The Master v. The Dark Knight

DING! DING! DING!

In this corner! Clocking in at two hours and thirty two minutes, and boasting a posthumous Oscar™ for Heath Ledger's performace as The Joker, we have The Dark Knight.

And in this corner! Clocking in at two hours and twenty four minutes, and bursting at the seams with the overtones of Scientology is The Master.

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, these two hulking heavy-weights are about to go head to head in an epic battle of...

comparitive analysis. Reason even to compare the two may not seem apparant, but despite outward apperances, these motion pictures have a great deal in common.

Right out of the gate we see that the running lengths are very similar. Both take their time at about two and a half hours. This is a result of some key factors, a central one being the desire to let the performers tell the story. In the case of, "The Dark Knight," there is a visceral, central pull to Heath Ledger's, The Joker. I found myself simultaneously anticipating and dreading each appearance of The Joker. This is aided in no small way by the performance's life beyond that of the performer. As Batman, Christain Bale brings his own gravitas. His take on the character, though, was better served by the previous, "Batman Begins." "The Dark Knight's," power ultimately revolves around the energy of Heath Ledger's performance.

"The Master's," performances are equally as affecting, if a bit more balanced. "The Joker," of this film is clearly Freddy Quell, inhabiting a similar chaos. The story would not exist however, without the powerful Lancaster Dodd, played so boastfully by another great lost talent in Phillip Seymore Hoffman. Dodd's great power seems to be that of gargantuan charisma, and also self delusion. So much so, that he believes he can reform the rambling Mr. Quell, and hence the drama is stirred. In both films, the director seems content to let the performers explore, and let scenes play long.

Another reason for the length of these films is simply, ambition. These are ambitious filmmakers, and ambitous performers. It takes ambition to make movies about chaos.

That's the big, shared idea here. The cornerstone of both films is the exploration of chaos.

At the beginning of each movie we are given an elemental representation of chaos. In, "The Master," this is a visual of the deep, dark swirling ocean, which returns at key moments in the film. In, "The Dark Knight," it is the sound of what I describe as an evil vacuum cleaner, but is actually two dischordant strings played by a bow continuously. This turns out to be The Joker's theme, which precedes each frightening appearance. Placed at the center of each movie is an unencumbered, chaotic performance. The Joker seems like an evil sprite, spewd fresh from hell, while Freddy Quell seems both at the mercy of chaos, and the cause of so much.

Both movies explore a dangerously destructive co-dependant male relationship. While Lancaster is attempting to sift through chaos via his own religion, he also decides to wade right into it upon meeting Freddy. Similarly, Batman seems unable to either ignore or successfully engage or prevail over the chaos that The Joker embodies so emphatically. Quell makes everything that he's part of difficult, especially for Dodd. He invades his business life and his private relationships to the point of critical mass. Lancaster doesn't even get to decide when he's done with Freddy. When he loosens his grip, Freddy simply escapes. When given one last opportunity, he still wants Freddy ever so badly, to the point that he serenades him, but at least Lancaster can see the forest for the trees now, even if Freddy cannot. In contrast, Batman is literally unable to let go The Joker, trying to drop him to his death but saving him at the last second. The Joker loves this. He loves all of it and he tells this to his flummoxed frenemy as he swings blissfully in the wind.

The Joker: "You just couldn't let me go, could you? This is what happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object. You truly are incorruptible, aren't you, huh? You won't kill me out of some misplaced sense of self-righteousness, and I won't kill you because you're just too much fun. I think you and I are destined to do this forever."

Here is the key difference between the films. "The Master," has confidence in subtlety and implication, while, "The Dark Knight," feels the need to explain overtly.

Both films clearly put character before plot. In the case of, "The Master," this is done gracefully, and almost invisibly. There is a major financial matter that moves the plot forward which is never discussed by any character. The only problem in the movie that seems to get solved is the untangling of the central destructive relationship, and that's not even the doing of either of the two leads. In, "The Dark Knight," the plot is very messy, and tends to fall apart under scrutiny. Although the movie's problem of chaos in Gotham city does get solved to some degree, it's definately temporary.

The two directors also have ambitious and dogged visual philosophies.

Both of these filmmakers are exactly that. FILM makers. They are hold-outs for a now dying medium.

Both movies are shot, not only on film, but with large formats, so they are doubling down. That's how much these directors love this old, flickering, analog technology. Not only that, but they are both sticklers for doing as much work in front of the lens as possible, that's even for a comic book movie in Nolan's case.

Nolan's medium of choice now seems to be IMAX, which is a natural extension of his story-telling style. Big and bold! P.T. Anderson's style has evolved over the last few films, becoming more reserved and stately, but also deeper and more resonant. While the colors in, "The Master," are seldom bright or bold they are very rich and textured and layered. And that is the nature of film (and of 65mm in this case) that he loves so deeply.

It bares stating that, "The Master," is a far quiter, more contemplative film, and, "The Dark Knight," is of course a summer blockbuster that set box office records upon it's release. That doesn't make Nolan's film any less interesting of a piece of art though.

What a close match!

In the end though, I award, "The Master," a TKO and a shiny gold belt, for it's depth, subtlety and resonance... back beyond.

Will Tordella.