[SPOILERS] The Dark Knight Rises (1.0)

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

Another rant is this idea that somehow Batman films getting sillier is "Schumacheresque". I'm sorry, but all of the pre-Nolan films were much sillier, including Burton's. Burton was just a different kind of silly -- but he still had lines like "I am Catwoman, hear me roar" and "Just the pussy I was looking for". All the bad puns, fetishistic outfits, bizarre lighting, etc. it's all still there -- it's just Tim's aesthetic instead of Joel's.

Oh, I'm not a Burton defender. I'm not interested in his BATMAN or BATMAN RETURNS. To be honest, only Nolan's Batman interests me in any way, although I'll stick with the current series if an interesting director (Darren Aronofsky, say) takes it over and the films continue to be good. But I'm certainly not a Batman fan, as such - not that there's anything wrong with being a Batman fan, of course, but I'm just stating my position.

Harmsway wrote:

Loomis wrote:

It all seems much more OTT and "out-there" than THE DARK KNIGHT - more Schumacheresque, if you will.

THE DARK KNIGHT RISES does seem much bigger than its predecessors, but I was thinking less of Schumacher and more of James Cameron.

I'm not getting anything like the sense of epic scale and technical brilliance that I get from Cameron, although it may be that we haven't seen enough of the good stuff yet. But, yeah, there's no "wow" factor to anything I've seen so far of THE DARK KNIGHT RISES.

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

one of Nolan's biggest missed opportunties with Batman has been iconic imagery -- especially in TDK. Batman is a character who has had some of the best artists of this century drawing him largely because he lends himself well to great, dramatic visuals. Nolan did a few nice ones in BEGINS, but I mean in TDK he has a shot of Batman standing on the edge of a building (ie. the easiest "cool dramatic shot of Batman" you could do) but he's just... standing there. His cape isn't billowing in the wind dramatically, it's not shrouded around him, it just hangs there behind him and Bale just stands there. Because Nolan got too married to his "realistic, grounded" aesthetic in TDK and didn't realize that why put your lead character in a cape if you're not going to use it??

I agree. While I'm not knocking TDK per se, it did lack a visual flaire; something I think is essential in a Batman story. Burton was successful in creating the atmosphere of Gotham, which in itself sets up the storytelling. Another strength of Burton's Batman, is the visual portrayal of Batman. When we see Batman on the screen either in cape or in the Batmobile, he's presented visually with a shroud of mystery. Batman in the Nolan films often came across to me as just a guy in a cape with really good martial arts skills. The presentation of Batman came across as less metaphorical as a result of the icon that is Batman.

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

Sometimes I think you just say shit without actually thinking, and then try to back it up like you actually had some reasoning.

Pretty much. I also do stuff without thinking too, and try my best to justify it.

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

As for the question of story vs. visuals, what I will say is that neither should really be superior to the other.

Since cinema is an inherently visual medium above all else, I'd say it does somewhat. Not entirely of course, but it goes a long way.

Re: Loomis's issue. To sum it up, he's a diehard Mannist, any since TDK owes a lot to Michael Mann, that's why he digs it.

Any hint of humour, colour, spirituality or romanticism in Batman is verboten.

The avatar pic I have right now is from a 1940 Batman comic by the original creative team of Bill Finger and Bob Kane -- and there's humour, colour and romanticism aplenty in those old issues. Not much spirituality though. I don't really see there being a place for that in the Bat-story. Wayne has always sort've represented the triumph of the rational mind over trauma and chaos, which is why his antithesis is the Joker, whose response to those stimuli is madness and anarchy. That's why Burton's "Batman is just as crazy as the villains" approach doesn't work for me -- if he's the same as the villains, what makes them the villains and he the hero? Then again, Burton wasn't really interested in exploring Bruce that much anyway. But "Batman is just as bad as the villains" is a position that someone who doesn't support Batman takes, and a story should always be supporting its hero -- that's why he's the hero, and not someone else.

Quote :

Wayne has always sort've represented the triumph of the rational mind over trauma and chaos, which is why his antithesis is the Joker, whose response to those stimuli is madness and anarchy.

I don't see why spirituality must = chaos/anarchy. That's very flawed thinking. If anything spirituality in its broadest sense is a reaction against the chaos of the temporal world, not an embrace of it.

Quote :

That's why Burton's "Batman is just as crazy as the villains" approach doesn't work for me -- if he's the same as the villains, what makes them the villains and he the hero?

I think it's patently clear that Burton Batman is a fucked up guy, but I'd never say he just as crazy as the villains. And either way, you can still have a crazy hero, as long he's got a stronger moral compass than the villains. That's the defining factor in my book.

Quote :

and a story should always be supporting its hero -- that's why he's the hero, and not someone else.

An anti-hero?

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

But "Batman is just as bad as the villains" is a position that someone who doesn't support Batman takes, and a story should always be supporting its hero -- that's why he's the hero, and not someone else.

Batman is supposed to be just as a bad as the villains though right? The Batman facade is meant to create fear in the villains. I'm not seeing the difference between Burton's Batman vigilante justice and that of Nolan's Batman. I also don't see how the story in TDK supports it's hero. If anything it's ultimately the will of the people who overcome the Joker's scheme. Batman, as the dark knight in the shadows is the point of the film.

No, because if he's just as bad as the villains, then he should be stopped, he should be locked up, he should not be doing what he's doing. Being fearsome, having a tough scary facade, is quite a different thing from being evil, being a menace. And in that case, then he's no longer a hero, he's an anti-hero, which is a very different kind of character.

As for Sharky's point about spirituality, I was more speaking about the Bruce Wayne character -- as a detective, as a rationalist, there isn't a big spiritual component -- his devotion to his cause is his religion, if anything.

I'm not saying he should become a religious martyr or anything like that. I'm thinking more of what Paul Schrader talks about in his Transcendental Style In Film essay, though that really lies in the direction. I don't think Nolan's capable of that.

No, I get the sense from his work that Nolan is pretty anti-spiritual. There's an undercurrent (mainly in BEGINS and THE PRESTIGE) there that says magic and miracles are illusions and parlour tricks, and the true wonder is in reason and science.

Even then, the closest Nolan's come to achieving that sense of wonder is probably the scenes in THE PRESTIGE featuring Tesla. One of the minor disappointments I had with INCEPTION was that it was so wrapped up in its own heist/tragedy plotlines that it never stopped to really explore how cool the "dream machine" was, in terms of opening a new world etc.

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

No, I get the sense from his work that Nolan is pretty anti-spiritual.

Nolan's conviction that the universe is ultimately benevolent suggests that he has some kind of spiritual side.

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

There's an undercurrent (mainly in BEGINS and THE PRESTIGE) there that says magic and miracles are illusions and parlour tricks, and the true wonder is in reason and science.

Except INCEPTION pulled things in a more existential direction, and the strange reference to Jesus Christ in the shooting script raises some interesting questions about Nolan's own beliefs:


MAL
What are the distinguishing characteristics of a dream? Mutable laws of physics? Tell that to the quantum physicists. Reappearance of the dead? What about heaven and hell? Persecution of the dreamer, the creator, the messiah? They crucified Christ, didn't they?

Who cares about spirituality in Batman? :|

The White Tuxedo wrote:

Who cares about spirituality in Batman? :|

Not me, that's for sure. But I'm not surprised Sharky does. After all, this is the guy who said a good film must be.. what was the phrasing? Socially valuable? A significant contribution of social relevance to the culture?? Socially responsible? Battleship Potemkin.

Me.

THE DARK KNIGHT ACCEPTS CHRIST (2015)

You know, it wouldn't be that hard to turn the Bat-Signal into a crucifix.

And how would you express that spirituality? What place for it would you weave in Batman's story?
I've seen spirituality expressed in Superman, often enough -- ham-fistedly in the latest movie to an extreme degree.

Sharky wrote:

You know, it wouldn't be that hard to turn the Bat-Signal into a crucifix.

I'm not sure in what sense you mean that, I think it's a mixed metaphor, but my interpretation of the meaning of the Cross in Christian symbolism may differ from yours. The Signal is a means for an embattled and desperate police force to call upon a hero to aid them against impossible odds. Being Batman isn't a cross for Bruce to bear, it's not like if Gordon wasn't there to rely on him he'd stop being Batman. Batman is Batman regardless, Bruce made that decision as a boy and has devoted his life to it. It was three years or so until the police force began working with him instead of against him, so he needs no one else's approval or support for this mission. He does not take it upon himself because of the needs or desire of anyone but himself. It is not the cause of his sorrow or his destruction, but rather he wages this war on his own terms, to spare others his pain.

In my mind, the portrayals of these characters must speak to their origins as invisioned by their creators. That doesn't mean you need to re-tell those origins, in fact, that's the last thing you should do, but you do need to maintain integrity to that original concept. Superman, for example, "fights a never-ending battle for truth, justice and the American way." Batman, on the other hand, has devoted the rest of his life to "warring on all criminals". Both are heroes, but those two statements suggest and imply the key differences between who they are and how they should be portrayed. For example, Superman fights for ideals -- it's a defensive battle. Batman has declared War on Crime, it's an offensive posture, and it's not about ideals, it's about reality.

For reference, Batman's origin story as it was told by his creators in 1939 (apologies if these images come out huge):

One thing that I like about Batman is that it's very naturalistic. I guess there is some paranormal stuff surrounding Ra's in the comics, from what I've heard, but Batman and his villains don't have any magical or mysterious powers. It's all psychological. So I don't see where spirituality would fit into that.

Basically, there's enough going on already.

The White Tuxedo wrote:

One thing that I like about Batman is that it's very naturalistic. I guess there is some paranormal stuff surrounding Ra's in the comics, from what I've heard, but Batman and his villains don't have any magical or mysterious powers. It's all psychological. So I don't see where spirituality would fit into that.

The deal with Ra's in the comics is that he gains immortality from the healing power of immersing himself in a mysterious chemical that bubbles up from pits in the Earth, essentially drawing on the raw energy of the planet to renew himself. It's less paranormal and more 20-cent 1970s comic book pseudo-science.

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

And how would you express that spirituality? What place for it would you weave in Batman's story?

Personally, I think it would be more interesting to juxtapose Batman *against* spirituality than to make him a religious devotee. Some of the more interesting Batman stories are those where he has come up against the inexplicable.

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

The deal with Ra's in the comics is that he gains immortality from the healing power of a mysterious chemical that bubbles up from pits in the Earth, essentially drawing on the raw energy of the planet to renew himself. It's less paranormal and more 70s comic book pseudo-science.

Yes, but there is the moment in DEATH AND THE MAIDENS where Ra's gives Bruce a chance to speak with his parents. It's written off as a "we'll never know for sure whether it was real or just a dream" kinda thing, but it definitely challenges Bruce's strictly rational outlook. I like small touches like that in the Batman universe.

Harmsway wrote:

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

And how would you express that spirituality? What place for it would you weave in Batman's story?

Personally, I think it would be more interesting to juxtapose Batman *against* spirituality than to make him a religious devotee. Some of the more interesting Batman stories are those where he has come up against the inexplicable.

Batman vs. Cults has always been a good storyline, and Batman vs. Vampires is usually a recipe for success, too. There have been multiple variations of both, sometimes in the same story, but the basic idea is the rational mind put up against what he cannot explain.

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

In my mind, the portrayals of these characters must speak to their origins as invisioned by their creators.

That's where we differ, you and I. It brings to mind a comment I remember Welles said about directing/adapting THE TRIAL in that Arena documentary. Can't really remember it, but it was in short, it was saying how it Welle's take on Kafka, not Kafka translated to the screen ad verbatim. That's what I want to see. Burton's Batman or Nolan's Batman (which is what we've pretty much got anyway).

Harmsway wrote:

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

And how would you express that spirituality? What place for it would you weave in Batman's story?

Personally, I think it would be more interesting to juxtapose Batman *against* spirituality than to make him a religious devotee..

That's what I was thinking, though not an outright rejection of spirituality. More like an ongoing infernal conflict.

Oh I think there's room for interpretation -- I'm not saying I want exact panel for panel adaptations of the comics. But I am saying they need to stay true to what those characters are about, who they are, what the intent of the creator was. I mean, Welles had his own take on THE TRIAL, but it's not like he went against Kafka's spirit or intent.

For example, if you depicted a Batman who was soft on crime -- "They're just victims of society, can't we get along?", or a Batman who only lost his dad that night -- Mum reminds him "Wash your Bat-tights!", or a Batman who wasn't rich -- "I'm just a homeless man with a baseball bat trying to make a difference", or a Batman with superpowers from birth -- "Now, with my amazing telepathic Bat-Vision!"; well, you're doing it wrong. Because at that point, the question becomes "why is this a Batman movie? Why not just create your own characters and tell your own stories?"

Darren Aronofsky and Frank Miller, two people who should really be well suited to this material, worked on a Batman script in the late nineties that was so different from the basic concept you'd think the only reason they still called it Batman was the name recognition. It's why I hated the "I, Robot" movie -- what of Asimov was in there other than some character names and the Laws?