'Why We Fight'
A place to talk about movies--old and new, good and bad, high art and high cheese. It's the place to place your kittens on the award winners, gossip about upcoming fims and discuss DVD releases and extras. Spoiler policy: White font all plot-related discussion until a movie's been in wide release two weeks, and keep the major HSQ in white font until two weeks after the video/DVD release.
I just don't see any evidence in Batman Begins (to bring it back to *just* the movie) that Batman gets any joy out of scaring the crap out of Gotham's criminals.
"Where are you?!?!?"
"Here."
No possible purpose for that exchange, that I can see, other than the scary. He could have just taken him out.
It's good movie-making, good theater, et cetera. But the criminal was alone with Batman, in Batman's mind. He didn't know he had an audience. No reason to build up the fear there. Technically.
The only thing I had a real problem with was at the end, when Rachel says that Bruce is the mask. I felt that it was too early for that. I know the whole is Bruce the mask or Batman is an aspect that's been discussed and explored, but I thought it shouldn't be so apparent yet. I always felt that his identity got blurrier the long he was Batman. I didn't feel that by the end of the movie he'd gotten to that point.
If that's what he is like in the comics, then I guess there's a reason I don't read the current comics. Other people may like him like that, more power to them.
Which is perfectly reasonable, and is my relationship to the Spiderman character.
But it doesn't make him inconsistent, or require the existence of conflicting lurking motivations.
I just wonder whether the filmmakers made a mistake, hewing so closely to a narrowcast Batman, when all other indicators say it was supposed to be a wide-appeal movie.
Except that the movie is performing just fine, and getting both critical and public acclaim for its portrayal. So how is that a mistake?
I just remember that, after the product placement, there's the player, standing up, shouting, "To the Batmobile! Away!!"
I remember that commercial. I remember laughing like a loon at that commercial. It was great.
No reason to build up the fear there. Technically.
How are you going to instill fear in criminals without instilling fear in criminals?
I'm not saying that Batman isn't trying very hard to be scary. It's the point of the movie. I'm saying it's a grim reality for him that he has to do so, not a pleasure or an ego-stroke.
Saturday I saw the movie with somene who'd never read the comic books at all and her only knowledge of Batman came from the previous movies and she loved it. She had a few questions, but nothing major.
We haven't discussed it extensively but she loved the movie enough to want to see it again.
Coach says, "Who are you?" Player gets this amazed, delighted look on his face: "I... am Batman!"
Ha! Oh yeah, I think I remember that commercial.
"Where are you?!?!?"
"Here."
No possible purpose for that exchange, that I can see, other than the scary. He could have just taken him out.
Gris, that's so what I was thinking of as well. I think there's a fine line between his getting enjoyment out of being scary and wanting to be scary, though.
That was still wicked cool, anyway.
How are you going to instill fear in criminals without instilling fear in criminals?
Especially if you're not killing the crap out of them. (Watching the Tom Jane Punisher movie, I kept saying, "DAMN! He's not just killing them, he's killing the living crap out of them. ")
I'd love to forward this entire conversation to the woman who complained about Batman Begins in the latest Ebert Answer Man column:
Q. I just saw "Batman Begins" and thought it was OK. There were children at the show, however, and I felt sorry for them because the movie contained nothing that might appeal to 8 years and younger. Why have filmmakers decided to ignore young audiences? Aren't comic books at heart really meant for children?
I'm not saying the movie should have catered to young minds exclusively, but I find it more than a little cruel that the film offers nothing to the age group that made "Batman" a success in the first place. What would the young Roger Ebert have thought of the movie? I think the 8-year-old me would have found it visually confusing and disturbing.
A. Trying to appeal to every possible age group is one of Hollywood's fatal errors. Batman is the darkest of the superheroes, and the recent graphic novels about his life have been intended for teenagers and adults.
One of the reasons the movie is so good is because it deals with the darker side of the character's early life and isn't dumbed down with too many special effects or the clowning of the villains. The young Roger Ebert would, of course, have agreed.