Note To Awards Givers: Ignore The Dark Knight At Your Own Peril

By Josh Tyler: 2008-12-11 19:45:04

The year isn’t over, but best of 2009 awards and nominations are already being handed out. If like everyone, you’re a Dark Knight fan, things aren’t looking good. So far, it’s been a near total shut-out (with far too few exceptions like the Critics Choice Awards) for Nolan’s record-breaking superhero masterpiece, as other movies and other actors were awarded by early honoring critics and given the top places on their top whatever lists. The shutting out of the year’s best film reached its zenith this morning, when the Golden Globe nominees were announced, and except for a single Heath Ledger nomination The Dark Knight was left off.

Instead of nominating the year’s best reviewed, most loved movie the Golden Globes honored movies which no one really cares about. Movies which have received solid, but not spectacular reviews and which are for the most part, good but not great. In another year ignoring a movie like The Dark Knight might be justifiable. In 1977 for instance, the Academy honored Annie Hall instead of Star Wars. They were wrong, but at least you could make a case for giving the award to one of the industry’s most talented directors at the very height of his powers. This year there is no Annie Hall, in fact this year’s collection of Oscar hopefuls, aside from The Dark Knight, are decidedly mediocre. Apologies to The Reader, but you’re no Annie Hall.

Call me and the other 99% of moviegoers who love this movie biased if you want, but this is more than just our opinion. It’s also the opinion of many of the people leaving it out of their awards. Shortly before its debut in theaters, critics were hailing it as one of the best movies ever made, a life changing experience. It is, for a fact, one of the very best reviewed movies of the year. According to RottenTomatoes it has received a higher percentage of positive reviews than literally any of the other movies nominated in the Best Picture category by the half-mad Golden Globes… and it’s done that in spite of being much more widely reviewed. It’s more than just the year’s best movie, it’s also almost unquestionably going to be the year’s most influential. Like Star Wars before it, The Dark Knight is fast becoming the new mold from which all future movies will be poured. Its impact, its influence on cinema will be felt for decades to come.

The Golden Globes are the Golden Globes, a vague entity run by a strange and mysterious European shadow organization which no one seems to understand. It sucks that they’ve decided to ignore The Dark Knight but they can get away with it, they’re the Golden Globes and they never make sense anyway. They have that luxury. Film critics: You don’t. Ignore The Dark Knight at your peril.

Film critics can no longer afford to champion pet films which no one has ever seen, at the expense of what even they have to know is probably the better film. Here’s why: They’re all about to be out of a job. Most end of year critics awards are the product of voting almost exclusively by print film critics. Few awards committees recognize the opinions of online reviewers, so most of the time when you see these awards announcements they’re all the result of voting from newspaper writers. Newspaper film critics who, by the way, are increasingly becoming extremely unemployed. If American newspapers are in trouble then American newspaper reviewers are in double trouble. There are many theories as to why this is happening, Roger Ebert came up with some good ones here. But at least part of the problem is that increasingly, people are turning away from the old media film critic and turning to places like Cinema Blend for their film related discussion and opinion. Why? Because they feel those critics are out of touch.

For print critics, a vote against The Dark Knight is a vote for your own irrelevancy. It’s a vote for the unemployment line. It’s a conscious choice to ignore a cultural phenomenon in favor of pushing some undeserved indie-film agenda over a movie which people have already seen. I’m not saying some of these smaller films aren’t good. They are. Milk for instance, deserves every bit of the praise it’s getting and there’s still room to give it some love right alongside TDK. Right now though, Dark Knight isn’t even in the conversation. That’s a travesty, one which must be corrected before it’s time to start talking Oscars. In any year, but especially in this, a particularly weak year, there’s nothing out there which compares to The Dark Knight. It must transcend your petty big box office biases since it has already changed the way we think about movies forever. It’s more than the best movie of the year, it’s one of the best movies ever made. Snub it and there will be consequences.

Latest Headlines:

12 Minute Harry Potter And The Half-Blood Prince First Look

Trailer: Tobey Maguire And Jake Gyllenhaal Are Brothers

Even More Alice In Wonderland Images

Strange Patriotism: The American Flag's Weirdest Moments On Film

Inglourious Basterds Banners

View-Master: The Movie

Tony Stark's Iron Man 2 Race Car

Superman May Be Done With Brandon Routh

First Look At Eminem in Funny People

Public Enemies Poll: Tell Us What You Think

Comment on “Note To Awards Givers: Ignore The Dark Knight At Your Own Peril”

Note: This website is not meant for use by minors. The views expressed in the comments section below are not our own. This section is intended for discussion of the topic in the post above. Disagreement is encouraged, however comments which attack, insult, or threaten the author in a personal manner won't be published. Similarly, comments that we deem to be poorly worded, or wildly off topic will also not be approved and may be mocked. For free, uncensored, unfettered, and possibly dangerous discussion visit our forum.

Subscribe to topic comments

0 0 / 0
y n

Milo
December 30, 2008 at 00:14

"Like Star Wars before it, The Dark Knight is fast becoming the new mold from which all future movies will be poured. Its impact, its influence on cinema will be felt for decades to come. "

Bwaaaahaaaahaaahaaa! Hyperbole lives! Thank goodness. Where would the internets be without it?

Seriously, you really think that TDK will be as influential as the first Star Wars on cinema over the next 10-30 years? How so? Most will agree that Star Wars (and Jaws, etc) ushered in the age of the blockbuster summer movie that is still with us today, using classic adventure storytelling and special FX galore. What new age of movie-making, pray tell, will TDK usher in? I thought it was a big, splashy summer movie with good storytelling, ie, a descendant of Star Wars, not a revolution from it.

Look, TDK is a very, very good movie. IMO, the 2nd best 'popcorn' movie this year (WAL-E first and IronMan third). It is one of the best comicbook superhero movies ever made, probably second only to the original Superman, which 'created the mold'. You can even stretch and call it the 'Godfather' of comic superhero movies to date. It is epic. Maybe that deserves a best picture and director nod and a shot at Oscar, but to demand that all must bow before it as the greatest movie of the year or else? Please...

Again, what is revolutionary about it? It has good all-around acting and one exceptional, Oscar-worthy performance (Ledger's - and he should win if Oscar has any sense of truth and justice). It manages a dark, weighty and mature tone amongst huge action set pieces better than any previous comic story aimed at summer audiences. But much (MUCH)of that relies on Ledger's phenomenal performance. This is not Lawrence of Arabia here, doing things that have never been done on screen before. Take out Ledger's maniacal phenom, and you have stuff seen before, but done better here. Bank robberies, car chases, subterfuge, love interest at risk, good-to-bad, moral ambiguity, bomb-on-the-bus, good FX, etc. All done before. And that is not a bad thing. It's a summer blockbuster that was top of it's genre, with a great actor knocking a key role out of the park.

I'm a fan of the movie, and am not going to be offended deeply if it only gets an Oscar for Heath.

Reply
-1 0 / -1
y n

hisnewreasons
December 17, 2008 at 16:11

I completely agree with this article. Film critics must prove that they are still relevant by supporting the most popular movie of the year. In that same spirit I hope that Mr. Tyler will soon express his love for these movies that have sold more tickets than The Dark Knight --

Forrest Gump
The Phantom Menace
Jurassic Park
The Sting
Titanic
The Ten Commandments
The Sound of Music

The last one is particularly important. It sold almost twice as many tickets as The Dark Knight, and it won for Best Picture as well. Clearly The Sound of Music was "the new mold" of cinema. After all, don't we see three-hour musicals every year?

Anyway, I'm looking forward to Mr. Tyler's written appreciation of "Do-Re-Mi" and "Climb Every Mountain." Remember, sir -- your credibility as a film reviewer depends on it!

Reply
0 0 / 0
y n

Josh Tyler
December 17, 2008 at 16:42

Not sure what article you read, but it's not the one I wrote.

Reply
-1 0 / -1
y n

hisnewreasons
December 17, 2008 at 21:55

I'm not sure you know what article you wrote. You seem to believe that you're arguing for the high quality of "The Dark Knight," but this is the money shot of your argument --

"But at least part of the problem is that increasingly, people are turning away from the old media film critic and turning to places like Cinema Blend for their film related discussion and opinion. Why? Because they feel those critics are out of touch."

Out of touch with what? Why are these particular 'people' so important? Why are the current fans for "The Dark Knight" anymore relevant than the fans for "The Sound of Music" were so many years ago? Or more relevant than the people who think "Wall-E" is the best movie of the year?

I am not here to defend specific critics. Nor am I here to attack the quality of "The Dark Knight." I am here to defend the concept of film criticism. One of the enemies of film criticism is the psuedo-populism which soaks your article. The Dark Knight "has already changed the way we think about movies forever?" 'We?' Who is the one being arrogant here? If there is more than one kind of popularity contest, then there is more than one brand of elitism.

Make your best case for the excellence of "The Dark Knight." The ability to make those arguments is what makes a critic relevant. Whatever may be a 'cultural phenomenon' at the moment is not relevant.

Reply
0 0 / 0
y n

Josh Tyler
December 18, 2008 at 00:11

-----
I'm not sure you know what article you wrote. You seem to believe that you're arguing for the high quality of "The Dark Knight,"
------

Really? Where did I say that?

-------
Out of touch with what?
-------

As explained very clearly in the article above, their readers.

--------
Why are these particular 'people' so important?
---------

Again, as explained very clearly in the article above, these "people" who you speak of so disdainfully are their readers, and therefore the people who keep them employed. Readers are necessary to keep your job. If you wish to continue as a film critic, you need readers. Therefore they are pretty important.

----------
Why are the current fans for "The Dark Knight" anymore relevant than the fans for "The Sound of Music" were so many years ago? Or more relevant than the people who think "Wall-E" is the best movie of the year?
------------

Who said they were?

-----------
I am here to defend the concept of film criticism.
-----------

Hey me too. You'd know that if you'd actually read what I wrote instead of reading what someone else wrote about what I wrote.

-------------
Make your best case for the excellence of "The Dark Knight."
-------------

I already did. It's called a review, which was written months ago. Critics have already made their case, we are now talking about voting for awards.

--------------
Whatever may be a 'cultural phenomenon' at the moment is not relevant.
--------------

It's relevant as evidence that this is an important film which will hold a significant place in film history, and as evidence that it is a movie which many people love.

Should that determine whether the movie wins awards? No, but it is evidence that there are a great many people out there who should be voting for it in awards because they LIKE IT... yet are not. So this then begs the question, why not? This then aunches us into a discussion of why aren't these people voting for this film?

This is logical progression when attempting to make a point. But you'd know how that fits in if you'd read what I wrote, instead of reading what someone else wrote about what I wrote.

Reply
-1 0 / -1
y n

tebbles
December 16, 2008 at 08:45

The problem you seem to not understand about awards is they're not popularity contests for audiences. Films all have an equal chance to compete for awards, that is if they have enough money to get their screeners to the right people, which doesn't take the kind of capital THE DARK KNIGHT made, so many films every year do this. Not sure what records you're talking about it breaking, but the movie was in the mid-20s of all-time box-office performances when inflation is taken into consideration(which it should be).
Aside from that, it has been said before, and i agree that the film really isn't all that good. It's not even good for a superhero movie. In my opinion, BATMAN BEGINS was better. It shared THE DARK KNIGHT's lengthy issue, but the content felt more like traditional Batman fare. Go back and read both "Batman: Year One", and Miller's "The Dark Knight Returns", and you'll see just how bastardized the movies really are. I'll grant Nolan that it is his own vision, which he's entitled to as a filmmaker. It's just not good.

WATCHMEN, however, better win a damn Oscar.

Reply
+1 +1 / 0
y n

Josh Tyler
December 16, 2008 at 15:20

You are very much mistaken if you don't think there's a popularity contest element to most awards. It's just a popularity contest among critics and a small group of voters. Peer pressure to vote for certain films definitely plays into it.

That however, is not really the premise of what I wrote.

Reply
+2 +2 / 0
y n

Matt
December 15, 2008 at 17:39

I'm sorry but if The Dark Knight doesn't get a best picture and/or best director nomination, the whole Oscars becomes illegitimate.

Reply
-1 +1 / -2
y n

The Timinator
December 13, 2008 at 23:40

"The Dark Knight" is being overlooked for good reasons, it's not as great as all the hype makes it out to be. It's riddled with flaws and far too many plots that make it a total mess. Sure, the action is there, the pacing is relentless and Ledger's performance is one of the best all year, but it is in no way a cinematic great. It is a very good film for its genre, but when you break it down in its entirety, it is a long-winded, over indulgent piece of film making.

This comment alone:
"Like Star Wars before it, The Dark Knight is fast becoming the new mold from which all future movies will be poured. Its impact, its influence on cinema will be felt for decades to come. "
tells me the writer really needs to put the crack pipe down. While the movie is pretty good for summer blockbuster material, it is in no way near the level of cinematic genius. If I were to vote on what was the better film in the comic book genre this year, I'd have to hand that award to "Iron Man", which is really the film that's being overlooked as far as awards go.

TDK, while it is a decent film, has been over-hyped, over-bloated and full of more flaws than a Ford Pinto. It's quite easy to see why any awards committee would pass on this film, as it's just not the quality of many great classics. It's pretty good, but by no means is it great.

Reply
0 +1 / -1
y n

Nicholas
December 13, 2008 at 23:12

I still love Superman Returns man. I'm glad you always bring that up. The critics did love it. As I recall Empire gave it their highest rating.

Reply
Deleted comment
-1 +1 / -2
y n

SoulHonky
December 13, 2008 at 20:23

"Instead of nominating the year's best reviewed, most loved movie the Golden Globes honored movies which no one really cares about."

This isn't really true. Man on Wire and Wall-E have been the two best reviewed films of the year. (You want to talk relevancy, most of the best films this decade have been documentaries and the Golden Globes doesn't even have a category for docs.) Milk, Frost/Nixon, This Christmas, Happy Go Lucky, and Slumdog Millionaire have also been getting similar reviews (Better, if you go to Metacritic instead of Rotten Tomatoes).

To act like The Dark Knight is an obvious choice simply is an overstatement. It's as flawed a film as the others getting nominated. Hell, some people don't even think it's obviously the best superhero movie of the year.

There's also the issue of Most Enjoyable and Best Picture. My favorite movie-going experience this year was Pineapple Express but I wouldn't say that it should ever be a "Best Picture" nominee. The Dark Knight is #2 on my list but the movie has its flaws and I get why some of the aforementioned films get the nod over it.

Finally, it's unfair for you to blast critics for their tastes and then not point out your own bias. I mean, you considered Superman Returns a 5 star movie. Maybe it isn't an issue of "films nobody cares about" as much as an issue of films somebody cares too much about.

Reply
0 0 / 0
y n

Josh Tyler
December 13, 2008 at 20:29

Man on Wire is a documentary and thus not eligible for Best Picture.

WALL-E is an animated movie, and therefore will end up in the animated category.

So they're not really part of this conversation.

And even though it's become fashionable to pretend everyone hated Superman Returns, it actually got fantastic reviews. Gotta love revisionist history. Even if it wasn't, it's irrelevant to this topic since this isn't about whether Superman Returns won awards.

And if you actually believe I'm so far out in left field, that I'm the only person who cares about The Dark Knight... then you haven't been paying attention.

Reply
-2 0 / -2
y n

SoulHonky
December 15, 2008 at 12:57

I'm not saying that you are the only person who cares about The Dark Knight. I'm saying that labeling the other nominated films as "movies which no one really cares about" is laughably myopic.

Reply
0 0 / 0
y n

Josh Tyler
December 15, 2008 at 14:26

So you believe people DO care about these other movies?

Odd, since none of them have been released and no one has seen them.

Instead of just insulting me, why not try to make a case for why people might care about these other films?

Reply
-2 0 / -2
y n

SoulHonky
December 15, 2008 at 15:10

None of them have been released? Slumdog Millionaire and Frost/Nixon are out now and I've heard nothing but positive word of mouth on both. Slumdog especially has been heartily recommended by most everyone I know (and I'd recommend them both as well, especially Slumdog). As entertainment, both were on par with Dark Knight and from top to bottom, Slumdog was a better film.

And the people I know who get screeners have all recommended Benjamin Button and Revolutionary Road.

But then, of course, you seem to undercut your own argument. Should voters not vote for films like Button, Rev. Road, and The Reader because they haven't come out yet and haven't had a chance to be "loved"? Should they think "Well, the public seems to love this one so I'll vote for it even though they haven't had a chance to see these other equal or better films."

Again, The Dark Knight is IMO a flawed film. I'm with Timinator on the fact that it is very good but not great. To me, being upset that it isn't getting nominated is equal to people complaining about Tropic Thunder getting passed over for In Bruges.

And, again, I think the bigger travesty is that animated films and docs are ushered off into their own separate categories and not given a shot at the Best Picture prize.

(Oh, and as for Superman Returns, it's not revisionist anymore than my distaste for Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull, which got similar praise and wasn't equally bad.)

Reply
+1 +1 / 0
y n

Josh Tyler
December 15, 2008 at 16:19

Yes a couple of them have been released. Most of them have not. The ones that have been released have made very very little money at the box office and have been seen by very very few people. So again, the vast majority of people do not care about these movies.

I'm not saying that's a reason for them to be nominated or not nominated though.

-------------
But then, of course, you seem to undercut your own argument. Should voters not vote for films like Button, Rev. Road, and The Reader because they haven't come out yet and haven't had a chance to be "loved"?
-------------

That was never my argument. This was simply in response to your assertion that a large number of people care about movies which... almost no one has seen.
Deleted comment
Deleted comment
0 +1 / -1
y n

Jeremy
December 13, 2008 at 17:01

I disagree with you completely. I don't think critics are pushing an indie movie agenda, if they were than it's better than pushing a blockbuster agenda. If "The Dark Knight" gets snubbed by the Academy too bad, it'll only have all those adoring fans and millions of dollars to keep it company.

A bigger crime would be to snub Melissa Leo's performance in "Frozen River" which is a film only a handful of people saw, or Michelle Williams in "Wendy and Lucy". I don't mind if critics are telling you to go see this, you might find that they are better films than "The Dark Knight", I know I did. However as I'm writing this you'll probably just accuse me of being out of touch.

Reply
0 +1 / -1
y n

Josh Tyler
December 13, 2008 at 17:09

Well I guess it depends on what you think the purpose of awards is.

Is it to recognize the best movies of the year or is it to encourage people to see movies they might otherwise have missed?

Most awards pretend to serve the former, but you seem to think they should serve the latter. I disagree. But if their purpose is indeed to push movies that audiences haven't been seeing then they should be honest about it and quit pretending they're all about rewarding the best movies of the year.

Reply
+1 +1 / 0
y n

Matt
December 15, 2008 at 17:41

Amen, Josh.

Reply
0 +1 / -1
y n

Nicholas
December 13, 2008 at 13:52

I disagree. Everyone loved Titanic, and it slayed at the Oscars, but looking back it is a terrible movie. Yeah the CGI is great, but that's about it.

Now, I'm not saying that the Dark Knight is as cheesy as Titanic, but let's call the bat what it really is: A messy narrative full of exposition and plot holes that has some amazing action sequences.

Heath Ledger was amazing. He was the devil incarnate, and for sure deserves an Oscar. The movie itself was overrated. The dialogue was so-so, the crime-bosses (besides Ledger) were one-dimensional and stupid, and the tragedy of Harvey Dent was hard to believe.

Was it fun? Yes, I'll watch it again. Was it overrated? Yes.

Reply
0 +1 / -1
y n

Kristopher
December 12, 2008 at 10:45

I agree there are films and there are movies. Aside from technical wizardry, would a movie like Transformers ever get an Oscar? No. Of course not. Te problem is that the snobby critics think just becuase a movie is entertaining and action packed then its immediately to be lumed in with all the other popcorn flicks.
But the thing is they'd be wrong. Batman is in every sense of the word a film, a crafted piece of cinematic art that also happens to be incredibly exciting and entertaining.
To ignore such a film simply becuase it delivered on the goods is a travesty.

Reply
+1 +1 / 0
y n

tim
December 12, 2008 at 09:47

I can't imagine the Oscars passing on The Dark Knight for a Best Picture "nomination", but here's the thing...

"Star Wars" lost the best picture Oscar to "Annie Hall", "Pulp Fiction" lost the best picture to "Forrest Gump", and if "The Dark Knight" goes head to head with "Benjamin Button" ...well?

Every other time a Pop Culture Phenomenon and a Sentimental Heart-warmer go tho Oscars, the Sentimental Heart-warmer ends up winning. I'm not saying I like it, I just wouldn't be surprised if it happens again.

Reply
0 +1 / -1
y n

Josh Tyler
December 13, 2008 at 14:41

Tim, having seen Benjamin Button I can assure you there is nothing heart-warming about it. Zero. It's an extremely downbeat, depressing, dire movie just like every other Oscar bait film. This one just has bigger stars and a few special effects.

Reply
+2 +2 / 0
y n

Stuart
December 12, 2008 at 06:18

Ignoring The Dark Knight is just plain ignorant snobbery and bias. Frost/Nixon? Really?

If The Dark Knight gets snubbed at the Oscars then I probably won't bother watching them at all. Why bother?

Reply
+1 +1 / 0
y n

Matt
December 15, 2008 at 17:41

I totally agree.

Reply