Go See "The Dark Knight"

When it comes to movies, some things happen very seldom for me. I rarely regret spending every penny the trip costs, including snacks. I rarely see a movie where I have nothing to quibble over. Finally, I rarely see a movie in the theater and when it's done I want to get right back in line.

Last night, I hit the trifecta.

Christoper Nolan's The Dark Knight, a follow-up to Batman Begins, is probably the most hyped movie of 2008. This might lead some movie-goers to fear for disappointment. Don't. From the first moments of film, to the final scene, The Dark Knight delivers on its promise and launches the "comic book" movie to new heights. This is not Tim Burton's Batman (or any of the awful versions with Val Kilmer or George Clooney). This is not The Fantastic Four. Nolan takes the gritty comic-book-as-cinema trend that started with Spiderman and goes beyond it, with an exquisite exploration of human drama and moral questioning that sucks you in, holds on tight, and doesn't ever let go.

The story of The Dark Knight is not what you would think of when someone says "comic book." Forget the BAM! THWAP! POW! Forget the cartoon-esque portrayal of heroes and villains. Nolan's story is as deep as they come. For while there is certainly a contest between "good" and "evil," the movie is one that constantly poses the question, "What do you do?" in situations where any decision is morally ambiguous. If you can only save one of two people, who do you save? If you have to choose one loved one to die, who would it be? If you must kill someone else to save yourself, would you do it?

These are tough questions, and are (I believe) one reason why this is not a movie for the younger set. The movie escapes an "R" rating because while there is a lot of explosions and gunfire, there is little vulgarity, no nudity, and no sex (in fact, only two kissing scenes, both pretty tame). But parents should not be swayed by the "PG-13." This is a movie that requires some emotional maturity; the questions asked are tough ones that young folks might find difficult to understand or process. (There is also Heath Ledger's chilling portrayal of the Joker, but I'll get to that in a moment.)

These questions are what elevate this flick beyond mere "comic book movie." It's a soul search. It constantly poses difficult questions and says, "What would you do?" And all the while, you are aware that whatever you choose, the consequences are awful - for yourself, for others, for society. There is even one scene that is a subtle, yet pointed, comment on current events with wiretapping - I'm sure you'll see it. Powerful stuff.

Add to this the fact that Batman is not a hero. The citizens of Gotham do not embrace him. Some do, but many do not. He is viewed as a vigilante, one who has contributed to the problem, not helped it. This is hammered home in the last lines of the movie, when Batman disappears into the night against the narrative, "He's not a hero. He does what is needed, he can take it. He is Gotham's protector, it's 'dark knight.'" Wow.

One of the marks of a great film is the lines - are they quotable. This film delivers. There are the funny lines, the ironic lines, the emotionally powerful lines. One of my personal favorites comes from Harvey Dent (played by Aaron Eckhardt): "You either die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain." Absolute brilliance, giving that line to the man who will become Two-Face. Some of these lines you've seen in trailers:

Harvey: Any crazy ex-boyfriends I should know about?
Alfred: Oh, you have no idea.

Alfred: Will you be taking the Batpod, sir?
Bruce: Middle of the day Alfred? Not very inconspicuous.
Alfred: The Lamborghini then. Yes, that's much more inconspicuous.

Others, well, I'll leave you to discover them for yourselves (note to technical writers, there is a great line about reading the instructions).

So, plot depth? Check. Great dialog? Check. Action? Plenty, but it never overshadows the dialog, plot, or people. So that leaves, the characters themselves. Are they believable, are you drawn to them, are they truthful? In The Dark Knight the answer is yes, yes, a thousand times yes. The casting is nothing short of brilliant, and every character - primary or supporting - is a compelling force in the story.

Christian Bale reprises his part as Bruce Wayne/Batman and, as in Batman Begins, he nails it. He is believable as both the playboy billionaire and the dark, brooding anti-hero. Here is not the affable, slightly socially awkward Bruce Wayne/stolid Batman of Michael Keaton, nor the cold industrialist/sexually charged Batman of Kilmer, or the cartoonish Wayne/Batman of Clooney. Bale's Wayne/Batman is a troubled man, searching for peace and answers. If you want the back story though, go see Batman Begins, because there is no exposition here. Outwardly successful, Wayne is still trying to fill the hole left by his experiences of childhood and young adulthood. Batman is a dark alter-ego, not altogether admirable or heroic. Necessary? Perhaps. But emotionally positive? No. Batman allows Wayne to do things he would not necessarily do. Oh sure, Batman is no villain. He is definitely out to protect the citizens of Gotham. But is he an altogether positive force in Wayne's emotional life? Maybe, maybe not.

There are two people who recognize this more than Wayne himself. The first is loyal Alfred, once again portrayed superbly by Michael Caine. Caine's dry British wit lends a touch of levity to his insight, but he knows his master. "You must know your limits," he says early in the movie. Alfred is a moral compass (much like Aunt May in Spiderman, but without beating you over the head with morality), the one who sees Bruce's need for Batman, but keeps him from being consumed completely. Alfred makes his own choices in the movie, choices to protect the man he serves and loves. Are they the "right" choices? You decide, but Nolan admirably avoids giving second-fiddle status to a character that in the hands of a less astute director could become nothing but a foil.

Second is Bruce's love, Rachel Dawes (and thank you to whomever decided to replace Katie Holmes with Maggie Gyllenhall - well done). Rachel loves Bruce, but recognizes he is a broken man who is incomplete without his alter-ego - and alter-ego she is not altogether comfortable with and she is very direct about that. In the end, she must choose and choose she does knowing the consequences, but choosing anyway.

Two more secondary characters add depth to the story. Lucius Fox (the incredible Morgan Freeman), Wayne's gadget guy who manages both Wayne Enterprises and develops Batman's toys, is a man of colossal integrity. He supports Batman, but when Batman's methods cross his personal morals, he must also choose. And then there is Lt. Jim Gordon (Gary Oldman), perhaps the one man in Gotham who sees Batman as an ally, albeit a dark and unpredictable one. Gordon is not a caricature of the ineffective policeman; he is a powerful, decisive, person - one of the true "good guys" - who also feels the sting of making choices.

And then there is District Attorney Harvey Dent (Eckhardt). Gotham's "White Knight." Fans of the Batman story know Dent's fate, which makes the moniker of "White Knight" terribly ironic. Critics have said that Dent doesn't get enough good lines, but the one line I mention above is enough. Eckhardt plays the highly ambitious and moral Dent to perfection, including exposing the one flaw that Joker plays on for his own cruel, twisted entertainment. Yes, Tommy Lee Jones did Two-Face, but this is a colder, less flamboyant Two-Face, a man with serious mental issues. Fodder for Joker's mill.

That leads me to the Joker himself. Oh my god, where to begin? As with many others, I was highly skeptical when the choice to cast Heath Ledger, the pretty boy of Ten Things I Hate About You and A Knight's Tale, as the fiendish Joker. To all those who doubted let me say this: Ledger may go down in cinematic history as the most perfect Joker of all time. So perfect in fact, that although Nolan clearly intended more movies with Batman-Joker story lines (you can tell that from the dialog, as well as the fact that Joker was always Batman's arch nemesis), Ledger's untimely death in January may prevent that, even though Bale is reportedly open to a third movie. The reason? It will be impossible to replace Ledger. In my mind, and I believe in other viewer's minds, Ledger is the Joker. No substitute accepted.

And he's chilling. This is not the overblown cartoon version of Joker as played by Jack Nicholson. The makeup is messy and imperfect, designed to provoke a reaction. To call this Joker "evil" is to shortchange him. He is not merely evil, he is amoral - the physical embodiment of pure anarchy. The law, the criminals - he plays them all for his own, twisted end. His sole goal is putting people in impossible moral predicaments and making them choose.

"Civilized people will turn on themselves to save their own skin," he says, and seeing otherwise moral people forced to make morally ambiguous choices, and thus prove his point, is his entertainment. "It's not about money" he says at one point, and his actions prove it. Pure anarchy is about no order - good or bad. Anarchy does not respect any rules. Anarchy is frightening in its purest form. And that is the Joker in this movie - pure anarchy. This character is the other reason this is not a movie for young kids. It is relatively easy for kids to understand villains or "bad guys." Ledger's Joker goes beyond the typical movie villain. He takes the other characters into a world where there is no "good and bad," and that world is terrifying. Thrilling, but terrifying.

The only thing that saddens me about The Dark Knight is knowing that what could have been may never be. Ledger's death last January almost guarantees that. Ledger reportedly got so far into this character that he became emotionally troubled himself, with insomnia and nightmares. After seeing his performance, no wonder. "Oscar-worthy" performance is another phrase that is highly overused, but I think it applies here. Ledger will almost certainly get the posthumous nomination. I don't know if he'll get the award, but make no mistake. As brilliant as the other actors were (and they were brilliant), Ledger's performance is the centerpiece of this movie. He is the puppet master who pulls everybody else's strings - Batman's, Dent's, Gordon's, Gotham's - and perversely enjoys watching the show unfold. Joker may well be the hallmark of Ledger's brief, but shining, career. All I can say is Mr. Ledger, where ever you are, I am sorry I ever doubted you.

In summation, I loved Peter Jackon's Lord of the Rings trilogy. But I could nitpick even some of Jackson's cinematic decisions (understand them, yes, but nitpick nonetheless). The Dark Knight leaves nothing to nitpick. It is, as they say, all that and a bag of chips. So even if you find yourself reluctant to see a "comic book movie," go get yourself the jumbo bag of popcorn and enjoy a truly brilliant emotional ride. I can almost guarantee you won't be disappointed.

"You either die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain."

PS: Yes, the movie is 2 hours 32 minutes long. Your brain will simultaneously not believe you just sat through a 2.5 hour movie (because it flies along) and think it was much longer (because so much happens). Your bladder will not be so confused - especially if you get the 55-gallon drum soft drink. So go to the bathroom before the movie, and ration yourself on the Coke. Trust me on this one, because it is not a movie where you can just get up and take a potty break.

What Pretty Spots You Have!

So I've discovered the main consequence (visually, that is) of these injections. A quarter-sized red spot at the injection site. I mean, I know the literature mentioned redness and swelling, but this is ridiculous. I look like I've got welts, as if I've slapped myself with a belt or something. But just on my legs - it doesn't seem to happen on my arms. What a lovely look down at the pool.

And how scary is this. I decided to try calling around to find out what I should do with this red, bio-hazard sharps container once it's full. All the web sites and phone numbers I was referred to (and that are included on an EPA pamphlet The Hubby picked up) are of no use. There is either no listings for my area, or I'm redirected to companies that want to sell me containers and mailers. Thanks, but I don't need to buy containers. I'll get one every month.

So I decide to call my municipality. Lady directs me to Allied Waste Disposal, the company that does our municipal trash pickup. They can't take bio-hazard containers. Fair enough, but then the girl says, "You can just dump the needles in a plastic milk jug or 2-liter pop container, and then tape the lid shut and throw it in your regular trash. That we can take." Excuse me??? Just what else are you putting in landfills?

So I swallow my pride and email the wife of the former religious ed director. She tells me that she just wraps her containers in tape - duct tape - to disguise them and hides them in her garbage, and that this is what the Allegheny County Health Department told her to do!!!!!!

Now, I am no medical expert, but it strikes me as odd that a county health department and a municipal waste company are so blase about this. I mean the friggin' EPA publishes literature specifically stating that this stuff should not be thrown in the garbage. A plastic milk jug? Yeah, that will hold up to needle punctures - NOT!

So now I'm a bit perplexed. I shall try calling the Health Department myself. If they actually confirm this idiocy (medical waste in the trash - really?), I will call one of these companies to see if I can just purchase the mailers.

And if I can't get a satisfactory answer, I just might be calling KDKA with a news scoop. Guess what Allied Waste is putting in your landfill? Story at 11.

The Summer That Never Was

It is the Fourth of July. I am sitting in my living room wearing sweat pants and a fuzzy fleece pullover. We are watching A Capitol Fourth because that is the only way we are going to see fireworks this year. It has been raining for two days, including a deluge yesterday while we were at Idlewilde Park. I'm thinking of firing up the wood stove - if only the wood wasn't so wet.

What is wrong with this picture?

Global warming my ass.