View Single Post
Old 11-19-2012, 03:47 PM   #121
TheBat812's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,599
Default Re: In hindsight what changes would you do

Originally Posted by The Guard View Post
More than melodramatic line readings. I wanted some intellectual content, like we got in previous films.
IMO it is certainly in there and more than 'melodramatic line readings', so just going to have to agree to disagree here.

Ra's Al Ghul's scenes actually deal with and explore concepts, like the nature of crime itself, the various layers and elements of it, his thoughts on punishing criminals VS seeking to redeem/understand them, and his thoughts/observations on corruption. They deal in specific ways that inform Bruce's crusade, like being invisible, learning to overcome one's fear and using symbols to become more than a man. They form a complete picture of a character and his motivations and desires, instead of a bunch of vague minor details.

The Joker's scenes actually deal with and explore concepts, like the nature of chaos, the various components of society, the reception/reaction to Batman, his place in society, the idea of a "better" class of criminal, etc. They form a complete picture of a character and his motivations and desires, instead of a bunch of vague minor details.

Bane's scenes? Abstract, melodramatic stuff like "I was born in the dark...molded by it...I didn't see the light until I was a grown man, and by then it was nothing to me but blinding", and that he learned the truth about despair by hoping...which explains how he knows to torture others with that knowledge, so we know he's a torturer, but not how he became a person who would do that…and a bunch of secondhand innuendo about a legend that Bane climbed out of a prison...which turns out not to be about Bane at all. Oh, and he punishes the rich...because he hates them for some reason.
I don't understand why you seem to have a decent understanding of how Ra's and Joker work and yet can't see why Bane also works similarly and equally well. That line directly explains why Bane might have been enticed into a dark path because of the his experience. The 'secondhand innuendo' is irrelevant as it is not Bane's story. Bane's story is that he was still trapped in his prison in the dark until Talia (the one piece of light and innocence in his life) convinces her father to free him. Then that figure that saved him (Ra's) casts him out because of who he is (bottom of the barrel). This reaffirms his hate of those with power having control over those without. It's not about the rich, but about those in power,\ (who in Gotham's case has become the wealthy because of the mob's inactivity due to the dent act). This has been a constant theme throughout the series. It just seems like you have a bias against TDKR and refuse to see that at least in the ways you were just talking about, this film is just as strong as either one and two.

What do you mean by that?
I meant that you get a great idea of who the characters are by small snippets of their past and the way we see them in the film. It's very similar to what was done with Ra's. There are tons of small things that tell you a lot about the character - like Bane disregarding Talia's wish for "Bruce to watch the fire" by simply shooting him in the face so he can't foil their plan. I still would like some specific examples of what would have helped you feel he wasn't a 'thin' character, because I'm just not buying that argument.

Except that they did beat you over the head with the character and any/all motivations he had.
disagreed. Considering that some of the most vigorous complaints have been about Bane's perceived 'lack of motivation,' it's clear that if anything they didn't say it overtly enough. IMO, they found a pretty great balance of making it work great in context but also have tons of thematic consequence when you dig into it.

Comments about Bane's moral code aside…he flat out says that he is evil. His actions are decidedly evil. And there's no real exploration of or any suggestion that his actions are not, or that there's any kind of a gray area to what he's doing.
My interpretation of this scene is that he's simply throwing Daggett's terminology in his face. Evil is such an absolute and meaningless term, and Bane just seems to enjoy how simplistic of a view this rich, pompous, POS has of the world, further proving to Bane that those in power have a detached view of reality. It's a bit simplistic viewing of this scene and of the character to think that Bane is convinced he actually is driven by purely evil intentions. He is simply saying that yes, sacrifice and horrors need to happen for the greater good.

Where? When? How? Other than Dagget, where is this exploration found in the film? Where does anything imply this?
It's unfair to rule out the scene with daggett, because it's very key to seeing Bane's point of view, as I just pointed out. Bane is driven by the idea that those who need help at the bottom of the barrel are being trampled on by those with power, the same basic ideals of the LOS. He really is the perfect heir to Ra's throne because he IS willing to sacrifice many for the greater good to stamp out the corruption and force Gotham to start anew where everybody is playing on an equal playing field. This stuff is explored throughout the film as one GREAT idea, it's never specifically said in one defining moment, it's an accumulation of character building throughout the film.

But it's not "in itself", is it? Because Bane intends to kill a bunch of innocent people.
This is the rationale of a terrorist. He was born and raised in the equivalent of hell for the soul. If anybody would be willing to kill people for the greater good it would be ra's, Bane and Talia, whereas Bruce was raised by a philanthropist, therefore leading him to believe in the good in people, whereas the others saw the bad in people. All of them suffered terrible and traumatic losses and experiences that drove them to seek justice for Gotham's system, but their methods are all born from their life experiences, and Nolan shows this very well throughout the trilogy. So yes, in and of itself, all of them share the noble goal of helping Gotham reach a period of equality and less disparity, not of decadence and corruption. Their methods determine whether they're villains or heros. This is classic story and character convention.

"No great genius has ever existed without some touch of madness." - Aristotle
TheBat812 is offline