The Dark Knight, Watchmen, and the perils of reviewing

As some critics discovered recently, most notably the two Davids ( Edelstein and Denby) but also Keith Uhlich over at the House Next Door , writing reviews can sometimes be a risky enterprise. It’s a testament to the Dark Knight hype machine that there were insults and even death threats from people who hadn’t even seen the film. Mow that the rabid fanboys have got their hands on the final product, there seen even more vehement, almost as if trying to convince themselves. The Dark Knight sky-rocketed to the #1 spot on the imdb Top 250 (a list that really should have a time delay built in), it’s currently at 95% on rottentomatoes, and it got an 82 on metacritic. So now I’m going to say something risky: that 82? That seems about right. The Dark Knight is a solid 4 star film, dense, with interesting thematic currents, but also a bit too solemn and self-important, and with a construction that could be tighter. It’s a good movie, absolutely. The second coming of the Christ, however, it is patently not. *cowers in the corner* The thing is, as critics, we like to see ourselves as barometers, as objective as possible, seeing films through our sophisticated eyes, dissecting the merits and balancing the score. The truth is a little different: we might analyze a movie while we watch it, but in the end, the decision on how to point our thumbs doesn’t take place in our brains. It takes place in our guts. Only once we’ve decided if we like a movie or not do we sit down, let our thoughts crystallize, try to explain why we did or didn’t. The points of criticism in the “pro” and “con” columns don’t precede the judgment, they follow it. Sure, sometimes, when you try to make sense of your own reaction, your thoughts change. You see something that you hadn’t thought about before, or you discover that the movie doesn’t quite linger as you thought it would. You can also later choose to like a film more or less than you originally did, overlooking the flaws or searching for more. The exact appreciation of the film takes time, but there’s a raw, unfiltered reaction at the origin that usually doesn’t change significantly. All this to justify myself, I suppose. I wanted to love The Dark Knight. But it never drew me in completely. I never forgot about the nachos at my feet, about the illogicalities of the plot (sonar? really?). It didn’t hit me in the gut, is all I’m saying. After it the world outside didn’t feel strange and unfamiliar. I didn’t walk out in a daze. Did I put too much expectations on a superhero movie? Perhaps. But other people seem to have had those expectations, and consider them met. Let me try to explain again (sorry for the verbal diarrhea, but I haven’t written anything in a while): There’s a Lipton commercial that simply goes: “Tea can do that”. In order for a film to qualify as a truly Great Movie, or even for that M-word I try to avoid, it has to make me go “Wow. Movies can do that.” But The Dark Knight doesn’t really do anything all that new, although it combines familiar elements in a way that I don’t think anyone achieved in this genre up until now. Maybe the problem is that I’ve just finished reading Watchmen for the first time, and while I didn’t quite get the gut-punch from that either, I was deeply impressed by it, and its complexity makes all that Christopher Nolan attempts seem painfully on-the-nose and overstated. Yes: there are interesting dualities and parallels to be found, between every combination of two from the central trio, but they are stated so explicitly that even the 13-yo boys, who’ll surely revisit this over and over again for the thrills, won’t be able to miss them. Same for the obvious terrorism parallels. It’s not that I’m complaining these themes are there, but it shows a contempt for the audience (which is, in all fairness, composed mainly of boys of all ages looking for thrills) that sits uncomfortably with me. Watchmen also has a tendency of stating and re-stating its points, but it’s so layered that I’m sure I missed about half of them, and I’ll read it again soon just to plunge its depths. Mostly, it’s an impressively structured work, using different perspectives, mixing different time-lines, adding secondary documentation for background… In a way, it makes sure we see the story develop as Dr. Manhattan does: past, present and future all happening at once, our perception of them jumbled. Unfortunately, like Dr. Manhattan, it makes you feel somewhat disconnected from it all. If all’s predetermined, why should we care? But that’s getting off on a tangent, even if it’s an interesting one. The point was: The Dark Knight, and why I feel I have to defend so vehemently my (very modest) reservations. As said before: I liked it. I even let out a “whoop!” at the end of the big chase scene that ends with the truck. You won’t find me fighting the chorus of praise Heath Ledger has gotten either: he’s terrific, and terrifying as the Joker, and it makes you feel once more a pang of regret for all that could have been. Still… Adam Nayman over at Reverse Shot captures the dilemma quite well: The Dark Knight clearly is a movie that wants to be taken seriously, as an “adult” movie despite its comic-book origins. But as soon as you start critiquing it like you would an adult, serious, you’re a sad loser who just can’t sit back and enjoy popcorn fare. The Dark Knight wants to be deep and dark and complex, but in the end, it’s neither of the three. Yes: you read that right: not dark either. In the end, after all, *Slight SPOILER* people turn out to be fundamentally good. The Batman and the Joker are aberrations, not symptoms of a diseased world. The White Knight might get tainted, but that doesn’t mean he can’t still represent hope. I’d like to go on, about how movies feel the need for the stakes to get higher and higher to a point where it feels almost pointless, about the violence and the action and how they’re handled ( Craig has an interesting point of view on the rating, but few in the comments agree), and so on. But as my word counter tells me I’ve gone into quadruple digits, I’ll save that for a next post - though I’m not promising anything.