Amph ITT...I'm Batman (Discussion)

Rogue, just get to the good part. And by good part, I of course mean the bad parts.

 

And also, I want to add - Skyfall had plot holes and issues. The villain's scheme relied on improbable timing, such as when he timed for a train to nearly drop on Bond. But I loved it to bits. Rises, well... why don't I feel the same way?

Besides my black little heart.

 

The word you're looking for is DEFUSE. DE-FUSE, get it? Might want to look up the definition of "diffuse" sometime when you're not too busy nursing your insulted intelligence.

If only we had learned in previous films that he had connections to all kinds of people in the international underworld, including smugglers. If only rich people tended to have assets stashed in various places or favors owed to them.

 

Yes issues like not only being able to kill a guy in ice cold water but also swim down even further, get his weapon, and escape!

 

And like never really explaining if that Jeff Goldblum guy's grievance against M was legitimate, or if he was just an unhinged guy who had spent most of his career in denial about what it meant to work for the black ops division of an intelligence service.

 

It wasn't Jeff Goldblum, it was Nicolas Cage.

 

When he took out his dentures he started making Jeff Goldblum noises. Case closed.

 

I agree with Rogue's earlier post about Bane being the clear standout of this film. Absolutely dead-on. Terrific performance, and in a better overall film, the role could have been the equal of Heath Ledger's Joker. I'm not sure I ready to rip the film to shreds like some have, however. It was a good film, decently entertaining and worth a rewatch. It's not TDK, however.

The main thing I think about in this movie, however, is that ridiculous shot near the end, of Batman, Catwoman, and Gordon looking straight at the camera, i.e. Talia's PoV of them looking at her. It's the most comical shot and when I saw it in the theater I was all the sudden fighting this horrendous urge to burst out laughing during a tense dramatic moment.

 

Congrats, you caught me making a typo when posting at work. You just won the internets. Can you please give me your address so I can send a stonking great pile of cash and a few enormous prostitutes over as your prize?

Boba - agreed. He was fine. Just had a dip, really. Not a plunge into heart-stoppingly cold water, gosh no.

It's not as bad as stopping his heart in Buy Another Day, but it's still a moment.

Coruscant - I don't know if Bane beats Joker, even though Bane was good. Joker was a fantastic performance from Ledger and a beautifully written role. I love the lines about being "destined to to this forever" - so perfect.

 

Let me start by saying that I agree with pretty much everything you said. RISES is a strange beast. It is a beautifully shot movie with plenty of outstanding performances. It's just such a shame it's all interwoven with a truly moronic story. I sincerely don't want to hate it but I can't fully embrace it by ignoring/dismissing such a monumental flaw.

Anyway, to address some of your points:

1) I have my own pet theory regarding the Voice, as in that it is enabled by a device in the cowl. This explains why he kept using it when revealing the super-sonar-cell-hacking-Big-Brother thingie to Fox in TDK when, you know, Fox knows who he is and he didn’t have to remain “in-character”. Same thing when speaking to Selina and to Blake when they already know who he is. It’s flimsy but it makes more sense than Bruce not being totally schizo by not wanting to step out of character when in full costume.

2) It’s been awhile since I took my finance courses and even then “short sales” was something I barely recall being discussed but I’ll take your word in that regard. Even then, the fact that that short sale happened on the same day the Gotham Stock Exchange was held hostage by armed terrorist should’ve made those in the know distrustful of the authenticity of those transactions. Bruce Wayne going broke in one instant is simply thoughtless scriptwriting.

3) The plot. Yes. There were so many ways in which Talia could’ve had her revenge on Bruce (even going as far as doing a Sharon Stone’s and sticking Bruce with an icepick mid or post coitus) than by hoisting such a convoluted plot that was undone by her own megalomaniacal reveal speech. You could almost say Bats (or rather, one of the screenwriters) was ridiculing the whole thing when he said “you twisted the knife too slowly”.

4) Talia’s death. Wow, how could Marion Cotillard mess that up? It’s so goofy looking to the point it draws an involuntary “ugh” out of me.

5) Why would Gordon write such an effectively career killing speech? Let alone keep it in his coat hours or even days after putting it there so that the villain can conveniently snatch it out of him?! If he couldn’t take the shame of the secret, then freaking quit. As for what you said, then yeah, denial, Denial and absolute DENIAL. Who is Gotham gonna believe, the masked terrorist holding the city hostage or their top hero cop?

6) Blake. Of all the people in Gotham it takes this hothead to figure Wayne’s secret just at a glance. You know, they could’ve inserted more intelligent exposition and even add some of the ways Tim Drake figured out Bruce’s secret way back when he was first introduced. I can almost buy Gordon “not wanting/caring to know” who Batman was since, yes, knowing would make his relationship with Bats – not to mention doing his work as a policeman – all the more difficult. But it would’ve been nice if when they said their goodbyes, he had told Bruce he knew all along, showing that he was THAT good of a policeman and detective as well. As for Bruce’s statement to Blake that the point of the Batman was that anyone could be Batman? Heh heh, no. Not ANYONE can be The G*ddamn Batman. You can have the motivation (Blake certainly had it) to fight injustice even going as far as dressing as a bat. But that doesn’t mean ANYONE has the SKILLS (both physical and mental which Bruce learned through MANY years of hard training under different masters, including Ra’s) and the MEANS (Bruce having the fortune to spend on all his wonderful toys and all). Bruce left Blake the cave and whatever was left in there, but that sure as hell doesn’t mean Robin there can effectively become a worthy inheritor of the cape and cowl.

7) I knew the old guy in the pit was familiar. Especially his voice. I can’t believe I forgot about Tom Conti. As for the broken back cured by a well-placed punch and weeks or months hanging on a rope, yeah…

8) How did Bruce get back to Gotham? The same way he a) somehow survived ejecting from the Bat over open water while b) not being nuked by the bomb with just seconds to spare while c) still bleeding like a stuck pig from the stab wound Talia inflicted just minutes earlier. You really don't want me to say it do you?

Rises. Neither the movie we needed nor the one we deserved, sadly.

 

I also want to love this movie, but its glaring flaws won't let me embrace it as a worthy successor to TDK

 

The cowl and voice comment isn't possible, he speaks normally at the end of The Dark Knight to Gordon and to Rachel in Batman Begins in the Narrows.

 

Really? It sounded like he was still doing the voice in both those cases.

 

I'll do you one better: why does he use it when he's revealing his identity to Gordon? What purpose does that serve?

He may be pulling a Rain Man.

Actually, the reference to short selling was an offhand comment by a stockbroker before Bane showed up, not a reference to what Bane was doing. Supposedly Wayne was somehow bankrupted through put options.

What I want to know is, how did they get those motorcycles in there?

 

A put option gives a buyer a right but not obligation to purchase a stock at a pre-determined price. The same thing "happened" to Le Chiffre in Casino Royale, except he had a call option which is for a sell.

The premium's tiny compared to the share value so you only would lose the cost of that.

 

Nope, definitely not the same voice in the latter. There's also the scene in the Batcave between Batman and Rachel where he doesn't use the same voice. I think with Begins it has more to do with how less developed the voice is, because it seems like he only uses the ARGHHHH in situations where he wants to intimidate someone or if there is some sort of conflict going on. In the case of these two scenes with Rachel, the voice he's using is still not quite Bruce Wayne's, but nor is it the "SWEAR TO ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" voice or the "YOU EITHER DIE A HERO OR YOU.... LIVE LONG ENOUGH..... TO SEE YOURSELF.... BECOME THE VILLAIN." growl either. They're considerably distinct, and it's a shame he didn't use that less excruciating voice in TDK and TDKR.

 

WHERRRE IS MY CHEESEBURGERRRRRRRRRRRR

WHERRRRE IS MY LARGE CHOCOLATE SHAKE ARRRRRRRRRRRRR

 

What's a shame is that he didn't decide to forego the entire stupid concept of his growling Batman voice for the whole film series.

 

Yeah he should have done the Pee-Wee Herman voice. Unintentionally menacing.

 

His 'So that's what that feels like' sounds exactly in the same voice as his 'I killed those people... that's what I can be'. Only his Begins voice is different, and likely because he hadn't developed it yet. But the point is when he's in the costume he rarely drops the voice even when he doesn't need it, he's staying in character.

 

Why?

I'll give you a hint; it was a stupid choice by the actor.

 

It is silly but why is it such a big deal?

 

It was an idea that was used in the Batman Animated Series, Kevin Conroy had a Bruce Wayne voice and a Batman voice. Bale used the same thing. And it's a smart idea. If Bruce Wayne used his regular voice everyone that both Bruce and Batman knew would immediately be able to tell Batman is just Bruce Wayne it a batsuit. Is the voice a little over the top at times? Yeah, but all in all I liked it and never had an issue with it.

 

This movie was AWESOME

 

You said exactly the same thing in the temporary thread! Your wish is my command. First major problem I want to deal with is Hathaway’s Catwoman. There was some angst on the internet about how exactly Nolan was going to explain Catwoman’s ears. Well, he knocked that one out of the park. Hathaway looked fine, but the problem is both in her performance and also in the way the character is written. She gives it a game try, so I’m not going to spend a lot of time attacking her for her performance; she’s an actress who is simply far more suited to comedy than drama – that’s not her fault and it’s not necessarily her fault that she got miscast here in a role that needed more nuance from the performer. She went after the role, of course, but she didn’t make the final call on getting the role, did she? Suffice it to say that the best moment of her performance is the massive eye roll that she lays on Joseph Gordon-Levitt when he tells her that he can offer her police protection from Bane. I did mention that she’s better at comedy, right? I’m not being mean; I mean it quite sincerely; she absolutely killed that moment when other actresses might have downplayed it. But we’ll just let that sink in; her best moment is an eyeroll of derision. There are layers of irony there miles deep.

But the main problem isn’t how she’s played, but how she’s written. I honestly don’t know if I can blame Nolan for this or not. Here’s what I mean. When Catwoman is introduced, she is introduced, quite rightly, as being very good at playing roles, being pretty sarcastic and emotionally distant from what she does and, I might add, as close to a lesbian as you can get in a PG-13 movie. Don’t tell me that was just her “roommate.” Seriously. I was born, but I wasn’t born yesterday.

So, it wasn’t entirely surprising to me to see her being played a little different than I had expected. I think the first thing I noticed was that there was no sexual spark between Batman and Catwoman. None. Not a discernable flicker. They meet as rivals first and then as reluctant psuedo-partners and then there’s a betrayal and blah blah blah. But there is not a single sexual tinge to any of this. They have some small chemistry, but it’s more of a camaraderie than any kind of sexual tension. This Catwoman? Might as well be a man.

I wasn’t entirely sure I liked this. I mean, the whole point of Catwoman in the Batman mythos, at least to me, is that she represents the feminine other to Bruce’s Batman. She is the only woman in the world who might be able to understand both Bruce and Batman. And, for this reason, Bruce is simultaneously attracted to her and terrified by her. She is alluring in her psychological profile and, not to put to fine a point on it, repulsive and dangerous in that same psychological profile. It’s the ol’ Bonnie and Clyde conundrum. In some ways, Bonnie and Clyde need to be together; they’re not going to find anyone who understands them any better. In other ways, they really need to not be together; they’re not going to find anyone who understands them any better. You see what I mean. For Bruce/Batman, there is nothing as attractive as someone who can actually understand his damaged psyche; there is also nothing as terrifying and dangerous. This is the dynamic that I find compelling. And of course this requires, just because it does, that Catwoman be, well, a woman. A tough woman; sometimes, even a straight out butch woman. But always a woman. Sex always has to be there, between them.

There is, in The Dark Knight Rises, not the slightest chance that Bruce and Selina would ever have sex. I mean, none. It’s laughable. They’re not in that place with each other. This turns out, as I let the movie unspool, to play better than I thought it would. It is, after all, Nolan doing something drastically different with the character and upending my expectations. I can respect that. I wanted a sexually charged relationship between the two of them, but Nolan decided to do it different. Fine. I can respect that and even enjoy it. I like this new Catwoman, kind of. It’s not a deal breaker. It’s interesting. She feels like Batman’s sister. That’s how she feels in their scenes together. And that’s a new dynamic and an interesting experiment. I’m goin’ with the movie on this.

And then, in the final act, we get the old Catwoman back. Suddenly, she is in love with Bruce. Suddenly, they are going to maybe get to go off together as boyfriend and girlfriend. Suddenly, we’re supposed to buy their romance. THIS WOMAN IS A LESBIAN! SHE IS A LESBIAN! I mean, come on! There is literally no groundwork laid for Bruce and Selina to be more than adversarial partners of necessity for the first three-fourths of this movie. And then suddenly Selina is weeping and begging Bruce to come away with her. Suddenly, she’s kissing him. Suddenly, they’re in Italy together as a couple. Suddenly, let’s call a spade a spade, the character is betrayed completely. Suddenly, we are faced with the specter of two distinct character types for Selina. She is Catwoman in a different way, a partner, unsexual, someone for whom Bruce has no sexual feelings, but only the relationship of a would-be comrade. And then she is suddenly Catwoman, weepy, romantic, sexually voracious, who wants Batman to be her boyfriend. Can I sue the studio over this? Because it gave me literal whiplash. In my neck. I have whiplash in my neck now. That’s how reckless and violent this character change is. It gave me literal whiplash. Literal. In my neck. Have I beat this joke into the ground yet?

The switch is so confoundingly weird that I almost hesitate to blame Nolan. Is it possible that his vision of the character was of the unsexual, platonic Catwoman, but that the studio refused to allow the film to end without the assumption that, total lack of sexual attraction be damned, Catwoman had to be Batman’s girlfriend? I think it’s very possible. Nolan handles some relationships very, very well. Sexual passion is not one of the emotions that he is particularly good at. I mean, name a romantic couple from one of his movies that was compelling because of their sexual passion. I can’t do it. The Bruce/Rachel romance is a step forward for him, frankly; prior to that, I don’t think he’d even really attempted what you might call a love story of any kind. But it’s not sexual desire that drives that relationship; it’s a definite idealism about what Rachel represents to Bruce. So, it seems very believable that Nolan could have decided to focus on a different aspect of the Catwoman character and the studio said, in essence, “No, she has to be sexual.” Could Catwoman have been interesting and compelling as the platonic Catwoman? Sure. As the sexual Catwoman? Sure. As both in one movie? Not a bit of it. No way. It’s laughable. It’s really, really stupid. It removes any sense that Selina Kyle is a real person. And, um, yeah, once more for the road, just because I really cannot get over how absolutely idiotic it is: SHE IS A LESBIAN.

Okay, enough about that. We’ve now established why one of the movie’s central relationships doesn’t make a lick of sense. Now maybe we should talk about the other one? Okay, when I come back with another post, let’s move on to the other female lead in this movie. Let’s talk about Miranda Tate and the one thing they could have done to improve the movie substantially with no difficulty at all. What do I mean by "no difficulty?" Well, let's say that this massive problem with the movie could have been fixed with one line. But no one said it. So we’ll talk about that next time.