortunately come in only in the final act of the film, masked by the various errors in screenplay. If it wasn't for that, The Dark Knight had the potential to be one of the most unique superhero films, for it is a film in which the primary antagonist effectively wins, something which is never seen in mainstream Hollywood films.

But ifs and buts are not candy and nuts, and therefore, The Dark Knight, despite all its underlying potential, is far from being even remotely worthy of the acclaim and following it has. It is a heavily contrived and amateurishly written film that deserves, at best, to be remembered as a slightly above average Hollywood popcorn thriller, only by virtue of some crisp dialogue, a few stellar performances, and Hans Zimmer's hair-raising score. The fact that it is thought to be much more speaks volumes about cinema viewers today and Nolan's incredible ability to pull the wool over their eyes.

16 comments:

  1. Whoa ! Never thought it like that.I hate to admit it but you're right and unlike many others i don't want to live in denial of this fact.Great job thinking out of the box.But don't you think that "The effect is that the audience knows what is happening, but does not have even a second to really think about why it is happening." is kinda like prestige ? And i think sometimes we do want to get fooled :p. What's your opinion about inception ?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Interesting comparison with the line from The Prestige. Maybe Nolan was describing his style of filmmaking in that movie! But the key difference is that magic is an illusion. It's even called a magic "trick". So you're supposed to be fooled by it, unlike a film which you're supposed to experience, connect to, and be impressed by, and so it's never a good idea to try to fool the audience, even if it wants to be fooled! I plan to write about Inception as well, so you'll know what my opinion of it is soon!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Great.I did have my doubts about jim gordon faking his death but the other things you shined the light on never occurred to me. Despite it's many flaws i still prefer it over other superhero movies coz many things in this movie were pretty novel compared to other heroes in flicks. But to each his own eh ? Nolan still remains in my view as a great director owing to the direction and screenplay of movies like memento (which, in my opinion, is the best neo noir i've seen yet) , following, prestige and inception (which i find really amazing,despite many unanwered questions that the movie leaves you with coz creating such a complex plot from scratch is something which i really have to give it to Nolan). Now before my reply becomes longer than your review i put the final period. (in case you didn't already infer, this is samarth :) )

      Delete
    2. Lol, I know it's you. I like all of Nolan's films until The Prestige except Insomnia. Memento is one of the best films I've seen and Following is excellent too. To put it simply, I think he became arrogant after the success he got and stopped putting in a lot of effort, and that shows in The Prestige as well to some extent. When The Dark Knight came out, it was probably the most unique superhero film, but I think Batman Begins is a much better film. Now, I think some of the Marvel films are much better than Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy as far as superhero films are concerned.

      Delete
  3. That's where we differ. Marvel films uptil now are not better than the batman trilogy for me. I asked the admin of a christopher nolan page on facebook to read what you wrote and this is what he replied:
    "This is what I think of the article that you sent me. First of all, I am a Nolan fan, but not a fan boy. I know what Nolan's weaknesses are and where he excels. The writer of the article is correct in some of his claims. For example, Nolan's skill of making us believe that we are watching something exceptionally smart when we actually aren't. But I feel that filmmaking is an art, and the overall feel is what matters. Even though the writer says that Nolan gives us a deceptive measure of the film's smartness, I think that Nolan films are way smarter and accurate than most films. Films are art, and they need not be 100% perfect. And they never are. Take the smartest of films, and go deep down to the molecular level just like the writer has gone, and you are bound to find some mistakes, some things that don't make sense and as the writer mentioned, some plot devices which are pretty absurd. He has also said that some plot devices are left unexplained or were not up to the mark. For example, how Gordon faked his death. The writer is not thinking from a screenwriter's point of view. In case of TDK, a huge story had to be told in a limited amount of time. And definitely some compromises have to be made which result in weak logic and some unexplained incidents. No film is immune to this. The writer says that the film is amateurish and just above average. I absolutely disagree because even though it has some faults it is still a very very different film and has dared to take a realistic approach in spite of being a superhero film. Look at what superhero movies we get these days, all the Marvel saturation. It is fun to point out mistakes from a film, especially one that is held to a high standard. But people don't realize the amount of thinking that has gone into writing that story. As I said before, nothing is immune to mistakes, but at least in the case of films, these should be taken lightly and the greater perfection of the story should be considered. And at the end of the day, isn't film making, just like magic, about making the audience believe what they are watching? :) ".

    Now i know this guy thinks pretty differently what you do but i thought it would be nice to tell you this.He too made an analogy with prestige if you noticed. And i don't really like insomnia too but only because it's almost a complete copy of the danish movie of the same name ,save the ending of the movie.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you have some time, post the following reply to this guy -

      I understand that TDK and Nolan fans are very passionate, so it's good to see that one of them is responding without being overly aggressive and admitting that Nolan is not some infallible god. But apart from that, I honestly cannot say that there is something novel about the objections you have made to this article. Here is a point by point response to what you have said.

      1. I have heard the argument, "every film is flawed if you over-analyse it" many times in many variations. I honestly cannot engage in this particular debate, because it is like a person who can see arguing with a visually impaired person about which colour is the best to look at (I mean absolutely no offence by this. It is just an analogy). I have seen not one, but many films that look flawless compared to TDK. They may have one or two flaws or contrivances, but so small that they can easily be ignored, unlike TDK, which has flaws galore, and is heavily contrived at every turn. Without even going into "art cinema", I can give you examples of such films. Chinatown, The Social Network, The Shawshank Redemption, Match Point, Nightcrawler, Thelma & Louise, Memento (yes, even Nolan's films), and almost any Coen brothers film.

      2. I am a student of screenwriting, and it is exactly because I'm thinking from a screenwriter's point of view that I have raised these points. Screenwriting is not about shabbily connecting a bunch of plot points thinking that the main plot points will carry your film and people won't notice the holes. It is not about having a huge, overambitious story that does not translate into a good screenplay. It is about creating a narrative that flows organically from its characters and situations. It is about writing a screenplay that can make even a simple story look powerful and captivating. Again, if you feel that no film is immune from such flaws then I cannot engage in that debate, because I have seen plenty of films that are.

      3. You spoke about the greater perfection of a story. As I pointed out in my article, this film's list of flaws is not limited logical errors. Its climax lacks basic understanding of human nature and today's world, and considering that realism was the USP of this trilogy according to Nolan himself, this is unforgivable.

      Delete
    2. 4. You said that filmmaking about making the audience believe what they're watching. On this front, it would seem that my article overlooks the huge cult following that the film has, which would make it seem like the film works for the audience, and therefore has done a good job. But think about this. We live in a world where independently formed opinion is a species on the verge of extinction. From critics to fans, everyone posts their reviews of a big, anticipated release on Facebook, Twitter, IMDb, and what not. Word of mouth spreads like wildfire. Gone are the days when you watch a movie, and decide whether you think it's good or not. Opinions are formed even before one enters the theatre. Even I loved The Dark Knight when it came out, because by the time I went to watch it, everyone around me had already labelled it the best movie ever made. That the polarised opinion resulting from such mob frenzy does not affect an individual's opinion is probably the biggest lie being told in the world today. The "Groupthink" phenomenon affects us all, and on top of that, the ability to really discern whether a film is good or not is dying among film audiences today due to the falling standards of cinema, and in fact a change in the definition of the word "cinema". So, yes, many people feel justified in using the argument of popular acclaim to say that a film is good, but I couldn't disagree more with this point.

      5. Now, please, just think about your response to my article carefully. Did you refute any of my arguments about the actual flaws in the film, of which there were close to ten? Your main arguments have been that all films are flawed, that Nolan tried to do something very, very different, that this is so much better than other superhero films, and that a lot of effort has been put in. I have already told you what I think of the first argument. I will not even dispute second and the third, except maybe to say that I think that with a few exceptions, Marvel's films are much better than TDK, simply because they do not try so hard to be "real" and just focus on engaging and entertaining the audience without pretension, and also because they followed the Dark Knight trilogy, whereas the trilogy followed a bunch of atrocious Batman movies, and other bad superhero films. The fourth I disagree with, because I do not think that the minds that are capable of making Following and especially Memento come up with a script like this after putting in a lot of effort. But all in all, the thing is that your arguments seem like that of a parent defending a child's work, saying that nobody is perfect, and it's the effort that counts (Again, please do not take offence, for I am just trying to make a point as clearly as succinctly as possible). Just think about this, do these arguments really say that this film is anything other than just above average?

      Delete
  4. Unlike you, I’m a layman in the realm of screenwriting and, much like Einstein on his views about education; I experience the problem of seeking a source from which I shall be able derive courage to expound opinions with no foundations except personal experience and personal conviction. I’ll still try my best:
    The introduction of Harvey Dent: I have inkling that the characters of this movie were based on a comic; so they’re not really as much a creation of Nolan as they are of the authors of the comic (There is, of course, some modification of the original characters but their basic personality remains same). As for his other movies, Inception is the only one where I can recognize “all” the leads being smart and witty (I could go on to show how that movie was brilliant on other aspects which would make this and other small sins in it easily forgivable but I don’t want to digress, which I think I already did a little in this undertone) so I think saying that the leads are witty in every other Nolan film is an inaccurate statement. Also, this scene doesn’t just serve the purpose of introduction of Harvey as a cool character but goes on to show how the DA’s attempts to nab the goons are futile but they are “getting closer”. The “bizarre reason” for the gun not going off even though the trigger was squeezed might be the gun being “Chinese, not American”, but yes: it’s a poorly written scene to depict a failed attempt to murder the DA.
    Lau’s interrogation: I can’t understand why you don’t find Lau’s explanation reasonable. It makes perfect sense to me. If I promised to keep your (boat-full of) money safe but somehow lost it all you’d be pretty angry and if you’re a mob boss you’d perhaps be willing take a leaf outta ISIS’ book and imagine that I’m a journalist. So if I’m in such a pickle as Lau was, I’d work hard to not lose your money but if I can strike a deal to protect your money and my ass from going to jail for a long time I’ll happily make that deal. Coming to the “outlandish” fingerprinting technique I’d like to say that it wasn’t irrelevant. The plot device tells us that Bruce is independently trying to trace joker’s identity, and also gives the viewer an insight of the technology of reconstructing 3-D images from bullet fragments. Of course the prints they got weren’t much useful because Jim Gordon reveals right after becoming the commissioner and capturing joker that his prints, dental records etc. yielded no match. Could you please more explicitly illustrate the point you were trying to make in this paragraph?
    Gordon faking his death: I realized this as a plot hole the third time I saw this movie and remains the biggest mystery to me as to why the director of memento did not think of something remotely plausible in exchange for this. Of course reading it here made me realize the latter.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It seems like you may have misinterpreted some of my points. Or maybe it's a fault on my part because there are so many flaws in this film that I wasn't able to write in detail about why certain things are actually flaws.

      Lau's interrogation - I think you're not thinking about what he's actually doing because you're focusing on what he's not doing. If he gives the police the money, the mob basically loses everything, and they would target Lau. But what Lau does is, he actually gives the police the entire mob, meaning that he testifies against them, which would still piss them off and they would target him. There is hardly any difference between the two. In fact, it can easily be argued that if the mob doesn't have money anymore, they'll find it much harder to do anything, such as getting their enemies killed. But giving up the money did not suit Nolan, because he needed the mob to hire the joker, which they could only do if they had money (which is again, very stupid, because they reveal in the end that the joker never cared about money). So the whole thing is a needless plot device, and you can see that it is the writer who needs to do this, not the character.

      Fingerprinting technique - Whether or not Bruce is trying to independently trace the Joker's identity is of no relevance, because nothing comes of it. His character has no contribution in the parade scene, and even after that, the fact that he had traced the fingerprints has no relevance. Also, the viewers have absolutely no need to learn about this particular technology in the middle of a Batman movie.

      Delete
    2. I still don't see why it's a flaw to show Batman's attempts(even failed ones) to find joker's identity. But the rest of what you said but the rest seems reasonable

      Delete
  5. Joker’s brief stay in MCU: Nolan really pulls the wool over our eyes here. It’s like he flashes a really bright light (kinda like what we discussed about that scene in rear window the other day) so that we can’t immediately detect anything dark in the environment unless we “are watching closely”. He impresses us viewers here with the bizarre “phone bomb” implanted in that guy’s stomach and creates a pretty great effect only to be ruined by the (rare) realization of the fact that somehow, miraculously, only the joker and Lau are left unharmed from the explosion (you might say that perhaps joker positioned himself in the ideal position but you can’t explain Lau’s survival).As to the “twenty year cop” losing it, you might find his actions justified if you imagine yourself being in his position. The Joker killed many of your friends and is constantly taunting you. Moreover you just witnessed him being thrashed (although not really affected by it) but never really putting up a fight against batman which might give you enough confidence to assume that you can do the same to him without getting harmed.
    Boom Boom goes Dent and Gotham general: Joker promises to show Batman that “when the chips are down, these ‘civilized’ people will eat each other”. He starts his first “social experiment” with threatening to blow up the hospital and comes closer to show that people’s morals are dropped at the first sign of trouble since some people DO try to kill the lawyer. The joker plays his best card and “pushes” Dent to “madness”. Now the joker clearly mentions in the video he released ,post his blowing-up the Gotham general, that “come nightfall this city is mine…if you don’t wanna be in the game get out now…But the bridge and tunnel crowd are sure in for a surprise” which is the reason for water being chosen as the medium for transportation ,so Gordon’s decision for ferry transport wasn’t really “inexplicable”.
    “Coupe de grace”: At the risk of being a potential sales-item for a museum I’d like to refute your belief of the climax being void of emotion, reason and logic. The experiment not being like Sophie’s choice WAS the point of Joker’s plan since he believed that an ordinary man would obviously blow up “the villain” boat. He made “the chips down” to prove that the moral codes and the rules were just “a bad joke, abandoned at the slightest sign of trouble”. Now if you put yourself in the shoes of those citizens trapped in the boat, blowing up about a hundred people (inclusive of some innocent policemen and violent criminals) would not probably see as easy as it sounds because taking a life (not to say a hundred lives) is no easy task even when the reward of the act is your own life. Again, like the hospital threat, people come close to blowing each other up but it doesn’t quite work out.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The twenty year cop - This character is so minor that it is ridiculous of any writer to expect the viewer to have empathy with him. In such situations, one really looks at logic based on the world the film has created. TDK is a film in which every major character is very smart. The Joker manages to get the DNA of three senior officials and place it on the card, and when Gordon is told about it, he has no reaction whatsoever, because he is also smart enough to anticipate things like this. In this kind of world, it is ridiculous to expect a police officer with twenty years of experience getting sucked into a fistfight. You're underestimating how age and experience changes people. It is not a question of the cop thinking of how the joker could harm him, but rather that nothing he can do to the Joker would hurt him. So, why get sucked into it at all?

      Gordon's decision - It is inexplicable because where did the prisoners come from all of a sudden? You misunderstood this point. It is not about him transporting them in the ferry, but him even thinking about the prisoners. The prisoners have had no relevance in the plot until now. It is very bad writing to spring something on the viewer that late in the movie. Gordon's assumption that the Joker's plan could involve them feels ridiculous, because the viewer has been given no prior reason to suspect this. (Look up "foreshadowing" and "setups and payoffs")

      The climax - Nolan has already proven that there will be people willing to kill an innocent lawyer to protect someone they love. So does he actually think that killing convicted criminals to save themselves is a tougher choice than that? The example I gave in the article is enough. People would not hesitate to kill violent criminals to save themselves. That's just the world we live in today. What this scene proves more than anything else is that if other people are actually aware that you've killed someone else, even criminals, to save your own life, you may hesitate to do it because of the stigma that will be attached to you. But if nobody knows, you'd do it in a heartbeat.

      Delete
  6. Subsequent Events and conclusion: The question of the fate of “Gotham’s soul” very much managed to create the effect you said it just had “the potential” to. I’d like to remind you that this movie was originally intended as the final batman movie by Nolan (which I wish it should have been since TDKR was the worst Nolan movie) so the ending of this movie wasn’t really a celebration of the protagonist winning but of the VIRTUAL loss of the antagonist. The ending meant a life of loneliness and coldness for Bruce Wayne, shut out from the rest of the world, living his life based on the lie that Rachel was going to wait for him, just like Gotham rests peacefully based on the lie that the White Knight was incorruptible (this was supposed to happen for the rest of time since TDKR was not planned then) .The Joker remains corrected since the batman is “casted out like a leper when he isn’t needed anymore”. Where Nolan’s brilliance lies is in his ability to create such environments and characters that give him the freedom and liberty to do great, absurd for commoner, but still great things(such as bending the laws of physics in the dream world in inception). Making joker a psychopath is one such tool because his actions and his reasoning can be deemed neither as logical nor illogical because he is a psychotic killer and no one really understands how the mind of the crazy works so think again before posing the paradox of finding reason in assumptions of a insane person. Rachel’s death was the most real thing that could happen in a super-hero movie because the protagonist’s lover never dies (I’ll bet Gwen Stacy wouldn’t have been killed in amazing spider-man 2 if Rachel hadn’t died here first) which I must admit was pretty shocking (and awesome).
    So yes: this film HAS logical errors and plot holes scattered about much like seeds in a watermelon but just like those seeds it makes the “eating” process difficult
    but the melon still tastes damn good with ‘em.What I’m trying to say here is that the good is certainly more than the bad with the amazing action sequences boasting of the single coolest chase scene in a superhero movie topped with, as you so colorfully said, “stellar performances” and “hair-raising score” and the hopes of future of Gotham being based on a lie.
    I’d again like to remind you that whatever has been said here does not claim to mean more than the personal opinion of a man, which is founded upon nothing but his own personal experience (which is not yet good enough to be proud of).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have no problem with what the ending was, but I have a huge problem with how it got to that point. There was absolutely no need for Batman to take the blame for Harvey's killings. I remember that in the movie, Gordon says "five dead, two of them cops". Who the hell are these five people? Do a head count. The people who Harvey kills are Wuertz (the corrupt cop), Maroni, and his driver. In a time as chaotic as that, when the whole city is being terrorised by a psychopath, would anyone give two hoots about these three random people? As far as Harvey's death is concerned, it can easily be said that he actually died in the hospital explosion, but the police did not reveal that to prevent further panic. The whole ending was forced. Look up deus ex machina.

      Delete