THE DARK KNIGHT RISES Pre-Release Thread - Page 49

You've been warned.

Let's not go too dark here, remember, his brother (the other one) killed a guy. 

One thing I know for a fact about Nolan: he skim boards with a pink polo shirt on while his well-behaved kids watch.

Wha?

 

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/29797047/ns/today-entertainment/t/christopher-nolans-brother-linked-murder/

 

Oh, a different brother.  I thought Jonathan Nolan was the one that was being talked about.

I'm not the biggest fan of how Nolan and his actors have decided to interpret some of their characters vocally (yeah, it's beating a stinking, rotted horse at this stage to critique Christian Bale's overdone take on Batman's voice, which I've never liked in spite of understanding why he chose to use it), but I didn't have that much difficulty in understanding Bane during the prologue.  He sounded distinct, so I will give props to Nolan there.

 

I took far more issue with  Aiden Gillen's jackass CIA operative than I did with Bane's voice.  His hammy, obvious line delivery didn't ruin the scene, but it would have been more effective if the actor had been better.

Hahahaha, Gillen was hilariously awful.  Something about his mannerisms as he shouts about throwing the hooded men off the plane came across like he was leading a pep rally.

Maybe they should have went the "William Fichtner" route with casting the operative, so, even if the role was overplayed, it would still feel iconic enough to not compromise the quality of the scene.  As it is, Gillen's Jackass Government Operative #876, screeching and hamming his way throughout his bit part like a Michael Bay critique of a government employee, was shocking miscasting on the production's part.  Seriously, I hope Nolan decides to alter Gillen's voice in post-production, not Bane's (whose cult leader vibe was really fantastic, by the way, and made me want to immediately see more of him sooner than later).

 

The operative and his dialogue is, by large, the only Goyer-esque element in the prologue. 

Hahahahha, as bad as he is, I don't mind Gillen.  It's not as if he'll be around to ham up the rest of the movie.

I didn't see a good quality prologue yet, but I was under the impression Gillen was yelling and gesticulating because of the plane noise.

I understand the conditions may have had an impact in that regard, but it still seems like a better actor could have found a solution to make himself clearly understood without exaggerating too highly.  You don't have to gesticulate and ham it up that badly to be understood on a plane, do you?  As it was, it seemed like the gestures and attempts at being menacing were, if due somewhat to the conditions, also due to Gillen overplaying the role of a jackass operative as it was written.  The line that gets me the most if his scrunched-up, screeching delivery of (paraphrasing) "Why do you wear a mask?!" - that's surely more of an effort to be menacing than heard by speaking louder?

 

Not trying to over-emphasize Gillen here, just offering my one nitpick of an otherwise very sound prologue.

Let's face it, CIA douche was a guy that would shoot someone and then throw him off the plane.  Why would you do that if the threat is that you'd throw someone off the plane?
 

 

Aiden Gillen is a fine actor.  A damn fine actor, and while I agree his character was a bit hokey, calling his talent into question is silly.  I'm assuming people here have not seen The Wire or Game of Thrones?  Because he's done great work on both.  Do people think he just fucking forgot how to act?  Jonathan Nolan's dialogue is simply not very good, an unpleasant truth.  Have we forgotten how incredibly hokey, ham-handed and awkward so much of TDK's script was?  Let's play a drinking game, every time the words "chaos" or "anarchy" are uttered, take a shot of vodka.  You'll be passed out in 40 minutes. 

 

WE ARE AWARE OF THESE THEMES MR. NOLAN!!  We don't need to be clubbed over the head with them.

Oh Lord, this again. Why does everyone have such a damn problem with arc words or stylized dialogue in these movies? No one complains when, say, Tarantino does it.

It doesn't even bother me, I'm simply pointing out the fact that if you're going to complain about Gillen's CIA agent, don't blame Gillen.  Alot of the dialogue is a bit difficult to spit out, and if you take issue with his performance, there's more than a few other scenes in the previous two films that would be guilty of similar crimes.   

 

 

Actually people do complain about Tarantino's dialogue.  But I don't think it's an apples to apples comparison, anyway.  Both are examples of heightened reality, but so much of the dialogue in the Batman movies is perfunctory, either delivering exposition, or placing the themes directly into the character's mouths.  Tarantino almost takes the opposite approach.  He is playing with dialogue, he's not writing for functionality.

I'm not familiar with Gillen outside of GoT, but even granting that some of Nolan's dialogue isn't of the highest order, some of the lines could have been delivered more convincingly (Gillen unconvincingly alternates between collected, frustrated and menacing too haphazardly, resulting in an uneven performance).  Unless specified by the script, for instance, he didn't have to act like he was being half-strangled when inquiring about Bane's mask.  Unless Goyer was directing this guy, I'm surprised Nolan, for all of his faults sometimes, let his performance become that awful.

See, I don't have as much a problem with having themes in the character's mouth if it feels like it comes from the characters. Which I feel Nolan's scripts usually do. It's when this kind of thing gets into "these are the author's personal views" territory that I get annoyed, though again that can be done well.

And exposition is an absolute bitch to write, so I'm not surprised Nolan often takes a straightforward approach to it. I rather liked how he set up the Joker, though: the guys whispering about it in the bank heist seems like believable "how'd you get here?" shop talk.

Right, I think that would be the biggest complaint lobbed at Tarantino, that basically these characters in reality would never speak the way they do in his film.  I think you could accuse him of being a bit showy or flashy, and as a result sometimes I find alot of scenes unnatural or forced.  Perfect example would be that absurd scene in Crimson Tide with Denzel and the young sailor discussing Silver Surfer .

 

Some people are bothered by it and some eat it up.  I guess you decide early on to roll with it or not. 

 

Aside from bits and pieces, I'm actually not too much of a fan of the Nolanverse -- and, incidentally, I don't think the issue is so much the characters and their exposition as it is the clunkiness of the themes in the first place -- and found The Dark Knight to be unexceptional if mostly solid in its craft, but Nolan still has my goodwill in other regards to make me want to give this film its chance to see if, much like his handling of action, his ability to more convincingly integrate his themes into the grand story he's trying to tell is more successful.  In terms of expositon, some films make themselves their own worst enemy - as I think is often the case with Nolan, whose approach is at times successful (I concur with the Joker's simple, effective introduction) and at other times unbearable.  Still, what I saw in the prologue seemed to be simple and straightforward, a promising sign.

 

Despite all of that, I respect Nolan's attempts at not shying away from certain themes.  I just didn't think he struck the right balance in TDK -- the ferry boat sequence, the set-up of Harvey Dent and what he represented, etc, resulting in a film that was at times too heavy-handed and uncertain --, although he did improve throughout certain sections of Inception to a degree that I found interesting.  What that bodes for this film is yet to be seen, but I'm encouraged.

 

 

See, Nolan is one of my favorite directors, and I think this kind of storytelling is just his style. I've never found his approach heavy-handed or uncertain at all.

 

You know it's funny, and I don't doubt you're right, but  I can only remember two instances of the "chaos" and none of "anarchy." And those two uses of "chaos" are right next to each other. Granted, it's been a while since last I saw it.

I hope Nolan goes small(er) with his next film.  I still think he hasn't topped Memento. 

I loved Gillen in the prologue. This series is far more comic book-y than people think (thanks to people misunderstanding and overemphasizing the "realism" aspect), and the prologue struck me as a great hybrid of a comic-inspired scene and a Bond villain intro. Gillen's character was being called CIA Douche before the prologue came out, and the nickname is perfect. I saw Gillen playing an overly-confident intelligence agent, one who simply isn't equipped to deal with someone like Bane. (Or, likely, Batman or the Joker.)

Quote:

I find it amusing that Goyer still gets blamed for whatever people don't like, regardless of actual knowledge of what he was involved in. He didn't write a script for this, did he? Just plot ideas?

 

 

 

 

Altogether you'd only have to take a shot like 3 times, mostly during the hospital scene between the Joker and Two Face, so I guess you might be slightly buzzed by the end.

 

Well, the issue isn't necessarily just that those words pop up a lot. It's that the Joker, for example, specifically declares himself an "agent of chaos" when this is more or less obvious in every aspect of his character. Nolan refuses to let subtext be subtext, and has to constantly and unnecessarily make allusions to his bigger themes to make sure his audience gets the point. It is literally the opposite of subtlety and nuance, as the effectiveness of those characters as personifications of certain themes is deflated when the audience is told directly what they stand for and isn't allowed to relate to the story on their own terms.

 

Basically, a movie should encourage a diversity of readings rather than offering up a definitive one in the text -- nobody's ever gonna read The Joker as anything other than an agent of chaos because that's all the movie allows us to position him as.

You know what, Mulder, I'm gonna let someone else tackle that, because I'm just gonna look stupid if I try and rebut that.

 

Suffice it to say, I disagree.

 

 

 

 

I see what you mean and it's a good point.

 

But it's also not that simple. 

 

I'll give you an example.  In There Will Be Blood, Daniel Plainview's competitiveness and raging misanthropy is apparent.  Yet he states very clearly in the 2nd act that "I have a competition in me, I want no one else to succeed.  I hate most people."  He's telegraphing what we've already suspected and will come to know very clearly later, yet it's not that he's said this, it's that he's given this information to a man who believes to be his brother in a moment of vulnerability, adding another layer complexity to his character and providing the springboard for his total break from all humanity in the 3rd act. 
 

I can't say the same complex character analysis can be attributed to Nolan's film.  I just wanted to show that subtext becoming text is not necessarily a bad thing.

 

Well, I think it can, but congrats to Ambler anyway for getting across the point.

 

Actually, that scene's never sat well with me, and I think the movie would benefit if it was removed. It's different, though, you're right -- that scene is couched as a confessional, and he's talking about something personal in terms that would tangibly be at his disposal. The dialogue is a little too on the nose in terms of thematics, but he could conceivably say it, and it's not so on the nose that it serves as a definitive explanation of Plainview's character by itself. For that scene in TWBB to be completely analogous to the Joker's scene in the hospital room with Two-Face, Plainview would've had to say something along the lines of "I am a personification of the excesses of capitalism!" or something like that.

I'm still wondering why being on-the-nose is AUTOMATICALLY bad. If it's done well, who cares?

Yeah but the problem is, if CIA Douche is portrayed as a buffoon, he's not a credible threat to Bane, and thus the scene fails in building up Bane as a threat. The theatrics of the plane hijack/destruction save the scene in this case (though why the hell Bane constructs such an elaborate plan, rather than just taking out the CIA guys on the ground is beyond me. maybe to show that Bane is one Caa-raaazy mad genius!).

Especially in a film based on a comic book, a format not known for subtlety.

I seem to remember it being said more than 3 times, but yes, that was an exaggeration on my part.  I think my point still stands though, too much of the dialogue is way too on the nose and heavy-handed.  The audience is smart enough to understand some of the more heady themes without it being totally spelled out for them.  

 

But I'm a big Nolan fan, I think he's an incredibly talented guy, I just felt the need to defend Aiden Gillen and point out that Begins and TDK are not without their fair share of cringe inducing lines.

Hey, sometimes you need a sledgehammer, you know? Godard, Truffaut, Jodorowsky - some of the greatest filmmakers of all time openly disdained subtlety from time to time. Nolan's not in that class, of course, but if he's going to make movies with more than a few ideas, and he's going to be SUPER EXPLICIT about those ideas so they reach the cheap seats, what does it matter as long as they're there?

 

For me, that's like saying, "There's too much cheese on my cheeseburger," Fuck that, I want my burgers gooey with cheddar. I love burgers.

I think the point was to make it look like an accident, not an extraction.  Remember, they left a dead body to replace the doctor and one of the League stayed behind because he was supposed to be on board per the flight plan.  Bodycount wouldn't necessarily suggest that Pavel was taken.

 

 

But they surgically dissected the plane....the wings would be found miles and miles away from the body of the plane....I mean I get you, I just think it's the kind of scene that invites you to question how brilliant these guys are. Like when Goldfinger explains his master plan to the gangster, then kills them. Though in that case, it's a character thing: Goldie just has to tell someone about his genius plan.

 

This is a pretty weird statement. Surely you think subtlety is a virtue, right? Even films that flout the "rules" of screenwriting or whatever pretty blatantly, like Sunset Boulevard or Adaptation, are pretty subtle when it comes to actually delivering their themes. Those are two pretty good examples of on-the-nose writing being "done well," if that's even truly possible, and neither of them ever stoop to spoon-feeding their messages directly to the audience like TDK does.

 

I guess it's all based on the principle that when you have something precisely explained to you it pretty much ceases to be mysterious or compelling, while when something is vaguely alluded to but not explicitly delineated it tends to capture the imagination a lot more effectively -- which is what movies are all about.

Bah, that's a very narrow viewpoint about how artists' deliver their message. Don't agree at all.

 

Subtlety is a tool, not a virtue.

I don't work for the NTSB, but maybe if a plane catastrophically fails in the air, given the speed and altitude, the parts could actually be found miles away from the rest of it.

 

I think we need Bill Smith on this case.
 

 

Watched The Dark Knight for the first time in a while, a week. Okay just joking, why so serious?

That said, when people think Nolan would have a hard time surpassing TDK, I don't think he really has too much of an issue to do so. While TDK a very good movie, it's not the Godfather of cinema people make it out to be. It's a very long film that basically wants to show how the people of Gotham react to situations. I'll still mention that Heath Ledger acted his heart out, and his performance was amazing. Death or not, he did deserve that award.

Of course it depends on how you see each movie, as various people find things about even Begins that place it better than TDK. Begins was an adventure origin story, that was an actual story about Bruce Wayne. TDK was more a modern thesis on anarchy and the steps we must take to control our own society. Batman wasn't the only main character here, as everyone's storyline had it's purpose and fed off each other.

With different structures and themes, some people might like the Blade Runner esque adventure that focuses on Bruce with the 1st film, or the more modern world implications in the style of the movie Heat with TDK. It is very possible to not please someone who fits in only 1 category.

Where I believe Nolan treats this franchise with respect, his true art comes between these films. Inception is a brilliant film, as is Memento. Lots of love for The Prestige. In these films he crafts his own worlds, and I find them a lot more fascinating. With his own constructs, he can play with the viewer and engage them more. For example, he can kill off characters we don't know if they will live or die or create storylines that can break rules.


On another topic, I really feel Batman's suit is really inspired and progressing to the Batman Beyond suit. We already have the wings for gliding and they can fold into the suit if needed (TDK-Hong Kong jump). Even the Batwing/copter looks like the Batmobile from that show. Funny how both have some Blade Runner inspiration.

I don't think Nolan has made a very good movie since The Prestige. I realize I am alone in the world on this.

I also greatly prefer Begins to TDK because Arkham in the third act of Begins is fantastic, and the exploding boat/Batman Cell-Phone PATRIOT ACT scenarios in TDK are unbelievably contrived, and exist to serve the themes of the story instead of the actual story itself. Shoots itself in the foot, big time, I think.

 

I like how a discussion of how well Nolan fulfills the standard qualities people use to judge film directors immediately segued into a discussion of how those standards themselves must be flawed, right after it became evident that he doesn't measure up to them. Instead, we're now disputing the validity of a pretty basic notion of filmmaking -- basically Nolan isn't flawed, but our definitions of good art are. Come on.

No, Nolan is definitely flawed, but so is your argument. These films have an element of opera, and opera is all text, no subtext. Nolan is trying for a balance. Sometimes he succeeds, sometimes he fails, but he never treats his audience as stupid so you have to credit him for that.

 

Yeah, I really enjoyed TDK at the cinema. I like the tone, the bleakness of it, and there are really great things in the movie, Ledger's joker being one.

Some time passes and you watch it at home, and you realise it's quite bloated, and you see the holes in the story, and the movie dwindles a bit. I still prefer it to Begins though, even though Begins is probably a better-constructed film. Did the Scarecrow have anything as cool as the pencil trick? No. All he had was a dirty old cloth sack.

No, I don't think The Dark Knight is trying to be like an opera. I think its similarities to an opera are due to the film's problems with being subtle, and bringing the least-subtle art form of all time into the equation is just a way to justify the argument that being unsubtle can still be artistic.

 

And it can, I guess -- a definition of art is pretty nonexistent anyway. But since TDK's most intense supporters mostly say the movie is excellent because it is so "deep" in theme, I'm mostly just trying to say how this isn't necessarily true in that same framework, which privileges thematics. Basically, TDK doesn't actually operate at the level of depth it superficially appears to, and part of the reason for this is Nolan's lack of subtlety -- which isn't conducive to thematic depth despite the insistence of a lot of people here that somehow subtlety and complexity do not go hand in hand.

Yeeeeah, but Batman ended up flipping the script, giving us Evil Gargoyle Batman of your Worst Fucking Nightmare, which in my estimation is >at least< as cool as the pencil trick. Pencil trick was also kind of wasted on a nobody goon. Lost opportunity in the writing.