Answering the critics

Rating: 10/10 (7 August 2008)

Looking over the comments from those who hated this film, I noticed a lot of people complaining that the film has a.) poor editing and cinematography, b.) undeveloped characters, and c.) and incoherent and/or meaningless plot. Not all criticisms say these things; some smart viewers genuinely don't get this film and that's cool. But a LOT of viewers claim the film is both stupid and nihilistic. Let's discuss. (If you're already nodding, cut to the last paragraph).
First, it should be noted that the film's cinematographer, Wally Pfister, has already been nominated for an Oscar twice. These nominations are not driven by money or by poor taste; they come from other cinematographers and they speak to the artistry of his work. Pfister is a master of deliberately imperfect framing and visual misdirection. His work isn't easy to watch and his work rewards repeat viewing. It is NOT incoherent and, in fact, most of his scenarios are VERY clear after a while. He makes you work for clarity and why this should be a problem, especially when visual sophistication is something that usually makes films better, is beyond me.
Second, the editing, though very rapid, also comes together after repeat viewing. The cuts usually bring together different IDEAS about what a scene means, not just different angles-- that is, the plot information carries thematic information inside it. Those who don't want to work for this information are perfectly entitled not to, but they might reconsider their right to complain about it.
Third, concerning character: the critics are right. The characters are in fact "underdeveloped" and that's only a problem if you think every film should be judged as if it is a Merchant Ivory production. The fact is, Christopher Nolan is a science fiction director. I don't mean that all his films are science fiction; I just mean that he focuses on ideas, not characters. If you aren't into this, fine, but it's a genre issue, not an issue of quality. Complaining that a science fiction film doesn't have "well developed characters" is like claiming that Atonement was a poor film because it didn't have an alien invasion. I liked Atonement and I liked knowing who the characters were and where they were coming from, because it was a work of dramatic realism. In The Dark Knight, the Joker's "origin" is NOT THE POINT--which is why he keeps making up various stories about his origin. The point is the social role he plays. It's also not the point that he actually plans things. OF COURSE he actually plans things: he just CLAIMS that he doesn't plan because that's the role he wants to play. Every major character in this film plays a role, a social and public role, and the clash among these roles is the point of the film. Again, if you're not into this, fine, but it's a matter of genre preference, not an issue of what makes a film good or bad. I like Merchant Ivory films, and when I see one I expect well developed characters. But expecting every film to have them is weird.
Lastly, the question of the plot. The plot is about terrorism and its meaning for those who are, or might be, victims of it. This is an interesting idea and I think it's handled in an interesting way. We're shown both the evils of terrorism and also--this is the controversial part--the opportunities it provides to test our own willingness to be free. If you didn't "get" this when you saw the film, that's cool--but that doesn't mean it wasn't there. It just means you were not, for whatever reason, looking for it.
I usually don't bother to write reviews for big-budget stuff, but something about the hypocrisy of the negative reactions to this film really bothers me. First people claim that the film is too dark, not entertaining enough, etc.--in other words it's not the lightweight fantasy fluff they expect from a comic book movie. They go on to complain that they didn't get it, that it was hard to follow, that the characters were unsympathetic, etc. So basically, they condescend to the film for not being easy to watch, which is not exactly a reason to condescend to a film. Some people want comic book movies to be fun and light and that's okay, but if a director wants to use this genre to do something serious, what's wrong with that? If art directors can make comedies, why can't pop-genre directors make serious "essay" films about serious topics? Maybe some of us can't accept that serious pop-genre films will NEVER look like Atonement or whatever (for one thing, they won't have "deep" characters). For the rest of us, The Dark Knight is a breakthrough.