Guardians of the Galaxy is the 10th film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) that was started with Iron Man in 2008. Th MCU is developed in phases: Phase 1: was all of the solo super hero titles ( Iron Man, Hulk, Thor, Iron Man 2, Captain America) before capping off with 2012's The Avengers a team-up film that was a commercial and critical success. Phase 2 consists of the sequels: Iron Man 3, Thor: The Dark World, and Captain America: The Winter Soldier.Guardians of the Galaxy (GOTG) rounds out the films of phase 2 before it is similarly capped off withAvengers:Age of Ultron in 2015.
Of the aforementioned Phase 2 projects, Guardians seemed to be a long shot as well as a deep financial and critical risk to the studio and the interconnected franchise. This risk was based upon several factors: First GOTG was the first film of "new" material since 2011, and therefore the only film that did not have a built in audience that was solidified by The Avengers. Second, the Guardians consisted of characters few people in the mainstream had ever heard of not to mention that among their ranks are an anthropomorphic tree and a talking raccoon (and that's not getting into the REALLY weird ones) something that the mainstream could potentially find silly. Thirdly, it was tasked with expanding the MCU beyond earth that was teased at the end of The Avengers (with the inclusion of Thanos).
Needless to say that a lot was riding on Guardians of the Galaxy and Marvel's tactics (especially after hiring indie filmmaker James Gunn to write and direct), had fans split: The "Marvel Zombies" blindly support the company's decisions no matter how outrageous or risky, while others, (myself included) questioned Marvel's risk assessment thinking they may have overstepped their bounds. In trying to understand their decision, I picked up Abnett and Lanning's run on of comics (of which I heard the film was going to be based) and instantly fell in love with its sheer unapologetic absurd insanity. The book had confidence to throw caution to the wind and trusted its readers to dive into the Frey. I found myself hoping (and championing in conversations online) that the film would be equally as ambitious. Once I saw the first trailer released in February of this year, all of my doubts washed away and my excitement began to build.
I have covered the build up to this film in previous posts Here, Here and Here. Yet, even though I knew that I, and many other fans were swayed; I was still worried about the mainstream reception. It seems that both Marvel and the box office gurus (Boxofficemojo.com) were trepidacious in their financial estimates; giving the film an estimated 40 mil opening weekend gross with a hope of 450 mil world wide when it finally left the theaters. In its first weekend, the film obliterated the August record (and expectations) with a total of 94 million domestically and another 70 mil in foreign markets (making it's 160 mil production budget back in its first weekend). The box office numbers are a result and a reflection of the added critical success of the film. leading to its current week one world box office total of $226,890,839 As of the writing of this review; I have seen the film 4 times (in the span of one week) and plan at least another few viewings. For me, it is as if The Guardians jumped out of the comics and on to the screen.But for the mainstream, I believe it was a combination of the tone of a space epic adventure film that takes its self seriously without sacrificing its sense of fun, the music, and humor that captured them and hopefully sends them back for more.
PLOT 26 years after being abducted on earth by space pirates as a child, Peter Quill (Chris Pratt) aka "Star-Lord", now a thief, gets in the middle of a conflict between two feuding alien races (The Xandarians and the Kree), a zealot (Lee Paces's Ronan) and a powerful dictator (Thanos played by Josh Brolin) when he steals an orb of unknown origin. Once he gets captured for the theft and sentenced to prison, he creates an uneasy alliance with, in his words, "an assassin (Gamora played by Zoe Saldana) "two thugs" ( Rocket and Groot voiced and motion captured by Bradley Cooper and Vin Diesel) "and a maniac" (Drax played by Dave Bautista) in order to escape. Initially, this motley crew of misfits stick together by necessity and financial gain. Yet when the orb (now understood as a weapon of immense power) falls into the wrong hands, this group of loners and outcasts band together to save the Galaxy. ANALYSIS
I can not stress enough how much fun this film is. It is riddled with humor, heart, action, and wit while being rooted in relationships with an emotional core. With so much detail and depth, I was surprised at how briskly the film moves along; to the point where jokes happen in such rapid succession that the audience doesn't have time to laugh at it all (which might have been strategic to keep them coming back for multiple viewings) keeping the audience both entertained and on their toes. Even though there is a basic three act structure that is easy to dissect, the stunning visuals, characters and snappy dialogue keep you distracted from it. However, even with all of the flash bang of the visuals and the action set pieces the crux of this film relies on the development of a group of lonely, tortured and lost souls into a loving (albeit unconventional) family. For that reason, the rest of my review will be a character study of each of the guardians.
CHARACTERS
Peter Quill
When we first met Quill he is in a state of arrested development. Plucked off Earth (called Terra in the film) moments after the death of his mother he has yet to come to terms with it 26 years later. He still listens to her favorite music (through a walkman that acts as his only life line to home) insists that people call him "Star-lord" (her pet name for him), and can not bring himself to open her last gift. Even though we see this unfold, we still get a sense at the beginning of the film that he is a womanizing scumbag that only cares about himself. Yet, it is only though the threat of galactic annihilation does Quill step up to be the leader and the hero he always wanted to be; with the understanding that it takes sacrifice to be worthy of greatness (and a great code name).
Pratt has great comedic timing as is great as Peter Quill. However, in those few heavy moments in the film, I was wishing he had more dramatic range. But I give him a pass, as he is trying to branch out. I look forward to his improvements by the time Guardians 2 comes out on July 28th 2017.
Great Quotes:
Quill: Right now life is giving us a chance.
Darx: To do what?
Quill: To give a shit; and not run away.
Rocket: Why would you want to save the galaxy?
Quill: Because I am one of the idiots who lives in it!
Gamora
The adopted daughter of Thanos and dubbed "The deadliest woman in the galaxy." The film version of Gamora is a significant departure from the comics. In the comics, Gamora is far less vulnerable with an exterior of the warrior badass that is only shed in private moments. In the film, that vulnerability is more visible to the point where she teeters in the edge of becoming trope of both the strong woman warrior AND the damsel in distress. While I am glad to get a clearer viewpoint into Gamora's emotions, I would have like to see her be more direct. At least she wasn't too overtly sexualized in the film, not counting when she used her sex appeal to disarm Quill upon their first meeting.
I think Zoe Saldana did an excellent job capturing the essence of Gamora while adding a new spin. I look forward to her proving Gamora's moniker in the next film.
Great Quotes:
Gamora: Who put the sticks up their butts? That's...cruel.
Gamora: We're just like Kevin Bacon.
Gamora: I know who you are Peter Quill. I am not some quivering waif that will
succumb to your...pelvic sorcery!
Drax
Drax's film version is more compelling than in the comics. In the film, Drax (who is a race of unknown origin) is intelligent and well spoken, albeit quite literal in his speech. This gives Drax a much needed personality quirk not allowing him to be overshadowed as a strong man, and gives him great opportunities for comic relief. While I was initially hesitant about the change of Ronan murdering Drax's family instead of Thanos, by films end that was rectified.
I was a little worried that Dave Bautista would not have the ability to do Drax justice. Yet, when I learned that his process to get the role was grueling and upon landing the role immediately signed up for more acting classes, I started to have faith. My faith was rewarded. Not only does he add a much neeeded gravitas and dimension to the character, his comedic timing gets some of the biggest laughs every time I've seen it.
Great Quotes:
Drax: I am NOT A PRINCESS!
Drax: You are an Imbecile.
Drax: You are an honorable man, Quill. I will fight beside you. And in the end, I will see my wife
and daughter again.
Rocket
Rocket is one of the two break out stars of the film. It is thanks to Sean Gunn (set stand in) and Bradley Cooper (voice) not to mention the amazing visual effects team that allowed Rocket to work so well. Rocket is spot on in the film as he is in the comics; a master tactician with a Napoleon complex ( that is illistrated by his love for bombs and large guns) brash, witty and sarcastic this is just a front to hide the pain of years of torture that transformed him into a "little monster" who he fears is being mocked by everyone. Slowly throughout the film (in large part to his moral compass in Groot), He embraces his new found family, willing to die for them.
I was pleased that Bradley Cooper didn't use his regular voice for the role. He spun it with a Brooklyn accent that gave Rocket a more gravelly hard-edged attitude than the cockney accent used in the animated TV appearances.
Great Quotes
Rocket: Ain't no thing like me, 'cept me.
Rocket: Hmm, Hm, HmHmHm.
Rocket: (after seeing the power of the Infinity stone) What do you still have it for!
Drax: Let's put more of this liquid into our bodies!
Rocket: That's the first thing you've said that isn't bat-shit crazy!
Drax: This vermin speaks of things that he knows nothing about.
Rocket: THAT IS TRUE!
Drax: He has no respect!
Rocket: THAT IS ALSO TRUE!
Groot
Groot is the other break out star in this film. If Rocket was the Heart of the film; Groot is its soul. Groot in the film is a bit more downplayed than his comic counterpart. In the Comics, Groot is of royal lineage and he is one of the smartest creatures in the Galaxy. While they did not delve into this aspect of Groot's history in the film, there is always room to grow in the sequel. What was telling, and the most important similarity between the film abd the comics is Groot's respect for all life. He is both sweet, caring and protective of the rest of the Guardians.
When I heard that Vin Diesel was going to be voicing Groot I thought it was perfect casting. What I was surprised by was 1) how James Gunn wrote out on Vin Diesel's script the translation for every variation of the "I am Groot." line. and 2) How Groot's respect for all life helped Vin Diesel get over the sudden death of his friend and fellow actor Paul Walker.
Great Quotes:
Groot: I am Grooot.
Groot: I. AM. GROOOOOOT!
Groot: We, are...Groot.
CONCLUSION
This is by far the best Marvel Film. The Guardians themselves represent what Marvel is all about: Fun and Heart. I can not wait till Guardians 2 where I assume Quill will meet his Dad, "the dickhead King of the Universe" Jyson of Spartax. Leading up to Avengers 3 when I hope the Guardians and the Avengers team up to fight Thanos and the Infinity Gauntlet.
After I finished the Abnett and Lanning run and moved on to Bendis's current run I came to a shocking realization. I loved the Guardians more than The Avengers.In fact, they are my favorite superhero (if you can call them that) team. The Guardians seem to be more of a family than the Avengers, and that has always been important thing I look for. And like the Guardians of the comics I love The Guardians of the Galaxy film leaps and bounds over The Avengers. I AM hooked on a feeling, and the feeling is that I can't get enough of this film. I hope everyone feels the same.
This film will also be a part of a larger post about Nolan’s entire Dark Knight Trilogy.
INTRODUCTION
The sixth film in my continued analysis
of The Films of Christopher Nolan is the game changing, genre bending The Dark Knight. There is a lot that has been said about
this film over the years; praise has been (rightfully) lauded on the film,
commenting on its contribution to the craft of filmmaking: direction,
cinematography and acting; as well as several philosophical interpretations.
Yet, in this extensive analysis and dissection of Nolan’s second chapter in his
Batman saga, I have yet to see a uniquely sociological take on the film; which
I will provide in this review.
HISTORICAL
CONTEXT
“I think you and I are destined to do this forever.”-
The Joker
2008 was a big year for the
superhero film genre. It is easy to say that The Dark Knight was easily the most anticipated film of 2008
(especially with its Joker-Dent themed viral marketing campaign that referenced
classic Batman storylines) However, that same year, in addition to The Dark Knight we also got the opening
volleys of the Marvel Cinematic Universe with Iron Man and The Incredible
Hulk and the much underrated sequel Hellboy
II: The Golden Army. With this slate
of films we could already get a sense of the winds of change were blowing and
even before its release The Dark Knight was
understood as something special…and then Heath Ledger died.
Ledger’s
sudden death in January of 2008 from a combination of prescription and over the
counter medication resulting in cardiac arrest, not only put even more
attention on The Dark Knight (rumors
began to fly about how the role of The Joker had possibly contributed to his
demise) but put the film’s status and potential future into question. Fans (myself included), in a moment of pure
selfishness and disrespect for life, were overwhelming concerned about whether
the film was finished, or if its release would be halted. Once the news of Ledger’s completion of the
film and being presented in its entirety was made public, the fans (again
myself included) could sit back and revel in our moment of awfulness.
Regardless of how bad I feel for my
contribution to the dehumanizing fanaticism that occurred, it is important to
look at how Ledger’s death impacted the film. Making over a billion dollars in
worldwide box office receipts, it is clear that more than just fans saw this
film. To use anecdotal evidence, when I
saw the film in IMAX for the first time, the line to get in was down the street
and around the corner; full of both the hardcore cosplaying fan that camped out
the night before, AND groups of affluent white females (with their respective
male arm candy) dressed up as if they were going to a club. It was clear,
through the observational data I collected, that they had no interest in Batman
or the Superhero genre at all. This was the first time I entertained the notion
that part of The Dark Knight’s
popularity (and subsequent success) is due, in part, to Ledger’s death and the
aforementioned rumors. Thus, the film’s buzz can be attributed, in some way to
people’s morbid curiosity.
It is my opinion that The Dark Knight would not be so popular with the mainstream,
reaching new benchmark levels of success, if Ledger survived. Even his
posthumous Oscar for the role seemed to be a legacy gift, for all of the
stellar looked over roles he had in the past (e.g. Brokeback Mountain) his death robbing the film industry of his
future greatness. This becomes readily apparent when Oscar winner data shows
that no one before, or since, has won an Oscar for her/his role in a superhero
film. Even director Christopher Nolan and the film itself was snubbed for best
director and best picture (a huge insult). It is obvious that the decision by
the academy to award the best supporting actor Oscar, for Ledger’s performance
was not about celebrating the film, but celebrating him.
PLOT
“And Here. We. Go.”- The Joker
The Dark Knight picks up
approximately nine months after the end of Batman
Begins. Batman/Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) and Lt. Gordon (Gary Oldman)
are doing their best to wipe out organized crime and corruption in Gotham. With the help of the enthusiastic new
District Attorney Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart), they are successful in cutting
off the source of the mob’s money. Having been dealt a crippling blow, the Mob
enlists the help of a criminal known only as The Joker (Heath Ledger) to target
Batman, Gordon, and Dent, in hopes of getting their money back. In the ensuing chaos that is wrought by the
Joker, who seemingly has no clear motive, Batman, Gordon and Dent try to
maintain order by a razor’s edge. Yet, as The Joker increases the pressure,
putting each man in moral and ethical dilemmas; Dent, Gordon and Batman are
left to sacrifice their morality and decency in order to give Gotham the order
and peace they hope for.
SOCIAL ANALYSIS
As I have mention, there is a lot that
has already been said about this film.
My contribution through this section will be one that is increasingly
sociological. I will start out with
particular general themes that have been confirmed by Team Nolan through
interviews and news articles. Then, I will slowly transition into looking at
the characters and their motivations in the film using the critical eye of the
Sociological perspective.
Themes
The film has
many different themes some of which are blatant, subtle and misguided.
“I’m an agent of Chaos.”- The Joker
Chaos/Escalation
At the end of Batman Begins Gordon, prophetically predicts that Batman’s presence
will only make things worse for Gotham (while describing The Joker’s first
crime in the city) before they can get better.
This directly insinuates that Batman, is himself a form of escalation
that is then met and equalized by The Joker in The Dark Knight.
It is clear in terms of story structure
that since Bruce Wayne pledged himself and set out on his mission throughout Batman Begins that this second story, is
how those beliefs and that mission would be tested. It stands reason that since
Batman is an embodiment of “chaotic good” really only having one rule (which is
blatantly stated more than once in the film) that the escalation of that would
be “Chaotic evil” represented by The Joker. All of Batman’s tactics of violence
and intimidation do nothing to sway The Joker. In fact, it seems that the more
out of control and enraged Batman becomes the more The Joker loves it, revels
in it. This is no more clearly shown than in the now infamous Interrogation
scene: This scene illustrates the philosophical differences of Batman and the
Joker and it is the point where Batman realizes just what he is actually up
against. You can see the realization wash over his face as The Joker speaks.
“…Should
we give in to this Terrorist’s demands?”- Harvey Dent
Terrorism and
Surveillance
Once the film was released there
were obvious parallels to “The War on Terror” and The Patriot Act that both the
public and critics made. Some political
conservatives even praised the film and Batman for being an allegory for the
actions of George W. Bush and his administration (even going so far as to say
Batman was Bush). Team Nolan never
expressively said the film was representing anything more than an exercise in
great filmmaking. However, one must understand that all pieces of popular
culture (especially film) are created within a particular social and historical
context, which inevitably bleeds into and affects the way in which the movie is
experienced and perceived resulting in these thematic parallels.
“I
realize now what I would have to become to stop men like him.” - Bruce Wayne
The
Joker is clearly a terrorist, though I wonder if it would have been so readily
used in reviews of the film outside of the historical and political
climate. It is his use of nontraditional
homemade explosives unclear demands that adds to the comparison with more
recent acts of terrorism and the current racialized group that we have labeled
Terrorists.
Batman’s use of sonar cell phone
technology as a way to track The Joker towards the end of the film is often
citied to be analogous of “The Patriot Act” in fact, even promoting its use.
Many conservative commentators have praised Batman’s use of the technology to
catch The Joker. In their mind, it is a clear endorsement of non-court ordered
surveillance; thereby justifying real life pieces of legislation like “The
Patriot Act”. The idea is that abusing the civil liberties of the people of
Gotham it is for the greater good. Those
conservatives that have this particular point of view fail to acknowledge
Lucius Fox’s (Morgan Freeman) ultimatum denouncing such actions. They also fail
to understand the significance of the machine’s destruction at the end of the
film.
“It’s all part of the plan.” - The Joker
Sociologically, speaking when I approach
the idea of surveillance I always go back to two particular authors Max Weber
and Michel Foucault and their respective ideas of Bureaucracy and the
penopticon. Max Weber (with a little
help from George Ritzer years later) maps out the inherent problem with a
capitalistic bureaucratic structure: it is a dehumanizing, objectifying,
standardizing, rational “iron cage” that limits human dynamic diversity. For Weber, surveillance is a part of this
“iron cage” which forces people into conformity, a conformity with the system.
In the Foucaudian sense, surveillance, or its implication, is the primary form
of social control within social structures and institutions. If the populace, in their “Iron cage” of
rationality also assume that they are constantly being watched (regardless of
whether or not they actual are) they are more likely to police themselves and
conform to a particular social order. Unfortunately, these ideas about
surveillance are not reinforced by the film.
“They’re
only as good as the world allows them to be.”- The Joker
Debate
on Human Nature
The primary conflict between Batman
and the Joker is an ideological one.
This has been true in the comics as it is here in this film. The ideological conflict centers on how each
of them understands and perceives humanity.
Batman is an essentialist who believes in the good of all people. The
Joker understands (like many sociologists) that our actions behaviors and
identities are dependent upon a particular social and historical context. Given the right social trigger, The Joker
understands that ANYONE can become like him.
In fact, that is what he is trying to prove; that given the right social
conditions, humans are capable of anything. To that end The Joker would be a social
constructionist. The Joker’s ultimate success can be measured through his
manipulation and turn of Harvey Dent into Two-Face, and the vote of the people
of Gotham clearly voting for murder on the ferries.
In this scene The Joker starts to
sway Dent by having him realize the power of social conformity on mass
society. Invoking a Weberian argument
about the power of routines and the social control of organizational systems
(though he uses the term “plans”) The Joker succinctly and astutely makes Dent
aware of the Weberian “iron cage” the world is trapped in. Because the system
doesn’t change Dent’s morality then shifts to chance; the only thing that he
believes is fair in a hyper-rational system that Weber (and the Joker) lay out.
In this scene, The Joker attempts to
recreate a social experiment. The Joker has a lot of historical evidence to
support his claim that the people of Gotham will blow up the other ferry. Many people under totalitarian regimes (Pol
Pot, Stalin, etc.) in history have been forced to kill others. Also, the way that the Joker sets up this
experiment, there is some similarities to the famous Stanley Milgram experiment
on obedience. As a collective, the
people of Gotham all decide to detonate the other ferry, proving Joker’s
point. It is only when that task is
given to one person that hesitation sets in.
This is because, with only one person making a decision (who is not an
authority) there is a lack of a diffusion of responsibility. For the purposes of the film, The Joker has
to believe that he’s lost in order for him to be stopped, otherwise this
disagreement between Batman and The Joker would go on forever. This is why he is not privy to the decision
to blow up the ferry, only the end result and why Batman has to take the fall
for Harvey’s murders at the end.
It should not be misinterpreted that the
Joker’s point of view is validated by these actions at the end of the film and
that he proves through his own evidence and actions in the film that reality is
a social construction and that people are a blank canvas, ultimately becoming a
reflection of the social cultural rules they have adopted which can alter based
upon their own social, historical and political context, choices and
experiences.
Characters
The characters in a Christopher Nolan
film are often anthropomorphized embodiments of social and philosophical
principles; and to that end it serves as the character’s motivation and end
goal(s). The main characters in The Dark
Knight are no exception. Each character is the personification of
particular interpretations of society and the general social world that their
physical altercations in the film are underlined by this philosophical
conflict.
“One
man, or the entire mob? He can wait.”- Batman
Bruce
Wayne/Batman
When
we are reintroduced to Batman/Bruce Wayne in this film we find him maintaining
his mission to relieve Gotham of corruption in order to show its people that
there is hope. This is Batman in his
prime. We see him at his best. The best
in terms of physical combat, detective skills, will, determination and
dedication. However, he is looking to
Harvey Dent as his way out. He bets on
Harvey to be “The White Knight” to be able to clean up the streets from the
spotlight and not from the shadows. He becomes so convinced of this that he is
blinded to the dangers around him and the changing nature of his relationship
with Rachel Dawes (Maggie Gyllenhaal).
Bruce Wayne seeing his parents
murdered put him in a state of arrested development. Since he does not have a
lot of experiences with adult relationships (and is driven by his mission) he
seems to have a child-like understanding of love. He believes that since Rachel
(at the end of Batman Begins) said
that when Gotham no longer needed Batman they would be together that it was
going to happen. This naïve notion motivates him to go looking for a successor (of
sorts) in Harvey Dent. Even though Rachel specifically tells him not to pin all
his hopes to her or any one person.
Learning from Ra’s al Gul that
criminals aren’t complex (“[You] just need to figure out what [they] want.”)
Bruce Wayne’s pride and desire to move on with his life blinded him to the real
threat of The Joker, despite repeated warnings by Alfred. It is only after the
interrogation scene where he listens, really listens to The Joker for the first
time that he realizes just how wrong he was.
“It’s
not that simple. With The Joker, it never is.” – Batman
Batman not only embodies the
characteristic of essentialism, but he also the personification of will and
determination. In Batman Begins he is willing to sully his family’s good name in
order to save the people of Gotham. In The
Dark Knight he is willing to do the same for “The Batman” It is his true
belief in the people of Gotham that allows him to keep moving forward. He has
the will and determination to sacrifice himself to allow Gotham to have some
semblance of peace. “To have their faith rewarded” as it were. It would have been interesting to see how
Bruce would've reacted to the Gothamites decision to blow up the ferry. Although, because he is an embodiment of essentialist thinking, I doubt he
would have counted it as a true victory for The Joker unless the bomb actually
went off.
“I
do the best I can with what I have.”- Jim Gordon.
Lt. /Commissioner James Gordon
Just
as the film portrays Bruce Wayne/Batman in his Prime, so too is Gordon. At the
beginning of the film he is full of hope, and even when he is entrenched with
fighting The Joker he still has hope and believes they can make a
difference…until Harvey’s disfigurement and turn. To that end, you may assume
that Gordon is the heart of the film. While I am unwilling to go that far it is
quite clear that he is indeed the embodiment of pragmatism (beautifully
illustrated in the succinct quote above).
Gordon is the one that makes
decisions based upon the knowledge he has at the time. He makes the best
decision with what he knows not allowing himself to speculate based in some
type of overinvestment in an ideology (as Dent and Bruce are). However, this
point of view is costly because it makes Gordon both reactionary and remorseful
when he was unable to save Dent. Then when Batman decides to take the fall for
Dent to save the city, Gordon is left alone to hold the pieces of this fragile
peace together (the dutiful pragmatist that he is) A task that eventually takes
its toll on him and his family.
“Dent
is still in there, we have to save Dent. I have to save Dent!”- Jim Gordon.
Harvey
Dent/Two-Face
Harvey
Dent is the only character within the film that has a complete story arc. While Batman Gordon and Rachel end up in
different places by the films end, but none of them complete journey like Harvey.
The Joker is a fully formed force of nature at the beginning of the film, and
the other characters are not given satisfying resolutions. Thus, Harvey Dent is
the one the audience is meant identify with, to embrace and empathize. He is
the window for them into this world of deranged clowns, demons and darkness; he
(like them) doesn’t seem to belong, a spectator to madness…until he succumbs to
it. Because of this, Harvey Dent is the embodiment of the duality of humanity
and its equal capacity for greatness and horror. Dent unwillingly becomes the human canvas on
which both Batman and The Joker paint.
With each tragedy and triumph you can see how each brush stroke affects
him until the picture is completed.
“I
am the Batman.”- Harvey Dent
Harvey
Dent idolizes Batman at the beginning of the film, and in many respects he
wishes he was Batman (just as Bruce wishes he was Harvey Dent) Dent is the
light, the inspiration of goodness that Bruce was hoping for. Driven and
passionate in his pursuit to bring Gotham to justice, Dent believes that crime
and corruption can be eradicated on all levels. From corrupt cops to the mob
itself. This romantic idealism clashes with Gordon’s pragmatic viewpoint
several times in the film. And while
Dent’s position is ultimately vindicated, it is he who pays a greater price.
“It’s
not about what I want. It’s about what’s FAIR!” – Two Face
As the war with The Joker continues,
and the attacks become more and more personal, Dent begins to crack. He was fine playing by the rules, when the
consequences didn't affect the people he cares about. Once The Joker started to
target Rachel, Dent’s morality begins to shift to one of chance, he embraces
his duality with the moniker of Two-Face, becoming The Joker’s “ace in the
hole”, and a representation of his triumph over Batman.
“Why
so serious?”- The Joker
The
Joker
The
Joker (in every iteration) has always been the antithesis of Batman. In
Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Knight he
is the logical escalation and consequence of the presence of Batman. In this very simple set up Nolan hints at the
long standing question in comics: “Would these supervillains be in Gotham if
Batman wasn’t around?” Nolan’s answer is a resounding “No.” Even though it
isn’t fleshed out, I would like to think that before Batman arrives in Gotham The
Joker wasn’t as flamboyant or theatrical in his crimes. It is only after he
observes Batman, and his action throughout Batman
Begins that he decided to complete his persona…a devil masked by the face
of a clown, to match the angel cloaked in the guise of a demon in Batman.
The Joker in The Dark Knight embodies Emile Durkheim’s notion of anomie. Anomie is a state within society
characterized by lack of solidified or agreed upon social rules/norms that
people can follow. This social state of
anomie (often explained as a period of normlessness and chaos) is common during
period of social change, especially when there is a shift in social or
political power from one type of authority to another, catalyzed by sudden
violence. The social change brought on by Batman in Batman Begins (through his successful crippling of organized crime
in Gotham) allows for the Anomie of the Joker to take hold and thrive
throughout this film. He is not so much a character as a force of nature that
all of the other characters have to react to and are effected by. However, it
is ironic that in order cause chaos within an organized bureaucratic system,
even The Joker needs to have a plan. Identifying that chaos, at least in the
anomic sense, is not the absence of organization or a system, but one that is
in opposition to the current social order.
“Do
I really look like a guy with a plan?”- The Joker
Rachel Dawes
Rachel
Dawes in The Dark Knight like in Batman Begins is not a character so much
so as a plot device and film trope. The
trope that she embodies in this film is that of “women in refrigerators”.
Coined by Gayle Simone in the late 1990’s, “women in refrigerators” refers to
the consistent plot device in comics (as well as TV and film) that sees female
character’s killed off (in often brutal and tortuous ways) in order to progress
the character development or story arc of a male protagonist. Rachel Dawes preforms double duty serving as
the motivating plot device for both Harvey Dent and Bruce Wayne. It is her death that pushes Dent over the
edge to become Two-Face and destroys what Bruce believes to be his only shot at
a normal life.
Secondly, this film does not pass
the Bechdel test for female representation in the media. This simple measurement is not about
measuring the quality or the feminism of a particular film, just whether or not
this film has a base standard of gender representation. The components of the Bechdel
test are as follows:
1)Are
there two or more women in the film (who have names)?
2)Do
they talk to each other?
3)Is
there conversation lacking exposition and about something other than a man/men?
The Dark Knight only has three
female characters, two of which are supporting. The three characters of Rachel
Dawes, Ramirez, and Barbara Gordon do not even talk to each other; completely
obliterating this test. That, coupled with the aforementioned trope, makes this
film, and its predecessor not great representations of women that Nolan had to
make up for in The Dark Knight Rises.
-The
Joker’s origin story being “multiple choice” (and a reflection of the victim).
-He’s character motivation that everyone
can be like him, it just takes “a little push”
-Batman
breaks his one rule (though at the end of the book he kills the Joker, not
Dent)
-An
interrogation scene between Batman and The Joker (though in the book, it’s not
really him
From
The Man Who Laughs we get:
-The
first meeting between Batman and The Joker
-The
Joker is understood as an unpredictably fast, and capable fighter
-The
Joker is drawn to Gotham because of Batman
From
The Long Halloween we get:
-The
Character of Harvey Dent
-The
slogan “I believe in Harvey Dent.”
-The
alliance between Dent, Gordon and Batman to fight the Mob
-The
seizing of the Mob’s money by the cops
-The
Transformation of Harvey Dent into Two-Face. (In the book it happens in a
courtroom which the film teases at the beginning).
-Two-Face
killing corrupt cops and mob bosses (though in the book Two-Face kills Falcone
not Maroni).
While
there were other references and “Easter eggs” that fans have found over the
years none can compare with these three influences.
Cinematography
Wally Pfister is once again Nolan’s man
behind the camera. Principle photography on The
Dark Knight ran from April-September 2007 filming the majority of the shoot
(13 weeks) in the city of Chicago, IL.
As one watches the film the city of Chicago is a predominant figure to
the point that it becomes like a second character. Not only are their breath-taking establishing
shots of the cityscape, but many of the scenes shot on location were set
against the open windows or the open air of the city skyline. The scenes that come to mind are A) when Dent
and Rachel are walking out of the court room and B) when Gordon and Dent meet
in Dent’s office. And C) When Batman is fighting the S.W.A.T. team(s) on
several floors of an unnamed building (what in reality was Trump Tower Chicago
under construction at that time). These
shots give the city a lively living quality that was a bit lacking in the first
film.
One of the biggest changes that Nolan
and Pfister made when they began to shoot The
Dark Knight is their decision to shoot several of the films key scenes in
IMAX(6 scenes a total of 26min). IMAX (acronym
for Image Maximum) is a motion picture film format that is set for cinema
projector standards. IMAX boast a larger 15/70mm format than standard film at
35mm. which increases the clarity and richness of the image on screen.
Yet, the quality of the IMAX image came
with a cost. The IMAX cameras (previously only used for nature documentaries
and animated films) were found to be cumbersome to shoot with. Unable to get around its size and bulk at the
time, Pfister and Nolan had to create a rig to allow the IMAX camera greater maneuverability
to get the angles, and close up shots they needed. Also, the running of the
IMAX cameras were so loud that it would often drown out character dialogue and director
comments just the same, that would have to be replace via ADR (Audio Dialogue
Replacement). To limit the burden of the noise generated by the cameras Nolan
mainly used the cameras for the major action set pieces.
The results were well worth the
hassle. This film is beautiful, with
vibrant color and clear image detail that immerses the audience into the film.
Music
Hans Zimmer alone took on the task to
score The Dark Knight. Hans closely
worked with Nolan to come up with the right tone for the film, sending the
director hours of music samples to find the right notes for The Joker’s theme
(settling on what sounded like razor blades on a bow string) and an epic
triumphant and haunting melody for Harvey Dent, I recommend that everyone buy
the album. I have provided a few samples.
Direction
Many people, myself included
believe that Christopher Nolan should have been nominated for best director for
his unbelievable and awe striking work in this film. It is a crisp
psychological crime thriller with a script so tight that it barely allows you
to breathe. In those rare moments when
you are allowed a respite from your anxiety Zimmer’s haunting music reminds you
of the danger that is still lurking just beneath the surface.
However, I would not call it Nolan’s best work
(that as it seems is always yet to come). Yet, the way in which he masterfully
weaves together genres while providing the audience with entertainment but a
treatise on the philosophy of humanity and morality is just remarkable. He is
able to provide both rousting entertainment for those that only seek the
Superhero film. But for those that like to look deeper (such as myself), he
layers (all of his films but especially) The
Dark Knight with socially conscious and philosophical subtext, and with so
many layers, an audience member can get a different experience watching it
multiple times; which has always been Nolan’s ultimate goal as a filmmaker. He succeeds in spades with The Dark Knight only to improve with the
projects that followed.
CONCLUDING
REMARKS
Many people have commented, in
many different media forms that this is the
best superhero film. It has been
compared to the Godfather, The Godfather part II, The Empire Strikes Back and
other well-known epic films of the past 50 years. While you can watch this film
without seeing or acknowledging the existence of the previous (or the
following) film. It is not a complete story. I look at The Dark Knight as one piece, the second piece, in Nolan’s story
about Bruce Wayne. In that, the larger context, this film means less to the
journey of Bruce Wayne that the other films in the trilogy. It is a great and
masterfully crafted film. But it doesn’t
give me the sense of satisfaction that I get when I watch the complete story,
especially at the end of that story’s third chapter…The Dark Knight Rises.
Author's Note: Please see this film. If you are planning to see this film do not read any further as this review will contain major spoilers. The power of this film and its storytelling is contingent on knowing as little about the film as possible. Here is the trailer:
Once you have seen the film, I encourage you to read the review.
INTRODUCTION
Being the cinephile that I am, I am always looking for a film to watch and appreciate. Since I have exhausted most of my desired films currently playing in most mainstream cinema, and I refuse to watch a three hrs explosive set piece designed by Michael Bay (whom I've deemed War of the four horsemen of the film apocalypse), I turned my attention to other possibilities. In my search, I started to notice a lot of positive buzz around Snowpiercer, a sci-fi Dystopian film by South Korean director Joon-ho Bong (based on a French Cartoon) originally released in 2013 that had just recently made it to the US in limited release. With sci-fi dystopia being one of my favorite genres, I was just hoping to be entertained (even though the critical acclaim had me hopeful for more). But what I got was a film that deals with a lot of social issues in a sociological way. Seeing threads of, Marx's proletarian revolution, Weber's Iron Cage, Totalitarian propaganda and population control this films gives the audience a deeply rich story about the human condition, that should not be missed.
PLOT
2014; in an attempt to curb global warming Countries around the world unite to release chemical CW-7 into the upper atmosphere. The result is a new ice age that wipes out all life on earth. 2031: the last surviving remnants of humanity live on a train that is in perpetual motion around the globe. The train is separated into an elaborate caste system, based upon the type of ticket passengers had when they first boarded. Those with first class tickets live towards the front of the train and those that had 3rd class tickets or were free riders live at the end of the train. Feeling the pain of the social and economic stratification caused by living at the end of the train, Curtis (Chris Evans) decides to lead a revolt. As he and his fellow band of rebels (Including John Hurt, Octavia Spencer and Jaime Bell) move through each compartment, getting closer to the fabled "eternal engine", they are faced with horrific realities that test their mission, their morality, motivations and mortality.
GENERAL ANALYSIS
One the best compliments that I can give this film is that it is not American made. Therefore, it does not fall into some of the same tropes and plot traps that a lot of genre films that are produced written and directed in the US often succumb. The American film structure, especially within the genre of Sci-fi fantasy has a certain structure and character moments that are often repeated which, for a fan often gets boring and predictable. Snowpiercer, sets up a number of these tropes, but just when you thought you knew the character(s) their motivations and future actions, the film reveals something in the narrative that changes the audience outlook on the film, causing them to reassess. The ending of the film goes beyond what we would typically expect from Hollywood, and that is always a breath of fresh air, and a welcomed change of pace.
SOCIOLOGICAL ANALYSIS
Themes
Marxism
It is quite clear from the promotional trailers, screen caps and descriptions of this film that the aforementioned caste system and subsequent revolt is reminiscent of the proletarian revolution Karl Marx envisioned in his most famous work. In the film, the class distinctions on the train (at least at the beginning) mirror the class struggles between Marx's bourgeoisie and the proletariat. Those in the front of the train represent the bourgeoisie ( their figure heads being played by the ever brilliant Tilda Swinton and Ed Harris) and those at the back of the train represent the proletariat.
Those in the front of the train speak of their position as one of divinity not of privilege; even to the point where some of the bourgeoisie characters try to empathize with the proletariat; bemoaning that their position is not without its sacrifices. Those living in the tail end of the train represent the proletariat, and the impoverished. Even though the adults in the tail end of the train are not described or shown to be workers on the train ( doing maintenance, or food service for the bourgeoisie), it is clear, given the conditions that they live in, that all they own is their bodies, and they have only their labor power to sell.
Another Marxian aspect in this class distinction is in the use of families. Marx believed that the family unit was important to Capitalism because it was a space to recreate the labor force: First, in giving those current workers a space for rest and recuperation before and after work. Second, allowing for a space to have children who will eventually replace the adults in the labor force as they age. As the film progresses, the audience realizes that the only reason that the tail-end proletariats are allowed to live is because they provide more children (because sex is fun and cheap) to be used as labor on the (manual running) train.
Thirdly, there is also a Marxian stratification of resources among the front end of the train and the tail end. While the front end of the train dines on Sushi, fresh water, vegetables and fruits and real meat. The tail-end proletariats however, were reduced to cannibalism.
"I hate that I know what human flesh tastes like, and that babies taste best."- Curtis
After the first month without food, the passengers in the tail end began eating their fellow (weaker) passengers, and babies. To curb this practice, people started willingly gave up body parts so that everyone could survive. This is an extreme version of communist solidarity. However, once the bourgeoisie was alerted to this practice they began manufacturing protein bars that are fed to the proletariat (to keep the worker working); its ingredients we learn are all of the unsavory bits of protein found on the train...reminiscent of soylent green. Weber's Iron Cage
As the film reaches its ideological climax, the proposed Marxian revolution that the audience has been invested in throughout the most of the movie, is revealed to be part of an elaborate bureaucratic process of population control. Every few years, "government" moles in the tail end of the train fuel the fires of rebellion getting the workers to revolt. The subsequent casualties on both sides (although the ruiling body always makes sure that their are more losses for the proletariat) maintains the population so that the train will continue. This added system of control reminds me of one of the overall messages of The Matrix Trilogy.
What Snowpiercer and The Matrix Trilogy have in common is the inclusion and interpretation of Max Weber's Iron Cage of Rationality. Being a (some what) contemporary of Marx, Weber concluded that the proletarian revolution that Marx saw as inevitable (due to his faith that people would be fed up and demand social change) was never going to happen. This was because Weber understood that people were regulated by a bureaucracy which not only dehumanized, disenchanted and controlled people but trapped them in what C. Wright Mills called "Private Orbits" unable to see anything or desire anything outside of their own limited perspective leading to complacency and a maintenance of the Bureaucratic order.
Other, more contemporary scholars like George Ritzer have added that this maintenance of complacency requires distraction, a way to focus attention away from the plight of the oppressed or from their own circumstances in order to quell revolution and revolt. This is nothing new. In ancient Rome they had the coliseum, In present day United States we have social media, and endless types of pop cultural entertainment that spans, multi-media platforms. If we spend as much money on these distractions as we did on fighting homelessness, poverty or disease all of these social problems would be eradicated.
In SnowPiercer, there are two main types of distractions used by those in power. The first is a socialized system of propaganda that deifies Wilford ( Ed Harris) the creator of the train forcing children to watch brainwashing videos that reinforce stereotypes as well as recite mantras that invoke fear of leaving the train. This aspect of the film is paralleling both the regimes of North Korea and China in the way they present their leaders and censor information.
The second type of distraction that those in power uses in the film is hope itself. Ritzer, Weber, and Mills knew (and their work is a testament to this notion) that one way to keep people under control is to give them the illusion of choice and the illusion of freedom and free will. Just as we have the illusion of choice in our own entertainment (which is presented and packaged and controlled by only 6 companies), and other commodities through manufacturing desire, in the film the desire for revolution is similarly manufactured and controlled. Thus, like the other illusions, the revolution in the film (being a part of the system) doesn't change anything. Ironically, the first non coerced choice that is made in the film, is what leads to the ultimate demise of the train and almost everyone on board. But leaves enough for life to start again.
CONCLUSION
This is a deep, well crafted, thought provoking and entertaining film. It is a premise that lends itself to rich sociological analysis ( as you can see). I assumed that a film with this premise to be "believable" there would have to be some human rights abuses and a fair share of atrocities...and I got that in spades. This movie is so powerful for me because it takes the very real types of inequality, and difficult social problems we see in our contemporary society (from war, to classism, poverty hunger, terrorism, drug addiction, and genocide) and takes them to an extreme for the fantastical situation presented. This is what good science fiction/fantasy is supposed to do; take relatable problems and social issues and present them in a different way for the purposes of entertainment, but more importantly as an allegory. This is the brilliance of Snowpiercer, a film that should at least be appreciated (if you hate it or the genre) and at most celebrated as an important contribution to film and social analysis.
