Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore (1974)

When I watched this film--Scorsese's fourth I believe--I was under the influence of some amount of coffee and gin (albeit, not simultaneously).. However! I feel competent enough now to proceed, so here we go: Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore, despite some admirable film mechanics, suffers from tonal inconsistencies that need to be examined. For example, the film's feminist appeal--Ellen Burstyn's attitude, seeming independence, and frank way of talking in her portrayal of the titular character--are offset by her character's continuation to be enamored by, and dependent on men; men that are disturbed, who she cowers from, and makes excuses for. She does have period of clarity regarding these motions, but always seems to fall back into similar predicaments and in the end, a tempestuous child-beater is rewarded. Furthermore, the opening sequence (possibly an homage that contrasts the 'traditional ideal' of womanhood against the monolithic presence of Burstyn's Alice) feels strange, out of place. Mechanically, and because this is a Scorsese film though it is lacking his regular motifs of self-condemnation and renewal through violence, there are exciting things happening on screen. Scorsese has peopled his 'road-trip-film' whereby after the death of her husband, the protagonist takes her son on a journey across the Southwest United States, with regular looking people who seem harvested from the very landscape where this story is being told. Also there are interesting rapid-editing moments that are fascinating. One of these, after the death of Alice's husband--where the scene of her grief is cut to maybe a few seconds later--reminded me of an editing technique that Lars Von Trier is notorious for. In fact, the camera movement throughout this film is exciting. It reminded me of a technique that is under-used in modern cinema and reminded me in some moments of Antonioni's Blow Up (1966), an exercise in tremendous camera work. Alice lacks the overall machismo of Scorsese's preceding and following films and also places an emphasis on the stark and chaotic back-drop of the New Mexico and Arizona wilderness surrounding small towns and places of human drama and rejuvenation. The scenes of dialogue with Alice and her son are the most appealing segments, as is a scene in a windy pasture between Burstyn and Kristofferson where they share an emotional moment. Unfortunately, much of this doesn't pierce the film's more problematic fabric. Burtyn's performance, and her role is supposed to carry this movie, is subtle at times but noticeably over-the-top during others. This plays to the inconsistency I mentioned earlier. It should be noted that Burstyn was nominated for her performance in this film (though she's done better work, namely 2000's Requiem for a Dream) and she did have a hand in choosing Scorsese to direct this movie but each end up playing off of the other's faults--actress and filmmaker--to create something that is compelling, but is also under-developed though it should be given credit for its place in socially conscious movie making. 

ACTING             ***

CAMERA            ****

EDITING             ***

WRITING            ***

PRODUCTION   **

15/25 (Average)
******************************************************************************

Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore (1974) Rating 8.2 out of 10

I found Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore to be the most difficult of the films so far to put a grade on. Despite some great scenes, great performances and good camera work it feels somehow inconsistent overall.
The movie’s opening scene of Alice as a child seems to be placed there for humors sake alone setting a tone that it has to work at to recover from. The film is full of subtle whit but unfortunately this opening scene as well as many others rides a bit too close to slapstick.
It would have been far more beneficial, in my opinion, for the film to start with a scene of Alice singing in her early twenties before she was married, showing the viewer the real Alice.
As natural and improvised as some of the scenes are, there are others that seem forced, specifically some of the more emotional moments that seem abrupt and over the top.
Despite these problems there is so much to like. The dialogue, camera work and Scorsese’s direction alone is enough to make it a classic but what makes it exceptionally memorable is the great performances by the cast and how well they play off of each other. Alice (Ellen Burstyn) and Tommy’s (Alfred Lutter’s) interaction with one another is fantastic. Often times at each others throats, other times so caring. In the same way there is so much depth to their characters. Tommy is often young and innocent and other times obnoxious and overbearing, just as I know I and every other boy was at his age, no matter how much we wish to forget it. Alice is often times strong and independent other times scared and vulnerable, as I’m sure many mothers are.  
Roger Ebert wrote about the film, “The movie has been both attacked and defended on feminist grounds, but I think it belongs somewhere outside ideology, maybe in the area of contemporary myth and romance.” I totally agree with this, of course we could praise the film for showing us a strong female character that is able to overcome the loss of her husband without missing a step. Or we could discredit it as being sexist showing us a woman that seems to need a man in her life to complete her. But I don’t think either of these things are the case. If art imitates life then I don’t think everything shown to us in art has to have a political or social agenda. I find the film to be an honest portrait of life for many women, especially for the generation that it was made in, that dare to dream and dare to try and find happiness even despite mistakes they might make along the way.
-Scott-

******************************************************************************
Something I had neglected to consider--that was pointed out to me later and made sense--was that Alice's personality is pretty symptomatic of a certain kind of oppressed character: solid and strong one moment, weak the next. This is not so much a sign of inconsistency in the film's character development as I had perhaps thought before.
******************************************************************************

Mick's Opinion

I did not enjoy the film much, but I think I understand the significance of the story at the time when it came out. The film follows the relationship between Alice and her boy Tommy traveling towards Monterey, Ca after her deadbeat, shit-bag husband dies in a car accident (they show him hunched over the steering wheel of his wrecked Coca-Cola truck perhaps a symbolic suggestions that Coca-Cola will kill you…). The only job she ever had was as a singer, then she got married and had no need to work. So she struggles forward stuck between trying to be some-what independent and falling into the arms of some random man, which always turns out to be a dead beat. The film shows Alice being a strong female character, which feminists are suppose to identify with, but at the same time betrays that message by her constant need to be in a relationship. Perhaps, more can be pulled from the film to argue for a more feminist message. The film made me think of the tv show MADMen, which has an obviously sexist protagonist, but to hark on this point would be to miss the point that the show, like the film-Alice, shows what it was like and, in that, it can act as a social critique.

Given the time period this film is significant, but, that notwithstanding, I could not get into this film. I didn’t find the plot interesting till about the second hour and I didn’t start to care about the characters until ¾ of the movie was complete. I enjoyed the corky relationship between Alice and Tommy, but these characters were not developed enough to make them more than 2D stereotypes. However, I thought the Alfred Lutter-Tommy-did an excellent job acting.

I really liked the opening scene; the red effect was awesome because it created this dark old-time feeling, which I think captured what they were going for. However, with the exception of the scene where Alice tries out for a gig the first time (the camera focuses on Alice while panning around the room 360), I was not particular impressed with the filming.

I give it a 5 out of ten because there was nothing in particular that really made this film stand out.

5/10

*********************************************************************************

Wow Mick that is a pretty rough review. Reading what you wrote I can hardly believe that what you are talking about is a classic film directed by one of the greatest film directors of all time, that won the BAFTA Award for Best Film and that’s lead actress, Ellen Burstyn won the Academy Award for Best Actress.

It seems our taste in film is quite different. The one scene you mentioned liking - the opening of her as a child - was in my opinion the worst scene in the film, and what I praised the film for - the dialogue and character depth - you called "2D stereotypes." Perhaps we watched different films? Maybe you accidently rented Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland by mistake? 

Ellen Burstyn, as Alice, shows us the life of a bored house wife, who sometimes despises her husband, yet other times longs for his admiration. A mother who is sometimes at the end of her rope with her son, and yet other times cares so deeply. A widow who sometimes fears the worst, but other times is full of excitement for the possibility of a new life. She shows us happiness, sadness, love, hatred, anxiety, and fear. This is in your opinion two dimensional? 

You said in your review "she struggles forward stuck between trying to be some-what independent and falling into the arms of some random man, which always turns out to be a dead beat." One of those men (there were only two) was David (played by Kris Kristofferson), a man who owns his own ranch with cattle, chickens, and horses, teaches guitar lessons, and falls in love with Alice and tries to be a father figure to Tommy despite conflicting personalities, perhaps because he has missed out on his own children’s lives. To sum up this character as "a dead beat," is as preposterous as when Mike called the character in his review, "disturbed," and a "child-beater." Why? Because he open-hand slapped a child on the butt once, after that child screamed at him and hit him in the face. Let us not forget that this film was made in 1974, you know what parents disciplined their children by slapping them on the butt in 1974... all of them. When I was in first grade, in a public school, the principle had a paddle in his office, this was 1989-1990. This isn't an argument about child abuse, this is an argument of you two reading into something that there is nothing to read in to. I simply don't think Scorsese intends for the audience to walk away from the film thinking that Alice fell in love with a dead-beat, child-abuser. 

I was thinking about the ending of the film the other day, where Alice and Tommy are walking and discussing staying in Tucson, and I thought this was a perfect ending for the film. Alice, Tommy and David make amends with one another making it a happy ending, but it’s by no means a fairytale ending. They never do make it to Monterey, Alice never does become a singer. It’s a happy ending, but a realistic one, in life we dream, and we make plans, but so often we don't follow through with our plans, yet we are happy despite it.  

-Scott-

**************************************************************************************************************
I stick by my review - my overall rating reflects the film's inconstencies. It's a decent movie, but I do not find it entirely cohesive and that is why I do not feel that it is a good or great movie. Good movies have flaws, I understand this (as follows with my review of Rashomon) but some films are more 'rounded' than others. I also debated my labeling of Kristofferson's character based on the time period.. This is something that I have thought about more since seeing the movie and was probably too harsh but I still find him, at the very least, tempestuous. His character does seem to turn on a dime, and with someone who can change emotions so dramatically from one moment to the next, it's no wonder that Alice rejects him for quite a long time after she witnesses his treatment of her son.

I didn't find the characters two dimensional.
************************************************************************************************************

Mick

My ‘2-d’ comment might be too harsh, but I still think the characters lacked depth. You suggest that because Alice displayed all of those emotions that she has depth, but I don’t see it. Lets look at what you say: (she is) a bored house wife, who sometimes despises her husband, yet other times longs for his admiration”-this is true, but this is also a generic description. What about Alice in particular makes this sort of stereotype come to life? Perhaps it is in your next claim: “(she is a) mother who is sometimes at the end of her rope with her son, and yet other times cares so deeply”-well, sometimes my mom was frustrated with me, yet at other times, she was not. I think there needs to be more than just a display of a wide range of emotions to break out of a typical character and I don’t think it happens here.

My comment about her struggling forward towards independence and being co-dependent on a man I think is justified even if in the film we only saw two dead beats and then the guy she ends up with because what I’m trying to draw out is that this sort of behavior is indicative of a group of people that she represents. The end result does not seem to challenge her behavior in the beginning in the film so she is simply returning to where she began. This is where I think a more radical critique of women/men relationships is necessary.

Although I really enjoyed the intro scene with Alice as a girl, I also agree that it is out of place and doesn’t contribute much to the overall film.

My review was rough, but I honestly was not impressed with the film. I found it to be really boring; it took me three tries to watch the film all the way through. Perhaps, this film is just over rated in general…but I do agree that the ending was pretty good.

xoxoxoxxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo
 

We are going to have to agree to disagree on this one, I understand that this film doesn’t have a lot of wow factor, it’s not fast passed, nor are the characters always likable.

What I have a hard time accepting is that both of you rated it as the worst film we have watched thus far. I stand by the opinion that Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore was more original, and did more for film in 1974 than Pariah did in 2011, or the Dark Knight Rises did in 2012.

I agree Mike that it is inconsistent, but let me be clear, by that I mean that some scenes are exceptional and others are a bit forced and over the top. By no means do I think the script or characters are inconsistent. The characters may make mistakes, or bad decisions, but people often do, this makes them more human, more real, more dimensional, by no means should this be considered a film weakness, it’s a success because it shows people as they are, with flaw, with weakness.  

The scene of Alice and David in the kitchen of his house where she is telling stories of her and her brother is amazing, one of the most natural and realistic scenes I can recall in film. The bar scene where she starts to cry and the bar owner keeps repeating, “I don’t even have a piano,” you can see the struggle that he is having with his conscience, trying to talk himself out of doing the “right thing.” Other scenes aren’t as natural, like the opening scene of her as a girl. Or the scenes of her interacting with her husband, these are the only inconsistencies I see, that some scenes aren’t as perfect.

Mike more than anyone knows that realistic characters and dialogue is what I love in film, he also knows that I love “dramedies” (or dramatic comedies) so I don’t think he is surprised to see that I enjoyed this film more than you two. I was not bored at all, and I watched it twice, and have to admit that I felt better about it the second time.

Now let’s talk about what is really important, like whether anyone else thought Jodie Foster was a boy at first and laughed when she said her name was Audrey. And whether anyone else thought that Tommy looked like Mick when Mick was that age.

-Scott-

******************************************************************************************************************************

I disagree with some of this. I don't believe that the filmmakers have done a great job making the character inconsistencies natural or believable. This is why I docked the writing. They haven't sold me on this. But this isn't just it. I found the direction to be inconsistent (sometimes there are glimpses of Scorsese's mastery, but there are other scenes that, for me, look haphazardly shot or like the director was  bored and just trying to do something neat and whimsical with his gear [I get the impression of an over-caffinated, coked-up Scorsese here and based on what I read about him during the seventies, this might not be too far off the mark]). Like Mean Streets (1973) before it, Scorsese hasn't yet mastered his craft and I feel that, again, Alice is compelling but also a juvenile effort. I found the acting to be inconsistent too, but I already went into this in my original review.

Against all of this, you'll notice how much I did admire about this movie. This film showcases impressive talents 'on their way up,' and there are mechanics and scenes that have great potency and I will remember for a while. I would not compare Alice against the Dark Knight Rises; I feel that is unfair - they are in a different genre and these films are working to achieve different things. But even put this way, I stand by what I've said. If I was on a five star rating system--which, when boiled down, I kind of am--this movie would have been awarded three stars from me and Pariah and the Dark Knight Rises would have been awarded four. As my system stands, I was only one star off of awarding this film in the same category as the other two. I'm beginning to question its originality too against a film like Pariah and the effects of Pariah have yet to be seen on the medium, though its undercurrent has been sizeable considering (in some ways, Pariah has a more authentic, personal, and rebellious vibe than Alice). It was a close call for me, and Scott - I can see why you feel so strongly about it. I might note that the gin I drank while watching this did not cheapen my perception and forthcoming critique!

I also thought that Jodie looked like some wily Missouri river-born chap.

************************************************************************************************************

Mick

Oh, that scene with Alice and the bar owner (“I don’t even have a piano”) was really good!

Like I said, I really wasn’t into this movie, but you have to understand that my rating is more heavily influenced by the plot, and message more than anything else. So, I enjoyed Piriah and The Dark Knight Rises more because of their plots. I haven’t mastered the art of noticing editing, and direceting an all those other things you two have pointed out. I hope to get closer to that as our reviews continue. Also, I’m still working out my rating system.

********************************************************************

The Dark Knight Rises (2012)

MIKE -

As the title suggests, the very fibrous and thematic anatomy of Christopher Nolan’s third and final installment in his Batman trilogy is one of resurrection and restoration. The film begins with a Bruce Wayne who is physically and ideologically divorced from his alter-ego; a derelict ghost who is confined to his manor in a state of self-exile following the deaths of his childhood love and the moral figurehead of whom he placed his and Gotham’s hope. Wayne (played again with a sad resignation by Christian Bale) will endure a painful cycle of rejuvenation as the film progresses losing nearly everything he holds most dear to him—he loses Alfred (a bold move on the filmmakers’ part; this cinematic bond had been unbreakable in previous adaptations), his city is gutted and pillaged, he is betrayed—with a few exceptions—by those he trusts, and he is physically bested in combat by the savage, atavistic Bane. Yes, the Dark Knight rises, but at the excruciating toll of many small deaths, however metaphorical or ambiguous. At two hours and forty-four minutes, the Dark Knight Rises has been called bloated by some and while it doesn’t register the same pulse that its predecessor did (I found the Dark Knight to be tonally similar to Heat [1995] or the Departed [2006]), it still gets many things right. The chemistry between Anne Hathaway’s Selina Kyle and Bale’s Wayne is delightful to watch—indeed, Kyle’s seemingly amoral perspective and her elusive nature are what make her such an interesting and intense character to watch. Likewise, following Heath Ledger’s performance as the Joker might superficially appear to be a thankless job, but Tom Hardy (an actor whom, like Ledger, tends towards diverse, performance driven roles) makes a genuinely cruel and terrifying monster very articulate and genuinely unnerving. This is a character that has such a proximity with death that he treats the act of taking a life as something ritual: a thing to be savored without maniacal enjoyment—Bane, for me, represents the inevitability of death, he needs to feel life passing, to squeeze it, to let it pass through his fingers. This approach can come only from a being who has lived a violent and dispossessed life and we are shown a fragment of Bane before he adorns his mask and we are shown just how close to death absolute this man has come. All of the old cast continues to perform terrifically and Nolan has carried-over some of the cast from Inception into the Dark Knight Rises, all of whom deliver what is needed from them admirably: Marion Coutillard (an Academy Award winner whose performance in La Vie en Rose [2007] is sublime), and Joseph Gordon Levitt join Hardy and series staple Caine (who also has some ‘series highs’). The editing and cinematography in the Dark Knight Rises continue in the palette of Nolan’s previous films: random scenes flash back to recall small, emotional moments and the camerawork permeates with darkness and foreboding. In the last hour and a half Nolan also centers his set-pieces on New York City (along with the appearance of snow in these scenes, I can’t help but feel that this is a nod to Burton’s Batman films), moving away from Pittsburgh—where many of the earlier sequences of the film were shot—and Chicago which doubled as Gotham for the first two films. For better or worse, Nolan has made the transition from indie-drama director to action filmmaker, but he still knows how to instill the unsavory, the morally complex, and a kind of searching speculation into his blockbusters. While there are marvelous and edgy sequences in the Dark Knight Rises, the film is not without flaw. I find the last half an hour to be problematic—one character’s twist is unnecessary (though it neatly ties the first movie to this one), there is one stupid gag, and the explosive finish bored me and was cliche. Still, there is enough awe and frenzy to make this an excitable and worthwhile close. In fact, one of the closing sequences, which serves as a eulogy to the Bruce Wayne story, is so subtle and so pleasing that I was hoping that the film would end with this moment an hour before it played out in front of me. Many people have taken a look at the Dark Knight Rises and discussed the seeming political nature of this film but what stayed in my mind afterwards were the interactions of characters, their cruxes, their denigrations, and of course, their renewals.

A footnote: Lest this review be viewed as too glowing, there were some troubling aspects to consider regarding the material: 1.) Christopher Nolan and his writing team seem to be treading old ground as to the opening sequence--the opening scene is good, subtle, but we are quickly launched into an opening sequence/introduction-to-the-villian that is similar to the Dark Knight; unmasking and all. 2.) Even more disturbingly repetitive is that Nolan cannot seem to ditch the 'dead-girl' motif, whereby the death of a female character is used as a plot pivot point or character arch locus for the protagonist. While there are only glimmers of this in the Dark Knight Rises I feel it is still valid. In fact, Batman Begins might be his only film that negates this theme. 3.) The more I consider the pro-capitalist innuendos in the film, the more I feel that this potential subtext could merit some dicussion. The movie has been lauded as both a pro-conservative and pro-liberal film to different degrees even though Nolan has called the story apolitical and that his team was simply "throwing things at a wall to see what would stick," but there are subtextual devices that might be folly to ignore..

ACTING                        ****

CAMERA                      ***

WRITING                     ***

EDITING                       ****

PRODUCTION            ****

Overall Rating: 18/25 (Good)

**********************************************************************************

The Dark Knight Rises (2012) Rating: 8.0 out of 10

Like all of Christopher Nolan's films, The Dark Knight Rises has lots to like. The writing, the great performances by much of the cast, and the editing and cinematography is everything you would expect from him. Looking at the film by itself one would have to praise Nolan for his ability to take the all too common plot of super-villain holding Gotham city at his mercy, out of the pages of comics and onto the big screen in such an exciting way that you may actually be able to forget all the "Bangs" "Pows" "Bams" cod pieces and rubber nipples that preceded Nolan reinventing the series. Even if only for 2 hours and 45 minutes.
However I don't think that we can talk about The Dark Knight Rises on its own, without talking about its predecessor. And I don't think we can talk about its predecessor, without talking about Heath Ledgers portrayal of the Joker, and Maggie Gyllenhaal as Rachel Dawes. If Ledger and Gyllenhaal were the highlights of The Dark Knight, then the highlights of The Dark Knight Rises were the performances by Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Anne Hathaway.
After The Dark Knight was released there were a lot of fans speculating who the villain in the third film would be, and whether or not it could live up to the Joker. After seeing the film I have to say no, Bane does not live up to the Joker. And in my opinion is the weakest villain in the entire series. But it should be noted that this is by no fault of Tom Hardy who is able to convey great emotion in his eyes without ever needing to show us the rest of his face. The weakness of the Bane character for me lies within the writing itself. We are lead to believe lots about the character only to have it all amount to nothing when it is revealed to us that it was not the origin of Bane, but rather that of Miranda Tate. Leaving the viewer with more questions than answers. Bane tells Batman during the first fight scene that he was born in darkness, but we learn that he was not the child in the prison. Bane's goodness is proven by finding that he sacrificed himself to protect the child, but then what drives him to allow the killing of so many innocent people? Nolan took such great lengths with Batman Begins to show the viewer the origin of Batman, and then with the Dark Knight to show us the motives of the Joker and Two Face, that I can't help feeling let down not fully understanding what would drive Miranda and Bane to want to nuke an entire city, to somehow seek revenge for the death of Ra's al Ghul. Except perhaps that by destroying Gotham City they would be killing the only thing that Batman ever loved.
The films greatest weakness for me lies within the last 30 to 45 minutes, which again made me feel let down that Nolan who started this series the unorthodox way that he did, always emphasizing good film technique, acting and story, would allow it to in the end degenerate to cliche twists, turns, an edge of your seat bomb countdown, and ultimately a happy ending, and hinting that the story could continue with a different hero taking the now retired heroes place.
That said my score clearly indicates a positive one, why? Its the third film in a comic book trilogy, a comic book trilogy that raised the bar so high with the first two films that it would seem almost impossible for any film of the genre to live up to. There may be some missed marks but it still manages to be great at what it is. 


-Scott-

**********************************************************************************

MICK

The Dark Knight Rises

“Where are they!!!!!?!?!?!” Of course, this was my favorite part of the film (to understand this silly joke watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Svd4fe8HEZI ). But on a more serious note, I enjoyed the film, though it rests in the tall shadow of Heath Ledger’s performance and a much stronger, more thoughtful plot-driven The Dark Knight (TDK) Film. The Dark Knight Rises (DKR) was better than the first film, but in no way compares to TDK film.

I’ll begin with a short description of Frank Miller’s Batman: The Dark Knight Returns (1986). The comic is great; the artwork and plot are directed towards a more mature audience following the trend to turn comic books into graphic novels that demand to be taken seriously. That being said, Frank Miller appeals more to a conservative (perhaps, fox watching) audience. Miller’s Batman begins with a new gang called the Mutants causing all kinds of chaos via rapes, murders, drugs, thefts…etc in Gotham. A horribly aged Bruce Wayne, now 55, has been in hibernation for a number of years since the death of his partner Robin. The crime in the city makes Wayne feel disgusted, but he feels too old to dawn the batman outfit, again. However, there has been an effort to release two of Batman’s former enemies-Harvey Dent (two-face), and the joker, by a psychologist or a physiatrist. The ‘doctor’ (I think Miller would want us to put doctor into quotations, or would prefer I use the term ‘quack’) believes that two-face and the joker can be and are reformed and are ready to rejoin society. But, of course, as soon as they are released they revert to their old ways or as conservatives would have you believe to their true ‘natures’ and they kill, again.

Now, here is the connection between the comics and the films; to be clear, the films are not strictly based on Frank Miller’s Batman, but here are some of the similarities. First, Miller wants us to ask the question of whether or not we like Batman and if we think he or vigilantly ‘justice’ is necessary given the restraints placed on the police; this same sort of question is posed in a similar manner by the Dirty Harry films (specifically Magnum Force). Second, the Mutants, along with the joker and two-face, tend to not make any sense; likewise, Bane and his associates, like Ras Al Gul in the Batman Begins, do not make sense or at least their motivations are not convincing. Third, the comic and film make the cops look like hero’s (even though Batman beats them up a bit in both they still come out looking good-more so in the film) and they require a vigilantly like Batman because of the constraints, red tape liberals have placed on the police making them unable to do stop crime effectively.

On the first point, the comics and the film set up a scenario in order to make this argument and this is what good writing does-it makes us ask questions. We look at fiction as possible albeit usually extreme situations that we could see ourselves in or at least sympathize with. However, we must also see the limitations of these sorts of scenarios. The scenarios in the film require extreme measures and heroic figures to make decisions that fall outside of law and everyday moral behavior, but these are not realistic scenarios so they cannot be applied to real life scenarios. What I have in mind here is the “Terrorist” scenario presented by Dershowitz (or is it Horowitz) where a ‘terrorist’ is in custody and we know that they have placed a bomb in a highly public place and the bomb is going to go off in a relatively short amount of time. In this scenario, he argues that we should abandon our stance on civil rights and use torture to get the info. So to summarize, the film and Dershowitz setup scenarios where you really only have one option and that is to choose the conservative way of doing things or to torture, or kill, or suspend civil liberties’..etc.

To add to the above idea we can explore the second point made above: the Mutants in the comic and the bad guys in the first and third film do not make sense or their motivations are not convincing. I exclude the second Batman film, TDK; I do this because I think the Jokers character works, not as a realistic enemy or (a real) terrorist, but as the incarnation of evil par excellence. Recall the scene where Joker burns that huge pile of money, which demonstrates that he is no mere human who is actually after something, but just wants to watch the world burn. I think Miller would want to say that the joker is the quintessential terrorist, but what real ‘terrorist’ (if you read any of academic literature on terrorism you might ask yourself if ‘terrorists’ even exist) is not motivated by something tangible like freedom, money, national liberation, security….etc? Of course, I want you to say none, every person has motives that add up to more than they just want to set the world on fire assuming they are not crazy or mentally deranged or something. This is where the bad guys in the other two batman films do not make sense.

First, Bane’s character is way underdeveloped and does not amount to much; the film does not explore the reasons as to why he has that mask on or its purpose (I don’t think it has any purpose in the film. The purpose in the comic is that the mask administers venom every twelve hours, which is a drug that enhances his strength. If he does not get a ‘hit’ every twelve hours he will experience great pain from withdrawal). His character is more or less a tease or a way to entice Batman/Bruce Wayne to come out in the open so Miranda Tate can stab him in the back. Perhaps, this focus on Bane is unfair because really the villain is plural; the villain is the league of shadows organization. While Bane is instrumental in arranging much of the components for the destruction of Gotham, he does so at the direction of Miranda Tate, whose purpose is to fulfill her father’s goal of destroying Gotham. The question is why-why do they want to destroy Gotham? If most of the violent crime had been stopped by the Dent act why did the League of Shadows still want to destroy the city?

The Cops

So, of course, I’m not happy at the way the cops are portrayed in the end of the film courageously (maybe triumphantly) fighting in the streets against what I think was dubbed a ‘revolutionary’ group, though I may be mistaken. The film began by showing how the cops are seemly corrupt, but then forgets all of that when those poor police officers get trapped underground and hunted down by the people during the ‘revolutionary’ period. First, the cops kill people all the time and they always support the status quo via protecting property, making, beating, and/or shooting at protesters, providing ‘protection’ for business or keeping ‘criminals’ away from ‘stealing’ food from grocery stores…etc, so maybe this is why they are hunted down-there is an example of this in the film when Bane breaks into Wall Street and starts to steal lots of money and that Wall Street person demands the cops protect his money. Also, the only reason the cops are fighting the ‘revolutionary’ group is because the cops want to be the biggest gang or the gang that controls the city like they normally do.

The Ending…

I liked when Batman picked up the nuclear bomb and flew off into the distance leaving us to believe that he perished in order to save Gotham. I liked the idea of the film and the trilogy ending on a very dark note. I’m not disappointed by how it actually ends, but it does feel a little forced or too cliché.

I don't have a grade/rating yet...

**********************************************************************************

Some additions: Bane wears the mask because it administers a drug that keeps his pain-tolerance-threshold to a manageble level so that he can function. I thought this was evident in the film, but maybe I read more into the character's backstory via character write-ups before and after I saw the movie. The way that police are portrayed is interesting.. Both Batmen Begins and the Dark Knight explore police corruption to different degrees (in the first film Gordon is singled out by Batman as being a 'good cop;' seen as a rarity and worth his partnership with Batman, and the second film alludes to police officers who are inside-men for the mob). Maybe because Nolan had examined this line-of-thought previously, he decided to mostly veer away from it this time..? Not that this would be the appropriate manuever.. Bane is woefully underdeveloped and the objective of the league, which is what it has always been, seems like a humongous plot hole in light of the Dent Act 'cleaning up' Gotham's streets. They've either lost their way, are persistent, want to destroy the one thing Batman loves for the death of their leader in the first film, or it's an inexcusable plot gap. Personally, I think it might be the latter. I assumed the revolutionary group you're speaking of was Bane's army or the remnants of the league from earlier in the film.. I could definetly be wrong here though. Assumingly they would have picked up reinforcements from regular Gotham citizens during their seizure of the city.

*****************************************************************************

Hey Mick, just a reminder, this is a film blog! How did you feel about the film? Specifically acting, writing, cinematography, editing, etc. 

-Scott-

*****************************************************************************

One could also look at the "triumph of the police officers" as an extension of the themes of rejuvenation and resurrection that I mentioned earlier. They are shown as redeeming themselves of their gangrenous and corruptible past. Scott brings up a good point..

***************************************************************************

Haha, Scott, I used the relationship between the comic’s and the film’s plot or writing in order to critique it so there is relevance!! Since the plot is what I usually pay attention to and because I cannot watch the film again, it is hard for me to comment on the other things, but I’ll try.

As I said before, unless the acting or cinematography really stand out (in a good or bad way) I tend not to notice it too much. I thought the scene where Bane breaks the back of the Batman was exceptional, but I cannot recall any other scene that were really that interesting. I did enjoy C. Bale’s and T. Hardy’s performances though as I said the film really didn’t develop Bane’s character as much as it should have. 

**************************************************************************

What about Hathaway and Bale's scenes and their chemistry..? Or Gordon, whose performance is pretty against-type compared to his usual indie roles... Actually, Hathaway is also working against-type: compare her role as Selina Kyle to the role she played in Rachel Getting Married; but you probably haven't watched that. As for editing; how about the subtle and quick flashback sequences that also play against what is typified in action movies. Just some things to consider.

****************************************************************************

I did enjoy Gordon’s character and performance, but like I said I would have to watch the film again to provide feedback on any other elements.