RNL
Global Moderator 
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Aug 21, 2009 1:14:40 GMT
I have no idea what you're talking about as usual. I'll assume it doesn't make any sense.
|
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on Aug 21, 2009 6:26:54 GMT
I have no idea what you're talking about as usual. I'll assume it doesn't make any sense. You then sure respond to alot of nonsense.  |
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Aug 21, 2009 14:04:36 GMT
Ha. Got that right.
|
|
jrod
Ghost writer
Posts: 970
|
Post by jrod on Aug 21, 2009 15:36:56 GMT
I disagree that it's well paced or well made. I think it's badly structured, filled with digressions and extraneous scenes. Most importantly though, is how seriously it takes itself. Have you got anything to add to last year's debate? These flaws are even more apperent upon multiple viewings. Throughout, youre wondering how certain characters knew certain things, or what a lucky coincidence theyve stumbled into. The more you pay attention to the story, the less it makes sense. You point these things out and get "dude, its just a superhero movie!" from the same people that are SHOCKED it didnt win all of those ridiculous end of the year awards. |
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Aug 22, 2009 11:42:24 GMT
The more you pay attention to the story, the less it makes sense. You point these things out and get "dude, its just a superhero movie!" from the same people that are SHOCKED it didnt win all of those ridiculous end of the year awards. This is the fatal trap that the film cannot do anything but fall into. It takes itself so seriously that it strives for serious drama. But, as has already been said numerous times in the film's thread, it cannot be a serious drama because of its fundamental fantastical premise. You can't have a Batman film without it being based around somebody who dresses as a bat to wreak vengeance upon the world of crime as a result of being orphaned when young. But that's the very thing that keeps it in 'silly' territory. There's a large psychological gap there, for starters. Batman's a silly character and Gotham is a silly city. Yes, Gotham offers no convincing sociological representation of our own world at all. And there's nothing wrong with any of this; none of its silliness prevents anybody from enjoying Batman or any film about Batman, or any comic based on him. So to take up this undoubtedly fantastical and silly premise and tag an air of seriousness onto it, and to follow through with such seriousness on all levels, is artistically dishonest. The Dark Knight is intellectually bankrupt. To boot: The Dark Knight is no more serious than the Adam West Batman. Beyond surface veneer - a 'darker realism' over 'camp' - each of the films share the same essential silliness. I haven't read any convincing rebuttal of these claims. The only praise people seem to have for the film comes down to more formalistic questions - the acting, the cinematography, the 'direction', etc. But on this I also disagree. I think all Nolan films are well-edited, and much of their narrative momentum and excitement stems from this; the rhythm of individual shots and sequence-to-sequence editing. A lot of this also helps with the visuals, too - Nolan's not a great action director, but the cutting often helps; sound design too can 'sweep us away'. But it's difficult to find any particular technical accomplishment in The Dark Knight because its script is so badly structured, and the story itself is hilarious. And it all might have been a bit more forgivable had it not declared itself as being of some socio-political worth. Rubbish. |
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 22, 2009 16:53:32 GMT
I never got the feeling that the film was taking itself seriously or reaching beyond its limits. I don't think Nolan was trying to do anything here other than entertain and entrance his viewers. He just made a Batman movie, and a very good one at that. I think he's better at this than whatever he was trying to do with Memento.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Aug 22, 2009 16:59:09 GMT
Read any interview with him on the subject of this film.
|
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 22, 2009 18:51:55 GMT
Could be taking the piss for all we know. Interviews exist outside the film.
|
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 22, 2009 19:09:34 GMT
The Dark Knight to me is similar to the Godfather films...films with no real historical, political, or sociological significance, but utilize the tools of cinema to suck you into a world and not let go until it finishes.
Am I the only one here who liked it?
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Aug 22, 2009 19:50:58 GMT
Could be taking the piss for all we know. Interviews exist outside the film. "For all we know"? No, according to what we know, this theory is not supported by the evidence. If you don't see glaringly obvious parallels between elements of the film's plot and real-world issues like geopolitical terrorism, the Patriot Act, 'enhanced interrogation' and extraordinary rendition, you're either imperceptive or you're kidding yourself. The acknowledgement of the intentional inclusion of these allusions in the film in interviews with the film's creative team are quite conclusive. I literally LOL'd at your comment on The Godfather. Ell oh ell'd. |
|
|
|
Post by Valenti on Aug 22, 2009 21:14:12 GMT
The Dark Knight to me is similar to the Godfather films...films with no real historical, political, or sociological significance, but utilize the tools of cinema to suck you into a world and not let go until it finishes. Am I the only one here who liked it? I liked it, though I agree that it takes itself too seriously for a Batman movie, and there are a couple of places where it became just a tad too ridiculous for me (like the goon pulling a gat in the courtroom, and Harvey punching him in the face - I laughed out loud). But, yeah, I enjoyed it - a pretty good action movie, as far as action movies go. |
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 23, 2009 18:12:24 GMT
If you don't see glaringly obvious parallels between elements of the film's plot and real-world issues like geopolitical terrorism, the Patriot Act, 'enhanced interrogation' and extraordinary rendition, you're either imperceptive or you're kidding yourself. Who exactly is taking the film too seriously? Why? |
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Aug 23, 2009 18:44:54 GMT
If you don't see glaringly obvious parallels between elements of the film's plot and real-world issues like geopolitical terrorism, the Patriot Act, 'enhanced interrogation' and extraordinary rendition, you're either imperceptive or you're kidding yourself. Who exactly is taking the film too seriously? Nolan, for starters; perhaps for finishers, too, because nobody else can. And because we cannot take any Batman film seriously, for the reasons I've already said, we ought to take offence at the manner in which Nolan and co. have gone about presenting such a product to us; it's not as if none of the things RNL mentioned just happened to pop up in the film; they've consciously been written into it. And these sorts of things are exactly the reason why professional critics have praised it, with an "omg politicized Batman movie" hysteria, failing to note of course the absolute ridiculousness of what a politicized Batman movie in this respect is actually saying about itself (or not saying, as the case may be). If we're addressing the issues you praised it for, the film is no better (and, to me, quite a bit worse) than the two Burton films. The acting may not be as naturalistic as it is in The Dark Knight, but seriously, try and ask yourself how somebody portraying a character half of whose face is fully de-fleshed and constantly exposed to air, would act naturalistic. Also, people have praised it for its on-location filming, as if that in itself is more praise-worthy than a stylised set, as if in doing so Nolan automatically lends his film a realism that helps us once again to draw parallels between the filmic world and our own. Again, it's all style. And beyond it there is nothing. |
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Aug 23, 2009 18:51:08 GMT
Beacuse the films are very carefully and thoroughly historically grounded. |
|
|
|
Post by svsg on Aug 23, 2009 19:12:29 GMT
If you don't see glaringly obvious parallels between elements of the film's plot and real-world issues like geopolitical terrorism, the Patriot Act, 'enhanced interrogation' and extraordinary rendition, you're either imperceptive or you're kidding yourself. I guess I am imperceptive as hell, as I didn't think of any of those when I saw the film. To me it looked more like a uninteresting action film. Only after reading these posts, I came to know about Nolan's position and all these interpretations. |
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 23, 2009 19:56:14 GMT
If you don't see glaringly obvious parallels between elements of the film's plot and real-world issues like geopolitical terrorism, the Patriot Act, 'enhanced interrogation' and extraordinary rendition, you're either imperceptive or you're kidding yourself. I guess I am imperceptive as hell, as I didn't think of any of those when I saw the film. To me it looked more like a uninteresting action film. Only after reading these posts, I came to know about Nolan's position and all these interpretations. Same here. I guess if you approach the film with such a mindset you pick up these things though. Thus the question "Who exactly is taking the film too seriously?" |
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 23, 2009 19:59:54 GMT
Beacuse the films are very carefully and thoroughly historically grounded. I meant that the soul of the film lies merely in the story...Coppola isn't saying anything, simply telling an epic tale. And doing it very well. |
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Aug 23, 2009 20:16:15 GMT
I guess I am imperceptive as hell, as I didn't think of any of those when I saw the film. To me it looked more like a uninteresting action film. Only after reading these posts, I came to know about Nolan's position and all these interpretations. Same here. I guess if you approach the film with such a mindset you pick up these things though. Thus the question "Who exactly is taking the film too seriously?" The question's been answered. I'm not taking the film seriously, I'm taking seriously the fact that it's intended to be taken seriously and has been taken seriously by the critical community. |
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Aug 23, 2009 20:25:28 GMT
Beacuse the films are very carefully and thoroughly historically grounded. I meant that the soul of the film lies merely in the story...Coppola isn't saying anything, simply telling an epic tale. And doing it very well. How can you talk about "historical, political, or sociological significance" as though it's something separate from story? Merely by grounding his story so carefully and thoroughly in the appropriate historical context Coppola imbues his films with a great deal of "historical, political, or sociological significance", in its portrayal of the history of Italian immigrant impoverishment and criminal entrepreneurialism, the rise of gangster capitalism, the decline of the Mafia, etc. The second film is exceptional in this regard. |
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on Aug 23, 2009 22:04:48 GMT
I liked it, though I agree that it takes itself too seriously for a Batman movie, and there are a couple of places where it became just a tad too ridiculous for me (like the goon pulling a gat in the courtroom, and Harvey punching him in the face - I laughed out loud). But, yeah, I enjoyed it - a pretty good action movie, as far as action movies go. Why so seriously?  What exactly does that criticism mean anyway for something like Batman? Should DIE HARD not have taken itself seriously? Or RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK? Besides, I've seen Batman not take itself seriously. I prefer the over-serious Batman to that shit. |
|
