![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkat1. This video of Amanda Palmer's speech on TED, via her husband, Neil Gaiman's blog, is moving and interesting. It made me rethink a few things.
2. Saw Dark Knight Rises - the latest film by Christopher Nolan. A film that got mixed reviews. I passed on seeing it in the movie theater, and sort of wished I hadn't, thinking it was too violent. Which is odd, because many films I saw that summer were more so.
It's tempting to compare this film to other comic book films that came out this year and in previous years, but I'm not sure it's fair to? Sort of like comparing Busby Berkley to well Andrew Lloyd Webber or Stephen Sondheim. Or eating Prime Rib to well eating a Turkey Burger.
Not quite the same thing.
To say I enjoyed this film is an understatement. I loved it. It is in my humble opinion the best superhero film made to date. I agree with the professional film critics on this bit - this was a good film and amongst the best in its genre. The social commentary alone blew me away - it's so nuanced and does not provide answers, and can be interpreted in more than one manner.
I saw it as a deft critique and discussion of violence and how we use violence in our society - of how violence is used as a means of enjoyment, acquiring power, wealth, and how something like clean sustainable energy can be twisted by violence into a destructive weapon. How we send contradictory messages regarding it - on the one hand we hate guns, yet on the other we see them as cool and necessary to protect ourselves. And how the latter is in reality - a lie.
The criminalization of the poor, of people who can't get by. Incarcerating people - as a means of weilding power is discussed - is this a sign of an increasingly fascist society that only provides for the wealthy? The villains seek to turn this flawed society back to the people - and at least two of the main characters can't help but wonder if they aren't right, yet their means of doing so - through violence is so twisted and horrific that it does the opposite, and merely creates a far more fascist society to take the originals place. All we are doing is exchanging one power for another. And not necessarily a better one. Violence merely creates more violence and death.
There's a rather fascinating metaphor in the middle of the film - which was shown in previews but works far better in context. The villain, Bane, who looks a bit like a football player complete with grid-like facial protector, and muscles, triggers a series of bombs to explode beneath a football field during a game - taking out everyone on the field - all the people fighting one another for the ball or territory, except for the quarter-back who outruns the bomb and is not fighting at all. The football stadium is at the center of this city, which is based on Manhattan, and the series of bombs also takes out a bridge, several city streets and traps the police underground. But the center of the action is the stadium - which hosts a violent sport - a sport that promotes aggression.
Later, Selina Kyle, Catwoman, states to Bruce Wayne - I don't share your distaste for guns. He prefers fists, less likely to kill. He would prefer not to become the violence, yet he can't quite escape it.
Also unlike other superhero films that I'd seen to date including the others in Nolan's Batman series, this one developed and built its characters. There really are no true villains here. Even Bane - at the end of the film - is shown to be somewhat heroic, a heroic anti-hero. It is in this way, true noir - where the villain and hero aren't really that far apart, both are seeking to protect their world and their vision and their loved-ones and their cause. It is how they choose to go about it - that is problematic. Even the two women, Marian Cottord's character and Anne Hathaway's Catwoman, are complicated, both making a series of decisions that are based on their own violent backgrounds. Wayne/Bane and Talia/Selina are in a way mirrors of each other, all created by violence and all struggling to deal with it.
And Nolan handles the supporting characters quite adeptly here - Alfred, John Blake (Joseph Levit-Brown - who in some respects is far better here than he was in Looper or more interesting), Commissioner Gordon, and even Floyd (Matthew Modine's hapless deputy Commissioner).
The story also acts as a perfect closing act of Nolan's triology. Referencing both the events of Dark Knight and Batman Begins, resolving those plot-lines in a satisfactory and realistic manner, few films do this. Wayne and Alfred confront Alfred's lie about Rachel Dawson to spare Wayne's feelings, it did not work the way Alfred had hoped -- if anything his lie about Rachel choosing Wayne over Harvey Dent, trapped Wayne in a circle of guilt and self-loathing, incapable of moving on. It's oddly Selina Kyle who pushes Wayne into action but not how one might think - their relationship is deftly built layer by layer. And Hathaway is brilliant in this role, as is her chemistry with Bale.
This film played with my head long after it was over. It's the sort of film you want to discuss, pull apart, re-watch, and re-think. Analyze. It's not a popcorn film like the Avengers, Transformers, Spiderman, X-men, Wolverine, Iron Man or Captain America - which disappears from your head the moment you leave the theater, or rather it left mine. Mileage clearly varies on this point, if my flist is any indication. The online obsession with The Avengers film this summer continues to bewilder me. We see the world differently...don't we.
Anyhow, if you like noir, enjoy Chris Nolan films and liked the previous two films in this series - you'll most likely love this one.
Overall rating? A
2. Saw Dark Knight Rises - the latest film by Christopher Nolan. A film that got mixed reviews. I passed on seeing it in the movie theater, and sort of wished I hadn't, thinking it was too violent. Which is odd, because many films I saw that summer were more so.
It's tempting to compare this film to other comic book films that came out this year and in previous years, but I'm not sure it's fair to? Sort of like comparing Busby Berkley to well Andrew Lloyd Webber or Stephen Sondheim. Or eating Prime Rib to well eating a Turkey Burger.
Not quite the same thing.
To say I enjoyed this film is an understatement. I loved it. It is in my humble opinion the best superhero film made to date. I agree with the professional film critics on this bit - this was a good film and amongst the best in its genre. The social commentary alone blew me away - it's so nuanced and does not provide answers, and can be interpreted in more than one manner.
I saw it as a deft critique and discussion of violence and how we use violence in our society - of how violence is used as a means of enjoyment, acquiring power, wealth, and how something like clean sustainable energy can be twisted by violence into a destructive weapon. How we send contradictory messages regarding it - on the one hand we hate guns, yet on the other we see them as cool and necessary to protect ourselves. And how the latter is in reality - a lie.
The criminalization of the poor, of people who can't get by. Incarcerating people - as a means of weilding power is discussed - is this a sign of an increasingly fascist society that only provides for the wealthy? The villains seek to turn this flawed society back to the people - and at least two of the main characters can't help but wonder if they aren't right, yet their means of doing so - through violence is so twisted and horrific that it does the opposite, and merely creates a far more fascist society to take the originals place. All we are doing is exchanging one power for another. And not necessarily a better one. Violence merely creates more violence and death.
There's a rather fascinating metaphor in the middle of the film - which was shown in previews but works far better in context. The villain, Bane, who looks a bit like a football player complete with grid-like facial protector, and muscles, triggers a series of bombs to explode beneath a football field during a game - taking out everyone on the field - all the people fighting one another for the ball or territory, except for the quarter-back who outruns the bomb and is not fighting at all. The football stadium is at the center of this city, which is based on Manhattan, and the series of bombs also takes out a bridge, several city streets and traps the police underground. But the center of the action is the stadium - which hosts a violent sport - a sport that promotes aggression.
Later, Selina Kyle, Catwoman, states to Bruce Wayne - I don't share your distaste for guns. He prefers fists, less likely to kill. He would prefer not to become the violence, yet he can't quite escape it.
Also unlike other superhero films that I'd seen to date including the others in Nolan's Batman series, this one developed and built its characters. There really are no true villains here. Even Bane - at the end of the film - is shown to be somewhat heroic, a heroic anti-hero. It is in this way, true noir - where the villain and hero aren't really that far apart, both are seeking to protect their world and their vision and their loved-ones and their cause. It is how they choose to go about it - that is problematic. Even the two women, Marian Cottord's character and Anne Hathaway's Catwoman, are complicated, both making a series of decisions that are based on their own violent backgrounds. Wayne/Bane and Talia/Selina are in a way mirrors of each other, all created by violence and all struggling to deal with it.
And Nolan handles the supporting characters quite adeptly here - Alfred, John Blake (Joseph Levit-Brown - who in some respects is far better here than he was in Looper or more interesting), Commissioner Gordon, and even Floyd (Matthew Modine's hapless deputy Commissioner).
The story also acts as a perfect closing act of Nolan's triology. Referencing both the events of Dark Knight and Batman Begins, resolving those plot-lines in a satisfactory and realistic manner, few films do this. Wayne and Alfred confront Alfred's lie about Rachel Dawson to spare Wayne's feelings, it did not work the way Alfred had hoped -- if anything his lie about Rachel choosing Wayne over Harvey Dent, trapped Wayne in a circle of guilt and self-loathing, incapable of moving on. It's oddly Selina Kyle who pushes Wayne into action but not how one might think - their relationship is deftly built layer by layer. And Hathaway is brilliant in this role, as is her chemistry with Bale.
This film played with my head long after it was over. It's the sort of film you want to discuss, pull apart, re-watch, and re-think. Analyze. It's not a popcorn film like the Avengers, Transformers, Spiderman, X-men, Wolverine, Iron Man or Captain America - which disappears from your head the moment you leave the theater, or rather it left mine. Mileage clearly varies on this point, if my flist is any indication. The online obsession with The Avengers film this summer continues to bewilder me. We see the world differently...don't we.
Anyhow, if you like noir, enjoy Chris Nolan films and liked the previous two films in this series - you'll most likely love this one.
Overall rating? A
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2013-03-04 02:03 pm (UTC)When you start thinking about those kind of questions, the whole plot kind of falls apart, which I found disappointing, because Batman Begins and TDK were both so meticulous in their realism. I would still watch the movie again, but I feel like I'd have to try really hard to ignore these issues while doing so, and that kind of undermines the "realistic" feel of the Nolan movies.
It's also a shame because I really liked the social commentary of Bane's takeover, as you said. I can absolutely see a situation like that playing out, although I feel like the movie could maybe have explored some more subtleties.
I was also kind of distracted visually in the movie, because TDK showed Gotham as Very Obviously Chicago, including many shots of the Chicago river and Millenium Station and a number of other landmarks, and then in TDKR it's...suddenly New York? Where did all those bridges come from? It was a little bit like how the design of Hogwarts completely shifted between movies... without Hogwarts' excuse that it's a magical castle.
So yeah. I don't think it's a bad movie, but I don't think it's as good a movie as TDK.
no subject
Date: 2013-03-05 02:04 am (UTC)was also kind of distracted visually in the movie, because TDK showed Gotham as Very Obviously Chicago, including many shots of the Chicago river and Millenium Station and a number of other landmarks, and then in TDKR it's...suddenly New York? Where did all those bridges come from? It was a little bit like how the design of Hogwarts completely shifted between movies... without Hogwarts' excuse that it's a magical castle.
Yes, I noticed this as well. Gotham in the comic books is NYC. In Batman Begins and Dark Knight it appeared to be more of a futuristic Chicago. But NYC is cheaper to film in and they got permission to do local action shots...so...
But the financial ruin? The whole stock market attack? Yeah, there's no plausible way that would work or that it would immediately bankrupt Wayne/Wayne Enterprises in the way they said.
Actually...you forgot about the fingerprints. Selina/Catwoman lifts Wayne's prints from the safe (which by the way was far more realistic than all the CSI/NCSI/Criminal Minds procedurals - they actually followed the rules on that one) - which she gives to Daggett, who in turn uses to rob Wayne blind. They didn't bankrupt Wayne through the stock market explosion, they did it with the fingerprints...using them to access Wayne's accounts.
Also note, that James Fox tells Wayne that he let things go (which also makes sense - he focused too much on certain things and not others and then retreated from everything - he was never a financial whiz - his wealth is inherited) - and they were barely getting by.
Add to that Wayne's lavish playboy personality - which Daggett and Ral Gul's heir use against him to excellent effect.
That plot line was actually very well done - and had been built delicately in the background of the last two movies. You may not have noticed it - boring company/biz stuff - but I ate it up. I remember it better than the action details. ;-)
what idiot puts a nuclear reactor right under a city? A SECRET reactor? Who approved that?
The same idiots that approved Three Mile Island - which is in shooting distance of NYC, and oh let's not forget Norad that is within shooting distance of Denver. (You clearly were not alive in the 1980s when we worried about this stuff?)
Remember they think of it as an energy source - which was introduced either in Batman Begins - I'm pretty certain it was that one, actually.
Where Batman steals the reactor from a villain and changes it to be an energy source? It was also in the background of the last two movies. He worried about The Joker getting it - I think in Dark Knight. Can't remember for certain.
And Wayne has a lot of power in Gotham and owned the land beneath his building. Actually corporations have more power than you think. That's why we have regulations and environmental controls - and yes, in our society no one would approve it because of those regulations. And no, he couldn't put it beneath NYC in our world. But Gotham isn't in our universe - it's in DC Universe - and different rules apply - in that universe, there are no environmental regs in place.
Actually...considering it's based on a graphic novel - it's very good.
And there's far more character development than TDK, TDK had very little and far too many pointless action scenes and chases. This is a tighter movie with far better development of female characters.
no subject
Date: 2013-03-05 02:57 am (UTC)I did not forget the fingerprints. There's still no reason for anyone to believe that Wayne's "transactions" are legit the day after a major security breach at the stock market. That IS something I noticed on my first viewing. Even in Gotham, a city where it's pretty much canon that completely ridiculous things happen all the time that make no sense, I can't believe that no one looked at those and didn't say, "Wait, this seems suspicious."
Most of the points I raised were alerted to me by articles over at The Law & the Multiverse. They do a better job of explaining their points than I do, so I will refer you to those articles:
http://lawandthemultiverse.com/2012/07/23/the-dark-knight-rises-i-corporate-shenanigans/
http://lawandthemultiverse.com/2012/07/24/the-dark-knight-rises-ii-now-what/
http://lawandthemultiverse.com/2012/07/30/the-dark-knight-rises-iii-nuclear-shenanigans/
I agree with their assessment of this stuff. TDKR is a fun movie, but I think it suffered from some serious logical problems. I didn't notice them the first time around, but I think I'd be quite distracted on a second viewing.