Friday, July 18, 2008

Blog Failure

Well, I feel that I have already failed on this blog on two accounts. First, I re-read the way my last entry sounded, and I didn't like it. The idea was fine, but the "attack" on atheism sounded too apologetic. I am not interested in being a Christian apologist, explaining why the "Christian worldview" is superior to all other views with a Schaefferian confidence/arrogance. But I am interested in analyzing the RELIGIOUS elements that lie beneath all philosophies, structures, fields, systems, and even institutional religions. Anyway, sorry if I communicated the wrong idea.

Second, I have just stunk at keeping up with this thing. So, I would like to get back on track. But before returning to my discussion of religions (which is important), I would like to have a little movie review on, "The Dark Knight" - which I just saw last night and which immediately jumped into my favorite movies list.

First, a brief critique: in terms of entertainment, the movie was a little lacking. There is a certain emotional effect you want to have on an audience, and to pull it off, a movie needs to fit in a certain timeframe. This movie was too long to have the maximally engaging effect. (You find yourself checking the time, and feeling like "This is a long movie.") Similarly, the movie probably could have been broken up into two movies. It brings you to an emotional climax, softly relieves it, and then attempts to climax again. From this standpoint, it was not as appealing as the first movie. But from a different standpoint, it's length was understandable and perhaps necessary.

The acting gets a mixed review. Heath Ledger had an absolutely stunning performance as the Joker. He re-invents the character on screen - a difficult challenge following Jack Nicholson - and everything from his walk, to his ticks, to his tone, to his philosophical unity was done masterfully. I hope he is awarded an Oscar, really. I rank Michael Cain as the #2 actor in the movie, playing Alfred's role very convincingly. Christian Bale (Batman), Morgan Freeman (Lucius Fox), and Gary Oldman (Jim Gordon), all acted sufficiently, but there was little that stood out to me as superb by any of their performances in this movie. I thought Aaron Eckhart played Harvey Dent with ease and grace, but he was less convincing in his transformation as Two-Face. Similarly, poor Maggie Gyllenhaal didn't stand a chance as Rachel Dawes. She's not Katie Holmes, and the scene with her death didn't have half of the impact it would have had Holmes participated in a second film.

But what makes this movie marvellous is the character development and philosophical themes. I haven't seen a movie that mastered such philosophical themes in a long time, and I don't think I've ever seen a film match this one's character development. To summarize, I think the major points of philosophical interest are: Batman as the Deontological Ideal; Joker as the Nihilistic Foil; the good and evil inherent to humanity; the amount of control we have over our fate and how we can respond to it; how good and evil may be interdependent; and some sociological commentary. I don't think each of these will get their own blog. But the following blog will be dedicated to, "Batman and Deontology" because it is so prominent and is important for understanding both the movies perspective and our relationship to it as viewers.

No comments: