My Dark Knight in shining armour

The following is a review Rekha and I wrote for the class. No, Batman Begins isn't a new film. No, this isn't a new review. Why post it? Because we can, and because we love it. The movie. The review. We love them both. And you should to. Here's why:



What is the difference between a man driven by justice and a man driven by revenge? Writer/director Christopher Nolan attempts to answer this question in his resurrection of the Batman franchise. Batman Begins does just what it says — it traces the birth of Batman out of the broken spirit of a young, parentless Bruce Wayne. Unlike the previous incarnations variously portrayed by Michael Keaton, Val Kilmer, and George Clooney, Christian’s Bale’s Batman is a profoundly realistic character.
Freed from the camp that has been the creative ethos of nearly every portrayal of the caped crusader, Nolan instead embraces the darker, more human side to Batman. What is particularly innovative about his approach is that we get a back-story for Bruce Wayne that does not feel at all contrived. The film begins with a series of flashbacks to Wayne’s youth, juxtaposing the horrifying murders of his parents with the anchorless and vengeful young man he has become.
At a mountain retreat in the Himalayas Wayne encounters Ra’s Al Ghuhl (Ken Watanabe) and the League of Shadows, a group devoted to the erradication of crime through vengeance. As he immerses Bruce in martial arts training, mentor Henri Ducard (Liam Neeson) presses Bruce to relive his worst fears in order “to become more than a man, to become a legend”. And in this fashion Nolan’s storytelling establishes Batman’s physical acumen even as Bruce Wayne learns to harness his fear and convert it in to something more productive.
Upon returning to Gotham, Nolan reveals the nuts and bolts behind Batman’s accoutrement with the help of beloved butler Alfred (Michael Caine) and Wayne Enterprises’ Applied Science guru Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman), including the Batcave, the Batmobile, and the Batsuit. What follows is a web of crimes, masterminded by Gotham’s resident thug Carmine Falconi (Tom Wilkinson) culminating in a face off between justice and vengeance. Struggling to listen to his own better angels, Bruce attempts to right the system that produces the desperation that led to the murder of his parents. Forsaking the easy relief of revenge on Falconi, Batman maintains hope that the restoration of justice can redeem Gotham. Aiding his struggle are Police Officer Gordon (Gary Oldman) and lawyer and childhood friend Rachel Dawes (Katie Holmes).
Visually, this film departs from Tim Burton’s inaugural vision of Gotham as merely opaque, a comic book enviornoment that is both two dimensional and heavily framed. Nolan’s departure, while remaining dark, allows characters and locations the depth to resonate as actual people and spaces — instead of convenient fictions. For example, rather than a non-descript black hole, the Batcave is a cave, replete with dripping stalagtites and swarms of furry bats. This visual trick allows us to see the man of Batman and the world he inhabits beyond the legend we are so familiar with.
Nothing feels more innovative about this film than the choice to cast Christian Bale in the lead dual roles of Bruce Wayne and Batman, two entirely distinct physical presences. Bale’s face is all sharp angles and smooth planes, giving him the dignified appearance of the aristocrat Bruce Wayne was born to be (also on perfect display in the role of Patrick Bateman in American Psycho). But when his jaw juts outward and his cheeks furrow in, Bale transcends the physical limits of the suit to become the seething, revenge-bound man in black. Michael Keaton, as the original Batman, was an equally unconventional choice to play the leading man, but where he relied on costumes and brooding, Bale embodies the torturous psychology of both Wayne and Batman.
Few superhero movies and comic adaptations achieve the transcendent awesomeness that Batman Begins appears to do so effortlessly. It’s rare the film that is able to marry franchise filmmaking with the kind of directorial weight Nolan brings, particularly in the genre of noir, where he is clearly at his best. The wide appeal of Batman Begins is not to be underestimated—fans of Nolan’s earlier Memento will appreciate the film’s commitment to narrative and character while comic book fans will appreciate seeing a favorite hero reclaimed from camp. But perhaps most appealingly, Batman Begins taps into an American ideal that we all have the potential to be our best selves with a little introspection and a lot of money.

When viewing pleasure matters.

I got to wondering recently about where I do my movie watching, and how much of a difference it makes to a movie watcher when the theater aesthetics are pleasing. So, I'm attempting a statistical breakdown here (and since my math skills are weak and i didn't actually attempt to tally numbers) it's more of an estimate.

In the last 5 years when I believe my movie watching skills have been honed and I'm proud to say diversified this is what my location breakdown looks like:

• Corporate Theaters (i.e. Cinemark, AMC, etc.) 45% Most of these experiences have been good although some have better stadium seating then others, and most often have been over-air conditioned. However, despite that I probably experience my greatest rates of falling asleep in a movie in these conditions. Most recently, Superman and Miami Vice have fallen into this trap. Greatest advantage here is the double feature, which I haven't done in a while but it is one of life's greatest pleasures.
• Semi-Corporate Indie Theaters (i.e. Landmark, Greenway, and the Alamo Draft House) 12% Okay, these have usually been very good experiences in terms of the actual movie, but these venues suffer from half assed corporate ownership thus no stadium seating and often too hot or cold depending on season although in Houston I would say it's always hot outside and too cold inside. The falling asleep rate here is good...it rarely happens as I often initiate these outings, and thus feel obligated to committ to the movie.
• Full on independent theaters (only two that I've ever been to--both in Northampton) 5% These have been very positive experiences both in content and quality of viewing, which is interesting given the lack of resources devoted to viewing pleasure (definitely no stadium seating, or air flow of any kind here). But, these places have charm and that counts for a lot. Plus, while I've encountered a few obnoxious audience members nothing too bad, and nothing compared to the crowds you get at option #1.
• And finally--the home viewing experience, which I give an A+ despite some potential pitfalls. 27% So, there are obvious reasons that home is good...the snacks are better and cheaper, I can talk whenever I want and not feel bad about it, and of course the pause button is essential here. Also, the whole falling asleep thing is not as much of an issue nor is it as socially awkward if it happens (and by socially awkward i mean when you hit the deep rem sleep and deep breathing, sounds, etc. follow). Just for the record I rarely hit that stage of sleep in a movie, but it has happened.

As far as rating my favorite experience in all of these settings I'm not sure I can although I find option #1 is best suited for movies full of fluff or action. So for example, Batman Begins is as good as The Princess Diaries to me thanks to the giant theater. Option #2 is best suited for more serious movies that you're willing to drive a little farther for, and if ambience is a factor. So, for example I owe my love for Life Is Beautiful entirely to the River Oaks Landmark theater. As for option #3 it encompasses my most recent experiences of which there have been many, but I think seeing Head On at the Academy of Music was pretty awesome even if it was with a bunch of crazy German Studies academics. Option #4 really has too many memories to recount so, I won't, and instead I'll just say that I love all the places that I've seen movies in, and in the vein of my new statistically savvy self they've all made my life at least 80% better.

Making a political movie without politics (here's looking at you Oliver Stone)

Although I haven't actually seen World Trade Center I have read the reviews, which as far as I'm concerned is good enough. The glowing reviews are disappointing, but no less then what I exepcted from a public that is still not prepared to think about September 11th outside of the context of patriotism. But, as much as I don't like Oliver Stone, and never had high expectations for this I'm disappointed with amount of sapiness that that this movie just ooooooozes. I mean the guy is in now way subtle, as was proven by the uber bombastic Wall Street, but if you have a huge production budget and a major studio behind you, and you get to be one of the first to make a movie about an event that is both incomprehensible, and stained in our memories you better do better then this cheese fest. I think it's irresponsible filmmaking , or just a wasted opportnity depending on how much you value film culture.

It did remind me though of a great movie I saw this year that does deal with political issues in a heavy complicated way--Cache by Michael Haneke. I think the movie was more of an intellectual exercise then an interesting narrative, but I think it was incredibly powerful in how it handled national issues by bringing them into private domestic space. I also think the surveillance stuff was really creepy, and got right at the immigrant space in France in a way that was innovative. Of course the real difference between these two (Stone and Haneke) is that one understands nuance, but I also think that one is more honest and more interested in dissecting people, which ultimately is a much more satisfying experience for the viewer. Because really--what's the point in making a political movie if you're going to make it devoid of politics?