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..
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.
*****************************************************************************
**********************************************************************************
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.
****************************************************************************
**************************************************************************
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment