Dark Knight' mob attacks defenseless film critic

Not that it matters of course, when it comes to a pop-culture tsunami like "The Dark Knight," but so far most of America's much-maligned film critics have embraced the Christopher Nolan-directed film, which is due to set all sorts of obscure box-office records this weekend. (Is there, for example, a record for biggest July opening during a presidential campaign year?) But there's always a skunk at every wedding. When it comes to "Dark Knight" fans, the skunk is New York magazine critic David Edelstein, who had the temerity to slag off the new Batman film, calling it "noisy, jumbled and sadistic."

And that was just the beginning: Edelstein hooted at the action scenes ("spectacularly incoherent"), the director ("Nolan appears to have no clue how to stage or shoot action") and the movie in general ("it's all fits and starts, fitfully suspenseful, fitfully scary... with jolts of brutality to keep you revved up"). "Dark Knight" loyalists did not take this lying down. Edelstein has been bombarded with so much e-mail abuse since his review posted that he felt obligated to respond to the vitriol. (The New Yorker's David Denby didn't like the movie much either, but he's somehow escaped being tarred and feathered by the angry mob, perhaps because everyone was more enraged by the Obama cartoon on the cover of this week's magazine.)

I'm not going to get in the middle of this maelstrom, since sadly, I'm such a cultural slacker that I haven't seen the movie yet. But I feel a pang of sympathy for Edelstein, who notes that the Batman fanboys seem to want to have it both ways--calling him a snob for taking the movie seriously, then mocking his pretentiousness for offering more than a "Wow!" as a critical response. The ranting and name-calling all takes us back to the primal question of today's moviegoing age: Do critics still matter?

You should read Edelstein's entire response, but here, in a nutshell, is his argument, which is worth pondering:

"There has been a lot of chatter in the last few years that criticism is a dying profession, having been supplanted by the democratic voices of the Web. Not to get all Lee Siegel on you, but the Internet has a mob mentality that can overwhelm serious criticism. There is superb writing in blogs and discussion groups ... but there are also thousands of semi-literate tirades that actually reinforce the Hollywood status quo, that say: 'If you do not like "The Dark Knight,'" you should be fired because you do not speak for the people.' Well, the people don't need to be spoken for. And a critic's job is not only to steer you to movies you might not have heard of or that died at the box-office. It's also to bring a different, much-needed perspective on blockbusters like 'The Dark Knight.' " 

Photo of Christian Bale as Batman in "The Dark Knight" from Warner Bros.

Comments

[kleptobum]

To the person who said:
"Consider "Speed Racer" which has a favourable crowd response (those who bravely saw it despite terrible reviews), compared to a horrific critic response. How do we rationalise this?"
and the others who question the gap between "crowd response" grades to critic review grades. Crowd response comes from people who are already interested in seeing the movie, while critics are forced to sit through everything (even You Got Served, Norbit and Step Up 2 the Streets). The crowd response grades for Mamma Mia are higher than critics grades because most of the crowd were women who knew exactly what they were getting.
Critics aren't writing reviews for those people who are lining up on opening day. They are writing it for those who can't decide which movie to spend their $10 on, so they do need to be a little harsher than the average fanboy. But the best critics will point out a negative and explain why it's a negative. A reader can then decide if that negative really is so bad.
I have to agree that it seems that some critics look negatively on a movie just to be different. A mob has every right to email a critic and give him/her a verbal lashing.

[Nicholas Turk]

I feel that a lot of critics forget a few things while critiquing the films of today. One of them being a very vita role in a films success. This role is the over all premise. Weather or not that premise is supported and cleverly placed into the film determines the success of that story. Personally the Dark Knight was an amazing film. It reflects the way the world is today. For the viewers, the comparison between todays world and the movies is very subliminal. However if you analyze the premise you will see the story is more than just another action comic book movie. The premise of the movie is "That fear creates chaos and if you overcome fear you overcome chaos and demise." Right now our world is living in fear.
Another thing critics don't look at is the routing interest. One scene in the film (ship scene) I noticed made me route for something, however I wasn't routing for a huge explosion, In fact my routing interest was that the people overcame their fear and paranoia. The Dark Knight exhibited this very well; where other films sacrifice story for fascination the dark knight does not.
Critics also forget about overall screenplay. Cristopher Nolin is known for his multiple scenes and fast cuttings that are intertwined together. For movies like the Dark Knight it creates excitment and anxiety without needing the massive explosions.
Anyway I could go on forever, but I guess the one thing critics need to do is go back to the basics of the story. Then decide weather or not all the components of film making back up the story and create a new world for the viewer.

[Kevin]

As for Edeltein's final argument, which was printed at the end: Amen.

I loved The Dark Knight. But that doesn't mean that everyone has to. A critic writes his or her opinion. If you agree, fine. If you don't agree, fine. Telling people what they can and can't like is repulsive.

[The Force]

So David Edelstein is whining because there was a backlash to his review? That's kinda dumb on his part. He knew what he was doing by giving it a negative review in light of how good the film actually was. He was trying to get a response.

And now he's whining about it.

Uh, isn't that why we have critics, to start the conversation ball rolling on films?

[PKEL]

I kind of fond this message board entertaining. With just about everyone posting here putting their thesauruses into overdrive to fit the maximum amount of syllables and "intelligence" into their comments, I can barely take either side seriously. The only thing that I do find compelling are the taken-for-granted comments that Ledger used drugs on the set. I'm sure the incontrovertible evidence is tucked away in your room somewhere so there's no need to offer up any proof to the slander you write down.

[ryanman]

I appreciate the irony of a film critic complaining that some people don't like his opinion of the film. For a person who makes their living being critical, you'd think they could handle it.

[Orion]

Movie critics, failed filmmakers...

[Dave Jordon]

The problem with Tim Burton's version of Batman is that , anone who's familar with the comic book created by Bob Crane should know that Batman doesn't kill, and as far as the critics who are being slammed for giving it a negative review on TDK if they plan on watching it again and then again are bunch of hyprocrites.

[HelenWheels]

I totally agree with that critic. That's exactly what I thought of the movie, but when I started saying that to the friend I saw it with, he got all angry. WTF? Can't people have a difference of opinion?

I couldn't stand the barbarism, the super loudness, the extreme gratuitous violence, and the confusing plot.

Please note, I did like the first one. I thought the story was more clear and intelligent.

AND I did think Heath Ledger did a great job, he is to be commended. Not liking a movie on the whole does not mean there aren't great performances. I think Gary Oldman was amazing as well.

For all you people so eager to know if Heath Ledger was "on drugs": The guy is a method actor and he had mentioned many times that the role was very hard on him (when you see it you'll know why). Acting means becoming that character to a very large extent. Playing that role actually took a tough toll on him & may have contributed to the bad health he fell into.

And it was too damn long. END IT ALREADY. I can't figure out which movie had the most annoying nonstop endings, the first Pirates of the Carribean or Dark Knight.

[mark rourke]

how dare any of you to say heath ledgers amazing performance was drug related, why? cause his death was? do you think just maybe it was just an amazing performance by an amazing actor, he was good in all his movies this movie just happend to bring out the best in him and some people just cant take that, they just cant say he was amazing in that movie, no it had to be drugs, for goodness sake we could say that about all good performances now, its only being said bout him cause of how he died. I just take it for what it was, one of the best performances ive ever seen in any kind of movie.