"A hero can be anyone, even a man doing something as simple and reassuring as putting a coat around a young boy's shoulders to let him know the world hasn't ended."
Rarely have these words echoed more soundly than after all the events of this past weekend. We remember those in Aurora who died, some protecting loved ones and even complete strangers. We denounce those who failed to bring a pedophile to justice. Batman's last words resonate in our own world at a time when heroes are both emerging and disappearing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I promised myself I would not mention the Penn State scandal because I am just as tired of hearing about it as the rest of you probably are. Regardless of where you stand on the issues (gun control, due process, NCAA sanctions, etc.), let us take a minute to remember the victims from both these tragic moments.
I was watching the movie Bobby yesterday, and this speech from Robert Kennedy played over the last eight minutes. I was moved by it because 1) RFK is one of my favorite politicians and 2) I think, like Batman's quote, it rings more true now than ever.
I rarely speak politics, but this may come up later when our discussion of The Dark Knight Rises (TDKR) turns toward brief commentary. [I say discussion because I hope you will comment (unlike on my last post), even if it's simply to add your outrage or agreement.]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let me just tell you where I stand on TDKR right off the bat.
That's right, TDKR gets my highest rating. See my last post for a reminder of my critique system. A 4-star movie can still be imperfect. I can count on one and a half hands the number of perfect films I know. And even if TDKR were on the cusp of being perfect, the very few garbled lines from Sean Conne... er, Bane will keep me from assigning it as such.
It really wasn't a problem for me, despite being half-deaf. I just need something to offer those who were not impressed by this motion picture. If this film isn't a master class on acting, then it should be one on screenwriting, cinematography, editing, and self-awareness.
I will not recall the plot (like one of my traditional reviews). Hopefully, if you're still reading, you've seen my spoiler warning, which serves another purpose in making sure I don't have to bother with the story. That could take another hour of my time given the film's 165-minute running time.
Alas, the acting will not have to be defended here. Unless you're Rex Reed, the film critic I am most at odds with both as a film critic and a filmgoer. Even from those who are disappointed with Christopher Nolan's finale to the Dark Knight trilogy, the acting receives almost universal praise.
So where do most people find fault with this movie? The screenplay. "The fault, dear moviegoer, is not in the screenplay, But in yourself, that you are misguided."
Lord knows how much that last paragraph will get me into trouble. "Pretentious," "arrogant," "off his rocker" they'll say. But I don't see how anyone who watches the film with their expectations put aside would find this screenplay anything less than pretty good. Expectations are only natural to have for a film like this and, furthermore, a filmmaker like Christopher Nolan. But I say that, indeed, Mr. Nolan gave us a product consistent with his story, vision, and previous films (including The Dark Knight, another 4-star film that is imperfect).
One criticism is the lack of a "compelling, complicated villain." While Heath Ledger's Joker is one of cinema's all-time great villains, another villain like him would become tiresome in this film. He represented chaos and anarchy in the last film. He was no match for Batman physically. His effectiveness came from his unpredictability, lack of cause, and mental prowess. And Batman "won." Yes, it took Batman pulling a Sydney Carton and eight years of reclusiveness, but the Joker lost.
So we've seen Batman take on an enemy like that (maybe a second one, if we count Ra's al Ghul and ignore his cause). What we haven't seen is an enemy that can cripple Batman physically. We get that in Bane. He represents the ultimate evil in my mind: evil with a cause. Or so we think. Is it just out of "love" for Miranda Tate/Talia al Ghul--whatever that means for him? Or has he brought into The Process... er, League of Shadows? Whatever it is, he's compelled by something bigger than himself. And that makes for the best of villains.
Another criticism of the writing was that the Nolan's introduced too many new characters and resorted to convention, using flashbacks and what-not. The Nolan's use of flashbacks is both reserved and consistent with Batman Begins. The Dark Knight saw an absence of this technique but that film had the advantage of dealing with a particular, brief, and fairly linear time in the life of Bruce Wayne/Batman. What BB and TDKR were up against was that their stories covered many different times from the perspective of numerous characters. And flashbacks can be very rewarding for viewers who pay attention or remember key scenes from the previous two films. They offer a less boring way to advance or paint our characters (of the utmost importance for my sense of story) while offering emotional payoff to viewers. (Can we all agree that whoever said "you don't have to see the first two"--this includes Mr. Nolan--sort of missed the mark?)
As for too many new characters, I can only offer the following: since this story is about BW/Batman, this allows us to get a glimpse into his perspective. If he's been Howard Hughes-ing for 8 years, what better way for the audience to understand this by having us play catchup along with him. Also, it's only natural for new players to come into our lives. Where were you 8 years ago? Who were you with? I know for us younger generation, we're in the midst of great change (graduating from all sorts of levels of schooling, trying to enter the workplace, starting new families, etc.). So maybe some of you are past all that. Or maybe some of you lead remarkably consistent lives. Regardless, it happened from BB to TDK, and it happened from TDK to TDKR. So, even if conventional screenwriting tells us to combine characters when necessary or to avoid flashbacks when possible, I hardly count these examples in TDKR as not having good reason for breaking these rules.
(On a side note: in my screenwriting class, I was taught to avoid expository dialogue. While this is a very good rule and the Nolan's violated it a few times in the movie, they sure know how to do it better than most.)
As for character's being inconsistent or their motivations shifting on a dime, that's really not something I can defend with 100% conviction, as it will depend upon each viewer. In one of the few expectations/predictions I make for movies (and, more rarely, one that proved correct), I had a feeling Catwoman would realize the Bane/Talia plot was too evil, violent, and wrong. The movie IMO gave us enough glimpses to see just why Selina Kyle had her turnaround. And if you didn't buy these reasons, how about the fact that she just wanted to help a guy she had a thing for, the same guy whose life she had completely ruined? Again, the whole issue with character motivations and driving action is usually a contentious point, one that is usually a matter of opinion.
How about the ending (aka, the last hour)? If you felt it was predictable, I was taught one of the signs of good screenwriting is that the story usually has an ending that feels both unlikely and inevitable. Again, just a matter of personal preference really. If you felt things just happened too conveniently, I say that the script did an excellent job of setup/payoff. We see details, hear dialogue, etc. that presents the information early on and comes about naturally. [Like the autopilot thing; it's not like they just said at the end, "Oh, hey, I discovered an autopilot feature you didn't tell me about." We aren't so dumb to have to be shown everything. We saw various other scenes where Bruce Wayne/Batman was making preparations or setting up schemes, so it doesn't require a wild leap of logic to assume that the autopilot was fixed. And (I can't remember) if he did in fact lie about its functionality at the end, wouldn't it make sense for his grand scheme?] If you felt that the social themes in the movie were lame--the good rich people open orphanages and all is right--, then I'd say that Nolan has gone on record (sorry I don't have a link for this claim) as saying while real-life social parallels may be present, they weren't intentional. That may come across as a copout, but if true, then Bruce Wayne's legacy more than comes full circle. It carries on the vision his parents had for Gotham. It makes him a powerful symbol like the Batman. For Nolan, the lynchpin of the trilogy comes early in BB. (Read the link for an explanation.)
If we accept or recognize that scene's importance, then the ending is spot on. Like Inception, the ambiguity at the end doesn't matter. In Inception it really doesn't matter if the top keeps spinning. The point is, Cobb doesn't care. He has let go. (You see, Leo gets his chance to pull a Rose from Titanic.) He is finally with his children, the thing he's wanted the most. It's real enough for him. Same with Batman. Batman becomes an incorruptible symbol. Not just someone to impersonate (hence why they included the scene of the copycat Batmans in TDK). If someone carries on the symbol, that's fine. If John Blake decides to become Robin, Nightwing, etc., that's fine, too. But Bruce Wayne realizes what is important is for people see that true heroes are willing to do whatever it takes in the face of evil or for the love of an ideal or for whatever saccharine message you took away from the movie.
Those are the main criticisms I've read. I beg of you to please give me some feedback. Were these responses reasonable? Terrible? Any other points about the screenplay I didn't mention?
I focused on the screenplay because I have seen almost no criticisms about acting, technical aspects, etc. Wally Pfister and Hans Zimmer were both at the top of their games. The same could be said for Lee Smith (editing), keeping me engaged and coherent for all 165 minutes. One note: Wally Pfister will probably be absent from future Christopher Nolan ventures. This is important because of Christopher Nolan's distinct visual style in his films.
Let us consider for a moment Nolan's place in the history of cinema. I said after Inception he was our generation's Alfred Hitchcock. After TDKR, I am preaching it. By this, I mean he has his distinct visual style, storytelling methods, filmmaking techniques, familiar casts, and story types. Most of his films are big on deception, both with regard to characters and the audience. Sound like Hitchcock? People like Martin Scorsese, Steven Spielberg, Clint Eastwood, Woody Allen, and Ridley Scott are all great auteurs, but most of their films (especially their greatest ones, except Eastwood) have come before my generation was born. Tim Burton is really hit or miss for me. David Fincher has to live with Alien 3 and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, otherwise his resume is right up there. Quentin Tarantino may be the epitome of present-day auteur and the best dialogue writer of them all, but his films are also hit or miss for many folks. I can't really think of anyone else, so in addition to being my generation's Hitchcock, he is currently our generation's best filmmaker.
Does that make The Dark Knight trilogy the best of our generation? What about all-time? It's hard to compare genres, so this is tough. Let's start with the original Star Wars trilogy. For my money, The Dark Knight trilogy easily bests this. The Empire Strikes Back is not the same movie for me that it is for most people. Talk about a movie that suffers from pacing and expositional dialogue. Those Dagobah scenes are the cure for insomnia. The parallel action scenes/ending in Return of the Jedi is one of my all-time favorite movie moments and an obvious influence for Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy. And while Star Wars is better than BB, the weaknesses of the second installment do that series in. What about The Godfather trilogy? In one of the few tired, borrowed lines I'll offer in this post, Part III really is that detrimental to the trilogy as a whole. Here's a case where too many new characters becomes cumbersome. They are to be expected given the time jump from Part II to Part III, though. But they are cumbersome in that we just don't care. So much is at stake for the Corleone family in Parts I & II; not so much for Part III.
What about the LOTR trilogy? Fans of the books are divisive about its merits. That doesn't really concern me here. It's a important debate, about how books and movie adaptations should function together, if at all. (Plus, what are we to do with the Extended Editions?) What does concern me is this: the high points in the LOTR trilogy are at times better than the highs for the Dark Knight trilogy, but the low points for the Dark Knight trilogy are for the most part better than the lows for LOTR. Admittedly, both trilogies offer very few lows. But since the number of better highs for LOTR don't outnumber the highs in the Dark Knight trilogy by a great number, the standard then becomes which trilogy is better at its worst. And for me, I can tolerate the Dark Knight trilogy lows more than those in LOTR. Maybe it's because the story lows are steeped in a more relatable way. Since story is so important, that's infinitely more weighted than the inconsistency in Gotham from BB to the latter two Dark Knight movies. And I can't really hold the Rachel Dawes casting discrepancy against the trilogy, since it was in fact an upgrade in acting. Maggie Gyllenhaal may sound more whiny, but at least she doesn't sound like she's just reciting lines. So, for me right now, the Dark Knight trilogy is my favorite film trilogy.
A few other thoughts:
*The Stock Exchange scene took on a whole other dimension after hearing about the Aurora shooting. While the incident admittedly never entered my mind after arriving at the theatre, it's chilling and devastating fallout was ever present during that scene.
As a matter of fact, Lisa Schwarzbaum had a very interesting article about how on-screen violence is becoming very disturbing for her. I can't say I agree 100%, because like Christopher Nolan said, the movies theatre is a place I love to go, simply for the fact that we are removed, even if only for 80 or 180 minutes, from the world that surrounds us, transported to worlds as far away as other universes and galaxies or as near as our imagination. I tend to remove myself from real life when I watch a film like this (the moment above aside). But movies are great because they offer insight into the human condition. From the depths of despair and evil to the peaks of greatness and heroism, they do in fact require some part of engagement (visceral and intellectual) from us. While she brings up some good points but without going into further detail, I do ultimately think it's a knee-jerk reaction. What do you think?
*Maybe the ending to TDKR wasn't so original... Exhibit A.
*Sally Ride passed away yesterday. A very important figure for the space program. I've always been a fan of NASA and space exploration. So, I wanted to give a quick remembrance to one of the premiere figures for space programs. Like the ones that give us this. Or this.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's it.
In an attempt to get this all published today, I may have left out some key points or topics. (Although, unlike my last post, I wrote down about a page and a half of notes to reference while typing this.) That's inevitable with a post like this.
I thank you for taking the time to read all this. I gave it my all, even if that meant some of the pseudo-political stuff at the beginning, so thank you for bearing with me. I believe every link posted is important to my post/our discussion; please give them a view.
Whether we are in complete agreement or whether I have offended you to the core or whether we simply disagree, please let me hear from you. I feel strongly about this movie, but I am not out to change minds or convince people they are wrong. That's not what I am about. I just enjoy a good old fashioned movie dialogue.
P.S. Tell your friends and invite them to join the conversation.
P.P.S. I don't think I ever explicitly came out with it, so let me set the record straight: The Dark Knight Rises > The Dark Knight > Batman Begins for me, although I can't say right now how large the gap is between TDKR and TDK.
