Tweet
the first half of this listed here for thos interested.http://megomuseum.com/community/showthread.php?t=14996
When I heard that there was going to be another Batman movie after 1997's disasterous Batman and Robin and that the Scarecrow and Ra's al Ghul would be featured as the villains, I was a little concerned. My head immediately filled with images of Dr Crane and the Demon's head standing side by side wringing their hands and cackling maniacally about how "You and I will team up to take down the Bat!" Little did I know what I was in for.
In the comics, creators Dennis O'Neil and Neal Adams had Ra's learn about Batman and test his abilities by arranging the abduction of Bruce Wayne's ward, Dick Grayson(the original Robin) and observing how Batman tracked him down. Ra's then decides to make Batman his heir. Batman Begins goes a step further, by having Ducard/Ra's seek out the young Bruce Wayne (before he becomes Batman) and train him to become the perfect warrior. Ducard/Ra's declares that Bruce has been his finest student, and although he never mentions making him his heir, that idea seems implicit. While Ra's motivation is slightly modified, he is still very much in character to what has been established in the Batman comics.
Jonathan Crane is somewhat remiscent of Hugo Strange in that he is presented as a doctor at Arkham Asylum who is experimenting on patients, much as Strange did in his second appearance and in 2005's Batman and the Monster Men. Unlike Strange however, Crane's experiments are still based on triggering fear and his primary motivation is greed, much as his comic book counterpart. Again staying true to the character.
In 2008's The Dark Knight, we are introduced to the Nolan-verse's Joker. Whereas Tim Burton's 1989 film devoted half of it's screen time to The Joker's origin(giving us an agent of chaos with structure and an agenda), Nolan gives us no background on The Joker. He is introduced as a fully formed character functioning along similar lines to Alan Moore's titular in V for Vendetta, becoming more of an idea than a person. In doing this, Nolan provides us with the perfect counterbalance to Bruce Wayne. While his Batman proceeds logically and in an orderly fashion, The Joker cuts a chaotic swath through Gotham like some deranged Mobius strip.
Then there is Harvey Dent. The man who in comic series has been dubbed "Apollo" by the press is presented as Gotham's savior, as the city needs "a hero with a face" to rally around. As Bruce's plan to inspire people goes awry, Harvey Dent emerges as not only Gotham's White Knight but Wayne's as well. Until The Joker enters into the picture. Clearly inspired by Alan Moore's The Killing Joke, The Joker puts Dent through hell to simply prove that all it takes is one bad day to reduce even the sanest man alive to lunacy. Madness, The Joker claims, is like gravity. All you need is a little push. I have always felt that Dent was by far the most tragic rogue in Batman's gallery and once again Nolan does not disappoint. While the exact circumstances differ, Dent remains in character to what has been established in the Batman comic mythos.
Which brings us to the man of the hour.
To paraphrase from the BBC radio play Knightfall, Batman is about control, order, discipline, planning. In short, logic. As exemplified by his detective skills, The Batman is all about logic. This is where I feel Christopher Nolan really has the character nailed. Previous installments have simply trotted the Caped Crusader out with little thought or fanfare giving us a logical character doing illogical things. If he is seeking justice why not become a police officer or an attorney? No one bothered to address this point because, in Tim Burton's own words "Batman's origin is kind of boring and stupid."(Notice Burton wouldn't even devote screen time to Bruce Wayne's childhood tragedy without inserting Jack/Joker into it) What are Batman's powers? He's a superhero, right? Would he be Batman if he didn't get to wear the rubber fetish suit and hang out with teenage boys in hot pants? And most importantly of all, where does he get those wonderful toys?
Nolan takes us all the way back to Bruce Wayne's childhood to illustrate why he chose the bat as his symbol of terror. Along the way he manages to demonstrate that helping those less fortunate seems to be in the Wayne DNA as well as establish a childhood sweetheart who later hammers the point home that Bruce is in a position to help people. From the first frame to the moment he ventures forth in costume, we see that there really are no other paths open to Bruce Wayne that allow him to "seek a means to fight injustice." And while there are no scenes with an eight year old Bruce swearing vengeance at his parents grave and no utterance of "I shall become a bat!" (both of which I'm afraid would have come off incredibly cheesey), the end result is the same. We are given a character arc to follow with the Dark Detective that no one had ever bothered with before. Which in my opinion is where the Burton/Schumacher films were sorely lacking. Yes, 89 had the Joker unleashing poisonous gas and Batman Returns had Penguin killing babies(W T F?) and Forever had...well, honestly I don't remember much about those last two. But in none of those films did any character have any sort of development or story arc. They simply trudge through the script lumbering towards the finale. With the exception of Michelle Pfieffer's Catwoman all of Burton/Schumacher's characters seemed as bored by the third act as the audience. No tension, no suspense, no character development. In short, over the progression of four films nothing actually happened. All I can say is at least by the fourth film Batman had stopped breaking his one rule and ceased murdering his villains.
Characterization in a film like this is of the utmost importance. The plot is simply, in Hitchokian terms, a McGuffin. We can be reasonably confidant that in a film with Batman in the title that Batman is not going to die. Same goes for the majority of the characters. It is all about how they respond to the situations they are in.
Nolan's films are not perfect. I'm still undecided on Bale's growl. It bugs me to see how much property damage occurs in Nolan's Gotham. Batman mowing over police cruisers in the tumbler, blowing up vehicles with his rockets, or blasting away with his .50 calibre machine guns(?) on the Batpod are out of character but I'm willing to acknowledge that these are in all likelihood demands from the parent company. "If we're soaking this much money into it, we wanna see some **** blow up!" But after viewing Nolan's two visits to Gotham, there is no comparison. The previous franchise seems so silly and frankly downright insulting as someone who has been a Batman fan for as long as I can remember.
I feel the Nolans, Bale, Caine, Oldman, Ledger, Eckhart, Neeson, Freeman, Murphy, Goyer ...the whole cast and crew deserve kudos for finally bringing these characters to life with the respect they deserve. And all without so much as one song from Prince.
When I heard that there was going to be another Batman movie after 1997's disasterous Batman and Robin and that the Scarecrow and Ra's al Ghul would be featured as the villains, I was a little concerned. My head immediately filled with images of Dr Crane and the Demon's head standing side by side wringing their hands and cackling maniacally about how "You and I will team up to take down the Bat!" Little did I know what I was in for.
In the comics, creators Dennis O'Neil and Neal Adams had Ra's learn about Batman and test his abilities by arranging the abduction of Bruce Wayne's ward, Dick Grayson(the original Robin) and observing how Batman tracked him down. Ra's then decides to make Batman his heir. Batman Begins goes a step further, by having Ducard/Ra's seek out the young Bruce Wayne (before he becomes Batman) and train him to become the perfect warrior. Ducard/Ra's declares that Bruce has been his finest student, and although he never mentions making him his heir, that idea seems implicit. While Ra's motivation is slightly modified, he is still very much in character to what has been established in the Batman comics.
Jonathan Crane is somewhat remiscent of Hugo Strange in that he is presented as a doctor at Arkham Asylum who is experimenting on patients, much as Strange did in his second appearance and in 2005's Batman and the Monster Men. Unlike Strange however, Crane's experiments are still based on triggering fear and his primary motivation is greed, much as his comic book counterpart. Again staying true to the character.
In 2008's The Dark Knight, we are introduced to the Nolan-verse's Joker. Whereas Tim Burton's 1989 film devoted half of it's screen time to The Joker's origin(giving us an agent of chaos with structure and an agenda), Nolan gives us no background on The Joker. He is introduced as a fully formed character functioning along similar lines to Alan Moore's titular in V for Vendetta, becoming more of an idea than a person. In doing this, Nolan provides us with the perfect counterbalance to Bruce Wayne. While his Batman proceeds logically and in an orderly fashion, The Joker cuts a chaotic swath through Gotham like some deranged Mobius strip.
Then there is Harvey Dent. The man who in comic series has been dubbed "Apollo" by the press is presented as Gotham's savior, as the city needs "a hero with a face" to rally around. As Bruce's plan to inspire people goes awry, Harvey Dent emerges as not only Gotham's White Knight but Wayne's as well. Until The Joker enters into the picture. Clearly inspired by Alan Moore's The Killing Joke, The Joker puts Dent through hell to simply prove that all it takes is one bad day to reduce even the sanest man alive to lunacy. Madness, The Joker claims, is like gravity. All you need is a little push. I have always felt that Dent was by far the most tragic rogue in Batman's gallery and once again Nolan does not disappoint. While the exact circumstances differ, Dent remains in character to what has been established in the Batman comic mythos.
Which brings us to the man of the hour.
To paraphrase from the BBC radio play Knightfall, Batman is about control, order, discipline, planning. In short, logic. As exemplified by his detective skills, The Batman is all about logic. This is where I feel Christopher Nolan really has the character nailed. Previous installments have simply trotted the Caped Crusader out with little thought or fanfare giving us a logical character doing illogical things. If he is seeking justice why not become a police officer or an attorney? No one bothered to address this point because, in Tim Burton's own words "Batman's origin is kind of boring and stupid."(Notice Burton wouldn't even devote screen time to Bruce Wayne's childhood tragedy without inserting Jack/Joker into it) What are Batman's powers? He's a superhero, right? Would he be Batman if he didn't get to wear the rubber fetish suit and hang out with teenage boys in hot pants? And most importantly of all, where does he get those wonderful toys?
Nolan takes us all the way back to Bruce Wayne's childhood to illustrate why he chose the bat as his symbol of terror. Along the way he manages to demonstrate that helping those less fortunate seems to be in the Wayne DNA as well as establish a childhood sweetheart who later hammers the point home that Bruce is in a position to help people. From the first frame to the moment he ventures forth in costume, we see that there really are no other paths open to Bruce Wayne that allow him to "seek a means to fight injustice." And while there are no scenes with an eight year old Bruce swearing vengeance at his parents grave and no utterance of "I shall become a bat!" (both of which I'm afraid would have come off incredibly cheesey), the end result is the same. We are given a character arc to follow with the Dark Detective that no one had ever bothered with before. Which in my opinion is where the Burton/Schumacher films were sorely lacking. Yes, 89 had the Joker unleashing poisonous gas and Batman Returns had Penguin killing babies(W T F?) and Forever had...well, honestly I don't remember much about those last two. But in none of those films did any character have any sort of development or story arc. They simply trudge through the script lumbering towards the finale. With the exception of Michelle Pfieffer's Catwoman all of Burton/Schumacher's characters seemed as bored by the third act as the audience. No tension, no suspense, no character development. In short, over the progression of four films nothing actually happened. All I can say is at least by the fourth film Batman had stopped breaking his one rule and ceased murdering his villains.
Characterization in a film like this is of the utmost importance. The plot is simply, in Hitchokian terms, a McGuffin. We can be reasonably confidant that in a film with Batman in the title that Batman is not going to die. Same goes for the majority of the characters. It is all about how they respond to the situations they are in.
Nolan's films are not perfect. I'm still undecided on Bale's growl. It bugs me to see how much property damage occurs in Nolan's Gotham. Batman mowing over police cruisers in the tumbler, blowing up vehicles with his rockets, or blasting away with his .50 calibre machine guns(?) on the Batpod are out of character but I'm willing to acknowledge that these are in all likelihood demands from the parent company. "If we're soaking this much money into it, we wanna see some **** blow up!" But after viewing Nolan's two visits to Gotham, there is no comparison. The previous franchise seems so silly and frankly downright insulting as someone who has been a Batman fan for as long as I can remember.
I feel the Nolans, Bale, Caine, Oldman, Ledger, Eckhart, Neeson, Freeman, Murphy, Goyer ...the whole cast and crew deserve kudos for finally bringing these characters to life with the respect they deserve. And all without so much as one song from Prince.
We finally have TWO worthy Batman Films...and I'm in Heaven!
Comment