Anne Hathaway as Selina Kyle/Catwoman XXXIII

[DACrowe]

Originally Posted by Anita18

Well, at least Nolan's male protagonists are very similar too. The guy does have a type....

His Batman certainly does. All the women in his life are brunettes.

[Brain Damage]

Both Anne and Michele were phenomenal in the role.

Anne was a more comic accurate Selina, which I prefer.

But Returns handled the romance much better.

[The Guard]

You mean like how he explores Vincent Price made Edward Scissorhands? Or how Edward doesn't age despite being alive?

I mean how when the ghosts show up in BEETLEJUICE, there are no bones made about the fact that they are ghosts. The fact that they are ghosts is overt, and they are called such, etc.

Burton kind of does explore the creation and nature of Edward's existence. That's part of the theme and set up of the film. Edward Scissorhands doesn't just randomly EXIST. It is flat out TOLD to us that he was MADE from parts. A supernatural element exists there, and we're both told and shown it. The man was MADE by an inventor. There's not really any ambiguity to that fact.

It's not like some cats showing up, who have no inherent supernatural element to them or attributed to them by the film or anyone in the film, and calling the scene involving them supernatural anyway.

It is done as a sense of mystery and mystique. It is supernatural. There is no way she could be alive without a scratch after taking three magnums to the gut and being electrocuted to the point where the other party's skin is fried off the bone. You can pretend otherwise, but you are ignoring what is in the movie.

Who says she doesn't have a scratch? How is that even relevant to the meaning of her showing up at the end of the film? Why in God's name does it matter how she got to the roof in context?

I'm not ignoring anything. I don't see how you can say I'm ignoring the end when I've essentially said "while its somewhat ambiguous, the end could be considered a supernatural event".

Burton's Batman movies were never steeped in realism. What realistically would happen if one fell out a window from that height, or if one was shot several times isn't the point of the film or the scene. Obviously they weren't concerned about realism in terms of how the gunshots would affect her body. They took some story license for the dramatics of it. Much like Nolan allows Batman to fall out a window on fire, bounce off a car, and not be burned or broken because he's wearing armor.

I'm not ignoring anything about the end. I'm pointing out what the film shows. The film purposely obscures what is taking place during the final moments between Selina and Shreck. All I'm saying is that its handled ambiguously enough that a supernatural explanation need not be the only one considered. There's definitely a sense of mystery to it.

Happens all the time. Explain to me how Dr. Frankenstein creates the creature in the original Shelly novel?

He discovers a process to animate an inanimate body that he made. This, not being part of nature, is considered a supernatural event.

Explain how Jekyll creates Hyde?

He generally creates a serum that transforms himself. Depending on the version of the story, it ranges from a drug-induced psychological change to an actual supernatural event/transformation. These tend to be overtly supernatural things that defy the laws of nature in fairly extreme ways.

In neither of these instances does the author shy away from the fact that there's something overtly supernatural happening. They explore the causes, the repurcussions, and the horror involved in said.

Explain how Michael Myers cannot die in the original film without referencing the sequels not written by Carpenter?

No clue. Never seen any of them and don't care to.

Pretty much. His resurrection is very overt, even if how it works is unexplained. Just as how she survives the unsurvivable is unexplained. It is not
referenced because it is unimportant to the story.

He very clearly shows Selina falling through several awnings, and then landing in a snowdrift. The script excerpt I showed you makes it obvious that this was meant to be considered a lucky event, and something that breaks/cushions her fall.

Whereas almost nothing suggests that those cats are supernatural.

Another good example? Woody Allen films like Midnight in Paris or The Purple Rose of Cairo. He does not explain how these impossible things happen, because it is unimportant to the story. They do happen and the story continues giving it a fairy tale, fantasy element that is best left unaddressed. To paraphrase Allen, "It works because you don't explain it to the audience. It just happens and they accept it."

Here's the thing. I haven't seen Purple Rose in a while, but as I recall, Allen also doesn't completely ignore the events, nor do his characters. In Midnight in Paris, the characters in the film RECOGNIZE that something beyond the norm has taken place. That they are time traveling, essentially. There's no ambiguity to the supernatural incident occurring. I'm not suggesting that it needs to be explained. I'm suggesting that it's supernatural nature needs to be apparent for it to be considered supernatural.

Burton doesn't give you some bogus explanation as to how cats resurrected her or how she can survive the impossible. She does and the audience accepts it. The same way he will not explain how Price made Edward. It just is and the audience goes along.

Burton shows quite clearly how the cats "resurrected" her. Because he shows what the cats do. He also shows quite clearly how she could survive the "impossible". Several times.

I'm less concerned with the details and exact science of it. I'm pointing out that Burton tends to make it obvious that something supernatural is occurring, and to delve into that, not to introduce it and ignore it.

You say she survived the fall from the fawning. But deliberately ignore the ending of the film.

You're going to have to explain to me how I've somehow ignored the ending of the film when I said this:

Her surviving at the end could be considered supernatural in the sense that it does appear to defy the laws of nature, but we don't actually know what happened between her and Max at the end

Hamm did put quite a bit into the first film. I do not believe Waters did after they threw out the Hamm script for the second film.

Because it's all just coincidence, right?

These are superficial things. The Penguin of the comics is not a mutated freak who was abandoned on Christmas Eve by his parents and raised by penguins in the sewer. He is not a monster in the Universal 1930s sense of the word. He is a criminal with a bird fetish and a long nose in the comics. Characteristically he considers himself a gentleman, not a freak who is more bird than man. Quite different.

A drawing is superficial, too. I wasn't discussing which elements were the most important. I was responding to your statement that The Penguin from BATMAN RETURNS came entirely from a drawing Tim Burton did.

And he's a criminal with a bird fetish and a long nose in the movie too, isn't he? By the standards of the older comics, The Penguin was considered to be a freak. He considered himself a gentleman, suited to higher society, but who fell short due to his inherent character weaknesses and immoral actions. Much like the Burton version. Yes, Burton added some "monster" elements to make the character appear more sinister, threatening, and weird. Not denying that.

[DACrowe]

Originally Posted by The Guard

Who says she doesn't have a scratch? How is that even relevant to the meaning of her showing up at the end of the film? Why in God's name does it matter how she got to the roof in context?

I'm not ignoring anything. I don't see how you can say I'm ignoring the end when I've essentially said "while its somewhat ambiguous, the end could be considered a supernatural event".

Burton's Batman movies were never steeped in realism. What realistically would happen if one fell out a window from that height, or if one was shot several times isn't the point of the film or the scene. Obviously they weren't concerned about realism in terms of how the gunshots would affect her body. They took some story license for the dramatics of it. Much like Nolan allows Batman to fall out a window on fire, bounce off a car, and not be burned or broken because he's wearing armor.

I'm not ignoring anything about the end. I'm pointing out what the film shows. The film purposely obscures what is taking place during the final moments between Selina and Shreck. All I'm saying is that its handled ambiguously enough that a supernatural explanation need not be the only one considered. There's definitely a sense of mystery to it.

I agree that they are not steeped in realism. Burton cares not for such things. So cats bring her back to life to him is allegorical. It needs no more explanation than how a human being (Edward) can be "made" by a creator using objects. It just is. There is something supernatural about this, but it is not worth getting hung up on. It just happens.

He discovers a process to animate an inanimate body that he made. This, not being part of nature, is considered a supernatural event.

It is supernatural without ever explaining how or why in the book. It is merely implied for the reader to draw from.

In neither of these instances does the author shy away from the fact that there's something overtly supernatural happening. They explore the causes, the repurcussions, and the horror involved in said.

In both neither are explicitly explained. Therein lies the "Other" and the spooky supernaturalism of it. The authors do shy away and leave it to the reader's imagination as to how they were able to do these things.

No clue. Never seen any of them and don't care to.

You should see the first. It is a masterpiece.

Whereas almost nothing suggests that those cats are supernatural.

Save that their bites and licks brought a woman who appeared dead back to life. And later she exhibits cats' mythological attributes.

Here's the thing. I haven't seen Purple Rose in a while, but as I recall, Allen also doesn't completely ignore the events, nor do his characters. In Midnight in Paris, the characters in the film RECOGNIZE that something beyond the norm has taken place. That they are time traveling, essentially. There's no ambiguity to the supernatural incident occurring. I'm not suggesting that it needs to be explained. I'm suggesting that it's supernatural nature needs to be apparent for it to be considered supernatural.

No more than Selina saying she has nine lives. And then surviving impossible things later on in the film.

Burton shows quite clearly how the cats "resurrected" her. Because he shows what the cats do. He also shows quite clearly how she could survive the "impossible". Several times.

I'm less concerned with the details and exact science of it. I'm pointing out that Burton tends to make it obvious that something supernatural is occurring, and to delve into that, not to introduce it and ignore it.

I think it is pretty obvious in BR. At least as much as the film he made right before this one.

You're going to have to explain to me how I've somehow ignored the ending of the film when I said this:

Her surviving at the end could be considered supernatural in the sense that it does appear to defy the laws of nature, but we don't actually know what happened between her and Max at the end

Glad to see you are coming around to my thinking.

[DACrowe]

By the way saw this a few months ago:

VIDEO-CLick to Watch!:

Thought it would play well here.

[Nave 'Torment']

No I'm definitely not insisting that Nolan's a chauvinist, that was partly done in jest, what I am suggesting rather is that his films can be interpreted through a sexist lens, provided that someone's that much anally retentive about it

Originally Posted by DACrowe

I think it is a huge stretch to say Rachel Dawes is a femme fatale. She is not coded as a sexist woman whose desire to be in a male world causes destruction. The destruction caused in her name is on the Joker's hands and Harvey's weakness. It is not an allegory for essentially why women should be ethereal (or in the kitchen) like say, Laura in Laura or Gilda in Gilda. Women who are not intentionally cruel or evil, but whose sexuality and independence unintentionally drive men to ruin.

Well to be honest stretching the basic concept of the femme fatale and Rachel wouldn't be that much of a stretch--one of the definitions includes a woman who sexually frustrates the men around her, who's often the only woman in an predominantly male world and whose actions consciously (Bridget from The Maltese Falcon) or inadvertently (Carmen from The Big Sleep) threaten the norms of that male-centric society. And let's not forget that Bruce has time and again broken his "rule" to not "let this become personal" by insisting that "it's Rachel" -- something that the Joker merely exploits. Of course, what this does not make her is a traditional villainess.

Selina Kyle is a femme and I suppose so is Talia. Better examples of Nolan using that archetype are Carrie Anne Moss in Memento and Mal in Inception. The only film he has done where I can see a sexist reading, though I do not agree with it, is Inception. Women are nothing but plot devices and the dead wife is nothing but an evil shade who haunts a husband whose life she destroys. I disagree with that reading, but I can see it. After all, Arthur says "[Mal] was lovely," but that is not in the final film or in Cobb's sadistic projection of her.

Yeah I understand that, and I also agree with you in disagreeing with that interpretation. But while Mal is indeed a femme fatale in Inception, it works since what they're essentially showing is a Jungian parable through Cobb's mind, making Mal the anima.

Thing is, you also have to account for the femmes fatale to be fatal, and that means be an instrument to some sort of destruction, death or otherwise. If they don't kill they aren't really being fatal right?

Overall though, I think it is more Nolan does not write women well and is more interested in the male's perspective operating in morally dangerous worlds dominated by men in our patriarchal society. I do not think that is sexist per se. I just think that is a weakness in his voice.

I'm sure he's not a sexist, he's just not focused on making movies that are concerned with gender-roles and sexuality to give them much thought. But like I said, it's just one of the many ways of reading into his movies. I did hear you say that you agree how those female-roles are portrayed through male lenses. In other words, male-identified females. I'm sure a better argument can be made than the one I'm putting up here though, just a thought.

[AnneFan]

Originally Posted by ChrisB

Anne Hathaway is hosting SNL again this Saturday, November 10th.

Yep, really looking forward to it!

[Isis]

Originally Posted by The Joker

Comic book adaptions of movies have a lot of deviations from the movie. That is a classic example. In the movie, when she gets shot she falls to the ground in agony for several seconds. So saying she was shot in both legs and just kept casually walking doesn't look credible to me at all. That blog is pretty much the same content as the other link that was posted on the previous page.

In that second comic Catwoman switched the bullets in those guns for blanks to fool those thugs into thinking she was supernatural.

Well, the original BR script clarifies that she was shot in the arm and leg.

He fires a shot, that rips into her arm. And another, that smashes into her leg. Still coming, she pulls off her hood.
SELINA Four, five. Still alive.

Max shoots her other leg and the hand

[The Joker]

Originally Posted by Isis

Well, the original BR script clarifies that she was shot in the arm and leg.

He fires a shot, that rips into her arm. And another, that smashes into her leg. Still coming, she pulls off her hood.
SELINA Four, five. Still alive.

Max shoots her other leg and the hand

That's not what's shown on screen either. Details of scripts can also be changed or omitted.

It also makes Max Schreck look stupid. Why would he shoot someone in the hand or legs four times at close range instead of in the chest or stomach? He manages to shoot Batman down from a greater distance away.

[lostzilla]

God damn, Warner!
Why not gave us promo material like this with Anne's Catwoman?



For god sake, if transpires her thong. Marvel it is much better than Warner in this

[Fudgie]

Originally Posted by Brain Damage

But Returns handled the romance much better.

Ya think? He asked her to live with him after one date. Bit fast even for Batman.

[Nave 'Torment']

In his defense they've been "dating" ever since they tangled as Batman and Catwoman. Those were the real dates.

[Pfeiffer-Pfan]

Batman works fast...

Keaton Bats bedded Kim Basinger in her prime. The guy gets what he wants.

[Fudgie]

Originally Posted by Nave 'Torment'

In his defense they've been "dating" ever since they tangled as Batman and Catwoman. Those were the real dates.

Kicking the crap outta each other and framing the Bat for murder was real dating?

Yeah don't think so.

[DACrowe]

For those characters it was.

[Fudgie]

You guys are funny.

[The Guard]

I agree that they are not steeped in realism. Burton cares not for such things. So cats bring her back to life to him is allegorical. It needs no more explanation than how a human being (Edward) can be "made" by a creator using objects. It just is. There is something supernatural about this, but it is not worth getting hung up on. It just happens.

Allegorical?

So it’s not intended to be a literal supernatural event then.

Then we agree. It's not a literal supernatural event. It is only an allegorical/metaphorical death, and an allegorical/metaphorical rebirth.

It is supernatural without ever explaining how or why in the book. It is merely implied for the reader to draw from.

Yes but the point is that, unlike everything except possibly the ending of BATMAN RETURNS, those stories are overtly supernatural. There's no ambiguity to whether a man who is made by a human scientist and then animated is part of the natural order/world. There is no ambiguity as to whether a man who uses a potion to physically transform himself into a monstrous other identity is part of the natural order/world.

I’m not making any statements either way about the details of supernatural events or how well said supernatural events are explained, I was talking about an author’s presentation of something as either supernatural, or not supernatural.

In both neither are explicitly explained. Therein lies the "Other" and the spooky supernaturalism of it. The authors do shy away and leave it to the reader's imagination as to how they were able to do these things

But what they don't leave to the reader's imagination is whether these are natural occurrences. They are not. They are supernatural events.

And the “supernaturalism” lies in that it is actually supernatural. In other words, something overtly outside the laws of nature.

Save that their bites and licks brought a woman who appeared dead back to life. And later she exhibits cats' mythological attributes.

And you know this because…

She may “appear dead” (as much as any person who is unconscious or stunned for a while could), but she also appears to possibly just be unconscious. You don’t know for sure that she was, in fact, dead, and the film seems to point to the fact that she wasn’t intended to be. As did the script excerpt I posted.

Later, she exhibits gymnastics and martial arts.

Not mythological “cat abilities”.

No more than Selina saying she has nine lives. And then surviving impossible things later on in the film.

The majority of those lives are clearly metaphorical. She is quite obviously not actually dying. The only one in question is the final sequence, and we never see her die during that incident either.

When the film clearly shows how she is surviving each incident (awnings and snow, sand, plants, etc), whether or not her survival is down to supernatural means is not ambiguous.

I think it is pretty obvious in BR. At least as much as the film he made right before this one.

It isn’t, though. At best, it’s ambiguous, and only so if you reach and “imagine” something that the film never shows or tells or sets up while essentially ignoring the approach the rest of the film takes in order to make this interpretation.

[Fudgie]

What about how she was shot 4 times and then she is going around the roofs of the city like the next day or something. She must have Wolverine's healing ability.

[herolee10]

Because I CAN!!!!

[Nave 'Torment']

Originally Posted by Fudgie

Kicking the crap outta each other and framing the Bat for murder was real dating?

Yeah don't think so.

Oh course it is, that's how the Bat rolls

[Nave 'Torment']

The answer to Tim Burtons' supernatural abilities (while I gave on in previous post) is the fact that it was purposefully left ambiguious. The ambiguity works so that speculation like this can go on for years on end. You're both right.

I see Burton's films as the "urban myths" version of these characters. Y'know, the sort they always allude to in Nolan-verse but never get to (since it's specified in the comics, modern or otherwise, that they're in fact, real human beings who've become more than just mere human beings by devoting themselves to their legend). Professor Ducard's words, not mine.

[shauner111]

Originally Posted by Nave 'Torment'

The answer to Tim Burtons' supernatural abilities (while I gave on in previous post) is the fact that it was purposefully left ambiguious. The ambiguity works so that speculation like this can go on for years on end. You're both right.

I see Burton's films as the "urban myths" version of these characters. Y'know, the sort they always allude to in Nolan-verse but never get to (since it's specified in the comics, modern or otherwise, that they're in fact, real human beings who've become more than just mere human beings by devoting themselves to their legend). Professor Ducard's words, not mine.

I agree with Fudgie on the ridiculousness of Batman Returns. But i think the way you look at the movies as "urban myth" versions of these characters....is actually pretty f'n cool.

[Fudgie]

Originally Posted by Nave 'Torment'

Oh course it is, that's how the Bat rolls

Yeah not buying that. Only Burton's crazy Bat is like that.

[Pfeiffer-Pfan]

I worry for some of you guys when the more fantastical reboot hits...

[shauner111]

I'm actually excited for a fantastical reboot. Just keep it dark and serious and i'll be happy.

Since we're on the topic of Batman Returns..i watched it last night (and Batman Forever last week) and i can say one thing for sure. Even though one is dark/gothic & the other is lighter/psychedelic...Returns is just as campy and over the top as Forever. There are serious scenes with Bruce Wayne in both movies, even Kilmers Batman has a couple of darker scenes that i barely remembered (since its been so long). But they're both campy as hell and make Nolans Trilogy look like a complete comic-accurate depiction of the Batman in comparison. Don't get me wrong cuz i enjoy both movies but they're goddamn ridiculous.

My point is, Batman Returns always had a mixed reaction but people look at it with nostalgic eyes. They put it on a pedestal over Shumachers first go at the character. They put it over Nolans movies sometimes. A lot of the same people who complain about Nolan venturing too far from the source material probably dont realize that Returns is actually the most inaccurate version of Batman and its characters/history to EVER step foot in a Batman film. Even the horrible Batman & Robin stuck to the 60s tv show. I couldnt even think of what era the 1992 movie represented when i was watching it last night.

If people complain about TDK Trilogy as much as they do, maybe you're gonna love the reboot. Im sure it'll be more accurate. But on the other hand, we dont know if they'll go back to the campy ****. If they're thinking of doing "monsters" like Clayface, Solomon Grundy, Killer Croc and Man-Bat i can assure you it'll be dark but probably a bit on the goofy side. You complainers will be complaining even more, i guarantee it.

Peeps can love Pfeiffer in Returns (i do too) but her Catwoman was a jokey character. I prefer her different but awesome take on Selina before she dresses up. Because her Catwoman was a little too cornball (a word she liked to use in the movie). I mean SHE LOOKED like Catwoman but i just dont see how people can like that over Hathaways and say it's because it was more "Catwoman". Pfeiffers performance was more in ur face and the suit was fine but the jokey nature of it and inaccuracies in the writing make me go to Anne's Catwoman all the way.