In Defense of Christian Bale

I thought this was a very odd criticism from David Denby:

It’s a workable dramatic conflict, but only half the team can act it. Christian Bale has been effective in some films, but he’s a placid Bruce Wayne, a swank gent in Armani suits, with every hair in place. He’s more urgent as Batman, but he delivers all his lines in a hoarse voice, with an unvarying inflection.

Bale's performance in the film isn't as interesting as Heath Ledger's or Aaron Eckhardt's but he's "a placid Bruce Wayne" because Bruce Wayne is a placid guy, a character invented to disguise the identity of Batman. Similarly, Batman delivers all his lines in a hoarse voice, with an unvarying inflection, because he's trying to make his voice unrecognizable as Bruce Wayne's voice. Yes, it's weird to listen to. But why shouldn't it be weird to listen to a vigilante dressed in bat armor? The trouble with some of Batman's conversations is that, especially near the end of the film, he's speaking badly written dialogue -- nobody does ponderous exposition well.

The other thing I wanted to say was that while the praise Ledger has gotten is very much deserved, I'd appreciate some more acknowledgment that one reason he's able to do such an extraordinary job is that the Joker is one of the great pop characters. He, Batman, and Two Face, with the various different takes on them presented over the years, are great American myths, which is why their stories can be told and re-told over and over again in different ways to great effect. The Nolan/Ledger version of the Joker seems based on the Joker of The Killing Joke and A Death in the Family rather than springing ex nihilo from the filmmakers. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it's worth acknowledging.

Comments

Agreed. Classifying Bale as "placid" and "swank" doesn't match the performance I saw. Recall also, there's Bruce Wayne in private with Lucius Fox & Alfred and Wayne in public. The public Wayne is a playboy because he's supposed to appear that way.

Very clearly, the film's characterizations are based upon three graphic novels: The Long Halloween, The Killing Joke and Batman: Year One. In an interview, I heard screenwriter Jonathan Nolan say as much. It's important to note that there have been many interpretations of these characters over the last 70 years by many writers. The Nolans and David Goyer should at least be given credit for choosing which are the versions they wish to use and combine in the way they did.

That said, in some ways the version of the Joker in The Dark Knight is new in many ways from his previous comic book versions. There's a line in The Killing Joke about the Joker wishing his past to be multiple choice that is expanded upon in the film in a way that makes him more frightening. And Ledger's performance grounds the Joker in a way that's clearly necessary in moving from the illustrated page to the screen.

Posted by The Pop View | July 21, 2008 8:46 AM

I haven't seen this one yet, but one of my favorite things about the last movie was the way Bale doesn't play Batman--he plays Bruce Wayne playing Batman. It's a crucial distinction that I don't think any of the other actors in the series have gotten. He exaggerates the growl because Wayne is specifically putting on a scary persona.

Not only that, but there's another level to the performance; Bruce Wayne playing "Bruce Wayne". Like Don Diego de la Vega before him, the public persona is different from the private one. I've thought Bale was underrated as an actor for a long time, and I don't think he gets proper credit for the work he's doing in these movies.

Posted by EarBucket | July 21, 2008 8:49 AM

Sorry, I can't look at the guy without being reminded of David Byrne. Haven't seen the new one yet, but all through Batman Returns, I kept expecting him to intone in a rough whisper, "This ain't no party. This ain't no disco. This ain't no foolin' around."

Posted by James Gary | July 21, 2008 8:56 AM

Similarly, Batman delivers all his lines in a hoarse voice, with an unvarying inflection, because he's trying to make his voice unrecognizable as Bruce Wayne's voice

This seems backwards to me. Of course, there have been many different takes on this but I always thought Kevin Conroy, who did the voice for Bruce Timm's animated series version of Batman, really nailed it. Batman has the naturally harsh and uninflected voice. Its deep and always full of anger, pain and general annoyance. Its Bruce Wayne that has the made up, high pitched, light hearted voice. When Bruce is around people who know his secret, like Superman or Robin, even when he isn't in the Bat costume, he sounds like Batman.

I don't have any serious criticism for Bale's work but I was mildly annoyed by the whole thing with the voice. I thought it was the wrong choice.

Posted by brent | July 21, 2008 9:04 AM

"The other thing I wanted to say was that while the praise Ledger has gotten is very much deserved, I'd appreciate some more acknowledgment that one reason he's able to do such an extraordinary job is that..."

...he's dead.

Dying young is usually a wise career move.

-----

Bale's performance is actually an homage to his Patrick Bateman role.

Posted by Petey | July 21, 2008 9:11 AM

i think the reason Ledger is getting such praise--deservedly so--is that most big-time hollywood leading men, even when they're playing a villain--always hold something back, not wanting to appear TOO nasty, TOO slimy, otherwise it might hurt their career (what was the difference between Terminator 1 and T2? Arnold became a big star, so he could no longer be a merciless killing machine).

even Jack Nicholson played his Joker as--crazy and murderous, sure, but sort of charming in a way, and still recognizably Jack Nicholson-ish.

but i think Ledger just went for broke, looking stinky and creepy and odd, betraying none of his comforting leading man-ness. he went all out, and i think its a brilliant performance.

Posted by rob! | July 21, 2008 9:12 AM

Hey Petey,

You forgot "trust fund scumbag". And I can't wait for the "CAP is a front for GM" rant that you're working on.

Posted by DMonteith | July 21, 2008 9:25 AM

Surprised to actually agree with Petey about something, but I do think there's something of a tip of the hat to Patrick Bateman in the "Bruce Wayne" character.

Posted by EarBucket | July 21, 2008 9:27 AM

Saw the movie, and I just sort of assumed until reading reviews afterwards that Batman in costume was using some sort of a voice distorter.

Posted by John Bragg | July 21, 2008 9:34 AM

Surprised to actually agree with Petey about something, but I do think there's something of a tip of the hat to Patrick Bateman in the "Bruce Wayne" character.

Posted by EarBucket | July 21, 2008 9:34 AM

Who's Two Face?

Posted by Aleks | July 21, 2008 9:39 AM

How to do Batman's voice has always been a problem since the Tim Burton reinvention. Val Kilmer did the same kind of thing.

I was not thrilled with Bale's Batman voice throughout The Dark Knight, but that's probably one of the very few nits I have to pick about the film. I hadn't read any of the discussion about the source material, but I clearly saw the elements of The Killing Joke and The Long Halloween mentioned previously. The fact that the elements were there without an overt placement of the film in those storylines was thrilling to me.

I was satisfied with Iron Man earlier this summer as my superhero jones fulfillment, and was looking forward to Hellboy II: The Golden Army, but The Dark Knight is a testament to how good a superhero film can be, and in my opinion stands in and above some of the pantheon of the best superhero films made to date.

Posted by JonnJonzz | July 21, 2008 9:40 AM

My God. Ledger gives a truly great performance and you carry on about how this is made possible by all these factors external to the actor himself. Ledger, and Nolan, has given us the first Joker that is actually believeable. He sells the Joker. He is evil in an unsympathetic way. Yet we can still see the underlying anguish in the character without letting that blind us to his evil. This is a rare and fine performance, rarely matched. Perhaps Daniel Day Lewis's performnace in "There Will be Blood" achieves something of similar effect.

Posted by Cap and Gown | July 21, 2008 9:43 AM

"And I can't wait for the "CAP is a front for GM" rant that you're working on."

GM? What does GM have to do with it? I honestly have no idea if you're talking about cars or bio-engineering.

-----

About six months ago, Matthew stopped aspiring to intellectual honesty and started writing straight-up propaganda. I actually think someplace like CAP is the correct location for him to be. They're hiring him for propaganda, not honesty.

Now, there is only the problem of why CAP is hiring an anti-progressive bash-the-poor scumbag like Matthew to write for them, but that's CAP's problem, not Matthew's problem.

Posted by Petey | July 21, 2008 9:47 AM

Saw the movie, and I just sort of assumed until reading reviews afterwards that Batman in costume was using some sort of a voice distorter.

Posted by John Bragg | July 21, 2008 10:00 AM

Complaining about Batman speaking in a hoarse, growling voice? Isn't that like seeing a Jane Austen adaptation and complaining about how everyone has a British accent?

Posted by lamenter | July 21, 2008 10:03 AM

Complaining about Batman speaking in a hoarse, growling voice? Isn't that like seeing a Jane Austen adaptation and complaining about how everyone has a British accent?

Posted by lamenter | July 21, 2008 10:03 AM

"Kevin Conroy, who did the voice for Bruce Timm's animated series version of Batman, really nailed it."

Unlike Conroy's version, the problem is Bale's scary Batman voice is that it just sound ridiculous. Every time he opens his mouth I expect another character to say "Oh, come on!"

Other than that, though, TDK is pretty much the most ambitious super-hero film ever made. It was certainly trying to tell a deeper story than the also excellent IRON MAN, but IM gets some points for remembering that super-heroes are fantasy characters created for children and should be fun.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | July 21, 2008 10:18 AM

I always saw Bruce Wayne as three people. Batman, vengeful and frightening.

The private Bruce Wayne, comfortable in his own skin. Cold, calculating. The Detective.

The public Bruce Wayne. His public image varies, but is generally an image and a character that the private Bruce Wayne hates. He's always very uncomfortable.

Haven't seen the Dark Knight yet, but based on Batman Begins, I thought that Bale got it. That there were 3 distinct personalities that he had to build.

Bale is a fine choice to play Batman. He was the best Batman yet in Begins, beating out Michael Keaton for that honor (though, Keaton did do a good job with the brood - good furrowed brow on that guy).

He may be overshadowed by the Joker, but a good bad guy always outshines the good guy.

Posted by jerry 101 | July 21, 2008 10:25 AM

I thought Bale was fine and Ledger was excellent, but where is all of this praise for Aaron Eckhardt coming from? Some of the problem was with the dialogue he was given and the over-the-top-even-by-comic-book-standards horror make-up, which he obviously couldn't controle, but I thought he was by far the weakest of the major players.

I was really pleased to see the inclusion of the Joker's variant on the Prisoners' Dilemma, though its resolution was a bit optimistic for my tastes. I had been hoping the detonators actually controlled each boat's own bomb rather than the other's, and that the civilians would then destroy themselves. I guess that would've been a pretty dark ending to an already-dark film, though.

Posted by Midwest Product | July 21, 2008 10:39 AM

Complaining about Batman speaking in a hoarse, growling voice? Isn't that like seeing a Jane Austen adaptation and complaining about how everyone has a British accent?

By day, he's the proud, aristocratic FitzWilliam Darcy, gentleman of lesiure. By night, he rides out on his coal-black stallion from a cave under Pemberley, as The Black Cravat, a masked avenger, trained by the now-retired Scarlet Pimpernel, fighting injustice in Regency England. But can he continue his fight without losing the heart of Miss Elizabeth Bennett? Coming soon to a theater near you -- Pride and Punishment, starring Hugh jackman, Angelina Jolie, and Sir Anthony Hopkins as Percy Blakeney.

Posted by CJColucci | July 21, 2008 10:46 AM

This issue with Batman's voice isn't Christian Bale's fault. It was clearly manipulated in post-production, reflecting the choices of Nolan and his team.

Who's Two Face?

You're out of your element, Donny.

Posted by Philly | July 21, 2008 10:49 AM

Just to clarify, what's wrong with Bale's BatVoice isn't that it's deep, growling, or menacing.

It's that it sounds metallic, processed, forced, and jarringly fake. Bad call by the sound editor.

Posted by Philly | July 21, 2008 10:53 AM

super-heroes are fantasy characters created for children and should be fun.

True. On the other hand, the earliest incarnation of Batman was violent and pulpy and presented a hero who killed people with some regularity and frequently did things like knock some dude into vat of acid and gloat about how it's what he deserved. It was really, really violent kids' stuff (that got brightened up a lot very early in the character's history).

There is no unitary and true Batman characterization; he, and his stories, have had at least five different and distinct presentations over the past 69 years. That we don't like one or the other doesn't mean that there was a failure to portray the true essence of the character.

Posted by Medrawt | July 21, 2008 10:56 AM

Unlike Conroy's version, the problem is Bale's scary Batman voice is that it just sound ridiculous. Every time he opens his mouth I expect another character to say "Oh, come on!"

I thought the voice worked well in Batman Begins during Flass's...interrogation. "Swear to ME!" and "Do I look like a cop?"

Not as well in TDK. But part of the point of TDK was that Batman just isn't all that scary a persona once you know that he has limits.

Posted by Royko | July 21, 2008 11:00 AM

"It's that it sounds metallic, processed, forced, and jarringly fake. Bad call by the sound editor."

Decisions like that are made far above the sound editor pay grade.

And worth noting that the things you didn't like about the voice are very intentional.

Newsflash! You're not supposed to like Batman. That's standard for the franchise. You're not supposed to find him very appealing, or even particularly human. The choices in Bale's performance are all part of that.

And Bale's casting is part of that as well. It's no coincidence that Bateman becomes Batman.

The lack of Batman's appeal is precisely what gives the franchise such memorable villains.

Posted by Petey | July 21, 2008 11:05 AM

Kevin Conroy, who has done the voice of batman for decades in the cartoons, had it perfect. As Batman, deep and threatening but completely human-sounding. As Bruce wayne, masculine but airy.

Posted by artward | July 21, 2008 11:13 AM

Christian Bale is the best Batman because you can see the different versions of Bruce Wayne the billionaire, Bruce Wayne who wants and Batman! He shows the side that we average 9-5 workers could show when we see bad things happening.

Posted by Guadalupe Rivera | July 21, 2008 11:16 AM

Salon article on incarnations of Batman.

Posted by croatoan | July 21, 2008 11:22 AM

I don't think Bale's performance was bad, just that he got overshadowed by Ledger. Michael Keaton called Jack Nicholson's Joker "a creepy uncle." Ledger's Joker was an insane, charismatic sadist with a bit of a serial killer streak that was among one of the best villain performances I've seen in any type of movie. He was able to be humorous and menacing at the same time. All around me, people were nervously laughing at his antics and dark, sadistic humor while he did horrible things and then people seemed to feel guilty about laughing, which seems to me means that Ledger captured the Joker just about perfectly.

Posted by Reality Man | July 21, 2008 11:22 AM

In general, I agree with Matt; the Joker is by far the best role in the movie. It's the plum part in the whole Batman universe, just as Iago is the best "actor's role" in Othello, even though the play isn't named after him. Indeed, I left the movie reflecting on just that comparison.

On the other hand, part of the deal here is that you have to be a great actor to make the promise of such a role pay off, and I think Ledger was, and did. A big part of the reason we notice his skill is due to factors outside Ledger himself, but that doesn't take away from his accomplishment.

Posted by FearItself | July 21, 2008 11:32 AM

Decisions like that are made far above the sound editor pay grade.

Yes, Peter, I'm aware of that, which is why, in the post immediately before that, I referred to "Nolan and his team." The "call" I am referring to is the decision to do such a shitty job processing Bale's lines.

And as for your insane point that "You're not supposed to like Batman," I really have not response to that--as if the most hated troll in this corner of Left Blogistan and teh biggest Edwards fanboy in teh internets has any sense of what makes people likable.

Posted by Philly | July 21, 2008 11:33 AM

As long as we're talking about the performances of actors as Batman, I'd like to give a shout out to Adam West.

That's right -- Adam West!

Anyone can make believable dialogue sound believable. But it's much harder to make ridiculous dialogue sound believable. Okay, so Adam West never made me believe the ridiculous dialogue he had to deliver. But you know what? He made me believe that he believed it. That's a neat trick to pull off.

Posted by Roddy McCorley | July 21, 2008 11:35 AM

Haven't seent his one yet, but I disliked Bale's "public" Bruce Wayne persona in Batman Begins for the very fact that it was a retread of his character from American Psycho. Bruce, even the fake, public Bruce, isn't someone whose shit-eating grin you want to smack off. I've always thought of him as someone people generally enjoy spending time with because he oozes charm -- if Batman thinks it's worthwhile to know how to work a room, he's going to be great at it, just like he's great at swinging from rooftops and frightening mopes.

Posted by Cliffy | July 21, 2008 11:37 AM

On the other hand, the earliest incarnation of Batman was violent and pulpy and presented a hero who killed people with some regularity and frequently did things like knock some dude into vat of acid and gloat about how it's what he deserved. It was really, really violent kids' stuff (that got brightened up a lot very early in the character's history).

Dark and violent does not mean that it isn't kid's stuff. Have you ever read the original Grimm's Fairy Tales? That is some dark, violent and twisted stuff; the intended audience was also children. Despite the sheltering that we give kids these days, kids can understand dark material and be perfectly fine.

Posted by Mo | July 21, 2008 11:45 AM

Well I did not see the movie yet, however, I heard it was very good. I will see it soon. As for the persona "Batman" and "Bruce Wayne" I have to say that no Actor will be able to portray those personas to the tee. Bale, he came very close. I did enjoy Batman: Begins. Keaton was one hell of a Batman, but I will have to say that Jack Nicholson is the Joker of all Joker's! However, I may change my opinion after I see the movie. There is my 2cents.. :)

Posted by Jim Jernigan | July 21, 2008 11:46 AM

"And as for your insane point that "You're not supposed to like Batman," I really have not response to that"

You're not alone. Unappealing movie protagonists confuse most folks when they try to discuss.

But since Tim Burton shifted around the mechanics of the franchise twenty years ago, it's really been marked by the basic unlikability and impenetrability of the Batman character. It's why the franchise has generally been centered around the more charismatic villain characters. We don't particularly care for or about Batman. He's too constricted.

This confuses you and (the generally stupid) David Denby, who find Bale's vocal performance unappealing, and thus conclude that it's a bad artistic decision, not understanding that it's a decision made wisely with an eye to the mechanics that make the Batman movies work.

Posted by Petey | July 21, 2008 11:58 AM

Chritsian Bale is beside the point and totally irrelevant to the larger problem.

Batman is a steaming pile of excrement. Batman, Spiderman and all the other superhero movies are dumbing down our culture to death by turning peoples' brains into mush.

We need more movies like Atonement, The Hours, About Schmidt, The Pianist, Safe, There Will Be Blood, The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, The Squid and the Whale, The World According to Garp, Wall Street, Shortcuts, The Godfather, Goodfellas, Citizen Kane, All About Eve, From Here to Eternity, Chinatown, Nashville, Annie Hall, Manhattan, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, The Graduate, The Last Detail, The Conversation, Mean Streets, All the President's Men, and Network.

Frank Miller is an atrocious, horrible, wretched writer. Instead of Miller, filmmakers should draw inspiration from writers like William Faulkner, Sinclair Lewis, Thomas Wolfe, John Dos Pasos, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Ernest Hemingway, E.M. Foster, Evelyn Waugh, Graham Greene, Henry Miller, Jack Kerouac, William S. Burroughs, Margaret Atwood, Willa Cather, Flannery O'Connor, Joyce Carol Oates, Carson McCullers, Henry James, William Dean Howells, John Updike, Saul Bellow, Walker Percy, William Gaddis, Thomas Pynchon, Philip Roth, Don Delillo, William T. Vollman, Richard Powers, and Kurt Vonnegut.

Posted by Seth | July 21, 2008 12:12 PM

"That we don't like one or the other doesn't mean that there was a failure to portray the true essence of the character."

That's certainly true, and TDK addressed the broader social and cultural essence of Batman better than any previous film and better than most comics.

But to me, there's something not right about taking the super-hero so seriously, especially when you're talking about an established character like Batman. That's because the more seriously you take it, the more realism you impose on it, the more the concept tears itself apart. Which is okay if that sort of deconstruction is acknowledged and dealt with within the story (like WATCHMEN), but it often isn't.

I think Nolan is grappling with that sort of deconstruction, as a theme of TDK seems to be that Batman can't work in the real world without radically altering that world's ideas of normality. The end of TDK seems to suggest that a world where Batman is tolerated as an unofficial vigilante is a flawed, unhealthy, adolescent society. That a mature, responsible, adult world isn't just a place where Batman isn't needed, but a place where Batman can't be allowed to exist. I'll be very interested to see what Nolan has planned for the conclusion of his trilogy, though who knows what Ledger's tragic death will mean for what it might have been.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | July 21, 2008 12:13 PM

The Batman voice fits into Nolan's conceptualizing of Batman as a 21st-century crime-fighter who uses all cutting-edge technology available to him. Clearly, Batman has a voice distorter fitted into the neck of his suit -- Wayne can speak naturally and his voice is automatically disguised. Why would Wayne bother to come up with two separate voices (and risk a slip) when he can just use technology to create a Batman voice?

Posted by Duh | July 21, 2008 12:16 PM

"But since Tim Burton shifted around the mechanics of the franchise twenty years ago, it's really been marked by the basic unlikability and impenetrability of the Batman character."

Only in your fevered dreams. Granted, Kilmer and Clooney had little to work with, but both Keaton and Bale did very good jobs (given their respective circumstances) of bringing the audience inside Batman and making you like both sides of his alter ego.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | July 21, 2008 12:27 PM

Let's be frank: in many ways, Ledger's Joker is what allows the movie to be more than 2 hours long without overstaying its welcome (until, of course, the remarkably more predictable final act). He's so unpredictable, such an agent of chaos that it really creates a sense that almost anything can happen, that the whole movie is truly off-kilter and dangerous. It creates the sort of suspense that even most so-called thrillers can't muster. And the way that the movie always cuts to many of his scenes with no music but an anxious high hum was a masterful touch.

::::SPOILERS below:::::

I think it's unfortunate that the Joker lives at the end, and Two Face does not. Obviously it would have been better seeing as Ledger cannot reprise the role. But also thematically: this Joker is pretty clearly on a mission to destroy everything, including himself, and leave something even worse in his wake, all to demonstrate that Batman cannot stop him no matter what. It also would have avoided the far less plausible ending with Two-Face that outstayed its welcome, and also made sort of ridiculous Batman's refusal to let the Joker die.

On the downside, I thought the "dark knight" plot tying up the way it did was where the whole film was heading, and that ending wouldn't have been possible if things hadn't ended up the way they did.

Posted by Bad | July 21, 2008 12:29 PM

"Granted, Kilmer and Clooney had little to work with, but both Keaton and Bale did very good jobs (given their respective circumstances) of bringing the audience inside Batman "

Again, unappealing movie protagonists confuse the hell out of most folks when they try to discuss.

My saying that the franchise since Tim Burton has been marked by the basic unlikability and impenetrability of the Batman character is not a knock on the acting abilities of the guys who played Batman.

The unlikability and impenetrability of the character is by design.

Years from now folks will remember Ledger's perfomance, not Bale's, just as folks now remember Nicholson's performance, not Keaton's. This, again, is by design.

Posted by Petey | July 21, 2008 12:39 PM

Still not the the Batman of Miller's The Dark Knight Returns.
Old, beat up and near suicidal.

Posted by judson | July 21, 2008 12:40 PM

"The unlikability and impenetrability of the character is by design.

Years from now folks will remember Ledger's perfomance, not Bale's, just as folks now remember Nicholson's performance, not Keaton's. This, again, is by design."

Uh, no. It's because one role is flashier than the other. More folks remember Hopkins performance from Silence of the Lambs than Foster's, but it's surely not because Clarice Starling was unlikable or impenetrable or because Hannibal Lecter was likable or penetrable.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | July 21, 2008 12:51 PM

MBunge -

I haven't seen this movie yet, but Batman Begins is my favorite of the crop of comic-book superhero movies from the past eight years or so. (And my favorite Batman movie; and Batman is my favorite comics character.) Iron Man is a close second.

I think there are two essential problems in general with this sort of thing.

The first is that you simply can't transfer everything about the comic to film and expect it to work. For one thing, the dramatic conceits of film demand some sort of resolution that an individual comic, even an individual arc, denies you; leaving aside the Nolan films, the villains of the Burton and Schumacher movies are defeated with obvious finality and aren't coming back. The whole visual aesthetic also doesn't translate. Michael Chabon has a nice essay on this, but: tights don't work on real people. They don't look the way they look in comics. The most realistic evocation of a classic superhero uniform I've ever seen was a Playboy cover from a few years ago where the model was presented as Wonder Woman; she wasn't wearing spandex, the costume had literally been painted on to her. That's what it took to make it look like the comic book. Yglesias mentioned this back when Iron Man came out: the movie didn't need to do any legwork to deal with a ridiculous outfit, since Iron Man doesn't have one. The armor suit translates perfectly well, whereas the implication of spandex invites silliness. When people complain about Batman wearing body armor I want to show them a picture of Adam West in costume; good or bad, that show was campy and they knew it was campy while they made it, which isn't the aesthetic people have gone for since.

Second, I do think many people working in comics proper and working in the adaptation of comics to film make an error by conflating "taking it seriously" to mean making it "real" by OUR terms in the real world (where "real" invariably means "dull" and/or "faux-gritty"), and "taking it seriously" by which I mean taking the fictional world on its own terms. I find the former pretty dreary and stupid, but I find the latter invigorating (though people certainly disagree with me). One of the reasons I loved Iron Man was because it was a fun movie while taking its own premises entirely seriously, in a way that, say, the classic Superman with Christopher Reeve doesn't.

Posted by Medrawt | July 21, 2008 12:52 PM

Seth,

Half those movies you name are less rich and full and intellectually complex than The Dark Knight. There are far more dumbed down, Manichean stories on your list than many of the better superhero movies. In fact, my major complaint about this movie is the fact that a lot of stuff was said by characters when Nolan had done such a wonderful job showing it. Daniel Day Lewis in TWBB were orders of magnitude more cartoony and one dimensional than the Joker or Dent.

Posted by Mo | July 21, 2008 1:11 PM

"Uh, no. It's because one role is flashier than the other. More folks remember Hopkins performance from Silence of the Lambs than Foster's, but it's surely not because Clarice Starling was unlikable or impenetrable or because Hannibal Lecter was likable or penetrable."

Well, actually Clarice Starling was reasonably impenetrable, which is what her character arc was basically about.

And Hannibal Lecter was basically likable and penetrable, which is why his ultimate escape was a happy ending, and is also why he wasn't the person Clarice was after.

But the core Batman formula is like Silence of the Lambs on steroids. Batman is unlikable and impenetrable without the elements that served to give the audience access to Clarice Starling's interior life. And the flashy role is given to the villain, not the helper character that Lecter was.

The Batman character is all about constriction, without the roguish elements that are usually employed to make action/comic heroes more palatable and accessible. Again, it's why the Batman villains tend to more pre-eminent than is usual in action/comic movies.

Posted by Petey | July 21, 2008 1:25 PM

"The armor suit translates perfectly well, whereas the implication of spandex invites silliness."

The tights worked fine for Superman and Spider-Man. The FF ran around in form fitting bodysuits and no one made a big deal out of it (granted, they may have been distracted by everything else wrong with those two films). No one seemed to complain about the outfit in DAREDEVIL and there wasn't any body armor to be found.

Part of the problem, I think, is the reliance on the head piece to carry off the Bat-motiff. Without the black-on-yellow chest emblem (which I know some folks don't like but is a billion times better visually than everything else they've tried, especially in the real world), the ears are the only element of the costume at rest that suggest "I'm a bat". That means a helmet and make-up around the eyes to disguise how thick it is, and the helment then fits with an armored suit.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | July 21, 2008 1:28 PM

Tastes vary, obviously. I had no problem with Spidey's tights, but I think they don't really work on Christopher Reeve or whomever the new guy was. (The latter being based only on publicity photos; I haven't seen the movie.) Why one works for me and the other doesn't I haven't thought about.

Posted by Medrawt | July 21, 2008 1:36 PM

The best description of David Denby I've ever read is that he's a middlebrow who thinks he's a highbrow.

Denby may well be right about Bale in this particular role, but to say "Christian Bale has been effective in some films" is to damn with faint praise, and it reveals what a lousy observer of acting Denby is. Contra Denby, Bale is usually superb, not merely "effective sometimes," and he has an extraordinarily wide range - which isn't true of all great actors. Many actors, even some of the best, are limited in what sorts of characters they are convincing as. That's why Katharine Hepburn's or Jack Nicholson's vocal mannerisms and line readings are so easy to identify & to parody, because they don't vary from role to role, but mostly stay constant.

But Bale is a chameleon-like performer who disappears into his roles: it's hard to believe the cheerful, affable boy-next-door in Little Women is also the bloodthirsty yuppie killer in American Psycho, is also the severely mentally handicapped youth in The Secret Agent, is also eccentric war survivor Dieter Dengler in Rescue Dawn, is also larger-than-life superhero Bruce Wayne. Each of these performances is utterly distinct: a new speech pattern, new set of mannerisms, a fresh set of behaviors and demeanor each time out. While Denby is probably correct that this isn't Bale's finest hour, & that the movie's being taken too seriously, it speaks poorly of Denby's observational capacities that he is oblivious to Bale's vast range, which is comparable to Meryl Streep's (without Streep's sometimes excessive theatricality), but instead finds him merely "effective" in the odd role here and there. There speaks a middlebrow who knows nothing about screen acting.

Posted by HW | July 21, 2008 3:09 PM

"The best description of David Denby I've ever read is that he's a middlebrow who thinks he's a highbrow."

Exactamundo.

"Contra Denby, Bale is usually superb, not merely "effective sometimes"

Yup. His roles are usually worth seeking out.

"and he has an extraordinarily wide range"

Here is where you lose me.

I think Bale is very, very good, but has a very narrow range. His role in American Psycho is his ur-role. He can't effectively vary very much from that. If you can't be hip to be square, you shouldn't be Christian Bale. That makes him perfect for Batman, but Meryl Streep he isn't.

And you leave off The Machinist, which I think may be his most impressive performance...

Posted by Petey | July 21, 2008 3:53 PM

We need more movies like ... The Hours

This gives away what's an otherwise wry parody post. Seth, try to be more subtle next time.

Posted by Leee | July 21, 2008 4:14 PM

"I think Bale is very, very good, but has a very narrow range. That makes him perfect for Batman, but Meryl Streep he isn't."

I'm afraid I disagree. He is at least as versatile as Streep. If he hasn't been properly recognized as such, it's because he is so understated in certain roles he didn't get the praise he deserved. Again, what was lacking from his boy-next-door performance in Little Women? Nothing. It was perfectly embodied. Why didn't he get much acclaim for it? Precisely because of the ordinariness of the part: the boy-next-door. And yet, his rejected marriage proposal to Winona Ryder is perfectly enacted (including by Ryder, who is often flat). It's a very ordinary experience - romantic rejection - but he got at feelings & intensities that most actors miss. As good & watchable as they can be, I doubt Leo DiCaprio, Matt Damon, or Jude Law, other stars of his generation, could have gotten more emotion & more truth out of that scene, which could have been, in the wrong hands, completely lacking in impact altogether.

Because being turned down by a girl you love isn't an extraordinary situation like a "sophie's choice," but a pretty commonplace occurence, it's harder to recognize what makes it so dramatic. But Bale (and Ryder, never better) make the scene play out as intensely dramatic. In fact, it may be one of the most perfectly acted "rejection/heartbreak" scenes ever caught on film.

See for yourself: notice how completely different is the personality he creates for the character. There's not a trace of his Bruce Wayne/Patrick Bateman facade. And notice how much emotion he gets into a pretty sugary, mild, G-rated family film that doesn't have drama otherwise:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGgDtasH2b8

Posted by HW | July 21, 2008 5:10 PM

"I think Bale is very, very good, but has a very narrow range. That makes him perfect for Batman, but Meryl Streep he isn't."

I'm afraid I disagree. He is at least as versatile as Streep. If he hasn't been properly recognized as such, it's because he is so understated in certain roles he didn't get the praise he deserved. Again, what was lacking from his boy-next-door performance in Little Women? Nothing. It was perfectly embodied. Why didn't he get much acclaim for it? Precisely because of the ordinariness of the part: the boy-next-door. And yet, his rejected marriage proposal to Winona Ryder is perfectly enacted (including by Ryder, who is often flat). It's a very ordinary experience - romantic rejection - but he got at feelings & intensities that most actors miss. As good & watchable as they can be, I doubt Leo DiCaprio, Matt Damon, or Jude Law, other stars of his generation, could have gotten more emotion & more truth out of that scene, which could have been, in the wrong hands, completely lacking in impact altogether.

Because being turned down by a girl you love isn't an extraordinary situation like a "sophie's choice," but a pretty commonplace occurence, it's harder to recognize what makes it so dramatic. But Bale (and Ryder, never better) make the scene play out as intensely dramatic. In fact, it may be one of the most perfectly acted "rejection/heartbreak" scenes ever caught on film.

See for yourself: notice how completely different is the personality he creates for the character. There's not a trace of his Bruce Wayne/Patrick Bateman facade. And notice how much emotion he gets into a pretty sugary, mild, G-rated family film that doesn't have drama otherwise:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGgDtasH2b8

Posted by HW | July 21, 2008 5:17 PM

"I think Bale is very, very good, but has a very narrow range... That makes him perfect for Batman, but Meryl Streep he isn't."

Oh, I think he's at least as versatile as Streep. If he hasn't been properly recognized as such, it's because he's so understated in certain roles he didn't get the praise he deserved. Again, what was lacking from his boy-next-door performance in Little Women? Nothing. It was perfectly embodied. Why didn't he get much acclaim for it? Precisely because of the "average joe"-ness of the guy. And yet, his rejected marriage proposal to Winona Ryder is perfectly enacted (including by Ryder, who is often flat). It's a very ordinary experience - romantic rejection - but he got at feelings & intensities that most actors miss. As good & watchable as they can be, I doubt Leo DiCaprio, Matt Damon, or Jude Law, other stars of his generation, could have gotten more emotion & more truth out of that scene, which could have been, in the wrong hands, completely lacking in impact altogether.

Because being turned down by a girl you love isn't an extraordinary situation like a "sophie's choice," but a pretty commonplace occurence, it's harder to recognize what makes it so dramatic. But Bale (and Ryder, never better) make the scene play out as intensely dramatic. In fact, it may be one of the most perfectly acted "rejection/heartbreak" scenes ever caught on film.

See for yourself: notice how completely different is the personality he creates for the character. There's not a trace of his Bruce Wayne/Patrick Bateman facade. And notice how much emotion he gets into a pretty sugary, mild, G-rated family film that doesn't have drama otherwise:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGgDtasH2b8

Posted by HW | July 21, 2008 5:20 PM

"I think Bale is very, very good, but has a very narrow range... That makes him perfect for Batman, but Meryl Streep he isn't."

Oh, I think he's at least as versatile as Streep. If he hasn't been properly recognized as such, it's because he's so understated in certain roles he didn't get the praise he deserved. Again, what was lacking from his boy-next-door performance in Little Women? Nothing. It was perfectly embodied. Why didn't he get much acclaim for it? Precisely because of the "average joe"-ness of the guy. And yet, his rejected marriage proposal to Winona Ryder is perfectly enacted (including by Ryder, who is often flat). It's a very ordinary experience - romantic rejection - but he got at feelings & intensities that most actors miss. As good & watchable as they can be, I doubt Leo DiCaprio, Matt Damon, or Jude Law, other stars of his generation, could have gotten more emotion & more truth out of that scene, which could have been, in the wrong hands, completely lacking in impact altogether.

Because being turned down by a girl you love isn't an extraordinary situation like a "sophie's choice," but a pretty commonplace occurence, it's harder to recognize what makes it so dramatic. But Bale (and Ryder, never better) make the scene play out as intensely dramatic. In fact, it may be one of the most perfectly acted "rejection/heartbreak" scenes ever caught on film.

Little Women scene:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGgDtasH2b8

Posted by HW | July 21, 2008 5:22 PM

All other criticism of the Dark Knight aside, take ANY other actor and throw them into the POP ICON Joker role...

No -

The role is not the credit.

To credit the character of the Joker himself is to take a cheap stab at Heath Ledger's brilliance.

No other actor on earth could have delivered the Joker as Ledger did.

End of discussion.

Posted by Kman-217 | July 21, 2008 5:30 PM

seth, are you 100 years old? that sounds like grunpy old man talk, there is room in our culture for different forms of art, whether it be serious stuff, like Atonement, or lighter fluff that's just fun! because it's an escape from reality,a big reason why people actually go to the movies! so put your intellectual snobbery aside, you misanthrope! superhero movies always have a point and a social message, if u don't like it, stay home and save 10 bucks!

Posted by gina marie | July 21, 2008 5:33 PM

seth, are you 100 years old? that sounds like grunpy old man talk, there is room in our culture for different forms of art, whether it be serious stuff, like Atonement, or lighter fluff that's just fun! because it's an escape from reality,a big reason why people actually go to the movies! so put your intellectual snobbery aside, you misanthrope! superhero movies always have a point and a social message, if u don't like it, stay home and save 10 bucks!

Posted by gina marie | July 21, 2008 5:33 PM

seth, are you 100 years old? that sounds like grunpy old man talk, there is room in our culture for different forms of art, whether it be serious stuff, like Atonement, or lighter fluff that's just fun! because it's an escape from reality,a big reason why people actually go to the movies! so put your intellectual snobbery aside, you misanthrope! superhero movies always have a point and a social message, if u don't like it, stay home and save 10 bucks!

Posted by gina marie | July 21, 2008 5:33 PM

seth, are you 100 years old? that sounds like grunpy old man talk, there is room in our culture for different forms of art, whether it be serious stuff, like Atonement, or lighter fluff that's just fun! because it's an escape from reality,a big reason why people actually go to the movies! so put your intellectual snobbery aside, you misanthrope! superhero movies always have a point and a social message, if u don't like it, stay home and save 10 bucks!

Posted by gina marie | July 21, 2008 5:33 PM

All other criticism of the Dark Knight aside, take ANY other actor and throw them into the POP ICON Joker role...

No -

The role is not the credit.

To credit the character of the Joker himself is to take a cheap stab at Heath Ledger's brilliance.

No other actor on earth could have delivered the Joker as Ledger did.

End of discussion.

Posted by Kman-217 | July 21, 2008 5:35 PM

HW,

The line between perfect sincerity and perfect irony can be difficult to discern at times, and your postings here are one of those times.

Posted by Petey | July 21, 2008 5:39 PM

I think, along the lines of Petey's take, the casting of Bale as John Connor in Terminator 4 is probably brilliant.

Posted by southpaw | July 21, 2008 5:43 PM

"The other thing I wanted to say was that while the praise Ledger has gotten is very much deserved, I'd appreciate some more acknowledgment that one reason he's able to do such an extraordinary job is that the Joker is one of the great pop characters."

This is a good point, but one wonders if it is a bit too obvious.
And, besides, we should also remember that up until now most people would regard Jack Nicholson's Joker as the definitive characterization, and that was something Ledger had to overcome. He did so, creating the best Joker to date and with a weaker script than Nicholson had. That is nothing short of amazing.

Posted by Jack | July 21, 2008 6:08 PM

I liked Batman Begins better. It gave more time to the Bruce Wayne character. I thought it gave short shrift to him this time, and I wanted to see more of Bale without the batsuit.

But he is a great actor, as is Gary Oldman. I think it's easier to act with weird makeup, and that's why Ledger let it rip.

But I will see anything with Christian Bale in it.

Posted by Victoria | July 21, 2008 6:17 PM

"I think, along the lines of Petey's take, the casting of Bale as John Connor in Terminator 4 is probably brilliant."

Agreed. It's well within his sweet spot.

I've got a bad feeling about what McG will bring to the project, however...

Come home Jim Cameron! Entourage cameos and 3-D are not what you were born for!

Posted by Petey | July 21, 2008 6:17 PM

Damn. I got a "failure" message even though, evidently, my posts did go through, and it looks like "Gina Marie" had the same thing happen to her. can anyone hit a delete button?

"Chritsian Bale is beside the point and totally irrelevant to the larger problem."

There is a larger problem, true enough, but that isn't what this blog entry is about. Even with a popcorn movie you can discuss acting quality. & David Denby is hardly the person to solve the problem of high art being squeezed out of the marketplace, since he wouldn't recognize it even if he saw it.

"there is room in our culture for different forms of art, whether it be serious stuff, like Atonement, or lighter fluff"

Atonement probably isnt even a good example of "high art". it's Masterpiece Theater released in theaters. Seth mixes together genuine masterpieces in his lists with Miramax faux-"masterpieces" calculated to win Oscars, designed to make audiences think "prestigious" without truly being much more sophisticated than a superhero movie. (His literature list is more impressive.)

"The line between perfect sincerity and perfect irony can be difficult to discern at times, and your postings here are one of those times."

I'm not even sure what this is supposed to mean. If you're laughing at my claim Bale is a greater talent than Streep, all I can say is: fashions change in the appreciation of acting (like any other art - just look at how shifting, fluid literary "canons" are), and the day will come when he is widely seen as his generation's most versatile star (as he already is by some critics - not including Denby obviously). Citizen Kane didn't top critics' polls till a couple decades after it came out, then it's topped them ever since. In the early days, Streep had many detractors (Sarris, Kael included) who thought she was all flash, no substance (& they both cried "overrated" over Sophie's Choice). The "most versatile actress" mantle consolidated over time, not overnight. Fashions change.

Posted by HW | July 21, 2008 6:24 PM

Gina Marie,
You need to get out a little more and set your sights a little bit higher. I know tripe when I see it, and Dark Knight is pure, unadulterated, grade A tripe. My observation that Dark Knight is a steaming pile of excrement does not make me a misanthrope.

Gina Marie, it wouldn't kill you to expand your horizons.

Yglesias should have titled this blog entry "In Defense of Tripe."

Posted by Seth | July 21, 2008 7:35 PM

Seth: it might help us think you were anything but a troll if you actually tried to argue a position rather than just declaring The Dark Knight to be tripe and then expecting that to win us over.

In other words, please explain *why* it's tripe and why The Hours isn't tripe.

Posted by Adam Villani | July 21, 2008 8:30 PM

Denby's review was ludicrous.

Maybe not as ludicrous as Seth-the-troll there, but nonetheless.

(Atonement? Seriously? You really should have worked harder there.)

Posted by Demosthenes | July 21, 2008 9:41 PM

I thought the movie was unbelievable, best superhero movie to date. Heath was outstanding. And deserves to get praised for it. Bale on the other hand, did amazing as well, and the reasoning behind his hoarse voice, was only because he had to hide his "Bruce Wayne" voice. Not only did he play Bruce Wayne, he played Bruce Wayne being Batman. No one never said anything about his voice in Batman Begins, the reason why people are talking about now, is because this movie is huge. I think Ledger and Bale deserve Oscars.

Job well done.

Posted by Ryann | July 21, 2008 9:45 PM

Adam:

For starters, the screenplay of Dark Knight is breathtakingly abyssmal. I found it tedious, uninspiring, and unengaging. Heath Ledger's performance was good, but has been grossly over praised by critics and the public because of his untimely death. All the chatter about him being nominated for an Oscar is sheer nonsense. If he is nominated, he'll win because of a sympathy vote and that would be a travesty. The performances of the other cast members are uniformly bad. Bale, Gyllenhaal, etc just seemed to be going through the motions.

I found nothing compelling, thought provoking, or stimulating about Dark Knight. I wish people would try to set their sights higher.

The Hours offered deeply moving portraits of people navigating their way through despair. It skillfully weaved together three different narratives. The performances by Nicole Kidman, Meryl Streep, and Julianne Moore were stunning and will stay with me for the rest of my life. I actually cared about what happened to these characters. The Hours also has many memorable supporting performances.

You can have your Dark Knight. I'll take The Hours over it any day of the week.

Posted by Seth | July 21, 2008 10:07 PM

Is anybody else as double over by Seth's intellect as I am? Seriously. I mean, the Graduate. He is a man of exceptional erudition and character.

Posted by Lamenter | July 21, 2008 10:22 PM

Demosthenes,

I'm calling it as I see it. Smearing someone who disagrees with you as a "troll" is the cheapest of cheap shots. If studio execs can't find any worthwhile original screenplays, they should at least use better source material than comic books. How many Batman movies does Hollywood need to inflict upon the public?

It's only July 21st and we've already had 3 incredibly overpriced, putrid stinkers: Dark Knight, Iron Man, and The Incredible Hulk.

Posted by Seth | July 21, 2008 10:30 PM

Lamenter,

What's your problem with The Graduate? Not enough explosions, not enough fight scenes?

Please enlighten me about the shortcomings of The Graduate. I await your insight.

Posted by Seth | July 21, 2008 10:38 PM

I agree. The Joker character is more interesting, as is Harvey Dent. Christian Bale is a phenomenal actor. He's a chameleon and loses himself in each role. So it is to his credit that people find him boring as Bruce Wayne and his voice bizarre as Batman. I can't wait to see him in the Terminator films.

Posted by LB | July 21, 2008 10:38 PM

Um, where did I did I say anything derogatory about the Graduate?

Posted by Lamenter | July 21, 2008 10:45 PM

"The Hours offered deeply moving portraits of people navigating their way through despair. It skillfully weaved together three different narratives. The performances by Nicole Kidman, Meryl Streep, and Julianne Moore were stunning and will stay with me for the rest of my life."

This is a joke, right? The Hours? You can't be serious. Seth, your list of "Great Films" is Middlebrow Central. I agree with you about the overhyping of summer blockbusters & you have some valid points, but your own list of "superior" movies just ain't. In fact, in some ways, it's worse, because I'd rather see a movie that is honestly lowbrow than a movie that is lowbrow but pretends to be highbrow.

Like a lot of people who are well read, you show yourself to be unable to translate your literary taste into taste in film. Your list of "cinematic masterpieces" is a joke. Sorry to burst your bubble.

"All the chatter about him being nominated for an Oscar is sheer nonsense. If he is nominated, he'll win because of a sympathy vote and that would be a travesty."

You mean like giving an actress an Oscar for wearing a fake nose, frizzy hair, & coming off a very public divorce from Tom Cruise? Face it, she wouldn't have won that Oscar except for a gimmick (The Nose) & loads of sympathy votes. Travesty indeed.

Posted by HW | July 21, 2008 10:45 PM

I thought Danny Devito as The Penguin set the bar for Batman villain roles and has yet to be matched. Heath Ledger as the Joker and Uma Thurman as Poison Ivy were also pretty good.

Posted by blah | July 21, 2008 10:48 PM

"If studio execs can't find any worthwhile original screenplays, they should at least use better source material than comic books."

I read THE HOURS, the vastly overpraised Michael Cunningham novel, and it reads like a comic book version of a Virginia Woolf novel. In fact, there are graphic novels out there superior in sophistication to the soap opera mechanics & sentimental, self-pitying yuppie drivel of THE HOURS. The ideas running through THE HOURS aren't any more sophisticated than your average comic book's. The most laughable part of it is when Cunningham has his characters bitch and moan about "not being New York rich," even though they're "obscenely" rich by "world standards," Woe is Me! I'm not rich enough, wah wah wah! boo hoo! I'm not NEW YORK rich, so even though I'm really rich, I can't be happy till I'm NEW YORK RICH! He doesn't treat the thought ironically, but treats it with utter seriousness & gravity. What a joke. What pompous, award-grovelling, pseudo-art. Virginia Woolf must be rolling in her grave to have her name forever linked to this crap.

Posted by HW | July 21, 2008 11:00 PM

I second Lamenter in his tony appraisal of the poster known as "Seth". Where would society be if not for those with the courage to post an extended list of classic films and books in a blog's comment section. How imbecilic we would all be if not for someone with the meddle to point out how greatly classics like About Schmidt have beneficently shaped the world in which we live. Where would we be without those who dare look down their noses at the rest of the world and say "NO! I really am superior! Seriously! I've seen All About Eve and really understood all the understated wit! Seriously!" Thank you dear "Seth". Thank you.

Posted by bedaded | July 21, 2008 11:19 PM

HW,

For starters, I have always believed that novels are a higher art form than movies and that the greatest novels are always superior to the greatest movies. Due to time constraints, I have not made it a goal to see every screen adaptation of every novelist I hold in high regard. This is why there is a divergence between my film list and my novelist list.

If you think The Godfather, Citizen Kane, All About Eve, Chinatown, Nashville, Annie Hall, and Manhattan are "middlebrow central", I'd like to know what movies you consider highbrow.

My previous list was not meant to be a be all and end all by any means. I don't have a hard copy master list of all my favorite films and was working from memory.

For the record, my list should also include these films:

***(Let me know if any of these films meet your standard for highbrow)***

Sophie's Choice, The Grapes of Wrath, A Man for All Seasons, The Daytrippers, In the Heat of the Night, The Heart is a Lonely Hunter, Charley, I Shot Andy Warhol, Sweet Smell of Success, Paths of Glory, Mikey and Nicky, Melvin and Howard, David Lean's Great Expectations, Olivier's Hamlet, The Man in the White Suit, Beat the Devil, Alec Guinness' The Ladykillers, On the Waterfront, A Streetcar Named Desire, Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, Witness for the Prosecution, The Razor's Edge, Patton, MASH, Elmer Gantry, Advise and Consent, The Third Man, The Best Man, Seven Days in May, The Man in the Gray Flannel Suit, Easy Rider, East of Eden, Giant, The Young Lions, Midnight Cowboy, Raging Bull, Gosford Park, A Room with a View, Hoawrd's End, The King of Marvin Gardens, The Great Escape, Malcolm X, Reds, Gandhi, Glenngarry Glen Ros, Hurly Burly, Do the Right Thing, Secrets and Lies, Breaking the Waves, Dogville, Sullivan's Trvavels, The Roaring Twenties, Faces, Husbands, Far from Heaven, and Days of Heaven.

I also left out foreign language films, but your post has prompted me to list some: The Seventh Seal, The Grand Illusion, The Rules of the Game, Day for Night, Jules and Jim, The Woman in the Dunes, The Conformist, The Garden of the Finzi Continis, Open City, Wings of Desire.

I think Nicole Kidman truly deserved her Oscar for The Hours.

Posted by Seth | July 22, 2008 12:14 AM

bedaded,
I'm grateful that you're not a high level studio executive in a position to block movies like About Schmidt and All About Eve from seeing the light of day. I'll gladly take these 2 movies over the putrid and noxious Dark Knight.

Posted by Seth | July 22, 2008 12:27 AM

Seth, my honor as a gentleman compels me to tell you we're not mocking the films, we're mocking you.

Posted by Lamenter | July 22, 2008 12:38 AM

Seth, if you've seen all those movies, then you should have better judgment than to rank Atonement and The Hours (blatant Oscar-bait) alongside Ingmar Bergman & Jean Renoir. You have seen a lot of movies, but you obviously can't tell the difference between someone consciously setting out to create an Oscar-bait movie (which almost always ends up being drivel) and someone having something to say unique to their soul. Your original list was indeed Middlebrow Central: and I certainly would classify a movie like Manhattan as a middlebrow film (not funny, & self-indulgent - the Mariel Hemingway relationship prefigures Woody's tedious real-life Lolita obsession).

I haven't seen all the movies on your new list, but I scanned the titles and a lot of them look pretty bad to me. Middle-of-the-road stuff. AFI Top 100 List stuff. The cinematic equivalent of a Top 40 FM Radio playlist. Not an original, daring, surprising, idiosyncratic choice in the lot. Day For Night - piffle. Jules and Jim, not much better. The English language list is even worse. Where's your own thinking? Not what "the experts" say. Every writer on film or literature I've ever admired is way more idiosyncratic & independent than that. What a boring list. Sort of thing designed to impress the suckers. Read any interesting critic - Pauline Kael (wrong-headed as she often was), Andrew Sarris, Jonathan Rosenbaum - they're all WAY more idiosyncratic than that. & Don't you get that Giant or Witness For the Prosecution or Manhattan are escapist fluff too? They take themselves seriously, but they aren't actually any more serious or genuinely "art" than Star Wars or Superman or Indiana Jones.

If I was a music critic, I wouldn't go up to a bunch of Linkin Park fans & start ridiculing them on their bad taste, by extolling the virtues of Motley Crue. I wouldn't ridicule someone for liking Blink 182 or Green Day & declare their music trash, & then go hold up the Sex Pistols as the summit of musical expression. Of course, there are people who do that, but the distinction is imaginary, entirely in their own minds, Sex Pistols are in reality no more "real" or "raw" or "artistic" than Green Day.

"I have always believed that novels are a higher art form than movies and that the greatest novels are always superior to the greatest movies."

Now this is just silly. Novels are INHERENTLY superior to movies? Novels & movies have different aims & achieve different things, one is not "better" than the other. It's like saying painting & sculture are INHERENTLY "better" than music, or vice versa.

It would be easier to take you seriously if you showed some awareness that popcorn movies aren't the only way to slum. Pauline Kael had her faults, many of them, but she wasn't wrong when she said, "I would like to suggest that the educated audience often uses 'art' films in much the same self-indulgent way as the mass audience uses the Hollywood 'product,' finding wish fulfillment in the form of cheap and easy congratulation on their sensitivities and liberalism." She could have had you - and Denby - in mind there.

It is very easy to list a bunch of movies critics from 30 or 50 years ago have agreed to call great. Citizen Kane - who'd uh thunk you'd list that one, huh? It's like saying Hamlet is a great play. Well - duh, it's an easy call by this point in time. The real test is to sort the wheat from the chaff when it comes to very recent films, from the past 5 or 6 years: that's where you stumble, as your pretentious nonsense about fake art like The Hours and Atonement proves.

Posted by HW | July 22, 2008 2:07 AM

geez, will there ever be an article that doesnt have Heath Ledgers name in it. I just read an article about Christian Bale assaulting his mother and sister on the weekend, but the article somehow still had to put Heaths name in there somewhere. Yes i agree the performance is amazing and deserves all the praise... enough about the death plz!! Oh yeah i liked how Christian Bale sounded and mouth looked like Rambo when he was Batman.

Posted by pearljamaussie | July 22, 2008 2:11 AM

I haven't seen all his films, though enough to notice that Bale has a certain lifeless quality to him... his eyes are usually cold even when he's trying to seem earnest and emotionally involved in a scene. Watch the first 10 minutes of Rescue Dawn where he tries to project a sunny disposition - it is really bad. He has a persistence of pall that reminds me of DeNiro's.

Posted by Chris | July 22, 2008 4:33 AM

I haven't seen all his films, though enough to notice that Bale has an unshakeable lifeless quality to him... his eyes are usually cold even when he's trying to seem earnest and emotionally involved in a scene. Watch the first 10 minutes of Rescue Dawn where he tries to project a sunny disposition - it is really bad. He has a persistence of pall that reminds me of DeNiro's.

Posted by Chris | July 22, 2008 4:36 AM

I haven't seen all his films, though enough to notice that Bale has an unshakably lifeless quality to him. His eyes are usually cold even when he's trying to seem earnest and emotionally involved. Watch the first 10 minutes of Rescue Dawn where he tries to project a sunny disposition - it is really bad. He has a persistence of pall that reminds me of DeNiro's.

Posted by Chris | July 22, 2008 4:38 AM

TO Seth

To fully appriciate movies like the ones you listed you have to learn a fair bit about movies and novels if your into them, but the truth is that not many people study english literature so for them to see the others would be like watching a sport that you didn't know the rules for. And to say that batman wasn't as good as those films is quite harsh because it was pretty good at conveying the various themes it had and the cinematography was second to nun. And you really sound like a failed writer or someone who just likes being a snob

Posted by Tim | July 22, 2008 9:05 AM

Now this is just silly. Novels are INHERENTLY superior to movies? Novels & movies have different aims & achieve different things, one is not "better" than the other. It's like saying painting & sculpture are INHERENTLY "better" than music, or vice versa.

I suspect Seth's lifting of novels over film has something to do with his ludicrously middlebrow taste in movies. Maybe if he let himself relax and actually, you know, enjoy something he'd have a different opinion, but for now he's slogging through Atonement and insisting it's not as good as a good novel (well, yes.).

Posted by Persia | July 22, 2008 9:19 AM

I believe I may have been the only person unimpressed by Heath Ledger's performance. He was good, and I'm not going to go any farther than that. I do believe he's getting way too much credit because of his death. His character, I did not understand. As a person who LIVED for chaos, he certainly had a lot of boundaries, rules. Like the bounty he set on the guys head, 'if you kill this guy within the hour, I won't blow up a hosiptal' or the standoff between the two ferry's. If he was truly reckless he would have just blown shit up without reason. Overall, the movie was outstanding and I'd see it again, But give me a break when it comes to Heath Ledger's performance. His voice was a complete rip-off of Jack Nicholson's and I picked that up from the previews!

Posted by Alvin | July 22, 2008 9:58 AM

I thought Christian Bale did the right job for that role. I also think that it's not for CB alone to decide how he plays a role, Christopher Nolan and the whole team puts that together and I think that they made all the right decisions in this movie. From putting Maggie G in it to Aaron Eckhart as 2-face, it really could not have been a better produced/directed film. It's actually too good a movie for the Oscars.

Posted by hanadue | July 22, 2008 10:14 AM

I thought Christian Bale did the right job for that role. I also think that it's not for CB alone to decide how he plays a role, Christopher Nolan and the whole team puts that together and I think that they made all the right decisions in this movie. From putting Maggie G in it to Aaron Eckhart as 2-face, it really could not have been a better produced/directed film. It's actually too good a movie for the Oscars.

Posted by hanadue | July 22, 2008 10:15 AM

Alvin has completely missed the point of Joker's character. The Joker was trying to show society how fragile their morality becomes when their own lives are at stake. He was trying to prove to Batman that anyone will opt to save their own necks rather than put others first, so why should he bother with humanity? Society has rules, but in reality, those rules are easily broken and overturned when certain circumstances come into play. If the two ferry boats scene were to actually happen, what would America have thought of the surviving ferry? Most of us would be horrified, but I think a lot of us would still understand.
Ledger's performance was, in my opinion, one of the greatest villian performances on the silver screen. I would even compare his performance to Sir Anthony Hopkins' performance as Dr. Hannibal Lector. Very different characters, but I think both amazingly executed. Hannibal's quiet, observant nature and perfect control of himself; Ledger's wild, manaical, barely controlled nature; both have an intimate understanding of how the human mind works. They're always a step or two ahead of the game.

Posted by JarethsDream | July 22, 2008 10:57 AM

Alvin has completely missed the point of Joker's character. The Joker was trying to show society how fragile their morality becomes when their own lives are at stake. He was trying to prove to Batman that anyone will opt to save their own necks rather than put others first, so why should he bother with humanity? Society has rules, but in reality, those rules are easily broken and overturned when certain circumstances come into play. If the two ferry boats scene were to actually happen, what would America have thought of the surviving ferry? Most of us would be horrified, but I think a lot of us would still understand.
Ledger's performance was, in my opinion, one of the greatest villian performances on the silver screen. I would even compare his performance to Sir Anthony Hopkins' performance as Dr. Hannibal Lector. Very different characters, but I think both amazingly executed. Hannibal's quiet, observant nature and perfect control of himself; Ledger's wild, manaical, barely controlled nature; both have an intimate understanding of how the human mind works. They're always a step or two ahead of the game.

Posted by JarethsDream | July 22, 2008 10:59 AM

"Like the bounty he set on the guys head, 'if you kill this guy within the hour, I won't blow up a hosiptal' or the standoff between the two ferry's. If he was truly reckless he would have just blown shit up without reason."

Alvin, the point of the two examples you mention was to incite chaos by getting "normal" citizens to step outside their own rules and incite chaos. The Joker blowing up a ferry or shooting a whistleblower isn't as damning an indictment of the fragility of our society's rules as one of those things being done by "normal, civilized people." That was his whole point. By getting the citizens to participate in the bloodletting, he could spread chaos far more effectively (and frighteningly) than he could by himself.

Posted by Jim D. | July 22, 2008 11:28 AM

Seth,

I find it very saddening that you can't simply enjoy a story about a man who is willing to sacrifice everything to help people, most of whom he doen't even know. I think it is admirable that he will do anything, even destroy himself, for the betterment of his city. Just because you are too selfish and cowardly to ever consider doing the same, doesn't give you justification to call it a steaming pile of excrement. Whatever happened in your life to make you so cynical, I'm sorry but I'm glad it didn't happen to me because apparently I've had a much better life than you. Next time you sit down to watch a superhero movie, try to simply relax and enjoy it for what it is.

Alvin,
"As a person who LIVED for chaos, he certainly had a lot of boundaries, rules. Like the bounty he set on the guys head, 'if you kill this guy within the hour, I won't blow up a hosiptal' or the standoff between the two ferry's"

The point of those situations is to inspire others to chaos as well, therefore creating more chaos in the long run, just like he did with Harvey Two-Face Dent.

Posted by lueggy | July 22, 2008 11:40 AM

Seth the uber-intellectual seems to miss the fact that most critics praising Dark Knight have seen all those movies and read all those books. I've seen/read about 9/10 of those works, and I don't think there's any debate about TDK being a serious, complex and morally challenging film.

What Seth reveals is a lot of pride in himself for being primarily interested in "great" cinema and literature. But the point of such great works isn't to make you better for liking them, or unafraid to like a story about a guy in a suit fighting crime. Such films educate you and teach you about art in such a way that you can also find and appreciate it in "lighter" works. Or so that you can make a story about a person in a suit fighting crime and turn it into something far heavier than escapist fare, much like Christopher Nolan, a shockingly intelligent filmmaker, does.

Posted by Jeromy | July 22, 2008 11:48 AM

Excellent film, with the exception of Batman's voice. Almost ruined it for me. Or maybe it was just Bale in general- something about him.

Posted by Bianca | July 22, 2008 11:50 AM

I thought he was brilliant. Remember that the guy is Welsh, so I'm amazed that not only does he nail the American accent, but that he does it in two distinct voices.

Posted by Deirdre | July 22, 2008 12:07 PM

HW,

You wrote
"I haven't seen all the movies on your new list" and then make these sweeping generalizations such as: "top 40 FM playlist", "AFI Top 100 List",
"not an original, daring, surprising, idiosyncratic choice in the lot", "what a boring list"

I hardly consider Husbands, I Shot Andy Warhol, Mikey and Nicky, Breaking the Waves, Safe, Secrets and Lies, The Daytrippers, Dogville, Faces, and The Heart is a Lonely Hunter bland, safe, top 40 choices. Two older movies I neglected to previously include are The Unbearable Lightness of Being and Sammy and Rosie Get Laid.

You were right to point out that my lists were weighted more heavily to older films.
Regarding the last 6, 7, or 8 years I should have mentioned: Being John Malcovich, Adaptation, Limbo, Sunshine State, Election, Ghost World, Kinsey, Sideways, American Splendor, The 25th Hour, Elephant, Primer, Time Out (dir Laurent Cantet) Chaos (dir Coline Serreau), and About a Boy.

It's quite possible that the films on my list you haven't seen are the ones which you would label "original, daring, surprising, idiosyncratic". These films might be the very wheat which I claim I have omitted.

I would like to see your list of the 30, 40 or more films you consider great so that I could discover what I have overlooked.

Posted by Seth | July 22, 2008 12:16 PM

HW,

You wrote
"I haven't seen all the movies on your new list" and then make these sweeping generalizations such as: "top 40 FM playlist", "AFI Top 100 List",
"not an original, daring, surprising, idiosyncratic choice in the lot", "what a boring list"

I hardly consider Husbands, I Shot Andy Warhol, Mikey and Nicky, Breaking the Waves, Safe, Secrets and Lies, The Daytrippers, Dogville, Faces, and The Heart is a Lonely Hunter bland, safe, top 40 choices. Two older movies I neglected to previously include are The Unbearable Lightness of Being and Sammy and Rosie Get Laid.

You were right to point out that my lists were weighted more heavily to older films.
Regarding the last 6, 7, or 8 years I should have mentioned: Being John Malcovich, Adaptation, Limbo, Sunshine State, Election, Ghost World, Kinsey, Sideways, American Splendor, The 25th Hour, Elephant, Primer, Time Out (dir Laurent Cantet) Chaos (dir Coline Serreau), and About a Boy.

It's quite possible that the films on my list you haven't seen are the ones which you would label "original, daring, surprising, idiosyncratic". These films might be the very wheat which you claim I have omitted.

I would like to see your list of the 30, 40 or more films you consider great so that I could discover what I have overlooked.

Posted by Seth | July 22, 2008 12:19 PM

Kinsey? Really? Interesting with good performances , sure, but hardly essential viewing. Did you watch many, if any of these, for pleasure, or are you like I was in high school, plowing through a list of 'classic works of literature' because I thought I was obligated to?

Posted by Persia | July 22, 2008 12:32 PM

lueggy,
We don't know each other and it's very arrogant and rude of you to make petty personal attacks simply because I criticized a movie which you enjoyed a great deal.

We disagree on the quality or lack thereof concerning Dark Knight. I thought it was garbage. You thought it was great. There's no need for you to take cheap shots. Maybe you're the one who has issues.

Jeromy,
If you loved Dark Knight, God Bless you. I just happened to find it a colossal waste of time, money, talent and resources.

Posted by Seth | July 22, 2008 12:35 PM

Persia,

All the movies I watched were for pleasure and I had a wonderful time sitting through each of them.

Posted by Seth | July 22, 2008 12:48 PM

While I did enjoy The Dark Knight, I can sympathize with Seth as I found myself in a similar position last year with No Country for Old Men. Everyone seemed to think that move was great except me, I thought it was hideously shallow and blatantly sophomoric. It also seems like Seth has a preference for movies that you can discuss and think about afterwards opposed to movies that are simply enjoyable while watching (and IMO The Dark Knight is clearly in the latter category, while I enjoyed it, I don’t really have much to say besides “the joker is creepy” and “batman is cool!”). That seems like a pretty reasonable preference.

Posted by JK | July 22, 2008 1:00 PM

Well while posted I got directly contradicted... oh well, the hell do I know...

Posted by Jk | July 22, 2008 1:02 PM

JK, I think you can discuss and think about even 'trashy' movies (I think TDK is a step above that, but it's debatable). Some of our most interesting questions-- the tension between individual freedom and the good of society, the meaning of heroism, how far we're willing to go to protect those we love-- come up, though in cartoonish exaggeration-- in pop culture, and I like finding the threads there and discussing them.

Posted by Persia | July 22, 2008 1:27 PM

Midwest Product:

Add a spoiler warning next time, you stupid asswipe.

Posted by seeker6079 | July 22, 2008 1:35 PM

Clearly Seth just copied and pasted that list of authors from some hipster-approved list of canonical novelists from the latter half of the 20th century, since Pynchon, he who gleefully wallows in the cultural detritus in question, contradicts Seth's entire aesthetic ideology.

As to the "art" cinema vs movie flicks issue, middlebrow Oscar-bait films are mostly a checklist of estimable criteria -- e.g. hand-wringing, breast-beating, hair-rending emotional sensationalism, "look ma no hands" acting, BIG THEMES (e.g. war!), British accents -- that cheaply signify high art without necessarily imparting any other quality that's memorable or moving. Films are not like vegetables -- they aren't good for you if they provoke a disagreeable taste in you.

Not that he asked me, but as long as we're dickwaving, I present a list of moviefilms of recentish vintage that is infinitely more nuanced (girl-on-girl!) and ultimately better than his:
Mulholland Drive
Aimee & Jaguar
Secretary
Trois Couleurs: Rouge
Thin Red Line
Legally Blonde
Bend It Like Beckham
Heat
Ratatouille, Wall*E, Incredibles, et al
Pan's Labyrinth
Constantine
Memento
Ghost in the Shell
Spirited Away
Titus
Dark City
Cube

And since it matters to you, my artsnob bonafides: Le Weekend, Le Samurai, The Passion of Joan of Arc, The Lady Vanishes, The Seventh Seal, Persona, Cries & Whispers, Ran.

Posted by Leee | July 22, 2008 2:40 PM

So who's willing to take the next level of snobery and contend that all film is crap and not suited to high art? There's got to be someone!

Posted by RTG | July 22, 2008 3:25 PM

Leee,

Great to hear from you.
Your claim that I copied and pasted the author list is utter nonsense. Pynchon is a literary genius and does not contradict my aesthetic ideology at all.

Mulholland Drive, Thin Red Line, Heat, Memento, The Lady Vanishes, The Seventh Seal, Persona, Cries & Whispers, and Ran are all excellent choices. I don't believe your list is more nuanced than my list. It is simply a different list. I will try to see some of the titles on your list that I haven't already seen. I appreciate your recommendations.

Like HW, and other commenters you criticize my list for containing "Oscar bait". A careful reading of all the films I have cited would reveal the presence of many non "Oscar bait" films.

If you honestly consider Husbands, Faces, Melvin and Howard, I Shot Andy Warhol, Mikey and Nicky, Breaking the Waves, Safe, Secrets and Lies, The Daytrippers, Dogville, Faces, The Heart is a Lonely Hunter, The Unbearable Lightness of Being, Sammy and Rosie Get Laid, The Last Detail, The Conversation, Mean Streets, Being John Malcovich, Adaptation, Limbo, Sunshine State, Election, Ghost World, Kinsey, Sideways, American Splendor, The 25th Hour, Elephant, and Primer to be "Oscar bait" bland, vanilla, or middlebrow films you are seriously misguided.

Posted by Seth | July 22, 2008 3:34 PM

All against the performances in this film should continue living in a box watching Batman cartoons. Different is always better, this movie was extremely realistic and different from the rest. Brilliant acting by the main characters, well directed, well deserved kudos. Not the greatest film ever, but definitely greatest Batman film ever.

Posted by Batty McGee | July 22, 2008 5:02 PM

I'm not exactly sure what Seth is trying to accomplish; but he seems to be aping middle school children who attach dozens of patches of their favorite indie bands on their backpack. I'm seriously unimpressed by the posturing.

Posted by Ethan P | July 22, 2008 5:54 PM

Middle school posturing is right. Seth is a bore. And he was already given the most astute reply long ago by poster "Mo":

"Half those movies you name are less rich and full and intellectually complex than The Dark Knight. There are far more dumbed down, Manichean stories on your list than many of the better superhero movies. In fact, my major complaint about this movie is the fact that a lot of stuff was said by characters when Nolan had done such a wonderful job showing it. Daniel Day Lewis in TWBB were orders of magnitude more cartoony and one dimensional than the Joker or Dent."

Anyone who rattles off an endless list of titles designed to impress a bunch of total strangers is an asshole. I know the type. It's the same sort as music fans who try to impress you with every obscure band they know: "My God, you haven't heard so-and-so...!! You actually LIKE....?"

But the funny thing is, they all turn out to be secret Celine Dion or Justin Timberlake fans in addition to their list of "important" musicians. They know all the "right" bands to worship (Beatles, Floyd, Joy Division, Nirvana plus dozens of unsigned indie acts) but then they'll throw in some drivel as to why anyone who doesn't get the brilliance of Christina Aguilera or Pink is a fool. On the one hand, they'll tell you you're an idiot & a philistine if you like Hall & Oates, but then in the next breath they'll go into some ridiculously convoluted, pseudo-intellectual defense of the revoluationary genius of Duran Duran.

That's all Seth's doing when he tosses out names & titles. Throw enough darts and some will hit the dartboard. The point is Seth, your list isn't "bad," but it's no better than dozens of other favorite film lists I've read. It's like the AFI Top 100 List, I don't disagree all that much with the titles on it, but there's nothing adventurous there. It's all stuff other people have praised over the years. It's all "correct" choices whose "correctness" was decided decades ago by other critics, other minds, other thinkers, other tastemakers - NOT you.

I don't mind it if Jonathan Rosenbaum, for example, dismisses something, because he's an independent mind whose tastes are truly his own. Your so-called tastes are just a compendium of what Leee rightly noted are "hipster-approved lists" of what the "correct" titles to enjoy are. This is nothing but a "dick-waving" contest (as noted above) and as to this

"A careful reading of all the films I have cited would reveal the presence of many non "Oscar bait" films..."

My answer is, for every "non-Oscar-bait" title, for every movie that ISNT middlebrow, there are three or four that ARE. I never said I didn't like any of the movies there, I said your list wasn't any more highbrow than what the AFI Top 100 lists consist of. Of course I like plenty of their choices too. Of course I like plenty of Top 40 FM Radio hits too. My point is, I don't CONGRATULATE MYSELF or SHOW OFF because I happen to enjoy plenty of middle-of-the-road AOR hits millions of other ordinary people have ALSO appreciated and taken to heart over the years!

My point was never that you had no good movies there. My point was your taste, as you've demonstrated time and again with each addition, is NO BETTER OR WORSE than that of a thousand other film buffs out there. So get off your high horse and stop deluding yourself Superman, Indiana Jones, or TDK are slop, whereas The Hours and Atonement and Giant and Witness for the Prosecution are the cinematic equivalent of Tolstoy and Shakespeare. They're not!! They are ALSO escapist popcorn movies, no less so than Raiders of the Lost Ark or Empire Strikes Back! And if you think otherwise, then YOU, Seth, are the clueless philistine here!!

Posted by HW | July 22, 2008 7:00 PM

Ever since reading The Dark Knight Returns, I've considered Nicholson's Joker to be, well, a bad joke. The man is hamming it up and clearly mailing it in. Ledger's Joker is way, way better. Heck, Hammil's Joker is better. Actually, I shouldn't put it that way: too backhanded of a compliment to Hammil.

Reading TDKR, I also figured out the perfect casting for the Joker. Unfortunatly, he's probably too old for the role now, but...Tim Curry. If you haven't read TDKR, you'll probably be going "wha'?", but if you ever get around to reading it, you'll see it's right there.

Posted by NY Expat | July 22, 2008 7:01 PM

I've seen the movie twice and I think that it was very well done. Kudos to the cast and crew. I do agree that some of Batman's dialogue towards the end was a bit cheesy, but to say that Bale's portrayal of Wayne as placid is a long shot because Wayne needs to be stoic and emotionally distant when it comes to his work and his heroic acts. Yes, Ledger did upstage him a bit, but Bale seems to be the perfect person for this millenial Batman. Also, did it ever cross Denby's mind that his criticism of Bale actually reaffirms why he did so well in the movie? Just a question. Anyway, Eckhart was a wonderful Harvey Dent/Two Face. I didn't expect that.

Posted by Dorian | July 22, 2008 8:50 PM

I've seen the movie twice and I think that it was very well done. Kudos to the cast and crew. I do agree that some of Batman's dialogue towards the end was a bit cheesy, but to say that Bale's portrayal of Wayne as placid is a long shot because Wayne needs to be stoic and emotionally distant when it comes to his work and his heroic acts. Yes, Ledger did upstage him a bit, but Bale seems to be the perfect person for this millenial Batman. Also, did it ever cross Denby's mind that his criticism of Bale actually reaffirms why he did so well in the movie? Just a question. Anyway, Eckhart was a wonderful Harvey Dent/Two Face. I didn't expect that.

Posted by Dorian | July 22, 2008 8:51 PM

"He seems to be aping middle school children"

"Anyone who rattles off an endless list of titles designed to impress a bunch of total strangers is an asshole."

These comments underscore the futility of trying to engage in thoughtful dialogue or conservation in the blogosphere. It's almost inevitable that someone feels compelled to underscore their argument with childish, infantile namecalling.

"I know the type."
No HW, you don't know the type at all. Drawing up a ridiculous thumbnail sketch of someone based on a few blog postings is a pointless, silly exercise. Your music fan remarks were off base, over the top, and unnecessary. It was unworthy of someone who across as well-read and well informed. I mistook you for someone interested in rational, reasonable discourse instead of launching into snide, surly insults.

Posted by Seth | July 22, 2008 9:17 PM

Bale can assault me anytime he wants as long as it's sexual assault :)

Posted by SJ | July 23, 2008 12:47 AM

Seth,

The problem is that you didn't argue anything. You presented a list. Me saying that my favorite physicists of the twentieth century are Richard Feynman, Albert Einstein, Enrico Fermi, Heisenberg, Schroedinger, Bohr, Oppenheimer, Gell-Mann, Summerfield, Wigner, Teller, Witten, Greene, Hawking et al. does not constitute a thoughtful dialogue about Physics. I don't understand in what universe you think that making a pretentious list of what is worth reading or watching contributes to a discussion. Plenty of people who are far smarter than you or me enjoy middle or lowbrow art that you consider beneath you so maybe you just need to lighten up.

Posted by Ethan P | July 23, 2008 1:12 AM

"So get off your high horse and stop deluding yourself Superman, Indiana Jones, or TDK are slop, whereas The Hours and Atonement and Giant and Witness for the Prosecution are the cinematic equivalent of Tolstoy and Shakespeare. They're not!! They are ALSO escapist popcorn movies, no less so than Raiders of the Lost Ark or Empire Strikes Back! And if you think otherwise, then YOU, Seth, are the clueless philistine here!!"

To HW, etc

Scoff or mock The Hours, Atonement, Giant, Witness for the Prosecution, or Manhattan all you want if it makes you feel better. None of these films had tie-ins with McDonald's or Burger King, inspired amusement park rides, computer games, etc.

Batman, Spiderman, etc are not just movies. They are merchandising juggernauts. Their theatrical release is an excuse for the selling of insipid, worthless product tie-ins. Batman and Spiderman are not simply bad movies, they breed more junk.

Posted by Seth | July 23, 2008 1:12 AM

Ethan P.,

"My favorite physicists of the twentieth century are Richard Feynman, Albert Einstein, Enrico Fermi, Heisenberg, Schroedinger, Bohr, Oppenheimer, Gell-Mann, Summerfield, Wigner, Teller, Witten, Greene, Hawking"

This is a great list you compiled. I would also recommend Steven Weinberg, Arno Penzias, Michio Kaku, Roger Penrose, Lisa Randall, Paul Dirac, Philip Morrison, and Wolfgang Pauli.

I appreciate the creativity you showed with your post. It's very amusing and a refreshing change from juvenile insults.

Posted by Seth | July 23, 2008 1:43 AM

For his next trick Seth tells us that War and Peace is better than John Grisham.

Dude, you think your being clever when all you are doing is showing how intellectually insecure you are.

Posted by eric k | July 23, 2008 3:04 AM

I love War and Peace but I have no problem or issue with Grisham.

Just because something is very popular doesn't mean I hate it. Some readers took my comments about Batman to mean I oppose anything that is extremely popular. This is an incorrect interpretation of where I'm coming from.

I liked The Firm a great deal and thought the film version was great. I thought Runaway Jury was pretty good and liked the film version even better and I liked The Rainmaker. I also like Tom Clancy and Scott Turow. I just happen to prefer Tolstoy and novelists who one might consider classic.

I can easily appreciate the art of certain popular novelists and certain popular movies. I'd never dismiss a novel or movie out of hand based solely on the fact that it was a smash hit.

I think there's a lot more substance in the works of Grisham, Turow, and Clancy than there is in Batman, Spiderman, and Superman.

I'm not crazy about the term "popcorn movie" but if the works of Grisham, Turow, and Clancy fit someone's definition of the term, then I admit that I have sat through and enjoyed some "popcorn movies".

Posted by Seth | July 23, 2008 11:09 AM

I love War and Peace but I have no problem or issue with Grisham.

Just because something is very popular doesn't mean I hate it. Some readers took my comments about Batman to mean I oppose anything that is extremely popular. This is an incorrect interpretation of where I'm coming from.

I liked The Firm a great deal and thought the film version was great. I thought Runaway Jury was pretty good and liked the film version even better and I liked The Rainmaker. I also like Tom Clancy and Scott Turow. I just happen to prefer Tolstoy and novelists who one might consider classic.

I can easily appreciate the art of certain popular novelists and certain popular movies. I'd never dismiss a novel or movie out of hand based solely on the fact that it was a smash hit.

I think there's a lot more substance in the works of Grisham, Turow, and Clancy than there is in Batman, Spiderman, and Superman.

I'm not crazy about the term "popcorn movie" but if the works of Grisham, Turow, and Clancy fit someone's definition of the term, then I admit that I have sat through and enjoyed some "popcorn movies".

Posted by Seth | July 23, 2008 11:12 AM

I love War and Peace but I have no problem or issue with Grisham.

Just because something is very popular doesn't mean I hate it. Some readers took my comments about Batman to mean I oppose anything that is extremely popular. This is an incorrect interpretation of where I'm coming from.

I liked The Firm a great deal and thought the film version was great. I thought Runaway Jury was pretty good and liked the film version even better and I liked The Rainmaker. I also like Tom Clancy and Scott Turow. I just happen to prefer Tolstoy and novelists who one might consider classic.

I can easily appreciate the art of certain popular novelists and certain popular movies. I'd never dismiss a novel or movie out of hand based solely on the fact that it was a smash hit.

I think there's a lot more substance in the works of Grisham, Turow, and Clancy than there is in Batman, Spiderman, and Superman.

I'm not crazy about the term "popcorn movie" but if the works of Grisham, Turow, and Clancy fit someone's definition of the term, then I admit that I have sat through and enjoyed some "popcorn movies".

Posted by Seth | July 23, 2008 11:15 AM

"I think there's a lot more substance in the works of Grisham, Turow, and Clancy than there is in Batman, Spiderman, and Superman."

Oh, so it's really just a prejudice against comic books, then?

Mike

Posted by MBunge | July 23, 2008 12:01 PM

Ok now you have proven that you are just a posuer troll. Grisham is a hack, if you think the Firm had more depth that The Dark Knight you are either even dumber than you have appeared or are doing Petey style performance art.

Posted by eric k | July 23, 2008 12:04 PM

Mike, it's either that or against anything with a merchandising campaign attached (I assume movies produced before he was born are safe, as are promotional campaigns that don't impact him directly, like the free milkshake coupons given to movie reviewers around TWBB). Either way, it's clearly not worth spending time on him, though I did enjoy poking him a bit.

Posted by Persia | July 23, 2008 1:59 PM

"prejudice against comic books"
You could say that. I have enjoyed some graphic novels, but when it comes to Batman, Spiderman, Superman, and all the other superhero comic books they are the print equivalent of cotton candy to me. The movie versions of Batman, Spiderman, and Superman are just more flavors of cotton candy in my opinion.

"against anything with a merchandising campaign attached"
I don't like merchandising campaigns. I find them sleazy and nauseating.

eric k
If you think Dark Knight has any depth, God bless you.

Posted by Seth | July 23, 2008 2:26 PM

Nobody with half a brain could find anything but pure, park-your-brain-at-the-door escapism in Grisham. Even Grisham fans don't think he's anything but cotton candy for the brain. By no means do I deny that some of the praise for this movie is over-the-top - Walter Chaw went pretty haywire when he said it was virtually flawless & then compared it to The Godfather Part II (why aren't you over at his website chastising him instead of picking on Yglesias merely for claiming Bale & Ledger gave a good performances?) - but be honest, Grisham is trash. You know it, I know it, Grisham knows it.

Posted by HW | July 23, 2008 6:07 PM

"Walter Chaw went pretty haywire when he said it was virtually flawless & then compared it to The Godfather Part II (why aren't you over at his website chastising him?)"

I'm not over there because I wasn't aware of Chaw's comments. I'm not conducting an exhaustive Internet search to identify every single person who has praised Dark Knight and then heap scorn on each one of them. Life is too damn short for that.

I regularly visit the Atlantic to read the blogs of Sullivan, Yglesias, Ambinder, Fallows, et al. for political news/gossip.

I happened to see the post regarding Christian Bale and felt obliged to make a comment. I wasn't intending to chastise Yglesias, I was just venting at the avalanche of praise that Dark Knight has received.

You want to call Grisham trash or cotton candy, go ahead. I said I liked some of his work. I won't make an impassioned plea to argue that he's an immortal who belongs in a pantheon of great novelists.

I mentioned Grisham, Turow, and Clancy to show that I can appreciate "escapist popcorn movies" sometimes. I'm not always seeking the cinematic equivalent of Tolstoy or Shakespeare.

I'm glad you draw a line when it comes to comparisons with the Godfather Part II. This is the most breathtakingly absurd comment on Dark Knight which I've heard to date.

Posted by Seth | July 23, 2008 7:25 PM

Seth,

I'm saying TDK has more depth than Grisham. Hell this thread has more depth than Grisham. I'm not saying it was ChinaTown or the Godfather, but by the standards of Summer blockbusters, yeah it is deeper than most.

You know it is possible to appreciate that something like a Bergman movie is better and much deeper than something like The Dark Knight and not be a pretentious ass hole about it.

If you had stopped there it would be silly enough, but then you had to try and argue that Gisham and Clancy are deeper works than Batman, which just shows your bias against comics as an art form. Sure they aren't Tolstoy, but not all comics are equal and the best of them are easily deeper than hack genre novels like Grisham and Clancy, I consider Turow a cut above those two so I won't denigrate him by lumping him in with them:-)

Posted by eric k | July 23, 2008 7:56 PM

I hope the next Batman features more Christian Bale as the CENTRAL character. He is a fantastic Batman, a marvelous Bruce Wayne, and the sexiest man alive! PEOPLE Magazine, are you listening?

Bale is an underrated actor, and The Dark Knight missed the mark by giving a Batman For the Ages too little to do. They also should not have played his good looks off those of pretty-boy Aaron, who made Maggie look dowdy.

Batman Begins was a better movie: classier, more interesting, more atmospheric, thrilling (not horrifying)and profound. Bring back the castle, bring back the bats. OMG. Bring back the Zen magic.

I think Heath Ledger's Joker was too dominant in the film, and not what the Joker character really is. The Joker's lips were traditionally RED LIPSTICK--not from knife slashes--but as a screaming psycho, which Caesar Romero captured so brilliantly. And there was always irony and some slapstick humor to his insanity. At some points, the Joker should have been played with a lighter, more pranksterish touch. We could have laughed.

This Joker was unremittingly cruel and HUMORLESS. Explosions became substitutions for creative activity and imaginative plot twists.

I hope the next Batman fulfills the exquisite promise of Batman Begins. And that we all get to see our hero. Hopefully, butt-naked.

Posted by Dawn | August 3, 2008 4:08 PM

Re: Seth etc...

People have different tastes and different generations have different sensibilites. Heck even my gf doesn't really "get" why Batman is so cool. Some people will just never get it. They lack the perceptory apparatus to notice and appreciate such things. My real question and what speaks to Seth as trolling is this...

Seth, if you know about yourself that comics are cotton candy fluff, and you abhor big marketing movies...then why did you sumbit yourself to sitting through two and a half hours of "excrement" that was a "waste of time, money talent and resources?"

It was either A.) You're a masochist. or B.) You just wanted to see it so you could bash it, since by now it is clear your opinion was formed even before you walked into the movie theatre. In other words...you're just a snob who likes trolling.

For the record I thought TDK was amazing and Ledger stole every scene he appeared in and even several in which he didn't (Mayor's office...). I even had to argue to my friend who is another staunch Batman fan that Ledger nailed it. he hasn't seen the film yet and he thinks that "anyone could be the joker." But for me, it was more than the makeup. What made his performance so amazing was the way he inhabited the roll. His voice, his posture, movement and body language...

Also for the record I was just searching for news bits and found this thread entertaining enough to read. No need to deconstruct my post and argue with me since it's likely i'll never visit here again.

Thus, I have spoken... :oP

Posted by Sky | August 3, 2008 11:38 PM

Re: Seth etc...

People have different tastes and different generations have different sensibilites. Heck even my gf doesn't really "get" why Batman is so cool. Some people will just never get it. They lack the perceptory apparatus to notice and appreciate such things. My real question and what speaks to Seth as trolling is this...

Seth, if you know about yourself that comics are cotton candy fluff, and you abhor big marketing movies...then why did you sumbit yourself to sitting through two and a half hours of "excrement" that was a "waste of time, money talent and resources?"

It was either A.) You're a masochist. or B.) You just wanted to see it so you could bash it, since by now it is clear your opinion was formed even before you walked into the movie theatre. In other words...you're just a snob who likes trolling.

For the record I thought TDK was amazing and Ledger stole every scene he appeared in and even several in which he didn't (Mayor's office...). I even had to argue to my friend who is another staunch Batman fan that Ledger nailed it. he hasn't seen the film yet and he thinks that "anyone could be the joker." But for me, it was more than the makeup. What made his performance so amazing was the way he inhabited the roll. His voice, his posture, movement and body language...

Also for the record I was just searching for news bits and found this thread entertaining enough to read. No need to deconstruct my post and argue with me since it's likely i'll never visit here again.

Thus, I have spoken... :oP

Posted by Sky | August 3, 2008 11:39 PM

Re: Seth etc...

People have different tastes and different generations have different sensibilites. Heck even my gf doesn't really "get" why Batman is so cool. Some people will just never get it. They lack the perceptory apparatus to notice and appreciate such things. My real question and what speaks to Seth as trolling is this...

Seth, if you know about yourself that comics are cotton candy fluff, and you abhor big marketing movies...then why did you sumbit yourself to sitting through two and a half hours of "excrement" that was a "waste of time, money talent and resources?"

It was either A.) You're a masochist. or B.) You just wanted to see it so you could bash it, since by now it is clear your opinion was formed even before you walked into the movie theatre. In other words...you're just a snob who likes trolling.

For the record I thought TDK was amazing and Ledger stole every scene he appeared in and even several in which he didn't (Mayor's office...). I even had to argue to my friend who is another staunch Batman fan that Ledger nailed it. he hasn't seen the film yet and he thinks that "anyone could be the joker." But for me, it was more than the makeup. What made his performance so amazing was the way he inhabited the roll. His voice, his posture, movement and body language...

Also for the record I was just searching for news bits and found this thread entertaining enough to read. No need to deconstruct my post and argue with me since it's likely i'll never visit here again.

Thus, I have spoken... :oP

Posted by Sky | August 3, 2008 11:40 PM

Sorry about the tripple post. I thought my computer was stuck.

Anyways, I had the thought and just couldn't resist chiming in cuz it fits so perfectly...

Re: Seth:

"Some men don't want anything reasonable. Some men, just want to watch the world burn...in a flame war..."

HaHa!

Posted by Sky | August 4, 2008 12:15 AM