• Super Maintenance

    Xenforo Cloud upgraded our forum to XenForo version 2.3.4. This update has created styling issues to our current templates.

    Starting January 9th, site maintenance is ongoing until further notice, but please report any other issues you may experience so we can look into.

    We apologize for the inconvenience.

Batman Begins The real Rah's Al Ghul?

Jeikobu

Civilian
Joined
Nov 4, 2010
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
Points
1
To some this may sound stupid, but I've just never been convinced of the answer to this: was Henri Ducard the real Rah's Al Ghul all along, or did Rah's, after being killed in Tibet, assume Ducard's body?

Honestly, I don't think I'll really be convinced unless I see a source with a quote from Nolan, one of the writers, etc., since this seems like such an unclear issue. Most seem to believe the Rah's in Tibet was just a decoy all along. Still, I'm pretty sure that in the credits at the end of the movie, Neeson is still listed just as Ducard, and Watanabe as Rah's.

The lines in the scene at Bruce's birthday party only confuse me further.
Bruce Wayne (to a fake Rah's): You're not Ra's Al Ghul. I watched him die.
Henri Ducard: But is Ra's Al Ghul immortal? Are his methods supernatural?
Bruce Wayne: ...Or cheap parlor tricks to conceal your true identity, "Rah's"?
Henri Ducard: Surely, a man who spends his nights scrambling over the rooftops of Gotham wouldn't begrudge me dual identities?
Bruce Wayne: I saved your life.
Henri Ducard: I warned you about compassion, Bruce.

"Immortal" and "supernatural" made me think maybe Rah's now lives on in Ducard. Batman counters this as we see, but is he comparing Ducard to the Rah's in Tibet, or the one he just saw at the party?

Henri Ducard
: Justice is balance. You burned my house and left me for dead. Consider us even.

This line really makes me wonder. In the previous part I cited, Ducard seems to acknowledge Batman rescued him, yet here he says he left him for dead, when he didn't (as we know, he left him in the care of one of the villagers. If he had "left him for dead", he wouldn't have rescued him).

So, do we even know for certain if Ducard was originally the real Rah's? We get some backstory on Ducard earlier in the film, and one could easily assume that Ducard, who was emotionally vulnerable and had submitted himself to Rah's leadership and organization, would be an ideal suitor should something happen to Rah's himself. Considering Rah's "supernatural" tendencies, it wouldn't seem unbelievable that Rah's would have prepared a way to keep himself alive in another body should something happen to his current one.
 
Ducard is Ra's. Ken Watanabe played his decoy, a decoy who's purpose was to protect the real Ra's from assassins.
 
Yes, the Tbet Ras was a decoy and the reason why Neeson is credited as Ducard is because Ras is just a personality that others assume from generation to generation to keep the name alive - a realistic take on the whole immortality thing. Ducard was the person who was Ras at the time and thats his real name
 
Ducard is Ra's. Ken Watanabe played his decoy, a decoy who's purpose was to protect the real Ra's from assassins.

They didn't count on someone throwing fire in the powder box and blowing the whole temple, real and fake ra's. :woot:
 
Ok, so I see more opinions, but where's the evidence? Again, I'd like to hear something from the director or writers, but at least please show your own personal evidence. I'm still not convinced.
 
Ok, so I see more opinions, but where's the evidence? Again, I'd like to hear something from the director or writers, but at least please show your own personal evidence. I'm still not convinced.
Interpretation.
 
Ok, so I see more opinions, but where's the evidence? Again, I'd like to hear something from the director or writers, but at least please show your own personal evidence. I'm still not convinced.

The evidence is that Goyer and Nolan mentioned realism about a million times by now, and passing souls or swapping spirits doesnt fall into the 'realism' category
 
Ok, so I see more opinions, but where's the evidence? Again, I'd like to hear something from the director or writers, but at least please show your own personal evidence. I'm still not convinced.

Where's your evidence? All I see is your interpretation of events. It's your theory, it's up to you to provide evidence to prove it, it's not up to others who disagree with your theory to provide evidence to disprove it.
 
Come on. It is even on the dialogue.

BRUCE: You're not Ra's al Ghul. I watched him die.

DUCARD: But is Ra's al Ghul immortal? Are his methods supernatural?

BRUCE: Or cheap parlor tricks to conceal your true identity, Ra's?

DUCARD: Surely a man who spends his nights scrambling over the rooftops of Gotham wouldn't begrudge me dual identities.

Ducard is Ra's. Period.
 
Even the script points it out

VOICE (O.S.)
But is Ra's Al Ghul immortal..?

Wayne TURNS. Standing there. Smiling. Ducard.

DUCARD
Are his methods supernatural..?

WAYNE
(understanding)
Or cheap parlor tricks to conceal
your trues identity.., Ra's?

Ducard (THE REAL RA'S AL GHUL) smiles acknowledgment.
 
The evidence is that Goyer and Nolan mentioned realism about a million times by now

No they didn't. The fan(boy)s interpreted their intent of a grounded art direction as all out "realism".
 
No they didn't.


Yes they did. A quick example out of my last blog post

Jonathan Nolan: The thing is that you want to view the world [Batman’s world] through a certain lens and our lens -- Chris’ lens -- and the mandate from him that were to work under is realism. (BOF 2008)
 
No they didn't. The fan(boy)s interpreted their intent of a grounded art direction as all out "realism".

Batman wearing armor and driving a tank is more than just art direction, Nuff. They went out of their way to make this world believable.
 
Batman wearing armor and driving a tank is more than just art direction, Nuff. They went out of their way to make this world believable.

The word Nolan used most was this:
ver·i·si·mil·i·tude

   /ˌvɛr
thinsp.png
ə
thinsp.png
sɪˈmɪl
thinsp.png
ɪˌtud, -ˌtyud/ Show Spelled[ver-uh-si-mil-i-tood, -tyood] Show IPA
–noun 1. the appearance or semblance of truth; likelihood; probability: The play lacked verisimilitude.

2. something, as an assertion, having merely the appearance of truth.





Nolan knows films are theatrical, but if they feel grounded in reality, than it makes those moments momentus. I love the approach, personally. He's not going for realism for realism's sake, though.
 
Batman wearing armor and driving a tank is more than just art direction, Nuff. They went out of their way to make this world believable.

Then again he did that in Burton's movies.

I think Nolan did more than that about realism/realistic tone/serious tone/believability.
 
To go back to the first post of this thread, you're right, this does sound stupid. If someone can't understand what was supposed to be done with the Ra's character then proof is not what is needed because understanding will never be had for that individual. Everyone knows that water is wet, but when someone asks for proof that it's wet after being immersed in an ocean of water there is no explanation that is going to really sell it for someone like that. Ra's is Ducard for the Begins movie, it's really that simple.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"