THE DARK KNIGHT

I agree with harmonic. Film, like literature, is a medium through which an artist can delve into a number of concepts, topics, and ideas, addressing each in his own way. There is nothing inherently more "deep" about books than movies; there are many movies that make most books seem like tripe (just like the few books that make most movies seem like Saturday morning cartoons). The reason books seem like the more artful medium is that they've been around much, much longer than movies, so there's a significantly greater volume of great literature than great film. I would contend, however, that the ratio of greatness to tripe is about equal in both media.

By an objective criteria, The Dark Knight was not "just another action movie." Live Free or Die Hard was "just another action movie"--it had little plot development beyond that which was necessary to get from explosion to explosion, etc. The Dark Knight didn't focus on the action nearly so much as on character interactions and underlying concepts. The fact that it did include a few scenes of action doesn't necessarily make it "just another action movie."

author=Bear link=topic=1557.msg24951#msg24951 date=1216831597
There is nothing inherently more "deep" about books than movies

Actually, there is.

author=Bear link=topic=1557.msg24951#msg24951 date=1216831597
I agree with harmonic. Film, like literature, is a medium through which an artist can delve into a number of concepts, topics, and ideas, addressing each in his own way.

I agree with this too. I do not think, however, that Dark Knight is high art. It's pop art; it's really cool and full of style and brilliant acting and good music and definitely has some meaningful themes going on, but I don't think it's particularly or profoundly deep as you put it. Harmonic calls this "a brilliant psychological thriller that poses . . . significant moral questions", and all I had said was that this is a little hyperbolic. You say that a movie shouldn't be devalued for having a "few action scenes", but Dark Knight has more than a few action scenes - it's a nonstop thrill-ride with occassional dialogue sequences in between fistfights, gun battles, car chases, torture scenes, and hundreds of gigantic gasoline explosions. It's pacing is like a video game!

Granted, Dark Knight explores concepts that other action movies rarely do effectively. Two Face's descent into madness was interesting and The Joker's truly irrational and sociopathic behavior was genuinely disturbing, and these are the sorts of things that make good pop art. It is still an action movie, though, and the characters all play their bit roles. Batman is still an anti-hero, Dent is a tragic hero who has fallen from grace, and The Joker is a misanthropic antagonist. The wizened, elder spiritual guide with a dark past has an unsurprisingly dark past. And, of course, every woman in the movie is a victim. The hero wins, the bad guy goes to prison, and the ending is left open for 2010's inevitable sequel. These sorts of things are the difference between snobbish high art and thrilling pop art.

So yeah we're sorry for being snobs but this is not Wim Wenders or Lars Von Trier or Werner Herzog or Stanley Kubrick. It actually isn't even Christopher Nolan really (pretentious namedrops heheheh!). Dark Knight is the best and most interesting action movie I've ever seen, but as far as I can tell it is still a superhero movie.

Have you ever played Altered Perception: Tyrant God Saga?

author=brandonabley link=topic=1557.msg24977#msg24977 date=1216834742
These sorts of things are the difference between snobbish high art and thrilling pop art.

That's a distinction that doesn't exist in most post-modernist thinking.

From a modernist perspective, there's a very clear delineation about what is and isn't art ("high art" if you prefer, but no one is fooled into thinking that "high art" isn't just their way of saying "real art"), and that's basically determined by consensus of the artistic community, and certain media get entirely excluded by the same committee....but the people who still think that way are the same sorts of people who think they're going to be able to maintain a business model involving digital property based on scarcity economics for more than a few years. Which is to say: dinosaurs.

I'm not supporting the Dark Knight as some amazing piece of art, but the medium and the genre have nothing to do with that.

Apocalypse Now was political and social commentary for the period, rather than philosophical or psychological discussion. Though, you could certainly bring those up in reference to it. Not saying you're wrong, but, better examples might've been used.

Saying books are a higher art than film is like saying that The Sound and the Fury has more historical and social value to society as a whole than, say, The Godfather, which is certainly not true. They both have equal amounts of value. In fact, I think The Godfather is currently being stored in the Library of Congress. ... might be a moot point that it's a book as well, but!

Another good film example would be Citizen Kane, which is considered by the American Film Institute (AFI -- pretty much the SOURCE of all film expertise, what little there is; they do that "100 Best" thing every couple of years) to be the number one movie of all time. Not in gross value, but in societal value, which is what makes something high art: if it has societal value.

That's how I see it, at least.

As for The Dark Knight. I enjoyed it. I don't really drop down favorites, and I can't call "best movie of all time" because of my limited viewing of films, as versed as I may be in them (five years of film camp will do that to you).

author=Bear link=topic=1557.msg25052#msg25052 date=1216874950
Oh, really? What, exactly, makes books a higher art form than movies?

Hahah you took the bait!

Aside from that your example is pretty stupid because you could just as well compare East of Eden to Debbie Does Dallas!

author=Shadowtext link=topic=1557.msg25038#msg25038 date=1216866401
Which is to say: dinosaurs.

Give me a break did you even read my post? I didn't dismiss Dark Knight as an action movie - I dismissed it as an action movie that follows the conventions of a Hollywood action movie. There is a distinction!

Well I'm stopping in to say I thoroughly enjoyed The Dark Knight. I walked in with high expectations and some skepticism, but I came out fully entertained. It's probably my favorite super hero movie of all time. Yet to see Iron Man so I don't know what Stark Industries has to offer.

author=trance2 link=topic=1557.msg25110#msg25110 date=1216927840

author=Bear link=topic=1557.msg25062#msg25062 date=1216881540
I want you to read Conrad's Heart of Darkness and then watch Apocalypse Now and you'll see why Cappola's work goes far beyond a simple political/social commentary for the period.

Do you mean to watch it right after? Because I have read Heart of Darkness, and throughly enjoyed it. And, just like Apocalypse Now, it was social/political commentary for the period: speaking out against the horrors of colonization solely for the terms of imperialism -- benefit of the mother country with no regards as to the indigenous people. Then again, some people have accused Conrad of racism (there's actually an essay from this big illuminary of African-American literature or something like that in the edition of Heart of Darkness that I own -- his name escapes me, though). But that's neither here nor there.

If you mean to say that I view the pair of them solely as social/political commentary, then you failed to read my whole post. Because I clearly said that it is possible to view them, out of context, as philosophical or psychological discussions.

I read your whole post, and you said exactly what I implied you did. As far as any reader could tell from your nuance what you said Apocalypse Now was a poor example because it was "just" a social/political commentary, "rather than philosophical or psychological discussion." You did go on to say that 'better examples might have been used,' but I contend that point heavily. The movie can be viewed in three different contexts: social/political commentary, a philosophical journey into Hell (and the domain of the Fallen One himself), and a psychological descent into madness and back. None of these is "out of context." Rather, each is a possible (and legitimate) interpretation of the film. Conrad deliberately wrote Heart of Darkness with three distinct purposes (all three of which are accurately mapped into its film adaptation, Apocalypse Now).

The essay you're referring to is written by Chenua Achebe, a scholar whose only noteworthy achievement is to accuse all of European cultural achievement of racism. In his zealous crusade against ethereal evil, he himself has become 'racist' in the sense that he uses his position (of power and respect, particularly among base 'politically correct' zealots) in order to exert an agenda with no perceivable objective than to purge the public school system of all literature except for his own books and Maya Angelou. Now, this is somewhat an exaggeration of Achebe for the sake of argument; nevertheless I have a very poor opinion of Mr. Achebe.

As far as brandonabley is concerned, I recognize that you try to sound intelligent by making condescending one-sentence responses to my interrogations. I do, however, see through your ploy, and if you have nothing to say beyond simply denouncing The Dark Knight out of hand for no reason beyond your snooty pseudointellectual indie megalomania. The example is legitimate because it exposes just how ignorant your espoused position was. Yet you still fail to respond to the question at hand: What exactly do you find so superior about literature that makes it art, whilst movies are nothing but trite commercialism (in your view)? I don't mean to be so overtly hostile but your condescending attitude offends me, particularly because I tried to be respectful and explore your side of things.

While watching the movie I was very engaged and entertained. The movie's action scenes were a bit jumbled but the dialogue and scene pacing was good and I enjoyed the movie a lot. There WERE some nice themes to take from it... I personally preferred Nolan's Memento a bit better though. Why does no one talk about that movie?