Simple and easy poll this week, what with all the escalating chatter about the Best Picture prospects of “The Dark Knight.” You tell us: is it all wishful thinking or can the Bat secure a spot in the final five?
And if you want to give us your bright ideas as to why or why not, cut loose in the comments below.
Speaking of Batman, Sasha Stone of Awards Daily has declared that “The Dark Knight” has become “too big too ignore” in her latest “State of the Race” column. She offers a sound argument for the film’s Best Picture chances, spotlighting four aspects of the effort and its mythos that seal the deal.
Here’s a starter regarding the stellar box office:
To not nominate it for Best Picture at this rate would undermine the process of having a Best Picture race in the first place; if you don’t honor a film this big you really do a dishonor to those who drive the entire business: the ticket buyers.
And the closer:
Titanic was only half a great film. But there was just something about it that made people want to see it over and over again, just as they did Star Wars and now The Dark Knight. Maybe it really is as simple as movie magic. Maybe it is something deeper. Either way, the time has come to start taking the film seriously as a contender.
I’m sticking to my guns here. I’m more than happy that Oscarwatchers are getting this excited and that they are seeing gold in the Bat’s future, but I expect them all to be disappointed in the end (as if that’s the most unpredictable tool in the Academy’s arsenal). But, as I’ve been saying from day one on this, I’m happy to be wrong.
And the editor isn’t unaware of the irony…
So it turns out, as a way of uber-preparation for his performance in “The Dark Knight,” actor Heath Ledger kept a “Joker diary” during the month leading up to production. And some of its contents seem to have given Bat-scribe Grant Morrison the willies.
The writer recently sat down with MTV’s Jennifer Vineyard to discuss the parallels between Ledger’s performance and the Joker he’s envisioned in works such as “Arkham Asylum: A Serious House on Serious Earth” and “The Clown at Midnight” (“Batman” #663). Here’s a taste:
In [the diary], there’s a list of what would make the Joker laugh – including AIDS, landmines, geniuses suffering irreversible brain damage, brunch, and sombreros. “It gave me this chill,” Grant Morrison said, because it was word-for-word what Morrison had written in one of his Batman stories…
…As a response to his own “Arkham Asylum: A Serious House on Serious Earth,” Morrison had continued his themes of the duality of Joker and the Batman in “The Clown at Midnight.” Having established with “Arkham” that the Joker had a sort of “super-sanity” and that he shifted between personalities,” Morrison explored the idea further in “The Clown at Midnight,” by showing that each time the Joker escaped, one of those new personalities would emerge.
“It’s a really good story,” Morrison said, “but because it was prose, people didn’t want to read it.”
Except, apparently, Heath, who saw Morrison’s list and put it in his Joker diary. “He actually had a whole list — blind babies, doctors, accidents — really horrible stuff,” Morrison said. “Heath wrote it all down. So yeah, I can see there’s a lot of [‘Arkham’ and ‘Midnight’] in his Joker.”
Very cool and savvy move on Ledger’s part. I’m one of the readers who doesn’t engage too well with Morrison’s work, but on a purely conceptual, off-the-page level, I’ve always felt his vision of the character was something of a definitive.
Furthermore, I think Ledger hammered it out on the big screen in a big, exciting way. He carried across that “super-sanity” with striking clarity. In my review, I noted that Ledger’s “inflections, maniacal throughout the film until…fade into the background as he spews sincere, borderline reasonable philosophy.” You recall the mob meeting: “You’re insane.” “No I’m not. I’m not.”
It just goes to show that this is a performance working on more levels than even the most triumphant reviews seemed to suggest. And with every record-breaking dollar it seems the Oscar moves closer to his posthumous grasp.
In my review of “Pineapple Express” yesterday, I mad it a point of mentioning director David Gordon Green’s salute to the greatest (or worst) of 1980s action cinema. At the time I wrote:
Green’s obvious devotion to the action epics of the 1980s that his generation grew up on makes its way to the surface more than a few times (I swear I’ve seen that knife toss before…can’t place it). He makes no bones about an affinity for Steven Seagal and lord knows he found a proper outlet to show his respect for what I like to call the “Steven E. de Souza subgenre” of actioners. But to mix it in with a pothead extravaganza…absolute genius.
And today, it looks like the ever-insightful writers of New York Magazine’s Vulture blog have taken it a step farther, asking with the utmost sincerity, “Who’s the better action director: David Gordon Green or Christopher Nolan?”
Take a look:
Obviously Green is no John Woo, but the [finale] is lucid, well paced, and nowhere near as stupid-looking as one might reasonably anticipate, especially considering that it includes shots of Rogen firing an automatic weapon. There are explosions, bleeding injuries, and some passably impressive stunt work, not bad for a freakin’ Judd Apatow movie.
They then go on to point out the problems with Nolan’s handling of action sequences in “The Dark Knight” that have been mentioned in a number of mixed or negative reviews of the film. “Sure, the action in Nolan’s film is more ambitious,” they write, “but the fact that Green’s is infinitely more coherent and suspenseful is…well, sort of funny, right?”
Gotta love those caljones. And it’s not exactly an out-of-bounds observation. Read the full post here.
The cover of “The Invincible Iron Man” #9 with Stark duking it out with The Incredible Hulk and the cover of “Detective Comics” #583, the Dark Knight himself drawn by Hellboy creator Mike Mignola:
The season is upon us. One month from today the industry’s first major stepping stone on the way to the Kodak Theater will arrive in the form of the Toronto International Film Festival: 10 days of put up or shut up by a number of the year’s prospective contenders.
Oddly enough, however, there will be a few considerable no-shows at this year’s festivities. In a business increasingly proving the precariousness of an early “frontrunner” status, studios and publicists seem to be slowing the machine down…but a few hands have been forced this season.
Heavily anticipated entries like “Revolutionary Road” and “Milk” will be absent at Toronto next month. Neither is expected to be ready, actually. Sam Mendes has been hard at work on “Farlanders,” while Focus Features would probably prefer to take the slow road after emerging from Toronto as the “frontrunner” in 2005 and 2007, but ultimately coming up short on Oscar night.
This is probably for the best on both. Gotta maintain those expectations. Early raves are as dangerous as early pans.
Meanwhile, the lineup is currently littered with modest independent efforts that depend on the festival circuit to find their groove: “Happy-Go-Lucky,” “The Other Man,” “Rachel Getting Married,” “The Secret Life of Bees,” etc. The major stuff — so far — seems to be steering clear.
Regardless, we’ve got one more month of full blown speculation before the season begins to settle into a tangible state…so let’s get to it.
…and pray that “The Dark knight” can manage to stay on top this weekend rather than be dethroned by the worst film of the year so far.
I have now seen “The Dark Knight” three times, and listened to the score several times. While the flaws of the film as a whole have become more apparent (though I still maintain it is excellent), the collaboration of Hans Zimmer and James Newton Howard keeps growing on me as an integral part of the film and character building, especially for Batman and the Joker.
The nature of the collaboration will almost certainly keep the duo out of the Oscar race due to the rules on such matters. But I still can’t help but wonder…why does this remain the only category where two artists who work together and, as such, enrich each other’s work, not allow such artists to be awarded for it? I need only point out the Nick Cave/Warren Ellis score to “The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford” last year as another example.
I…just…don’t…get…it
Yeah, consider the source: the National Enquirer. But apparently these two names are swirling around the casting debate for the sequel to the box office shattering “Dark Knight.”
(Actually…there’s no source on the Depp bit.)
Thanks to reader Ronn for passing in the information. You all know my Bat allegiance, so I’ll use just about any nugget as an excuse to spout off at the mouth on this subject. Personally, I’m not big on either of these choices, though Hoffman could put a certain bent on Oswald Cobblepott that would be interesting. His name has always been in the cards, though.
The point is, these types of rumors go crazy right around this time: post release of a successful film that’s bound to have another installment on the way. Last time it was Crispin Glover and Jude Law as potential candidates for the role of the Joker (with the former actively campaigning for the part). Then Christopher Nolan surprised us all with an out-of-the-box, unanticipated name and voila: potential Oscar nomination for Best Supporting Actor.
My thoughts on casting the rest of the series are already on the record, but here’s two more names, grist for the mill, do with it what you will.
Thanks again to Ronn.
Peter Finch’es wide-eyed, frantic performance as newsman Howard Beale in Sidney Lumet’s “Network” became a touchstone for North America in 1976 because we too were “mad as hell and not going to take it anymore.”
Vietnam was over, though the vets were struggling with their various personal horrors. Nixon had resigned, leaving a mistrustful America in his wake. And up here in Canada, we were dealing with a Prime Minister who was often more playboy than politician. Lumet’s searing film, from an original screenplay by Paddy Chayevsky, was timely indeed.
Whispers of a posthumous Oscar have circulated Heath Ledger’s performance in “The Dark Knight” for weeks now, bringing Finch’s seizure of the Best Actor trophy back to the forefront of discussion. But was Finch’s win a recognition of the performance or was it fueled by his unfortunate dead in January of 1977?
The first I heard of this Andrew Klavan op-ed in today’s Wall Street Journal was over at Awards Daily. I blew off the pathetic stretch for a parallel between Christopher Nolan’s “The Dark Knight” and the disastrous administration of George W. Bush as just that, pathetic. This is, after all, the author of such seminally vacant thrillers as “True Crime” and “Don’t Say a Word” we’re talking about.
Then I noticed Rupert Murdoch pop up on Keith Olbermann’s list of the “worst people in the world” in response to the mogul’s paper publishing the piece this week, and I figured I would give it a closer look.
Good GOD what moronic copy. A taste of the absurdity:
…like W, Batman understands that there is no moral equivalence between a free society — in which people sometimes make the wrong choices — and a criminal sect bent on destruction. The former must be cherished even in its moments of folly; the latter must be hounded to the gates of Hell.
“The Dark Knight,” then, is a conservative movie about the war on terror. And like another such film, last year’s “300,” “The Dark Knight” is making a fortune depicting the values and necessities that the Bush administration cannot seem to articulate for beans.
That’s right, he brings up the old (and equally stupid) “‘300’ is an allegory for the Bush administration” stand-by from over a year ago.
Oh, you want some more? By all means:
The moment filmmakers take on the problem of Islamic terrorism in realistic films, suddenly those values vanish. The good guys become indistinguishable from the bad guys, and we end up denigrating the very heroes who defend us. Why should this be?
The answers to these questions seem to me to be embedded in the story of “The Dark Knight” itself: Doing what’s right is hard, and speaking the truth is dangerous. Many have been abhorred for it, some killed, one crucified.
Alright, dear readers. Shake it off. I know the sheer ignorance is both deafening and infuriating. The sad thing is, Klavan has a thesis worth exploring in there somewhere. That it is buried in this partisan hogwash and sublimely inadequate reasoning within such a staunchly pro-conservative view point ironically reflects the very direct approach of liberal-minded filmmaking he’s apparently railing against. But you already knew that. You’re smarter than this…guy.
Oh, but don’t blink, or you’ll miss Klaven stumble right past the entire point of “The Dark Knight” on the way to missing it completely, and manipulating it to his own ends:
As Gary Oldman’s Commissioner Gordon says of the hated and hunted Batman, “He has to run away — because we have to chase him.” That’s real moral complexity. And when our artistic community is ready to show that sometimes men must kill in order to preserve life; that sometimes they must violate their values in order to maintain those values…then and only then will we be able to pay President Bush his due and make good and true films about the war on terror.
Wow, right? Then there’s this blurb at the bottom of the page:
Mr. Klavan has won two Edgar Awards from the Mystery Writers of America. His new novel, “Empire of Lies” (An Otto Penzler Book, Harcourt), is about an ordinary man confronting the war on terror.
Can’t wait to see how morally complex that piece of shit will be. Now, I need to go to out to the driveway and grab my sun-faded copy of the Journal so that I can burn it properly.
(Mr. Nolan — if you happen to be reading this — I implore you to rebut this nonsense in your own op-ed.)
I don’t want to post “The Dark Knight” producer Emma Thomas’s quote in this space. Spoilers and all. But suffice it to say, this IGN story gives us all hope.
“The Dark Knight” raked in $20 million on Tuesday, breezing past “Pirates of the Carribean: Dead Man’s Chest” to claim the record for fastest to $200 million. By the way, it destroyed the previous number by three days.
Sitting at $203 million at the end of Tuesday, the film also seized the 5-day opening record. The 6- and 7-day records already fell with that number, while 8, 9 and 10 will assuredly follow.
The fastest to $300 million title will also fall over the weekend, probably on Saturday, and by a margin of nearly half the previous holder. $400 million (and the record for fastest to that mark) is obviously within grasp by the time the summer rolls to a close, and after that, who knows? $500 million? Probably.
And by the end of its run, “The Dark Knight” will likely be the #2 domestic grossing film of all time.
Wow.
But…
Aaron Eckhart would reprise his role from The Dark Knight – because working with Christian Bale is “phenomenal”.
Eckhart, who plays District Attorney Harvey Dent in the sequel, confesses he “absolutely” would star in a third Batman film.
He tells WENN, “To work with Christian (Bale) all over again, and the cast, would be phenomenal. I think this movie is a movie of a lifetime.”
I’ve been going around and around in circles on this issue, and I’ve frankly become dizzy at the ambiguity.
But one of our readers, Gareth, sent a note recently regarding the fate of Harvey Dent in “The Dark Knight,” offering up a line from the shooting draft of the screenplay (available for purchase) that sort of turns the stomach.
I don’t want to spoil anything here, so check it out after the jump…
