The Trouble City Forums

Full Version: THE DARK KNIGHT RISES Post-release thread.....
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.

He has no reason to trust Miranda. Think about it: he trusts her because she wanted an alternative energy device and he goes broke and has no choice. After that, Fox is the one that's like "show her the device." So he does, and once he does, he's already like "I trust you." Why? Why her more than any of the other rich SOB's? And then, to make matters even more confusing, she sleeps with him, even though she's pulling strings behind the scenes to make sure that he's dead. It's as if Nolan is interested in only the mechanization's of storytelling. "If she's building a clean energy device and if she sleeps with the hero, the audience will likely find her sympathetic, thus making the twist at the end surprising." And since I didn't read every single thing about the movie (hardly anything) I was surprised. But so what? The surprise is incredibly hollow. Nolan has gone from a man who takes such delight in his storytelling that it appears to be air solid even when it's really not (Memento) to being someone so enamored with "bigger" and "more" that he doesn't allow things like common sense and character motivation to get in the way. TDKR is a spectacle, yes, but far too often it's a spectacle of stupidity.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike's Pants View Post

Bane finds out about Dent because Gordan carries The Dark Knight script around with him?

That was the speech Bane took from Gordon's pocket when he caught him.  Although that's sloppy too, what with Gordon being all ready to give it in front of Wayne Manor on the anniversary of Dent's death, only to stick it away to be conveniently found later.

Bruce trusts Miranda because she provides evidence of being truly charitable, and being one of the board members who seems interested in doing good works with the company's resources. He trusts her because the people around him (Fox, Alfred) are pushing him to do so. He trusts her because he is utterly alone, and desperate. She slept with him as a way of thrusting the knife in; she wants Bruce to be completely blindsided and ruined by her true identity. She wants to take everything from him. I'm not sure why this is so hard to understand or follow.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Dickson View Post

That was the speech Bane took from Gordon's pocket when he caught him.  Although that's sloppy too, what with Gordon being all ready to give it in front of Wayne Manor on the anniversary of Dent's death, only to stick it away to be conveniently found later.

I agree it was a bit on the cheap side - but I've also found a lot of things in coat pockets I stashed there meaning to retrieve later.

My take on TDKR is Nolan was far more interested in Bruce's emotional/spiritual journey than meticulous plotting and ultra-realistic plot turns, and chose to have the story support Bruce's arc. The film contains a lot of cinematic shortcuts which seem to either work or not for folks. I'm OK with the vast majority of them because I think the core story works, and was conceived and written solidly.

Quote:
It's a Rorschach test. The Right sees it as an affront to making money and business, the Left sees it as a reactionary critique of the Occupy movement. I think Nolan just wanted to provoke everybody with this one.

Considering that Bane's kinda spewing mock-Socialist drivel, getting the people of Gotham to start warring on the rich, and eventually end the movie with cops beating the shit outta all the anarchists while restoring order?

Look maybe I'm just biased as shit, but I think there's a certain amount of political confusion with this movie. Even more so when the writers seemingly think that something as hackneyed as "getting rid of paroles" would solve the endemic crime rate in Gotham.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LaurenOrtega View Post

Considering that Bane's kinda spewing mock-Socialist drivel, getting the people of Gotham to start warring on the rich, and eventually end the movie with cops beating the shit outta all the anarchists while restoring order?

It also ended with Gotham's wealthiest inhabitant not only losing all of his worldly goods but essentially giving up his life to save the city. He donates his land and family home for the care of orphans (taking something from a single owner to being "owned" by the people).

As you say, confused politics. I think anyone who takes TDKR as a straight out indictment or criticism of the OWS movement 1) doesn't understand what that movement really wants and 2) is vastly oversimplifying the film.

Did anyone else feel that Gary Oldman's performance was always on the verge of teetering closer to 90s Gary Oldman at times?  That went along great with how unhinged the character had become in the 8 years.  I kinda loved that while pitying him... AND HIS CLUMSY CLOUSEAUESQUE ANTICS!

The discussion about the film is very reminiscent of the one we had here for Toy Story 3, which was another film that I thought suffered from sloppy themes (which I think is what made the discussion so interesting).

Quote:

It also ended with Gotham's wealthiest inhabitant not only losing all of his worldly goods but essentially giving up his life to save the city. He donates his land and family home for the care of orphans (taking something from a single owner to being "owned" by the people).

As you say, confused politics. I think anyone who takes TDKR as a straight out indictment or criticism of the OWS movement 1) doesn't understand what that movement really wants and 2) is vastly oversimplifying the film.

Granted I do find the image of a rich dude playing messiah sort of adorable.

Much like Michael Mann-inspired direction for movies involving gangster clowns.

Or maybe the politics in this are like they are in reality where everything is messy and doesn't fall perfectly inline with bi-partisan rhetoric, despite everyone pretending that they do. Just a thought.

And look,  I know I'm not a fan of these movies.* But like Whiteboy Jones I think there's valid issues I've been mulling over with all of these movies. Because I like Nolan as a whole, and I think I like the "idea" of Batman at the very least.* But these movies have never sat right with me, and trying to figure out why isn't just as simple as saying "Grrrrr..it's too grim and gritty for me."

Quote:
Or maybe the politics in this are like they are in reality where everything is messy and doesn't fall perfectly inline with bi-partisan rhetoric, despite everyone pretending that they do. Just a thought.

Or maybe the politics are kinda not well thought out.

Though granted I don't care that much about rich people.

If I can wager a guess, the very core of the Nolan Batman film "problem" for some is that while they are sold as big ticket blockbuster entertainment, they aren't 100% fun. They expore serious real world things and are more inline tonally with what one would expect during Oscar season. Add to that the dissonance that they center around Batman and his heightened world of villains, and its just a leap some pople aren't willing to take. It speaks volumes that THE AVENGERS was received so well because I think it was the exact kind of colorful, light fare most of these people want during the summer months, and it wasn't completely idiotic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LaurenOrtega View Post

Considering that Bane's kinda spewing mock-Socialist drivel, getting the people of Gotham to start warring on the rich, and eventually end the movie with cops beating the shit outta all the anarchists while restoring order?

And notice how it doesn't really seem like any of the "ordinary" people of Gotham come out and take part in this war?  It's mostly Bane's cronies and the inmates from Blackgate.  In fact, once the takeover happens, Gotham appears to be entirely comprised of cops and Bane's army.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LaurenOrtega View Post

And look,  I know I'm not a fan of these movies.* But like Whiteboy Jones I think there's valid issues I've been mulling over with all of these movies. Because I like Nolan as a whole, and I think I like the "idea" of Batman at the very least.* But these movies have never sat right with me, and trying to figure out why isn't just as simple as saying "Grrrrr..it's too grim and gritty for me."

Exactly.  I really enjoyed The Prestige and Inception, and it frustrates me to no end that Nolan's Batman films don't do the same for me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LaurenOrtega View Post

Or maybe the politics are kinda not well thought out.

C'mon. Do you honestly think Christopher Fastidious Nolan didn't think through the politics of this movie? Level whatever criticisms you want at the guy but thoughtless and lazy he is not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LaurenOrtega View Post

Much like Michael Mann-inspired direction for movies involving gangster clowns.

Next summer...

Michael Mann's THURCUTH, THURCUTH ! ! !

Do the performers, perchance, wear hockey padth?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sebastian OB View Post

C'mon. Do you honestly think Christopher Fastidious Nolan didn't think through the politics of this movie? Level whatever criticisms you want at the guy but thoughtless and lazy he is not.

Not thoughtless and lazy...

... but perhaps like everyone, he can also be hit or miss?

For me, the "it's complicated and messy, like real life" justification is often not too far off from the "nothing happens and no one changes, just like real life" excuse.  With even MORE fastidiousness, Nolan could've evoke the complexity of the politics while still making a more solid point about it.

But then, I thought the messy contradictions of The Dark Knight were just fine, which seems to be the point that Devin is making.  It's one thing to be an intelligent individual who is able to think through the politics that this film pays lip service to (subtle digs!), but it's another thing to adapt them for a dramatic narrative.  It's a separate skill set.

Yes.

I'm perfectly willing to believe that Nolan might not be absolutely perfect with his approach to story every single time.

I don't have much to say about this film, but I just came across this image and I need to share it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SeanCE View Post

 I just came across this image

Gross.

Two things I take away from this film.

1) I'd very much like a spin off Catwoman film with Hathaway and Temple.

2) Christian Bale needs to do some comedy, because the few moments where he got to do small comic stuff, he was great at it.

Yeah, I really dug the take on Wayne that Bale was playing in this.  I never really missed seeing him in costume.

You know what made me laugh?  When Batman finally gets the upper hand on Bane and ends up just redoing his interrogation scene with the Joker from TDK.

PUNCH

"WHERE IS IIIIIIIIIT???"

PUNCH

"WHERE IS IIIIIIIIIT???"

If it's broke... don't fix it, I guess?  Heheheh.  Just keep doing what you're doing, Bats!

Quote:
Originally Posted by LaurenOrtega View Post

Yes.

I'm perfectly willing to believe that Nolan might not be absolutely perfect with his approach to story every single time.

It's certainly not outside the realm of possibilities. 

I think the bigger issue is that The Dark Knight tethered so closely to the Bush era that you can't really see it any other way. In The Dark Knight Rises, Nolan picks and chooses which elements from that to carry over and then mixes it with a whole new batch of politics; some stemming from Gotham, while some are topical. Like the rest of the movie, the results are mixed, often confusing, and most importantly, not particularly thoughtful. 

I quite like this review, which praises the movie for it's ambition and gusto while also calling foul about it's speechifying, heavy exposition and muddled politics. 

Thus, like its predecessor, The Dark Knight Rises proves a politically conservative animal, one in which Bane and his minions seek to upset socio-economic paradigms through culture war, and Batman and his army of police officers, given dignified treatment by Nolan in a near-silent pan across their ranks right before their clash with Bane's "revolutionaries," aim to uphold the established rich-on-top order. However, as befitting a script that's overstuffed with narrative strands, from the push-pull between anti-Batman Deputy Commission Foley (Matthew Modine), Commissioner Gordon (Gary Oldman), and upstart officer John Blake (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), to Wayne's frayed relationship with Alfred and interactions with Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman) and potential love interest Miranda Tate (Marion Cotillard), the film muddles its political viewpoints, or at least compromises them in the spirit of not pressing any hot buttons too hard. As a result, Batman's opposition to Bane also puts him on the side of the very working-class people Bane purports to champion (since the villain really aims to disintegrate them with a nuke). And jewel thief Selina Kyle (Anne Hathaway), a.k.a. Catwoman, rages with righteous liberal anger against Wayne's gilded lifestyle, but, naturally, also comes around to helping him reestablish the status quo after seeing, courtesy of Bane, that the end goal of tearing down the wealthy is cars-piled-in-the-streets chaos of a terrifying warlord variety—as well as after, naturally, she falls for irresistible trust-fund hunk Wayne.

Oh, another thing I thought of while watching the movie and thinking about TDK during it:

Since this film is almost a direct sequel to Batman Begins, TDK ends up feeling like the odd one out.  And this is the case even in its portrayal of Alfred.  In this movie, he gets all emotional over wanting Bruce to move on.  But in TDK, he was the one who seemed to be goading him to push harder as Batman (because he can take it).  It's another example of the trilogy having somewhat inconsistent characterization in order to have a self-contained arc within a single movie.

It's not a big deal to me, since TDK really kinda stands on its own in the trilogy.  But I just wanted to bring it up.

In Batman Begins, Alfred goes along with Bruce's crusade, but still chides him for his irresponsible use of his resources.

In TDK, Alfred is all... TAKE IT, BITCH.

In TDKR, Alfred is a more natural progression of where he was in Begins.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Merriweather View Post

It's a Rorschach test. The Right sees it as an affront to making money and business, the Left sees it as a reactionary critique of the Occupy movement. I think Nolan just wanted to provoke everybody with this one.

Agreed. And NOlan takes it straight from "A Tale Of Two Cities" whose whole point is that the revolutionaries become just as bad as the people they overthrew.

MY biggest beef is that no way would a crisis like this go on for five months. One month in,when the President's rating is in the single digits,the leaders of his own party would walk in and tell him they ain't going down with him, and either do something or they will steal a march on the opposition and insitute Impeacment proceedings for incompetence. Maybe appeasing the terroists is the most humane thing to do (given they do not know the plan is to nuke Gotham anyway) but no way can you do A Jimmy Carter Hostage Crisis routine with an event that is bigger then Pearl Harbor,9/11 and Fort Sumter rolled into one.

And dont' get me started on how the US military, for all there faults, would NEVER do a Spec Op recon as ineptly as it is shown in the movie.

DC did a much better job of convincing me that a US Government would write off it's biggest city in the No Man's Land Storyline then Nolan did.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LaurenOrtega View Post

Or maybe the politics are kinda not well thought out.

I thought Nolan was quite clear on what side he was on. Neither. The rich vs. poor was utter bull shit and Bane used the times to his advantage, to completely blind the city of what was happening. Nolan also uses the differences between a person of privilege and of poor to shape Wayne too. The only person who survived the prison was someone who was born in darkness and of no freedom whatsoever. So Bruce had to experience it as well, but Nolan also makes mention that "Anybody could have become Batman", in a way to say it doesn't matter if you are a person born with money or not, the will to act and the actions we take define the person.

Nolan can be taken to task for not always making the best choices in his storytelling. But they are deliberate choices and not lazy omissions, as some of you are implying.

An example and staying within the confines of Batman films: Tim Burton omits things because he's lazy and doesn't care about them. Nolan omits things because he's intentionally trying to put your focus on what he thinks is important.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnooj82 View Post

Oh, another thing I thought of while watching the movie and thinking about TDK during it:

Since this film is almost a direct sequel to Batman Begins, TDK ends up feeling like the odd one out.  And this is the case even in its portrayal of Alfred.  In this movie, he gets all emotional over wanting Bruce to move on.  But in TDK, he was the one who seemed to be goading him to push harder as Batman (because he can take it).  It's another example of the trilogy having somewhat inconsistent characterization in order to have a self-contained arc within a single movie.

Like I said in my initial feedback; The Dark Knight exists to kill off Rachel/Dent and make it necessary for everyone to lie about everything. The other two movies have far more in common, which is probably why I like them so much less.

As for the Wayne as Howard Hughes stuff; I heard someone make the argument that each movie casts Batman very much in opposition to his villains. He uses fear in the first and that ties into the scarecrow. Nolan's Joker, meanwhile, isn't a symbol of his possible insanity, but more linked to chaos that we associate with terrorism, and Batman indulges in that chaos whether he wants to or not (the multiple Batman's he chastises in the beginning, and the need to stretch his crime fighting to illegal, chaotic means to get what he needs). He claims the connection between Bane and Batman in this film is pain; Bane has mastered his (with the help of his morphine mask) while Batman is moping about still pining for Rachel. If you read it that way, it makes a bit more thematic sense in the universe of each individual movie. As a trilogy? Not so much.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sebastian OB View Post

If I can wager a guess, the very core of the Nolan Batman film "problem" for some is that while they are sold as big ticket blockbuster entertainment, they aren't 100% fun. They expore serious real world things and are more inline tonally with what one would expect during Oscar season. Add to that the dissonance that they center around Batman and his heightened world of villains, and its just a leap some pople aren't willing to take. It speaks volumes that THE AVENGERS was received so well because I think it was the exact kind of colorful, light fare most of these people want during the summer months, and it wasn't completely idiotic.

THing is if you are playing a more serious game like Nolan is trying to do, you cannot afford a lot the mistakes and gaps in reality that you can get by with with a film like "The Avengers".

I loved BB and TDK,but IMHO Nolan went off the rails with TDKR.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sebastian OB View Post

An example and staying within the confines of Batman films: Tim Burton omits things because he's lazy and doesn't care about them. Nolan omits things because he's intentionally trying to put your focus on what he thinks is important.

My criticism of his filmmaking this time around is that he puts that "importance" focus on almost everything in the movie to the point that a lot of it ends up feeling meaningless.  For a movie that is so in love with the operatically big picture, there are lots of scenes where he montage dances around a lot of minutiae that never feel all that important.

I think he juggled that MUCH better in TDK.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnooj82 View Post

My criticism of his filmmaking this time around is that he puts that "importance" focus on almost everything in the movie to the point that a lot of it ends up feeling meaningless.  For a movie that is so in love with the operatically big picture, there are lots of scenes where he montage dances around a lot of minutiae that never feel all that important.

I think he juggled that MUCH better in TDK.

I think this is a totally fair criticism.

I liked it.  It still has some wonky storytelling in the first half (never completely understood Taggert's link to everything and Modine's character was a one-note contrivance), but overall, I enjoyed it.  Hathaway and JGL were great additions, and the movie balanced the light and dark moments better than TDK.  In fact, I'm in this weird minority of thinking THE DARK KNIGHT as my least favorite of the Nolan Bats.  Ah, well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Parker View Post

He claims the connection between Bane and Batman in this film is pain; Bane has mastered his (with the help of his morphine mask) while Batman is moping about still pining for Rachel. If you read it that way, it makes a bit more thematic sense in the universe of each individual movie. As a trilogy? Not so much.

Can someone clarify this one for me?

In TDK, Alfred burns Rachel's letter to Bruce in order to spare him the heartbreak.  I don't recall what Bruce accuses Alfred of when he finally reveals the truth.  Was it of trying to end Batman?  If so, isn't that really inconsistent with the Alfred of TDK?

Also, was Michael Caine busy with other projects during the shooting of TDKR?  I get that having Alfred leave was all a part of taking everything away from Bruce, but it felt like such an afterthought.  Even Bruce ends up kinda treating it that way when he wakes up the next morning calling his name (which I chalk up to old habits dying hard).  But considering how emotional a scene that was, you'd think the effects of kicking Alfred out would linger a bit longer than that.

A[quote name="mcnooj82" url="/community/t/144220/the-dark-knight-rises-post-release-thread/650#post_3362107"]Oh, another thing I thought of while watching the movie and thinking about TDK during it:

Since this film is almost a direct sequel to Batman Begins, TDK ends up feeling like the odd one out.  And this is the case even in its portrayal of Alfred.  In this movie, he gets all emotional over wanting Bruce to move on.  But in TDK, he was the one who seemed to be goading him to push harder as Batman (because he can take it).  It's another example of the trilogy having somewhat inconsistent characterization in order to have a self-contained arc within a single movie.

It's not a big deal to me, since TDK really kinda stands on its own in the trilogy.  But I just wanted to bring it up.

In Batman Begins, Alfred goes along with Bruce's crusade, but still chides him for his irresponsible use of his resources.

In TDK, Alfred is all... TAKE IT, BITCH.

In TDKR, Alfred is a more natural progression of where he was in Begins.
[/quote]

Actually, in Knight, Alfred only goads Bruce into continuing because he's the one response for the entire situation, thus really being the only one who could stop the Joker's madness. He still worries for Bruce. At the same time, Alfred still understands the mission and purpose of Batman from Begins. If he pushes harder and finishes, with rise of Dent, Bruce could do what he was planning from the outset of that film; give the city to Dent.

It's not inconsistent if Alfred understands why Bruce is doing what he's doing in Knight, which he does.

Ratty, I agree.  The  Dark Knight had Batman  seemingly driven...BATTY enough, that he became known as a...Villain!  I enjoy Batman Begins and The Dark Knight Rises far more.