RANT: Thoughts on "The Dark Knight"
While the movie and its impressions are still fresh in my mind, I feel the need to express myself.
Ah, what to say about The Dark Knight. It was pure brilliance. I was emotionally charged. It was shocking. It was insanity. It was dark.
It was deep.
The movie had a lot of deep messages on the concepts of villains and heroes. What makes a hero? What defines a villain? When does someone cross the lines? The movie didn't necessarily try to answer it, but it did try to leave that imprint on you. It took you to the edge and allowed to you step beyond it.
And one of my favorite reviews on the subject was left by abrynne: The Dark Knight is definitely about the definition of morality and ethics... There is always a way to conquer your enemies without breaking the standards you've set for yourself. (link for her review)
It was actually her words there that got me thinking. I mean, I saw that during the movie, but I hadn't put down the words before. And now, I'm going back to the parts of the movie that had a deep impact on me and looking at it from a different point of view.
THE BOAT SCENE
The boat scene definitely had a strong impact on me. My first thought was that it was done unrealistically. I had figured that there would be more panic, more frenzy. I mean, really, a vote on the subject? No desperate struggle on either side for the remote in order to blow the others' collective butt to Kingdom Come? Especially when earlier in the movie people were so willing to destroy the life of an unsuspecting schmuck. I mean, I figured at least one, two, a few people would make a grab at the detonator. It didn't have to be everyone. But then, it wouldn't have fit the message the movie was trying to make, because it only takes one person to create mass hysteria.
And then Batman's whole spiel of, "No one's going to do it because that's what people want. In their hearts, they want a better world." WTF? Seriously, all of his confidence was based on faith? Don't get me wrong, I'm actually a pretty hopeful and optimistic person and I like to believe in the good in people... but I'm not stupid. I have realistic views. And some of those views revolve around the fact that even if someone wouldn't go beyond the limit trying to save his or her own butt the person would do it for his or her family. The focus didn't necessarily have to be about me vs. them... it could be my own vs. them. Where were the parents who would sacrifice everythin for their children? Certainly there had to be some of those people on board (and I swear I saw a woman hugging a child on the civilians' boat). Or a grown adult for his elderly mother? Villainy isn't always the result of saving your own hide... sometimes it is done for more complex reasons. I had figured that Batman had an ace up his sleeve (something to do with scrambling up signals to the bombs... a further ability he created with his sonar device). But to base it all on faith? It made the message being said at that point in the movie too corny, too forced. As if everyone in that moment was acting on good faith and good intentions alone other than the Joker and his cronies.
But now, I appreciate that part in the movie more. I still think the actions were unrealistic for the most part. But it did really get me thinking about the whole message of villains vs. heroes. It was the criminals on the ship that really showed the heroic aspects of humanity and it was the "innocent" civilians who showed the villainous side of humanity. The criminals would be the first ones you'd expect who'd fight tooth and nails for their lives. So I was in shock and awe when the one guy threw the detonator out the window. That scene really touched me. And the contrast between his calm acceptance and the police officer's fear really set it in (it also made me wonder what they were in jail for... they were obviously not the same top-knotch villains the movie focused on where killing a person is like squashing a bug).
And then the civilians... fear seemed to be the central message. Fear of death vs. fear to step beyond your bound limits vs. fear to take the fall. The police officer obviously was willing to destroy the lives of many others to save his own, but he was too afraid to take the fall himself. His selfish cowardice is one of the most pathetic forms of villainy in the movie. And on the same wavelength were the civilians in the other boat. No one was willing to take the fall, even though the majority were willing to sacrifice the other boat. They were too scared to become the killers, especially in front of others. Which might actually explain the lack of mass hysteria on the boat. It's easy to become a part of the mass when someone else is doing it. But once it's an issue of being the solo act in front of a crowd, people get cold feet. Which doesn't mean that they wouldn't have felt the guilt. I'm certain almost everyone on that boat didn't genuinely want to take the lives of others. But several still put down the vote of willing to destroy the other boat... the intent was there, they were just too afraid to take that last step. Maybe because, y'know, once it becomes an issue of pushing the button, suddenly that "oh shit, I'm actually going to take the life of someone else" realization kicks in. It's one thing to say it, another to do it. But still, since a strong motif in the movie was perception and appearances, I think that the main driving force that was the scene was trying to show was that people were too afraid to tarnish their image in front of others.
Which might have been the type of hypocrisy the Joker was against in the whole movie. He obviously was able to recognize the darkness in everyone's hearts. And he expected people to depend upon that darkness when forced into a corner and act. But maybe, what really riles him up, is when people are cowards and don't act. They have that intent, they have that desire, but they aren't willing to show it to others. Maybe that's the type of villainy we should really be worried about. It's easy to fear the psychotic man standing in broad daylight who has no empathic abilities, worries, or anything to lose. But what about the man sitting next to you who, under all appearances, seems like a friendly, normal guy but in the dark of the night would stick a knife to your gut.
So, were the people heroes or cowards? Was their lack of response because of general desire for good or because of cowardice? Or was there a mixture of both?
I guess, in the end, I really liked the scene because it was so controversial for me. It helped me realize my perceptions. Because I feel it was a mixture of both, that humanity has that duality of forces working in them. That even when we do something good, it's not always for the right reasons. Or when we do something bad, it's for something that's understandable (like becoming a criminal for your family). So I guess, the biggest question would be which one ruled each person's heart? Which one was the majority? Batman believed in the goodness, the Joker believed in the villainy. I had my issues with the realism of the part (I still think that someone on there would have been more frantic, especially a parent with the child... maybe it was the lack of doing something bad for the right reasons that bothered me), but overall I really appreciated it.
RACHEL'S DEATH
Rachel's death scene hit me hard, partially because I wasn't expecting it and partially because of what it represented.
Unlike some people, I liked Rachel. I thought she was a strong force to be reckoned with, which made itself obvious when she stood up to the Joker and insulted him even though he was pointing a knife at her face (I was all "w00t, go girl!" at that part). She fought against evil with a strong heart just like Bruce did. She just did hers during the day in the courtroom while Bruce did his at night on the streets. They were the dual forces that, if working together, could accomplish a lot.
And it made me sad not to see that in this movie. I saw that dualism more in the first (not that they formed a tag team, but in the first movie I saw Bruce's willingness to make a difference like what Rachel was doing but in his way... it was like he was trying to keep in step with her). But then again, I guess more focus had to be on character development for the new faces, and Gordon and Harvey Dent provided that dualism with Batman.
I was most depressed at how far apart Rachel and Bruce ended up becoming. They were two different worlds that always seemed to get more distant. And I believed that Rachel realized that. Even though they had a strong bond since childhood that grew even stronger since she was one of the few that knew his secret, they still ended up living separate lives that just couldn't connect. It was a melancholic tale, one that needed to be because of what Batman is. Batman is sacrifice. He becomes what the people need him to be. In order to change the world, he has to become an icon and ideal. Once Bruce Wayne stepped into that life, he couldn't step back out without giving up what he truly needed.
Rachel realized that. Her letter made me realize that she did love him but not the way he wanted because of their collective dream. The fangirlish part of me believes that she did have a desire to be with Bruce and that it was that naivete of possibly being with him that held her back from saying "yes" to Harvey. But, in the end, she didn't want him to give up the role of Batman. She had to come to terms first with reality before she could move on.
So what was hardest about her death was that she never told Bruce that she loved him. Her letter was burned (which, while merciful in some ways, was also cruel in others) and the last person she was able to talk to was Harvey. In fact, her final words of "I love you" to him were what sold the deal moreso than her death. They needed to follow their own paths of life, and Rachel went her own direction. In fact, her death was almost merciful. If she continued to live, her presence would always be a constant reminder to Bruce of what he couldn't have, what he had to daily sacrifice. Her death makes the decision for him. And though he'll always carry the guilt of not saving her, he will stay the Dark Knight and fight for a better future, the dream that ended up being both of theirs. If nothing else, that was something they both desperately shared that no one else could take away from them.
Overall, her death and their separation was bittersweet for me, and it hit me hard. I wouldn't have wanted it another way, in all honesty, because of its strong impact... but it still makes me wish that things could have been different.
I think that's enough ranting for now. :D Boy I went stir-crazy there. I guess this just shows how much I loved and appreciated the movie. Anything that moves me enough to really make me think or rant holds a special place in my heart. I'm definitely buying this movie once it comes out. It's a tough choice to decide whether Wall-E or The Dark Knight was my favorite movie this summer (I have a rant about Wall-E that I haven't posted yet... I probably should). I love 'em both! *sigh*
Willag, over and out!
Ah, what to say about The Dark Knight. It was pure brilliance. I was emotionally charged. It was shocking. It was insanity. It was dark.
It was deep.
The movie had a lot of deep messages on the concepts of villains and heroes. What makes a hero? What defines a villain? When does someone cross the lines? The movie didn't necessarily try to answer it, but it did try to leave that imprint on you. It took you to the edge and allowed to you step beyond it.
And one of my favorite reviews on the subject was left by abrynne: The Dark Knight is definitely about the definition of morality and ethics... There is always a way to conquer your enemies without breaking the standards you've set for yourself. (link for her review)
It was actually her words there that got me thinking. I mean, I saw that during the movie, but I hadn't put down the words before. And now, I'm going back to the parts of the movie that had a deep impact on me and looking at it from a different point of view.
THE BOAT SCENE
The boat scene definitely had a strong impact on me. My first thought was that it was done unrealistically. I had figured that there would be more panic, more frenzy. I mean, really, a vote on the subject? No desperate struggle on either side for the remote in order to blow the others' collective butt to Kingdom Come? Especially when earlier in the movie people were so willing to destroy the life of an unsuspecting schmuck. I mean, I figured at least one, two, a few people would make a grab at the detonator. It didn't have to be everyone. But then, it wouldn't have fit the message the movie was trying to make, because it only takes one person to create mass hysteria.
And then Batman's whole spiel of, "No one's going to do it because that's what people want. In their hearts, they want a better world." WTF? Seriously, all of his confidence was based on faith? Don't get me wrong, I'm actually a pretty hopeful and optimistic person and I like to believe in the good in people... but I'm not stupid. I have realistic views. And some of those views revolve around the fact that even if someone wouldn't go beyond the limit trying to save his or her own butt the person would do it for his or her family. The focus didn't necessarily have to be about me vs. them... it could be my own vs. them. Where were the parents who would sacrifice everythin for their children? Certainly there had to be some of those people on board (and I swear I saw a woman hugging a child on the civilians' boat). Or a grown adult for his elderly mother? Villainy isn't always the result of saving your own hide... sometimes it is done for more complex reasons. I had figured that Batman had an ace up his sleeve (something to do with scrambling up signals to the bombs... a further ability he created with his sonar device). But to base it all on faith? It made the message being said at that point in the movie too corny, too forced. As if everyone in that moment was acting on good faith and good intentions alone other than the Joker and his cronies.
But now, I appreciate that part in the movie more. I still think the actions were unrealistic for the most part. But it did really get me thinking about the whole message of villains vs. heroes. It was the criminals on the ship that really showed the heroic aspects of humanity and it was the "innocent" civilians who showed the villainous side of humanity. The criminals would be the first ones you'd expect who'd fight tooth and nails for their lives. So I was in shock and awe when the one guy threw the detonator out the window. That scene really touched me. And the contrast between his calm acceptance and the police officer's fear really set it in (it also made me wonder what they were in jail for... they were obviously not the same top-knotch villains the movie focused on where killing a person is like squashing a bug).
And then the civilians... fear seemed to be the central message. Fear of death vs. fear to step beyond your bound limits vs. fear to take the fall. The police officer obviously was willing to destroy the lives of many others to save his own, but he was too afraid to take the fall himself. His selfish cowardice is one of the most pathetic forms of villainy in the movie. And on the same wavelength were the civilians in the other boat. No one was willing to take the fall, even though the majority were willing to sacrifice the other boat. They were too scared to become the killers, especially in front of others. Which might actually explain the lack of mass hysteria on the boat. It's easy to become a part of the mass when someone else is doing it. But once it's an issue of being the solo act in front of a crowd, people get cold feet. Which doesn't mean that they wouldn't have felt the guilt. I'm certain almost everyone on that boat didn't genuinely want to take the lives of others. But several still put down the vote of willing to destroy the other boat... the intent was there, they were just too afraid to take that last step. Maybe because, y'know, once it becomes an issue of pushing the button, suddenly that "oh shit, I'm actually going to take the life of someone else" realization kicks in. It's one thing to say it, another to do it. But still, since a strong motif in the movie was perception and appearances, I think that the main driving force that was the scene was trying to show was that people were too afraid to tarnish their image in front of others.
Which might have been the type of hypocrisy the Joker was against in the whole movie. He obviously was able to recognize the darkness in everyone's hearts. And he expected people to depend upon that darkness when forced into a corner and act. But maybe, what really riles him up, is when people are cowards and don't act. They have that intent, they have that desire, but they aren't willing to show it to others. Maybe that's the type of villainy we should really be worried about. It's easy to fear the psychotic man standing in broad daylight who has no empathic abilities, worries, or anything to lose. But what about the man sitting next to you who, under all appearances, seems like a friendly, normal guy but in the dark of the night would stick a knife to your gut.
So, were the people heroes or cowards? Was their lack of response because of general desire for good or because of cowardice? Or was there a mixture of both?
I guess, in the end, I really liked the scene because it was so controversial for me. It helped me realize my perceptions. Because I feel it was a mixture of both, that humanity has that duality of forces working in them. That even when we do something good, it's not always for the right reasons. Or when we do something bad, it's for something that's understandable (like becoming a criminal for your family). So I guess, the biggest question would be which one ruled each person's heart? Which one was the majority? Batman believed in the goodness, the Joker believed in the villainy. I had my issues with the realism of the part (I still think that someone on there would have been more frantic, especially a parent with the child... maybe it was the lack of doing something bad for the right reasons that bothered me), but overall I really appreciated it.
RACHEL'S DEATH
Rachel's death scene hit me hard, partially because I wasn't expecting it and partially because of what it represented.
Unlike some people, I liked Rachel. I thought she was a strong force to be reckoned with, which made itself obvious when she stood up to the Joker and insulted him even though he was pointing a knife at her face (I was all "w00t, go girl!" at that part). She fought against evil with a strong heart just like Bruce did. She just did hers during the day in the courtroom while Bruce did his at night on the streets. They were the dual forces that, if working together, could accomplish a lot.
And it made me sad not to see that in this movie. I saw that dualism more in the first (not that they formed a tag team, but in the first movie I saw Bruce's willingness to make a difference like what Rachel was doing but in his way... it was like he was trying to keep in step with her). But then again, I guess more focus had to be on character development for the new faces, and Gordon and Harvey Dent provided that dualism with Batman.
I was most depressed at how far apart Rachel and Bruce ended up becoming. They were two different worlds that always seemed to get more distant. And I believed that Rachel realized that. Even though they had a strong bond since childhood that grew even stronger since she was one of the few that knew his secret, they still ended up living separate lives that just couldn't connect. It was a melancholic tale, one that needed to be because of what Batman is. Batman is sacrifice. He becomes what the people need him to be. In order to change the world, he has to become an icon and ideal. Once Bruce Wayne stepped into that life, he couldn't step back out without giving up what he truly needed.
Rachel realized that. Her letter made me realize that she did love him but not the way he wanted because of their collective dream. The fangirlish part of me believes that she did have a desire to be with Bruce and that it was that naivete of possibly being with him that held her back from saying "yes" to Harvey. But, in the end, she didn't want him to give up the role of Batman. She had to come to terms first with reality before she could move on.
So what was hardest about her death was that she never told Bruce that she loved him. Her letter was burned (which, while merciful in some ways, was also cruel in others) and the last person she was able to talk to was Harvey. In fact, her final words of "I love you" to him were what sold the deal moreso than her death. They needed to follow their own paths of life, and Rachel went her own direction. In fact, her death was almost merciful. If she continued to live, her presence would always be a constant reminder to Bruce of what he couldn't have, what he had to daily sacrifice. Her death makes the decision for him. And though he'll always carry the guilt of not saving her, he will stay the Dark Knight and fight for a better future, the dream that ended up being both of theirs. If nothing else, that was something they both desperately shared that no one else could take away from them.
Overall, her death and their separation was bittersweet for me, and it hit me hard. I wouldn't have wanted it another way, in all honesty, because of its strong impact... but it still makes me wish that things could have been different.
I think that's enough ranting for now. :D Boy I went stir-crazy there. I guess this just shows how much I loved and appreciated the movie. Anything that moves me enough to really make me think or rant holds a special place in my heart. I'm definitely buying this movie once it comes out. It's a tough choice to decide whether Wall-E or The Dark Knight was my favorite movie this summer (I have a rant about Wall-E that I haven't posted yet... I probably should). I love 'em both! *sigh*
Willag, over and out!