Awards Page Index * OSCAR coverage here
2008 Year in Review
Hyperbole Gone Wild / Hall of Shame / December Glut
Underappreciated Films & Doc of the Year / Top Ten of 2008

Hyperboles Gone Wild
Nathaniel R December 28th

The Dark Knight: A once in a lifetime collision of events

Recently I was discussing my CEP (Clint Eastwood Problem) with a friend. Frequent or even fairweather Oscar readers will know what that is since Eastwood makes movies every single year (he's become Woody-Allen-regular in his 70s). Though the megastar has made some fine films (no argument from me there...and my estimation of Million Dollar Baby went up on a recent viewing) he's also made his share of mediocrities. Yet each and every film, even the ones that fade quickly and eventually produce many detractors (say, Flags of Our Fathers) open to anywhere from a few to abundant "masterpiece!" raves and impossible-to-miss Oscar buzz. This, if you're at all sympathetic to my "issue", is maddening. This, if you're unsympathetic, you'll view as only just and right since he's the greatest filmmaker currently walking the earth. I bring this up because I left Gran Torino bewildered at the praise. With me was a friend who likes Clint Eastwood movies far more than I... though he's not a devotee really. The following paraphrased conversation followed...

Nathaniel: I know it's an impossibility since movies require marketing and costs millions of dollars but just once I'd love to see a Clint Eastwood arrive that no one on earth knows he made. His name isn't on it anywhere. He doesn't star in it. What would the reviews be like?

Friend: Yeah, that's impossible

Nathaniel: I know, I know, but let me get to my hypothetical. If that happened with say, Changeling or Gran Torino... I GUAR-AN-TEE the movies would not be getting amazing Oscar caliber reviews and making top ten lists.

Friend: Actually, you're wrong. Gran Torino would be getting trashed but Changeling would not have been divisive at all. It would have gotten respectable if non-rave reviews across the board, not a love it/hate it response.

Maybe my friend is right on Changeling. Perhaps I am less charitable going in, since I tire of the inevitable praise and awardage that will greet each film from the revered star. Others are definitely extra charitable going in on the basis of the same name. The CEP stretches out in both directions.

Such is the subjective nature of moviegoing. One person's treasure is another's "So what?" and none of us go into any movie in a total vacuum. How much are we affected by other movies we've seen --even if only subconciously -- that relate to the one we're watching? How much does love (or its opposite) for an actor, actress or director shift our needle at the start? In today's moviegoing climate how much does all the give-the-cow-away marketing affect our experience? We're all seeing films after we've seen select scenes and spoilers in "exclusive clips" or multiple teasers and trailers on the web or in theaters. Isn't this affecting how we process the movie once we're watching it?

All of that is a long way of saying: don't take offense if a movie you love isn't loved by me. We all experience things differently. The following five movies --or rather, the public reception of the following five, confused this non-believer most in 2008.

 

#5 Mongol
Having followed its road to an Oscar nomination in 2007, I was keyed up to see Mongol at this year's IIFF (related post) prior to its debut in US theaters. Unfortunately the film dragged on and on through a repetitive capture/escape routine for what seemed like hours, and then ended abruptly with something like a flashforward to legend-making biopic style events. I'm already fuzzy on the details because it never captured my interest and the movie felt familiar, tedious and generic. Aside from the beauty of the landscape and its epic action sequences I couldn't imagine what people had seen in it and what they continue to see in it (it's still winning awards). After all, landscape grandeur and big bloody battle scenes aren't exactly rarities in motion pictures.

#4 & 3 ClintPack: Changeling and Gran Torino
Changeling's title was true: the movie was constantly morphing. Unfortunately the shapeshifting didn't feel controlled. There are about 4 movies inside the thing and 3 of them starred a monotonously crying mother who barely changes despite living through a rather catastrophic series of events. [Full Review]. Gran Torino, Eastwood's second picture of the year, a film about a grumpy old racist who befriends a Hmong family next door (much to his own surprise), is a more coherent film but it's not half as ambitious or well visualized --it could easily be mistaken for a TV movie. The story is satisfying to an extent but the plotting is hard to swallow and the racism is uncomfortably bemused by itself.

Maybe I just don't get Clint Eastwood. That's what his fans keep telling me and perhaps they're right.

But here's one thing I feel absolute conviction about, debatable personal blindspots be damned: this acclaimed director should not keep winning praise specifically for the speed with which he works. People seem so in awe of this well-known factoid but it's -- how shall I put this? -- not a strength. In both Changeling and Gran Torino the ensemble performances are all over the place, qualitatively speaking. Whether you're working with actors who are untrained (Gran Torino) or professionals who have to successfully manage period authenticity, accents and tonal shifts (Changeling) you really, really may need to give them more than one or two takes to get it right.

I'm just saying.

#2 Slumdog Millionaire
I've always enjoyed Danny Boyle's energy as a filmmaker. I even kind of like his arguably most reviled picture (The Beach) for its stamina and madness. And I liked this movie about a Mumbai orphan who lives by street smarts and luck but the unabashed love its receiving from critics, awards voters, and audiences is a bit of a 'huh?' People say it's a feel good masterpiece or as one well publicized blurb puts it, a "bouyant hymn to life" and I can't quite graft those feelings onto the movies sadistic tendencies. For all of its strengths (and it has them, yes) I don't think it's a patch on Boyle's early absolutely vital work like Trainspotting or Shallow Grave. In truth I think the new picture is a little shallow and easy but, to be fair, "destiny" stories are almost always like that. You can get away with a lot when you're dealing with predetermined fate. "It is written"... and all.

#1 The Dark Knight
A box office gross that was nearly Titanic in size, critical raves so supersized they practically claimed the movie cured cancer, fans so enthralled they sent death threats to contrarians...? What exactly was going on this summer?

You'd think nobody had ever seen a terrific superhero picture before The Dark Knight arrived. You'd think nobody had ever seen what Chris Nolan could do with the Batman mythos before it opened. You'd think nobody had ever seen a sure-to-be legendary Heath Ledger performance before it screened. In fact, we'd seen all of those things before and quite recently, too.

I'm totally with the masses in saluting Heath Ledger's acting achievement (A+ remarkable, haunting, masterful... all the things he also was just three years ago in Brokeback Mountain) but his death surely did some weird mojo on the movie and on the public that was there to witness it. I know it's probably uncouth to say but the tragedy created an aura of inconceivable loss and despair around The Dark Knight that it immeasurably benefitted from. That's no one's fault. It's certainly not opportunism since no one could have known. So while the movie isn't an unequivocal masterpiece it's still something to treasure, containing as it does, the last full performance of a great actor.

So here's the sad silver lining and a sideways note of gratitude to the movie itself. In an accidentally respectful way, this movie may be the best filmic ending this tragedy could have hoped for. "The Joker" as a character and The Dark Knight's own calling card themes of chaos, impending catastrophes and weighty grief were able to contain and channel the public confusion and grief surrounding this unfathomable loss in a way that few other films or roles could have. This film (and probably only this film) was able to adequately underline and add an exclamation point to what we had already learned with Brokeback Mountain about Heath Ledger's astonishing facilities as an actor. Think about it: Could you imagine trying to enjoy his last performance mere months after his death if it had been within the confines of a light caper film or a romantic comedy? Even if the performance had been masterful who could have smiled sweetly at his antics or fallen in love with him in the way that those types of movies would have needed to work? I'd suggest that his current awards rush would have been unthinkable without a character like the Joker and a film as 'why-so-serious?' as The Dark Knight. Ledger may yet still win that Oscar he wholly deserved back in 2005. It's a tiny happiness and comfort.

Though I didn't respond to the film half as emphatically as many moviegoers, I find myself in the slightly oddposition of rooting for this outsized hyperbole I initially griped about to continue. Let Ledger continue to be an agent of chaos and bring a superhero film with him into the Oscar Best Picture race. I've long been an advocate for genre films to pop up on Oscar's radar. The Dark Knight wouldn't be on my ballot but I hope it's on theirs. The only sensible way to live in Oscar World is without rules. In other words, you shouldn't have to be a WWII film, a biopic, or a literary adaptation to merit consideration for golden statues. So here's to WALL•E & The Dark Knight's Oscar bids. Here's to shaking things up.

discuss this article on the blog

---

Also:
"Cinematic Shame" -Worst Films, Embarrassing Performances, Pet Peeves
"December" -The Glut, Oscar Strategies and History
"Underappreciated" -Special Citations & Honorable Mentions

Coming Soon:
"Top Ten of 2008" -The Best Films of the Year