The Dark Knight Review

Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight, the second installment of the resurrected Batman franchise, has taken its position as history's greatest comic book film of all time with full force! Between Ledger's Oscar-worthy performance, Nolan's skillful directing and screenwriting, and the hype, this movie is bound to break every record in the books.

If Christian Bale had not already proved himself to be the best Batman on screen with Batman Begins, he definitely proved it here. Though while his Batman is so interesting and horrifying, it is his Bruce Wayne that really comes alive. The struggle we see Wayne go through as he tries to save a city that does not want him to save it is so captivating, you actually find yourself pulled between wanting Batman is stop and wanting him to prove himself again and again.

Bale was supported by terrific actors, giving amazing performances. Gary Oldman takes his role of Jim Gordon further in The Dark Knight. He does a beautiful job of showing how it’s not easy for Gordon to trust the Batman at all times. He juggles his secret bond with Batman and his job perfectly, making the character's transition into Commissioner seem obvious, yet surprising.

Michael Caine returns again as Alfred, Wayne’s butler. Though he always makes the best out of his moments, the character seems to only serve the purpose of giving philosophical advice to his master, unlike in Batman Begins when we saw how he was also affected as a second father to Bruce. It is actually not until the end of the film where he again becomes a father and emotional protector to Wayne, perhaps a little too late for the film.

Morgan Freeman returns as Lucius Fox, one of the people that know Batman’s secrets and the man who creates Batman’s unending plethora of gear. He does this while also running Wayne Enterprises. Freeman’s dialogue is so well written and has a great balance of comedy and seriousness. Freeman handles the role perfectly, making what should be a small cameo into a highlight, even more than he did in Batman Begins.

Aaron Eckhart takes his role of Harvey Dent to a new level. Nolan gives him a very meaty role that some have suggested is more important in the movie than the Joker and Batman. As Gotham’s “White Knight,” Harvey Dent gives an example of why the city might not need Batman. Eckhart does a great job of showing the struggle that Dent goes through before becoming his alter ego, causing the metamorphosis to make more sense. We feel pity for Dent, which is the key ingredient to making the villain Two-Face work. It should also be mentioned that the size of Eckhart’s role in the film was the best-kept secret of the year!

Maggie Gyllenhaal, brother to Heath Ledger’s best friend, Jake, takes over the role of Rachel Dawes beautifully, wiping out any memory of Katie Holmes from audiences’ heads. Her quick-wit and no-nonsense approach to the role is exactly what is needed when up against Bale’s tragic Bruce Wayne / Batman. Her storyline takes an unbelievable twist that becomes a sad moment that would not be so sad had if it been performed by the previous actress in the role. The next question that lies ahead is what is in store in the love arena for Mr. Wayne?

Last, but certainly not least, is Heath Ledger’s Joker. Between the amazing script and magnificent acting, the Joker becomes much more than any person thought possible. He is not just the villain of the story, but the nucleus. Between all of Gordon’s nervousness, Alfred’s advice, and Fox’s warnings, no character has us thinking more than the Joker. He has an entire audience questioning themselves, making them wonder if their own lives are merely jokes for others to laugh at. What is it to be a human being in a post-9/11 world? When everything we know is taken away from us, do we simply fall apart? How many times can we “pick ourselves up again”? It is hard to believe that a comic book villain could get someone thinking that hard, but it is Ledger’s performance that makes it so believable. The trick is the youthfulness that he brings to the role. As oppose to being completely separated from Batman in story and age, Ledger brings out the connections between the two, almost as if they are brothers separated by good and evil. They need each other. Ledger even tells Batman in a comical – but serious – moment “you complete me.”

As previously said, the movie definitely has some 9/11 allusions, but does not beat us over the head with them. It’s there for those of us that want it to be there. As we watch Gotham fall apart at the hands of a madman, we are reminded of how our country fell apart for a short time, but fought together to bring back justice and social norms. The Joker spends most of the movie questioning how many times we can fall before we lie down and die. Batman works on the opposite end to show us we should never give up, even when he is at his closest to quitting.

As did Batman Begins, this film brings great closure, while at the same time leaving itself wide open for another story. What is next for the Batman? In the first film, we saw Batman’s reaction to his own tragedy and to Gotham City. In The Dark Knight, we see Gotham’s reaction to the Batman and how Batman’s “taste for the theatrical” will bring out villains who will try to top him! While this movie tends to focus on politics and “higher-ups” of Gotham, Nolan might want to show us how the media world affects the views of Batman. Will the media be behind him or try to destroy him? This would also open up a nice window for a new love interest – photojournalist Vicki Vale – to enter the scene as either Batman’s biggest fan, or biggest critic. This might also open a door for a new Batman villain – and the only one that seems to make sense in the world that Nolan has built for us – The Riddler.

The Knight is Getting Darker ...

It is now Wednesday and I am sitting at my boss's computer (I'm supposed to be looking at something for a play I'm directing), but I felt an urge to say a few things about the research I've done on the upcoming film The Dark Knight.

By now, I have read all the articles and watched all of the trailers and seen all of the Comcast ONDEMAND specials titled "Gotham Tonight." These specials star Anthony Michael Hall (The Breakfast Club) as Gotham news anchor Mike Engel. He's quite convincing and has actually set an interesting tone for the movie. I think we will be seeing a movie that focuses much more on corruption than anything else. How will the bureaucrats of Gotham City be affected by Batman? Good move by Nolan, the director. We always get how the villains are affected, but we never get to see the political arena. Perhaps Nolan's idea is to have each film focus on how Batman affects different areas of Gotham, sort of how HBO's The Wire focuses on different areas of Baltimore and how they are affected by the drug rings.

Based on HBO's Inside Look of The Dark Knight, Nolan is focusing a lot on how Gotham will blame Batman for The Joker's appearance. This was nicely set up at the end of Batman Begins when Gordon questioned Batman about escalation. While most audiences focused on the appearance of the Joker's playing card, the real preview lied in how Gordon warned Batman that when a man in a mask jumps off rooftops, he's only asking to bring about enemies who will escalate their arsenal of tricks. It seems that this will be Harvey Dent's big argument in The Dark Knight.

While this is an excellence plot line for the film and raises a very interesting question not asked by a film before, I worry about something. Will there be a period in the movie where Bruce Wayne decides the only way to save Gotham is to let it go without Batman? We've seen this before too many times. In Superman II, we see Metropolis without Superman and in Spiderman II, Peter Parker decides he can be Spiderman no longer. Is this the cliche of the superhero sequel now? The plot is getting a little too predictable. Bruce Wayne will spend a half hour of the film watching Gotham City destroy itself and then come back to save his city from The Joker. Hopefully Nolan will take a different route, or, if he doesn't, he'll make it more interesting. I have a lot of hope!

I will be seeing the film on Friday, July 18th at 12:01 am. I'm sure I'll have plenty to say on Friday!

The Dark Knight is Coming ...

It's almost here ...

The Dark Knight, Christopher Nolan's second installment of the "Batman" epic, will premier in theaters in one week. Not only is this one of the most anticipated movies of 2008, but it is the last time people will be able to see the work of Mr. Heath Ledger, a very gifted actor who left us too soon. While the death of Heath Ledger is very tragic, sometimes I feel bad for Christian Bale, the other star of the film, who is getting practically no press or acknowledgement for the role. Shouldn't we give credit to the man who finally brought a real darkness to the Dark Knight? You don't really think Keaton was better, do you?

In preparation for The Dark Knight, I've been reading even more than usual about the Caped Crusader. I recently picked up a new book entitled Batman and Philosophy: The Dark Knight of the Soul. A very corny title, granted, but a very interesting read thus far. One particular essay inside by Mark D. White entitled "Why Doesn't Batman Kill the Joker?" struck me. In the essay, White argues that if Batman would simply off the Clown Prince of Crime, Gotham City would be a better place. It should also be noted that it was just recently released that no comic book villain is responsible for more deaths than the Joker. Some of this most potent deaths include Jason Todd, the second Robin, and Sarah Essen, Commissioner Gordon's second wife (is there a theme here? Did Nolan put Two-Face and the Joker in the same film for a reason?).

White raises a very interesting philosophical question: If a train was out of control and was about to hit five people, but you had the power to shift the tracks, causing it to only hit one person, would you do it? White goes further to explain that there are two types of people in the world: utilitarians and deontologist. Utilitarianism is a system of ethics that would encourage the person to shift the tracks and kill the one person, saving the five others. Since more people survived, the one person was worth sacrificing. Deontology states that we should judge the morality of an act based on features intrinsic to the act itself. The fact that five people were saved does not excuse the act of killing the one person. If it's God's plan to kill those five people, it is not up to us the murder the one.

Since the Batman does not kill villains (unless he has no other choice), Batman would be considered a deontologist. The inconsistency in Batman's character is that he risks his life (and that of a young boy) every night in order to prevent what happened to his parents from ever happening again. He does one action to prevent others. Yet, he won't kill the man who has killed so many in order to stop other killings from happening.

Still thinking about whether or not you are a utilitarian or a deontologist? Take this scenario into account. This is White's second situation. If you were a doctor, and you had five patients on operating tables in front of you (rarely happens, but go with it), and each one needed a different organ, and another doctor was in the room, would you kill the other doctor and use his organs to save the five patients? Probably not. Why was that decision so much easier than the situation on the train tracks? It's still one life for five. The character of the Batman would never let either of these situations occur. Like most heroes, Batman would find a way to fix the situation without anyone being killed. Batman would sooner allow himself to die than to let an innocent person be killed.

But the Joker is NOT innocent. Why should this human life be treated with the respect that he does not have for the rest of the human race? As a deontologist, is Batman in the right state of mind to actually think that there is a chance that the Joker might not kill again? That he might actually turn over a new leaf this time? It is also worth noting that a deontologist would consider self-defense an appropriate reason to take another life. Is it reasonable to say that Batman has never been in a situation where killing the Joker would be considered self-defense?

Throughout the entire essay, I could not help but ask myself a few questions. How would the world react to Batman killing the Joker? Would the Joker be missed? Is there a Batman without a Joker?

How would the world react to Batman killing the Joker? Like the deaths of so many comic book characters (Superman, Jason Todd, the Flash to name a few), publishers would have to find a way to bring him back. The Joker is the model for all other villains, yet no one has ever been able to recreate him. Why? It's quite simple. Look at other famous villains. Lex Luthor wants to make money, Mr. Freeze wants to save his wife, and the Riddler wants to show off his intelligence. But the Joker has no motive. This is what makes him so diabolical. There is no point to his wrath other than to make a joke of life. He finds his crimes funny. The public loves him so much because they can't relate to him. He can understand the need for money, revenge, and to show off. The Joker is an untouchable villain because no one can understand him. So he attracts us more.

Would the Joker be missed? Yes! Not only would the public miss him, but Batman would not be able to continue without him. Throughout his career as Batman, Bruce Wayne has never come up with a reason for the death of his parents. Since the Joker has never given a reason for his insanity, he attracts Batman to crime fighting. Like Batman, the Joker is attracted to the Batman's motiveless (the Joker does not know about Batman's parents) need to protect a city that is completely ungrateful to him. They keep each other in the game and without the other, one would fall.

Is there a Batman without the Joker? Again, no. The air that Batman breathes is the knowledge that there is someone out there who will kill for no reason and laugh at his triumph as well as his defeat. This brazen disregard for human life reminds Batman that he is not the only person to lose his family and suffer for no reason. In this sense, the Joker makes Batman feel better. The Joker gives Batman a purpose in life. Without him, Batman has no purpose. As a human -- which is what Batman simply is -- Batman needs a purpose in life or else his life need not continue.

Why doesn't Batman simply kill the Joker, Mr. White? While we can argue about whether or not it is morally right until we are blue in the face, it's not a question of morals. In fact, if Batman is keeping the Joker alive to give himself a reason to keep going, than the Batman is neither utilitarian nor deontologist. He is, in fact, just as sick and twisted as his greatest archenemy. Actually ... maybe sicker!

Everything's Coming Up Patti!

The month of July is a very busy one for me. Unfortunately, after the Tony's are over, I am going to see the two shows in the biggest race of the year: the Musical Revivals. At the end of the month, I will be seeing South Pacific, thanks to a terrific friend who happens to be in the cast (I know big people in high places ... I feel so cool). Last night, I started the month of theater seeing Gypsy starring Patti LuPone.

Now, I am going to sound hypocritical after I wrote some harsh things about Ms. LuPone in my Tony review, but I have to say her performance sincerely changed my attitude. Though I still think everyone else would agree she's a total bitch. I had a comical moment yesterday when I went up to the House Manager around 6 pm just to confirm that "Ms. LuPone would be going on tonight." The man simply replied dryly, "Yes, the queen will be going on." Obviously, he enjoys his working relationship with Patti.

Her reputation for missing performances was bigger than I thought. The final announcement after turning cell phones off and unwrapping candy was, "Ms. Lupone has injured her foot ..." The crowd gasped! "...and will be performing tonight with isotoners." That was Patti's first roaring applause of the night. It was followed by many others.

Anyway, I can honestly say that Patti's performance (though filled with her consonantless and warbled singing) was superb! It was possibly the greatest musical theater performance I have ever seen in my life. She found a balance to Mama Rose that I have never seen before. She was horrifying, yet so nurturing and loving. She was overbearing, yet found moments to be passive. She was huge, yet found moments to be small. Never has a role been played so perfectly on the stage in front of my eyes.

You almost feel bad the cast members of Gypsy who appear in the opening minutes. While a group of children (Baby June and Baby Louise included) and Uncle Jocko hold an audition, you could feel the audience's tension. Where is Patti? When is she going to enter? Then the roar came! "Sing it out, Louise!" What a beautiful foreshadowing moment that is! It's only the first of so many beautiful moments that writer Arthur Laurents creates in what I would argue is the best book of any musical ever written. This moment for Patti was the first of many loud and long applauses. I timed this one at around 40 seconds.

Mr. Laurents should be given a lot of credit for helping find Patti's vulnerable side, a side not found in many productions, including her last stint on Broadway, John Doyle's Sweeney Todd. Mr. Laurents is a director that is not only unafraid of silence on stage, but cherishes it. Ms. Benanti, as the title character, especially thrives off of Mr. Laurents' quiet moments as we see her entire struggle in her body language. The most memorable moment of this would probably be when she watches her mother reveal her newest dream in "Everything's Coming Up Roses." The look on her face truly supporting Ms. LuPone's acting. We were all terrified by the lyrics and not simply bopping our heads to the old familiar tune.

Mr. Boyd Gaines also gave a terrific performance as the lovable agent Herbie. While there were plenty of opportunities for him to show his talents, he truly gave his all to making Ms. LuPone look better! His struggle between love and show business was apparent throughout, only making Ms. LuPone’s performance more appealing. It was a lesson in how to make your star look better.

Mr. Gaines and Ms. Benanti has a particularly comical moment during “Wherever We Go” when instead of singing the notes of the song in their natural, beautiful voices, they followed the lead of Patti LuPone and trumpeted their way through it. They even mimicked some of her famous facial expressions. It was unclear whether or not it was Mama Rose or Patti LuPone they were having fun with, but either way, it made this simple number a highlight in a practically flawless production.

While the final number, “Rose’s Turn,” is usually a big discovery for the audience, Ms. LuPone foreshadowed it the whole show. It was clear that Mama Rose was not just a stage-mother, but also one that had a “dream” of her own. Her mental breakdown at the end was not sudden but was being built up the entire show, making the number even more brilliant! At the conclusion of the final note, half the audience sprang to their feet and to give her a rousing ovation. The rest of the audience soon followed. During the two-minute standing ovation, Mama Rose (and I’m sure a little Patti) blew kisses and waved at the audience during her proud moment! Patti truly stopped the show!

It was a terrific night of theater and one that will be hard to top! I am curious to see if Lincoln Center’s South Pacific will earn their Tony over this amazing production. I can’t imagine anything being better, but I am eager to see for myself.

Next week will be a trip to see City Center's Encore’s Damn Yankees starring Sean Hayes of Will & Grace fame as the Devil himself and Jane Krakowski of 30 Rock as Lola. I am also eager to see Xanadu’s Cheyenne Jackson as Shoeless Joe Hardy. Who knows? Maybe I’ll be seeing next year’s big Broadway Revival!