Showing posts with label The Dark Knight. Show all posts
Showing posts with label The Dark Knight. Show all posts

August 7, 2008

A Series of Unfortunate Events...

I’m sure you’ve all been reading about the curse of Batman surrounding the latest caped offering from Nolan: Ledger’s overdose death, Bale allegedly beating his family in a hotel room, Freeman’s sleep driving tumble and the less reported accidental death of special effects technician Conway Wickliffe. This was actually the first tragedy to occur, but has only been brought to mainstream press recently; just goes to show how much press technicians get.

This circumstantial tying up of seemingly unrelated events is nothing new; superstitious thinking is as old as the hills. Reading into a collection of ‘odd happenings’ is what makes ghost stories great, and supernatural forces cause a curse by definition. The problem lies with overactive imaginations, building up the ‘curse’ to become greater than the sum of its parts.

There have been many film ‘curses’ over the years, often related to horror films or films with paranormal narratives. The old adage; ‘there’s no such thing as bad publicity’, comes to mind. If a film’s content has a link with the occult or unexplainable events this could put the seed of supernatural power into the publics’ mind, much the same way a conspiracy theory fits together. The rumour mill department of studios, to help sell their product, quite probably starts these whispers, in part at least.

I’ve been looking into some of the more famous movie curses to see if it is just wishful thinking or if the truths seem too close for comfort. I’ve also tried to research some coincidental events to see if they are just coincidences. Some I’ve found aren’t even that coincidental.

For example; linking Conway Wickliffe’s death to The Dark Knight is correct – he was killed in a driving stunt involving the Batmobile and a camera truck – it wasn’t on set, but it was directly related to the film. Morgan Freeman’s recent car crash has been lumped into the Batman curse because the film is currently in the publics’ view. The truth is that Freeman has been involved in four productions since the Dark Knight, three of which are in post-production. If any, his accident should be attributed to The Last Full Measure in which he stars and is currently in production with.

This is similarly the case with Heath Ledger’s involvement with the Batman curse: Apart from most of the movie going public wrongly thinking The Dark Knight was his last film, Ledger died during production of Terry Gilliam’s The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus, way after wrapping on Knight. So if any unforeseen forces at work are the cause, surely they should be attributed to Gilliam’s production. The ‘curse’ of Gilliam however is one that I do find interesting, a highly talented director with unbelievable bad luck, more of a struggle than a curse. Think that needs another post sometime.

As for past movie curses; the curse of Superman, The Misfits, Poltergeist, The Omen, Rosemary’s Baby, The Crow and others, there does seem to be some strange coincidences but I think that’s all they are. Estranged manic boyfriend strangled Dominique Dunne, on screen older sister to Carol Anne, on the year of release of Poltergeist. Likewise Carol Anne actress Heather O'Rourke died six years later just before the release of Poltergeist 3, due to a cardiac arrest following complications with flu. She was only 12 years old and Dunne was only 22, both untimely deaths but nothing to do with Poltergeist, just unfortunate.

Brandon Lee was killed during the production of The Crow, again a narrative that deals with the afterlife and supernatural powers; Lee was shot by a gun that was supposed to be loaded with blanks, an unfortunate accident. There are also parallels with the script and Lee’s life, the character of Eric Draven was killed the night before his wedding and Lee was to marry once filming was completed, all unfortunate events but not a curse.

The curse of Superman
is probably one of the most famous and longest running ill-fated stories of Hollywood. Looking at the events they don’t seem to have anything to do with any of the productions in question. It’s unfortunate and slightly ironic that Christopher Reeve was paralysed during a horse riding accident, but nothing to do with Superman. His accident was 8 years after filming anything related to Superman; the last being Superman IV that some people would argue also has nothing to do with Superman. Margot Kidder who played Lois Lane suffered a nervous breakdown and Richard Pryor who played Gus Gorman in Superman III was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis. Kidder suffered a bipolar disorder in 1996, nearly 10 years after filming Superman IV and Pryor’s ill health came on 3 years after filming Superman III. Kidder has featured in many productions since including Smallville, watch out Tom Welling. Also the tit-bit that most film curse advocates bring up is the untimely death of George Reeves who played Superman in the 50’s TV show, found dead with a bullet to the head in suspicious circumstances. I imagine anyone who’s been shot is treated as ‘suspicious’, Reeves was having an affair with the wife of an MGM executive. In the US people shoot each other over much less and it was a year after Superman the TV show finished.

There are many other unfortunate events related to Superman, but with an institution spanning 6 decades, some shit is going to go bad sometime. Film making employs thousands of personnel from many different walks of life, it's high profile and high pressure, and often dangerous work. Someone is going to get ill or have an accident sooner or later. I'd like to think there is a big conspiracy or that we are at the mercy of a higher force, I love all that stuff, but sometimes it's a little misplaced.

The only film curses I’m interested in are The Curse of Michael Myers, The Curse of Frankenstein, The Curse of the Cat People, The Curse of the Puppet Master, The Curse of the Dragon, The Curse of the Mummy's Tomb, The Curse of the Living Corpse, Curse of the Swamp Creature or Curse of the Pink Panties II.

Bark…

July 28, 2008

Do I look like a guy with a plan?

7.54: Standing in a queue to get a good seat in my local flea pit for what seems to be the movie event of the year so far; Nolan’s first and much talked about sequel: The Dark Knight.
I liked it. I never doubted I wouldn’t, I love the cast, I love Nolan’s style and directing prowess, and I love the subject matter. It was unconventional and complex, there was a real world feeling, as if this could be going on somewhere. The script is slick and unpredictable, but helped along by a great story with lots of left field, non-traditional stuff. As Slo Mo Jo said, this isn’t a superhero film; this is a dark psychological thriller. And he’s right. You could change most of the characters for London gangsters in the 70’s, or set it in space with a robot army. The story transcends the setting – as all good script writing should.

However, as much as I enjoyed it something didn’t lie right. Something has been keeping me up at night, it’s not Ledger’s sinister portrayal of a demented anarchic clown. Nor is it the showering of continuity errors or Nolan’s odd editing decisions throughout Knight that made the hero’s swallow or stumble over some choice lines. One notable line was the ‘A little fight in you. I like that.' 'Then you're going to love me.’ exchange. A great one-liner delivered before someone gets punched in the face. I was looking forward to that one, but it felt as if Batman had tripped on his cloak as he delivered it off screen. Similar to Indy’s delivery of the ‘Part time’ line in Crystal Skull, lost with no impact. But let’s not mention The Dark Knight and Indy 4 in the same post.

Back to my point. Indy was a disappointment in the same way Star Wars Episode 1 was. The hype and excitement of seeing a new episode of a childhood fantasy is just too big, nothing could fulfil such expectations. Short of me being Indy’s sidekick or getting to ride shotgun with Solo, these are just films. 20 years of imagination has the ability to make something bigger than it can ever be on screen.

It’s only been a couple of years since Batman Begins. So what’s my problem with Batman 2 or 6? (Other than not being involved with it’s production, although through a strange turn of fate I did get to visit the location used for Gordon’s police headquarters. The George Farmiloe building in Farringdon; an old disused plumbers merchants, totally unrelated job, but very cool.) It's only been a couple of years and the new franchise is looking good - I was a Burton fan, and just as Nolan he breathed new life into a tired territory - remember Adam West's 60's rainbow monstrosity? Burton brought the dark, as has Nolan. Bale is a fantastic Batman and Oldman's Gordon really delivers. Cain as the wise, caring Alfred couldn't be more perfect. Less said about Holmes the better. Although I didn't like the Gyllenhaal replacement, she's not worth saving in my view - not strong or feminine enough to hold Batman's gaze. A minor point.

I'm still troubled.

I think my uneasiness with DK is that it is different. Iron Man was good; good FX, good performances. It delivered a tech superhero in a comic book wrapper. But Downey Jr.’s Stark didn’t keep me up all night chewing over the fat in my mind. Why can’t I shake Bale and Ledger’s end confrontation from my brain? And it’s not about where those scalloped fin flechettes went. There is something more, something fundamental missing.

It’s the unstoppable force meets an unmovable object idea, Batman is not a superhero. He is a comic book character created by Bob Kane, he’s not a Stan Winston abomination, there’s no radioactive bats or a botched military experiment, he’s a paranoid schizophrenic. He's DC, not Marvel. As Frank Miller put it: ‘A dionysian figure, a force for anarchy that imposes an individual order. Dressed as a bat, Batman deliberately cultivates a frightening persona, sometimes even torturing people, in order to aid him in crime fighting.’ He’s a fucking nut job, as are most of his enemies. He's not bubblegum, he's not popcorn. The reviews had misled me, I'd lost sight.

As a child he watched his parent’s get murdered in cold blood for a few bucks.

This comes out, stronger than ever in DK, but also present is Nolan’s ability to make you think. He made the choices in DK to get the response he wanted. It’s supposed to be uneasy and jarring. It’s not Hollywood, it’s Gotham, and it sucks. I had a lump in my throat and a knot in my gut, not because of honor or the love of a father for a child - but because he’s done it without me realising. I've been led down the dark alley without thinking and I'm taking sweets from a stranger and getting in his car.

We know the story, we know the city, we know the characters. But I didn’t know this film. This isn’t Keaton in the snow delivering a slick line about change, this is the shit going down, this is Bale beating up his family in a hotel room, this is Ledger kicking the bucket on a cocktail of drugs, this hurts and it hurts good. Batman Begins touched on the dark that was needed to wake the beast, showed us where it could go. The Dark Knight goes there if you want to or not.

Brilliantly, Nolan has set lots of key scenes in the day, with bright sunlight. Batman Begins was a dark film in lighting but easy to watch. DK is a sunny film, but dark in tone.

No one likes change, but it is necessary, without it we get more remakes and more watered down versions of the greatness that has gone before. This is how ‘reimaginations’ should be. Joel Schumaker can go jump, this isn’t easy watching this is the new order. I didn’t like it and that’s good. You’re not supposed to, this isn’t entertainment this is a kick in the teeth. I am Jack’s raging bile duct.

This is the kind of film that makes you think. I don’t like what I think, but thinking is good. The more I see the more I want. This film is gonna be the kind you can watch for years to come and still get a kick. Who enjoyed The Shining the first time round, or Seven or La Haine? Not eye candy, but brain booze.

I just can't wait to see what Nolan does next...

Woof.

Clowning Around...

Last night, I finally got to see 'The Dark Knight' at my local picture hole and it is needless to say it did not dissapoint. I'm not going to go on an extended trip of delight and hyperbole about it - there's plenty of glowing reviews for you to read out there about Christopher Nolan's latest offering.

However, one thing did disturb me and that was the presence of a very small child in the auditorium. This child didn't make any trouble but it was the fact that such a young child was even present in the auditorium was the main issue for me.

It's that pesky 12A rating introduced into the UK in 2002 that legally allows any child to see a 12A film whilst accompanied by an adult. It's a nice idea to allow people to take the reigns of liberal parenting and run with it, but in real life I have seen so many small children present in 12A films which I would consider unsuitable for such immature and impressionable minds - I have to wonder where liberal parenting stops and carelessness begins.

Before you think I'm a crazy Mary Whitehouse type, I'll reassure you now that I'm not. I don't believe kids automatically go out and commit heinous crimes after seing video nasties unless they've got a couple of screws loose to start with. I also think films are an amazing medium to allow children to experience fantasy, dreams and different emotions in a safe environment. What I do believe though is that kids are impressionable and have deeply vivid imaginations.

The Dark Knight is terrifying in places - Heath Ledger's Joker puts even the toughest critic on edge with his unhinged performance. The first glimpse of Two Face 'aint pretty on it's initial reveal for some adults. I'm not sure how a 6 year old would react.

The sad truth is that some parents, and clearly the staff at my local well known cinema chain clearly don't give a s**t about what children are seeing. One child was so small, it was getting carried out of the auditorium.... Isn't that a baby? I wonder whether the 12A certificate exists simply to increase audience revenue, and allow parents to forgoe the babysitter when they want to see a slightly more adult themed film. Why not just take the kid with you?

Well, rant over. In the Joker's own words...'whatever doesn't kill you simply makes you... stranger'.

June 30, 2008

Who wants to play with the big bad bat...

And if that wasn't enough, I found some script excerpts and a better copy of the prologue.

And tonight, you're gonna break your one rule...

Sorry to those of you who reserve the reading of reviews until after seeing the film in question. Very commendable, avoiding any kind of spoiler etc. But I can't do it. I get too excited. I just wanna know it all right away.
Check out these reviews of the up and coming Batman sequel: Dark Knight.
Oh boy oh boy oh boy...