July
20Dark Knight Brightens Hollywood
Sure, this was a record weekend at the box office, but it was also a surreal one. The numbers were amazing == a $158 million opening for Batman, a $250 total for the full menu of movies.But consider the options confronting filmgoers: The bleakly portentous Dark Knight vs. the insistently cheery “Mamma Mia.” What were those Batman fanboys thinking who couldn’t crowd into their superhero’s theaters and ended up at “Mamma Mia?” “Dancing queens? What the……?” And how will these films hold up? As Joe Morgenstern of The Wall Street Journal noted, “Dark Knight goes beyond darkness into Stygian bleakness….. Will this prove to be more punishment than they signed up for?’
“Mamma Mia’s” $27.6 million opening is strong, especially considering that the movie’s already a hit in English-speaking countries overseas. The audience is 75% female, most of them 30 and older and it’s amazing that they crowded into the plexes past the avid fanboys. The big question: Will that base expand?
Maybe it will, but not to the fanboy crowd. I decided to see Batman this weekend at the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Science Theater, which was packed. This is an older crowd, mostly male. There was scattered applause at the end of the 2 hours 30 minutes, but some folks outside the theater felt so strongly about the movie they were taking informal polls. They seemed to indicate strong ‘pros’ and vehement ‘cons’, with few in between.
This much is clear: Heath Ledger already has become a mythic James Dean figure -- too bad none of the kids have any idea what he looks like. Christian Bale should also be mythic: Never has such a wooden actor lucked into such high-profile roles.While we’re asking questions, could Batman have been vastly more effective if it had been twenty minutes shorter and stripped of its moralistic meanderings? For that matter, would “Mamma Mia” reach a wider audience if was less feverishly cheerful?
But why ask questions? Hollywood has been depressed lately and its denizens enjoy nothing more than box office records.
Subscribe to Peter Bart's Blog Feed
Then it is not an analogy at all.
Posted by: Corleone consiglieri | 7/28/2008 11:29:26 PM
Within the analogy I made, the level of the movies' quality is beside the point.
Posted by: Remy | 7/25/2008 4:16:14 PM
No, Remy, the analogy holds much better if you compare this with Spider Man 3 because both films are on about the same level.
Posted by: Corleone consiglieri | 7/25/2008 8:34:30 AM
No, because I don't think "Spider-Man 3" is a very good film, and whatever its core is, it doesn't lie in its "philiosophical meanderings" (which I don't even remember being there). I was making the point that taking the "moralising meanderings" - if someone chooses to describe them as such - would rob "The Dark Knight" of some of its most important thematic elements, and to make that point I took the freedom to draw an analogy between TDK and "The Godfather". It was a good analogy, too.
Posted by: Remy | 7/25/2008 4:44:30 AM
Remy what you posted is not a good example of an analogy. It really does not work because it assumes that a criticism which has been made many times against a brand-new movie could possibly have any relevance when it comes to movies that continue to be very highly regarded more than 30 years after their original theatrical release.
A more apt comparison would be saying that the criticism of TDK is akin to asking whether Spider-Man 3 would not have been vastly more effective if it had been 20 minutes shorter and stripped of its philosophical meanderings.
Posted by: Corleone consiglieri | 7/24/2008 5:09:37 PM
I've re-read my post three times, but I still haven't managed to figure out in which part of it I'm supposed to have put the two movies on the same level. An analogy isn't an evaluative comparison.
Posted by: Remy | 7/24/2008 1:07:42 PM
Well, Remy, come to think of it, you *really* are trying to put two very different movies on the same level. To think that Chris Nolan's skills as a director could even remotely come anywhere close to those of Francis Coppola in the early 70's is beyond asinine. The latest batpic has 4 or 5 climaxes too many and could have been not 20 minutes shorter, as Peter suggests, but maybe 45 minutes shorter and far more coherent.
Posted by: Corleone consiglieri | 7/23/2008 3:54:36 PM
"While we're asking questions, could Batman have been vastly more effective if it had been twenty minutes shorter and stripped of its moralistic meanderings?"
Not that I'm putting the two on the same level, but that's akin to asking if "The Godfather" would have been vastly more effective if it had been twenty minutes shorter and stripped of its talk about family.
Posted by: Remy | 7/22/2008 10:39:51 AM
Good lord, now the wooden star is getting into trouble with police for hitting his mother! Starring in a wildly overrated movie will go to anyone''s head, it seems.
Posted by: Noir gal | 7/22/2008 8:32:26 AM
Good Lord Pete. You act like Christian didn''t even audition for the role. And what, Nolan is incapable of making casting decisions? I assure you, luck had nothing to do with Bale landing the role. I don''t need to mention his outstanding resume, everyone else here has. So why the low blow? The wooden comment wasn''t necessary. Honestly, why even write this piece? You knew you would be getting a ton of heated backlash. Moralistic meanderings? Please. These characters are written to face huge moral dilemmas. What on earth would have Batman do? Just kick ass? Well he did plenty of that too. I honestly can''t recall a movie this complex AND this action packed. Dark Knight will have it''s revenge with Oscar hardware, take it to the bank. Revenge? Ha! I forgot, you are one of the handful of bloated critics that didn''t like the film. Like Chris and the gang are even worried about your little opinion. I guess you have some sour grapes, though. They just don''t make em like they used to, hunh? Thank God for that. This movie is cutting edge
Posted by: Patrick Bateman | 7/22/2008 4:44:06 AM
Peter, for pete''s sake, don''t listen to all the fanboys who are still under the delusion that there''s something truly remarkable about TDK other than perhaps Heath Ledger''s new take on the Joker. The movie was nowhere near as good as Iron Man, Indiana Jones 4, or Hellboy 2 -- and this is coming from a huge Batman fan. All of those awful "moralistic meanderings" were pretty dreadful - as unnecessary as the "added features" on the batsuit in Joel Schumacher''s films. As for Christian Bale, yes, he can be pretty wooden at times, but the Batman role can be pretty thankless, especially with such colourful villains.
With any luck, there won''t be such dreadful movies as TDK in next summer''s movie schedule. But then again, as H.L. Mencken once said, "nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public".
Posted by: Gotham Geek | 7/22/2008 12:54:52 AM
"While we’re asking questions, could Batman have been vastly more effective if..."
Actually sir, WE were not asking any questions about The Dark Knight...unless you count those in the vein of "Is this a Best Picture nominee?", "Was this the film of the year?", or "Why can''t all movies be as wonderfully executed?"
Detractors such as yourself would be wise to accept greatness when it comes along, as so very often major ''event'' movie let us down (see: any of the big three last summer, Indy, etc.) so to have a film this anticipated live up to the hype is both refreshing and encouraging.
Posted by: Bruce Wayne | 7/21/2008 11:40:05 PM
peter, it's obvious you are not in touch with what audiences like. That's OK. Just trying to figure out what you are still in touch with?
Posted by: independant producer | 7/21/2008 11:31:33 PM
I don't know what's more shocking - Peter calling Christian Bale "wooden" or the fact that none of his defenders even mentioned "Empire of the Sun", which more than one critic has called one of the best performances by a child actor ever. Do yourselves a favor and rent (IMO) Spielberg's best film. As far The Dark Knight, yeah I agree, they should've taken out all that serious stuff. Oh that's right, they did for the four idiotic "Batman" movies of the 1990s. It's very odd when someone suggests that they should change the one thing that makes something different (and better!). It reminds me of a favorite who said that liked Rage Against the Machine way back when but he wished that they were less political. And I said so they could be like every other band out there? Great.
Posted by: GC | 7/21/2008 10:53:19 PM
Peter, Peter, Peter. It's a shame to hear someone with your "reputation" truly suffer from foot in mouth syndrome. Sure, Dark Knight could have been 20 minutes shorter, but to say it could have been a better film had it been "stripped of its moralistic meanderings"? So what you want is yet another lame duck effects movie with no heart, no effective narrative, etc.? You want Batman Forever or God forbid Batman and Robin instead of The Dark Knight? To top it off, you're calling Christian Bale's acting "wooden"? Have you seen "The Machinist"? Have you seen "Rescue Dawn" or "The Prestige"? The aforementioned "American Psycho"? "3:10 To Yuma"? "Harsh Times"? The roles he's "lucked" upon should thank the film gods for blessing them with this fine actor. You then go and say that the kids don't have any idea what Heath Ledger looks like? How offensive is that? And you're wrong, sir. Wrong. Since the late 90s he's been a teen heart throb. Surprising to see how out of touch you are with Hollywood, being "editor-in-chief" and all. "The Dark Knight" takes franchise filmmaking to the next level. It will change how studios make these movies. It will be the reason why more freedom is given to explore true narrative rather than offer nothing more than effects and laughs. Coming from the 70s era of cinema, I though you'd respect and welcome that. Instead, you come off as nothing more than an old man who's out of touch with the industry he works in. It may be "hip" and self assuring to go against the hype... but you risk making an ass out of yourself. And that's exactly what you did.
Posted by: Ken | 7/21/2008 10:11:03 PM
Wow, Peter! Kudos for recognizing The Dark Knight for what it is - a messy, muddled, bloated mess of a film that should have been cut maybe not by 20 minutes, as you suggest, but by at least a half an hour, and totally stripped of all the pretentious, portentous, boring dialogue. There is a sad tendency for certain summer movies to be wildly overwritten, overlong and overproduced - like The Dark Knight, Spider-Man 3, and the Pirates of the Caribbean sequels. None of those movies really needed to be nearly 2 1/2 hours long. They end up being that long because the filmmakers need to justify the humongous budgets assigned to them.
Posted by: batfan | 7/21/2008 8:59:37 PM
Wow, Peter. You're getting taken to the wood shed here. And rightfully so. Don't get me wrong, you're entitled to a dissenting view, so long as it doesn't demonstrate a fundamental lack of knowledge on the film's purpose, or an unfounded jab at one of our finest actors. On top of all that, you showed your hand with the James Dean comment: how patronizing can you get? This film is a masterpiece, and if you can't see that, fine. But at least choose to dislike it for the right reasons.
Posted by: One of "the kids" | 7/21/2008 5:18:24 PM
Yeah seriously. I certainly agree with the other readers over this
blogger. Why is it that all you big time entertainment writers cannot just
enjoy a film for what it is? The Dark Knight has to be one of the best
overall films ever made. It has all the ingredients that draw people to
the movies. But no, all you critics out there rant and rave about boring
films like Atonement because they are so “originalâ€. Movies like that are
as original and interesting as the last boring art house film that no one
cared to see. People don’t go to the movies to be bored out of their minds
for 2 hours by some intellectual nonsense that doesn’t make sense in the
first place. I’m sure there will be another lame film during this upcoming
Oscar season that will swipe a deserving nomination from the historical
accomplishments of the Dark Knight. Thanks again for proving how cynical
and pessimistic you all really are and that we don’t really care what you
have to say. Why do you write about films if you don’t appreciate the ones
that embody what going to the movies is all about?
Posted by: Smarter person | 7/21/2008 3:42:40 PM
The fact that you gave the "wooden" label to Christian Bale's performance points out that you have little knowledge of the roles he has portrayed and his motivation behind such characters as Bruce Wayne/Batman, a historically stoic character. Your take on this film dramatically shows your age and narrowing perspective on new Hollywood. The only thing "wooden" was your cane as you meandered your way down the aisle at you local "cineplex".
Posted by: unbiased opinion | 7/21/2008 3:27:54 PM
Peter Bart, you are an idiot. You shouldn''t write this column. Maybe I should. You actually suggested that The Dark Knight would be better if it was stripped of its "moralistic meanderings" as you so poetically put it. That simply doesn''t make any sense because that is what Batman is about. Comic book characters are not all stupid. And if any character deserves a script with "moralistic meanderings" it is Batman. Congratulations on your attempt to pout about the biggest opening ever, especially for such well received film.
Posted by: Brendan Kelley | 7/21/2008 2:23:07 PM
Peter,
You haven't seen Dark Knight yet. It's an IMAX movie, anything else doesn't count.
Posted by: Darkness falls | 7/21/2008 2:20:23 PM
Speechless at this entry...
Christian Bale a wooden actor!? Have you seen Newsies or American Psycho? His Bruce Wayne is purposely portrayed as stiff. Clearly you didn't understand the movie.
Posted by: Mickey Slevin, ModernMoviegoer | 7/21/2008 2:16:28 PM
Your bitterness and age are apparent in every word you type. We all understand that you wish it was 1975 again, but its not and its never going to be. Many think Variety and this column would be better served by new blood. Individuals that live in the present and look forward to the future of the film business. Relics like you have their place and that is not critiquing a film such as The Dark Knight.
Posted by: Reader | 7/21/2008 10:14:00 AM
No wonder your a blogger, to actually go to the extent of suggesting that a better film could be made out of The Dark Knight displays your misunderstanding for a new type of movie going experience. Sure it had its flaws, however this film displayed the perfect balance between BO draw and story quality.
In your own perspective of Hollywood reality maybe everything seems depressed, however while everyone is celebrating the HUGE BO over the weekend you are the one attempting to depress the situation.
Get a clue. Get a life and maybe even celebrate the biggest movie opening for the next few years.
Posted by: Wow | 7/21/2008 9:09:51 AM