Messages

I'm going to see it tomorrow.

To be honest, I'm a little worried that my expectations are too high. But, we'll see.

Although not as problematic as BEGINS, I'm hearing that the film is a little talky at the end?

Most of the complaints I've read don't seem to be that problematic for me. In fact, some of them make me confident that they nailed it.

But there were two particular criticisms that stroke me a little too familiar, one being a) "tragic heroes don't talk about how tragic they are" (i.e. a lot of talk again, this time about Bale's depressive state) and b) that at the end exposition makes an appearence in order to make sure the audiences get the characters' motivations (i.e. problem from BEGINS' third act again).

We'll see, I guess.

The greedy studio moved to a lighter film after RETURNS due to the film's inability to meet expectations at the box office and how the film's tone contributed.

Myth.  With BR and BF's respective budgets in mind, there's little difference in each film's box office profitability.

I don't see how that refutes my comment as "myth."

Whether FOREVER was more, or a lot more profitible than RETURNS or not is not the point. But merely that RETURNS' failure to meet the studio's expectative -- from its predecesor -- is what led to Burton's and the tone's change.

THE DARK KNIGHT is making too much money for it to go down the same road.

I know that The Dark Knight will receive a massive amount of backlash from the same concern groups who complained about Batman Returns and we?ll have to see, yet again, a lighter Batman film that will please EVERYBODY.

Difference being that, unlike RETURNS, the studio is happy as hell with THE DARK KNIGHT and the critical reception is gettting, and even more with the box-office run its having.

The greedy studio moved to a lighter film after RETURNS due to the film's inability to meet expectations at the box office and how the film's tone contributed. TDK has exceed them greatly, even with a darker tone and soccer-moms' complaints.

If Nolan returns, he's probably going to be given full-freedom again going by the overwhelming positive reception.

Dull, stale and unmemorable.

He seemed to shoot for a Keaton imperssonation, but ended up delivering a second rate one, and making the typical mistake that to portray a cold character you shouldn't show any type of expression.

And even though I prefer Kilmer to Clooney, at least Clooney could smik and not make it look forced.

I apologize if my post seemed to get personal. It was never inteded to be.

Just raised a couple of points I wanted to debate. That's all. 

And as part othe forum's motto, I guess we'll hit the agree to disagree buttom.

If I'm able to, perhaps I shall start my own thread as my personal review, or something, as S69 suggested.

Yeah, I certainly believe it is underrated. But, mostly due to how some people tend to overcritcize the film.

I still believe it is behind BATMAN; but if anything, is certainly one of the most ambitious films on the comic-book/superhero genre.

For whatever is worth, though -- and perhaps this is only me -- I've started to see more and more people appretiate it a little more.

I'm not sure how the test of time will regard it, but at the very least the notion that it was a bastardation of the character will be put to rest.

I hate to be controversial, but the more people rely on Frank Miller's take of Batman at the expense of ignoring everything he was before only supports outrageous claims by Nolan Fanatics that only the late 70's-80's and largely Frank Miller contributed any depth to Batman.

But I didn?t pretend to present a definitive answer or ignore the diversity of history, you did.

After trying to be in the middle ground of things, you said ?Batman ALWAYS has been a realist.? As if he never has made a statement that he intends to save Gotham, oddly enough, and that the idealist characterization is a rare thing, if not non-existent, for Batman. That?s why I pointed YEAR ONE and the development Miller tried to present and how people reacted against the 90?s characterization. But perhaps simply a misunderstanding then. It happens.

Or it could be that there is no misinterpretation and even when he admits he has issues, the film fails to define any of them beyond his costumed exploits and overly teenaged angst.

Well, I got it rather well.

How is it Anti-Superman? The sheer method by which he does it? That?s done out of necessity, not because of a difference in character.

I can see your angle, but those methods ARE tied to the moral ground and character. The moral belief is what originates what is going to define the method, for the most part. You can?t just pretend that the aspect of Powers vs. No Powers is irrelevant when it actually makes an important fundamental difference.

Superman doesn?t kill, nor risk people?s lives because of the nature of the character and the fact that he does have another way to solve the problem (i.e. super powers). For Bruce Wayne, there is a realist understanding in that aspect to know that one can?t have perfect moral ground (i.e. Superman) when the human limit won?t allow him to be successful in every situation. He's knowledgable that sacrifices will have to be made sometimes as part of his human configuration in order to archive a goal. That?s not a Superman-esque mentality, nor a perfect moral ground. And that's quite clear in BATMAN BEGINS itself.

Nolan still failed to establish the line between them. Yes, he was conflicted, but ultimately decided to tie people up for the police,

?Shut up you?re going to jail.?

And just about every thug in the early part of BATMAN.

Like I?ve said many times before, too many people are focused on the external difference between them of Super Powers vs No Super Powers. And No he has never had a high moral ground, yet does in this film. please explain a scene in which he ACTS on his flaws...he almost did when he tried to kill Chill, but Chill is conveniently done away with.

While I didn?t point this out in the other post, Burton?s original characterization DID have a non-conflicted mindset in the early part of BATMAN in the killing aspect.

It was only in the progression of the characterization after Jack Napier?s revelation that he started to kill until Selina?s epiphany in the finale of RETURNS (?Shut up you?re going to jail?). He never killed until desired or needed at the beginning.

Perhaps Burton suffered from this development that you disagree with then? There?s no question that Nolan won?t follow that same type of progression in the dsme manner, in any case, but it does show that even the writers for Burton did believe the character should face a progression where the experience itself do result in darker characteristics.

As far as acting on human flaws, the chase scene, for one, presents actions that are clearly out-of-line and questionable, where there?s an obvious disregard for anyone in order to save Rachel. The scene at the League of Shadows would serve as another example where he does in fact, at very least, risk people?s lives in order to escape and save his life. He might not be motivated to kill them in Punisher-character fashion, but it is a human flaw to act on selfish reasons (to whatever extent).

It seems to be you?re trying to judge anything and anyone who is not cynical as Superman-esque. Nolan?s characterization might not be the one you prefer, but he certainly is neither a Superman-character nor a Punisher-character, and does indeed fall somewhere in between.

Just because he says it, doesn't mean he will.  I doubt he ever intends to make the character more than a grouchy Superman.

I shouldn?t even try to answer to that (since it is something of stubborn and pessimist argument), but I would point that at very least the character should in fact find a grayer area if the Two-Face story of Dent?s demise reflect on Bruce Wayne.

The Joker?s conflict, plus Dent?s tragic ending and the reaction from Bruce should develop a considerable reaction, at very least. Even more if Rachel Dawes dies at some point in the series.

Your parallel of Batman to the Iraqi conflict is flawed. You forget, most American?s supported the war at the start...it was only later that they felt they?d made a mistake

?

That?s not different to what is actually presented in the film when the people actually get behind the idea of Batman due to the overwhelming corruption and criminality. Now with THE DARK KNIGHT ? and it seems evidently with the trailers that it will be the case ? the whole idea will become questionable, in similar fashion to the war in Iraq and the past administration. I don?t see a flaw in that aspect.

Every time the Joker breaks out, more people will die. Now that might be okay to visualize as conflict for some...but when he states proudly ?I won?t kill you, but I don?t have to save you,? the entire point Nolan is trying to make falls apart because it now becomes a matter of debating WHEN he is conflicted and when he ISNT. Begins makes it seem he can turn in on and off when he feels like it. I know that?s not what they were trying to say?they were trying say that leaving Ra?s there was not murder?and it wasn?t?until Batman opens his mouth.  It undoes everything in seconds?Batman is now a hypocrite.

Well, first of all, I believe a similar situation was in fact present in Dini?s WORLD?S FINEST, when Superman (gasp!) and Batman decided to let The Joker die. And maybe in SUB-ZERO, but I?m not all sure about that scenario. Again, Nolan is not alone in doing this.

What?s presented in BATMAN BEGINS is exactly what you were arguing for above. He?s conflicted and acting on his flaws. Nolan is not trying to present a theme where he can turn on and off when he can kill because a) he didn?t kill Ra?s and b) His vow was about execution, which he never comes close to comitting. What he's presenting is difficult moral line the character is on. Not being an executioner, but still being questionable about it.

Semantics? Arguable. Hypocritical? Arguable. I certainly can coincide that those points are debatable. Personally, since I don?t believe it was an execution, or an in-action kill for that matter, I?m able to pass it if only because a can coincide with having the character commit a human move and, as usual, making a questionable gray action. It most certainly is a controversial point; but nevertheless, The Joker?s conflict is based on actual execution and not the same scenario that Ra?s al Ghul met his demise. It doesn?t hurt that theme.

Although a lot of criticism has been dumped on Schumacher for B&R, how much was actually WB's fault?

I think is half and half.

WB pretty much said to him to do something more kid-friendly and put forward the campiness. Schumacher, in the end, made all the concepts and ideas.

I don't think either should be forgiven.

Good review.

I couple of points I find debatable.

I?ll admit I disagreed with the morally uncorrupted, overly idealistic Batman, being a fan of a more disturbed neurotic character (calling Mr. Keaton). I have to say at times it jarred me when he started on about ?Gotham can be SAVED.? I?ve always felt like Bale?s Batman was and is far too consumed with the lofty concepts of justice that failed him to represent a realistic portrayal of the Dark Knight. It ISN?T WRONG, but not more realistic than the Burton films in terms of portrayal. He just sometimes felt like an idealist, when its quite clear Batman has always been a realist.  Seeing a truly traumatized man slowly walk back up the path of sanity, tripping up now and again, giving in to that human characteristic that is revenge, proving it was not a easy task by any means fit better to me as a character study of people shattered by terrible life altering events.

Well, this ?idealistic Batman of justice? is actually traced back to the very influence of the material itself, most specifically Frank Miller?s character in YEAR ONE as an idealistic person who is focused on his mission and the methods necessary. If you explore Miller?s introduction of the character, there?s never much exposition of tragic or broken psychological aspects yet, other than continuous events of the character?s uprising in the city and his desire to help. It is much of the essence of the young upcoming naivet? of Bruce Wayne and the early development the character withholds. 

Matter of personal tastes aside; this is why the Batman characterization of the 90?s resulted in such a controversial light. The character development that was established by Miller in THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS of the broken psychological person ? which is a contrast of the early characterization he depicted ? was reversed and, in the process, much of it ignored. There?s a progression to be followed for which the ?idealist? aspect gradually disappears into the ?unbalanced psychological hero?, but the latter exists because of the former. This is why in THE DARK KNIGHT trailers there are hints of Bruce?s naive battle starting to shift psychologically, from naive to realist (?I?ve now seen what I have to become??).

If anything, I find it fitting that the character would be illumined with dreams of actually changing Gotham. He?s young, unknown to the realms of the difficulty of the fight (since he?s been away from Gotham), and inexperienced. The experience itself and the realization of it is what would then originate the ultimate psychological element. But again, as a naive Bruce, I never mind a line of thought that he wanted to save Gotham in the beginning of it since he had to have ? and believe he always will have some to a degree ? an assured hope to all of it..

Undeniably, of course, there is a certain psychological insanity to all of it still. And yes, one might even say that Nolan did try to find a plausible angle to all of it, for the most part. But, one might simply put it into Grant Morrison?s words:

?[Neal Adams-esque, hairy-chested love god] take on Batman seemed to have a broader emotional range than the hand-wringing, self-flagellation that came to serve as a shorthand for the deconstructed Batman of the 80s and 90s. It's not all O'Neil/Adams though; I was influenced by the animated series portrayal of Batman, by Christian Bale's definitive performance in Batman Begins and by Mike Barr's '80s Batman stories with Alan Davis, which swam bravely against the prevailing trends at a time when the grim 'n' gritty current was at its strongest. Rather than a basically unhinged individual who was driven mad, bad, and pointy-eared by the death of his parents, I saw Batman more and more as someone who had saved his own sanity by doing the one crazy thing that actually allowed him to turn his loss into something positive and proactive.?

I believe some people tend to misinterpret that aspect of Nolan?s Bruce Wayne. There is madness to all of it, but to depict it in a fashion where the character is, in fact, an idealist is more of a psychotherapy than a commonsensical characterization. This is more or less what Bale actually continuously explained, when he said that the Batman persona is more of a needed channel to release his inner self.

There is an unawareness from the character of how mad the actual idea really is -- even though Bruce himself more or less confirms it when he says that a guy like that must have issues as well. Nevertheless, Nolan?s angle was more of a plausible illusion to become Batman (i.e. I need a symbol), but never breaks the ambitiousness of the ideology. After all, Batman is referred numerous times through the film as an odd idea, if not amusing, however needed to do something as a rebellion against corruption; and again, is never that different to the influence of YEAR ONE, where Bruce?s motivational point to become BATman was because he, in fact, needed a symbol. Not because he needed an escape from his broken life, etc.

He might not be completely disturbed psycologically, a la Michael Keaton?s interpretation (and even he was something of an idealist in BATMAN to a certain extent [i.e. wanting to make the world better despite being broken psychologically), but I certainly can see certain psychological layers that Bale?s character has of not being all stable and, if anything, obsessive. As Grant Morrison said, and it bears repetition, he was able to save his own sanity by giving himself a sense of purpose and, in the process, become unaware of how questionable his journey is (for now, at least).

I think the people that enjoy a more broken psychological character such as Burton?s unique take will like the grounds that will be hopefully explored in TDK; but in BEGINS, I don?t find much wrong with it. And is really no different than a lot of other depictions, including the much clamored Animated Series by Dini, Timm and company, who had as many idealist statements in his run as Nolan?s Bruce Wayne did. 

And another the thing the Burton films did for me personally that Begins didn?t was establish that there is an American Dream, Superman, and an American Truth, Batman (Thank you Bryan Edward Hill for an epic quote,)* Consider the metaphor. Realistically, the differences between those two men are deeper than the fact one has powers and one does not.  And quite frankly, I got a pretty big Superman vibe from Begins? Bat sometimes.

I?m a little surprised you did. I thought Nolan hit quite different aspects of both anti-Superman and conflictive Americanized elements at the same time. For one, he withholds the promise to fight against injustice and in the name of his parents, but the decisions and methods are as anti-Superman as one can get (without bluntly being a Punisher character).

Unlike Superman, Batman never sustained a perfect moral high-ground due to the mere human element (i.e. flaws) that he contains through in a number of scenes in the film. He was conflicted through a number of scenes and compromised in order to succeed. Had Batman in BEGINS, say, knocked out the entire League of Shadows and escaped, saved Rachel with no conflict, and saved Ra?s al Ghul as they both escape from the train, then I could see an actual argument as to why Batman was in fact, well, Superman.

The moral conflict that, while he doesn?t want to become executioner, he certainly will find the means necessary to succeed even if they are high-risk maneuvers, is certainly an aspect that would speak volumes of what type of anti-hero mentality the character has. Heck, even his conflict against his father is an aspect that would contrast the Superman character.

It should also be mentioned that Bruce in BATMAN BEGINS includes an allegory that would reflect the current social and political climax of the US, and therefore ?the American Truth? regard would in fact hold true for Nolan?s Batman.

After all, the escalation theme from Nolan is an element that mirrors the ?War on Terror? and the questionable methods used to solve it. Are the methods resolving the problem or just adding to it? Is Batman right in manner in which he?s fighting the war or wrong?

To quote Daniel Cojocaru's reading of BATMAN BEGINS's finale:

"Batman finds himself at the very end of the film in the same situation as the Apostle Paul who laments: ?For the good that I will to do, I do not do, but the evil I will not to do, that I practice? (Romans 7:19). Even though his intentions are good, and even though he saves Gotham city from the generative violence of Ra?s Al Ghul, the seeds of mimetic violence are not exorcised. The horror of Batman?s good intentions is revealed, when Commissioner Gordon, draws Batman?s attention to the fact that in consequence of his theatrical and fearful impersonification as Batman, a mimetic double has arisen: ?What about escalation?? he asks and presents Batman with a card from one of his arch enemies, the Joker. ?He got a taste for the theatrical, like you? (Nolan 2:05:00), Gordon comments. He thus makes clear that Batman has become the conflictive model of the Joker. Not rejecting violence completely, Batman?sstruggle against his imitators will continue endlessly. This is much more than just the beginning of Batman as we know him. It is Nolan?s commentary on the comic-genre in general. In Nolan?s reading of Batman, the serialisation of the comic-book is tied to conflictive mimesis and the ever-returning satanic generation of temporary peace through violence.

[...] US-society finds itself in the same dilemma as Batman. How does one react to an enemy that is bent on the destruction of one?s society? As portrayed in the film, compassion is at least asrisky a strategy as violence, since Ra?s Al Ghul pursues his destructive goals even after Bruce has showed compassion on him by saving his life. Experiencing such a repudiating reaction onto one?s compassion, it is tempting to resort to means of violence instead of remaining on the road of compassion. But if compassion is a risky strategy in that it might not stop theenemy?s violence, the latter is a risky strategy because violence takes over the control of one?sown being and raises imitators of that same violence in its wake. The war on Iraq has not made the world safer, but instead has created a breeding ground for terrorists and has furthered the global mimetic cycle of violence. The consequences of violence in our post-modern world have been so fully become evident in the wars of the twentieth century thatthere remain only two roads for human kind to be taken, as William Johnsen observes: ?The satanic amalgam of peace and violence is unveiled and replaced by a choice between unconditioned forgiveness in imitation of Christ or violence without end ? a gradual sacrificial crisis? (viii). The path of unconditioned forgiveness remains ? as in Batman Begins? yet to be fully explored on an international level."