Quote:
Originally Posted by fatso
Jammies I'll definitely agree with you that the editing was troubling. There were jump shots that didn't make sense, and a lot of scenes seemed to end a little too abruptly for my liking. I would have liked, as well, if the dialogue in some scenes would have been slown down a bit, just to savour the visuals and the dialogue.
|
I am certain that much of that was due to time constraints, where a few seconds off of dozens and dozens of shots adds up to precious minutes trying to get it down under 2.5 hours; on the other hand, some of it looked like deliberate choices by the director to hurry the pacing, especially in the fights where he used the "chop the scene up into incomprehensible bits shot in darkness" technique, which has sadly been quite popular well past its cool factor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fatso
And yes, I'll even agree with you that some of the plots were a little ridiculous. But, that's to be expected I think.
|
See, this is where I vehemently disagree, especially in the way that this Batman has been envisioned. Batman is supposed to be a "real" superhero, which obviously doesn't mean he could really exist, but real in the sense that he doesn't have any superpowers - he is just, as another of the really good lines in the movie says, "one of the most powerful and richest men in the world by day, who beats criminals to a pulp with his bare hands at night." That is what makes him far more interesting than the stereotypical superhero who has "powers" which might as well be magic; he is grounded in an approximation of reality, and anything in the movie which doesn't jibe with that approximation therefore lessens the impact of this characterization. It is jarring and inconsistent - it makes me realize I am watching a movie instead of experiencing it, if that makes any sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fatso
I disagree with your point, though, about style vs. substance. I thought the whole point of the film was style AS substance.
If the first one was an exploration of the underlying psychological/mythical origins of the Batman, the second one was an examination of its gritty surface reality. In the end, all of his inner turmoil and noble intentions didn't really amount to much more than beating on thugs and scaring the crap out of many citizens. Ok, but it's working: crime is down. But what's the logical conclusion of his actions? Eventually his goonery, for lack of a better word, would get unhinged from any intentions, especially when those intentions, like his identity, are secret... it would be violence for violence sakes. Enter the Joker who philosophically is the opposite of the Batman, but in a weird way, is his practical 'better'.
|
I agree that this captures the essence of the movie - I just don't like the way the message was delivered. Nolan externalized everything by making Dent the symbol of Bruce Wayne's good intentions and the Joker the opposing symbol of Batman's need for violence, which is fine in and of itself, and I'll even say it was clever of him to end up showing BOTH sides as evil in the end - but if you are going to do a morality play of this type, all the extraneous sub-plots like Malvoni, Rachel, vigilante Batman wanna-be's, the weaselly accountant, the city administration's politics, and corrupt cops in Gordon's squad HAVE to be cut out to do a proper job of it. One of the core principles of good storytelling is that almost everything should advance and/or inform the story; complexity for its own sake simply obscures what should be central.
Of course, I didn't think externalization was necessary at all - the Joker vs Batman would have been more subtle and ultimately more powerful, with the Joker using Batman himself as a foil - as was done to some extent in the scenes where Batman forces Malvoni to fall and break his legs, and where he is interrogating the Joker as to where Dent and Rachel are being held. As it is, I found the whole transformation into Two-Face rather unconvincing - you don't turn from an incorruptible defender of law and order into someone who is willing to kill children to get back at your enemy overnight, no matter what the provocation. Batman, on the other hand, is already halfway to becoming a villain, as he clearly believes the ends justify the means, so it would be far more plausible to watch him going from breaking a few heads, to breaking legs, to torture and ultimately murder if thwarted in those ends.