|
Post by Mike Sullivan on Aug 6, 2008 18:52:18 GMT
Frankly, I think that the film was made with the intention of shifting peoples minds; at least in the direction that someone could really make a mature work of old child's material with fully formed characters in horrendous circumstances. It's not an existential piece of work. It's very blunt about it's psychological an d social implications but it wants that. This is a film that wants people to think but of course to put people on a ride. This is pure cinema for the masses. A highly intelligent, well thought out work. It is a popular work of art. Something accessable by film junkies and the mass public alike.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Aug 7, 2008 18:28:31 GMT
Mike, if you believe that then why aren't you arguing it?
Your rebuttals have narrowed down to the topics of how psychologically relatable Bruce Wayne is (and that argument became a paradox) and how frightening the Joker is (which is a matter of personal experience, and, besides, was just an incidental remark I made while arguing that the character bears no relationship to any social reality).
I think I've made cogent arguments about this film being unserious and pseudo-serious, so you understand it's kind of annoying to see you just assert the contrary here. You don't seem to disagree with my definition of 'serious art', since you're using the same criteria that I am to evaluate its seriousness (the intellectual directness of its relationship to reality), so we should be arguing from the same premise.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Aug 7, 2008 18:31:32 GMT
Real art is anything that affects someone, even if the majority opinion is that it sucks or is trash or whatever. Wetdog is referring to " serious art". (The term seems no different than "high art", to me.) He's disputing those critics who are praising this on the grounds of it being a "mature masterpiece". Aesthetically, yes. This is a formalist notion. I think wetdog's problems with this film lie with its ideologies, with its inherently self-defeating intentions. He's choosing not to overlook them, as a conscious reaction against the near-unanimous critical acclaim that seems to have ignored if not embraced its values.
|
|
Jenson71
Ghost writer
Bush is watching you
Posts: 810
|
Post by Jenson71 on Aug 7, 2008 18:56:33 GMT
I wouldn't argue that The Dark Knight is serious, life-changing art, but I would argue that it has a lot more depth than a regular comic book movie, and this depth greatly enhances the story of Batman.
Part of the depth comes from the production of the movie (namely, violence and also make-up) and another part comes from the writing.
Mostly, it's entertaining, though a guy dressing up as a bat to fight crime is hard to believe, the movie makes it so that 1.) there is the slightest possibility of it being real and 2.) you don't mind. Well, at least I didn't mind.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Aug 7, 2008 19:00:33 GMT
[T]he Nolans' Batman is very consciously, on the part of all involved, a post-Schumacher Batman. Warner Bros and the Nolan Bros, echoing the desires of the fans, are defining this series as a reaction against Schumacher's films (in the same way that the Daniel Craig incarnation of the Bond character is very much post-Brosnan). None of that is artistically serious in the least. I disagree. I think many significant artistic movements were consciously founded as a reaction to what had gone before. Pompous manifestos notwithstanding.
|
|
|
Post by svsg on Aug 7, 2008 19:18:40 GMT
wetdog, it is possible that the critics who praise this movie as serious art, have a different definition of that term. Whether it is serious art or not, or even art at all or not, what I am most interested in is, how do you account for its popularity? Clearly people are liking it, it has broken all sorts of box office records. I know some people who are viewing it for the second time already.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Aug 7, 2008 19:23:35 GMT
[T]he Nolans' Batman is very consciously, on the part of all involved, a post-Schumacher Batman. Warner Bros and the Nolan Bros, echoing the desires of the fans, are defining this series as a reaction against Schumacher's films (in the same way that the Daniel Craig incarnation of the Bond character is very much post-Brosnan). None of that is artistically serious in the least. I disagree. I think many significant artistic movements were consciously founded as a reaction to what had gone before. Pompous manifestos notwithstanding. I agree. The crucial part of that point was that "Warner Bros and the Nolan Bros" are "echoing the desires of the fans". The film's 'dark' mannerisms are purely commercial. If Schumacher's Batman had been as 'dark' as Nolan's, then there's no reason to think Warner Bros wouldn't now be putting out a jokey Batman series in the vein of the current Fantastic Four films.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Aug 7, 2008 19:31:02 GMT
I think I'd give the Nolans the benefit of the doubt, there, if not Warner Bros.: The Nolans are, or have been thus far, on board due to personal love for the character. Or that's the impression I've got. I have no reason to believe that this current vision of Gotham isn't also their own desire made flesh. Also, how different was this film to your expectations, pre-release? What made you, in the first place, expect it to be "the best superhero film ever"? (Your criticisms seem more vehement in response to other critical response to the film; not the film itself.) EDIT: You've more or less answered this below. Since seeing this film, have you also had a change of heart with Batman Begins, which, before getting rid of your ratings, you ranked 6/10? (That film is even more obvious an attempt, I think, at validating Wayne's psychology, with the explanatory preamble of the whole first act.) EDIT: I guess that film didn't rock the critics so unanimously or emphatically, and so you didn't feel the need to be as objectionable. Nothing like public critical hysteria to stir an individual's otherwise silent conscience.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Aug 7, 2008 19:39:00 GMT
wetdog, it is possible that the critics who praise this movie as serious art, have a different definition of that term. Whether it is serious art or not, or even art at all or not, what I am most interested in is, how do you account for its popularity? Clearly people are liking it, it has broken all sorts of box office records. I know some people who are viewing it for the second time already. I think the critics who are praising it don't have any real idea of their place in relation to cinema or to their and cinema's and art's place in society. But conjecture aside, where the film is being applauded for being more than just "the rockin'est film of the summer!" or whatever, it is receiving praise for being 'mature' and intelligent, for being socially critical, for being psychologically and morally and ideologically complex, etc. So those critics must have a vaguely similar sense of artistic value to the one I have. As for why people like it; I made one suggestion about adults wanting validation of childhood entertainment. That's only part of the picture, I'm sure. Batman has a built-in audience. It's not a badly made film, I can see some aesthetic appeal (though Nolan still can't stage a coherent fight scene). Otherwise, maybe just the fact that the film is clearly a product of its time; it's bleak, it's angry, it's disillusioned, it's confused, etc, so maybe it feels to some extent identifiable, and if you don't look past the surface and think a little bit about what exactly the film represents, then sure, I can see the themes of corrupt institutions, crime as a social 'disease', righteous vigilantism, etc, finding sympathy. But I don't think anyone (let alone everyone) went so underpants-flingingly hysterical over Death Wish and Michael Winner.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Aug 7, 2008 20:34:17 GMT
I think I'd give the Nolans the benefit of the doubt, there, if not Warner Bros.: The Nolans are, or have been thus far, on board due to personal love for the character. Or that's the impression I've got. I have no reason to believe that this current vision of Gotham isn't also their own desire made flesh. Oh yeah, I mean, the decision to do a 'dark', 'adult', 'serious' (but of course PG-13 and mass-merchandised) Batman was Warner's. The project had filmmakers like David Fincher and Darren Aronofsky attached before the Nolans. So they came onboard because they had a vision for a Batman that suited Warner's business plan, sure. But I wouldn't be too quick to give any credence to that vision. Chris Nolan's repeated platitudes about the Joker being a force of "pure evil" and "pure anarchy", and comparing him to Darth Vader, doesn't betray the appearance of any great intellectual integrity. I enjoyed the film less than I expected to. Partly that's because it's ideologically repugnant, as I said, but it's also just not that involving. In that Coming Soon thread I predicted more coherent fight scenes and a less erratic screeplay. The sceenplay is less erratic, but more disjointed and digressive (the entire Hong Kong excursion is a baffling inclusion), and the staging of the fight scenes is about the same, though the production values are slightly higher. Ledger has fantastic screen presence, and what he wrings out of a character who's nothing but makeup and a name is remarkable. It's excessively sadistic sometimes ('funny cruelty'), but when he's onscreen it's definitely at its best. But Bale's pretty bad in his role, I think; no charisma. The thing is though, the pseudo-seriousness of the whole thing alienates me. Whatever fun is meant to be had is very much bound up with the seriousness of the story, the adultness and the complexity, which is all a pose. I like Tim Burton's Batman films. They were dark and grim too, but they weren't studiously pretending to be something they weren't. Batman Begins isn't much good either, and you're right, the crusade to rationalise the characters is in full effect from frame one. I haven't seen it in ages, but I think the most egregious qualities of The Dark Knight are just seeds in Begins. I might be wrong.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Aug 7, 2008 20:42:23 GMT
The thing is though, the pseudo-seriousness of the whole thing alienates me. Whatever fun is meant to be had is very much bound up with the seriousness of the story, the adultness and the complexity, which is all a pose. My biggest problem, in a nutshell. I found it very watchable, mainly I think because Nolan (or Lee Smith) is a good editor, but in my mini-review, I said that its script is unusually thin; quite obvious in an eye-rolling sort of way. Yeah; you can see my post- Knight rankings in Nolan's thread.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Aug 8, 2008 22:41:37 GMT
Wetdog is referring to " serious art". (The term seems no different than "high art", to me.) I would avoid that term, I don't think it's a hierarchical thing at all. Folk art can treat life seriously too. In fact, I can hardly think of anything more disconnected from real life than the contemporary elite arts.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Aug 9, 2008 1:13:32 GMT
I bet our membership would quadruple if I posted a link to this thread on the Dark Knight or the Chris Nolan IMDb boards.
|
|
|
Post by The Ghost of LLC on Aug 9, 2008 4:32:28 GMT
I bet our membership would quadruple if I posted a link to this thread on the Dark Knight or the Chris Nolan IMDb boards. LIEK OMG BTMEN ROOLZ suXOErZ CHRSFER NOLENS DIKKcK!!!!
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Aug 9, 2008 10:13:44 GMT
I bet our membership would quadruple if I posted a link to this thread on the Dark Knight or the Chris Nolan IMDb boards. I think we should do that, actually. Worst case scenario: we have to ban a few guys and the status quo resumes within a week.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Aug 9, 2008 11:14:26 GMT
Wetdog is referring to " serious art". (The term seems no different than "high art", to me.) I would avoid that term, I don't think it's a hierarchical thing at all. Folk art can treat life seriously too. In fact, I can hardly think of anything more disconnected from real life than the contemporary elite arts. Fair enough. Thanks for clearing it up.
|
|
jrod
Ghost writer
Posts: 970
|
Post by jrod on Aug 11, 2008 17:34:04 GMT
As a huge Batman fan....comics, cartoons, movies, whatever I thought I would offer my perspective.
SPOILERS
I thought this was as good as superhero movies get most of the way through. For the most part I agree with all the great things most have said about it, so Ill just go into what I didnt like.
I thought the ending was incredibly sloppy and rushed. Harveys transformation into Two Face was weak. The last big action scene was awful. The sonar was annoying and confusing. You have no perspective on where anyone is or what is going on. This problem is enhanced by cuts to other storylines throughout as well. Very annoying. There's a big difference between potraying a disorienting fight and being just plain disorienting. This scene was especially diappointing to me after excellent action scenes throught (Hong Kong and car chase).
If I had to do it, I keep Joker in jail. he kills Rachel and Harvey gets transformed. Batman kind of wins but mostly loses...very Empire Strikes Back. Give us one shot of twoface in the hospital bed near the end. end movie.
with Joker, Ras and Two Face down I worry for the next movie. Nolan's has said he wants to keep it plausible so Penguin is out. If he isnt plausible than I imagine neither are Bane , Killer croc, Posion Ivy. That means we get some one like Riddler, Catwoman, Ventriloquist, or Hush for the next one.....not really on the same tier as previous villians.
|
|
Jenson71
Ghost writer
Bush is watching you
Posts: 810
|
Post by Jenson71 on Aug 11, 2008 18:16:15 GMT
I want a hot Catwoman.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Aug 11, 2008 18:33:00 GMT
Obviously Halle Berry will play Catwoman in the third film.
|
|
|
Post by svsg on Aug 11, 2008 18:38:25 GMT
Obviously Halle Berry will play Catwoman in the third film. I look forward to seeing a nude catwoman
|
|