The announcement that Ebert and Roeper would no longer be doing the show "At The Movies" has brought about some discussion over whether the movie critic on TV would ever be big again. Personally, I think the discussion should be more about the state of the film critic in general.
To me, the "Thumbs Up/Down" and celebrity status of Siskel and Ebert did a great detriment to most film reviewers. And let's be honest, there are few actual film "critics" out there who really engage films and really break them apart and analyze them. Most film writers are reviewers and I believe Siskel and Ebert highlighted a key problem with today's reviewers; they think of themselves rather than realizing that they are in a service industry.
I am pretty harsh on films but when people ask me if they should see a film, I often hedge. The reason is that I know that what I like isn't what everyone likes and I'm not going to discuss a film the same way with everyone. I'm not going to recommend a foreign film to my friend who likes Snow Dogs, nor am I going to recommend a gross out comedy to a girl who thinks any comedy in English is low brow. Unfortunately, most reviewers simply state their own personal opinion, which doesn't really helping anyone out since all that tells us is the reviewers taste, not whether the reader would like the movie. I think a film reviewer should, whether they liked a film or not, try to hazard a guess at who would like the film or even explain how people should watch it so that they can enjoy it. The last part of that is key. I went in to "Live Free or Die Hard" being told that I should basically expect a superhero movie and that it was in no way, shape, or form realistic. Because of that, I had a blast. If I went in expecting a somewhat realistic film, I might have been disappointed. As it is today, film reviews are little more than half-assed film criticism with writers focusing on their opinions and then throwing a few film theories in the mix to support their stance. And, more often than not, film reviewers simply do not share the same taste or expectations as the general public so it's all moot anyways.
If I was going to put together a Movie Review show, I'd probably stack it wth 5 "normal" people, preferably from different parts of the country. Get a conservative mother/housewife, a hipster, a truck driver, a doctor, etc. Try to get five people who can bring different opinions to the table. Also, I'd let the conversations really play out. Maybe they don't focus on the film but stray into censorship or violence at the films. And the show would basically act as an ad for the website where each reviewer could place their full reviews of films, give their own suggesions, etc.. We could also have a Rotten Tomatoes/Metacritic type critic roundup as well (along with message boards discussing films, giving suggestoins, etc.). Also, I'd have, on the site, some actual deeper, more thoughtful film criticism and discussion. Not only would this be good for the people who are really into film and like dissecting what they see on the silver screen but having it on the site might help others start to open their eyes to the bigger picture so they could perhaps enjoy the artsier films out there. (Similarly, some snotty hipsters could read some of the reviews and learn how to sit back and enjoy some of the simpler movies).
To me, it's time that we take the film review/criticism and have it catch up with film marketing and become a multi-media platform. Also, if the show is syndicated and the core is on the net, that can also keep the studios from interfering and maintaining the integrity of the reviews.
So while many may bemoan the loss of Ebert and Roeper, I hope that it could bring about a new day of film reviews, an era in which reviewers are more into delivering a service than becoming a celebrity with their own show. Hopefully, this will also help spur a new era of film criticism where people actually break down and address the new movements in film.
This post is about The Dark Knight, a movie I liked but didn't love. One reason is because I believe too much in the film (especially about the characters) was told and not shown. When watching the film, listen carefully to the countless speeches/monologues because what is in them is going to define the characters and their roles in the film more than anything you'll actually see on the screen. I'd still recommend the film but I don't think people should believe the hype. It's an entertaining but flawed film.
The link to the full, spoiler-filled reaction is below
To start off, I should say that I liked "The Dark Knight" and think it has some classic scenes. Heath Ledger stole the show and he'll forever be remembered for this portrayal of the Joker. Also, the tone and cinematography and score were all excellent and were basically what I have always wanted out of a Batman film.
That being said, the film had some major flaws which hurt it, the biggest being that the film relied on speeches to tell the audience what they should feel about certain characters/situations in spite of what they may be seeing.
To start, look at the end. We watch a big climatic scene in which the people of Gotham City, people who were actually fleeing the city in fear for their lives, stare death in the face and stand by their principles. They don't allow themselves to be ruled by fear. They foil The Joker's master plan. It's a climatic moment and something that you'd think would galvanize the city and be a moment that would go down in history.
Except it's not.
No, apparently that entire moment would be ruined if anyone ever found out that Harvey Dent went nutty and went on a one night crime spree. Really? Did we ever see Dent amongst the people? Did we see him cleaning up the streets or locking up criminals? Hell, did we at least see other public servants cowering and too afraid to take a stand? Why should we believe that the people of the city would be so damanged by this event?
Because we were told.
Over and over again, Chris Nolan's film TOLD us that Harvey Dent could be the White Knight that saves Gotham. He was the one savior. He was going to rise above the rampant corruption. And apparently, his demise would ruin everything.
What we were SHOWN however was much different. We never really saw how the people really felt about Dent or what high regard they held him in (we got one slow clap from a cop but that's about it). We never even saw much corruption. People kept saying it was corrupt but before the last act the only corruption we saw might have actually come from Dent's own office. (Ironically, the character from the first Batman that could have helped this film was named Eckhardt.)
Even worse, we saw every main character hold their ground. Nobody ran from a fight. While the speeches made it seem like Dent was a one man army, he was always flanked by Rachel Dawes, Commissioner Gordon, Batman, even The Mayor didn't hide when The Joker threatened his life (and it was Gordon who saved The Mayor). Nobody backed down. And I'm sorry but if the National Guard is called in because one psycho is blowing up half of the city and causing everyone is running for their lives, I think the D.A.'s influence is pretty much shot to shit. I really don't see how a guy who lost the one case we saw and failed miserably in holding Gotham together is going to be the guy whose fall from grace breaks the will of the people.
And this was the main problem with The Dark Knight. In order for the core of the film to work, you just had to believe what you were told and use that to define what you were seeing.
It could have been easily fixed, however. In fact, changing Dent's first scene could have gone a long way to establishing his character and situation. To start, Aaron Eckhardt played Dent as far to suave and flippant. He should have been singly focused on justice and the strength of the system ala Elliot Ness in The Untouchable. What he should do is walk in late to court and then make a bunch of wisecracks.
After that, the gun that was used to try to kill him shouldn't have been specially made and snuck in. It should have been a regular gun that could only have gotten in with some help from a crooked cop or baillif. This way we see that Dent is playing against a stacked deck and that corruption surrounds him but won't stop him. If you really want to go further, have him win the case (showing that he's putting a dent in the mob business) which could show that he really is putting a hurt on the mob.
After that, it couldn't hurt to show him working late, trying to put together another case against the mob. They needed to show that Dent was tireless and committed. As it is now, we are told these things but we see him: eating at a fancy restaurant, trying to go to the ballet, and hitting up a fund raiser. Meanwhile, Gordon is seen working late all the time and, if we didn't get that from seeing him in the office late at night, it's hammered home by a cop asking him if he is ever going to go home and see his wife again? Gordon shows all of the commitment but we're told Dent is the White Knight, the real savior.
This issue ruined the third act for me, an act which probably never should have occurred. The film probably should have been written so that it ended with the birth of Two Face (ending on an Empire Strike Back type unhappy ending). A second movie could have focused on Two Face's vengeance and Batman's attempt to finally corralle the Joker. That could have been a very interesting film, especially if they used the free time in the first film to better set-up the importance of Dent on the community. In the second movie, Gordon could be struggling to catch the Joker while also covering up that former golden boy Harvey Dent has become the maniac vigilante known as Two Face. It would have been better than basically dumping the Two Face character into the last act of this film.
In the end, I'm one of the few people I know who had this issue with the film. And even with those issues, I'd recommend the film but I'd say to expect a few too many speeches, buy into what you're told in said speeches, and prepare for the film to drag a bit at the end and be a half hour too long. But for the most part, you can just sit back and enjoy the carnage as The Joker and Batman bang heads.
In honor of The Dark Knight's record breaking weekend, I'm going to dig into the archives of my old site and bring up an old How NOT To. It's from Batman & Robin, one of the worst movies I've ever seen, and it explains how to turn a supposedly menacing character into such a campy clown that even B-movie directors would be embarrassed. Click on the pic below to get the normal sized version.
As for The Dark Night itself, I think Heath Ledger was masterful in it but the film itself was flawed. The Harvey Dent character was ill-conceived (he should have been more intense and focused than flippant and suave) and his storyline dragged the film down, especially in the final act. Also, there were far too many monologues about justice and evil. One of the first lessons of storytelling is show, don't tell and I think way too much in this film was told rather than shown (especially with the Dent storyline). I'd recommend seeing The Dark Knight based on the tone, cinematography and Ledger alone but it definitely drags at times and has some fairly obvious flaws.
8 months in to 2008 and I haven't accomplished much of anything so why not start with a new blog. I've been focusing most of my energy on my day job which recently proved to be an even bigger waste of time than my blogging since barely anyone decided to tune into "High School Musical: Get in the Picture" (the show I was working on).
So here's to a new beginning. The Courier Class is the name I want to use for my production company, if I ever start one. Courier is the font of screenplays/screenwriters, the class of people I'd like to be part of. Also, Courier Class is a thriftier way to send something and I feel like writers often get the short end of the stick and are treated like a second class citizen in Hollywood.
Time to refocus. Or rather start actually focusing for the first time.
