Batman Begins: The Thread

* It's a film with too many ideas/approaches rather than too little, and better the former option than the latter. It has to maintain a careful balancing act which it doesn't quite succeed it but comes very very close to with. Packing in everything from classic urban/conspiracy theory paranoia (modern variants beginning with the 'mysteries' genre in popular fiction in the nineteenth century in Europe) to working schlub woes is a noble attempt, actually, the more so because it demands shifts in tone that flow well in order to work. As such the film occasionally falls down, feels clunky, steps out of its flow, though not so much as to damage. It did stop me up a few times as it goes, though, partially because there *were* scenes when such transitions were handled with aplomb (think Wayne having to dismiss the party guests when he has just found out the true (?) identity of Ducard) if not perfect grace. But I never felt completely taken out of the film even when I could sense some parts and exchanges I could almost literally look past or slightly ignore. Importantly, whether in terms of language or motivation or even just general depiction, Ebert's call on the film -- "The movie is not realistic, because how could it be, but it acts as if it is" -- nails it. Much like, say, Peter Jackson's interpretation of Lord of the Rings where a guiding principle was to avoid irony completely, here the same principle clearly works. Much of what is in the plot, and even the specifics of the script, could have been purest camp if played/directed differently. Here Nolan and crew took the chance like Jackson et al that if they filmed it and played it straight it would work more often than not. So Christian Bale's "I AM DOOM" Batman voice *almost* could fail but holds through well and in fact arguably works even more effectively as the film goes, as we get used to it more. With that as an effective anchor, the rest follows.

* Hands down best overall performance -- Oldman. Nothing against Bale at all, in fact, because I think he did a fine, fine job, but Oldman was, just, the best balance between the hyperreality of the setting and story and a regular Joe, and played it as such, and never stepped out of it. That Oldman knows how to nail an American accent was clear years ago, he's done many inspired performances since with many different varieties of same. That he could *perfectly* disappear into the role -- reminiscent of Miller's Gordon in his Batman: Year One without being an exact equivalent -- was inspiring, in a way. He was easily the best character I could enjoy seeing a separate movie about, an alternate approach where it's Gordon's story with Batman to the side. Part of it was the deft hints at there being more to say -- the brief observation of his family at home, the sense of his frustrations and disappointments over the years -- but part of it was him feeling very lived in, very there. It was almost too good at parts, if that makes sense -- where Katie Holmes was just bluntly functional at best (I honestly think the tone of her voice was the worst part, something too...I dunno, light, breezy even?), Oldman's Gordon could have been something near to a documentary performance. And as noticed above, that brief 'Sorry!' almost says it all.

* As for the rest, good ensemble cast with some standouts and some thankless parts. Caine basically played Alfred-as-Caine but the humour was definitely a good outlet without making his role comic -- his combination of frustration/anger/sarcasm/being 'proper' when delivering the push-up line as the Wayne manor burns was emblematic, as was the one time when his sudden burst of anger towards Wayne gave just enough hinting of depth without being a forced "Look! See! Depth!" moment. I liked Freeman's easygoing nature but the role was plug and play, more's the pity. Hauer having gone from being Roy Batty twenty five years ago to being a proto Dr. Tyrell now was kinda funny if you look at it that way (and I do). Holmes, as mentioned...well, anyway. Did a poor job handling The Big Issue Speeches, but then again she was stuck with them -- as was...

* Neeson, who essentially played a Dark Side of the Force Quigon Jinn. Now don't get me wrong, he did a fine job of it, though as friend Tom told me afterwards, "He has to watch out or he'll be typecast as Mr. Miyagi from here on in" (and for all I know he was that in Kingdom of Heaven). And as I mentioned, the whole trick lies in playing it straight, which he did -- I could be wrong, I don't think he smiled once in the film, which was true to the character as set up in this interpretation, a pitiless man with an overarching mission. But as an opponent for Bale things fell apart a touch when the two of them were facing off verbally towards the end -- given that the actual knock-down drag-out final fight was a mash and mush of quick edits that frankly I found hard to follow, the confrontation in Wayne Manor needed to work more than it did, especially since the twinges of ambiguity worked much more effectively at the start of the film during the training than at the end. That the film allowed Bale space to explore the ambiguity more during its length is to its credit, that it fell off too swiftly towards the end isn't. In the end, the last two-line exchange between the two on the train before Batman escapes works better and says more about the two characters than the Manor sequence as a whole.

* Meanwhile, Murphy was *very* nice as Scarecrow, the more so because he played him as a character who wasn't necessarily invested in being Scarecrow all the time, or rather that he didn't need to become Scarecrow to be unsettling, evil-doing, etc. The spookout sequences with Batman and Falcone were brutally effective (though the bad 'lighten up' joke with Batman shouldn't have been there) but the absolute most scary part was Crane introducing Holmes's character to the poison prep room and calmly, casually talking about what happens next. Followed as it was by her panicked bolt away (and how that was edited), the scenes worked *very* well. I would like to see him come back if they can make the character all the more damaged from the results of this film, building on it rather than just simply more of the same.

* And speaking of scary. Y4ncey called it and while I don't think it was truly *always* creepout central it got closer than not. Where I think the action scenes could be flawed they were at their best when suggesting uncontrollable chaos and fear, thus the panicked men at the drug dropoff being taken out in a group. But it was the building up to that point which made it work, the sense that something was picking them off one by one. It immediately reminded me of Alien, an impression further heightened by the way Batman would grab victims at points to suddenly haul them up in the sky, unexpected, terrifying -- think of Harry Dean Stanton suddenly hauled up into the shuttle bay by the still not full seen/apprenhended alien itself. Another film referenced, at least semi-consciously, was probably The Silence of the Lambs -- anything at least partially set in an asylum might well have to deal with that nowadays, but the sense of different layers and atmospheres in the asylum, as well as the spreadeagled (but not eviscerated) Falcone on the searchlight, called the comparison to mind. There were other steals and references but always fairly deftly done, no complaints there at all -- when it works, it works well.

* Random thoughts since I actually do have to work a bit here -- the music wasn't that bad, but didn't stand out, it was appropriate, for better or for worse; the Iceland-based shots for the training at the beginning were indeed really something, very good atmosphere, as well as excellent set design for the monastery itself; similarly using Chicago as the base for the city itself was a nice variant on using NYC, say -- favorite shot might actually be the early morning one where Batman stands calmly on an outcrop of building while the camera swoops around to silhouette him against the rising sun; the Batmobile made me think of the Dark Knight Returns tank in miniature -- and why not?; a couple of instances aside, the humor throughout seemed to be handled just fine so I'm not too sure about the complaints there; the actual death of Wayne's parents was I thought kinda weak (and the whole stethoscope thing and all that...eh, whatever); absolutely LOVED how there were no credits at all until the very end, not even the film title; sound and visual design top notch.

And there ya go. For now!

I'm glad you picked up on the Gordon stuff, Ned. I was re-reading Year One last week and feeling that it was as much Gordon's story as Batman's and, geez, if Gordon's POV wasn't the more interesting one, especially as it allows us to indulge in the intended effect of a man dressing up as a bat, rather than peer inside his mind.
Also, I noticed some heavy Taxi Driver riffs in YO that I didn't notice the first time I read it (which, um, I don't think I'd seen Taxi Driver when I was 12, so big whoop).

Anyway, I love Jim Gordon, and Ed Brubraker did a really cool "imaginary story" about Gordon post WWII called Batman: Gotham Noir a few years ago, that's everything the title implies.

Absolutely would have loved it. It was killer casting and man if he didn't take an on-the-face-of-it subsidiary role and make it crucial.

I was re-reading Year One last week and feeling that it was as much Gordon's story as Batman's and, geez, if Gordon's POV wasn't the more interesting one, especially as it allows us to indulge in the intended effect of a man dressing up as a bat, rather than peer inside his mind.

Very much so. I don't want to over-read a potential Year One influence into Batman Begins but I think Gordon's character/appearance was one part of a clear bleedover.

Also, I noticed some heavy Taxi Driver riffs in YO that I didn't notice the first time I read it (which, um, I don't think I'd seen Taxi Driver when I was 12, so big whoop).

You know what the scenes with Gordon in the film made me think of, when was partnered with the corrupt cop? Serpico, The French Connection -- very much had that feeling, down the line. (The club scene with Falcone also suggested the club scene near the start of French Connection, when Hackman gets his first suspicions.)

Ha, I guess you're right! I know that much about the varying stories at least.

The Batman myth presists and matters because it affirms that some insults don’t heal with time—nor does the struggle not to use past scarring as rationale for present bad behavior. Burton understood this, but romanticized his hero’s suffering, glamming it up in freakshow goth. In a final paradox, Nolan, who name-checks Jung to affirm his awareness of archetypes, strips his incredibly inventive film of any character-distancing fancy. In this finest iteration of the partially destroyed child-man legend, Nolan makes us feel protective of both his literally bipolar hero and the extraordinary movie he inhabits.

Thing is, the more I play the movie back in my head, the more really impressive things come to me. (Something I might expect from an Ozu film, say, but not Nolan, who I really was sort of distnatly interested in before this.) I'm seeing it again this weekend. Paying, even!

I just read somewhere that Sarah Michelle Geller was up for the role visited by Cruise's new cover story. Hmm.

I'll grant ya that, but it's definitely one of the most "DO YOU SEE?" moments in modern creative lit -- perhaps by default and perhaps because that's what the medium/story would have allowed/demanded at the time. As Huk notes this isn't an auteurist film, despite many trappings (I haven't even talked much about the beginning of the film yet!) -- something that would have made it more so might have been pulling the 'what you don't see gets more horrible in your imagination' trick, which in respects is much of the rest of the film.

I could argue that, with his otherwise pretty rigorous psych approach, it would have been more powerful if Wayne's memory of the event had been more fragmented, more open to multiple takes on the memory, as it would in real life.

Not the highlight of the film, for certain. But so much other good stuff.

They should have John Malkovich as a villian in the next one and then Glenn Close in a role in the one after that and then huzzah! All of Dangerous Liaisons would have been in a Batman movie one way or another. Except for Keanu. Good thing too.

"I'm THE BARBER."

SPOILER:

THE BIT WHERE HE SUMMONS BATS

using Chicago as the base for the city itself was a nice variant on using NYC, say

It was very well done, and the "this city's whole goverment is rotten and everything's run by gangsters" angle fits Chicago very well. I loved the Board of Trade building as the Wayne Building. Some of the helicopter shots of the city were unretouched, I noticed -- just shots of Chicago. Nice.

BUT there's one overriding reason that Gotham cannot be New York City, and has to be Chicago: Chicago has alleys. You have got to have alleys. That's where the bad crime happens, and where the bats drop from fire escapes in the rain. Do you see?

Hay guys let's remake knight rider except instead of a super gay 80s corvette we can make him a busted up Hummer with rocket launchers

http://bigpicture.typepad.com/writing/images/batmobilerollingstone.jpg

do people who write this kind of thing know what 'auteur' means, where the idea comes from? as it happens howard hawks and alfred hitchcock worked once in a while with the world's biggest entertainment conglomerates.

And my memory is a little hazy, but didn't Burton's movie limit that scene to shadowy flashbacks (a hand holding a gun, etc.)? I think it was already done the way you suggest, and given the increased time spent on Wayne's childhood and parents, it would have been a copout not to actually show the shooting.

I was gonna ask the same question as Jordan re: the death scene, but was gonna be really rude about it, as is my wont. From what I recall (and don't mind me if I remember things a bit slanted):

Burton - slow-mo echoed horsecrap, almost pantomimed, leering sinister crooks, and OF COURSE that crook becomes the Joker (oh the pathos!)

Nolan - in real-time, actual interaction between the criminal and the victim, actual TENSION (cf. when the wallet drops), crook as lost befuddled desperate soul driven to such depths (apparent even w/out all the depression discussion), actual Bruce-parent interaction prior to that so viewers give a crap when the parents get popped, the insertion of Bruce's guilt into the scenario (cf. wanting to leave the opera house), and the lack of romanticized foofah when the gun goes off (tho, in hindsight, Mr. Wayne getting off that one line is a bit hokey, but, @ the same time, it dovetails nicely w/ what preceded it).

Yeah, yeah, but maybe I didn't put fine enough a point on it. Batman is not just any filmic property, he's a fucking brand, and a pretty big one. For the last 20 years, Batman has been the biggest (and nearly ONLY at times) moneymaker from DC Comics. On the one hand, yeah, Batman is a modern myth, an operatic iteration of the post-Depression urbanization, but on the other hand, Batman is Ronald McDonald.