The Dark Knight Rises [R]

Discussion in 'Movies, TV and Music' started by Goodsport, Jan 19, 2011.

  1. Demosthenes

    Demosthenes Member+

    May 12, 2003
    Berkeley, CA
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    No, you're incorrect. You're confusing "saying something" with using a narrative to communicate that message. Many films are non-narrative, but they're mostly avant-garde films -- narrative cinema is vastly more popular that non-narrative. Avant-garde film is still cinema, though.

    As for Burton, he has narrative problems, yes. These problems aren't so pronounced in his first Batman film because he didn't write the script. They create serious issues in the second one, which is too bad because, contrary to your assertion, Burton is very much trying to delve into the material's themes. He has a lot to say; probably too much, which is part of his problem. Batman Returns was all about duality and identity. Batman was more about revenge, vigilantism, the fascistic desire to take control when law & order seem to have broken down (basically all of the themes Nolan reiterates in his films). Personally, I prefer the thematic content to come across through the plot and the visuals; I don't care for Nolan's style of having characters literally sit around a table and explicitly discuss what the theme of the movie is.

    Regardless of Burton's weaknesses in terms of constructing a narrative, his visual style is distinctive and memorable, and serves the ideas he's trying to evoke. While Nolan's visual style is, I think Belgian Guy called it pedestrian? Nolan's story telling skills are not all that impressive to me. In addition to what I already mentioned about his inability to fold themes into the narrative, his stories are also full inconsistencies which strike me as lazy. I'm not just talking about the plot holes here. I'm happy to forgive plot holes and improbabilities if a movie draws me into its world and makes me care about its characters -- if it entertains me. I was annoyed with the nonsense plot events in DKR because the movie totally failed to engage me on other levels. The characters struck me as flat and uninteresting (except maybe Catwoman, whose appeal rested almost entirely in Anne Hathaway's performance and not very much in the script). Attempts at emotionally stirring scenes had me rolling me eyes. For example, the scene where Alfred tells Bruce he never wanted him to return to Gotham. "I never wanted you to return to Gotham. There's nothing for you here but death/grief/misery." There! End of scene. The point would come across beautifully. But Nolan stretches out the scene and has Alfred go on and on, driving home a point that the audience already understands perfectly, and frankly we don't care about because we want to see him be Batman again anyway.

    But when I talk about plot inconsistencies, I mean things like characters behaving in ways that don't make sense for them. For example, Selina Kyle's whole motivation for working with Bane's syndicate is that she wants this device that will erase her record. She's like the world's best master thief, and she can't disguise her own identity? Or she somehow believes that erasure of her criminal record will give her a fresh start that moving and changing her identity couldn't? It's an incredibly flimsy motivation for a character whose choices have a profound affect on the plot.

    And can anyone describe Bruce Wayne's character arc for me? I personally found him to be a non-character. I didn't see him learning or growing in any meaningful way. The only traits I could ascribe to him are that he's really determined and tenacious, and maybe has self-discipline, sometimes? At the beginning of the first movie, he has an internal problem, as all good protagonists do; he can't get over his parents' murder. It is impeding all progress in his life and his ability to engage with the world constructively. So he channels that grief and anger into becoming Batman. That's all in act 1 of the first movie. For the rest of that movie, he re-engages with the world as Batman -- doing good, saving the city, but not really having a normal, healthy involvement with the world. Okay. This pretty much continues through the second movie. Then at the start of the third movie, he's back where he was at the very beginning: overwhelmed with grief and unable to engage with the world. He's so disengaged that he's invested all of Wayne Enterprises' money in an energy project but failed to keep up well enough to know that the project has bankrupted the company. But whatever. He's back to square one. As soon as Selina Kyle's visit spurs him to revisit his Batman activities, Alfred tells him not to. The Batman thing isn't really dealing with the grief, it's just channeling it into something different. Alfred leaves. Bruce goes ahead and Batmans for a while.

    Of course, he doesn't Batman very well and he winds up in a prison hole. Okay. Here he's going to learn this important lesson that it's taken three movies to get to, right? The thing he's been missing all along, the thing that will enable him to defeat Bane AND move on with his life for real this time. And what does he learn? That he should fear death. Or he shouldn't fear death? Or something about fear, because that was the theme of the first movie. And there's bats! That represent fear. And he gets out of the prison.

    When he returns to Gotham (magically), Bruce confronts Bane and is now ready to use this amazing insight that he gained, right? That's how good movie narratives work. He was beaten by Bane before because he didn't know this eternal truth, he had this internal problem. But now he understands, although it's entirely clear what he now grasps. And how does he draw on this new understanding to defeat the previously impossible foe? He punches Bane real hard! In the face! And then Catwoman shoots Bane.

    And then, when all is said and done, now that he has saved Gotham from destruction three times over, Bruce leaves. He moves on with his life as Alfred always wished he would.

    But why? In what way did Bruce grow? Why is he now able to process his grief and anger and move on with his life in a positive, constructive way? It's not really clear. He's just done.

    We're talking about almost 9 hours of cinema, and all the important character growth happened in the first 4o minutes. In my opinion, this does not make Nolan a very good story teller at all.
     
    Matrim55, chad and SirManchester repped this.
  2. Belgian guy

    Belgian guy Member+

    Club Brugge
    Belgium
    Aug 19, 2002
    Belgium
    Club:
    Club Brugge KV
    This is an issue that plagued all three movies to a certain extent, but none more so than TDKR.

    One such tiny moment I mentioned in my post-viewing write-up:
    Does Nolan truly not trust his Batman audience to figure out even the simplest of things on their own? I find that rather condescending, especially considering he did not feel the need to spell everything out in other, more personal features of his (Inception, The Prestige, Memento).
     
  3. Rafael Hernandez

    Rafael Hernandez Moderator
    Staff Member

    Mar 6, 2002
    My bad. I got carried away in the discussion.

    First off what are you trying to say that a minority is better understood and what does that mean for this movie? When you say it's not indicative at all of the quality you fail to point out that it was well received by a majority in every way even by the top critics, the people who you kind of imply that they better understand it. It seems like your trying to make it as if a minority means the minority that didn't like this movie. I can totally understand that popularity doesn't make a movie great or not but a consensus in every critical area surely contradicts an opinion to which people are basing intentions or not. Belgian guy saying that the movies have been going down in quality and that means Nolan didn't care about the movie is a huge accusation and it's baseless if the director has never mentioned his intentions. It's totally baseless. I also think your argument about intentions of big franchise films is wrong. It seems your judging possible intentions that herd to your argument that you didn't like the movie.

    I don't know how you are going to evaluate art and do so when you put the intentions you think you see and not the one the artist reality.
     
  4. SirManchester

    SirManchester Member+

    Apr 14, 2004
    Nat'l Team:
    Germany
    Exactly. And that's a clear choice he's made. In other words this was his intention.
     
  5. SirManchester

    SirManchester Member+

    Apr 14, 2004
    Nat'l Team:
    Germany
    Meaning that the general movie audience is not very well versed in film or in any art. It's just entertainment. It doesn't make them any less legit because art can serve that function but if you want a paricularly more in depth discourse you are better served to know the language.


    Again, irrelevant to the point. It really means nothing because at the end of the day it's NOT indicative of a film's quality. Many good films have not received majority of critical approval. The reverse is true as well.

    And let's be clear. I don't respect the opinions of most critics who write for major publications because there are too many variables of politics involved in the rhetoric in order not to piss anyone off on behalf of that publication. And that's what the list you refer to aggregates. But again, meaningless to overall point.


    I feel we are arguing about two different things. To me quality decreasing can mean more than just director's intention. Nolan could have cared just as much and the quality could have gone down. If that's the main problem you have with BG, that's cool but it's not my point and I don't claim to know if he was less passionate. But that doesn't mean it disables me from assessing his intention.

    But we don't always know the artist's reality. We can know his history, his interests, maybe whatever public information, depending on how deep you delve but it's crucial to include personality and intention in appraisal of art. Otherwise we are further away from understanding the material. This doesn't mean that unless you gauge the artist's intention you won't fully know the material but it goes a long way to understand it. It's a tool used to understand. Nolan made choices during the film with certain intentions behind them. The above post by BG is a great example. Those choices influence the work and film is essentially viewer manipulation so consequently it affects how we view the film.
     
  6. Rafael Hernandez

    Rafael Hernandez Moderator
    Staff Member

    Mar 6, 2002
    I don't get this at all. First you say that the majority of people aren't versed enough to make an opinion as a tiny minority. But then you say that minority (critics) isn't trustworthy. Then who is? You? That's good for you but why should anybody else care about that? I don't get it.

    Yes, that's my main problem.

    I just think the intention is pretty unknown to, like Belgian Guy, base it just on personal opinion. People see what they want to see constantly and that could lead to totally unjustified opinion which is alright when debating the work (although not preferred) but not when speaking for somebody else. If we don't know the reality how can a reasonable opinion of the intention be satisfactory?
     
  7. SirManchester

    SirManchester Member+

    Apr 14, 2004
    Nat'l Team:
    Germany
    I didn't say that at all. I said the majority of well known critics who write for major publications aren't the best source to go to if you want proper validation because they are rarely completely honest.
     
  8. Rafael Hernandez

    Rafael Hernandez Moderator
    Staff Member

    Mar 6, 2002
    But how do you know that? And Rotten Tomatoes has the section for top critics, which means it's not WIPX media banquet whore critics either and still it got a majority of positive reviews.
     
  9. SirManchester

    SirManchester Member+

    Apr 14, 2004
    Nat'l Team:
    Germany
    It's well known isn't it? Similar to how many anchors can't say certain things to piss off sponsors, etc
     
  10. Rafael Hernandez

    Rafael Hernandez Moderator
    Staff Member

    Mar 6, 2002
    Once again these are the top critics not people who review for the Lake Tahoe Tribune and are only in for the buffet in the press junkets.
     
  11. dark knight

    dark knight Super Moderator
    Staff Member

    Dec 15, 1999
    Club:
    Leicester City FC
    That's interesting- so your theory is that sponsors influence positive reviews at major publications like the New York Times?
     
  12. Crimen y Castigo

    May 18, 2004
    OakTown
    Club:
    Los Angeles
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Very good post, but I would take issue with this macro point.

    Not super invested in this, but -- regardless of how well or poorly Nolan tells the story -- I thought the narrative arc of Bruce Wayne was more complex than that.

    As you say, he's the spoiled rich kid who sees his parents murdered and finds himself powerless in the face of rampant crime. So he overcomes his fear, sacrifices, and trains himself to be a vigilante.

    But one of the big points was that he wanted to be a symbol of hope and strength in the face of crime for the powerless in Gotham, hence the anonymity.

    Then comes the Joker, whose nihilistic / anarchic crimes and theatrical approach to terror seem to be a direct reaction to Wayne's Batman; as Gordon and the Joker both imply, the Batman approach has upped the ante and thus he's somewhat responsible for the creation of the Joker. And now the Joker's crime spree threatens to drag Gotham into chaos. So after capturing the Joker, Wayne again sacrifices himself to the role of villain in order to maintain the public face of courage and order in Harvey Dent -- and he loses his love in the process. Thus, with the Joker locked up, the major crime lords crippled, Batman a hunted criminal, and his heart broken, he holes up and goes into seclusion.

    Enter Bane, more chaos. Batman returns to the streets against all better judgment; loses Bane fight, wins Bane fight. But in the process creates an emotional (relationship with Hathaway) and logistical (passing of the mantel to Gordon-Levitt) space for him to give up the role of Batman for good--for the good of himself and for the good of Gotham.

    This is not meant to defend the third film. But Nolan does get a good deal of credit from me for creating a coherent story arc for the Bruce Wayne character in three films.
     
  13. SirManchester

    SirManchester Member+

    Apr 14, 2004
    Nat'l Team:
    Germany
    This is fair but more a representation of intention than what we actually saw I think.
     
  14. Demosthenes

    Demosthenes Member+

    May 12, 2003
    Berkeley, CA
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Agreed. If the relationships with Catwoman and, ahem, Robin had been better developed, maybe it would have worked better.
     
  15. Matrim55

    Matrim55 Member+

    Aug 14, 2000
    Berkeley
    Club:
    Connecticut
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Of those three, I only saw "Inception." Which I initially joked should be called "Exposition."

    Which is to say, I don't think the over-explainy thing is limited to TDKR or the Batman trilogy. I think it's just Nolan's way. The audience is a receptacle to be filled, as the characters explain what is happening, what just happened, or what is about to happen.

    It's kind of a new way of doing movies IMHO, and I don't like it. It encourages passivity.
     
  16. Dr. Know

    Dr. Know Member+

    Dec 5, 2005
    Macondo
    Just a point regarding Nolan and what he said or didn't say. Has anyone actually seen or read anything he's said about the film?

    He said he had trouble writing the film because he didn't know how to end it. Maybe that explains the horrible ending. But it's a bit of a stretch to say he had no interest or didn't care. It doesn't matter who you are, writing a movie that's 2+ hours takes time and invested interest. It can go both ways.

    But the ending comment stuck with me because the ending is just horrible. The way Bane got killed off so randomly after he was the antagonist the entire film and the Robin thing ughhhh.
     
  17. Belgian guy

    Belgian guy Member+

    Club Brugge
    Belgium
    Aug 19, 2002
    Belgium
    Club:
    Club Brugge KV
    #517 Belgian guy, Jan 22, 2014
    Last edited: Jan 22, 2014
    This is brilliant. The best TDKR related thing I have seen, and that includes the movie itself. :D



    Brydon's Caine is eerily good. :p
     
    sitruc repped this.
  18. JohnR

    JohnR Member+

    Jun 23, 2000
    Chicago, IL
    That's the guy from Philomena.
     
  19. billyireland

    billyireland Member+

    May 4, 2003
    Sydney, Australia
    :confused:

    He's done a lot more than that, easily one of the best comedians of the last 20-odd years. It's always amazed me that he hasn't been a bigger hit on your side of the pond. Does a hell of a Bond (at 1:30)...


    His 'Alan Partridge' alter-ego also has some of his best stuff...


    Here's the full bit by the way, lots of very good bits in there.
     
    frasermc, Belgian guy and sitruc repped this.
  20. Crimen y Castigo

    May 18, 2004
    OakTown
    Club:
    Los Angeles
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Coogan is incredible.
     
  21. JohnR

    JohnR Member+

    Jun 23, 2000
    Chicago, IL
    So I understand. I had never heard or seen of him before the movie. Then again, maybe 1 American in 10 has heard of Kylie Minogue, and 1 in 50 could pick her out in a room.
     
  22. Belgian guy

    Belgian guy Member+

    Club Brugge
    Belgium
    Aug 19, 2002
    Belgium
    Club:
    Club Brugge KV
     
  23. JohnR

    JohnR Member+

    Jun 23, 2000
    Chicago, IL
    I only know her from the London Wax Museum and Doctor Who. Easy on the eyes. I love that '90s hair in the video, yum.
     
  24. stanleyt

    stanleyt Member

    Dec 7, 1998
    Harlem, USA
    I'm waaaayyyyy late on this thread but HBO/Cinemax has been running TDKR this month. While I enjoyed the movie yet didn't care for the third act, I wanted to address your points above.

    Bane is meant to be a physical foe for Batman, which is why there was so much anticipation, when it was announced the character would be the villain in this film. The Batman comic "Knightfall" shows Bane as the "immovable object" that Batman initially cannot defeat. In fact, he defeats a Batman that's in his prime as opposed to a Batman that's effectively come out of retirement, in this movie. The best line is when Bane exclaims that victory has defeated Batman. By being Gotham's undisputed champ, Batman hasn't faced a challenge and that makes him unprepared to fight Bane.

    As for the line, "so that's what that feels like." It's a reference to he Alex Ross limited series, "Kingdom Come," (one of my favorite books and it needs to be made into a mini-series on HBO)where Superman effectively disappears on Bruce Wayne.

    Again the film was entertaining but flawed. I'll leave it to Cinema Sins and this thread to discuss where the film went wrong. My main beef is the use of New York City as Gotham's stand-in. How can I feel this is the world Batman and co. inhabit when you are plainly looking at the Citicorp building and the 59th. Street Bridge! In the end, it wasn't the disappointment that "Prometheus" was but it has led to Comic Book Movie Fatigue. I will have to think long and hard about seeing "Batman vs. Superman," whenever it's released.
     
  25. Crimen y Castigo

    May 18, 2004
    OakTown
    Club:
    Los Angeles
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I really like Bale as an actor, and I've quite liked the Batman films. That does not mean I don't think his Bat-voice was one of the worst acting decisions ever. Maybe not conceptually, but execution wise. Yet somehow I still liked the flicks, so there you have it.

    But...

    With all the Affleck stuff, I ran across this interview with Bale -- which makes me like him as an actor even more:

    "They put me in Val Kilmer's suit," said the Oscar-winner of his audition. "It didn't even fit properly, and I stood in it and I went 'I feel like an idiot'. What kind of guy walks around, dressed like a bat? And is then going to go 'Hello, how are you? Just ignore that I'm dressed as a bat.' Of course, he's meant to be doing this. If you look at the history of the guy and the pain that he went through. I went 'I can't do this in a normal voice. I have to become a beast in order to sell this to myself.'"

    "I went home that evening, and my wife said: 'How'd it go?' I went: 'I kind of did this.' And I showed her, and she went: 'Oh, you ********ed that one up, didn't you?' Thank God they went for it. [The voice] ain't for everybody. Ben's obviously going to have to do his own thing, but it was the only way that I could find how to get into that and to justify wearing the fricking Batsuit. Otherwise, he's just loopy beyond belief. He's loopy, but he's loopy with a method to his madness."
    ...

    (Bonus Bale points....)
    Bale also praised "Batkid", aka five-year-old leukaemia survivor Miles Scott. He said the tiny superhero, who saved the city of San Francisco on Friday as part of a huge endeavour by the Make-A-Wish foundation, proved the enduring nature of the character.

    "You look at this kid, Batkid … That gives the whole point. It doesn't matter which actor is playing him. He's a symbol. He's so much bigger than any actor. That's all. This little kid, he doesn't really care which actor's playing him. It's the symbol of the whole thing, and that's what makes the character so fantastic. I look forward to seeing what Ben will do with it."
     
    Belgian guy, Arsenal_NGA and sitruc repped this.

Share This Page