Controversy: The First Bad 'Dark Knight' Review
Monday, July 14, 2008 at 10:15AM 
You probably don't need to be told that loads of
positive reviews are flooding in for
The Dark Knight. If you're honest with
yourself, though, you would also expect negative reviews. That's the way it
goes. Some critics - and certainly a lot of non-critics - hate Citizen Kane.
You can't even point out to them all the things it radicalized: Non-linear
storytelling, the main character's journey was told in the second person, deep
focus cinematography, camera angles that had never been used before, overlapping
dialogue, a movie spanning seventy years, jump cuts in the newsreel footage,
etc. Some people don't get it and never will.
And The Dark Knight is the same way, of course, because everything in literature is open to subjective interpretation. This weekend, David Edelstein, who reviews for New York Magazine, NPR, and CBS, gave a very critical review of The Dark Knight. From reading it, he seems to be critiquing its nature more than its acting and directing.True, he questions Christopher Nolan's ability to handle an action scene (I did the same thing with the third act of Batman Begins, which seemed to me to be a little hard to swallow in this grittier new Gotham), and he also found Heath Ledger's Joker to be, in a word, shrill. He found the entire show to be "noisy, jumbled, and sadistic." That's fine; he didn't love the movie, although he also makes it clear that there are elements he did like.
But earlier today, I cruised over to First Showing, which I do several times a day, and I noticed a pretty harsh attack on Edelstein by Alex Billington. Among other things in his article, "First Negative Dark Knight Review - And Why It's Bullshit," the normally good-natured Billington dismisses Edelstein's column as proof of "how bad film criticism has become," and lambastes his colleague as a "so-called critic" and "ignorant." Neither of those things is true, of course. They don't even border on the country that borders on the truth.
Why the anger, or to put it another way: Why so serious? I'm a little more old school than Alex; I was a critic first and a blogger second. I've had a website for The Big Picture, which used to exist as a radio show, since 2002, although I didn't start blogging until December 2006. I began reviewing films in 1998 on the radio, TV and print followed a couple years later. I can assure any and all of you that David Edelstein is an actual critic by any definition, and a good one. Even if he missed the mark with this review...so? Who cares? I disagree with critics all the time and with only have I ever resorted to name calling. And I'm a name caller. OK, twice, but the second guy really deserved it...
I dare say I'm a fairly open-minded critic. I love things I never expect to after fearing the worst and I'm not blown away by movies I thought I would be totally into. Iron Man is a classic example. I liked it, but hated the total lack of a worthwhile villain, and couldn't give it Four Damn Dirty Apes. I'd do the same thing to any movie that didn't really produce an effective antagonist. Did it with Hancock, as well (although that had other problems). If people think I'm wrong, people think I'm wrong. But regular readers know what they'll get from me. I rarely go to the extremes.
By way of comparison, so far this year, First Showing has awarded eight films a grade of 9.5 out of 10 or better, while I've only found one movie I've seen in 2008 to be that worthy. Last year, I gave two Five Damn Dirty Apes honors, but after revisiting another film this year, I upped it to five, as well. Some years I only have one movie I put in that league.
I'm sure David Edelstein's reviews appeal to David Edelstein's readers. They know what to expect when they read him. If they're use to him, they'll either take his advice on Dark Knight because he served them well before, or they have seen this kind of review from him in the past and while the readers haven't had that same reaction when they saw the film, they still appreciate his insight into other areas they wouldn't have been looking for otherwise. But it doesn't make him ignorant, doesn't call his abilities or pedigree into question, and it certainly is not a reflection on how bad film criticism has become. Do me a favor, if you read his review: Tell me exactly where he goes on ad hominem attacks instead of critiquing elements of the film. If you find one example of "I hate all comic book movies" or "British directors are almost always overrated," then you can take exception with his thesis. Otherwise, he's just doing his job.
I'm appalled by Billington's remarks because the last thing film critics need is one of their own trashing the entire establishment in favor of what, fan boy rubber stamp approval for anything with kick ass trailers and a comic book lineage? That's what the tirade sounds like. He comes across as a bit petulant in his article, which doesn't help his intellectual assertion one bit.
Moving on...
There's a new 13-minute HBO First Look at The Dark Knight that has made its way online, and it's been broken into two bite-size portions. Enjoy.
Reader Comments (18)
So what was the movie you gave 5 damn dirty apes to this year?
Okay critics are just people who are lucky enough to get paid to give their opinion. I personally think it's sad that anyone listens to any of you but then again the general public as a whole can come off pretty stupid and would choose to listen to a critic instead of seeing a film or anything for that matter for themselves. I don't know why someone would take the word of a overly educated grossly paid individual who has forgotten that movies are suppose to be fun for the most part and not just angst ridden works of so called art that have buried their meaning so deep that even the director has no clue what the film is about.
Well I guess I just wrote a review on critics. Ha!
So I'll take it back to middle school and say "Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one" and since critics are nothing more than glorified opinion givers then I'd say that fits all of you perfectly, but then again I want to be paid for having an asshole too.
In response to Claudia,
I used to have the same view as you do about critics. Why should I need someone to tell me if I would like a movie or not? For that matter, it's rare that I ever see a movie that I absolutely hate. I usually enjoy movies at least a little, so going to the movies is a pretty safe bet for me. Saying critics are just glorified opinion givers and opinions are like assholes is kind of funny but extremely narrow-minded. If that were true you could just look at the damn dirty apes, or the thumbs up or down, or whatever system they use. Me personally, I don't look to critics to find out if I should see a movie. I'm more interested in why they think the way they do. Also, I've discovered some really good movies that I otherwise wouldn't have known about because a critic has recommended it. Also, I've come to appreciate movies even more because a critic has analyzed it and brought up things I didn't notice. Colin's paragraph on Citizen Kane is an example of that. People who don't like critics and don't like calling movies "art" just don't get it. No, it's not about some deep hidden meaning the director didn't know about. It's about realizing that the director tried to make something that is more than just a way turn your brain off and have fun for an hour and a half. Good movies are a lot like good literature. There are brainless books that are for pure entertainment and there are great works of literature that are studied in schools. Movies are similar. Obviously you have never thought too hard about a movie or just don't care to. That's fine. Plenty of movies are made for people like you. But there's no reason to knock people who like to look at movies more in depth.
If it weren't for critics, movies would most likely have a much lower standard and the whole of society would be much more stupid for it. I for one do not want a mindless society that will pay for crap at the theaters. You are never going to agree with a critic 100% but if you can understand some of their reasoning behind things then it could be helpful in deciding whether to see a movie or not.
Yeah what movie was that this year with the 5 damn dirty apes?
Yep, you don't have to base your opinion on what critics think. But it is good to have critics out there. I love hearing what critics have to say but if I want to see a movie I'll see it either way.
I believe the 5 damn dirty apes movie was The Diving Bell and the Butterfly.
There haven't been any Five Apes this year...I have something comparable to a 9.5 out of ten, though (and unless I worded it incorrectly in the article, that's what I was using for comparison), and it's In Bruges, which I found not only to be a little unpredictable, but fresh, well-acted, and remarkably well-written in a genre that doesn't normally investigate its characters so carefully.
The three 2007 films to earn our highest honor were Zodiac, The Bourne Ultimatum, and The Diving Bell and the Butterfly. United 93 was the only film I gave Five Apes to in either 2005 or 2006, although to make up the difference, I awarded both The Incredibles and Hero with Five in 2004.
As for the role of movie critics, we're here to inform our readers. It's not as simple as getting paid for our opinion. Claudia, for example, voiced hers, but her logic isn't very convincing and her writing is, well, not very strong. Those are two fundamental elements to being a critic of any kind: Be clear and make strong arguments.
While Claudia believes she's reviewing critics, what most of us will come away with is a review of Claudia herself. She does not strive for objectivity, she doesn't use punctuation correctly, and she doesn't believe the sphere outside her own is worth her time. It's sloppy writing and cloudy judgment.
In truth, a movie critic is a lot more than a "glorified opinion giver," because any critic that takes his or her job seriously doesn't want to be hung out to dry by his or her own whims. I've studied film at an academic level on and off for nearly 20 years, and have taken acting, writing, directing, film history, and film theory classes along the way. I read countless books on things like trends in the Italian national cinema over its first hundred years to dense studies of film noir and histories of the propaganda classroom films of the 1950s and 1960s.
I find myself revisiting interviews with directors to understand their motivations and craftsmanship as well as textbooks about narrative comprehension. I've cracked open boring but insightful reads like Kenneth Burke's The Philosophy of Literary Form.
Beyond all of that, however, I watch a ton of movies. More than you. That's my job. So, when I say these are the ten best movies I saw this year, and the list of flicks I watched is over 200 titles long, it's not based on absolutely nothing. It's a lot more than spouting my opinion. I have to make an effort to know the history of the genre, know the filmographies of the major players, understand what a film is trying to do and measure that against what it actually does, and after I do all that, I have to write it all down, hopefully in an original and entertaining way, but certainly in an informed and informative way.
If Claudia should write back, I'd like to know what she looks for first in a movie. To me, it's the screenplay. A good screenplay will always save a mediocre movie just as a bad script would sink the same film. Story structure and the efficiency of scenes and characters is absolutely crucial. The overall flow, the way a film is composed (or the direction) is next. Then I look at the performances, not the actors, because they're what sell the script. After that, I set values for the technical things, like editing, lighting, cinematography, effects, the musical score, costumes, and set design. Of course, I have to do all of these things at the same time, but I place a higher standard on the first three.
The actual director is never a factor for me until afterwards. How can it be? Watching a movie by Spielberg doesn't make the movie itself any better. I can only compare the finished work with other films by the same director, but it has no bearing on whether or not the two hours I'm watching is any good. If it turns out that the film is excellent, then you analyze it based on authorship and history and all the rest. But because Spielberg made Jaws and Raiders doesn't make Kingdom of the Crystal Skull any better, just as the fact that he stuck a terrible, unnecessary ending on A.I. doesn't make Crystal Skull any worse.
Claudia is right to an extent that movies are supposed to be entertaining, but if there's a more subjective word in this entire discussion, I'd like to know what it is. What's entertaining? Are CGI effects entertaining? Not by themselves. Are pratfalls entertaining? They can be in the right circumstance. Is terrifying suspense entertaining? Not to everyone. Some people can't bear to watch it.
Is there entertainment value in movies that dare to show us something different - a character type we're unfamiliar with, a chain of events we haven't seen in a formulaic Hollywood picture, car chases that you can't believe could ever be staged, a documentary that asks tough questions? Certainly, though again, each one of those is not equally entertaining to everyone.
The absurdity of the notion that movie critics hate entertaining movies and only like art films is dramatically uninformed, and just by its admission into this discussion, it disproves Claudia's central theory that anybody can be a movie critic. It's not knowledgeable enough to be a real critique.
I think I can say with absolute certainty that I take this a lot more seriously than she thinks anyone would, or that she ever could.
I've known Colin for twenty years now (I can hardly believe it myself), and I promise you, he loves popcorn movies as much as any of us. I remember having a great time with Colin in The Rocketeer and yes, even Darkman. The point is, he has to see every damn movie. He had to see Hancock. And The Fantastic Four. And Saw IV. He knows the good genre movies from the bad ones.
I love it when people say, "If a critic likes a movie, I probably won't." Really? 'Cause critics loved the first two Star Wars films, Pauline Kael notwithstanding. Colin loved The Bourne Ultimatum. So did I. I bet Claudia did, too.
Who cares what Claudia thinks of movie reviewers? Did her opinion really merit a 12 paragraph response Mr. Boyd? There's not a movie critic alive who hasn't had their reviews and their very existence called into question at some point. Most of them simply let such criticism pass them by without taking great umbrage. Criticism both fair and unfair is going to happen and knowing that I have to ask as Mr. Boyd did in his initial piece... "Why so serious?"
Asana -
You have a point. The only reason I responded was because that question comes up all the time; if I didn't face it here, I'd face it next month. And I've never really addressed what critics do, or should do. Twelve paragraphs? I had no idea...
The problem I have with a lot of criticism is the reluctance to give their highest rating, as evidenced by Colin's mere handful of five-star reviews over the past five years. I have always been a fan of the four-star system, most notably Roger Ebert, who hands out four star reviews more frequently than most. This does not mean that every "four-star" movie he writes about is perfect or flawless, yet I appreciate the fact that he is willing to basically say "see this movie."
Having said that, anyone who looks at a review's "stars" or "damn dirty apes" or "Thumbs up!(TM)" or "See it!" or whatever system is used as the sole reason to see or skip a movie is an idiot. I know why I love some movies and why I hate others. I listen to some critics because I like the way they think and the reasons they like movies are similar to the reasons I like movies. Some critics I trust and some I don't. It is unfair to talk about "film criticism" as a singular, impermeable identity.
Sure 12 paragraphs is kind of extreme and although he and I are usually pretty in sync, even when I disagree with Colin's views, I respect where he's coming from. I think what came through in those 12 paragraphs and the reason we enjoy his reviews is that it's his PASSION that shines through and his love of cinema in the first place that kept him typing that response. I'd venture to say it's the same passion and love of movies that keeps us all commenting, watching and surfing back as well.
Re: the "star" system. Personally, I don't use it or enjoy it and every once in awhile, I get an e-mail asking me why but it's because I read reviews for the writing and while it's not everyone's cup of tea-- I think it's a great art form and given the amount of work a filmmaker puts in on making a movie, it warrants a completely well-thought out response. I also think it's too easy to just skim reviews and go with the 4 stars, 3 apes, 1 thumb up instead of paying attention to the thinking behind the ratings as the deciding factor to buy a ticket or not. Numbers (like grades) are subjective and I applaud the ability of some critics to use them but if I was only offered one choice, I guess I'd take the 12 paragraphs any day of the week...
In editing my earlier comment I left one thing out. I said that I used to think the same was as Claudia. What I left out was that I thought that way until I actually started reading reviews. I guess the rest of my paragraph implies that but I just wanted to clear that up.
The reason I don't give many Five Damn Dirty Ape reviews is because there aren't many movies that deserve them. Surely, there has to be something reserved for the films I believe to be all-timers, right? I could dilute the ratings and say In Bruges was worth Five, but it's not. There are a couple things I'd change about it. It's still my top film of the year right now, but I don't believe you have to have the highest rating possible in every year.
Zodiac, in my opinion, is the best procedural crime movie since The Silence of the Lambs, where the focus is on the investigation and the investigators, and the actual crimes are titillating but not what you're really watching. Bourne is the best pure action movie since Raiders. I wouldn't change a frame of either one of them (and since, at one point, I tried vainly to outline a screenplay for Zodiac with Christian, who commented above, that's saying something), and they go beyond the confines of genre movies. They're just perfect films.
Not many of those, which is why I'm stingy with the apes. I'm nearly as stingy with Zero Apes, although there are more movies with no redeeming qualities than there are movies will all redeeming qualities.
I think it is nice for a critic to have a film education but what really counts is just what Colin said- be clear and make strong arguments. Being objective gives the critic credibility. Sometimes it takes twelve paragraphs. And you must be able to write gooder, right? By the way, what horrendous zero ape movies for 2007 stand out for you, Colin?
or 2008, if there are any?
handing out too many damn dirty apes cheapens the apes--and no one wants a cheap ape date
can't believe I'm taking the bait here on Claudia's dull rant on critics, especially when there are as many sharp criticisms to be leveled on critics as there are on movies and all other things in this moldy world, and her snarky remarks were strictly grade school-Homer Simpson level.
But I can see why Colin took the bait--mainly because it's fucking aggravating to hear people sound off on critics (and by proxy essayists, commentators, analysts, historians and informed aficionados)
But aside from all of Colin's fine points, here's one other thing to consider: (in spite of Orson's peckish remark that critics are "eunuchs at a gang bang,") --one job that critics have is to become learned and wise enough to try to see inside the processes of filmmaking as commerce and art and to deconstruct the various elements of a picture to find its beating heart(s), and to act as kind of intermediary in offering insight into the intentions and success or failure of the diverse hands at work, production, talent, structure, etc.
Do the judges or critics or color commentators have any real knowledge of what a fighter is thinking or a quarterback or a gymnast or a painter or Keith Moon? No fucking way--not even the retired jocks are there on the ground with the players. But their job is to know the subject well enough to provide some educated access, to see the truth in the moment, and that's an art unto itself, when it's done artfully.
There are as many bad critics as there are bad pictures, especially in the era of metacritics and rotten tomatoes, but dig in the Manny Farber/Lester Bangs root cellar and the good shit will appear. Transcendence is a bitch, but it undeniably exists, and someday Claudia you may actually be in a position to say something intelligent about critics, instead of representing in full inglory, the thing you are yourself criticising
Colin, you might want to take a look at Dave Denby's mixed review of the Dark Knight in The New Yorker
by the way, Heath Ledger's Joker just proves that Val Kilmer was terribly miscast as Batman--he would have made a far better Joker, probably as good as Ledger's, with a better director than Schumacher, anyway
Mow that Ledger's dead, it's time to cast a new Joker. Sure wish they'd cast Julia Roberts--she has the face for it, at least (and I say that with love).
Bull -
My only 2008 Zero Apers so far are The Love Guru and Over Her Dead Body. Last year, I had as many flicks get Zero as get Five: Condemned, the brutally unfunny and illogical I Think I Love My Wife, and Redacted, which is the second straight movie from Brian De Palma that fails to earn a single ape. In his last five efforts, De Palma has amassed a total of Three Damn Dirty Apes. Nice going!