Christopher Nolan's Batman Begins

[cinemabon]

Batman Begins – A film by Christopher Nolan

The life of Bruce Wayne has fascinated many writers in the world of comic books. Several renditions have given such portraits as “Year One,” a step forward in the Batman enterprise, now owned by Time Warner, but originally a DC comic enjoyed by yours truly in my youth. That transition from 1960’s camp to “Year One” of Batman yielded the Tim Burton version, a darker, more serious Batman presented in 1989.

Even then however, Warner Brothers didn’t want to take too many chances. They cast, of all people, Jack Nicholson to play the joker. It must have been a difficult chore for Burton to control Nicholson, a prankster on and off the set. The result was a “gothic” Batman (especially due to Danny Elfman’s score) with a bit of camp brought by Jack’s antics. The joker was murderous, but fun loving as he delivered his lines with more farce than drama. The franchise went downhill from there, getting further and further from “Year One” and slipping back toward Adam West.

Along comes “Memento” director/editor/writer Christopher Nolan. As has been mentioned already on numerous sites, Nolan has resurrected the Batman franchise with this new look at the old story, in ways that are surprisingly unpredictable.

******SPOILERS*******

For anyone who follows Batman, the story remains the same. Little Bruce Wayne is traumatized by the death of his parents. He accidentally falls into a cave and becomes afraid of Bats. There the similarity with other versions ends. Bruce Wayne then begins a journey into fear and vengeance, a journey that takes him far from Gothom City to the orient. There he is taken under the wing of Ra Al Ghul (in the comics, Al Ghul is several hundred years old, a bit of a pirate with an empire that stretches across several continents). After confronting his teacher in a duel to the death (or so we think), Wayne returns to Gothom City as a changed man wanting to become a crime fighter. Ultimately, he gains trust in others (such as his manservant, Alfred; his childhood friend, Rachael; and Wayne Industries specialist, Lucius Fox). The film’s climax is a typical battle between good and evil, and we know the rest. However, this film is presented in a way that is so fresh and so different from any other Batman, it must be considered on its own merits, thanks to one man, Christopher Nolan.

There are many fans of Christopher Nolan in the film world and on this site. His “Memento” and follow up film, “Insomnia” gathered fans around the writer, director, producer. Now he tackles a summer blockbuster based around an established franchise. Why? The truth may lie in why Burton also wished to tackle such a project. Nolan may have wanted the large purse. Or he may have wanted the notoriety to help his career. However his script, along with story and script contributions by David Goyer (the “Blade” series) have created a complex and brooding film that examines what fear does to a person. Fear is at the core of the “Star Wars” films as well. (“I sense much fear in you… fear leads to the dark side.”) This examination of fear by filmmakers leads one down a path that borders on horror. What is it that makes us afraid, and how can we learn to understand and face our fears? That challenge is put before Bruce Wayne and becomes his motivation for becoming Batman. Not only has Chris Nolan delivered on a much needed fresh script, but he has gathered a great collection of film actors to give the film credibility.

Next, let us look at this stellar cast… Michael Caine (two time Oscar winner); Liam Neeson (nominated for Oscar); Gary Oldman (numerous awards); Tom Wilkinson (AA nominated); Rutger Hauer (numerous); Ken Watanabe (The Last Samurai); Morgan Freeman (Oscar winner); even a great cameo by Rade Serbedzija (the Russian villain in The Saint). Every one of those actors performs his part to perfection, adding to the overall experience of the film. Every single scene in the film has “moments” that build to a climax worthy of the best in the superhero genre.

Finally, the star Christian Bale was able to pull off being the spoiled little rich kid turned crime fighter quite subtly and admirably (considering he had to do the latex suit, again!). There are several scenes where Bale’s performance shines through. Only a versatile actor can show two different sides to a coin in a way that is convincing. Bale took a delicate edge and walked it to the end. The film’s denouement is a reaffirmation that Batman Begins is only the beginning. If Nolan can be persuaded, along with a majority of the supporting cast, then a sequel is definitely in order and would be welcome by this writer.

[anduril]

Agreed.

Batman Begins is great blockbuster cinema. The cast plays the parts to perfection, given a great script, and the technical elements are exemplary. I really enjoyed my two hours in the theatre.

I'm also glad, C, that you brought up Star Wars. One finds many similar thematic links, not to mention the appearance of Liam Neeson as mentor. I couldn't help but smirk when Neeson's character says to Wayne, "Mind your surroundings." It sounded so Jedi-esque. More than this, what struck me is how well the Batman Begins story would have worked as the Star Wars prequels with the obvious distinction that in Batman Begins the central character emerges as a hero rather than a villain. Nolan, though, has you suspend your knowledge of the outcome and convinces you that Wayne is on a precipice. Moreover, a fall into darkness or Wayne's choice to get back up again are equally believable alternatives for the character. The motivation and the incentive are there for either choice.

One last comment... Nolan employs special effects perfectly in this movie. They do not overwhelm but complement.

All in all, Nolan and screenwriter Goyer do an excellent job here. It's too bad they weren't given the reins for the Star Wars prequels.

[anduril]

The League of Shadows is an organization determined to bring about its version of "moral order" and "justice" through terrorist attacks against targets it identifies as corrupt, decadent, and evil. Gotham is the ultimate target of a plan to launch a bio-chemical attack and so destroy what the League believes is the source of that corruption and evil.

Early on in the movie, Bruce Wayne finds their message alluring and actually trains under one of its leaders. But, the moment of truth comes when he is required to decapitate a "criminal" as an initiation ritual. Justifiably finding this abhorrent, Bruce Wayne rejects the League.

Now, standing in the way of the League's aims is this billionaire, spoiled playboy, who mobilizes his captalist empire and military industrial complex to combat the terrorists. While Gotham's own government is rife with corruption and embroiled in the very criminal enterprises that threaten its existence, Batman/Bruce Wayne acts unilaterally to thwart the plans of the League. In classic comic book style, the corrupt officials of Gotham oppose their hero Batman and even come to characterize him as a loose canon, vigilante, and a threat to the city. They are, in fact, unaware that Batman/Bruce Wayne is the only thing standing between them and their destruction at the hands of the League.

Still, Batman/Bruce Wayne finds allies in a childhood friend and Gotham D.A. played by Katie Holmes and one good cop, Sgt. Gordon, played by Gary Oldman. With their help, Batman/Bruce Wayne succeeds in bringing down a mafia-like kingpin and ultimately thwarts the League's attempt to destroy Gotham.

In a closing scene, now Lt. Gordon comments that Batman's actions to thwart the attacks are but one battle in a war to restore justice to Gotham. Significantly, Gordon also observes that by confronting the evil, Batman has escalated the conflict and thereby taken a grave risk. The criminals will intensify their activities and so threaten the lives of Gotham's citizens. Yet, it is clear that Batman and Gordon are committed to the mission to save Gotham from its enemies---internal and external.

Sound familiar, anyone?

[Johann]

I knew this film was gonna destroy the other Bat-films.

It is done.

Forget Burton, forget Schumacher. Nolan is the name to remember. His film is the Batman film for all-time.

I cringe when I hear comparisons with Star Wars- knock it off!
It says more about you than the films.


Batman Begins takes it's cues from the sources that elevated Batman in his comic book career: Frank Miller's Year One, Dark Knight Returns, The Long Halloween, etc.

By the way-as Bale said, THE LONG HALLOWEEN is one of the best artistic expressions of Batman ever put on page. Tim Sale & Jeph Leob are geniuses in the comics medium. (They are currently wrapping up a 6-issue Catwoman story called When in Rome). If you wanna get into reading comics, Loeb & Sale are in the eschelon. They know Batman and they have supreme talent.

But to get back to the movie, it's heaven sent. I'll write good review when I've seen it a few more times.

Bale is the perfect Batman, as I suspected, and I hope they go all the way with this series. I think Warner Bros. is the best studio ever (what with Kubrick, Looney Tunes, The Last Samurai, JFK, Malcolm X and The Matrix under it's banner) and they have done the smartest thing they could have done: re-launch the character from ground zero.

Time has proven the Tim Burton film to be great entertainment but it does have 3 things about it that annoy:

-Alex Knox is lame. Hard to believe they made a character based on Jimmy Olsen even LAMER than him. I do not like Robert Wuhl. It seems as if he was just hanging around the set and ended up in front of some cameras...

-Jack is Jack. I was talking to someone just yesterday about the old sixties T.V. show and how there hasn't been a DVD release of the three seasons yet. He said no one was better as The Joker than Cesar Romero and I agree. I love Jack, but he's JACK. Great, brilliant performance, but he dominates the movie. The sequels made the villains more important than Batman- which is why the new film is the best Batman film to date.

-the Batmobile is stupid. A big, phallus-shaped monstrosity. Bullet-proof? Big deal. The car from the old show is cooler.
Don't get me going on Nolan's wheels- I want one! Nobody will fuck with that machine- it means business. 'nuff said.


The reason I love the new film and just committed to it's beauty in a huge way (just watch how many times I'll see it) is that it's intelligent, it's acted with the right tone, it's sfx are exhilerating without being corny, the mythos is given primacy, Batman is the focus (not Ras or Scarecrow- who are dream villains and were played poetically by Watanabe & Murphy) and the tortured angst of Bruce Wayne is handled properly.

Move over Bryan Singer- make room for Chris Nolan.

[Johann]

Oh yeah and anduril: it does sound familiar.

What do you get out of it?

Learn anything? or did you just smirk and scoff?

[anduril]

Smirk and scoff? Why would I? When seen in that light, it's quite astonishingly a political commentary sympathetic to my views; never would have expected such out of Hollywood. As such, your questions you'd have to answer.

As for the comparative analysis of Batman Begins and Star Wars... it's justifiable. Both movies deal in similar themes but Batman Begins does it well, Star Wars did it poorly. Comparing the movies doesn't mean that I think they are at all in the same class of film, which should be quite obvious by my take on the two films... I posted at FilmWurld a completely negative take on Star Wars and a completely positive one on Batman Begins.

[Johann]

Yes, Mein Herr.

[anduril]

I get a real kick out of your idiocy, Johann.

But, on to more relevant matters, some of you might enjoy this imaginary dialogue (http://lookingcloser.org/movie%20reviews/A-G/batmanbegins.htm) between the Dark Knight and Darth Vader.

[Johann]

Most of what I say is lost on you, so I'll thank you for calling it "idiocy"- it's a badge I'll wear with pride.






(way better than engaging you in a debate).

[anduril]

So true.

[Johann]

anduril, seriously, why do you visit?

Is it some kind of therapeutic thing for you?

[anduril]

I visited to post my take on Batman Begins, which I thought was an excellent movie; just as I have visited many times before to post my thoughts on other movies.

RE: Therapy. This is not your website Johann or your personal email address. I don't e-stalk people as you've done to me.

[anduril]

I don't regard your opinion as an authority on anything, Johann. So, I will continue to post at FilmWurld on whatever whim I so feel and will keep my posts focused on the movies as I attempted to do here until I allowed you to distract me.

To the other folks reading, I sincerely apologize that I allowed myself to be hijacked into responding to Johann's personal squabbles.

[Johann]

anduril makes me out to be a terrorist, "hijaking" him.

What a joke. I've been posting here for a while- almost 3 years.
People should know my idiosyncratic ways by now.

I'm harmless, a devout cinephile.
In case you forgot I invited you anduril.
There are lots of film sites on the net- surely you can find one that falls more in line with your intelligence and myopic world-view?

[HorseradishTree]

If I can just bump in here...

I don't have much time to post, as I'm going to go see Batman for the second time. There's so much to say about Batman Begins that I can't in this short time. All I can say is that you need to get up and see it. Now.

[Johann]

I knew you'd appreciate it, Tree

[anduril]

One of the things that I especially enjoyed about Batman Begins was its focus on Bruce Wayne/Batman. The Burton movies were mainly explorations into the villains. As some have appropriately commented, Burton's 1989 Batman should be retitled The Joker.

Nolan clearly avoids this same flaw. The villains are peripheral to this story. They come in and out of the main plot thread as required for the action and development. They never detract from Nolan/Goyer's exploration of the Bruce Wayne/Batman transformation(s).

I'm curious to know if Nolan/Goyer/Bale will stay on for another film. Were any of them signed to a multiple film deal?

[arsaib4]

From what I've read, Bale and Oldman are already attached to the sequel, but Nolan, Caine, Katie Holmes, and Morgan Freeman are not at this point.

anduril: It's good to have you here, and I hope you continue to contribute on a regular basis.

[anduril]

That's good news about Bale and Oldman.

And, I appreciate the welcome. I enjoy visiting to check up on movies that I don't otherwise have the time to see. Oscar and Chris seem to watch everything.

I also try to contribute when I get around to seeing movies. Lately, that's been few and far between because of priorities with family and work/school.

[arsaib4]

Don't worry, Johann. I'll make it up to you with Sin City 2. ;)

[HorseradishTree]

I hope for the sequel they can salvage Two-Face from Jones' uber over-the-top performance in Forever. The villian is way cooler if they address his internal torture moreover than just "Hey! It's a crazy guy with a burnt face!"

[wpqx]

Jesus everybody is wrong.

OK first of all what the hell do Johann and Anduril got against each other, I thought they both liked the movie, is this an issue of comparing it to Star Wars? I'm lost there.

As for Jack Nicholson, he was awesome as the Joker, and Tim Burton's Batman is still the best of the lot.

As for Nolan, I would have had him shot. The editing in this film is attrociously bad. I couldn't tell a single thing that was happening in a fight scene, too many cuts and all blurry camerawork, someone was asleep at the wheel. As for Gotham City, it never once looked to me like a city, at least from the skyline, way to CGI for me. In that regard I'd say it bears more similareities to Star Wars than you may know.

The love story was a waste, and totally unnecessary. What the hell was that junk she said about "Your real mask"? Fucking lame Hollywood nonsense. Hell my girlfriend even thought the romance ruined the movie, so I do have some support here. It was trivial.

As for the villians well I wasn't too fond of Scarecrow, everytime he was around I just got the stench of way too obvious digital effects. Plus I wasn't a fan of the actor who played him, who's name I can't recall.

Michael Caine was decent as Alfred, and most of the supporting cast was good. I do think Bale pulled off a damn good Bruce Wayne, and wouldn't mind him sticking around for the next installment. The film itself was enjoyable, and certainly better than the last three installments, but well maybe I was expecting Sin City.

I'm not condemning the film, just saying that it isn't a masterpiece and nothing to get overwhelmingly excited about, and on a final note Star Wars was about 10 times better.

[Johann]

anduril and I used to be good friends until someone decided that George Bush and Tony Blair were among the greatest leaders of the free world.

anduril has good taste in cinema.
It's his politics that worry me, annoy me and scare me.
That whole exchange has it's roots in dialogue found in the Fahrenheit 9/11 threads (archives)

Batman Begins is awesome. 2 comics-based films make it into the top ten for the year easily (Sin City, Batman) with a third that might make the cut too: The Fanstastic Four.

[tabuno]

anduril: "The League of Shadows is an organization determined to bring about its version of "moral order" and "justice" through terrorist attacks against targets it identifies as corrupt, decadent, and evil. "

tabuno: Haven't seen the movie, pretty much burnt out on seeing more and more comic book movies (there's even Fantastic 4 to come). However, I read cinemabon's original post and feel that it was a good review. I am puzzled by anduril's 06-16-2005 04:16 AM post. If the government is so corrupt, decadent, and evil, I'm surprised that Batman doesn't actually join in and help evil defeat evil. Having the preference between the power of corrupt government versus the terrorist organization dedicated to its defeat wouldn't one want to like in Star Wars be on the side of the rebel fighters (terrorists) instead of the Empire? Which side is Batman on anyway here then?

[tabuno]

And by the way, how does Howl's Moving Castle get automatic placement In Threaters Now Forum first time around while Batman is left in the more humbling General Film Forum and for that matter Crash and Star Wars even took weeks to get onto the premiere Forum? Seems a little suspicious to me.

[wpqx]

I don't know, but I plan on seeing Castle tonight, so maybe I can be the first to post about a film.

[anduril]

To Tabuno: Batman is a hero for the people, who are oppressed by the corrupt government. The League sees the people as expendable and also even complicit in the corruption and so a part of the system. Batman ultimately believes that he ought to fight to "save" the city and its institutions; by contrast, what the League wants is retribution, vengeance, and destruction.

Incidentally, terrorist and rebel are not morally equivalent terms nor are they purely subjective/perspectival (as you seem to imply in your reference to Star Wars). A terrorist undermines freedom; a rebel often connotes one who seeks to restore it.

[tabuno]

I didn't go rushing into this movie, my wife made me. Thus, as soon as I could I was looking for things I didn't like about Batman Begins and naturally I found plenty of problems with the movie.

First off, let me say, I think that the whole switch to quality production and the look of the movie was great (though I still prefer comic adaptations to be more comic-like such as Sin City). The basic storyline and the substantive backbone of this movie is superior in terms of past Batman versions. This was a good movie but it had its major problems.

The first thing that made me uneasy was the very first image of bats (that were not realistic). The second thing that made me uneasy was the use of the flashback techique. Personally for a movie like this, it would have flowed much better in linear, chronological order so I didn't have to bounce back and forth, I wanted to see the beginnings of Batman along with Bruce Wayne as he experienced it. There was so much development, that unfortunately, the length of the movie made it prohibitive to really fill out the details of Bruce's personal growth. I found the editing jumpy and uneven, disorienting, I felt there were too many gaps in Bruce's experiences..

Mr. Wayne found this rare flower so easily, climbed the mountain was easily. His martial arts training was a pale version of Elecktra's or for that matter Zorro with Anthony Hopkins and Antonio Banderas or even Karate Kid.

Mr. Waynes transformation into billionaire playboy didn't seem natural and just happened suddenly from one scene to the next.

The martial arts, there really wasn't any scene with anything that could be considered quality fighting - it was all a blur. My hats off to Jennifer Garner and Angelina Jolie both of whom really took their fighting practice to heart. The car chase scene again was pure copy, especially the two shots where the cars are lined up in a formation pattern, aligned for the chasing cars that really appears artificial.

Gary Oldman didn't have the script lines that would allow him to really breakout in this movie - as the comic relief, there was the possibility to really shine.

Cillian Murphy was the most intriquing character in this movie, one par with Sin City's Elijah Wood's performance.

Some of the dialogue, some of the scenes just didn't work for me...the kingpin being so easily ensnared by Cillian Murphy's doctor role. The fight in the beginning of the film with the League of Shadows just seemed too little and too much at the time. I would have settled for the whole building to blow up and Bruce Wayne simply escape, but instead we get this not to believable beam falling to end matters and the fight scene just didn't seem to merit the supposed ability of the master.

The first time we get to see the Batmobile jumping roofs (but the first instance the audience doesn't actually get to see the first jump).

The strength of this movie like Spiderman is that we get to experience superheros but vulnerable in a real, genuine way.

I enjoyed this movie but not as much as others. It was substantive and reflected the essence of Batman. But in its actual presentation, there were too many holes for me to enjoy it completely.

[cinemabon]

I left for the weekend, was surprised by my wife and son with a "Father's Day" thing. I didn't have internet access. But what is all this infighting going on? Looked rather strange...

I watched Nolan and Bale on Charlie Rose Wednesday night. Bale was all excited about doing the sequel, but Nolan was not. He hated the idea of committing another three years to a project. I'm not sure Caine was thrilled with the prospect either. Batman Begins may be the end as far as any attempt to resemble the comic book style that appeals to many of us. While it's too early to speculate, Nolan appears to be backing out of the project so he can go back to his personalized film directing experiences. Nolan's next project, The Exec, for Warner Brothers is a sci-fi thriller set in the future. Doesn't sound like Sundance stuff to me.

Bale's next two projects: The New World (Terrence Malick) and Harsh Times (a south central LA street drama) are about as far from Batman as you can get.

My references to Star Wars were only in juxtaposition and not literal.

I can understand the criticism of any "superhero" film. They are, after all, subjects that have idealist existences. When trying to translate that ideal from a comic book to film, there are sacrifices to detail most fans of the written media would not like filmmakers to do. Even my son commented about the editing during the fight sequences. I'm sure that had something to do with creating a type of Batman that struck with lightening fast reflexes more than Bale not being up to the task of fighting. However, I'd concede to that observation if those critics would also concede Bale brought more to the dramatic table than Keaton. Keaton was more of a comedic actor than a dramatic one (and still is). I will never understand his being cast.

[anduril]

Originally posted by tabuno
The second thing that made me uneasy was the use of the flashback techique. Personally for a movie like this, it would have flowed much better in linear, chronological order so I didn't have to bounce back and forth, I wanted to see the beginnings of Batman along with Bruce Wayne as he experienced it. There was so much development, that unfortunately, the length of the movie made it prohibitive to really fill out the details of Bruce's personal growth. I found the editing jumpy and uneven, disorienting, I felt there were too many gaps in Bruce's experiences..
I enjoyed the flashback technique. I liked the way Nolan dropped the audience inexplicably into the middle of Wayne's life and then used flashbacks in appropriate places to fill out relevant back story. Linear, biographical movies are often extremely boring and have to jump forward from boyhood to teenage to adulthood in a way that can often be more disruptive than a flashback.

Originally posted by tabuno
Mr. Wayne found this rare flower so easily, climbed the mountain was easily. His martial arts training was a pale version of Elecktra's or for that matter Zorro with Anthony Hopkins and Antonio Banderas or even Karate Kid.
While I agree that a more prolonged training sequence might have been enjoyable, the emphasis was on the hero's philosophical development. The physical training is presupposed; everybody knows that he's receiving physical training. But, what is Wayne learning about becoming a hero? This is more interesting, I think.

Originally posted by tabuno
Mr. Waynes transformation into billionaire playboy didn't seem natural and just happened suddenly from one scene to the next.
This isn't supposed to be a deep psychological transformation. It's an act that Wayne puts on, which I thought was communicated effectively. You get the sense that it's not really him and that he's just doing it for show.

Originally posted by tabuno
The martial arts, there really wasn't any scene with anything that could be considered quality fighting - it was all a blur. My hats off to Jennifer Garner and Angelina Jolie both of whom really took their fighting practice to heart. The car chase scene again was pure copy, especially the two shots where the cars are lined up in a formation pattern, aligned for the chasing cars that really appears artificial.
I agree with this. Though I'm not sure that Elektra is really the example to point to here. I just watched that last night and while there are some good fight sequences in that movie, it's still a far cry from something you might see in a lot of action movies. Elektra fight scenes are very predictable and lack dramatic tension.

Originally posted by tabuno
Gary Oldman didn't have the script lines that would allow him to really breakout in this movie - as the comic relief, there was the possibility to really shine.
I liked Oldman's performance and character. My guess is that his character would be further developed in a sequel.

[anduril]

Originally posted by cinemabon
My references to Star Wars were only in juxtaposition and not literal.
What exactly does that mean?

[tabuno]

It's a pleasure and a compliment to actually get a response from one the heavyweights here, Anduril. Thanks for taking the time to actually read my stuff and respond:

Anduril: "I enjoyed the flashback technique. I liked the way Nolan dropped the audience inexplicably into the middle of Wayne's life and then used flashbacks in appropriate places to fill out relevant back story. Linear, biographical movies are often extremely boring and have to jump forward from boyhood to teenage to adulthood in a way that can often be more disruptive than a flashback."

Tab Uno: Flashbacks are not easy devices to use and seem to be gimmicks unless there's a good reason to use them. For me, it's usually the weakness of the storyline that then requires some flashbacks to create the interest. There's only one reason that I would have accepted flashbacks in this case - the limited amount of time available. Unlike The English Patient or perhaps historical films that jump back and forth between one generation and another generation, Batman Begins didn't really have enough interesting material to allow a chronological development on Bruce Wayne's origins. I felt cheated somehow because there were just a lot of jumping...missing out on his development. Again, finding a rare flower so easily. Climbing the mountain in the begining so easily. It just seemed so much script but no feeling, emotions, I felt left out...it was reading like reading lines from a script and then just providing the audience with a few touches here and there for understanding but not experiencing, growing along with Bruce Wayne. Titanic was done well in flashback because it wasn't as intrusive, it was done for effect not to string out what I felt was a thin, time restricted storyline at the beginning. If done well, chronological historical development are fine Pollack (2000), Ed Wood (1994), Chaplin (1992). Even the original Superman movie (1978), Indiana Jones uses one of its movies to show in chronological order him as a boy and then flashforward successfully to explain his fear of snakes. For me the flashback technique was unnecessary and overused which implies to me unnecessary."

Anduril: "While I agree that a more prolonged training sequence might have been enjoyable, the emphasis was on the hero's philosophical development. The physical training is presupposed; everybody knows that he's receiving physical training. But, what is Wayne learning about becoming a hero? This is more interesting, I think."

Tab Uno: "I think the whole well-rounded development sequence was under-developed. See for example Elecktra's sequence for development, in flashback by the way, in such simple terms, the emotional, what it means to become a master (not even a hero - such signifies perhaps a male ego requirement) was presented not by the physical but the denial of any further training. I found this Elecktra's development sequence much more enjoyable, exciting, as well as philosophically intriguing. The lesson to be learned in fact by Jennifer Garner could not be learned in her training. She never finished it even as the movie began and thus the flashbacks became an integral part of the movie playing back and forth building, unlike Batman Begins that didn't really have this synergistic impact. But even the flower discovery and the climbing of the mountain weren't really part of Bruce Wayne's training so much as a test. Why even put them in, in the first place?"

Anduril: "This isn't supposed to be a deep psychological transformation. It's an act that Wayne puts on, which I thought was communicated effectively. You get the sense that it's not really him and that he's just doing it for show."

Tab Uno: "Agreed that that this isn't a 'deep psychological transformation' but actually this sharply disjointed, sudden emergence of billionaire playboy seemed artificial and perhaps even impossible because to even to be able to play the playboy one still must have a good developmental lead up to play with the big boys and girls and nothing in Bruce Wayne's childhood or any events leading up to it make this transformation, even if it was supposedly skin deep suggests that Bruce could have pulled it off. I didn't believe this scene at all because of it. In his childhood, Bruce seemed to be more introverted and scared. Even with his training, it was devoted to mysticism not American commercial success and marketing skills. It's not like there was any science fiction devices that one could just insert into one's brain and become this superplayboy type. Bruce's behavior was too way out of character, even with the obvious scene with his lost love and his cracks in his playboy demeanor - this scene was pretty much required - been there, done that...nothing special - typical of many such superhero movies. I think "Spiderman" does this whole relational dilemma better and extends it over time actually making it part of the movie and also broadening its appeal to women."

Anduril: "I agree with this. Though I'm not sure that Elektra is really the example to point to here. I just watched that last night and while there are some good fight sequences in that movie, it's still a far cry from something you might see in a lot of action movies. Elektra fight scenes are very predictable and lack dramatic tension."

Tab Uno: "I know what you mean here. But what's happened is that the special effects have outrun the human ability. What we are now getting are superhuman martial art scenes and we are getting far to spoiled now with the impossible instead of the real. Just like ideal love in the movies that doesn't exist, we're not getting the ideal martial arts - like The Matrix that doesn't exist either. Elecktra - might be one of the last action-adventure films to offer what humans really can chereograph - Jennifer doing all of her own stunt work - THIS IS NO SMALL ACHIEVEMENT AND DEDICATION. Soon, movies may become so impossible, unrealistic that we will lose touch with any reality and be unable to connect with the movie - it will simply be a drug. Hopefully though the human art form will survive somehow."


Anduril: "I liked Oldman's performance and character. My guess is that his character would be further developed in a sequel."

Tab Uno: "Gary Oldman has great potential and as an actor he is a must for any sequel. His performance in The Fifth Element was just over the top but flashy with lots of character, Air Force One, and Lost in Space the same."

[anduril]

Originally posted by tabuno Tab Uno: Flashbacks are not easy devices to use and seem to be gimmicks unless there's a good reason to use them. For me, it's usually the weakness of the storyline that then requires some flashbacks to create the interest. There's only one reason that I would have accepted flashbacks in this case - the limited amount of time available. Unlike The English Patient or perhaps historical films that jump back and forth between one generation and another generation, Batman Begins didn't really have enough interesting material to allow a chronological development on Bruce Wayne's origins. I felt cheated somehow because there were just a lot of jumping...missing out on his development. Again, finding a rare flower so easily. Climbing the mountain in the begining so easily. It just seemed so much script but no feeling, emotions, I felt left out...it was reading like reading lines from a script and then just providing the audience with a few touches here and there for understanding but not experiencing, growing along with Bruce Wayne. Titanic was done well in flashback because it wasn't as intrusive, it was done for effect not to string out what I felt was a thin, time restricted storyline at the beginning. If done well, chronological historical development are fine Pollack (2000), Ed Wood (1994), Chaplin (1992). Even the original Superman movie (1978), Indiana Jones uses one of its movies to show in chronological order him as a boy and then flashforward successfully to explain his fear of snakes. For me the flashback technique was unnecessary and overused which implies to me unnecessary."
Three points:

(1) Wasn't Bruce Wayne told where to find the rare flower? I don't think that was ever intended to be a challenge.

(2) On further reflection, I agree that the climb could have appeared more intensive. After all, he is immediately challenged by Neeson's character and we are supposed to believe that the climb has left him wasted of all his strength. Yet, it does not really appear this way on film; we really only have a frozen face and Bruce Wayne's say so that this is the case.

(3) I still remain unconvinced regarding your assessment of the flashback sequences. I think it is both necessary in this story and well-done. The childhood elements of the Wayne/Batman story are more or less discontiguous events: the bats, the relationship with his father, and the death of his parents in a dark alley. First, Nolan succeeds in actually creating a certain continuity between these events; a plot coup in itself. Second, by using flashbacks, Nolan introduces these moments at appropriate intervals, juxtaposes them with moments in Wayne's adult life when he must come to terms with these childhood experiences, and then Nolan builds to certain dramatic climaxes. To create a linear storyline with these and then jump forward to his teenage years or beyond would have been difficult, I think, and require too much time. It also would have lessened the immediacy of certain connections drawn by Nolan between Wayne's childhood and his emergence as Batman. Personally, I found the moment where Wayne is surrounded by bats in the cave and then stands to face his fear quite compelling, both cinematically and emotionally.

Originally posted by tabuno Tab Uno: "I think the whole well-rounded development sequence was under-developed. See for example Elecktra's sequence for development, in flashback by the way, in such simple terms, the emotional, what it means to become a master (not even a hero - such signifies perhaps a male ego requirement) was presented not by the physical but the denial of any further training. I found this Elecktra's development sequence much more enjoyable, exciting, as well as philosophically intriguing. The lesson to be learned in fact by Jennifer Garner could not be learned in her training. She never finished it even as the movie began and thus the flashbacks became an integral part of the movie playing back and forth building, unlike Batman Begins that didn't really have this synergistic impact. But even the flower discovery and the climbing of the mountain weren't really part of Bruce Wayne's training so much as a test. Why even put them in, in the first place?"
Nolan, however, is not pursuing the same questions as pursued in Elektra. In Elektra, the questions are more profoundly personal. Is she a good person? Can she choose the right path? The questions really aren't philosophical as they are in Batman Begins, where the questions are about the world in which Wayne lives (not so much about him personally): What is evil? Why is there evil in the world? How does one respond to such evil? How should we respond to fear (or, how does fear drive us)? Nolan only really personalizes the latter for his character; the others are addressed and, I think, answered more generally through the plot and dialogue (especially, in the latter case, the dialogue between Neeson's character and Wayne). The questions in Batman Begins are, in my opinion, much more significant; Nolan answers them well and fairly; and therefore I find the movie much more compelling.

Originally posted by tabuno Tab Uno: "Agreed that that this isn't a 'deep psychological transformation' but actually this sharply disjointed, sudden emergence of billionaire playboy seemed artificial and perhaps even impossible because to even to be able to play the playboy one still must have a good developmental lead up to play with the big boys and girls and nothing in Bruce Wayne's childhood or any events leading up to it make this transformation, even if it was supposedly skin deep suggests that Bruce could have pulled it off. I didn't believe this scene at all because of it. In his childhood, Bruce seemed to be more introverted and scared. Even with his training, it was devoted to mysticism not American commercial success and marketing skills. It's not like there was any science fiction devices that one could just insert into one's brain and become this superplayboy type. Bruce's behavior was too way out of character, even with the obvious scene with his lost love and his cracks in his playboy demeanor - this scene was pretty much required - been there, done that...nothing special - typical of many such superhero movies. I think "Spiderman" does this whole relational dilemma better and extends it over time actually making it part of the movie and also broadening its appeal to women."

Perhaps you are right here... the movie could have stood to have a scene or two developing Wayne's capacity for the playboy alter-ego. Personally, I did not need this because I felt the allure of money can make any man confident enough to play that part. Heck, stick a couple of beers in me and I can act the playboy. Give me a body and money like Bruce Wayne... well, I can only imagine what I might do.

Originally posted by tabuno Tab Uno: "I know what you mean here. But what's happened is that the special effects have outrun the human ability. What we are now getting are superhuman martial art scenes and we are getting far to spoiled now with the impossible instead of the real. Just like ideal love in the movies that doesn't exist, we're not getting the ideal martial arts - like The Matrix that doesn't exist either. Elecktra - might be one of the last action-adventure films to offer what humans really can chereograph - Jennifer doing all of her own stunt work - THIS IS NO SMALL ACHIEVEMENT AND DEDICATION. Soon, movies may become so impossible, unrealistic that we will lose touch with any reality and be unable to connect with the movie - it will simply be a drug. Hopefully though the human art form will survive somehow."
Agreed.

Originally posted by tabuno Tab Uno: "Gary Oldman has great potential and as an actor he is a must for any sequel. His performance in The Fifth Element was just over the top but flashy with lots of character, Air Force One, and Lost in Space the same."
I loved Oldman in Immortal Beloved--a movie that sold me on Oldman's skills as an actor.

[tabuno]

anduril's discussion on the use of flashbacks in Batman Begins has a certain connective clarity that I didn't really think about. In short, it seems that anduril is saying that the associative power and connection between the most current scene and a flashback to a particular seen taken together produce a stronger synergistic impact than had the scene been shown in a linear, chronological format with the scenes much more disconnected. So the bat scenes in the present and past are brought together to better effect.

anduril: "Nolan, however, is not pursuing the same questions as pursued in Elektra. In Elektra, the questions are more profoundly personal. Is she a good person? Can she choose the right path? The questions really aren't philosophical as they are in Batman Begins, where the questions are about the world in which Wayne lives (not so much about him personally): What is evil? Why is there evil in the world? How does one respond to such evil? How should we respond to fear (or, how does fear drive us)? Nolan only really personalizes the latter for his character; the others are addressed and, I think, answered more generally through the plot and dialogue (especially, in the latter case, the dialogue between Neeson's character and Wayne). The questions in Batman Begins are, in my opinion, much more significant; Nolan answers them well and fairly; and therefore I find the movie much more compelling."

tabuno: To think that ,"Is a person good," "Choosing the right path?" as opposed to "What is Evil?" Why is there evil inthe world? How does one resond to such evil? How should we respond? are really to me the same questions and both compelling. Oddly enough, I don't think Batman Begins really successfully answers these questions nor even dwells on them that much. Elecktra is much more intimate and personal and thus more me much more compelling. As with Bruce Wayne's dilemma, the idea of evil is mixed up with dictatorship and freedom of democracy, east versus west and gets much more fuzzy and murky and thus less compelling for me.

[anduril]

Originally posted by tabuno
anduril's discussion on the use of flashbacks in Batman Begins has a certain connective clarity that I didn't really think about. In short, it seems that anduril is saying that the associative power and connection between the most current scene and a flashback to a particular seen taken together produce a stronger synergistic impact than had the scene been shown in a linear, chronological format with the scenes much more disconnected. So the bat scenes in the present and past are brought together to better effect.
Wow. Could not have put it more eloquently myself... that's exactly what I felt about Nolan's flashbacks.


Originally posted by tabuno
tabuno: To think that ,"Is a person good," "Choosing the right path?" as opposed to "What is Evil?" Why is there evil inthe world? How does one resond to such evil? How should we respond? are really to me the same questions and both compelling. Oddly enough, I don't think Batman Begins really successfully answers these questions nor even dwells on them that much. Elecktra is much more intimate and personal and thus more me much more compelling. As with Bruce Wayne's dilemma, the idea of evil is mixed up with dictatorship and freedom of democracy, east versus west and gets much more fuzzy and murky and thus less compelling for me.
I certainly agree that "Elecktra is much more intimate and personal" but this is the difference between the questions. Elektra engages the questions on the personal level of its main character whereas Batman Begins engages its questions on a more macro-level for which Bruce Wayne/Batman is simply a vehicle for the philosophical dialogue.

The answers Nolan provides are, in my opinion, anything but fuzzy. In fact, to make them clear, he has Commissioner Gordon and Batman sum it all up in their final dialogue in which we get key answers to key questions (if the audience hadn't picked up the answers earlier):

Evil exists? Yes.
Fighting evil is necessary? Yes.
Even at great risk to onself or others? Yes.
Even if it escalates the conflict? Yes.

One of the most compelling contributions of Nolan's movie is the stress upon the need for action. There is no room in Nolan's movie for policies of appeasement with those who instigate and propagate evil. It is a zero tolerance philosophy. Yet, mercy and compassion are also fronted; the defender attempts to redeem that which is redeemable while he fights that which is not.

Other questions come up too but my point here is made, I think; there is little engagement on this philosophical level in Elektra. In the end, we discover Elektra is a good person. Well, yippee. Didn't we all suspect as much at the beginning of that movie? Wasn't that apparent from the moment Elektra refused to complete her assignment? Where's the link to the life of the audience? Its practical applications?

[tabuno]

The epic sage, the intimate portrait which is more compelling? The Mona Lisa or the Sistine Chapel? The Iraqi war or the Cliff Robertson in "Charlie" about a mentally disabled individual who becomes a genius for a moment? Big or little? Global or microscopic? I don't think one can obvious pick out one over the other. Such metaphysical questions will no doubt have no resolution.