the dark knight

yesterday, libby and i went to see the dark knight with heath ledger. i say with heath ledger because his performance as the joker is the only reason i could be coaxed back into a theatre and made to shiver through three long tortoruous hours of too much air-conditioning, and overly convoluted plot.

don't get me wrong - i appreciate a convoluted plot as much as anyone - more, even maybe, because after all, my books are full of them. but a convoluted plot on a page is easier to follow than one in a movie - in a book you can always turn back, read over, make notes. you can't do that with a movie, unless you're esconced on your sofa in control of the remote.

the dark knight of the film, i think, isn't so much batman, although thats what the film wants you to think. in my opinion, the joker is the dark knight, because he, in his purple suit and dark patterns, and garish, horrific rictus, is the agent of chaos and violent change, the person who shakes the tree just to see how much fruit will fall, who throws the lighted match into the keg of dynamite just to hear how loud the explosion will be. he is anywhere and everywhere, everything, and nothing at all. he is beyond personality - he is a force of nature.

that we cast him as the villian, carve his smile into his very flesh, and then recoil in horror says more about us than any other film i have seen in recent years.

and furthermore, the war must end. blessed be.

ps. i love you and miss you back, donnykellehergoodman.