I just finished watching the new Dark Knight blu-ray. While still an undeniably awesome film, I had a chance to really absorb the film this time and I have emerged with a new perspective. Is this the greatest superhero film ever? For now, probably. Yet as great as Dark Knight is, in re-watching it, I noticed aspects that I did not personally enjoy. Chief among these, the pretentious, pseudo-philosophical dialogue. For example:
“You either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become a villain.”
“He’s running because we have to chase him. …Because he can make the hard choices. He can be the hero we need, even if he’s not the hero we deserve…He’s the dark knight.”
“What would you have me do?
Endure, sir.”
First, the dialogue in TDK is not bad as much as it’s stilted. Besides blatantly diagramming the themes of film, which are already blatantly obvious thanks to the plot and visuals, it makes the characters seem less human and more like mouthpieces. Hearing the characters talk, I wondered, “Do people really talk like this?” If they were Shakespearean characters, perhaps. But, in a film that prides itself on reality, the dialogue makes the characters seem inhuman. Each becoming no more than a mouthpiece for their specific philosophy or role (Joker=Chaos, Batman=Order, Harvey Dent=Tragic Heroism, Alfred=Endurance and Support).Yes, there are tons of instant quotables in TDK, but would it have killed the Nolan brothers to be less acute with their language. I admire their goal of making a respectable, serious superhero flick, but did it have to be at the expense of naturalistic dialogue. Occasionally, there are flashes of wit and humor from Ledger’s Joker, Eckhart’s Dent and Caine’s Alfred and Freeman’s Fox, with Ledger getting the lion’s share (though TDK Joker is more serious than any other interpretation.). But a few lines of observational, gray humor does not make up for two+ hours of Aristotelian profundity. In making each character speak in profound terms every other line, they made them less human and, worse, less relatable. Essentially, the dialogue in TDK serves two purposes: a) move the plot forward (as all dialogue should) and b) reveal the themes of the narrative. While these purposes are noble and correct, for the most part, they deprive the dialogue of character and nuance in favor of purely utilitarian application.
Despite my opinion, I’m not espousing a Whedon-esque approach to dialogue. The subject matter is far too weighty to be supported by the fluffy teenspeak or sharp sarcasm of Buffy and Angel. However, a greater degree of humanity and character is necessary. Yes, the actor’s performances elevated the material and added much needed dimensions of gravitas and humanity, but I believe the writing should be able to stand independent of the performance. This is especially true in superhero films, which are at disadvantage in the eyes mainstream audiences who think comics are “kid stuff.” Using super-serious dialogue in superhero movies robs the characters of their humanity, authenticity, and uniqueness. Soon, with everyone trying to replicate TDK’s success, Spider-Man won’t tell jokes, Superman won’t smile, and Daredevil won’t spew sarcastic self-loathing. Come to think of it, too late for that. As I reflect on superhero films and their source material, the dialogue in both superhero films and comics has done two things to me: alienate me and enhance my vocabulary. But, in some ways, it failed to make me care about the characters beyond an issue, arc, or film. TDK now stands as the paragon of that disconnect. I love the film, love the action, and love the theme. But, after three viewings, I can do nothing but cringe at the dialogue. Maybe TDK could learn a lesson from its biggest rival this year, Iron Man? Ease up on the affected dialogue, the audience will appreciate it. And, lighten up, no need to be so serious.
No comments:
Post a Comment