Originally Posted by Excelsior.
It would be a mess if we go by your mistaken belief that I would simply take what Nolan did and elongate every scene , which I wouldn't just do.
Not when it comes to characterization. Especially crucial characterization that is the start of the turning point of her character. If you are thinking "quick and simple" when it comes to characters, you are not prioritizing the characters. As Nolan has proven not to do so many times. His greatest love is plot. Not character.
Talky? Who said anything about talky?
Naturally I disagree. Nolan totally reduced Selina's characterization to a single verbal sentence. That is not efficient or poignant, just bad.
What visual storytelling? The one line Selina feeds us to signal her change in character?
The greatest, which I really wish Nolan used more.
That is a bold faced lie. He entirely skimmed over the plight of the common man in a couple of montages. Now, I've learned to accept this. Nolan ignored the people. Sure. Okay. But him neglecting Selina Kyle's characterization is a bigger issue to me.
A hypothetical scene of paramount importance detailing her character in the middle stretch of the scene was in the movie? And he left it in the previous cuts? You do realize this isn't praise for Nolan right?
A proposed simple, singular, visual, character scene of Selina is self indulgent and bloating? You must hate every single character driven films ever made.
It's not about understanding. Of course we understand. Nolan, via Selina, tells us what is going on in Selina's mind by neat verbal exposition. What is there not to understand? A child would understand.
No. It's about feeling. Feeling her change. Something, according to the more prevalent criticism of Nolan's work, is a problem his films face constantly. His films stir the mind but not the soul, because he hardly lingers on character.
Repeat? That's the one and only (poorly done) scene of Selina questioning her ideological stance. What repeat?
Thanks for the laugh. Nolan is in no shape, size or form a visual master. He is a master of narrative cinema but he is only competent as an aestheist. Except this film. In this film he isn't a master of anything.
Why devote an entire scene to the stethoscope? It's designed as a brief flashback. It's for Bruce's arc. Not his pop's. Cause he simply exists in flashbacks. He doesn't need an arc. Selina is a living, breathing character in real time. She is not a flashback. She has her own arc. The two can't be any more different if you tried. I am appalled by the comparison.
I'm just going to agree to disagree here. I appreciate that type of film making as well, but it's simply NOT called for in this film, and is not necessary in Nolan's type of film making. All of Nolan's films have been emotional for me, although rarely on first viewing. Fair enough that it doesn't work as well for you, personally, but it works exactly the way Nolan intended for most people. The emotion comes from the way he writes very relatable characters with relatable themes, and how good he is at casting and then just allowing the actors to do their jobs with the great foundation he has built in the writing process. And yes, he is a master of visual storytelling. That IS the art of narrative cinema.
Also, you keep talking as if Selina's characterization in the film was poor, which I just disagree with. It's done very well without feeling like she's padding the movie unnecessarily.