Retro Trio: The Dark Knight Trilogy (2005-2012)

Director: Christopher Nolan

Once in while, I'm in a mood to watch a movie which will give me a balance of not challenging me with anything new but still being rich enough to avoid dullness. Often, a good action or adventure movie I've seen before does the trick for me in these situations, so when just such a mood recently struck me, I fired up director Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight Trilogy. Over a few nights, I re-watched Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, and The Dark Knight Rises.

I think this trilogy is an impressive accomplishment. I own all three, and I enjoy returning to them every few years. This will not change, though there are certain gripes which I have developed regarding a few aspects of the series, as much out of over-familiarity as anything else. Let's get those out of the way:

One thing that irked me is that Bruce Wayne's scientific and detecting genius is almost completely absent. In fact, it is virtually spat upon. Since his very inception in Detective Comics in 1940, Bruce Wayne/Batman was noted for his intellect. He was virtually a Sherlock Holmes. Still, in Batman Begins, after Bruce Wayne is gassed with Scarecrow's hallucinogenic toxin, he awakes to have Lucius Fox rattle off the advanced chemical processes he needed to perform in order to produce an antidote. In response, Wayne simply states, "Is that supposed to mean anything to me?" Wayne's utter inability to comprehend Fox's chemistry jargon has always struck me as a severe oversight in terms of one of Batman's greatest strengths - that he is supposed to be phenomenally brilliant, especially with the forensic sciences, including biochemistry. Almost never in the entire trilogy is his scientific intelligence exhibited. The real shame is that it wouldn't have taken much effort to include it. My guess is that Christopher Nolan was so very focused on Bryce Wayne's tortured psyche that he ignored his considerable intellect, despite the fact that it could have been another avenue along which to explore his obsessive personality.

There's absolutely no way that the Joker (right) could have
been sure that his fellow crew member wasn't going to just
blow him away before his full plan unfolded. Just lucky,
I guess. This happens quite a bit. 

Another general area which exhibits cracks is in the little details and transitions from one plot point to the next. All of Christopher Nolan's movie's virtually crackle with great energy and pace, so that the eyes and mind are stimulated through the entire picture. However, when one watches his movies a second or third time, certain unanswerable questions arise. This was true with Memento, Interstellar, and every movie in between. In the Dark Knight trilogy, they are sprinkled around in plenty of places. In The Dark Knight, during the Joker's interrogation scene, how did the villain know that he would be able to break out at exactly the right time to call and set off his bombs while Wayne raced to save Rachel and Dent? In The Dark Knight Rises, how on Earth does even Batman recover from a broken back and return to peak fighting condition in a few short months? Though none of them ever torpedoes the overall stories, a few of these nagging little problems can be found in each film.

One of my lesser issues is that the dialogue can, depending on the mood I am in, feel overly polished. While there are plenty of thoughtful and brilliant lines (as I'll explore later), I sometimes cannot help but smirk at how nearly every character has a slick, clever line right on the tip of his or her tongue, at virtually every turn. Again, this is a minor issue, as many of the lines are great, but it does rob the characters of a certain level of authenticity.

And oh yes, Christian Bale's and Tom Hardy's respective Batman and Bane voices were strange and distracting choices. But they don't bother me nearly as much as they clearly bothered a lot of people. On to why I continue to return to these movies...

The Dark Knight trilogy did for superhero movies what Alan Moore and Frank Miller did for popular superhero comics two decades earlier: they brought a sense of maturity, depth, atmosphere, and intellect which simply had not been there before. Even some of the really enjoyable superhero movies from before Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy, like Tim Burton's Batman and Bryan Singer's first two X-Men movies, still bore hallmarks of PG-rated "bubble gum" comic books. Sure, there was a touch of psychological depth in them, but they still remained primarily plot-driven stories which relied a bit more on colorful visuals than on probing character study. With his Batman trilogy, Nolan decided to take a very close look at Frank Miller's work with Batman in the 1980s, when the writer and artist dug into the damaged and arguably unhinged mind of "the world's greatest detective." Nolan combined this with the question, "What if a real billionaire truly went sort of nuts and decided to take justice into his own hands by pummeling criminals?" Nolan decided to set this story in a world which asked us to suspend our disbelief far less than any previous superhero movie, especially in terms of the powers and abilities of the primary characters. This was very different territory for the movies, and I've greatly appreciated it. Admittedly, things get a bit sillier in the final installment, but it doesn't spoil Nolan's overall realistic take on costumed vigilantes.

Though not a primary character, Lucius Fox was one of the
most consistently entertaining through the trilogy. Morgan
Freeman was the perfect choice to play the sly tech genius.

I also feel that any viewer, even those who have major issues with this series, must admit that there is some rather strong writing throughout the trilogy. Yes, I also get a tad annoyed that so many characters speak in slick, unrealistically clever and didactic epigrams. But there are some truly great lines, all the same. When Jim Gordon, at the end of Batman Begins, says, "I never thanked you", Batman's response "And you'll never have to" is solid gold. In The Dark Knight, virtually every exchange involving the Joker has hypnotic gravitas. I particularly enjoy The Joker's exposition to a burned Harvey Dent on the connection between chaos and the blindness of justice. There are plenty of others, and even minor characters like Lucius Fox and Alfred have some great one-liners, further enhanced by the impeccable deliveries of world-class actors Morgan Freeman and Michael Caine. Even after seeing these movies multiple times, I still derive no small pleasure from the dialogue.

On a purely aesthetic level, the movies look fantastic. Nolan always showed a keen eye for pleasing visuals, even back to his first color pictures Memento and The Prestige, there is often a brilliant color palate and expertly-arranged sets that are wonderfully pleasing to take in. The trilogy is no exception, exhibiting the "Blade Runner" feel that Nolan wanted for Gotham City just as well as the expansive long shots in the Himalayas or Hong Kong. And working within those scnes are some outstanding actors. Certainly some actors and performances are better than others, but I have a very hard time saying that anyone in the Dark Knight trilogy (or any Nolan movie) turned in a bad performance. Even Katie Holmes was tolerable, and that was about as bad as it got for the entire series.

While the trilogy has its detractors and those who might even argue against some of the above-mentioned aspects which I enjoy, I'm a fan. 

Before I Die #521: Get Carter (1971)

Director: Mike Hodges

Great gangster flick, based on a great book.

The basic story is that Jack Carter, a "fixer" for a London-based crime syndicate, has returned to his home town in the north of England. His brother has died in a way that makes Jack very suspicious. Jack quickly begins to start shaking bushes and soon has multiple criminals swirling around, most of whom wish to do him very serious harm. Jack, not a man easily dissuaded, pursues the mystery to its very end, leaving a trail of bodies in his wake.

How does one adequately describe this film, or even the book upon which it was adapted? The title character, Jack Carter, is not a nice man. He works for a sleazy and extremely powerful organized crime syndicate based in London. He kills people. He barely hesitates to exploit relatively innocent bystanders in the name of reaching his own goals. So why is it so compelling to follow him?

Jack Carter is, to me, a very dark, very English take on the classic noir protagonist of Hammett and Chandler. Jack is fully immersed in the murky waters of the English criminal underworld of the increasingly cynical post-mod era of the early 1970s. And while he's not the biggest fish in those waters, he is easily one of the deadliest. Like the classic noir "hero," he inhabits every scene, and we follow him through a complex maze of depravity and salaciousness that is frighteningly entrenched in Jack's entire world. But Jack is clearly right at home there, and his confidence is mesmerizing.

It is this confidence, along with his lethal capabilities and knack for the occasional snide one-liner, that carry us along. Don't be fooled, though. This is not Sam Spade or Philip Marlowe. He's not even the more jaded Tom Reagan from Miller's Crossing. He is a villain, and there are really only two things that keep him from being too repulsive to be interesting. One is that, in this tale, his targets are even more villainous that he is. The other is that he does exhibit the tiniest shred of compassion for his niece (who may actually be his daughter) as he carries out his quest for revenge. Mostly, though, he is out to avenge his brother's death. A viewer gets the sense that Jack is killing his way through adversaries out of is own pride just as much as a sense of vengeance.

Jack and his trusted weapon - the shotgun that he and his
brother saved up their money to buy as boys. Jack and the
gun get more than a little payback.

So the character and story are strong enough, but they are far from the only worthy qualities of the movie. The direction is tight and focused, and the aesthetic is just as gritty as it ought to be. This is not to say that it has a "dark" or "cheap" look based on some misguided attempt to convey some form of reality. A surprising number of scenes take place in broad daylight, where Jack and his opponents' dastardly deeds can be witnessed openly. The editing and framing are wonderfully done, which makes the viewing experience extremely dynamic during the several action sequences. But nothing feels rushed in any way. The first half of the film features many slower, meditative shots when the camera lingers on Jack's face, or the faces of others who are reacting to Jack's words or actions. There is just as much power in these moments as when the bullets are flying and the bodies are falling.

Do I really need to say anything about Michael Caine? Perhaps you are only familiar with his more recent roles, and you may be wondering if he was as strong an actor in his younger days. If so, you can stop wondering. He's incredible. If you've only seen him in roles of genteel, pleasant, and stately chaps, then you will marvel at how well he plays the coolly brutal Jack Carter.

The main caveat for those who don't know the story should be clear. There is no "good guy" here. Get Carter is about a bad man doing bad things to even worse people. But it sure is entertaining, just as any expertly-presented story about a cool customer plying his trade should be entertaining.

...And What About the Book?

I suppose a touch of disclosure is in order here. The reason I read the source novel for this is that a close friend of mine is responsible for having it published for the first time in the U.S. in four decades. I had already planned to watch the film for some time, so its reintroduction onto U.S. bookstore shelves last month was rather fortuitous for me.

Originally titled Jack's Return Home in the U.K., the book is fantastic. And the movie's director, Mike Hodges, stays extremely true to the spirit of the story and the protagonist. As expected, certain artistic license was taken, but it was done respectfully and with amazing adeptness. It is that rare adaptation that does the source novel more than enough justice while utilizing the elements that make cinema a different art form. Author Ted Lewis used terse, sparse language in this narrative. Hodges took that great narrative and translated into a ripping good film story with great camerawork, editing, and a fantastic actor.

If you have any interest in comparing the book to the film, I highly recommend reading the novel first. It's a modest 200 pages, and they turn very quickly. You can order it from a ton of places, but here's the direct link through Syndicate Books.

Movie or book, you really can't go wrong if you're into hard-boiled crime fiction.