Come anticipate "The Dark Knight Rises" with *BATSPOILERS*

enh, it was inspired by Robin Hood

im choosing to believe that his name is John Robin

Dudes hung on the bridge was probably meant to evoke images of the incident with Blackwater in Falljuah, Iraq.

it probably was

in that the nolan bros seem completely unaware of how young people/poor people behave

specifically their bloodlust

― NASCAR, surfing, raising chickens, owning land (zachlyon), Monday, 23 July 2012 01:14 (10 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

they just shouldn't have cast the budget-jared-leto guy/w-a-beard, who had no other character definition other than bearded, young, alt-guy. a lot of the bit players in this were too perfunctory, i think - the blond cop, the gravelly president, i mean the russian nuclear scientist - this kinda thing coulda defined gotham a little better, it felt kinda dry & straightforward.

Allow me to pontificate a moment.

All Nolan's films (caveat: I've not seen Following) seem to me to exist in weird, hermetically-sealed, uncanny, unreal bubbles, where the main characters exist and pretty much no one else does. They have a really solipsistic air to them.

Memento justifies this by being about someone with a neurological condition that essentially hermetically seals him (in the very split second of the present). Insomnia justifies it by being about the disconnent of sleep-deprivation. The Prestige does it less, but is a period piece, so already has a big helpijng hand of suspension of disbelief.

The Batman films kind of justify it by being comicbook films - nothing exists outside the panel in a comic (except what you imagine / infer). Inception justifies it by being a dream. It's like the city within the film Dark City, or the film set of The Truman Show; a stage, a show, a construct, a fabrication, rather than a (Mike Leigh-esque, perhaps) attempt to represent / document / explore the real world.

Depending on your mindset this can either work really well, and allow you to focus purely on plot, character, and action, or else leave everything feeling just a little odd. In the hands of a really good director / story, it can become the point of the film - as in Dark City and The Truman Show, and as attempted in Inception; the characters becoming as uncomfortable in the weird, hermetic bubble as the audience, and coming to some kind of self-awareness of their role as characters.

Nolan's Gotham is as much a drawing, a caricature, a set, as Burton's, but it's almost photo-realistic, as it were, which makes it more uncanny, and either more successful (when everything comes together and transcends, as in TDK), or a little more uncomfortable and unacceptable. It can create a bit of cognitive dissonance in the viewer; "that building is clearly real, I recognise it from real life, but that bit-part character is clearly not-real; I don't understand how they are meant to fit together".

Or something.

It's kind of like the internet, or twitter as microcosm thereof; it's very easy to just talk to and see the same people over and over again, and lose perspective of "real life" outside of your own networks.

I never feel like I'm in Nolan's films, like he's transporting me to Gotham; I always feel like I'm watching a film. If that makes sense. I don't know if that's genius or just odd. Or inept, almost.

It's probably because you're watching a film.

Yeah, but you watch, I dunno, Annie Hall, or even Star Wars, and you can imagine stuff happening, people existing, outside the frame.

Nothing exists outside the frame in Nolan's movies. Which is why, when he doens't explain something (like how Bruce Wayne gets back into Gotham) it feels odd.

Stock-exchange sequence seemed to lose some punch by having the big moment be a news headline rather than some instant moment when the big trade becomes clear to Bruce Wayne.

I felt like the reveal that Bane just beat Batman down /directly below the Wayne military vault/ wasn't quite as much of a point as it could have been.

great post, scick. goes well with the sicinski piece morbs posted. though i liked memento and parts of the dark knight, i just don't get what people see in nolan.

the gravelly president

This was William Devane, yeah? Who I think was the first American actor allowed to play JFK post-1963 in The Missiles of October.

Talked this over w/ a few friends yesterday. We agreed the biggest letdown about the movie is that all of the Nolans' efforts to fold in themes of class struggle and revolutionary fervor end up being moot in the final reels, when it turns into a standard ticking-clock action movie.

Well to be fair all three of the Nolan Batman movies are ticking-clock action movies!

Well, sure, but Dark Knight managed to follow through on its themes in an engaging way (even if not totally convincing) while doing that.

welp this was a chore to sit through

yeh

all i remember is a bunch of slapdash shit held together with an unrelenting bombastic orchestra score. and a lol 'rocky v' training sequence in a hole

the wikipedia plot summary reads p well

i think one of the things that becomes apparent about the last one, seeing this one, is how well crafted it was wrt those themes - they were all so well interlaced, the content and the structure of each thread pretty consistent. so there's that whole feedback-loop feel, in which even the joker going into prison spawns another turn, & from that thread emerges the finale w/dent & rachael in warehouses. there were only a couple of times in this in which the threads entwined - i guess towards the end, with some simultaneous action going on at teh bridge and amid the chase scenes & all. but pretty often we got waylaid. like batman was way the fuck away in Once Upon A Time In Anatolian prison, all sombre ochre lighting & whispered voices. but it didn't match up so much. i think that the themes of TDK carried is partly because they were carried so well, binded to a hysterical pace that made them seem urgent, disturbing.

needed more cotillard

if bane was supposed to be some romney dis

Dude, no-one including Rush Limbaugh actually believes this.

― Andrew Farrell, Monday, July 23, 2012 2:40 AM (8 hours ago)

ftr, i know this

nice post schlumpster

And now a look back at where it all started! It being discussion of Nolan Batman on this board.

Christian Bale Cast As New 'Batman'

Just saw this last night. Consistently entertained throughout the thing, with occasional groaning. Definitely not on the order of the last one in terms of themes paying off in the characters. I mean, the Joker's motivations and the things he's trying to accomplish are really good thematic foils for Batman - there's a reason why he's the Great Batman Archnemesis! Sort of like Magneto and the X-Men, it's not just "oh he moves metal around" but he has some idea that's opposite their idea, and you can get good scenes out of that (though the X-Men movies rarely did). Whereas Bane - - - to the extent that it's clear what he's trying to do, it's a retread of either the first or second film. Does he want to destroy Gotham because it's full of sin and crime, a la R'as Al-Ghul? (But Batman had cleaned it up!) Or prove some point to Batman about human nature by sowing chaos, a la the Joker? (But the people of Gotham never really turn evil and chaotic here, particularly - they seem mostly like victims of Bane's all-criminal goon squad! Anyway, the second movie already proved that the Joker was wrong, that the people would choose good over evil etc.)

So that stuff kind of keeps it from taking off and being a 100% classic. And then there's other stuff that makes it just kind of flabby in terms of being a pulse-pounding action-adventure drama type movie. Totally not convinced the Talia plot needed to be in this at all, although when it came around at least it made sense why Cotillard's character was in the movie in the first place. Really, can imagine this being a lot tighter if they chopped out her, the other police officials, and the right-hand man of the ill-defined Business Guy who hires Bane. Plus some sloppy and confused dialogue - like, why does everyone think Gordon's crazy for seeing a man in a mask when a) this is a world where several high-profile criminals have worn masks and b) Bane just held up a stock exchange, on TV?

JG-L's character didn't do a ton for me for the first half, but started to click into focus once he's the guy organizing underground, trying to keep everybody together. Felt, in a way, like Batman in DKR, leading the former Mutants into a semblance of an army.

Amazing how many people learn Batman's identity in this and what a not-big-deal it felt like. Surprised Bane didn't just tell everybody. His goons certainly know, since they were there in the room. (How DID Bane learn Batman's identity, again? Not that it'd be so hard to figure out, but it sort of slipped by me, I think.) JG-L confronting him with it was a pretty good scene (though his life story monologue wasn't riveting). Gordon figuring it out was a little cheap in the sense of, really, it has to be after the plane's already taken off? But it still worked, it's the kind of thing that would take a minute to put together. Still seems cruel for him to fake his own death though, while people are mourning him. Why not let them in on it? What harm would it do? If I was Alfred I'd actually be kind of pissed. (Not to mention: how does Bruce Wayne fake his own death and still show up at fancy restaurants in Florence? Nobody recognizes him? Really?)

So those are a lot of little quibbles off the top of my head - - - but like I said, I was really entertained by this thing. Just don't know if I'd watch it again, whereas I basically will never turn off TDK if I catch it, and even BB, which I think is a much lamer and less filled-out movie, has a surprising ability to hold my attention.

i was actually surprised that Gordon didn't know who he was at the end. I just kind assumed he knew cos literally everyone else had figured it out

and you're right about the whole people thinking Gordon was crazy thing too. Modine's character was a bit shit in general

Still thought it was a good scene though, and right for the characters, since it lets them preserve their professional distance (the whole "..and you'll never have to" from the first movie), even as Batman gets to tell Gordon that, basically, he (Gordon) is the real hero of Gotham, which is nice since the guy spends the whole movie getting kicked around physically and spiritually almost as much as Batman, with equally little credit from anybody.

Still seems cruel for him to fake his own death though, while people are mourning him. Why not let them in on it? What harm would it do?

actually thought this was odd as well, since one of the themes of the movie seemed to be about overturning the "noble lie" at the end of TDK. then again, i dont think the movie necessarily has to have a position on that idea, rather than just explore it.

So, saw it in IMAX this morning and was thrilled with it. It might not have the pacing of BB or the highs of TDK but it seemed the richest of them all.

Is it silly to say it sagged in all the right places? After the terrific opening 45 mins or so, it was like a film that knew the audience was prepared to let it take its time in the middle section. When you don't want a film to end, you might as well do your pissing around in that part.

People have complained about Hans Zimmer score, and maybe that one's attitude to it is pivotal – for me the whole thing is hanging off that pulse of Bruce Wayne's soul and I wouldn't be without it.

Couple of disappointments: the football stadium scene and Marion Cotillard.

Was tempted to go and see it again in a regular cinema this afternoon but I'll wait till tomorrow I think.

xpost Yeah, I liked that - at least for the first half of the movie - they were really willing to work the angle that the whole Batman thing is a terrible idea. Granted that TDK really devoted itself to the moral questions stirred up by vigilantism, and it's not as much of a major theme here, there was still lots of material gotten out of it, especially in the Bruce/Alfred scenes that basically ask, are you REALLY doing this for the good of the people? Because they seemed to be getting along fine for the last few years, and you really screwed up that car chase with Bane, and by the way, you are absolutely going to get yourself killed if you try to fight that guy. Plus Catwoman raising the privilege question - in a different movie, this would just be played for irony, sort of like the relationship with Rachel in the first movie: if you only KNEW that this guy helped people as Batman, you wouldn't think to criticize him as a billionaire playboy. But here, there's the sense that Catwoman's RIGHT, Bruce is a shut-in detached from doing anything helpful in the world, so what moral high ground does he have to stand on, even if he does suit up again and beat up some crooks?

The second half of the movie kind of chucks that in favor of "we need Batman to save the day," although they also did a good job developing the "Gotham works to save itself" angle. Batman's necessary to turn the tide and get the bomb out of there, but if it weren't for the ticking bomb clock, you get the sense that Gordon and JG-L might have been able to get their underground together and beat Bane on their own. I think that's enough to justify all the scenes of them planning things, meeting in basements, organizing the orphans, etc. - - - without that stuff, it'd feel like a perfunctory part of the story and it really would just be "ahh, sod it, you need Wayne to take the law into his own hands to solve everything."

(How DID Bane learn Batman's identity, again? Not that it'd be so hard to figure out, but it sort of slipped by me, I think.)

i think from hanging out with r'as al ghul (and talia), who knew him before he was batman?

oh right, yeah!

Kind of funny that he doesn't make that more central to his plan actually. I mean, usually when supervillains learn a hero's identity they really leverage that. I mean, he uses his knowledge of Batman to gain access to all the gear, and twist the knife in Wayne by using his toys against him, but he doesn't make a thing out of the identity itself, the way he does with Gordon's (convenient) speech about Dent.

tbf, they used Bruce Wayne's pet project to hijack the city, used knowledge of his identity to bankrupt him personally, destroyed him physically as Batman, and stuck the knife in (metaphorically, at first) by raiding the weapons he wished hadn't existed to begin with

I mean, they did everything short of taking away Alfred, sullying the memory of his unrequited love, and torching his house. But the first two were done in the movie anyway, and Ra's al Ghul destroyed his home in the first film.

Oh yeah, and ruining the rep of Harvey Dent, which he basically threw away his life to uphold.

Thing about that 'the truth about Dent' speech -- exactly why should Bane be believed, anyway?

Because he was in the position of authority at that moment; Gordon was impotent and banished.

tbf, they used Bruce Wayne's pet project to hijack the city, used knowledge of his identity to bankrupt him personally, destroyed him physically as Batman, and stuck the knife in (metaphorically, at first) by raiding the weapons he wished hadn't existed to begin with

― hot sauce delivery device (mh), Monday, July 23, 2012 5:03 PM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I mean, they did everything short of taking away Alfred, sullying the memory of his unrequited love, and torching his house. But the first two were done in the movie anyway, and Ra's al Ghul destroyed his home in the first film.

― hot sauce delivery device (mh), Monday, July 23, 2012 5:04 PM Bookmark

yeah this is all legit - - - I just mean that there was not even teasing of him, like, revealing Batman's identity to the city. Maybe just because that was already used for a plotline in TDK, I dunno. I'm definitely not complaining that they didn't go for the obvious route with this plot, it just surprised me given the conventions of the genre. And the number of times that Bruce restates that the reason he got a mask was to protect the people around him, an odd thing to say since a) didn't work very well and b) in the first movie, he gets the mask for the same reason Bane has his and that the Joker got his makeup: he wants to scare people and make an impression.

To be fair, I have no clue how his identity is a secret in the comics, either.

I'll probably see this again in stunning IMAX late this week, but I think as far as set pieces go, plotwise- and choreography-wise, the bar meetup with Selina Kyle and Daggett's rep was the sequel to the Joker bank robbery.

Same as here - the only villains that know are too fixated on him to risk anyone else getting a shot.

All Nolan's films (caveat: I've not seen Following) seem to me to exist in weird, hermetically-sealed, uncanny, unreal bubbles, where the main characters exist and pretty much no one else does. They have a really solipsistic air to them.

...

It's kind of like the internet, or twitter as microcosm thereof; it's very easy to just talk to and see the same people over and over again, and lose perspective of "real life" outside of your own networks.

Responding to your whole post but didn't want to italicize all of it:

This is all so, so OTM. There's something about Nolan's films that relate to monomania and thoroughness. And there's even something about the rhythm of his movies that's really impressive in its force and concentration. The way there's little, if anything, superfluous that's shown. No time for browsing or exploring the world around the story. You don't really think much about what Gotham City is like outside the movie because the film doesn't encourage that, or make it seem worthy of thought. this is a great contrast from Tim Burton's Batman where, even if you hated the movie, you should admit that the set-design and the atmosphere was remarkable.

Nolan's the perfect director for comic books because there's something about the comic book and superhero format, and Nolan's sensibilities, that tap into the teenage male mind (bear with me). The devotion that teen boys (of all ages, perhaps) give to the franchise and Nolan is astounding, and I've thought myself how, if I were a bit younger, how I too would've loved this film series to death. Part of that is the idea of superheroes: their monomania and ability for self-sacrifice, the delusions of grandeur and self-seriousness, obsession and thoroughness being a part of their mental make-up; those are magnified when you're a teenager. It's like the insult that goes around now online, where nerds are referred to as being autistism cases, or aspies. It's been debated in the last few years (most notably by social scientist Simon Baron Cohen -- Sasha's first cousin) that autism may be a severe case of the male mind. I think there's something related to that that makes these Nolan movies so religiously defended by teenage boys. It's hard to define.

There's something to Nolan's films, both in terms of their subject matter but also their "No time for atmosphere and superfluities" tone that is, sorta, autistic. But then isn't Bruce Wayne kind of an autistic genius and a bit of a monomaniac? ALL Nolan characters, as mouthy mentioned and I've noticed as well, are monomaniacs.

They all have one thing, one goal, on their mind and their whole existence seems to revolve around it. You'll never see a Nolan protagonist change his "character goal" halfway through a film I don't think. He has some obsession and the entire movie, and everyone elses life in the movie, is supplementing that guy's obsession.

Everything is a self-containing little world -- a child's toy train set -- in these movies. And the reason why you probably relate it to social networking and the internet, aside from the fact it can feel self-containing, is because the internet encourages monomania. Whatever your interests are you can always find a way to dig in deeper. Before the internet we all had our interests but at some point the returns really would start to diminish, and you picked up another hobby or just got bored because you ran out of resources for your obsession. A sense of proportion and a breezy "let's just browse! Let's not take this too seriously" attitude is the enemy

1,000 word internet message board post condemning monomania.

lol it was good though

^

movie was balls tho

i'm sort of with you but there IS a sense of atmosphere in these movies, a definite consistency in set design, etc. very concrete, filled with sharp angles and huge structures and a minuscule (but extremely consistent nonetheless) color scheme. it's sort of eccentric in its lack of eccentricity. it wouldn't make much sense to really explore it, but i guess the fact that nolan chose that sort of design over something tim burton would do also proves your point. (and it's one of the reasons the joker worked well in TDK -- there were like three colors in that costume that pretty much didn't exist anywhere else in any of these movies)

i don't think 'autistic' is the right word, bc that word encompasses a much wider spectrum than just 'the teenage brony'. the massive death-threaty support for this movie goes beyond that. going by the handful of obsessives on my fbook feed, a lot of it has to do with the hype. i would bet there's a big overlap between people who got way too excited about TDKR and people who consider MBDTF the best record of the past decade, and not just because they were both immensely popular.

but the most important thing is that nolan and his brother are enormous manchildren and it's clear on every page of every script and neither of them know it.