View Single Post
Old 11-22-2012, 11:31 AM   #673
Brain Damage
Everything Under the Sun
Brain Damage's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Boston
Posts: 2,861
Default Re: Characterization of the Knight - Nolan and Bale's Bruce Wayne/Batman - Part 2

Originally Posted by Visceral View Post
Wow. Do you have anything good to say about the film? or was it all ham-handed?
Yes, I do. And no, it was not. You asked me to defend my rationale against a single scene in the film, how does that immediately lead you to believe I have nothing good to say about the film at all?

I don't mean to berate but I look at this board and with the exception of a few posters all I see is negativity. Apparently the writers who infused Batman with influences like existentialist Dostoevsky, Kierkegaard, Neitzche, and Charles Dickens, completely fumbled the ball on this film. And not just in a couple of scenes but the entire film. According to some of you EVERY SCENE has something wrong with it.
First. What does this have to do with Batman's reveal to Gordon? Second. Are you saying that because someone has done fantastic work in the past they're immediately immune to ever fumbling the ball? What does the fact that they "infused Batman with influences like existentialist Dostoevsky, Kierkegaard, Neitzche, and Charles Dickens" have ANYTHING to do with the quality of THIS SPECIFIC film?

Martin Scorcese is my absolute favorite director of all time. He's created some films that have affected and entertained me in ways no others have. In my opinion, he's an absolute master, a genius. But that doesn't change the fact that I've never once sat through Gangs of New York all the way through without checking the time at least five or six times, or the fact that I found the plot twist in Shutter Island to be incredibly predictable.

Scorcese is a genius, but he, like anyone else, is perfectly capable of fumbling the ball. Same with Nolan.

And don't think that I think the film is perfect, I don't. But overall the film is like all of Nolan's films, dealing with extreme intelligent themes not seen in the great majority of the superhero genre. And I don't think that you need to like the film, or any single scene for that matter. You don't have to like the influences and you don't have to think that the film is intelligent. But you come off completely inconsistent.
Yes, it does deal with intelligent themes. But to me and to a lot of other people it does not deal with them nearly as intelligently as Nolan's previous films.

Don't assume I hate the film, either. I don't. In fact, I quite like it. I pre-ordered it on Blu-Ray and I'm quite excited to watch it again, I think it's a very entertaining film. And I've praised many parts of it in various posts I've made throughout this forum, but we weren't talking about that - we were discussing Batman's reveal to Gordon.

The writers who made Inception and the Dark Knight are all of a sudden complete buffoons. This is the Characterization of the Knight, not the what would you change thread. Say something positive about the ideas of the film to make me think that your criticisms actually hold weight.
I'm sorry, but are Nolan and I in a Freshman workshop class or something? Why do I have to say positive about the ideas of the film to make my criticisms hold weight? First off, you asked me to elaborate on how I thought that moment was ham-handed, now you're reprimanding me for doing that? Second, did I ever say the writers of Inception and TDK are buffons? No, I did not. Thirdly, refer to my above point about Scorcese. Just because they've done great work in the past does not mean they will continue to do great work in the future.

Don't say the scene was powerful but superficially powerful. That's an oxymoron.
Not really. It's powerful in that it tugs on our emotions and is well acted, but it's superficially powerful because that moment isn't earned by the film, it's just thrown in there. A lot of films do this, and a lot of them gain the title of "Awards Bait", films that show us images that they know will move us and cause an emotional reaction, but that do so for the very reason of causing an emotional reaction, not because the story demands it.

It's appealing to the audience. It's giving them something they want simply because they want it, not because the world of the story or the characters demand it.

Compare the sheer amount of character development that occurs when Batman takes off his cowl in front of Gordon in No Man's Land and Gordon turns away and refuses to look.

In that moment we learn so much about both characters. About their friendship, about their motivations and the differences in their character.

Now, I'm not saying the filmmakers should copy that scene or try to imitate it any way. I'm just comparing the impact both scenes had. Enlighten me, please, what character development occurs in the moment when Batman reveals his identity to Gordon through a reference to something that happened thirty years ago?

And don't say "Gordon learns who Batman really is".
That's not character development. That's a plot point.

Also don't say "it brings it full circle".
That's not character development either and it's not a good enough reason to include such a big moment in your story.

I will say though, since you so adamantly insist I include something positive in my criticism, I thought Gordon's line about the people of Gotham knowing who saved them: "It was The Batman", was brilliant. And yes, that moment does play differently when you know that he really knows who Batman is. But that's not an excuse, in my opinion, for the ham-handed way in which the reveal was played out.


Free Original Music

Last edited by Brain Damage; 11-22-2012 at 11:36 AM.
Brain Damage is offline   Reply With Quote