The dialogue for the prologue is expository. It's not "good" dialogue in the least. The agent's dialogue is absurd. People simply don't talk like that. Not in the real world. Hence my Bond film statement.
Nor is TDKR having the same prologue weaknesses as TDK appropriate. They should have learned from the weaknesses in the previous film's prologue and bit parts (over the top acting and clunky dialogue) and corrected them. They apparently didn't.
Restraint. Especially from an established actor like this. He's a decent actor, and has done much better, but he's AWFUL here. Yelling his lines even after the plane doors are closed? It's just absurd. There are ways to play "arrogant *****e" without reducing it to an utter cliche and playing it over the top, awkwardly, and loudly. This performance doesn't even belong in this relatively serious scene. He's OVERacting to the point of distraction, which is just as bad as not acting enough.
Acting is about balance, not about randomly stressing words so it seems like you're being emotional. It's about finding a realistic and appropriate level of emotion. He failed to do so given the context of the scene.
Now, maybe as an actor, he's trying to make a splash as a character actor, but I guarantee you he made the wrong impression for any serious filmmaker. Had he used some restraint in his performance, the scene almost works. He could still be a little over the top, a little "arrogant *****e". Just not as MUCH.
He's pretending to be a big man? Well, yeah. He IS a big man. While everyone has flaws, with the CIA, you don't get to that level and be completely useless. He's in charge on some level of the CIA. I get that. He's posturing. Does that mean that every aspect of the man has to scream "arrogant amateur"?
Bane is apparently a mercenary, which makes this guy the "good guy". I can't be happy that a CIA agent dies just because he's annoying.
Here's the thing. Whether he's supposed to be a superarrogant *****e or not...
There's no REASON for him to be. Bane is the VILLAIN. Bane doing what he does it supposed to be imrpessive by itself, not just because he's doing it to a *****e.
It'd be one thing is this guy was irritating comic relief, and around for a decent portion of the film, and developed as such. He's not. There's no reason for him to be like this, and no payoff for this type of character this early in the film. So why is this type of character in the film?
If Nolan ends up using this to make us "hate" the CIA for some stupid and incredibly tired "The CIA was in on it all along" plot twist, then I really have issues with this sequence. Because if you can't make us dislike something without it being loud and annoying, you shouldn't be using that element.
Bottom line is that it ends up being lazy, awkward filmmaking, and doesn't belong here. Honestly, its watching performances like this that makes me think Nolan does't quite have the sensibilities for directing actors that some people think he does.
As much as I'd like to be happy that the CIA guy was a *****e and paid for it...I can't be. The guy was going to pay anyway. Now it just seems like Bane managed to take out a bunch of pushovers. Wow. Hell of a mercenary. Now compare that to COUNTLESS scenes of CAPABLE characters being overcome by villains. Which is more satisfying?
.
t:
