A CLASSIC: Not all the critics embraced “The Dark Knight”
But some critics couldn’t see “Dark Knight’s” greatness
Roger Ebert got it right away. “Batman isn’t a comic book anymore,” the legendary film critic wrote in the summer of 2008 upon the release of Christopher Nolan’s “The Dark Knight.” Instead the reviewer saw “a haunted film that leaps beyond its origins and becomes an engrossing tragedy . ... This film, and to a lesser degree ‘Iron Man,’ redefine the possibilities of the ‘comic-book movie.’ ”
When “The Dark Knight” landed in theaters 10 years ago Wednesday, the “comic-book movie” centering on superheroes had certainly experienced some creative peaks, including Richard Donner and Richard Lester’s first two “Superman” movies beginning in the ’70s, Tim Burton’s 1989 “Batman,” Bryan Singer’s first “X-Men” in 2000 and the launch of Sam Raimi’s “Spider-Man” franchise. But in 2008, even after Jon Favreau’s “Iron Man” birthed the beginning of the Marvel Cinematic Universe that same summer, superhero cinema was not accorded much artistic pedigree. As art, it was popcorn filmmaking that didn’t even rise to the level of “Star Wars,” many mainstream critics and filmgoers believed.
Nolan, his sibling co-writer Jonathan Nolan and cinematographer Wally Pfister greatly altered common perspectives on superhero movies. Their dark Batman sequel scored critically, garnering eight Oscar nominations and winning two, including a posthumous trophy for Heath Ledger’s hauntingly iconic performance as the Joker.
But could such a bleak film draw swarms of summer fans? As the Wall Street Journal wrote at the time: “The whole movie is a social experiment on a global scale, an ambitious, lavish attempt to see if audiences will turn out for a comic-book epic that goes beyond darkness into Stygian bleakness, grim paradox, endless betrayals and pervasive corruption.”
The film, of course, scored commercially, too, becoming the first superhero movie — and only the fourth film ever at the time — to top $1 billion in worldwide gross.
“Dark Knight” was such a wellregarded success that its failure to land a best picture nomination is commonly cited as the academy’s impetus for changing the rules, eventually allowing a maximum of 10 best picture nominees each year.
In the long view, that best picture snub has only enhanced “The Dark Knight’s” reputation as a masterpiece. For many fans, it soars even above such later acclaimed Christopher Nolan films as “Inception” and “Dunkirk” (the latter finally bringing Nolan his first Oscar nomination for directing).
Yet a decade later, it’s worth reflecting on just how much critical prejudice the film faced at the time, and how some of the most notable national movie critics then couldn’t appreciate what Nolan had delivered.
Some reviewers, even while appreciating Ledger’s riveting performance, could see little else to like amid the darkness of this brooding Batman.
Ebert was among the critics who articulated why Nolan’s second film in his Batman trilogy stood apart from many of its predecessors, writing: “It is customary in a comic book movie to maintain a certain knowing distance from the action, to view everything through a sophisticated screen. ‘The Dark Knight’ slips around those defenses and engages us . ... Because these actors and others are so powerful, and because the movie does not allow its spectacular special effects to upstage the humans, we’re surprised how deeply the drama affects us.”
Stephen Hunter, The Washington Post’s chief film critic, was among those who believed that “Dark Knight,” despite its highs, yielded mixed results.
“It’s because Ledger’s performance is so intense and so lasting; it’s because despite the insane mask, it’s a subtle, nuanced piece of acting so powerful it banishes all memories of the handsome Aussie behind it,” Hunter wrote. “The makeup seems to have liberated him: He’s supple of body, expressive with only his eyes, and his voice has undulations of irony and mockery and psychopathology to it. He’s an essay - in a way he’s never before been, playing straight-faced characters - in pure charisma.”
That achievement, though, came with a price in the critic’s eyes.
“The performance is also the most interesting thing in the film,” Hunter wrote, “and when the Joker is absent, ‘The Dark Knight’ loses most of its energy and dynamism and becomes nothing but a pretty-boy faceoff between Christian Bale [as Batman] and Aaron Eckhart [as Harvey Dent].”
The Baltimore Sun’s Michael Sragow, by contrast, thoroughly panned the “plods toward pre- dictability” story.
“‘The Dark Knight’ is a handsome, accomplished piece of work, but it drove me from absorption to excruciation within 20 minutes, and then it went on for two hours more,” Sragow wrote. “It’s the standard-bearer for the school of comic-book movies that confuses pompousness with seriousness and popular mechanics for drama.
“It’s scaled to be an urban epic about the deterioration of hope and possibility in Batman’s hometown, Gotham City (standing in for all Western cities), but there isn’t a single stirring or inspired moment in it.”
New York Magazine’s David Edelstein was similarly unimpressed.
“It’s a shock — and very effective — to see a comic-book villain come on like a Quentin Tarantino reservoir dog,” Edelstein wrote. “But then the novelty wears off and the lack of imagination, visual and otherwise, turns into a drag. ‘The Dark Knight’ is noisy, jumbled, and sadistic. Even its most wondrous vision-Batman’s plunges from skyscrapers, bat-wings snapping open as he glides through the night like a human kite-can’t keep the movie airborne. There’s an anvil attached to that cape.”
For Newsweek’s David Ansen, the darkness blotted out his capacity to enjoy the film.
“There’s not a touch of lightness in Bale’s taut, angst-ridden superhero, and as the two-and-ahalf-hour movie enters its second half, the unvarying intensity and the sometimes confusing action sequences take a toll,” he wrote. “You may emerge more exhausted than elated. Nolan wants to prove that a superhero movie needn’t be disposable, effects-ridden junk food, and you have to admire his ambition. But this is Batman, not “Hamlet.” Call me shallow, but I wish it were a little more fun.”