800 Words on the Aurora Shootings

It's been a couple weeks since the Aurora shootings, and I think it's okay now to add my two cents. I don't want to talk about the tragedy itself in any detail, because I'm not qualified in any way for that. Instead, I want to try to sort out some thoughts and ponder the question that's been on my mind since I heard about what happened in Aurora - what does it mean?

Looking at the response to the tragedy, very little it seems. Security was briefly beefed up at theaters, but I don't think that's going to last. There was some discussion of gun control policies and mental health access, but most of the pieces I saw were cynical op/eds, predicting that nothing would actually change. There were also a few thoughtful ones about the terrible nature of the media coverage, and I generally agree with the theory that mass shootings are all about attention seeking, and no good can come of the media furor around the gunman involved. I got a look at a few minutes of the local news coverage of the shootings, where a hyperbolic reporter made reference to the fact that they were going to follow the story for days, weeks, and perhaps months and years to come. I stopped watching after that.

What about the impact on the movies themselves? Well, it was interesting to see how Hollywood responded. The "Gangster Squad" trailer was pulled, and the film itself delayed to January so that a potentially offending scene could be excised. Warner Brothers cancelled premieres and press, donated money, and did everything in their power to show their sensitivity to the victims, short of pulling "The Dark Knight Rises" from theaters. Box office tallies of the opening weekend of were not officially reported, a symbolic gesture since most of the usual bean counters got the estimates out to us anyway. The assumption is that the shooting played a part in the opening weekend grosses of "The Dark Knight Rises" falling below initial estimates, but nobody can say for sure. It's still a monster hit around the world, so any financial impact was limited.

The shooting in Aurora was a terrible tragedy, and in the immediate aftermath there were specters of all kinds of horrible fears, about movie theaters suddenly being less safe, about these highly anticipated blockbuster film premieres being a magnet for attention-seeking maniacs, about our whole film culture suddenly somehow being complicit. But after a few weeks and with the benefit of some distance, the more it feels like this was just another random act of violence perpetrated by a highly disturbed individual. It could have happened in a post office, a school, or any other public place where a crowd of people had gathered. I don't want to suggest that these mass killings are not deeply shocking and awful every times that they happen, and perhaps indicators of some deeper systemic problems, but they happen for reasons that are usually extremely personal and limited to the particular perpetrator involved.

So the shooting, in spite of the shooter's apparent obsession with Batman, has nothing to do with the movies. It reflects absolutely nothing about the Batman franchise, or superhero films, or onscreen violence or anything else you want to try and tie it to. The urge to do do, however, is a strong one. We want to find an easy explanation and we want the shooting to mean something. And it's too easy to speculate and draw conclusions that there really are no bases for. As much as we want them, there aren't ever going to be simple answers in cases like this. I've seen a couple of people try to blame the content, and predictably there's some yahoo trying to sue Warners for releasing the film, but it can't possibly stick. The shooter hadn't even seen the film, remember.

And related to that, it's very tempting to want to use the tragedy as a bludgeon for the moral or political issue of your choice. I caught myself wanting to tell off someone online for being enthusiastic about the Bobcat Goldthwait comedy "God Bless America" because it contains a scene where there's a shooting in a movie theater that's played for laughs. After Aurora, how could you champion a movie like that? But of course, that movie came out months ago and has nothing to do with Aurora. In light of recent events it was insensitive and unfunny, maybe, but that didn't somehow make the movie bad. "God Bless America" was rotten all by itself.

I'm glad that "Gangster Squad" was moved, because it is in very poor taste to evoke the shooting so close in time, even if the scheduling of the film was a coincidence. I think the film's fortunes have probably been irreparably damaged though. And I was relieved that "The Dark Knight Rises" had very little content in it that could be connected with what happened that would give any conspiracy theorists more ammunition.

It feels small and petty to feel protective of the films in this situation, but I am a media junkie after all, and the media is what I obsess over. I really enjoy Nolan's Batman films, and no matter how they're regarded in the future, it's sad that they're always going to be associated with this tragedy.
---

Read More

TJE 7/24 – The Dark Knight Rises (With Spoilers)

This is your final spoiler warning. Here goes.

Okay, I admit I was wrong. Robin, who bears absolutely no resemblance of any other version of Robin, ever, was in "The Dark Knight Rises." However, this was the only version that was ever going to work in the Nolan universe. Officer John Blake's story was easily the most complete and satisfying one in the film, and I can't help wishing that he could have stayed an entirely original character to escape all the extra baggage associated with Robin. But as a reinvention of a Batman staple, he may be the most thorough and impressive one I've seen yet.

I wish I could be as excited about the other new characters that were introduced, but they don't even come close. The misdirection about Bane and Talia al Ghul was clever, but it came at the expense of both of the characters. Bane, without the Venom, with his origins rewritten, was simply a very smart and intimidating terrorist in a scary mask. We didn't know what his real intentions were, unlike the Joker, who very effectively demonstrated the depths of his psychosis. And in the end it turns out that all the talk of revolutions and punishing Gotham was just for show. The real mastermind behind Bane was Talia, who was bent on avenging her father. She barely got any screentime whatsoever, and it was only thanks to Marion Cotillard that the reveal landed with any impact. Nolan's Bane was certainly a sadistic menace, but one whose motives were entirely too confused to be a great villain.

Then there was Catwoman. Anne Hathaway brought the charm and the sexiness, and seemed game to tackle the role, but was given so little material to work with. She fights. She banters. She looks great in the costume, giving off more of a Julie Newmar vibe than her film predecessors. There are hints of a possible romance with Bruce Wayne. Mostly, though, she's on her own, playing a game with different stakes than what the rest of the cast is dealing with. Selina Kyle's subplot takes up a lot of time, but seems to have the least bearing on the larger story. Wayne's romance turns out to be with Miranda Tate, not her. Kyle is only minimally linked to Bane, and her conversion to the side of angels isn't particularly meaningful. She's just involved enough to justify her share of the spiffy action scenes and witty one-liners, but only just.

And then we come to Bruce Wayne. I like that Christopher Nolan wanted to create a definitive ending for Wayne, and to let his story conclude. The trilogy began with the origin of Batman, and it was a bold idea to end it with the last chapter of Wayne's tenure as a superhero. Nolan did his best to convince us that it made sense for Wayne to willingly give up the cape and cowl, emphasizing his precarious physical condition, providing him with a clear successor, and having multiple characters point out that his behavior had gone from selfless to self-destructive. I don't know that I really buy it though. Wayne faking Batman's death I can understand, but why fake his own? If he was willing to give up so much to save Gotham City, why leave it behind for good?

It's not that I don't think that this was a good endgame, but it's not set up well at all. We don't get to see Wayne exorcising the demons of his past, or having the epiphany that he can and should move on from Gotham. This is a major oversight. No other version of Batman has ever left the Batman role, and we really needed to see more of the thought process behind the decision. After the fight with Bane, when this soul-searching should have happened, instead we get Wayne in the Pit, learning the backstory of Bane and Talia. How does the lesson of scaling the prison wall fit into Wayne's mental state and ongoing character arc? Does learning to fear death again boost his will to live? Does he learn that being a symbol of heroism is more important than the actual act? I almost wish that the final glimpse of Bruce Wayne was Alfred's fantasy, because the lack of an explanation undercuts the last twist so badly.

There were other parts of "The Dark Knight Rises" that worked. The fall of Gotham City to Bane was beautifully plotted out and executed. The scenes of life under his reign of terror were fun, especially Dr. Crane presiding over the kangaroo court. I have no complaints regarding any of the action sequences, and I particularly enjoyed Selina Kyle getting herself out of the bar with a combination of fighting and trickery. Up until the Pit sequences, I liked how Bruce Wayne's character arc was going. However, I have to say that Batman looked out of place in a lot of shots. I don't know it was the increased daytime scenes or some changes in art design, but the rubber suit looked like it belonged in an older, campier movie.

I'm also glad that Alfred and Commissioner Gordon got more time and attention, both men struggling with bad choices made with good intentions. Lucius Fox got shorter shrift this time out, but there was a nice wink to that, when he ushers Bruce Wayne down to the lab to show off some gadgetry, just for old time's sake. And I'm always surprised by how deftly Nolan draws some of the minor characters, like Matthew Modine's Deputy Commissioner Foley, and Selina's gal-pal sidekick, played by Juno Temple. The exhaustive amount of detail in some of the visuals, from the Gotham police uniforms, to a football stadium full of fans decked out in Gotham Rogues gear, to the Stock Exchange sequence, all point to an enormous amount of effort being expended on this film. And it's all dazzling to look at and take in.

I just wish the story had been more solid. But I think about all the Batman movies that Christopher Nolan could have made instead – the Riddler-centric retread of "The Dark Knight" with Leonardo DiCaprio that the studio wanted, or the too-faithful comic book adaptations that the fans wanted – and I'm glad Nolan went in this direction. Even though I thought the film bit off more than it could chew, "The Dark Knight Rises" was an honest and worthwhile attempt to take the Batman mythos somewhere new. The results are severely flawed, but still well worth watching and debating and puzzling over.

As a point of comparison, I prefer "The Dark Knight Rises" to "Batman Begins" by a wide margin, and the Nolan "Batman" trilogy as a whole to every other superhero film series ever made.
---

Read More

TJE 7/23 – The Dark Knight Rises (No Spoilers)

Here's how we're going to do this. Review posted today will be a spoiler free as I can possibly keep it. Review posted tomorrow will go into all the analysis of the things that you shouldn't know about before watching the latest Christopher Nolan Batman film. Got it? Great. Onward!

It has been eight years since the events of "The Dark Knight," and both Batman and Bruce Wayne have retreated from public view, the Batman's image tarnished by being scapegoated for the death of Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart), and Wayne's heart broken by the death of Rachel Dawes (Maggie Gylenhaal). In the meantime, peace and prosperity have made the leaders of Gotham complacent. Only Commissioner Gordon (Gary Oldman) continues to fight a forgotten war on crime, and has made too many moral compromises to do it. So no one appears to be left to stop the new villain Bane (Tom Hardy), a terrorist who has been turning Gotham's less fortunate into an army of ideological crusaders, bent on bringing down the rich and powerful of Gotham City. However, Batman has some new allies of his own, including a young policeman named John Blake (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), who is not afraid to work outside the system, and a lovely cat burglar named Selina Kyle (Anne Hathaway).

Let's get the big stuff out of the way first. No, "The Dark Knight Rises" is not as good as "The Dark Knight," for the simple reason that it doesn't have any characters that can match up to Heath Ledger's Joker. Tom Hardy's Bane is a properly menacing hulk of a villain, visually magnificent, but comes off as something of a Joker-lite because his ideology is more muddled and he doesn't have the same charisma or presence. Catwoman, who is never identified as Catwoman, is nothing unexpected. Anne Hathaway has no problem playing the sexy bad girl, but there's just not much more to this version of the character. She gets her own subplot, but it's such a simple and predictable one, it feels perfunctory. The film could have cut her out entirely without much effort. And as usual, Bruce Wayne's love life gets the short end of the stick. In addition to flirting with Selina Kyle, Wayne gets close to a philanthropist businesswoman named Miranda Tate (Marion Cotillard), who really should have been given a few more scenes to cement their new relationship. Considering this cast and these promising characters, I was surprised at how shallow they came out.

But then, Nolan has a lot on his plate. "The Dark Knight Rises" suffers from trying to do too much and having a lot of conflicting messages. Bruce Wayne must find the strength to put on the Batman suit again, but then the case is also made, most strongly by Alfred (Michael Caine), that it's time for Wayne to put Batman behind him. Is he too self-destructive to be a hero? Is being a hero making him self-destructive? It was brave of Nolan to devote so much time to Bruce Wayne wrestling over the decision to return to the crimefighting life, and pumping up the personal stakes. Some of the best Wayne and Alfred scenes of the series are the result, and I've never been more sure of Michael Caine's MVP status in these films. However, I don't think that these issues were resolved as well as they could have been, and there are some odd developments required by the plot that nearly derail the whole works.

To add to the confusion, in the previous "Dark Knight," Batman was painted as the one who would do the dirty work and stay in the shadows, while Harvey Dent was elevated to hero status because he was a better symbol of hope for Gotham. Here, this is quickly subverted, and Dent's heroism is treated as a destructive lie that has been exploited by those in power. And those in power may deserve what's coming to them, but Bane's efforts to lead the downtrodden in overthrowing the corrupt are portrayed as evil and destructive. Batman's vigilantism gets a pass, of course. I've seen a few articles suggesting that Nolan had some beef with the Occupy Movement, but aside from borrowing a few bits of iconography to make the film more topical, I don't think "The Dark Knight Rises" is making any kind of political statement. Or if it is, it's a deeply convoluted and confused one.

The film runs well over two hours, and it's not nearly as complicated as I'm making it sound, but there are an awful lot of subplots and complications to grind through in order to set up the big finale. At one point we're following Wayne, Blake, Kyle, Gordon, Bane, and Wayne Enterprises CEO Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman), all from different vantage points in an ongoing crisis. Aside from Bruce Wayne, the character who gets the most development turns out to be John Blake, who is set up as this down-to-earth, average police officer, just trying his best to help save Gotham City. We follow his perspective for a good chunk of the film where Wayne is absent. I like the character, and I like Joseph Gordon-Levitt in the role, but I don't think the film benefited from Blake getting this much emphasis. There were several other characters that needed the attention more.

Still, Nolan delivers plenty of good action, and he succeeds in keeping the major storylines on track and the adrenaline high. Superhero movie fans should have no complaints about the level of mayhem. All the old toys and vehicles and are back, including a handful of new ones. Crimes and carnage take place on a grander scale, and some of the later altercations turn into full scale battles. It's easy to ignore all the plot holes and the unanswered questions when there's so much forward momentum driving the film toward its big climax. I thoroughly enjoyed "The Dark Knight Rises" while I was watching it, and letting myself get carried away by the noise and the spectacle. However, when you try and go back and piece together the logic and motivations, it doesn't add up. And that's a shame.

"The Dark Knight Rises" is perfectly fine as a summer action movie. Most Batman fans should love it. However, for the discerning viewers, the ones who were hoping to see a reinvention of Catwoman, or a truly monstrous Bane, there's bound to be some disappointment. It feels like Nolan was trying to reach something big and profound with the Batman franchise, but he didn't quite grasp it. The visuals are right. The talent is right. The desire for better was clearly there. And Nolan had the daring and the will to twist and reinvent the mythos as he saw fit, to create something different and new.

But in the end, Christopher Nolan didn't quite stick his landing. More on that tomorrow.
---

Read More