Batman Begins Official Scarecrow Discussion

[K.B.]

LOL, okay...

It's the truth man sorry. Crane and Ra's were gayer than 9 guys bl**ing 10 guys.




El Payaso...you know what your talking about here man, I'm with you all the way on this 'Scarcrow sucked in BB' discussion.

 

[Mr. Socko]

I thought the role of Scarecrow could have been better, but Murphy did an excellent job. Came across as a real nut.

 

[Damiean Dark]

He wasnt great but way better then Ras neeson was on autopilot in BB it didnt work.

 

[El Payaso]

I thought the role of Scarecrow could have been better, but Murphy did an excellent job. Came across as a real nut.

For me he was the mere shell of a creepy nut: the extreme opened eyes, the dragged talking (Theeeee-baaaaat-maaaaan), the effeminate manners. A flat way to perform an interesting looney.

The mask was totally irrelevant until the last scene were the Scarecrow finally is born... just to be dreadfully defeated 5 seconds later.

 

[Keyser Soze]

For me he was the mere shell of a creepy nut: the extreme opened eyes, the dragged talking (Theeeee-baaaaat-maaaaan), the effeminate manners. A flat way to perform an interesting looney.

The mask was totally irrelevant until the last scene were the Scarecrow finally is born... just to be dreadfully defeated 5 seconds later.

He's Scarecrow the whole film, or at least right from the first time he says "Would you like to see my mask?" We could argue all day about his last scene, but since you don't seem to be willing to listen to anyone else's counter-arguments, I won't go there.

And Cillian Murphy's performance was far from flat. Like Mr. Socko said, the part itself was rather small, and a lesser performance could have made the character flat. But Cillian Murphy managed to steal every scene he was in, and bring a smarmy, reptilian energy to the role, making Crane an unnerving character even before he dons the mask. So to flip your statement around, Cillian's portrayal was an interesting way to perform a potentially flat looney.

 

[Damiean Dark]

One thing Murphy lacked is that he looks far to young to be crane IMO i think hes in his 30s but could pass as a 25 year old.

 

[K.B.]

^ That was one of my problems too...on top of his half assed performance when he he says "Do you want to see my mask" I kept expecting the theme from Dawsons Creek to break out.










*ha just remembered Holmes was in that too lol

 

[Keyser Soze]

^ That was one of my problems too...on top of his half assed performance when he he says "Do you want to see my mask" I kept expecting the theme from Dawsons Creek to break out.









*ha just remembered Holmes was in that too lol

The fact that Cillian Murphy is so young was a strength, I thought. As it brought a new, unexpected dimension to the role, and allowed him to make it his own.

 

[K.B.]

Being young didn't bring anything to the role at all because he wasn't age appropriate. It's the same case with Holmes...they looked 22-25 and there is NO WAY that people that age get to perform the jobs they were supposed to be doing ie. lawyer/doctor. as they would still be in school.

Get someone who LOOKS like they could be doing that for example...put any of these actors in Scarecrows role..

Jeff Goldblum
Brad Dourif
Christopher Eccleston

And suddenly Crane becomes more believeable.

 

[Obi-John-Kenobi]

Being young didn't bring anything to the role at all because he wasn't age appropriate. It's the same case with Holmes...they looked 22-25 and there is NO WAY that people that age get to perform the jobs they were supposed to be doing ie. lawyer/doctor. as they would still be in school.

Get someone who LOOKS like they could be doing that for example...put any of these actors in Scarecrows role..

Jeff Goldblum
Brad Dourif
Christopher Eccleston

And suddenly Crane becomes more believeable.

Jeff Goldblum would've made a terrific Scarecrow. He's played a scientist in pretty much every movie he's been in.

 

[K.B.]

He was definatly my first choice for the role but then we got Chris Nolan.

Sometimes someone sounds like a better choice then they actually are.

 

[Keyser Soze]

Being young didn't bring anything to the role at all because he wasn't age appropriate. It's the same case with Holmes...they looked 22-25 and there is NO WAY that people that age get to perform the jobs they were supposed to be doing ie. lawyer/doctor. as they would still be in school.

Get someone who LOOKS like they could be doing that for example...put any of these actors in Scarecrows role..

Jeff Goldblum
Brad Dourif
Christopher Eccleston

And suddenly Crane becomes more believeable.

All predictable choices, all guys who've already played psychopaths before. It's too obvious. In Cillian Murphy, Nolan cast an actor who was talented, but not a guy anyone would have guessed could play Scarecrow. And as a result we got something fresh and different, rather than an actor retreading old ground and pulling out some tried-and-true "bad guy shtick" they've practised over half a dozen movies in the past.

And if you believe a billionaire can dress up as a bat to fight crime, you can believe a 29 year old could get a job as a psychologist in an Asylum.

And as for your Nolan-bashing, I can't think of a better director to do Batman. He made a disgraced franchise credible again, and gave us the best Batman movie yet. And as a director, he's yet to make a bad film (and finding directors with a 100% hit rate is harder than you'd think) so he's definitely a guy I'd trust with the Batman series.

 

[El Payaso]

He's Scarecrow the whole film, or at least right from the first time he says "Would you like to see my mask?"

Maybe. But he was nuts and all at the end.

But then again, what's with that? "Would you like to see my mask." What's the point to it? I mean, the actual point? The fear gas is going to screw Falcone's (or anyone's) mind mask or no mask. That's why Crane's mind got screwed even when Batman was wearing a different mask and Gothamites weren't wearing Screcrow masks to fright each other at the end.

I understand the mask at the end, when he lost it... but what was its actual point before...?

We could argue all day about his last scene, but since you don't seem to be willing to listen to anyone else's counter-arguments, I won't go there.

Not be willing to listen = Won't agree and will be able to refute points.

And Cillian Murphy's performance was far from flat. Like Mr. Socko said, the part itself was rather small, and a lesser performance could have made the character flat. But Cillian Murphy managed to steal every scene he was in,

Steal...? What scene did he really steal?

and bring a smarmy, reptilian energy to the role,

I know it sounds amazing and professional. But... is it actually a good thing? what if he looked like a reptile. May he did, but not in the best way. He missed the social resentment and ugliness from the comic character. Crane has never been a pretty face like Murphy, and surely the dragged syllables inform about creepiness but quite externally.

making Crane an unnerving character even before he dons the mask.

I was unnerved because he sounded and acted to effeminate to be the Scarecrow I know in comics.

So to flip your statement around, Cillian's portrayal was an interesting way to perform a potentially flat looney.

How is interesting doing a bunch of traditional informing well worn well known ways of the classical creepy guy? How is interesting to open your eyes too much or to drag the syllables? I mean, I think of Hannibal Lecter or real good psychos in movies and I can tell how so so Murphy's Crane was.

 

[K.B.]

How is interesting doing a bunch of traditional informing well worn well known ways of the classical creepy guy? How is interesting to open your eyes too much or to drag the syllables? I mean, I think of Hannibal Lecter or real good psychos in movies and I can tell how so so Murphy's Crane was.

I'm going to have to agree.

And as for your Nolan-bashing, I can't think of a better director to do Batman. He made a disgraced franchise credible again, and gave us the best Batman movie yet. And as a director, he's yet to make a bad film (and finding directors with a 100% hit rate is harder than you'd think) so he's definitely a guy I'd trust with the Batman series.

Yeah he made some good movies but not every movie he has made is gods gift to cinema. I can think of a TON of directors better suited to make a batman movie over Nolan especially after hearing his ideas on the franchise.But you'd probably think they were "All predictable choices". I think WB should have hired someone to punch him in the back of the head everytime he says words like "realisim", "too far fetched", or "unrealistic" and remind him he is making a movie based on a comic book.

 

[Keyser Soze]

Yeah he made some good movies but not every movie he has made is gods gift to cinema. I can think of a TON of directors better suited to make a batman movie over Nolan especially after hearing his ideas on the franchise.But you'd probably think they were "All predictable choices". I think WB should have hired someone to punch him in the back of the head everytime he says words like "realisim", "too far fetched", or "unrealistic" and remind him he is making a movie based on a comic book.

Maybe they should have got Schumacher to do it. Based on what you've been saying, you seem to wish he was still directing the films.

 

[K.B.]

^ LMFAO

ummmm okay....and where do you get this from ANYTHING I said?

So Schumacher and Nolan are the only 2 directors in the world?

 

[Keyser Soze]

Maybe. But he was nuts and all at the end.

But then again, what's with that? "Would you like to see my mask." What's the point to it? I mean, the actual point? The fear gas is going to screw Falcone's (or anyone's) mind mask or no mask. That's why Crane's mind got screwed even when Batman was wearing a different mask and Gothamites weren't wearing Screcrow masks to fright each other at the end.

I understand the mask at the end, when he lost it... but what was its actual point before...?

The point of the mask is actually made explicitly clear. First, after the "Would you like to see my mask?" you hate so much, Crane goes on to give a little monologue about how he uses the mask in his experiments. It's a "blank canvas", which people seem to project their fears onto. And more practically, you can clearly see there's a gas mask built inside of it, so he's not inhaling his own gas.

Not be willing to listen = Won't agree and will be able to refute points.

No, debate's one thing. But your argument's not progressing. I (and others) bend over backwards to offer a variety of perfectly logical explanations for why Rachel took out Scarecrow, and all you can say is "....but Rachel beat Scarecrow. Scarecrow looks weak" over and over, without actually taking into account the new points raised. If you stick to that, and refuse to be shifted from it no matter what arguments are introduced (even if its to explain WHY they are wrong other than saying "No no it should have happened THIS way!"), then yes, its a pointless avenue to pursue.

Steal...? What scene did he really steal?

His meeting with Falcone, him using fear gas on Falcone, "this is where we make the medicine...", the fight with Batman. Though that's subjective, I'm sure you can easily come back with "No he didn't."

I know it sounds amazing and professional. But... is it actually a good thing? what if he looked like a reptile. May he did, but not in the best way. He missed the social resentment and ugliness from the comic character. Crane has never been a pretty face like Murphy, and surely the dragged syllables inform about creepiness but quite externally.

Cillian Murphy may be a "pretty boy", but as Crane he managed to make himself ugly solely through performance, which is a pretty impressive feat. He does it through his reptilian gestures and yes, through his speech pattern. Also the fact that I don't believe he blinks once in the entire movie.

As for jetissoning the "social resentment", I personally could live without a backstory for Crane explaining how he was bullied and tormented as a child. Protracted villain origins didn't exactly do wonders for "Spider-Man 3". But elements of it are there, only introduced subtly. Note for example, Crane's distinct inability to maintain eye-contact with any females he talks to in the movie. Until, of course, he's wearing his mask...

I was unnerved because he sounded and acted to effeminate to be the Scarecrow I know in comics.

I don't see the character as particularly "effeminate". He did portray a sense of psysical frailty, which is appropriate for the character who values the power of the mind over the power of the body.

How is interesting doing a bunch of traditional informing well worn well known ways of the classical creepy guy? How is interesting to open your eyes too much or to drag the syllables? I mean, I think of Hannibal Lecter or real good psychos in movies and I can tell how so so Murphy's Crane was.

Well, as far as screen psychos go, Hannibal Lecter is all but unbeatable, so I won't even go there.

Though I don't see where your argument is going here. First, you complain that Crane doesn't become a psychopath until the end of the film, and then you complain that he's a stereotypical psychopath. But for now we'll play along with the idea that he's playing a psychopath for the get-go. Cillian Murphy sets himself apart from not only a typical psychopath, but in particular previous Batman villains, specifically by not going OTT. He's all about restraint, and veiled menace. Murphy doesn't seem to let loose and show some overt craziness until his "The Baaaaaaaaat...man!" moment.

 

[Keyser Soze]

^ LMFAO

ummmm okay....and where do you get this from ANYTHING I said?

So Schumacher and Nolan are the only 2 directors in the world?

Well you specifically said you'd take Arnold Schwarzenegger as Mr Freeze 3 times over than take Cillian Murphy as Scarecrow, which is specifically stating preference for a Schumacher element over a Nolan element. And your latest post suggests you want a Batman that's "unrealistic" and "far fetched", since you seem to hate Nolan for standing against these ideas.

 

[K.B.]

Well you specifically said you'd take Arnold Schwarzenegger as Mr Freeze 3 times over than take Cillian Murphy as Scarecrow, which is specifically stating preference for a Schumacher element over a Nolan element. And your latest post suggests you want a Batman that's "unrealistic" and "far fetched", since you seem to hate Nolan for standing against these ideas.

That just means Murphy (as well as the other so called villains) were so BAD I'd rather take the 3 Arnies. Hell at least we got some comedy gold from that.

Reality dosent come from "what would it REALLY be like if a man put on a batsuit and fought crime?" It comes from US BELIEVEING IN THE REALITY. A good example is the first Superman film or even Spider-man. Look at the comments Nolan has made..when he was first asked about Joker he said he wasn't going to use him because he wasn't "realistic" and then when it came to the penguin he said he was "too far fetched". WTF?!?

Okay yeah he is using joker now but thats probably from fan/studio wanting it. And I don't knwo about you but if you want ot get down to "realistic" a man with a facial deformity is far mor believeable than a man who survives being dropped into a vat of toxic chemicals.

 

[Keyser Soze]

That just means Murphy (as well as the other so called villains) were so BAD I'd rather take the 3 Arnies. Hell at least we got some comedy gold from that.

Reality dosent come from "what would it REALLY be like if a man put on a batsuit and fought crime?" It comes from US BELIEVEING IN THE REALITY. A good example is the first Superman film or even Spider-man. Look at the comments Nolan has made..when he was first asked about Joker he said he wasn't going to use him because he wasn't "realistic" and then when it came to the penguin he said he was "too far fetched". WTF?!?

Okay yeah he is using joker now but thats probably from fan/studio wanting it. And I don't knwo about you but if you want ot get down to "realistic" a man with a facial deformity is far mor believeable than a man who survives being dropped into a vat of toxic chemicals.

When did Nolan EVER say The Joker wasn't "realistic". I have never read or heard such a comment from Nolan, ever. He has always been pro-Joker, from what I've seen. And he said that The Penguin "wouldn't fit into the story he was trying to tell", not that he was too far fetched.

You seem to be obsessing over this "Nolan's realism" issue too much. For the most part, the realism is something the fans have talked about, more than Nolan himself.

 

[K.B.]

When did Nolan EVER say The Joker wasn't "realistic". I have never read or heard such a comment from Nolan, ever. He has always been pro-Joker, from what I've seen. And he said that The Penguin "wouldn't fit into the story he was trying to tell", not that he was too far fetched.

You seem to be obsessing over this "Nolan's realism" issue too much. For the most part, the realism is something the fans have talked about, more than Nolan himself.

In many interviews dirctly during and after BB. Goyer was always sayign how he thoguth it would be good to have two-face and joker and Nolan said that he didnt want to use "unrealistic chacaters" (which is words of genius from a guy who decides to make a movie based off a comic) and do you not remember when there was talk of penguin showing up? I never read once that he "didn't fit the story" but I did read hi msaying the character was to far fetched.

I'm not "obsessing" over the realisim thing yeah it somethign that bugs me wether he says it or anyone else. But his approach to it is just flat out ******ed.

 

[Keyser Soze]

In many interviews dirctly during and after BB. Goyer was always sayign how he thoguth it would be good to have two-face and joker and Nolan said that he didnt want to use "unrealistic chacaters" (which is words of genius from a guy who decides to make a movie based off a comic) and do you not remember when there was talk of penguin showing up? I never read once that he "didn't fit the story" but I did read hi msaying the character was to far fetched.

I'm not "obsessing" over the realisim thing yeah it somethign that bugs me wether he says it or anyone else. But his approach to it is just flat out ******ed.

Please, find me one of these articles where Nolan says The Joker is too unrealistic to use in film. I have been following the progress of "The Dark Knight" since "Begins"' release, and have never seen him say that.

At one point, he played coy, and said The Joker card was just a nod to the fans, and didn't necessarily mean The Joker would be in the sequel. Maybe you're getting mixed up with that.

 

[WithinPurgatory]

2 years later, I'm still upset that he got tasered in the face. Aside from that, I thought Cillian Murphy made a great Jonathan Crane, even though Crane isn't supposed to be a pretty boy.

 

[Skowl]

Scarecrow was always a favourite of mine, and I love how he was interpreted for the big screen! He is so simple (just a potatoe sack mask with creepy eyes and mouth), but he gets the point across, and Cillian Murphy is a great choice for Crane.

Of all the Comics-to-Movies interpretations of villains, I think Batman Begins Scarecrow is my personal favourite, if only for his simplicity and effectiveness. Love that mask, might make one of my very own next time I go shopping for potatoes...

 

[Mr. Socko]

Just recently watched the film again, and Scarecrow is much less than what I thought he was the last time I viewed the film(which was a while). Scarecrow is one of my favorite villains who has alot of potential. In this film, he was wasted entirely. The reason is because there was no real quality to the character, let alone quantity. He wears a normal suit and a potato sack for all but one scene he's in. He served no more than the role of a small pawn. He honestly wasn't very memorable, not a single bit. In his finale scene, when he's remotely looking like the Scarecrow, he's atop a horse, looking so badass and making you think something awesome is about to happen...then he's electrocuted and rides off screaming in a scene that lasted less than a minute.

But that's not to say he was all bad, because he wasn't. Murphy did a good job, I liked the way he delivered the lines, and he looked the part. Murphy could have been perfect had the Scarecrow had more to do. A good actor in a very underused role.

It's a shame he won't have a bigger part in TDK either. From the news we've heard, he'll be in even less of TDK than Begins. Shame what Scarecrow has become on film.